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-seventh-day Sabbath then all men weâ—â— bound to keep the seventh-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
bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Ergo All beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath It was answered yesterday that beleeving Gentiles were bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day sabbath some Arguments were then urged to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath the last of which Arguments did relate to the 20 of Exodus which I thus framed and do again urge it that it may be answered If that Law Exod. 20 which requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath be in force to the beleeving Gentiles then the punishment due to the trasgression of that Law by the Law-makers appointment is in force to the beleeving Gentiles also But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. by the Law-makers appointment is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles Ergo That Law Exod. 20. that requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath is â—ot in force to beleeving Gentiles Dr. Chamberlain As to the Law of Nature Moses and Christ 〈◊〉 do not think there is so many Law-givers as 〈◊〉 have so many distinctions but I do own 〈◊〉 20 of Exodus for a binding Law because 〈◊〉 Saviour saith Mat. 5. I am not come to destroy 〈◊〉 Law c. Now then If not one jor or tittle 〈◊〉 the Law shall fail then not the sabbath and consequentially not the punishment annexed â—worâ— the breach of it for without punishment 〈◊〉 Law is of no force for the strength of the 〈◊〉 being for the curbing of sinful Nature is 〈◊〉 no use unless there be a punishment and â—ithout it the Law would lose its force and â—â—gor and the execution of this Law is in the â—nd of such Magistrates as are Administrators â—â—der Christ Mr. Ives The Dr. should have directed his answer to my Argument by assigning a punishment appointed by the Law-maker to be inflicted upon beleeving Gentiles for not keeping the seventh-day sabbath but in stead thereof he confessth that the Law is of no force without a punishment well then by his own confession if there be no punishment to be inflicted upon the beleeving Gentiles then the Law that commands if any such there be hath lost its force and vigor and that the punishment is not in force I prove by this Argument If the punishment due to the breach of the seventh-day sabbath required Exod. 20. be in force by the Law-makers appointment to beleeving Gentiles then the Law-maker hath appointed some or other to inflict it but he hath appointed none to inflict it Ergo. Dr. Chamberlain I shall find out a better answerer then my self and that is the Apostle Paul Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.13 1 Pet. 4.15 in which text an evil doer is the general word and all evil doing is punishable by the Magistrates these are Sermons preached by Paul and Peter Mr. Ives My Argument was If the punishment in the LAW be in force then God hath appointed some or other to inflict it and if he hath I desired the Doctor to assign who God had appointed to inflict that punishment upon beleeving Gentiles which was appointed in the Law for seventh-day sabbath breakers and in stead thereof he cites several texts which we well knew before none of which requireth the Magistrate to punish the beleeving Gentiles with death for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath For first here is no mention made of the Sabbath nor of the punishment what it should be Secondly If by the Magistrates punishing all evil must be meant all the evils against the first Table as well as the Second then the Magistrate may and must determine all Doctrinal truths and punish such as shall err from his determination which the Dr. will not allow Thirdly the Dr. hath at one blow given away the Cause which the good people of this land have contended for in blood for this many yeers * Which is that they might have liberty to worship God according to their Consciences and that the Magistrate may not be a judg in Spirituals to punish with death or imprisonment all that differ from him in matters of faith or worship And lastly It is a begging the Question to take it for granted that Sabbath-breaking I mean the seventh-day Sabbath-breaking is an evil before it be proved to be so Dr. Chamberlain I shall own and have printed that Magistrates are allowed of God to punish the duties of the first and second Table only with this caution that he is not to apply Legal punishments to Gospel sins nor Gospel punishments to Legal sins and this I have proved out of the evidences of Peter and Paul so that as the Magistrate is to punish all outward Idolatry Swearing and Blasphemy so also the Sabbath but not that which is of mans invention but the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath which the Lord sanctified and for which he calls himself Lord of sabbaths and Christ was both a keeper and preacher of this Sabbath Mat. 12. now then for a man to keep nine of the Commandments and say the seventh-day sabbath which makes up the tenth is of no force is against Christ Mr. Ives I have offered that if the Magistrate be to punish all Idolatry by Gods appointment and also the breach of the seventh-day sabbath then he must also judg what is Idolatry and what is Sabbath-breaking and if so the Dr. may not be long before he be convicted For Idolatry is not only worshipping false Gods but the true God in a salfe manner But secondly Idolatry was in the Law punishable with death and the sabbath-breaker was to be stoned to death Now if the Law of Moses be in force and the punishment thereof in force against those that keep not Saturday-sabbath and as you have said the Civil Magistrate is to inflict it then according to your opinion the Reason why we live is because of the wickedness of the Civil Magistrate for if the Civil Magistrate did but that which you call his duty we should all of us by your Opinion be stoned to death before to morrow morning that do not keep the Saturday-Sabbath Where then is our Christian Liberty for by the Law of Moses I must be put to death for not keeping the Jews Sabbath if this opinion be true though 〈◊〉 conscience I am perswaded that it is a weak and â—â—ggerly Element unto which I ought not to be in â—â—ndage and yet so indulgent are men to their opiâ—â—ons that having once espoused them they will mainâ—â—in them maugre the liberty of all the conscientious â—â—ople in the Land I and their own liberty too for 〈◊〉 the same Rule the Magistrate may put a man 〈◊〉 death that doth not keep the Jews Sabbath for 〈◊〉 the Magistrate ought to do if he should be of 〈◊〉 Doctors opinion and hold that the seventh-day â—abbath required in the Law ought to be kept and 〈◊〉 at the punishment annexed
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
