Baxter - Houston-Packer Collection BT70 .B397 1675

©ftheNature, Knowledge, Will Cities; and raife Controver&es about the Reafons and the Order of them, yea, unto dangerous inferences ; whenas a. They can prove no fuch thing in God as they affert. 2. Nay, when we fay fo much to prove the çontrary. 499. Andhere confider, whether Scotus himfelf affert not without all heed or proof, that God hath a pofitive knowledge and reflexive volition of his own Non - volition? and fo that aNullity as to hisown ad, muttbe the terminus of a pofitivead e When thatNullity is neither God, nor a Creature, nor aliquid vel Dei vel Creature ; and fo feemeth to be no denominating terminus of a diftinct aft. Yet no doubt, God is not to becalled lgnoránt of fuch Nullities or Idle ; for thofe are terms of pri- vation : if Godbe Paid either not to Know nothings or not to will or wild them, it is becaufe it fignifieth his Perfection: And no part of perfection is wanting to him. But we mutt not place his perfeftion in a conformity toour imperfect modeofknowing or willing. 5co. Forwe dare not here prefumeperemptorily to determine Negative; ly, that God doth not pofitivelÿ will his own non-agency or non- valiti- ens ; becaufe we know how dark we are anddiftant from God, and unfit to fay any thing but certainties of him,as certaintruth But we abftain from thecontrary affertion, as utterlyunproved, andwe will imputeno needlefs ads toGod ashis Perfection :: Thoughwe yield toreputative moral deno- minations. Sat. And fo I contradict not the language ofAquinas r. q. r.}. 9 who faith, that God knoweth fuch non entities as never will be, at pobilia; And effe inpotencia quamvìs non in attu is more thannothing. But re- member that effe inpotentia fpeaketh the effe Potentia, but the pof/ibile is apure nothing. So that this is but to know the Potentia,; and not any thing elfe. Yet no doubt butGodknoweth all things as they arein him- felf; that is, heknoweththathe cando all things, and knowethwhat he knoweth and willeth s. but this is no effe creatura but God himfelf, at leaft as to that whichnever will be. But if any will call it a knowingof things poffiblewhich are nothings, whenGod knoweth his own Power to make them, we quarrel notwithwords, while the fenfe is known. 5o2. Butremember that it is not the Knowledge, but Decrees and valiti- ens of God that our enquiry now is about : And Aquinas andhisfollowers commonly fay, that Gods will goeth not fo far ashis knowledge ; and that he knoweth indeedmala ex bono of which they are the privation ( as no doubt hecloth fo far as it is not imperfectionto be faid to know them, or asthey are objectsofknowledge) but yet that Mala nequevolt, neque no lit, fed tantum non-volt, asLombard laid. 503. OckamQi dlïb.3. q. 6. hath thequeftion, Zftrum Cognitio intuit, tiva poteft effe de objeelo cognito? And he t. concludeth that per paten- tiara divinara pateft effe de objello non exente ; but he meaneth only rodfait velfuerit. 2. That naturally it cannot be. And faith that Con- tradii/io eft quod vifo fit, & tamen illud quadvidetur, non It in effefíu net effe paffit: Ideo contradittio eft quad chimera videatur intuitive: fednon eft contradiltio food illiid podvidetur nihil fit in acT&extra cans fam foam; dummodo potfit elk in efettu , vel aliquandofuerit in reruns UntieDeus ab aterno videt motes res fa/tibiles,'tamer. tune nullafuerunt Bywhich it is plain, thathe meaneth as Aquinas, that it is notasNothin, but as Po Bibles and Futures they are knowneven by God, Paving that Aquinas and his followers judge that they are from eternity fore-known in their properexiftence, by reafon that all times and things are prefent inEternity.. Now toknow a Poffibility of a thing, i _ .._ net