my hammer / and weapoÌ„s of warre / I haue by the beaten doune natioÌ„s / and destroied kindoÌ„mes I haue by the beaten doune the horse / and his rider c. Seinge than that men ar subiecte to goddes throne / and do not what they list / but be his instrumentes scourges / hatchettes / and hammers / we ought patiently to sustaine our present affliction and the great miserie of our countree And we maie wel conceaue hope of conforte and of better state consideringe / that god hath also an hoke in the nostrelles a snaffle in in the mouthes euen of the vnmerciful oppressors of his seruauntes in England / whereby he wil draw them another waye / and restraine theyr rage whan he hath duly plaged the reprobate sufficieÌ„tly chastised his chosen Only lette vs remoue the causes of these our miseries namely lothinge of goddes holie worde boilinge lustes idle wantonnes and greedie desires of wordlie thinges we shal see shortly Pharao and his furious armie drouned in the red sea And we that haue longe sounge morneful songes shal chaunge our tunes and singe another while ioifully with Moses and Mâ—riam The lord is our strength and our praise he his our saluation this is our god and we wil magnifie him our fathers god and we wil aduance him For this lette vs praie to this lette vs saie Amen amen ¶ After this lecture it pleased the partie spoken of before to make certayne argumentes against mine assertioÌ„ whereunto here foloweth the auÌ„swer ¶ The third reading My conscience beareth me witnes that thorough goddes grace and goodnes I haue taught you the truth in this place and that I haue spoken reuerently of god and his worckes I am charged in dede with vnreuerent speech But alas what shuld moue me to speake vnreuereÌ„tly of hiÌ„ who made me whan I was nothing who saued me whan I was lost who restored me to life whan I was ded who quited me whan I was to be damned who raised me vp to heauen whâ— I was to be cast in to hel / who hath fed mâ— from my cradle and than most plentiously whâ— I was an orphane who also I am certaine hatâ— deliuered me out of manie daungers thauoidance whereof to procure I had nether counsel nor purpose nor thought in whom noâ— being chased out of my countree and banished from mine acquaintaunce knowen frendes I finde swete comforte and great plentie of ioies / euen in the middest of teares But the maner of my speaking foundeth vnreuerently / though in my mind / I maie thincke reuerently If this be an vnreuerent speech to saie that it was goddes wil and ordinance that Adam shuld sinne than this is an vnreuerent speech / to saie that it was goddes wil and ordinance / that the Iues shuld crucifie Christ and that Iosephes brethern shuld sel him in to Aegypte But the holie gost saieth / by the mouth of his holie Apostles / and primitiue church that the Iues and the geÌ„tiles came together to do what soeuer goddes hand purpose had ordained to be don And the same holie gost saieth by the mouth of the right vertuous and holie man Ioseph you sent me not hither but god Howbeit you must know that whan we saie that it was goddes wil and ordinance that Adam shuld sinne the meaninge is not that god delighted in Adams sinne or that god alowed Adams sinne or that god was the propre cause or propre worcker of Adams sinne / but the meaning is that it was goddes wil that Adam shuld sinne thorough Satans enuie / and Adams awne faulte not for the sinnes sake / or in respecte of the sinne but for the end that he wold turne the sinne vnto And that the hole matter that I haue taught you herein is true I haue a sure ground For the scripture teacheth plainly that al the thinges that ar don in the world ar gouerned by goddes wil. The testimonie of Salomon is plaine that God hâ—th wrought al thinges for him selfe eueÌ„ the vngodlie to an euil daie And. S. Paule speaking of goddes bliâ—ding and reiecting of the Iues and receauing of the gentiles to mercie pronounceth that al thinges ar of him / by him and into him Ieremie repeouing the furious madnes of them that denied goddes prouidence in his tyme maketh this demaÌ„de with a stomake Who is he that saieth a thing is don and god commaunded it not that is to saie ordained it not The same Ieremie whan the king of BabiloÌ„ purposed to inuade the Moabites and being now in his iornaie chaunged his purpose and came against Ierusalem crieth out I know