A92140:165
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.
CHAP IIII. The state of the question of compulsion of Conscience, and toleration.
CHAP IIII. The state of the question of compulsion of Conscience, and tolleration.
The question touching Liberty of conscience was never by us, nor any man, save Libertines, themselves and ignorant Anabaptists both of old and late moved concerning internal liberty remaining within the soul, as liberty to think, understand, judge, conclude, whither the Magistrate can force men, with the sword to opinions,1 and cudgel them out of some into other contrary judgements, in the matters of God, for the Magistrate cannot take on him, yea nor the Church under the pain of censures compel any to think well of Christ, or ill or Antichrist. Yet most of the senseless arguments of the times are drawn from the immediate subjection of the conscience to God, from the nature of conscience, Religion, faith, fear, and the elicit acts of the soul which cannot be compelled, yea in this meaning, we think God can neither offer violence, to mind, understanding, will or affections of love, fear, joy, because all these clicit acts cannot slow from any principle, but the internal and vital inclinations of the soul, though the devils be said to believe against their will, yet not against the inclination of the understanding or desiring faculty.
THe question touching Libertie of conscience was never by us, nor any man, save Libertines, themselves and ignorant Anabaptists both of old and late moved concerning internall libertie remaining within the soule, as libertie to think, understand, judge, conclude, whither the Magistrate can force men, with the sword to opinions,1 and cudgell them out of some into other contrary judgements, in the matters of God, for the Magistrate cannot take on him, yea nor the Church under the paine of censures compell any to think well of Christ, or ill or Antichrist. Yet most of the senslesse arguments of the times are drawn from the immediate subjection of the conscience to God, from the nature of conscience, Religion, faith, fear, and the elicit acts of the soul which cannot be compelled, yea in this meaning, we think God can neither offer violence, to minde, understanding, will or affections of love, fear, joy, because all these clicit acts cannot slow from any principle, but the internall and vitall inclinations of the soul, though the devils be said to beleeve against their will, yet not against the inclination of the understanding or desiring facultie.