nor speech nor muteness, nor sight nor blindness, nor hearing nor deafness, because possessing either attribute presupposes being capable of receiving it. He is incapable of receiving either, since only a body can possess such attributes, these being attributes of bodies. Thus, if we posit an existing being that is not a body, it would be capable of receiving neither attribute.’ Whatever answer refutes these heretics also refutes you. The very arguments you address to those who deny what you affirm can be addressed to you, point for point, by those who affirm what you deny.

We shall answer you with an argument that both you and we can use against the other heretics. Your argument against them is inadequate, and your discussions with them are weak, as we have explained elsewhere when showing the weakness of the arguments used against these heretics.”

[Responses to him on several grounds: The first]

It may be said:

“To suppose something incapable of receiving such an attribute entails greater deficiency, and is more inconceivable and impossible, than to describe it as possessing one of two contradictory attributes when it is capable of receiving either. If we posit a living body endowed with knowledge, power, hearing, sight and speech, such as a human being, an angel or another being, it is superior to a blind, deaf, mute body, even though it can possess attributes contrary to perfection.

And this blind, deaf body, which is capable of possessing those perfections