terms. You may see some testimonies, in the margin, from Athenagoras, Tatian, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. It would be easy to add more, from Hippolytus, Gregory of Neocæsarea, Novatian, and indeed from the generality of the Church writers down from Barnabas to the Council of Nice. I must observe to you, that even your admired u Eusebius, (whom you before quoted in your favour, mistaking him very widely,) he applies the title of ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων, (the highest which you think the Father himself can have,) to the Son, no less than thrice; as Irenæus had done, thrice also, before, in words equivalent; and Origen, probably, once; as also * Hippolytus: not to mention that all the Fathers, by interpreting Gen. i. 26. (wońowμev äv≈gwлov, &c.) of Father and Son jointly, have implicitly and consequentially, though not expressly, said the same thing. To proceed. You have an argument to prove that creating does not imply infinite power. 66 For," 66 you say, Iwas the extent "of those powers then exercised, infinite, it is evident, "the world must be infinite also," (p. 58.) This indeed is doing the business at once: for, if this reasoning be just, the Father himself, as well as the Son, is effectually excluded from ever giving any sensible 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 rendered inconclusive: for it will be easy

Τὸν λόγον πεποιηκέναι πάντα, ὅσα ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ ἐνετείλατο. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 63. Comp. Athanas. de Decret. S. N. p. 216.

Δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων, κτισὴν, ποιητὴν, τῶν πάντων. Origen. apud Huet. Origenian. p. 38.

N. B. This last citation, from a catena, is of less authority; but the citations from his other certainly genuine works are, in sense, equivalent.

u Euseb. in Psalm. p. 125. de Laud. Const. c. 14. in Ps. p. 630. See also in Psalm. 631. in the first of the three places the words are remarkably full and strong. Ὁ δημιουργὸς λόγος, ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων. The other two are equivalent in sense. 'ATÚTWY ZOINTùs, and i words aura: where as is understood.

16.

* Contr. Beron. et Hel. p. 226. Comp. contr. Noet. p. The genuineness of the first is somewhat doubtful; but the last is not questioned.

to reply, in contradiction to the Apostle's reasoning, 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 so entirely without excuse, as the good Apostle imagined. If you think there is some difference between infinite power, and eternal power and Godhead; and therefore that the Apostle's argument is not pertinent to the point in hand; I shall be content, if creating be allowed a sufficient proof of the Son's eternal power and Godhead; since it brings me directly to the point I aim at: besides, that infinite power will come in of course afterwards, by necessary inference and implication. I had almost forgot to take notice of your way of wording your argument, which looks not very fair. You say, was the extent of those powers infinite;" as if any one said it was, in the sense wherein you understand the word extent. For reasons best known to yourself, you do not distinguish between extent of power ad intra, in respect 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; though the extent of that outward act reaches no farther than the thing created. Now, you know, our dispute is only about infinite extent of power in the first sense. Let us therefore put the argument into plain words, and see how it will bear.

66

"Was the power exercised 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 connection, and you will do something. Next let us put the argument in the other light.

"If the power exercised in the creation extended to an infinite compass, or to an infinite 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 disputing against? Or whom do you oblige by these discoveries? The question is, whether the creating, that is,

ture.

producing out of nothing, any one single thing, however small in extent, be not an act proper to God only; exceeding any finite power; incommunicable to any creaIt is sufficient for you, to put us upon the proof of the affirmative: no considering man would ever attempt to prove the negative. As to the affirmative, there are many very probable presumptive proofs, such as ought to have great weight with us: particularly, creation everywhere in Scripture looked on as a divine act; not so much as a grain of sand, or a particle of matter, said to be created by an angel, or archangel, or any creature whatever; reasonable to suppose 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 sense of the more sober and thinking part of mankind. This was the doctrine of the y Ante-Nicene Catholic writers, so far as appears, as well as of those that came after. Wherefore the Arians, in ascribing creation to a creature, innovated in the faith of Christ, copied after the Gnostics, a and exposed their cause. Since they resolved to make a creature only, of the Son of God, they should not have allowed him any power of creating; but should have interpreted all those texts which speak in favour of it, as the Socinians have done since, of a metaphorical creation. That indeed had been novel, and strained enough; but accompanied with less absurdity than the other. However, this use we may make of what the Arians so 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 shew, "how easy

y Hoc Deus ab homine differt, quoniam Deus quidem facit, homo autem fit: et quidem qui facit, semper idem est. Iren. p. 240. ed. Bened.

