the mind, yet it follows not that we have any conception of an _infinite thing_. For when we say that a thing is _infinite_, we signify nothing really, but the impotency in our own mind; as if we should say, we know not whether or where it is limited. Neither speak they honourably enough of God, who say we have an _idea_ of him in our mind: for an idea is our conception; but conception we have none, except of a _finite_ thing. Nor they, who say that he hath _parts_, or that he is some certain _entire_ thing; which are also attributes of _finite_ things. Nor that he is in any place; for nothing can be said to be in a _place_, but what hath _bounds_ and _limits_ of its greatness on all sides. Nor that he is _moved_ or _is at rest_; for either of them suppose a _being in some place_. Nor that there are many Gods; because not many infinites. Furthermore, concerning _attributes of happiness_, those are unworthy of God which signify _sorrow_; (unless they be taken not for any passion, but, by a metonomy, for the effect); such as _repentance_, _anger_, _pity_. Or _want_; as _appetite_, _hope_, _concupiscence_, and that _love_ which is also called _lust_; for they are signs of _poverty_; since it cannot be understood that a man should _desire_, _hope_, and _wish_ for aught, but what he wants and stands in need of. Or any _passive faculty_; for _suffering_ belongs to a limited power, and which depends upon another. When we therefore attribute a _will_ to God, it is not to be conceived like unto ours, which is called _a rational desire_; (for if God _desires_, he _wants_, which for any man to say, is a contumely); but we must suppose some resemblance which we cannot conceive. In like manner when we attribute _sight_ and other _acts of the sense_ to him, or _knowledge_, or _understanding_, which in us are nothing else but a tumult of the mind, raised from outward objects pressing the organs; we must not think that any such thing befalls the Deity; for it is a sign of power _depending_ upon some other, which is not the most blessed thing. He therefore who would not ascribe any other titles to God than what reason commands, must use such as are either _negative_, as _infinite_, _eternal_, _incomprehensible_, &c.; or _superlative_, as _most good_, _most great_, _most powerful_, &c.; or _indefinite_, as _good_, _just_, _strong_, _creator_, _king_, and the like; in such sense, as not desiring to declare what he is; (which were to circumscribe him within the narrow limits of our phantasy); but to confess his own admiration and obedience, which is the property of humility and of a mind yielding all the honour it possibly can do. For reason dictates one name alone which doth signify the _nature_ of God, that is, _existent_, or simply, _that he is_; and one in _order_ to, and in _relation_ to us, namely _God_, under which is contained both _King_, and _Lord_, and _Father_. [Sidenote: What those actions are, whereby naturally we do give worship.]