A92140:324
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.
2. It is not enough to say most of the non-fundamentalls are not determined clearly in the word,1 Libertines we […] dispute withal, must say, not any non-fundamentalls are determined in the word, but all fundamentals are clearly determined, else they must belie their distinction which Independents in the Apologetic Narration make almost a principle of faith (though I hope it shall never be one to me) that all non-fundamentals are to be believed without a reserve, and all fundamentals with a reserve; for if many non-fundamentalls are also to be believed without a reserve, it would have been service to the Church, they had beaten out that Arminian principle a little more, and subdivided non-fundamentalls in such as are to be believed with a reserve, and a demur, and such as are to be believed without a reserve, then in some non-fundamen••ll• men are not to be tolerated, and what be these. 2. The ⟨p. 127⟩distinction should so bear a leg and halt, for then some fundamentals we believe without a reserve, and no toleration is to be yielded in them, but the sword and the club must press faith in these, and we are to believe but some non-fundamentalls with a reserve, not all, and indulgence is due to men in some non-fundamentalls, not in others; but we know our Brethren's frequent arguing, Independency is not fundamentals, ergo, our Brethren should tolerate it, but we deny this consequence; yea Erastianism in its highest sphere is not fundamental, and yet high Erastianism is persecution both of Independency and Presbytery, doth it follow then, it must be tolerated?
2. It is not enough to say most of the non-fundamentalls are not determined clearely in the word,1 Libertines we 〈…〉 dispute withall, must say, not any non-fundamentalls are determined in the word, but all fundamentalls are clearly determined, else they must belye their distinction which Independents in the Apologeticke Narration make almost a principle of faith (though I hope it shall never be one to me) that all non-fundamentals are to be beleeved without a reserve, and all fundamentalls with a reserve; for if many non-fundamentalls are also to bee beleeved without a reserve, it would have been service to the Church, they had beaten out that Arminian principle a little more, and subdivided non-fundamentalls in such as are to bee beleeved with a reserve, and a demurre, and such as are to be beleeved without a reserve, then in some non-fundamenll men are not to be tolerated, and what be these. 2. The