Metaphysics and Ethics

The matter is summarized because concerning the revealed truth of Christ, the proposition is clear. Now, regarding what has been said by these men concerning the principle or the cause, no one can say that it has been exhausted by them, but all have held that which a certain man touches or augments. Among these, they posit one primordial material, or one substance, or a body, or that which is in the body; wherefore they call the first [principle] earth, as they have instituted. And Empedocles [calls it] fire, earth, water, and air. Anaxagoras, however, [posits] everywhere the first infinite; thus all touch upon it by speaking in such a way. And furthermore, whether one posits water or fire, or fire is substituted, or air or earth. And if some said such a thing to be first, they hold that which generates to be this alone. Others, however, who make the first one—the first motion or water, or the mind, or earth, or in love the first—as to why this is the cause, no one clearly says; rather, he who speaks above, passes over it. It is thus as if the material in time is good, but in its theory, as if here the principle of motion proceeds? He says it is immobile, more to the point, yet he says it is, but that which is known from the singulars of others that pertain to the substance of good, or the one, or not with acts, changing [things] that are in motion, in the way that he who speaks of these says it; he does not say it, but he speaks of nature. For also, he who says love is as the good which makes the principle the cause only, or as it generates men, but [the existence of] vacuum he does not know, or [concerning the existence of] beings, but as... he speaks of motion. If also he who says the one is, [he says it is] of such a nature subsisting, which he says with existence is not only held, but [is] existence. He says that he says [of] some soul to be good when it is not simply of substance, but that which it generates...

[column-break]

...to be the cause, that from which we seek testimony that all these do not touch upon the cause, being unable to do so. Furthermore, because some are proper to all, or in some way first to these, in that in these it is said in many ways, because it holds this. Since, therefore, we announce the principles of the leaders, whoever they are, that one itself—all that is one—is a certain nature, as they posit material and that which has corporal magnitude, it is plain that it errs in many ways. They posit the body, even of the incorporeal; however, it does not exist, but of the incorporeal and the digression, which is corruption, he speaks [in] the body. Regarding all physical things, they hold that they take away the cause of motion. Furthermore, they posit no cause for substance, but that which is so defined to be the principle of simple bodies, except for earth, and generally those that are generated from one another, they make [them]: here, fire, water, earth, and air. That which is even generated, that [is] gathered and communicated, and they become. These, however, they propose to be most truly [the principles], yet they do not differ. In some way both will be seen to be elementary material from all things, from which aggregation is made, and such is that which is of the smallest parts, the most substantial, and of bodies. Whoever posits fire as the principle most strongly shows that it is true to say this. Such, then, is that which exists for each one of these, namely, that the beings be as the body. Another is through these, and the one mentioned; they also want these to be [substances]. It is plain that as magnitude is proper to that which is subsistent: or one of these he accepted, justice, [namely] substance; fire: [another] says it has water, air. But if it happens in the [word] it is said that many have [it], or that which Hesiod says, or the first of all bodies, for they say that all are generated [from them]. ...so is the ancient [principle] of the first origins. ...but by this reason, neither...