cast out as a stranger in the house of this Epistle unless Mr. Coppinger can find another Epistle to the Galatians to entertain it in therefore it is evident that these days moneths times and years were the times the Jews were to observe in the Law among which the seventh-day sabbath was included as shall be shewn more particularly in the ensuing Appendix Mr. Coppinger If the times here called weak and beggerly be the heathenish times then I have said something to your Argument for all you say it is not answered Mr. Ives I do confess you have said something but to what purpose I shall leave the people to judge and if it do appear that they were the Rudiments of the Law that the Christians were going back to then you have not answered my Argument whatever you have said I shall therefore leave it to the Judgment of the Audience and proceed to another Argument If the seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come the believing Gentiles are not bound to observe it But the seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come Ergo the believing Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor the seventh-day sabbath was not called a shadow of things to come Mr. Ives The text in the second of the Col. 16 17 verses proves it where the Apostle saith The sabbath days were shadows of good things to come Mr. Coppinger The Apostle doth not say sabbath days the word days is put in by the Translators and it ought to be read sabbaths Mr. Ives I shall prove that the Translators did well to put in that supplement by shewing that the Apostle intends sabbath days My first Argument is this Wheresoever the word sabbath is put without reference to such and such sabbaths there the seventh-day sabbath is always intended or included But here it is so put Ergo. As for instance when the Scripture speaks of the Jews festival sabbath or their yearly sabbath there is ever some note of distinction to distinguish them from sabbath days therefore the yearly sabbaths were called Sabbaths of rest for the LAND Levit. 25.4 5 6. 2 Chron. 36.21 shewing thereby that for that year the Land was to lye still and not be plowed or sowen Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor the word sabbaths is sometimes simply put without reference to such and such sabbaths when the seventh day is neither intended nor included Mr. Ives Pray assigne us that text where sabbaths is so understood Mr. Coppinger I shall cite Esay 1 13. where the text saith The new Moons and Sabbaths God could not away with Mr. Ives If you will answer my Argument you must shew me that the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text but I shall by another Argument make it appear that sabbath days is not onely intended in Col. 2.16 but in Esay 1 13 also which I thus do Wheresoever this word sabbaths is mentioned with new moons feasts and holy days there the seventh-day sabbath is intended But the word sabbaths is here so mentioned Therefore the seventh-day sabbath is here intended Shew me but one instance where the word sabbaths is joyned with new moons and feasts and holy days where the seventh-day sabbath is not intended and then I may have some reason to think the Apostle doth not intend the seventh-day sabbath in Col. 2.16 17. and if you do so I will give you the case Mr. Coppinger If this were true then the sabbath must always be joyned with new moons but I can shew you sabbath mentioned without new moons that exclude the seventh-day sabbath and if I do so then I have put in an exception against the universality of your Argument Mr. Ives If you can shew me sabbaths mentioned without new moons it is not an exception against the Argument for I have already shewn that the yearly sabbaths were mentioned without new moons Again their feasts were called sabbaths as the Jubilee and Feast of weeks therefore I must tye you to the enumeration in the text and Argument and do demand an instance where the sabbath is mentioned with new moons and feasts that is not understood of the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Coppinger There is in the text an Adjunct of distinction viz. Sabbaths which are shadows c. as if I should say Fetch me my books in such a room plainly distinguishing them from other books in other rooms and so these sabbaths are called a shadow to distinguish them from other sabbaths that were not shadows Now then Mr. Ives must shew us that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow of the body of Christ and I will grant the case Mr. Ives If I prove the seventh-day sabbath a shadow of the Body of Christ Mr. Coppinger saith he will grant the case and he hath already granted that the sabbaths mentioned in this text Col. 2. are shadows of the Body of Christ it remains then that I prove this word Sabbaths to intend the seventh-day sabbath and then I have proved that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow The Argument then that I have made already doth prove it because as I have said from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it where ever sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons and Feasts there the seventh-day sabbath is always intended and till Mr. Coppinger can shew us a text like this of Col. 2. where sabbaths is mentioned with new moons and the seventh-day sabbath not intended I have sufficiently proved that the seventh-day sabbath is here intended Mr. Coppinger I made an Epithet of the distinction in my former answer by shewing that the sabbaths in the text are called Sabbaths that are a shadow to distinguish them from sabbaths that were not shadows and that therefore it could not be meant of sabbath dayes And secondly I have instanced Isa 1.13 where the word Sabbath is mentioned with new Moons and it is not understood of the seventh day sabbath because the work which the text saith was done upon those sabbaths was contrary to the work of the seventh-seventh-day sabbaths Mr. Ives As for that which you call the Epithet of the distinction though I think it is scarce good sence yet I shall answer your meaning by shewing you that the Sabbaths in Col. 2. were not called shadows to Distinguish them from the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath as if that was no shadow because the seventh-seventh-day it self is called a signe Exod. 31.13 even as circumcision was called 〈◊〉 sign Rom. 4.11 Again it doth not follow because he saith Sabbaths that are a shadow that he excludes some Sabbaths that were not shadows no more then when he saith new Moons that are a shadow that he doth hereby intimate that some new Moons were not shadows to the Jews And as touching the text Isa 1.13 where you say Sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons which could not be understood of the sabbath dayes because say you there was such work to be
