The People being Assembled after an account given of the occasion of the meeting. This Question was propounded by Mr. Ives.

WHether the Doctrine of some True believers, falling away totally and finally, be True or No?

It is false.

I shall then prove it true, as far as God shall enable me.

Major, If the Doctrine of the imposibi­lity of any true believers falling away to­tally and finally from Grace be false; then [Page 2]the doctrine of the possibility of some True believers falling away totally and finally is true.

Minor. But the Doctrine of the Impos­sibility of any True believers falling away finally and totally is false.

Ergo, The Doctrine of the possibility of some True believers falling away totally and finally, is true.

I deny the minor. That the doctrine of the impossibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace, is not true.

I prove the minor. If the doctrine of the impossibility of any True believers falling away totally and finally from Grace be true, then it ought to be believed;

But it ought not to be believed.

Ergo, It is not true.

I deny the minor. Prove it ought not to be believed; but we shall intangle our selves [...] know not how, by this way of disputing hypothetically.

You shall not teach me how to weild my sword.

Hypothetical syllogisms ought never to be allowed, except it cannot be put into a Cate­gorical.

Hypothetical syllogisms were allways al­lowed, as well as Categorical: but that's not the Question.

Go on, take your course;

Sir, I shall not tye you up when you come to be opponent, I shall use Categorical Syl­logisms by and by. My minor proposition is this. That the doctrine of True believers final and total falling away, ought not to be believed; I prove it by this Categorical syl­logism.

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.

I deny the major. Prove it.

You deny this, that we may be cautioned to avoid that, which notwithstanding it is impossible to be done. Then I will prove my major.

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 what is impossible to be done.

Ergo, My major is true.

I deny the minor. That the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of what is impossible to be done.

It is an universal negative, pray therefore give an Instance where it doth.

The Scripture doth, for the sin against the Holy-Ghost, is a sin that is impossible to be done by some true believers.

We are past that now, for here's the ar­gument; if the Scripture no where com­mands [Page 5]the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is possible to be done (for we are out of the term True believers) the impossibility as to some persons, that is not at all to the purpose, for you are too late for that, and I will shew you that you are; because you should have di­stinguished at the prosyllogism; For I am to prove my major proposition, and this is a distinguishing on the syllogism before that; and therefore it is too late to bring it now. The major prosyllogism was this, whatso­ever sins any are commanded not to do, or cautioned to fear the doing of (it was Ge­neral and Categorical) they ought not to believe it is impossible to be done; but fall­ing away totally and finally, is a sin that True believers are commanded not to do, and 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.

Now you denyed the major, now the ma­jor of this argument, was the medium of my prosyllogism; and the medium of that, was grounded upon this: that nothing is com­manded to be avoided, or cautioned to be avoided; but that which is possible to be done.

I denyed it.

I proved it thus, if the Scripture no where commands the not doing, nor cautions us to fear the doing of any thing but what is pos­sible 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 any thing, but what is possible to be done. Ergo,

I denyed it.

This was a general negation, pray there­fore give an instance (you say no True be­lievers can fall away, and I say some True believers may) It is possibly True, and may be allowed (and it is an opinion received by many worthy persons) that some True be­lievers can never fall away. I am only to prove that some true believers may; and for you to prove that some True believers cannot commit the sin against the Holy-Ghost, I may grant it you, without any hurt to my present argument; whatever my opinion is in that matter, so that my argument stands good and unanswered.

I go now to another argument, which is this.

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;

But those that are partakers of the divine nature, may fall away totally and finally.

Ergo, Some True believers may fall a­way totally and finally.

My argument is grounded upon the 2 Pet. 4. where the Apostle informs the true be­lievers, that they were made partakers of the divine nature, by Gods great and precious pro­mises; that by them, they might be made par­takers of the divine nature, having escaped the pollutions that were in the world through Lust. Now those that had so escaped these pollutions might fall away, see Chap. 2.20. and compare it with Heb. 10.29. Where such persons are said to tread under foot the Son of God; and count the Blood of the Covenant, wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing.

I deny the minor, that those that are par­takers of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally.

That I will prove, if they that are par­takers of the Holy Ghost may fall away to­tally and finally, then they that are partakers [Page 8]of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally;

But they that are partakers of the Holy Ghost, may fall away totally and finally.

Ergo, They that are partakers of the di­vine nature, may fall away totally and finally.

I Deny your Consequence, it doth not fol­low, that because those that partake of the Holy Ghost may fall away, that therefore those that partake of the divine nature may fall away.

I will prove, that 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 totally and finally, he that partakes of the divine nature may fall away totally and finally: But the first is true. Ergo;

That is true; therefore I deny the minor; for to partake of the Holy-Ghost, and to partake of the Divine nature, are not the same thing.

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 nature of the holy Ghost, is a di­vine nature.

Ergo, Those that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of the Divine nature.

I deny your consequence, that though the Holy-Ghost be a Divine-nature, it doth not therefore follow, that therefore he that par­takes of the Holy-Ghost, partakes of the Divine-Nature.

As much as if a man should say, the wis­dome that is from above is a Divine wisdom, and yet say, that he that partakes of the wis­dome which is from above, doth not partake of the Divine wisdome; for Mr. Danson tells us, that though the Holy-Ghost be a Divine na­ture, yet a man may partake of the Holy-Ghost, and not partake of the Divine nature. But to proceed.

If they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing else but what is the Di­vine-nature; then they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing but the Divine-nature.

But they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of nothing else but what is the Di­vine nature.

Ergo, I mean by partaking of nothing else; that, in thse participations of the gifts and graces of the Holy-Ghost that any are made partakesof, they partake of nothing else but [Page 10]the gifts and graces of the Divine-nature; for in no other sense is the Divine-nature, or the Holy-Ghost communicable, as a learned Gen­tleman at that time explained it.

I deny the minor.

This is that that you deny, that they that partake of the Holy-Ghost, partake of no­thing but the Divine-nature; give me an instance in what, becuase it is a universal nega­tive.

They partake of the gifts of the Holy-Ghost.

Where is that called a partaking of the Holy-Ghost, as distinguisht from the parti­cipation of the Divine-nature?

It is frequently called the gifts of the Holy-Ghost, Acts chap. 1. and chap 19. and He said unto them, have ye received the Holy-Ghost since ye believed? and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy-Ghost. And when Paul had laid his hands on them; the Holy-Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. And therefore the Holy-Ghost, given there in those extraordinary gifts is [Page 11]nothing to you; for they that partake of the holy Ghost do not therefore necessarily partake of the divine Nature.

I say if the partaking and receiving of the holy Ghost, be a receiving nothing else but the divine Nature, then my former Argu­ment is true.

But it is a partaking and receiving no­thing else, and you have assigned nothing wherein they differ.

Ergo, then my former Argument is true,

I deny your minor.

If it be any thing else give an instance where the extraordinary gifts, is called a par­taking of the holy Ghost, (by extraordina-gifts, I mean the gift of Tongue and Pro­phecying) in a differing sense from a par­ticipating of the divine Nature.

I am speaking of extraordinary Gifts.

So am I too such extraordinary Gifts as are not at all bestowed upon Hypocrites and Unbeleivers.

That the giving and receiving of the holy [Page 12]Ghost, is the giving and receiving of the divine Nature; that I deny.

If the participation of the divine Nature, and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the holy Ghost, be interpreted no other where in Scripture, but for one and the same thing; then the former conse­quence is true.

But the participation and receiving of the divine Nature, and the receiving of the ho­ly Ghost is interpreted no where in Scrip­ture, but for one and the same thing.

Ergo, my former consequence is true.

I deny your minor.

I have proved the question; for Mr. Danson's answer is, that to partake of the divine Nature, is to partake of the graces of the Spirit of God. I say, that they that partake of the holy Ghost, partake of the graces of the Spirit of God; He saith not.

I do not deny, but the receiving of the holy Ghost, as to its gifts and graces, may be found in the same subject; but I say, they are not Terms of the same Import.

What that is we shall hear by and by; [Page 13]Mr. Danson saith, that by partaking of the di­vine Nature, he supposed the graces and operations of the Spirit of God upon the Souls of Men, but by partaking of the gifts of the holy Ghost, may be understood of those extraordinory gifts of Tongues, heal­ing, &c. Now give me leave to mind you, that Mr. Danson grants what I would have, and somewhat more; because no Man had those extraordinary gifts; but what had those in the lesser degree, that he calls Graces? for no man had those extraordina­ry gifts of the holy Ghost, but he that was really and truly a Believer.

Prove it if you can.

Give me an instance, because this is a universal negative.

This will not prove what you would have; for if I should grant you, that no person had the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, but what had also the special graces of the holy Ghost; yet that will not prove what you are to prove: for it will not prove that therefore the participation of extraordinary gifts, and the participation of special grace, are one, and the same thing.

I will shew you what it will prove, it will prove that which I brought it for; and that was this, I was to prove that if those that partake of the holy Ghost, may fall away totally and finally, then they that par­take of the divine Nature may.

Prove your minor.

That's my minor.

Your minor was this, that the giving and receiving of the Holy Ghost, and the giving and receiving the divine Nature, are one and the same thing; prove that, you must conclude with the proposition I deny'd.

I am to prove this, that he that participates of the gifts of the holy Ghost, and of the graces of the holy Ghost, participates of the same holy Ghost, though in different de­grees.

You go about to prove that they are al­ways found in the same Subject, that is, spe­cial grace and extraordinary gifts; but that is not to the question, but you are to prove they are one and the same thing: for in­stance, a godly Man may have his under­standing [Page 15]enlightened to understand several sciences, as Logick and Mathematicks, &c. And all these may be found in the same sub­ject, but it doth not therefore follow that they are the same thing.

To partake of the holy Ghost in its extra­ordinary gifts, and in the graces of it, which you say are the ordinary gifts, is but all one and the same partaking of the holy Ghost; it is true as you say, that a Man may under­stand several sciences, but if these different sciences be taught him by one Master, then it follows that they are one and the same par­ticipation of the skill of the same master.

It doth not follow that they are one and the same thing; for the Scripture doth ascribe the skill of Bezaleel and Aholiah in all man­ner of workmanship to the holy Ghost; it doth not therefore follow, that the receiving the skill of workmanship and the graces of of the Spirit of God are all one and the same thing,

They are one by way of participation, for I am to prove to you, that the participation of the holy Ghost, either in an extraordinary or ordinary manner, is a participation of the same holy Ghost; not that these are the [Page 16]same thing in themselves; but that they partake of the same operation; for he that hath the gift of tongues, and he that hath the gift of healing, they have two several gifts; and I never said, that healing, and the gift of tongues were one gift, but that both these are partakers of the holy Ghost, and I do not say, that they are one and the same thing, but that they are one and the same participation of the holy Ghost; that is, they do participate of the same holy Ghost, or of the same divine Nature; but they are not the same in respect to the quan­tity or measure of them.

(c) This is not more then St. Paul avoucheth, there are (saith he) diver sities of gifts, but the same spirit, 1 Cor. 12.4. and again, v. 8, 9, 10. He tells us that by the same spirit that Wisdom, and Knowledge, and Faith, is given, working of miracles, and speaking with tongues is given.

I deny that those participations of the di­vine Nature, as they stand in opposition unto the partaking of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, it doth not denote one and the same; the Scripture phrase doth not own them to be one and the same thing.

I do not say it is, I say one and the same divine Nature and holy Ghost.

You prove nothing, for you were to prove that those that partake of the holy Ghost, partake of the divine Nature; now this you proved thus, that to partake of the holy Ghost in its extraordinary gifts, and to partake of the divine Nature in respect of grace, they are one and the same thing.

I did not, I said it is a participation of one and the same holy Ghost, but not a par­ticipation of one and the same degree.

Otherwise it will not follow, that they may not be separable one from another, A person may partake of the divine Nature, if you will call it by that phrase, he may have some resemblance of the divine Wisdom in natural ability, and extraordinary gifts; yet notwithstanding, not partake of the di­vine Nature in that extraordinary sense of the holiness of God: for there are two sort of perfections in the divine Nature, which go under the name of the divine Image; some are natural perfections, such as under­standing, and will, and immortality, and there are also some which we call moral per­fections: [Page 18]some things in God which we cannot conceive but under the notion of vir­tue or grace, as truth, justice, mercy and the like: now we understand the participa­tion of the divine Nature in the latter, not the former sence.

I expounded it of the same partaking of the holy Ghost; you brought an instance in the 17 acts, about extraordinary gifts: I answered thus, that instance doth not ex­clude but include the ordinary as you call'd it; and therefore I leave this to consideration: whether he that partakes of the holy Ghost; doth not partake of the divine Nature, for indeed that is the sum of my argument; then it will follow, that if he that partakes of the holy Ghost may fall away, he that par­takes of the divine Nature may.

I grant it you.

This is that which you deny'd, that those that partake of the divine Nature can sall a­way, which I proved thus, that if those that partake of the holy Ghost may fall away, then those that partake of the divine Nature, may fall away.

[...] it, I said that phrase of the divine [Page 19]Nature; as there it is used concerning the Saints, is to be taken in a special sense (there is no perfection to be found in Men,) but is a participation of the divine Nature after a fort, that is some resemblance of it, but yet notwithstanding that, the participa­tion of the moral and natural perfections are not one and the same thing.

You say, that to partake of the divine Na­ture in a moral sense, is doubtless the sense of the text referred too, though not in a na­tural sense; now if that be the ture sense of divine Nature in that place (viz.) a moral sence wherein God is thus gracious to assist and cooperate upon the minds and conscien­ces of believers, Why then is there not the same exposition to be given of being parta­kers of the holy Ghost by his cooperating upon the minds and consciences of believers?

Prove your proposition that you are to prove, that to partake of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, and special grace are one and the same thing in Scripture usage.

Still you are under a mistake, I never un­dertook to prove it; I undertook to prove this, that it is a partaking of the same divine Nature, and not that to receive the holy [Page 20]Ghost in an extraordinary and miraculous manner, and the receiving of it in an ordina­ry measure, are the same thing: for as you said well, a Man may be a Logician, and yet possibly another Artist; but that I say in this, that no man can partake of the holy Ghost (as you interpret the holy Ghost for an extraordinary measure of gifts) but that man that partakes of the graces of it, which you call partaking of the divine Nature.

Prove it.

If the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts be promised to none, but those that have the ordinary gifts and graces of it, then no man can partake of the holy Ghost in the greater, that doth not partake of the divine Nature in the less.

But the holy Ghost is promised to none but such.

Therefore none can partake of it but such.

I deny your minor.

It is a general negation, therefore give me an instance it you can, where God hath made a promise of the gifts of the holy Ghost to any but true believers.

He hath made a promise to none at all.

You should have said so before, therefore give me an instance where the promise of the holy Ghost is made to any that are not true believers.

In the 2 of Joel there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost.

(a) The last thing Mr. Danson said be­fore was, that the promise mas made to none at all; what sence this is, the reader may judge. But whetker it be sense or no, I am sure it is a a Contradiction to what he saith now (viz.) that there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in Joel the 2. and im­mediately before saith the promise was made to none at all.

Besides what is that promise in Joel 2. made to some that are not true believers? It is indeed that promise which is expounded and fulfilled in the 2. of the Acts, only to true believers; for the Apostles were all true believers, and the holy Ghost fell upon them. Now Mr. Danson brings this as an instance against the universality of my minor proposition, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are promised to some that are not true believers.

Hold there, I did not say so; you said only to true believers: now I give you this place to prove that there is a promise of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost made to the visible Church.

Prove that any here were not true be­lievers to whom this promise is made.

Here is a promise made to the visible Church, its to believers in general.

