Saturday No Sabbath, Dialogue (1 of 3)

Saturday No Sabbath · Dialogue (1 of 3)

p. 1BEing by the Providence of God, and the intreaty of many of His People, put upon this work, I hope I ſhall do nothing therein, of which I ſhall need to be aſhamed in my ſelf, or blamed by any that were hearers and impartial Judges of the enſuing Conferences, at the Bar of whoſe Tribunal I now ſtand: and for thoſe that are captious, and lie in wait for my halting, I ſhall appeal from the Bar of their partiality, to the Judge of all the World, whether in this, I have not walked uprightly. And whereas there is ſomewhat added by way of Obſervation; both upon the Arguments and Anſwers, as occaſion is offered, I thought good to give notice, that whatever occurreth of this kind, I have put in a different Character, to avoid miſtakes that ſo the unwary or the uncharitable Reader might not confound what is added for further information, with what was offered in the Diſputation. And if thou findeſt a more methodical account of Mr. Ives his Arguments then Mr. Tillams, know, that Mr. Tillam did refuſe to obſerve any Logical Method, either in this Arguings or Anſwers; and therefore what thou findeſt amiſs of this kind, do not impute to the partiality of the Scribe.

p. 2And whereas thou findeſt ſome of Mr. Tillams words methodized and put into Arguments by Mr. Ives, it is no more then what was offered in the Diſputations, that ſo the Audience might underſtand the force of M. Tillams Orations, and to what they did amount, when ſummed up into Arguments.

And for what was offered by Dr. Chamberlain, I confeſs it was more Methodical; but how rational, it concernes not me to determine.

And as touching the laſt Diſpute, which was with Mr. Coppinger, it was appointed, to the end that he as Reſpondent, ſhould give ſome freſh Anſwers to what Arguments Mr. Ives had alledg'd againſt Mr. Tillam, and Dr. Chamberlain the two firſt dayes; and likewiſe to the end that he might anſwer what other Arguments Mr. Ives had further to urge, againſt the obſervation of the ſeventh-day Sabbath: which whether he hath ſo done or no, the conſideration hereof will give thee ſatisfaction: and for the better Information of the weak, I have at the end of the Diſputations, given a ſhort and brief account of my … againſt the ſeventh-day Sabbath, … of all the Objections that I have ever met with, ſeem thoſe that are contrary minded, with brief Anſwers thereunto; to which I deſire as plain a Reply may be given, if any ſhall … print any thing further upon this … and this I take to be a p. 3more profitable way to decide Controverſies of this kinde, then any other that I know of.

Having thus given notice of the Method here intended, I now come to give an account of the Diſputations, the firſt whereof, was on Thurſday the ſixth of January, 1658. at which time the people being aſſembled, Mr. Ives propoundeth this enſuing Queſtion:

Mr. Ives.

The queſtion I ſhall offer to be diſputed this day, is, Whether there be any Law that bindeth the Gentiles to keep the ſeventh day Sabbath?

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Mr. Ives.

VVhen I demand whether there be any Law, &c. my meaning is, VVhether the Law of Nature, the Law of Moſes, or the Law of Chriſt doth require the Gentiles to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath: and by Gentiles, in the queſtion, I do mean all the world, except ſews, and ſuch as were Proſelyted to their Religion.

And from the queſtion thus explained, I do demand, VVhether there be any Law that bindeth the Gentiles to obſerve the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

p. 4Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Mr. Ives.

This I deny, and therefore I do deſire you to prove it: and when it comes to my turn to be Opponent, I ſhall prove that the Gentiles are not required to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath; in the mean time I pray prove that they are.

Dr. Chamberlain.

1. Arg. That Gentiles are required to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath, I thus prove: That which is commanded for Strangers to obſerve, is commanded for Gentiles to obſerve: but the ſeventh-day Sabbath is commanded for Strangers to obſerve: Ergo, the ſeventh-day Sabbath is commanded for Gentiles to obſerve.

Mr. Ives.

If by ſtranger, you mean only the ſtranger that WAS within Iſraels Gates, then I deny the Major, becauſe the ſtranger within the gates was the Proſelyted ſtranger; and therefore it followeth not, that becauſe the Proſelyted ſtrangers WERE commanded, that therefore the Gentiles that were not proſelyted, ARE under this command; which you are to prove, according to the fence explained in the queſtion.

