A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

All the question therefore is, whether David had an absolute purpose or no? If he had not, we have no ⟨p. 20⟩ground from this place, against absolute instituting of religious Ceremonies by man. If he •ad such a purpose, then the Rejoinder doeth not gainsay, but our argument is good. Now that Davids purpose was absolute, it is more then probable, by that which the Rejoinder confesseth, viz. that Nathan was unadvised in saying to David, ••e do all that is in thine heart, 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 belong. Herein saith the Rejoinder Nathan failed. For 1. Nathan so far as appeareth doth answer only to the question of David, allowing his purpose, if therefore 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 counsel, from which no dissent of his is any ways insinuated, it became absolute. 3. If David had dissented from Nathan in that point, he ought to have admonished Nathan of his sailing, and would also no doubt have done so or at the least, it would have been 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 extraordinary revelation. 4. The Def. saith, and the Rejoinder maintaineth 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 only by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the Rejoinder his grants, we are furnished ⟨p. 21⟩with this argument:

All the quaestion therfor is, whether David had an •bsolute purpose or no? If he had not, wee have no ⟨p. 20⟩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 onely 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 onely by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the Rejoynder his grantes, we are furnished