BEing met, Mr. Ives proposed the Question in these words, Whether the Doctrine of some true Believers, falling away totally and finally, be true? I answered in the Negative.

Mr. Ives offered to prove it thus;

Arg. 1. If the Doctrine of the impossibily of any true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be false, then the Doctrine of the possibility of some true Believers fal­ling away totally and finally is true; but the former is false, Ergo the latter is true. I de­nyed the minor, which he endeavoured to prove thus, If the Doctrine of the impossibi­lity of any true Believers falling away, &c. be true, then it ought to be believed. But it ought not to be believed, Ergo it is not true. I denyed the minor, which Mr. Ives went about to prove thus;

Whatsoever sins any are commanded not to do, and cautioned to fear the doing of, they ought not to believe is impossible to be done: But falling away totally and finally, is [Page 2]a sin that true Believers are commanded not to do, and are cautioned to fear the doing of, Ergo true Believers ought not to believe that it is impossible for them to fall away totally and finally.

To which I Answer. That many things might be objected against the major and con­clusion, as that true Believers was not in the minor denyed, which he put now into his conclusion. And in his major, I told him, That we distinguished of impossibility simple and ab­solute, and ex hypothesi, or supposition of some other thing intervening. And that what we are cautioned to fear the doing of, may be impossible to be done, by reason of the Di­vine Decree, or Promise, though otherwise possible, &c. [All this Mr. Ives left out in his account of the Conference, and relates on­ly my denial of the major.] Many other things I might object, but I forbear, because I would not seem to cavil at small Faults. Mr. Ives proceeded to prove the major thus, If the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done; then my major is true. But the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done, Ergo my major is true. I denyed [Page 3]his minor; after I had first repeated it, Mr. Ives said, It was an universal Negative, and therefore could not be proved. I Replyed, That it was a mistake in him so to think. [And since our debate, it came into my mind that Mr. Ives having, 'tis like been sometime or other on a Jury, and observing that a ne­gative Testimony in matter of Fact is not admitted (but in unusual cases) against the Affidavit; apprehends there is the like reason of negative Proposition.] But however, I gave him, at his desire, an instance in the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is impossible to be done by some to whom the Command and Caution is given, (viz.) to true Believers. To which Mr. Ives Replyed, We are past that now, for we are out of the term, True Be­lievers; and read over his Argument again out of his Note-Book, which it is to no pur­pose for me to repeat. [The Reader may view them, I appeal to any person of under­standing, whether it was not proper for me to the instance of the sin, to subjoyn an in­stance of some persons to whom it was im­possible to be done, or committed.]

Mr. Ives second Argument was this,

Arg. 2. If those that are partakers of the Di­vine Nature may fall away totally and finally, then some true Believers may fall away total­ly [Page 4]and finally from Grace: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I denyed the minor, that they who partake of the Divine Nature may fall away, supposing (I told him) that he took the phrase in the sense of the Apostle, 2 Pet. 1.5. To prove which, he argued thus;

If they that are partakers of the Holy Ghost may fall away totally and finally, then they that are partakers of the Divine Nature may so fall away. But the former is true, Ergo the latter. I again denyed his conse­quence; which he assayed to confirm thus, If to partake of the Holy Ghost, be to partake of the Divine Nature; then it follows, That if he that is partaker of the Holy Ghost may fall away, he that partakes of the Divine Na­ture may fall away. But the first is true, Ergo—

I denyed his minor, which therefore he at­tempted to confirm thus, If the Nature of the Holy Ghost be a Divine Nature; then they that partake of the Holy Ghost, partake of the Divine Nature. But the former is true, Ergo the latter: I denyed his consequence. [As for his additional Note, that to deny this con­sequence, is, As much as if a man should say, The Wisdom that is from above is a Divine Wis­dome; and yet say, That he that partakes of the Wisdom which is from above, doth not partake [Page 5]of the Divine Wisdom. I answer, There's not par ratio, for that phrase of Wisdom from above and Divine Wisdom note the same thing, (viz.) the Original or Descent of Wisdom.

Whereas partaking of the Holy Ghost, notes common Gifts or Graces; partaking of the Di­vine Nature, special Grace, in the places under debate.