And if by ſtranger, you mean all ſtrangers, then I deny the Minor, and ſay, All ſtrangers ARE not commanded to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

p. 5It might further be replyed, The ſtranger was commanded to be circumciſed, Gen. 17.12. And he that is eight dayes old, ſhall be circumciſed among you, every man-child in your generation, that is born in thy houſe, or is bought with thy money of ANY STRANGER that is not of thy ſeed. Doth it follow, becauſe that ſtrangers WERE to be circumciſed, that therefore they ARE to be circumciſed? and in like manner, it doth not follow that becauſe the ſtrangers within Iſarel's gates WERE to keep the Sabbath, that the Gentiles without their gates ARE to keep the Sabbath, which is that the Doctor was to prove for this Argument is ſo far from proving the Gentiles ARE to keep it, that it doth not prove the Gentiles in the Queſtion WERE to keep it: for the Queſtion is of all Gentiles except Proſelytes; and the Argument from the twentieth of Exodus, proves no Gentiles but Proſelytes; for ſo Mr. Ainſworth in his Annotations upon this place, ſaith, That for Stranger, the Greek Verſion reads Proſelyte; and he further adds, That it was the Opinion of the Rabbins, upon this place, That ſtrangers, not circumciſed, might work for themſelves openly upon the Sabbath day, as the Jews did on a working day.

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

p. 6Mr. Ives.

It followeth not that it was to any ſtranger without the gate, becauſe the ſtranger within the gate was commanded: and unleſs you can prove that it was to all ſtrangers without the gate, unproſelyted, it doth not reach the difference in queſtion, and therefore I ſtill demand your proof of the Minor Propoſition.

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

I think I have proved it ſufficiently.

Hereupon aroſe ſome difference concerning the terms of the queſtion, and thereupon ſome that ſtood by, deſired that it might be put into ſuch general terms as might comprehend the difference. It was thereupon agreed, that the question ſhould be put into theſe terms, viz. VVhether all Chriſtians are bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Dr. Chamberlain affirmeth,

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

Mr. Ives denyeth,

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

p. 7Dr. Cham.

I being in the place of Opponent, ſhall undertake to prove That all Chriſtians are bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath: which I thus doe: They which are bound to keep and obſerve the Royal Law, are bound to keep and obſerve the ſeventh-day Sabbath: But all Chriſtians are bound to keep and obſerve the Royal Law: Ergo, all Chriſtians are bound to keep and obſerve the ſeventh day for a Sabbath.

Mr. Ives.

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Mr. Ives.

Then I deny the Minor, and ſay, That all Chriſtians are not bound to keep all the Ten Commandments, becauſe they are not bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Dr. Chamberlain.

All that are bound to abſtain from ſin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments: but all Chriſtians are bound to abſtain from ſin: Ergo, all Chriſtians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments.

p. 8Mr. Ives.

I deny the Major; and though I confeſs all Chriſtians are bound to abſtain from ſin, yet it doth not follow, that therefore they are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments, becauſe (as I have ſaid) they are not bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath, which was one of the Ten.

Dr. Chamberlain.

They that are bound to abſtain from the tranſgreſſions of the Law, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but all Chriſtians are bound to abſtain from the tranſgreſſions of the Law: Ergo, all Chriſtians are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, you do not prove the thing denyed, but inſtead thereof, give us the ſame again; for what difference is there between abſtaining from ſin, and abſtaining from tranſgreſſions? I therefore, becauſe it is the ſame Argument, give you the ſame anſwer, by denying the Minor.

Dr. Chamberlain.

Then I further argue: If every ſin be a tranſgreſſion of the Law, then they that are bound to abſtain from ſin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but every ſin is a tranſgreſſion of the Law: Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 9Dr. Chamberlain.

Then I offer further, That they who are bound to keep every point of the Law, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but all Chriſtians are bound to keep every point of the Law: Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

This is upon the matter but the ſame again: for what difference is there between all the Law, and every point; and therefore I ſtill do deny the Major, and require you to prove that all that are bound to abſtain from ſin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments.

Dr. Chamberlain.

If the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments be ſin, then all that are bound to abſtain from ſin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments; but the breach of every one of the Ten Commandments is ſin: Ergo, they that are bound to abſtain from ſin, are bound to keep all the Ten Commandments.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Minor.

