BEing by the Providence of God, and the intreaty 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 my self, 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 methodized and put into Arguments by Mr. Ives, it is no more then 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 concernes 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 al­ledg'd against Mr. Tillam, and Dr. Chamberlain the two first dayes; 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 [Page 3]more profitable way to decide Controversies of this kinde, then 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:

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?

I demand first, what you mean by Law, se­condly, what you mean by Gentile. I pray explain these terms in your question.

VVhen I demand whether there be any Law, &c. my meaning is, VVhether 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, VVhether there be any Law that bind­eth the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day Sabbath.

To your question I answer, that the Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

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.

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.

If by stranger, you mean only the stranger that WAS within Israels Gates, then 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, then I deny the Minor, and say, All strangers ARE not commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

It might further be replyed, The stranger was commanded to be circumcised, Gen. 17.12. And he that is eight dayes old, shall be circumcised among you, every man-child 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.

The Commandment doth expound strangers, and saith not onely, Thou Jew, but, Thou Prose­lyte, thy son, and thy daughter, and the stranger that is within thy gates.

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 observeable, that though Israel was to restrain the strangers from labour, yet the strangers were no other then such as were circumcised within their gates, and under their Law; which is nothing to our purpose, who live in England, under the Go­spel.

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. VVhether all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

That all Christians are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

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 doe: 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.

I answer by distin, uishing of the Royal Law: for if by Royal Law you mean all the Ten Com­mandments, then I deny the Minor; otherwise I deny the Major.

By Royal Law, I mean the Ten Command­ments spoken of Exod. 20.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sir, you do not prove the thing denyed, 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.

Then I further argue: If every sin be a trans­gression of the Law, then 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.

This is but the same we had before, though differing in words & therefore I deny the Major.

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.

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.

If the breach of every one of the Ten Com­mandments be sin, then 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.

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.

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.

This Argument concludes not the terms de­nyed in the Syllogism; however, I shall deny thn 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.

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.

I answer, By distinguishing of the term HE, in the Major proposition: for if you do not mean every he, then I deny the Syllogism.

And if you do mean every he, or every one, then I deny the Minor, for these Reasons:

First, this text that you refer to in your Argu­ment, was written to the Twelve Tribes, Jam. [Page 11]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.

This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians, and therefore to every Christian.

I say as before, that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle; and if they were, yet these words, The Ten Com­mandments, which are in the Argument, are not in this Text; and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments, as understood by you in the Argument, must be concluded from hence, or you do not prove the thing denyed.

Lest you should equivocate about this word Law, the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table, and he doth not mention any part of the First Table: by which it appears, that by the Royal Law, he intends the Ten Commandments; unless you will say, that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law.

Therefore I [...]

He that is bound [...] keep the whole Law, is [Page 12]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.

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.

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.

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.

I further argue:

If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole: If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole: If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole: If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole; Then he is commanded to keep the whole.

But he that breaks one Commandments, is guilty of the whole.

Ergo, He is commanded to keep the whole.

It is observable, that the Doctor made three es­says to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing de­nyed, but could not bring them into perfect Syllo­gisms: at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie.

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: [Page 14]which was never denyed.

If you deny Scripture, I have done with you.

I do not deny the Scripture, but your Syllo­gism, which concludes not the thing in question, as I have shewn you once and again.

As it hath been answered, that S. James doth not write to Gentiles, and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments, by this word, The whole Law, and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sab­bath: so it may further be answered, that if those words, The whole Law, should respect the Law of Moses, then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law, they are bound to Circumcision also, and every other Ceremony of the Law: therefore there Apostle saith, Gal. 5.3. that if they were cir­cumcised, they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law. By which it appears, that the believing Gen­tiles that were not circumcised, were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law.

So that when St. James enjoyns the keeping of the whole Law, he tells us what Law he means, in Chap. 1. v. [...]. compared with Chap. 2. v. 12. where he call it the law of Liberty, by way of distin­ction from the law of Moses, which is called a yoke of Bondage, Gal. 4.3, 9. & Acts 15.10. which law of Liberty is called the law of Christ, Gal 6.2. and is no less then the Gospel that is preach­ed, which S. James bids them not to be forgetful [Page 15]hearers of, Jam. 1.25. but admonisheth them to look into the perfect law of liberty, and to continue therein.

So that the Doctor had no reason to say that the Scripture was denyed by his Respondent, because he denyed the Law that required the Seventh-day-Sabbath to be contained in the whole Law men­tioned by S. James. It seemeth then very strange, that in a free and publike Disputation, the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scri­ptures, because he denyed his sense thereof: which was all that the Doctor said unto this last Argu­ment. And the time of his Opponencie being end­ed, the Doctor was by Agreement to answer Mr. Ives his Arguments, which take as followeth.

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.

There is no such kinde of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian.

Sir, I will shew you such a kinde of creature, since you seem to be ignorant: therefore pray look into Acts 21.25. and you shall see that the Gentiles are called believing Gentiles; which is all one with Christian Gentiles.

And if we minde Acts 11.20. compared with vers. 26. we shall see in vers. 20. that the Gentiles believed, and turned to the Lord: and these were called Christians at Antioch, vers. 26. and yet the Doctor saith he never heard of any such creature in the world as a Gentile Christian.

I pray then say, Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath: and then I will deny the Minor.

I wonder Sir that you should quibble about terms, and trouble us so often to alter the terms in the Question: as first, for the term Gentiles, you afterwards alter, and will have it all Chri­stians; and now for Christian Gentile you would have it believing Gentile. Well Sir, be it so: I will then prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath; which is the Minor proposition denyed by you.

If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath, Then they are bound by the law of Nature, by the law of Moses, or the law of Christ.

But they are nor bound by the Law of Na­ture, the Law of Moses, or the Law of Christ, to keep the seventh-day-sabbath.

Ergo, Believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath.

Believing Gentiles are bound by the Law of Moses, which is all one with the Law of Christ: therefore prove your Minor.

If the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day-sabbath by the Law of Moses, then they are bound to keep it by the Law that was given to Israel.

But the believing Gentiles are not bound to it by the Law that was given to Israel.

Ergo, Believing Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day-sabbath.

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.

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.

I deny the Minor, and say, that Law was gi­ven to other Nations besides Israel.

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.

I do distinguish of giving the Law: there is a giving as a priviledge, and a giving by way [...] punishment. Now though it was not given to any Nation but Israel as a priviledge, yet it was given to other Nations by way of punishment to judge them by it.

I do confess it was given to no Nation as priviledge, according to what you say: and do say, that it was not given to any other Na­tion by way of punishment, but the Nation Israel: which I [...] prove:

If that Law that was given to Israel, had been given to any other Nation by way of jud [...] ­ment, 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 judgment to any Nation but Israel.

I deny the Minor, and say, that the Law of Israel was given to other Nations, to judge them by it.

If no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law, but those that lived under it, Then it was given to no Nation but Israel to be judged by it.

But no Nation shall be judged by it, but they that lived under it.

Ergo, it was given to no Nation but Israel, to be judged by it.

Here the Doctor urgeth the former distinction again, about giving by way of priviledge, and gi­ving by way of judgement: which is a vain distin­ction, because no Law doth judge any body but those that were bound to keep it, and by keeping of at, were capable to enjoy the priviledges of it.

Upon the former distinction, I deny the Minor.

I prove the Minor, viz. that no Nation shall be judged by Israels Law, that did not live un­der it, by the text, Rom. 2.12. As many as have sinned without the law, shall be judged without the law; and as many as have sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law.

That is true; and therefore I say other Na­tions lived under that Law of Israel, so as to be judged by it.

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.

There are Scripture-records that shew us that other Nations shall be judged by Israel's Law.

I pray then Sir assigne those Scripture-records.

I shall then assigne Rome 2.14, 15. with Rom. 3.19. In Rom 2. it is said the Gentiles should be judged, though they had [...] the Law.

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.

But it is said in Rom, 3. That whatsoever do [Page 21]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.

That's true: but how doth it follow that all the world are under the Jews Law, because by a Law God will finde them guilty? or how can this be proved to be Moses Law, since the text before cited by you, saith some were not under Moses Law?

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.

Here Sir you have given away your cause at once: for my business hath been to shew you, that the seventh-day-Sabbath is not required of believing Gentiles by Moses Law, because Moses Law was not given to the Gentiles; which is that I have been proving, and you have been denying: and now in the conclusion you say it matters not whether it were the Law given by Moses or no. So then I have proved the thing denyed all this while, by your own [Page 22]words, because you had your liberty to except against the enumeration of Laws, in the Syllo­gism, and you excepted against the Law of Mo­ses, saying, The Law of Nature, Moses and Christ were all one: so that if the seventh-day sab­bath be not required by Moses Law, it is not (by your own confession) required by the Law of Nature, or the Law of Christ: and that it is not required by Moses Law, I have proved, and shall prove further, by this Argument.

If believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the seventh-day sabbath by vertue of Moses Law, then they are commanded by that Law, Exod, 20.

But the believing Gentiles are not required by that Law, Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not required by Moses Law, to keep the seventh-day sab­bath.

Here Dr. Chamberlain forbears to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments, and thereupon Mr. Til­lam takes upon him the place of a Respondent, whose Answers follow.

For my part, I am against this Syllogistical way of Disputation, and I had though you and that Gentleman that stands by you Mean­ing Mr. Denn. had been against all Academical wayes and rules of Disputation also.

Truly Sir, we had more reason to think you should be FOR such a way of Disputation, then you had to think we were against it, because you pretend to make use of so much in your late book; however, See the Epistle. give me my liberty to argue this way, as I have given Doctor Chamberlain; and when it comes to your turn to oppose, take what way you will, so you prove the thing denyed, I pass not; in the mean time, answer my Argument.

I pray repeat it again.

The Argument is as before:

If believing Gentiles, by vertue of Moses Law, are commanded to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, then they are commanded by that Law, Exod. 20.

But believing Gentiles are not commanded by that Law, Exod. 20.

Ergo, the believing Gentiles are not com­manded by vertue of Moses Law, to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

The Gentiles were bound to keep the Law that was given by God to Israel, and particular­ly, that of the seventh-day Sabbath; and yet not by Exod. 20. ONELY, for they were com­manded in Exod, 16. also.

My Argument doth not say they were bound by the 20th of Exod. ONELY, but that if they are bound by Moses Law ( [...] you say they are) then they are bound by that Text Exod. 20, where the sabbath is required, among other Laws to be observed: [...] but that the same things might be required elsewhere: now if I prove this Text in Exod. 20. doth not command the believing Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath, then I have taken away the force of those Arguments you urge from thence, in the behalf of it.

Well then, I say the believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath by ver­tue of the Command Exod, 20.

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 [Page 25]that Law, Exod. 20. to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

Here Mr. Tillam refused to answer to the Ar­gument, because he would not be tyed to deny 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.

Well, because I would improve the time for Edification, though here I might break off, and forbear to argue, when my Respondent shall refuse to answer, yet be cause I am desired by some that stand by, I shall prove that that Law is not in force, which I thus do:

If that Law which commandeth the observa­tion of the seventh-day sabbath, Exod. 20. be in force unto believing Gentiles, then the punishment due to the Transgression of that Law, by the Law-Makers appoint­ment, is in force unto the believing Gen­tiles also.

But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law, by the Law-Makers appoint­ment, is not in force to the believing Gen­tiles.

Ergo, that Law Exod. 20. that commandeth the Observation of the seventh-day sabbath, is not in force to the believing Gentiles.

Here Mr. Tillam refuseth to answer, and there­fore one that stands by, denyeth the Minor, and prayes Mr. Ives to prove it.

I prove the Minor, viz. That the punishment that the Law-maker appointed to the breach of the Sabbath, required Exod. 20. is not in force.

If the punishment due to the transgrassion of that Law, Exod. 20. be in force to the be­lieving Gentiles, by the Law makers appoint­ment, then the Law-maker hath appointed some to other to inflict it.

But the Law-maker hath appointed none to inflict it.

Ergo, the punishment due to the transgression of that Law, Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles, by the Law-makers ap­pointment.

If we look into the Law of Moses, we shall find that whosoever did any work upon the Sabbath day, was to be put to death, Exod. 35.1, 2. and Exod. 31.14, 15. And when they had found a man breaking this Law, in gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day, they brought him to Noses and Aaron, and to as the Congregation, to see what should he done unto him, Num. 15.32, 33 34, 35, 36 and they put him in ward, for it was not yet declared what should be done unto him: then the Lord said unto Moses, Th [...] m [...]n sh [...] die the death, [...] all the mul­titude [...] him with [...]ones, without the ho [...], [Page 27] are we find a Law given to keep the Sabbath, [...]od. 20. a punishment assigned by the Law-maker 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, &c. Jer. 35 36. [...]w if the seventh day sabbath be in force by vertue of Moses Law, then it followeth, that the same punish­ment is in force, & the same Executioners are appoin­ [...]d, unless that any body can shew where God hath freed the transgressors from the penalty of it, or hath appointed any other punishment then what is appointed [...] the Law of Moses.

Because, Sir, you will not answer this Argu­ment, by denying either Major or Minor, I shall [...] on to prove that [...] which seems most doubtful, which is the Minor Proposition, (vz.) That the Law-maker hath not appointed any to inflict the punishment provided in Moses Law for the se­venth-day Sabbath breaking, upon believing Gen­tiles.

If the Law-maker hath appointed any to in­flict the punishment (which by Moses Law was to be inflicted noon Sabbath-breakers) it is either the civil Magistrate, or the Mini­sters of the Gospel, or the Multitude.

But the Law-maker hath not appointed any of these Ergo.

Under the Law, the Sabbath-breaker was to stoned to death by the MƲLTITƲDE: 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.

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 righteou [...] ­ness 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 fram [...] 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 Roya [...] Law, and that that law is the law of the ten Commandments, and so consequently requireth the keeping of a Sabbath day.

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, [Page 29]and argue in stead of answering. For it [...] evident that he waves the strength of my Ar­ [...]ments, and proposeth Arguments of his own, [...] to little purpose.

Surely this is true: for there is neither Argu­ment nor Answer in what Mr. Tillam last urged. [...] is no Answer: for he doth not so much as [...] any notice of Mr. Ives his Argument, one way [...] other. Again, there is no Argument that con­ [...]udes any thing in question, if those broken speeches [...] violating the rules of Disputation) may be [...] with the name of Arguments.

For first, there is not one word of the seventh-day [...] in the Argument he would seem to make [...] Mal. 4.2, 3, 4, no nor in the text it self.

2. There is not one word of believing Gentiles which are the subjects in the question) neither in be text nor the argument.

3. The promises and excouragements which are [...] to those that keep the Law of Moses, mention­ed in Mal. 4. are as well made to the keeping the ce­remonial as the moral part of Moses Law: for the text saith they were to keep that Law, with the sta­tures and judgements given in Horeb. Now if by this text the Sabbath be enjoyned, it is no otherwise enjoyned then as it was among other Statutes given in [...], of which the ornaments of the Priests was one. Exod. 29.9. and the burnt-offerings another, Lev. 3.17. both which are called perpetual sta­tutes, as any body may see that consults the texts.

4. If the Sabbath be required in this text, M [...] 4. where there is an exhortation to keep the Law [...] Moses, &c. it is required of none but [...]ews, w [...] are granted in the explanation of the Question [...] be under that Law, as appeareth vers. 4. Reme [...] ­ber YE the law of Moses which I commande [...] unto him in Horeb for ALL 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.

If God hath appointed the same punishme [...] to be inflicted upon the seventh-day [...]abbath [...] breaker in the times of the Gospel, as he di [...] ­appoint 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 hath [...] 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 [Page 31]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.

As for my Book, there is no such thing in it; if there is, it is the Printers Errata: and there­fore you that have a minde to know the truth thereof, together with other things therein con­tained, you may buy it at Livewel Chapmans in Popes-head-alley, or a [...] Mr. Eversdens at the Greyhound in Pauls Church-yard.

It is strange you should be ignorant of your own book; and as [...]rappe, that the Printer should erre so foully as to put an Argument of five or fix lines in your book, if it were not in the copie: and that it is in the book, I shall shew you.

Hereupon Mr. Ive [...] took Mr. Tillams book out of his pocket, and read these very words before all the people, viz. that Gods precept seconded by his practice gives such full honour to the Sab­bath, that I hear of none but Atheists, 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.

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.

Sir, that cannot be, because both Papistas and Prelates do acknowledge A Sabbath, or a time to worship; and further, you allude to the sab­bath that God commanded and seconded by his practise, which was (say you) the seventh-day; and thereupon tell your Reader, that you hear of none, save Athei [...]s, Papists, Prelares, Ranters, &c. that deny IT, meaning the se­venth-day sabbath; as any body may perceive that reads your Book: therefore Sir, I cannot but wonder that you should be so confident in your opinion, as thus to judge and censure those that are contrary minded, since you hereby re­fuse to answer my Argument, and to assign who the Law-maker hath appointed to execute the punishment which he hath assigned in the Law of Moses for sabbath-breaking; since you say, both that law and the punishment annexed to it, is in force to the beleeving Gentiles.

Well then, I will answer you, and I do say, that the great law-giver himself shall punish the breach of the seventh-day sabbath.

I demanded who the lawgiver hath appoint­ed [Page 33]under him to execute this punishment; for so runs the Argument (viz.) he hath appoint­ed some or other, &c. and you answer, He will do it himself: if this answer had been of value, you should have denyed the Major, which faith, if the punishment be in force, &c. then the Law-maker hath APPOINTED some or other to inflict it; here you might have de­nyed the Consequence, and have told us that the punishment might he in force, though mone were appointed, because the law-maker might do it himself; but this is not to the Que­stion, because the Question now is, Who the law-maker hath appointed, &c.

Well then, I shall answer further, That sometime the law-maker doth punish immedi­ately, and sometimes by his destroying An­gel, and sometimes by men; and they are properly men, who are Magistrates in his Con­gregation, in the Church, when he shall fulfil that prophesie, of restoring Counsellors, as at first; and Judges, as at the beginning.

It is observable, that though Mr. Tillam saith, The punishment is in force, yet he hath not as­signed who IS to inflict it, but in stead thereof, tells us, first, that God doth sometimes punish imme­diately: to this it may be replyed, that when he punisheth immediately, it is when those whom he hath appointed to punish do not do their duty.

Secondly, He tells us, that sometime God doth punish the transgressors of his Law, by his destroy­ing Angels: [...] which it may be answered, that this is most commonly when the Magistrates and Ministers of Justice do neglect to punish trans­gressors according as they ought: yet this hinders not, but all this while some are appointed to punish the seventh day Sabbath breakers, if it ought to be kept by the Law of Moses.

Thirdly, Mr. Tillam saith. God appointeth men to punish the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath; and these men (he saith) are Magistrates in the Church, &c. but withal he adds, that such Ma­gistrates shall be, when the Prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first, and Judges as at the be­ginning, shall be fulfilled: But doth not this very saying leave Mr. Ives his Question unanswered? For the Question is. Who God HATH appoin­ted, &c. and the Answer is, That there SHALL be Magistrates in the Church when the fore­mentioned Prophesie shall be fulfilled: but who then shall do it now, is the Question; because the Text cited by Mr. Tillam, that exhorts to re­member the Law of Moses, doth also call upon the same people, at the same time, to remember the Sta­tutes and JUDGMENTS; so that, if beleeving Gentiles ARE bound to observe the Law of Moses, they ARE bound to observe the JUDG­MENTS also.

