A92140:812
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.
I answer, this is a manifest perverting of the State of the question, and to leap from the Proposition to the Assumption; for we dispute only upon the Supposition, that there be Wolves and Seducers in a Christian society (but who they be, Presbyterian, or others, is another question) whether or not the Christian Magistrate should for his part leave them to themselves, and suffer them to preach, print what blasphemies they list, and their erroneous conscience dictates to them for truths.
I answer, this is a manifest perverting of the State of the question, and to leap from the Proposition to the Assumption; for we dispute only upon the Supposition, that there be Wolves and Seducers in a Christian societie (but who they be, Presbyterian, or others, is another question) whether or not the Christian Magistrate should for his part leave them to themselves, and suffer them to preach, print what blasphemies they list, and their erroneous conscience dictates to them for truths.
But neither the Christian Magistrate not being infallible, nay nor any Church on earth can judge who is the Heretic, who the Saint, and therefore should take on him to judge none at all to be Heretics, but should suffer tares and wheat to grow till harvest, for fear he pluck up the wheat in lieu of tares, and persecute Saints under colour of justice. Hence I argue in the contrary demonstratively, that liberty of Conscience is unlawful, and not of God.1
But neither the Christian Magistrate not being infallible, nay nor any Church on earth can judge who is the Heretick, who the Saint, and therefore should take on him to judge none at all to be Hereticks, but should suffer tares and wheat to grow till harvest, for fear he pluck up the wheat in lieu of tares, and persecute Saints under colour of justice. Hence I argue in the contrary demonstratively, that liberty of Conscience is unlawfull, and not of God.1
- 1