A80608:1503
The bloody tenet, washed, and made white in the blood of the LambThe bloudy tenent, washed, and made white in the bloud of the Lambe
The bloody tenet, washed, and made white in the blood of the Lamb: being discussed and discharged of blood-guiltiness by just defence. Wherein the great questions of this present time are handled, viz. how far liberty of conscience ought to be given to those that truly fear God? And how far restrained to turbulent and pestilent persons, that not only raze the foundation of godliness, but disturb the civill peace where they live? Also how far the magistrate may proceed in the duties of the first table? And that all magistrates ought to study the word and will of God, that they may frame their government according to it. Discussed. As they are alleged from divers Scriptures, out of the Old and New Testament. Wherein also the practise of princes is debated, together with the judgement of ancient and late writers of most precious esteem. Whereunto is added a reply to Mr. Williams answer, to Mr. Cottons letter. / By John Cotton Bachelor in Divinity, and teacher of the church of Christ at Boston in New England.The bloudy tenent, washed, and made white in the bloud of the Lambe: being discussed and discharged of bloud-guiltinesse by just defence. Wherein the great questions of this present time are handled, viz. how farre liberty of conscience ought to be given to those that truly feare God? And how farre restrained to turbulent and pestilent persons, that not onely raze the foundation of godlinesse, but disturb the civill peace where they live? Also how farre the magistrate may proceed in the duties of the first table? And that all magistrates ought to study the word and will of God, that they may frame their government according to it. Discussed. As they are alledged from divers Scriptures, out of the Old and New Testament. Wherein also the practise of princes is debated, together with the judgement of ancient and late writers of most precious esteeme. Whereunto is added a reply to Mr. Williams answer, to Mr. Cottons letter. / By John Cotton Batchelor in Divinity, and teacher of the church of Christ at Boston in New England.
London: printed by Matthew Symmons for Hannah Allen, 1647
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. The second offence, which procured his Banishment, was occasioned as I touched before. The Magistrates, and other members of the General Court upon Intelligence of some Episcopal, and malignant practises against the Country, they made an order of Court to take trial of the fidelity of the People, (not by imposing ⟨p. 29⟩upon them, but) by offering to them an Oath of Fidelity: that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with place of public charge, and Command. This Oath when it came abroad, he vehemently withstood it, and dissuaded sundry from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christs Prerogative, to have his Office established by Oath: partly because an oath was a part of Gods worship, and Gods worship was not to be put upon carnal persons, as he conceived many of the People to be. So by his Tenet neither might Church-members, nor other godly men, take the Oath, because it was the establishment not of Christ, but of mortal men in their office; nor might men out of the Church take it, because in his eye they were but carnal. So the Court was forced to desist from that proceeding: which practise of his was held to be the more dangerous, because it tended to unsettle all the Kingdoms, and Common-wealths in Europe.
2. The second offence, which procured his Banishment, was occasioned as I touched before. The Magistrates, and other members of the Generall Court upon Intelligence of some Episcopall, and malignant practises against the Countrey, they made an order of Court to take tryall of the fidelitie of the People, (not by imposing ⟨p. 29⟩upon them, but) by offering to them an Oath of Fidelitie: that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with place of publick charge, and Command. This Oath when it came abroad, he vehemently withstood it, and disswaded sundry from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christs Prerogative, to have his Office established by Oath: partly because an oath was a part of Gods worship, and Gods worship was not to be put upon carnall persons, as he conceived many of the People to be. So by his Tenent neither might Church-members, nor other godly men, take the Oath, because it was the establishment not of Christ, but of mortall men in their office; nor might men out of the Church take it, because in his eye they were but carnall. So the Court was forced to desist from that proceeding: which practise of his was held to be the more dangerous, because it tended to unsettle all the Kingdomes, and Common-wealths in Europe.