Saturday No Sabbath, Dialogue (2 of 3)

Saturday No Sabbath · Dialogue (2 of 3)

p. 69And although there be no difference between the Jew and Gentile in point of juſtification and Goſpel-priviledges, in as much as the Jew cannot be juſtified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Chriſt, even as the Gentiles are; yet the Gentiles are not bound to obſerve all edicts that were at that time impoſed upon the Jews. And leſt this ſeem ſtrange, I pray conſider Acts 21.23, 24, 25. where it is obſervable, that a holy Convocation of Apoſtles and Elders being p. 70met at Jeruſalem, did injoyn Paul to obſerve ſomethings which at no hand they would have the Gentiles to obſerve, but gave them a ſolemn charge to the contrary; for in the 23, and 24 verſes, the Aſſembly of Apoſtles and Elders do enjoyn Paul, ſaying, DOE this that WE ſay to thee: we have four men which have a vow upon them, them take, and purifie thy ſelf with them, and be at charges with them, that they may ſhave their heads, and ALL may know that thoſe things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thy ſelf walkeſt orderly and keepeſt the Law. But as touching the GENTILES which beleeve, we have written and concluded, that THEY obſerve NO SUCH thing, &c. Here we ſee a holy convocation of Apoſtles and Elders, guided by the Spirit of truth, do require that of Paul being a Jew, that they expreſly command the Gentile. beleevers not to obſerve. Would it not be ridiculous then for a man to ſay, that I muſt either obſerve all the Apoſtles injunctions to the Jews; or elſe, that I must reject all the injunctions of the Apoſtles, even thoſe that concern the Gentiles? for after this rate Mr. Tillam reaſons (viz.) that I muſt either obſerve all James his Epiſtle, or none at all, becauſe (ſaith he) there is no difference between Jew and Greek. Now then, by this place in the 21 of the Acts you ſee there was ſome difference by order from the Apoſtles in point of obſervation, but no difference in p. 71point of justification, which is the ſcope of the Apoſtle in that text cited by Mr. Tillam, Rom. 10.11, 12. There is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the ſame Lord over all, is RICH unto all that call upon him: ſo that the Argument remains unanſwered: for all that Mr. Tillam hath ſaid, becauſe the Scripture ſaith plainly that the uncircumciſed Gentiles were not bound to keep the whole Law, therefore from thoſe words the WHOLE LAVV, the ſeventh-day ſabbath cannot reaſonably be inferred. Neither let any one think to relieve himſelf by the help of this diſtinction (viz.) that though beleevers are not to keep the whole Law, as it contains Morals and Ceremonials, yet they are bound to obſerve the whole Law as it contains morals only: for firſt, the Law of Moſes makes no ſuch diſtinctions as a whole, and a whole Law; neither doth the Scriptures of the New Teſtament make any ſuch diſtinction; for when it ſpeaks of the VVHOLE Law with reference to the Law of Moſes, it always includes both Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Laws, which are all but ſeveral parts of the Iſraelites VVHOLE Law. But ſecondly, Suppoſe we ſhould allow the diſtreſſed the help of this diſtinction (viz.) that ſometime Moſes Law is called the WHOLE LAW, with reference to the moral part of it only; as ſuppoſe it ſo in this 2 of James now under debate, doth it therefore follow that the ſeventh-day ſabbath is part of the moral Law? is not the imagination of ſuch a conceipt as p. 72this a ſtranger to the heart of an ingenious diſputant who abhors to beg that Queſtion he cannot prove… for, could that be but proved, which is ſo often taken for granted, (viz.) that the keeping of the ſeventh-day Sabbath is a moral Duty, then the Controverſi… were at an end; for doubtleſs, all believers are bound to keep the whole Moral Law.

