Act. 21. be of a Ceremonial Law yet it is sufficient to shew that since the whole Law doth comprehend both Morals and Ceremonials that believing Gentiles who are not circumcised are not bound to keep the while since they are excused from observing the Ceremonial part of it by this text Act. 21. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith that if the Epistle of James were writ to believing Jews then here would be one Law for the believing Jews â—nother for the beleeving Gentiles To this I answer â—hat it doth not follow that because this Epistle was â—riten to Jews that THEREFORE there should be 〈◊〉 Law for them and another for the Gentiles but â—econdly this absurdity if it be an absurdity â—â—ay as well be drawn upon the text because it is â—â—id Jam. 2. that the Epistle was writ to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad c. which were Jews And lastly it hath already been shewn that some â—hings were injoyned upon Paul that was a Jew which ought not to be injoyned upon the beleeving Gentiles Mr. Tillam Whereas Mr. Ives chargeth my Book for allowing that which I now call confusion I answer that I confess when I was first perswaded of the seventh-day sabbath I did also acknowledge the first day of the week but it was upon the reason of antiquity for as much as the seventh-day and the first day were both observed in the first three hundred yeers but when I observed the same contention about Easter-day I was convinced and I do now beleeve that the first day of the week is in common with all other days and whereas Mr. Ives saith the Apostles preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath days and in the Christian assemblies on the first-days of the week I do say that that they never met in any Christian assemblies upon the first day of the week and Mr. Tinaâ— calleth the first day of the week the sabbath Act. 20.7 Mr. Ives I answer to the last first Whereas you 〈◊〉 Mr. Tindal calleth the first day of the week 〈◊〉 sabbath so he doth also call that day 〈◊〉 which John received his Revelation the Sunday which other translations call the Lordâ— day by which it appears that without confusion Mr. Tindal thought the Apostles might observe both days as the state of Christian â—â—fairs then stood and as your self have confesse that both the Sabbath-day and the Lords-daâ— were observed in the three first Centuries And if Mr. Tindals Authority may be allowed then the first day of the week is the Sabbath-day and then what becomes of your seventh day sabbath unless you will keep two sabbaths so that sinâ—â— you have cited Mr. Tindal let Mr. Tindal 〈◊〉 the Controversie who by your own confession caâ—â— the first day of the week the sabbath Again when I said the Apostles did meet on both days without confusion which you said they could not I spake this to shew what Christians may do in point of condescention to one another and also to shew that if meeting on both days was a practise which you say is full of confusion that then your Book was not empty of confusion in allowing both the one and the other though you now deny it Mr. Tillam It is a great confusion for one part of an â—ssembly to meet upon one day and another â—â—rt to meet upon another and if any of our â—â—iends do so they do evil for they ought all 〈◊〉 meet at one place and at one time and to â—â—rry one for another and not to vary hours â—uch less days Mr. Ives I still think I have reason for my opinion viz. that those that do pretend to keep the â—eventh-day may keep the first day of the week â—o the Lord without being guilty of sin and confusion although your sabbath now under debate were true but enough of this I shall â—herefore proceed to another Argument to â—rove that all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath which I thus do If the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel and such as were proselyted to their Religion then all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to observe it But the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel and such as were proselyted to their Religion Ergo. The Minor I thus prove That Law which was given as a sign between God and Israel was a Law to none but Israel But the seventh-day sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel Exod. 31.15 17. Ergo The seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel Mr. Tillam To the sabbaths being a sign I answer that it is either of things past or of things present or of things to come if of things past then it is a sign of the Creation of the world or else it is a sign of his sanctifying presence which I have found in this observation but that the seventh-sabbath is a sign of good things to come I utterly deny Again If the sabbath was a sign so were all the Commandments and therefore its being a sign doth not make it void any more then the rest of the Commandments which are also called signs Mr. Ives Whereas Mr. Tillam saith the Sabbath was a sign of the Creation I say it was not for though Heaven and Earth be exprest in the command of the sabbath yet the sabbath is no where said to be given them for a sign that God made Heaven and Earth for though God's resting the seventh-day be a reason why Israel should rest yet this rest is no where called a sign of the Creation But there is more reason to beleeve from the text that it was one of the signs of the Covenant that God in a special manner had made with that people See Exod. 31 16 17. Eze. 20.12 But further is it not more rational to beleeve that the six days should be a sign of Gods creating Heaven and Earth then the seventh day on which he did not work which at the most