you deny the seventh day sabbath is intended in the second of James you may deny it Mr. Ives I do not deny it because I will deny it but I will deny it because I have reason to deny it Mr. Coppinger Well then I will prove that the seventh day sabbath is commanded in this text James the second thus If the Law in this text James the second be the whole of that Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery for unto that Law the Apostle James alludeth when he saith We must fulfil it according to the Scriptures then the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second But the Law in this text James the second is the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included and required in this Law mentioned in this text James the second Mr. Ives I answer first by shewing that I may deny the Syllogism because it concludes not that which was formerly denyed for it is no more then what we have had over and over save that now instead of the word Scripture in the prosyllogism you add the Scriptures of the old Testament Secondly I further answer by denying the Consequence for though the Law mentioned in the second of James be the Law which in the old Testament forbiddeth blasphemy murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that every thing must be observed by the believing Gentiles that the Law in the old Testament requireth as for instance That Law in the old Testament that forbids murder and adultery did also command them that they should circumcise their Children and offer Sacrifices These were parts of that whole Law which in the Scriptures of the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery as appears Gal. 5. 〈◊〉 For I testifie to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the WHOLE LAW Now who can deny but this whole Law did forbid murder and adultery But though we must abstain from these according to the Law of Nature and Christ doth it therefore follow that we must observe every part of Moses Law as that Argument supposeth For is not circumcising called a part of Moses Law John 7.23 and sacrificing is called a part of that Law Mat. 8.4 and is not honouring the father and mother called Moses Law Mark 7. Now may not a man as well reason thus If we must keep all that Law which in the old Testament Forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to parents then we must keep circumcision and offering of sacrifices for these are parts of that whole Law of which the Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery and disobedience to Parents 〈◊〉 a part I say is not this the same with Mr. Coppinger we must keep ALL that Law saith 〈◊〉 which in the old Testament forbiddeth murder and adultery Ergo we must keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger I will prove that the whole Law in this text Jam. 2. doth exclude Ceremonies thus If the whole Law there mentioned be that Law that Christians were to preach and practise then it doth exclude Ceremonies But the whole Law mentioned in this text Jam. 2. is that whole Law that Christians were to preach and practise Ergo the Law mentioned in this text doth exclude Ceremonies Mr. Ives If it excludeth ceremonies then it excludeth your former Argument which saith We are bound to keep the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures of the Old Testament did forbid murder and adultery and also it excludeth your interpretation of whole Law in Jam. 2. For we cannot keep the whole Law according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament in an old Testament sence but we must observe the ceremonial as well as the moral part for the old Testament law in which murder and adultery were forbidden had ceremonies commanded also so that you have confuted your self Mr. Coppinger My Argument is of force unless you prove the sabbath is excluded from this word whole Law Mr. Ives It is not of force unless you prove the seventh day sabbath is included for â— am Râ—spondent and do deny it to be included and do expect your proof for you confess some part of the whole Law is excluded Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. But believing Gentiles cannot keep this law in the second of James according to the Scripture unless they keep the seventh day sabbath Ergo the seventh day sabbath is included in this text Jam. 2. Mr. Ives I deny the Minor Mr. Coppinger If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Testament onely then they cannot keep this Law except they keep the seventh day sabbath But the scriptures in this text respects the scriptures of the old Testament onely Ergo they cannot keep this Law according to the Scriptures except they keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives Your former Argument was of scriptures in general and this Argument restrains scriptures onely to the old Testament now the new Testament is scripture as well as the old and therefore Peter saith of some That they wrested Pauls writings as they did other scriptures so that if we can keep the law that James injoyns according to the scriptures of the new Testament we shall do well But secondly this is but semper Idem the same over and over what we had before Thirdly I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition for believing Gentiles may keep the whole law Jam. 2. according to the scriptures of the old Testament in a new Testament sence and yet not keep the seventh day sabbath Who is there but may perceive Mr. Coppinger runs in a Ring which Logicians call Circular Disputation Again Mr. Coppinger hath confessed that ceremonies are abolished therefore it cannot in all points be kept according to the scriptures of the Old Testament Mr. Coppinger If believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law in the second of James according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireth the keeping of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that they cannot keep the whole law unless they keep the seventh day sabbath But believing Gentiles are bound to keep the whole law according to the old Testament and the old Testament requireâ— the keeping of the seventh day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny both Major and Minor For First it doth not follow that because I muâ—â— keep the law in the second of James according to the old Testament that therefore I must keeâ— the sabbath required in the old Testament 〈◊〉 more then because I must forbear killing as it 〈◊〉 written in the old Testament that therefore must circumcise according to the old Testament But
