The Saints Perseverance Asserted, Text

The Saints Perseverance Asserted · Text

p. 41THE Second Conference.

HEre Mr. Ives firſt read out of a Paper a kind of Explication of the Terms; wherein he dealt like himſelf, diſingenuouſly, and ignorantly: The former, in that he would underſtand the Term Grace of the Favour of God, which none of us do; and his former Arguments ſhew, he took it not ſo himſelf, but for the Grace of God in us, the effect of the Grace or Favour of God: The latter, in the explication of the word impoſſible, as oppoſed to ſuch as either have, may, might, or can fall away: For impoſſible is oppoſed to poſſible; and he ought to have diſtinguiſhed between that which is ſimply impoſſible, and that which is ſo in a certain reſpect, according to my Anſwer when I was Reſpondent; and have told us, That he held it ſimply or abſolutely poſſible for true Believers to loſe their Grace totally and finally.

And in the proſecution of the Debate, I firſt offered to retort his own Arguments, p. 42which were reducible to two Heads: 1. From the uſeleſneſs of caution againſt falling away, if it were impoſſible: 2. From Examples. Neither of which he would admit me to retort, but by his rude clamor forced me to deſiſt, before he heard me out an Argument. I ſhall therefore now give an account of what I then intended to urge.

That which makes not the giving of Caution needleſs to prevent temporal death; makes it not needleſs to prevent falling away totally and finally from Grace: But the impoſſibility of the event makes it not needleſs in the former, Ergo, nor in the latter caſe. The major depends upon the par ratio between temporal and ſpiritual death. The minor I would have proved thus: That which makes not the uſe of Caution needleſs to prevent temporal death, makes not the giving of it needleſs: But the impoſſibility of the event makes not the uſe of it needleſs, &c. Ergo, nor the giving of it. The minor I would have proved by John 11.54, 55. compared with John 13.1. and chap. 10.18. where we find that Chriſt withdrew to avoid that temporal death, which could not befall him without his own conſent, nor before the appointed time of his death was come.

To oppoſe his Examples, I argued thus

p. 43If true Believers can fall away, &c. then ſome have: But ſome have not: Ergo, they cannot. [Which in his Notes additional he calls a falſe Syllogiſm, but tells not why: But the Form, I ſuppoſe, ſeems ſtrange to him, proceeding a remotione conſequentis ad remotionem antecedentis. Yet the Scripture hath the like, which he, pretending to be a Teacher, ſhould not be ignorant of, Gal. 2. ult. If Righteouſneſs were by the Law, Chriſt died in vain; to fill up the Syllogiſm, I muſt aſſume, But Chriſt died not in vain, and conclude, Ergo Righteouſneſs is not by the Law.] Mr. Ives denied my major, Sequel he ſhould have ſaid, and in his Book brings in theſe words as my proof of it, Whatever is potential, hath been done; which were none of mine, but his own. All that I ſaid was, That the Argument was good on his grounds; for in regard of the Activity of the cauſes of Apoſtacy, it cannot be imagined but ſome muſt fall away, if the thing were poſſible, and man left to his own ſtock of power; here I ſaid it was not abſurd to argue a poſſe ad eſſe, which, bold man! he hath adventured to tranſlate thus, Whatever is potential, hath been done. After a great deal of brangle, I urged againſt his firſt Example 1 Pet. 2.20. They that were Dogs and Swine, when they had eſcaped the p. 44pollutions of the World, &c. were not true Believers; and ſo their falling away, no inſtance of true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace: But theſe perſons were Dogs and Swine, &c. Ergo, not true Believers. The major is evident: The minor we have ver. 20. ult. compared. I offered alſo to prove againſt the Deſcription, but he broke me off. What I would have ſaid, was this; Judas was not a true Believer; Judas eſcaped the pollutions of the World through the knowledge of Chriſt: Ergo, Some that eſcape the pollutions of the World, &c. are not true Believers. The major is evident by John 6. ult. The minor appears, becauſe the Diſciples, who knew his Converſation by familiar ſociety, ſaw no cauſe to ſuſpect him to be the Traytor, more than any other of their number, Matth. 26.21, 22. and therefore he was not viſibly wicked.

Againſt his other Inſtance, Heb. 6.5, 6. I would have urged, That if thoſe who were in the judgement of Charity true Believers, are ſuppoſed, to the making of them ſuch, to have better things then thoſe that fell away; then thoſe that fell away were not true Believers: But the Antecedent is true; Ergo, the Conſequent. The Antecedent is proved by ver. 9. If the Arminians think to get off, by p. 45pretending that the things aſcribed to the Believers are ſaid to be better, not in nature, but event; ver. 9. will afford a confutation foreign, things that have ſalvation in them, i. e. no more ſeparable from Salvation, then Salvation from it ſelf. And ver. 10. ſuggeſts another, Thoſe things which God ſhould be unrighteous in not rewarding, were better than thoſe, which God ſhould not be unrighteous in not rewarding: But the things aſcribed to true Believers were ſuch as God ſhould be unrighteous in not rewarding; Ergo, they were better then thoſe which God ſhould not be unrighteous in not rewarding, viz. the things aſcribed to them that fell away, ver. 5, 6.

After a long rambling Diſcourſe, I urged to Mr. Ives, That if ſome true Believers might fall away totally and finally from Grace, then all might: But all could not (according to his own grant): Ergo, not ſome. I proved the Conſequence, becauſe Paribus paria conveniunt. He denied that though there be the like reaſon for the falling away of all, that there is for ſome, that therefore it followed, That if ſome might, then all might. Which being ſo groſly abſurd, I appealed to the Judgment of the intelligent Hearers, and ſo left it. I called p. 46upon him to hear Chriſts own Argument à pari, from David's eating of the Shewbread, lawful onelyonly ordinarily to the Prieſts; to the Diſciples plucking of the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath, for the ſupply of a preſent neceſſity, Matth. 12.3, 4. But being an enemy to vain janglings, I deſiſted, as I did often, to proſecute ſomething elſe, viz. the firſt main Argument from 1 John 3.8.

