The Saints Perseverance Asserted, Title page – To the reader
foreign: OR THE Saints Perſeverance Aſſerted in its poſitive Grounds, AND VINDICATED FROM ALL Material Exceptions Againſt it.
OCCASIONED By a late immodeſt Account of two Conferences, upon that Point, between Tho. Danſon and Mr. Jer. Ives, Publiſhed by the ſaid Mr. Ives; Which Account is alſo herein Rectified, and its Falſhood detected, to the juſt ſhame of the PUBLISHER.
By Tho. Danſon, ſometime Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and Preacher of the Word at Sandwich in Kent.
He that is firſt in his own Cauſe ſeemeth juſt, but his Neighbour cometh and ſearcheth him, Prov. 18.17.
He that anſwereth a Matter before he heareth it, it is folly and ſhame unto him, Verſe 13.
London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheap-ſide, 1672.
TO THE READER.
Reader,
IF thou art ſo judicious, as to ſee and cenſure it as a fault in me, to enter the liſts with ſuch a perſon as Mr. Ives, of whom, for the immorality of his Converſation, they are aſhamed who agree with him in Opinion. And all Chriſtians by profeſſion have cauſe to be, for his deteſtable Arrianiſm, or denial of the Godhead of Chriſt, which I am able ſufficiently to prove, and of which he hath never (that I know of) declared his Repentance: I willingly ſubmit my ſelf to thy correction; yet to excuſe what I cannot defend, thou mayeſt pleaſe to underſtand, that through the frequent inſolent Challenges of ſome of his Perſwaſion, a private Meeting was appointed for a Conference on Febr. 12. 1671. with Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings, the former whereof undertook to defend the mortality of the Soul; and the latter, the poſſibility of true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace. When we were met, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings both refuſed (though preſent) to diſcourſe with me: The firſt, Not aſſigning any Reaſon. The ſecond, Alledging his diſability by a Cold, and deſiring Mr. Ives might be his Subſtitute: As to the latter point, whom therefore I admitted, as knowing that ſhould I have refuſed, the man would have crowed like a Cock on his Dunghill, and his Party would have gone away ſinging, Io Triumphe. And whereas, according to agreement with Mr. Clayton and Mr. Jennings, I was to oppoſe, Mr. Ives would needs make me reſpond. And very gravely read his Arguments out of his Papers, which he was ſo much beholden to, as he could not repeat any one without their aſſiſtance. And when he had done, and was deſired to change turns, and become Reſpondent; he complaining of wearineſs, I was not unwilling to debate the Point once more, becauſe Regula being index ſui, & obliqui, I thought the beſt mean, for the ſatisfaction of my Friends, at whoſe Requeſt I undertook it, were the diſcuſſing of the poſitive grounds of the Saints perſeverance. How Mr. Ives demeaned himſelf, all that know him, though abſent, can tell as perfectly as they that were preſent. 'Tis no News to them, that he interrupted me in the midſt of a Sentence, pretending he knew what I was about to ſay; nor that he made frequent Diverſions, by Addreſſes to the People, many of whom therefore call'd often on him to turn about to his Antagoniſt; and told him, He came not to diſpute with them, but with Mr. Danſon; nor that he would not repeat the Arguments, when he was Reſpondent, but now and then at his own liſt; and when he did, would bear me down, and many others, Reverend Miniſters, and private Chriſtians, That my Proof was not direct to the Propoſition by him denyed; and would often repeat them in words quite contrary to mine, and yet out-face us all, that he did his Opponent right. And this indeed was his carriage from firſt to laſt, more or leſs; So that it ſeems to me, either that he hath not read or not underſtood or through the freedome of his will, hath diſobeyed the Dictates of his underſtanding. That paſsage of the Publiſher of Hoard's Gods Love to Mankind, in the Epiſtle