Cap. IV open: same if the thing itself is viewed — Causa/Merita; Arminius should not deny motive
But if you look at the thing itself, both positions come to the same: it makes anyone's predestination (or non-predestination) to eternal life depend on some antecedent human act. The ancient Fathers and Scholastics in this controversy seem to me to mean by Cause — nay Merit — nothing else than any good act a man performs by divine grace, in view of which God by his decree or ordination grants any benefit. So if God predestinates in view of our faith and does not in view of unbelief, Arminius should not have denied that he posits faith as a reason or motive cause of our predestination — even a meritorious one, in the ancients' phrase and sense. But that by the way.
Latin
Verum si res ipsa spectetur, eodem redit utraque sententia, statuitque ex humano aliquo actu antecedente dependere, quod quivis a Deo praedestinetur ad vitam aeternam, aut non praedestinetur. Neque mihi videntur antiqui Patres, aut Scholastici in hac controversia Causae, imo Meriti vocabulo aliam notionem subjecisse quam hanc, ut scilicet innuant quemvis bonum actum, virtute gratiae Divinae ab homine praestitum, cujus intuitu Deus dat ex decreto sive ordinatione sua quodvis beneficium. Si igitur Deus intuitu fidei nostrae praedestinat, intuitu infidelitatis non praedestinat, negare non debuit Arminius fidem a se poni rationem vel causam motivam praedestinationis nostrae, imo meritoriam, ex phrasi et sensu antiquorum. Sed haec obiter.