minor which therefore he attempted to confirm thus If the Nature of the Holy Ghost be a Divine Nature then they that partake of the Holy Ghost partake of the Divine Nature But the former is true Ergo the latter I denyed his consequence As for his additional Note that to deny this consequence is As much as if a man should say The Wisdom that is from above is a Divine Wisdome and yet say That he that partakes of the Wisdom which is from above doth not partake of the Divine Wisdom I answer There 's not par ratio for that phrase of Wisdom from above and Divine Wisdom note the same thing viz. the Original or Descent of Wisdom Whereas partaking of the Holy Ghost notes common Gifts or Graces partaking of the Divine Nature special Grace in the places under debate Mr. Ives would prove his Consequence Because they that partake of the Holy Ghost partake of nothing else but what is the Divine Nature Which I denyed and told him That that phrase noted the common Gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is the Author Heb. 6.3 or the extraordiary Gifts as Tongues c. for which I quoted Acts 2.4 and Chap. 19.6 Then he proved his minor thus Because the partaking of the Holy Ghost and of the Divine Nature is one and the same thing which I denyed for though the receiving of the Holy Ghost as to its Gifts and Graces may be found in the same Subject yet they are not terms of the same import nor are the Gifts and Graces the same thing any more then Logick and the Mathematicks are the same Art or Science though found in the same Person or that Bezaleel and Aholiabs skill in Workmanship of Gold c. And the Graces of the Spirit Faith Love c. are the same thing because ascribed to the Holy Ghost as their efficient Here Mr. Ives multiplyed words to no purpose as if any one would satisfie himself he may find pag. 15. of his Book and at length denyed what he had often affirmed viz. that partaking of Gifts and Graces were the same thing but pretended that they were one participation i. e. Effects of the same efficient as I understand his meaning which I granted and no Body denies At length he urged this Argument If the Holy Ghost in its extraordinary Gifts be promised to none but those that have the ordinary Gifts and Graces of it then none can partake of the Holy Ghost in the greater that doth not partake of him in the less But the former is true Ergo the latter To the minor I answered That strictly there was no promise of them at all but a Prediction 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 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 Believers are inlightned c. then all that are inlightned are true Believers which is as bad an argument as this in allusion to Mr. Ives former and present Trade All the Box-Makers and Cheese-Mongers in the City of London are Freemen Ergo all the Freemen in in the City of London are Box-Makers and Cheese-Mongers Mr. Ives proceeded to prove his consequence If all those Characters be appliable to none but true Believers then the consequence follows But they are appliable to none but true Believers Ergo I denied his minor and demanded a proof which he gave thus If the Scripture applies those Characters to none but true Believers then my minor is true But the Scripture applies them to none but true Believers Ergo To which I answer'd by denying his consequence for it follows not that they are not applicable to any others because they are not actually applied which Answer Mr. Ives hath omitted and by denying the minor whereupon he urged for an instance of one place of Scripture where all these Characters are given to one person in terminis or in the very same terms To which I Replied That the term believing frequently applied to Persons not true Believers includes all the Characters here mentioned and that I could shew him by parts where they are applied to those that were not true Believers Mr. Ives answered That would not do because he that hath one Vertue may be no true Believer I Replyed Not as he reports my words nonsensically I take Persons that are extraordinarily indowed from above But thus That I speak not of vertuous Persons or morally good but of those that are indued with Grace from above After a deal of Contest I instanced in the term inlightned and shewed That the thing intended by it is in another term viz. believing or knowing applyed to those that are not true Believers John 17.21 23. viz. to the World in this place opposed to true Believers Christ prays for the Conversion of those that were given to him and speaks of the Conviction of the World as an end that might be obtained thereby I urged also John 1.9 Whence I urged that that universal Light could not import a spiritual illumination The Contradiction he would fasten upon me to what I have argued from that Text against the Quakers pag. 36. Of my Quakers Folly is so trivial as that it deserves a Smile rather then an Answer Let them judge that can by comparing that passage with pag. 43. and 44 45. of Mr. Ives Book I also urged 1 John 5.1 compar'd with Luke 4.41 In the latter whereof the Devils are said to know that great Doctrine That Jesus is the Christ which
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 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 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 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 't is 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 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
