On attributes; remarks more recondite than the preceding. It is known
that existence is an accident appertaining to all things, and therefore
an element superadded to their essence. This must evidently be the case
as regards everything the existence of which is due to some cause; its
existence is an element superadded to its essence. But as regards a
being whose existence is not due to any cause—God alone is that being,
for His existence, as we have said, is absolute—existence and essence
are perfectly identical; He is not a substance to which existence is
joined as an accident, as an additional element. His existence is
always absolute, and has never been a new element or an accident in
Him. Consequently God exists without possessing the attribute of
existence. Similarly He lives, without possessing the attribute of
life; knows, without possessing the attribute of knowledge; is
omnipotent without possessing the attribute of omnipotence; is wise,
without possessing the attribute of wisdom; all this reduces itself to
one and the same entity; there is no plurality in Him, as will be
shown. It is further necessary to consider that unity and plurality are
accidents supervening to an object according as it consists of many
elements or of one. This is fully explained in the book called
Metaphysics. In the same way as number is not the substance of the
things numbered, so is unity not the substance of the thing which has
the attribute of unity, for unity and plurality are accidents belonging
to the category of discrete quantity, and supervening to such objects
as are capable of receiving them.
To that being, however, which has truly simple, absolute existence, and
in which composition is inconceivable, the accident of unity is as
inadmissible as the accident of plurality; that is to say, God’s unity
is not an element superadded, but He is One without possessing the
attribute of unity. The investigation of this subject, which is almost
too subtle for our understanding, must not be based on current
expressions employed in describing it, for these are the great source
of error. It would be extremely difficult for us to find, in any
language whatsoever, words adequate to this subject, and we can only
employ inadequate language. In our endeavour to show that God does not
include a plurality, we can only say “He is one,” although “one” and
“many” are both terms which serve to distinguish quantity. We therefore
make the subject clearer, and show to the understanding the way of
truth by saying He is one but does not possess the attribute of unity.
The same is the case when we say God is the First (Kadmon), to express
that He has not been created; the term “First” is decidedly inaccurate,
for it can in its true sense only be applied to a being that is subject
to the relation of time; the latter, however, is an accident to motion
which again is connected with a body. Besides the attribute “first” is
a relative term, being in regard to time the same as the terms “long”
and “short” are in regard to a line. Both expressions, “first” and
“created,” are equally inadmissible in reference to any being to which
the attribute of time is not applicable, just as we do not say
“crooked” or “straight” in reference to taste, “salted” or “insipid” in
reference to the voice. These subjects are not unknown to those who
have accustomed themselves to seek a true understanding of the things,
and to establish their properties in accordance with the abstract
notions which the mind has formed of them, and who are not misled by
the inaccuracy of the words employed. All attributes, such as “the
First,” “the Last,” occurring in the Scriptures in reference to God,
are as metaphorical as the expressions “ear” and “eye.” They simply
signify that God is not subject to any change or innovation whatever;
they do not imply that God can be described by time, or that there is
any comparison between Him and any other being as regards time, and
that He is called on that account “the first” and “the last.” In short,
all similar expressions are borrowed from the language commonly used
among the people. In the same way we use “One” in reference to God, to
express that there is nothing similar to Him, but we do not mean to say
that an attribute of unity is added to His essence.