¶TO THIS HERE FOLOVVETH MASTER MASKERS REPLICATION.

SAint Aug. in the place by you alleged / speaking of the great / & exquisite worckes of god / saieth that whan the nature of angels / and man had sinned / that is to saie / had don not that god wold / but that the same nature wold / that he by the wil of the same creatu­re / whereby was don that / which the creator wold not / might fulfille that he wold.

Here haue you Saint Augustines sentence in these few wordes al readie twise against your assertiō / which is that it was the wil of god / that Adam shuld sinne. For S. Augustine saieth that mā whan he sinned / did not that god wold. And againe / did not that the creator wold. And if you yet vndrestand not. S. Aug. to be manifestly against you / than I counsel you / go to a logi­cian / and aske of him / and he wil tel you / that your assertion / which is / that it was the wil of god / that Adam shuld sinne / and S. Augusti­nes censure / which is / that man / whan he sin­ned / did not that god wold / be opposita con­traria, which striue so sore / that thei can not stā ­de to gether, but the one ouerthroweth the other.

Further to make the matter more euident / S. Aug. saieth / that as pertaininge to them / that is to saie angel / and mā / thei did that god wold not / but as to the ōnipotentie of god / thei cold in no wise so haue dō / that is to saie haue sinned [Page] against the wil of god / which. S. August. by & by interpreteth / that it was the wil of god to suffre them to sinne. Hitherto master Masker. And vpō these wordes of. S. August. that is not dō besides goddes wil / that is don against god­des wil / this wise doctor maketh this glosse. That which is dō against the wil of god / ys yet not don besides his wil / that is to saie in suf­fringe.

¶HERE VPON I SENT HIM THIS LETTRE.

¶To this lettre master Masker aūswe­red first, that he wold differ the aūswere to these places of. S. Aug. vntil I had aunswe­red his former interpretation vpon. S. Au.

Secondly that I fal to to raging, and that I can not iustly charge him with fondnes & madnes. Thirdly he coniureth me to shew him his scabbes of ini­quitee, if I know anie in him &c. Whereūto here foloweth my aunswere.

SIth the places, that I sent you out of. S. Aug. plainly proue your vndrestanding of S. Aug. to be extremely fond, & me­re dotage, it is a shameles shift of you master Masker to saie, you wil differ the aun­swere, vntil I haue aunswered your interp̄ ­tation wrounge, & wrested not only with violence, but also with some losse of an honest conscience. Wold you haue a better interpreter of S. August. than S. Aug. is him selfe? Make first S. Augustines declaration agree with your interpretation, & thā you shal see, what I can saie farther. But bi­cause you presse me, to saie somewhat to your interpretation, first you shal vndre­stande, that I wot not, whether I maie im­pute it to ignorance, or to a gauled consciē ce, that you haue falsly englisshed S. Aug. wordes. For, etiam per eandem creaturae [Page] voluntatem, that is to saie, euē by the same wil of the creature, you haue turned in to these wordes, by the wil of the same creature. Which chaunge of the word, the same, diminisheth the weight of the sentence. But vpon this hole sentence of S. Aug. whā you haue wel rubbed your forehead, you saie, that S. Aug. is twise against me. For I saie, that it was goddes wil, that Adā shuld sinne, and S. Aug. saieth, that man, whan he sinned, did that god wold not. But to saie, that it was goddes wil, that man shuld sin­ne, and that man in sinning, did that god wold not, be opposita contraria. I aūswer that if a logiciā wil tel me so,, I wil tel him that he is an asse. For these two, as you vn­drestand them, be not opposita contraria as heate, and cold, but thei be contradicto­ria, as this, master Master is vnlerned, & m. Masker is not vnlerned. And than if Saint Aug. be against vs, he speaketh contradictoria. For he saieth, that by the same wil, whereby that was don, that god wold not, god fulfilled that he wold. If god fulfilled that he wold, by Adams sinne, than was it plainly goddes wil, that Adā shuld sinne. Or els god fulfilled his wil by chaūce, & not vpon his infallible purpose fast grounded [Page] aeternally before, but suspended his deter­mination, & kepte it vncertaine vpon Adās doinge, and Adam might haue turned, and chaunged the hole matter. And if S. Aug. saie, that Adam did not that god wold af­ter your meaning, than he speaketh contra­dictorie sentences, whereof the one must euer ouerthrow the other. But these two, be nether opposita contraria, nor contra­dictoria, as you vnlernedly affirme. For this worde, wil, is not taken in one sense, in bothe places. For whan S Aug saieth in the first place, that Adā did that god wold not, he meaneth that Adam did, that god alowed not in it selfe, and for it selfe. And whan he saieth, that god by the same wil of Adam, fulfilled that he wold, he meaneth that he fulfilled the thinge, that he purpo­sed, decreed, and ordained. For that S. Aug. ment that it was goddes wil, that A­dam shuld sinne, these wordes signifie plaī ly, to al them, that ar not quite past shame: Nothing is don, that procedeth not out of the inward courte of the soueraine empe­ror &c. And the rest of the sentences, that I sent you before declare the same most e­uidently. But you go forth as wisely, & as honestly, as you beganne. For these [Page] wordes of S. Aug. Hoc quippe ipso, quod cōtra voluntatē dei fecerunt, de ipsis facta est dei voluntas, you translate thus: In that thei did against the wil of god, of them was don the wil of god. First you slenderly turne, hoc quippe ipso, that is to saie, in this verie thing it selfe, in to this, in that thei did, leauing out the emphasis, and force of the speech. And these wordes: De ipsis facta est voluntas Dei, you translate, of them was don goddes wil, which translation maketh the sentence doubteful, whether we shal vndrestande, that thei did goddes wil, or whe­ther god did his wil touchinge them. Whe­re as the later sense only, is S. Augusti. mea­ning. Once more I aske you, whether I shal ascribe this to want of lerning, or to wāt of honestie. But I praie you sir, he that sai­eth, that goddes wil was fulfilled in the ve­rie sinne of Adam, meaneth he not, that it was goddes wil, that Adam shuld sinne?

