to what Profession or Sect soever they belong in Fur or in Silk in a Cowl or a Cassock with Ribbands up to the Pocket holes or in a Coller-band and a yea and nay pinner but if you do but get to Heaven at last it is no matter for the Road you take though you were to pass through Purgatory it self which is by much the furthest way about Petavius was a Jesuite every inch of him and these Jesuites are mightily given to sham the World with Equivocations and Mental Reservations and such like Loioliteish and Ignatian Tricks as you will see particularly in this Instance in the Sequel of my Story for I did my self the Honour to'ther day to make him a visit and to procure a more easie admittance and a more kind reception I thought it best to make use of the Doctor 's Name and I told him in as civil Language as I could that I had Service to give him from Christ's College and that it run mightily in the Head of his humble Servant and faithful Transcriber as if he had intimated something that look'd that way or let fall some words accidentally to that purpose that the word Homoousios was never used otherwise by Greek Writers then to signifie an agreement of things Numerically different in the same common Nature or Vniversal Essence and I desired him that he would be plain in the business and let us know whither we might report this in Company as from himself to be his opinion Why truly said the Jesuite after a little pause and he put on me thought a very intimating look that had as much obliging Rhetorick as would have held a Sheet and that would have sold for a Guiney had his Worship been to Transcribe it from his Countenance and Translate it out of red and white into white and black truly said he it is no small comfort and satisfaction to me to find my Dogmata so pleasing to one that is given so extremely to dogmatize himself yet am I not pleased so much for mine own sake as for that of the Catholick Religion which I in that Book have maintained and asserted for it is manifest that this Gentleman hath not only read my Book but that he writ it too I do not mean so as if it were not mine but that he writ it after me so kind is he to any thing that bears my Name that he indulges and huggs it as if it were his own and then a smile unbent the severity of his brow a false Jesuitical intimating smile it was and was as much as if he should have said These Heretics are all of them Plagiaries and Transcribers but really Sir continued he as for what he charges me with and I perceive he pretends great intimacy with me as if I had made as if the word Homoousios had no other meaning then what you speak of in any Greek Writer believe me Sir I never said any such thing in all my life nor any thing that look'd with half an Eye that way he denied it with all the Asseveration of a Jesuite at the Gallows so that I knew not what to think but finding the Man grow warm in his own defence I was very weary of his Company and offered to take my leave making the best Apology I could for giving him this disturbance and it so happening just at that nick of time that there were other scruple-mongers rapping at the Door and in great haste to be resolved the Father was glad to take me at my word and referred me for my further satisfaction to his Book de Trinitate where he said I should soon be satisfied how much the Learned Heretic had misreported him and accordingly notwithstanding that he was a rank Jesuite yet I found his words afterwards to be very true For he tells us plainly in his Fourth Book that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in use not only among the Orthodox but among the Manichean Heretics themselves long before the Nicene Council to express their Notion of the Trinity which did not consist of a specific Vnity but was taken up wholely in the Vnity of Integration and every part of that whole of which the Trinity was composed they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather Homoousion according to them signifyed the whole Substance taken together of which every single Person was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Part as our incomparable Bishop of Chester hath observed and withal corrected the Mistake of Petavius in this matter For whereas the Learned Jesuite speaking of St. Hilary's Translation of the Word Homoousion hath these Words Quod Hilarius ita Latine reddidit tanquam Homoousion id significaret quod partem substantiae habet ex toto resectam The Judicious Prelate observes that this was done by Petavius without reason for saith he St. Hillary clearly translates Homoousion barely unius Substantiae and it was in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he expressed by partem unius Substantiae from whence it is manifest in the Vsage of the Manichees who were as good Greeks as the Orthodox themselves that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyed a Part of that Substance whose whole was all of it of a similar and homogeneous Nature so Homoousion by it self signifyed that Substance which was numerically one with it self and not specifically one with another and yet this it seems was an ordinary and constant Vse of the Word among some Sort of Men and which Athanasius himself favoured in his comparison of the Vine before the Nicene Creed was known in the World or if we should allow that the whole could not so properly be said to be Homoousion as the Parts of which it consists yet this is only an Vnity of Integral Parts not a specific Vnity of several things that are consider'd as wholes by themselves and this is enough to destroy the Doctor 