secondly I deny the Minor and so That James doth not require the keeping of the whole Law according to the old Testament Mr. Coppinger I prove the Minor thus They that break one point of the Law in the old Testament they are guilty of the whole and cannot fulfil this law But he that breaks the seventh day sabbath breaks one point of the Law in the old Testament Ergo. Mr. Ives I deny the Major and say A man may break some points of the law contained in the Old Testament and yet keep this Law required in Jam. 2. Mr. Coppinger If you can prove that we can keep the law according to the old Testament and not keep the seventh day sabbath you do something Mr. Ives Your answer is impertinent for the proof doth lie upon you Secondly you cannot prove we can keep the Law according to the old Testament unless we are circumcised doth it follow that then wee must be circumcised But thirdly if I can prove that believers may keep the law in Jam. 2. according to any scripture without keeping the seventh day sabbath it is sufficient Mr. Coppinger The strength of my Argument lyeth in this That believers must keep the Law according to the scriptures of the old Testament which they could not do without keeping the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives And the strength of my Answer lyeth in this That then they must be circumcised otherwise they cannot keep the whole Law according to the old Testament to which you make no Reply Mr. Coppinger I argue further If Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. then they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the whole Royal Law as it is laid down in this text Jam. 2. Ergo Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath This Argument contains two Parts The one is That Christian Gentiles are bound to keep this law Jam. 2. The other is That this Law contains the seventh day sabbath First he speaks to Christians in general therefore to Gentiles Because he calls them Brethren and writeth to them as Believers and tells them that if they kept the Royal Law according to the scripture they should do well and withal tells them that whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all Secondly That the seventh day sabbath was a point of this Law I thus reason If the Apostle refers them to the Scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the Law according to the old Testament except they keep the seventh day sabbath then the seventh day sabbath is one point of this law Jam. 2. But the Apostle refers them to the scriptures of the old Testament and they could not keep the law according to the old Testament unless they kept the seventh day sabbath Ergo they could not keep the whole Law Jam. 2. unless they kept the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I have answered to this Argument over and over and therefore I shall take a little time to speak a few words more and then I shall desire we may go to a fresh Argument First then this word whole Law it either respects the whole Law that the Jews were to observe or the whole Law that Christians are to observe if the whole Law here respect the Law that the Jews were to observe then if we should be bound to that we should be bound to observe Ceremonies as well as Morals for thus whole Law is understood both in the Old and New Testament when it relates to the Laws the Jews were to keep as appears Gal. 5.3 compared with 2 Chron. 33.8 where God tells Israel that he will never remove them if they will keep the WHOLE law with the Statutes and Ordinances But secondly This word whole law doth relate to the Law of liberty which believers are to keep which is opposed to the yoke of bondage as appears by comparing James 1. ver 25. with James 2 and 12 where he bids them so speak and so do â—s those that should be judged by the Law of liberty which is opposed to the Law of Moses for that it is called a yoke of bondage So that here is not one word of the seventh day sabbath but indeed of a royal Law and a Law of liberty which Christians are bound to keep according to the Scriptures in doing by all men as they would be done untoâ— for what Law soever Christ hath commended and confirmed to us out of the Scriptures of the old Testament these laws indeed we must keep according to the Scriptures of the old Testament but Christ hath not confirmed the Saturday sabbath and therefore we are not to look into the old Testament for our information therein Any otherwise then as the fourth Commandment enjoyns A time to worship and so hath something in it that is of use unto all Mr. Coppinger I come now to a second Argument to prove that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath If Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles then all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But Christian Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath and there is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles Ergo all Christian Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I demand what you mean when you say There is no difference between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles do you mean no difference in point of precept or in point of priviledges Mr. Coppinger I mean no difference in point of Nations Mr. Ives This is no answer to the question my question is about difference in precepts or priviledges Mr. Coppinger I answer that there is no difference between the believing Jews and Gentiles in point of precept Mr. Ives Then I deny the Minor there is a difference in point of precept Mr. Coppinger Then you grant the Major that saith If believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives If the Antecedent were true the Consequence would not follow and therefore I do not grant the Major however I desire you to prove that part of the Minor as you have explained it that saith Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are all one in point of precepts Mr. Coppinger If there be a difference between believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in point of precept it is either mentioned in the 15 of the Acts or the 21 of the Acts or you must assigne some other text where there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in point of precepts But it is not in the 15 of the Acts not the 21 of the Acts and you cannot assigne any other place Ergo there is no difference between
Command that required the Observation of the seventh day and yet I may not be guilty of sin Dr. Chamberlain He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law is guilty of sin But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law Ergo. Mr. Ives I answer By distinguishing of the term HE in the Major proposition for if you do not mean every he then I deny the Syllogism And if you do mean every he or every one then I deny the Minor for these Reasons First this text that you refer to in your Argument was written to the Twelve Tribes Jam. 1.1 and therefore you cannot reasonably conclude that because the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law that therefore every believing Gentile is so bound Secondly if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epistle yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments for there is no such thing in the Text. Dr. Chamberlain This was written to the twelve Tribes as Christians and therefore to every Christian Mr. Ives I say as before that every he in the intent of our question is not concern'd in this Epistle and if they were yet these words The Ten Commandments which are in the Argument are not in this Text and therefore every one of the Ten Commandments as understood by you in the Argument must be concluded from hence or you do not prove the thing denyed Dr. Chamberlain Lest you should equivocate about this word Law the Apostle cites the sum of the Second Table and he doth not mention any part of the First Table by which it appears that by the Royal Law he intends the Ten Commandments unless you will say that by the Second Table is meant the whole Law Therefore I 〈◊〉 He that is bound 〈◊〉 keep the whole Law is bound to keep all the ten Commandments But every Christian is bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Every