Chapter III.—The Physical Philosophers Maintained the Divinity of the Elements; The Absurdity of the Tenet Exposed.

From these developments of opinion, we see that your356    Istud. physical class of philosophers are driven to the necessity of contending that the elements are gods, since it alleges that other gods are sprung from them; for it is only from gods that gods could be born. Now, although we shall have to examine these other gods more fully in the proper place, in the mythic section of the poets, yet, inasmuch as we must meanwhile treat of them in their connection with the present class,357    Ad præsentem speciem, the physical class. we shall probably even from their present class,358    Or, classification. when once we turn to the gods themselves, succeed in showing that they can by no means appear to be gods who are said to be sprung from the elements; so that we have at once a presumption359    Ut jam hinc præjudicatum sit. that the elements are not gods, since they which are born of the elements are not gods. In like manner, whilst we show that the elements are not gods, we shall, according to the law of natural relationship,360    Ad illam agnatorum speciem. get a presumptive argument that they cannot rightly be maintained to be gods whose parents (in this case the elements) are not gods. It is a settled point361    Scitum. that a god is born of a god, and that what lacks divinity362    Non-deum. is born of what is not divine. Now, so far as363    “Quod,” with a subj. mood. the world of which your philosophers treat364    Mundus iste. (for I apply this term to the universe in the most comprehensive sense365    Summaliter.) contains the elements, ministering to them as its component parts (for whatever its own condition may be, the same of course will be that of its elements and constituent portions), it must needs have been formed either by some being, according to the enlightened view366    Humanitas. of Plato, or else by none, according to the harsh opinion367    Duritia. of Epicurus; and since it was formed, by having a beginning, it must also have an end. That, therefore, which at one time before its beginning had no existence, and will by and by after its end cease to have an existence, cannot of course, by any possibility, seem to be a god, wanting as it does that essential character of divinity, eternity, which is reckoned to be368    Censetur. without beginning, and without end. If, however, it369    i.e., “iste mundus.” is in no wise formed, and therefore ought to be accounted divine—since, as divine, it is subject neither to a beginning nor an end of itself—how is it that some assign generation to the elements, which they hold to be gods, when the Stoics deny that anything can be born of a god? Likewise, how is it that they wish those beings, whom they suppose to be born of the elements, to be regarded as gods, when they deny that a god can be born?  Now, what must hold good of the universe370    Mundi, i.e., the universe; see above. will have to be predicated of the elements, I mean of heaven, and of earth, and of the stars, and of fire, which Varro has vainly proposed that you should believe371    The best reading is “vobis credi;” this is one of Tertullian’s “final infinitives.” to be gods, and the parents of gods, contrary to that generation and nativity which he had declared to be impossible in a god. Now this same Varro had shown that the earth and the stars were animated.372    Compare Augustine, de Civit. Dei, vii. 6, 23, 24, 28. But if this be the case, they must needs be also mortal, according to the condition373    Formam. of animated nature; for although the soul is evidently immortal, this attribute is limited to it alone: it is not extended to that with which it is associated, that is, the body. Nobody, however, will deny that the elements have body, since we both touch them and are touched by them, and we see certain bodies fall down from them. If, therefore, they are animated, laying aside the principle374    Ratione. of a soul, as befits their condition as bodies, they are mortal—of course not immortal. And yet whence is it that the elements appear to Varro to be animated?  Because, forsooth, the elements have motion. And then, in order to anticipate what may be objected on the other side, that many things else have motion—as wheels, as carriages, as several other machines—he volunteers the statement that he believes only such things to be animated as move of themselves, without any apparent mover or impeller from without, like the apparent mover of the wheel, or propeller of the carriage, or director of the machine. If, then, they are not animated, they have no motion of themselves. Now, when he thus alleges a power which is not apparent, he points to what it was his duty to seek after, even the creator and controller of the motion; for it does not at once follow that, because we do not see a thing, we believe that it does not exist. Rather, it is necessary the more profoundly to investigate what one does not see, in order the better to understand the character of that which is apparent. Besides if (you admit) only the existence of those things which appear and are supposed to exist simply because they appear, how is it that you also admit them to be gods which do not appear? If, moreover, those things seem to have existence which have none, why may they not have existence also which do not seem to have it? Such, for instance, as the Mover375    Motatorem. of the heavenly beings. Granted, then, that things are animated because they move of themselves, and that they move of themselves when they are not moved by another:  still it does not follow that they must straightway be gods, because they are animated, nor even because they move of themselves; else what is to prevent all animals whatever being accounted gods, moving as they do of themselves? This, to be sure, is allowed to the Egyptians, but their superstitious vanity has another basis.376    Alia sane vanitate.

