Tertullian

“ For who is going to allow you to reckon motion as a moiety of Matter, seeing that it is not a substantial thing, because it is not corporeal, but an accident (if indeed it be even that) of a substance and a body? Just as action [8] is, and impulsion, just as a slip is, or a fall, so is motion. When anything moves even of itself, its motion is the result of impulse; [9] but certainly it is no part of its substance in your sense, [10] when you make motion the incorporeal part of matter. All things, indeed, [11] have motion—either of themselves as animals, or of others as inanimate things ”

“ Footnotes ↑ Subicit.↑ Other than “the right reason” above named.↑ Adversus.↑ The original, “Adversus renuntiationem reciprocationis illius,” is an obscure expression. Oehler, who gives this reading in his edition, after the editio princeps, renders the term “reciprocationis” by the phrase “negative conversion” of the proposition that Matter is corporeal and incorporeal (q.d. “Matter is neither corporeal nor incorporeal”) . ”