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.

CHAP. X. Of indulgence in fundamentall, or non-fundamentall errors. (Book 10)

BUt say the Arminians,* 1.1 the question is of Hereticks, not of those who dare deny the things openly decided in the Scripture, but of those who call in question those things that are, or may be contra∣verted. There was never an Heretick who called in question whe∣ther theeves,* 1.2 drunkards, robbers, railers, Idolaters, shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven, or whether God be to beloved above all things, he is not a Christian, he is not an hereticke, but worse than a here∣ticke who denyes those things that are plain and obvious in scripture. But he that layeth a law upon others, which he must follow under pain of death, imprisonment or banishment in things belonging to liberty of prophecying, which are conjoyned with the reverence of God and the scripture, trampleth all prophesies under foot.

Answ. 1 This definition of an Hereticke is in quesion, there be in England who deny all scriptures as no word of God, yet are judged by Libertines, not punishable by man. 2. All things that may be controverted, is wide. Nothing but it is converted, except whether there be a God or not, and many doubt of that: There be even now, who deny Jesus Christ God man, the necessity of his death, his offices, the im∣mortallity of the soule, the resurrection, last judgement, a heaven, a hell, but al to Libertines are uncertaine, and the denyall of any point, not by the light of reason, but by supernaturall revelation, such as these articles, that God is one in three distinct persons, that Christ is God and Man in one person, that he dyed to satisfie divine justice, that we are saved by his righteousnesse imputed to us by faith, &c. Is no heresie, but may consist with true godlinesse, and therefore they give instance in fundamentals which are knowne by the light of nature, as that theeves, drunkards shall not inhe∣rit the Kingdome of God, that God is to bee loved above

all things,* 1.3 now th••se are principles of naturall Theology known to heathens, so that such godly men, to which Li∣bertines would yeeld an indulgence and liberty, are good moral honest civil men, who beleeve fundamentals known by the light of nature to Christians and Heathens equally, for civill Heathens may have the sound faith of al such fun∣damentals, and beleeving morall and naturall fundamen∣tals, though they know not Jesus Christ, or possibly never heard of him, may be saved and not be beholden to Christ knowne as a Saviour, so some Libertines tell us, not any man is to suffer death, though he deny and malitious∣ly oppose, all the principles of the Gospell, because these are knowne no ways, but by supernaturall revelation, and the light of faith which commeth from God, but I take the ground of this to bee, because supernaturall light is a∣bove us, and not in our power, but by this reason, Christ should not have rebuked the Pharisees for not beleeving in him, nor the Sadduces for denying the resurrection, nor should Paul have smitten Eli••as with blindnesse for pervert∣ing Sergius Paulus from the faith, for it was not in their power to know or beleeve otherwise of these Gospel fun∣damentals that are not beleeved, but by supernaturall re∣velation, then they did, other Libertines say, they are on∣ly Hereticks or at least punishable by men, who deny fundamentals of Cbristian Religion, but are sparing to tell us what funda∣mentals, whether of law and known by the light of nature, or of Gospel known onely by supernaturall revellation,* 1.4 so that ere they finde the hereticke, they must show you the point they deny is fundamental, and its possible that is a difficil businesse, whether it be fundamental or not, if he go for a Sectarie he is a godly man, and his godlinesse shal prove the poynt is not fundamental, for this is the logick of our time, such a people are godly, therefore their opi∣nions are against no fundamentall point, whereas this is a better consequence; such points are fundamentall, ergo, if men twice or thrice admonished doe yet wilfully goe on to maintaine opinions manifestly contrary, they are not godly, for the Apostle tel•• us of doctrine according to godli∣nesse then must the doctrine soundly beleeved make the per∣son godly or argue him to be so, but the man let him goe

for a Saint cannot make or argue the doctrine to bee the doctrine according to godlinesse, if it be not so in it self, and we are inclined, if the man be of our own tribe and sect, to defend his tenets, and not to judge them fundamental error.

