SERM. Exod. ix 7. Once more, after the plague XIII. of Hail, this hardening of Pharoah's heart

is attributed to himfelf, under both these forms of expreffion, which may serve to convince us that they are both of like meaning or importance. When Pharaoh faw that the rain, and the hail, and the thunders were. ceafed, he finned yet more, and hardened bis heart, he and his fervants; and the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would be let `the children of Ifrael go, as the Lord had spoken by Mofes, Exod. ix. 34, 35.

In the following Plagues indeed, as well as in that of Boils, which came between the Murrain and the Hail, it is faid exprefly, that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaob. But, from the inftances alledged, it is fufficiently evident, that he had first hardened himself; and confequently, that God did no otherwise harden him, than by forfaking and giving him up to his own finful affections, after he had obftinately refifted the most flagrant methods of conviction, and abused that mercy (which ought to have reclaimed him) into an occafion of his greater obduration.

For the fuller clearing of which point, it is, in the next place, fit to be confidered, that the fcripture has let us know by what fteps and degrees of falfe reafoning the King of Egypt did advance to fuch a height of impiety. For (1.) we are informed, that,

in fome of these fevere Plagues, the Ma- SERM. gicians of Egypt did (either in reality or in XIII. appearance) the fame, with their enchantments, as Mofes by the finger of God. From whence Pharaoh feems to have collected, that the God of Ifrael was not more powerful than their Egyptian Deities. For which reason, in the cafe of the River turned to Blood, his hardness is immediately connected with that obfervation, as its proper effect. The Magicians of Egypt did fo with their enchantments, and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, fays the Text, Exod. vii. 22. Again (2.) It is obfervable, that, in those miracles which the Magicians could not perform, but were forced to acknowledge in them the Almighty power of God, Pharaoh faw however that God was merciful, and easy to be intreated, and he no fooner made a fhew of repentance and fair promises to Mofes, but the plague was prefently removed, from whence he entertained no great apprehenfions of danger from that Being, who was fo eafily inclined to pity and forgive. Thus, for the purpose, it is obferved, Exod. viii. 15. When Pharaoh faw that there was refpite, he hardened bis heart, and bearkened not unto them. And fo again, in the ixth chapter, at the 34th verfe, When Pharaoh faw that the rain, and the bail, and the thunder, were ceafed, be finned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and

SERM. his fervants. All this is reprefented as his XIII. own crime and obftinacy; and if, after fuch repeated provocations, he was left to the perverseness and malice of his own breaft, this can be no real detraction from the goodness of our heavenly Father, who has declared that his Spirit fhall not always ftrive with man, and may moft justly punish us, with an utter deprivation of those favours, which we fo ungratefully defpife

or abuse.

And, if then his fin was wholly from himself, if he grew the harder by thofe methods which, in all reafon, should have foftened him, I conceive there will be little difficulty in removing that objection against Providence, which may feem to be founded in those words before-recited, for this caufe have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power. For, whether by raising him up we understand his being delivered from the Plagues that had already been inflicted, whereas he might juftly have been destroyed and left to perish in them, or else his being raised to the regal dignity, in order to undergo this publick and fevere trial, ftill here is no infufion of any principle of, vice, which might have been equally predominant, in other circumftances, though it had been lefs difcovered or made known. When we fail in any trial, the trial may be God's, but the guilt of apoftacy or fall

ing is our own. Our minds had not other- SERM. wife been more truly and fincerely virtuous, XII. only their filth and vicioufnefs had been

covered and conceal'd. At least we had

had the reputation of greater ftrength and conftancy than really belonged to us, fince this falling, after all, must leave the reproach of weakness and inconftancy. And thus far of the four firft kinds of exceptions that are made against the doctrine of the Text. The

(V.) FIFTH objection follows, That Godi foreknows and foretells the fins of men, and fometimes makes them fubfervient to his own Decrees.

The truth of the fact will not, in this cafe be difputed by us. For, the certain foreknowledge of every event which comes to pass, we judge to be a neceffary perfection of the Divine nature. And therefore when we see so much evil every day committed in the world, we are fure that God muft know of it before-hand; otherwise. there would fomething come to pass, of: which he had not that certain foreknow-. ledge which the perfection of his nature requires. And, that the evils thus foreknown, are sometimes predicted or foretold by him, we have fo many proofs and examples in the facred fcriptures, that, as there is no room to difpute the allegation,

fo

SERM. fo there can be no need to recite the testiXIII. monies. The difficulty then remains, to

account how that which is thus certainly. foreknown, and therefore will certainly come to pass, should be reckoned a fpontaneous or free action, and not to be neceffarily bound upon us by fome unalterable law of Fate.

From

But here, in the first place, let it be confidered, that we are not lefs clearly instructed in our own natural privilege, as to the liberty of choice and action, than we are in this doctrine of Prescience itself. whence we are always treated as rational and free Agents, the precepts of religion are proposed to our ferious confideration, as matter of duty and not of natural neceffity, and there are fit motives fet before. us to influence our practice, the prospect of reward to quicken our obedience, and the fear of penalties to deter us from fin. Whilft thus the whole fcheme of our religion is contrived to evince that we are ourfelves the Authors of our own iniquity, it must be most difingenuous to charge it upon God, on account of fome other doctrine which we may not be perfectly able to reconcile with it. For, what can be more unreasonable than for us to expect to comprehend the nature of all thofe Divine truths, which our God is pleased to reveal. or propound to our belief?