A92140:815
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.
The Proposition needs no probation, That must be false that by strong consequence follows from a false principle. I prove the Assumption, The prime and first principle of liberty of Conscience now under the New Testament is,1 that Heretics and seducing Teachers are therefore unpunishable by the sword, because they are unknowable: The formal and that which constituteth an Heretic an Heretic, is in the heart, to wit, heart-contumacy, legible and obvious only to him that knows all, say the Belgicks, Arminians, and therefore they can neither be judged nor punished; observe by the way, the Church of Thyatira must be then unjustly rebuked for suffering Jezebel to seduce, and this exempteth all false Teachers from Church censures, yea from rebukes, for who dares rebuke men for f••s knowable to the almighty only who knows the heart? 2. We are expressly commanded (say Libertines) to suffer the tares, that is,2 Heretics to grow till harvest, because we cannot know tares from wheat, and we run the hazard (saith John Goodwin) of fighting against God, and fighting against Saints, and God in them (saith Saltmarsh) when we punish Heretics.3 3. We have not that infallible Spirit, and those Prophets who cannot err, and can infallibly tell us who is the Heretic, who not. 4. There is a great variety, and such contrariety of judging (say they) what is heresy, what not, that what is heresy to one, is saving truth to another, who is as worthy to be believed as he; Ergo, We are all in the mist, and in a sea of uncertainties in judging who is the Heretic, who the Saint. 5. Heresy is innocency; Ergo, there is no such fault reprovable or punishable in the world, say they. But this principle that the Seducer is not knowable in the New Testament, is most false and contrary to Scripture.
The Proposition needs no probation, That must be false that by strong consequence follows from a false principle. I prove the Assumption, The prime and first principle of libertie of Conscience now under the New Testament is,1 that Hereticks and seducing Teachers are therefore unpunishable by the sword, because they are unknowable: The formall and that which constituteth an Heretick an Heretick, is in the heart, to wit, heart-contumacie, legible and obvious only to him that knows all, say the Belgicks, Arminians, and therefore they can neither be judged nor punished; observe by the way, the Church of Thyatira must be then unjustly rebuked for suffering Jezabel to seduce, and this exempteth all false Teachers from Churchcensures, yea from rebukes, for who dares rebuke men for fs knowable to the almightie only who knows the heart? 2. We are expressely commanded (say Libertines) to suffer the tares, that is,