Mr. Ives would prove his Consequence, Be­cause they that partake of the Holy Ghost; partake of nothing else but what is the Divine Nature. Which I denyed, and told him, That that phrase noted the common Gifts, whereof the Holy Ghost is the Author, Heb. 6.3. or the extraordiary Gifts, as Tongues, &c. for which I quoted, Acts 2.4. and Chap. 19.6.

Then he proved his minor thus, Because the partaking of the Holy Ghost and of the Divine Nature is one and the same thing; which I denyed, for though the receiving of the Holy Ghost, as to its Gifts and Graces, may be found in the same Subject, yet they are not terms of the same import; nor are the Gifts and Graces the same thing, any more then Logick and the Mathematicks are the same Art or Science, though found in the same Person; or that Bezaleel and Aholiabs skill in Workmanship of Gold, &c. And the Graces [Page 6]of the Spirit, Faith, Love, &c. are the same thing, because ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as their efficient. Here Mr. Ives multiplyed words to no purpose; as if any one would sa­tisfie himself, he may find pag. 15. of his Book, and at length denyed what he had of­ten affirmed, (viz.) that partaking of Gifts and Graces were the same thing, but pre­tended that they were one participation, i. e. Effects of the same efficient, as I understand his meaning; which I granted, and no Bo­dy denies. At length he urged this Argu­ment, If the Holy Ghost in its extraordinary Gifts be promised to none, but those that have the ordinary Gifts and Graces of it, then none can partake of the Holy Ghost in the greater, that doth not par­take of him in the less: But the former is true, Ergo the latter. To the minor, I an­swered, That strictly there was no promise of them at all, but a Prediction onely; or if we would call that, Joel 2.28. a Promise, it was to the visible Church indefinitely, which consists of visible Believers; and many where­of are only visible. Here was a great alter­cation about a Promise [...], expresly to visible Believers; which, I told him, was not necessary, because in promises of such a nature [Page 7]as that, Joel 2.28. Many might partake of the benefit that were onely visible Believers. And that it was not sufficient ground to judge all the persons that had these extraor­dinary Gifts Believers, because call'd such; for Simon Magus was call'd a Believer, whilst he was not truly such. [Here note a double mis­report of Mr. Ives, pag. 25, 26. That he sayes I said, Simon Magus recieved the Holy Ghost, and that all the Promises are made to visible Be­lievers as such; Whereas I spake onely of such Promises, as that of Joel 2. of extraordinary but common Gifts, and that Simon Magus might have received the Holy Ghost in its extra­ordinary Gifts, for any limitation that was in the Promise.] [To what I said then, I shall onely add, That Math. 7.21, 22. and Numb. 24.4, 5. plainly enough assert; That those that have not the ordinary Graces of the Spi­rit, may partake of the extraordinary Gifts of Prophesying, &c.]

Arg. 3. If all those that have the Cha­racters of true Believers, mentioned in Heb. 6.5, 6. may fall away totally and finally, then true Believers may fall away totally and finally; but the former is true, Ergo the lat­ter: I denyed the consequence. [And I will now add a reason of it, because it pro­ceeds upon this supposition, that if all true [Page 8]Believers are inlightned, &c. then all that are inlightned are true Believers; which is as bad an argument as this, in allusion to Mr. Ives former and present Trade: All the Box-Makers and Cheese-Mongers in the City of London are Freemen, Ergo all the Freemen in in the City of London are Box-Makers and Cheese-Mongers.] Mr. Ives proceeded to prove his consequence: If all those Charact­ers be appliable to none but true Believers, then the consequence follows: But they are appliable to none but true Believers, Ergo—

