The next thing his Lordship does, after clearing of the coast, is the dividing of his forces, as he calls them, into _two_ squadrons, _one_ of places _of Scriptures_, the _other_ of _reasons_, which allegory he useth, I suppose, because he addresseth the discourse to your Lordship, who is a military man. All that I have to say touching this, is, that I observe a great part of those his _forces_ do look and _march_ another way, and some of them _fight_ amongst themselves. And the first place of _Scripture_, taken from Numb. xxx. 13, is one of those that look another way; the words are, _If a wife make a vow, it is left to her husband’s choice either to establish it or make it void_. For it proves no more but that the husband is a _free_ and _voluntary agent_, but not that his _choice_ therein is not _necessitated_ or not _determined_ to what he shall choose, by precedent _necessary_ causes. For if there come into the husband’s mind greater good by establishing than abrogating such a vow, the establishing will follow necessarily; and if the evil that will follow in the husband’s opinion outweigh the good, the contrary must needs follow: and yet in this following of one’s _hopes_ and _fears_, consisteth the nature of _election_. So that a man may both choose this, and cannot but choose this, and consequently _choosing_ and _necessity_ are joined together. The second place of Scripture is Joshua, xxiv. 15. The third is 2 Sam. xxiv. 12, whereby it is clearly proved, that there is _election_ in _man_, but not proved that such _election_ was not _necessitated_ by the _hopes_, and _fears_, and considerations of _good_ and _bad_ to follow, which depend not on the _will_, nor are subject to _election_. And therefore one answer serves all such places, if there were a thousand. But his Lordship supposing, it seems, I might answer, as I have done, that _necessity_ and _election_ might stand together, and instance in the actions of _children_, _fools_, or _brute beasts_, whose _fancies_, I might say, are _necessitated_ and _determined_ to _one_; before these his proofs out of Scripture, desires to prevent that instance, and therefore says that the actions of _children_, _fools_, _madmen_, and _beasts_, are indeed _determined_, but that they proceed not from _election_, nor from _free_, but from _spontaneous agents_. As for example, that the _bee_, when it maketh honey, does it _spontaneously_; and when the _spider_ makes his web, he does it _spontaneously_, but not by _election_. Though I never meant to ground my answer upon the experience of what _children_, _fools_, _madmen_, and _beasts_ do; yet that your Lordship may understand what can be meant by _spontaneous_, and how it differeth from _voluntary_, I will answer that _distinction_, and show that it _fighteth_ against its fellow arguments.