The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion are nothing worth. 1. Nathan (saith he) had allowed the purpose of David, v. 3. But judicious Junius answereth (in his notes upon that place) that so Samuel out of humane infirmity, said that Eliab was the man whom God would have king, 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth David his servant, which he never doth in reproof. Which is not true, though the reproof be for a thing simply evil: as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3, •er. 2. 13. and in many such places, where my people is as much as my servant. But the very word Servant also is twice thus used in one verse, Isa. 42. 19. much less when the affection is good in the general, and blemished only ⟨p. 5⟩by some circumstance. For then why may not a good title be given as an allowance of that which is good, and yet the evil be at the same time reproved? so many learned divines do interpret that of the Midwives, Exod. 1. 19. 20. 21. Moses was reproved and brought to his grave for a sin, and yet when his death is recorded, it is said that Moses the servant of the Lord died, Deut. ult. The Churches are sharply reproved Rev. 2. & 3. and yet are styled by the name of Churches, and golden Candlesticks: and their ministers who are chiefly reproved are called Stars. 3. there is another reason rendered by Solomon of this restraint. 1. Reg. 5. 3. 4. But the Defendant should mark that one reason doth not exclude another. In this place of Samuel two reasons are rendered, as Tremelius and Junius note, the second of which is taken (as he saith) from the example of Davids ancestors, who never undertook any such thing, because they knew the calling of God was to be expected. 4. God himself commended this purpose of David. 1. King. 8. 17. As if the same affection may not in divers respects be both commended and condemned. But this evasion of Mr. Hy. 1 pass over, saith the Defender, as childish and absurd. And why so I pray? 1. Because God himself did interpret this affection for a deed. 2. He did note this deed as special, saying in both respects, thou didst well, that it was in thy heart. In which words if there be any consequence, or good sense, then not only Mr. Hy. his evasion, but logic it self is childish and absurd.
The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion 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 Servant also is twice thus used in one verse, Isa. 42. 19. much lesse when the affection is good in the generall, and blemished onely ⟨p. 5⟩by some circumstance. For then why may not a good title bee given as an allowance of that vvhich is good, and yet the evill be at the same time reproved? so many learned divines doe interpret that of the Midwiues, Exod. 1. 19. 20. 21. Moses was reproved and brought to his graue for a sinne, and yet when his death is recorded, it is sayd that Moses the servant of the Lord died, Deut. vlt. The Churches are sharply reproved Rev. 2. & 3. and yet are stiled by the name of Churches, and golden Candlestickes: and their ministers who are chiefly reproved are called Starres. 3. there is another reason rendred by Salomon of this restraint. 1. Reg. 5. 3. 4. But the Defendant should mark that one reason doth not exclude another. In this place of Samuel two reasons are rendred, as Tremelius and Iunius note, the second of which is taken (as he saith) from the example of Davids auncestors, vvho never vndertook any such thing, because they knew the calling of God vvas to be exspected. 4. God himselfe commended this purpose of David. 1. King. 8. 17. As if the same affection may not in divers respects be both commended and condemned. But this evasion of Mr. Hy. 1 passe over, sayth the Defender, as childish and absurd. And why so I pray? 1. Because God himselfe did interpret this affection for a deed. 2. Hee did note this deed as speciall, saying in both respects, thou didst well, that it was in thy heart. In which words if there be any consequence, or good sence, then not onely Mr. Hy. his evasion, but logick it selfe is childish and absurd.
