As for the other condition, expressed in our words, “perfection that entails no imperfection”—to use the accurate formulation—or “perfection that entails no imperfection whose absence is possible,” in the terminology of those who regard as imperfection what is not in fact imperfection: this excludes what constitutes perfection for some created beings but not others, yet is an imperfection in relation to the Creator because it entails imperfection. Eating and drinking are examples. A healthy animal with an appetite for food and drink is more perfect than a sick one without such an appetite, because its continued existence depends on eating and drinking.

If it were assumed to lack the capacity for this, it would be less perfect than one capable of this perfection. Yet this entails that the one who eats and drinks needs something other than itself, namely the food and drink that enter it. This, in turn, entails that something must leave it, such as waste. A being that needs nothing to enter it is more perfect than one that does, and a being whose perfection depends on another is less perfect than one that needs no other for its perfection. For one who has no need of a thing is superior to one whose sufficiency depends upon it, and one who is sufficient in himself is more perfect than one whose sufficiency comes from another.

Thus, some perfections constitute perfection for a created being but imperfection in relation to the Creator. These include anything that entails the possibility of His nonexistence, which is incompatible with His necessary existence and self-subsistence; anything that entails His having come into existence, which is incompatible with His beginninglessness; or anything that entails His need, which is incompatible with His self-sufficiency.