A92140:719
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.
Yet let not us go on with Egid-Coninck to say,1 that if it was lawful to make war with any nation for wrongs done to men, how much more for injuries done to God? for making of war is an act of Magistracy,2 and so suppose some jus, some power and authority, that we have either by the law of nature, to defend our life,3 peace, liberties, or for avenging of such heinous injuries done to the Nation as cannot in justice be decided, but by the sword. So that sin, as sin, or as greatest sins,4 are not the just cause of war, but sins as most destructive to humane society, for which by the Principles of the Law of nature,5 they may be convinced of fearful breaches; Now these that are Idolaters, the nations that worship God in Idolatrous way, and being of a strange Religion, worship a strange God, though they do the greatest injury to God that can be, yet in regard they being other nations as independent on us, as we are on them; and do it not in order to the destruction of our of our peace, liberty, and lives, we have not jus over them, nor authority to make War with them, except God gave us a Command to destroy them, nor is this a good consequence, we may by war revenge injuries done to men, erg•, far more, by war, may we revenge injuries done to God: for war is an act of revenging justice: that supposeth some authority given of God, over such a nation as we come out against in war.
Yet let not us go on with Egid-Coninck to say,1 that if it was lawfull to make war with any nation for wrongs done to men, how much more for injuries done to God? for making of war is an act of Magistracy,2 and so suppose some jus, some power and authority, that we have either by the law of nature, to defend our life,