Arg. 1. They that cannot ſin, as wicked men do, cannot fail away totally and finally from Grace: But true Believers cannot ſin as wicked men do: Ergo, true Believers cannot fall away, &c. Mr. Ives asked what I meant by cannot ſin. I anſwered, Not as to the acts of ſin, but the manner [which Mr. Ives leaves out, and makes my Anſwer nonſenſe] of ſinning. After many ſuperfluous words, he ſaid, That if by cannot I meant, neither for the preſent, nor future; fall from that ſtate, and ſin as the wicked do, then he denied my minor. [Mr. Ives's additional Notes about the acception of the word cannot, p. 100. are rendred inſignificant by the proof of my minor, and therefore I omit them.] To prove my minor, I quoted 1 Joh. 3.9. Whoſoever is born of God cannot commit ſin, &c. Mr. Ives preſently replied, That this proved no body could ſin at all. I anſwered, p. 47That either was meant, that they could not ſin at all, or not as wicked men do. Not the former; for proof I quoted chap. 1.8.10. Jam. 3.2. Ergo, the latter; for I knew no tertium. And ſo I formed my Argument thus: Whoſoever is born of God cannot ſin as wicked men do: But all true Believers are born of God: Ergo, true Believers cannot ſin as wicked men do. [Which Argument Mr. Ives hath omitted.] Yet he continued his Cavil, That if the not ſinning was meant not at preſent, nor future, he denied it. And I proved it thus: The reaſon here aſſigned of the Believers, or born of God, their not ſinning as wicked men do, is of equal force to exclude his future, as his preſent not ſinning as wicked men do, viz. becauſe the ſeed of God remains in him, ver. 9. Whence I argued thus, They in whom the ſeed of God remains, cannot ſin as wicked men do: But in thoſe who are born of God, the ſeed of God remains; Ergo, Whoſoever is born of God cannot ſin as wicked men do. Mr. Ives cavilled much about the term remain, which I urged as plainly excluding a ceaſing or loſing of Grace totally: And he pretended that my Argument was but like this, They that come into this Houſe, remain in it: Ergo, They cannot ceaſe from remaining in it. To which I anſwered, p. 48That it was fallacia compoſitionis and diviſionis, (as we ſay in Logick) to ſay Believers, whilſt Believers, cannot ceaſe to be Believers; for they cannot be both as to ſtate at the ſame time: But the Queſtion is, Whether they that are ſuch, may become Unbelievers? And as to his Inſtance, if applied to our Queſtion, the meaning is not, Whether he that is now in the Houſe, may be out of it at the ſame time? but, Whether he that is in it, can afterwards go out? which by force, or other impediment, may become to him impoſſible, though poſſible in it ſelf.

Here he cavilling about the word ſeed of God, I asked him how he underſtood the Phraſe, becauſe I thought it ſo plain, as that I ſuppoſed he took it in the ſame ſenſe I did, and as 'twas commonly underſtood, viz. for a Principle of Grace: Which Mr. Ives underſtood not; but at length he ſaid, he underſtood by it the Word of God, and quoted 1 Pet. 1.23, 24. To which I replied, That in that place the Word is not called the Seed of God, but Believers are ſaid to be born of incorruptible Seed by the Word. But ſuppoſe it had, yet the ſenſe is the ſame, viz. That the impreſſions of the Word remain in a true Believer; in which ſenſe 'tis ſaid, The Word abides for ever, 1 Pet. 1.23, 25. At laſt I proved, That the Seed of p. 49God cannot but remain in a true Believer, from the Promiſe: Thoſe to whom God hath made a Promiſe, that in them the Seed [or Principle of Grace] ſhall remain, in them it cannot but remain: But to all true Believers God hath made ſuch a Promiſe: Ergo, The Seed cannot but remain in them. He denying the major, I proved it thus: If the Seed of God remain not in them to whom God hath promiſed, then the Promiſes of God are untrue: But they are not untrue: Ergo, The Seed of God ſhall remain, &c. [Note, That here it was that Mr. Lueff admoniſhed Mr. Ives of his ignorance in the terms of Art, he denying the major, when he ſhould have ſaid the Sequel or Conſequence; and not in the former Syllogiſm, which was Categorical, as Mr. Ives ſuggeſts, pag. 118. of his Book, like himſelf, i. e. a man that makes no conſcience of lying, to ſlur his Adverſary.] Mr. Ives gave inſtance in the Promiſe of God to Abraham, That the Land of Canaan ſhould be to his ſeed an everlaſting Poſſeſſion, and yet that he would ſcatter them among the Heathen, &c. Which Promiſe he pretended had no Condition, either where it is found, or elſewhere in Scripture; though he boldly denies his Aſſertion, pag. 120.

I offered to prove that that Promiſe was p. 50true, notwithſtanding the non-performance of it, as it might ſeem: but was hindred by his Clamors. I ſhall give an account of what I would have ſaid, and began to ſpeak for inſtance, wherein a godly man cannot ſin as the wicked do; but could not be heard for the rudeneſs of my Antagoniſt.

1. That the courſe of ſin is interrupted by ſincere repentance in a godly man: So much is the oppoſition of the righteous man to the wicked, who imitates the Devil in ſinning from the beginning, ver. 8, 9. 1 John 3. imports: For ſimply, as to the continuing to do evil, the oppoſition between them cannot lie: The wicked man cannot get his heart to repent ſincerely of his ſins, Rev. 9.21. and chap. 16.11. Something like it, but not the ſame, was found in Ahab, Nineveh, Judas.

