An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 6 · Section 2
Sect. 2. A firſt inſtance of uncommanded Pieties, Davids intention to build the Temple. Vindicated from the three anſwers of the Diatribiſt.
HIS 30th §. proceeds after theſe preluſory skirmiſhes, to adapt anſwers to the ſeveral inſtances, which I had given of performances uncommanded, and yet accepted by God, and the firſt is that of David, whoſe intention to build God a Temple, exceeding Gods command, 2 Sam. 7. 5. 7. was yet very acceptable to God, 1 King. 1. 18. and ſo appears to be by Nathans meſſage to him, in that place of Samuel. To this he hath returned three branches of anſwer, I ſhall take a brief view of them.
The firſt [that this is one of Bellarmines arguments for their religious vowes, and is fully anſwered by Chamier, 1. that it was in time of the law, when free-will offerings were allowed, but the times of the Goſpel give no ſuch allowance] is already anſwered in the laſt Section, where the Leviticalneſſe and ſo abolition of that allowance of free-will offerings was competently examined and confuted. Yet ex abundanti I here adde, that the allowance that was expreſt in the law belonging to ſacrifices, did not expreſſely pertain to the building of Temples, and if ſtill by the analogy or parity of reaſon it may be extended to ſuch other things, which were not expreſt in the allowance, and yet which were not meerly ceremonial, viz. to Davids intention of building God an houſe, when God had never expreſt any ſuch command or deſire, I deſire to hear ſome ſatisfactory reaſon, why the parity of reaſon may not in like manner extend the ſame allowance to uncommanded acts of piety under Chriſt, in caſe no ſuch allowance ſhould appear to be expreſt in the Goſpel.
This firſt anſwer therefore having ſo little of ſolidity in it, it was meet that it ſhould be introduced with a prooeme, which might caſt a prejudice upon the Argument, viz. that it was one of Bellarmines for religious vowes, and fully anſwered by Chamier. But 1. every Argument is not invalid which Bellarmine hath once uſed, I do not believe him ſo ill a manager, that a ſharp weapon taken into his hands would preſently be blunted. 2dly. Belllarmines uſing it to another purpoſe, that of religious vowes, ſuppoſing it fully anſwered, as to that, can have no influence on my uſing it to prove the lawfulneſſe of ſpontaneous performances of piety; It might not come home to ſuch vowes, and yet might and doth come home to reſolutions or intentions.
And therefore if this be the truth of the matter, as it lies betwixt Chamier and Bellarmine, if it concern only the buſineſſe of ſuch religious vowes, of building a Temple before Gods pleaſure be known concerning it and the like, then this Diatribiſt hath not done well to inlarge Chamiers words to this other ſo diſtant matter, and to vouch his authority both here and formerly, for the abolition of free-will offerings under the Goſpel. It cannot be a good cauſe, which needs ſuch aides as this.
His 2d anſwer is, that God doth not abſolutely deny that he had commanded, but ſaith he had not commanded it to David, or any before him, not becauſe he would not have it done, but becauſe not yet, and therefore foretels that Solomon ſhould do it. To this I anſwer 1. that here is very nice diſtinguiſhing betwixt abſolutely denying that he had commanded, and ſaying, he had not commanded. Can conſcience ever be ſatisfied of the ſinfulneſſe of voluntary oblations, or the charitableneſs of judging a Church ſuperſtitious for uſing uncommanded rites, upon ſuch anſwers as theſe?
But 2. to diſinvolve this intricacy, and take a ſunder this ſubtile fabrick, I demand, did God ever command David, or any governor before him to build him a Temple, or did he not? If he ſhall ſay, he did; Then is that expreſſely repugnant to the plain words of Nathan 2 Sam. 7. 5. Thus ſaith the Lord, ſhalt thou build me an houſe to dwell in? the queſtion implies, that he ſhall not, and v. 7. Spake I a word with any of the tribes of Iſrael, ſaying, Why build ye not me an houſe of Cedar? and ſo forward to the ſame purpoſe; But if he ſhall acknowledge that God never did thus command David or any before him to build him a Temple, then it is clear, his intention to build was a free-will offering, under no command of Gods, and yet that intention accepted and commended by God, which was all I undertook to conclude in this inſtance.
3dly. What he addes, that God ſaith this not becauſe he would not have it done, but becauſe not yet &c. is evidently nothing to his advantage, for ſtill it is confeſt God would not have it done by David, which was all I contended, and then Davids deſigning to do it, was without command, and ſo a freewill offering; As for the prediction, that Solomon ſhould do it, 1. That is no intimation in the leaſt of any command to David; and 2. It followed David's reſolution of doing it, and was God's anſwer to David, v. 13. on occaſion of his reſolving to build God a Temple, v. 1, 2. and ſo that is onelyonly a farther evidence, that what David reſolved to do, was, without any the leaſt command, onelyonly that which the dignity of the matter ſuggeſted to a pious ſoul v. 1. 2. and accordingly was approved by Nathan, v. 3. Goe doe all that is in thy heart, and alſo by God, 1 Kin. 8. 18. though he were not permitted to actuate this pious reſolution.
His 3d anſwer is, that the houſe that David would build was not to be a part of worſhip, but by accident, as the houſe of Obed Edom, or the place where David ſetled the Arke, and our Churches now, onelyonly a circumſtance of worſhip. I anſwer, 1. So is a Feſtivall now, a time, as that a place, and ſo equally a circumſtance of worſhip. And 2. It being already evident that voluntary oblations were then lawfull, and that thoſe are parts of worſhip, 'tis viſible that this had equally been lawfull, if it had been a part, as it is now, being but a circumſtance of worſhip.
But then 3dly. The intention of building this place was ſure a pious intention, an act of reverence and love to God, whoſe houſe it was deſigned to be, and ſo that being uncommanded muſt needs be an foreign, and ſo directly parallel to the foreign, to which I thought fit to compare it.
And ſo ſtill there is no other virtue in theſe anſwers ſave onelyonly to evidence his diſtruſt in his foreign, and to aſſure us, that he could not heartily believe, that voluntary oblations were now aboliſhed under the New Teſtament, for if really they were, having rendred that for his firſt anſwer, he could not have wanted or ſatisfied himſelf with ſuch evaſions as theſe.