Chapter
XXV.—The Assumption that There are Two Earths Mentioned in the
History of the Creation, Refuted.
He accordingly maintains that there are two earths
set before us in the passage in question: one, which God made in the
beginning; the other being the Matter of which God made the world, and
concerning which it is said, “And the earth was without form, and
void.” Of course, if I
were to ask, to which of the two earths the name earth is best
suited, I shall be told
that the earth which was made derived the appellation from that of
which it was made, on the ground that it is more likely that the
offspring should get its name from the original, than the original from
the offspring. This being the case, another question presents itself to
us, whether it is right and proper that this earth which God made
should have derived its name from that out of which He made it? For I
find from Hermogenes and the rest of the Materialist
heretics, that while the one
earth was indeed “without form, and void,” this one of ours
obtained from God in an equal degree both form, and
beauty, and symmetry; and therefore that the earth which was created
was a different thing from that out of which it was created. Now, having become a different thing, it could not possibly have shared with the other in its name, after it had declined from its condition. If earth was the proper name of the (original) Matter, this world of ours, which is not Matter, because it has become another thing, is unfit to bear the name of earth, seeing that that name belongs to something else, and is a stranger to its nature. But (you will tell me) Matter which has undergone creation, that is, our earth, had with its original a community of name no less than of kind. By no means. For although the pitcher is formed out of the clay, I shall no longer call it clay, but a pitcher; so likewise, although electrum is compounded of gold and silver, I shall yet not call it either gold or silver, but electrum. When there is a departure from the nature of any thing, there is likewise a relinquishment of its name—with a propriety which is alike demanded by the designation and the condition. How great a change indeed from the condition of that earth, which is Matter, has come over this earth of ours, is plain even from the fact that the latter has received this testimony to its goodness in Genesis, “And God saw that it was good;” while the former, according to Hermogenes, is regarded as the origin and cause of all evils. Lastly, if the one is Earth because the other is, why also is the one not Matter as the other is? Indeed, by this rule both the heaven and all creatures ought to have had the names of Earth and Matter, since they all consist of Matter. I have said enough touching the designation Earth, by which he will have it that Matter is understood. This, as everybody knows, is the name of one of the elements; for so we are taught by nature first, and afterwards by Scripture, except it be that credence must be given to that Silenus who talked so confidently in the presence of king Midas of another world, according to the account of Theopompus. But the same author informs us that there are also several gods.