A92140:874
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. Not to believe what God saith, is inconsistent with his honour: for nothing intrinsically is inconsistent with the honour of God, not the eating of the tree of knowledge, no simple act of loving, fearing, believing, all are inconsistent with, or agreeable to the honour of God, because he commands, or forbids them.
Answ. Not to beleeve what God saith, is inconsistent with his honour: for nothing intrinsecally is inconsistent with the honour of God, not the eating of the tree of knowledge, no simple act of loving, fearing, beleeving, all are inconsistent with, or agreeable to the honour of God, because he commands, or forbids them.
Object. 12. No mans person is to be charged with the odious consequences of his opinion, though the doctrine may be therefore charged, ⟨p. 378⟩because if he did see the consequences, and then avow them, his person is chargeable with them.
- 1Liber. of Proph n. 6.
Answ. The very opinion it self may be a blasphemy, by consequence, though the man see it not to be blasphemy: will the Doctor say, Hymeneus, and Alexander, did make shipwreck of faith and blaspheme, because they said the resurrection was past? Yet Paul 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20. chargeth the persons with blasphemy; and can the Doctor deny that Hymeneus, and Philetus, increased unto more ungodliness, and that their word did eat as a canker, in saying, that the resurrection was past? which yet Paul chargeth on them,