So that Mr. Tillam may as well put off the obser­vation [Page 35]of the Statutes, as the observations of those Judgments God would have inflicted on the trans­gressors of his Statutes: and it will not serve his turn to wait till God restoreth such men: for the Law that commandeth the seventh day Sabbath of all the Congregation of Israel, doth command all the Congregation to stone the Sabbath-breakers to death, being lawfully convicted (before a Ma­gistrate) of the fact. So that if Moses Law that requireth the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath be in force to the Congregations of belee­ving Gentiles, as it was to the Congregations of cir­cumcised Jews, and the same punishment (as hath been argued) be in force to the one as well as the other, then by the same Law, the beleeving Congregati­ons among the Gentiles are bound (having convi­cted any among them of Sabbath-breaking) to stone such a man to death: now though such Congrega­tions that do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath by vertue of Moses Law, are not tyed thus to do; yet all of Mr. Tillams opinion, I mean, all such Con­gregations that hold themselves bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, I say, all such Congregations stand bound to stone that member to death, that shall be found to break it, having law­fully convicted him by two or three witnesses: nei­ther have they any other rule by that Law to put a­way such an evil, or such an evil doer from among them: and this would hold good in all respects, if God should at any time bring a Magistrate of the [Page 36]Commonwealth to be a member in Mr. Tillams Church: then by his own grant, if they shall convict a member for Sabbath-breaking before such a Ma­gistrate, then such a Magistrate by Moses Law ought to judge him guilty of death; and then it roundly followeth, that all Mr. Tillams Congrega­tion must stone that man with stones till he die, to put away the evil from among them.

Who then can be true to this seventh-day Sab­bath-keeping, principally as bound to it by Moses Law, but they must also submit their necks to such a yoke as this, which is not consistent with that Law of love and charity, which ought to be preferred a­mong Christians in the times of the Gospel?

Thus having given a faithful account of the Arguments and Answers urged by Dr. Chamber­lain and Mr. Tillam, and Mr. Ives the first day, I shall now proceed to the Arguments and Answers insisted on by both sides the next day, which was on Friday 7 of Jan. 1658.

The people being assembled, Mr. Ives re­peateth the Question, which take as follow­eth.

The Question agreed to be further disputed this day, is, Whether all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath; and I shall desire, that whoever shall speak this day to this question, either as Opponent or Respon­dent, may apply themselves to the right rules of Disputation.

As to the question stated, I do freely assent to the terms agreed on, and do say, that all be­lieving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: but as to your other Motion, viz. that we observe the Rules of Disputation, this I told you yesterday, and do tell you again, that such a way of Disputation is vain Philosophy, and the device of mans wisdom, and therefore I shall not be tied to any such Method.

Sir, I do not tie you to this or that way; on­ly I think you mis-apply Scriptures, when you bring them to prove that making Syllogisms is unlawful, when such forms of Arguing are fre­quently found in Scripture: however, Sir, give me leave to use it, till I am perswaded of the unlawfulness of it; and I shall give you your liberty to prove either by Syllogisms or by plain Texts, That all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

There is no plain Text, that in so many words proves the Proposition.

If there be no plain text to prove the Pro­position, then you must prove by consequence, which is upon the matter, the same with Syllo­gising; and therefore I wonder you should be so much against such a way of discourse.

I am not against Consequences or Inferen­ces from Scripture, though I am against disputing in Mood and Figure.

If you will not dispute by Mood and Figure, then I shall tie you to bring plain Texts for what you affirm.

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 Gods People and Ser­vants.

Sir, what proof you have, you may spare it, till we are agreed how to dispute: however, in the mean time, let me tell you, though you prove the people of God, and the servants of God, were required to keep the seventh-day sabbath, this will not reach our difference, because the Jewe were called both Gods servants and Peo­ple, whom we say were bound to keep it; but this doth not prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to it.

Well, if I make it appear by those or the like [Page 39]consequences, that believers in Gospel-times are to keep the seventh-day sabbath, I hope it will suffice.

I wonder that Mr. Tillam should be destitute of plain Scripture to prove his practise, especial­ly considering that he blames men in his Book, page 96. for setting up Ordinances by Conse­quences, and calls such a practise Philosophy, and vain deceits of men, whenas now himself hath no plain Text to prove his practise by.

I think God hath a designe to promote my poor Book; therefore, if any body have a desire to it, they may have it at Livewel Chapmans in Popes-head-Alley, or at Mr. Eversdens in Pauls Church-yard.

SIR, we met not here to procure Customers for your book, but to dispute; and therefore if you will prove your practise by plain Scripture, do; for since you have cried down all other wayes, both Syllogistical and consequential, I see no Reason, why you should not keep to your own Rule, prescribed by your self in your Book: however, that we may not spend time to no pur­pose, I shall be content, so you prove the propo­sition, take what way you will, provided that you prove either the Antecedent or the Conse­quence by plain Text.

Well then, I will proceed to prove, that all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the se­venth-day Sabbath: Thus:

If that it be the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, then it is the duty of eve­ry beleeving Gentile; but it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: Ergo, it is the duty of every beleeving Gentile to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

It is worthy observation, that though Mr. Til­lam had profaned the rules of Syllogistical Disputa­tion, and cried down all Consequential ways of pro­ving the lawfulness of any duty, yet he himself is forced at last to build up this Sanctuary, that he hath been pulling down, and hallow that way which he had before profaned, by making use of it to prove his practise, though he had before cried it down as profane.

Sir, you argue thus (viz.) If it be the duty of all to keep the seventh-day, then it is the duty of all beleeving Gentiles: But it is the duty of all men, &c. Ergo.

I deny the Minor (viz.) that it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

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 [Page 41]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 Latine Homo, which comprehendeth all men, and so doth Adam.

Mr. Tillam in his Book saith, God is plain, pag. 96. and wonders that people will bring Consequences in stead of plain Precepts; but it seems there is neither plain Precept nor plain Consequence to be found for his pra­ctise.

For first, there is neither a command to all men, much less to all beleevers in this Text.

Again, I do confute your sense of the word Adam out of your own Book, pag. 14. where it is objected, that ADAM being in honour, did not abide a night, Psal. 49.12. your An­swer is, that it is to be understood of such as the context mentions, that trust in their wealth, &c. Here then you have confuted your self, because somwhat may be said of Adam that doth not concern every man; therefore the Sabbath might be made for man, and yet not for every man.

Here Mr. Tillam did raise another Argument, [Page 42]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.

I confess, in the 49 Psalm the word Adam is restrained, but here in the 2 of Mark it is not.

Well, if it be restrained there, then is not your Argument good, (viz.) that whatever is said of man or ADAM, is said of every man.

Here Mr. Gosnold desired to speak a word or two touching the word [...] which was in question, and told Mr. Tillam, that [...] doth not sign fie every man, unless [...] be joyned with it.

To this Dr. Chamberlain replied, that none are excepted from the word [...], though [...] be not joyned.

But Mr. Tillam hath confessed some are ex­cepted, when he said, that [...] in Psalm 49. doth signifie only such men that trust in their wealth; and it is not yet shewn, that A­dam [Page 43]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 intend every man; as first, it is said, Gen 8.21. I will no more curse the ground for MANS sake, &c. whenas Noah and his Family were exempted from the curse. Again Deut. 5.2 [...]. 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 Mankinde.

This appears further, if we consider that saying in the 4th of Deut. and compare it with the 5th: in the 5th it is said, that when God did give them the Law, he spake with MAN, and he lived: that this was onely the Nation of Israel, Deut. 4.33. tells us plainly; Did ever people hear the voice of God out of the midst of the fire, as THOU hast heard, and lived? & ver. 35. Unto THEE it was shewed, &c. and ver. 36. Out of heaven He made THEE to hear His voice. So that Israels Law, in which the Sabbath was contained, was made for man, and yet not for every man.

Again, God saith, It is not good that man should be alone, Gen. 2.18. here the Lord made a [Page 44]woman for Adam: but would it not be ridiculo [...] to reason thus: Whatever the Lord made for Adam every man is bound to keep? would it not then for low, that Paul and all other men sin, that have [...] wives, because the woman was made for Adam? not this as good Logick as Mr. Tillams, who saith The Sabbath was made for man, and therefore eve­ry man is bound to keep it?

If that Text alleadged by you, Deut. 5. be understood of Adam, then you have over thrown your Argument yesterday, wherein you denyed the extent of the Law of Moses to all men.

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 where­ever any thing is spoken of or to MAN or HOMO, that it is to be understood of every man; then which nothing is more false, as I have already shewn.

As to what you objected from Gen. 8.21. I answer, that by Gods cursing the ground for MANS sake, it is to be understood of all men universally, because all men sinned in Adam.

[...] say again, that God did not curse the ground [...] the sin of Noah, but for the wickedness of that [...], and therefore Noah is excepted: when God [...] the ground was cursed for mans sake, he [...] of Noah, Thee have I sound upright in this [...]eneration; therefore you see that a thing may [...] done for MANS sake, when it is not done or the sake of every man. So the Sabbath [...]ight be made for man, and yet not for every individual man, as hath been already shewn once and again.

Noah was under the curse; being made a prisoner in the Ark; whereas otherwise he should have been free: and every man feels the curse of Adam upon him.

Again, to the Text, Deut. 5. when the Word saith, he spake to man, he means that he did not speak to children.

The question was not, Whether Noah did not in some measure suffer by reason of the Deluge; but whether this curse was for his sake? Good men may suffer in a common calamity, when the calamity may not be for their sakes, but for the sake of those wicked men among whom they dwell.

Again, How could it be a curse for Noah to be saved in the Ark? I confess this is such a Para­dox that the world never heard of before. And whereas it is said, God spake with man, Deut. 5. [Page 46] to signifie 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 shewed.

If the Gentiles that could not be Prosolyte [...] nor joyned to the Jewes, were bound to kee [...] the seventh-day Sabbath, then 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, &c. And let not the son of the stranger that is joyned to the Lord say, The Lord hath surely separated me, &c.

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 belee­vers in Gospel times, which is the thing you are to prove: and that this Text doth not relate to beleevers in Gospel times, there are these Rea­sons in the Text it self.

First, Because it respects the time in which Sacrifices and burnt-Offerings were to be offe­red, ver. 7. where God tells these men, who­ever they are, that if they do the thing that pleaseth him, that their Burnt-Offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon his Altar, &c.

Secondly, This saying in Esay doth not re­spect those strangers that should be Proselyted [...] the Christian Religion in the time of the Gospel, but such as were Proselyted to the Jews Religion in the time of the Law: for it is said, that even them, he (viz. God) will bring to to his holy mountain, and make them joyful in his house of prayer, ver. 7.

3. That this house of Prayer was not Christ's spiritual house, the Church of the New Testa­ment, appears by Christ's own words, Mat. 21.12, 13. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought, and overthrew the tables of the mony-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said to them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of theeves. So that it appears plainly by the words of Christ, that this house of which the Prophet speaketh, was the material temple, which they had made a house of merchandize by buying and selling in it, and not the spiritual House of Christ in the New testament.

I say the time spoken of in Esay 56. is the Go­spel-times, because in the first verse it speaks of a Salvation to come, and a Righteousness to be revealed: secondly, because it speaks of Eu­nuchs that were to be joyned to the Lord; which could not respect the times of the Law, because in the Law, Deut. 23.1. it is said, that an Eunuch shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord.

I answer, first by concession, that the time spo­ken of in the first verse is the Gospel-times; but the Text doth not say, they shall keep the sab­bath when those times come, but the Promises of the Benefits that should accrew to them by Christ as his coming, used as motives to stir up the people to do the things that were THEN required, as appears vers. 1. Thus saith the Lord, Keep judgement and DO justice, FOR my salvation is at hand, TO come; as if the Lord had said; You that do expect benefit by the salvation TO come, in the Gospel, must be very careful to do those things that are commanded in the Law.

And whereas it is said that this must needs respect Gospel-times, because the Eunuch is said to be admitted, which could not be under the Law; I answer, first, that after ten generations he might enter, though not before; and there was more then ten generations passed from Mo­ses [Page 49]to the time of this Prophet Esay; so that though the Eunuch could not enter at first, yet after ten generations, he might be admitted into the Jews Church.

Again, I have hinted that these could not be Gospel-times, because they that shall be thus ad­mitted shall offer Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings: to which you have not answered a word.

Furthermore, he doth not bid them keep the sabbath because salvation WAS come, but be­cause it was TO come; which shews, that those were duties to be observ'd before the coming of JESUS CHRIST.

Lastly, Mr. Tillam saith in his Argument, that they are the Sons of Strangers, and such Gen­tiles as could not be joyned to the Jews Reli­gion; but the Text saith the direct contrary, (viz.) That the Son of the stranger HAD joyned himself to the Lord, vers. 3. and let not the son of the stranger which IS joyned to the Lord, &c. and the strangers that cleave to the Lord, vers. 6. them will I bring to my holy mountain, &c.

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; [Page 50]but he that takes believers to be Priests, may take their Services to be Sacrifices: and this I the rather think, because the Text saith, When this salvation is come, then they shall keep the sabbath.

Mr. Tillam adds to this Text divers things, and the Scripture saith, Add not to his words, lest [...] reprove thee, and thou be found a lyar, Prov. 306. As first, he saith it is written, They SHALL keep the Sabbath, when this Salvation is come [...] whereas the text doth not say so, but bids them do justice, and keep the Sabbaths, because the sal­vation was neer to come, that by so doing they might be a people prepared for the Lord, accor­ding as John by his Ministry did prepare and make ready the people for the salvation [...] Christ, by perswading them to obedience. Se­condly, the Text saith of these strangers, as [...] have already shewn, that they WERE joyned to the Lord; and Mr. Tillam in his Argument saith they were not, and they could not be joyn­ed to the Lord.

Thirdly, Christ saith, (if you will believe him [...] that this house, in this 56 of Esay, is the mate­rial Temple, out of which he whipt those that bought and sold; and this he calls a house of pray­er, according as it was written by the Prophet: but Mr. Tillam saith, if you will believe him ra­ther then Christ, that this house of prayer is the Church of the new Testament.

So then, if by Christs interpretation the Pro­phet speaks of the material Temple, then the Altars and Sacrifices must needs be material Al­tars and material Scrifices.

Fourthly, I would demand of Mr. Tillam, wherever Gospel-services are called BURNT OFFERINGS: so that whereas he said, he would bring plain Text to prove his practise, he turns all plain Texts into Allegories; and is this to argue without a Consequence?

The strangers mentioned in the Text are the Sons of Adam; and the place unto which they shall be joyned, is Gods house, which they did not injoy at this time, but were separated.

Moabs People must have ten Generations in the full profession of religion, before they could be admitted; and so must these Eunuchs: again, the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple, which were Gentiles; which shews that this Text speaks not of any other time then the time of the Gospel.

Whereas it is said by Mr. Tillam, that the stran­gers mentioned in the Text are the sons of Adam, who ever denyed that? for whose Sons should they be else? uuless he will fall into the Fancy of some, that tell us of men before Adam.

And whereas he saith, the Eunuch was to be se­parated to ten Generations, as the Moabite was, this hath been answered once and again, and he takes no [Page 52]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 then ten Genera­tions from Moses, as hath been said.

And whereas it is said, the Jews would not ad­mit of Greeks into the Temple, and therefore not of these strangers:

The answer is easie: for though the Jews would not admit of Greeks, or strangers uncircumcised, yet they would have admitted of them, if they had joyned themselves to the Lord, by Circumcision.

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?

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.

It doth not follow, that all Nations should not, or could not so account of Gods house in Jerusalem, as to call it a house of Prayer, because [Page 53]that house could not contain them all. And se­condly, the text saith not that all Nations should be contained in it, but that all Nations should so call it: and that of all Nations it was so called, the Scripture saith, Act. 2.5. that there were at Jerusalem, devout men, out of every Nation under Heaven. And thirdly, I shall desire a­gain, that the text in Esay under debate, might be compared with Matthew 21.13, and 14. and then you will be able to judge, whether Christ or Mr. Tillam is the best expositor of the house of God spoken of in the 56 of Esay; which is all I shall say to this Argument: and if this text respects not the Beleevers in Gospel-times, as by what hath been said it doth not; then hath not Mr. Tillam proved his Argument, which was, that the Gentiles that could not be pro­selyted (which he understands for Christian Gentiles) were bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath: but I shall say no more.

Here Mr. Tillam left off being opponent, and Mr. Ives became Opponent, and Dr. Chamber­lain Respondent.

I am to prove, that all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath; and in order hereunto I have urged this Argument:

That if beleeving Gentiles are not bound, then all beleevers are not bound:

But beleeving Gentiles are not bound.

Ergo.

The Minor being denied, I proved it by this enumeration (viz.) If all beleeving Gen­tiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sab­bath, they are bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ: but all beleeving Gentiles are not bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ, to keep the seventh-day sabbath: Ergo, All beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sab­bath.

It was answered yesterday, that beleeving Gentiles were bound by the Law of Moses to keep the seventh-day sabbath; some Arguments were then urged, to prove that beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath; the last of which Ar­guments did relate to the 20 of Exodus; which I thus framed, and do again urge it, that it may be answered.

If that Law Exod. 20, which requireth the observation of the seventh-day sabbath, be in force to the beleeving Gentiles, then the pu­nishment due to the trasgression of that Law, by the Law-makers appointment is in force to the beleeving Gentiles also.

But the punishment due to the transgression of that Law Exod. 20. by the Law-makers ap­pointment is not in force to the beleeving Gentiles.

Ergo, That Law Exod. 20. that requireth [Page 55]the observation of the seventh-day sabbath, is [...]ot in force to beleeving Gentiles.

As to the Law of Nature, Moses, and Christ, [...] do not think there is so many Law-givers, as [...] have so many distinctions; but I do own [...] 20 of Exodus for a binding Law, because [...] Saviour saith, Mat. 5. I am not come to destroy [...] Law, &c. Now then, If not one jor or tittle [...] the Law shall fail, then not the sabbath; and consequentially not the punishment annexed [...]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 [...]ithout 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.

The Dr. should have directed his answer to my Argument, by assigning a punishment ap­pointed by the Law-maker to be inflicted upon beleeving Gentiles for not keeping the seventh-day sabbath; but in stead thereof, he confessth that the Law is of no force without a punish­ment: well then, by his own confession, if there be no punishment to be inflicted upon the beleeving Gentiles, then the Law that commands (if any such there be) hath lost its [Page 56]force and vigor: and that the punishment is not in force; I prove by this Argument: If the punishment due to the breach of the seventh-day sabbath, required Exod. 20. be in force by the Law-makers appointment to beleeving Gentiles, then the Law-maker hath appointed some or other to inflict it; but he hath appoint­ed none to inflict it. Ergo.

I shall find out a better answerer then my self, and that is the Apostle Paul, Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.13. 1 Pet. 4.15. in which text, an evil doer is the general word; and all evil doing is punishable by the Magistrates; these are Sermons preached by Paul and Peter.

My Argument was, If the punishment in the LAW be in force, then God hath appointed some or other to inflict it; and if he hath, I desired the Doctor to assign who God had appointed to inflict that punishment upon beleeving Gentiles, which was appointed in the Law for seventh-day sabbath breakers; and in stead thereof, he cites several texts, which we well knew before, none of which requireth the Magistrate to punish the beleeving Gentiles with death, for not observing the seventh-day Sab­bath: For first, here is no mention made of the Sabbath, nor of the punishment what it should be.

Secondly, If by the Magistrates punishing all evil, must be meant all the evils against the first Table, as well as the Second, then the Magistrate may and must determine all Doctri­nal truths, and punish such as shall err from his determination: which the Dr. will not allow.

