A92140:345
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.
nor is this a concludent reason, no man is obliged follow how the true sense of the word against his conscience, though erroneous, ergo, the erroneous conscience doth oblige, or ergo, actual obligation to obedience is not from the word, but from the conscience; no more then this is a good consequence, no man is obliged to obey the Law in it self, just contrary to the promulgation of an erring and mistaking Herald, ergo, the mistaking Heralds promulgation giveth to the Law actual obligation over the subject, for it only followeth, […] we are not to do contrary to the actual indictment of an erroneous conscience, but not obliged to follow the erroneous conscience, nor are we obliged to follow what our ⟨p. 135⟩conscience saith is true and good, because, or upon this formal reason and ground, that the conscience saith so, more then we are to believe and practise, what the Church or the conscience of others: the Church, the learned and godly say, for we make not the word of the Church the formal object of our faith, but (thus saith the Lord only) because the Church is but a company of men, and so our faith should depend upon men, even though holy and speaking ingenuously what their conscience dictates as true, which is absurd, ergo, by the same reason, what one mans conscience, our own, or others say, is not the formal object of our faith and practises, for so also our faith should depend on man, not on God. And we say the conscience at its best, is but Regula Regulata not, Regula Regulans, nor ought it to have the throne of God, for God is only Regula Regulans. If it were a rule, it is to be ruled by God, and his word, yea, as we are to try all things and not believe with a blind faith what others say, or their conscience proposeth to themselves and us, as truth, for then we make a Pope of the consciences of men, under the notion of teachers and Church, so we are not to be ruled without trying, and absolutely by our own conscience, but to try its dictates by the word of God, otherwise we make a Pope, and a God of our own conscience.
nor is this a concludent reason, no man is obliged follow how the true sense of the word against his conscience, though erroneous, ergo, the erroneous conscience doth oblige, or ergo, actuall obligation to obedience is not from the word, but from the conscience; no more then this is a good consequence, no man is obliged to obey the Law in it selfe, iust contrary to the promulgation of an erring and mistaking Herauld, ergo, the mistaking Heraulds promulgation giveth to the Law actuall obligation over the subject, for it onely followeth, we are not to doe contrary to the actuall indicment of an erroneous conscience, but not obliged to follow the erroneous conscience, nor are we obliged to follow what our