the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Laws but because they violated the law of Nature by those unnatural and unlawful lusts mentioned in the former verses But secondly If they viz. the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Statutes then they were cast out because they did not observe the Ceremonial Laws of Israel as well as any of the rest And lastly whereas you say that the Sabbath mentioned in the 19 chapter is included in all the Laws mentioned in the 20 chapter I answer So is the reverencing the Sanctuary required in the same ver where the sabbath is required and offering of sacrifices and counting the fruit of the trees as uncircumcised the first three yeers after they were planted I say all these things are as truly commanded in the 19 chapter as the seventh-day sabbath and are as necessarily included in that universal term all the statutes and all the judgments mentioned in the 20 chapter now then by the same rule that you can say the law writ in the heart did require the Gentile Nations to keep all Israels statutes and so consequently the seventh-day sabbath mentioned in the nineteenth chapter I say by the same rule the Gentile Nations are commanded by the law written in their heart to keep the law that requireth them to reverence the Sanctuary and offer Sacrifices and count the fruit of the trees uncircumcised three yeers after they were planted which cannot be imagined Mr. Coppinger I answer that though the reverencin the Sanctuary and offering Sacrifices and counting the trees uncircumcised were commandments given to Israel yet these are not called statutes and judgments so that though the Nations were to observe all Israels statutes by the law written in the heart yet they were not to observe all other of their commandments therefore I answer you by distinguishing and say that the Ceremonial laws were Ordinances and Appointments but not statutes and though the Nations were to keep all Israels statutes by the law writ in their hearts among which the seventh-day sabbath was one yet the Nations are not to keep those ceremonies mentioned by you for they are no where called statutes so that statutes is one thing and Ordinances is another Mr. Ives There is no difference and this distinction is light as vanity for all Gods Ordinances are statutes and appointments and the ceremonial Ordinances were Gods statutes as well as other Laws Mr. Coppinger Where any Laws are called Ordinances there they are understood for the ceremonial laws and not for the ten commandments or law writ in the heart and where any commandments are called statutes they are not understood of the ceremonial laws Here Mr. Tillam standeth up to justifie Mr. Coppinger's distinctions viz. that Gods laws were one thing and his statutes and judgments another and for this he cites Mal. 4. where it is said Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgments from hence Mr. Tillam would have proved a difference between statutes laws and appointments Thereupon Mr. Gosnold standing by told both Mr. Coppinger and Mr. Tillam that he wondred they should abuse the audience with such a needless vain distinction since that in their conscience they knew that the word was statutum est and that there was no difference between the words statute and appointment save that the one was a Latine word and the other an English word and further that they might as well say there was a difference between likeness and similitude as between statute and appointment Mr. Den also being then present did sharply reprove Mr. Tillam for justifying Mr. Coppinger in making this vain distinction since that he pretended to learning and scholarship and as such a distinction doth argue a man to have little of a scholar or else little of conscience so it doth argue a man to have but a slender acquaintance with the Scripture and therefore unfit to be a teacher for if either Mr. Coppinger or Mr. Tillam had been but competently acquainted with the Scriptures they would never have uttered before many hundreds of people then assembled that the ceremonial laws were never called statutes for besides what hath been said whoever reads but Exod. 29.9 and 28. shall find the priests office called a statute and the Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetual STATUTE and the offering is called a STATUTE Levit. 3.16 17. and the offering is called an everlasting STATUTE to make an atonement c. Levit. 16.33 34. Exod. 27.21 Exod. 28 43. Levit. 10.9 Levit. 23.14 21. the resting from labour on the day of atonement is called a STATUTE ver 31. Levit. 24.9 Numb 19.21 27. 11. 35.29 yet notwithstanding all these texts together with many more that might be named these men tell us that the ceremonies were never called statutes Well then since it is plain that the ceremonies of the law are called statutes it followeth that the Gentiles by the law writ in their hearts were not commanded to keep all Israels statutes for then as hath been urged they were bound by the law writ in their hearts to keep the ceremonial laws of the Israelites which is among the first-born of senseless imaginations this being the issue the Argument was brought to Mr. Ives proceeded to another which was as followeth Mr. Ives That law which is not Moral the Law of Nature doth not binde the Gentiles to observe But the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not Moral Ergo The law of Nature doth not binde the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and do say that the law that