lord that maÌ„nes way is not his awne nether is it of man / to gouerne and to directe his awne steppes And therefore Salomon saieth also that mannes steppes ar guided of god And to teaâ—h vs certainly that nothinge commeth to passe by chaunce and to remoue al matter of doubtinge in this question the same Salomon teacheth / that those thinges wherein hap semeth most to haue place procede out of the iudgdmeÌ„t of god Lottes saieth he ar cast in to the lappe but the hole iudgement is from Iehoua How eloquently and how diligently is this matter beaten in to mennes heades in the propheties of Esaie Where god after that he hath shewed that he wold raise vp king Cyrus from the east to beate dounne Babilon and to conquere manie nations to the confusion of al Epicures babling bande asketh this question Who hath wrought and don these thinges And aunswereth thereto himselfe I Iehoua the fâ—rst and with the last ani hu I am he And in the 45. cha I the lorde and there is no more framing light and causing darcknes / making peâ—ce and causing euil that is waâ—re I Iehoua do al these thinges Breifely al the places of the scripture that teach that god is the iudge and gouernor of the world / teach that al thinges comme to passe by his wil and ordinance But this truth hath had aduersaries in al ages For to goe no higher S. Hierome though he haue some sentences that some to make with vs yet he hath one sentence that putteth me out of doubte that he halted and went to much a wrie in this matter For writinge vpon one of the prophetes he saieth in mockage that some ar so straite mainteiners of goddes prouidence that they affirme / that god knoweth how maneflies gnattes there be in the world which he thincketh to be to base a matter for god to be occupied in But how vntrue this is you know that haue heard the lord Iesus / who is in goddes bosome and knoweth al his secretes affirme that the heares of our heades ar nombred and that there falleth not a litle sparow vpon the erth beside the wil and ordinance of our heauenlie father Nether maie you thincke that god knoweth flies and gnattes and litle sparowes with ircksom tediousnes which is found in man bicause of his weacknes And therefore
whan the prophete Esaie speaketh of goddes prouidence how he brought forth the armie of heauen that is to saie the starres called euerie one by name saieth thus Why saiest thou Iacob / my waie is hidden from Iehoua and my iudgemeÌ„t shal passe from my god that is to saie goddes ordinance extendeth not to me Doest thou not know / that the eternal god Iehoua / who made the vtter most partes of the erth is not werie / nor feleth tediousnes / or paine that his vndrestanding can not be serched out By these wordes Hieromes feare that god shuld be ouermuch vnsemely busied with so smal thinges is proued fond and superfluous Wel such aduersaries the truth had than Howbeit it had also as stronge maintainers For. S. Augustine in the same tyme gloriously and inuincibly defended it and to this daie he raigneth in it / as a mightie conqueror of al them that dare hisse against it The later scole men thought not altogether amisse of this matter For thei saie that al thinges comme necessarely to passe not by the necessitee of natural causes but by the necessitee of goddes ordinance which thei cal necessitatem consequeÌ„tie Some sophisters that folowed afterwarde delighting them selues in choplogike in braules and vaine subtilties labored on thotherside to impugne the truth hereof And in our tyme the popes peare of bastarde diuines Eckius and Pigghius haue taken the same thiÌ„ge in hand And not only papistes ar busie herein but also some professors of tru religion ether bicause thei be preposterously feareful or bicause thei haue wanton idle wittes In this later ordre I compte the hartiehard hartians in England In the the nombre of the first I put Philippe Melanchthon who in the beginning was verie ernest and free but afterward whan he saw the perueâ—site of the raging world being a man naturally fearful he beganne to giue place and to beare with the papâ—stes in more thinges than this Howbeit I thincke surely that he relented not altogether of feare but partly to winne the weake whose tendre yonge stomakes cold not broke so hard meate at the first For he is a right godlie maÌ„ and studious to promote sincere doctrine by al meanes