Proselyted stranger and therefore it followeth not that because the Proselyted strangers WERE commanded that therefore the Gentiles that were not proselyted ARE under this command which you are to prove according to the fence explained in the question And if by stranger you mean all strangers then I deny the Minor and say All strangers ARE not commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath It might further be replyed The stranger was commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17.12 And he that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generation that is born in thy house or is bought with thy money of ANY STRANGER that is not of thy seed Doth it follow because that strangers WERE to be circumcised that therefore they ARE to be circumcised and in like manner it doth not follow that because the strangers within Isarel's gates WERE to keep the Sabbath that the Gentiles without their gates ARE to keep the Sabbath which is that the Doctor was to prove for this Argument is so far from proving the Gentiles ARE to keep it that it doth not prove the Gentiles in the Question WERE to keep it for the Question is of all Gentiles except Proselytes and the Argument from the twentieth of Exodus proves no Gentiles but Proselytes for so Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotations upon this place saith That for Stranger the Greek Version reads Proselyte and he further adds That it was the Opinion of the Rabbins upon this place That strangers not circumcised might work for themselves openly upon the Sabbath day as the Jews did on a working day Dr. Chamberlain The Commandment doth expound strangers and saith not onely Thou Jew but Thou Proselyte thy son and thy daughter and the stranger that is within thy gates Mr. Ives It followeth not that it was to any stranger without the gate because the stranger within the gate was commanded and unless you can prove that it was to all strangers without the gate unproselyted it doth not reach the difference in question and therefore I still demand your proof of the Minor Proposition For it is observeable that though Israel was to restrain the strangers from labour yet the strangers were no other then such as were circumcised within their gates and under their Law which is nothing to our purpose who live in England under the Gospel Dr. Chamberlain I think I have proved it sufficiently Hereupon arose some difference concerning the terms of the question and thereupon some that stood by desired that it might be put into such general terms as might comprehend the difference It was thereupon agreed that the question should be put into these terms viz. VVhether all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Chamberlain affirmeth That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives denyeth That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Cham. I being in the place of Opponent shall undertake to prove That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath which I thus doe They which are bound to keep and observe the Royal Law are bound to keep and observe the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath But all Christians are bound to keep and observe the Royal Law Ergo all Christians are bound to keep and observe the seventh day for a Sabbath Mr. Ives I answer by distin uishing of the Royal Law for if by Royal Law you mean all the Ten Commandments then I deny the Minor otherwise I deny the Major Dr. Chamberlain By Royal Law I mean the Ten Commandments spoken of Exod. 20. Mr. Ives Then I deny the Minor and say That all Christians are not bound to keep all the Ten Commandments because they are not bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Chamberlain All that are bound to abstain from sin are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments but all Christians are bound to abstain from sin Ergo all Christians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives I deny the Major and though I confess all Christians are bound to abstain from sin yet it doth not follow that therefore they are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments because as I have said they are not bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath which was one of the Ten. Dr. Chamberlain They that are bound to abstain from the transgressions of the Law are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments but all Christians are bound to abstain from the transgressions of the Law Ergo all Christians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Sir you do not prove the thing denyed but instead thereof give us the same again for what difference is there between abstaining from sin and abstaining from transgressions I therefore because it is the same Argument give you the same answer by denying the Minor Dr. Chamberlain Then I further argue If every sin be a transgression of the Law then they that are bound to abstain from sin are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments but every sin is a transgression of the Law Ergo. Mr. Ives This is but the same we had before though differing in words therefore I deny the Major Dr. Chamberlain Then I offer further That they who are bound to keep every point of the Law are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments but all Christians are bound to keep every point of the Law Ergo. Mr. Ives This is upon the matter but the same again for what difference is there between all the Law and every point and therefore I still do deny the Major and require you to prove that all that are bound