CCLXX. Corollary LXVI

COROLLARY LXVI.

The form and account of the doctrine which persuaded the Calvinists to distribute the divine will into the revealed and the hidden, and to separate the latter from the former, or even to oppose it to the former, also moved the same men to assail most bitterly the distribution of the divine will into first and second, antecedent and consequent. Gürtler’s invectives against this division are known to learned theologians¹; that saying of Jacob Hottinger is known, that this division is rightly called the μῆλον ἔριδος, apple of discord²; and those things are likewise known by which Forbes endeavored to create odium against this division on the ground that it had the Massilians as its authors³. But since two things can be brought into controversy, first the words by which the division is expressed, and then the realities which are signified by it, there can be no doubt that the words cannot be reprehended, and that the realities themselves cannot be disapproved without manifest error. 1) The words cannot be reprehended, since they are vindicated by the suffrage of the Fathers, of ecclesiastical writers⁴, and of the whole School⁵; nor 2) can the realities themselves be disapproved, since they are established by the unanimous agreement of Christian tradition⁶. Therefore, 3) Laurence von Mosheim seems to me to have touched the matter to the quick when he writes⁷: “The stricter Reformed, who reject the distinction of the divine will into antecedent and consequent, certainly act rashly—

—For although these words are not read in Sacred Scripture, nevertheless the reality indicated by these words is most clearly present. For in some very well-known passages the sacred codex affirms that God wills well to all; in others, that God loves the elect and the faithful but rejects unbelievers. These sayings of Sacred Scripture are of two kinds, and they cannot be reconciled with one another in any other way than through the distinction of the will into antecedent and consequent. This matter can very easily be explained and illustrated by an example taken from human affairs. A good and just king loves all his subjects, or desires the happiness of all his subjects. This is the inclination of a good and just king; but the same good and just king nevertheless does not make all his citizens happy, but afflicts the disobedient and rebellious with grave punishments. This example declares the whole matter. In like manner, God wills men to be saved; but since there are many in the human race who resist the divine inclination to render all happy, the consequent will of God therefore cannot will the salvation of all.”

But the example which we read in the Gospels⁸ is much more splendid. God invites absolutely all the Jews; he invites them once and again and more often. He wills them to come; he wills them to eat and drink. All things have been prepared. This is the first act of the will. Those invited contemn the tables heaped with the most choice dishes; they treat the servants ill; they lay violent hands upon some, torment others with insults and reproaches, and punish others with death. When these things have been brought to the ears of the Lord, the most just Lord burns with anger, commands that the ungrateful and rebellious be slain by slaughter, and that their city be overthrown and burned. You have the other act of the will, and you have the antecedent and consequent will depicted.