Upon close examination, it is clear that those who deny that substances are all alike are correct, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

They say: “Our saying ‘a substance’ is like your saying ‘an entity subsisting in itself,’ and similar expressions.”

It thus becomes clear that the argument he has presented against describing Him as a substance only negates what all parties agree in denying. No rational person says that He is a substance in the sense that He resembles everything that subsists in itself in what is necessary, possible, and impossible for it. Some of the meanings intended by those who affirm this description are conceded to them; against others, he has no argument apart from his argument against describing Him as a body. Thus, the discussion of denying that He is a substance depends on the discussion of denying that He is a body.

His statement, “The four arguments used to deny that He is a substance also deny that He is a body,” does not hold. He has only used them to deny that He is a substance in the sense that He resembles other things in what is necessary, possible, and impossible for them. Even those who say that He is a substance and a body concede this denial. To establish an argument for it is therefore to offer proof on a point that is not in dispute. These arguments do not negate the description ‘substance’ in the sense intended by those who affirm it.

The central point is that his argument rests on the claim that substances are all alike, whereas those who hold that view do not say that He is a substance or a body. Discussion of this subject therefore depends