it has been possible from eternity for the Creator to possess power over another, it necessarily follows that the existence of the object of His power has been possible from eternity. This corresponds exactly to what you have said. Accordingly, if you allow one of the two terms of the relation—namely, His having power—to exist from eternity while the object of His power cannot exist from eternity, then allow one of the two terms—namely, His being receptive—to exist from eternity while that which is received cannot exist from eternity. If, however, you do not allow this, but maintain that relations can exist only when both related terms actually exist, then either the object of His power must have been possible from eternity, or His having power from eternity must have been impossible.

In any event, your argument fails: whether you allow one of the related terms to exist while the other comes later, allow the object of His power to exist from eternity, or say that He did not possess power from eternity. Although he does not assert this last position, suppose someone were to commit himself to it and say that He comes to possess power after not possessing it, just as they say that He becomes receptive after not being receptive.

He would be told: If His having power is inseparable from His essence, then He must always have possessed power. The essence, which necessarily entails power, could not exist without power, its necessary concomitant. If power is not inseparable from the essence, then it is one of its contingent attributes. The essence would therefore be receptive to His having power, and would also be receptive to that receptivity. If receptivity to His having power is inseparable from the essence, the intended conclusion follows once again. If it is a contingent attribute, it requires a further receptivity. This necessarily leads either to an infinite regress or to an ultimate possession of power that is inseparable from the essence.