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.
Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661London: printed by R.I. for Andrew Crook, 1649
[24], 64, 61-68, 71-86, 97-152, 177-206, 209-410, [2] p. · 158k words · Wing R2379 · ESTC R203453
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.
6. The argument that we cannot punish under the New Testament, because the Magistrates and Ministers, and Synods who condemn heresies, errors, schisms, blasphemy, are not infallible, and they know not but they may pluck up wheat instead of tares, and take away the life of elect men who might •ive and be converted, is of no weight, for then the Judge should not take the li•e of a murderer, ⟨p. 194⟩adulterer, the most bloody robber or parricide, (the Libertines, teach and practice the contrary)▪ for must the Judge read in the Lambs book, whether the man be enrolled therein as an elect, before he pass sentence on him in a Council of war, for felony, robbery, polygamy, &c,
6. The argument that we cannot punish under the New Testament, because the Magistrates and Ministers, and Synods who condemne here•ies, errors, schismes, blasphemie, are not infallible, and they know not but they may plucke up wheat instead of tares, and take away the life of elect men who might •ive and be converted, is of no weight, for then the Iudge should not take the li•e of a murtherer, ⟨p. 194⟩adulterer, the most bloody robber or paricide, (the Libertines, teach and practice the contrary)▪ for must the Judge read in the Lambs booke, whether the man be inrolled therein as an elect, before he passe sentence on him in a Councell of warre, for fellony, robbery, poligamy, &c,
I may condemn the innocent in these, because I am not infallible; it is against preaching, believing, writing of books of Divinity, making war, peace, borrowing, lending, buying, selling, in all these I am obliged to do upon certain persuasion of faith, that what I do is lawful, else I sin,
. and the word of God the most sure oracle to us must be my rule. Now I may no more venture on the least sin, then a Christian Prince may condemn to death an Idolater, and a blasphemer, who is a sound believer, which is a greater sin, if I be not clear as if an immediate oracle were speaking from heaven, as Libertines say, and the argument must be thus, what we cannot do with as great infallibility of not erring, as the Priest that immediately consulted the oracle, or the Prophet immediately inspired, that we cannot do lawfully. But the Christian Prince under the New Testament cannot with such infallibility punish Idolaters, Blasphemers, or any otherwise, ergo, The proposition is false, for certain knowledge is sufficient, for the Holy Ghost would never bid us admonish, and after admonition avoid an heretic, as
. nor would our Saviour bid us beware of men, of false teachers, and false Christs, and avoid them, and believe them not, and try them by their works, and search the Scriptures, and examine their doctrine, nor would the Lord bid us try the Spirits, and try the Antichrist, and eat not with Idolaters as he doth,
. If he laid this ground of Libertines, heart-obstinacy, only legible to God, and knowable •s none but to infallible Spirits, makes an heretic and a false Christ before men, yet you are to admonish and eschew him, this is as much, as if the Lord should say, If any man have such an opinion and heart-thought never manifested to men or Angel, that knew whether the number of the stars were odds or equal, admonish such a man and
⟨p. 195⟩
avoid him, and bid him not God speed, neither receive him into your house. Yea, so no Minister of the Gospel should preach to his flock fundamental Gospel truths, because he is not infallible, and he may teach fundamental lies for truths.
2. It is most strong against admonishing, rebuking and warning one another.1 I may condemne the innocent in these, because I am not infallible; it is against preaching, beleeving, writing of books of Divinity, making warre, peace, borrowing, lending, buying, selling, in all these I am oblieged to do upon certaine perswasion of faith, that what I doe is lawfull, else I sinne, Rom. 14. 23. and the word of God the most sure oracle to us must be my rule. Now I may no more venture on the least sinne, then a Christian Prince may condemne to death an Idolater, and a blasphemer, who is a sound beleever, which is a greater sinne, if I be not cleare as if an immediate oracle were speaking from heaven, as Libertines say, and the argument must bee thus, what we cannot do with as great infallibility of not erring, as the Priest that immediately consulted the oracle, or the Prophet immediately inspired, that we cannot do lawfully. But the Christian Prince under the New Testament cannot with such infallibility punish Idolaters, Blasphemers, or any otherwise, ergo, The proposition is false, for certaine knowledge is sufficient, for the Holy Ghost would never bid us admonish, and after admonition avoid an hereticke, as Tit. 3. 10. nor would our Saviour bid us beware of men, of false teachers, and false Christs, and avoid them, and believe them not, and try them by their workes, and search the Scriptures, and examine their doctrine, nor would the Lord bid us try the Spirits, and try the Antichrist, and eate not with Idolaters as he doth, Matth. 24. 23, 24, 25. Joh. 5. 39. Rem. 16, 17, 18. 1 Joh. 5. 1. 1 Cor. 5. 11. If he laid this ground of Libertines, heart-obstinacy, only legible to God, and knowable •s none but to infallible Spirits, makes an hereticke and a false Christ before men, yet you are to admonish and eschew him, this is as much, as if the Lord should say, If any man have such an opinion and heart-thought never manifested to men or Angel, that knew whether the number of the starres were oddes or equall, admonish such a man and ⟨p. 195⟩avoid him, and bid him not God speed, neither receive him into your house. Yea, so no Minister of the Gospell should preach to his flocke fundamentall Gospell truths, because hee is not infallible, and hee may teach fundamentall lyes for truths.
