and it is universally acknowledged that life and speech can only be conceived as qualities inhering in a subject, and that nothing is ever described as living and speaking except something that can be physically indicated—in fact, something that is a body, like a human being.

If you are allowed to affirm these accidental attributes of a being that is not a body, then others are equally entitled to affirm coming, hand, and the like of a being that is not a body.

Should you object, “Such things are only intelligible of a body,” it will be answered, “Life and speech are likewise only intelligible of a body.” If you insist on judging matters by what is observable, the evidence turns against you; but if you permit yourselves, with regard to the unseen, to affirm what runs counter to the observable, then others may do so as well. In that case there is no contradiction between what the Muslims deny and what you affirm—even supposing your report of their denials and affirmations were accurate, which it is not, for distortion has crept in on both sides.

Seventh line of argument:
Your ultimate claim is this: since the Muslims utter expressions whose outward sense would be unbelief in their view—because the revealed texts employ those very words—while they do not hold the outward sense intended, so too you have uttered phrases whose outward sense is unbelief, because Scripture employs them, and you likewise disavow the literal meaning.

We reply, first: the wording concerning the divine attributes that the Muslims have used is the same wording you use, for it occurs in the Torah; that much you share with them. But the specifically Christian notions of tri-unity and hypostatic union are yours alone; the Muslims do not share them.

Second: the Muslims have confined themselves to the wording of revelation, whereas you have introduced expressions for which no authoritative text exists.