In order to recover myself from this mortifying thought, I consider that it took its rise from those narrow conceptions which we are apt to maintain of the divine nature.  We ourselves cannot attend to many different objects at the same time.  If we are careful to inspect some things, we must of course neglect others.

8.  This imperfection which we observe in ourselves, is an imperfection that cleaves in some degree to creatures of the highest capacities, as they 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 consequently his observation is stinted 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 scale of existence.

9.  But the widest of these our spheres has its circumference.  When, therefore, we reflect on the divine nature, we are so used and accustomed to this imperfection in ourselves, that we cannot forbear in some measure ascribing it to him in whom there is no shadow of imperfection.  Our reason indeed ascribes that his attributes are infinite, but the poorness of our conceptions is such, that it cannot forbear setting bounds to every thing it contemplates, till our reason comes again to our succour, and throws down all those little prejudices which rise in us unawares, and are natural to the mind of man.

10.  We shall therefore utterly extinguish this melancholy thought, of our being overlooked by our Maker in the multiplicity of his works, and the infinity of those objects among which he seems to be incessantly employed, if we consider, in the first place, that he is omnipresent, and in the second, that he is omniscient.

If we consider him in his omnipresence; his being passes through, actuates and supports the whole frame of nature.  His creation, and every part of it, is full of him.

11.  There is nothing he has made, that is either so distant, so little, or so inconsiderable, which he does not essentially inhabit.  His substance is within the substance of every being, whether material or immaterial, and is intimately present to it, as that being is to itself.  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 spread abroad to infinity.  In short, to speak of him in the language of the old philosophers, He is a being whose centre is every where, and his circumference no where.

12.  In the second place, he is omniscient as well as omnipresent.  His omniscience, indeed, necessarily and naturally flows from his omnipresence.  He cannot but be conscious of every motion that arises in the whole material world, which he thus essentially pervades; and of every thought that is stirring in the intellectual world, to every part of which he is thus intimately united.  Several moralists have considered the creation as the temple of God, which he has built with his own hands, and which is filled with his presence.