〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: OR THE Saint's Perseverance Asserted in its positive Grounds, AND VINDICATED FROM ALL Material Exceptions Against it.  
OCCASIONED By a late immodest Account of two Conferences, upon that Point, between Tho. Danson and Mr. Jer. Ives, Published by the said Mr. Ives; Which Account is also herein Rectified, and its Falsehood detected, to the just shame of the PUBLISHER.  
By Tho. Danson, sometime Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and Preacher of the Word at Sandwich in Kent.  
He that is first in his own Cause seemeth just, but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him, Prov. 18.17.  
He that answereth a Matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him, Verse 13.  
London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, 1672.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
IF thou art so judicious, as to see and censure it as a fault in me, to enter the lists with such a person as Mr. Ives, of whom, for the immorality of his Conversation, they are ashamed who agree with him in Opinion. And all Christians by profession have cause to be, for his detestable Arrianism, or denial of the Godhead of Christ, which I am able sufficiently to prove, and of which he hath never (that I know of) declared his Repentance: I willingly submit myself to thy correction; yet to excuse what I cannot defend, thou mayest please to understand, that through the frequent insolent Challenges of some of his Persuasion, a private Meeting was appointed for a Conference on Febr. 12. 1671. with Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings, the former whereof undertook to defend the mortality of the Soul; and the latter, the possibility of true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace. When we were met, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings both refused (though present) to discourse with me: The first, Not assigning any Reason. The second, Alleging his disability by a Cold, and desiring Mr. Ives might be his Substitute: As to the latter point, whom therefore I admitted, as knowing that should I have refused, the man would have crowed like a Cock on his Dunghill, and his Party would have gone away singing, Io Triumph. And whereas, according to agreement with Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings, I was to oppose, Mr. Ives would needs make me respond. And very gravely read his Arguments out of his Papers, which he was so much beholden to, as he could not repeat any one without their assistance. And when he had done, and was desired to change turns, and become Respondent; he complaining of weariness, I was not unwilling to debate the Point once more, because Regula being index sui, & obliqui, I thought the best mean, for the satisfaction of my Friends, at whose Request I undertook it, were the discussing of the positive grounds of the Saints perseverance. How Mr. Ives demeaned himself, all that know him, though absent, can tell as perfectly as they that were present. 'Tis no News to them, that he interrupted me in the midst of a Sentence, pretending he knew what I was about to say; nor that he made frequent Diversions, by Addresses to the People, many of whom therefore called often on him to turn about to his Antagonist; and told him, He came not to dispute with them, but with Mr. Danson; nor that he would not repeat the Arguments, when he was Respondent, but now and then at his own list; and when he did, would bear me down, and many others, Reverend Ministers, and private Christians, That my Proof was not direct to the Proposition by him denied; and would often repeat them in words quite contrary to mine, and yet outface us all, that he did his Opponent right. And this indeed was his carriage from first to last, more or less; So that it seems to me, either that he hath not read or not understood or through the freedom of his will, hath disobeyed the Dictates of his understanding. That passage of the Publisher of Hoard 's God's Love to Mankind, in the Epistle to the Reader, If any shall use railing Speeches, or unnecessary Diversions from the Cause, I shall ever interpret that to be a strong sign of a weak Cause; or at least, I shall think it to be an argument of an obstinate mind; who neither knoweth how to yield to the Truth, nor yet to defend his Error. On the second of March, Mr. Ives wrote a Letter to me (which is since printed) to give him a meeting, that our Conferences might be published by mutual consent, which I might well have wondered at, had not my own experience assured me, that he is more bold than wise; which motion I rejected, as having so mean an Opinion of my own Abilities, as not to think any thing of mine (much less such a rambling Discourse, as through his default that was, which I had with him) worthy of Public View. Yet hath he published an impartial Account of our Discourses, as he pretends; but whether it be so or no I appeal to the Notes or Memories of the Auditors, from whom I know it had been easy to procure a Testimonial; but that I judged it too great an Honour to such a man as Mr. Ives is known to be, to suppose it probable, that any discreet person should take all he says for Gospel. I shall therefore only request any that judge it worth while, to have satisfaction as to matter of Fact, but to inquire of these Reverend Ministers, (viz.) Mr. Christopher Fowler, Mr. Luffe, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Waddesworth, Mr. Tho. Vincent, Mr. Maddox, Mr. Veal, Mr. Peachy, Mr. Charles Morton, Mr. Carslake, [besides others, whose Names at present occur not] and these sober private Christians, Mr. Summer. Mr. Farthing, Mr. Jeffreys, Inhabitants of Southwark; Mr. Parkhurst, Mr. Anion, Citizens of London, [with others, too many to enumerate] who were present at one or both our Discourses. And they will attest how often I was forced to hold my Tongue through his clamour; his stentorian Voice drowning mine, that I could not be heard, when it was my turn to speak, how often he would needs make me father his brats; I mean, acknowledge those words for mine, which indeed were his own, etc. The Publication of our Conferences hath laid me under a kind of necessity of Replying. I say, a kind of necessity, because I have indeed so modest a confidence of my own Reputation, when put in competition with Mr. Ives', as that I could, without solicitude about the event, have left the World to its liberty of belief, which of us Two is the Liar, and have thought silence the fittest Answer. But that which chief indueed me to Reply, is the opportunity put into my hands to clear up this Point of Saints perseverence fully and succinctly, in half a dozen Sheets, which none hath done that I know of in our Language; Mr. Pryn hath handled the Argument in a large Quarto, Dr. Kendal and Dr. Owen in Folio. And I intent not to detract from those Author's worth: But I know that the price of those Books hinders the buying; and their Bulk, the reading of them by private Christians, for whose use I intent this Discourse.  
I have not given a particular account of all that was discoursed, but only of what was Argumentative; nor indeed hath Mr. Ives, as may easily be judged by the bulk of his Book, compared with the time spent in the Conferences, which was no less than three Hours and an half in the first, and four Hours and an half in the second; but instead thereof, hath, with the Bear, licked his Cubs into a better shape than they had at their Birth. And I therefore forbear it, because I judge the World is not like to be a jot the wiser for the knowledge of it, unless the sight of rudeness and impertinency in their natural deformity, may deter men from such unmanly Vices. But I have given a true account of all the more material Exceptions against the Saint's Perseverance, and added divers Arguments for the proof of it, which I had intended to have urged, had not I been prevented. I have also taken notice of the Appendix, and vindicated our Doctrine from the charge of Novelty and Antinomianism.  
To conclude, Thou who art a true Believer, canst not choose but value the Truth here contended for, and esteem it a rich Cordial, to be assured, that though thou mayest lose Florem yet thou canst not lose Radicem, i. e. the Flower, not the Root; the sense of Grace, not Grace itself; the Act not the Power: When once thou art a Member of Christ, there may be a benuming that may hinder the influence of Blood and Spirits, but so as it shall never be gangrened, it shall never die again; There may be a Cloud on you, but the Sun shall never set on you; to borrow the words of that solid practical Divine, Dr. Preston, Of New Creature, Serm. 5. pag. 423. What a woeful case must thou needs be in, if God were only engaged not to throw thee down; but not to hold thee up. The instances of Man's and Angel's defection are too fresh in memory to be denied; and an argument irrefragable, to evince the possibility of a true Believers Apostasy, if God should be but a Spectator, and not interess himself as a party in the quarrel between him and his spiritual Adversaries. Bless God therefore for the immutable Purposes and Promises of being the finisher of that Faith, whereof he hath been the Author: And if thou reapest any benefit by this Discourse, recompense his pains by thy Prayers, who accounts it his Honour to be  
April 15. 1672. An Helper of thy joy, Tho. Danson.   

BEing met, Mr. Ives proposed the Question in these words, Whether the Doctrine of some true Believers, falling away totally and finally, be true? I answered in the Negative.  
Mr. Ives offered to prove it thus;  
Arg. 1. If the Doctrine of the impossibily of any true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be false, than the Doctrine of the possibility of some true Believers falling away totally and finally is true; but the former is false, Ergo the latter is true. I denied the minor, which he endeavoured to prove thus, If the Doctrine of the impossibility of any true Believers falling away, etc. be true, than it ought to be believed. But it ought not to be believed, Ergo it is not true. I denied the minor, which Mr. Ives went about to prove thus;  
Whatsoever sins any are commanded not to do, and cautioned to fear the doing of, they ought not to believe is impossible to be done: But falling away totally and finally, is a sin that true Believers are commanded not to do, and are cautioned to fear the doing of, Ergo true Believers ought not to believe that it is impossible for them to fall away totally and finally.  
To which I Answer. That many things might be objected against the major and conclusion, as that true Believers was not in the minor denied, which he put now into his conclusion. And in his major, I told him, That we distinguished of impossibility simple and absolute, and ex hypothesi, or supposition of some other thing intervening. And that what we are cautioned to fear the doing of, may be impossible to be done, by reason of the Divine Decree, or Promise, though otherwise possible, etc. [All this Mr. Ives left out in his account of the Conference, and relates only my denial of the major.] Many other things I might object, but I forbear, because I would not seem to cavil at small Faults. Mr. Ives proceeded to prove the major thus, If the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done; then my major is true. But the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done, Ergo my major is true. I denied his minor; after I had first repeated it, Mr. Ives said, It was an universal Negative, and therefore could not be proved. I Replied, That it was a mistake in him so to think. [And since our debate, it came into my mind that Mr. Ives having, 'tis like been sometime or other on a Jury, and observing that a negative Testimony in matter of Fact is not admitted (but in unusual cases) against the Affidavit; apprehends there is the like reason of negative Proposition.] But however, I gave him, at his desire, an instance in the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is impossible to be done by some to whom the Command and Caution is given, (viz.) to true Believers. To which Mr. Ives Replied, We are passed that now, for we are out of the term, True Believers; and read over his Argument again out of his Notebook, which it is to no purpose for me to repeat. [The Reader may view them, I appeal to any person of understanding, whether it was not proper for me to the instance of the sin, to subjoin an instance of some persons to whom it was impossible to be done, or committed.]  
Mr. Ives second Argument was this,  
Arg. 2. If those that are partakers of the Divine Nature may fall away totally and finally, than some true Believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I denied the minor, that they who partake of the Divine Nature may fall away, supposing (I told him) that he took the phrase in the sense of the Apostle, 2 Pet. 1.5. To prove which, he argued thus;  
If they that are partakers of the Holy Ghost may fall away totally and finally, than they that are partakers of the Divine Nature may so fall away. But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I again denied his consequence; which he assayed to confirm thus, If to partake of the Holy Ghost, be to partake of the Divine Nature; than it follows, That if he that is partaker of the Holy Ghost may fall away, he that partakes of the Divine Nature may fall away. But the first is true, Ergo—  
I denied his minor, which therefore he attempted to confirm thus, If the Nature of the Holy Ghost be a Divine Nature; then they that partake of the Holy Ghost, partake of the Divine Nature. But the former is true, Ergo the latter: I denied his consequence. [As for his additional Note, that to deny this consequence, is, As much as if a man should say, The Wisdom that is from above is a Divine Wisdom; and yet say, That he that partakes of the Wisdom which is from above, doth not partake of the Divine Wisdom. I answer, There's not par ratio, for that phrase of Wisdom from above and Divine Wisdom note the same thing, (viz.) the Original or Descent of Wisdom.  
Whereas partaking of the Holy Ghost, notes common Gifts or Graces; partaking of the Divine Nature, special Grace, in the places under debate.  
Mr. Ives would prove his Consequence, Because they that partake of the Holy Ghost; partake of nothing else but what is the Divine Nature. Which I denied, and told him, That that phrase noted the common Gifts, whereof the Holy Ghost is the Author, Heb. 6.3. or the extraordiary Gifts, as Tongues, etc. for which I quoted, Acts 2.4. and Chap. 19.6.  
