vine in the kingdom Was it not spiriritual a mystery which the outward Bread Cup and Passover were but as signs or shadowes of Pr. There is no such passage written that Christ appointed it to be taken away by his suffering An. As oft as they did it it was to shew the Lords death till he came What coming and when was it or is it to be he intended Wa' st a first or a second or a third And was it inward or outward Pr Neither is the Bread and Wine a shadow Secondly For he being present and it representing him as suffered it cannot be called a shadow as of things to come An. Is the Bread and Wine the substance Then this is popish thus to deny the â—read and Wine to be a shadow and worse then the Episcopals that tell us of their Sacraments being outward and visible signes of an inward and Spiritual Grace Secondly If Christs being present makes Bread and Wine no shadow or not figurative then by the same reason the Passover which the disciples prepared to answer that part of the Law was not a shadow nor Circumcission Offerings c. when done either for Christ or in his presence which to affirm and make that the reason were grose and absurd whereas the mystery substance or end was not so fully manifest when Christ was outwardly present before his being offered up as after when they were indued with power from on high received the promise of the Comforter came to eat his flesh and drink his blood which saying the disciples for a time when he was with them were troubled at and counted hard Pr. It concerneth all who own the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures though they be for baptizing with sprinkling to propound a query to men that do with sacrilegious boldness take away the Ordinances instituted by Christ unto believers An. Is it not then sacrilegious boldness for thee and the Priests to teach or impoâ—e sprinkling Infants which is neither a Doctrine contained in Scriptures nor a baptizing believers howbeit such a great stress hath been laid on the Scriptures before as being the rule and means for Faith and Salvation revealing the Mystery for receiving Life Eâ—ernal in them Christ in them c. yet we find not sprinkling Iâ—fants in the Scriptures neither by command nor practice though so much pleaded for by one here that tels us Pag. 35. they disallow all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture but sprinkling Infants is not Scripture but onely a Tradition of men And one main plea for it is that Infants baptisme was approved and practised in the Orthodox Church of Christ c. which is just like the Papists and Jesuits plea to believe as the Church believes taking it for granted that the Church is pure as he saith Orthodox in all her Traditions whether they be Scripture yea or nay whereas before all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture are disallowed but instead of Scripture for proof in this matter we have mention made of the Teachers and Guides of the Church as he calls them as Tertullian Cyprian who lived about 247. after Christ and Lactanctius that lived about the year 317. As also the latter sound Fathers as he calls them as Augustin Jerom Bassil Viz. their being for Infants baptisme but what proves all this from Scripture if it be as he sayes they did Must we take it up upon an implicite faith because such and such approved of it And yet at other times lay such a stress on the Scriptures as the perfect rule of obedience of faith c. How hath E. I. undervallued the Scriptures in this matter and spoyled his own cause touching them And Do not the Papists plead for their Traditions and Ceremonys against Protestants and others in like manner as he hath done in this cause And Would he be willing to accept their Arguments against Protestants when they are of the same nature and bear the same face with his in this point Pr. That the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under and therefore the Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were An. Where provest thou by Scriptures that sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant Or that ti 's so called thou herein doest but beg the question and takest it for granted that it is the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace which I deny and then from thence fallatiously drawes thy inference and conclusions for its being to Believers Seed as Abrahams Children to wit the males were Circumcised and that the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under But what of this if it be granted it was Gods Covenant or Promise Must they therefore be under mans tradition which sprinkling Infants is To plead for it from believers being baptized is to ground it upon that you Priests are out of the practice of so as to that it 's not pertinent to dispute with such about it who own it not in practice but onely talk of it for a cover to a popish tradition and thereby shew their hypocrisie the more and Must now sprinckling Infants stand for the substance or antitype instead of Circumcision Or Was Circumcision the type of Infants Baptizme so called Whereas sprinckling Infants hath neither the true form nor matter of Baptisme outward in it for in the next page it 's confessed that the word in the first Language signifying Baptisme is rendered washing Mar. 7.4 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afterwards it 's said that being washed all over best signifies our inward renovation and burial with Christ and thus contradictions and confusions are heaped up in many places And to my saying that it s not commanded under the New Covenant to Baptize Infants thou replyest the Apostle Peter Act. 2.38 39. sayes That those to whom that promise that God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized but to Believers and their Seed he saith that promise belongeth c. Now let the Reader but peruse that Scripture mentioned by thee and compare thy fallacious arguing from it for Peter said Ver. