From the example, to wit, That God had received them; whereas had

he been of the church, they would have been persuaded of that before

the motive was urged: for no true church of Christ's would take

in, or keep in any, whom they judged the Lord had not received;

but those weak ones were such as they questioned whether the Lord

had received them, else the text had not been an answer sufficient

for their receiving them: There might have been objected, they

hold up Jewish observations of meats and days, which by the death

of Christ were abolished, and so did deny some of the effects of

his death; yet the Lord who was principally wronged could pass

this by, and commandeth others to receive them also. And if it

be a good argument to receive such as are weak in any thing, whom

the Lord hath received, then there can be no good argument to

reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them: for

else the command in the first verse, and his example in the third

verse were insufficient, without some other arguments unto the

church, besides his command and example.

Some object, 'Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us

to the glory of God' (Rom 15:7). And from thence supposing they

were all in church fellowship before, whereas the text saith not

so: for if you consider the eighth and ninth verses, you may see

he speaks unto Jews and Gentiles in general, that if the Jews had

the receiving, they should receive Gentiles; and if the Gentiles

had the receiving, they should receive Jews, for had they not been

on both sides commanded: the Jews might have said to the Gentiles,

you are commanded to receive us, but we are not commanded to receive

you; and if the weak had the receiving, they should receive the

strong; and if the strong had the receiving, they should not keep

out the weak; and the text is reinforced with the example of the

Son's receiving us unto the glory of God, that as he receiveth Jews

and poor Gentiles, weak and strong, in church fellowship, or out

of church fellowship; so should they to the glory of God. And as

the Lord Jesus received some, though they held some things more

than were commanded, and some things less than were commanded, and

as those that were weak and in church fellowship, so those that

were weak and out of church fellowship; and that not only into

mutual affection, but unto fellowship with himself; and so should

they, not only receive such as were weak within into mutual

affection, but such as were without, both to mutual affection and

to church fellowship: or else such weak ones as were without, had

been excluded by the text. Oh! how is the heart of God the Father

and the Son set upon this, to have his children in his house, and

in one another's hearts as they are in his, and are borne upon the

shoulders and breasts of his Son their high priest? and as if all

this will not do it, but the devil will divide them still, whose

work it properly is; But 'the God of peace' will come in shortly,

'and bruise Satan under their feet,' as in Romans 16:20. And they

will agree to be in one house, when they are more of one heart; in

the mean time prays, as in chapter 15:5, 'Now the God of patience

and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another

according to Christ Jesus.'

I shall endeavour the answering of some objections, and leave it

unto consideration.

Object. Some say this bearing or receiving, were but in things

indifferent.

Ans. That eating, or forbearing upon a civil account, are things

indifferent, is true: but not when done upon the account of

worship, as keeping of days, and establishing Jewish observations

about meats, which by the death of Christ are taken away; and it

is not fairly to be imagined the same church at Rome looked so

upon them as indifferent; nor that the Lord doth; that it were

all alike to him to hold up Jewish observations, or to keep days

or no days, right days or wrong days, as indifferent things, which

is a great mistake, and no less than to make God's grace little

in receiving such. For if it were but in things wherein they had

not sinned, it were no great matter for the Lord to receive, and

it would have been as good an argument or motive to the church, to

say the things were indifferent, as to say the Lord had received

them. Whereas the text is to set out the riches of grace to the

vessels of mercy, as Romans 9:15. That as at first he did freely

choose and accept them; so when they fail and miscarry in many

things, yea about his worship also, although he be most injured

thereby, yet he is first in passing it by, and persuading others

to do the like. That as the good Samaritan did in the Old

Testament,[19] so our good Samaritan doth in the New, when priest

and Levite passed by, pastor and people pass by, yet he will

not, but pours in oil, and carries them to his inn, and calls for

receiving, and setting it upon his account.

Object. That this bearing with, and receiving such as are weak in

the faith, must be limited to meats and days, and such like things

that had been old Jewish observations, but not unto the being

ignorant in, or doubting of any New Testament institution.

Ans. Where the Lord puts no limitation, men should be wary how

they do it, for they must have a command or example, before they

can limit this command; for although the Lord took this occasion

from their difference about meats and days to give this command,

yet the command is not limited there, no more than Matthew 12:1-8.

That when they made use of his good law rigorously in the letter,

he presently published an act of grace in the 7th verse, and

tells them, Had they known what this meaneth, 'I will have mercy

and not sacrifice,' they would not have condemned the guiltless;

as also Matthew 9:13, 'Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will

have mercy and not sacrifice,' which is not to be limited unto what

was the present occasion of publishing the command, but observed

as a general rule upon all occasions, wherein mercy and sacrifice

comes in competition, to shew the Lord will rather have a duty

omitted that is due to him, than mercy to his creatures omitted

by them. So in the text, when some would not receive such as were

weak in the faith, as to matters of practice, the Lord was pleased

to publish this act of grace: 'Him that is weak in the faith

receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.' Now unless it be

proved, that no saint can be weak in the faith in any thing but

meats and days, or in some Old Testament observations, and that

he ought not to be judged a saint that is weak in the faith as it

relates to gospel institutions, in matters of practice; you cannot

limit the text, and you must also prove his weakness SUCH, as

that the Lord will not receive him; else the command in the first

verse, and the reason or motive in the third verse, will both be

in force upon you; to wit, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive

ye,' or unto you,--'for God hath received him.'

Object. But some may object from 1 Corinthians 12:13, 'For by one

spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or

Gentiles.' Some there are that affirm this to be meant of water

baptism, and that particular churches are formed thereby, and

all persons are to be admitted and jointed unto such churches by

water baptism.

Ans. That the baptism intended in the text is the Spirit's baptism,

and not water baptism; and that the body the text intends, is not

principally the church of Corinth, but all believers, both Jews

and Gentiles, being baptized into one mystical body, as Ephesians

4:4, 'There is one body and one Spirit,' wherein there is set out

the uniter and the united; therefore in the third verse they are

exhorted to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The

united are all the faithful in one body; into whom? in the fifth

verse, in one Lord Jesus Christ: by what? one faith, one baptism,

which CANNOT be meant of water baptism; for water baptism doth

not unite all this body, for some of them never had water baptism,

and are yet of this body, and by the Spirit gathered into one Lord

Jesus Christ (Eph 1:10), 'both which are in heaven and in earth,'

Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:16), 'that he might reconcile both unto

God in one body by the cross.' The instrument you have in verse

18, 'by one spirit' (Eph 3:6). 'That the Gentiles should be

fellow-heirs, and of the same body' (v 15). 'Of whom the whole

family in heaven and earth is named.' And the reasons of their

keeping 'the unity of the Spirit,' in Ephesians 4:3 is laid down

in verses 4, 5 being 'one body,' 'one Spirit,' having 'one hope,'

'one Lord,' 'one faith,' 'one baptism,' whether they were Jews

or Gentiles, such as were in heaven or in earth, which CANNOT be

meant of water baptism, for in that sense they had not all one

baptism, nor admitted and united thereby. So in 1 Corinthians 12:13,

'For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we

be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been

all made to drink into one Spirit'; which cannot be meant of water

baptism, in regard all the body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, bond

and free, partook not thereof.

Object. But Ephesians 4:5 saith, there is but 'one baptism'; and

by what hath been said, if granted, water baptism will be excluded,

or else there is more baptisms than one.

Ans. It followeth not that because the Spirit will have no

corrival, that therefore other things may not be in their places.

