unto the Law and Testimony supposing that were the Scripture it followeth not that therefore it is the principal rule especially in Gospel times when God writeth his Law in the heart and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself But that people are not sent to any dictate Word or Light within as I. A. doth alledge is false and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers and must not they go to God and Christ where they are and doth not God and Christ speak in his people Are they not his Temple and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple under the Old Covenant the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple as well as he did in former times Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us and their Inward Teaching and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy Neglect not the Gift that is in thee Hath this command no regard unto us And when Christ saith Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man will hear my voice Is this door only an outward door or is not rather the door of the Heart which is inward and therefore is not that voice inward And whence is it that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them that he doth not speak one word to them by himself as a man doth to his Friend that he is present with Is it want of power or unkindness that he doth so refrain Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle make God over all Blessed for ever more like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture Who have a Mouth but speak not being always dumb or silent Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory and let I. A. take heed lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy be not found among the Blasphemers himself who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself in his Living Temples To his second Argument I Answer Though the Scriptures are Infallible and cannot deceive us yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us their Infallibility nor yet their true Sense without the evidence of the Spirit as is clear by Paul's Testimony 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit his words could not prevail nor perswade them that they were of God And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit his Writing doth as much need it at this day To the third I say It is no derogating from the Scripture that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God which gave them their being even as it is no derogation from the words of a King long ago spoken by him That he confirmeth them a new by a new immediate Testimony To the fourth Although we may not receive any Dictate within that agrees not with the Scripture it doth not follow that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God or his Dictate for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God and neither can the Spirit or Scripture ever contradict pure and sound Reason yet it doth not follow that Reason is either greater or equal to the Spirit or to Scripture And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected as being none of Gods Spirit it doth only well follow that the Scripture is a Rule that is to be set over all false Dictates to judge and condemn them which we most willingly grant Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments labours to guard against it As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men is the word of God therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule And this Argument I did use in my Book called Quakerism no Pepery To which he Answers by denying That there is any such Dictate of God or the spirit in any men whomsoever whether believers or unbelievers But to this I Answer 1. He will not deny but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate and also the Prophets and therefore he must allow that the Scripture as to the Prophets and Apostles was but a secondary Rule or at least no greater Rule than that Dictate within which they had And yet by I. A. his Logick the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them seeing they had an inward Dictate which was greater or at least equa unto the Scripture Or let I. A. shew how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule did not make them undervalue the Scriptures whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them But secondly he only supposeth it without any proof that such an Inward Dictate which was once in the Church of God as is confessed is discontinued or ceased And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers who lay it down as a Principle as needing no proof that Immediate Revelation and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased But let I. A. know that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us Thirdly that he saith I should first prove that there is such a Dâ—ctate in every man I Answer that I have done already in my Book called Immediate Revelation published many years ago by many Arguments and he should first have Answered to these before he had sought any more Also in my Book called Quaâ—erism no Popery to which he has given no sufficient reply and some of the most weighty he hath not so much as once Named And whereas he objecteth the Americans and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are I ask him by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day shall it not be by the Law of God writ in their Hearts And do not these Americans sin against God and those also who are most ignorant and yet want the Scripture now where no Law is there is no transgression This I hope is enough to prove that even the Americans and consequently all men have a Divine Law in their Hearts for if it were not Divine and as really the Law of God as any that we have to transgress it were not a sin against God Hence I thus argue a Divine Law in all men is
with Commiseration and pity praying heartily that the Lord may forgive him But now let us see further what he saith against the inward Dictate First he saith It is not essentially right and infallible because all men have not the Spirit But to this is Answered already And whether all men have the Spirit in some sense Yea or Nay it is agreed upon by all sober Writers that there is an infallible and incorruptible Law planted by God in all men even those who have not the Scriptures which the Lawyers call Synderesis that is the foundation of all just and good Laws and if that were destroyed or corrupted all Justice should utterly perish among that part of mankind in whom it should be destroyed or corrupted But this I. A. like a blind man he striketh so rashly with his supposed Blowes that he not only fighteth against our Religion and Principle but even against all the Lawyers and Justiciaries and all other sober Writers on these matters who do all unanimously plead that there is such an incorruptible Law implanted or imprinted by the Creator in all men And certainly if that Law could be corrupted and changed from its essential rectitude and purity to transgress it were no sin for a corrupt and impure Law can be no Law of God And doth not Paul speak of the Law that was in the Hearts of the Gentiles which he did not say they did or could corrupt But that they held the Truth in unrighteousness Rom. 2. 15 compared 1. 18. Again he argueth That as for Believers they need no Inward Dictate or Teaching of the Spirit seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures But I Answer That the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures that the Inward Teaching and Revelation of God by his Spirit is needless is a thing he barely doth alledge without proof as his ordinary custom is And indeed his manner of Argument is as if one should say the Card or Map of the Earth doth abundantly make the Earth known unto us with the things therein and therefore we need no other knowledge of the Earth nor of any thing in it we need not see the Earth it self nor Taste any of the Fruits of it and when we Hunger or Thirst we need neither Bread nor Drink the report of these things can satisfie our Appetite well enough Or if one should say to a Woman that intirely loves her Husband thou hast many of thy Husbands Letters and Books also thou hast his Picture very perfectly drawn to look upon and it cannot be better drawn than it is done already and therefore what needs thou to hear or see thy Husband himself The application is easie for certainly as the report of Meat and Drink cannot satisfie one that is Hungry and Thirsty though it be never so full and as to hear or read of our most dear and beloved Friends is not enough to satisfie our desire after them but over and above all that others can tell us of them we desire to hear and see them and converse with them immediately so a report of God and Christ cannot satisfie the Souls of Gods people but they desire a nearer knowledge of him whom their Souls love and which he doth also give unto them according to his promise Ioh. 14. 21. He that loveth me said Christ shall be loved of my Father and I will manifest my self unto him And why did Christ promise that he would send his Spirit to Teach them all things if the Teaching of his Spirit was a needless thing Might they not have answered according to I. A. thou needest not send thy Spirit to Teach us we have the Scriptures that abundantly Teach us all things needful to be known and what is not expressly contained in the Scriptures we can gather it by consequence from the Scripture and therefore there is no need of sending the Spirit to Teach us it is but a superfluous labour But however this Language savours to such whole persons as I. A. that need not the Physician yet those that are truly Sick Poor and Indigent do need the Lord and his Spirit to Teach them and also to speak unto them without which they cannot be healed refreshed and comforted by all that they can read or hear from the Letter of the Scriptures or what man can Preach unto them until the Lord by his Spirit syeak unto them himself And in the close of his Argument against the necessity of the Inward Teaching or Dictate of the Spirit of God he pleadeth That it is inconsistent to hold an infallible Dictate of the Spirit to be in any man and yet that man in any respect to Think Speak Write or act fallibly And 〈◊〉 when Peter denyed Christ as also when Christ reproved him for saying be it far from thee Master Peter according to I. A. had no infallible Dictate in him And seeing I. A. doth plead that the Apostles did sin in Thought Word and Deed so long as they lived upon Earth and to sin is to act fallibly it must needs follow by his doctrine that none of the Apostles had any infallible Dictate But why may they not err who have an infallible Dictate within as they may err who have the Scripture without that is infallible May not a man have an infallible guide and way before him and yet through unwatchfulness not follow that infallible guide and way Again whereas he pleads That there is no middle betwixt fallible and infallible I Answer to be universally fallible and partly infallible I grant is a contradiction and admitteth no midst but yet to be partly infallible viz. so far as a man doth follow the infallible Teaching and leading of Gods Spirit and partly fallible viz. so far as at another instant or moment or hour and in another thing he waiteth not for his guide but runneth before or turneth aside from him I say these two are no contradiction And I ask I. A. hath he no infallibility nor infallible knowledge in any thing Doth he not believe and know infallibly that there is a God and divers other weighty Truths This I judge he will not deny Well then According to his Logick if he be infallible when he Thinks Says or Writs that there is a God he must be infalâ—ible in all other things that he either Thinks Writes or speaks because according to his Doctrine there is no midle betwixt fallible and infallible I. A. should have better remembred his School-Logick which Teacheth that contradictory propositions are not betwixt two universals nor two particulars but the one universal and the other particular His 3d Argument against the Dictate of the Spirit of God within is the same with his 4th Argument that is formerly Answered above concerning the Scripture And surely this repeating of Arguments as if they were new ones when they are nothing but old ones formerly used argueth great barrenness of matter
