Grevinchovius argues for it at length (answered by Ames); Courcelles praises Gomarus for admitting it
Nicolaas Grevinchoven argues at length for this knowledge in the reply he wrote against the Dissertation on Universal Redemption and Election from Foreseen Faith, page 393 onward. William Ames examined that reply in his book titled A Brief Scholastic Rescript to Nicolaas Grevinchoven's Reply.
Courcelles likewise makes it plain that he approves of the middle or conditional knowledge that the schools ascribe to God. He praises Gomarus because, taught by Arminius, Gomarus acknowledged a conditional knowledge in God in his later theses On the Eternal Decree of God and On Predestination.
'With its help,' Courcelles says, 'he removes from his position that great absurdity which would make God the author of the first man's sin, and so of all the other sins thought to flow from it.' This is in the preface to the book titled James Arminius's Examination of the Theses of Francis Gomarus on Predestination.
Latin
XXIV. Nicolaus vero Grevinchovius prolixe pro hac scientia disputat in Responso quod opposuit Dissertationi de Redemptione generali, & Electione ex fide praevisa pag. 393. & seqq. Cujus Responsi examen instituit Guliel. Amesius in libro cui titulus est, Rescriptio Scholastica & brevis ad Nic. Grevinchovii Responsum. Et similiter Curcellaeus satis ostendit sibi probari scientiam illam Mediam seu conditionatam, quam in Scholis Deo tribuunt, dum in eo laudat Gomarum, quod ab Arminio edoctus, in posterioribus suis Thesibus, De Aeterno Dei decreto, & De Praedestinatione, Scientiam conditionatam in Deo agnovit; cujus ope, inquit, ingens illud ἄτοπον, quod Deum primi hominis peccati, & per consequens caeterorum omnium, quae ex eo fluere putantur, authorem faceret, a sua sententia amolitur. Praefatione praefixa libro cui titulus est Jacobi Arminii Examen Thesium Francisci Gomari de Praedestinatione.