Thirdly, the Dr. hath at one blow given away the Cause which the good people of this land have contended for in blood for this many yeers. Which is, that they might have li­berty to worship God according to their Conscien­ces, and that the Magistrate may not be a judg in Spirituals, to punish with death or imprisonment all that differ from him in matters of faith or worship.

And lastly, It is a begging the Question, to take it for granted, that Sabbath-breaking (I mean the seventh-day Sabbath-breaking) is an evil, before it be proved to be so.

I shall own, and have printed, that Magistrates are allowed of God to punish the duties of the first and second Table; only with this caution, that he is not to apply Legal punishments to Gospel sins, nor Gospel punishments to Legal sins; and this I have proved out of the evidences of Peter and Paul; so that as the Magistrate is to punish all outward Idolatry, Swearing and Blasphemy, so also the Sabbath, but not that which is of mans invention; but the se­venth-day [Page 58]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.

I have offered, that if the Magistrate be to punish all Idolatry by Gods appointment, and also the breach of the seventh-day sabbath, then he must also judg what is Idolatry, and what is Sabbath-breaking; and if so, the Dr. may not be long before he be convicted. For Idolatry is not only worshipping false Gods, but the true God in a salfe manner.

But secondly, Idolatry was in the Law pu­nishable with death, and the sabbath-breaker was to be stoned to death. Now if the Law of Moses be in force, and the punishment thereof in force against those that keep not Sa­turday-sabbath, and (as you have said) the Civil Magistrate is to inflict it, then (according to your opinion) the Reason why we live, is, because of the wickedness of the Civil Magi­strate; for if the Civil Magistrate did but that which you call his duty, we should all of us by your Opinion be stoned to death before to morrow morning, that do not keep the Sa­turday-Sabbath.

Where then is our Christian Liberty? for by the Law of Moses I must be put to death for not keep­ing the Jews Sabbath (if this opinion be true) though [...] conscience I am perswaded that it is a weak and [...]ggerly Element, unto which I ought not to be in [...]ndage: and yet so indulgent are men to their opi­ [...]ons, that having once espoused them, they will main­ [...]in 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 [...] Doctors opinion; and hold that the seventh-day [...]abbath required in the Law, ought 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 perswaded to [...] this seventh-day Sabbath; another Ma­ [...]state, otherwise minded, may put men of the Doctors [...]inion to death, because they do not keep the first day [...]abbath, which he holds himself, in conscience bound [...] see as strictly kept, as the other doth his Saturday- Sabbath.

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 [Page 60]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.

If the Magistrate must punish all evil (accor­ding to your sence of that text) then he must punish spiritual as well as corporeal Idolatry, when the Offendor shall be convicted of it; and he must punish it according to his Judgement and Conscience: so that if it be the Magistrates Duty to take away the lives of their Subjects for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath, it fol­lows roundly, that the reason why we live, is be­cause of the wickedness of the civil Magistrate, a wickedness (if the Doctors opinion be true) for which both Magistrates and People should die without mercy, if once a Magistrate should be set up, that is of the Doctors perswasion.

But the main stress of my Argument lyeth in this, That God never appointed the Gentile-Magistrates, to execute the punishment which he in the Law did command should be inflicted up­on those that broke the seventh-day sabbath, re­quired in Exod. 20. and to this the Doctor hath given no answer, save that the Magistrate is to punish all evil, &c. but he hath not shewn us that seventh-day sabbath-breaking is an evil, nor that the Magistrate is to punish it according to Moses Law, if it were an evil; which are the [Page 61]two main things that have been objected, to which he hath given no kinde of Answer, though they have been urged to him, once and again.

But instead of answering, tells us, that none should be afraid of the text, (I suppose he means the texts in the Law, that threaten the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath with death) his reason is, because he that is in Christ, is above the Law, and [...] was not made for him; for he that is in Christ cannot sin, &c. If this be true, that those that are in Christ are above the Law, and that the Law was not made for them, I wonder why the Doctor should keep such a stir to engage believers to observe the Law, and the seventh-day Sabbath, which he calls a part of the Law. And if they that are in Christ (as he saith) cannot sin, then it follows, that either none are in Christ but those that keep the Jewish Sab­bath, or if they may be in Christ that do not keep it, then it is no Sin not to observe it, since (if the Dr. saith true) they that are in Christ cannot sin: so that one absurd opinion is the cause of many; for is it not absurd to say, that those that are in Christ cannot sin, and afterwards charge believers in Christ with [...], for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath?

Mr. Ives hath been calling upon me to assigne who God hath appointed to execute the punish­ment, which by Moses Law was due to the se­venth-day sabbath-breakers; I further answer, That if the Magistrate must punish the breach of [Page 62]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 Gods Ministers.

To some of the forementioned passages answer hath been made, in that Mr. Ives hath told the Dr. that his urging the text (that saith, the Magistrate is to punish all evil) is impertinent, till he hath proved the seventh-day sabbath breaking an e­vil; and if that could be done, yet this text doth not prove that the Magistrate is bound to punish it by stoning the offender to death, which Dr. Cham­berlain saith, is a punishment yet in force to the beleeving Gentiles. And whereas Mr. Ives desired the Dr. to assign who should judge, he most impertinently cites 1 Cor. 6.4. and tells us, that the weakest in the Church should be chosen Judges. Well then, if the weakest should be chosen Judges, &c. I demand, Whether they should be chosen out of that Church whereof Dr. Chamber­lain [Page 63] is a member, or out of a Church that is not of his minde about the seventh-day sabbath? If out the Church that are of his minde, and whereof he is a member, then we are all to be stoned to death without mercy, or to keep his seventh-day sabbath, though it be never so much against our Consciences; but it shall ever be a part of my Letany, From such Magistrates and Ministers of Justice, Good Lord deliver us.

But if they should be chosen out of a Church that is not of the Doctors mind about the seventh-day Sabbath, then it cannot reasonably be imagined that such Magistrates would put that Law in execution that saith the seventh-day Sabbath-breaker shall be 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 cites it, which is to shew whom God hath ap­pointed to execute the punishment the Law of Moses hath assigned for Sabbath-breakers, they will see that the Doctor hath manifested so much weakness, that if weakness were a fit qualification for a Judge, (as he saith it is) he hath bespoke himself worthy of a Judges place before all the Poople: for if the weakest are to be chose Judges, I know not where we should meet with a fitter man then the Doctor, who hath so unfitly apply'd the Apostles words to the case in hand.

Here the Doctor leaves off, and Mr. Tillam un­dertakes to answer to Mr. Ives his insuing Argu­ments.

I am now to proceed to another Argumn [...] to prove that believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day Sabbath.

VVhich I thus do:

If believing Gentiles are bound to keep th [...] seventh-day sabbath, then they are bound by that text Jam. 2. where (you say) the whole Law is required to be kept.

But the believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath, by that te [...] Jam. 2. where (you say) the whole Law is required, &c.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

The reason of Mr. Ives his urging this 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, &c.

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 [Page 65]upon the Jewes, I shall further add.

If believing Gentiles are bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, then it is because they are required to keep the WHOLE Law.

But believing Gentiles are not required to keep the VVHOLE Law.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not bound by that text Jam. 2. to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

Mr. Tillam refusing to answer, Mr. Ives pro­ceedeth to the proof of the Minor, (viz.) That be­lieving Gentiles are not required by that text Jam. 2. to keep the whole Law.

If. believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE LAW, then they are not bound by this text Jam. 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law.

But the believing Gentiles are not indebted to the VVHOLE Law.

Ergo, the believing Gentiles are not bound by this text, James 2. to keep the VVHOLE Law.

The Minor I prove thus:

If believing Gentiles are of the Uncircum­cision, then they are not indebted to the WHOLE Law: but believing Gentiles are of the Uncircumcision.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not indebted to the WHOLE Law.

The Major I prove thus:

If Circumcision makes the beleeving Gen­tiles debters to the whole Law; then it follows, that if beleeving Gentiles be uncircumcised, they are not indebted to the whole Law: But Circumcision makes the beleeving Gentiles debtors to the whole Law. Ergo, if beleeving Gentiles are uncircumcised, they are not deb­tors to the whole Law.

Here Mr. Tillam begins to reply.

If beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of James his Epistle, then to this also: But Mr. Ives himself confesseth beleeving Gentiles are bound to other parts of this Epi­stle, as that of anointing with oyl and prayer, &c.

Secondly, I demand, Whether Mr. Ives doth not obey the Lord Jesus Christ by that which is mentioned in one single text; for so he doth (as I am informed) by acknowledg­ing the practise of anointing with oyl, which is mentioned in no other text then in the Epistle of James.

Either then let Mr. Ives disclaim that Ordinance of anointing with oyl (which I hope he will have more Grace and godliness then so to do) or else acknowledge this of James 2. to be of the same force, according to Rom. 10, 11, 12.

Sir, You argue in stead of answering, which is not fair; however, let me tell you, that it doth not follow, that all an Epistle doth belong to the Gentiles, because some doth; and there is no great difficulty to make this appear: for, may not a Prophet speak against extortion, and against unmercifulness to poor brethren, which is every bodies duty to fly from, and a saying that belongs to all; yet may not the same Pro­phet exhort to burnt-offerings and sacrifices, a duty that did belong but to some, & not to all? So that it followeth not that a man should dis­claim those things that are his duty in such and such a Prophesie, because there is mention made of things that are not his duty.

May not a man as well say, that Mr. Tillam must own all the Ceremonies of Moses Law, which I hope he hath more Grace, then so to do, because he owns a part of it (viz.) the seventh-day sabbath, and the punishment thereunto annexed? I speak not this in favour to the disowning of any part of James is Epistle, or any other part of sacred writing, but to shew you how irrationally Mr. Tillam argueth: for is it not the same, You own a part of James his Epistle (viz.) that of anointing with oyl to be­long to beleeving Gentiles: Ergo, You must own all the rest? In like manner Mr. Tillam owns a part of Moses Law (viz.) that of the seventh-day Sabbath: Ergo, Mr. Tillam must own all [Page 68]Moses Law, and all the Ceremonies therein con­tained.

So likewise James in this Epistle, as Paul in some others, might speak some things that more properly relate to Jews, and other some things that relate more generally both to Jews and Gentiles.

Again, I have proved, that none but those that are circumcised were bound to keep the WHOLE LAW. Gal. 5.3. in that universal sence in which Mr. Tillam accepts this word the WHOLE Law, so as to include the seventh-day Sabbath; and this is not my opinion only, but the opinion of the modern Jews, which say, that whosoever will keep their Sabbath, must first be circumcised.

There is no difference between Jew and Greek, 1 Cor. 12.12. Rom. 10.11, 12. and if Mr. Ives will exclude one part of James his Epistle from relating to beleeving Gentiles, he must exclude it all.

Again, Both Jews and Gentiles are to walk by one Law, and have but one Law-giver that is able to save and destroy.

Again, I say, that information of the modern Jews is false; and though they have told us, that from the middle upward we are Jews, yet from the middle downward we are Gentiles; but the other saying I do not remember.

Whereas he saith, beleeving Gentiles are bound to the whole Law mentioned in James 2. I add, that James himself being a Jew, and writing to the twelve Tribes among which there were some beleevers, and very many unbeleevers, as appears by the complaint he makes of the pride, and oppression, and unruly talking that was among them; now from that Law, that these unrighteous Jews pretended to live by, and to be justified by, the Apostle goeth about to convince them, by telling them, that whosoever should pretend to the whole Law, and yet err in one point, he is guilty of all; as much as if he should say, If you will be keepers of the Law, you must keep it perfectly, or you do nothing: I would fain know, how such an interpretation (supposing it to be a false gloss upon the text) should incur the censure of denying the whole of James his Epistle to be of any use to belee­ving Gentiles.

And although there be no difference be­tween the Jew and Gentile in point of justifi­cation and Gospel-priviledges, in as much as the Jew cannot be justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ, even as the Gentiles are; yet the Gentiles are not bound to observe all edicts that were at that time imposed upon the Jews. And lest this seem strange, I pray consider Acts 21.23, 24, 25. where it is observable, that a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders be­ing [Page 70]met at Jerusalem, did injoyn Paul to ob­serve somethings which at no hand they would have the Gentiles to observe, but gave them a solemn charge to the contrary; for in the 23, and 24 verses, the Assembly of Apostles and Elders do enjoyn Paul, saying, DOE this that WE say to thee: we have four men which have a vow upon them, them take, and purifie thy self with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads, and ALL may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thy self walkest orderly and keepest the Law. But as touching the GEN­TILES which beleeve, we have written and con­cluded, that THEY observe NO SUCH thing, &c. Here we see a holy convocation of Apo­stles and Elders, guided by the Spirit of truth, do require that of Paul being a Jew, that they expresly command the Gentile. beleevers not to observe. Would it not be ridiculous then for a man to say, that I must either observe all the Apo­stles injunctions to the Jews; or else, that I must reject all the injunctions of the Apostles, even those that concern the Gentiles? for after this rate Mr. Tillam reasons (viz.) that I must either ob­serve all James his Epistle, or none at all, because (saith he) there is no difference between Jew and Greek. Now then, by this place in the 21 of the Acts you see there was some difference by order from the Apostles in point of observation, but no difference in [Page 71]point of justification, which is the scope of the Apostle in that text cited by Mr. Tillam, Rom. 10.11, 12. There is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all, is RICH unto all that call upon him: so that the Argument remains unanswered: for all that Mr. Tillam hath said, because the Scripture saith plainly that the uncircumcised Gentiles were not bound to keep the whole Law, therefore from those words the WHOLE LAVV, the seventh-day sabbath cannot reasonably be inferred. Neither let any one think to relieve himself by the help of this distinction (viz.) that though beleevers are not to keep the whole Law, as it contains Morals and Cere­monials, yet they are bound to observe the whole Law as it contains morals only: for first, the Law of Mo­ses makes no such distinctions as a whole, and a whole Law; neither doth the Scriptures of the New Testament make any such distinction; for when it speaks of the VVHOLE Law with reference to the Law of Moses, it always includes both Moral, Ce­remonial, and Judicial Laws, which are all but seve­ral parts of the Israelites VVHOLE Law. But secondly, Suppose we should allow the distressed the help of this distinction (viz.) that sometime Moses Law is called the WHOLE LAW, with refe­rence to the moral part of it only; as suppose it so in this 2 of James now under debate, doth it therefore follow that the seventh-day sabbath is part of the mo­ral Law? is not the imagination of such a conceipt as [Page 72]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, then the Controversi [...] were at an end; for doubtless, all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law.

Whereas you say, somewhat was injoyned upon the Jews that was not upon the Gentiles; I question if this was not the Apostles weak­ness, for they were subject to like passion.

For at another time a less matter then this (mentioned by you Act 21.) was counted hy­pocrisie. Secondly, James is speaking of the Royal Law, but this example of yours, relates to the Law of Ceremonies. Thirdly, if this Epistle of James were written to believing Jews, then there is one Law for the believing Jews, and another for the believing Gentiles; and if so, believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, and believing Gen­tiles are not: and how can this be without con­fusion?

I answer to the last first, that then your book is full of Confusion; for in your book you allow­ed both dayes to be observed, to wit, the se­venth day and the first day.

And secondly, the Scripture is full of confusion, [Page 73]if you say true; for the Scripture tells us of the Jews observation of the seventh day, and the Gentiles of the first day.

But secondly, it followeth not that the be­lieving Jews are bound by my confession to keep the seventh-day sabbath, seeing that your term whole Law, mentioned in James 2. doth not prove the Sabbath to be there intended, any more then it proves circumcision or any other Jewish ceremony.

Thirdly, when I cite a text to shew that the Apostles being guided by Gods holy Spirit, did order Paul (being a Jew) to observe some things which they strictly commanded the Gentiles not to observe, Mr. Tillam answers, That this was the Apostles weakness; by which it appears, that rather then Mr. Tillam will be accounted weak, he will brand the Apostle Paul, and the whole Council of Apostles and Elders, assem­bled at Jerusalem, with the Holy Ghost, with weakness: but it is more likely that Mr. Tillam should be weak, then Paul and all that Assem­bly, among whom the Holy Ghost was present, in so solemn a Judgment.

And whereas Mr. Tillam tells us, that Peter played the hypocrite, Gal. 2.13. in that he compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews; I answer, that this is nothing to our purpose: First, because the text cited by me, Act. 21. onely speaks of Jews that were advised to live as Jews, and of Gentiles that were [Page 74]forbidden so to live, vers. 25. but the text in Gal. 2. speakes of Gentiles that Peter did compel to live as do the Jews, which is clearly another thing: Now then, if this text cited by Mr. Tillam, Gal. 2. in which it is said Peter was to blame for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews; I say, if this text serves any thing to the present controversie, it is to shew that Mr. Tillam playes the hypocrite, in that he being (as he calls himself) a Minister of the Gen­tiles, doth command the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, in keeping the Saturday for a Sabbath.

And lastly, the second of the Galatians blames Peter sharply for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, but there is none but Mr. Tillam, that [...] ever heard of, that ever presumed to blame, not only Paul in what he did, Act. 21. but also the whole As­sembly of Apostles, in which the holy GHOST was present; a piece of such great presumption, that scarce can be parallel'd in any story.

And whereas he saith the instance Acts 21. is of the Ceremonial Law, and not of the Royal Law; I answer, that all GOD's Laws are Royal: but se­condly, though the instance in Act. 21. be of a Cere­monial Law, yet it is sufficient to shew, that since the whole Law doth comprehend both Morals and Ce­remonials, that believing Gentiles, who are not cir­cumcised, are not bound to keep the while, since they are excused from observing the Ceremonial part of it, by this text Act. 21.

And whereas Mr. Tillam saith, that, if the E­pistle [Page 75]of James were writ to believing Jews, then here would be one Law for the believing Jews, & [...]nother for the beleeving Gentiles. To this I answer, [...]hat it doth not follow, that because this Epistle was [...]riten 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, &c. which were Jews.

And lastly it hath already been shewn, that some [...]hings were injoyned upon Paul, that was a Jew, which ought not to be injoyned upon the beleeving Gentiles.

Whereas Mr. Ives chargeth my Book for allowing that which I now call confusion: I answer, that I confess when I was first perswaded of the seventh-day sabbath, I did also acknow­ledge the first day of the week, but it was upon the reason of antiquity, for as much as the se­venth-day and the first day were both observed in the first three hundred yeers: but when I observed the same contention about Easter-day, I was convinced, and I do now beleeve, that the first day of the week is in common with all o­ther days: and whereas Mr. Ives saith, the A­postles preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath days, and in the Christian assemblies on the first-days of the week; I do say, that that they never met in any Christian assemblies [Page 76]upon the first day of the week; and Mr. Tina [...] calleth the first day of the week the sabbath Act. 20.7.

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 [...] ­fairs then stood, and as your self have confesse that both the Sabbath-day, and the Lords-da [...] 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 Controversie, 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 spake this, to shew what Christians may do in point of condescention to one another, and also to shew, that if meeting on both days was a practise (which you say is full of confusion) that then your Book was not empty of confusion, in allowing both the one [Page 77]and the other, though you now deny it.

It is a great confusion for one part of an [...]ssembly to meet upon one day, and another [...]rt to meet upon another; and if any of our [...]iends 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.

I still think I have reason for my opinion, viz.) that those that do pretend to keep the [...]eventh-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 beleeving Gentiles are not com­manded to keep the seventh-day sabbath: which I thus do.

