A80608:794
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.
If the Discusser say there needed no proof of that, that was out of Question.
If the Discusser say there needed no proofe of that, that was out of Question.
I may truly tell him, that was more then I knew. For the Letter which he entreated me to Answer) so stated the Question, as in general to argue against persecution for cause of Conscience. And if the Question be put in such general Terms, I knew the Church might as well be complained of for persecution for cause of Conscience, as the civill Magistrate. For if persecution be taken properly for affliction or oppression for righteousness sake I knew it was out of Question, all persecution was unlawful, whether by the Church, or the Magistrate: an unjust excommunication is as true persecution, as an unjust Banishment. But if persecution be taken more largely, and loosely, (as it is by the Author of the Letter, and by the Discusser, for any affliction, or persecution for cause of Conscience (whether good Conscience, or evil, whether rightly informed, or erroneous) If that be the intent of the Letter (as it seemed to me) to bear witness against that, then any testimony of Scripture, that justifieth a lawful censure of false and erroneous Teachers, doth evince the scope of the Letter to be erroneous, which is against all persecution for cause of Conscience. Let therefore the Discusser admire at his own admiration, and be astonished at his own astonishment, that wondereth to see an universal negative argued against by a particular affirmative.
I may truly tell him, that was more then I knew. For the Letter which he intreated me to Answer) so stated the Question, as in generall to argue against persecution for cause of Conscience. And if the Question be put in such generall Termes, I knew the Church might as well be complained of for persecution for cause of Conscience, as the civill Magistrate. For if persecution be taken properly for affliction or oppression for righteousnesse sake I knew it was out of Question, all persecution was unlawfull, whether by the Church, or the Magistrate: an unjust excommunication is as true persecution, as an unjust Banishment. But if persecution be taken more largely, and loosely, (as it is by the Author of the Letter, and by the Discusser, for any affliction, or persecution for cause of Conscience (whether good Conscience, or evill, whether rightly informed, or erroneous) If that be the intent of the Letter (as it seemed to me) to beare witnesse against that, then any testimony of Scripture, that justifieth a lawfull censure of false and erroneous Teachers, doth evince the scope of the Letter to be erroneous, which is against all persecution for cause of Conscience. Let therefore the Discusser admire at his owne admiration, and be astonished at his owne astonishment, that wondereth to see an universall negative argued against by a particular affirmative.