That because the Spirit of God taketh the pre-eminence, therefore

other things may not be subservient (1 John 2:27). The apostle

tells them, That the anointing which they have received of him,

abideth in them; and you need not, saith he, 'that any man teach

you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things.' By

this some may think John excludes the ministry; no such matter,

though the Holy Ghost had confirmed and instructed them so in the

truth of the gospel, as that they were furnished against seducers

in verse 26 yet you see John goes on still teaching them in many

things: as also in Ephesians 4:11-13, 'He gave some, apostles;--some

evangelists, and some pastors, and teachers; for the perfecting

of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of

the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith,

and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto

the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.' So in the

Spirit's baptism, though it have the pre-eminence, and appropriateth

some things, as peculiar to itself, it doth not thereby destroy

the use and end of water baptism, or any other ordinance in its

place: for water baptism is a means to increase grace, and in it,

and by it sanctification is forwarded, and remission of sins more

cleared and witnessed; yet the giving grace, and regenerating and

renewing, is the Holy Spirit's peculiar. Consider (Titus 3:5),

'By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost';

Baptism being the outward sign of the inward graces wrought by

the Spirit, a representation or figure, as in 1 Peter 3:21, 'The

like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us [not the

putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good

conscience toward God,] by the resurrection of Jesus Christ';

not excluding water baptism; but shewing, That the spiritual part

is chiefly to be looked at: though such as slight water baptism,

as the Pharisees and lawyers did (Luke 7:30), reject the counsel

of God against themselves, not being baptized. And such as would

set water baptism in the Spirit's place, exalt a duty against the

deity and dignity of the Spirit, and to give the glory due unto

him, as God blessed for ever, unto a duty.

By which mistake of setting up water baptism in the Spirit's place,

and assigning it a work, which was never appointed unto it; of

forming the body of Christ, either in general, as in 1 Corinthians

12:13; Ephesians 4:5 or as to particular churches of Christ, we

may see the fruit; that instead of being the means of uniting as

the Spirit doth; that it hath not only rent his seamless coat,

but divided his body which he hath purchased with his own blood,

and opposed that great design of Father, Son, and Spirit, in uniting

poor saints, thereby pulling in pieces what the Spirit hath put

together. 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,--for God hath

received him'; being such as the Spirit had baptized and admitted

of the body of Christ, he would have his churches receive them

also: whose baptism is the ONLY baptism, and so is called the

ONE baptism. Therefore consider, whether such a practice, hath

a command or an example, that persons must be joined into church

fellowship by water baptism; for John baptized many, yet he did

not baptize some into one church, and some into another, nor all

into one church, as the church of Rome doth. And into what church

did Philip baptize the eunuch, or the apostle the jailor and his

house? And all the rest they baptized, were they not left free to

join themselves for their convenience and edification? All which

I leave to consideration. I might have named some inconveniences,

if not absurdities that would follow the assertion: as to father

the mistakes of the baptizers on the Spirit's act, who is not

mistaken in any HE baptizeth; no false brethren creep in unawares

into the mystical body by him; and also, how this manner of forming

churches would suit a country, where many are converted, and

willing to be baptized; but there being no church to be baptized

into, how shall such a church state begin? The first must be

baptized into no church, and the rest into him as the church, or

the work stand still for want of a church.

Object. 'But God is a God of order, and hath ordained order in

all the churches of Christ; and for to receive one that holds the

baptism he had in his infancy, there is no command nor example

for, and by the same rule children will be brought in to be church

members.'

Ans. That God is a God of order, and hath ordained orders in all

the churches of Christ is true; and that this is one of the orders

to receive him that is weak in the faith, is as true. And though

there be no example or command, in so many words, receive such an

one that holds the baptism he had in his infancy, nor to reject

such a one: but there is a command to receive him that is weak in

the faith, without limitation, and it is like this might not be

a doubt in those days, and so not spoken of in particular.

But the Lord provides a remedy for all times in the text, 'Him

that is weak in the faith receive ye'; for else receiving would

not be upon the account of saintship; but upon knowing, and doing

all things according to rule and order, and that must be perfectly,

else for to deny any thing, or to affirm too much is disorderly,

and would hinder receiving: but the Lord seals not so with his

people, but accounts 'LOVE the fulfilling of the law,' though

they be ignorant in many things both as to knowing and doing; and

receives them into communion and fellowship with himself, and

would have others do the same also. And if he would have so much

bearing in the apostle's days, when they had infallible helps to

expound truths unto them, much more now, the church hath been so

long in the wilderness and in captivity, and not that his people

should be driven away in the dark day, though they are sick and

weak (Eze 34:16,21). And that it should be supposed such tenderness

would bring in children in age to be church members, yea and

welcome, if any body could prove them in the faith, though never

so weak; for the text is, 'Him that is weak in the faith, receive

ye': It is not He, and his wife and children, unless it can be

proved they are IN THE FAITH.

Object. 'By this, some ordinances may be lost or omitted, and is

it to be supposed the Lord would suffer any of his ordinances to

be lost or omitted in the Old or New Testament, or the right use

of them, and yet own such for true churches, and what reason can

there be for it.?'

Ans. The Lord hath suffered some ordinances to be omitted and lost

in the Old Testament, and yet owned the church. Though circumcision

were omitted in the wilderness, yet he owned them to be his

church (Acts 7:38); and many of the ordinances were lost in the

captivity: see Ainsworth upon Exodus 28, 30 &c. which shewed what

the high-priest was to put on, and were not to be omitted upon

pain of death, as the Urim and Thummim, yet being lost, and several

other ordinances, the ark, with the mercy-seat and cherubims, the

fire from heaven, the majesty and divine presence, &c. yet, he

owns the second temple, though short of the first, and filled it

with his glory, and honoured it with his Son, being a member and

a minister therein (Mal 3:1), 'The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly

come to his temple': So in the New Testament, since their wilderness

condition, and great and long captivity, there is some darkness

and doubts, and want of light in the best of the Lord's people,

in many of his ordinances, and that for several ages, and yet how

hath the Lord owned them for his churches, wherein he is to have

glory and praise 'throughout all ages' (Eph 3:21). And so should

we own them, unless we will condemn the generation of the just.

It must be confessed, That if exact practice be required, and

clearness in gospel institutions before communion; who dare be

so bold as to say his hands are clean, and that he hath done all

the Lord's commands, as to institutions in his worship? and must

not confess the change of times doth necessitate some variation,

if not alteration, either in the matter or manner of things

according to primitive practice; yet owned for true churches, and

received as visible saints, though ignorant either wholly, or in

great measure, in laying on of hands, singing, washing of feet,

and anointing with oil, in the gifts of the Spirit, which is the

Urim and Thummim of the gospel. And it cannot be proved, that the

churches were so ignorant in the primitive times, nor yet that

such were received into fellowship; yet now herein it is thought

meet their should be bearing, and why not in baptism, especially

in such as own it for an ordinance, though in some things miss it,

and do yet shew their love unto it, and unto the Lord, and unto

his law therein, that they could be willing to die for it rather

than to deny it; and to be baptized in their blood; which sheweth,

they hold it in conscience their duty, while they have further light

from above, and are willing to hear and obey as far as they know,

though weak in the faith, as to clearness in gospel institutions:

surely the text is on their side, or else it will exclude all the

former, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,--but not to

doubtful disputations' (Rom 14:5). Let every man be fully persuaded

in his own mind, and such the Lord hath received.

As to the query, What reason is there, why the Lord should suffer

any of his ordinances to be lost?

