the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Laws but because they violated the law of Nature by those unnatural and unlawful lusts mentioned in the former verses But secondly If they viz. the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Statutes then they were cast out because they did not observe the Ceremonial Laws of Israel as well as any of the rest And lastly whereas you say that the Sabbath mentioned in the 19 chapter is included in all the Laws mentioned in the 20 chapter I answer So is the reverencing the Sanctuary required in the same ver where the sabbath is required and offering of sacrifices and counting the fruit of the trees as uncircumcised the first three yeers after they were planted I say all these things are as truly commanded in the 19 chapter as the seventh-day sabbath and are as necessarily included in that universal term all the statutes and all the judgments mentioned in the 20 chapter now then by the same rule that you can say the law writ in the heart did require the Gentile Nations to keep all Israels statutes and so consequently the seventh-day sabbath mentioned in the nineteenth chapter I say by the same rule the Gentile Nations are commanded by the law written in their heart to keep the law that requireth them to reverence the Sanctuary and offer Sacrifices and count the fruit of the trees uncircumcised three yeers after they were planted which cannot be imagined Mr. Coppinger I answer that though the reverencin the Sanctuary and offering Sacrifices and counting the trees uncircumcised were commandments given to Israel yet these are not called statutes and judgments so that though the Nations were to observe all Israels statutes by the law written in the heart yet they were not to observe all other of their commandments therefore I answer you by distinguishing and say that the Ceremonial laws were Ordinances and Appointments but not statutes and though the Nations were to keep all Israels statutes by the law writ in their hearts among which the seventh-day sabbath was one yet the Nations are not to keep those ceremonies mentioned by you for they are no where called statutes so that statutes is one thing and Ordinances is another Mr. Ives There is no difference and this distinction is light as vanity for all Gods Ordinances are statutes and appointments and the ceremonial Ordinances were Gods statutes as well as other Laws Mr. Coppinger Where any Laws are called Ordinances there they are understood for the ceremonial laws and not for the ten commandments or law writ in the heart and where any commandments are called statutes they are not understood of the ceremonial laws Here Mr. Tillam standeth up to justifie Mr. Coppinger's distinctions viz. that Gods laws were one thing and his statutes and judgments another and for this he cites Mal. 4. where it is said Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgments from hence Mr. Tillam would have proved a difference between statutes laws and appointments Thereupon Mr. Gosnold standing by told both Mr. Coppinger and Mr. Tillam that he wondred they should abuse the audience with such a needless vain distinction since that in their conscience they knew that the word was statutum est and that there was no difference between the words statute and appointment save that the one was a Latine word and the other an English word and further that they might as well say there was a difference between likeness and similitude as between statute and appointment Mr. Den also being then present did sharply reprove Mr. Tillam for justifying Mr. Coppinger in making this vain distinction since that he pretended to learning and scholarship and as such a distinction doth argue a man to have little of a scholar or else little of conscience so it doth argue a man to have but a slender acquaintance with the Scripture and therefore unfit to be a teacher for if either Mr. Coppinger or Mr. Tillam had been but competently acquainted with the Scriptures they would never have uttered before many hundreds of people then assembled that the ceremonial laws were never called statutes for besides what hath been said whoever reads but Exod. 29.9 and 28. shall find the priests office called a statute and the Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetual STATUTE and the offering is called a STATUTE Levit. 3.16 17. and the offering is called an everlasting STATUTE to make an atonement c. Levit. 16.33 34. Exod. 27.21 Exod. 28 43. Levit. 10.9 Levit. 23.14 21. the resting from labour on the day of atonement is called a STATUTE ver 31. Levit. 24.9 Numb 19.21 27. 11. 35.29 yet notwithstanding all these texts together with many more that might be named these men tell us that the ceremonies were never called statutes Well then since it is plain that the ceremonies of the law are called statutes it followeth that the Gentiles by the law writ in their hearts were not commanded to keep all Israels statutes for then as hath been urged they were bound by the law writ in their hearts to keep the ceremonial laws of the Israelites which is among the first-born of senseless imaginations this being the issue the Argument was brought to Mr. Ives proceeded to another which was as followeth Mr. Ives That law which is not Moral the Law of Nature doth not binde the Gentiles to observe But the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not Moral Ergo The law of Nature doth not binde the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and do say that the law that requireth the seventh-day sabbath is a Moral law Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus That law which cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition is not a Moral law But the Law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition Ergo the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not a Moral law Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and say that the law for the seventh-day sabbath may be known another way then by tradition for it may be known by the law written in the heart Mr. Ives I pray then assign a text that saith the seventh-day sabbath may be known by the law writ in the heart Mr. Coppinger It is written in the second of the Romans and the fourteenth That the Gentiles which had not the law did by Nature the things contained in the law now if they did by Nature the things contained in the law of Moses and the seventh-day sabbath was one thing contained in the law of Moses then if the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the law then they 〈◊〉 the seventh-day sabbath but the Text saith the Gentiles did by Nature the THINGS contained in the law and the seventh-day Sabbath was a thing contained in the law
