Impartial Account of Two Several Disputations, Dialogue · Dispute 2

Impartial Account of Two Several Disputations · Dialogue · Dispute 2

p. 77An Account of the Second days Diſputation, which was on the 26th. of Feb. at which Diſpute, Mr. Danſon was Opponent, and Mr. Ives Reſpondent.

Mr. Danſon.

THE queſtion that is now to be debated, is, whether or no, ſome True believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace; you ſtated it ſo the laſt time, Did you not?

Mr. Ives.

I Sir.

Mr. Danſon.

Now becauſe the laſt time (ſo far as I was able to apprehend) there was onelyonly two arguments that was urged by this Gentleman that had any thing of wait; I ſhall therefore p. 78in the firſt place, urge ſomething by way of retortion upon him from his own arguments.

Mr. Ives.

Pray tell me whether you are now a reſponding to my arguments, or whether you are arguing as an Opponent.

Mr. Danſon.

I am now Opponent.

Mr. Ives.

You may urge them argumentwiſe, and then Sir the queſtion is this, whether it be impoſſible for any true believer to fall away totally and finally from grace? And you may remember (that we might not put any deceivable termes upon each other) by Impoſſible, we underſtood the Word, in oppoſition to ſuch, as either have, may, might, or can fall away; and then with reſpect to true believers, we underſtood ſuch as had true faith in oppoſition to hypocrites; or ſuch as whatſoever Truth they may believe, do not believe the Articles of the Chriſtian Religion or of the Chriſtian Faith: We alſo underſtood by falling away totally, wholly to renounce the Chriſtian Faith; and by Finally, ſo to depart from the Faith, as at laſt to periſh Eternally; and by the grace of God, we meant the love and favour of God, that men might fall away from it and periſh.

p. 79Mr. Danſon.

No Sir, I do not mean ſo.

Mr. Ives.

What did we mean by falling away, and be damn'd, which was the ſenſe of my arguments the laſt day.

Mr. Danſon.

There is no ſuch term in the queſtion.

Mr. Ives.

I, But how did we proſecute it the laſt time, what was then the ſenſe of the queſtion? Let us not deceive one another.

Mr. Danſon.

We mean the grace of God in us, and not the grace of God without us.

Mr. Ives.

Do you believe a man may fall away from the grace, and favour of God without him? and not from the grace of God within him? well then let's never differ about words. when we agree about ſenſe; you know I did by my arguments the laſt time endeavour to prove that true believers might looſe the favour of God, or elſe what did I mean; (when I ſaid) Paul might become a reprobate.

Mr. Danſon.

There was only to my remembrance but two arguments uſed by you the laſt time, that were of any ſeeming force; the one was in p. 80the 1 Cor. 9. ult. about the Apoſtle Paul, and this was the iſſue that you did urge it to, that it was altogether needleſs and unneceſſary, that Paul ſhould have any caution given him, or that he ſhould make uſe of any caution to prevent that which is impoſſible, as to the event and againſt that I ſhall direct my Arguments.

Mr. Ives.

I will prevent you a little, I am now ſtanding in the place of a reſpondent, and you are oppenent; and what ever you argue, do it diſtinctly; and do not incumber your diſpute with what I ſaid as opponent, but make what advantage you can in the proſecution of your Argument of whatever I ſaid then; and if you will not do thus, I will not anſwer you. My Reaſon I ſhall give you is this, becauſe it will bring us back again into the place, where we were before of my being opponent and you reſpondent; and to what you ſay as to the Apoſtle Paul, you may remember you anſweredme, that Paul, and ſo others might labour to prevent the coming to paſs of that which they knew was impoſſible for to come to paſs, with reſpect to the decree of God, though not in reſpect of the nature of the thing. Now we argued and diſcovered that a great while, ſo long that at laſt you gave an anſwer that was p. 81directly contrary to your firſt anſwer, that you ſtood ſo long upon.

Mr. Danſon.

I did not.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, you told me that Paul might labour to prevent his being a reprobate, or caſtaway; that is, as you at laſt interpreted the word, a man that might not be approved (that is to ſay) in the judgment of Chriſtian Charity, then Sir I told you he laboured to prevent nothing but what might come to paſs; and then I asked which of theſe ſenſes was the true ſenſe of the Text, and you anſwered the Latter, and then I told you, you had ſpent half an hour and more to no purpoſe about the former ſenſe; if the Latter which was contrary to it, was the true ſenſe.

Mr. Danſon.

You tell part of the Truth but not the whole Truth; I do not deny but taking the words as our tranſlation rendred them, and according to the Vulgar account of the expoſition, we affirmed the thing, but then we alſo affirmed, that there was no abſurdity in it, that Paul ſhould uſe Caution to prevent that which he knew was impoſſible to come to paſs; and I alſo told you that the p. 82word being capable of another ſenſe, I choſe rather to ſtick to the laſt.

Mr. Ives.

You told me that the laſt was the true ſenſe: but come Sir, do any thing that will conclude the Queſtion; if you will not, I ſhall not anſwer you.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove that it is not needleſs to give Cautions, nor to make uſe of Cautions to prevent that which yet notwithſtanding is impoſſible to be, or to come to paſs.

Mr. Ives.

That is no part of the Queſtion, you are to prove that it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; If you will not conclude that in your ſyllogiſm I will not diſpute; for I am now to diſpute this Queſtion with you, whether it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; I ſay, ſome may, you ſay, none can, do you not?

Mr. Danſon.

Yes.

Mr. Ives.

Prove it then.

Mr. Danſon.

If ſome True believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace; then we may ſuppoſe p. 83that ſome True believers have fallen away totally and finally.

But no True believer hath fallen away totally and finally from Grace.

Ergo, no True believer can.

Mr. Ives.

This is a falſe Syllogiſm; For Mr. Danſon ſaith, if ſome may fall, then ſome have, but none have Ergo none can; and though the minor propoſition may be detected; if the concluſion bad been rightly inferred from the premiſes, yet however the conſequence of the major is falſe, Therefore I deny your major.

Mr. Danſon.

I argue upon your own grounds.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major, do you prove it if you can, upon what grounds you will, ſo it be proved upon a good ground, I paſs not.

Mr. Danſon.

Whatever is Potential, hath been done.

Mr. Ives.

That is falſe, but prove your major propoſition; for that is the thing denied: and you beg when you ſhould dig. A thing may be poſſible to be done, though no body hath done it; therefore throw up your Argument, and ſay you cannot prove it, or elſe prove that whatever hath not been done, is impoſſible to be done.

p. 84Mr. Danſon.

I Argue upon your ſelf.

Mr. Ives.

If you beg of me, I will give you nothing; I ſay prove your major propoſition if you can.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, I cannot prove it.

Here Mr. Danſon confeſſes he cannot prove his Argument.

Mr. Ives.

He that will uſe a medium to prove an Argument, muſt prove his medium.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove then by a new Argument.

Mr. Ives,

Come then.

Mr. Danſon.

If ſome True believers have fallen away totally and finally from grace, they are either thoſe in the 2 Pet. 2.19.20. or Heb. 6.6. that are ſome of thoſe examples.

But they are no examples of perſons falling away from Grace.

Ergo, No True believers have fallen totally and finally from Grace.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the whole Argument, for you do not conclude rightly: you muſt conclude Ergo. Then if none have fallen, none can fall.

p. 85Mr. Danſon.

They are your conſeſſions, therefore that is a proof.

Mr. Ives.

I deſire this Gentleman, to prove that it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally from grace, and he hath no way to prove it, but ſaith I confeſs it, when all this while I have been diſputing againſt it.

Mr. Danſon.

Theſe were the inſtances you urged of True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace.

Mr. Ives.

Prove your major I ſay.

Mr. Danſon.

I here prove it, if that the characters that are given in theſe Texts▪ that do carry the greateſt likely hood of True believers falling away, do not prove it; then they cannot fall away:

But the firſt is true. Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, I deny this Argument, for it doth not conclude the major that was denied in the former Argument; either prove that, or elſe go back to the queſtion, and prove by ſome other Texts of Scripture or Argument and ſo conclude; Ergo, It is poſſible for any p. 86True believer to fall away totally and finally.

Mr. Danſon.

I appeal to all perſons, if a retortion of an argument, be not according to all the Laws of Diſputation.

Mr. Ives.

I confeſs it, Retortion is good when you are Reſpondent, that was your buſineſs laſt time; but now you are to give me an Argument, to prove that it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally. I did the laſt time endeavour as well as I could, to give Mr. Danſon the beſt reaſons to prove that ſome True believers might fall away; and Mr. Danſon is now to give me ſome Scripture proof or argument that they cannot fall away: It may be poſſibly I did not urge all my arguments, and it may be a True doctrine, though it be not true from thoſe arguments I did urge; and I cannot urge all Truth at once: It may be true from other reaſons, though not from them; and we all know but in part, and what if I erred the laſt time, is that any proof for you.

Mr. Danſon.

I Retort your own Arguments.

Mr. Ives.

You do not argue at all, I denyed your major propoſition of the former ſyllogiſm, p. 87and it is not proved, neither have you concluded it. Now rather then loſe time, I deny the conſequence of the major of your laſt argument, which is, that if any True believers have fallen away totally and finally, that it is true from thoſe two Texts, Heb. 6.2 Pet. 2. or elſe that it is impoſſible they can fall away.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove your arguments erronious.

Mr. Ives.

Prove it; or elſe prove your laſt conſequence denyed, or go back to the conſequence of the former argument which is not yet concluded; which is this, that if there be no examples of any True believers falling away, then none can fall away.

Mr. Danſon.

If there be any examples of the falling away of True believers, they are ſome of them that you alledge.

Mr. Ives.

That doth not follow, but I appeal to all the people whether this be any proof of what you ſhould prove.

Mr. Danſon.

If that ſome True believers may fall away, or if there be any example of any True believers falling away, they are either thoſe that you alledg'd or ſome others.

p. 88But neither them, nor no others, are examples of True believers falling away. Therefore,

Mr. Ives.

Therefore what.

Mr. Danſon.

Therefore then there is no example.

Mr. Ives.

Is that the Queſtion? our Queſtion is this, whether it be poſſible for any True believers to fall away totally and finally? and not whether any of them hath fallen away; for if there hath not any of them fallen away, yet it is poſſible they may: Therefore if I could not ſhew you an inſtance of any bodys falling away, will it follow, that it is impoſſible for any to fall away? I gave you arguments the laſt day from the nature of the thing that they might fall away, and therefore if I could not give you an inſtance of any that did ſo fall, your Argument is not therefore proved; it is poſſible for a man to Steal and Lye. Now what if I could never prove that ever any man did Steal or Lye, doth this prove it is impoſſible for a man to Steal and Lye? But Sir, I offer this fair propoſition to you, that I will diſpute my Arguments over again with you when you pleaſe, the very ſame I urged the laſt day, and provide the beſt anſwers you can.

p. 89Mr. Danſon.

I retort your own arguments upon you.

Mr. Ives.

You do not underſtand them, will you pleaſe to argue, and prove that no True believer can fall away; or otherwiſe prove the major propoſition laſt denyed.

Mr Ives.

I will prove againſt your examples, that thoſe in the 2 Pet. 2.20. laſt compared together, were Dogs and Swine, whileſt they eſcaped the pollutions of this world.

Mr. Ives.

I am aſhamed of you, doth that conclude the Queſtion? I challenge any Schollar here, whether this concludes the queſtion? therefore conclude the queſtion, or I will not anſwer you.

