A92140:876
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. 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, 2 Tim. 2. 15, 16, 17. and those that taught circumcision are charged as perverters of souls, Act. 15. yet they but perverted souls, by consequence. The like may be said of such, as Paul said tell from Christ, and lost all benefit in Christ, if they were circumcised, Gal. 5. 2. It may be they would retract the heresy, if they saw the blasphemies to follow by strong consequence, and it may be not, since they are self-condemned. But, sure, the Lord chargeth the persons of men as making God a liar, who believe not his truth, and he chargeth Epicurism, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall dye, 1 Cor. 15. on the persons that deny the resurrection: and if the doctrine be a lye, I wonder, how these that lye of God (since God commandeth to know, and believe whatever he saith in his word) can be innocent.
Answ. The very opinion it selfe may be a blasphemy, by consequence, though the man see it not to be blasphemy: will the Doctor say, Hymeneus, and Alexander, did make shipwrack 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 ungodlinesse, and that their word did eat as a canker, in saying, that the resurrection was past? which yet Paul chargeth on them, 2 Tim. 2. 15, 16, 17. and those that taught circumcision are charged as perverters of soules,