's Observation Nay this Interpretation of the Word Homoousios was so proper to the Manichees that as the same excellent Bishop observes Arius for this very reason pretended to reject the Name Homoousion lest hereby he should be thought to admit a real Composition or Division in the Deity and Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea refused to subscribe to the Creed of the Council of Nice till this Word was mollifyed by Interpretation so that he might be sure to take it in an Orthodox Sense But it is still more remarkable what Petavius observes concerning the Schisme that happened at Antioch about the Hypostases of the Blessed Trinity some would have it that in this Mystery there was but one Hypostasis or Divine Substance for that was it which in that Controversy they understood by the word Hypostasis others that there were three yet did the one endeavour so to explain their notion of Three Hypostases though that in Truth cannot be done as to avoid Polytheism and the other so to interpret the Doctrine of one Substance as to avoid the Heresies of Sabellius and
Trinity as an impossible and contradictious thing and they would believe nothing of which they could not give some intelligible Account a great Fault I confess when we speak of a Divine that is a confessedly infinite and incomprehensible Subject but not so great as theirs who make new difficulties to avoid the old and to escape one Mystery run into another and that so strangely freakish and so palpably ridiculous that it is a great dishonour and disparagement to the Scriptures to be thought to have imposed such whimsies upon the World for Articles of Faith and the most Sacred Mysteries of Religion For the Doctrine of Sabellianism was no other than this they are the Words of Your Neighbour Dr. Cudworth in his Intellectual System p. 605. That there was but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consequently that they were indeed but three several Names or Notions or Modes of one and the self-same thing From whence such Absurdities as these would follow That the Fathers begetting the Son was nothing but one Name or Notion or Mode of the Deity 's begetting another or else the same Deity under one Notion begetting it self under another Notion And when again the Son or Word and not the Father is said to have been incarnated and to have suffered Death for us upon the Cross That it was nothing but a meer Logical Notion or Mode of the Deity that was incarnate and suffered or else the whole of the Deity under one particular Notion or Mode only It would have been very well si sic omnia dixisset although in this very Citation there be sufficient matter for a very just Reprehension For by the Dr's Favour the Sabellian Doctrine is by no means a Consequence of this Proposition That there is but one Hypostasis or singular individual Essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost so far as the Divinity of all the Three Persons is concerned for the divine Nature in them all is to use his own way of Expression singularly individually numerically the same as I shall now immediately shew and yet for all that the Sabellian Doctrine still continues to be as false and as absurd as ever But so extremely cautious was the Orthodox Doctor of running into the Heresie of Sabellius That he not only denys the Three Persons of the Trinity to have One singular existent Essence but to avoid an Assertion which to him seems to be so full of absurdity and the more effectually to baffle Atheism which says there is no God he tells us if we will believe him That there are Three They are his own Words let him speak for himself pag. 604. It is evident from hence that these reputed Orthodox Fathers who were not a few were far from thinking the Three Hypostases of the Trinity to have the same singular existent Essence they supposing them to have no otherwise one and the same Essence of the Godhead in them nor to be one God than three individual Men have one common specifical Essence of Manhood in them and are all one Man But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decryed for Tritheistic so in the room thereof started there up that other of Persons Numerically the same or having all one and the same singular existent Essence a Doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any publick Authority in the Christian Church save that of the Lateran Council only In which words it is as plain as Words can express it that he represents the Orthodox Fathers asserting the Belief of Three Gods as much as Three Men are Three Men numerically distinct though having a specifical Identity with one another and this I think is to assert Three Gods if the Father Son and Holy Ghost be as distinct from one another as Paul and Apollos and Cephas for no man doubts but they were three several and distinct Men nay he owns the thing to save us the trouble and the charge of proving it For in the Running-Title of that very Page he calls this Trinity of these reputed Orthodox Fathers a Tritheistic Trinity and afterwards when he condemns the Doctrine of a singular existent Essence of Novelty and by consequence disallows and disapproves it as he had done deservedly the Sabellian Doctrine before we must either conclude him to be himself a Tritheistic a Sect for which I believe he may have a kindness because he loves hard Words or something else without either stick or trick which I will not name because his Book pretends to be written against it Neither was he barely content to have insinuated thus much under the Covert of the reputed Orthodox