A Contention for Truth: OR, An Impartial Account, OF Two several Disputations. The one being on Monday, the 12th. of Feb. And the other on Monday, the 26 of the same month, in the year, 1671. Between Mr. Danson of the one party, and Mr. Ives on the other, upon this question (viz.) Whether the Doctrine of some True Believers, falling away totally and finally from Grace, be True or No? Published to prevent Mistakes, and false Reports, concerning the said Conferences. By a Lover of Truth and Peace. Try the Spirits, whether they are of God or no 1 John 4.1. For, The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall departed from the Faith. 1 Tim. 4.1. Printed, in the Year, 1672. READER. Lest thou shouldest suspect the candour and ingenuity of the publisher; let me advertise thee of three things. First, that whatever was said on both sides, by way of opponency or respondency is here published without partiality. Secondly, that if Mr. Ives hath added any thing (for the further confirmation of his own judgement or the refuting Mr. Dansons) over and above what past in the disputations, wherever there is any such addition, let the differing Character in which they are Printed, serve for thy information, that whatever is so printed, did not pass in the disputation. Thirdly, Take notice that Mr. Ives, sent a Letter to Mr. Danson, to desire him to appoint some time and place, within a week after, that they might meet together to view the Copy, and if need were to Correct it, that it might be published by mutual consent, but Mr. Danson instead of writing an answer, sent word by the bearer that M. Ives might do what he pleased, and that he would not trouble himself about it: A Copy of which Letter is Printed, and hereunto annexed for thy satisfaction. Let me close all with this passionate wish, that while we contend for the primitive faith; God grant we may maintain the primitive love, and not think our zeal for truth lukewarm (as one well observes) unless it consume our charity to ashes, remembering that in gaining the knowledge of truth, if we lose charity, such knowledge will neither make us good nor happy. vale Mr. Ives, His Letter to Mr. Danson. Mr. Danson, THE Reports of our late conferences being very false and uncertain, which doubtless, must highly tend to the disparagement of the Truth contended for, on which side the way soever it may lie; I have therefore prevailed with a person, who took an exact account of both days conferences in Characters, to transcribe a fair Copy; in order to the Printing thereof to prevent further mistakes: And lest you (or any else) should suspect the faithfulness and impartiality of the Scribe; I thought good to give you this Advertisement (viz.) that if you will appoint a time and place sometime in the next week, and send me word on Monday next, that we may meet to examine, and if need be to Correct the Copy, so that it may be published by consent and without partiality, I shall willingly wait upon you: Otherwise if I hear not from you, I shall correct the Copy as impartially as I can without you, and dispatch it for the Press with all convenient speed: And however you may think of me, I have charity enough to subscribe myself, Sir, Walbrook, March 2 1671. Your Loving Friend Jer. Ives. READER, WHereas there are divers and frequent repetitions occasioned by the prosecutions of the arguments and answers of each side, which might well have been omitted, if Mr. Danson would have met to have Corrected the Copy; but by reason he would not meet, it was thought necessary to publish all, lest the omitting any thing, should have been judged a piece of partiality. vale A Contention for Truth. The People being Assembled, after an account given of the occasion of the meeting. This Question was propounded by Mr. Ives. WHether the Doctrine of some True believers, falling away totally and finally, be True or No? Mr. Danson. It is false. Mr. Ives. I shall then prove it true, as far as God shall enable me. Major, If the Doctrine of the imposibility of any true believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be false; then the doctrine of the possibility of some True believers falling away totally and finally is true. Minor. But the Doctrine of the Impossibility of any True believers falling away finally and totally is false. Ergo, The Doctrine of the possibility of some True believers falling away totally and finally, is true. Mr. Danson. I deny the minor. That the doctrine of the impossibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace, is not true. Mr. Ives. I prove the minor. If the doctrine of the impossibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be true, than it ought to be believed; But it ought not to be believed. Ergo, It is not true. Mr. Danson. I deny the minor. Prove it ought not to be believed; but we shall entangle ourselves I know not how, by this way of disputing hypothetically. Mr. Ives. You shall not teach me how to wield my sword. Mr. Danson. Hypothetical syllogisms ought never to be allowed, except it cannot be put into a Categorical. Mr. Ives. Hypothetical syllogisms were always allowed, as well as Categorical: but that's not the Question. Mr. Danson. Go on, take your course: Mr. Ives. Sir, I shall not tie you up when you come to be opponant, I shall use Categorical Syllogisms by and by. My minor proposition is this. That the doctrine of True believers final and total falling away, ought not to be believed; I prove it by this Categorical syllogism. 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. Mr. Danson. I deny the major. Prove it. Mr. Ives. You deny this, that we may be cautioned to avoid that, which notwithstanding it is impossible to be done. Then I will prove my major. 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 what is impossible to be done. Ergo, My major is true. Mr. Danson▪ I deny the minor. That the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of what is impossible to be done. Mr. Ives. It is an universal negative, pray therefore give an Instance where it doth. Mr. Danson. The Scripture doth, for the sin against the Holy-Ghost, is a sin that is impossible to be done by some true believers. Mr. Ives. We are passed that now, for here's the argument; if the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is possible to be done (for we are out of the term True believers) the impossibility as to some persons, that is not at all to the purpose, for you are too late for that, and I will show you that you are; because you should have distinguished at the prosyllogism: For I am to prove my major proposition, and this is a distinguishing on the syllogism before that; and therefore it is too late to bring it now. The major prosyllogism was this, whatsoever sins any are commanded not to do, or cautioned to fear the doing of (it was General and Categorical) they ought not to believe it is impossible to be done; but falling away totally and finally, is a sin that True believers are commanded not to do, and 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. Now you denied the major, now the major of this argument, was the medium of my prosyllogism; and the medium of that, was grounded upon this: that nothing is commanded to be avoided, or cautioned to be avoided; but that which is possible to be done. Mr. Danson. I denied it. Mr. Ives I proved it thus, if the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is possible 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 any thing, but what is possible to be done. Ergo, Mr. Danson. I denied it. Mr. Ives. This was a general negation, pray therefore give an instance (you say no True believers can fall away, and I say some True believers may) It is possibly True, and may be allowed (and it is an opinion received by many worthy persons) that some True believers can never fall away. I am only to prove that some true believers may; and for you to prove that some True believers cannot commit the sin against the Holy-Ghost, I may grant it you, without any hurt to my present argument; whatever my opinion is in that matter, so that my argument stands good and unanswered. Mr. Ives. I go now to another argument, which is this. 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; But those that are partakers of the divine nature, may fall away totally and finally. Ergo, Some True believers may fall away totally and finally. My argument is grounded upon the 2 Pet. 4. where the Apostle informs the true believers, that they were made partakers of the divine nature, by God's great and precious promises; that by them, they might be made partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the pollutions that were in the world through Lust. Now those that had so escaped these pollutions might fall away, see Chap. 2.20. and compare it with Heb. 10.29. Where such persons are said to tread under foot the Son of God; and count the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing. Mr. Danson. I deny the minor, that those that are partakers of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally. Mr. Ives. That I will prove, 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 fall away totally and finally; But they that are partakers of the Holy Ghost, may fall away totally and finally. Ergo, They that are partakers of the divine nature, may fall away totally and finally. Mr. Danson. I Deny your Consequence, it doth not follow, that because those that partake of the Holy Ghost may fall away, that therefore those that partake of the divine nature may fall away. Mr. Ives. I will prove, that 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 totally and finally, he that partakes of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally: But the first is true. Ergo; Mr. Danson. That is true; therefore I deny the minor; for to partake of the Holy-Ghost, and to partake of the Divine nature, are not the same thing. Mr. Ives. If the nature of the Holy Ghost, be a Divine nature, than they that partake of the Holy Ghost, partake of the Divine nature; But the nature of the holy Ghost, is a divine nature. Ergo, Those that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of the Divine nature. Mr. Danson. I deny your consequence, that though the Holy-Ghost be a Divine-nature, it doth not therefore follow, that therefore he that partakes of the Holy-Ghost, partakes of the Divine-Nature. 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; for Mr. Danson tells us, that though the Holy-Ghost be a Divine nature, yet a man may partake of the Holy-Ghost, and not partake of the Divine nature. But to proceed. Mr. Ives. If they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing else but what is the Divine-nature; then they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing but the Divine-nature. But they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing else but what is the Divine nature. Ergo, I mean by partaking of nothing else; that, in these participations of the gifts and graces of the Holy-Ghost that any are made partakes of, they partake of nothing else but the gifts and graces of the Divine-nature; for in no other sense is the Divine-nature, or the Holy-Ghost communicable, as a learned Gentleman at that time explained it. Mr. Danson. I deny the minor. M. Ives. This is that that you deny, that they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing but the Divine-nature; give me an instance in what, because it is a universal negative. Mr. Danson. They partake of the gifts of the Holy-Ghost. Mr. Ives. Where is that called a partaking of the Holy-Ghost, as distinguished from the participation of the Divine-nature? Mr. Danson. It is frequently called the gifts of the Holy-Ghost, Acts chap. 1. and chap 19 and He said unto them, have ye received the Holy-Ghost since ye believed? and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy-Ghost. And when Paul had laid his hands on them; the Holy-Ghost came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. And therefore the Holy-Ghost, given there in those extraordinary gifts is nothing to you; for they that partake of the holy Ghost do not therefore necessarily partake of the divine Nature. Mr. Ives. I say if the partaking and receiving of the holy Ghost, be a receiving nothing else but the divine Nature, than my former Argument is true. But it is a partaking and receiving nothing else, and you have assigned nothing wherein they differ. Ergo, than my former Argument is true, Mr. Danson. I deny your minor. Mr. Ives. If it be any thing else give an instance where the extraordinary gifts, is called a partaking of the holy Ghost, (by extraordina-gifts, I mean the gift of Tongue and Prophesying) in a differing sense from a participating of the divine Nature. Mr. Danson. I am speaking of extraordinary Gifts. Mr. Ives. So am I too such extraordinary Gifts as are not at all bestowed upon Hypocrites and Unbeleivers. Mr. Danson. That the giving and receiving of the holy Ghost, is the giving and receiving of th● divine Nature; that I deny. Mr. Ives. If the participation of the divine Nature, and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the holy Ghost, be interpreted no other where in Scripture, but for one and the same thing; then the former consequence is true. But the participation and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the holy Ghost is interpreted no where in Scripture, but for one and the same thing. Ergo, my former consequence is true. Mr. Danson. I deny your minor. Mr. Ives. I have proved the question; for Mr. Danson's answer is, that to partake of the divine Nature, is to partake of the graces of the Spirit of God. I say, that they that partake of the holy Ghost, partake of the graces of the Spirit of God; He saith not. Mr. Danson. I do not deny, but the receiving of the holy Ghost, as to its gifts and graces, may be found in the same subject; but I say, they are not Terms of the same Import. Mr. Ives. What that is we shall hear by and by; Mr. Danson saith, that by partaking of the divine Nature, he supposed the graces and operations of the Spirit of God upon the Souls of Men, but by partaking of the gifts of the holy Ghost, may be understood of those extraordinory gifts of Tongues, healing, etc. Now give me leave to mind you, that Mr. Danson grants what I would have, and somewhat more; because no Man had those extraordinary gifts; but what had those in the lesser degree, that he calls Graces? for no man had those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, but he that was really and truly a Believer. Mr. Danson. Prove it if you can. Mr. Ives. Give me an instance, because this is a universal negative. Mr. Danson. This will not prove what you would have; for if I should grant you, that no person had the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, but what had also the special graces of the holy Ghost; yet that will not prove what you are to prove: for it will not prove that therefore the participation of extraordinary gifts, and the participation of special grace, are one, and the same thing. Mr. Ives. I will show you what it will prove, it will prove that which I brought it for; and that was this, I was to prove that if those that partake of the holy Ghost, may fall away totally and finally, than they that partake of the divine Nature may. Mr. Danson. Prove your minor. Mr. Ives. That's my minor. Mr. Danson. Your minor was this, that the giving and receiving of the Holy Ghost, and the giving and receiving the divine Nature, are one and the same thing; prove that, you must conclude with the proposition I denied. Mr. Ives. I am to prove this, that he that participates of the gifts of the holy Ghost, and of the graces of the holy Ghost, participates of the same holy Ghost, though in different degrees. Mr. Danson. You go about to prove that they are always found in the same Subject, that is, special grace and extraordinary gifts; but that is not to the question, but you are to prove they are one and the same thing: for instance, a godly Man may have his understanding enlightened to understand several sciences, as Logic and Mathematics, etc. And all these may be found in the same subject, but it doth not therefore follow that they are the same thing. Mr. Ives. To partake of the holy Ghost in its extraordinary gifts, and in the graces of it, which you say are the ordinary gifts, is but all one and the same partaking of the holy Ghost; it is true as you say, that a Man may understand several sciences, but if these different sciences be taught him by one Master, than it follows that they are one and the same participation of the skill of the same master. Mr. Danson. It doth not follow that they are one and the same thing; for the Scripture doth ascribe the skill of Bezaleel and Aholiah in all manner of workmanship to the holy Ghost; it doth not therefore follow, that the receiving the skill of workmanship and the graces of of the Spirit of God are all one and the same thing, Mr. Ives. They are one by way of participation, for I am to prove to you, that the participation of the holy Ghost, either in an extraordinary or ordinary manner, is a participation of the same holy Ghost; not that these are the same thing in themselves; but that they partake of the same operation; for he that hath the gift of tongues, and he that hath the gift of healing, they have two several gifts; and I never said, that healing, and the gift of tongues were one gift, but that both these are partakers of the holy Ghost, and I do not say, that they are one and the same thing, but that they are one and the same participation of the holy Ghost; that is, they do participate of the same holy Ghost, or of the same divine Nature; but they are not the same in respect to the quantity or measure of them. (c) This is not more than St. Paul avoucheth, there are (saith he) diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, 1 Cor. 12.4. and again, v. 8, 9, 10. He tells us that by the same spirit that Wisdom, and Knowledge, and Faith, is given, working of miracles, and speaking with tongues is given. Mr. Danson. I deny that those participations of the divine Nature, as they stand in opposition unto the partaking of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, it doth not denote one and the same; the Scripture phrase doth not own them to be one and the same thing. Mr. Ives. I do not say it is, I say one and the same divine Nature and holy Ghost. Mr. Danson. You prove nothing, for you were to prove that those that partake of the holy Ghost, partake of the divine Nature; now this you proved thus, that to partake of the holy Ghost in its extraordinary gifts, and to partake of the divine Nature in respect of grace, they are one and the same thing. Mr. Ives. I did not, I said it is a participation of one and the same holy Ghost, but not a participation of one and the same degree. Mr. Danson. Otherwise it will not follow, that they may not be separable one from another, A person may partake of the divine Nature, if you will call it by that phrase, he may have some resemblance of the divine Wisdom in natural ability, and extraordinary gifts; yet notwithstanding, not partake of the divine Nature in that extraordinary sense of the holiness of God: for there are two sort of perfections in the divine Nature, which go under the name of the divine Image; some are natural perfections, such as understanding, and will, and immortality, and there are also some which we call moral perfections: some things in God which we cannot conceive but under the notion of virtue or grace, as truth, justice, mercy and the like: now we understand the participation of the divine Nature in the latter, not the former sense. Mr. Ives. I expounded it of the same partaking of the holy Ghost; you brought an instance in the 17 acts, about extraordinary gifts: I answered thus, that instance doth not exclude but include the ordinary as you called it; and therefore I leave this to consideration: whether he that partakes of the holy Ghost; doth not partake of the divine Nature, for indeed that is the sum of my argument; than it will follow, that if he that partakes of the holy Ghost may fall away, he that partakes of the divine Nature may. Mr. Danson. I grant it you. Mr. Ives. This is that which you denied, that those that partake of the divine Nature can fall away, which I proved thus, that if those that partake of the holy Ghost may fall away, than those that partake of the divine Nature, may fall away. Mr. Danson. I deny it, I said that phrase of the divine Nature; as there it is used concerning the Saints, is to be taken in a special sense (there is no perfection to be found in Men,) but is a participation of the divine Nature after a fort, that is some resemblance of it, but yet notwithstanding that, the participation of the moral and natural perfections are not one and the same thing. Mr. Ives. You say, that to partake of the divine Nature in a moral sense, is doubtless the sense of the text referred too, though not in a natural sense; now if that be the true sense of divine Nature in that place (viz.) a moral sense wherein God is thus gracious to assist and cooperate upon the minds and consciences of believers, Why then is there not the same exposition to be given of being partakers of the holy Ghost by his cooperating upon the minds and consciences of believers? Mr. Danson. Prove your proposition that you are to prove, that to partake of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, and special grace are one and the same thing in Scripture usage. Mr. Ives. Still you are under a mistake, I never undertook to prove it; I undertook to prove this, that it is a partaking of the same divine Nature, and not that to receive the holy Ghost in an extraordinary and miraculous manner, and the receiving of it in an ordinary measure, are the same thing: for as you said well, a Man may be a Logician, and yet possibly another Artist; but that I say in this, that no man can partake of the holy Ghost (as you interpret the holy Ghost for an extraordinary measure of gifts) but that man that partakes of the graces of it, which you call partaking of the divine Nature. Mr. Danson. Prove it. Mr. Ives. If the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts be promised to none, but those that have the ordinary gifts and graces of it, than no man can partake of the holy Ghost in the greater, that doth not partake of the divine Nature in the less. But the holy Ghost is promised to none but such. Therefore none can partake of it but such. Mr. Danson. I deny your minor. Mr. Ives. It is a general negation, therefore give me an instance if you can, where God hath made a promise of the gifts of the holy Ghost to any but true believers. Mr. Danson. He hath made a promise to none at all. Mr. Ives. You should have said so before, therefore give me an instance where the promise of the holy Ghost is made to any that are not true believers. Mr. Danson. In the 2 of Joel there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost. Mr. Ives. (a) The last thing Mr. Danson said before was, that the promise mas made to none at all; what sense this is, the reader may judge. But whether it be sense or no, I am sure it is a a Contradiction to what he saith now (viz.) that there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in Joel the 2. and immediately before saith the promise was made to none at all. Besides what is that promise in Joel 2. made to some that are not true believers? It is indeed that promise which is expounded and fulfilled in the 2. of the Acts, only to true believers; for the Apostles were all true believers, and the holy Ghost fell upon them. Now Mr. Danson brings this as an instance against the universality of my minor proposition, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are promised to some that are not true believers. Mr. Danson. Hold there, I did not say so; you said only to true believers: now I give you this place to prove that there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost made to the visible Church. Mr. Ives. Prove that any here were not true believers to whom this promise is made. Mr. Danson. Here is a promise made to the visible Church, it's to believers in general. Mr. Ives. Pray hear me if it be to belivers in general, it is nothing to me, for my argument was this; that this promise was made to none but True believers, and you must give me an instance; for if I say to none but True believers, you must show where it was made to some that were not True believers. Mr. Danson. It is a promise made to the visible believers. Mr. Ives. The question is, whether this will serve what it is brought for; that this promise is made to any that are not true believers. Mr. Danson. You are to prove that it is here limited. Mr. Ives. My Argument is this, if I say the promise of the holy Ghost is made to none but true believers, and you deny it; you must show me some that were not true believers, that this promise was made to; and instead of showing me that it was made to some that were not true believers; you tell me once and again it was a promise made to visible believers. Mr. Danson. This promise was made to visible believers. Mr. Ives. I say give me an instance against my universal negative if you can; and show where the holy Ghost is promised to those that were not true believers. Mr. Danson. Visible believers. Mr. Ives. What again, That is not my minor; for my minor proposition is this, that it is made to none but true believers, and now you are to show it was. Mr. Danson. It is made general and indefinite to Sons and Daughters. To those persons that were under the dispensation of the old Testament among which there were believers only by outward profession. Mr. Ives. Why, you are to give an instance, that the promise of the holy Ghost is made to some that were not true believers; I say give me an instance. Mr. Danson. I say here is a promise made to visible believers. Mr. Ives. Is it made to any that were not true believers? If these were all visible believes, they were all true believers for aught you know; either give me an instance or leave it, for the instance you have given me rather proves against you: Look at the fulfilling of it, Acts the second, and then give me an instance of any, that this promise was made or fulfilled too, that were not true believers. Mr. Danson. In the 8 of the Acts. 12.13. verses he tells us there; that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were Baptised both men and women; then Simon himself believed also: and when he was Baptised he continued with Philip and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were believers in the name of the Lord Jesus: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghost. Mr. Ives. But doth this prove that any of them were not True believers, you are to give an instance that the holy Ghost was promised to some that were not True believers, and you prove the quite contrary, that it was given to them that did believe. Mr. Danson. I will show you why it is not a contradiction, for the Scripture saith, that Simon himself believed also; and the Scripture likewise affirms concerning him, that he received the holy Ghost. Mr. Ives. But doth the Scripture say he received the holy Ghost? he would have given money indeed to have had it himself; therefore this is nothing to your purpose. Mr. Danson. Thus far it is to our purpose, because the Scripture in all its promises which it makes to believers, it respects them as they are visible belivers, not as they are True believers. Mr. Ives. Then God promises salvation to Men, not as they are True believers but visible believers: for Mr. Danson said all the promises respects them as visible, but not True believers, But however. I say, give me an instance where the promise of the holy Ghost was