Saturday No Sabbath, Dialogue (3 of 3)

Saturday No Sabbath · Dialogue (3 of 3)

p. 136Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

I prove the Minor thus:

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

p. 137But there is ſuch a Toleration, Rom. 14.5.

Ergo.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer to the laſt firſt: That although I do not deny thoſe the liberty that obſerve the ſeventh-day ſabbath; yet in as much as they condemn others, and charge others with ſin for not obſerving it; that is their fault: for it is not a mans perſwaſion of the truth of a thing, that will make it my duty; which is the onelyonly 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 p. 138things 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 139Mr. Ives.

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

But is it not ſtrange that a man in his right wits ſhould tell us, That he would aſſigne a text where the ſabbath was excepted out of this word every day, in as expreſs terms as blood and things ſtrangled are excepted out of every thing? and inſtead of a particular exception, he produceth two general texts that have not the leaſt word of a Sabbath in them: but doth not this leave the Argument unanſwered? for by the ſame rule he can ſay, That the ſeventh-day ſabbath is not intended in this text, when the Apoſtle ſaith, We may obſerve every day alike; I ſay by the ſame rule, and with much more ſtrength of reaſon, it may be denyed that the ſabbath is included in thoſe general terms, All the p. 140Law, and the whole Law; but ſure I am, that it was never heard of, that ſuch general texts were ever called expreſs and particular exceptions againſt a general term in a Syllogiſm by any that ever underſtood the difference between a particular and a general term.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 141Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Ergo, Chriſt hath fulfilled it.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

p. 143Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

Theſe dayes mentioned in the Text, they p. 144are not the Jewiſh, but the Gentile Obſervations of days, as appears by conſidering the eighth verſe, where it is ſaid, They did ſervice to that which by nature was not God; which muſt needs be underſtood of the Gentiles.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, you did but even now tell us, That the Jews and Gentiles were under one and the ſame Law, and that the Law of Nature had all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in it: if you then ſaid true, what reaſon have you to imagine that the Jews might not do ſervice to ſuch as by nature were not gods, even as the Gentiles did, ſince the Gentiles had, by your own confeſſion, one and the ſame law to inform them in the truth, and to 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 onelyonly; 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 p. 145own 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 onelyonly, ſince that the Idolatry of …he Jews was one great cauſe of Gods ſcattering …f them among the heathen as at this day.

Mr. Coppinger.

Theſe days which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, were the Gentiles 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.

Mr. Ives.

If you conſult the text, together with what …ath been ſaid in my former Reply, you will …nde that this was ſpoken of the Jews, and the …ewiſh Rudiments, from which Chriſt came … redeem them, as appears Gal. 4.3.4.

Secondly, becauſe they were ſuch Rudiments …nder which the Jews were to continue till …e time appointed of the Father, Gal. 4.1, 2. …ow the Father never appointed any of the Gentiles Idolatrous Rudiments; neither did God appoint any time for the Gentiles to 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 p. 146to 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 onelyonly 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

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.

p. 147Thirdly, 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.

Mr. Ives.

I have aſſigned ſeveral reaſons why theſe times could not relate to the ſuperſtitious times of the Gentiles; to which you have anſwered not a word: but in the ſtead thereof, 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:

p. 148Firſt, 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 … p. 149as 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

p. 150Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

The text in the ſecond of the Col. 16 & 17 verſes, proves it, where the Apoſtle ſaith, The ſabbath days were ſhadows of good things to come.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

But here it is ſo put. Ergo.

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

p. 151Mr. Coppinger.

I deny the Minor: the word ſabbaths is ſometimes ſimply put without reference to ſuch and ſuch ſabbaths, when the ſeventh day is neither intended nor included.

Mr. Ives.