seventh-day sabbath be not required by Moses Law it is not by your own confession required by the Law of Nature or the Law of Christ and that it is not required by Moses Law I have proved and shall prove further by this Argument If believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath by vertue of Moses Law then they are commanded by that Law Exod 20. But the believing Gentiles are not required by that Law Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Ergo believing Gentiles are not required by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath Here Dr. Chamberlain forbears to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments and thereupon Mr. Tillam takes upon him the place of a Respondent whose Answers follow Mr. Tillam For my part I am against this Syllogistical way of Disputation and I had though you and that Gentleman that stands by you * Meaning Mr. Denn had been against all Academical wayes and rules of Disputation also Mr. Ives Truly Sir we had more reason to think you should be FOR such a way of Disputation then you had to think we were against it because you pretend to make use of so much in your late book however See the Epistle give me my liberty to argue this way as I have given Doctor Chamberlain and when it comes to your turn to oppose take what way you will so you prove the thing denyed I pass not in the mean time answer my Argument Mr. Tillam I pray repeat it again Mr. Ives The Argument is as before If believing Gentiles by vertue of Moses Law are commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are commanded by that Law Exod. 20. But believing Gentiles are not commanded by that Law Exod. 20. Ergo the believing Gentiles are not commanded by vertue of Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Tillam The Gentiles were bound to keep the Law that was given by God to Israel and particularly that of the seventh-day Sabbath and yet not by Exod. 20. ONELY for they were commanded in Exod 16. also Mr. Ives My Argument doth not say they were bound by the 20th of Exod. ONELY but that if they are bound by Moses Law 〈◊〉 you say they are then they are bound by that Text Exod. 20 where the sabbath is required among other Laws to be observed 〈◊〉 but that the same things might be required elsewhere now if I prove this Text in Exod. 20. doth not command the believing Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath then I have taken away the force of those Arguments you urge from thence in the behalf of it Mr. Tillam Well then I say the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath by vertue of the Command Exod 20. Mr. Ives I prove the believing Gentiles by that Text are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath by this Argument If that Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh-day sabbath Exod. 20. be nor in force to believing Gentiles then believing Gentiles are not bound by that Law Exod. 20. to observe the seventh-day sabbath But that Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh day sabbath Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound by that Law Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Here Mr. Tillam refused to answer to the Argument because he would not be tyed to deny Maâ—or or Minor and therefore one among the Company calls upon Mr. Ives to prove the Minor viz. That the Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh day sabbath Exod. 20. is not in force to believing Gentiles Mr. Ives Well because I would improve the time for Edification though here I might break off and forbear to argue when my Respondent shall refuse to answer yet be cause I am desired by some that stand by I shall prove that that Law is not in force which I thus do If that Law which commandeth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath Exod. 20. be in force unto believing Gentiles then the punishment due to the Transgression of that Law by the Law-Makers appointment is in force unto the believing Gentiles also But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law by the Law-Makers appointment is not in force to the believing Gentiles Ergo that Law Exod. 20. that commandeth the Observation of the seventh-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles Here Mr. Tillam refuseth to answer and therefore one that stands by denyeth the Minor and prayes Mr. Ives to prove it Mr. Ives I prove the Minor viz. That the punishment that the Law-maker appointed to the breach of the Sabbath required Exod. 20. is not in force If the punishment due to the transgrassion of that Law Exod. 20. be in force to the believing Gentiles by the Law makers appointment then the Law-maker hath appointed some to other to inflict it But the Law-maker hath appointed none to inflict it Ergo the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles by the Law-makers appointment If we look into the Law of Moses we shall find that whosoever did any work upon the Sabbath day was to be put to death Exod. 35.1 2. and Exod. 31.14 15. And when they had found a man breaking this Law in gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day they brought him to Noses and Aaron and to as the Congregation to see what should he done unto him Num. 15.32 33 34 35 36 and they put him in ward for it was not yet declared what should be done unto him then the Lord said unto Moses Thâ— mâ—n shâ—â—â— die the death 〈…〉 all the multitude 〈◊〉 him with â—ones without the hoâ—â— are we find a Law given to keep the Sabbath â—od 20. a punishment assigned by the Law-maker which is Death Exod. 31.14 15. the manner of â—e execution if prescribed by God Num. 19.35 â—â—ich is stoning with stones the Executioners of this â—â—nishment are likewise appointed by the same Law which is all the multitude And let all the MULTITUDE stone him with stones c. Jer. 35 36. â—w if the seventh day sabbath be in force by vertue of Moses Law then it followeth that the same punishment is in force the same Executioners are appoinâ—d unless that any body can shew where God hath freed the transgressors from the penalty of it or hath appointed any other punishment then what is appointed 〈◊〉 the Law of Moses Mr. Ives Because Sir you will not answer this Argument by denying either Major or Minor I shall 〈◊〉 on to prove that 〈◊〉 which seems most doubtful which is the Minor Proposition vz. That the Law-maker hath not appointed any to inflict the punishment provided in Moses Law for the seventh-day Sabbath breaking upon believing Gentiles If the Law-maker hath appointed any to inflict the punishment which by Moses Law was to be inflicted noon Sabbath-breakers it is either the civil Magistrate or the Ministers
