A92140:726
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 this is said, not proved, that new Altar was not a heap of stones; but if it had been made upon Religio•s grounds, and for the service of God, it had been no less than an Apostasy from that true Religion once delivered by God. Then if the third part of Scotland and England should turn Apostates from the Religion once sworn, after they had bound themselves in Covenant: the question remaineth, what should the State and Parliament do in that case? should they be indifferent beholders, and not use the sword against such Apostates?1 Swarez and others, not without reason, thinks that Infidels that are not Subjects, and not Apostates, cannot be compelled to embrace the true faith, even though it be sufficiently proposed to them, his reasons are, there is no lawful power given to the Church by Jesus Christ to compel such. 2. It is no tradition of the Church. 3. Those that are without cannot be judged; but the truth is, the sword is not given to the ⟨p. 305⟩Church, as the Church; and in the spreading of the Gospel, the Lord forbids the use of the sword. It is true, a Christian Prince may deny to Infidels liberty to dwell in his bounds. See Weemes, vo. 3. Expos. of the Judicial Law, cap. 15. And Subjects may be compelled not to blaspheme Christ, not to dishonour the true God with manifestly professed impieties;2 for if Asa made a Law, 2 Chron. 15. that they that would not seek the true God, should be put to death:3 If that be temporary and judaical, then the Christian Magistrate is not as a Christian Magistrate, or as a nurse-father, Isaiah. 49. 23. so much as to command any to serve Christ, nor to rebuke any for blasphemies. Sure this can be no part of the peaceableness of Christs Kingdom, not to rebuke sinners: But nurse-fathers and civill Tutors must do something for the defence of the truth from errors; for Constantine the great closed the Temples of Heathen Gods, to the end that heathenish Idolatry might be abolished, as Eusebius saith; see also Ruffinus, Jovianus, and Nicephorus, Justinian made many Laws against Idolaters. Before Constantine the great would pardon Arrius, [Greek or Hebrew] be exacted an Oath of him, that he should stand to the Nicene faith, and he sware, but dissembled. So Socrates; then Arrius was punishable by the Emperor.