A92140:443
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.
4 There were others as difficile and intricate controversies, of murder, adultery; treason, as Deut. 17. 8. Between blood and blood, plea, and plea, stroke, and stroke, By this reason Anabaptists have a better ground to say there should be no Christian Magistrate under the New Testament, nor any use of the sword nor shedding of blood at all, because the Jews under the Old Testament had the opportunity of immediate consulting with the mouth of God himself, we are fallible men, and the learnedest can no more tell what murder, what incest or adultery was condemned in the law of God (for heart-hatred, which is seen to God only, doth essentially constitute murder punishable by the Judge, Deut. 19, 11, 12, 13. chap. 4. 44. chap. 19. 4•.) then they can define what blasphemy or idolatry it was which was by God sentenced to death under the Law, for we are to be as wary to take a mans life and blood now under the New Testament, for murder, and treason, and sorcery as they were under the old in stoning blasphemers: and we are no more infallible in the one, then they were in the other. Yea, it strongly concludes, that wars are as unlawful under the New Testament, as under the old, for under the old, they consulted the mouth of God before they went to battle, we have no immediate oracles to consult, yea, when we are engaged we are neither to pursue the enemy nor to forbear, because we have not the immediately inspired Prophets, Micah, Jeremiah as they had, we may not make a Covenant with neighbouring Kingdoms, the Scottish Army have no oracle to show them whither they shall remove out of England, for that will be the safety of the cause of all the godly Presbyterians who are now persecuted for the Covenant of God, and a carrying on of Reformation and the standing of the Covenant and treaties between the Kingdoms,1 or shall they not remove till peace and truth be established in both Kingdoms because if they remove, the English Army may say, they undertook the war not for Religion, but to make a conquest in England for the liberty of the Subject, and swear ⟨p. 193⟩the Covenant in a sense.
4 There were others as difficill and intricate controversie, of murther, adultery; treason, as