ever made to an unbeliever, or to a man that did not Truly beliewe. Mr. Danson. It was a promise made to those that were visible believers, and among those of that number there were such to be found. Mr. Ives. The promise of Salvation is made to believers promiscuously, but doth it therefore follow, that they are believers? because they profess it (pray hear me) It is upon the presumption that they are True believers; I say it is a promise made to none but True believers. Mr. Danson. I deny it, it is made to visible beleivers. Mr. Ives. Show where it is made to them, why should you foist in a word. Mr. Danson. This is sufficient for the proof of it, that the promise that is here made of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost is not made to True believers, as True but as visible. Mr. Ives. I say it presupposes them True believers; Give an instance if you can, that the Scripture doth not suppose them True believers to whom this promise is made. Mr. Danson. There is none. Mr. Ives. Then we have done and my Argument is proved, and I shall now proceed to another Argument; but before I do that, I will repeat the sum of our past discourse. This I Asserted, that Christians were not bound to believe that God commanded them to avoid that which they could not but do; you gave this distinction that the command was possible in itself, or in relation to the subject commanded, but not possible with respect to the decree of God. Mr. Danson. I said that those Cautions that are given to visible believers in general, that they should take heed of falling away, did suppose the possibility of it in the nature of the thing; (In True believers also) because man is but mutable, and grace is but a Creature, and therefore certainly it may be lost; and yet it is certainly Impossible as to True believers, upon the supposition of the divine decree, and Christ's promise to preserve and uphold the grace of True believers. Mr. Ives. This is just as if a man should say the whole Earth is possible to be overflowed with Water in respect to the nature of it, but with respect to the decree of God it is Impossible; but than if God hath made such a decree, no man hath any more reason to fear a universal inundation, because of such a decree, than he had to fear it if it were impossible, with respect to the nature of the thing: in like manner if it be impossible to fall from grace, with respect to the decree of God; there is no more reason to fear falling, then there would have been had it been impossible, with respect to the nature of the thing: but to proceed, The Sum then of my first Argument is this, If True believers cannot fall away finally; they ought to believe they cannot so fall away: Now if they ought to believe they cannot fall away finally, than it is not reasonable for them either to fear they can so fall, or to be commanded or cautioned to take heed of it; if God hath decreed it shall never be. The Sum of the second Argument is; that such as are partakers of the divine Nature may fall away; therefore True believers may: this I proved by this reason, because some that partake of the holy Ghost, as it is said, Heb. 6. Therefore some that did partake of the divine Nature might fall away, because none were ever made partakers of the holy Ghost, (as Mr. Danson hath expounded it for the extraordinary gifts of it) but such as were first partakers of the divine Nature (as he expounds the divine Nature) 2 Pet. 1.4. For the inward and special graces of it: now if none had the promise of such a partaking of the holy Ghost, but those that first did so partake of the divine Nature, as aforesaid, than it must needs follow, that if those that partake of the holy Ghost may fall away, than they that partake of the divine Nature may fall away; but the 6 of the Hebrews tells us such my fall away: Ergo, My next Argument is this; to prove that some True believers may fall away totally and finally from grace. If all those that have the Characters of true and sincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews 5, 6. may fall away totally and finally; then True believers may fall away totally and finally. But all those that have those Characters mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away totally and finally. Ergo, True believers may fall away totally and finally. Mr. Danson. I deny the consequence, it doth not follow that if all those that have the Charactters of true and sincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall totally and finally. Mr. Ives. If all those Characters be appliable to none but True believers, than the consequence follows, that if those to whom these Characters agree, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally. But those Characters in the 6th of Hebrews, are appliable to none but True believers. Ergo, Mr. Danson. I deny the minor, that they are appliable to none but True believers. Mr. Ives. Give me then an instance where they are appliable to any else but True believers. Mr. Danson, Prove that they are appliable to none other. Mr. Ives. I have proved it, without you can give me an instance where all these Characters mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, are applied to those that were not True believers; that they were once enlightened with the knowledge of the truth, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and of the power of the World to come, and such as were renewed by Repentance; show me where all those Characters and Qualifications agree to a man that was not a True believer: show them me all in one man; give me an instance if you can. Mr. Danson. You are to prove that these Characters here mentioned, agree to none but True believers. Mr. Ives. If the Scriptures applies these Characters to none but True believers, than my minor is true. But the Scripture applies them to none but True believers. Ergo, Mr. Danson. I deny the minor; for tasting of the good word of God, is appliable to others, but True believers. Mr. Ives. The Question is, whether a man that hath all those Characters, be not a True believer, or wants them, can be a True believer; show me a man that hath all these Characters (from some other text and instance) that was not a True believer. Mr. Danson. Do you mean in all the particulars? Mr. Ives. Yes, for it may be 6 men may have all these 6 Characters. Mr. Danson. I will give you an instance then; one for all: that is to say, that the Scripture doth ascribe believing unto those persons that were not True believers; and that includes them all. Mr. Ives. I deny that, therefore bring your Text to prove that persons that are so qualified may fall away: for I here argue upon you, that the Scripture no where gives us a note of any but True believers, that were thus qualified; therefore show me some that had all these qualifications, that were not True believers. Mr. Danson. The Scripture no where gives a particular Enumeration of all these qualifications, as agreeing to one person, but we must do it by parts. Mr. Ives. That will not do, because he that may have one Virtue; may be no True believer. Mr. Danson. I take persons that are extraordinarily endowed from above. Mr. Ives. You must show me where any man that had all these gifts, that was destitute of True grace. Mr. Danson. There is no particular instance of all together. Mr. Ives. Then my Argument is proved, I will now give you leave to show them by parts, that they that were renewed by Repentance, that were enlightened and made partakers of the holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and of the powers of the World to come; that they who had these, or any of these qualifications, were notwithstanding no True believers. Mr. Danson. Upon your supposition (that is to say) that the Characters here given, are of the True graces of the Spirit of God; then if so be I can prove but one part from a plain Scripture, it is necessary that the whole should be inferred, because the graces of the Spirit of God, go along with one another. No person is truly enlightened, but he also tafts of the good word of God, and is partakers of the holy Ghost, etc. Mr. Ives. If you please; I will prove that these qualifications are applied to True believers. Mr. Danson. You are to prove only to True believers. Mr. Ives. I will prove they are applied only to True believers, and if the Scripture applies them not otherwise, the reason of my Argument is good, till you assign an instance that these Characters are applied to some that are not True believers. Mr. Danson. I deny the Argument, supposing these very terms are not to be found in Scripture, applied to them that are not true believers; yet the thing signified may. Mr. Ives Sir, you must instance in some of these terms, and therefore show me in any of these Terms, that any were enlightened, or tasted of the powers of the World to come, or were renewed by Repentance, etc. that were not True believers, else you argue instead of answering. Mr. Danson. I gave you this general instance; the Scripture affirms that which takes in all these, it styles those believers that were not real believers. Mr. Ives. That is no proper answer, because if I say none but True believers have these qualifications; then these must be True believers that are so qualified, but none but True believers have these qualifications. Now if the Scripture applies them to any else, you must show where it doth. Mr. Danson. It doth not follow, that if the Scripture doth not apply these Characters to any person, that therefore they are True believers that are so qualified. Mr. Ives. True believers is a word hardly to be found in the Scriptures, though we have been disputing all this while about it, but we understand by True believers, a man that is not a Hypocrite, that doth not pretend to what he hath not, or is not. Now I say, I do not know where the Scripture tells us any where to the contrary, and if that be not our guide, we are all in the dark. Now if the Scripture gives us these for Characters of True believers, and tells us the contrary are not True believers; we have no reason to judge that man not a True believer, that hath these Characters: for we have no rule to judge any man a believer, or not a believer, but by the Characters the Scripture gives us of True believers, and of such as are not so. Mr. Danson. But the Scripture gives instance by parts, and if so be you will, I will show it you in parts. Mr. Ives. Where are those parts? I have told you before that you ought to give an instance of any one that had all these Characters Heb. 6. that was not a True believer: for indeed that is my Argument, but I do likewise condescend, that if you can, you may show where any one of these Characters, agree to one that is not a believer, and it shall suffice: Mr. Danson. I begin with enlightening, and that we have in the 17th of John 23. where Christ prays, that the World may believe that thou hath sent me. Mr. Ives. What do you bring thia for? Mr. Danson. Why! It is Scripture. Mr. Ives. What care I for Scripture. Hear the Peofell a Laughing. Mr. Ives. What do you Laugh for? Surely you cannot think that I speak to undervalue the Scriptures! since we come here to prove our opinions by them: Now when I say, I care not for the Scripture, my meaning is; for Mr. Dansons' impertinent alleging of it: for what if he had brought his instance out of the first of Gen: In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, I might have said, what care I for that; being impertinently alleged as to the thing in hand; and if Mr. Danson may be a judge, I will appeal to him what he thought of that expression. Mr. Danson. I thought as you have said, not that you did reject or slight the Scripture, but the use I made of it. Mr. Danson. I bring it to prove that the World, that here is distinguished from those that believed through the Apostles word, that these persons might know that God sent Jesus Christ which is part of the illumination. Mr. Ives. Here you have brought a text to prove something, but not to the purpose: For you are to bring a text to prove that some unbelievers were enlightened; you are now to Instance in parts, therefore first show me where any were enlightened, that were not True believers. Mr. Danson. This is an instance, but you do not understand it; when Christ had said for their sakes I Sacrifice myself, that they also may be Sanctified through the Truth, v. 19 he than adds, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their Word, that they also may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. Our Lord Jesus Christ doth here pray for those persons that should afterwards believe on him by the Apostles, preaching for their Conversion, that it may be a means of the World's Conviction, of that more common believing and knowing which we do say, is intended in this place by enlightened. Mr. Ives. You are under a mistake, because my Argument is this, that these qualifications are not appliable to any but True believers, that is to no unbeliever; you now only show me that Christ prays for the World, that the World may believe through the Apostles word, which makes against you. Mr. Danson. Either you do not understand it, and that's your ignorance, or you will not, and that's your disingenuity. Mr. Ives. Pray Sir forbear, I confess I am ignorant enough; but it is not handsome for you to reflect so often upon me. Mr. Danson. I affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ, prays for Real believers, those whom the Father had given to him, and he speaks of this, as one great end which he did design to obtain by their Conversion, namely, that the World thereby might be convinced not converted. Mr. Ives. How know you that Sir? Mr. Danson. The Word saith so. Mr. Ives. I Answer two things; First, that it is impertinent, and not to the case; and Secondly, you give a wrong sense of the Text: the first thing you are to show, is a Text where any are said to be enlightened, that are not True believers; and you tell me of a Text where Christ prays, that the Apostles preaching may Convert others, that others may believe through their word; and then he prays afterwards, that it may have this effect, that the World may know that the Father sent him. Now I hope it is Life Eternal to believe that Jesus Christ was sent from God. Again, If Knowledge and Enlightening were all one, yet this Text doth not prove, some did so know, that were not True believers, but only Christ prayed they might know. Mr. Danson. I deny that. Mr. Ives. Doth not the Scripture say so, and this Scripture you bring, makes no distinction of knowledge. Mr. Danson. He distinguisheth them from those persons that should believe on him through their word. Mr. Ives. Give me a Text where any man is said not to be a True believer, and yet enlightened. Mr. Danson. This is unreasonable. Mr. Ives. It is reasonable, therefore show me where, because this is so plentiful a word in Scripture; You were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord: therefore walk as Children of the Light, etc. The word Light and Enlightened, is a word frequently used Eph. 1.18. & Heb. 10.32 There is not many more plentiful words in Scripture then this; and therefore among all this variety, I would have Mr. Danson show me where this word Enlightened, is applied to a man that is not a True believer. Mr, Danson. I answer, your demand is unreasonable, that it must necessarily be brought in the same Terms: for suppose it be inequivolent Terms, it is enough this very word Enlightened in Heb. 6.4. is rendered in Chap. 10.32. Illuminated, so that enlightening and knowledge, are the same thing. Mr. Ives. Because likeness and similitude are the same thing, therefore knowledge and light are the same thing; I deny that: for though sometime light and knowledge are in Scripture, put for the same thing, yet they are not always; but that which you are to do, is to show me where these Characters in Heb. 6. are applied to any but True believers; now that was denied, and you tell me you will not undertake the whole, but you make no doubt to show it in parts, if not in the whole; give me therefore the first. Mr. Danson. Here is a plain place, John 1.7. That was the True light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the World. Mr. Ives. This speaketh of such a light as lighteth every man that comes into the World, either let us now be ingenious, or let us all be Quakers; for the truth is, if you believe all men in the World are enlightened with the light of Christ, I cannot understand how you, or any that gives such a sense of that text, should differ from their notion, about the light within, they so much speak of; you are therefore to bring a text to prove that some men, that were not True believers were yet enlightened: for I deny the whole World were enlightened; for this text speaks indeed of a universal light, as the Sun may give a universal light, and yet men that are blind, are not enlightened; doth it follow, because the Sun is a universal light, and enlightens the World, that therefore every man in the World is enlightened: for as I said, there is a great many blind men, and the Gospel is said to open men's eyes, and to turn them from Darkness to Light; etc. You must show me the Scripture saith any were enlightened with this light, that were not True believers; if you would have this text to speak to your purpose. This very interpretation Mr. Danson gives of the first of John, in his dispute with the Quakers, which I gave him in his dispute with me, and yet though it will serve him to answer the Quakers, it seems it will not serve me to answer him: for in his book which he calls the Quakers folly, page 36. He tells them that the Gospel is an external light, like that of the Sun; and that there is an inward light (or enlightening created in the Soul) or else (saith he) page 4. The blind man might see when there is a light, and the seeing man when there is none, this interpretation I gave him, but he rejecteth it, though it be his own, sense, when he reasons against the Quakers. Mr. Danson. If so be that Christ doth enlighten all men, with any kind of universal light, than it necessarily follows, that the phrase light cannot be restrained only to True believers. Mr. Ives. Sir, you now argue instead of answering; for you are to show where this word enlightened, is only to have some outward and come light: for light and enlightened have two different senses. Mr. Danson. It is not necessary I should show it you in the very same word. Mr. Ives. You are to instance in this word Enlightened; for the Te●t saith, It is impossible for those that were once enlightened; which plainly shows they were discriminated from the whole World. Now you are to show that yet these were unbelievers, or no True believers; for it is not spoken of a general light, but of a special: for otherwise it need not have been said, but once enlightened; and they are discriminated all along from the whole World, and you bring a text to show that all the World is enlightened, which doth not prove that neither, if that were the Case. Mr. Danson. That text shows that the term-light is applycable to a universal and not to a special and restrained sense. Mr. Ives. (b) What a wonderful Contradiction is here, to what answer Mr. Danson gave the Quakers in his book, Entitled, the Quakers folly manifested, page 3. He saith the 2 of Ephesians v. 13. Denies that ever the Gentiles were enlightened by Christ. Page 5. He saith those that were enlightened, were a small number, in comparison to them that were not enlightened. Again, when the Quakers tells him, the form of sound words is, that Christ lighteth every man that comes into the World; the answers Page 6. That the meaning is not as the literal sense imports: for then the Scripture would contradict itself, but the meaning is, that Christ enlighteneth all that are enlightened, or else that he enlighten th' some of every Nation, Tongue, and People, according to Rev. 5.9. Page 36. The whole body of gentile World, were not enlightened by Christ. And yet in this dispute, he brings a plain contrary Interpretation of the first of John, and says, that the term-light is not to be understood in a restrained or spocial sense, but is applycable to a common and universal sense (see his last answer a little before in Page 44. of this book; so that when he would expound the first of John to a Quaker, he tells them the light there must be taken in a special and a restrained seuse; but when he interprets it to me, he saith, the term-light in the first of John, is universal, and not to be restrained. But whatever you say, Show me where any body was enlightened that was not a True believer, those that were once enlightened, signifies that there were thousands that were not so enlightened. Mr. Danson. A person may be so far enlightened (and not a True believer) as to assent to this proposition, which is one grand point of the Gospel that esus Christ is the Son of God. 1 Joh. 5.10. compared with Luke 4 41. Mr. Ives. You are to give me an instance, as you are respondent; I leave this to the hearers to judge; thus far we are come. My minor Proposition was this, that these qualifications, in Heb. 6. are applied to none but True believers; and if these might fall away True believers might fall away. Mr. Danson's answer was, that these qualifications are applicable to some that were not True believers; he said he would not undertake to prove that all these qualifications are in any one man, but the would prove that they have been in particular persons: some in one, and some in another; though this hardly amounts to an answer; yet however I complied with him, and desired him to begin with the first, and show me where any are said to be enlightened, that were not True believers. Enlightened I mean in the sense of my Text; if he doth not that, he doth nothing. Mr. Danson hath gone about two or three times, to show you that some may have knowledge; but this is not to our question, and that Christ is the Light of the World, and that is as little to the purpose. Mr. Danson. You say this term Enlightened is applycable to none but True believers. Now I have shown you, what this Inequivolent terms is. Mr. Ives. But the Question is, whether I will allow it or no. Mr. Danson. I have shown you that persons may be so far enlightened, as to believe that Jesus is the Christ, as the Devils themselves did. Mr. Ives. Where is that called Enlightened? Show me where this word Enlightened is applied to any but True believers. Mr. Danson. I did not undertake it. Mr. Ives. Sir, you have undertaken it, as appears by all you have but now said concerning it. Mr. Danson. I have shown you where a word that is equivalent to it, is applicable to men that are not True believers. Mr. Ives. Run the Scriptures all over, it is a plentiful word, and I believe you will find it as often used; and yet the Scripture never applies this word enlightened to any but True believers, and therefore why should you. Mr. Danson. I say enlightening and knowledge are the same things. Mr. Ives. Sir, you will not or cannot, give an instance, therefore I shall proceed to the second Character, which is this; They are renewed by Repentance: for the Text saith, it is impossible, they should be renewed again by Repentance. Whence I argue. Those that were once renewed by Repentance, were True believers. But these persons here were once renewed by Repentance. Ergo, they were True believers. Mr. Danson. I deny the major, that those that were once renewed by Repentance were True believers. Mr. Ives. If none have been renewed by Repentance but True believers, than the major is true; but none have been renewed by Repentance, but True believers. Ergo, Mr. Danson. I deny your minor. Mr. Ives. Show me one man that is said to be renewed by Repentance, that was not a True believer. Mr. Danson. I will show you an Instance of a man that was renewed by Repentance (that is to say) as we do understand it of a renewing by Repentance; of a common work of the Spirit of God, which hath the same name, because of some similitude. It is said that Judas repent himself, and brought back again the price. Mr. Ives. You are to prove that Judas was renewed by Repentance; a hundred men may so repent, and yet not be renewed by Repentance, in that sense which the Scripture calls renewing, renovation, or regeneration, he was not renovated. Mr. Danson. The Scripture uses that phrase in a different sense. Mr. Ives. No not in Repentance. Mr. Danson. Yes in Repentance; Do you suppose that Repentance is not separable from renewsng in the Scripture. Mr. Ives. Show me if you can that a man that hath changed his mind by any contrition or remorse, and was ever said to be renewed by it, and not a new Creature, the word is frequently used, Be ye renewed in the spirit of your minds, etc. I say, show me but where any man was ever said to be renewed by Repentance, or to be renewed by Faith, or to be renewed by his Humiliation, that was not a True believer; if he was renewed by the operation of these Qualities. I do tell you it is to be understood of a True believer. Mr. Danson. I have given you an Instance to the contrary, where the Scripture applies, Repentance to one that was not a True believer. Mr. Ives. Alas! There may be a thousand such, but that that I would ask you, is whether Judas was renewed by Repentance in the sense of this Text; therefore you do not, or you cannot give me an instance; for I am bound to believe the Text, and it tells me they cannot be renewed again by Repentance, which implies they were once renewed by Repentance. Mr. Danson. The Scripture uses this phrase, Twice dead, Plucked up by the roots. Mr. Ives. All that you have to do, is to show me where the Scripture applies this phrase to any but True believers; if you cannot, than my Argument is proved. Mr. Danson. I have given an instance of Judas, that repent and restored unjust gotten goods. Mr. Ives. You have given no Instance as yet; for you cannot show that Judas was renewed by Repentance, and that it was an Act of the Spirit of God upon him in renovation. I come now to a Third Instance, Those that have tasted of the powers of the World to come; give me an Instance where any but True believers have tasted of the powers of the World to come. Mr. Danson. I can in the 24th of Acts, it is said there, that as Paul reasoned concerning Righteousness, Temperance, and Judgement to come, Foelix Trembled. Mr. Ives. What doth that prove? (c) The Text under consideration, Heb. 6. Speaks of such a tasting, as Implies a savouring of heavenly things, so as to be affected and in Love with them, and therefore it is said, they tasted of the heavenly gift; but it is otherwise said of Foelix, that he trembled, and if that might be called a taste, it was a taste that his Soul was in the abhorrancy off, which is a foreign interpretation, and a forcable invading the sense of the text, under consideration to suppose the persons spoken of there, to have tasted of the World to come, in the sense that Foelix Trembled at the Judgement to come, indeed they might have such a taste if they should fall away; but that they had had any such taste if they had not fallen away, is denied. Mr. Danson. This is one part of the powers of the World to come, that is to say, a dreadful sense and apprehension, he had upon him of the future judgement; and then in Luke 14.15. And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat Bread in the Kingdom of God, he had here some affectionate transports at the narration that was made concerning the future state of happiness, and Christ directs a Parable to him. Mr. Ives. Indeed I am much beholding to you, and you have done me a kindness in bringing that to my mind that was out before. Now the Scripture tells you in the Parable, That a certain man made a