ince therefore it is the part of that which has a being both to do and
suffer, and the universe has no being, it follows that the universe will
neither do nor suffer. Neither will it be in a place; for that which
takes up place is a body, and the universe is not a body, therefore the
universe exists nowhere. And since that only rests which continues in
one and the same place, the universe rests not, because it takes not up
place. Neither yet is it moved, for what is moved must have a place and
space in which to move. Moreover, what is moved either moves itself, or
suffers motion from another. Now, that which is moved by itself has
some bents and inclinations proceeding from its gravity or levity; and
gravity and levity are either certain habits or faculties or differences
of bodies. But the universe is not a body. It follows then of necessity,
that the universe is neither, heavy nor light, and consequently, that it
has not in itself any principle of motion. Nor yet will the universe be
moved by any other; for there is nothing else besides the universe. Thus
are they necessitated to say as they do, that the universe neither rests
nor is moved. Lastly since according to their opinion it must not
be said that the universe is a body, and yet the heaven, the earth,
animals, plants, men, and stones are bodies, it follows that that
which is no body will have bodies for its parts, and things which have
existence will be parts of that which has no existence, and that which
is not heavy will have parts that are heavy, and what is not light
will have parts that are light;--than which there cannot be any dreams
imagined more repugnant to the common conceptions.

Moreover, there is nothing so evident or so agreeing to common sense as
this, that what is not animate is inanimate, and what is not inanimate
is animate. And yet they overthrow also this evidence, confessing the
universe to be neither animate nor inanimate. Besides this, none thinks
the universe, of which there is no part wanting to be imperfect; but
they deny the universe to be perfect, saying that what is perfect may be
defined, but the universe because of its infiniteness cannot be defined.
Therefore, according to them, there is something which is neither
perfect nor imperfect. Moreover, the universe is neither a part, since
there is nothing greater than it; nor the whole, for the whole (they
say) is predicated only of that which is digested into order; but the
universe