In this number he hath brought three places of Scripture to prove
_freewill_. The first is, _If a wife make a vow, it is left to her
husband’s choice either to establish it or to make it void_. And,
_Choose you this day whom ye will serve, &c. But I and my house will
serve the Lord._ And, _I offer thee three things, choose thee which of
them I shall do_. Which in the reply he endeavoureth to make good; but
needed not, seeing they prove nothing but that a man is free to do if he
will, which I deny not. He ought to prove he is free to will, which I
deny.
(_a_) Secondly, “I prove it by instances, and by that universal notion
which the world hath of election.”
His instances are, first, the difference between an hereditary kingdom
and an elective; and then the difference between the senior and junior
of the mess taking their commons; both which prove the liberty of doing
what they will, but not a liberty to will. For in the first case, the
electors are free to name whom they will, but not to will; and in the
second, the senior having an appetite, chooseth what he hath an appetite
to; but chooseth not his appetite.