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And whereas Mr. Tillam ſaith, that, if the Epiſtle p. 75of James were writ to believing Jews, then here would be one Law for the believing Jews, & …nother for the beleeving Gentiles. To this I anſwer, …hat it doth not follow, that becauſe this Epiſtle was …riten to Jews that THEREFORE there ſhould be … Law for them and another for the Gentiles: but …econdly, this abſurdity (if it be an abſurdity) …ay as well be drawn upon the text, becauſe it is …id, Jam. 2. that the Epiſtle was writ to the Twelve Tribes ſcattered abroad, &c. which were Jews.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer to the laſt firſt, Whereas you … Mr. Tindal calleth the firſt day of the week … ſabbath, ſo he doth alſo call that day … which John received his Revelation the Sunday, which other tranſlations call the Lord… day; by which it appears, that without confuſion Mr. Tindal thought the Apoſtles might obſerve both days, as the ſtate of Chriſtian … fairs then ſtood, and as your ſelf have confeſſe that both the Sabbath-day, and the Lords-da… were obſerved in the three firſt Centuries.

And if Mr. Tindals Authority may be allowed then the firſt day of the week is the Sabbath-day and then what becomes of your ſeventh day ſabbath unleſs you will keep two ſabbaths? ſo that ſin… you have cited Mr. Tindal, let Mr. Tindal … the Controverſie, who by your own confeſſion ca… the firſt day of the week the ſabbath.

Again, when I ſaid the Apoſtles did meet on both days without confuſion, which you ſaid they could not; I ſpake this, to ſhew what Chriſtians may do in point of condeſcention to one another, and alſo to ſhew, that if meeting on both days was a practiſe (which you ſay is full of confuſion) that then your Book was not empty of confuſion, in allowing both the one p. 77and the other, though you now deny it.

Mr. Tillam.

It is a great confuſion for one part of an …ſſembly to meet upon one day, and another …rt to meet upon another; and if any of our …iends do ſo, they do evil: for they ought all … meet at one place, and at one time, and to …rry one for another, and not to vary hours, …uch leſs days.

Mr. Ives.

I ſtill think I have reaſon for my opinion, viz.) that thoſe that do pretend to keep the …eventh-day, may keep the firſt day of the week …o the Lord, without being guilty of ſin and confuſion, although your ſabbath now under debate were true: but enough of this; I ſhall …herefore proceed to another Argument, to …rove, that all beleeving Gentiles are not commanded to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath: which I thus do.

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

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

The Minor I thus prove.

That Law which was given as a ſign between God and Iſrael, was a Law to none but Iſrael: p. 78But the ſeventh-day ſabbath was given as a ſign between God and Iſrael, Exod. 31.15, 17. Ergo, The ſeventh-day ſabbath was a Law to none but Iſrael.

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

The ſeventh-day was a ſign of the Creation of the World; for God reſted the ſeventh-day, ſaith the Text.

Again, If that the Commandments are ſigns, they muſt either be between God and his people, or elſe between them and the Devil.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

If the Creation of the world be a reaſon why p. 82Iſrael was to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath, you muſt then (if you be Gods Iſrael) keep the ſeventh day upon that reaſon, becauſe they did enjoy the comforts of the Creation, which God brought forth in ſix days: ſince then that Reaſon is the ſame to us, that Law ought to be the ſame.

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer, Firſt, by telling of you, that you argue in ſtead of Anſwering.

But ſecondly, leſt you ſhould judge tha… there is ſtrength in what you ſay, ſee the weakneſs of it; for it doth not follow, that becauſe the reaſon of a Law is always the ſame, th… therefore the Law ſhould always be the ſame as for inſtance, God gave a Law that the people of Iſrael ſhould not eat Swines fleſh, nor the Cony, nor the Hare, becauſe he the Lord their God … holy, therefore they ſhould not defile themſelves wit… eating ſuch things, Levi…. 11.43, 44. Here you ſee the Reaſon remains, for God is holy, an… will be ſo forever, but the Law doth not remain; for a man may eat of theſe Creature now, and not ſin: ſo in like manner the reaſon for the Jews ſabbath may be the ſame, when the Law may not be the ſame in every punct…o of it.