Ergo 〈◊〉 viz. the Gentiles by the law of Nature or the law written in the heart did keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives This is arguing and not answering but if I should suffer you to transgress the laws and rules of disputation and let you argue when you should answer I know you are never able to prove that the Gentiles without the help of tradition were able to know the seventh-day sabbath by the law and light of nature and whereas you say the Gentiles did the things contained in the law by the light of nature and therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath I answer first that it is a difficult thing to conclude a particular proposition when the premises are indefinite For the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law inasmuch as they did some good which the law commanded and forbore some evils which the law forbad as murder and adultery c. it doth not therefore follow that because the Gentiles did the things that were contained in the law of Moses that therefore they did all things therein contained May not a man as well plead for circumcision and say that the light of nature taught people to be circumcised and to offer sacrifices because circumcision and sacrificing are things contained in the law and the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law therefore they were observers of circumcising and sacrificing by the light of nature would not every sensible man call this a senceless Argument and yet thus Mr. Coppinger reasons The Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law Ergo they kept the seventh-day sabbath but I shall shew in the ensuing Appendix that the Gentiles neither did nor could keep the seventh-day Sabbath by the light of Nature Mr. Coppinger If the Gentiles did those things by the light of nature that were contained in that law that forbad stealing and adultery then they kept the seventh-day sabbath which was a part of the same law But the Gentiles by the light of nature did the things that were contained in that law which forbad stealing and adultery Therefore the Gentiles by the light of nature did keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I do assure you Sir if it were not but that I had compassion on the multitude and was unwilling to have them go away unsatisfied I had not said a word to your last Argument because you know you were by agreement to answer my Arguments and in stead thereof you make Arguments and turn Opponent when as you were by Agreement this day to be Respondent however Sir take this for an Answer that the Gentiles might do by nature those things that were contained in the Law that forbad stealing and adultery and yet the consequence doth not follow that therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath by the light of nature as for instance a man that keeps the law of the Turk he observes a law that forbiddeth stealing and murder doth it therefore follow that he observeth the Law of England because he doth observe a law that requireth many of the same things which are written in the English Laws In like manner many of those Laws which were written upon the tables of the Gentiles hearts were written upon Israels tables of stone doth it therefore follow that all things that were written in tables of stone were writ upon the hearts of Gentiles Who is there but may perceive the non-concludencie of this Argument may not a man as well reason thus The Turks observe the things that are contained in the Christian Laws therefore they observe all things that are commanded in the laws of Christianity and further the Turks observe that law which the English men observe which requireth that a man should not kill and steal therefore the Turk observeth the English-man's Sabbath which is the first day of the week Again The people in America observe the things contained in the Jews law which requireth men not to kill and steal doth it follow that therefore the people in America observe the Jews seventh-day sabbath Are not these kind of arguings the same with Mr. Coppingers for he saith that the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the Jews law and therefore they kept the Jews sabbath but doth not the contrary to this appear for are there not thousands of good people in England that do the things that are contained in the Jews laws in the Apostles sence that yet never kept the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath and therefore for the further proof of this Argument let me add that it is impossible to keep the Jewish or seventh-day sabbath without the help of tradition and therefore the observation of that day is not Moral the reason I shall give is because if a man be sick of a violent distemper that hath bereaved him of his Senses yet when this man coms to his right understanding again he will know without a guide that he should not kill and that he should not steal but without the guide of tradition he cannot know what day of the week it is having lost his account thereof by reason of his distraction and therefore Common experience tels us that this man is forc'd to ask those that are about him what day of the week it is now then if he did not know what day of the week it was by reason that he had been thus distracted I demand how he could know which was the 7th Day Sabbath and if he could have known the 7th-day sabbath by the light of Nature what need was there for this man being come to his Senses to inquire what day of the week it was that he was then in more then there was for him to ask whether he might not kill or steal Mr. Coppinger I shall prove the Consequence namely that if the Gentiles by the light of Nature without tradition did do the things contained in the law that then they did keep the 7th-day sabbath by the light of nature without tradition Hereupon the Moderator did reprove Mr. Coppinger for attempting to argue instead of answering Mr. Ives his Argument and therefore did desire that Mr. Ives would urge a fresh Argument which was as followeth Mr. Ives That law which a man may have an absolute necessity to break cannot be a Moral law But the law for the seventh-day sabbath a man may have an absolute necessity to break Ergo the law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be a moral law Mr. Coppinger I deny the Major if by moral law you do mean the law of Nature or law written in the heart for it doth not follow that a law is not moral or written in the heart because one may have a moral or absolute necessity to break it Mr. Ives I shall prove the Major thus If there be no absolute necessity for me to hate God or my neighbour then there is no absolute necessity for me to break the law in nature But there is no absolute
great degree they have been convinced of all Moral duties but to this of the seventh-day Nature never did Proselyte any of her children Mr. Tillam making no further reply and refusing to assign an instance either in Scripture or any other credible story where Nature did ever convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives therefore by the request of the Company was desired to urge another Argument Mr. Ives I proceed to the Law of Christ and from thence shall prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath which I thus do That Law which is inforced by the appointment of Christ unto beleeving Gentiles some or other at some time or other have either been commended for the keeping or blamed for the breaking of it But none have at any time by Christs appointment been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping the seventh-day sabbath Ergo the 7th-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles by Christs appointment Mr. Tillam Anointing with oyl is a Command in force since the Resurrection and yet none are commended for observing or blamed for not observing of it Mr. Ives I answer That anointing with Oyl is not my present work to manage otherwise it were likely I might say somewhat to it Here one that stood at M. Ives his elbow whispered him and bid him tell Mr. Tillam That Christ commended the woman in the Gospel for anointing Him with Oyl which Mr. Ives had no sooner said but Mr. Tillam made this answer that the anointing required in James his Epistle was to be done by the Elders of the Church and therefore the instance did not reach the Case hereupon Mr. Ives ingenuously confessed that it was not to the Case onely he told Mr. Tillam and the Audience that he had uttered it before he was aware it being suddenly suggested to him by one that stood by however it is observable that the instance of anointing with oyl is not a sufficient instance to abate the strength of the Syllogism for the intent of the Syllogism is to shew that the seventh-day Sabbath is no moral Precept as appears by the last Argument that was brought to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath was not commanded by the light of Nature and the instance is in an institution that is not Moral So that the intent of the Argument was that there was no MORAL Duty required by Christ but