Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	moral_a	1,736	5	9.5201	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45832	Saturday no sabbath, or, The seventh-day Sabbath proved to be of no force to the beleeving Gentiles in the times of the Gospel, by the law of nature, Moses, Christ being an account of several publique disputations held at Stone-Chappel by Pauls, London, between Dr. Chamberlain, Mr. Tillam, and Mr. Coppinger ... and Jer. Ives ... : together with an appendix in which the said question is more fully and plainly discussed ... / by Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1659 (1659)	Wing I1104; ESTC R24396	120,548	256

seem strange I pray consider Acts 21.23 24 25. where it is observable that a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders being met at Jerusalem did injoyn Paul to observe somethings which at no hand they would have the Gentiles to observe but gave them a solemn charge to the contrary for in the 23 and 24 verses the Assembly of Apostles and Elders do enjoyn Paul saying DOE this that WE say to thee we have four men which have a vow upon them them take and purifie thy self with them and be at charges with them that they may shave their heads and ALL may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thou thy self walkest orderly and keepest the Law But as touching the GENTILES which beleeve we have written and concluded that THEY observe NO SUCH thing c. Here we see a holy convocation of Apostles and Elders guided by the Spirit of truth do require that of Paul being a Jew that they expresly command the Gentile beleevers not to observe Would it not be ridiculous then for a man to say that I must either observe all the Apostles injunctions to the Jews or else that I must reject all the injunctions of the Apostles even those that concern the Gentiles for after this rate Mr. Tillam reasons viz. that I must either observe all James his Epistle or none at all because saith he there is no difference between Jew and Greek Now then by this place in the 21 of the Acts you see there was some difference by order from the Apostles in point of observation but no difference in point of justification which is the scope of the Apostle in that text cited by Mr. Tillam Rom. 10.11 12. There is no difference between Jew and Greek for the same Lord over all is RICH unto all that call upon him so that the Argument remains unanswered for all that Mr. Tillam hath said because the Scripture saith plainly that the uncircumcised Gentiles were not bound to keep the whole Law therefore from those words the WHOLE LAVV the seventh-day sabbath cannot reasonably be inferred Neither let any one think to relieve himself by the help of this distinction viz. that though beleevers are not to keep the whole Law as it contains Morals and Ceremonials yet they are bound to observe the whole Law as it contains morals only for first the Law of Moses makes no such distinctions as a whole and a whole Law neither doth the Scriptures of the New Testament make any such distinction for when it speaks of the VVHOLE Law with reference to the Law of Moses it always includes both Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Laws which are all but several parts of the Israelites VVHOLE Law But secondly Suppose we should allow the distressed the help of this distinction viz. that sometime Moses Law is called the WHOLE LAW with reference to the moral part of it only as suppose it so in this 2 of James now under debate doth it therefore follow that the seventh-day sabbath is part of the moral Law is not the imagination of such a conceipt as this a stranger to the heart of an ingenious disputant who abhors to beg that Question he cannot prove● for could that be but proved which is so often taken for granted viz. that the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath is a moral Duty then the Controversi●● were at an end for doubtless all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law Mr. Tillam Whereas you say somewhat was injoyned upon the Jews that was not upon the Gentiles I question if this was not the Apostles weakness for they were subject to like passion For at another time a less matter then this mentioned by you Act 21. was counted hypocrisie Secondly James is speaking of the Royal Law but this example of yours relates to the Law of Ceremonies Thirdly if this Epistle of James were written to believing Jews then there is one Law for the believing Jews and another for the believing Gentiles and if so believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and believing Gentiles are not and how can this be without confusion Mr. Ives I answer to the last first that then your book is full of Confusion for in your book you allowed both dayes to be observed to wit the seventh day and the first day And secondly the Scripture is full of confusion if you say true for the Scripture tells us of the Jews observation of the seventh day and the Gentiles of the first day But secondly it followeth not that the believing Jews are bound by my confession to keep the seventh-day sabbath seeing that your term whole Law mentioned in James 2. doth not prove the Sabbath to be there intended any more then it proves circumcision or any other Jewish ceremony Thirdly when I cite a text to shew that the Apostles being