A92140:226
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.
But ye will say, it is not charity to say that Papists have not the faith of the one only Saviour, seeing he would dye for that point, and for the consequences that there be many Saviours, if the monster of tran-substantiation stand, yet he neither knows nor believes the logical consequence, nor the consequent, but hates both, to wit, if the bread be truly and really the Saviour that dyed on the cross, ergo, how many hosts and consecrated breads there be, there must be as many a thousand, ten thousand Christs and Gods, yea he would be burnt quick before be deny this truth, there is but one only Saviour the Son of Mary; then if ye hang him or […] him for believing transubstantiation, since he is otherwise a […], pious and just man, ye hang him for the mere ignorance of a poor logical consequence, and for no blasphemy: and the like may be said of Familists, Antinomians, and others, who (as they say) are godly men, and cannot see the logical consequences, and absurd blasphemies that you with your wit, deduce from their doctrine, for their sou•e hates these blasphemies as much as you.
But ye will say, it is not charity to say that Papists have not the faith of the one onely Saviour, seeing he would dye for that point, and for the consequences that there bee many Saviours, if the monster of tran-substantiation stand, yet he neither knows nor believes the logicall consequence, nor the consequent, but hates both, to wit, if the bread bee truely and really the Saviour that dyed on the crosse, ergo, how many hoasts and consecrated breads there bee, there must be as many a thousand, ten thousand Christs and Gods, yea he would be burnt quick before be deny this truth, there is but one onely Saviour the Son of Mary; then if yee hang him or 〈…〉 him for believing transubstantiation, since he is otherwise a 〈…〉, pious and just man, ye hang him for the meere ignorance of a poore logicall consequence, and for no blasphemy: and the like may be said of Familists, Antinomians, and others, who (as they say) are godly men, and cannot see the logicall consequences, and absurd blasphemies that you with your wit, deduce from their doctrine, for their sou•e hates these blasphemies as much as you.