Pray hear me if it be to belivers in general, it is nothing to me, for my argument was this; that this promise was made to none but True believers, and you must give me an instance; for if I say to none but True be­lievers, you must shew where it was made to some that were not True believers.

It is a promise made to the visible be­lievers.

The question is, whether this will serve what it is brought for; that this promise is made to any that are not true believers.

You are to prove that it is here limited.

My Argument is this, if I say the pro­mise of the holy Ghost is made to none but true believers, and you deny it; you must shew me some that were not true believers, that this promise was made to; and instead of shewing me that it was made to some that were not true believers; you tell me once and again it was a promise made to visible believers.

This promise was made to visible be­lievers.

I say give me an instance against my uni­versal negative if you can; and shew where the holy Ghost is promised to those that were not true believers.

Visible believers.

What again, That is not my minor; for my minor proposition is this, that it is made to none but true believers, and now you are to shew it was.

It is made general and indefinite to Sons and Daughters.

To those persons that were under the dis­pensation of the old Testament among which [Page 24]there were believers only by outward pro­fession.

Why, you are to give an instance, that the promise of the holy Ghost is made to some that were not true believers; I say give me an instance.

I say here is a promise made to visible be­lievers.

Is it made to any that were not true belie­vers? If these were all visible believes, they were all true believers for ought you know; either give me an instance or leave it, for the instance you have given me rather proves against you: Look at the fulfilling of it, Acts the second, and then give me an in­stance of any, that this promise was made or fulfilled too, that were not true believers.

In the 8 of the Acts. 12.13. verses he tells us there; that when they believed Phi­lip preaching the things concerning the king­dome of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were Baptized both men and women; then Simon himself believed also: and when he was Baptized he continued with Philip and wondred, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the [Page 25]Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were believers in the name of the Lord Jesus: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghost.

But doth this prove that any of them were not True believers, you are to give an in­stance that the holy Ghost was promised to some that were not True believers, and you prove the quite contrary, that it was given to them that did believe.

I will shew you why it is not a contra­diction, for the Scripture saith, that Simon himself believed also; and the Scripture likewise affirms concerning him, that he re­ceived the holy Ghost.

But doth the Scripture say he received the holy Ghost? he would have given money indeed to have had it himself; therefore this is nothing to your purpose.

Thus far it is to our purpose, because the Scripture in all its promises which it makes to [Page 26]believers, it respects them as they are visi­ble belivers, not as they are True believers.

Then God promises salvation to Men, not as they are True believers but visible be­lievers: for Mr. Danson said all the promi­ses respects them as visible, but not True be­lievers, But however.

I say, give me an instance where the pro­mise of the holy Ghost was ever made to an unbeliever, or to a man that did not Truly believve.

It was a promise made to those that were visible believers, and among those of that number there were such to be found.

The promise of Salvation is made to be­lievers promiscuously, but doth it therefore follow, that they are believers? because they profess it (pray hear me) It is upon the presumption that they are True believers; I say it is a promise made to none but True believers.

I deny it, it is made to visible beleivers.

Shew where it is made to them, why should you foist in a word.

This is sufficient for the proof of it, that the promise that is here made of the extraor­dinary gifts of the holy Ghost is not made to True believers, as True but as visible.

I say it presupposes them True believers; Give an instance if you can, that the Scrip­ture doth not suppose them True believers to whom this promise is made.

There is none.

Then we have done and my Argument is proved, and I shall now proceed to another Argument; but before I do that, I will re­peat the sum of our past discourse.

This I Asserted, that Christians were not bound to believe that God commanded them to avoid that which they could not but do; you gave this distinction that the com­mand was possible in it self, or in relation to the subject commanded, but not possible with respect to the decree of God.

I said that those Cautions that are given to visible believers in general, that they should take heed of falling away, did sup­pose the possibility of it in the nature of the thing; (In True believers also) because [Page 28]man is but mutable, and grace is but a Crea­ture, and therefore certainly it may be lost; and yet it is certainly Impossible as to True believers, upon the supposition of the divine decree, and Christs promise to preserve and uphold the grace of True believers.

This is just as if a man should say the whole Earth is possible to be overflowed with Water in respect to the nature of it, but with respect to the decree of God it is Impossi­ble; but then if God hath made such a decree, no man hath any more reason to fear a univer­sal inundation, because of such a decree, then he had to fear it if it were impossible, with re­spect to the nature of the thing: in like manner if it be impossible to fall from grace, with respect to the decree of God; there is no more reason to fear falling, then there would have been had it been impossible, with respect to the nature of the thing: but to proceed,

The Sum then of my first Argument is this, If True believers cannot fall away finally; they ought to believe they cannot so fall away: Now if they ought to believe they cannot fall away finally, then it is not reasonable for them either to fear they can so fall, or to be com­manded or sautioned to take heed of it; if God hath decreed it shall never be.

The Sum of the second Argument is; that such as are partakers of the divine Nature may fall a­way; therefore True believers may: this I prov­ed by this reason, because some that partake of the holy Ghost, as it is said, Heb. 6. There­fore some that did partake of the divine Na­ture might fall away, because none were ever made partakers of the holy Ghost, (as Mr. Danson hath expounded it for the extraordi­nary gifts of it) but such as were first par­takers of the divine Nature (as he expounds the divine Nature) 2 Pet. 1.4. For the inward and special graces of it: now if none had the promise of such a partaking of the holy Ghost, but those that first did so partake of the divine Nature, as aforesaid, then it must needs follow, that if those that partake of the holy Ghost may fall away, then they that par­take of the divine Nature may fall away; but the 6 of the Hebrews tells us such my fall a­way: Ergo,

My next Argument is this; to prove that some True believers may fall away totally and finally from grace.

If all those that have the Chracters of true and sincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews 5, 6. may fall away totally and finally; then True believers may fall a­way totally and finally.

But all those that have those Characters [Page 30]mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away totally and finally.

Ergo, True believers may fall away to­tally and finally.

I deny the consequence, it doth not fol­low that if all those that have the Charact­ters of true and sincere believers mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, may fall away total­ly and finally, then True believers may fall totally and finally.

If all those Characters be applyable to none but True believers, then the con­sequence follows, that if those to whom these Characters agree, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally.

But those Characters in the 6th of He­brews, are applyable to none but True be­lievers.

Ergo,

I deny the minor, that they are ap­plyable to none but True believers.

Give me then an instance where they are applyable to any else but True believers.

Prove that they are applyable to none other.

I have proved it, without you can give me an instance where all these Characters mentioned in the 6th of Hebrews, are ap­plyed to those that were not True believers; that they were once enlightened with the knowledge of the truth, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and of the power of the World to come, and such as were renew­ed by Repentance; shew me where all those Characters and Qualifications agree to a man that was not a True believer: shew them me all in one man; give me an instance if you can.

You are to prove that these Characters here mentioned, agree to none but True believers.

If the Scriptures applies these Characters to none but True believers, then my minor is true.

But the Scripture applies them to none but True believers.

Ergo,

I deny the minor; for tasting of the good word of God, is appliable to others, but True believers.

The Question is, whether a man that hath all those Characters, be not a True believer, or wants them, can be a True believer; shew me a man that hath all these Characters (from some other text and instance) that was not a True believer.

Do you mean in all the particulars?

Yes, for it may be 6 men may have all these 6 Characters.

I will give you an instance then; one for all: that is to say, that the Scripture doth ascribe believing unto those persons that were not True believers; and that includes them all.

I deny that, therefore bring your Text to prove that persons that are so qualified may fall away: for I here argue upon you, that the Scripture no where gives us a note of any but True believers, that were thus qualified; therefore shew me some that had all these qualifications, that were not True be­lievers.

The Scripture no where gives a particular Enumeration of all these qualifications, as [Page 33]agreeing to one person, but we must do it by parts.

That will not do, because he that may have one Vertue; may be no True be­liever.

I take persons that are extraordinarily in­dowed from above.

You must shew me where any man that had all these gifts, that was destitute of True grace.

There is no particular instance of all to­gether.

