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-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-seventh-day sabbath is intended But the word sabbaths is here so mentioned Therefore the seventh-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-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-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-day Sabbath as if that was no shadow because the 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
sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law James 2. and that Law doth contain the seventh day sabbath Ergo all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I deny the Syllogism because you do not conclude that which was denyed for this Argument should have concluded that if all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James that THEN it follows that they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath which was the consequence denyed in the Major Proposition of the former Argument Mr. Coppinger If the royal Law mentioned in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery then the seventh-day sabbath is one point of that Law But the royal Law mentioned in the second of James is the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is one point of that Law Mr. Ives Sir I wonder you should pretend to dispute Syllogistically and yet make two Syllogisms that conclude not the Major proposition denyed in the first Syllogism however because I would not spend time about trifles I shall answer this Argument by denying the consequence of the Major Proposition for though the royal Law mentioned in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath is a point or a part of it because every Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery doth not command the seventh day sabbath For murder was by the Law given to Noah prohibited and so was adultery and yet the seventh day sabbath was no point or part of it so that a man may keep the royal Law which in the Scripture prohibits murder and adultery and yet 〈◊〉 keep the seventh day sabbath for all the Patriarchs from Adam to Moses kept that royal Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery and yet never any of them kept the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger If that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that if the royal Law in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery that then the seventh-day sabbath is one point of that Law But that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh-day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives If by the terms that law c. you mean every Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath then I deny the Minor because every Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery doth not prohibit the breach of the seventh-day sabbath for the Scripture speaks of the Law given to Noah and the Law in Nature and the Law of Christ all these are royal Laws and do prohibit murder and adultery and yet none of these prohibit the breach of your seventh day sabbath but if by that Law c. you do not mean whatsoever Law then I deny the Syllogism as fallacious Mr. Coppinger I say the whole Law is never mentioned where the seventh day sabbath is excluded therefore it is included Mr. Ives I deny both Antecedent and Consequent For the whole Law may be mentioned where the seventh day sabbath is excluded but if that were true the consequence doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath is included for the whole Law sometimes contains ceremonies as well as morals doth it therefore follow that ceremonies are always included in the word whole Law where-ever whole Law is mentioned except they are excluded in so many words Mr. Coppinger I say the whole Law is no where mentioned where the sabbath is excluded and do you shew me where it is Mr. Ives If by excluding you mean excluding in 〈◊〉 many words then I may usher in the ceremonial Laws for whole Law is never mentioned as I have said where the ceremonial Law is verbally excluded but doth it follow that therefore it is included Mr. Coppinger I say again if the Scripture no where speaks of whole Law and excludes the seventh day then it includes it Mr. Ives I have denyed the Consequence over and over and have assigned the reason why I do so and yet you make no answer to it Mr. Coppinger My Argument was That the seventh day sabbath was a part of that Law which in the Scriptures forbiddeth murder and adultery Mr. Ives And I have answered to that Argument by shewing that though the seventh day sabbath might be commanded in a Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery yet it followeth not that every Law that in the Scripture forbiddeth murder and adultery doth command the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger It doth command it if it doth not exclude it Mr. Ives Pray let us have some Argument to prove without repeating the same things over and over for I have told you That it doth not follow that the word whole Law doth include the seventh day sabbath because it doth not in so many words exclude it for one may as well say the word whole Law includeth the observation of sacrifices and offerings because those things are not excluded And if any shall say That sacrifices are excluded in other texts because the ceremonies of the Law were called shadows Heb. 10.1 I answer That in another text the sabbath day is excluded by the same reason because the sabbath day is called a shadow Col. 2.16 17. Moderator Mr. Coppinger I suppose it remains for you to prove that where-ever the words whole Law and royal Law are mentioned in the Scripture that the seventh day sabbath is included if it be not excluded Mr. Coppinger I have called for an instance of Mr. Ives and he hath not given any where the seventh day is excluded from the word whole Law Mr. Ives I have told you That if I could not shew a text where the seventh day is excluded yet the Consequence doth not follow That therefore the seventh day sabbath is included as in the case of the Passover and other Judaical Rites it doth not follow that where these are not verbally excluded from the word whole Law that therefore they are included and enjoyned where-ever the whole Law is required to be observed But further I say the sabbath is not included in the Law mentioned James the second and do you prove it Mr. Coppinger You beg the Question to say it is not included James 2. Mr. Ives Sir I am Respondent and the Respondent cannot beg the Question in denying but rather you do beg the Question by affirming the seventh day sabbath is intended and commanded in the second of James which you cannot prove Mr. Coppinger If
would be a Nazarene he must take a vow to perform the Law of the Nazarites not that any body was bound to be a Nazarite any more then Ananias and Saphira his wife were bound to sell all their Estates for to lay at the Apostles feet for to be disposed for the common good of the Church yet having made such a dedication voluntarily they were bound necessarily to perform it so Paul having a vow upon him at Censhrea was afterwards under a Law to perform it and so were those other Votaries mentioned with him Acts 21. vers 23. which vow the Apostles and Elders enjoyn them to discharge verse 24. but do expresly forbid the Gentiles the observation of any such thing therefore I have shewn that here was something enjoyned upon the Jews that was not enjoyned upon the Gentiles Mr. Coppinger I do say This was but an advice and that it was no preept Hereupon one that was a Hearer at this Dispute handed up a Note to Mr. Ives wherein he did affirm that Mr. Coppinger did confess at Worcester House that those words about which the Controversie did depend Acts 21.24 25. were binding precepts though he now said they were not precepts but advice Mr. Coppinger I never said the words in the 24 verse where the Apostles and Elders bid Paul and those men with him purifie themselves c. I say I never said those were precepts but indeed I said that the words in the 25 verse were precepts where the Gentiles are expresly forbidden the doing of any such thing I say these indeed are precepts and binding to believing Gentiles Mr. Ives Sir you have granted enough to confute your Argument for admit the words to the Jews in the 24 verse are no precept but an advice as you call it yet you have confessed that the 25 verse is a binding Law to the Gentiles that they should do NO SUCH THING Well then by your own confession the Gentiles are commanded not to do that which the Jews are advised to do and therefore there is a difference in point of precept and your Argument is confuted that saith There is no difference therefore I shall desire that the Moderator would call for a fresh Argument Moderator Sir I think enough hath been said to this Argument and therefore my advice is that you would proceed to another Mr. Coppinger All believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath I thus prove If it be the Doctrine of the new Testament that Gods people ought to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles ought to keep the seventh day sabbath But it is the Doctrine of the New Testament that Gods people ought to keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo all believing Gentiles ought to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I pray what do you mean by the terms Gods people in your Argument because the Jews are called Gods people by way of distinction from other people Mr. Coppinger I mean such as are bound to hear every word and to observe the principles of Religion Repentance from dead works and faith towards God with the Doctrine of Baptisms c. Mr. Ives If you mean all Gods people and all believers without exception then there is no Medium in the Syllogism for then the Argument runs thus If all Gods people are required then they are all required Mr. Coppinger I then argue thus If the Church of the Hebrews by vertue of this Epistle to the Hebrews were bound to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But the Church of the Hebrews by vertue of this Epistle to the Hebrews were bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I answer First if by Church of the Hebrews you mean Jews then it is but the same with the Argument we last dispatched for then you said If the believing Jews were commanded then the believing Gentiles were commanded And secondly if you mean Gentiles then I answer as before That there is no medium in the Syllogism Mr. Coppinger I mean onely that very Church as they were a particular Congregation distinguished from all other Churches and then there is a medium viz. If that Church were commanded to keep the seventh day then believing Churches are commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath But that Church was commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath Therefore all Believers and all other Churches are required and commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath And so consequently all believing Gentiles Mr. Ives I do deny both Major and Minor for both Propositions are justly to be excepted against Mr. Coppinger I have two things to do the first is to prove that the Church of the Hebrews were commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath and the second thing is That if this Church was commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath that then all believing Gentiles were commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath which two things I shall prove First then the text faith Heb. 4.9 That there remaineth a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God for so it is read in your Margent here then is a sabbath commanded and the third verse tells us that this was not commanded onely for the Hebrews but for Believers in general therefore it is said He that believeth hath entered into rest and that this was the seventh day rest appears because the text saith He ceaseth from his own works as God did from his now God ceased the seventh day from his works as the text tells us vers 4 therefore he doth admonish them to take heed that they did not fall after the same example of disobedience in breaking the Sabbath as the Israelites fell in the Wilderness therefore if you read Chap. 2. vers 15 16 17. you will find with whom he was grieved forty years was it not those whose Carcases fell in the wildernesse and that they fell for breaking the seventh day sabbath appears Ezek. 20.12 13. Moreover also I gave them my sabbath to be a signe between me and them c. But saith the 13 verse the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness c. and my sabbath they greatly polluted then I said I will pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness to consume them and ver 15. I lifted up my hand against them in the wilderness c. because they despised my Judgements and walked not in my Statutes but polluted my Sabbaths And therefore David admonisheth them in his time not to harden their hearts as in the wilderness Psal 95.7 but while it was called To day to hear his voice and not harden their hearts so here the Author to the Hebrews tells them there remains the keeping of a sabbath for them and all believers but doth bid them take heed of Israels sins in the wilderness which you see was Sabbath-breaking as well as
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
SATURDAY NO SABBATH Or the SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH Proved To be of no force to the Beleeving Gentiles in the times of the Gospel By the Law of Nature Moses Christ BEING An account of several publique Disputations held at Stone-Chappel by Pauls London Between Dr. Chamberlain Mr. Tillam and Mr. Coppinger of the one party And JER IVES of the other In which the Arguments and Answers on both sides are impartially recommended to publique view Together With an Appendix in which the said Question is more fully and plainly discussed for the better information of the weak and wherein all the Arguments levied for the defence of the Jewish Sabbath are answered By JER IVES Or of the New-moon or of the SABBATH-days which are a SHADOW of things to come but the Body is of Christ Col. 2.16 17. Strangers not Circumcised may do any work for themselves on the Jews SABBATH-days for the uncircumcised stranger is not commanded to keep the Jews SABBATH-days Maim Treat of the Sab Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Ch. 20 Sect. 14. London Printed for Dan. White at the seven Stars in Pauls Churchyard and Fran Smith in flying-Horse Court in Fleetstreet 1659. To the Beleevers in Christ especially they who are in bondage to the Jewish Sabbath and more particularly to those in Colchester Grace and Peace be multiplyed from the God of Peace IF our Souls were but affected with the sad and deplorable condition of the Churches of Christ by reason of those great divisions that are among them upon the advancing of every novel opinion we should take up the wish of the Prophet and say Oh that our head were waters and our eyes a fountain of tears especially if we consider what great dishonour it brings to God who is and would be known to be a God of peace and not of confusion in all the Churches of the Saints and as God is dishonoured so the edification of the Churches are hindred whilst their Religious discords prove as great an obstruction to their spiritual building as the confusion of Languages did to the building of Babylon and as discord among Christians hinders their edification so it hinders the conversion of others for if a Jew or an Infidel come among Christians and observes the several Opinions that are among them may they not have just cause to say You are mad Oh then as you tender Gods honour and your own edification and the worlds conversion follow the things that make for peace And in order hereunto let me give you some Cautions First That you be careful how you take up an opinion or receive anything for truth before you have well weighed and considered of it The foolish saith Solomon beleeveth EVERY thing but the prudent will consider his steps Prov. 14.15 plainly shewing that some are so foolish that if they do but hear a thing they will inconsiderately and rashly receive it Too much of this folly is at this time among professors who run to receive every new thing that they hear of before they are able to give a Reason for the truth of the thing they so receive These men often prove troublers of the Churches peace and turn the joy she had of a sudden Proselite into great sorrow that either by their unruly and disorderly promoting their new received opinions to the disturbance of the peace and hinderance of the growth of the Churches or else by their sudden departing from those Notions that they hastily and inconsiderately received For it is worth observing that those that hastily imbrace a thing though it be truth seldom do remain permanent Professors of it this our Lord Christ teacheth us in the parable of the sower Mat. 13.5 compared with the 20. where it is observable of the seed that fell among stony ground how that ANON it sprung up but it SUDDENLY withered away for want of root which Christ interprets to be for want of understanding as appears if you but compare this hasty Professor with the professor who is said to receive with understanding ver 23. whereas the other is said to receive it incontinently ver 20. he departeth from it as suddenly ver 21. I speak not this to the end that I might discourage people from hasting to keep Gods commands but that according to the Proverb they should make no more hast then good speed for sad experience tells us that the Churches have sped very ill by such rash inconsiderate members who have proved disturbers of the peace while they have been in and many times have made havock of the Churches peace in their going out by drawing others after them Secondly As I would caution you to be careful in receiving so I would likewise have you careful in the promoting any thing that you have so received In the first place take heed of being too hasty in the venting that thou hast newly received for if once a man hath vented an opinion in publick it will be hard to recant though it prove very erronious how sad is it then to see men dispute in publick for that to day when they doubted of the truth of it but yesterday 2. Be careful in promoting of any thing thou hast received passionately and uncharitably branding all that differ from thee as Law-breakers and denyers of Scriptures calling all Ranters Quakers Papists Atheists c. that deny the truth of thy opinion as Mr. Tillam doth in his Treatise of the Sabbath pag. 6. accusers of Christ and reproachers of the Apostle Paul pag. 122 123. again he calls those that do not agree with him in this point about the keeping of the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath base-born muck-worms pag. 26. But no wonder Mr. Tillam speakes at this rate since as he confesseth in his Book That sometimes his affection did out-run his judgment Likewise Mr. Spittlehouse in his Book called Error blasted wherein he useth a great many words in Capital Letters instead of Capital Arguments taking that for granted which he ought to have proved viz. Thát the Seventh-day Sabbath is a moral precept then having shamefully begged the Question he manfully infers That all that are otherwise minded are breakers of Jehovahs Royal Law when he himself from that Text much insisted on by them Mat. 5.17 to prove the Seventh-day Sabbath a command to beleeving Gentiles faints in the way of his proof by saying It is PROBABLE Christ preached that Sermon to the multitude as well as to the twelve among whom there were Gentiles But what if one should say It is certain that this was preached while the first Tabernacle was standing and that it is improbable that he preached to Gentiles because preaching to the Gentiles seemed so strange to Peter Acts the 10 might not a man have better ground to evince the one then he hath to infer the other viz. because Christ preached to the multitude that therefore two of the twelve were Gentiles and yet for all he confesseth that it is but a PROBABLE conjecture yet he hath the confidence