can but signifie to us that then or on that time God rested from all his work But whoever considers of the signes that God gave to Israel shall find that they were given them to distinguish that people from all people in the world and therefore Mr. Ainsworth observes upon Exod. 13.9 The Jews saith he used on other dayes to wear their Phylacteries on their arms or foreheads for a Sign or a Token to them as the Lord commanded but they laid them by upon the sabbath because say they the sabbath it self is a signe And therefore Josephus calls it A Law peculiar to that People De bello lib. 2. cap. 16. And to this agrees the saying of Nehemiah Chap 9.13 Thou camest down upon mount Sinai and spakest with them the house of Israel and madest known to them thy Holy Sabbath Again whereas Mr. Tillam saith that the whole Law of the Ten Commandments was a Signe and therefore we may as well lay aside all upon the account of their
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
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-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
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
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
of value you should have denyed the Major which faith if the punishment be in force c. then the Law-maker hath APPOINTED some or other to inflict it here you might have denyed the Consequence and have told us that the punishment might he in force though mone were appointed because the law-maker might do it himself but this is not to the Question because the Question now is Who the law-maker hath appointed c. Mr. Tillam Well then I shall answer further That sometime the law-maker doth punish immediately and sometimes by his destroying Angel and sometimes by men and they are properly men who are Magistrates in his Congregation in the Church when he shall fulfil that prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning It is observable that though Mr. Tillam saith The punishment is in force yet he hath not assigned who IS to inflict it but in stead thereof tells us first that God doth sometimes punish immediately to this it may be replyed that when he punisheth immediately it is when those whom he hath appointed to punish do not do their duty Secondly He tells us that sometime God doth punish the transgressors of his Law by his destroying Angels 〈◊〉 which it may be answered that this is most commonly when the Magistrates and Ministers of Justice do neglect to punish transgressors according as they ought yet this hinders not but all this while some are appointed to punish the seventh day Sabbath breakers if it ought to be kept by the Law of Moses Thirdly Mr. Tillam saith God appointeth men to punish the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath and these men he saith are Magistrates in the Church c. but withal he adds that such Magistrates shall be when the Prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning shall be fulfilled But doth not this very saying leave Mr. Ives his Question unanswered For the Question is Who God HATH appointed c. and the Answer is That there SHALL be Magistrates in the Church when the forementioned Prophesie shall be fulfilled but who then shall do it now is the Question because the Text cited by Mr. Tillam that exhorts to remember the Law of Moses doth also call upon the same people at the same time to remember the Statutes and JUDGMENTS so that if beleeving Gentiles ARE bound to observe the Law of Moses they ARE bound to observe the JUDGMENTS also So that Mr. Tillam may as well put off the observation of the Statutes as the observations of those Judgments God would have inflicted on the transgressors of his Statutes and it will not serve his turn to wait till God restoreth such men for the Law that commandeth the seventh day Sabbath of all the Congregation of Israel doth command all the Congregation to stone the Sabbath-breakers to death being lawfully convicted before a Magistrate of the fact So that if Moses Law that requireth the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath be in force to the Congregations of beleeving Gentiles as it was to the Congregations of circumcised Jews and the same punishment as hath been argued be in force to the one as well as the other then by the same Law the beleeving Congregations among the Gentiles are bound having convicted any among them of Sabbath-breaking to stone such a man to death now though such Congregations that do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath by vertue of Moses Law are not tyed thus to do yet all of Mr. Tillams opinion I mean all such Congregations that hold themselves bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath I say all such Congregations stand bound to stone that member to death that shall be found to break it having lawfully convicted him by two or three witnesses neither have they any other rule by that Law to put away such an evil or such an evil doer from among them and this would hold good in all respects if God should at any time bring a Magistrate of the Commonwealth to be a member in Mr. Tillams Church then by his own grant if they shall convict a member for Sabbath-breaking before such a Magistrate then such a Magistrate by Moses Law ought to judge him guilty of death and then it roundly followeth that all Mr. Tillams Congregation must stone that man with stones till he die to put away the evil from among them Who then can be true to this seventh-seventh-day Sabbath-keeping principally as bound to it by Moses Law but they must also submit their necks to such a yoke as this which is not consistent with that Law of love and charity which ought to be preferred among Christians in the times of the Gospel Thus having given a faithful account of the Arguments and Answers urged by Dr. Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Ives the first day I shall now proceed to the Arguments and Answers insisted on by both sides the next day which was on Friday 7 of Jan. 1658. The people being assembled Mr. Ives repeateth the Question which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question agreed to be further disputed this day is Whether all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and I shall desire that whoever shall speak this day to this question either as Opponent or Respondent may apply themselves to the right rules of Disputation Mr. Tillam As to the question stated I do freely assent to the terms agreed on and do say that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath but as to your other Motion viz. that we observe the Rules of Disputation this I told you yesterday and do tell you again that such a way of Disputation is vain Philosophy and the device of mans wisdom and therefore I shall not be tied to any such Method Mr. Ives Sir I do not tie you to this or that way only I think you mis-apply Scriptures when you bring them to prove that making Syllogisms is unlawful when such forms of Arguing are frequently found in Scripture however Sir give me leave to use it till I am perswaded of the unlawfulness of it and I shall give you your liberty to prove either by Syllogisms or by plain Texts That all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam There is no plain Text that in so many words proves the Proposition Mr. Ives If there be no plain text to prove the Proposition then you must prove by consequence which is upon the matter the same with Syllogising and therefore I wonder you should be so much against such a way of discourse Mr. Tillam I am not against Consequences or Inferences from Scripture though I am against disputing in Mood and Figure Mr. Ives If you will not dispute by Mood and Figure then I shall tie you to bring plain Texts for what you affirm Mr. Tillam There is not a Text saith in so many words as I have told you that believing Gentiles are bound to keep
the 14 of the Romans that so the beleevers might not bring one another to bondage in such things wherein Christ hath made them free How then doth this absurdity fall upon the Arguments viz. thaâ— because we are left at liberty in point of Mosaical obligations to days that therefore we may spend this liberty to the service of the flesh and set apart no time at all to serve and worship God in 〈◊〉 this indeed would be contrary to the light of Nature which hath taught all her sons to set apart 〈◊〉 time in which to worship and serve their God But if it should be said that if God hath left no command how much time or what time then we should not sin though we observed no time I answer that this is an absolute non-sequitur for first God hath not appointed what maintenance the Ministers of the Gospel should have under the New Testament doth it therefore follow that we being delivered by Jesus Christ from the Mosaical bondage of maintaining the Ministers according to the Levitical Law and since we are at liberty and not â—njoyned how much or how little or in what kind they should be maintained that therefore they should have no maintenance at all the like may be said in respect of a place of worship as well as a time for God had under the Law tied the Jews to a place of worship but now he hath delivered us from that bondage and hath made all places alike as to any Mosaical sanctity doth it therefore follow that Christians may from thenceforward chuse whether they will meet any where or no or that one beleever may run one way and another another way and so never come to the place where the Church meeteth too many such libertines were in the Apostles days and to our great grief we may say there are too many in our days that turn this Grace and Gospel-liberty into wantonness and licentiousness This I thought good to add in this place to stop the carreer of that conceipt viz. that because Christ hath freed us from those days that Moses his Disciples were hound to observe and hath left the Christians at liberty herein in that he hath made every day alike that therefore we may chuse if we will keep any day as all to the service of the Lord this is not only a sensual but a senseless imagination but more of this touching a day to worship God in and also what day we ought to observe for his publick worship shall be shewn in the ensuing Appendix to these Disputations So then by what hath been said we may perceive that we ought not to alter nor vary the literal sence of a text unless Gods word on right Reason do warrant us so to do but neither Gods word nor right Reason doth warrant us to restrain the Apostles words when he saith Some men esteem one day above another anâ— others esteem EVERY day alike For by the same rule we may restrain general words when we have no warrant we may usheâ— in any absurdity as for instance the Scripture saith God made every thing that creepeth may not a man as well say that there is some creeping thing that God hath not made as say when the Apostle tells us that now the partition-wall is broken down and notwithstanding Moses Law you may judge of every day alike without being judged a transgressor of it that this every day is understood but of some days commanded by Moses and not of the seventh-day sabbath Neither have I disesteemed or excluded the first day of the week by my Argument from hence since the Argument is founded upon the words of