A80608:476
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.
Yea, if they were all Types of Christ, then Christ is the Antitype, and by accomplishing such types, hath abolished them all: so that now it were sacrilegious and Antichristian usurpation for any Kings to be set over Christians, or the people of God. For the Body being come, Types and shadows vanish.
Yea, if they were all Types of Christ, then Christ is the Antitype, and by accomplishing such types, hath abolished them all: so that now it were sacrilegious and Antichristian usurpation for any Kings to be set over Christians, or the people of God. For the Body being come, Types and shadowes vanish.
But what if they were all types of Christ in respect of their Kingly office over the Church alone? were they therefore types of Christ in all the Kingly Offices which they performed? Then it was typical in Solomon to put Joab a Murderer to death, and Adonijab a Traitor. And then it will be unlawful for Christian Princes to put Murderers or Traitors to death.
But what if they were all types of Christ in respect of their Kingly office over the Church alone? were they therefore types of Christ in all the Kingly Offices which they performed? Then it was typicall in Solomon to put Joab a Murderer to death, and Adonijab a Traytor. And then it will be unlawfull for Christian Princes to put Murderers or Traitors to death.
Or if you say these were civill crimes: But Idolatry and Heresy, which Asa, Joash, and Josiah punished with death, were spiritual crimes, and therefore the Kings of Judah in punishing these latter, were types of Christ, not so in the former: this is spoken gratis. For whatsoever the Kings of Judah did, as types of Christ, Christ, being the Antitype, might more full, and lively perform it in his own person. But certain it is, he put no man to death in his own person, all the days of his flesh. Why therefore may it not rather be said, that whatsoever the Kings of Judah lawfully did, whether against the Transgressors of the first or second Table, they did it not as types of Christ, but as servants of Christ, betrusted with the care of the welfare both of Church and Common-wealth, and therefore as patterns and examples to Christian Magistrates?