in a spatial locus, for this is not impossible in the sense we have explained. If, however, he said that it would be impossible for Him to become dependent on a spatial locus, that is true; but the occurrence of new, contingent things does not entail His dependence on them.

The twenty-fourth response: Regarding your statement at the outset of this second argument, that His occupying a spatial locus is either necessary or not necessary, you may be asked: By “spatial locus,” do you mean spatial loci as a class, or a particular spatial locus? The definite article can designate either the class or a particular spatial locus.

If you mean the class, your statement under the first alternative is invalid: if His occupying that spatial locus were possible, while His occupying any other spatial locus were impossible, its intrinsic nature would differ from that of the others. For on this interpretation, “spatial locus” denotes the class and is not restricted to one thing rather than another. Likewise, when someone says that a body is characterized by occupying a spatial locus, he does not mean a particular locus. Rather, he means that a body can only occupy space, and cannot be without spatial location.

If you mean a particular spatial locus, your statement under the second alternative is invalid, namely, that in that case He did not, in pre-eternity, occupy