you deny the seventh day sabbath is intended in the second of James you may deny it Mr. Ives I do not deny it because I will deny it but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it Mr. Coppinger Well then I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the second thus If the Law in this text James the second be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures then the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second But the Law in this text James the second is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second Mr. Ives I answer first by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism because it concludes not that which was formerly denyed for it is no more then what we have had over and over save that now instead of the word Scripture in the prosyllogism you add the Scriptures of the old Testament Secondly I further answer by denying the Consequence for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles that the Law in the old Testament requireth as for instance That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adultery did also command them that they should circumcise their Children and offer Sacrifices These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery as appears Gal. 5. 〈◊〉 For I testifie to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW Now who can deny but this whole Law did forbid murder and adultery But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law as that Argument supposeth For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law John 7.23 and sacrificing is called a part of that Law Mat. 8.4 and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law Mark 7. Now may not a man as well reason thus If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to parents then we must keep circumcision and offering of sacrifices for these are parts of that whole Law of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to Parents 〈◊〉 a part I say is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger we must keep ALL that Law saith 〈◊〉 which in the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery Ergo we must keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I will prove that the whole Law in this text Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies thus If the whole Law there mentioned be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise then it doth exclude Ceremonies But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise Ergo the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies Mr. Ives If it excludeth ceremonies then it excludeth your former Argument which saith We are bound to keep the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery and also it excludeth your interpretation of whole Law in Jam. 2. For we cannot keep the whole Law according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament in an old Testament sence but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part for the old Testament law in which murder and adultery were forbidden had ceremonies commanded also so that you have confuted your self Mr. Coppinger My Argument is of force unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law Mr. Ives It is not of force unless you prove the seventh day sabbath is included for â— am Râ—spondent and do deny it to be included and do expect your proof for you confess some part of the whole Law is excluded Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. Mr. Ives I deny the Minor Mr. Coppinger If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Testament onely then they cannot keep this Law except they keep the seventh day sabbath But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely Ergo they cannot keep this Law according to the Scriptures except they keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives Your former Argument was of scriptures in general and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament now the new Testament is scripture as well as the old and therefore Peter saith of some That they wrested Pauls writings as they did other scriptures so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testament we shall do well But secondly this is but semper Idem the same over and over what we had before Thirdly I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law Jam. 2. according to the scriptures of the old Testament in a new Testament sence and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger runs in a Ring which Logicians call Circular Disputation Again Mr. Coppinger hath confessed that ceremonies are abolished therefore it cannot in all points be kept according to the scriptures of the Old Testament Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law unless they keep the seventh day sabbath But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireâ— the keeping of the seventh day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny both Major and Minor For First it doth not follow that because I muâ—â— keep the law in the second of James according to the old Testament that therefore I must keeâ— the sabbath required in the old Testament 〈◊〉 more then because I must forbear killing as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament But