Then he proved his minor thus, Because the partaking of the Holy Ghost and of the Divine Nature is one and the same thing; which I denied, for though the receiving of the Holy Ghost, as to its Gifts and Graces, may be found in the same Subject, yet they are not terms of the same import; nor are the Gifts and Graces the same thing, any more than Logic and the Mathematics are the same Art or Science, though found in the same Person; or that Bezaleel and Aholiabs' skill in Workmanship of Gold, etc. And the Graces of the Spirit, Faith, Love, etc. are the same thing, because ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as their efficient. Here Mr. Ives multiplied words to no purpose; as if any one would satisfy himself, he may find pag. 15. of his Book, and at length denied what he had often affirmed, (viz.) that partaking of Gifts and Graces were the same thing, but pretended that they were one participation, i. e. Effects of the same efficient, as I understand his meaning; which I granted, and no Body denies. At length he urged this Argument, If the Holy Ghost in its extraordinary Gifts be promised to none, but those that have the ordinary Gifts and Graces of it, than none can partake of the Holy Ghost in the greater, that doth not partake of him in the less: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. To the minor, I answered, That strictly there was no promise of them at all, but a Prediction only; or if we would call that, Joel 2.28. a Promise, it was to the visible Church indefinitely, which consists of visible Believers; and many whereof are only visible. Here was a great altercation about a Promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expressly to visible Believers; which, I told him, was not necessary, because in promises of such a nature as that, Joel 2.28. Many might partake of the benefit that were only visible Believers. And that it was not sufficient ground to judge all the persons that had these extraordinary Gifts Believers, because called such; for Simon Magus was called a Believer, whilst he was not truly such. [Hear note a double misreport of Mr. Ives, pag. 25, 26. That he says I said, Simon Magus received the Holy Ghost, and that all the Promises are made to visible Believers as such; Whereas I spoke only of such Promises, as that of Joel 2. of extraordinary but common Gifts, and that Simon Magus might have received the Holy Ghost in its extraordinary Gifts, for any limitation that was in the Promise.] [To what I said then, I shall only add, That Math. 7.21, 22. and Numb. 24.4, 5. plainly enough assert; That those that have not the ordinary Graces of the Spirit, may partake of the extraordinary Gifts of Prophesying, etc.]  
Arg. 3. If all those that have the Characters of true Believers, mentioned in Heb. 6.5, 6. may fall away totally and finally, then true Believers may fall away totally and finally; but the former is true, Ergo the latter: I denied the consequence. [And I will now add a reason of it, because it proceeds upon this supposition, that if all true Believers are enlightened, etc. then all that are enlightened are true Believers; which is as bad an argument as this, in allusion to Mr. Ives former and present Trade: All the Box-makers' and Cheese-Mongers in the City of London are Freemen, Ergo all the Freemen in in the City of London are Box-makers' and Cheese-Mongers.] Mr. Ives proceeded to prove his consequence: If all those Characters be appliable to none but true Believers, than the consequence follows: But they are appliable to none but true Believers, Ergo—  
I denied his minor, and demanded a proof; which he gave thus, If the Scripture applies those Characters to none but true Believers, than my minor is true. But the Scripture applies them to none but true Believers, Ergo— To which I answered, by denying his consequence; for it follows not that they are not applicable to any others, because they are not actually applied, [which Answer Mr. Ives hath omitted] and by denying the minor, whereupon he urged for an instance of one place of Scripture, where all these Characters are given to one person in terminis, or in the very same terms. To which I Replied, That the term believing, frequently applied to Persons, not true Believers, includes all the Characters here mentioned; and that I could show him by parts where they are applied to those that were not true Believers. Mr. Ives answered, That would not do, because he that hath one Virtue may be no true Believer. I Replied, Not as he reports my words nonsensically, I take Persons that are extraordinarily endowed from above; But thus, That I speak not of virtuous Persons, or morally good, but of those that are endued with Grace from above. After a deal of Contest, I instanced in the term enlightened, and shown, That the thing intended by it, is in another term, (viz.) believing or knowing, applied to those that are not true Believers, John 17.21, 23. (viz.) to the World in this place, opposed to true Believers. Christ prays for the Conversion of those that were given to him; and speaks of the Conviction of the World, as an end that might be obtained thereby. I urged also John 1.9. Whence I urged, that that universal Light could not import a spiritual illumination. [The Contradiction he would fasten upon me to what I have argued from that Text against the Quakers, pag. 36. Of my Quakers Folly, is so trivial, as that it deserves a Smile, rather than an Answer. Let them judge that can, by comparing that passage with pag. 43. and 44, 45. of Mr. Ives Book.] I also urged 1 John 5.1. compared with Luke 4.41. In the latter whereof the Devils are said to know that great Doctrine, That Jesus is the Christ, which in the former place is made a Character of one born of God. Whence I inferred, that all enlightening is not a Character of a true Believer, unless the Devil be a true Believer. [All this explication Mr. Ives hath omitted.]  
The next passage (though not in order in the Text) which Mr. Ives urged, was, renewing by repentance, of the application of which passage to any that was not a true Believer. To which I answered, That it was not necessary to produce those very terms. Repentance is ascribed to those that were not true Believers, as Ahab, Judas, etc. As for the phrase renewing, that though it is frequently applied to true Believers, yet there is no inconvenience in understanding it in this place, of a common work of the Spirit of God, which hath the same name with the special work, because of some similitude. As Saul is said to be turned into another man, 1 Sam. 10.6. I urged also Judas 12. which Mr. Ives hath barely quoted, without my gloss on it, Trees twice dead, plucked up by the roots; in regard of their natural state, which is a death in sin, and their Apostasy, or losing of what good was in them, which carried the appearance of the effects of a spiritual life. And plucked up by the roots, that phrase I mentioned as part of the Verse, but said nothing to.  
The next Phrase is, Tasting of the Powers of the World to come, of which I gave Felix for an instance, Acts 24.25. For one part of the Powers of the World to come, is a dreadful sense and apprehension of the future Judgement threatened in the Gospel against Unbelievers. [As for Mr. Ives additional Note, That tasting of the Powers of the World to come, must be limited to such a taste, as makes the Taster to be in love with what he tastes, is gratis dictum. For tasting is applied to things evil as well as good, Heb. 2.9. Christ is said to taste death. And for Mr. Ive's fancy, that the Persons here spoken of might have had such a taste (viz.) of terror, as Felix had, if they had fallen away, but not if they had not: It is a wonder to me, he should forget that Felix himself was so far from having fallen away, that he did but now begin to stand. I mean, this terror was the first effect of common convictions in him, and often separated from any Grace at all. And 'tis much to me he should be ignorant, that some degree of trembling at the Word is made a Character of a godly Person, Isa. 66.2.] We proceeded to the taste of the good Word of God; for instance whereof, I alleged Matth. 13.20, 21. Mark 6.20. Luke 14.15 Of which places, which I only named, that we might discuss them: Mr. Ives took notice only of the last, whence I observed, That he was transported with joy at the Narration which Christ made of the happiness of the future State, who was a Pharisee, and to whom particularly Christ directed that Parable; The scope whereof is to show, That they who were called outwardly to the participation of the benefits of the Gospel, missed of them, for want of a through compliance with that Call.  
To this Mr. Ives Replied, That they that were bidden did not taste of the Supper. And I rejoined, that the not tasting, verse 27. is consistent with the taste, which those words, verse 15. do import. For the former intends a missing of the benefits offered in the Gospel; the latter, some flashy joys in the apprehension of a possible benefit. And the manner of Christ's Speech seems to be a  exprobration of him, like that, Luke 11.27, 28. [These Passages Mr. Ives hath omitted.]  
Mr. Ives proceeded thus,  
Arg. 4. They are true Believers that have clean escaped the Pollutions of the World, through the knowledge of Christ: But some such may fall away totally and finally, Ergo some true Believers may fall away totally and finally. To which I answered, That his Argument was not right in form; for he put the Subject of the Question into the major, and the Predicate into the minor. His Argument ought to run thus, They that have escaped the Pollutions of the World, etc. may fall away, etc. They that have escaped the Pollutions of the World, etc. are true Believers. Ergo some true Believers may fall away totally and finally. [I add, that if his major and minor being indefinite Propositions, are particular; then the Syllogism is false, according to the old Rule, Syllogizari non est ex particulari.]  
If they be universal, then by a simple conversion of the minor, (the terms being convertible according to his sense) from those premises may an universal Affirmative be rightly deduced (which he all along declined), thus the Argument stands in the first Figure, All that have escaped the Pollutions of the World, etc. may fall away, etc. All true Believers have escaped the Pollutions of the World, etc. Ergo all true Believers may fall away, etc.  
At length, not knowing how to mend the form, though I directed him, he put his Syllogism into an Hypoth. form; If those that have clean escaped the Pollutions, etc. (as before) may fall away, then true Believers may fall away: But such may, Ergo true Believers may. I denied the consequence, because to escape the Pollutions, etc. is not a Description only of true Believers: Mr. Ives attempted to prove it, because that quality [qualification, I suppose, he would have said] is applicable to none but true Believers; which being denied, he proved thus; If that quality be applicable to any but true Believers, then either to Hypocrites, or profane Persons; But to neither, Ergo—  
To his minor, I answered, That it was applicable to Hypocrites: Against which Answer, Mr. Ives urged, That if so, than an Hypocrite may be free from the Pollutions of the World, in the midst of his Hypocrisy; which I granted, in the sense of the Text under debate, 2 Pet. 2.20. Then he urged, that if so, Hypocrisy is not a Pollution of the World: I denied the Connexion, because 'tis meant but of gross Pollutions, that these persons had escaped: And that the terms being indefinite, [and in materia contingenti, which Clause Mr. Ives hath left out, as not understanding it, I know,] they were but particular, not of all, but some Pollutions, which a person may be free from, whilst he is tainted with others. Then Mr. Ives called for a Greek Testament, to see what the Greek word is, that is rendered clean, 2 Pet. 2.18. [Note, though it be no matter of moment, but to show the fidelity of Mr. Ive's Report. Mr. Ives says, a Friend of mine pulled out a Greek Testament, and read the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rendered it as he had done before really, or truly; whereas upon Mr. Ives calling for a Greek Testament, and my Friend, an ingenious young Scholar, Mr. Glascock tendering it me, I said, it needed not, for I remembered the word, and its signification.] Then Mr. Ives called for an instance, I gave him that of the Pharisees, Luke 18.11, 12. Matth. 23.25, etc. To which he answered, That they that were neither just, merciful nor faithful, were not free from the gross Pollutions of the World. To which I Replied, That what ever they did contrary to the Laws of Mercy, Justice, etc. they did with such cunning, that it did not appear to the World. For it could not be imagined, that Christ should affirm, that those persons were outwardly righteous, as he does Matth. 23.28. who were openly and visibly guilty of such Miscarriages.  
