62 
a providential end of God; so that, if our sight were clear 
enough, we should be able to discern that all Nature's forces, 
though governed by fixed laws, serve, in connection with 
humanity, an end superior to the physical aspect of Nature, 
even the realization of an order, moral, spiritual, divine. 
To turn to the second objection to an overruling Providence 
on the ground of the unworthiness of the idea that God could 
interest himself in the concerns of a being so insignificant as 
man. The objection may be drawn from Revelation itself, 
“What is man that Thou art mindful of him?" No doubt 
Scripture does speak of the grandeur of God, and the littleness 
of man, with unparalleled energy of language, but it never 
draws an inference favourable to Fatalism. 
Listen to the language of a prophet spoken more than 3,000 
years ago, in a passage so beautiful that it cannot fail to strike 
even the coldest imagination. “ Who hath measured the waters 
in the hollow of His hand, meted out the heavens with a span, 
and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, weighed 
the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath 
directed the spirit of the Lord ? Who, being His counsellor, hath 
taught Him anything? Behold ! the nations before Him are as 
a drop in the bucket." Thus did the prophet express himself, 
and this is the feeling that naturally prevails in man. Can any 
picture be more striking of our weakness compared to the 
grandeur of God ? But what is the consequence ? Isaiah 
draws from it : “ Sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest thou, O 
Israel, my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment passed 
over from my God ? Knowest thou not the Lord, the everlasting 
God, hath created heaven and earth ; He fainteth not, neither 
is weary ; He shall feed his flock like a shepherd ; He shall 
gather the iambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom." 
God is great, therefore he is unmindful of us. Such is the 
human syllogism. 
God is great, therefore He hath respect unto the lowly : such 
is the logic of God. Which is the most reasonable we leave 
our adversaries to judge. 
But it is asserted as a reproach that we thus make the lowest 
of His creatures the objects of His care. Is it, then, to be 
admitted that it is a mark of true grandeur not to occupy itself 
with that which is small ? 
Should we call a poet great who, absorbed in the plan of his 
epic, neglected harmony of rhythm and propriety of diction on 
the ground that they were below his attention ? Should we 
call a general great who, in the arrangement of a campaign, 
thought he might safely neglect the details as unimportant ? 
Do we not, on the contrary, see evident signs of true genius to 
