you deny the seventh day sabbath is intended in the second of James you may deny it Mr. Ives I do not deny it because I will deny it but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it Mr. Coppinger Well then I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the second thus If the Law in this text James the second be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures then the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second But the Law in this text James the second is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second Mr. Ives I answer first by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism because it concludes not that which was formerly denyed for it is no more then what we have had over and over save that now instead of the word Scripture in the prosyllogism you add the Scriptures of the old Testament Secondly I further answer by denying the Consequence for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles that the Law in the old Testament requireth as for instance That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adultery did also command them that they should circumcise their Children and offer Sacrifices These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery as appears Gal. 5. 〈◊〉 For I testifie to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW Now who can deny but this whole Law did forbid murder and adultery But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law as that Argument supposeth For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law John 7.23 and sacrificing is called a part of that Law Mat. 8.4 and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law Mark 7. Now may not a man as well reason thus If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to parents then we must keep circumcision and offering of sacrifices for these are parts of that whole Law of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to Parents 〈◊〉 a part I say is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger we must keep ALL that Law saith 〈◊〉 which in the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery Ergo we must keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I will prove that the whole Law in this text Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies thus If the whole Law there mentioned be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise then it doth exclude Ceremonies But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise Ergo the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies Mr. Ives If it excludeth ceremonies then it excludeth your former Argument which saith We are bound to keep the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery and also it excludeth your interpretation of whole Law in Jam. 2. For we cannot keep the whole Law according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament in an old Testament sence but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part for the old Testament law in which murder and adultery were forbidden had ceremonies commanded also so that you have confuted your self Mr. Coppinger My Argument is of force unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law Mr. Ives It is not of force unless you prove the seventh day sabbath is included for â— am Râ—spondent and do deny it to be included and do expect your proof for you confess some part of the whole Law is excluded Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. Mr. Ives I deny the Minor Mr. Coppinger If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Testament onely then they cannot keep this Law except they keep the seventh day sabbath But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely Ergo they cannot keep this Law according to the Scriptures except they keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives Your former Argument was of scriptures in general and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament now the new Testament is scripture as well as the old and therefore Peter saith of some That they wrested Pauls writings as they did other scriptures so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testament we shall do well But secondly this is but semper Idem the same over and over what we had before Thirdly I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law Jam. 2. according to the scriptures of the old Testament in a new Testament sence and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger runs in a Ring which Logicians call Circular Disputation Again Mr. Coppinger hath confessed that ceremonies are abolished therefore it cannot in all points be kept according to the scriptures of the Old Testament Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law unless they keep the seventh day sabbath But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireâ— the keeping of the seventh day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny both Major and Minor For First it doth not follow that because I muâ—â— keep the law in the second of James according to the old Testament that therefore I must keeâ— the sabbath required in the old Testament 〈◊〉 more then because I must forbear killing as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament But
may be the same when the Law is not the same Mr. Coppinger As to your first instance namely that the seventh yeer was commanded for a Mora reason I answer This was not an universal reason for the text faith That the poor of THY people may eat which was not for all and as to your second instance I confess the reason doth remain and is universal viz. That God doth sanctifie us and therefore I say the Law remains that we should sanctifie Gods Ministers still Mr. Ives As for your Answer to my first instance it doth signifie little for I say refreshing the poor is a moral and universal duty and if than the seventh yeer of rest was commanded for the benefit of their poor and cattle then by your Argument if the reason of this Law viz. that the poor should be refreshed do remain then it must needs follow by your Logick thaâ— the seventh yeer sabbath must remain as well as the seventh day sabbath And as touching your answer to my second instance I must tell you that in your Answer you have confuted your self for you confess the reason of the Law remains which was given to Israel for sanctifying the priest Secondly you say that the Law remains that we must sanctifie Gods Ministers then by your favour if you can make the reason of the Law for sanctifying the Priest the sons of Aaron a reason why you should sanctifie not the same but another Priesthood then I may make the reasons for sanctifying the seventh day sabbath serve for the sanctifying not the same but another day Mr. Coppinger So you may if you can prove the abolishing of the seventh day sabbath as I can prove the abolishing the Levitical Priesthood Mr. Ives Then you have confuted your self again and answered your own Argument for your Argument was that where-ever the reason of a Law remains there the Law remains and you have confessed that the reason of the Law doth remain why God would have Israel sanctifie the Priest the sons of Aaron and now in your last answer tell me That that Priesthood is abolished So then if I could never shew you that the seventh day sabbath was abolished yet I have confuted your Argument by shewing that the reason of a Law doth remain when the Law doth not remain and you have confessed both for you say that the reason why Israel was to sanctifie that Priesthood is the same still viz. because God sanctifies his people and you confessed the Law is not the same for you say The Priesthood is abolished But lastly I have shewn you in the former Disputation that the seventh day sabbath was abolished as well as the Levitical Priesthood by an Argument which you could not answer which I raised from that text Col. 2.16 17. with which I shall conclude this Disputation Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drinks or in respect of a holy day or of the new moons or of the SABBATH days which are ASHA DOW of things to come but the body is of Christ Thus having given a faithful account of all the Arguments and Answer that were insisted on in the several Disputations without omitting of any one text of Scripture Argument or Answer that was urged on either side I shall leave the whole to the judgement of those that are impartial desiring of God that it may answer the ends for which it is sent forth into the world which is the glory of Almighty GOD and the establishment of the Weak which is all that is herein aymed at by thy Friend J. I. FINIS POST-SCRIPT READER I Thought good to give notice that at the end of this last Dâ—spute I promised that which is now by the Providence of GOD performed viz. an acâ—ount of all the Arguments and Answers insisted on in the several Disputations this promise being made publickly before the meeting was dissolved Doctor Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Coppinger being then present at which time Doctor Chamberlain told me That if I would print but two Arguments that he would send to me with Answers to them I might print what I would I thereupon told him that I would not onely print and answer his two Arguments but also God assisting I would answer what other Arguments that either be or any of them should send to me provided they sent them within fourteen dayes after and for this 14 dayes I staid 21 days in all which time I heard not a word from any of them â—o nor so much as an excuse from Doctor chamberlain though he did publickly challenge me to answer his two Arguments and as faithfully promise to send them to my house which I wonder at seeing he hath divers times past by my door since then as I have been informed and yet never so much as left a word about it This I am provoked to certifie lest any that heard this promise from Doctor Chamberlain should think that I had received his Arguments and concealed them the thought of any such thing is far enough from the heart of him that is London March 17. 1658 9. Thy Friend in the Truth JER IVES An Appendix to the former Disputations I Have annexed this insuing Appendix for the information fo the weak and those that are not acquainted with the Laws and Terms of Disputation and it may also serve for the general use of all that do desire to be satisfied in the present controversie who perhaps may not have leasure or patience to read all the foregoing Arguments and Answers urged in the preceding Disputations and herein I shall observe this method First I shall lay down all those Arguments that I have ever met with which are levied for the defence of the Saturday-Sabbath with brief Answers thereunto Secondly I shall urge the Reasons why I am perswaded the Saturday-sabbath is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles Thirdly I shall shew some Reasons for the justifying the present practise of the Christians in their Religious observations of the first day of the week otherwise called the Lords-day And first to the first namely the Arguments that are urged by some Judaizing Christians for the defence of the seventh-day sabbath and they are of three sorts the first sort are taken from the Scriptures the second from some Reasons in Nature and the third sort of Reasons are taken from Tradition I shall plainly and briefly speak first to the first viz. those Arguments that are alledged for the Saturday-sabbath ouâ— of the Scriptures and these are some taken from Texts out of the Old and some from Texts out of the New Testament I shall first begin with those Arguments urged for the defence of the seventh-day sabbath out of the old Testament and they are of two sorts first such as are taken from example and secondly such as seem to be grounded upon a command Argum. 1 The first Reason is taken from Gods example Gen. 2.2 And God rested the seventh-day c. and