Mr. Ives Replied, That those men, 2 Pet. 2.20. had escaped from those that lived in Error; and how could that be, if they lived in the greatest Error, (viz.) Hypocrisy. I rejoined, that they could not at the same be guilty of Hypocrisy, and yet free from it; but they might be entangled in Hypocrisy, and yet freed from external gross sins. Again, that 'tis not said, they were clean escaped from Error, but from them that lived in Error, i. e. changed their Company, or sorted with Believers, which they might do, and yet remain Hypocrites. Mr. Ives demanded, how then their latter end could be worse than their beginning. I answered, Because open Sins do openly dishonour Christianity; whence Athanasius wished, utinam omnes essent Hypocritae, Would to God all men were Hypocrites. [This passage, with some others immediately before, Mr. Ives hath omitted.] As to Mr. Ive's additional Note, that Hypocrites cannot be in a worse condition, by appearing openly profane. I Answer, They may, not only because of the open dishonour done to Religion, but because also their profaneness is a Sin against Knowledge, and so adds weight to their Chains, and heats their Furnace hotter. See James 4.17. Luke 12.47. For though Hypocrisy singly may be worse than profaneness in some respects, yet the profaneness of an Hypocrite is the worst profaneness. At length, I gave Paul for an instance, of one that had escaped the Pollutions of the World, whilst yet he was an Hypocrite (viz.) before he was converted. About which many words were spent; the sum was, that either he was a true Believer, or Profane, or an Hypocrite: Not the first, for we suppose him unconverted; nor the second, as appears Acts 26.5. Ergo the third, [all which Mr. Ives omits] which I proved from the Character given of the Body of the Jews, Rom. 9.31, 32. and acknowledged by himself, as agreeing to him, Phil. 3.7. (viz.) that they mixed their own Righteousness with the Messiahs, whom, as to come, they professed to believe in. And to what Mr. Ives Objected, That Paul says, He did what he did with an honest mind, before his Conversion, and so was no Hypocrite. I answered, There might be a moral integrity in an unconverted person, alleging, Gen. 20.5, 6. Abimelech, an Heathen, and distinguished of Hypocrites; that though all agree in having an appearance of that Grace which they want, yet some design to appear what they neither are, nor care to be; others are mistaken in themselves, and make account they are what they are not, for which latter I quoted James 1.22, 26. And of this latter sort was Paul.  
Arg. 5. And last, was this, grounded on 1 Cor. 9.27. what Paul used all diligence to prevent the coming to pass of, might possibly come to pass: But Paul used all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally, Ergo his falling away totally and finally was possible to come to pass. I answered to his major, that which is possible in its own nature, there being a real hazard in the nature of the thing, may yet become impossible as to the event, by something intervening. To which he Replied nothing, but asked me, whether Paul knew this event impossible? I affirmed it, whereupon he urged, that then it was in vain for him to keep himself out of the danger. And I Replied, That it was not in vain, because God hath in his Decree joined the end and means, and the Command of God is obeyed, which sure is a good end proposed by us in the use of means, though we might suppose the benefit obtainable without that use. To confirm the former branch of my Answer, I instanced in Gods Promise, of lengthening out Hezekiahs' life fifteen years, Isa. 38.5. and yet obliging him to use a Plaster of Figs to cure his Boyl, verse 25. A worthy Minister Mr. Luffe, who now and then (as Mr. Ives says) interposed, to discover his absurd method of arguing, alleged that other instance of Paul, Acts 27.22, 31. And whereas Mr. Ives supposes Mr. Luffes Answer to his Question, what if they had leapt overboard? (viz.) that then they had been drowned, a granting of what was contended for; the contrary is evident, by what is said above. We concluded all, with another interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered in our Translations a cast away; which signifies also disapproved, or blame-worthy, for not practising his own Doctrine. Here Mr. Ives kept a great pother, that either my first interpretation of being a castaway [which yet I did not so interpret, but conceded his interpretation of it, as not hurting our Cause,] was true or false; if true, why did I not keep to it? if false, why did I allege it? And makes an additional Note, that by this interpretation, I grant his major. To his Question, I answered, That I conceded the first interpretation, because our English Translation was defensible. And yet I alleged the latter, as being warranted by the Greek, and taking off any Argument from thence by his Party. And to his additional Note, I Answer, That if I had at first interpreted the Greek word disapproved, or blame-worthy; then I would not have denied his major, what Paul used all diligence to prevent, might come to pass, but his minor, (viz.) But Paul used all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally. I should have said, that according to the line of this interpretation, Paul used diligence to walk so, as not to displease God, nor be a shame to that Gospel, of which he was not ashamed. What Mr. Ives hath got by this Note, he may put in his Eyes, and see never the worse. [End of the first Conference.]  

HAving finished my Answer to Mr. Ive's Arguments, for the Saints falling away totally and finally from Grace: I shall add other Arguments, which the Arminians urge, for the confirmation thereof. The first Scripture I shall reply to, is Ezek. 18.24, 25. But when the Righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doth according to all the abominatious that the wicked man doth, shall he live? etc.  
To which place we except in general.  
Exc. 1. That the righteous man here spoken of is not a truly righteous man, or true Believer, nor does what they produce for proof obtain its end.  
1. That he is opposed to a wicked man.  
Reply. So is the Righteous to Sinners, Math. 9.13. I am not come (says Christ) to call the Righteous, but Sinners to repentance; which is spoken of the Pharisees, verse 11. who did outwardly appear righteous unto men, Chap. 23.28. which outward appearance was ground enough for that denomination of righteous.  
2. That the wicked man whom Ezekiel speaks of, was truly wicked; therefore the righteous man he speaks of must be truly righteous.  
Reply 1. Math. 9.13. Before alleged, answers this Argument: The Publicans and Sinners (viz.) open debauched Persons, were truly Sinners; yet were not the Pharisees truly righteous.  
Rep. 2. We retort upon them, that the Text speaking of a wicked man, as visibly wicked, therefore the righteous man may be understood of him that is visibly righteous only; Such as Paul, whilst a Pharisee, Phil. 3.6. And so the Antithesis is more direct, and the Description here given of a righteous man, (viz.) The forbearance of external gross acts of Sin, Idolatry, Adultery, etc. Ezek. 18.6, 7. And the doing of external acts of Mercy, Justice, verse 8, 9 sufficiently favours our limitation.  
Excep. 2. is this, That the Death here spoken of, is but a Temporal Death, [immediately and explicitly.]  
The reason of this our assertion is, because the Lord does evidently vindicate himself from the imputation cast upon him by the wicked Jews, that in their Public Calamities, he exceeded the desert of their personal Sins, Ezek. 18.2, 19, 25, 29. So we must understand those Complaints, for we do not find that they charge him with casting them into Hell for their Father's sins; nor is there any weight in what the Arminians urge, for extending the phrase.  
1. That the Death here spoken of, is opposed to the life promised to the Penitent; which is eternal life.  
Reply 1. The Arminians here forsake their own Principle, which is, that there's no express Promise of eternal life in the Old Testament.  
2. Though we deny not, but that eternal life in Old Testament and New is promised to the Penitent; yet we deny that by life here, is meant at least immediately and explicitly eternal life, but only temporal; for God speaks ad idem, as of the same Death the Jews complained of, so of the same life they were desirous of.  
2. That then a flagitious Sinner may escape eternal Death without Repentance.  
Reply. We deny the Consequence, because though this Scripture does not explicitly threaten eternal Death to such a Sinner, yet other Scriptures do, as 1 Cor. 6.9, 10.  
Except. 3. We except against their position from a supposition, that by the righteous man, were meant a truly righteous man; that therefore it is simply possible, that a righteous man should totally and finally departed from his righteousness, and die eternally. For,  
1. When Christ says, If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, etc. John 15.6. That conditional enunciation does not imply a simple possibility of the antecedent and consequent (viz.) of the total and final Apostasy, and damnation of all the men that are in Christ; for of the Apostles Christ says, I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your Fruit should remain, verse 16. And I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, Luke 22.29.  
2. We cannot suppose a greater possibility of the Antecedent and Consequent in this Enunciation; If the Righteous turn away from his righteousness, he shall die, then in this, If the Wicked turn away from his wickedness, he shall live. But from this conditional Enunciation, cannot be inferred a simple possibility of the conversion of all wicked men, and of their Salvation; the Arminians themselves being Judges: For if so, than God's prescience of the final impenitency and perdition of some wicked men must needs be denied, which yet in their good moods the Arminians stick not to grant. Vide Ames. Anti Synodalia, Art. 5. c. 2.  
Another Scripture urged by the Arminians, is, Matth. 13.20, 21. Whence they observe,  
1. That these Persons have a Description given of them, agreeing to true Believers; 1. That they receive or believe the Word. 2. With gladness, 3. They profess the Faith.  
Answ. To the parts of the Description.  
1. Believing is ascribed to the Devil, of this truth, That there is a God, James 2.19. And this, That Jesus is the Christ, and Son of God, Luke 4.41. Which belief is elsewhere made an evidence of a new Birth, 1 John 5.1. By the collation of which places, we rightly conclude, That every believing does not denominate men true Believers. For if the Devils believing be not true Faith, why should every believing of men's? yea, the Scripture tells us, that Simon Magus believed and that at the same time his heart was not right in the sight of God, Acts 8.13, 21. See also John 2.23, 24.  
2. To the second we have spoken already, in answer to Heb. 6.5.  
3. To the third, Luke 4.41. may suffice, where the Devil openly professes the Faith, as well as secretly believes it. See also Acts 16.17. Where the Devil openly acknowledges the Gospel, to be the way of Salvation. And Acts 19.15. he owns Christ's Authority over him, as the Lord, and Paul's as the Servant, etc. When yet the Apostle tells us, That no man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12.3. Whence I infer, that every Profession is not an indicium, or mark of true Faith.  
2. The Arminians observe, That the stony-ground-Hearers were not Hypocrites, and therefore true Believers.  
Answ. We have spoken to this before; we distinguish in the Antecedent of Hypocrites; Some are not, nor care to be, what yet they would be taken for; in that sense we grant their Antecedent: Others esteem themselves what they are not, so we deny their Antecedent. In this last sense they were Hypocrites, which is evident, because 'tis said, they had no root in a tropical term, and are opposed to a good and honest heart (which is the explication of that term) which only the last sort had, Matth. 13.21. compared with Luke 8.15.  
3. The Arminians affirm, That perseverance is not of the essence of true Faith; and therefore these Persons might have true Faith, though they fell away.  
Answ. We distinguish in the Antecedent between that which is of the essence of true Faith, Constitutiuè and Consecutiuè, i. e. between that which is an essential part of true Faith, and an adjunct or Property inseparable from it, Ex hypothesi cause efficientis externae, upon supposition of some external efficient causes of operation. Thus the Moon suffers an Eclipse always, when the Earth interposes between the Sun and it. Thus supposing a continual influence of Grace, which God hath decreed, and promised to afford (as we have proved) to true Faith; perseverance is a necessary adjunct of it.  
Another Scripture alleged by the Armini●ns, is Heb. 10.38. Now the Just shall live by Faith; but if any man draw back my Soul shall have no pleasure in him: Where they observe, That we put any man instead of he, i. e. the just man, as they interpret it, the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and they charge Beza, and others, that wrote in Latin and our English Translations, with unfaithfulness.  
Answ. 1. In some of our English Bibles, the words any man are put into a small Letter, to note they are not in the Text. In the Translation before King James, now in use, the word any without man, is put in a smaller Letter, as in an Edition in Quarto, printed by Barker, A. D. 1603. And Piscater puts quis in a Distinguishing Character, Edit. Herb. Nass. 1613. And so does Beza in all the Editions of his Versions that I have met with, which shows plainly they intended not to deceive. Calvin renders it to their mind, Si subductus fuerit, If he shall be withdrawn, or drawn back; though he understands the meaning of the Apostle otherwise then the Arminians do.  
2. There must be a supply of quis, or any man. For,  
1. How can the just draw back, if he lives by Faith. I am sure Christ says, That he that eats him, (which surely every Believer does) shall live for ever, John 6.51, 58.  
2. If it be meant of the same person, than we may understand it of a partial and temporary drawing back, which displeases God, as 'tis said of David's Murder and Adultery, 2 Sam. 11. ult.  
