A92140:930
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
Chapter 28: Divers other Arguments for pretended Toleration, answered.
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.
But to return to all those kind of Argumentations that Libertines bring against opinions, from the nature of opinion, ⟨p. 395⟩faith, persuasion, which are all internal acts of the mind, which neither Church nor Magistrate can punish; they are nothing against our conclusion who maintain, that publishing and teaching, and professing of erroneous and false Doctrines are punishable by the Magistrate, for external acts that come from mere Conscience, as the sacrificing of innocent children to God, by all the Arguments we hear are not punishable by the Magistrate, for sure the Magistrates punishing of unlawful practises coming from mere Conscience, do no less force the Conscience and domineer over it, then when he punisheth erroneous opinions,1 and therefore the Bounder draweth the question to acts, and facts external, as he saith, the Magistrate […] punish Polytheism, 2and Atheists, worshipping of Images, and of the breaden God, blasphemy, for these (saith he fight against the light of nature, but if you judge only professed opinions against the light of nature, not against the Gospel punishable, because we may by freewill master professed opinions against nature, but we cannot master opinions against the supernatural truths of the Gospel, these require supernatural grace, then, good masters, why do you rebuke […] against the Gospel, more then you can punish them […] what is of its own nature unrebukeable is unpunishable […], what is unpunishable, as being above our nature is unrebukeable, and falleth not under exhortation, as we cannot exhort, rebuke, or punish a stone because it descendeth, or fire because it ascendeth.
But to returne to all those kinde of Argumentations that Libertines bring against opinions, from the nature of opinion, ⟨p. 395⟩faith, perswasion, which are all internall acts of the minde, which neither Church nor Magistrate can punish; they are nothing against our conclusion who maintain, that publishing and teaching, and professing of erroneous and false Doctrines are punishable by the Magistrate, for externall acts that come from meer Conscience, as the sacrificing of innocent children to God, by all the Arguments we hear are not punishable by the Magistrate, for sure the Magistrates punishing of unlawful practises coming from meer Conscience, do no lesse force the Conscience and domineer over it, then when he punisheth erroneous opinions,