A Contention for Truth, Dialogue · Part 1
The People being Aſſembled, after an account given of the occaſion of the meeting. This Queſtion was propounded by Mr. Ives.
WHether the Doctrine of ſome True believers, falling away totally and finally, be True or No?
Mr. Danſon.
It is falſe.
Mr. Ives.
I ſhall then prove it true, as far as God ſhall enable me.
Major, If the Doctrine of the impoſibility of any true believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be falſe; then the doctrine of the poſſibility of ſome True believers falling away totally and finally is true.
Minor. But the Doctrine of the Impoſſibility of any True believers falling away finally and totally is falſe.
Ergo, The Doctrine of the poſſibility of ſome True believers falling away totally and finally, is true.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor. That the doctrine of the impoſſibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace, is not true.
Mr. Ives.
I prove the minor. If the doctrine of the impoſſibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be true, then it ought to be believed;
But it ought not to be believed.
Ergo, It is not true.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor. Prove it ought not to be believed; but we ſhall intangle our ſelves I know not how, by this way of diſputing hypothetically.
Mr. Ives.
You ſhall not teach me how to weild my ſword.
Mr. Danſon.
Hypothetical ſyllogiſms ought never to be allowed, except it cannot be put into a Categorical.
Mr. Ives.
Hypothetical ſyllogiſms were allways allowed, as well as Categorical: but that's not the Queſtion.
Mr. Danſon.
Go on, take your courſe:
Mr. Ives.
Sir, I ſhall not tye you up when you come to be opponant, I ſhall uſe Categorical Syllogiſms by and by. My minor propoſition is this. That the doctrine of True believers final and total falling away, ought not to be believed; I prove it by this Categorical ſyllogiſm.
Whatſoever ſins any are commanded not to do, and cautioned to fear the doing of, they ought not to believe is impoſſible to be done;
But falling away totally and finally, is a ſin that True believers are commanded not to do, and are cautioned to fear the doing of.
Ergo, True believers ought not to believe, that it is impoſſible for them to fall away totally and finally.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the major. Prove it.
Mr. Ives.
You deny this, that we may be cautioned to avoid that, which notwithſtanding it is impoſſible to be done. Then I will prove my major.
If the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impoſſible to be done: then my major is true;
But the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of what is impoſſible to be done.
Ergo, My major is true.
Mr. Danſon▪
I deny the minor. That the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of what is impoſſible to be done.
Mr. Ives.
It is an univerſal negative, pray therefore give an Inſtance where it doth.
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture doth, for the ſin againſt the Holy-Ghoſt, is a ſin that is impoſſible to be done by ſome true believers.
Mr. Ives.
We are paſt that now, for here's the argument; if the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is poſſible to be done (for we are out of the term True believers) the impoſſibility as to ſome perſons, that is not at all to the purpoſe, for you are too late for that, and I will ſhew you that you are; becauſe you ſhould have diſtinguiſhed at the proſyllogiſm: For I am to prove my major propoſition, and this is a diſtinguiſhing on the ſyllogiſm before that; and therefore it is too late to bring it now. The major proſyllogiſm was this, whatſoever ſins any are commanded not to do, or cautioned to fear the doing of (it was General and Categorical) they ought not to believe it is impoſſible to be done; but falling away totally and finally, is a ſin that True believers are commanded not to do, and cautioned to fear the doing of.
Ergo, True believers ought not to believe, that it is impoſſible for them to fall away totally and finally.
Now you denyed the major, now the major of this argument, was the medium of my proſyllogiſm; and the medium of that, was grounded upon this: that nothing is commanded to be avoided, or cautioned to be avoided; but that which is poſſible to be done.
Mr. Danſon.
I denyed it.
Mr. Ives
I proved it thus, if the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is poſſible to be done; then my major is true: But the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing, but what is poſſible to be done. Ergo,
Mr. Danſon.
I denyed it.
Mr. Ives.
This was a general negation, pray therefore give an inſtance (you ſay no True believers can fall away, and I ſay ſome True believers may) It is poſſibly True, and may be allowed (and it is an opinion received by many worthy perſons) that ſome True believers can never fall away. I am only to prove that ſome true believers may; and for you to prove that ſome True believers cannot commit the ſin againſt the Holy-Ghoſt, I may grant it you, without any hurt to my preſent argument; whatever my opinion is in that matter, ſo that my argument ſtands good and unanſwered.
Mr. Ives.
I go now to another argument, which is this.
If thoſe that are partakers of the Divine nature may fall away totally and finally, then ſome True believers may fall away totally and finally;
But thoſe that are partakers of the divine nature, may fall away totally and finally.
Ergo, Some True believers may fall away totally and finally.
My argument is grounded upon the 2 Pet. 4. where the Apostle informs the true believers, that they were made partakers of the divine nature, by Gods great and precious promiſes; that by them, they might be made partakers of the divine nature, having eſcaped the pollutions that were in the world through Luſt. Now thoſe that had ſo eſcaped theſe pollutions might fall away, ſee Chap. 2.20. and compare it with Heb. 10.29. Where ſuch perſons are ſaid to tread under foot the Son of God; and count the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith they were ſanctified an unholy thing.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor, that thoſe that are partakers of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally.
Mr. Ives.
That I will prove, if they that are partakers of the Holy Ghoſt may fall away totally and finally, then they that are partakers of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally;
But they that are partakers of the Holy Ghoſt, may fall away totally and finally.
Ergo, They that are partakers of the divine nature, may fall away totally and finally.
Mr. Danſon.
I Deny your Conſequence, it doth not follow, that becauſe thoſe that partake of the Holy Ghoſt may fall away, that therefore thoſe that partake of the divine nature may fall away.
Mr. Ives.
I will prove, that if to partake of the Holy Ghoſt be to partake of the divine nature; then it follows, that if he that is partaker of the Holy Ghoſt may fall away totally and finally, he that partakes of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally: But the firſt is true. Ergo;
Mr. Danſon.
That is true; therefore I deny the minor; for to partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, and to partake of the Divine nature, are not the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
If the nature of the Holy Ghoſt, be a Divine nature, then they that partake of the Holy Ghoſt, partake of the Divine nature;
But the nature of the holy Ghoſt, is a divine nature.
Ergo, Thoſe that partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, partake of the Divine nature.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your conſequence, that though the Holy-Ghoſt be a Divine-nature, it doth not therefore follow, that therefore he that partakes of the Holy-Ghoſt, partakes of the Divine-Nature.
As much as if a man ſhould ſay, the wiſdome that is from above is a Divine wiſdom, and yet ſay, that he that partakes of the wiſdome which is from above, doth not partake of the Divine wiſdome; for Mr. Danſon tells us, that though the Holy-Ghoſt be a Divine nature, yet a man may partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, and not partake of the Divine nature. But to proceed.
Mr. Ives.
If they that partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, partake of nothing elſe but what is the Divine-nature; then they that partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, partake of nothing but the Divine-nature.
But they that partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, partake of nothing elſe but what is the Divine nature.
Ergo, I mean by partaking of nothing elſe; that, in thſe participations of the gifts and graces of the Holy-Ghoſt that any are made partakes of, they partake of nothing elſe but the gifts and graces of the Divine-nature; for in no other ſenſe is the Divine-nature, or the Holy-Ghoſt communicable, as a learned Gentleman at that time explained it.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor.
M. Ives.
This is that that you deny, that they that partake of the Holy-Ghoſt, partake of nothing but the Divine-nature; give me an inſtance in what, becauſe it is a univerſal negative.
Mr. Danſon.
They partake of the gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt.
Mr. Ives.
Where is that called a partaking of the Holy-Ghoſt, as diſtinguiſht from the participation of the Divine-nature?
Mr. Danſon.
It is frequently called the gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt, Acts chap. 1. and chap 19. and He ſaid unto them, have ye received the Holy-Ghoſt ſince ye believed? and they ſaid unto him, we have not ſo much as heard whether there be any Holy-Ghoſt. And when Paul had laid his hands on them; the Holy-Ghoſt came on them, and they ſpake with tongues and propheſied. And therefore the Holy-Ghoſt, given there in thoſe extraordinary gifts is nothing to you; for they that partake of the holy Ghoſt do not therefore neceſſarily partake of the divine Nature.
Mr. Ives.
I ſay if the partaking and receiving of the holy Ghoſt, be a receiving nothing elſe but the divine Nature, then my former Argument is true.
But it is a partaking and receiving nothing elſe, and you have aſſigned nothing wherein they differ.
Ergo, then my former Argument is true,
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your minor.
Mr. Ives.
If it be any thing elſe give an inſtance where the extraordinary gifts, is called a partaking of the holy Ghoſt, (by extraordinagifts, I mean the gift of Tongue and Prophecying) in a differing ſenſe from a participating of the divine Nature.
Mr. Danſon.
I am ſpeaking of extraordinary Gifts.
Mr. Ives.
So am I too ſuch extraordinary Gifts as are not at all beſtowed upon Hypocrites and Unbeleivers.
Mr. Danſon.
That the giving and receiving of the holy Ghoſt, is the giving and receiving of th… divine Nature; that I deny.
Mr. Ives.
If the participation of the divine Nature, and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the holy Ghoſt, be interpreted no other where in Scripture, but for one and the ſame thing; then the former conſequence is true.
But the participation and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the holy Ghoſt is interpreted no where in Scripture, but for one and the ſame thing.
Ergo, my former conſequence is true.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your minor.
Mr. Ives.
I have proved the queſtion; for Mr. Danſon's anſwer is, that to partake of the divine Nature, is to partake of the graces of the Spirit of God. I ſay, that they that partake of the holy Ghoſt, partake of the graces of the Spirit of God; He ſaith not.
Mr. Danſon.
I do not deny, but the receiving of the holy Ghoſt, as to its gifts and graces, may be found in the ſame ſubject; but I ſay, they are not Terms of the ſame Import.
Mr. Ives.
What that is we ſhall hear by and by; Mr. Danſon ſaith, that by partaking of the divine Nature, he ſuppoſed the graces and operations of the Spirit of God upon the Souls of Men, but by partaking of the gifts of the holy Ghoſt, may be underſtood of thoſe extraordinory gifts of Tongues, healing, &c. Now give me leave to mind you, that Mr. Danſon grants what I would have, and ſomewhat more; becauſe no Man had thoſe extraordinary gifts; but what had thoſe in the leſſer degree, that he calls Graces? for no man had thoſe extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, but he that was really and truly a Believer.
Mr. Danſon.
Prove it if you can.
Mr. Ives.
Give me an inſtance, becauſe this is a univerſal negative.
Mr. Danſon.
This will not prove what you would have; for if I ſhould grant you, that no perſon had the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, but what had alſo the ſpecial graces of the holy Ghoſt; yet that will not prove what you are to prove: for it will not prove that therefore the participation of extraordinary gifts, and the participation of ſpecial grace, are one, and the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
I will ſhew you what it will prove, it will prove that which I brought it for; and that was this, I was to prove that if thoſe that partake of the holy Ghoſt, may fall away totally and finally, then they that partake of the divine Nature may.
Mr. Danſon.
Prove your minor.
Mr. Ives.
That's my minor.
Mr. Danſon.
Your minor was this, that the giving and receiving of the Holy Ghoſt, and the giving and receiving the divine Nature, are one and the ſame thing; prove that, you muſt conclude with the propoſition I deny'd.
Mr. Ives.
I am to prove this, that he that participates of the gifts of the holy Ghoſt, and of the graces of the holy Ghoſt, participates of the ſame holy Ghoſt, though in different degrees.
Mr. Danſon.
You go about to prove that they are always found in the ſame Subject, that is, ſpecial grace and extraordinary gifts; but that is not to the queſtion, but you are to prove they are one and the ſame thing: for inſtance, a godly Man may have his underſtanding enlightened to underſtand ſeveral ſciences, as Logick and Mathematicks, &c. And all theſe may be found in the ſame ſubject, but it doth not therefore follow that they are the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
To partake of the holy Ghoſt in its extraordinary gifts, and in the graces of it, which you ſay are the ordinary gifts, is but all one and the ſame partaking of the holy Ghoſt; it is true as you ſay, that a Man may underſtand ſeveral ſciences, but if theſe different ſciences be taught him by one Maſter, then it follows that they are one and the ſame participation of the skill of the ſame maſter.
Mr. Danſon.
It doth not follow that they are one and the ſame thing; for the Scripture doth aſcribe the skill of Bezaleel and Aholiah in all manner of workmanſhip to the holy Ghoſt; it doth not therefore follow, that the receiving the skill of workmanſhip and the graces of of the Spirit of God are all one and the ſame thing,
Mr. Ives.
They are one by way of participation, for I am to prove to you, that the participation of the holy Ghoſt, either in an extraordinary or ordinary manner, is a participation of the ſame holy Ghoſt; not that theſe are the ſame thing in themſelves; but that they partake of the ſame operation; for he that hath the gift of tongues, and he that hath the gift of healing, they have two ſeveral gifts; and I never ſaid, that healing, and the gift of tongues were one gift, but that both theſe are partakers of the holy Ghoſt, and I do not ſay, that they are one and the ſame thing, but that they are one and the ſame participation of the holy Ghoſt; that is, they do participate of the ſame holy Ghoſt, or of the ſame divine Nature; but they are not the ſame in reſpect to the quantity or meaſure of them.
(c) This is not more then St. Paul avoucheth, there are (ſaith he) diverſities of gifts, but the ſame spirit, 1 Cor. 12.4. and again, v. 8, 9, 10. He tells us that by the ſame spirit that Wiſdom, and Knowledge, and Faith, is given, working of miracles, and speaking with tongues is given.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny that thoſe participations of the divine Nature, as they ſtand in oppoſition unto the partaking of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, it doth not denote one and the ſame; the Scripture phraſe doth not own them to be one and the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
I do not ſay it is, I ſay one and the ſame divine Nature and holy Ghoſt.
Mr. Danſon.
You prove nothing, for you were to prove that thoſe that partake of the holy Ghoſt, partake of the divine Nature; now this you proved thus, that to partake of the holy Ghoſt in its extraordinary gifts, and to partake of the divine Nature in reſpect of grace, they are one and the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
I did not, I ſaid it is a participation of one and the ſame holy Ghoſt, but not a participation of one and the ſame degree.
Mr. Danſon.
Otherwiſe it will not follow, that they may not be ſeparable one from another, A perſon may partake of the divine Nature, if you will call it by that phraſe, he may have ſome reſemblance of the divine Wiſdom in natural ability, and extraordinary gifts; yet notwithſtanding, not partake of the divine Nature in that extraordinary ſenſe of the holineſs of God: for there are two ſort of perfections in the divine Nature, which go under the name of the divine Image; ſome are natural perfections, ſuch as underſtanding, and will, and immortality, and there are alſo ſome which we call moral perfections: ſome things in God which we cannot conceive but under the notion of virtue or grace, as truth, juſtice, mercy and the like: now we underſtand the participation of the divine Nature in the latter, not the former ſence.
Mr. Ives.
I expounded it of the ſame partaking of the holy Ghoſt; you brought an inſtance in the 17 acts, about extraordinary gifts: I anſwered thus, that inſtance doth not exclude but include the ordinary as you call'd it; and therefore I leave this to conſideration: whether he that partakes of the holy Ghoſt; doth not partake of the divine Nature, for indeed that is the ſum of my argument; then it will follow, that if he that partakes of the holy Ghoſt may fall away, he that partakes of the divine Nature may.
Mr. Danſon.
I grant it you.
Mr. Ives.
This is that which you deny'd, that thoſe that partake of the divine Nature can ſall away, which I proved thus, that if thoſe that partake of the holy Ghoſt may fall away, then thoſe that partake of the divine Nature, may fall away.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny it, I ſaid that phraſe of the divine Nature; as there it is uſed concerning the Saints, is to be taken in a ſpecial ſenſe (there is no perfection to be found in Men,) but is a participation of the divine Nature after a fort, that is ſome reſemblance of it, but yet notwithſtanding that, the participation of the moral and natural perfections are not one and the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
You ſay, that to partake of the divine Nature in a moral ſenſe, is doubtleſs the ſenſe of the text referred too, though not in a natural ſenſe; now if that be the ture ſenſe of divine Nature in that place (viz.) a moral ſence wherein God is thus gracious to aſſiſt and cooperate upon the minds and conſciences of believers, Why then is there not the ſame expoſition to be given of being partakers of the holy Ghoſt by his cooperating upon the minds and conſciences of believers?
Mr. Danſon.
Prove your propoſition that you are to prove, that to partake of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, and ſpecial grace are one and the ſame thing in Scripture uſage.
Mr. Ives.
Still you are under a miſtake, I never undertook to prove it; I undertook to prove this, that it is a partaking of the ſame divine Nature, and not that to receive the holy Ghoſt in an extraordinary and miraculous manner, and the receiving of it in an ordinary meaſure, are the ſame thing: for as you ſaid well, a Man may be a Logician, and yet poſſibly another Artiſt; but that I ſay in this, that no man can partake of the holy Ghoſt (as you interpret the holy Ghoſt for an extraordinary meaſure of gifts) but that man that partakes of the graces of it, which you call partaking of the divine Nature.
Mr. Danſon.
Prove it.
Mr. Ives.
If the holy Ghoſt in the extraordinary gifts be promiſed to none, but thoſe that have the ordinary gifts and graces of it, then no man can partake of the holy Ghoſt in the greater, that doth not partake of the divine Nature in the leſs.
But the holy Ghoſt is promiſed to none but ſuch.
Therefore none can partake of it but ſuch.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your minor.