Ans. If there were no reason to be shewn, it should teach us

silence, for he doth nothing without the highest reason; and there

doth appear some reasons in the Old Testament, why those ordinances

of Urim and Thummim, &c. were suffered to be lost in the captivity,

that they might long and look for the Lord Jesus, the priest,

that was to stand up with Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65),

which the Lord by this puts them upon the hoping for, and to be

in the expectation of so great a mercy, which was the promise of

the Old Testament, and all the churches losses in the New Testament.

By all the dark night of ignorance she hath been in, and long

captivity she hath been under, and in her wandering wilderness

state, wherein she hath rather been fed with manna from heaven,

than by men upon earth; and after all her crosses and losses, the

Lord lets light break in by degrees, and deliverance by little

and little; and she is 'coming out of the wilderness leaning upon

her beloved'; and the Lord hath given the valley of Achor for

a door of hope, that ere long she may receive the promise of the

gospel richly, by the Spirit, to be poured upon us from on high (Isa

32:15), and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful

field become a forest, and then the Lord will take away the covering

cast over all people (Isa 25:7), and the vail that is spread

over all nations (Isa 11:9); 'For the earth shall be full of the

knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea' (v 13). Then

'Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.'

Thus will the God of peace bruise Satan under foot shortly; and one

reason why the Lord may suffer all this darkness and differences

that have been, and yet are, is, that we might long and look for

this blessed promise of the gospel, the pourings out of the Spirit.

Object. But many authors do judge, that the weak and strong were

all in church fellowship before, and that the receiving (Rom 14:1)

was but into mutual affection.

Ans. It ought to be seriously weighed how any differ from so many

worthy authors, is confessed; to whom the world is so much beholden

for their help in many things; but it would be of dangerous

consequence to take all for granted they say, and unlike the noble

Bereans (Acts 17:11). Though they had some infallible teachers,

yet they took not their words or doctrine upon trust; and there

may be more ground to question expositors on this text, in regard

their principles necessitate them to judge that the sense; for if

it be in their judgments a duty to compel all to come in, and to

receive all, and their children, they must needs judge by that

text, they were all of the church, and in fellowship, before their

scrupling meats and days, because that is an act of grown persons

at years of discretion; and therefore the receiving is judged by

them to be only into mutual affection, for it is impossible for

them to hold their opinion, and judge otherwise of the text; for

in baptism, they judge infants should be received into church

fellowship; and then scrupling meats and days must needs be after

joining. Their judgments might as well be taken, that it is a duty

to baptize infants, as that they can judge of this text rightly,

and hold their practice.

Object. But no uncircumcised person was to eat the passover (Exo

12). And doth not the Lord as well require the sign of baptism now,

as of circumcision then? and is there not like reason for it?

Ans. The Lord, in the Old Testament, expressly commanded

no uncircumcised person should eat the passover (Exo 12:48; Eze

44:9), that no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised

in flesh, should enter into his sanctuary.[20] And had the Lord

commanded, that no unbaptized person should enter into his churches,

it had been clear. And no doubt, Christ was as faithful as a son

in all his house, as Moses was as a servant; and although there

had been little reason, if the Lord had commanded it so to be,

yet in God's worship we must not make the likeness of any thing

in our reason, but the will of God, the ground of duty; for upon

such a foundation some would build the baptizing of infants,

because it would be like unto circumcision, and so break the

second commandment, in making the likeness of things of their own

contrivance, of force with institutions in the worship of God.

The most that I think can be said is, That we have no gospel

example for receiving without baptism, or rejecting any for want

of it. Therefore it is desired, what hath been said, may be

considered; lest while we look for an example, we do not overlook

a command upon a mistake, supposing that they were all in church

fellowship before; whereas the text saith not so, but 'Him that

is weak in the faith receive ye,' or unto you.

We may see also how the Lord proceeds under the law, though he

accounts those things that were done contrary to his law, sinful,

though done ignorantly; yet never required the offender to offer

sacrifice till he knew thereof (Lev 5:5 compared with vv 15,16).

And that may be a man's own sin through his ignorance; that though

it may be another's duty to endeavour to inform him in, yet not

thereupon to keep him out of his Father's house; for surely the

Lord would not have any of his children kept out, without we have

a word for it. And though they scruple some meats in their Father's

house, yet it may be dangerous for the stronger children to deny

them all the rest of the dainties therein, till the weak and sick

can eat strong meat; whereas Peter had meat for one, and milk for

another; and Peter must feed the poor lambs as well as the sheep;

and if others will not do it, the great shepherd will come ere long

and look up what hath been driven away (Eze 34:4,11; Isa 40:11).

He will feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs

into his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Who is there that reads these revilings of Bunyan for his poverty

and mean descent, but must be struck with the unsearchable wisdom

of the Almighty. The salvation of the church requires that 'GOD

should be manifest in the flesh.' Does he appear in his glory? Does

he honour riches, and power, and wisdom, by descending in one of

these classes? No; the poor, the despised in this world, claim

kindred with him--'Is not this the carpenter's son?' 'Have any of

the rulers or pharisees believed on him?' Even with these examples

before them, his Baptist ministerial brethren, who sat at his

feet when he came to London, and listened to his eloquence, now,

in their hot dispute, revile and taunt him with his imprisonment--his

poverty--his want of book learning. Refused the communion of some

eminent earthly saints, it drove him to closer communion with his

God, and the prison, became a Bethel--none other than the house

of God, and the very gate of heaven; and in a holy, happy frame

of soul, he breathes forgiveness: 'What Mr. Kiffin hath done in

the matter I forgive, and love him never the worse'!!--Ed.

2. How do these verses cut down all the carnal pride of man. Who

is THE BLESSED? not the rich, or powerful, or worldly wise, but

those that delight in the word of God.--Ed.

3. Nearly all the Baptist churches of that day limited communion

to them who had been baptized in water on a profession of their

faith. It is very different now; Bunyan's principles have spread,

are spreading, and must soon become universal.--Ed.

4. Mr. H. D'Anvers: 'A seventh end of baptism is, that the baptized

person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible church.

None were esteemed members, or did partake of its ordinances, before

they were baptized, being so God's hedge or boundary.'--Treatise

of Baptism, p. 20, ed. 1674.

5. A modern writer, in a critique on Bunyan, says that he did as

much justice to grace as his Calvinism would allow him!! May all

the world be such Calvinists.--Ed.

6. 'Without the church,' previous to having entered into the church,

a personal obedience to the divine command; having repented, then

be baptized: neither of these are duties to be performed by the

church, as such, but individually.--Ed.

7. 'To themselves,' to the particular churches only to which they

were written. Contrary to the word, 'All scripture is given--to

be profitable to the man of God' in every church (2 Tim 3:16).--Ed.

8. To these ten commandments must be added that new command given

by the Saviour, 'That ye love one another' (John 12:34); or rather

the evangelical sum of the whole law, 'Thou shalt love the Lord

thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself.' This

happy state of mind can only be attained by the baptism of the

Holy Ghost. How awful the thought that multitudes of professing

Christians rely upon outward ceremonies, a fleshly carnal confidence

in ordinances, while they are dead as to union with God and to

spiritual communion with his saints. Reader, how is it with your

own soul.--Ed.

9. Bunyan's adversaries were wrong in stating that all the

expositors agreed in referring this 'one baptism' to be that in

or with water. John Caime, 1662, refers to 1 Corinthians 12:13,

as an illustration of Ephesians 4:5, 'One baptism,' 'by one SPIRIT

are we all baptized.' The Assembly's Annotations, 1657, infers

that 'one' means 'once,' and refers to the Nicene creed, which

says, 'one baptism for the remission of sins'; this surely cannot

mean that the application of water remits sins. Diodati, 1648, is

silent on this subject. Dr. Hammond, 1653, says, 'the same vow

to be administered to all.' Very similar to this is the Dutch

annotations of Theodore Haak.--Ed.

