no less than thrice; as Irenæus had done, thrice alio, before, in Words equivalent; and Origen, probably, once; as alto* Hippolytus: not to mention that All the Fathers by interpreting, Gen. 1. 26. (momowoμer argwπor, &c.) of Father and Son jointly, have implicitely and confequentially, tho' not exprefly, faid the fame thing. To proceed:

"

You have an Argument to prove that Creating does not imply infinite Power. For, you fay, was the extent of thofe Powers, then exercis'd, infinite, 'tis evident, the World must be infinite alfo, (p. 58) This, indeed, is doing the Bufinefs at once: For, if this reafoning be juft, the Father Himfelf, as well as the Son, is effectually excluded from ever giving any fenfible Proof, or from exerting any Act, of infinite Power. St. Paul's Argument from the Creation, for the eternal Power and Godhead of the Creator, is rendred inconclufive: For it will be easy to reply, in Contradiction to the Apoftle's reafoning, that the Things which are made are finite; and therefore cannot prove the maker of Them to be infinite: So that Atheists and Unbelievers were not fo intirely without excufe, as the good Apoftle imagin'd. If you think there is fome difference between infinite Power, and eternal Power and Godhead; and therefore that the Apoftle's Argument is not

*Contr. Beron, & Hel p. 226. Comp. Contr. Noet. p. 16. The genuines of the fift is fomewhat doubtful; but the laft is not question'd.

per

pertinent to the point in Hand; I fhall be content if Creating be allowed a fufficient Proof of the Son's eternal Power and Godhead; fince it brings me directly to the Point I aim at: Befides, that infinite Power will come in of Course afterwards, by neceffary Inference and Implication. I had almost forgot to take notice of your way of wording your Argument, which looks not very fair. You fay, was the extent of thofe Powers infinite; as if any one faid it was, in the Senfe wherein you underftand the word extent. For Reasons best known to your felf, you do not diftinguish between extent of Power ad intra, in refpect of Degree; and extent of Power ad extra, in respect of the exercise of it. It may require an infinite Degree of Power, to create a grain of Sand; tho' the extent of that outward Act reaches no farther than the thing created. Now, you know, our difpute is only about infinite extent of Power in the firft Senfe. Let us therefore put the Argument into plain Words, and fee how it will bear.

66

46

"Was the Power exercis'd in the Creation infinite in Degree, or exceeding any finite Power, then it is evident that the World must be infinite. Make this out, with any tolerable Sense or Connexion, and you'l do fomething. Next let us put the Argument in the other Light.

66

"If the Power exercis'd in the Creation ex"tended to an infinite Compass, or to an in

04

"finite

66

finite Number of Things, then it is evident "that the World must be infinite. Right: If the Creation had been infinite in extent, the Creation must have been infinite in extent. But who is it that you are difputing against? Or whom do you oblige by these Dif coveries? The Question is, whether the Creating, that is, producing out of Nothing, any one Single Thing, however fmall in extent, be not an Act proper to God only; exceeding any finite Power; incommunicable to any Creature. It is fufficient for You, to put Vs upon the proof of the Affirmative: No confidering Man would ever attempt to prove the Negative. As to the Affirmative, there are many very probable prefumptive Proofs, fuch as ought to have great Weight with Us: particularly, Creation every where in Scripture look'd on as a divine Act; Not fo much as a Grain of Sand, or a Particle of Matter, faid to be created by an Angel, or Archangel, or any Creature whatever; Reasonable to fuppofe that nothing can come into Being by any Power less than His, who is the Author and Fountain of all Being. To this agrees the general Senfe of the more fober and thinking Part of Mankind. This was the Doctrine of the * Ante-Nicene Catholick Writers, fo far as ap

*Hoc Deus ab Homine differt, quoniam Deus quidem facit, Homo autem fit: & quidem Qui facit, femper Idem eft. Iren. p. 240.

Ed. Bened.

Nihil enim in totum Diabolus invenitur feciffe, videlicet cum & Ipfe Creatura fit Dei, quemadmodum & reliqui Angeli. Iren. p. 228. See alfo Bull. D. F. Epilog. p. 291, 292.

pears;

pears, as well as of Thofe that came after, Wherefore the Arians, in afcribing Creation to a Creature, * innovated in the Faith of Christ, copied after the Gnofticks, and exposed their Caufe. Since They refolved to make a Creature only, of the Son of God, they fhould not have allowed Him any Power of Creating; but fhould have interpreted all those Texts which speak in favour of it, as the Socinians have done fince, of a metaphorical Creation. That indeed had been novel, and strain'd enough; but accompanied with lefs abfurdity than the other. However, This use we may make of what the Arians fo generally granted; First, to observe, that Scripture and Tradition must have appeared to run very strong, at that time, for it: And it may farther fhow, how eafy and natural that Notion must be allowed to be, which fo many could not forbear expreffing clearly and diftinctly; even frequently when, at the fame time, they were about to affirm, and endeavoring to prove fomething not very confiftent with it. But we fhall have more of this Matter in the following Queries.

* Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐδὲ "Αγγελοι δημιυργεῖν δυνήσονται, κτίσματα, ὄντες καὶ αὐτοὶ, και Ουαλενῶν, καὶ Μαρκίων, και Βασιλείδης τοιαῦτα φρονῶσι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐκείνων ζηλωταί τυγχάνητε, Athan. Orat. 2. p. 489.

QUERY

QUERY XII.

Whether the Creator of all Things was not Himfelf uncreated; and therefore could not be it con ortor, made out of nothing.

HIS and the four following Queries, are,

Tyou lay, all, at most, but Arguments,

ad Ignorantiam, or Verecundiam, (p. 59.) to put us upon determining Things, on either fide, not clearly revealed. To fay the Truth, you feem here to be very much perplex'd; and therefore have reafon to complain: And I am not to expect any very clear and distinct Anfwers. You admit (p. 60.) that the Creator of all Things must be Himself uncreated. Well then: The Son is Creator of all Things; Therefore He is uncreated. The premises are Both your own; The Conclufion mine: And, one might think, it should be your's too. But you are, it seems, very loth to come into it; and discover a strong Inclination to elude and evade it; if it were any way poffible for you to do it. Let us fee what you can fay; If the Scripture-Sense be the true and only proper Senfe of the word, Creature, (to wit, the vifible and invifible Worlds brought into being by the Power of the Aoy, or Son of God, in Subordination to the Will and Power of the Father) then 'tis manifeft that the Aéy who thus created Them, must (whatever is the nature of his own Production or

Gene