Nihil enim in totum Diabolus invenitur fecisse, videlicet cum et ipse creatura sit Dei, quemadmodum et reliqui angeli. Iren. p. 228.

See also Bull. D. F. Epilog. p. 291, 292..

* Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐδὲ ἄγγελοι δημιουργεῖν δυνήσονται, κτίσματα ὄντες καὶ αὐτοὶ, κἂν Οὐαλιντῖνος, καὶ Μαρκίων, καὶ Βασιλείδης τοιαῦτα φρονώσι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐκείνων ζηλωταὶ TVYXάVATE. Athan. Orat. ii. p. 489.

a See Serm. iii. p. 99, &c.

"and natural that notion must be allowed to be, which "so many could not forbear expressing clearly and dis"tinctly; even frequently when, at the same time, they "were about to affirm, and endeavouring to prove, some"thing not very consistent with it." But we shall have more of this matter in the following Queries.

QUERY XII.

Whether the Creator of all things was not himself uncreated; and therefore could not be oux ovτwv, made out of nothing?

THIS and the four following Queries, "are," you say, "all, at most, but arguments, ad ignorantiam, or verecun"diam, (p. 59.) to put us upon determining things, on "either side, not clearly revealed." To say the truth, you seem here to be very much perplexed; and therefore have reason to complain: and I am not to expect any very clear and distinct answers. 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 conclusion mine and, one might think, it should be yours 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 possible for you to do it. Let us see what you can say; "If the Scripture-sense be the true " and only proper sense of the word creature, (to wit, the "visible and invisible worlds brought into being by the 66 power of the Aóyos, or Son of God, in subordination to "the will and power of the Father,) then it is manifest "that the Aoyos, who thus created them, must (whatever "is the nature of his own production or generation) be, "in this way of speaking, uncreated." This is something mysterious. It is however very plain that you are straining hard for some odd, peculiar sense of the word creature, or created; which is to be called the Scripturesense; and if this does not relieve you, all is lost.

You give us the "Scripture Doctrine" of the creation; expressing both the creation itself, and the Person by whom it was wrought: and that whole doctrine, though set forth in many words, you call the "Scripture-sense" of that one word, creature, or created. As if I should say, the Scripture-account of the ark is, that it was made by Noah; therefore the "Scripture-sense" of the word ark, implies the making of it by Noah. Or, the Scriptureaccount of the temple is, that it was built by Solomon; therefore the Scripture-sense of the word temple, supposes it to be something made by Solomon: and if there were ever so many temples besides that one, yet they could not properly be called temples, unless built by Solomon. This is just as good as your pretence, that creating does not signify simply creating; but creating by the Aoyos. Give me leave to ask, whether the Jews, who kept their Sabbath in memory of the creation, and undoubtedly took their notion of it from Scripture, understood the word constantly in your sense, as created by the Aoyos? If they did, that is a point I may make some use of another time: if they did not, then the "Scrip"ture-sense" of the word creature, before the coming of the Messiah, was something different from what you have given us. I shall only add, that your pretended sense of the word creature, or created, does not seem to have prevailed so early as St. John's time. He tells us, all things were made by him, that is, by the Aóyos; and "without "him was not any thing made that was made." Might he not better have said, in short, all things were created, neither was there any thing but what was created? It was perfectly needless, if your pretence be true, to insert, by him; because, in the "Scripture-sense" of the word, it was implied, and the addition of it only renders it tautology.

You go on to say, "it is, I think, for this reason, that "the Scriptures never say that he is created." Ingenuously confessed; and therefore I hope you will not presume, either to say, or to believe, that he is created. As