_T. H._ The second argument from Scripture consisteth in histories of men that did one thing, when, if they would, they might have done another. The places are two; one is in 1 Kings iii. 11, where the history says, God was pleased that Solomon, who might, if he would, have asked riches or revenge, did nevertheless ask wisdom at God’s hands. The other is the words of St. Peter to Ananias, (Acts v. 4): _After it was sold, was it not in thine own power?_ To which the answer is the same with that I answered to the former places: that they prove that there is election, but do not disprove the necessity which I maintain of what they so elect. “We have had the very same answer twice before. It seemeth that he is well-pleased with it, or else he would not draw it in again so suddenly by head and shoulders to no purpose, if he did not conceive it to be a panchreston, a salve for all sores, or _dictamnum_, sovereign dittany, to make all his adversaries’ weapons to drop out of the wounds of his cause, only by chewing it, without any application to the sore. I will not waste the time to show any further, how the members of his distinction do cross one another, and one take away another. To make every election to be of one thing imposed by necessity, and of another thing which is absolutely impossible, is to make election to be no election at all. But I forbear to press that at present. If I may be bold to use his own phrase, his answer looks quite another way from mine argument. My second reason was this: ‘They who may do, and might have done many things which they leave undone, and who leave undone many things which they might do, are not necessitated, nor precisely and antecedently determined to what they do.’ “But we might do many things which we do not, and we do many things which we might leave undone, as appears evidently by the texts alleged. Therefore we are not antecedently and precisely determined, nor necessitated to do all things which we do. What is here of _election_ in this argument? To what proposition, to what term doth T. H. apply his answer? He neither affirms, nor denieth, nor distinguisheth of any thing contained in my argument. Here I must be bold to call upon him for a more pertinent answer.” ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE BISHOP’S REPLY NO. IX. The Bishop, for the proving of free-will, had alleged this text: _Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life_, &c. And another, (Acts v. 4): _After it was sold, was it not in thine own power?_ Out of which he infers, there was no necessity that Solomon should ask wisdom rather than long life, nor that Ananias should tell a lie concerning the price for which he sold his land: and my answer, that they prove election, but disprove not the necessity of election, satisfieth him not; because, saith he, (_a_) “they who might have done what they left undone, and left undone what they might have done, are not necessitated.”