even scholars well versed in speculative theology and philosophy cannot free themselves, let alone ordinary people. Were the general public required to attain knowledge through these methods, this would amount to imposing an obligation beyond their capacity.

Moreover, the methods these people have followed to establish that the world had a beginning combine both these defects: the general public are not naturally equipped to accept them, and they are not demonstrative either. They are therefore suitable neither for scholars nor for the general public.

We shall briefly draw attention to this here. We say that they have followed two methods in this matter.

The first—the better-known method, upon which most of them rely—rests on three premises that serve as foundations for their attempt to establish that the world had a beginning.

The first premise is that substances are never without accidents—that is, they are never devoid of them. The second is that accidents have a beginning.