to abstain from sin are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Dr. Chamberlain If the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments be sin then all that are bound to abstain from sin are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments but the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments is sin Ergo they that are bound to abstain from sin are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives I deny the Minor The Minor may justly be denied because that it is not a sin now to work upon the seventh day commonly called Saturday which was one of the Ten Commandments among the Jews and therefore though all Christians are to abstain from all sin against the Law they live under yet they are not bound to abstain from sinning against a Law they are not under Dr. Chamberlain I prove the Minor from Jam 2.10 Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all From whence I argue He that is guilty of sin doth not abstain from sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of sin Ergo he that beaks any one of the Ten Commandments doth not abstain from sin Mr. Ives This Argument concludes not the terms denyed in the Syllogism however I shall deny thn Miner and say That one of the Ten Commandments may be broken which is the
Command that required the Observation of the seventh day and yet I may not be guilty of sin Dr. Chamberlain He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law is guilty of sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law Ergo. Mr. Ives I answer By distinguishing of the term HE in the Major proposition for if you do not mean every he then I deny the Syllogism And if you do mean every he or every one then I deny the Minor for these Reasons First this text that you refer to in your Argument was written to the Twelve Tribes Jam. 1.1 and therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that because the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law that therefore every believing Gentile is so bound Secondly if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epistle yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments for there is no such thing in the Text. Dr. Chamberlain This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians and therefore to every Christian Mr. Ives I say as before that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle and if they were yet these words The Ten Commandments which are in the Argument are not in this Text and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments as understood by you in the Argument must be concluded from hence or you do not prove the thing denyed Dr. Chamberlain Lest you should equivocate about this word Law the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table and he doth not mention any part of the First Table by which it appears that by the Royal Law he intends the Ten Commandments unless you will say that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law Therefore I 〈◊〉 He that is bound 〈◊〉 keep the whole Law is bound to keep all the ten Commandments But every Christian is bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Every Christian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Forasmuch as you have not said any thing new but what you have said already over and over I therefore answer by denying the Major and say That a man may keep the whole Law in the sense of this text and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your sense And though I do confess we are bound to keep and observe all the other nine Commandments yet we are not bound to observe the command for the seventh-day-sabbath which is one of the ten Commandments And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to serve God I confess we are to observe that also though we are not tied to the seventh day Dr. Cham. Well then I will prove the Major thus If the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole Law Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law are bound to keep the ten Commandments But the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole law Ergo. M. Ives I deny the minor and say that in the sense of this text this word the whole law doth not contain all the ten Commandments Dr. Cham. I further argue If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole Then he is commanded to keep the whole But he that breaks one Commandments is guilty of the whole Ergo He is commanded to keep the whole It is observable that the Doctor made three essays to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing denyed but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie Mr. Ives I deny the whole Syllogism because it concludes not the matter in question for the thing in question is Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the sense of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments and by consequence the Seventh-day-Sabbath and your Argument concludes we must keep the whole and all the Commandments which was never denyed Dr. Cham. If you deny Scripture I have done with you Mr. Ives I do not deny the Scripture but your Syllogism which concludes not the thing in question as I have shewn you once and again As it hath been answered that S. James doth not write to Gentiles and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments by this word The whole Law and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sabbath so it may further be answered that if those words The whole Law should respect the Law of Moses then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law