and their Bulk the reading of them by private Christians for whose use I intend this Discourse I have not given a particular account of all that was discoursed but onely of what was Argumentative nor indeed hath Mr. Ives as may easily be judged by the bulk of his Book compar'd with the time spent in the Conferences which was no less then three Hours and an half in the first and four Hours and an half in the second but instead thereof hath with the Bear licked his Cubs into a better shape then they had at their Birth And I therefore forbear it because I judge the World is not like to be a jot the wiser for the knowledge of it unless the sight of rudeness and impertinency in their natural deformity may deter men from such unmanly Vices But I have given a true account of all the more material Exceptions against the Saints Perseverance and added divers Arguments for the proof of it which I had intended to have urged had not I been prevented I have also taken notice of the Appendix and vindicated our Doctrine from the charge of Novelty and Antinomianism To conclude Thou who art a true Believer canst not chuse but value the Truth here contended for and esteem it a rich Cordial to be assur'd that though thou mayest lose Florem yet thou canst not lose Radicem i. e. the Flower not the Root the sense of Grace not Grace it self the Act not the Power When once thou art a Member of Christ there may be a benuming that may binder the influence of Blood and Spirits but so as it shall never be gangren'd it shall never die again There may be a Cloud on you but the Sun shall never set on you to borrow the words of that solid practical Divine Dr. Preston Of New Creature Serm. 5. pag. 423. What a woeful case must thou needs be in if God were onely ingaged not to throw thee down but not to hold thee up The instances of Man's and Angels defection are too fresh in memory to be denyed and an argument irrefragable to evince the possibility of a true Believers Apostacy if God should be but a Spectator and not interess himself as a party in the quarrel between him and his spiritual Adversaries Bless God therefore for the immutable Purposes and Promises of being the finisher of that Faith whereof he hath been the Author And if thou reapest any benefit by this Discourse recompence his pains by thy Prayers who accounts it his Honour to be April 15. 1672. An Helper of thy joy Tho. Danson BEing met Mr. Ives proposed the Question in these words Whether the Doctrine of some true Believers falling away totally and finally be true I answered in the Negative Mr. Ives offered to prove it thus Arg. 1. If the Doctrine of the impossibily of any true Believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be false then the Doctrine of the possibility of some true Believers falling away totally and finally is true but the former is false Ergo the latter is true I denyed the minor which he endeavoured to prove thus If the Doctrine of the impossibility of any true Believers falling away c. be true then it ought to be believed But it ought not to be believed Ergo it is not true I denyed the minor which Mr. Ives went about to prove thus Whatsoever sins any are commanded not to do and cautioned to fear the doing of they ought not to believe is impossible to be done But falling away totally and finally is a sin that true Believers are commanded not to do and are cautioned to fear the doing of Ergo true Believers ought not to believe that it is impossible for them to fall away totally and finally To which I Answer That many things might be objected against the major and conclusion as that true Believers was not in the minor denyed which he put now into his conclusion And in his major I told him That we distinguished of impossibility simple and absolute and ex hypothesi or supposition of some other thing intervening And that what we are cautioned to fear the doing of may be impossible to be done by reason of the Divine Decree or Promise though otherwise possible c. All this Mr. Ives left out in his account of the Conference and relates only my denial of the major Many other things I might object but I forbear because I would not seem to cavil at small Faults Mr. Ives proceeded to prove the major thus If the Scripture no where commands the not doing nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done then my major is true But the Scripture no where commands the not doing nor cautions us to fear the doing of that which is impossible to be done Ergo my major is true I denyed his minor after I had first repeated it Mr. Ives said It was an universal Negative and therefore could not be proved I Replyed That it was a mistake in him so to think And since our debate it came into my mind that Mr. Ives having 't is like been sometime or other on a Jury and observing that a negative Testimony in matter of Fact is not admitted but in unusual cases against the Affidavit apprehends there is the like reason of negative Proposition But however I gave him at his desire an instance in the sin against the Holy Ghost which is impossible to be done by some to whom the Command and Caution is given viz. to true Believers To which Mr. Ives Replyed We are past that now for we are out of the term True Believers and read over his Argument again out of his Note-Book which it is to no purpose for me to repeat The Reader may view them I appeal to any person of understanding whether it was not proper for me to the instance of the sin to subjoyn an instance of some persons to whom it was impossible to be done or committed Mr. Ives second Argument was this Arg. 2. If those that are partakers of the Divine Nature may fall away totally and finally then some true Believers may fall away totally and finally from Grace But the former is true Ergo the latter I denyed the minor that they who partake of the Divine Nature may fall away supposing I told him that he took the phrase in the sense of the Apostle 2 Pet. 1.5 To prove which he argued thus If they that are partakers of the Holy Ghost may fall away totally and finally then they that are partakers of the Divine Nature may so fall away But the former is true Ergo the latter I again denyed his consequence which he assayed to confirm thus If to partake of the Holy Ghost be to partake of the Divine Nature then it follows That if he that is partaker of the Holy Ghost may fall away he that partakes of the Divine Nature may fall away But the first is true Ergo I denyed his