I denied his minor, and demanded a proof; which he gave thus, If the Scripture applies those Characters to none but true Believers, then my minor is true. But the Scripture ap­plies them to none but true Believers, Ergo— To which I answer'd, by denying his conse­quence; for it follows not that they are not applicable to any others, because they are not actually applied, [which Answer Mr. Ives hath omitted] and by denying the minor, whereupon he urged for an instance of one place of Scripture, where all these Charact­ers are given to one person in terminis, or in the very same terms. To which I Replied, That the term believing, frequently applied to Persons, not true Believers, includes all the Characters here mentioned; and that I could [Page 9]shew him by parts where they are applied to those that were not true Believers. Mr. Ives answered, That would not do, because he that hath one Vertue may be no true Believer. I Replyed, Not as he reports my words non­sensically, I take Persons that are extraordina­rily indowed from above; But thus, That I speak not of vertuous Persons, or morally good, but of those that are indued with Grace from above. After a deal of Contest, I instanced in the term inlightned, and shewed, That the thing intended by it, is in another term, (viz.) believing or knowing, applyed to those that are not true Believers, John 17.21, 23. (viz.) to the World in this place, opposed to true Believers. Christ prays for the Conversion of those that were given to him; and speaks of the Conviction of the World, as an end that might be obtained thereby. I urged al­so John 1.9. Whence I urged, that that uni­versal Light could not import a spiritual il­lumination. [The Contradiction he would fasten upon me to what I have argued from that Text against the Quakers, pag. 36. Of my Quakers Folly, is so trivial, as that it de­serves a Smile, rather then an Answer. Let them judge that can, by comparing that passage with pag. 43. and 44, 45. of Mr. Ives Book.] I also urged 1 John 5.1. compar'd with [Page 10] Luke 4.41. In the latter whereof the Devils are said to know that great Doctrine, That Jesus is the Christ, which in the former place is made a Character of one born of God. Whence I infer'd, that all inlightning is not a Character of a true Believer, unless the Devil be a true Believer. [All this explication Mr. Ives hath omitted.]

The next passage (though not in order in the Text) which Mr. Ives urged, was, renew­ing by repentance, of the application of which passage to any that was not a true Believer. To which I answered, That it was not ne­cessary to produce those very terms. Repen­tance is ascribed to those that were not true Believers, as Ahab, Judas, &c. As for the phrase renewing, that though it is frequently applyed to true Believers, yet there is no in­convenience in understanding it in this place, of a common work of the Spirit of God, which hath the same name with the special work, because of some similitude. As Saul is said to be turned into another man, 1 Sam. 10.6. I urged also Jude 12. which Mr. Ives hath barely quoted, without my gloss on it, Trees twice dead, plucked up by the roots; in regard of their natural state, which is a death in sin, and their Apostacy, or loosing of what good was in them, which carried the [Page 11]appearance of the effects of a spiritual life. And plucked up by the roots, that phrase I menti­oned as part of the Verse, but said nothing to.

The next Phrase is, Tasting of the Powers of the World to come, of which I gave Felix for an instance, Acts 24.25. For one part of the Powers of the World to come, is a dread­ful sense and apprehension of the future Judg­ment threatned in the Gospel against Unbe­lievers. [As for Mr. Ives additional Note, That tasting of the Powers of the World to come, must be limited to such a taste, as makes the Taster to be in love with what he tastes, is gratis dictum. For tasting is applyed to things evil as well as good, Heb. 2.9. Christ is said to taste death. And for Mr. Ive's fancy, that the Persons here spoken of might have had such a taste (viz.) of terror, as Felix had, if they had fallen away, but not if they had not: It is a wonder to me, he should forget that Felix himself was so far from having fallen away, that he did but now begin to stand. I mean, this terror was the first effect of common con­victions in him, and often separated from any Grace at all. And 'tis much to me he should be ignorant, that some degree of trembling at the Word is made a Character of a godly Person, Isa. 66.2.] We proceeded to the tast of the good Word of God; for instance whereof, I alledged [Page 12] Matth. 13.20, 21. Mark 6.20. Luke 14.15 Of which places, which I onely named, that we might discuss them: Mr. Ives took notice onely of the last, whence I observed, That he was transported with joy at the Narration which Christ made of the happiness of the future State, who was a Pharisee, and to whom particularly Christ directed that Para­ble; The scope whereof is to shew, That they who were call'd outwardly to the parti­cipation of the benefits of the Gospel, miss'd of them, for want of a through compliance with that Call.

To this Mr. Ives Replyed, That they that were bidden did not taste of the Supper. And I rejoyned, that the not tasting, verse 27. is consistent with the taste, which those words, verse 15. do import. For the former intends a missing of the benefits offer'd in the Gos­pel; the latter, some flashy joys in the appre­hension of a possible benefit. And the man­ner of Christ's Speech seems to be a tacite ex­probration of him, like that, Luke 11.27, 28. [These Passages Mr. Ives hath omitted.]