And whan you saie afterwarde, that the an­gels, and Adam cold not haue sinned agaīst the wil of god, wil not your peuish pride suffre you to perceaue, that so you graunt agaīst your selfe, that it was goddes wil that thei shuld sinne? For al other men see, that what soeuer is not don against goddes wil, [Page] is don with his wil. For you can not ma­ke god to sitte as a neuter, enclining to ne­ther parte. But how preatie is this, that whe­re S. Aug. saieth, that, that is not don besides goddes wil, that is don against his wil, you interprete, that S. August. meaneth, that it is not don besides goddes wil in suffring. So manie thinges ar not don besides master Maskers wil in suffringe, where withal yet master Masker hath nothing to do. But we saie, that nothing is dō besides goddes wil in ordaining, and ordring. For S. Aug. so exponeth him selfe in these wordes. For if this were not good, that euil thinges also shuld be, thei shuld in no wise be suffred of that almightie good, that is to saie, god. To whō without doubte, as easie as it is, to do what he wil, so easie is it not to suffre, that he wil not to be don. By these wordes it appeareth, that S. Augustines meaning is, that god suffreth nothinge, but that he wil­leth, and ordaineth to be don. And than I send you this syllogisme, what soeuer god suffreth to be don, he willeth, and ordai­neth to be don, after S. Augusti. meaning, but god suffred Adam to sinne, as no great sainte master Masker graūteth, ergo it was goddes wil, and ordinance, that Adā shuld [Page] sinne, after S. Aug. meaning. And than no greate sainte master Masker hath troubled this companie, without cause, to his awne shame. Take to you this syllogisme also: Al the good thīges that be dō in the world, ar don by goddes wil, and ordinance, but it is good that euil thinges shuld be dō in the world, as S. Aug. teacheth, ergo euil thinges ar don in the world, by goddes wil, and or­dinance. Can you saie gentle brother, with­out red cheekes, that nothing is don besides goddes wil, cōstrained by the wordes of S. Aug., and yet denie that it was goddes wil, that Adam shuld sinne? Who wil thā thinke that you ar at home, whan you speake? But now that I haue shewed you, your wilful blindnes, and grosse ignorance in interpre­ting S. Aug. I wil peruse more of your let­tre. You saie that I fal to raging. But you shal finde in the ende, that it was a good honest zele vttered only to amende your out­ragious faultes. You ar angrie that I char­ge you with madnes, & fondnes, for you cā not see them, in your propre person. But if you cal to remembrance your whole be­hauior in this only matter, that of late you haue enterprised amonge vs, you shal find more madnes, & fondnes, than can be ex­pressed. [Page] And though you perchaūce can not find it, bicause you be blinded with sel­fe loue, yet al other mē haue marked it, mo­re than maketh for your honestie. You ar not ashamed to saie, that you offred a wri­ting for reconciliation, which in dede con­taineth nothing but shameles vaunting of your selfe, defacing of other far honester than you, railinges, malitious slaunders, & open lies. And yet you can not see, wherein you haue broken charitee. Was not that ve­rie charitably don of you, so gredely, and so malitiously to desire, that M. Rose might be punished, a man that hath trauailed so long, so painfully, and so frutefully in the ministerie of goddes worde, only bicause he rubbed your gauled backe, in telling you the truthe? Was not that verie charitably don of you, to defame that right godlie so­bre man, master Barckley, with most despiteful, and shameles lies? Was not that verie charitably don of you to accuse, and cōdemne the hole cōpanie of hypocrital praiyng to god, besides your selfe, the greatest hypocrite of al? Was not that verie charitably don of you to vttre such a masse of poison against good men, whan you shuld haue pp̄ ­pared your selfe to haue receaued the holie [Page] communion with them, if you had not ben a secrete papiste, & an vngodlie man. Wo worth such charitee as might haue staied so godlie a purpose, if god had not wrought more strongly for vertue, thā the diuel cold worcke mischeuously for vice. But now bicause you coniure me, to shew what scab­bes of iniquitie I know in you, I wil dis­charge my conscience. First I saie that you ar a visored, and disguised papist, as you haue plainly enough discouered your selfe. Secondly I saie, that I see in you a proud, arrogant, contentious, vnquiet, and enuious spirite, which I praie god most hertely, to chase out of you, that we maie embrace you againe as a brother, whō now we haue iust cause to abhorre, as a man voide of goddes feare, & stuffed with manie horrible vices, besides your subtil secrete papistrie. This vncleane spirite that I speake of, and know to be in you, is the verie cause I am sure, why you dissente from vs in this question of goddes prouidēce. For thorough god­des grace we haue not ben obscure, nor perplexed in this matter, nether can you pre­tende ignorance. Enuie, and the loue that stil remaineth in you to your old harlotte poperie, hath moued you to stirre these coales. [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] Let the feare of god, and loue of truth moue you againe to quench the fier that you haue kendled, or surely there shalbe a fier kendled in your herte that no man, nor time shal quenche. But I trust you wil calle to god for a better minde. And to that en­de I wrote before, and now write to you a­gaine. And I passe not though I seme to you to rage, so I maie bring you from verie raging in dede, and mere madnes. Whe­re you faine, that I wold draw you, from repliyng against me with threates, that procedeth from your old disease. For I know by that, that you haue written alreadie, that you can saie nothing to the purpose against me. Yea if I were dèirous of glorie I wold desire you to replie, that you might vttre more follie, which I cold easely turne to my greater praise. For I am sure that you can bring nothing, but that, a man of meane lerning maie easely ouerthrow, & so gette glorie. Wherefore I nede not let you, to re­plie asmuch as you can, so you wold do it without bitternes of mind, without furious passions, without vaine bragges, without obstinate, & wilful blindnes, without drōc­ken affection to your old Ione syluer pinne of Rome, which some thinke a mā shal hardly [Page] obtaine at your handes. Further I must desire you to make lesse sophistical argu­mentes, than you haue don in your former writinges. For whan you saie, that it was the wil of him only that Adam shuld sinne, which only of his malitious nature, & pro: pre inclination, tempteth mā to sinne, you shal finde in sophisterie, that it is called pe­titio principij. For no man wil graunt, that it was Satans wil only, & that it cold be the wil of none other, but of him that deligh­teth in sinne, that Adam shuld sinne, onles he be as fonde, as you ar. And this I haue declared sufficiently in my former aūswer al readie published, against which you threaten to driue your blind battle rammes.

But I trust your push shal only bruse your selfe, & neuer shake, nor moue me. For I thanke god I stand faster, and vpon a surer grounde, than that so slender batterie can beate me doune. You haue another dow baack reason of like meale, which is this: he that willeth not the death of a sinner, which is the reward, & effecte of sinne, willeth not that man shuld sinne. I praie you how proue you that god willeth the death of no sinner seing that S. Pau. saieth, that he hath vessels prepared vnto destruction? Willeth [Page] not the death of those, whom he hath pre­pared to destruction? Againe how childish sophistrie is this: he that is the autor of life, willeth no sinne, which is the cause of death. It semeth that you thincke, that god willeth no man to die. And than al men die besi­des goddes wil. Which no man I dare saie wil affirme, onles he be starcke mad. I ad­uise you therefore, to leaue these toies of plaine fransie. God giue to you, and to me speedie repentance of our faultes, & o­pē your eyes in this matter, as he hath vouch safed to open ours, that we maie together agree in the truthe, in vnfained humilitee, and in christian loue, which christian loue yet hath hir sharpnes, & wil bite the faultes, that wil not other wise be amended. Whe­refore at my handes you shal loke to haue your boiles laūched, & to haue corrosies & smarting plaisters laied vpon them, vntil thei be cured. Goddes spirite directe vs.

¶ Bar. Traheron your frend assone as you can loue the tru­the.

¶TO THIS LETTRE OVR countrefaite protestāt sent me an aū ­swer stuffed with an huge heape of railing wordes, where­vpon I wrote thus vnto him againe.

IF you be not sore sicke, and feoble, after so great thronges, and after your deliue­rance of such a swarme of innumerable railing wordes, as it were of young diuels, you maie be matched with anie she giaunt in the world in strong, and lustie trauail, & in your faire happie childbed. It semeth to me, that in the middest of your rauinge traunce, you had a litle witte remaining.

