A92140:636
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.
6 Many Religions suffered, must be contrary to the true religious liberty of Christian States and Churches, when men are licensed to profess slavery and bondage, to the efficacy and power of error to believe, profess, and disseminate lies and blasphemies in the name of the Lord.
6 Many Religions suffered, must be contrary to the true religious liberty of Christian States and Churches, when men are licenced to professe slavery and bondage, to the efficacy and power of errour to beleeve, professe, and disseminate lies and blasphemies in the name of the Lord.
7 Many false ways of religions, doth in the Scripture argue a change of Gods, for these that are no Gods, which Heathens do abhor, Jer. 2. 9, 10, 11. and a multiplying of Gods, according to the number of each Sect and Society, Jer. 2. 28. and a manifest countenancing of Scepticism, of many Gods, and of no God, since then the Parliament not only as Christian men, but as a Parliament, and as Magistrates have sworn the Covenant; they must swear each one of them to defend his own Religion, Familism, Arianism, Antinomianism, which he believes to be the true religion, and that as a Magistrate with the sword of God, and so to oppose his fellow members with his Parliamentary power, how then can the Parliament command others, or engage themselves to the Lord their God to endeavour the preservation of the one reformed Religion in Scotland, that we and our posterity may live in faith and love (for this is many faiths professedly different) and that the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us, and this is many Gods in the midst of us: and that we shall endeavour the extirpation of heresy, superstition, profaneness—and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine? It is not every Parliament man, who by law, may be of any Religion, obliged by the oath of God to endeavour the extirpation of the true Protestant Religion, since to him who is a Familist and Antinomian, it is heresy and contrary to sound doctrine? Are not Papists though known Papists, to be Judges, and Members of Parliament? why should they be debarred for their Religion?