Mr. Ives proceeded thus,

Arg. 4. They are true Believers that have clean escaped the Pollutions of the World, through the knowledge of Christ: But some such may fall away totally and finally, Ergo [Page 13]some true Believers may fall away totally and finally. To which I answered, That his Argument was not right in form; for he put the Subject of the Question into the major, and the Predicate into the minor. His Argument ought to run thus, They that have escaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. may fall away, &c. They that have escaped the Pol­lutions of the World, &c. are true Believers. Ergo some true Believers may fall away total­ly and finally. [I add, that if his major and minor being indefinite Propositions, are par­ticular; then the Syllogism is false, according to the old Rule, Syllogizari non est ex particulari.]

If they be universal, then by a simple con­version of the minor, (the terms being con­vertible according to his sense) from those premises may an universal Affirmative be rightly deduced (which he all along declin'd), thus the Argument stands in the first Figure, All that have escaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. may fall away, &c. All true Be­lievers have escaped the Pollutions of the World, &c. Ergo all true Believers may fall away, &c.

At length, not knowing how to mend the form, though I directed him, he put his Syllogism into an Hypoth. form; If those that have clean escaped the Pollutions, [Page 14] &c. (as before) may fall away, then true Believers may fall away: But such may, Ergo true Believers may. I denyed the conse­quence, because to escape the Pollutions, &c. is not a Description onely of true Believers: Mr. Ives attempted to prove it, because that quality [ qualification, I suppose, he would have said] is applicable to none but true Believers; which being denyed, he proved thus; If that quality be applicable to any but true Believers, then either to Hypocrites, or prophane Persons; But to neither, Ergo—

To his minor, I answered, That it was ap­plicable to Hypocrites: Against which An­swer, Mr. Ives urged, That if so, then an Hypocrite may be free from the Pollutions of the World, in the midst of his Hypocrisie; which I granted, in the sense of the Text un­der debate, 2 Pet. 2.20. Then he urged, that if so, Hypocrisie is not a Pollution of the World: I denyed the Connexion, because 'tis meant but of gross Pollutions, that these persons had escaped: And that the terms be­ing indefinite, [and in materia contingenti, which Clause Mr. Ives hath left out, as not understanding it, I know,] they were but particular, not of all, but some Pollutions, which a person may be free from, whilst he is tainted with others. Then Mr. Ives call'd [Page 15]for a Greek Testament, to see what the Greek word is, that is rendred clean, 2 Pet. 2.18. [Note, though it be no matter of moment, but to shew the fidelity of Mr. Ive's Report. Mr. Ives sayes, a Friend of mine pull'd out a Greek Testament, and read the word [...], and rendred it as he had done before really, or truly; whereas upon Mr. Ives calling for a Greek Testament, and my Friend, an ingenious young Schollar, Mr. Glascock tendring it me, I said, it needed not, for I remembred the word, and its signification.] Then Mr. Ives call'd for an instance, I gave him that of the Pharisees, Luke 18.11, 12. Matth. 23.25, &c. To which he answer'd, That they that were neither just, merciful nor faithful, were not free from the gross Pollutions of the World. To which I Replyed, That what ever they did contrary to the Laws of Mercy, Justice, &c. they did with such cunning, that it did not appear to the World. For it could not be imagin'd, that Christ should affirm, that those persons were outwardly righteous, as he does Matth. 23.28. who were openly and visibly guilty of such Miscarriages.