to the Reader, If any ſhall uſe railing Speeches, or unneceſſary Diverſions from the Cauſe, I ſhall ever interpret that to be a ſtrong ſign of a weak Cauſe; or at leaſt, I ſhall think it to be an argument of an obſtinate mind; who neither knoweth how to yield to the Truth, nor yet to defend his Errour. On the ſecond of March, Mr. Ives wrote a Letter to me (which is ſince printed) to give him a meeting, that our Conferences might be publiſhed by mutual conſent, which I might well have wondered at, had not my own experience aſsur'd me, that he is more bold then wiſe; which motion I rejected, as having ſo mean an Opinion of my own Abilities, as not to think any thing of mine (much leſs ſuch a rambling Diſcourſe, as through his default that was, which I had with him) worthy of Publick View. Yet hath he publiſhed an impartial Account of our Diſcourſes, as he pretends; but whether it be ſo or no I appeal to the Notes or Memories of the Auditors, from whom I know it had been eaſie to procure a Teſtimonial; but that I judged it too great an Honour to ſuch a man as Mr. Ives is known to be, to ſuppoſe it probable, that any diſcreet perſon ſhould take all he ſayes for Goſpel. I ſhall therefore onelyonly requeſt any that judge it worth while, to have ſatisfaction as to matter of Fact, but to enquire of theſe Reverend Miniſters, (viz.) Mr. Chriſtopher Fowler, Mr. Luffe, Mr. Parſons, Mr. Waddeſworth, Mr. Tho. Vincent, Mr. Maddox, Mr. Veal, Mr. Peachy, Mr. Charles Morton, Mr. Carſlake, [beſides others, whoſe Names at preſent occur not] and theſe ſober private Chriſtians, Mr. Summers. Mr. Farthing, Mr. Jeffreys, Inhabitants of Southwark; Mr. Parkhurſt, Mr. Anion, Citizens of London, [with others, too many to enumerate] who were preſent at one or both our Diſcourſes. And they will atteſt how often I was forced to hold my Tongue through his clamour; his ſtentorian Voice drowning mine, that I could not be heard, when it was my turn to ſpeak, how often he would needs make me father his brats; I mean, acknowledge thoſe words for mine, which indeed were his own, &c. The Publication of our Conferences hath laid me under a kind of neceſſity of Replying. I ſay, a kind of neceſſity, becauſe I have indeed ſo modeſt a confidence of my own Reputation, when put in competition with Mr. Ives's, as that I could, without ſolicitude about the event, have left the World to its liberty of belief, which of us Two is the Lyar, and have thought ſilence the fitteſt Anſwer. But that which chiefly indueed me to Reply, is the opportunity put into my hands to clear up this Point of Saints perſeverence fully and ſuccinctly, in half a dozen Sheets, which none hath done that I know of in our Language; Mr. Pryn hath handled the Argument in a large Quarto, Dr. Kendall and Dr. Owen in Folio. And I intend not to detract from thoſe Authors worth: But I know that the price of thoſe Books hinders the buying; and their Bulk, the reading of them by private Chriſtians, for whoſe uſe I intend this Diſcourſe.
I have not given a particular account of all that was diſcourſed, but onelyonly of what was Argumentative; nor indeed hath Mr. Ives, as may eaſily be judged by the bulk of his Book, compar'd with the time ſpent in the Conferences, which was no leſs then three Hours and an half in the firſt, and four Hours and an half in the ſecond; but inſtead thereof, hath, with the Bear, licked his Cubs into a better ſhape then they had at their Birth. And I therefore forbear it, becauſe I judge the World is not like to be a jot the wiſer for the knowledge of it, unleſs the ſight of rudeneſs and impertinency in their natural deformity, may deter men from ſuch unmanly Vices. But I have given a true account of all the more material Exceptions againſt the Saints Perſeverance, and added divers Arguments for the proof of it, which I had intended to have urged, had not I been prevented. I have alſo taken notice of the Appendix, and vindicated our Doctrine from the charge of Novelty and Antinomianiſm.
