It is true that, in the deed, he is not explicitly present as Spirit; but when it is a question of his being qua heing, and, on the one hand, the twofold being of bodily shape and deed are contrasted, each purporting to be what he actually is, then it is the deed alone that must be affirmed as his genuine being no his face or outward appearance, which is supposed to express what he 'means' by his deeds, or what anyone might suppose he merely could do.