Mr. Tillam.

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

p. 83Mr. Ives.

Then I have ſhewn you, that the reaſon of a Law may be the ſame, when the Law is not the …ame, by your own confeſſion.

Mr. Tillam making no further reply, Mr. Ives …roceeds to a new Argument.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

The Minor I prove thus:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

To the Argument out of the Law of Nature, I anſwer, that it doth convince men … ſin for Idolatry; and yet ask a Papiſt if he … convinced of ſin for bowing to the Virgin Mary, and he will ſay, No.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, You have not anſwered, nor aſſigned … inſtance; and for what you ſay of a Papiſt, … anſwer, that it is one thing to live under a Law that convinceth of ſin, and another thing to acknowledge ſuch conviction: as for example. It is ſaid of the Holy Ghoſt, that he ſhall convince p. 85the world of ſin, and yet we all know the world is not convinced of ſin, ſo as publickly to repent and return.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

p. 86But none have at any time by Chriſts appointment been blamed for breaking, or commended for keeping the ſeventh-day ſabbath.

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

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

Mr. Ives.

Mr. Tillam excepts againſt the univerſality of the word every day: which ſeems to me very ſtrange: for when he cited that text Mar. 2.27. p. 89where it is ſaid, The ſabbath was made for man, he would there have the word Man underſtood of every man, though the word every man was not in the text.

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

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

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

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

As for instance, we have been ſhewing, that we are not obliged by Moſes Law to keep the ſeventh-day ſabbath, nor no other Judaical days; and that now Chriſt hath taken away theſe obſervations, and hath made all days alike, in that one day hath … more ſanctity or holineſs then another, by reaſon of any Moſaical inſtitution, by which formerly it was ſanctified; and ſo by conſequence have ſhewed, that neither Moſes Law, nor Chriſts Law, commands a ſeventh-day ſabbath upon that account; which indeed is the ſcope of the Apoſtle in the 14 of the Romans, that ſo the beleevers might not bring one another to bondage in ſuch things wherein Chriſt hath made them free: How then doth this abſurdity fall upon the Arguments, (viz.) tha… becauſe we are left at liberty in point of Moſaical obligations to days, that therefore we may ſpend this liberty to the ſervice of the fleſh, and ſet apart no time at all to ſerve and worſhip God in … this indeed would be contrary to the light of Nature, which hath taught all her ſons to ſet apart … time, in which to worſhip and ſerve their God. But if it ſhould be ſaid, that if God hath left no command, how much time, or what time; then we ſhould not ſin though we obſerved no time; I anſwer, that this is an abſolute non-ſequitur: for firſt, God hath not appointed what maintenance the p. 91Miniſters of the Goſpel ſhould have under the New Teſtament; doth it therefore follow, that we being delivered by Jeſus Chriſt from the Moſaical bondage of maintaining the Miniſters according to the Levitical Law, and ſince we are at liberty and not …njoyned how much, or how little, or in what kind they ſhould be maintained, that therefore they ſhould have no maintenance at all? the like may be ſaid in reſpect of a place of worſhip, as well as a time; for God had under the Law tied the Jews to a place of worſhip, but now he hath delivered us from that bondage, and hath made all places alike, as to any Moſaical ſanctity; doth it therefore follow, that Chriſtians may from thenceforward chuſe whether they will meet any where or no; or that one beleever may run one way, and another another way, and ſo never come to the place where the Church meeteth? too many ſuch libertines were in the Apoſtles days, and, to our great grief, we may ſay, there are too many in our days that turn this Grace and Goſpel-liberty into wantonneſs and licentiouſneſs. This I thought good to add in this place, to ſtop the carreer of that conceipt, (viz.) that becauſe Chriſt hath freed us from thoſe days that Moſes his Diſciples were hound to obſerve, and hath left the Chriſtians at liberty herein, in that he hath made every day alike, that therefore we may chuſe if we will keep any day as all to the ſervice of the Lord; this is not only a ſenſual, but a ſenſeleſs imagination: but more of this touching a day to worſhip God in, and alſo what p. 92day we ought to obſerve for his publick worſhip, ſhall be ſhewn in the enſuing Appendix to theſe Diſputations.