To conclude, Thou who art a true Believer, canſt not chuſe but value the Truth here contended for, and eſteem it a rich Cordial, to be aſſur'd, that though thou mayeſt loſe Florem yet thou canſt not loſe Radicem, i. e. the Flower, not the Root; the ſenſe of Grace, not Grace it ſelf; the Act not the Power: When once thou art a Member of Chriſt, there may be a benuming that may binder the influence of Blood and Spirits, but ſo as it ſhall never be gangren'd, it ſhall never die again; There may be a Cloud on you, but the Sun ſhall never ſet on you; to borrow the words of that ſolid practical Divine, Dr. Preſton, Of New Creature, Serm. 5. pag. 423. What a woeful caſe muſt thou needs be in, if God were onelyonly ingaged not to throw thee down; but not to hold thee up. The inſtances of Man's and Angels defection are too freſh in memory to be denyed; and an argument irrefragable, to evince the poſſibility of a true Believers Apoſtacy, if God ſhould be but a Spectator, and not intereſs himſelf as a party in the quarrel between him and his ſpiritual Adverſaries. Bleſs God therefore for the immutable Purpoſes and Promiſes of being the finiſher of that Faith, whereof he hath been the Author: And if thou reapeſt any benefit by this Diſcourſe, recompence his pains by thy Prayers, who accounts it his Honour to be
April 15. 1672. An Helper of thy joy, Tho. Danſon.
BEing met, Mr. Ives propoſed the Queſtion in theſe words, Whether the Doctrine of ſome true Believers, falling away totally and finally, be true? I anſwered in the Negative.
Mr. Ives offered to prove it thus;
Arg. 1. If the Doctrine of the impoſſibily of any true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be falſe, then the Doctrine of the poſſibility of ſome true Believers falling away totally and finally is true; but the former is falſe, Ergo the latter is true. I denyed the minor, which he endeavoured to prove thus, If the Doctrine of the impoſſibility of any true Believers falling away, &c. be true, then it ought to be believed. But it ought not to be believed, Ergo it is not true. I denyed the minor, which Mr. Ives went about to prove thus;
Whatſoever ſins any are commanded not to do, and cautioned to fear the doing of, they ought not to believe is impoſſible to be done: But falling away totally and finally, is a ſin that true Believers are commanded not to do, and are cautioned to fear the doing of, Ergo true Believers ought not to believe that it is impoſſible for them to fall away totally and finally.
To which I Anſwer. That many things might be objected againſt the major and concluſion, as that true Believers was not in the minor denyed, which he put now into his concluſion. And in his major, I told him, That we diſtinguiſhed of impoſſibility ſimple and abſolute, and ex hypotheſi, or ſuppoſition of ſome other thing intervening. And that what we are cautioned to fear the doing of, may be impoſſible to be done, by reaſon of the Divine Decree, or Promiſe, though otherwiſe poſſible, &c. [All this Mr. Ives left out in his account of the Conference, and relates only my denial of the major.] Many other things I might object, but I forbear, becauſe I would not ſeem to cavil at ſmall Faults. Mr. Ives proceeded to prove the major thus, If the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impoſſible to be done; then my major is true. But the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impoſſible to be done, Ergo my major is true. I denyed his minor; after I had firſt repeated it, Mr. Ives ſaid, It was an univerſal Negative, and therefore could not be proved. I Replyed, That it was a miſtake in him ſo to think. [And ſince our debate, it came into my mind that Mr. Ives having, 'tis like been ſometime or other on a Jury, and obſerving that a negative Teſtimony in matter of Fact is not admitted (but in unuſual caſes) againſt the Affidavit; apprehends there is the like reaſon of negative Propoſition.] But however, I gave him, at his deſire, an inſtance in the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, which is impoſſible to be done by ſome to whom the Command and Caution is given, (viz.) to true Believers. To which Mr. Ives Replyed, We are paſt that now, for we are out of the term, True Believers; and read over his Argument again out of his Note-Book, which it is to no purpoſe for me to repeat. [The Reader may view them, I appeal to any perſon of underſtanding, whether it was not proper for me to the inſtance of the ſin, to ſubjoyn an inſtance of ſome perſons to whom it was impoſſible to be done, or committed.]
