A80608:1687
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.
Whereupon he distinguisheth of Christ, as considered two ways: 1. Personally, as God-man, &c. 2. As Head of his Church. In the former sense (he acknowledgeth) they cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to be separate from Christ: in the latter they may.
Whereupon he distinguisheth of Christ, as considered two waies: 1. Personally, as God-man, &c. 2. As Head of his Church. In the former sence (he acknowledgeth) they cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to be separate from Christ: in the latter they may.
Reply. This distinction of Christ is inconveniently expressed, as was the like once before. For the membra dividentia, the parts of the division are coincident. Christ as God-man is the Head of the visible Church. But his meaning I apprehend, and accept. Christ God-man is Head both of the invisible Church, and of the visible; As he is Head of the invisible Church, so he is received by faith: As he is head of the visible, so he is received by profession of the true faith, both of the grace of faith, and of the Doctrine of faith. The proper fruit whereof is holy worship, and professed subjection to the Rule of the Gospel.
Now for his application of his Distinction, in the general I do approve it, and do willingly acknowledge, that a godly person may be (through ignorance, or negligence) so far enthralled to Antichrist, as to be separate from Christ, taking Christ as Head of the visible Church. For he may fall into such fundamental Antichristian corruption, in Doctrine, or Worship, or Government, as either may justly prevent his admission into the Church, or being in the Church, and yet (through pang of Temptation) continuing obstinate in his corruption after conviction, he may justly be excommunicate out of the Church. But lest I may seem to hover (and so to vanish) in Generalities, whilst I only speak of Antichristian corruptions in general: I shall willingly Instance in some Particulars, which may give light to others of like nature. It is an Antichristian corruption in Doctrine, to accept any Propitiatory Sacrifices for our reconciliation, but the death of Christ only.