2. The godly man ſins not with full conſent of will; ſo much thoſe Metaphors imply Rom. 7.14. compared with 1 Kings 21.25. Paul ſpeaking of himſelf whilſt a Believer, affirms, that he was carnal indeed, but not ſimply; for he adds, ſold under ſin, i. e. an involuntary Captive, as he ſufficiently explains his meaning, when he tells us, For that which I do, I allow not, ver. 15. [See other like Phraſes to the end of the Chapter.] But of Ahab the Holy Ghoſt affirms, That p. 51be ſold himſelf to work wickedneſs. If it be objected, that the Text ſays, There was none like to Ahab; I anſwer, For degree, not for kind of wickedneſs, muſt we underſtand that Negative. That there is in a godly man but a partial conſent of Will, appears by Gal. 5.17. where the Apoſtle ſays, The ſpirit luſts againſt the fleſh; foreign, concupiſcit; it notes an ardent deſire (viz.) of victory in the new Nature over the old, ſuch as to be found in enemies, (ſo the word foreign imports): Or elſe it may allude to Contrarieties in Nature, of which we obſerve in Philoſophy, that they endeavour mutuo ſe expellere, to drive out one another, when they meet in the ſame ſubject.

3. Another difference between the godly and wicked mans ſinning, lies in this, That the former hath not a ſetled purpoſe to ſin; but the latter hath. Peter, whoſe ſin the enemies of the Saints Perſeverance do ſo tragically aggravate, was ſo far from reſolving to deny his Maſter, that he reſolved againſt it with much vehemency, Matth. 26.39. Whereas Judas kept fixed, notwithſtanding the dreadful threatning uttered againſt him, in his reſolution to betray him, Joh. 13.27. compar'd with Matth. 26.24. But more of this afterward, when we anſwer the Inſtances of David, Peter, &c.

p. 52I now proceed to the ſecond Argument, from Jer. 32.40. Joh. 10.28.

Arg. 2. Whatever God hath promiſed, ſhall certainly be accompliſhed: But God hath promiſed that Believers ſhall not fall away totally and finally from Grace: Ergo, This Promiſe ſhall certainly be accompliſhed. Here I ſhall firſt take notice of, and anſwer what the Arminians urge againſt the major; which will alſo anſwer with advantage Mr. Ives's Inſtance of the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan, which I touched at then, (viz.) That it being conditional, noted but a connexion between the Benefit and their Obedience, (though Mr. Ives omits it).

The major they deny, upon pretence of Inſtances of ſome Promiſes not fulfilled.

To which I anſwer, 1. That the Inſtances which they bring, viz. Numb. 14.18. 1 Sam. 2.30. do not import a Promiſe to every individual perſon, qua talis, as ſuch, that they ſhould enter into Canaan, or ſucceed their Parents in the Office of the Prieſthood; but it was fulfilled, in that the Stock of Iſrael did enter, and of Levi tranſmitted the Office to their Children, though particular Perſons were cut off, and debarred that Privilege.

2. Suppoſe the Promiſes were made to individual Perſons, and conditionally; yet p. 53cannot be affirmed, that the Promiſes were broken; Non enim affirmat connexa vel conditionata promiſſio, conſequentem partem illius axiomatis fore, ſed connexionem tantùm conſequentis parte cum antecedente, quam ſemper etiam Deus praeſtat, as Ames well obſerves in Coronis, Art. 5. de Perſeverantia, cap. 2. The ſum is, Conditional Promiſes engage but for a connexion of Duty and Benefit. As when God ſays, Ye ſhall keep my Statutes, and my Judgments; which if a man do, he ſhall live in them, Lev. 18.5. he does not ſtrictly promiſe, that a man ſhall live by keeping his Statutes and Judgments; but that there ſhall be a certain connexion between perfect Obedience, and Life thereby, which is certainly accompliſhed, though no man lives by ſuch Obedience, (innate corruption diſabling him thereto, Rom. 8.3.)

To the minor, That God hath made promiſe of Perſeverance to true Believers, which we prove by Jer. 32.40. John 10.28. the general Anſwer is, That theſe Promiſes are conditional. Mr. Ives would aſſign none, though much urged, nor would be perſwaded that he was bound by the Law of Diſpute ſo to do.

But the Remonſtrants, and others give this, (viz.) That Man does his Duty. To which I p. 54anſwer, That this is the very matter or ſubject of the Promiſe, and therefore cannot be the Condition of it. All the Promiſes we produce do import an Obligation laid by God on himſelf to enable us to our Duty, ſo far as is neceſſary for the prevention of a total and final falling away from Grace.]

Againſt the firſt Promiſe, Jer. 32.40. the Arminians make divers Exceptions, which I ſhall firſt anſwer, and then repeat Mr. Ives's.

1. That 'tis a Conditional Promiſe, becauſe called foreign Foedus, a Covenant.

Anſw. 1. This word is often taken for a ſimple Promiſe, Gen. 6.19. and chap. 9.9. 2. The Apoſtle mentioning this Promiſe calls it foreign, Heb. 8.10. which is rendred Teſtament or Will, chap. 9.17. 3. Though the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, compar'd one with another, have the nature of a Condition, as Faith of Juſtification; yet that hinders not but that the whole, and each part, are conveyed as Legacies, Jer. 32.38. the Promiſe is, That we ſhall be Gods People.

2. Others bear us in hand, it was made to the whole People of the Jews, and not only to true Believers.

Anſw. 1. A Promiſe of Continuance with God, does ſuppoſe a Being with him.

2. The Promiſe is made to them all, in p. 55reſpect of their Covenant, State, and Profeſſion of true Faith: but yet it was not intended to any but true Believers; for they are the Children of the Promiſe, Rom. 9.8. and for their comfort it was intended.

3. As to the matter of it,

1. They object, That the words may as well be conſtrued a Promiſe to keep Believers from falling away from any Degree of Grace, as totally and finally.

Anſw. 1. The very Event gives ground not to make that interpretation of the Promiſe, 1 Kings 8.46.

