or as being in contact (1), and no side of Him can be distinguished (2) from another, this would be a brazen denial of the obvious.”

It is said to you in reply:

“You [who deny the vision] (3), together with those affirmers of the vision who agree with you, say that He is neither within the world nor outside it, and is neither distinct from it nor spatially coincident with it (4).

“When it is said to you, ‘This contradicts what is known by rational necessity (5), for reason recognizes two existent things only if one is distinct from the other or is within it—just as it recognizes (6) distinct entities and accidents subsisting in them. As for affirming a self-subsisting existent that cannot be pointed to and is neither within the world nor outside it, reason (7) necessarily knows this to be impossible and false,’

“you say (8), ‘This negation is a judgment of the estimative faculty, not of reason.’ You have thus posited two arbiters (9) within the innate disposition: one is the estimative faculty and the other is reason. Yet you say (10) that what you call the estimative faculty is the faculty that apprehends particular, non-sensible meanings in sensible objects, such as hostility and friendship. Thus, a sheep apprehends one meaning in a wolf and another in a ram, inclining toward the latter and recoiling from the former. If, then, the estimative faculty only