Ad secundum dicendum quod aliter se habet reprobatio in causando, quam praedestinatio. Nam praedestinatio est causa et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a praedestinatis, scilicet gloriae; et eius quod percipitur in praesenti, scilicet gratiae. Reprobatio vero non est causa eius quod est in praesenti, scilicet culpae; sed est causa derelictionis a Deo. Est tamen causa eius quod redditur in futuro, scilicet poenae aeternae. Sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio eius qui reprobatur et a gratia deseritur. Et secundum hoc verificatur dictum prophetae, scilicet, perditio tua, Israel, ex te. Reply Obj. 2: Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined—namely, glory—and of what is received in this life—namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true—namely, Destruction is thy own, O Israel. Ad tertium dicendum quod reprobatio Dei non subtrahit aliquid de potentia reprobati. Unde, cum dicitur quod reprobatus non potest gratiam adipisci, non est hoc intelligendum secundum impossibilitatem absolutam, sed secundum impossibilitatem conditionatam, sicut supra dictum est quod praedestinatum necesse est salvari, necessitate conditionata, quae non tollit libertatem arbitrii. Unde, licet aliquis non possit gratiam adipisci qui reprobatur a Deo, tamen quod in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur, ex eius libero arbitrio contingit. Unde et merito sibi imputatur in culpam. Reply Obj. 3: Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Q. 19, A. 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum praedestinati eligantur a Deo Whether the predestined are chosen by God? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedestinati non eligantur a Deo. Dicit enim Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod, sicut sol corporeus non eligendo omnibus corporibus lumen immittit, ita et Deus suam bonitatem. Sed bonitas divina communicatur praecipue aliquibus secundum participationem gratiae et gloriae. Ergo Deus absque electione gratiam et gloriam communicat. Quod ad praedestinationem pertinet. Objection 1: It seems that the predestined are not chosen by God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1) that as the corporeal sun sends his rays upon all without selection, so does God His goodness. But the goodness of God is communicated to some in an especial manner through a participation of grace and glory. Therefore God without any selection communicates His grace and glory; and this belongs to predestination. Praeterea, electio est eorum quae sunt. Sed praedestinatio ab aeterno est etiam eorum quae non sunt. Ergo praedestinantur aliqui absque electione. Obj. 2: Further, election is of things that exist. But predestination from all eternity is also of things which do not exist. Therefore, some are predestined without election. Praeterea, electio quandam discretionem importat. Sed Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, ut dicitur I Tim. II. Ergo praedestinatio, quae praeordinat homines in salutem, est absque electione. Obj. 3: Further, election implies some discrimination. Now God wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Therefore, predestination which ordains men towards eternal salvation, is without election. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ephes. I, elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. On the contrary, It is said (Eph 1:4): He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Respondeo dicendum quod praedestinatio, secundum rationem, praesupponit electionem; et electio dilectionem. Cuius ratio est, quia praedestinatio, ut dictum est, est pars providentiae. Providentia autem, sicut et prudentia, est ratio in intellectu existens, praeceptiva ordinationis aliquorum in finem, ut supra dictum est. Non autem praecipitur aliquid ordinandum in finem, nisi praeexistente voluntate finis. Unde praedestinatio aliquorum in salutem aeternam, praesupponit, secundum rationem, quod Deus illorum velit salutem. Ad quod pertinet electio et dilectio. Dilectio quidem, inquantum vult eis hoc bonum salutis aeternae, nam diligere est velle alicui bonum, ut supra dictum est. Electio autem, inquantum hoc bonum aliquibus prae aliis vult, cum quosdam reprobet, ut supra dictum est. I answer that, Predestination presupposes election in the order of reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that predestination, as stated above (A. 1), is a part of providence. Now providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved above (Q. 22, A. 2). But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:—love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above (Q. 20, AA. 2, 3):—election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above (A. 3). Electio tamen et dilectio aliter ordinantur in nobis et in Deo, eo quod in nobis voluntas diligendo non causat bonum; sed ex bono praeexistente incitamur ad diligendum. Et ideo eligimus aliquem, quem diligamus, et sic electio dilectionem praecedit in nobis. In Deo autem est e converso. Nam voluntas eius, qua vult bonum alicui diligendo, est causa quod illud bonum ab eo prae aliis habeatur. Et sic patet quod dilectio praesupponitur electioni, secundum rationem; et electio praedestinationi. Unde omnes praedestinati sunt electi et dilecti. Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si consideretur communicatio bonitatis divinae in communi, absque electione bonitatem suam communicat; inquantum scilicet nihil est, quod non participet aliquid de bonitate eius, ut supra dictum est. Sed si consideretur communicatio istius vel illius boni, non absque electione tribuit, quia quaedam bona dat aliquibus, quae non dat aliis. Et sic in collatione gratiae et gloriae attenditur electio. Reply Obj. 1: If the communication of the divine goodness in general be considered, God communicates His goodness without election; inasmuch as there is nothing which does not in some way share in His goodness, as we said above (Q. 6, A. 4). But if we consider the communication of this or that particular good, He does not allot it without election; since He gives certain goods to some men, which He does not give to others. Thus in the conferring of grace and glory election is implied. Ad secundum dicendum quod, quando voluntas eligentis provocatur ad eligendum a bono in re praeexistente, tunc oportet quod electio sit eorum quae sunt; sicut accidit in electione nostra. Sed in Deo est aliter, ut dictum est. Et ideo, sicut dicit Augustinus, eliguntur a Deo qui non sunt, neque tamen errat qui eligit. Reply Obj. 2: When the will of the person choosing is incited to make a choice by the good already pre-existing in the object chosen, the choice must needs be of those things which already exist, as happens in our choice. In God it is otherwise; as was said above (Q. 20, A. 2). Thus, as Augustine says (De Verb. Ap. Serm. 11): Those are chosen by God, who do not exist; yet He does not err in His choice. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri antecedenter, quod non est simpliciter velle, sed secundum quid, non autem consequenter, quod est simpliciter velle. Reply Obj. 3: God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum praescientia meritorum sit causa praedestinationis Whether the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praescientia meritorum sit causa praedestinationis. Dicit enim Apostolus, Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, hos et praedestinavit. Et Glossa Ambrosii, super illud Rom. IX, miserebor cui miserebor etc., dicit, misericordiam illi dabo, quem praescio toto corde reversurum ad me. Ergo videtur quod praescientia meritorum sit causa praedestinationis. Objection 1: It seems that foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination. For the Apostle says (Rom 8:29): Whom He foreknew, He also predestined. Again a gloss of Ambrose on Rom. 9:15: I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy says: I will give mercy to him who, I foresee, will turn to Me with his whole heart. Therefore it seems the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination. Praeterea, praedestinatio divina includit divinam voluntatem, quae irrationabilis esse non potest, cum praedestinatio sit propositum miserendi, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed nulla alia ratio potest esse praedestinationis nisi praescientia meritorum. Ergo praescientia meritorum est causa vel ratio praedestinationis. Obj. 2: Further, Divine predestination includes the divine will, which by no means can be irrational; since predestination is the purpose to have mercy, as Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. ii, 17). But there can be no other reason for predestination than the foreknowledge of merits. Therefore it must be the cause of reason of predestination. Praeterea, non est iniquitas apud Deum, ut dicitur Rom. IX. Iniquum autem esse videtur, ut aequalibus inaequalia dentur. Omnes autem homines sunt aequales et secundum naturam, et secundum peccatum originale, attenditur autem in eis inaequalitas secundum merita vel demerita propriorum actuum. Non igitur inaequalia praeparat Deus hominibus, praedestinando et reprobando, nisi propter differentium meritorum praescientiam. Obj. 3: Further, There is no injustice in God (Rom 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits. Sed contra est quod dicit Apostolus, ad Tit. III, non ex operibus iustitiae, quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Sicut autem salvos nos fecit, ita et praedestinavit nos salvos fieri. Non ergo praescientia meritorum est causa vel ratio praedestinationis. