nature, which was more finely fhaded, and difpofed among fofter lights, than that which the fun had before difcovered to us.

As I was furveying the moon walking in her brightnefs, and taking her progrefs among the conftellations, a thought rofe in me which I believe very often perplexes and disturbs men of serious and contemplative natures. David himfelf fell into it in that reflexion, When I confider the heavens the work of thy fingers, the moon and the ftars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the fon of man that thou regardeft him! In the fame manner when I confidered that infinite host of stars, or, to speak more philofophically, of funs, which were then fhining upon me, with those innumerable fets of planets or worlds, which were moving round their respective funs; when I ftill enlarged the idea, and fuppofed another heaven of funs and worlds rifing ftill abové this which we difcovered, and these still enlightned by a fuperior firmament of luminaries, which are planted at so great a distance, that they may appear to the inhabitants of the former as the ftars do to us; in fhort, whilft I pursued this

thought,

thought, I could not but reflect on that little infignificant figure which I my felf bore amidft the immenfity of God's works.

Were the fun, which enlightens this part of the creation, with all the hoft of planetary worlds that move about him, utterly extinguifhed and annihilated; they would not be miffed more than a grain of fand upon the fea-fhore. The fpace they poffefs is fo exceedingly little in comparison of the whole, that it would fcarce make a blank in the creation. The chaẩm would be imperceptible to an eye, that could take in the whole compafs of nature, and pass from one end of the creation to the other; as it is poffible there may be such a sense in our felves hereafter, or in creatures which are at present more exalted than our felves. We fee many stars by the help of glaffes, which we do not discover with our naked eyes; and the finer our telescopes are, the more ftill are our dif coveries. Huygenius carries this thought fo far, that he does not think it impoffible there may be ftars whofe light is not yet travelled down to us, fince their firft creation. There is no queftion but the

universe

univerfe has certain bounds fet to it; but when we confider that it is the work of infinite power, prompted by infinite. goodness, with an infinite fpace to exert it felf in, how can our imagination set any bounds to it?

To return therefore to my first thought, I could not but look upon my felf with fecret horror, as a Being that was not worth the fmalleft regard of one who had fo great a work under his care and fuperintendency. I was afraid of being overlooked amidst the immenfity of nature, and loft among that infinite variety of creatures, which in all probability fwarm through all these immeasurable regions of matter.

In order to recover my felf from this mortifying thought, I confidered that it took its rife from thofe narrow conceptions, which we are apt to entertain of the Divine Nature. We our felves cannot attend to many different objects at the fame time. If we are careful to infpect fome things, we muft of course neglect others. This imperfection which we obferve in our felves, is an imperfection that cleaves in fome degree to crea tures of the highest capacities, as they

are

are Creatures, that is, Beings of finite and limited natures. The presence of every created Being is confined to a certain measure of space, and confequently his obfervation is ftinted to a certain number of objects. The sphere in which we move, and act, and understand, is of a wider circumference to one creature than another, according as we rise one above another in the fcale of exiftence. But the wideft of these our fpheres has its circumference. When therefore we refl &t on the divine nature, we are fo ufed and accustomed to this imperfection in our felves, that we cannot forbear in fome measure afcribing it to him in whom there is no fhadow of imperfection. Our reafon indeed affures us that his attributes are infinite, but the poornefs of our conceptions is fuch that it cannot forbear fetting bounds to every thing it contemplates, till our reafon comes again to our fuccour, and throws down all those little prejudices which rife in us unawares, and are natural to the mind of man.

We fhall therefore utterly extinguish this melancholy thought, of our being. overlooked by our Maker in the multiplicity

"

plicity of his works, and the infinity of thofe objects among which he seems to be inceffantly employed, if we confider, in the first place, that he is Omniprefent; and, in the fecond, that he is Òmniscient.

If we confider him in his Omniprefence: His Being paffes thro', actuates, and fupports the whole Frame of nature. His creation, and every part of it, is full of him. There is nothing he has made, that is either fo diftant, fo little, or fo inconfiderable, which he does not effentially inhabit. His fubftance is within. the fubftance of every Being, whether material, or immaterial, and as intimately present to it, as that Being is to it felf. It would be an Imperfection in him, were he able to remove out of one place into another, or to withdraw himself from any thing he has created, or from any part of that space which is diffused and Ipread abroad to infinity. In short, to fpeak of him in the language of the old philofopher, he is a Being whose centre is every where, and his circumference no where.

In the second place, he is Omniscient as well as Omniprefent. His Omniscience