Mr. Ives ſecond Argument was this,
Arg. 2. If thoſe that are partakers of the Divine Nature may fall away totally and finally, then ſome true Believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I denyed the minor, that they who partake of the Divine Nature may fall away, ſuppoſing (I told him) that he took the phraſe in the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, 2 Pet. 1.5. To prove which, he argued thus;
If they that are partakers of the Holy Ghoſt may fall away totally and finally, then they that are partakers of the Divine Nature may ſo fall away. But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I again denyed his conſequence; which he aſſayed to confirm thus, If to partake of the Holy Ghoſt, be to partake of the Divine Nature; then it follows, That if he that is partaker of the Holy Ghoſt may fall away, he that partakes of the Divine Nature may fall away. But the firſt is true, Ergo—
I denyed his minor, which therefore he attempted to confirm thus, If the Nature of the Holy Ghoſt be a Divine Nature; then they that partake of the Holy Ghoſt, partake of the Divine Nature. But the former is true, Ergo the latter: I denyed his conſequence. [As for his additional Note, that to deny this conſequence, is, As much as if a man ſhould ſay, The Wiſdom that is from above is a Divine Wiſdome; and yet ſay, That he that partakes of the Wiſdom which is from above, doth not partake of the Divine Wiſdom. I anſwer, There's not par ratio, for that phraſe of Wiſdom from above and Divine Wiſdom note the ſame thing, (viz.) the Original or Deſcent of Wiſdom.
Whereas partaking of the Holy Ghoſt, notes common Gifts or Graces; partaking of the Divine Nature, ſpecial Grace, in the places under debate.
Mr. Ives would prove his Conſequence, Becauſe they that partake of the Holy Ghoſt; partake of nothing elſe but what is the Divine Nature. Which I denyed, and told him, That that phraſe noted the common Gifts, whereof the Holy Ghoſt is the Author, Heb. 6.3. or the extraordiary Gifts, as Tongues, &c. for which I quoted, Acts 2.4. and Chap. 19.6.
Then he proved his minor thus, Becauſe the partaking of the Holy Ghoſt and of the Divine Nature is one and the ſame thing; which I denyed, for though the receiving of the Holy Ghoſt, as to its Gifts and Graces, may be found in the ſame Subject, yet they are not terms of the ſame import; nor are the Gifts and Graces the ſame thing, any more then Logick and the Mathematicks are the ſame Art or Science, though found in the ſame Perſon; or that Bezaleel and Aholiabs skill in Workmanſhip of Gold, &c. And the Graces of the Spirit, Faith, Love, &c. are the ſame thing, becauſe aſcribed to the Holy Ghoſt, as their efficient. Here Mr. Ives multiplyed words to no purpoſe; as if any one would ſatisfie himſelf, he may find pag. 15. of his Book, and at length denyed what he had often affirmed, (viz.) that partaking of Gifts and Graces were the ſame thing, but pretended that they were one participation, i. e. Effects of the ſame efficient, as I underſtand his meaning; which I granted, and no Body denies. At length he urged this Argument, If the Holy Ghoſt in its extraordinary Gifts be promiſed to none, but thoſe that have the ordinary Gifts and Graces of it, then none can partake of the Holy Ghoſt in the greater, that doth not partake of him in the leſs: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. To the minor, I anſwered, That ſtrictly there was no promiſe of them at all, but a Prediction onelyonly; or if we would call that, Joel 2.28. a Promiſe, it was to the viſible Church indefinitely, which conſiſts of viſible Believers; and many whereof are only viſible. Here was a great altercation about a Promiſe foreign, expreſly to viſible Believers; which, I told him, was not neceſſary, becauſe in promiſes of ſuch a nature as that, Joel 2.28. Many might partake of the benefit that were onelyonly viſible Believers. And that it was not ſufficient ground to judge all the perſons that had theſe extraordinary Gifts Believers, becauſe call'd ſuch; for Simon Magus was call'd a Believer, whilſt he was not truly ſuch. [Here note a double miſreport of Mr. Ives, pag. 25, 26. That he ſayes I ſaid, Simon Magus recieved the Holy Ghoſt, and that all the Promiſes are made to viſible Believers as ſuch; Whereas I ſpake onelyonly of ſuch Promiſes, as that of Joel 2. of extraordinary but common Gifts, and that Simon Magus might have received the Holy Ghoſt in its extraordinary Gifts, for any limitation that was in the Promiſe.] [To what I ſaid then, I ſhall onelyonly add, That Math. 7.21, 22. and Numb. 24.4, 5. plainly enough aſſert; That thoſe that have not the ordinary Graces of the Spirit, may partake of the extraordinary Gifts of Propheſying, &c.]