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:5): Not by works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. But as He saved us, so He predestined that we should be saved. Therefore, foreknowledge of merits is not the cause or reason of predestination. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum praedestinatio includat voluntatem, ut supra dictum est, sic inquirenda est ratio praedestinationis, sicut inquiritur ratio divinae voluntatis. Dictum est autem supra quod non est assignare causam divinae voluntatis ex parte actus volendi; sed potest assignari ratio ex parte volitorum, inquantum scilicet Deus vult esse aliquid propter aliud. Nullus ergo fuit ita insanae mentis, qui diceret merita esse causam divinae praedestinationis, ex parte actus praedestinantis. Sed hoc sub quaestione vertitur, utrum ex parte effectus, praedestinatio habeat aliquam causam. Et hoc est quaerere, utrum Deus praeordinaverit se daturum effectum praedestinationis alicui, propter merita aliqua. I answer that, Since predestination includes will, as was said above (A. 4), the reason of predestination must be sought for in the same way as was the reason of the will of God. Now it was shown above (Q. 19, A. 5), that we cannot assign any cause of the divine will on the part of the act of willing; but a reason can be found on the part of the things willed; inasmuch as God wills one thing on account of something else. Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator. But this is the question, whether, as regards the effect, predestination has any cause; or what comes to the same thing, whether God pre-ordained that He would give the effect of predestination to anyone on account of any merits. Fuerunt igitur quidam, qui dixerunt quod effectus praedestinationis praeordinatur alicui propter merita praeexistentia in alia vita. Et haec fuit positio Origenis, qui posuit animas humanas ab initio creatas, et secundum diversitatem suorum operum, diversos status eas sortiri in hoc mundo corporibus unitas. Sed hanc opinionem excludit Apostolus, Rom. IX, dicens, cum nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid egissent boni vel mali, non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est, quia maior serviet minori. Accordingly there were some who held that the effect of predestination was pre-ordained for some on account of pre-existing merits in a former life. This was the opinion of Origen, who thought that the souls of men were created in the beginning, and according to the diversity of their works different states were assigned to them in this world when united with the body. The Apostle, however, rebuts this opinion where he says (Rom 9:11,12): For when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil . . . not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said of her: The elder shall serve the younger. Fuerunt ergo alii, qui dixerunt quod merita praeexistentia in hac vita sunt ratio et causa effectus praedestinationis. Posuerunt enim Pelagiani quod initium benefaciendi sit ex nobis, consummatio autem a Deo. Et sic, ex hoc contingit quod alicui datur praedestinationis effectus, et non alteri, quia unus initium dedit se praeparando, et non alius. Sed contra hoc est quod dicit Apostolus, II Cor. III, quod non sumus sufficientes cogitare aliquid a nobis, quasi ex nobis. Nullum autem anterius principium inveniri potest quam cogitatio. Unde non potest dici quod aliquod in nobis initium existat, quod sit ratio effectus praedestinationis. Others said that pre-existing merits in this life are the reason and cause of the effect of predestination. For the Pelagians taught that the beginning of doing well came from us; and the consummation from God: so that it came about that the effect of predestination was granted to one, and not to another, because the one made a beginning by preparing, whereas the other did not. But against this we have the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor 3:5), that we are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves. Now no principle of action can be imagined previous to the act of thinking. Wherefore it cannot be said that anything begun in us can be the reason of the effect of predestination. Unde fuerunt alii, qui dixerunt quod merita sequentia praedestinationis effectum, sunt ratio praedestinationis, ut intelligatur quod ideo Deus dat gratiam alicui, et praeordinavit se ei daturum, quia praescivit eum bene usurum gratia; sicut si rex det alicui militi equum, quem scit eo bene usurum. Sed isti videntur distinxisse inter id quod est ex gratia, et id quod est ex libero arbitrio, quasi non possit esse idem ex utroque. Manifestum est