Mr. Ives.
It is a general negation, therefore give me an inſtance if you can, where God hath made a promiſe of the gifts of the holy Ghoſt to any but true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
He hath made a promiſe to none at all.
Mr. Ives.
You ſhould have ſaid ſo before, therefore give me an inſtance where the promiſe of the holy Ghoſt is made to any that are not true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
In the 2 of Joel there is a promiſe of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt.
Mr. Ives.
(a) The laſt thing Mr. Danſon ſaid before was, that the promiſe mas made to none at all; what ſence this is, the reader may judge. But whether it be ſenſe or no, I am ſure it is a a Contradiction to what he ſaith now (viz.) that there is a promiſe of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt in Joel the 2. and immediately before ſaith the promiſe was made to none at all.
Beſides what is that promiſe in Joel 2. made to ſome that are not true believers? It is indeed that promiſe which is expounded and fulfilled in the 2. of the Acts, only to true believers; for the Apoſtles were all true believers, and the holy Ghoſt fell upon them. Now Mr. Danſon brings this as an inſtance againſt the univerſality of my minor propoſition, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are promiſed to ſome that are not true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
Hold there, I did not ſay ſo; you ſaid only to true believers: now I give you this place to prove that there is a promiſe of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt made to the viſible Church.
Mr. Ives.
Prove that any here were not true believers to whom this promiſe is made.
Mr. Danſon.
Here is a promiſe made to the viſible Church, its to believers in general.
Mr. Ives.
Pray hear me if it be to belivers in general, it is nothing to me, for my argument was this; that this promiſe was made to none but True believers, and you muſt give me an inſtance; for if I ſay to none but True believers, you muſt ſhew where it was made to ſome that were not True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
It is a promiſe made to the viſible believers.
Mr. Ives.
The queſtion is, whether this will ſerve what it is brought for; that this promiſe is made to any that are not true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
You are to prove that it is here limited.
Mr. Ives.
My Argument is this, if I ſay the promiſe of the holy Ghoſt is made to none but true believers, and you deny it; you muſt ſhew me ſome that were not true believers, that this promiſe was made to; and inſtead of ſhewing me that it was made to ſome that were not true believers; you tell me once and again it was a promiſe made to viſible believers.
Mr. Danſon.
This promiſe was made to viſible believers.
Mr. Ives.
I ſay give me an inſtance againſt my univerſal negative if you can; and ſhew where the holy Ghoſt is promiſed to thoſe that were not true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
Viſible believers.
Mr. Ives.
What again, That is not my minor; for my minor propoſition is this, that it is made to none but true believers, and now you are to ſhew it was.
Mr. Danſon.
It is made general and indefinite to Sons and Daughters.
To thoſe perſons that were under the diſpenſation of the old Teſtament among which there were believers only by outward profeſſion.
Mr. Ives.
Why, you are to give an inſtance, that the promiſe of the holy Ghoſt is made to ſome that were not true believers; I ſay give me an inſtance.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay here is a promiſe made to viſible believers.
Mr. Ives.
Is it made to any that were not true believers? If theſe were all viſible believes, they were all true believers for ought you know; either give me an inſtance or leave it, for the inſtance you have given me rather proves againſt you: Look at the fulfilling of it, Acts the ſecond, and then give me an inſtance of any, that this promiſe was made or fulfilled too, that were not true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
In the 8 of the Acts. 12.13. verſes he tells us there; that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God and the name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were Baptized both men and women; then Simon himſelf believed alſo: and when he was Baptized he continued with Philip and wondred, beholding the miracles and ſigns which were done. Now when the Apoſtles which were at Jeruſalem heard that Samaria received the word of God, they ſent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghoſt; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were believers in the name of the Lord Jeſus: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghoſt.
Mr. Ives.
But doth this prove that any of them were not True believers, you are to give an inſtance that the holy Ghoſt was promiſed to ſome that were not True believers, and you prove the quite contrary, that it was given to them that did believe.
Mr. Danſon.
I will ſhew you why it is not a contradiction, for the Scripture ſaith, that Simon himſelf believed alſo; and the Scripture likewiſe affirms concerning him, that he received the holy Ghoſt.
Mr. Ives.
But doth the Scripture ſay he received the holy Ghoſt? he would have given money indeed to have had it himſelf; therefore this is nothing to your purpoſe.
Mr. Danſon.
Thus far it is to our purpoſe, becauſe the Scripture in all its promiſes which it makes to believers, it reſpects them as they are viſible belivers, not as they are True believers.
Mr. Ives.
Then God promiſes ſalvation to Men, not as they are True believers but viſible believers: for Mr. Danſon ſaid all the promiſes reſpects them as viſible, but not True believers, But however.
I ſay, give me an inſtance where the promiſe of the holy Ghoſt was ever made to an unbeliever, or to a man that did not Truly believve.
Mr. Danſon.
It was a promiſe made to thoſe that were viſible believers, and among thoſe of that number there were ſuch to be found.
Mr. Ives.
The promiſe of Salvation is made to believers promiſcuouſly, but doth it therefore follow, that they are believers? becauſe they profeſs it (pray hear me) It is upon the preſumption that they are True believers; I ſay it is a promiſe made to none but True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny it, it is made to viſible beleivers.
Mr. Ives.
Shew where it is made to them, why ſhould you foiſt in a word.
Mr. Danſon.
This is ſufficient for the proof of it, that the promiſe that is here made of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt is not made to True believers, as True but as viſible.
Mr. Ives.
I ſay it preſuppoſes them True believers; Give an inſtance if you can, that the Scripture doth not ſuppoſe them True believers to whom this promiſe is made.
Mr. Danſon.
There is none.
Mr. Ives.
Then we have done and my Argument is proved, and I ſhall now proceed to another Argument; but before I do that, I will repeat the ſum of our paſt diſcourſe.
This I Aſſerted, that Chriſtians were not bound to believe that God commanded them to avoid that which they could not but do; you gave this diſtinction that the command was poſſible in it ſelf, or in relation to the ſubject commanded, but not poſſible with reſpect to the decree of God.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſaid that thoſe Cautions that are given to viſible believers in general, that they ſhould take heed of falling away, did ſuppoſe the poſſibility of it in the nature of the thing; (In True believers alſo) becauſe man is but mutable, and grace is but a Creature, and therefore certainly it may be loſt; and yet it is certainly Impoſſible as to True believers, upon the ſuppoſition of the divine decree, and Chriſts promiſe to preſerve and uphold the grace of True believers.
Mr. Ives.
This is juſt as if a man ſhould ſay the whole Earth is poſſible to be overflowed with Water in reſpect to the nature of it, but with reſpect to the decree of God it is Impoſſible; but then if God hath made ſuch a decree, no man hath any more reaſon to fear a univerſal inundation, becauſe of ſuch a decree, then he had to fear it if it were impoſſible, with respect to the nature of the thing: in like manner if it be impoſſible to fall from grace, with respect to the decree of God; there is no more reaſon to fear falling, then there would have been had it been impoſſible, with respect to the nature of the thing: but to proceed,
The Sum then of my firſt Argument is this, If True believers cannot fall away finally; they ought to believe they cannot ſo fall away: Now if they ought to believe they cannot fall away finally, then it is not reaſonable for them either to fear they can ſo fall, or to be commanded or cautioned to take heed of it; if God hath decreed it ſhall never be.
The Sum of the ſecond Argument is; that ſuch as are partakers of the divine Nature may fall away; therefore True believers may: this I proved by this reaſon, becauſe ſome that partake of the holy Ghoſt, as it is ſaid, Heb. 6. Therefore ſome that did partake of the divine Nature might fall away, becauſe none were ever made partakers of the holy Ghoſt, (as Mr. Danſon hath expounded it for the extraordinary gifts of it) but ſuch as were first partakers of the divine Nature (as he expounds the divine Nature) 2 Pet. 1.4. For the inward and ſpecial graces of it: now if none had the promiſe of ſuch a partaking of the holy Ghoſt, but thoſe that firſt did ſo partake of the divine Nature, as aforeſaid, then it muſt needs follow, that if thoſe that partake of the holy Ghoſt may fall away, then they that partake of the divine Nature may fall away; but the 6 of the Hebrews tells us ſuch my fall away: Ergo,
My next Argument is this; to prove that ſome True believers may fall away totally and finally from grace.
If all thoſe that have the Characters of true and ſincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews 5, 6. may fall away totally and finally; then True believers may fall away totally and finally.
But all thoſe that have thoſe Characters mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away totally and finally.
Ergo, True believers may fall away totally and finally.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the conſequence, it doth not follow that if all thoſe that have the Charactters of true and ſincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall totally and finally.
Mr. Ives.
If all thoſe Characters be applyable to none but True believers, then the conſequence follows, that if thoſe to whom theſe Characters agree, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally.
But thoſe Characters in the 6th of Hebrews, are applyable to none but True believers.
