The most probable thought is, that our reason is insufficient to reach the explanations we wish to unfold; the chain of beings above us every instant reminds us of this truth; and it appears singular, that perceiving so distinctly the bounds of our senses, we should not be induced to think, that our intelligence, apparently so extended, may nevertheless run over a very circumscribed space. Our imagination goes much farther than our knowledge, but its domain is perhaps only a point in what is yet unexplored; and it is necessary to penetrate those unknown regions, to discover the truths which illustrate the mysteries that surround us; but there is a Being who knows them, Omniscience is at the summit of those gradations of intelligence which we trace. We know nothing, we do not discover any result but through the assistance of experience and observation; and we only know the world by the little front scene which meets our view: is it rational to suppose, that only this kind of knowledge exists in the universe? Men, in the slow progress of their judgment, resemble children; but even this condition recals the idea of a father and a tutor. Every thing however shows us, that the phœnomena of nature relate to a grand whole; we see that its dispersed productions are united to some general cause; it is the same with human knowledge; more admirable than the rays of light spread through immensity, it is an emanation from the most perfect light. In short, if space, if time itself, those two existences without bounds, are subject to division, why should we not be induced to think, that the degrees of knowledge we experience and conceive, are also only a part of a universal intelligence? Of all the objections against the idea of a God, the weakest, in my opinion, is that drawn from the mixture of troubles and pleasures to which human life is exposed. A God, some will say, ought to unite every perfection, and we cannot believe in his existence, when we perceive limits in his power or goodness.