2. We wish much an argument to prove bodily violence, or Ecclesiasticall co-action may be used against men erring in points fundamentall,* 1.5 but not in non-fundamentals, since God delivers his mind as clearly in non-fundamentals, if not more clearely, as in fundamentals, and the authority of the Lord who commands faith is as great in non-fundamentals, and our obligation to beleeve no lesse, then in the most ne∣cessary fundamentals, as therefore abstinence from adultery with Bathsheba, and murthering of Ʋriah in David, is as ne∣cessary, necessitate precepts, as the whole course of Davids re∣pentance and turning to God, yet it is not so necessary, ne∣cessitate medii, for David is a saved Saint, though he absta•••••• not from that adultery and murther, but without conver∣sion from the state of sinfull nature to the way of saving grace, it is unpossible David can be saved; so to abstain from Idolatry, and to demolish the high places, and to punish those who resort to them is a godly practice, yet though 〈◊〉〈◊〉 commit Idolatry with the golden Calfe, yea and make the people naked also: And Asa, though he demolish not the high places all his reigne, nor punish any for that Idolatry, and did persecute the Seer, yet Aaron was the faithfull Priest, and the anointed of God, and Asa and some other Kings heart, were perfect before the Lord, though they fell in these sins, nor were these fundamentals, sinnes in practice, inconsistent with saving faith, more then errours and teaching of er∣rours in non-fundamentals, to the ruine of many souls doth exclude a possibility of being in the state of saving grace, but it cannot follow, that because teaching and publishing of errours in non-fundamentals is consistent with saving grace, that therefore these non-fundamentall sinnes of mur∣ther, adultery, tolerating of Idolatrous high places, perse∣cuting of faithfull Prophets, making of a golden Calfe, and hallowing of it to be adored as the God that brought Israel out of Aegypt, are sins not to be tolerated in the truly godly, such as Aaron, David, and Asa, for then should they be tolerated in

the wicked also, for the toleration of such in the godly, because they are not fundamental wickednesses, inconsistent with saving grace, is as destructive and more, because of their extream scandalousnesse, to all peace and safety of humaine societies, and to the duty of the godly Magistrate, as these same sins in the wicked, upon the same grounds publishing of all errors non-fundamentall, the toleration of the high places are as inconsistent with peace, destructive and injuri∣ous to soules, especially in the godly, as scandalous to o∣ther false teachers, as these non-fundamentall sins.

But (say they) the reason is not alike in non-fundamen∣tall sinnes, that are expresly condemned by all, Aarons Ido∣latry, Davids adultery, Asaes persecution, no man ever defen∣ded, therefore they cannot bee tolerated by the Magistrate without sin, though the acting of these sins may consist with sound faith. But most of non-fundamentalls are not clearly determined in the word, in regard of our dulnesse and naturall blindnesse, and therefore the Magistrate can∣not punish the non-fundamentall errours, for these which be non-fundamentall errours to some godly and learned, are non-fundamentall and seasonable truths to others, as godly and learned as they are. But to all the godly and learned, Aarons Idolatry, Davids adultery and murther, Asa's tolerating the high places, and imprisoning the Seer, were sins unjustifiable, and by the light of nature such as no godly Magistrate can tolerate.

But I answer, if this be a good reason, why there is not the like consideration of these sins non-fundamentall, and doctrines non-fundamentall, because some doctrines non-fundamentall are seasonable truths to some godly and lear∣ned, and these same are lyes and untruths to others, as god∣ly and learned as they; then should also divers fundamen∣tall errours bee tolerated as well as non-fundamentall errours, which Independents, the Masters of this distincti∣on with the Arminians will not say, because to some godly and learned Independents, this is a fundamentall truth, that murther, and adultery, and robbery, are not to be tolerated by the Magistrate, that Magistracy is an ordinance of God, but to many Anabaptists as godly and learned as they, it is

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

not onely no fundamentall truth, but a fundamentall er∣rour, under our meeke Saviours reigne, there ought to bee neither sword nor speare, but instead of them, plow-shares and pruning hooks, and since Libertines will not have god∣linesse to be valued by soundnesse in doctrine, but by mens spirits of discerning and charity, Independents are to repute Familists, Socinians, Antinomians as godly and learned as them∣selves: Now Independents thinke that Christ God-man came to satisfie the justice of God for our sinnes, and that Ordinances are necessary for all in this life, yet these, and many the like Fami∣lists and Socinians judge fundamentall lyes, and who have any discerning, and have heard Mr. John Goodwin pray, and seene his writings, which I have done, will repute him as godly and learned as any Independent in England: so I judge with correction; yet he will say the godly and learned Inde∣pendents in England hold many points to bee fundamentall truths which he reputes to bee fundamentall untruths, as namely concerning justification by faith, that the Scrip∣tures we now have by the saith whereof we must be saved, is the word of God. Mr. Joh. Goodwin must say these are funda∣mentall lyes, and many fundamentals in the late Confession of Ass••mbly, I know M. John Goodwin in his writings, denyeth to be fundamentall truths.