2. He is not ſaid to depart, properly, who does not wholly relinquiſh or forſake whom he was with.

Now to Mr. Ives's Anſwer, which was by denial,

1. That it was any Promiſe, either abſolutely or conditionally to all true Believers. Whereupon I argued thus: Either this Promiſe, Jer. 32.40. is made to all true Believers, or onelyonly to ſome, or to Unbelievers: But neither is it made to ſome onelyonly, nor to Unbelievers: Ergo, To all true Believers. I proved that it was not made, as he pretended, to ſome onelyonly. Spiritual Promiſes made to the Iſrael of God, are made to all true Believers: But ſuch is this: Ergo, It is made to p. 56all true Believers. I proved my major, becauſe the Iſrael of God contains all true Believers, according to Gal. 6.16. I proved further, that this Promiſe Jer. 32. belonged to all true Believers, from a Promiſe of the New Teſtament of the ſame import, (viz.) a Promiſe of Perſeverance, Joh. 10.28. Whence I argued, That if this Promiſe belonged to all true Believers, then ſo did that, Jer. 32. But this did: Ergo, That. [As for what he urges of Mr. Fowlers, as aiding me, though I acknowledge his worth much beyond mine, yet I will appeal to Mr. Fewler, and any of the ſober Hearers, whether Mr. Fowler did not often tell Mr. Ives, I do but repeat what Mr. Danſon ſaid: And Mr. Ives's diſingenuity is remarkable, that he leaves out the word ſpiritual, which I did often, perhaps not alway, add, as a limitation of the Promiſes made to Iſrael, which, under them, as Types, agreed to the Believers of the New Teſtament. And where he brings in the ſame Argument in other words, as a new Argument, he abuſes me; for all that were ingenuous of the Auditors will bear me witneſs, that by the many breaks (through his impertinent Harangues, which he hath had ſo much wit as to leave out) in the Diſcourſe, I was fain to repeat the ſame Argument over and over, p. 57to gain an Anſwer.] I urged alſo Heb. 8.10. which evidently proves, that the ſame Promiſe made to the Iſrael of God, Jer. 32.38. and Jer. 31.33. agrees to others than them, (viz.) all true Believers. And let any impartial Perſon read his own report of his Anſwer, and they ſhall find it meer words, and that he does himſelf as little ſervice to evade the Argument, as a Mouſe in a Tarbarrel, with all her ſtrugling to get out. I urged further, That if the whole Covenant of Grace made with Iſrael, Jer. 32.38. belongs to all Believers, then part of it (viz.) the Promiſe of Perſeverance, ver. 40. But the whole does: Ergo, That part. The Conſequence (which he ſtill ignorantly called the Major) I proved, becauſe that Branch of it was contained under the whole, as a Particular under an Univerſal. And whereas he brings me in ſaying, Heb. 8.10. is part of the Covenant of Grace, and therefore the whole; that's falſe: and Mr. Fowler's interpoſure (though he baſely conceals what he ſaid) was to reprove him for an undue repeating of my words, which were (as Mr. Fowler told him) That Heb. 8. being part of the Covenant of Grace, belongs to all Believers, under the title of the Iſrael of God, becauſe the whole does.

p. 582. As Mr. Ives denied the Promiſe, Jer. 32.40. was made to all Believers; ſo he denied that it was a Promiſe of Perſeverance at all, but that they may be read, But let them not depart from me; and for this quotes Calvin, whom he named not in the Conference, and ſubjoyns, ver. 39. that they may fear me. To which I anſwer him, that the words, (viz.) foreign are rendred, and ſo owned by the Remonſtrants and others, That they may not depart, Ʋt non recedant. As for Calvin, he manifeſts his impudence to the height, in fathering ſuch an Interpretation on him: Let any one that underſtands Latin, read his Comment on Jer. 32.40. and believe their own eyes. Calvin does not ſo much as mention any ſuch Tranſlation of the Hebrew words, but onelyonly what our Tranſlation follows. As for ver. 39. that makes againſt Mr. Ives; for the ſence is the very ſame with ver. 40. (viz.) a Promiſe of Perſeverance i… the Fear of God. [This ſecond Branch o… Mr. Ives's Anſwer was brought in by ſom… impertinent words of his, in the midſt of ou… Diſcourſe about the Perſons to whom the Promiſe was made, ſuppoſing it ſuch: but ſo order ſake I have tranſpoſed it hither. S…his Book, pag. 133.] The ſecond Promiſe … Perſeverance I alledged, was, John 10.2… p. 59whence I argued thus; They that cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand, cannot fall away totally and finally from Grace: True Believers cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand: Ergo, True Believers cannot fall away totally, &c. To which Mr. Ives anſwers, That I concluded not the Queſtion, becauſe I argued indefinitely, not univerſally, [which Terms he uſed not then, ſo far as Memory and Notes inform me:] But how ſimple this Anſwer is, let any judge; for he firſt, for his advantage, ſtated the Queſtion particularly, (viz.) That ſome true Believers [not all] may fall away. Again, he oppoſes Indefinite to Ʋniverſal; whereas an Indefinite Propoſition may be either Particular or Ʋniverſal, as the matter is contingent or neceſſary. And he repeated my words in an Hypothetical form; If none of the Sheep of Chriſt can be plucked out of Chriſts hand, then no true Believer can fall away, &c. and ſo denied the Major, the Conſequence he ſhould have ſaid, and being friendly admoniſhed of his error, pretended they were all one: However, I told him the Conſequence was evident, becauſe all true Believers are Chriſts Sheep; which by his frequent diverſions I was fain to repeat, and he would outface me then, as now in his Book, that I intended each Repetition p. 60for a new Medium, and ſo argued idem per idem; whereas I ſtuck to that Propoſition, till I had a plain and direct Anſwer. At laſt he ſaid, That Metaphors prove nothing. I told him, Yes, they did in that Similitude upon which they are grounded; and thereupon appealed to Mr. Fowler, as Moderator, whom at firſt I propoſed to Mr. Ives for that Office, if he would pleaſe to undertake it: which was the reaſon of his ſo frequent interpoſure, that he might ſhew Mr. Ives when I proved directly, and he anſwered not directly. At laſt he told us, That the Promiſe referred to the day of Judgment; That when Chriſts Sheep are poſſeſſed of Eternal Life, they ſhall not be plucked out of his hand, or periſh: Which was ſo abſurd an Interpretation, That Mr. Fowler asked him ſolemnly, Whether he himſelf did believe it? To which the ſum of his Anſwer was, That it was no abſurdity. Here he quoted Auguſtin, as holding that ſome true Believers may fall away. Mr. Fowler's Anſwer I ſhall refer to the Appendix. When Mr. Fowler and he had done, I repeated my former Argument, and Mr. Ives denied that that Phraſe of Chriſts Sheep included all true Believers; which I proved from the deſcription. ver. 27. that they hear Chriſts voice, and know him, and follow p. 61him. Then I proceeded from Matth. 7.24. Pſal. 1.3.