they are bound to Circumcision also and every other Ceremony of the Law therefore there Apostle saith Gal. 5.3 that if they were circumcised they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law By which it appears that the believing Gentiles that were not circumcised were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law So that when St. James enjoyns the keeping of the whole Law he tells us what Law he means in Chap. 1. v. â—â— compared with Chap. 2. v. 12. where he call it the law of Liberty by way of distinction from the law of Moses which is called a yoke of Bondage Gal. 4.3 9. Acts 15.10 which law of Liberty is called the law of Christ Gal 6.2 and is no less then the Gospel that is preached which S. James bids them not to be forgetful hearers of Jam. 1.25 but admonisheth them to look into the perfect law of liberty and to continue therein So that the Doctor had no reason to say that the Scripture was denyed by his Respondent because he denyed the Law that required the Seventh-day-Sabbath to be contained in the whole Law mentioned by S. James It seemeth then very strange that in a free and publike Disputation the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scriptures because he denyed his sense thereof which was all that the Doctor said unto this last Argument And the time of his Opponencie being ended the Doctor was by Agreement to answer Mr. Ives his Arguments which take as followeth Mr. Ives I shall undertake by the help of God to prove that all Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Seventh-day-Sabbath If the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Seventh-day-Sabbath Then all Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Seventh-day-Sabbath But the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Seventh-day-Sabbath Ergo All Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-seventh-day-Sabbath Dr. Cham There is no such kinde of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Mr. Ives Sir I will shew you such a kinde of creature since you seem to be ignorant therefore pray look into Acts 21.25 and you shall see that the Gentiles are called believing Gentiles which is all one with Christian Gentiles And if
cast out as a stranger in the house of this Epistle unless Mr. Coppinger can find another Epistle to the Galatians to entertain it in therefore it is evident that these days moneths times and years were the times the Jews were to observe in the Law among which the seventh-day sabbath was included as shall be shewn more particularly in the ensuing Appendix Mr. Coppinger If the times here called weak and beggerly be the heathenish times then I have said something to your Argument for all you say it is not answered Mr. Ives I do confess you have said something but to what purpose I shall leave the people to judge and if it do appear that they were the Rudiments of the Law that the Christians were going back to then you have not answered my Argument whatever you have said I shall therefore leave it to the Judgment of the Audience and proceed to another Argument If the seventh-seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come the believing Gentiles are not bound to observe it But the seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come Ergo the believing Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor the seventh-day sabbath was not called a shadow of things to come Mr. Ives The text in the second of the Col. 16 17 verses proves it where the Apostle saith The sabbath days were shadows of good things to come Mr. Coppinger The Apostle doth not say sabbath days the word days is put in by the Translators and it ought to be read sabbaths Mr. Ives I shall prove that the Translators did well to put in that supplement by shewing that the Apostle intends sabbath days My first Argument is this Wheresoever the word sabbath is put without reference to such and such sabbaths there the seventh-day sabbath is always intended or included But here it is so put Ergo. As for instance when the Scripture speaks of the Jews festival sabbath or their yearly sabbath there is ever some note of distinction to distinguish them from sabbath days therefore the yearly sabbaths were called Sabbaths of rest for the LAND Levit. 25.4 5 6. 2 Chron. 36.21 shewing thereby that for that year the Land was to lye still and not be plowed or sowen Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor the word sabbaths is sometimes simply put without reference to such and such sabbaths when the seventh day is neither intended nor included Mr. Ives Pray assigne us that text where sabbaths is so understood Mr. Coppinger I shall cite Esay 1 13. where the text saith The new Moons and Sabbaths God could not away with Mr. Ives If you will answer my Argument you must shew me that the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text but I shall by another Argument make it appear that sabbath days is not onely intended in Col. 2.16 but in Esay 1 13 also which I thus do Wheresoever this word sabbaths is mentioned with new moons feasts and holy days there the seventh-day sabbath is intended But the word sabbaths is here so mentioned Therefore the seventh-day sabbath is here intended Shew me but one instance where the word sabbaths is joyned with new moons and feasts and holy days where the seventh-day sabbath is not intended and then I may have some reason to think the Apostle doth not intend the seventh-day sabbath in Col. 2.16 17. and if you do so I will give you the case Mr. Coppinger If this were true then