Arg. 3. If all thoſe that have the Characters of true Believers, mentioned in Heb. 6.5, 6. may fall away totally and finally, then true Believers may fall away totally and finally; but the former is true, Ergo the latter: I denyed the conſequence. [And I will now add a reaſon of it, becauſe it proceeds upon this ſuppoſition, that if all true Believers are inlightned, &c. then all that are inlightned are true Believers; which is as bad an argument as this, in alluſion to Mr. Ives former and preſent Trade: All the Box-Makers and Cheeſe-Mongers in the City of London are Freemen, Ergo all the Freemen in in the City of London are Box-Makers and Cheeſe-Mongers.] Mr. Ives proceeded to prove his conſequence: If all thoſe Characters be appliable to none but true Believers, then the conſequence follows: But they are appliable to none but true Believers, Ergo—
I denied his minor, and demanded a proof; which he gave thus, If the Scripture applies thoſe Characters to none but true Believers, then my minor is true. But the Scripture applies them to none but true Believers, Ergo— To which I anſwer'd, by denying his conſequence; for it follows not that they are not applicable to any others, becauſe they are not actually applied, [which Anſwer Mr. Ives hath omitted] and by denying the minor, whereupon he urged for an inſtance of one place of Scripture, where all theſe Characters are given to one perſon in terminis, or in the very ſame terms. To which I Replied, That the term believing, frequently applied to Perſons, not true Believers, includes all the Characters here mentioned; and that I could ſhew him by parts where they are applied to thoſe that were not true Believers. Mr. Ives anſwered, That would not do, becauſe he that hath one Vertue may be no true Believer. I Replyed, Not as he reports my words nonſenſically, I take Perſons that are extraordinarily indowed from above; But thus, That I ſpeak not of vertuous Perſons, or morally good, but of thoſe that are indued with Grace from above. After a deal of Conteſt, I inſtanced in the term inlightned, and ſhewed, That the thing intended by it, is in another term, (viz.) believing or knowing, applyed to thoſe that are not true Believers, John 17.21, 23. (viz.) to the World in this place, oppoſed to true Believers. Chriſt prays for the Converſion of thoſe that were given to him; and ſpeaks of the Conviction of the World, as an end that might be obtained thereby. I urged alſo John 1.9. Whence I urged, that that univerſal Light could not import a ſpiritual illumination. [The Contradiction he would faſten upon me to what I have argued from that Text againſt the Quakers, pag. 36. Of my Quakers Folly, is ſo trivial, as that it deſerves a Smile, rather then an Anſwer. Let them judge that can, by comparing that paſſage with pag. 43. and 44, 45. of Mr. Ives Book.] I alſo urged 1 John 5.1. compar'd with Luke 4.41. In the latter whereof the Devils are ſaid to know that great Doctrine, That Jeſus is the Chriſt, which in the former place is made a Character of one born of God. Whence I infer'd, that all inlightning is not a Character of a true Believer, unleſs the Devil be a true Believer. [All this explication Mr. Ives hath omitted.]