3. The Apostles confidence of the not drawing back, and salvation of some that believe, verse last. Though it was grounded but upon Charity, as to particular Persons, yet it plainly intimates a difference between Faith and Faith; or otherwise he had no ground for his confidence of any Believer at all.  
We now proceed to the Instances which the Arminians give us of those Persons that did fall away totally or finally, one or both from true Grace: Their first instance is of David.  
Arg. True Believers, when they commit Adultery, Murder, against the light of Conscience, with deliberation, and continue therein without Repentance, cease to be true Believers: But so did David, Ergo he ceased to be a true Believer.  
Answ. There is an ambiguity in the terms of the major, which therefore must first be removed; and as 'tis phrased, we deny it, and answer to the minor with distinction.  
1. For committing those Sins against the light of Conscience, we distinguish of an habitual and actual light of Conscience. 'Tis a Rule in moral Philosophy, Omnis incontinens peccat ignorans, i. e. Every incontinent person sins ignorantly, because that general knowledge he hath of evil, he cannot apply to the present resistance of temptation, (inward Lusts, like a Cloud, or Mist, darkening his understanding for the present.) Thus we grant the former, but deny the latter of David.  
2. As to smning with deliberation, we distinguish between a Calm and perfect, or a disturbed and imperfect deliberation. The former we deny, but the latter we grant of David. For we have proved before, under the first Argument, against Believers Apostasy, that no Believer sins with full consent of will, and therefore not with a calm and perfect deliberation; for the former presupposes this latter. And we may retort the Arminians own concession upon them, which is, That the holy Spirit is not lost, till after the Commission of heinous Sins: Now where the holy Spirit is, it lusts against the Flesh, Gal. 5.17. And consequently the true Believer cannot sin with full consent, whilst the holy Spirit is in him; that is, whilst he is a true Believer.  
3. As to the continuance in sin without Repentance, we distinguish between an habitual and actual Repentance; and again, between the want of actual Repentance for a time, and for ever after the Fact committed. Whilst David wanted an actual Repentance, it appears not that he wanted an habitual Repentance. David might have such a disposition of Soul at that time, which at other times he words after this manner, Cleanse thou me from secret faults, Psal. 19.12. Let them that deny it, make proof of their denial; but to save them the trouble, I will evince the Affirmative by and by. Again, it is not evident from Scripture, that actual Repentance must immediately follow the sin committed; or for default thereof, Grace totally lost. I understand not, why the Believer as well as the man may not suffer a deliquium, or failure, of the more ordinary sensible operations of life, and yet retain the principle of life.  
There are also two Arguments drawn from the nature of the sins David was guilty of, for the proof of his total Apostasy.  
1. For his Adultery, David, by his Adultery, was made a member of an Harlot. Ergo he was no longer a Member of Christ. The Antecedent is proved from 1 Cor. 6.15, 16.  
Answ. We deny the Connexion: For as in the Conjugal state, Adultery does make void the Marriage-Covenant de jure, or merito, not the facto; but the injured Party may continue the band, without guilt of Adultery. So though Christ might justify a Divorce, yet it appears not that he will sue out one against any Believer that is guilty of bodily Adultery.  
2. Another Argument of the Arminians, is drawn from David's Murder, No Murderer hath eternal life abiding in him: David was a Murderer, Ergo he had not eternal life abiding in him. The major proved by the words of the Apostle, 1 John 3.15. The minor they take for granted.  
Answ. We deny the minor, David was not a Murderer, that denomination could not be given him from a single Act, and afterwards repent of; any more than the denomination of a wicked man to a true Believer, because of the Sins he is guilty of.  
Another Argument of the Arminians against David's perseverance, is drawn from his Prayer, Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me, Psal. 51.10. Whence they infer, That he had lost a clean Heart, and right Spirit, totally.  
Answ. This (as generally what the Arminians urge on the Point before us) is a pitiful fallacy, which every freshman in the School is acquainted with, à Dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. They might as well infer from the Evangelists phrase, For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, John 7.39. That therefore David never had him at all. All know, that in nature that species of motion called Alteratio, which is a change made in a Subject as to quality, may be either quoad speciem or gradum. As water quite cold may become lukewarm, or seething hot.  
And here David might well express himself so emphatically, because of the late extraordinary defilement he had contracted, and the quick sense he had of it at this time.  
To close up the Discourse of this instance, I shall offer two Arguments to prove, that David did not wholly fall from Grace.  
One from Psalm 51. Take not the holy Spirit from me, verse 11. His deprecation of the taking away the holy Spirit, does plainly imply a gradual presence of it. For that could not be taken from him, which he had not.  
The other from Psalm 18.21. I have not wickedly departed from my God: Whence I urge an Argument in form, He that had never wickedly departed from God, had never fallen away totally from Grace.  
But David had never wickedly departed from God, Ergo, David had never fallen away totally from Grace.  
The major I presume they deny not: The minor I suppose will not down with them, because they may imagine, that this was spoken before his total Apostasy. But to me 'tis evident, That David speaks this of himself, after the supposed time of his total Apostasy. For it was spoken after God had delivered him from the hands of all his Enemies, as appears by the Title of the Psalm, and he takes notice particularly of Gods delivering him from the strive of his People, (i. e. his own Subjects) verse 43. which evidently relates to the Rebellion of Absolom and Sheba, which were after, and a punishment of those Sins of David (by which the Arminians pretend he fell away totally from Grace) as any one may inform himself, that will compare 2 Sam. Chap. 11.12. and Chap. 12.10. with Chap. 15, etc. and the 20th. And when those Sins were committed, David was in actual contest with his Enemies, 2 Sam. 11.1, 2, etc. And if in any sin David had wickedly departed from God, we may judge in that, by the black brand which the Holy Ghost sets upon that, 1 Kings 15.5.  
Another instance is of Solomon, from whose Idolatry, and other Sins, they infer his total Apostasy, and final too, and so consequently his Damnation, 1 Kings 11.  
Answ. 1. As to his Idolatry, not every degree of that sin argues a defection from true Grace, as is evident by Exod. 32.5, 25. in the instance of Aaron, and 1 Cor. 10.20, 21, 22. And as for Polygamy, Custom had so blinded men's eyes, that few saw the evil of it.  
Answ. 2. There's no Sin (except that against the Holy Ghost) which a Child of God may not be guilty of, because the body of Sin is not dead, though deadly wounded; but like a sick man, ever and anon giving ground for a belief, that his recovery is possible.  
But that he was not a total Apostate, or ceased to be a Believer; We argue thus,  
1. In that all the Writers of the Holy Scripture are simply affirmed to be holy Men of God, 2 Pet. 1.21. whereof Solomon was one.  
2. Because he is said to be loved of God, 2 Sam. 12.24. Now the love of God is everlasting, John 13.1.  
That Solomon was not a final Apostate, we prove thus,  
1. In that he repent of his Miscarriages, as appears by the Title, The Penitent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [of which word and thing, the learned may find useful Observations amassed by Mr. Pool, in his Synopsis Crit. Comm. in Eccles. 1.] Given to Ecclesiastes (as our Translation calls it) and particularly of giving himself to Women, Chap. 7.26. under which, and that phrase of Inventions, verse ult. he seems to include his Idolatry, which, for aught appears to me, was not by personal worship, but by connivance at, or at most, allowance of Temples for his Wives Idolatrous Worship, 1 Kings 11.7, 8.  
2. From his being joined with David, as a Precedent for Rehoboams walking, 2 Chron. 12.17.  
Many other Arguments, Pro and Con, might be produced, but it is not necessary; these have much more probability than the Scriptures silence of his Repentance, (which is the Arminians main Argument); No Scriptures mention Noah's, Lots, etc. Repentance of those heinous Sins, Gen. 9 & 19 yet none doubt, or have ground at least, of their Repentance.  
A third instance is given in Peter, whom, though Bellarmin speaks favourably of, as to total Apostasy, De Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 8. Perdidit confessionem Fidei, non ipsam fidem. Yet the Lutherans, Hinckelman, Hunnius, etc. give him for another instance of true Believers falling totally from Grace.  
Their first Argument is drawn from the nature of his Sin, (viz.) a denial of Christ.  
He that denies Christ before Men, shall be denied by Christ before the Father, [which proposition is contained Matth. 10.33.] But so did Peter, Ergo he shall be denied by Christ.  
Answ. 1. In general, this Argument, if it were wholly granted them, proves his final Apostasy, which themselves deny (as we shall find in their next Argument.)  
2. We Answer. The proposition is to be understood of a final denial of Christ; and then we deny the minor, for Peter quickly repent of his denial, Matth. 26. ult. To enforce their major, the Arminians urge, The denial of Christ was an Heresy, and therefore puts the Denier into a state of Damnation.  
Answ. We distinguish of Heresy, 'tis considered either materially or formally: To the latter, pertinacy or obstinacy is a necessary ingredient, which Peter's speedy Repentance assures us he was not guilty of.  
The Arminians second Argument is this, He that was to be converted anew to the Faith, had lost the Faith he had: But Peter was to be converted anew to the Faith, Ergo he had lost the Faith he had. The minor is proved by Luke 22.32.  
Answ. We distinguish in the minor between a specifical and a gradual Conversion: A recovery from prevailing Sin is called Conversion, Matth. 18.3. which is spoken of adding to all their other Graces that of Humility, for they were converted before. And the reason of this denomination is, because The increase of Grace is by adding a new degree of Grace; as in making Candles, when a Candle is put anew into the fat of boiled Tallow, every time it is put in, it comes out bigger. And this is done by a new act of Creation put forth by God, etc. To borrow the Reason, and apt Similitude for the illustration of it, of that most excellent Divine Dr. Tho. Goodwin, Trial of Christian growth, pag. 165.  
But that Peter did not fall away totally, is evident from Christ's Prayer, Luke 22.32. (which, that it is always answered, hath been proved) which must be meant either not at all (which the event assures us was not Christ's meaning) or not totally, or finally, which last the words will not bear.  
A fourth Instance is of the Galatians, ch. 5.4. whence they argue thus, The Galatians ●ell from Grace: The Galatians were true Believers. Ergo, True Believers have fallen from Grace.  
Answ. 1. If the major or minor being indefinite, be equivalent to an Universal, we deny ●hem both.  
2. To the major we say, That by falling from Grace, is not meant falling from true inherent Grace, but the Doctrine of Grace, or the truth of the Gospel, which teaches Justification by Grace through Faith, not by Works, as seems evident by comparing the Phrase elsewhere, opposed to another Gopel, which supposes Grace to be one Gospel, Gal. 1.6.  
A fifth, of Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.19, 20. whence they argue,  
They that have put away Faith and a good Conscience, are totally and finally fallen away from Grace: But so had Hymeneus and Alexander: Ergo, They were fallen away.  
Answ. We distinguish in the minor, of Faith, and a God Conscience. There is a feigned Faith, as the Apostles denomination, Faith unfeigned, v. 5. imports: And there is a Conscience morally good. Abimelech, an Heathen, gives testimony to the integrity of his own heart, Gen. 20.5. and God himself confirms it, v. 6. Yet integrity, or uprightness of heart, is the usual description of a godly man, Psal. 11.2.  
All that is worth the transcribing, which the Arminians urge to confirm their minor, is this:  
That which Timothy was exhorted to hold or keep, Hymeneus and Alexander had lost: But that was a true Faith, and truly good Conscience: Ergo, Hymeneus and Alexander had lost such a Faith and Conscience.  
Answ. We grant the whole, without prejudice to our cause, limiting the major to that which was visible; for so Hymeneus and Alexander had lost what Timothy was exhorted to keep, as appears by their blasphemy, ver. last. which was a visible casting off their profession.  