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. Were they Infants such as the Priests sprinkle that he bid repent How grosly hast thou perverted Scripture And Ver. 39. The promise is to you and your Children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now What can be inferred from hence for sprinkling Infants Were all they whom God should call Infants when called Or Did Peter intend they should all have their Children sprinkled before they were called But in contradiction afterward thou sayest though there be no express command yet it s of divine institution and warrant if it be drawn
the Father the word and the spirit and those three are one Then we own what the Scriptures assert of the Deity oâ— the Father Word and the Spirit which are one this is no blasphemy no fancies as malitiously we are accused Except ye call all the words of Scriptures clearly confered together a cavilling Viz. touching three distinct Persons in the Deity c. Although the Scriptures do not in so many words make mention of the three Persons c. who are one God we disalow all Traditions or any unwritten Rule which is not Scripture Then three dictinct Persons in the Deity distinct in the personal Subsistance are not the words of the Scriptures but a Tradition and why do you then alow of that which is not Scripture but that There are three that bear record in heaven and these three are one is Scripture The Apostles telleth that the Corinthians were to shew forth Christs death till he came again The Bread spoken of to them behoved to be this of outward Bread c. It behoved to be such a coming againe as was yet future and unaccomplished in the Corinthians time Were the Corinthians then to eat and drink outwardly after their time or so long after their deceases What absurdity and grosness is here Infants Baptism was approved by the Orthodox Church and the Renouned Teachers and Guides thereof and sound Father as Tertullian Ciprian Lactant Augustine Jerom Basil c. It s derived from the Church when pure We disallow all Traditions or any un-written Rule which is not Scripture whether they be under pretence of Revelation which Enthusiasts hold or Traditions as Papists in this agree Then Infants Baptisme not being Scripture but a popish Tradition is therefore to be disalowed of Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were Circumcision was the Seal of the old Covenant and it was administered on Males onely page 35. Circumcision of the Males onely was in its time Commanded of God which is no proof of sprinkling Infants both Males and Females which was never cammanded of God pa. 38. The Fathers or Isralites who fell into gross sins professed the same Doctrine of Salvation to profess Christ is called a drinking of Chrâ—st c Abraham and his Seed under the old Covenant had the same Mediator which is Jesus Christ he was the same yester-day to them that he is to day to believers Their having the same Mediaâ—or Jesus Christ the same c. And drinking of Christ was more then to profess him or the Doctrine of Salvation And Did such fall into gross sins What fell they from if not from Grace Ye say thereis no express command for sprinkling of the Infants of believers pa. 36 But we disalow all Traditions or any unwritten Rule which is not Scripture pa. 35. You ' have confest what I said that there is no express command for sprinkling Infants therefore in alowing of it you contradict your selves Though there be no express command yet it s of Divine Institution and Warrant if it be drawn by good consequence from the Scriptures Truths and Doctrines is to be tried by the Scriptures so far as can be found in the Scriptures page 29. Christ bid search the Scriptures they reveal the Misteries page 27. I deny any immediate teaching by God page 14. Although a great stress and necessity is laid upon the Scriptures and immediate teaching so confidently denied yet no Sprinkling Infants to be found or required in Scripture and whilst any imediate teaching is denied How is it of Divine Institution Surely Edward Jamisons consequence herein is not Divine who denies any immediate teaching pa. 37. If I had said it Viz. Infants Baptism brought them to the Church those places and many others do hold it as Gal. 3.27 it s the ordinary way of putting on Christ c. I said not that it did bring them into the Church but that it is a Seal of our entry into the Church page 26. sprinkling of water is enough to signify inward washing If it doth not bring into the Church it is but a signe of inward washing it s not a putting on Christ neither can the Scripture prove it when there is no Scripture for it and were the Scriptures deemed the ordinary way and means but now sprinkling Infants What ignorant and gross contradictions are these Ye say Baptisme doth not bring them into the Church it s a bold Sacrilegious usurpation in detracting from the words of the Book of God which shall be punished with all the curses of that Book Though there be no express command for sprinâ—ling Infants