read and compare these following Scriptures Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7 8. and Ioh. 1. 16 17. Rom. 5. 18. PROP. III. WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end which is possible to come to pass on many and doth no doubt come to pass on many even when living in the World after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls and â—â—ully resisted and hardned themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace gently working on their hearts I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all or any one of those after the said day of their Visitation is at an end For although we read in Scripture That Christ hath died for the reâ—ission of all sins past in the time of ignorance when God winked and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come after they were Enlightned And although no doubt all sins as well to come as past are pardoned upon Repentance and that Christ hath died for such sins as are repented of by any men at any time when they truly repent yet seeing many sins are committed by many that are never repented of and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away after they have received the knowledge of the Truth and die in that state the Scripture is plain That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them Also Iohn speaketh Of a sâ—n that is unto death of which he Writes I do not say that such a one is to be Prayed for And what is such a sin but a final impenitence even until the day of Visitation be over and God be provoked to give them up even as many at this day because they received not the Truth in Love are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist to believe Lies and die in that state PROP. IV. MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time that God dwelleth with them by his Grace in order to convert them and renew them by Repentance far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity or before the foundation of the World as some alledge although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men while he is calling them to Repentance and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him is an absolute inconsistency The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons and their sins and sinful state for also â—in and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated yet not the persons until their day be over For the Scripture speaketh aboundantly of a day of Grace that all men have or are to have wherein the Lord not only visits them but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction These only therefore are properly Reprobates who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind after their day of Grace is over and Gods fore-knowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such PROP. V. ACcording to what is formerly said it may be further concluded that although Christ hath died for all men in a day so that within that day of Grace all their sins past and to come as well as present are pardonable for Christs sake no man being absolutely reprobated and finally given over within this day of Grace yet that day being at an end Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for them nor for their sins and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them so as to hinder Pardon are newly charged upon them and that in the just Judgement of God seeing they deny the Lord that bought them and account his Blood as an unholy or common thing And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates to wit as such And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World in that sense to wit as it signifieth them who die in the final unbelief and impenitency and so perish for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction as implying that Christ hath died for all men and yet hath not died for Reprobates who are a great part or the greatest part of mankind I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick that he doth so highly magnifie to wit that Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordtne ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of time place condition c. PROP. VI. THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely extend for the remission of sins past from the beginning of the world hence all the Believers that lived under the Law and Prophets and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ and had their sins pardoned not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams but by the Blood of Christ who was to die for them and in whom they believed and died in Faith as is clear out of many places of Scripture and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews And by vertue of Christ's death and offering once for all men have had or have or shall have a day of Visitation and offer of Grace through Christ even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh in that prepared body as well as others And therefore all who finally perish and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived they must be accountable to Christ who is judge both of quick and dead and Lord of both and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered how this Gospel Invitation and Visitation cometh unto all and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus on the score or account of his dying for them yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it it is better to believe it than curiously to dispute how or after what manner it comes so to be And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion is approaching to many who as yet do not see them and when men are prepared to receive them God will no doubt give that and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him PROP. VII ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge That either Christ
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most