the Text. Mr. Ives Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument I shall urge one more out of the 15 of the Acts compared with the 21. If the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. then the beleeving Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Christ to keep the 7th-day sabbath But the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. Ergo The beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam Yesterday this Gentleman granted nine of the Commandments in force and binding to the Gentiles and now he saith none are in force but those exprest Acts 15. Mr. Ives I say nine of the ten Commandments are in force to day as well as yesterday and so is the fourth Commandment also as to a time for beleevers to worship God in but not as in the hand of Moses for so saith my Argument but as they are implanted in the hearts of men and are now further explained and injoyned by a better Mediator who never injoyned the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath This was the end of the second Disputation at which time there was an agreement to Dispute the same Arguments over again with one Matthew Coppinger which was appointed to be on Candlemas day then next ensuing being the second of Febr. 1658. at the place aforesaid at which time and place Mr. Coppinger was to answer to Mr. Ives his forementioned Arguments and what new ones he thought good to add The forementioned time being come and the people being Assembled Mr. Ives propounds the Question which was to be disputed which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question to be disputed this day is Whether all beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Which Question I resolve into this Proposition viz. That all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger All beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day for a Sabbath Mr. Ives I have urged one general Argument in the former Disputations to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath which I am now to insist upon the second time in expectation of your Answers which Argument is as followeth If beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are bound either by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ But beleeving Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo Beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I answer that beleeving Gentiles are commanded by the Law of Nature if by the Law of Nature you mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Ives I do mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Coppinger Then pray put your Argument in those â—erms and then I shall answer to it Mr. Ives Though this be needless after I have explained my meaning yet that we may not trifle about words I shall consent and thereupon proceed to prove That the Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath which I thus doe That which the Law written in
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-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
you deny the seventh day sabbath is intended in the second of James you may deny it Mr. Ives I do not deny it because I will deny it but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it Mr. Coppinger Well then I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the second thus If the Law in this text James the second be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures then the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second But the Law in this text James the second is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second Mr. Ives I answer first by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism because it concludes not that which was formerly denyed for it is no more then what we have had over and over save that now instead of the word Scripture in the prosyllogism you add the Scriptures of the old Testament Secondly I further answer by denying the Consequence for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles that the Law in the old Testament requireth as for instance That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adultery did also command them that they should circumcise their Children and offer Sacrifices These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery as appears Gal. 5. 〈◊〉 For I testifie to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW Now who can deny but this whole Law did forbid murder and adultery But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law as that Argument supposeth For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law John 7.23 and sacrificing is called a part of that Law Mat. 8.4 and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law Mark 7. Now may not a man as well reason thus If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to parents then we must keep circumcision and offering of sacrifices for these are parts of that whole Law of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to Parents 〈◊〉 a part I say is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger we must keep ALL that Law saith 〈◊〉 which in the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery Ergo we must keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I will prove that the whole Law in this text Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies thus If the whole Law there mentioned be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise then it doth exclude Ceremonies But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise Ergo the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies Mr. Ives If it excludeth ceremonies then it