Christian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments Mr. Ives Forasmuch as you have not said any thing new but what you have said already over and over I therefore answer by denying the Major and say That a man may keep the whole Law in the sense of this text and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your sense And though I do confess we are bound to keep and observe all the other nine Commandments yet we are not bound to observe the command for the seventh-day-sabbath which is one of the ten Commandments And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to serve God I confess we are to observe that also though we are not tied to the seventh day Dr. Cham. Well then I will prove the Major thus If the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole Law Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law are bound to keep the ten Commandments But the ten Commandments are contained in this word the whole law Ergo. M. Ives I deny the minor and say that in the sense of this text this word the whole law doth not contain all the ten Commandments Dr. Cham. I further argue If there be never a Commandment but is a point of the whole If every one of the Ten be a part of the whole If every part of the Ten be contained in the whole If he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of the whole Then he is commanded to keep the whole But he that breaks one Commandments is guilty of the whole Ergo He is commanded to keep the whole It is observable that the Doctor made three essays to bring forth a Syllogism to prove the thing denyed but could not bring them into perfect Syllogisms at last he makes a Syllogism that concludes not the thing in controversie Mr. Ives I deny the whole Syllogism because it concludes not the matter in question for the thing in question is Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the sense of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments and by consequence the Seventh-day-Sabbath and your Argument concludes we must keep the whole and all the Commandments which was never denyed Dr. Cham. If you deny Scripture I have done with you Mr. Ives I do not deny the Scripture but your Syllogism which concludes not the thing in question as I have shewn you once and again As it hath been answered that S. James doth not write to Gentiles and that he doth not enjoyn the ten Commandments by this word The whole Law and so consequently not the Seventh-day-Sabbath so it may further be answered that if those words The whole Law should respect the Law of Moses then if believing Gentiles are bound to the whole Law they are bound to Circumcision also and every other Ceremony of the Law therefore there Apostle saith Gal. 5.3 that if they were circumcised they were bound to keep the WHOLE Law By which it appears that the believing Gentiles that were not circumcised were not bound to keep the WHOLE Law So that when St. James enjoyns the keeping of the whole Law he tells us what Law he means in Chap. 1. v. â—â— compared with Chap. 2. v. 12. where he call it the law of Liberty by way of distinction from the law of Moses which is called a yoke of Bondage Gal. 4.3 9. Acts 15.10 which law of Liberty is called the law of Christ Gal 6.2 and is no less then the Gospel that is preached which S. James bids them not to be forgetful hearers of Jam. 1.25 but admonisheth them to look into the perfect law of liberty and to continue therein So that the Doctor had no reason to say that the Scripture was denyed by his Respondent because he denyed the Law that required the Seventh-day-Sabbath to be contained in the whole Law mentioned by S. James It seemeth then very strange that in a free and publike Disputation the Doctor should charge his Respondent for denying the Scriptures because he denyed his sense thereof which was all that the Doctor said unto this last Argument And the time of his Opponencie being ended the Doctor was by Agreement to answer Mr. Ives his Arguments which take as followeth Mr. Ives I shall undertake by the help of God to prove that all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath If the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Then all Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath But the Gentile Christians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath Ergo All Christians are not commanded to keep the seventh-day-Sabbath Dr. Cham There is no such kinde of creature in the world as a Gentile Christian Mr. Ives Sir I will shew you such a kinde of creature since you seem to be ignorant therefore pray look into Acts 21.25 and you shall see that the Gentiles are called believing Gentiles which is all one with Christian Gentiles And if
seem strange I pray consider Acts 21.23 24 25. where it is observable that a holy Convocation of Apostles and Elders being met at Jerusalem did injoyn Paul to observe somethings which at no hand they would have the Gentiles to observe but gave them a solemn charge to the contrary for in the 23 and 24 verses the Assembly of Apostles and Elders do enjoyn Paul saying DOE this that WE say to thee we have four men which have a vow upon them them take and purifie thy self with them and be at charges with them that they may shave their heads and ALL may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thou thy self walkest orderly and keepest the Law But as touching the GENTILES which beleeve we have written and concluded that THEY observe NO SUCH thing c. Here we see a holy convocation of Apostles and Elders guided by the Spirit of truth do require that of Paul being a Jew that they expresly command the Gentile beleevers not to observe Would it not be ridiculous then for a man to say that I must either observe all the Apostles injunctions to the Jews or else that I must reject all the injunctions of the Apostles even those that concern the Gentiles for after this rate Mr. Tillam reasons viz. that I must either observe all James his Epistle or none at all because saith he there is no difference between Jew and Greek Now then by this place in the 21 of the Acts you see there was some difference by order from the Apostles in point of observation but no difference in point of justification which is the scope of the Apostle in that text cited by Mr. Tillam Rom. 10.11 12. There is no difference between Jew and Greek for the same Lord over all is RICH unto all that call upon him so that the Argument remains unanswered for all that Mr. Tillam hath said because the Scripture saith plainly that the uncircumcised Gentiles were not bound to keep the whole Law therefore from those words the WHOLE LAVV the seventh-day sabbath cannot reasonably be inferred Neither let any one think to relieve himself by the help of this distinction viz. that though beleevers are not to keep the whole Law as it contains Morals and Ceremonials yet they are bound to observe the whole Law as it contains morals only for first the Law of Moses makes no such distinctions as a whole and a whole Law neither doth the Scriptures of the New Testament make any such distinction for when it speaks of the VVHOLE Law with reference to the Law of Moses it always includes both Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Laws which are all but several parts of the Israelites VVHOLE Law But secondly Suppose we should allow the distressed the