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.

D. Twisse is not singular herein, diverse great Schoolemen, Aquinas, Durand, Cajetan, Bannes, Gregory de Valentia, and many others, say the same of not only Gods command, but all other signes of the will of his purpose or good pleasure. The words of some few of them, shall for the satisfaction of the reader be inserted in the Margent; and the rather, because you in the 16 Section of this Chapter, tell us, that the Schoolemen were the first coyners of this distinction of Gods will in Voluntatem signi, & voluntatem beneplaciti: and how their interpretation thereof, holds intelligence (as you speake) with that sense of D. Twisse which you here impugne, the Reader may see Vindic. Lib. 1. pag. 173, * 1.1 174.

Some of them professe in terminis, that the will of signe or significati∣on, is called the will of God only improperly, and metaphorically by way of similitude or proportion, and therefore the distribution of Gods will into a will of signe and will of purpose or good pleasure is not reall, but only verball, divisio vocis; from whom they doe not dissent, who say that 'tis divisio Analogi in analogata. For as Scheibler a Lutheran, and of your opinion for the maine in these controversies, observeth, that they are to be understood of such an analogy which is by extrinsecall reference

and denomination. Intelligunt enim eam analogiam, quae est per extrinsecam habitudinem & denominationem. Voluntas enim signi vocatur voluntas ex∣trinseca denominatione, in quantum scilicet significat beneplacitum divinum, quod absolute est voluntas Dei, ad eum modum quo multa dicuntur sana, per habitudinem ad santitatem animalis, quae primo talis est: Metaph. lib. 2. cap. 3. tit. 15. art. 4. punct. 2. n. 535.

For the will of signe is called will by extrinsecall denomination, as it sig∣nifieth Gods good pleasure or decree (which absolutely is the will of God) after the same manner that many things are said to be healthy or wholsome, in regard of reference unto the health of a sensitive creature, unto whom health is in the first place properly and intrinsecally attri∣buted.

Unto these suffrages of the Schoolemen, I shall adde reasons drawn from three attributes of Gods will properly so called; It is internall, eter¦nall, irresistible, and Gods precept or injunction is externall, temporary, and resistible.

1. Gods will properly so called is internall in God, really undistin∣guished from his Essence, whereas Gods precepts or injunctions, are ex∣ternall without him, really distinguished from him.

2. The proper will of God was from eternall, the commands of God are given in time.

From the Eternity of Gods will, I shall also draw this following Ar∣gument.

The will of God properly so called is uncapable of interruption, rei∣teration, and multiplication, for in eternity there is a most absolute and perfect unity and indivisibility without any succession of parts, but now the Commands of God may be very often reiterated and multiplied, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line. Esay 28. 10. Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathe∣red thy children together. Math. 23. 37.

3. The will of God properly so called is irresistible, Who hath resisted his will. Rom. 9. 19. Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in heaven and in earth, in the Sea and all deepe places. Psal. 135. 6. The Counsell of the Lord must stand and cannot be withstood. By all the powers of the World and dark∣nesse my counsell (saith the Lord) shall stand, and I will doe all my pleasure Esay 46. 10. But now Gods precepts and prohibitions are every day vio∣lated, broken and resisted by wicked men.

Unto these reasons I might adde your own confession, I confesse (say you) that no signification whatsoever, whether of what a man willeth or de∣creeth to be done, or of what is the duty of another to doe, can properly be said * 1.2 to be the will of the signifier.

But now I subjoyne, Gods precept or injunction is only a signe of his will, and therefore however it be usually termed in Scripture the will of God Mat. 6. 10. Mat. 7. 21. Rom. 12. 2. 1 Thess. 4. 3. It is to be understood only improperly and Tropically; and that first Metaphorically, 2. Metonymi∣cally.

