A92140:907
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
Chapter 28: Divers other Arguments for pretended Toleration, answered.
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.
2 We think Mr. Williams Arguments weak and Anabaptisticall, we should not swear such a Covenant […] why? ⟨p. 388⟩It were hypocrisy, and a profaning of Gods name: How doth this follow, but that we must put none to an Oath, but such as are regenerate, and we know will swear sincerely, and not profane the name of God? None then can be witnesses under the New Testament to swear, but such as are regenerate, where is this divinity warranted? Or if it be, because the substance of the Oath is sin, in that we swear to put to death the innocent and unrenewed? we crave a ground for it in the word. But we know no such Covenant or Oath, But here if toleration of all Religions stand, the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, grievously sin, in that they proclaim not an open liberty to the Mass, to Jesuits, Priests, to set up Altars, Temples, the whole body of Popish worship, and they ought to proclaim liberty to all Jews to come and dwell in Britain, erect Synagogues, blaspheme Christ, for this is the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set us free, by Libertines way.
2 We thinke Mr. Williams Arguments weake and Anabaptisticall, we should not swear such a Covenant 〈…〉 why? ⟨p. 388⟩It were hipocrisie, and a prophaining of Gods name: How doth this follow, but that wee must put none to an Oath, but such as are regenerate, and wee know wil swear sincerely, and not prophaine the name of God? None then can bee witnesses under the New Testament to sweare, but such as are regenerate, where is this divinity warranted? Or if it be, because the substance of the Oath is sin, in that we sweare to put to death the innocent and unrenewed? we crave a ground for it in the word. But we know no such Covenant or Oath, But here if toleration of all Religions stand, the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, grievously sin, in that they proclaime not an open liberty to the Masse, to Jesuits, Priests, to set up Altars, Temples, the whole body of Popish worship, and they ought to proclaime liberty to all Jewes to come and dwell in Britaine, erect Synagogues, blaspheme Christ, for this is the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set us free, by Libertines way.