Against Hermogenes.

 Chapter I.—The Opinions of Hermogenes, by the Prescriptive Rule of Antiquity Shown to Be Heretical. Not Derived from Christianity, But from Heathen Ph

 Chapter II.—Hermogenes, After a Perverse Induction from Mere Heretical Assumptions, Concludes that God Created All Things Out of Pre-Existing Matter.

 Chapter III.—An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer:  While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative

 Chapter IV.—Hermogenes Gives Divine Attributes to Matter, and So Makes Two Gods.

 Chapter V.—Hermogenes Coquets with His Own Argument, as If Rather Afraid of It. After Investing Matter with Divine Qualities, He Tries to Make It Some

 Chapter VI.—The Shifts to Which Hermogenes is Reduced, Who Deifies Matter, and Yet is Unwilling to Hold Him Equal with the Divine Creator.

 Chapter VII.—Hermogenes Held to His Theory in Order that Its Absurdity May Be Exposed on His Own Principles.

 Chapter VIII.—On His Own Principles, Hermogenes Makes Matter, on the Whole, Superior to God.

 Chapter IX.—Sundry Inevitable But Intolerable Conclusions from the Principles of Hermogenes.

 Chapter X.—To What Straits Hermogenes Absurdly Reduces the Divine Being. He Does Nothing Short of Making Him the Author of Evil.

 Chapter XI.—Hermogenes Makes Great Efforts to Remove Evil from God to Matter. How He Fails to Do This Consistently with His Own Argument.

 Chapter XII.—The Mode of Controversy Changed. The Premisses of Hermogenes Accepted, in Order to Show into What Confusion They Lead Him.

 Chapter XIII.—Another Ground of Hermogenes that Matter Has Some Good in It.  Its Absurdity.

 Chapter XIV.—Tertullian Pushes His Opponent into a Dilemma.

 Chapter XV.—The Truth, that God Made All Things from Nothing, Rescued from the Opponent’s Flounderings.

 Chapter XVI.—A Series of Dilemmas.  They Show that Hermogenes Cannot Escape from the Orthodox Conclusion.

 Chapter XVII.—The Truth of God’s Work in Creation. You Cannot Depart in the Least from It, Without Landing Yourself in an Absurdity.

 Chapter XVIII.—An Eulogy on the Wisdom and Word of God, by Which God Made All Things of Nothing.

 Chapter XIX.—An Appeal to the History of Creation. True Meaning of the Term Beginning, Which the Heretic Curiously Wrests to an Absurd Sense.

 Chapter XX.—Meaning of the Phrase—In the Beginning. Tertullian Connects It with the Wisdom of God, and Elicits from It the Truth that the Creation Was

 Chapter XXI.—A Retort of Heresy Answered. That Scripture Should in So Many Words Tell Us that the World Was Made of Nothing is Superfluous.

 Chapter XXII.—This Conclusion Confirmed by the Usage of Holy Scripture in Its History of the Creation.  Hermogenes in Danger of the Woe Pronounced Aga

 Chapter XXIII.—Hermogenes Pursued to Another Passage of Scripture. The Absurdity of His Interpretation Exposed.

 Chapter XXIV.—Earth Does Not Mean Matter as Hermogenes Would Have It.

 Chapter XXV.—The Assumption that There are Two Earths Mentioned in the History of the Creation, Refuted.

 Chapter XXVI.—The Method Observed in the History of the Creation, in Reply to the Perverse Interpretation of Hermogenes.

 Chapter XXVII.—Some Hair-Splitting Use of Words in Which His Opponent Had Indulged.

 Chapter XXVIII.—A Curious Inconsistency in Hermogenes Exposed.  CertainExpressions in The History of Creation Vindicated in The True Sense.

 Chapter XXIX.—The Gradual Development of Cosmical Order Out of Chaos in the Creation, Beautifully Stated.

 Chapter XXX.—Another Passage in the Sacred History of the Creation, Released from the Mishandling of Hermogenes.

 Chapter XXXI.—A Further Vindication of the Scripture Narrative of the Creation, Against a Futile View of Hermogenes.

 Chapter XXXII.—The Account of the Creation in Genesis a General One, Corroborated, However, by Many Other Passages of the Old Testament, Which Give Ac

 Chapter XXXIII.—Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God’s Creation of the World.

 Chapter XXXIV.—A Presumption that All Things Were Created by God Out of Nothing Afforded by the Ultimate Reduction of All Things to Nothing.  Scriptur

 Chapter XXXV.—Contradictory Propositions Advanced by Hermogenes Respecting Matter and Its Qualities.

 Chapter XXXVI.—Other Absurd Theories Respecting Matter and Its Incidents Exposed in an Ironical Strain. Motion in Matter. Hermogenes’ Conceits Respect

 Chapter XXXVII.—Ironical Dilemmas Respecting Matter, and Sundry Moral Qualities Fancifully Attributed to It.

 Chapter XXXIII.—Other Speculations of Hermogenes, About Matter and Some of Its Adjuncts, Shown to Be Absurd. For Instance, Its Alleged Infinity.

 Chapter XXXIX.—These Latter Speculations Shown to Be Contradictory to the First Principles Respecting Matter, Formerly Laid Down by Hermogenes.

