interpretation is the historicall circumstance of the time and manner of Gods proceeding with Pharaoh For this expostulation whereunto our Apostle in this place hath reference was uttered after the seventh wonder wrought by Moses and Aaron in the sight of Pharaoh upon which it is expresly said thaâ— The Lord hardned the heart of Pharaoh that hee hearkned not unto them Whereas of the sive going before it is onely said That Pharaoh hardned his heart or his heart was hardned or hee set not his heart to the wonders The spirits censure likewise of Pharaohs stupiditie upon the first wonder may bee read impersonally or to bee referred to the wonder it selfe which might positively harden his heart in such a sense as is before expressed Nor is it to be omitted that upon the neglect of the seventh wonder the Lord enlargeth his commission to Moses and his threats to Pharaoh Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrewes Let my people goe that they may serve mee For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart and upon thy servants and upon thy people that thou maist know that there is none like mee in all the earth For now I will stretch out my hand that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence and thou shalt bee cut off from the earth or as Iunius excellently rendreth it I had smitten thee and thy people with pestilence when I destroyed your cattell with murraine and thou hadst beene cut off from the earth when the boiles were so rife upon the â—â—agitians but when they fell I made thee to stand for so the Hebrew is verbatim to what purpose that thou mightest still stand out against mee nay but for this very purpose That I might shew my power and declare my name more manifestly throughout all the earth by a more remarkable destruction than all that time should have be fallen thee This briefe survey of these historicall circumstances present unto us as in a mappe the just occasion the due force and full extent of the objection here intimated in transitâ— Thou wilt say then unto mee why doth hee yet finde fault As if some one on Pharaohs behalfe had replied more expresly thus God indeed had just cause to upbraid Pharaoh heretofore for neglect of his signes and wonders it was a foule fault in him not to relent so long as there was a possibilitie left for him to relent But since God hath thus openly declared his irresistible will to harden him to destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why doth he chide him any longer Why doth he hold on to expostulate more sharply with him than heretofore for that which it is impossible for him to avoid For is it possible for him to open the doore of repentance when God hath shut it or to mollifie his heart whose hardning was now by Gods decree irrevocable I have heard of a malepart Courtier who being rated of his Soveraigne Lord for committing the third murther after hee had beene graciously pardoned for two made this saucy reply One man indeed I killed and if the law might have had its course that had beene all For the death of the second and of the third your Highnesse is to answer God and the Law Our Apostle being better acquainted than wee are with the circumstances of time with the manner of Pharaohs hardening foresaw the malepart Iew or Hypocrite especially when Pharaohs case came in a manner to be their owne would make this or the like saucie answer to God If Pharaoh after the time wherein by the ordinary course of justice hee was to die were by Gods speciall appointment not onely reprived but suffered to be more out-ragious than before yea imboldened to contemne Gods messengers the ensuing evils which befell the AEgyptians may seeme to be more justly imputed unto God than unto him at least the former expostulation might seeme now altogether unseasonable To this objection our Apostle opposeth a twofold answer First he checks the saucinesse of the Replicant Nay but oh man who art thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui respondeas Deo saith the Vulgar Beza as hee thinkes more fully qui responsas Deoâ— our English better than both that repliest against God The just and naturall value of the originall doubly compounded word will best appeare from the circumstances specified First God by Moses admonisheth Pharaoh to let his people goe But he refuseth Then God expostulateth with him As yet exaltest thou thy selfe against my people that thou wilt not let them goe The objection made by the Hypocrite is as a rejoynder upon Gods Reply to Pharaoh for his wonted stubbornnesse or as an answer made on his behalfe or others in his case unto the former expostulations For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Respondenti respondere to rejoyne upon a replie or answer Now this Rejoynder to speake according to the rules of modestie and good manners was too saucie out of what mans mouth soever it had proceeded For what is man in respect of God any better than an artificiall body in respect of the artificer that makes it or than an earthen vessell in respect of the potter Nay if wee might imagine a base vessell could speake as fables suppose beasts in old time did and thus expostulate with the potter When I was spoiled in the making why didst thou rather reserve me to such base and ignominious uses than throw mee away especially when others of the same lumpe are fitted for commendable uses it would deserve to be appointed yet to more base or homely uses For a by-stander that had no skill in this facultie for the potters boy or apprentise thus to expostulate on the vessels behalfe to his father or master would argue ignorance and indiscretion The potter at least would take so much authority on him as to reply I will appoint every vessell to what use I thinke fit not to such use as every idle fellow or malepart boy would have it appointed Now all that our Apostle in this similitude intends is that wee must attribute more unto the Creators skill and wisdome in dispensing mercy and judgement or in preparing vessels of wrath and vessels of honour than wee doe unto the potters judgement in discerning clay or fitting every part of his matter to his right and most commodious use Yet in all these the potter is judge saith the author of the booke of Wisdome That very vessell which ministred the matter of this similitude to our Apostle Ier. 18. 