If the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel, and such as were proselyted to their Religion, then all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to observe it:

But the seventh-day sabbath was a Law to none but Israel, and such as were proselyted to their Religion, Ergo.

The Minor I thus prove.

That Law which was given as a sign between God and Israel, was a Law to none but Israel: [Page 78]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.

To the sabbaths being a sign, I answer, that it is either of things past, or of things present, or of things to come; if of things past, then it is a sign of the Creation of the world, or else it is a sign of his sanctifying presence, which I have found in this observation: but that the seventh-sabbath is a sign of good things to come, I utterly deny.

Again, If the sabbath was a sign, so were all the Commandments; and therefore its being a sign doth not make it void, any more then the rest of the Commandments, which are also cal­led signs.

Whereas Mr. Tillam saith the Sabbath was a sign of the Creation, I say it was not; for though Heaven and Earth be exprest in the command of the sabbath, yet the sabbath is no where said to be given them for a sign that God made Heaven and Earth; for though God's resting the seventh-day be a reason why Israel should rest, yet this rest is no where called a sign of the Creation.

But there is more reason to beleeve from the text, that it was one of the signs of the Covenant that God [Page 79]in a special manner had made with that people: See Exod. 31, 16, 17. Eze. 20.12.

But further, is it not more rational to beleeve that the six days should be a sign of Gods creating Heaven and Earth, then the seventh day on which he did not work? which at the most can but signifie to us, that then, or on that time, God rested from all his work. But whoever considers of the signes that God gave to Israel, shall find, that they were given them to distinguish that people from all people in the world; and therefore Mr. Ainsworth observes upon Exod. 13.9. The Jews (saith he) used on other dayes to wear their Phylacteries on their arms, or foreheads, for a Sign or a Token to them, as the Lord com­manded, but they laid them by upon the sabbath, because (say they) the sabbath it self is a signe: And therefore Josephus calls it, A Law peculiar to that People, De bello lib. 2. cap. 16. And to this agrees the saying of Nehemiah, Chap 9.13. Thou camest down upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them, [the house of Israel] and madest known to them thy Holy Sabbath.

Again, whereas Mr. Tillam saith, that the whole Law of the Ten Commandments was a Signe, and therefore we may as well lay aside all, upon the account of their being a Sign, as any one: to this I answer:

That it is not said of the Ten Commandments onely, but of all the Law, as well Ceremonies [Page 80]as Morals, that it should be as a signe upon their hand, it doth not therefore follow that these were all to continue.

But farther: It is no where said of all the Law, that it is a signe between God and Is­ral, but rather a signe to distinguish them from all other people.

But lastly, if the whole Law of Moses were as a signe between God and Israel (as Mr. Tillam supposeth) then I answer, that as it was in the hand of Moses, it was a Law binding to none but Israel, and such as were proselyted there­unto; neither was it given as a sign to any other Nation.

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.

That about a sign hath been answered alrea­dy, and I wonder you should delight your self with needless repetitions: but however, take a word or two in further answer, (viz.) That Gods resting the seventh-day is urged by Mo­ses as the Reason of the Law that injoyns Israel to keep the seventh-day, and not as a Reason of the sign: so that though Gods resting is urged [Page 81]as the Reason of the duty, it doth not therefore follow, that it is the Reason of the sign: but as I have said before, I shall say again, that if all the Commandments were signs between God and Israel, as they were delivered to Moses up­on the mount, it doth not prove that they were signes between God and any other Na­tion.

And as to your Objection, That if the Com­madments were signs, they must either be be­tween God and Israel, or else between them and the Devil: But how doth this appear? might not it be a sign between Israel and all the Nations of the Earth, to signifie their special favour with God above other people; and doth not the text say, the Law should be as frontlets between their eyes, &c. plainly shewing, that God would distinguish this People by their Laws and Priviledges from all other people; and that by their Sabbaths and Cir­cumcision, and other Judaical observations they should be known to all people that did converse with them, to be highly in favour with God.

And lastly, Their Laws, some of them, were called signs, because they did signifie somthing to come, and so did their Sabbath; therefore the A­postle calls it a shadow, Col. 2.17. But I never heard that their Laws were signs between them and the Devil.

If the Creation of the world be a reason why [Page 82]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.

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 Swines flesh, nor the Co­ny, 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.

I answer, that God hath given a toleration to eat such things, and therefore now it is not a sin.

Then I have shewn 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.

That which I have been doing hitherto, hath been to shew that Moses Law doth not injoyn [...]he beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath; I shall now give an Argument from [...]he Law of Nature, and prove, that we are not [...]equired by that Law, to keep the seventh-day [...]abbath; which I thus do:

That which the Law of Nature bindes the Gentiles to observe, it convinceth them of sin if they do not observe:

But the Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath.

Ergo, The Law of Nature doth not bind the Gentiles to observe the 7th-day sabbath.

Here Mr. Tillam was desired to Object against the Argument proposed; but he refusing, another that stands by, craves of Mr. Ives the proof of the Minor: hereupon he proceeded.

The Minor I prove thus:

If the Law of Nature doth convince the Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day [Page 84]sabbath, then it is manifest either in God word, right Reason, or manifest expe­rience, that they have had such convictions:

But neither Gods word, right Reason, or ma­nifest experience doth manifest any such con­viction:

Ergo, The Law of Nature doth not convince the Gentiles of sin, for not observing the se­venth day sabbath.

This Minor Proposition being that which is denied, I shall therefore, because it is negative resolve it into the answer of my respondent, [...] desiring him to assign an instance, either in God word, right Reason, or manifest experience, th [...] ever any Gentile was convinced of sin by the Law of Nature for not observing the seventh-day sabbath.

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.

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 [Page 85]the world of sin, and yet we all know the world is not convinced of sin, so as publickly to repent and return.

Shall I then be so barbarous as to say, that there is not a Law convincing, because men are not actually convinced of their Idolatry? for doubtless, the most ignorant Papists have a Law, and the Spirit of God convincing them of sin, though actually they are not convinced.

However, it is manifest that the light of Nature hath at some time or other so prevailed upon some of her children, as that to a great degree they have been convinced of all Moral duties; but to this of the seventh-day, Nature never did Proselyte any of her children.

Mr. Tillam making no further reply, and refusing to assign an instance either in Scripture, or any other credible story, where Nature did ever convince the Gentiles of sin for not keeping the seventh-day Sab­bath, Mr. Ives therefore by the request of the Company was desired to urge another Argument.

I proceed to the Law of Christ; and from thence shall prove, that beleeving Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath; which I thus do.

That Law which is inforced by the appoint­ment of Christ unto beleeving Gentiles, some or other, at some time or other, have either been commended for the keeping, or blamed for the breaking of it.

But none have at any time by Christs ap­pointment been blamed for breaking, or commended for keeping the seventh-day sabbath.

Ergo, the 7th-day sabbath is not in force to the believing Gentiles, by Christs appointment.

Anointing with oyl is a Command in force since the Resurrection; and yet none are com­mended for observing, or blamed for not obser­ving of it.

I answer, That anointing with Oyl is not my present work to manage, otherwise it were like­ly I might say somewhat to it.

Here one that stood at M. Ives his elbow, whisper­ed him, and bid him tell Mr. Tillam, That Christ commended the woman in the Gospel, for anointing Him with Oyl; which Mr. Ives had no sooner said, but Mr. Tillam made this answer, that the anoint­ing required in James his Epistle, was to be done by the Elders of the Church, and therefore the instance did not reach the Case: hereupon Mr. Ives ingenu­ously confessed that it was not to the Case; onely he told Mr. Tillam and the Audience, that he had uttered it before he was aware, it being suddenly suggested to him by one that stood by; however, it is observable that the instance of anointing with oyl is not a sufficient instance to abate the strength of the Syllogism: for the intent of the Syllogism is to shew, that the seventh-day Sabbath is no moral Precept, as [Page 87]appears by the last Argument that was brought to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath was not com­manded by the light of Nature, and the instance is in an institution that is not Moral: So that the in­tent of the Argument was, that there was no MO­RAL Duty required by Christ, but some were found blameable for not observing, or commended for ob­serving of it; otherwise doubtless, both under Law and Gospel, it's like one may finde some particular in­stitutions, that we read of, which we shall hear of no complaint for not observing, because they were not Duties universally to be observed by all men, at all times, as Moral Precepts are; as for example: The business of anointing with oyl is the Duty of none but the Elders: but the seventh-day-sabbath-keeping is (if Mr. Tillam say true) Moral, and to be kept by all: and further, the Duty of anointing with oyl, as it was to be done by some persons, so also but at some times, (viz.) when any one of the Church was sick: but the Sabbath was to be kept every seventh day, and that not onely by the Church, but all the world, if Mr. Tillam say true; so that the instance is far and wide from the case in hand: for the intent of the Argument is, That if Christ had inforced the se­venth day upon believers, as a Moral Law, to be constantly observed, some would either have been blamed for breaking, or commended for keeping of i [...]: and this is true of all Moral Laws, being uni­versally to be observed by all; and there is not any one Moral Law, but some in the new Testament are un­der [Page 88]blame for not observing it, or else praised for ob­serving it; but not one word is mentioned of this kinde touching the 7th-day sabbath, since the death of Christ; which makes me conclude, it died with Him.

I come now to another Argument, which take as followeth:

If believing Gentiles, by an Apostolical tole­ration, may esteem one day above another, or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds; then they are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

But believing Gentiles, by an Apostolical to­leration, may esteem one day above another, or every day as they are perswaded in their own minds.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not required by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

I do affirm, that the 7th day is not included nor intended in that text Rom. 14. and for this see Exod. 16.4. where the word every day, is there intended of every common day, not the Sabbath.

But if in the text Rom. 14. it be understood of every day, without exception, then you may not contend for the first day of the week.

Mr. 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. [Page 89]where it is said, The sabbath was made for man, he would there have the word Man understood of every man, though the word every man was not in the text.

But now I cite a text that hath this word every day in it, and he tells us, that this uni­versal term must be restrained, and not be un­derstood of every day, though every day be the words of the text; the Reason he gives why every day must be restrained, is, because it was re­strained in Exod. 16.4. where God saith, that the people shall gather a certain portion of the Manna every day, &c.

To this I answer, First, that it doth not follow, that because a general word is restrai­ned in Exod. 16. that therefore it should be restrained in Rom. 14.

But secondly, God himself restrains every day in the 16 of Exodus to the six days in which they were to gather Manna, and expresly com­mands the resting upon the seventh-day; but in the 14 of the Rom. neither God nor the Apostle puts any restriction upon the word every day; so that, though we must restrain general words when God restrains them, there is no reason that we should restrain them when God doth not.

But then saith Mr. Tillam, If you do not restrain this word every day, then you do overthrow the keeping of any day. To which I answer, [Page 90]that we might very easily deliver our selves out of the hands of this absurdity, if that were the business in Question.

As for instance, we have been shewing, that we are not obliged by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day sabbath, nor no other Judaical days; and that now Christ hath taken away these observations, and hath made all days alike, in that one day hath [...] more sanctity or holiness then another, by reason of any Mosaical institution, by which formerly it was sanctified; and so by consequence have shewed, that neither Moses Law, nor Christs Law, commands a seventh-day sabbath upon that account; which indeed is the scope of the Apostle in the 14 of the Romans, that so the beleevers might not bring one another to bondage in such things wherein Christ hath made them free: How then doth this absurdity fall upon the Arguments, (viz.) 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 non-sequitur: for first, God hath not appointed what maintenance the [Page 91]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 chuse whether they will meet any where or no; or that one belee­ver may run one way, and another another way, and so never come to the place where the Church meeteth? too many such libertines were in the Apostles days, and, to our great grief, we may say, there are too many in our days that turn this Grace and Gospel-liberty into wantonness and licentiousness. This I thought good to add in this place, to stop the carreer of that conceipt, (viz.) that because Christ hath freed us from those days that Moses his Disciples were hound to observe, and hath left the Christians at liberty herein, in that he hath made every day a­like, that therefore we may chuse if we will keep any day as all to the service of the Lord; this is not only a sensual, but a senseless imagination: but more of this touching a day to worship God in, and also what [Page 92]day we ought to observe for his publick worship, shall be shewn in the ensuing Appendix to these Disputa­tions.

So then (by what hath been said) we may perceive, that we ought not to alter nor vary the literal sence of a text, unless Gods word on right Reason do warrant us so to do: but nei­ther Gods word, nor right Reason doth warrant us to restrain the Apostles words, when he saith, Some men esteem one day above another, an [...] others esteem EVERY day alike.

For by the same rule we may restrain general words when we have no warrant, we may ushe [...] 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.

Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument, I shall urge one more out of the [Page 93]15 of the Acts compared with the 21.

If the Holy Ghost hath discharged the belee­ving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses, except as is excepted Acts 15. then the beleeving Gentiles are not bound by the Law of Christ to keep the 7th-day sabbath:

But the Holy Ghost hath discharged the be­leeving Gentiles from all the Law as given by Moses, except as is excepted Acts 15.

Ergo, The beleeving Gentiles are not bound by Christ to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

Yesterday this Gentleman granted nine of the Commandments in force and binding to the Gentiles, and now he saith none are in force, but those exprest Acts 15.

I say, nine of the ten Commandments are in force, to day as well as yesterday, and so is the fourth Commandment also as to a time for be­leevers to worship God in, but not as in the hand of Moses, for so saith my Argument; but as they are implanted in the hearts of men, and are now further explained and injoyned by a better Mediator, who never injoyned the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

This was the end of the second Disputation, at which time there was an agreement to Dispute the same Arguments over again with one Matthew Coppinger; which was appointed to be on Candle­mas [Page 94] 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.

The Question to be disputed this day, is, Whether all beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

Which Question I resolve into this Proposi­tion (viz.) That all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

All beleevers are bound to keep the seventh-day for a Sabbath.

I have urged one general Argument in the former Disputations, to prove, that beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the se­venth-day sabbath, which I am now to insist upon the second time, in expectation of your Answers: which Argument is as followeth:

If beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, then they are bound either by the Law of Nature, the Law of Mo­ses, or the Law of Christ:

But beleeving Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature, Moses, or Christ, to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

Ergo, Beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

I answer, that beleeving Gentiles are com­manded by the Law of Nature, if by the Law of Nature you mean the Law written in the heart.

I do mean the Law written in the heart.

Then pray put your Argument in those [...]erms, and then I shall answer to it.

Though this be needless (after I have ex­plained my meaning) yet that we may not trifle about words, I shall consent; and thereupon proceed to prove, That the Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to keep the seventh-day Sabbath: which I thus doe.

That which the Law written in the heart binds the beleeving Gentiles to observe, it convinceth them of sin if they do not ob­serve:

But the Law written in the heart doth not convince the beleeving Gentiles of sin for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath.

Ergo, The Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to observe the seventh-day Sabbath.

I say, the Law written in the heart doth con­vince the beleeving Gentiles of sin, in that they do not observe the seventh-day sabbath.

If the Law written in the heart doth con­vince the Gentiles of sin, for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath, then it is manifest either in Gods word, Right Reason, or manifest expe­rience, that they have had such convictions

But neither Gods word, Right Reason, [...] manifest experience doth manifest, that ever the Law written in the heart did convince 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.

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.

Sir, then you deny the Conclusion, and not the Minor, what ever you say; therefore pray put in your exception against the enumeration in the Syllogism, and shew us, either from [Page 97]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.

I shall then assign the Scripture Levit. 20.22, 23. where it is written, that God cast out the Nations, for that they did not do all the things that be commanded Israel to do: for thus it is written, ver. 22. Yee (viz. Israel) shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my judgments, and do them, [...]hat the land whither I bring you to dwell therein [...]ue you not out.

And yee shall not walk in the manners of the na­ [...]ons which I cast out before you, for they commit? [...] all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. From whence I infer, First, that the seventh-day Sabbath was included in these words, ALL my [...]atutes, and ALL my judgments: and that [...]hese were injoyned 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 Judgments which God commanded Israel to observe, among which the seventh-day [Page 98]Sabbath was one, as appears by comparing the 19 ch. and 30 ver. where keeping the Sabbath is mentioned among the Statutes of Israel.

I say, If the Gentile Nations were cast out for not observing all Israel's statutes, and all their judgments, it appears, that the Law writ­ten in the heart did convince them that they had sinned, in that they had not observed all those things; and so consequently the Law written in the heart doth convince them of sin, for not observing the seventh-day Sabbath.

I answer, First, that you have all this while argued, and not answered.

But secondly, The text doth not say, the Na­tions were cast out for that they did not keep all Israels Laws, but for that they were guilty of all those unnatural lusts mentioned in 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 Israels statutes, and all their judgments, by the Law written in their heart? for they might otherwise come under the guilt of the transgressions of the Law of Israel, then by Natures conviction; if that should be granted, that cannot be proved (viz.) that the Nations were to keep all Israels laws.

Fourthly, If you say, that the Nations were convinced of sin by the light of Nature, because they did not keep ALL the statutes that were given to Israel, then it will follow that the light of Nature did convince them of sin, because they were not observers of the Cere­monial Laws that were given to Israel, for those are mentioned in the 19 Chapter of Le­viticus among the Statutes of Israel, as well as their Sabbaths and other things.

I do deny that Consequence; for it doth not follow that the Nations were bound by the light of Nature to keep all Israels Ceremo­nial Laws, because they were by the Law writ in their heart to keep all their statutes and all their judgments.

I say, the Consequence followeth undenya­ble; for, if it be true as you say, that the Nati­ons were cast out because they did not keep all the statutes and all the judgments that were given to Israel, and all these statutes and all these judgments were taught them by the Law that was writ in the heart, then I say it follows, that the Nations were to keep the Ceremonial law of Israel, as well as their Mora;l then which to imagine, there is nothing more absurd.

I say no more then the text, for the text [Page 100]saith, You shall keep ALL my statutes, and ALL my judgments, that the land spew you not out, as it did those that wore before you.

I say, the land did loath her former inhabitants, because they did not keep all the laws which the light of Nature had taught them to observe; there­fore God threatens Israel with the same judg­ments, if in case they either contrary to the Law writ in the heart, or contrary to the Law given by Moses, should be found transgressours: not that it followeth, that the Nations were bound by the law written in the heart to keep all Isra­els laws & judgments; for then they were bound by the law written their heart to keep the Ceremonial Laws also, as well as the seventh-day sabbath; which is ridiculous to imagine.

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 judg­ments are commanded to Israel; for there i [...] not a word mentioned concerning it in the whole chapter.

Neither is there a word of the seventh-day sabbath in any of that chapter.

But you may remember, that I told you, that all the Laws mentioned in Lev. the 20.22, 23, [Page 101]did include the Sabbath day, required in 19 ch. 30 ver. where it is said, You shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuaries; so that if the Nations (as I have said) were cast out, because they did not keep all Israels Statutes, and all their judgments, then they were cast out be­cause they did not keep the 7th-day sabbath.

I answer as before, that the Text doth not say, that the Nations were cast out because they did not keep all Israels Laws, but because they violated the law of Nature by those unnatural and unlawful lusts mentioned in the former verses.

