Wellebius:

VIII. Original sin consists not only of inability to do good, but also of a tendency [proclivitas] toward evil; nor is it merely the loss of the good originally given, but also the addition of the corresponding evil.

IX. By original sin natural goods are corrupted, and the supernatural good completely [penitus] taken away. X. There remain, therefore, the intellect, but it is beclouded; and the will, which has lost its rectitude; and the lower desires, which are totally corrupted. XI. Therefore, even in natural and civil affairs unredeemed man can do good only by special grace. XII. Without this special grace of God nothing significant was done by the pagans [gentiles]. XIII. Whatever they did accomplish was so mingled with multiform futility, that even their greatest virtues are merely magnificent sins [splendida peccata] before God. XIV. Good works are not merely actions that are good in themselves, but actions that are performed from right motives. The phrase “good works” may be used either univocally or equivocally. It is used univocally of actions that are good simply with respect to all circumstances, but equivocally of actions good in themselves but corrupted with respect to the object, or subject, or means, or purpose. If one examines the purpose of the actions of the pagans, it will be evident that they were concerned over their own glory rather than that of God XV. Although the passions of the reprobate are restrained by God a! with a bridle, they are not made whole. XVI. The supernatural gifts, namely clarity of intellect, rectitude of will and conformity of passion to reason, are completely lost. XVII. Thus in spiritual matters, man has within himself no principle of knowing or acting, either as a concrete fact or as a possibility. XVIII. Therefore, those who attribute to unredeemed man either free will or other powers by which he might do good or prepare himself for conversion and God’s grace, are seeking a house in ashes. This is the error of the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. XIX. The will remains free from coercion, but not free to choose between good and evil. XX. The will has been made so evil [factum est ad malum] that it is better described as enslaved than as free. So far as intellect is concerned, “the natural man cannot understand the concerns of the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2: 14). As to will, “the imagination of man’s heart is evil” (Gen. 8: 21). Finally, Scripture declares that man as a whole has lost spiritual life, “to lie dead in sin” (Eph. 2: I). XXI. Even when this sin has been forgiven to pious parents, it is nonetheless passed on by generation to their children. Because the stain is not completely removed by forgiveness, although the guilt is removed. The gift of faith is not given by generation, but by regeneration, so man generates man not as regenerate, but simply as man, just as seed cleansed of beard, chaff, and husk, still produce these when it grows.

Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in John W. Beardslee III, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1977), 70-71. [Originally published in 1626.] [Note, by the term “special grace” Wollebius means special common grace, cf, Calvin, Institutes 2.2.17; Institutes, 2.3.4.]

Wollebius:

But that which is included in the popular jingle,

He commands and he forbids,
Permits, advises, and fulfills,

may be loosely called by the designation of divine will. Just as the edicts of a magistrate are called his will, so the designation of will may be given to precepts, prohibitions, promises, and even deeds and events. Thus the divine will is also called that which God wants done [voluntas signi], because it signifies what is acceptable to God; what he wants done by us. It is called “consequent” because it follows that eternal antecedent; “conditional” because the commandments, prohibitions, warnings, and promises of God all have a condition of obedience or disobedience attached to them. Finally, it is called “revealed,” because it is always explained in the word of God. It must be observed that this sort of distinction does not postulate either really diverse, or contradictory, wills in God.

Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in John W. Beardslee III, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1977), 48. [Originally published in 1626.]

Wollebius:

III. Besides the will of God, there are no causes which can be contrary to his will. Many things indeed can be contrary to what God wants [voluntas signi], which nevertheless conform to the divine plan [voluntas beneplaciti]. God did not will man’s sin, and indeed most strictly forbade it. Nevertheless, at the same time he decreed it according to his will [beneplaciti], as a means of revealing his glory.

IV. Both good and evil, therefore, result from the decree and will of God; the former he causes, and the latter he permits.

V. Nevertheless, the decree and will of God are in no sense the cause of evil or sin, although whatever God decrees takes place of necessity. Since evils are decreed not effectively, but permissively, the decree of God is not the cause of evil. Nor are the decrees of God the cause of evil on account of the inevitability of their result, since they bring about results not by a coercive necessity but merely by an immutable one.

Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in John W. Beardslee III, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1977), 48. [Originally published in 1626. Keep in mind this is a smaller dogmatic work and so his comments on various topics will not be extensive.]

Aretius:

Benedict Aretius* has similar expressions on1 Tim. ii. “Christ,” says he, “died for all, yet notwithstanding all do not embrace the benefit of his death, because by their own wickedness, and the corruption of their nature, they despise the offered grace.

Source: John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 338.

*ARETIUS (Benedict) an Ecclesiastic of Berne, in Switzerland, eminent as a botanist and theologian. In the former science he published an account of Alpine plants, which is highly spoken of. In Divinity, on which he gave lectures at Marpurg, his works are–A Commentary on the New Testament, and Examen Theologicum, in folio, which it is said was printed twelve times in three years. He died in 1674.

Richard Muller says of Aretius:

Benedictus Aretius (1505-1574); studied at Strasburg and Marburg; served as professor of logic at Marburg and, beginning in 1564, as Wolfgang Musculus’ successor as professor of theology in Bern. His major dogmatic work was Examin theologicum (1557) and SS. theolgiae problemata, seu loci comunes (1573). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 1:42 [first edition].

Some titles by Aretius, demonstrating his influence:

Sermones tres de coena Domini.
In d. Mosis Pentateuchum, hoc est, priscam dei legem, Benedicti Aretii theologi Bernesnis commentarii breues ac dilucidi
Commentarii in Evangelivm Matthaei
Commentarii in euangelium Domini Nostri Iesv Christi secundum Marcum
Commentarii in evangelium Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundùm Lucam
Commentarii in qvatvor Evangelistas : a Benedicto Aretio Bernensi … conscripti.
Commentarii in sacram Actuum Apostolicorum historiam : facili & perspicua methodo conscripti
Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Romanos : facili et perspicua methodo conscripti
Commentarii in epistola D. Pauli ad Galatas
Commentarii in secundam epistolam D. Pauli ad Corinthios
Commentarii in Epistolas D. Pauli ad Philippenses, Colossenses et in utramque ad Thessal.
Commentarii in epistolas Pauli ad Timoth., ad Titum et ad Philem. … cum indice rerum memorabilium.
Commentarij in euangelium … secundum Ioannem