Melanchihâ—n than standeth not plainly with vs nether standeth he plainly against vs. For if ye marcke his writinges thoroughly he impugneth and beateth doune only this that god is the autor of sinne wher in no man dissenteth from him saue the mad Manichees in old time and in our tyme men like to them the lost Libertines I thincke wel that there be some other good men which to auoide the offense of vnlerned tendre eares / forbeare to speake plainly what thei thincke in this matter But Zuinglius and Oecclampadius two lightes of the worlde Martinus Lutherus and Martinus Bucerus men of in comparable knowlege and lerninge Petrus Matyr and Ioannes Caluinus of which two the first in sondrie sciences and in present readines and liuelines of witte excelleth al the meÌ„ that we know in Europe thother in eloquence in handsome handlinge and vndrestandinge of the scripture is a miracle to al men / euen to the verie papistes Al these by whom god hath most wondrefully renued his truth in this later tyme haue expresly plainly fully and strongly not only affirmed but also with most pithie and sound reasons coÌ„firmed the thinges that I haue taught you in this place at this present reherse vnto you Now seing I haue spoken after the meaning and maner of the holie gost and after the vndrestanding of most godlie / and most excellently wel lerned men I trust you wil not thinke / that I haue spoken rashely or vnreuerently of god and his worckes I haue chosen in dede purposely to treate such places amonge you as touch goddes prouidence in gouerning the world partly to conforte my selfe and you in this woful tyme and partly to shew the inconsiderate wilfulnes of the harriharde hartiaÌ„s such beggerlie doctors in England Now some for exercise of lerninge / haue set them selues against me in this my trauail of whoÌ„ I nede not to be much aferde for two causes First because thei bringe not with them bitternes of minde / nor hatred ether against me / or against the truth Secondly because they fight with leaden swordes For against that / that I said for the thorow mainteinance of goddes prouidence / that it was goddes wil and ordinance that Adam shuld sinne / they make this fainte reasoÌ„ AdaÌ„s sinne was iniquitee but god willeth none iniquitee ergo I aunswere that these logicians begile them selues in douteful termes For to wil / hath a double signification For we maie be said to wil a thinge whan we alow it or delight in it And so Dauides worde lo kaphets certainly signifieth and shuld be thus englished Thou art not a god that hath pleasure in iniquitee And we maie be said also to wil a thinge whan we delight not in the thiÌ„ge nor alow it but ordaine it to be doÌ„ for some purpose If these men that be our aduersaries in disputing / not in meaning / vndrestand by this world / to wil / that god delighted not in Adams sin / nor alowed it / so saie we And than they fight against their awne shadowes But if thei meane / that it was not goddes decree / and ordinance / that Adam shuld sinne for another purpose I meane than for the respecte of sinne thaÌ„ we saie / they go aboute to pulle god out of his throne / to spoile him of his power / and violently to wrest out of his handes his office of iudging / and gouerning the world And thei ascribe weacknes to god For they so teache that thiÌ„ges be don whether god wil or no. The second argument is that god in forbidding Adam to eate of the frute / doclared his wil to be that Adam shuld not eate thereof But if god had ben in wil that Adam shuld haue eaten of the frute that had ben a contrariete in god ergo c. To this I saie shortly that god in dede by his commaundment testified to Adam / what his pleasure was / and what he alowed / and againe what AdaÌ„s dutie was to do towardes him / but this letted not god to wil and decree that AdaÌ„ thorough his awne fault shuld do the thinge / that god alowed not in it selfe / but ordained to be don / for the ende / that he wold turne it vnto Bycause god liked not / nor alowed Adams sinne mighte he not therefore ordaine it to be don for some good ende Who hath giuen you such autoritee ouer god to cutte shorte his power that he shal do no more than pleaseth you or that you can be contente to iudge wel don Lo how terrible these weapons be which breake in shiuers before they comme to the stroke But now commeth another mightie blow he that doeth the wil of god pleaseth god but Adam in breaking the commaundment of
