Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 3
SECT. 6. & 7. of Davids purpose, to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7.1. Chron. 17.
THis passage will soon be dispached, if the quaestion may be cleared. The purpose of David, was eyther conditionall onelyonly, if God should allow and second the businesse, or else absolute, without suche suspending condition, as supposing that God did allow, and would prosperously assist him, for the accomplishment of it. If it was of the former sort, and so farr as it was considerable within those limits, ther is no quaestiō, but it was godly, and worthy of all honour. But if it was absolute, it cannot be excused from some mixture of praesumtion. For whatsoever a man may absolutely intend to doe, that he may doe, but for the doeing of such a thing, as building of a Temple then unto God, the Rejoynder himself confesseth it to have been unlawfull, for David, without further warrant: and so confesseth also, that the absolute intention could not be lawfull. Hence are these speaches of the Rej. That which may be lawfully purposed, with submission to Gods pleasure, might not be doen without his pleasure knowen, and leave given. Wee grant, that David could not build the House, nor so muche as set out the place for it, without leave and direction from God.
All the quaestion therfor is, whether David had an …bsolute purpose or no? If he had not, wee have no ground from this place, agains… absolute instituting of religious Ceremonies by mā. If he …ad suche a purpose, then the Rejoynder doeth not gainsay, but our argument is good. Now that Davids purpose was absolute, it is more then probable, by that which the Rejoynder confesseth, viz. that Nathan was unadvised in saying to David, …e doe all that is in thine …eart, the Lord is with thee, before he had consulted with the mouth of the Lord, to whom the designation or place, manner, and Man, did belonge. Heerin sayth the Rejoynder Nathan failed. For 1. Nathan so farr as appeareth doth answer onelyonly to the quaestion of David, allowing his purpose, if therfore Nathans allowance was a failing in being too absolute, Davids purpose was of like nature. 2. If Davids purpose had not been absolute before, yet upon Nathans counsell, from which no dissent of his is any ways insinuated, it became absolute. 3. If David had dissented from Nathan in that poynte, he ought to have admonished Nathan of his sayling, and would also no doubt have doen so or at the least, it would have beē concluded betwixt them two, that counsel must be sought, and expected of God; but Nathan not being corrected, but rather confirmed by David, as David was by him, they both were (wit… out seeking) better informed by extraordinarie revelation. 4. The Def. sayth, and the Rejoynder mainteyneth it, that …od did interpret Davids affection for a deed. But no imperfect velleities of good, are so interpreted. The will which is accepted for a deed, must be absolute, and hindered onelyonly by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the Rejoynder his grantes, we are furnished with this argument:
It was not lawfull fo… David to purpose absolutely the building any religious house for Gods Arke, without Gods speciall co…mand, or warrant. Therfore it is not lawfull for man to institute and build Ceremonies double and tr…b…e religious (as the Rejoynder calleth ours) without Gods speciall command or warrant.
The grant of the Rejoynder is the common sentence of our Divines well expressed, amōg other, by Mr. W. Attersol, upon Numb. 3.4. David was deceyved, that he went beyond the Commandement …f G…d. To seek to praevent God was to be reproved. It might have been sayd to him: who required these thinges at thy hands?
Howsoever his purpose (or simple affection) m…y be comm…nded, yet the fact (that is the absolute purpose resolving upon the fact) is reproved, He ought not the have enterprized that, which was not commanded eyther to any other, or to himself. He did not obey God, but fol…ow his owne minde and device. He did runne too fast, travayling (as it were) without his guide, and sayling without his compasse.
These things being considered, it were but vaine labor to prosecute the Rejoynder in particular litigations about this matter, which would be litle else then repetition of the same things. I will onelyonly therfore consider of the Def. his retorsion, and the Rejoynder his shot out of this place: which also should have passed, but for the boasting wherwith they are (with provocation) advanced above their measure.
The Def. his retortion is thus. This Act of Davids without speciall warrant were commended by God. Ergo, all institutions of Ceremonies by man, belonging to Gods service, are not therfor to be condemned, because they want expresse warrant. This Act. (sayth the Def. that is (sayth the Rejoynder) this conditionall affection not lawfull to be brought into act. From suche a conditionall affection, he argueth, to absolute and actuall institutions, by what rule of consequence I know not. The Rejoynder teacheth us the clean contrary argument, as before was declared.
The Rejoynder his shot is thus in short: David (as Mr. Cartwritconfesseth) had generall warrant from the word of God, for building the Temple, and had no word to forbid him to doe it (til that by Nathan) therfor for David to purpose to build (til that forbidding by Nathan, was lawfull. I answer 1. the conclusion (being understood of a conditionall purpose (as the Rejoynder expounded it) we willingly grāt, as neyther making, nor ever having made any quaestion about it. 2. David had no generall warrant, for his building of the temple, neyther doeth Mr. Cartwrite say any suche thing, but onelyonly that it was revealed there should be suche a Temple. Which was no more warrant for David to purpose the building of it, then other Prophecies were warrant for somme (upon supposition) to purpose the destroying of it. 3. Though ther was no word of God which particularly or absolutely forbid David to build the Temple, yet ther was word enough in g…nerall forbidding him to attempt any suche thinge, untill he should receyve further Commission. So the Rejoynder before confessed: the designation of place, manner, man, and time, did belonge to God: and was therfore forbidden to David, and so the building forbidden, untill that designation should come from God.
Now adde unto this shot of the Rejoynder thus repelled but a litle altering the charge and turning the pieces mouths. viz. That our questioned Ceremonies have not so muche generall warrant, as that it is any where in Scripture revealed, ther should be a Crosse, and Sirplice, and that the places of Scripture which seem to forbid them, could never yet be otherwise cleared; and then see how it maketh for the Rejoynder his cause.