As for the second objection—their statement, “Every event could then inhere in Him”—its invalidity is evident.

If we admit that an attribute may inhere in Him, it does not follow that every attribute may do so. Thus, if we admit that attributes of perfection—such as life, knowledge, power, hearing, sight, and speech—may inhere in Him, it does not follow that attributes of imperfection may inhere in Him, such as compound ignorance, illness, drowsiness, sleep, and other existing qualities contrary to perfection.

If we admit that speech may inhere in Him, we do not thereby admit that every kind of speech may inhere in Him. Likewise, if a will may inhere in Him, it does not follow that a will concerning everything may inhere in Him. Only what befits His majesty and accords with His grandeur inheres in Him, for He is characterized by attributes of perfection and is never characterized by their opposites.

This is because His being capable, glorified is He, of having attributes or events inhere in Him is not merely on account of their being attributes or events; otherwise, this would necessarily extend to every attribute and event.

Similarly, if it is said that existing realities inhere in Him, it does not follow that everything that exists inheres in Him. Existing attributes do not inhere in Him merely because they exist, such that everything that exists would inhere in Him.

Likewise, when we say that the Lord of the worlds is self-subsisting, exists, and is an essence characterized by attributes, it does not follow that everything which is self-subsisting, exists, and is an essence characterized by attributes must be the Lord of the worlds.

People disagree over whether His attributes should be called accidents, just as they disagree over affirming or denying those attributes. Both those who affirm the attributes and those who deny them include people who call them accidents.