Ergo,
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor, that they are applyable to none but True believers.
Mr. Ives.
Give me then an inſtance where they are applyable to any elſe but True believers.
Mr. Danſon,
Prove that they are applyable to none other.
Mr. Ives.
I have proved it, without you can give me an inſtance where all theſe Characters mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, are applyed to thoſe that were not True believers; that they were once enlightened with the knowledge of the truth, and were made partakers of the holy Ghoſt, and have taſted the good word of God, and of the power of the World to come, and ſuch as were renewed by Repentance; ſhew me where all thoſe Characters and Qualifications agree to a man that was not a True believer: ſhew them me all in one man; give me an inſtance if you can.
Mr. Danſon.
You are to prove that theſe Characters here mentioned, agree to none but True believers.
Mr. Ives.
If the Scriptures applies theſe Characters to none but True believers, then my minor is true.
But the Scripture applies them to none but True believers.
Ergo,
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the minor; for taſting of the good word of God, is appliable to others, but True believers.
Mr. Ives.
The Queſtion is, whether a man that hath all thoſe Characters, be not a True believer, or wants them, can be a True believer; ſhew me a man that hath all theſe Characters (from ſome other text and inſtance) that was not a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
Do you mean in all the particulars?
Mr. Ives.
Yes, for it may be 6 men may have all theſe 6 Characters.
Mr. Danſon.
I will give you an inſtance then; one for all: that is to ſay, that the Scripture doth aſcribe believing unto thoſe perſons that were not True believers; and that includes them all.
Mr. Ives.
I deny that, therefore bring your Text to prove that perſons that are ſo qualified may fall away: for I here argue upon you, that the Scripture no where gives us a note of any but True believers, that were thus qualified; therefore ſhew me ſome that had all theſe qualifications, that were not True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture no where gives a particular Enumeration of all theſe qualifications, as agreeing to one perſon, but we muſt do it by parts.
Mr. Ives.
That will not do, becauſe he that may have one Vertue; may be no True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
I take perſons that are extraordinarily indowed from above.
Mr. Ives.
You muſt ſhew me where any man that had all theſe gifts, that was deſtitute of True grace.
Mr. Danſon.
There is no particular inſtance of all together.
Mr. Ives.
Then my Argument is proved, I will now give you leave to ſhew them by parts, that they that were renewed by Repentance, that were inlightened and made partakers of the holy Ghoſt, and taſted the good word of God, and of the powers of the World to come; that they who had theſe, or any of theſe qualifications, were notwithſtanding no True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
Upon your ſuppoſition (that is to ſay) that the Characters here given, are of the True graces of the Spirit of God; then if ſo be I can prove but one part from a plain Scripture, it is neceſſary that the whole ſhould be inferr'd, becauſe the graces of the Spirit of God, go along with one another. No perſon is truly inlightened, but he alſo tafts of the good word of God, and is partakers of the holy Ghoſt, &c.
Mr. Ives.
If you pleaſe; I will prove that theſe qualifications are applyed to True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
You are to prove only to True believers.
Mr. Ives.
I will prove they are applyed only to True believers, and if the Scripture applies them no otherwiſe, the reaſon of my Argument is good, till you aſſign an inſtance that theſe Characters are applied to ſome that are not True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the Argument, ſuppoſing theſe very terms are not to be found in Scripture, applied to them that are not true believers; yet the thing ſignified may.
Mr. Ives
Sir, you muſt inſtance in ſome of theſe terms, and therefore ſhew me in any of theſe Terms, that any were inlightened, or taſted of the powers of the World to come, or were renewed by Repentance, &c. that were not True believers, elſe you argue inſtead of anſwering.
Mr. Danſon.
I gave you this general inſtance; the Scripture affirms that which takes in all theſe, it ſtiles thoſe believers that were not real believers.
Mr. Ives.
That is no proper anſwer, becauſe if I ſay none but True believers have theſe qualifications; then theſe muſt be True believers that are ſo qualified, but none but True believers have theſe qualifications.
Now if the Scripture applies them to any elſe, you muſt ſhew where it doth.
Mr. Danſon.
It doth not follow, that if the Scripture doth not apply theſe Characters to any perſon, that therefore they are True believers that are ſo qualified.
Mr. Ives.
True believers is a word hardly to be found in the Scriptures, though we have been diſputing all this while about it, but we underſtand by True believers, a man that is not a Hypocrite, that doth not pretend to what he hath not, or is not. Now I ſay, I do not know where the Scripture tells us any where to the contrary, and if that be not our guide, we are all in the dark. Now if the Scripture gives us theſe for Characters of True believers, and tells us the contrary are not True believers; we have no reaſon to judge that man not a True believer, that hath theſe Characters: for we have no rule to judge any man a believer, or not a believer, but by the Characters the Scripture gives us of True believers, and of ſuch as are not ſo.
Mr. Danſon.
But the Scripture gives inſtance by parts, and if ſo be you will, I will ſhew it you in parts.
Mr. Ives.
Where are thoſe parts? I have told you before that you ought to give an inſtance of any one that had all theſe Characters Heb. 6. that was not a True believer: for indeed that is my Argument, but I do likewiſe condeſcend, that if you can, you may ſhew where any one of theſe Characters, agree to one that is not a believer, and it ſhall ſuffice:
Mr. Danſon.
I begin with enlightening, and that we have in the 17th of John 23. where Chriſt prays, that the World may believe that thou hath ſent me.
Mr. Ives.
What do you bring thia for?
Mr. Danſon.
Why! It is Scripture.
Mr. Ives.
What care I for Scripture. Hear the Peofell a Laughing.
Mr. Ives.
What do you Laugh for? Surely you cannot think that I ſpeak to undervalue the Scriptures! ſince we come here to prove our opinions by them: Now when I ſay, I care not for the Scripture, my meaning is; for Mr. Danſons impertinent alledging of it: for what if he had brought his inſtance out of the firſt of Gen: In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, I might have ſaid, what care I for that; being impertinently alledged as to the thing in hand; and if Mr. Danſon may be a judge, I will appeal to him what he thought of that expreſſion.
Mr. Danſon.
I thought as you have ſaid, not that you did reject or ſlight the Scripture, but the uſe I made of it.
Mr. Danſon.
I bring it to prove that the World, that here is diſtinguiſhed from thoſe that believed through the Apoſtles word, that theſe perſons might know that God ſent Jeſus Chriſt which is part of the illumination.
Mr. Ives.
Here you have brought a text to prove ſomething, but not to the purpoſe: For you are to bring a text to prove that ſome unbelievers were enlightened; you are now to Inſtance in parts, therefore firſt ſhew me where any were enlightened, that were not True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
This is an inſtance, but you do not underſtand it; when Chriſt had ſaid for their ſakes I Sacrifice my ſelf, that they alſo may be Sanctified through the Truth, v. 19. he then adds, Neither pray I for theſe alone, but for them alſo which ſhall believe on me through their Word, that they alſo may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they alſo may be one in us: that the World may believe that thou haſt ſent me. Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt doth here pray for thoſe perſons that ſhould afterwards believe on him by the Apoſtles, preaching for their Converſion, that it may be a means of the Worlds Conviction, of that more common believing and knowing which we do ſay, is intended in this place by inlightened.
Mr. Ives.
You are under a miſtake, becauſe my Argument is this, that theſe qualifications are not applyable to any but True believers, that is to no unbeliever; you now only ſhew me that Chriſt prays for the World, that the World may believe through the Apoſtles word, which makes againſt you.
Mr. Danſon.
Either you do not underſtand it, and that's your ignorance, or yov will not, and that's your diſingenuity.
Mr. Ives.
Pray Sir forbear, I confeſs I am ignorant enough; but it is not handſom for you to reflect ſo often upon me.
Mr. Danſon.
I affirmed that our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, prays for Real believers, thoſe whom the Father had given to him, and he ſpeaks of this, as one great end which he did deſign to obtain by their Converſion, namely, that the World thereby might be convinced not converted.
Mr. Ives.
How know you that Sir?
Mr. Danſon.
The Word ſaith ſo.
Mr. Ives.
I Anſwer two things; Firſt, that it is impertinent, and not to the caſe; and Secondly, you give a wrong ſenſe of the Text: the firſt thing you are to ſhew, is a Text where any are ſaid to be inlightened, that are not True believers; and you tell me of a Text where Chriſt prays, that the Apoſtles preaching may Convert others, that others may believe through their word; and then he prays afterwards, that it may have this effect, that the World may know that the Father ſent him. Now I hope it is Life Eternal to believe that Jeſus Chriſt was ſent from God.
Again, If Knowledge and Enlightening were all one, yet this Text doth not prove, ſome did ſo know, that were not True believers, but only Chriſt prayed they might know.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny that.
Mr. Ives.
Doth not the Scripture ſay ſo, and this Scripture you bring, makes no diſtinction of knowledge.
