The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

But now this knowledge undergoes several appellations, which are attributed unto it by extrinsical denomination, from the various condition of the things known, so long as the things themselves are to come, it is called Fore-knowledge, when they come, co-knowledge, after they are gone and past, after-knowledge: D. Twice against Jackson pag. 313, 314. I deny not then, but that the formal denomination of foreknowledge is extrinsical. Gods knowledge is so denominated in regard of its preexistence unto the thing known: but that which is affirmed of a thing only by way of extrinsical denomination, may be ascribed thereunto properly, which brings me unto a second Quaere.

But now this knowledge undergoes severall appellations, which are attributed unto it by extrinsecall denomination, from the various condition of the things known, so long as the things themselves are to come, it is called Fore-knowledge, when they come, co-knowledge, after they are gone and past, after-knowledge: D. Twisse against Jackson pag. 313, 314. I deny not then, but that the formall denomination of foreknowledge is extrinsecall. Gods knowledge is so denominated in regard of its preexistence unto the thing known: but that which is affirmed of a thing only by way of extrinsecall denomination, may be ascribed thereunto properly, which brings me unto a second Quaere.

Whether Foreknowledge is, or may be ascribed unto God properly?

The learned Assertors of the Protestant cause, you say, are at perfect agreement with their adversaries the Papists in this, That prescience, or foreknowledge, are not formally or properly in God. You will not deny D. Twice to be a learned Protestant, and how he dissents from this assertion which you father upon all Protestants, you may read in his book against Doctor Jackson p. 316. The question only was (saith he) whether foreknowledge might be properly attributed unto God, in respect of things to come: now I see no reason (saith he) but it may, as well as it is attributed unto man. Amongst the Papists Suarez comes behind few modern Schoolmen, and whether he thinks foreknowledge not to be properly in God, let his own words inform you. Lib. 1. De Scientia futurorum absolutè cap. 7. In omni etiam proprietate certissimum est scientiam Dei, sicut & Deum ipsum, duratione antecedere omnium rerum creatarum existentiam. But Suarez is not herein singular. For the Schoolmen generally in their Commentaries upon Aquinas, and Lombard in the places but now quoted, having propounded this Question, An in Deo sit scientia futurorum &c. Resolve it affirmatively: And as at other times, so especially in determinations, and resolutions of questions, that Rule hath place: Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato; if a word have two significations, one proper, another improper or Metaphorical, and it be put by it self without any thing to determine, or limit it unto the improper acception thereof, it must be taken properly. This to be the meaning of that rule Scheibler instructed me, when I was a Puny in Philosophy. Met. lib. 2. cap. 6. num. 17. Respondeo, illam propositionem, Analogum per se positum, hoc est, sine aliquo addito, stat pro famosiori, valere solum de analogo proportionis, hoc est, quod de uno praedicatur propriè, de alio impropriè, per similitudinem, vel metaphoram, id positum sine addito significat suum principal analogatum, veluti cum de risu loquor, intelligo eum de risu hominis, non de risu prati. Austin in lib. 5. de Civit. Dei. cap. 9. Censures the denial of Gods foreknowledge as a madness, as a blasphemous, and Atheistical speech &c. And this he would never have done, if he had thought as you, that foreknowledge is not properly in God: