THE Corrector Corrected: Or, some Sober REFLECTIONS On a late BOOK of Mr. THOMAS DANSON's, Published by him (as he pretends) to Correct an immodest and false Account (as he calls it) of two Conferences between him and Mr. Ives, formerly Printed about the Saint's Perseverance.  
By which the former Accounts of the said Disputations are Justified, And Mr. Danson's latter Account justly blamed, as being filled with Impertinencies, Rail, false Accusations, unchristian and unmanly Reflections upon the Person, Opinion, and Trade of his Antagonist.  
Evidenced to the Judgement of every Ingenious Reader.  
By Jer. Ives.  Job 11.3 
Should thy lies make men hold their peace? And when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?  
Contemptum stulti contemnere maxima laus est; Contemni à stulto dedecus esse nego.  
London, Printed 1672.   

THE Corrector Corrected, etc.  
IT hath always been, and still is the Method of the adversaries to Truth, to make Calumnies and Falsehood, the greatest part of their offensive Armour; having learned that old Greek advice, That to Calumniate stoutly, for that how perfectly the wound of reproach be healed, there will remain a scar; and though we wipe away with never so much care the dirt thrown at us, some sullage will be left behind: Accordingly this was the Expedient the Pagans used against the Primitive Christians, to put them in the Skins of Beasts, and shapes of Monsters, and then worry them to death. Had this been only the stratagem of Heathens, the wonder had long since ceased: But alas! these Unchristian Weapons have been too much used in Christian Warfare; as if Christianity could not subsist without a Heathenish Auxiliary, It is sad to observe these Pagan Copies, so often transcribed by Christian Combatants, who though they pretend to advance Truth, yet make Calumny and Falsehood their Instruments. Now that these have been the chief Weapons of Mr. Danson's Warfare, together with his idle and bald Similitudes, his Illogical Arguing, his giving the go-by to that he could not answer, his notorious falsifying of what was both said and Printed; with which not only his disputing, but his late Book abounds withal; the evincing whereof is the ground of this present Undertaking.  
I shall begin with his Calumniating, wherewith he gins his Book, telling the Reader in the very beginning of his Epistle, That I am guilty of such Immorality in Conversation, that they are ashamed of me that do agree with me in Opinion; again, that I am guilty of detestable Arrianisme, and denying the Godhead of Christ, and that I have never repent of it as he knows of; and therefore all Christians by Profession have cause to be ashamed of me, etc. Upon the whole of this Charge, I shall make these modest Demands.  
First, What Mr. Danson means by Immorality? For if by Immorality he means a coming short of the strictness of the Moral Law, which is to love God with all my heart, and my neighbour as myself, I must with the rest of mankind plead guilty; and if this be Mr. Danson's meaning, he should not have thrown the first stone till himself had been without sin: But if by Immorality he means some capital and notorious Crimes, (for that seems to be his meaning, because he saith they are such, for which those are ashamed of me that agree with me in Opinion) I here upon demand.  
Secondly, Whether Mr. Danson chargeth me with Immorality upon his own knowledge, or upon hear-say and report? If upon his own knowledge, why did he not use means to reclaim me before he did publicly defame me? and instance the particular Acts wherein I was thus guilty, together with the names of his Evidences: If Mr. Danson had this story of my Immorality but upon report, I demand whether it is not gross Immorality, contrary to the Law of God and Nature, not only to take up, but to Print a report or reproach against ones neighbour? It's contrary to the Law of Nature, because Mr. Danson would not be so served himself; contrary to the written Law of God, Levit. 19.16. Psal. 15.3. Jer. 20.10. Ezek. 22.9. which expressly forbids taking up reports against our neighbour.  
Thirdly, I demand whether Mr. Danson thinks George Whitehead did well to report, and Print in his Book of the Divinity of Christ, Page 49. that he was given to gaming, Bowls, and Ninepins, etc. Yet however George was more ingenious; because he instances the particulars of his Charge, and not like Mr. Danson, to traduce in general terms, and instance in no particulars. Now if this was ill done in him, thus to report of Mr. Danson, surely it cannot be well done of Mr. Danson, thus to take up and Print Reports against me.  
Fourthly, Whereas Mr. Danson saith, that such is my Immortality, that they are ashamed of me that agree with me in opinion; I demand how that can be, when I have conversed this 30. years among those of my own opinion, and with whom I still have my conversation through the Grace of God, whom I dare appeal to in this matter, and who were the men, as Mr. Danson confesseth in the 2 Page of his Epistle, that did substitute me to dispute with him, though he saith they are ashamed of me.  