Supper, and this Supper was to set before him. and to represent to him the Glory of the Kingdom of God, and of the World to Come. Now he doth not say as you say, that he tasted of it, but the quite contrary; that not only he, but none that was bidden should taste of the Supper. v. 14. Mr. Danson. You do not understand what you say. Mr. Ives. I do; for at the latter end of the Parable, Christ gives Instance that those that were bidden should not taste of the Supper, and applies it to him, and the general import of it is to show that many persons are called, that yet notwithstanding in Truth and Reality do not obey the call. Mr. Danson. How do you know this? that the man did not Eat of it. Mr. Ives. Either he did, or he did not taste of it, but the text saith, none that was bidden did taste, and you say, this man was bid and did taste. Mr. Danson. He tasted of it; he had affection of joy wrought in him, by the representation of the future state. Mr. Ives. I answer, First, that he did not taste: but Secondly, supposing this sense true, that he did taste: then tell me was this a Believer or an Unbeliever; for the Instance must prove both (viz.) that he did taste, and that he was not a True believer. Mr. Danson. He was an Unbeliever. Mr. Ives. This will not serve your turn. Mr. Danson. It will, Because this Parable was directed particularly to him; and Secondly, Because it is said, that he to whom his discourse was directed, was of the Pharisees of whom the Scripture tells us, a great number of them were open enemies to him, and some of them, though the Scripture saith, they did believe on him, yet would not confess him, lest he should put them out of the Synagogue; because they loved the praise of men, more than the praise of God. Mr. Ives. There is two thing in this Text yet in question as I have told you. First, Whether this man tasted of the powers of the World to come: for the text doth not say so, but implies the contrary; for he did not taste of the Supper, for a man may be ravished with joy at the intelligence of business, and yet for all that these may die, and faint, and flag upon him, and he may never have a true sense and savour of them. Nor, Secondly, Doth the text say (if it were so) that he was not a True believer; you say he was not, and that first, because Christ addresses himself to him by a Parable; and Secondly, because the Pharisees many of them were not True believers (of whom you suppose he was one) but this is arguing and not answering; but it doth not follow, that because some of the Pharisees were not True believers, therefore none of them were; and if I should grant you the first answer, that he tasted of the powers of the World to come; how doth this prove that he was not a True believer? But I lay the stress of my answer upon the first (viz.) that he did not Taste of the Supper: for you say the Parable was directed to him, and applied to him, and Christ saith of him, that he was one that was invited; and if so nothing is more plain, v. 24. then that he did not taste, but if he had tasted, it is as hard to prove that he was not a True believer. Mr. Danson. Because I say the persons of whom this was spoken, were Pharisees of whom the Scripture affirms, that either they were open enemies or secret friends. Mr. Ives. That is no proof; for if they were secret friends they were friends. Mr. Danson. But Christ gives this account of them, that they would not confess him, because they loved the praise of men more than God. Mr. Ives. You bring this Instance to show two things. First, that this man to whom Christ directs his speech, had a taste of the powers of the World to come, and also that he was no True believers, but whether it doth any more than prove he did not taste, I leave to consideration, and proceed to a fourth Instance. If they that have clean escaped the pollutions of this evil World, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally. But they that have clean escaped the pollutions of this evil World, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, may fall away totally and finally. Ergo, True believers may fall away totally and finally. Or if you please thus, They are true believers that have clean escaped the pollutions of this evil world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: But some such may fall away totally and finally. Ergo, Some true believers may fall away totally and finally. Mr. Danson. You put the subject of the question into the major, and the predicate of the question into the minor; your conclusion is, that true believers may fall away. Mr. Ives. And do I not conclude so my argument is this, and I argue rightly; That if those that have clean escaped the p●●●●ions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may fall away, Then true believers may fall away: But such may fall away; Ergo. Mr. Danson. I deny the consequence, it doth not follow that because those that have clean escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may fall away, then true believers may fall away; for that is not a description of true believerss. Mr. Ives. I will prove that. If this quality be applicable to none but true believers, then if one fall away, the other may. But the quality is applicable to none but true believers; Ergo. Mr. Danson. I say it is applicable to others. Mr. Ives. I will prove it is applicable to no others, to have clean escaped the pollutions of this present world. I prove it thus, If they are applied to any but true believers, they are applicable to hypocrites or profane persons: But they are not applicable to hypocrites or profane persons; Ergo, They are applicable to none but true believers. Mr. Danson. I deny you minor, for they are applicable to hypocrites. Mr. Ives. If clean escaping the pollutions of this present world be applicable to hypocrites, than a man that is an hypocrite, may be clean from the pollutions of the world, in the midst of his hypocrisy. But a man cannot be clean from the pollutions of the world in the midst of his hypocrisy; Ergo, Clean escaping the pollutions of this world, is not applicable to hypocrites. Mr. Danson. Oh! Strange; I deny your minor. They may be clean from the gross pollutions of the world in the midst of their hypocrisy. Mr. Ives. If a man may be free and clean from the pollutions of the world in the midst of his hypocrisy; than it follows that hypocrisy is not a pollution of this world: But hypocrisy is a pollution of this world; Ergo, The Text saith they escaped, and clean escaped the pollutions of this World, and from them that live in error. Now those that do thus cannot be hypocrites, because hypocrisy is one of the greatest errors and pollutions: And the Apostle tells us, 1 John 2.16. all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life: (in which hypocrisy is comprised as well as other sins) is not of the Father but of this WORLD; which plainly shows hypocrisy to be a pollution and sin of the World with a Witness; and if so, how can any man CLEAN escape the pollutions of the world, and be a hypocrite at the same time? Mr. Danson. This is simple indeed, I deny your consequence, that if a man may be free from the pollutions of the world in the midst of his hypocrisy, that then hypocrisy is not a gross pollution of the world. Mr. Ives. I do not say gross pollutions, why do you force words into my argument? I would fain know when the text tells us clean escaped the pollutions of this world, why you should limit it to gross pollutions when the Text doth not? Now how can a man clean escape from them that live in error, that lives in hypocrisy, when hypocrisy is the greatest error of all, and the most damnable pollution in the world. Mr. Danson. He may be so, the terms are indefinite, and so consequently but particular; and it is but from the gross pollutions of the world. Mr. Ives. Sir, Have you a Greek Testament? The word in the Greek is really or truly escaped etc. Now I would leave this to the judgement of the company, whether a man can really or truly escape the pollution of the World, and yet all this while be no True believer. When Mr. Ives called for a Greek Testament, a friend of Mr. Dansons' pulls one out of his Po●ket, and reads the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then rendered it in English as Mr. Ives had done before (viz.) that it was truly or really escaping the pollutions of this World. Mr. Danson. I say the gross pollution. Mr. Ives. Give an Instance I say of one that had clear escaped from the pollutions of this World; and from them that lived in error that was not a True believer. Mr. Danson. In Luke 18.10, 11. It is said there, that the Pharisees of whom the Scripture doth so frequently point the finger at them; yet this Scripture saith, they were free from the pollutions of the World. Mr. Ives. What? because the Scripture saith they were guilty of them. Mr. Danson. The Scripture tells us, that they made their outside clean, they were not unjust, nor Adulterers, nor as this Publican. Mr. Ives. Do you believe the Pharisee said true of himself? and do you believe they were all so? Mr. Danson. The Scripture itself saith so. Mr. Ives. Christ himself saith, indeed that they were outwardly Righteous; that is, they were devout in some Ceremonies of their Religion, and it also expressly tells us that they were full of wickedness, and that it appeared outwardly; for it saith, they neglected Justice, Mercy and Faith, therefore I would fain know whether a man can be free from the gross pollutions of the World, that is neither just, faithful, nor merciful; besides, this doth not reach the case: for you are to show or give an Instance of one that was an hypocrite; and yet that it is said of him that he had clean escaped from such as live in error. Mr. Danson. What they did as to those acts, they did with such cunning, that it did not appear visible to the World: for we cannot suppose that Christ would affirm that those persons did appear outwardly righteous unto the World that were openly guilty of such miscarriages. Mr. Ives. I say these men in 2 Pet. 2. had clean escaped from those that lived in error; now hypocrisy is the greatest and most damnable error in the World; and how can a man live in a damnable error, who yet hath clean escaped the pollution of the World. Mr. Danson. Not at the same time he cannot be clear from Adultery, and yet guilty of it, nor from Hypocrisy, and yet be guilty of it, but he may at the same time be free from the gross acts of Sin, so that they may not come into the view of the World. Mr. Ives. How can the latter end of that man be worse than his beginning? for when he falls away, if what he falls from be his gross and damnable Hypocrisy, his latter end is not, nay cannot be worse than his beginning. For Christ makes Hypocrites portion in Hell the greatest of all; and makes their punishment the measure and standard by which he will judge others, and if open and profane persons shall have their portion with Hypocrites, then surely it cannot make a Hypocrites latter end worse than his beginning, if at first he was but an Hypocrite, and devoured Widows houses under the guise of Religion, it cannot I say, be worse with him in the end, if he puts off this guise, and appears openly profane. Mr Danson. Chief upon this ground it may, because his falling away from that outward cleanness, by which Religion did gain some kind of reputation, by his outward holiness and righteousness; that same did make his condition worse than it was before, because God is more dishonoured. Mr. Ives. This is the Sum of the Argument that hath been urged, that if men that have clean escaped the pollutions of the World, may fall away, then True believers may; because this phrase is general, and applycable to none else. Mr. Danson answered by distinguishing of clean escaping, hesaith there is a clean escaping of gross sins that hypocrites escape; and yet all the while they may not be True believers. Now I find no such Character given to hypocrites in all the Scripture, and I leave you to judge. Mr. Danson. I Instance in St. Paul. M. Ives. That is not to your purpose, yet however I say St. Paul was no hypocrite. Mr. Danson. I say he was an hypocrite. Mr. Ives. Prove St. Paul a hypocrite, I am sure he never tells us so, show me where he lived ungodly or unjustly; why do you say he was a hypocrite? Mr. Danson. The Scripture tells me he was an hypocrite. Mr. Ives. Prove it then, where is that Scripture that tells you so? Mr. Danson. Thus I prove it, the Scripture saith in Rom. 9.31, 32. But Israel which followed after the Law of Righteousness hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness; wherefore because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law; for they stumbled at that stumbling stone, and the whole body of the Jews generally did seek to be saved by the Righteousness. of the Law. Mr. Ives. St. Paul tells us, that he lived in all good conscience during his state of Judaisme; and he thanks God he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly; and how could he be a hypocrite, that did what he did out of a sincere and honest mind. And when he persecuted the Church of Christ, which is one of the worst things that is said of him; yet he tells us after his Conversion (if we will believe him) that he verily thought within himself, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Acts 26.9, 10, 11. verses. Mr. Danson. This is strange, that you do not understand that Paul was an hypocrite. Mr. Ives. I do not understand it. Mr. Danson. There is two sorts of Hypocrites, one that appears designedly to deceive the World in that grace which is indeed wanting in the person, and then the other is those persons that deceive themselves as well as others. Mr. Ives. If this be a good Argument against St. Paul, Cornelius was a Hypocrite too. Mr. Danson. That doth not follow. Mr. Ives. Yes it doth, but pray show me where Paul did before his Conversion, understand any thing of himself, or appeared to any body else, to be what he was not. Mr. Danson. Yes he was, as touching the Law blameless. Mr. Ives. What was he a hypocrite, notwithstanding he tells us of himself that he lived in all good conscience. Show how this is consistent with hypocrisy. Mr. Danson. If a man appear to have what he hath not; for the Scriptures use that expression from him that hath not, shall be taken away that which he hath; Paul had really what he had, but that which he had was not really what it seemed to be. Mr. Ives. Sir, this is nothing to your purpose; for it neither proves Paul an hypocrite, neither doth it show that a man may be said to have clean escaped the pollutions of this World, and to have clean escaped from such as live in error, when at the same time he liveth in hypocrisy, which is the greatest error, and the most damnable pollution; I shall therefore leave it to consideration, and proceed to another Argument. The last Argument that I shall urge, I shall ground upon the case of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 9.27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into Subjection, lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away, whence I argue. What Paul used all diligence, and labour to prevent the coming to pass of, might possibly come to pass. But Paul used all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally. Ergo, his falling away totally and finally was possible to come to pass. Mr. Danson. I answer to the major, that that which may possibly come to pass in respect to the nature of the thing, there being a real danger and hazard in the nature of the thing; yet notwithstanding that, there may be something else that may hinder the event. Mr Ives. That which lies upon you to answer is this, I say Paul used all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally; is this true or false? Mr. Danson. I deny your major. Mr. Ives. My major is this, that which Paul used all diligence and labour to prevent, was not impossible to come to pass. Now if I understand you, you say a thing may be possible in itself, but yet not possible to him, or to such, or such a person; now either Paul was acquainted with this, or he was not. Mr. Danson. I say he did know it, that it was impossible for him to fall away. Mr. Ives. He that knows it is impossible for him to fall into such a danger, it is a vain thing for him to strive to keep himself out of it But the Apostle Paul say you, did know that it was impossible for him to fall into such a danger. Ergo, it was a vain thing and to no purpose for him to strive to keep himself out o● it. Mr. Danson. I deny the major, it doth not therefore follow at all, that though he knew it was impossible for him to fall into such a danger, that it was a vain thing for him to strive to keep himself out of it. Mr. Ives. He that labours for nothing, and where he can propose nothing in the doing of it, labours unnecessarily; but Paul did so, if be laboured to prevent the coming to pass of that which he knew was impossible for to come to pass. Ergo, Mr. Danson. I deny the major, he did not labour to no purpose. Mr. Ives. Pray Instance, to what purpose was it that he took care and pains to beat down his body otherwise than what he tells you, that lest he should become a reprobate, and that I am sure was to good purpose. Mr Danson. The answer I shall give you is this, because that his endeavour, and his care, and his caution was the means by which this event was prevented. Mr. Ives. You say by this means he prevented his apostasy, and yet deny it was possible for him to apostatise; how can this be? Mr. Danson. As for Instance, God promised Hezekiah to add 15 years to his Life, yet notwithstanding this; he was under an obligation to make use of the ordinary means that God had appointed for the sustaining of Life, as meat, drink, food, rest, etc. Yet it was impossible upon supposition of the decree and promise of God, that he should die before the end of those years. Mr. Ives. Sir, that which I urge is a clear Case, yours doth not reach the Case: If so be the Instance had been Parallel, I would have said more to it, but yet I will say something to it, notwithstanding the Case lies here, either Paul did labour to prevent his apostasy, or he did not; the Text tells us he did labour least by any means whilst he preached to others, he himself should become a reprobate; you say it was impossible it should be so, you apply this to the Case of Hezekiah, that God had added 15 years to his Life, but I say that God had not added 15 years to his Life absolutely as you interpret it, but conditionally in case he made use of the ordinary means; and if Hezekiah had not done this, he had not been shot-free: for he was not under a necessity of avoiding all manner of danger, and it follows that if Paul had refused the means, he had as necessarily have fallen, as Hezekiah had died if he had not eaten. Mr. Danson. This I say, that grace is of its own nature loosable, and that grace that is restored by Christ, may as well be lost as adam's in Innocency, yet notwithstanding those cautions that are given about apostasy and falling away, that are given to all visible believers, are not unnecessary, because God makes use of our own endeavours as the means by which our apostasy is to be prevented. Mr. Ives. This is not to the Argument, because the Argument is not made indefinitely, of visible believers, but it is grounded upon the particular instance of the Apostle, whom you say knew it was impossible for him to fall away therefore the Sum of my Argument amounts to the proof of this: If as you have said, he knew he could not fall away, to what purpose should he use endeavours to prevent it; to what end should any man bid me beware of that place, or pit; that both he and I knew it was impossible for me to fall into it. Mr. Danson. If we could suppose that there was any such security, that a man should obtain such and such an end without the use of the means; yet there was good and sufficient Reason to make use of those means from that tye and obligation that God hath laid by way of command, as in the instance of Hezekiah, where God promised to add to his days 15 years. Mr. Ives. It is ordinary in Scripture, for things to be laid down absolutely, that are to be understood conditionally; but however that will not reach our case. What God may do, for (Admitting that doctrine true) that God hath a particular number of elect, and none of us know who are those; here is some reason to think that all men should endeavour to walk uprightly and justly, and observe all the terms required: But now, if we will suppose these men certainly to know and to be assured they shall never perish, pray tell me why that those men should be industrious in labouring to prevent their perishing. Mr. Danson. God promises absolutely, that He would add 15 years to Hezekiahs' life; yet notwithstanding this, God particularly commands that there should be a plaster of figs applied to his sore in order to his recovery. Mr. Ives. But how if he would not have made use of it. Mr Danson. Then he had sinned in disobeying Gods command. Mr. Ives. Then it seems he had died. Here one Mr. Looff a Minister (who had interposed several times before, but no notice was taken of him by Mr. Ives) very confidently cries out: O Sir, there is another instance at hand, that in the 27. Acts. 22. compared with the 31. Now, I exhort you to be of good cheer, for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship: And yet Paul afterwards said unto the Centurion and to the Soldiers, except these abide in the Ship, ye cannot be saved: Here they were to use the means. Mr. Ives. Pray Sir, Let me ask you one Question, What if they would not have continued in the Ship, but have leapt overboard, what then? Mr. Loof. Why then they had been drowned. Mr. Ives. Very well, that is as much as I would have. Mr. Danson. But this Text that you have urged, upon which your argument is built, doth not speak of falling away totally and finally from grace, but of his not being approved to lose his esteem he formerly had. Mr. Ives. Either the sense was true that you first gave in answer to this argument upon which we have been arguing so long, or it was not true; if it was true. why do you not keep to it; if it was false, why do you give it in for an interpretation? For first, You answered that Paul laboured to prevent the coming to pass of that which he knew was impossible to come to pass, which was his final Apostasy. And now you substitute a contrary interpretation, (viz) that Paul laboured to prevent the losing, that esteem and reputation which he had among Christians. If this Latter be the sense, than he laboured to prevent the coming to pass of nothing, but what was possible to come to pass, which is contrary to the first interpretation. Therefore pray which was the true sense the latter, or the former. Mr. Danson. The Latter. Mr. Ives. Why did you give us the former then? I shall therefore desist and argue no further. But here the Reader may take notice, that in Mr. Dansons' giving this last answer (viz) that Paul laboured to prevent his doing those things that might make him lose the esteem and approbation he formerly had: he justifies my Major proposition in words at length; for who ever looks back shall find it runs thus, pag 17. that which Paul uses all diligence and labour to prevent, was not impossible to come to pass: Mr. Danson once and again denied this major proposition, and now he confesseth it in this latter interpretation; for he saith, that which he laboured to prevent the coming to pass of, was nothing but (what was possible to come to pass (viz) the approbation and esteem he formerly had. See Page 17. and compare it with Page 18. After Mr. Ives bad desisted Arguing, Mr. Danson offered to be opponant, and desired Mr. Ives to spend some time in Responding to some Arguments he had to urge; but Mr Ives told him that he was weary, but however as far as his strength and time would permit, he would endeavour to answer him: hereupon Mr. Danson Replied he was weary also; and thereupon they promised each other to agree upon some other time. This was the whole of the first days oonference. An Account of the Second days Disputation, which was on the 26th. of Feb. at which Dispute, Mr. Danson was Opponent, and Mr. Ives Respondent. Mr. Danson. THE question that is now to be debated, is, whether or no, some True believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace; you stated it so the last time, Did you not? Mr. Ives. I Sir. Mr. Danson. Now because the last time (so far as I was able to apprehend) there was only two arguments that was urged by this Gentleman that had any thing of wait; I shall therefore in the first place, urge something by way of retortion upon him from his own arguments. Mr. Ives. Pray tell me whether you are now a responding to my arguments, or whether you are arguing as an Opponent. Mr. Danson. I am now Opponent. Mr. Ives. You may urge them argument wise, and then Sir the question is this, whether it be impossible for any true believer to fall away totally and finally from grace? And you may remember (that we might not put any deceivable terms upon each other) by Impossible, we understood the Word, in opposition to such, as either have, may, might, or can fall away; and then with respect to true believers, we understood such as had true faith in opposition to hypocrites; or such as whatsoever Truth they may believe, do not believe the Articles of the Christian Religion or of the Christian Faith: We also understood by falling away totally, wholly to renounce the Christian Faith; and by Finally, so to departed from the Faith, as at last to perish Eternally; and by the grace of God, we meant the love and favour of God, that men might fall away from it and perish. Mr. Danson. No Sir, I do not mean so. Mr. Ives. What did we mean by falling away, and be damned, which was the sense of my arguments the last day. Mr. Danson. There is no such term in the question. Mr. Ives. I, But how did we prosecute it the last time, what was then the sense of the question? Let us not deceive one another. Mr. Danson. We mean the grace of God in us, and not the grace of God without us. Mr. Ives. Do you believe a man may fall away from the grace, and favour of God without him? and not from the grace of God within him? well then let's never differ about words. when we agree about sense; you know I did by my arguments the last time endeavour to prove that true believers might lose the favour of God, or else what did I mean; (when I said) Paul might become a reprobate. Mr. Danson. There was only to my remembrance but two arguments used by you the last time, that were of any seeming force; the one was in the 1 Cor. 9 ult. about the Apostle Paul, and this was the issue that you did urge it to, that it was altogether needless and unnecessary, that Paul should have any caution given him, or that he should make use of any caution to prevent that which is impossible, as to the event and against that I shall direct my Arguments. Mr. Ives. I will prevent you a little, I am now standing in the place of a respondent, and you are oppenent; and what ever you argue, do it distinctly; and do not encumber your dispute with what I said as opponent, but make what advantage you can in the prosecution of your Argument of whatever I said then; and if you will not do thus, I will not answer you. My Reason I shall give you is this, because it will bring us back again into the place, where we were before of my being opponent and you respondent; and to what you say as to the Apostle Paul, you may remember you answeredme, that Paul, and so others might labour to prevent the coming to pass of that which they knew was impossible for to come to pass, with respect to the decree of God, though not in respect of the