3. His ita expeditis , videmus physicum istud ad 0589C hoc subornatum, ut deos elementa contendat, cum his etiam alios deos natos alleget; Dei enim nonnisi de deis nascerentur. Quos quoniam in mythico apud poetas plenius suo loco examinabimus, tamen quod de ipsis interim retractandum est, quod ad praesentem speciem facit, simul et de praesenti specie ad ipsos . . . . . . an ostensuri sumus, deos nullo modo videri posse, qui de elementis nati dicuntur, ut jam hinc praejudicatum sit, deos elementa non esse, cum qui de elementis nati dicuntur, Dei non sunt; aeque demonstrando, orta deos non esse, ad illam agnatorum speciem praestruemus recte non esse defendi, quorum parentes, id est elementia dei non sunt. Scitum, deum e deo nasci, quemadmodum de non deo non 0589D deum. Igitur quod elementa contineat mundus iste, ut summaliter tractem de universitate, partibus ejus praeministrans; nam quae conditio ejus, eadem utique erit et elementorum et membrorum, aut ab aliquo institutus sit necesse est, qua Platonis humanitas, aut a nullo qua Epicuri duritia. Et si institutus est, habendo initium habebit et finem, ita quod aliquando non fuit ante initium, et quandoque non erit post finem: non capit utique videri deus carens substantia 0590A divinitatis, id est aeternitate, quae sine initio et fine censetur. Si vero institutus omnino non est ac propterea deus habendus, quod ut Deus neque initium neque finem sui patitur: quomodo quidam assignat elementis, quae deos volunt, generationem, cum stoici negent quicquam Deo nasci? Item, quomodo volunt, quos de elementis natos ferunt, deos baberi, cum Deum negent nasci? Itaque quod mundi erit, hoc elementis adscribetur, coelo dico et terrae et sideribus et igni, quae deos et deorum parentes adversus negatam generationem Dei et nativitatem frustra credi proposuit Varro. Et qui Varro indicaverat animalia esse coelum et astra. Quod si ita est, etiam mortalia sint necesse est, secundum animalis formam; nam etsi immortalem constat animam, ipsi hoc soli licebit, 0590B non etiam illi cui adnectitur, id est corpori. Nemo autem negabit mortale corpus esse, cum et contingamus ea et contingamur ab eis, certa corpora ex illis decidere videamus. Ergo si animalia deposita ratione animae, qua corporum conditio, mortalia, non utique, dii elementa. Et tamen unde animalia Varroni videntur elementa? Quoniam moventur. Ac ne ex diverso proponatur, multa alia moveri, ut rotas, ut plaustra, ut machinas caeteras, ultro praevenit dicens, eo animalia credita, quod per semetipsa moverentur, nullo extrinsecus apparente motatore eorum aut minatore, sicut apparet, qui rotam compellit, et plaustra volvit, et machinam temperat. Igitur nisi animalia, non mobilia per se. Porro allegans, quid non appareat, ostendit quid quaesisse debuerat, id 0590C est, artificem et arbitrum motus; neque enim statim non est, quod, quia non videmus, non credimus esse. Imo eo altius investigandum est, quod non videatur, ut quod videatur quale sit scire possimus. Alioquin si tantum ea, quae comparent, deo esse creduntur, quia comparent? Quomodo deos etiam eos recipitis qui non comparent? Si autem videntur esse qui non sunt, cur non sint et qui non videntur? Motatorem dico coelestium rerum. Sint ergo et animalia, quia mobilia per se, etiam mobilia per se, quia non per alium; tamen illa non statim Dei, quia animalia, ita nec ideo, quia per se mobilia; aut quid vetat universa animalia, ut mobilia per se, deos haberi? . . . . . lia sane vanitate Aegyptiis licet.