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

For by the ſame rule we may reſtrain general words when we have no warrant, we may uſhe… in any abſurdity: as for inſtance, the Scripture ſaith, God made every thing that creepeth may not a man as well ſay, that there is ſome creeping thing that God hath not made, as ſay when the Apoſtle tells us, that now the partition-wall is broken down, and notwithſtanding Moſes Law you may judge of every day alike without being judged a tranſgreſſor of it; that this every day is underſtood but of ſome days commanded by Moſes, and not of the ſeventh-day ſabbath? Neither have I diſeſteemed or excluded the firſt day of the week by my Argument from hence, ſince the Argument is founded upon the words of the Text.

Mr. Ives.

Since Mr. Tillam makes no further reply to this Argument, I ſhall urge one more out of the p. 9315 of the Acts compared with the 21.

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

This was the end of the ſecond Diſputation, at which time there was an agreement to Diſpute the ſame Arguments over again with one Matthew Coppinger; which was appointed to be on Candlemas p. 94day then next enſuing, being the ſecond of Febr. 1658. at the place aforeſaid: at which time and place Mr. Coppinger was to anſwer to Mr. Ives his forementioned Arguments, and what new ones he thought good to add.

The forementioned time being come, and the people being Aſſembled, Mr. Ives propounds the Queſtion which was to be diſputed; which take as followeth.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

p. 95But beleeving Gentiles are not bound either by the Law of Nature, Moſes, or Chriſt, to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

I do mean the Law written in the heart.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

p. 96Ergo, The Law written in the heart doth not bind the beleeving Gentiles to obſerve the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

But neither Gods word, Right Reaſon, … manifeſt experience doth manifeſt, that ever the Law written in the heart did convince th… Gentiles of ſin for not obſerving the ſeventh-day Sabbath:

Ergo, The Law written in the heart dot… not convince the Gentiles of ſin, for not obſerving the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Mr. Coppinger.

I do deny the Minor, and ſay, that the Law that is written in the heart doth convince … ſin for not keeping the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, then you deny the Concluſion, and not the Minor, what ever you ſay; therefore pray put in your exception againſt the enumeration in the Syllogiſm, and ſhew us, either from p. 97Scripture, Record, or Right Reaſon, or Experience, that any have been convinced of ſin by the Law written in their heart for not keeping the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

And yee ſhall not walk in the manners of the na…ons which I caſt out before you, for they commit? … all theſe things, and therefore I abhorred them. From whence I infer, Firſt, that the ſeventh-day Sabbath was included in theſe words, ALL my …atutes, and ALL my judgments: and that …heſe were injoyned to the Gentile Nations, …prove by the 22 verſe, where it is ſaid, God …ſt out the Nations (viz.) the Gentiles, becauſe they did not do ALL thoſe things which he commanded of the people of Iſrael, among which their ſeventh-day Sabbath was one great thing that was commanded: now then, If the Gentiles were caſt out becauſe they did not obſerve ALL the Laws, and ALL the Statutes, and ALL the Judgments which God commanded Iſrael to obſerve, among which the ſeventh-day p. 98Sabbath was one, as appears by comparing the 19 ch. and 30 ver. where keeping the Sabbath is mentioned among the Statutes of Iſrael.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

But ſecondly, The text doth not ſay, the Nations were caſt out for that they did not keep all Iſraels Laws, but for that they were guilty of all thoſe unnatural luſts mentioned in th… former part of the Chapter, which he commanddeth Iſrael to refrain, and withal to keep all his ſtatutes, leſt he caſt out them as he had done thoſe Nations.