1Want of infallibility should exclude all Judges to judg, •ast•rs to preach on write, Synods to advise because we cannot do these with Prophetical infallibility.Want of infallibility should exclude all Judges to judg, •ast•rs to preach on write, Synods to advise because we cannot doe these with Propheticall infallibility.
Again, the assumption is false, for the certainty a believer hath, is thus far infallible (which is enough) that he is persuaded of the truth of it, and may boldly and in faith seal it with his blood. Nor should Libertines suffer for such truths as they hold for truths, to wit, that the Christian Magistrate hath nothing to do with Religion, nor is he warranted now to use the sword against false teachers; nor Presbytery is the way of Christ, but Socinianism, Familism, Antinomini•me, are the only true way, because they will not say they themselves are in believing, teaching or suffering for these truths infallible. But the danger is not so in believing truth or a false opinion for another, or for a true opinion, as in taking a mans life, when ye are not certainly persuaded by the Law of God, he ought to dye.
Againe, the assumption is false, for the certainty a beleever hath, is thus farre infallible (which is enough) that he is perswaded of the truth of it, and may boldly and in faith seal it with his blood. Nor should Libertines suffer for such truths as they hold for truths, to wit, that the Christian Magistrate hath nothing to do with Religion, nor is he warranted now to use the sword against false teachers; nor Presbytery is the way of Christ, but Socinianisme, Familisme, Antinomini•me, are the only true way, because they will not say they themselves are in beleeving, teaching or suffering for these truths infallible. But the danger is not so in beleeving truth or a false opinion for another, or for a true opinion, as in taking a mans life, when yee are not certainly perswaded by the Law of God, hee ought to dye.
Answ. That is no matter of greater or less great danger. It is sin in the Pharisees in heart and word of month to condemn the Lords Disciples of breach of Sabbath, when they are innocent, as to kill them for Sabbath-breach when they are innocent, Matth. 12. 7. the one is a greater sin, the other less; but if we may not venture on a greater sin of shedding innocent blood because of want of infallibility, neither is it lawful to venture upon the least sin, because of the want of that same infallibility, nor is an infallible and immediate oracle our only rule in judging the blasphemer. Suppose a man should wilfully profess there is no God, and rail against such as say there is a God, as our Atheistical age wanteth not a Caligula, and an Anaxagoras, and the like now, if the Parliament should punish such a limb of hell. The thirteenth Proposal of the Army will say the Parliament forces this man to sin, and to believe and profess a truth against his judgement and conscience; and upon this ground, for we know not infallibly such a man to be a damned Atheist.
Answ. That is no matter of greater or lesse great danger. It is sinne in the Pharisees in heart and word of month to condemne the Lords Disciples of breach of Sabbath, when they are innocent, as to kill them for Sabbath-breach when they are innocent, Matth. 12. 7. the one is a greater sinne, the other lesse; but if wee may not venture on a greater sinne of shedding innocent blood because of want of infallibility, neither is it lawfull to venture upon the least sinne, because of the want of that same infallibility, nor is an infallible and immediate oracle our onely rule in judgeing the blasphemer. Suppose a man should wilfully professe there is no God, and raile against such as say there is a God, as our Atheisticall age wanteth not a Caliguala, and an Anaxagoras, and the like now, if the Parliament should punish such a limb of hell. The thirteenth Proposall of the Army will say the Parliament forces this man to sinne, and to beleeve and professe a truth against his judgement and conscience; and upon this ground, for wee know not infallibly such a man to be a damned Atheist.
