one does not entail that it exists, then his previously quoted claim that a body is divided and is not one is invalid. He based that claim on unity being an attribute inhering in the body. He said: “An accident cannot arise in a substrate or occur within it unless that substrate is determinate and distinct from anything else.”

For if it is established that describing something as one or as more than one does not entail that it exists, then unity and multiplicity need not be attributes that themselves exist, since what is nonexistent cannot possess an existent attribute. If unity need not itself exist, it need not inhere in a body or be an accident. Thus, nothing precludes a body from being one. If a body is one despite its magnitude and contains no multiplicity that actually exists, its occupying a spatial region cannot serve as evidence that the region is divided or multiple.

Accordingly, if a body’s occupying a spatial region does not entail that the region is itself multiple and divided, then the Lord’s occupying a spatial region likewise does not entail that it is divided. It would be possible for Him to occupy a spatial region that cannot be said to be more than one, without thereby being the smallest possible thing or an indivisible substance. In short, if a body contains no multiplicity despite occupying a spatial region, then all the more may this be true of the Creator, and of His spatial region. This invalidates what he stated.

The eighth response is to say: a spatial region is, in itself, only one