For whereas you despeared victorie in al other thinges, you thought you wold ouer comme at the lest in railing, scoffing, & taū ­ting. And surely you haue brought your swete purpose to passe. For I yeld vnto you this noble victorie, & hold vp my hā ­des. And bicause you haue a meruailous greedie hūger, & a thirst vnquencheable for vaine glorie, you shal haue this praise at my hādes also, that you ar the the ioliest scold, and the greatest railer, that euer I heard, or shal eare I thinke. But shal I not thincke [Page] that you wold sporte your selfe in plaie, & refresh your forworen witte with a prea­tie, pleasant, frantike imagination, whā you wrote in the beginnīg of your lustie lettre after that you had powred out at one belche more than halfe a dousen malitious railing wordes, that you were taught by S. Pet. not to rendre rebuke for rebuke. Thought you it so good a thinge to take a while a litle pa [...] time in your ioieous fransie, that you passed not how longe men shuld lawgh at your mad behauior afterwarde? But if I shuld medle with al your straūge prankes, & with al your new follies, I shuld shew my selfe litle lesse fond, than you ar. I wil therefore pike out here, and there, that I thincke maie combre a simple reader. Otherwise to sai­e the truth, al your gaie stuffe is such, as i [...] might be better despised, than aunswered In regard of the vnlerned, and to shew you your foule fete, while you glorie in your p [...] cockes fethers I must do some what against myn awne iudgemēt, & stoupe so to houg [...] your hammes behinde, that you shal be see [...] to halte in this matter. Bicause I said tha [...] you wrested S. Au. not ōly violently, but also with some losse of a good conscience you permitte to your selfe to affirme, that [Page] plaie Antichristes parte, so proudly to pre­sume, to haue a place in mānes conscience. But if I plaie Antichristes parte in iudging your conscience by the manifest frutes the­reof, whose parte plaie you, whan in your writinge, you iudge so often, that to be in my herte, whereof you neuer saw frute, nor sparke, nor anie maner of likelihod, I thāc­ke god? Wel I beleue ere it be long, you shal fele, whose parte you haue plaied. You be verie angrie that I doubted whether you vndrestode S. Aug. wordes, and you wold haue me to impute the faulte of your trās­lation, to want of diligent examination.

For you had leuer al othet faultes shuld be found in you, than lacke of lerning. Wel I am cōtente for this once, that you shal wi­pe awaie one faulte with another, and that men shal rather compte you rashe, & to runne blind fold for hast, thā not to vndrestād so easie latine wordes. But you be so good a man than you wil teach me my grammer to: For you saie, I englissh impleret, he fulfilled. For thorough hast to teach, you stic­ke not to make a lie. For this is my trans­lation: These be the great worckes of god &c. that he fulfilled &c. Where I make im­pleret, the subiunctiue mode, and not the [Page] indicatiue mode, as you ether shamelesly, or vnlernedly affirme. You englisse the word, impleret, might fulfille, & so might I to, if I wold haue shewed my selfe as ig­norant, as you ar. For might fulfil, ma­keth the sentence doubteful. For god might fulfille his wil, though he did not fulfille his wil. But S. Aug. ment not, to leaue the sentence in suspense, that god might fulfil his wil, & did not, but he ment to teach cer­rainly, that he did fulfille his wil. And thus by turnīg the subiūctiue mode in to the potential, you haue takē great paines, to shew your selfe as ignorant in grammer, as you did before, and do afterward in logike.

Where I said that S. Aug. meaneth, that A­dam did, that god wold not in it selfe, and for it selfe, bicause you can not confute it, you wold auoide it with a meruailous preatie shift. For you aunswrr, that if it might be permitted to you, so to wrest euerie au­tor, you wold haue none against you, & that I affirme myn vndrestanding only vpon a lordly autorite. Howbeit if you haue lea­sure to be at home a litle while, you shal vndrestand, that I affirme not my saiynge, vpon myne awne autoritee, but vpō a good ground. For if you denie that, or the like [Page] to be S. Au. meaning, you shal make him to speak, not opposita cōtraria, as you vnadui­sedly powre out your wordes at auenture, but plaine cōtradictorie sētēces, & to fighte against him selfe. But now at the last you shew an high point of wit, and lerninge.

For where I proued that it was S. Augustines minde, that Adā sinned by goddes wil, and ordināce, out of these his wordes: No thinge is don &c., and out of the other sentences alleged before, you saie that none of those places, proue the matter. For, saie you, al those places speake of goddes pro­uidence, whereby al thinges haue their be­ing, and ar gouerned. If al thinges be go­uerned by goddes prouidence, as you con­fesse, than sinful actes ar gouerned by his prouidence also, & comme not to passe be­sides his wil, and ordinance. And what a preatie argument of yours is this, sinne is a deprauation of nature, and the absence of righteousnes, ergo it cōmeth not to pas­se by the ordinance of god. But, I wee­ne, that the Iues committed in procuryng of Christes death, was a deprauation of nature, and and an absence of righteousnes, & yet goddes hand foreordained it to be dō, as the scripture testifieth. If you had ma­de [Page] your argument thus, sinne is a depraua­tion of nature, ergo god is not the autor, nor propre worcker of it, you shuld haue ben heard, and alowed. For it is not al o­ne to ordaine sinne, and to be the autor of sinne, as you in your dreame make them al one, whan you wot not what you speake. But I must go farther, & first telle you that sondrie other of your aunsweres folowing ar nothing els but [...] pythagoraes he spake it, which anie reader maie easely espie by him selfe. And bicause your autoritie with me is as great, as the popes mules maiestie, I must telle you moreouer that, I wil spend no time aboute your naked affir­mations. But it is a sporte to see how clerely you teach me logike. I asked you this question: he that saieth, that Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil, meaneth he not, that it was don by goddes wil? To this you saie, that my question pretendeth a simple conuersion, & bicause you doubte whether euer I red logike, you vouchesafe gently to teach me what a simple conuersiō requireth. But your lucke is euer vnhap­pie. For while you labor to shew your selfe conning, you shew that you haue lost your witte, and al lerning to. I haue red [Page] diligently though you frette more, than I wold wishe for enuie, the best autors, that write of logike. And thei teach, that their be three maners of conuersions. The first is called conuersio simplex. And that is, whan the same signes, and the same quali­te remaining, the predicate is turned in to the subiecte, and the subiecte in to the predicate. And this chaunge is made only in an vniuersal negatiue, & a particular af­firmatiue. I must vse of force logike ter­mes, with a logician. The exemple of an v­vniuersal negatiue is this: Noman that lo­ueth god, abhorreth the readīg of the scripture, ergo noman that abhorreth the rea­ding of the scripture, loueth god. Of a particular affirmatiue this maie be an exēple: Some raging passion in a mannes herte, is anger, ergo some anger is a raging passion.

The seconde conuersion is called con­uersio per accidens. And that is, whan the subiecte is made of the predicate, and the predicate of the subiecte, the same qualite remaining, but the signes chaūged, that is to saie, the vniuersal turned in to a particular thus: Euerie good thing is profitable, ergo some profitable thinge is good. The third is called conuersio per contrapositi­onem, [Page] whā the subiecte is made of the pre­dicate, and the predicate of the subiecte, so that by the remouing of the predicate, the subiecte is remoued, as what so euer is pro­fitable, is honest, ergo what so euer is not honest, is not profitable. Now let a logi­cian shew me in what cōuersion my quaes­tion is: he that saieth, that Adās sinne was not don besides goddes wil, saieth, that it was don by goddes wil. My scolemaster saieth it is in a simple conuersion. But here the subiecte is not turned in to the predica­te, nor the predicate in to the subiecte, but a declaration only is made, that, not besi­des goddes wil, and by goddes wil is al one.