other sins lest as the eleventh verse saith they fall after the same example of unbelief or disobedience Mr. Ives I shall shew that you have wholly mistaken the text For First you are to prove a rest or sabbath commanded and this text speaks of a rest that is promised as appears vers 1. of Chap. 4. where the Author to the Hebrews bids them fear lest A PROMISE being left of entering into his Rest any should seem to come short through unbelief Secondly the text from the Greek ought rather to be read A Sabbatism then the keeping of a Sabbath however the word is not SABBATH DAY and when I did dispute with you last you would not allow that the word sabbaths in Col. 2.16 17. should be understood of a sabbath day though there was good reason to understand it so because the word day was not in the Original though it was in the English Text but here you will have it to be understood of sabbath day though the word be neither in the English nor Greek text and though there be no reason why you should so notion it But Thirdly this rest is not a rest commanded or a seventh day sabbath rest because the seventh day sabbath unbelievers and their cattel might have injoyed but the rest here promised is reserved onely for believers which none else shall share in Fourthly the rest here spoken of is a rest that Joshua could not give them but he did give them the seventh day rest therefore this could not be spoken of the seventh day see for this purpose the eighth verse of this fourth Chapter where it is said that if Joshua had given them rest he would not afterwards have spoken of another day and then adds that there remaines THEREFORE a rest to the people of God vers 9. Therefore Wherefore the eighth verse tells us because Joshua did not give them rest so that this if it prove any thing it proves against Mr. Coppinger because it supposes some other day then what they enjoyed in the time of Joshua Fifthly whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us That it must be meant of the seventh day sabbath because the text saith He that believeth ceaseth from his own work as God did from his I answer That this doth not prove a command for a man to forbear working upon the seventh day but it shews rather the priviledges that men shall enjoy through believing viz. that they shall rest from their labours so saith Christ Come unto me all ye that LABOUR and I will give you rest Mat. 11.28 and vers 29 Christ promises that they shall find REST to their souls and Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord for they REST from their LABOURS and their works follow them Rev. 13.14 in like manner the Author to the Hebrews would be understood when he tells us that he that doth believe hath ceased from his labour as God did from his Sixthly though the Author to the Hebrews alludeth to the seventh day upon which God rested yet this doth not prove that therefore we must enter into the Jewish or seventh day rest no more then it proves we must enter into the Literal Canaan because he alludeth also to that Literal Canaan in which Joshua conducted Israel but he rather informs them that as they under the Law had a time of rest and a place of rest so they that did believe should have a day of Grace and a place of Glory in which they should be like God in rest for ever never to labour more even as God rested and wrought no more when he had ended his six dayes work therefore he bids them LABOVR to enter into his rest but the seventh day rest they might enter into without labour Seventhly whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us that the Author to the Hebrews exhorts that we should not fall after the same example of unbelief and disobedience that the Israelites fell into in the wilderness which saith he was sabbath-breaking as appears by Ezek. 20.16 as well as other sins therefore saith he by the same example must be understood that he cautions them to beware of breaking the seventh day sabbath To which I answer That this is a straining the text for it doth not follow that he doth admonish the Christians to beware of the same particular sins as Mr. Coppinger would notion it but of sins in general for first we cannot be guilty of loathing Manna nor of murmuring at the waters of Meribah and yet the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.6 That THESE were for our examples c. So in like manner we cannot be guilty of sin in not observing the seventh day sabbath any more then we can be guilty of loathing Manna and yet Gods judgments upon them for all their old Testament sins are set forth to us for examples not 〈◊〉 tye us to the same duties but to Gospel-Obedience in all things lest we incur the same of â—â—eater punishments by how much the more we 〈◊〉 against greater mercies Again the Apostle gives the like Exhortatiâ—â— 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Do ye not know that they that wait upon the altar should live of the altar even so hath the Lord ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel May not a man as reasonably infer from hence that because the maintenance of the Levitical priesthood is here set forth as an example to teach us to take care of Gospel-Ministers that therefore they must be maintained after the same manner as the Priests were maintained that waited upon the Altar as Mr. Coppinger may say Because Gods Judgments against Israels sins in the Wilderness are set forth to us for examples that therefore we who are believing Gentiles under the Gospel to avoid the like Judgements must do all the Commandments and believe all the promises that Israel suffered his displeasure for in the Wilderness for not obeying and believing Having thus answered you Paraphrase upon the text I do again call upon you to prove that the Rest or Sabbath spoken of Heb. 4. is a seventh day sabbath which we are commanded to observe for the sum of my Answer is that this is a Rest promised and not a Rest or seventh day sabbath commanded therefore pray let us have an Argument for the proof of it Mr. Coppinger My Exposition of the Text proves it well enough Mr. Ives Pray draw your sence upon the text into an Argument and let us see if you can prove that here is a seventh day sabbath commanded Mr. Coppinger I cannot put it into an Argument because it refers to several texts for the explaining of it Mr. Ives I have answered to your interpretation already and if you will not urge an Argument from hence I shall desire that you would proceed to an Argument from some other texts Mr. Coppinger If Christ did teach the observation of the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to observe it But Christ did teach the observation of the