yet it s of Divine Institution if it be drawn by good consequence pa. 36. See what Curses these Priests have laid upon them that deny the Infants Baptisme their Scripturles Tradition to bring into the Church and are not they herein evidently Guilty of Sacrilegious usurpation and adding to the words of the Book of God by their false consequence Baptizing of Children or others a standing Ordinance of Christ which he hath appointed to continue to the end of the world Mat. 28. and ordinary means for Salvation Maâ— 16.16 There be no express commands for sprinkling Infants Act. 2.38 repent and be baptized Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved They to whom Repentance and Faith was preached were not Infants such as the Priests sprinkle of a few dayes old which is not the Baptisme that saveth but that of the Spirit or the answer of a good conscience is saving Page 37. That many Ministers baptize the Children of those who are prophane and drunkards and so not believers They that profess the Gospel though they be not sincere believers yet they are in this sence accounted belivers Page 85. The Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant to believers and their Seed that promise belongeth those to whom that promise That God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized Viz. Infants who are in the Covenant with God Page 36. It seems these Priests can make believers at an easie rate whilst they can take the prophane drunkards for believers upon their professing the Gospel but surely God is not the God of the prophane and drunkards nor are they in Gods Covenant as true believers are but under Satans power and their taking it for granted that the sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant is false and but a beging the question Those who are under the profession of the Gospel are to be reputed as in Covenant pa. 39. Unbelievers who have a profession and yet have not sincere faith c. are not Righteous nor Holy c. Then it is not the profession of the Gospel that makes them believers or in Covenant with God An Arminion and Popish Doctrine that believers may fall from Grace The Fathers many of them fell into gross sins as is cleared from the Histories of
obey it be wicked Whereas the Apostle saith before That the doers shall be justified See how thou hast brought forth one error and falshood upon another Pr. Is not the Father distinct from the Son and the Spirit in the personal subsistance An. Where learnedst thou these words the Father distinct from the Son and Spirit in the personal subsistance these are not the words of Scripture or the words of Scripture clearly conferred together as thou sayest after but in contradiction after thou sayest although the Scripture doth not in so many words make mention of three Persons who are one God and three distinct Persons and that these cannot be three if they be not distinct for where there is no distinction there is perfect oneness c. What 's the consequence of this but that therefore there is not perfect oneness in the Deity or God-head because three distinct Persons or three distinct one from another in personal subsistance Is this good Doctrine Is not that oneness between the Father and the Son perfect And Did not Christ say I and my Father are one and prayed that his might be perfect in one as he and his Father were one And though thou hast said you disalow all Traditions or any written rule which is not Scripture and yet thou wilt use words and distinctions which are not Scripture according to thy own confession What confusion art thou â—n For whereas I answered thee that we own what the Scriptures of truth assert of the God-head Viz. That there are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one c. and thou thy self in the next Page sayest that both the Father the Son and the holy Ghost are a Spirit howbeit my honest answer in Scripture words would not satisfy thee but thou hast villifyed and abused me in this matter in several reproaches and slanders as with shameless rayling and deriding c. with grose evasion with not being able to answer thee with not owning what the Scriptures assert and with blaspheamous fancyes blaspheaming Jesus Christ c. All which accusations I utterly deny as thy malitious lies and slanders against me and thy bundle is stuffed with many more of like nature and if thou didst not propound any of those quarrels as not knowing the answer of them as thou sayest c. then Didest thou propound them to cavil and get some advantages to carp at For thou hast shewed thy self in prejudice against us and hast reckoned me or us as wanting Learning c how-be-it thou hast shewed such Learning as thou hast to confute me with broken School phrases and words with some few fragments and traditional distinctions patched up together which we can have no Scripture for but thy consequences which much might be said to shew the weakness and shallowness thereof Pr. Those who had Christ the living bread yet were partakers of the outward bread as the disciples were Were not the Corinthians Saints c. An. That the disciples had outward bread Who denies But that it was to continue alwayes of necessity as an Ordinance after Christ the Living Bread and Life was received in them which is the substance that 's not yet proved that the disciples were to shew forth the Lords death till he come in the observation of the Bread and Cup or supper I grant Now what and when that coming was is the matter in