excludeth your former Argument which saith We are bound to keep the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery and also it excludeth your interpretation of whole Law in Jam. 2. For we cannot keep the whole Law according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament in an old Testament sence but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part for the old Testament law in which murder and adultery were forbidden had ceremonies commanded also so that you have confuted your self Mr. Coppinger My Argument is of force unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law Mr. Ives It is not of force unless you prove the seventh day sabbath is included for â— am Râ—spondent and do deny it to be included and do expect your proof for you confess some part of the whole Law is excluded Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. Mr. Ives I deny the Minor Mr. Coppinger If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Testament onely then they cannot keep this Law except they keep the seventh day sabbath But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely Ergo they cannot keep this Law according to the Scriptures except they keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives Your former Argument was of scriptures in general and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament now the new Testament is scripture as well as the old and therefore Peter saith of some That they wrested Pauls writings as they did other scriptures so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testament we shall do well But secondly this is but semper Idem the same over and over what we had before Thirdly I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law Jam. 2. according to the scriptures of the old Testament in a new Testament sence and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger runs in a Ring which Logicians call Circular Disputation Again Mr. Coppinger hath confessed that ceremonies are abolished therefore it cannot in all points be kept according to the scriptures of the Old Testament Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law unless they keep the seventh day sabbath But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireâ— the keeping of the seventh day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny both Major and Minor For First it doth not follow that because I muâ—â— keep the law in the second of James according to the old Testament that therefore I must keeâ— the sabbath required in the old Testament 〈◊〉 more then because I must forbear killing as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament But
other sins lest as the eleventh verse saith they fall after the same example of unbelief or disobedience Mr. Ives I shall shew that you have wholly mistaken the text For First you are to prove a rest or sabbath commanded and this text speaks of a rest that is promised as appears vers 1. of Chap. 4. where the Author to the Hebrews bids them fear lest A PROMISE being left of entering into his Rest any should seem to come short through unbelief Secondly the text from the Greek ought rather to be read A Sabbatism then the keeping of a Sabbath however the word is not SABBATH DAY and when I did dispute with you last you would not allow that the word sabbaths in Col. 2.16 17. should be understood of a sabbath day though there was good reason to understand it so because the word day was not in the Original though it was in the English Text but here you will have it to be understood of sabbath day though the word be neither in the English nor Greek text and though there be no reason why you should so notion it But Thirdly this rest is not a rest commanded or a seventh day sabbath rest because the seventh day sabbath unbelievers and their cattel might have injoyed but the rest here promised is reserved onely for believers which none else shall share in Fourthly the rest here spoken of is a rest that Joshua could not give them but he did give them the seventh day rest therefore this could not be spoken of the seventh day see for this purpose the eighth verse of this fourth Chapter where it is said that if Joshua had given them rest he would not afterwards have spoken of another day and then adds that there remaines THEREFORE a rest to the people of God vers 9. Therefore Wherefore the eighth verse tells us because Joshua did not give them rest so that this if it prove any thing it proves against Mr. Coppinger because it supposes some other day then what they enjoyed in the time of Joshua Fifthly whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us That it must be meant of the seventh day sabbath because the text saith He that believeth ceaseth from his own work as God did from his I answer That this doth not prove a command for a man to forbear working upon the seventh day but it shews rather the priviledges that men shall enjoy through believing viz. that they shall rest from their labours so saith Christ Come unto me all ye that LABOUR and I will give you rest Mat. 11.28 and vers 29 Christ promises that they shall find REST to their souls and Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord for they REST from their LABOURS and their works follow them Rev. 13.14 in like manner the Author to the Hebrews would be understood when he tells us that he that doth believe hath ceased from his labour as God did from his Sixthly though the Author to the Hebrews alludeth to the seventh day upon which God rested yet this doth not prove that therefore we must enter into the Jewish or seventh day rest no more then it proves we must enter into the Literal