Furthermore, he has stated that this distinction is additional to distinction in essence and time, and that is indeed the case. That being so, and since not inhering in anything or serving as a substrate amounts to non-co-location and distinction, if non-co-location together with distinction in essence and time entails something positive, this can only be distinction in direction.

This is established in two ways. First, no positive distinction remains beyond distinction in essence and time except distinction in place, as explained above. Second, the absence of co-location entails distinction, since two entities can only be conceived as either co-located or distinct, as previously explained.

The third point concerns his statement: “If, then, you claim that a distinction exists between the two other than in these respects, so as to say that this distinction must be in place, that is the point in dispute.”

He may be answered: They have said that distinction in respects additional to essence and time can only be in place, and they have established this. They did not posit a distinction other than in these respects and then say that this distinction must be in place. Rather, their claim is that this distinction, which he has conceded, is additional to essence and time and entails distinction in place. And if there is no