A26923:303
An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches
An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches by reconciling explication without much disputing. Written by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for John Salusbury, 1691
Chapter 6 › An ANSWER TO Mr. Polehill's Exceptions about Futurition.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Ad 2. Nothing as nothing hath no Parts or Distinctions, but nothing may be variously named; or to speak more aptly, Before Things are Any-things a purposing and fore-seeing Agent may make Names and Notions for them before▪ the things. Greg. Ariminea copiously disputeth that (that which is not, may be related to that which is, and that which is, to that which is not, or nothing): his Reasons are subtle. Relation is rerum referebilitas or Comparibilitas. If an Angel Existed before the Light or Sun, and knew that God would make the Light or Sun, why might not the Angels Intellect refer God's Will to the Light or Sun, which he would make, while it was nothing? Which is no more than to know (that God will make such a thing which is yet nothing.) But I say these nothing's relate not to God, but God's Power, Knowledge and Will, may by an Intelligent Creature be considered (while they are not) as that which will make them, doth foresee them, &c. which is to be referred to them. It's true that nothing is no effect, and will be nothing without God (which is that I said). It's true that the Divine Power doth not make mere Possibility to be any thing, for it is ⟨p. 51⟩nothing: But it being true that God can make •hat which he yet hath not made, for this proper Speech (God can make it) man's broken thoughts •ut a Name or Epithet on that which is not, •nd call it possible for Discourse sake, and for the ordering of our thoughts about nothings, or things that yet are not (yea never will be): For we say that Millions of Millions of non futura are possible. And is Possibility then any thing extra m•ntem Di•inam & humanam? Why he spake of things being possible without the Divine Power I know not. • take Possibility as real to be but part of that Ens rationis or mental Conception which by Reasoning we take up of Non-existents, because God can make them that yet are not made. The same • say of his words (if futures be futures without the Divine will, what horrible Fate must be upon God?) Futures are nothing, and no good will ever be but by God's Will. And because he willeth it, we have the just ground of a Conclusion that it will be (if we know it). And this thought or word is therefore true, and had we been from Eternity, and had such a thought, it would have been true. And while there was no Sun or Earth, we should have said, They are futures, that is, they will be;