But thirdly, How doth it appear, that theſe Nations were to keep ALL Iſraels ſtatutes, and all their judgments, by the Law written in their heart? for they might otherwiſe come under the guilt of the tranſgreſſions of the Law of Iſrael, then by Natures conviction; if that ſhould be granted, that cannot be proved (viz.) that the Nations were to keep all Iſraels laws.

p. 99Fourthly, If you ſay, that the Nations were convinced of ſin by the light of Nature, becauſe they did not keep ALL the ſtatutes that were given to Iſrael, then it will follow that the light of Nature did convince them of ſin, becauſe they were not obſervers of the Ceremonial Laws that were given to Iſrael, for thoſe are mentioned in the 19 Chapter of Leviticus among the Statutes of Iſrael, as well as their Sabbaths and other things.

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I ſay, that the Ceremonial Law is no part o… that whole Law in the Texts that I have mentioned, where all the Statutes, and all the judgments are commanded to Iſrael; for there i… not a word mentioned concerning it in the whole chapter.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

I prove the Minor thus:

That law which cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition, is not a Moral law.

p. 106But the Law for the ſeventh-day ſabbath cannot be known but by written or unwritten tradition.

Ergo, the law for the ſeventh-day ſabbath is not a Moral law.

Mr. Coppinger.

I deny the Minor, and ſay, that the law for the ſeventh-day ſabbath may be known another way then by tradition; for it may be known by the law written in the heart.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 107Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

I do aſſure you Sir, if it were not but that I had compaſſion on the multitude, and was unwilling to have them go away unſatisfied, I had not ſaid a word to your laſt Argument, becauſe you know you were by agreement to anſwer my Arguments; and in ſtead thereof you make Arguments, and turn Opponent, when as you were by Agreement this day to be Reſpondent: however Sir, take this for an Anſwer, that the Gentiles might do by nature thoſe things that were contained in the Law, p. 109that forbad ſtealing and adultery; and yet the conſequence doth not follow, that therefore they kept the ſeventh-day ſabbath by the light of nature: as for inſtance, a man that keeps the law of the Turk, he obſerves a law that forbiddeth ſtealing and murder; doth it therefore follow, that he obſerveth the Law of England, becauſe he doth obſerve a law that requireth many of the ſame things which are written in the Engliſh Laws?

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I ſhall prove the Conſequence, namely, that if the Gentiles by the light of Nature without tradition did do the things contained in the law, that then they did keep the 7th-day ſabbath by the light of nature, without tradition.

Hereupon the Moderator did reprove Mr. Coppinger for attempting to argue instead of anſwering Mr. Ives his Argument, and therefore did deſire that Mr. Ives would urge a freſh Argument, which was as followeth.

Mr. Ives.

That law which a man may have an abſolute neceſſity to break, cannot be a Moral law:

But the law for the ſeventh-day ſabbath a man may have an abſolute neceſſity to break.

Ergo, the law for the ſeventh-day ſabbath cannot be a moral law.

Mr. Coppinger.

I deny the Major, if by moral law you do mean the law of Nature, or law written in the heart; for it doth not follow that a law is not moral or written in the heart, becauſe one may have a moral or abſolute neceſſity to break it.

Mr. Ives.

I ſhall prove the Major thus:

If there be no abſolute neceſſity for me to hate God or my neighbour, then there is p. 112no abſolute neceſſity for me to break the law in nature:

But there is no abſolute neceſſity for me to hate God or my neighbour.

Ergo, There is no abſolute neceſſity to break the law in Nature.

Mr. Coppinger.

I deny the Major: for though there be no neceſſity for a man to hate God or his neighbour, it doth not therefore follow, that there is no abſolute neceſſity to break the law in nature.

Mr. Ives.

