A92140:29
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. 10. Of indulgence in fundamentall or non-fundamentall errors. How the Arminian Libertines do define an Heretic p. 122 Heretics to Libertines only such as deny things knowable by the light of nature p. 123 Diversity of opinions among them ibid. The punishing of men for publishing of fundamental errors, and the indulgence of a Toleration, yielded to them though they teach all Errors in non-fundamentals, a vain distinction, and hath no gro••• in Scripture. ibid. Some murthers non-fundamentall in David which yet are consist•• with the state of salvation, should as well be tolerated, as some errors in non-fundamentals by the distinction of Libertines. p. 124 Some non-fundamentals clearly in the word revealed, not to be believed with a reserve, and others non-fundamentals with a reserve p. 126 Queries propounded to Libertines p. 128 Why may not the Magistrate lawfully spare the life of him, who […] of a Libertine Conscience merely sacrificeth his child to God? or why should he punish with the Sword, some acts not des••• ctive to peace in the Conscience of the punished, and not all acts of the same kind p. 128 To compel men to •oe against their Conscience, that is, to sin, neither in Old or new Testament lawful, Deut. 13. and 17. p. 130 There is the same obligation, the same formal reason (so saith the ⟨image 7⟩Lord) of beleeving non-fundamentall revealed, and fundamentals, and the same necessity of divine command, not the same necessity of means, called necessit•s medii p. 132
Chap. 10. Of indulgence in fundamentall or non-fundamentall errors. How the Arminian Libertines doe define an Heretick p. 122 Hereticks to Libertines only such as deny things knowable by the light of nature p. 123 Diversitie of opinions among them ibid. The punishing of men for publishing of fundamentall errors, and the indulgence of a Toleration, yeelded to them though they teach all Errors in non-fundamentals, a vain distinction, and hath no gro••• in Scripture. ibid. Some murthers non-fundamentall in David which yet are consist•• with the state of salvation, should as well be tolerated, assome errors in non-fundamentals by the distinction of Libertines. p. 124 Some non-fundamentals clearly in the word revealed, not to bee beleeved with a reserve, and others non-fundamentals with a reserve p. 126 Queries propounded to Libertines p. 128 Why may not the Magistrate lawfully spare the life of him, who of a Libertine Conscience meerly sacrificeth his child to God? or why should hee punish with the Sword, some acts not des ctive to peace in the Conscience of the punished, and not all acts of the same kind p. 128 To compell men to oe against their Conscience, that is, to sin, neither in Old or new Testament lawfull,