Mr. Ives Replyed, That those men, 2 Pet. 2.20. had escaped from those that lived in Error; and how could that be, if they lived in the greatest Error, (viz.) Hypocrisie. I [Page 16]rejoyned, that they could not at the same be guilty of Hypocrisie, and yet free from it; but they might be intangled in Hypocrisie, and yet freed from external gross sins. Again, that 'tis not said, they were clean escaped from Error, but from them that lived in Error, i. e. changed their Company, or sorted with Be­lievers, which they might do, and yet re­main Hypocrites. Mr. Ives demanded, how then their latter end could be worse then their be­ginning. I answer'd, Because open Sins do openly dishonor Christianity; whence Atha­nasius wished, Ʋtinam omnes essent Hypocritae, Would to God all men were Hypocrites. [This passage, with some others immediately before, Mr. Ives hath omitted.] As to Mr. Ive's additional Note, that Hypocrites cannot be in a worse condition, by appearing openly prophane. I Answer, They may, not only because of the open dishonour done to Religion, but because also their profaneness is a Sin against Know­ledge, and so adds weight to their Chains, and heats their Furnace hotter. See James 4.17. Luke 12.47. For though Hypocrisie singly may be worse then profaneness in some respects, yet the profaneness of an Hypocrite is the worst profaneness. At length, I gave Paul for an instance, of one that had escaped the Pollutions of the World, whilst yet he [Page 17]was an Hypocrite (viz.) before he was con­verted. About which many words were spent; the sum was, that either he was a true Believer, or Profane, or an Hypocrite: Not the first, for we suppose him unconverted; nor the second, as appears Acts 26.5. Ergo the third, [all which Mr. Ives omits] which I proved from the Character given of the Body of the Jews, Rom. 9.31, 32. and ac­knowledged by himself, as agreeing to him, Phil. 3.7. (viz.) that they mixed their own Righteousness with the Messiah's, whom, as to come, they professed to believe in. And to what Mr. Ives Objected, That Paul sayes, He did what he did with an honest mind, be­fore his Conversion, and so was no Hypocrite. I answer'd, There might be a moral integrity in an unconverted person, alledging, Gen. 20.5, 6. Abimelech, an Heathen, and distinguish­ed of Hypocrites; that though all agree in having an appearance of that Grace which they want, yet some design to appear what they neither are, nor care to be; others are mistaken in themselves, and make account they are what they are not, for which latter I quoted James 1.22, 26. And of this latter sort was Paul.

Arg. 5. And last, was this, grounded on 1 Cor. 9.27. what Paul used all diligence to prevent the coming to pass of, might possibly come to pass: But Paul used all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally, Ergo his falling away totally and finally was possible to come to pass. I answer'd to his major, that which is possible in its own na­ture, there being a real hazzard in the nature of the thing, may yet become impossible as to the event, by something intervening. To which he Replyed nothing, but asked me, whether Paul knew this event impossible? I affirmed it, whereupon he urged, that then it was in vain for him to keep himself out of the danger. And I Replyed, That it was not in vain, because God hath in his Decree joyn­ed the end and means, and the Command of God is obeyed, which sure is a good end proposed by us in the use of means, though we might suppose the benefit obtainable with­out that use. To confirm the former branch of my Answer, I instanced in Gods Promise, of lengthening out Hezekiahs life fifteen years, Isa. 38.5. and yet obliging him to use a Plai­ster of Figs to cure his Boyl, verse 25. A wor­thy Minister Mr. Luffe, who now and then (as Mr. Ives sayes) interposed, to discover his absurd method of arguing, alledged that [Page 19]other instance of Paul, Acts 27.22, 31. And whereas Mr. Ives supposes Mr. Luffes Answer to his Question, what if they had leapt over­board? (viz.) that then they had been drowned, a granting of what was contended for; the contrary is evident, by what is said above. We concluded all, with another in­tepretation of the word [...], rendred in our Translations a cast away; which signi­fies also disapproved, or blame-worthy, for not practising his own Doctrine. Here Mr. Ives kept a great pudder, that either my first in­terpretation of being a cast-away [which yet I did not so interpret, but conceded his interpretation of it, as not hurting our Cause,] was true or false; if true, why did I not keep to it? if false, why did I alledge it? And makes an additional Note, that by this inter­pretation, I grant his major. To his Questi­on, I answered, That I conceded the first in­terpretation, because our English Translation was defensible. And yet I alledged the lat­ter, as being warranted by the Greek, and taking off any Argument from thence by his Party. And to his additional Note, I Answer, That if I had at first interpreted the Greek word disapproved, or blame-worthy; then I would not have denyed his major, what Paul used all diligence to prevent, might come to [Page 20]pass, but his minor, (viz.) But Paul used all diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally. I should have said, that accord­ing to the line of this interpretation, Paul used diligence to walk so, as not to displease God, nor be a shame to that Gospel, of which he was not ashamed. What Mr. Ives hath got by this Note, he may put in his Eyes, and see ne­ver the worse. [End of the first Conference.]

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

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

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

To oppose his Examples, I argued thus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. As to the matter of it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To this the Arminians say,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prove the Consequence thus.

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

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

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

The minor is proved thus:

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

The major I prove thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which place many Exceptions are made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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