to it ought to be inflictâ— I say by the same Rule a Magistrate may 〈◊〉 a man to death that is not perswaded to 〈◊〉 this seventh-day Sabbath another Maâ—state otherwise minded may put men of the Doctors â—â—inion to death because they do not keep the first day â—abbath which he holds himself in conscience bound 〈◊〉 see as strictly kept as the other doth his Saturday Sabbath Dr. Cham. I am not a Judge of Magistrates but do submit unto them secondly let none be afraid of this text for he that is in Christ is above the Law and it was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin Neither do I say that the Magistrates have power to punish spiritual sins with legal punishments but spiritual sins with spiritual punishments and this they may very well do if they have but good Ministers to instruct them Mr. Ives If the Magistrate must punish all evil according to your sence of that text then he must punish spiritual as well as corporeal Idolatry when the Offendor shall be convicted of it and he must punish it according to his Judgement and Conscience so that if it be the Magistrates Duty to take away the lives of their Subjects for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath it follows roundly that the reason why we live is because of the wickedness of the civil Magistrate a wickedness if the Doctors opinion be true for which both Magistrates and People should die without mercy if once a Magistrate should be set up that is of the Doctors perswasion But the main stress of my Argument lyeth in this That God never appointed the Gentile-Magistrates to execute the punishment which he in the Law did command should be inflicted upon those that broke the seventh-day sabbath required in Exod. 20. and to this the Doctor hath given no answer save that the Magistrate is to punish all evil c. but he hath not shewn us that seventh-day sabbath-breaking is an evil nor that the Magistrate is to punish it according to Moses Law if it were an evil which are the two main things that have been objected to which he hath given no kinde of Answer though they have been urged to him once and again But instead of answering tells us that none should be afraid of the text I suppose he means the texts in the Law that threaten the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath with death his reason is because he that is in Christ is above the Law and 〈◊〉 was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin c. If this be true that those that are in Christ are above the Law and that the Law was not made for them I wonder why the Doctor should keep such a stir to engage believers to observe the Law and the seventh-day Sabbath which he calls a part of the Law And if they that are in Christ as he saith cannot sin then it follows that either none are in Christ but those that keep the Jewish Sabbath or if they may be in Christ that do not keep it then it is no Sin not to observe it since if the Dr. saith true they that are in Christ cannot sin so that one absurd opinion is the cause of many for is it not absurd to say that those that are in Christ cannot sin and afterwards charge believers in Christ with 〈◊〉 for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Cham. Mr. Ives hath been calling upon me to assigne who God hath appointed to execute the punishment which by Moses Law was due to the seventh-day sabbath-breakers I further answer That if the Magistrate must punish the breach of all Law then of the seventh-day Sabbath anâ— whereas Mr. Ives saith that then the Magistrate must judge what is Idolatry and Sabbath breaking if he must punish all transgression relating to these Laws I answer that it is no great matter to be 〈◊〉 judge since the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 6 4 Set them to judge that are least esteemed in the Church now if the weakest are to be chosen for Judges such Magistrates will not suffer their eyes to be blinded with gifts and he will inflict punishment upon false witnesses especially when such Magistrates are assisted with Gods Ministers To some of the forementioned passages answer hath been made in that Mr. Ives hath told the Dr. that his urging the text that saith the Magistrate is to punish all evil is impertinent till he hath proved the seventh-day sabbath breaking an evil and if that could be done yet this text doth not prove that the Magistrate is bound to punish it by stoning the offender to death which Dr. Chamberlain saith is a punishment yet in force to the beleeving Gentiles And whereas Mr. Ives desired the Dr. to assign who should judge he most impertinently cites 1 Cor. 6.4 and tells us that the weakest in the Church should be chosen Judges Well then if the weakest should be chosen Judges c. I demand Whether they should be chosen out of that Church whereof Dr. Chamberlain is a member or out of a Church that is not of his minde about the seventh-day sabbath If out the Church that are of his minde and whereof he is a member then we are all to be stoned to death without mercy or to keep his seventh-seventh-day sabbath though it be never so much against our Consciences but it shall ever be a part of my Letany From such Magistrates and Ministers of Justice Good Lord deliver us But if they should be chosen out of a Church that is not of the Doctors mind about the seventh-day Sabbath then it cannot reasonably be imagined that such Magistrates would put that Law in execution that saith the seventh-day Sabbath-breaker shall be stoâ—ed to death while the Magistrate himself doth tolerate the breach of it And lastly whosoever doth but read 1 Cor. 6. 4. and compares it but with the occasion for which the Doctor cites it which is to shew whom God hath appointed to execute the punishment the Law of Moses hath assigned for Sabbath-breakers they will see that the Doctor hath manifested so much weakness that if weakness were a fit qualification for a Judge as he saith it is he hath bespoke himself worthy of a Judges place before all the Poople for if the weakest are to be chose Judges I know not where we should meet with a fitter man then the Doctor who hath so unfitly apply'd the Apostles words to the case in hand Here the Doctor leaves off and Mr. Tillam undertakes to answer to Mr. Ives his insuing Arguments Mr. Ives I am now to proceed to another Argumnâ—â— to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day Sabbath VVhich I thus do If believing Gentiles are bound to keep thâ— seventh-day sabbath then they are bound by that text Jam. 2. where you say the whole Law is required to be kept But the believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath
Act. 21. be of a Ceremonial Law yet it is sufficient to shew that since the whole Law doth comprehend both Morals and Ceremonials that believing Gentiles who are not circumcised are not bound to keep the while since they are excused from observing the Ceremonial part of it by this text Act. 21. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith that if the Epistle of James were writ to believing Jews then here would be one Law for the believing Jews â—nother for the beleeving Gentiles To this I answer â—hat it doth not follow that because this Epistle was â—riten to Jews that THEREFORE there should be 〈◊〉 Law for them and another for the Gentiles but â—econdly this absurdity if it be an absurdity â—â—ay as well be drawn upon the text because it is â—â—id Jam. 2. that the Epistle was writ to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad c. which were Jews And lastly it hath already been shewn that some â—hings were injoyned upon Paul that was a Jew which ought not to be injoyned upon the beleeving Gentiles Mr. Tillam Whereas Mr. Ives chargeth my Book for allowing that which I now call confusion I answer that I confess when I was first perswaded of the seventh-day sabbath I did also acknowledge the first day of the week but it was upon the reason of antiquity for as much as the seventh-day and the first day were both observed in the first three hundred yeers but when I observed the same contention about Easter-day I was convinced and I do now beleeve that the first day of the week is in common with all other days and whereas Mr. Ives saith the Apostles preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath days and in the Christian assemblies on the first-days of the week I do say that that they never met in any Christian assemblies upon the first day of the week and Mr. Tinaâ— calleth the first day of the week the sabbath Act. 20.7 Mr. Ives I answer to the last first Whereas you 〈◊〉 Mr. Tindal calleth the first day of the week 〈◊〉 sabbath so he doth also call that day 〈◊〉 which John received his Revelation the Sunday which other translations call the Lordâ— day by which it appears that without confusion Mr. Tindal thought the Apostles might observe both days as the state of Christian â—â—fairs then stood and as your self have confesse that both the Sabbath-day and the Lords-daâ— were observed in the three first Centuries And if Mr. Tindals Authority may be allowed then the first day of the week is the Sabbath-day and then what becomes of your seventh day sabbath unless you will keep two sabbaths so that sinâ—â— you have cited Mr. Tindal let Mr. Tindal 〈◊〉 the Controversie who by your own confession caâ—â— the first day of the week the sabbath Again when I said the Apostles did meet on both days without confusion which you said they could not I spake this to shew what Christians may do in point of condescention to one another and also to shew that if meeting on both days was a practise which you say is full of confusion that then your Book was not empty of confusion in allowing both the one and the other though you now deny it Mr. Tillam It is a great confusion for one part of an â—ssembly to meet upon one day and another â—â—rt to meet upon another and if any of our â—â—iends do so they do evil for they ought all 〈◊〉 meet at one place and at one time and to â—â—rry one for another and not to vary hours â—uch less days Mr. Ives I still think I have reason for my opinion viz. that those that do pretend to keep the seventh-â—eventh-day may keep the first day of the week â—o the Lord without being guilty of sin and confusion although your sabbath now under debate were true but enough of this I shall â—herefore proceed to another Argument to â—rove that all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath which I thus do If the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel and such as were proselyted to their Religion then all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to observe it But the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel and such as were proselyted to their Religion Ergo. The Minor I thus prove That Law which was given as a sign between God and Israel was a Law to none but Israel But the seventh-day sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel Exod. 31.15 17. Ergo The seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel Mr. Tillam To the sabbaths being a sign I answer that it is either of things past or of things present or of things to come if of things past then it is a sign of the Creation of the world or else it is a sign of his sanctifying presence which I have found in this observation but that the seventh-sabbath is a sign of good things to come I utterly deny Again If the sabbath was a sign so were all the Commandments and therefore its being a sign doth not make it void any more then the rest of the Commandments which are also called signs Mr. Ives Whereas Mr. Tillam saith the Sabbath was a sign of the Creation I say it was not for though Heaven and Earth be exprest in the command of the sabbath yet the sabbath is no where said to be given them for a sign that God made Heaven and Earth for though God's resting the seventh-day be a reason why Israel should rest yet this rest is no where called a sign of the Creation But there is more reason to beleeve from the text that it was one of the signs of the Covenant that God in a special manner had made with that people See Exod. 31 16 17. Eze. 20.12 But further is it not more rational to beleeve that the six days should be a sign of Gods creating Heaven and Earth then the seventh day on which he did not work which at the most can but signifie to us that then or on that time God rested from all his work But whoever considers of the signes that God gave to Israel shall find that they were given them to distinguish that people from all people in the world and therefore Mr. Ainsworth observes upon Exod. 13.9 The Jews saith he used on other dayes to wear their Phylacteries on their arms or foreheads for a Sign or a Token to them as the Lord commanded but they laid them by upon the sabbath because say they the sabbath it self is a signe And therefore Josephus calls it A Law peculiar to that People De bello lib. 2. cap. 16. And to this agrees the saying of Nehemiah Chap 9.13 Thou camest down upon mount Sinai and spakest with them the house of Israel and madest known to them thy Holy Sabbath Again whereas Mr. Tillam saith that the whole Law of the Ten Commandments was a Signe and therefore we may as well lay aside all upon the account of their
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-seventh-day because in six days he made Heaven and Earth therefore if this Reason be beleeved by Christian Gentiles then this Law should be observed by them Secondly God commanded Israel to rest the seventh-seventh-day because it was the sabbath of the Lord their God therefore if Jehovah be the Lord our God his sabbath must be our sabbath Thirdly God did command this duty for the good of our servants and cattle therefore if we will shew mercy to them we must keep the seventh-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-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
we minde Acts 11.20 compared with vers 26. we shall see in vers 20. that the Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord and these were called Christians at Antioch vers 26. and yet the Doctor saith he never heard of any such creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Dr. Cham. I pray then say Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-seventh-day-Sabbath and then I will deny the Minor Mr. Ives I wonder Sir that you should quibble about terms and trouble us so often to alter the terms in the Question as first for the term Gentiles you afterwards alter and will have it all Christians and now for Christian Gentile you would have it believing Gentile Well Sir be it so I will then prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath which is the Minor proposition denyed by you If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Then they are bound by the law of Nature by the law of Moses or the law of Christ But they are nor bound by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. Believing Gentiles are bound by the Law of Moses which is all one with the Law of Christ therefore prove your Minor Mr. Ives If the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law of Moses then they are bound to keep it by the Law that was given to Israel But the believing Gentiles are not bound to it by the Law that was given to Israel Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus If the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Then believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel But the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Ergo. Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that Law was given to other Nations besides Israel Mr. Ives That it was given to no Nation but Israel I prove out of Psal 147.19 20. He hath given his laws to Jacob his statutes and judgements unu Israel he hath not dealt so with ANY Nation and for his judgements THEY have not known them Dr. Cham. I do distinguish of giving the Law there is a giving as a priviledge and a giving by way 〈◊〉 punishment Now though it was not given to any Nation but Israel as a priviledge yet it was given to other Nations by way of punishment to judge them by it Mr. Ives I do confess it was given to no Nation as priviledge according to what you say and do say that it was not given to any other Nation by way of punishment but the Nation Israel which I 〈◊〉 prove If that Law that was given to Israel had been given to any other Nation by way of judâ—â—ment Then other Nations would haâ— been judged by it But no other Nation was to be judged by it Ergo it was not given by way of judgment to any Nation but Israel Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the Law of Israel was given to other Nations to judge them by it Mr. Ives If no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law but those that lived under it Then it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it But no Nation shall be judged by it but they that lived under it Ergo it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it Here the Doctor urgeth the former distinction again about giving by way of priviledge and giving by way of judgement which is a vain distinction because no Law doth judge any body but those that were bound to keep it and by keeping of at were capable to enjoy the priviledges of it Dr. Cham. Upon the former distinction I deny the Minor Mr. Ives I prove the Minor viz. that no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law that did not live under it by the text Rom. 2.12 As many as have sinned without the law shall be judged without the law and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law Dr. Cham. That is true and therefore I say other Nations lived under that Law of Israel so as to be judged by it Mr. Ives That other Nations did not live under it so as to be judged by it I prove thus If there be any other Nations to be judged by Israel's Law Those Nations are either recorded in the Scripture or other Histories But neither the Scriptures nor other Histories do record any such thing Ergo. Dr. Cham. There are Scripture-records that shew us that other Nations shall be judged by Israel's Law Mr. Ives I pray then Sir assigne those Scripture-records Dr. Cham. I shall then assigne Rome 2.14 15. with Rom. 3.19 In Rom 2. it is said the Gentiles should be judged though they had 〈◊〉 the Law Mr. Ives That 's true 〈…〉 this text makes against you direct 〈…〉 so far from saying the Gentiles were 〈…〉 Law and therefore should be judged by it that it saith the direct 〈…〉 were without it therefore 〈…〉 without is Dr. Cham. But it is said in Rom 3. That whatsoever do law saith it saith to them that are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and that all the world may become guilty before God Here is ALL the WORLD are become guilty by what the Law saith to them that are under it Mr. Ives That 's true but how doth it follow that all the world are under the Jews Law because by a Law God will finde them guilty or how can this be proved to be Moses Law since the text before cited by you saith some were not under Moses Law Dr. Cham. You see that the same things were writ in the heart that were given by Moses for the text saith They viz the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law And therefore it matters not whether it was the Law given by Moses or no. Mr. Ives Here Sir you have given away your cause at once for my business hath been to shew you that the seventh-day-Sabbath is not required of believing Gentiles by Moses Law because Moses Law was not given to the Gentiles which is that I have been proving and you have been denying and now in the conclusion you say it matters not whether it were the Law given by Moses or no. So then I have proved the thing denyed all this while by your own words because you had your liberty to except against the enumeration of Laws in the Syllogism and you excepted against the Law of Moses saying The Law of Nature Moses and Christ were all one so that if the
that after ten generations he might enter though not before and there was more then ten generations passed from Moses to the time of this Prophet Esay so that though the Eunuch could not enter at first yet after ten generations he might be admitted into the Jews Church Again I have hinted that these could not be Gospel-times because they that shall be thus admitted shall offer Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings to which you have not answered a word Furthermore he doth not bid them keep the sabbath because salvation WAS come but because it was TO come which shews that those were duties to be observ'd before the coming of JESUS CHRIST Lastly Mr. Tillam saith in his Argument that they are the Sons of Strangers and such Gentiles as could not be joyned to the Jews Religion but the Text saith the direct contrary viz. That the Son of the stranger HAD joyned himself to the Lord vers 3. and let not the son of the stranger which IS joyned to the Lord c. and the strangers that cleave to the Lord vers 6. them will I bring to my holy mountain c. Mr. Tillam There is in the Text Man and the Son of man to take hold of this Righteousness and therefore it must be understood of every man And whereas you say here is Burnt-offerings in the Text as well as keeping the Sabbath I answer what is meant by Burnt-offerings is doubtful it being a word of a various signification but he that takes believers to be Priests may take their Services to be Sacrifices and this I the rather think because the Text saith When this salvation is come then they shall keep the sabbath Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam adds to this Text divers things and the Scripture saith Add not to his words lest 〈◊〉 reprove thee and thou be found a lyar Prov. 306. As first he saith it is written They SHALL keep the Sabbath when this Salvation is come 〈◊〉 whereas the text doth not say so but bids them do justice and keep the Sabbaths because the salvation was neer to come that by so doing they might be a people prepared for the Lord according as John by his Ministry did prepare and make ready the people for the salvation 〈◊〉 Christ by perswading them to obedience Secondly the Text saith of these strangers as 〈◊〉 have already shewn that they WERE joyned to the Lord and Mr. Tillam in his Argument saith they were not and they could not be joyned to the Lord. Thirdly Christ saith if you will believe himâ—â— that this house in this 56 of Esay is the material Temple out of which he whipt those that bought and sold and this he calls a house of prayer according as it was written by the Prophet but Mr. Tillam saith if you will believe him rather then Christ that this house of prayer is the Church of the new Testament So then if by Christs interpretation the Prophet speaks of the material Temple then the Altars and Sacrifices must needs be material Altars and