help of this distinction viz. that sometime Moses Law is called the WHOLE LAW with reference to the moral part of it only as suppose it so in this 2 of James now under debate doth it therefore follow that the seventh-day sabbath is part of the moral Law is not the imagination of such a conceipt as this a stranger to the heart of an ingenious disputant who abhors to beg that Question he cannot proveâ— for could that be but proved which is so often taken for granted viz. that the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath is a moral Duty then the Controversiâ—â— were at an end for doubtless all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law Mr. Tillam Whereas you say somewhat was injoyned upon the Jews that was not upon the Gentiles I question if this was not the Apostles weakness for they were subject to like passion For at another time a less matter then this mentioned by you Act 21. was counted hypocrisie Secondly James is speaking of the Royal Law but this example of yours relates to the Law of Ceremonies Thirdly if this Epistle of James were written to believing Jews then there is one Law for the believing Jews and another for the believing Gentiles and if so believing Jews are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and believing Gentiles are not and how can this be without confusion Mr. Ives I answer to the last first that then your book is full of Confusion for in your book you allowed both dayes to be observed to wit the seventh day and the first day And secondly the Scripture is full of confusion if you say true for the Scripture tells us of the Jews observation of the seventh day and the Gentiles of the first day But secondly it followeth not that the believing Jews are bound by my confession to keep the seventh-day sabbath seeing that your term whole Law mentioned in James 2. doth not prove the Sabbath to be there intended any more then it proves circumcision or any other Jewish ceremony Thirdly when I cite a text to shew that the Apostles being guided by Gods holy Spirit did order Paul being a Jew to observe some things which they strictly commanded the Gentiles not to observe Mr. Tillam answers That this was the Apostles weakness by which it appears that rather then Mr. Tillam will be accounted weak he will brand the Apostle Paul and the whole Council of Apostles and Elders assembled at Jerusalem with the Holy Ghost with weakness but it is more likely that Mr. Tillam should be weak then Paul and all that Assembly among whom the Holy Ghost was present in so solemn a Judgment And whereas Mr. Tillam tells us that Peter played the hypocrite Gal. 2.13 in that he compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I answer that this is nothing to our purpose First because the text cited by me Act. 21. onely speaks of Jews that were advised to live as Jews and of Gentiles that were forbidden so to live vers 25. but the text in Gal. 2. speakes of Gentiles that Peter did compel to live as do the Jews which is clearly another thing Now then if this text cited by Mr. Tillam Gal. 2. in which it is said Peter was to blame for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews I say if this text serves any thing to the present controversie it is to shew that Mr. Tillam playes the hypocrite in that he being as he calls himself a Minister of the Gentiles doth command the Gentiles to live as do the Jews in keeping the Saturday for a Sabbath And lastly the second of the Galatians blames Peter sharply for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews but there is none but Mr. Tillam that 〈◊〉 ever heard of that ever presumed to blame not only Paul in what he did Act. 21. but also the whole Assembly of Apostles in which the holy GHOST was present a piece of such great presumption that scarce can be parallel'd in any story And whereas he saith the instance Acts 21. is of the Ceremonial Law and not of the Royal Law I answer that all GOD's Laws are Royal but secondly though the instance in
sabbath then all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath But all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law James 2. and that Law doth contain the seventh day sabbath Ergo all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath Mr. Ives I deny the Syllogism because you do not conclude that which was denyed for this Argument should have concluded that if all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the royal Law in the second of James that THEN it follows that they are bound to keep the seventh day sabbath which was the consequence denyed in the Major Proposition of the former Argument Mr. Coppinger If the royal Law mentioned in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery then the seventh-day sabbath is one point of that Law But the royal Law mentioned in the second of James is the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery Ergo the seventh day sabbath is one point of that Law Mr. Ives Sir I wonder you should pretend to dispute Syllogistically and yet make two Syllogisms that conclude not the Major proposition denyed in the first Syllogism however because I would not spend time about trifles I shall answer this Argument by denying the consequence of the Major Proposition for though the royal Law mentioned in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery yet it doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath is a point or a part of it because every Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery doth not command the seventh day sabbath For murder was by the Law given to Noah prohibited and so was adultery and yet the seventh day sabbath was no point or part of it so that a man may keep the royal Law which in the Scripture prohibits murder and adultery and yet 〈◊〉 keep the seventh day sabbath for all the Patriarchs from Adam to Moses kept that royal Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery and yet never any of them kept the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger If that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath then it followeth that if the royal Law in the second of James be the whole of that Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery that then the seventh-day sabbath is one point of that Law But that Law which in the Scriptures prohibiteth murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh-day sabbath Ergo. Mr. Ives If by the terms that law c. you mean every Law which in the Scriptures prohibits murder and adultery doth also prohibit the breach of the seventh day sabbath then I deny the Minor because every Law which in the Scripture prohibiteth murder and adultery doth not prohibit the breach of the seventh-day sabbath for the Scripture speaks of the Law given to Noah and the Law in Nature and the Law of Christ all these are royal Laws and do prohibit murder and adultery and yet none of these prohibit the breach of your seventh day sabbath but if by that Law c. you do not mean whatsoever Law then I deny the Syllogism as fallacious Mr. Coppinger I say the whole Law is never mentioned where the seventh day sabbath is excluded therefore it is included Mr. Ives I deny both Antecedent and Consequent For the whole Law may be mentioned where the seventh day sabbath is excluded but if that were true the consequence doth not follow that the seventh day sabbath is