A92140:109
A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved
A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved by Mr. John Goodwin, John Baptist, Dr. Jer. Taylor, the Belgic Arminians, Socinians, and other authors contending for lawless liberty, or licentious toleration of sects and heresies. / By Samuel Rutherfurd professor of divinity in the University of St. Andrews.A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved by Mr. John Goodwin, John Baptist, Dr. Jer. Taylor, the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and other authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious toleration of sects and heresies. / By Samuel Rutherfurd professor of divinity in the University of St. Andrews.
London: printed by R.I. for Andrew Crook, 1649
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Answ. 1There is nothing that the Scripture hath left simple, and in it self controversial. Act•• primo the Scripture hath determined of all things contained in it, whether fundamentals or not fundamentals; only in regard of our dullness and sinful blindness some things are controverted, and therefore the Church may determine from light of the word some thing that was a controversy to the Fathers ignorant of the original tongues which is now no controversy. Yea the fallible Church may determine infallible points. This is a principle that Libertines proceed upon, that men who are not infallible may err, and therefore can hold forth to others no infallible truth. Which is most false, for Prophets and Apostles, Nathan, Samuel, David, Peter being deserted of the immediately inspiring Spirit did err as well as the Church and Pastors now deserted of the ordinary Spins can and do err. For ••ll men, Prophets and Apostles are […] Rom. 3. yet they may and do carry infallible truth to others […] ⟨p. 25⟩blind man may hold a candle to others. 3. By this reason Pastors can preach nothing certain in fundamentals,2 though faith come by hearing, and faith is of a certain and determinate fixed truth of God, 3more permanent than heaven or earth; why, because by this reason Pastors in preaching fundamentals are not infallible. 4. Nor is this a good reason, it is believed the Church may err in Synods, ergo, it doth err and determines nothing that is infallible and certain in Synods; no more then this is a good consequence, David may sin in praying, ergo, he doth sin in praying: a potentia ad actum non valet consequentia.
Answ. 1There is nothing that the Scripture hath left simple, and in it selfe controversall. Act•• primo the Scripture hath determined of all things conteined in it, whether fundamentals or not fundamentals; onely in regard of our dulnesse and sinfull blindnesse some things are controverted, and therefore the Church may determine from light of the word some thing that was a controversie to the Fathers ignorant of the originall tongues which is now no controversie. Yea the fallible Church may determine infallible points. This is a principle that Libertines proceed upon, that men who are not infallible may erre, and therefore can hold forth to others no infallible truth. Which is most false, for Prophets and Apostles, Nathan, Samuel, David, Peter being deserted of the immediately inspiring Spirit did erre as well as the Church and Pastors now deserted of the ordinary Spins can and doe erre. For ll men, Prophets and Apostles are