Canaan because he alludeth also to that Literal Canaan in which Joshua conducted Israel but he rather informs them that as they under the Law had a time of rest and a place of rest so they that did believe should have a day of Grace and a place of Glory in which they should be like God in rest for ever never to labour more even as God rested and wrought no more when he had ended his six dayes work therefore he bids them LABOVR to enter into his rest but the seventh day rest they might enter into without labour Seventhly whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us that the Author to the Hebrews exhorts that we should not fall after the same example of unbelief and disobedience that the Israelites fell into in the wilderness which saith he was sabbath-breaking as appears by Ezek. 20.16 as well as other sins therefore saith he by the same example must be understood that he cautions them to beware of breaking the seventh day sabbath To which I answer That this is a straining the text for it doth not follow that he doth admonish the Christians to beware of the same particular sins as Mr. Coppinger would notion it but of sins in general for first we cannot be guilty of loathing Manna nor of murmuring at the waters of Meribah and yet the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.6 That THESE were for our examples c. So in like manner we cannot be guilty of sin in not observing the seventh day sabbath any more then we can be guilty of loathing Manna and yet Gods judgments upon them for all their old Testament sins are set forth to us for examples not 〈◊〉 tye us to the same duties but to Gospel-Obedience in all things lest we incur the same of â—â—eater punishments by how much the more we 〈◊〉 against greater mercies Again the Apostle gives the like Exhortatiâ—â— 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Do ye not know that they that wait upon the altar should live of the altar even so hath the Lord ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel May not a man as reasonably infer from hence that because the maintenance of the Levitical priesthood is here set forth as an example to teach us to take care of Gospel-Ministers that therefore they must be maintained after the same manner as the Priests were maintained that waited upon the Altar as Mr. Coppinger may say Because Gods Judgments against Israels sins in the Wilderness are set forth to us for examples that therefore we who are believing Gentiles under the Gospel to avoid the like Judgements must do all the Commandments and believe all the promises that Israel suffered his displeasure for in the Wilderness for not obeying and believing Having thus answered you Paraphrase upon the text I do again call upon you to prove that the Rest or Sabbath spoken of Heb. 4. is a seventh day sabbath which we are commanded to observe for the sum of my Answer is that this is a Rest promised and not a Rest or seventh day sabbath commanded therefore pray let us have an Argument for the proof of it Mr. Coppinger My Exposition of the Text proves it well enough Mr. Ives Pray draw your sence upon the text into an Argument and let us see if you can prove that here is a seventh day sabbath commanded Mr. Coppinger I cannot put it into an Argument because it refers to several texts for the explaining of it Mr. Ives I have answered to your interpretation already and if you will not urge an Argument from hence I shall desire that you would proceed to an Argument from some other texts Mr. Coppinger If Christ did teach the observation of the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to observe it But Christ did teach the observation of the
they must be our Examples for A TIME of worship they must be so for a PLACE of worship for such places were as well commanded as such times Secondly The Apostle circumcised Timothy must we therefore circumcise Thirdly The Apostle Paul did observe the Law of the Nazarites Act. 21. must we therefore observe it Fourthly The Apostle said He must needs keep the feast of the Passeover Act. 18 21. Doth it therefore follow that we must keep the feast of the Passeover and yet after this manner do these men reason viz. that they must keep the seventh day sabbath because Paul kept it Fifthly The Text doth not say Paul did keep the sabbath any more then it faith he did reverence the sanctuary but that having the opportunity of these times and places in which the Jews were assembled he made use thereof to preach Christ unto them Argum. 12 Having urged and answered those Arguments taken from commands and Examples out of the Old and New Testament I come now to those Arguments that plead the seventh day sabbaths Morality from Natural Reasons and the first is That the seventh-day sabbath must needs be moral because as Mr. Spittlehouse told me before many witnesses that the seven Stars did preach the seventh day sabbath and therefore the Heathen kept the Saturday which is so called of Saturn the seventh Planet I answer that first this is vain Philosophy indeed But secondly Mr. Spittlehouse is an ignorant Philosopher and a more ignorant Astrologer in saying that Saturn is the seventh Planet which all writers in Astronomy and Astrology do declare to be the first Planet and accordingly so place it and call it and therefore the Heathen rather kept Saturday as the first day then the seventh day because Saturn is the first of all the seven Planets But thirdly The Heathen did keep every ninth day to Jupiter doth it therefore follow that these were sabbaths that God required Again Plutarch saith of Theseus that the Athenians offered to him their greatest sacrifices upon