The last Example of Demas, 2 Tim. 4.10. if put into form, runs thus: Some love of the World is inconsistent with true Faith: Some love of the World was in Demas: Ergo, Demas' love to the World was inconsistent with true Faith. An evidently infirm Ratiocination: Vid. Ames Antisyn. de Persever. Sanct. c. 9  
The Arminians Argument, from the absurdities following from our Thesis, is this in general, That it renders Exhortations, Threaten, Promises, useless.  
I answer, The first are not useless, Phil. 2.12, 13. For the assurance of so powerful an Assistance, is the greatest spur to endeavour. The Arminians might with as much reason say, It is to no purpose to hoist up the Sails, when God sends a fair Wind. Nor the second: For 1. All true Believers know not their own safety. 2. God hath joined the use of means and end together, by an immutable Decree; so that if we could suppose a true Believer to give over in his race, he would certainly miss of his Crown. Nor the third: For the spirit of a Christian being an ingenuous spirit, the assurance of his happiness, is the greatest bond of gratitude and obedience. Much more I might say; but this is enough.    

THE Second Conference.  
HEre Mr. Ives first read out of a Paper a kind of Explication of the Terms; wherein he dealt like himself, disingenuously, and ignorantly: The former, in that he would understand the Term Grace of the Favour of God, which none of us do; and his former Arguments show, he took it not so himself, but for the Grace of God in us, the effect of the Grace or Favour of God: The latter, in the explication of the word impossible, as opposed to such as either have, may, might, or can fall away: For impossible is opposed to possible; and he ought to have distinguished between that which is simply impossible, and that which is so in a certain respect, according to my Answer when I was Respondent; and have told us, That he held it simply or absolutely possible for true Believers to lose their Grace totally and finally.  
And in the prosecution of the Debate, I first offered to retort his own Arguments, which were reducible to two Heads: 1. From the uselessness of caution against falling away, if it were impossible: 2. From Examples. Neither of which he would admit me to retort, but by his rude clamour forced me to desist, before he heard me out an Argument. I shall therefore now give an account of what I then intended to urge.  
That which makes not the giving of Caution needless to prevent temporal death; makes it not needless to prevent falling away totally and finally from Grace: But the impossibility of the event makes it not needless in the former, Ergo, nor in the latter case. The major depends upon the par ratio between temporal and spiritual death. The minor I would have proved thus: That which makes not the use of Caution needless to prevent temporal death, makes not the giving of it needless: But the impossibility of the event makes not the use of it needless, etc. Ergo, nor the giving of it. The minor I would have proved by John 11.54, 55. compared with John 13.1. and chap. 10.18. where we find that Christ withdrew to avoid that temporal death, which could not befall him without his own consent, nor before the appointed time of his death was come.  
To oppose his Examples, I argued thus  
If true Believers can fall away, etc. then some have: But some have not: Ergo, they cannot. [Which in his Notes additional he calls a false Syllogism, but tells not why: But the Form, I suppose, seems strange to him, proceeding a remotione consequentis ad remotionem antecedentis. Yet the Scripture hath the like, which he, pretending to be a Teacher, should not be ignorant of, Gal. 2. ult. If Righteousness were by the Law, Christ died in vain; to fill up the Syllogism, I must assume, But Christ died not in vain, and conclude, Ergo Righteousness is not by the Law.] Mr. Ives denied my major, Sequel he should have said, and in his Book brings in these words as my proof of it, Whatever is potential, hath been done; which were none of mine, but his own. All that I said was, That the Argument was good on his grounds; for in regard of the Activity of the causes of Apostasy, it cannot be imagined but some must fall away, if the thing were possible, and man left to his own stock of power; here I said it was not absurd to argue a posse ad esse, which, bold man! he hath adventured to translate thus, Whatever is potential, hath been done. After a great deal of brangle, I urged against his first Example 1 Pet. 2.20. They that were Dogs and Swine, when they had escaped the pollutions of the World, etc. were not true Believers; and so their falling away, no instance of true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace: But these persons were Dogs and Swine, etc. Ergo, not true Believers. The major is evident: The minor we have ver. 20. ult. compared. I offered also to prove against the Description, but he broke me off. What I would have said, was this; Judas was not a true Believer; Judas escaped the pollutions of the World through the knowledge of Christ: Ergo, Some that escape the pollutions of the World, etc. are not true Believers. The major is evident by John 6. ult. The minor appears, because the Disciples, who knew his Conversation by familiar society, saw no cause to suspect him to be the Traitor, more than any other of their number, Matth. 26.21, 22. and therefore he was not visibly wicked.  
Against his other Instance, Heb. 6.5, 6. I would have urged, That if those who were in the judgement of Charity true Believers, are supposed, to the making of them such, to have better things than those that fell away; then those that fell away were not true Believers: But the Antecedent is true; Ergo, the Consequent. The Antecedent is proved by ver. 9 If the Arminians think to get off, by pretending that the things ascribed to the Believers are said to be better, not in nature, but event; ver. 9 will afford a confutation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things that have salvation in them, i. e. no more separable from Salvation, than Salvation from itself. And ver. 10. suggests another, Those things which God should be unrighteous in not rewarding, were better than those, which God should not be unrighteous in not rewarding: But the things ascribed to true Believers were such as God should be unrighteous in not rewarding; Ergo, they were better than those which God should not be unrighteous in not rewarding, viz. the things ascribed to them that fell away, ver. 5, 6.  
After a long rambling Discourse, I urged to Mr. Ives, That if some true Believers might fall away totally and finally from Grace, than all might: But all could not (according to his own grant): Ergo, not some. I proved the Consequence, because Paribus paria conveniunt. He denied that though there be the like reason for the falling away of all, that there is for some, that therefore it followed, That if some might, than all might. Which being so grossly absurd, I appealed to the Judgement of the intelligent Hearers, and so left it. I called upon him to hear Christ's own Argument à pari, from David's eating of the Shewbread, lawful only ordinarily to the Priests; to the Disciples plucking of the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath, for the supply of a present necessity, Matth. 12.3, 4. But being an enemy to vain janglings, I desisted, as I did often, to prosecute something else, viz. the first main Argument from 1 John 3.8.  
Arg. 1. They that cannot sin, as wicked men do, cannot fail away totally and finally from Grace: But true Believers cannot sin as wicked men do: Ergo, true Believers cannot fall away, etc. Mr. Ives asked what I meant by cannot sin. I answered, Not as to the acts of sin, but the manner [which Mr. Ives leaves out, and makes my Answer nonsense] of sinning. After many superfluous words, he said, That if by cannot I meant, neither for the present, nor future; fall from that state, and sin as the wicked do, than he denied my minor. [Mr. Ives' additional Notes about the acception of the word cannot, p. 100 are rendered insignificant by the proof of my minor, and therefore I omit them.] To prove my minor, I quoted 1 Joh. 3.9. Whosoever is born of God cannot commit sin, etc. Mr. Ives presently replied, That this proved no body could sin at all. I answered, That either was meant, that they could not sin at all, or not as wicked men do. Not the former; for proof I quoted chap. 1.8.10. Jam. 3.2. Ergo, the latter; for I knew not tertium. And so I form my Argument thus: Whosoever is born of God cannot sin as wicked men do: But all true Believers are born of God: Ergo, true Believers cannot sin as wicked men do. [Which Argument Mr. Ives hath omitted.] Yet he continued his Cavil, That if the not sinning was meant not at present, nor future, he denied it. And I proved it thus: The reason here assigned of the Believers, or born of God, their not sinning as wicked men do, is of equal force to exclude his future, as his present not sinning as wicked men do, viz. because the seed of God remains in him, ver. 9 Whence I argued thus, They in whom the seed of God remains, cannot sin as wicked men do: But in those who are born of God, the seed of God remains; Ergo, Whosoever is born of God cannot sin as wicked men do. Mr. Ives cavilled much about the term remain, which I urged as plainly excluding a ceasing or losing of Grace totally: And he pretended that my Argument was but like this, They that come into this House, remain in it: Ergo, They cannot cease from remaining in it. To which I answered, That it was fallacia compositionis and divisionis, (as we say in Logic) to say Believers, whilst Believers, cannot cease to be Believers; for they cannot be both as to state at the same time: But the Question is, Whether they that are such, may become Unbelievers? And as to his Instance, if applied to our Question, the meaning is not, Whether he that is now in the House, may be out of it at the same time? but, Whether he that is in it, can afterwards go out? which by force, or other impediment, may become to him impossible, though possible in itself.  
Here he cavilling about the word seed of God, I asked him how he understood the Phrase, because I thought it so plain, as that I supposed he took it in the same sense I did, and as 'twas commonly understood, viz. for a Principle of Grace: Which Mr. Ives understood not; but at length he said, he understood by it the Word of God, and quoted 1 Pet. 1.23, 24. To which I replied, That in that place the Word is not called the Seed of God, but Believers are said to be born of incorruptible Seed by the Word. But suppose it had, yet the sense is the same, viz. That the impressions of the Word remain in a true Believer; in which sense 'tis said, The Word abides for ever, 1 Pet. 1.23, 25. At last I proved, That the Seed of God cannot but remain in a true Believer, from the Promise: Those to whom God hath made a Promise, that in them the Seed [or Principle of Grace] shall remain, in them it cannot but remain: But to all true Believers God hath made such a Promise: Ergo, The Seed cannot but remain in them. He denying the major, I proved it thus: If the Seed of God remain not in them to whom God hath promised, than the Promises of God are untrue: But they are not untrue: Ergo, The Seed of God shall remain, etc. [Note, That here it was that Mr. Lueff admonished Mr. Ives of his ignorance in the terms of Art, he denying the major, when he should have said the Sequel or Consequence; and not in the former Syllogism, which was Categorical, as Mr. Ives suggests, pag. 118. of his Book, like himself, i. e. a man that makes no conscience of lying, to slur his Adversary.] Mr. Ives gave instance in the Promise of God to Abraham, That the Land of Canaan should be to his seed an everlasting Possession, and yet that he would scatter them among the Heathen, etc. Which Promise he pretended had no Condition, either where it is found, or elsewhere in Scripture; though he boldly denies his Assertion, pag. 120.  
I offered to prove that that Promise was true, notwithstanding the non-performance of it, as it might seem: but was hindered by his Clamours. I shall give an account of what I would have said, and began to speak for instance, wherein a godly man cannot sin as the wicked do; but could not be heard for the rudeness of my Antagonist.  
1. That the course of sin is interrupted by sincere repentance in a godly man: So much is the opposition of the righteous man to the wicked, who imitates the Devil in sinning from the beginning, ver. 8, 9 1 John 3. imports: For simply, as to the continuing to do evil, the opposition between them cannot lie: The wicked man cannot get his heart to repent sincerely of his sins, Rev. 9.21. and chap. 16.11. Something like it, but not the same, was found in Ahab, Nineveh, Judas.  
2. The godly man sins not with full consent of will; so much those Metaphors imply Rom. 7.14. compared with 1 Kings 21.25. Paul speaking of himself whilst a Believer, affirms, that he was carnal indeed, but not simply; for he adds, sold under sin, i. e. an involuntary Captive, as he sufficiently explains his meaning, when he tells us, For that which I do, I allow not, ver. 15. [See other like Phrases to the end of the Chapter.] But of Ahab the Holy Ghost affirms, That be sold himself to work wickedness. If it be objected, that the Text says, There was none like to Ahab; I answer, For degree, not for kind of wickedness, must we understand that Negative. That there is in a godly man but a partial consent of Will, appears by Gal. 5.17. where the Apostle says, The spirit lusts against the flesh; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concupiscit; it notes an ardent desire (viz.) of victory in the new Nature over the old, such as to be found in enemies, (so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports): Or else it may allude to Contrarieties in Nature, of which we observe in Philosophy, that they endeavour mutuo se expellere, to drive out one another, when they meet in the same subject.  
