The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...

IEANES.

THe Minor of this Argument reduced into forme, which you place first, will be denied by the Scotists; The Major which you put in the second place, will be denied generally by the Thomists.

As for the Minor of this Argument put in the first place, There is no∣thing in the Creature univocally and formally the same with any thing which is in God. This the Scotists deny, as you may see in Scotus himselfe lib. 1. Distinct. 3. Q. 1. Distinct. 8. Q. 3. Rada part. 1. Controver. 21. Faber Faven∣tinus Philosoph. Natural. Theorem. 95. And they bring such subtill reasons as you will confesse, when you reade them, to be worthy of an answer. As for your reason, they are not within Gun-shot of it. For these attri∣butes which they affirme to be in the Creature univocally the same with those in God, are to be understood quoad communes non proprias rationes, quoad conceptum convenientiae non discrepantiae, In such a notion and con∣sideration as is abstracted from finite and infinite, and so more generall then either God or the creature. Conceptus communis (saith Scotus) est ex se formaliter neuter respectu eorum quibus est communis: But the objective conceipt of these attributes, which denominate God and the creature, is common unto God and the creature, and therefore formally neither fi∣nite nor infinite, but abstracting from both. But perhaps my dulnesse cannot pierce into the depth of this argument. You may doe well for my conviction to improve it unto the utmost, and yet, if I be not mista∣ken, the uttermost that you can prove thereby is, that which will not be denyed unto you by the Scotists, to wit, that nothing, no not Fns, of all predicates one of the most abstract and transcendentall, can be affirmed

of God and the creature univocally, in regard of a physicall univocation. Rada part. 1. Controv. 21. Art. 1. pag. 328. 333. and that these attributes which denominate God and the creature are predicated equivocally; if we speake of a * 1.1 Physicall equivocation, it is manifest.

First, because the objective conceipt of them, as denominating both God and the Creature is one and the same, only by the abstraction of the understanding, and not Physically or a parte rei. This you have yeelded unto by Scotus in answer unto the objection of Henricus, that Primo diver∣sa in nullo conveniunt, sed Deus est primò diversus a quacun{que} creatura &c. Unto this Scotus answers lib. 1. distinct. 8. Q. 3. Deus & Creatura non sunt primò diversa in conceptibus; tamen sunt primò diversa in realitate, quia in nullà realitate conveniunt. Et quomodo esse possit conceptus communis sine convenientiâ in re vel in realitate, in sequenti dicetur. Deus & Creatura (saith Rada a famous Scotist) sunt primò diversa subjectivè, quia scilicet in nulla realitate per differentias contrahibili conveniunt, sed non sunt primò di∣versa objectivè & quoad intellectum, sicut nec decem praedicamenta, quia Ens de eis praedicatur in quid. part. 1. controver. 21. Art. 2. pag. 214.

Secondly, Physically and a parte rei, there is a greater distance between God and the creature, then there is between any creatures; for 'tis an in∣finite distance. This is all which is proved by that reason of Bannes in 1. par. Thom. Q. 13. Art. 5. That all created perfections in comparison of uncrea∣ted, are but painted and umbratick, the best of created beings in compa∣rison of God are but shadowes and pictures, Esay 40. 17. All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him lesse then nothing. Omnis perfectio creata comparatione ad increatam perfectionem, est quasi depicta & umbratica, Ergo &c.

The major of your Syllogisme put into forme, and placed in the second place, to wit, (If prescience or foreknowledge being properly and formally in the creature, should be properly and formally also in God, there should be some∣what in the creature univocally & formally the same with somewhat that is in God) will generally be denied by Thomists, who will acquaint you with a middle kind of predication, betwixt equivocall and univocall, to wit, ana∣logicall, according unto which they affirme those attributes to be predi∣cated, which denominate both God and the creature. In 1. part. Thom. Q. 13. Art. 5. They instance in Ens, which is properly and formally predicated of God and the creature, and yet neither univocally nor equivocally but a∣nalogically, analogià quae est per attributionem intrinsecam, and not only ana∣logia proportionis, as laughter is affirmed of a man and a green or flouri∣shing meadow; nor yet only analogia attributionis quae fit per extrinsecam denominationem, as when health is predicated of a sensitive creature in the first place, as the subject in which it is seated, and of meats, drinkes, me∣dicaments, urines, secondarily, in reference unto, and by extrinsecall deno∣mination from that health which is in a sensitive creature, unto which they are referred either as causes or tokens of it: see Suarez, Scheibler, Mo∣risanus, Logic: Mexic.

To make this matter more plaine, I shall distinguish of a twofold ac∣ception of Univocall; one Logicall, the other Metaphysicall.