Command that required the Observation of the seventh day and yet I may not be guilty of sin Dr. Chamberlain He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law is guilty of sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law Ergo. Mr. Ives I answer By distinguishing of the term HE in the Major proposition for if you do not mean every he then I deny the Syllogism And if you do mean every he or every one then I deny the Minor for these Reasons First this text that you refer to in your Argument was written to the Twelve Tribes Jam. 1.1 and therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that because the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law that therefore every believing Gentile is so bound Secondly if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epistle yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments for there is no such thing in the Text. Dr. Chamberlain This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians and therefore to every Christian Mr. Ives I say as before that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle and if they were yet these words The Ten Commandments which are in the Argument are not in this Text and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments as understood by you in the Argument must be concluded from hence or you do not prove the thing denyed Dr. Chamberlain Lest you should equivocate about this word Law the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table and he doth not mention any part of the First Table by which it appears that by the Royal Law he intends the Ten Commandments unless you will say that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law Therefore I 〈◊〉 He that is bound 〈◊〉 keep the whole Law is bound to keep all the ten Commandments But every Christian is bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Every Christian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Forasmuch as you have not said any thing new but what you have said already over and over I therefore answer by denying the Major and say That a man may keep the whole Law in the sense of this text and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your sense And though I do confess we are bound to keep and observe all the other nine Commandments yet we are not bound to observe the command for the seventh-day-sabbath which is one of the ten Commandments And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to serve God I confess we are to observe that also though we are not tied to the seventh day Dr. Cham. Well then I will prove the Major thus If the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole Law Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law are bound to keep the ten Commandments But the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole law Ergo. M. Ives I deny the minor and say that in the sense of this text this word the whole law doth not contain all the ten Commandments Dr. Cham. I further argue If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole Then he is commanded to keep the whole But he that breaks one Commandments is guilty of the whole Ergo He is commanded to keep the whole It is observable that the Doctor made three essays to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing denyed but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie Mr. Ives I deny the whole Syllogism because it concludes not the matter in question for the thing in question is Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the sense of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments and by consequence the Seventh-day-Sabbath and your Argument concludes we must keep the whole and all the Commandments which was never denyed Dr. Cham. If you deny Scripture I have done with you Mr. Ives I do not deny the Scripture but your Syllogism which concludes not the thing in question as I have shewn you once and again As it hath been answered that S. James doth not write to Gentiles and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments by this word The whole Law and so consequently not the seventh-day-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
of the Gospel or the Multitude But the Law-maker hath not appointed any of these Ergo. Under the Law the Sabbath-breaker was to stoned to death by the MVLTITVDE and if that Law the seventh-day Sabbath be in force the MULTITUDE then by the same Law 〈◊〉 MULTITUDE are to stone the seventh-day 〈◊〉 hath breakers to death Mr. Tillam I declare that the Law given by God 〈◊〉 Moses upon Mount Sinai is in force to all believing Gentiles and thus I prove it Whosoever doth expect the sun of righteouâ—ness to arise with healing under his wings thâ—â— are bound to observe the Law of Moses Mal. 2 3 4. Remember the law of Moses my servant which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgements So that the reason why Christians are bound and encounâ—ged to keep it is because it is the Law of the ten Commandments And here I might framâ— a Syllogism but I will not take that conrse And I might say That Law which contained these two causes that faith Thou shalt not kilâ— and Thou shalt not commit adultery is the Royaâ— Law and that that law is the law of the ten Commandments and so consequently requireth the keeping of a Sabbath day Mr. Ives I do perceive that Mr. Tillam either will noâ— or cannot answer my Argument else surely he would not have forgotten the place of a Respondent and argue in stead of answering For it 〈◊〉 evident that he waves the strength of my Arâ—ments and proposeth Arguments of his own 〈◊〉 to little purpose Surely this is true for there is neither Argument nor Answer in what Mr. Tillam last urged 〈◊〉 is no Answer for he doth not so much as 〈◊〉 any notice of Mr. Ives his Argument one way 〈…〉 other Again there is no Argument that conâ—â—udes any thing in question if those broken speeches 〈◊〉 violating the rules of Disputation may be 〈◊〉 with the name of Arguments For first there is not one word of the seventh-seventh-day 〈◊〉 in the Argument he would seem to make 〈◊〉 Mal. 4.2 3 4 no nor in the text it self 2. There is not one word of believing Gentiles which are the subjects in the question neither in be text nor the argument 3. The promises and excouragements which are 〈◊〉 to those that keep the Law of Moses mentioned in Mal. 4. are as well made to the keeping the ceremonial as the moral part of Moses Law for the text saith they were to keep that Law with the statures and judgements given in Horeb. Now if by this text the Sabbath be enjoyned it is no otherwise enjoyned then as it was among other Statutes given in 〈◊〉 of which the ornaments of the Priests was one Exod. 29.9 and the burnt-offerings another Lev. 3.17 both which are called perpetual statutes as any body may see that consults the texts 4. If the Sabbath be required in this text Mâ— 4. where there is an exhortation to keep the Lawâ— Moses c. it is required of none but â—ews wâ— are granted in the explanation of the Question 〈◊〉 be under that Law as appeareth vers 4. Remeâ—ber YE the law of Moses which I commandeâ— unto him in Horeb for ALL ISRAEL with 〈◊〉 statutes and judgements So that this text omâ— proves what is granted viz. that all Israel 〈◊〉 under the Law given in Horeb but is far enougâ—â— from proving that believing Gentiles are bound 〈◊〉 observe that Law and farther from answering 〈◊〉 Ives his Argument which because Mr. Tillam said nothing to it Mr. Ives proceeded Mr. Ives If God hath appointed the same punishmeâ—â— to be inflicted upon the seventh-day â—â—abbathâ—â— breaker in the times of the Gospel as he diâ—appoint should be inflicted upon the Jews Sabbath-breakers in the times of the Law I dâ—demand of all this Assemble since Mr. Tillam doth refuse to answer who it is that God hathâ—â— appointed to punish the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath among the believing Gentiles 〈◊〉 the times of the Gospel whether it be 〈◊〉 Civil Magistrate or the Gospel-Minister 〈◊〉 whether every man shall rise up and kill his brother because he doth not keep the seventh-day sabbath And although Mr. Tillam will not nor cannot answer this Argument yet hath he the boldness to say that they are all Atheists Papists Prelates Ranters Quakers and some Notionists that gainsay the seventh-day sabbath as appears by his Book page 6. Hereupon Mr. Tillam was provoked to answer Mr. Tillam As for my Book there is no such thing in it if there is it is the Printers Errata and therefore you that have a minde to know the truth thereof together with other things therein contained you may buy it at Livewel Chapmans in Popes-head-alley or aâ— Mr. Eversdens at the Greyhound in Pauls Church-yard Mr. Ives It is strange you should be ignorant of your own book and as â—rappe that the Printer should erre so foully as to put an Argument of five or fix lines in your book if it were not in the copie and that it is in the book I shall shew you Hereupon Mr. Iveâ— took Mr. Tillams book out of his pocket and read these very words before all the people viz. that Gods precept seconded by his practice gives such full honour to the Sabbath that I hear of none but Atheists Papistâ— Prelates Ranters Quakers and some Notionists that deny it Mr. Ives having read these passages to the people Mr. Tillam desireth Mr. Ives to hand the book to him which Mr. Ives did and when Mr. Tillam had read those passages he gives this answer Mr. Tillam It is true I mention these persons in my book but I do not compare all that deny the seventh-day-sabbath to such but all that deny A sabbath Mr. Ives Sir that cannot be because both Papistas and Prelates do acknowledge A Sabbath or a time to worship and further you allude to the sabbath that God commanded and seconded by his practise which was say you the seventh-day and thereupon tell your Reader that you hear of none save Atheiâ—â—s Papists Prelares Ranters c. that deny IT meaning the seventh-day sabbath as any body may perceive that reads your Book therefore Sir I cannot but wonder that you should be so confident in your opinion as thus to judge and censure those that are contrary minded since you hereby refuse to answer my Argument and to assign who the Law-maker hath appointed to execute the punishment which he hath assigned in the Law of Moses for sabbath-breaking since you say both that law and the punishment annexed to it is in force to the beleeving Gentiles Mr. Tillam Well then I will answer you and I do say that the great law-giver himself shall punish the breach of the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I demanded who the lawgiver hath appointed under him to execute this punishment for so runs the Argument viz. he hath appointed some or other c. and you answer He will do it himself if this answer had been
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-seventh-day sabbath then it is manifest either in God word right Reason or manifest experience that they have had such convictions But neither Gods word right Reason or manifest experience doth manifest any such conviction Ergo The Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh day sabbath This Minor Proposition being that which is denied I shall therefore because it is negative resolve it into the answer of my respondent 〈◊〉 desiring him to assign an instance either in God word right Reason or manifest experience thâ—â— ever any Gentile was convinced of sin by the Law of Nature for not observing the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam To the Argument out of the Law of Nature I answer that it doth convince men 〈◊〉 sin for Idolatry and yet ask a Papist if he 〈◊〉 convinced of sin for bowing to the Virgin Mary and he will say No. Mr. Ives Sir You have not answered nor assigned 〈◊〉 instance and for what you say of a Papist 〈◊〉 answer that it is one thing to live under a Law that convinceth of sin and another thing to acknowledge such conviction as for example It is said of the Holy Ghost that he shall convince the world of sin and yet we all know the world is not convinced of sin so as publickly to repent and return Shall I then be so barbarous as to say that there is not a Law convincing because men are not actually convinced of their Idolatry for doubtless the most ignorant Papists have a Law and the Spirit of God convincing them of sin though actually they are not convinced However it is manifest that the light of Nature hath at some time or other so prevailed upon some of her children as that to a
great degree they have been convinced of all Moral duties but to this of the seventh-day Nature never did Proselyte any of her children Mr. Tillam making no further reply and refusing to assign an instance either in Scripture or any other credible story where Nature did ever convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives therefore by the request of the Company was desired to urge another Argument Mr. Ives I proceed to the Law of Christ and from thence shall prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath which I thus do That Law which is inforced by the appointment of Christ unto beleeving Gentiles some or other at some time or other have either been commended for the keeping or blamed for the breaking of it But none have at any time by Christs appointment been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping the seventh-day sabbath Ergo the 7th-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles by Christs appointment Mr. Tillam Anointing with oyl is a Command in force since the Resurrection and yet none are commended for observing or blamed for not observing of it Mr. Ives I answer That anointing with Oyl is not my present work to manage otherwise it were likely I might say somewhat to it Here one that stood at M. Ives his elbow whispered him and bid him tell Mr. Tillam That Christ commended the woman in the Gospel for anointing Him with Oyl which Mr. Ives had no sooner said but Mr. Tillam made this answer that the anointing required in James his Epistle was to be done by the Elders of the Church and therefore the instance did not reach the Case hereupon Mr. Ives ingenuously confessed that it was not to the Case onely he told Mr. Tillam and the Audience that he had uttered it before he was aware it being suddenly suggested to him by one that stood by however it is observable that the instance of anointing with oyl is not a sufficient instance to abate the strength of the Syllogism for the intent of the Syllogism is to shew that the seventh-day Sabbath is no moral Precept as appears by the last Argument that was brought to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath was not commanded by the light of Nature and the instance is in an institution that is not Moral So that the intent of the Argument was that there was no MORAL Duty required by Christ but some were found blameable for not observing or commended for observing of it otherwise doubtless both under Law and Gospel it 's like one may finde some particular institutions that we read of which we shall hear of no complaint for not observing because they were not Duties universally to be observed by all men at all times as Moral Precepts are as for example The business of anointing with oyl is the Duty of none but the Elders but the seventh-day-sabbath-keeping is if Mr. Tillam say true Moral and to be kept by all and further the Duty of anointing with oyl as it was to be done by some persons so also but at some times viz. when any one of the Church was sick but the Sabbath was to be kept every seventh day and that not onely by the Church but all the world if Mr. Tillam say true so that the instance is far and wide from the case in hand for the intent of the Argument is That if Christ had inforced the seventh day upon believers as a Moral Law to be constantly observed some would either have been blamed for breaking or commended for keeping of i◠and this is true of all Moral Laws being universally to be observed by all and there is not any one Moral Law but some in the new Testament are under blame for not observing it or else praised for observing it but not one word is mentioned of this kinde touching the 7th-day sabbath since the death of Christ which makes me conclude it died with Him Mr. Ives I come now to another Argument which take as followeth If believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds then they are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath But believing Gentiles by an Apostolical toleration may esteem one day above another or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds Ergo believing Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-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-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
the 14 of the Romans that so the beleevers might not bring one another to bondage in such things wherein Christ hath made them free How then doth this absurdity fall upon the Arguments viz. thaâ— because we are left at liberty in point of Mosaical obligations to days that therefore we may spend this liberty to the service of the flesh and set apart no time at all to serve and worship God in 〈◊〉 this indeed would be contrary to the light of Nature which hath taught all her sons to set apart 〈◊〉 time in which to worship and serve their God But if it should be said that if God hath left no command how much time or what time then we should not sin though we observed no time I answer that this is an absolute non-sequitur for first God hath not appointed what maintenance the Ministers of the Gospel should have under the New Testament doth it therefore follow that we being delivered by Jesus Christ from the Mosaical bondage of maintaining the Ministers according to the Levitical Law and since we are at liberty and not â—njoyned how much or how little or in what kind they should be maintained that therefore they should have no maintenance at all the like may be said in respect of a place of worship as well as a time for God had under the Law tied the Jews to a place of worship but now he hath delivered us from that bondage and hath made all places alike as to any Mosaical sanctity doth it therefore follow that Christians may from thenceforward chuse whether they will meet any where or no or that one beleever may run one way and another another way and so never come to the place where the Church meeteth too many such libertines were in the Apostles days and to our great grief we may say there are too many in our days that turn this Grace and Gospel-liberty into wantonness and licentiousness This I thought good to add in this place to stop the carreer of that conceipt viz. that because Christ hath freed us from those days that Moses his Disciples were hound to observe and hath left the Christians at liberty herein in that he hath made every day alike that therefore we may chuse if we will keep any day as all to the service of the Lord this is not only a sensual but a senseless imagination but more of this touching a day to worship God in and also what day we ought to observe for his publick worship shall be shewn in the ensuing Appendix to these Disputations So then by what hath been said we may perceive that we ought not to alter nor vary the literal sence of a text unless Gods word on right Reason do warrant us so to do but neither Gods word nor right Reason doth warrant us to restrain the Apostles words when he saith Some men esteem one day above another anâ— others esteem EVERY day alike For by the same rule we may restrain general words when we have no warrant we may usheâ— in any absurdity as for instance the Scripture saith God made every thing that creepeth may not a man as well say that there is some creeping thing that God hath not made as say when the Apostle tells us that now the partition-wall is broken down and notwithstanding Moses Law you may judge of every day alike without being judged a transgressor of it that this every day is understood but of some days commanded by Moses and not of the seventh-seventh-day sabbath Neither have I disesteemed or excluded the first day of the week by my Argument from hence since the Argument is founded upon the words of the Text. Mr. Ives Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument I shall urge one more out of the 15 of the Acts compared with the 21. If the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. then the beleeving Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Christ to keep the 7th-day sabbath But the Holy Ghost hath discharged the beleeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses except as is excepted Acts 15. Ergo The beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam Yesterday this Gentleman granted nine of the Commandments in force and binding to the Gentiles and now he saith none are in force but those exprest Acts 15. Mr. Ives I say nine of the ten Commandments are in force to day as well as yesterday and so is the fourth Commandment also as to a time for beleevers to worship God in but not as in the hand of Moses for so saith my Argument but as they are implanted in the hearts of men and are now further explained and injoyned by a better Mediator who never injoyned the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath This was the end of the second Disputation at which time there was an agreement to Dispute the same Arguments over again with one Matthew Coppinger which was appointed to be on Candlemas day then next ensuing being the second of Febr. 1658. at the place aforesaid at which time and place Mr. Coppinger was to answer to Mr. Ives his forementioned Arguments and what new ones he thought good to add The forementioned time being come and the people being Assembled Mr. Ives propounds the Question which was to be disputed which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question to be disputed this day is Whether all beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Which Question I resolve into this Proposition viz. That all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger All beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day for a Sabbath Mr. Ives I have urged one general Argument in the former Disputations to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath which I am now to insist upon the second time in expectation of your Answers which Argument is as followeth If beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are bound either by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ But beleeving Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo Beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I answer that beleeving Gentiles are commanded by the Law of Nature if by the Law of Nature you mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Ives I do mean the Law written in the heart Mr. Coppinger Then pray put your Argument in those â—erms and then I shall answer to it Mr. Ives Though this be needless after I have explained my meaning yet that we may not trifle about words I shall consent and thereupon proceed to prove That the Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath which I thus doe That which the Law written in