10. Heaven forbid that we should be afraid or ashamed of saying

that Christ is better than water baptism. Christ is the heavenly

manna, the sweet, pleasant, nourishing food of the soul. Baptism

is only once for life, but Christ is our essential food all through

the wilderness--every hour of life until we enter the gates of

the celestial and eternal city.--Ed.

11. While we acknowledge the importance of water baptism, to which

Christ submitted, yet we do well to consider that it was not

intended as a means of purifying his infinite purity; no more does

it purify the believer who follows his Redeemer in this ordinance.

He was as much a believer before as he is after the ceremony. He

submits to it as an act of obedience to the divine command, in

the humble hope that his faith may be strengthened and his soul

refreshed.--Ed.

12. 'The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God' (James

1:20). The angry passions of man work evil. Such fiery zeal

is contrary to the spirit of Christ. The ignorant must be won by

meekness to embrace the truth.--Ed.

13. It becomes all prayerfully to follow divine commands in ALL

THINGS. Nothing is indifferent or non-essential that God hath

ordained for the believer. But if disciples differ about days, or

meats, or water, ought such differences to prevent their communion

and fellowship more than differences in personal stature, or beauty,

or in mental powers. Uniformity in anything but love to God and

to each other is a fool's paradise, contrary to the experience of

the apostolic and all ages, and opposed to every law of nature.--Ed.

14. This typographical error in 'The Reasons of my Practice' is

corrected in this edition for the first time.--Ed.

15. The doctrine of the real presence, called transubstantiation,

was the test of adherence to the Romish church, which unless all

persons pretended to believe they were sacrificed with brutal

ferocity.--Ed.

16. In Bunyan's days, both the laws of the land, the judges, and

the commonalty, gave credence to the wicked gambols of wizards and

witches. Many a poor iniquitous old woman, from some mysterious

hints of her power to tell fortunes, or to gratify the revengeful

feelings of her neighbours, was put to a cruel death. More

enlightened times have dissipated this illusion, and driven these

imaginary imps of darkness into benighted countries.--Ed.

17. 'Me-hap-soes,' a contraction of 'it may so happen.'--Ed.

18. Tyndale, and all the early English translations, rend it 'unto

you,' until the Elisabethan State Bible, called the Bishop's, in

1568. Do not the words mean that Christians are to receive such as

are weak in the faith into their hearts by love, without troubling

their heads with perplexing disputes?--Ed.

19. Under the Old Testament dispensation; the parable or history

is recorded in Luke 10.--Ed.

20. We cannot offer to God any acceptable sacrifice until spiritually

baptized. First joined to God by a living faith in the atoning

sacrifice of Christ, and then bringing forth the fruits of this

internal and purifying baptism, we must give ourselves to his

church in the bonds of the gospel.--Ed.

***

PEACEABLE PRINCIPLES AND TRUE: OR, A BRIEF ANSWER TO MR. D'ANVER'S

AND MR. PAUL'S BOOKS AGAINST MY CONFESSION OF FAITH, AND DIFFERENCES

IN JUDGMENT ABOUT BAPTISM NO BAR TO COMMUNION.

WHEREIN THEIR SCRIPTURELESS NOTIONS ARE OVERTHROWN, AND MY PEACEABLE

PRINCIPLES STILL MAINTAINED.

'Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge

uprightly, O ye sons of men?'--Psalm 58:1

SIR,

I have received and considered your short reply to my differences

in judgment about water baptism no bar to communion; and observe,

that you touch not the argument at all: but rather labour what you

can, and beyond what you ought, to throw odiums upon your brother

for reproving you for your error, viz. 'That those believers that

have been baptized after confession of faith made by themselves,

ought and are in duty bound to exclude from their church fellowship,

and communion at the table of the Lord, those of their holy brethren

that have not been so baptized.' This is your error. Error, I

call it, because it is not founded upon the word, but a mere human

device; for although I do not deny, but acknowledge, that baptism

is God's ordinance; yet I have denied, that baptism was ever

ordained of God to be a wall of division between the holy and the

holy; the holy that are, and the holy that are not, so baptized

with water as we. You, on the contrary, both by doctrine and

practice, assert that it is; and therefore do separate yourselves

from all your brethren that in that matter differ from you;

accounting them, notwithstanding their saving faith and holy

lives, not fitly qualified for church communion, and all because

they have not been, as you, baptized. Further, you count their

communion among themselves unlawful, and therefore unwarrantable;

and have concluded, 'they are joined to idols, and that they ought

not to be shewed the pattern of the house of God, until they be

ashamed of their sprinkling in their infancy, and accept of and

receive baptism as you.' Yea, you count them as they stand, not

the churches of God; saying, 'We have no such custom, nor the

churches of God.' At this I have called for your proofs, the which

you have attempted to produce; but in conclusion have shewed none

other, but 'That the primitive churches had those they received,

baptized before so received.'

I have told you, that this, though it were granted, cometh not up

to the question; for we ask not, 'whether they were so baptized?

But whether you find a word in the Bible that justifieth your

concluding that it is your duty to exclude those of your holy

brethren that have not been so baptized?' From this you cry out,

that I take up the arguments of them that plead for infant baptism:

I answer, I take up no other argument but your own, viz. 'That

there being no precept, precedent, nor example in all the scripture,

for our excluding our holy brethren that differ in this point from

us, therefore we ought not to dare to do it,' but contrariwise to

receive them;[1] because God hath given us sufficient proof that

himself hath received them, whose example in this case he hath

commanded us to follow (Rom 14:3,15). This might serve for an answer

to your reply. But because, perhaps, should I thus conclude, some

might make an ill use of my brevity; I shall therefore briefly step

after you, and examine your short reply; at least, where shew of

argument is.

Your first five pages are spent to prove me either proud or a liar;

for inserting in the title-page of my 'Differences,' &c. that your

book was written by the Baptist, or brethren of your way.

In answer to which; whoso readeth your second, your fifth and

sixth questions to me, may not perhaps be easily persuaded to the

contrary; but the two last in your reply, are omitted by you; whether

for verity's sake, or because you were conscious to yourself, that

the sight of them would overthrow your insinuations, I leave to

the sober to judge. But put the case I had failed herein, Doth

this warrant your unlawful practice?

You ask me next, 'How long is it since I was a Baptist?' and then

add, 'It is an ill bird that bewrays his own nest.'

Ans. I must tell you, avoiding your slovenly language, I know none

to whom that title is so proper as to the disciples of John. And

since you would know by what name I would be distinguished from

others; I tell you, I would be, and hope I am, A CHRISTIAN; and

choose, if God should count me worthy, to be called a Christian,

a Believer, or other such name which is approved by the Holy Ghost

(Acts 11:26). And as for those factious titles of Anabaptists,

Independents, Presbyterians, or the like, I conclude, that they

came neither from Jerusalem, nor Antioch, but rather from hell

and Babylon; for they naturally tend to divisions, 'you may know

them by their fruits.'

Next, you tell us of your goodly harmony in London; or of the

'amicable christian correspondency betwixt those of divers

persuasions there, until my turbulent and mutineering spirit got

up.'

Ans. The cause of my writing, I told you, which you have neither

disapproved in whole, nor in part. And now I ask what kind of

christian correspondency you have with them? Is it such as relateth

to church communion; or such only as you are commanded to have with

every brother that walketh disorderly, that they may be ashamed

of their church communion, which you condemn? if so, your great

flourish will add no praise to them; and why they should glory

in a correspondency with them as Christians, who yet count them

under such deadly sin, which will not by any means, as they now

stand, suffer you to admit them to their Father's table, to me is

not easy to believe.

