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-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 proveâ— for could that be but proved which is so often taken for granted viz. that the keeping of the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath is a moral Duty then the Controversiâ—â— 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
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-seventh-day Sabbath is no moral Precept as appears by the last Argument that was brought to prove that the seventh-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
ver 3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it Because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made whence those things are urged first That God sanctified this day therefore all beleeving Gentiles ought to sanctifie it Secondly This was spoken while Adam was in innocencie and so consequently to all his posterity Ans To which I answer first that Gods example unless we have a command doth not binde all the world for God sanctified the Priests and the Temple and the Altar and yet we are not bound to sanctifie them See for this purpose Exod. 29.44 2 Chron. 7.16 Secondly whereas it is said this was spoken to Adam and therefore to all the world I answer that all that was commanded Adam did not bind all the world at all times as appears by the commandment given to Adam to eat of the tree of life Gen 2. and to forbear the tree of knowledge of good and evil these Laws are not now binding to all the world and yet they were given to Adam and so to all men had they continued in that estate So indeed Adam should have imitated God had he continued in innocency in keeping a perpetual sabbath for he should not have laboured to add any cubits to the stature of that perfect happiness no more then God wrought to add any thing to the six days work which was made perfect and good for Adam was only to dress and keep what was already made as God keeps and preserves the world by his Providence in this fence God works hitherto 〈◊〉 Christ saith John 5.17 and in some such cases Adam should have imitated his Creator if he had not sinned But thirdly these words And God sanctified the seventh-day are urged by Moses in Gen. 2. as a Reason why the Israelites in his time did keep the sabbath rather then to shew that God sanctified the seventh-day for Adam and his Posterity in innocencie my reasons are first because all the Patriarks from Adam to Moses did not keep the seventh-day sabbath which was two thousand yeers and upwards and in all this long tract of time not one word of the 7th-day sabbath-keeping or breaking Secondly Josephus himself a learned Jew speaking of this rest faith That Gods resting on the seventh day was the reason why the Israelites reposed or rested upon that day Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Now had the Jews understood the seventh-day had been sanctified before Moses Josephus would have mentioned it in his History of Amiquities from Adam to Moses as well as other things especially considering the great occasion which he had to defend the Antiquity of the sabbath from the great reproach that was cast upon it by Appion of Alexandria who tells the Jews that their sabbath was derived from the Egyptian word Sabbo which signifieth a disease in the Privy parts which saith he the Jews were smote with after they had travelled six days from Egypt whereupon they were forced to rest the seventh-day and therefore called it a Sabbath from the name of the disease which they called Sabbo Now Josephus could not have a better Argument to have vindicated the Jews sabbath against Appions foul aspersions but by shewing to the world that the sabbath was kept from the Creation of the world unto that time and not taken up by the Jews in the wilderness after they came out of Egypt Now though Josephus doth vindicate the sabbath from being derived of the Egyptian word Sabbo by shewing that it was derived from the Hebrew word Sabbath which signifieth rest yet he never vindicateth the Jews Sabbath from that other Allegation of Appions viz. that the first beginning of it was in the wilderness after that Israel came out of Egypt as any one may see that reads Josephus against Appion Lib. 2. which clearly shews that the sabbath was not kept before Israel came into the wilderness Thirdly The Scripture usually speaks at this rate for there is such a kind of expression used by Moses in this very chapter Gen. 2.11 where he tells us of the river Pison that compasseth the whole land of Havilah where there is gold c. not that this land was so called in Eden while Adam was in innocencie for Havilah was not born till after the flood by whose name this land was known and called and yet Moses by anticipation calls it the land of Havilah with reference unto that name which 1600 yeers afterwards it did receive and that Havilah was not born till after the flood appears Gen. 10.7 and that the flood was more then 1600 yeers after the Creation appears not only by what the Scriptures tell us but by the consent of Christian writers see August de Civitate Dei lib. 15. cap. 20. and lib. 15. cap. 12 14. and yet Moses calls a Country by this name in his describing of the garden of Eden which was no otherwise true but with respect to what it was afterwards called in like manner Moses saith God sanctified the seventh-day Gen. 2.3 which also refers to the Law that God gave to Israel by the hand of Moses for the sanctifying of it And lest this seem strange I shall give you another Text that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand see therefore Exod. 16.32 33 34. In the 32 verse the Lord did command that an Omâ—â— of the Manna should be put in a pot to be laid before the testimony of the Lord and the 34 v. saith That as the Lord commanded Moses so Aaron laid it up before the testimony of the Lord which was no otherwise true but with respect to what was done afterwards for as yet there was no Ark nor Testimony made as appears if we consider that at this time the Israelites were sojourning in the wilderness of Sin and the command for the Ark and the making of the Tabernacle was not given till they came to Sinai Exod 25.10 at which time the Testimony was given to them and yet mention is made of this before so in like manner when Moses saith Gen. 2. That God did sanctifie the seventh-day he is to be understood in the same sense as the other Text is understood where it is said Aaron laid up the Manna before the Testimony which relates to what was afterwards done when the Law was given even after the same manner doth Moses speak in Gen. 2. when he faith God did sanctifie the seventh-day not that he did sanctifie it in Eden any more then Aaron laid up the Manna in the wilderness of Sin before the Testimony but that he did sanctifie it when he gave his Law to Israel and this is further confirmed by what hath been spoken viz. that from the Creation of the world to the time of Moses which was above two thousand yeers there is not one word mentioned of the seventh-seventh-day sabbath though occasionally there is mention made of all other moral duties Argum. 2 The next Reason that is rendred
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-seventh-day Sabbath Thus If that it be the duty of all men to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath then it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile but it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath Ergo it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile to keep the seventh-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-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 â—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 â—â—rd by his own confession is the same But I further answer that it is frequent in â—â—ripture to apply things unto man wâ—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 2â— it is there said that God did talk with MAN â—â—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
bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Ergo All beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath It was answered yesterday that beleeving Gentiles were bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day sabbath some Arguments were then urged to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath the last of which Arguments did relate to the 20 of Exodus which I thus framed and do again urge it that it may be answered If that Law Exod. 20 which requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath be in force to the beleeving Gentiles then the punishment due to the trasgression of that Law by the Law-makers appointment is in force to the beleeving Gentiles also But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. by the Law-makers appointment is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles Ergo That Law Exod. 20. that requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath is â—ot in force to beleeving Gentiles Dr. Chamberlain As to the Law of Nature Moses and Christ 〈◊〉 do not think there is so many Law-givers as 〈◊〉 have so many distinctions but I do own 〈◊〉 20 of Exodus for a binding Law because 〈◊〉 Saviour saith Mat. 5. I am not come to destroy 〈◊〉 Law c. Now then If not one jor or tittle 〈◊〉 the Law shall fail then not the sabbath and consequentially not the punishment annexed â—worâ— the breach of it for without punishment 〈◊〉 Law is of no force for the strength of the 〈◊〉 being for the curbing of sinful Nature is 〈◊〉 no use unless there be a punishment and â—ithout it the Law would lose its force and â—â—gor and the execution of this Law is in the â—nd of such Magistrates as are Administrators â—â—der Christ Mr. Ives The Dr. should have directed his answer to my Argument by assigning a punishment appointed by the Law-maker to be inflicted upon beleeving Gentiles for not keeping the seventh-day sabbath but in stead thereof he confessth that the Law is of no force without a punishment well then by his own confession if there be no punishment to be inflicted upon the beleeving Gentiles then the Law that commands if any such there be hath lost its force and vigor and that the punishment is not in force I prove by this Argument If the punishment due to the breach of the seventh-day sabbath required Exod. 20. be in force by the Law-makers appointment to beleeving Gentiles then the Law-maker hath appointed some or other to inflict it but he hath appointed none to inflict it Ergo. Dr. Chamberlain I shall find out a better answerer then my self and that is the Apostle Paul Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.13 1 Pet. 4.15 in which text an evil doer is the general word and all evil doing is punishable by the Magistrates these are Sermons preached by Paul and Peter Mr. Ives My Argument was If the punishment in the LAW be in force then God hath appointed some or other to inflict it and if he hath I desired the Doctor to assign who God had appointed to inflict that punishment upon beleeving Gentiles which was appointed in the Law for seventh-day sabbath breakers and in stead thereof he cites several texts which we well knew before none of which requireth the Magistrate to punish the beleeving Gentiles with death for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath For first here is no mention made of the Sabbath nor of the punishment what it should be Secondly If by the Magistrates punishing all evil must be meant all the evils against the first Table as well as the Second then the Magistrate may and must determine all Doctrinal truths and punish such as shall err from his determination which the Dr. will not allow Thirdly the Dr. hath at one blow given away the Cause which the good people of this land have contended for in blood for this many yeers * Which is that they might have liberty to worship God according to their Consciences and that the Magistrate may not be a judg in Spirituals to punish with death or imprisonment all that differ from him in matters of faith or worship And lastly It is a begging the Question to take it for granted that Sabbath-breaking I mean the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath-breaking is an evil before it be proved to be so Dr. Chamberlain I shall own and have printed that Magistrates are allowed of God to punish the duties of the first and second Table only with this caution that he is not to apply Legal punishments to Gospel sins nor Gospel punishments to Legal sins and this I have proved out of the evidences of Peter and Paul so that as the Magistrate is to punish all outward Idolatry Swearing and Blasphemy so also the Sabbath but not that which is of mans invention but the seventh-day Sabbath which the Lord sanctified and for which he calls himself Lord of sabbaths and Christ was both a keeper and preacher of this Sabbath Mat. 12. now then for a man to keep nine of the Commandments and say the seventh-day sabbath which makes up the tenth is of no force is against Christ Mr. Ives I have offered that if the Magistrate be to punish all Idolatry by Gods appointment and also the breach of the seventh-day sabbath then he must also judg what is Idolatry and what is Sabbath-breaking and if so the Dr. may not be long before he be convicted For Idolatry is not only worshipping false Gods but the true God in a salfe manner But secondly Idolatry was in the Law punishable with death and the sabbath-breaker was to be stoned to death Now if the Law of Moses be in force and the punishment thereof in force against those that keep not Saturday-sabbath and as you have said the Civil Magistrate is to inflict it then according to your opinion the Reason why we live is because of the wickedness of the Civil Magistrate for if the Civil Magistrate did but that which you call his duty we should all of us by your Opinion be stoned to death before to morrow morning that do not keep the saturday-Saturday-Sabbath Where then is our Christian Liberty for by the Law of Moses I must be put to death for not keeping the Jews Sabbath if this opinion be true though 〈◊〉 conscience I am perswaded that it is a weak and â—â—ggerly Element unto which I ought not to be in â—â—ndage and yet so indulgent are men to their opiâ—â—ons that having once espoused them they will mainâ—â—in them maugre the liberty of all the conscientious â—â—ople in the Land I and their own liberty too for 〈◊〉 the same Rule the Magistrate may put a man 〈◊〉 death that doth not keep the Jews Sabbath for 〈◊〉 the Magistrate ought to do if he should be of 〈◊〉 Doctors opinion and hold that the seventh-day â—abbath required in the Law ought to be kept and 〈◊〉 at the punishment annexed