3. Another difference between the godly and wicked man's sinning, lies in this, That the former hath not a settled purpose to sin; but the latter hath. Peter, whose sin the enemies of the Saints Perseverance do so tragically aggravate, was so far from resolving to deny his Master, that he resolved against it with much vehemency, Matth. 26.39. Whereas Judas kept fixed, notwithstanding the dreadful threatening uttered against him, in his resolution to betray him, Joh. 13.27. compared with Matth. 26.24. But more of this afterward, when we answer the Instances of David, Peter, etc.  
I now proceed to the second Argument, from Jer. 32.40. Joh. 10.28.  
Arg. 2. Whatever God hath promised, shall certainly be accomplished: But God hath promised that Believers shall not fall away totally and finally from Grace: Ergo, This Promise shall certainly be accomplished. Here I shall first take notice of, and answer what the Arminians urge against the major; which will also answer with advantage Mr. Ives' Instance of the Promise of the Land of Canaan, which I touched at then, (viz.) That it being conditional, noted but a connexion between the Benefit and their Obedience, (though Mr. Ives omits it).  
The major they deny, upon pretence of Instances of some Promises not fulfilled.  
To which I answer, 1. That the Instances which they bring, viz. Numb. 14.18. 1 Sam. 2.30. do not import a Promise to every individual person, qua talis, as such, that they should enter into Canaan, or succeed their Parents in the Office of the Priesthood; but it was fulfilled, in that the Stock of Israel did enter, and of Levi transmitted the Office to their Children, though particular Persons were cut off, and debarred that Privilege.  
2. Suppose the Promises were made to individual Persons, and conditionally; yet cannot be affirmed, that the Promises were broken; Non enim affirmat connexa vel conditionata promissio, consequentem partem illius axiomatis fore, sed connexionem tantùm consequentis parte cum antecedente, quam semper etiam Deus praestat, as Ames well observes in Coronis, Art. 5. de Perseverantia, cap. 2. The sum is, Conditional Promises engage but for a connexion of Duty and Benefit. As when God says, Ye shall keep my Statutes, and my Judgements; which if a man do, he shall live in them, Leu. 18.5. he does not strictly promise, that a man shall live by keeping his Statutes and Judgements; but that there shall be a certain connexion between perfect Obedience, and Life thereby, which is certainly accomplished, though no man lives by such Obedience, (innate corruption disabling him thereto, Rom. 8.3.)  
To the minor, That God hath made promise of Perseverance to true Believers, which we prove by Jer. 32.40. John 10.28. the general Answer is, That these Promises are conditional. Mr. Ives would assign none, though much urged, nor would be persuaded that he was bound by the Law of Dispute so to do.  
But the Remonstrants, and others give this, (viz.) That Man does his Duty. To which I answer, That this is the very matter or subject of the Promise, and therefore cannot be the Condition of it. All the Promises we produce do import an Obligation laid by God on himself to enable us to our Duty, so far as is necessary for the prevention of a total and final falling away from Grace.]  
Against the first Promise, Jer. 32.40. the Arminians make divers Exceptions, which I shall first answer, and then repeat Mr. Ives'.  
1. That 'tis a Conditional Promise, because called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foedus, a Covenant.  
Answ. 1. This word is often taken for a simple Promise, Gen. 6.19. and chap. 9.9. 2. The Apostle mentioning this Promise calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 8.10. which is rendered Testament or Will, chap. 9.17. 3. Though the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, compared one with another, have the nature of a Condition, as Faith of Justification; yet that hinders not but that the whole, and each part, are conveyed as Legacies, Jer. 32.38. the Promise is, That we shall be God's People.  
2. Others bear us in hand, it was made to the whole People of the Jews, and not only to true Believers.  
Answ. 1. A Promise of Continuance with God, does suppose a Being with him.  
2. The Promise is made to them all, in respect of their Covenant, State, and Profession of true Faith: but yet it was not intended to any but true Believers; for they are the Children of the Promise, Rom. 9.8. and for their comfort it was intended.  
3. As to the matter of it,  
1. They object, That the words may as well be construed a Promise to keep Believers from falling away from any Degree of Grace, as totally and finally.  
Answ. 1. The very Event gives ground not to make that interpretation of the Promise, 1 Kings 8.46.  
2. He is not said to departed, properly, who does not wholly relinquish or forsake whom he was with.  
Now to Mr. Ives' Answer, which was by denial,  
1. That it was any Promise, either absolutely or conditionally to all true Believers. Whereupon I argued thus: Either this Promise, Jer. 32.40. is made to all true Believers, or only to some, or to Unbelievers: But neither is it made to some only, nor to Unbelievers: Ergo, To all true Believers. I proved that it was not made, as he pretended, to some only. Spiritual Promises made to the Israel of God, are made to all true Believers: But such is this: Ergo, It is made to all true Believers. I proved my major, because the Israel of God contains all true Believers, according to Gal. 6.16. I proved further, that this Promise Jer. 32. belonged to all true Believers, from a Promise of the New Testament of the same import, (viz.) a Promise of Perseverance, Joh. 10.28. Whence I argued, That if this Promise belonged to all true Believers, than so did that, Jer. 32. But this did: Ergo, That. [As for what he urges of Mr. Fowlers, as aiding me, though I acknowledge his worth much beyond mine, yet I will appeal to Mr. Fewler, and any of the sober Hearers, whether Mr. Fowler did not often tell Mr. Ives, I do but repeat what Mr. Danson said: And Mr. Ives' disingenuity is remarkable, that he leaves out the word spiritual, which I did often, perhaps not always, add, as a limitation of the Promises made to Israel, which, under them, as Types, agreed to the Believers of the New Testament. And where he brings in the same Argument in other words, as a new Argument, he abuses me; for all that were ingenuous of the Auditors will bear me witness, that by the many breaks (through his impertinent Harangues, which he hath had so much wit as to leave out) in the Discourse, I was fain to repeat the same Argument over and over, to gain an Answer.] I urged also Heb. 8.10. which evidently proves, that the same Promise made to the Israel of God, Jer. 32.38. and Jer. 31.33. agrees to others than them, (viz.) all true Believers. And let any impartial Person read his own report of his Answer, and they shall find it mere words, and that he does himself as little service to evade the Argument, as a Mouse in a Tar-barrel, with all her struggling to get out. I urged further, That if the whole Covenant of Grace made with Israel, Jer. 32.38. belongs to all Believers, than part of it (viz.) the Promise of Perseverance, ver. 40. But the whole does: Ergo, That part. The Consequence (which he still ignorantly called the Major) I proved, because that Branch of it was contained under the whole, as a Particular under an Universal. And whereas he brings me in saying, Heb. 8.10. is part of the Covenant of Grace, and therefore the whole; that's false: and Mr. Fowler's interposure (though he basely conceals what he said) was to reprove him for an undue repeating of my words, which were (as Mr. Fowler told him) That Heb. 8. being part of the Covenant of Grace, belongs to all Believers, under the title of the Israel of God, because the whole does.  
2. As Mr. Ives denied the Promise, Jer. 32.40. was made to all Believers; so he denied that it was a Promise of Perseverance at all, but that they may be read, But let them not departed from me; and for this quotes Calvin, whom he named not in the Conference, and subjoins, ver. 39 that they may fear me. To which I answer him, that the words, (viz.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are rendered, and so owned by the Remonstrants and others, That they may not departed,  non recedant. As for Calvin, he manifests his impudence to the height, in fathering such an Interpretation on him: Let any one that understands Latin, read his Comment on Jer. 32.40. and believe their own eyes. Calvin does not so much as mention any such Translation of the Hebrew words, but only what our Translation follows. As for ver. 39 that makes against Mr. Ives; for the sense is the very same with ver. 40. (viz.) a Promise of Perseverance i● the Fear of God. [This second Branch o● Mr. Ives' Answer was brought in by som● impertinent words of his, in the midst of ou● Discourse about the Persons to whom the Promise was made, supposing it such: but so order sake I have transposed it hither. S●his Book, pag. 133.] The second Promise 〈◊〉 Perseverance I alleged, was, John 10. 2● whence I argued thus; They that cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand, cannot fall away totally and finally from Grace: True Believers cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand: Ergo, True Believers cannot fall away totally, etc. To which Mr. Ives answers, That I concluded not the Question, because I argued indefinitely, not universally, [which Terms he used not then, so far as Memory and Notes inform me:] But how simple this Answer is, let any judge; for he first, for his advantage, stated the Question particularly, (viz.) That some true Believers [not all] may fall away. Again, he opposes Indefinite to Universal; whereas an Indefinite Proposition may be either Particular or Universal, as the matter is contingent or necessary. And he repeated my words in an Hypothetical form; If none of the Sheep of Christ can be plucked out of Christ's hand, than no true Believer can fall away, etc. and so denied the Major, the Consequence he should have said, and being friendly admonished of his error, pretended they were all one: However, I told him the Consequence was evident, because all true Believers are Christ's Sheep; which by his frequent diversions I was fain to repeat, and he would outface me then, as now in his Book, that I intended each Repetition for a new Medium, and so argued idem per idem; whereas I stuck to that Proposition, till I had a plain and direct Answer. At last he said, That Metaphors prove nothing. I told him, Yes, they did in that Similitude upon which they are grounded; and thereupon appealed to Mr. Fowler, as Moderator, whom at first I proposed to Mr. Ives for that Office, if he would please to undertake it: which was the reason of his so frequent interposure, that he might show Mr. Ives when I proved directly, and he answered not directly. At last he told us, That the Promise referred to the day of Judgement; That when Christ's Sheep are possessed of Eternal Life, they shall not be plucked out of his hand, or perish: Which was so absurd an Interpretation, That Mr. Fowler asked him solemnly, Whether he himself did believe it? To which the sum of his Answer was, That it was no absurdity. Here he quoted Augustin, as holding that some true Believers may fall away. Mr. Fowler's Answer I shall refer to the Appendix. When Mr. Fowler and he had done, I repeated my former Argument, and Mr. Ives denied that that Phrase of Christ's Sheep included all true Believers; which I proved from the description. ver. 27. that they hear Christ's voice, and know him, and follow him. Then I proceeded from Matth. 7.24. Psal. 1.3.  
Arg. 3. If true Believers be every where in Scripture set forth by Similitudes that note stability and firmness, than they cannot fall away from Grace totally and finally: Sed verum prius: Ergo, & posterius. Here he denied the major again; he was so dull, he could not think of a Consequence, though often told; and would not be persuaded to answer, because it was a Parable: To which I replied, That even Parables do afford Mediums from their general scope; and the ground of the Metaphor in Matth. 7.24. was evident, (viz.) That a true Believer is compared to an House built on a Rock, because they agree in uno tertio stability and firmness, notwithstanding assaults that might endanger their fall. But he continuing obstinate, I told him he was a conceited ignorant Person, not Fellow, (as he quotes my words, both there, and twice besides.) Upon my calling him so, he produced a Book of mine, which I was necessitated by their misreports to publish against the Quakers, wherein I accused Christ of ignorance, as he pretneded: Whereas I did not accuse him; for Accusation supposes a Fault, whereas Christ's Ignorance of many things was not such; as not his ignorance of the day of Judgement, Mat. 24.36. What I said, was, that it was not evident from Scripture, that Christ did, as Man, know Judas to be a Devil from the first moment of his choice of him. What I accused Mr. Ives of disingenuity in, was his not reading the last Clause of the Paragraph in my Book, concerning Christ's ignorance; wherein I say, Whether that [foregoing Assertion] be true or false, yet Christ might deal with Judas according to what he was visibly; Yet hath Mr. Ives the front to affirm, That the Person he employed read word for word; whereas all took notice, that he stopped him at the last Clause, which therefore, when I had the Book, I read myself. I also accused Mr. Ives, I confess, for disturbing us with impertinencies; for what was my mistake in that Assertion, to the Saints Perseverance?  
