A92140:342
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.
But this is a foul mistake, Daniel suffered not for conscience simply, because he practised what he believed to be truth, but because he practised what he truely congr•enter Dei voluntati revelatae, congruously and agreeably to the revealed will of God, he believed, and the like is to be said of the Apostles, not the conveniency, and commensurableness of their practise, and their conscience simply, but their believing, ⟨p. 133⟩•all modo, such a way made their sufferings to be sufferings for righteousness sake; for then must we say that Paul persecuted with the tongue, the Corinthians for their conscience, 1 Cor. 15. 34. Awake to righteousness and sin not, I speake• it to your shame, for some have not the knowledge of God. Those that denied the resurrection; through error of conscience, said the dead shall not rise again, for Paul proves by strong arguments that the dead shall rise, and so takes away the error of their conscience, why then puts he shame and reproach on them, and names them fools, and void of the knowledge of God? and such as believed in vain? it was not in their power to correct the errors of their conscience, and if they maintained, what they believed in conscience, was true (as by Pauls demonstrating the truth to their conscience is evident) they were persecuted for righteousness, if out of mere innocent and faultless ignorance, they denied the resurrection, Paul should deal more gently with them, then upbraid them as fools and Epicures who said, Let us eat, for to morrow, we shall dye, if they did all believe the Resurrection, and yet professed the contrary, there was no need to take pains as he doth to prove it.
But this is a foule mistake, Daniel suffered not for conscience simply, because he practised what he beleeved to be truth, but because he practised what he truely congr•enter Dei voluntati revelatae, congruously and agreeably to the revealed will of God, he beleeved, and the like is to be said of the Apostles, not the conveniency, and commensurablenesse of their practise, and their conscience simply, but their beleeving, ⟨p. 133⟩