done which was contrary to the work of a sabbath day I answer that nothing is mentioned which 〈◊〉 lawfully done on those sabbaths that was contrary to the work of the seventh day Mr. Coppinger I shall shew you that these sabbaths in Isa 1.13 could not be the sabbath days as first they are said Isa 1. to tread in Gods Courts in the Temple which they did not do on the sabbath dayes for then they met in the Synagogue Secondly here is all the Sacrifices and burnt-offerings which they could not offer upon the sabbath dayes Mr. Ives First it doth not follow that all those religious duties mentioned with the sabbaths Isa 1. were to be performed upon the sabbath dayes any more then the celebrations of their new Moons were to be celebrated upon the sabbath dayes and therefore if the duties there mentioned could not be performed upon the sabbath dayes that doth not prove the sabbaths mentioned with new Moons in that text doth not intend the Sabbath day Secondly you say they trod the Courts of God this you call a work which they could not do upon the sabbath dayes because you say they met in the Synagogue upon sabbath dayes I answer That David magnifies the COVRTS of Gods house while as yet there was no temple which shews that other places were called the Courts of Gods house as well as the temple Thirdly they might tread Gods Courts in the Temple upon the Sabbath dayes and therefore you confessed that the priests in the Temple might offer the Sacrifice upon the sabbath-day and be blameless which Christ supposes to be their constant custome but I believe never any seventh-day sabbath-keeper but Mr. Coppinger ever taught that it was a work that could not be done on the Sabbath day for People to tread in the Courts of Gods Temple Again you say here was ALL their Burnt-offerings and ALL their Sacrifices which you say could not be upon the seventh day sabbath offered and therefore Isaiah could not mean the seventh-day sabbath I answer That the text doth not say all their Sacrifices but the multitude of their Sacrifices and therefore you grosly abuse the text Just as if I should say Here is a multitude of People here assembled doth it reasonably follow from such a speech that ALL the People in England are here assembled Mr. Coppinger The text speaks of their SOLEMN Assemblies which was not wont to be upon their sabbath dayes Mr. Ives It doth not follow that because they were solemn Assemblies that they were such Assemblies that could not be upon the sabbath days for Mr. Coppinger meets upon the seventh-day sabbath and will they say when they are together that it is not a solemn Assembly But if the Sabbaths mentioned Isa 1.13 could not be the Sabbath dayes because they had solemn Assemblies upon it then the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath that Mr. Coppinger and those of his mind assembles on is not the true Sabbath day because they have a solemn Assembly upon it But I have shewed that the mentioning of these duties with the Sabbaths doth not prove they were all to be performed upon the Sabbath there mentioned but however that is most untrue to say that the sabbath mentioned Isa 1.13 is not the Sabbath day because those services there mentioned could not be done upon the sabbath days and that those religious duties there mentioned were contrary to the works of the Sabbath day then which nothing is more false Mr. Coppinger I have shewn you a text where sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons that is not understood of the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I shall leave this Argument to the judgement of the Audience and your own conscience I have shewn that sabbaths were shadows of Christ and therefore not binding in these days to the believing Gentiles I have also given two reasons why the sabbath mentioned Col. 2.16 is to be understood of the seventh-day sabbath The one was because the word Sabbath is always understood for the seventh-day sabbath when it is mentioned without reference to their festival sabbaths And lastly I have more chiefly insisted and do still insist upon this reason viz. That the seventh-day sabbath is intended by the Apostle in Col. 2.16 because sabbath is there mentioned with new Moons and Feasts c. and throughout the whole Bible where-ever sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons and Feasts there the sabbath dayes are always intended and therefore I do again call upon my Respondent either to say that he cannot answer the Argument or else to shew me a text where sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons and the seventh-day sabbath not intended because no Scripture is of a private interpretation Mr. Coppinger I have shewed you Isa 1.13 where Sabbath is mentioned and the seventh-day sabbath not intended Mr. Ives I have shewed you that the reasons why you so conceive have no weight that the seventh-day sabbath is intended by the prophet Isaiah in the sabbath mentioned with new Moons Isa 1.13 and therefore unless you will assign any other instances to take off the force of my Argument I shall because the time and my strength is very much spent end the Disputation I come now to give an account of the fourth and last Disputation which was on the 22 of Feb. 1658. at the place aforesaid at which Dispute Mr. Coppinger was Opponent and Mr. Ives Respondent at which time and place the people being assembled Mr. Coppinger propounds the Question to be disputed on which take as followeth Mr. Coppinger THe Question to be disputed this day is Whether believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives The question was laid down in general terms and you have repeated it in indefinite terms not but that I could oppose it in those terms but because we have agreed upon terms let us not now alter them Mr. Coppinger When I say Believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath my meaning is all believing Gentiles Moderator Sir then I pray put in those words and proceed Mr. Coppinger I say then All believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives All believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and pray prove they are Mr. Coppinger The first Argument I shall urge is this If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James Ergo all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I deny the consequence of the major Proposition for though all believers are bound to keep the royal Law mentioned in James the second yet they are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James and that Law doth contain the seventh day
why beleeving Gentiles should keep the Sabbath is taken from the command in Exod. 20.8 9 10 where God requireth Israel to keep the seventh-day sabbath therefore Gentile beleevers are bound to keep it I answer That this Law was given to none but Israel as appears Psal 137.19 20. He hath given his Laws to Jacob his statues and judgments to Israel be hath not done so to any Nation Again the Apostle tells us Rom. 2. That the Jews were under the Law but the Gentiles were without the Law Argum. 3 The Gentiles must keep all the nine commandments therefore they must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer They are bound to all the nine expresly and particularly by the light of Nature and the Law of Christ but they are not so bound to the seventh-day sabbath Again that Law of the fourth Commandment binds us as to A time to worship though not that time of the seventh-day But secondly might not these men as well object this against the Apostle who expresly complains of the Gentiles for the breach of all the nine Commandments but not a word that they did not keep the seventh-day sabbath as I shall shew by and by which doubtless he would have had an occasion to have done had the seventh-day sabbath-breaking been a breach of a Moral Law as well as the other nine precepts Argum. 