4. was so marred in the potters hand as he was inforced to fashion it againe to another use than it was first intended for That it was marred in the first making was the fault of the clay So to fashion it anew as neither stuffe nor former labour should be altogether lost was the potters skill And shall wee thinke our Apostle did intend any other inference from this similitude than the Prophet from whence hee borrowes it had made
true moral cause or the only blame-worthy cause of his owne death or danger following Just according to the importance of this supposition or similitude is the cause of hardening in many cases to be divided betwixt God and man The Israelites did harden their owne hearts in the wildernesse and yet their hearts had not beene so hardened unlesse the Lord had done so many wondâ—rs in their sight In every wonder his purpose was to get beleefe but through their wilfull unbeleefe the best effect of his greatest wonders was induration and impenitencie Now as it suits not with the rule of good manners for Physicians to tie a mans hands of discretion or place lest hee use them to his owne harme so neither was it consonant to the rules of eternall equitie that God should necessitate the Israelites wils to a true beleefe of his wonders or mollifie their hearts against their wils that is Hee neither hardâ—ns nor mollifies their hearts by his irresistible will nor did he at all will their hardning but rather their mollification All this is true of Gods ordinarie manner of hardning men or of the first degrees of hardning any man But Pharaohs case is extraordinarie Beza rightly inferres against Origen and his followers that this hardening whereof the Apostle here speaketh was irresistible that the party thus hardened was uncaple of repentance that God did shew signes and wonders in AEgypt not with purpose to reclaime but harden Pharaoh and to drive him headlong into the snare prepared for him from everlasting All these inferences are plaine first that interrogation Who hath resisted his will is equivalent to the universall negative No man no creature can at any time resist his will That is according to the interpretation premised Whatsoever particular Gods will is to have necessary or so to be as the contrary or contradictorie to it shall not be the existence of it cannot be prevented or avoyded Now that God did in this peremptory manner will Pharaohs hardening is evident from the Emphasis of that message delivered unto him by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even for this very purpose and for no other end in the world possible have I raised thee up that I might shew in thee my power and his power was to be shewed in his hardening For from the tenor of this message the Apostle inferres the latter part of this conclusion in my text Whom hee will hee hardneth yea so hardneth that it is impossible they should escape it or his judgements due unto it In all these collections Beza doth not erre Yet was Beza with reverence bee it spoken more to blame than this filthy Writer for so it pleaseth him to entitle Origen in that he referres thâ—se threatnings For this very purpose hare I raised thee up that I may shew my power in thee not only unto Pharaohs exaltation unto the Crowne of Egypt as I thinke Origen did we need not we may not grant but to his extraction out of the wombe yea to his first creation out of the dust as if the Almighty had moulded him by his irresistible will in the eternall Idea of reprobation before man or Angell had actuall being as if the only end of his being had beene to bee a reprobate or vessell of wrath Beza's collections to this purpose unlesse they be better limited than hee hath left them make God not only a direct and positive cause but the immediate and onely cause of all Pharaohs tyrannie a more direct and more necessarie cause of his butchering the Israelites infants than he was of Adams good actions during the space of his innocencie For of these or of his short continuance in the state of integritie he was no necessarie nor immutable cause that is hee did not decree that Adams integrity should be immutable But whether Gods hardning Pharaoh by his irresistible will can any way inferre that Pharaoh was an absolute reprobate or borne to the end he might bee hardned wee are hereafter to dispute in the third point All wee have to say in this place is this If as much as Beza earnestly contends for were once granted the objection following to which our Apostle vouchsafes a double answer had beene altogether as unanswerable as impertinently moved in this place Let us then examine the pertinencie of the objection and unfold the validitie of the answers The second generall point concerning the pertinencie of the objection WHy doth hee yet finde fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Why doth hee yet chide with whom doth he find fault or whom doth hee chide All that are reprobates doth hee only chide them is this all that they are to feare the very worst that can befall them were this speech to bee as farre extended as it is