But secondly, If they ( viz. the Nations) were cast out, because they did not keep all Is­raels Statutes, then they were cast out, because they did not observe the Ceremonial Laws of Israel, as well as any of the rest. And lastly, whereas you say, that the Sabbath mentioned in the 19 chapter, is included in all the Laws mentioned in the 20 chapter: I answer, So is the reverencing the Sanctuary required in the same ver, where the sabbath is required, and of­fering of sacrifices, and counting the fruit of the trees as uncircumcised the first three yeers after they were planted; I say, all these things are as truly commanded in the 19 chapter as the seventh-day sabbath, and are as necessarily in­cluded in that universal term, all the statutes, and [Page 102]all the judgments mentioned in the 20 chapter: now then, by the same rule that you can say, the law writ in the heart did require the Gen­tile Nations to keep all Israels statutes, and so consequently the seventh-day sabbath men­tioned in the nineteenth chapter; I say, by the same rule the Gentile Nations are commanded by the law written in their heart to keep the law that requireth them to reverence the Sanctuary and offer Sacrifices, and count the fruit of the trees uncircumcised three yeers after they were planted; which cannot be imagined.

I answer, that though the reverencin the Sanctuary, and offering Sacrifices, and counting the trees uncircumcised, were commandments given to Israel; yet these are not called statutes and judgments: so that, though the Nations were to observe all Israels statutes by the law written in the heart, yet they were not to ob­serve all other of their commandments; there­fore I answer you by distinguishing, and say, that the Ceremonial laws were Ordinances and Appointments, but not statutes; and though the Nations were to keep all Israels statutes by the law writ in their hearts, among which the seventh-day sabbath was one; yet the Nations are not to keep those ceremonies mentioned by you, for they are no where called statutes; [Page 103]so that statutes is one thing, and Ordinances is another.

There is no difference, and this distinction is light as vanity, for all Gods Ordinances are statutes and appointments, and the ceremonial Ordinances were Gods statutes as well as o­ther Laws.

Where any Laws are called Ordinances, there they are understood for the ceremonial laws, and not for the ten commandments or law writ in the heart; and where any com­mandments are called statutes, they are not understood of the ceremonial laws.

Here Mr. Tillam standeth up to justifie Mr. Coppinger's distinctions (viz.) that Gods laws were one thing, and his statutes and judgments an­other; and for this he cites Mal. 4. where it is said, Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments: from hence Mr. Tillam would have proved a difference between statutes, laws and appointments.

Thereupon Mr. Gosnold standing by, told both Mr. Coppinger and Mr. Tillam, that he wondred they should abuse the audience with such a needless & vain distinction, since that in their conscience they knew that the word was statutum est, and that there was no difference between the words statute and ap­pointment, [Page 104]save that the one was a Latine word, and the other an English word; and further, that they might as well say, there was a difference be­tween likeness and similitude, as between statute and appointment. Mr. Den also being then present did sharply reprove Mr. Tillam for justifying Mr. Coppinger, in making this vain distinction, since that he pretended to learning and scholarship: and as such a distinction doth argue a man to have little of a scholar, or else little of conscience; so it doth argue a man to have but a slender acquain­tance with the Scripture, and therefore unfit to be a teacher; for if either Mr. Coppinger or Mr. Tillam had been but competently acquainted with the Scriptures, they would never have uttered before many hundreds of people then assembled, that the ceremonial laws were never called statutes: for, besides what hath been said, whoever reads but Exod. 29.9, and 28. shall find the priests office called a statute; and the Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetual STATUTE: and the of­fering is called a STATUTE, Levit. 3.16, 17. and the offering is called, an everlasting STA­TUTE to make an atonement, &c. Levit. 16.33, 34. Exod. 27.21. Exod. 28 43. Levit. 10.9. Levit. 23.14, 21. the resting from labour on the day of atonement is called a STATUTE, ver. 31. Levit. 24.9. Numb. 19.21, 27. & 11. & 35.29. yet notwithstanding all these texts, toge­ther with many more that might be named, these [Page 105]men tell us, that the ceremonies were never called statutes.

Well then, since it is plain that the ceremonies of the law are called statutes, it followeth that the Gentiles by the law writ in their hearts were not commanded to keep all Israels statutes; for then (as hath been urged) they were bound by the law writ in their hearts to keep the ceremonial laws of the Is­raelites, which is among the first-born of senseless imaginations: this being the issue the Argument was brought to, Mr. Ives proceeded to another, which was as followeth.

That law which is not Moral, the Law of Na­ture doth not binde the Gentiles to ob­serve.

But the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not Moral.

Ergo, The law of Nature doth not binde the Gentiles to observe the seventh-day sab­bath.

I deny the Minor, and do say, that the law that requireth the seventh-day sabbath is a Mo­ral law.

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.

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.

I pray then assign a text that saith the se­venth-day sabbath may be known by the law writ in the heart,

It is written in the second of the Romans and the fourteenth, That the Gentiles which had not the law, did by Nature the things contained in the law; now if they did by Nature the things con­tained in the law of Moses, and the seventh-day sabbath was one thing contained in the law of Moses; then if the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the law, then they [...] the seventh-day sabbath: but the Text saith, the Gentiles did by Nature the THINGS con­tained in the law, and the seventh-day Sabbath was a thing contained in the law. Ergo, [...] ( viz. the Gentiles) by the law of Nature, or the law written in the heart, did keep the se­venth-day sabbath.

This is arguing and not answering: but if I should suffer you to transgress the laws and rules of disputation, and let you argue when you should answer; I know you are never able to prove, that the Gentiles without the help of tradition were able to know the seventh-day sabbath by the law and light of nature: and whereas you say, the Gentiles did the things contained in the law by the light of nature, and therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath; I answer, first, that it is a difficult thing to con­clude a particular proposition, when the premi­ses are indefinite.

For the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law, inasmuch as they did some good which the law commanded, and forbore some evils which the law forbad, as murder, and adultery, &c. it doth not therefore follow, that because the Gentiles did the things that were contained in the law of Moses, that therefore they did all things therein contained.

May not a man as well plead for circumcision, and say, that the light of nature taught people to be circumcised and to offer sacrifices, because circumcision and sacrificing are things contained in the law; and the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law, therefore they were observers of circumcising and sacrificing by the light of nature? would not every sensible man [Page 108]call this a senceless Argument? and yet thus Mr. Coppinger reasons: The Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law; Ergo, they kept the seventh-day sabbath: but I shall shew in the ensuing Appendix, that the Gentiles neither did, nor could keep the seventh-day Sabbath by the light of Na­ture.

If the Gentiles did those things by the light of nature that were contained in that law that forbad stealing and adultery, then they kept the seventh-day sabbath, which was a part of the same law:

But the Gentiles by the light of nature did the things that were contained in that law which forbad stealing and adultery.

Therefore the Gentiles by the light of nature did keep the seventh-day sabbath.

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, [Page 109]that forbad stealing and adultery; and yet the consequence doth not follow, that therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath by the light of nature: as for instance, a man that keeps the law of the Turk, he observes a law that forbid­deth stealing and murder; doth it therefore follow, that he observeth the Law of England, because he doth observe a law that requireth many of the same things which are written in the English Laws?

In like manner many of those Laws which were written upon the tables of the Gen­tiles hearts, were written upon Israels tables of stone; doth it therefore follow that all things that were written in tables of stone, were writ upon the hearts of Gentiles?

Who is there but may perceive the non-conclu­dencie of this Argument? may not a man as well reason thus, The Turks observe the things that are contained in the Christian Laws, therefore they observe all things that are commanded in the laws of Christianity? and further, the Turks observe that law which the English men observe, which requireth that a man should not kill and steal, there­fore the Turk observeth the English-man's Sab­bath, which is the first day of the week.

Again, The people in America observe the things contained in the Jews law, which requireth men not to kill and steal; doth it follow, that therefore the people in America observe the Jews [Page 110]seventh-day sabbath? Are not these kind of ar­guings the same with Mr. Coppingers? for he saith, that the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the Jews law, and therefore they kept the Jews sabbath; but doth not the contrary to this appear? for are there not thousands of good people in England, that do the things that are contained in the Jews laws, in the Apostles sence: that yet never kept the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath? and there­fore for the further proof of this Argument, let me add, that it is impossible to keep the Jew­ish or seventh-day sabbath without the help of tradi­tion, and therefore the observation of that day is not Moral; the reason I shall give is, because if a man be sick of a violent distemper, that hath bereaved him of his Senses, yet when this man coms to his right understanding again, he will know with­out a guide, that he should not kill, and that he should not steal; but without the guide of tradition he cannot know what day of the week it is, having lost his account thereof by reason of his distraction; and therefore Common experience tels us, that this man is forc'd to ask those that are about him what day of the week it is: now then if he did not know what day of the week it was, by reason that he had been thus distracted, I demand how he could know which was the 7th Day Sabbath; and if he could have known the 7th-day sabbath by the light of Nature, what need was there for this man being come to his Sen­ses, to inquire what day of the week it was that he [Page 111]was then in, more then there was for him to ask, whether he might not kill or steal?

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.

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.

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.

I shall prove the Major thus:

If there be no absolute necessity for me to hate God or my neighbour, then there is [Page 112]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.

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.

I prove the Major thus:

If all the law written in the heart be contain­ed in loving God and my neighbour, then it followeth, that if there be no absolute ne­cessity to hate either God or my neighbour, that then there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature:

But all the law written in the heart is contain­ed in loving God and my neighbour.

Ergo, It followeth, that if there be no abso­lute necessity to hate God and my neigh­bour, then there is no absolute necessity to break a law in nature.

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 [Page 113]was commanded to sacrifice Isaak contrary to the letter of the law, which saith, Thou shalt not kill.

Secondly, David was guilty of murder and adultery in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, for which by the letter of the law he was to die the death; yet there was a necessity for him to live, and be saved from the punishment, con­trary to the letter of the law.

Again thirdly, The Israelites robbed the E­gyptians contrary to the Law, that saith, Thou shalt not steal, and yet were justified: though the Law saith, The wicked borrow and pay not again; yet the Israelites did borrow of the Egyptians, and payed not again.

Fourthly and lastly, They were not to take a wife that was a whore under the law, and yet Hosea was commanded by God to take a wife of whoredoms, Hos. 1.2. By all which it appears, that there may be an absolute necessity to break a Moral law in the letter of it.

I answer, first, you have not answered to my Syllogism, which saith, There can be no absolute necessity to hate God or my neighbour: for none of these instances that you have insisted on do shew any such thing, for there is nothing of ha­ting God or my neighbour in any of them, being truly considered, as I shall presently make appear.

Secondly, You tell us, there may be a ne­cessity to transgress the letter of the Law, and for that you urge several Texts; when as my Argument was not grounded upon the letter of the law, but rather upon the Spirit of it (viz.) the law written in the heart; so that the instances have not answered the Argument however, I shall answer the instances: and first, you say, that there may be an absolute ne­cessity to commit murder, adultery, and steal­ing, &c. To which I answer, that this is such a piece of Divinity that the world did never hear of before; and the first instance you assign is, Abrahams being commanded of God to offer up his son Isaak, &c. To which I answer, that if Abraham had killed Isaak, it had not been murder: first, because he did not hate his son in his heart, while he was going to offer him according to the commandment; & there­fore this instance doth not touch the Argu­ment, which saith, there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour. But secondly, God commanded Abraham by an immediate Law from Heaven, otherwise Abraham could not have pretended to any necessity that would have justified him in this act, neither could he have been judge of this necessity, unless God had required it: so [...]hat here was no necessity for Abraham to murder, because of this com­mandment: therefore the instance is imperti­nent.

Again, as touching the case of David in the matter of Uriah, there was no moral necessity laid upon any to break a moral law, because David was not put to death; for, and if there had been such a necessity, how doth this reach the Argument, that saith, there is no necessity to hate God or my neighbour? for the peo­ple did neither hate God nor their neigh­bours, in that they did not take away the life of their King, for what he did against Uriah the Hittite. And for your instance in the case of the Israelites stealing from the Egyptians, which you say God allowed of, &c.

I answer, That first there was no absolute necessity for them to spoyl the Egyptians, and so consequently no necessity to break a law in na­ture, by hating either God or their neigh­bour.

But secondly. God gave Israel favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and thereupon the Egyptians let them have jewels of silver, and jewels of gold voluntarily, and the Israelites did not take them by force, therefore there was no breach of a law in na­ture: But lastly, had they taken these things by force, it had not been a breach of a law in nature be­cause that nature hath taught her children to seek for repairs of those that have impaired them, & to take it per force, where it cannot be had by fair means: thus God (as well as Nature) by a more then or­dinary instruction tells the people of Israel, that they [Page 116]should spoil those that spoiled them, which was but a just retribution upon the Egyptians: agreeing with the law and light of Nature: Otherwise it is a sin to steal upon the pretence of the greatest necessity; hereupon Agur saith, Prov. 30.8, 9. Give me not poverty, lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

And for your last instance of the Prophet Ho­sea, his taking a wife of whoredoms, which you say is contrary to a law; I answer, first, that it is not contrary to the law that is in the heart, because that law cannot always distinguish be­tween a whore and a chast woman, though it was contrary to the law of Israel. Then se­condly, though a man could distinguish be­tween the one and the other, yet there is no moral necessity for a man to take the whore, and leave the chaste woman.

But thirdly, whereas you say, God commanded the prophet to take a wife of whoredoms: I an­swer, that this is not spoken of carnal adultery, for the text doth not say he was commanded to take a wife that was a whore, but a wife of whoredoms (viz.) a wife from a people that were guilty of great whoredoms in departing from the Lord, a [...] appears verse the second.

I make no necessity of a mans own making, but I say, God can dispense with the breach of moral laws, by giving a countermand, and then [Page 117]the breach of the sabbath is no breach; though the Priests in the law profaned it, yet they were blameless; in like manner, if God make a law that a man shall not shed innocent blood, yet Cods precept to Abraham makes it no breach of a moral law; and so likewise in the other cases of the Egyptians stealing, and the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms; I say, these coun­termands make it no breach of a Law: and so likewise upon the sabbath-day, a man might lead an oxe or an ass to watering, and not break it, though it be a moral law; but if the men in this generation may do that which the Jews and Disciples might not lawfully do on the sabbath-day, then you have taken off my exceptions.

Whereas you speak of a necessity to break a moral law, when God countermand, &c. I answer, that then it is not murder in Abraham to slay Isaak, or theft in Israel to take from the Egyptians, because they had an immediate law from heaven commanding those very parti­cular things; but doth it follow, that this law given to Abraham was binding to all, or that Gods allowing of Israel to spoil the E­gyptians should give me an allowance to spoil my neighbour? and would it not be a sin con­trary to nature for me to sacrifice my child ha­ving no command, because Abraham would [Page 118]have sacrificed his child by a command? and in like manner there can be no moral necessity to break a moral law, by your own confession, without an immediate and particular command in the case, as Abraham had in the case of Isaak and Israel in the case of spoyling the Egyptians. Now then, if the seventh-day sabbath be moral as you say it is, then you can have no moral ne­cessity, by your own confession, to break it, un­less you have an immediate countermand from Heaven so to do.

Now then, since you say, the law for the se­ven-day sabbath is a moral law, how do you make it appear, that God gave you an allowance to open your shop the next day after you chal­lenged me to dispute for the seventh-day sab­bath, which was the sabbath-day you now plead for? and whereas you did pretend a necessity so to do, I demand, Whether God ever gave you a command in obedience to which you did open your shop upon the se­venth-day sabbath? since you your self say, that there must be a countermand to justifie the doing any thing that contradicts the letter of a moral law; now you have broke the letter of the law, which you say is moral, and where is your countermand from God so to do? And for the instances that you bring of mens lead­ing an oxe to water upon the sabbath-day; [...] was not a moral necessity, for they might have [Page 119]let the oxe stayed without water: if the law for the seventh-day sabbath had been a moral law, they ought not to have broken it to save the life of their oxe, no more then a man may wor­ship an Idol to save his own life, and the life of his cattle; so that this very instance confutes your opinion, that the seventh-day sabbath is not a moral law.

As touching my opening shop upon the se­venth-day, which I say is the sabbath, Mr. Ives did allow me so to doe, because I was under some promises to do some business that day in relation to my trade. But suppose I did that which was unlawful, this doth not prove what Mr. Ives saith, that he may break the sabbath; however, this is reflection and uncharitable­ness. Again, I say, the moral law makes no difference between murder and killing; for it is written Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill, &c. so that Abraham was a breaker of that law, by going about to kill Isaak.

Also if a childe were born, and the seventh-day of the week happened to be the eighth day after the birth, then it was no breach of the law to circumcise the child; but Mr. Ives hath broken his promise, in that he promised to dis­course the Argument he insisted on the last day, but doth not.

I answer to the last first, that I have not bro­ken any promise that I made, for I laid down one general Argument, which was the same I went upon the last day, which I am yet prosecuting.

And secondly, You did also agree that I should urge new Arguments if I pleased, as well as those which had been formerly urged: and whereas you charge me with reflections and uncharitableness; I answer, that what I spake did relate to the dispensation that Mr. Tillam gave you to open shop upon your sab­bath, after you had ingaged to dispute for it.

And I say, if the seventh-day sabbath be mo­ral, then he could not dispense with your ope­ning shop upon it; for by this rule a man may plead a necessity to break moral laws, although he hath no countermand from God so to do: & whereas you say, I did allow you to open shop; I answer, So I might, because I am so far from judging the observation of the saturday-sabbath a moral duty, that I judge it no duty at all, therefore I might dispense with your working upon it; but how could Mr. Tillam, that be­leeves with you, that the command for the seventh-day is moral, give you a dispensation so to do? and further, how could your con­science dispense with such an action, as to open your shop the next Saturday sabbath that came, [Page 121]after you had ingaged in publick to dispute the morality of that day?

And whereas Mr. Coppinger saith, the Moral law makes no difference between murder and kil­ling, he might as well have said, that the moral law makes no difference between fornication and lying with a woman, then which nothing is more absurd. For the Moral law doth not call all killing, murder; though murder be killing; he might as well have said, because stealing is taking, that therefore there is no difference between stealing and taking.

Here Mr. Tillam desireth liberty to speak for himself touching what Mr. Ives had objected a­gainst him, for allowing Mr. Coppinger to open shop upon their Sabbath.

Mr. Ives hath done like cursed Cham in unco­vering his brothers 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.

What if Mr. Coppinger had made a promise [Page 122]to murder or worship an Idol, should he have broken these laws to keep his promise? in like manner, if working upon the Saturday-sabbath be a breach of a moral law, as he saith it is, then there is no reason why his promise should ab­solve him in the one, rather then in the other: and truly, after this rate, it is an easie matter for a man to make promises, and thereby (if this kind of arguing be good) absolve himself from obeying any moral precept. And whereas Mr. Tillam saith, he went to Mr. Coppinger the night before, to desire him to shut up his shop the next day; I answer, that what Mr. Tillam did after we parted 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 then they were not agreed in their consciences concerning the matter of opening and not ope­ning upon their sabbath-day.

I have shewn, 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 [...] [Page 123]be a moral law. I now proceed to shew, 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 beleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them.

Ergo, The beleeving Gentiles were not bound by Moses law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

I deny your Minor and do say, that the be­leeving Gentiles had Moses Law to command them.

If the beleeving Gentiles had Moses law to command them, then the unbeleeving Gen­tiles had Moses law to command them also.

But the unbeleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them.

Ergo, The beleeving Gentiles had not Moses law to command them.

I deny both Major and Minor, and put you to prove both.

First, The Cousequence of the Major is [Page 124]good, because according to your opinion and confession, the beleeving Gentiles are bound to obey the law of Moses, by the law in nature; if so, then the unbeleeving Gentiles are bound by the Law in Nature also, because the Law of Nature is the same to the unbeleever in respect of the power of it, as it is to the beleever.

And the Minor I prove (viz.) that the un­beleeving 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, &c.

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.