Arg. 4. Whatsoever our Lord Jesus Christ hath prayed for, shall certainly come to pass: But he hath prayed for the Saints Perseverance, or that they may not fall away totally and finally from Grace: Ergo, The Saints shall persevere.  
The major I proved by John 11.42. And I knew (says Christ to the Father) that thou hearest me always: To which Mr. Ives returned no answer, but denied the major, and instanced in Christ's Prayer, Luke 23.34. which he pretended was not answered, because all Christ's Enemies that put him to death were not forgiven. To which I replied, 1. That it was answered in the conversion of 3000 of them, Acts 2.23, 41. and that the term them is taken indefinitely. To which Mr. Ives replied, That an Indefinite is equivalent to an Universal: But I rejoined to him, That it is not always so, but only sometimes, (viz.) in materia necessaria, non contingenti; which I would have explained to him, but that his rude clamour would not give me leave: but I shall now do it, for the help of the unlearned. In Logic we call that an Indefinite Proposition or Enunciation, which hath no Note of Quantity Universal or Particular set before it, but yet must ever be understood either Universally, or Particularly; as, Man is a reasonable Creature; Mothers love their Children. In the former Instance, we understand every Man: In the latter, some Mothers. In the former Instance, we call the Predicate, or that which is affirmed of Man, (viz.) a reasonable Creature, materia necessaria, or that which agrees to Man necessarily; for we cannot conceive a Man not to be a reasonable Creature, without a contradiction. In the latter instance, we call the Predicate, or that which is affirmed of Mothers, (viz.) That they love their Children, materia contingens, that is, that which may be, or not be, in Mothers; for one Branch of natural Corruption, is to be without natural affection, 2 Tim. 3.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original, expertes charitatis naturalis, Scultetus in loc. that is, without those affections which by instinct of Nature we bear to those that in Nature and Blood are conjoined to us, such as are those between Parents and Children. To apply all this now to the Text before us, Luke 23.34. compared with John 17.24. where Christ speaking of the Elect, prays indefinitely, Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my Glory, etc. In the former place, Christ prays but for some of his Persecuters: In the latter place he prays for all that the Father had given him; though some is not expressed in the one place, nor all in the other: Because the Election of God made the Salvation of all those that were given to Christ necessary, and but only of some of his Persecuters, (viz.) those that were given him by the Father.  
2. I answered to Mr. Ives, That this Prayer of Christ's, though made as a private Person, and not as Mediator, by virtue of that Law of Love which requires us to pray for them that despitefully use us, and persecute us, Matth. 5.44. which Law he was under, by being made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. was yet answered, as truly, as those Prayers which he made as Mediator, supposing (but not granting) that he prayed for all; because, if he did, there was then such a Condition, in respect of the disposition of the Party praying, implied, as to the forgiveness of all his Persecuters, as was expressed, when he prayed for his own natural life, (viz.) Nevertheless, not my will, but thy will be done, Luke 22.42. [Where note Mr. Ives misrepresenting of my words, as if I acknowledged that some of Christ's Prayers were not answered.] Whereupon Mr. Ives demanded of me, Where that distinction between Christ's praying as a private Person, and as a Mediator, was found? I replied in John 17.24. and Matth. 26.39. compared together; which I would have made out, but that he drowned mine, with his Stentorian Voice, and, Pilate-like, asked a Question which he would not take an Answer to, John 18.38. I shall say only thus much now, that in the one he prayed for those that were given to him; in the other place, for the prevention of his own death, the grant whereof, would have rendered him uncapable of being our Mediator.  
3. I now reply, (what I had then for substance in my thoughts, when I discoursed with Mr. Ives, but prevented in speaking it, & many other things, by his uncivil demeanour) That in strictness of speech there is no Prayer but what is absolute; which I ground upon the nature of Prayer, (viz.) a submiss representation of our Will before God, to the end it may be performed by him. The representation of a Velleity, whereby we would will a thing, if something did not hinder, is not Prayer, properly so called. The words are Ames', translated out of his Coronis, Art. 5. cap. 5. which yet was the Judgement of Arminius himself, as the said Dr. Ames there assures us upon the report of credible Persons, who heard Arminius in his public Disputations deliver himself to that effect. I find also the same Assertion in Becanus Sum. Theol. Tom. 5. cap. 17. quest. 3. where, among other Reasons, he gives this, which is popular and plain; Nam nostra oratio debet esse conjuncta cum certa spe seu fiducia consequendi id quod petimus, Jac. 1.6. etc. i e. For our Prayer ought to be joined with a certain hope or assurance of obtaining that which we pray for, Jam. 1.6. and Matth. 21.22. But when we propound or manifest a bare, uneffectual desire, we do it not with a certain confidence of obtaining what is desired, but rather with assurance of the contrary; as if a Man should pray, Oh that God would let me live over again my time that is past. Thus far Decanus. But I must confess, the first that I met this Notion in, was Mr. Richard Hooker, a very learned Person, Ecclesiast. Polity, lib. 5. m. 48. where he says, Of Prayer there are two uses: It serveth as a mean to procure those things which God hath promised to grant when we ask; and it serveth as a mean to express our lawful desires also towards that, which whether we shall have, or no, we know not, till we see the event. Only Mr. Hooker seems to differ from the Learned Men , in that he makes it an over-restrained consideration of Prayer, to tie it only to this use, to be a chosen mean, whereby the Will resolveth to seek that, which the Understanding certainly knoweth it shall obtain. I have insisted the longer on this, because it may many ways be useful to us, and fully answers the Arminians cavil about Christ's not being answered in some of his Prayers. For if we hold, that no representation of our desire to God, of what we do not absolutely petition for, is strictly a Prayer; then our major Proposition, Whatever Christ prayed for, he was heard in, is true, without limitation; and Mr. Ives, and other Arminians, Remonstrants, etc. instance insufficient. If we suppose, that such a representation of our desires to God, may be called Prayer; yet our major is true, according to the more common acception of the term Prayer, and our use of it in the Assumption or minor, (viz.) for such a representation of Christ's desire to God in general, and of Perseverance in particular, as served for a means to procure what God had promised to grant him.  
Another Instance which the Remonstrants give of Christ's Prayer not answered, is Joh. 17.25, 21. where he prays, That they may be kept from evil, and be one among themselves; yet do they sin, and disagree.  
Answ. Aims, that Remonstrantium malleus, puts an Answer in my mouth: Christ does not pray for their immediate deliverance from all evil, nor so from discord; but for a gradual deliverance, as Eph. 4.12, 13. imports.  
The minor, that Christ prayed for the Saints Perseverance, we prove by two Scriptures, John 17.15, 20. Luke 22.32.  
To this the Arminians say,  
1. That John 17.15. may be meant of the Disciples only.  
Answ. The 20th verse takes of that Gloss, Neither pray I for these alone, etc.  
2. That by evil, verse 15. may be meant only Persecutions, and particularly those that did attend Christ's apprehension and death.  
Answ. Supposing what they affirm, yet those Persecutions were considered as Temptations to Apostasy; and therefore all other Temptations must be included, which might endanger their fall ex natura rei. And ver. 12. intimates, that he had hitherto kept them from that evil by which Judas fell, which was not Persecution, but Covetousness.  
To that other place of Scripture, Luke 22.32. the Arminians say,  
That this might be a special Privilege of Peter and the Apostles.  
Answ. 1. Then hereby we gain a Concession of what overthrows their grand Arguments for the possibility of any true Believers total and final Apostasy. 1. That the praedetermination or Decree absolute of perseverance, deprives the Will of its native liberty. 2. That Admonitions to avoid a Danger in any respect impossible, are vain and useless; for after this Prayer, Christ says to the Disciples, Arise, and pray, that ye enter not into temptation, Luke 22.46. 3. That a true Believer falls away at least totally from Grace, when he falls into heinous sins (such as we readily acknowledge Peter's denying his Master to have been.)  
Answ. 2. But we deny that this Promise was to Peter alone, verse 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye, in the plural Number, ver. 28, 29. Christ promises them a Kingdom for continuing with him in his Temptations, which must look forward, as well as backward; for, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Mat. 24.13. nor yet to the Apostles only (as we sawbefore, Joh. 17.15, 20.)  
To those four Arguments discussed, I shall add two more, which we had not time to debate.  
Arg. 5. Whatever necessary to their Salvation the Saints pray for, they shall obtain: But the Saints pray for perseverance, and it is necessary to their Salvation: Ergo, They shall obtain it. The major is evident by John 16.13. 1 John 5.14. The minor, by Matth. 6.13. Deliver us from evil.  
To the minor the Arminians object, That in that place the Saints pray, that they may not be lead into temptation at all; and yet are not heard in that.  
Answ. 1. If the total exemption from sin be a Mercy the Saints have no warrant by promise to expect in this life, than the Saints Prayer for that, is not Prayer [strictly so called] (as I shown before) but a representation of their desire of a thing in itself desirable: And look what Answer may be made about Christ's not being heard, when he prayed that the Cup might pass from him, Matth. 26.39. the same will suffice (mutatis mutandis) to invalidate the Arminians pretence.  
Answ. 2. This Exception opposes not either of our Propositions, in which there is a limitation of that Prayer of the Saints that shall always be heard, by giving the very thing prayed for, to that which is necessary to the Saints Salvation; which a not leading into temptation at all, is not.  
Arg. 6. None of the Elect can fall away totally and finally from Grace: But all true Believers are Elect: Ergo, No true Believers can fall away totally and finally from Grace.  
I prove the major and minor, first by Arguments, then by plain Scripture.  
The major is denied, because the Arminians suppose the Decree of God concerning men's Salvation (which we call Election) to be conditional; against which I argue thus.  
Arg. 1. If Election be conditional, than it is uncertain: But it is not uncertain: Ergo, It is not conditional.  
I prove the Consequence thus.  
That which depends on the Freedom of Man's Will, is uncertain: But conditional Election depends on the Freedom of Man's Will: Therefore it is uncertain.  
The Arminians deny the major, because God did foreknow mens Faith. To which I reply, That upon their Hypothesis, God did not, nor could foreknow the Persons Faith whom he conditionally Elected; which I prove thus.  
That which was not future, God could not foreknow: But the Faith of the conditionally Elected was not future: Ergo, Their Faith God could not foreknow.  
The minor is proved thus:  
What God did not will, was not future: But God did not will the Faith of the conditionally elected: Ergo, Their Faith was not future. The minor is their own; for they hold the terminus ad quem praedestinationis to be only Glory, not Grace, i. e. That God wills Glory or Salvation to Believers, not Faith itself.  
The major I prove thus:  
If that was future which God did not will, than there was an Effect without a Cause: But the Consequent is false: Ergo, so is the Antecedent.  
The Consequence is evident, because from Eternity there was nothing to cause that which was possible, to become future, but the Will of God: Ergo, If any thing was future, which God did not will, 'twas an Effect without a Cause. [And this is the insoluble demonstration that cuts the throat of Scientia media, whereupon the Jesuits, and Arminians, and all those that oppose the absoluteness of God's Decrees, do and must rely, unless they will turn Atheists, and with Cicero deny that God foreknows things to come, says the profound Twisse against Cotton of Predestination, pag. 69. and hath irrefragably proved it in that large and elaborate Tract De Scientia media.]  