As to the second part of this charge, that I am a detestable Arrian, and deny the Godhead of Christ, for which all Christians should be ashamed of me; this because it is a particular instance, requires a particular Answer: I therefore deny that ever I denied the Godhead of Christ; I did never by Word or Writing assert any such thing, but the contrary. and I challenge any man to prove it either from my Words or Writings; for there is no other way of proof that I know of, and to put the matter further out of doubt, and roll away this reproach. I do profess before God, Angels and Men, that I do believe Jesus Christ to be God blessed for ever, Amen, according to Rom. 9.5. not only my Lord, but my God, John 20.28. And to the truth of this I appeal to all Christians that know me, whether I have not, and do not give Divine Honour and Adoration to Jesus Christ the Son of God, of whom the Author to the Hebrews thus speaks, and which I do firmly believe, Heb. 1.8. But unto the Son he saith, thy Throne O God is for ever and ever: Whence it is not only men, but even all the Angels of God are required to Worship him, Ver. 6.  
Lastly, upon the whole of this charge I demand, whether he that publishes, or reports any one for scandalous and blasphemous, (for such is imorality and denying the Godhead of Christ) and doth not publish his Evidence, ought not justly to be suspected to be the Author of those reports, and the Inventor of those evil things.  
After he hath done with this, he gins to beat me with barbarism, telling me that I outfaced him, Epist. Page 3. That I was more bold than wise; because I sent to him to desire him to appoint time and place to view the Copy of the disputes before I Printed them, Epist. Page 4. Again in Page 49. he saith, I make no Conscience of lying to slu my Adversary, and that I was rude and clamerous, and that he could not be heard for my rudeness, Page 40. 50. He reflects upon my Trade, Page 8. calls me impudence in the height, Page 58. Tells me I have a brow of Brass, Page 84. So in the dispute he called me ignorant, disingenuous, impudent fellow, see my Book Page 156. 158. and in Page 41. of his Book, he calls me ignoand disingenuous, upon the whole I demand of any man that hath not polluted his credit & his Conscience to, whether such words of this Preacher are ever like to Administer Grace to either hearers or readers? 2 whereas he charges me with rude and uncivil behaviour in general terms; I demand whether he hath instanced in all his Book of any one hard word, rude or uncivil expression that fell from my lips in the disputations, or from my Pen in the publishing of them, though often provoked by his ill language. I challenge envy itself to give me an instance and yet this man complains of my rudeness, and in his Epistle Page 2, confidently tells his Reader, that those that were absent knew how I demeaned myself as perfectly as they that were present: Surely he thinks all that know me have a Spirit of Divination, else they could never know my behaviour, ●s PERFECTLY in their absence, as if they were present with me, and to make me amends; for all this he tells his Reader in his Epist e Page 6. that he forbears to enlarge; because it would but give  world a sight of rudeness and impertenency in their natural deformity. Now the man think I must thank him for his favour, but I shall only say, stul orum gratia in grata. He complains Page 65. that he could not be heard for my Stentorian voice, a hard word, which he found in some of his Boys Dictionaries, taken from a Gracian, whose name was Stentor, who with his voice, it's said, would make a greater noise than 50. men together, such a voice I have, if you will believe Mr. Danson, thus this man's Tongue doth traduce by instinct, and is so venomous that it cannot touch unless it sting, and his Pen drops a train of sly and malicious words, and that (he thinks) is enough to blow up any one's reputation by this Art (as one well observes) Men are wounded with doubtful intimations, and stabbed with an obliqne like look, it is but raising suspicions, and an indifferent Logician will find out the Catagorical meanings of those obliqne reproachings, and as if slanders lay point blank with the level of his Genus he gins to sow this Seed in the morning of his Book, and in the evening of it this hand doth not rest; he saith in the close of his Book, That there is not a ruder sort of people (the quakers not excepted) then the Arminian Anabaptists, & this he says is the common opinion that sober persons have of them, thus you see that one person is too mean a prey for his great Spirit to quarry upon, a whole party is little enough to fall by his fatal blows, thus as with the Jaw bone of an Ass heaps upon heaps we fall by thousands, I shall close this with a sober saying of Dr. Sibs upon the Canticles Page 285. This (saith he) is a thing that springs from the poisonous pride of men's hearts, that when they cannot raise themselves by their own worth they will endeavour to do it by the ruining another's credit. Thus Mr. Crandon, Mr. Eyres, Mr. Bagshaw, deals with Mr. Baxter, the former by solemnly accusing him in print for a Papist, and the second by charging him also in Print, that when he writ against Antinomians, that he meant Antipapists, and that he was a Socinian, and a Papist, and a Jesuit, so confession of Faith, Page 6. the latter, viz. Mr. Bagshaw accuseth him for one of the worst sort of Heretics; Bagshaw Defence of the Antidote, in his Advertisement at the latter end of the Book: And this way the Jesuits went to defame Luther and Calvin, by spreading it abroad, that they denied the Majesty of God, and the Deity of Christ. This way Mr. Edward's in his Gangrena took to bespatter all persons whose Opinions he could not confute; and this way Mr. Danson takes to bespatter me, as if his design were more to blast his Adversaries Fame, then to confute his Errors; and for the better effecting of it, his Book abounds with uncouth and bald Similitudes, thereby to affect the ears of the vulgar, whose temper is aptly suited to receive ill impressions.  