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, [Page 125]because the text saith, the Gentiles were with­out Moses Law, that therefore they had it not in any sence; 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 judgment, 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. Coppingers Answer had been good, if he had shewn 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 [Page 126]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 then 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 sence 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 Gods 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, then 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 [Page 127]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, then the difference is more then in the meer 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 then a meer 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, then there is between the people that live at York and London; if the difference be no greater as he would make us beleeve, how coms 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.

N [...]w I will shew, that the difference doth lie onely in writing, Rom. 2.26, 27. where it is [Page 128]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. Coppinger saith, the difference between the Law of Moses and Nature is opposed in the word Letter: if so, then he hath confuted himself, for that they cannot be the same, if they are opposed one to the other.

But secondly, the Law of Moses is contra­distinct from the Law of Nature, as appears by that text, 1 Cor. 9.20, 21. where the Apostle saith, That to them that were without the Law, he was as without Law.

Now what could the Apostle do in a way of com­plyance to make the Jews believe that he was not [Page 129]without the Law, and to make the Gentiles think he was under the Law, if the Law of the one was no way differing from the other but in writing? Then they could not be distinguished by Actions: but that the Jews were distinguished from the Gen­tiles by their different Laws, is plain, in that Paul did blame Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.

But I shall further prove by reason, that the Law of Nature cannot be the same with the Law of Moses, because that which is called the Law of Moses, where-ever it is mention­ed, it is always understood of the whole Law, as well the Ceremonial as the Moral, which I hope Mr. Coppinger will not say was all of it written in the Tables of the Gentiles hearts: and this appears by the Text mentioned by Mr. Coppinger, John 7.23. the Jews did cir­cumcise a man, that the Law of Moses might not be broken.

Mr. 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 [Page 130] Gal. 3. As many as are under the Law, are under the curse: and the Gentiles were redee­med from the Curse of the Law, Gal 4.8. And could the Law curse them that were not under it? I shall therefore shew by & by that this Law which the Gentiles were under, was the whole Law of Moses.

I answer, That the Gentiles that had a Law writ in their hearts, were under the curse, an­nexed to the breach of that Law; and there­fore Christ came to redeem them from the curse of it: But doth it follow, that because Christ came to redeem the Gentiles from the curse of the Law, that therefore the Gentiles lived un­der ALL, the Law, and every part and parcel of the Law of Moses, and were in danger to suffer all the penalties and curses due to the trans­gression of the Law of Moses?

But secondly, among the Gentiles there li­ved many Jews, as the Apostle saith in the E­pistle to the Romans, chap. 2. Behold, thou [...] called a Jew, &c. and yet they lived among the Gentiles who were Romans: so in like manner among the Galatians lived many Jews, as ap­pears by Peters compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, Gal. 2. And again, it is said, Gal 4. That the child differeth nothing from a servant, &c. Which must needs be meant of the Jews: So that Christ redeemed the Jews [Page 131]from the curse of their Law, and the Gentiles from the curse of their Law: but this doth not prove, that because Christ redeemed both from the curse, that therefore both Jew and Gentile lived all under one and the same Law. And this is further proved by the Apostle, Gal. 5. when he saith, Whosoever is circumcised, is a debter to do the whole Law.

Whence I argue:

That if the Law of Nature had bound the Gentiles to keep all the Law of Moses, then they had been indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circumcision.

But the Gentiles were not indebted to the whole Law of Moses without Circum­cision.

Ergo, the Law of Nature did not bind the Gentiles to observe the whole Law of Moses.

From all which it is plain, that the Apostle doth distinguish between the Law of the Jews and the Law of the Gentiles, and the curse of both according to the breach of those different Laws they lived under.

Whereas you talk of Circumcision, I say that Christ hath set us at liberty from Circum­cision, and therefore we ought not to be cir­cumcised.

But Christ hath redeemed none from the Law of Nature; which shews plainly that the whole Law of Moses was not writ in the hearts of the Gentiles.

But secondly, if Christ hath redeemed the Gentiles from the Law of Nature, then though your seventh-day Sabbath were writ in the Law of Nature, yet the Gentiles were not bound unto it.

And lastly, your answer was, That the Gen­tiles were bound to all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Laws; which I have disproved, by shewing that the Gentiles were bound to the Law of Ceremonies by the Obligation of Cir­cumcision, and not by the light of Nature.

I do say, That the Gentiles were under all the Ceremonial Laws, as well as under all the Moral Laws, even by the Law writ in the heart, even all the Law, all Sacrifices, every bit and e­very thing: Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed [...] &c. and Gal. 4. He hath redeemed them that were under the Law, &c. Meaning Gentiles as well as Jews. Now that this was the whole Law of Moses, in that the same spirit writ the same things in the hearts of the Gentiles that the Angel did command upon mount Sinai. Again, the Apostle speaking of the Law, saith, The man that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3.12. to [Page 133]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.

I need make no further answer then to say, That Christ was made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law, that is, those that are under the law of Nature, from the curse thereof; and them that are under the law of Moses, from the curse due to the Trans­gressions thereof; and not to redeem the Gen­tiles from the curse due to the transgression of the law of Moses, which they are expresly said not to be under.

Secondly, that the Gentiles by the light of Nature were not under the whole Law of Moses is clear, in that some lived in terra incognita, and also in the Antipodes: and besides, the text saith plainly, that the Gentiles were not under the law, and I must stick to that, what ever you say, unless you spoke more reason: and it is strange to me, that this should not be discerned, that a person may be redeemed from the punishment due to him for transgressing the Laws of the King of Spain, and another may be redeemed [Page 134]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.

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.

I demanded your Answer to that question, whether the Antipodes were under all the Ce­remonies of Moses law, and the people that were in terra incognita; and to this you have said nothing, but alledged a text to prove, instead of answering, which doth not speak a word to your purpose, viz. That the Gentiles are bound by the law written in the heart to keep the whole law of Moses, even all the Ceremonies as well as Morals; which you are forced upon, to escape the dint of my Argument, which was [Page 135]to shew you that Moses law did not require the Gentiles to keep the seventh-day sabbath, be­cause the Gentiles did not live under it, but without it, as divers texts tell us plainly.

There are three notable things to be observed in Mr. Coppingers answer to this Argument:

First, that he is forced to confess in words at length, that all the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law were writ in the heart.

Secondly, that this was a force put to save his credit, appears, because in his answer to Mr. Ives his first Argument, but two hours before, or there­abouts, he plainly denyed that which this Argu­ment forceth him to confess: for when he told Mr. Ives that the Nations were said to be cast out be­cause they did not keep all Israels Laws, Mr. Ives did ask him, whether the Nations were cast out for not keeping circumcision, and other of the Jews ceremonies? And when he saw that this Absur­dity was like to fall upon him, he told us, That though the Nations were to keep all Israels Statutes, yet (saith he) they were not to keep their ceremo­nies. So that though he denyed this in his Answer to the first Argument, as any one may see that looks back to it, yet here he doth confess it over and over, that the Nations by the light of Nature were to keep every bit and parcel (for those are his words) of the Ceremonial Law of Moses, as well as the Mo­ral. And,

Thirdly, It is observable, that a little before, in [Page 136]page 156. he cites a text in the ninth of the Ro­mans, to prove that the Jews had the tables of stone given them to keep, not onely for themselves, but that they might convey the things therein required unto the world. Now what need was there for Is­rael to convey the knowledge of their Laws writ in tables of stone to the world, if what he hath said all this while be true, viz. that there was no difference? for the very same Law (saith he) which was in the Jews tables of stone, was in the tables of the Gentiles hearts, save that one had it written, and the other had not.

If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, then they are bound to esteem one day above another.

But believing Gentiles are not bound to e­steem one day above another.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

I deny the Minor: believing Gentiles are bound to esteem one day above another.

I prove the Minor thus:

If there is an Apostolical Toleration to e­steem one day above another, or every day as one is perswaded, then believing Gen­tiles are not bound to esteem one day a­bove another.

But there is such a Toleration, Rom. 14.5.

Ergo.

The strength of Mr. Ives his Argument lyeth in the universality of the terms every day; and therefore I shall shew that this general term ought to be restrained.

As for instance: There seems to be as ge­neral a toleration given for the eating of all things; and yet Mr. Ives believeth eating of blood, and things strangled, and meats offered to Idols, are excepted: in like manner is the seventh-day sabbath to be excepted, when there is a toleration given to observe every day a­like. And

Secondly, if every man may walk as he is per­swaded, then he may keep the seventh-day sab­bath if he be so perswaded.

I answer to the last first: That although I do not deny those the liberty that observe the se­venth-day sabbath; yet in as much as they con­demn others, and charge others with sin for not observing it; that is their fault: for it is not a mans perswasion of the truth of a thing, that will make it my duty; which is the onely point in hand, viz. not what is a liberty, but what is a duty.

But secondly, whereas Mr. Coppinger saith That all days may be restrained, because all [Page 138]things are restrained by the Holy Ghost, and therefore we may not eat all things.

I answer, That if Mr. Coppinger can assigne as good an exception against the term every day, as I can against his general term every thing, I shall say this Argument is answered. Now I will shew you, that when the Apostle tells us that we may eat all things, the Holy Ghost puts a restraint here, and tells us, That meats offered in sacrifice to an Idol, together with blood, and things strangled, are excepted, and may not be eaten, as appears Act. 15. compared with Act. 21. Now if the Holy Ghost had said in the case of days, You may keep every day alike ex­cept the seventh day sabbath, then there had been somewhat in your instance, otherwise the instance confirms the Argument.

Here the Apostle doth refer the Observation of days to their own mind, and so he doth the eating of all things; therefore Mr. Ives hath done my work for me, by assigning Acts 15. where blood, and things strangled, and things offered to Idols, are excepted: If then I shew that the seventh-day sabbath is as ex­presly and particularly excepted, I have answe­red his Argument by his own confession: and that it is excepted, you may see in Jam. 2. and Mat. 5.17, 18.

That which you promised, was, That you would shew as particular an exception of the seventh-day sabbath out of every day, as I had shewn you against eating all things; and instead thereof, you assigne me two general texts, where the whole Law, and every jot and tittle of the Law is required to be kept and obser­ved: both which texts have been denyed to include the seventh-day sabbath to be in force, because offering of sacrifices is required in the fifth of Matthew, as well as other things; where Christ bids those to whom he preached, to go and be reconciled to their brother, and then come and offer their gift; which Law is not binding to the believers in these days.

But is it not strange that a man in his right wits should tell us, That he would assigne a text where the sabbath was excepted out of this word every day, in as express terms as blood and things strang­led are excepted out of every thing? and instead of a particular exception, he produceth two general texts that have not the least word of a Sabbath in them: but doth not this leave the Argument un­answered? for by the same rule he can say, That the seventh-day sabbath is not intended in this text, when the Apostle saith, We may observe every day alike; I say by the same rule, and with much more strength of reason, it may be denyed that the sabbath is included in those general terms, All the [Page 140]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.

The texts I named tell us that the whole Law is to be observed, and every tittle of it, till it be fulfilled, and the seventh-day sabbath was included; therefore if any man teach o­therwise, he teacheth contrary to sound Do­ctrine. And as touching bringing gifts to the Altar, and offering sacrifices, mentioned in that Text Matt, 5. these things Christ hath fulfil­led and nai­led to his Cross And lyet when Mr Ives did dispute the next time with Mr. Coppinger, he said, That Altar was not understood for a lite­ral Altar; But said, The Altar and the Gift in Mat. 5. was both to be understood Allegorically: and yet here he doth confess that the text speaks of such an Altar and such a Gift that were types of Christ, and that ended at his death. Compare there­fore this saying with his Argument upon the fifth of Matthew in the next ensuing Dispute.; if not, they shall remain as long as Heaven and Earth re­main, and so must the seventh-day sabbath, un­less Mr. Ives can shew us that it is fulfulled by Christ, and that because it hath Heaven and Earth for its reason.

All this while there is no particular excepti­on made against my former Argument from the fourteenth of the Romans, as you promised me; but instead thereof, you repeat the text Mat. 5. whence you infer, That Heaven and Earth shall pass, before the law shall pass, till it be fulfilled; of which law, the sabbath (say you) must needs be a part. What if that were granted? doth that prove that all the law mentioned in Mat. 5. is in force? have not you confessed that offer­ings mentioned in the same chapter, were fulfil­led and abolished by Christ? which very Con­fession of yours, hath made the text uncapable to do you that service for which you cited it.

For how can any man safely conclude any parti­cular proposition to be binding, from a general text, when he himself shall say, Some things intended in that general text cannot be concluded from it as binding? so that the Argument yet remains unan­swered, (viz.) That believers have no tie upon them by vertue of Moses law to observe one day above another; and therefore they are not tied by Moses law to keep the seventh-day sab­bath: And though we have this freedom by Christ from the Mosaical institutions, it doth not therefore follow (as some fondly do imagine) that therefore we are not to set apart a time under the Gospel to wor­ship and serve God. Somewhat hath been spoken to this in the former Dispute with Mr. Tillam, and [Page 142]more shall be spoken in the insuing Appendix. But we proceed to the next Argument.

Because Mr. Coppinger confessed, that if the seventh-day sabbath was fulfilled by Christ, [...] the Altar and Gifts, mentioned in Mat. 5. that then we were not to observe it, otherwise it was to continue; I shall therefore shew that the seventh-day sabbath is fulfilled by Christ, thus:

If the seventh-day sabbath be a weak and beggerly Rudiment, then Christ hath ful­filled it.

But the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment.

Ergo, Christ hath fulfilled it.

I deny the Minor: The seventh day is not a weak and beggerly Rudiment.

If all the times commanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudiments, then the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment.

But all the times comanded in the Law of Moses are weak and beggerly Rudi­ments.

Ergo, the seventh-day sabbath is a weak and beggerly Rudiment.

I deny the Minor: all the times commanded to be observed in the law, are not weak and beg­gerly Rudiments.

If there was no time commanded to be ob­served in the Law, but dayes, months, times and years, and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments, then all the times commanded in the law, were weak and beggerly Rudiments.

But there was no time commanded to be ob­served in the law, but days, months, times and years, and all these were weak and beggerly Rudiments.

Ergo, all the times commanded in the law were weak and beggerly Rudiments.

I deny the Minor, and put you to prove, that the days, months, times and yeers that were commanded to be observed in the Law, were weak and beggerly Rudiments.

This I shall do from Gal. 4.9, 10, 11. the words are these: How turn ye again to those weak and beggerly Rudiments, whereunto ye desire a­gain to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months, and times, and yeers: I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

These dayes mentioned in the Text, they [Page 144]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.

Sir, you did but even now tell us, That the Jews and Gentiles were under one and the same Law, and that the Law of Nature had all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in it: if you then said true, what reason have you to imagine that the Jews might not do service to such as by nature were not gods, even as the Gentiles did, since the Gentiles had, by your own confession, one and the same law to in­form them in the truth, and to shew them what was errour?

But secondly, the Jews did worship that which by nature was not God, many a time and often, and therefore it doth not follow that these words must be restrained to the Gentiles onely; for the Jews made them a Calf, and said it was their god Exod. 32 8.

And to this might be added Isa. 2.8, 20. Mic. 5.13. 1 King. 9. & 9. & 1 King. 11.23. where it is said, that the Children of Israel worshipped Ash­toreth, the god of the Zidonians, and Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the Children of Ammon, &c. and it's fur­ther said, that when God will bring them into their [Page 145]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 onely, since that the Idolatry of [...]he Jews was one great cause of Gods scattering [...]f them among the heathen as at this day.

These days which the Apostle speaks of, were the Gentiles dayes, which they did ob­ [...]erve in imitation of the Jews, as the Jews had [...] Table of the Lord, and the Gentiles had a Table of Devils.

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 con­ [...]ue in them; therefore these could not be [...] Idolatrous Rudiments of the Gentiles.

Thirdly, they are complained of for observing [...]ars; which clearly shews that it doth not relate [Page 146]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 Jew [...] 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 [...] ­pistle to the Galatians, is to reclaim the Jews from running back to the Mosaical Rudiments of the Law, who did not onely Judaize themselves, [...] would have compelled the believing Gentiles to Ju­daize also: as appears by Pauls blaming Peter [...] so doing, Gal. 2.14. and therefore he cautions [...] not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage [...] chap. 5. vers. 1. Which is the bondage of the Mosai­cal Law, as appears vers. 2. and the same bondage which he feared they were turning to in the [...] serving days, moneths, times and years, as any [...] may see that compareth the eighth and ninth very of the fourth of the Galatians.

The Apostle doth detect them for observi [...] the Rudiments of the world, as opposed [...] them of the Church of God: and this was [...] the time that they knew not God, when [...] chose such days as he did not appoint.

Secondly, the Ordinances of the Law [...] glorious; therefore he could not relate to the [...] when he speaks of beggerly Elements.

Thirdly, he labours to perswade them from such Idolatrous times, lest his labour had been in vain in drawing them from their Idols.

Fourthly, These Galatians being under a strong temptation to the bondage of the Law, and Paul having confuted them by telling of them that then they must be circumcised, which [...]ndeed was useless, hereupon they are ready to turn to their own heathenish Idolatry again, as the Apostle feared.

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, endea­ [...]our to prove that these were spoke of Gen­tile Rudiments.

First, you say they must be gentile Rudiments, [...]ecause they are called the Rudiments of the world, [...]nd opposed to the Rudiments of Gods Church. I answer, that this proves not against me, but your self; for the Jewish Laws were called the Rudi­ments of the world, Gal. chap. 4. vers. 3. which they [...]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 glo­ [...]ious; therefore they could not be called beggerly [...]nd weak. I answer:

First, though they were glorious, yet now Christ is come, that glory is no glory in comparison, as ap­pears 2 Cor. 3.9, 10.

Secondly, the Apostle saith, that the glory there­of was done away; and therefore they are weak.

Thirdly, the Author to the Hebrews calleth the Commandments and Rudiments of the Law, weak and unprofitable, which is all one with weak and beggerly even as a man that is weak and beggerly is not able to do any thing to profit, even so the Author to the Hebrews phraseth it, in saying. That there was a disanulling of the Command­ment going before, for the weakness and un­profitableness thereof.

And whereas you say the Apostle labours [...] draw them from Idolatrous times and not Jew [...] I have in the former Reply given answer to this by shewing 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 extream of heathenish Idolatry: I answer, [...] this conceit supposeth two Epistles to the Galatians for if conviction from Judaism had been the fruit of one Epistle, turning them from the other extrea [...] of Idolatry must be the fruit of another Epistle be­cause that which was written to remove them [...] of Judaism, could not at the same time compl [...] of their going to the other extream of Gentilism [...] [Page 149]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, moneths, times and years, were the times the Jews were to observe in the Law, among which the seventh-day sabbath was included, as shall be shewn more particularly in the ensuing Ap­pendix.

If the times here called weak and beggerly, be the heathenish times, then I have said some­thing to your Argument, for all you say it is not answered.

I do confess you have said something, but to what purpose, I shall leave the people to judge; and if it do appear that they were the Rudi­ments of the Law that the Christians were go­ing back to, then you have not answered my Ar­gument, whatever you have said: I shall there­fore leave it to the Judgment of the Audience, and proceed to another Argument.

If the seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come, the believing Gen­tiles are not bound to observe it.

But the seventh-day sabbath was a shadow of good things to come.

Ergo, the believing Gentiles are not bound to observe the seventh-day sabbath.

I deny the Minor; the seventh-day sabbath was not called a shadow of things to come.

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.

The Apostle doth not say sabbath days; the word days is put in by the Translators, and it ought to be read sabbaths.

I shall prove that the Translators did well to put in that supplement, by shewing that the Apostle intends sabbath days. My first Argu­ment is this:

Wheresoever the word sabbath is put with­out reference to such and such sabbaths, there the seventh-day sabbath is always intended or included.