Command that required the Observation of the seventh day and yet I may not be guilty of sin Dr. Chamberlain He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law is guilty of sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law Ergo. Mr. Ives I answer By distinguishing of the term HE in the Major proposition for if you do not mean every he then I deny the Syllogism And if you do mean every he or every one then I deny the Minor for these Reasons First this text that you refer to in your Argument was written to the Twelve Tribes Jam. 1.1 and therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that because the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law that therefore every believing Gentile is so bound Secondly if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epistle yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments for there is no such thing in the Text. Dr. Chamberlain This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians and therefore to every Christian Mr. Ives I say as before that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle and if they were yet these words The Ten Commandments which are in the Argument are not in this Text and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments as understood by you in the Argument must be concluded from hence or you do not prove the thing denyed Dr. Chamberlain Lest you should equivocate about this word Law the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table and he doth not mention any part of the First Table by which it appears that by the Royal Law he intends the Ten Commandments unless you will say that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law Therefore I 〈◊〉 He that is bound 〈◊〉 keep the whole Law is bound to keep all the ten Commandments But every Christian is bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Every Christian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Forasmuch as you have not said any thing new but what you have said already over and over I therefore answer by denying the Major and say That a man may keep the whole Law in the sense of this text and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your sense And though I do confess we are bound to keep and observe all the other nine Commandments yet we are not bound to observe the command for the seventh-day-sabbath which is one of the ten Commandments And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to serve God I confess we are to observe that also though we are not tied to the seventh day Dr. Cham. Well then I will prove the Major thus If the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole Law Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law are bound to keep the ten Commandments But the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole law Ergo. M. Ives I deny the minor and say that in the sense of this text this word the whole law doth not contain all the ten Commandments Dr. Cham. I further argue If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole Then he is commanded to keep the whole But he that breaks one Commandments is guilty of the whole Ergo He is commanded to keep the whole It is observable that the Doctor made three essays to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing denyed but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie Mr. Ives I deny the whole Syllogism because it concludes not the matter in question for the thing in question is Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the sense of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments and by consequence the Seventh-day-Sabbath and your Argument concludes we must keep the whole and all the Commandments which was never denyed Dr. Cham. If you deny Scripture I have done with you Mr. Ives I do not deny the Scripture but your Syllogism which concludes not the thing in question as I have shewn you once and again As it hath been answered that S. James doth not write to Gentiles and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments by this word The whole Law and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sabbath so it may further be answered that if those words The whole Law should respect the Law of Moses then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law they are bound to Circumcision also and every other Ceremony of the Law therefore there Apostle saith Gal. 5.3 that if they were circumcised they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law By which it appears that the believing Gentiles that were not circumcised were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law So that when St. James enjoyns the keeping of the whole Law he tells us what Law he means in Chap. 1. v. â—â— compared with Chap. 2. v. 12. where he call it the law of Liberty by way