John Cotton and Roger Williams: Their Controversy concerning Religious Liberty

Many people in the United States today feel that England is fighting a battle that is also their own. The English people, on the other hand, note with great satisfaction and gratitude the sympathy that the United States displays for their life and death struggle. A similar mutual interest existed be...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hirsch, Elisabeth Feist 1904-1998 (Author)
Format: Electronic/Print Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge University Press [1941]
In: Church history
Year: 1941, Volume: 10, Issue: 1, Pages: 38-51
Online Access: Volltext (doi)
Parallel Edition:Electronic
Description
Summary:Many people in the United States today feel that England is fighting a battle that is also their own. The English people, on the other hand, note with great satisfaction and gratitude the sympathy that the United States displays for their life and death struggle. A similar mutual interest existed between the American colonies of the seventeenth century and the England of the age of the Revolution. We have only to look at the many impassioned controversies on both sides of the Atlantic. They tell us a lively story of the exchange of ideas between Old and New England. Robert Baillie, Samuel Rutherford, William Twiss, three outstanding members of the Westminster Assembly, engaged in long arguments with John Cotton on various problems of doctrine and church government. John Cotton and other New England ministers in long pamphlets answered any reproaches of heresy made by the English or Scotch Presbyterians. It is safe to say, furthermore, that the controversy between John Cotton and Roger Williams, with which we are here concerned, would never have been started without Williams's participation in the debates of the Long Parliament in 1643/44.
ISSN:0009-6407
Contains:Enthalten in: Church history
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.2307/3160725