A92140:471
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.
yet the Prophet Nathan does not in express terms condemn David for not putting Bathsheba to death, though he faithfully reproved David, because Nathan reproving David for the adultery it self committed in his own person as the greater sin, must by consequence condemn Davids tolerating of Bathsheba an adulteress to live, which was a lesser sin, and it will not follow that David a King should tolerate known adultery in Bathsheba a subject, because Nathan does no where in direct terms (nor any Scripture elsewhere that we read) condemn David for not punishing with the sword the adultery of Bathsheba; so Nathan, G•d and other Prophets no where reprove David sparing the life of Joab a murderer. When Christ reproved the Sadducees, for denying the resurrection, he reproves, by consequence, both Church and State for tolerating the denying of the Resurrection, and supposeth the toleration of it to be against the law of God.
yet the Prophet Nathan does not in expresse tearms condemne David for not putting Bathsheba to death, though he faithfully reproved David, because Nathan reproving David for the adultery it selfe committed in his owne person as the greater sinne, must by consequence condemne Davids tollerating of Bathsheba an adulteresse to live, which was a lesser sinne, and it will not follow that David a King should tollerate knowne adultery in Bathsheba a subject, because Nathan does no where in direct tearms (nor any Scripture elsewhere that we read) condemne David for not punishing with the sword the adultery of Bathsheba; so Nathan, G•d and other Prophets no where reprove David sparing the life of Joab a murtherer. When Christ reproved the Sadduces, for denying the resurrection, he reproves, by consequence, both Church and State for tollerating the denying of the Resurrection, and supposeth the tolleration of it to be against the law of God.
2. It is no argument at all from 1. A negative fact. 2. In such a particular Scripture, to prove the lawfulness of toleration. Let then answer this, Christ that was a faithful Preacher to State and Church, no where reproveth in the Gospel, the toleration of the extortion of Publicans, Sodomy, murder, the absolving of a murderer at the feast, a bloody toleration, denying of God, blasphemy; ergo, it was lawful for the Church and State to suffer all these.