_T. H._ To his Lordship’s question here: _What I leave God to be?_ I answer, I leave him to be a most pure, simple, invisible spirit corporeal. By corporeal I mean a substance that has magnitude, and so mean all learned men, divines and others, though perhaps there be some common people so rude as to call nothing body, but what they can see and feel. To his second question: _What real being He can have amongst bodies and accidents?_ I answer, the being of a spirit, not of a spright. If I should ask any the most subtile distinguisher, what middle nature there were between an infinitely subtile substance, and a mere thought or phantasm, by what name could he call it? He might call it perhaps an incorporeal substance; and so _incorporeal_ shall pass for a middle nature between _infinitely subtile_ and _nothing_, and be less subtile than infinitely subtile, and yet more subtile than a thought. It is granted, he says, that the nature of God is incomprehensible. Doth it therefore follow, that we may give to the Divine substance what negative name we please? Because he says, the whole Divine substance is here and there and every where throughout the world, and that the soul of a man is here and there and every where throughout man’s body; must we therefore take it for a mystery of Christian religion, upon his or any other Schoolman’s word, without the Scripture, which calls nothing a mystery but the incarnation of the eternal God? Or is incorporeal a mystery, when not at all mentioned in the Bible, but to the contrary it is written, _That the fulness of the Deity was bodily in Christ_? When the nature of the thing is incomprehensible, I can acquiesce in the Scripture: but when the signification of words is incomprehensible, I cannot acquiesce in the authority of a Schoolman.