Beſides the Texts Mr. Ives inſiſted upon, were brought to prove, that True believers might fall away, and not by way of example that any did fall away, as any may ſee that Reflects upon the former diſcourſe.

Here one Mr. Fowler a Miniſter interpoſes.

The propoſition (ſaith he) denyed is, that it is impoſſible for True believers to fall away; Mr. Danſon undertakes to prove by Retortion.

And the Retortion of an Argument, is very good upon the head of an Adverſary; p. 90and there is the ſame reaſon of the perſeverance of all believers as there is of ſome, and therefore if in the 2 Pet. 2. & Heb. 6.5. Nor no other part of Scripture, there be no inſtances of any True believers that fell away, Ergo, no True believer can fall away.

Mr. Ives anſwers Mr. Fowler.

Sir, I hope you will not ſay it as your own opinion; but if you do, it is more then you can prove; but if Mr. Danſon pleaſes, I will in a ſober way run over the diſquiſition of thoſe Arguments with you; and I promiſe you, you ſhall have them all word for word. But now as I did the laſt time endeavour as well as I could, I will not ſay Infallibly well, but according to my poor mean mechanick abilities, endeavour to prove that ſome True believers may fall away; and now Mr. Danſon would go upon my Legs, and let him if he can; if he doth what he is expected, to prove by ſome Argument or other, that it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally.

Mr. Fowler.

He may retort your own Argnments.

Mr. Ives,

Yea that is ſit for a reſpondent, but now he is opponent, and is to prove, and not to anſwer. Let him bring my Arguments in if p. 91he pleaſe, I care not; ſo he concludes the Queſtion: for I confeſs my Arguments retorted upon my ſelf, are good Arguments, ad hominem, but then he muſt conclude the Queſtion: I appeal to Mr. Fowler whom I know is able to judge; Mr. Fowler, an Argument ad hominem is a good Argument I confeſs, But muſt he not conclude the Queſtion by that medium.

Mr. Fowler.

Yes, he muſt, he muſt.

Mr. Ives.

Very well, I thank you Mr Fowler.

Here Mr. Fowler offers to interpoſe.

Mr. Ives.

I will not allow it, it is not fair that I ſhould diſpute with two at once Mr. Danſon, will you prove that it is impoſſible for any True believers to fall away, and conclude it? for you ought as Mr. Fowler ſaith, to conclude: Ergo, It is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; and then Argue ad hominem, as well as you can.

Mr. Danſon.

If there be no example of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace, then no True believers can fall away totally and finally from grace.

p. 92But there is no example of any True believer falling away totally and finally from Grace.

Ergo, No True believer can fall away totally and finally from Grace.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major as I ſaid before, I only remember you that Mr. Danſon the laſt time was againſt hypothetical ſyllogiſms, and now he uſes nothing elſe.

Mr. Danſon.

You ſay falſe, I only told you when they could not be put into Categorical.

Mr. Ives.

Always the major of a Hypothetical ſylogiſm conſiſts of two parts, which is as much as to ſay an Antecedent and a Conſequent, an Hypotheſis ſuppoſed, and an Inferrence inferred upon it; and it is taken for granted, that the Antecedent and the Conſequent may be both true, or both falſe, both diſjunctively true and conjunctively falſe, and therefore I do deny the Conſequence. It doth not follow, that if there be no example of True believers falling away, that therefore none can fall away; for there may be no examples for many things, and yet the things may be poſſible for to be done: I can give you many Inſtances.

p. 93Mr. Danſon.

If there be the like reaſon for the perſeverance, or not falling away of all True believers, as there is of ſome; then my former conſequence is true. But there is the like reaſon for the perſeverance or not falling away of all Tue believers as there is of ſome.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major, the conſequence doth not follow, that if there be the like reaſon for the falling away of all, as there is for the falling away of ſome; that then it follows that if there be no example of any True believers falling away, that no True believer can fall away; for that muſt be the concluſion of your Argument, to prove the conſequence of the major, denyed in the former ſylogiſm.

Mr. Danſon.

What can be more evident?

Mr. Ives.

Is that a proof?

Mr. Danſon.

I am to prove that there is the like reaſon, that is the minor.

Mr. Ives.

You are to prove the conſequence of the major, that if there be the like reaſon, that p. 94then the former conſequence is true; and for you to ſay evident it is, that is no proof; but Begging the Queſtion, pray where is it evident.

Mr. Danſon.

Thoſe things that have the like reaſon, muſt have the ſame conſequence.

Mr. Ives.

You do not conclude the ting denied, I am aſhamed of it.

Mr. Danſon.

That is the thing I propoſed, that I would deal with you upon, in retorting you own arguments.

Mr. Ives.

What back again? Mr. Fowler hath given it againſt you, for he ſaid you may take what advantage you can from my arguments; but then you ought to conclude the queſtion. Ergo, No True believer can fall away totally and finally.

Mr. Fowler here interpoſes.

Mr. Ives.

Nay, pray Sir forbear, you know Mr. Fowler it is not fair; pray, let Mr. Danſon alone, and either ſay he can prove it, or he cannot.

Mr. Danſon.

I Retort upon you.

p. 95Mr. Ives.

Conclude the queſtion and do it, without you do ſo, it is not your buſineſs to retort now.

This is the ſum of all Mr. Danſon hath ſaid (viz) that it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away, becauſe there are no examples in Scripture of any True believer that hath fallen away: and if there be any examples of any True believers falling away, then they are ſome of the Text Mr. Ives inſiſted on the last day.

The ſum of Mr. Ives his Anſwer is this, Firſt, that Mr. Danſon did many times in his arguings, not conclude the thing in queſtion.

Secondly, That ſometimes Mr. Danſon begged the queſtion when he ſhould have proved it; and ſometime Mr. Danſon confeſſed he could not prove it: And laſtly Mr. Ives told Mr. Danſon, that it did not follow, that no True believer could poſſibly fall, if there were no examples of any that had fallen; for there is no example in all the Bible, of any True believer that ever murdered his own child. Doth it therefore follow, that it is impoſſible for any True believer to turn back from the holy command and commit ſuch a ſin? But urther, whoever looks back into the former days diſcourſe, will find that Mr. Ives did not p. 96bring the 6th of the Heb and the 2 Pet. 2. to prove that ſome True believer had faln away, but to prove that ſome True believers might fall away; for both thoſe Texts are hypothetical, and were brought to prove ſome True believers might fall away, but they do not prove, neither were they brought to prove by way of example that ſome had fallen away; but did ſuppoſe the poſſibility thereof beyond contradiction.

Mr. Danſon.

Then I prove it thus, that no True believer can fall away totally and finally.

They that cannot ſin as wicked men do, they cannot fall away totally and finally from grace.

But True believers cannot ſin as wicked men do.

Ergo, True believers cannot fall away totally and finally from grace.

Mr Ives.

I anſwer by Enquiring, firſt into the major propoſition, what you mean by cannot ſin as wicked men do.

Mr. Danſon.

Pray deny one part of my Argument.

Mr Ives.

Whether I may not anſwer by diſtinction, I appeal to Mr. Fowler. Now, if by cannot ſin as wicked men do, you mean while p. 97they remain believers, then I will allow the major propoſition; but if by cannot ſin you mean that they are in no capacity, in no ſenſe capable, then I deny the minor; for there is a great deal of difference between cannot in the preſent, and cannot in a future or remote capacity. I anſwer you fairly, I confeſs that True believers cannot ſin as wicked men do, quotenus, believers, ſo that it is True in one ſenſe, and Falſe in another; it is true while they are believers, and retain the ſavor of good things, they cannot ſin as wicked men do; but it is true alſo, that they may loſe this ſavor, and then they may ſin as wicked men do; therefore I ask Mr. Danſon in which ſenſe he means.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, they cannot ſin as wicked men do.

Mr. Ives.

What in no ſenſe can they ſin as wicked men do?

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, in no ſenſe; but I do not mean by no ſenſe, the acts of Sin.

Mr. Ives.

There is no way to know ſin but by the acts.

p. 98Mr. Danſon.

I do not ſay they cannot commit ſome acts of ſin, but that which I affirm, is, that they cannot ſin as wicked men do; and that I am to prove.

Mr. Ives.

Prove that which is denyed, I anſwer by diſtinguiſhing that this word Cannot is Ambiguous and variouſly uſed in Scripture, and I will ſhew it you if you pleaſe to bear with me a little, that it is ſo variouſly uſed that it may be ſaid, men cannot do a thing when they are in a preſent incapacity to do it; though they may be capable in the future. And Mr. Danſon you do ſay this, that they cannot ſin as wicked men do; I anſwer by diſtinguiſhing; if by ſinning as wicked men do; you mean they cannot in their preſent ſtate, I ſay ſo too; but if by Cannot, you mean that they cannot fall from that ſtate, and then ſin as wicked men do; it is a begging the Queſtion, yet however, I then deny the minor.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it.

Mr. Ives.

You are not to prove till you anſwer whether you allow, or diſallow the diſtinction; f… there are two ways of anſwering, an… anſwer by diſtinguiſhing of the terms, or an… p. 99anſwer by denying of the terms; now I anſwer by diſtinguiſhing of the terms: if by Cannot, you do ſay cannot by any means poſsible, neither for the preſent, nor future fall from that ſlate and ſin as wicked men do, then I deny the minor.

Mr. Danſon.

Then I Argue.

Mr. Ives.

Argue with that explication.

Mr. Danſon.

They that cannot ſin at all either for the preſent or future, as wicked men do, cannot fall away totally and finally.

But no True believer can ſin, neither for the preſent, nor for the future as wicked men do.

Ergo, no True believer can fall away totally nor finally.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the minor in the ſenſe before explained, that no True believer neither for the preſent nor future can ſin as wicked men do.

Mr. Danſon.

That is to ſay, he cannot ceaſe to believe.

Mr. Ives.

Nay prove it.

p. 100Cannot, in Scripture phraſe doth not alway note an utter Impoſſibility appears, ſometimes it is put for a thing that is uncomely to be done, Mat. 9.15. The children of the bride-chamber cannot mourn while the Bride-groom is with them; not that it was utterly impoſſible for them to mourn.

Secondly, It is put for want of disppoſition to do a thing, ſo it is ſaid of Chriſt, Mark 6.5. That he could not do any mighty works there, that is, he was not diſpoſed to de any mighty works, becauſe of their unbelief; not that it was impoſſible for him to do any.

Thirdly, It notes a preſent incapacity Joſh, 7.12. & Ezek. 3.6. God tells the Prophet ſaying, I did not ſend thee to a People of a hard Language whoſe words thou canſt not underſtand. Not that it was impoſſible for him at any time, or by any means to underſtand the language of another Nation, but that he was in a preſent incapacity to understand them.

Fourthly, It may be ſaid, a thing cannot be done, when it cannot lawfully be done; Gen. 39.9. Joſeph ſaid be could not do that wickedneſs and ſin againſt God, and Gen. 34.14 1 Cor. 10.21. In all theſe, or ſome of theſe respects it may be ſaid, He that is born of God cannot ſin; but yet David found it p. 101true, that though with Joſeph he could not do that wickedneſs as to the unlawfulneſs of it, yet to his grief he found that he could do it as to the poſſibility of it, I and do it as wicked men do, with deliberation and contrivement, as in the caſe of Berſheba and Uria; 1 Sam. 11. To this agrees St. Chryſoſtom on Rom. 8.7. The carnal mind cannot be ſubject to the Law of God, and verſe 8. They cannot pleaſe God, he ſaith this doth not prove it impoſſible for them to pleaſe God; but that while they continue in wickedneſs, they cannot bring forth good fruit. But this doth not hinder (ſaith he) the poſſibility of a change, no more then when it is ſaid, the good Tree cannot bring forth bad or evil fruit, while it remains good; doth ſuppoſe a change to be impoſſible. St. Hierome on Mat. 7.18. ſaith Bona arbor non fert malos fructus quamdiu in boui…a…s ſtudio perſeverat; A good tree cannot bear ill fruit as long it perſeveres or remains in the ſtudy of goodneſs.