by most Interpreters no question but our Apostle would have intended the force and acrimonie of it a great deale more than he doth thus farre at least Why doth he punish why doth he plague the reprobates in this life and deliver them up to everlasting torments in the life to come seeing they doe but that which bee by his irresistible will hath appointed Or suppose the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might by some unusual synecdoche which passeth our reading observation or understanding include as much or more than we now expresse all the plagues of the life to come yet it is questioned what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath here to doe It must be examined whence it came and whither it tends It naturally designes some definite point or section of time and imports particulars before begun and still continued it can have no place in the immutable sphere of eternitie no reference to the exercise of Gods everlasting wrath against the reprobates in generall The quaere's which here naturally offer themselves though for ought that I know not discussed by any Interpreters have occasioned mee in this place to make use of a Rule more usefull than usuall for explicating the difficult places of the New Testament The Rule is this To search out the passages of the old Testament with their historicall circumstances unto which the speeches of our Saviour and his Apostles have speciall reference or allusion Now this Interrogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was conceived from our Apostles meditations upon those expostulations with Pharaoh Exod. 9. 16. And indeed for this cause have I raised thee up for to shew in thee my power and that my name may be declared throughout all the Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet exaltest thou thy selfe against my people or oppressest thou my people that thou wilt not let them goe Chap. 10. vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee yet chides and threatens him againe How long wilt thou refuse to humble thy selfe before mee Let my people goe that they may serve mee Else if thou refuse to let my people goe behold to morrow I will bring the loâ—usts into thy coasts That which makes most for this
to his hand O house of Israel cannot I doe with you as this potter saith the Lord Behold as the clay is in the potters hand so are yee in mine hand Oh house of Israel Ierem. 18. 6. The true and full explication is thus much and no more albeit God sought to prepare them to glorie yet had they a possibilitie or libertie utterly to spoile themselves in the making Howbeit if so they did hee was able to forme them againe to an end quite contrarie unto that whereto hee first intended them So the Prophet explicates himselfe vers 9. 10. And here wee must request our Reader alwayes to remember that the Apostle compares God not to a frantick or fantastick potter delighted to play tricks to his loâ—le as to make a vessell scarce worth a groat of that peece which with the same case and cost might bee made worth a shilling onely to shew his imperiall authoritie over a peece of clay He imagineth such a potter as the Wise man did that knowes a reason why he makes one vessell of this fashion another of that why he appoints this to a base use that to a better albeit an unskilfull by-stander could perhaps discerne no difference in the stuffe or matter whereof they are made The summe then of our Apostles intended inference is this As it is an unmannerly point for any man to contest or wrangle with a skilfull artificer in his owne facultie of whom hee should rather desire to learne with submission so it is damnable presumption for any creature to dispute with his Creator in matters of providence or of the worlds regiment or to debate his owne cause with him thus Seeing all of us were made of the same masse I might have beene graced as others have beene with wealth with honour with strength with wisdome unlesse thou hadst beene more favourable to them than to mee Yet that which must quell all inclination to such secret murmurings or presumptuous debates is it our stedfast beleefe of his omnipotent power or absolute will No but of his infinite wisdome equity and mercie by which he disposeth all things even mens infirmities or greater crosses to a better end in respect of them so they will patiently submit their wils to his than they could hope by any other meanes to atchieve Gods will to have mercie on some and to harden others or howsoever otherwise to deale with men is in this sense most absolute Whatsoever wee certainly know to bee willed by him wee must acknowledge without examination to bee truly good Whomsoever wee assuredly beleeve it hath beene his will to harden wee must without dispute beleeve their hardning to have beene most just Yet thus to beleeve wee are not bound unlesse it were a fundamentall point of our beleefe that this his most absolute will hath just reasons though unknowne to us why hee hardneth some and not others yea such ideall reasons as when it shall be his pleasure to make them knowne to us wee shall acknowledge them to bee infinitely better and more agreeable to the immutable rules of eternall equitie which indeed they are than any earthly Prince can give why hee punisheth this man and rewardeth that The contrarie in consequence which some would inferre out of our Apostle in this place is the true naturall and necessarie consequence which they have made of another orthodoxall principle Gods will is the only infallible rule of goodnesse that is in their exposition Things are good onely because God doth will them When as in truth his will could not be so infallible so inflexible and so soveraigne a