An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches

In the Conclusion I was about to wish that you would have done somewhat that tended to my Edification, and when you had all this while talked for the Entity of futurity that you would have deigned ⟨p. 66⟩to tell me what it is; if it be anything, why would you not say, what? Is it a Substance or an Accident? What Accident (or mode) or of what Substance? Could you forget that this would be expected from you? And whether Futurity be annihilated or turned into somewhat else when the thing existeth. But I find that you have made a kind of attempt, saying [Things have an esse intentionale in God's will, though not an esse Reale in themselves.] And is this all that we shall have instead of the Definition, that should have gone before, and instead of regarding and Answering what I had said of the Point? 1. Here then you intimate that Futurity hath no esse reale in it self; and it is the esse reale that I denied▪ Why lost you so much Labour. 2. Can you English to any man that takes words for means of understanding things, what it is for [Things to have an esse intentionale in God?] 1. Sure the common Doctrine of esse intentionale in man, needs an Oedipus. 2. But alas how shall I know what esse intentionale is in God? 3. Much less how millions of millions of Nothings have their esse intentionale in God. Qu. 1. Is that esse intentionale any thing real besides God himself? 2. Are such esse's as many in God as the things will be in themselves? Hath God Accidents, and so many millions of millions of Accidents, and yet most simple and immutable? 3. What are all these things in God from eternity in proper language? are they his Volitions or Intellections? And are these so numerous? Or are they Creatures in esse intentionali? Do not you confess that that esse is non-esse as to any Creature? If you mean Pl•••onick Idea's, are not Idea's and Species, as they ⟨p. 67⟩are called, in man, the notes of his Imperfection, while his Soul knoweth, ut forma, in a Body, as distinct from perfect intuition? I refer you to what I have said of Divine Idea's, and pray you to feign nothing in God without proof. But if you do prove such, forget not the next time, that I denied not the truth of any Divine Idea or Knowledge.

In the Conclusion I was about to wish that you would have done somewhat that tended to my Edification, and when you had all this while talk'd for the Entity of futurity that you would have deigned