Mr. Danſon.

1 Joh. 3.9. Whoſoever is born of Godcannot commit ſin, &c.

Mr. Ives.

What do you prove by this? By this rule no body can ſin at all

p. 102Mr. Danſon.

He that is born of God cannot ſin, this I argue upon you.

Mr. Ives.

You are to prove the minor propoſition and eonclude it in the ſenſe explained, that they cannot ſin as wicked men do, neither in the preſent nor ſuture ſenſe.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it, for the text ſaith, he that is born of God cannot ſin; now either by cannot ſin is to be underſtood cannot ſin at all, or not ſin as wicked men do.

But it is not to be underſtood of not ſinning at all.

Ergo, it muſt be underſtood of not ſinning as wicked men do.

Mr. Ives

I diſtinguiſhed of the terms of …nr major propoſition before, therefore anſwer and prove the minor, and conclude thus, Ergo, no True believer can ceaſe to believe, and ſin as wicked men do, neither in the preſent nor future ſenſe; if you do not, I ſhall not anſwer you; for I have told you often, that quotinus True believers; and as ſo conſidered, they cannot either in the preſent or future ſin, as wicked men do.

p. 103Mr. Danſon.

Either the meaning is, that True believers cannot ſin for the preſent or future at all, or as wicked men do.

But that is not the meaning that they cannot, either for the preſent or future ſin at all.

Ergo, the meaning muſt be, that True believers, they cannot ſin at preſent or future, as wicked men do.

Mr. Ives.

The Argument is falſe, you do not conclude as you ſhould; Mr. Danſon is to prove here according to the former diſtinction and denial I made upon his minor propoſition, that no True believers can either for the preſent or the future ceaſe to believe and ſinas wicked men do; not that True believers conſidered as ſuch, either at preſent or in the ſuture can ſin as wicked men do; this laſt ſenſe of the Argument is not the thing in queſtion, but the former: for the thing you prove from this Text is, that be that is born of God cannot Sin, that it is not to be underſtood of not ſinning at all, which is very true, becauſe our own conſciencestells us we have to much propenſity to ſin, but the meaning of theſe words muſt then be, That one that is born of God cannot Sin; I anſwer, that if he means a True believer, as to the preſent ſtate he is p. 104in, quotenus a believer, ſo I confeſt it, but that is no part of the queſtion; for our queſtion now is this, whether he cannot ceaſe to be a True believer and then ſin as wicked men do? whether it be not poſſible for them to quit the faith, and then they may ſin as other men do? Now Mr. Danſon is to prove off or toncerning True believers, that neither for the preſent nor future, it is poſſible for them to quit their faith, and to ſin as wicked men do.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove.

Mr. Ives.

Couclude that then, and proceed.

Mr. Danſon.

If the reaſon that is here aſſigned for the proof of his not ſinning, doth extend equally to …e future, as well as to the time preſent, then my former Argument is good.

But it doth ſo.

Ergo.

For if the ſeed of God alwaies remains in believers, then they can neither for the preſent nor future, ſin as wicked men do.

But the ſeed of God doth alwaies remain in believers, both for the time preſent and time to come.

Ergo, They cannot ſin as wicked men do.

p. 105Mr. Ives.

If by the ſeed of God remaining in believers, for the time preſent and time to come; you mean upon the condition of their continuing in the faith, I grant the major and minor too; but if by remaining in them, you mean ſo remain in them, that it muſt remain for the time preſent and to come, and that it is impoſſible but it ſhould ſo remain; notwithſtanding all they can do to cauſe God to remove it from them; then I deny the minor.

Mr. Danſon.

The Text tells us ſo.

Mr. Ives.

Anſwer to my diſtinction; for there is a great deal of difference between the ſeed of God remaining in men while they are believers, and the ſeed remaining in them when they ceaſe to be ſo. Now Mr. Danſon only proves, that thoſe that were believers have the ſeed of God promiſed to them to abide in them, and that I allow; but he is to prove that thoſe that were once True believers muſt for ever continue ſo, and that they cannot be otherwiſe.

Mr. Danſon.

If thoſe that are born of God, have the ſeed of God remaining in them, then True believers have the ſeed of God remaining in them.

p. 106But thoſe that are born of God have the ſeed of God remaining in them.

Ergo, True believers have the ſeed of God remaining in them.

Mr. Ives.

This Argument I may deny in whole, and not by retail as to this purpoſe; for I allowed it as long as the ſeed of God remains in them, and therefore you do not conclude the thing denyed.

The thing denyed is, that the ſeed of God ſo remains in True believers, that it is impoſſible but they ſhould continue ſuch, and that they can do nothing to occaſion the ſeed of God to be taken from them, and inſtead of ſo concluding according to this diſtinction upon your tearms; you conclude Ergo, True believers have the ſeed of God remaining in them; What is this to the thing is queſtion?

Mr. Danſon.

That is my major, if thoſe that are born of God have the ſeed of God alwaies remaining in them, then True believers cannot ſi… as wicked men do.

Mr. Ives.

I have anſwered it by a diſtinction, a… therefore if you will argue of my diſtinction do; I anſwer fair.

p. 107Mr. Danſon.

You give no anſwer.

Mr. Ives.

Why! I anſwer by diſtinguiſhing, that if by being born of God you mean believers, and if by the ſeed of God remaining in them, you mean while they are True believers, I ſay as you ſay, as a Fathers Love and Reſpect may remain to his Child, while the Child remains Dutyful; but from thence it doth no way follow, that therefore the Child cannot but alwaies remain Dutyſul; you are therefore to prove.

Nay further, The Love of a Father remaining to a Child, may be a reaſon why that Child doth not Sin and Rebel as other Children do; But it follows not, but that this Child may Rebel and Break all theſe Cords his Father tied him to obedience by.

Mr. Fowler here Interpoſes.

Mr. Danſons Argument (ſaith he) is, that believers cannot ſin as wicked men; Ergo, they cannot fall away, He proves his Antecedent thus, He that is born of God bath the ſeed of God remaining in him; your anſwer is this, that believers cannot ſin as wicked men do while they remain believers, but they may ceaſe to be believers, and then they may ſin as wicked men do; his reply is this, that therefore they muſt remain believers p. 108becauſe the ſeed of God remains in them.

Mr. Ives.

I will anſwer you; if you pleaſe Mr. Fowler to take his ſeat; I do confeſs the words of the Text, that every one that is born of God cannot ſin; there is a ſenſe in which they cannot ſin, and a ſenſe alſo in which we all agree in, in which they can ſin: but you muſt remember the grand queſtion is, whether he can ſo ſin, as that he can ſo fall away? I denyed the conſequence, I ſay he that is born of God may ſin ſo as to fall away, for he may forfeit the ſeed of God. But I will put a ſhort iſſue to this queſtion, Mr. Danſon is to prove to us, that the ſeed of God doth ſo remain in them, as that it can by no means ceaſe to be in them, that let them do what they will, they cannot but have the ſeed of God in them.

Mr. Danſon.

If that the ſeed of God doth remain, then it cannot ceaſe but remain; but the ſeed of God doth remain, Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the conſequence, for you may as well ſay, if thoſe that come here into this Houſe, remain in the Houſe, they cannot ceaſe from remaining in it; but they remain in it, Ergo.

p. 109As, ſay if the ſeed of God doth remain, it cannot but remain, this no way followeth; and therefore that which Mr. Danſon is to prove, is, that it is impoſſible but the ſeed ſhould remain in them; this is our queſtion.

Mr. Danſon.

The Text ſaith remain.

Mr. Ives.

I, So you that are in this Houſe remain in it, doth this prove you cannot but remain?

Mr Danſon.

If the ſeed of God doth therefore remain in believers, becauſe they are born of God, then no True believer can fall away.

Mr Ives.

You begg the queſtion, for you ſay in effect but this, that if believers cannot fall away, they cannot fall away; for there is a great deal of difference between the ſeed of God remaining, and an impoſſibility of the ſeed of God departing. Now that which I deſire him to prove, is this, (for I do ſay, while any man continues a believer, the ſeed of God remains in him) that it is impoſſible but that it ſhould remain.

Mr. Danſon.

In them that are born of God, the ſeed of God remains.

p. 110But every True believer is born of God▪

Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

Suppoſe I ſhould ſhow you, that men are ſaid to remain or to abide in a condition, it doth not therefore follow they ſhall never alter that condition: The Scripture tells us, that he that believes not the wrath of God remains or abides upon him, I appeal to you now, whether this is a proof that this man cannot be a True believer, becauſe wrath remains upon him while he is an unbeliever.

Mr. Danſon.

This is nothing to the purpoſe.

Mr. Ives.

Yes it is, for the Scripture faith expreſly, that every unbeliever, while ſuch hath the wrath of God abiding on him, as it is ſaid of a believer, he hath the ſeed of God remaining or abiding in him: Now I would ask Mr. Danſon whether this phraſe, the wrath of God remaining or abiding upon an unbeliever, doth not reſpect the time of his continuing an unbeliever? But now if he ſhall like Paul, or like the converts in the Acts, be prickt in his heart, and turn to God, I hope you will not ſay, that then the wrath of God abides upon him; in like manner as long as any man remains a believer, the ſeed of God abides in him; but when he departs p. 111from being a believer, when he doth throw away, on caſt away bis conſidence in God, the ſeed of God doth not remain or abide in him. Prove therefore that it ſhall not depart, or that it cannot chooſe but remain.

Here Mr. Fowler interpoſes.

M. Ives.

Is this fair, pray Sir forbear, or take his ſeat.

Mr. Fowler.

The force of his argument lyes here. He that is born of God cannot commit ſin, it is ſtrange news, but it is good news, how comes this about? not from any impoſſibility, as to any grace received, (grace of it ſelf) that becauſe they have received ſuch a ſtock of grace, that therefore they can never fall away; but heres the reaſon, becauſe the feed of God remains in them, and the argument is invinſible you, nor all your party, nor all men under Heaven can anſwer it.

Mr. Ives.

Pray Sir forbear naming parties, are we not all Chriſtians? but pray what is become of the moderator? he is now turn'd diſputer. But Sir I have given you an inſtance, to take off what Mr. Danſon faith; if he pleaſe to argue upon it he may.

Here Mr. Fowler interpoſes again.

p. 112Mr. Ives.

What two at once, this is not fair; Gentlemen you diſgrace Mr. Danſon, I denyed the major, it doth not follow according to the interpretation of your argument, and I anſwer to you and Mr. Fowler both at once, you ſay the Scripture gives this reaſon expreſly, that they cannot ſin becauſe they are born of God.