some were found blameable for not observing or commended for observing of it otherwise doubtless both under Law and Gospel it 's like one may finde some particular institutions that we read of which we shall hear of no complaint for not observing because they were not Duties universally to be observed by all men at all times as Moral Precepts are as for example The business of anointing with oyl is the Duty of none but the Elders but the seventh-day-sabbath-keeping is if Mr. Tillam say true Moral and to be kept by all and further the Duty of anointing with oyl as it was to be done by some persons so also but at some times viz. when any one of the Church was sick but the Sabbath was to be kept every seventh day and that not onely by the Church but all the world if Mr. Tillam say true so that the instance is far and wide from the case in hand for the intent of the Argument is That if Christ had inforced the seventh day upon believers as a Moral Law to be constantly observed some would either have been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping of i◠and this is true of all Moral Laws being universally to be observed by all and there is not any one Moral Law but some in the new Testament are under blame for not observing it or else praised for observing it but not one word is mentioned of this kinde touching the 7th-day sabbath since the death of Christ which makes me conclude it died with Him Mr. Ives I come now to another Argument which take as followeth If believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds then they are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath But believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds Ergo believing Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam I do affirm that the 7th day is not included nor intended in that text Rom. 14. and for this see Exod. 16.4 where the word every day is there intended of every common day not the Sabbath But if in the text Rom. 14. it be understood of every day without exception then you may not contend for the first day of the week Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam excepts against the universality of the word every day which seems to me very strange for when he cited that text Mar. 2.27 where it is said The sabbath was made for man he would there have the word Man understood of every man though the word every man was not in the text But now I cite a text that hath this word every day in it and he tells us that this universal term must be restrained and not be understood of every day though every day be the words of the text the Reason he gives why every day must be restrained is because it was restrained in Exod. 16.4 where God saith that the people shall gather a certain portion of the Manna every day c. To this I answer First that it doth not follow that because a general word is restrained in Exod. 16. that therefore it should be restrained in Rom. 14. But secondly God himself restrains every day in the 16 of Exodus to the six days in which they were to gather Manna and expresly commands the resting upon the seventh-day but in the 14 of the Rom. neither God nor the Apostle puts any restriction upon the word every day so that though we must restrain general words when God restrains them there is no reason that we should restrain them when God doth not But then saith Mr. Tillam If you do not restrain this word every day then you do overthrow the keeping of any day To which I answer that we might very easily deliver our selves out of the hands of this absurdity if that were the business in Question As for instance we have been shewing that we are not obliged by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath nor no other Judaical days and that now Christ hath taken away these observations and hath made all days alike in that one day hath 〈◊〉 more sanctity or holiness then another by reason of any Mosaical institution by which formerly it was sanctified and so by consequence have shewed that neither Moses Law nor Christs Law commands a seventh-day sabbath upon that account which indeed is the scope of the Apostle in
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
it no breach of a Law and so likewise upon the sabbath-day a man might lead an oxe or an ass to watering and not break it though it be a moral law but if the men in this generation may do that which the Jews and Disciples might not lawfully do on the sabbath-day then you have taken off my exceptions Mr. Ives Whereas you speak of a necessity to break a moral law when God countermand c. I answer that then it is not murder in Abraham to slay Isaak or theft in Israel to take from the Egyptians because they had an immediate law from heaven commanding those very particular things but doth it follow that this law given to Abraham was binding to all or that Gods allowing of Israel to spoil the Egyptians should give me an allowance to spoil my neighbour and would it not be a sin contrary to nature for me to sacrifice my child having no command because Abraham would have sacrificed his child by a command and in like manner there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law by your own confession without an immediate and particular command in the case as Abraham had in the case of Isaak and Israel in the case of spoyling the Egyptians Now then if the seventh-day sabbath be moral as you say it is then you can have no moral necessity by your own confession to break it unless you have an immediate countermand from Heaven so to do Now then since you say the law for the seven-day sabbath is a moral law how do you make it appear that God gave you an allowance to open your shop the next day after you challenged me to dispute for the seventh-day sabbath which was the sabbath-day you now plead for and whereas you did pretend a necessity so to do I demand Whether God ever gave you a command in obedience to which you did open your shop upon the seventh-day sabbath since you your self say that there must be a countermand to justifie the doing any thing that contradicts the letter of a moral law now you have broke the letter of the law which you say is moral and where is your countermand from God so to do And for the instances that you bring of mens leading an oxe to water upon the sabbath-day 〈◊〉 was not a moral necessity for they might have let the oxe stayed without water if the law for the seventh-day sabbath had been a moral law they ought not to have broken it to save the life of their oxe no more then a man may worship an Idol to save his own life and the life of his cattle so that this very instance confutes your opinion that the seventh-day sabbath is not a moral law Mr. Coppinger As touching my opening shop upon the seventh-day which I say is the sabbath Mr. Ives did allow me so to doe because I was under some promises to do some business that day in relation to my trade But suppose I did that which was unlawful this doth not prove what Mr. Ives saith that he may break the sabbath however this is reflection and uncharitableness Again I say the moral law makes no difference between murder and killing for it is written Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill c. so that Abraham was a breaker of that law by going about to kill Isaak Also if a childe were born and the seventh-day of the week happened to be the eighth day after the birth then it was no breach of the law to circumcise the child but Mr. Ives hath broken his promise in that he promised to discourse the Argument he insisted on the last day but doth not Mr. Ives I answer to the last first that I have not broken any promise that I made for I laid down one general Argument which was the same I went upon the last day which I am yet prosecuting And secondly You did also agree that I should urge new Arguments if I pleased as well as those which had been formerly urged and whereas you