of distinction from the law of Moses which is called a yoke of Bondage Gal. 4.3 9. Acts 15.10 which law of Liberty is called the law of Christ Gal 6.2 and is no less then the Gospel that is preached which S. James bids them not to be forgetful hearers of Jam. 1.25 but admonisheth them to look into the perfect law of liberty and to continue therein So that the Doctor had no reason to say that the Scripture was denyed by his Respondent because he denyed the Law that required the Seventh-day-Sabbath to be contained in the whole Law mentioned by S. James It seemeth then very strange that in a free and publike Disputation the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scriptures because he denyed his sense thereof which was all that the Doctor said unto this last Argument And the time of his Opponencie being ended the Doctor was by Agreement to answer Mr. Ives his Arguments which take as followeth Mr. Ives I shall undertake by the help of God to prove that all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath If the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Then all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath But the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Ergo All Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Dr. Cham There is no such kinde of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Mr. Ives Sir I will shew you such a kinde of creature since you seem to be ignorant therefore pray look into Acts 21.25 and you shall see that the Gentiles are called believing Gentiles which is all one with Christian Gentiles And if
hast heard and lived ver 35. Unto THEE it was shewed c. and ver 36. Out of heaven He made THEE to hear His voice So that Israels Law in which the Sabbath was contained was made for man and yet not for every man Again God saith It is not good that man should be alone Gen. 2.18 here the Lord made a woman for Adam but would it not be ridiculoâ—â— to reason thus Whatever the Lord made for Adam every man is bound to keep would it not then for low that Paul and all other men sin that have 〈◊〉 wives because the woman was made for Adam not this as good Logick as Mr. Tillams who saith The Sabbath was made for man and therefore every man is bound to keep it Mr. Tillam If that Text alleadged by you Deut. 5. be understood of Adam then you have over thrown your Argument yesterday wherein you denyed the extent of the Law of Moses to all men Mr. Ives It is true that if Adam or the word man be always understood for every individual man then my saying that God gave the Law in Sinaâ— unto MAN doth overthrow what I said yesterday and to day too but this is begging the Question and taking it for granted that where-ever any thing is spoken of or to MAN or HOMO that it is to be understood of every man then which nothing is more false as I have already shewn Mr. Tillam As to what you objected from Gen. 8.21 I answer that by Gods cursing the ground for MANS sake it is to be understood of all men universally because all men sinned in Adam Mr. Ives 〈◊〉 say again that God did not curse the ground 〈◊〉 the sin of Noah but for the wickedness of that 〈◊〉 and therefore Noah is excepted when God 〈◊〉 the ground was cursed for mans sake he 〈◊〉 of Noah Thee have I sound upright in this â—eneration therefore you see that a thing may 〈◊〉 done for MANS sake when it is not done or the sake of every man So the Sabbath â—ight be made for man and yet not for every individual man as hath been already shewn once and again Mr. Tillam Noah was under the curse being made a prisoner in the Ark whereas otherwise he should have been free and every man feels the curse of Adam upon him Again to the Text Deut. 5. when the Word saith he spake to man he means that he did not speak to children The question was not Whether Noah did not in some measure suffer by reason of the Deluge but whether this curse was for his sake Good men may suffer in a common calamity when the calamity may not be for their sakes but for the sake of those wicked men among whom they dwell Again How could it be a curse for Noah to be saved in the Ark I confess this is such a Paradox that the world never heard of before And whereas it is said God spake with man Deut. 5. to signifie that he did not speak to children Weâ—â— then it follows from hence that MAN is noâ— always taken for every son and daughter of Adamâ— as Mr. Tillam hath been pleading but as God 〈◊〉 said to speak to man by way of distinction from children so as hath been said he is said to speaâ— to MAN when he did speak to Israel by way 〈◊〉 distinction from all other Nations in the world 〈◊〉 hath already been plentifully shewed Mr. Tillams second Argument If the Gentiles that could not be Prosolyteâ— nor joyned to the Jewes were bound to keeâ— the seventh-day Sabbath then all men weâ—â— bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath buâ— that such Gentiles are so bound I prove out oâ— Esai 56.5 6. Thus saith the Lord to the Eunuch that keep my Sabbath c. And let not the son of the stranger that is joyned to the Lord say The Lord hath surely separated me c. Mr. Ives I answer first These terms in the Text arâ— like the term MAN which you last insisted on and how can an universal Proposition be concluded when the premises are but indefinite But secondly As this Text doth not respect all men so it doth not relate to beleevers in Gospel times which is the thing you are to prove and that this Text doth not relate to beleevers in Gospel times there are these Reasons in the Text it self First Because it respects the time in which Sacrifices and burnt-Offerings were to be offered ver 7. where God tells these men whoever they are that if they do the thing that pleaseth him that their Burnt-Offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon his Altar c. Secondly This saying in Esay doth not respect those strangers that should be Proselyted 〈◊〉 the Christian Religion in the time of the Gospel but such as were Proselyted to the Jews Religion in the time of the Law for it is said that even them he viz. God will bring to to his holy mountain and make them joyful in his house of prayer ver 7. 