the eighth day of October because of his arrival that day from Cret◠and they did keep the eighth day of every month because he was derived of Neptune and therefore Philo the Jew puts this difference between Jews and Gentiles viz. that the Jews kept a day every week but the Gentiles did but keep one in a moneth by which it appears that the seventh day of the week was not more honoured by the Heathen then the ninth day of the week or the eighth day of the month on which they offered their greatest sacrifices But lastly If it were lawful thus to trifle might not a man as well prove Sunday or the first day of the week to be a sabbath according to the light of Nature because the Heathen worshipped the Sun as any body can prove Saturday to be a sabbath because the Heathen worshipped the Planet Saturn but enough if not more then enough of this vain reasoning Argum. 13 The thirteenth Argument is taken from the morality and perfection of the number seven that it is a perfect number and therefore when the seventh day comes we must rest for the proof of this notion they cite Scriptures that magnifie the number seven as Davids praying seven times a day and Christs casting seven Devils out of Mary Magdelene and seven yeers of plenty and seven yeers of famine in Egypt amp c. To all which I answer that one would think these men had suffered 7 yeers famine in a want of Arguments for their opinion of the seventh day or else they would never catch at such things as these but I remember Solomon faith to the hungry every bitter thing is sweet therefore if these men were not languishing for want of Arguments they would never feed themselves with such vain arguings For may not the Papists plead this Argument for their seven Sacraments as well as these men can plead it for the seventh day sabbath But secondly Are not other numbers both in Nature sacred and prophane writings as much set by as the number seven as God made two lights Gen. 1.16 and he made man two eyes two feet two hands and two ears so there was two tables of the Law and two Nations in Rebecca's womb and two Testaments the like enum eration may be found of other numbers both in sacred and prophane writing but this kind of arguing is more like Cornelius Agrippa's Occulr Philosophy then Christian Divinity Argum. 14 The fourteenth and last Argument is taken from the practise of the Church the three first Centuries after Christ whence they infer that if the Christians so long after kept the seventh day it is a sign that it was given them in charge by Christ To this I answer that the Christian Churches kept the feast of Easter 300 years after Christ doth this follow therefore that Christ gave the keeping of Easter in charge to them and that the Churches 300 years after Christ were zealous of Easter day is very obvious to all that have any acquaintance with the stories of those times see Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21.22 23 24. and herein were the Christians divided the Eastern Churches kept it at the same time the Jews kept their passeover and the West Churches kept it upon some Sunday following after in like manner were they divided about the observations of their weekly dayes the Ebionites saith Eusebius were a fort of Hereticks that were zealous of the Law and did own the Epistle to the Hebrews but denied the Epistles of Paul for that he spake against the Law those did keep the Jews seventh day with other Ceremonies of the Law and celebrate the Sundays in remembrance of Christs Resurrection as other Christians do lib 3. cap. 24. The like saith Epiphanius lib. 1. Haeres 3c thus we see how the Christians were divided in their practise about the weekly and yearly observation of dayes that we may as easily prove Christ left the feast of the Passeover in charge to the Christian world as that he left the seventh day in charge because as the one was practised so was the other for more then 300 years after Christ Having answered the Arguments levied for the Jews Sabbath I shall now urge reasons why the Jews Sabbath or the seventh day Sabbath is not of force to be believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel either by the Law of nature Moses 〈◊〉 Christ Argum. 1 First the Gentiles are not commanded by the Law of Nature because nature doth never convince any of sin for not keeping the seventh day Sabbath and yet it did convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the other nine Commandments now had the Sabbath been a moral Law or a Law in nature then would nature as well have reproved her children for the profaning of it as it hath reproved them for the breach of all the rest and that nature hath reproved every man for the breach of all other laws which are moral appears if we
weak and beggerly Rudiments then it plainly appears that their seventh day sabbaths are weak and beggerly This reason remains good till some body shall shew me that the seventh day sabbath was not included in these words days moneths times and years My last Râ—ason why Christ never commánded the gentiles to â—â—serve the seventh day sabbath is because the Apostle gives a toleration to the Christians to keep every day as they are perswaded in their own minds either to esteem one day above another or every day alike Rom. 14.5 which liberty he could not have given them if Christ had confirmed the Law of Moses to the beleeving Gentiles But this Argument did meet with two Objections the one was that this could not be understood of every day according to the letter of the Text because the Apostle gives a toleration to eat all things and yet the Holy Ghost Act. 15. forbiddeth the eating of blood and