A92140:369
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 toleration of many false ways,1 and the permitting of men to speak lies in the name of the Lord, and to seduce souls, hath no warrant in the Old or New Testament▪ ergo, such a toleration is no duty of the Magistrate; the major is clear from the perfection of the word of God; the assumption is proved by a negative argument from the Scripture, it is no where written expressly, or by consequence, to be the duty of the Ruler, therefore it is not his duty to tolerate or permit.
BUt toleration of many false wayes,1 and the permitting of men to speake lyes in the name of the Lord, and to seduce soules, hath no warrant in the Old or New Testament▪ ergo, such a toleration is no duty of the Magistrate; the major is cleare from the perfection of the word of God; the assumption is proved by a negative argument from the Scripture, it is no where written expresly, or by consequence, to be the duty of the Ruler, therefore it is not his duty to tolerate or permit.
- 1Toleration hath no warrant in the word.
If it be replied, because it is not holden forth in Scripture to be the Rulers duty to punish men for their conscience, therefore it must be the Rulers duty to tolerate and permit them.
If it be replyed, because it is not holden forth in Scripture to be the Rulers duty to punish men for their conscience, therefore it must be the Rulers duty to tolerate and permit them.