the heart binds the beleeving Gentiles to observe it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe But the Law written in the heart doth not convince the beleeving Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo The Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to observe the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I say the Law written in the heart doth convince the beleeving Gentiles of sin in that they do not observe the seventh-seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives If the Law written in the heart doth convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath then it is manifest either in Gods word Right Reason or manifest experience that they have had such convictions But neither Gods word Right Reason 〈◊〉 manifest experience doth manifest that ever the Law written in the heart did convince thâ— Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo The Law written in the heart dotâ— not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I do deny the Minor and say that the Law that is written in the heart doth convince 〈◊〉 sin for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives Sir then you deny the Conclusion and not the Minor what ever you say therefore pray put in your exception against the enumeration in the Syllogism and shew us either from Scripture Record or Right Reason or Experience that any have been convinced of sin by the Law written in their heart for not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Coppinger I shall then assign the Scripture Levit. 20.22 23. where it is written that God cast out the Nations for that they did not do all the things that be commanded Israel to do for thus it is written ver 22. Yee viz. Israel shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my judgments and do them â—hat the land whither I bring you to dwell therein â—ue you not out And yee shall not walk in the manners of the naâ—â—ons which I cast out before you for they commit 〈◊〉 all these things and therefore I abhorred them From whence I infer First that the seventh-seventh-day Sabbath was included in these words ALL my â—â—atutes and ALL my judgments and that â—â—hese were injoyned to the Gentile Nations â—â—prove by the 22 verse where it is said God â—â—st out the Nations viz. the Gentiles because they did not do ALL those things which he commanded of the people of Israel among which their seventh-day Sabbath was one great thing that was commanded now then If the Gentiles were cast out because they did not observe ALL the Laws and ALL the Statutes and ALL the Judgments which God commanded Israel to observe among which the seventh-day Sabbath was one as appears by comparing the 19 ch and 30 ver where keeping the Sabbath is mentioned among the Statutes of Israel I say If the Gentile Nations were cast out for not observing all Israel's statutes and all their judgments it appears that the Law written in the heart did convince them that they had sinned in that they had not observed all those things and so consequently the Law written in the heart doth convince them of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Ives I answer First that you have all this while argued and not answered But secondly The text doth not say the Nations were cast out for that they did not keep all Israels Laws but for that they were guilty of all those unnatural lusts mentioned in thâ— former part of the Chapter which he commanddeth Israel to refrain and withal to keep all his statutes lest he cast out them as he had done those Nations But thirdly How doth it appear that these Nations were to keep ALL Israels statutes and all their judgments by the Law written in their heart for they might otherwise come under the guilt of the transgressions of the Law of Israel then by Natures conviction if that should be granted that cannot be proved viz. that the Nations were to keep all Israels laws Fourthly If you say that the Nations were convinced of sin by the light of Nature because they did not keep ALL the statutes that were given to Israel then it will follow that the light of Nature did convince them of sin because they were not observers of the Ceremonial Laws that were given to Israel for those are mentioned in the 19 Chapter of Leviticus among the Statutes of Israel as well as their Sabbaths and other things Mr. Coppinger I do deny that Consequence for it doth not follow that the Nations were bound by the light of Nature to keep all Israels Ceremonial Laws because they were by the Law writ in their heart to keep all their statutes and all their judgments Mr. Ives I say the Consequence followeth undenyable for if it be true as you say that the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all the statutes and all the judgments that were given to Israel and all these statutes and all these judgments were taught them by the Law that was writ in the heart then I say it follows that the Nations were to keep the Ceremonial law of Israel as well as their Mora l then which to imagine there is nothing more absurd Mr. Coppinger I say no more then the text for the text saith You shall keep ALL my statutes and ALL my judgments that the land spew you not out as it did those that wore before you Mr. Ives I say the land did loath her former inhabitants because they did not keep all the laws which the light of Nature had taught them to observe therefore God threatens Israel with the same judgments if in case they either contrary to the Law writ in the heart or contrary to the Law given by Moses should be found transgressours not that it followeth that the Nations were bound by the law written in the heart to keep all Israels laws judgments for then they were bound by the law written their heart to keep the Ceremonial Laws also as well as the seventh-seventh-day sabbath which is ridiculous to imagine Mr. Coppinger I say that the Ceremonial Law is no part oâ— that whole Law in the Texts that I have mentioned where all the Statutes and all the judgments are commanded to Israel for there iâ— not a word mentioned concerning it in the whole chapter Mr. Ives Neither is there a word of the seventh-day sabbath in any of that chapter Mr. Coppinger But you may remember that I told you that all the Laws mentioned in Lev. the 20.22 23 did include the Sabbath day required in 19 ch 30 ver where it is said You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries so that if the Nations as I have said were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Statutes and all their judgments then they were cast out because they did not keep the 7th-day sabbath Mr. Ives I answer as before that the Text doth not say that
15. compared with Act. 21. Now if the Holy Ghost had said in the case of days You may keep every day alike except the seventh day sabbath then there had been somewhat in your instance otherwise the instance confirms the Argument Mr. Coppinger Here the Apostle doth refer the Observation of days to their own mind and so he doth the eating of all things therefore Mr. Ives hath done my work for me by assigning Acts 15. where blood and things strangled and things offered to Idols are excepted If then I shew that the seventh-day sabbath is as expresly and particularly excepted I have answered his Argument by his own confession and that it is excepted you may see in Jam. 2. and Mat. 5.17 18. Mr. Ives That which you promised was That you would shew as particular an exception of the seventh-day sabbath out of every day as I had shewn you against eating all things and instead thereof you assigne me two general texts where the whole Law and every jot and tittle of the Law is required to be kept and observed both which texts have been denyed to include the seventh-day sabbath to be in force because offering of sacrifices is required in the fifth of Matthew as well as other things where Christ bids those to whom he preached to go and be reconciled to their brother and then come and offer their gift which Law is not binding to the believers in these days But is it not strange that a man in his right wits should tell us That he would assigne a text where the sabbath was excepted out of this word every day in as express terms as blood and things strangled are excepted out of every thing and instead of a particular exception he produceth two general texts that have not the least word of a Sabbath in them but doth not this leave the Argument unanswered for by the same rule he can say That the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text when the Apostle saith We may observe every day alike I say by the same rule and with much more strength of reason it may be denyed that the sabbath is included in those general terms All the Law and the whole Law but sure I am that it was never heard of that such general texts were ever called express and particular exceptions against a general term in a Syllogism by any that ever understood the difference between a particular and a general term Mr. Coppinger The texts I named tell us that the whole Law is to be observed and every tittle of it till it be fulfilled and the seventh-day sabbath was included therefore if any man teach otherwise he teacheth contrary to sound Doctrine And as touching bringing gifts to the Altar and offering sacrifices mentioned in that Text Matt 5. these things Christ hath fulfilled and nailed to his Cross * And lyet when Mr Ives did dispute the next time with Mr. Coppinger he said That Altar was not understood for a literal Altar But said The Altar and the Gift in Mat. 5. was both to be understood Allegorically and yet here he doth confess that the text speaks of such an Altar and such a Gift that were types of Christ and that ended at his death Compare therefore this saying with his Argument upon the fifth of Matthew in the next ensuing Dispute if not they shall remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain and so must the seventh-day sabbath unless Mr. Ives can shew us that it is fulfulled by Christ and that because it hath Heaven and Earth for its reason Mr. Ives All this while there is no particular exception made against my former Argument from the fourteenth of the Romans as you promised me but instead thereof you repeat the text Mat. 5. whence you infer That Heaven and Earth shall pass before the law shall pass till it be fulfilled of which law the sabbath say you must needs be a part What if that were granted doth that prove that all the law mentioned in Mat. 5. is in force have not you confessed that offerings mentioned in the same chapter were fulfilled and abolished by Christ which very Confession of yours hath made the text uncapable to do you that service for which you cited it For how can any man safely conclude any particular proposition to be binding from a general text when he himself shall say Some things intended in that general text cannot be concluded from it as binding so that the Argument yet remains unanswered viz. That believers have no tie upon them by vertue of Moses law to observe one day above another and therefore they are not tied by Moses law to keep the seventh-day sabbath And though we have this freedom by Christ from the Mosaical institutions it doth not therefore follow as some fondly do imagine that therefore we are not to set apart a time under the Gospel to worship and serve God Somewhat hath been spoken to this in the former Dispute with Mr. Tillam and more shall be spoken in the insuing Appendix But we proceed to the next Argument Mr. Ives Because Mr. Coppinger confessed that if the seventh-day sabbath was fulfilled by Christ 〈◊〉 the Altar and Gifts mentioned in Mat. 5. that then we were not to observe it otherwise it was to continue I shall therefore shew that the seventh-day sabbath is fulfilled by Christ thus If the seventh-day sabbath be a weak and beggerly Rudiment then Christ hath fulfilled it But the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment Ergo Christ hath fulfilled it Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor The seventh day is not a weak and beggerly Rudiment Mr. Ives If all the times commanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudiments then the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment But all the times comanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudiments Ergo the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor all the times commanded to be observed in the law are not weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Ives If there was no time commanded to be observed in the Law but dayes months times and years and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments then all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggerly Rudiments But there was no time commanded to be observed in the law but days months times and years and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments Ergo all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and put you to prove that the days months times and yeers that were commanded to be observed in the Law were weak and beggerly Rudiments Mr. Ives This I shall do from Gal. 4.9 10 11. the words are these How turn ye again to those weak and beggerly Rudiments whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage Ye observe days and months and times and yeers I am afraid of you lest I have
done which was contrary to the work of a sabbath day I answer that nothing is mentioned which 〈◊〉 lawfully done on those sabbaths that was contrary to the work of the seventh day Mr. Coppinger I shall shew you that these sabbaths in Isa 1.13 could not be the sabbath days as first they are said Isa 1. to tread in Gods Courts in the Temple which they did not do on the sabbath dayes for then they met in the Synagogue Secondly here is all the Sacrifices and burnt-offerings which they could not offer upon the sabbath dayes Mr. Ives First it doth not follow that all those religious duties mentioned with the sabbaths Isa 1. were to be performed upon the sabbath dayes any more then the celebrations of their new Moons were to be celebrated upon the sabbath dayes and therefore if the duties there mentioned could not be performed upon the sabbath dayes that doth not prove the sabbaths mentioned with new Moons in that text doth not intend the Sabbath day Secondly you say they trod the Courts of God this you call a work which they could not do upon the sabbath dayes because you say they met in the Synagogue upon sabbath dayes I answer That David magnifies the COVRTS of Gods house while as yet there was no temple which shews that other places were called the Courts of Gods house as well as the temple Thirdly they might tread Gods Courts in the Temple upon the Sabbath dayes and therefore you confessed that the priests in the Temple might offer the Sacrifice upon the sabbath-day and be blameless which Christ supposes to be their constant custome but I believe never any seventh-day sabbath-keeper but Mr. Coppinger ever taught that it was a work that could not be done on the Sabbath day for People to tread in the Courts of Gods Temple Again you say here was ALL their Burnt-offerings and ALL their Sacrifices which you say could not be upon the seventh day sabbath offered and therefore Isaiah could not mean the seventh-day sabbath I answer That the text doth not say all their Sacrifices but the multitude of their Sacrifices and therefore you grosly abuse the text Just as if I should say Here is a multitude of People here assembled doth it reasonably follow from such a speech that ALL the People in England are here assembled Mr. Coppinger The text speaks of their SOLEMN Assemblies which was not wont to be upon their sabbath dayes Mr. Ives It doth not follow that because they were solemn Assemblies that they were such Assemblies that could not be upon the sabbath days for Mr. Coppinger meets upon the seventh-day sabbath and will they say when they are together that it is not a solemn Assembly But if the Sabbaths mentioned Isa 1.13 could not be the Sabbath dayes because they had solemn Assemblies upon it then the seventh-day Sabbath that Mr. Coppinger and those of his mind assembles on is not the true Sabbath day because they have a solemn Assembly upon it But I have shewed that the mentioning of these duties with the Sabbaths doth not prove they were all to be performed upon the Sabbath there mentioned but however that is most untrue to say that the sabbath mentioned Isa 1.13 is not the Sabbath day because those services there mentioned could not be done upon the sabbath days and that those religious duties there mentioned were contrary to the works of the Sabbath day then which nothing is more false Mr. Coppinger I have shewn you a text where sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons that is not understood of the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I shall leave this Argument to the judgement of the Audience and your own conscience I have shewn that sabbaths were shadows of Christ and therefore not binding in these days to the believing Gentiles I have also given two reasons why the sabbath mentioned Col. 2.16 is to be understood of the seventh-seventh-day sabbath The one was because the word Sabbath is always understood for the seventh-day sabbath when it is mentioned without reference to their festival sabbaths And lastly I have more chiefly insisted and do still insist upon this reason viz. That the seventh-day sabbath is intended by the Apostle in Col. 2.16 because sabbath is there mentioned with new Moons and Feasts c. and throughout the whole Bible where-ever sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons and Feasts there the sabbath dayes are always intended and therefore I do again call upon my Respondent either to say that he cannot answer the Argument or else to shew me a text where sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons and the seventh-day sabbath not intended because no Scripture is of a private interpretation Mr. Coppinger I have shewed you Isa 1.13 where Sabbath is mentioned and the seventh-day sabbath not intended Mr. Ives I have shewed you that the reasons why you so conceive have no weight that the seventh-day sabbath is intended by the prophet Isaiah in the sabbath mentioned with new Moons Isa 1.13 and therefore unless you will assign any other instances to take off the force of my Argument I shall because the time and my strength is very much spent end the Disputation I come now to give an account of the fourth and last Disputation which was on the 22 of Feb. 1658. at the place aforesaid at which Dispute Mr. Coppinger was Opponent and Mr. Ives Respondent at which time and place the people being assembled Mr. Coppinger propounds the Question to be disputed on which take as followeth Mr. Coppinger THe Question to be disputed this day is Whether believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives The question was laid down in general terms and you have repeated it in indefinite terms not but that I could oppose it in those terms but because we have agreed upon terms let us not now alter them Mr. Coppinger When I say Believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day sabbath my meaning is all believing Gentiles Moderator Sir then I pray put in those words and proceed Mr. Coppinger I say then All believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives All believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and pray prove they are Mr. Coppinger The first Argument I shall urge is this If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James Ergo all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I deny the consequence of the major Proposition for though all believers are bound to keep the royal Law mentioned in James the second yet they are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James and that Law doth contain the seventh day