Then my Argument is proved, I will now give you leave to shew them by parts, that they that were renewed by Repentance, that were inlightened and made partakers of the holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and of the powers of the World to come; that they who had these, or any of these qualifications, were notwithstanding no True believers.

Upon your supposition (that is to say) that the Characters here given, are of the True graces of the Spirit of God; then if so [Page 34]be I can prove but one part from a plain Scrip­ture, it is necessary that the whole should be inferr'd, because the graces of the Spirit of God, go along with one another. No per­son is truly inlightened, but he also tafts of the good word of God, and is partakers of the holy Ghost, &c.

If you please; I will prove that these quali­fications are applyed to True believers.

You are to prove only to True be­lievers.

I will prove they are applyed only to True believers, and if the Scripture applies them no otherwise, the reason of my Argument is good, till you assign an instance that these Characters are applied to some that are not True believers.

I deny the Argument, supposing these ve­ry terms are not to be found in Scripture, applied to them that are not true believers; yet the thing signified may.

Sir, you must instance in some of these terms, and therefore shew me in any of these Terms, that any were inlightened, or tasted of the powers of the World to come, or were [Page 35]renewed by Repentance, &c. that were not True believers, else you argue instead of an­swering.

I gave you this general instance; the Scripture affirms that which takes in all these, it stiles those believers that were not real be­lievers.

That is no proper answer, because if I say none but True believers have these qualifica­tions; then these must be True believers that are so qualified, but none but True believers have these qualifications.

Now if the Scripture applies them to any else, you must shew where it doth.

It doth not follow, that if the Scripture doth not apply these Characters to any per­son, that therefore they are True believers that are so qualified.

True believers is a word hardly to be found in the Scriptures, though we have been dis­puting all this while about it, but we under­stand by True believers, a man that is not a Hypocrite, that doth not pretend to what he hath not, or is not. Now I say, I do not know where the Scripture tells us any where to the contrary, and if that be not our guide, [Page 36]we are all in the dark. Now if the Scripture gives us these for Characters of True believ­ers, and tells us the contrary are not True believers; we have no reason to judge that man not a True believer, that hath these Characters: for we have no rule to judge any man a believer, or not a believer, but by the Characters the Scripture gives us of True believers, and of such as are not so.

But the Scripture gives instance by parts, and if so be you will, I will shew it you in parts.

Where are those parts? I have told you before that you ought to give an instance of any one that had all these Characters Heb. 6. that was not a True believer: for indeed that is my Argument, but I do likewise condes­cend, that if you can, you may shew where any one of these Characters, agree to one that is not a believer, and it shall suffice:

I begin with enlightening, and that we have in the 17th of John 23. where Christ prays, that the World may believe that thou hath sent me.

What do you bring thia for?

Why! It is Scripture.

What care I for Scripture. Hear the Peo­fell a Laughing.

What do you Laugh for? Surely you can­not think that I speak to undervalue the Scriptures! since we come here to prove our opinions by them: Now when I say, I care not for the Scripture, my meaning is; for Mr. Dansons impertinent alledging of it: for what if he had brought his instance out of the first of Gen: In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, I might have said, what care I for that; being impertinently alledged as to the thing in hand; and if Mr. Danson may be a judge, I will appeal to him what he thought of that expression.

I thought as you have said, not that you did reject or slight the Scripture, but the use I made of it.

I bring it to prove that the World, that here is distinguished from those that believed through the Apostles word, that these per­sons might know that God sent Jesus Christ which is part of the illumination.

Here you have brought a text to prove some­thing, but not to the purpose: For you are to bring a text to prove that some unbelievers were enlightened; you are now to Instance in parts, therefore first shew me where any were enlightened, that were not True be­lievers.

This is an instance, but you do not under­stand it; when Christ had said for their sakes I Sacrifice my self, that they also may be San­ctified through the Truth, v. 19. he then adds, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their Word, that they also may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. Our Lord Jesus Christ doth here pray for those persons that should afterwards believe on him by the A­postles, preaching for their Conversion, that it may be a means of the Worlds Conviction, of that more common believing and knowing which we do say, is intended in this place by inlightened.

You are under a mistake, because my Ar­gument is this, that these qualifications are not applyable to any but True believers, [Page 39]that is to no unbeliever; you now only shew me that Christ prays for the World, that the World may believe through the Apostles word, which makes against you.

Either you do not understand it, and that's your ignorance, or yov will not, and that's your disingenuity.

Pray Sir forbear, I confess I am ignorant enough; but it is not handsom for you to reflect so often upon me.

I affirmed that our Lord Jesns Christ, prays for Real believers, those whom the Father had given to him, and he speaks of this, as one great end which he did design to obtain by their Conversion, namely, that the World thereby might be convinced not con­verted.

How know you that Sir?

The Word saith so.

I Answer two things; First, that it is im­pertinent, and not to the case; and Second­ly, you give a wrong sense of the Text: the first thing you are to shew, is a Text where any are said to be inlightened, that are not [Page 40]True believers; and you tell me of a Text where Christ prays, that the Apostles preaching may Convert others, that others may believe through their word; and then he prays afterwards, that it may have this effect, that the World may know that the Father sent him. Now I hope it is Life Eter­nal to believe that Jesus Christ was sent from God.

Again, If Knowledge and Enlightening were all one, yet this Text doth not prove, some did so know, that were not True believers, but only Christ prayed they might know.

I deny that.

Doth not the Scripture say so, and this Scripture you bring, makes no distinction of knowledge.

He distinguisheth them from those per­sons that should believe on him through their word.

Give me a Text where any man is said not to be a True believer, and yet enlightened.

This is unreasonable.

It is reasonable, therefore shew me where, because this is so plentiful a word in Scripture; You were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord: therefore walk as Children of the Light, &c. The word Light and Enlighten­ed, is a word frequently used Epb. 1.18. & Heb. 10.32 There is not many more plen­tiful words in Scripture then this; and there­fore among all this variety, I would have Mr. Danson shew me where this word En­lightened, is applied to a man that is not a True believer.

I answer, your demand is unreasonable, that it must necessarily be brought in the same Terms: for suppose it be inequivolent Terms, it is enough this very word Enlightened in Heb. 6.4. is rendred in Chap. 10.32. Illu­minated, so that enlightening and know­ledge, are the same thing.

Because likeness and similitude are the same thing, therefore knowledge and light are the same thing; I deny that: for though sometime light and knowledge are in Scrip­ture, put for the same thing, yet they are not alwaies; but that which you are to do, is to shew me where these Characters in Heb. 6. are applied to any but True believers; [Page 42]now that was denied, and you tell me you will not undertake the whole, but you make no doubt to shew it in parts, if not in the whole; give me therefore the first.

Here is a plain place, John 1.7. That was the True light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the World.

This speaketh of such a light as lighteth every man that comes into the World, ei­ther let us now be ingenious, or let us all be Quakers; for the truth is, if you believe all men in the World are enlightened with the light of Christ, I cannot understand how you, or any that gives such a sense of that text, should differ from their notion, about the light within, they so much speak of; you are therefore to bring a text to prove that some men, that were not True believers were yet enlightened: for I deny the whole World were enlightened; for this text speaks indeed of a universal light, as the Sun may give a universal light, and yet men that are blind, are not enlightened; doth it fol­low, because the Sun is a universal light, and enlightens the World, that therefore every man in the World is enlightened: for as said, there is a great many blind men, and the Gospel is said to open mens eyes, and to [Page 43]turn them from Darkness to Light; &c. You must shew me the Scripture saith any were enlightened with this light, that were not True believers; if you would have this text to speak to your purpose.

This very interpretation Mr. Danson gives of the first of John, in his dispute with the Quakers, which I gave him in his dispute with me, and yet though it will serve him to answer the Quakers, it seems it will not serve me to answer him: for in his book which he calls the Quakers folly, page 36. He tells them that the Gospel is an external light, like that of the Sun; and that there is a [...] inward light (or enlightening created in the Soul) or [...]lse (saith he) page 4. The blind man might see when there is a light, and the seeing man when there is none, this interpretation I gave him, but he rejecteth it, though it be his own, sense, when he reasons against the Quakers.

