A17643:233
Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans
A commentary upon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, written in Latin by M. John Calvin, and newly translated into English by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessary table for the better and more ready finding out of certain principal matters contained in this workA commentarie vpon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes, written in Latine by M. Iohn Caluin, and newely translated into Englishe by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessarie table for the better and more readie finding out of certayne principall matters conteyned in this worke
London: printed by Thomas Dawson for John Harison and George Bishop, 1583London: printed by Thomas Dawson for Iohn Harison and George Bishop, 1583
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
6 Let it not be so. In staunching this blasphemy, he answereth not directly unto the objection: But first beginneth at the abhorring thereof, least Christian religion should seem to bring so great absurdities with it. And that is some what more, then if he had simply refuted it. For he giveth to understand thereby that this wicked saying is worthy to be abhorred and not to be heard. Straightways he addeth, but (as they call it) an indirect refutation: for he doeth not absolutely take away the obloquy, but only answereth, that that is absurd which is objected.
6 Let it not bee so. In staunching this blasphemie, hee aunswereth not directly vnto the obiection: But firste beginneth at the abhorring thereof, least Christian religion shoulde seeme to bring so great absurdities with it. And that is some what more, then if hee had simply refuted it. For hee giueth to vnderstande thereby that this wicked saying is worthie to be abhorred and not to bee hearde. Straightwayes hee addeth, but (as they call it) an indirect refutation: for hee doeth not absolutely take away the obloquie, but only answereth, that that is absurd which is obiected.
Furthermore, he taketh an argument from the office of God, whereby he proveth that to be impossible, God shall judge this world, Therefore he cannot be unjust, which argument is not taken (as a man would say) from the bare power of God: But from his actual power, which shineth in the whole course and order of his works: as if it were said thus, the office of God is to judge the world: that is, by his righteousness to compose and bring into good order, whatsoever is disordered in the same. Therefore he can do nothing unjustly: and he seemeth to allude unto the place of Moses,1 where, whiles Abraham prayeth God that he would not utterly destroy Sodom, it is not meet (quoth he) that thou which shalt judge the earth, shouldest destroy the just with the unjust. Neither is that thy part, neither can it be said of thee.2 In Job there is the like saying, shall he that hateth judgement govern? For in that there