secondly I deny the Minor and so That James doth not require the keeping of the whole Law according to the old Testament Mr. Coppinger I prove the Minor thus They that break one point of the Law in the old Testament they are guilty of the whole and cannot fulfil this law But he that breaks the seventh day sabbath breaks one point of the Law in the old Testament Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny the Major and say A man may break some points of the law contained in the Old Testament and yet keep this Law required in Jam. 2. Mr. Coppinger If you can prove that we can keep the law according to the old Testament and not keep the seventh day sabbath you do something Mr. Ives Your answer is impertinent for the proof doth lie upon you Secondly you cannot prove we can keep the Law according to the old Testament unless we are circumcised doth it follow that then wee must be circumcised But thirdly if I can prove that believers may keep the law in Jam. 2. according to any scripture without keeping the seventh day sabbath it is sufficient Mr. Coppinger The strength of my Argument lyeth in this That believers must keep the Law according to the scriptures of the old Testament which they could not do without keeping the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives And the strength of my Answer lyeth in this That then they must be circumcised otherwise they cannot keep the whole Law according to the old Testament to which you make no Reply Mr. Coppinger I argue further If Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. then they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. Ergo Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath This Argument contains two Parts The one is That Christian Gentiles are bound to keep this law Jam. 2. The other is That this Law contains the seventh day sabbath First he speaks to Christians in general therefore to Gentiles Because he calls them Brethren and writeth to them as Believers and tells them that if they kept the Royal Law according to the scripture they should do well and withal tells them that whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all Secondly That the seventh day sabbath was a point of this Law I thus reason If the Apostle refers them to the Scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the Law according to the old Testament except they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is one point of this law Jam. 2. But the Apostle refers them to the scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the law according to the old Testament unless they kept the seventh day sabbath Ergo they could not keep the whole Law Jam. 2. unless they kept the seventh-seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I have answered to this Argument over and over and therefore I shall take a little time to speak a few words more and then I shall desire we may go to a fresh Argument First then this word whole Law it either respects the whole Law that the Jews were to observe or the whole Law that Christians are to observe if the whole Law here respect the Law that the Jews were to observe then if we should be bound to that we should be bound to observe Ceremonies as well as Morals for thus whole Law is understood both in the Old and New Testament when it relates to the Laws the Jews were to keep as appears Gal. 5.3 compared with 2 Chron. 33.8 where God tells Israel that he will never remove them if they will keep the WHOLE law with the Statutes and Ordinances But secondly This word whole law doth relate to the Law of liberty which believers are to keep which is opposed to the yoke of bondage as appears by comparing James 1. ver 25. with James 2 and 12 where he bids them so speak and so do â—s those that should be judged by the Law of liberty which is opposed to the Law of Moses for that it is called a yoke of bondage So that here is not one word of the seventh day sabbath but indeed of a royal Law and a Law of liberty which Christians are bound to keep according to the Scriptures in doing by all men as they would be done untoâ— for what Law soever Christ hath commended and confirmed to us out of the Scriptures of the old Testament these laws indeed we must keep according to the Scriptures of the old Testament but Christ hath not confirmed the Saturday sabbath and therefore we are not to look into the old Testament for our information therein Any otherwise then as the fourth Commandment enjoyns A time to worship and so hath something in it that is of use unto all Mr. Coppinger I come now to a second Argument to prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath If Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles then all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles Ergo all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I demand what you mean when you say There is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles do you mean no difference in point of precept or in point of priviledges Mr. Coppinger I mean no difference in point of Nations Mr. Ives This is no answer to the question my question is about difference in precepts or priviledges Mr. Coppinger I answer that there is no difference between the believing Jews and Gentiles in point of precept Mr. Ives Then I deny the Minor there is a difference in point of precept Mr. Coppinger Then you grant the Major that saith If believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives If the Antecedent were true the Consequence would not follow and therefore I do not grant the Major however I desire you to prove that part of the Minor as you have explained it that saith Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are all one in point of precepts Mr. Coppinger If there be a difference between believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in point of precept it is either mentioned in the 15 of the Acts or the 21 of the Acts or you must assigne some other text where there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precepts But it is not in the 15 of the Acts not the 21 of the Acts and you cannot assigne any other place Ergo there is no difference between
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
ver 3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it Because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made whence those things are urged first That God sanctified this day therefore all beleeving Gentiles ought to sanctifie it Secondly This was spoken while Adam was in innocencie and so consequently to all his posterity Ans To which I answer first that Gods example unless we have a command doth not binde all the world for God sanctified the Priests and the Temple and the Altar and yet we are not bound to sanctifie them See for this purpose Exod. 29.44 2 Chron. 7.16 Secondly whereas it is said this was spoken to Adam and therefore to all the world I answer that all that was commanded Adam did not bind all the world at all times as appears by the commandment given to Adam to eat of the tree of life Gen 2. and to forbear the tree of knowledge of good and evil these Laws are not now binding to all the world and yet they were given to Adam and so to all men had they continued in that estate So indeed Adam should have imitated God had he continued in innocency in keeping a perpetual sabbath for he should not have laboured to add any cubits to the stature of that perfect happiness no more then God wrought to add any thing to the six days work which was made perfect and good for Adam was only to dress and keep what was already made as God keeps and preserves the world by his Providence in this fence God works hitherto 〈◊〉 Christ saith John 5.17 and in some such cases Adam should have imitated his Creator if he had not sinned But thirdly these words And God sanctified the seventh-day are urged by Moses in Gen. 2. as a Reason why the Israelites in his time did keep the sabbath rather then to shew that God sanctified the seventh-seventh-day for Adam and his Posterity in innocencie my reasons are first because all the Patriarks from Adam to Moses did not keep the seventh-seventh-day sabbath which was two thousand yeers and upwards and in all this long tract of time not one word of the 7th-day sabbath-keeping or breaking Secondly Josephus himself a learned Jew speaking of this rest faith That Gods resting on the seventh day was the reason why the Israelites reposed or rested upon that day Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Now had the Jews understood the seventh-day had been sanctified before Moses Josephus would have mentioned it in his History of Amiquities from Adam to Moses as well as other things especially considering the great occasion which he had to defend the Antiquity of the sabbath from the great reproach that was cast upon it by Appion of Alexandria who tells the Jews that their sabbath was derived from the Egyptian word Sabbo which signifieth a disease in the Privy parts which saith he the Jews were smote with after they had travelled six days from Egypt whereupon they were forced to rest the seventh-day and therefore called it a Sabbath from the name of the disease which they called Sabbo Now Josephus could not have a better Argument to have vindicated the Jews sabbath against Appions foul aspersions but by shewing to the world that the sabbath was kept from the Creation of the world unto that time and not taken up by the Jews in the wilderness after they came out of Egypt Now though Josephus doth vindicate the sabbath from being derived of the Egyptian word Sabbo by shewing that it was derived from the Hebrew word Sabbath which signifieth rest yet he never vindicateth the Jews Sabbath from that other Allegation of Appions viz. that the first beginning of it was in the wilderness after that Israel came out of Egypt as any one may see that reads Josephus against Appion Lib. 2. which clearly shews that the sabbath was not kept before Israel came into the wilderness Thirdly The Scripture usually speaks at this rate for there is such a kind of expression used by Moses in this very chapter Gen. 2.11 where he tells us of the river Pison that compasseth the whole land of Havilah where there is gold c. not that this land was so called in Eden while Adam was in innocencie for Havilah was not born till after the flood by whose name this land was known and called and yet Moses by anticipation calls it the land of Havilah with reference unto that name which 1600 yeers afterwards it did receive and that Havilah was not born till after the flood appears Gen. 10.7 and that the flood was more then 1600 yeers after the Creation appears not only by what the Scriptures tell us but by the consent of Christian writers see August de Civitate Dei lib. 15. cap. 20. and lib. 15. cap. 12 14. and yet Moses calls a Country by this name in his describing of the garden of Eden which was no otherwise true but with respect to what it was afterwards called in like manner Moses saith God sanctified the seventh-seventh-day Gen. 2.3 which also refers to the Law that God gave to Israel by the hand of Moses for the sanctifying of it And lest this seem strange I shall give you another Text that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand see therefore Exod. 16.32 33 34. In the 32 verse the Lord did command that an Omâ—â— of the Manna should be put in a pot to be laid before the testimony of the Lord and the 34 v. saith That as the Lord commanded Moses so Aaron laid it up before the testimony of the Lord which was no otherwise true but with respect to what was done afterwards for as yet there was no Ark nor Testimony made as appears if we consider that at this time the Israelites were sojourning in the wilderness of Sin and the command for the Ark and the making of the Tabernacle was not given till they came to Sinai Exod 25.10 at which time the Testimony was given to them and yet mention is made of this before so in like manner when Moses saith Gen. 2. That God did sanctifie the seventh-day he is to be understood in the same sense as the other Text is understood where it is said Aaron laid up the Manna before the Testimony which relates to what was afterwards done when the Law was given even after the same manner doth Moses speak in Gen. 2. when he faith God did sanctifie the seventh-day not that he did sanctifie it in Eden any more then Aaron laid up the Manna in the wilderness of Sin before the Testimony but that he did sanctifie it when he gave his Law to Israel and this is further confirmed by what hath been spoken viz. that from the Creation of the world to the time of Moses which was above two thousand yeers there is not one word mentioned of the seventh-day sabbath though occasionally there is mention made of all other moral duties Argum. 2 The next Reason that is rendred
why beleeving Gentiles should keep the Sabbath is taken from the command in Exod. 20.8 9 10 where God requireth Israel to keep the seventh-day sabbath therefore Gentile beleevers are bound to keep it I answer That this Law was given to none but Israel as appears Psal 137.19 20. He hath given his Laws to Jacob his statues and judgments to Israel be hath not done so to any Nation Again the Apostle tells us Rom. 2. That the Jews were under the Law but the Gentiles were without the Law Argum. 3 The Gentiles must keep all the nine commandments therefore they must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer They are bound to all the nine expresly and particularly by the light of Nature and the Law of Christ but they are not so bound to the seventh-day sabbath Again that Law of the fourth Commandment binds us as to A time to worship though not that time of the seventh-seventh-day But secondly might not these men as well object this against the Apostle who expresly complains of the Gentiles for the breach of all the nine Commandments but not a word that they did not keep the seventh-day sabbath as I shall shew by and by which doubtless he would have had an occasion to have done had the seventh-day sabbath-breaking been a breach of a Moral Law as well as the other nine precepts Argum. 4 Another Argument is taken from the Reasons of the Law given to Israel which are first God gave this as a Reason why Israel should rest the seventh-day because in six days he made Heaven and Earth therefore if this Reason be beleeved by Christian Gentiles then this Law should be observed by them Secondly God commanded Israel to rest the seventh-day because it was the sabbath of the Lord their God therefore if Jehovah be the Lord our God his sabbath must be our sabbath Thirdly God did command this duty for the good of our servants and cattle therefore if we will shew mercy to them we must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer to the first that the Reason of a Law may be universal and always remain when the Law doth not remain as for instance the Reason why God would have the people of Israel to sanctifie the Priests the sons of Aaron was because he was the Lord that did sanctifie them Levit 21. 8. Now I hope all Christian Gentiles beleeve that God doth sanctifie them but doth it therefore follow that because God doth sanctifie beleeving Gentiles that therefore they must sanctifie a Levitical Priesthood Secondly The place of Israels worship was called the house of the Lord God doth it therefore follow that beleeving Gentiles must therefore sanctifie that place because God is the God of the Gentiles no more doth it follow that because the seventh-day was the sabbath of the Lord God that therefore the beleeving Gentiles must observe it Thirdly Whereas it is said we must rest the seventh-day that we may shew mercy to our servants and cattle I answer we can do that by resting the first day of the week as well as by resting the seventh Secondly If because that we must shew mercy be a Reason why we should keep the seventh-day sabbath because Israel was to keep it for that Reason then we must also drink deeper of this cup of Judaism and keep the seventh-yeer sabbath because that was commanded for the benefit of the poor Exod. 23.11 That the poor of thy people may eat c. So that the Reasons of a Law may have a being when the Law hath none as appears by the Reason of the sanctifying the Priest it was because God sanctifies the people yet though we do beleeve that God doth sanctifie us yet we are not therefore to sanctifie the Legal Priesthood in like manner though we do beleeve with Abraham Isaak and Jacob that God made Heaven and Earth in six days and rested the seventh yet this is no Reason why we rather then they should observe that day any more then why we should observe the other Judaical Laws whose Reasons are still the same though the Laws are changed Argum. 5 The next Arguments follow from the Scriptures of the New Testament and they are such as pretend to command and example even as the former I shall first speak to those Texts that are cited to prove that the seventh-seventh-day sabbath was commanded in the New Testament and the first is Mat. 5.17 18. the words are these Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil For I say unto you that till Heaven and Earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled Whence it is inferred that the seventh day sabbath was a part of the Law and therefore it should remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain I answer first that offering of sacrifices is also a part of this Law but doth it follow therefore that beleeving Gentiles must offer sacrifices to the end of the world and that offering of sacrifices is a point of this Law see v. 23 24. where our Lord as truly commands that a man should come and offer his gift upon the Altar after he is reconciled to his brother as he doth injoyn any other duty the like he commands of the leper that was cleansed Mat. 8. â— Secondly Christ saith the same thing of the Prophets as well as of the Law that they shall not pass away till they are fulfilled and yet many of them were fulfilled in Christs time Thirdly Christ saith of his own words Matth. 24.35 That Heaven and Earth shall pass away but his word shall not pass and yet the 34 ver saith that that Generation should not pass away till all those things were fulfilled The meaning then was clearly this that rather then either the Law or his word should pass unfulfilled Heaven and Earth should pass which doth in no wise argue that all the Law and Prophets should remain unfulfilled till the Heavens should be no more for the Text tells us He came to fulfil the Law and Prophets so that if all the Law and Prophets be unfulfilled Christ did not answer the end of his coming and if any be fulfilled then ALL the Law must not last till the Heavens be no more and if any be fulfilled then the seventh-day sabbath may be fulfilled since the sabbath is called a shadow of good things to come Col. 2.16 17. However if any of that Law Mat. 5. be fulfilled by Christ no man can conclude reasonably from that Text that the seventh-day sabbath is in force Lastly Though all this Law Mat. 5. was in force before Christs death yet we are freed from the Law by the death of Christ Rom. 7.2 3 6. therefore no Argument can be drawn from this Text to prove the seventh-day sabbath unless Christ or his apostles had reinforced the observation of it after his Resurrection Argum. 6 I come now to
