SATURDAY NO SABBATH: Or, the SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH Proved To be of no force to the Believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel, By the Law of Nature, Moses, Christ. BEING An account of several public Disputations held at Stone-Chappel by Paul's, 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 public 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 Paul's Churchyard, and Fran Smith in flying-Horse Court in Fleetstreet. 1659. To the Believers in Christ, especially they who are in bondage to the Jewish Sabbath, and more particularly to those in Colchester, Grace and Peace be multiplied 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 hindered; 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 God's honour and your own edification, and the world's 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) believeth EVERY thing: but the prudent will consider his steps, Prov. 14.15. plainly showing, 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 Church's peace; and turn the joy she had of a sudden Proselyte, into great sorrow; & that either by their unruly and disorderly promoting their new received opinions, to the disturbance of the peace, and hindrance 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 embrace a thing (though it be truth) seldom do remain permanent Professors of it: this our Lord Christ teacheth us in the parable of the sour, 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 God's 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 havoc of the Church's 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 public, it will be hard to recant, though it prove very erroneous: how sad is it then to see men dispute in public 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 deniers of Scriptures, calling all Ranters, Quakers, Papists, Atheists, etc. 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-day Sabbath, base-born muck-worms, pag. 26. But no wonder Mr. Tillam speaks at this rate, since as he confesseth in his Book, That sometimes his affection did outrun his judgement. 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 believing 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, than 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 to embark himself in a Paper Frigate, manned with great words, to encounter 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 hid 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 outrun his judgement, or else surely Mr. Spittlehouse would not have taken Arguments out of Nature's 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 decried Syllogisms, and refused to answer them; calling them the enticing words of man's 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 Almanac, he abounds with Astronomical Phrases, as Meridian-Heights, the Sun's 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 inconstancy, and the Stars in the expanded Firmament, the Empyreal Heavens, etc. 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 shady 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, etc. pag. 9, 12, 92, 47, 54, 82. Logical and Poetical terms are frequently found in his writing: as Dilemmas, Scylla and Charybdis, Meanders, Ariadne's Clue, the Father of Daemons, etc. 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 decried 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 honour his Cause, but when it is used against him, or makes for the detecting his error, than he decries it as vain, and saith, he is sure that it is not of God, etc. & its worth observing, that while Dr. Chamberlain did Dispute Syllogistically, when he was Mr. Ives his opponent, Mr. Tillam did not show any public dislike of such kind of disputation: but when Mr. Tillam came to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments, than he inveiged 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 replied, 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 practice by a Consequence, as he did in his Book, pag. 96. if he could not prove his own practice 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 enticing words, and empty of solid Arguments: and this is not only my advice, but the Apopostles, who tells us, 2 Pet. 2. That with feigned words some shall make merchandise of God's people; and therefore he bids the Colossians, in the 2 Chapter of that Epistle, To take heed lest any man beguiled them through enticing words. You see then, that good men may be spoilt 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 wrandring, 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 man's mind move in Charity, rest in Providence, and turn upon the Poles of Truth: Oh then! when you shall have received the truth as it is in Jesus, walk in it, and be not easily persuaded to move from the truth unto which thou art called, for any base or by-end whatever; and the God of truth shall at last recompense all thy Labours in it, and thy sufferings for it. But is thou art convinced that some things whereof thou hast been persuaded are errors, be not ashamed to confess thy mistakes; knowing, that it is so far from tending to thy shame, (whatever Satan or thy own heart shall persuade thee) that it will be a crown of glory and honour upon thy head, Prov. 4.8, 9 And in hold and contending for the Truth have a care lest thou over-valuest or undervaluest the truth thou makest profession of, by counting those Truth's essential to salvation & Church Communion, which are not so; or on the other hand by counting the Fundamentals of Christian Religion, but circumstantial things, and things without which a man may be saved: have a care then, lest thou by thy rigidness in things of less moment, shouldst disturb the peace of the Church, and offend the Consciences of thy weak Brethren for whom Christ died: the like care ought to be taken of the other extreme of judging the Substantials of Religion as circumstances, lest by so doing we break down the whole Fabric of the Christian Religion, and lay waste the profession thereof, by counting the props and stays of it as indifferent things. Having cautioned you about the receiving, maintaining, and retaining of the truth, my desire is, that you make use thereof in judging these ensuing Conferences about the seventh-day Sabbath, which I have carefully published for the stopping of slanderous mouths, who have misrepresented the Disputations; and also for the satisfying them that doubt, and confirming of those that are weak, that they be not carried about with divers and strange Doctrines, and tossed to and fro with every wind. If then by these threshing there be any thing beat out (that lay hid before) by which thy soul may be strengthened, and thy hungry desire after truth satisfied, give God the glory; and if by the light hereof any darkness or weakness is discovered, bless the Father of lights; and if you do receive light, walk in it; that you may be found the children of it: and that this may be the end of our writing, and reading, praying, preaching, and disputing, is the prayer and desire of Your affectionate friend and Brother in the faith, I. I. BEing by the Providence of God, and the entreaty of many of His People, put upon this work, I hope I shall do nothing therein, of which I shall need to be ashamed in myself, or blamed by any that were hearers and impartial Judges of the ensuing Conferences, at the Bar of whose Tribunal I now stand: and for those that are captious, and lie in wait for my halting, I shall appeal from the Bar of their partiality, to the Judge of all the World, whether in this, I have not walked uprightly. And whereas there is somewhat added by way of Observation; both upon the Arguments and Answers, as occasion is offered, I thought good to give notice, that whatever occurreth of this kind, I have put in a different Character, to avoid mistakes that so the unwary or the uncharitable Reader might not confound what is added for further information, with what was offered in the Disputation. And if thou findest a more methodical account of Mr. Ives his Arguments then Mr. Tillams, know, that Mr. Tillam did refuse to observe any Logical Method, either in this Arguings or Answers; and therefore what thou findest amiss of this kind, do not impute to the partiality of the Scribe. And whereas thou findest some of Mr. Tillams words methodised and put into Arguments by Mr. Ives, it is no more than what was offered in the Disputations, that so the Audience might understand the force of M. Tillams Orations, and to what they did amount, when summed up into Arguments. And for what was offered by Dr. Chamberlain, I confess it was more Methodical; but how rational, it concerns not me to determine. And as touching the last Dispute, which was with Mr. Coppinger, it was appointed, to the end that he as Respondent, should give some fresh Answers to what Arguments Mr. Ives had alleged against Mr. Tillam, and Dr. Chamberlain the two first days; and likewise to the end that he might answer what other Arguments Mr. Ives had further to urge, against the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath: which whether he hath so done or no, the consideration hereof will give thee satisfaction: and for the better Information of the weak, I have at the end of the Disputations, given a short and brief account of my 〈◊〉 against the seventh-day Sabbath, 〈◊〉 of all the Objections that I have ever met with, seem those that are contrary minded, with brief Answers thereunto; to which I desire as plain a Reply may be given, if any shall 〈…〉 print any thing further upon this 〈…〉 and this I take to be a more profitable way to decide Controversies of this kind, than any other that I know of. Having thus given notice of the Method here intended, I now come to give an account of the Disputations, the first whereof, was on Thursday the sixth of January, 1658. at which time the people being assembled, Mr. Ives propoundeth this ensuing Question: Mr. Ives. The question I shall offer to be disputed this day, is, Whether there be any Law that bindeth the Gentiles to keep the seventh day Sabbath? Dr. Chamberlain. I demand first, what you mean by Law, secondly, what you mean by Gentile. I pray explain these terms in your question. Mr. Ives. When I demand whether there be any Law, etc. my meaning is, Whether the Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, or the Law of Christ doth require the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: and by Gentiles, in the question, I do mean all the world, except sews, and such as were Proselyted to their Religion. And from the question thus explained, I do demand, Whether there be any Law that bindeth the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Dr. Chamberlain. To your question I answer, that the Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Ives. This I deny, and therefore I do desire you to prove it: and when it comes to my turn to be Opponent, I shall prove that the Gentiles are not required to keep the seventh-day Sabbath; in the mean time I pray prove that they are. Dr. Chamberlain. 1. Arg. That Gentiles are required to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, I thus prove: That which is commanded for Strangers to observe, is commanded for Gentiles to observe: but the seventh-day Sabbath is commanded for Strangers to observe: Ergo, the seventh-day Sabbath is commanded for Gentiles to observe. Mr. Ives. If by stranger, you mean only the stranger that WAS within Israel's Gates, than I deny the Major, because the stranger within the gates was the Proselyted stranger; and therefore it followeth not, that because the Proselyted strangers WERE commanded, that therefore the Gentiles that were not proselyted, ARE under this command; which you are to prove, according to the fence explained in the question. And if by stranger, you mean all strangers, than I deny the Minor, and say, All strangers ARE not commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. It might further be replied, The stranger was commanded to be circumcised, Gen. 17.12. And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generation, that is born in thy house, or is bought with thy money of ANY STRANGER that is not of thy seed. Doth it follow, because that strangers WERE to be circumcised, that therefore they ARE to be circumcised? and in like manner, it doth not follow that because the strangers within Isarel's gates WERE to keep the Sabbath, that the Gentiles without their gates ARE to keep the Sabbath, which is that the Doctor was to prove for this Argument is so far from proving the Gentiles ARE to keep it, that it doth not prove the Gentiles in the Question WERE to keep it: for the Question is of all Gentiles except Proselytes; and the Argument from the twentieth of Exodus, proves no Gentiles but Proselytes; for so Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotations upon this place, saith, That for Stranger, the Greek Version reads Proselyte; and he further adds, That it was the Opinion of the Rabbins, upon this place, That strangers, not circumcised, might work for themselves openly upon the Sabbath day, as the Jews did on a working day. Dr. Chamberlain. The Commandment doth expound strangers, and saith not only, Thou Jew, but, Thou Proselyte, thy son, and thy daughter, and the stranger that is within thy gates. Mr. Ives. It followeth not that it was to any stranger without the gate, because the stranger within the gate was commanded: and unless you can prove that it was to all strangers without the gate, unproselyted, it doth not reach the difference in question, and therefore I still demand your proof of the Minor Proposition. For it is observable, that though Israel was to restrain the strangers from labour, yet the strangers were no other than such as were circumcised within their gates, and under their Law; which is nothing to our purpose, who live in England, under the Gospel. Dr. Chamberlain. I think I have proved it sufficiently. Hereupon arose some difference concerning the terms of the question, and thereupon some that stood by, desired that it might be put into such general terms as might comprehend the difference. It was thereupon agreed, that the question should be put into these terms, viz. Whether all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Dr. Chamberlain affirmeth, That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Ives denyeth, That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Dr. Cham. I being in the place of Opponent, shall undertake to prove That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: which I thus do: They which are bound to keep and observe the Royal Law, are bound to keep and observe the seventh-day Sabbath: But all Christians are bound to keep and observe the Royal Law: Ergo, all Christians are bound to keep and observe the seventh day for a Sabbath. Mr. Ives. I answer by distin, vishing of the Royal Law: for if by Royal Law you mean all the Ten Commandments, than I deny the Minor; otherwise I deny the Major. Dr. Chamberlain. By Royal Law, I mean the Ten Commandments spoken of Exod. 20. Mr. Ives. Then I deny the Minor, and say, That all Christians are not bound to keep all the Ten Commandments, because they are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Dr. Chamberlain. All that are bound to abstain from sin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments: but all Christians are bound to abstain from sin: Ergo, all Christians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments. Mr. Ives. I deny the Major; and though I confess all Christians are bound to abstain from sin, yet it doth not follow, that therefore they are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments, because (as I have said) they are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, which was one of the Ten. Dr. Chamberlain. They that are bound to abstain from the transgressions of the Law, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but all Christians are bound to abstain from the transgressions of the Law: Ergo, all Christians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments. Mr. Ives. Sir, you do not prove the thing denied, but instead thereof, give us the same again; for what difference is there between abstaining from sin, and abstaining from transgressions? I therefore, because it is the same Argument, give you the same answer, by denying the Minor. Dr. Chamberlain. Then I further argue: If every sin be a transgression of the Law, than they that are bound to abstain from sin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but every sin is a transgression of the Law: Ergo. Mr. Ives. This is but the same we had before, though differing in words & therefore I deny the Major. Dr. Chamberlain. Then I offer further, That they who are bound to keep every point of the Law, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but all Christians are bound to keep every point of the Law: Ergo. Mr. Ives. This is upon the matter but the same again: for what difference is there between all the Law, and every point; and therefore I still do deny the Major, and require you to prove that all that are bound to abstain from sin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments. Dr. Chamberlain. If the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments be sin, than all that are bound to abstain from sin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments is sin: Ergo, they that are bound to abstain from sin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments. Mr. Ives. I deny the Minor. The Minor may justly be denied, because that it is not a sin now to work upon the seventh day (commonly called Saturday) which was one of the Ten Commandments among the Jews; and therefore though all Christians are to abstain from all sin against the Law they live under, yet they are not bound to abstain from sinning against a Law they are not under. Dr. Chamberlain. I prove the Minor from Jam 2.10. Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. From whence I argue: He that is guilty of sin, doth not abstain from sin. But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of sin: Ergo, he that beaks any one of the Ten Commandments, doth not abstain from sin. Mr. Ives. This Argument concludes not the terms denied in the Syllogism; however, I shall deny than Miner, and say, That one of the Ten Commandments may be broken, which is the 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, than I deny the Syllogism. And if you do mean every he, or every one, than 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 concerned 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 denied. Dr. Chamberlain. Lest you should equivocate about this word Law, the Apostle citys 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 denied, but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms: at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversy. 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 denied. 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 shown you once and again. As it hath been answered, that S. James doth not write to Gentiles, and that he doth not enjoin the ten Commandments, by this word, The whole Law, and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sabbath: so it may further be answered, that if those words, The whole Law, should respect the Law of Moses, then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law, they are bound to Circumcision also, and every other Ceremony of the Law: therefore there Apostle saith, Gal. 5.3. that if they were circumcised, they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law. By which it appears, that the believing Gentiles that were not circumcised, were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law. So that when St. James enjoins the keeping of the whole Law, he tells us what Law he means, in Chap. 1. v. ●●. 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 than 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 denied by his Respondent, because he denied 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 public Disputation, the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scriptures, because he denied 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 kind of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian. Mr. Ives. Sir, I will show you such a kind 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 we mind 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, verse. 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 denied 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, than 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 privilege, and a giving by way 〈◊〉 punishment. Now though it was not given to any Nation but Israel as a privilege, 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 privilege, 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 judgement, Then other Nations would ha● been judged by it. But no other Nation was to be judged by it. Ergo, it was not given by way of judgement 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 Israel's Law, but those that lived under it, Than 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 privilege, 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 privileges 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 Israel's 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 show us that other Nations shall be judged by Israel's Law. Mr. Ives. I pray then Sir assign those Scripture-records. Dr. Cham. I shall then assign 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 find 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 show 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 denied 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 virtue of Moses Law, than 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. Den. had been against all Academical ways and rules of Disputation also. Mr. Ives. Truly Sir, we had more reason to think you should be FOR such a way of Disputation, than 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 denied, 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 virtue of Moses Law, are commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, than 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 virtue 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. ONLY, for they were commanded in Exod, 16. also. Mr. Ives. My Argument doth not say they were bound by the 20th of Exod. ONLY, but that if they are bound by Moses Law (〈◊〉 you say they are) than 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, than 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 virtue 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 tied to deny Ma●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, than the punishment due to the Transgression of that Law, by the Lawmakers' appointment, is in force unto the believing Gentiles also. But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law, by the Lawmakers' 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 prays Mr. Ives to prove it. Mr. Ives. I prove the Minor, viz. That the punishment that the Lawmaker 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 maker's appointment, than the Lawmaker hath appointed some to other to inflict it. But the Lawmaker 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 Lawmakers 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, Th● m●n sh●●● die the death, 〈…〉 all the multitude 〈◊〉 him with ●ones, without the ho●●, are we find a Law given to keep the Sabbath, ●od. 20. a punishment assigned by the Lawmaker which is Death) Exod. 31.14, 15. the manner of ●e execution if prescribed by God, Num. 19.35. ●●ich is stoning with stones: the Executioners of this ●●nishment are likewise appointed by the same Law, which is, all the multitude: And let all the MULTITUDE stone him with stones, etc. Jer. 35 36. ●w if the seventh day sabbath be in force by virtue of Moses Law, than it followeth, that the same punishment is in force, & the same Executioners are appoin●d, unless that any body can show 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, (uz.) That the Lawmaker hath not appointed any to inflict the punishment provided in Moses Law for the seventh-day Sabbath breaking, upon believing Gentiles. If the Lawmaker 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 of the Gospel, or the Multitude. But the Lawmaker hath not appointed any of these Ergo. Under the Law, the Sabbath-breaker was to stoned to death by the MULTITUDE: 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 righteousness to arise with healing under his wings, th●● 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 encoun●ged to keep it, is, because it is the Law of the ten Commandments. And here I might frame 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 kil● and, Thou shalt not commit adultery, is the Royal 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 no● 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 Arguments, 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 concludes 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-day 〈◊〉 in the Argument he would seem to make 〈◊〉 Mal. 4.2, 3, 4, no nor in the text itself. 