Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A36522
|
Klētoi tetērēmēnoi, or, The Saints perseverance asserted in its positive grounds and vindicated from all material exceptions against it occasioned by a late immodest account of two conferences upon that point, between Tho. Danson and Mr. Jer. Ives, published by the said Mr. Ives, which account is also herein rectified, and its falshood detected to the just shame of the publisher / by Tho. Danson.
|
Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.
|
1672
(1672)
|
Wing D214; ESTC R24868
|
39,229
|
95
|
18.21 I have not wickedly departed from my God Whence I urge an Argument in form He that had never wickedly departed from God had never fallen away totally from Grace But David had never wickedly departed from God Ergo David had never fallen away totally from Grace The major I presume they deny not The minor I suppose will not down with them because they may imagine that this was spoken before his total Apostacy But to me 't is evident That David speaks this of himself after the supposed time of his total Apostacy For it was spoken after God had delivered him from the hands of all his Enemies as appears by the Title of the Psalm and he takes notice particularly of Gods delivering him from the strivings of his People i. e. his own Subjects verse 43. which evidently relates to the Rebellion of Absolom and Sheba which were after and a punishment of those Sins of David by which the Arminians pretend he fell away totally from Grace as any one may inform himself that will compare 2 Sam. Chap. 11.12 and Chap. 12.10 with Chap. 15 c. and the 20th And when those Sins were committed David was in actual contest with his Enemies 2 Sam. 11.1 2 c. And if in any sin David had wickedly departed from God we may judge in that by the black brand which the Holy Ghost sets upon that 1 Kings 15.5 Another instance is of Solomon from whose Idolatry and other Sins they infer his total Apostacy and final too and so consequently his Damnation 1 Kings 11. Answ 1. As to his Idolatry not every degree of that sin argues a defection from true Grace as is evident by Exod. 32.5 25. in the instance of Aaron and 1 Cor. 10.20 21 22. And as for Polygamy Custom had so blinded mens eyes that few saw the evil of it Answ 2. There 's no Sin except that against the Holy Ghost which a Child of God may not be guilty of because the body of Sin is not dead though deadly wounded but like a sick man ever and anon giving ground for a belief that his recovery is possible But that he was not a total Apostate or ceased to be a Believer We argue thus 1. In that all the Writers of the Holy Scripture are simply affirmed to be holy Men of God 2 Pet. 1.21 whereof Solomon was one 2. Because he is said to be loved of God 2 Sam. 12.24 Now the love of God is everlasting John 13.1 That Solomon was not a final Apostate we prove thus 1. In that he repented of his Miscarriages as appears by the Title The Penitent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which word and thing the learned may find useful Observations amass'd by Mr. Pool in his Synopsis Crit. Comm. in Eccles 1. Given to Ecclesiastes as our Translation calls it and particularly of giving himself to Women Chap. 7.26 under which and that phrase of Inventions verse ult he seems to include his Idolatry which for ought appears to me was not by personal worship but by connivance at or at most allowance of Temples for his Wives Idolatrous Worship 1 Kings 11.7 8. 2. From his being joyned with David as a President for Rehoboams walking 2 Chron. 12.17 Many other Arguments Pro and Con might be produced but it is not necessary these have much more probability then the Scriptures silence of his Repentance which is the Arminians main Argument No Scriptures mention Noahs Lots c. Repentance of those heinous Sins Gen. 9. 19. yet none doubt or have ground at least of their Repentance A third instance is given in Peter whom though Bellarmin speaks favourably of as to total Apostacy De Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 8. Perdidit confessionem Fidei non ipsam fidem Yet the Lutherans Hinckelman Hunnius c. give him for another instance of true Believers falling totally from Grace Their first Argument is drawn from the nature of his Sin viz. a denial of Christ He that denies Christ before Men shall be denied by Christ before the Father which proposition is contained Matth. 10.33 But so did Peter Ergo he shall be denied by Christ Answ 1. In general this Argument if it were wholly granted them proves his final Apostacy which themselves deny as we shall find in their next Argument 2. We Answer The proposition is to be understood of a final denial of Christ and then we deny the minor for Peter quickly repented of his denial Matth. 