nature of the thing. Now we argued and discovered that a great while, so long that at last you gave an answer that was directly contrary to your first answer, that you stood so long upon. Mr. Danson. I did not. Mr. Ives. Sir, you told me that Paul might labour to prevent his being a reprobate, or castaway; that is, as you at last interpreted the word, a man that might not be approved (that is to say) in the judgement of Christian Charity, than Sir I told you he laboured to prevent nothing but what might come to pass; and then I asked which of these senses was the true sense of the Text, and you answered the Latter, and then I told you, you had spent half an hour and more to no purpose about the former sense; if the Latter which was contrary to it, was the true sense. Mr. Danson. You tell part of the Truth but not the whole Truth; I do not deny but taking the words as our translation rendered them, and according to the Vulgar account of the exposition, we affirmed the thing, but then we also affirmed, that there was no absurdity in it, that Paul should use Caution to prevent that which he knew was impossible to come to pass; and I also told you that the word being capable of another sense, I chose rather to stick to the last. Mr. Ives. You told me that the last was the true sense: but come Sir, do any thing that will conclude the Question; if you will not, I shall not answer you. Mr. Danson. I will prove that it is not needless to give Cautions, nor to make use of Cautions to prevent that which yet notwithstanding is impossible to be, or to come to pass. Mr. Ives. That is no part of the Question, you are to prove that it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; If you will not conclude that in your syllogism I will not dispute; for I am now to dispute this Question with you, whether it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; I say, some may, you say, none can, do you not? Mr. Danson. Yes. Mr. Ives. Prove it then. Mr. Danson. If some True believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace; then we may suppose that some True believers have fallen away totally and finally. But no True believer hath fallen away totally and finally from Grace. Ergo, no True believer can. Mr. Ives. This is a false Syllogism; For Mr. Danson saith, if some may fall, than some have, but none have Ergo none can; and though the minor proposition may be detected; if the conclusion bade been rightly inferred from the premises, yet however the consequence of the major is false, Therefore I deny your major. Mr. Danson. I argue upon your own grounds. Mr. Ives. I deny the major, do you prove it if you can, upon what grounds you will, so it be proved upon a good ground, I pass not. Mr. Danson. Whatever is Potential, hath been done. Mr. Ives. That is false, but prove your major proposition; for that is the thing denied: and you beg when you should dig. A thing may be possible to be done, though no body hath done it; therefore throw up your Argument, and say you cannot prove it, or else prove that whatever hath not been done, is impossible to be done. Mr. Danson. I Argue upon yourself. Mr. Ives. If you beg of me, I will give you nothing; I say prove your major proposition if you can. Mr. Danson. I say, I cannot prove it. Here Mr. Danson confesses he cannot prove his Argument. Mr. Ives. He that will use a medium to prove an Argument, must prove his medium. Mr. Danson. I will prove then by a new Argument. Mr. Ives, Come then. Mr. Danson. If some True believers have fallen away totally and finally from grace, they are either those in the 2 Pet. 2.19.20. or Heb. 6.6. that are some of those examples. But they are no examples of persons falling away from Grace. Ergo, No True believers have fallen totally and finally from Grace. Mr. Ives. I deny the whole Argument, for you do not conclude rightly: you must conclude Ergo. Then if none have fallen, none can fall. Mr. Danson. They are your confessions, therefore that is a proof. Mr. Ives. I desire this Gentleman, to prove that it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally from grace, and he hath no way to prove it, but saith I confess it, when all this while I have been disputing against it. Mr. Danson. These were the instances you urged of True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace. Mr. Ives. Prove your major I say. Mr. Danson. I here prove it, if that the characters that are given in these Texts, that do carry the greatest likely hood of True believers falling away, do not prove it; then they cannot fall away: But the first is true. Ergo. Mr. Ives. Sir, I deny this Argument, for it doth not conclude the major that was denied in the former Argument; either prove that, or else go back to the question, and prove by some other Texts of Scripture or Argument and so conclude; Ergo, It is possible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally. Mr. Danson. I appeal to all persons, if a retortion of an argument, be not according to all the Laws of Disputation. Mr. Ives. I confess it, Retortion is good when you are Respondent, that was your business last time; but now you are to give me an Argument, to prove that it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally. I did the last time endeavour as well as I could, to give Mr. Danson the best reasons to prove that some True believers might fall away; and Mr. Danson is now to give me some Scripture proof or argument that they cannot fall away: It may be possibly I did not urge all my arguments, and it may be a True doctrine, though it be not true from those arguments I did urge; and I cannot urge all Truth at once: It may be true from other reasons, though not from them; and we all know but in part, and what if I erred the last time, is that any proof for you. Mr. Danson. I Retort your own Arguments. Mr. Ives. You do not argue at all, I denied your major proposition of the former syllogism, and it is not proved, neither have you concluded it. Now rather than lose time, I deny the consequence of the major of your last argument, which is, that if any True believers have fallen away totally and finally, that it is true from those two Texts, Heb. 6.2 Pet. 2. or else that it is impossible they can fall away. Mr. Danson. I will prove your arguments erroneous. Mr. Ives. Prove it; or else prove your last consequence denied, or go back to the consequence of the former argument which is not yet concluded; which is this, that if there be no examples of any True believers falling away, than none can fall away. Mr. Danson. If there be any examples of the falling away of True believers, they are some of them that you allege. Mr. Ives. That doth not follow, but I appeal to all the people whether this be any proof of what you should prove. Mr. Danson. If that some True believers may fall away, or if there be any example of any True believers falling away, they are either those that you alleged or some others. But neither them, nor no others, are examples of True believers falling away. Therefore, Mr. Ives. Therefore what. Mr. Danson. Therefore then there is no example. Mr. Ives. Is that the Question? our Question is this, whether it be possible for any True believers to fall away totally and finally? and not whether any of them hath fallen away; for if there hath not any of them fallen away, yet it is possible they may: Therefore if I could not show you an instance of any bodies falling away, will it follow, that it is impossible for any to fall away? I gave you arguments the last day from the nature of the thing that they might fall away, and therefore if I could not give you an instance of any that did so fall, your Argument is not therefore proved; it is possible for a man to Steal and Lye. Now what if I could never prove that ever any man did Steal or Lie, doth this prove it is impossible for a man to Steal and Lie? But Sir, I offer this fair proposition to you, that I will dispute my Arguments over again with you when you please, the very same I urged the last day, and provide the best answers you can. Mr. Danson. I retort your own arguments upon you. Mr. Ives. You do not understand them, will you please to argue, and prove that no True believer can fall away; or otherwise prove the major proposition last denied. Mr Ives. I will prove against your examples, that those in the 2 Pet. 2.20. last compared together, were Dogs and Swine, whilst they escaped the pollutions of this world. Mr. Ives. I am ashamed of you, doth that conclude the Question? I challenge any Scholar here, whether this concludes the question? therefore conclude the question, or I will not answer you. Besides the Texts Mr. Ives insisted upon, were brought to prove, that True believers might fall away, and not by way of example that any did fall away, as any may see that Reflects upon the former discourse. Here one Mr. Fowler a Minister interposes. The proposition (saith he) denied is, that it is impossible for True believers to fall away; Mr. Danson undertakes to prove by Retortion. And the Retortion of an Argument, is very good upon the head of an Adversary; and there is the same reason of the perseverance of all believers as there is of some, and therefore if in the 2 Pet. 2. & Heb. 6.5. Nor no other part of Scripture, there be no instances of any True believers that fell away, Ergo, no Tue believer can fall away. Mr. Ives answers Mr. Fowler. Sir, I hope you will not say it as your own opinion; but if you do, it is more than you can prove; but if Mr. Danson pleases, I will in a sober way run over the disquisition of those Arguments with you; and I promise you, you shall have them all word for word. But now as I did the last time endeavour as well as I could, I will not say Infallibly well, but according to my poor mean mechanic abilities, endeavour to prove that some True believers may fall away; and now Mr. Danson would go upon my Legs, and let him if he can; if he doth what he is expected, to prove by some Argument or other, that it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally. Mr. Fowler. He may retort your own Argnments. Mr. Ives, Yea that is sit for a respondent, but now he is opponent, and is to prove, and not to answer. Let him bring my Arguments in if he please, I care not; so he concludes the Question: for I confess my Arguments retorted upon myself, are good Arguments, ad hominem, but then he must conclude the Question: I appeal to Mr. Fowler whom I know is able to judge; Mr. Fowler, an Argument ad hominem is a good Argument I confess, But must he not conclude the Question by that medium. Mr. Fowler. Yes, he must, he must. Mr. Ives. Very well, I thank you Mr Fowler. Here Mr. Fowler offers to interpose. Mr. Ives. I will not allow it, it is not fair that I should dispute with two at once Mr. Danson, will you prove that it is impossible for any True believers to fall away, and conclude it? for you ought as Mr. Fowler faith, to conclude: Ergo, It is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; and then Argue ad hominem, as well as you can. Mr. Danson. If there be no example of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace, than no True believers can fall away totally and finally from grace. But there is no example of any True believer falling away totally and finally from Grace. Ergo, No True believer can fall away totally and finally from Grace. Mr. Ives. I deny the major as I said before, I only remember you that Mr. Danson the last time was against hypothetical syllogisms, and now he uses nothing else. Mr. Danson. You say false, I only told you when they could not be put into Categorical. Mr. Ives. Always the major of a Hypothetical fylogism consists of two parts, which is as much as to say an Antecedent and a Consequent, an Hypothesis supposed, and an Inferrence inferred upon it; and it is taken for granted, that the Antecedent and the Consequent may be both true, or both false, both disjunctively true and conjunctively false, and therefore I do deny the Consequence. It doth not follow, that if there be no example of True believers falling away, that therefore none can fall away; for there may be no examples for many things, and yet the things may be possible for to be done: I can give you many Instances. Mr. Danson. If there be the like reason for the perseverance, or not falling away of all True believers, as there is of some; then my former consequence is true. But there is the like reason for the perseverance or not falling away of all Tue believers as there is of some. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the major, the consequence doth not follow, that if there be the like reason for the falling away of all, as there is for the falling away of some; that then it follows that if there be no example of any True believers falling away, that no True believer can fall away; for that must be the conclusion of your Argument, to prove the consequence of the major, denied in the former syllogism. Mr. Danson. What can be more evident? Mr. Ives. Is that a proof? Mr. Danson. I am to prove that there is the like reason, that is the minor. Mr. Ives. You are to prove the consequence of the major, that if there be the like reason, that then the former consequence is true; and for you to say evident it is, that is no proof; but Begging the Question, pray where is it evident. Mr. Danson. Those things that have the like reason, must have the same consequence. Mr. Ives. You do not conclude the thing denied, I am ashamed of it. Mr. Danson. That is the thing I proposed, that I would deal with you upon, in retorting you own arguments. Mr. Ives. What back again? Mr. Fowler hath given it against you, for he said you may take what advantage you can from my arguments; but than you ought to conclude the question. Ergo, No True believer can fall away totally and finally. Mr. Fowler here interposes. Mr. Ives. Nay, pray Sir forbear, you know Mr. Fowler it is not fair; pray, let Mr. Danson alone, and either say he can prove it, or he cannot. Mr. Danson. I Retort upon you. Mr. Ives. Conclude the question and do it, without you do so, it is not your business to retort now. This is the sum of all Mr. Danson hath said (viz) that it is impossible for any True believer to fall away, because there are no examples in Scripture of any True believer that hath fallen away: and if there be any examples of any True believers falling away, than they are some of the Text Mr. Ives insisted on the last day. The sum of Mr. Ives his Answer is this, First, that Mr. Danson did many times in his arguings, not conclude the thing in question. Secondly, That sometimes Mr. Danson begged the question when he should have proved it; and sometime Mr. Danson confessed he could not prove it: And lastly Mr. Ives told Mr. Danson, that it did not follow, that no True believer could possibly fall, if there were no examples of any that had fallen; for there is no example in all the Bible, of any True believer that ever murdered his own child. Doth it therefore follow, that it is impossible for any True believer to turn back from the holy command and commit such a sin? But ●urther, whoever looks back into the former days discourse, will find that Mr. Ives did not bring the 6th of the Heb and the 2 Pet. 2. to prove that some True believer had fallen away, but to prove that some Tue believers might fall away; for both those Texts are hypothetical, and were brought to prove some True believers might fall away, but they do not prove, neither were they brought to prove by way of example that some had fallen away; but did suppose the possibility thereof beyond contradiction. Mr. Danson. Then I prove it thus, that no True believer can fall away totally and finally. They that cannot sin as wicked men do, they cannot fall away totally and finally from grace. But True believers cannot sin as wicked men do. Ergo, True believers cannot fall away totally and finally from grace. Mr Ives. I answer by Enquiring, first into the major proposition, what you mean by cannot sin as wicked men do. Mr. Danson. Pray deny one part of my Argument. Mr Ives. Whether I may not answer by distinction, I appeal to Mr. Fowler. Now, if by cannot sin as wicked men do, you mean while they remain believers, than I will allow the major proposition; but if by cannot sin you mean that they are in no capacity, in no sense capable, than I deny the minor; for there is a great deal of difference between cannot in the present, and cannot in a future or remote capacity. I answer you fairly, I confess that True believers cannot sin as wicked men do, quotenus, believers, so that it is True in one sense, and False in another; it is true while they are believers, and retain the savour of good things, they cannot sin as wicked men do; but it is true also, that they may lose this savour, and then they may sin as wicked men do; therefore I ask Mr. Danson in which sense he means. Mr. Danson. I say, they cannot sin as wicked men do. Mr. Ives. What in no sense can they sin as wicked men do? Mr. Danson. I say, in no sense; but I do not mean by no sense, the acts of Sin. Mr. Ives. There is no way to know sin but by the acts. Mr. Danson. I do not say they cannot commit some acts of sin, but that which I affirm, is, that they cannot sin as wicked men do; and that I am to prove. Mr. Ives. Prove that which is denied, I answer by distinguishing that this word Cannot is Ambiguous and variously used in Scripture, and I will she it you if you please to bear with me a little, that it is so variously used that it may be said, men cannot do a thing when they are in a present incapacity to do it; though they may be capable in the future. And Mr. Danson you do say this, that they cannot sin as wicked men do; I answer by distinguishing; if by sinning as wicked men do; you mean they cannot in their present state, I say so too; but if by Cannot, you mean that they cannot fall from that state, and then sin as wicked men do; it is a begging the Question, yet however, I then deny the minor. Mr. Danson. I will prove it. Mr. Ives. You are not to prove till you answer whether you allow, or disallow the distinction; for there are two ways of answering, an answer by distinguishing of the terms, or an answer by denying of the terms; now I answer by distinguishing of the terms: if by Cannot, you do say cannot by any means possible, neither for the present, nor future fall from that slate and sin as wicked men do, than I deny the minor. Mr. Danson. Then I Argue. Mr. Ives. Argue with that explication. Mr. Danson. They that cannot sin at all either for the present or future, as wicked men do, cannot fall away totally and finally. But no True believer can sin, neither for the present, nor for the future as wicked men do. Ergo, no True believer can fall away totally nor finally. Mr. Ives. I deny the minor in the sense before explained, that no True believer neither for the present nor future can sin as wicked men do. Mr. Danson. That is to say, he cannot cease to believe. Mr. Ives. Nay prove it. Cannot, in Scripture phrase doth not always note an utter Impossibility appears, sometimes it is put for a thing that is uncomely to be done, Mat. 9.15. The children of the bride-chamber cannot mourn while the Bridegroom is with them; not that it was utterly impossible for them to mourn. Secondly, It is put for want of dispposition to do a thing, so it is said of Christ, Mark 6.5. That he could not do any mighty works there, that is, he was not disposed to the any mighty works, because of their unbelief; not that it was impossible for him to do any. Thirdly, It notes a present incapacity Josh, 7.12. & Ezek. 3.6. God tells the Prophet saying, I did not send thee to a People of a hard Language Whose words thou canst not understand. Not that it was impossible for him at any time, or by any means to understand the language of another Nation, but that he was in a present incapacity to understand them. Fourthly, It may be said, a thing cannot be done, when it cannot lawfully be done; Gen. 39.9. Joseph said be could not do that wickedness and sin against God, and Gen. 34.14 1 Cor. 10.21. In all these, or some of these respects it may be said, He that is born of God cannot sin; but yet David found it true, that though with Joseph he could not do that wickedness as to the unlawfulness of it, yet to his grief he found that he could do it as to the possibility of it, I and do it as wicked men do, with deliberation and contrivement, as in the case of Bersheba and Uria; 1 Sam. 11. To this agrees St. Chrysostom on Rom. 8.7. The carnal mind cannot be subject to the Law of God, and verse 8. They cannot please God, he saith this doth not prove it impossible for them to please God; but that while they continue in wickedness, they cannot bring forth good fruit. But this doth not hinder (saith he) the possibility of a change, no more than when it is said, the good Tree cannot bring forth bad or evil fruit, while it remains good; doth suppose a change to be impossible. St. Hierome on Mat. 7.18. saith Bona arbour non fert malos fructus quamdiu in bonitatis studio perseverat; A good tree cannot bear ill fruit as long it perseveres or remains in the study of goodness. Mr. Danson. 1 Joh. 3.9. Whosoever is born of Godcannot commit sin, etc. Mr. Ives. What do you prove by this? By this rule no body can sin at all Mr. Danson. He that is born of God cannot sin, this I argue upon you. Mr. Ives. You are to prove the minor proposition and eonclude it in the sense explained, that they cannot sin as wicked men do, neither in the present nor future sense. Mr. Danson. I will prove it, for the text saith, he that is born of God cannot sin; now either by cannot sin is to be understood cannot sin at all, or not sin as wicked men do. But it is not to be understood of not sinning at all. Ergo, it must be understood of not sinning as wicked men do. Mr. Ives I distinguished of the terms of your major proposition before, therefore answer and prove the minor, and conclude thus, Ergo, no True believer can cease to believe, and sin as wicked men do, neither in the present nor future sense; if you do not, I shall not answer you; for I have told you often, that quotinus True believers; and as so considered, they cannot either in the present or future sin, as wicked men do. Mr. Danson. Either the meaning is, that True believers cannot sin for the present or future at all, or as wicked men do. But that is not the meaning that they cannot, either for the present or future sin at all. Ergo, the meaning must be, that True believers, they cannot sin at present or future, as wicked men do. Mr. Ives. The Argument is false, you do not conclude as you should; Mr. Danson is to prove here according to the former distinction and denial I made upon his minor proposition, that no True believers can either for the present or the future cease to believe and sinas wicked men do, not that True believers considered as such, either at present or in the future can sin as wicked men do; this last sense of the Argument is not the thing in question, but the former: for the thing you prove from this Text is, that be that is born of God cannot Sin, that it is not to be understood of not sinning at all, which is very true, because our own consciences tells us we have to much propensity to sin, but the meaning of these words must then be, That one that is born of God cannot Sin; I answer, that if he means a True believer, as to the present state he is in, quotenus a believer, so I confessed it, but that is no part of the question; for our question now is this, whether he cannot cease to be a True believer and then sin as wicked men do? whether it be not possible for them to quit the faith, and then they may sin as other men do? Now Mr. Danson is to prove off or toncerning True believers, that neither for the present nor future, it is possible for them to quit their faith, and to sin as wicked men do. Mr. Danson. I will prove. Mr. Ives. Conclude that then, and proceed. Mr. Danson. If the reason that is here assigned for the proof of his not sinning, doth extend equally to the future, as well as to the time present, than my former Argument is good. But it doth so. Ergo. For if the seed of God always remains in believers, than they can neither for the present nor future, sin as wicked men do. But the seed of God doth always remain in believers, both for the time present and time to come. Ergo, They cannot sin as wicked men do. Mr. Ives. If by the seed of God remaining in believers, for the time present and time to come; you mean upon the condition of their continuing in the faith, I grant the major and minor too; but if by remaining in them, you mean so remain in them, that it must remain for the time present and to come, and that it is impossible but it should so remain; notwithstanding all they can do to cause God to remove it from them; then I deny the minor. Mr. Danson. The Text tells us so. Mr. Ives. Answer to my distinction; for there is a great deal of difference between the seed of God remaining in men while they are believers, and the seed remaining in them when they cease to be so. Now Mr. Danson only proves, that those that were believers have the seed of God promised to them to abide in them, and that I allow; but he is to prove that those that were once True believers must for ever continue so, and that they cannot be otherwise. Mr. Danson. If those that are born of God, have the seed of God remaining in them, then True believers have the seed of God remaining in them. But those that are born of God have the seed of God remaining in them. Ergo, True believers have the seed of God remaining in them. Mr. Ives. This Argument I may deny in whole, and not by retail as to this purpose; for I allowed it as long as the seed of God remains in them, and therefore you do not conclude the thing denied. The thing denied is, that the seed of God so remains in True believers, that it is impossible but they should continue such, and that they can do nothing to occasion the seed of God to be taken from them, and instead of so concluding according to this distinction upon your terms; you conclude Ergo, True believers have the seed of God remaining in them; What is this to the thing is question? Mr. Danson. That is my major, if those that are born of God have the seed of God always remaining in them, then True believers cannot sin as wicked men do. Mr. Ives. I have answered it by a distinction, and therefore if you will argue of my distinction do; I answer fair. Mr. Danson. You give no answer. Mr. Ives. Why! I answer by distinguishing, that if by being born of God you mean believers, and if by the seed of God remaining in them, you mean while they are True believers, I say as you say, as a Father's Love and Respect may remain to his Child, while the Child remains Dutyful; but from thence it doth no way follow, that therefore the Child cannot but always remain Dutyful; you are therefore to prove. Nay further, The Love of a Father remaining to a Child, may be a reason why that Child doth not Sin and Rebel as other Children do; But it follows not, but that this Child may Rebel and Break all these Cords his Father tied him to obedience by. Mr. Fowler here Interposes. Mr. Dansons' Argument (saith he) is, that believers cannot sin as wicked men; Ergo, they cannot fall away, He proves his Antecedent thus, He that is born of God hath the seed of God remaining in him; your answer is this, that believers cannot sin as wicked men do while they remain believers, but they may cease to be believers, and then they may sin as wicked men do; his reply is this, that therefore they must remain believers because the seed of God remains in them. Mr. Ives. I will answer you; if you please Mr. Fowler to take his seat; I do confess the words of the Text, that every one that is born of God cannot sin; there is a sense in which they