The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, by Roger Williams CHAP. XVI. CHAP. XVI. Now concerning that scripture, 2 Cor. vi., Mr. Cotton here confesseth it holdeth forth five things that the repenting Corinthians were called out in, from the unrepenting: First, in the fellowship of their idolatry. 2. From making marriages with them. 3. From feasting in their idols’ temples. 4. From intimate familiarity with them. 5. From all fellowship in the unfruitful works of darkness. The benefits of the repenting English, their coming forth from the impenitent English in those former five particulars mentioned by Mr. Cotton. Answ. If regenerate and truly repenting English thus come forth from the unregenerate and unrepenting, how would the name of the Lord Jesus be sanctified, the jealousy of the Lord pacified, their own souls cleansed, judgments prevented, yea, and one good means practised toward the convincing and saving of the souls of such from whom in these particulars they depart, and dare not have fellowship with: especially when in all civil things they walk unblameably, in quiet and helpful cohabitation, righteous and faithful dealing, and cheerful submission to civil laws, orders, levies, customs, &c. Yea; but Mr. Cotton demands, what makes all this to prove that godly persons, who professedly renounce all known sin, may not be received to church fellowship, although they see not the utmost skirts of their pollution, as the patriarchs saw not the pollution of their polygamy? The sins of God’s people are sometimes reputed to be of ignorance, when they are of negligence, and yet ignorance excuseth not wholly. Answ. I repeat the former distinction of godly persons, who possibly may live in ungodly practices, especially of false worship, and then, according to Mr. Cotton’s own interpretation of this place to the Corinthians, they came not forth. And I add, if there be any voice of Christ in the mouths of his witnesses against these sins, they are not then of ignorance, but of negligence, and spiritual hardness, against the ways of God’s fear, against Isa. lxiii. [17,] &c. A case put to Mr. Cotton. No cause of more shame for whoredom against an husband’s bed, than against the bed of God’s worship. The case of polygamy, or many wives of the fathers. Moreover, our question is not of the utmost skirts of pollution, but the substance of a true or false bed of worship, Cant. i. 16, in respect of coming out of the false, before the entrance into the true. And yet I believe that Mr. Cotton being to receive a person to church fellowship, who formerly hath been infamous for corporal whoredom, he would not give his consent to receive such an one without sound repentance for the filthiness of her skirts, Lam. i. [9,] not only in actual whoredoms, but also in whorish speeches, gestures, appearances, provocation. And why should there be a greater strictness for the skirts of common whoredom than of spiritual and soul whoredom, against the chastity of God’s worship? And therefore to that instance of the fathers’ polygamy, I answer: first, by observing what great sins godly persons may possibly live and long continue in, notwithstanding godliness in the root. Secondly, I ask if any person, of whose godliness Mr. Cotton hath had long persuasion, should believe and maintain, as questionless the fathers’ had grounds satisfying their consciences for what they did, that he ought to have many wives, and accordingly so practised:—I say, I ask, whether Mr. Cotton would receive such a godly person to church fellowship? yea, I ask, whether the church of the Jews, had they seen this evil, would have received such a proselyte from the Gentiles? and when it was seen, whether any persons so practising would have been suffered amongst them? But, lastly, what was this personal sin of these godly persons? Was it any matter of God’s worship, any joining with a false church, ministry, worship, government, from whence they were to come, before they could constitute his true church, and enjoy his worship, ministry, government? &c. Mr. Cotton concludeth this passage thus: “The church of Corinth had such as partook with idolaters in their idols’ temple, and was not this,” saith he, “touching of an unclean thing, and did this reject these members from church fellowship before conviction? and did it evacuate their church estate for not casting out such members?” Answ. This was an unclean thing indeed, from which God calls his people in this place, with glorious promises of receiving them: and Mr. Cotton confesseth that after conviction any member, obstinate in these unclean touches, ought to be rejected; for, said he, did this sin reject these members from church fellowship before conviction? It lesseneth not a rebellion that it is in a multitude: hence a city in Israel idolatrous was to be destroyed. And upon the same ground, that one obstinate person ought to be rejected out of church estate, upon the same ground, if a greater company or church were obstinate in such unclean touches, and so consequently in a rebellion against Christ, ought every sound Christian church to reject them, and every sound member to withdraw from them. Obstinacy that casteth out, will keep out from communion with the Lord Jesus in his church. And hence further it is clear, that if such unclean touches obstinately maintained, as Mr. Cotton confesseth and practiseth, be a ground of rejection of a person in the church, questionless it is a ground of rejection when such persons are to join unto the church. And if obstinacy in the whole church after conviction be a ground for such a church’s rejection, questionless such a church or number of persons obstinate in such evils cannot congregate, nor become a true constituted church of Jesus Christ. The church of Corinth, and every true church, separate from idols as a chaste virgin to Christ. The greatest question here would be, whether the Corinthians in their first constitution were separate or no from such idol temples? and this Mr. Cotton neither doth nor can deny, a church estate being a state of marriage unto Jesus Christ; and so Paul professedly saith, he had espoused them as a chaste virgin to Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. xi. [2.]