A92140:752
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.
3 Query, Was the Priest infallible in discerning the Oracle and relating the mind of God to the people? How then did they say, he is worthy to dye? How did Caiaphas say, What need we any more witness, We have heard himself blaspheme?
3 Query, Was the Priest infallible in discerning the Oracle and relating the mind of God to the people? How then did they say, he is worthy to dye? How did Caiaphas say, What need we any more witnesse, We have heard himself blaspheme?
4 Were not the Priests Deut. 17. ver. 11. To Judge according to the sentence of the Law of God delivered to Moses? Was this an immediate Oracle of infallibility, such as Bellarmin, Becanus, Gretsorus, Valentia Corn. a lapide ascribe to their Apollo at Rome? I think Mr. Goodwin cannot say that. If he do, I know what to answer to the Papists in that. If it was the law and the testimony, as I conceive it was, had not all the people that were to stone the seducing Prophet, their way of judging the false Prophet? If they must not follow him after other Gods, and if they must be actors in stoning him. And was not this fallible as well as ours under the new Testament? and therefore, because we are not infallible ⟨p. 319⟩judging in the heart-Heretic; we must not draw the Sword against him; and I say, nor can we draw the Sword of the Spirit against any such; for in the using of the Sword of the Spirit, in teaching, refuting, or arguing against Heretics; we are not infallible. If this way of Peoples judging, and not listening to the suggestions of a false Prophet was infallible, how erred they, and slew the true Prophets, and stoned them that were sent, Matth. 23. 27. As well as we may? And why may not we, notwithstanding of our fallibility and actual erring, judge and drive away by the sword, devourers of the flock, as well as they?
4 Were not the Priests