CCLXXI. Corollary LXVII

COROLLARY LXVII.

The Calvinists oppose this distribution, and especially the antecedent will, chiefly for two reasons: first, a) because no will inheres in God except one that is victorious and efficacious¹; but the antecedent will cannot be judged of this kind, since it is defined by its defenders as subject to the free cooperation of men; and then, b) because God cannot will in vain; but he would will in vain if by the antecedent will he desired the salvation of all men—

—“If God,” writes John Frederick Stapfer², “intended the salvation of all and each of men, and therefore ordered the means, namely, the bestowal of universal grace, toward obtaining that end, and nevertheless did not attain the end as regards a great part of men, which end he nevertheless intended universally, it would follow that God acts in vain.” But 1) did it escape the Fathers and Christian Doctors that the divine will cannot be overcome by the human will; that the divine will is efficacious and active; and that God wills and attempts nothing vainly and idly? Indeed, they knew, held, and professed all these things. Nevertheless, with one mind and one voice they confirmed that an antecedent will, and that universal, must be ascribed to God³. What, therefore, shall we think follows? Namely, that neither the claim that the will of God is not victorious and efficacious nor the claim that God wills and acts vainly and idly coheres in any way with the doctrine by which an antecedent salvific will, and that universal, is asserted of God. And indeed, 2) what is the mark of an unconquered and efficacious will? I judge it to be this: that the effects which proceed from it as from the sole and adequate cause cannot be impeded and destroyed either by the angelic or by the human will⁴. But the antecedent will is altogether of this kind, since neither angels nor men have ever prevented, or indeed can prevent, God, moved by merciful charity, from loving the salvation of all and imparting to all the faculty of attaining it—

—Moreover, 3) no sane man would say that he acts in vain who employs the best remedies for effecting the salvation of men. For if he acted in vain, his remedies could profit no one. But the things which God has disposed by his salutary antecedent will, and which he bestows upon all, profit many. Therefore, it certainly cannot be said that God wills and acts in vain. And here, 4) I judge that a παραλογισμόν, fallacy, by which not a few are deceived and deceive others, must be removed from our midst. The sophism is this: that the antecedent will is and is called not that by which the salvation of all is loved and all are ordered unto salvation by apt and suitable means, but that by which salvation itself is conferred. For just as medicine is not the art of healing, but the art of seeing all the things which are apt and accommodated either for preserving or recovering health, so the antecedent will is not the purpose of saving, but the purpose of seeing and imparting absolutely all the things which are necessary for obtaining salvation. For the end of every counsel is certainly that which each counsel so regards that it does not advance farther, but, when it has accomplished that, judges that it has discharged its function. Therefore, just as the physician does not judge that he has finally satisfied his function only if he has healed the sick man, but that he has abundantly performed whatever can be required of him if, according to the precepts of his art, he has employed all those things which pertained to healing; so God, even if he does not always save, provided nevertheless that he omits none of those things which are necessary for attaining salvation, has attained the end proposed to the antecedent will.