If so be that Christ doth enlighten all men, with any kind of universal light, then it ne­cessarily follows, that the phrase light cannot be restrained only to True believers.

Sir, you now argue instead of answering; for you are to shew where this word enligh­tened, is only to have some outward and commen light: for light and enlightened [Page 44]have two different senses.

It is not necessary I should shew it you in the very same word.

You are to instance in this word Enligh­tened; for the Te [...]t saith, It is impossible for those that were once enlightened; which plain­ly shews they were discriminated from the whole World. Now you are to shew that yet these were unbelievers, or no True be­lievers; for it is not spoken of a general light, but of a special: for otherwise it need not have been said, but once enlightened; and they are discriminated all along from the whole World, and you bring a text to shew that all the World is enlightened, which doth not prove that neither, if that were the Cafe.

That text shews that the term-light is ap­plycable to a universal and not to a special and restrained sense.

What a wonderful Contradiction is here, to what answer Mr. Danson gave the Quakers in his book, Intituled, the Quakers folly manifested, page 3. He saith the 2 of Ephesians v. 13. Denies that ever the Gentiles were enlightened by Christ. Page 5. He saith those that were enlightened, were a small num­ber, [Page 45]in comparison to them that were not en­lightened. Again, when the Quakers tells him, the form of sound words is, that Christ lighteth every man that comes into the World; the answers Page 6. That the meaning is not as the literal sense imports: for then the Scripture would contradict it self, but the meaning is, that Christ enlighteneth all that are enlightened, or else that he enlighten th some of every Nation, Tongue, and People, according to Rev. 5.9. Page 36. The whole body of tht gentile World, were not enlighten­ed by Christ.

And yet in this dispute, he brings a plain contrary Interpretation of the first of John, and says, that the term light is not to be un­derstood in a [...]strained or spocial sense, but is applycable to a common and universal sense (see his last answer a little before in Page 44. of this book; so that when he would expound the first of John to a Quaker, he tells them the light there must be taken in a special and a restrained seuse; but when he interprets it to me, he saith, the term-light in the first of John, is universal, and not to be restrained. But whatever you say, Shew me where any body was enlightened that was not a True believer, those that were once enlightened, signifies that there were thousands that were not so enlightened.

A person may be so far enlightened (and not a True believer) as to affent to this pro­position, which is one grand point of the Gospel that [...]esus Christ is the Son of God. 1 Joh. 5.10. compared with Luke 4▪41.

You are to give me aninstance, as you are respendent; I leave this to the hearers to judge; thus far we are come. My minor Proposition was this, that these qualificati­ons, in Heb. 6. are applyed to none but True believers; and if these might fall away True believers might fall away. Mr. Danson's answer was, that these qualifications are appli­cable to some that were not True believers; he said he would not undertake to prove that all these qualifications are in any one man, but the would prove that they have been in particu­lar persons: some in one, and some in ano­ther; though this hardly amounts to an an­swer; yet however I complied with him, and desired him to begin with the first, and shew me where any are said to be enlightened, that were not True believers. Enlightened I mean in the sense of my Text; if he doth not that, he doth nothing. Mr. Danson hath gone about two or three times, to shew you that some may have knowledge; but this is not to our que­stion, [Page 47]and that Christ is the Light of the World, and that is as little to the pur­pose.

You say this term Enlightned is applycable to none but True believers.

Now I have shown you, what this Ine­quivolent terms is.

But the Question is, whether I will allow it or no.

I have shown you that persons may be so far enlightened, as to believe that Jesus is the Christ, as the Devils them­selves did.

Where is that called Enlightened? Shew me where this word Enlightened is applied to any but True believers.

I did not undertake it.

Sir, you have undertaken it, as appears by all you have but now said concerning it.

I have shown you where a word that is equivalent to it, is applicable to men that are not True believers.

Run the Scriptures all over, it is a plentiful word, and I believe you will find it as often used; and yet the Scripture never applies this word enlightened to any but True believers, and therefore why should you.

I say enlightening and knowledge are the same things.

Sir, you will not or cannot, give anin­stance, therefore I shall proceed to the se­cond Character, which is this; They are re­newed by Repentance: for the Text saith, it is impossible, they should be renewed again by Repentance. Whence I argue.

Those that were once renewed by Repen­tance, were True believers.

But these persons here were once renewed by Repentance.

Ergo, they were True believers.

I deny the major, that those that were once renewed by Repentance were True believers.

If none have been renewed by Repentance but True believers, then the major is true; but none have been renewed by Repentance, but True believers.

Ergo,

I deny your minor.

Shew me one man that is said to be renew­ed by Repentance, that was not a True be­liever.

I will shew you an Instance of a man that was renewed by Repentance (that is to say) as we do understand it of a renewing by Repentance; of a common work of the Spi­rit of God, which hath the same name, be­cause of some similitude. It is said that Judas repented himself, and brought back again the price.

You are to prove that Judas was renewed by Repentance; a hundred men may so re­pent, and yet not be renewed by Repentance, in that sense which the Scripture calls renew­ing, renovation, or regeneration, he was not renovated.

The Scripture uses that phrase in a different sence.

No not in Repentance.

Yes in Repentance; Do you suppose that Repentance is not separable from renewsng in the Scripture.

Shew me if you can that a man that hath changed his mind by any contrition or re­morse, and was ever said to be renewed by it, and not a new Creature, the word is fre­quently used, Be ye renewed in the spirit of your minds, &c.

I say, shew me but where any man was ever said to be renewed by Repentance, or to be renewed by Faith, or to be renewed by his Humiliation, that was not a True believer; if he was renewed by the operation of these Qualities. I do tell you it is to be understood of a True believer.

I have given you an Instance to the contra­ry, where the Scripture applies, Repentance to one that was not a True believer.

Alas! There may be a thousand such, but that that I would ask you, is whether Judas was renewed by Repentance in the sense of this Text; therefore you do not, or you cannot give me an instance; for I am bound to believe the Text, and it tells me they cannot be renewed again by Repentance, which implies they were once renewed by Repentance.

The Scripture uses this phrase, Twice dead, Pluckt up by the roots.

All that you have to do, is to shew me where the Scripture applies this phrase to any but True believers; if you cannot, then my Argument is proved.

I have given an instance of Judas, that repented and restored unjust gotten goods.

You have given no Instance as yet; for you cannot shew that Judas was renewed by Repentance, and that it was an Act of the Spirit of God upon him in renovation.

I come now to a Third Instance, Those that have tasted of the powers of the World to come; give me an Instance where any but True believers have tasted of the powers of the World to come.

I can in the 24th of Acts, it is said there, that as Paul reasoned concerning Righteousness, Temperance, and Judgment to come, Foelix Tremb. ed.

What doth that prove?

(c) The Text under consideration, Heb. 6. Speaks of such a tasting, as Implies a savour­ing [Page 52]of heavenly things, so as to be affected and in Love with them, and therefore it is said, they tasted of the heavenly gift; but it is other­wise said of Foelix, that he trembled, and if that might be called a tast, it was a tast that his Soul was in the abhorrancy off, which is a for­reign interpretation, and a forcable invading the sense of the text, under consideration to suppose the persons spoken of there, to have tast­ed of the World te come, in the sense that Foe­lix Trembled at the Judgment to come, indeed they might have such a tast if they should fall away; but that they had had any such tast if they had not fallen away, is denyed.

This is one part of the powers of the World to come, that is to say, a dreadful sense and apprehension, he had upon him of the future judgment; and then in Luke 14.15. And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat Bread in the Kingdom of God, he had here some affectionate transports at the narration that was made concerning the fu­ture state of happyness, and Christ directs a Parable to him.