4 Another Argument is taken from the Reasons of the Law given to Israel which are first God gave this as a Reason why Israel should rest the seventh-day because in six days he made Heaven and Earth therefore if this Reason be beleeved by Christian Gentiles then this Law should be observed by them Secondly God commanded Israel to rest the seventh-seventh-day because it was the sabbath of the Lord their God therefore if Jehovah be the Lord our God his sabbath must be our sabbath Thirdly God did command this duty for the good of our servants and cattle therefore if we will shew mercy to them we must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer to the first that the Reason of a Law may be universal and always remain when the Law doth not remain as for instance the Reason why God would have the people of Israel to sanctifie the Priests the sons of Aaron was because he was the Lord that did sanctifie them Levit 21. 8. Now I hope all Christian Gentiles beleeve that God doth sanctifie them but doth it therefore follow that because God doth sanctifie beleeving Gentiles that therefore they must sanctifie a Levitical Priesthood Secondly The place of Israels worship was called the house of the Lord God doth it therefore follow that beleeving Gentiles must therefore sanctifie that place because God is the God of the Gentiles no more doth it follow that because the seventh-day was the sabbath of the Lord God that therefore the beleeving Gentiles must observe it Thirdly Whereas it is said we must rest the seventh-day that we may shew mercy to our servants and cattle I answer we can do that by resting the first day of the week as well as by resting the seventh Secondly If because that we must shew mercy be a Reason why we should keep the seventh-day sabbath because Israel was to keep it for that Reason then we must also drink deeper of this cup of Judaism and keep the seventh-yeer sabbath because that was commanded for the benefit of the poor Exod. 23.11 That the poor of thy people may eat c. So that the Reasons of a Law may have a being when the Law hath none as appears by the Reason of the sanctifying the Priest it was because God sanctifies the people yet though we do beleeve that God doth sanctifie us yet we are not therefore to sanctifie the Legal Priesthood in like manner though we do beleeve with Abraham Isaak and Jacob that God made Heaven and Earth in six days and rested the seventh yet this is no Reason why we rather then they should observe that day any more then why we should observe the other Judaical Laws whose Reasons are still the same though the Laws are changed Argum. 5 The next Arguments follow from the Scriptures of the New Testament and they are such as pretend to command and example even as the former I shall first speak to those Texts that are cited to prove that the seventh-day sabbath was commanded in the New Testament and the first is Mat. 5.17 18. the words are these Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil For I say unto you that till Heaven and Earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled Whence it is inferred that the seventh day sabbath was a part of the Law and therefore it should remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain I answer first that offering of sacrifices is also a part of this Law but doth it follow therefore that beleeving Gentiles must offer sacrifices to the end of the world and that offering of sacrifices is a point of this Law see v. 23 24. where our Lord as truly commands that a man should come and offer his gift upon the Altar after he is reconciled to his brother as he doth injoyn any other duty the like he commands of the leper that was cleansed Mat. 8. â— Secondly Christ saith the same thing of the Prophets as well as of the Law that they shall not pass away till they are fulfilled and yet many of them were fulfilled in Christs time Thirdly Christ saith of his own words Matth. 24.35 That Heaven and Earth shall pass away but his word shall not pass and yet the 34 ver saith that that Generation should not pass away till all those things were fulfilled The meaning then was clearly this that rather then either the Law or his word should pass unfulfilled Heaven and Earth should pass which doth in no wise argue that all the Law and Prophets should remain unfulfilled till the Heavens should be no more for the Text tells us He came to fulfil the Law and Prophets so that if all the Law and Prophets be unfulfilled Christ did not answer the end of his coming and if any be fulfilled then ALL the Law must not last till the Heavens be no more and if any be fulfilled then the seventh-day sabbath may be fulfilled since the sabbath is called a shadow of good things to come Col. 2.16 17. However if any of that Law Mat. 5. be fulfilled by Christ no man can conclude reasonably from that Text that the seventh-day sabbath is in force Lastly Though all this Law Mat. 5. was in force before Christs death yet we are freed from the Law by the death of Christ Rom. 7.2 3 6. therefore no Argument can be drawn from this Text to prove the seventh-day sabbath unless Christ or his apostles had reinforced the observation of it after his Resurrection Argum. 6 I come now to
view Rom. 1.25 The Gentiles who had not the law of Moses broke the first Commandment in that they worshippâ—d the Creature MORE then the Creator Rom. 1.25 which was against the first Commandment that faith We must have no other Gods bus one They broke the second Commandment in that they did change the glory of the incorruptible God into an IMAGE made like corruptible man Rom. 1.23 They broke the third Commandment in that they blasphemed the name of God Rom. 2.24 But no mention of their breach of the fourth Commandment They broke the fifth Commandment in that they were disobedient to Parents Rom. 1.30 They broke the sixth commandment in that they were guilty of murder Rom. 1.29 They broke the seventh Commandment in that they were guilty of fornication and unlawfull lusts Rom. 1.26 29. They broke the eighth Commandment therefore the Apostle admonisheth the converted Gentiles Ephes 4.17 28. that they which had stolen should steal no more shewing that in the dayes of their Gentile vanities they walked not according to the light of nature Again they broke the ninth Commandment 2 Tim. 3.3 without natural affection truce-breakers FALSE accusers They brake the tenth Commandment in that they were guilty of covetousnesse Rom 1.2 How often are the Gentiles charged with these sins both in the Old and New Testament and yet they are never charged by the Law of Nature for seventh day Sabbath breaking and therefore Josephus tells us that the Mations did imitate and learned to keep a Sabbath of the Jews for saith he our custome hath spread it self among the Nations c. clearly proving that the light of Nature never taught the Gentiles to keep the seventh day sabbath Lib. 2. contr Appion Again secondly the Gentiles could not keep the seventh day by the light of Nature because they are not exactly able to compute the seventh day from the Creation by reason that the Sun stood still in Joshua's time and hasted not to go down for a whole day and likewise the Sun went backwards ten degrees in Hezekiahs time which was almost half a day by reason whereof the light of Nature was never able to make a perfect account of the seventh day from the Creation Thirdly a man cannot know the seventh day from the fourth but by tradition therefore the knowledge of the seventh day is not moral as for instance Suppose a man sick of a violent distemper that bereaveth him of his sences when he comes to his former understanding he will know his duty touching all the nine precepts and also touching the setting apart some time to serve God but as touching this seventh day he cannot know this but by