A Golden Chain

To proceed in the text, because the doctrine of Paul delivered in the former verses might seem strange unto the Romans, therefore in the 14. verse, he lays down an objection, and answers the same. The objection is this: If God put distinction between man and man, without respect had to their persons, upon his own will and pleasure, then is he unjust: but he is not unjust: therefore he makes no such distinction. The answer is, God forbid. Whereby he denies the consequence of the proposition, on this manner: Though God should elect some to salvation, and reject some others and that upon his will, yet were there no injustice with God. The reason of this answer follows in the 18. verse. God hath absolute power or freedom of will, whereby without being bound to any creature, he may and can first of all have mercy on whom he will, and secondly harden whom he will. For the proof of the first, that God hath mercy on whom he will, he lays down the testimony of Moses, vers. 15. I will have mercy on him on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on him on whom I will have compassion. And in verse 16. makes his collection thence, that it [namely the purpose of God according to election verse 11.] is not in him that willeth or in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. Whereby he teacheth, that the free election of God in order goes before all things that may in time befall man: and that therefore neither the intentions and endeavours of the mind, nor the works of our life, which are the effects of election, can be the impulsive causes to move God to choose us to salvation. The second, that God hardens whom he will, is confirmed & made plain by the testimony of Scripture concerning Pharaoh, verse 17.

To proceede in the text, because the doctrine of Paul deliuered in the former verses might seeme strange vnto the Romanes, therefore in the 14. verse, he laies downe an obiection, and answers the same. The obiection is this: If God put distinction betweene man and man, without respect had to their persons, vpon his owne will and pleasure, then is he vniust: but he is not vniust: therfore he makes no such distinction. The answer is, God forbid. Whereby he denies the consequence of the proposition, on this manner: Though God should elect some to saluation, and reiect some others and that vpon his will, yet were there no iniustice with God. The reason of this answer followes in the 18. verse. God hath absolute power or freedome of will, whereby without beeing bound to any creature, he may and can first of all haue mercie on whome he will, and secondly harden whome he will. For the proofe of the first, that God hath mercie on whome he will, he laies downe the testimonie of Moses, vers. 15. I will haue mercie on him on whome I will shew mercie, and I will haue compassion on him on whome I will haue compassion. And in verse 16. makes his collection thence, that it [namely the purpose of God according to election verse 11.] is not in him that willeth or in him that runneh, but in God that sheweth mercie. Whereby he teacheth, that the free election of God in order goes before all things that may in time befall man: and that therefore neither the intentions and endeauours of the minde, nor the workes of our life, which are the effects of election, can be the impulsiue causes to mooue God to choose vs to saluation. The second, that God hardens whome he will, is confirmed & made plaine by the testimonie of Scripture concerning Pharao, verse 17.