2. It is not enough to say most of the non-fundamentalls are not determined clearely in the word,* 1.6 Libertines we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dispute withall, must say, not any non-fundamentalls are de∣termined in the word, but all fundamentalls are clearly de∣termined, else they must belye their distinction which Inde∣pendents in the Apologeticke Narration make almost a principle of faith (though I hope it shall never be one to me) that all non-fundamentals are to be beleeved without a reserve, and all fundamentalls with a reserve; for if many non-fundamentalls are also to bee beleeved without a re∣serve, it would have been service to the Church, they had beaten out that Arminian principle a little more, and sub∣divided non-fundamentalls in such as are to bee beleeved with a reserve, and a demurre, and such as are to be belee∣ved without a reserve, then in some non-fundamen••••ll•• men are not to be tolerated, and what be these. 2. The

distinction should so beare a leg and halt, for then some fundamentalls we beleeve without a reserve, and no tole∣ration is to bee yeelded in them, but the sword and the club must presse faith in these, and we are to beleeve but some non-fundamentalls with a reserve, not all, and indul∣gence is due to men in some non-fundamentalls, not in o∣thers; but we know our Brethrens frequent arguing, Inde∣pendencie is not fundamentalls, ergo, our Brethren should tolerate it, but we deny this consequence; yea Erastianisme in its highest sphere is not fundamentall, and yet high Era∣stianisme is persecution both of Independency and Presby∣tery, doth it follow then, it must be tolerated?

3. If the Magistrate cannot punish the error in non-fundamen∣tals, because, in regard of our dulnesse, they are not clear in the word, so in regard of our dulnesse many fundamentals in the Gospel are as uncleare, and that all acknowledge that Aarons Idolatry, and Davils adultery and murther, are sins unjustifiable, and which the Magistrate by the light of na∣ture is not to tolerate, and that he is not a Christian who denyes that theeves and Idolaters who shall not enter into heaven, and that God is to be loved above all, is a great un∣truth, many Anabaptists there were in Bullingers time, who taught none but whores and harlots should enter into the Kingdome of God, which is cousen Germains to this. Againe, what is theft, is as disputable, as in the case of usury, and whether the Saints the just and spirituall inheritors of the earth, all things are yours (saith Paul) doe rob and steale, if they invade the possessions, houses, monies, and lands of un∣regenerate and carnall man? whether he bee a murtherer who sacrificeth his childe to God in imitation of Abraham? are as uncleare, in regard of our naturall blindnesse, as most of the non-fundamentalls: and Anabaptists that are godly and learned, have as much to say from Scripture for deny∣ing of fundamentals, as in many in non-fundamentals can plead, why their tenets are true, and though erroneous, yet not punishable; and they should upon the same ground have a toleration for murtherers, robbers, theeves, that flow from meere conscience, and religious grounds, and though these practises bee destructive to peace,

yet with what conscience can the Magistrate punish them as destructive to peace, when it is not clearely determi∣ned in the word of God that they are destructive to true humaine peace? For if they be lawfull, and some of them acts of worship, as the actors are in conscience perswaded they are, they cannot be destructive to peace, yea to punish them is tyranny over the conscience, say Libertines. Now I propose these Queries, and desire Libertines to answer them.

1. Should not the Magistrate punish no thefts, no rob∣bery, no murther,* 1.7 but such as are thefts, robberies, and murthers, undeniably and uncontroversally to the consci∣ence of all that are members of that society, whether Ana∣baptists or others?

2. Should the Magistrate abstaine from punishing of that which is false worship, for example sacrificing of a childe to God, for feare he domineere over the conscience of a Christian, and so transgresse his sphere, and sit down in Gods roome (which is really murther, and shedding of in∣nocent blood) though it be not so to the man-slayer, but acceptable service to God, and yet punish the same false worship, as murther and destructive to peace, whereas to the actors consience, whom he desires to favour, it is not murther and not destructive to peace,* 1.8 does he not really and by his office as great violence, and exerciseth no lesse a do∣mineering power over the mans conscience, then if hee should punish this as false worship?

