Cap. 6 Tertio close: Gospel given or denied by calling pleasure, not natural use
Third and last, we assert—with sacred Scripture and experience itself as witnesses—that the gospel and the other means of salvation were not granted or denied to people because some used natural light rightly, or at least less badly, while others abused the same light perversely and wickedly. Sacred Scripture shows that the light of the gospel shone on people who did not expect it, people who were abusing natural light or talent in the worst way. Such were the Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians: through the apostles the torch of the gospel was lit for them while they were still wallowing in the filth of superstitions and lusts. No less plain is this: to very many who lived less wickedly the gospel was never revealed.
Who does not know that among the philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Xenocrates, and among the Romans Fabricius, Scipio, and Cato, used nature’s light well beyond other people? Yet none of them became a partaker of evangelical grace on that account. So the cause of the gospel and of supernatural light, given or denied, is not to be sought in better or worse use of natural light, but in the good pleasure of God who calls or does not call. With those points tasted first, we come to the thesis itself. We confirm it first by an argument drawn from the death of Christ—the very place from which the adversaries think they can infer the contrary.
Latin
Tertio & ultimo, asserimus, attestante sacra Scriptura & ipsa experientia, Evangelium aliaque salutis media non fuisse hominibus concessa aut negata, exinde quod quidam lumine naturali recte, aut saltem minus male usi fuerint, alii eodem lumine perverse & improbe abusi fuerint. Nam ex sacris Scripturis apparet lumen Evangelii affulsisse illis inopinantibus, qui lumine sive talento naturali pessime abutebantur. Tales fuerunt Romani, Corinthii, Ephesii, quibus per Apostolos fax Evangelii accensa est, quando in coeno superstitionum & libidinum volutabantur. Illud etiam non minus manifestum est, quamplurimis Evangelium nunquam fuisse revelatum qui minus improbe vixerunt. Quis nescit inter Philosophos Socratem, Platonem, Xenocratem, inter Romanos Fabricium, Scipionem, Catonem, lumine naturae prae caeteris hominibus bene usos fuisse: nemo tamen horum Evangelicae gratiae idcirco particeps evasit. Non ergo in meliore aut pejore usu luminis naturalis quaerenda est causa dati aut negati Evangelii & luminis supernaturalis, sed in Dei vocantis aut non vocantis beneplacito. Hisce praelibatis ad ipsam thesin veniamus; Quam primis confirmamus argumento ducto a morte Christi unde adversarii putant se posse contrarium inferre.