The Confession's Charismatic Confession, part 2

Lets return to the broader picture again. Puritanism was the standard of religion. It should also be mentioned that the puritans were well aquainted with Prophetic visions. They could have addressed such visions head on to support cessationism but they did not. One asks why? These visions were a known means of introducting special revelation/heresy among the Quakers. Quakers openly practiced falsehoods because of them. Why is it that they instead addressed special revelation in revealing God's will for his people over a direct cause of (false in the Quaker's case) prophetic visions? Furthermore, this is to say that they only addressed 'new' special revelation. They do not address 'old' special revelation.

Without going much further down a rabbit hole, if special revelation is not new then it is hardly fit to be called a revelation at all. The revelation of opening and understanding one's Bible contrasted against the revelation of new doctrine is entirely distinct. This distinction is entirely able to be carried over into dealing with prophecy.

Revelation in this sense is not a revealing of doctrine but rather bringing old, eternal, and appropriate doctrine to the minds of a particular group. It is from this understanding that we should claim prophecy as being illumination apart from the means of reading the written text of the Bible. The very arguments of a closed cannon and special revelation among cessationists begin to vanish.

Now this distinction in no way signifies that prophecy is beyond or above the Bible. It rather positions prophecy below. The 'revelation' (hardly)/ prophecy that is disclosed is an old doctrine. It is singular and in no way the complete revelation of the Bible. In addition. Its partialness means that it is contained within something complete. We can say with certainty that all the old, eternal, and appropriate doctrines expressed in true prophecy are found in the Bible. All Prophecy must be below the Bible for its suffiecency/completeness deems it to be so. Prophecy must merely be content in revealing a small subset of old but eternal truths. Now checking this subset against the Bible is reasonable and valid of a test for evaluating prophecy arising from this.

One may counter this approach to prophecy by saying that the application of a prophectic word is a new revelation. This is to say that the new part is the application of the doctrine for an intended group. This is cannot be fitted into 'new' revelation either because the doctrine of the prophecy with its counterpart found in the Bible has benefits for all. For all scripture god-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and teaching. We agree that the very same truth of scripture applies to all. The biblical truth in prophecy applies to all as well. The distinction is that it is meant to be impressed upon a few.

This aim differs very little from the other actions of grace. Illumination likewise impresses truth upon a few, not all. The gospel impresses the truth upon many, but not all. The very intent of any special grace is always particular. This aim cannot be said to be new. It is within the special providence of God to dole out His grace, unmerited favor, as he wishes.

You may see hints of a Charismatic theology taking root. It seems that Puritans intentionally left exceptions to prophecy while excluding is as a potential source of heresy.
See part 3 for this to be worked out further with respect to showing it in the confessions. It shall prove the exceptions clearly.