The Minor may juſtly be denied, becauſe that it is not a ſin now to work upon the ſeventh day (commonly called Saturday) which was one of the Ten Commandments among the Jews; and therefore though all Chriſtians are to abſtain from all ſin againſt the Law they live under, yet they are not bound to abſtain from ſinning againſt a Law they are not under.

p. 10Dr. Chamberlain.

I prove the Minor from Jam 2.10. Whoſoever ſhall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

From whence I argue:

He that is guilty of ſin, doth not abſtain from ſin.

But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of ſin:

Ergo, he that beaks any one of the Ten Commandments, doth not abſtain from ſin.

Mr. Ives.

This Argument concludes not the terms denyed in the Syllogiſm; however, I ſhall deny thn Miner, and ſay, That one of the Ten Commandments may be broken, which is the Command that required the Obſervation of the ſeventh day, and yet I may not be guilty of ſin.

Dr. Chamberlain.

He that is guilty of the breach of the whole Law, is guilty of ſin:

But he that breaks any one of the Ten Commandments is guilty of the breach of the whole Law: Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Firſt, this text that you refer to in your Argument, was written to the Twelve Tribes, Jam. p. 111.1. and therefore you cannot reaſonably conclude, that becauſe the twelve Tribes were bound to the whole Law, that therefore every believing Gentile is ſo bound.

Secondly, if the Gentiles were writ to in this Epiſtle, yet I do deny that they are required to keep all the Ten Commandments; for there is no ſuch thing in the Text.

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Therefore I …

He that is bound … keep the whole Law, is p. 12bound to keep all the ten Commandments.

But every Chriſtian is bound to keep the whole Law.

Ergo, Every Chriſtian is bound to keep all the Ten Commandments.

Mr. Ives.

Foraſmuch as you have not ſaid any thing new, but what you have ſaid already over and over, I therefore anſwer, by denying the Major; and ſay, That a man may keep the whole Law in the ſenſe of this text, and yet not be bound to keep all the ten Commandments in your ſenſe. And though I do confeſs we are bound to keep and obſerve all the other nine Commandments; yet we are not bound to obſerve the command for the ſeventh-day-ſabbath, which is one of the ten Commandments.

And whatever is moral in the Commandment as to A time to ſerve God, I confeſs we are to obſerve that alſo, though we are not tied to the ſeventh day.

Dr. Cham.

Well then, I will prove the Major, thus:

If the ten Commandments are contained in this word, the whole Law, Then they that are bound to keep the whole Law, are bound to keep the ten Commandments.

But the ten Commandments are contained in this word, the whole law.

Ergo.

p. 13M. Ives.

I deny the minor, and ſay, that in the ſenſe of this text, this word, the whole law, doth not contain all the ten Commandments.

Dr. Cham.

I further argue:

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

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

Ergo, He is commanded to keep the whole.

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

Mr. Ives.

I deny the whole Syllogiſm, becauſe it concludes not the matter in queſtion: for the thing in queſtion is, Whether they that are bound to keep the whole Law in the ſenſe of that text Jam. 2 are bound to keep all the ten Commandments, and by conſequence the Seventh-day-Sabbath; and your Argument concludes we muſt keep the whole, and all the Commandments: p. 14which was never denyed.

Dr. Cham.

If you deny Scripture, I have done with you.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

I ſhall undertake by the help of God to prove that all Chriſtians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath.

If the Gentile Chriſtians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath, Then all Chriſtians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath.

But the Gentile Chriſtians are not commanded to keep the Seventh-day-Sabbath.

Ergo, All Chriſtians are not commanded to keep the ſeventh-day-Sabbath.

Dr. Cham,

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

p. 16Mr. Ives.

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

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

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

p. 17But they are nor bound by the Law of Nature, the Law of Moſes, or the Law of Chriſt, to keep the ſeventh-day-ſabbath.

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

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Dr. Cham.

I deny the Minor, and ſay, that the believing Gentiles are commanded to keep the ſeventh-day-ſabbath, by the Law that was given to Iſrael.

Mr. Ives.

I prove the Minor, thus:

If the Law that was given to Iſrael, was given to none but Iſrael, Then believing Gentiles are not bound to keep the ſeventh day ſabbath by the Law that was given to Iſrael.

p. 18But the Law that was given to Iſrael, was given to none but Iſrael.

