Page 4
SECT. VI. VII.
THe second place of Scripture handled by the defendant, is 2. Sam. 7. 7. Where I cannot but marvell why so resolute a dis∣puter would passe by in silence, Deu. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Lev. 10. 12. all which places are alledged by the Lincolnshire mi∣nisters (against whom he professeth principally to write) & choose this place which they bring in after the former. Was there not a cause? But to take him as we finde him, he professeth plainly, that it vvas lawfull for David vvithout speciall vvarrant to build a house unto God: and in this he is so peremptory, that he condem∣neth the contrary opinion of notable precipitancie, and presumeth to make this example a ground of confutation against his adversa∣ries, disputing as he pedantically speaketh first by extortion, and then by retortion out of this place. But if his extortion bee meere torting and torturing of the text, we need not feare his retortion.
Now that the purpose of David vvas partly condemned, appea∣reth plainly, 1. because it vvas prohibited, as here the Defendant in his answer expressely granteth. 2. Because as honorable M. Calvi•• well observeth on Act. 7. 46. It was not lawfull for man to choose a place for Gods Name & Ark, but it was to be placed in that place which God himselfe should shew, as Moses doth often admonish. Neither durst David himselfe bring the Ark into the threshing floore of Arauna, vntill the Lord by an Angel from heaven had witnessed unto him that that was the place chosen by himselfe, 2. Sam. 24. 11. 3. Because it cannot bee absolutely excused from some mixture of rashnesse vvith zeal, that he should resolue absolutely to build an house unto God, before he knew either vvhat manner of house God vvould haue built, or when, or by whom: seeing vvithout the especiall direction and as∣sistance of Gods spirit, nothing of this kind could bee well done. How could David haue built a house, except the Lord had filled vvith the spirit of vvisedome Bezaliel and Aboliab, or some such?
The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary o∣pinion are nothing worth. 1. Nathan (sayth he) had allowed the purpose of David, v. 3. But iudicious Iunius answereth (in his notes upon that place) that so Samuel out of humane infirmitie, said that Eliab vvas the man vvhom God vvould haue king, 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth Da••id his servant, which hee never doth in reproofe. Which is not true, though the reproofe be for a thing simply evill: as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3, ••er. 2. 13. and in many such places, vvhere my people is as much as my servant. But the very word Ser∣vant also is twice thus used in one verse, Isa. 42. 19. much lesse when the affection is good in the generall, and blemished onely