duration; these, and every particular which regards so divine a Being, are mysterious to men.  Finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence; and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive.  They are covered in a deep cloud from human curiosity.  It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities.  And, next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and essence, decrees and attributes.

But lest you should think that my piety has here got the better of my philosophy, I shall support my opinion, if it needs any support, by a very great authority.  I might cite all the divines, almost, from the foundation of Christianity, who have ever treated of this or any other theological subject:  But I shall confine myself, at present, to one equally celebrated for piety and philosophy.  It is Father malebranche, who, I remember, thus expresses himself [Recherche de la Verite.  Liv. 3.  Chap.9].  “One ought not so much,” says he, “to call God a spirit, in order to express positively what he is, as in order to signify that he is not matter.  He is a Being infinitely perfect:  Of this we cannot doubt.  But in the same manner as we ought not to imagine, even supposing him corporeal, that he is clothed with a human body, as the Anthropomorphites asserted, under colour that that figure was the most perfect of any; so, neither ought we to imagine that the spirit of God has human ideas, or bears any resemblance to our spirit, under colour that we know nothing more perfect than a human mind.  We ought rather to believe, that as he comprehends the perfections of matter without being material.... he comprehends also the perfections of created spirits without being spirit, in the manner we conceive spirit:  That his true name is, He that is; or, in other words, Being without restriction, All Being, the Being infinite and universal.”

After so great an authority, DEMEA, replied Philo, as that which you have produced, and a thousand more which you might produce, it would appear ridiculous in me to add my sentiment, or express my approbation of your doctrine.  But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the question can never be concerning the Being, but only the Nature, of the Deity.  The former truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and self-evident.  Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call God; and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection.  Whoever scruples this fundamental truth, deserves every punishment which can be inflicted among philosophers, to wit, the greatest ridicule, contempt, and disapprobation.  But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine that we comprehend the attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose that his perfections