charge me with reflections and uncharitableness I answer that what I spake did relate to the dispensation that Mr. Tillam gave you to open shop upon your sabbath after you had ingaged to dispute for it And I say if the seventh-day sabbath be moral then he could not dispense with your opening shop upon it for by this rule a man may plead a necessity to break moral laws although he hath no countermand from God so to do whereas you say I did allow you to open shop I answer So I might because I am so far from judging the observation of the saturday-sabbath a moral duty that I judge it no duty at all therefore I might dispense with your working upon it but how could Mr. Tillam that beleeves with you that the command for the seventh-day is moral give you a dispensation so to do and further how could your conscience dispense with such an action as to open your shop the next Saturday sabbath that came after you had ingaged in publick to dispute the morality of that day And whereas Mr. Coppinger saith the Moral law makes no difference between murder and killing he might as well have said that the moral law makes no difference between fornication and lying with a woman then which nothing is more absurd For the Moral law doth not call all killing murder though murder be killing he might as well have said because stealing is taking that therefore there is no difference between stealing and taking Here Mr. Tillam desireth liberty to speak for himself touching what Mr. Ives had objected against him for allowing Mr. Coppinger to open shop upon their Sabbath Mr. Tillam Mr. Ives hath done like cursed Cham in uncovering his brothers nakedness however I went to bid Mr. Coppinger shut up his shop beâ—ing very much troubled all that night about it and he answered me that if he should shut up shop he should be accounted broke which would be a scandal to his profession further he told me that he was under some promises which he was to perform relating to his trade however he told me he would do not work but what was of necessity to fulfil his promise and gave the like charge to his servants also Mr. Ives What if Mr. Coppinger had made a promise to murder or worship an Idol should he have broken these laws to keep his promise in like manner if working upon the Saturday-sabbath be a breach of a moral law as he saith it is then there is no reason why his promise should absolve him in the one rather then in the other and truly after this rate it is an easie matter for a man to make promises and thereby if this kind of arguing be good absolve himself from obeying any moral precept And whereas Mr. Tillam saith he went to Mr. Coppinger the night before to desire him to shut up his shop the next day I answer that what Mr. Tillam did after we parted
law as we are judged by at London and yet the Apostle saith The Gentiles that lived without the law shall be judged without the law which plainly manifests both a formal and a material difference between the law of Moses and the law written in the heart Mr. Coppinger Nâ—w I will shew that the difference doth lie onely in writing Rom. 2.26 27. where it is said If the Gentiles in uncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law that his Unicircumcision should be counted for Circumcision And shall not uncircumcision which is by Nature if it fulfil the Law judge thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law Now how could the Gentiles uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision if he kept the Righteousness of the Law if this Law were not the Law of Moses Again the Difference is made in the word Letter so that the fault of the Jews is the greater in that they despise the Law because it is sent by two Messengers from God unto them both in writing and otherwise planting it in the hearts so that the difference is opposed in the word Letter Mr. Ives Mr. Coppinger saith the difference between the Law of Moses and Nature is opposed in the word Letter if so then he hath confuted himself for that they cannot be the same if they are opposed one to the other But secondly the Law of Moses is contradistinct from the Law of Nature as appears by that text 1 Cor. 9.20 21. where the Apostle saith That to them that were without the Law he was as without Law Now what could the Apostle do in a way of complyance to make the Jews believe that he was not without the Law and to make the Gentiles think he was under the Law if the Law of the one was no way differing from the other but in writing Then they could not be distinguished by Actions but that the Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles by their different Laws is plain in that Paul did blame Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews But I shall further prove by reason that the Law of Nature cannot be the same with the Law of Moses because that which is called the Law of Moses where-ever it is mentioned it is always understood of the whole Law as well the Ceremonial as the Moral which I hope Mr. Coppinger will not say was all of it written in the Tables of the Gentiles hearts and this appears by the Text mentioned by Mr. Coppinger John 7.23 the Jews did circumcise a man that the Law of Moses might not be broken Mr. Coppinger Mr. Ives saith That the Mosaical Law is opposed to the Law of Nature 1 Cor. 9.21 where the Apostle saith He was under the Law to them that were under the Law and without Law to them that were without Law I answer That the Apostle could not make a difference between believing Jews under the Law and believing Gentiles without the Law because that the Gentiles were under EVERY part and parcel of the Law of Moses as appears Gal. 3. As many as are under the Law are under the curse and the Gentiles were redeemed from the Curse of the Law Gal 4.8 And could the Law curse them that were not under it I shall therefore shew by by that this Law which the Gentiles were under was the whole Law of Moses Mr. Ives I answer That the Gentiles that had a Law writ in their hearts were under the curse annexed to the breach of that Law and therefore Christ came to redeem them from the curse of it But doth it follow that because Christ came to redeem the Gentiles from the curse of the Law that therefore the Gentiles lived under ALL the Law and every part and parcel of the Law of Moses and were in danger to suffer all the penalties and curses due to the transgression of the Law of Moses But secondly among the Gentiles there lived many Jews as the Apostle saith in the Epistle to the Romans chap. 2. Behold thou 〈◊〉 called a Jew c. and yet they lived among the Gentiles who were Romans so in like manner among the Galatians lived many Jews as appears by Peters compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews Gal. 2. And again it is said Gal 4. That the child differeth nothing from a servant c. Which must needs be meant of the Jews So that Christ redeemed the Jews from the curse of their Law and the Gentiles from the curse of their Law but this doth not prove that because Christ redeemed both from the curse that therefore both Jew and Gentile lived all under one and the same Law And this is further proved by the Apostle Gal. 5. when he saith Whosoever is circumcised is a debter to do the whole Law Whence I argue That if the Law of Nature had bound the Gentiles to keep all the Law of Moses then they had been indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circumcision But the Gentiles were not indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circumcision Ergo the Law of Nature did not bind the Gentiles to observe the whole Law of Moses From all which it is plain that the Apostle doth distinguish between the Law of the Jews and the Law of the Gentiles and the curse of both according to the breach of those different Laws they lived under Mr. Coppinger Whereas you talk of Circumcision I say that Christ hath set us at liberty from