Fathers but p. 605. He is at it again being wonderful zealous to expose and baffle this Lateran Popish Doctrine of a singular existent Essence The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he as was before insinuated by Petavius was never used by Greek Writers otherwise then to signifie the agreement of things numerically different from one another in some common nature or universal essence or their having a generical Vnity or Identity of which sundry Instances might be given nor indeed is it likely that the Greek Tongue should have any Name for that which neither is a thing in Nature nor falls under human Conception viz. several things having one and the same singular Essence So that it is plain according to him having already refuted and blasted the Sabellian Doctrine that if there be indeed a Trinity of Divine Persons it consists of Three several Natures numerically different although they have a specifical sameness or Identity with one another that is in plain English there are Three Gods let Nature and the Scripture say what they please for they do both of them assure us there is but One but in regard he hath no where declared for any Trinity at all as it is his Custom to lye close in a difficult Point only hath made it his business in a multitude of Words to expose the Trinity of the reputed Orthodox Fathers therefore the most that Charity it self can allow him if it were to step forth and speak his most favourable Character to the World is That he is an Arian a Socinian or a Deist and therefore he will oblige us very much in the close of the next Volume which is expected to come out upon the last day of the last Platonic Term for the Intellectual Vniverse like the mundus aspectabilis is to consist of Two Globes of which the Celestial that is the biggest is yet to come among which of all these reputed Orthodox Divines he hath enroll'd and listed himself Nay not yet satisfyed with having a Man would think sufficiently betray'd the most sublime and sacred Mystery of the Christian Faith he confirms and inculcates the same thing by new Arguments and fresh Examples in what he saith afterwards p. 611. of the Orthodox Fathers condemning and disallowing the use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
shall instance in to shew what Sentiments the Council of Nice had in this Affair shall be the Story of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra who was one of those 318 Fathers of which that Council was composed a very strong Oppugner of the Arrian Faction as himself assures us in an Epistle written afterwards in his own Defence to Julius Bishop of Rome but yet notwithstanding not long after this Council he was Deposed from his Bishoprick for Heresie by Eusebius Caesariensis and his Party but Epiphanius makes a great doubt whether he should reckon him among Hereticks or no and it is certain that he not only approved himself to the said Julius the Roman Bishop and to Athanasius himself for a Man sound in the Faith but that the Council of Sardis determined in his favour and judging that he had been abused and misrepresented by the above mentioned Eusebius restored him to his Bishoprick again Now if it can be proved that the Doctrine of Marcellus was no other then that of the singular existent Essence in the Persons of the Trinity then it follows likewise that this was the Judgment of Julius and of Athanasius too to whom he approved himself and not only so but of the Council of Sardis also by whom he was restored and the Doctrine of the Nicene Council being at that time the Orthodox Measure of Faith we may from hence infer their Sentiments likewise The Confession of Marcellus is set down in his Epistle to Julius in Epiphanius in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is we are assured from the Holy Scriptures that the Godhead of the Father and the Son is indivisibly Vnited for if any one shall separate the Son that is the word from God Almighty or God the Father it is necessary that he either maintain the existence of two Gods which is agreed to be repugnant to the Scriptures or that he say the word is not God which is equally inconsistent with the Catholick Faith with the other for the Evangelist tells us the word was God and I have been exactly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or certainly taught that the Son is the indivisible and inseparable Power of the Father for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ saith I am in the Father and the Father in me and whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father also This Faith I having received from the Scriptures and from the Succession of Believers that have gone before me in the profession of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I Preach in the Church and write it to you In which confession Epiphanius himself grants that there is nothing which is not Orthodox and sound but yet he thinks it reasonable to believe he might be guilty of some Errours which occasioned this Defence of himself and Petavius saith That in the Books of Eusebius which were written against him there are several excerpta cited out of his own Writings which cannot bear a Justifiable Interpretation but yet he acknowledgeth Eusebius to have been too uncharitable and morosely critical and censorious in putting the worst construction upon every thing in Marcellus his Writings and representing every thing to an extremity of disadvantage very disagreeable to a fair and candid Writer and the Judgment of Petavius is confirmed by a passage in Epiphanius concerning Athanasius