Firſt, I anſwer that the reaſon you render, is the ſame the Scripture gives in other caſes. It expreſly faith, that the children of the Bride-chamber cannot faſt, becauſe the Bride-groom is or remains with them; it doth not therefore follow, that when the Bride-groom is gone away they could not faſt, neither doth it follow, that the Bride-groom ſhould alway remain with them; ſo here you ſay true, that believers or thoſe that are born of God, they cannot ſin as other men, ſo long as the ſeed remains in them; but now Mr. Danſon is to prove, that it cannot but remain (if he can, and that's our queſtion) for God is with us while we are with him, and it is one thing to ſay I remain in the houſe, and another thing to ſay I cannot but remain in this houſe. Now you are (I ſay) to prove, that it is no way poſſible for this ſeed to be loſt or ceaſe to be in them.

p. 113Mr. Danſon.

I will prove that it cannot but remain.

Mr. Ives.

I prove that it is impoſſible to be loſt, and that it cannot but abide

The 1ſt. of John 2. Suppoſeth that the ſeed or word might not remain; for the Text ſaith v. 24. IF that which you have heard from the beginning ſhall remain in you; you alſo ſhall continue in the Father, and in the Son; And he that abideth in him …eth not; 1 Joh. 3.6. This is the man that is born of God, and that doth not ſin as others, while …e abideth; and 1 Joh. 2.14. I have written to you young men, becauſe you are ſtrong, and the word of God abideth in you. But this doth not ſuppoſe it could not but remain and abide; For the 28 v. Exhorts thoſe little children to abide in him, that they might not be aſhamed at his coming; and ſo John 14.6. Chriſt doth promiſe the Comforter ſhall abide or remain with the diſciples for ever; but that doth not ſuppoſe it was impoſſible for them to fall, or that they could not but remain True believers; for he afterwards tells them, John 15.2. That every Branch IN him that did not bear Fruit, he would TAKE AWAY; and v. 10. IF you keep my Commandments you ſhall abide in my Love.

p. 114Mr. Danſon.

The ſeed of God remaining; becauſe this is an ambigious word, what we are to underſtand by it; I ask you, what do you mean by it.

Mr. Ives.

What do you uſe a tearm in your Argument and ask me what I mean by it, and confeſs it is ambigious? this is very ſtrange!

Mr. Danſon.

We may poſſibly diſagree about the meaning and import of it by the ſeed of God remaining; I mean a principle of grace remaining, that I mean by it.

Mr. Ives.

I do not know what you mean by a principle of grace: for the word is not in Scripture.

Here a great many of Mr. Danſon's ſide fell a laughing.

Mr. Ives.

Do you know what you laugh at? ſhew me any of you, where there is ſuch a word if you can in all the Scripture.

Mr. Fowler.

Pray what do you underſtand by the ſeed of God.

p. 115Mr. Ives.

I will tell you what I underſtand by the ſeed, (but let me by the way tell you that ſimilitudes are no proofs, I confeſs they are good for Illuſtration, but not for Confirmation; and you ſhould have explained it before you uſed it) I mean by the ſeed, The word of God.

Here thoſe of Mr. Danſons Judgment, and alſo he himſelf laughed again to the diſturbance of the Aſſembly, and not a word was ſpoken by Mr. Danſon to quiet them.

Mr. Ives.

What do you laugh at? Do you know? I give the ſame interpretation as Chriſt himſelf gave; he ſaith, The ſeed is the word of God. Mat. 13. Luke 8.11.

Mr. Danſon.

Do you underſtand that here?

Mr. Ives.

I do, and why do you laugh? you may as well laugh at Chriſt himſelf; for I give his expoſition; and beſides I will ſhew you that the Apoſtle Peter himſelf calls it the incorruptible ſeed of the word. 1 Pet. 1.23, 24.

Mr. Danſon.

No it ſaith, born of incorruptible ſeed by the word of God.

p. 116Mr. Ives.

The Scripture ſaith the ſeed is the word of God; now you muſt prove according to this interpretation, that thoſe that have the ſeed, nay take it as you will, that this ſeed remains and cannot but remain.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it, Thoſe to whom God hath made a promiſe, that the ſeed ſhall remain in them, it ſhall remain.

But to True believers God hath made a promiſe, that the ſeed ſhall remain.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Argument, It doth not prove the thing in Queſtion.

Mr. Danſon.

It doth.

Mr. Ives.

What! Doth it prove this? that they ſhall alwaies continue True believers, and it is impoſſible for them to continue otherwiſe.

You might as well have ſaid, that God Bleſſed the houſe of Obed-Edom, because the ark of God remained with him, therefore Obed-Edom could do nothing to cauſe the ark of God to depart from him; as ſay that believers are bleſſed in being kept from groſs imp…ties, becauſe the ſeed of God remains in p. 117them, that therefore they cannot be impious, and the ſeed of God cannot neither at preſent nor future (let them do what they will) but remain in them.

Here Mr. Fowler interpoſes again.

Mr. Fowler.

That the ſeed of God doth remain, and cannot but remain; this propoſition you impoſe upon him, he proves it doth remain; thoſe to whom God hath made a promiſe that the ſeed ſhall remain, there the ſeed doth remain, and cannot but remain.

But the firſt is true.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

If you pleaſe Mr. Fowler, I will diſpute it with you now; if you will take Mr. Danſon's place, or elſe any other time; but however let it be ſo: now you have made his Argument for him; but he did not conclude the Queſtion before, as you now do.

Thoſe to whom God hath made a promiſe, the ſeed ſhall remain, it cannot but remain.

But to True believers God hath made a promiſe, that the ſeed ſhall remain, and cannot but remain.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major.

p. 118Here one Mr. Loof interpoſes as he had done ſeveral times in the former diſpute and in this too; deny the major (ſaith he) you do not underſtand your ſelf, you mean the Sequel.

Mr. Ives Anſwers Mr. Loof.

Sir, I deny rightly, the Argument is Cate. gorical, but to pleaſe you, I deny the conſequence of the major propoſition.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it.

If the ſeed ſhall not remain in them to whom God hath made a promiſe it ſhall remain; then the promiſes of God are untrue.

But the promiſes of God are not untrue.

Ergo, therefore it ſhall remain.

Mr. Ives.

That is not the Queſtion denyed, thoſe …o whom the promiſe of God is made that it ſhall remain, it muſt remain and cannot but remain.

I denyed that.

Mr. Danſon.

Becauſe otherwiſe God ſhould not be True in his promiſes; for I ſay, that if, the ſeed of God doth not remain in thoſe to whom God hath made a promiſe of its remaining; then the promiſes of God are untrue, or God is falſe to his word.

p. 119But the promiſes of God is not untrue; Ergo, the ſeed of God muſt remain in thoſe to whom God hath made a promiſe of its remaining.

Mr. Ives.

The conſequence doth not follow, that then God is not ſo good as his word, and I will give you an Inſtance if you pleaſe, that God may promiſe ſuch and ſuch things, and y… he may not break his word, though it doth not come to paſs. God promiſed to Abraham without any condition expreſſed or implyed in thoſe words, That the Land of Canaan ſhould be to his ſeed and everlaſting poſſeſſion; and yet two hundred years afterwards, He tells them that he will ſcatter them among the Heathen and give their Land a poſſeſſion to Strangers; Now here God had promiſed the Land of Canaan an everlaſting poſſeſſion, and this is your Argument.

If the Land of Canaan be promiſed to the Iſraelites as an everlaſting poſſeſſion, then Iſrael muſt alwaies be in it, or God is not ſo good as his word.

But God did promiſe the Land of Canaan as an everlaſting poſſeſſion to Iſrael.

Ergo, Iſrael muſt alwaies be in it, or God is not ſo good as his word.

p. 120So that I have ſhewed you an Inſtance, That God may be faithful in his promiſes, though they are not fulfilled: for God promiſes many things upon condition.

A Stranger that interpoſed often

Is there no condition expreſſed in this promiſe, nor implyed?

Mr. Ives.

There is nothing of a condition that ſeems to be underſtood in all thoſe words, though doubtleſs it is intended.

Stranger.

Nor in all the Scripture.

Mr. Ives.

I anſwered not in that Text.

Stranger.

But you ſaid before, neither in that Text, nor in any other place of Scripture.

Mr. Ives.

I did not ſay ſo, why do you charge me with a falſhood; but why are you concerned? Go take Mr. Danſon's place, and I will anſwer you; elſe hold your tongue.

Stranger.

I acknowledge it a miſtake, and crave your pardon, and promiſe I will interpoſe no more.

Yet this Gentleman interpreſed 4 or 5 times afterwards.

p. 121Mr. Danſon.

I will prove that all the promiſes of God, or that whatſoever God hath promiſed, is always true.

Mr. Ives.

I ſay ſo too all that God hath promiſed abſolutely or conditionally, is true but now you are to prove that God hath made an abſolute promiſe that the ſeed ſhall remain without condition, either implyed or expreſſed.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it from Jer. 32.40. where God ſaith I will make an everlaſting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear into their hearts that they ſhall not depart from …e. Now

Either this promiſe is conditional, or it is abſolute.

But it is not conditional.

Ergo it is abſolute.

Mr. Ives.

What do you argue from this Text.

Mr. Danſon.

I argue, that here is an abſolute promiſe …ade to all True believers For,

This promiſe, it is either abſolute, or a conditional promiſe to all True believers.

p. 122But it is not a conditional promiſe made to all True believers:

Ergo, It is an abſolute promiſe, made to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

Did you ever hear the like, Mr. Danſon ſaith here is an abſolute promiſe made to all True believers without condition; now … would fain know, whether believing be not a qualification or condition; for ſuppoſe there is a promiſe made to all willing and o… bedient perſons, will any infer from hence that it is not conditional but abſolute?

And ſecondly, I deny your minor, that this promiſe in the 32 Jer. is made to all Tru… believers.

Mr. Danſon.

It is either conditional or abſolute to a… True believers.

But it is not conditional:

Ergo, It is abſolute.

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer, firſt, I deny this is any promiſe either abſolutely or conditionally to all Tru… believers. Prove it.

Mr. Danſon.

Either it is to all True believers, or … ſome True believers, or to unbelievers.

But it is neither to ſome True believer… nor to unbelievers:

p. 123Ergo, It is made to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the minor, and ſay it may be to ſome True believers and not to all, and I alſo ſay it is conditional, and not abſolute.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove the contrary.

Mr. Ives.

Remember what you are to prove, that this is an abſolute promiſe, and made to True believers; which is ſcarce abſolute ſenſe.

Mr. Danſon.

I prove it thus.

If it is not an abſolute promiſe to all True believers, then it is conditional;

But it is not conditional;

Ergo, It is abſolute.

Mr Ives.

Thats begging the queſtion.

Mr. Danſon.

I have proved it abſolute, aſſign the condition then.

Mr. Ives.

There is two things for you to do, you are to prove firſt, that this promiſe is made to all True believers; and then that it is made without condition.

For if that phraſe (the Iſrael of God,) were applicable to all True believers; yet the main thing is yet to prove, that the promiſe either its p. 124the 31. or 32. of Jeremy, or the 8th. of the Heb. is made abſolute and without condition; for the Scripture ſaith Gal. 6.16. AS MANY as walke according to this Rule, Peace be on them, and Mercy, AND upon the ISRAEL OF GOD: So that even the Iſrael of God have no abſolute promiſe either of peace or mercy, whatever ſome may fancy; but both peace and mercy is promiſed upon the condition of their walking according to this Rule.

Mr. Danſon.

If it be, aſſign the condition.

Mr. Ives.

I ſay, you are firſt to prove it is a promiſe made to all True believers, and then that it is without condition; and then, I will aſſign you the condition when the argument calls for it.

Mr. Danſon.

I am to prove, that the 32. Jer. Is made to all true believers.

If the promiſes that are here contained, be made to the Iſrael of God, then they are made to all True believers:

But they are made to the Iſrael of God.

Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major, That all the promiſes here ſpoken of though they are made to the p. 125Iſrael of God, that therefore they are made to all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it, if all True believers be the Iſrael of God.

Mr. Ives.

That's but one and the ſame, idem per idem there is no medium in it.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove that it is made to all True believers.

If it be made to the Iſrael of God, then it is made to all True believers; but it is made to the Iſrael of God: Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

I denyed the major, which was, that whatſoever was made to the Iſrael of God, was made to all True believers; for there may be promiſes made to the Iſrael of God as appears in this Text, that are not made to all True believers.

What brave Logick is here? The antecedent is indeffinite and reſtrained to Iſrael, and the conſequence is general and univerſally predicated of all True believers; as much as if a man ſhould ſay, the promiſe of the Land of Canaan was made to the Iſrael of God: Ergo it was made to all True believers of what Nation ſoever.

p. 126Mr. Danſon.

If the promiſe here be made to all the Iſrael of God in the New-Teſtament, then it is made to all True believers:

But the promiſes here, are made to all believers in the New-Teſtament:

Ergo, It is made to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

This is a falſe Argument, but however prove the promiſe in the 32d. of Jer. is made to all the True believers of the New Teſtament if you can.

Mr. Danſon.

I prove it from the 10 John 28. The words are theſe, My ſheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they ſhall never periſh; neither ſhall any man plack them out of my hands. Here is a promiſe made to the Iſrael of God, for all the ſheep of Chriſt are the Iſrael of God.

But the promiſe is made to all the ſheep of Chriſt:

Ergo, It is made to the Iſrael of God.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Argument, and that becauſe you do not conclude what I denyed; I did no … deny that this promiſe was made to the Iſrael of God; but your argument was this, that all the promiſes made to the Iſrael of God, are made to all True believers; and you muſt p. 127aſſume the Text under debate, or ſay you cannot; that the 32. Jer. is an abſolute promiſe made to all True believers, for the propoſition hath two parts. Firſt, That it is made to all True believers: and Secondly, that it is made abſolutely without condition; and now you are upon the firſt part, to prove that this promiſe in the 32. Jer. is made to all True believers, and inſtead of concluding this, you conclude that which none denies; that the promiſes are made to the Iſrael of God.

Mr. Danſon.

Thus I proved it, that that promiſe that is made to all the Iſrael of God, is made to all True believers.

But that promiſe in the 32. Jer. is made to all the Iſrael of God.

Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

I denyed the major, of the former argument which I expect the proof of, which is this you laſt repeated, the proof whereof is ſtill expected.

Mr. Danſon.

You denyed the minor.

Mr. Ives.

No I did not. As any one may ſee that looks back.

Mr. Danſon.

I am to prove that the promiſes made to the Iſrael of God, Jeremy 32. are made to all True believers.

p. 128Mr. Ives.

I Sir, You are to prove, that that which is predicated of the Iſrael of God is predicated of all True believers, and conclude with Jer. 32. or you do nothing; for the Queſtion is, whether this Text will prove what it is brought for, and you are to prove by it, or ſay you cannot; and go to ſome other Argument or elſe conclude; Ergo, Jer. 32. ſpeaks of all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

I appeal to Mr. Fowler, when the caſe lies in difference about the ſenſe of a Text of Scripture, that he brings to prove what I denyed, viz. That the promiſe of God is ſuch that they cannot depart. I diſtinguiſh of the promiſes of God with reſpect to the perſons, and with reſpect to the nature of the promiſes; with reſpect to the perſons; I ſay that Jer. 32. is not a promiſe made to all True believers; and with… reſpect to the nature of the promiſes… I ſay they are not abſolute but conditional. Now whether my diſtinction be true or falſe, ſuch as it is, you have it, and I appeal to you. Now, that as my anſwer confiſts of two parts, ſo muſt his proof, and whether or no, muſt he not firſt prove that theſe promiſes were made to all True believers? and in ſo doing muſt he not conclude; p. 129Ergo, Theſe promiſes in Jer. 32. are made to all True believers?

Mr. Fowler.

He muſt, He muſt.

Here Mr. Fowler interpoſes.

Mr. Fowler.

The promiſe that is made to the Iſrael of God, is made to all True believers. But the promiſe in Jer. 32. is ſo.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major; it doth not follow that if it be made to all the Iſrael of God, it is made to all True believers.

Mr. Fowler.

The Iſrael of God comprehends all True believers.

Ergo, That promiſe that is made to the Iſrael of God is made to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the antecedent of the Enthymem.

Mr. Fowler.

Here is a Text.

Mr. Ives.

I am not now to diſpute with Mr. Fowler, without you will pleaſe to take Mr. Danſon's place; and then prove if you can, that the promiſe in Jer. 32. is made to all True believers.

p. 130Mr. Danſon.

Mr. Fowler hath ſhown you clearly.

Mr. Ives.

Do you take the benefit of it then, and improve it as well as you can.

Mr. Danſon.

This is that which I am to prove, that all the Iſrael of God are True believers.

Mr. Ives.

That is not the Queſtion, you are to prove that the promiſe made to the Iſrael of God; Jer. 32. comprehends all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it by a more direct Text in Heb. 8.10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael after thoſe days ſaith the Lord.; I will put my Laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a People.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, Put it into an Argument; for you are to prove Jer. 32. where God promiſes they ſhall never depart, is made to all True believers: Now pray prove that by an Argument from any Text, ſo you conclude, Ergo, this is the ſenſe of Jer. 32.

p. 131Mr. Danſon.

I am to prove that all the Iſrael of God doth always comprehend all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, You do nothing but run into a Ring, and diſpute circulerly; pray prove that the promiſes in Jer. 3…. are made to all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

In ſpiritual things.

Mr. Ives.

What in the 32d. of Jeremiah, then prove it.

Mr. Danſon.

Here is one part of the promiſe out of thoſe words quoted: I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a People, and alſo the other Clauſe, and they ſhall teach no more every man his Brother, &c. the 31. of Jer. compare with Heb. 8. This proves that the Iſrael of God comprehends all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

I took Mr. Danſon for a more ingenious man then to anſwer ſo; I will acknowledge that there may be ſome promiſes made ſo univerſally, as they may extend …o all the World; and poſſibly there are promiſes that maybe in one Chapter univerſal, & in another Chapter there may be promiſes more ſpecial p. 132and reſtrained; Now Mr. Danſon brings a Text in the 8th of Heb. which is a recital of the Covenant in the 31 of Jeremy to prove the promiſe in the 32d of Jeremy, is made to all True believers.

Here Mr. Fowler Interpoſes.

Mr. Ives.

You diſpute now Mr. Fowler, pray let Mr. Danſon alone; I deny that the 8th of the Heb. refers to the 32d of Jeremy, which is the Text under debate; for the 8th of the Heb. refers to the 31 of Jeremy, and therefore you cannot conclude from thence; Ergo, this is the ſenſe of Jer. 32. But that we may not waſt time, I deny the 8th of Hebrews ſpeaks of all True believers: for here is Mr. Danſon's Argument, whatever is ſpoken or predicated of all the Iſrael of God, is predicated of all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I told you in ſpiritual things.

Mr. Ives.

All that you have to de, is to prove that this is made to all True believers, let the thing promiſed be what it will: now you prove it becauſe it is made to the Iſrael of God; and my anſwer is, that there may be ſome things made to the Iſrael of God, that are not appropriated to all True believers.

p. 133Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, as to ſpiritual bleſſings.

Mr. Ives.

It is from Jer. 32. that the Argument advanced, and the Queſtion now is not about the na…ute of the promiſe, but the ſubjects of it, as I have told you.

Mr. Danſon.

This Clauſe, I will put my fear into their hearts, that they ſhall not depart from me, is ſpiritual; my Argument lies in that.

Mr. Ives

The Text expreſly faith in Fer. 32. If we deal fairly with the Original, that they MAY NOT depart from me; and Mr. Tanſon knows it is read ſo by learned …en of his own opinion, and that the future ſenſe as Mr. Calvin obſerves well, may bear an imperative conſtruction; I will put my fear into their hearts, but let them not depart from me. You know it may be underſtood ſo; And in the 39th v. of the ſame Chapter, it is ſaid, I will give them one heart, that they MAY fear me for ever.

Mr. Danſon.

What then?

Mr. Ives.

Why then your Argument hath nothing in it, becauſe God bids them not depart, that therefore they cannot depart.

p. 134This promiſe was made to the Nation of Iſrael, and not to all True believers; ſo v. 36. God tells Iſrael that he will bring them from all Countreys where he hath ſcattered them; and in the 40th v. he ſaith he will put his fear in their hearts, that they SHALL not depart, or as the 39th v. hath it, that they MAY fear him for ever, and the 41 v. ſaith expreſly that be will plant them in their own land (the land of Iſrael) and they ſhall buy fields for money, and ſubſcribe evidences, and take witneſs in the land of Benjamin, and v. 42, 43, 44. but after all this, they did depart, and the Apostle ſaith, Wrath is come upon them to the uttermoſt; ſo that this Text is ſo far from being a promiſe, that no True believer ſhall depart, that it is not a promiſe tha… any ſhall not depart, and that what is there promiſed, is not to all believers in general, but to Iſrael in special, any one may ſee that reads both the 31ſt & 32d Chapters at large.

Mr. Danſon.

I bring this Text to prove that the phraſe, the Iſrael of God comprehends all True believers, becauſe that the promiſe that is here made is ſpiritual.

Mr. Ives.

Make your Argument, that what promiſe is made to the Iſrael of God, is made to all True believers, and conclude it from this p. 135Text, and do not always run in a Circle.

Mr. Danſon.

If this promiſe be made to the Iſrael of God, then it is made to True believers.

But this promiſe is made to the Iſrael of God.

Ergo, It it is made to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

That doth not do, it is but the ſame again, you are to conclude, Ergo, that all the promiſe, or that promiſe that is made to the Iſrael of God; is made to all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, It is the promiſe in ſpiritual things.

Mr. Ives.

What again? here is nothing of the promiſe in the 32d of Jeremy, or that which was there promiſed, was to all True believers.

Mr. Fowler.

Here it is, he faith, this promiſe in Jer. 32. is made to all True believers, his medinm to prove it is, that it is made to the Iſrael of God; and he proves it is made to the Iſrael of God by another promiſe of the ſame import in another Scripture, to wit, in the 8th of Hebrews and the 10th, where it expreſly ſaith, This is the Covenant that I p. 136will make with the houſe of Iſrael.

Mr. Ives.

Firſt, I deny it is the ſame promiſe, for this promiſe is in the 31. Jer. and the other is in the 3… d. Jer. and Secondly, I deny that thoſe to whom the promiſe in Heb. 8 is made comprehends all True believers; and let him prove it that it comprehends any but Iſrael in that place.

Mr. Danſon.

If the Covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, then this promiſe doth comprehend all True believers.

But the Covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers.

Ergo, This promiſe comprehends them.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Major, That if the covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, that then this promiſe in Heb. 8. comprehends all True believers

Mr. Danſon.

If this promiſe be contained in the covenant, then it follows.

Mr. Ives.

That is not the queſtion you are to prove, for that that you are to prove is this, that if the Covenant of grace belongs to all True believers, that then it follows that the people to whom the promiſe was made Heb. 8. comprehends p. 137all True believers; you muſt conclude ſo.

Mr. Danſon.

If the whole covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers, then the Iſrael of God in Heb. 8. doth comprehend all True believers.

