A92140:115
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.
and his judgement as a messenger of God is public and binds as public to highest obedience to the fifth command, but as it is a judgement of faith common to the Doctor with other Christians, it binds as the mind of God holding faith in the second Commandment what we are to believe.
and his judgement as a messenger of God is publique and bindes as publike to highest obedience to the fift command, but as it is a judgement of faith common to the Doctor with other Christians, it bindes as the minde of God holding faith in the second Commandment what wee are to believe.
Arminians. The word of God is sufficient for the deciding of controversies,1 its clear, what need it there of decision, if men acquiesce to the decision of God as it lies in Scripture—if the word of God express the sense of God, or if it have need of interpretation why is there not a free interpretation left to every man•• do we think that our words are clearer than the word of God, we do a ••nithic injury to the word of God, if we believe that. How much better were it, if we would nourish peace and concord leaving interpretations free to every man?2 It is most sure to contain our selves within the speaking of the holy Scripture, and the form of words of the holy Ghost, and that no man be troubled who shows himself willing to contain himself within these.
Armmians. The word of God is sufficient for the deciding of controversies,1 its cleare, what neede it there of decision, if men acquiesce to the decision of God as it lyes in Scripture—if the word of God expresse the sense of God, or if it have need of interpretation why is there not a free interpretation left to every man•• doe we think that our words are clearer than the word of God, we doe a nithic injury to the word of God, if we believe that. How much better were it, if we would nourish peace and concord leaving interpretations free to every man?