the help of tradition having lost his account in the time of his sickness which shews that the seventh day is not commanded by the light of Nature because by that light a man cannot know the seenth day from the fourth or eighth Again this Reason is further illustrated by the Travels of Sir Francis Drake who lost a whole day and so did all their company before their return for England so the Dutch in their Western Discoveries by reason of the varation of Longitudes and Latitudes they had lost a day before they returned which they had never been informed in but by the help of tradition which shews that Nature could not instruct the Gentiles in the knowledge of a seventh day Now these and the like cases puts an absolute necessity upon the world to be ignorant of this Law therefore it cannot be moral The second Argument which I urge to prove that the seventh day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles is Because they are not commanded by Moses Law to keep the seventh day sabbath My Reasons are first because this Law was not given to any Nation but Israel Psalm 147.19 20. Rom. 2.14 the Gentiles had not the Law c Secondly if Moses Law be in force then the punishment due to the breach of the seventh day sabbath is in force which was That the Congregation should stone the Oftender to death Num. 15.35 which I have shewn in the forementioned Disputations cannot reasonably be imagined to consist with Gospel-liberty Thirdly if Moses Law be in force to require any thing of the Gentiles that is not expresly and particularly required of them by Christ or his Apostles then we may by the Argument of Moses Law take a liberty to innovate what Judaical Ceremonies we shall at any time have a mind unto Argum. III I come now to the last Argument viz. That the Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh day sabbath First because he hath not expresly required any such thing in all the New Testament nor have any of his Apostles to whom he delegated a power to preach the Laws of the New Testament ever declared any such thing But secondly the Apostle tells us That the sabbath was a shadow of good things to come Col. 2.16 27. Which must needs be understood of sabbath days as our Translators have rendered it First where-ever the word sabbaths is otherwise understood the Holy Ghost for the help of our understanding adds either that it is a sabbath for the LAND when he means yearly sabbaths or else if they were festival sabbaths he refers us to the Feasts which-ought to be so sanctified But secondly where-ever sabbath is joyned with new moons and feasts there it is always understood of the sabbath days because all their other sabbaths were included in their feasts except the seventh day sabbath See for this purpose Exod. 34.18 19 20 21 22 23. Lev. 23.3 4. Ezek. 45.17 and 2 Chron. 8.13 Thirdly the sabbath day was called a signe by Moses Exod. 31.17 Again my third Reason why Christ hath not commanded the believing Gentiles to keep the seventh day sabbath is Because the Apostle calls all the times that the Jews observed in the Law weak and beggerly elements among which the seventh day sabbath was accounted see Gal. 4.9 10 11. Now the Jews days were their weekly Sabbaths their moneths were their new Moons Numb 28.11 Num. 10.10 2 Chron. 8.13 Exod. 23.12 their times were three in the years Exod. 23.14 15. Deut. 16. from the first to the fourth was the feast of the Passover from the ninth verse to the thirteenth is mention made of the feast of harvest or feast of weeks and from the thirteenth verse to the 26 you may read of the feast of boothes or tabernacles which were their times that they observed Then they observed years which shews that this was spoken of the Jews since as Tacitus faith No Nation wasted whole years as the Jews did and that they were by the Law to keep years as well as days and moneths and times appears by the text Lev. 25. where every seseventh year and every year of Jubilee was commanded to be observed Now if they had no time which they observed but days moneths times and years and all these were
to it ought to be inflictâ— I say by the same Rule a Magistrate may 〈◊〉 a man to death that is not perswaded to 〈◊〉 this seventh-day Sabbath another Maâ—state otherwise minded may put men of the Doctors â—â—inion to death because they do not keep the first day â—abbath which he holds himself in conscience bound 〈◊〉 see as strictly kept as the other doth his Saturday Sabbath Dr. Cham. I am not a Judge of Magistrates but do submit unto them secondly let none be afraid of this text for he that is in Christ is above the Law and it was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin Neither do I say that the Magistrates have power to punish spiritual sins with legal punishments but spiritual sins with spiritual punishments and this they may very well do if they have but good Ministers to instruct them Mr. Ives If the Magistrate must punish all evil according to your sence of that text then he must punish spiritual as well as corporeal Idolatry when the Offendor shall be convicted of it and he must punish it according to his Judgement and Conscience so that if it be the Magistrates Duty to take away the lives of their Subjects for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath it follows roundly that the reason why we live is because of the wickedness of the civil Magistrate a wickedness if the Doctors opinion be true for which both Magistrates and People should die without mercy if once a Magistrate should be set up that is of the Doctors perswasion But the main stress of my Argument lyeth in this That God never appointed the Gentile-Magistrates to execute the punishment which he in the Law did command should be inflicted upon those that broke the seventh-day sabbath required in Exod. 20. and to this the Doctor hath given no answer save that the Magistrate is to punish all evil c. but he hath not shewn us that seventh-day sabbath-breaking is an evil nor that the Magistrate is to punish it according to Moses Law if it were an evil which are the two main things that have been objected to which he hath given no kinde of Answer though they have been urged to him once and again But instead of answering tells us that none should be afraid of the text I suppose he means the texts in the Law that threaten the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath with death his reason is because he that is in Christ is above the Law and 〈◊〉 was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin c. If this be true that those that are in Christ are above the Law and that the Law was not made for them I wonder why the Doctor should keep such a stir to engage believers to observe the Law and the seventh-day Sabbath which he calls a part of the Law And if they that are in Christ as he saith cannot sin then it follows that either none are in Christ but those that keep the Jewish Sabbath or if they may be in Christ that do not keep it then it is no Sin not to observe it since if the Dr. saith true they that are in Christ cannot sin so that one absurd opinion is the cause of many for is it not absurd to say that those that are in Christ cannot sin and afterwards charge believers in Christ with 〈◊〉 for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Cham. Mr. Ives hath been calling upon me to assigne who God hath appointed to execute the punishment which by Moses Law was due to the seventh-day sabbath-breakers I further answer That if the Magistrate must punish the breach of all Law then of the seventh-day Sabbath anâ— whereas Mr. Ives saith that then