In page 57 of his Book, when he could not reply to the force of my Answer, he instead of rejoining, tells his Reader, that my Answer did me no more service, than a Mouse struggling to get out of a Tar-barrel; and in his Epistle, page 2. as if he had lately been at a , he saith, If he should not have disputed, I would have crowed like a Cock on a Dunghill; but to whom this similitude is best applied, may easily be discerned: for when I sent a Letter to Mr. Danson, to tell him I could not meet at the time he appointed me, and to which I never agreed, yet this man sent me word in a Letter, that he would not alter the time, (though of his own appointing) but accordingly met (if I may use his phrase) upon his own Dunghill, viz the place of his own appointing, where he took the liberty to crow, sufficiently knowing before that there would be none to oppose him. He further adds, as if he had been at a Fencing-School, that if he had not disputed, my party would have gone away singing, IO TRIUMPH: And in page 6. of his Epistle, as if he had lately been at the Bear-Garden, he comes in with his Bearish Similitude, and tell me, That like the Bear I licked my Cubs into a better shape than they had at their Birth. Sure this is barharous English for a Scholar to talk of the Birth of Bears: Again, in his Epistle page 5. he saith I made him father my brats. Is not this rich Rhetoric? But his stock of Similitudes being all exhausted, he goes a borrowing of a greasy one of Dr. Tho. Goodwin, as himself confesseth in his Book, page 37. by which he would compare the increase of Grace to making of Candles; When a Candle (saith he) is put into a Fat of boiled Tallow, every time it is put in, it comes out bigger and bigger, etc. Really it argues a man hath but a little Learning, and a very barren Wit that must go a borrowing for such sorry Similitudes: Thus you see he loves to disport himself with Tropes, Metaphors, and Similitudes. But to proceed, his Logic corresponds with his Rhetoric; for if it be true as he saith, (than which nothing is more false) that I did not rightly l●y down some two or three of his Arguments in his own terms; and if it were true, that sometimes I denied the major when the Syllogism was Hypothetical, and therefore should have denied the Consequence rather; suppose all this that he corrects me for, were deservedly to be corrected, yet that which he doth not deny when I accuse him of it, I hope that may be taken for granted, (and that his silence herein, according to the Proverb, may well be interpreted for consent) and and then let the Reader but consider how often I charged him in the Dispute with begging the Question, instead of proving it with attempting to make Arguments several times one after another, and could not for a long time conclude the Question; see page 84. to 91. of my Book: And did not I in the Disputation thrice appeal to his Friend Mr. Fowler, who also gave it against him? which did not satisfy him, but still he would have argued without concluding the Question in debate. See page 94. how often did I charge him with running in a Ring, and disputing circularly, and of false Syllogisms, arguing idem per idem, to all which he makes no defence, but saith page 43. I wronged him by saying, he argued that what ever was potential hath been done; yet as if the man and his senses were parted, he confesseth he argued, that if Believers can fall away, some have; and that he did argue a posse ad esse, which is in English the same thing; therefore I conclude, that he being conscious of the Truth of what I charged him withal, he thought it the best way to pass it over in silence, as he doth those Quotations out of St. Austin, where I show beyond contradiction, that not only ●e, but Prosper and Fulgentius, and the Church of God for thirteen or fourteen hundred years were of my mind touching the Point in Question; which he makes no reply to, though this was stiffly denied in the Disputation.  