3. Will, or can notionall or mentall consideration li∣cence the Magistrate to domineere over mens consciences, and exercise soule-tyranny and invade the Throne of God over the conscience, when it is upon the same reasons and arguments of Scripture; as probable that the taking away of a fathers head for sacrificing his son to God, is not de∣structive to peace, nor any breach of the sixt Commande∣ment, as it is probable it is true and acceptable, and worship to God, and though it were false worship, it is as probable that to punish it, is a sacrilegious invading of Gods place, as it is an act of justice in the Magistrate?

4. If the Magistrate must beleeve, as the Libertine, doth,

doth, and teacheth him, what he will, if it were King and Par∣liament, and all the Judges in Britain, if they be of the faith of Libertines, what conscience have they to take away the ••ead of a father, who sacrificeth his onely childe to God, upon meere religious principles, what warrant have they before the tribunall of God to cut off his head, as a peace-breaker, rather then to spare his life as a sacrificer, and a devout, and zealous (whether it be blinde zeal or no, the Libertine Magi∣strate hath nothing to do to judge) worshipper of God? whe∣ther or no hath the Magistrate who in that case, killeth a•• innocent man (according to his own libertine-conscience) greater respect to false peace in a humane society, then to true piety and innocent walking with God, which forbids him to punish any thing that is onely to the subject, he pu∣nisheth, a meere devout worshipping of God.

5. Upon the same ground, should not the masse, and all the broad worship on earth be tolerated, since it hath farre lesse connexion with disturbance of peace, then the Anabap∣tists children-killing worship of God?

6. If the formall is ratio, the onely formall reason and cause why the Magistrate is to use corporall coersion a∣gainst none now under the New Testament, but is to suffer every man to worship God, as he best pleaseth, because the worship of the New Testament is more spirituall, the Law-giver Christ, a meeker Mediator, then Moses, and there is no warrant now to hinder any man, or lay bands and coactive violence upon Christs free subjects, with force of sword, to restraine them in one worship, more then another, what reason an Anabaptists offering his son a sacrifice to God, should be restrained in his sacrificing, more then in other acts of worship? is not the man persecuted for his consci∣ence? is not this a carnall, and no New Testament way of restraining him, when he is restrained by the sword▪ is not the onely word of God, and no weapons that are carnall, the way of rescuing men from all false worship, and the onely way.

7. Nor can the bloodinesse and cruelty of that worship be a sufficient ground, why the Magistrate may restraine the conscience of the devout worshipper; for who ought to sit

as Lord Judge above the conscience of this father, and sen∣tence the worship as destructive to peace, or the worshipper as a bloody man? his conscience is under the New Testa∣ment, and the Lord his onely judge.

But by the light of nature, that the father kill the sonne to God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 murther, and ••ruel••y.

But I answer, if it be gratefull worship to God, it is no more cruelty then to burne a beast to God, and you are to suppose that a godly Anabaptist, hath warrant from God for that worship, as well for burning of beasts, and offering yearely thousands of bullocks and sheep to God, in memory of Christ once already sacrificed for sinners, and that there is in it neither cruelty to beasts, nor hurt to the Common∣wealth, that the Magistrate can restraine, for though there be no reason at all for the worship, ex natura rei, if we consi∣der the worship it selfe, yet there is such reason to tole∣rate the worship, so as if the Magistrate restraine, he tyran∣ni••eth over the conscience, and a bloody conscience is a conscience as uncapable of violence, and as immediately in the New Testament, subject to God onely, not to the sword, as a good conscience, then if the sword can straine no consci∣ence as conscience; how can it squeeze a conscience wa∣ding in bloody son-butchery more then any other con∣science?* 1.9

8. If the Magistrates punishing of any for his conscience be a violent compelling of him to sin, to worship or to for∣beare worship against his conscience, how will Libertines cleare Magistracy in the Old Testament, from being intrinse∣cally a sinfull ordinance, for the Magistrate in the Old Te∣stament in stoning to death the seducing Prophet, and the blasphemer must compell him to sin against his conscience, and to professe Jehovah,* 1.10 not Baal was the true God, whereas the seducer believed in his conscience the contrary,* 1.11 since to compell men to sin is intrinsecally sinfull, let Libertines an∣swer the query, if God ever in Old or New Testament could command sin, or if there was ever such a thing heard that a Magistrate might by his office command men to sin, or then punish them?