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 enjoined, it is no otherwise enjoined 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, Leu. 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, M● 4. where there is an exhortation to keep the Law● Moses, etc. it is required of none but ●ews, w● are granted in the explanation of the Question 〈◊〉 be under that Law, as appeareth vers. 4. Remember YE the law of Moses which I commande● unto him in Horeb for ALICE ISRAEL, with 〈◊〉 statutes and judgements. So that this text om● proves what is granted, viz. that all Israel 〈◊〉 under the Law given in Horeb; but is far enoug●● 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 punishment to be inflicted upon the seventh-day ●●abbath●● breaker in the times of the Gospel, as he disappoint should be inflicted upon the Jews Sabbath-breakers in the times of the Law; I d●demand of all this Assemble, (since Mr. Tillam doth refuse to answer) who it is that God hather 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 mind to know the truth thereof, together with other things therein contained, you may buy it at Livewel Chapman's in Popes-head-alley, or a● Mr. Eversdens at the Greyhound in Paul's Churchyard. Mr. Ives. It is strange you should be ignorant of your own book; and as ●rappe, that the Printer should err so foully as to put an Argument of five or fix lines in your book, if it were not in the copy: and that it is in the book, I shall show you. Hereupon Mr. Ive● took Mr. Tillams book out of his pocket, and read these very words before all the people, viz. that God's precept seconded by his practice gives such full honour to the Sabbath, that I hear of none but Atheists, Papist●, 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 practice, which was (say you) the seventh-day; and thereupon tell your Reader, that you hear of none, save Athei●●s, Papists, Prelares, Ranters, etc. 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 Lawmaker 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 believing Gentiles. Mr. Tillam. Well then, I will answer you, and I do say, that the great lawgiver 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, etc. and you answer, He will do it himself: if this answer had been of value, you should have denied the Major, which faith, if the punishment be in force, etc. then the Lawmaker hath APPOINTED some or other to inflict it; here you might have denied the Consequence, and have told us that the punishment might he in force, though moan were appointed, because the lawmaker might do it himself; but this is not to the Question, because the Question now is, Who the lawmaker hath appointed, etc. Mr. Tillam. Well then, I shall answer further, That sometime the lawmaker 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 prophecy, 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 replied, 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, etc. but withal he adds, that such Magistrates shall be, when the Prophecy 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, etc. and the Answer is, That there SHALL be Magistrates in the Church when the forementioned Prophecy 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 JUDGEMENTS; so that, if believing Gentiles ARE bound to observe the Law of Moses, they ARE bound to observe the JUDGEMENTS also. So that Mr. Tillam may as well put off the observation of the Statutes, as the observations of those Judgements 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 believing 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 believing 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 virtue of Moses Law, are not tied 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, than such a Magistrate by Moses Law ought to judge him guilty of death; and than 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 believing 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 man's 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 misapply 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 persuaded 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-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, than 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, than 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 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 God's 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 jew were called both God's 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 practice, especially considering that he blames men in his Book, page 96. for setting up Ordinances by Consequences, and calls such a practice Philosophy, and vain deceits of men, whenas now himself hath no plain Text to prove his practice by. Mr. Tillam. I think God hath a design to promote my poor Book; therefore, if any body have a desire to it, they may have it at Livewel Chapman's in Popes-head-Alley, or at Mr. Eversdens in Paul's Churchyard. Mr. Ives. SIR, we met not here to procure Customers for your book, but to dispute; and therefore if you will prove your practice by plain Scripture, do; for since you have cried down all other ways, both Syllogistical and consequential, I see no Reason, why you should not keep to your own Rule, prescribed by yourself 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 believing 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, than it is the duty of every believing Gentile; but it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: Ergo, it is the duty of every believing 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 hollow that way which he had before profaned, by making use of it to prove his practice, 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, than it is the duty of all believing Gentiles: But it is the duty of all men, etc. 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 ●or Adam, because in the Text, it was made for man; and the word in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin 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 practice. For first, there is neither a command to all men, much less to all believers 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, etc. Here than you have confuted yourself, because somewhat 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 Psalms 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 joined with it. To this Dr. Chamberlain replied, that none are excepted from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not joined. Mr. Ives. But Mr. Tillam hath confessed some are excepted, when he said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psalm 49. doth signify only such men that trust in their wealth; and it is not yet shown, that Adam or man hath a more universal signification the 2 of Mark, then in Psalm 49. since the ●●rd by his own confession is the same. But I further answer, that it is frequent in ●●ripture to apply things unto man, w●en yet doth not intent every man; as first, it is said, Gen 8.21. I will no more curse the ground for MAN'S sake, etc. whenas Noah and his Family were exempted from the curse. Again Deut. 5. 2●. it is there said, that God did talk with MAN, ●●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 Mankind. 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 spoke with MAN, and he lived: that this was only 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 hast heard, and lived? & ver. 35. Unto THEE it was showed, etc. and ver. 36. Out of heaven He made THEE to hear His voice. So that Israel's Law, in which the Sabbath was contained, was made for man, and yet not for every man. Again, God saith, It is not good that man should be alone, Gen. 2.18. here the Lord made a woman for Adam: but would it not be ridiculous to reason thus: Whatever the Lord made for Adam every man is bound to keep? would it not then for low, that Paul and all other men sin, that have 〈◊〉 wives, because the woman was made for Adam? not this as good Logic as Mr. Tillams, who saith The Sabbath was made for man, and therefore every man is bound to keep it? Mr. Tillam. If that Text alleged by you, Deut. 5. be understood of Adam, than you have over thrown your Argument yesterday, wherein you denied the extent of the Law of Moses to all men. Mr. Ives. It is true, that if Adam, or the word man be always understood for every individual man then my saying, that God gave the Law in Sina● unto MAN, doth overthrow what I said yesterday, and to day too: but this is begging the Question, and taking it for granted, that wherever any thing is spoken of or to MAN or HOMO, that it is to be understood of every man; than which nothing is more false, as I have already shown. Mr. Tillam. As to what you objected from Gen. 8.21. I answer, that by Gods cursing the ground for MAN'S sake, it is to be understood of all men universally, because all men sinned in Adam. Mr. Ives. 〈◊〉 say again, that God did not curse the ground 〈◊〉 the sin of Noah, but for the wickedness of that 〈◊〉, and therefore Noah is excepted: when God 〈◊〉 the ground was cursed for man's sake, he 〈◊〉 of Noah, Thee have I sound upright in this ●eneration; therefore you see that a thing may 〈◊〉 done for MAN'S sake, when it is not done or the sake of every man. So the Sabbath ●ight be made for man, and yet not for every individual man, as hath been already shown once and again. Mr. Tillam. Noah was under the curse; being made a prisoner in the Ark; whereas otherwise he should have been free: and every man feels the curse of Adam upon him. Again, to the Text, Deut. 5. when the Word saith, he spoke to man, he means that he did not speak to children. The question was not, Whether Noah did not in some measure suffer by reason of the Deluge; but whether this curse was for his sake? Good men may suffer in a common calamity, when the calamity may not be for their sakes, but for the sake of those wicked men among whom they dwell. Again, How could it be a curse for Noah to be saved in the Ark? I confess this is such a Paradox that the world never heard of before. And whereas it is said, God spoke with man, Deut. 5. to signify that he did not speak to children: We●● then, it follows from hence, that MAN is no● always taken for every son and daughter of Adam● as Mr. Tillam hath been pleading; but as God 〈◊〉 said to speak to man by way of distinction from children: so (as hath been said) he is said to spea● to MAN when he did speak to Israel, by way 〈◊〉 distinction from all other Nations in the world, 〈◊〉 hath already been plentifully showed. Mr. Tillams second Argument. If the Gentiles that could not be Prosolyte● nor joined to the Jews, were bound to kee● the seventh-day Sabbath, than all men we●● bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: bu● that such Gentiles are so bound, I prove out o● Esai. 56.5, 6. Thus saith the Lord to the Eunuch that keep my Sabbath, etc. And let not the son of the stranger that is joined to the Lord say, The Lord hath surely separated me, etc. Mr. Ives. I answer, first, These terms in the Text ar● like the term MAN, which you last insisted on: and how can an universal Proposition be concluded, when the premises are but indefinite? But secondly, As this Text doth not respect all men, so it doth not relate to believers in Gospel times, which is the thing you are to prove: and that this Text doth not relate to believers in Gospel times, there are these Reasons in the Text itself. First, Because it respects the time in which Sacrifices and burnt-Offerings were to be offered, ver. 7. where God tells these men, whoever they are, that if they do the thing that pleaseth him, that their Burnt-Offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon his Altar, etc. Secondly, This saying in Esay doth not respect those strangers that should be Proselyted 〈◊〉 the Christian Religion in the time of the Gospel, but such as were Proselyted to the Jews Religion in the time of the Law: for it is said, that even them, he (viz. God) will bring to to his holy mountain, and make them joyful in his house of prayer, ver. 7. 3. That this house of Prayer was not Christ's spiritual house, the Church of the New Testament, appears by Christ's own words, Mat. 21.12, 13. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said to them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thiefs. So that it appears plainly by the words of Christ, that this house of which the Prophet speaketh, was the material temple, which they had made a house of merchandise by buying and selling in it, and not the spiritual House of Christ in the New testament. Mr. Tillam. I say the time spoken of in Esay 56. is the Gospel-times, because in the first verse it speaks of a Salvation to come, and a Righteousness to be revealed: secondly, because it speaks of Eunuches that were to be joined to the Lord; which could not respect the times of the Law, because in the Law, Deut. 23.1. it is said, that an Eunuch shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord. Mr. Ives. I answer, first by concession, that the time spoken of in the first verse is the Gospel-times; but the Text doth not say, they shall keep the sabbath when those times come, but the Promises of the Benefits that should accrue to them by Christ as his coming, used as motives to stir up the people to do the things that were THAN required, as appears vers. 1. Thus saith the Lord, Keep judgement and DO justice, FOR my salvation is at hand, TO come; as if the Lord had said; You that do expect benefit by the salvation TO come, in the Gospel, must be very careful to do those things that are commanded in the Law. And whereas it is said that this must needs respect Gospel-times, because the Eunuch is said to be admitted, which could not be under the Law; I answer, first, that after ten generations he might enter, though not before; and there was more than 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 shows, that those were duties to be observed 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 joined to the Jews Religion; but the Text saith the direct contrary, (viz.) That the Son of the stranger HAD joined himself to the Lord, vers. 3. and let not the son of the stranger which IS joined to the Lord, etc. and the strangers that cleave to the Lord, vers. 6. them will I bring to my holy mountain, etc. 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, than 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 liar, 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 near 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 persuading them to obedience. Secondly, the Text saith of these strangers, as 〈◊〉 have already shown, that they WERE joined to the Lord; and Mr. Tillam in his Argument saith they were not, and they could not be joined to the Lord. Thirdly, Christ saith, (if you will believe him●● that this house, in this 56 of Esay, is the material Temple, out of which he whipped 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 than Christ, that this house of prayer is the Church of the new Testament. So then, if by Christ's interpretation the Prophet speaks of the material Temple, than 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 practice, 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 joined, is God's house, which they did not enjoy 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 Eunuches: again, the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple, which were Gentiles; which shows that this Text speaks not of any other time than 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 denied that? for whose Sons should they be else? vuless 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 bo●h the one and the other might have been admitted in the times of this Prophet, which was more than 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 easy: for though the Jews would not admit of Greeks, or strangers uncircumcised, yet they would have admitted of them, if they had joined 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 Nation● 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 God's 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 Believers 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 believers are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath; and in order hereunto I have urged this Argument: That if believing Gentiles are not bound, than all believers are not bound: But believing Gentiles are not bound. Ergo. The Minor being denied, I proved it by this enumeration (viz.) If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath, they are bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ: but all believing Gentiles are not bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ, to keep the seventh-day sabbath: Ergo, All believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. It was answered yesterday, that believing Gentiles were bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day sabbath; some Arguments were then urged, to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath; the last of which Arguments did relate to the 20 of Exodus; which I thus framed, and do again urge it, that it may be answered. If that Law Exod. 20, which requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath, be in force to the believing Gentiles, than the punishment due to the trasgression of that Law, by the Lawmakers appointment is in force to the believing Gentiles also. But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. by the Lawmakers appointment is not in force to the believing Gentiles. Ergo, That Law Exod. 20. that requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath, is ●ot in force to believing Gentiles. Dr. Chamberlain. As to the Law of Nature, Moses, and Christ, 〈◊〉 do not think there is so many Lawgivers, as 〈◊〉 have so many distinctions; but I do own 〈◊〉 20 of Exodus for a binding Law, because 〈◊〉 Saviour saith, Mat. 5. I am not come to destroy 〈◊〉 Law, etc. Now then, If not one jor or tittle 〈◊〉 the Law shall fail, than not the sabbath; and consequentially not the punishment annexed ●wor● the breach of it; for without punishment, 〈◊〉 Law is of no force: for the strength of the 〈◊〉 being for the curbing of sinful Nature, is 〈◊〉 no use, unless there be a punishment, and without it the Law would lose its force and ●●gor; and the execution of this Law is in the ●nd of such Magistrates as are Administrators ●●der Christ. Mr. Ives. The Dr. should have directed his answer to my Argument, by assigning a punishment appointed by the Lawmaker to be inflicted upon believing Gentiles for not keeping the seventh-day sabbath; but in stead thereof, he confessth that the Law is of no force without a punishment: well then, by his own confession, if there be no punishment to be inflicted upon the believing Gentiles, than the Law that commands (if any such there be) hath lost its force and vigour: and that the punishment is not in force; I prove by this Argument: If the punishment due to the breach of the seventh-day sabbath, required Exod. 20. be in force by the Lawmakers appointment to believing Gentiles, than the Lawmaker hath appointed some or other to inflict it; but he hath appointed none to inflict it. Ergo. Dr. Chamberlain. I shall find out a better answerer than myself, and that is the Apostle Paul, Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.13. 