was more allied than the last to the first? How, also, did she arrange the motions of them, since fire is most light and tends upward, but earth is most heavy and tends downward? But whence were the motions of them which are most contrary derived, if not from nature? If, therefore, nature distributed to them most contrary motions, it is evident that they are themselves most contrary. For as the motions of simple beings are simple, and those things are simple of which the motions are simple, thus also those things are most contrary of which the motions are most contrary. And this may occasion some one to wonder at Aristotle, who, in what he says about motion, places earth as most contrary to fire; but in what he says about powers, he makes the most remote of similar natures to be more friendly than those that are proximate, when they are moved with most contrary motions. For, as the elements have contrary places in their positions, as they have contrary motions in lations, as they have contrary powers, gravity and levity, through which motions subsist in their forms, thus also they have contrary passive qualities. Aristotle himself likewise manifests that earth is contrary to fire. For wishing to show that it is necessary there should be more bodies than one, he says: “Moreover, if earth exists, it is also necessary that fire should exist. For in things, one of the contraries of which naturally is, the other likewise has a natural subsistence.” So that neither was he able after any other manner to show that there are more elements than one, than by asserting that fire is contrary to earth.