controversie Christ came after when he was arisen was apparent he also spiritualy came and was more fully revealed within the Saints and was their Living Bread and Life as thou grantest now when he was with the disciples at supper before he was Crucified he intended by his coming a third coming till which they were to do it which coming not being in their dayes nor is yet by your Doctrine this is no where proved in Scripture as we know Pr. Were not the Corinthians Saints called in Christ And yet the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. he gave them the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Secondly And whereas ye say that Christs coming again was when he rose again how false is this and absurd c. An. That 's very strange Doctrine that the Apostles gave the Corinthians the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Where was it kept in the mean time that they both should have the same Bread and Cup the one so many years after the other Where hast thou learned this amongst the Popish Traditions and Reliques But t is probable thou meanest other-wise then thy words import Secondly And Is it false and absurd to say that Christs coming again was when he rose again Did he not come again after he rose And must that be reckoned for no coming And a third coming which is not yet and Was that an outward coming till which the disciples and Corinthians were to continue the Bread and the Cup whereas that coming is not yet according to thy Doctrine The Apostle to the Corinthians told them what Christ did and spoke to the disciples in the case but we read not that he imposed it upon them to continue it all their time or till a supposed coming of Christ which is not yet come for he said to them The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And Was not this the substance Where then remained the necessity of the shadow or outward Representations or Mementoes as some calls them And When was the Church to shew forth the Life of Christ and by what if all their time they must needs and people still shew forth or represent his death and him as suffered as thou sayest by Bread and Wine Doth not the substance end the shadows And Where have you any example in Scripture for the manner of your administring Bread and Wine at certain times a year and calling it a Sacrament The Lords Supper c. Pr. The Apostle telleth that the Corinthians were to shew forth his death till he came again so it behoved to be such a coming again as was yet future and unaccomplished in the Corinthians time the Bread and Cup spoken of to the Corinthians behoved to be outward Bread as shewing forth his death Secondly Because it was the same that Christ took and devided and gave to his disciples An. What confusion's here Were they to use the outwaâ—d Bread and Cup after they were dead then If they were to observe it to a coming unaccomplished in their timâ— And if it was the same that Christ devided and gave to his disciples Was that the outward bread so given to both Or Was there not more in Christs words then the outward observation What was his Body and his Blood and the Cup of the New Testament in his Blood and the fâ—uit of the
unsound in thee and thy fellows to oppose the Light and Spirits imediate teachings and Kingdom within which both teacheth sufficiently and opens the Scriptures and leads into all Truth and to Scoff at the true sence-hereof though under the term Enthusiastick or Enthusiasm however ironically and reproachfully rendred by you which if that be dangerous and unfound then is divinely inspired unsound Is this good Doctrine For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quo Deus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus divine inspired Enthusiasmus an Inspiration it is the inspiration of the Almighty that gives understanding Is this dangerous No unless to the Priests to discover their ignorance And is not the Light Spirit Kingdom within communicated before the Scriptures are truly understood and opened What darkness and error hast thou here implyed and signified And doth not the Light and Spirit bring to the right use and end of the Scriptures which was given by inspiration Priest There is no man free from sin in this life c. Christ doth not totally subdue it in this life For that place 1 Joh. 3 of Christs being manifest to destroy the works of the devil if ye take it so may as well prove that Sathan shall not tempt a Child of God Aâ—sw This plainly enough shews thy confusion and ignorance of Christs manifestation and work and of his Vertue and Blood which destroyes the devils works cleanseth from all sin thorowly purgeth them that believe and follow him Secondly Thy Inference is gross and absurd To charge all with sin whom Sathan Tempts or to make his Tempting Gods Children a reason of their not having â—n totally subdued for Christ was Tempted yet sinned not for the Pâ—ince of darkness found nothing in him And he that abids in him sins not And we being made free from sin and become the Servants of God we have our fruit unto holiness Was not this the good end of Christs coming What sayes Antichrist Satan and his Agents and Sophisters to it Priest Neither doth these Scriptures 1 Joh. 3.6 Whoever is born of God sinneth not Or that ver 9. He that abids in him commits not sin and chap. 5.18 The evill one toucheth him not prove any thing c. Do they not prove any thing Sad Doctrine Is this divulg'd in the Kirk of Scotland Thus to oppose not