I argue against the conditional Decree which the Arminians extend even to those that are in the event damned; though withal they affirm, That he foreknows who will, and who will not perform that Condition, (viz.) Believing in Christ, and persevering in that Belief.  
Arg. 2. That which imputes Folly to God, is not to be ascribed to God: But so does a conditional Decree of saving those whom God foreknows will not believe, and so will be damned: Ergo, Such a conditional Decree is not to be ascribed to God.  
The minor is evident, because a conditional Decree makes God to resolve to do that which for want of the performance of a Condition, which he knows will never be performed, he is resolved not to do; (viz.) to save those if they believe, whom he knows never will believe, and therefore for their unbelief is resolved to damn.  
Many things the Arminians urge for their conditional Decree of Election, whose proper seat is the Doctrine of Predestination. I will therefore only take notice of one.  
Arg. God hath elected Men to Salvation by Faith in Christ persevered in: Ergo, Such Faith is the instrumental Cause or Condition of the Decree of Election.  
Answ. We deny the Consequence. The Consequent aught to be, Ergo, Faith is the instrumental Cause of Salvation decreed. And that we acknowledge.  
We now proceed to the proof of the minor, All true Believers are Elect: For this the Arminians deny, and assert, That not Faith simply, but persevered in, is the condition of Election. Against which Reason of theirs, I shall only urge these Arguments.  
Arg. 1. If perseverance in Faith be a Condition requisite in the Object of Election, than no man whilst he is living is the Object of Election [or an Elect person]: But some men whilst they are living are Objects of Election, or Elect persons: Ergo, Perseverance in Faith is not a Condition requisite in the Object of Election.  
The Consequence is evident upon their own grounds, because (say they) any one that is a true Believer may fall away; and 'tis only he that endureth to the end shall be saved, our Lord tells us, Matth. 24.13.  
The minor is evident by 1 Thess. 5.9. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain Salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 11.7. Believers are called the Election in the abstract, which is more emphatical than to be barely called Elect, and intimates the cause of their present obtaining of Righteousness, because at present Elect.  
For the proof of my minor, I argue thus again.  
Arg. 2. If true Faith be a fruit of Election, than all true Believers are Elect: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, The Consequent. I prove the Antecedent, first, by Eph. 1.5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Children, etc. compared with John 1.12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name. Whence I argue thus: He that hath predestinated to a State or Relation, hath predestinated to the Foundation of that State or Relation: But God hath predestinated some to a State or Relation, (viz) Adoption: Ergo, He hath predestinated them also to the Foundation of that State or Relation, (viz.) to Faith.  
The major is evident, as otherwise, so by the instance of David, who being designed to be saul's Son-in Law, was also designed to marry his Daughter, 1 Sam. 18.21. for without such marriage, he could not stand in such relation to Saul. Again, I prove it by that Appellation given to Faith, Tit. 1.1. The Faith of Gods Elect. There can be no reason given hereof, but because it is peculiar to the Elect: and why is it so? Because either all that have true Faith are God's Elect (which the Arminians deny), or else because true Faith is a Fruit of Election, [whence that which they deny does evidently enough follow] as Moulin observes, Anat. Armin. cap. 19 n. 7.  
I now go on in the proof of my major, that none of the Elect can fall away totally and finally from true Grace, by Scriptures.  
First Scripture is, Matth. 24.24. For there shall arise false Christ's, and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect.  
To which place many Exceptions are made.  
1. As to the Persons, That by Elect are not understood the Objects of Gods absolute will or purpose of Salvation; but choice Believers, or such as Abraham was strong in Faith, Rom. 4.20.  
Answ. 1. It is not impossible that even they should be deceived (according to the Arminians own opinion.)  
2. The special provision God makes for the Elect, in shortening those perilous days, Matth. 24.22. should rather be made for weak Believers, than strong ones, because the former need it more.  
2. As to the Phrase, If it were possible, they except, That it notes only a great difficulty, not a simple impossibility.  
Answ. 1. We do not assert a simple impossibility, but ex hypothesi, or upon supposition of God's Decree and Promise.  
2. If by impossible, be meant only difficult; then by possible, is meant easy: But to interpret the Phrase so here, is repugnant to the scope, which is to show the extraordinary diligence and success of the Seducers, that, like the Devil, they would even set upon Christ himself, and leave no stone unturned, no means unused, to accomplish their design. If it were but a difficult thing, and not impossible, they would make new onsets, though frequently beaten off.  
3. As to the Event, they object, That it is seduction, not final and total, but partial, that the Letter of the Text imports.  
Answ. 1. The place itself suggests gross and damnable errors, (viz.) to look for another Messiah than the true, ver. 23.  
2. It intimates the final deceiving of some, in opposition to the final perseverance of others, ver. 11, 12, 13.  
4. The Arminians object, That the Elect could not be seduced by the Seducers; therefore they could not fall away of themselves, is a bad Consequence.  
Answ. 1. Nor is that our Consequence, but this, They that cannot be seduced by any means, cannot be seduced by false Prophets.  
2. That Consequence is not absurd, 1. Because the seduction of false Teachers is most dangerous, called therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the working of Satan, 2 Thess. 2.9. vis efficax, an effectual working (as we may say) an endeavour that cannot fail of success, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strong delusions, verse 11. some render it efficacy of cozenage, that which will impose upon the most sagacious and wary person. And by that manner of seduction our first Parents fell, Gen. 3. And by the like reason that the Apostle says, If any man offend not in word, the same is able also to bridle the whole body, James 3.2. we may say, He that can withstand the attempts of Seducers, may be able to withstand any other assault. 2. That Consequence is not without another ground to support it, (viz.) Because he that falls away of himself, seduces himself; for he assents to some falsehood under the show of truth: Whatever therefore it is in him, that secures him from the danger of being seduced by others, will be also his security against seduction by himself.  
A second Scripture to prove, That the Elect cannot fall away, etc. is, Rom. 11.2. God hath not cast away his People whom he foreknew: Where by foreknowing we must understand (according to the frequent usage of the Phrase in Scripture) a knowledge accompanied with affection; and we must observe, that the Apostle intimates a distinction between casting away some of his People who were not foreknown, and the not casting away those that were; of whom he gives himself an Instance, ver. 1. This premised I argue thus. Those whom God casts not off, cannot fall away totally and finally from Grace: But those whom God foreknew, he casts not off: Ergo, Those whom God foreknows, [or the Elect] cannot fall away, etc.  
The major is evident, because God casts off none but Unbelievers. The minor the Text affords.  
But the Arminians answer to the minor, That though God casts not off Men, they may cast away themselves, and so cease to be God's People.  
Answ. This is fond; for if they did cast off God, God must needs cast off them, according to 1 Chron. 28.9.   

To Mr. Ives' Appendix.  
UPon review of what I have already done, I find a few words will suffice. They that would be satisfied as to the Judgement of the Fathers, about the Saints perseverance, may find Passages enough for that end, collected to their hands, in Dr. Kendal's Sancti Sanciti in English, and in Latin in Hier. Zanch. de Pers. Sanct. in Miscell. V 3. Oper. And as for Augustin, 'tis well known that he wrote a whole Book de Persever. Sanct. and distinguishes often between common and special Grace, as Mr. Fowler told Mr. Ives. And as for that worthy person Mr. Richard Baxter, he does not determine against the Point, as we hold it, but says, From Matth. 13.6, 21. it may well be inferred, that those shall not fall away in time of temptation, in whom the Word of God hath taken deep rooting. In the 11th of his 32 Directions, pag. 107.  
As for the Charge of Antinomianism, and the Passages he quotes out of Mr. Cottons Covof Grace, Mr. Bridges, Dr. Owen, however in some Particulars they may sound, I think the Reverend Mr. Caryl (whom Mr. Ives reflects upon for writing a Commendatory Epistle to Mr. Cotton's Tract abovementioned) speaks the sense of them all, in his excellent Comment upon Job. 10.15. They put dangerous Suppositions opposite to these, who say, Let a godly man be never so wicked let him sin as much as he will, yet it shall be well with him: [which is the language of such as Dr. Crisp, whom Mr. Ives quotes, and we disown.] Though there be a truth in it, that how much soever a godly man sinneth, he shall be pardoned; yet the Scripture useth no such language: and the Form of Wholesome Words teacheth every man rather to speak thus, If I be wicked, than woe unto me. Thus far Mr. Caryl, to whom I subscribe. And as smoothly as Mr. Ives thinks to carry it, he forgets, or understands not, that Dr. Crisp speaks of the Elect, but the other Divines of Believers, which are not convertible terms; for though all Believers are Elect, yet the Elect are not ipso facto Believers as soon as they exist in the World. Now we who hold, that the Elect are Children of Wrath as well as others, during their state of unbelief, do yet hold also, that to those Elect, being once Believers, there is no condemnation, Rom. 8.1.  
As for the denial of Conditions in the New Covenant by the other Divines abovementioned, I will not contest about Terms, if they will but grant, That the New Covenant is not absolute, in opposition to any Means or Orders which God hath appointed for obtaining the Benefits of it; though I see no harm in the term Condition, as applied to the New Covenant. As for Mr. Jer. Burroughs asserting of remission of all sins, past, present, and to come; I suppose he means with Ames, that sins past are remitted formally; future sins but virtually. Med. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 27. n. 24. Because he that hath been forgiven one sin, shall not be condemned for another. See Col. 2.13. I find not any thing else worth the taking notice of, but his Answers to two of our Arguments against their Doctrine of Saints Apostasy. 1. That it is destructive of Christian Comfort. To which he answers out of Mr. Baxter, That a comfortable life may be led without Assurance. To which I reply, That the experience of Adam's frailty gives us, who have remains of sin in us, more cause to fear our standing, if left (as he) to ourselves. And 'tis the strongest consolation we are capable of, or can desire in this life, that we shall be preserved from every evil work to God's heavenly Kingdom, 2 Tim. 4.17. The second Argument which Mr. Ives pretends to answer, is, That the Saints Apostasy makes God's love changeable. To which he answers, That God's love is upon condition. I reply, God's love is taken in Scripture two ways, which the Schools call Amor ordinativus & collativus, that is, for God's purpose of doing men good, which is one and the same whilst Unbelievers, or Believers; and of this Love there neither is nor can be any Condition (as under the sixth Argument of Election I have proved.) And for the performance of this purpose, or actual collation of the benefits purposed; and thus Faith is a qualification of the Subject, necessary by the tenor of the Gospel, to the participation of the benefits tendered therein. And 'tis God's Love in the former sense, which we say were changeable; should he damn any true Believer. As for his story out of Dr. Pierce, That woman that believed not that Adultery had done her any hurt, nor was damnable in her, nor lessened the favour of God, understood not our Doctrine, for the stain of Sin surely is an hurt; and the state of Grace takes not away the demerit of Damnation, though it prevents that event; and though the sins of Believers lessen not the favour or love of God, in the first acception , i. e. makes not his purpose of no effect: Yet it does in the second acception, for it procures God's withdrawing, etc. To conclude, I hearty wish and pray, That God would remove from Mr. Ives the way of Lying, and  him with Humility, and give him Repentance, to the acknowledging of the Truth, that he may not be more ashamed to have his Ignorance known, then desirous to have it cured.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
What Mr. Ives relates at the close, of the orderly behaviour of his own Party, and disorderly of ours, is so evidently false, That if he had not a Brow of Brass, he would not have dared to charge the innocent, and discharge the guilty. I appeal to all indifferent Auditors, whether Mr. Ives' Party's carriage at our Conference, did not confirm the common opinion of sober Persons, viz. That there is not a ruder sort of People (the Quakers not excepted) than Arminian Anabaptists.   
FINIS.  

ERRATA. Pag. 3. l. 10. for Affidavit read Affirmative.