Farther, Your christian correspondency, as you call it, will not

keep you now and then, from fingering some of their members from

them; nor from teaching them that you so take away, to judge and

condemn them that are left behind: Now who boasteth in this besides

yourself, I know not.

Touching Mr. Jesse's judgment in the case in hand, you know it

condemneth your practice; and since in your first, you have called

for an author's testimony, I have presented you with one, whose

arguments you have not condemned.

For your insinuating my abusive and unworthy behaviour, as the cause

of the brethren's attempting to break our Christian communion; it

is not only false but ridiculous. False; for they have attempted to

make me also one of their disciples, and sent to me, and for me

for that purpose. Besides, it is ridiculous; surely their pretended

order, and as they call it, our disorder, was the cause; or they

must render themselves very malicious, to seek the overthrow of a

whole congregation, for, if it had been so, the unworthy behaviour

of one.

Now, since you tell me 'That Mr. Kiffin hath no need of my forgiveness

for the wrong he hath done me in his epistle.'

I ask, did he tell you so? But let it lie as it doth; I will at

this time turn his argument upon him, and desire his direct answer:

There being no precept, precedent or example for Mr. Kiffin to

exclude his holy brethren from Christian communion that differ

with him about baptism, he ought not to do it; but there is neither

precept, precedent, nor example; therefore, &c.

You blame me for writing his name at length: but I know he is not

ashamed of his name: and for you, though at the remotest rate, to

insinuate it, must needs be damage to him.

Your artificial squibbling[2] suggestions to the world about myself,

imprisonment, and the like I freely bind unto me as an ornament

among the rest of my reproaches, till the Lord shall wipe them

off at his coming. But they are no argument that you have a word

that binds you to exclude the holy brethren communion.

Now what if, as you suggest, the sober Dr. Owen, though he told

me and others at first he would write an epistle to my book, yet

waved it afterwards; this is also to my advantage; because it was

through the earnest solicitations of several of you that at that

time stopped his hand; And perhaps it was more for the glory of

God that truth should go naked into the world, than as seconded

by so mighty an armour-bearer as he.

You tell me also, that some of the sober Independents have shewed

dislike to my writing on this subject: What then? If I should also

say, as I can without lying, that several of the Baptists have

wished yours burnt before it had come to light; is your book ever

the worse for that?

You tell us, you meddle not with Presbyterians, Independents, mixed

Communionists (a new name), but are for liberty for all according

to their light.

Ans. I ask then, suppose an holy man of God, that differeth from

you, as those above-named do, in the manner of water baptism;

I say, suppose such an one should desire communion with you, yet

abiding by his own light, as to the thing in question, Would you

receive him to fellowship? If no, do you not dissemble?

But you add, 'If unbaptized believers do not walk with us, they

may walk with them with whom they are better agreed.'

Ans. Then it seems you do but flatter them. You are not, for all

you pretend to give them their liberty, agreed they should have it

with you. Thus do the Papists give the Protestants their liberty,

because they can neither will nor choose.

Again, But do you not follow them with clamours and out-cries, that

their communion, even amongst themselves, is unwarrantable? Now,

how then do you give them their liberty? Nay, do not even these

things declare that you would take it away if you could?

'For the time that I have been a Baptist (say you ) I do not

remember that ever I knew that one unbaptized person did so much

as offer themselves to us for church fellowship.'

Ans. This is no proof of your love to your brethren; but rather

an argument that your rigidness was from that day to this so

apparent, that those good souls despaired to make such attempts;

we know they have done it elsewhere, where they hoped to meet with

encouragement.

You seem to retract your denial of baptism to be the initiating

ordinance. And indeed Mr. D'Anvers told me, that you must retract

that opinion, and that he had, or would speak to you to do it; yet

by some it is still so acknowledged to be; and in particular, by

your great helper, Mr. Denne, who strives to maintain it by several

arguments; but your denial may be a sufficient confutation to him;

so I leave you together to agree about it, and conclude you have

overthrown him.

But it seems though you do not now own it to be the inlet into a

particular church; yet, as you tell us of your last, 'you never

denied that baptism doth not make a believer a member of the

universal, orderly, church visible. And in this Mr. D'Anvers and

you agree.' 'Persons enter into the visible church thereby,' saith

he.

Ans. Universal, that is, the whole church: This word now comprehendeth

all the parts of it, even from Adam to the very world's end,

whether in heaven or earth, &c. Now that [water] baptism makes

a man a member of this church, I do not yet believe, nor can you

shew me why I should. 2. The universal, orderly church. What church

this should be, if by orderly you mean harmony or agreement in

the outward parts of worship, I do not understand neither.

And yet thus you should mean, because you add the word visible to

all at the last; 'The universal, orderly, visible church.' Now I

would yet learn of this brother where this church is; for if it

be visible, he can tell and also shew it. But, to be short, there

is no such church: the universal church cannot be visible; a great

part of that vast body being already in heaven, and a great part

as yet, perhaps, unborn.

But if he should mean by universal, the whole of that part of

this church that is on earth, then neither is it 'visible' nor

'orderly.' 1. Not visible; for the part remains always to the best

man's eye utterly invisible. 2. This church is not orderly; that

is, hath not harmony in its outward and visible parts of worship;

some parts opposing and contradicting the other most severely.

Yea, would it be uncharitable to believe that some of the members

of this body could willingly die in opposing that which others of

the members hold to be a truth of Christ? As for instance at home;

could not some of those called Baptists die in opposing infant

baptism? And again, some of them that are for infant baptism die

for that as a truth? Here therefore is no order, but an evident

contradiction: and that too in such parts of worship, as both

count visible parts of worship indeed.

So then by 'universal, orderly, visible church,' this brother must

mean those of the saints only that have been, or are baptized as

we; this is clear, because baptism, saith he, maketh a believer

a member of this church; his meaning then is, that there is an

universal, orderly, visible church, and they alone are the Baptists;

and that every one that is baptized is by that made a member of

the universal, orderly, visible church of Baptists, and that the

whole number of the rest of saints are utterly excluded.

But now if other men should do as this man, how many universal

churches should we have? An 'universal, orderly, visible church

of Independents'; an 'universal, orderly, visible church of

Presbyterians,' and the like. And who of them, if as much confused

in their notions as this brother, might not, they judging by their

own light, contend for their universal church, as he for his? But

they have more wit.

But suppose that this unheard of fictitious church were the only

true universal church; yet whoever they baptize must be a visible

saint first, and if a visible saint, then a visible member of

Christ; and if so, then a visible member of his body, which is the

church, before they be baptized; now he which is a visible member

of the church already, that which hath so made him, hath prevented

all those claims that by any may be made or imputed to this or that

ordinance to make him so (Acts 8:37, 19:17, 16:33). His visibility

is already; he is already a visible member of the body of Christ,

and after that baptized. His baptism then neither makes him a

member nor a visible member of the body of Jesus Christ.

You go on, 'That I said it was consent that makes persons members

of particular churches is true.'

Ans. But that it is consent and nothing else, consent without

faith, &c., is false. Your after-endeavour to heal your unsound

saying will do you no good: 'Faith gives being to, as well as

probation for membership.'

What you say now of the epistles, that they were written to

particular saints, and those too out of churches as well as in, I

always believed: but in your first you were pleased to say, 'You

were one of them that objected against our proofs out of the epistles,

because they were written to particular churches, [intending these

baptized] and that they were written to other saints, would be

hard for me to prove': but you do well to give way to the truth.