requireth the seventh-day sabbath is a Moral law Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus That law which cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition is not a Moral law But the Law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition Ergo the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not a Moral law Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and say that the law for the seventh-day sabbath may be known another way then by tradition for it may be known by the law written in the heart Mr. Ives I pray then assign a text that saith the seventh-day sabbath may be known by the law writ in the heart Mr. Coppinger It is written in the second of the Romans and the fourteenth That the Gentiles which had not the law did by Nature the things contained in the law now if they did by Nature the things contained in the law of Moses and the seventh-day sabbath was one thing contained in the law of Moses then if the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the law then they 〈◊〉 the seventh-day sabbath but the Text saith the Gentiles did by Nature the THINGS contained in the law and the seventh-day Sabbath was a thing contained in the law
that night I cannot tell but this I know that he allowed him the liberty of opening shop that night when we were iâ— company together And whereas Mr. Tillam saith that his conscience was troubled all night about Mr. Coppingers opening his shop it seems then they were not agreed in their consciences concerning the matter of opening and not opening upon their sabbath-day Mr. Ives I have shewn that the law for the seventh-day Sabbath is not a moral law because there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law 〈◊〉 there may be a moral necessity by Mr. Tillam'â— and Mr. Coppingers own confession and practice to break the seventh-day Sabbath Therefore the Law for the seventh-day Sabbath cannâ—â— be a moral law I now proceed to shew that as the seventh-day sabbath is not in force by any moral law or law writ in the heart so in the next place I shall prove it is not in force by the Law of Moses which I thus do Those which had not Moses Law to command them were not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath But the beleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them Ergo The beleeving Gentiles were not bound by Moses law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny your Minor and do say that the beleeving Gentiles had Moses Law to command them Mr. Ives If the beleeving Gentiles had Moses law to command them then the unbeleeving Gentiles had Moses law to command them also But the unbeleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them Ergo The beleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them Mr. Coppinger I deny both Major and Minor and put you to prove both Mr. Ives First The Cousequence of the Major is good because according to your opinion and confession the beleeving Gentiles are bound to obey the law of Moses by the law in nature if so then the unbeleeving Gentiles are bound by the Law in Nature also because the Law of Nature is the same to the unbeleever in respect of the power of it as it is to the beleever And the Minor I prove viz. that the unbeleeving Gentiles have not Moses law to command them and this I do by the words of the Text Rom. 2.14 the Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW c. Whence I argue That it was either the law of Moses or the law of Nature which the Text saith the Gentiles had not But it was not the law of Nature Ergo It was the Law of Moses Now it is manifest that they were not without the Law of Nature for the Text saith That was written in their hearts ver 15. therefore my Argument is proved that the law they were without was the Law of Moses and therefore by Moses Law they could not be commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I do distinguish of the Law of Moses as it was written and unwritten Now though the Gentiles had not Moses Law in writing yet they had it unwritten so that it doth not follow because the text saith the Gentiles were without Moses Law that therefore they had it not in any sence for they had the same Law the Jews had only they had it not in writing as for instance the Records of the Law are kept at London is not York therefore under the same Law But suppose we should read the Text as Mr. Ives notions it that the Gentiles had not the Law of Moses would it not be ridiculous and further this Law in the second of the Romans is the Law that all were to be be judged by at the day of judgment ver 27. which is one and the same Law spoken of throughout the whole Chapter Therefore the Law written in the heart and the Law upon Tables of stone are all one and the same Law so that they viz. the Gentiles had the Law of Moses unwritten though not written and therefore your Argument is not proved from the Text. Mr. Ives Mr. Coppingers Answer had been good if he had shewn us by the Scripture that there was a Mosaical Law unwritten which I think is a conceit that the whole world is a stranger to and if Mr. Coppinger cannot do this his Answer is no answer But secondly that the Law of Nature Rom. 2. is not the Mosaical Law as he imagineth appears because then the Holy Ghost makes a needless distinction of having a Law and not having a Law and of being under the Law and without the Law if there were no more difference then there is between London and York For those that live at York are under the written Law of England though