But the whole covenant of grace doth belong to all True believers.

Ergo, The covenant in Heb. 8. belongs to all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, Your argument is falſe, and if it were true, you do not conclude the thing denyed, which is this; that thoſe to whom the promiſes in Heb. 8. is made comprehends all True believers, and inſtead thereof, you conclude that the covenant Heb. 8. belongs to all True believers, however… deny your conſequence.

Mr. Danſon.

To whom the whole belongs, the part belongs.

But to True believers the whole belongs.

Ergo.

Mr. Ives.

You are to prove, that if the covenant of grace belongs to all true believers, that then it follows, that the covenant in the 8th. of the Heb. belongs to all True believers.

p. 138Mr. Danſon.

If the whole covenant belongs to them, then I ſay every part doth.

But &c.

Mr. Ives.

That's not the queſtion, I appeal to Mr. Fowler.

Mr. Fowler.

Here's the propoſition denyed, that if the whole covenant of grace belongs to all True believers, then the covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews belongs to all True believers and the Iſrael of God there ſpoken of; is comprehenſive of all True believers.

Mr. Ives.

I, Sir that is the propoſition I denyed.

Mr. Fowler.

This in the 8th. of the Hebrews is part of the covenant of grace.

Mr. Ives.

What Covenant ſoever it is, it is the Covenant it ſelf, and there hath yet been nothing concluded from it to prove the thing denyed; which is, that if the covenant of grace belong to all True believers, the covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews belongs to all True believers and that all True believers are comprehended by theſe words, the houſe of Iſrael.

Mr. Danſon.

This is part of the covenant of grace, and p. 139if it be a part it is the whole.

Mr. Ives.

What wild arguing is this? that if it be a part it is the whole?

Mr. Fowler interpoſes:

Mr. Ives.

Pray Mr. Fowler let him alone, do not teach him to diſpute.

Mr. Ives.

I denyed this conſequence, that if the covenant of grace be made to all True believers, that then the Iſrael of God, in the 8th. of the Hebrews comprehends all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it.

Mr. Ives.

Come let's hear it.

Mr. Danſon.

It is made to all True believers, or ſome True believers, or to unbelievers.

Mr. Ives.

That is as before, it was the firſt thing denyed; what nothing but round about?

Mr. Fowler.

He proves it thus, if all the Covenant belongs to believers, this doth.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Covenant in the 8th. of the Hebrews is made to all True believers, or that Iſrael there ſpoken of, comprehends all p. 140True believers; prove it I ſay.

Mr. Fowler.

This in Heb. 8. is part of the Covenant of grace Ergo, If part of the Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, the whole doth.

Mr. Ives.

You do not argue rightly Mr. Fowler, you know you do not, no man can inferr a whole from a part; beſides you do not conclude the thing denyed: for you conclude the Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, which is not denyed; for the thing denyed is, that the Covenant in Heb. 8. and Jer. 31. which is made with Iſrael and Judah, is made with all True believers, and that all True believers are comprehended under theſe words, the houſes of Iſrael and Judah.

Here Mr. Fowler interupts again.

Mr. Ives.

Pray Sir forbear, indeed Mr. Fowler I will not allow it; Mr. Danſon is to prove that all True believers are included in Heb. 8.

Mr. Danſon.

If the whole Covenant of grace belongs to True believers, then the Covenant in the 6th of Heb. which is part of the Covenant of grace doth.

p. 141Mr. Ives.

This is the Covenant it ſelf; for God Saith, This is the Covenant that I will make with, &c. And why ſhould you call it apart, when God himſelf calls it the Covenant; beſides, call it a part of the Covenant if you will, that will not prove, that Iſrael with whom it is ſaid to be made, is to be underſtood of all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove by another Argument, that no True believer can fall away.

They that cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand, cannot fall away totally nor finally from grace.

But True believers cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand.

Ergo, True believers cannot fall away totally nor finally.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the argument; for the whole argument doth not conclude the Queſtion: for you are to conclude, that therefore it is impoſſible for any True believer to fall away totally and finally; you argue indefinitely, and not univerſally.

Mr. Danſon.

I can prove any True believer by the ſame reaſon.

p. 142Mr. Ives.

I deny the major.

Mr. Danſon and other Miniſters fell a Laughing, and ſaid, What the major!

Mr. Ives.

The conſequence of it, then if you will have it ſo, though it be all one. It doth not follow, that if none of the ſheep of Chriſt, can be plucked out of Chriſt's hands that therefore no True believer can fall away.

Mr. Danſon.

That is ſtrange.

Mr. Ives.

Let it be never ſo ſtrange, I deny it, and it is the eaſier for you to prove; you muſt conclude, Ergo, if no ſheep can, then no True believer can.

Mr. Danſon.

That I am to prove, is that; if the ſheep here ſpoken of in the Text, be all True believers then,

Mr. Ives.

What then? come infer what you would have.

Mr. Danſon.

Then if the ſheep of Chriſt cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand, then no true believer can.

But the firſt is true, Ergo,

p. 143Mr. Ives.

No you cannot, you are miſtaken, you cannot infer a univerſal propoſition from an indefinite.

Mr. Fowler.

He may as well infer a univerſal.

Mr. Ives.

Pray Mr. Fowler do not argue; if you will pleaſe to take his place, I will anſwer you, and make the beſt of his Arguments you can; otherwiſe; I deſire you to be Silent.

Mr. Fowler.

It is a univerſal Negative, the Argument lies here;

If the Sheep of Chriſt can never be plucked out of Chriſt's hands; then no True believer can fall away totally nor finally.

Mr. Ives.

He did not ſay ſo, yet I can deny that conſequence.

Mr. Danſon.

If that none of the ſheep of Chriſt, can be plucked out of Chriſt's hands, then no True believer can fall away totally nor finally.

But none of the ſheep of Chriſt, can be plucked out of Chriſt's hands.

Ergo, No True believer can ſall away totally nor finally.

p. 144Mr. Fowler.

Pray let me interpoſe.

Mr. Ives.

I will not, Pray Sir forbear, this is not fair, you know it is not fair.

Mr. Ives.

You ſay this, that if no ſheep of Chriſt can fall away, then no true believer can fall away; I denyed the conſequence, prove it.

Mr. Danſon.

I prove it, becauſe no true believer can fall away, therefore none of Chriſt's ſheep can fall away.

Mr. Ives.

That is petitio principii, you beg the queſtion, and run in a Ring; this is that which you are to prove, that if no ſheep can fall away, then no true believer can fall away, & inſtead thereof, you argue, if no true believer can fall away, then no ſheep of Chriſt can fall away.

Mr. Danſon.

If the ſheep here ſpoken of be all true believers, then it follows, that if none of the ſheep can be plucked out of Chriſt's hand, no true believers can.

Mr. Ives.

That is the thing you ſaid at firſt, and you prove no more but the ſame by the ſame; however ſtill I deny the conſequence, that p. 145though all the ſheep there ſpoken of, are true believers, yet it doth not follow, that the ſheep there ſpoken of, comprehends a'l True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

You give no anſwer.

Mr. Ives.

I did give an anſwer by denying the conſequence of the major propoſition, and to prove it after ſome circumlocutions; you bring the ſame again, but I anſwer further by telling you that your Argument is founded upon a metaphor, and both heathen and Chriſtian Logicians tell us, that metaphors do not prove concluſions; you make ſheep your medium, it is a metaphorical expreſſion, and that is no good medium to a Syllogiſm; I avouch it before any diſputant, I appeal to you Mr. Fowler.

Mr. Fowler.

You muſt diſtinguiſh between metaphors and parables; we ſay indeed parables are not argumentative, though the ſcope may; and metaphors are.

Mr. Ives.

But to uſe metaphors and conclude by them, when a metaphor may have two or three interpretations; I ſay it concludes nothing.

p. 146Beſides this is a parable of the ſheapheard and the ſheep, as any one may ſee that read the Text, and therefore it concludes nothing according to that maxim of Mr. Fowlers. Theologia parabolica non eſt Theologia Argumentativa.

Mr. Fowler.

My ſheep hear my voice, Now, —

Mr. Ives.

I will not diſpute it with you Mr. Fowler, without you will take his place, and then you ſhall mannage that Argument if you pleaſe, and I will ſpend a little time with you.

Mr. Fowler.

I ſpeak as moderator, I will not interpoſe between you, here is his Argument.

Mr. Ives.

I will not hear you, becauſe you argue inſtead of moderating; If you will take his Chair, I will hear you. I do ſay Mr. Danſon and I appeal to Mr. Fowler whether I do not anſwer fairly; for here is your Argument; if none of the ſheep of Chriſt can … away, then no True believer can: that is … medium of his Argument, I deny the con…tce of the major; if the ſheep of Chriſt…n never periſh, if I ſhould allow it; it doth not therefore follow, that no True believer can fall away; and the text ſpeaks of the ſheep of Chriſt with reference to that p. 147glory they ſhall have at the day of Judgment, and then and there Chriſt will ſay to the ſheep, ſit on my right hand, and to the goats ſit on the other hand: for ſaith he, my ſheep hear my voice, and follow me; that is the diſcriminating character of them, and thoſe that do ſo, there is the recompence given them, viz. Eternal Life, neither ſhall any pluck them out of Chriſt's hands, and I believe it: for neither Death nor Devils can take them away, when once he ſaith to them, Come yea bleſſed, Come my ſheep.

Mr. Fowler.

You muſt needs think Mr. Ives, we know where you are: one ſober word; Do you think that the meaning of the text is this, that thoſe that follow Chriſt ſhall never periſh.

Do you give this as your Judgment.

Mr. Ives.

What if I did ſay that thoſe that follow Chriſt ſhall be ſaved, and never periſh; What then? Is this falſe doctrine? But Mr. Fowler, I ſay, Though you do not invade the room, yet you do the office of an opponent, and I wonder you ſhould pretend your ſelf a moderator, while you ſpeak beyond the line of a moderator. But in the next place Mr. Fowler, you are much miſtaken in my interpretation; I did not go about to lay the ſtreſs p. 148of my anſwer, to ſhew that it was Chriſt's Argument, to prove that they ſhould not periſh after they are ſaved. But what if they ſhould tell you ſo? doth not Chriſt tell us he gives them Eternal Life; and doth not he ſay as a further aſſurance of their everlaſting Inheritance, that they ſhall never periſh; and what abſurdity is in this interpretation? But I laid the ſtreſs of my Anſwer in this, that there might be a certain number of People, that can never periſh in this World; but God will by interpoſing grace, carry them into the other World, and land them there ſafely for ever, which indeed I might believe without wronging what I have aſſerted; but doth this prove that it is true of all believers, and that no True believer can fall away, becauſe ſome True believers ſhall not; for why may not I ſay, as St. Auguſtine and others did. that it is impoſſible for ſome perſons to fall away; and yet withall ſay, that it is poſſible for ſome True believers to fall away totally and finally.

Mr. Fowler.

As for that of St. Auguſtine, he never ſaid that any True believer that had real faith in Chriſt might fall away.

Mr. Ives.

I will, I ſay diſcourſe it with you if you pleaſe to take the Chair; and if you will p. 149not believe me; Let Mr. Baxter ſpeak for me, he tells us that this was St. Augustine's opinion, that ſome True believers may fall away totally and finally, and that he asked Biſhop Ʋſher in the preſence of Dr. Kendal, whether or no this was not Auguſtin's opinion, and he confeſſed it was. But ſaith Mr. Baxter leaſt any one ſhould ſcruple this, I ſhall refer him to theſe paſſages following, which when Mr. Ives was going to read, Mr. Fowler interrupts him.

