A80608:1840
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.
Reply. 1. To put any substance into this Answer, or any force pertinent to the cause in hand, it must be no great Question, but clear out of Question, that these Corinthians in their first constitution were clean, and absolutely separate from such Idols Temples: ⟨p. 95⟩and that not only locally, but in their soul and judgement, mind and heart, utterly cut off from such unclean Touches, so that they both undoubtedly saw the evil thereof, and from their hearts abhorred it, and forsook it. For all these Acts of coming off in a way of separation from the Churches of England, he requireth from us, as absolutely necessary to enter into a true Church estate. Now if he think that Mr. Cotton (to use his words) neither doth nor can deny, that in their first constitution they were thus separate from Idols Temples.
Reply. 1. To put any substance into this Answer, or any force pertinent to the cause in hand, it must be no great Question, but cleare out of Question, that these Corinthians in their first constitution were cleane, and absolutely separate from such Idolls Temples: ⟨p. 95⟩and that not onely locally, but in their soule and iudgement, minde and heart, utterly cut off from such uncleane Touches, so that they both undoubtedly saw the evill thereof, and from their hearts abhorred it, and forsooke it. For all these Acts of coming off in a way of separation from the Churches of England, he requireth from us, as absolutely necessary to enter into a true Churchestate. Now if he thinke that Mr. Cotton (to use his words) neither doth nor can deny, that in their first constitution they were thus separate from Idolls Temples.
I must profess, though not to him, yet to all that love and seek the Truth without prejudice, that I both can and do deny it, that in their first constitution, they were locally separate from Idols Temples, it is likely enough; or else I suppose the Apostle would have admonished them thereof in their first Plantation. But that in their mind and judgement, they saw the evil thereof, and did in heart and soul bewail it, and confess it before the Apostle and their Brethren, and so enter into solemn Covenant, expressly against it; this is altogether incredible to me: For would not the Apostle then (out of his faithfulness) have reproved them as well for their Apostasy, as for their Fellowship in Idolatry? Would he not as well have rebuked the prevarication of their Covenant, as their pollution of their communion with Pagans?