god pleased not god ergo he did not his wil. I praie you good frendes shuld Adam please god in doinge goddes wil and ordinance with a faulte of his awne Senacherth did goddes wil and ordinance in afflicting the people of Ierusalem but bycause he did it with a fame of his awne god plaged him for doing that that he testifieth he had appointed him to do If you can not perceaue how men maie do Goddes decreed wil / with a fault of their awne / impute it to your ignorance / and want of vndrestanding / thincke it not by and by to be false that your measured witte can not comprehende The nexte argument is like the for ner / God rewarded not Adam with benifices / ergo he did not that goddes wil was to be don I wil make the like reason God rewarded not the Iues with benefites for crucifâ—inge of Christ ergo it was not goddes wil / and ordinance / that the Iues shuld crucifie Christ But yet the holie gost saieth that thei did that goddes hand and purpose had foreordained to be don Pigghiuâ— the papist frameth the argumeâ—t thus Adam in siâ—ninge and the Iues in procuring Christes death did that god wold and had ordained before to be don / ergo thei were not to be punished For right vndrestanding hereof / ye shal know that god / and wickâ—d men / wil some times one thinge but not after one maner Adams wil was to sinne and goddes wil was that he shuld sinne But Adams wil was to sinne bycause he wold be â—qual to god / iâ— knowinge of good bad And goddes wil was that Adam thorough his awne faute shuld sinne / to turne Adams sinne to good / and to bringe good out of euil The Iues wil was to put Christ to death / and goddes wil was / that his sonne shuld die But the Iues wil was / that he shuld die bycause thei wold satisfie their malice and crueltie vpon him and godddes wil was / that he shuld die to raunsome his chosen and so to declare h s â—â—â—stiâ—â—able goodnes Sainct Augustine sheweth verie handsomely how god willeth the same thinge / with a good wil / that men wil which a nawghtie wil. An vnthriftie child â—â—â—â—â—h the death of his father / whoÌ„ god wil haue to die Thei both wil one thiÌ„g namely the death of the man but they wil it not after one sorte For the enthriftie sonne willeth it to emote his father goodes God willeth it / to conuete him out of miserie if he be one of the chosen / or duly to punish him / if he be a reprobate Is this vnthrifte than worthie to be rewarded with benifites bicause he wold the same thinge that god wold Naie surely For he willed it vniustly to an euil purpose and god willed it iustly to a good porpose Boies in scoles to practise then sophistrie make the argument as handsomely after this sorte That wil that agreeth with goddes wil is good / the Iues wil agreed with goddes wil for thei wold that Christ shuld die and god also wold / that he shuld die ergo their wil was good To this wise men aunswer that the Iues wil agreed not with goddes wil in al causes and in al pointes and therefore it was not good but extremely euil The argument the refore is nawght For it is deducted ex causa non sufficiente .i. of a cause not sufficient But let vs peruse more of our aduersaries reasons God made man to immortalitie ergo it was not his wil that he shuld sinne and die I aunswer that this is not an absolute speech god made maÌ„ to immortalitie but a coÌ„ditional God made man to immortalite if he wold haue persisted and continued in the state that god made him in Whan Ionas saieth / yet .40 daies and Niniue shal be destroied this speech declareth not goddes secrete determinatioÌ„ but what shuld folow if thei did not repente God saieth to Abimelech hauing taken to him Abrahams wife Lo thou shalt die for the woman whom thou hast taken This semeth an absolute speech but in dede it hath a secrete condition which the scripture afterwarde expresseth in these wordes Restore hir now to hyr husband if thou restore hir not see the conditioÌ„ expressed know that thou shalt surely die Yet there remaineth another reason that wold make anie man to quake if he had nether wit / nor sparcke of a mannes mind If you grauÌ„t not coÌ„tingentiam saie thei than ye affirme that al thinges coÌ„me to passe by fatal destinee Here first I must tel you what coÌ„tingens is CoÌ„tingens is that which though it