Pray aſſigne us that text where ſabbaths is ſo underſtood.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

If you will anſwer my Argument, you muſt ſhew me that the ſeventh-day ſabbath is not intended in this text; but I ſhall by another Argument make it appear that ſabbath days is not onelyonly 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 p. 152reaſon to think the Apoſtle doth not intend the ſeventh-day ſabbath in Col. 2.16, 17. and if you do ſo, I will give you the caſe.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 154And ſecondly, I have inſtanced Iſa. 1.13. where the word Sabbath is mentioned with new Moons; and it is not underſtood of the ſeventh day ſabbath, becauſe the work which the text ſaith was done upon thoſe ſabbaths, was contrary to the work of the ſeventh-day ſabbaths.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

I anſwer, That David magnifies the 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.

p. 156Thirdly, they might tread Gods Courts in the Temple upon the Sabbath dayes, and therefore you confeſſed that the prieſts in the Temple might offer the Sacrifice upon the ſabbath-day, and be blameleſs, which Chriſt ſuppoſes to be their conſtant cuſtome; but I believe never any ſeventh-day ſabbath-keeper but Mr. Coppinger, ever taught that it was a work that could not be done on the Sabbath day, for People to tread in the Courts of Gods Temple.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 158The one was, becauſe the word Sabbath is always underſtood for the ſeventh-day ſabbath, when it is mentioned without reference to their feſtival ſabbaths.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

I come now to give an account of the fourth and laſt Diſputation, which was on the 22 of Feb. 1658. at the place aforeſaid; at which Diſpute Mr. Coppinger was Opponent, and Mr. Ives Reſpondent: at which time and place the people being aſſembled, Mr. Coppinger propounds the Queſtion to be diſputed on; which take as followeth.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

The queſtion was laid down in general terms, and you have repeated it in indefinite terms; not but that I could oppoſe it in thoſe terms, but becauſe we have agreed upon terms, let us not now alter them.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Moderator.

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

p. 160Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

The firſt Argument I ſhall urge, is this:

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

I deny the conſequence of the major Propoſition: for though all believers are bound to keep the royal Law mentioned in James the ſecond, yet they are not bound to keep the ſeventh day ſabbath.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 161But 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 p. 162that 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 p. 163murder 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 p. 164ſeventh 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 p. 165Scriptures 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 p. 166prove, 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.

p. 167Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

If the Law in this text James the ſecond, be the whole of that Law which in the old Teſtament forbiddeth blaſphemy, murder and adultery, (for unto that Law the Apoſtle James alludeth when he ſaith, We muſt fulfil it according to the Scriptures) 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 p. 168which 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.

p. 169Now 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 p. 170your 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 … am R…ſpondent, and do deny it to be included, and do expect your proof: for you confeſs ſome part of the whole Law is excluded.

Mr. Coppinger.

If believing Gentiles cannot keep the whole Law in the ſecond of James, according to the Scripture, unleſs they keep the ſeventh day ſabbath, 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.

p. 171Mr. Ives.

I deny the Minor.

Mr. Coppinger.

If the Scripture in this text intend the Scriptures of the old Teſtament onelyonly; 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 onelyonly.

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 onelyonly 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 p. 172runs 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 require… the keeping of the ſeventh day ſabbath.

Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

I deny both Major and Minor. For,

Firſt, it doth not follow, that becauſe I mu… keep the law in the ſecond of James, according to the old Teſtament, that therefore I muſt kee… the ſabbath required in the old Teſtament; … more 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 p. 173That 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.

p. 174Mr. 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, p. 175and 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 p. 176to 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 p. 177look 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.

p. 178Mr. 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 p. 179there 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.

Mr. Ives.

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.

p. 180Whence 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

Theſe Jews that they adviſe him to condeſcend unto, they were ſuch as had conſpired the death of Paul; and therefore in point of prudency, they adviſe him to condeſcend unto them.

Secondly, this could not be a precept, becauſe the text ſaith, That they offered an Offering according to the Law, verſe 26. now to p. 181enjoyn 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.

Mr. Ives.

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 p. 182that 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

The advice may be good, when it is given to a good end: the ſame advice may at ſome times be bad, when the like end is not intended.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

But I pray ſpeak to the Caſe in hand; was this advice good or bad which the Apoſtles and Elders at Jeruſalem gave Paul?

This Queſtion Mr. Ives put over and over to Mr. Coppinger; who though he ſaid that it was but an advice which the Apoſtles and Elders gave to Paul, yet he would not anſwer whether it was a good or a bad advice.

Mr. Coppinger.

