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. XVII. CHAP. XVII. Mr. Cotton proceeds to answer some other allegations which I produced from the confession of sin made by John’s disciples, and the proselyte Gentiles before they were admitted into church fellowship, Matt. iii. 6; Acts xix. 18, unto which he returneth a threefold answer: “The first is grounded upon his apparent mistake of my words in a grant of mine, viz., such a confession and renunciation is not absolutely necessary, if the substance of true repentance be discerned. Whence,” saith he, “according to your own confession, such persons as have the substance of true repentance may be a true church.” The substance of true general repentance in all God’s children, though living in many gross abominations of false worship, ministry, &c. Not the same measure and degrees of repentance in all. I answer, it is clear in the progress of the whole controversy, that I ever intend by the substance of true repentance, not that general grace of repentance which all God’s people have, as Luther, a monk, and going to, yea, publishing the German mass, and those famous bishops burnt for Christ in Queen Mary’s days; but that substance of repentance for those false ways of worship, church, ministry, &c., in which God’s people have lived, although the confessing and renouncing of them be not so particularly expressed, and with such godly sorrow and indignation as some express, and may well become: And indeed the whole scope of that caution was for Christian moderation and gentleness toward the several sorts of God’s people, professing particular repentance for their spiritual captivity and bondage; during which captivity also, I readily acknowledge the substance of repentance, and of all the graces of Christ in general. Mr. Cotton. In his second answer, Mr. Cotton saith, I “grant with the one hand, and take away with the other; for he denies it necessary to the admission of members, that every one should be convinced of the sinfulness of every sipping of the whore’s cup, ‘for,’ saith he, ‘every sipping of a drunkard’s cup is not sinful.’” Some have drunk deep of the whore’s cup, and some but sipped yet intoxicated. Answer. First he doth not rightly allege my words; for a little before he confesseth my words to be, that anti-christian drunkenness and whoredom is to be confessed of all such as have drunk of the whore’s cup, or but sipped of it. In which words I plainly distinguished between such as have drunk deeper of her cup, as papists, popish priests, &c., and such, as in comparison have but sipped, as God’s own people; who yet by such sipping have been so intoxicated, as to practice spiritual whoredom against Christ, in submitting to false churches, ministry, worship, &c. Secondly, whereas he saith every sipping of a drunkard’s cup is not sinful:— I answer: neither the least sipping, nor constant drinking out of the cup which a drunkard useth to drink in, is sinful; but every drunken sip, which is our question, is questionless sinful, and so consequently to be avoided by the sober, whether the cup of corporal or spiritual drunkenness.