The next paſſage (though not in order in the Text) which Mr. Ives urged, was, renewing by repentance, of the application of which paſſage to any that was not a true Believer. To which I anſwered, That it was not neceſſary to produce thoſe very terms. Repentance is aſcribed to thoſe that were not true Believers, as Ahab, Judas, &c. As for the phraſe renewing, that though it is frequently applyed to true Believers, yet there is no inconvenience in underſtanding it in this place, of a common work of the Spirit of God, which hath the ſame name with the ſpecial work, becauſe of ſome ſimilitude. As Saul is ſaid to be turned into another man, 1 Sam. 10.6. I urged alſo Jude 12. which Mr. Ives hath barely quoted, without my gloſs on it, Trees twice dead, plucked up by the roots; in regard of their natural ſtate, which is a death in ſin, and their Apoſtacy, or looſing of what good was in them, which carried the appearance of the effects of a ſpiritual life. And plucked up by the roots, that phraſe I mentioned as part of the Verſe, but ſaid nothing to.
The next Phraſe is, Taſting of the Powers of the World to come, of which I gave Felix for an inſtance, Acts 24.25. For one part of the Powers of the World to come, is a dreadful ſenſe and apprehenſion of the future Judgment threatned in the Goſpel againſt Unbelievers. [As for Mr. Ives additional Note, That taſting of the Powers of the World to come, muſt be limited to ſuch a taſte, as makes the Taſter to be in love with what he taſtes, is gratis dictum. For taſting is applyed to things evil as well as good, Heb. 2.9. Chriſt is ſaid to taſte death. And for Mr. Ive's fancy, that the Perſons here ſpoken of might have had ſuch a taſte (viz.) of terror, as Felix had, if they had fallen away, but not if they had not: It is a wonder to me, he ſhould forget that Felix himſelf was ſo far from having fallen away, that he did but now begin to ſtand. I mean, this terror was the firſt effect of common convictions in him, and often ſeparated from any Grace at all. And 'tis much to me he ſhould be ignorant, that ſome degree of trembling at the Word is made a Character of a godly Perſon, Iſa. 66.2.] We proceeded to the taſt of the good Word of God; for inſtance whereof, I alledged Matth. 13.20, 21. Mark 6.20. Luke 14.15 Of which places, which I onelyonly named, that we might diſcuſs them: Mr. Ives took notice onelyonly of the laſt, whence I obſerved, That he was tranſported with joy at the Narration which Chriſt made of the happineſs of the future State, who was a Phariſee, and to whom particularly Chriſt directed that Parable; The ſcope whereof is to ſhew, That they who were call'd outwardly to the participation of the benefits of the Goſpel, miſs'd of them, for want of a through compliance with that Call.
To this Mr. Ives Replyed, That they that were bidden did not taſte of the Supper. And I rejoyned, that the not taſting, verſe 27. is conſiſtent with the taſte, which thoſe words, verſe 15. do import. For the former intends a miſſing of the benefits offer'd in the Goſpel; the latter, ſome flaſhy joys in the apprehenſion of a poſſible benefit. And the manner of Chriſt's Speech ſeems to be a tacite exprobration of him, like that, Luke 11.27, 28. [Theſe Paſſages Mr. Ives hath omitted.]
Mr. Ives proceeded thus,
Arg. 4. They are true Believers that have clean eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, through the knowledge of Chriſt: But ſome ſuch may fall away totally and finally, Ergo ſome true Believers may fall away totally and finally. To which I anſwered, That his Argument was not right in form; for he put the Subject of the Queſtion into the major, and the Predicate into the minor. His Argument ought to run thus, They that have eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. may fall away, &c. They that have eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. are true Believers. Ergo ſome true Believers may fall away totally and finally. [I add, that if his major and minor being indefinite Propoſitions, are particular; then the Syllogiſm is falſe, according to the old Rule, Syllogizari non eſt ex particulari.]
If they be univerſal, then by a ſimple converſion of the minor, (the terms being convertible according to his ſenſe) from thoſe premiſes may an univerſal Affirmative be rightly deduced (which he all along declin'd), thus the Argument ſtands in the firſt Figure, All that have eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. may fall away, &c. All true Believers have eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. Ergo all true Believers may fall away, &c.