1 Pet. 4.15. in which text, an evil doer is the general word; and all evil doing is punishable by the Magistrates; these are Sermons preached by Paul and Peter. Mr. Ives. My Argument was, If the punishment in the LAW be in force, than God hath appointed some or other to inflict it; and if he hath, I desired the Doctor to assign who God had appointed to inflict that punishment upon believing Gentiles, which was appointed in the Law for seventh-day sabbath breakers; and in stead thereof, he citys several texts, which we well knew before, none of which requireth the Magistrate to punish the believing Gentiles with death, for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath: For first, here is no mention made of the Sabbath, nor of the punishment what it should be. Secondly, If by the Magistrates punishing all evil, must be meant all the evils against the first Table, as well as the Second, than the Magistrate may and must determine all Doctrinal truths, and punish such as shall err from his determination: which the Dr. will not allow. Thirdly, the Dr. hath at one blow given away the Cause which the good people of this land have contended for in blood for this many years. * Which is, that they might have liberty to worship God according to their Consciences, and that the Magistrate may not be a judge in Spirituals, to punish with death or imprisonment all that differ from him in matters of faith or worship. And lastly, It is a begging the Question, to take it for granted, that Sabbath-breaking (I mean the seventh-day Sabbath-breaking) is an evil, before it be proved to be so. Dr. Chamberlain. I shall own, and have printed, that Magistrates are allowed of God to punish the duties of the first and second Table; only with this caution, that he is not to apply Legal punishments to Gospel sins, nor Gospel punishments to Legal sins; and this I have proved out of the evidences of Peter and Paul; so that as the Magistrate is to punish all outward Idolatry, Swearing and Blasphemy, so also the Sabbath, but not that which is of man's invention; but the seventh-day Sabbath which the Lord sanctified, and for which he calls himself Lord of sabbaths; and Christ was both a keeper and preacher of this Sabbath, Mat. 12.: now then, for a man to keep nine of the Commandments, and say, the seventh-day sabbath which makes up the tenth is of no force, is against Christ. Mr. Ives. I have offered, that if the Magistrate be to punish all Idolatry by God's appointment, and also the breach of the seventh-day sabbath, than he must also judge what is Idolatry, and what is Sabbath-breaking; and if so, the Dr. may not be long before he be convicted. For Idolatry is not only worshipping false Gods, but the true God in a self manner. But secondly, Idolatry was in the Law punishable with death, and the sabbath-breaker was to be stoned to death. Now if the Law of Moses be in force, and the punishment thereof in force against those that keep not Saturday-sabbath, and (as you have said) the Civil Magistrate is to inflict it, than (according to your opinion) the Reason why we live, is, because of the wickedness of the Civil Magistrate; for if the Civil Magistrate did but that which you call his duty, we should all of us by your Opinion be stoned to death before to morrow morning, that do not keep the Saturday-Sabbath. Where then is our Christian Liberty? for by the Law of Moses I must be put to death for not keeping the Jews Sabbath (if this opinion be true) though 〈◊〉 conscience I am persuaded that it is a weak and ●●ggerly Element, unto which I ought not to be in ●●ndage: and yet so indulgent are men to their opinions, that having once espoused them, they will maintain them, maugre the liberty of all the conscientious ●●ople in the Land, I, and their own liberty too: for 〈◊〉 the same Rule the Magistrate may put a man 〈◊〉 death that doth not keep the Jews Sabbath, (for 〈◊〉 the Magistrate ought to do, if he should be of 〈◊〉 Doctor's opinion; and hold that the seventh-day sabbath required in the Law, aught to be kept, and 〈◊〉 at the punishment annexed to it ought to be inflict) I say, by the same Rule a Magistrate may 〈◊〉 a man to death, that is not persuaded to 〈◊〉 this seventh-day Sabbath; another Ma●state, otherwise minded, may put men of the Doctor's ●●inion to death, because they do not keep the first day sabbath, 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 sense of that text) than he must punish spiritual as well as corporeal Idolatry, when the Offender shall be convicted of it; and he must punish it according to his Judgement and Conscience: so that if it be the Magistrate's 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 Doctor's 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 Doctor's persuasion. But the main stress of my Argument lieth 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, etc. but he hath not shown 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 kind 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, etc. 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, than 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, than 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 assign 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: an● 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 God's 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 believing Gentiles. And whereas Mr. Ives desired the Dr. to assign who should judge, he most impertinently citys 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, etc. 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 mind about the seventh-day sabbath? If out the Church that are of his mind, and whereof he is a member, than 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 Litany, 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 Doctor's mind about the seventh-day Sabbath, than it cannot reasonably be imagined that such Magistrates would put that Law in execution that saith the seventh-day Sabbath-breaker shall be sto●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 citys it, which is to show 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 Judge's place before all the Poople: for if the weakest are to be chose Judges, I know not where we should meet with a fit man than the Doctor, who hath so unfitly applied the Apostles words to the case in hand. Here the Doctor leaves off, and Mr. Tillam undertakes to answer to Mr. Ives his ensuing Arguments. Mr. Ives I am now to proceed to another Argumn●● to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day Sabbath. Which I thus do: If believing Gentiles are bound to keep th● seventh-day sabbath, than 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 te●… Jam. 2. where (you say) the whole Law is required, etc. Ergo, believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. The reason of Mr. Ives his urging this Ar●●ment, is to dis-mount the confidence of his Antagonists, who build so much upon this text for the proo●● of their seventh-day Sabbath: but to this, Mr. Tillam, being Respondent, did refuse to answer, an● therefore Mr. Ives went on to prove the Minor, because his Antagonists grant the Major, viz. Tha● if believing Gentiles are bound, they are bound by the second of James, etc. Mr. Ives. I shall go on to prove the Minor, (viz.) Tha● 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 Jews, I shall further add. If believing Gentiles are bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, than it is because they are required to keep the WHOLE Law. But believing Gentiles are not required to keep the WHOLE 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 WHOLE LAW, than they are not bound by this text Jam. 2. to keep the WHOLE Law. But the believing Gentiles are not indebted to the WHOLE Law. Ergo, the believing Gentiles are not bound by this text, James 2. to keep the WHOLE Law. The Minor I prove thus: If believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision, than 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 believing Gentiles debtors to the whole Law; than it follows, that if believing Gentiles be uncircumcised, they are not indebted to the whole Law: But Circumcision makes the believing Gentiles debtors to the whole Law. Ergo, if believing Gentiles are uncircumcised, they are not debtors to the whole Law. Here Mr. Tillam gins to reply. Mr. Tillam. If believing Gentiles are bound to other parts of James his Epistle, then to this also: But Mr. Ives himself confesseth believing Gentiles are bound to other parts of this Epistle, as that of anointing with oil and prayer, etc. 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 practice of anointing with oil, which is mentioned in no other text then in the Epistle of James. Either then let Mr. Ives disclaim that Ordinance of anointing with oil (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 body's 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 Prophecy, 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, than 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 show 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 oil to belong to believing 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 sense 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 believing Gentiles, he must exclude it all. Again, Both Jews and Gentiles are to walk by one Law, and have but one Lawgiver 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, believing 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 believers, and very many unbelievers, 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 believing 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 enjoin 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 enjoin Paul, saying, DO this that WE say to thee: we have four men which have a vow upon them, them take, and purify thyself 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 thyself walkest orderly and keepest the Law. But as touching the GENTILES which believe, we have written and concluded, that THEY observe NO SUCH thing, etc. 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 expressly command the Gentile. believers 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 LAW, 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 believers 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 WHOLE 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 WHOLE 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 conceit as this a stranger to the heart of an ingenious disputant who abhors to beg that Question he cannot prove● 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, than the Controversi●● were at an end; for doubtless, all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law. Mr. Tillam. Whereas you say, somewhat was enjoined 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 than this (mentioned by you Act 21.) was counted hypocrisy. 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, than 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 days 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 than it proves circumcision or any other Jewish ceremony. Thirdly, when I cite a text to show that the Apostles being guided by God's 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 than 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 Judgement. 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. only speaks of Jews that were advised to live as Jews, and of Gentiles that were forbidden so to live, verse. 25. but the text in Gal. 2. speaks 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 controversy, it is to show that Mr. Tillam plays 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 paralleled 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 Act. 21. be of a Ceremonial Law, yet it is sufficient to show, that since the whole Law doth comprehend both Morals and Ceremonials, that believing Gentiles, who are not circumcised, are not bound to keep the while, since they are excused from observing the Ceremonial part of it, by this text Act. 21. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith, that, if the Epistle of James were writ to believing Jews, than here would be one Law for the believing Jews, & ●nother for the believing Gentiles. To this I answer, ●hat it doth not follow, that because this Epistle was written to Jews that THEREFORE there should be 〈◊〉 Law for them and another for the Gentiles: but ●econdly, this absurdity (if it be an absurdity) ●●ay as well be drawn upon the text, because it is ●●id, Jam. 2. that the Epistle was writ to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, etc. which were Jews. And lastly it hath already been shown, that some ●hings were enjoined upon Paul, that was a Jew, which ought not to be enjoined upon the believing Gentiles. Mr. Tillam. Whereas Mr. Ives chargeth my Book for allowing that which I now call confusion: I answer, that I confess when I was first persuaded of the seventh-day sabbath, I did also acknowledge the first day of the week, but it was upon the reason of antiquity, for as much as the seventh-day and the first day were both observed in the first three hundred years: but when I observed the same contention about Easter-day, I was convinced, and I do now believe, that the first day of the week is in common with all other days: and whereas Mr. Ives saith, the Apostles preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath days, and in the Christian assemblies on the first-days of the week; I do say, that that they never met in any Christian assemblies upon the first day of the week; and Mr. Tina● calleth the first day of the week the sabbath Act. 20.7. Mr. Ives. I answer to the last first, Whereas you 〈◊〉 Mr. Tindal calleth the first day of the week 〈◊〉 sabbath, so he doth also call that day 〈◊〉 which John received his Revelation the Sunday, which other translations call the Lord● day; by which it appears, that without confusion Mr. Tindal thought the Apostles might observe both days, as the state of Christian affairs than stood, and as yourself have confess that both the Sabbath-day, and the Lordsday were observed in the three first Centuries. And if Mr. Tindals' Authority may be allowed then the first day of the week is the Sabbath-day and then what becomes of your seventh day sabbath unless you will keep two sabbaths? so that sin●● you have cited Mr. Tindal, let Mr. Tindal 〈◊〉 the Controversy, who by your own confession ca●● the first day of the week the sabbath. Again, when I said the Apostles did meet on both days without confusion, which you said they could not; I spoke this, to show what Christians may do in point of condescension to one another, and also to show, that if meeting on both days was a practice (which you say is full of confusion) that than your Book was not empty of confusion, in allowing both the one and the other, though you now deny it. Mr. Tillam. It is a great confusion for one part of an assembly to meet upon one day, and another ●●rt to meet upon another; and if any of our friend's do so, they do evil: for they ought all 〈◊〉 meet at one place, and at one time, and to ●●rry one for another, and not to vary hours, ●uch less days. Mr. Ives. I still think I have reason for my opinion, viz.) that those that do pretend to keep the seventh-day, may keep the first day of the week ●o the Lord, without being guilty of sin and confusion, although your sabbath now under debate were true: but enough of this; I shall ●herefore proceed to another Argument, to ●rove, that all believing Gentiles are not commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath: which I thus do. If the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel, and such as were proselyted to their Religion, than all believing Gentiles are not commanded to observe it: But the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel, and such as were proselyted to their Religion, Ergo. The Minor I thus prove. That Law which was given as a sign between God and Israel, was a Law to none but Israel: But the seventh-day sabbath was given as a sign between God and Israel, Exod. 31.15, 17. Ergo, The seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel. Mr. Tillam. To the sabbaths being a sign, I answer, that it is either of things past, or of things present, or of things to come; if of things past, than it is a sign of the Creation of the world, or else it is a sign of his sanctifying presence, which I have found in this observation: but that the seventh-sabbath is a sign of good things to come, I utterly deny. Again, If the sabbath was a sign, so were all the Commandments; and therefore its being a sign doth not make it void, any more than the rest of the Commandments, which are also called signs. Mr. Ives. Whereas Mr. Tillam saith the Sabbath was a sign of the Creation, I say it was not; for though Heaven and Earth be expressed in the command of the sabbath, yet the sabbath is not where said to be given them for a sign that God made Heaven and Earth; for though God's resting the seventh-day be a reason why Israel should rest, yet this rest is not where called a sign of the Creation. But there is more reason to believe from the text, that it was one of the signs of the Covenant that God in a special manner had made with that people: See Exod. 31, 16, 17. Eze. 20.12. But further, is it not more rational to believe that the six days should be a sign of Gods creating Heaven and Earth, than the seventh day on which he did not work? which at the most can but signify to us, that then, or on that time, God rested from all his work. But whoever considers of the signs that God gave to Israel, shall find, that they were given them to distinguish that people from all people in the world; and therefore Mr. Ainsworth observes upon Exod. 13.9. The Jews (saith he) used on other days to wear their Phylacteries on their arms, or foreheads, for a Sign or a Token to them, as the Lord commanded, but they laid them by upon the sabbath, because (say they) the sabbath itself is a sign: And therefore Josephus calls it, A Law peculiar to that People, De bello lib. 2. cap. 16. And to this agrees the saying of Nehemiah, Chap 9.13. Thou camest down upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them, [the house of Israel] and madest known to them thy Holy Sabbath. Again, whereas Mr. Tillam saith, that the whole Law of the Ten Commandments was a Sign, and therefore we may as well lay aside all, upon the account of their being a Sign, as any one: to this I answer: That it is not said of the Ten Commandments only, but of all the Law, as well Ceremonies as Morals, that it should be as a sign upon their hand, it doth not therefore follow that these were all to continue. But farther: It is not where said of all the Law, that it is a sign between God and Isral, but rather a sign to distinguish them from all other people. But lastly, if the whole Law of Moses were as a sign between God and Israel (as Mr. Tillam supposeth) than 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 yourself 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 enjoins 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 signs 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 signify their special favour with God above other people; and doth not the text say, the Law should be as frontlets between their eyes, etc. plainly showing, that God would distinguish this People by their Laws and Privileges 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 signify something 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 tha● 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, th●● therefore the Law should always be the same as for instance, God gave a Law that the people of Israel should not eat Swine's flesh, nor the Coney, nor the Hare, because he the Lord their God 〈◊〉 holy, therefore they should not defile themselves wit●eating such things, Levi●. 11.43, 44. Here you see the Reason remains, for God is holy, an● 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 punct●●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 shown you, that the reason of a Law may be the same, when the Law is not the ●ame, by your own confession. Mr. Tillam making no further reply, Mr. Ives ●roceeds to a new Argument. Mr. Ives. That which I have been doing hitherto, hath been to show that Moses Law doth not enjoin ●he believing Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath; I shall now give an Argument from ●he Law of Nature, and prove, that we are not required by that Law, to keep the seventh-day sabbath; which I thus do: That which the Law of Nature binds the Gentiles to observe, it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe: But the Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath. Ergo, The Law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe the 7th-day sabbath. Here Mr. Tillam was desired to Object against the Argument proposed; but he refusing, another that stands by, craves of Mr. Ives the proof of the Minor: hereupon he proceeded. Mr. Ives. The Minor I prove thus: If the Law of Nature doth convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day sabbath, than it is manifest either in God word, right Reason, or manifest experience, that they have had such convictions: But neither God's 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, th●● 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 publicly 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 believing Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath; which I thus do. That Law which is enforced by the appointment of Christ unto believing 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 Christ's 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 Christ's appointment. Mr. Tillam. Anointing with oil 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 Oil 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 Oil; 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; only he told Mr. Tillam and the Audience, that he had uttered it before he was ware, it being suddenly suggested to him by one that stood by; however, it is observable that the instance of anointing with oil is not a sufficient instance to abate the strength of the Syllogism: for the intent of the Syllogism is to show, 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 for not observing, or commended for observing of it; otherwise doubtless, both under Law and Gospel, it's like one may find 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 oil 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 oil, 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 only 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 enforced 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 kind 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 persuaded 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 persuaded in their own minds. Ergo, believing Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath. Mr. Tillam. I do affirm, that the 7th day is not included nor intended in that text Rom. 14. and for this see Exod. 16.4. where the word every day, is there intended of every common day, not the Sabbath. But if in the text Rom. 14. it be understood of every day, without exception, than 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, etc. 