something distinct from it. If that distinct thing were its cause, it would not exist in itself, but would instead be contingent, with an agent and a cause. Even if that thing were assumed to be a condition of its existence while it had no need of it, anything whose existence is conditioned upon something of which it has no need would not exist in itself. Thus the Lord and Creator, exalted is He, whose essence is endowed with the attributes of perfection, cannot depend upon anything distinct from Him, nor indeed upon anything of which He has no need in any respect, whether as an agent or as a condition.

This is what the proof establishes: contingent things, which have no existence of themselves, exist only through something other than themselves. Whatever lies outside them can exist only in itself. Its self is its essence endowed with its inseparable attributes; its self is neither mere absolute existence nor a bare essence.

Whoever claims that what exists in itself can only be bare existence and a bare essence, because an essence endowed with attributes depends upon an attribute and therefore cannot exist in itself, is told:

Contingent and originated things did not depend upon a bare essence ن such that one could say that describing it as endowed with attributes would entail dependence. Rather, they depended upon something outside them all.

This meaning can be expressed in various ways. Whether one says “what cannot cease to exist,” “existent in itself,” “necessarily existent in itself,” or something similar, the intended meaning is the same.

It is known that if what cannot cease to exist is an essence