Arg. 3. If true Believers be every where in Scripture ſet forth by Similitudes that note ſtability and firmneſs, then they cannot fall away from Grace totally and finally: Sed verum prius: Ergo, & poſterius. Here he denied the major again; he was ſo dull, he could not think of a Conſequence, though often told; and would not be perſwaded to anſwer, becauſe it was a Parable: To which I replied, That even Parables do afford Mediums from their general ſcope; and the ground of the Metaphor in Matth. 7.24. was evident, (viz.) That a true Believer is compared to an Houſe built on a Rock, becauſe they agree in uno tertio ſtability and firmneſs, notwithſtanding aſſaults that might endanger their fall. But he continuing obſtinate, I told him he was a conceited ignorant Perſon, not Fellow, (as he quotes my words, both there, and twice beſides.) Upon my calling him ſo, he produced a Book of mine, which I was neceſſitated by their miſreports to publiſh againſt the Quakers, wherein I accuſed Chriſt of ignorance, as he pretneded: Whereas I did not accuſe him; for Accuſation ſuppoſes a Fault, whereas Chriſts Ignorance of many things was not ſuch; as not p. 62his ignorance of the day of Judgment, Mat. 24.36. What I ſaid, was, that it was not evident from Scripture, that Chriſt did, as Man, know Judas to be a Devil from the firſt moment of his choice of him. What I accuſed Mr. Ives of diſingenuity in, was his not reading the laſt Clauſe of the Paragraph in my Book, concerning Chriſts ignorance; wherein I ſay, Whether that [foregoing Aſſertion] be true or falſe, yet Chriſt might deal with Judas according to what he was viſibly; Yet hath Mr. Ives the front to affirm, That the Perſon he employed read word for word; whereas all took notice, that he ſtopped him at the laſt Clauſe, which therefore, when I had the Book, I read my ſelf. I alſo accuſed Mr. Ives, I confeſs, for diſturbing us with impertinencies; for what was my miſtake in that Aſſertion, to the Saints Perſeverance?

Arg. 4. Whatſoever our Lord Jeſus Chriſt hath prayed for, ſhall certainly come to paſs: But he hath prayed for the Saints Perſeverance, or that they may not fall away totally and finally from Grace: Ergo, The Saints ſhall perſevere.

The major I proved by John 11.42. And I knew (ſays Chriſt to the Father) that thou heareſt me always: To which Mr. Ives returned p. 63no anſwer, but denied the major, and inſtanced in Chriſts Prayer, Luke 23.34. which he pretended was not anſwered, becauſe all Chriſts Enemies that put him to death were not forgiven. To which I replied, 1. That it was anſwered in the converſion of 3000 of them, Acts 2.23, 41. and that the term them is taken indefinitely. To which Mr. Ives replied, That an Indefinite is equivalent to an Ʋniverſal: But I rejoyned to him, That it is not alway ſo, but onelyonly ſometimes, (viz.) in materia neceſſaria, non contingenti; which I would have explained to him, but that his rude clamor would not give me leave: but I ſhall now do it, for the help of the unlearned. In Logick we call that an Indefinite Propoſition or Enunciation, which hath no Note of Quantity Univerſal or Particular ſet before it, but yet muſt ever be underſtood either Univerſally, or Particularly; as, Man is a reaſonable Creature; Mothers love their Children. In the former Inſtance, we underſtand every Man: In the latter, ſome Mothers. In the former Inſtance, we call the Predicate, or that which is affirmed of Man, (viz.) a reaſonable Creature, materia neceſſaria, or that which agrees to Man neceſſarily; for we cannot conceive a Man not to be a reaſonable Creature, without a contradiction. In p. 64the latter …nſtance, we call the Predicate, or that which is affirmed of Mothers, (viz.) That they love their Children, materia contingens, that is, that which may be, or not be, in Mothers; for one Branch of natural Corruption, is to be without natural affection, 2 Tim. 3.3. foreign in the Original, expertes charitatis naturalis, Scultetus in loc. that is, without thoſe affections which by inſtinct of Nature we bear to thoſe that in Nature and Blood are conjoyned to us, ſuch as are thoſe between Parents and Children. To apply all this now to the Text before us, Luke 23.34. compared with John 17.24. where Chriſt ſpeaking of the Elect, prays indefinitely, Father, I will that they alſo whom thou haſt given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my Glory, &c. In the former place, Chriſt prays but for ſome of his Perſecuters: In the latter place he prays for all that the Father had given him; though ſome is not expreſſed in the one place, nor all in the other: Becauſe the Election of God made the Salvation of all thoſe that were given to Chriſt neceſſary, and but onelyonly of ſome of his Perſecuters, (viz.) thoſe that were given him by the Father.