26. ult To inforce their major the Arminians urge The denial of Christ was an Heresie and therefore puts the Denyer into a state of Damnation Answ We distinguish of Heresie 't is considered either materially or formally To the latter pertinacy or obstinacy is a necessary ingredient which Peter's speedy Repentance assures us he was not guilty of The Arminians second Argument is this He that was to be converted anew to the Faith had lost the Faith he had But Peter was to be converted anew to the Faith Ergo he had lost the Faith he had The minor is proved by Luke 22.32 Answ We distinguish in the minor between a specifical and a gradual Conversion A recovery from prevailing Sin is call'd Conversion Matth. 18.3 which is spoken of adding to all their other Graces that of Humility for they were converted before And the reason of this denomination is because The increase of Grace is by adding a new degree of Grace as in making Candles when a Candle is put anew into the fat of boyled Tallow every time it is put in it comes out bigger And this is done by a new act of Creation put forth by God c. To borrow the Reason and apt Similitude for the illustration of it of that most excellent Divine Dr. Tho. Goodwin Trial of Christian growth pag. 165. But that Peter did not fall away totally is evident from Christ's Prayer Luke 22.32 which that it is always answered hath been proved which must be meant either not at all which the event assures us was not Christ's meaning or not totally or finally which last the words will not bear A fourth Instance is of the Galatians ch 5.4 whence they argue thus The Galatians â—ell from Grace The Galatians were true Believers Ergo True Believers have fallen from Grace Answ 1. If the major or minor being indefinite be equivalent to an Universal we deny â—hem both 2. To the major we say That by falling from Grace is not meant falling from true inherent Grace but the Doctrine of Grace or the truth of the Gospel which teaches Justification by Grace through Faith not by Works as seemes evident by comparing the Phrase elsewhere opposed to another Gopel which supposes Grace to be one Gospel Gal. 1.6 A fifth of Hymeneus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1.19 20. whence they argue They that have put away Faith and a good Conscience are totally and finally fallen away from Grace But so had Hymeneus and Alexander Ergo They were fallen away Answ We distinguish in the minor of Faith and a God Conscience There is a feigned Faith as the Apostles denomination Faith unfeigned v. 5. imports And there is a Conscience morally
good Abimelech an Heathen gives testimony to the integrity of his own heart Gen. 20.5 and God himself confirms it v. 6. Yet integrity or uprightness of heart is the usual description of a godly man Psal 11.2 All that is worth the transcribing which the Arminians urge to confirm their minor is this That which Timothy was exhorted to hold or keep Hymeneus and Alexander had lost But that was a true Faith and truly good Conscience Ergo Hymeneus and Alexander had lost such a Faith and Conscience Answ We grant the whole without prejudice to our cause limiting the major to that which was visible for so Hymeneus and Alexander had lost what Timothy was exhorted to keep as appears by their blasphemy ver last which was a visible casting off their profession The last Example of Demas 2 Tim. 4.10 if put into form runs thus Some love of the World is inconsistent with true Faith Some love of the World was in Demas Ergo Demas's love to the World was inconsistent with true Faith An evidently infirm Ratiocination Vid. Ames Antisyn de Persever Sanct. c. 9. The Arminians Argument from the absurdities following from our Thesis is this in general That it renders Exhortations Threatnings Promises useless I answer The first are not useless Phil. 2.12 13. For the assurance of so powerful an Assistance is the greatest spur to endeavour The Arminians might with as much reason say It is to no purpose to hoise up the Sails when God sends a fair Wind. Nor the second For 1. All true Believers know not their own safety 2. God hath joyned the use of means and end together by an immutable Decree so that if we could suppose a true Believer to give over in his race he would certainly miss of his Crown Nor the third For the spirit of a Christian being an ingenuous spirit the assurance of his happiness is the greatest bond of gratitude and obedience Much more I might say but this is enough THE Second Conference HEre Mr. Ives first read out of a Paper a kind of Explication of the Terms wherein he dealt like himself disingenuously and ignorantly The former in that he would understand the Term Grace of the Favour of God which none of us do and his former Arguments shew he took it not so himself but for the Grace of God in us the effect of the Grace or Favour of God The latter in the explication of the word impossible as opposed to such as either have may might or can fall away For impossible is opposed to possible and he ought to have distinguished between that which is simply impossible and that which is so in a certain respect according to my Answer when I was Respondent and have told us That he held it simply or absolutely possible for true Believers to lose their Grace totally and finally And in the prosecution of the Debate I first offered to retort his own Arguments 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 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