the sabbath must always be joyned with new moons but I can shew you sabbath mentioned without new moons that exclude the seventh-day sabbath and if I do so then I have put in an exception against the universality of your Argument Mr. Ives If you can shew me sabbaths mentioned without new moons it is not an exception against the Argument for I have already shewn that the yearly sabbaths were mentioned without new moons Again their feasts were called sabbaths as the Jubilee and Feast of weeks therefore I must tye you to the enumeration in the text and Argument and do demand an instance where the sabbath is mentioned with new moons and feasts that is not understood of the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger There is in the text an Adjunct of distinction viz. Sabbaths which are shadows c. as if I should say Fetch me my books in such a room plainly distinguishing them from other books in other rooms and so these sabbaths are called a shadow to distinguish them from other sabbaths that were not shadows Now then Mr. Ives must shew us that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow of the body of Christ and I will grant the case Mr. Ives If I prove the seventh-day sabbath a shadow of the Body of Christ Mr. Coppinger saith he will grant the case and he hath already granted that the sabbaths mentioned in this text Col. 2. are shadows of the Body of Christ it remains then that I prove this word Sabbaths to intend the seventh-day sabbath and then I have proved that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow The Argument then that I have made already doth prove it because as I have said from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it where ever sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons and Feasts there the seventh-day sabbath is always intended and till Mr. Coppinger can shew us a text like this of Col. 2. where sabbaths is mentioned with new moons and the seventh-day sabbath not intended I have sufficiently proved that the seventh-day sabbath is here intended Mr. Coppinger I made an Epithet of the distinction in my former answer by shewing that the sabbaths in the text are called Sabbaths that are a shadow to distinguish them from sabbaths that were not shadows and that therefore it could not be meant of sabbath dayes And secondly I have instanced Isa 1.13 where the word Sabbath is mentioned with new Moons and it is not understood of the seventh day sabbath because the work which the text saith was done upon those sabbaths was contrary to the work of the seventh-day sabbaths Mr. Ives As for that which you call the Epithet of the distinction though I think it is scarce good sence yet I shall answer your meaning by shewing you that the Sabbaths in Col. 2. were not called shadows to Distinguish them from the seventh-day Sabbath as if that was no shadow because the seventh-day it self is called a signe Exod. 31.13 even as circumcision was called 〈◊〉 sign Rom. 4.11 Again it doth not follow because he saith Sabbaths that are a shadow that he excludes some Sabbaths that were not shadows no more then when he saith new Moons that are a shadow that he doth hereby intimate that some new Moons were not shadows to the Jews And as touching the text Isa 1.13 where you say Sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons which could not be understood of the sabbath dayes because say you there was such work to be
secondly I deny the Minor and so That James doth not require the keeping of the whole Law according to the old Testament Mr. Coppinger I prove the Minor thus They that break one point of the Law in the old Testament they are guilty of the whole and cannot fulfil this law But he that breaks the seventh day sabbath breaks one point of the Law in the old Testament Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny the Major and say A man may break some points of the law contained in the Old Testament and yet keep this Law required in Jam. 2. Mr. Coppinger If you can prove that we can keep the law according to the old Testament and not keep the seventh day sabbath you do something Mr. Ives Your answer is impertinent for the proof doth lie upon you Secondly you cannot prove we can keep the Law according to the old Testament unless we are circumcised doth it follow that then wee must be circumcised But thirdly if I can prove that believers may keep the law in Jam. 2. according to any scripture without keeping the seventh day sabbath it is sufficient Mr. Coppinger The strength of my Argument lyeth in this That believers must keep the Law according to the scriptures of the old Testament which they could not do without keeping the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives And the strength of my Answer lyeth in this That then they must be circumcised otherwise they cannot keep the whole Law according to the old Testament to which you make no Reply Mr. Coppinger I argue further If Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. then they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. Ergo Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath This Argument contains two Parts The one is That Christian Gentiles are bound to keep this law Jam. 2. The other is That this Law contains the seventh day sabbath First he speaks to Christians in general therefore to Gentiles Because he calls them Brethren and writeth to them as Believers and tells them that if they kept the Royal Law according to the scripture they should do well and withal tells them that whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all