The 4 Answer to annul all these Laws in the Old Testament is, this punishment was bodily, afflictive, carnal and so typical and prefigurative of those greater and more spiritual evils under the Gospel, to wit, of eternal damnation. As the land was a type of heaven, so to be cut off, by death, out of that land was typical.
The 4 Answer to annull all these Lawes in the Old Testament is, this punishment was bodily, afflictive, carnall and so typicall and prefigurative of those greater and more spirituall evils under the Gospell, to wit, of eternall damnation. As the land was a type of heaven, so to bee cut off, by death, out of that land was typicall.
Answer, Had the Jews no spiritual censures then, as debarring from the Passover, the excluding of the uncircumcised, and unclean from the Congregation of the Lord?
Answer, Had the Jewes no spirituall censures then, as debarring from the Passeover, the excluding of the uncircumcised, and uncleane from the Congregation of the Lord?
4 Is punishment, and cutting off from the Church by death typical, because bodily? Then the avenging of […] doers under the New Testament must be typical, and is many hangings and headings of evil doers, as many types under the New Testament. If the punishment was typical, because in such a way bodily, as exclusion from a typical land. Then, 1. How is not the killing of the murderer typical? 2. Give us a warrant for this, because we may not, at our pleasure, fancy types where the word gives no ground for them, otherwise we shall with Anabaptists turn all the Old Testament: and whole scripture into types upon our own imagination. 3. How shall violent death •ypi••e damnation and hell, that was existent then, and not a thing to come, and that because it was the cutting off of the blasphemer, not of the murderer?
4 Is punishment, and cutting off from the Church by death typicall, because bodily? Then the avenging of 〈…〉 doers under the New Testament must be typicall, and is many hangings and headings of evill doers, as many types under the New Testament. If the punishment was typical, because in such a way bodily, as exclusion from a typicall land. Then, 1. How is not the killing of the murtherer typicall? 2. Give us a warrant for this, because we may not, at our pleasure, phancy types where the word gives no ground for them, otherwise we shall with Anabaptists turne all the Old Testament: and whole scripture into types upon our owne imagination. 3. How shall violent death •ypi••e damnation and hel, that was existent then, and not a thing to come, and that because it was the cutting off of the blasphemer, not of the murtherer?
5 But say they were types, as crucifying and hanging on a tree was, Deut. 21. 23. of Christs crucifying Gal. 3. 10. What? shall it follow, that robbers and murderers, […] as Barra••s, may not under the New Testament be […]? Yea, and by this argument, nor may any bodily punishment be inflicted on robbers, more then false teachers may b•• killed or incur any bodily punishment, for that were ( ••y Libertines) to rip up the grave of Moses, because undoubtedly crucifying was a typical death, Gal. 3. 10▪•9. […] •ut it is known there were two forts of typical things ⟨p. 197⟩in the old Testament.1 1. Some that were merely typical and had no use but in divine worship, as sacrificing Bullocks and Lambs to God, other things were so typical that they had both a natural and civill use, at eating of manna when ye are hungry, drinking water in the wilderness, living in the holy land; the former typical things are utterly ceased, and it were impious and mere Judaism to recall them or bring in again sacrificing of Bullocks to God, but the latter things may well remain in their Natural and Civill use, though their typical and religious use be abolished, as it were lawful for Jews even now after Christ is come and ascended, and hath put an end to all shadows and types by the coming in the body, to eat manna, if they were in the wilderness, and drink water out of the rocky mountains, if thirsty, and dwell in their own land, if the Lord should restore them to it, yet should they not Judaize nor recall the types of Moses, for these they should do for a natural and physical, and for no Religious use. Now granting that stoning of blasphemers were typical, and as typical as hanging of robbers was, Deut. 21. yet should it never follow that stoning of blasphemers were Judaizing and unlawful, because it hath a necessary civill use, even of common and natural equity, that he that thus perverteth the right ways of the Lord, and seduceth others should dye the death. Yea this may well infer that prophesying of lies, blaspheming were typical sins against a ceremonial and temporary law, and so they are not now sins, yea because it is a falling from Christ to observe Jewish shadows, Gal. 5. not to blaspheme, and not to prophesy lies, must be sin;