rule of goodnesse as all must beleeeve it to bee that thinke themselves bound to conforme their wils to his unlesse absolute and immutable goodnesse were the essentiall object of this his most holy will Wherefore though this argument bee more than demonstrative It was Gods will to deale thus and thus with mankinde therefore they are most justly dealt withall Yet on the other side this inference is as strong and sound Some kinde of dealings are in their owne natures so evidently unjust that we must beleeve it was not Gods will to deale so with any man living Abraham did not transgresse the bounds of modestie in saying to God That the righteous should perish with the wicked that be farre from thee Shall not the Iudge of all the earth doe right Yet were Gods will the rule of all goodnesse in such a sense as some conceive it or our Apostles meaning such as many in this place have made it Abraham had beene either very ignorant or immodest in questioning whether Gods will concerning the destruction of Sodome â—ovingly imparted to him Genes 18. had beene right or wrong whether to have slaine the righteous with the wicked had beene just or ill beseeming the great Judge and Maker of the world Howbeit to have slaine the righteous with the wicked would have beene lesse rigorous and lesse unjust than to harden man by an inevitable necessitating decree before they had voluntarily hardned themselves or unnecessarily brought an impenitent temper or necessitie of sinning upon themselves And for this cause we may safely say with our father Abraham Thus to harden any whom thou hast created that bee farre from thee Oh Lord. Farre be it ever from every good Christians heart to entertaine any such conceit of his Creator Albeit this first answer might suffice to check all such captious replies as hypocrites here make yet as our Apostle in his second answer imports wee need not use the benefit of this generall apologie in Pharaohs case The reason or manner of Gods justice and wisdome in hardning and punishing him is conspicuous and justifiable by the principles of equitie acknowledged by all For Pharaoh and his confederates were vessels of wrath sealed up for destruction Hell as wee say did yawne for them before God uttered the former expostulations perhaps from that very instant wherein hee first sent Moses unto him It being then granted that God as wee indeed suppose did from the plague of murraine or that other of boiles positively and inevitably harden Pharaohs heart and after he had promised to let the Israelites goe infatuated his braines to wrangle with Moses First whether their little ones afterwards whether their flocks should goe along with them yet to reserve him alive upon what condition or termes soever though to bee hardned though to be threatned though to be astonished and affrighted with frolâ—s plagues and lastly to bee destroyed with a more fearfull destruction than if hee had dyed of the pestilence when the cattell perished of the murraine was a true document of Gods lenity and patience no impeachment to his justice a gentle commutation of due punishment no rigorous infliction of punishment not justly deserved For what if God had thrust him quick into hell in that very moment wherein hee told him Ad hoc ipsum excitavi te For this very purpose have I reserved
thee alive that I might shew my power in thee No question but as the torments of that lake are more grievous than all the plagues which Pharaoh suffered on earth so the degrees of his hardning had he beene then cast into it had been in number more his strugling with God more violent and stubborne his possibility of repentance altogether as little as it was after the seventh plague if not lesse But should GOD therefore have beene thought unjust because he continued to punish him in hell after possibility of repentance was past No Pharaoh had beene the onely cause of his owne woe by bringing this necessitie upon himselfe of opposing God and repining at his judgements All is one then in respect of Gods justice whether Pharaoh having made up the measure of his iniquitie bee irrevocably hardned here on earth or in hell To reserve him alive in the state of mortalitie after the sentence of death is past upon him is no rigour but lenitie and long-suffering although Gods plagues be still multiplied in Egypt for his sake although the end of his life become more dreadfull than by the ordinarie course of Gods justice it should have beene if hee had dyed in the seventh plague Another reason why God without impeachment to his justice doth still augment Pharaohs punishment as if it were now as possible for him to repent as once it was is intimated by our Apostle to be this That by this lenitie towards Pharaoh Hee might shew his wrath and declare his power against all such sinners as he was that the world might heare and feare and learne by his overthrow not to strive against their Maker nor to dally with his fearefull warnings Had Pharaoh and his people died of the pestilence or other disease when the cattell perished of the murraine the terror of Gods powerfull wrath had not beene so manifest and visible to the world as it was in overthrowing the whole strength of AEgypt which had taken armes and set themselves in battell against him Now the more strange the infatuation the more fearefull and ignominious the destruction of these vessels of wrath did appeare unto the world the more bright did the riches of Gods glory shine to the Israelites whom hee was now preparing for vessels of mercy the hearts of whose posteritie hee did not so effectually fit or season for the infusion of his sanctifying grace by any secondarie meanes whatsoever as by the perpetuall memory of his