material Scrifices Fourthly I would demand of Mr. Tillam wherever Gospel-services are called BURNT OFFERINGS so that whereas he said he would bring plain Text to prove his practise he turns all plain Texts into Allegories and is this to argue without a Consequence Mr. Tillam The strangers mentioned in the Text are the Sons of Adam and the place unto which they shall be joyned is Gods house which they did not injoy at this time but were separated Moabs People must have ten Generations in the full profession of religion before they could be admitted and so must these Eunuchs again the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple which were Gentiles which shews that this Text speaks not of any other time then the time of the Gospel Whereas it is said by Mr. Tillam that the strangers mentioned in the Text are the sons of Adam who ever denyed that for whose Sons should they be else uuless he will fall into the Fancy of some that tell us of men before Adam And whereas he saith the Eunuch was to be separated to ten Generations as the Moabite was this hath been answered once and again and he takes no notice of it for the Moabite and the Eunuch also might enter into the Jews Church after ten Generations though not before and therefore boâ—h the one and the other might have been admitted in the times of this Prophet which was more then ten Generations from Moses as hath been said And whereas it is said the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple and therefore not of these strangers The answer is easie for though the Jews would not admit of Greeks or strangers uncircumcised yet they would have admitted of them if they had joyned themselves to the Lord by Circumcision Mr. Ives If all these terms Sacrifice and Burnt-offerings and altar holy mountain and house of Prayer be Allegorical as you imagine by your thus interpreting the text then why may not the word Sabbath in the text be allegorically understood also Mr. Tillam My reason is because the text saith the house there spoken of should be called of all Nationâ— A house of Prayer which could not be true of the Temple of Jerusalem because all Nations could not be contained in it Mr. Ives It doth not follow that all Nations should not or could not so account of Gods house in Jerusalem as to call it a house of Prayer because that house could not contain them all And secondly the text saith not that all Nations should be contained in it but that all Nations should so call it and that of all Nations it was so called the Scripture saith Act. 2.5 that there were at Jerusalem devout men out of every Nation under Heaven And thirdly I shall desire again that the text in Esay under debate might be compared with Matthew 21.13 and 14. and then you will be able to judge whether Christ or Mr. Tillam is the best expositor of the house of God spoken of in the 56 of Esay which is all I shall say to this Argument and if this text respects not the Beleevers in Gospel-times as by what hath been said it doth not then hath not Mr. Tillam proved his Argument which was that the Gentiles that could not be proselyted which he understands for Christian Gentiles were bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath but I shall say no more Here Mr. Tillam left off being opponent and Mr. Ives became Opponent and Dr. Chamberlain Respondent Mr. Ives I am to prove that all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath and in order hereunto I have urged this Argument That if beleeving Gentiles are not bound then all beleevers are not bound But beleeving Gentiles are not bound Ergo. The Minor being denied I proved it by this enumeration viz. If all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath they are bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ but all beleeving Gentiles are not
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
the 14 of the Romans that so the beleevers might not bring one another to bondage in such things wherein Christ hath made them free How then doth this absurdity fall upon the Arguments viz. thaâ— because we are left at liberty in point of Mosaical obligations to days that therefore we may spend this liberty to the service of the flesh and set apart no time at all to serve and worship God in 〈◊〉 this indeed would be contrary to the light of Nature which hath taught all her sons to set apart 〈◊〉 time in which to worship and serve their God But if it should be said that if God hath left no command how much time or what time then we should not sin though we observed no time I answer that this is an absolute non-sequitur for first God hath not appointed what maintenance the Ministers of the Gospel should have under the New Testament doth it therefore follow that we being delivered by Jesus Christ from the Mosaical bondage of maintaining the Ministers according to the Levitical Law and since we are at liberty and not â—njoyned how much or how little or in what kind they should be maintained that therefore they should have no maintenance at all the like may be said in respect of a place of worship as well as a time for God had under the Law tied the Jews to a place of worship but now he hath delivered us from that bondage and hath made all places alike as to any Mosaical sanctity doth it therefore follow that Christians may from thenceforward chuse whether they will meet any where or no or that one beleever may run one way and another another way and so never come to the place where the Church meeteth too many such libertines were in the Apostles days and to our great grief we may say there are too many in our days that turn this Grace and Gospel-liberty into wantonness and licentiousness This I thought good to add in this place to stop the carreer of that conceipt viz. that because Christ hath freed us from those days that Moses his Disciples were hound to observe and hath left the Christians at liberty herein in that he hath made every day alike that therefore we may chuse if we will keep any day as all to the service of the Lord this is not only a sensual but a senseless imagination but more of this touching a day to worship God in and also what day we ought to observe for his publick worship shall be shewn in the ensuing Appendix to these Disputations So then by what hath been said we may perceive that we ought not to alter nor vary the literal sence of a text unless Gods word on right Reason do warrant us so to do but neither Gods word nor right Reason doth warrant us to restrain the Apostles words when he saith Some men esteem one day above another anâ— others esteem EVERY day alike For by the same rule we may restrain general words when we have no warrant we may usheâ— in any absurdity as for instance the Scripture saith God made every thing that creepeth may not a man as well say that there is some creeping thing that God hath not made as say when the Apostle tells us that now the partition-wall is broken down and notwithstanding Moses Law you may judge of every day alike without being judged a transgressor of it that this every day is understood but of some days commanded by Moses and not of the seventh-day sabbath Neither have I disesteemed or excluded the first day of the week by my Argument from hence since the Argument is founded upon