A92140:336
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 10: Of indulgence in fundamentall, or non-fundamentall errors.
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.
9. Let Libertines answer if Arminians extend not liberty ⟨p. 131⟩of prophesying as far as mens lusts can carry them,1 in these words, But to suffer every man (say they) to […] publicly 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 do we imprison the Author thereof? this injury reflects upon God the Author of truth: if it be false, the truth shall easily overcome ••ar, of it self it shall melt like was before the Sun, if ye offer violence […] it, ye strip Religion of its glory, and furnish oil to err•••. Whether is not reason as strong to refute errors fundamental as nonfundamental? whether if ye offer violence to truth in fundamentals, as well as in non-fundamentalls, yee strip Religion and truth of its glory, and furnish oil to error?
9. Let Libertines answer if Arminians extend not liberty ⟨p. 131⟩of prophesying as farre as mens lusts can carry them,1 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 Author 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 nonfundamentall? whether if ye offer violence to truth in fundamentalls, as well as in non-fundamentalls, yee strippe Religion and truth of its glory, and furnish oyle to errour?