Again, page 43. of my Book, I charge him with taking up my Interpretation of the first of John to confute the Quakers, when he discoursed with them; and with taking up the Quakers Interpretation of the same Text, to confute me, as any man may see, that compareth 42, 43, 44, 45. of my Book, with page 3, 4. & 6.36. & 44. of his Book called The Quakers folly, much like those fraudulent Chapmen, that have one weight to buy by, and another to sell by. Now he in his late Book, instead of answering so material an Objection tells the Reader page 9 that it is so trivial, that it deserves a smile rather than an answer: An easy way to answer Objections, which was a frequent humour in Mr. Danson, and many others of his way then present at the Disputation, to fall a laughing and scoffing, on purpose to animate the people in so doing; see my Book page 114, 115. for no other reason, but because I told them that the Seed of God, 1 John 2. might be understood for the Word of God, according as Christ interprets the phrase, Mat. 13. And though I blamed him and them in their Disputations for their Levity; yet he neither denies the Charge, nor makes any other Defence. But I understand that this is not the first time that he and his party hath been charged with it; George Whitehead in Print complaining of it, in his Account of the Disputations between him and Mr. Danson, though I confess Mr. Danson saith more for himself in his reply to George Whitehead, than his conscience would suffer him to say in his reply to me, viz. that he did speak several times to still the people of his Persuasion when he disputed with the Quakers; though he would never open his lips upon that account, in his disputing with me; though he saw me take so much pains to entreat those of his party to be silent and civil.  
Likewise when I charge him with saying, he could not prove his major Proposition, page 84. so great was the strait he was then in, that he is not yet out of it; for else we should have heard him say something for himself in his Reply, but not a word of this.  
Another main thing he gives the go-by, is my charging his Doctrine with Novelty, and to symbolise with Antinominianism, to those many Instances I bring of the Antiquity of the contrary Opinion, quoted by Mr. Baxter out of St. Austin, and others, he saith nothing, but quotes Dr Kendal, Hier. Zanch See his Book page 80, 81 but not a word what they say; and surrher tell us, that St. Austin writ a Book de persev. Sanct, and distinguisheth often between common and special grace: But what is this to the purpose? Da●h this take off the force of what St. Austin saith about the possibility of true Believers falling away, (which I urged in my Book once and again, and he s●ith nothing to it) and to what I alleged out of Mr. Baxter, he saith page 81. that worthy person doth not determine against what he holds; What a piece of impertinency is here? Do not I say once and again, page 173, 175. that though it was not Mr. Baxter, own persuasion, yet he confesseth it was the persuasion of the Church of God for thirteen or fourteen hundred years; and for this Mr. Baxter quotes good Authority, which instead of taking off, he saith not a word to, only tells his Reader what I told him before, that Mr. Baxer dissents from me. But what is this to the purpose, unless I had charged Mr. Baxter with being of my Opinion.  
But the Ancient Churches, as well as Modern, which I do say were of my mind, Mr. Danson hath no mind to meddle with; and whereas I do charge their Doctrine to symbolise with Antinomianism in many particular Instances, too plain to be denied; instead of taking off those Instances, he brings in Mr. Carril, to whom he saith he subscribes, which, saith he, speaks the sense of them, (meaning of those men whose Books I quote) see his Book page 81. where he quotes these passages from Mr. Carrill, on of his Comment upon these words, Job 10.15. If I be wicked, woe unto me, &c They (saith he) put dangerous suppositions contrary to this, that say, Let a godly man be never so wicked, let him sin as much as he will, yet it shall be well with him [this saith Mr. Danson is the language of such as Dr. Crisp, which Mr. Ives quotes, and we disown] and then he adds, though there be a truth in it, that how much soever a godly man sinneth he shall be pardoned. For the unriddling this Riddle, I must make these inquiries.  
First, Whether it be not as dangerous a supposition to suppose that if a godly man sin never so much, he shall be pardoned, as to suppose that if a godly man be never so wicked, it shall be well with him, since the latter of these Mr. Carril and Mr. Danson both say is contrary to what Job supposeth; but the former they say hath a truth in it.  
Secondly, Since Mr. Danson saith, that it is the language of such as Dr. Crisp to say, that let a godly man sin never so much it shall be well with him, which (saith he) is the language which we disown; yet withal he adds, that there is a truth in it, that how much soever a godly man sins he shall be pardoned; whereupon I demand how Mr. Danson can disown it, and in the next Sentence say there is a truth in it?  
Thirdly, I demand how it can be a dangerous supposition, and yet a true supposition? To suppose that if a godly man sins never so much he shall be pardoned; for he saith there is a truth in it, and yet saith it is dangerous; but what danger is there to assert and believe a truth, unless it be a danger to Mr. Dansons' reputation when his people shall perceive him so palpably contradictious to himself?  
Fourthly, Whereas Mr. Carril and Mr. Danson (both say) that there is a truth in that supposition, that how much soever a godly man sins he shall be pardoned; and yet in the next words tells us, that the Scripture useth no such language. And Mr. Carril (upon the same place in Job) saith, The Spirit of God makes no such supposition; and the form of wholesome words, teacheth every man rather to speak thus, if I am wicked woe unto me: Hence I demand how there can be a truth in any divine Doctrine which is not the language of holy Scripture? No marvel Mr. Danson was angry, and called me a conceited ignorant Fellow, when I called upon him for a plain Text to prove his Doctrine; see my Book, page 156. since he saith there is a truth in this Doctrine, though (he saith) it be not the language of the Scripture, nor according to the form of wholesome words.  
He that can resolve these questions, and can reconcile such palpable contradictions, shall be my magnus Apollo (viz.) that a Doctrine can be dangerous and contrary to what Job speaks, and yet true, a supposition as the Spirit of God no where supposeth, and which is not found in the language of holy Scripture, and form of wholesome words, and yet true; and which Mr. Danson himself saith he disowns, and yet after all this saith, there is a truth in it! When Mr. Danson hath reconciled these Sentences, I will have them advanced into the number of Orthodox paradoxes. But what is all this to the matter objected in page 104 of my book (viz.) that Mr. Danson saith in his book of the Quakers folly, page 38. That David when he was guilty of Murder and Adultery, was not in a condemned, but a justified state; This though I charge him with it once and again; yet like a man afraid or ashamed, he passeth by it, and saith nothing at all to it; and whereas I charge others of them (in divers if their books which I refer to in my Appendix) with saying the regenerate dye in Christ, though they die in impenitency; and that the people of God need not question their condition, though their sins be never so great; and that God loved the Corinthians in their Adulteries, Idolatries, and ungodlyness, as much as when they were believers, washed, justified, and sanctified. And that it is not the manner of God's people to confess and forsake their sin in order to Salvation, and that they that cannot preach mex sins are forgiven, till they see them repent and reform their lives, are ignorant preachers, and that no sin any true believer can commit, can move God to hate them, neither will God love them ever a whit the worse, though they commit never so many and so great sins; These are the Antinomian notions I charge Mr. Danson and divers of his Brethren withal, of which charge he in his book promised to clear them. See his Epistle to his book, page 6. But I think they will never give him thanks for his labour, when they shall find that he takes no notice of all these pernicious doctrines, asserted by them, and charged upon them, as any one may see that reads his book; but instead of clearing them, brings Mr. Carril to speak the same thing for them all, by which he confirms the whole charge, (viz.) that if a godly man sins never so much, it shall be forgiven him, though the Scripture (saith he) useth no such language. But if this godly man have not sinned himself out of his senses, he will never believe such Ministers that tell them of pardons that are not to be found in the Scriptures, nor supposed by the spirit of God, as Mr. Carril and Mr. Danson confesseth; see Mr. Carril upon Job 10.16. and Mr. Danson subscribing to him in his book page 81.. Sure I am a little ticket from Rome (as one calls it) will as soon assure a godly man of pardon, though he sins never so much (as Mr. Danson can assure him in the like case, if such doctrines are not the language of holy Scripture) For would not this be a wonderful Cordial to a godly man in an hour of desertion and temptation, to tell him that he need not be cast down; for though he hath sinned never so much against God he shall be pardoned; and to assure him of the truth of this comfortable Doctrine, tell him Mr. Danson saith, and Mr. Carril saith, there is a truth in it, though it be not the language of holy Scripture. Were it not much better for this godly man to send for a Romish Priest, and take absolution from him; for in so doing he shall have the Faith of their Church for his assurance, though he hath no word of God for it, and I think that as good, if not better, than the assurance of such pardons Mr. Danson talks of, which he saith are not found in the language of holy Scripture.  
