A92140:767
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.
Answ. That the Magistrate should compel godly men to keep peace, and a David (suppose he were a Subject) not to kill, not to commit adultery under the pain of civill punishment, I suppose is not Heresy, and yet I see not how the Magistrate is not to judge according to the word of God, what is wilful murder, and so deserveth death, by the Law of God, what is accidental killing and deserveth no death, but a Refuge and Mainprise. But the Magistrate (say Libertines) should not judge what is heresy, what sound doctrine, why? because that is to be judged according to the word of God by Pastors. But, that is, […] causa pro causa, for the King is to judge what is murder, what not, and all matters belonging to a civill Judge, what is morally good and evil, and what is punishable by the sword, what not, by reading on the book of the Law when he sitteth on the throne, Deut. 17, 18, 19. but this he judgeth in order to civill punishment, and not in order to the gaining of souls, and in so far as concerns his practice, and the same way is he to judge what is heresy, what not, if this be not said, then should we play indeed in spiritual matters.
Answ. That the Magistrate should compell godly men to keep peace, and a David (suppose he were a Subject) not to kill, not to commit adultery under the pain of civill punishment, I suppose is not Heresie, and yet I see not how the Magistrate is not to judge according to the word of God, what is wilfull murder, and so deserveth death, by the Law of God, what is accidentall killing and deserveth no death, but a Refuge and Maneprize. But the Magistrate (say Liberti•es) should not judge what is heresie, what sound doctrine, why? because that is to be judged according to the word of God by Pastors. But, that is, 〈…〉 causa pro causa, for the King is to judge what is murther, what not, and all matters belonging to a civill Judge, what is morally good and evill, and what is punishable by the sword, what not, by reading on the book of the Law when he sitteth on the throne, Deut. 17, 18, 19. but this he judgeth in order to civill punishment, and not in order to the gaining of souls, and in so far as concerns his practice, and the same way is he to judge what is heresie, what not, if this be not said, then should we play indeed in spirituall matters.