guided by Gods holy Spirit did order Paul being a Jew to observe some things which they strictly commanded the Gentiles not to observe Mr. Tillam answers That this was the Apostles weakness by which it appears that rather then Mr. Tillam will be accounted weak he will brand the Apostle Paul and the whole Council of Apostles and Elders assembled at Jerusalem with the Holy Ghost with weakness but it is more likely that Mr. Tillam should be weak then Paul and all that Assembly among whom the Holy Ghost was present in so solemn a Judgment And whereas Mr. Tillam tells us that Peter played the hypocrite Gal. 2.13 in that he compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I answer that this is nothing to our purpose First because the text cited by me Act. 21. onely speaks of Jews that were advised to live as Jews and of Gentiles that were forbidden so to live vers 25. but the text in Gal. 2. speakes of Gentiles that Peter did compel to live as do the Jews which is clearly another thing Now then if this text cited by Mr. Tillam Gal. 2. in which it is said Peter was to blame for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I say if this text serves any thing to the present controversie it is to shew that Mr. Tillam playes the hypocrite in that he being as he calls himself a Minister of the Gentiles doth command the Gentiles to live as do the Jews in keeping the Saturday for a Sabbath And lastly the second of the Galatians blames Peter sharply for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews but there is none but Mr. Tillam that 〈◊〉 ever heard of that ever presumed to blame not only Paul in what he did Act. 21. but also the whole Assembly of Apostles in which the holy GHOST was present a piece of such great presumption that scarce can be parallel'd in any story And whereas he saith the instance Acts 21. is of the Ceremonial Law and not of the Royal Law I answer that all GOD's Laws are Royal but secondly though the instance in

the seventh-day sabbath but there is Text that requireth the People of God and the Servants of God to observe it and therefore by consequence believing Gentiles are to observe it if they are Gods People and Servants Mr. Ives Sir what proof you have you may spare it till we are agreed how to dispute however in the mean time let me tell you though you prove the people of God and the servants of God were required to keep the seventh-day sabbath this will not reach our difference because the Jewe were called both Gods servants and People whom we say were bound to keep it but this doth not prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to it Mr. Tillam Well if I make it appear by those or the like consequences that believers in Gospel-times are to keep the seventh-day sabbath I hope it will suffice Mr. Ives I wonder that Mr. Tillam should be destitute of plain Scripture to prove his practise especially considering that he blames men in his Book page 96. for setting up Ordinances by Consequences and calls such a practise Philosophy and vain deceits of men whenas now himself hath no plain Text to prove his practise by Mr. Tillam I think God hath a designe to promote my poor Book therefore if any body have a desire to it they may have it at Livewel Chapmans in Popes-head-Alley or at Mr. Eversdens in Pauls Church-yard Mr. Ives SIR we met not here to procure Customers for your book but to dispute and therefore if you will prove your practise by plain Scripture do for since you have cried down all other wayes both Syllogistical and consequential I see no Reason why you should not keep to your own Rule prescribed by your self in your Book however that we may not spend time to no purpose I shall be content so you prove the proposition take what way you will provided that you prove either the Antecedent or the Consequence by plain Text. Mr. Tillam Well then I will proceed to prove that all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Thus If that it be the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile but it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile to keep the seventh-day Sabbath It is worthy observation that though Mr. Tillam had profaned the rules of Syllogistical Disputation and cried down all Consequential ways of proving the lawfulness of any duty yet he himself is forced at last to build up this Sanctuary that he hath been pulling down and hallow that way which he had before profaned by making use of it to prove his practise though he had before cried it down as profane Mr. Ives Sir you argue thus viz. If it be the duty of all to keep the seventh-day then it is the duty of all beleeving Gentiles But it is the duty of all men c. Ergo. I deny the Minor viz. that it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Tillam This I prove our of Mark 2.27 where it is said The Sabbath was make for MAN and not man for the Sabbath Where it is evident that the Law was made for the Subjects and not Subjects for the Law even so the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath Again Whatever was made for Adam is made for all men but the Sabbath was made ●or Adam because in the Text it was made for man and the word in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Homo which comprehendeth all men and so doth Adam Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam in his Book saith God is plain pag. 96. and wonders that people will bring Consequences in stead of plain Precepts but it seems there is neither plain Precept nor plain Consequence to be found for his practise For first there is neither a command to all men much less to all beleevers in this Text. Again I do confute your sense of the word Adam out of your own Book pag. 14. where it is objected that ADAM being in honour did not abide a night Psal 49.12 your Answer is that it is to be understood of such as the context mentions that trust in their wealth c. Here then you have confuted your self because somwhat may be said of Adam that doth not concern every man therefore the Sabbath might be made for man and yet not for every man Here Mr. Tillam did raise another Argument instead of making good the former and therefore because that more was said to this Argument afterwards I shall omit to mention the new ones either now or at any time hereafter till I have brought in first all that was said to the old for many times 〈◊〉 urged new Arguments before the old ones were finished and then was forced to leave those new ones to speak further to his old ones again Mr. Tillam I confess in the 49 Psalm the word Adam is restrained but here in the 2 of Mark it is not Mr. Ives Well if it be restrained there then is not your Argument good viz. that whatever is said of man or ADAM is said of every man Here Mr. Gosnold desired to speak a word or two touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in question and told Mr. Tillam that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not sign fie every man unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be joyned with it To this Dr. Chamberlain replied that none are excepted from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned Mr. Ives But Mr. Tillam hath confessed some are excepted when he said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psalm 49. doth signifie only such men that trust in their wealth and it is not yet shewn that Adam or man hath a more universal signification the 2 of Mark then in Psalm 49. since the ●●rd by his own confession is the same But I further answer that it is frequent in ●●ripture to apply things unto man w●en yet doth not intend every man as first it is said Gen 8.21 I will no more curse the ground for MANS sake c. whenas Noah and his Family were exempted from the curse Again Deut. 5 2● it is there said that God did talk with MAN ●●d he liveth Now here the word MAN is so fit from signifying all men that it is restrained to those people that were assembled about the mountain which were so far from all that they were but a handful in comparison to the rest of Mankinde This appears further if we consider that saying in the 4th of Deut. and compare it with the 5th in the 5th it is said that when God did give them the Law he spake with MAN and he lived that this was onely the Nation of Israel Deut. 4.33 tells us plainly Did ever people hear the voice of God out of the midst of the fire as THOU

great degree they have been convinced of all Moral duties but to this of the seventh-day Nature never did Proselyte any of her children Mr. Tillam making no further reply and refusing to assign an instance either in Scripture or any other credible story where Nature did ever convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives therefore by the request of the Company was desired to urge another Argument Mr. Ives I proceed to the Law of Christ and from thence shall prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath which I thus do That Law which is inforced by the appointment of Christ unto beleeving Gentiles some or other at some time or other have either been commended for the keeping or blamed for the breaking of it But none have at any time by Christs appointment been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping the seventh-day sabbath Ergo the 7th-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles by Christs appointment Mr. Tillam Anointing with oyl is a Command in force since the Resurrection and yet none are commended for observing or blamed for not observing of it Mr. Ives I answer That anointing with Oyl is not my present work to manage otherwise it were likely I might say somewhat to it Here one that stood at M. Ives his elbow whispered him and bid him tell Mr. Tillam That Christ commended the woman in the Gospel for anointing Him with Oyl which Mr. Ives had no sooner said but Mr. Tillam made this answer that the anointing required in James his Epistle was to be done by the Elders of the Church and therefore the instance did not reach the Case hereupon Mr. Ives ingenuously confessed that it was not to the Case onely he told Mr. Tillam and the Audience that he had uttered it before he was aware it being suddenly suggested to him by one that stood by however it is observable that the instance of anointing with oyl is not a sufficient instance to abate the strength of the Syllogism for the intent of the Syllogism is to shew that the seventh-day Sabbath is no moral Precept as appears by the last Argument that was brought to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath was not commanded by the light of Nature and the instance is in an institution that is not Moral So that the intent of the Argument was