A86009:46
Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty. Or, the true resolution of a present controversy…VVholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty. Or, the true resolution of a present controversie…
Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty. Or, the true resolution of a present controversy concerning liberty of conscience. Here you have the question stated, the middle way betwixt popish tyranny and schismatizing liberty approved, and also confirmed from Scripture, and the testimonies of divines, yea of whole churches: the chief arguments and exceptions used in The bloody tenet, The compassionate Samaritan, M.S. to A.S. &c. examined. Eight distinctions added for qualifying and clearing the whole matter. And in conclusion a parænetick to the five apologists for choosing accommodation rather then toleration. Imprimatur. Ja. Cranford. Decemb 16. 1644.VVholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty. Or, the true resolution of a present controversie concerning liberty of conscience. Here you have the question stated, the middle way betwixt popish tyrannie and schismatizing liberty approved, and also confirmed from Scripture, and the testimonies of divines, yea of whole churches: the chiefe arguments and exceptions used in The bloudy tenent, The compassionate samaritane, M.S. to A.S. &c. examined. Eight distinctions added for qualifying and clearing the whole matter. And in conclusion a parænetick to the five apologists for choosing accommodation rather then toleration. Imprimatur. Ia. Cranford. Decemb 16. 1644.
London: printed for Christopher Meredith, 1645
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.
Thirdly, what if I shape yet another answer to the argument out of Mr. Williams own words? chap. 27. I acknowledge, saith he, this command [Let them alone] was expressly spoken to the messengers or ministers of the Gospel, who have not civill power or authority in their hand, and therefore not to the civill Magistrate, King or Governor. Now therefore what a blockish argument is it, to reason from this Parable against the coercive power of the magistrate in matters of religion? If there must be a forbearance of any severity, we must forbear Church censures and excommunication a way of rooting out the tares, which Mr. Williams himself justifieth as much as we do.
Thirdly, what if I shape yet another answer to the argument out of Mr. Williams owne words? chap. 27. I acknowledge, saith he, this command [Let them alone] was expresly spoken to the messengers or ministers of the Gospel, who have not civill power or authority in their hand, and therefore not to the civill Magistrate, King or Governour. Now therefore what a blockish argument is it, to reason from this Parable against the coercive power of the magistrate in matters of religion? If there must be a forbearance of any severity, we must forbeare Church censures and excommunication a way of rooting out the tares, which Mr. Williams himselfe justifieth as much as we doe.
Fourthly, and if the utter extirpation and plucking up of Heretics by capital punishments, should be understood to be forbidden in the parable, (as it is not) yet the stopping of their mouths, the dissipating and suppressing of them, some other coercive way, is not forbidden, as Chrysostom noteth upon the place, whom Euthymius and Theophylactus do follow in this, allowing of coercive, though not capital punishments.
Fourthly, and if the utter extirpation and plucking up of Hereticks by capitall punishments, should be understood to be forbidden in the parable, (as it is not) yet the stopping of their mouths, the dissipating and suppressing of them, some other coercive way, is not forbidden, as Chrysostome noteth upon the place, whom Euthymius and Theophylactus doe follow in this, allowing of coercive, though not capitall punishments.