Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	believe_v	scripture_n	write_v	2,819	5	5.7819	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45824	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 saints 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, railings, false accusations, unchristian and unmanly reflections upon the person, opinion, and trade of his antagonist. Evidenced to the judgment of every ingenious reader. By Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1672 (1672)	Wing I1097; ESTC R221622	15,362	33

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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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