Secondly That the seventh day sabbath was a point of this Law I thus reason If the Apostle refers them to the Scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the Law according to the old Testament except they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is one point of this law Jam. 2. But the Apostle refers them to the scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the law according to the old Testament unless they kept the seventh day sabbath Ergo they could not keep the whole Law Jam. 2. unless they kept the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I have answered to this Argument over and over and therefore I shall take a little time to speak a few words more and then I shall desire we may go to a fresh Argument First then this word whole Law it either respects the whole Law that the Jews were to observe or the whole Law that Christians are to observe if the whole Law here respect the Law that the Jews were to observe then if we should be bound to that we should be bound to observe Ceremonies as well as Morals for thus whole Law is understood both in the Old and New Testament when it relates to the Laws the Jews were to keep as appears Gal. 5.3 compared with 2 Chron. 33.8 where God tells Israel that he will never remove them if they will keep the WHOLE law with the Statutes and Ordinances But secondly This word whole law doth relate to the Law of liberty which believers are to keep which is opposed to the yoke of bondage as appears by comparing James 1. ver 25. with James 2 and 12 where he bids them so speak and so do â—s those that should be judged by the Law of liberty which is opposed to the Law of Moses for that it is called a yoke of bondage So that here is not one word of the seventh day sabbath but indeed of a royal Law and a Law of liberty which Christians are bound to keep according to the Scriptures in doing by all men as they would be done untoâ— for what Law soever Christ hath commended and confirmed to us out of the Scriptures of the old Testament these laws indeed we must keep according to the Scriptures of the old Testament but Christ hath not confirmed the Saturday sabbath and therefore we are not to look into the old Testament for our information therein Any otherwise then as the fourth Commandment enjoyns A time to worship and so hath something in it that is of use unto all Mr. Coppinger I come now to a second Argument to prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath If Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles then all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles Ergo all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I demand what you mean when you say There is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles do you mean no difference in point of precept or in point of priviledges Mr. Coppinger I mean no difference in point of Nations Mr. Ives This is no answer to the question my question is about difference in precepts or priviledges Mr. Coppinger I answer that there is no difference between the believing Jews and Gentiles in point of precept Mr. Ives Then I deny the Minor there is a difference in point of precept Mr. Coppinger Then you grant the Major that saith If believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives If the Antecedent were true the Consequence would not follow and therefore I do not grant the Major however I desire you to prove that part of the Minor as you have explained it that saith Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are all one in point of precepts Mr. Coppinger If there be a difference between believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in point of precept it is either mentioned in the 15 of the Acts or the 21 of the Acts or you must assigne some other text where there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precepts But it is not in the 15 of the Acts not the 21 of the Acts and you cannot assigne any other place Ergo there is no difference between
may be the same when the Law is not the same Mr. Coppinger As to your first instance namely that the seventh yeer was commanded for a Mora reason I answer This was not an universal reason for the text faith That the poor of THY people may eat which was not for all and as to your second instance I confess the reason doth remain and is universal viz. That God doth sanctifie us and therefore I say the Law remains that we should sanctifie Gods Ministers still Mr. Ives As for your Answer to my first instance it doth signifie little for I say refreshing the poor is a moral and universal duty and if than the seventh yeer of rest was commanded for the benefit of their poor and cattle then by your Argument if the reason of this Law viz. that the poor should be refreshed do remain then it must needs follow by your Logick thaâ— the seventh yeer sabbath must remain as well as the seventh day sabbath And as touching your answer to my second instance I must tell you that in your Answer you have confuted your self for you confess the reason of the Law remains which was given to Israel for sanctifying the priest Secondly you say that the Law remains that we must sanctifie Gods Ministers then by your favour if you can make the reason of the Law for sanctifying the Priest the sons of Aaron a reason why you should sanctifie not the same but another Priesthood then I may make the reasons for sanctifying the seventh day sabbath serve for the sanctifying not the same but another day Mr. Coppinger So you may if you can prove the abolishing of the seventh day sabbath