that there was no MORAL Duty required by Christ but some were found blameable for not observing or commended for observing of it otherwise doubtless both under Law and Gospel it 's like one may finde some particular institutions that we read of which we shall hear of no complaint for not observing because they were not Duties universally to be observed by all men at all times as Moral Precepts are as for example The business of anointing with oyl is the Duty of none but the Elders but the seventh-day-sabbath-keeping is if Mr. Tillam say true Moral and to be kept by all and further the Duty of anointing with oyl as it was to be done by some persons so also but at some times viz. when any one of the Church was sick but the Sabbath was to be kept every seventh day and that not onely by the Church but all the world if Mr. Tillam say true so that the instance is far and wide from the case in hand for the intent of the Argument is That if Christ had inforced the seventh day upon believers as a Moral Law to be constantly observed some would either have been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping of i● and this is true of all Moral Laws being universally to be observed by all and there is not any one Moral Law but some in the new Testament are under blame for not observing it or else praised for observing it but not one word is mentioned of this kinde touching the 7th-day sabbath since the death of Christ which makes me conclude it died with Him Mr. Ives I come now to another Argument which take as followeth If believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds then they are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath But believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds Ergo believing Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam I do affirm that the 7th day is not included nor intended in that text Rom. 14. and for this see Exod. 16.4 where the word every day is there intended of every common day not the Sabbath But if in the text Rom. 14. it be understood of every day without exception then you may not contend for the first day of the week Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam excepts against the universality of the word every day which seems to me very strange for when he cited that text Mar. 2.27 where it is said The sabbath was made for man he would there have the word Man understood of every man though the word every man was not in the text But now I cite a text that hath this word every day in it and he tells us that this universal term must be restrained and not be understood of every day though every day be the words of the text the Reason he gives why every day must be restrained is because it was restrained in Exod. 16.4 where God saith that the people shall gather a certain portion of the Manna every day c. To this I answer First that it doth not follow that because a general word is restrained in Exod. 16. that therefore it should be restrained in Rom. 14. But secondly God himself restrains every day in the 16 of Exodus to the six days in which they were to gather Manna and expresly commands the resting upon the seventh-day but in the 14 of the Rom. neither God nor the Apostle puts any restriction upon the word every day so that though we must restrain general words when God restrains them there is no reason that we should restrain them when God doth not But then saith Mr. Tillam If you do not restrain this word every day then you do overthrow the keeping of any day To which I answer that we might very easily deliver our selves out of the hands of this absurdity if that were the business in Question As for instance we have been shewing that we are not obliged by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath nor no other Judaical days and that now Christ hath taken away these observations and hath made all days alike in that one day hath 〈◊〉 more sanctity or holiness then another by reason of any Mosaical institution by which formerly it was sanctified and so by consequence have shewed that neither Moses Law nor Christs Law commands a seventh-day sabbath upon that account which indeed is the scope of the Apostle in

it no breach of a Law and so likewise upon the sabbath-day a man might lead an oxe or an ass to watering and not break it though it be a moral law but if the men in this generation may do that which the Jews and Disciples might not lawfully do on the sabbath-day then you have taken off my exceptions Mr. Ives Whereas you speak of a necessity to break a moral law when God countermand c. I answer that then it is not murder in Abraham to slay Isaak or theft in Israel to take from the Egyptians because they had an immediate law from heaven commanding those very particular things but doth it follow that this law given to Abraham was binding to all or that Gods allowing of Israel to spoil the Egyptians should give me an allowance to spoil my neighbour and would it not be a sin contrary to nature for me to sacrifice my child having no command because Abraham would have sacrificed his child by a command and in like manner there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law by your own confession without an immediate and particular command in the case as Abraham had in the case of Isaak and Israel in the case of spoyling the