And this had ben a simple conuersion: Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil, and goddes wil was not don besides Adams sinne. Wherefore seing that in my question there is no simple conuersion, my master, affirming it so to be, is a verie sim­ple logician. But he saieth moreouer, that I shuld haue put the question thus, he that saieth that Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil, meaneth he not, that Adam sinned, not besides goddes wil. Now this is the songe of a couckoo, a tautologie, and vaine repetition of the selfe same thin­ge, [Page] or it importeth, that the speeches be of one force, and signifie the same thing after my meaning. Who seeth not now that god hath sent such a swimming in to this a­dle hed, that the mā knoweth not what he reproueth, dut confirmeth his aduersaries saiyng, while he wold ouerthrow it. Let vs procede, to this my syllogisme. Whatsoe­uer god suffreth to be don, he willeth & or­daineth to be don, after S. Augustines meaning, but god suffred Adam to sinne, as no great saincte m. Masker graunteth, ergo it was goddes wil, that Adā shuld sinne, this disguised popely person, saieth that the maior, and the conclusion be false. But I wil proue the maior to be true, and than I trust he wil not sticke to graunte the conclusion to be true. For I am sure that he wil find no fault in the minor, bicause it is his awne. S. Aug. saieth, that god suffreth nothing, but by iust iudgement, and that he suffreth no­thing vnwilling. If god suffre nothing be­sides his iust iudgement, and his wil, who seeth not, that whatsoeuer god suffreth, he willeth, and ordaineth to be don, by his iust iudgement. For shewe me a thinge, that he willeth to be don in the world, and the­refore is don in the world, & yet he ordai­ned [Page] it not to be don? For the scripture saieth, that what soeuer he wold, he hath don in heauen, and in erth. And he hath not brought anie thinge ro passe in the world, besides his ordinance. And S. Aug. saieth, that this sentence of the scipture shuld not be true, if god wold haue anie thinge to be don, and neuertheles hath not don it. But this new saīt dareth affirme, that god wold that Adam shuld not haue sinned, and yet brought it not to passe, and so ouermala­pertly, or rather blasphemously ere he beware, he accuseth the holie gost, & good S. Aug. of vntruthe. But now I must heare his worthie syllogisme.

Bar. Taheron saieth / that it was goddes wil and ordinance / that Adam shuld sinne / but the worde of god / and S. Aug. saie cleane con­trarie / ergo Bar. Traheron lieth.

I aunswer that my master with another lie saieth that I lie, bicause his minor is sha­melesly false. For nether the word of god, nor S. Aug. is against my saiyng, but bothe make most plainly with it. The trial whe­reof I permitte to the godlie. As for the preatie plaies, wherein he tōbleth himselfe afterwarde in his aunswere, I haue disclo­sed before. The similitude, which he put­teth [Page] of a king, who perdoneth an offender according to his longe purpose before, for the loue he beareth to him, is verie poore as himselfe calleth it, and as I maie adde to his awne saiyng, verie peuisch to. For he saieth, that the king fulfilled his wil vpō the man, and yet ordained not, that the mā shuld offend. And than he thincketh, that he hath brought forth a meruailous mon­stre, after a great terrible cracke. But he must shew, that god hath no more to do in ruling mennes mindes, than a king hath in ruling the mindes of his subiectes, if he wil bring anie thing to the purpose. A tem­poral kinges power entreth not in to men­nes hertes, nor directeth them, but Salomō saieth, that the herte of a king is in goddes hand, be it neuer so fierce, wild, & violent, and that he turneth it whether soeuer he wil. And therefore we ascribe vnto god a farther matter, than to perdon offences, according to his purpose, namely euen to ordaine al thinges that ar don in the world, & to directe, not only mennes bodies, but also their mindes to what it semeth good to his vnsercheable wisedom. And this the scripture teacheth so plaīly, that he must nedes haue a face of woodde, that wil denie [Page] it. But after that this countrefaite hathe proprely plaied this much of his enterlude he goeth aboute to wasshe an aethiopian, & to purge him selfe of such vices, as al men know to be in him, that know him. But e­uer his happe is such, that euerie thing is the worse for his handling. For the more he wassheth, & scoureth himselfe, the fowler he semeth to al men. But I am werie of the vnpleasant sauor of that boxe, which I wisch neuer more to be opened before me. As for his railinges vpon me, and good m. Barckley, we passe as much as we do by the barckinges of a curre. Wherefore I lea­ue al that, & comme to our matter againe. He beleueth, that I haue belied those gre­at worthie lerned men, whom I named in my boke, and affirmed to be on my side. wherein he sheweth himselfe to be a man of lesse reading, than I thought. But lette him read Zuinglius De prouidentia Dei, OEcolampadius commenta. vpon Esaie, Mar. Bucere vpon the epist. to the Ro. Lu­theres seruum arbitriū, Petre Martyrs cō ­ment. vpon the epist. to the Cor. Caluines Institution, and aunswer contra calumnias nebulonis cuiusdam, and there he shal fin­de this doctrine that I hold, more plainly [Page] taught, & more strongly confirmed, than I can teache, or confirme. Now al that fo­loweth in this iolie triumphant lettre, is a sincke of such filth, that I am faine to runne from it, and let him wallow in it him selfe alone, that he maie bragge, that nomā durst sette vpon him. As for me I had rather plaie the cowarde, and take me to my leg­ges, than to assaulte him in so vile and stincking a place, where I shuld be more com­bred with carinous sauors, than honored with the ouerthrow of myn aduersarie. Wherefore he shal sticke there stil for me, and singe triumphes to himselfe alone.

¶AFTER THIS LETTRE, THERE FOLOVVETH A REPLI­cation to my boke, and former aunsweres made to certai­ne cauillations, and thereto this is the reioinder.