3. That this house of Prayer was not Christ's spiritual house the Church of the New Testament appears by Christ's own words Mat. 21.12 13. And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought and overthrew the tables of the mony-changers and the seats of them that sold doves and said to them It is written My house shall be called the house of prayer but ye have made it a den of theeves So that it appears plainly by the words of Christ that this house of which the Prophet speaketh was the material temple which they had made a house of merchandize by buying and selling in it and not the spiritual House of Christ in the New testament Mr. Tillam I say the time spoken of in Esay 56. is the Gospel-times because in the first verse it speaks of a Salvation to come and a Righteousness to be revealed secondly because it speaks of Eunuchs that were to be joyned to the Lord which could not respect the times of the Law because in the Law Deut. 23.1 it is said that an Eunuch shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord. Mr. Ives I answer first by concession that the time spoken of in the first verse is the Gospel-times but the Text doth not say they shall keep the sabbath when those times come but the Promises of the Benefits that should accrew to them by Christ as his coming used as motives to stir up the people to do the things that were THEN required as appears vers 1. Thus saith the Lord Keep judgement and DO justice FOR my salvation is at hand TO come as if the Lord had said You that do expect benefit by the salvation TO come in the Gospel must be very careful to do those things that are commanded in the Law And whereas it is said that this must needs respect Gospel-times because the Eunuch is said to be admitted which could not be under the Law I answer first
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 proveâ— 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 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
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-day is urged by Moses as the Reason of the Law that injoyns Israel to keep the 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
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
secondly I deny the Minor and so That James doth not require the keeping of the whole Law according to the old Testament Mr. Coppinger I prove the Minor thus They that break one point of the Law in the old Testament they are guilty of the whole and cannot fulfil this law But he that breaks the seventh day sabbath breaks one point of the Law in the old Testament Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny the Major and say A man may break some points of the law contained in the Old Testament and yet keep this Law required in Jam. 2. Mr. Coppinger If you can prove that we can keep the law according to the old Testament and not keep the seventh day sabbath you do something Mr. Ives Your answer is impertinent for the proof doth lie upon you Secondly you cannot prove we can keep the Law according to the old Testament unless we are circumcised doth it follow that then wee must be circumcised But thirdly if I can prove that believers may keep the law in Jam. 2. according to any scripture without keeping the seventh day sabbath it is sufficient Mr. Coppinger The strength of my Argument lyeth in this That believers must keep the Law according to the scriptures of the old Testament which they could not do without keeping the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives And the strength of my Answer lyeth in this That then they must be circumcised otherwise they cannot keep the whole Law according to the old Testament to which you make no Reply Mr. Coppinger I argue further If Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. then they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. Ergo Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath This Argument contains two Parts The one is That Christian Gentiles are bound to keep this law Jam. 2. The other is That this Law contains the seventh day sabbath First he speaks to Christians in general therefore to Gentiles Because he calls them Brethren and writeth to them as Believers and tells them that if they kept the Royal Law according to the scripture they should do well and withal tells them that whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all Secondly That the seventh day sabbath was a point of this Law I thus reason If the Apostle refers them to the Scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the Law according to the old Testament except they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is one point of this law Jam. 2. But the Apostle refers them to the scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the law according to the old Testament unless they kept the seventh day sabbath Ergo they could not keep the whole Law Jam. 2. unless they kept the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I have answered to this Argument over and over and therefore I shall take a little time to speak a few words more and then I shall desire we may go to a fresh Argument First then this word whole Law it either respects the whole Law that the Jews were to observe or the whole Law that Christians are to observe if the whole Law here respect the Law that the Jews were to observe then if we should be bound to that we should be bound to observe Ceremonies as well as Morals for thus whole Law is understood both in the Old and New Testament when it relates to the Laws the Jews were to keep as appears Gal. 5.3 compared with 2 Chron. 