First Metaphorically, and by an Anthrop••pathy, when God commands a thing, he carryeth himselfe as men doe, when they purpose, will, desire,

and determine that such a thing should come to passe; for amongst men usually their commands are manifestations and declarations of their purposes and desires; I say usually, because sometimes superiors injoyne some things to inferiors only for tryall, and, upon their readinesse to o∣bey, recall and revoke such commands. How Gods commandements and other signes of his will, are the will of God Metaphorically, Aquinas illustrates in the place but now quoted; seeing passions are ascribed unto God only Metaphorically, hence the signes of such passions in us, when as∣cribed unto God, are called by the names of the passions themselves. Punishment is with us a signe of Anger, and therefore Gods punishments are termed his wrath or anger; so our commands are signes usually of our wills, of our desires, and intentions, and therefore the commands of God are termed in Scripture the will of God.

But I think with D. Ames, that the commandements of God are ter∣med the will of God, not only Metaphorically, but also Metonymically, because they are signes of a proper will of God. Media illa (saith Ames) per quae voluntas ista r••••elatur, recte vocantur voluntas signi, non tantum Me∣taphorice, quia solent inter homines indicare quid velint: sed etiam Metony∣mice, quia sunt vel effecta, vel adjuncta, propriam Dei voluntatem ex parte indicantia. Medul. lib. 1. c. 7. 53. And this also is observed by D. Twisse, in his consideration of the Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to the practice, p. 54. Now we say, even Gods commandement notes the will of God also in proper speech, to wit, what shall be our duty to doe; for undoubtedly whatsoever God commands us, it is his will in proper speech, that it shall be our duty to doe it. However then, it is the sence of D. Twisse, that the commandement of God cannot properly be said to be his will, yet he doth not deny that it signifieth or betokeneth the will of God properly so called, in which regard it is termed the revealed will of God, because it revealeth Gods will: all the Question is, what will of God it revealeth or signifieth. D. Twisse (you see) roundly expresseth himselfe, that it signifieth, or revealeth Gods will of obligation, what he will oblige and bind men unto; what he will have to be their duty: but it doth not at all signify the will of Gods purpose concerning what shall come to passe actually; it doth not signify Gods will of operation or per∣mission, i. e. it doth not reveale what good God hath decreed to worke, what evill he hath decreed to suffer or permit in all those to whom his commands are given; briefly, it signifieth or revealeth mans duty, and Gods will of obliging unto it. Mic. 6. 8. He hath shewed thee O man what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to doe justly, and to love mercy, and to walke humbly with thy God. Obad. 12. 13. 14. It doth not re∣veale the event or issue of things what shall actually be, by Gods work∣ing or permitting providence; This you have asserted by Durand an an∣cient Schooleman, Praeceptum (saith he) non semper indicat voluntatem praecipientis, qua praecipiens velit rem praeceptam fieri, sed illam qua praecipi∣ens vult obligare illum, cui praecipit, ad faciendum quod praecipitur, & hoc & semper. And a little before in the same place, Praeceptum non est directè & semper signum quod praecipiens velit rem praeceptam fieri, sed solum quod velit subditum obligare ad faciendum illud quod praecipitur, & hoc clarum est in praeceptis divinis, per quae Deus vult simpliciter nos obligare, sed non vult simpliciter rem praeceptam fieri, alioquin semper fieret. Lib. 1. dist. 47. Qu. 3. Gods command unto Pharaoh, that he should let Israel goe, signi∣fied only his duty, that he was bound to let Israel goe, not the event, that he should actually consent unto their departure. Gods command