I prove the Major thus:

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I anſwer, firſt, that there may be a breaking of the letter of the Law, as that of murder and adultery, and ſtealing; as for inſtance, Abraham p. 113was commanded to ſacrifice Iſaak contrary to the letter of the law, which ſaith, Thou ſhalt not kill.

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

p. 114Secondly, You tell us, there may be a neceſſity to tranſgreſs the letter of the Law, and for that you urge ſeveral Texts; when as my Argument was not grounded upon the letter of the law, but rather upon the Spirit of it (viz.) the law written in the heart; ſo that the inſtances have not anſwered the Argument however, I ſhall anſwer the inſtances: and firſt, you ſay, that there may be an abſolute neceſſity to commit murder, adultery, and ſtealing, &c. To which I anſwer, that this is ſuch a piece of Divinity that the world did never hear of before; and the firſt inſtance you aſſign is, Abrahams being commanded of God to offer up his ſon Iſaak, &c. To which I anſwer, that if Abraham had killed Iſaak, it had not been murder: firſt, becauſe he did not hate his ſon in his heart, while he was going to offer him according to the commandment; & therefore this inſtance doth not touch the Argument, which ſaith, there is no neceſſity to hate God or my neighbour. But ſecondly, God commanded Abraham by an immediate Law from Heaven, otherwiſe Abraham could not have pretended to any neceſſity that would have juſtified him in this act, neither could he have been judge of this neceſſity, unleſs God had required it: ſo …hat here was no neceſſity for Abraham to murder, becauſe of this commandment: therefore the inſtance is impertinent.

p. 115Again, as touching the caſe of David in the matter of Uriah, there was no moral neceſſity laid upon any to break a moral law, becauſe David was not put to death; for, and if there had been ſuch a neceſſity, how doth this reach the Argument, that ſaith, there is no neceſſity to hate God or my neighbour? for the people did neither hate God nor their neighbours, in that they did not take away the life of their King, for what he did againſt Uriah the Hittite. And for your inſtance in the caſe of the Iſraelites ſtealing from the Egyptians, which you ſay God allowed of, &c.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

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

p. 120Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tillam.

Mr. Ives hath done like curſed Cham in uncovering his brothers nakedneſs; however, I went to bid Mr. Coppinger ſhut up his ſhop, be…ing very much troubled all that night about it, and he anſwered me, that if he ſhould ſhut up ſhop, he ſhould be accounted broke, which would be a ſcandal to his profeſſion: & further he told me, that he was under ſome promiſes which he was to perform relating to his trade: however, he told me he would do not work but what was of neceſſity to fulfil his promiſe; and gave the like charge to his ſervants alſo.

Mr. Ives.

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

Mr. Ives.

I have ſhewn, that the law for the ſeventh-day Sabbath is not a moral law, becauſe there can be no moral neceſſity to break a moral law, … there may be a moral neceſſity, by Mr. Tillam'… and Mr. Coppingers own confeſſion and practice, to break the ſeventh-day Sabbath: Therefore the Law for the ſeventh-day Sabbath cann… p. 123be a moral law. I now proceed to ſhew, that as the ſeventh-day ſabbath is not in force by any moral law, or law writ in the heart; ſo in the next place, I ſhall prove it is not in force by the Law of Moſes; which I thus do.

Thoſe which had not Moſes Law to command them, were not bound by Moſes Law to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

Mr. Ives.

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

And the Minor I prove (viz.) that the unbeleeving Gentiles have not Moſes law to command them; and this I do by the words of the Text, Rom. 2.14. the Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW, &c.

Whence I argue.

That it was either the law of Moſes, or the law of Nature which the Text ſaith the Gentiles had not.

But it was not the law of Nature.

Ergo, It was the Law of Moſes.

Now it is manifeſt that they were not without the Law of Nature: for the Text ſaith, That was written in their hearts, ver. 15. therefore my Argument is proved, that the law they were without was the Law of Moſes; and therefore by Moſes Law they could not be commanded to keep the ſeventh-day Sabbath.

