and essence. Nor is the unity that entails His necessary existence in Himself and His being the First Principle—through which we have come to know Him, and on which we base what we affirm and deny of Him—the unity of the objects He apprehends, His relations, or His connections. Rather, it is the unity of His reality, essence, and identity.”

He said:

“Do not suppose that the unity predicated of the Necessary Existent in Himself was asserted for the sake of affirming His transcendence. Rather, it follows by demonstration from His being the First Principle and from His necessary existence in Himself. What follows from this concerns only His reality and essence, not the objects He apprehends or His relations. As for His changing through apprehending things that change, that is a relational matter (not a feature of the essence itself. This is something that argument has not invalidated and demonstration has not ruled out. There is no basis for denying it in the name of transcendence and exaltation. Rather, it is more fitting to affirm His transcendence above such ‘transcendence,’ and to exalt Him above such ‘exaltation’).”

He discussed Aristotle’s statement:

“It is impossible for His perfection to consist in apprehending something other than Himself, since He is a substance possessing the utmost divinity, nobility, and intellect