Ergo.

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

That it was given to no Nation but Iſrael, I prove out of Pſal. 147.19, 20. He hath given his laws to Jacob, his ſtatutes and judgements unu Iſrael: he hath not dealt ſo with ANY Nation and for his judgements THEY have not known them.

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

If that Law that was given to Iſrael, had been given to any other Nation by way of jud… ment, Then other Nations would ha… been judged by it.

p. 19But no other Nation was to be judged by it.

Ergo, it was not given by way of judgment to any Nation but Iſrael.

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Cham.

Upon the former diſtinction, I deny the Minor.

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 20Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

That other Nations did not live under it, ſo as to be judged by it, I prove thus:

If there be any other Nations to be judged by Iſrael's Law, Thoſe Nations are either recorded in the Scripture or other Hiſtories.

But neither the Scriptures nor other Hiſtories do record any ſuch thing: Ergo.

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

I pray then Sir aſſigne thoſe Scripture-records.

Dr. Cham.

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

Mr. Ives.

That's true … this text makes againſt you direct … ſo far from ſaying the Gentiles were … Law, and therefore ſhould be judged by it, that it ſaith the direct … were without it, & therefore … without is.

Dr. Cham.

But it is ſaid in Rom, 3. That whatſoever do p. 21law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the law: that every mouth may be ſtopped, and that all the world may become guilty before God. Here is ALL the WORLD are become guilty by what the Law ſaith to them that are under it.

Mr. Ives.

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

Dr. Cham.

You ſee that the ſame things were writ in the heart, that were given by Moſes: for the text ſaith, They (viz the Gentiles) did by nature the things contained in the Law. And therefore it matters not whether it was the Law given by Moſes, or no.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

p. 23Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

I pray repeat it again.

Mr. Ives.

The Argument is as before:

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

p. 24Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

I prove the believing Gentiles, by that Text, are not bound to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath, by this Argument:

If that Law that requireth the Obſervation of the ſeventh-day ſabbath, Exod. 20. be nor in force to believing Gentiles then believing Gentiles are not bound by that Law Exod. 20. to obſerve the ſeventh-day ſabbath.

But that Law that requireth the Obſervation of the ſeventh day ſabbath, Exod. 20. is not in force to the believing Gentiles.

Ergo, believing Gentiles are not bound by p. 25that Law, Exod. 20. to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath.

Here Mr. Tillam refuſed to anſwer to the Argument, becauſe he would not be tyed to deny Ma…or or Minor; and therefore one among the Company calls upon Mr. Ives to prove the Minor, viz. That the Law that requireth the Obſervation of the ſeventh day ſabbath, Exod. 20. is not in force to believing Gentiles.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

p. 26Here Mr. Tillam refuſeth to anſwer, and therefore one that ſtands by, denyeth the Minor, and prayes Mr. Ives to prove it.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

If we look into the Law of Moſes, we ſhall find that whoſoever did any work upon the Sabbath day, was to be put to death, Exod. 35.1, 2. and Exod. 31.14, 15. And when they had found a man breaking this Law, in gathering ſticks upon the Sabbath day, they brought him to Noſes and Aaron, and to as the Congregation, to ſee what ſhould he done unto him, Num. 15.32, 33 34, 35, 36 and they put him in ward, for it was not yet declared what ſhould be done unto him: then the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, Th… m…n ſh… die the death, … all the multitude … him with …ones, without the ho…, p. 27are we find a Law given to keep the Sabbath, …od. 20. a puniſhment aſſigned by the Law-maker which is Death) Exod. 31.14, 15. the manner of …e execution if preſcribed by God, Num. 19.35. …ich is ſtoning with ſtones: the Executioners of this …niſhment are likewiſe appointed by the ſame Law, which is, all the multitude: And let all the MULTITUDE ſtone him with ſtones, &c. Jer. 35 36. …w if the ſeventh day ſabbath be in force by vertue of Moſes Law, then it followeth, that the ſame puniſhment is in force, & the ſame Executioners are appoin…d, unleſs that any body can ſhew where God hath freed the tranſgreſſors from the penalty of it, or hath appointed any other puniſhment then what is appointed … the Law of Moſes.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

p. 28Under the Law, the Sabbath-breaker was to ſtoned to death by the MƲLTITƲDE: and if that Law, the ſeventh-day Sabbath be in force the MULTITUDE, then, by the ſame Law, … MULTITUDE are to ſtone the ſeventh-day … hath breakers to death.

