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