At length, not knowing how to mend the form, though I directed him, he put his Syllogiſm into an Hypoth. form; If thoſe that have clean eſcaped the Pollutions, &c. (as before) may fall away, then true Believers may fall away: But ſuch may, Ergo true Believers may. I denyed the conſequence, becauſe to eſcape the Pollutions, &c. is not a Deſcription onelyonly of true Believers: Mr. Ives attempted to prove it, becauſe that quality [qualification, I ſuppoſe, he would have ſaid] is applicable to none but true Believers; which being denyed, he proved thus; If that quality be applicable to any but true Believers, then either to Hypocrites, or prophane Perſons; But to neither, Ergo—
To his minor, I anſwered, That it was applicable to Hypocrites: Againſt which Anſwer, Mr. Ives urged, That if ſo, then an Hypocrite may be free from the Pollutions of the World, in the midſt of his Hypocriſie; which I granted, in the ſenſe of the Text under debate, 2 Pet. 2.20. Then he urged, that if ſo, Hypocriſie is not a Pollution of the World: I denyed the Connexion, becauſe 'tis meant but of groſs Pollutions, that theſe perſons had eſcaped: And that the terms being indefinite, [and in materia contingenti, which Clauſe Mr. Ives hath left out, as not underſtanding it, I know,] they were but particular, not of all, but ſome Pollutions, which a perſon may be free from, whilſt he is tainted with others. Then Mr. Ives call'd for a Greek Teſtament, to ſee what the Greek word is, that is rendred clean, 2 Pet. 2.18. [Note, though it be no matter of moment, but to ſhew the fidelity of Mr. Ive's Report. Mr. Ives ſayes, a Friend of mine pull'd out a Greek Teſtament, and read the word foreign, and rendred it as he had done before really, or truly; whereas upon Mr. Ives calling for a Greek Teſtament, and my Friend, an ingenious young Schollar, Mr. Glaſcock tendring it me, I ſaid, it needed not, for I remembred the word, and its ſignification.] Then Mr. Ives call'd for an inſtance, I gave him that of the Phariſees, Luke 18.11, 12. Matth. 23.25, &c. To which he anſwer'd, That they that were neither juſt, merciful nor faithful, were not free from the groſs Pollutions of the World. To which I Replyed, That what ever they did contrary to the Laws of Mercy, Juſtice, &c. they did with ſuch cunning, that it did not appear to the World. For it could not be imagin'd, that Chriſt ſhould affirm, that thoſe perſons were outwardly righteous, as he does Matth. 23.28. who were openly and viſibly guilty of ſuch Miſcarriages.
Mr. Ives Replyed, That thoſe men, 2 Pet. 2.20. had eſcaped from thoſe that lived in Error; and how could that be, if they lived in the greateſt Error, (viz.) Hypocriſie. I rejoyned, that they could not at the ſame be guilty of Hypocriſie, and yet free from it; but they might be intangled in Hypocriſie, and yet freed from external groſs ſins. Again, that 'tis not ſaid, they were clean eſcaped from Error, but from them that lived in Error, i. e. changed their Company, or ſorted with Believers, which they might do, and yet remain Hypocrites. Mr. Ives demanded, how then their latter end could be worſe then their beginning. I anſwer'd, Becauſe open Sins do openly diſhonor Chriſtianity; whence Athanaſius wiſhed, Ʋtinam omnes eſſent Hypocritae, Would to God all men were Hypocrites. [This paſſage, with ſome others immediately before, Mr. Ives hath omitted.] As to Mr. Ive's additional Note, that Hypocrites cannot be in a worſe condition, by appearing openly prophane. I Anſwer, They may, not only becauſe of the open diſhonour done to Religion, but becauſe alſo their profaneneſs is a Sin againſt Knowledge, and ſo adds weight to their Chains, and heats their Furnace hotter. See James 4.17. Luke 12.47. For though Hypocriſie ſingly may be worſe then profaneneſs in ſome reſpects, yet the profaneneſs of an Hypocrite is the worſt profaneneſs. At length, I gave Paul for an inſtance, of one that had eſcaped the Pollutions of the World, whilſt yet he was an Hypocrite (viz.) before he was converted. About which many words were ſpent; the ſum was, that either he was a true Believer, or Profane, or an Hypocrite: Not the firſt, for we ſuppoſe him unconverted; nor the ſecond, as appears Acts 26.5. Ergo the third, [all which Mr. Ives omits] which I proved from the Character given of the Body of the Jews, Rom. 9.31, 32. and acknowledged by himſelf, as agreeing to him, Phil. 3.7. (viz.) that they mixed their own Righteouſneſs with the Meſſiah's, whom, as to come, they profeſſed to believe in. And to what Mr. Ives Objected, That Paul ſayes, He did what he did with an honeſt mind, before his Converſion, and ſo was no Hypocrite. I anſwer'd, There might be a moral integrity in an unconverted perſon, alledging, Gen. 20.5, 6. Abimelech, an Heathen, and diſtinguiſhed of Hypocrites; that though all agree in having an appearance of that Grace which they want, yet ſome deſign to appear what they neither are, nor care to be; others are miſtaken in themſelves, and make account they are what they are not, for which latter I quoted James 1.22, 26. And of this latter ſort was Paul.