included for the whole Law sometimes contains ceremonies as well as morals doth it therefore follow that ceremonies are always included in the word whole Law where-ever whole Law is mentioned except they are excluded in so many words Mr. Coppinger I say the whole Law is no where mentioned where the sabbath is excluded and do you shew me where it is Mr. Ives If by excluding you mean excluding in 〈◊〉 many words then I may usher in the ceremonial Laws for whole Law is never mentioned as I have said where the ceremonial Law is verbally excluded but doth it follow that therefore it is included Mr. Coppinger I say again if the Scripture no where speaks of whole Law and excludes the seventh day then it includes it Mr. Ives I have denyed the Consequence over and over and have assigned the reason why I do so and yet you make no answer to it Mr. Coppinger My Argument was That the seventh day sabbath was a part of that Law which in the Scriptures forbiddeth murder and adultery Mr. Ives And I have answered to that Argument by shewing that though the seventh day sabbath might be commanded in a Law that forbiddeth murder and adultery yet it followeth not that every Law that in the Scripture forbiddeth murder and adultery doth command the seventh day sabbath Mr. Coppinger It doth command it if it doth not exclude it Mr. Ives Pray let us have some Argument to prove without repeating the same things over and over for I have told you That it doth not follow that the word whole Law doth include the seventh day sabbath because it doth not in so many words exclude it for one may as well say the word whole Law includeth the observation of sacrifices and offerings because those things are not excluded And if any shall say That sacrifices are excluded in other texts because the ceremonies of the Law were called shadows Heb. 10.1 I answer That in another text the sabbath day is excluded by the same reason because the sabbath day is called a shadow Col. 2.16 17. Moderator Mr. Coppinger I suppose it remains for you to prove that where-ever the words whole Law and royal Law are mentioned in the Scripture that the seventh day sabbath is included if it be not excluded Mr. Coppinger I have called for an instance of Mr. Ives and he hath not given any where the seventh day is excluded from the word whole Law Mr. Ives I have told you That if I could not shew a text where the seventh day is excluded yet the Consequence doth not follow That therefore the seventh day sabbath is included as in the case of the Passover and other Judaical Rites it doth not follow that where these are not verbally excluded from the word whole Law that therefore they are included and enjoyned where-ever the whole Law is required to be observed But further I say the sabbath is not included in the Law mentioned James the second and do you prove it Mr. Coppinger You beg the Question to say it is not included James 2. Mr. Ives Sir I am Respondent and the Respondent cannot beg the Question in denying but rather you do beg the Question by affirming the seventh day sabbath is intended and commanded in the second of James which you cannot prove Mr. Coppinger If
to imbark himself in a Paper Frigot manned with great words to incounter with all for Law-breakers that are not Seventh-day Sabbath-keepers Comparing Mr. Ives who disputed against his opinion to a beaten Cock that was ready to hide his head in any hole pag. 27. Which if he did this ensuing account of the Disputations will make appear In the mean time let every one that reads Mr. Spittlchouse his forementioned Book see how he rather blasts himself then his erring Adversary for he goeth to prove against Mr. Ives That the Sabbath ought to be kept by the Law of Nature in his Postscript pag. 26. and yet in pag. 28. he cries out against Mr. Ives for that he went to disprove the Morality of it by the light of Nature comparing him to the Quakers that adhere to the light within them you may see then how mischievous a thing it is for a man passionately to promote an opinion it makes his affection out-run his judgment or else surely Mr. Spittlehouse would not have taken Arguments out of Natures Oracle to confute Mr. Ives as he thought and after decry Nature as corrupt blaming Mr. Ives for adhering to her dictates when he had laboured as in the fire but two pages before to prove the Law of Nature holy just and good How much then doth it concern us to lay aside passion in the promotion of that we conceive to be true lest we pull down that with one hand we set up with the other 3. In the promoting of thy Opinion be more studious for Arguments then Rhetorical flourishes which together with railing Accusations usually supply the place of Arguments a strong sign of a weak Cause And of this Mr. Tillam is sufficiently guilty though at our Disputation he decryed Syllogisms and refused to answer them calling them the intising words of mans wisdom when his Book is full of such kind of Humane wisdom almost in every page where he Courts all the Liberal Sciences for terms of Art to garnish his Book as first Grammatical terms telling his Reader of a Future Tense and a Gerund in do pag. 15 73. and as though he were writing an Almanack he abounds with Astronomical Phrases as Meridian-Heights the Suns Station Retrogradation Meridian glory the celerity of the Sun when mounting the other Hemispere the interposition of the Terrestrial Globe makes their Meridian the Antipodes Midnight Cloudy Speculations the Moon in her constant inconstancie and the Stars in the expanded Firmament the Empyreal Heavens c. pag 8 36 42 44 166. Neither doth his book want Rhetorical expressions to carry on that which he wants Arguments to maintain calling those that are Prosolited to his seventh-Day Sabbath-keeping Ingenious mounting refined Spirits and others base-born muck-worms pag. 28. Again He calls the contrary Opinion A shadie Speculation pag. 8. Again he is full of such Phrases as these viz. Ideas of the Deity Igitur Emphatical Demonstrative Particles High Encomiums Intrinsical Abstruse and intricate Perspicuity the superlative presence celerity distracting Labyrinth c. pag. 9 12 92 47 54 82. Logical and Poetical terms are frequently found in his writing as Dilemma's Scylla and Charybdis Meanders Ariadnes Clue the Father of Daemons c. Who would think that aeman should garnish his Book with such Phrass as these and yet resuse Academical Learning in Disputation as savouring of fleshly wisdom nay though he decryed Syllogisms as a carnal way of Discourse yet he sometimes doth Syllogise in his Book as the Reader may see in p. 19. * I cite not these passages to the end that I might be thought to be a hater of humane learning for I know it is of great use and deservedly to be honoured but to the end that the Reader may take notice that Mr. Tillam can cast honour upon learning when he thinks it will honor his Cause but when it is used against him or makes for the detecting his error then he decries it as vain and saith he is sure that it is not of God c. its worth observing that while Dr. Chamberlain did Dispute Syllogistically when he was Mr. Ives his opponent Mr. Tillam did not shew any publike dislike of such kind of disputation but when Mr. Tillam came to respond to Mr. Ives his Arguments then he inveig'd against it as a carnal thing and yet for all this when Mr. Tillam came to take upon him the part