the words of the Text. Mr. Ives Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument I shall urge one more out of the 15 of the Acts compared with the 21. If the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. then the beleeving Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Christ to keep the 7th-day sabbath But the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. Ergo The beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam Yesterday this Gentleman granted nine of the Commandments in force and binding to the Gentiles and now he saith none are in force but those exprest Acts 15. Mr. Ives I say nine of the ten Commandments are in force to day as well as yesterday and so is the fourth Commandment also as to a time for beleevers to worship God in but not as in the hand of Moses for so saith my Argument but as they are implanted in the hearts of men and are now further explained and injoyned by a better Mediator who never injoyned the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath This was the end of the second Disputation at which time there was an agreement to Dispute the same Arguments over again with one Matthew Coppinger which was appointed to be on Candlemas day then next ensuing being the second of Febr. 1658. at the place aforesaid at which time and place Mr. Coppinger was to answer to Mr. Ives his forementioned Arguments and what new ones he thought good to add The forementioned time being come and the people being Assembled Mr. Ives propounds the Question which was to be disputed which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question to be disputed this day is Whether all beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Which Question I resolve into this Proposition viz. That all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger All beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day for a Sabbath Mr. Ives I have urged one general Argument in the former Disputations to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath which I am now to insist upon the second time in expectation of your Answers which Argument is as followeth If beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are bound either by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ But beleeving Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo Beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I answer that beleeving Gentiles are commanded by the Law of Nature if by the Law of Nature you mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Ives I do mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Coppinger Then pray put your Argument in those â—erms and then I shall answer to it Mr. Ives Though this be needless after I have explained my meaning yet that we may not trifle about words I shall consent and thereupon proceed to prove That the Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath which I thus doe That which the Law written in
necessity for me to hate God or my neighbour Ergo There is no absolute necessity to break the law in Nature Mr. Coppinger I deny the Major for though there be no necessity for a man to hate God or his neighbour it doth not therefore follow that there is no absolute necessity to break the law in nature Mr. Ives I prove the Major thus If all the law written in the heart be contained in loving God and my neighbour then it followeth that if there be no absolute necessity to hate either God or my neighbour that then there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature But all the law written in the heart is contained in loving God and my neighbour Ergo It followeth that if there be no absolute necessity to hate God and my neighbour then there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature Mr. Coppinger I answer first that there may be a breaking of the letter of the Law as that of murder and adultery and stealing as for instance Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaak contrary to the letter of the law which saith Thou shalt not kill Secondly David was guilty of murder and adultery in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba for which by the letter of the law he was to die the death yet there was a necessity for him to live and be saved from the punishment contrary to the letter of the law Again thirdly The Israelites robbed the Egyptians contrary to the Law that saith Thou shalt not steal and yet were justified though the Law saith The wicked borrow and pay not again yet the Israelites did borrow of the Egyptians and payed not again Fourthly and lastly They were not to take a wife that was a whore under the law and yet Hosea was commanded by God to take a wife of whoredoms Hos 1.2 By all which it appears that there may be an absolute necessity to break a Moral law in the letter of it Mr. Ives I answer first you have not answered to my Syllogism which saith There can be no absolute necessity to hate God or my neighbour for none of these instances that you have insisted on do shew any such thing for there is nothing of hating God or my neighbour in any of them being truly considered as I shall presently make appear Secondly You tell us there may be a necessity to transgress the letter of the Law and for that you urge several Texts when as my Argument was not grounded upon the letter of the law but rather upon the Spirit of it viz. the law written in the heart so that the instances have not answered the Argument however I shall answer the instances and first you say that there may be an absolute necessity to commit murder adultery and stealing c. To which I answer that this is such a piece of Divinity that the world did never hear of before and the first instance you assign is Abrahams being commanded of God to offer up his son Isaak c. To which I answer that if Abraham had killed Isaak it had not been murder first because he did not hate his son in his heart while he was going to offer him according to the commandment therefore this instance doth not touch the Argument which saith there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour But secondly God commanded Abraham by an immediate Law from Heaven otherwise Abraham could not have pretended to any necessity that would have justified him in this act neither could he have been judge of this necessity unless God had required it so â—hat here was no necessity for Abraham to murder because of this commandment therefore the instance is impertinent Again as touching the case of David in the matter of Uriah there was no moral necessity laid upon any to break a moral law because David was not put to death for and if there had been such a necessity how doth this reach the Argument that saith there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour for the people did neither hate God nor their neighbours in that they did not take away the life of their King for what he did against Uriah the Hittite And for your instance in the case of the Israelites stealing from the Egyptians which you say God allowed of c. I answer That first there was no absolute necessity for them to spoyl the Egyptians and so consequently no necessity to break a law in nature by hating either God or their neighbour But secondly God gave Israel favour in the sight of