glorious victory over Pharaoh and his mighty host But this faithlesse generation whose reformation our Apostle so anxiously seekes did take all these glorious tokens of Gods extraordinarie free love and mercy towards their Fathers for irrevocable earnests or obligements to effect their absolute predestination unto honour and glory and to prepare the Gentiles to be vessels of infamie and destruction Now our Apostles earnest desire and unquenchable zeale to prevent this dangerous presumption in his countrie-men enforceth him in stead of applying this second answer to the point in question to advertise them for conclusion that the AEgyptians case was now to become theirs and that the Gentiles should be made vessels of mercy in their stead All which the event hath proved most true For have not the sons of Iacob beene hardened as strangely as Pharaoh Have they not beene reserved as spectacles of terror to most nations after they had deserved to have beene utterly cut off from the earth yea to have gone quick into hell Nor have the riches of Gods mercy towards us Gentiles beene more manifested by any other apparent or visible document than by scattering of these Jewes through those Countries wherein the seed of â—â—e Gospell hath beene sowne The third generall point proposed concerning the Logicall determination of this proposition whom hee will hee hardneth or concerning the immediate or proper object of the induration here spoken of PHaraoh we grant was hardened by Gods absolute irresistible will Could Beza can Piscator or any other Expositor living enforce any more out of the literall meaning of those texts whether granting thus much wee must grant withall what their followers to my apprehension demand that Pharaoh was an absolute Reprobate from the wombe or that hee was by Gods irresistible will ordained to this hardening which by Gods irresistible will did take possession of his heart is the question to be disputed They unlesse I mistake their meaning affirme I must even to death deny I desire then that in this case I may enjoy the ancient pivilege of Priests to be tried by my Peeres which God wot need not be great ones I will except against no man of what profession place or condition soever either for being my Judge or of my Jury so his braines be qualified with the speculative rules of syllogizing and his heart seasoned with the doctrine of the ninth Commandemenâ— which is Not to â—eare false witnesse against his Neighbour against his knowledge To avoid the Sophisticall chinkes of scattered proposiâ—ions wherein Truth often lyes hid in rhetoricall or popular discourse wee will joyne issue in this syllogisme Whatsoever God from eternity decrees by his irresistible will is absolutely necessarie and inevitable or impossible to be avoided God from eternitie decreed to harden Pharaoh by his irresistible will Ergò The hardning of Pharaoh was absolutely necessarie and impossible to be avoided And if his hardning were inevitable or impossible to bee avoided it will bee taken as granted that he was a reprobate from the wombe Damnatus antequà m natus the absolute childe of eternall death before he was made partaker of mortall life The Major proposition is a Maxime not questioned by any Christian Jew or Mâ—hometane And out of it wee may draw another Major as unquestionable but more immediate in respect of the conclusion proposed Whomsoever God decrees to harden by his irresistible will his hardning is absolutely inevitable altogether impossible to be avoided The Minor Pharaoh was hardned by Gods irresistible will is granted by us and as wee are perswaded avouched in termes equivalent by our Apostle The difference is about the conclusion or connexion of the termes which without better limitation than is expressed in the proposition or corollarie annexed is loose and Sophisticall Would some braine which God hath blest with naturall perspicacitie art and opportunitie vouchsafe to take but a little paines in moulding such 〈◊〉 cases for the Praedicates as Aristoâ—le hath done for the Subjects of Propositions though those wee often use not or use amisse those seeming Syllogismes whose secret flawes clear sighted judgements can hardly discerne by light of arts would crack so fonly in framing that bleare eyes would espie their ruptures without spectacles It shall suffice mee at this time to shew how grosly the Syllogisme propoâ—ed failes in the fundamentall rule of all affirmative Syllogismes The Rule is Quaecunque conveniunt cum aliquo tertio inter se conveniunt All other rules concerning the quantitie of
replied that albeit to save Pharaoh in his youth or infancie did imply no contradiction in the object and therefore his salvation was not absolutely it selfe impossible yet it being supposed that God from eternity decreed to harden him and destroy him by his irresiâ—ible will it must needs imply a contradiction in Gods decree or will to save him and by consequent his salvation was impossible ex Hypothesi This answer is like a medicine which drives the malady from the outward parts whereto it is applied unto the heart It removes the difficultie into a more dangerous point For wee may with safetie inferre That God did not decree by his irresistible will to exclude Pharaoh in his youth or infancie from possibilitie of salvation because to have saved Pharaoh in his youth or infancie was in it selfe not impossible as implying no contradiction In bodies naturall so long as the passive disposition or capacitie continueth the same effect will necessarily follow unlesse the efficacie or the application of the agent alter I dem secundum idem semper natum est producere idem He which is alwayes the same without possibility of alteration