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 expressly commands the resting upon the seventh-day; but in the 14 of the Rom. neither God nor the Apostle puts any restriction upon the word every day; so that, though we must restrain general words when God restrains them, there is no reason that we should restrain them when God doth not. But than saith Mr. Tillam, If you do not restrain this word every day, than you do overthrow the keeping of any day. To which I answer, that we might very easily deliver ourselves out of the hands of this absurdity, if that were the business in Question. As for instance, we have been showing, 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 showed, that neither Moses Law, nor Christ's 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 believers 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.) tha● 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 nonsequitur: 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 ●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 choose whether they will meet any where or no; or that one believer 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 career of that conceit, (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 choose 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 public worship, shall be shown 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 sense of a text, unless God's word on right Reason do warrant us so to do: but neither God's word, nor right Reason doth warrant us to restrain the Apostles words, when he saith, Some men esteem one day above another, an● others esteem EVERY day alike. For by the same rule we may restrain general words when we have no warrant, we may usher in any absurdity: as for instance, the Scripture saith, God made every thing that creepeth may not a man as well say, that there is some creeping thing that God hath not made, as say when the Apostle tells us, that now the partition-wall is broken down, and notwithstanding Moses Law you may judge of every day alike without being judged a transgressor of it; that this every day is understood but of some days commanded by Moses, and not of the seventh-day sabbath? Neither have I disesteemed or excluded the first day of the week by my Argument from hence, since the Argument is founded upon the words of the Text. Mr. Ives. Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument, I shall urge one more out of the 15 of the Acts compared with the 21. If the Holy Ghost hath discharged the believing Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses, except as is excepted Acts 15. then the believing Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Christ to keep the 7th-day sabbath: But the Holy Ghost hath discharged the believing Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses, except as is excepted Acts 15. Ergo, The believing 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 expressed 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 believers 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 enjoined by a better Mediator, who never enjoined 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 believers are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath. Which Question I resolve into this Proposition (viz.) That all believers are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. All believers 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 believing 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 believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, than they are bound either by the Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, or the Law of Christ: But believing Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ, to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Ergo, Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. I answer, that believing 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 ●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 believing Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: which I thus do. That which the Law written in the heart binds the believing Gentiles to observe, it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe: But the Law written in the heart doth not convince the believing Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath. Ergo, The Law written in the heart doth not bind the believing Gentiles to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. I say, the Law written in the heart doth convince the believing Gentiles of sin, in that they do not observe the seventh-day sabbath. Mr. Ives. If the Law written in the heart doth convince the Gentiles of sin, for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath, than it is manifest either in God's word, Right Reason, or manifest experience, that they have had such convictions But neither God's word, Right Reason, 〈◊〉 manifest experience doth manifest, that ever the Law written in the heart did convince th● Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath: Ergo, The Law written in the heart dot● 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, than 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 show 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. Ye (viz. Israel) shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my judgements, and do them, ●hat the land whither I bring you to dwell therein ●ue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation's 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-day Sabbath was included in these words, ALL my statutes, and ALL my judgements: and that ●●hese were enjoined to the Gentile Nations, ●●prove by the 22 verse, where it is said, God ●●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 Judgements 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 judgements, 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 Israel's Laws, but for that they were guilty of all those unnatural lusts mentioned in th● 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 Israel's statutes, and all their judgements, 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 Nature's conviction; if that should be granted, that cannot be proved (viz.) that the Nations were to keep all Israel's 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, than 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 Israel's Ceremonial Laws, because they were by the Law writ in their heart to keep all their statutes and all their judgements. Mr. Ives. I say, the Consequence followeth undeniable; 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 judgements that were given to Israel, and all these statutes and all these judgements were taught them by the Law that was writ in the heart, than 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 than the text, for the text saith, You shall keep ALL my statutes, and ALL my judgements, 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 judgements, if in case they either contrary to the Law writ in the heart, or contrary to the Law given by Moses, should be found transgressors: not that it followeth, that the Nations were bound by the law written in the heart to keep all Israel's laws & judgements; for than they were bound by the law written their heart to keep the Ceremonial Laws also, as well as the seventh-day sabbath; which is ridiculous to imagine. Mr. Coppinger. I say, that the Ceremonial Law is no part o● that whole Law in the Texts that I have mentioned, where all the Statutes, and all the judgements are commanded to Israel; for there i● 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 Leu. 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 Israel's Statutes, and all their judgements, than 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 the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israel's Laws, but because they violated the law of Nature by those unnatural and unlawful lusts mentioned in the former verses. But secondly, If they (viz. the Nations) were cast out, because they did not keep all Israel's Statutes, than they were cast out, because they did not observe the Ceremonial Laws of Israel, as well as any of the rest. And lastly, whereas you say, that the Sabbath mentioned in the 19 chapter, is included in all the Laws mentioned in the 20 chapter: I answer, So is the reverencing the Sanctuary required in the same ver, where the sabbath is required, and offering of sacrifices, and counting the fruit of the trees as uncircumcised the first three years after they were planted; I say, all these things are as truly commanded in the 19 chapter as the seventh-day sabbath, and are as necessarily included in that universal term, all the statutes, and all the judgements mentioned in the 20 chapter: now then, by the same rule that you can say, the law writ in the heart did require the Gentile Nations to keep all Israel's statutes, and so consequently the seventh-day sabbath mentioned in the nineteenth chapter; I say, by the same rule the Gentile Nations are commanded by the law written in their heart to keep the law that requireth them to reverence the Sanctuary and offer Sacrifices, and count the fruit of the trees uncircumcised three years after they were planted; which cannot be imagined. Mr. Coppinger. I answer, that though the reverencin the Sanctuary, and offering Sacrifices, and counting the trees uncircumcised, were commandments given to Israel; yet these are not called statutes and judgements: so that, though the Nations were to observe all Israel's statutes by the law written in the heart, yet they were not to observe all other of their commandments; therefore I answer you by distinguishing, and say, that the Ceremonial laws were Ordinances and Appointments, but not statutes; and though the Nations were to keep all Israel's statutes by the law writ in their hearts, among which the seventh-day sabbath was one; yet the Nations are not to keep those ceremonies mentioned by you, for they are not where called statutes; so that statutes is one thing, and Ordinances is another. Mr. Ives. There is no difference, and this distinction is light as vanity, for all God's Ordinances are statutes and appointments, and the ceremonial Ordinances were Gods statutes as well as other Laws. Mr. Coppinger. Where any Laws are called Ordinances, there they are understood for the ceremonial laws, and not for the ten commandments or law writ in the heart; and where any commandments are called statutes, they are not understood of the ceremonial laws. Here Mr. Tillam standeth up to justify Mr. Coppinger's distinctions (viz.) that God's laws were one thing, and his statutes and judgements another; and for this he citys Mal. 4. where it is said, Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgements: from hence Mr. Tillam would have proved a difference between statutes, laws and appointments. Thereupon Mr. Gosnold standing by, told both Mr. Coppinger and Mr. Tillam, that he wondered they should abuse the audience with such a needless & vain distinction, since that in their conscience they knew that the word was statutum est, and that there was no difference between the words statute and appointment, save that the one was a Latin word, and the other an English word; and further, that they might as well say, there was a difference between likeness and similitude, as between statute and appointment. Mr. Den also being then present did sharply reprove Mr. Tillam for justifying Mr. Coppinger, in making this vain distinction, since that he pretended to learning and scholarship: and as such a distinction doth argue a man to have little of a scholar, or else little of conscience; so it doth argue a man to have but a slender acquaintance with the Scripture, and therefore unfit to be a teacher; for if either Mr. Coppinger or Mr. Tillam had been but competently acquainted with the Scriptures, they would never have uttered before many hundreds of people then assembled, that the ceremonial laws were never called statutes: for, besides what hath been said, whoever reads but Exod. 29.9, and 28. shall find the priest's office called a statute; and the Priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual STATUTE: and the offering is called a STATUTE, Levit. 3.16, 17. and the offering is called, an everlasting STATUTE to make an atonement, etc. Levit. 16.33, 34. Exod. 27.21. Exod. 28 43. Levit. 10.9. Levit. 23.14, 21. the resting from labour on the day of atonement is called a STATUTE, ver. 31. Levit. 24.9. Numb. 19.21, 27. & 11. & 35.29. yet notwithstanding all these texts, together with many more that might be named, these men tell us, that the ceremonies were never called statutes. Well then, since it is plain that the ceremonies of the law are called statutes, it followeth that the Gentiles by the law writ in their hearts were not commanded to keep all Israel's statutes; for then (as hath been urged) they were bound by the law writ in their hearts to keep the ceremonial laws of the Israelites, which is among the firstborn of senseless imaginations: this being the issue the Argument was brought to, Mr. Ives proceeded to another, which was as followeth. Mr. Ives. That law which is not Moral, the Law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe. But the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not Moral. Ergo, The law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Minor, and do say, that the law that requireth the seventh-day sabbath is a Moral law. Mr. Ives. I prove the Minor thus: That law which cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition, is not a Moral law. But the Law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition. Ergo, the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not a Moral law. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Minor, and say, that the law for the seventh-day sabbath may be known another way then by tradition; for it may be known by the law written in the heart. Mr. Ives. I pray then assign a text that saith the seventh-day sabbath may be known by the law writ in the heart, Mr. Coppinger. It is written in the second of the Romans and the fourteenth, That the Gentiles which had not the law, did by Nature the things contained in the law; now if they did by Nature the things contained in the law of Moses, and the seventh-day sabbath was one thing contained in the law of Moses; then if the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the law, than they 〈◊〉 the seventh-day sabbath: but the Text saith, the Gentiles did by Nature the THINGS contained in the law, and the seventh-day Sabbath was a thing contained in the law. Ergo, 〈◊〉 (viz. the Gentiles) by the law of Nature, or the law written in the heart, did keep the seventh-day sabbath. Mr. Ives. This is arguing and not answering: but if I should suffer you to transgress the laws and rules of disputation, and let you argue when you should answer; I know you are never able to prove, that the Gentiles without the help of tradition were able to know the seventh-day sabbath by the law and light of nature: and whereas you say, the Gentiles did the things contained in the law by the light of nature, and therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath; I answer, first, that it is a difficult thing to conclude a particular proposition, when the premises are indefinite. For the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law, inasmuch as they did some good which the law commanded, and forbore some evils which the law forbade, as murder, and adultery, etc. 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 senseless 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 show 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 forbade stealing and adultery, than 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 forbade stealing and adultery. Therefore the Gentiles by the light of nature did keep the seventh-day sabbath. Mr. Ives. I do assure you Sir, if it were not but that I had compassion on the multitude, and was unwilling to have them go away unsatisfied, I had not said a word to your last Argument, because you know you were by agreement to answer my Arguments; and in stead thereof you make Arguments, and turn Opponent, when as you were by Agreement this day to be Respondent: however Sir, take this for an Answer, that the Gentiles might do by nature those things that were contained in the Law, that forbade 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 Israel's 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 sense: 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 bereft him of his Senses, yet when this man comes 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 tells us, that this man is forced to ask those that are about him what day of the week it is: now than 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 than 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, than there is no absolute necessity for me to break the law in nature: But there is no absolute necessity for me to hate God or my neighbour. Ergo, There is no absolute necessity to break the law in Nature. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Major: for though there be no necessity for a man to hate God or his neighbour, it doth not therefore follow, that there is no absolute necessity to break the law in nature. Mr. Ives. I prove the Major thus: If all the law written in the heart be contained in loving God and my neighbour, than it followeth, that if there be no absolute necessity to hate either God or my neighbour, that then there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature: But all the law written in the heart is contained in loving God and my neighbour. Ergo, It followeth, that if there be no absolute necessity to hate God and my neighbour, than there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature. Mr. Coppinger. I answer, first, that there may be a breaking of the letter of the Law, as that of murder and adultery, and stealing; as for instance, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaak contrary to the letter of the law, which saith, Thou shalt not kill. Secondly, David was guilty of murder and adultery in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, for which by the letter of the law he was to die the death; yet there was a necessity for him to live, and be saved from the punishment, contrary to the letter of the law. Again thirdly, The Israelites rob the Egyptians contrary to the Law, that saith, Thou shalt not steal, and yet were justified: though the Law saith, The wicked borrow and pay not again; yet the Israelites did borrow of the Egyptians, and paid not again. Fourthly and lastly, They were not to take a wife that was a whore under the law, and yet Hosea was commanded by God to take a wife of whoredoms, Hos. 1.2. By all which it appears, that there may be an absolute necessity to break a Moral law in the letter of it. Mr. Ives. I answer, first, you have not answered to my Syllogism, which saith, There can be no absolute necessity to hate God or my neighbour: for none of these instances that you have insisted on do show any such thing, for there is nothing of hating God or my neighbour in any of them, being truly considered, as I shall presently make appear. Secondly, You tell us, there may be a necessity to transgress the letter of the Law, and for that you urge several Texts; when as my Argument was not grounded upon the letter of the law, but rather upon the Spirit of it (viz.) the law written in the heart; so that the instances have not answered the Argument however, I shall answer the instances: and first, you say, that there may be an absolute necessity to commit murder, adultery, and stealing, etc. To which I answer, that this is such a piece of Divinity that the world did never hear of before; and the first instance you assign is, abraham's being commanded of God to offer up his son Isaak, etc. To which I answer, that if Abraham had killed Isaak, it had not been murder: first, because he did not hate his son in his heart, while he was going to offer him according to the commandment; & therefore this instance doth not touch the Argument, which saith, there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour. But secondly, God commanded Abraham by an immediate Law from Heaven, otherwise Abraham could not have pretended to any necessity that would have justified him in this act, neither could he have been judge of this necessity, unless God had required it: so ●hat here was no necessity for Abraham to murder, because of this commandment: therefore the instance is impertinent. Again, as touching the case of David in the matter of Uriah, there was no moral necessity laid upon any to break a moral law, because David was not put to death; for, and if there had been such a necessity, how doth this reach the Argument, that saith, there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour? for the people did neither hate God nor their neighbours, in that they did not take away the life of their King, for what he did against Uriah the Hittite. And for your instance in the case of the Israelites stealing from the Egyptians, which you say God allowed of, etc. I answer, That first there was no absolute necessity for them to spoil the Egyptians, and so consequently no necessity to break a law in nature, by hating either God or their neighbour. But secondly. God gave Israel favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and thereupon the Egyptians let them have jewels of silver, and jewels of gold voluntarily, and the Israelites did not take them by force, therefore there was no breach of a law in nature: But lastly, had they taken these things by force, it had not been a breach of a law in nature because that nature hath taught her children to seek for repairs of those that have impaired them, & to take it per force, where it cannot be had by fair means: thus God (as well as Nature) by a more than ordinary instruction tells the people of Israel, that they should spoil those that spoilt them, which was but a just retribution upon the Egyptians: agreeing with the law and light of Nature: Otherwise it is a sin to steal upon the pretence of the greatest necessity; hereupon Agur saith, Prov. 30.8, 9 Give me not poverty, lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. And for your last instance of the Prophet Hosea, his taking a wife of whoredoms, which you say is contrary to a law; I answer, first, that it is not contrary to the law that is in the heart, because that law cannot always distinguish between a whore and a chaste woman, though it was contrary to the law of Israel. Then secondly, though a man could distinguish between the one and the other, yet there is no moral necessity for a man to take the whore, and leave the chaste woman. But thirdly, whereas you say, God commanded the prophet to take a wife of whoredoms: I answer, that this is not spoken of carnal adultery, for the text doth not say he was commanded to take a wife that was a whore, but a wife of whoredoms (viz.) a wife from a people that were guilty of great whoredoms in departing from the Lord, a● appears verse the second. Mr. Coppinger. I make no necessity of a man's own making, but I say, God can dispense with the breach of moral laws, by giving a countermand, and then the breach of the sabbath is no breach; though the Priests in the law profaned it, yet they were blameless; in like manner, if God make a law that a man shall not shed innocent blood, yet Cod's precept to Abraham makes it no breach of a moral law; and so likewise in the other cases of the Egyptians stealing, and the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms; I say, these countermands make it no breach of a Law: and so likewise upon the sabbath-day, a man might lead an ox or an ass to watering, and not break it, though it be a moral law; but if the men in this generation may do that which the Jews and Disciples might not lawfully do on the sabbath-day, than you have taken off my exceptions. Mr. Ives. Whereas