Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	law_n	minor_a	unwritten_a	91	3	15.4913	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45832	Saturday no sabbath, or, The seventh-day Sabbath proved to be of no force to the beleeving Gentiles in the times of the Gospel, by the law of nature, Moses, Christ being an account of several publique disputations held at Stone-Chappel by Pauls, London, between Dr. Chamberlain, Mr. Tillam, and Mr. Coppinger ... and Jer. Ives ... : together with an appendix in which the said question is more fully and plainly discussed ... / by Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1659 (1659)	Wing I1104; ESTC R24396	120,548	256

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 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 Mr. Coppinger I answer that though the reverencin the Sanctuary and offering Sacrifices and counting the trees uncircumcised were commandments given to Israel yet these are not called statutes and 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 so that statutes is one thing and Ordinances is another Mr. Ives There is no difference and this distinction is light as vanity for all Gods Ordinances are statutes and appointments and the ceremonial Ordinances were Gods statutes as well as other Laws Mr. Coppinger Where any Laws are called Ordinances there they are understood for the ceremonial laws and not for the ten commandments or law writ in the heart and where any commandments are called statutes they are not understood of the ceremonial laws Here Mr. Tillam standeth up to 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 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 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 Mr. Ives 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 Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and do say that the law that requireth the seventh-day sabbath is a Moral law Mr. Ives I prove the Minor thus That law which cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition is not a Moral law But the Law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition Ergo the law for the seventh-day sabbath is not a Moral law Mr. Coppinger I deny the Minor and say that the law for the seventh-day sabbath may be known another way then by tradition for it may be known by the law written in the heart Mr. Ives I pray then assign a text that saith the seventh-day sabbath may be known by the law writ in the heart Mr. Coppinger It is written in the second of the Romans and the fourteenth That the Gentiles which had not the law did by Nature the things contained in the law now if they did by Nature the things contained in the law of Moses and the seventh-day sabbath was one thing contained in the law of Moses then if the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the law 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 Mr. Ives This is arguing and not answering but if I should suffer you to transgress the laws and rules of disputation and let you argue when you should answer I know you are never able to prove that the Gentiles without the help of tradition were able to know the seventh-day sabbath by the law and light of nature and whereas you say the Gentiles did the things contained in the law by the light of nature and therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath I answer first that it is a difficult thing to conclude a particular proposition when the premises are indefinite For the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law inasmuch as they did some good which the law commanded and forbore some evils which the law forbad as murder and adultery c. it doth not therefore follow that because the Gentiles did the things that were contained in the law of Moses that therefore they did all things therein contained May not a man as well plead for circumcision and say that the light of nature taught people to be circumcised and to offer sacrifices because circumcision and sacrificing are things contained in the law and the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the law therefore they were observers of circumcising and sacrificing by the light of nature would not every sensible man call this a senceless Argument and yet thus Mr. Coppinger reasons The Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law Ergo they kept the seventh-day sabbath but I shall shew in the ensuing Appendix that the Gentiles neither did nor could keep the seventh-day Sabbath by the light of Nature Mr. Coppinger If the Gentiles did those things by the light of nature that were contained in that law that forbad stealing and adultery then they kept the seventh-day sabbath which was a part of the same law But the Gentiles by the light of nature did the things that were contained in that law which forbad stealing and adultery Therefore the Gentiles by the light of nature did keep the seventh-day sabbath Mr. Ives I do assure you Sir if it were not but that I had compassion on the multitude and was unwilling to have them go away unsatisfied I had not said a word to your last Argument because you know you were by agreement to answer my Arguments and in stead thereof you make Arguments and turn Opponent when as you were by Agreement this day to be Respondent however Sir take this for an Answer that the Gentiles might do by nature those things that were contained in the Law that forbad stealing and adultery and yet the consequence doth not follow that therefore they kept the seventh-day sabbath by the light of nature as for instance a man that keeps the law of the Turk he observes a law that forbiddeth stealing and murder doth it therefore follow that he observeth the Law of England because he doth observe a law that requireth many of the same things which are written in the English Laws In like manner many of those Laws which were written upon the tables of the Gentiles hearts were written upon Israels tables of stone doth it therefore follow that all things that were written in tables of stone were writ upon the hearts of Gentiles Who is there but may perceive the non-concludencie of this Argument may not a man as well reason thus The Turks observe the things that are contained in the Christian Laws therefore they observe all things that are commanded in the laws of Christianity and further the Turks observe that law which the English men observe which requireth that a man should not kill and steal therefore the Turk observeth the English-man's Sabbath which is the first day of the week Again The people in America observe the things contained in the Jews law which requireth men not to kill and steal doth it follow that therefore the people in America observe the Jews seventh-day sabbath Are not these kind of arguings the same with Mr. Coppingers for he saith that the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the Jews law and therefore they kept the Jews sabbath but doth not the contrary to this appear for are there not thousands of good people in England that do the things that are contained in the Jews laws in the Apostles sence that yet never kept the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath and therefore for the further proof of this Argument let me add that it is impossible to keep the Jewish or seventh-day sabbath without the help of tradition and therefore the observation of that day is not Moral the reason I shall give is because if a man be sick of a violent distemper that hath bereaved him of his Senses yet when this man coms to his right understanding again he will know without a guide that he should not kill and that he should not steal but without the guide of tradition he cannot know what day of the week it is having lost his account thereof by reason of his distraction and therefore Common experience tels us that this man is forc'd to ask those that are about him what day of the week it is now then if he did not know what day of the week it was by reason that he had been thus distracted I demand how he could know which was the 7th Day Sabbath and if he could have known the 7th-day sabbath by the light of Nature what need was there for this man being come to his Senses to inquire what day of the week it was that he was then in more then there was for him to ask whether he might not kill or steal Mr. Coppinger I shall prove the Consequence namely that if the Gentiles by the light of Nature without tradition did do the things contained in the law that then they did keep the 7th-day sabbath by the light of nature without tradition Hereupon the Moderator did reprove Mr. Coppinger for attempting to argue instead of answering Mr. Ives his Argument and therefore did desire that Mr. Ives would urge a fresh Argument which was as followeth Mr. Ives That law which a man may have an absolute necessity to break cannot be a Moral law But the law for the seventh-day sabbath a man may have an absolute necessity to break Ergo the law for the seventh-day sabbath cannot be a moral law Mr. Coppinger I deny the Major if by moral law you do mean the law of Nature or law written in the heart for it doth not follow that a law is not moral or written in the heart because one may have a moral or absolute necessity to break it Mr. Ives I shall prove the Major thus If there be no absolute necessity for me to hate God or my neighbour then there is no absolute necessity for me to break the law in nature But there is no absolute