A80608:1513
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.
But if I so meant, He confesseth it was his own voluntary act; and professeth also, it was a double act of the Lord Jesus in him.
The ground which he giveth of his own voluntary act, was because these Churches were resolved to continue in those evils, and persecuting the witnesses of the Lord Jesus, presenting light to them.
The ground which he giveth of his own voluntary act, was because these Churches were resolved to continue in those evills, and persecuting the witnesses of the Lord Jesus, presenting light to them.
Reply; Those evils? What were those evils, which we were resolved to continue in? He expresseth none: but sure meet it had been, that as his voluntary withdrawing from these Churches was publicly known; so the evils in which we resolved to continue, and for which he withdrew himself, should in like manner have been publicly known also. It is an unrighteous thing to pass public known acts, upon private unknown evils. But whatsoever those unknown evils were, I suppose he conceiveth them to be such ways, either of Judgement, or Practise, wherein we walk according to the light of our Consciences. And then by his Rule he should have allowed us the like liberty of conscience, which himself requireth. And surely by the Royal Rule of the Lord Jesus, no Brother may be so much as admonished, (much less separated from) till he be convinced, ([Greek or Hebrew]) Mat. 18.15.
Reply; Those evills? What were those evills, which wee were resolved to continue in? He expresseth none: but sure meet it had been, that as his voluntary withdrawing from these Churches was publickly known; so the evills in which we resolved to continue, and for which he withdrew himselfe, should in like manner have been publickly knowne also. It is an unrighteous thing to passe publick known acts, upon private unknowne evills. But whatsoever those unknown evills were, I suppose he conceiveth them to be such wayes, either of Judgement, or Practise, wherein wee walke according to the light of our Consciences. And then by his Rule he should have allowed us the like liberty of conscience, which himselfe requireth. And surely by the Royall Rule of the Lord Jesus, no Brother may be so much as admonished, (much lesse separated from) till he be convinced, ()