A80614:65
The controversy concerning liberty of conscience in matters of religion, truly stated, and distinctly…The controversie concerning liberty of conscience in matters of religion, truly stated, and distinctly…
The controversy concerning liberty of conscience in matters of religion, truly stated, and distinctly and plainly handled, by Mr. John Cotton of Boston in New-England. By way of answer to some arguments to the contrary sent unto him, wherein you have, against all cavils of turbulent spirits, clearly manifested, wherein liberty of conscience in matters of religion ought to be permitted, and in what cases it ought not, by the said Mr. Cotton.The controversie concerning liberty of conscience in matters of religion, truly stated, and distinctly and plainly handled, by Mr. John Cotton of Boston in New-England. By way of answer to some arguments to the contrary sent unto him, vvherein you have, against all cavils of turbulent spirits, clearly manifested, wherein liberty of conscience in matters of religion ought to be permitted, and in what cases it ought not, by the said Mr. Cotton.
London: printed for Thomas Banks, 1646
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
Furthermore, we acknowledge none to be constrained to believe or profess the true Religion till he be convinced in judgment of the ⟨p. 11⟩truth of it; but yet restrained he may from blaspheming the truth, and from seducing any into pernicious errors.
Furthermore, we acknowledge none to be constrained to believe or professe the true Religion till he be convinced in judgment of the ⟨p. 11⟩truth of it; but yet restrained he may from blaspheming the truth, and from seducing any into pernicious errors.
2. We answer, what Princes profess and practise, is not a rule of conscience, they many times tolerate that in point of State policy, which cannot be justly tolerated in point of true christianity.
2. We answer, what Princes professe and practise, is not a rule of conscience, they many times tolerate that in point of Srate policy, which cannot be justly tolerated in point of true christianitie.
Again, Princes many times tolerate offenders out of very necessity, when the offenders are too many or too mighty for them to punish; in which respect David tolerated Joab and his murders, but against his will.
Again, Princes many times tolerate offenders out of very necessity, when the offenders are too many or too mightie for them to punish; in which respect David tolerated Joab and his murthers, but against his will.