you speak of a necessity to break a moral law, when God countermand, etc. I answer, that then it is not murder in Abraham to slay Isaak, or theft in Israel to take from the Egyptians, because they had an immediate law from heaven commanding those very particular things; but doth it follow, that this law given to Abraham was binding to all, or that Gods allowing of Israel to spoil the Egyptians should give me an allowance to spoil my neighbour? and would it not be a sin contrary to nature for me to sacrifice my child having no command, because Abraham would have sacrificed his child by a command? and in like manner there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law, by your own confession, without an immediate and particular command in the case, as Abraham had in the case of Isaak and Israel in the case of spoiling the Egyptians. Now then, if the seventh-day sabbath be moral as you say it is, than you can have no moral necessity, by your own confession, to break it, unless you have an immediate countermand from Heaven so to do. Now then, since you say, the law for the seven-day sabbath is a moral law, how do you make it appear, that God gave you an allowance to open your shop the next day after you challenged me to dispute for the seventh-day sabbath, which was the sabbath-day you now plead for? and whereas you did pretend a necessity so to do, I demand, Whether God ever gave you a command in obedience to which you did open your shop upon the seventh-day sabbath? since you yourself say, that there must be a countermand to justify the doing any thing that contradicts the letter of a moral law; now you have broke the letter of the law, which you say is moral, and where is your countermand from God so to do? And for the instances that you bring of men's leading an ox to water upon the sabbath-day; 〈◊〉 was not a moral necessity, for they might have let the ox stayed without water: if the law for the seventh-day sabbath had been a moral law, they ought not to have broken it to save the life of their ox, no more than a man may worship an Idol to save his own life, and the life of his cattle; so that this very instance confutes your opinion, that the seventh-day sabbath is not a moral law. Mr. Coppinger. As touching my opening shop upon the seventh-day, which I say is the sabbath, Mr. Ives did allow me so to do, because I was under some promises to do some business that day in relation to my trade. But suppose I did that which was unlawful, this doth not prove what Mr. Ives saith, that he may break the sabbath; however, this is reflection and uncharitableness. Again, I say, the moral law makes no difference between murder and kill; for it is written Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill, etc. so that Abraham was a breaker of that law, by going about to kill Isaak. Also if a child were born, and the seventh-day of the week happened to be the eighth day after the birth, than it was no breach of the law to circumcise the child; but Mr. Ives hath broken his promise, in that he promised to discourse the Argument he insisted on the last day, but doth not. Mr. Ives. I answer to the last first, that I have not broken any promise that I made, for I laid down one general Argument, which was the same I went upon the last day, which I am yet prosecuting. And secondly, You did also agree that I should urge new Arguments if I pleased, as well as those which had been formerly urged: and whereas you charge me with reflections and uncharitableness; I answer, that what I spoke did relate to the dispensation that Mr. Tillam gave you to open shop upon your sabbath, after you had engaged to dispute for it. And I say, if the seventh-day sabbath be moral, than he could not dispense with your opening shop upon it; for by this rule a man may plead a necessity to break moral laws, although he hath no countermand from God so to do: & whereas you say, I did allow you to open shop; I answer, So I might, because I am so far from judging the observation of the saturday-sabbath a moral duty, that I judge it no duty at all, therefore I might dispense with your working upon it; but how could Mr. Tillam, that believes with you, that the command for the seventh-day is moral, give you a dispensation so to do? and further, how could your conscience dispense with such an action, as to open your shop the next Saturday sabbath that came, after you had engaged in public to dispute the morality of that day? And whereas Mr. Coppinger saith, the Moral law makes no difference between murder and killing, he might as well have said, that the moral law makes no difference between fornication and lying with a woman, than which nothing is more absurd. For the Moral law doth not call all kill, murder; though murder be killing; he might as well have said, because stealing is taking, that therefore there is no difference between stealing and taking. Here Mr. Tillam desireth liberty to speak for himself touching what Mr. Ives had objected against him, for allowing Mr. Coppinger to open shop upon their Sabbath. Mr. Tillam. Mr. Ives hath done like cursed Cham in uncovering his brother's nakedness; however, I went to bid Mr. Coppinger shut up his shop, be●ing very much troubled all that night about it, and he answered me, that if he should shut up shop, he should be accounted broke, which would be a scandal to his profession: & further he told me, that he was under some promises which he was to perform relating to his trade: however, he told me he would do not work but what was of necessity to fulfil his promise; and gave the like charge to his servants also. Mr. Ives. What if Mr. Coppinger had made a promise to murder or worship an Idol, should he have broken these laws to keep his promise? in like manner, if working upon the Saturday-sabbath be a breach of a moral law, as he saith it is, than there is no reason why his promise should absolve him in the one, rather than in the other: and truly, after this rate, it is an easy matter for a man to make promises, and thereby (if this kind of arguing be good) absolve himself from obeying any moral precept. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith, he went to Mr. Coppinger the night before, to desire him to shut up his shop the next day; I answer, that what Mr. Tillam did after we parted that night, I cannot tell; but this I know, that he allowed him the liberty of opening shop that night, when we were i● company together. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith, that his conscience was troubled all night about Mr. Coppingers opening his shop, it seems than they were not agreed in their consciences concerning the matter of opening and not opening upon their sabbath-day. Mr. Ives. I have shown, that the law for the seventh-day Sabbath is not a moral law, because there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law, 〈◊〉 there may be a moral necessity, by Mr. Tillam'● and Mr. Coppingers own confession and practice, to break the seventh-day Sabbath: Therefore the Law for the seventh-day Sabbath cann●● be a moral law. I now proceed to show, that as the seventh-day sabbath is not in force by any moral law, or law writ in the heart; so in the next place, I shall prove it is not in force by the Law of Moses; which I thus do. Those which had not Moses Law to command them, were not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. But the believing Gentiles had not Moses law to command them. Ergo, The believing Gentiles were not bound by Moses law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. I deny your Minor and do say, that the believing Gentiles had Moses Law to command them. Mr. Ives. If the believing Gentiles had Moses law to command them, than the unbelieving Gentiles had Moses law to command them also. But the unbelieving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them. Ergo, The believing Gentiles had not Moses law to command them. Mr. Coppinger. I deny both Major and Minor, and put you to prove both. Mr. Ives. First, The Consequence of the Major is good, because according to your opinion and confession, the believing Gentiles are bound to obey the law of Moses, by the law in nature; if so, than the unbelieving Gentiles are bound by the Law in Nature also, because the Law of Nature is the same to the unbeliever in respect of the power of it, as it is to the believer. And the Minor I prove (viz.) that the unbelieving Gentiles have not Moses law to command them; and this I do by the words of the Text, Rom. 2.14. the Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW, etc. Whence I argue. That it was either the law of Moses, or the law of Nature which the Text saith the Gentiles had not. But it was not the law of Nature. Ergo, It was the Law of Moses. Now it is manifest that they were not without the Law of Nature: for the Text saith, That was written in their hearts, ver. 15. therefore my Argument is proved, that the law they were without was the Law of Moses; and therefore by Moses Law they could not be commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Mr. Coppinger. I do distinguish of the Law of Moses, as it was written and unwritten. Now though the Gentiles had not Moses Law in writing, yet they had it unwritten: so that it doth not follow, because the text saith, the Gentiles were without Moses Law, that therefore they had it not in any sense; for they had the same Law the Jews had, only they had it not in writing: as for instance, the Records of the Law are kept at London, is not York therefore under the same Law? But suppose we should read the Text as Mr. Ives notions it, that the Gentiles had not the Law of Moses, would it not be ridiculous? and further, this Law in the second of the Romans, is the Law that all were to be be judged by at the day of judgement, ver. 27. which is one and the same Law spoken of throughout the whole Chapter. Therefore the Law written in the heart, and the Law upon Tables of stone, are all one and the same Law; so that they (viz. the Gentiles) had the Law of Moses unwritten, though not written; and therefore your Argument is not proved from the Text. Mr. Ives. Mr. Coppingers Answer had been good, if he had shown us by the Scripture that there was a Mosaical Law unwritten; which I think is a conceit that the whole world is a stranger to; and if Mr. Coppinger cannot do this, his Answer is no answer. But secondly, that the Law of Nature, Rom. 2. is not the Mosaical Law as he imagineth, appears, because then the Holy Ghost makes a needless distinction, of having a Law, and not having a Law; and of being under the Law, and without the Law, if there were no more difference than there is between London and York. For those that live at York are under the written Law of England, though those Laws are recorded at London, because Proclamations are written and sent down and posted in their market places; so that the distinction is not made good by the similitude: for York is as truly under the written law, as London, and in no sense can be said to be without law; and so were all the cities of Judea, though at a distance from Jerusalem, under the written law of Moses, because they were to have copies of the law in every city by God's appointment, to be read among them. But the Gentiles are therefore said to live without the law, because they had not the law of Moses; which distinction would be vain, if whatsoever was written in Moses law in tables of stone, was writ in the hearts of the Gentiles also; for then in no sense they could be said to be without the law, and not under the Law. And whereas you say the sense of the Text is not good as I notion it, you might as well say the sense of the Text was not good as the Apostle notions it; for I said no more in my Argument, than the Apostle said in the text, (viz.) That the Gentiles were without law. And lastly, whereas you say, this Law that the Gentiles lived under is Moses law, because all were to be judged by it; I answer, that the contrary is most true, as appears by consulting the text. For the Text doth distinguish the law of Nature from the law of Moses, because that every body shall not be judged by the Jews law, but them that sinned without the law shall be judged WITHOUT the law: whence I argue, that if the Law of Moses be so differenced, that God will not judge every body by it, than the difference is more than in the mere writing and transcribing of it: But the law of Moses is so different, that God will not judge every body by it. Ergo, the difference is more than a mere writing and transcribing of it. As for example, Mr. Coppinger told us but now, that there was no more difference between the Jews living under the law, & the Gentiles living without the law, than there is between the people that live at York and London; if the difference be no greater as he would make us believe, how comes it to pass that at York, the people are judged by the same law as we are judged by at London? and yet the Apostle saith, The Gentiles that lived without the law, shall be judged without the law; which plainly manifests both a formal and a material difference between the law of Moses and the law written in the heart. Mr. Coppinger. N●w I will show, that the difference doth lie only in writing, Rom. 2.26, 27. where it is said, If the Gentiles in uncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law, that his Unicircumcision should be counted for Circumcision; And shall not uncircumcision which is by Nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law? Now how could the Gentiles uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision, if he kept the Righteousness of the Law, if this Law were not the Law of Moses? Again, the Difference is made in the word Letter, so that the fault of the Jews is the greater, in that they despise the Law, because it is sent by two Messengers from God unto them, both in writing, and otherwise planting it in the hearts; so that the difference is opposed in the word Letter. Mr. Ives. Mr. Coppinger saith, the difference between the Law of Moses and Nature is opposed in the word Letter: if so, than he hath confuted himself, for that they cannot be the same, if they are opposed one to the other. But secondly, the Law of Moses is contradistinct from the Law of Nature, as appears by that text, 1 Cor. 9.20, 21. where the Apostle saith, That to them that were without the Law, he was as without Law. Now what could the Apostle do in a way of compliance to make the Jews believe that he was not without the Law, and to make the Gentiles think he was under the Law, if the Law of the one was not way differing from the other but in writing? Then they could not be distinguished by Actions: but that the Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles by their different Laws, is plain, in that Paul did blame Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. But I shall further prove by reason, that the Law of Nature cannot be the same with the Law of Moses, because that which is called the Law of Moses, wherever it is mentioned, it is always understood of the whole Law, as well the Ceremonial as the Moral, which I hope Mr. Coppinger will not say was all of it written in the Tables of the Gentiles hearts: and this appears by the Text mentioned by Mr. Coppinger, John 7.23. the Jews did circumcise a man, that the Law of Moses might not be broken. Mr. Coppinger. Mr. Ives saith, That the Mosaical Law is opposed to the Law of Nature, 1 Cor. 9.21. where the Apostle saith, He was under the Law to them that were under the Law, and without Law to them that were without Law. I answer, That the Apostle could not make a difference between believing Jews under the Law, and believing Gentiles without the Law; because that the Gentiles were under EVERY part and parcel of the Law of Moses, as appears Gal. 3. As many as are under the Law, are under the curse: and the Gentiles were redeemed from the Curse of the Law, Gal 4.8. And could the Law curse them that were not under it? I shall therefore show by & by that this Law which the Gentiles were under, was the whole Law of Moses. Mr. Ives. I answer, That the Gentiles that had a Law writ in their hearts, were under the curse, annexed to the breach of that Law; and therefore Christ came to redeem them from the curse of it: But doth it follow, that because Christ came to redeem the Gentiles from the curse of the Law, that therefore the Gentiles lived under ALICE, the Law, and every part and parcel of the Law of Moses, and were in danger to suffer all the penalties and curses due to the transgression of the Law of Moses? But secondly, among the Gentiles there lived many Jews, as the Apostle saith in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 2. Behold, thou 〈◊〉 called a Jew, etc. and yet they lived among the Gentiles who were Romans: so in like manner among the Galatians lived many Jews, as appears by Peter's compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, Gal. 2. And again, it is said, Gal 4. That the child differeth nothing from a servant, etc. Which must needs be meant of the Jews: So that Christ redeemed the Jews from the curse of their Law, and the Gentiles from the curse of their Law: but this doth not prove, that because Christ redeemed both from the curse, that therefore both Jew and Gentile lived all under one and the same Law. And this is further proved by the Apostle, Gal. 5. when he saith, Whosoever is circumcised, is a debtor to do the whole Law. Whence I argue: That if the Law of Nature had bound the Gentiles to keep all the Law of Moses, than they had been indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circumcision. But the Gentiles were not indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circumcision. Ergo, the Law of Nature did not bind the Gentiles to observe the whole Law of Moses. From all which it is plain, that the Apostle doth distinguish between the Law of the Jews and the Law of the Gentiles, and the curse of both according to the breach of those different Laws they lived under. Mr. Coppinger. Whereas you talk of Circumcision, I say that Christ hath set us at liberty from Circumcision, and therefore we ought not to be circumcised. Mr. Ives. But Christ hath redeemed none from the Law of Nature; which shows plainly that the whole Law of Moses was not writ in the hearts of the Gentiles. But secondly, if Christ hath redeemed the Gentiles from the Law of Nature, then though your seventh-day Sabbath were writ in the Law of Nature, yet the Gentiles were not bound unto it. And lastly, your answer was, That the Gentiles were bound to all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Laws; which I have disproved, by showing that the Gentiles were bound to the Law of Ceremonies by the Obligation of Circumcision, and not by the light of Nature. Mr. Coppinger. I do say, That the Gentiles were under all the Ceremonial Laws, as well as under all the Moral Laws, even by the Law writ in the heart, even all the Law, all Sacrifices, every bit and every thing: Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed 〈◊〉 etc. and Gal. 4. He hath redeemed them that were under the Law, etc. Meaning Gentiles as well as Jews. Now that this was the whole Law of Moses, in that the same spirit writ the same things in the hearts of the Gentiles that the Angel did command upon mount Sinai. Again, the Apostle speaking of the Law, saith, The man that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3.12. to this agreeth Rom. 10. So that all Moses law was the same with the law written in the heart, and was for Jews and Gentiles indifferently, the one for both people as well as the other: for God intended that the Tables of stone should be kept in the hand of Israel, and from thence it was to be conveyed to others, Romans the 9th and 4th. Mr. Ives. I need make no further answer then to say, That Christ was made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law, that is, those that are under the law of Nature, from the curse thereof; and them that are under the law of Moses, from the curse due to the Transgressions thereof; and not to redeem the Gentiles from the curse due to the transgression of the law of Moses, which they are expressly 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 alleged 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 show you that Moses law did not require the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath, because the Gentiles did not live under it, but without it, as divers texts tell us plainly. There are three notable things to be observed in Mr. Coppingers' answer to this Argument: First, that he is forced to confess in words at length, that all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law were writ in the heart. Secondly, that this was a force put to save his credit, appears, because in his answer to Mr. Ives his first Argument, but two hours before, or thereabouts, he plainly denied 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 Israel's 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 Israel's Statutes, yet (saith he) they were not to keep their ceremonies. So that though he denied 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 citys a text in the ninth of the Romans, to prove that the Jews had the tables of stone given them to keep, not only 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, than 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 persuaded, 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 lieth in the universality of the terms every day; and therefore I shall show 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 persuaded, than he may keep the seventh-day sabbath if he be so persuaded. 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 man's persuasion of the truth of a thing, that will make it my duty; which is the only 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 assign 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 show 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. 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, than 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 show that the seventh-day sabbath is as expressly 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 show as particular an exception of the seventh-day sabbath out of every day, as I had shown you against eating all things; and instead thereof, you assign 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 denied 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 assign 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 denied 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 show 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 virtue 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 fond 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 ensuing 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 show that the seventh-day sabbath is fulfilled by Christ, thus: If the seventh-day sabbath be a weak and beggarly Rudiment, than Christ hath fulfilled it. But the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggarly Rudiment. Ergo, Christ hath fulfilled it. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Minor: The seventh day is not a weak and beggarly Rudiment. Mr. Ives. If all the times commanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggarly Rudiments, than the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggarly Rudiment. But all the times commanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggarly Rudiments. Ergo, the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggarly Rudiment. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Minor: all the times commanded to be observed in the law, are not weak and beggarly Rudiments. Mr. Ives. If there was no time commanded to be observed in the Law, but days, months, times and years, and all these were weak and beggarly Rudiments, than all the times commanded in the law, were weak and beggarly 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 beggarly Rudiments. Ergo, all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggarly Rudiments. Mr. Coppinger. I deny the Minor, and put you to prove, that the days, months, times and years that were commanded to be observed in the Law, were weak and beggarly 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 beggarly Rudiments, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months, and times, and years: I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Mr. Coppinger. These days mentioned in the Text, they are not the Jewish, but the Gentile Observations of days, as appears by considering the eighth verse, where it is said, They did service to that which by nature was not God; which must needs be understood of the Gentiles. Mr. Ives. Sir, you did but even now tell us, That the Jews and Gentiles were under one and the same Law, and that the Law of Nature had all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in it: if you then said true, what reason have you to imagine that the Jews might not do service to such as by nature were not gods, even as the Gentiles did, since the Gentiles had, by your own confession, one and the same law to inform them in the truth, and to show them what was error? But secondly, the Jews did worship that which by nature was not God, many a time and often, and therefore it doth not follow that these words must be restrained to the Gentiles only; for the Jews made them a Calf, and said it was their god Exod. 32 8. And to this might be added Isa. 2.8, 20. Mic. 5.13. 1 King. 9 & 9 & 1 King. 11.23. where it is said, that the Children of Israel worshipped Ashtoreth, the god of the Zidonians, and Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the Children of Ammon, etc. and it's further said, that when God will bring them into their own Land, and convert them to the knowledge of Christ, that he will cleanse them from all their Idols, Ezekiel 36.25. & 37, 23. By which it appears, ●hat the Apostles saying, They did service to that which by nature was not God, doth not prove this spoken of Gentiles only, since that the Idolatry of ●he Jews was one great cause of Gods scattering ●f them among the heathen as at this day. Mr. Coppinger. These days which the Apostle speaks of, were the Gentiles days, which they did observe in imitation of the Jews, as the Jews had 〈◊〉 Table of the Lord, and the Gentiles had a Table of Devils. Mr. Ives. If you consult the text, together with what ●ath been said in my former Reply, you will ●●nde that this was spoken of the Jews, and the ●●ewish Rudiments, from which Christ came 〈◊〉 redeem them, as appears Gal. 4.3.4. Secondly, because they were such Rudiments ●nder which the Jews were to continue till ●e time appointed of the Father, Gal. 4.1, 2. ●ow the Father never appointed any of the Gentiles Idolatrous Rudiments; neither did God appoint any time for the Gentiles to congrue in them; therefore these could not be 〈◊〉 Idolatrous Rudiments of the Gentiles. Thirdly, they are complained of for observing ●●ars; which clearly shows that it doth not relate to the superstitious times of the Gentiles, but to the times that were commanded of the Jews in the Law of Moses: for it was never heard of, that any Nation in the world did observe years, besides the Jews who indeed were to keep the seventh year, and 〈◊〉 Jubilee year, sacred, and not to do any work 〈◊〉 them. Fourthly and lastly, the whole scope of this epistle to the Galatians, is to reclaim the Jews from running back to the Mosaical Rudiments of the Law, who did not only Judaize themselves, 〈◊〉 would have compelled the believing Gentiles to Judaize also: as appears by Paul's blaming Peter 〈◊〉 so doing, Gal. 2.14. and therefore he cautions 〈◊〉 not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage 〈◊〉 chap. 5. vers. 1. Which is the bondage of the Mosaical Law, as appears vers. 2. and the same bondage which he feared they were turning to in the 〈◊〉 serving days, months, times and years, as any 〈◊〉 may see that compareth the eighth and ninth very of the fourth of the Galatians. Mr. Coppinger. The Apostle doth detect them for observing the Rudiments of the world, as opposed 〈◊〉 them of the Church of God: and this was 〈◊〉 the time that they knew not God, when 〈◊〉 chose such days as he did not appoint. Secondly, the Ordinances of the Law 〈◊〉 glorious; therefore he could not relate to the 〈◊〉 when he speaks of beggarly Elements. Thirdly, he labours to persuade them from such Idolatrous times, lest his labour had been in vain in drawing them from their Idols. Fourthly, These Galatians being under a strong temptation to the bondage of the Law, and Paul having confuted them by telling of them that then they must be circumcised, which ●ndeed was useless, hereupon they are ready to turn to their own heathenish Idolatry again, as the Apostle feared. Mr. Ives. I have assigned several reasons why these times could not relate to the superstitious times of the Gentiles; to which you have answered not a word: but in the stead thereof, endeavour to prove that these were spoke of Gentile Rudiments. First, you say they must be gentile Rudiments, because they are called the Rudiments of the world, ●nd opposed to the Rudiments of God's Church. I answer, that this proves not against me, but yourself; for the Jewish Laws were called the Rudiments of the world, Gal. chap. 4. vers. 3. which they ●ere to continue under, as children under tutors, ●ll the time appointed of the Father. And you ●our self told us, That those Rudiments of the Jews were commanded and given in charge to all ●he world, though now you seem to deny it. Again, you say the Ordinances of the Law were glorious; therefore they could not be called beggarly ●nd weak. I answer: First, though they were glorious, yet now Christ is come, that glory is no glory in comparison, as appears 2 Cor. 3.9, 10. Secondly, the Apostle saith, that the glory thereof was done away; and therefore they are weak. Thirdly, the Author to the Hebrews calleth the Commandments and Rudiments of the Law, weak and unprofitable, which is all one with weak and beggarly even as a man that is weak and beggarly is not able to do any thing to profit, even so the Author to the Hebrews phraseth it, in saying. That there was a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. And whereas you say the Apostle labours 〈◊〉 draw them from Idolatrous times and not Jew●●● I have in the former Reply given answer to this by showing that this Notion is contrary to the sco●● of the whole Epistle: and whereas you say 〈◊〉 Galatians were under a strong temptation to the bondage of the Law, and the Apostle having confuted that opinion, they presently run back to the other extreme of heathenish Idolatry: I answer, 〈◊〉 this conceit supposeth two Epistles to the Galatians for if conviction from Judaisme had been the fruit of one Epistle, turning them from the other extreat of Idolatry must be the fruit of another Epistle because that which was written to remove them 〈◊〉 of Judaisme, could not at the same time compl●●● of their going to the other extreme of Gentilism 〈◊〉 as I have said, this Notion must be 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, months, 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 shown more particularly in the ensuing Appendix. Mr. Coppinger. If the times here called weak and beggarly, be the heathenish times, than 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, than you have not answered my Argument, whatever you have said: I shall therefore leave it to the Judgement 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 showing 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. showing thereby, that for that year the Land was to lie still, and not be ploughed or sown. 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 assign 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 show me that the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text; but I shall by another Argument make it appear that sabbath days is not only intended in Col. 2.16. but in Esay 1 & 13 also; which I thus do: Wheresoever this word sabbaths is mentioned with new moons, feasts and holy days, there the seventh-day sabbath is intended. But the word sabbaths is here so mentioned. Therefore the seventh-day sabbath is here intended. Show me but one instance where the word sabbaths is joined 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 intent 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, than the sabbath must always be joined with new moons: but I can show you sabbath mentioned without new moons, that exclude the seventh-day sabbath; and if I do so, than I have put in an exception against the universality of your Argument. Mr. Ives. If you can show me sabbaths mentioned without new moons, it is not an exception against the Argument; for I have already shown 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 tie 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, etc. 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 show us that the seventh-day sabbath is a shadow of the body of Christ, and I will grant the case. Mr. Ives. If I prove the seventh-day sabbath a shadow of the Body of Christ, Mr. Coppinger saith he, will grant the case; and he hath already granted that the sabbaths mentioned in this text Col. 2. are shadows of the Body of Christ: it remains then that I prove this word Sabbaths to intent 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 show 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 showing 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 days. 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 sense, yet I shall answer your meaning, by showing 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 itself is called a sign, 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 than 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 days, because (say you) there was such work to be 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 show you that these sabbaths in Isa. 1.13. could not be the sabbath days: as first, they are said, Isa. 1. to tread in God's Courts in the Temple, which they did not do on the sabbath days, for than they met in the Synagogue. Secondly, here is all the Sacrifices and burnt-offerings, which they could not offer upon the sabbath days. 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 days, any more than the celebrations of their new Moons were to be celebrated upon the sabbath days; and therefore if the duties there mentioned, could not be performed upon the sabbath days, that doth not prove the sabbaths mentioned with new Moons in that text, doth not intent 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 days, because you say they met in the Synagogue upon sabbath days. I answer, That David magnifies the COURTS of God's house, while as yet there was no temple; which shows that other places were called the Courts of God's house, as well as the temple. Thirdly, they might tread God's Courts in the Temple upon the Sabbath days, 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 custom; 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 God's 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 grossly 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 days. 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 days, because they had solemn Assemblies upon it, than 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 showed 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, than which nothing is more false. Mr. Coppinger. I have shown 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 shown 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-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 chief 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, etc. and throughout the whole Bible, wherever sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons and Feasts, there the sabbath days are always intended; and therefore I do again call upon my Respondent either to say that he cannot answer the Argument, or else to show 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 showed you Isa. 1.13. where Sabbath is mentioned, and the seventh-day sabbath not intended. Mr. Ives. I have showed 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-day sabbath, my meaning is, all believing Gentiles. Moderator. Sir, than 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, than 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 sabbath, than 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 denied; for this Argument should have concluded, that if all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James, that THAN it follows that they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath: which was the consequence denied 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, than 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 denied 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 Patriarches 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, than 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, etc. you mean, every Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery, doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath, than 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, etc. you do not mean whatsoever Law, than 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, wherever whole Law is mentioned, except they are excluded in so many words? Mr. Coppinger. I say, the whole Law is not where mentioned where the sabbath is excluded; and do you show me where it is. Mr. Ives. If by excluding, you mean excluding in 〈◊〉 many words, than 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, than it includes it. Mr. Ives. I have denied 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 showing, 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 wherever 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 show 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 enjoined wherever 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 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) than 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 showing that I may deny the Syllogism, because it concludes not that which was formerly denied: for it is no more than 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 testify 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, than 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, than 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, than 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 sense, 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 yourself. 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 ● am R●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, than 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 intent the Scriptures of the old Testament only; 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 only. 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 only to the old Testament: now the new Testament is scripture, as well as the old, and therefore Peter saith of some, That they wrested Paul's writings, as they did other scriptures: so that if we can keep the law that James enjoins 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 sense, 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, than 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 require● 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 mu●● keep the law in the second of James, according to the old Testament, that therefore I must kee● the sabbath required in the old Testament; 〈◊〉 more than because I must forbear killing, as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament, that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament. But 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 we 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 lieth 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 lieth 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, than 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-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, ●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 unto● 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 enjoins 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, than 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 privileges? 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 privileges. 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, than 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 assign 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 assign any other place. Ergo, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precept. Mr. Ives. It is both in the 15 of the Acts and 21 of the Acts, and I can assign other places: but first, I say it is in Acts the 21. & 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. verses; the words are these: Thou seest brother, how many thousands of the Jews there are which BELIEVE, and they are all zealous of the Law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jew; which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, That they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow upon them, them take, and purify they self, 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 thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. But as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded, that they observe no such things, etc. Whence I observe these two things: First, that here was an Injunction laid upon Paul and other believing Jews, that was not laid upon the believing Gentiles: that they were believing Jews, see verse 20. that this Injunction was not laid upon believing Gentiles, see verse 25. where the Gentiles that believe are expressly forbidden such Observations. Secondly, these were no mean persons that did enjoin these things, but they were a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders, among whom the Holy Ghost was precedent, as appears Acts 15.28. compared with Acts 21 & 25. So that if ever there was an unerring Council in the world, this was one, who were guided by the Holy Ghost that was sent to lead into all truth: and therefore it is horrible presumption to think that these did err; and yet these do enjoin such things upon the believing Jews, that they expressly charge the believing Gentiles not to observe. Mr. Coppinger. These Jews that they advise him to condescend unto, they were such as had conspired the death of Paul; and therefore in point of prudency, they advise him to condescend unto them. Secondly, this could not be a precept, because the text saith, That they offered an Offering according to the Law, verse 26. now to enjoin such a thing as this, would be to deny Christ come in the Flesh; and therefore it was no other than a prudent advice that the Apostles and Elders gave to Paul to save his life from those Jews that had conspired his death. Mr. Ives. If the words to the Jews, verse 24. are but a bare advice, than we may say so of their precepts to the Gentiles, verse 25. and of all others that we like not. Secondly, whereas you say, They were Jews that did conspire Paul's death, and therefore they advised Paul thus to do to save himself from their malice and fury; I answer, that these were believing Jews that were zealous of the Law, and not those unbelieving Jews that went about to kill him, verse 31. which unbelieving Jews went about to kill him, notwithstanding this condescension to the Law; therefore the condescension was for the sake of the Jews that believed, and not for the sake of those that conspired his death. But thirdly, whereas he saith the Apostles did advise Paul to condescend, but did not enjoin it, for if they had enjoined him to observe the Law of purification, than they did enjoin him to do those things which by consequence did deny Christ come in the flesh. To which I answer, that according to Mr. Coppingers' Notion upon the text, they did ADVISE Paul to do that which by consequence did deny Christ come in the flesh; and so the absurdity falls nigh-hand as heavy upon him, as he would make it to fall upon me; for is it not a great piece of wickedness for any body to give advice or to take advice (supposing it to be but a bare advice) which by consequence denies Christ come in the flesh, merely to save themselves from persecution? Now therefore, supposing with Mr. Coppinger that it is but an Advice which the Apostles and Elders give Paul, I demand whether it be a good or a bad advice. Mr. Coppinger. As Circumstances might be, an advice may be good; and as Circumstances may be, an advice may be bad. Mr. Ives. But as this case was circumstanced, was the advice good or bad? Mr. Coppinger. The advice may be good, when it is given to a good end: the same advice may at some times be bad, when the like end is not intended. Mr. Ives. We must not do evil that good may come 〈◊〉 so that they ought not to advise Paul to do that which you say denied Christ come in the flesh, upon the pretence of saving Paul's life. Mr. Coppinger. I say, as Circumstances may be, a man may be advised to do that which at another time under other circumstances may not be done. Mr. Ives. But I pray speak to the Case in hand; was this advice good or bad which the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem gave Paul? This Question Mr. Ives put over and over to Mr. Coppinger; who though he said that it was but an advice which the Apostles and Elders gave to Paul, yet he would not answer whether it was a good or a bad advice. Mr. Coppinger. If I should grant that this WAS a precept that the Apostles and Elders gave to Paul, yet this doth not prove that there IS NOW a difference in point of precept, though there was then; for my Argument speaketh of the present tense, viz. that there IS no difference between the believing Jews and believing Gentiles in point of precept, and this text only speaks of what WAS. Moderator. Sir, the Scripture ought to be our rule, and I humbly conceive that we know not what is a duty but by reading of the Scriptures, and therein find what was a duty. Mr. Ives. First, I answer to Mr. Coppinger, by showing him that in his Argument he told us that there was no difference between believing Jews and believing Gentiles in point of precept, either in Acts 15 or Acts 21. So that if this precept was but for that age, or for that particular occasion, yet I have confuted his Argument, because his Argument saith Acts 15 and Acts 21. assigns no difference. Secondly, this precept was to bind Jews under the like circumstances to the world's end, which under no circumstance could bind the Gentiles, because the Apostles and Elders by the assistance of God's holy Spirit, did expressly charge the Gentiles to observe no such thing. Thirdly, how far the observation of the Law of Nazarenes, was a type of Christ, I am not so well acquainted with it, as to give an exact account; yet this I know, That when it was most in force, it was but a voluntary service, as appears Num. 6. So that if any man 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 than 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 enjoin them to discharge, verse 24. but do expressly forbid the Gentiles the observation of any such thing: therefore I have shown that here was something enjoined upon the Jews, that was not enjoined upon the Gentiles. Mr. Coppinger. I do say, This was but an advice, and that it was not 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 Controversy 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, purify themselves, etc. 