MY stoute aduersaries replication cō ­taineth much superfluous talke. But I wil draw al in to as much shortnes, as I can, and meddle only with those poin­tes, [Page] that haue some color, whereby the sim­ple maie be begiled. Where I said, that if this be an vnreuerent speech to saie, that it was goddes wil and ordinance, that Adam shuld sinne, thā this is an vnreuerēt speech, to saie, that it was goddes wil & ordinance, that the Iues shuld crucifie Christ &c. he denieth my consequent, like a great logiciā, & laboureth miserably to find some thinge vnlike in these speeches. And at the last he hath espied, that the scripture saies not that it was goddes wil, and ordinance, that the Iues shuld sinne in crucifiyng Christ. But ô sophister how cold god ordaine, that the Iues shuld crucifie Christ, so innocent a mā without their sinne? Wherefore he that ordained the Iues to crucifie Christ, ordai­ned them to sinne in crucifiīg Christ. And than I giue you this syllogisme where vpō to gnaw: Who so ordaineth a nawghtie man to kil a verie innocent, ordaineth him to sinne, but god ordained the wicked Iues to kil Christ a most innocent blameles mā ergo he ordained them to sinne. And ye [...] god was not the autor and propre worcke of the malitious crueltie, that was in the Iues, but ordained only, that the Iues shuld sinne in vttering that crueltie of their awn [Page] hertes wrought of them selues, & sproung out of their awne corruption vpon his sonne Christ, as I haue shewed in my boke, and wil shew more largely hereafter, whan I must bewraie how hedstrong a beast this is, which wil not obeie the bridle, but rūne on­stil, and affirme, that to ordaine a thinge, & to be the autor, & propre worcker of a thīg, is al one. As for his follie in turning god­des ordinance, which worde the scripture hath in this place, in to goddes bare suffe­rīg, which word the scripture hath not, is sufficiently vttered before. But see what a fowle fal this faire beast giueth himselfe. For he writeth, that we can not saie, that god so suffered the Iues actes, that he had no doing, or medling therewith. For their bodies, and sowles, saieth he, & al the pow­ers, stirringes, & motions of them, were of god &c, First if god had to do with their actes, I am sure thei did nothing, whether he wold, or no. Secōdly if al their stirrin­ges, & motions were of god, than that they stirred, & moued them selues agaīst Christ, was of god. And how that cold be don without their sinne, let this lustie logician shew. And thus he teacheth, that it was of god, that the Iues sinned against Christ. [Page] For we speake not of stirring, and mouing simply, but of stirring and mouing against Christ, which is sinne. Howbeit I vse not that speech, that the Iues sinning against Christ, was of god, not that it maie no waie be suffered, but bicause that it maie seme to signifie, that god was the autor, & propre worcker of their sinning, which is horribly false. But I saie that their sinning was or­dained and ordred by god. For god or­dained that thei, after that sorte, shuld vt­tre the sinnes, that lurcked in their hertes, & so cōmitte most wicked actes agaīst Christ

This Polyphemus than hath not yet healed his wounded forehed, but in saluing of it, hath made it worse. I alleged this pla­ce of Salomon, god hath wrought al thin­ges for him selfe, to proue that the world is gouerned, by goddes prouidence, and tha [...] nothing commeth to passe, besides his ordnance. To this our noble aduersarie replieth, with these wordes.

Who denieth that god wrought al thinge [...] for him selfe / but what maketh that to proue that it was goddes wil / and ordinance / that Adam shuld sinne?

It semeth that this famous clercke, thinc­keth that Salomon speaketh of goddes ma­king [Page] of creatures, as though his worde were bara, or asa, or iatser, but his worde is paal, and he vseth it, in that sense, wherein it is v­sed in the psal. 44. our fathers haue tolde vs, poal paaltha, the worcke that thou wrough­test in their daies. Salomon than speaketh of goddes prouidence, in directing and gouerning al the actes, that comme to passe in the world to his glorie. And than I saie, that if it be so that goddes prouidence is extended thorough out al mennes doinges, than Adam sinned not besides his wil, & ordinance. But how like himselfe is this doughtie wight, whan he maketh this great reason.

Sinne is a priuation / and absence of righte­ousnes / ergo it camme not to passe by goddes wil / and ordinance.

For who knoweth not, that darcknes is a priuation, & absence of light? & yet who so shal saie, that darcknes camme to passe besi­des goddes wil, and ordinance, shalbe his­sed out of the companie of al christians, and driuen home againe to the popes poisoned puddel, or to Epicures swines stie. Where Salomon saieth, that god hath wrought the vngodlie to an euil daie, our solemne diui­ne saieth, that god wrought in the generati­on, [Page] and begetting of the wicked, & left him in the state of perdition, that he contracted of his parentes. But Salomons meaning is, that god hath ordained the wicked to dā ­nation for his awne glorie, in setting forth his righteousnes, as it is knowen almost to euerie barber. Whan Ieremie asketh this question: who is he that saieth, a thinge is don, and the lord commaūded it not, it sig­nifieth to them, that haue anie skille in the hebrue toūge, asmuch as if he had said, who is he, that saieth, that anie thinge is don, and the lord ordained it not. This sentence our giaunt violently crussheth together, & restraineth only to plages, and punischmentes. But I wil know, who gaue him auto­ritie, to curtal large sentences, and to turne euerie thing, in to some thing before I yeld to his tyrannie. In the exposition of the seconde place of Ieremie, which I alleged to proue, that goddes prouidence reacheth to the directing of mēnes doinges, he graū ­teth, that god vsed the furie, and malice of the diuel, & of the kinge of Babilō to pu­nisch his people, and yet he wil not graunt, that he ordaineth mennes sinnes. And no meruail, for thei that speake in a fransie, sticke not to speake thinges fightinge with them [Page] selues. For thei know not what thei speake. He laboreth afterwarde to shew, that the kinge of Babilons sinne camme of his aw­ne corrupte inclination, and not of god, as though I had not made it plaine before, that though god vse, and ordaine mennes sinnes to his glorie, yet he is not the autor & propre worcker of them. To the place of Salomon, concerning the gouernāce of lot­tes, & to the place of Esaie, where god tea­cheth vs that he frameth &c. These be his wordes for aunswer.

These places manifestly proue / that al thin­ges ar wrought / and gouerned by goddes pro­uidence. And who denieth that? But what is this to proue / that it was goddes wil / that A­dam shuld sinne / which came of the malice of the deuel / and Adams vncleane lust.

Hitherto this sicke man. For he must be verie sicke, that saieth, that al thinges ar wrought, and gouerned by goddes proui­dence, and yet holdeth that sinnes ar cōmit­ted in the world besides his wil, and ordi­nance. He must be also some what il at ea­se in his braine, that maketh this argument, sinne camme of the malice of the diuel & mannes lust, ergo it was not ordained by god. For god cā, & doeth ordaine thinges [Page] whereof the diuel, and mannes nawghtie herte, be the autors, verie causes, & propre worckers, as I thinke we haue now made manifest to euerie childe. But heare farther.

If you wil saie / saieth he / that goddes pro­vidence so ruled / and turned Adams sinne / that he made it to serue his glorie / than shal you vn­drestand these places rightly / and thā I wil saie with you.

Surely sir, you know wel enough, that I haue so saide, & written more than twise, or thrise, & so haue you graunted against your wil, and to the losse of your sore tra­uaile, that I haue rightly vndrestanded those places of the scripture, and so must you yeld to me in this matter, if you be be an honest man of your word. But some feare you wil saie rather that you spake al this in a traunce, or in a sodaine passion, or that for lacke of leasure, you examined not wel your writinges. But how can you saie, that god determined before al time, to rule, & gouerne Adams sinne, and yet that Adam sinned besides goddes wil, and ordinance. For god doeth nothing, that he had not certainly purposed before al time. But he cold not certainly determine to rule, & turne Adams sinne to his glorie, if Adam sin­ned [Page] besides his wil, and ordinance, and might for al his wil, & ordinance haue not sinned. After this our glorious champian commeth to the argument, that was made out of these wordes of Dauid, god willeth none iniquite, and graunteth without thā ­kes, that I haue taught the true meaning of the place, and so ouer turneth the reason, wherein he gloried so much before. But he falleth againe to his old grosse error, that a mā can wil nothing, wherein he delighteth not, which fondnes he might haue foūd cō ­futed in the later ende of my boke sent vn­to him. And if he red that place, and yet wold sticke stil in the same myre, it appea­reth, that he had leuer be compted shame­les, than a man reformed. And so I fea­re I shalbe faine to leaue him, onles god vouchsafe speedely to shew his mightie hande. Where I said that thei ascribe wea­knes to god, that teach, that Adā sinned be­sides goddes wil, & whether god wold, or no, he auoideth it proprely with this only, that my similitude ascribeth weaknes to goddes wil. But though I had so slender­ly handled the matter, as I thanke god I ha­ue not, yet he had not therefore auoided, but that he had ascribed weaknes to god.

