bold = Main text
   Book, Chapter                              grey = Comment text

 1   II, 3|    MAINTAINED THE DIVINITY OF THE ELEMENTS; THE ABSURDITY OF THE TENET
 2   II, 3|  necessity of contending that the elements are gods, since it alleges
 3   II, 3|        said to be sprung from the elements; so that we have at once
 4   II, 3|       once a presumption that the elements are not gods, since they
 5   II, 3|        they which are born of the elements are not gods. In like manner,
 6   II, 3|           whilst we show that the elements are not gods, we shall,
 7   II, 3|         parents (in this case the elements) are not gods. It is a settled
 8   II, 3| comprehensive sense) contains the elements, ministering to them as
 9   II, 3|        course will be that of its elements and constituent portions),
10   II, 3|          assign generation to the elements, which they hold to be gods,
11   II, 3|         suppose to be born of the elements, to be regarded as gods,
12   II, 3|           to be predicated of the elements, I mean of heaven, and of
13   II, 3|       however, will deny that the elements have body, since we both
14   II, 3|         yet whence is it that the elements appear to Varro to be animated?
15   II, 3|            Because, forsooth, the elements have motion. And then, in
16   II, 4|      manifest one. Now, since the elements are obvious to all, (and)
17   II, 5|       AGAINST THE DIVINITY OF THE ELEMENTS.~Why, then, do we not resort
18   II, 5|       mind, when he says that the elements are supposed to be divine,
19   II, 5|           the modification of the elements. By this it is that the
20   II, 5|        deemed compatible with the elements, but from their opposite
21   II, 5|         dominion to belong to the elements, which are but the slaves
22   II, 5|      appointed functions of those elements to which you ascribe (the
23   II, 5|        when you maintain that the elements are divine for no other
24   II, 6|    greater probability that those elements which we have been discussing