the sixth Argument and that is drawn from Mat. 24.20 ver where Christ bids the Disciples pray that their flight was not on the Sabbath day whence it is inferred that if Christ would not have had the sabbath sanctified after his Resurrection he would never have cautioned his Disciples to pray that their flight was not upon the seventh day sabbath which was a Prophesie to be fulfilled after the Resurrection I answer that this proves no more that Christ would have the sabbath sanctified by the beleeving Gentiles then it proves he would have the winter time sanctified for he likewise bids them pray that they might not fly in the winter Secondly if the sabbath had been in force they might fly to save their lives on the sabbath and therefore that could not be the reason why they should pray they might not fly upon the sabbath for if Christ a allowed his Disciples to walk through the corn-fields upon the sabbath and pluck the ears of corn to satisfie a little hunger he would not if the sabbath had been in force have judged it a breach of the sabbath for them to fly to save their lives Thirdly The reason why they were to pray that they might not fly on that day was because the seditious Jews as stories make mention were so zealous of their sabbaths that if any for fear of an enemy should have offered to fly to save his life upon the sabbath the Jews themselves would have laid hands first upon him therefore Christ bids them pray that they may not fly then lest they should be in perils by their Countrymen as well as by the Romans who should invade them which perils of their own Countrymen they were not so likely to meet with in their flight upon another day Object But it is further Objected Why is that day called a sabbath day which was to come to pass after the Ascension if Christ would not have it observed I answer That it was ordinary for the Jews days to be called after the death of Christ by the old names they had before as the Passeover is frequently so called by the Apostles after those things were abolished Act. 12.3 Act. 18.21 Act. 20.16 and so 1 Cor. 16.8 Paul faith be will tarry at Ephesus till Pentecost so that Christs calling it by the name of the sabbath day doth no more prove it is in force then Paul's mentioning the feast of Pentecost proves that we ought to observe the feast of Pentecost Argum. 7 It is said after Christ was dead that the women prepared spices and oyntments and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment Luke 23.56 Therefore the sabbath day was a commandment in force after Christ was dead I answer First that these were not beleeving Gentiles which are the subjects under debate But secondly the Law of the New Testament was not established till Christs Resurrection when he faith Mat. 28.18 That all power in Heaven and Earth was given to him therefore no marvel that these were found in their Old Testament observations Thirdly It was no easie matter to take off the zeal even of beleeving Jews themselves from the Law of Moses after Christ was ascended you see this in Peter who was an eminent Apostle yet he had so much Conscience of the Law after the partition-wall was broken down that he would not eat with the Gentiles nor eat any thing which in the Law was common or unclean Act. 10.14.28 and so Act. 21.20 21. there were thousands of Jews that did beleeve that were zealous of the Commandments doth it therefore follow that those Commandments were in force in like manner it doth not follow that because these women kept the seventh day sabbath according to the command that therefore the Commandment for the sabbath was to be in force to beleeving Gentiles after Christs Resurrection Fourthly If this were a good Argument the Jewish women kept the Sabbath according to the Commandment after Christ was dead therefore the commandment is in force to beleeving Gentiles after his Resurrection would it not be as good an Argument for a man to say that Paul being a Jew kept the Feast of Pentecost after Christ was risen therefore beleeving Gentiles might keep the Feast of Pentecost since Christ is risen Argum. 8 Christ faith the sabbath was made for man Mark 2.27 which is to be understood of every man therefore it is a Law binding to beleeving Gentiles I answer First That all the whole Law of Israel was made for man doth it therefore follow that all that law was binding to beleeving Gentiles that all that whole law that was given upon the mount both Moral and Ceremonial was made for man see Deut 5.24 You have seen this day that God doth talk with MAN and he liveth Now God was said to speak to MAN in this place and yet this word man is restrained to the Nation of Israel unless any will be so absurd as to think that all the Laws given upon mount Sinai were for ever binding to all the world in like manner the sabbath might be made for man as the rest of the Jews Laws were which yet are not universally binding Secondly It is said That the woman was made for MAN which is the same and yet it may be good for a man not to touch a woman 1 Cor. 7.1 by which it appears that though a woman was made for Adam or man yet a man may lawfully live without a woman so though the seventh day sabbath was made for man which in Greek is Anthropos it doth no more follow that therefore every man must keep the seventh day then it follows that because a woman was made for man that therefore every man is bound to marry Argum. 9 The next Scripture levied for to prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded is Heb. 4.9 there remains a rest or sabbalism for the people of God From whence it is urged first that the people of God must keep a sabbath therefore beleeving Gentiles being Gods people must keep a Sabbath Secondly That this is the seventh day appears say they because the Author to the Hebrews alludeth to the seventh day on which God rested ver 4. I answer First by concession that that sabbath or rest there mentioned the people of God both Jews and Gentiles shall keep and enjoy But secondly This is not the seventh day sabbath or rest first because the seventh day sabbath was a rest commanded but this is a rest or sabbath promised as appears verse the first Let us fear lest a PROMISE being left of entring into rest any should come short through unbeleef Secondly This could not be the seventh day rest because it is a rest only provided for beleevers to enter into but unbeleevers might enter into the seventh day rest and so might their cattle also therefore unbeleevers did not nor could not enter into this rest ver 11. Let us therefore labour to enter into that rest lest
any man fall after the same example of unbeleef Thirdly Whereas it is said that the Author alludeth to the seventh day rest because it is said God rested the seventh day ver 4. I answer This Text doth no more prove that the Gentiles are commanded to observe that time of rest because the Author alludeth to the seventh day then it proves they were to observe that place or rest viz. the Land of Canaan because he alludeth to that place v 8. For if Joshua had given them rest he would not after wards have spoken of another day by which words the Author doth as truly allude to the place of rest that Joshua conducted Israel to in Canaan as he doth allude to the time of rest that God rested on and therefore this cleerly proves that both were typical for Joshua did give them the rest in Canaan and a rest upon the seventh day and yet he prophesies of another rest and another day which clearly proves this was neither the time of rest nor the place of rest that Israel did enjoy that the Author means but that place of rest and time of rest which under the Gospel the beleevers have in hope and which after all their labours and travels they shall at last have in hand and rest from all sorrow and labour when that great sabbath shall commence as God did from his labour when he had ended his work of Creation To this agrees Mat. 11 28. Come unto me all ye that labour and I will give you rest and Revel 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth faith the Spirit that they MAY rest from their labours and their works do follow them Arg. 10 I proceed to the next Text of Scripture which is much insisted on to prove the seventh day sabbath is in force to beleeving Gentiles by a Commandment and that is Jam. 2.8 10. where the whole Law is required and where it is said we should not offend in one point therefore the seventh day sabbath being a part and a point of the whole Law beleeving Gentiles are bound to observe it to this is added those words of Paul Rom. 3.31 We establish the Law Ans To which I answer first that this word Law and whole Law is variously taken in holy Scriptures and therefore it is not safe to conclude the seventh day Sabbath from such Texts lest we are forced at last to do as some did who some years since began to professe the Jewish Sabbath because it was a part of the Law and afterwards came by the force of the same reason to keep all the Jewish Ceremonies because they were parts of the whole Law and at last went over Sea and turned Jews and denied the Lord Christ to be the true Messiah And that the word Law is variously taken nothing is more manifest for there is a Law of Moses Mal. 4.4 and Acts 13.39 there is a Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 there is the Law of Nature Rom. 2.14 there is the Law of Works and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 there is the Law of Bondage Acts 15. and 10. Gal. 5.1 and there is a Law of Liberty James 1.25 and James 3.12 So speak and so de as they that shall be judged by the Law of LIBERTY Now the great Question will be which of these Laws James means when he tells us We must keep the whole law if he means the whole Law of Moses then we must as I have said observe Circumcision because the Jews did Circumcise that the Law of MOSES might not be broken Joh. 7.23 and the Apostle tells us Gal. 5.2 That be that was circumcised was bound to keep the WHOLE Law so that to understand this Text to be meant of Moses Law will necessarily introduce all Judaism but if we should understand it as indeed we ought for the Law of Liberty and the Law of Faith which is the Law that James speaks of in this Chapter and that Paul doth speak of when he saith Rom. 3.3 He doth establish the Law I say if we understand the word Law in this later fence for the Law of Christ the Law of Faith and the Law of Liberty I demand where any of these Laws do command a seventh day sabbath So that what ever the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith and Liberty and the Law of Nature do injoyn us to observe these we must observe in every point or we shall be guilty of all if we wilfully break the least Command required in these Laws which in no place commands a seventh-day sabbath and that James means the Law of Liberty the second Chapter 12 Verse will inform us For when he had in the 10 Verse told them that be that sinned in one point of the Law was guilty of all he tells them in the 12 Verse what Law he means and therefore bids so do as those that should be judged by the Law of Liberty so that unless any body can prove that the Law of Liberty doth command a seventh day sabbath they cannot prove from this Text that the believing Gentiles are bound to observe it any more then they are bound to observe all the Jewish rudiments the observation whereof experience tells us is the sad and evil consequence of this opinion Argum. 11 The eleventh Argument to prove the seventh day sabbath is more general then the former viz Because all Laws that were never repealed are in force therefore the seventh day sabbath is in force by a Law because it was once commanded and never repealed I answer if by the not repealing of a Law they do mean that which is not expresly and particularly repealed then we must keep the Passover for that was once a Law and was never repealed expresly and particularly Again we must keep the year of Jubilee for that was once a Law and it was never expresly and particularly repealed Furthermore by this Argument we must keep the seventh yeer for a sabbath and neither plow or sow our fields or do any work for that whole yeer because it was once commanded Levit. 25. and it was never expresly and particularly repealed but doth it therefore follow that we are bound to observe these things in like manner it doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath must be still observed because it was once commanded and in so many words was never repealed But lastly The seventh day sabbath is repealed in Col. 2. where it is called A shadow of things to come Argum. 12 We come now to those Texts that are urged for Examples and they are those that tell us that be Apostle preached in the Synagogue every SABBATH-day Act. 13.14 42. Act. 16.12 13. Act. 17.2 Act. 18.4 Whence it is inferred that we ought to walk as we have them for an Example therefore if they kept the seventh day sabbath we must I answer Then we must meet in a Jewish Synagogue as well as the Apostles did every sabbath day if
weak and beggerly Rudiments then it plainly appears that their seventh day sabbaths are weak and beggerly This reason remains good till some body shall shew me that the seventh day sabbath was not included in these words days moneths times and years My last Râ—ason why Christ never commánded the gentiles to â—â—serve the seventh day sabbath is because the Apostle gives a toleration to the Christians to keep every day as they are perswaded in their own minds either to esteem one day above another or every day alike Rom. 14.5 which liberty he could not have given them if Christ had confirmed the Law of Moses to the beleeving Gentiles But this Argument did meet with two Objections the one was that this could not be understood of every day according to the letter of the Text because the Apostle gives a toleration to eat all things and yet the Holy Ghost Act. 15. forbiddeth the eating of blood and things strangled c. In like manner say they must we restrain the words every day to be understood of every day but the sabbath To which I answer that the Holy Ghost hath put a restriction upon the word every thing but neither Christ the Holy Ghost nor the Apostle hath put a restriction upon this word every day therefore no mortal man ought to take that liberty to restrain the words of a Text when the Holy Spirit doth not restrain them The second thing Objected against this Argument from Rom. 14. is this viz. That if we are at liberty and under no restraint but may keep every day alike then there is no reason to observe any day The answer to this Objection maketh way for the last thing intended which is to shew that though Christ hath set us at liberty from those Mosaical Institutions for the observation of days and hath made all days alike in respect of any Mosaical sanctity yet it doth not therefore follow that we may spend every day to the service of the flesh and chuse whether we will set apart any time to the service of God as I have already hinted page 90. For first God hath freed us from that place of worship by the death of Christ unto which both Jews and Proselytes were enjoyned to come up to worship which was in the Temple at Jerusalem and now Christ hath made every place alike in that one place hath no more Legal or Mosaical sanctâ—ty then another doth it therefore follow that Christians may abuse this liberty and chuse whether they will meet to worship God in any place or no No more doth it follow that because Christ hath made all days alike in respect of any Mosaical sanctity that therefore we may chuse whether we will keep any day at all Again secondly Christ hath set us free from those Mosaical Laws which God made for the maintenance of the Levitical Priesthood and Legal Ministry and hath not injoyned us how much or how little the Ministers of the Gospel should be allowed doth it therefore follow that we may chuse whether we will allow them any thing or nothing In like manner it doth not follow because Christ hath taken away the Mosaical institution for the observation of days that therefore we may chuse whether we will observe any day or any time for the worship and service of God But to this it is objected That though Christ hath taken away that kind of maintenance yet he hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.1 I answer in like manner that though he hath taken away those Mosaical observations of days and times yet we are under a command to observe A time to worship as well as A maintenance for Ministers my Reasons are first because the light of Nature hath taught all people to set apart some time to worship and serve their God for if the light of Nature doth injoyn men to worship it doth also injoyn them to observe some time in which they ought to worship After this manner the Apostle argueth in the forecited Scripture for the maintenance of the Gospel-Ministery shewing that the light of Nature teacheth That they which plant a vineyard ought to eat of the fruit thereof and that they which plow should plow in hope to be paâ—takers of their hope the like reason if not much greater he urgeth why they that sow spiritual things should partake of temporal things so that though God hath freed us from that maintenance of Ministers and that place of worship that was commanded in the Law yet there remains a moral obligation upon us to observe some place to worship God in and also to provide a competent maintenance for those that administer spiritual things unto us In like manner there remains a Moral obligation upon us to observe A time to worship God though we are freed from all those days and times that the Law of Moses commanded his Disciples to observe But 2. This doth not only appear from the light of Nature but from the Scriptures also which command That we should not forsake the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is Heb. 10.25 Now if we must frequent the Assemblies of Gods people then we must observe A time to worship or else we cannot observe the duty that is here injoyned for if we may chuse whether we will observe any time of worship as the Objection vainly supposeth then we cannot perform this duty of frequenting the Assemblies of the Saints which appears was a duty not only commanded but practised in the New Testament Jam. 2.2 Act. 11.26 1 Cor. 11.20 1 Cor. 14.23 in all which Texts we are informed of the whole Churches meeting together in one place according as they were required which they could not have done had they not agreed upon the place where and a time when to meet together so that if Christians must meet together to worship God they must also observe a time in order thereunto And as I have shewn that A time and place ought to be observed for Gods worship I shall in the last place shew that the first day of the week ought rather to be observed then any other day and that because the Churches of Christ have injoyned us to observe that time for publick worship therfore that time ought rather to be observed then another for we are bound to hear the Church of Christ in all things that she commands us to observe provided that the Church doth command nothing contrary to the commands of Christ now that the Church doth not command any thing contrary the commands of Christ in commanding us to observe the first day of the week appears because Christ hath not left us any one day or time in charge rather then another no more then he hath left any place of worship in charge rather then another and therefore the Church doth do nothing derogatory to the mind of Christ in appointing a time of worship no more
