if the essence and attributes of each can change. It is known that neither can perfect and change itself on its own, since it is assumed to be incapable of independently producing an effect separate from itself. Is it not, then, all the more incapable of perfecting and changing itself? If it can change and become more perfect, yet cannot do so by itself, it is not necessarily existent in itself; rather, it possesses contingency and depends on something other than itself. Yet it is supposed to be necessarily existent in itself while not being necessarily existent in itself, making it both necessary and contingent. This is a contradiction, for whatever is necessarily existent in itself is self-sufficient in the reality of its essence and attributes, depending on nothing else in any aspect of them. All of this falls within what is meant by its essence. Indeed, it must also depend on nothing else in any of its acts or effects.

For its acts that subsist in it fall within what is meant by its own self. Its dependence on something else for some of its effects entails dependence in its act and the attribute subsisting in it, since its effect proceeds from that act and attribute. If its essence were perfect and self-sufficient, it would not depend on anything else in its action. Thus, its dependence on anything else in any respect demonstrates its lack of self-sufficiency and its need for another. This is precisely the contingency that contradicts its being necessarily existent in itself.

For this reason, since necessary existence is exclusive to the Lord of the worlds, and independence from all others is exclusive to the Lord of the worlds, acting independently is likewise one of the exclusive attributes of