What I said about baptism's being a PEST, take my words as they

lie, and I stand still thereto: 'Knowing that Satan can make any

of God's ordinances a PEST and plague to his people, even baptism,

the Lord's table, and the holy scriptures; yea, the ministers also

of Jesus Christ may be suffered to abuse them, and wrench them

out of their place.' Wherefore I pray, if you write again, either

consent to, or deny this position, before you proceed in your

outcry.

But I must still continue to tell you, though you love not to hear

thereof, That supposing your opinion hath hold of your conscience,

if you might have your will, you would make inroads and outroads

too in all the churches that are not as you in the land. You reckon

that church privileges belong not to them who are not baptized as

we, saying, 'How can we take these privileges from them before they

have them, we keep them from a disorderly practice of ordinances,

especially among ourselves'; intimating you do what you can also

among others: and he that shall judge those he walketh not with,

or say, as you, that they, like Ephraim, are 'joined to an idol,

and ought to repent and be ashamed of that idol before they be

shewed the pattern of the house'; and then shall back all with

the citation of a text; doth it either in jest or in earnest; if

in jest it is abominable; if in earnest his conscience is engaged;

and being engaged, it putteth him upon doing what he can to

extirpate the thing he counteth idolatrous and abominable, out of

the churches abroad, as well as that he stands in relation unto.

This being thus, it is reasonable to conclude, you want not an

heart, but opportunity for your inroads and outroads among them.

Touching those five things I mentioned in my second; you should

not have counted they were found no where, because not found under

that head which I mention: and now lest you should miss them again,

I will present you with them here.

1. 'Baptism is not the initiating ordinance. 2. That though it was,

the case may so fall out, that members might be received without

it. 3. That baptism makes no man a visible saint. 4. That faith,

and a life becoming the ten commandments, should be the chief and

most solid argument with churches to receive to fellowship. 5.

That circumcision in the flesh was a type of circumcision in the

heart, and not of water baptism.' To these you should have given

fair answers, then you had done like a workman.

Now we are come where you labour to insinuate, 'that a transgression

against a positive precept, respecting instituted worship, hath

been punished with the utmost severity that God hath executed

against men, on record, on this side hell.'

Ans. Mr. D'Anvers says, 'That to transgress a positive precept

respecting worship, is a breach of the first and second commandments.'

If so, then it is for the breach of them, that these severe rebukes

befall the sons of men. 2. But you instance the case of Adam his

eating the forbidden fruit; yet to no great purpose. Adam's first

transgression was, that he violated the law that was written

in his heart; in that he hearkened to the tempting voice of his

wife; and after, because he did eat of the tree: he was bad then

before he did eat of the tree; which badness was infused over his

whole nature; and then he bare this evil fruit of eating things

that God hath forbidden (Gen 3). Either make the tree good, and

his fruit good; or the tree bad, and his fruit bad (Matt 7:17;

Luke 6:43,44). Men must be bad, ere they do evil; and good, ere

they do good. Again, which was the greatest judgment, to be defiled

and depraved, or to be put out of paradise, do you in your next

determine.

But as to the matter in hand, What positive precept do they

transgress that will not reject him that God bids us receive, if

he want light in baptism?

As for my calling for scripture to prove it lawful thus to exclude

them; blame me for it no more; verily I still must do it; and had

you but one to give, I had had it long before this. But you wonder

I should ask for a scripture to prove a negative.

Ans. 1. Are you at that door, my brother? If a drunkard, a swearer,

or whoremonger should desire communion with you, and upon your

refusal, demand your grounds; would you think his demands such

you ought not to answer? would you not readily give him by SCORES?

So, doubtless would you deal with us, but that in this you are

without the lids[3] of the Bible. 2. But again, you have acted as

those that must produce a positive rule. 'You count it your duty,

a part of your obedience to God, to keep those out of church

fellowship that are not baptized as you.' I then demand what precept

bids you do this? where are you commanded to do it?

You object, That in Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not

meant of Spirit baptism: but Mr. Jesse says it is not, cannot be

the baptism with water: and you have not at all refuted him. And

now for the church in the wilderness; 'You thought, as you say, I

would have answered myself in the thing'; but as yet I have not,

neither have you. But let us see what you urge for an answer.

I. Say you, 'Though God dispensed with their obedience to circumcision

in that time (Gen 17; Exo 12) it follows not that you or I should

dispense with the ordinance of water baptism now.'

Ans. God commanded it, and made it the initiating ordinance to

church communion. But Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, and the

elders of Israel, dispensed with it for forty years; therefore the

dispensing with it was ministerial, and that with God's allowance,

as you affirm. Now if they might dispense with circumcision, though

the initiating ordinance; why may not we receive God's holy ones

into fellowship, since we are not forbidden it, but commanded;

yea, why should we make water baptism, which God never ordained

to that end, a bar to shut out and let in to church communion?

II. You ask, 'Was circumcision dispensed with for want of light,

it being plainly commanded?'

Ans. Whatever was the cause, want of light is as great a cause: and

that it must necessarily follow, they must needs see it, because

commanded, favours too much of a tang of free will, or of the

sufficiency of our understanding, and intrencheth too hard on the

glory of the Holy Ghost; whose work it is 'to bring all things to

our remembrance, whatsoever Christ hath said to us' (John 14:26).

III. You ask, 'Cannot you give yourself a reason, that their moving,

travelling state made them incapable, and that God was merciful?

Can the same reason, or anything like it, for refusing baptism,

be given now?'

Ans. I cannot give myself this reason, nor can you by it give me

any satisfaction. Because their travelling state could not hinder; if

you consider that they might, and doubtless did lie still in one

place years together. 1. They were forty years going from Egypt

to Canaan: and they had but forty-two journies thither. 2. They

at times went several of these journies in one and the same year.

They went, as I take it, eleven of them by the end of the third

month after they came out of the land of Egypt. Compare Exodus

19:1 with Numbers 33:15. 3. Again, in the fortieth year, we find

them in Mount Hor, where Aaron died, and was buried. Now that was

the year they went into Canaan; and in that year they had nine

journies more, or ten, by that they got over Jordan (Num 33:38),

&c. Here then were twenty journies in less than one year and an

half. Divide then the rest of the time to the rest of the journies,

and they had above thirty-eight years to go their two and twenty

journies in. And how this should be such a traveling moving

state, as that it should hinder their keeping this ordinance in

its season, to wit, to circumcise their children the eighth day;

especially considering to circumcise them in their childhood, as

they were born, might be with more security, than to let them live

while they were men, I see not.

If you should think that their wars in the wilderness might hinder

them; I answer, They had, for ought I can discern, ten times as

much fighting in the land of Canaan, where they were circumcised,

as in the wilderness where they were not. And if carnal or outward

safety had been the argument, doubtless they would not have

circumcised themselves in the sight, as it were, of one and thirty

kings (Josh 5, 12). I say, they would not have circumcised their

six hundred thousand warriors, and have laid them open to the

attempts and dangers of their enemies. No such thing, therefore,

as you are pleased to suggest, was the cause of their not being

as yet circumcised.

VI. 'An extraordinary instance to be brought into a standing rule,

are no parallels': That is the sum of your fourth.

Ans. The rule was ordinary; which was circumcision; the laying

aside of this rule became as ordinary, so long a time as forty

years, and in the whole church also. But this is a poor shift, to

have nothing to say, but that the case was extraordinary, when it

was not.

But you ask, 'Might they do so when they came into Canaan?'

Ans. No, no. No more shall we do as we do now 'when that which is

perfect is come.'