Indeed I am much beholding to you, and you have done me a kindness in bringing that to my mind that was out before, Now the [Page 53]Scripture tells you in the Parable, That a certain man made a Supper, and this Supper was to set before him. and to represent to him the Glory of the Kingdom of God, and of the World to Come. Now he doth not say as you say, that he tasted of it, but the quite con­trary; that not only he, but none that was bidden should tast of the Supper. v. 14.

You do not understand what you say.

I do; for at the latter end of the Parable, Christ gives Instance that those that were bidden should not tast of the Supper, and ap­plies it to him, and the general import of it is to shew that many persons are called, that yet notwithstanding in Truth and Reality do not obey the call.

How do you know this? that the man did not Eat of it.

Either he did, or he did not tast of it, but the text faith, none that was bidden did tast, and you say, this man was bid and did tast.

He tasted of it; he had affection of joy wrought in him, by the representation of the future state.

I answer, First, that he did not tast: but Secondly, supposing this sense true, that he did tast: then tell me was this a Believer or an Unbeliever; for the Instance must prove both (viz.) that he did tast, and that he was not a True believer.

He was an Unbeliever.

This will not serve your turn.

It will, Because this Parable was directed particularly to him; and Secondly, Because it is said, that he to whom his discourse was directed, was of the Pharisees of whom the Scripture tells us, a great number of them were open enemies to him, and some of them, though the Scripture saith, they did believe on him, yet would not confess him, least he should put them out of the Synagogue; because they loved the praise of men, more then the praise of God.

There is two thing in this Text yet in question as I have told you.

First, Whether this man tasted of the powers of the World to come: for the text doth not say so, but implies the contrary; for he did not tast of the Supper, for a man [Page 55]may be ravished with joy at the intelligence of business, and yet for all that these may die, and faint, and flag upon him, and he may never have a true sense and savour of them. Nor,

Secondly, Doth the text say (if it were so) that he was not a True believer; you say he was not, and that first, because Christ addresses himself to him by a Parable; and Secondly, because the Pharisees many of them were not True believers (of whom you suppose he was one) but this is arguing and not answering; but it doth not follow, that because some of the Pharisees were not True believers, therefore none of them were; and if I should grant you the first answer, that he tasted of the powers of the World to come; how doth this prove that he was not a True believer? But I lay the stress of my answer upon the first (viz.) that he did not Tast of the Supper: for you say the Parable was directed to him, and applied to him, and Christ saith of him, that he was one that was invited; and if so nothing is more plain, v 24. then that he did not tast, but if he had tasted, it is as hard to prove that he was not a True believer.

Because I say the persons of whom this was spoken, were Pharisees of whom the Scrip­ture [Page 56]affirms, that either they were open ene­mies or secret friends.

That is no proof; for if they were secret friends they were friends.

But Christ gives this account of them, that they would not confess him, because they loved the praise of men more then God.

You bring this Instance to shew two things. First, that this man to whom Christ directs his speech, had a tast of the powers of the World to come, and also that he was no True believers, but whether it doth any more then prove he did not tast, I leave to consideration, and proceed to a fourth In­stance.

If they that have clean escaped the polluti­ons of this evil World, through the know­ledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, may fall away totally and finally, then True believers may fall away totally and finally. But they that have clean escaped the polluti­ons of this evil World, through the know­ledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, may fall away totally and finally.

Ergo, True believers may fall away totally and finally.

Or if you please thus,

They are true believers that have clean escaped the pollutions of this evil world through the knowledge of our Lord and Sa­viour Jesus Christ:

But some such may fall away totally and finally.

Ergo, Some true believers may fall away totally and finally.

You put the subject of the question into the major, and the predicate of the question into the minor; your conclusion is, that true believers may fall away.

And do I not conclude so my argument is this, and I argue rightly;

That if those that have clean escaped the pollutions of the world through the know­ledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may fall away, Then true believers may fall away:

But such may fall away;

Ergo.

I deny the consequence, it doth not follow that because those that have clean escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may fall [Page 58]away, then true believers may fall away; for that is not a discription of true believerss.

I will prove that.

If this quality be applicable to none but true believers, then if one fall away, the o­ther may.

But the quality is applicable to none but true believers;

Ergo.

I say it is applicable to others.

I will prove it is applicable to no others, to have clean escaped the pollutions of this present world. I prove it thus,

If they are applyed to any but true be­lievers, they are applicable to hypocrites or prophane persons:

But they are not applicable to hypocrites or prophane persons;

Ergo, They are applicable to none but true believers.

I deny you minor, for they are applicable to hypocrites.

If clean escaping the pollutions of this pre­sent world be applicable to hypocrites, then a man that is an hypocrite, may be clean [Page 59]from the pollutions of the world, in the midst of his hypocrisie.

But a man cannot be clean from the pollu­tions of the world in the midst of his hypo­crisie;

Ergo, Clean escaping the pollutions of this world, is not applicable to hypocrites.

Oh! Strange; I deny your minor. They may be clean from the gross pollutions of the world in the midst of their hypocrisie.

If a man may be free and clean from the pollutions of the world in the midst of his hypocrisie; then it follows that hypocrisie is not a pollution of this world:

But hypocrisie is a pollution of this world;

Ergo,

The Text saith they escaped, and clean escaped the pollutions of this World, and from them that live in error. Now those that do thus cannot be hypocrites, because hypocrisie is one of the greatest errors and pollutions: And the Apostle tells us, 1 John 2.16. all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life: (in which hypocrisie is comprised as well as o­ther sins) is not of the Father but of this WORLD; which plainly shews hypocrisie to be a pollution and sin of the World with a [Page 60]witness; and if so, how can any man CLEAN escape the pollutions of the world, and be a hy­pocrite at the same time?

This is simple indeed, I deny your conse­quence, that if a man may be free from the pollutions of the world in the midst of his hypocrisie, that then hypocrisie is not a gross pollution of the world.

I do not say gross pollutions, why do you force words into my argument? I would fain know when the text tells us clean escaped the pollutions of this world, why you should limit it to gross pollutions when the Text doth not? Now how can a man clean escape from them that live in errour, that lives in hypocri­sie, when hypocrisie is the greatest errour of all, and the most damnable pollution in the world.

He may be so, the termes are indefinite, and so consequently but particular; and it is but from the gross pollutions of the world.

Sir, Have you a [...]reek Testament? The word in the Greek is really or truely escaped &c. Now I would leave this to the judg­ment of the company, whether a man ca [...] really or truly escape the pollution of the [Page 61]World, and yet all this while be no True believer.

When Mr. Ives called for a Greek Testa­ment, a friend of Mr. Dansons pulls one out of his Po ket, and reads the word [...], and then rendred it in English as Mr. Ives had done before (viz.) that it was truly or really escaping the pollutions of this World.

I say the gross pollution.

Give an Instance I say of one that had clear escaped from the pollutions of this World; and from them that lived in errour that was not a True believer.

In Luke 18.10, 11. It is said there, that the Pharisees of whom the Scripture doth so frequently point the finger at them; yet this Scripture saith, they were free from the pol­lutions of the World.

What? because the Scripture saith they were guilty of them.

The Scripture tells us, that they made their out-side clean, they were not unjust, nor Adulterers, nor as this Publican.

Do you believe the Pharisee said true of himself? and do you believe they were all so?

The Scripture it self saith so.

Christ himself saith, indeed that they were outwardly Righteous; that is, they were devout in some Ceremonies of their Religi­on, and it also expresly tells us that they were full of wickedness, and that it appeared outwardly; for it saith, they neglected Justice, Mercy and Faith, therefore I would fain know whether a man can be free from the gross pollutions of the World, that is neither just, faithful, nor merciful; besides, this doth not reach the case: for you are to shew or give an Instance of one that was an hypocrite; and yet that it is said of him that he had clean escaped from such as live in errour.

What they did as to those acts, they did with such cunning, that it did not appear vi­sible to the World: for we cannot suppose that Christ would affirm that those persons did appear outwardly righteous unto the World that were openly guilty of such mis­carriages.

I say these men in 2 Pet. 2. had clean es­caped from those that lived in errour; now hypocrisie is the greatest and most damnable errour in the World; and how can a man live in a damnable errour, who yet hath clean escaped the pollution of the World.

