A92140:870
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.
6.1 That there must be vinciblenesse in all heresy is ambiguous, in the Doctors sense, for by vinciblenesse, I take, he means, such vinciblenesse whereby none, by their own industry and strength of freewill may, if they be not wanting to that grace which is denied to none, (as Arminians say) attain to the light of such consequences, as heretics wilfully deny. If this be his meaning, he is a friend to Pelagius. 2. If he take vincible, as opposed to invincible ignorance, he Popishly then saith, that the Scripture offereth to us many things whereof we may be invincibly ignorant. Now invincible ignorance, Protestants acknowledge only, in matters of fact, or of Gospel-truths never so much as in the letter revealed, as Heathens may be invincibly ignorant of Christ, and their ignorance not be sinful, as Joh. 15. 22. and Jacob was invincibly ignorant, in lying with Leah, instead of Rachel. There can be no such vinciblenesse, or invincibleness, in an Heretic that hears the Gospel, for who ever hear the Gospel, and yet remain ignorant,2 their ignorance is not invincible, Nulla est invincibilis ignorantia juris.
6.1 That there must be vinciblenesse in all heresie is anobiguous, in the Doctors sense, for by vinciblenesse, I take, he means, such vinciblenesse whereby none, by their owne industry and strength of freewill may, if they be not wanting to that grace which is denyed to none, (as Arminians say) attaine to the light of such consequences, as hereticks wilfully deny. If this be his meaning, he is a friend to Pelagius. 2. If he take vincible, as opposed to invincible ignorance, he Popishly then saith, that the Scripture offereth to us many things whereof we may be invincibly ignorant. Now invincible ignorance, Protestants acknowledge onely, in matters of fact, or of Gospel-truths never so much as in the letter revealed, as Heathens may be invincibly ignorant of Christ, and their ignorance not be sinfull, as Joh. 15. 22. and Jacob was invincibly ignorant, in lying with Leah, instead of Rachel. There can be no such vinciblenesse, or invinciblenesse, in an Heretick that hears the Gospel, for who ever heare the Gospel, and yet remaine ignorant,