of an Opponent the next day Mr. Ives desired him if he would not discourse Syllogistically that he would prove the Position by plain Scripture to which Mr. Tillam replyed That there was no Text that in so many words would prove what he had asserted Then Mr. Ives asked him why he blamed people for proving their practise by a Consequence as he did in his Book pag. 96. if he could not prove his own practise without a Consequence hereupon he was forced to take Sanctuary at a Syllogism as hereafter will appear though all along he blamed Mr. Ives very sharply for using such a carnal weapon to discourse withal Let me beseech you therefore from what hath been said to suspect those men who are full of entising words and empty of solid Arguments and this is not only my advice but the Apopostle's who tells us 2 Pet. 2. That with fained words some shall make merchandise of Gods people and therefore he bids the Colossians in the 2 Chapter of that Epistle To take heed lest any man beguiled them through intising words You see then that good men may be spoyled of their joy and Churches of their peace by such who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple Rom. 16.18 Be ready therefore to vent nothing for truth but what you may be able to give a REASON of to them that ask you with meekness and fear 1 Pet. 3.15 Lastly Let me Caution thee to have a care not only how thou receivest an opinion and how thou promotest it but also how thou keepest and retainest it if thou findest that it is truth thou hast received know that her price is far above rubies and no pleasure is to be compared to it saith Solomon Prov. 8.11 This the Poet saw when he elegantly expressed the estate of that man that had gained the knowledge of the Truth saying That it was a pleasure to stand upon the shore and to see ships tossed upon the Sea and to stand in the window of a Castle to see a Battle and the adventures thereof below but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth a hill not to be commanded and where the Air is always clear and serene and to see the errors and wrandrings and mists and tempests in the vale below provided that this prospect be with pity and not with swelling or pride And as another saith well It is a Heaven upon Earth to have a mans minde move in Charity rest in Providence and turn upon the Poles of Truth
of value you should have denyed the Major which faith if the punishment be in force c. then the Law-maker hath APPOINTED some or other to inflict it here you might have denyed the Consequence and have told us that the punishment might he in force though mone were appointed because the law-maker might do it himself but this is not to the Question because the Question now is Who the law-maker hath appointed c. Mr. Tillam Well then I shall answer further That sometime the law-maker doth punish immediately and sometimes by his destroying Angel and sometimes by men and they are properly men who are Magistrates in his Congregation in the Church when he shall fulfil that prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning It is observable that though Mr. Tillam saith The punishment is in force yet he hath not assigned who IS to inflict it but in stead thereof tells us first that God doth sometimes punish immediately to this it may be replyed that when he punisheth immediately it is when those whom he hath appointed to punish do not do their duty Secondly He tells us that sometime God doth punish the transgressors of his Law by his destroying Angels 〈◊〉 which it may be answered that this is most commonly when the Magistrates and Ministers of Justice do neglect to punish transgressors according as they ought yet this hinders not but all this while some are appointed to punish the seventh day Sabbath breakers if it ought to be kept by the Law of Moses Thirdly Mr. Tillam saith God appointeth men to punish the breach of the seventh-day Sabbath and these men he saith are Magistrates in the Church c. but withal he adds that such Magistrates shall be when the Prophesie of restoring Counsellors as at first and Judges as at the beginning shall be fulfilled But doth not this very saying leave Mr. Ives his Question unanswered For the Question is Who God HATH appointed c. and the Answer is That there SHALL be Magistrates in the Church when the forementioned Prophesie shall be fulfilled but who then shall do it now is the Question because the Text cited by Mr. Tillam that exhorts to remember the Law of Moses doth also call upon the same people at the same time to remember the Statutes and JUDGMENTS so that if beleeving Gentiles ARE bound to observe the Law of Moses they ARE bound to observe the JUDGMENTS also So that Mr. Tillam may as well put off the observation of the Statutes as the observations of those Judgments God would have inflicted on the transgressors of his Statutes and it will not serve his turn to wait till God restoreth such men for the Law that commandeth the seventh day Sabbath of all the Congregation of Israel doth command all the Congregation to stone the Sabbath-breakers to death being lawfully convicted before a Magistrate of the fact So that if Moses Law that requireth the observation of the seventh-day Sabbath be in force to the Congregations of beleeving Gentiles as it was to the Congregations of circumcised Jews and the same punishment as hath been argued be in force to the one as well as the other then by the same Law the beleeving Congregations among the Gentiles are bound having convicted any among them of Sabbath-breaking to stone such a man to death now though such Congregations that do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath by vertue of Moses Law are not tyed thus to do yet all of Mr. Tillams opinion I mean all such Congregations that hold themselves bound by Moses Law to keep the seventh-day Sabbath I say all such Congregations stand bound to stone that member to death that shall be found to break it having lawfully convicted him by two or three witnesses neither have they any other rule by that Law to put away such an evil or such an evil doer from among them and this would hold good in all respects if God should at any time bring a Magistrate of the Commonwealth to be a member in Mr. Tillams Church then by his own grant if they shall convict a member for Sabbath-breaking before such a Magistrate then such a Magistrate by Moses Law ought to judge him guilty of death and then it roundly followeth that all Mr. Tillams Congregation must stone that man with stones till he die to put away the evil from among them Who then can be true to this seventh-day Sabbath-keeping principally as bound to it by Moses Law but they must also submit their necks to such a yoke as this which is not consistent with that Law of love and charity which ought to be preferred among Christians in the times of the Gospel Thus having given a faithful account of the Arguments and Answers urged by Dr. Chamberlain and Mr. Tillam and Mr. Ives the first day I shall now proceed to the Arguments and Answers insisted on by both sides the next day which was on Friday 7 of Jan. 1658. The people being assembled Mr. Ives repeateth the Question which take as followeth Mr. Ives The Question agreed to be further disputed this day is Whether all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath and I shall desire that whoever shall speak this day