Egyptians Now then if the seventh-day sabbath be moral as you say it is then you can have no moral necessity by your own confession to break it unless you have an immediate countermand from Heaven so to do Now then since you say the law for the seven-day sabbath is a moral law how do you make it appear that God gave you an allowance to open your shop the next day after you challenged me to dispute for the seventh-day sabbath which was the sabbath-day you now plead for and whereas you did pretend a necessity so to do I demand Whether God ever gave you a command in obedience to which you did open your shop upon the seventh-day sabbath since you your self say that there must be a countermand to justifie the doing any thing that contradicts the letter of a moral law now you have broke the letter of the law which you say is moral and where is your countermand from God so to do And for the instances that you bring of mens leading an oxe to water upon the sabbath-day 〈◊〉 was not a moral necessity for they might have let the oxe stayed without water if the law for the seventh-day sabbath had been a moral law they ought not to have broken it to save the life of their oxe no more then a man may worship an Idol to save his own life and the life of his cattle so that this very instance confutes your opinion that the seventh-day sabbath is not a moral law Mr. Coppinger As touching my opening shop upon the seventh-day which I say is the sabbath Mr. Ives did allow me so to doe because I was under some promises to do some business that day in relation to my trade But suppose I did that which was unlawful this doth not prove what Mr. Ives saith that he may break the sabbath however this is reflection and uncharitableness Again I say the moral law makes no difference between murder and killing for it is written Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill c. so that Abraham was a breaker of that law by going about to kill Isaak Also if a childe were born and the seventh-day of the week happened to be the eighth day after the birth then it was no breach of the law to circumcise the child but Mr. Ives hath broken his promise in that he promised to discourse the Argument he insisted on the last day but doth not Mr. Ives I answer to the last first that I have not broken any promise that I made for I laid down one general Argument which was the same I went upon the last day which I am yet prosecuting And secondly You did also agree that I should urge new Arguments if I pleased as well as those which had been formerly urged and whereas you charge me with reflections and uncharitableness I answer that what I spake did relate to the dispensation that Mr. Tillam gave you to open shop upon your sabbath after you had ingaged to dispute for it And I say if the seventh-day sabbath be moral then he could not dispense with your opening shop upon it for by this rule a man may plead a necessity to break moral laws although he hath no countermand from God so to do whereas you say I did allow you to open shop I answer So I might because I am so far from judging the observation of the saturday-sabbath a moral duty that I judge it no duty at all therefore I might dispense with your working upon it but how could Mr. Tillam that beleeves with you that the command for the seventh-day is moral give you a dispensation so to do and further how could your conscience dispense with such an action as to open your shop the next Saturday sabbath that came after you had ingaged in publick to dispute the morality of that day And whereas Mr. Coppinger saith the Moral law makes no difference between murder and killing he might as well have said that the moral law makes no difference between fornication and lying with a woman then which nothing is more absurd For the Moral law doth not call all killing murder though murder be killing he might as well have said because stealing is taking that therefore there is no difference between stealing and taking Here Mr. Tillam desireth liberty to speak for himself touching what Mr. Ives had objected against him for allowing Mr. Coppinger to open shop upon their Sabbath Mr. Tillam Mr. Ives hath done like cursed Cham in uncovering his brothers nakedness however I went to bid Mr. Coppinger shut up his shop be●ing very much troubled all that night about it and he answered me that if he should shut up shop he should be accounted broke which would be a scandal to his profession further he told me that he was under some promises which he was to perform relating to his trade however he told me he would do not work but what was of necessity to fulfil his promise and gave the like charge to his servants also Mr. Ives What if Mr. Coppinger had made a promise to murder or worship an Idol should he have broken these laws to keep his promise in like manner if working upon the Saturday-sabbath be a breach of a moral law as he saith it is then there is no reason why his promise should absolve him in the one rather then in the other and truly after this rate it is an easie matter for a man to make promises and thereby if this kind of arguing be good absolve himself from obeying any moral precept And whereas Mr. Tillam saith he went to Mr. Coppinger the night before to desire him to shut up his shop the next day I answer that what Mr. Tillam did after we parted