If I ſhould grant that this WAS a precept that the Apoſtles and Elders gave to Paul, yet this doth not prove that there IS NOW a difference in point of precept, though there was then; for my Argument ſpeaketh of the preſent tenſe, viz. that there IS no difference between the believing Jews and believing Gentiles in point of precept, and this text onelyonly ſpeaks of what WAS.

Moderator.

Sir, the Scripture ought to be our rule, and I humbly conceive that we know not what is a duty but by reading of the Scriptures, and therein finde what was a duty.

Mr. Ives.

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 p. 184believing 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 p. 185Apoſtles and Elders enjoyn them to diſcharge, verſe 24. but do expreſly forbid the Gentiles the obſervation of any ſuch thing: therefore I have ſhewn that here was ſomething enjoyned upon the Jews, that was not enjoyned upon the Gentiles.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

Sir, you have granted enough to confute your Argument: for admit the words to the Jews in the 24 verſe are no precept, but an advice, as p. 186you call it, yet you have confeſſed that the 25 verſe is a binding Law to the Gentiles, that they ſhould do NO SUCH THING. Well then, by your own confeſſion, the Gentiles are commanded not to do that which the Jews are adviſed to do; and therefore there is a difference in point of precept, and your Argument is confuted, that ſaith, There is no difference: therefore I ſhall deſire that the Moderator would call for a freſh Argument.

Moderator.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 187Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I then argue thus:

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

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

And ſo conſequently, all believing Gentiles.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I have two things to do; the firſt is, to prove that the Church of the Hebrews were commanded to keep the ſeventh day ſabbath; and the ſecond thing is, That if this Church was commanded to keep the ſeventh day ſabbath, that then all believing Gentiles were commanded to keep the ſeventh day ſabbath: which two things I ſhall prove.

Firſt then, the text faith, Heb. 4.9. That there p. 189remaineth 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 onelyonly 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, p. 190Pſal. 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.

Mr. Ives.

I ſhall ſhew that you have wholly miſtaken the text.

For,

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

Secondly, the text, from the Greek, ought rather to be read A Sabbatiſm, then the keeping of a Sabbath: however, the word is not SABBATH DAY; and when I did diſpute with you laſt, you would not allow that the word ſabbaths in Col. 2.16, 17. ſhould be underſtood of a ſabbath day, though there was good reaſon to underſtand it ſo, becauſe the word day was not in the Original, though it was in the Engliſh Text: but here you will have it to be underſtood of p. 191ſabbath 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 onelyonly 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 p. 192ſeventh 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.

p. 193Seventhly, 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 p. 194wait upon the altar, ſhould live of the altar? even ſo hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Goſpel ſhould live of the Goſpel. May not a man as reaſonably infer from hence, that becauſe the maintenance of the Levitical prieſthood is here ſet forth as an example to teach us to take care of Goſpel-Miniſters, that therefore they muſt be maintained after the ſame manner as the Prieſts were maintained that waited upon the Altar, as Mr. Coppinger may ſay, Becauſe Gods Judgments againſt Iſraels ſins in the Wilderneſs, are ſet forth to us for examples, that therefore we, who are believing Gentiles under the Goſpel, (to avoid the like Judgements) muſt do all the Commandments, and believe all the promiſes that Iſrael ſuffered his diſpleaſure for in the Wilderneſs, for not obeying and believing?

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

Mr. Coppinger.

My Expoſition of the Text proves it well enough.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

I have anſwered to your interpretation already; and if you will not urge an Argument from hence, I ſhall deſire that you would proceed to an Argument from ſome other texts.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I do mean that Chriſt did teach the ſeventh day ſabbath upon the Mount, Mat. 5. 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 p. 196preach the ſeventh day ſabbath.

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

Mr. Ives.

I tell you, Sir, that this is not fair arguing, when both Propoſitions are juſtly to be 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

I ſhall prove that all that Chriſt did preach upon the Mount, and taught others to preach, believing Gentiles are bound to obſerve.

If all that Chriſt taught upon the Mount, and commanded others to teach, was to abide as long as the Sun and Moon, and Heaven and Earth remain, 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.

p. 197Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

That I ſhall do; therefore pray look into Mat. 5.23, 24. Chriſt there commands that a man ſhould leave his gift at the Altar, and go and be reconciled to his brother, and then Chriſt commands him to come and offer his gift: theſe are commands given upon the Mount.

