A92140:319
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
Chapter 10: Of indulgence in fundamentall, or non-fundamentall errors.
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.
least punishable by men, who deny fundamentals of Christian Religion, but are sparing to tell us what fundamentals, whether of law and known by the light of nature, or of Gospel known only by supernatural revelation,1 so that ere they find the heretic, they must show you the point they deny is fundamental, and its possible that is a difficile business, whether it be fundamental or not, if he go for a Sectary he is a godly man, and his godliness shall prove the point is not fundamental, for this is the logic of our time, such a people are godly, therefore their opinions are against no fundamental point, whereas this is a better consequence; such points are fundamental, ergo, if men twice or thrice admonished do yet wilfully go on to maintain opinions manifestly contrary, they are not godly, for the Apostle tel• us of doctrine according to godliness then must the doctrine soundly believed make the person godly or argue him to be so, but the man let him go ⟨p. 124⟩for a Saint cannot make or argue the doctrine to be the doctrine according to godliness, if it be not so in it self, and we are inclined, if the man be of our own tribe and sect, to defend his tenets, and not to judge them fundamental error.
least punishable by men, who deny fundamentals of Cbristian Religion, but are sparing to tell us what fundamentals, whether of law and known by the light of nature, or of Gospel known onely by supernaturall revellation,1 so that ere they finde the hereticke, they must show you the point they deny is fundamental, and its possible that is a difficil businesse, whether it be fundamental or not, if he go for a Sectarie he is a godly man, and his godlinesse shal prove the poynt is not fundamental, for this is the logick of our time, such a people are godly, therefore their opinions are against no fundamentall point, whereas this is a better consequence; such points are fundamentall, ergo, if men twice or thrice admonished doe yet wilfully goe on to maintaine opinions manifestly contrary, they are not godly, for the Apostle tel• us of doctrine according to godlinesse then must the doctrine soundly beleeved make the person godly or argue him to be so, but the man let him goe