You add, 'Because the church in the wilderness (Rev 12) could not

come by ordinances, &c. therefore when they may be come at, we

need not practise them.'

Ans. No body told you so. But are you out of that wilderness

mentioned? (Rev 12). Is Antichrist down and dead to ought but

your faith? Or are we only out of that Egyptian darkness, that in

baptism have got the start of our brethren? For shame be silent:

yourselves are yet under so great a cloud, as to imagine to

yourselves a Rule of Practice not found in the Bible; that is, to

count it a sin to receive your holy brethren, though not forbidden

but commanded to do it (Rom 14, 15).

Your great flourish against my fourth argument, I leave to them

that can judge of the weight of your words; as also what you say

of the fifth or sixth.

For the instance I give you of Aaron, David, and Hezekiah, who did

things not commanded, and that about holy matters, and yet were

held excusable; you, nor yet your abettors for you, can by any

means overthrow. Aaron transgressed the commandment (Lev 6:26,

10:18); David did what was not lawful; and they in Hezekiah's

time, 'did eat the passover otherwise than it was written' (2

Chron 30:18). But here I perceive the shoe pincheth; which makes

you glad of Mr. Denne's evasion for help At this also Mr. D'Anvers

cries out, but yet to no purpose, charging me with asserting,

that ignorance absolves from sin of omission and commission. But,

Sirs, fairly take from me the texts, with others that I can urge;

and then begin to accuse. You have healed your suggestion of

unwritten verities poorly. But any shift to shift off the force of

truth. After the same manner also you have helped your asserting,

'that you neither keep out, nor cast out from the church, if

baptized, such as come unprepared to the supper, and other solemn

appointments.' Let us leave yours and mine to the pondering of

wiser men.

My seventh argument, as I said, you have not so much as touched;

nor the ten in that one, but only derided at the ten. But we will

show them to the reader. 1. Love, which above all other things we

are commanded to put on, is much more worth, than to break about

baptism (Col 3:14). 2. Love is more discovered, when we receive

for the sake of Christ and grace, than when we refuse for want of

water. 3. The church at Colosse was charged to receive and forbear

the saints, because they were new creatures. 4. Some saints were

in the church at Jerusalem, that opposed the preaching of salvation

to the Gentiles; and yet retained their membership. 5. Divisions

and distinctions among saints are of later date than election,

and the signs of that; and therefore should give place. 6. It is

love, not baptism, that discovereth us to the world to be Christ's

disciples (John 13:35). 7. It is love that is the undoubted

character of our interest in, and fellowship with, Christ (Rom

12:10, 16:10). 8. Fellowship with Christ is sufficient to invite

to, and the new creature the great rule of our fellowship with,

Christ (1 John 1:2). 9. Love is the fulfilling of the law, wherefore

he that hath it is accepted with God, and ought to be approved

of men; but he fulfils it not, who judgeth and setteth at nought

his brother (Gal 6:16; Phil 3:16; Rom 14; James 4:11). 10. Love

is sometimes more seen, and showed in forbearing to urge and press

what we know, than in publishing and imposing (John 16:12; 1 Cor

3:1,2). 11. When we attempt to force our brother beyond his light,

or to break his heart with grief, to trust him beyond his faith,

or bar him from his privileges, how can we say I love? 12. To

make that the door to communion which God hath not; to make that

the including, excluding charter, the bar, bounds, and rule of

communion, is for want of love. Here are two into the bargain.

If any of these, Sir, please you not in this dress; give me a

word; and I shall, as well as my wit will serve, give you them in

a syllogistical mode.

Now that you say (practically) for some speak with their feet

(their walking (Prov 6:13)) that water is above love; and all other

things are evident; because have they all but water, you refuse

them for want of that; yea, and will be so hardy, though without

God's word, to refuse communion with them.

In our discourse about the carnality that was the cause of the

divisions that were at Corinth, you ask, Who must the charge of

carnality fall upon, them that defend, or them that oppose the

truth?

Ans. Perhaps on both; but be sure upon them that oppose, wherefore

look you to yourselves, 'who without any command of God to warrant

you, exclude your brother from communion; your brother whom God

hath commanded you to receive.'

My ninth argument, you make yourself merry with in the beginning:

but why do you by and by so cut and hack, and cast it as it were

in the fire. Those seventeen absurdities you can by no means avoid.

For if you have not, as indeed you have not, though you mock me

for speaking a word in Latin, one word of God that commands you

to shut out your brethren for want of water baptism, from your

communion; I say, if you have not one word of God to make this

a duty to you, then unavoidably, 1. You do it by a spirit of

persecution. 2. With more respect to a form, than the spirit and

power of godliness. 3. This also, makes laws, where God makes none;

and is to be wise above what is written. 4. It is a directing the

Spirit of the Lord. 5. And bindeth all men's consciences to our

light and opinion. 6. It taketh away the children's bread. 7. And

withholdeth from them the increase of faith. 8. It tendeth to make

wicked the hearts of weak Christians. 9. It tendeth to harden the

hearts of the wicked. 10. It setteth open a door to all temptations.

11. It tempteth the devil to fall upon them that are alone. 12. It

is the nursery of all vain janglings. 13. It occasioneth the world

to reproach us. 14. It holdeth staggering consciences in doubt,

of the right ways of the Lord. 15. It abuseth the holy scriptures.

16. It is a prop to Antichrist. 17. And giveth occasion to many

to turn aside to most dangerous errors.

And though the last is so abhorred by you, that you cannot contain

yourselves when you read it: yet do I affirm, as I did in my first

'That to exclude Christians from church communion, and to debar

them their heaven-born privileges, for the want of that which God

never yet made a wall of division between us; did, and doth, and

will prevail with God to send those judgments we have, or may

hereafter feel.' Like me yet as you will.

I come next to what you have said in justification of your fourteen

arguments. 'Such as they were,' say you, 'I am willing to stand

by them: What I have offered, I have offered modestly: according

to the utmost light I had into those scriptures upon which

they are bottomed; having not arrived unto such a peremptory way

of dictatorship, as what I render must be taken for laws binding

to others in faith and practice; and therefore express myself by

suppositions, strong presumptions, and fair seeming conclusions

from the premises.'

Ans. Your arguments, as you truly say, are builded upon, or drawn

from suppositions and presumptions; and all because you want for

your help the words of the holy scripture. And let the reader

note. For as I have often called for the word, but as yet could

never get it, because you have it not, neither in precept, precedent,

nor example, therefore come you forth with your seeming imports

and presumptions.

The judicious reader will see in this last, that not only here, but

in other places, what poor shifts you are driven to, to keep your

pen going. But, Sir, since you are not peremptory in your proof;

how came you to be so absolute in your practice? For notwithstanding

all your seeming modesty, you will neither grant these communion

with you; nor allow their communion among themselves, that turn

aside from your 'seeming imports'; and that go not with you in

your strong presumptions. You must not; you dare not; lest you

countenance their idolatry; and nourish them up in sin; they live

in the breach of gospel-order; and Ephraim-like are joined to

an idol. And as for your love, it amounts to this, you thus deal

with them, and withdraw from them, and all because of some strong

presumptions and suppositions.

But you tell me, 'I use the arguments of the paedo-baptist, to

wit, But where are infants forbidden to be baptized?'

But I ingenuously tell you, I know not what paedo means: and how

then should I know his arguments. 1. I take no man's argument

but Mr. K.'s, I must not name him farther, I say I take no man's

argument but his now, viz. 'That there being no precept, precedent

or example, for you to shut your holy brethren out of church

communion; therefore you should not do it.' That you have no

command to do it, is clear, and you must of necessity grant it.