Circumcision and therefore we ought not to be circumcised Mr. Ives But Christ hath redeemed none from the Law of Nature which shews plainly that the whole Law of Moses was not writ in the hearts of the Gentiles But secondly if Christ hath redeemed the Gentiles from the Law of Nature then though your seventh-day Sabbath were writ in the Law of Nature yet the Gentiles were not bound unto it And lastly your answer was That the Gentiles were bound to all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Laws which I have disproved by shewing that the Gentiles were bound to the Law of Ceremonies by the Obligation of Circumcision and not by the light of Nature Mr. Coppinger I do say That the Gentiles were under all the Ceremonial Laws as well as under all the Moral Laws even by the Law writ in the heart even all the Law all Sacrifices every bit and every thing Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed 〈◊〉 c. and Gal. 4. He hath redeemed them that were under the Law c. Meaning Gentiles as well as Jews Now that this was the whole Law of Moses in that the same spirit writ the same things in the hearts of the Gentiles that the Angel did command upon mount Sinai Again the Apostle speaking of the Law saith The man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 to this agreeth Rom. 10. So that all Moses law was the same with the law written in the heart and was for Jews and Gentiles indifferently the one for
both people as well as the other for God intended that the Tables of stone should be kept in the hand of Israel and from thence it was to be conveyed to others Romans the 9th and 4th Mr. Ives I need make no further answer then to say That Christ was made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that is those that are under the law of Nature from the curse thereof and them that are under the law of Moses from the curse due to the Transgressions thereof and not to redeem the Gentiles from the curse due to the transgression of the law of Moses which they are expresly said not to be under Secondly that the Gentiles by the light of Nature were not under the whole Law of Moses is clear in that some lived in terra incognita and also in the Antipodes and besides the text saith plainly that the Gentiles were not under the law and I must stick to that what ever you say unless you spoke more reason and it is strange to me that this should not be discerned that a person may be redeemed from the punishment due to him for transgressing the Laws of the King of Spain and another may be redeemed from the punishment due to him for transgressing the laws of England and after this it may be said of them both that they are redeemed from the curse of the law but would it reasonably follow from thence that they both lived under one and the same Law in all points in like manner it doth not follow that because Christ hath redeemed both Jews and Gentiles from the curse of the law that therefore they both lived under one law in all respects as Mr. Coppinger imagineth Mr. Coppinger Now I will prove that the whole world by the light of Nature were under the whole law both of Sacrifices and Ceremonies Gal. 3.11 No man is justified by the Law in the sight of God here the Apostle means the whole Ceremonial law as appears Heb. 14.10 Mr. Ives I demanded your Answer to that question whether the Antipodes were under all the Ceremonies of Moses law and the people that were in terra incognita and to this you have said nothing but alledged a text to prove instead of answering which doth not speak a word to your purpose viz. That the Gentiles are bound by the law written in the heart to keep the whole law of Moses even all the Ceremonies as well as Morals which you are forced upon to escape the dint of my Argument which was to shew you that Moses law did not require the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath because the Gentiles did not live under it but without it as divers texts tell us plainly There are three notable things to be observed in Mr. Coppingers answer to this Argument First that he is forced to confess in words at length that all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law were writ in the heart Secondly that this was a force put to save his credit appears because in his answer to Mr. Ives his first Argument but two hours before or thereabouts he plainly denyed that which this Argument forceth him to confess for when he told Mr. Ives that the Nations were said to be cast out because they did not keep all Israels Laws Mr. Ives did ask him whether the Nations were cast out for not keeping circumcision and other of the Jews ceremonies And when he saw that this Absurdity was like to fall upon him he told us That though the Nations were to keep all Israels Statutes yet saith he they were not to keep their ceremonies So that though he denyed this in his Answer to the first Argument as any one may see that looks back to it yet here he doth confess it over and over that the Nations by the light of Nature were to keep every bit and parcel for those are his words of the Ceremonial Law of Moses as well as the Moral And Thirdly It is observable that a little before in page 156. he cites a text in the ninth of the Romans to prove that the Jews had the tables of stone given them to keep not onely for themselves but that they might convey the things therein required unto the world Now what need was there for Israel to convey the knowledge of their Laws writ in tables of stone to the world if what he hath said all this while be true viz. that there was no difference for the very same Law saith he which was in the Jews tables of stone was in the tables of the Gentiles hearts save that one had it written and the other had not Mr. Ives If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are bound to esteem one day above another But believing Gentiles are not bound to esteem one day above another Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor believing Gentiles are bound to esteem one day above another Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus If there is an Apostolical Toleration to esteem one day above another or every day as one is perswaded then believing Gentiles are not bound to esteem one day above another But there is such a Toleration Rom. 14.5 Ergo. Mr. Coppinger The strength of Mr. Ives his Argument lyeth in the universality of the terms every day and therefore I shall shew that this general term ought to be restrained As for instance There seems to be as general a toleration given for the eating of all things and yet Mr. Ives believeth eating of blood and things strangled and meats offered to Idols are excepted in like manner is the seventh-day sabbath to be excepted when there is a toleration given to observe every day alike And Secondly if every man may walk as he is perswaded then he may keep the seventh-day sabbath if he be so perswaded Mr. Ives I answer to the last first That although I do not deny those the liberty that observe the seventh-day sabbath yet in as much as they condemn others and charge others with sin for not observing it that is their fault for it is not a mans perswasion of the truth of a thing that will make it my duty which is the onely point in hand viz. not what is a liberty but what is a duty But secondly whereas Mr. Coppinger saith That all days may be restrained because all things are restrained by the Holy Ghost and therefore we may not eat all things I answer That if Mr. Coppinger can assigne as good an exception against the term every day as I can against his general term every thing I shall say this Argument is answered Now I will shew you that when the Apostle tells us that we may eat all things the Holy Ghost puts a restraint here and tells us That meats offered in sacrifice to an Idol together with blood and things strangled are excepted and may not be eaten as appears Act.