cannot sin, and a sense also in which we all agree in, in which they can sin: but you must remember the grand question is, whether he can so sin, as that he can so fall away? I denied the consequence, I say he that is born of God may sin so as to fall away, for he may forfeit the seed of God. But I will put a short issue to this question, Mr. Danson is to prove to us, that the seed of God doth so remain in them, as that it can by no means cease to be in them, that let them do what they will, they cannot but have the seed of God in them. Mr. Danson. If that the seed of God doth remain, than it cannot cease but remain; but the seed of God doth remain, Ergo. Mr. Ives. I deny the consequence, for you may as well say, if those that come here into this House, remain in the House, they cannot cease from remaining in it; but they remain in it, Ergo. As, say if the seed of God doth remain, it cannot but remain, this no way followeth; and therefore that which Mr. Danson is to prove, is, that it is impossible but the seed should remain in them; this is our question. Mr. Danson. The Text saith remain. Mr. Ives. I, So you that are in this House remain in it, doth this prove you cannot but remain? Mr Danson. If the seed of God doth therefore remain in believers, because they are born of God, than no True believer can fall away. Mr Ives. You beg the question, for you say in effect but this, that if believers cannot fall away, they cannot fall away; for there is a great deal of difference between the seed of God remaining, and an impossibility of the seed of God departing. Now that which I desire him to prove, is this, (for I do say, while any man continues a believer, the seed of God remains in him) that it is impossible but that it should remain. Mr. Danson. In them that are born of God, the seed of God remains. But every True believer is born of God. Ergo. Mr. Ives. Suppose I should show you, that men are said to remain or to abide in a condition, it doth not therefore follow they shall never alter that condition: The Scripture tells us, that he that believes not the wrath of God remains or abides upon him, I appeal to you now, whether this is a proof that this man cannot be a True believer, because wrath remains upon him while he is an unbeliever. Mr. Danson. This is nothing to the purpose. Mr. Ives. Yes it is, for the Scripture saith expressly, that every unbeliever, while such hath the wrath of God abiding on him, as it is said of a believer, he hath the seed of God remaining or abiding in him: Now I would ask Mr. Danson whether this phrase, the wrath of God remaining or abiding upon an unbeliever, doth not respect the time of his continuing an unbeliever? But now if he shall like Paul, or like the converts in the Acts, be pricked in his heart, and turn to God, I hope you will not say, that then the wrath of God abides upon him; in like manner as long as any man remains a believer, the seed of God abides in him; but when he departs from being a believer, when he doth throw away, on cast away his confidence in God, the seed of God doth not remain or abide in him. Prove therefore that it shall not departed, or that it cannot choose but remain. Here Mr. Fowler interposes. M. Ives. Is this fair, pray Sir forbear, or take his seat. Mr. Fowler. The force of his argument lies here. He that is born of God cannot commit sin, it is strange news, but it is good news, how comes this about? not from any impossibility, as to any grace received, (grace of itself) that because they have received such a stock of grace, that therefore they can never fall away; but here's the reason, because the seed of God remains in them, and the argument is invinsible you, nor all your party, nor all men under Heaven can answer it. Mr. Ives. Pray Sir forbear naming parties, are we not all Christians? but pray what is become of the moderator? he is now turned disputer. But Sir I have given you an instance, to take off what Mr. Danson saith; if he please to argue upon it he may. Here Mr. Fowler interposes again. Mr. Ives. What two at once, this is not fair; Gentlemen you disgrace Mr. Danson, I denied the major, it doth not follow according to the interpretation of your argument, and I answer to you and Mr. Fowler both at once, you say the Scripture gives this reason expressly, that they cannot sin because they are born of God. First, I answer that the reason you render, is the same the Scripture gives in other cases. It expressly saith, that the children of the Bride-chamber cannot fast, because the Bridegroom is or remains with them; it doth not therefore follow, that when the Bridegroom is gone away they could not fast, neither doth it follow, that the Bridegroom should always remain with them; so here you say true, that believers or those that are born of God, they cannot sin as other men, so long as the seed remains in them; but now Mr. Danson is to prove, that it cannot but remain (if he can, and that's our question) for God is with us while we are with him, and it is one thing to say I remain in the house, and another thing to say I cannot but remain in this house. Now you are (I say) to prove, that it is no way possible for this seed to be lost or cease to be in them. Mr. Danson. I will prove that it cannot but remain. Mr. Ives. I prove that it is impossible to be lost, and that it cannot but abide The 1st. of John 2. Supposeth that the seed or word might not remain; for the Text saith v▪ 24. IF that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you; you also shall continue in the Father, and in the Son; And he that abideth in him s●nneth not; 1 Joh. 3.6. This is the man that is born of God, and that doth not sin as others, while he abideth; and 1 Joh. 2.14. I have written to you young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you. But this doth not suppose it could not but remain and abide; For the 28 v. Exhorts those little children to abide in him, that they might not be ashamed at his coming; and so John 14.6. Christ doth promise the Comforter shall abide or remain with the disciples for ever; but that doth not suppose it was impossible for them to fall, or that they could not but remain True believers; for he afterwards tells them, John 15.2. That every Branch IN him that did not bear Fruit, he would TAKE AWAY; and v. 10. IF you keep my Commandments you shall abide in my Love. Mr. Danson. The seed of God remaining; because this is an ambigious word, what we are to understand by it; I ask you, what do you mean by it. Mr. Ives. What do you use a term in your Argument and ask me what I mean by it, and confess it is ambigious? this is very strange! Mr. Danson. We may possibly disagree about the meaning and import of it by the seed of God remaining; I mean a principle of grace remaining, that I mean by it. Mr. Ives. I do not know what you mean by a principle of grace: for the word is not in Scripture. Here a great many of Mr. Danson 's side fell a laughing. Mr. Ives. Do you know what you laugh at? show me any of you, where there is such a word if you can in all the Scripture. Mr. Fowler. Pray what do you understand by the seed of God. Mr. Ives. I will tell you what I understand by the seed, (but let me by the way tell you that similitudes are no proofs, I confess they are good for Illustration, but not for Confirmation; and you should have explained it before you used it) I mean by the seed, The word of God. Here those of Mr. Dansons' Judgement, and also he himself laughed again to the disturbance of the Assembly, and not a word was spoken by Mr. Danson to quiet them. Mr. Ives. What do you laugh at? Do you know? I give the same interpretation as Christ himself gave; he saith, The seed is the word of God. Mat. 13. Luke 8.11. Mr. Danson. Do you understand that here? Mr. Ives. I do, and why do you laugh? you may as well laugh at Christ himself; for I give his exposition; and besides I will show you that the Apostle Peter himself calls it the incorruptible seed of the word. 1 Pet. 1.23, 24. Mr. Danson. No it saith, born of incorruptible seed by the word of God. Mr. Ives. The Scripture saith the seed is the word of God; now you must prove according to this interpretation, that those that have the seed, nay take it as you will, that this seed remains and cannot but remain. Mr. Danson. I will prove it, Those to whom God hath made a promise, that the seed shall remain in them, it shall remain. But to True believers God hath made a promise, that the seed shall remain. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the Argument, It doth not prove the thing in Question. Mr. Danson. It doth. Mr. Ives. What! Doth it prove this? that they shall always continue True believers, and it is impossible for them to continue otherwise. You might as well have said, that God Blessed the house of Obed-Edom, because the ark of God remained with him, therefore Obed-Edom could do nothing to cause the ark of God to departed from him; as say that believers are blessed in being kept from gross impieties, because the seed of God remains in them, that therefore they cannot be impious, and the seed of God cannot neither at present nor future (let them do what they will) but remain in them. Here Mr. Fowler interposes again. Mr. Fowler. That the seed of God doth remain, and cannot but remain; this proposition you impose upon him, he proves it doth remain; those to whom God hath made a promise that the seed shall remain, there the seed doth remain, and cannot but remain. But the first is true. Ergo, Mr. Ives. If you please Mr. Fowler, I will dispute it with you now; if you will take Mr. Danson's place, or else any other time; but however let it be so: now you have made his Argument for him; but he did not conclude the Question before, as you now do. Those to whom God hath made a promise, the seed shall remain, it cannot but remain. But to True believers God hath made a promise, that the seed shall remain, and cannot but remain. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the major. Here one Mr. Loof interposes as he had done several times in the former dispute and in this too; deny the major (saith he) you do not understand yourself, you mean the Sequel. Mr. Ives Answers Mr. Loof. Sir, I deny rightly, the Argument is Categorical, but to please you, I deny the consequence of the major proposition. Mr. Danson. I will prove it. If the seed shall not remain in them to whom God hath made a promise it shall remain; then the promises of God are untrue. But the promises of God are not untrue. Ergo, therefore it shall remain. Mr. Ives. That is not the Question denied, those ●o whom the promise of God is made that it shall remain, it must remain and cannot but remain. I denied that. Mr. Danson. Because otherwise God should not be True in his promises; for I say, that if, the seed of God doth not remain in those to whom God hath made a promise of its remaining; then the promises of God are untrue, or God is false to his word. But the promises of God is not untrue; Ergo, the seed of God must remain in those to whom God hath made a promise of its remaining. Mr. Ives. The consequence doth not follow, that then God is not so good as his word, and I will give you an Instance if you please, that God may promise such and such things, and yet he may not break his word, though it doth not come to pass. God promised to Abraham without any condition expressed or employed in those words, That the Land of Canaan should be to his seed and everlasting possession; and yet two hundred years afterwards, He tells them that he will scatter them among the Heathen and give their Land a possession to Strangers; Now here God had promised the Land of Canaan an everlasting possession, and this is your Argument. If the Land of Canaan be promised to the Israelites as an everlasting possession, than Israel must always be in it, or God is not so good as his word. But God did promise the Land of Canaan as an everlasting possession to Israel. Ergo, Israel must always be in it, or God is not so good as his word. So that I have showed you an Instance, That God may be faithful in his promises, though they are not fulfilled: for God promises many things upon condition. A Stranger that interposed often Is there no condition expressed in this promise, nor employed? Mr. Ives. There is nothing of a condition that seems to be understood in all those words, though doubtless it is intended. Stranger. Nor in all the Scripture. Mr. Ives. I answered not in that Text. Stranger. But you said before, neither in that Text, nor in any other place of Scripture. Mr. Ives. I did not say so, why do you charge me with a falsehood; but why are you concerned? Go take Mr. Danson's place, and I will answer you; else hold your tongue. Stranger. I acknowledge it a mistake, and crave your pardon, and promise I will interpose no more. Yet this Gentleman interprsed 4 or 5 times afterwards. Mr. Danson. I will prove that all the promises of God, or that whatsoever God hath promised, is always true. Mr. Ives. I say so too all that God hath promised absolutely or conditionally, is true but now you are to prove that God hath made an absolute promise that the seed shall remain without condition, either employed or expressed. Mr. Danson. I will prove it from Jer. 32.40. where God saith I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear into their hearts that they shall not departed from me. Now Either this promise is conditional, or it is absolute. But it is not conditional. Ergo it is absolute. Mr. Ives. What do you argue from this Text. Mr. Danson. I argue, that here is an absolute promise made to all True believers For, This promise, it is either absolute, or a conditional promise to all True believers. But it is not a conditional promise made to all True believers: Ergo, It is an absolute promise, made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. Did you ever hear the like, Mr. Danson saith here is an absolute promise made to all True believers without condition; now I would fain know, whether believing be not a qualification or condition; for suppose there is a promise made to all willing and obedient persons, will any infer from hence that it is not conditional but absolute? And secondly, I deny your minor, that this promise in the 32 Jer. is made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. It is either conditional or absolute to all True believers. But it is not conditional: Ergo, It is absolute. Mr. Ives. I answer, first, I deny this is any promise either absolutely or conditionally to all True believers. Prove it. Mr. Danson. Either it is to all True believers, or to some True believers, or to unbelievers. But it is neither to some True believers, nor to unbelievers: Ergo, It is made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. I deny the minor, and say it may be to some True believers and not to all, and I also say it is conditional, and not absolute. Mr. Danson. I will prove the contrary. Mr. Ives. Remember what you are to prove, that this is an absolute promise, and made to True believers; which is scarce absolute sense. Mr. Danson. I prove it thus. If it is not an absolute promise to all True believers, than it is conditional; But it is not conditional; Ergo, It is absolute. Mr Ives. That's begging the question. Mr. Danson. I have proved it absolute, assign the condition then. Mr. Ives. There is two things for you to do, you are to prove first, that this promise is made to all True believers; and than that it is made without condition. For if that phrase (the Israel of God,) were applicable to all True believers; yet the main thing is yet to prove, that the promise either its the 31. or 32. of Jeremy, or the 8th. of the Heb. is made absolute and without condition; for the Scripture saith Gal. 6.16. AS MANY as walk according to this Rule, Peace be on them, and Mercy, AND upon the ISRAEL OF GOD: So that even the Israel of God have no absolute promise either of peace or mercy, whatever some may fancy; but both peace and mercy is promised upon the condition of their walking according to this Rule. Mr. Danson. If it be, assign the condition. Mr. Ives. I say, you are first to prove it is a promise made to all True believers, and then that it is without condition; and then, I will assign you the condition when the argument calls for it. Mr. Danson. I am to prove, that the 32. Jer. Is made to all true believers. If the promises that are here contained, be made to the Israel of God, than they are made to all True believers: But they are made to the Israel of God. Ergo. Mr. Ives. I deny the major, That all the promises here spoken of though they are made to the Israel of God, that therefore they are made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. I will prove it, if all True believers be the Israel of God. Mr. Ives. That's but one and the same, idem per idem there is no medium in it. Mr. Danson. I will prove that it is made to all True believers. If it be made to the Israel of God, than it is made to all True believers; but it is made to the Israel of God: Ergo. Mr. Ives. I denied the major, which was, that whatsoever was made to the Israel of God, was made to all True believers; for there may be promises made to the Israel of God as appears in this Text, that are not made to all True believers. What brave Logic is here? The antecedent is indeffinite and restrained to Israel, and the consequence is general and universally predicated of all True believers; as much as if a man should say, the promise of the Land of Canaan was made to the Israel of God: Ergo it was made to all True believers of what Nation soever. Mr. Danson. If the promise here be made to all the Israel of God in the New-Testament, than it is made to all True believers: But the promises here, are made to all believers in the New-Testament: Ergo, It is made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. This is a false Argument, but however prove the promise in the 32d. of Jer. is made to all the True believers of the New Testament if you can. Mr. Danson. I prove it from the 10 John 28. The words are these, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall any man pluck them out of my hands. Here is a promise made to the Israel of God, for all the sheep of Christ are the Israel of God. But the promise is made to all the sheep of Christ: Ergo, It is made to the Israel of God. Mr. Ives. I deny the Argument, and that because you do not conclude what I denied; I did not deny that this promise was made to the Israel of God; but your argument was this, that all the promises made to the Israel of God, are made to all True believers; and you must assume the Text under debate, or say you cannot; that the 32. Jer. is an absolute promise made to all True believers, for the proposition hath two parts. First, That it is made to all True believers: and Secondly, that it is made absolutely without condition; and now you are upon the first part, to prove that this promise in the 32. Jer. is made to all True believers, and instead of concluding this, you conclude that which none denies; that the promises are made to the Israel of God. Mr. Danson. Thus I proved it, that that promise that is made to all the Israel of God, is made to all True believers. But that promise in the 32. Jer. is made to all the Israel of God. Ergo. Mr. Ives. I denied the major, of the former argument which I expect the proof of, which is this you last repeated, the proof whereof is still expected. Mr. Danson. You denied the minor. Mr. Ives. No I did not. As any one may see that looks back. Mr. Danson. I am to prove that the promises made to the Israel of God, Jeremy 32. are made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. I Sir, You are to prove, that that which is predicated of the Israel of God is predicated of all True believers, and conclude with Jer. 32. or you do nothing; for the Question is, whether this Text will prove what it is brought for, and you are to prove by it, or say you cannot; and go to some other Argument or else conclude; Ergo, Jer. 32. speaks of all True believers. Mr. Ives. I appeal to Mr. Fowler, when the case lies in difference about the sense of a Text of Scripture, that he brings to prove what I denied, viz. That the promise of God is such that they cannot departed. I distinguish of the promises of God with respect to the persons, and with respect to the nature of the promises; with respect to the persons; I say that Jer. 32. is not a promise made to all True believers; and with respect to the nature of the promises; I say they are not absolute but conditional. Now whether my distinction be true or false, such as it is, you have it, and I appeal to you. Now, that as my answer consists of two parts, so must his proof, and whether or no, must he not first prove that these promises were made to all True believers? and in so doing must he not conclude; Ergo, These promises in Jer. 32. are made to all True believers? Mr. Fowler. He must, He must. Here Mr. Fowler interposes. Mr. Fowler. The promise that is made to the Israel of God, is made to all True believers. But the promise in Jer. 32. is so. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the major; it doth not follow that if it be made to all the Israel of God, it is made to all True believers. Mr. Fowler. The Israel of God comprehends all True believers. Ergo, That promise that is made to the Israel of God is made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. I deny the antecedent of the Enthymem. Mr. Fowler. Here is a Text. Mr. Ives. I am not now to dispute with Mr. Fowler, without you will please to take Mr. Danson's place; and then prove if you can, that the promise in Jer. 32. is made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. Mr. Fowler hath shown you clearly. Mr. Ives. Do you take the benefit of it then, and improve it as well as you can. Mr. Danson. This is that which I am to prove, that all the Israel of God are True believers. Mr. Ives. That is not the Question, you are to prove that the promise made to the Israel of God; Jer. 32. comprehends all True believers. Mr. Danson. I will prove it by a more direct Text in Heb. 8.10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the lord; I will put my Laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a People. Mr. Ives. Sir, Put it into an Argument; for you are to prove Jer. 32. where God promises they shall never departed, is made to all True believers: Now pray prove that by an Argument from any Text, so you conclude, Ergo, this is the sense of Jer. 32. Mr. Danson. I am to prove that all the Israel of God doth always comprehend all True believers. Mr. Ives. Sir, You do nothing but run into a Ring, and dispute circulerly; pray prove that the promises in Jer. 33. are made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. In spiritual things. Mr. Ives. What in the 32d. of Jeremiah, then prove it. Mr. Danson. Here is one part of the promise out of those words quoted: I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a People, and also the other Clause, and they shall teach no more every man his Brother, etc. the 31. of Jer. compare with Heb. 8. This proves that the Israel of God comprehends all True believers. Mr. Ives. I took Mr. Danson for a more ingenious man then to answer so; I will acknowledge that there may be some promises made so universally, as they may extend to all the World; and possibly there are promises that maybe in one Chapter universal, & in another Chapter there may be promises more special and restrained; Now Mr. Danson brings a Text in the 8th of Heb. which is a recital of the Covenant in the 31 of Jeremy to prove the promise in the 32d of Jeremy, is made to all True believers. Here Mr. Fowler Interposes. Mr. Ives. You dispute now Mr. Fowler, pray let Mr. Danson alone; I deny that the 8th of the Heb. refers to the 32d of Jeremy, which is the Text under debate; for the 8th of the Heb. refers to the 31 of Jeremy, and therefore you cannot conclude from thence; Ergo, this is the sense of Jer. 32. But that we may not waste time, I deny the 8th of Hebrews speaks of all True believers: for here is Mr. Danson's Argument, whatever is spoken or predicated of all the Israel of God, is predicated of all True believers. Mr. Danson. I told you in spiritual things. Mr. Ives. All that you have to de, is to prove that this is made to all True believers, let the thing promised be what it will: now you prove it because it is made to the Israel of God; and my answer is, that there may be some things made to the Israel of God, that are not appropriated to all True believers. Mr. Danson. I say, as to spiritual blessings. Mr. Ives. It is from Jer. 32. that the Argument advanced, and the Question now is not about the natute of the promise, but the subjects of it, as I have told you. Mr. Danson. This Clause, I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not departed from me, is spiritual; my Argument lies in that. Mr. Ives The Text expressly saith in Jer. 32. If we deal fairly with the Original, that they MAY NOT departed from me; and Mr. Danson knows it is read so by learned Men of his own opinion, and that the future sense as Mr. Calvin observes well, may bear an imperative construction; I will put my fear into their hearts, but let them not departed from me. You know it may be understood so; And in the 39th v. of the same Chapter, it is said, I will give them one heart, that they MAY fear me for ever. Mr. Danson. What then? Mr. Ives. Why then your Argument hath nothing in it, because God bids them not departed, that therefore they cannot departed. This promise was made to the Nation of Israel, and not to all True believers; so v. 36. God tells Israel that he will bring them from all Countries where he hath scattered them; and in the 40th v. he saith he will put his fear in their hearts, that they SHALL not departed, or as the 39th v. hath it, that they MAY fear him for ever, and the 41 v. saith expressly that be will plant them in their own land (the land of Israel) and they shall buy fields for money, and subsoribe evidences, and take witness in the land of Benjamin, and v. 42, 43, 44. but after all this, they did departed, and the Apostle saith, Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost; so that this Text is so far from being a promise, that no True believer shall departed, that it is not a promise tha● any shall not departed, and that what is there promised, is not to all believers in general, but to Israel in special, any one may see that reads both the 31st & 32d Chapters at large. Mr. Danson. I bring this Text to prove that the phrase, the Israel of God comprehends all True believers, because that the promise that is here made is spiritual. Mr. Ives. Make your Argument, that what promise is made to the Israel of God, is made to all True believers, and conclude it from this Text, and do not always run in a Circle. Mr. Danson. If this promise be made to the Israel of God, than it is made to True believers. But this promise is made to the Israel of God. Ergo, It it is made to all True believers. Mr. Ives. That doth not do, it is but the same again, you are to conclude, Ergo, that all the promise, or that promise that is made to the Israel of God; is made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. I say, It is the promise in spiritual things. Mr. Ives. What again? here is nothing of the promise in the 32d of Jeremy, or that which was there promised, was to all True believers. Mr. Fowler. Here it is, he saith, this promise in Jer. 32. is made to all True believers, his medium to prove it is, that it is made to the Israel of God; and he proves it is made to the Israel of God by another promise of the same import in another Scripture, to wit, in the 8th of Hebrews and the 10th, where it expressly saith, This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. Mr. Ives. First, I