Chapter

As for the statement:

“If acts subsisted in Him, He would be a locus for temporal events. If a temporal event entailed a perfection for Him, He previously lacked it, which is a deficiency; and if it entailed no perfection for Him, He could not be described by it.”

First, it is said:

“This is countered by its analogue among the temporal events He brings about. Each of the two comes into being through His power and will, and they are conjoined only with respect to the locus. This division applies to both sides.”

If a distinction is drawn by saying:

“The thing effected is not an attribute of Him, unlike an act that subsists in Him,”

then the reply is:

“Rather, they do describe Him by attributes of action. They divide the attributes into essential attributes and attributes of action, describing Him as Creator and Provider after He had not been so. Thus, this division applies to them as well.”

The philosophers raised this objection against them concerning the temporal origination of the world, whereupon they claimed that attributes of action are neither a perfection nor a deficiency.

It is therefore said to them:

“The same may be said to them concerning the acts that subsist in Him as they said to those philosophers: they are neither a perfection nor a deficiency.”

If it is said:

“He must be characterized either by deficiency or by perfection,”

then the reply is:

“With respect to the attributes of action, He must likewise be characterized either by deficiency or by perfection. If it is permissible to claim that one of the two is devoid