Mr. Danſon.
He diſtinguiſheth them from thoſe perſons that ſhould believe on him through their word.
Mr. Ives.
Give me a Text where any man is ſaid not to be a True believer, and yet enlightened.
Mr. Danſon.
This is unreaſonable.
Mr. Ives.
It is reaſonable, therefore ſhew me where, becauſe this is ſo plentiful a word in Scripture; You were once darkneſs, but are now light in the Lord: therefore walk as Children of the Light, &c. The word Light and Enlightened, is a word frequently uſed Eph. 1.18. & Heb. 10.32 There is not many more plentiful words in Scripture then this; and therefore among all this variety, I would have Mr. Danſon ſhew me where this word Enlightened, is applied to a man that is not a True believer.
Mr, Danſon.
I anſwer, your demand is unreaſonable, that it muſt neceſſarily be brought in the ſame Terms: for ſuppoſe it be inequivolent Terms, it is enough this very word Enlightened in Heb. 6.4. is rendred in Chap. 10.32. Illuminated, ſo that enlightening and knowledge, are the ſame thing.
Mr. Ives.
Becauſe likeneſs and ſimilitude are the ſame thing, therefore knowledge and light are the ſame thing; I deny that: for though ſometime light and knowledge are in Scripture, put for the ſame thing, yet they are not alwaies; but that which you are to do, is to ſhew me where theſe Characters in Heb. 6. are applied to any but True believers; now that was denied, and you tell me you will not undertake the whole, but you make no doubt to ſhew it in parts, if not in the whole; give me therefore the firſt.
Mr. Danſon.
Here is a plain place, John 1.7. That was the True light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the World.
Mr. Ives.
This ſpeaketh of ſuch a light as lighteth every man that comes into the World, either let us now be ingenious, or let us all be Quakers; for the truth is, if you believe all men in the World are enlightened with the light of Chriſt, I cannot underſtand how you, or any that gives ſuch a ſenſe of that text, ſhould differ from their notion, about the light within, they ſo much ſpeak of; you are therefore to bring a text to prove that ſome men, that were not True believers were yet enlightened: for I deny the whole World were enlightened; for this text ſpeaks indeed of a univerſal light, as the Sun may give a univerſal light, and yet men that are blind, are not enlightened; doth it follow, becauſe the Sun is a univerſal light, and enlightens the World, that therefore every man in the World is enlightened: for as I ſaid, there is a great many blind men, and the Goſpel is ſaid to open mens eyes, and to turn them from Darkneſs to Light; &c. You muſt ſhew me the Scripture ſaith any were enlightened with this light, that were not True believers; if you would have this text to ſpeak to your purpoſe.
This very interpretation Mr. Danſon gives of the firſt of John, in his dispute with the Quakers, which I gave him in his dispute with me, and yet though it will ſerve him to anſwer the Quakers, it ſeems it will not ſerve me to anſwer him: for in his book which he calls the Quakers folly, page 36. He tells them that the Goſpel is an external light, like that of the Sun; and that there is an inward light (or enlightening created in the Soul) or elſe (ſaith he) page 4. The blind man might ſee when there is a light, and the ſeeing man when there is none, this interpretation I gave him, but he rejecteth it, though it be his own, ſenſe, when he reaſons againſt the Quakers.
Mr. Danſon.
If ſo be that Chriſt doth enlighten all men, with any kind of univerſal light, then it neceſſarily follows, that the phraſe light cannot be reſtrained only to True believers.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, you now argue inſtead of anſwering; for you are to ſhew where this word enlightened, is only to have ſome outward and commen light: for light and enlightened have two different ſenſes.
Mr. Danſon.
It is not neceſſary I ſhould ſhew it you in the very ſame word.
Mr. Ives.
You are to inſtance in this word Enlightened; for the Te…t ſaith, It is impoſſible for thoſe that were once enlightened; which plainly ſhews they were diſcriminated from the whole World. Now you are to ſhew that yet theſe were unbelievers, or no True believers; for it is not ſpoken of a general light, but of a ſpecial: for otherwiſe it need not have been ſaid, but once enlightened; and they are diſcriminated all along from the whole World, and you bring a text to ſhew that all the World is enlightened, which doth not prove that neither, if that were the Caſe.
Mr. Danſon.
That text ſhews that the term-light is applycable to a univerſal and not to a ſpecial and reſtrained ſenſe.
Mr. Ives.
(b) What a wonderful Contradiction is here, to what anſwer Mr. Danſon gave the Quakers in his book, Intituled, the Quakers folly manifeſted, page 3. He ſaith the 2 of Epheſians v. 13. Denies that ever the Gentiles were enlightened by Chriſt. Page 5. He ſaith thoſe that were enlightened, were a ſmall number, in compariſon to them that were not enlightened. Again, when the Quakers tells him, the form of ſound words is, that Chriſt lighteth every man that comes into the World; the anſwers Page 6. That the meaning is not as the literal ſenſe imports: for then the Scripture would contradict it ſelf, but the meaning is, that Chriſt enlighteneth all that are enlightened, or elſe that he enlighten th ſome of every Nation, Tongue, and People, according to Rev. 5.9. Page 36. The whole body of tht gentile World, were not enlightened by Chriſt.
And yet in this dispute, he brings a plain contrary Interpretation of the firſt of John, and ſays, that the term-light is not to be underſtood in a reſtrained or ſpocial ſenſe, but is applycable to a common and univerſal ſenſe (ſee his laſt anſwer a little before in Page 44. of this book; ſo that when he would expound the firſt of John to a Quaker, he tells them the light there muſt be taken in a ſpecial and a reſtrained ſeuſe; but when he interprets it to me, he ſaith, the term-light in the firſt of John, is univerſal, and not to be reſtrained. But whatever you ſay, Shew me where any body was enlightened that was not a True believer, thoſe that were once enlightened, ſignifies that there were thouſands that were not ſo enlightened.
Mr. Danſon.
A perſon may be ſo far enlightened (and not a True believer) as to aſſent to this propoſition, which is one grand point of the Goſpel that eſus Chriſt is the Son of God. 1 Joh. 5.10. compared with Luke 4 41.
Mr. Ives.
You are to give me an inſtance, as you are reſpondent; I leave this to the hearers to judge; thus far we are come. My minor Propoſition was this, that theſe qualifications, in Heb. 6. are applyed to none but True believers; and if theſe might fall away True believers might fall away. Mr. Danſon's anſwer was, that theſe qualifications are applicable to ſome that were not True believers; he ſaid he would not undertake to prove that all theſe qualifications are in any one man, but the would prove that they have been in particular perſons: ſome in one, and ſome in another; though this hardly amounts to an anſwer; yet however I complied with him, and deſired him to begin with the firſt, and ſhew me where any are ſaid to be enlightened, that were not True believers. Enlightened I mean in the ſenſe of my Text; if he doth not that, he doth nothing. Mr. Danſon hath gone about two or three times, to ſhew you that ſome may have knowledge; but this is not to our queſtion, and that Chriſt is the Light of the World, and that is as little to the purpoſe.
Mr. Danſon.
You ſay this term Enlightned is applycable to none but True believers.
Now I have ſhown you, what this Inequivolent terms is.
Mr. Ives.
But the Queſtion is, whether I will allow it or no.
Mr. Danſon.
I have ſhown you that perſons may be ſo far enlightened, as to believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt, as the Devils themſelves did.
Mr. Ives.
Where is that called Enlightened? Shew me where this word Enlightened is applied to any but True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
I did not undertake it.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, you have undertaken it, as appears by all you have but now ſaid concerning it.
Mr. Danſon.
I have ſhown you where a word that is equivalent to it, is applicable to men that are not True believers.
Mr. Ives.
Run the Scriptures all over, it is a plentiful word, and I believe you will find it as often uſed; and yet the Scripture never applies this word enlightened to any but True believers, and therefore why ſhould you.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay enlightening and knowledge are the ſame things.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, you will not or cannot, give an inſtance, therefore I ſhall proceed to the ſecond Character, which is this; They are renewed by Repentance: for the Text ſaith, it is impoſſible, they ſhould be renewed again by Repentance. Whence I argue.
Thoſe that were once renewed by Repentance, were True believers.
But theſe perſons here were once renewed by Repentance.
Ergo, they were True believers.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the major, that thoſe that were once renewed by Repentance were True believers.
Mr. Ives.
If none have been renewed by Repentance but True believers, then the major is true; but none have been renewed by Repentance, but True believers.
Ergo,
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your minor.
Mr. Ives.
Shew me one man that is ſaid to be renewed by Repentance, that was not a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
I will ſhew you an Inſtance of a man that was renewed by Repentance (that is to ſay) as we do underſtand it of a renewing by Repentance; of a common work of the Spirit of God, which hath the ſame name, becauſe of ſome ſimilitude. It is ſaid that Judas repented himſelf, and brought back again the price.
Mr. Ives.