by that teâ—… Jam. 2. where you say the whole Law is required c. Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath The reason of Mr. Ives his urging this Arâ—â—ment is to dis-mount the confidence of his Antagonists who build so much upon this text for the prooâ—â— of their seventh-day Sabbath but to this Mr. Tillam being Respondent did refuse to answer anâ— therefore Mr. Ives went on to prove the Minor because his Antagonists grant the Major viz. Thaâ— if believing Gentiles are bound they are bound by the second of James c. Mr. Ives I shall go on to prove the Minor viz. Thaâ— believing Gentiles are not bound by Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Besides what I have said that the Gentiles were without the Law that was otherwise imposed upon the Jewes I shall further add If believing Gentiles are bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then it is because they are required to keep the WHOLE Law But believing Gentiles are not required to keep the VVHOLE Law Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam refusing to answer Mr. Ives proceedeth to the proof of the Minor viz. That believing Gentiles are not required by that text Jam. 2. to keep the whole Law If. believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE LAW then they are not bound by this text Jam. 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law But the believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE Law Ergo the believing Gentiles are not bound by this text James 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law The Minor I prove thus If believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision then they are not indebted to the WHOLE Law but believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision Ergo believing Gentiles are not indebted to the WHOLE Law The Major I prove thus If Circumcision makes the beleeving Gentiles debters to the whole Law then it follows that if beleeving Gentiles be uncircumcised they are not indebted to the whole Law But Circumcision makes the beleeving Gentiles debtors to the whole Law Ergo if beleeving Gentiles are uncircumcised they are not debtors to the whole Law Here Mr. Tillam begins to reply Mr. Tillam If beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of James his Epistle then to this also But Mr. Ives himself confesseth beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of this Epistle as that of anointing with oyl and prayer c. Secondly I demand Whether Mr. Ives doth not obey the Lord Jesus Christ by that which is mentioned in one single text for so he doth as I am informed by acknowledging the practise of anointing with oyl which is mentioned in no other text then in the Epistle of James Either then let Mr. Ives disclaim that Ordinance of anointing with oyl which I hope he will have more Grace and godliness then so to do or else acknowledge this of James 2. to be of the same force according to Rom. 10 11 12. Mr. Ives Sir You argue in stead of answering which is not fair however let me tell you that it doth not follow that all an Epistle doth belong to the Gentiles because some doth and there is no great difficulty to make this appear for may not a Prophet speak against extortion and against unmercifulness to poor brethren which is every bodies duty to fly from and a saying that belongs to all yet may not the same Prophet exhort to burnt-offerings and sacrifices a duty that did belong but to some not to all So that it followeth not that a man should disclaim those things that are his duty in such and such a Prophesie because there is mention made of things that are not his duty May not a man as well say that Mr. Tillam must own all the Ceremonies of Moses Law which I hope he hath more Grace then so to do because he owns a part of it viz. the seventh-day sabbath and the punishment thereunto annexed I speak not this in favour to the disowning of any part of James is Epistle or any other part of sacred writing but to shew you how irrationally Mr. Tillam argueth for is it not the same You own a part of James his Epistle viz. that of anointing with oyl to belong to beleeving Gentiles Ergo You must own all the rest In like manner Mr. Tillam owns a part of Moses Law viz. that of the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo Mr. Tillam must own all Moses Law and all the Ceremonies therein contained So likewise James in this Epistle as Paul in some others might speak some things that more properly relate to Jews and other some things that relate more generally both to Jews and Gentiles Again I have proved that none but those that are circumcised were bound to keep the WHOLE LAW Gal. 5.3 in that universal sence in which Mr. Tillam accepts this word the WHOLE Law so as to include the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath and this is not my opinion only but the opinion of the modern Jews which say that whosoever will keep their Sabbath must first be circumcised Mr. Tillam There is no difference between Jew and Greek 1 Cor. 12.12 Rom. 10.11 12. and if Mr. Ives will exclude one part of James his Epistle from relating to beleeving Gentiles he must exclude it all Again Both Jews and Gentiles are to walk by one Law and have but one Law-giver that is able to save and destroy Again I say that information of the modern Jews is false and though they have told us that from the middle upward we are Jews yet from the middle downward we are Gentiles but the other saying I do not remember Mr. Ives Whereas he saith beleeving Gentiles are bound to the whole Law mentioned in James 2. I add that James himself being a Jew and writing to the twelve Tribes among which there were some beleevers and very many unbeleevers as appears by the complaint he makes of the pride and oppression and unruly talking that was among them now from that Law that these unrighteous Jews pretended to live by and to be justified by the Apostle goeth about to convince them by telling them that whosoever should pretend to the whole Law and yet err in one point he is guilty of all as much as if he should say If you will be keepers of the Law you must keep it perfectly or you do nothing I would fain know how such an interpretation supposing it to be a false gloss upon the text should incur the censure of denying the whole of James his Epistle to be of any use to beleeving Gentiles And although there be no difference between the Jew and Gentile in point of justification and Gospel-priviledges in as much as the Jew cannot be justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ even as the Gentiles are yet the Gentiles are not bound to observe all edicts that were at that time imposed upon the Jews And lest this
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-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