be doÌ„ after some certaine sorte yet hath of it selfe and of his awne nature that it might haue ben otherwise doÌ„ As for exemple / Iulius Cesar ouercame PoÌ„peie There is nothinge in the nature hereof but that PoÌ„peie might haue ouercoÌ„me Iulius Cesar The legges of the lord Iesus of theyr awne nature might haue ben broken Than we saie that manie thinges of them selues and of their awne nature be coÌ„tingent but touching goddes wil and ordinance there is nothing coÌ„tingent in the world that is to saie nothinge in the world coÌ„meth to passe other wise than he hath determined and ordained And so we saie that Iulius Cesar must nedes ouercoÌ„me PoÌ„peie and that the legges of the lord Iesus cold not be broken by reasoÌ„ of goddes ordinance But so we agree with the stoikes that saie that al thinges coÌ„me to passe by fatal destinie Naie surely For those foÌ„de philosophers taught that al thinges comme to passe by the copulatioÌ„ of causes wrapped one in another And they made god subiect to this ordre / and row of causes depending one vpoÌ„ another after such sorte as Homere deuised his chaine whereuÌ„to he tieth Iuppiter also But we saie not that al thinges coÌ„me to passe for that the causes ar so licked to gether that one thinge necessarely draweth another but bicause god hath thorough his secrete wil and purpose ordained al thinges so to be doÌ„ as ther be doÌ„ And we make not god subiecte to â—â—ained and lincked causes but we make al causes and al thinges subiecte to god This than that our aduersaries wold fraie vs withal was nothing but lightninge out of a basin After that I had gon this far two other reasoÌ„s of theirs were brought vnto me wh ch though thei maie be confuted by that that I haue al readie said yet I wil examine them bycause I heare / that they acknowlege most strength to be in them The first is this If it had ben goddes wil that Adam shuld sinne than Adam shuld haue wanted free wil / but god gaue him free wil / to kepe his commaund mâ—t if he wold ergo it was not goddes wil / that he shuld sinne This reason shineth to them as it were gold but in dede it is but gilted latin For goddes wil / and ordinance letted not but that Adam shuld do frely
and willingly without compulsion that he did nether did Adam sinne thorough want of free wil natural strength If anie did affirme / that god compelled Adam to sinne than complaint might be made that Adam wanted free wil. And a reason might be framed against vs vpō Adams free wil. But if god ordained that Adam shuld sinne without compulsion / thorough his awne faute and abuse of his free wil than this reason hath no maner of force / and the complainte is made without cause But you wil saie that there was no fault in Adam / if that were necessarely to be don that he did I denie the consequence For if he did willyngly breake goddes commaundment as it is euident without compulsion / there was a fault great enough in him The diuel doeth those thinges necessarely that he doeth / and can not choose but do them yet bycause he doeth them willingly without compulsion / thorough the rage of his nawghtie wil he is iustly to be damned So though Adam did that must nedes be don yet bycause he did it without compulsion thorough a manifest fault of his awne he deserued damnation For it is not al one to do a thinge of necessite and to do a thinge of constraint For god doeth good necessarely and can not do otherwise and yet he doth not good constrainedly The diuel / as I shewed you doth euil necessarely and can do none other and yet he doeth not the same cōstrainedly but most willingly And thus nether man nor diuel can excuse their faulte by goddes ordinance and by necessitee For goddes ordinances cōpelleth nether man nor diuel to do il and so leaueth a place to their awne faute For thei do that thei most desire and wold do none otherwise to choose If men wil see this thei must put of the old spectacles of fleshlie bleared eyes and desire of god a new sight and to be made aegleeyed of him Heare now the seconde argument Sinne and death / cāme in to the world by the enuie of the diuel and the nawghtie concupiscence of Adam in transgressing goddes commaundment but the enuie of the diuel and the nawghtie concupiscence of Adam were contrarie to goddes wil / ergo it was not goddes wil / that Adam shuld sinne I graūt that Adams nawhhtie