3. And whereas we attribute to God Almighty, _seeing_, _hearing_, _speaking_, _knowing_, _loving_, and the like, by which names we understand something in _men_ to whom we attribute them, we understand _nothing_ by them in the nature of God: for, as it is well reasoned, _Shall not the God that made the_ _eye, see; and the ear, hear?_ So it is also, if we say, shall God, which made the eye, not see without the eye; or that made the ear, not hear without the ear; or that made the brain, not know without the brain; or that made the heart, not love without the heart? The _attributes_ therefore given unto the _Deity_, are such as _signify_ either _our incapacity_ or our _reverence_: our incapacity, when we say incomprehensible and infinite; our reverence, when we give him those names, which amongst us are the names of those things we most magnify and commend, as omnipotent, omniscient, just, merciful, &c. And when God Almighty giveth those names to himself in the Scriptures, it is but ἀνϑρωποπαθῶς, that is to say, by descending to our manner of speaking; without which we are not capable of understanding him. 4. By the name of _spirit_, we understand a _body natural_, but of such _subtilty_, that it worketh not upon the senses; but that filleth up the place which the image of a visible body might fill up. Our conception therefore of spirit consisteth of _figure without colour_; and in figure is understood dimension, and consequently, to conceive a spirit, is to conceive something that hath dimension. But _spirits supernatural_ commonly signify some _substance without_ dimension; which two words do flatly contradict one another: and therefore when we attribute the name of spirit unto God, we attribute it not as the name of anything we conceive, no more than we ascribe unto him sense and understanding; but as a signification of our reverence, we desire to abstract from him all corporal grossness.