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
of Envy who were not sanctified for such a work Pr. Your reason that wâ—thout Christ we can do nothing is to be meant in a Supernatural way Answ. Is not that in a Supernatural way which is without Error and Jangling and good and acceptable to God Pr. If they believe them to bâ— true do they not know them Answ. No All that believe them to be true do not know them for thou hast granted an historical Faith of Scripture Pr. He that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh to him Joh. 6.44 Answ. But all that have read and heard Scripture have not heard nor learnd of the Father nor come to Christ. Pr. None can know the Truths of the Scriptures without the Sanctifying Knowledg of Christ. Answ. This is according to what I say and overthâ—ows very much of thy matter according as hath been largely proved before Pr. He will lead believers into all Truths this is the meaning That is he will keep them from a total and final defection from Truths necessary to Salvation and lead them into Truths which are thus necessary c. Answ. This acknowledges in part to the truth of what I have said also to the Spirits leading into all Truth yea into all Truths necessary to Salvation And then the Spirit of Truth is sufficient for us to depend upon for this leading and preservation Pr The Disciples all of them except Judas had received the Sanctifying Spirit Answ How hast thou excepted Judas from the Sanctifying Spirit when he had part of the Ministery which his transgression was the cause of his falling from Pr. They were all ignorant of the Resurrection and mistook the nature of Christs Kingdom as if it had been of this world Luk. 24.21 Act. 1.6 The Galatians who had received the Spirit yet were they led into Error Answ. If they that had received the Spirit might erre in these matters much more they that had no Sanctifying Knowledg which contradicts thy former of their preaching of Truths without Errors Pr. He did not tell them ye erre not having the Spirit but not knowing the Scriptures Answ. The Scriptures they could not truely know without some Sanctifying Knowledg of Christ as before confest or of the power of God to salvation so their ignorance of the Scriptures in a Supernatural sence was from their ignorance of the power of God which unvails the heart to read and understand them Pr. For what ye say we plead for sin it doth more duely fall on the Doctrine that saith believers may totally fall as you say Peter by his denial did and David likewise by c. Answ. Nay To say there are believers that may fall from Grace who are not yet come to an established and grown state in the Truth and Power of God is no pleading for sin as your Doctrine contending and disputing for sin in all term of Life especially whiles we exhort all to watch and look dilligently to Grace received and withal warn them c. that such a falling away may be prevented for it was no pleading for sin in the Apostles to warn the Churches by the example of some that fell or of such as made shipwrack of faith and a good conscience or of such as drew back to perdition denied the Lord that bought them and such whose latter end was worse then their beginning But to charge us with saying that Peter and David fell totally this is a slander and forgery against us as there are many more in thy bundle Pr. If our peace stood in our inherent Righteousness c. in our good works c. Answ. Inherent Righteousness are thy own words obtruded upon us in thy own sence as imperfect and so in that sence not Gods nor Christs for in Gods Righteousness received in Christ by faith our peace stands and of this the true believers are pertakers in them they being in that living Faith the Righteousness whereof is not devided from it Pr. Davids Peace stood not in the freedom from all sin but in that God did pardon his sin and did not impute the same Rom. 4.6 7 8. Secondly If none ever had or shall have Peace here on earth but such as are in this Life free from all sin then you alone may boast of it c. Answ. He whose Transgression is forgiven The man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity in his spirit there is no guile Psa. 32.1 2. And David bid Mark the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace And blessed are the undefiled in the way they also do no iniquity c. And in this state stood Davids Peace contrary to what thou hast Erroniously spoke of him here Secondly And what thou hast said of our being free from all sin that we alone might boast of it this thou dost not believe of us and therefore hast ironically Scoffed and Jeered contrary to thy own thoughts and intentions And in implying none on earth free from all sin hast again erred and art herein sufficiently confuted allrâ—ady thou having herein implyed none here ever born of God none here to abide in Christ or come to perfect Holyness or to be washed from all sin by the Blood of Christ So thy Doctrine is contrary to the Apostles Pr. For none either of the Prophets Apostles or Saints that we find in Scriptures ever were thus quallified for Peace Answ. This seems to be a large and general charge against the Prophets and Apostles who generally contrary to this Doctrine testifyed unto the Peace of God which is perfect which attends the Righteousness or heavenly Image of God which is also perfect and known in the new Covenant whereby he takes away sin and establisheth his people in Righteousness and the Prophets could testify that the Lord was their Righteousness who wrought all their works in them and to the true Apostles Christ was made wisdom righteousness sanctification so thou you have shewn your selves ignorant of the Scriptures and of the Prophets and Apostles states and quallifications and what sin or sins they all had which they or any of them were not freed from before death is not yet proved by any of you who are found in the work of the old accuser of the Brethren Pr. Sin is remaining in part in all the faculties of Gods Children c. except ye had made appear that Pauls Will and Affections and Mind were perfectly against sin Some stain and inclination to sin by the contrary corruption still remained in some degrees in his Will Mind and Affections c. Answ. This is a sad accusation against all Gods Children againe and what is this but a pleading for sin and tending to strengthen the hands of evil doers What all the faculties of Gods Children having sin and corruption in them The Priests were wont to tell of a Regenerate part What part is it No faculty clean sad newes Thus to accuse Pauls Will Mind and Affections as having
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
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