Once the structure of the argument is clear, their statement that the Creator is separate from the world is undisputed. They have stated that this is necessarily known concerning any two self-subsisting existents, and this has not been disputed. As for their statement that anything separate from something else must be separate from it in one of the three ways, they have stated that this too is necessarily known. They say that it is necessarily known that separateness between two things must fall within one of three categories: separateness in essence, time, or place. This has been conceded to them without dispute. They have thus established that the Creator must be separate from the world in essence, time, or place.

As for the second syllogism, their assertion is that His separateness is not merely in essence and time. They establish this by saying that separateness in essence and time occurs between an inhering entity and its substrate, and between two entities inhering in a substrate. Yet we necessarily know that the separateness between the Creator and the world is unlike that between a substrate and what inheres in it, or between two entities inhering in a substrate. The substrate is the substance, and what inheres in it is the accident. If the separateness between Him and the world exceeds the separateness between these two, and these two are separate in essence