Mr. Tillam.

I declare, that the Law given by God … Moſes upon Mount Sinai, is in force to all believing Gentiles: and thus I prove it.

Whoſoever doth expect the ſun of righteou… neſs to ariſe with healing under his wings, th… are bound to obſerve the Law of Moſes, Mal. 2, 3, 4. Remember the law of Moſes my ſervant which I commanded him in Horeb for all Iſrael with the ſtatutes and judgements. So that the reaſon why Chriſtians are bound and encoun… ged to keep it, is, becauſe it is the Law of the ten Commandments. And here I might fram… a Syllogiſm: but I will not take that conrſe. And I might ſay, That Law which contained theſe two cauſes, that faith, Thou ſhalt not kil… and, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, is the Roya… Law, and that that law is the law of the ten Commandments, and ſo conſequently requireth the keeping of a Sabbath day.

Mr. Ives.

I do perceive that Mr. Tillam either will no… or cannot anſwer my Argument, elſe ſurely he would not have forgotten the place of a Reſpondent, p. 29and argue in ſtead of anſwering. For it … evident that he waves the ſtrength of my Ar…ments, and propoſeth Arguments of his own, … to little purpoſe.

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

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

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

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

p. 304. If the Sabbath be required in this text, M… 4. where there is an exhortation to keep the Law… Moſes, &c. it is required of none but …ews, w… are granted in the explanation of the Queſtion … be under that Law, as appeareth verſ. 4. Reme… ber YE the law of Moſes which I commande… unto him in Horeb for ALL ISRAEL, with … ſtatutes and judgements. So that this text om… proves what is granted, viz. that all Iſrael … under the Law given in Horeb; but is far enoug… from proving that believing Gentiles are bound … obſerve that Law, and farther from anſwering … Ives his Argument: which becauſe Mr. Tillam ſaid nothing to it, Mr. Ives proceeded.

Mr. Ives.

If God hath appointed the ſame puniſhme… to be inflicted upon the ſeventh-day …abbath… breaker in the times of the Goſpel, as he di… appoint ſhould be inflicted upon the Jews Sabbath-breakers in the times of the Law; I d… demand of all this Aſſemble, (ſince Mr. Tillam doth refuſe to anſwer) who it is that God hath… appointed to puniſh the breach of the ſeventh-day Sabbath among the believing Gentiles … the times of the Goſpel; whether it be … Civil Magiſtrate, or the Goſpel-Miniſter? … whether every man ſhall riſe up and kill his brother, becauſe he doth not keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath? And although Mr. Tillam will not nor cannot anſwer this Argument, yet hath p. 31he the boldneſs to ſay, that they are all Atheiſts, Papiſts, Prelates, Ranters, Quakers, and ſome Notioniſts, that gainſay the ſeventh-day ſabbath; as appears by his Book page 6.

Hereupon Mr. Tillam was provoked to anſwer.

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Hereupon Mr. Ive… took Mr. Tillams book out of his pocket, and read theſe very words before all the people, viz. that Gods precept ſeconded by his practice gives ſuch full honour to the Sabbath, that I hear of none but Atheiſts, Papiſt…, Prelates, Ranters, Quakers, and ſome Notioniſts, that deny it. Mr. Ives having read theſe paſſages to the people, Mr. Tillam deſireth Mr. Ives to hand the book to him; which Mr. Ives did; and when Mr. Tillam had read thoſe paſſages, he gives this anſwer.

p. 32Mr. Tillam.

It is true, I mention theſe perſons in my book: but I do not compare all that deny the ſeventh-day-ſabbath to ſuch, but all that deny A ſabbath.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

p. 34Secondly, He tells us, that ſometime God doth puniſh the tranſgreſſors of his Law, by his deſtroying Angels: … which it may be anſwered, that this is moſt commonly when the Magiſtrates and Miniſters of Juſtice do neglect to puniſh tranſgreſſors according as they ought: yet this hinders not, but all this while ſome are appointed to puniſh the ſeventh day Sabbath breakers, if it ought to be kept by the Law of Moſes.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 37Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 38Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

There is not a Text ſaith, in ſo many words, (as I have told you) that believing Gentiles are bound to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath; but there is Text that requireth the People of God and the Servants of God to obſerve it, and therefore by conſequence, believing Gentiles are to obſerve it, if they are Gods People and Servants.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 40Mr. Tillam.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

This I prove our of Mark 2.27. where it is ſaid, The Sabbath was make for MAN, and not man for the Sabbath. Where it is evident, that p. 41the Law was made for the Subjects, and not Subjects for the Law; even ſo the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the ſabbath.