autem quod id quod est gratiae, est praedestinationis effectus, et hoc non potest poni ut ratio praedestinationis, cum hoc sub praedestinatione concludatur. Si igitur aliquid aliud ex parte nostra sit ratio praedestinationis, hoc erit praeter effectum praedestinationis. Non est autem distinctum quod est ex libero arbitrio, et ex praedestinatione; sicut nec est distinctum quod est ex causa secunda, et causa prima, divina enim providentia producit effectus per operationes causarum secundarum, ut supra dictum est. Unde et id quod est per liberum arbitrium, est ex praedestinatione. And so others said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination; giving us to understand that God gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make good use of it. But these seem to have drawn a distinction between that which flows from grace, and that which flows from free will, as if the same thing cannot come from both. It is, however, manifest that what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in the notion of predestination. Therefore, if anything else in us be the reason of predestination, it will be outside the effect of predestination. Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is not distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes, as was above shown (Q. 22, A. 3). Wherefore, that which flows from free-will is also of predestination. Dicendum est ergo quod effectum praedestinationis considerare possumus dupliciter. Uno modo, in particulari. Et sic nihil prohibet aliquem effectum praedestinationis esse causam et rationem alterius, posteriorem quidem prioris, secundum rationem causae finalis; priorem vero posterioris, secundum rationem causae meritoriae, quae reducitur ad dispositionem materiae. Sicut si dicamus quod Deus praeordinavit se daturum alicui gloriam ex meritis; et quod praeordinavit se daturum alicui gratiam, ut mereretur gloriam. We must say, therefore, that the effect of predestination may be considered in a twofold light—in one way, in particular; and thus there is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or cause of another; a subsequent effect being the reason of a previous effect, as its final cause; and the previous effect being the reason of the subsequent as its meritorious cause, which is reduced to the disposition of the matter. Thus we might say that God pre-ordained to give glory on account of merit, and that He pre-ordained to give grace to merit glory. Alio modo potest considerari praedestinationis effectus in communi. Et sic impossibile est quod totus praedestinationis effectus in communi habeat aliquam causam ex parte nostra. Quia quidquid est in homine ordinans ipsum in salutem, comprehenditur totum sub effectu praedestinationis, etiam ipsa praeparatio ad gratiam, neque enim hoc fit nisi per auxilium divinum, secundum illud Thren. ultimi, converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur. Habet tamen hoc modo praedestinatio, ex parte effectus, pro ratione divinam bonitatem; ad quam totus effectus praedestinationis ordinatur ut in finem, et ex qua procedit sicut ex principio primo movente. In another way, the effect of predestination may be considered in general. Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lam 5:21): convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted. Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving principle. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod usus gratiae praescitus, non est ratio collationis gratiae, nisi secundum rationem causae finalis, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: The use of grace foreknown by God is not the cause of conferring grace, except after the manner of a final cause; as was explained above. Ad secundum dicendum quod praedestinatio habet rationem ex parte effectus, in communi, ipsam divinam bonitatem. In particulari autem, unus effectus est ratio alterius, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: Predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God as regards its effects in general. Considered in its particular effects, however, one effect is the reason of another; as already stated. Ad tertium dicendum quod ex ipsa bonitate divina ratio sumi potest praedestinationis aliquorum, et reprobationis aliorum. Sic enim Deus dicitur omnia propter suam bonitatem fecisse, ut in rebus divina bonitas repraesentetur. Necesse est autem quod divina bonitas, quae in se est una et simplex, multiformiter repraesentetur in rebus; propter hoc quod res creatae ad simplicitatem divinam attingere non possunt. Et inde est quod ad completionem universi requiruntur diversi gradus rerum, quarum quaedam altum, et quaedam infimum locum teneant in universo. Et ut multiformitas graduum conservetur in rebus, Deus