in himselfe is at all times equally able to doe all things that in themselves are not impossible And no man I thinke will say that Pharaohs election in his infancie was in it selfe more impossible than his owne reprobation was And hee that thinketh his owne reprobation was in it selfe impossible cannot thinke himselfe so much bound to God as he maketh shew of for his infallible election If from the former proposition Whatsoever is absolutely possible to God is alwayes possible to him a man should thus assume To have shewed mercie to Pharaoh was absolutely possible to God and hence conclude Ergo It is possible to God to shew mercie on him at this instant the illation whatsoever the assertion be includes the same fallacie of composition which was before discovered in the Syllogisme Quas emisti carnes casdem comedisti Sed crudas emisti c. For Pharaoh though unto this day one and the same reasonable soule yet is he not one and the same object of Gods eternall decree for hardning or shewing mercie To save any man of Gods making implies no contradiction unto that inâ—inite power by which he was made To save any man that hath not made up the full measure of his iniquitie implies no contradiction to his infinite goodnesse no impeachment to his Majestie it is agreeable to his goodnesse To save such as have made up the full measure of their iniquitie alwayes implies a contradiction to his immutable justice And all such and for ought we know only such are the immediate objects of his eternall absolute and irresistible will or purpose of reprobation But when the measure of any mans iniquitie is made up or how farre it is made up is onely knowne to the all-seeing Judge This is the secret wherewith flesh and bloud may not meddle as being essentially annexed to the prerogative of eternall Majestie blonging only to the cognizance of infinite wisdome The fourth generall point concerning the extent or nature of this division He will have mercie on whom he will have mercie and whom hee will hee hardneth AS some doe lose the use of their native tongue by long travelling in farre countries so mindes too much accustomed to the Logician Dialect without which there can bee no commerce with arts and sciences oft-times forget the character of ordinarie speech in matters of civill and common use In arts or sciences divisions should be either formall by direct predicamâ—ntâ—ll line as that Of creatures inducd with sense some have reason some are reasonlesse or at least so exact that the severall members of the division should exhaust the whole or integrum divided As if a Geographer should say Of the inhabitants of the earth some are seated on this side the Line others beyond it or just under it this division were good but very imperfect if he should say Some are seated betweene the Tropick of Cancer and the Artick circle others betwixt the Tropick of Capricorn and the circle Antartick for a great many are commodiously seated betwixt the Tropicks as experience hath taught later ages to reforme the â—rrour of the Ancient and some likewisâ— betwixt the Polar circlâ—s and thâ— Poles But in matters arbitraiâ—â— and contingeâ—t as matterâ— of common use for the most part are to exact alike formall or accurate divisions is ridiculous especially when as well the members of the division as the divident it selfe are termes indefinite As if a man should say of men Some are extraordinarily good some extraordinarily bad or of Academicks Some are extraordinarily acute some are extraordinarily dull though every one will grant the division to bee indefinitely true yet no man almost would acknowledge himselfe to be contained under either member as the most part of men are not indeed Or if one should say Every Prince sheweth extraordinary favour to some of his subjects and some he maketh examples of severitie who could hence gather that no part or not the greatest part were left to the ordinarie course of justice or to the privileges common to all free denizons Now wee are here to remember what was prâ—mised in the entrie into this treatise That albeit Gods will be most immutable yet is it immutably free more free by much than the changeable will of man So are the objects of this his free will more arbitrarie than the designes of Princes The objects of his will in this our present argument are mercie and in luration and these he awards to divers persons or to the same persons at divers times according to a different measure Whence if wee take these termes in that extraordinary measure which is included in this division the most part of men with whom we shall usually have to deale doe not fall within either member The proper perhaps the only subject of this division in Moses time were the Israelites and Egyptians in our Apostles time the cast-away Iewes and such of the Gentiles as were forthwith to bee ingraffed in their stead If we take mercie and induration in a lesser measure according to their lower degrees or first dispositions scarce any man living of riper yeares but hath devolved from the one part of this division unto the other oftner than hee hath eaten dranke or slept Christs Disciples saith Saint Mark chap. 6. v. 52. Considered not the miracle of the lâ—aves because their hearts were hardned yet shortly after to bee mollified that Gods mercie and Christs miracles might finde more easie entrance into them Our habituall temper is for the most part mutable how much more our actuall desires or operations And whatsoever is mutably good or mutably evill in respect of its acts and operations which are sometimes de bono sometimes de malo objecto hath its alternate motions from Gods decree of hardning towards his decree of shewing mercie and è