concupiscence and the diuels enuie ar contrarie to goddes wil if you meane by goddes wil that god neuer alowed ether the diuels enuie or Adams nawghtie concupiscence But wil you saie this / death camme into the world by the enuie of the diuel ergo it was not ordained by god Who than ordained death whether god wold or no Did god / as Esaie teacheth ordaine gehenna from yester daie that is to saie from eternitee and not death As death than came not in to the world besides goddes ordinance and yet god delighteth not in death as it is only death but as it is the iust punishment of sinners so sinne camme not in to the world besides goddes ordinance / and yet god delighteth not in sinne as it is sinne / but in that that he wil turne sinne vnto You haue heard the reasons that thei thincke maie be made against me heare now how thei dissolue my reasons made against them In which matter thei feately discharge them selues of ouer much labor For thei medel but with one of myn thother that thei saie is myn camme out of their awne shoppes and was neuer made by me To shew that Adams sinne cāme not to passe besides goddes ordinance I alleged this sentence of S. Augustine Euen in this that thei did against goddes wil goddes wil was fulfilled vpon them These wordes saie thei make against your assertion For Augustine saieth that the angels apostates Adam did that that god wold not But I praie you what saie thei to this that S. Augustine saieth that by the same their acte goddes wil was fulfilled vpon them Here thei giue them selues and vs leaue / and space enough to breathe Thei cutte the band in sondre where the knotte is not as for the knotte it selfe thei neuer touche yet wold haue men to weene that thei haue verie wel loosed it The argument which thei forge them selues faine to be myne is this Nothinge can be dō in the world besides the wil of god sinne is a thinge ergo it is not don beside the wil of god In this argument thei denie the minor saie that sinne is nothing If I shuld haue made a syllogisme I wold haue framed it after this sorte Nothinge in the world is dō besides goddes wil and ordinance that Adam sinned was a thinge don in the world ergo it was don by goddes wil and ordinance In the minor whan I saie that Adam sinned I meane Adams sinful action and dede and not the qualitee only of Adams minde but in their minor / sinne signifieth only a qualitee / not an action Howbeit I maie also saie truly of Adams sinne meaninge the qualitee or what soeuer you wil cal it that it was not in him besides goddes wil and ordinance though god caused it not than frame the syllogisme after this sorte Al that was in Adam was in him by godddes goddes wil ordinance but sinne was in Adam ergo it was in him by goddes wil and ordinance For it is not al one / to saie that sinne was in Adam by goddes wil and ordinance and to saie / that sinne was in Adam by goddes propre worckinge The first saiyng is verie true and ascribeth no faulte to god The seconde is verie false for it ascribeth the faulte of Adams fal to god From which affirmation I most ernestly abhorre And I wold to God I might be once halfe so far from other faultes as I am far from that frantike imagination and droncken dreame of diuellish men Where thei saie that sinne is nothinge you shal vndrestand that in scoles this word nothing is taken two waies for nothing negatiuely and for nothinge priuatiuely To saie that sinne is nothinge negatiuely is open blasphemie For so men shuld be damned for nothinge at al. But thei take this word nothinge for nothinge priuatiuely and teache that sinne is a priuation and absence of righteousnes / which is a destruction of nature for which god abhorreth the creature that is defiled therewith I graunt thei meane so and teach so and so meaneth S. Augustine to / but seinge the vnlerned can not make a difference and distinction of nothinge negatiuely and nothinge priuatiuely nor can wel vndrestande what priuatiō is though thei be taught that darcknes is the priuation of light death of life our aristarches shuld leaue those termes to scoles and teach the people as the truth is and as thei maie easely vndrestand that sinne is a qualitee repugnant and contrarie to goddes lawes For thei ar better acquainted with this word qualitee than with this worde priuation And logicians permitte that priuations shal be referred to the