You are to prove that Judas was renewed by Repentance; a hundred men may ſo repent, and yet not be renewed by Repentance, in that ſenſe which the Scripture calls renewing, renovation, or regeneration, he was not renovated.
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture uſes that phraſe in a different ſence.
Mr. Ives.
No not in Repentance.
Mr. Danſon.
Yes in Repentance; Do you ſuppoſe that Repentance is not ſeparable from renewsng in the Scripture.
Mr. Ives.
Shew me if you can that a man that hath changed his mind by any contrition or remorſe, and was ever ſaid to be renewed by it, and not a new Creature, the word is frequently uſed, Be ye renewed in the spirit of your minds, &c.
I ſay, ſhew me but where any man was ever ſaid to be renewed by Repentance, or to be renewed by Faith, or to be renewed by his Humiliation, that was not a True believer; if he was renewed by the operation of theſe Qualities. I do tell you it is to be underſtood of a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
I have given you an Inſtance to the contrary, where the Scripture applies, Repentance to one that was not a True believer.
Mr. Ives.
Alas! There may be a thouſand ſuch, but that that I would ask you, is whether Judas was renewed by Repentance in the ſenſe of this Text; therefore you do not, or you cannot give me an inſtance; for I am bound to believe the Text, and it tells me they cannot be renewed again by Repentance, which implies they were once renewed by Repentance.
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture uſes this phraſe, Twice dead, Pluckt up by the roots.
Mr. Ives.
All that you have to do, is to ſhew me where the Scripture applies this phraſe to any but True believers; if you cannot, then my Argument is proved.
Mr. Danſon.
I have given an inſtance of Judas, that repented and reſtored unjuſt gotten goods.
Mr. Ives.
You have given no Inſtance as yet; for you cannot ſhew that Judas was renewed by Repentance, and that it was an Act of the Spirit of God upon him in renovation.
I come now to a Third Inſtance, Thoſe that have taſted of the powers of the World to come; give me an Inſtance where any but True believers have taſted of the powers of the World to come.
Mr. Danſon.
I can in the 24th of Acts, it is ſaid there, that as Paul reaſoned concerning Righteouſneſs, Temperance, and Judgment to come, Foelix Trembled.
Mr. Ives.
What doth that prove?
(c) The Text under conſideration, Heb. 6. Speaks of ſuch a taſting, as Implies a ſavouring of heavenly things, ſo as to be affected and in Love with them, and therefore it is ſaid, they taſted of the heavenly gift; but it is otherwiſe ſaid of Foelix, that he trembled, and if that might be called a taſt, it was a tast that his Soul was in the abhorrancy off, which is a forreign interpretation, and a forcable invading the ſenſe of the text, under conſideration to ſuppoſe the perſons ſpoken of there, to have taſted of the World te come, in the ſenſe that Foelix Trembled at the Judgment to come, indeed they might have ſuch a taſt if they ſhould fall away; but that they had had any ſuch taſt if they had not fallen away, is denyed.
Mr. Danſon.
This is one part of the powers of the World to come, that is to ſay, a dreadful ſenſe and apprehenſion, he had upon him of the future judgment; and then in Luke 14.15. And when one of them that ſat at meat with him heard theſe things, he ſaid unto him, Bleſſed is he that ſhall eat Bread in the Kingdom of God, he had here ſome affectionate tranſports at the narration that was made concerning the future ſtate of happyneſs, and Chriſt directs a Parable to him.
Mr. Ives.
Indeed I am much beholding to you, and you have done me a kindneſs in bringing that to my mind that was out before. Now the Scripture tells you in the Parable, That a certain man made a Supper, and this Supper was to ſet before him. and to repreſent to him the Glory of the Kingdom of God, and of the World to Come. Now he doth not ſay as you ſay, that he taſted of it, but the quite contrary; that not only he, but none that was bidden ſhould taſt of the Supper. v. 14.
Mr. Danſon.
You do not underſtand what you ſay.
Mr. Ives.
I do; for at the latter end of the Parable, Chriſt gives Inſtance that thoſe that were bidden ſhould not taſt of the Supper, and applies it to him, and the general import of it is to ſhew that many perſons are called, that yet notwithſtanding in Truth and Reality do not obey the call.
Mr. Danſon.
How do you know this? that the man did not Eat of it.
Mr. Ives.
Either he did, or he did not taſt of it, but the text ſaith, none that was bidden did taſt, and you ſay, this man was bid and did taſt.
Mr. Danſon.
He taſted of it; he had affection of joy wrought in him, by the repreſentation of the future ſtate.
Mr. Ives.
I anſwer, Firſt, that he did not taſt: but Secondly, ſuppoſing this ſenſe true, that he did taſt: then tell me was this a Believer or an Unbeliever; for the Inſtance muſt prove both (viz.) that he did taſt, and that he was not a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
He was an Unbeliever.
Mr. Ives.
This will not ſerve your turn.
Mr. Danſon.
It will, Becauſe this Parable was directed particularly to him; and Secondly, Becauſe it is ſaid, that he to whom his diſcourſe was directed, was of the Phariſees of whom the Scripture tells us, a great number of them were open enemies to him, and ſome of them, though the Scripture ſaith, they did believe on him, yet would not confeſs him, least he ſhould put them out of the Synagogue; becauſe they loved the praiſe of men, more then the praiſe of God.
Mr. Ives.
There is two thing in this Text yet in queſtion as I have told you.
Firſt, Whether this man taſted of the powers of the World to come: for the text doth not ſay ſo, but implies the contrary; for he did not taſt of the Supper, for a man may be raviſhed with joy at the intelligence of buſineſs, and yet for all that theſe may die, and faint, and flag upon him, and he may never have a true ſenſe and ſavour of them. Nor,
Secondly, Doth the text ſay (if it were ſo) that he was not a True believer; you ſay he was not, and that firſt, becauſe Chriſt addreſſes himſelf to him by a Parable; and Secondly, becauſe the Phariſees many of them were not True believers (of whom you ſuppoſe he was one) but this is arguing and not anſwering; but it doth not follow, that becauſe ſome of the Phariſees were not True believers, therefore none of them were; and if I ſhould grant you the firſt anſwer, that he taſted of the powers of the World to come; how doth this prove that he was not a True believer? But I lay the ſtreſs of my anſwer upon the firſt (viz.) that he did not Taſt of the Supper: for you ſay the Parable was directed to him, and applied to him, and Chriſt ſaith of him, that he was one that was invited; and if ſo nothing is more plain, v. 24. then that he did not taſt, but if he had taſted, it is as hard to prove that he was not a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
Becauſe I ſay the perſons of whom this was ſpoken, were Phariſees of whom the Scripture affirms, that either they were open enemies or ſecret friends.
Mr. Ives.
That is no proof; for if they were ſecret friends they were friends.
Mr. Danſon.
But Chriſt gives this account of them, that they would not confeſs him, becauſe they loved the praiſe of men more then God.
Mr. Ives.
You bring this Inſtance to ſhew two things. Firſt, that this man to whom Chriſt directs his ſpeech, had a taſt of the powers of the World to come, and alſo that he was no True believers, but whether it doth any more then prove he did not taſt, I leave to conſideration, and proceed to a fourth Inſtance.
If they that have clean eſcaped the pollutions of this evil World, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally. But they that have clean eſcaped the pollutions of this evil World, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, may fall away totally and finally.
Ergo, True believers may fall away totally and finally.
Or if you pleaſe thus,
They are true believers that have clean eſcaped the pollutions of this evil world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt:
But ſome ſuch may fall away totally and finally.
Ergo, Some true believers may fall away totally and finally.
Mr. Danſon.
You put the ſubject of the queſtion into the major, and the predicate of the queſtion into the minor; your concluſion is, that true believers may fall away.
Mr. Ives.
And do I not conclude ſo my argument is this, and I argue rightly;
That if thoſe that have clean eſcaped the p…ions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt may fall away, Then true believers may fall away:
But ſuch may fall away;
Ergo.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the conſequence, it doth not follow that becauſe thoſe that have clean eſcaped the pollution of the world through the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt may fall away, then true believers may fall away; for that is not a diſcription of true believerss.
Mr. Ives.
I will prove that.
If this quality be applicable to none but true believers, then if one fall away, the other may.
But the quality is applicable to none but true believers;
Ergo.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay it is applicable to others.
Mr. Ives.
I will prove it is applicable to no others, to have clean eſcaped the pollutions of this preſent world. I prove it thus,
If they are applyed to any but true believers, they are applicable to hypocrites or prophane perſons:
But they are not applicable to hypocrites or prophane perſons;
Ergo, They are applicable to none but true believers.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny you minor, for they are applicable to hypocrites.
Mr. Ives.
If clean eſcaping the pollutions of this preſent world be applicable to hypocrites, then a man that is an hypocrite, may be clean from the pollutions of the world, in the midſt of his hypocriſie.