to imbark himself in a Paper Frigot manned with great words to incounter with all for Law-breakers that are not Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers Comparing Mr. Ives who disputed against his opinion to a beaten Cock that was ready to hide his head in any hole pag. 27. Which if he did this ensuing account of the Disputations will make appear In the mean time let every one that reads Mr. Spittlchouse his forementioned Book see how he rather blasts himself then his erring Adversary for he goeth to prove against Mr. Ives That the Sabbath ought to be kept by the Law of Nature in his Postscript pag. 26. and yet in pag. 28. he cries out against Mr. Ives for that he went to disprove the Morality of it by the light of Nature comparing him to the Quakers that adhere to the light within them you may see then how mischievous a thing it is for a man passionately to promote an opinion it makes his affection out-run his judgment or else surely Mr. Spittlehouse would not have taken Arguments out of Natures Oracle to confute Mr. Ives as he thought and after decry Nature as corrupt blaming Mr. Ives for adhering to her dictates when he had laboured as in the fire but two pages before to prove the Law of Nature holy just and good How much then doth it concern us to lay aside passion in the promotion of that we conceive to be true lest we pull down that with one hand we set up with the other 3. In the promoting of thy Opinion be more studious for Arguments then Rhetorical flourishes which together with railing Accusations usually supply the place of Arguments a strong sign of a weak Cause And of this Mr. Tillam is sufficiently guilty though at our Disputation he decryed Syllogisms and refused to answer them calling them the intising words of mans wisdom when his Book is full of such kind of Humane wisdom almost in every page where he Courts all the Liberal Sciences for terms of Art to garnish his Book as first Grammatical terms telling his Reader of a Future Tense and a Gerund in do pag. 15 73. and as though he were writing an Almanack he abounds with Astronomical Phrases as Meridian-Heights the Suns Station Retrogradation Meridian glory the celerity of the Sun when mounting the other Hemispere the interposition of the Terrestrial Globe makes their Meridian the Antipodes Midnight Cloudy Speculations the Moon in her constant inconstancie and the Stars in the expanded Firmament the Empyreal Heavens c. pag 8 36 42 44 166. Neither doth his book want Rhetorical expressions to carry on that which he wants Arguments to maintain calling those that are Prosolited to his seventh-Day Sabbath-keeping Ingenious mounting refined Spirits and others base-born muck-worms pag. 28. Again He calls the contrary Opinion A shadie Speculation pag. 8. Again he is full of such Phrases as these viz. Ideas of the Deity Igitur Emphatical Demonstrative Particles High Encomiums Intrinsical Abstruse and intricate Perspicuity the superlative presence celerity distracting Labyrinth c. pag. 9 12 92 47 54 82. Logical and Poetical terms are frequently found in his writing as Dilemma's Scylla and Charybdis Meanders Ariadnes Clue the Father of Daemons c. Who would think that aeman should garnish his Book with such Phrass as these and yet resuse Academical Learning in Disputation as savouring of fleshly wisdom nay though he decryed Syllogisms as a carnal way of Discourse yet he sometimes doth Syllogise in his Book as the Reader may see in p. 19. * I cite not these passages to the end that I might be thought to be a hater of humane learning for I know it is of great use and deservedly to be honoured but to the end that the Reader may take notice that Mr. Tillam can cast honour upon learning when he thinks it will honor his Cause but when it is used against him or makes for the detecting his error then he decries it as vain and saith he is sure that it is not of God c. its worth observing that while Dr. Chamberlain did Dispute Syllogistically when he was Mr. Ives his opponent Mr. Tillam did not shew any publike dislike of such kind of disputation but when Mr. Tillam came to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments then he inveig'd against it as a carnal thing and yet for all this when Mr. Tillam came to take upon him the part of an Opponent the next day Mr. Ives desired him if he would not discourse Syllogistically that he would prove the Position by plain Scripture to which Mr. Tillam replyed That there was no Text that in so many words would prove what he had asserted Then Mr. Ives asked him why he blamed people for proving their practise by a Consequence as he did in his Book pag. 96. if he could not prove his own practise without a Consequence hereupon he was forced to take Sanctuary at a Syllogism as hereafter will appear though all along he blamed Mr. Ives very sharply for using such a carnal weapon to discourse withal Let me beseech you therefore from what hath been said to suspect those men who are full of entising words and empty of solid Arguments and this is not only my advice but the Apopostle's who tells us 2 Pet. 2. That with fained words some shall make merchandise of Gods people and therefore he bids the Colossians in the 2 Chapter of that Epistle To take heed lest any man beguiled them through intising words You see then that good men may be spoyled of their joy and Churches of their peace by such who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple Rom. 16.18 Be ready therefore to vent nothing for truth but what you may be able to give a REASON of to them that ask you with meekness and fear 1 Pet. 3.15 Lastly Let me Caution thee to have a care not only how thou receivest an opinion and how thou promotest it but also how thou keepest and retainest it if thou findest that it is truth thou hast received know that her price is far above rubies and no pleasure is to be compared to it saith Solomon Prov. 8.11 This the Poet saw when he elegantly expressed the estate of that man that had gained the knowledge of the Truth saying That it was a pleasure to stand upon the shore and to see ships tossed upon the Sea and to stand in the window of a Castle to see a Battle and the adventures thereof below but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth a hill not to be commanded and where the Air is always clear and serene and to see the errors and wrandrings and mists and tempests in the vale below provided that this prospect be with pity and not with swelling or pride And as another saith well It is a Heaven upon Earth to have a mans minde move in Charity rest in Providence and turn upon the Poles of Truth
of value you should have denyed the Major which faith if the punishment be in force c. then the Law-maker hath APPOINTED some or other to inflict it here you might have denyed the Consequence and have told us that the punishment might he in force though mone were appointed because the law-maker might do it himself but this is not to the Question because the Question now is Who the law-maker hath appointed c. Mr. Tillam Well then I shall answer further That sometime the law-maker doth punish immediately and sometimes by his destroying Angel and sometimes by men and they are properly men who are Magistrates in his Congregation in the Church when he shall fulfil that prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning It is observable that though Mr. Tillam saith The punishment is in force yet he hath not assigned who IS to inflict it but in stead thereof tells us first that God doth sometimes punish immediately to this it may be replyed that when he punisheth immediately it is when those whom he hath appointed to punish do not do their duty Secondly He tells us that sometime God doth punish the transgressors of his Law by his destroying Angels 〈◊〉 which it may be answered that this is most commonly when the Magistrates and Ministers of Justice do neglect to punish transgressors according as they ought yet this hinders not but all this while some are appointed to punish the seventh day Sabbath breakers if it ought to be kept by the Law of Moses Thirdly Mr. Tillam saith God appointeth men to punish the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath and these men he saith are Magistrates in the Church c. but withal he adds that such Magistrates shall be when the Prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning shall be fulfilled But doth not this very saying leave Mr. Ives his Question unanswered For the Question is Who God HATH appointed c. and the Answer is That there SHALL be Magistrates in the Church when the forementioned Prophesie shall be fulfilled but who then shall do it now is the Question because the Text cited by Mr. Tillam that exhorts to remember the Law of Moses doth also call upon the same people at the same time to remember the Statutes and JUDGMENTS so that if beleeving Gentiles ARE bound to observe the Law of Moses they ARE bound to observe the JUDGMENTS also So that Mr. Tillam may as well put off the observation of the Statutes as the observations of those Judgments God would have inflicted on the transgressors of his Statutes and it will not serve his turn to wait till God restoreth such men for the Law that commandeth the seventh day Sabbath of all the Congregation of Israel doth command all the Congregation to stone the Sabbath-breakers to death being lawfully convicted before a Magistrate of the fact So that if Moses Law that requireth the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath be in force to the Congregations of beleeving Gentiles as it was to the Congregations of circumcised Jews and the same punishment as hath been argued be in force to the one as well as the other then by the same Law the beleeving Congregations among the Gentiles are bound having convicted any among them of Sabbath-breaking to stone such a man to death now though such Congregations that do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath by vertue of Moses Law are not tyed thus to do yet all of Mr. Tillams opinion I mean all such Congregations that hold themselves bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath I say all such Congregations stand bound to stone that member to death that shall be found to break it having lawfully convicted him by two or three witnesses neither have they any other rule by that Law to put away such an evil or such an evil doer from among them and this would hold good in all respects if God should at any time bring a Magistrate of the Commonwealth to be a member in Mr. Tillams Church then by his own grant if they shall convict a member for Sabbath-breaking before such a Magistrate then such a Magistrate by Moses Law ought to judge him guilty of death and then it roundly followeth that all Mr. Tillams Congregation must stone that man with stones till he die to put away the evil from among them Who then can be true to this seventh-day Sabbath-keeping principally as bound to it by Moses Law but they must also submit their necks to such a yoke as this which is not consistent with that Law of love and charity which ought to be preferred among Christians in the times of the Gospel Thus having given a faithful account of the Arguments and Answers urged by Dr. Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Ives the first day I shall now proceed to the Arguments and Answers insisted on by both sides the next day which was on Friday 7 of Jan. 1658. The people being assembled Mr. Ives repeateth the Question which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question agreed to be further disputed this day is Whether all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and I shall desire that whoever shall speak this day to this question either as Opponent or Respondent may apply themselves to the right rules of Disputation Mr. Tillam As to the question stated I do freely assent to the terms agreed on and do say that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath but as to your other Motion viz. that we observe the Rules of Disputation this I told you yesterday and do tell you again that such a way of Disputation is vain Philosophy and the device of mans wisdom and therefore I shall not be tied to any such Method Mr. Ives Sir I do not tie you to this or that way only I think you mis-apply Scriptures when you bring them to prove that making Syllogisms is unlawful when such forms of Arguing are frequently found in Scripture however Sir give me leave to use it till I am perswaded of the unlawfulness of it and I shall give you your liberty to prove either by Syllogisms or by plain Texts That all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam There is no plain Text that in so many words proves the Proposition Mr. Ives If there be no plain text to prove the Proposition then you must prove by consequence which is upon the matter the same with Syllogising and therefore I wonder you should be so much against such a way of discourse Mr. Tillam I am not against Consequences or Inferences from Scripture though I am against disputing in Mood and Figure Mr. Ives If you will not dispute by Mood and Figure then I shall tie you to bring plain Texts for what you affirm Mr. Tillam There is not a Text saith in so many words as I have told you that believing Gentiles are bound to keep
that after ten generations he might enter though not before and there was more then ten generations passed from Moses to the time of this Prophet Esay so that though the Eunuch could not enter at first yet after ten generations he might be admitted into the Jews Church Again I have hinted that these could not be Gospel-times because they that shall be thus admitted shall offer Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings to which you have not answered a word Furthermore he doth not bid them keep the sabbath because salvation WAS come but because it was TO come which shews that those were duties to be observ'd before the coming of JESUS CHRIST Lastly Mr. Tillam saith in his Argument that they are the Sons of Strangers and such Gentiles as could not be joyned to the Jews Religion but the Text saith the direct contrary viz. That the Son of the stranger HAD joyned himself to the Lord vers 3. and let not the son of the stranger which IS joyned to the Lord c. and the strangers that cleave to the Lord vers 6. them will I bring to my holy mountain c. Mr. Tillam There is in the Text Man and the Son of man to take hold of this Righteousness and therefore it must be understood of every man And whereas you say here is Burnt-offerings in the Text as well as keeping the Sabbath I answer what is meant by Burnt-offerings is doubtful it being a word of a various signification but he that takes believers to be Priests may take their Services to be Sacrifices and this I the rather think because the Text saith When this salvation is come then they shall keep the sabbath Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam adds to this Text divers things and the Scripture saith Add not to his words lest 〈◊〉 reprove thee and thou be found a lyar Prov. 306. As first he saith it is written They SHALL keep the Sabbath when this Salvation is come 〈◊〉 whereas the text doth not say so but bids them do justice and keep the Sabbaths because the salvation was neer to come that by so doing they might be a people prepared for the Lord according as John by his Ministry did prepare and make ready the people for the salvation 〈◊〉 Christ by perswading them to obedience Secondly the Text saith of these strangers as 〈◊〉 have already shewn that they WERE joyned to the Lord and Mr. Tillam in his Argument saith they were not and they could not be joyned to the Lord. Thirdly Christ saith if you will believe himâ—â— that this house in this 56 of Esay is the material Temple out of which he whipt those that bought and sold and this he calls a house of prayer according as it was written by the Prophet but Mr. Tillam saith if you will believe him rather then Christ that this house of prayer is the Church of the new Testament So then if by Christs interpretation the Prophet speaks of the material Temple then the Altars and Sacrifices must needs be material Altars and material Scrifices Fourthly I would demand of Mr. Tillam wherever Gospel-services are called BURNT OFFERINGS so that whereas he said he would bring plain Text to prove his practise he turns all plain Texts into Allegories and is this to argue without a Consequence Mr. Tillam The strangers mentioned in the Text are the Sons of Adam and the place unto which they shall be joyned is Gods house which they did not injoy at this time but were separated Moabs People must have ten Generations in the full profession of religion before they could be admitted and so must these Eunuchs again the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple which were Gentiles which shews that this Text speaks not of any other time then the time of the Gospel Whereas it is said by Mr. Tillam that the strangers mentioned in the Text are the sons of Adam who ever denyed that for whose Sons should they be else uuless he will fall into the Fancy of some that tell us of men before Adam And whereas he saith the Eunuch was to be separated to ten Generations as the Moabite was this hath been answered once and again and he takes no notice of it for the Moabite and the Eunuch also might enter into the Jews Church after ten Generations though not before and therefore boâ—h the one and the other might have been admitted in the times of this Prophet which was more then ten Generations from Moses as hath been said And whereas it is said the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple and therefore not of these strangers The answer is easie for though the Jews would not admit of Greeks or strangers uncircumcised yet they would have admitted of them if they had joyned themselves to the Lord by Circumcision Mr. Ives If all these terms Sacrifice and Burnt-offerings and altar holy mountain and house of Prayer be Allegorical as you imagine by your thus interpreting the text then why may not the word Sabbath in the text be allegorically understood also Mr. Tillam My reason is because the text saith the house there spoken of should be called of all Nationâ— A house of Prayer which could not be true of the Temple of Jerusalem because all Nations could not be contained in it Mr. Ives It doth not follow that all Nations should not or could not so account of Gods house in Jerusalem as to call it a house of Prayer because that house could not contain them all And secondly the text saith not that all Nations should be contained in it but that all Nations should so call it and that of all Nations it was so called the Scripture saith Act. 2.5 that there were at Jerusalem devout men out of every Nation under Heaven And thirdly I shall desire again that the text in Esay under debate might be compared with Matthew 21.13 and 14. and then you will be able to judge whether Christ or Mr. Tillam is the best expositor of the house of God spoken of in the 56 of Esay which is all I shall say to this Argument and if this text respects not the Beleevers in Gospel-times as by what hath been said it doth not then hath not Mr. Tillam proved his Argument which was that the Gentiles that could not be proselyted which he understands for Christian Gentiles were bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath but I shall say no more Here Mr. Tillam left off being opponent and Mr. Ives became Opponent and Dr. Chamberlain Respondent Mr. Ives I am to prove that all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath and in order hereunto I have urged this Argument That if beleeving Gentiles are not bound then all beleevers are not bound But beleeving Gentiles are not bound Ergo. The Minor being denied I proved it by this enumeration viz. If all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath they are bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ but all beleeving Gentiles are not
