just man as they interpret it the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they charge Beza and others that wrote in Latine and our English Translations with unfaithfulness Answ 1. In some of our English Bibles the words any man are put into a small Letter to note they are not in the Text. In the Translation before King James now in use the word any without man is put in a smaller Letter as in an Edition in Quarto printed by Barker A. D. 1603. And Piscater puts quis in a Distinguishing Character Edit Herb. Nass 1613. And so does Beza in all the Editions of his Versions that I have met with which shews plainly they intended not to deceive Calvin renders it to their mind Si subductus fuerit If he shall be withdrawn or drawn back though he understands the meaning of the Apostle otherwise then the Arminians do 2. There must be a supply of quis or any man For 1. How can the just draw back if he lives by Faith I am sure Christ sayes That he that eats him which surely every Believer does shall live for ever John 6.51 58. 2. If it be meant of the same person then we may understand it of a partial and temporary drawing back which displeases God as 't is said of Davids Murther and Adultery 2 Sam. 11. ult 3. The Apostles confidence of the not drawing back and salvation of some that believe verse last Though it was grounded but upon Charity as to particular Persons yet it plainly intimates a difference between Faith and Faith or otherwise he had no ground for his confidence of any Believer at all We now proceed to the Instances which the Arminians give us of those Persons that did fall away totally or finally one or both from true Grace Their first instance is of David Arg. True Believers when they commit Adultery Murther against the light of Conscience with deliberation and continue therein without Repentance cease to be true Believers But so did David Ergo he ceased to be a true Believer Answ There is an ambiguity in the terms of the major which therefore must first be removed and as 't is phrased we deny it and answer to the minor with distinction 1. For committing those Sins against the light of Conscience we distinguish of an habitual and actual light of Conscience 'T is a Rule in moral Philosophy Omnis incontinens peccat ignorans i. e. Every incontinent person sins ignorantly because that general knowledge he hath of evil he cannot apply to the present resistance of temptation inward Lusts like a Cloud or Mist darkning his understanding for the present Thus we grant the former but deny the latter of David 2. As to smning with deliberation we distinguish between a Calm and perfect or a disturbed and imperfect deliberation The former we deny but the latter we grant of David For we have proved before under the first Argument against Believers Apostacy that no Believer sins with full consent of will and therefore not with a calm and perfect deliberation for the former presupposes this latter And we may retort the Arminians own concession upon them which is That the holy Spirit is not lost till after the Commission of heinous Sins Now where the holy Spirit is it lusts against the Flesh Gal. 5.17 And consequently the true Believer cannot sin with full consent whilst the holy Spirit is in him that is whilst he is a true Believer 3. As to the continuance in sin without Repentance we distinguish between an habitual and actual Repentance and again between the want of actual Repentance for a time and for ever after the Fact committed Whilst David wanted an actual Repentance it appears not that he wanted an habitual Repentance David might have such a disposition of Soul at that time which at other times he words after this manner Cleanse thou me from secret faults Psal 19.12 Let them that deny it make proof of their denial but to save them the trouble I will evince the Affirmative by and by Again it is not evident from Scripture that actual Repentance must immediately follow the sin committed or for default thereof Grace totally lost I understand not why the Believer as well as the man may not suffer a deliquium or failure of the more ordinary sensible operations of life and yet retain the principle of life There are also two Arguments drawn from the nature of the sins David was guilty of for the proof of his total Apostacy 1. For his Adultery David by his Adultery was made a member of an Harlot Ergo he was no longer a Member of Christ The Antecedent is proved from 1 Cor. 6.15 16. Answ We deny the Connexion For as in the Conjugal state Adultery does make void the Marriage-Covenant de jure or merito not de facto but the injured Party may continue the band without guilt of Adultery So though Christ might justifie a Divorce yet it appears not that he will sue out one against any Believer that is guilty of bodily Adultery 2. Another Argument of the Arminians is drawn from Davids Murther No Murtherer hath eternal life abiding in him David was a Murtherer Ergo he had not eternal life abiding in him The major proved by the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.15 The minor they take for granted Answ We deny the minor David was not a Murtherer that denomination could not be given him from a single Act and afterwards repented of any more then the denomination of a wicked man to a true Believer because of the Sins he is guilty of Another Argument of the Arminians against Davids perseverance is drawn from his Prayer Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51.10 Whence they infer That he had lost a clean Heart and right Spirit totally Answ This as generally what the Arminians urge on the Point before us is a pittyfull fallacy which every freshman in the School is acquainted with à Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter They might as well infer from the Evangelists phrase For the Holy Ghost was not yet given John 7.39 That therefore David never had him at all All know that in nature that species of motion call'd Alteratio which is a change made in a Subject as to quality may be either quoad speciem or gradum As water quite cold may become lukewarm or seething hot And here David might well express himself so emphatically because of the late extraordinary defilement he had contracted and the quick sence he had of it at this time To close up the Discourse of this instance I shall offer two Arguments to prove that David did not wholly fall from Grace One from Psalm 51. Take not the holy Spirit from me verse 11. His deprecation of the taking away the holy Spirit does plainly imply a gradual presence of it For that could not be taken from him which he had not The other from Psalm
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 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 't is 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 Vtinam 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 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 other instance of Paul Acts 27.22 31. And whereas Mr. Ives supposes Mr. Luffes Answer to his Question what if they had leapt over-board 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 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 HAving finished my Answer to Mr. Ive's Arguments for the Saints falling away totally and finally from Grace I shall add other Arguments which the Arminians urge for the confirmation thereof The first Scripture I shall reply to is Ezek. 18.24 25. But when the Righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity and doth according to all the abominatious that the wicked man doth shall he live c. To which place we except in general Exc. 1. That the righteous man here spoken of is not a truly righteous man or true Believer nor does what they produce for proof obtain its end 1. That he is opposed to a wicked man Reply So is the Righteous to Sinners Math. 9.13 I am not come sayes Christ to call the Righteous but
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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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.
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
of God are made to all true Believers But such is this Ergo It is made to 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 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 Tar-barrel 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 Vt 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 iâ— the Fear of God This second Branch oâ— Mr. Ives's Answer was brought in by somâ— impertinent words of his in the midst of ouâ— Discourse about the Persons to whom the Promise was made supposing it such but so order sake I have transposed it hither Sâ—his Book pag. 133. The second Promise 〈◊〉 Perseverance I alledged was John 10 2â— 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 Vniversal whereas an Indefinite Proposition may be either Particular or Vniversal 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 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 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