Arg. 5. And laſt, was this, grounded on 1 Cor. 9.27. what Paul uſed all diligence to prevent the coming to paſs of, might poſſibly come to paſs: But Paul uſed all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally, Ergo his falling away totally and finally was poſſible to come to paſs. I anſwer'd to his major, that which is poſſible in its own nature, there being a real hazzard in the nature of the thing, may yet become impoſſible as to the event, by ſomething intervening. To which he Replyed nothing, but asked me, whether Paul knew this event impoſſible? I affirmed it, whereupon he urged, that then it was in vain for him to keep himſelf out of the danger. And I Replyed, That it was not in vain, becauſe God hath in his Decree joyned the end and means, and the Command of God is obeyed, which ſure is a good end propoſed by us in the uſe of means, though we might ſuppoſe the benefit obtainable without that uſe. To confirm the former branch of my Anſwer, I inſtanced in Gods Promiſe, of lengthening out Hezekiahs life fifteen years, Iſa. 38.5. and yet obliging him to uſe a Plaiſter of Figs to cure his Boyl, verſe 25. A worthy Miniſter Mr. Luffe, who now and then (as Mr. Ives ſayes) interpoſed, to diſcover his abſurd method of arguing, alledged that other inſtance of Paul, Acts 27.22, 31. And whereas Mr. Ives ſuppoſes Mr. Luffes Anſwer to his Queſtion, what if they had leapt overboard? (viz.) that then they had been drowned, a granting of what was contended for; the contrary is evident, by what is ſaid above. We concluded all, with another intepretation of the word foreign, rendred in our Tranſlations a caſt away; which ſignifies alſo diſapproved, or blame-worthy, for not practiſing his own Doctrine. Here Mr. Ives kept a great pudder, that either my firſt interpretation of being a caſt-away [which yet I did not ſo interpret, but conceded his interpretation of it, as not hurting our Cauſe,] was true or falſe; if true, why did I not keep to it? if falſe, why did I alledge it? And makes an additional Note, that by this interpretation, I grant his major. To his Queſtion, I anſwered, That I conceded the firſt interpretation, becauſe our Engliſh Tranſlation was defenſible. And yet I alledged the latter, as being warranted by the Greek, and taking off any Argument from thence by his Party. And to his additional Note, I Anſwer, That if I had at firſt interpreted the Greek word diſapproved, or blame-worthy; then I would not have denyed his major, what Paul uſed all diligence to prevent, might come to paſs, but his minor, (viz.) But Paul uſed all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally. I ſhould have ſaid, that according to the line of this interpretation, Paul uſed diligence to walk ſo, as not to diſpleaſe God, nor be a ſhame to that Goſpel, of which he was not aſhamed. What Mr. Ives hath got by this Note, he may put in his Eyes, and ſee never the worſe. [End of the firſt Conference.]