Mr. Coppinger.

I do diſtinguiſh of the Law of Moſes, as it was written and unwritten. Now though the Gentiles had not Moſes Law in writing, yet they had it unwritten: ſo that it doth not follow, p. 125becauſe the text ſaith, the Gentiles were without Moſes Law, that therefore they had it not in any ſence; for they had the ſame Law the Jews had, only they had it not in writing: as for inſtance, the Records of the Law are kept at London, is not York therefore under the ſame Law? But ſuppoſe we ſhould read the Text as Mr. Ives notions it, that the Gentiles had not the Law of Moſes, would it not be ridiculous? and further, this Law in the ſecond of the Romans, is the Law that all were to be be judged by at the day of judgment, ver. 27. which is one and the ſame Law ſpoken of throughout the whole Chapter. Therefore the Law written in the heart, and the Law upon Tables of ſtone, are all one and the ſame Law; ſo that they (viz. the Gentiles) had the Law of Moſes unwritten, though not written; and therefore your Argument is not proved from the Text.

Mr. Ives.

Mr. Coppingers Anſwer had been good, if he had ſhewn us by the Scripture that there was a Moſaical Law unwritten; which I think is a conceit that the whole world is a ſtranger to; and if Mr. Coppinger cannot do this, his Anſwer is no anſwer.

But ſecondly, that the Law of Nature, Rom. 2. is not the Moſaical Law as he imagineth, appears, becauſe then the Holy Ghoſt makes a p. 126needleſs diſtinction, of having a Law, and not having a Law; and of being under the Law, and without the Law, if there were no more difference then there is between London and York.

For thoſe that live at York are under the written Law of England, though thoſe Laws are recorded at London, becauſe Proclamations are written and ſent down and poſted in their market places; ſo that the diſtinction is not made good by the ſimilitude: for York is as truly under the written law, as London, and in no ſence can be ſaid to be without law; and ſo were all the cities of Judea, though at a diſtance from Jeruſalem, under the written law of Moſes, becauſe they were to have copies of the law in every city by Gods appointment, to be read among them. But the Gentiles are therefore ſaid to live without the law, becauſe they had not the law of Moſes; which diſtinction would be vain, if whatſoever was written in Moſes law in tables of ſtone, was writ in the hearts of the Gentiles alſo; for then in no ſenſe they could be ſaid to be without the law, and not under the Law.

And whereas you ſay the ſenſe of the Text is not good as I notion it, you might as well ſay the ſenſe of the Text was not good as the Apoſtle notions it; for I ſaid no more in my Argument, then the Apoſtle ſaid in the text, (viz.) That the Gentiles were without law.

And laſtly, whereas you ſay, this Law that the Gentiles lived under is Moſes law, becauſe p. 127all were to be judged by it; I anſwer, that the contrary is moſt true, as appears by conſulting the text. For the Text doth diſtinguiſh the law of Nature from the law of Moſes, becauſe that every body ſhall not be judged by the Jews law, but them that ſinned without the law ſhall be judged WITHOUT the law: whence I argue, that if the Law of Moſes be ſo differenced, that God will not judge every body by it, then the difference is more then in the meer writing and tranſcribing of it: But the law of Moſes is ſo different, that God will not judge every body by it. Ergo, the difference is more then a meer writing and tranſcribing of it.

As for example, Mr. Coppinger told us but now, that there was no more difference between the Jews living under the law, & the Gentiles living without the law, then there is between the people that live at York and London; if the difference be no greater as he would make us beleeve, how coms it to paſs that at York, the people are judged by the ſame law as we are judged by at London? and yet the Apoſtle ſaith, The Gentiles that lived without the law, ſhall be judged without the law; which plainly manifeſts both a formal and a material difference between the law of Moſes and the law written in the heart.

Mr. Coppinger.