Other antinomian passages he hath, p. 32. 33. which like the Papists he accounts for truth, though they are not found in the language of the holy Scripture, (viz.) that David in his committing Murder, and Adultery, did never wickedly departed from God, and to prove this, he suborns the 18th. Psalms for a witness, where David says, I have not wickedly departed from God: whence he infers, that David never wickedly departed from him. but whoever considers 2 Sam 22. shall find that David likewise faith, that he did not departed from God's statutes, and Psal. 119. v. 101, 102. I have (saith David) refrained my feet from every evil way, and I have not departed from thy judgements. May not a man as well argue that David never sinned, because he saith, I have refrained my feet from every evil way, and that he had never departed from God's statutes because he saith, I have not departed from them, as say as Mr. Danson saith, that because David says, I have not wickedly departed from God, that therefore he never wickedly departed from him; For by the same parity of reason that David did not wickedly departed from God in the committing Murder, and Adultery; because he says, I have not wickedly departed from God: I say by the same reason he did not sin in committing Murder, and Adultery; because the Scripture likewise says in the forecited places, that he had refrained his feet from every evil way.  
Again, we have more of this Antinomian Spirit moving upon the Superficies of the 30th. and 31st p. of his book, in words at length and not in figures, he saith, though Christ might justify a divorce; yet it appears not that he will sue out one against any believer that is guilty of bodily Adultery.  
This is the man that tells his Reader in his Epistle, p. 6. that he will vindicate their doctrine from the charge of Antinomianism, and that he disowns the language of such as Dr. Crisp, etc. p 88  
Now in p. 195. of my book, I quote Dr. Grisp in his Sermon of Christ is the way, saying, that if a believer be overtaken with a gross sin, none dare serve a Writ of Damnation upon him.  
And though Mr. Danson would make his Reader believe, he disowns Dr. Crisp etc. yet he saith the same thing; for he saith, Christ will not sue out a divorce against a believer, though guilty of bodily Adultery. Dr. Crisp saith, none can serve a Writ of Damnation 'pon them, though they are guilty of gross sins. Thus you may see how Mr. Danson clears himself of Antomianism, and disowns Dr. Crisps Language; just like him that to clear himself of worshipping the similitude of the Virgin Mary, and to disown any such charge said, that he did not worship her similitude; but he worshipped her likeness; after this rate doth Mr. Danson disown Dr. Crisp, and Antinomianism.  
I now proceed to answer his false charges touching our conferences, which I doubt not but I shall discharge myself of in the judgement of all impartial persons, at a better rate then Mr. Danson hath cleared himself of Antomianism.  
The two main things he charges my book, with is, omissions of many things that past in the Disputes; and asserting some things to have been spoken by him, that he never spoke.  
To this I answer, First, that I did not write out the Disputes myself; but they were writ out by a person that is neither Presbyterian, nor Anabaptist, who took both days conferences in Characters; and had no reason that I know of, to be partial; and who is ready if need be to arrest upon Oath, that those things were asserted by Mr. Danson in the conferences which he denies in his book; among which, this is one passage, in page 83. of my book, (viz.) that whatever is potential hath been done: this Mr. Danson in the 43d p. of his book saith, were not his but my words.  
But besides what may be evidenced by him that writ the Dispute, that these were Mr. Dansons' words; I offer the consideration of what is published in p 83, 84 of my book, where this very proposition of Mr. Dansons', was more largely debated him, and I pressed him to the proof of it, to that height, that he was forced to answer he could not prove it; as any may see that reads my book p. 84 and which he doth not so much as deny in any part of his own book.  
But further, to show my sincerity in this matter, and that I did no way design to abuse Mr, Danson, or he World with falcities; I writ to him to appoint me time and place when and where I might meet with him, that he might have liberty to correct the Copy, that it might be published by consent, the Copy of which Letter is printed in my Book, and confessed by Mr. Danson in the 4. Page of the Epistle to his Book, and for which he tells me I was mo●e bold then wise. Now let all ingenious men judge whether my thus sending to him to come and view the Copy, and correct it if need were, did bespeak me to be a person that intended to misrepresent him, and whether his refusing to meet me upon so fair an invitation, and upon so just an occasion; doth not rather bespeak him too conscious of his own folly, and therefore was unwilling to meet, lest he should have been contributory to the manifestation of it  
Besides (as Mr. Danson deridingly tells his Reader once and again) I had all my Arguments written in my Note Book, and so might be better capable to correct any error in the Scribe. then Mr. Danson, who was so far from having Arguments in his hand, that at some turns he had none in his head, but sometimes when he was right in his Premises, he was out in his Conclusion, and other while when he concluded the thing denied, his Premises was false, from whence he would infer it; this I have charged him with several times, which was so manifest, that he durst not in this matter plead not guilty in all his Book, and therefore I leave any to judge, whose Judgements are not forestalled, whether (these Circumstances considered) I have added any thing to the conferences, or imputed any thing to Mr. Danson, but what in truth he is chargeable with.  