9. Let Libertines answer if Arminians extend not liberty

of prophesying as farre as mens lusts can carry them,* 1.12 in these words, But to suffer every man (say they) to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 publickly in Religion every thing i•• perilous. Why? for either that which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 asserteth is true, or false, if it be true, why admit we is not? why doe we imprison the Author thereof? this injury reflects upon God the Au∣thor of truth: if it be false, the truth shall easily overcome ••••ar, of it self it shall melt like was before the Sunne, if ye offer violence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, yee strip Religion of its glory, and furnish oyle to err••••••. Whether is not reason as strong to refute errours fundamentall as non∣fundamentall? whether if ye offer violence to truth in fun∣damentalls, as well as in non-fundamentalls, yee strippe Religion and truth of its glory, and furnish oyle to errour?

They goe on and tell us,* 1.13 Wee need not ever bee in learning these that are clearely determined in the word; for they are cleare, open, and of undoubled truths in the Scripture, in other points (not funda∣mentall) a Christian is ever a disciple and a searcher, not that he doth ever doubt and hesitate, but because, though for the present he neither doubt, nor hath cause of doubting, yet can he not be sure of these points, with such a certitude, which is free of all danger of errour, and there∣fore he is often to examine these according to the rule that cannot erre, and so it is enough before God that he may be said ever to learne, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, as far as frailty in this life can permit.

Answ. 1. There is then no stability of faith, but in two or three points, in which all Papists, Latherans, Anti••••ni••ar••ans, Arrians, Socinians, Libertines, Familists, Sabellians, Nestorians, Macedonians, Arminians, Antinomians, Seekers, F••thystasts, Ana∣baptists, &c. agree, and make one true Church, beleeving what is necessary for salvation, and holding the foundation Christ, and we have no divine faith of the miracles that Christ wrought, that the old world perished with waters, which God speakes as clearly in the word, as he doth fun∣damentalls.

But Libertines should distinguish the formall reason of be∣leeving truths, which breedeth an obligation, and the ne∣cessity of beleeving, for the one onely formall reason of be∣leeving, both fundam••ntalls and non-fundamentalls, is thus, saith the Lord. For we are as much obliged to beleeve

non-fundamentalls that are cleare,* 1.14 as that there were eight persons saved in the Arke, and the old world drowned with waters, S••dome burnt with fire, as to beleeve fundamentalls, that there is no name whereby men may be saved, but by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Jesus, for the Authority of God speaking in his word and his Command doth equally oblige to both, but there is no such necessity so absolute in beleeving non-fundamentalls, as in beleeving these, without the knowledge whereof, wee cannot be saved; but it never followeth that errours in non-fundamentalls published and taught to the ruine of the soules of many, they having such a strong connexion and influence on the knowledge of fundamentalls, are to bee tolerated since our sinning here doth as equally and strongly strike against the authority and expresse command of God (at least in most things of that kinde) as in points fundamentall, and therefore the Magistrate who is to looke∣to the honour of God as a Christian, and peace of societies in all, is as much obliged to punish, clearly opened, non-fun∣damentall as fundamentall false doctrines.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Remon. 16.
• * 1.2

  How the Ar∣minian Liber∣tines do define an heretick.
• * 1.3

  Heretickes to Libertines on∣ly such as deny things know∣able by the light of nature diversity of o∣pinions among them.
• * 1.4

  The punishing of men forpub∣lishing of fun∣damental errors and the indul∣gence of a to∣leration yeeld∣ed to them though they teach all errors in non-funda∣mentals a vain distinction and hath no ground in scripture.
• * 1.5

  Some murthers non-funda∣mentall ••n Da∣vid, which yet are consistent with the state, salvation should as wel be tolerated as some errours in non-funda∣mentals, by the distinction of Libertines.
• * 1.6

  Some non-fundamentals clearely in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 revealed not to be be∣leeved with a reserve, and o¦thers non-fun∣damentals with 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.7

  Queries pro∣pounded to Li∣bertines.
• * 1.8

  Why may not the Magistrate lawfully spare the life of him who out of a Libertine con∣science meerly sacrificeth his childe to God•• or why should ••e punish with the sword some acts not destructive to peace in the con••cience of the punished, and not a•• acts of the same ki••d.
• * 1.9

  To compell men to do a∣gainst their conscience, that is to sin neither in Old or New Test-lawfull.
• * 1.10

  Deut 13.
• * 1.11

  Deut. 17.
• * 1.12

  ••pan••
• * 1.13

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Apo c. 25. f. 290.
• * 1.14

  There is the same obligati∣on, the same formall reason (so saith the Lord) of be∣leeving non-fundamentals revealed, and fundamentals, and the same necessity of di∣vine command not the same necessity of means called, necessitas med••••.