An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches

Ad 5. Because God decreeth to do any thing, you and I, when we know it, may truly say (This will be;) and (will be) is no being, but Gods will and our knowledge and our words are. Alas, that so much skill is necessary not to be deceived by ambiguity of words. God's Knowledge and your Knowledge and your Words, may be all true; and yet Futurity ex parte rei futurae, hath no proper Verity, metaphysical, physical or moral, being no ⟨p. 55⟩subject capable of any such. You say [Did not the Futurity of the World result from a Decree?] It's […]earisome at every Sentence to repeat Distinction and open Confusion. The futurity of the World is nothing, Extra mentem Divinam & humanam, & extra propositionem de futuritione. Why talk you of our designing another Origin, when we are proving, that it's nothing, and needs no Cause? And why answer you not what I wrote against Dr. Twice, before you call for an Answer to him? Or at least, why answer you not Strangius, but impertinently talk of the Serpent Socinus? If Socinus had no more wit than to take the Futurity of Sin for a Being, (Substance, Accident or Mode) no wonder if he knew not how to deny that God is the Cause of it. And why do you not attempt to answer me, who tell you, That if you take it to be a real Being and eternal, you must take it to be God himself; for nothing else is eternal. But I pray you say not (like your former arguing about nothing) [The eternal Futurity of Sin is God himself; ergo, God is the eternal Futurity of Sin.] The Subject and Predicate are not so convertible as you seem to make them. You say, if we say, Futurity is nothing, then it is a wonder, an independent on God and his Will, self-originated and unpreventable, &c. You write no wonders to me, this rate of Discourse being common in the World, and hath been in most Ages. Is Nothing a wonder? Is it a wonder for nothing to be independent? but yet that which hath no dependent Being, may so far as a Nothing be at God's will, that he continue nothing or make something (the first non agendo, the second agendo) as he pleases, that is, by willing or not willing. And it were a wonder indeed for ⟨p. 56⟩Nothing to be self-originated, or that Nothing should spring from any thing as an efficient Cause: But reductively some Nothings may be ascribed to God's Non-agency, as Beings good are to his action.

Ad 5. Because God decreeth to do any thing, you and I, when we know it, may truly say (This will be;) and (will be) is no being, but Gods will and our knowledg and our words are. Alas, that so much skill is necessary not to be deceived by ambiguity of words. God's Knowledg and your Knowledge and your Words, may be all true; and yet Futurity ex parte rei futurae, hath no proper Verity, metaphysical, physical or moral, being no