But a man cannot be clean from the pollutions of the world in the midſt of his hypocriſie;
Ergo, Clean eſcaping the pollutions of this world, is not applicable to hypocrites.
Mr. Danſon.
Oh! Strange; I deny your minor. They may be clean from the groſs pollutions of the world in the midſt of their hypocriſie.
Mr. Ives.
If a man may be free and clean from the pollutions of the world in the midſt of his hypocriſie; then it follows that hypocriſie is not a pollution of this world:
But hypocriſie is a pollution of this world;
Ergo,
The Text ſaith they eſcaped, and clean eſcaped the pollutions of this World, and from them that live in error. Now thoſe that do thus cannot be hypocrites, becauſe hypocriſie is one of the greateſt errors and pollutions: And the Apoſtle tells us, 1 John 2.16. all that is in the world, the luſt of the fleſh, and the luſt of the eye, and the pride of life: (in which hypocriſie is compriſed as well as other ſins) is not of the Father but of this WORLD; which plainly ſhews hypocriſie to be a pollution and ſin of the World with a Witneſs; and if ſo, how can any man CLEAN eſcape the pollutions of the world, and be a hypocrite at the ſame time?
Mr. Danſon.
This is ſimple indeed, I deny your conſequence, that if a man may be free from the pollutions of the world in the midſt of his hypocriſie, that then hypocriſie is not a groſs pollution of the world.
Mr. Ives.
I do not ſay groſs pollutions, why do you force words into my argument? I would fain know when the text tells us clean eſcaped the pollutions of this world, why you ſhould limit it to groſs pollutions when the Text doth not? Now how can a man clean eſcape from them that live in errour, that lives in hypocriſie, when hypocriſie is the greateſt errour of all, and the moſt damnable pollution in the world.
Mr. Danſon.
He may be ſo, the termes are indefinite, and ſo conſequently but particular; and it is but from the groſs pollutions of the world.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, Have you a Greek Teſtament? The word in the Greek is really or truely eſcaped &c. Now I would leave this to the judgment of the company, whether a man can really or truly eſcape the pollution of the World, and yet all this while be no True believer.
When Mr. Ives called for a Greek Teſtament, a friend of Mr. Danſons pulls one out of his Po…ket, and reads the word foreign, and then rendred it in Engliſh as Mr. Ives had done before (viz.) that it was truly or really eſcaping the pollutions of this World.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay the groſs pollution.
Mr. Ives.
Give an Inſtance I ſay of one that had clear eſcaped from the pollutions of this World; and from them that lived in errour that was not a True believer.
Mr. Danſon.
In Luke 18.10, 11. It is ſaid there, that the Phariſees of whom the Scripture doth ſo frequently point the finger at them; yet this Scripture ſaith, they were free from the pollutions of the World.
Mr. Ives.
What? becauſe the Scripture ſaith they were guilty of them.
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture tells us, that they made their out-ſide clean, they were not unjuſt, nor Adulterers, nor as this Publican.
Mr. Ives.
Do you believe the Phariſee ſaid true of himſelf? and do you believe they were all ſo?
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture it ſelf ſaith ſo.
Mr. Ives.
Chriſt himſelf ſaith, indeed that they were outwardly Righteous; that is, they were devout in ſome Ceremonies of their Religion, and it alſo expreſly tells us that they were full of wickedneſs, and that it appeared outwardly; for it ſaith, they neglected Juſtice, Mercy and Faith, therefore I would fain know whether a man can be free from the groſs pollutions of the World, that is neither juſt, faithful, nor merciful; beſides, this doth not reach the caſe: for you are to ſhew or give an Inſtance of one that was an hypocrite; and yet that it is ſaid of him that he had clean eſcaped from ſuch as live in errour.
Mr. Danſon.
What they did as to thoſe acts, they did with ſuch cunning, that it did not appear viſible to the World: for we cannot ſuppoſe that Chriſt would affirm that thoſe perſons did appear outwardly righteous unto the World that were openly guilty of ſuch miſcarriages.
Mr. Ives.
I ſay theſe men in 2 Pet. 2. had clean eſcaped from thoſe that lived in errour; now hypocriſie is the greateſt and moſt damnable errour in the World; and how can a man live in a damnable errour, who yet hath clean eſcaped the pollution of the World.
Mr. Danſon.
Not at the ſame time he cannot be clear from Adultry, and yet guilty of it, nor from Hypocriſie, and yet be guilty of it, but he may at the ſame time be free from the groſs acts of Sin, ſo that they may not come into the view of the World.
Mr. Ives.
How can the latter end of that man be worſe then his beginning? for when he falls away, if what he falls from be his groſs and damnable Hypocriſie, his latter end is not, nay cannot be worſe then his beginning.
For Chriſt makes Hypocrites portion in Hell the greateſt of all; and makes their puniſhment the meaſure and ſtandard hy which he will judge others, and if open and prophane perſons ſhall have their portion with Hypocrites, then ſurely it cannot make a Hypocrites latter end worſe then his beginning, if at firſt he was but an Hypocrite, and devoured Widows houſes under the guiſe of Religion, it connot I ſay, be worſe with him in the end, if he puts off this guiſe, and appears openly prophane.
Mr Danſon.
Chiefly upon this ground it may, becauſe his falling away from that outward cleanneſs, by which Religion did gain ſome kind of reputation, by his outward holyneſs and righteouſneſs; that ſame did make his condition worſe then it was before, becauſe God is more diſhonoured.
Mr. Ives.
This is the Sum of the Argument that hath been urged, that if men that have clean eſcaped the pollutions of the World, may fall away, then True believers may; becauſe this phraſe is general, and applycable to none elſe. Mr. Danſon anſwered by diſtinguiſhing of clean eſcaping, heſaith there is a clean eſcaping of groſs ſins that hypocrites eſcape; and yet all the while they may not be True believers. Now I find no ſuch Character given to hypocrites in all the Scripture, and I leave you to judge.
Mr. Danſon.
I Inſtance in St. Paul.
M. Ives.
That is not to your purpoſe, yet however I ſay St. Paul was no hypocrite.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay he was an hypocrite.
Mr. Ives.
Prove St. Paul a hypocrite, I am ſure he never tells us ſo, ſhew me where he lived ungodly or unjuſtly; why do you ſay he was a hypocrite?
Mr. Danſon.
The Scripture tells me he was an hypocrite.
Mr. Ives.
Prove it then, where is that Scripture that tells you ſo?
Mr. Danſon.
Thus I prove it, the Scripture ſaith in Rom. 9.31, 32. But Iſrael which followed after the Law of Righteouſneſs hath not attained to the Law of Righteouſneſs; wherefore becauſe they ſought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law; for they ſtumbled at that ſtumbling ſtone, and the whole body of the Jews generally did ſeek to be ſaved by the Righteouſneſ. of the Law.
Mr. Ives.
St. Paul tells us, that he lived in all good conſcience during his ſtate of Judaiſm; and he thanks God he obtained mercy, becauſe he did it ignorantly; and how could he be a hypocrite, that did what he did out of a ſincere and honeſt mind.
And when he perſecuted the Church of Chriſt, which is one of the worſt things that is ſaid of him; yet he tells us after his Converſion (if we will believe him) that he verily thought within himſelf, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jeſus of Nazareth. Acts 26.9, 10, 11. verſes.
Mr. Danſon.
This is ſtrange, that you do not underſtand that Paul was an hypocrite.
Mr. Ives.
I do not underſtand it.
Mr. Danſon.
There is two ſorts of Hypocrites, one that appears deſignedly to deceive the World in that grace which is indeed wanting in the perſon, and then the other is thoſe perſons that deceive themſelves as well as others.
Mr. Ives.
If this be a good Argument againſt St. Paul, Cornelius was a Hypocrite too.
Mr. Danſon.
That doth not follow.
Mr. Ives.
Yes it doth, but pray ſhew me where Paul did before his Converſion, underſtand any thing of himſelf, or appeared to any body elſe, to be what he was not.
Mr. Danſon.
Yes he was, as touching the Law blameleſs.
Mr. Ives.
What was he a hypocrite, notwithſtanding he tells us of himſelf that he lived in all good conſcience.
Shew how this is conſiſtent with hypocriſie.
Mr. Danſon.
If a man appear to have what he hath not; for the Scriptures uſe that expreſſion from him that hath not, ſhall be taken away that which he hath; Paul had really what he had, but that which he had was not really what it ſeemed to be.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, this is nothing to your purpoſe; for it neither proves Paul an hypocrite, neither doth it ſhew that a man may be ſaid to have clean eſcaped the pollutions of this World, and to have clean eſcaped from ſuch as live in errour, when at the ſame time he liveth in hypocriſie, which is the greateſt error, and the moſt damnable pollution; I ſhall therefore leave it to conſideration, and proceed to another Argument.
