existence, whereas what is past has ended and elapsed, and whatever has ended and elapsed must have entered into existence and is therefore finite—is correct. Yet the hypothesis their opponents posit regarding the revolutions is not of this kind. For there was no motion that necessarily had to be the first, with no motion possible before it. Thus, there need not be a totality that is the first totality to have entered into existence, nor any part of it that is the first part to have entered into existence.

What has entered into existence of these is only a single instance, or a finite number of instances, in the case of things of which more than one instance can exist. This occurs successively in one and the same subject.

How then—I should like to know—does it follow, if what enters into existence is only one instance, preceded by another, that there is an infinite totality that has entered into existence all at once?