Command that required the Observation of the seventh day and yet I may not be guilty of sin Dr. Chamberlain He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law is guilty of sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law Ergo. Mr. Ives I answer By distinguishing of the term HE in the Major proposition for if you do not mean every he then I deny the Syllogism And if you do mean every he or every one then I deny the Minor for these Reasons First this text that you refer to in your Argument was written to the Twelve Tribes Jam. 1.1 and therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that because the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law that therefore every believing Gentile is so bound Secondly if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epistle yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments for there is no such thing in the Text. Dr. Chamberlain This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians and therefore to every Christian Mr. Ives I say as before that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle and if they were yet these words The Ten Commandments which are in the Argument are not in this Text and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments as understood by you in the Argument must be concluded from hence or you do not prove the thing denyed Dr. Chamberlain Lest you should equivocate about this word Law the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table and he doth not mention any part of the First Table by which it appears that by the Royal Law he intends the Ten Commandments unless you will say that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law Therefore I 〈◊〉 He that is bound 〈◊〉 keep the whole Law is bound to keep all the ten Commandments But every Christian is bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Every Christian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Forasmuch as you have not said any thing new but what you have said already over and over I therefore answer by denying the Major and say That a man may keep the whole Law in the sense of this text and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your sense And though I do confess we are bound to keep and observe all the other nine Commandments yet we are not bound to observe the command for the seventh-day-seventh-day-sabbath which is one of the ten Commandments And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to serve God I confess we are to observe that also though we are not tied to the seventh day Dr. Cham. Well then I will prove the Major thus If the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole Law Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law are bound to keep the ten Commandments But the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole law Ergo. M. Ives I deny the minor and say that in the sense of this text this word the whole law doth not contain all the ten Commandments Dr. Cham. I further argue If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole Then he is commanded to keep the whole But he that breaks one Commandments is guilty of the whole Ergo He is commanded to keep the whole It is observable that the Doctor made three essays to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing denyed but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie Mr. Ives I deny the whole Syllogism because it concludes not the matter in question for the thing in question is Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the sense of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments and by consequence the seventh-day-Seventh-day-Sabbath and your Argument concludes we must keep the whole and all the Commandments which was never denyed Dr. Cham. If you deny Scripture I have done with you Mr. Ives I do not deny the Scripture but your Syllogism which concludes not the thing in question as I have shewn you once and again As it hath been answered that S. James doth not write to Gentiles and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments by this word The whole Law and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sabbath so it may further be answered that if those words The whole Law should respect the Law of Moses then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law they are bound to Circumcision also and every other Ceremony of the Law therefore there Apostle saith Gal. 5.3 that if they were circumcised they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law By which it appears that the believing Gentiles that were not circumcised were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law So that when St. James enjoyns the keeping of the whole Law he tells us what Law he means in Chap. 1. v. â—â— compared with Chap. 2. v. 12. where he call it the law of Liberty by way of distinction from the law of Moses which is called a yoke of Bondage Gal. 4.3 9. Acts 15.10 which law of Liberty is called the law of Christ Gal 6.2 and is no less then the Gospel that is preached which S. James bids them not to be forgetful hearers of Jam. 1.25 but admonisheth them to look into the perfect law of liberty and to continue therein So that the Doctor had no reason to say that the Scripture was denyed by his Respondent because he denyed the Law that required the Seventh-day-Sabbath to be contained in the whole Law mentioned by S. James It seemeth then very strange that in a free and publike Disputation the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scriptures because he denyed his sense thereof which was all that the Doctor said unto this last Argument And the time of his Opponencie being ended the Doctor was by Agreement to answer Mr. Ives his Arguments which take as followeth Mr. Ives I shall undertake by the help of God to prove that all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath If the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Then all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath But the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Ergo All Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Dr. Cham There is no such kinde of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Mr. Ives Sir I will shew you such a kinde of creature since you seem to be ignorant therefore pray look into Acts 21.25 and you shall see that the Gentiles are called believing Gentiles which is all one with Christian Gentiles And if