A92140:649
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.
This new liberty destroys all that the Parliament hath done, said, suffered; for the Honourable Houses do profess before the everliving God, the safety of Religion, Laws, and liberties to be the chief end of all their counsels and resolutions; also that Scotland had lovingly invited them to a nearer and higher degree of union in matters of Religion and Church-government, which we (say they) most willingly embrace and intend to pursue.
This new liberty destroyes all that the Parliament hath done, said, suffered; for the Hononourable Houses doe professe before the everliving God, the safety of Religion, Laws, and liberties to be the chiefe end of all their counsells and resolutions; also that Scotland had lovingly invited them to a nearer and higher degree of union in matters of Religion and Church-government, which we (say they) most willingly embrace and intend to pursue.
The Honourable Houses declare,1 they have for the just and necessary defence of the Protestant Religion, his Majesties person, ⟨p. 265⟩Crown, 2&c. taken up Arms, and appointed and authorised Robert Earle of Essex to be Captain General. The same was the end of the Kingdom of Scotland. Now can it be dreamed that the end of either Kingdoms, united by Covenant and compact in this war, was to spend lives and fortunes, for liberty or licence to many Religions? or can any say but the intent of the Houses at that time was to oppose, never to countenance, and tolerate (as now professedly they do) Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, Antinomians, Socinians, Arians, Seekers, and Libertines, who are for all Religions? should not we have had bowels of iron, if in charity, we had not believed our brethren's words,3 oaths, pro•essions?