deny it is the same promise, for this promise is in the 31. Jer. and the other is in the 32d. Jer. and Secondly, I deny that those to whom the promise in Heb. 8 is made comprehends all True believers; and let him prove it that it comprehends any but Israel in that place. Mr. Danson. If the Covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, than this promise doth comprehend all True believers. But the Covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers. Ergo, This promise comprehends them. Mr. Ives. I deny the Major, That if the covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, that then this promise in Heb. 8. comprehends all True believers Mr. Danson. If this promise be contained in the covenant, than it follows. Mr. Ives. That is not the question you are to prove, for that that you are to prove is this, that if the Covenant of grace belongs to all True believers, that then it follows that the people to whom the promise was made Heb. 8. comprehends all True believers; you must conclude so. Mr. Danson. If the whole covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, than the Israel of God in Heb. 8. doth comprehend all True believers. But the whole covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers. Ergo, The covenant in Heb. 8. belongs to all True believers. Mr. Ives. Sir, Your argument is false, and if it were true, you do not conclude the thing denied, which is this; that those to whom the promises in Heb. 8. is made comprehends all True believers, and instead thereof, you conclude that the covenant Heb. 8. belongs to all True believers, however ● deny your consequence. Mr. Danson. To whom the whole belongs, the part belongs. But to True believers the whole belongs. Ergo. Mr. Ives. You are to prove, that if the covenant of grace belongs to all true believers, that then it follows, that the covenant in the 8th. of the Heb. belongs to all True believers. Mr. Danson. If the whole covenant belongs to them, than I say every part doth. But etc. Mr. Ives. That's not the question, I appeal to Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler. Here's the proposition denied, that if the whole covenant of grace belongs to all True believers, than the covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews belongs to all True believers and the Israel of God there spoken of; is comprehensive of all True believers. Mr. Ives. I, Sir that is the proposition I denied. Mr. Fowler. This in the 8th. of the Hebrews is part of the covenant of grace. Mr. Ives. What Covenant soever it is, it is the Covenant itself, and there hath yet been nothing concluded from it to prove the thing denied; which is, that if the covenant of grace belong to all True believers, the covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews belongs to all True believers and that all True believers are comprehended by these words, the house of Israel. Mr. Danson. This is part of the covenant of grace, and if it be a part it is the whole. Mr. Ives. What wild arguing is this? that if it be a part it is the whole? Mr. Fowler interposes: Mr. Ives. Pray Mr. Fowler let him alone, do not teach him to dispute. Mr. Ives. I denied this consequence, that if the covenant of grace be made to all True believers, that then the Israel of God, in the 8th. of the Hebrews comprehends all True believers. Mr. Danson. I will prove it. Mr. Ives. Come let's hear it. Mr. Danson. It is made to all True believers, or some True believers, or to unbelievers. Mr. Ives. That is as before, it was the first thing denied; what nothing but round about? Mr. Fowler. He proves it thus, if all the Covenant belongs to believers, this doth. Mr. Ives. I deny the Covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews is made to all True believers, or that Israel there spoken of, comprehends all True believers; prove it I say. Mr. Fowler. This in Heb. 8. is part of the Covenant of grace Ergo, If part of the Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, the whole doth. Mr. Ives. You do not argue rightly Mr. Fowler, you know you do not, no man can infer a whole from a part; besides you do not conclude the thing denied: for you conclude the Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, which is not denied; for the thing denied is, that the Covenant in Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. which is made with Israel and Judah, is made with all True believers, and that all True believers are comprehended under these words, the houses of Israel and Judah. Here Mr. Fowler interupts again. Mr. Ives. Pray Sir forbear, indeed Mr. Fowler I will not allow it; Mr. Danson is to prove that all True believers are included in Heb. 8. Mr. Danson. If the whole Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, than the Covenant in the 6th of Heb. which is part of the Covenant of grace doth. Mr. Ives. This is the Covenant itself; for God Saith, This is the Covenant that I will make with, etc. And why should you call it apart, when God himself calls it the Covenant; besides, call it a part of the Covenant if you will, that will not prove, that Israel with whom it is said to be made, is to be understood of all True believers. Mr. Danson. I will prove by another Argument, that no True believer can fall away. They that cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand, cannot fall away totally nor finally from grace. But True believers cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand. Ergo, True believers cannot fall away totally nor finally. Mr. Ives. I deny the argument; for the whole argument doth not conclude the Question: for you are to conclude, that therefore it is impossible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; you argue indefinitely, and not universally. Mr. Danson. I can prove any True believer by the same reason. Mr. Ives. I deny the major. Mr. Danson and other Ministers fell a Laughing, and said, What the major! Mr. Ives. The consequence of it, then if you will have it so, though it be all one. It doth not follow, that if none of the sheep of Christ, can be plucked out of Christ's hands that therefore no True believer can fall away. Mr. Danson. That is strange. Mr. Ives. Let it be never so strange, I deny it, and it is the easier for you to prove; you must conclude, Ergo, if no sheep can, than no True believer can. Mr. Danson. That I am to prove, is that; if the sheep here spoken of in the Text, be all True believers then, Mr. Ives. What then? come infer what you would have. Mr. Danson. Then if the sheep of Christ cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand, than no true believer can. But the first is true, Ergo, Mr. Ives. No you cannot, you are mistaken, you cannot infer a universal proposition from an indefinite. Mr. Fowler. He may as well infer a universal. Mr. Ives. Pray Mr. Fowler do not argue; if you will please to take his place, I will answer you, and make the best of his Arguments you can; otherwise; I desire you to be Silent. Mr. Fowler. It is a universal Negative, the Argument lies here; If the Sheep of Christ can never be plucked out of Christ's hands; then no True believer can fall away totally nor finally. Mr. Ives. He did not say so, yet I can deny that consequence. Mr. Danson. If that none of the sheep of Christ, can be plucked out of Christ's hands, than no True believer can fall away totally nor finally. But none of the sheep of Christ, can be plucked out of Christ's hands. Ergo, No True believer can fall away totally nor finally. Mr. Fowler. Pray let me interpose. Mr. Ives. I will not, Pray Sir forbear, this is not fair, you know it is not fair. Mr. Ives. You say this, that if no sheep of Christ can fall away, than no true believer can fall away; I denied the consequence, prove it. Mr. Danson. I prove it, because no true believer can fall away, therefore none of Christ's sheep can fall away. Mr. Ives. That is petitio principii, you beg the question, and run in a Ring; this is that which you are to prove, that if no sheep can fall away, than no true believer can fall away, & instead thereof, you argue, if no true believer can fall away, than no sheep of Christ can fall away. Mr. Danson. If the sheep here spoken of be all true believers, than it follows, that if none of the sheep can be plucked out of Christ's hand, no true believers can. Mr. Ives. That is the thing you said at first, and you prove no more but the same by the same; however still I deny the consequence, that though all the sheep there spoken of, are true believers, yet it doth not follow, that the sheep there spoken of, comprehends all True believers. Mr. Danson. You give no answer. Mr. Ives. I did give an answer by denying the consequence of the major proposition, and to prove it after some circumlocutions; you bring the same again, but I answer further by telling you that your Argument is founded upon a metaphor, and both heathen and Christian Logicians tell us, that metaphors do not prove conclusions; you make sheep your medium, it is a metaphorical expression, and that is no good medium to a Syllogism; I avouch it before any disputant, I appeal to you Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler. You must distinguish between metaphors and parables; we say indeed parables are not argumentative, though the scope may; and metaphors are. Mr. Ives. But to use metaphors and conclude by them, when a metaphor may have two or three interpretations; I say it concludes nothing. Besides this is a parable of the shepherd and the sheep, as any one may see that read the Text, and therefore it concludes nothing according to that maxim of Mr. Fowlers. Theologia parabolica non est Theologia Argumentativa. Mr. Fowler. My sheep hear my voice, Now,— Mr. Ives. I will not dispute it with you Mr. Fowler, without you will take his place, and then you shall manage that Argument if you please, and I will spend a little time with you. Mr. Fowler. I speak as moderator, I will not interpose between you, here is his Argument. Mr. Ives. I will not hear you, because you argue instead of moderating; If you will take his Chair, I will hear you. I do say Mr. Danson and I appeal to Mr. Fowler whether I do not answer fairly; for here is your Argument; if none of the sheep of Christ can fall away, than no True believer can: that is the medium of his Argument, I deny the consequence of the major; if the sheep of Christ can never perish, if I should allow it; it doth not therefore follow, that no True believer can fall away; and the text speaks of the sheep of Christ with reference to that glory they shall have at the day of Judgement, and then and there Christ will say to the sheep, sit on my right hand, and to the goats sit on the other hand: for saith he, my sheep hear my voice, and follow me; that is the discriminating character of them, and those that do so, there is the recompense given them, viz. Eternal Life, neither shall any pluck them out of Christ's hands, and I believe it: for neither Death nor Devils can take them away, when once he saith to them, Come yea blessed, Come my sheep. Mr. Fowler. You must needs think Mr. Ives, we know where you are: one sober word; Do you think that the meaning of the text is this, that those that follow Christ shall never perish. Do you give this as your Judgement. Mr. Ives. What if I did say that those that follow Christ shall be saved, and never perish; What then? Is this false doctrine? But Mr. Fowler, I say, Though you do not invade the room, yet you do the office of an opponent, and I wonder you should pretend yourself a moderator, while you speak beyond the line of a moderator. But in the next place Mr. Fowler, you are much mistaken in my interpretation; I did not go about to lay the stress of my answer, to show that it was Christ's Argument, to prove that they should not perish after they are saved. But what if they should tell you so? doth not Christ tell us he gives them Eternal Life; and doth not he say as a further assurance of their everlasting Inheritance, that they shall never perish; and what absurdity is in this interpretation? But I laid the stress of my Answer in this, that there might be a certain number of People, that can never perish in this World; but God will by interposing grace, carry them into the other World, and land them there safely for ever, which indeed I might believe without wronging what I have asserted; but doth this prove that it is true of all believers, and that no True believer can fall away, because some True believers shall not; for why may not I say, as St. Augustine and others did. that it is impossible for some persons to fall away; and yet withal say, that it is possible for some True believers to fall away totally and finally. Mr. Fowler. As for that of St. Augustine, he never said that any True believer that had real faith in Christ might fall away. Mr. Ives. I will, I say discourse it with you if you please to take the Chair; and if you will not believe me; Let Mr. Baxter speak for me, he tells us that this was St. Augustine's opinion, that some True believers may fall away totally and finally, and that he asked Bishop Usher in the presence of Dr. Kendal, whether or no this was not Augustin's opinion, and he confessed it was. But saith Mr. Baxter lest any one should scruple this, I shall refer him to these passages following, which when Mr. Ives was going to read, Mr. Fowler interrupts him. Mr. Fowler. I will make short work of it, you need not read it. Here another interposes to. Mr. Ives. Would you have me dispute with all three? It is a strong sign of a weak cause, when three Men dispute with one. Mr. Fowler. This was not St. Augustin's judgement. Mr. Ives. You must tell Mr, Baxter so, and not me; I believe Mr. Baxter knew as well as Mr. Fowler what St. Augustin's opinion was; and so did Bishop Usher, who saith, doubtless it was Augustin's opinion. Mr. Fowler. For Mr. Baxter, I suppose you mean in his book of Directions, he saith, I am not certain, that those that sincerely believe and are justified, may fall away totally and finally; I am sure saith be, the Scripture seems to look that way, and I am sure the Fathers seem to look that way. Now I answer Mr. Baxter in this, that the Scripture looks that way, and the Fathers, but seem to look that way. Secondly, For St. Augustine, any body that is but a little acquainted with Learning, knows that he in the business of Pelagius, makes a distinction between those that had real and special grace, and others. And Augustine never said in his Life, that any True believer ever fell away totally and finally; and he writ a Book particularly of the perseverance of the Saints, that they never fall away totally and finally; And as for Bishop Usher, you wrong that worthy Man. Mr. Ives. Mr Baxter saith, he asked Bishop Usher in the presence of Dr. Kendal, whether this was not St. Augustin's opinion, and he said undoubtedly it was; but if this will not serve, I shall give you the quotations themselves. Mirandum est quidem multumque mirandum? etc. Wonderful it is, and much to be wondered at, that God to some of his children whom he hath regenerated in Christ, and to whom he hath given, Faith, Hope, and Love; should not give perseverance. Aug. de Corrept. & great. Cap. 8. Again he saith, Ex duobus autem piis, etc. that of two, being both Godly, perseverance should be given to the one and not Given unto the other, belongs to the unsearchable judgement of God. Aug. de bono persev. Cap. 8. Mr. Baxter saith, it was not only St. Augustin's opinion, but it was the opinion of Prosper and Fulgentius, and of the Church of God for 13 or 14 hundred years, and of most Christians in the World. And that the choicest men for Learning and Diligene, Holiness and divine Illumination, and such as were the great defenders of the grace of God against Pelagius were of this mind, that true believers might totally and finally fall away. See Mr. Baxter's account of the Saints perseverance, Page 5.6.17. &c, Mr. Ives. Mr. Danson, you are to prove to me, that that in Heb. 8. is spoken of all True believers; or this, that all the promises that are made to the Israel of God, are made to all True believers. Mr. Danson. I proved it by this Argument, if True believers cannot be plucked out of Christ's hand. Mr. Ives. No, if the sheep of Christ cannot be plucked out of Christ's hands, than no True believer can; I denied that major, therefore prove it, and conclude if no sheep can, no True believer can. Mr Danson. If the sheep of Christ contains all True believers, than the promise that is made to the one, is made to the other. But the sheep of Christ contains all True believers. Ergo, the promise that is made to one, is made to the other. Mr. Ives I deny the minor, that the sheep of Christ in John 10. contains all True believers. Mr. Danson. If the description that is here given of sheep agrees only to True believers, than the sheep of Christ in the 10th of John is comprehensive of all True believers; but the description that is here, agrees only to such. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the Consequence. Mr. Danson. That the description that is here given, is applicable to all True believers, we shall instance in parts. First, those that hear the voice of Christ, and follow him, agrees only to all True believers. But this description that is here given of Christ's sheep, agrees only to all True believers. Ergo, Mr. Ives. You say, if this description that is here given, agree to all True believers, or none but True believers, than the proposition is proved, that Christ's sheep contains all True believers, I deny that: but it is not the proposition you are to prove; for you are to prove the Consequence of your major, and instead thereof, you go about to prove your minor; but however that we may proceed, I deny the minor; for all that were True believers do not follow him; for some that do leave off following him, were true believers, & therefore here is something agrees to sheep, that doth not agree to all true believers; but you are to proceed & prove the minor proposition denied, that all that are true believers follow him, and that they cannot but do so: by following of him, I mean to their Death, or else something may agree to those sheep, John 10. that doth not agree to all true believers; for it is said of those sheep, that they hear Christ's voice and follow him. Mr. Danson. My sheep hear my voice; and that this is to be understood for a description of all true believers, I prove it. Mr. Ives. Sir, that is not your business; for who denies but they that are Christ's sheep, and hear his voice, and follow him, are true believers; but you are to prove, that all that are true believers do follow him, and that they cannot cease to be such, and finally departed from him. Mr. Danson. If all true believers are compared in the Scripture. unto things abiding, and fixed and settled, than all true believers do hear the voice of Christ and follow him. But all true believers are compared in Scripture to things abiding, fixed and settled; Ergo, All true believers do hear the voice of Christ, and follow him. Mr. Ives. I deny the whole Argument. First, Because comparisons may agree in one thing, but not in another; and therefore you cannot conclude any thing rightly, or certainly from them. Secondly, I do deny it upon another ground, because you do not conclude the thing denied. Mr. Danson. I am not bound to do it. Mr. Ives. Be●●●se you cannot; Sir, you do not conclude the question, hearing the voice of Christ, and following of him, are plain English words; I do say all True believers do not always to the end of their days, hear Christ's voice and follow him; for some quit the faith, and draw back from him, and cease to be True believers. Mr. Danson. I prove it thus: If all True believers are built upon a Rock, than they hear the voice of Christ, and follow him to the end of their days; But all True believers are built upon a Rock. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I deny the mjor, (but Rock is a word that admits of various interpretations) however, I deny the consequence prove it by an Argument, that all that are built upon a 〈◊〉 continue there, and cannot but remain th●●e. Mr. Danson. They that cannot fall, though the Wind and Storms beat upon them, they continue upon the Rock, and cannot but continue; but they that are built upon the Rock: Mr. Ives. This is a Parable, and no Argument can be drawn from it, and I will not answer Parables, but if I would, you cannot from thence, conclude the thing denied. Mr. Danson. I will prove it without a Parable. If the work of grace in every True believer is compared to those things that are most fixed, settled, and abiding. Mr. Ives. I tell you, I will not answer comparisons, if you have no plain Text, say you have none, but if you have any, show them: for when you go to Preach against True believers falling away totally and finally; you will make the People believe you have Texts enough, therefore I say, argue from some plain Scripture, or go to another Argument. Mr. Danson. You are a conceited ignorant fellow. Mr. Ives. You may well say, I am ignorant, when you accuse Christ of ignorance. Mr. Danson. I deny it, you are an impudent fellow. Mr. Ives. You affirmed, that though Judas was a Devil, when Christ chose him, yet he knew it not. Mr. Danson. I never said so. Mr. Ives. You did say Christ did not know it, and the Text saith expressly John 6. That he knew from the beginning who should betray him, and that he knew what was in man. Now if you say true, that Judas was a Devil when Christ chose him, then if the Scripture saith true, he knew him to be so. Mr. Danson. I do deny it, I never said so. Mr. Ives. Deny it if you dare, here it is under your hand, in a book of your own. Mr. Danson. Let me see the Book. Mr. Ives. Nay stay a little, you shall have the passages read, it is in the 45th page of your book Entitled the Quakers Folly. Hereupon Mr. Ives gave the book to one that stood by, to read the passages, who read it word for word. Mr. Danson. I say, it appeared not evident to Christ it that time, and you have not read all: there is your Ingenuity. Mr. Ives. You say, that the reason why you laid down that Principle was to oppose an opinion of the Quakers, so that let the reason be what it will, you did say those words, that though Judas was a Devil when Christ chose him, yet Christ did not know it. Mr. Danson. Are you not a disingenuous Fellow, to bring my books in your Pocket? I could have brought some of yours. Mr. Ives. So you might if you pleased. It was well observed by the learned Chillingworth, that it is a mark of a lost and dispareing cause to support itself with impetuous outcries and clamours; the faint refuges of those that want better. Arguments; like him in Lucian, who cried out, Oh cursed Wretch! Oh damned Villain! When he could say nothing else. But I cannot but wonder that Mr. Danson, a Nonconformist Minister, who instead of filling his mouth with Arguments that by sound speech which cannot be condemned; He that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of him. Tit. 2.8, Should utter such speech, as I am sure tends to corrupt good manners; and that can never administer grace to the hearers, neither can be (or any man else) that useth such language approve himself Religious, much less a Teacher of Religion (if St. James saith true in his first Chapter and 26 v. That cannot bridle his Tongue, unless he proves it by telling us, he is a much justified. when he rails and reviles, as when he speaks with all meekness and wisdom; for in his book, Entitled the Quakers Folly page 38. he saith, David when be committed Murder and dultry, was not in a condemned, but in a justified Estate; and that he had said more to prove it, then that any Quaker or any of his brethren could answer; if this be true, a man may be a justified person, and so Religious, though he give his Tongue the Rains, and never bridle it. Mr. Danson. I proceed to the last Argument that I shall urge now. Those for whose perseverance Christ prays shall certainly persevere and cannot fall away totally nor finally from grace. But Christ hath prayed for the perseverance of all True believers. Ergo, no True believer shall fall away totally and finally from grace. Mr. Ives. I deny the major. Mr. Danson. If Christ was always heard in what he prayed for, than they for whose perseverance Christ prays, shall not fall away. But Christ was always heard in what he prayed for. Ergo, Mr. Ives. I answer by distinguishing of Christ's prayer was always heard, either when he he prayed absolutely or conditionally, that if they did such and such things, it should so and so succeed; now if you mean Christ prayed absolutely for their perseverance, without any condition or qualification in themselves; then I deny the major. Mr. Danson. I will prove he did; for I know of none that he prayed conditionally for. Mr. Ives. I can show an Instance of it when occasion serves. Mr. Danson. What condition did Christ pray? for their perseverance upon. Mr. Ives. If you please, I am not to name one yet, there is no universal negative in what I have heard yet, and therefore I need not name any Instance. Mr. Danson. You ought to name one. Mr. Ives. I ought not. Mr. Danson. You are so conceited. Mr. Ives. I will refer it, that the Argument is not as yet, capable of an Instance, so that I need not do it; but however, I will give you one, John 17.21. Christ prays that the World might believe; and he prays that his persecutors that crucified him, might believe and be forgiven, Luke 23.24. Now if Christ's prayer (as you say) was always absolute, and he heard in all he prayed for; then those he prayed for, were converted and pardoned; but if they were never converted nor pardoned; then according to your sense, he was not heard in all he prayed for, or some of his prayers were conditional. Mr. Danson. I say, he was heard in all he prayed for, but when we say Christ was heard in what he prayed for, we are to understand what Christ prayed for as mediator. Mr. Ives. How did he pray else, in this 17th of John especially. Mr. Danson. He prayed in the capacity of a private person. Mr. Ives Prove that if you can, that Christ did pray as a private person; but if you could prove that Christ prayed for something (though as a private Person) that he was not heard in, than you prove against yourself, that he was not heard in all he prayed for. Mr. Danson. It was the effect of common Charity; I will give you an instance, Luke 23. Father forgive them, they know not what they do; which Prayer was an effect of that Law of Charity, that he was under as he became man, and so obedient to the Law of loving his enemies, and so he prayed for somewhat, that did not inevitably and infallibly come to pass. Mr. Ives. You said before, he was heard in all he Prayed for, and now you say, he Prayed for something that did not come to pass; and I gave you that Instance, that Christ Prayed, that the World might believe that God had sent him; was that Prayer heard or not? Mr. Danson. Yes, according as it was made. Mr. Ives. So was yours about their perseverance, but you bid me give you an Instance, that Christ prayed for any thing that was not effected for, or upon those for whom he prayed, and I have given you two Instances of some things that he prayed for, that was not actually effected upon those for whom he prayed; therefore he was not heard in all he prayed for; if by hearing you mean so, as the things must absolutely and inevitably come to pass. Mr. Danson. Christ was not heard in some things, that he only prayed for as a private man. Mr. Ives The Scripture makes no such distinction; but if it did, you are confuted, for you said before, that he was heard in all he prayed for. Mr. Danson. See the impertinency of