of whom when Epiphanius himself demanded what his Judgment was of Marcellus he gave him little or no answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only intimated by a smile that he was not far from Heretical pravity but that he looked upon him as a convert He did not say he ever was an Heretick but only seemed to intimate some such thing by a smile upon which a Man might have put different Interpretations as his fancy served as if he had not been far from something that was amiss but afterwards both saw and amended his Errour which is a mighty extenuating way of calling a Man Heretick as can possibly be imagined Petavius himself supposeth him out of hatred and detestation of the Arian Herisie to have run sometimes a little too far into the other extreme and to have enclined to the Sabellian Doctrine but it is strange to me that none of the Bishops that sat to Judge and Determine upon his Cause at Sardis and who were equal Enemies to both Extremes could discern any such thing for it is manifest they approved the Man and his opinions and whereas Petavius gives it still further as his Judgment that in this very Epistle which was directed to Julius his Confession is worded after so cold a manner that it will scarce serve to free him from the imputation of Sabellianism which his Adversaries would have cast upon him It is sufficient to me that it satisfied Julius at that time who knew Marcellus better then Petavius could do and that Athanasius himself was one of his Compurgators who is unanimously acknowledged bating the uncertainty of his resolutions as to the Modus of the Trinity none of which ought therefore to be looked upon as his fixt opinion to have been far enough from any thing that looked that way and yet there is one thing in the Confession of Marcellus which might have been thought to savour of Sabellianism were it not the express Language of the Scripture it self where speaking of the Son he says that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inseparable and indivisible Power of the Father as if he were not a distinct Person but only an Attribute or affection of that Divine Substance which is called the Father but so the Scripture speaks 1 Cor. 1. 24. Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God but what then does it follow from thence that he was not a distinct Person from God the Father by no means but only that he was a Person endued and furnisht with divine Power and Wisdom as when the People said though falsly and mistakenly of Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. This Man is the great power of God they meant no more then this not that he was an Attribute or Affection of God the Father or God the Father in a certain respect not differing from him in Person and in a separate reality of Existence but only that he was a Person working by Divine Power although I confess what the Apostle said of Christ is true in an infinitely more noble and exalted Sense than that which the People said of Simon Magus tho all had been true of him which they can be supposed to have understood by it for they meant no more than that Simon was a Person working by Divine Power and Assistance but St. Paul referred to the Vnion of the two Natures in the Person of Christ by which it came to pass the same divine Substance being common to both as shall be hereafter more particularly declared that the same Power and Wisdom numerically the same as belonging inseparably to the same Divine Substance did belong to both the Father and the Son and what that is
each other and inconsistent even with themselves and with that Doctrine which they pretended to explain Constantine himself at the latter end of his Reign began to favour the party of the Arians and Constantius during his whole time was a most bitter Persecutor of the Orthodox Bishops nay and in Julian's time the Arians were comparatively Favourites in respect of the others and so were the Donatists too who seem to have sided with them for Donatus himself wrote a Book de sp sancto pursuant to the Sentiments of Arius and his Party and in the joynt Reign of Valentinian and Valens the Partners in the Throne perhaps out of prudential and Political reasons the one Espoused the ones Interest and the other the others the better to keep all quiet underneath by the Union of the two consorts their respective Patrons in the Imperial Throne And as there could not have been a greater Service done to Christianity in the Primitive times then by finding out a clear or proper expedient by which the Vnity of the Godhead might have been kept inviolate and sacred notwithstanding there were a Trinity of Divine Persons so in this Age there is nothing can so effectually disarm the Socinians and render them inexcusable if they persist any longer in that impious and if any errour be so that damnable errour as the laying down a possible Idea of a Numerical Substance branching it self out without Polytheism or Sabellianism into three intelligible Divine Persons which will render all their tricks and fetches useless and not only useless but monstrously foolish and wicked into the bargain for so it must needs be thought to sophisticate the sence of Scriptures and to elude the force of those Arguments that are taken from it by strain'd Interpretations when the most natural obvious and willing sense inculcated over and over in an hundred places and upon an hundred occasions is also reconcileable to humane reason as well as revealed by Divine Wisdom and supported by no less Authority then that of God himself and therefore this is