5 But say they were types, as crucifying and hanging on a tree was, Deut. 21. 23. of Christs crucifying Gal. 3. 10. What? shall it follow, that robbers and murtherers, 〈…〉 as Barra••s, may not under the New Testament be 〈…〉? Yea, and by this argument, nor may any bodily punishment be inflicted on robbers, more then false teachers may b•• killed or incurre any bodily punishment, for that were ( ••y Libertines) to rip up the grave of Moses, because undoubtedly crucifying was a typicall death, Gal. 3. 10▪•9. 〈…〉•ut it is knowne there were two forts of typicall things ⟨p. 197⟩in the old Testament.1 1. Some that were meerly typicall and had no use but in divine worship, as sacrificing Bullocks and Lambs to God, other things were so typicall that they had both a naturall and civill use, at eating of manna when yee are hungry, drinking water in the wilderne•se, living in the holy land; the former typicall things are utterly ceased, and it were impious and meere judaisme to recall them or bring in againe sacrificing of Bullockes to God, but the latter things may well remaine in their Naturall and Civill use, though their typicall and religious use be abolished, as it were lawfull for Jewes even now after Christ is come and ascended, and hath put an end to all shadowes and types by the comming in the body, to eat manna, if they were in the wildernesse, and drinke water out of the rocky mountaines, if thirsty, and dwell in their owne land, if the Lord should restore them to it, yet should they not Judaize nor recall the types of Moses, for these they should doe for a naturall and physicall, and for no Religious use. Now granting that stoning of blasphemers were typicall, and as typicall as hanging of robbers was, Deut. 21. yet should it never follow that stoning of blasphemers were Judaizing and unlawfull, because it hath a necessary civill use, even of common and naturall equity, that he that thus perverteth the right wayes of the Lord, and seduceth others should dye the death. Yea this may well infer that prophesying of lyes, blaspheming were typicall sinnes against a ceremoniall and temporary law, and so they are not now sinnes, yea because it is a falling from Christ to observe Jewish shadows,
1A twofold typicalness in the Old Testament; one merely ceremonial, unreducible; another typical, but of civill and natural use, the use of the latter ceaseth not, because it was sometime typical, so is punishing of seducers.A twofold typicalnesse in the Old Testament; one meerly ceremoniall, unreducible; another typicall, but of civill and naturall use, the use of the latter ceaseth not, because it was sometime typicall, so is punishing of seducers.
and if that be blasphemy, what more reason to remove the punishment of a sin, as destructive to society, now as then, if the sin cease not to be sin, but remain yet a moral heinous transgression?
and if that be blasphemy, what more reason to remove the punishment of a sinne, as destructive to society, now as then, if the sinne cease not to bee sinne, but remaine yet a morall hainous transgression?
The fifth Answer is, 1That the Laws of Moses cannot reach the heretics now under the Gospel, 1. An heretic denies not God the Creator, nor teacheth he, Let us go after other Gods▪ which thou hast not known as the Apostate Prophet, Deut. 13. (2.) He denies not the word of God, therefore you may use it as a weapon against him, ⟨p. 198⟩but ye can use no sword, but that of iron against Apostates. 3. Heretics as Sadducees were tolerated among the Jews, but blasphemers and Apostates were not. 4. Scribes and Pharisees held many dangerous opinions, yet neither they nor Sadducees were expelled the City or hindered to be Magistrates. 5. Though the zeal of Gods house eat up Christ, and he attempted a reformation, yet he never charged Church or State as unfaithful for not proceeding against them to imprisonment and death. 6. These Deut. 13. would persuade they speak by the inspiration of some Deity, and that their sayings were oracles, heretics do not so, so Jo. Goodwin, Hagiom.
The fifth Answer is, 1That the Lawes of Moses cannot reach the heretickes now under the Gospel, 1. An hereticke denyes not God the Creator, nor teacheth hee, Let us goe after other Gods▪ which thou hast not knowne as the Apostate Prophet, Deut. 13. (2.) Hee denyes not the word of God, therefore you may use it as a weapon against him, ⟨p. 198⟩but yee can use no sword, but that of iron against Apostates. 3. Hereticks as Sadduces were tollerated among the Jews, but blasphemers and Apostates were not. 4. Scribes and Pharisees held many dangerous opinions, yet neither they nor Sadduces were expelled the City or hindered to be Magistrates. 5. Though the zeale of Gods house eat up Christ, and he attempted a reformation, yet he never charged Church or State as unfaithfull for not proceeding against them to imprisonment and death. 6. These Deut. 13. would perswade they speake by the inspiration of some Deity, and that their sayings were oracles, hereticks doe not so, so Io. Goodwin, Hagiom.