as I can prove the abolishing the Levitical Priesthood Mr. Ives Then you have confuted your self again and answered your own Argument for your Argument was that where-ever the reason of a Law remains there the Law remains and you have confessed that the reason of the Law doth remain why God would have Israel sanctifie the Priest the sons of Aaron and now in your last answer tell me That that Priesthood is abolished So then if I could never shew you that the seventh day sabbath was abolished yet I have confuted your Argument by shewing that the reason of a Law doth remain when the Law doth not remain and you have confessed both for you say that the reason why Israel was to sanctifie that Priesthood is the same still viz. because God sanctifies his people and you confessed the Law is not the same for you say The Priesthood is abolished But lastly I have shewn you in the former Disputation that the seventh day sabbath was abolished as well as the Levitical Priesthood by an Argument which you could not answer which I raised from that text Col. 2.16 17. with which I shall conclude this Disputation Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drinks or in respect of a holy day or of the new moons or of the SABBATH days which are ASHA DOW of things to come but the body is of Christ Thus having given a faithful account of all the Arguments and Answer that were insisted on in the several Disputations without omitting of any one text of Scripture Argument or Answer that was urged on either side I shall leave the whole to the judgement of those that are impartial desiring of God that it may answer the ends for which it is sent forth into the world which is the glory of Almighty GOD and the establishment of the Weak which is all that is herein aymed at by thy Friend J. I. FINIS POST-SCRIPT READER I Thought good to give notice that at the end of this last Dâ—spute I promised that which is now by the Providence of GOD performed viz. an acâ—ount of all the Arguments and Answers insisted on in the several Disputations this promise being made publickly before the meeting was dissolved Doctor Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Coppinger being then present at which time Doctor Chamberlain told me That if I would print but two Arguments that he would send to me with Answers to them I might print what I would I thereupon told him that I would not onely print and answer his two Arguments but also God assisting I would answer what other Arguments that either be or any of them should send to me provided they sent them within fourteen dayes after and for this 14 dayes I staid 21 days in all which time I heard not a word from any of them â—o nor so much as an excuse from Doctor chamberlain though he did publickly challenge me to answer his two Arguments and as faithfully promise to send them to my house which I wonder at seeing he hath divers times past by my door since then as I have been informed and yet never so much as left a word about it This I am provoked to certifie lest any that heard this promise from Doctor Chamberlain should think that I had received his Arguments and concealed them the thought of any such thing is far enough from the heart of him that is London March 17. 1658 9. Thy Friend in the Truth JER IVES An Appendix to the former Disputations I Have annexed this insuing Appendix for the information fo the weak and those that are not acquainted with the Laws and Terms of Disputation and it may also serve for the general use of all that do desire to be satisfied in the present controversie who perhaps may not have leasure or patience to read all the foregoing Arguments and Answers urged in the preceding Disputations and herein I shall observe this method First I shall lay down all those Arguments that I have ever met with which are levied for the defence of the Saturday-Sabbath with brief Answers thereunto Secondly I shall urge the Reasons why I am perswaded the Saturday-sabbath is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles Thirdly I shall shew some Reasons for the justifying the present practise of the Christians in their Religious observations of the first day of the week otherwise called the Lords-day And first to the first namely the Arguments that are urged by some Judaizing Christians for the defence of the seventh-seventh-day sabbath and they are of three sorts the first sort are taken from the Scriptures the second from some Reasons in Nature and the third sort of Reasons are taken from Tradition I shall plainly and briefly speak first to the first viz. those Arguments that are alledged for the Saturday-sabbath ouâ— of the Scriptures and these are some taken from Texts out of the Old and some from Texts out of the New Testament I shall first begin with those Arguments urged for the defence of the seventh-day sabbath out of the old Testament and they are of two sorts first such as are taken from example and secondly such as seem to be grounded upon a command Argum. 1 The first Reason is taken from Gods example Gen. 2.2 And God rested the seventh-day c. and