33.8 where God tells Israel that he will never remove them if they will keep the WHOLE law with the Statutes and Ordinances But secondly This word whole law doth relate to the Law of liberty which believers are to keep which is opposed to the yoke of bondage as appears by comparing James 1. ver 25. with James 2 and 12 where he bids them so speak and so do â—s those that should be judged by the Law of liberty which is opposed to the Law of Moses for that it is called a yoke of bondage So that here is not one word of the seventh day sabbath but indeed of a royal Law and a Law of liberty which Christians are bound to keep according to the Scriptures in doing by all men as they would be done untoâ— for what Law soever Christ hath commended and confirmed to us out of the Scriptures of the old Testament these laws indeed we must keep according to the Scriptures of the old Testament but Christ hath not confirmed the Saturday sabbath and therefore we are not to look into the old Testament for our information therein Any otherwise then as the fourth Commandment enjoyns A time to worship and so hath something in it that is of use unto all Mr. Coppinger I come now to a second Argument to prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath If Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles then all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles Ergo all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I demand what you mean when you say There is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles do you mean no difference in point of precept or in point of priviledges Mr. Coppinger I mean no difference in point of Nations Mr. Ives This is no answer to the question my question is about difference in precepts or priviledges Mr. Coppinger I answer that there is no difference between the believing Jews and Gentiles in point of precept Mr. Ives Then I deny the Minor there is a difference in point of precept Mr. Coppinger Then you grant the Major that saith If believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives If the Antecedent were true the Consequence would not follow and therefore I do not grant the Major however I desire you to prove that part of the Minor as you have explained it that saith Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are all one in point of precepts Mr. Coppinger If there be a difference between believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in point of precept it is either mentioned in the 15 of the Acts or the 21 of the Acts or you must assigne some other text where there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precepts But it is not in the 15 of the Acts not the 21 of the Acts and you cannot assigne any other place Ergo there is no difference between
14 of Leviticus you shall see that the Priest was to offer the burnt Offering and the meat Offering upon the ALTAR and the Priest shall make an Atonement for him and he shall be clean Mr. Coppinger But what if here was an Altar this was spoken by Christ to the leper after he came off the mount but our difference lay about the meaning of the word Altar and Gift in Christs Sermon upon the Mount Mat. 5. Mr. Ives I pray Sir confess your Errour for shame for is it not a shame for you to to tell us that Christ commanded the Leper to offer his Gift without an Altar when Christ bid him offer it as Moses commanded and when you turned to the Law of Moses did you not say the Priest was to offer without an Altar and now I shew you that the Priest did offer upon the Altar for the clensing of the Leper you put it off and tell me What if there were an Altar it is not to your purpose why did you not say so at first and save us this labour but give me leave to tell you again that it is to my purpose to shew you the Errour of your Argument for if Christ commands the Leper to observe all those ceremonial observations for his clensing then is your Argument false that saith All things that Christ commanded us in his Sermon upon the Mount all believing Gentiles are bound to observe to the end of the world but you say this that Christ commands the Leper to do was not on the Mount but as soon as he came off the Mount this you say is nothing to Gift and Altar mentioned in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount I answer That the difference in places especially so little difference as between Christs being on the Mount and off from the Mount could not make a difference in his commands Secondly it cannot reasonably be imagined that Christ would command the Leper to do any thing when he came off the Mount that was contradictory to what he did command when he was upon the Mount therefore I have great reason to believe that the Altar that he commands them to offer their Gift on in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount is the material Altar like unto that which he bids the Leper offer his Gift on as soon as he comes off from the Mount Mat. 8. and this