Secondly, they are ſuch commands as he bids others to do and teach, ver. 19. for they were to do and teach the leaſt of thoſe commandments.

Thirdly, theſe commands that are taught upon the Mount are not all in force to believing Gentiles, becauſe that command of leaving the gift at the Altar, and coming to offer it upon the Altar, is not now in force: therefore all that Chriſt commanded in his Sermon upon the Mount is not of force to believing Gentiles.

Mr. Coppinger.

The word altar and gift is variouſly taken as Heb. 13.10. We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat that ſerve the tabernacle: and ſo likewiſe the word gift is variouſly taken, as Chriſt is called The Gift of God, Rom. 6.23. and p. 198Paul tells the Corinthians, they came behind in no Gift, 1 Cor. 1.7. and Phil. 4.7. Not becauſe I deſire a Gift: and to this agree all Interpreters, that gift and altar in this fifth of Matthew, and 23, 24. is taken allegorically.

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer to the laſt firſt; that Mr. Coppinger doth abuſe Interpreters, or elſe he never read any; for I challenge him to 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 p. 199the Leper, and then commanded him to offer a gift as Moſes had commanded; which could not be underſtood allegorically.

Mr. Coppinger.

The text that you laſt urged, doth ſpeak of a gift, but not of an altar; and the text under debate ſpeaks of a gift and an altar.

Secondly, This Chriſt bid the Leper do, that it might be a Teſtimony of him to the Prieſt, that ſo if the Prieſt ſhould ask him how he was cleanſed, or who did cleanſe him, he might hereby have an opportunity to 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.Lev 14.

Mr. Ives.

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.

p. 200But ſecondly, whereas you ſay that this text Mat. 8.4. ſpeaks of a gift, but not an altar; I anſwer, that I never heard that the Prieſt in Moſes Law did ever offer a gift without an altar: my reaſon is, becauſe Chriſt ſaith, Mat. 23.19. That the altar ſanctifieth the gift: therefore this gift ſpoken of Mat. 8. muſt needs be a gift to be offered upon an Altar, as well as that gift ſpoken of Mat. 5.

Mr. Coppinger.

If you look into the text, it is ſaid, The Leper was to offer as Moſes commanded; now if we will ſee how Moſes commanded the Leper to offer, let us read 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.

Mr. Ives.

Have a care, Sir, what you ſay; utter nothing raſhly: for if you look but into the 20 verſe of this 14 of Leviticus, you ſhall ſee that the Prieſt was to offer the burnt Offering and the meat Offering upon the ALTAR, and the Prieſt ſhall make an Atonement for him, and he ſhall be clean.

p. 201Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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 p. 202to 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

It may be underſtood allegorically in this place, though it might not be underſtood ſo in the old Teſtament; as for inſtance, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of a text out of the Pſalms, in the third of the Romans, where he ſaith, They were all go… out of the way, &c. where he uſeth thoſe general terms, in a ſence differing from the old Teſtament.

p. 203Mr. Ives.

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.

Moderator.

I pray Sir, if you have another Argument, …rge it briefly, for I perceive the time is expired that you agreed to break off at.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

If the ſeventh day ſabbath was of force before p. 204the 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.

Mr. Ives.

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

It is obſervable, that Mr. Coppinger, in the laſt Diſpute before this, did affirm, That all the Gentiles were bound to keep all the ceremonies of the Law of Moſes: now 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.

Mr. Coppinger.

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.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Major: for that which you call the p. 205reaſon 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 p. 206ſanctifie the prieſts, the ſons of Aaron: thu… you ſee by theſe two inſtances, that the reaſon of a Law may be the ſame, when the Law is not the ſame.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 207Secondly, you ſay that the Law remains that we muſt ſanctifie Gods Miniſters: then by your favour, if you can make the reaſon of the Law for ſanctifying the Prieſt, the ſons of Aaron, a reaſon why you ſhould ſanctifie not the ſame but another Prieſthood, then I may make the reaſons for ſanctifying the ſeventh day ſabbath, ſerve for the ſanctifying not the ſame but another day.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

thy Friend, J. I.

FINIS.