the Magistrate must judge what is Idolatry and Sabbath breaking if he must punish all transgression relating to these Laws I answer that it is no great matter to be 〈◊〉 judge since the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 6 4 Set them to judge that are least esteemed in the Church now if the weakest are to be chosen for Judges such Magistrates will not suffer their eyes to be blinded with gifts and he will inflict punishment upon false witnesses especially when such Magistrates are assisted with Gods Ministers To some of the forementioned passages answer hath been made in that Mr. Ives hath told the Dr. that his urging the text that saith the Magistrate is to punish all evil is impertinent till he hath proved the seventh-day sabbath breaking an evil and if that could be done yet this text doth not prove that the Magistrate is bound to punish it by stoning the offender to death which Dr. Chamberlain saith is a punishment yet in force to the beleeving Gentiles And whereas Mr. Ives desired the Dr. to assign who should judge he most impertinently cites 1 Cor. 6.4 and tells us that the weakest in the Church should be chosen Judges Well then if the weakest should be chosen Judges c. I demand Whether they should be chosen out of that Church whereof Dr. Chamberlain is a member or out of a Church that is not of his minde about the seventh-day sabbath If out the Church that are of his minde and whereof he is a member then we are all to be stoned to death without mercy or to keep his seventh-day sabbath though it be never so much against our Consciences but it shall ever be a part of my Letany From such Magistrates and Ministers of Justice Good Lord deliver us But if they should be chosen out of a Church that is not of the Doctors mind about the seventh-day Sabbath then it cannot reasonably be imagined that such Magistrates would put that Law in execution that saith the seventh-day Sabbath-breaker shall be stoâ—ed to death while the Magistrate himself doth tolerate the breach of it And lastly whosoever doth but read 1 Cor. 6. 4. and compares it but with the occasion for which the Doctor cites it which is to shew whom God hath appointed to execute the punishment the Law of Moses hath assigned for Sabbath-breakers they will see that the Doctor hath manifested so much weakness that if weakness were a fit qualification for a Judge as he saith it is he hath bespoke himself worthy of a Judges place before all the Poople for if the weakest are to be chose Judges I know not where we should meet with a fitter man then the Doctor who hath so unfitly apply'd the Apostles words to the case in hand Here the Doctor leaves off and Mr. Tillam undertakes to answer to Mr. Ives his insuing Arguments Mr. Ives I am now to proceed to another Argumnâ—â— to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day Sabbath VVhich I thus do If believing Gentiles are bound to keep thâ— seventh-day sabbath then they are bound by that text Jam. 2. where you say the whole Law is required to be kept But the believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath
by that teâ—… Jam. 2. where you say the whole Law is required c. Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath The reason of Mr. Ives his urging this Arâ—â—ment is to dis-mount the confidence of his Antagonists who build so much upon this text for the prooâ—â— of their seventh-day Sabbath but to this Mr. Tillam being Respondent did refuse to answer anâ— therefore Mr. Ives went on to prove the Minor because his Antagonists grant the Major viz. Thaâ— if believing Gentiles are bound they are bound by the second of James c. Mr. Ives I shall go on to prove the Minor viz. Thaâ— believing Gentiles are not bound by Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Besides what I have said that the Gentiles were without the Law that was otherwise imposed upon the Jewes I shall further add If believing Gentiles are bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then it is because they are required to keep the WHOLE Law But believing Gentiles are not required to keep the VVHOLE Law Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam refusing to answer Mr. Ives proceedeth to the proof of the Minor viz. That believing Gentiles are not required by that text Jam. 2. to keep the whole Law If. believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE LAW then they are not bound by this text Jam. 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law But the believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE Law Ergo the believing Gentiles are not bound by this text James 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law The Minor I prove thus If believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision then they are not indebted to the WHOLE Law but believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision Ergo believing Gentiles are not indebted to the WHOLE Law The Major I prove thus If Circumcision makes the beleeving Gentiles debters to the whole Law then it follows that if beleeving Gentiles be uncircumcised they are not indebted to the whole Law But Circumcision makes the beleeving Gentiles debtors to the whole Law Ergo if beleeving Gentiles are uncircumcised they are not debtors to the whole Law Here Mr. Tillam begins to reply Mr. Tillam If beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of James his Epistle then to this also But Mr. Ives himself confesseth beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of this Epistle as that of anointing with oyl and prayer c. Secondly I demand Whether Mr. Ives doth not obey the Lord Jesus Christ by that which is mentioned in one single text for so he doth as I am informed by acknowledging the practise of anointing with oyl which is mentioned in no other text then in the Epistle of James Either then let Mr. Ives disclaim that Ordinance of anointing with oyl which I hope he will have more Grace and godliness then so to do or else acknowledge this of James 2. to be of the same force according to Rom. 10 11 12. Mr. Ives Sir You argue in stead of answering which is not fair however let me tell you that it doth not follow that all an Epistle doth belong to the Gentiles because some doth and there is no great difficulty to make this appear for may not a Prophet speak against extortion and against unmercifulness to poor brethren which is every bodies duty to fly from and a saying that belongs to all yet may not the same Prophet exhort to burnt-offerings and sacrifices a duty that did belong but to some not to all So that it followeth not that a man should disclaim those things that are his duty in such and such a Prophesie because there is mention made of things that are not his duty May not a man as well say that Mr. Tillam must own all the Ceremonies of Moses Law which I hope he hath more Grace then so to do because he owns a part of it viz. the seventh-day sabbath and the punishment thereunto annexed I speak not this in favour to the disowning of any part of James is Epistle or any other part of sacred writing but to shew you how irrationally Mr. Tillam argueth for is it not the same You own a part of James his Epistle viz. that of anointing with oyl to belong to beleeving Gentiles Ergo You must own all the rest In like manner Mr. Tillam owns a part of Moses Law viz. that of the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo Mr. Tillam must own all Moses Law and all the Ceremonies therein contained So likewise James in this Epistle as Paul in some others might speak some things that more properly relate to Jews and other