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 expressly 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 God's people ought to keep the seventh day sabbath, than all believing Gentiles ought to keep the seventh day sabbath But it is the Doctrine of the New Testament that God's 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 God's people in your Argument? because the Jews are called God's 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, etc. Mr. Ives. If you mean all God's people, and all believers without exception, than there is no Medium in the Syllogism, for then the Argument runs thus: If all God's people are required, than they are all required. Mr. Coppinger. I then argue thus: If the Church of the Hebrews, by virtue of this Epistle to the Hebrews, were bound to keep the seventh day sabbath, than all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath. But the Church of the Hebrews, by virtue 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, than it is but the same with the Argument we last dispatched, for than you said, If the believing Jews were commanded, than the believing Gentiles were commanded. And secondly, if you mean Gentiles, than I answer as before, That there is no medium in the Syllogism. Mr. Coppinger. I mean only 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 Margin; here then, is a sabbath commanded, and the third verse tells us, that this was not commanded only 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 wilderness? 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 sign between me and them, etc. But (saith the 13 verse) the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness etc. 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, etc. 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 Israel's sins in the wilderness, which you see was Sabbath-breaking, as well as other sins, lest, as the eleventh verse saith, they fall after the same example of unbelief, or disobedience. Mr. Ives. I shall show 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 verse 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, than 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 might have enjoyed; but the rest here promised, is reserved only 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 remains 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, than 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 shows rather, the privileges 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 than 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 day's work: therefore he bids them LABOUR 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, etc. So in like manner we cannot be guilty of sin in not observing the seventh day sabbath, any more than we can be guilty of loathing Manna; and yet God's judgements upon them for all their old Testament sins, are set forth to us for examples, not 〈◊〉 tie us to the same duties, but to Gospel-Obedience in all things, lest we incur the same of ●●eater punishments, by how much the more we 〈◊〉 against greater mercies. Again, the Apostle gives the like Exhortati●●, 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 God's Judgements against Israel's 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 sense 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, than all believing Gentiles are bound to observe it. But Christ did teach the observation of the seventh day sabbath. Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to observe the seventh day sabbath. Mr. Ives. Pray explain what you mean, when you say, Christ DID teach it: do you mean before his death or after? Mr. Coppinger. I do mean that Christ did teach the seventh day sabbath upon the Mount, Mat. 5. Whence I thus argue: If Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount did preach the seventh day sabbath, than all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath. But Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount did preach the seventh day sabbath. Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath. Mr. Ives. I tell you, Sir, that this is not fair arguing, when both Propositions are justly to be denied: however, I deny the Consequence; for it doth not follow that if Christ did preach the seventh day sabbath upon the Mount, that therefore all believing Gentiles are bound to observe it; for I shall show some things that Christ commanded to be observed upon the Mount, that Mr. Coppinger himself saith, Believing Gentiles are not bound to observe. Mr. Coppinger. I shall prove that all that Christ did preach upon the Mount, and taught others to preach, believing Gentiles are bound to observe. If all that Christ taught upon the Mount, and commanded others to teach, was to abide as long as the Sun and Moon, and Heaven and Earth remain, than all the believing Gentiles are bound to observe all that Christ taught upon the Mount. But all that Christ taught upon the Mount, and commanded others to teach, was to abide as long as Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon remains. Ergo, all the believing Gentiles are bound to observe all that Christ taught upon the Mount. Mr. Ives. I deny the Minor: all that Christ taught upon the Mount is not to abide as long as Heaven and Earth remain. Mr. Coppinger. Then you must show us something that Christ did teach upon the Mount, and command others to teach, that is not binding. Mr. Ives. That I shall do; therefore pray look into Mat. 5.23, 24. Christ there commands that a man should leave his gift at the Altar, and go and be reconciled to his brother, and then Christ commands him to come and offer his gift: these are commands given upon the Mount. Secondly, they are such commands as he bids others to do and teach, ver. 19 for they were to do and teach the least of those commandments. Thirdly, these commands that are taught upon the Mount are not all in force to believing Gentiles, because that command of leaving the gift at the Altar, and coming to offer it upon the Altar, is not now in force: therefore all that Christ commanded in his Sermon upon the Mount is not of force to believing Gentiles. Mr. Coppinger. The word altar and gift is variously taken as Heb. 13.10. We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle: and so likewise the word gift is variously taken, as Christ is called The Gift of God, Rom. 6.23. and Paul tells the Corinthians, they came behind in no Gift, 1 Cor. 1.7. and Phil. 4.7. Not because I desire a Gift: and to this agree all Interpreters, that gift and altar in this fifth of Matthew, and 23, 24. is taken allegorically. Mr. Ives. I answer to the last first; that Mr. Coppinger doth abuse Interpreters, or else he never read any; for I challenge him to show me any one Interpreter that ever understood altar and gift in Mat. 5. allegorically. It is true, that they sometimes make a spiritual application of these words; but they all with one consent understand the words literally. But secondly, Mr. Coppinger hath showed us that altar and gift is variously understood; but hath not, out of this variety, told us which of these senses should be put upon altar and gift in this fifth of Matthew. But thirdly, I do challenge Mr. Coppinger, or any man else, to show me that a gift at the altar is ever understood allegorically throughout the Scriptures, from the Creation of the world to the death of Jesus Christ. And lastly, that Christ doth here intent a literal altar, appears, if we do but consider Mat. 8.4. where we shall find that what Christ taught upon the Mount, he exhorts the man that was cured of his Leprosy to observe; for as soon as Christ descended from the Mount, he cleansed the Leper, and then commanded him to offer a gift as Moses had commanded; which could not be understood allegorically. Mr. Coppinger. The text that you last urged, doth speak of a gift, but not of an altar; and the text under debate speaks of a gift and an altar. Secondly, This Christ bid the Leper do, that it might be a Testimony of him to the Priest, that so if the Priest should ask him how he was cleansed, or who did cleanse him, he might hereby have an opportunity to testify Christ unto the Priest, and tell him that Jesus of Nazareth made him whole * This cannot be the true sense of the Lepers showing himself to the Priest for a Testimony, but rather it was in observation of Moses Law which did command the Lepers to show themselves to the Priest, that the Priest having viewed the Leper, he might give a Testimony to the people, That this man was now fit to go abroad, who before had dwelled in an outhouse: See Leu. 14. . Mr. Ives. I answer to your last first: That if Christ did command the Leper to show himself to the Priest, and offer an offering according to the Law, then let the end for which he did it be what it will, your Argument is confuted; for here is some part of the Law commanded by Christ before his death, that is not binding to the believing Gentiles since the resurrection. But secondly, whereas you say that this text Mat. 8.4. speaks of a gift, but not an altar; I answer, that I never heard that the Priest in Moses Law did ever offer a gift without an altar: my reason is, because Christ saith, Mat. 23.19. That the altar sanctifieth the gift: therefore this gift spoken of Mat. 8. must needs be a gift to be offered upon an Altar, as well as that gift spoken of Mat. 5. Mr. Coppinger. If you look into the text, it is said, The Leper was to offer as Moses commanded; now if we will see how Moses commanded the Leper to offer, let us read Leu. 14.4, 5, 6, 7. we shall there read of the Priests taking two birds, and his killing one of them over running water, and that he did dip the living bird in the blood of that which was killed, and then the Priest was to let the living bird fly away into the open field: this indeed was to be done for the cleansing the Leper: but here is not one word that the Priest was to offer any thing upon the Altar, in all this Chapter. Mr. Ives. Have a care, Sir, what you say; utter nothing rashly: for if you look but into the 20 verse of this 14 of Leviticus, you shall see that the Priest was to offer the Offering and the meat Offering upon the ALTAR, and the Priest shall make an Atonement for him, and he shall be clean. Mr. Coppinger. But what if here was an Altar? this was spoken by Christ to the leper, after he came off the mount; but our difference lay about the meaning of the word Altar and Gift, in Christ's Sermon upon the Mount, Mat. 5. Mr. Ives. I pray Sir, confess your Error for shame; for is it not a shame for you to to tell us, that Christ commanded the Leper to offer his Gift without an Altar, when Christ bid him offer it as Moses commanded? and when you turned to the Law of Moses, did you not say, the Priest was to offer without an Altar? and now I show you that the Priest did offer upon the Altar, for the cleansing of the Leper, you put it off, and tell me, What if there were an Altar? it is not to your purpose; why did you not say so at first, and save us this labour? but give me leave to tell you again, that it is to my purpose to show you the Error of your Argument: for if Christ commands the Leper to observe all those ceremonial observations for his cleansing, then is your Argument false, that saith, All things that Christ commanded us in his Sermon upon the Mount, all believing Gentiles are bound to observe to the end of the world; but you say this that Christ commands the Leper to do, was not on the Mount, but as soon as he came off the Mount, & this (you say) is nothing to Gift and Altar, mentioned in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount. I answer, That the difference in places, especially so little difference as between Christ's being on the Mount, and off from the Mount, could not make a difference in his commands. Secondly, it cannot reasonably be imagined, that Christ would command the Leper to do any thing when he came off the Mount, that was contradictory to what he did command when he was upon the Mount; therefore I have great reason to believe that the Altar that he commands them to offer their Gift on, in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount, is the material Altar, like unto that which he bids the Leper offer his Gift on, as soon as he comes off from the Mount, Mat. 8. and this I the rather believe, because that there is no text from the beginning of the Bible to the death of the Messiah, that speaks of an allegorical Altar. Mr. Coppinger. It may be understood allegorically in this place, though it might not be understood so in the old Testament; as for instance, the Apostle speaks of a text out of the Psalms, in the third of the Romans, where he saith, They were all go●● out of the way, etc. where he useth those general terms, in a sense differing from the old Testament. Mr. Ives. I answer: first, That the Apostle doth not ●ut any other sense upon those words, than David puts upon them in the Psalms: secondly, if he did, that is no rule for you; as for instance, David saith in the sixteenth Psalm, that God will not leave his soul in hell, etc. this the Apostle saith, Act. 2.31. that David spoke of the resurrection of Christ: so in like manner, though I may restrain a text, when God restrains 〈◊〉, and allegorise a text, when the holy Ghost ●oth warrant me; may I therefore allegorise a ●ext, when I have no warrant, as you do this 〈◊〉 Mat. 5. which I shall leave to the Assembly 〈◊〉 judge, whether the gift, and altar upon which Christ commands the gift to be offered, be allegorical or literal? And if it be spoken of a material altar, then have I confuted your Argument, by showing that some things that Christ commanded in his Sermon upon the Mount, are not in force to all believing Gentiles to the end of the world. Moderator. I pray Sir, if you have another Argument, ●rge it briefly, for I perceive the time is expired that you agreed to break off at. Mr. Coppinger. I shall then briefly urge one Argument, which take as followeth: If the seventh day sabbath was of force before the death of Christ, to believing Gentiles, than it is of force still. But the seventh day sabbath was of force before the death of Christ to believing Gentiles. Ergo, it is of force still. Mr. Ives. SIR, I wonder that you make Arguments that have not one true Proposition in them; for this is like the last, both Propositions being false: however, prove the Minor. It is observable, that Mr. Coppinger, in the last Dispute before this, did affirm, That all the Gentiles were bound to keep all the ceremonies of the Law of Moses: now than if this be a good Argument why we must keep the seventh day sabbath now, because we were to keep it before the death of Christ, than we must be circumcised and offer sacrifices, for the same reason, because he himself did confess that those things the Gentiles were bound to observe, before the death of Christ. Mr. Coppinger. If the Reason of a Law doth remain the same that it was before Christ's death, the Law doth remain the same. But the reason of the seventh day sabbath doth remain. Ergo, the Law for the seventh day sabbath doth remain. Mr. Ives. I deny the Major: for that which you call the reason of a Law, may remain the same, when the Law doth not remain: and for this, I shall give you two instances, instead of many. The first is Exod. 23.11. there you shall find that the reason why God would have Israel to keep the seventh year for a sabbath, in which ●hey should not gather that which grew of its ●own accord, it was for the good of the poor, ●hat the poor of thy people might be refreshed, Exod. 23. now a man may as well say, he must let his and lie every seventh year, because the rea●on remains, viz. That he may refresh the poor of his people: as he may say he must keep the ●eventh day sabbath, because the reason of that Law is in force, which is, That his stranger and servant, and cattle may be refreshed. But further, there is another reason urged why we must keep the Law that commands he seventh day sabbath, and that is (say you) because we believe, as well as the Jews, that God made heaven and earth in six days, and ●ested the seventh, therefore we as well as the Jews, must work six days, and keep the Saturday, or seventh day sabbath: I say, this conse●ence doth not follow; for the reason why israel was commanded to sanctify the priests, ●he sons of Aaron, was, because the Lord their God did sanctify them, Leu. 21.8. now though I do believe with Israel, that the Lord doth sanctify me, yet I am not bound for this reason to sanctify the priests, the sons of Aaron: thu● you see by these two instances, that the reason of a Law may be the same, when the Law is not the same. Mr. Coppinger. As to your first instance, namely, that the seventh year 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 sanctify us; and therefore I say the Law remains, that we should sanctify God's Ministers still. Mr. Ives. As for your Answer to my first instance, it doth signify little: for I say refreshing the poor is a moral and universal duty; and if than the seventh year 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 Logic, tha● the seventh year 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 yourself; 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 sanctify God's 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 sanctify not the same but another Priesthood, than 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 yourself again, and answered your own Argument: for your Argument was, that wherever 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 sanctify 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 show you that the seventh day sabbath was abolished, yet I have confuted your Argument, by showing 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 sanctify 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 shown 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 aimed at, by thy Friend, J. I. FINIS. POSTSCRIPT. READER, I Thought good to give notice, that at the end of this last D●spute, I promised that which is now by the Providence of GOD performed, viz. an accounted of all the Arguments and Answers insisted on in the several Disputations: this promise being made publicly, 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 only 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 days after: and for this 14 days, I stayed 21 days, in all which time I heard not a word from any of them; ●o, nor so much as an excuse from Doctor chamberlain, though he did publicly 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 passed 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 certify, 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 ensuing Appendix, for the information foe 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 controversy, who perhaps may not have leisure 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 persuaded the Saturday-sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles. Thirdly, I shall show some Reasons for the justifying the present practice of the Christians in their Religious observations of the first day of the week, otherwise called the Lordsday. 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 alleged for the Saturday-sabbath ou● 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 God's example, Gen. 2.2. And God rested the seventh-day, etc. and ver. 3. God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: Because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made: whence those things are urged, first, That God sanctified this day, therefore all believing Gentiles ought to sanctify it. Secondly, This was spoken while Adam was in innocence, and so consequently to all his posterity. Ans. To which I answer, first, that God's example, unless we have a command, doth not bind all the world; for God sanctified the Priests, and the Temple, and the Altar, and yet we are not bound to sanctify 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 than 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 than to show that God sanctified the seventh-day for Adam and his Posterity in innocence: my reasons are, first, because all the Patriarches from Adam to Moses did not keep the seventh-day sabbath, which was two thousand years 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 traveled 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 showing 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 showing 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 shows, 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, etc. not that this land was so called in Eden while Adam was in innocence; 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 years afterwards it did receive: and that Havilah was not born till after the flood, appears Gen. 10.7. and that the flood was more than 1600 years 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 not otherwise true, but with respect to what it was afterwards called; in like manner Moses saith, God sanctified the seventh-day, Gen. 2.3. which also refers to the Law that God gave to Israel by the hand of Moses for the sanctifying of it. And lest this seem strange, I shall give you another Text, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand: see therefore Exod. 16.32, 33, 34. In the 32 verse the Lord did command that an Om●● 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 not 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 sanctify 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 sanctify the seventh-day; not that he did sanctify it in Eden, any more than Aaron laid up the Manna in the wilderness of Sin before the Testimony; but that he did sanctify 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 years, 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 rendered why believing 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 believers 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 judgements 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 expressly and particularly by the light of Nature, and the Law of Christ; but they are not so bound to the seventh-day sabbath. Again, that Law of the fourth Commandment binds us as to A time to worship, though not that time of the seventh-day. But secondly, might not these men as well object this against the Apostle, who expressly 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 show 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 believed by Christian Gentiles, than 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 show 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 sanctify the Priests the sons of Aaron, was, because he was the Lord that did sanctify them, Levit. 