The laſt Argument that I ſhall urge, I ſhall ground upon the caſe of the Apoſtle Paul, 1 Cor. 9.27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into Subjection, leaſt by any means, when I have preached to others, I my ſelf ſhould be a caſt away, whence I argue.
What Paul uſed all diligence, and labour to prevent the coming to paſs of, might poſſibly come to paſs.
But Paul uſed all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally.
Ergo, his falling away totally and finally was poſsible to come to paſs.
Mr. Danſon.
I anſwer to the major, that that which may poſſibly come to paſs in reſpect to the nature of the thing, there being a real danger and hazard in the nature of the thing; yet notwithſtanding that, there may be ſomething elſe that may hinder the event.
Mr Ives.
That which lies upon you to anſwer is this, I ſay Paul uſed all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally; is this true or falſe?
Mr. Danſon.
I deny your major.
Mr. Ives.
My major is this, that which Paul uſed all diligence and labour to prevent, was not impoſſible to come to paſs. Now if I underſtand you, you ſay a thing may be poſſible in it ſelf, but yet not poſſible to him, or to ſuch, or ſuch a perſon; now either Paul was acquainted with this, or he was not.
Mr. Danſon.
I ſay he did know it, that it was impoſſible for him to fall away.
Mr. Ives.
He that knows it is impoſſible for him to fall into ſuch a danger, it is a vain thing for him to ſtrive to keep himſelf out of it
But the Apoſtle Paul ſay you, did know that it was impoſſible for him to fall into ſuch a danger.
Ergo, it was a vain thing and to no purpoſe for him to ſtrive to keep himſelf out o… it.
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the major, it doth not therefore follow at all, that though he knew it was impoſſible for him to fall into ſuch a danger, that it was a vain thing for him to ſtrive to keep himſelf out of it.
Mr. Ives.
He that labours for nothing, and where he can propoſe nothing in the doing of it, labours unneceſſarily; but Paul did ſo, if be laboured to prevent the coming to paſs of that which he knew was impoſſible for to come to paſs.
Ergo,
Mr. Danſon.
I deny the major, he did not labour to no purpoſe.
Mr. Ives.
Pray Inſtance, to what purpoſe was it that he took care and pains to beat down his body otherwiſe then what he tells you, that leaſt he ſhould become a reprobate, and that I am ſure was to good purpoſe.
Mr Danſon.
The anſwer I ſhall give you is this, becauſe that his endeavour, and his care, and his caution was the means by which this event was prevented.
Mr. Ives.
You ſay by this means he prevented his apoſtacy, and yet deny it was poſſible for him to apoſtatize; how can this be?
Mr. Danſon.
As for Inſtance, God promiſed Hezekiah to add 15 years to his Life, yet notwithſtanding this; he was under an obligation to make uſe of the ordinary means that God had appointed for the ſuſtaining of Life, as meat, drink, food, reſt, &c. Yet it was impoſſible upon ſuppoſition of the decree and promiſe of God, that he ſhould die before the end of thoſe years.
Mr. Ives.
Sir, that which I urge is a clear Caſe, yours doth not reach the Caſe: If ſo be the Inſtance had been Parrallel, I would have ſaid more to it, but yet I will ſay ſomething to it, notwithſtanding the Caſe lies here, either Paul did labour to prevent his apoſtacy, or he did not; the Text tells us he did labour leaſt by any means whilſt he preached to others, he himſelf ſhould become a reprobate; you ſay it was impoſſible it ſhould be ſo, you apply this to the Caſe of Hezekiah, that God had added 15 years to his Life, but I ſay that God had not added 15 years to his Life abſolutely as you interpret it, but conditionally in caſe he made uſe of the ordinary means; and if Hezekiah had not done this, he had not been ſhot-free: for he was not under a neceſſity of avoiding all manner of danger, and it follows that if Paul had refuſed the means, he had as neceſſarily have fallen, as Hezekiah had dyed if he had not eaten.
Mr. Danſon.
This I ſay, that grace is of its own nature looſable, and that grace that is reſtored by Chriſt, may as well be loſt as Adams in Innocency, yet notwithſtanding thoſe cautions that are given about apoſtacy and falling away, that are given to all viſible believers, are not unneceſſary, becauſe God makes uſe of our own endeavours as the means by which our apoſtacy is to be prevented.
Mr. Ives.
This is not to the Argument, becauſe the Argument is not made indefinitely, of viſible believers, but it is grounded upon the particular inſtance of the Apoſtle, whom you ſay knew it was impoſſible for him to fall away therefore the Sum of my Argument amounts to the proof of this:
If as you have ſaid, he knew he could not fall away, to what purpoſe ſhould he uſe endeavours to prevent it; to what end ſhould any man bid me beware of that place, or pit; that both he and I knew it was impoſſible for me to fall into it.
Mr. Danſon.
If we could ſuppoſe that there was any ſuch ſecurity, that a man ſhould obtain ſuch and ſuch an end without the uſe of the means; yet there was good and ſufficient Reaſon to make uſe of thoſe means from that tye and obligation that God hath laid by way of command, as in the inſtance of Hezekiah, where God promiſed to add to his days 15 years.
Mr. Ives.
It is ordinary in Scripture, for things to be laid down abſolutely, that are to be underſtood conditionally; but however that will not reach our caſe. What God may do, for (Admitting that doctrine true) that God hath a particular number of elect, and none of us know who are thoſe; here is ſome reaſon to think that all men ſhould endeavour to walk uprightly and juſtly, and obſerve all the termes required: But now, if we will ſuppoſe theſe men certainly to know and to be aſſured they ſhall never periſh, pray tell me why that thoſe men ſhould be induſtrious in labouring to prevent their periſhing.
Mr. Danſon.
God promiſes abſolutely, that He would add 15 years to Hezekiahs life; yet notwithſtanding this, God particularly commands that there ſhould be a plaſter of figgs applyed to his ſore in order to his recovery.
Mr. Ives.
But how if he would not have made uſe of it.
Mr Danſon.
Then he had ſinned in diſobeying Gods command.
Mr. Ives.
Then it ſeems he had dyed.
Here one Mr. Looff a Miniſter (who had interpoſed ſeveral times before, but no notice was taken of him by Mr. Ives) very confidently crys out: O Sir, there is another inſtance at hand, that in the 27. Acts. 22. compared with the 31. Now, I exhort you to be of good chear, for there ſhall be no loſs of any mans life among you, but of the ſhip: And yet Paul afterwards ſaid unto the Centurion and to the Souldiers, except theſe abide in the Ship, ye cannot be ſaved: Here they were to uſe the means.
Mr. Ives.
Pray Sir, Let me ask you one Queſtion, What if they would not have continued in the Ship, but have leapt overboard, what then?
Mr. Loof.
Why then they had been drowned.
Mr. Ives.
Very well, that is as much as I would have.
Mr. Danſon.
But this Text that you have urged, upon which your argument is built, doth not ſpeak of falling away totally and finally from grace, but of his not being aproved to loſe his eſteem he formerly had.
Mr. Ives.
Either the ſence was true that you firſt gave in anſwer to this argument upon which we have been arguing ſo long, or it was not true; if it was true. why do you not keep to it; if it was falſe, why do you give it in for an interpretation? For firſt, You anſwered that Paul laboured to prevent the coming to paſs of that which he knew was impoſſible to come to paſs, which was his final Apoſtacy.
And now you ſubſtitute a contrary interpretation, (viz) that Paul laboured to prevent the loſing, that eſteem and reputation which he had among Chriſtians. If this Latter be the ſenſe, then he laboured to prevent the coming to paſs of nothing, but what was poſſible to come to paſs, which is contrary to the firſt interpretation. Therefore pray which was the true ſenſe the latter, or the former.
Mr. Danſon.
The Latter.
Mr. Ives.
Why did you give us the former then? I ſhall therefore deſiſt and argue no further.
But here the Reader may take notice, that in Mr. Danſons giving this last anſwer (viz) that Paul laboured to prevent his doing thoſe things that might make him loſe the eſteem and approbation he formerly had: he juſtifies my Major propoſition in words at length; for who ever looks back ſhall find it runs thus, pag 17. that which Paul uſes all diligence and labour to prevent, was not impoſſible to come to paſs: Mr. Danſon once and again denied this major propoſition, and now he confeſſeth it in this latter interpretation; for he ſaith, that which he laboured to prevent the coming to paſs of, was nothing but (what was poſſible to come to paſs (viz) the approbation and eſteem he formerly had. See Page 17. and compare it with Page 18.
After Mr. Ives bad deſiſted Arguing, Mr. Danſon offered to be opponant, and deſired Mr. Ives to spend ſome time in Reſponding to ſome Arguments he had to urge; but Mr Ives told him that he was weary, but however as farr as his ſtrength and time would permit, he would endeavour to anſwer him: hereupon Mr. Danſon Replied he was weary alſo; and thereupon they promiſed each other to agree upon ſome other time. This was the whole of the firſt days oonference.