to it ought to be inflictâ— I say by the same Rule a Magistrate may 〈◊〉 a man to death that is not perswaded to 〈◊〉 this seventh-day Sabbath another Maâ—state otherwise minded may put men of the Doctors â—â—inion to death because they do not keep the first day â—abbath which he holds himself in conscience bound 〈◊〉 see as strictly kept as the other doth his Saturday Sabbath Dr. Cham. I am not a Judge of Magistrates but do submit unto them secondly let none be afraid of this text for he that is in Christ is above the Law and it was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin Neither do I say that the Magistrates have power to punish spiritual sins with legal punishments but spiritual sins with spiritual punishments and this they may very well do if they have but good Ministers to instruct them Mr. Ives If the Magistrate must punish all evil according to your sence of that text then he must punish spiritual as well as corporeal Idolatry when the Offendor shall be convicted of it and he must punish it according to his Judgement and Conscience so that if it be the Magistrates Duty to take away the lives of their Subjects for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath it follows roundly that the reason why we live is because of the wickedness of the civil Magistrate a wickedness if the Doctors opinion be true for which both Magistrates and People should die without mercy if once a Magistrate should be set up that is of the Doctors perswasion But the main stress of my Argument lyeth in this That God never appointed the Gentile-Magistrates to execute the punishment which he in the Law did command should be inflicted upon those that broke the seventh-day sabbath required in Exod. 20. and to this the Doctor hath given no answer save that the Magistrate is to punish all evil c. but he hath not shewn us that seventh-day sabbath-breaking is an evil nor that the Magistrate is to punish it according to Moses Law if it were an evil which are the two main things that have been objected to which he hath given no kinde of Answer though they have been urged to him once and again But instead of answering tells us that none should be afraid of the text I suppose he means the texts in the Law that threaten the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath with death his reason is because he that is in Christ is above the Law and 〈◊〉 was not made for him for he that is in Christ cannot sin c. If this be true that those that are in Christ are above the Law and that the Law was not made for them I wonder why the Doctor should keep such a stir to engage believers to observe the Law and the seventh-day Sabbath which he calls a part of the Law And if they that are in Christ as he saith cannot sin then it follows that either none are in Christ but those that keep the Jewish Sabbath or if they may be in Christ that do not keep it then it is no Sin not to observe it since if the Dr. saith true they that are in Christ cannot sin so that one absurd opinion is the cause of many for is it not absurd to say that those that are in Christ cannot sin and afterwards charge believers in Christ with 〈◊〉 for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath Dr. Cham. Mr. Ives hath been calling upon me to assigne who God hath appointed to execute the punishment which by Moses Law was due to the seventh-day sabbath-breakers I further answer That if the Magistrate must punish the breach of all Law then of the seventh-day Sabbath anâ— whereas Mr. Ives saith that then the Magistrate must judge what is Idolatry and Sabbath breaking if he must punish all transgression relating to these Laws I answer that it is no great matter to be 〈◊〉 judge since the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 6 4 Set them to judge that are least esteemed in the Church now if the weakest are to be chosen for Judges such Magistrates will not suffer their eyes to be blinded with gifts and he will inflict punishment upon false witnesses especially when such Magistrates are assisted with Gods Ministers To some of the forementioned passages answer hath been made in that Mr. Ives hath told the Dr. that his urging the text that saith the Magistrate is to punish all evil is impertinent till he hath proved the seventh-day sabbath breaking an evil and if that could be done yet this text doth not prove that the Magistrate is bound to punish it by stoning the offender to death which Dr. Chamberlain saith is a punishment yet in force to the beleeving Gentiles And whereas Mr. Ives desired the Dr. to assign who should judge he most impertinently cites 1 Cor. 6.4 and tells us that the weakest in the Church should be chosen Judges Well then if the weakest should be chosen Judges c. I demand Whether they should be chosen out of that Church whereof Dr. Chamberlain is a member or out of a Church that is not of his minde about the seventh-day sabbath If out the Church that are of his minde and whereof he is a member then we are all to be stoned to death without mercy or to keep his seventh-day sabbath though it be never so much against our Consciences but it shall ever be a part of my Letany From such Magistrates and Ministers of Justice Good Lord deliver us But if they should be chosen out of a Church that is not of the Doctors mind about the seventh-day Sabbath then it cannot reasonably be imagined that such Magistrates would put that Law in execution that saith the seventh-day Sabbath-breaker shall be stoâ—ed to death while the Magistrate himself doth tolerate the breach of it And lastly whosoever doth but read 1 Cor. 6. 4. and compares it but with the occasion for which the Doctor cites it which is to shew whom God hath appointed to execute the punishment the Law of Moses hath assigned for Sabbath-breakers they will see that the Doctor hath manifested so much weakness that if weakness were a fit qualification for a Judge as he saith it is he hath bespoke himself worthy of a Judges place before all the Poople for if the weakest are to be chose Judges I know not where we should meet with a fitter man then the Doctor who hath so unfitly apply'd the Apostles words to the case in hand Here the Doctor leaves off and Mr. Tillam undertakes to answer to Mr. Ives his insuing Arguments Mr. Ives I am now to proceed to another Argumnâ—â— to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day Sabbath VVhich I thus do If believing Gentiles are bound to keep thâ— seventh-day sabbath then they are bound by that text Jam. 2. where you say the whole Law is required to be kept But the believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath
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-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
seem strange I pray consider Acts 21.23 24 25. where it is observable that a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders being met at Jerusalem did injoyn Paul to observe somethings which at no hand they would have the Gentiles to observe but gave them a solemn charge to the contrary for in the 23 and 24 verses the Assembly of Apostles and Elders do enjoyn Paul saying DOE this that WE say to thee we have four men which have a vow upon them them take and purifie thy self with them and be at charges with them that they may shave their heads and ALL may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thou thy self walkest orderly and keepest the Law But as touching the GENTILES which beleeve we have written and concluded that THEY observe NO SUCH thing c. Here we see a holy convocation of Apostles and Elders guided by the Spirit of truth do require that of Paul being a Jew that they expresly command the Gentile beleevers not to observe Would it not be ridiculous then for a man to say that I must either observe all the Apostles injunctions to the Jews or else that I must reject all the injunctions of the Apostles even those that concern the Gentiles for after this rate Mr. Tillam reasons viz. that I must either observe all James his Epistle or none at all because saith he there is no difference between Jew and Greek Now then by this place in the 21 of the Acts you see there was some difference by order from the Apostles in point of observation but no difference in point of justification which is the scope of the Apostle in that text cited by Mr. Tillam Rom. 10.11 12. There is no difference between Jew and Greek for the same Lord over all is RICH unto all that call upon him so that the Argument remains unanswered for all that Mr. Tillam hath said because the Scripture saith plainly that the uncircumcised Gentiles were not bound to keep the whole Law therefore from those words the WHOLE LAVV the seventh-day sabbath cannot reasonably be inferred Neither let any one think to relieve himself by the help of this distinction viz. that though beleevers are not to keep the whole Law as it contains Morals and Ceremonials yet they are bound to observe the whole Law as it contains morals only for first the Law of Moses makes no such distinctions as a whole and a whole Law neither doth the Scriptures of the New Testament make any such distinction for when it speaks of the VVHOLE Law with reference to the Law of Moses it always includes both Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Laws which are all but several parts of the Israelites VVHOLE Law But secondly Suppose we should allow the distressed the help of this distinction viz. that sometime Moses Law is called the WHOLE LAW with reference to the moral part of it only as suppose it so in this 2 of James now under debate doth it therefore follow that the seventh-day sabbath is part of the moral Law is not the imagination of such a conceipt as this a stranger to the heart of an ingenious disputant who abhors to beg that Question he cannot proveâ— for could that be but proved which is so often taken for granted viz. that the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath is a moral Duty then the Controversiâ—â— were at an end for doubtless all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law Mr. Tillam Whereas you say somewhat was injoyned upon the Jews that was not upon the Gentiles I question if this was not the Apostles weakness for they were subject to like passion For at another time a less matter then this mentioned by you Act 21. was counted hypocrisie Secondly James is speaking of the Royal Law but this example of yours relates to the Law of Ceremonies Thirdly if this Epistle of James were written to believing Jews then there is one Law for the believing Jews and another for the believing Gentiles and if so believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and believing Gentiles are not and how can this be without confusion Mr. Ives I answer to the last first that then your book is full of Confusion for in your book you allowed both dayes to be observed to wit the seventh day and the first day And secondly the Scripture is full of confusion if you say true for the Scripture tells us of the Jews observation of the seventh day and the Gentiles of the first day But secondly it followeth not that the believing Jews are bound by my confession to keep the seventh-day sabbath seeing that your term whole Law mentioned in James 2. doth not prove the Sabbath to be there intended any more then it proves circumcision or any other Jewish ceremony Thirdly when I cite a text to shew that the Apostles being guided by Gods holy Spirit did order Paul being a Jew to observe some things which they strictly commanded the Gentiles not to observe Mr. Tillam answers That this was the Apostles weakness by which it appears that rather then Mr. Tillam will be accounted weak he will brand the Apostle Paul and the whole Council of Apostles and Elders assembled at Jerusalem with the Holy Ghost with weakness but it is more likely that Mr. Tillam should be weak then Paul and all that Assembly among whom the Holy Ghost was present in so solemn a Judgment And whereas Mr. Tillam tells us that Peter played the hypocrite Gal. 2.13 in that he compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I answer that this is nothing to our purpose First because the text cited by me Act. 21. onely speaks of Jews that were advised to live as Jews and of Gentiles that were forbidden so to live vers 25. but the text in Gal. 2. speakes of Gentiles that Peter did compel to live as do the Jews which is clearly another thing Now then if this text cited by Mr. Tillam Gal. 2. in which it is said Peter was to blame for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I say if this text serves any thing to the present controversie it is to shew that Mr. Tillam playes the hypocrite in that he being as he calls himself a Minister of the Gentiles doth command the Gentiles to live as do the Jews in keeping the Saturday for a Sabbath And lastly the second of the Galatians blames Peter sharply for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews but there is none but Mr. Tillam that 〈◊〉 ever heard of that ever presumed to blame not only Paul in what he did Act. 21. but also the whole Assembly of Apostles in which the holy GHOST was present a piece of such great presumption that scarce can be parallel'd in any story And whereas he saith the instance Acts 21. is of the Ceremonial Law and not of the Royal Law I answer that all GOD's Laws are Royal but secondly though the instance in
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-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
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-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.
you deny the seventh day sabbath is intended in the second of James you may deny it Mr. Ives I do not deny it because I will deny it but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it Mr. Coppinger Well then I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the second thus If the Law in this text James the second be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures then the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second But the Law in this text James the second is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second Mr. Ives I answer first by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism because it concludes not that which was formerly denyed for it is no more then what we have had over and over save that now instead of the word Scripture in the prosyllogism you add the Scriptures of the old Testament Secondly I further answer by denying the Consequence for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles that the Law in the old Testament requireth as for instance That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adultery did also command them that they should circumcise their Children and offer Sacrifices These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery as appears Gal. 5. 〈◊〉 For I testifie to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW Now who can deny but this whole Law did forbid murder and adultery But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law as that Argument supposeth For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law John 7.23 and sacrificing is called a part of that Law Mat. 8.4 and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law Mark 7. Now may not a man as well reason thus If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to parents then we must keep circumcision and offering of sacrifices for these are parts of that whole Law of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to Parents 〈◊〉 a part I say is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger we must keep ALL that Law saith 〈◊〉 which in the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery Ergo we must keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I will prove that the whole Law in this text Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies thus If the whole Law there mentioned be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise then it doth exclude Ceremonies But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise Ergo the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies Mr. Ives If it excludeth ceremonies then it excludeth your former Argument which saith We are bound to keep the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery and also it excludeth your interpretation of whole Law in Jam. 2. For we cannot keep the whole Law according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament in an old Testament sence but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part for the old Testament law in which murder and adultery were forbidden had ceremonies commanded also so that you have confuted your self Mr. Coppinger My Argument is of force unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law Mr. Ives It is not of force unless you prove the seventh day sabbath is included for â— am Râ—spondent and do deny it to be included and do expect your proof for you confess some part of the whole Law is excluded Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. Mr. Ives I deny the Minor Mr. Coppinger If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Testament onely then they cannot keep this Law except they keep the seventh day sabbath But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely Ergo they cannot keep this Law according to the Scriptures except they keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives Your former Argument was of scriptures in general and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament now the new Testament is scripture as well as the old and therefore Peter saith of some That they wrested Pauls writings as they did other scriptures so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testament we shall do well But secondly this is but semper Idem the same over and over what we had before Thirdly I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law Jam. 2. according to the scriptures of the old Testament in a new Testament sence and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger runs in a Ring which Logicians call Circular Disputation Again Mr. Coppinger hath confessed that ceremonies are abolished therefore it cannot in all points be kept according to the scriptures of the Old Testament Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law unless they keep the seventh day sabbath But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireâ— the keeping of the seventh day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny both Major and Minor For First it doth not follow that because I muâ—â— keep the law in the second of James according to the old Testament that therefore I must keeâ— the sabbath required in the old Testament 〈◊〉 more then because I must forbear killing as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament But
may be the same when the Law is not the same Mr. Coppinger As to your first instance namely that the seventh yeer was commanded for a Mora reason I answer This was not an universal reason for the text faith That the poor of THY people may eat which was not for all and as to your second instance I confess the reason doth remain and is universal viz. That God doth sanctifie us and therefore I say the Law remains that we should sanctifie Gods Ministers still Mr. Ives As for your Answer to my first instance it doth signifie little for I say refreshing the poor is a moral and universal duty and if than the seventh yeer of rest was commanded for the benefit of their poor and cattle then by your Argument if the reason of this Law viz. that the poor should be refreshed do remain then it must needs follow by your Logick thaâ— the seventh yeer sabbath must remain as well as the seventh day sabbath And as touching your answer to my second instance I must tell you that in your Answer you have confuted your self for you confess the reason of the Law remains which was given to Israel for sanctifying the priest Secondly you say that the Law remains that we must sanctifie Gods Ministers then by your favour if you can make the reason of the Law for sanctifying the Priest the sons of Aaron a reason why you should sanctifie not the same but another Priesthood then I may make the reasons for sanctifying the seventh day sabbath serve for the sanctifying not the same but another day Mr. Coppinger So you may if you can prove the abolishing of the seventh day sabbath as I can prove the abolishing the Levitical Priesthood Mr. Ives Then you have confuted your self again and answered your own Argument for your Argument was that where-ever the reason of a Law remains there the Law remains and you have confessed that the reason of the Law doth remain why God would have Israel sanctifie the Priest the sons of Aaron and now in your last answer tell me That that Priesthood is abolished So then if I could never shew you that the seventh day sabbath was abolished yet I have confuted your Argument by shewing that the reason of a Law doth remain when the Law doth not remain and you have confessed both for you say that the reason why Israel was to sanctifie that Priesthood is the same still viz. because God sanctifies his people and you confessed the Law is not the same for you say The Priesthood is abolished But lastly I have shewn you in the former Disputation that the seventh day sabbath was abolished as well as the Levitical Priesthood by an Argument which you could not answer which I raised from that text Col. 2.16 17. with which I shall conclude this Disputation Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drinks or in respect of a holy day or of the new moons or of the SABBATH days which are ASHA DOW of things to come but the body is of Christ Thus having given a faithful account of all the Arguments and Answer that were insisted on in the several Disputations without omitting of any one text of Scripture Argument or Answer that was urged on either side I shall leave the whole to the judgement of those that are impartial desiring of God that it may answer the ends for which it is sent forth into the world which is the glory of Almighty GOD and the establishment of the Weak which is all that is herein aymed at by thy Friend J. I. FINIS POST-SCRIPT READER I Thought good to give notice that at the end of this last Dâ—spute I promised that which is now by the Providence of GOD performed viz. an acâ—ount of all the Arguments and Answers insisted on in the several Disputations this promise being made publickly before the meeting was dissolved Doctor Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Coppinger being then present at which time Doctor Chamberlain told me That if I would print but two Arguments that he would send to me with Answers to them I might print what I would I thereupon told him that I would not onely print and answer his two Arguments but also God assisting I would answer what other Arguments that either be or any of them should send to me provided they sent them within fourteen dayes after and for this 14 dayes I staid 21 days in all which time I heard not a word from any of them â—o nor so much as an excuse from Doctor chamberlain though he did publickly challenge me to answer his two Arguments and as faithfully promise to send them to my house which I wonder at seeing he hath divers times past by my door since then as I have been informed and yet never so much as left a word about it This I am provoked to certifie lest any that heard this promise from Doctor Chamberlain should think that I had received his Arguments and concealed them the thought of any such thing is far enough from the heart of him that is London March 17. 1658 9. Thy Friend in the Truth JER IVES An Appendix to the former Disputations I Have annexed this insuing Appendix for the information fo the weak and those that are not acquainted with the Laws and Terms of Disputation and it may also serve for the general use of all that do desire to be satisfied in the present controversie who perhaps may not have leasure or patience to read all the foregoing Arguments and Answers urged in the preceding Disputations and herein I shall observe this method First I shall lay down all those Arguments that I have ever met with which are levied for the defence of the Saturday-Sabbath with brief Answers thereunto Secondly I shall urge the Reasons why I am perswaded the Saturday-sabbath is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles Thirdly I shall shew some Reasons for the justifying the present practise of the Christians in their Religious observations of the first day of the week otherwise called the Lords-day And first to the first namely the Arguments that are urged by some Judaizing Christians for the defence of the seventh-day sabbath and they are of three sorts the first sort are taken from the Scriptures the second from some Reasons in Nature and the third sort of Reasons are taken from Tradition I shall plainly and briefly speak first to the first viz. those Arguments that are alledged for the Saturday-sabbath ouâ— of the Scriptures and these are some taken from Texts out of the Old and some from Texts out of the New Testament I shall first begin with those Arguments urged for the defence of the seventh-day sabbath out of the old Testament and they are of two sorts first such as are taken from example and secondly such as seem to be grounded upon a command Argum. 1 The first Reason is taken from Gods example Gen. 2.2 And God rested the seventh-day c. and