Answ. 1. The conclusion we hold is not hurt, all this saith an Heretic that is not an apostate is not to be put to death. Let it be so; but we hold by these places, that bodily punishment is to be inflicted on him, and yet the conscience is not strained, nor he persecuted.
Answ. 1. The conclusion we hold is not hurt, all this saith an Heretick that is not an apostate is not to be put to death. Let it be so; but wee hold by these places, that bodily punishment is to be inflicted on him, and yet the conscience is not strained, nor he persecuted.
2. Heretics 2 Pet. 2. denies the Lord that bought them, and make shipwreck of faith, and bring in damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, they depart from the faith, speak doctrines of devils, lies in hypocrisy, 1 Tim. 4. 1. are condemned of their own conscience, Tit. 3. 10. Lead the simple captive, resist the truth, as Jannes and Jambres did Moses, are men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, 2 Tim. 3. 6, 7, 8. which is a wilful denying of the Lord that bought them. Libertines have bowels of charity to Arch-heretics, as if God had made a law of sins, if we are, we are not capable under the Gospel, whereas it is known there are (though we need not call all false teachers Heretics) Seducers that say there is not a God, nor a heaven, nor a hell.
2. Hereticks 2 Pet. 2. denyes the Lord that bought them, and make shipwracke of faith, and bring in damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, they depart from the faith, speake doctrines of devills, lyes in hypocrisie, 1 Tim. 4. 1. are condemned of their own conscience, Tit. 3. 10. Lead the simple captive, resist the truth, as Jannes and Jambres did Moses, are men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, 2 Tim. 3. 6, 7, 8. which is a wilfull denying of the Lord that bought them. Libertines have bowells of charity to Arch-hereticks, as if God had made a law of sinnes, if we are, we are not capable under the Gospell, whereas it is knowne there are (though we need not call all false teachers Hereticks) Seducers that say there is not a God, nor a heaven, nor a hell.
3.1 How shall they prove that the Seducer Deut. 13. formally denied God the Creator? To deny him as Creator, and say the world was eternal as Aristotle did, is not to deny God, for Aristotle and all his, acknowledged there was a God, but that those dreamers denied the very existence of God, any otherwise then as practical Atheists, and by consequence in their abominable doctrine they cannot prove, for they profess a Religion and a God, when they say, Let us go and serve other Gods, and these words, that thou knowest not, are the words of the Holy Ghost, not that these Seducers so speak in so many syllables, but the God they drew ⟨p. 199⟩men after, was an unknown God; for there is not a Caligula in the world can be a speculative and heart-Atheist, or if these words (whom thou •ast not known) be the Seducers, they are spoken to heighten the new God, and ex•••• […] above Jehovah, as not known by the blind and ignora•• world; yea and those that worshipped the golden Calves at Dan and Bethel worshipped other Gods, and turned away themselves and others from the true God, for Deut. 32. 16. They provoked him to jealousy with strange God, with abomination• provoked they him to anger. 17. They sacrificed un•• devils, not […] G•d, to Gods whom they know not, to new Gods that newly come up, whom your fathers feared not, 2 Chron. 11. 17. and Je•o••am ordained himself Priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made, Psal. 106. 19. They made a calf in Hor••, and worshipped a molten image, yet they denied not God the Creator, except practically, Deut. 32. 18. Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed t•ee, Psal. 106. 21. They forg•t God their Saviour, which •ad done great things in Egypt. Yea, and those that worshipped these Gods, denied no otherwise God the Creator then heretics now do, for both in profession▪ assert Jehovah that made the heaven and the earth, Exod. 32. they said of these calves, as Jeroboam did▪ v. 8. These be thy Gods O Israel, that brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, 1 King. 12. 28. and Exod. 32. 5. Aaron said to morrow shall be a feast to Jehovah, then they denied not in profession and in words the Jehovah that made them, nor Christ their Saviour, then by signs and wonders brought them out of Egypt;