But here it is so put. Ergo.

As for instance, when the Scripture speaks of the Jews festival sabbath, or their yearly sabbath there is ever some note of distinction to distin­guish them from sabbath days; therefore the yearly sabbaths were called Sabbaths of rest for the LAND, Levit. 25.4, 5, 6. 2 Chron. 36.21. shew­ing thereby, that for that year the Land was to lye still, and not be plowed or sowen.

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.

Pray assigne us that text where sabbaths is so understood.

I shall cite Esay 1 & 13. where the text saith, The new Moons and Sabbaths God could not away with.

If you will answer my Argument, you must shew me that the seventh-day sabbath is not in­tended in this text; but I shall by another Ar­gument make it appear that sabbath days is not onely intended in Col. 2.16. but in Esay 1 & 13 also; which I thus do:

Wheresoever this word sabbaths is mention­ed with new moons, feasts and holy days, there the seventh-day sabbath is intend­ed.

But the word sabbaths is here so mentioned.

Therefore the seventh-day sabbath is here intended.

Shew me but one instance where the word sabbaths is joyned with new moons, and feasts, and holy days, where the seventh-day sabbath is not intended, and then I may have some [Page 152]reason to think the Apostle doth not intend the seventh-day sabbath in Col. 2.16, 17. and if you do so, I will give you the case.

If this were true, then the sabbath must al­ways be joyned with new moons: but I can shew you sabbath mentioned without new moons, that exclude the seventh-day sabbath; and if I do so, then I have put in an exception against the universality of your Argument.

If you can shew me sabbaths mentioned without new moons, it is not an exception a­gainst the Argument; for I have already shewn that the yearly sabbaths were mentioned with­out new moons. Again, their feasts were call­ed sabbaths, as the Jubilee and Feast of weeks; therefore I must tye you to the enumeration in the text and Argument, and do demand an in­stance where the sabbath is mentioned with new moons and feasts, that is not understood of the seventh-day sabbath.

There is in the text an Adjunct of distincti­on, viz. Sabbaths, which are shadows, &c. as if I should say, Fetch me my books in such a room, plainly distinguishing them from other books in other rooms: and so these sabbaths are called a shadow, to distinguish them from other sabbaths that were not shadows. Now then [Page 153]Mr. Ives must shew us that the seventh-day sab­bath is a shadow of the body of Christ, and I will grant the case.

If I prove the seventh-day sabbath a shadow of the Body of Christ, Mr. Coppinger saith he, will grant the case; and he hath already granted that the sabbaths mentioned in this text Col. 2. are shadows of the Body of Christ: it remains then that I prove this word Sabbaths to intend the seventh-day sabbath, and then I have pro­ved that the seventh-day sabbath is a sha­dow.

The Argument then that I have made alrea­dy doth prove it; because, as I have said, from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it, where ever sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons and Feasts, there the seventh-day sab­bath is always intended: and till Mr. Coppin­ger can shew us a text like this of Col. 2. where sabbaths is mentioned with new moons, and the seventh-day sabbath not intended, I have suffi­ciently proved that the seventh-day sabbath is here intended.

I made an Epithet of the distinction in my former answer, by shewing that the sabbaths in the text are called Sabbaths that are a shadow, to distinguish them from sabbaths that were not shadows; and that therefore it could not be meant of sabbath dayes.

And secondly, I have instanced Isa. 1.13. where the word Sabbath is mentioned with new Moons; and it is not understood of the seventh day sabbath, because the work which the text saith was done upon those sabbaths, was con­trary to the work of the seventh-day sabbaths.

As for that which you call the Epithet of the distinction, though I think it is scarce good sence, yet I shall answer your meaning, by shew­ing you that the Sabbaths in Col. 2. were not called shadows to Distinguish them from the seventh-day Sabbath, as if that was no shadow, because the seventh-day it self is called a signe, Exod. 31.13. even as circumcision was called [...] sign, Rom. 4.11.

Again, it doth not follow, because he saith Sab­baths that are a shadow, that he excludes some Sab­baths that were not shadows, no more then when he saith new Moons that are a shadow, that he doth hereby intimate that some new Moons were not sha­dows to the Jews.

And as touching the text Isa. 1.13. where you say Sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons; which could not be understood of the sabbath dayes, because (say you) there was such work to be 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 [Page 155]to the work of the seventh day.

I shall shew you that these sabbaths in Isa. 1.13. could not be the sabbath days: as first, they are said, Isa. 1. to tread in Gods Courts in the Temple, which they did not do on the sabbath dayes, for then they met in the Synagogue. Se­condly, here is all the Sacrifices and burnt-offer­ings, which they could not offer upon the sab­bath dayes.

First, it doth not follow that all those religi­ous duties mentioned with the sabbaths, Isa. 1. were to be performed upon the sabbath dayes, any more then the celebrations of their new Moons were to be celebrated upon the sabbath dayes; and therefore if the duties there men­tioned, could not be performed upon the sab­bath dayes, that doth not prove the sabbaths mentioned with new Moons in that text, doth not intend the Sabbath day.

Secondly, you say they trod the Courts of God: this you call a work which they could not do upon the sabbath dayes, because you say they met in the Synagogue upon sabbath dayes.

I answer, That David magnifies the COƲRTS of Gods house, while as yet there was no tem­ple; which shews that other places were called the Courts of Gods house, as well as the tem­ple.

Thirdly, they might tread Gods Courts in the Temple upon the Sabbath dayes, and therefore you confessed that the priests in the Temple might offer the Sacrifice upon the sabbath-day, and be blameless, which Christ supposes to be their constant custome; but I believe never any seventh-day sabbath-keep­er but Mr. Coppinger, ever taught that it was a work that could not be done on the Sabbath day, for People to tread in the Courts of Gods Tem­ple.

Again, you say here was ALL their Burnt-offerings, and ALL their Sacrifices, which you say could not be upon the seventh day sabbath offered, and therefore Isaiah could not mean the seventh-day sabbath.

I answer, That the text doth not say all their Sacrifices, but the multitude of their Sacrifices; and therefore you grosly abuse the text: Just as if I should say, Here is a multitude of Peo­ple here assembled; doth it reasonably follow from such a speech, that ALL the People in Eng­land are here assembled?

The text speaks of their SOLEMN Assem­blies, which was not wont to be upon their sabbath dayes.

It doth not follow, that because they were solemn Assemblies, that they were such Assem­blies that could not be upon the sabbath days; [Page 157]for Mr. Coppinger meets upon the seventh-day sabbath, and will they say when they are toge­ther, that it is not a solemn Assembly?

But if the Sabbaths mentioned Isa. 1.13. could not be the Sabbath dayes, because they had solemn Assemblies upon it, then the seventh-day Sabbath that Mr. Coppinger and those of his mind assem­bles on, is not the true Sabbath day, because they have a solemn Assembly upon it.

But I have shewed that the mentioning of these du­ties with the Sabbaths, doth not prove they were all to be performed upon the Sabbath there mentioned: but however, that is most untrue, to say that the sab­bath mentioned Isa. 1.13. is not the Sabbath day, be­cause those services there mentioned could not be done upon the sabbath days, and that those religious duties there mentioned, were contrary to the works of the Sabbath day, then which nothing is more false.

I have shewn you a text where sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons, that is not under­stood of the seventh-day sabbath.

I shall leave this Argument to the judgement of the Audience and your own conscience; I have shewn that sabbaths were shadows of Christ, and therefore not binding in these days, to the believing Gentiles: I have also given two reasons why the sabbath mentioned Col. 2.16. is to be understood of the seventh-day sabbath.

The one was, because the word Sabbath is al­ways understood for the seventh-day sabbath, when it is mentioned without reference to their festival sabbaths.

And lastly, I have more chiefly insisted and do still insist upon this reason, viz. That the se­venth-day sabbath is intended by the Apostle, in Col. 2.16. because sabbath is there mentioned with new Moons and Feasts, &c. and through­out the whole Bible, where-ever sabbaths is mentioned with new Moons and Feasts, there the sabbath dayes are always intended; and therefore I do again call upon my Respondent either to say that he cannot answer the Argu­ment, or else to shew me a text where sabbaths are mentioned with new Moons, and the se­venth-day sabbath not intended, because no Scripture is of a private interpretation.

I have shewed you Isa. 1.13. where Sabbath is mentioned, and the seventh-day sabbath not intended.

I have shewed you that the reasons why you so conceive, have no weight, & that the seventh-day sabbath is intended by the prophet Isaiah in the sabbath mentioned with new Moons, Isa. 1.13. and therefore unless you will assign any other instances to take off the force of my Ar­gument, I shall, because the time and my [Page 159]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.

THe Question to be disputed this day, is, Whe­ther believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

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.

When I say, Believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath, my meaning is, all believing Gentiles.

Moderator.

Sir, then I pray put in those words, and pro­ceed.

I say then, All believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

All believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the seventh day sabbath; and pray prove they are.

The first Argument I shall urge, is this:

If all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James, then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

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.

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, then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sab­bath.

But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law James 2. and that Law doth contain the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

I deny the Syllogism, because you do not conclude that which was denyed; for this Ar­gument should have concluded, that if all be­lieving Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James, that THEN it fol­lows that they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath: which was the consequence de­nyed in the Major Proposition of the former Argument.

If the royal Law mentioned in the second of James, be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery, then the seventh-day sabbath is one point of that Law.

But the royal Law mentioned in the second of James is the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery.

Ergo, the seventh day sabbath is one point of that Law.

Sir, I wonder you should pretend to dispute Syllogistically, and yet make two Syllogisms [Page 162]that conclude not the Major proposition deny­ed in the first Syllogism: however, because I would not spend time about trifles, I shall answer this Argument by denying the conse­quence of the Major Proposition; for though the royal Law mentioned in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery, yet it doth not follow that the seventh day sab­bath is a point or a part of it, because every Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery, doth not command the seventh day sabbath.

For murder was by the Law given to Noah prohibited, and so was adultery, and yet the seventh day sabbath was no point or part of it: so that a man may keep the royal Law, which in the Scri­pture prohibits murder and adultery, and yet [...] keep the seventh day sabbath; for all the Patri­archs from Adam to Moses kept that royal Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery, and yet never any of them kept the seventh day sabbath.

If that Law which in the Scriptures prohibi­teth murder and adultery, doth also pro­hibit the breach of the seventh day sab­bath, then it followeth that if the royal Law in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohi­biteth [Page 163]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.

If by the terms that law, &c. you mean, e­very Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery, doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath, then I deny the Minor, because every Law which in the Scri­pture prohibiteth murder and adultery, doth not prohibit the breach of the seventh-day sabbath; for the Scripture speaks of the Law given to Noah, and the Law in Nature, and the Law of Christ: all these are royal Laws, and do prohibit murder and adultery, and yet none of these prohibit the breach of your seventh day sabbath: but if by that Law, &c. you do not mean whatsoever Law, then I deny the Syllogism as fallacious.

I say, the whole Law is never mentioned where the seventh day sabbath is excluded; therefore it is included.

I deny both Antecedent and Consequent.

For the whole Law may be mentioned where the [Page 164]seventh day sabbath is excluded: but if that were true, the consequence doth not follow, that the se­venth day sabbath is included; for the whole Law sometimes contains ceremonies as well as morals: doth it therefore follow, that ceremonies are al­ways included in the word whole Law, where-ever whole Law is mentioned, except they are excluded in so many words?

I say, the whole Law is no where mention­ed where the sabbath is excluded; and do you shew me where it is.

If by excluding, you mean excluding in [...] many words, then I may usher in the ceremo­nial Laws; for whole Law is never mentioned (as I have said) where the ceremonial Law is verbally excluded: but doth it follow that therefore it is included?

I say again, if the Scripture no where speaks of whole Law, and excludes the seventh day, then it includes it.

I have denyed the Consequence over and o­ver, and have assigned the reason why I do so, and yet you make no answer to it.

My Argument was, That the seventh day sabbath was a part of that Law which in the [Page 165]Scriptures forbiddeth murder and adultery.

And I have answered to that Argument, by shewing, that though the seventh day sabbath might be commanded in a Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery; yet it followeth not that every Law that in the Scripture forbiddeth murder and adultery, doth command the se­venth day sabbath.

It doth command it; if it doth not exclude it.

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.

Mr. Coppinger, I suppose it remains for you to [Page 166]prove, that where-ever the words whole Law and royal Law are mentioned in the Scripture, that the seventh day sabbath is included, if it be not excluded.

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.

I have told you, That if I could not shew a text where the seventh day is excluded, yet the Consequence doth not follow, That therefore the seventh day sabbath is included; as in the case of the Passover, and other Judaical Rites, it doth not follow that where these are not verbally exclu­ded from the word whole Law, that therefore they are included, and enjoyned where-ever the whole Law is required to be observed.

But further, I say the sabbath is not included in the Law mentioned James the second: and do you prove it.

You beg the Question, to say it is not inclu­ded James 2.

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.

If you deny the seventh day sabbath is in­tended in the second of James, you may deny it.

I do not deny it because I will deny it, but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it.

Well then, I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the se­cond, thus:

If the Law in this text James the second, be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy, mur­der and adultery, (for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith, We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures) then the seventh day sabbath is included and re­quired in this Law mentioned in this text James the second.

But the Law in this text James the second, is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbid­deth blasphemy, murder and adultery.

Ergo, the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second.

I answer, first, by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism, because it concludes not that [Page 168]which was formerly denyed: for it is no more then what we have had over and over, save that now instead of the word Scripture in the pro­syllogism, you add the Scriptures of the old Testa­ment.

Secondly, I further answer by denying the Consequence; for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy, mur­der and adultery, yet it doth not follow, that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles, that the Law in the old Testament requireth; as for instance: That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adulte­ry, did also command them that they should circumcise their Children, and offer Sacrifices. These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbid­deth murder and adultery, as appears Gal. 5. [...] For I testifie to every man that is circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW.

Now who can deny but this whole Law did for­bid murder and adultery? But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ, doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law, as that Argu­ment supposeth? For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law? John 7.23. and sacrificing is called a part of that Law, Mat. 8.4, and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law? Mark 7.

Now may not a man as well reason thus: If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder, and adultery, and disobedience to parents, then we must keep circumcision, and offering of sacrifices; for these are parts of that whole Law, of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery, and disobedience to Parents, [...] a part? I say, is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger? we must keep ALL that Law (saith [...]) which in the old Testament forbiddeth mur­der and adultery: Ergo, we must keep the seventh day sabbath.

I will prove that the whole Law in this text, Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies, thus:

If the whole Law there mentioned, be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise, then it doth exclude Ceremo­nies.

But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise.

Ergo, the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies.

If it excludeth ceremonies, then it exclu­deth your former Argument, which saith, We are bound to keep the whole of that Law, which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery; and also it ex­cludeth [Page 170]your interpretation of whole Law, in Jam. 2.

For we cannot keep the whole Law, accor­ding to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in an old Testament sence, but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part: for the old Testament law, in which murder and adultery were forbidden, had ceremonies commanded al­so; so that you have confuted your self.

My Argument is of force, unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law.

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.

If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James, according to the Scripture, unless they keep the seventh day sabbath, then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2.

But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James, according to the Scripture, unless they keep the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2.

I deny the Minor.

If the Scripture in this text intend the Scri­ptures of the old Testament onely; then they cannot keep this Law, except they keep the seventh day sabbath.

But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely.

Ergo, they cannot keep this Law, according to the Scriptures, except they keep the se­venth day sabbath.

Your former Argument was of scriptures in general, and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament: now the new Te­stament is scripture, as well as the old, and there­fore Peter saith of some, That they wrested Pauls writings, as they did other scriptures: so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testa­ment, we shall do well.

But secondly, this is but semper Idem, the same over and over, what we had before.

Thirdly, I deny the consequence of the Ma­jor Proposition: for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law, Jam. 2. according to the scri­ptures of the old Testament, in a new Testament sence, and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath.

Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger [Page 172] 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.

If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James, accor­ding to the old Testament, and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath, then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law, unless they keep the seventh day sabbath.

But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law, according to the old Testa­ment; and the old Testament require [...] the keeping of the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo.

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 then 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 [Page 173]That James doth not require the keeping of the whole Law, according to the old Testament.

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.

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.

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.

Your answer is impertinent; for the proof doth lie upon you.

Secondly, you cannot prove we can keep the Law according to the old Testament, unless we are circumcised; doth it follow, that then wee must be circumcised?

But thirdly, if I can prove that believers may keep the law in Jam. 2. according to any scri­pture, without keeping the seventh day sabbath, it is sufficient.

The strength of my Argument lyeth in this, That believers must keep the Law according to the scriptures of the old Testament, which they could not do, without keeping the seventh day sabbath.

And the strength of my Answer lyeth in this, That then they must be circumcised, otherwise they cannot keep the whole Law, according to the old Testament; to which you make no Re­ply.

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, [Page 175]and writeth to them as Believers, and tells them, that if they kept the Royal Law, ac­cording to the scripture, they should do well; and withal, tells them, that whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.

Secondly, That the seventh day sabbath was a point of this Law, I thus reason:

If the Apostle refers them to the Scriptures of the old Testament, and they could not keep the Law according to the old Testa­ment, except they keep the seventh day sabbath, then the seventh day sabbath is one point of this law, Jam. 2.

But the Apostle refers them to the scriptures of the old Testament, and they could not keep the law, according to the old Testa­ment, unless they kept the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, they could not keep the whole Law, Jam. 2. unless they kept the seventh-day sabbath.

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 [Page 176]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 [Page 177]look into the old Testament for our informa­tion therein.

Any otherwise then as the fourth Commandment enjoyns A time to worship, and so hath something in it that is of use unto all.

I come now to a second Argument, to prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

If Christian Jews are bound to keep the se­venth day sabbath, and there is no diffe­rence between Christian Jews and Chri­stian Gentiles, then all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sab­bath.

But Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath, and there is no diffe­rence between Christian Jews and Chri­stian Gentiles.

Ergo, all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

I demand what you mean when you say, There is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles; do you mean no diffe­rence in point of precept, or in point of privi­ledges?

I mean no difference in point of Nations.

This is no answer to the question; my que­stion is about difference in precepts or privi­ledges.

I answer, that there is no difference between the believing Jews and Gentiles in point of precept.

Then I deny the Minor: there is a diffe­rence in point of precept.

Then you grant the Major, that saith, If be­lieving Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath, then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

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.

If there be a difference between believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in point of precept, it is either mentioned in the 15 of the Acts, or the 21 of the Acts, or you must assigne some other text where [Page 179]there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precepts.

But it is not in the 15 of the Acts, not the 21 of the Acts, and you cannot assigne a­ny other place.

Ergo, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precept.

It is both in the 15 of the Acts and 21 of the Acts, and I can assigne 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 purifie 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 thy self 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, &c.

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 ex­presly forbidden such Observations.

Secondly, these were no mean persons that did enjoyn these things, but they were a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders, among whom the Holy Ghost was president, 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 erre; and yet these do enjoyn such things upon the believing Jews, that they expresly charge the believing Gentiles not to observe.

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 [Page 181]enjoyn such a thing as this, would be to deny Christ come in the Flesh; and therefore it was no other then a prudent advice that the Apo­stles and Elders gave to Paul to save his life from those Jews that had conspired his death.

If the words to the Jews, verse 24. are but a bare advice, then 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 Pauls 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 condescention to the Law; therefore the condescention 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 enjoyn it, for if they had enjoyned him to observe the Law of purification, then they did enjoyn 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 [Page 182]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, meerly 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.