Again, Whatever was made for Adam, is made for all men; but the Sabbath was made …or Adam, becauſe in the Text, it was made for man; and the word in Greek is foreign, and in Latine Homo, which comprehendeth all men, and ſo doth Adam.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Here Mr. Tillam did raiſe another Argument, p. 42inſtead of making good the former, and therefore becauſe that more was ſaid to this Argument afterwards, I ſhall omit to mention the new ones either now or at any time hereafter, till I have brought in firſt all that was ſaid to the old; for many times … urged new Arguments before the old ones were finiſhed, and then was forced to leave thoſe new ones, to ſpeak further to his old ones again.

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

But Mr. Tillam hath confeſſed ſome are excepted, when he ſaid, that foreign in Pſalm 49. doth ſignifie only ſuch men that truſt in their wealth; and it is not yet ſhewn, that Adam p. 43or man hath a more univerſal ſignification the 2 of Mark, then in Pſalm 49. ſince the …rd by his own confeſſion is the ſame.

But I further anſwer, that it is frequent in …ripture to apply things unto man, w…en yet doth not intend every man; as firſt, it is ſaid, Gen 8.21. I will no more curſe the ground for MANS ſake, &c. whenas Noah and his Family were exempted from the curſe. Again Deut. 5.2…. it is there ſaid, that God did talk with MAN, …d he liveth. Now here the word MAN is ſo fit from ſignifying all men, that it is reſtrained to thoſe people that were aſſembled about the mountain; which were ſo far from all, that they were but a handful, in compariſon to the reſt of Mankinde.

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

It is true, that if Adam, or the word man be always underſtood for every individual man then my ſaying, that God gave the Law in Sina… unto MAN, doth overthrow what I ſaid yeſterday, and to day too: but this is begging the Queſtion, and taking it for granted, that whereever any thing is ſpoken of or to MAN or HOMO, that it is to be underſtood of every man; then which nothing is more falſe, as I have already ſhewn.

Mr. Tillam.

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

p. 45Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

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

Again, How could it be a curſe for Noah to be ſaved in the Ark? I confeſs this is ſuch a Paradox that the world never heard of before. And whereas it is ſaid, God ſpake with man, Deut. 5. p. 46to ſignifie that he did not ſpeak to children: We… then, it follows from hence, that MAN is no… always taken for every ſon and daughter of Adam… as Mr. Tillam hath been pleading; but as God … ſaid to ſpeak to man by way of diſtinction from children: ſo (as hath been ſaid) he is ſaid to ſpea… to MAN when he did ſpeak to Iſrael, by way … diſtinction from all other Nations in the world, … hath already been plentifully ſhewed.

Mr. Tillams ſecond Argument.

If the Gentiles that could not be Proſolyte… nor joyned to the Jewes, were bound to kee… the ſeventh-day Sabbath, then all men we… bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath: bu… that ſuch Gentiles are ſo bound, I prove out o… Eſai. 56.5, 6. Thus ſaith the Lord to the Eunuch that keep my Sabbath, &c. And let not the ſon of the ſtranger that is joyned to the Lord ſay, The Lord hath ſurely ſeparated me, &c.

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer, firſt, Theſe terms in the Text ar… like the term MAN, which you laſt inſiſted on: and how can an univerſal Propoſition be concluded, when the premiſes are but indefinite? But ſecondly, As this Text doth not reſpect all men, ſo it doth not relate to beleevers in Goſpel times, which is the thing you are to prove: and that this Text doth not relate to beleevers in Goſpel times, there are theſe Reaſons in the Text it ſelf.

p. 47Firſt, Becauſe it reſpects the time in which Sacrifices and burnt-Offerings were to be offered, ver. 7. where God tells theſe men, whoever they are, that if they do the thing that pleaſeth him, that their Burnt-Offerings and their ſacrifices ſhall be accepted upon his Altar, &c.

