A69054:271
The institutions of Christian religion, written by the reverend father, M. John Calvin, compendiously…The institutions of Christian religion, written by the reuerend father, M. Iohn Caluin, compendiously…
The institutions of Christian religion, written by the reverend father, M. John Calvin, compendiously abridged by Edmond Bunny Bachelor of divinity; and translated into English by Edward MayThe institutions of Christian religion, written by the reuerend father, M. Iohn Caluin, compendiously abridged by Edmond Bunnie Bachellour of diuinitie; and translated into English by Edward May
London: printed for William Norton, 1580
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.
There are two kinds of objections which they do allege: the first whereof containeth certain absurdities, the other many places of Scripture which seem to repugn in form: he entreateth of the first, from the first to the fifth: but of the other, from the sixth to the nineteenth.
THere are two kindes of obiections which they doe alleadge: the first whereof conteyneth certaine absurdities, the other many places of Scripture which séeme to repugne in forme: he entreateth of the first, from the first to the fift: but of the other, from the sixt to the ninetéenth.
1 As concerning the absurdities, the first is, if sin be of necessity, then it ceaseth to be sin: if it be voluntary, then may it be avoided: both which he denieth. First, that to sin is not of creation, but of the corruption of nature, that men being made bondslaves of sin can will nothing but evil, that also is voluntary which is not subject to free election.
1 As concerning the absurdities, the first is, if sinne be of necessitie, then it ceasseth to be sinne: if it be voluntarie, then may it be auoyded: both which he denieth. First, that to sin is not of creation, but of the corruption of nature, that men being made bondslaues of sin can will nothing but euill, that also is voluntarie which is not subiect to frée election.
2 The second is, that if both virtues and vices proceed not of free choice of will, it is not reasonable that either punishment should be laid upon man, or reward given him. To this argument he answereth, that as touching reward, he proveth that it is not absurd, but as touching punishment, he showeth how little force their argument hath.1