N…w I will ſhew, that the difference doth lie onelyonly in writing, Rom. 2.26, 27. where it is p. 128ſaid, If the Gentiles in uncircumciſion keep the Righteouſneſs of the Law, that his Unicircumciſion ſhould be counted for Circumciſion; And ſhall not uncircumciſion which is by Nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumciſion doſt tranſgreſs the Law? Now how could the Gentiles uncircumciſion be accounted for circumciſion, if he kept the Righteouſneſs of the Law, if this Law were not the Law of Moſes?

Again, the Difference is made in the word Letter, ſo that the fault of the Jews is the greater, in that they deſpiſe the Law, becauſe it is ſent by two Meſſengers from God unto them, both in writing, and otherwiſe planting it in the hearts; ſo that the difference is oppoſed in the word Letter.

Mr. Ives.

Mr. Coppinger ſaith, the difference between the Law of Moſes and Nature is oppoſed in the word Letter: if ſo, then he hath confuted himſelf, for that they cannot be the ſame, if they are oppoſed one to the other.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

Mr. Ives ſaith, That the Moſaical Law is oppoſed to the Law of Nature, 1 Cor. 9.21. where the Apoſtle ſaith, He was under the Law to them that were under the Law, and without Law to them that were without Law. I anſwer, That the Apoſtle could not make a difference between believing Jews under the Law, and believing Gentiles without the Law; becauſe that the Gentiles were under EVERY part and parcel of the Law of Moſes, as appears p. 130Gal. 3. As many as are under the Law, are under the curſe: and the Gentiles were redeemed from the Curſe of the Law, Gal 4.8. And could the Law curſe them that were not under it? I ſhall therefore ſhew by & by that this Law which the Gentiles were under, was the whole Law of Moſes.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

Whence I argue:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

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

p. 132Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

Mr. Coppinger.

I do ſay, That the Gentiles were under all the Ceremonial Laws, as well as under all the Moral Laws, even by the Law writ in the heart, even all the Law, all Sacrifices, every bit and every thing: Gal. 3.13. Chriſt hath redeemed … &c. and Gal. 4. He hath redeemed them that were under the Law, &c. Meaning Gentiles as well as Jews. Now that this was the whole Law of Moſes, in that the ſame ſpirit writ the ſame things in the hearts of the Gentiles that the Angel did command upon mount Sinai. Again, the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the Law, ſaith, The man that doth them ſhall live in them, Gal. 3.12. to p. 133this agreeth Rom. 10. So that all Moſes law was the ſame with the law written in the heart, and was for Jews and Gentiles indifferently, the one for both people as well as the other: for God intended that the Tables of ſtone ſhould be kept in the hand of Iſrael, and from thence it was to be conveyed to others, Romans the 9th and 4th.

Mr. Ives.

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

Secondly, that the Gentiles by the light of Nature were not under the whole Law of Moſes is clear, in that ſome lived in terra incognita, and alſo in the Antipodes: and beſides, the text ſaith plainly, that the Gentiles were not under the law, and I muſt ſtick to that, what ever you ſay, unleſs you ſpoke more reaſon: and it is ſtrange to me, that this ſhould not be diſcerned, that a perſon may be redeemed from the puniſhment due to him for tranſgreſſing the Laws of the King of Spain, and another may be redeemed p. 134from the puniſhment due to him for tranſgreſſing the laws of England, and after this it may be ſaid of them both, that they are redeemed from the curſe of the law: but would it reaſonably follow from thence, that they both lived under one and the ſame Law, in all points? in like manner it doth not follow, that becauſe Chriſt hath redeemed both Jews and Gentiles from the curſe of the law, that therefore they both lived under one law in all reſpects, as Mr. Coppinger imagineth.

Mr. Coppinger.

Now I will prove that the whole world by the light of Nature, were under the whole law both of Sacrifices and Ceremonies, Gal. 3.11. No man is juſtified by the Law in the ſight of God, here the Apoſtle means the whole Ceremonial law, as appears Heb. 14.10.

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ives.

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

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

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