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

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

p. 48Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

There is in the Text, Man, and the Son of man, to take hold of this Righteouſneſs, and therefore it muſt be underſtood of every man.

And whereas you ſay, here is Burnt-offerings in the Text, as well as keeping the Sabbath; I anſwer: what is meant by Burnt-offerings, is doubtful, it being a word of a various ſignification; p. 50but he that takes believers to be Prieſts, may take their Services to be Sacrifices: and this I the rather think, becauſe the Text ſaith, When this ſalvation is come, then they ſhall keep the ſabbath.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

p. 51So then, if by Chriſts interpretation the Prophet ſpeaks of the material Temple, then the Altars and Sacrifices muſt needs be material Altars and material Scrifices.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

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

And whereas he ſaith, the Eunuch was to be ſeparated to ten Generations, as the Moabite was, this hath been anſwered once and again, and he takes no p. 52notice of it: for the Moabite and the Eunuch alſo, might enter into the Jews Church after ten Generations, though not before, and therefore bo…h the one and the other might have been admitted in the times of this Prophet, which was more then ten Generations from Moſes, as hath been ſaid.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

If all theſe terms, Sacrifice and Burnt-offerings, and altar, holy mountain, and houſe of Prayer, be Allegorical, as you imagine, by your thus interpreting the text, then why may not the word Sabbath in the text, be allegorically underſtood alſo?

Mr. Tillam.

My reaſon is, becauſe the text ſaith, the houſe there ſpoken of, ſhould be called of all Nation… A houſe of Prayer; which could not be true of the Temple of Jeruſalem, becauſe all Nations could not be contained in it.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

But beleeving Gentiles are not bound.

Ergo.

p. 54The Minor being denied, I proved it by this enumeration (viz.) If all beleeving Gentiles are bound to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath, they are bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moſes, or Chriſt: but all beleeving Gentiles are not bound, either by the Law of Nature, Moſes, or Chriſt, to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath: Ergo, All beleeving Gentiles are not bound to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

As to the Law of Nature, Moſes, and Chriſt, … do not think there is ſo many Law-givers, as … have ſo many diſtinctions; but I do own … 20 of Exodus for a binding Law, becauſe … Saviour ſaith, Mat. 5. I am not come to deſtroy … Law, &c. Now then, If not one jor or tittle … the Law ſhall fail, then not the ſabbath; and conſequentially not the puniſhment annexed …wor… the breach of it; for without puniſhment, … Law is of no force: for the ſtrength of the … being for the curbing of ſinful Nature, is … no uſe, unleſs there be a puniſhment, and …ithout it the Law would loſe its force and …gor; and the execution of this Law is in the …nd of ſuch Magiſtrates as are Adminiſtrators …der Chriſt.

Mr. Ives.

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 57Secondly, If by the Magiſtrates puniſhing all evil, muſt be meant all the evils againſt the firſt Table, as well as the Second, then the Magiſtrate may and muſt determine all Doctrinal truths, and puniſh ſuch as ſhall err from his determination: which the Dr. will not allow.

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

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

Dr. Chamberlain.

I ſhall own, and have printed, that Magiſtrates are allowed of God to puniſh the duties of the firſt and ſecond Table; only with this caution, that he is not to apply Legal puniſhments to Goſpel ſins, nor Goſpel puniſhments to Legal ſins; and this I have proved out of the evidences of Peter and Paul; ſo that as the Magiſtrate is to puniſh all outward Idolatry, Swearing and Blaſphemy, ſo alſo the Sabbath, but not that which is of mans invention; but the ſeventh-day p. 58Sabbath which the Lord ſanctified, and for which he calls himſelf Lord of ſabbaths; and Chriſt was both a keeper and preacher of this Sabbath, Mat. 12.: now then, for a man to keep nine of the Commandments, and ſay, the ſeventh-day ſabbath which makes up the tenth is of no force, is againſt Chriſt.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