some things that relate more generally both to Jews and Gentiles Again I have proved that none but those that are circumcised were bound to keep the WHOLE LAW Gal. 5.3 in that universal sence in which Mr. Tillam accepts this word the WHOLE Law so as to include the seventh-day Sabbath and this is not my opinion only but the opinion of the modern Jews which say that whosoever will keep their Sabbath must first be circumcised Mr. Tillam There is no difference between Jew and Greek 1 Cor. 12.12 Rom. 10.11 12. and if Mr. Ives will exclude one part of James his Epistle from relating to beleeving Gentiles he must exclude it all Again Both Jews and Gentiles are to walk by one Law and have but one Law-giver that is able to save and destroy Again I say that information of the modern Jews is false and though they have told us that from the middle upward we are Jews yet from the middle downward we are Gentiles but the other saying I do not remember Mr. Ives Whereas he saith beleeving Gentiles are bound to the whole Law mentioned in James 2. I add that James himself being a Jew and writing to the twelve Tribes among which there were some beleevers and very many unbeleevers as appears by the complaint he makes of the pride and oppression and unruly talking that was among them now from that Law that these unrighteous Jews pretended to live by and to be justified by the Apostle goeth about to convince them by telling them that whosoever should pretend to the whole Law and yet err in one point he is guilty of all as much as if he should say If you will be keepers of the Law you must keep it perfectly or you do nothing I would fain know how such an interpretation supposing it to be a false gloss upon the text should incur the censure of denying the whole of James his Epistle to be of any use to beleeving Gentiles And although there be no difference between the Jew and Gentile in point of justification and Gospel-priviledges in as much as the Jew cannot be justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ even as the Gentiles are yet the Gentiles are not bound to observe all edicts that were at that time imposed upon the Jews And lest this
being a Sign as any one to this I answer That it is not said of the Ten Commandments onely but of all the Law as well Ceremonies as Morals that it should be as a signe upon their hand it doth not therefore follow that these were all to continue But farther It is no where said of all the Law that it is a signe between God and Isral but rather a signe to distinguish them from all other people But lastly if the whole Law of Moses were as a signe between God and Israel as Mr. Tillam supposeth then I answer that as it was in the hand of Moses it was a Law binding to none but Israel and such as were proselyted thereunto neither was it given as a sign to any other Nation Mr. Tillam The seventh-day was a sign of the Creation of the World for God rested the seventh-day saith the Text. Again If that the Commandments are signs they must either be between God and his people or else between them and the Devil Mr. Ives That about a sign hath been answered already and I wonder you should delight your self with needless repetitions but however take a word or two in further answer viz. That Gods resting the seventh-seventh-day is urged by Moses as the Reason of the Law that injoyns Israel to keep the seventh-seventh-day and not as a Reason of the sign so that though Gods resting is urged as the Reason of the duty it doth not therefore follow that it is the Reason of the sign but as I have said before I shall say again that if all the Commandments were signs between God and Israel as they were delivered to Moses upon the mount it doth not prove that they were signes between God and any other Nation And as to your Objection That if the Commadments were signs they must either be between God and Israel or else between them and the Devil But how doth this appear might not it be a sign between Israel and all the Nations of the Earth to signifie their special favour with God above other people and doth not the text say the Law should be as frontlets between their eyes c. plainly shewing that God would distinguish this People by their Laws and Priviledges from all other people and that by their Sabbaths and Circumcision and other Judaical observations they should be known to all people that did converse with them to be highly in favour with God And lastly Their Laws some of them were called signs because they did signifie somthing to come and so did their Sabbath therefore the Apostle calls it a shadow Col. 2.17 But I never heard that their Laws were signs between them and the Devil Mr. Tillam If the Creation of the world be a reason why Israel was to keep the seventh-day sabbath you must then if you be Gods Israel keep the seventh day upon that reason because they did enjoy the comforts of the Creation which God brought forth in six days since then that Reason is the same to us that Law ought to be the same Mr. Ives I answer First by telling of you that you argue in stead of Answering But secondly lest you should judge thaâ— there is strength in what you say see the weakness of it for it doth not follow that because the reason of a Law is always the same thâ—â— therefore the Law should always be the same as for instance God gave a Law that the people of Israel should not eat Swines flesh nor the Cony nor the Hare because he the Lord their God 〈◊〉 holy therefore they should not defile themselves witâ—eating such things Leviâ— 11.43 44. Here you see the Reason remains for God is holy anâ— will be so forever but the Law doth not remain for a man may eat of these Creature now and not sin so in like manner the reason for the Jews sabbath may be the same when the Law may not be the same in every punctâ—â—o of it Mr. Tillam I answer that God hath given a toleration to eat such things and therefore now it is not a sin Mr. Ives Then I have shewn you that the reason of a Law may be the same when the Law is not the â—ame by your own confession Mr. Tillam making no further reply Mr. Ives â—roceeds to a new Argument Mr. Ives That which I have been doing hitherto hath been to shew that Moses Law doth not injoyn â—he beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath I shall now give an Argument from â—he Law of Nature and prove that we are not â—equired by that Law to keep the seventh-day â—abbath which I thus do That which the Law of Nature bindes the Gentiles to observe it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe But the Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo The Law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe the 7th-day sabbath Here Mr. Tillam was desired to Object against the Argument proposed but he refusing another that stands by craves of Mr. Ives the proof of the Minor hereupon he proceeded Mr. Ives The Minor I prove thus If the Law of Nature doth convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day sabbath then it is manifest either in God word right Reason or manifest experience that they have had such convictions But neither Gods word right Reason or manifest experience doth manifest any such conviction Ergo The Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh day sabbath This Minor Proposition being that which is denied I shall therefore because it is negative resolve it into the answer of my respondent 〈◊〉 desiring him to assign an instance either in God word right Reason or manifest experience thâ—â— ever any Gentile was convinced of sin by the Law of Nature for not observing the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam To the Argument out of the Law of Nature I answer that it doth convince men 〈◊〉 sin for Idolatry and yet ask a Papist if he 〈◊〉 convinced of sin for bowing to the Virgin Mary and he will say No. Mr. Ives Sir You have not answered nor assigned 〈◊〉 instance and for what you say of a Papist 〈◊〉 answer that it is one thing to live under a Law that convinceth of sin and another thing to acknowledge such conviction as for example It is said of the Holy Ghost that he shall convince the world of sin and yet we all know the world is not convinced of sin so as publickly to repent and return Shall I then be so barbarous as to say that there is not a Law convincing because men are not actually convinced of their Idolatry for doubtless the most ignorant Papists have a Law and the Spirit of God convincing them of sin though actually they are not convinced However it is manifest that the light of Nature hath at some time or other so prevailed upon some of her children as that to a