Mr. Fowler.

I will make ſhort work of it, you need not read it.

Here another interpoſes to.

Mr. Ives.

Would you have me diſpute with all three? It is a ſtrong ſign of a weak cauſe, when three Men diſpute with one.

Mr. Fowler.

This was not St. Auguſtin's judgment.

Mr. Ives.

You muſt tell Mr, Baxter ſo, and not me; I believe Mr. Baxter knew as well as Mr. Fowler what St. Auguſtin's opinion was; and ſo did Biſhop Ʋſher, who ſaith, doubtleſs it was Auguſtin's opinion.

Mr. Fowler.

For Mr. Baxter, I ſuppoſe you mean in his book of Directions, he ſaith, I am not p. 150certain, that thoſe that ſincerely believe and are juſtified, may fall away totally and finally; I am ſure ſaith be, the Scripture ſeems to look that way, and I am ſure the Fathers ſeem to look that way. Now I anſwer Mr. Baxter in this, that the Scripture looks that way, and the Fathers, but ſeem to look that way.

Secondly, For St. Auguſtine, any body that is but a little acquainted with Learning, knows that he in the buſineſs of Pelagius, makes a diſtinction between thoſe that had real and ſpecial grace, and others.

And Auguſtine never ſaid in his Life, that any True believer ever fell away totally and finally; and he writ a Book particularly of the perſeverance of the Saints, that they never fall away totally and finally; And as for Biſhop Uſher, you wrong that worthy Man.

Mr. Ives.

Mr Baxter ſaith, he asked Biſhop Uſher in the preſence of Dr. Kendal, whether this was not St. Auguſtin's opinion, and he ſaid undoubtedly it was; but if this will not ſerve, I ſhall give you the quotations them ſelves. Mirandum e… quidem multum que mirandum? &c. Wonderful it is, and much to be wondred at, that God to ſome of his children whom he hath regenerated in Chriſt, and to p. 151whom he hath given, Faith, Hope, and Love; ſhould not give perſeverance. Aug. de Corrept. & grat. Cap. 8.

Again he ſaith, Ex duobus autem piis, &c. that of two, being both Godly, perſeverance ſhould be given to the one and not Given unto the other, belongs to the unſearchable judgment of God. Aug. de bono perſev. Cap. 8.

Mr. Baxter ſaith, it was not only St. Anguſtin's opinion, but it was the opinion of Prosper and Fulgentius, and of the Church of God for 13 or 14 hundred years, and of moſt Chriſtians in the World. And that the choiſeſt men for Learning and Diligene, Holyneſs and divine Illumination, and ſuch as were the great defenders of the grace of God againſt Pelagius were of this mind, that true believers might totally and finally fall away. See Mr. Baxter's account of the Saints perſeverance, Page 5.6.17. &c,

Mr. Ives.

Mr. Danſon, you are to prove to me, that that in Heb. 8. is ſpoken of all True believers; or this, that all the promiſes that are made to the Iſrael of God, are made to all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I proved it by this Argument, if True believers cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hand.

p. 152Mr. Ives.

No, if the ſheep of Chriſt cannot be plucked out of Chriſt's hands, then no True believer can; I denied that major, therefore prove it, and conclude if no ſheep can, no True believer can.

Mr Danſon.

If the ſheep of Chriſt contains all True believers, then the promiſe that is made to the one, is made to the other.

But the ſheep of Chriſt contains all True believers.

Ergo, the promiſe that is made to one, is made to the other.

Mr. Ives

I deny the minor, that the ſheep of Chriſt in John 10. contains all True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

If the deſcription that is here given of ſheep agrees only to True believers, then the ſheep of Chriſt in the 10th of John is comprehenſive of all True believers; but the deſcription that is here, agrees only to ſuch.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Conſequence.

Mr. Danſon.

That the diſcription that is here given, is applicable to all True believers, we ſhall inſtance in parts.

p. 153Firſt, thoſe that hear the voice of Chriſt, and follow him, agrees only to all True believers.

But this diſcription that is here given of Chriſt's ſheep, agrees only to all True believers.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

You ſay, if this diſcription that is here given, agree to all True believers, or none but True believers, then the propoſition is proved, that Chriſt's ſheep contains all True believers, I deny that: but it is not the propoſition you are to prove; for you are to prove the Conſequence of your major, and inſtead thereof, you go about to prove your minor; but however that we may proceed, I deny the minor; for all that were True believers do not follow him; for ſome that do leave off following him, were tue believers, & therefore here is ſomething agrees to ſheep, that doth not agree to all true believers; but you are to proceed & prove the minor propoſition denyed, that all that are true believers follow him, and that they cannot but do ſo: by following of him, I mean to their Death, or elſe ſomething may agree to thoſe ſheep, John 10. that doth not agree to all true believers; for it is ſaid of thoſe ſheep, that they hear Chriſt's voice and follow him.

p. 154Mr. Danſon.

My ſheep hear my voice; and that this is to be underſtood for a deſcription of all true believers, I prove it.

Mr. Ives.

Sir, that is not your buſineſs; for who denyes but they that are Chriſt's ſheep, and hear his voice, and follow him, are true believers; but you are to prove, that all that are tue believers do follow him, and that they cannot ceaſe to be ſuch, and finally depart from him.

Mr. Danſon.

If all true believers are compared in the Scripture. unto things abiding, and fixed and ſetled, then all true believers do hear the voice of Chriſt and follow him. But all true believers are compared in Scripture to things abiding, fixed and ſetled; Ergo, All true believers do hear the voice of Chriſt, and follow him.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the whole Argument.

Firſt, Becauſe compariſons may agree in one thing, but not in another; and therefore you cannot conclude any thing rightly, or certainly from them.

Secondly, I do deny it upon another ground, becauſe you do not conclude the thing denyed.

Mr. Danſon.

I am not bound to do it.

p. 155Mr. Ives.

Becauſe you cannot; Sir, you do not conclude the queſtion, hearing the voice of Chriſt, and following of him, are plain Engliſh words; I do ſay all True believers do not alwaies to the end of their days, hear Chriſt's voice and follow him; for ſome quit the faith, and draw back from him, and ceaſe to be True believers.

Mr. Danſon.

I prove it thus:

If all True believers are built upon a Rock, then they hear the voice of Chriſt, and follow him to the end of their days; But all True believers are built upon a Rock.

Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I deny the mjor, (but Rock is a word that admits of various interpretations) however, I deny the conſequence prove it by an Argument, that all that are built upon a Roc continue there, and cannot but remain there.

Mr. Danſon.

They that cannot fall, though the Wind and Storms beat upon them, they continue upon the Rock, and cannot but continue; but they that are built upon the Rock:

Mr. Ives.

This is a Parable, and no Argument can …e drawn from it, and I will not anſwer Parables, p. 156but if I would, you cannot from thence, conclude the thing denyed.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove it without a Parable. If the work of grace in every True believer is compared to thoſe things that are moſt fixed, ſetled, and abiding.

Mr. Ives.

I tell you, I will not anſwer compariſons, if you have no plain Text, ſay you have none, but if you have any, ſhew them: for when you go to Preach againſt True believers falling away totally and finally; you will make the People believe you have Texts enough, therefore I ſay, argue from ſome plain Scripture, or go to another Argument.

Mr. Danſon.

You are a conceited ignorant fellow.

Mr. Ives.

You may well ſay, I am ignorant, when you accuſe Chriſt of ignorance.

Mr. Danſon.

I deny it, you are an impudent fellow.

Mr. Ives.

You affirmed, that though Judas was a Devil, when Chriſt choſe him, yet he knew it not.

Mr. Danſon.

I never ſaid ſo.

Mr. Ives.

You did ſay Chriſt did not know it, and p. 157the Text ſaith expreſly John 6. That he knew from the beginning who ſhould betray him, and that he knew what was in man. Now if you ſay true, that Judas was a Devil when Chriſt choſe him, then if the Scripture ſaith true, he knew him to be ſo.

Mr. Danſon.

I do deny it, I never ſaid ſo.

Mr. Ives.

Deny it if you dare, here it is under your hand, in a book of your own.

Mr. Danſon.

Let me ſee the Book.

Mr. Ives.

Nay ſtay a little, you ſhall have the paſſages read, it is in the 45th page of your book Intituled the Quakers Folly.

Hereupon Mr. Ives gave the book to one that ſtood by, to read the paſſages, who read it word for word.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, it appeared not evident to Chriſt it that time, and you have not read all: there is your Ingenuity.

Mr. Ives.

You ſay, that the reaſon why you laid down that Principle was to oppoſe an opinion of the Quakers, ſo that let the reaſon be what it will, you did ſay thoſe words, that though Judas was a Devil when Chriſt choſe him, yet Chriſt did not know it.

p. 158Mr. Danſon.

Are you not a diſingenuous Fellow, to bring my books in your Pocket? I could have brought ſome of yours.

Mr. Ives.

So you might if you pleaſed.

It was well obſerved by the learned Chillingworth, that it is a mark of a loſt and diſpareing cauſe to ſupport it ſelf with impetuous outcries and clamors; the faint refuges of thoſe that want better. Arguments; like him in Lucian, who cryed out, Oh curſed Wretch! Oh damned Villain! When he could ſay nothing elſe. But I cannot but wonder that Mr. Danſon, a Non-conformiſt Miniſter, who inſtead of filling his mouth with Arguments that by ſound speech which cannot be condemned; He that is of the contrary part may be aſhamed, having no cvil thing to ſay of him. Tit. 2.8, Should utter ſuch ſpeech, as I am ſure tends to corrupt good manners; and that can never adminiſter grace to the hearers, neither can be (or any man elſe) that uſeth ſuch language approve himſelf Religious, much leſs a Teacher of Religion (if St. James ſaith true in his firſt Chapter and 26 v. That cannot bridle his Tongue, unleſs he proves it by telling us, he is a much juſtified. When he rails and reviles, as when he speaks with all meekneſs and wiſdom; for in his book, Intituled p. 159the Quakers Folly page 38. he ſaith, David when be committed Murder and dultry, was not in a condemned, but in a juſtified Eſtate; and that he had ſaid more to prove it, then that any Quaker or any of his brethren could anſwer; if this be true, a man may be a juſtified perſon, and ſo Religious, though he give his Tongue the Rains, and never bridle it.

Mr. Danſon.

I proceed to the laſt Argument that I ſhall urge now.

Thoſe for whoſe perſeverance Chriſt prays ſhall certainly perſevere and cannot fall away totally nor finally from grace.

But Chriſt hath prayed for the perſeverance of all True believers.

Ergo, no True believer ſhall fall away totally and finally from grace.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the major.

Mr. Danſon.

If Chriſt was always heard in what he prayed for, then they for whoſe perſeverance Chriſt prays, ſhall not fall away.

But Chriſt was always heard in what he prayed for. Ergo,

Mr. Ives.

I anſwer by diſtinguiſhing of Chriſt's prayer was always heard, either when he he prayed abſolutely or conditionally, that if they did ſuch and ſuch things, it ſhould ſo p. 160and ſo ſucceed; now if you mean Chriſt prayed abſolutely for their perſeverance, without any condition or qualification in themſelves; then I deny the major.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove he did; for I know of none that he prayed conditionally for.

Mr. Ives.

I can ſhew an Inſtance of it when occaſion ſerves.

Mr. Danſon.

What condition did Chriſt pray? for their perſeverance upon.

Mr. Ives.

