_J. D._ Our God is a perfect, pure, simple, indivisible, infinite essence; free from all composition of matter and form, of substance and accidents. All matter is finite, and he who acteth by his infinite essence, needeth neither organs nor faculties (_id est_, _no power, note that_), nor accidents, to render him more complete. But T. H. his God is a divisible God, a compounded God, that hath matter, or qualities, or accidents. Hear himself. I argue thus: _The Divine substance is indivisible; but eternity is the Divine substance. The major is evident, because God is_ actus simplicissimus; _the minor is confessed by all men, that whatsoever is attributed to God, is God_. Now listen to his answer: _The major is so far from being evident, that_ actus simplicissimus _signifieth nothing. The minor is said by some men, thought by no man; whatsoever is thought is understood._ The major was this, _the Divine substance is indivisible_. Is this far from being evident? Either it is indivisible, or divisible. If it be not indivisible, then it is divisible, then it is materiate, then it is corporeal, then it hath parts, then it is finite by his own confession. _Habere partes, aut esse totum aliquid, sunt attributa finitorum._ Upon this silly conceit he chargeth me for saying, that _God is not just_, but justice itself; not eternal, but eternity itself; which he calleth _unseemly words to be said of God_. And he thinketh he doth me a great courtesy in not adding _blasphemous and atheistical_. But his bolts are so soon shot, and his reasons are such vain imaginations, and such drowsy phantasies, that no sober man doth much regard them. Thus he hath already destroyed the ubiquity, the eternity, and the simplicity of God. I wish he had considered better with himself, before he had desperately cast himself upon these rocks. But _paulo majora canamus_. My next charge is, that he destroys the very being of God, and leaves nothing in his place, but an empty name. For by taking away all incorporeal substances, he taketh away God himself. The very name, saith he, of an incorporeal substance, is a _contradiction_. And _to say that an angel or spirit, is an incorporeal substance, is to say in effect, that there is no angel or spirit at all_. By the same reason to say, that God is an incorporeal substance, is to say there is no God at all. Either God is incorporeal; or he is finite, and consists of parts, and consequently is no God. This, that there is no incorporeal spirit, is that main root of atheism, from which so many lesser branches are daily sprouting up.