2. I anſwered to Mr. Ives, That this Prayer of Chriſts, though made as a private Perſon, p. 65and not as Mediator, by vertue of that Law of Love which requires us to pray for them that deſpitefully uſe us, and perſecute us, Matth. 5.44. which Law he was under, by being made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. was yet anſwered, as truly, as thoſe Prayers which he made as Mediator, ſuppoſing (but not granting) that he prayed for all; becauſe, if he did, there was then ſuch a Condition, in reſpect of the diſpoſition of the Party praying, implied, as to the forgiveneſs of all his Perſecuters, as was expreſſed, when he prayed for his own natural life, (viz.) Nevertheleſs, not my will, but thy will be done, Luke 22.42. [Where note Mr. Ives miſrepreſenting of my words, as if I acknowledged that ſome of Chriſts Prayers were not anſwered.] Whereupon Mr. Ives demanded of me, Where that diſtinction between Chriſts praying as a private Perſon, and as a Mediator, was found? I replied in John 17.24. and Matth. 26.39. compar'd together; which I would have made out, but that he drown'd mine, with his Stentorian Voice, and, Pilate-like, asked a Queſtion which he would not take an Anſwer to, John 18.38. I ſhall ſay onelyonly thus much now, that in the one he prayed for thoſe that were given to him; in the other place, for the prevention of his own death, p. 66the grant whereof, would have rendred him uncapable of being our Mediator.

3. I now reply, (what I had then for ſubſtance in my thoughts, when I diſcourſed with Mr. Ives, but prevented in ſpeaking it, & many other things, by his uncivil demeanour) That in ſtrictneſs of ſpeech there is no Prayer but what is abſolute; which I ground upon the nature of Prayer, (viz.) a ſubmiſs repreſentation of our Will before God, to the end it may be performed by him. The repreſentation of a Velleity, whereby we would will a thing, if ſomething did not hinder, is not Prayer, properly ſo called. The words are Ames's, tranſlated out of his Coronis, Art. 5. cap. 5. which yet was the Judgment of Arminius himſelf, as the ſaid Dr. Ames there aſſures us upon the report of credible Perſons, who heard Arminius in his publick Diſputations deliver himſelf to that effect. I find alſo the ſame Aſſertion in Becanus Sum. Theol. Tom. 5. cap. 17. queſt. 3. where, among other Reaſons, he gives this, which is popular and plain; Nam noſtra oratio debet eſse conjuncta cum certa ſpe ſeu fiducia conſequendi id quod petimus, Jac. 1.6. &c. i. e. For our Prayer ought to be joyned with a certain hope or aſſurance of obtaining that which we pray for, Jam. 1.6. and Matth. 21.22. But p. 67when we propound or manifeſt a bare, uneffectual deſire, we do it not with a certain confidence of obtaining what is deſired, but rather with aſſurance of the contrary; as if a Man ſhould pray, Oh that God would let me live over again my time that is paſt. Thus far Decanus. But I muſt confeſs, the firſt that I met this Notion in, was Mr. Richard Hooker, a very learned Perſon, Eccleſiaſt. Polity, lib. 5. m. 48. where he ſays, Of Prayer there are two uſes: It ſerveth as a mean to procure thoſe things which God hath promiſed to grant when we ask; and it ſerveth as a mean to expreſs our lawful deſires alſo towards that, which whether we ſhall have, or no, we know not, till we ſee the event. OnelyOnly Mr. Hooker ſeems to differ from the Learned Men above-mentioned, in that he makes it an over-reſtrained conſideration of Prayer, to tye it onelyonly to this uſe, to be a choſen mean, whereby the Will reſolveth to ſeek that, which the Underſtanding certainly knoweth it ſhall obtain. I have inſiſted the longer on this, becauſe it may many ways be uſeful to us, and fully anſwers the Arminians cavil about Chriſts not being anſwered in ſome of his Prayers. For if we hold, that no repreſentation of our deſire to God, of what we do not abſolutely petition for, is ſtrictly a Prayer; then our major p. 68Propoſition, Whatever Chriſt prayed for, he was heard in, is true, without limitation; and Mr. Ives, and other Arminians, Remonſtrants, &c. inſtance inſufficient. If we ſuppoſe, that ſuch a repreſentation of our deſires to God, may be called Prayer; yet our major is true, according to the more common acception of the term Prayer, and our uſe of it in the Aſſumption or minor, (viz.) for ſuch a repreſentation of Chriſts deſire to God in general, and of Perſeverance in particular, as ſerved for a means to procure what God had promiſed to grant him.

Another Inſtance which the Remonſtrants give of Chriſts Prayer not anſwered, is Joh. 17.25, 21. where he prays, That they may be kept from evil, and be one among themſelves; yet do they ſin, and diſagree.

Anſw. Ames, that Remonſtrantium malleus, puts an Anſwer in my mouth: Chriſt does not pray for their immediate deliverance from all evil, nor ſo from diſcord; but for a gradual deliverance, as Eph. 4.12, 13. imports.

The minor, that Chriſt prayed for the Saints Perſeverance, we prove by two Scriptures, John 17.15, 20. Luke 22.32.

To this the Arminians ſay,

1. That John 17.15. may be meant of the Diſciples onelyonly.

p. 69Anſw. The 20th verſe takes of that Gloſs, Neither pray I for theſe alone, &c.

2. That by evil, verſe 15. may be meant only Perſecutions, and particularly thoſe that did attend Chriſts apprehenſion and death.

Anſw. Suppoſing what they affirm, yet thoſe Perſecutions were conſidered as Temptations to Apoſtacy; and therefore all other Temptations muſt be included, which might endanger their fall ex natura rei. And ver. 12. intimates, that he had hitherto kept them from that evil by which Judas fell, which was not Perſecution, but Covetouſneſs.

To that other place of Scripture, Luke 22.32. the Arminians ſay,

That this might be a ſpecial Privilege of Peter and the Apoſtles.

Anſw. 1. Then hereby we gain a Conceſſion of what overthrows their grand Arguments for the poſſibility of any true Believers total and final Apoſtacy. 1. That the praedetermination or Decree abſolute of perſeverance, deprives the Will of its native liberty. 2. That Admonitions to avoid a Danger in any reſpect impoſſible, are vain and uſeleſs; for after this Prayer, Chriſt ſays to the Diſciples, Ariſe, and pray, that ye enter not into temptation, Luke 22.46. 3. That a true Believer falls away at leaſt totally from Grace, p. 70when he falls into heynous ſins (ſuch as we readily acknowledge Peters denying his Maſter to have been.)