As Circumstances might be, an advice may be good; and as Circumstances may be, an advice may be bad.

But as this case was circumstanced, was the advice good or bad?

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.

We must not do evil that good may come [...] so that they ought not to advise Paul to do that which you say denyed Christ come in the flesh, upon the pretence of saving Pauls life.

I say, as Circumstances may be, a man may [Page 183]be advised to do that which at another time under other circumstances may not be done.

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.

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 onely speaks of what WAS.

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 finde what was a duty.

First, I answer to Mr. Coppinger, by shewing him that in his Argument he told us that there was no difference between believing Jews and [Page 184]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. assignes no difference.

Secondly, this precept was to bind Jews un­der the like circumstances to the worlds end, which under no circumstance could bind the Gentiles, because the Apostles and Elders by the assistance of Gods holy Spirit, did expresly 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 then Ana­nias and Saphira his wife were bound to sell all their Estates for to lay at the Apostles feet, for to be disposed for the common good of the Church; yet having made such a dedication voluntarily, they were bound necessarily to per­form it: so Paul, having a vow upon him at Cen­shrea, was afterwards under a Law to perform it, and so were those other Votaries mentioned with him, Acts 21. vers. 23. which vow the [Page 185]Apostles and Elders enjoyn them to discharge, verse 24. but do expresly forbid the Gentiles the observation of any such thing: therefore I have shewn that here was something enjoyned upon the Jews, that was not enjoyned upon the Gentiles.

I do say, This was but an advice, and that it was no preept.

Hereupon one that was a Hearer at this Dispute handed up a Note to Mr. Ives, wherein he did af­firm that Mr. Coppinger did confess at Worcester House that those words about which the Contro­versie did depend, Acts 21.24, 25. were binding precepts, though he now said they were not precepts but advice.

I never said the words in the 24 verse, where the Apostles and Elders bid Paul, and those men with him, purifie themselves, &c. I say, I never said those were precepts; but indeed I said that the words in the 25 verse were pre­cepts, where the Gentiles are expresly forbid­den the doing of any such thing. I say, these indeed are precepts, and binding to believing Gentiles.

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 [Page 186]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.

Sir, I think enough hath been said to this Argument, and therefore my advice is, that you would proceed to another.

All believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath, I thus prove:

If it be the Doctrine of the new Testament, that Gods people ought to keep the se­venth day sabbath, then all believing Gen­tiles ought to keep the seventh day sabbath

But it is the Doctrine of the New Testament that Gods people ought to keep the se­venth day sabbath.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles ought to keep the seventh day sabbath.

I pray what do you mean by the terms Gods people in your Argument? because the Jews are called Gods people by way of distinction from o­ther people.

I mean such as are bound to hear every word, and to observe the principles of Religion, Re­pentance from dead works, and faith towards God, with the Doctrine of Baptisms, &c.

If you mean all Gods people, and all belie­vers without exception, then there is no Medi­um in the Syllogism, for then the Argument runs thus: If all Gods people are required, then they are all required.

I then argue thus:

If the Church of the Hebrews, by vertue of this Epistle to the Hebrews, were bound to keep the seventh day sabbath, then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

But the Church of the Hebrews, by vertue of this Epistle to the Hebrews, were bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

I answer: First, if by Church of the Hebrews you mean Jews, then it is but the same with the Argument we last dispatched, for then you said, If the believing Jews were commanded, then the believing Gentiles were commanded.

And secondly, if you mean Gentiles, then I [Page 188]answer as before, That there is no medium in the Syllogism.

I mean onely that very Church as they were a particular Congregation, distinguished from all other Churches, and then there is a medium, viz.

If that Church were commanded to keep the seventh day, then believing Churches are commanded to keep the seventh day sab­bath.

But that Church was commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath.

Therefore, all Believers, and all other Chur­ches, are required and commanded to keep the seventh day sabbath.

And so consequently, all believing Gentiles.

I do deny both Major and Minor; for both Propositions are justly to be excepted against.

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 [Page 189]remaineth a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God, for so it is read in your Margent; here then, is a sabbath commanded, and the third verse tells us, that this was not commanded onely for the Hebrews, but for Believers in general, there­fore it is said, He that believeth, hath entered into rest: and that this was the seventh day rest, ap­pears, because the text saith, He ceaseth from his own works, as God did from his: now God ceased the seventh day from his works, as the text tells us, vers.4. therefore he doth admonish them to take heed that they did not fall, after the same example of disobedience, in breaking the Sab­bath, as the Israelites fell in the Wilderness; therefore if you read Chap. 2. vers. 15, 16, 17. you will find with whom he was grieved forty years, was it not those whose Carcases fell in the wildernesse? and that they fell for breaking the seventh day sabbath, appears Ezek. 20.12, 13. Moreover also, I gave them my sabbath, to be a signe between me and them, &c. But (saith the 13 verse) the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness &c. and my sabbath they greatly pol­luted; then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness to consume them: and ver. 15. I lifted up my hand against them in the wilderness, &c. because they despised my Judgements, and wal­ked not in my Statutes, but polluted my Sabbaths. And therefore David admonisheth them in his time not to harden their hearts as in the wil­derness, [Page 190] Psal. 95.7. but while it was called, To day, to hear his voice, and not harden their hearts: so here, the Author to the Hebrews tells them there remains the keeping of a sab­bath for them and all believers; but doth bid them take heed of Israels sins in the wilderness, which you see was Sabbath-breaking, as well as other sins, lest, as the eleventh verse saith, they fall after the same example of unbelief, or disobe­dience.

I shall shew that you have wholly mistaken the text.

For,

First, you are to prove a rest or sabbath com­manded, and this text speaks of a rest that is promised, as appears vers 1. of Chap. 4. where the Author to the Hebrews bids them fear, lest A PROMISE being left of entering into his Rest, any should seem to come short through unbe­lief.

Secondly, the text, from the Greek, ought rather to be read A Sabbatism, then the keeping of a Sabbath: however, the word is not SAB­BATH DAY; and when I did dispute with you last, you would not allow that the word sabbaths in Col. 2.16, 17. should be understood of a sabbath day, though there was good reason to under­stand it so, because the word day was not in the Original, though it was in the English Text: but here you will have it to be understood of [Page 191] sabbath day, though the word be neither in the English nor Greek text, and though there be no reason why you should so notion it. But

Thirdly, this rest is not a rest commanded, or a seventh day sabbath rest, because the se­venth day sabbath, unbelievers and their cattel might have injoyed; but the rest here promised, is reserved onely for believers, which none else shall share in.

Fourthly, the rest here spoken of, is a rest that Joshua could not give them; but he did give them the seventh day rest, therefore this could not be spoken of the seventh day: see for this purpose the eighth verse of this fourth Chap­ter, where it is said, that if Joshua had given them rest, he would not afterwards have spoken of another day; and then adds, that there remaines THEREFORE a rest to the people of God, vers. 9. Therefore? Wherefore? the eighth verse tells us, because Joshua did not give them rest: so that this, if it prove any thing, it proves against Mr. Coppinger, because it supposes some other day, then what they enjoyed in the time of Jo­shua.

Fifthly, whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us, That it must be meant of the seventh day sabbath, be­cause the text saith, He that believeth ceaseth from his own work as God did from his;

I answer, That this doth not prove a com­mand for a man to forbear working upon the [Page 192]seventh day; but it shews rather, the privi­ledges that men shall enjoy through believing, viz. that they shall rest from their labours: so saith Christ, Come unto me, all ye that LABOUR, and I will give you rest, Mat. 11.28. and vers. 29 Christ promises that they shall find REST to their souls; and, Blessed are the dead, that die in the Lord, for they REST from their LABOURS, and their works follow them, Rev. 13.14. in like man­ner, the Author to the Hebrews would be un­derstood, when he tells us that he that doth believe, hath ceased from his labour, as God did from his.

Sixthly, though the Author to the Hebrews al­ludeth to the seventh day, upon which God rest­ed, yet this doth not prove that therefore we must enter into the Jewish or seventh day rest; no more then it proves we must enter into the Literal Canaan, because he alludeth also to that Literal Canaan in which Joshua conducted Is­rael: but he rather informs them, that as they under the Law had a time of rest, and a place of rest, so they that did believe should have a day of Grace, and a place of Glory, in which they should be like God, in rest for ever, never to labour more, even as God rested and wrought no more, when he had ended his six dayes work: therefore he bids them LABOƲR to enter into his rest; but the seventh day rest they might en­ter into without labour.

Seventhly, whereas Mr. Coppinger tells us, that the Author to the Hebrews exhorts, that we should not fall after the same example of unbelief and disobedience that the Israelites fell into, in the wilderness, which (saith he) was sabbath-breaking, as appears by Ezek. 20.16. as well as other sins, therefore (saith he) by the same example, must be understood that he cautions them to beware of breaking the se­venth day sabbath.

To which I answer, That this is a straining the text; for it doth not follow that he doth admonish the Christians to beware of the same particular sins, as Mr. Coppinger would notion it; but of sins in general: for first, we cannot be guilty of loathing Manna, nor of murmur­ing at the waters of Meribah; and yet the A­postle saith, 1 Cor. 10.6. That THESE were for our examples, &c. So in like manner we can­not be guilty of sin in not observing the se­venth day sabbath, any more then we can be guilty of loathing Manna; and yet Gods judgments upon them for all their old Testa­ment sins, are set forth to us for examples, not [...] tye us to the same duties, but to Gospel-Obe­dience in all things, lest we incur the same of [...]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 [Page 194]wait upon the altar, should live of the altar? even so hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. May not a man as reasonably infer from hence, that because the maintenance of the Levitical priesthood is here set forth as an example to teach us to take care of Gospel-Ministers, that therefore they must be maintained after the same manner as the Priests were maintained that waited upon the Altar, as Mr. Coppinger may say, Because Gods Judgments against Israels sins in the Wilder­ness, are set forth to us for examples, that there­fore we, who are believing Gentiles under the Gospel, (to avoid the like Judgements) must do all the Commandments, and believe all the promises that Israel suffered his displeasure for in the Wilderness, for not obeying and believ­ing?

Having thus answered you Paraphrase upon the text, I do again call upon you to prove that the Rest or Sabbath spoken of Heb. 4. is a se­venth day sabbath which we are commanded to observe; for the sum of my Answer is, that this is a Rest promised, and not a Rest or seventh day sabbath commanded: therefore pray let us have an Argument for the proof of it.

My Exposition of the Text proves it well e­nough.

Pray draw your sence upon the text into an [Page 195]Argument, and let us see if you can prove that here is a seventh day sabbath commanded.

I cannot put it into an Argument, because it refers to several texts for the explaining of it.

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.

If Christ did teach the observation of the seventh day sabbath, then all believing Gentiles are bound to observe it.

But Christ did teach the observation of the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to observe the seventh day sabbath.

Pray explain what you mean, when you say, Christ DID teach it: do you mean before his death or after?

I do mean that Christ did teach the seventh day sabbath upon the Mount, Mat. 5. VVhence I thus argue:

If Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount did preach the seventh day sabbath, then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

But Christ in his Sermon upon the Mount did [Page 196]preach the seventh day sabbath.

Ergo, all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath.

I tell you, Sir, that this is not fair arguing, when both Propositions are justly to be deny­ed: 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 shew some things that Christ commanded to be observed upon the Mount, that Mr. Coppinger himself saith, Be­lieving Gentiles are not bound to observe.

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, then 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.

I deny the Minor: all that Christ taught upon the Mount is not to abide as long as Heaven and Earth remain.

Then you must shew us something that Christ did teach upon the Mount, and command others to teach, that is not binding.

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.

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 [Page 198] 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.

I answer to the last first; that Mr. Coppinger doth abuse Interpreters, or else he never read any; for I challenge him to shew 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 shewed 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 shew 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 intend a li­teral altar, appears, if we do but consider Mat. 8.4. where we shall finde that what Christ taught upon the Mount, he exhorts the man that was cured of his Leprosie to observe; for as soon as Christ descended from the Mount, he cleans'd [Page 199]the Leper, and then commanded him to offer a gift as Moses had commanded; which could not be understood allegorically.

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 testifie Christ unto the Priest, and tell him that Jesus of Nazareth made him whole This cannot be the true sence of the Lepers shewing himself to the Priest for a Testimony, but rather it was in ob­servation of Moses Law which did command the Lepers to shew 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 dwelt in an out-house: See Lev. 14..

I answer to your last first: That if Christ did command the Leper to shew 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.

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 Lev. 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.

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 burnt Offering and the meat Offering upon the ALTAR, and the Priest shall make an Atonement for him, and he shall be clean.

But what if here was an Altar? this was spo­ken by Christ to the leper, after he came off the mount; but our difference lay about the mean­ing of the word Altar and Gift, in Christs Ser­mon upon the Mount, Mat. 5.

I pray Sir, confess your Errour for shame; for is it not a shame for you to to tell us, that Christ commanded the Leper to offer his Gift without an Altar, when Christ bid him offer it as Moses commanded? and when you turned to the Law of Moses, did you not say, the Priest was to offer without an Altar? and now I shew you that the Priest did offer upon the Altar, for the clensing of the Leper, you put it off, and tell me, What if there were an Altar? it is not to your purpose; why did you not say so at first, and save us this labour? but give me leave to tell you again, that it is to my purpose to shew you the Errour of your Argument: for if Christ commands the Leper to observe all those ceremonial observations for his clensing, then is your Argument false, that saith, All things that Christ commanded us in his Sermon upon the Mount, all believing Gentiles are bound to observe to the end of the world; but you say this that Christ commands the Leper to do, was not on the Mount, but as soon as he came off the Mount, & this (you say) is nothing [Page 202]to Gift and Altar, mentioned in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount. I answer, That the difference in places, especially so little differ­ence as between Christs being on the Mount, and off from the Mount, could not make a dif­ference in his commands. Secondly, it cannot reasonably be imagined, that Christ would command the Leper to do any thing when he came off the Mount, that was contradictory to what he did command when he was upon the Mount; therefore I have great reason to be­lieve that the Altar that he commands them to offer their Gift on, in Mat. 5. in his Sermon upon the Mount, is the material Altar, like un­to that which he bids the Leper offer his Gift on, as soon as he comes off from the Mount, Mat. 8. and this I the rather believe, because that there is no text from the beginning of the Bible to the death of the Messiah, that speaks of an allegorical Altar.

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, &c. where he useth those gene­ral terms, in a sence differing from the old Te­stament.

I answer: first, That the Apostle doth not [...]ut any other sence upon those words, then David puts upon them in the Psalms: second­ly, if he did, that is no rule for you; as for instance, David saith in the sixteenth Psalm, that God will not leave his soul in hell, &c. this the A­postle saith, Act. 2.31. that David spake of the resurrection of Christ: so in like manner, though I may restrain a text, when God restrains [...], and allegorize a text, when the holy Ghost [...]oth warrant me; may I therefore allegorize 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 [...]aterial altar, then have I confuted your Argu­ment, by shewing that some things that Christ commanded in his Sermon upon the Mount, are not in force to all believing Gentiles to the end of the world.

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.

I shall then briefly urge one Argument, which take as followeth:

If the seventh day sabbath was of force be­fore [Page 204]the death of Christ, to believing Gen­tiles, then it is of force still.

But the seventh day sabbath was of force be­fore the death of Christ to believing Gen­tiles.

Ergo, it is of force still.

SIR, I wonder that you make Arguments that have not one true Proposition in them; for this is like the last, both Propositions being false: however, prove the Minor.

It is observable, that Mr. Coppinger, in the last Dispute before this, did affirm, That all the Gentiles were bound to keep all the ceremonies of the Law of Moses: now then if this be a good Argument why we must keep the seventh day sabbath now, be­cause we were to keep it before the death of Christ, then we must be circumcised and offer sacrifices, for the same reason, because he himself did confess that those things the Gentiles were bound to observe, be­fore the death of Christ.

If the Reason of a Law doth remain the same that it was before Christs death, the Law doth remain the same.

But the reason of the seventh day sabbath doth remain.

Ergo, the Law for the seventh day sabbath doth remain.

I deny the Major: for that which you call the [Page 205]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 [...]ervant, and cattle may be refreshed.

But further, there is another reason urged why we must keep the Law that commands he seventh day sabbath, and that is (say you) because we believe, as well as the Jews, that God made heaven and earth in six dayes, and [...]ested the seventh, therefore we as well as the Jews, must work six dayes, and keep the Satur­day, or seventh day sabbath: I say, this conse­ [...]ence doth not follow; for the reason why [...]srael was commanded to sanctifie the priests, [...]he sons of Aaron, was, because the Lord their God did sanctifie them, Lev. 21.8. now though I do believe with Israel, that the Lord doth san­ctifie me, yet I am not bound for this reason to [Page 206]sanctifie 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.

As to your first instance, namely, that the seventh yeer was commanded for a Mora reason: I answer, This was not an universal rea­son; for the text faith, That the poor of THY peo­ple may eat, which was not for all: and as to your second instance, I confess the reason doth remain and is universal. viz. That God doth sanctifie us; and therefore I say the Law remains, that we should sanctifie Gods Ministers still.

As for your Answer to my first instance, it doth signifie little: for I say refreshing the poor is a moral and universal duty; and if than the seventh yeer of rest was commanded for the benefit of their poor and cattle, then by your Argument, if the reason of this Law, ( viz. that the poor should be refreshed) do remain then it must needs follow, by your Logick, tha [...] the seventh yeer sabbath must remain, as well as the seventh day sabbath.

And as touching your answer to my second instance, I must tell you, that in your Answer you have confuted your self; for you confess the reason of the Law remains, which was given to Israel for sanctifying the priest.

Secondly, you say that the Law remains that we must sanctifie Gods Ministers: then by your favour, if you can make the reason of the Law for sanctifying the Priest, the sons of Aaron, a reason why you should sanctifie not the same but another Priesthood, then I may make the reasons for sanctifying the seventh day sab­bath, serve for the sanctifying not the same but another day.

So you may, if you can prove the abolishing of the seventh day sabbath, as I can prove the abolishing the Levitical Priesthood.

Then you have confuted your self again, and answered your own Argument: for your Argu­ment was, that where-ever the reason of a Law remains, there the Law remains; and you have confessed that the reason of the Law doth re­main why God would have Israel sanctifie the Priest, the sons of Aaron; and now in your last answer tell me, That that Priesthood is a­bolished. So then, if I could never shew you that the seventh day sabbath was abolished, yet I have confuted your Argument, by shewing that the reason of a Law doth remain when the Law doth not remain, and you have confessed both; for you say that the reason why Israel was to sanctifie that Priesthood, is the same still, viz. because God sanctifies his people; and you [Page 208]confessed the Law is not the same; for you say, The Priesthood is abolished.

But lastly, I have shewn you in the former Disputation, that the seventh day sabbath was abolished as well as the Levitical Priesthood; by an Argument which you could not answer, which I raised from that text Col. 2.16, 17. with which I shall conclude this Disputation: Let no man therefore judge you in meats or in drinks, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moons, or of the SABBATH days, which are ASHA. DOW of things to come: but the body is of Christ.

Thus having given a faithful account of all the Arguments and Answer that were insisted on in the several Disputations, without omitting of any one text of Scripture, Argument or Answer, that was urged on either side; I shall leave the whole to the judgement of those that are impartial, desiring of God that it may answer the ends for which it is sent forth into the world, which is the glory of Almighty GOD, and the establishment of the Weak: which is all that is herein aymed at, by