First Logicall, in which 'tis adequately opposed unto equivocall, and so every predicate is univocall, that is, not purely, & meerly equivocall, which

imparts only its name, and not any common signification thereof. Predi∣cates thus Univocall, are said to be Logically univocall, because this kind of univocation is sufficient as to Logicall ends and purposes, as for the fra∣ming a contradiction, and to be the middle terme in a demonstration.

Secondly, there is a Metaphysicall acception of Univocall, in which 'tis inadequately opposed unto Equivocall, that is, partly unto Equivocall, and partly unto Analogicall. An Equivocall predicate only imparts its name, and not any common signification thereof. An Analogicall predicate im∣parts both its name and signification unto the things of which it is predi∣cated, but unequally, in regard of that inequality, which is of essentiall dependency, secundum prius & posterius, as they say; so Ens is predicated of substance, and Accident; analogically of substance in the first place, and primarily, as its principall analogate; of Accident in the second place, with attribution, order, or reference unto, and dependance upon substance.

These things thus premised, I lay downe these two conclusions, against which whatsoever you object I shall be ready to answer.

The first conclusion, Diverse attributes, which denominate God, and the Creature, are predicated of them univocally in a Logicall acception of Univocall, as it is adequately opposed unto Equivocall; that is, they are not predicated of God, and the Creature, meerely and purely Equivocally.

For first, not only the bare words, but a common and abstracted signi∣fication of them is found both in God and the Creature, I might instance in Ens, substance, goodnesse, wisdome, justice, &c.

Secondly, because otherwise nothing can be known, or demonstrated of God by, or from the creatures, but still there would be the fallacy of equivocation, Ex cognitione unius aequivocati nihil potest cognosci alterius: And this is as well against the Philosopher, who proveth many things demonstratively of God; as against the Apostle Rom. 1. 20. saying, The invisible things of him from the creation of the World are clearely seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternall power, and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. This is a reason given by Aquinas. p. 1. q. 13. art. 5. Nomina quae dicuntur de Deo & creaturis, non dicuntur purè aequi∣vocè ut aliqui dixerunt. Quia secundum hoc ex creaturis nil possit cog∣nosci de Deo, nec demonstrari, sed semper incideret fallacia aequivocationis, & hoc est tam contra Philosophum 8. Phys. 12. Metaph. qui multa demonstra∣tive de Deo probat, quam etiam contra Apostolum dicentem. Roman. 1. Invi∣sibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellect a conspiciuntur.

This is all that the Scotists can prove by their arguments, which they bring to prove the Univocation of Ens, as predicated of God and the creature; and this they fully and strongly prove. And indeed if the matter be well looked into, the contention here between the Thomists and the Scotists, is a meere strife of words, de modo loquendi.

The second conclusion, No attribute whatsoever denominating God and the creature, is predicated of them univocally, as Univocall is opposed unto Analogicall: for those attibutes which doe agree unto God most pro∣perly, are predicated of God, & the creature unequally, in poynt of essen∣tial order; of God primarily, & independently, of the creature secondarily, & dependently, with relation unto God. In God they are by his Essence, in the creatures but by participation. This I might exemplify by instancing in that which is under debate, infallible knowledge of things to come, that are contingent, is affirmed of God chiefly, & in the first place; of the crea∣ture only dependently upon, & derivedly frō God: whereupon an infalli∣ble, underived, & independent foreknowledge of future contingents is in∣communicable

unto any creature. Iames 4. 14. You know not, saith Iames, what shall be on the morrow.

Before I take my leave of this section, I shall desire you, that whereas I affirme, that what words are attributable unto God properly, dicuntur de Deo prius quam de creaturis, you would be pleased to understand it in regard of the things, or perfections signified by those words, and not barely in regard of their imposition. This limitation Aquinas puts unto the Question. p. 1. Q. 13. art. 6. Nomina, quae proprie de Deo praedicantur, quantum ad rem significatam per prius dicuntur de Deo, quàm de creaturis, quia a Deo hujusmodi perfectiones in creaturas manant; sed quantum ad im∣positionem nominis per prius a nobis imponuntur creaturis, quas prius cognos∣cimus, unde & modum fignificandi habent.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Whereas our Author p. 125. Of the first book of this Treatise affirmeth, that every thing in common attributed to God and man, is much more equivocall then the word Canis attributed to a Starre, to a Fish, to a foure-footed creature on the earth, if he be to be understood in regard not of this Physicall, but of a Logicall equivocation. I must needs confesse, that I dissent from him for reasons that I shall presently specify.