But I have an Argument yet more convincing, to prove he chargeth me falsely; because he complains that I have left out of my Book divers things to the weakening his Arguments and Answers, that I might render him ridiculous. Now that man as shall be so daringly bold as to tell his Reader once and again, that I have left that out of my Book which is plainly and expressly in it, may be justly suspected to speak falsely in other things, and that he charges me falsely in this matter, appears,  
First, In Page 2. of his Book, he saith, the term true believers was not in the minor proposition denied. Now whoever looks into the 2. and 3. Page of my Book shall see it is both implied and expressed, besides he expresseth it in his own Book in his repition of the Argument, Page 2, and yet he saith, the term true believers was not in the minor proposition, I see the Proverb is true that A— must have a good memory; for he reports the words in his own account he gives of the dispute, and presently after saith those words were not in the Arguments.  
Secondly, He saith Page 2 that in my account of the conference, I left out his distinction of what was impossible to be done, by reason of the Divine decree, or promise though otherwise possible, [with respect to the nature of the thing] all this (saith he) Mr. Ives left out.  
When I have not only put it all in; but have added a Paraphrase upon that distinction in a different Character, and that I have put in this distinction in my answers, appears in the 27 Page of my Book, where you have me speaking to Mr. Danson in these words. You gave this distinction that the command was possible in itself, or in relation to the subject commanded, but not possible with respect to the decree of God.  
And in a few lines following, I Print Mr. Danson repling in these words. 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 man is but mutable, and Grace is but a Creature, and therefore certainly may be lost, and yet it is certainly impossible as to true believers upon the supposition of the Divine decree, and Christ promise to presence and uphold the Grace of true believers, to which I subjoin in a different Character as a further Answer upon his distinction, this is just as if a man should say the whole earth is possible to be overflowed with Water, with respect to the Nature of the thing, though with respect to the decree of God it is impossible, but then I add, that if God hath made such a decree, no man hath any more reason to fear a universal inundation, because of such a decree, than 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. Thus I not only mention his distinction, but takes pains to argue it of in Page 27 and 28. of my Book, and yet this man hath the confidence to tell his Reader in Page 2. of his Book, that I left it out, and relate only his denial of the Major.  
Thirdly, A third omission he chargeth me with is that in my Book, I left all the explication (he gave) of enlightening which he infered from 1 John 5. Luke 4.1. how that all enlightening was not a Character of true believers unless the Devil, be a true believer; See his Book Page 10. Now that this is a notorious falsity any one may see, that reads my Book, Page 46. 47. in which Pages I bring in Mr. Danson, thus answering upon this distinction. A person (saith he) may be so far enlightened (and not a true believer) as to assent to this proposition that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 1 John 5. compared with Luke 4 4. here are both the Texts that he grounds the distinction, and the explication itself, and then in Page 47. I bring him in giving a further explication of himself in these words, I have shown you (saith he) that pesons may be so far enlightened, as to believe that Jesus is the Christ, as the Devils themselves did, yet (he saith Page 10.) all this explication of enlightening I have omitted, if men can speak falsely at such a wilful rate, they deserve not to be credited when they speak the truth.  
Fourthly, He saith I omitted his Argument of the 1. John 3.9. Whosoever is born of God cannot sin, etc. see his Book P. 47. Now see my Book Page 101, 102, 103. where I bring in Mr. Danson, not only quoting the Text, but inferring from it several times that believers cannot sin as wicked men do, as any may see that reads my book, where I express and repeat his Arguments with all his improvements of it, and yet this man saith saith I have omited it.  
Fif●hly, He saith my disingenuity is remarkable, that I leave out the word Spiritual, which (saith he) I did often, perhaps not always add as a limitation of the promises made to Israel; See his book p. 56.  
