We plainly do affirm, that the opinion of the Stoics is damnable and false:1 for they did place such power in the stars and in their oppositions, that impossible (they affirmed) it was to change or avoid that which by their constellation and influence was appointed to come. In so much that they held, that Jupiter him self (whom they called the great, and supreme God) could neither alter nor stop the operation of the stars and the effects that should follow thereupon: and so they affirmed, that the mutations of kingdoms the honours of some men, the dejection of others, and finally that both vice and virtue were all together in the power of the stars. Against this pestilent opinion strongly and learnedly disputeth Augustin in diverse places,2 but chiefly in his fifth book of that work entitled of the city of God: affirming, that only by the providence of God are kingdoms erected, maintained and changed: that stars have no power, neither to incline man to virtue nor to vice: that such blasphemies ought to be repelled from the ears of all men. Which sentences, because they do most perfectly agree with gods infallible word, we reverently embrace, and constantly do believe: And so, why that ye should thus impudently accuse us of that which we never thought, wise men may wonder.3 O say, you, ye take away the word of Stoical necessity, but yet ye affirm the self same thing which they affirmed. I answer: if ye can make no difference betwixt the omnipotent, most perfect, most just, and immutable will of God, and the opposition of stars, called constellation, you have evil profited, not only in Gods school, but also in those arts, in which […] of you would seem to be subtle. Do we affirm, that of necessity it was, that Pharaoh after many plagues sustained, should with his great host be drowned? that Nebuchadnezzar should be transformed in to a brute beast? ⟨p. 20⟩that Cyrus should first destroy Babylon, and after proclaim liberty to the people of God (after their long and dolorous captivity) because the influence of the stars did lead them to that end? or do we not rather most constantly affirm, that the eternal counsel of God, his immutable decree, and most holy will (which only is the most perfect rule of all justice and equity) did bring all these things to pass by such means as he had appointed, and by his Prophets fore spoken?
We planely do affirme, that the opinion of the Stoikes is damnable and fals:1 for they did place such power in the sterres and in their oppositious, that impossible (they affirmed) it was to change or auoyd that which by their constellation and influence was appointed to come. In so much that they helde, that Iupiter him self (whom they called the great, and supreme God) could neither alter nor stop the operation of the sterres and the effectes that should folow therevpō: and so they affirmed, that the mutatiōs of kīgdomes the honors of some men, the deiectiō of others, and finally that bothe vice and vertue were all togither in the power of the sterres. Against this pestilent opinion strongly and learnedly disputeth Augustin in diuerse places,2 but chefely in his fift booke of that worke intituled of the citie of God: affirming, that onely by the prouidence of God are kingdoms erected, mainteined ād changed: that sterres haue no power, neither to incline man to vertue nor to vice: that such blasphemies oght to be repelled from the eares of all men. Which sentences, becaus they do most perfectly aggre with gods infallible worde, we reuerentlye embrace, and constantly do beleue: And so, why that ye shuld thus impudently accuse vs of that which we neuer thoght, wise men may wonder.3 O say, you, ye take away the worde of Stoicall necessitie, but yet ye affirme the selfe same thing which they affirmed. I answer: if ye can make no difference betwext the omnipotent, moste perfect, most iust, and immutable will of God, and the opposition of sterres, called constellation, you haue euill profited, not onely in Gods scoole, but also in those artes, in which 〈…〉 of you wold seme to be subtill. Do we affirme, that of necessitie it was, that Pharao after many plagues susteined, should with his greate hoste be drowned? that Nabuchadnezer should be trāsformed in to a brute beast? ⟨p. 20⟩that Cyrus should first distroy Babilon, and after proclame libertie to the people of God (after their long and dolorous captiuitie) because the influence of the sterres did lead them to that end? or do we not rather most constantly affirm, that the aeternall counsel of God, his immutable decre, and most holie wil (which onely is the most perfect rule of all iustice and equitie) did bring all these thinges to passe by such meanes as he had appointed, and by his Prophetes fore spoken?
- 1Stoi••• necessityStoi••• necessitie
- 2Cap. 1. 2▪ 3. 4. & 5.
- 3[…]〈…〉