I the rather believe because that there is no text from the beginning of the Bible to the death of the Messiah that speaks of an allegorical Altar Mr. Coppinger It may be understood allegorically in this place though it might not be understood so in the old Testament as for instance the Apostle speaks of a text out of the Psalms in the third of the Romans where he saith They were all goâ—â— out of the way c. where he useth those general terms in a sence differing from the old Testament Mr. Ives I answer first That the Apostle doth not â—ut any other sence upon those words then David puts upon them in the Psalms secondly if he did that is no rule for you as for instance David saith in the sixteenth Psalm that God will not leave his soul in hell c. this the Apostle saith Act. 2.31 that David spake of the resurrection of Christ so in like manner though I may restrain a text when God restrains 〈◊〉 and allegorize a text when the holy Ghost â—oth warrant me may I therefore allegorize a â—ext when I have no warrant as you do this 〈◊〉 Mat. 5. which I shall leave to the Assembly 〈◊〉 judge whether the gift and altar upon which Christ commands the gift to be offered be allegorical or literal And if it be spoken of a â—aterial altar then have I confuted your Argument by shewing that some things that Christ commanded in his Sermon upon the Mount are not in force to all believing Gentiles to the end of the world Moderator I pray Sir if you have another Argument â—rge it briefly for I perceive the time is expired that you agreed to break off at Mr. Coppinger I shall then briefly urge one Argument which take as followeth If the seventh day sabbath was of force before the death of Christ to believing Gentiles then it is of force still But the seventh day sabbath was of force before the death of Christ to believing Gentiles Ergo it is of force still Mr. Ives SIR I wonder that you make Arguments that have not one true Proposition in them for this is like the last both Propositions being false however prove the Minor It is observable that Mr. Coppinger in the last Dispute before this did affirm That all the Gentiles were bound to keep all the ceremonies of the Law of Moses now then if this be a good Argument why we must keep the seventh day sabbath now because we were to keep it before the death of Christ then we must be circumcised and offer sacrifices for the same reason because he himself did confess that those things the Gentiles were bound to observe before the death of Christ Mr. Coppinger If the Reason of a Law doth remain the same that it was before Christs death the Law doth remain the same But the reason of the seventh day sabbath doth remain Ergo the Law for the seventh day sabbath doth remain Mr. Ives I deny the Major for that which you call the reason of a Law may remain the same when the Law doth not remain and for this I shall give you two instances instead of many The first is Exod. 23.11 there you shall find that the reason why God would have Israel to keep the seventh year for a sabbath in which â—hey should not gather that which grew of its â—own accord it was for the good of the poor â—hat the poor of thy people might be refreshed Exod. 23. now a man may as well say he must let his and lie every seventh year because the reaâ—on remains viz. That he may refresh the poor of his people as he may say he must keep the â—eventh day sabbath because the reason of that Law is in force which is That his stranger and â—ervant and cattle may be refreshed But further there is another reason urged why we must keep the Law that commands he seventh day sabbath and that is say you because we believe as well as the Jews that God made heaven and earth in six dayes and â—ested the seventh therefore we as well as the Jews must work six dayes and keep the Saturday or seventh day sabbath I say this conseâ—ence doth not follow for the reason why â—srael was commanded to sanctifie the priests â—he sons of Aaron was because the Lord their God did sanctifie them Lev. 21.8 now though I do believe with Israel that the Lord doth sanctifie me yet I am not bound for this reason to sanctifie the priests the sons of Aaron thuâ— you see by these two instances that the reason of a Law
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-day sabbath though occasionally there is mention made of all other moral duties Argum. 2 The next Reason that is rendred
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-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
the sixth Argument and that is drawn from Mat. 24.20 ver where Christ bids the Disciples pray that their flight was not on the Sabbath day whence it is inferred that if Christ would not have had the sabbath sanctified after his Resurrection he would never have cautioned his Disciples to pray that their flight was not upon the seventh day sabbath which was a Prophesie to be fulfilled after the Resurrection I answer that this proves no more that Christ would have the sabbath sanctified by the beleeving Gentiles then it proves he would have the winter time sanctified for he likewise bids them pray that they might not fly in the winter Secondly if the sabbath had been in force they might fly to save their lives on the sabbath and therefore that could not be the reason why they should pray they might not fly upon the sabbath for if Christ a allowed his Disciples to walk through the corn-fields upon the sabbath and pluck the ears of corn to satisfie a little hunger he would not if the sabbath had been in force have judged it a breach of the sabbath for them