Anſw. 2. But we deny that this Promiſe was to Peter alone, verſe 31. foreign, ye, in the plural Number, ver. 28, 29. Chriſt promiſes them a Kingdom for continuing with him in his Temptations, which muſt look forward, as well as backward; for, He that endures to the end ſhall be ſaved, Mat. 24.13. nor yet to the Apoſtles onelyonly (as we ſawbefore, Joh. 17.15, 20.)

To thoſe four Arguments diſcuſſed, I ſhall add two more, which we had not time to debate.

Arg. 5. Whatever neceſſary to their Salvation the Saints pray for, they ſhall obtain: But the Saints pray for perſeverance, and it is neceſſary to their Salvation: Ergo, They ſhall obtain it. The major is evident by John 16.13. 1 John 5.14. The minor, by Matth. 6.13. Deliver us from evil.

To the minor the Arminians object, That in that place the Saints pray, that they may not be lead into temptation at all; and yet are not heard in that.

Anſw. 1. If the total exemption from ſin be a Mercy the Saints have no warrant by promiſe to expect in this life, then the Saints p. 71Prayer for that, is not Prayer [ſtrictly ſo called] (as I ſhewed before) but a repreſentation of their deſire of a thing in it ſelf deſirable: And look what Anſwer may be made about Chriſts not being heard, when he prayed that the Cup might paſs from him, Matth. 26.39. the ſame will ſuffice (mutatis mutandis) to invalidate the Arminians pretence.

Anſw. 2. This Exception oppoſes not either of our Propoſitions, in which there is a limitation of that Prayer of the Saints that ſhall always be heard, by giving the very thing prayed for, to that which is neceſſary to the Saints Salvation; which a not leading into temptation at all, is not.

Arg. 6. None of the Elect can fall away totally and finally from Grace: But all true Believers are Elect: Ergo, No true Believers can fall away totally and finally from Grace.

I prove the major and minor, firſt by Arguments, then by plain Scripture.

The major is denied, becauſe the Arminians ſuppoſe the Decree of God concerning Mens Salvation (which we call Election) to be conditional; againſt which I argue thus.

Arg. 1. If Election be conditional, then it is uncertain: But it is not uncertain: Ergo, It is not conditional.

I prove the Conſequence thus.

p. 72That which depends on the Freedom of Mans Will, is uncertain: But conditional Election depends on the Freedom of Mans Will: Therefore it is uncertain.

The Arminians deny the major, becauſe God did foreknow mens Faith. To which I reply, That upon their Hypotheſis, God did not, nor could foreknow the Perſons Faith whom he conditionally Elected; which I prove thus.

That which was not future, God could not foreknow: But the Faith of the conditionally Elected was not future: Ergo, Their Faith God could not foreknow.

The minor is proved thus:

What God did not will, was not future: But God did not will the Faith of the conditionally elected: Ergo, Their Faith was not future. The minor is their own; for they hold the terminus ad quem praedeſtinationis to be only Glory, not Grace, i. e. That God wills Glory or Salvation to Believers, not Faith it ſelf.

The major I prove thus:

If that was future wich God did not will, then there was an Effect without a Cauſe: But the Conſequent is falſe: Ergo, ſo is the Antecedent.

The Conſequence is evident, becauſe from p. 73Eternity there was nothing to cauſe that which was poſſible, to become future, but the Will of God: Ergo, If any thing was future, which God did not will, 'twas an Effect without a Cauſe. [And this is the inſoluble demonſtration that cuts the throat of Scientia media, whereupon the Jeſuits, and Arminians, and all thoſe that oppoſe the abſoluteneſs of Gods Decrees, do and muſt relie, unleſs they will turn Atheiſts, and with Cicero deny that God foreknows things to come, ſays the profound Twiſſe againſt Cotton of Predeſtination, pag. 69. and hath irrefragably proved it in that large and elaborate Tract De Scientia media.]

I argue againſt the conditional Decree which the Arminians extend even to thoſe that are in the event damned; though withal they affirm, That he foreknows who will, and who will not perform that Condition, (viz.) Believing in Chriſt, and perſevering in that Belief.

Arg. 2. That which imputes Folly to God, is not to be aſcribed to God: But ſo does a conditional Decree of ſaving thoſe whom God foreknows will not believe, and ſo will be damned: Ergo, Such a conditional Decree is not to be aſcribed to God.

The minor is evident, becauſe a conditional p. 74Decree makes God to reſolve to do that which for want of the performance of a Condition, which he knows will never be performed, he is reſolved not to do; (viz.) to ſave thoſe if they believe, whom he knows never will believe, and therefore for their unbelief is reſolved to damn.

Many things the Arminians urge for their conditional Decree of Election, whoſe proper ſeat is the Doctrine of Predeſtination. I will therefore onelyonly take notice of one.

Arg. God hath elected Men to Salvation by Faith in Chriſt perſevered in: Ergo, Such Faith is the inſtrumental Cauſe or Condition of the Decree of Election.

Anſw. We deny the Conſequence. The Conſequent ought to be, Ergo, Faith is the inſtrumental Cauſe of Salvation decreed. And that we acknowledge.

We now proceed to the proof of the minor, All true Believers are Elect: For this the Arminians deny, and aſſert, That not Faith ſimply, but perſevered in, is the condition of Election. Againſt which Reaſon of theirs, I ſhall onelyonly urge theſe Arguments.

Arg. 1. If perſeverance in Faith be a Condition requiſite in the Object of Election, then no man whilſt he is living is the Object p. 75of Election [or an Elect perſon]: But ſome men whilſt they are living are Objects of Election, or Elect perſons: Ergo, Perſeverance in Faith is not a Condition requiſite in the Object of Election.

The Conſequence is evident upon their own grounds, becauſe (ſay they) any one that is a true Believer may fall away; and 'tis onelyonly he that endureth to the end ſhall be ſaved, our Lord tells us, Matth. 24.13.

