Cap. 1 subject: sin-infection debated — Scotus / Suarez before foresight
Another quality most writers treat as necessarily presupposed in predestinating and reprobating — though not all agree: the infection of sin, which they think God foresaw in the subject before it could be predestined or reprobated. On their view rationality is not enough; the creature must also be presupposed a sinner, stained with sin. I do not gladly make this quarrel my own; still I will open briefly what others hold and what I hold. We must admit that the opinion which puts predestination before foresight of sin is neither new nor the property of obscure theologians. Nearly everyone who took predestination as bare designation to the end itself, rather than preparation of means, reasoned this way. Scotus, ordering instants in the Divine mind and will, always set the will to give beatitude before foresight of the fall (I dist. 41; III dist. 19 q.1): God first wills glory for a fixed number of elect, next orders grace for them, then foresees their fall in Adam. With Scotus stand many who claim the Scotist name. Maclantus, Galatinus, Alfonso Mendoza, and countless others teach the decree of predestination prior even to permitting the fall — and prior to creating man. So they do not treat foresight of sin as a condition of the subject on which predestination falls. Among recent Jesuits Suarez follows the same line and calls it the common opinion: I judge more probable the theologians' common view that the election of the predestined preceded permission of original sin.
Latin
Est altera qualitas sive conditio quam plerique arbitrantur necessario prerequiri & praesupponi in actu Praedestinandi & Reprobandi, sed non est tam in confesso apud omnes: Haec autem est Peccati infectio, quam a Deo praevisam putant in subjecto, priusquam vel praedestinari vel reprobari possit. Ex horum igitur sententia, ut actus hi terminentur ad creaturam, non sufficit quod rationalis sit, sed etiam praesupponitur quod peccatrix, sive peccato coinquinata sit. Haud lubens hanc litem meam fecerim; paucis tamen quid ab aliis sentiatur, & quid ipse sentiam, aperiam. Est itaque nobis necessario fatendum, non esse nuper natam, aut ignobilium Theologorum sententiam, quae ponit praedestinationem priorem praevisione peccati. Imo omnes fere qui per praedestinationem intellexerunt non tam mediorum praeparationem, quam meram designationem ad ipsum finem, hoc modo philosophati sunt. Scotus ubi assignat ordinem instantium in mente & voluntate Divina, semper statuit priorem esse voluntatem dandi beatitudinem praevisione lapsus, Lib. 1. dist. 41. qu. unica; & lib. 3. dist. 19. qu. 1. ponit Deum in primo instanti voluisse gloriam determinato numero electorum, in secundo ordinasse illis gratiam, in tertio praevidisse eos lapsuros in Adamo. Jam cum dico Scotum in hac sententia fuisse, intelligitis & alios quam plurimos, qui Scotistae haberi volunt, idem sensisse. Maclantus, Galatinus, Alfonfus Mendoza, aliique innumeri decretum praedestinationis, non solum decreto lapsus permittendi, sed etiam hominis creandi, prius esse docent. Hi ergo non putant peccatum praevisum esse conditionem, aut qualitatem subjecti, in quod cadere debet actus praedestinationis. Postremo, ex Jesuitis neotericis, ipse Suarez hanc sententiam sequitur, & communem esse testatur, hisce verbis: Probabiliorem existimo communem sententiam Theologorum asserentium, electionem hominum praedestinatorum antecessisse permissionem originalis peccati.