upon His bringing that other into being and upon that other’s assistance in His perfection. Yet that other’s assistance in His perfection depends upon Him, since the agency and actions of that other depend upon the Creator’s action and require nothing besides Him. It follows, therefore, that His perfection cannot depend upon another.

Thus, if it is said, “His perfection depends upon His creature,” it follows that it does not depend upon His creature. Whatever entails its own negation by being affirmed is inherently false. Moreover, every perfection possessed by that other comes from Him, and He has a greater claim to perfection than it does. If His perfection were said to depend upon it, it would depend only upon something that itself comes from Him; and that thing depends upon Him, not upon another.

If it is said:

“That other is not created; rather, it is another necessarily existent being, beginningless in itself,”

then the reply is:

If one of the two is the giver, but not conversely, that one is the Lord and the other is His servant.

If, however, it is said:

“Rather, each bestows perfection upon the other,”

this entails circularity in causation, which is false. It is circularity in causal priority, not circularity through mutual concomitance. This one cannot be perfect until the other makes it perfect; yet the other cannot make it perfect until it is itself perfect, because whoever makes another perfect has a greater claim to perfection. Nor can the other be perfect until the first makes it perfect. Necessarily, therefore, neither of them is perfect.

For if it were said:

“It cannot be perfect until it makes itself perfect, and it cannot make itself perfect until it is perfect,”

that would be impossible. How much more impossible, then, is the claim that it must make perfect whatever makes it perfect?!