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.”
But how doth he know (understanding power properly taken) that Solomon
had a real power to ask long life? No doubt Solomon knew nothing to the
contrary; but yet it was possible that God might have hindered him. For
though God gave Solomon his choice, that is, the thing which he should
choose, it doth not follow, that he did not also give him the act of
election. And for the other text, where it is said, that the price of
the land was in Ananias’s power, the word _power_ signifieth no more
than the word right, that is, the right to do with his own what he
pleased, which is not a real and natural power, but a civil power made
by covenant. And therefore the former answer is sufficient, that though
such places are clear enough to prove election, they have no strength at
all to take away necessity.