 Chapter XL.—Shapeless Matter an Incongruous Origin for God’s Beautiful Cosmos. Hermogenes Does Not Mend His Argument by Supposing that Only a Portion

 Chapter XLI.—Sundry Quotations from Hermogenes. Now Uncertain and Vague are His Speculations Respecting Motion in Matter, and the Material Qualities o

 Chapter XLII.—Further Exposure of Inconsistencies in the Opinions of Hermogenes Respecting the Divine Qualities of Matter.

 Chapter XLIII.—Other Discrepancies Exposed and Refuted Respecting the Evil in Matter Being Changed to Good.

 Chapter XLIV.—Curious Views Respecting God’s Method of Working with Matter Exposed. Discrepancies in the Heretic’s Opinion About God’s Local Relation

 Chapter XLV.—Conclusion. Contrast Between the Statements of Hermogenes and the Testimony of Holy Scripture Respecting the Creation. Creation Out of No

Chapter XLI.—Sundry Quotations from Hermogenes. Now Uncertain and Vague are His Speculations Respecting Motion in Matter, and the Material Qualities of Good and Evil.

I come back to the point of motion,436    From which he has digressed since ch. xxxvi., p. 497. that I may show how slippery you are at every step. Motion in Matter was disordered, and confused, and turbulent. This is why you apply to it the comparison of a boiler of hot water surging over. Now how is it, that in another passage another sort of motion is affirmed by you?  For when you want to represent Matter as neither good nor evil, you say: “Matter, which is the substratum (of creation)437    Subjacens materia. possessing as it does motion in an equable impulse,438    Æqualis momenti motum. tends in no very great degree either to good or to evil.” Now if it had this equable impulse, it could not be turbulent, nor be like the boiling water of the caldron; it would rather be even and regular, oscillating indeed of its own accord between good and evil, but yet not prone or tending to either side. It would swing, as the phrase is, in a just and exact balance. Now this is not unrest; this is not turbulence or inconstancy;439    Passivitas. but rather the regularity, and evenness, and exactitude of a motion, inclining to neither side. If it oscillated this way and that way, and inclined rather to one particular side, it would plainly in that case merit the reproach of unevenness, and inequality, and turbulence. Moreover, although the motion of Matter was not prone either to good or to evil, it would still, of course, oscillate between good and evil; so that from this circumstance too it is obvious that Matter is contained within certain limits,440    Determinabilem. because its motion, while prone to neither good nor evil, since it had no natural bent either way, oscillated from either between both, and therefore was contained within the limits of the two.  But you, in fact, place both good and evil in a local habitation,441    In loco facis: “you localise.” when you assert that motion in Matter inclined to neither of them. For Matter which was local,442    In loco. when inclining neither hither nor thither, inclined not to the places in which good and evil were. But when you assign locality to good and evil, you make them corporeal by making them local, since those things which have local space must needs first have bodily substance. In fact,443    Denique. incorporeal things could not have any locality of their own except in a body, when they have access to a body.444    Cum corpori accedunt: or, “when they are added to a body.” But when Matter inclined not to good and evil, it was as corporeal or local essences that it did not incline to them. You err, therefore, when you will have it that good and evil are substances. For you make substances of the things to which you assign locality;445    Loca: “places;” one to each. but you assign locality when you keep motion in Matter poised equally distant from both sides.446    Cum ab utraque regione suspendis: equally far from good and evil.

CAPUT XLI.

Revertor ad motum, ut ubique te lubricum ostendam. Inconditus, et confusus, et turbulentus fuit materiae motus. Sic enim et ollae undique ebullientis similitudinem apponis . Et quomodo alibi alius a te adfirmatur? cum enim vis materiam nec bonam nec malam inducere. Igitur, subjacens materia aequalis momenti 0234B habens motum, neque ad bonum, neque ad malum plurimum vergit. Si aequalis momenti, jam non turbulentus, nec cacabacius , sed compositus et temperatus ; scilicet, qui inter bonum et malum suo arbitrio agitatus, in neutram tamen partem pronus et praeceps, mediae, quod aiunt, aginae aequilibrato impetu ferebatur. Haec, inquies, non est, haec turbulentia et passivitas non est; sed moderatio, et modestia, et justitia motationis neutram in partem inclinantis . Plane, si huc et illuc, aut in alterum magis proclinaret , tunc inconcinnitatis, et inaequalitatis, et turbulentiae denotari mereretur. Porro, si neque ad bonum, neque ad malum pronior erat motus, utique inter bonum et malum agebatur: ut ex hoc quoque materiam 0234C determinabilem adpareat, cujus motus nec malo nec bono pronus , eo quod in neutrum vergebat , intra utrumque ab utroque pendebat , 0235A et hoc nomine ab utroque determinabatur. Sed et bonum et malum in loco facis, cum dicis motum materiae in neutrum eorum fuisse propensum: materia enim quae in loco erat, neque huc neque illuc devergens, in loca non devergebat in quibus erat bonum et malum. Dans autem locum bono et malo, corporalia ea facis, faciendo localia; quia quae locum habent, prius est ut corporalia sint. Denique incorporalia proprium locum non haberent, nisi in corpore, cum corpori accidunt. Ad bonum autem et malum non devergente materia, ut aut corporalia aut localia non devergebat. Bonum ergo et malum, erras, si substantias esse vis. Substantias enim facis quibus loca assignas. Loca autem assignas, cum materiae motum ab utraque regione suspendis.