Cap. III Sol. Rat. 5: Pelagian/Faustus charge; Bannes — can elect equal or worse
Sol. This argument was the old Pelagian press — Augustine shows it in many places (Contra 2 Epist. Pelag. 2.7; Ep. 105 to Sixtus; Hypogn. Contra Pelag. 6; and elsewhere). Even Faustus of Riez, champion of the Semipelagians, argues (lib. 2.4): if both are equal in nature, justice is at risk when the one without merit is elected unworthy. We answer with Banez: without injustice or vicious respect of persons God can not only elect one of two wholly equal people to eternal life and pass the other by, but even elect the one he foresaw would be entangled in more and heavier sins, leaving the one he foresaw would commit fewer and lighter (In 1. q. 23 art. 5).
Latin
Sol. Hoc argumentum ab antiquis Pelagianis urgeri solitum, patet ex Augustino multis in locis: Contra 2 Epist. Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 7. Et epist. 105. ad Sixtum, Hypogn. contra Pelag. lib. 6. et alibi. Quinetiam antesignanus Semipelagianorum Faustus Regiensis sic argumentatur lib. 2. cap. 4. Si ambo res sunt in natura, in isto justitia periclitabitur, qui sine merito indignus eligitur. Sed respondemus cum doctissimo Bannesio, Deum posse absque ulla injustitia, aut vitiosa personarum acceptione non modo ex duobus hominibus prorsus aequalibus unum eligere ad vitam aeternam, alio praeterito, sed etiam illum eligere quem praescivit pluribus et gravioribus peccatis implicandum, illo relicto quem praevidit pauciora et leviora admissurum, In 1. quest. 23. art. 5.