Nether shuld he haue thought, that he had wel purged the more of his awne garmen­tes, by casting other like mire vpon mine. But let vs see how profoundly he perceth to the botome of darcknes to fetch vp this geare. To saie, that god willeth a thing, wherein he delighteth not for it selfe, he affirmeth to ascribe weaknes to god. For we can not wil a thing, wherein we delight not, nor alow, but for eschewing of greater inconuenience, which els we can in no wise auoide. First marcke, that whereas he af­firmed simply before, that we can not wil the thinge, that we delighte not in here I cā not tel by what mischaunce, he graunteth, that we maie wil a thinge, wherein we de­light not, for the auoidance of a greater in­conuenience. But I wil shortely shew that we maie wil a thinge for a certaine purpo­se, and not delighte in it, for it selfe, though we be not compelled thereunto thorough the daunger of a greater inconuenience, & though we might auoide it. I praie you ô the lest of the noble companie of Duran­des, and Dorbeles, maie I not wil, that you shal vttre your follie in writing, wherein I promise you, I delight not, for a certaine purpose, namely that no mā hereafter maie [Page] runne in to the like madnes, though I cold otherwise auoide it, without the compulsi­on of necessitie? And albeit that I cold not bringe al this to passe, yet I know god cold bring it to passe, not thorough the weakenes of his wil, as you dreame, but thorough the mightines of his wil, as mē see that be awake. Cold not god I praie you wil and or­daine Satans ministers, to robbe Iob, onles he delighted in their robberie for it selfe, or of necessitee to auoide a greater incon­uenience? Cold not he wil, and ordaine Achabs false prophetes to lie, onles he de­lighted in their liyng for it selfe? Cold not he wil, and ordaine, that Hophnie, and Phineas shuld not heare their fathers good admonition, bicause he wold kil them, onles he delighted in their stubburne disobedience, or of necessitee to auoid a greater inconuenience? God than willeth thinges, that he delighteth not in for them selues, nether by reason of weakenes, nor to auoide a greater inconuenience, but to sette forth before mennes eyes, his power, his wisedom, his righteousnes, his goodnes, and mercie. Which vertues yet neuer to be knowen to the world, we maie wel iudge to be an incō uenience touching vs, but touching god, it is [Page] none at al. For he might haue remained perfectly blisful in him selfe, though he had neuer made vs. Awaie than with this vaine iangling. But let vs se more of this gaie stuffe. Our preatie Polyphemus wil not confesse, that he goeth aboute to pulle god out of his throne. For saieth he, his office of gouerning, consisteth not in this, that it was his wil, & ordinance, that Adam shuld sinne. But if you take from god the ordai­ning, gouerning, and directing of Adās sin­ne, and of al mennes sinnes, you shal dis­charch him of a great parte of his gouerne­ment, and so farre like a young giaunt, you go furiously aboute, to pulle him out of his throne, to your awne destruction. But we ar demaunded an high quaestion, how we can proue that thei, which teach, that it was not goddes wil, that Adam shuld sinne, do teach that thīges be dō whether god wil or no. I praie you master Doctor, he that do­eth the thing, that you wold it shuld not be dō, doeth he it not, whether you wil, or no? But you saie, that Adam sinned not, whe­ther god wold or no, for god suffered him to sinne. But that proueth not yet, but that Adam sinned whether god wold, or no. For one maie suffre a thinge to be don, [Page] whether he wil or no. If you wil saie, that god suffred it willingly, than you graunt with vs, that it was his wil, that Adam shuld sinne. And than you haue plaied the par­te of a verie honest wise man al this while. Where to myn aunswere, that god testified to Adam by his commaundment, what he alowed, and what his pleasure was, you re­plie, that if god had willed, & decreed, that Adā shuld through his awne faulte, do the thīg which god had forbidden before, god shuld therein haue willed, and decreed, the commaundment that he gaue before to be broken, and than that had ben a contrarie­tee, and repugnantie in him, I aunswer that you haue more than serpentes eyes, if you see that contrarietee, and repugnantie.

You maie wel dreame, that you see it in your sleepe, but whan you awake, you shal perceaue, that it was but a vaine fansie, & a fliyng imagination. For maie not a fa­ther laie vp apples in his chambre, and giue a commaundment to his children, that thei shal nor meddle with them, and yet wil, & decree with him selfe as much as a mā maie wil, and decree, that thei shal steale them a­waie, and eate them, to this ende, that he maie ierke them wel, and thriftely, whereby [Page] while thei liue afterwarde, thei maie feare to steale, or to be lycorous, or to breake their fathers commaundment? Maie not I saie a father do al this, onles he be contra­rie, and repugnant to him selfe? Much more cold god wil, & decree, that Adam shuld breake his commaundment thorough his awne faulte, for a more excellent purpose, without contrarietee, & repugnance in him selfe. Whan afterwarde you saie, that Adā in sinning did not the wil of god, if by the word, wil, you meane goddes decree, you misse the cusshion, if by the word, wil, you meane that god alowed not Adams sinne, ne had pleasure in it, for the sinne it selfe, I assente thereunto. But how haue you than proued that it was not god­des wil, decree, and ordinance, that Adam shuld sinne? Against myn aunswer to the fourth argument spoken of in my boke, you haue brought nothing worthie to be rehersed. Wherefore I passe ouer to myn auns­wer to the fift argument. Against him that obiected Adams fre wil, I said that goddes wil, and ordinance, letted not, but that Adā shuld do frely, and willingly without compulsion, that he did. And how that might be, I shewed by exemples, which you touch [Page] not bicause thei were to hotte. But to that you replie, that I wringe Adams free wil al together on the lift hand, that is to sinne, & death, but I leaue not free wil to the right hand, that is to the keping of goddes com­maundment, and aeternal life. I aunswer that god made Adam in such integritee, vprightnes, & perfection of nature, that whā he wold do goddes commaundmentes, he might do them frely, and willingly, & haue abundant sufficientie of natural strenghth thereunto, and whan he wold decline from goddes commaundement, he might do the same frely, and willingly thorough his aw­ne faulte, and not thorough want of natu­ral strength. And I saie that his fre wil stode in this vprightnes, strength, & perfecti­on of nature, & not in choise of this, or that. For if there were no free wil, but where a mā maie choose whether he wil do the thīg that is good, or the thinge that is euil, than there were no fre wil in god, whose wil is most free. For he can do no euil, but only the thinges that be good. Wherefore whe­re thinges be don frely, and willingly, and wihout compulsion thorough no want of natural strength, there is free wil saie I.