we minde Acts 11.20 compared with vers 26. we shall see in vers 20. that the Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord and these were called Christians at Antioch vers 26. and yet the Doctor saith he never heard of any such creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Dr. Cham. I pray then say Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath and then I will deny the Minor Mr. Ives I wonder Sir that you should quibble about terms and trouble us so often to alter the terms in the Question as first for the term Gentiles you afterwards alter and will have it all Christians and now for Christian Gentile you would have it believing Gentile Well Sir be it so I will then prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath which is the Minor proposition denyed by you If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Then they are bound by the law of Nature by the law of Moses or the law of Christ But they are nor bound by the Law of Nature the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. Believing Gentiles are bound by the Law of Moses which is all one with the Law of Christ therefore prove your Minor Mr. Ives If the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law of Moses then they are bound to keep it by the Law that was given to Israel But the believing Gentiles are not bound to it by the Law that was given to Israel Ergo Believing Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day-sabbath Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus If the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Then believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath by the Law that was given to Israel But the Law that was given to Israel was given to none but Israel Ergo. Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that Law was given to other Nations besides Israel Mr. Ives That it was given to no Nation but Israel I prove out of Psal 147.19 20. He hath given his laws to Jacob his statutes and judgements unu Israel he hath not dealt so with ANY Nation and for his judgements THEY have not known them Dr. Cham. I do distinguish of giving the Law there is a giving as a priviledge and a giving by way 〈◊〉 punishment Now though it was not given to any Nation but Israel as a priviledge yet it was given to other Nations by way of punishment to judge them by it Mr. Ives I do confess it was given to no Nation as priviledge according to what you say and do say that it was not given to any other Nation by way of punishment but the Nation Israel which I 〈◊〉 prove If that Law that was given to Israel had been given to any other Nation by way of judâ—â—ment Then other Nations would haâ— been judged by it But no other Nation was to be judged by it Ergo it was not given by way of judgment to any Nation but Israel Dr. Cham. I deny the Minor and say that the Law of Israel was given to other Nations to judge them by it Mr. Ives If no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law but those that lived under it Then it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it But no Nation shall be judged by it but they that lived under it Ergo it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it Here the Doctor urgeth the former distinction again about giving by way of priviledge and giving by way of judgement which is a vain distinction because no Law doth judge any body but those that were bound to keep it and by keeping of at were capable to enjoy the priviledges of it Dr. Cham. Upon the former distinction I deny the Minor Mr. Ives I prove the Minor viz. that no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law that did not live under it by the text Rom. 2.12 As many as have sinned without the law shall be judged without the law and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law Dr. Cham. That is true and therefore I say other Nations lived under that Law of Israel so as to be judged by it Mr. Ives That other Nations did not live under it so as to be judged by it I prove thus If there be any other Nations to be judged by Israel's Law Those Nations are either recorded in the Scripture or other Histories But neither the Scriptures nor other Histories do record any such thing Ergo. Dr. Cham. There are Scripture-records that shew us that other Nations shall be judged by Israel's Law Mr. Ives I pray then Sir assigne those Scripture-records Dr. Cham. I shall then assigne Rome 2.14 15. with Rom. 3.19 In Rom 2. it is said the Gentiles should be judged though they had 〈◊〉 the Law Mr. Ives That 's true 〈…〉 this text makes against you direct 〈…〉 so far from saying the Gentiles were 〈…〉 Law and therefore should be judged by it that it saith the direct 〈…〉 were without it therefore 〈…〉 without is Dr. Cham. But it is said in Rom 3. That whatsoever do law saith it saith to them that are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and that all the world may become guilty before God Here is ALL the WORLD are become guilty by what the Law saith to them that are under it Mr. Ives That 's true but how doth it follow that all the world are under the Jews Law because by a Law God will finde them guilty or how can this be proved to be Moses Law since the text before cited by you saith some were not under Moses Law Dr. Cham. You see that the same things were writ in the heart that were given by Moses for the text saith They viz the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law And therefore it matters not whether it was the Law given by Moses or no. Mr. Ives Here Sir you have given away your cause at once for my business hath been to shew you that the seventh-day-Sabbath is not required of believing Gentiles by Moses Law because Moses Law was not given to the Gentiles which is that I have been proving and you have been denying and now in the conclusion you say it matters not whether it were the Law given by Moses or no. So then I have proved the thing denyed all this while by your own words because you had your liberty to except against the enumeration of Laws in the Syllogism and you excepted against the Law of Moses saying The Law of Nature Moses and Christ were all one so that if the
seventh-day sabbath be not required by Moses Law it is not by your own confession required by the Law of Nature or the Law of Christ and that it is not required by Moses Law I have proved and shall prove further by this Argument If believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath by vertue of Moses Law then they are commanded by that Law Exod 20. But the believing Gentiles are not required by that Law Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Ergo believing Gentiles are not required by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath Here Dr. Chamberlain forbears to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments and thereupon Mr. Tillam takes upon him the place of a Respondent whose Answers follow Mr. Tillam For my part I am against this Syllogistical way of Disputation and I had though you and that Gentleman that stands by you * Meaning Mr. Denn had been against all Academical wayes and rules of Disputation also Mr. Ives Truly Sir we had more reason to think you should be FOR such a way of Disputation then you had to think we were against it because you pretend to make use of so much in your late book however See the Epistle give me my liberty to argue this way as I have given Doctor Chamberlain and when it comes to your turn to oppose take what way you will so you prove the thing denyed I pass not in the mean time answer my Argument Mr. Tillam I pray repeat it again Mr. Ives The Argument is as before If believing Gentiles by vertue of Moses Law are commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then they are commanded by that Law Exod. 20. But believing Gentiles are not commanded by that Law Exod. 20. Ergo the believing Gentiles are not commanded by vertue of Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Tillam The Gentiles were bound to keep the Law that was given by God to Israel and particularly that of the seventh-day Sabbath and yet not by Exod. 20. ONELY for they were commanded in Exod 16. also Mr. Ives My Argument doth not say they were bound by the 20th of Exod. ONELY but that if they are bound by Moses Law 〈◊〉 you say they are then they are bound by that Text Exod. 20 where the sabbath is required among other Laws to be observed 〈◊〉 but that the same things might be required elsewhere now if I prove this Text in Exod. 20. doth not command the believing Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath then I have taken away the force of those Arguments you urge from thence in the behalf of it Mr. Tillam Well then I say the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath by vertue of the Command Exod 20. Mr. Ives I prove the believing Gentiles by that Text are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath by this Argument If that Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh-day sabbath Exod. 20. be nor in force to believing Gentiles then believing Gentiles are not bound by that Law Exod. 20. to observe the seventh-day sabbath But that Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh day sabbath Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles Ergo believing Gentiles are not bound by that Law Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath Here Mr. Tillam refused to answer to the Argument because he would not be tyed to deny Maâ—or or Minor and therefore one among the Company calls upon Mr. Ives to prove the Minor viz. That the Law that requireth the Observation of the seventh day sabbath Exod. 20. is not in force to believing Gentiles Mr. Ives Well because I would improve the time for Edification though here I might break off and forbear to argue when my Respondent shall refuse to answer yet be cause I am desired by some that stand by I shall prove that that Law is not in force which I thus do If that Law which commandeth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath Exod. 20. be in force unto believing Gentiles then the punishment due to the Transgression of that Law by the Law-Makers appointment is in force unto the believing Gentiles also But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law by the Law-Makers appointment is not in force to the believing Gentiles Ergo that Law Exod. 20. that commandeth the Observation of the seventh-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles Here Mr. Tillam refuseth to answer and therefore one that stands by denyeth the Minor and prayes Mr. Ives to prove it Mr. Ives I prove the Minor viz. That the punishment that the Law-maker appointed to the breach of the Sabbath required Exod. 20. is not in force If the punishment due to the transgrassion of that Law Exod. 20. be in force to the believing Gentiles by the Law makers appointment then the Law-maker hath appointed some to other to inflict it But the Law-maker hath appointed none to inflict it Ergo the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles by the Law-makers appointment If we look into the Law of Moses we shall find that whosoever did any work upon the Sabbath day was to be put to death Exod. 35.1 2. and Exod. 31.14 15. And when they had found a man breaking this Law in gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day they brought him to Noses and Aaron and to as the Congregation to see what should he done unto him Num. 15.32 33 34 35 36 and they put him in ward for it was not yet declared what should be done unto him then the Lord said unto Moses Thâ— mâ—n shâ—â—â— die the death 〈…〉 all the multitude 〈◊〉 him with â—ones without the hoâ—â— are we find a Law given to keep the Sabbath â—od 20. a punishment assigned by the Law-maker which is Death Exod. 31.14 15. the manner of â—e execution if prescribed by God Num. 19.35 â—â—ich is stoning with stones the Executioners of this â—â—nishment are likewise appointed by the same Law which is all the multitude And let all the MULTITUDE stone him with stones c. Jer. 35 36. â—w if the seventh day sabbath be in force by vertue of Moses Law then it followeth that the same punishment is in force the same Executioners are appoinâ—d unless that any body can shew where God hath freed the transgressors from the penalty of it or hath appointed any other punishment then what is appointed 〈◊〉 the Law of Moses Mr. Ives Because Sir you will not answer this Argument by denying either Major or Minor I shall 〈◊〉 on to prove that 〈◊〉 which seems most doubtful which is the Minor Proposition vz. That the Law-maker hath not appointed any to inflict the punishment provided in Moses Law for the seventh-day Sabbath breaking upon believing Gentiles If the Law-maker hath appointed any to inflict the punishment which by Moses Law was to be inflicted noon Sabbath-breakers it is either the civil Magistrate or the Ministers
the seventh-day sabbath but there is Text that requireth the People of God and the Servants of God to observe it and therefore by consequence believing Gentiles are to observe it if they are Gods People and Servants Mr. Ives Sir what proof you have you may spare it till we are agreed how to dispute however in the mean time let me tell you though you prove the people of God and the servants of God were required to keep the seventh-day sabbath this will not reach our difference because the Jewe were called both Gods servants and People whom we say were bound to keep it but this doth not prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to it Mr. Tillam Well if I make it appear by those or the like consequences that believers in Gospel-times are to keep the seventh-day sabbath I hope it will suffice Mr. Ives I wonder that Mr. Tillam should be destitute of plain Scripture to prove his practise especially considering that he blames men in his Book page 96. for setting up Ordinances by Consequences and calls such a practise Philosophy and vain deceits of men whenas now himself hath no plain Text to prove his practise by Mr. Tillam I think God hath a designe to promote my poor Book therefore if any body have a desire to it they may have it at Livewel Chapmans in Popes-head-Alley or at Mr. Eversdens in Pauls Church-yard Mr. Ives SIR we met not here to procure Customers for your book but to dispute and therefore if you will prove your practise by plain Scripture do for since you have cried down all other wayes both Syllogistical and consequential I see no Reason why you should not keep to your own Rule prescribed by your self in your Book however that we may not spend time to no purpose I shall be content so you prove the proposition take what way you will provided that you prove either the Antecedent or the Consequence by plain Text. Mr. Tillam Well then I will proceed to prove that all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Thus If that it be the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath then it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile but it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Ergo it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile to keep the seventh-day Sabbath It is worthy observation that though Mr. Tillam had profaned the rules of Syllogistical Disputation and cried down all Consequential ways of proving the lawfulness of any duty yet he himself is forced at last to build up this Sanctuary that he hath been pulling down and hallow that way which he had before profaned by making use of it to prove his practise though he had before cried it down as profane Mr. Ives Sir you argue thus viz. If it be the duty of all to keep the seventh-day then it is the duty of all beleeving Gentiles But it is the duty of all men c. Ergo. I deny the Minor viz. that it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath Mr. Tillam This I prove our of Mark 2.27 where it is said The Sabbath was make for MAN and not man for the Sabbath Where it is evident that the Law was made for the Subjects and not Subjects for the Law even so the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath Again Whatever was made for Adam is made for all men but the Sabbath was made â—or Adam because in the Text it was made for man and the word in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Homo which comprehendeth all men and so doth Adam Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam in his Book saith God is plain pag. 96. and wonders that people will bring Consequences in stead of plain Precepts but it seems there is neither plain Precept nor plain Consequence to be found for his practise For first there is neither a command to all men much less to all beleevers in this Text. Again I do confute your sense of the word Adam out of your own Book pag. 14. where it is objected that ADAM being in honour did not abide a night Psal 49.12 your Answer is that it is to be understood of such as the context mentions that trust in their wealth c. Here then you have confuted your self because somwhat may be said of Adam that doth not concern every man therefore the Sabbath might be made for man and yet not for every man Here Mr. Tillam did raise another Argument instead of making good the former and therefore because that more was said to this Argument afterwards I shall omit to mention the new ones either now or at any time hereafter till I have brought in first all that was said to the old for many times 〈◊〉 urged new Arguments before the old ones were finished and then was forced to leave those new ones to speak further to his old ones again Mr. Tillam I confess in the 49 Psalm the word Adam is restrained but here in the 2 of Mark it is not Mr. Ives Well if it be restrained there then is not your Argument good viz. that whatever is said of man or ADAM is said of every man Here Mr. Gosnold desired to speak a word or two touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in question and told Mr. Tillam that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not sign fie every man unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be joyned with it To this Dr. Chamberlain replied that none are excepted from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joyned Mr. Ives But Mr. Tillam hath confessed some are excepted when he said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psalm 49. doth signifie only such men that trust in their wealth and it is not yet shewn that Adam or man hath a more universal signification the 2 of Mark then in Psalm 49. since the â—â—rd by his own confession is the same But I further answer that it is frequent in â—â—ripture to apply things unto man wâ—en yet doth not intend every man as first it is said Gen 8.21 I will no more curse the ground for MANS sake c. whenas Noah and his Family were exempted from the curse Again Deut. 5 2â— it is there said that God did talk with MAN â—â—d he liveth Now here the word MAN is so fit from signifying all men that it is restrained to those people that were assembled about the mountain which were so far from all that they were but a handful in comparison to the rest of Mankinde This appears further if we consider that saying in the 4th of Deut. and compare it with the 5th in the 5th it is said that when God did give them the Law he spake with MAN and he lived that this was onely the Nation of Israel Deut. 4.33 tells us plainly Did ever people hear the voice of God out of the midst of the fire as THOU