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
they must be our Examples for A TIME of worship they must be so for a PLACE of worship for such places were as well commanded as such times Secondly The Apostle circumcised Timothy must we therefore circumcise Thirdly The Apostle Paul did observe the Law of the Nazarites Act. 21. must we therefore observe it Fourthly The Apostle said He must needs keep the feast of the Passeover Act. 18 21. Doth it therefore follow that we must keep the feast of the Passeover and yet after this manner do these men reason viz. that they must keep the seventh day sabbath because Paul kept it Fifthly The Text doth not say Paul did keep the sabbath any more then it faith he did reverence the sanctuary but that having the opportunity of these times and places in which the Jews were assembled he made use thereof to preach Christ unto them Argum. 12 Having urged and answered those Arguments taken from commands and Examples out of the Old and New Testament I come now to those Arguments that plead the seventh day sabbaths Morality from Natural Reasons and the first is That the seventh-day sabbath must needs be moral because as Mr. Spittlehouse told me before many witnesses that the seven Stars did preach the seventh day sabbath and therefore the Heathen kept the Saturday which is so called of Saturn the seventh Planet I answer that first this is vain Philosophy indeed But secondly Mr. Spittlehouse is an ignorant Philosopher and a more ignorant Astrologer in saying that Saturn is the seventh Planet which all writers in Astronomy and Astrology do declare to be the first Planet and accordingly so place it and call it and therefore the Heathen rather kept Saturday as the first day then the seventh day because Saturn is the first of all the seven Planets But thirdly The Heathen did keep every ninth day to Jupiter doth it therefore follow that these were sabbaths that God required Again Plutarch saith of Theseus that the Athenians offered to him their greatest sacrifices upon the eighth day of October because of his arrival that day from Cret◠and they did keep the eighth day of every month because he was derived of Neptune and therefore Philo the Jew puts this difference between Jews and Gentiles viz. that the Jews kept a day every week but the Gentiles did but keep one in a moneth by which it appears that the seventh day of the week was not more honoured by the Heathen then the ninth day of the week or the eighth day of the month on which they offered their greatest sacrifices But lastly If it were lawful thus to trifle might not a man as well prove Sunday or the first day of the week to be a sabbath according to the light of Nature because the Heathen worshipped the Sun as any body can prove Saturday to be a sabbath because the Heathen worshipped the Planet Saturn but enough if not more then enough of this vain reasoning Argum. 13 The thirteenth Argument is taken from the morality and perfection of the number seven that it is a perfect number and therefore when the seventh day comes we must rest for the proof of this notion they cite Scriptures that magnifie the number seven as Davids praying seven times a day and Christs casting seven Devils out of Mary Magdelene and seven yeers of plenty and seven yeers of famine in Egypt amp c. To all which I answer that one would think these men had suffered 7 yeers famine in a want of Arguments for their opinion of the seventh day or else they would never catch at such things as these but I remember Solomon faith to the hungry every bitter thing is sweet therefore if these men were not languishing for want of Arguments they would never feed themselves with such vain arguings For may not the Papists plead this Argument for their seven Sacraments as well as these men can plead it for the seventh day sabbath But secondly Are not other numbers both in Nature sacred and prophane writings as much set by as the number seven as God made two lights Gen. 1.16 and he made man two eyes two feet two hands and two ears so there was two tables of the Law and two Nations in Rebecca's womb and two Testaments the like enum eration may be found of other numbers both in sacred and prophane writing but this kind of arguing is more like Cornelius Agrippa's Occulr Philosophy then Christian Divinity Argum. 14 The fourteenth and last Argument is taken from the practise of the Church the three first Centuries after Christ whence they infer that if the Christians so long after kept the seventh day it is a sign that it was given them in charge by Christ To this I answer that the Christian Churches kept the feast of Easter 300 years after Christ doth this follow therefore that Christ gave the keeping of Easter in charge to them and that the Churches 300 years after Christ were zealous of Easter day is very obvious to all that have any acquaintance with the stories of those times see Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21.22 23 24. and herein were the Christians divided the Eastern Churches kept it at the same time the Jews kept their passeover and the West Churches kept it upon some Sunday following after in like manner were they divided about the observations of their weekly dayes the Ebionites saith Eusebius were a fort of Hereticks that were zealous of the Law and did own the Epistle to the Hebrews but denied the Epistles of Paul for that he spake against the Law those did keep the Jews seventh day with other Ceremonies of the Law and celebrate the Sundays in remembrance of Christs Resurrection as other Christians do lib 3. cap. 24. The like saith Epiphanius lib. 1. Haeres 3c thus we see how the Christians were divided in their practise about the weekly and yearly observation of dayes that we may as easily prove Christ left the feast of the Passeover in charge to the Christian world as that he left the seventh day in charge because as the one was practised so was the other for more then 300 years after Christ Having answered the Arguments levied for the Jews Sabbath I shall now urge reasons why the Jews Sabbath or the seventh day Sabbath is not of force to be believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel either by the Law of nature Moses 〈◊〉 Christ Argum. 1 First the Gentiles are not commanded by the Law of Nature because nature doth never convince any of sin for not keeping the seventh day Sabbath and yet it did convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the other nine Commandments now had the Sabbath been a moral Law or a Law in nature then would nature as well have reproved her children for the profaning of it as it hath reproved them for the breach of all the rest and that nature hath reproved every man for the breach of all other laws which are moral appears if we