permittit aliqua mala fieri, ne multa bona impediantur, ut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Q. 22, A. 2). Sic igitur consideremus totum genus humanum, sicut totam rerum universitatem. Voluit igitur Deus in hominibus, quantum ad aliquos, quos praedestinat, suam repraesentare bonitatem per modum misericordiae, parcendo; et quantum ad aliquos, quos reprobat, per modum iustitiae, puniendo. Et haec est ratio quare Deus quosdam eligit, et quosdam reprobat. Et hanc causam assignat Apostolus, ad Rom. IX, dicens, volens Deus ostendere iram (idest vindictam iustitiae), et notam facere potentiam suam, sustinuit (idest permisit) in multa patientia, vasa irae apta in interitum, ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit in gloriam. Et II Tim. II dicit, in magna autem domo non solum sunt vasa aurea et argentea, sed etiam lignea et fictilia; et quaedam quidem in honorem, quaedam in contumeliam. Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Rom 9:22, 23): What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory and (2 Tim 2:20): But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor. Sed quare hos elegit in gloriam, et illos reprobavit, non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioannem, quare hunc trahat, et illum non trahat, noli velle diiudicare, si non vis errare. Sicut etiam in rebus naturalibus potest assignari ratio, cum prima materia tota sit in se uniformis, quare una pars eius est sub forma ignis, et alia sub forma terrae, a Deo in principio condita, ut scilicet sit diversitas specierum in rebus naturalibus. Sed quare haec pars materiae est sub ista forma, et illa sub alia, dependet ex simplici divina voluntate. Sicut ex simplici voluntate artificis dependet, quod ille lapis est in ista parte parietis, et ille in alia, quamvis ratio artis habeat quod aliqui sint in hac, et aliqui sint in illa. Neque tamen propter hoc est iniquitas apud Deum, si inaequalia non inaequalibus praeparat. Hoc enim esset contra iustitiae rationem, si praedestinationis effectus ex debito redderetur, et non daretur ex gratia. In his enim quae ex gratia dantur, potest aliquis pro libito suo dare cui vult, plus vel minus, dummodo nulli subtrahat debitum, absque praeiudicio iustitiae. Et hoc est quod dicit paterfamilias, Matt. XX, tolle quod tuum est, et vade. An non licet mihi quod volo, facere? Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err. Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will? (Matt 20:14,15). Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum praedestinatio sit certa Whether predestination is certain? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedestinatio non sit certa. Quia super illud Apoc. III, tene quod habes, ne alius accipiat coronam tuam, dicit Augustinus, quod alius non est accepturus, nisi iste perdiderit. Potest ergo et acquiri et perdi corona, quae est praedestinationis effectus. Non est igitur praedestinatio certa. Objection 1: It seems that predestination is not certain. Because on the words Hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown, (Rev 3:11), Augustine says (De Corr. et Grat. 15): Another will not receive, unless this one were to lose it. Hence the crown which is the effect of predestination can be both acquired and lost. Therefore predestination cannot be certain. Praeterea, posito possibili, nullum sequitur impossibile. Possibile est autem aliquem praedestinatum, ut Petrum, peccare, et tunc occidi. Hoc autem posito, sequitur praedestinationis effectum frustrari. Hoc igitur non est impossibile. Non ergo est praedestinatio certa. Obj. 2: Further, granted what is possible, nothing impossible follows. But it is possible that one predestined—e.g., Peter—may sin and then be killed. But if this were so, it would follow that the effect of predestination would be thwarted. This then, is not impossible. Therefore predestination is not certain. Praeterea, quidquid Deus potuit, potest. Sed potuit non praedestinare quem praedestinavit. Ergo nunc potest non praedestinare. Ergo praedestinatio non est certa. Obj. 3: Further, whatever God could do in the past, He can do now. But He could have not predestined whom He hath predestined. Therefore now He is able not to predestine him. Therefore predestination is not certain. Sed contra est quod super illud Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, et praedestinavit etc., dicit Glossa, praedestinatio est praescientia et praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, qua certissime liberantur quicumque liberantur. On the contrary, A gloss on Rom. 8:29: Whom He foreknew, He also predestined, says: Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparation of the benefits of God, by which whosoever are freed will most certainly be freed.