it does not exist; and the servant’s act is among contingent things. This is because (1), when the servant performs an act, the act itself comes into existence after not having existed, and it must (2) therefore have a cause.

If it is said, “It came into existence through the will,” the will itself also came into existence and must therefore have a cause. Or, if you wish, you may say (3): The act is contingent, so its existence cannot prevail over its nonexistence without a determining factor. According to the formulation of some of them (4), neither (5) of its two alternatives can prevail over the other without a determining factor. The servant’s becoming the agent of the act is itself a contingent occurrence, so it must have something that brings it about and determines it. In this respect, there is no difference between one occurrence and another.

(* [The determining factor that brings a contingent thing into existence must be complete and must entail (6) its existence. Otherwise, if, even in the presence of that determining factor, the act could sometimes exist and sometimes not exist, it would remain contingent after the determining factor had arisen, with both its existence and nonexistence still possible. Its existence could then prevail over its nonexistence only through another determining factor. This further determining factor must either be complete and entail the existence of the act, or (the act must) (7), even in its presence, still be capable (8) of both existence and nonexistence. If the latter is the case, the act could never exist at all, and an invalid infinite regress would follow.