IT hath alway been, and still is the Me­thod of the adversaries to Truth, to make Calumnies and Falshood, the greatest part of their offensive Ar­mour; having learned that old Greek advice, That to Calumniate stoutly, for that how perfectly the wound of reproch 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 behinde: 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, [Page 2]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 Falshood 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 withall; the evincing whereof is the ground of this present Undertaking.

I shall begin with his Calumniating, where­with he begins 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 repented of it as he knows of; and therefore all Christians by Profession have cause to be a­shamed of me, &c. 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 [Page 3]Law, which is to love God with all my heart, and my neighbour as my self, 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 publickly 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 reproch 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 expresly 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 game­ing, Bowls, and Nine-pins, &c. 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 [Page 5]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 rowl away this re­proch. 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 begins to beat me with barbarism, telling me that I out-faced him, Epist. Page 3. That I was more bold then 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, disingenious, impudent fellow, see my Book Page 156. 158. and in Page 41. of his Book, he calls me igno­and disingenious, 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 it self to give me an instance [Page 7]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 demean'd 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 inlarge; because it would but give tht 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 then 50. men together, such a voice I have, if you will believe Mr. Danson, thus this mans 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 ones reputation by this Art (as one well observes) Men are wounded with doubtful intimations, and stab'd with an ob­lique [Page 8]like look, it is but raising suspicions, and an in­different Logitian will find out the Catagorical meanings of those oblique reprochings, and as if slanders lay point blank with the level of his Genus he begins 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 mens hearts, that when they cannot raise themselves by their own worth they will en­deavour to do it by the ruining anothers 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 [Page 9]latter, viz. Mr. Bagshaw accuseth him for one of the worst sort of Hereticks; 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. Edwards 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 Errours; 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 rejoyning, tells his Reader, that my An­swer did me no more service, then a Mouse struggling to get out of a Tar-barrel; and in his Epistle, page 2. as if he had lately been at a Cock-fighting, 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 [Page 10]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 addes, as if he had been at a Fencing-School, that if he had not disputed, my party would have gone away singing, IO TRIƲMPHE: 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 then they had at their Birth. Sure this is barharous English for a Schollar 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 Rhetorick? But his stock of Similitudes being all exhausted, he goes a bor­rowing of a greazy 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 boyled Tallow, every time it is put in, it comes out bigger and bigger, &c. Really it argues a man hath but a little Learning, and a very [Page 11]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 Logick corresponds with his Rhetorick; for if it be true as he saith, (then 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 deny'd the major when the Syllogism was Hypothetical, and therefore should have denyed 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 satisfie him, but still he would have argued without concluding the Questi­on in debate. See page 94. how often did I [Page 12]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 wrong'd 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 with­all, he thought it the best way to pass it over in silence, as he doth those Quotations out of St. Austin, where I shew beyond con­tradiction, that not onely [...]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 stifly 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 [Page 13]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 then an answer: An easie 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, then 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 Perswa­sion when he disputed with the Quakers; [Page 14]though he would never open his lips upon that account, in his disputing with me; though he saw me take so much pains to in­treat 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 straight 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 symbolize 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 Kendall, 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 alledg'd out of Mr. Baxter, he saith page 81. that [Page 15]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 perswasion, yet he confesseth it was the perswasion 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, onely 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 Antient 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 sym­bolize with Antinomianism in many particu­lar Instances, too plain to be deny'd; 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 sall be well with him [this saith Mr. Danson [Page 16] 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 enquiries.

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 withall 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 [Page 17]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 Doctrin which is not the language of holy Scripture? No marvail 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, [Page 18]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 Adultry, 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 dye 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 Gods 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 with­all, [Page 19]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, [Page 20]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, then 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 Adul­try, did never wickedly depart from God, and to prove this, he suborns the 18th. Psalm for a witness, where David says, I have not wickedly departed from God: whence he infers, that David never wickedly departed fron him. but whoever considers 2 Sam 22. shall find that David likewise faith, that he did not depart from Gods 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 judgments. 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 Gods statutes because he saith, I have not departed from them, as say as Mr. Danson saith, that because David [Page 21]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 depart from God in the committing Murder, and Adultry; be­cause he says, I have not wickedly departed from God: I say by the same reason he did not sin in committing Murder, and Adultry; 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 justifie a divorce; yet it appears not that he will sue out one against any believer that is guilty of bodily Adultry.

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, &c. 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 &c. yet he saith the same thing; for he saith, Christ will not sue out a divorce against a believer, though guilty of bodily Adultry. Dr. Crisp [Page 22]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 my self of in the judg­ment 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 my self; 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 [Page 23]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 shew 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, least he should [Page 24]have been contributary 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 whiles 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 Judgments 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 falsly; 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 expresly in it, may be justly suspected to speak falsly in other things, and that he charges me falsly in this matter, appears,

First, In Page 2. of his Book, he saith, the [Page 25]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 exprest, 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 it self, 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, [Page 26]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 subjoyn 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, 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. 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 inlightning which he infered from 1 John 5. Luke 4.1. how that all inlightning was not a Cha­racter [Page 27]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 inlightned (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 it self, and then in Page 47. I bring him in giving a further explica­tion of himself in these words, I have shewen you (saith he) that pesons may be so far inlight­ned, as to believe that Jesus is the Christ, as the Devils themselves did, yet (he saith Page 10.) all this explication of inlightning 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, &c. 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 a y may see that reads my book, where I express and r [...]peat 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 [Page 28](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 onely for being disingenious, but adds, that I am remarkably disingenious 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 disingenious 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 [Page 29]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 SPIRITƲAL 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 SPIRITƲ ­AL. 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 dismem­bred; and as Sampson 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 [Page 30]no condition expressed or implied in all the Scripture, which is notoriously false; for it was onely 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 publickly 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 smooth [...]y soever I th nk to ca ry 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, applies the like sayings 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, then they had in the midst of their Fornica­tors, Th [...]fts, and Extortions; And yet this man tells his Reader a story as if it were Dr. Crisp that applied these sayings to the Elect; their Ministers understood them of Belieuers.

There are many more of this kind, which I forbear to name, knowing that these instances may serve suf­ficiently to shew 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 Argum [...]nts and Answers, that he con­fess [...]th were not urged in the Dispute; all which will shew that he hath better ski 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.