to this question either as Opponent or Respondent may apply themselves to the right rules of Disputation Mr. Tillam As to the question stated I do freely assent to the terms agreed on and do say that all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath but as to your other Motion viz. that we observe the Rules of Disputation this I told you yesterday and do tell you again that such a way of Disputation is vain Philosophy and the device of mans wisdom and therefore I shall not be tied to any such Method Mr. Ives Sir I do not tie you to this or that way only I think you mis-apply Scriptures when you bring them to prove that making Syllogisms is unlawful when such forms of Arguing are frequently found in Scripture however Sir give me leave to use it till I am perswaded of the unlawfulness of it and I shall give you your liberty to prove either by Syllogisms or by plain Texts That all believing Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Tillam There is no plain Text that in so many words proves the Proposition Mr. Ives If there be no plain text to prove the Proposition then you must prove by consequence which is upon the matter the same with Syllogising and therefore I wonder you should be so much against such a way of discourse Mr. Tillam I am not against Consequences or Inferences from Scripture though I am against disputing in Mood and Figure Mr. Ives If you will not dispute by Mood and Figure then I shall tie you to bring plain Texts for what you affirm Mr. Tillam There is not a Text saith in so many words as I have told you that believing Gentiles are bound to keep
that after ten generations he might enter though not before and there was more then ten generations passed from Moses to the time of this Prophet Esay so that though the Eunuch could not enter at first yet after ten generations he might be admitted into the Jews Church Again I have hinted that these could not be Gospel-times because they that shall be thus admitted shall offer Sacrifices and Burnt-offerings to which you have not answered a word Furthermore he doth not bid them keep the sabbath because salvation WAS come but because it was TO come which shews that those were duties to be observ'd before the coming of JESUS CHRIST Lastly Mr. Tillam saith in his Argument that they are the Sons of Strangers and such Gentiles as could not be joyned to the Jews Religion but the Text saith the direct contrary viz. That the Son of the stranger HAD joyned himself to the Lord vers 3. and let not the son of the stranger which IS joyned to the Lord c. and the strangers that cleave to the Lord vers 6. them will I bring to my holy mountain c. Mr. Tillam There is in the Text Man and the Son of man to take hold of this Righteousness and therefore it must be understood of every man And whereas you say here is Burnt-offerings in the Text as well as keeping the Sabbath I answer what is meant by Burnt-offerings is doubtful it being a word of a various signification but he that takes believers to be Priests may take their Services to be Sacrifices and this I the rather think because the Text saith When this salvation is come then they shall keep the sabbath Mr. Ives Mr. Tillam adds to this Text divers things and the Scripture saith Add not to his words lest 〈◊〉 reprove thee and thou be found a lyar Prov. 306. As first he saith it is written They SHALL keep the Sabbath when this Salvation is come 〈◊〉 whereas the text doth not say so but bids them do justice and keep the Sabbaths because the salvation was neer to come that by so doing they might be a people prepared for the Lord according as John by his Ministry did prepare and make ready the people for the salvation 〈◊〉 Christ by perswading them to obedience Secondly the Text saith of these strangers as 〈◊〉 have already shewn that they WERE joyned to the Lord and Mr. Tillam in his Argument saith they were not and they could not be joyned to the Lord. Thirdly Christ saith if you will believe himâ—â— that this house in this 56 of Esay is the material Temple out of which he whipt those that bought and sold and this he calls a house of prayer according as it was written by the Prophet but Mr. Tillam saith if you will believe him rather then Christ that this house of prayer is the Church of the new Testament So then if by Christs interpretation the Prophet speaks of the material Temple then the Altars and Sacrifices must needs be material Altars and material Scrifices Fourthly I would demand of Mr. Tillam wherever Gospel-services are called BURNT OFFERINGS so that whereas he said he would bring plain Text to prove his practise he turns all plain Texts into Allegories and is this to argue without a Consequence Mr. Tillam The strangers mentioned in the Text are the Sons of Adam and the place unto which they shall be joyned is Gods house which they did not injoy at this time but were separated Moabs People must have ten Generations in the full profession of religion before they could be admitted and so must these Eunuchs again the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple which were Gentiles which shews that this Text speaks not of any other time then the time of the Gospel Whereas it is said by Mr. Tillam that the strangers mentioned in the Text are the sons of Adam who ever denyed that for whose Sons should they be else uuless he will fall into the Fancy of some that tell us of men before Adam And whereas he saith the Eunuch was to be separated to ten Generations as the Moabite was this hath been answered once and again and he takes no notice of it for the Moabite and the Eunuch also might enter into the Jews Church after ten Generations though not before and therefore boâ—h the one and the other might have been admitted in the times of this Prophet which was more then ten Generations from Moses as hath been said And whereas it is said the Jews would not admit of Greeks into the Temple and therefore not of these strangers The answer is easie for though the Jews would not admit of Greeks or strangers uncircumcised yet they would have admitted of them if they had joyned themselves to the Lord by Circumcision Mr. Ives If all these terms Sacrifice and Burnt-offerings and altar holy mountain and house of Prayer be Allegorical as you imagine by your thus interpreting the text then why may not the word Sabbath in the text be allegorically understood also Mr. Tillam My reason is because the text saith the house there spoken of should be called of all Nationâ— A house of Prayer which could not be true of the Temple of Jerusalem because all Nations could not be contained in it Mr. Ives It doth not follow that all Nations should not or could not so account of Gods house in Jerusalem as to call it a house of Prayer because that house could not contain them all And secondly the text saith not that all Nations should be contained in it but that all Nations should so call it and that of all Nations it was so called the Scripture saith Act. 2.5 that there were at Jerusalem devout men out of every Nation under Heaven And thirdly I shall desire again that the text in Esay under debate might be compared with Matthew 21.13 and 14. and then you will be able to judge whether Christ or Mr. Tillam is the best expositor of the house of God spoken of in the 56 of Esay which is all I shall say to this Argument and if this text respects not the Beleevers in Gospel-times as by what hath been said it doth not then hath not Mr. Tillam proved his Argument which was that the Gentiles that could not be proselyted which he understands for Christian Gentiles were bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath but I shall say no more Here Mr. Tillam left off being opponent and Mr. Ives became Opponent and Dr. Chamberlain Respondent Mr. Ives I am to prove that all beleevers are not bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath and in order hereunto I have urged this Argument That if beleeving Gentiles are not bound then all beleevers are not bound But beleeving Gentiles are not bound Ergo. The Minor being denied I proved it by this enumeration viz. If all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the seventh-day sabbath they are bound either by the Law of Nature Moses or Christ but all beleeving Gentiles are not