And this I know was in Adam, but no such [Page] fre wil, whereby he might disappoint god­des certaine purpose, or whereby it shuld folow, that god had yet determined nothīg certainly. But now though manie thinges powred out to no purpose folow in this replication, I maie not passe ouer, that where I asked, whether he wold saie this: Death came in to the world by the enuie of the di­uel, ergo it was not ordained by god, he aū ­swereth flatly, that death was not ordained by god. And allegeth a sentence for him, out of the first of wisedom. God made not death, nether hath he pleasure in the destruction of the liuinge. To this I saie, that the autor of that boke, meaneth no mo­re but that god was not the propre cause of death, but the diuels enuie, and mannes sin­ne, and yet it foloweth not but that god or­deined death for mennes sinne. For a king in his realme ordaineth hanginge for theues, and murtherers, and yet is not the propre cause of their hanging, but their aw­ne nawghtines. And I saie once more that he that saieth, that god ordaineth not death for mennes sinnes, saieth that men die besides goddes ordinance. But this geare is to grosse, where with farther to cō ­bre the reader. Now foloweth a worthie [Page] matter. I made this syllogisme: whatsoeuer was in Adam, was in him by goddes wil, and ordinance, sinne was in Adam, er­go &c. My ioilie chalenger denieth the maior of this syllogisme. as though al the scriptures that I alleged before, & S. Aug. sentences, did not proue it to be infallibly true. But to saie that sinne was in Adam by goddes wil, and ordinance, he affirmeth to be al one with this, god is the autor of sinne, for he can not see how anie bodie can ordaine a thing, and not be the autor, head spring, cause, and propre worcker of it.

And he laboreth to proue this by lame si­militudes, as though that if he cold proue it so in some thinges, he had by & by proued it so in al thinges. Hereunto I aunswere, that the scipture sheweth plainly, that al the thinges, that be in man, be in him by goddes ordinance, and the same scripture sheweth, as plainly that god is not the autor of sinne. Wherefore to ordaine sinne, and to be the autor of sinne, is not al one. And that to ordaine a thinge, and to be the propre cau­se, autor, and worcker of a thinge, is not al one, these exemples maie teach the vnler­ned. He that setteth his wine abrode in the sunne to be made vineger, ordaineth it to [Page] be made vineger, and yet he is not the pro­pre cause of vineger, but the nature of the wine, and the hote sunne beames. Agai­ne he that in spaine cutteth dounne grapes, in the sommer, and laieth them in a sunnie place, ordaineth them to be made reasines, & yet he is not the propre cause of reasines, but the nature of the grapes, and the heate of the sunne. Finally to bringe a plaine rustical exemple, he that hangeth vp swines flesh in a chimneie, ordaineth it to be made bacon, and yet he is not the propre cause of bacon, but the nature of the flesch, and smoke. Wherefore sith it is euident, that it is not euer al one, to ordaine a thinge, and to be the propre cause, and autor of a thinge, we maie boldly saie, the scripture bearinge plaine recorde, and S. Aug. and sondrie o­ther most excellēt writers holding vp their handes to the same, that god ordaineth sin­ne, and yet is not the autor of sinne. How god ordained Adam to sinne, thorough A­dams awne faulte, and without al maner of faulte in god, I graunt in dede, that it is har­de for weake wittes to vndrestande, neuer­theles I am sure, that it is most certaīly true. And so we ar al bounde to beleue, whether we vnderstande it, or no, onles we wil flat­ter [Page] and please our selues in a most open, & a most daūgerous error. And if I wold su­perfluously spend wordes, I could easely shew, that the exemples, which my doctor bringeth to declare, that to ordaine, and to be the autor of a thing, is al one, proue not his purpose. For who knoweth not, that Solon was not the autor of the lawes, which he ordained amonge the Atheniens. For those lawes were before in other commune weales, and cheyfely in the commune weale of the hebru., & goddes wisedō in dede is the autor of al good lawes, & nomānes he­ad. But the matter is to manifest of it selfe. And the rest of the replication is mere tri­feling. Where the scripture teacheth, that god bad the liyng spirite to go in to Ahabs prophetes, and to deceaue Ahab, he aunswereth, that god suffred the liyng spirite to go &c. But he shuld haue shewed, that to cō ­maunde a thinge to be don, is no more, but to suffre a thinge to be don. But I wil here present my doctor with this syllogisme: he that commaunded the liynge spirite to go, and to make liers, commaunded him to sin­ne, but god commaunded him to go, & to make false liyng prophetes, ergo he cōmaū ­ded him to sinne. But god commaūdeth [Page] nothing, which he ordaineth not, so he ordained him to sinne. And yet euerie starcke foole maie see, that god was not the autor, & propre worcker of the liyng spirites sin­ne, but found it in him al readie wrought, thorough his awne corrupting of himselfe, and iustly vsed it to punisch that nawghtie man. And why, I praie you, shuld not god commaunde and ordaine a sinful bodie to shew his nature, that is to saie, to sinne? It is certaine by the testimonie of the scriptu­re, that god commaundeth Satan to do manie thinges, and I wold faine know how he can bid him to do anie thinge, & not to sin­ne. Wherefore he that biddeth him do a­nie thinge, must nedes bidde him to sinne. But seing that god commaundeth him to do manie thinges, & cōmaundeth nothing besides his awne ordinance, it foloweth of necessitee, that god ordaineth sinnes to be don, though he be not the autor, and propre worcker of sinne. But let vs see more. He is angrie that I said, that he turned al god­des doinges in to sufferinges. For he sai­eth, he turneth not al, but some. But than I saie, that he hath brought nothing against my sentence, that it was goddes wil, and ordinance, that Adam shuld sinne. For onles [Page] he can proue, that al goddes doinges be suffringes, I wil holde my sentence stil in the nombre of those thinges that ar don, & or­dained by god, and not amonge those, that be only suffred by god. And I wil not suf­fre my sentence to go a straw bredth frō hir place, vntil I see by what right he can remoue hir. Touching goddes sufferance, and how he suffreth nothinge besides his wil, & ordinance, and that his sufferance is his or­dināce, I haue sufficiently declared before. Here I might make an ende, sauing that my good honest fellow cōplaineth, that I left three thinges of his vnaunswered, where as in dede I left but one of them vnaunswe­red, & that was, for that I saw no cause why I shuld aūswer it. And this is the gaie thing that must be aunswered.

Your assertion simply vndrestanded / saieth he / is plaine blasphemie by your awne confession.