p. 59Where then is our Chriſtian Liberty? for by the Law of Moſes I muſt be put to death for not keeping the Jews Sabbath (if this opinion be true) though … conſcience I am perſwaded that it is a weak and …ggerly Element, unto which I ought not to be in …ndage: and yet ſo indulgent are men to their opi…ons, that having once eſpouſed them, they will main…in them, maugre the liberty of all the conſcientious …ople in the Land, I, and their own liberty too: for … the ſame Rule the Magiſtrate may put a man … death that doth not keep the Jews Sabbath, (for … the Magiſtrate ought to do, if he ſhould be of … Doctors opinion; and hold that the ſeventh-day …abbath required in the Law, ought to be kept, and … at the puniſhment annexed to it ought to be inflict…) I ſay, by the ſame Rule a Magiſtrate may … a man to death, that is not perſwaded to … this ſeventh-day Sabbath; another Ma…ſtate, otherwiſe minded, may put men of the Doctors …inion to death, becauſe they do not keep the firſt day …abbath, which he holds himſelf, in conſcience bound … ſee as ſtrictly kept, as the other doth his Saturday-Sabbath.

Dr. Cham.

I am not a Judge of Magiſtrates, but do ſubmit unto them: ſecondly, let none be afraid of this text, for he that is in Chriſt is above the Law, and it was not made for him, for he that is in Chriſt cannot ſin: Neither do I ſay, that the Magiſtrates have power to puniſh ſpiritual ſins p. 60with legal puniſhments, but ſpiritual ſins with ſpiritual puniſhments: and this they may very well do, if they have but good Miniſters to inſtruct them.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Dr. Cham.

Mr. Ives hath been calling upon me to aſſigne who God hath appointed to execute the puniſhment, which by Moſes Law was due to the ſeventh-day ſabbath-breakers; I further anſwer, That if the Magiſtrate muſt puniſh the breach of p. 62all Law, then of the ſeventh-day Sabbath: an… whereas Mr. Ives ſaith, that then the Magiſtrate muſt judge what is Idolatry and Sabbath breaking, if he muſt puniſh all tranſgreſſion relating to theſe Laws:

I anſwer, that it is no great matter to be … judge, ſince the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 6, 4 Set them to judge that are leaſt eſteemed in the Church: now if the weakeſt are to be choſen for Judges, ſuch Magiſtrates will not ſuffer their eyes to be blinded with gifts; and he will inflict puniſhment upon falſe witneſſes eſpecially when ſuch Magiſtrates are aſſiſted with Gods Miniſters.

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

But if they ſhould be choſen out of a Church that is not of the Doctors mind about the ſeventh-day Sabbath, then it cannot reaſonably be imagined that ſuch Magiſtrates would put that Law in execution that ſaith the ſeventh-day Sabbath-breaker ſhall be ſto…ed to death, while the Magiſtrate himſelf doth tolerate the breach of it.

And laſtly, whoſoever doth but read 1 Cor. 6. &4. and compares it but with the occaſion for which the Doctor cites it, which is to ſhew whom God hath appointed to execute the puniſhment the Law of Moſes hath aſſigned for Sabbath-breakers, they will ſee that the Doctor hath manifeſted ſo much weakneſs, that if weakneſs were a fit qualification for a Judge, (as he ſaith it is) he hath beſpoke himſelf worthy of a Judges place before all the Poople: for if the weakeſt are to be choſe Judges, I know not where we ſhould meet with a fitter man then the Doctor, who hath ſo unfitly apply'd the Apoſtles words to the caſe in hand.

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

p. 64Mr. Ives

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

VVhichWhich I thus do:

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

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

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

The reaſon of Mr. Ives his urging this Ar… ment, is to diſ-mount the confidence of his Antagoniſts, who build ſo much upon this text for the proo… of their ſeventh-day Sabbath: but to this, Mr. Tillam, being Reſpondent, did refuſe to anſwer, an… therefore Mr. Ives went on to prove the Minor, becauſe his Antagoniſts grant the Major, viz. Tha… if believing Gentiles are bound, they are bound by the ſecond of James, &c.

Mr. Ives.

I ſhall go on to prove the Minor, (viz.) Tha… believing Gentiles are not bound by Jam. 2. to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Beſides what I have ſaid, that the Gentiles were without the Law that was otherwiſe impoſed p. 65upon the Jewes, I ſhall further add.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minor I prove thus:

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

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

p. 66The Major I prove thus:

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

Here Mr. Tillam begins to reply.

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

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

p. 67Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

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

p. 69Mr. Ives.

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