Not at the same time he cannot be clear from Adultry, and yet guilty of it, nor from Hypocrisie, and yet be guilty of it, but he may at the same time be free from the gross acts of Sin, so that they may not come into the view of the World.

How can the latter end of that man be worse then his beginning? for when he falls away, if what he falls from be his gross and damnable Hypocrisie, his latter end is not, nay cannot be worse then his beginning.

For Christ makes Hypocrites portion in Hell the greatest of all; and makes their punishment the measure and standard by which he will judge others, and if open and prophane persons shall have their portion with Hypocrites, then surely it cannot make a Hypocrites latter end worse then his beginning, if at first he was but an Hypocrite, and devoured Widows houses under the guise of Religion, it connot I say, [Page 64]be worse with him in the end, if he puts off this guise, and appears openly prophane.

Chiefly upon this ground it may, be­cause his falling away from that outward cleanness, by which Religion did gain some kind of reputation, by his outward holy­ness and righteousness; that same did make his condition worse then it was before, be­cause God is more dishonoured.

This is the Sum of the Argument that hath been urged, that if men that have clean esca­ped the pollutions of the World, may fall away, then True believers may; because this phrase is general, and applycable to none else. Mr. Danson answered by distinguish­ing of clean escaping, [...]esaith there is a clean escaping of gross sins that hypocrites escape; and yet all the while they may not be True believers. Now I find no such Character given to hypocrites in all the Scripture, and I leave you to judge.

I Instance in St. Paul.

That is not to your purpose, yet however I say St. Paul was no hypocrite.

I say he was an hypocrite.

Prove St. Paul a hypocrite, I am sure he never tells us so, shew me where he lived un­godly or unjustly; why do you say he was a hypocrite?

The Scripture tells me he was an hypo­crite.

Prove it then, where is that Scripture that tells you so?

Thus I prove it, the Scripture saith in Rom. 9.31, 32. But Israel which followed after the Law of Righteousness hath not at­tained to the Law of Righteousness; where­fore because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law; for they stumbled at that stumbling stone, and the whole body of the Jews generally did seek to be saved by the Righteousnes. of the Law.

St. Paul tells us, that he lived in all good conscience during his state of Judaism; and he thanks God he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly; and how could he be a hypocrite, that did what he did out of a sin­cere and honest mind.

And when he persecuted the Church of Christ, which is one of the worst things that is said of him; yet he tells us after his Conver­sion (if we will believe him) that he verily [Page 66]thought within himself, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Acts 26.9, 10, 11. verses.

This is strange, that you do not under­stand that Paul was an hypocrite.

I do not understand it.

There is two sorts of Hypocrites, one that appears designedly to deceive the World in that grace which is indeed wanting in the per­son, and then the other is those persons that deceive themselves as well as others.

If this be a good Argument against St. Paul, Cornelius was a Hypocrite too.

That doth not follow.

Yes it doth, but pray shew me where Paul did before his Conversion, understand any thing of himself, or appeared to any body else, to be what he was not.

Yes he was, as touching the Law blame­less.

What was he a hypocrite, notwithstand­ing he tells us of himself that he lived in all good conscience.

Shew how this is consistent with hypo­crisie.

If a man appear to have what he hath not; for the Scriptures use that expression from him that hath not, shall be taken away that which he hath; Paul had really what he had, but that which he had was not really what it seemed to be.

Sir, this is nothing to your purpose; for it neither proves Paul an hypocrite, neither doth it shew that a man may be said to have clean escaped the pollutions of this World, and to have clean escaped from such as live in errour, when at the same time he liveth in hypocrisie, which is the greatest error, and the most damnable pollution; I shall there­fore leave it to consideration, and proceed to another Argument.

The last Argument that I shall urge, I shall ground upon the case of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 9.27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into Subjection, least by any means, when I have preached to others, I my self should be a cast away, whence I argue.

What Paul used all diligence, and labour to prevent the coming to pass of, might po­ssibly come to pass.

But Paul used all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally.

Ergo, his falling away totally and finally was possible to come to pass.

I answer to the major, that that which may possibly come to pass in respect to the nature of the thing, there being a real dan­ger and hazard in the nature of the thing; yet notwithstanding that, there may be something else that may hinder the event.

That which lies upon you to answer is this, I say Paul used all labour and diligence to prevent his falling away totally and finally; is this true or false?

I deny your major.

My major is this, that which Paul used all diligence and labour to prevent, was not im­possible to come to pass. Now if I understand you, you say a thing may be possible in it self, but yet not possible to him, or to such, or such a person; now either Paul was ac­quainted with this, or he was not.

I say he did know it, that it was impossi­ble for him to fall away.

He that knows it is impossible for him to fall into such a danger, it is a vain thing for him to strive to keep himself out of it

But the Apostle Paul say you, did [Page 69]know that it was impossible for him to fall into such a danger.

Ergo, it was a vain thing and to no purpose for him to strive to keep himself out o [...] it.

I deny the major, it doth not therefore follow at all, that though he knew it was impossible for him to fall into such a danger, that it was a vain thing for him to strive to keep himself out of it.

He that labours for nothing, and where he can propose nothing in the doing of it, la­bours unnecessarily; but Paul did so, if be laboured to prevent the coming to pass of that which he knew was impossible for to come to pass.

Ergo,

I deny the major, he did not labour to no purpose.

Pray Instance, to what purpose was it that he took care and pains to beat down his bo­dy otherwise then what he tells you, that least he should become a reprobate, and that I am sure was to good purpose.

The answer I shall give you is this, because that his endeavour, and his care [...] and his caution was the means by which this event was prevented.

You say by this means he prevented his apostacy, and yet deny it was possible for him to apostatize; how can this be?

As for Instance, God promised Hezekiah to add 15 years to his Life, yet notwithstan­ding this; he was under an obligation to make use of the ordinary means that God had appointed for the sustaining of Life, as meat, drink, food, rest, &c. Yet it was impossible upon supposition of the decree and promise of God, that he should die be­fore the end of those years.

Sir, that which I urge is a clear Case, yours doth not reach the Case: If so be the Instance had been Parrallel, I would have said more to it, but yet I will say something to it, notwithstanding the Case lies here, either Paul did labour to prevent his aposta­cy, or he did not; the Text tells us he did labour least by any means whilst he preached to others, he himself should become a re­probate; you say it was impossible it should be so, you apply this to the Case of Hezekiah, that God had added 15 years to his Life, but I say that God had not added 15 years to his Life absolutely as you inter­pret it, but conditionally in case he made use [Page 71]of the ordinary means; and if Hezekiah had not done this, he had not been shot-free: for he was not under a necessity of avoiding all manner of danger, and it follows that if Paul had refused the means, he had as ne­cessarily have fallen, as Hezekiah had dyed if he had not eaten.

This I say, that grace is of its own nature loosable, and that grace that is restored by Christ, may as well be lost as Adams in In­nocency, yet notwithstanding those cautions that are given about apostacy and falling a­way, that are given to all visible believers, are not unnecessary, because God makes use of our own endeavours as the means by which our apostacy is to be prevented.

This is not to the Argument, because the Argument is not made indefinitely, of visible believers, but it is grounded upon the par­ticular instance of the Apostle, whom you say knew it was impossible for him to fall away therefore the Sum of my Argument a­mounts to the proof of this:

If as you have said, he knew he could not fall away, to what purpose should he use endeavours to prevent it; to what end should any man bid me beware of that place, or pit; that both he and I knew it was [Page 72]impossible for me to fall into it.

If we could suppose that there was any such security, that a man should obtain such and such an end without the use of the means; yet there was good and sufficient Reason to make use of those means from that tye and obligation that God hath laid by way of command, as in the instance of Hezekiah, where God promised to add to his days 15 years.

