2. The Aristotelian concept of "prime matter."
Book I 169 heaven and earth? Was it the total spiritual and bodily creation that was termed heaven and earth, or only the bodily sort? In that case one would have to under stand that in this book he kept quiet about the spiritual kind, and said heaven and earth in such a way as intending to signify the whole bodily creation, both the higher and the lower. Or was it the unformed basic material of both kinds that was called heaven and earth; namely, spiritual life as it can be in itself without having turned to the creator—it is by so turning, you see, that it is formed and perfected, while if it does not so turn it is formless, deformed; and bodily being, if it can be understood as lacking every kind of bodily quality, which is mani fested in material that has been formed, when there are already various kinds of bodies, perceptible either by sight or by any of the body's senses?2
3. Or is "heaven" to be understood as meaning the spiritual creation, from the moment in which it was made, in all its perfection and everlasting blessedness, while "earth" means bodily material, still unfinished? Because the earth, he goes on, was invisible and shapeless, and there was darkness over the abyss (Gn
1 :2), words in which he seems to indicate the unformed state ofbodily being. Or is the unformed state of each kind of being indicated by these subsequent words—of the bodily sort where it says the earth was invisible and shapeless, of the spiritual where it says and there was darkness over the abyss"? ln this case we would interpret the dark abyss to mean the nature of life as being unformed unless it turns to the creator, which is the only way it can be formed so as not to be the abyss, and enlightened so as not to be dark. And in what sense does it say, there was darkness over the abyss? ls it just because there was no light? If there had been, it would of course have been over it and would as it were have poured over it; this is what happens with the spiritual creation when it turns to the unchangeable and incorporeal light, which God is.
ln what way did God "say" things?
2, 4. And in what way did God say, Let light be made (Gn 1:3)? Was it in time, or in the eternity of the Word? And if it was in time, then of course it involved change. So how could God be understood to have said this except through some created being? He himself, clearly, is not subject to change. And if it was through a created being that God said Let light be made, how can light be the first thing created, if there already was a created being through which God said Let light be made? Or is light not the first thing created, because it has already said ln the beginning God made heaven and earth? And could some voice have been produced in a temporal process involving change through some heavenly created being, to say, Let light be made? lf that is the case, then it was this bodily
2. The Aristotelian concept of "prime matter."