of Cain, Judas, &c. to believe, and repent, did not signify that God did will the actuall existence of their faith and repentance, but only that it was his purpose to bind them to faith and repentance as a duty. And thus you have a confirmation and cleere explication of D. Twisse his meaning, against which your discourse in this Section, if it were reduced unto Syl∣logismes, would not conclude with the least shew of probability.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dicendum quod in Deo quaedam di∣cuntur pro∣prie & quaedam secundum Metaphoram, cum autem aliquae passiones humanae in divinam praedicationem metaphori∣ce assumuntur, hoc fit secundum similitudinem effectus, unde illud quod est signum talis passionis in nobis, in Deo nomine illius passionis Metaphorice significatur; sicut apud nos irati punire consueverunt, unde ipsa punitio est sig∣num irae, & propter hoc ipsa punitio nomine irae significatur, cum Deo attribuitur. Similiter id quod solet esse in nobis signum voluntatis, quando{que} Metaphorice in Deo voluntas dicitur, sicut cum aliquis praecipit aliquid, signum est, quod velit illud fieri; unde praeceptum divinum quando{que} Metaphorice voluntas Dei dicitur, secundum illud Matthaei 6. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo & in terra; sed hoc distat inter voluntatem & iram, quia ira de Deo nunquam proprie dicitur, cum in suo principali intellectu includat passionem, voluntas autem proprie de Deo dicitur, & ideo in Deo distinguitur voluntas proprie, & Metaphorice dicta, voluntas enim proprie dicta vocatur voluntas beneplaciti; voluntas autem Metaphorice dicta est voluntas signi, eo quod ipsum signum voluntatis volun∣tas dicitur. Aq••in. part. 1. Sum. Qu. 19. art. 11.

  Communiter dicitur quod distinctio voluntatis divinae in voluntatem beneplaciti, & in voluntatem signi, est di∣stinctio voluntatis in voluntatem proprie dictam, & Metaphorice, nam voluntas beneplaciti est voluntas proprie dicta, vel actus suus volendi, quo aliquid fibi placet, sed voluntas signi dicitur Metaphorice voluntas Dei, eo modo quo signum nominatur Metaphorice nomine rei, cujus est signum, ut imago Herculis vocatur Hercules

  Et h••c potest esse dupliciter, uno modo ratione similitudinis inter signum & signatum ut in exemplo jam posito; alio modo ratione proportionis quasi arguendo, Quod ficut se habent signum & signatum in uno, sic se habeant in alio; & sic est in proposito nostro: Quia enim in nobis ille qui praecipit, vel consulit aliquid fieri, videtur illud vel∣le: similiter qui prohibet aliquid fieri, videtur velle illud non fieri; qui autem aliquid facit, vult illud fieri, qui ve∣ro permittit aliquid fieri cum possit impedire, videtur illud velle; ideo in Deo idem ponitur scilicet quod praecep∣tum, consilium, prohibitio, operatio, & permissio sunt, vel dicuntur voluntas divina propter dictam similitudinem vel magis proportionem. Durand. lib. 1. dist. 45. Q 3.

  Haec divisio divinae voluntatis in voluntatem beneplaciti, & voluntatem signi, non est univoci in univocata, sed analogi in analogata. Nam de signo divinae voluntatis non dicitur voluntatis nomen nisi Metaphorice, & analogice, propter habitudinem illius ad voluntatem divinam proprie dictam. Quam rem aliis verbis Cajetanus expressit in hac quaestione. Art. 11. Cum dixit non dividi hic rem aliquam, sed vocem ipsam, seu nomen divinae voluntatis Gregori de Valentia. Tom. 1. Disp. 1. Q. 19. punct. 2.
• * 1.2

  Praelatus e∣nim religio∣sus quando{que} praecipit sub∣dito aliquid grave, volens eum per praeceptum ligare, & tamen nec vult, nec intendit, quod res quam praecipit fiat; unde cum subditus parat se ad exequendum praeceptum, Praelatus revocat; ita quod Praeceptur est directe signum voluntatis praecipientis quod velit obligari subditum ad exequ••ndum praeceptum, sed non est directe signum quod velit rem praeceptam impleri; talia enim praecepta sunt vel ad sumendum experimentum de obedientia subditi, vel ad ostendendum pluribus obedientiam unius quasi pro exemplo.