we minde Acts 11.20 compared with vers 26. we shall see in vers 20. that the Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord and these were called Christians at Antioch vers 26. and yet the Doctor saith he never heard of any such creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Dr. Cham. I pray then say Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-seventh-day-Sabbath and then I will deny the Minor Mr. Ives I wonder Sir that you should quibble about terms and trouble us so often to alter the terms in the Question as first for the term Gentiles you afterwards alter and will have it all Christians and now for Christian Gentile you would have it believing Gentile Well Sir be it so I will then prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-seventh-day-Sabbath which is the Minor proposition denyed by you If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Then they are bound by the law of Nature by the law of Moses or the law of Christ But they are nor bound by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. Believing Gentiles are bound by the Law of Moses which is all one with the Law of Christ therefore prove your Minor Mr. Ives If the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law of Moses then they are bound to keep it by the Law that was given to Israel But the believing Gentiles are not bound to it by the Law that was given to Israel Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus If the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Then believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel But the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Ergo. Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that Law was given to other Nations besides Israel Mr. Ives That it was given to no Nation but Israel I prove out of Psal 147.19 20. He hath given his laws to Jacob his statutes and judgements unu Israel he hath not dealt so with ANY Nation and for his judgements THEY have not known them Dr. Cham. I do distinguish of giving the Law there is a giving as a priviledge and a giving by way 〈◊〉 punishment Now though it was not given to any Nation but Israel as a priviledge yet it was given to other Nations by way of punishment to judge them by it Mr. Ives I do confess it was given to no Nation as priviledge according to what you say and do say that it was not given to any other Nation by way of punishment but the Nation Israel which I 〈◊〉 prove If that Law that was given to Israel had been given to any other Nation by way of judâ—â—ment Then other Nations would haâ— been judged by it But no other Nation was to be judged by it Ergo it was not given by way of judgment to any Nation but Israel Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the Law of Israel was given to other Nations to judge them by it Mr. Ives If no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law but those that lived under it Then it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it But no Nation shall be judged by it but they that lived under it Ergo it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it Here the Doctor urgeth the former distinction again about giving by way of priviledge and giving by way of judgement which is a vain distinction because no Law doth judge any body but those that were bound to keep it and by keeping of at were capable to enjoy the priviledges of it Dr. Cham. Upon the former distinction I deny the Minor Mr. Ives I prove the Minor viz. that no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law that did not live under it by the text Rom. 2.12 As many as have sinned without the law shall be judged without the law and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law Dr. Cham. That is true and therefore I say other Nations lived under that Law of Israel so as to be judged by it Mr. Ives That other Nations did not live under it so as to be judged by it I prove thus If there be any other Nations to be judged by Israel's Law Those Nations are either recorded in the Scripture or other Histories But neither the Scriptures nor other Histories do record any such thing Ergo. Dr. Cham. There are Scripture-records that shew us that other Nations shall be judged by Israel's Law Mr. Ives I pray then Sir assigne those Scripture-records Dr. Cham. I shall then assigne Rome 2.14 15. with Rom. 3.19 In Rom 2. it is said the Gentiles should be judged though they had 〈◊〉 the Law Mr. Ives That 's true 〈…〉 this text makes against you direct 〈…〉 so far from saying the Gentiles were 〈…〉 Law and therefore should be judged by it that it saith the direct 〈…〉 were without it therefore 〈…〉 without is Dr. Cham. But it is said in Rom 3. That whatsoever do law saith it saith to them that are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and that all the world may become guilty before God Here is ALL the WORLD are become guilty by what the Law saith to them that are under it Mr. Ives That 's true but how doth it follow that all the world are under the Jews Law because by a Law God will finde them guilty or how can this be proved to be Moses Law since the text before cited by you saith some were not under Moses Law Dr. Cham. You see that the same things were writ in the heart that were given by Moses for the text saith They viz the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law And therefore it matters not whether it was the Law given by Moses or no. Mr. Ives Here Sir you have given away your cause at once for my business hath been to shew you that the seventh-day-Sabbath is not required of believing Gentiles by Moses Law because Moses Law was not given to the Gentiles which is that I have been proving and you have been denying and now in the conclusion you say it matters not whether it were the Law given by Moses or no. So then I have proved the thing denyed all this while by your own words because you had your liberty to except against the enumeration of Laws in the Syllogism and you excepted against the Law of Moses saying The Law of Nature Moses and Christ were all one so that if the