It is ordinary in Scripture, for things to be laid down absolutely, that are to be un­derstood conditionally; but however that will not reach our case. What God may do, for (Admitting that doctrine true) that God hath a particular number of elect, and none of us know who are those; here is some reason to think that all men should endeavour to walk uprightly and justly, and observe all the termes required: But now, if we will suppose these men certainly to know and to be assured they shall never perish, pray tell me why that those men should be industrious in labouring to prevent their perishing.

God promises absolutely, that He would add 15 years to Hezekiahs life; yet not­withstanding this, God particularly com­mands [Page 73]that there should be a plaster of figgs applyed to his sore in order to his reco­very.

But how if he would not have made use of it.

Then he had sinned in disobeying Gods command.

Then it seems he had dyed.

O Sir, there is another in­stance at hand, that in the 27. Acts. 22. compared with the 31. Now, I exhort you to be of good chear, for there shall be no loss of any mans life among you, but of the ship: And yet Paul afterwards said unto the Centu­rion and to the Souldiers, except these abide in the Ship, ye cannot be saved: Here they were to use the means.

Pray Sir, Let me ask you one Question, What if they would not have continued in the Ship, but have leapt overboard, what then?

Why then they had been drowned.

Very well, that is as much as I would have.

But this Text that you have urged, upon which your argument is built, doth not speak of falling away totally and finally from grace, but of his not being aproved to lose his esteem he formerly had.

Either the sence was true that you first gave in answer to this argument upon which we have been arguing so long, or it was not true; if it was true. why do you not keep to it; if it was false, why do you give it in for an interpretation? For first, You answered that Paul laboured to prevent the coming to pass of that which he knew was impossible to come to pass, which was his final Apo­stacy.

And now you substitute a contrary inter­pretation, (viz) that Paul laboured to pre­vent the losing, that esteem and reputation which he had among Christians. If this Lat­ter be the sense, then he laboured to prevent the coming to pass of nothing, but what was possible to come to pass, which is contrary to the first interpretation. Therefore pray which was the true sense the latter, or the former.

The Latter.

Why did you give us the former then? I shall therefore desist and argue no fur­ther.

But here the Reader may take notice, that in Mr. Dansons giving this last answer (viz) that Paul laboured to prevent his doing those things that might make him lose the esteem and approbation he formerly had: he justifies my Major proposition in words at length; for who ever looks back shall find it runs thus, pag 17. that which Paul uses all diligence and labour to prevent, was not impossible to come to pass: Mr. Danson once and again denied this major proposition, and now he confesseth it in this latter interpretation; for he saith, that which he laboured to prevent the coming to pass of, was nothing but (what was possible to come to pass (viz) the approbation and esteem he formerly had. See Page 17. and compare it with Page 18.

After Mr. Ives bad desisted Arguing, Mr. Danson offered to be opponent, and desired Mr. Ives to spend some time in Responding to some Arguments he had to urge; but Mr Ives told him that he was weary, but however as farr as his strength and time would permit, he would endeavour to [Page 76]answer him: hereupon Mr. Danson Replied he was weary also; and thereupon they pro­mised each other to agree upon some other time. This was the whole of the first day [...] conference.

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

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

I Sir.

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

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

I am now Opponent.

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

No Sir, I do not mean so.

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

There is no such term in the question.

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

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

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

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

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

I did not.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

Prove it then.

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

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

Ergo, no True believer can.

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

I argue upon your own grounds.

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

Whatever is Potential, hath been done.

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

I Argue upon your self.

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

I say, I cannot prove it.

Here Mr. Danson confesses he cannot prove his Argument.

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

I will prove then by a new Argument.

Come then.

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

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

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

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

They are your consessions, therefore that is a proof.

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

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

Prove your major I say.

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

But the first is true. Ergo.

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

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

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

I Retort your own Arguments.

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

I will prove your arguments erronious.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore what.

Therefore then there is no example.

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

I retort your own arguments upon you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He may retort your own Argnments.

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

Yes, he must, he must.

Very well, I thank you Mr Fowler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo,

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

What can be more evident?

Is that a proof?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Retort upon you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But True believers cannot sin as wicked men do.

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

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

Pray deny one part of my Argument.

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

I say, they cannot sin as wicked men do.

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

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

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

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

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

I will prove it.

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

Then I Argue.

Argue with that explication.

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

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

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

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

That is to say, he cannot cease to be­lieve.

Nay prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will prove.

Couclude that then, and proceed.

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

But it doth so.

Ergo.

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

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

Ergo, They cannot sin as wicked men do.

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

The Text tells us so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You give no answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Text saith remain.

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

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

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

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

But every True believer is born of God▪

Ergo.

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

This is nothing to the purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will prove that it cannot but re­main.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pray what do you understand by the seed of God.

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

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

Do you understand that here?

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo,

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

It doth.

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

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

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

But the first is true.

Ergo,

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

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

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

Ergo,

I deny the major.

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

I will prove it.

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

But the promises of God are not untrue.

Ergo, therefore it shall remain.

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

I denyed that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor in all the Scripture.

I answered not in that Text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either this promise is conditional, or it is absolute.

But it is not conditional.

Ergo it is absolute.

What do you argue from this Text.

I argue, that here is an absolute promise [...]ade to all True believers For,

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

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

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

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

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

It is either conditional or absolute to a [...] True believers.

But it is not conditional:

Ergo, It is absolute.

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

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

But it is neither to some True believer [...] nor to unbelievers:

Ergo, It is made to all True believers.

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

I will prove the contrary.

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

I prove it thus.

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

But it is not conditional;

Ergo, It is absolute.

Thats begging the question.

I have proved it absolute, assign the con­dition then.

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

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

If it be, assign the condition.

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

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

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

But they are made to the Israel of God.

Ergo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo, It is made to all True believers.

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

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

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

Ergo, It is made to the Israel of God.

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

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

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

Ergo.

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

You denyed the minor.

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

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

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

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

He must, He must.

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

Ergo,

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

The Israel of God comprehends all True believers.

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

I deny the antecedent of the Enthymem.

Here is a Text.

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

Mr. Fowler hath shown you clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In spiritual things.

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

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

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

Here Mr. Fowler Interposes.

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

I told you in spiritual things.

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

I say, as to spiritual blessings.

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

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

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

What then?

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

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

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

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

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

But this promise is made to the Israel of God.

Ergo, It it is made to all True believers.

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

I say, It is the promise in spiritual things.

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo, This promise comprehends them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom the whole belongs, the part be­longs.

But to True believers the whole belongs.

Ergo.

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

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

But &c.

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

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

I, Sir that is the proposition I denyed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will prove it.

Come let's hear it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo, True believers cannot fall away totally nor finally.

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

I can prove any True believer by the same reason.

I deny the major.

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

That is strange.

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

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

What then? come infer what you would have.

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

But the first is true, Ergo,

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

He may as well infer a universal.

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

It is a universal Negative, the Argument lies here;

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

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

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

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

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

Pray let me interpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You give no answer.

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

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

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

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

My sheep hear my voice, Now, —

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

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

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

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

Do you give this as your Judgment.

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

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

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

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

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

This was not St. Augustin's judgment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the sheep of Christ contains all True believers.

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

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

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

Ergo,

I deny the Consequence.

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

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

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

Ergo,

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

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

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

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

I deny the whole Argument.

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

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

I am not bound to do it.

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

I prove it thus:

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

Ergo,

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

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

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

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

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

You are a conceited ignorant fellow.

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

I deny it, you are an impudent fellow.

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

I never said so.

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

I do deny it, I never said so.

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

Let me see the Book.

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

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

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

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

So you might if you pleased.

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

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

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

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

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

I deny the major.

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

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

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

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

I can shew an Instance of it when occasion serves.

What condition did Christ pray? for their perseverance upon.

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

You ought to name one.

I ought not.

You are so conceited.

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

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

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

He prayed in the capacity of a private person.

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

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

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

Yes, according as it was made.

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

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

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

See the impertinency of the man.

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

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

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

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

How heard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indefinitely they did.

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

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

Was this common Faith, true or false?

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

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

That's not the question.

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

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

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

Vale

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