those Laws are recorded at London because Proclamations are written and sent down and posted in their market places so that the distinction is not made good by the similitude for York is as truly under the written law as London and in no sence can be said to be without law and so were all the cities of Judea though at a distance from Jerusalem under the written law of Moses because they were to have copies of the law in every city by Gods appointment to be read among them But the Gentiles are therefore said to live without the law because they had not the law of Moses which distinction would be vain if whatsoever was written in Moses law in tables of stone was writ in the hearts of the Gentiles also for then in no sense they could be said to be without the law and not under the Law And whereas you say the sense of the Text is not good as I notion it you might as well say the sense of the Text was not good as the Apostle notions it for I said no more in my Argument then the Apostle said in the text viz. That the Gentiles were without law And lastly whereas you say this Law that the Gentiles lived under is Moses law because all were to be judged by it I answer that the contrary is most true as appears by consulting the text For the Text doth distinguish the law of Nature from the law of Moses because that every body shall not be judged by the Jews law but them that sinned without the law shall be judged WITHOUT the law whence I argue that if the Law of Moses be so differenced that God will not judge every body by it then the difference is more then in the meer writing and transcribing of it But the law of Moses is so different that God will not judge every body by it Ergo the difference is more then a meer writing and transcribing of it As for example Mr. Coppinger told us but now that there was no more difference between the Jews living under the law the Gentiles living without the law then there is between the people that live at York and London if the difference be no greater as he would make us beleeve how coms it to pass that at York the people are judged by the same
15. compared with Act. 21. Now if the Holy Ghost had said in the case of days You may keep every day alike except the seventh day sabbath then there had been somewhat in your instance otherwise the instance confirms the Argument Mr. Coppinger Here the Apostle doth refer the Observation of days to their own mind and so he doth the eating of all things therefore Mr. Ives hath done my work for me by assigning Acts 15. where blood and things strangled and things offered to Idols are excepted If then I shew that the seventh-day sabbath is as expresly and particularly excepted I have answered his Argument by his own confession and that it is excepted you may see in Jam. 2. and Mat. 5.17 18. Mr. Ives That which you promised was That you would shew as particular an exception of the seventh-day sabbath out of every day as I had shewn you against eating all things and instead thereof you assigne me two general texts where the whole Law and every jot and tittle of the Law is required to be kept and observed both which texts have been denyed to include the seventh-day sabbath to be in force because offering of sacrifices is required in the fifth of Matthew as well as other things where Christ bids those to whom he preached to go and be reconciled to their brother and then come and offer their gift which Law is not binding to the believers in these days But is it not strange that a man in his right wits should tell us That he would assigne a text where the sabbath was excepted out of this word every day in as express terms as blood and things strangled are excepted out of every thing and instead of a particular exception he produceth two general texts that have not the least word of a Sabbath in them but doth not this leave the Argument unanswered for by the same rule he can say That the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text when the Apostle saith We may observe every day alike I say by the same rule and with much more strength of reason it may be denyed that the sabbath is included in those general terms All the Law and the whole Law but sure I am that it was never heard of that such general texts were ever called express and particular exceptions against a general term in a Syllogism by any that ever understood the difference between a particular and a general term Mr. Coppinger The texts I named tell us that the whole Law is to be observed and every tittle of it till it be fulfilled and the seventh-day sabbath was included therefore if any man teach otherwise he teacheth contrary to sound Doctrine And as touching bringing gifts to the Altar and offering sacrifices mentioned in that Text Matt 5. these things Christ hath fulfilled and nailed to his Cross * And lyet when Mr Ives did dispute the next time with Mr. Coppinger he said That Altar was not understood for a literal Altar But said The Altar and the Gift in Mat. 5. was both to be understood Allegorically and yet here he doth confess that the text speaks of such an Altar and such a Gift that were types of Christ and that ended at his death Compare therefore this saying with his Argument upon the fifth of Matthew in the next ensuing Dispute if not they shall remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain and so must the seventh-day sabbath unless Mr. Ives can shew us that it is fulfulled by Christ and that because it hath Heaven and Earth for its reason Mr. Ives All this while there