B. 1. I doubt all sides are over temerarious in their distribution of Gods Decrees and Volitions. But, 1. All are agreed that ex parte Dei Volentis, there is no real difference in his Volitions; nor ex parte Dei scientis, in his knowledge: For so his Knowledge and Will are his Essence. 2. All agree, that ex parte objecti cogniti & decreti there is a real difference. 3. All must agree, that in Gods Intellection and Volitions as denominated ab extra, viz. ab objectis, there is a relative or denominative difference. 4. Ex parte objecti, there is no man can question, but that this Proposition [If John have such and such means and helps, he will believe,] doth differ from this Proposition, [It is convenient and good that John shall believe] and from this, [John will believe]. 5. If you are against mincing Gods Knowledge into such scraps as these various objective Propositions do infer, you must be against the old distinction, into scientiam simplicis Intelligentiae, & scientiam purae visionis. For no doubt but God knoweth all things, how various soever, un• intuitu, with one simple knowledge, ex parte sui, though it be by our weakness denominated many, even innumerable, ex relatione objectiva, vol termination rei in quam transit. Doth not God with one Act know Convenients, Desirables and Futures? And cannot I here copiously thetoricate against you for your first and second sort of Divine Knowledge, as well as you do against them de scientia media. 6. It is agreed that God knoweth all things to be what indeed they are▪ and not otherwise. ⟨p. 28⟩7. It is agreed that God knoweth not as man doth, by Names, Propositions, or Syllogisms; And yet that God knoweth all Names, Notions, Propositions and Syllogisms, with their modes; as they are the measures, organs or actings of Humane Understandings. 8. †It is therefore undeniable to all Christians, that the thing which they call *scientia media, is as certainly in God, as is the scientia simplicis Intelligen•iae & Purae visionis; that is, [that God knoweth the truth of all true conditional Propositions, and knoweth what would be done, by such and such causes, or upon such and such alterations, if they were put]. Doth any Christian doubt of this? 9. Whether this should be called scientia media is a question de nomine, and that of no great importance, and not at all de re? 10.
B. 1. I doubt all sides are over temerarious in their distribution of Gods Decrees and Volitions. But, 1. All are agreed that ex parte Dei Volentis, there is no real difference in his Volitions; nor ex parte Dei scientis, in his knowledge: For so his Knowledge and Will are his Essence. 2. All agree, that ex parte objecti cogniti & decreti there is a real difference. 3. All must agree, that in Gods Intellection and Volitions as denominated ab extra, viz. ab objectis, there is a relative or denominative difference. 4. Ex parte objecti, there is no man can question, but that this Proposition [If John have such and such means and helps, he will believe,] doth differ from this Proposition, [It is convenient and good that John shall believe] and from this, [John will believe]. 5. If you are against mincing Gods Knowledge into such scraps as these various objective Propositions do infer, you must be against the old distinction, into scientiam simplicis Intelligentiae, & scientiam purae visionis. For no doubt but God knoweth all things, how various soever, un• intuitu, with one simple knowledge, ex parte sui, though it be by our weakness denominated many, even innumerable, ex relatione objectiva, vol terminatione rei in quam transit. Doth not God with one Act know Convenients, Desirables and Futures? And cannot I here copiously thetoricate against you for your first and second sort of Divine Knowledge, as well as you do against them de scientia media. 6. It is agreed that God knoweth all things to be what indeed they are▪ and not otherwise. ⟨p. 28⟩7. It is agreed that God knoweth not as man doth, by Names, Propositions, or Syllogisms; And yet that God knoweth all Names, Notions, Propositions and Syllogisms, with their modes; as they are the measures, organs or actings of Humane Understandings. 8. †It is therefore undeniable to all Christians, that the thing which they call *scientia media, is as certainly in God, as is the scientia simplicis Intelligen•iae & Purae visionis; that is, [that God knoweth the truth of all true conditional Propositions, and knoweth what would be done, by such and such causes, or upon such and such alterations, if they were put]. Doth any Christian doubt of this? 9. Whether this should be called scientia media is a question de nomine, and that of no great importance, and not at all de re? 10.
- †I refer the Reader to Blank, de Concord. lib. cum •ecretis 1. Thes. 25. &c. where by citing their own words at large, he proveth that the most famous and resolute Antiarminians were for this scientia media conditionata, viz. Fr. Gomarrus (Arminius's chief Antagonist) in Mat. 11.—21. Antonius Walaeus loc. com. de sctent. Dei, pag. 160. Paulus Ferrius Scholast. Orth. vindic. p. 203, 209, 210. Besides Rob. Baronius Metaph. sect. 12. disp. 2. num. 55, 56. (who in his last days was nearest to the Arminians, as appeareth in those Metaphysics.) And Jo. Strangius, l. 3. c. 13. p 675. nameth also Lud. Crocius Dyodecad. dis. 7.I refer the Reader to Blank, de Concord. lib. cum •ecretis 1. Thes. 25. &c. where by citing their own words at large, he proveth that the most famous and resolute Antiarminians were for this scientia media conditionata, viz. Fr. Gomarrus (Arminius's chief Antagonist) in Mat. 11.—21. Antonius Walaeus loc. com. de sctent. Dei, pag. 160. Paulus Ferrius Scholast. Orth. vindic. p. 203, 209, 210. Besides Rob. Baronius Metaph. sect. 12. disp. 2. num. 55, 56. (who in his last days was nearest to the Arminians, as appeareth in those Metaphysicks.) And Jo. Strangius, l. 3. c. 13. p 675. nameth also Lud. Crocius Dyodecad. dis. 7.
- *Could Alvarez and his fellows well prove, that the permission of the first sin is an effect of Reprobation, as the word is used (in a fit and ordinary sense) they would do more to overthrow the Doctrine de scientia media circa malum, than is yet done. But they fail in their attempts of proving this: Of which after.
