For, they contend, were two entities to proceed from Him, the source of Alpha would differ from the source of Gamma, and the source together with that emanation would differ from the source together with this emanation. Thus the source would possess two aspects, which contradicts absolute oneness. On this basis they conclude that the One can be neither agent nor recipient, lest He contain two aspects—an aspect of acting and an aspect of being acted upon—and thereby become composite.
We reply: If the procession of the emanated things from Him is His very act, and if, in your view, an act is nothing but a pure relation ascribed to Him—while you maintain that He can be characterized by no positive attribute, only by negations, and that this relation itself is a negation—then, even were a thousand beings to emanate from Him, their procession would be nothing more than additional negations of things with respect to Him. Likewise, when you say, “He is not an accident, not contingent, not originated,” and the like, the multiplicity of such negations produces no positive determination. Since, according to you, origination confers upon Him no affirmative attribute, the multiplicity of things originated by Him confers upon Him no affirmative attribute.
They also contradict themselves by treating origination as a non-entity—indeed, as a mere relation—while holding that relation is a non-entity. For in what they call the “higher science,” which classifies existence and its concomitants, they themselves assert that existence is divided into substance and accident; that among the accidents is “to act”; that relation is one of the accidents; and that origination belongs to the category “to act,” which is certainly something existent. Moreover, the origination effected by the Creator is the most perfect of all acts of origination. How, then, can the most perfect instance of the category of acting be a non-entity?
Furthermore, they treat “relation” as a genus distinct from “to act.” If that is correct, their claim that His origination of the world is nothing but a relation collapses. And even if we concede that origination is a relation, relation in their own system counts among the genera of existence. This and similar considerations expose the unsoundness of the negations they advance in divine matters—though detailing them all would take us far afield.
Even if all this were granted, and it were conceded that relation is a non-entity, the multiplicity of such non-entities ascribed to Him would no more necessitate a multiplicity of positive attributes than does the multiplicity of any other negations. Should it be assumed that He originated everything without intermediary, the result would be merely a plurality of non-entities predicated of Him, and such plurality does not entail multiplicity in