First: If they had been moving from eternity, one and the same thing would necessarily be both preceded by something else and not preceded by anything else. Motion entails being preceded by something else, whereas eternity entails not being preceded by anything else. Both would therefore necessarily be combined.

Second: If they had been moving from eternity, they would never have been free of events that come into being. Whatever is free of such events itself has a beginning; otherwise, something that has a beginning would be eternal—a contradiction.

Third: If they had been moving from eternity, the daily motion would depend upon the completion of an infinite series, which is impossible. Whatever depends upon the impossible is itself impossible.

Fourth: If they had been moving from eternity, there would be two sequences: one extending backwards without end from the daily motion, and the other extending backwards without end from the motion that occurred yesterday. If the second sequence, when matched against the first, corresponded to it exactly, the greater would equal the lesser. If it did not, it would be finite, and the first sequence would therefore also be finite, although it was assumed to be infinite—a contradiction.

As for the second alternative: If they had been stationary from eternity, motion would have been impossible for them. For the cause of their rest must either be eternal or have a beginning. It cannot have a beginning, since their rest would then also have a beginning, although it was assumed to be eternal—a contradiction. Its cause must therefore be eternal, and its continued existence would entail the continuance of their rest. Motion would thus be impossible for bodies, yet motion is possible for them, because