things strangled c. In like manner say they must we restrain the words every day to be understood of every day but the sabbath To which I answer that the Holy Ghost hath put a restriction upon the word every thing but neither Christ the Holy Ghost nor the Apostle hath put a restriction upon this word every day therefore no mortal man ought to take that liberty to restrain the words of a Text when the Holy Spirit doth not restrain them The second thing Objected against this Argument from Rom. 14. is this viz. That if we are at liberty and under no restraint but may keep every day alike then there is no reason to observe any day The answer to this Objection maketh way for the last thing intended which is to shew that though Christ hath set us at liberty from those Mosaical Institutions for the observation of days and hath made all days alike in respect of any Mosaical sanctity yet it doth not therefore follow that we may spend every day to the service of the flesh and chuse whether we will set apart any time to the service of God as I have already hinted page 90. For first God hath freed us from that place of worship by the death of Christ unto which both Jews and Proselytes were enjoyned to come up to worship which was in the Temple at Jerusalem and now Christ hath made every place alike in that one place hath no more Legal or Mosaical sanctâ—ty then another doth it therefore follow that Christians may abuse this liberty and chuse whether they will meet to worship God in any place or no No more doth it follow that because Christ hath made all days alike in respect of any Mosaical sanctity that therefore we may chuse whether we will keep any day at all Again secondly Christ hath set us free from those Mosaical Laws which God made for the maintenance of the Levitical Priesthood and Legal Ministry and hath not injoyned us how much or how little the Ministers of the Gospel should be allowed doth it therefore follow that we may chuse whether we will allow them any thing or nothing In like manner it doth not follow because Christ hath taken away the Mosaical institution for the observation of days that therefore we may chuse whether we will observe any day or any time for the worship and service of God But to this it is objected That though Christ hath taken away that kind of maintenance yet he hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.1 I answer in like manner that though he hath taken away those Mosaical observations of days and times yet we are under a command to observe A time to worship as well as A maintenance for Ministers my Reasons are first because the light of Nature hath taught all people to set apart some time to worship and serve their God for if the light of Nature doth injoyn men to worship it doth also injoyn them to observe some time in which they ought to worship After this manner the Apostle argueth in the forecited Scripture for the maintenance of the Gospel-Ministery shewing that the light of Nature teacheth That they which plant a vineyard ought to eat of the fruit thereof and that they which plow should plow in hope to be paâ—takers of their hope the like reason if not much greater he urgeth why they that sow spiritual things should partake of temporal things so that though God hath freed us from that maintenance of Ministers and that place of worship that was commanded in the Law yet there remains a moral obligation upon us to observe some place to worship God in and also to provide a competent maintenance for those that administer spiritual things unto us In like manner there remains a Moral obligation upon us to observe A time to worship God though we are freed from all those days and times that the Law of Moses commanded his Disciples to observe But 2. This doth not only appear from the light of Nature but from the Scriptures also which command That we should not forsake the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is Heb. 10.25 Now if we must frequent the Assemblies of Gods people then we must observe A time to worship or else we cannot observe the duty that is here injoyned for if we may chuse whether we will observe any time of worship as the Objection vainly supposeth then we cannot perform this duty of frequenting the Assemblies of the Saints which appears was a duty not only commanded but practised in the New Testament Jam. 2.2 Act. 11.26 1 Cor. 11.20 1 Cor. 14.23 in all which Texts we are informed of the whole Churches meeting together in one place according as they were required which they could not have done had they not agreed upon the place where and a time when to meet together so that if Christians must meet together to worship God they must also observe a time in order thereunto And as I have shewn that A time and place ought to be observed for Gods worship I shall in the last place shew that the first day of the week ought rather to be observed then any other day and that because the Churches of Christ have injoyned us to observe that time for publick worship therfore that time ought rather to be observed then another for we are bound to hear the Church of Christ in all things that she commands us to observe provided that the Church doth command nothing contrary to the commands of Christ now that the Church doth not command any thing contrary the commands of Christ in commanding us to observe the first day of the week appears because Christ hath not left us any one day or time in charge rather then another no more then he hath left any place of worship in charge rather then another and therefore the Church doth do nothing derogatory to the mind of Christ in appointing a time of worship no more