view Rom. 1.25 The Gentiles who had not the law of Moses broke the first Commandment in that they worshippâ—d the Creature MORE then the Creator Rom. 1.25 which was against the first Commandment that faith We must have no other Gods bus one They broke the second Commandment in that they did change the glory of the incorruptible God into an IMAGE made like corruptible man Rom. 1.23 They broke the third Commandment in that they blasphemed the name of God Rom. 2.24 But no mention of their breach of the fourth Commandment They broke the fifth Commandment in that they were disobedient to Parents Rom. 1.30 They broke the sixth commandment in that they were guilty of murder Rom. 1.29 They broke the seventh Commandment in that they were guilty of fornication and unlawfull lusts Rom. 1.26 29. They broke the eighth Commandment therefore the Apostle admonisheth the converted Gentiles Ephes 4.17 28. that they which had stolen should steal no more shewing that in the dayes of their Gentile vanities they walked not according to the light of nature Again they broke the ninth Commandment 2 Tim. 3.3 without natural affection truce-breakers FALSE accusers They brake the tenth Commandment in that they were guilty of covetousnesse Rom 1.2 How often are the Gentiles charged with these sins both in the Old and New Testament and yet they are never charged by the Law of Nature for seventh day Sabbath breaking and therefore Josephus tells us that the Mations did imitate and learned to keep a Sabbath of the Jews for saith he our custome hath spread it self among the Nations c. clearly proving that the light of Nature never taught the Gentiles to keep the seventh day sabbath Lib. 2. contr Appion Again secondly the Gentiles could not keep the seventh day by the light of Nature because they are not exactly able to compute the seventh day from the Creation by reason that the Sun stood still in Joshua's time and hasted not to go down for a whole day and likewise the Sun went backwards ten degrees in Hezekiahs time which was almost half a day by reason whereof the light of Nature was never able to make a perfect account of the seventh day from the Creation Thirdly a man cannot know the seventh day from the fourth but by tradition therefore the knowledge of the seventh day is not moral as for instance Suppose a man sick of a violent distemper that bereaveth him of his sences when he comes to his former understanding he will know his duty touching all the nine precepts and also touching the setting apart some time to serve God but as touching this seventh day he cannot know this but by the help of tradition having lost his account in the time of his sickness which shews that the seventh day is not commanded by the light of Nature because by that light a man cannot know the seenth day from the fourth or eighth Again this Reason is further illustrated by the Travels of Sir Francis Drake who lost a whole day and so did all their company before their return for England so the Dutch in their Western Discoveries by reason of the varation of Longitudes and Latitudes they had lost a day before they returned which they had never been informed in but by the help of tradition which shews that Nature could not instruct the Gentiles in the knowledge of a seventh day Now these and the like cases puts an absolute necessity upon the world to be ignorant of this Law therefore it cannot be moral The second Argument which I urge to prove that the seventh day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles is Because they are not commanded by Moses Law to keep the seventh day sabbath My Reasons are first because this Law was not given to any Nation but Israel Psalm 147.19 20. Rom. 2.14 the Gentiles had not the Law c Secondly if Moses Law be in force then the punishment due to the breach of the seventh day sabbath is in force which was That the Congregation should stone the Oftender to death Num. 15.35 which I have shewn in the forementioned Disputations cannot reasonably be imagined to consist with Gospel-liberty Thirdly if Moses Law be in force to require any thing of the Gentiles that is not expresly and particularly required of them by Christ or his Apostles then we may by the Argument of Moses Law take a liberty to innovate what Judaical Ceremonies we shall at any time have a mind unto Argum. III I come now to the last Argument viz. That the Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh day sabbath First because he hath not expresly required any such thing in all the New Testament nor have any of his Apostles to whom he delegated a power to preach the Laws of the New Testament ever declared any such thing But secondly the Apostle tells us That the sabbath was a shadow of good things to come Col. 2.16 27. Which must needs be understood of sabbath days as our Translators have rendered it First where-ever the word sabbaths is otherwise understood the Holy Ghost for the help of our understanding adds either that it is a sabbath for the LAND when he means yearly sabbaths or else if they were festival sabbaths he refers us to the Feasts which-ought to be so sanctified But secondly where-ever sabbath is joyned with new moons and feasts there it is always understood of the sabbath days because all their other sabbaths were included in their feasts except the seventh day sabbath See for this purpose Exod. 34.18 19 20 21 22 23. Lev. 23.3 4. Ezek. 45.17 and 2 Chron. 8.13 Thirdly the sabbath day was called a signe by Moses Exod. 31.17 Again my third Reason why Christ hath not commanded the believing Gentiles to keep the seventh day sabbath is Because the Apostle calls all the times that the Jews observed in the Law weak and beggerly elements among which the seventh day sabbath was accounted see Gal. 4.9 10 11. Now the Jews days were their weekly Sabbaths their moneths were their new Moons Numb 28.11 Num. 10.10 2 Chron. 8.13 Exod. 23.12 their times were three in the years Exod. 23.14 15. Deut. 16. from the first to the fourth was the feast of the Passover from the ninth verse to the thirteenth is mention made of the feast of harvest or feast of weeks and from the thirteenth verse to the 26 you may read of the feast of boothes or tabernacles which were their times that they observed Then they observed years which shews that this was spoken of the Jews since as Tacitus faith No Nation wasted whole years as the Jews did and that they were by the Law to keep years as well as days and moneths and times appears by the text Lev. 25. where every seseventh year and every year of Jubilee was commanded to be observed Now if they had no time which they observed but days moneths times and years and all these were