that which I am now about to do for the Glory of God and for the Vindication of Religion from the Corruption of Heretics and the Scorn of Atheists and the method I intend very briefly to proceed in shall be this first I will prove by undeniable force of Argument that there are more Divine Persons then one and secondly I will shew clearly how notwithstanding this that it is very possible there may be but one Divine Substance Numerically the same in all the several Personalities wherein it is found For the proof of the first it will be sufficient to refer you to the discourse it self to which what I have now written though it were intended only as a Preface yet it now begins to swell into so large a bulk that it may pass instead of a Preface for a Book by it self and may deserve the Name much better than the thing it self to which it was designed only as a Prefatory Introduction For in that Discourse I have undenyably proved the Divinity of the Son considered as a Person distinct from God the Father and this is enough for the demonstrative clearing of the first thing proposed viz. That there are more divine Persons than one but because nothing can be too sure especially an Article of this Importance therefore to what I have said already in the following Papers I will subjoyn two things more And the first of those two Things which I shall insist upon shall be a further Improvement of the Story of Melchisedec which hath been already urged in the following Papers so far that it would amount already without any further trouble if prejudice were not oftentimes too hard for Demonstration it self to an unanswerable Demonstration of the Divinity of the Son this Melchisedek in that Chapter to the Hebrews from whence my Argument is taken is compared to the Son of God For it is said of him v. 3. that made like unto the Son of God he abideth a Priest continually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as made after a Copy or made by way of Emanation as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Transcript of an Original M. S. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are streams or rays flowing from an Electrical or a Luminous Body and so in this place it seems as if there were a Priority of Existence attributed to the Son after whose Pattern and Resemblance Melchisedek was made and yet v. 21. that place of the Psalmist is applyed to our Saviour Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedek in which the priority of existence seems to be inverted and attributed not to the Son of God but to Melchisedek to whom he is compared now it being utterly impossible and absurd that the same thing or Person with respect to the same should be both Prior and Posterior in existence it is impossible to reconcile these places any otherwise than by saying that the same Person is compared with himself and Melchisedek when he is said to be like to the Son of God is the Priest of the most High God who appeared to Abraham compared with that Eternal High-Priest though he had not yet entred upon the actual Administration of his Priestly Office who saith of himself before Abraham was I am God over all Blessed for ever and it is true of both of them and applyed expresly to both what we find written in the beginning of that Verse without Father without Mother without Descent having neither beginning of days nor end of Life which cannot be truly spoken of any but God alone or in this place of the eternal Logos the Word the Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds by an Eternal Generation and there being but one God or one Son of God in this Superlative and transcendent Sense it is manifest that the same Person is compared with himself and as Melchisedek appearing in human shape is here compared to the Eternal Son and in the Comparison is considered as posterior to him notwithstanding he were the very same with him that had existed eternally and from everlasting without any such humane bodily appearance and in this respect might well enough be said to be prior or antecedent to him prior to himself as perfectly incorporeal with respect to himself as afterwards united to the reality or appearance of an human Body so is the same Melchisedek though subsequent to the Son of God in that Sense which hath been declared yet prior to the same considered as incarnate and born afterwards in the Fulness of Time of the Virgin Mary for this Melchisedek that appeared to Abraham was a Type and Figure of Christ incarnate and by consequence was really before him that is before Christ being born of the Virgin Mary appeared in the Flesh and dwelt among us and so Christ is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedek as
is this that ascribes to chance or fortune the effects of the most unsearchable wisdom and profound design and therefore it follows that Job in his afflictions might not distrust the providence of God and think that all things were governed by an ungovernable necessity and an inconsiderate fate Gird up now thy Loyns like a Man for I will demand of thee and answer thou me Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth declare if thou hast understanding who has laid the measures thereof if thou knowest or who hath stretched the line upon it Whereupon are the Foundations thereof fastned or who laid the Corner stone thereof And much more to the same purpose in this and the following and in several other Chapters wherein the Providence of God in the Creation of the World and in the government of it is with great strength and eloquence vindicated and asserted as