II. Second Opinion

90. The other opinion is affirmative, at the other extreme [n.44], which posits that God is in a genus - and they [sc. those who hold this opinion]Who these people are is unknown, but their arguments given here [nn.90-93] are reported by Thomas of Sutton. ⁵⁶ have also on their behalf the authority of Damascene Elementary Instruction on Dogmas ch.7: “Incorporeal substance etc.”Damascene ibid.: “Incorporeal substance embraces God, angel, soul, demon,” cf. also: “The most general genus is substance, for it has no genus above it.” ⁵⁷

91. Again Boethius in his little book On the Trinity ch.4, where he seems to say that two generaThe two genera are substance and relation, n.130. ⁵⁸ remain in divine reality. This cannot be understood only according to some similar mode of predicating, because Augustine On the Trinity XV ch.5 n.8 speaks thus: “If God be called good, just, spirit”     etc ., “only the last one I mentioned seems to signify substance, and the rest qualities;” and On the Trinity V ch.8 n.9 he seems to say that action most properly agrees with God. Therefore      it is not merely the modes of predicating similar to those genera that remain, and in this way does it seem one should understand Boethius ‘about those two genera’ that in themselves remain.

92. Third for this opinion seems to be the authority of Averroes Metaphysics X com.7 (and the text begins “And being is said”),Cf. Scotus’ Lectura I d.8 n.92. ⁵⁹ where the Philosopher says that “there is some one first substance,” which is the measure of the others [Metaphysics 10.2.1054a8-9, 11-13]. The Commentator wants this first substance to be the prime mover. Therefore, just as in the case of other genera the ‘first’ is something of that genus, so the first mover is something of the genus of substance.

93. A first reason set down for this opinion is of the following sort, that created substance can be conceived from uncreated substance, and that neither concept is simply simple. Therefore, by resolution, the idea of substance will remain, indifferent to each contracting instance - and the idea of genus seems to be thus indifferently taken.The Vatican editors refer this argument to David of Dinant and Albert the Great. ⁶⁰

94. A second reason is that many simple entities are placed in a genus, such as angels, according to those who posit them to be immaterial - accidents too, according to those who posit them to be simple. Therefore the simplicity of God does not exclude from him the idea of genus.