3.1 How shall they prove that the Seducer Deut. 13. formally denyed God the Creator? To deny him as Creator, and say the world was eternall as Aristotle did, is not to deny God, for Aristotle and all his, acknowledged there was a God, but that those dreamers denyed the very existence of God, any otherwise then as practicall Atheists, and by consequence in their abominable doctrine they cannot prove, for they professe a Religion and a God, when they say, Let us goe and serve other Gods, and these words, that thou knowest not, are the words of the Holy Ghost, not that these Seduce•s so speake in so many syllables, but the God they drew ⟨p. 199⟩men after, was an unknowne God; for there is not a Caligula in the world can be a speculative and heart-Atheist, or if these words (whom thou •ast not knowne) be the Seducers, they are spoken to heighten the new God, and ex••••〈…〉 above Jehovah, as not knowne by the blinde and ignora•• world; yea and those that worshipped the golden Calves at Dan and Bethel worshipped other Gods, and turned away themselves and others from the true God, for Deut. 32. 16. They provoked him to jealousie with strange God, with abomination• provoked they him to anger. 17. They sacrificed un•••evills, not 〈…〉 G•d, to Gods whom they know not, to new Gods that newly come up, w•om your fathers feared not, 2 Chron. 11. 17. and Je•o••am ordained himselfe Priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made, Psal. 106. 19. They made a calfe in Hor••, and worshipped a molten image, yet they denyed not God the Creator, except practically,
1Seducers of old denied no otherwise God then our false Prophets now ••ayes do now deny h•mSeducers of old denied no otherwise God then our false Prophets now ••ayes doe now deny h•m
so a Heretic, or a Popish Idolater, denies not God in profession, yet both worship strange Gods, and the work of mens hands, and the devil, not God, Deut. 32. 16. 2 Chro. 11. 15. Nor did Jeroboam deny God in profession, for he acknowledged that the Lord God, the true God could heal his dried up arm, 1 King 12. 6. and sent his wife to enquire of Jehovah concerning his sick child, 1 King. 14. 1, 2. and Jesu who clave to Jeroboam's calves, 2 King. 10. 29. And so by this same law of God ought to dye, as is clear in that he worshipped and served other Gods, as Deut. 32. 16. Ps. 106. 19. compared with Exod. 32. cleareth, for three thousand were slain by ⟨p. 196⟩[…] ⟨p. 197⟩[…] ⟨p. 198⟩[…] ⟨p. 199⟩[…] ⟨p. 200⟩the Magistrates sword for this sin, Exod. 32. 27, 28. yet these denied Jehovah not in formal and express profession, but by the genius and stain of their doctrine, and the same way the Heretic denies the Lord that bought them, these that worshipped Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. by this law should dye, the Priests of Malcom come under the law as well as the Priests of Baal, the Priests of Baal and the false Prophets were slain according to the law, and yet they professed Jehovah as well as Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 24. and Ahab, who worshipped Baal, professed he worshipped Jehovah, and so did these who worshipped the Samaritan strange Gods and Jehovah both together, 2 King. 17.
so a Hereticke, or a Popish Idolater, denyes not God in profession, yet both worship strange Gods, and the worke of mens hands, and the devill, not God, Deut. 32. 16. 2 Chro. 11. 15. Nor did Jeroboam deny God in profession, for he acknowledged that the Lord God, the true God could heale his dryed up arme, 1 King 12. 6. and sent his wife to enquire of Jehovah concerning his sicke childe, 1 King. 14. 1, 2. and Je•u who clave to Jeroboams calves, 2 King. 10. 29. And so by this same law of God ought to dye, as is clear in that he worshipped and served other Gods, as Deut. 32. 16. Ps. 106. 19. compared with Exod. 32. cleareth, for three thousand were slaine by ⟨p. 196⟩〈…〉⟨p. 197⟩〈…〉⟨p. 198⟩〈…〉⟨p. 199⟩〈…〉⟨p. 200⟩the Magistrates sword for this sin, Exod. 32. 27, 28. yet these denyed Jehovah not in formall and expresse profession, but by the genius and staine of their doctrine, and the same way the Hereticke denyes the Lord that bought them, these that worshipped Iehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. by this law should dye, the Priests of Malcom come under the law as well as the Priests of Baal, the Priests of Baal and the false Prophets were slaine according to the law, and yet they professed Jehovah as well as Micaiah,
The author
Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661
PuritansScotland
Scottish theologian and commissioner to the Westminster Assembly.
. They forg•t God their Saviour, which •ad done great things in Aegypt. Yea, and those that worshipped these Gods, denyed no otherwise God the Creator then hereticks now doe, for both in profession▪ asser• Jehova• that made the heaven and the earth,
. Aaron said to morrow shall be a feast to Jehovah, then they denyed not in profession and in words the Jehovah that made them, nor Christ their Saviour, then by signes and wonders brought them out of Aegypt;
. and Achab, who worshipped Baal, professed he worshipped Jehovah, and so did these who worshipped the Samaritan strange Gods and I•hovah both together,