The minor is evident by 1 Theſſ. 5.9. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain Salvation by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, Rom. 11.7. Believers are called the Election in the abſtract, which is more emphatical than to be barely called Elect, and intimates the cauſe of their preſent obtaining of Righteouſneſs, becauſe at preſent Elect.

For the proof of my minor, I argue thus again.

Arg. 2. If true Faith be a fruit of Election, then all true Believers are Elect: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, The Conſequent. I prove the Antecedent, firſt, by Eph. 1.5. Having predeſtinated us to the Adoption of Children, &c. compared with John 1.12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name. Whence I argue p. 76thus: He that hath predeſtinated to a State or Relation, hath predeſtinated to the Foundation of that State or Relation: But God hath predeſtinated ſome to a State or Relation, (viz) Adoption: Ergo, He hath predeſtinated them alſo to the Foundation of that State or Relation, (viz.) to Faith.

The major is evident, as otherwiſe, ſo by the inſtance of David, who being deſign'd to be Sauls Son-in Law, was alſo deſigned to marry his Daughter, 1 Sam. 18.21. for without ſuch marriage, he could not ſtand in ſuch relation to Saul. Again, I prove it by that Appellation given to Faith, Tit. 1.1. The Faith of Gods Elect. There can be no reaſon given hereof, but becauſe it is peculiar to the Elect: and why is it ſo? Becauſe either all that have true Faith are Gods Elect (which the Arminians deny), or elſe becauſe true Faith is a Fruit of Election, [whence that which they deny does evidently enough follow] as Moulin obſerves, Anat. Armin. cap. 19. n. 7.

I now go on in the proof of my major, that none of the Elect can fall away totally and finally from true Grace, by Scriptures.

Firſt Scripture is, Matth. 24.24. For there ſhall ariſe falſe Chriſts, and falſe Prophets, and ſhall ſhew great ſigns and wonders, inſomuch p. 77that (if it were poſſible) they ſhall deceive the very Elect.

To which place many Exceptions are made.

1. As to the Perſons, That by Elect are not underſtood the Objects of Gods abſolute will or purpoſe of Salvation; but choice Believers, or ſuch as Abraham was ſtrong in Faith, Rom. 4.20.

Anſw. 1. It is not impoſſible that even they ſhould be deceived (according to the Arminians own opinion.)

2. The ſpecial proviſion God makes for the Elect, in ſhortning thoſe perillous days, Matth. 24.22. ſhould rather be made for weak Believers, than ſtrong ones, becauſe the former need it more.

2. As to the Phraſe, If it were poſſible, they except, That it notes onelyonly a great difficulty, not a ſimple impoſſibility.

Anſw. 1. We do not aſſert a ſimple impoſſibility, but ex hypotheſi, or upon ſuppoſition of Gods Decree and Promiſe.

2. If by impoſſible, be meant only difficult; then by poſſible, is meant eaſie: But to interpret the Phraſe ſo here, is repugnant to the ſcope, which is to ſhew the extraordinary diligence and ſucceſs of the Seducers, that, like the Devil, they would even ſet upon p. 78Chriſt himſelf, and leave no ſtone unturned, no means unuſed, to accompliſh their deſign. If it were but a difficult thing, and not impoſſible, they would make new onſets, though frequently beaten off.

3. As to the Event, they object, That it is ſeduction, not final and total, but partial, that the Letter of the Text imports.

Anſw. 1. The place it ſelf ſuggeſts groſs and damnable errors, (viz.) to look for another Meſſias than the true, ver. 23.

2. It intimates the final deceiving of ſome, in oppoſition to the final perſeverance of others, ver. 11, 12, 13.

4. The Arminians object, That the Elect could not be ſeduced by the Seducers; therefore they could not fall away of themſelves, is a bad Conſequence.

Anſw. 1. Nor is that our Conſequence, but this, They that cannot be ſeduced by any means, cannot be ſeduced by falſe Prophets.

2. That Conſequence is not abſurd, 1. Becauſe the ſeduction of falſe Teachers is moſt dangerous, called thererfore foreign, the working of Satan, 2 Theſſ. 2.9. vis efficax, an effectual working (as we may ſay) an endeavour that cannot fail of ſucceſs, and foreign, ſtrong deluſions, verſe 11. ſome render it efficacy of couſenage, that which will p. 79impoſe upon the moſt ſagacious and wary perſon. And by that manner of ſeduction our firſt Parents fell, Gen. 3. And by the like reaſon that the Apoſtle ſays, If any man offend not in word, the ſame is able alſo to bridle the whole body, James 3.2. we may ſay, He that can withſtand the attempts of Seducers, may be able to withſtand any other aſſault. 2. That Conſequence is not without another ground to ſupport it, (viz.) Becauſe he that falls away of himſelf, ſeduces himſelf; for he aſſents to ſome falſhood under the ſhew of truth: Whatever therefore it is in him, that ſecures him from the danger of being ſeduced by others, will be alſo his ſecurity againſt ſeduction by himſelf.

A ſecond Scripture to prove, That the Elect cannot fall away, &c. is, Rom. 11.2. God hath not caſt away his People whom he foreknew: Where by foreknowing we muſt underſtand (according to the frequent uſage of the Phraſe in Scripture) a knowledge accompanied with affection; and we muſt obſerve, that the Apoſtle intimates a diſtinction between caſting away ſome of his People who were not foreknown, and the not caſting away thoſe that were; of whom he gives himſelf an Inſtance, ver. 1. This premiſed I argue thus. Thoſe whom God caſts not off, cannot fall away totally p. 80and finally from Grace: But thoſe whom God foreknew, he caſts not off: Ergo, Thoſe whom God foreknows, [or the Elect] cannot fall away, &c.

The major is evident, becauſe God caſts off none but Unbelievers. The minor the Text affords.

But the Arminians anſwer to the minor, That though God caſts not off Men, they may caſt away themſelves, and ſo ceaſe to be Gods People.

Anſw. This is fond; for if they did caſt off God, God muſt needs caſt off them, according to 1 Chron. 28.9.