have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature.  Wisdom, Thought, Design, Knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words are honourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions by which we can express our adoration of him.  But let us beware, lest we think that our ideas anywise correspond to his perfections, or that his attributes have any resemblance to these qualities among men.  He is infinitely superior to our limited view and comprehension; and is more the object of worship in the temple, than of disputation in the schools.

In reality, cleanthes, continued he, there is no need of having recourse to that affected scepticism so displeasing to you, in order to come at this determination.  Our ideas reach no further than our experience.  We have no experience of divine attributes and operations.  I need not conclude my syllogism.  You can draw the inference yourself.  And it is a pleasure to me (and I hope to you too) that just reasoning and sound piety here concur in the same conclusion, and both of them establish the adorably mysterious and incomprehensible nature of the Supreme Being.

Not to lose any time in circumlocutions, said cleanthes, addressing himself to DEMEA, much less in replying to the pious declamations of Philo; I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter.  Look round the world:  contemplate the whole and every part of it:  You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain.  All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them.  The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.  Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.  By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

I shall be so free, cleanthes, said DEMEA, as to tell you, that from the beginning, I could not approve of your conclusion concerning the similarity of the Deity to men; still less can I approve of the mediums by which you endeavour to establish it.  What!  No demonstration of the Being of God!  No abstract arguments!  No proofs a priori!  Are these, which have hitherto been so much insisted on by philosophers, all fallacy, all sophism?  Can we reach no further in this subject than experience and probability?  I will not say that this is betraying the cause of a Deity:  But surely, by this affected candour, you give advantages to Atheists, which they never could obtain by the mere dint of argument and reasoning.