If you pleaſe, I am not to name one yet, there is no univerſal negative in what I have heard yet, and therefore I need not name any Inſtance.

Mr. Danſon.

You ought to name one.

Mr. Ives.

I ought not.

Mr. Danſon.

You are ſo conceited.

Mr. Ives.

I will refer it, that the Argument is not as yet, capable of an Inſtance, ſo that I need not do it; but however, I will give you one, John 17.21. Chriſt prays that the World might believe; and he prays that his perſecutors that crucified him, might believe and p. 161be forgiven, Luke 23.24. Now if Chriſt's prayer (as you ſay) was always abſolute, and he heard in all he prayed for; then thoſe he prayed for, were converted and pardoned; but if they were never converted nor pardoned; then according to your ſenſe, he was not heard in all he prayed for, or ſome of his prayers were conditional.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, he was heard in all he prayed for, but when we ſay Chriſt was heard in what he prayed for, we are to underſtand what Chriſt prayed for as mediatour.

Mr. Ives.

How did he pray elſe, in this 17th of John eſpecially.

Mr. Danſon.

He prayed in the capacity of a private perſon.

Mr. Ives

Prove that if you can, that Chriſt did pray as a private perſon; but if you could prove that Chriſt prayed for ſomething (though as a private Perſon) that he was not heard in, then you prove againſt your ſelf, that he was not heard in all he prayed for.

Mr. Danſon.

It was the effect of common Charity; I will give you an inſtance, Luke 23. Father forgive them, they know not what they do; p. 162which Prayer was an effect of that Law of Charity, that he was under as he became man, and ſo obedient to the Law of loving his enemies, and ſo he prayed for ſomewhat, that did not inevitably and infalliby come to paſs.

Mr. Ives.

You ſaid before, he was heard in all he Prayed for, and now you ſay, he Prayed for ſomething that did not come to paſs; and I gave you that Inſtance, that Chriſt …rayed, that the World might believe that God had ſent him; was that Prayer heard or not?

Mr. Danſon.

Yes, according as it was made.

Mr. Ives.

So was yours about their perſeverance, but you bid me give you an Inſtance, that Chriſt prayed for any thing that was not effected for, or upon thoſe for whom he prayed, and I have given you two Inſtances of ſome things that he prayed for, that was not actually effected upon thoſe for whom he prayed; therefore he was not heard in all he prayed for; if by hearing you mean ſo, as the things muſt abſolutely and inevitably come to paſs.

Mr. Danſon.

Chriſt was not heard in ſome things, that he only prayed for as a private man.

Mr. Ives

The Scripture makes no ſuch diſtinction; p. 163but if it did, you are confuted, for you ſaid before, that he was heard in all he prayed for.

Mr. Danſon.

See the impertinency of the man.

Mr. Ives.

Give me I ſay, an Inſtance where Chriſt prayed as a publick, and as a private perſon, and then ſhew me that all he prayed for as a publick perſon, was abſolute, and did infallibly come to paſs.

Mr. Danſon.

Chriſt was heard even in this prayer, he did make as a private perſon; becauſe that this prayer of his, was with ſubmiſſion unto the will of his Father, conſidering what he did in this, he did as a private perſon; as the Apoſtle faith, he deſired to preſent every man perfect in Chriſt Jeſus, it was his will as Humane, ſo Chriſt as he was under the Law was under an obligation of loving his enemies, and therefore for praying for them.

Mr. Ives.

You ſay Chriſt's prayer was heard as a private perſon; and before you ſaid, it might or was not always heard as a private perſon; but he was alway heard as mediator. Now I bid you prove your diſtinction, and do not I anſwer fairly?

Mr. Danſon.

I am to prove that Chriſt was heard in all he prayed for.

p. 164Mr. Ives.

How heard?

Mr. Danſon.

So as to obtain the thing deſired according to the will of God.

Mr. Ives.

I ſay, Chriſt was heard when he prayed, that ſuch and ſuch men might believe by the uſe of means, and ſo that they might perſevere in the uſe of means, and that others might be pardoned upon Repentance; but he was heard, though they did not believe becauſe he prayed for them upon that conſideration; for his prayer was alway, heard conditionally or abſolutely; Now I ask in which of theſe ſenſes you mean.

Mr. Danſon.

I ſay, abſolutely in this caſe; that is, that Chriſt prayed for the perſeverance of all True believers without condition.

Mr. Ives.

Why then, you are now to prove that Chriſt prayed abſolutely without condition, for the perſeverance of them.

Mr. Danſon.

I will prove that, that is the thing I aimed at; I ſay; Jeſus Chriſt in his prayer for his Enemies, was heard after the ſame manner, that any believers is heard when he prays for his enemies, becauſe there is in the matter of p. 165the prayer, there is a ſubmiſſion to the will of God, as to thoſe things which the particular decree and councel of God did not appear about.

Mr. Ives.

Did he know whether theſe People would believe or not believe, when he prayed for them.

Mr. Danſon.

There is ſome things that Chriſt is ignorant of, as the day of Judgment, becauſe Chriſt faith, he did not know it.

Mr. Ives.

But the queſtion is ſtill where it was at firſt: for I ſay and grant unto you, that whatſoever Chriſt prayed for abſolutely, he was heard in; and whatſoever he prayed for upon condition, there is alſo a true ſenſe in which it may be ſaid, he was beard in all ſuch prayers, becauſe he did not pray for the pardon of his Enemies, but upon condition of their Repentance. Now if they had Repented, and had not been pardoned, then Chriſt was not heard in this prayer; but if they remained in Impenitency, and were never pardoned, he was nevertheleſs heard in this prayer; And now you are to prove that what he prayed for in this prayer for his Diſciples perſeverance, he prayed for abſolutely, and not conditionally, or elſe you do not argue of my diſtinction.

p. 166Mr. Danſon.

Why ſo?

Mr. Ives.

I will ſhew you why; If Chriſt prayed for ſome things that were not effected upon the perſons non-performance on their parts; and yet in this, he might be ſaid to be heard, then the prayer you mentioned muſt be of this kind, or abſolute, and if it be abſolute, ſhew it.

Mr. Danſon.

If Chriſt was heard always in what he prayed for, then this was an abſolute prayer.

Mr. Ives.

And muſt he not when he prays for the Converſion of others and the forgiveneſs of others; and when he prayed that the World might believe, was he not heard then? And did not Chriſt in the ſame prayer, John 17 pray that all that believed might be one, as the Father and He were one? Now if this prayer were abſolute, How comes it to paſs that there are ſo many ſad diviſions among Chriſtians?

…id not Chriſt pray that all True believers might be kept from the evil of the World; how comes it to paſs that many of them fall into many worldly pollutions? If theſe prayers were abſolutely heard, and the thing effected, How p. 167could there be either ſuch fowl pollutions, or ſuch great diviſions among True believers? all which plainly ſhews, that Chriſt prays for theſe effects upon their uſe of ſuch means, as that they might thereby obtain both unity and purity; in like manner he prays for their perſeverance in grace, upon the condition of their uſe of means, as praying, watching, &c. But there is no abſolute prayer for ſuch perſeverance as you Fancy.

Mr. Danſon.

He was not heard in that prayer, as a private perſon.

Mr. Ives.

Shew that diſtinction in the Bible, where doth the Scripture ſay he prayed for ſome things as a publick perſon abſolutely, and every thing came to paſs as he prayed for in that capacity, and at other times that he prayed as a private perſon, and he was then heard only in ſome things.

Mr. Danſon.

I have ſhewed you Luke 23. Father forgive them, &c.

Mr. Ives.

Suppoſe that prayer was no anſwered according to your way of explication, as to their being actually pardoned, yet then it makes againſt you, ſince you gave that reaſon why True believers could not fall away; p. 168becauſe the Lord Jeſus Chriſt ſaith himſelf, Father I thank thee thou haſt heard me always and that he was heard in all he prayed for, and thence you inferred they could not fall away that were True believers; becauſe Chriſt prayed for their perſeverance, and was heard in all he prayed for,

But is there not the ſame reaſon to conclude that all Chriſt's crucifters ſhall be forgiven; and that the World ſhall all believe in him; becauſe Chriſt prays for theſe things; if it ſhall be ſaid, Chriſt prayed for the World and his Enemies, as a private perſon, and ſo it might not come to paſs; Why may it not be ſaid, he prayed for the perſeverance of all believers, as a private perſon, and ſo ſome may fall away not with standing; but if it be ſaid, he prayed for believers abſolutely and without condition, why may it not be ſaid he prayed ſo for the World and his Enemies.

Mr. Danſon.

So that if you ſuppoſe in the one place, he was not heard, and in other places he was, then you muſt admit of that diſtinction of his praying, as a publick and a private perſon.

Mr. Ives.

I deny the Conſequence; for when Chriſt prayed that they might be converted, he prays (as be did for other things) according p. 169to the rule he had preſcribed; Now you prove that he was heard as to this point of perſeverance, becauſe he was heard in all he prayed for. Now I confeſs, ſome things he was not heard in, in the ſenſe explained, as to the coming to paſs of them; and I have told you why, becauſe the prayer was conditional; when Chriſt here prays for all that ſhould believe, then he prays that the World might believe that the Father had ſent him; was that prayer abſolute? and was it heard? Did the World believe? Pray ſpeak Sir.

Mr. Danſon.

Indefinitely they did.

Mr. Ives.

Did not Chriſt pray that more might believe then in time did believe, or then was given him out of the World?

Mr. Danſon.

I, By a common faith, ſuch as they might fall from.

Mr. Ives.

Was this common Faith, true or falſe?

Mr. Danſon.

It was true in its kind, as truth ſtands in oppoſition to counterfeit.

Mr. Ives.

Mr. Danſon ſaith, that this Faith that Chriſt prayed for, that the World might have, was a common Faith, and true in its p. 170kind, in oppoſition to Hypocriſie, and ſuch a Faith, they might fall from; I ſay no more, that it is True Faith, in oppoſition to fained or counterfeit Faith; now this is all that I had to do, to prove that men might fall from ſuch a Faith, as is oppoſite to a Counterfeit or fained Faith, and this Mr. Danſon confeſſes they might fall from, though he hath all this while diſputed againſt it.

Mr. Danſon.

That's not the queſtion.

Mr. Ives.

It was: for by a True Faith we explained before, to be ſuch a faith as was True in oppoſition to a hypocritical or ſeeming Faith.

Thus ended the laſt Diſpute, in which it was obſervable, that Mr. …ves was much interrupted, not only by two, and ſometimes three at once of the Miniſters that were of Mr. Danſon's perſwafion; but the multitude that ſtood that way affected, were very rude and uncivil, beyond what is here taken notice of; and it is obſervable that Mr. Danſon never opened his mouth, to pray them to be quiet all the time, though Mr. Ives took much pains to perſwade them, once and again, yet ſtill they were the more tumultuous; but on the other hand, the People that were of Mr. Ives's perſwaſion about the matter debated, speak not one word p. 171either by way of interruption, or meddling with the queſtion in debate, nor by way of tumultuous or any other diſorderly carriage, did they appear to diſturb the audience.

Unleſs one perſon, who was deſired being nearer the light, to read a paſſage in Mr. Danſon's book, which Mr. Ives could not ſo well ſee to do.

Vale

I ſhould not have ventured to have published this, it looks ſo like partiality; but that it was … thing publickly taken notice of in the dispute by Mr. Ives, who did mention it to Mr. Danſon, as a thing praiſe worthy in his Friends, for which he then gave them publick thank, as …ny one can witneſs that was there preſent.