the Egyptians and thereupon the Egyptians let them have jewels of silver and jewels of gold voluntarily and the Israelites did not take them by force therefore there was no breach of a law in nature But lastly had they taken these things by force it had not been a breach of a law in nature because that nature hath taught her children to seek for repairs of those that have impaired them to take it per force where it cannot be had by fair means thus God as well as Nature by a more then ordinary instruction tells the people of Israel that they should spoil those that spoiled them which was but a just retribution upon the Egyptians agreeing with the law and light of Nature Otherwise it is a sin to steal upon the pretence of the greatest necessity hereupon Agur saith Prov. 30.8 9. Give me not poverty lest I be poor and steal and take the name of my God in vain And for your last instance of the Prophet Hosea his taking a wife of whoredoms which you say is contrary to a law I answer first that it is not contrary to the law that is in the heart because that law cannot always distinguish between a whore and a chast woman though it was contrary to the law of Israel Then secondly though a man could distinguish between the one and the other yet there is no moral necessity for a man to take the whore and leave the chaste woman But thirdly whereas you say God commanded the prophet to take a wife of whoredoms I answer that this is not spoken of carnal adultery for the text doth not say he was commanded to take a wife that was a whore but a wife of whoredoms viz. a wife from a people that were guilty of great whoredoms in departing from the Lord aâ— appears verse the second Mr. Coppinger I make no necessity of a mans own making but I say God can dispense with the breach of moral laws by giving a countermand and then the breach of the sabbath is no breach though the Priests in the law profaned it yet they were blameless in like manner if God make a law that a man shall not shed innocent blood yet Cods precept to Abraham makes it no breach of a moral law and so likewise in the other cases of the Egyptians stealing and the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms I say these countermands make
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
then she doth in appointing a place of worship and that Christ hath not left us a command to observe one day rather then another appears by that forecited text Rom. 14. therefore in all cases Christ hath given power to his Church to make laws as appears in that he hath given them power to appoint the place where the Church should assemble would it not then be sinful for any small inconsiderable number of the Church to appoint another place to meet in contrary to that which the whole church to which they are related have agreed to and chosen to meet in Even so in like manner will the Lord judge those men guilty of Schism that shall rent from the Churches to which they are related for no other cause but that they may keep a day in opposition to that day appointed by the Church for the exercise of Religion Now unless these men can prove by express text that Christ hath given us a command to observe the seventh day sabbath how will they escape the sentence of refusing to hear the Church and that other sentence of making divisions contrary to the Doctrine which they have received For in this case I shall appeal to the Consciences of all those men that keep the seventh day sabbath whether or no if they should agree upon a certain place to worship god in yet if after this agreement some few of the Church should at the same time in which their Church is assembled refuse to come to them and meet in another place where they list themselves would they not judge those men guilty of schism and disorder now by what Law can they do it since Christ hath appointâ—d no particular place of meeting but by the forementioned law that the Church ought to be heard in all lawful thing and therefore no private persons ought to contend against the Commands of the Church when she commands nothing contrary to sound Doctrine Now then since a time to worship is to be observed we remain bound in conscience to observe that day which the Church of Christ commands us to observe which is the first day of the week till any body can shew us where Christ hath commanded another day How then will those men excuse themselves from rending and tearing the body of Christ asunder tht rent from the Churches whereunto they were formerly related for no other reason but for that the Church observeth the first day of the week and refuseth to observe the Mosaical or Jewish seventh day sabbath Let me therefore from what hath been said beseeoh all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity to tender the peace of the Church and prefer the peace and prosperity thereof above their chief joy and rather let their tongue cleave to the roof of their mouth and their right hand forget its cunning rather then let their hearts forget the peace and prosperity of the Church whom Christ hath purchased with his own bloud and let not these Disputations about a sabbath day eat out of our memories the great sabbath of the Lord that is approaching in which every one that keeps Faith and a good Conscience shall rest with Christ from all their Labourings and Sufferings in this World as GOD did from his Labour when he made the World Oh then let us all labour and strive to enter into that rest into which Christ is entred and let us take heed that while we are labouring to enter into that seventh day rest with the unbeleeving Jews that together with them we fall not into the same example of unbeleef in denying Jesus Christ to be our only Lord and Saviour into which unbeleef and disobedience many have stumbled and fallen in these days who while they have been labouring to intangle others with the 〈◊〉 wish yoke of bondage have fallen from the Grace of the â—ospel of Jesus Christ Thus having with all sincerity and plainness as in the sight of God answered those Reasons that are alleadged for the seventh day sabbath and urged those Reasons why I am perswaded beleevers are not to observe it together with my Reasons why I beleeve we ought to observe the first day of the week I shall leave the whole to the blessing of Almighty God desiring that what is here offered according to the mind of God that God may have the glory and whatever hath fallen from my tongue in disputing or my pen in writing this controversie that savors of the flesh or humane frailty I hope the Father of mercies will pardon it and so I hope will every Christian Reader into whose hands this shall fall which is all that is desired from him who is Thy Friend in the Truth JER IVES FINIS ERRATA Reader SOme few Faults have escaped which thou art desired to Correct with thy Pen. IN the Epistle page 8 line 21. for aeman read a man Epist pag. 11. l. 16. for wrandrings r. wandrings Epist p. 12. l. 10. for hold r. holding In pag. 27. l. 8. for Jer. 35 36. r. ver 35 36. in p. 28. l. 22. for two causes r. two clauses p. 63. l. 24. for poople r. people p. 78. line 12 for seventh-sabbath r. seventh-day sabbath p. 81. for Commadments r. Commandments p. 90. l. 6. for no other r. any other p. 136. l. 1. for 156. r. 133.