21. 8. Now I hope all Christian Gentiles, believe that God doth sanctify them: but doth it therefore follow, that because God doth sanctify believing Gentiles, that therefore they must sanctify a Levitical Priesthood? Secondly, The place of Israel's worship was called the house of the Lord God, doth it therefore follow, that believing Gentiles must therefore sanctify 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 believing Gentiles must observe it. Thirdly, Whereas it is said, we must rest the seventh-day, that we may show 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 show mercy, be a Reason why we should keep the seventh-day sabbath, because Israel was to keep it for that Reason, than we must also drink deeper of this cup of Judaisme, 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, etc. 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 believe that God doth sanctify us, yet we are not therefore to sanctify the Legal Priesthood: in like manner, though we do believe 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 than they should observe that day, any more, than why we should observe the other Judaical Laws, whose Reasons are still the same, though the Laws are changed. Argum. 5 The next Arguments follow from the Scriptures of the New Testament, and they are such as pretend to command and example; even as the former: I shall first speak to those Texts that are cited to prove that the seventh-day sabbath was commanded in the New Testament: and the first is Mat. 5.17, 18. the words are these: Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For I say unto you, that till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled. Whence it is inferred, that the seventh day sabbath was a part of the Law, and therefore it should remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain. I answer, first, that offering of sacrifices is also a part of this Law; but doth it follow therefore that believing 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 enjoin any other duty; the like he commands of the leper that was cleansed, Mat. 8. ●. 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 Christ's 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 than was clearly this, that rather than 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, than 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 Christ's 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 Prophecy to be fulfilled after the Resurrection. I answer, that this proves no more that Christ would have the sabbath sanctified by the believing Gentiles, than 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 cornfields upon the sabbath, and pluck the ears of corn to satisfy 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 Christ's calling it by the name of the sabbath day, doth no more prove it is in force, than 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 ointments, 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 believing Gentiles, which are the subjects under debate. But secondly, the Law of the New Testament was not established till Christ's 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 easy matter to take off the zeal even of believing 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 believe, 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 believing Gentiles after Christ's 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 believing 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 believing 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 believing 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 believing 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, than 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 believing Gentiles being God's 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 entering 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 believers to enter into; but unbelievers might enter into the seventh day rest, and so might their cattle also: therefore unbelievers 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, than 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 clearly 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 believers 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 believing 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, believing 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 profess 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, than 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 Judaisme; 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 enjoin 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 than 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 than 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 expressly and particularly repealed, than we must keep the Passover; for that was once a Law, and was never repealed expressly and particularly. Again, we must keep the year of Jubilee, for that was once a Law, and it was never expressly and particularly repealed. Furthermore, by this Argument we must keep the seventh year for a sabbath, and neither plough or sow our fields, or do any work for that whole year, because it was once commanded, Levit. 25. and it was never expressly 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 they must be our Examples for A TIME of worship, they must be so for a PLACE of worship; for such places were as well commanded as such times. Secondly, The Apostle circumcised Timothy, must we therefore circumcise? Thirdly, The Apostle Paul did observe the Law of the Nazarites, Act. 21. must we therefore observe it? Fourthly, The Apostle said, He must needs keep the feast of the Passeover, Act. 18, 21. Doth it therefore follow that we must keep the feast of the Passeover? and yet after this manner do these men reason, (viz.) that they must keep the seventh day sabbath, because Paul kept it. Fifthly, The Text doth not say Paul did keep the sabbath, any more than it faith, he did reverence the sanctuary; but that having the opportunity of these times and places in which the Jews were assembled, he made use thereof to preach Christ unto them. Argum. 12 Having urged and answered those Arguments taken from commands and Examples out of the Old and New Testament, I come now to those Arguments that plead the seventh day sabbaths Morality, from Natural Reasons: and the first is, That the seventh-day sabbath must needs be moral, because (as Mr. Spittlehouse told me before many witnesses) that the seven Stars did preach the seventh day sabbath, and therefore the Heathen kept the Saturday, which is so called of Saturn the seventh Planet. I answer, that first, this is vain Philosophy indeed. But secondly, Mr. Spittlehouse is an ignorant Philosopher, and a more ignorant ginger, in saying, that Saturn is the seventh Planet, which all writers in Astronomy and Astrology do declare to be the first Planet, and accordingly so place it and call it; and therefore the Heathen rather kept Saturday as the first day than the seventh day, because Saturn is the first of all the seven Planets. But thirdly, The Heathen did keep every ninth day to Jupiter; doth it therefore follow that these were sabbaths that God required? Again, Plutarch saith of Theseus, that the Athenians offered to him their greatest sacrifices upon the eighth day of October, because of his arrival that day from Cret●; and they did keep the eighth day of every month because he was derived of Neptune: and therefore Philo the Jew puts this difference between Jews and Gentiles (viz.) that the Jews kept a day every week, but the Gentiles did but keep one in a month; by which it appears, that the seventh day of the week was not more honoured by the Heathen, than the ninth day of the week, or the eighth day of the month, on which they offered their greatest sacrifices. But lastly, If it were lawful thus to trifle, might not a man as well prove Sunday, or the first day of the week to be a sabbath, according to the light of Nature, because the Heathen worshipped the Sun, as any body can prove Saturday to be a sabbath, because the Heathen worshipped the Planet Saturn? but enough, if not more then enough of this vain reasoning. Argum. 13 The thirteenth Argument is taken from the morality and perfection of the number seven; that it is a perfect number, and therefore when the seventh day comes we must rest: for the proof of this notion, they cite Scriptures that magnify the number seven, as David's praying seven times a day, and Christ's casting seven Devils out of Mary Magdelene; and seven years of plenty, and seven years of famine in Egypt, amp; c. To all which I answer, that one would think these men had suffered 7 year's famine in a want of Arguments for their opinion of the seventh day, or else they would never catch at such things as these; but I remember Solomon faith, to the hungry every bitter thing is sweet; therefore if these men were not languishing for want of Arguments, they would never feed themselves with such vain arguings. For may not the Papists plead this Argument for their seven Sacraments, as well as these men can plead it for the seventh day sabbath? But secondly, Are not other numbers both in Nature, sacred and profane writings, as much set by as the number seven? as God made two lights, Gen. 1.16. and he made man two eyes, two feet, two hands, and two ears; so there was two tables of the Law, and two Nations in Rebecca's womb, and two Testaments; the like enum eration may be found of other numbers both in sacred and profane writing: but this kind of arguing is more like Cornelius Agrippa's Occulr Philosophy, than Christian Divinity. Argum. 14 The fourteenth, and last Argument is taken from the practice of the Church, the three first Centuries after Christ; whence they infer, that if the Christians so long after kept the seventh day, it is a sign that it was given them in charge by Christ. To this I answer, that the Christian Churches kept the feast of Easter 300 years after Christ, doth this follow therefore that Christ gave the keeping of Easter in charge to them? and that the Churches 300 years after Christ were zealous of Easter day, is very obvious to all that have any acquaintance with the stories of those times: see Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21.22, 23, 24. and herein were the Christians divided; the Eastern Churches kept it at the same time the Jews kept their , and, the West Churches kept it upon some Sunday following after: in like manner were they divided about the observations of their weekly days; the Ebionites (saith Eusebius) were a fort of Heretics that were zealous of the Law, and did own the Epistle to the Hebrews, but denied the Epistles of Paul, for that he spoke against the Law; those did keep the Jews seventh day with other Ceremonies of the Law, and celebrate the Sundays in remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, as other Christians do, lib 3. cap. 24. The like saith Epiphanius, lib. 1. Haeres. 3c. thus we see how the Christians were divided in their practice about the weekly and yearly observation of days, that we may as easily prove Christ left the feast of the Passeover in charge to the Christian world, as that he left the seventh day in charge, because as the one was practised, so was the other, for more than 300 years after Christ. Having answered the Arguments levied for the Jews Sabbath; I shall now urge reasons why the Jews Sabbath, or the seventh day Sabbath is not of force to be believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel, either by the Law of nature, Moses, 〈◊〉 Christ. Argum. 1 First, the Gentiles are not commanded by the Law of Nature, because nature doth never convince any of sin for not keeping the seventh day Sabbath, and yet it did convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the other nine Commandments: now had the Sabbath been a moral Law, or a Law in nature, then would nature as well have reproved her children for the profaning of it, as it hath reproved them for the breach of all the rest: and that nature hath reproved every man for the breach of all other laws, which are moral, appears, if we view Rom. 1.25. The Gentiles, who had not the law of Moses, broke the first Commandment, in that they worshipped the Creature MORE than 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 unlawful 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; showing that in the days 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 broke the tenth Commandment, in that they were guilty of covetousness, 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 custom hath spread itself among the Nations, etc. 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 senses, 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 shows 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 variation 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 shows 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, than 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 shown 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 expressly and particularly required of them by Christ or his Apostles, than 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 expressly 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, wherever 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, wherever sabbath is joined 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. Leu. 23.3, 4. Ezek. 45.17. and 2 Chron. 8.13. Thirdly, the sabbath day was called a sign 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 beggarly elements, among which the seventh day sabbath was accounted: see Gal. 4.9, 10, 11. Now the Jews days were their weekly Sabbaths, their months 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 booths or tabernacles; which were their times that they observed: Then they observed years, which shows 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 months and times, appears by the text, Leu. 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, months, times and years, and all these were weak and beggarly Rudiments, than it plainly appears that their seventh day sabbaths are weak and beggarly. This reason remains good, till some body shall show me that the seventh day sabbath was not included in these words, days, months, times and years. My last Reason why Christ never commánded the gentiles to ●●serve the seventh day sabbath, is because the Apostle gives a toleration to the Christians to keep every day, as they are persuaded 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 believing 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, etc. 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 show, 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 choose 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 enjoined 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 sanctity than another; doth it therefore follow, that Christians may abuse this liberty, and choose 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 choose 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 enjoined us how much or how little the Ministers of the Gospel should be allowed; doth it therefore follow, that we may choose 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 choose 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 enjoin men to worship, it doth also enjoin 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; showing that the light of Nature teacheth, That they which plant a vineyard ought to eat of the fruit thereof; and that they which plough, should blow in hope, to be partakers 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 ourselves together, as the manner of some is, Heb. 10.25. Now if we must frequent the Assemblies of God's people, than we must observe A time to worship, or else we cannot observe the duty that is here enjoined; for, if we may choose whether we will observe any time of worship (as the Objection vainly supposeth) than 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 shown that A time and place ought to be observed for God's worship; I shall in the last place show, that the first day of the week ought rather to be observed then any other day; and that, because the Churches of Christ have enjoined us to observe that time for public worship, therefore 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 than another; no more than he hath left any place of worship in charge, rather than another: and therefore the Church doth do nothing derogatory to the mind of Christ, in appointing a time of worship, no more than she doth in appointing a place of worship: and that Christ hath not left us a command to observe one day rather than another, appears by that forecited text Rom. 14. & therefore in all cases Christ hath given power to his Church to make laws, as appears, in that he hath given them power to appoint the place where the Church should assemble: would it not then be sinful for any small inconsiderable number of the Church to appoint another place to meet in, contrary to that which the whole church to which they are related have agreed to, and chosen to meet in? Even so in like manner will the Lord judge those men guilty of Schism that shall rend from the Churches to which they are related, for no other cause but that they may keep a day in opposition to that day appointed by the Church for the exercise of Religion. Now unless these men can prove by express text that Christ hath given us a command to observe the seventh day sabbath; how will they escape the sentence of refusing to hear the Church, and that other sentence of making divisions contrary to the Doctrine which they have received? For in this case I shall appeal to the Consciences of all those men that keep the seventh day sabbath, whether or no, if they should agree upon a certain place to worship god, in yet if after this agreement some few of the Church should at the same time in which their Church is assembled, refuse to come to them, and meet in another place, where they list themselves, would they not judge those men guilty of schism and disorder? now by what Law can they do it (since Christ hath appointed no particular place of meeting) but by the forementioned law, that the Church ought to be heard in all lawful thing, and therefore no private persons ought to contend against the Commands of the Church, when she commands nothing contrary to sound Doctrine? Now then, since a time to worship is to be observed, we remain bound in conscience to observe that day which the Church of Christ commands us to observe, which is the first day of the week, till any body can show us where Christ hath commanded another day: How then will those men excuse themselves from rending and tearing the body of Christ asunder, rent from the Churches whereunto they were formerly related, for no other reason, but for that the Church observeth the first day of the week, and refuseth to observe the Mosaical or Jewish seventh day sabbath? Let me therefore from what hath been said, beseeoh all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, to tender the peace of the Church, and prefer the peace and prosperity thereof above their chief joy; and rather let their tongue cleave to the roof of their mouth, and their right hand forget its cunning, rather than let their hearts forget the peace and prosperity of the Church, whom Christ hath purchased with his own blood; and let not these Disputations about a sabbath day, eat out of our memories the great sabbath of the Lord that is approaching, in which every one that keeps Faith and a good Conscience shall rest with Christ from all their Labouring and Sufferings in this World, as GOD did from his Labour when he made the World. Oh then! let us all labour and strive to enter into that rest into which Christ is entered; and let us take heed that while we are labouring to enter into that seventh day rest with the unbelieving Jews, that together with them we fall not into the same example of unbeleef, in denying Jesus Christ to be our only Lord and Saviour: into which unbeleef and disobedience many have stumbled and fallen in these days, who while they have been labouring to entangle others with the 〈◊〉 wish yoke of bondage, have fallen from the Grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus having with all sincerity and plainness, as in the sight of God, answered those Reasons that are alleged for the seventh day sabbath, and urged those Reasons why I am persuaded believers are not to observe it, together with my Reasons why I believe we ought to observe the first day of the week; I shall leave the whole to the blessing of Almighty God, desiring that what is here offered according to the mind of God, that God may have the glory; and whatever hath fallen from my tongue in disputing, or my pen in writing this controversy, that savours of the flesh or humane frailty, I hope the Father of mercies will pardon it, and so I hope will every Christian Reader into whose hands this shall fall: which is all that is desired from him, who is, Thy Friend in the Truth, JER. IVES. FINIS. ERRATA. Reader, SOme few Faults have escaped, which thou art desired to Correct with thy Pen. IN the Epistle, page 8 line 21. for aeman, read a man. Epist. pag. 11. l. 16. for wrandring r. wander. Epist p. 12. l. 10. for hold r. holding. In pag. 27. l. 8. for Jer. 35, 36. r. ver. 35, 36. in p. 28. l. 22. for two causes, r. two clauses. p. 63. l. 24. for poople, r. people. p. 78. line 12 for seventh-sabbath r. seventh-day sabbath. p. 81. for Commadments, r. Commandments. p. 90. l. 6. for no other, r. any other. p. 136. l. 1. for 156. r. 133.