does not entail any deficiency in the Lord, nor cause Him to cease to possess this attribute, nor make it cease to be His speech. Rather, we know that just as the Lord may speak it without sending a messenger with it, He may speak it and send a messenger with it. In both cases, it is His speech—glory be to Him. Sending a messenger with it benefits creation and guides them; it entails no diminution in the attribute of their Lord.

As for his words:

“Or does it subsist in us and in Him?”

The answer is:

The expression “subsisting” is ambiguous. If what is meant is that the speech itself, considered in and of itself, was spoken by Him and spoken by us in conveying it from Him, then that is indeed the case. But if what is meant is that something peculiar to Him subsists in us, or that something peculiar to us subsists in Him, then this is impossible. If “subsisting” means that we have conveyed His speech, read His speech, or recited His speech, then this is correct. The same applies if what is meant is that this speech is His speech, heard from the one conveying it, not from Him. But if “subsisting” means that the very thing peculiar to Him has itself come to subsist in another, as something peculiar to that other, then this is impossible.

If it is said:

“A single attribute subsists in two places,”

the answer is:

This too is ambiguous. If what is meant is that something peculiar to one locus subsists in another locus, then this is impossible. But if what is meant is that the speech described as a single attribute subsists in the one who speaks it, while someone else conveys it from him, then this is correct. In such matters, ambiguous expressions must be explained through clear, explicit wording. Any expression that may convey either truth or falsehood must only be used with its intended true meaning made clear, as distinct from