why beleeving Gentiles should keep the Sabbath is taken from the command in Exod. 20.8 9 10 where God requireth Israel to keep the seventh-day sabbath therefore Gentile beleevers are bound to keep it I answer That this Law was given to none but Israel as appears Psal 137.19 20. He hath given his Laws to Jacob his statues and judgments to Israel be hath not done so to any Nation Again the Apostle tells us Rom. 2. That the Jews were under the Law but the Gentiles were without the Law Argum. 3 The Gentiles must keep all the nine commandments therefore they must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer They are bound to all the nine expresly and particularly by the light of Nature and the Law of Christ but they are not so bound to the seventh-day sabbath Again that Law of the fourth Commandment binds us as to A time to worship though not that time of the seventh-day But secondly might not these men as well object this against the Apostle who expresly complains of the Gentiles for the breach of all the nine Commandments but not a word that they did not keep the seventh-day sabbath as I shall shew by and by which doubtless he would have had an occasion to have done had the seventh-day sabbath-breaking been a breach of a Moral Law as well as the other nine precepts Argum. 4 Another Argument is taken from the Reasons of the Law given to Israel which are first God gave this as a Reason why Israel should rest the seventh-day because in six days he made Heaven and Earth therefore if this Reason be beleeved by Christian Gentiles then this Law should be observed by them Secondly God commanded Israel to rest the seventh-day because it was the sabbath of the Lord their God therefore if Jehovah be the Lord our God his sabbath must be our sabbath Thirdly God did command this duty for the good of our servants and cattle therefore if we will shew mercy to them we must keep the seventh-day sabbath I answer to the first that the Reason of a Law may be universal and always remain when the Law doth not remain as for instance the Reason why God would have the people of Israel to sanctifie the Priests the sons of Aaron was because he was the Lord that did sanctifie them Levit 21. 8. Now I hope all Christian Gentiles beleeve that God doth sanctifie them but doth it therefore follow that because God doth sanctifie beleeving Gentiles that therefore they must sanctifie a Levitical Priesthood Secondly The place of Israels worship was called the house of the Lord God doth it therefore follow that beleeving Gentiles must therefore sanctifie that place because God is the God of the Gentiles no more doth it follow that because the seventh-day was the sabbath of the Lord God that therefore the beleeving Gentiles must observe it Thirdly Whereas it is said we must rest the seventh-day that we may shew mercy to our servants and cattle I answer we can do that by resting the first day of the week as well as by resting the seventh Secondly If because that we must shew mercy be a Reason why we should keep the seventh-day sabbath because Israel was to keep it for that Reason then we must also drink deeper of this cup of Judaism and keep the seventh-yeer sabbath because that was commanded for the benefit of the poor Exod. 23.11 That the poor of thy people may eat c. So that the Reasons of a Law may have a being when the Law hath none as appears by the Reason of the sanctifying the Priest it was because God sanctifies the people yet though we do beleeve that God doth sanctifie us yet we are not therefore to sanctifie the Legal Priesthood in like manner though we do beleeve with Abraham Isaak and Jacob that God made Heaven and Earth in six days and rested the seventh yet this is no Reason why we rather then they should observe that day any more then why we should observe the other Judaical Laws whose Reasons are still the same though the Laws are changed Argum. 5 The next Arguments follow from the Scriptures of the New Testament and they are such as pretend to command and example even as the former I shall first speak to those Texts that are cited to prove that the seventh-day sabbath was commanded in the New Testament and the first is Mat. 5.17 18. the words are these Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil For I say unto you that till Heaven and Earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled Whence it is inferred that the seventh day sabbath was a part of the Law and therefore it should remain as long as Heaven and Earth remain I answer first that offering of sacrifices is also a part of this Law but doth it follow therefore that beleeving Gentiles must offer sacrifices to the end of the world and that offering of sacrifices is a point of this Law see v. 23 24. where our Lord as truly commands that a man should come and offer his gift upon the Altar after he is reconciled to his brother as he doth injoyn any other duty the like he commands of the leper that was cleansed Mat. 8. â— Secondly Christ saith the same thing of the Prophets as well as of the Law that they shall not pass away till they are fulfilled and yet many of them were fulfilled in Christs time Thirdly Christ saith of his own words Matth. 24.35 That Heaven and Earth shall pass away but his word shall not pass and yet the 34 ver saith that that Generation should not pass away till all those things were fulfilled The meaning then was clearly this that rather then either the Law or his word should pass unfulfilled Heaven and Earth should pass which doth in no wise argue that all the Law and Prophets should remain unfulfilled till the Heavens should be no more for the Text tells us He came to fulfil the Law and Prophets so that if all the Law and Prophets be unfulfilled Christ did not answer the end of his coming and if any be fulfilled then ALL the Law must not last till the Heavens be no more and if any be fulfilled then the seventh-day sabbath may be fulfilled since the sabbath is called a shadow of good things to come Col. 2.16 17. However if any of that Law Mat. 5. be fulfilled by Christ no man can conclude reasonably from that Text that the seventh-day sabbath is in force Lastly Though all this Law Mat. 5. was in force before Christs death yet we are freed from the Law by the death of Christ Rom. 7.2 3 6. therefore no Argument can be drawn from this Text to prove the seventh-day sabbath unless Christ or his apostles had reinforced the observation of it after his Resurrection Argum. 6 I come now to