being a Sign as any one to this I answer That it is not said of the Ten Commandments onely but of all the Law as well Ceremonies as Morals that it should be as a signe upon their hand it doth not therefore follow that these were all to continue But farther It is no where said of all the Law that it is a signe between God and Isral but rather a signe to distinguish them from all other people But lastly if the whole Law of Moses were as a signe between God and Israel as Mr. Tillam supposeth then I answer that as it was in the hand of Moses it was a Law binding to none but Israel and such as were proselyted thereunto neither was it given as a sign to any other Nation Mr. Tillam The seventh-day was a sign of the Creation of the World for God rested the seventh-day saith the Text. Again If that the Commandments are signs they must either be between God and his people or else between them and the Devil Mr. Ives That about a sign hath been answered already and I wonder you should delight your self with needless repetitions but however take a word or two in further answer viz. That Gods resting the seventh-day is urged by Moses as the Reason of the Law that injoyns Israel to keep the seventh-day and not as a Reason of the sign so that though Gods resting is urged as the Reason of the duty it doth not therefore follow that it is the Reason of the sign but as I have said before I shall say again that if all the Commandments were signs between God and Israel as they were delivered to Moses upon the mount it doth not prove that they were signes between God and any other Nation And as to your Objection That if the Commadments were signs they must either be between God and Israel or else between them and the Devil But how doth this appear might not it be a sign between Israel and all the Nations of the Earth to signifie their special favour with God above other people and doth not the text say the Law should be as frontlets between their eyes c. plainly shewing that God would distinguish this People by their Laws and Priviledges from all other people and that by their Sabbaths and Circumcision and other Judaical observations they should be known to all people that did converse with them to be highly in favour with God And lastly Their Laws some of them were called signs because they did signifie somthing to come and so did their Sabbath therefore the Apostle calls it a shadow Col. 2.17 But I never heard that their Laws were signs between them and the Devil Mr. Tillam If the Creation of the world be a reason why Israel was to keep the seventh-day sabbath you must then if you be Gods Israel keep the seventh day upon that reason because they did enjoy the comforts of the Creation which God brought forth in six days since then that Reason is the same to us that Law ought to be the same Mr. Ives I answer First by telling of you that you argue in stead of Answering But secondly lest you should judge thaâ— there is strength in what you say see the weakness of it for it doth not follow that because the reason of a Law is always the same thâ—â— therefore the Law should always be the same as for instance God gave a Law that the people of Israel should not eat Swines flesh nor the Cony nor the Hare because he the Lord their God 〈◊〉 holy therefore they should not defile themselves witâ—eating such things Leviâ— 11.43 44. Here you see the Reason remains for God is holy anâ— will be so forever but the Law doth not remain for a man may eat of these Creature now and not sin so in like manner the reason for the Jews sabbath may be the same when the Law may not be the same in every punctâ—â—o of it Mr. Tillam I answer that God hath given a toleration to eat such things and therefore now it is not a sin Mr. Ives Then I have shewn you that the reason of a Law may be the same when the Law is not the â—ame by your own confession Mr. Tillam making no further reply Mr. Ives â—roceeds to a new Argument Mr. Ives That which I have been doing hitherto hath been to shew that Moses Law doth not injoyn â—he beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath I shall now give an Argument from â—he Law of Nature and prove that we are not â—equired by that Law to keep the seventh-day â—abbath which I thus do That which the Law of Nature bindes the Gentiles to observe it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe But the Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo The Law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe the 7th-day sabbath Here Mr. Tillam was desired to Object against the Argument proposed but he refusing another that stands by craves of Mr. Ives the proof of the Minor hereupon he proceeded Mr. Ives The Minor I prove thus If the Law of Nature doth convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day sabbath then it is manifest either in God word right Reason or manifest experience that they have had such convictions But neither Gods word right Reason or manifest experience doth manifest any such conviction Ergo The Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh day sabbath This Minor Proposition being that which is denied I shall therefore because it is negative resolve it into the answer of my respondent 〈◊〉 desiring him to assign an instance either in God word right Reason or manifest experience thâ—â— ever any Gentile was convinced of sin by the Law of Nature for not observing the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam To the Argument out of the Law of Nature I answer that it doth convince men 〈◊〉 sin for Idolatry and yet ask a Papist if he 〈◊〉 convinced of sin for bowing to the Virgin Mary and he will say No. Mr. Ives Sir You have not answered nor assigned 〈◊〉 instance and for what you say of a Papist 〈◊〉 answer that it is one thing to live under a Law that convinceth of sin and another thing to acknowledge such conviction as for example It is said of the Holy Ghost that he shall convince the world of sin and yet we all know the world is not convinced of sin so as publickly to repent and return Shall I then be so barbarous as to say that there is not a Law convincing because men are not actually convinced of their Idolatry for doubtless the most ignorant Papists have a Law and the Spirit of God convincing them of sin though actually they are not convinced However it is manifest that the light of Nature hath at some time or other so prevailed upon some of her children as that to a