indeed the whole Book of Job is little else but a discourse upon Providence and the best that ever was written upon that Subject so also the Prophet speaks as it were in imitation of Jobs Catechistical way Who hath measured the Waters in the hollow of his hand and meeted out Heaven with the span and comprehended the dust of the Earth in a measure and weighed the Mountains in scales and the Hills in a balance Then which expressions it is impossible to frame any more significant to declare the power and wisdom of God and to let us see that this world was not the effect of chance but of the most wise and wonderful design and knowledge so likewise the Apostle to the Romans tells us tho' I know that place be otherwise interpreted by the Socinian Doctors who have a great deal to answer for upon account of perverse and distorted Interpretations where he impleads and impeaches the Heathen World as guilty of inexcusable Idolatry because that vvhen they knevv God they glorified him not as God neither vvere thankful but became vain in their Imaginations and their foolish heart vvas darkened and if you ask him how they knevv God he answers it vvas by the vvorks of the Creation in which as in a Glass his Divinity and his attributes are clearly represented Rom. 1. v. 19 20. That vvhich may be seen of God is manifest in them for God hath shevved it unto them for the invisible things of him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even his eternal Povver and Godhead so that they are vvithout excuse Neither does the Scripture assert the Providence of God only as to the whole creation taken together or as to the greater and more considerable parts of it but that it extends to every individual Creature and to the most minute inconsiderable disregarded things that are to be met with in it Are not two Sparrows saith our Saviour sold for a Farthing and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father But as for us he tells us that the very Hairs of our Head are all numbred and in another place he advises his Disciples in these words Take ye no thought for to morrow what ye shall eat nor what ye shall drink nor yet for your Body what ye shall put on behold the Fowls of the Air for they sow not neither do they reap nor gather into Barns yet your Heavenly Father feedeth them are you not much better than they Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his Stature And why take ye thought for Rayment consider the Lillies of the Field how they grow they toil not neither do they spin and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his Glory was not arrayed like one of these wherefore if God so cloth the Grass which to day is and to morrow is cast into the Oven shall he not much more cloth you O ye of little Faith This is likewise the language of the Book of Job he provideth for the Raven his food when his young ones cry unto God and of the Psalmist in the 104th Psalm He sendeth the Springs into the Valleys which run among the Hills they give drink to every Beast of the Field the Wild Asses quench their thirst by them shall the Fowls of the Heaven have their Habitation which sing among the Branches he watereth the Hills from his Channels the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works he causeth the grass to grow for the Cattle and Herb for the service of man that he may bring forth Food out of the Earth and wine that maketh glad the heart of man and Oyl to make his face to shine and bread which strengtheneth mans heart and in another place speaking of the Organization and contexture of his own Body and of all the Parts and Members and Vessels of which it consists which may be understood in proportion of the Bodies of all other Animals likewise he says thou hast covered me in my Mothers Womb I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made marvellous are thy Works and that my Soul knoweth right well my Substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth thine eyes did see my Substance yet being imperfect and in thy Book were all my Members written which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them How precious are thy Thoughts unto me O God how great is the summe of them So that this is plainly and constantly the language of the Scriptures as well as it is of nature and of reason that all things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made that God alone is worthy to receive Glory and Honour and Power for that he hath created all things and for his pleasure they are and were created that he who is the Eternal Source of Wisdom Power and Goodness hath created all things for himself that is to be testimonies to the world of his Attributes and his perfections of his unspeakable Mercy his unsearchable Knowledge and his unlimited power and that all things were made chiefly for these two ends First to be a standing Testimony of his existence and his nature and secondly to contribute to the happiness of his Creatures and to the mutual subsistence of each other But now the Epicureans they tell us that all things came by chance that the Ear was not made for hearing nor the Eye for seeing nor the Nostrils for smelling but that all this seeming contrivance and appearing VVisdom is owing to nothing else but to the lucky concourse of Atomes happily disposed after such a manner as is requisite for that purpose and therefore by consequence that it was but an idle taunt which the Psalmist bestows upon the Idols of the Heathen Psal 115. Their Idols are Silver and Gold the work of mens hands they have mouths but they speak not eyes have