[and it remains binding upon anyone who held that He had once been unable to speak or act by His will and power, but that this later became possible for Him] (1), for such a position entails (2) an arbitrary determination with no determining cause, or [the infinite regress universally agreed to be impossible and impossible circularity] (3). All of this is impossible (4). The infinite regress universally agreed to be impossible is an infinite regress of efficient causes [and in the completion of causal efficacy] (5); as for an infinite succession of effects, that is the point at issue.

Those theologians reject both forms on the basis that infinite quantities cannot differ in magnitude. Yet the majority of philosophers, together with the leading authorities among the religious communities (6), do not reject the latter form.

Accordingly, it may be said to these would-be philosophers (7): If an infinite succession [of effects] (8) is impossible, your position is invalid; and when a position is invalid, its proof necessarily falls, since no sound proof can establish a false position. If, however, such a succession is possible, your argument is invalid [because it is possible for His words to be without end, and for Him always to have spoken by His will or to have acted by His will, one act after another, without any particular act or effect being eternal] (9). Thus, the argument is invalid on either assumption. For if an infinite succession (10) of effects is possible, the celestial spheres could have come into being through preceding causes that themselves came into being.