is no particular exception made against my former Argument from the fourteenth of the Romans as you promised me but instead thereof you repeat the text Mat. 5. whence you infer That Heaven and Earth shall pass before the law shall pass till it be fulfilled of which law the sabbath say you must needs be a part What if that were granted doth that prove that all the law mentioned in Mat. 5. is in force have not you confessed that offerings mentioned in the same chapter were fulfilled and abolished by Christ which very Confession of yours hath made the text uncapable to do you that service for which you cited it For how can any man safely conclude any particular proposition to be binding from a general text when he himself shall say Some things intended in that general text cannot be concluded from it as binding so that the Argument yet remains unanswered viz. That believers have no tie upon them by vertue of Moses law to observe one day above another and therefore they are not tied by Moses law to keep the seventh-day sabbath And though we have this freedom by Christ from the Mosaical institutions it doth not therefore follow as some fondly do imagine that therefore we are not to set apart a time under the Gospel to worship and serve God Somewhat hath been spoken to this in the former Dispute with Mr. Tillam and more shall be spoken in the insuing Appendix But we proceed to the next Argument Mr. Ives Because Mr. Coppinger confessed that if the seventh-day sabbath was fulfilled by Christ 〈◊〉 the Altar and Gifts mentioned in Mat. 5. that then we were not to observe it otherwise it was to continue I shall therefore shew that the seventh-day sabbath is fulfilled by Christ thus If the seventh-day sabbath be a weak and beggerly Rudiment then Christ hath fulfilled it But the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment Ergo Christ hath fulfilled it Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor The seventh day is not a weak and beggerly Rudiment Mr. Ives If all the times commanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudiments then the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment But all the times comanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudiments Ergo the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor all the times commanded to be observed in the law are not weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Ives If there was no time commanded to be observed in the Law but dayes months times and years and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments then all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggerly Rudiments But there was no time commanded to be observed in the law but days months times and years and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments Ergo all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and put you to prove that the days months times and yeers that were commanded to be observed in the Law were weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Ives This I shall do from Gal. 4.9 10 11. the words are these How turn ye again to those weak and beggerly Rudiments whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage Ye observe days and months and times and yeers I am afraid of you lest I have
bestowed upon you labour in vain Mr. Coppinger These dayes mentioned in the Text they are not the Jewish but the Gentile Observations of days as appears by considering the eighth verse where it is said They did service to that which by nature was not God which must needs be understood of the Gentiles Mr. Ives Sir you did but even now tell us That the Jews and Gentiles were under one and the same Law and that the Law of Nature had all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in it if you then said true what reason have you to imagine that the Jews might not do service to such as by nature were not gods even as the Gentiles did since the Gentiles had by your own confession one and the same law to inform them in the truth and to shew them what was errour But secondly the Jews did worship that which by nature was not God many a time and often and therefore it doth not follow that these words must be restrained to the Gentiles onely for the Jews made them a Calf and said it was their god Exod. 32 8. And to this might be added Isa 2.8 20. Mic. 5.13 1 King 9. 9. 1 King 11.23 where it is said that the Children of Israel worshipped Ashtoreth the god of the Zidonians and Chemosh the god of the Moabites and Milcom the god of the Children of Ammon c. and it 's further said that when God will bring them into their own Land and convert them to the knowledge of Christ that he will cleanse them from all their Idols Ezekiel 36.25 37 23. By which it appears â—hat the Apostles saying They did service to that which by nature was not God doth not prove this spoken of Gentiles onely since that the Idolatry of â—he Jews was one great cause of Gods scattering â—f them among the heathen as at this day Mr. Coppinger These days which the Apostle speaks of were the Gentiles dayes which they did obâ—erve in imitation of the Jews as the Jews had 〈◊〉 Table of the Lord and the Gentiles had a Table of Devils Mr. Ives If you consult the text together with what â—ath been said in my former Reply you will â—â—nde that this was spoken of the Jews and the â—â—ewish Rudiments from which Christ came 〈◊〉 redeem them as appears Gal. 4.3.4 Secondly because they were such Rudiments â—nder which the Jews were to continue till â—e time appointed