A92140:213
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.
Quer. 12. Since also […] lay for a ground, that the Magistrate is not infallible in judging of matters of Religion, especially that are supernatural, such as the mysteries of the Gospel, the incarnation, sufferings and death of Christ, his satisfaction for sinners, &c. and Christians are not infallible in either reaching these to others, or in believing them, for their faith and practise, and therefore the Magistrate ought to tolerate all these; how then can this Divine talk of a certainty of knowing and teaching, and holding of divine truthe•• for by […] principle of toleration, that no man hath infallibility in matters of Religion, since the Prophets and Apostles fell asleep, there can be no certainty of faith either in ruler or people, but all our faith in fundamentalls or non-fundamentalls, must be fallible, dubious, conjectu•••
Quer. 12. Since also 〈…〉 lay for a ground, that the Magistrate is not infallible in judging of matters of Religion, especially that are supernaturall, such as the mysteries of the Gospell, the incarnation, sufferings and death of Christ, his satisfaction for sinners, &c. and Christians are not infallible in either reaching these to others, or in believing them, for their faith and practise, and therefore the Magistrate ought to tolerate all these; how then can this Divine talke of a certainty of knowing and teaching, and holding of divine truthe•• for by 〈…〉 principle of toleration, that no man hath infallibility in matters of Religion, since the Prophets and Apostles fell asleepe, there can be no certainty of faith either in ruler or people, but all our faith in fundamentalls or non-fundamentalls, must be fallible, dubious, conjectu•••
And for such as yield a toleration in non-fundamentalls, but deny it in fundamentals: 1. They must quit all arguments used by Libertin•• for toleration, from the nature of