Here Mr. Danson chargeth me with an Emphasis, not only for being disingenuous, but adds, that I am remarkably disingenuous for leaving out the word Spiritual, in his argument on Jer. 32. But Mr. Danson is the more remarkably dishonest for falc●fying my book, and abusing his Re●der, that perhaps may never compare both ●ooks together, for this very word Spiritual I mention six times in 5 pages one after another, as spoken by Mr. Danson by which he limits the promise in the 32d of Jer. as made to Israel in things spiritual; and yet Mr. Danson is so carnal as to say, I am remarkably disingenuous for leaving it out; for proof hereof, read my book p. 131. where you will find, I charge him for running in a Ring, and disputing circularly; and therefore pray him to prove the promises in Jer. 32. are made to all true believers: then I bring in Mr. Danson, giving this answer, IN SPIRITUAL THINGS saith he, here I mention the word the first time, again, I mention it the second time in page 132. where I charge him with saying, whatever is predicated of all the Israel of God, is predicated of all true believers; to this I bring in Mr. Danson giving this answer, I told you (saith he) IN SPIRITUAL THINGS. The third time I mention it, is in p. 132. That there may be some promises made to the Israel of God, that are not appropriated to all true beleivers; I bring Mr. Danson in using this limitation, I say (saith he) as to SPIRITVAL blesings; I mention him using the same phrase a fourth time in the same forecited p. 133. this clause (saith he) I will put my fear in their hearts, IS SPIRITUAL, my argument (saith he) lies in that; the fifth time I mention the word, is in p. 134. of my book, there I bring in Mr. Danson speaking thus, I bring this Text (saith he) to prove that the phrase the Israel of God, comprehends all true believers; because (saith he) that the promise that is here made is SPIRITVAL. A 6th. time I mention the word, is in p. 135. of my book, where I tell him, he is to conclude that all the promises that are made to the Israel of God, are made to all true believers: To this I bring in Mr. Danson, giving this answer, I say (saith he) it is the promise in SPIRITUAL things.  
I have put this word Spiritual in Capitals, that all may see he is as capitally Criminal in depraving my Writings, both in the words, and very letter of them, as he is in defaming my person; for every passage that threatens danger to his cause must be mutilated and dismembered; and as Samson was by the Philistines, lose its hair and eyes, and then (as one well observes upon the same occasion) be made sport for the whole party.  
6ly Mr. Danson accuseth me in p. 49. of his book for saying, that the promise of the Land of Canaan had no condition expressed or implied in all the Scripture, which is notoriously false; for it was only a stranger that was at the Dispute, that did accuse me for saying so, but I presently convinced him of his mistake: for which he publicly craved my pardon, as I relate it in my book, 122. and which is not denied by Mr. Danson; and yet he mounts upon confidence, and says I said so.  
7ly. Whereas in my Appendix I charge Mr. Danson, and divers other Ministers; for making one heart with Dr. Crisp, by their publishing Antinomian notions, that tend to Ranterism: Mr. Danson replies, that how smoothly soever I th' nk to carry it, Dr. Crisp speaks of the Elect; but the other Divines speak of Believers; See his book, p. 82. But this is as false as the rest; for I sometimes bring in Dr. Crisp, applying these notions to Believers, as well as they see my book, p. 195. none (saith he) dare serve a Writ of Damnation on a Believer, though he should b● overtaken with gross sins; and some of those other Divines, as he calls them, applieth the like say to the E ect, as well (it not as ill) as Dr. Crisp, for Mr. Eyres (whom Dr. Owen commends, and whom I quote in my book, p. 196. (saith, that the Elect Corinthians had no more sight to Heaven after they believed, than they had in the midst of their Fornicators, Thefts, and Extortions; And yet this man tells his Reader a story as if it were Dr. Crisp that applied these say to the Elect; their Ministers understood them of Believers.  
There are many more of this kind, which I forbear to name, knowing that these instances may serve sufficiently to show all so●●● Christians what spirit inspired him in inditeing: his book, wh●ch though it consists of six sheets of Paper, about 3 of those sheets are spent in creating new Arguments and Answers, that he confesses were not urged in the Dispute; all which will show that he hath better skis l to answer Arguments of his own making then mine: But I shall leave the Reader to judge whether Mr. Danson hath sufficiently answered my Arguments, or proved his own, by comparing the books together.  
FINIS.