three interpretations. The first is that this locus is included among the Lord’s attributes, as explained earlier concerning the term “space” when it means the boundary of a spatially extended entity. It may be said, however, that “locus” is more specific than “space,” and that this is not what is meant in the dispute over His being in a locus.

The second is that “locus” means what he meant by the space separate from Him. In one passage, he claimed that it has positive existence, whereas, properly understood, it has no positive existence.

The third is that, even supposing it has positive existence, the point here is that His essence necessarily entailing that locus does not conflict with His being necessary in Himself, nor does it imply that He is contingent and dependent upon it. The philosophers who maintain that His essence necessarily entails the existence of the world know that this does not conflict with His being necessarily existent in Himself; this applies all the more to the case at hand. Even if the nonexistence of this locus is known through other rational or revealed proofs, the point is to show that what he has presented is not a proof.

Once it becomes clear that they have no sound argument ruling out His indwelling a locus when they say that He is not separate from the world in direction, their statement that He does not indwell the world and that the world is not a locus for Him—if they do not affirm His separateness from the world—is then a statement made without knowledge or proof, and is therefore not acceptable.