the man. Mr. Ives. Give me I say, an Instance where Christ prayed as a public, and as a private person, and then show me that all he prayed for as a public person, was absolute, and did infallibly come to pass. Mr. Danson. Christ was heard even in this prayer, he did make as a private person; because that this prayer of his, was with submission unto the will of his Father, considering what he did in this, he did as a private person; as the Apostle faith, he desired to present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, it was his will as Humane, so Christ as he was under the Law was under an obligation of loving his enemies, and therefore for praying for them. Mr. Ives. You say Christ's prayer was heard as a private person; and before you said, it might or was not always heard as a private person; but he was always heard as mediator. Now I bid you prove your distinction, and do not I answer fairly? Mr. Danson. I am to prove that Christ was heard in all he prayed for. Mr. Ives. How heard? Mr. Danson. So as to obtain the thing desired according to the will of God. Mr. Ives. I say, Christ was heard when he prayed, that such and such men might believe by the use of means, and so that they might persevere in the use of means, and that others might be pardoned upon Repentance; but he was heard, though they did not believe because he prayed for them upon that consideration; for his prayer was always, heard conditionally or absolutely; Now I ask in which of these senses you mean. Mr. Danson. I say, absolutely in this case; that is, that Christ prayed for the perseverance of all True believers without condition. Mr. Ives. Why then, you are now to prove that Christ prayed absolutely without condition, for the perseverance of them. Mr. Danson. I will prove that, that is the thing I aimed at; I say; Jesus Christ in his prayer for his Enemies, was heard after the same manner, that any believers is heard when he prays for his enemies, because there is in the matter of the prayer, there is a submission to the will of God, as to those things which the particular decree and council of God did not appear about. Mr. Ives. Did he know whether these People would believe or not believe, when he prayed for them. Mr. Danson. There is some things that Christ is ignorant of, as the day of Judgement, because Christ faith, he did not know it. Mr. Ives. But the question is still where it was at first: for I say and 〈◊〉 unto you, that whatsoever Christ p●●yed for absolutely, he was heard in; and whatsoever he prayed for upon condition, there is also a true sense in which it may be said, he was beard in all such prayers, because he did not pray for the pardon of his Enemies, but upon condition of their Repentance. Now if they had Repent, and had not been pardoned, than Christ was not heard in this prayer; but if they remained in Impenitency, and were never pardoned, he was nevertheless heard in this prayer; And now you are to prove that what he prayed for in this prayer for his Disciples perseverance, he prayed for absolutely, and not conditionally, or else you do not argue of my distinction. Mr. Danson. Why so? Mr. Ives. I will show you why; If Christ prayed for some things that were not effected upon the persons non-performance on their parts; and yet in this, he might be said to be heard, than the prayer you mentioned must be of this kind, or absolute, and if it be absolute, show it. Mr. Danson. If Christ was heard always in what he prayed for, than this was an absolute prayer. ●●●ves. And must he not when he prays for the Conversion of others and the forgiveness of others; and when he prayed that the World might believe, was he not heard then? And did not Christ in the same prayer, John 17 pray that all that believed might be one, as the Father and He were one? Now if this prayer were absolute, How comes it to pass that there are so many sad divisions among Christians? ●id not Christ pray that all True believers might be kept from the evil of the World; how comes it to pass that many of them fall into many worldly pollutions? If these prayers were absolutely heard, and the thing effected, How could there be either such fowl pollutions, or such great divisions among True believers? all which plainly shows, that Christ prays for these effects upon their use of such means, as that they might thereby obtain both unity and purity; in like manner he prays for their perseverance in grace, upon the condition of their use of means, as praying, watching, etc. But there is no absolute prayer for such perseverance as you Fancy. Mr. Danson. He was not heard in that prayer, as a private person. Mr. Ives. Show that distinction in the Bible, where doth the Scripture say he prayed for some things as a public person absolutely, and every thing came to pass as he prayed for in that capacity, and at other times that he prayed as a private person, and he was then heard only in some things. Mr. Danson. I have showed you Luke 23. Father forgive them, etc. Mr. Ives. Suppose that prayer was not answered according to your way of explication, as to their being actually pardoned, yet than it makes against you, since you gave that reason why True believers could not fall away; because the Lord Jesus Christ faith himself, Father I thank thee thou hast heard me always and that he was heard in all he prayed for, and thence you inferred they could not fall away that were True believers; because Christ prayed for their perseverance, and was heard in all he prayed for, But is there not the same reason to conclude that all Christ's crucifiers shall be forgiven; and that the World shall all believe in him; because Christ prays for these things; if it shall be said, Christ prayed for the World and his Enemies, as a private person, and so it might not come to pass; Why may it not be said, he prayed for the perseverance of all believers, as a private person, and so some may fall away notwithstanding; but if it be said, he prayed for believers absolutely and without condition, why may it not be said he prayed so for the World and his Enemies. Mr. Danson. So that if you suppose in the one place, he was not heard, and in other places he was, than you must admit of that distinction of his praying, as a public and a private person. Mr. Ives. I deny the Consequence; for when Christ prayed that they might be converted, he prays (as be did for other things) according to the rule he had prescribed; Now you prove that he was heard as to this point of perseverance, because he was heard in all he prayed for. Now I confess, some things he was not heard in, in the sense explained, as to the coming to pass of them; and I have told you why, because the prayer was conditional; when Christ here prays for all that should believe, than he prays that the World might believe that the Father had sent him; was that prayer absolute? and was it heard? Did the World believe? Pray speak Sir. Mr. Danson. Indefinitely they did. Mr. Ives. Did not Christ pray that more might believe then in time did believe, or then was given him out of the World? Mr. Danson. I, By a common faith, such as they might fall from. Mr. Ives. Was this common Faith, true or false? Mr. Danson. It was true in its kind, as truth stands in opposition to counterfeit. Mr. Ives. Mr. Danson saith, that this Faith that Christ prayed for, that the World might have, was a common Faith, and true in its kind, in opposition to Hypocrisy, and such a Faith, they might fall from; I say no more, that it is True Faith, in opposition to feigned or counterfeit Faith; now this is all that I had to do, to prove that men might fall from such a Faith, as is opposite to a Counterfeit or feigned Faith, and this Mr. Danson confesses they might fall from, though he hath all this while disputed against it. Mr. Danson. That's not the question. Mr. Ives. It was: for by a True Faith we explained before, to be such a faith as was True in opposition to a hypocritical or seeming Faith. Thus ended the last Dispute, in which it was observable, that Mr. Ives was much interrupted, not only by two, and sometimes three at once of the Ministers that were of Mr. Danson's perswafion; but the multitude that stood that way affected, were very rude and uncivil, beyond what is here taken notice of; and it is observable that Mr. Danson never opened his mouth, to pray them to be quiet all the time, though Mr. Ives took much pains to persuade them, once and again, yet still they were the more tumultuous; but on the other hand, the People that were of Mr. Ives' persuasion about the matter debated, speak not one word either by way of interruption, or meddling with the question in debate, nor by way of tumultuous or any other disorderly carriage, did they appear to disturb the audience. Unless one person, who was desired being nearer the light, to read a passage in Mr. Danson's book, which Mr. Ives could not so well see to do. I should not have ventured to have published this, it looks so like partiality; but that it was a thing publicly taken notice of in the dispute by Mr. Ives, who did mention it to Mr. Danson, as a thing praise werthy in his Friends, for which he then gave them public thank, as any one can witness that was there present. Vale AN APPENDIX. Reader, THat many Godly and Righteous Men in these late times, have held and believed, That it is impossible for any True believer to cease to be such, and fall away and perish; I do not deny I am also sensible that their persuasion in this matter is grounded (as they think) either upon God's Election, the Scripture Promises, and Christ's Prayers, or else upon the absurd consequences that follow upon the contrary opinion. Now as touching God's Election, I shall freely grant, and it may easily be affented too; that those whom God hath from the beginning chose to Salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth, shall never finally fall away and perish, according to 2 Thes. 2.13. but though this be granted, yet it doth not follow from hence, that no True believer, or that none who sincerely believe can finally fall away; and in this case, let Mr. Baxter (who in this point descents from me) speak for me, I dare not (saith he) say I am certain that all who do sincerely believe, and are justified, are Elected to Salvation, and shall never finally fall away; It is my opinion (saith he) but I dare not put it in my Creed, etc. I know (saith he) how learned and godly Men do differ from me, and deny the certainty of perseverance, I know how many sad and shaking examples, these times have afforded, and therefore I am not certain, properly, strictly certain of my perseverance, and so not fully strictly certain of my Salvation. See Mr. Baxter's directions page 16. And in the end of his Appology I am not (saith he) So certain of this doctrine of perseverance, as I am that Christ is the Son of God, and the Redeemer of the World; I never (saith he) found the doctrine of certain perseverance in any Creed of the Church; I hope none dare say that all the Lutherans, Arminians and Anabaptists who are otherwise minded, are no Christians, much less in the first Ages of the Christian Church, which thought otherwise. And again, in his account of his thoughts touching perseverance, Page 5. he saith, That it was the judgement of St. Augustin, that though the Elect should never fall away finally; yet he also believed and was persuaded that some that were effectually called, regenerated and justified, might fall away and perish; And further in the same page he saith, That because some are so immodest, as to question whether this was St. Augustin's opinion. I add further, that I did ask the Reverend Bishop Usher in the hearing of Dr. Kendal, whether this was not plainly the judgement of Augustin, and he answered undoubtedly it was; and further (saith he) Bishop Ʋsher was as likely to know as any man I am capable of consulting with; and if any be still in doubt, the passages following, which are transcribed out of St. Augustine, may end his doubts, August. de bono persever. Capt. 8. & 9 ex duobus autem piis, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi autem non donetur instructabil●ora sunt judicia dei. That of two both being GODLY, perseverance unto the end should be given to the one and NOT GIVEN UNTO THE OTHER, belongs to the unsearchable judgements of God. Again, Propter hoc Apostolus come. dixisfet, etc. For this cause, the Apostle when be had said. We know that all things work together for good, to those that love God, knowing that some LOVE GOD WHO DO NOT PERSEVERE in this good. Mr. Baxter in the last forecited book of perseverance, tells us page 16. That though he presumes in this point, to descent from Augustin, and the COMMON judgement of the teachers of that, and MANY former and later ages, yet (saith he) I find myself obliged by the reverence of such contradicting Authority; and forced also by the consciousness of my Ignorance, to suspect my own understanding, and descent with modesty, honourring the contrary minded, and being willing to receive any further evidence, etc. and page 17. I dare not say that I have attained to a certainty in understanding this point, &c all the texts of Scripture that concern it, better than St. Augustin, and the common judgement of the Church for so many ages; and therefore I dare not say that I have attained to a certainty that all the justified shall persevere; and further in the same page, that can be no very easy point, which ALICE or ALMOST ALL THE CHURCH FOR SO MANY AGES; and which not only most of the Christians of the World, but also so many Nations of Protestants themselves do err in, and which the choicest Men for learning and diligence, and those that were the leaders in defending the grace of God against Pelagius, as Augustin and others; and besides, abundance of Protestant Divines, could never attain the understanding of; but resisted the contrary opinion (meaning that it was possible for any True believer to fall away findly) As error, yea when they were, and are as holy as we, and so as like to have divine Illumination, all this being in the case it seemeth to be high self-conceited arrogancy for such a one as I, to profess such a point to be so evident and easy, and to imagine that ALL THE MOST HOLY and JUDICIOUS writers for so MANY AGES and SO MANY at this day are so far below me in the understanding the Scriptures, and that even in points which they had so much occasion to search into, and so many and great advantages to understand; I do not saith he) I dare not presume of this; thus far and much farther to the same purpose, the learned (though in this point, the dissenting) Mr. Baxter, in his book of the Sain●s Perseverance; so that not only from Scripture, but from the general consent of all Antiquity; the docrin of the possibility of some True believers falling from Grace finally, may consist with an election of Grace, and Gods choosing men from the beginning, through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth; from whence we may see, that though there is a number that shall certainly be saved according to an election of Grace; yet there may also be many that may have true justifying Faith, that may fall away and perish, who never were in this number of Elect. So that this doctrine of the possibility of some True believers fahing away finally, no way interfers with the doctrine of Election, not do those Scriptures that speak concerning Election, so much as call the truth of this doctrine in question. The other ground of the impossibility of any True believers falling away finally, is a mistake of Scripture promises; here let me give notice of two kinds of promises in the Scripture about this matter. First, such as though they seem to be absolute, yet they have conditions employed in them. Secondly, of such Scriptures as promise the performance of those conditions; the first fort, are as follows, Mat. 19 18. You that have followed me in the regeneration (or in the Resurrection) shall sit upon 12 Thrones judging the 12 Tribes of Israel. Now this promise seems to be absolute, and Judas was one of those 12 to whom it was made; but the condition employed was, that they should always to the end continue in his service; and therefore Judas falling away, and not performing the condition, never came to receive the fruition of the promise. Again, 1 Sam. 2.30. I said indeed that thy house & the house of thy Father should walk beforeme for ever; but now the Lord saith, be it far from me; for them that honour me, I will honour, etc. So the Land of Canaan is often promised to the seed of Abraham for an everlasting possession, yet Deut. 4.27. the Lord tells them that if they corrupt themselves, He will scatter them among the Nations, and they shall be left few in number among the Heathen, where he will lead them; And so Ezek 11.17, 18, 19 God promises (as one would think upon the first view, absolutely) that he would gather Israel from among the People, and give them one heart, and put a new spirit in them; but yet he tells them in Chap. 36.27 & 37. v. compared together, that he will do this upon a condition, as is there expressed; yet for all this, will I be inquired of by the house of Israel; and so Jer. 31. & Jer. 32.40, 41, there we read of a Covenant (which some call absolute; but I must needs say an absolute Covenant in their sense, is absolute nonsense) in which God promises many things, but yet he tells the same People, Isa. 55.3. That IF they will incline their Ears and come to him, he will make an everlasting Covenant with them, even the sure mercies of David; & in this sense God's promises, that sem absolute in form, are to be conditionally understood As he that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting Life, and shall not come into condemnation, John 8.34. & John 5.24. & Psalm 125.1. He that trusts in the Lord, shall be as mount Zion, that never shall be removed. Now if these promises are absolute, than this must be the sense of such Scriptures; that if men have once truly believed and trusted in God, they shall inevitably be saved; let them hereafter trust or distrust, believe or disbelieve, or whether they be not; or whether they be; Whoremongers, Adulterers, or Idolaters; yet they shall be saved and abide for ever. Now if this be not the sense, than these promises, and all of that kind must be understood conditionally, that he that believeth and continueth in believing, and that trusteth in the Lord; and continueth in so doing; upon these terms and conditions he shall be saved and abide for ever; and to this agrees all these plain and express Scriptures, which being well considered, will explain all those texts and promises that seem to be absolute, as to the form of them, John 5▪ 10. IF YE keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my Love. and John 14.23. IF any man love me, he will keep my say and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and dwell with him, 1 Col. 1.21, 22, 23. And you that were in time past Strangers and Enemies in your minds, by wicked works; now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh, to present you blameless, and unreprovable in his sight. IF YE continue in the Faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, etc. Heb. 3.14. We are made partakers of Christ, IF WE hold fast the beginning of OUR CONFIDENCE firm unto the end, Rev. 10. be thou faithful unto Death, and I will give thee a crown of Life. Mat. 24.13. he that endureth to the end, shall be saved, Heb. 10.38. the just shall live by Faith, but if he draw back my Soul shall have no pleasure in him. Much like these promises (that seem absolute) are such Scriptures that promise eternal Life to men without any exception, or making the least question of their perseverance, when that life and blessing promised, is suspended upon their change; as he that believeth shall not see Death, and he that drinketh, (saith our Saviour) of the Water that I shall give him, shall never Thirst; this plainly implies that these promises, suppose their continuance in so doing: so Christ saith, he that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in Heaven, & whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is in Heaven, Mat 10.32, 33. Now Judas did confess Christ before men, but he had no right or claim to this promise, because he did not Persevere in this confession; in like manner Peter denied Christ before men, but he was not denied by Christ before his Father in Heaven, because he did not persist and die in the denying of him. But yet we may see that the promises of the one, and the threatening of the other, is made without exception, and wherever we read of any such promises, a possibility of a change is supposed; for when the Scripture saith, He that believeth in the Son, bath everlasting Life, and shall not come into condemnation; it doth no more suppose it impossible for that man to fall away, and have this promise suspended; then the other text that saith, He that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth or remaineth upon him, doth suppose it Impossible for this man ever to believe, and to have the wrath of God, or the execution of vengeance suspended upon his believing; to this may be reduced all Scriptures that seem to promise a blessing or threaten wrath, according to men's present state and condition, though both the one and the other may be suspended upon their change, and that an impossibility of a change, is not to be understood more by the one Scripture that promises Salvation to the believer, then by the other, that tells us wrath remains upon the unbeliever. But to this, it is usually replied, that though it be true, there are promises that are conditional; yet God hath promised to perform those conditions, for them to whom be graciously makes such promises; and therefore it is not possible for any True believer to fall away finally. This persuasion is grounded upon the promises of the second kind, that I before premised, and they are such promises as 2. Thes. 2, 3. But the Lord is faithful who shall establish and keep you from evil, Phil. 1.6. He that hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 8, 9 Who shall also confirm you to the end, etc. 1. Pet. 1.5. Who are kept by the mighty power of God, through faith unto Salvation, Phil. 2▪ 12, 13. Work out your own Salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure, 1 Thef. 5.24. Faithful is he which hath called you, Who also will do it. That these Scriptures do not prove that which they are alleged for, (viz.) That Go hath absolutely undertaken and engaged for all True believers so; and at that rate, that ler them do what they can, they cannot cease to be True believers. But such Scriptures as those last named do only assure all True believers that God will not be wanting on his part, to effect their perseverance; if they are not wanting to themselves; and for the better understanding hereof, we are to consider that God is said to work those virtues in us, and to do all for us, when he vouchsafeth sufficiency of means for the effecting thereof, though the thing be never effected; thus Christ is said to take away the sins of the World, John 1.19. Though the World lieth in wickedness, because he hath done that which is sufficient to take away the sin of the World, and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness. To the same purpose the Scripture speaks in Ezek. 13.42. because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, th●u shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee; God in this place, is said to have PURGED THEM THAT WERE NOT PURGED, because he had vouchsafed proper and sufficient means for their Purgation; and so St. Augustin speaks of Christ, As much as lieth in the Physician, he came to save, and heal the Sick, and he slayeth himself that will not observe the precepts of the Physician. And after this manner, the Apostle argues, Rom. 2.4, 5. That the goodness of God, did lead them to Repentance; though many of them were so far from being lead to Repentance, that he tells them that after their hardness and impenitency of heart, they treasured up to themselves, wrath against the day of wrath, etc. In this sense are those Scriptures to be understood of Gods keeping believers from falling and preserving them to the end; and of his promise that they shall be kept from evil, which whether it be of the evil of punishment, or the evil of Sin, believers are never so kept, but that they may, and sometimes do fall into the one, and the other, and therefore those texts must be understood of Gods doing those things by his gracious vouchsafement of means, sufficient to keep believers from evil, and from Back sliding; and of doing all that which is necessary on his part, for their persevering and keeping to the end. And as concerning those Scriptures that speak of Christ's prayer for the perseverance of all true believers; and tha● he was not heard in all he prayed for; if they do not all persevere, this hath been answered in the Disputation; how that Christ did not pray for their perseverance in any other sense, but by their careful and diligent use of the means God had vouchsafed them, they might be kept from falling; and in this sense he was heard in all he prayed for, although with Judas, some True believers should fall away; in this sense he prayed that the World might believe, and that all believers might be in unity, and sanctified, and kept in the World from evil, though we see few of the World do believe, or few believers live in that unity or are so sanctified, as to be free from the evil of the World; therefore Christ's prayer explains itself, when he prays for believers sanctification, John 17 Sanctify them THROUGH THY TRUTH, thy word is Truth; So that one may run and read, that this prayer of Christ concerning the perseverance of True believers was upon condition of their use of means, which was no more absolute than his prayer, either for their sanctity or unity; and neither the one or the other more than any, that God would so bless them in the nse of such means, that thereby they might attain those blessed ends; all which implies, that it was possible for many things never to come to pass, that Christ thus prayeth for; and yet he is notwithstanding heard always, in all things. The last ground of this persuasion, that no True believer can sivally fall away, is this, (viz.) that the contrary doctrine of the possibility of True beliezcrs falling, hath absurd consequences attending it. The first is, that it makes God changeable, because the Scripture faith, Mal. 3.6. I the Lord change not, therefore the Sons of Jacob are not consumed. Thence it is inferred, that if God hates those whom he once loved, he is changeable; to this I answer, that if God had promised to love men absolutely, and without condition, than the Sons of Jacob must be loved of God, though they were never so wicked, or else God must be subject to change. But this cannot be the sense, because, God hates all the workers of Iniquity; again, the Scripture tells us concerning Elia's Sons, 1 Sam. 2.30. I said indeed, that thy house, and the house of thy Father should walk before me for ever. But now saith she Lord, far be it from me; for them that honour me, I will honour; and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed of. The like we have in Jer. 18.7, 8. At what time (saith God) I shall speak concerning a Nation, and a Kingdom, to plack up, & to pull down, & to destroy it; if that Nation against whom I have pronounced it, turn from their evil, I will repent me of the evil that I thought to do unto them: And at what instant I speak concerning a Kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, them will I repent of she good where with I said I would benefit them; The like we have in the 18. Matt. 32. those that had