both people as well as the other for God intended that the Tables of stone should be kept in the hand of Israel and from thence it was to be conveyed to others Romans the 9th and 4th Mr. Ives I need make no further answer then to say That Christ was made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that is those that are under the law of Nature from the curse thereof and them that are under the law of Moses from the curse due to the Transgressions thereof and not to redeem the Gentiles from the curse due to the transgression of the law of Moses which they are expresly said not to be under Secondly that the Gentiles by the light of Nature were not under the whole Law of Moses is clear in that some lived in terra incognita and also in the Antipodes and besides the text saith plainly that the Gentiles were not under the law and I must stick to that what ever you say unless you spoke more reason and it is strange to me that this should not be discerned that a person may be redeemed from the punishment due to him for transgressing the Laws of the King of Spain and another may be redeemed from the punishment due to him for transgressing the laws of England and after this it may be said of them both that they are redeemed from the curse of the law but would it reasonably follow from thence that they both lived under one and the same Law in all points in like manner it doth not follow that because Christ hath redeemed both Jews and Gentiles from the curse of the law that therefore they both lived under one law in all respects as Mr. Coppinger imagineth Mr. Coppinger Now I will prove that the whole world by the light of Nature were under the whole law both of Sacrifices and Ceremonies Gal. 3.11 No man is justified by the Law in the sight of God here the Apostle means the whole Ceremonial law as appears Heb. 14.10 Mr. Ives I demanded your Answer to that question whether the Antipodes were under all the Ceremonies of Moses law and the people that were in terra incognita and to this you have said nothing but alledged a text to prove instead of answering which doth not speak a word to your purpose viz. That the Gentiles are bound by the law written in the heart to keep the whole law of Moses even all the Ceremonies as well as Morals which you are forced upon to escape the dint of my Argument which was to shew you that Moses law did not require the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath because the Gentiles did not live under it but without it as divers texts tell us plainly There are three notable things to be observed in Mr. Coppingers answer to this Argument First that he is forced to confess in words at length that all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law were writ in the heart Secondly that this was a force put to save his credit appears because in his answer to Mr. Ives his first Argument but two hours before or thereabouts he plainly denyed that which this Argument forceth him to confess for when he told Mr. Ives that the Nations were said to be cast out because they did not keep all Israels Laws Mr. Ives did ask him whether the Nations were cast out for not keeping circumcision and other of the Jews ceremonies And when he saw that this Absurdity was like to fall upon him he told us That though the Nations were to keep all Israels Statutes yet saith he they were not to keep their ceremonies So that though he denyed this in his Answer to the first Argument as any one may see that looks back to it yet here he doth confess it over and over that the Nations by the light of Nature were to keep every bit and parcel for those are his words of the Ceremonial Law of Moses as well as the Moral And Thirdly It is observable that a little before in page 156. he cites a text in the ninth of the Romans to prove that the Jews had the tables of stone given them to keep not onely for themselves but that they might convey the things therein required unto the world Now what need was there for Israel to convey the knowledge of their Laws writ in tables of stone to the world if what he hath said all this while be true viz. that there was no difference for the very same Law saith he which was in the Jews tables of stone was in the tables of the Gentiles hearts save that one had it written and the other had not Mr. Ives If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are bound to esteem one day above another But believing Gentiles are not bound to esteem one day above another Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor believing Gentiles are bound to esteem one day above another Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus If there is an Apostolical Toleration to esteem one day above another or every day as one is perswaded then believing Gentiles are not bound to esteem one day above another But there is such a Toleration Rom. 14.5 Ergo. Mr. Coppinger The strength of Mr. Ives his Argument lyeth in the universality of the terms every day and therefore I shall shew that this general term ought to be restrained As for instance There seems to be as general a toleration given for the eating of all things and yet Mr. Ives believeth eating of blood and things strangled and meats offered to Idols are excepted in like manner is the seventh-day sabbath to be excepted when there is a toleration given to observe every day alike And Secondly if every man may walk as he is perswaded then he may keep the seventh-day sabbath if he be so perswaded Mr. Ives I answer to the last first That although I do not deny those the liberty that observe the seventh-seventh-day sabbath yet in as much as they condemn others and charge others with sin for not observing it that is their fault for it is not a mans perswasion of the truth of a thing that will make it my duty which is the onely point in hand viz. not what is a liberty but what is a duty But secondly whereas Mr. Coppinger saith That all days may be restrained because all things are restrained by the Holy Ghost and therefore we may not eat all things I answer That if Mr. Coppinger can assigne as good an exception against the term every day as I can against his general term every thing I shall say this Argument is answered Now I will shew you that when the Apostle tells us that we may eat all things the Holy Ghost puts a restraint here and tells us That meats offered in sacrifice to an Idol together with blood and things strangled are excepted and may not be eaten as appears Act.
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
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