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…

1. The first is drawn from the received distinction of divine Attributes, namely into such as are communicable unto the creature, and such as are incommunicable; but here he conceals his Authority. But let him bring forth the testimony of any Divine, that maintains any Attribute Divine to be the same quoad nomen & nominis rationem, with any Attribute humane. Yet we may talk of Gods Attributes so, as for distinction sake to say, some are such as are also Attributed to man, others are not; without maintaining, that humane virtues are of the same nature with Attribute Divine. Life is a Divine Attribute, it is also attributed to man, to a beast, to a plant; But will any wise man say that the life of God is of the same nature with the life of a Man, of a Beast, of a Plant? What more equivocal then the word Canis? Attributed to a Star, to a Fish, to a Four-footed creature on the Earth; I answer much more equivocal is every thing in common attributed to God and Man; For whatsoever is in God, is his Essence, but between the Essence of God, and the essence of Man, there is a vaster difference, then between the essence of a Star, of a Fish, of a Dog; how much more difference is there between the Essence of God, and an accident in man, such as his virtues are. In a word, the virtue of Man is of an annihilable condition, and if it be of the same nature with something in the nature of God, why should not something in the nature of God be of an annihilable condition? I marvel not if men of this generation are apt to profess that they will turn Atheists rather then concur in some points with the Contra-Remonstrants; for their discourses breath Atheism in a very high degree. It is a question among Schoolmen, whether Ens (the most abstract notion of all other) be predicated univocally of God and the creature; the Dominicans utterly deny it; Scotus maintains the contrary with some curiosity of argumentation: but his Arguments are answered by the Dominicans and particularly by Versor on the Metaphysics; but never, I think, was it heard of Scotus or any other (till now) that the virtues of man are of the same nature with the Divine Attributes, differing only in degree.

1. The first is drawn from the received distinction of divine Attributes, namely into such as are communicable unto the creature, and such as are incommunicable; but here he conceales his Authority. But let him bring forth the testimony of any Divine, that maintains any Attribute Divine to be the same quoad nomen & nominis rationem, with any Attribute humane. Yet we may talke of Gods Attributes so, as for distinction sake to say, some are such as are also Attributed to man, others are not; without maintaining, that humane vertues are of the same nature with Attribute Divine. Life is a Divine Attribute, it is also attributed to man, to a beast, to a plant; But will any wise man say that the life of God is of the same nature with the life of a Man, of a Beast, of a Plant? What more equivocall then the word Canis? Attributed to a Starre, to a Fish, to a Foure-footed creature on the Earth; I answer much more equivocall is every thing in common attributed to God and Man; For whatsoever is in God, is his Essence, but between the Essence of God, and the essence of Man, there is a vaster difference, then between the essence of a Starre, of a Fish, of a Dogge; how much more difference is there between the Essence of God, and an accident in man, such as his vertues are. In a word, the vertue of Man is of an annihilable condition, and if it be of the same nature with something in the nature of God, why should not something in the nature of God be of an annihilable condition? I marvaile not if men of this generation are apt to professe that they will turne Atheists rather then concurre in some poynts with the Contra-Remonstrants; for their discourses breath Atheisme in a very high degree. It is a question among Schoolemen, whether Ens (the most abstract notion of all other) be predicated univocally of God and the creature; the Dominicans utterly deny it; Scotus maintains the contrary with some curiosity of argumentation: but his Arguments are answered by the Dominicans and particularly by Versor on the Metaphysicks; but never, I think, was it heard of Scotus or any other (till now) that the vertues of man are of the same nature with the Divine Attributes, differing only in degree.