onely Christs work but the words of plain Scripture and say they do not prove any thing when as they Viz. 1 Joh. 3.6 9. chap. 5.18 prove that Whoever is born of God sinneth not He that abids in Christ sins not The evil one toucheth him not Doth this prove nothing Doth not this equally reflect upon Christs Apostles as well as us And implicitly say they should have been silent and not so have pleaded Christs manifestation and the state of him that 's born of God against Sin Antichrist and Decievers whereas they John wrot to were plainly cautioned not to be decieved For he that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous Priest It 's not the words of Scripture pickt out which explain the sence c. This is nothing but a silly and gross cavilling to insist upon bare words contrary to their sence Answ. Must we then go to the Priests for their sence contrary to plain Scripture where t is neither parable nor allegory who pick out and reject plain Scripture according to their own private imaginations and conceptions and yet other whiles in contradiction to themselves tell us the Scripture is the Rule Life is to be had in it and not communicated without it but yet such Scriptures as apparently contradict their gross and Antichristian Principles they can throw by and reject as proving nothing as this corrupt minded man hath Priest By this way a man may prove the grossest blasphemies as the Polythrites saying there are many Gods from 1 Cor. 8.5 yet in the next verse there is but one God c. Answ. First Not by our use of the Scriptures both fro maâ— right mind and for a good end namely against sin Secondly And if in the next verse after He that is born of God sinneth not thou hadst proved that he doth Sin in that he is Tempted thou hadst said somâ—hing to thy business of accusing all Gods Children with Sin term of life but herein the Scriptures own thee not Priest That 1 Joh. 3.6 9. is to be understood in a limitted sence namely that they do not continue in Sin wilfully and with delight without repentance Answ. That 's not Johns sence but thine which is as much as to say his was not true for do they continue in Sin and yet Sin not This is a contradiction or do tâ—ey continue in it and still repent of it Where 's then the fruits and effects of true repentance Or is there not a time of confessing repenting and time of forsaking Sin And casting off every weight and burthen and of being cleansed from all unrighteousness Priest They do not commit Sin with full consent without controuling of the motions The evil one toucheth them not to entangle them in such a way of sinning c. Answ. As much as to say they do commit Sin and the evil one doth touch them but thâ—y Sin not with full consent which is all one as to say John did not say true when he said Whoever is born of God sinneth not The wicked one toucheth him not c. he commits not Sin but we have ground to believe him before Sathans Messengers who thus have contended and disputed for his work Priest He is an Advocate for our Sins is meant of the Sins present and to come Answ. Not that Sin should allwayes remain in beliâ—vers but that they should be called and delivered out of it and become Gods Righteousness in him Priest His saying if we Sin implyeth as much as when we Sin Answ. Is this thy Learning thou hast boasted of Thus to pervert Scripture and the very plain sence of words as to make if we Sin as positive or absolute as when we Sin so if in other cases may as well be taken for when as if we say we have not sined we make him a liar is as much as when we say we have not sinned c. what an absurdity would this imply against the Apostles according to thy sence of him who but one impudent would not be ashamed thus grosly to abuse the Scriptures Which else where thou seemest to lay such great stress upon Priest We know in part is an imperfect degree of knowledge and so sinful Answ. As this intends the Apostle it s a false and erronious conclusion it s neâ—ther true morrally nor spiritually degrees vary not the property of the thing their knowledge they had by degrees was Gods gift to them and was spiritual from above an effect of Life and Truth which to say is sinful so accuseth the cause of it which is blasphemous and if the Apostles knowledg was sinful because in part
which the Light within would never have discovered if there had not been the knowledg of the Law contained in the Scriptures An. Are all unbelievers then and have no Light in them but who have the Scriptures Thy blindness in this is detected before And What contradiction is it to tell of some having no Light in them when before thou hast confessed all men to have a natural Light or the Light of a natural Conscience in them Secondly And was it the Scriptures or the Law as it is in the Letter that discovered to Paul his sins and desires or the Law inward For he had the Law outward before he knew or was turned to the Law in his mind or was clâ—arly convinced in himsâ—lf Pr. Did ever the Prophets or Apostles try the Doctrines of persons deluded by Satan with the Spirit without the Scripture Deut. 13. An. The Prophets and Apostles had the Spirit and knew its sufficiency before they gave forth Scriptures and these were not deluded by Satan as falsly thou hast accused us to be An. Have not some of your way been so blasphemous as to aver Jesus Christ to be a type as to call themselves the Messiah to whom Hosanna should be said An. I know none in our way that either calls