been forgiven, had all their debt afterwards exacted, because they would not forgive their fellow-servants: and who dares say that God changeth, if those men that had his wrath abiding on them in the days of their Infidelity should upon their believing & continuing in the Faith, be saved, and delivered from wrath and vengeance; Nay, would it not argue a change in God if he should have done otherwise, viz. if he had let wrath remain after they had repent; forasmuch as he had promised to remove it upon those conditions: and in like manner would it not argue a change in God, if he should show the same kindness and favour to men in the height of their wickedness, as he doth to his most holy and mortified self, denying servants, so that Gods abhorring those that depart from him, is so far from charging God, with changing either in his essence or attributes that he would be changed, if he did not do it, because he hath engaged his word for it, Heb. 10▪ 38. That if any draw back, his Soul shall have no pleasure in them. The other absurdity is, that the doctrine of the possibility of True believers, final a postacy, is destructive of all true Christian comfort; in this matter, let Mr. Baxter speak for me (though he descent from me) in the 19 page of his Treatise of the Saints Perseverance, he saith, That this doctrine doth not destroy all Christian comfort, but a Life of much Christian comfort, may be had without assurance of Salvation [he means, in the sense contended for] which (saith he) I prove from Adam's comfort in innocency; doubtless, the possibility of his fall, did not destroy his comfort while he stood. Secondly, it were unreasonable, and uncharitable, to think that the ancient Churches, that differed in this point, had no Christian peace, and that such holy men as Augustin and Luther, and multitudes more were deprived of Christian peace, who have manifested so great confidence, and joy both in their lives and writings. Thirdly, if there be no joy, nor peace, except we receive it from the certainty of our perseverance, than (saith he) it would follow that exceeding few of those, that hold the perseverance of all the justified, have joy or peace in believing. Fourthly, I argue a pari: there is no Son of the wisest and constant Father that is certain he shall persevere in the love and favour of his Parents, and that he shall not fall into their very hatred, and be disinherited by them; yet it doth not follow, that therefore all Children should uncomfortably vex themselves with fears, lest their Parents should hate them, or disinherit them; yea, or that no Son can from hence take comfort in his Father's Love, and there is no man of the greatest holiness, is certain he shall not fall into some fowl sin (this is acknowledged by all) he is not certain but he may be Drunk as Noah was, or incestuous as Lot was, commit Adultery and Murder as David did, deny Christ as Peter did; and if you were sure you should fall thus, would it not even break your hearts; but what must all Christians live in doubts, and he uncomfortable because of this? you are not certain, but you may for such capital crimes, be hanged at a Gallows, and be made a public example to the World. Yet I hope we may live comfortably for all that, and need not trouble ourselves with such fears, save only by necessary caution, to prevent the evil, the same grounds therefore that may give you comfort against the fears of such scandalous sins, may give them comfort concerning their Salvation, who either believe not the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, or are not certain of their own Sanctification, page 22, 23. especially (as he observes, page 22.) If we consider the goodness of God's Nature, his common mercy to mankind, the fullness and freeness of his grace in Christ, the experience of his love, both in common and special mercies, which abundance of comfortable passages in Scripture; all these may do much to the support, and comfort of the Soul against Apostasy, thought there had been no absolute promise made of the final perseverance of all the justified, etc. But what are these, to the absurdities that follow upon the opinion of the impossibility of True believers falling finally; and that will appear, if we consider how much it borders upon Antomiavism, and the tendency of it to promote Ranterism, that it borders upon Antomianism, and at some turns strikes hands with it, will appear, if we do consider the doctrines of the one and the other, as we find them Printed, and published to the World, though possibly by Men, otherwise very Godly and learned. I shall (instead of many that wrote for Antinomianism) only mention Dr. Crisp: I begin with some passages in his Sermons, page 174, 175. Let me speak freely (saith he) and in so doing tell you, that the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect person, in the height of iniquity, and in the excess of riot and committing all the abomination that can be committed, I say when an Elect person runs such a course, the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of that person, then to the charge of a believer, nay then to the charge of a Saint triumphant in Glory. And in his Sermon called Christ the way. pag. 23, 24. I give this hint (saith he) by the way, when as I speak of the power of Christ subduing Sin, because from the power of it in men; they are apt to think their peace depends upon their subduing of sin: if their sins be subdued, then (they think) they may have peace; and if they cannot be subdued, than no peace; let Christ have his due; it is he alone that speaks peace, pag. 113 what ado is here with men about breaking their hearts, and forsaking their sins, pag. 157. there is a comfortable difference between the new Covenant, and all other Covenants; the condition in the other Covenants was such, that in case Man did fail to perform his condition, the Covenant was broke, and God was free from giving life— but in the new Covenant— man is tied to NO CONDITION that he MUST PERFORM, and that if he do not perform, it will make the Covenant void to him, pag. 189, as the Father looks for NOTHING of Men to partake of Christ; so there is NOTHING in Man though NEVER SO VILE that can debar a person from a part in this Christ: Again, there is not (saith he) that sinfulness that can be imagined in a creature, that can be able to separate or debar any of you from part in Christ, even while you are thus sinful, Christ may be your Christ, pag. 192. Men (saith he) think righteousness brings them nigh ●o Christ; Beloved, righteousness is that which puts a man away from Christ; stumble not at the expression, it is the choice truth of the Gospel. Upon which words, a sober man cries out, O prodigious profaneness! it is the foul language of Hell, Hell itself hath not a more devilish expression! This being on all hands allowed for the height of Antinomianism; let us now see, how men that would be thought otherwise, minded agree with it; To this purpose see Mr. Cotton's Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, with Mr. Joseph Caryl's Commendatory Epistle to it, Printed 1671. pag 91. if a man know himself under the Covenant of Grace, than he doth not fear Damnation for his disobedience, and pag. 94. A christian doth not fear Livorce for his disobedience; for if we look for cursing for our disobedience, we are not under Christ, but under the Law; but he that is freed from the Covenant of Works, is freed from expecting Salvation, or fearing Damnation for what he doth, and p. 96, 97. Lastly, the Soul doth not claim his right unto any conditional Promises, by his performing the Condition; Nor doth he deny himself the blessing that the Promise may reach forth to him, though he may be wanting in obedience to this or that Commandment.— This is the freedom of a christian Soul, whereas another man, if he have kept the Commandments, and performed the Condition, he than looketh for acceptance with God, as if the Lord had made this promise, that he that confesseth and forsaketh his sin, shall find Mercy; this man confesseth his sin unto God, and forsaketh it, and therefore he looks for mercy. BUT THIS IS NOT THE MANNER OF GOD'S PEOPLE. No marvel they cannot perish if they have a way to salvation, without either confessing or forsaking sin, but from such people of God, whose manner is neither to confess nor forsake their sins in order to salvation or finding mercy, this shall be my Litany, Libera nos Domine. Another like this we have in Mr. Bridges' Book, entitled The sinfulness of Sin, pag. 34. Humble yourselves for your sins, (saith he) though they be never so small, but do not question your condition though your sins are NEVER SO GREAT. I do not (saith he) speak this to those that are unconverted, for they have cause to question their condition, for every sin though never so small, but being converted. I say humble yourselves for your sins, though never so small, but never question thy condition for ANY SIN THOUGH NEVER SO GREAT. I do not wonder that men have run into Ranterism, and all the abominations of the Gnostics of old, under the pretence of their being the darlings of God, and favourites of the Court of Heaven; having fancied they have absolve promises of Salvation; and therefore have no reason to question their condition, or fear their Damnation, though their sins be never so great. No marvel Mr. Danson in the dispute told us, that True believers (such as Mr. Bridges, Calls onverts) cannot sin as other men do; for other men must question their condition, though their sins be never so small, as Mr. Bridges tells us, but True believers and Converts, must by no means question their condition, though their sins be never so great. Indeed if this be true, I must needs confess that believers cannot sin as others do; for others must fear damnation for the least sin, but believers may sin, cum privelegio, and not fear damnation, for the grossest and greatest sins, though they should be Drunkards, or Incestuous persons, Murderers, Adulterers, or deniers of Jesus Christ in times of persecution; to this agrees, the forecited Doctor Crisp, in his Sermon of Christ is the way, page 36. Give me (saith he) a believer that hath truly set his footing upon Christ, he blasphemes Christ, that dares serve a writ of damnation upon that person▪ Suppose a believer be overtaken in a gross sin. [Suppose it be Murder, or Adultery, denying of Christ, or Blasphemy] It is a desperate thing in any man so much as to serve a writ of Damnation upon a beliver; and he doubles it with an ingemination; I say unto thee, whoevor thou art, that art ready to charge Damnation upon thyself when thou art overtaken; thou dost the greatest injury to the Lord Jesus, that can be; for in so doing, thou overthrowest the fullness of the grace of Christ. It seems then, that when men are believers, and have once the privileges to set their foot upon Christ, (as the Doctor phrases it) they may afterwards trample upon him, and offer him the greats est indignities imaginable, and not fear damnation from him. Mr. Bridges and Doctor Crisp, make one heart and soul, at this turn; for Mr. Bridges saith, they must not QUESTION their condition though their sins be NEVER SO GREAT: and the Doctor saith, they do the greatest dishonour to Christ imaginable, if they charge Damnation upon themselves, though they should be overtaken with gross sins. To this agrees the Learned Doctor Owen in his Sermon before the Parliament at Westminst. Feb. 28. 1647. It is not (saith he) the greatness of thy sin, nor thy continuance in thy sin, nor thy back-sliding into sin, that is the true cause of thy staggering, but solely from thy unbelief. This agrees with Mr. Bridges and Doctor Crisp; that if they be believers, and once set their footing upon Christ; they need not stagger for the greatness of their sins, nor their continuance in them. No, by no means, after they have set their foot upon Christ, they may be as bold as they please with him, and sin at what rate, and to what degree their lusts shall at any time propences them; this is but the sense, sum, and substance of the forecited doctrines To all this may be added some doctrines laid down in a Treatise of Justification, published by Mr. Eyre's, with Doctor Owen's Commendatory Epistle: see Chap. 12. He lays down this doctrine, That in the new Covenant there is no condition required to entitle us to the blessings of it; and thence he draws this Corrollary, that Faith is not a condition of the new Covenant; he further saith, That the Elect Corinthians; that were Idolaters, Fornicators, Thiefs, Covetous, Drunkards, Revilers, and Extortioners, had no more right to Salvation after their believing, than they had before. Then it seems they had, a right to Heaven, if they had died in this condition, and never believed; for Faith (he says) is no condition of the Covenant, that is the doctrine, and that men in the height of their impieties, and excess of wickedness have (if Elected) as much right to Heaven then, as when converted, that is the application; so that if they can set foot upon Christ by Election; they may be saved though they die unbelievers; for Faith, he saith is no condition of it. Somewhat to this purpose Mr. Edward Bagshaw dogmatizeth in his book Entitled, The Doctrine of free Grace in pardoning Sin, without conditions, page 25. he explains himself, what he means by free Grace; By free here I do not mean free, as excluding Christ, but as excluding ourselves, or any thing we can do, as a cause procuring, or as a condition qualifying us for the receiving of it. Lord! Whether will these opinions lead us? or rather, whether will they not lead us? sometimes they tell us if we are believers, we need not question our condition though our sins are never so great. Now we are told, that if we are Elected, we are well enough; for Faith is no condition of the covenant of Grace; and that we are no nearer Salvation after we believe, than we were before: for that is the sense (for saith he) The Elect Corinthians had no more right to Heaven after their believing, than they had while they were unbelievers, Whoremongers, and Adulterers. Thus they make even our Faith of none effect; upon which words, the learned and sober Mr. Woodbridge, in his answer to Mr. Eyre's saith, he never read the like in any writings of God or man (page 193.) What! that some men (saith Mr Woodbridge) that live in Adulteries, Idolatries, Blasphemies, Murders and all manner of ungodlyness; yet have as much right to Heaven, as the most Faithful, Humble, Mortified, Christian, or Apostle, the height of whose blessedness it is, that they have RIGHT to enter into the Kingdom of God. Rev. 22.14. Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that THEY MAY HAVE RIGHT to the Tree of Life; for without are Dogs and Whoremongers, and Idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a Lye. But if this blessedness may be had in the service of Sin and Satan (saith he) and in the fulfilling the lust of the Flesh, and of the Mind, and in the unfruitful works of Darkness; let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day, and much better; but he further adds this Argument, viz. none have right to Heaven; but under the notion of a reward; but wicked and ungodly men that live in contempt of God and all good; have no right to Heaven; under the notion of reward; Ergo, they have no right at all. Thus far Mr. Woodbridge late Minister of Newbury enters his protest against Mr. Eyers. After this rate Mr. Burroughs, upon Remission of Sin, reasoneth page 25. That God doth not stay, till a Sinner be made Godly, and then justifieth him; but this (saith he) is one of the mysteries of Remission, that all sins are pardoned, both past, present, and to come; This puts me in mind of him who in the time of selling indulgences, bought a pardon for all sins to come, as well as for all sins past, and presently after, went and rob the Pope's Legate of a great sum of Money, which he had raised by indulgences, hereupon the man was questioned before Authority for his so doing, to which he gives in this answer for his defence, that the Legate had no cause to complain, because he had granted him a pardon of this, if it were a sin, as well any other sin, that hereafter he should be guilty of. May not any man (if this doctrine be true) take the same liberty to commit any the most enormous crimes, and bring this in bar, to divert divine vengeance, when he shall be impleaded for it, and say, true Lord, I was guilty of horrid Crimes, and added Drunkenness to Thirst; but I was pardoned of all sins past, present, and to come; and therefore it is not just thou shouldest judge me for them. To this agrees, Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter, in page 11. & 12▪ of his Preface which book hath Mr. Carills commendatory Epistle to it, and commended by Mr Christopher Fowler in his Devil at Noon, Second part, page 35. he calls it, a pious fraud in Ministers (since the Reformation) to call for so much Repentance for sin, and such degrees of contrition, sometimes (saith he) you may hear them say much of the riches of Gods free grace, etc. but in conclusion, the Preacher as if he had been deputed to the office of the Cherubims, to keep the way of the Tree of Life, with his flaming Sword turning every way, affrightening poor people from all hope of entering; saying, no profane, nor unclean person, hath right to meddle with this grace; No, First he must have such bear't preparations, and prejacent qualifications, before they draw near to partake of mercy, such hath heen, and still is (saith he) the doctrine delivered in many congregations in this Nation, that I have not without grief, been often an Ear witness of, from the mouths of many Ministers; so that (saith he) I am afraid the Lord hath a controversy against the Ministry, etc. What? for telling people that no profane or unclean person hath any right to partake of the mercy of God, or to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; I have more reason to fear the Lord hath a Controversy, with those Ministers that call such pious truths, pious frauds, to the debauching of mankind. See more to this purpose in Mr. Mortons' Threefold state of Man, page 620. He that is united to Christ by true Faith (saith he) as all the regenerate are, whether he dies in Repentance, or in Impenitency be always dies in Christ. And to this may be added some doctrines observable in a book Entitled, the Marrow of modern Divinity, ushered into the World with Mr. Caryll's, Mr. strong's, and Mr. Borroughs', and others commendatory Epistles, and with Mr. Venings to the second part of it, which book hath been printed near half a score times: in the 8th. Edition, 1658. page 204. You have this kind Of a Dialogue between a Minister, and a young Christian. Minister, If at any time, in any case, thou art drawn aside by reason of the weakness of your Faith, and strength of Temptation, and so prevailed with, to swerve from the mind, and will of the Lord; then beware of conceiving, that the Lord sees this as any transgression of the law of works, &c When ever your consciences tell you that you have broken any of the 10. Commandments, do not conceive the Lord looks upon you as an angry Judge; and that he will give you your portion in Hell fire; no, assure yourselves that your God in Christ, will never un-Son you; nor yet as touching your Justification, and eternal Salvation will he love you ever a whit the less, though you commit never so MANY and SO GREAT sins; for this is a certain truth, that as no good either in you, or done by you, did move him to justify you, and give you eternal Life; so NO EVIL in you, or DONE BY YOU can move him to take it away from you, being once given; And the Author in his Epistle confesseth of himself, That he was a dozen years a professor of Religion before he knew any other way to eternal Life; then to be sorry for his sins, and ask forgiveness, and strive and endeavour to fulfil the Law, and keep the Commandments, according as Mr. Dod and other godly men had expounded them. But then page 179. The Christian replies, would you not have believers eschew evil, and do good, for fear of Hell, and hope of Heaven? Minister, No, indeed I would not have any believer do either the one, or the other; for so far as they do, their obedience is slavish; and again, in page 189. Christian, What think you of a Preacher that in my hearing said, that he durst not exhort or persuade sinners to believe their sins were pardoned, before he saw their lives reform; for fear they should take more liberty to sin. Minister, Why! What should I say? but that I think that Preacher was ignorant in the Mystery of Faith, etc. What sha●l we say to these things? That are the proper appurtenancies of the impossibility of any true believers final apostasies: for if these things be true, than all the foresaid doctrine must needs be true, (viz.) that though believers commit never so many and so great sins; and whether they die in Repentance, or Impenitency, they shall be saved; and that they that preach remission of sins upon Repentance and reformation of their lives by this doctrine, are ignorant Preachers▪ for so the Author of this modern divinity styles them. But the Author was very happy in intituling his book modern Divinity; For sure I am the Scripture Divinity, and this modern Divinity, are more strange to one another, than ever the Jews were to the Samaritans, with whom they would have nothing to do; neither is Mr. Danson behind hand in these Antinomian notion, who trade's in absolute promises as well as the rest; for he often in the Dispute told us of absolute promises for the impossibility of True believers ceasing to be such, and falling away finally. And therefore the concluded, They could not sin as other wicked men do, because wicked men must question their condition (as Mr. Bridges saith) if their fins be never so small; but believers need not question their condition though their sins be never so great; these doctrines were well approved of by Mr. Danson, in his book Entitled the Quakers Folly, page 38. wherein he saith, That David when he was guilty of Murder and Adultery, was not in a condemned, but a justified estate, and he tells the Quaker that he had said more to prove it, than he, or any of his brethren could answer. To conclude all, there are two eminent examples, Printed by a Doctor in Divinity (of no small account) touching the ill influence of the aforesaid Doctrine; the one was of a single, and the other of a married Woman, that lived in Adultery; and one of them pleaded for herself, That she did not believe that the sin had done her any hurt, or any whit lessened her in the favour of God, she acknowledged that Adultery, was a damnable sin in the graceless, but not in her that had grace; she alleged (as she had been taught by the aforesaid books and Ministers) that there was a great difference between the sins of the regenerate, and the unregenerate, that the sins of the regenerate, were committed with a reluctancy, which reluctancy she had in her commission of Adultery, she perverted the 7th of the Romans; but after some 5 hours' discourse, the Doctor convinced her other error; See Dr. Pierces, New Discoverer, Discovered page 64. Take heed therefore lest there be in any of you an evil Heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, Heb. 3.12. For if the just man draw back, the Soul of God will have no pleasure in him; and if the righteous, turn from his righteousness, and commits Iniquity, and dyeth in them; for the iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die, Ezek. 18.24. Mat. 18.32 Then the Lord of that Servant, after he had called him, said unto him, Oh! Thou wicked Servant, I FORGE AVE THEE ALL THA DEBT, because thou desirest me▪ shouldest thou not also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I HAD PITY ON THEE; and the Lord of that Servant was wrath, and delivered him to the torments, till he should pay all that was due. And let men preach what they will to the contrary, our Lord Christ tells us, that even so his heavenly Father, shall do to his Disciples (which all grant were True believers) if they from their hearts do not forgive one another their trespasses. Consider what the word of God saith in this matter, and what these men have said in the forecited passages (viz.) That David was in a justied state, when he was guilty of Murder and Adultery, and that the regenerate die in Christ; though they die in impenitency, that the people of God need not question their condition, though their sins be never so great; and that God loved the Corinthians in their Adulteries, I dolatries and all ungodliness as much as he did when they were believers; Washed, Justified, and Sanctified; and that it is not the manner of Cod's people to confess and forsake their sins, in order to their Salvation; and that they that preach God will not forgive in, till men repent and reform their lives, are ignorant preachers; and that no sin any True believers can commit, can move God to have them, neither will God love them ever a whi● the less, though they commit never so many hanous and great sins, What is this? but to represent God to all True believers, as the wicked priests did represent him to the people of Israel telling them, that every one that did evil, was good in the sight of the Lord, and HE DELIGHTETH IN THEM, Mal. 2.17. The Postscript. Reader, IT is possible that some, either for want of charity or ingenuity, may censure me, as one that hath condemned the generation of the Righteous, because the forecited passages are collected out of the writings of such as either were, or are deservedly so esteemed; I thought good therefore to let thee know that those men that I have mentioned, (though holy and learned) never pretended to Infallibility; I hope therefore I may have charity for their Persons, while I make reflection upon some of their Opinions; and the rather because divers, as well Nonconformable as Conformable Ministers have writ against Luther, in the Doctrine of Consubstantiation, and other Opinion, and yet they retained a reverend esteem of his memory in other matters,; and so they have done towards Origen, & divers of the Ancients that differed from them; again, consider that the Presbiterians in the late times did publish a Catalogue of the errors and heresies that then prevailed, with the names of divers persons that were equal in holiness and learning with any that I have named, who held some of those Opinions, they called Heterodox, surely thou canst not think they were so vile, as thereby to condemn the Generation of the Righteous, or to beget an ill Opinion of their persons in the minds of good or bad men, but rather to catuion people to beware of their Doctrine, and to take heed what they heard, and not to embrace all for truth, though delivered by men, otherwise holy and learned; consider yet further, that those Doctrines I mentioned, which those men have delivered, they are either true or false; if false, it is not I, but themselves, that have once and again published them among the uncircumcised, therefore if there be a dead Fly in their Pot of of Ointment, that hath made it send out any evil savour, or hath had any evil influence upon the lives of men, blame them, and not me; for they have put it in, and I found it there, and so mayst thou if thou will make inspection; but if what they have published in the forecited passages, be sound and Orthodon, than all that can be said is, that I have done them more Honour than I was ware of; because if those Doctrines be true, I have revived and preserved th●ir memory by reciting them, and have thereby done thee service, by giving thee a fresh Oration, to judge whether they are Doctrines that are according to Godliness, yea or no. Vale.