of the Father Gal. 4.1 2. â—ow the Father never appointed any of the Gentiles Idolatrous Rudiments neither did God appoint any time for the Gentiles to conâ—â—ue in them therefore these could not be 〈◊〉 Idolatrous Rudiments of the Gentiles Thirdly they are complained of for observing â—â—ars which clearly shews that it doth not relate to the superstitious times of the Gentiles but to the times that were commanded of the Jews in the Law of Moses for it was never heard of that any Nation in the world did observe years besides the Jewâ— who indeed were to keep the seventh year and 〈◊〉 Jubilee year sacred and not to do any work 〈◊〉 them Fourthly and lastly the whole scope of this â—pistle to the Galatians is to reclaim the Jews from running back to the Mosaical Rudiments of the Law who did not onely Judaize themselves 〈◊〉 would have compelled the believing Gentiles to Judaize also as appears by Pauls blaming Peter 〈◊〉 so doing Gal. 2.14 and therefore he cautions 〈◊〉 not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage 〈◊〉 chap. 5. vers 1. Which is the bondage of the Mosaical Law as appears vers 2. and the same bondage which he feared they were turning to in the 〈◊〉 serving days moneths times and years as any 〈◊〉 may see that compareth the eighth and ninth very of the fourth of the Galatians Mr. Coppinger The Apostle doth detect them for observiâ—â— the Rudiments of the world as opposed 〈◊〉 them of the Church of God and this was 〈◊〉 the time that they knew not God when 〈◊〉 chose such days as he did not appoint Secondly the Ordinances of the Law 〈◊〉 glorious therefore he could not relate to the 〈◊〉 when he speaks of beggerly Elements Thirdly he labours to perswade them from such Idolatrous times lest his labour had been in vain in drawing them from their Idols Fourthly These Galatians being under a strong temptation to the bondage of the Law and Paul having confuted them by telling of them that then they must be circumcised which â—ndeed was useless hereupon they are ready to turn to their own heathenish Idolatry again as the Apostle feared Mr. Ives I have assigned several reasons why these times could not relate to the superstitious times of the Gentiles to which you have answered not a word but in the stead thereof endeaâ—our to prove that these were spoke of Gentile Rudiments First you say they must be gentile Rudiments â—ecause they are called the Rudiments of the world â—nd opposed to the Rudiments of Gods Church I answer that this proves not against me but your self for the Jewish Laws were called the Rudiments of the world Gal. chap. 4. vers 3. which they â—ere to continue under as children under tutors â—ll the time appointed of the Father And you â—our self told us That those Rudiments of the Jews were commanded and given in charge to all â—he world though now you seem to deny it Again you say the Ordinances of the Law were gloâ—ious therefore they could not be called beggerly â—nd weak I answer First though they were glorious yet now Christ is come that glory is no glory in comparison as appears 2 Cor. 3.9 10. Secondly the Apostle saith that the glory thereof was done away and therefore they are weak Thirdly the Author to the Hebrews calleth the Commandments and Rudiments of the Law weak and unprofitable which is all one with weak and beggerly even as a man that is weak and beggerly is not able to do any thing to profit even so the Author to the Hebrews phraseth it in saying That there was a disanulling of the Commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof And whereas you say the Apostle labours 〈◊〉 draw them from Idolatrous times and not Jewâ—â—â— I have in the former Reply given answer to this by shewing that this Notion is contrary to the scoâ—â— of the whole Epistle and whereas you say 〈◊〉 Galatians were under a strong temptation to the bondage of the Law and the Apostle having confuted that opinion they presently run back to the other extream of heathenish Idolatry I answer 〈◊〉 this conceit supposeth two Epistles to the Galatians for if conviction from Judaism had been the fruit of one Epistle turning them from the other extreaâ— of Idolatry must be the fruit of another Epistle because that which was written to remove them 〈◊〉 of Judaism could not at the same time complâ—â—â— of their going to the other extream of Gentilism 〈◊〉 as I have said this Notion must be
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
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
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
any man fall after the same example of unbeleef Thirdly Whereas it is said that the Author alludeth to the seventh day rest because it is said God rested the seventh day ver 4. I answer This Text doth no more prove that the Gentiles are commanded to observe that time of rest because the Author alludeth to the seventh day then it proves they were to observe that place or rest viz. the Land of Canaan because he alludeth to that place v 8. For if Joshua had given them rest he would not after wards have spoken of another day by which words the Author doth as truly allude to the place of rest that Joshua conducted Israel to in Canaan as he doth allude to the time of rest that God rested on and therefore this cleerly proves that both were typical for Joshua did give them the rest in Canaan and a rest upon the seventh day and yet he prophesies of another rest and another day which clearly proves this was neither the time of rest nor the place of rest that Israel did enjoy that the