themselves the Messiah or that own such a thing but coâ—fess to Jesus Christ as bâ—ing the substance and the end of types shadows and figures but as for those whom thou hints of about their saying Hosanna they were not in our way but testified against and some of themselves came after to see confess and repent of their error so to upbraid us with any one 's failings or miscarriage espetially when t is both disowned and testifyed against by us this is both unequal and unjust and wouldest thou be so dealt by if I should go to reckon up how many drunken and whoreing Priests thâ—re be and should charge all of you and your whole Kirk with their wickedness Wouldest thou take it well Which indeed I might better do whilest such are owned and upheld as teachers of others among you thâ—n thou mights accuse us with persons and actions that are cast out from amongst us Pr. What is the Rule whereby the motions of the Spirit are to be tryed whether they be such or the motions of Satan and our deceitful hearts Ye answer the Spirit is the Rule but this cannot be for the Spirit hath given the Scriptures Secondly Neither is that place which ye cite to the purpose Viz. The Anoynting teacheth all things for though he teach it is by this Rule An. Yes The Spirit of God is sufficient a Rule sufficient both to try the motions of Satan and your deceitful hearts it searcheth all things The Lord searcheth the hearts and tryeth the reines telleth unto man his thoughts And if the Anoynting within teacheth of all things Must the Scriptures be a Rule to the Anoynting that thou seemest to tye it to the Scriptures Or Is not the teaching of the Anoynting Scripture as well as it was in them that spoke Scripture from it Or Must not people believe the Anoynting till they have searched the Scriptures to try it by them If so then when the Anoynting would tell and shew them their perticular states and thoughts and motions which the Scriptures do not tell them nor perticularly charge upon them then they are not at all in such cases to believe nor follow the Anoynting according to thy Doctrine and what is this but to set up the Scriptures above the Anoynting and the Letter above the Spirit which is a gross error and bespeaks great ignorance Pr. In the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. the Apostles searched the Scriptures for what they determined before they said it seemed good to the holy ghost and us An. Where provest thou that they searched the Scriptures for what they determined before they said it seemed good to the holy ghost and us Doth not this plainly confute thee that what they said was from the holy ghost And Was not its teaching their Rule then And What Scripture had they then to forbid Circumcision as they did Nay Had they not Scripture raâ—her for it If then they had not Scripture to forbid it they should not have dâ—nied or forbid it nor have believed the holy ghost in this case by thy Doctrine what silly work hast thou made on 't and How hast thou broken the neck of thy own cause Pr. The gift of discerning of Spirits was a peculiar gift given but to some but this was not for tryal of Doctrine None who had that gift of discerning of Spirits did try any Truths or Doctrine or practice but by the Scripture An. This is a strange Doctrine that they must onely try Spirits by the gift or Spirit of Truth and not any Truths or Doctrine Whether is greater the tryal of Spirits or of Doctrines Whâ—reas the Spirit searchâ—th all things and is a Spirit of true Judgment that giveth true understanding but according to thy false Doctrine that none who had discerning of Spirits did try any Truths or Doctrine or practice but by the Scriptures Then by this when the Apostles in their Epistles writ divers things that were not before in the Scriptures they were not to be believed by them in the Churches that had the gift of discerning and when the Spirit of Truth shall lead to speak or prophesie concerning a perticular Place People or Nation that which they have no Scripture for this therefore is not to be believed for want of Scripture to prove it by Thy ignorant and sottish stuff which also excludes all those Books and Prophesies of the holy men of God spoken of which are not recordâ—d in the Bible And those of our Friends which foretold of the late calamities befallen the City of London both that of the â—lague and that of the Fire which were both fore-seen and fore-told yet they had no Scripture to prove it but alass such as thou are silly and shallow in these matters being but as those Seers and Watchmen that are blind who would insinuate into people that both Prophesying Visions and Revelations are ceasâ—d and lay all upon the Scriptures and then how know you the Doctrine contained in them to be true without the Spirit Pr. Ye say Must the Scriptures be the Rule to discern or try false Spirits when they speak Scripture Ans. When the Devil spake Scripture to Christ he confuted him by Scripture which shewed he had perverted them and so he confounded the Scribes and Pharisees alwayes An. But could not Christ discerne the Devils spirit without the Scriptures What gross error and ignorance is implyed and couched in this thy impertinent answer Thou tellest us Christ confuted him by the Scripture which was when the Devil brought Scripture words to back his Temptations withal which is not an answer besides the Devils tempting Christ in these words Command that these stones be made bread and Cast thy self down