to fly to save their lives Thirdly The reason why they were to pray that they might not fly on that day was because the seditious Jews as stories make mention were so zealous of their sabbaths that if any for fear of an enemy should have offered to fly to save his life upon the sabbath the Jews themselves would have laid hands first upon him therefore Christ bids them pray that they may not fly then lest they should be in perils by their Countrymen as well as by the Romans who should invade them which perils of their own Countrymen they were not so likely to meet with in their flight upon another day Object But it is further Objected Why is that day called a sabbath day which was to come to pass after the Ascension if Christ would not have it observed I answer That it was ordinary for the Jews days to be called after the death of Christ by the old names they had before as the Passeover is frequently so called by the Apostles after those things were abolished Act. 12.3 Act. 18.21 Act. 20.16 and so 1 Cor. 16.8 Paul faith be will tarry at Ephesus till Pentecost so that Christs calling it by the name of the sabbath day doth no more prove it is in force then Paul's mentioning the feast of Pentecost proves that we ought to observe the feast of Pentecost Argum. 7 It is said after Christ was dead that the women prepared spices and oyntments and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment Luke 23.56 Therefore the sabbath day was a commandment in force after Christ was dead I answer First that these were not beleeving Gentiles which are the subjects under debate But secondly the Law of the New Testament was not established till Christs Resurrection when he faith Mat. 28.18 That all power in Heaven and Earth was given to him therefore no marvel that these were found in their Old Testament observations Thirdly It was no easie matter to take off the zeal even of beleeving Jews themselves from the Law of Moses after Christ was ascended you see this in Peter who was an eminent Apostle yet he had so much Conscience of the Law after the partition-wall was broken down that he would not eat with the Gentiles nor eat any thing which in the Law was common or unclean Act. 10.14.28 and so Act. 21.20 21. there were thousands of Jews that did beleeve that were zealous of the Commandments doth it therefore follow that those Commandments were in force in like manner it doth not follow that because these women kept the seventh day sabbath according to the command that therefore the Commandment for the sabbath was to be in force to beleeving Gentiles after Christs Resurrection Fourthly If this were a good Argument the Jewish women kept the Sabbath according to the Commandment after Christ was dead therefore the commandment is in force to beleeving Gentiles after his Resurrection would it not be as good an Argument for a man to say that Paul being a Jew kept the Feast of Pentecost after Christ was risen therefore beleeving Gentiles might keep the Feast of Pentecost since Christ is risen Argum. 8 Christ faith the sabbath was made for man Mark 2.27 which is to be understood of every man therefore it is a Law binding to beleeving Gentiles I answer First That all the whole Law of Israel was made for man doth it therefore follow that all that law was binding to beleeving Gentiles that all that whole law that was given upon the mount both Moral and Ceremonial was made for man see Deut 5.24 You have seen this day that God doth talk with MAN and he liveth Now God was said to speak to MAN in this place and yet this word man is restrained to the Nation of Israel unless any will be so absurd as to think that all the Laws given upon mount Sinai were for ever binding to all the world in like manner the sabbath might be made for man as the rest of the Jews Laws were which yet are not universally binding Secondly It is said That the woman was made for MAN which is the same and yet it may be good for a man not to touch a woman 1 Cor. 7.1 by which it appears that though a woman was made for Adam or man yet a man may lawfully live without a woman so though the seventh day sabbath was made for man which in Greek is Anthropos it doth no more follow that therefore every man must keep the seventh day then it follows that because a woman was made for man that therefore every man is bound to marry Argum. 9 The next Scripture levied for to prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded is Heb. 4.9 there remains a rest or sabbalism for the people of God From whence it is urged first that the people of God must keep a sabbath therefore beleeving Gentiles being Gods people must keep a Sabbath Secondly That this is the seventh day appears say they because the Author to the Hebrews alludeth to the seventh day on which God rested ver 4. I answer First by concession that that sabbath or rest there mentioned the people of God both Jews and Gentiles shall keep and enjoy But secondly This is not the seventh day sabbath or rest first because the seventh day sabbath was a rest commanded but this is a rest or sabbath promised as appears verse the first Let us fear lest a PROMISE being left of entring into rest any should come short through unbeleef Secondly This could not be the seventh day rest because it is a rest only provided for beleevers to enter into but unbeleevers might enter into the seventh day rest and so might their cattle also therefore unbeleevers did not nor could not enter into this rest ver 11. Let us therefore labour to enter into that rest lest
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