Author means but that place of rest and time of rest which under the Gospel the beleevers have in hope and which after all their labours and travels they shall at last have in hand and rest from all sorrow and labour when that great sabbath shall commence as God did from his labour when he had ended his work of Creation To this agrees Mat. 11 28. Come unto me all ye that labour and I will give you rest and Revel 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth faith the Spirit that they MAY rest from their labours and their works do follow them Arg. 10 I proceed to the next Text of Scripture which is much insisted on to prove the seventh day sabbath is in force to beleeving Gentiles by a Commandment and that is Jam. 2.8 10. where the whole Law is required and where it is said we should not offend in one point therefore the seventh day sabbath being a part and a point of the whole Law beleeving Gentiles are bound to observe it to this is added those words of Paul Rom. 3.31 We establish the Law Ans To which I answer first that this word Law and whole Law is variously taken in holy Scriptures and therefore it is not safe to conclude the seventh day Sabbath from such Texts lest we are forced at last to do as some did who some years since began to professe the Jewish Sabbath because it was a part of the Law and afterwards came by the force of the same reason to keep all the Jewish Ceremonies because they were parts of the whole Law and at last went over Sea and turned Jews and denied the Lord Christ to be the true Messiah And that the word Law is variously taken nothing is more manifest for there is a Law of Moses Mal. 4.4 and Acts 13.39 there is a Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 there is the Law of Nature Rom. 2.14 there is the Law of Works and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 there is the Law of Bondage Acts 15. and 10. Gal. 5.1 and there is a Law of Liberty James 1.25 and James 3.12 So speak and so de as they that shall be judged by the Law of LIBERTY Now the great Question will be which of these Laws James means when he tells us We must keep the whole law if he means the whole Law of Moses then we must as I have said observe Circumcision because the Jews did Circumcise that the Law of MOSES might not be broken Joh. 7.23 and the Apostle tells us Gal. 5.2 That be that was circumcised was bound to keep the WHOLE Law so that to understand this Text to be meant of Moses Law will necessarily introduce all Judaism but if we should understand it as indeed we ought for the Law of Liberty and the Law of Faith which is the Law that James speaks of in this Chapter and that Paul doth speak of when he saith Rom. 3.3 He doth establish the Law I say if we understand the word Law in this later fence for the Law of Christ the Law of Faith and the Law of Liberty I demand where any of these Laws do command a seventh day sabbath So that what ever the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith and Liberty and the Law of Nature do injoyn us to observe these we must observe in every point or we shall be guilty of all if we wilfully break the least Command required in these Laws which in no place commands a seventh-day sabbath and that James means the Law of Liberty the second Chapter 12 Verse will inform us For when he had in the 10 Verse told them that be that sinned in one point of the Law was guilty of all he tells them in the 12 Verse what Law he means and therefore bids so do as those that should be judged by the Law of Liberty so that unless any body can prove that the Law of Liberty doth command a seventh day sabbath they cannot prove from this Text that the believing Gentiles are bound to observe it any more then they are bound to observe all the Jewish rudiments the observation whereof experience tells us is the sad and evil consequence of this opinion Argum. 11 The eleventh Argument to prove the seventh day sabbath is more general then the former viz Because all Laws that were never repealed are in force therefore the seventh day sabbath is in force by a Law because it was once commanded and never repealed I answer if by the not repealing of a Law they do mean that which is not expresly and particularly repealed then we must keep the Passover for that was once a Law and was never repealed expresly and particularly Again we must keep the year of Jubilee for that was once a Law and it was never expresly and particularly repealed Furthermore by this Argument we must keep the seventh yeer for a sabbath and neither plow or sow our fields or do any work for that whole yeer because it was once commanded Levit. 25. and it was never expresly and particularly repealed but doth it therefore follow that we are bound to observe these things in like manner it doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath must be still observed because it was once commanded and in so many words was never repealed But lastly The seventh day sabbath is repealed in Col. 2. where it is called A shadow of things to come Argum. 12 We come now to those Texts that are urged for Examples and they are those that tell us that be Apostle preached in the Synagogue every SABBATH-day Act. 13.14 42. Act. 16.12 13. Act. 17.2 Act. 18.4 Whence it is inferred that we ought to walk as we have them for an Example therefore if they kept the seventh day sabbath we must I answer Then we must meet in a Jewish Synagogue as well as the Apostles did every sabbath day if
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