Bicause I am driuen, and compelled, I aunswere to this, that hitherto I neuer said so in my life. And yet I denie not, but that it maie be so expouned, that it maie cōteine blasphemie, as if a man wold saie, whan I affirme that it was goddes wil and ordināce, that Adam shuld sinne, that god ordained Adam to sinne, only bicause he delighted in [Page] sinne, or for the sinnes sake alone, or as though god were the autor, & propre wor­ker of Adams sinne. But I saie that such an interpreter, and gloser, shuld not only shew himselfe a froward ouerthwart foole but also a shameles mad man. For I my selfe haue declared that, that is as far from my meaning, as hel is from heauen. Ne­ther cā anie mā iustly pike it out of the wor­des. Howbeit I know that there is nothing so wel spoken, that a peruerse wranglinge wit can not by wresting, & wringing depra­ue. And here I wold make an ende of the­se iustes, but first I am required to saie so­mewhat to the commune obiection, that is in the mouth of euerie pert peremonger, of euerie raskal, and euerie rakehel. For thei bable, that if al thinges, comme to pas­se according to goddes foresight, prouidē ­ce, and certaine vnmoued, and vnchaungeable ordinance, than thei wil make no proui­sion for meate, to satisfiie their honger, thei wil vse no medicine in their sicknes, thei wil not procure to auoide anie daunger &c. For the good thinges that god hath ordai­ned For them, thei shal haue, & the euil, that god hath appointed, thei can not eschue. So that ether it shal not nede, or it shal not [Page] boote to labor for the obteining of the one or auoiding of the other, sith al must be, as it is alreadie decreed, & determined without alteration, and chaunge. But ô rude rab­ble what if god wil vse your labor, and the wisedom, and giftes wherewith he hath furnished you, to serue his prouidence, wil you refuse to be his instrumentes with al that you haue of him? If it be his ordinance to fede you thorough your trauail, wil you lie gaping while meate falle in to your mou­thes out of the cloudes, which thing you perceaue he hath not appointed? If it please him to heale you by the vertu, that he hath giuen to herbes, or spices, or other simples, ā you wil not be so healed, I wold you shuld be sicke stil. If he wil haue you to escape daungers thorough the wisedom, and warines, that he hath planted in your hertes, an you wil not vse the same, you ar worthie to perisch in them, & so god wil vse your fol­lie to your iust destruction. The godlie euer like that wel, that pleaseth god, nether wil thei shew them selues ether so vnthāk­ful, or so folisch, as to despice, or refuse the meanes, that he hath appointed. And though thei know that nothing can comme to passe otherwise thā he hath ordained, yet [Page] they know not whether this waie, or that waie, by this meane, or that meane, he wil bringe his purpose to passe. And there­fore thei vse the meane with thanckes, that semeth most likelie, according to the wise­dom, that god hath giuen them. For whe­ther god worcke thinges by him selfe, or by those meanes & instrumentes, that he hath appointed, al his one to them, and thei ac­knowlege his wisedom, and goodnes aswel in the one, as in the other. But yet these hogges grūte more swinishly, that if al thinges comme to passe by goddes prouidēce, than robberies, adulteries, murders ar not don, but by goddes wil, and ordinance, and than why ar theues, adulterers, and murde­rers punisched, sith thei haue serued goddes wil & prouidence. This filthie flocke must vndrestāde that wicked men committe not their nawghtie vilainous actes to the inten­te to serue goddes wil, but to satisfie theyr awne lustes. For he serueth goddes wil, that doeth the thinge, that god commaun­deth him to do by his worde. But in what worde hath god commaunded anie mā to committe adulterie &c. But you wil saie if god had not determined, and ordained these thinges, thei shuld not come to passe. [Page] I graunt, for god vseth mennes nawghtines to his glorie, and sheweth his wisedom in vttering mennes inwarde poisoned affections, and his righteousnes in punishing one sinne with another. But ar thei therefore not to be punished, bicause god ordaineth, that thei shal bewraie their priuie filthines and abomination? Or do thei powre out & shew abrode the wickednes of their her­tes, to serue goddes wil, or their awne wil, and raging desires? If it be plaine, that thei dotingly rūne after their awne vnbrid­led lustes, without al respecte of goddes wil, and commaundment, yea in contempt of god, and his worde, thei ar nether wor­thie, nor shal escape goddes vengeance. And we maie not be now so folisch, & asse­headed as to thinke that god in ordaining mennes euil dedes is defiled therewith. For we haue ben taught often enough, that he is not the autor, and propre worcker of them. And therefore he remaineth euer pure himselfe in bringing forth to light, & in ordring that is vnpure in vs, and the filthines cleaueth vpon them only, that ar the propre worckers of euil, and not on him, who ordaineth wel, that men, & diuels ha­ue wrought euil. But of this matter we [Page] haue spoken asmuch, as maie suffice al such, as seke rather to know the truth, than to wrangle, and shew eloquence in pratinge braulinge, and cauillinge.

Now good reader thou shalt vndrestand, that before I had al finished this my litle trauaile, the papiste that I here speake of, who chalenged me, and ranne against me at the tilte, though his place remained, was no where founde. Seing than that he was conueyghed out of the nature of thinges, thorough goddes goodnes, I thought it shuld be hurteful to noman, and profita­ble to manie, if I went foreward with my matter begonne, and if I shuld publishe it to the world, whereof I had deliuered par­te to the printer before. Further thou shalt vndrestand, that these godlie men, whose names here folow, with certaine other, not only subscribed with theyr awne handes to the doctrine, which I haue here sette forth, but al­so confirmed the same with soūd, & pithie argumentes written by cōmu­ne cōsente in a let­tre to the pa­piste now [Page] departed, and gon out of the world.

These be their names.

• ¶ M. Roger Parker.
• ¶ M. Iohan. Turnor.
• ¶ M. Doctor Perkins.
• ¶ M. Thomas Rose.
• ¶ M. Gilbert Barckley.

Of these the first two be verie godlie gen­tle men, and wel trained in goddes worde. The other three haue ben lōge faithful mi­nisters of goddes word, & be al men right worthie to be reuerenced, not ōly for their honorable age, and graye heares, but also much more for their feruent zeale towar­des tru religion, and for their great graui­te, and sinceritee of life.

After this M. Robert Watson a wittie man longe exercised in matters of diuini­tee, & able to ioigne in disputatiō with the popes bande in their cheife fild of glorie, & where thei most approche the altar, though he were not present at the first subscripti­on, [Page] yet afterwarde being talked withal, and required to shew his iudgment, subscribed, with these wordes:

In this shorte sentence M. Watson hath declared, that god suffred Adam to sinne, not as one that wold not meddle with the matter, nor bend to anie parte, but as one that had willed, and ordained, that sinne to be don. And therefore he thought it not enough, to saie, that it was goddes wil, but he wold adde moreouer, that it was god­des ordinance, and that willingly, bicause he so purposed of him selfe, and bicause it semed so good to his aeternal wisedom. And that nomā therefore shuld impute the fault of Adams fal to god, ne make god the autor, or propre worcker of sinne, he wold signifie by this word (to suffre) that albeit [Page] that it was goddes wil, and ordinance, that Adam shuld sinne, yet god wrought not Adams sinne, but in suffring ordained it ac­cording to his wil to be wrought thorough the enuie of the diuel, and Adams awne faulte, as M. Watson than plainly expres­sed, & as you maie finde sufficiently taught in my exposition vpon a parte of the 4. cha. of S. Io. reuel. and in the later ende of my former aunswer to certaine sophistical ca­uillations. Certaine other also verie god­lie men, and verie worthie to be remem­bred, subscribed to this our sentence, who­se names in consideration of their trauaile abrode in the middest of this croked gene­ration, I thought not good to expresse in this place. Finally the hole companie a­greed to this doctrine, that I haue here de­fended, and published, excepte one person only, which stode as a neuter, nether cōdemning, nor approuing either parte. And in dede amonge al other, he was of lest esti­mation. To god almightie therefore, who thorough his gratious goodnes vouchsafed to open this truth vnto vs, to the gre­at conforte, and staie of our weake afflicted mindes in this woful tyme, and hath giuen vs a commune consente therein, be al glo­rie, [Page] and praise for euer. Amen amen.