Now where there is no precept for a foundation; it is not what

you by all your reasonings can suggest; can deliver you from the

guilt of adding to his word. Are you commanded to reject them; If

yea, where is it? If nay, for shame be silent.

'Let us say what we will,' say you, 'for our own practice; unless

we bring positive scriptures that yours is forbidden, though

nowhere written; you will be as a man in a rage without it; and

would have it thought you go away with the garland.'

Ans. 1. I am not in a rage, but contend with you earnestly for

the truth. And say what you will or can, though with much more

squibbing frumps[4] and taunts than hitherto you have mixed our

writing with, Scripture, scripture, we cry still. And it is a bad

sign that your cause is naught; when you snap and snarl because

I call for scripture. 2. Had you a scripture for this practice,

that you ought to shut your brethren out of communion for want

of water baptism I had done; but you are left of the word of God,

and confess it! 3. And as you have not a text that justifies your

own; so neither that condemns our holy and Christian communion.

We are commanded also to receive him that is weak in the faith,

for God hath received him. I read not of garlands, but those in

the Acts; take you them. And I say moreover, that honest and holy

Mr. Jesse hath justified our practice, and you have not condemned

his arguments. They therefore stand all upon their feet against

you.

I leave your 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 arguments under my answers where

they are suppressed. In your seventh you again complain, for that

I touch your 'seeming imports'; saying, 'I do not use to say as

John Bunyan, this I say, and I dare to say. I please myself by

commending my apprehensions soberly, and submissively to others

much above me.'

Ans. 1. Seeming imports are a base and unworthy foundation for

a practice in religion; and therefore I speak against them. 2.

Where you say, you submit your apprehensions soberly to those much

above you; it is false; unless you conclude none are above you,

but those of your own opinion. Have you soberly, and submissively

commended your apprehensions to those congregations in London,

that are not of your persuasion in the case in hand? and have

you consented to stand by their opinion? Have you commended your

apprehensions soberly and submissively to those you call Independents

and Presbyters? And are you willing to stand by their judgment in

the case? Do you not reserve to yourself the liberty of judging

what they say? and of choosing what you judge is right, whether

they conclude with you or no? If so; why do you so much dissemble

with all the world, in print; to pretend you submit to others'

judgment, and yet abide to condemn their judgments? you have but

one help: perhaps you think they are not above you; and by that

proviso secure yourself; but it will not do.

For the offence you take at any comment upon your calling baptism,

'a livery': and for your calling it 'the Spirit's metaphorical

description of baptism': both phrases are boldness, without the

word. Neither do I find it called a listing ordinance, nor the

solemnization of the marriage betwixt Christ and a believer. But

perhaps you had this from Mr. D'Anvers, who pleaseth himself with

this kind of wording it: and says moreover in justification of

you, 'That persons entered into the visible church thereby [by

baptism, which is untrue, though Mr. Baxter also saith it] are

by consent admitted into particular congregations, where they may

claim their privileges due to baptized believers, being orderly

put into the body, and put on Christ by their baptismal vow and

covenant: for by that public declaration of consent, is the

marriage and solemn contract made betwixt Christ and a believer

in baptism. And, saith he, if it be preposterous and wicked for

a man and woman to cohabit together, and to enjoy the privileges

of a married state without the passing of that public solemnity:

So it is NO less disorderly upon a spiritual account, for any to

claim the privileges of a church, or be admitted to the same, till

the passing of this solemnity by them.'

Ans. But these words are very black. First, Here he hath not only

implicitly forbidden Jesus Christ to hold communion with the saints

that are not yet his by [water] baptism; but is bold to charge

him with being as preposterous and wicked if he do, as a man that

liveth with a woman in the privileges of a married state, without

passing that public solemnity. Secondly, He here also chargeth

him as guilty of the same wickedness, that shall but dare to claim

church communion without it; yea, and the whole church too, if

they shall admit such members to their fellowship.

And now since cleaving to Christ by vow and covenant, will not do

without baptism, after personal confession of faith; what a state

are all those poor saints of Jesus in, that have avowed themselves

to be his a thousand times without THIS baptism? Yea, and what

a case is Jesus Christ in too, by your argument, to hold that

communion with them, that belongeth only unto them that are married

to him by this solemnity! Brother, God give him repentance. I wot

that through ignorance and a preposterous zeal he said it: unsay

it again with tears, and by a public renunciation of so wicked

and horrible words; but I thus sparingly pass you by.[5]

I shall not trouble the world any farther with an answer to the

rest of your books: The books are public to the world: let men read

and judge. And had it not been for your endeavouring to stigmatize

me with reproach and scandal, a thing that doth not become you,

I needed not have given you two lines in answer.

And now, my angry brother, if you shall write again, pray keep to

the question, namely, 'What precept, precedent, or example have you

in God's word to exclude your holy brethren from church communion

for want of water baptism.' Mr. Denne's great measure, please

yourself with it, and when you shall make his arguments your own,

and tell me so, you perhaps may have an answer, but considering

him, and comparing his notions with his conversation, I count it

will be better for him to be better in morals, before he be worthy

of an answer.

THE CONCLUSION.

Reader, when Moses sought to set the brethren that strove against

each other, at one, he that did the wrong thrust him away,

as unwilling to be hindered in his ungodly attempts; but Moses

continuing to make peace betwixt them, the same person attempted

to charge him with a murderous and bloody design, saying, 'Wilt

thou kill me as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?' (Exo 2:14) a

thing too commonly thrown upon those that seek peace, and ensue

it (Acts 7:24-29). 'My soul,' saith David, 'hath long dwelt with

him that hateth peace. I am for peace, [said he] but when I speak,

they are for war' (Psa 120:6,7). One would think that even nature

itself should count peace and concord a thing of greatest worth

among saints, especially since they, above all men, know themselves;

for he that best knoweth himself is best able to pity and bear

with another (Heb 5:2); yet even amongst these, such will arise,

as will make divisions among their brethren, and seek 'to draw

away disciples after them' (Acts 20:30), crying still that they,

even they are in the right, and all that hold not with them in

the wrong, and to be withdrawn from (Rom 16:17). But when every

HE, hath said all that he can, it is one of the things which the

Lord hateth, to sow 'discord among brethren' (Prov 6:19).[6]

Yet many years' experience we have had of these mischievous

attempts, as also have others in other places, as may be instanced

if occasion requireth it, and that especially by those of the rigid

way of our brethren, the Baptists so called, whose principles will

neither allow them to admit to communion, the saint that different

from them about baptism, nor consent they should communicate

in a church-state among themselves: but take occasion still ever

as they can, both to reproach their church-state, and to finger

from amongst them who they can to themselves. These things being

grievous to those concerned, as we are, though perhaps those at

quiet are too little concerned in the matter, therefore when I

could no longer forbear, I thought good to present to public view

the warrantableness of our holy communion, and the unreasonableness

of their seeking to break us to pieces. At this Mr. William

K[iffin], Mr. Thomas Paul, and Mr. Henry D'Anvers, and Mr. Denne,

fell with might and main upon me; some comparing me to the devil,

others to a bedlam, others to a sot, and the like, for my seeking

peace and truth among the godly. Nay, further, they began to cry out

murder, as if I intended nothing less than to accuse them to the

magistrate, and to render them incapable of a share in the commonwealth,

when I only struck at their heart-breaking, church-rending principles

and practice; in their excluding their holy brethren's communion

from them, and their condemning of it [eve] among themselves. They

also follow me with slanders and reproaches, counting, it seems,

such things arguments to defend themselves.

But I in the meantime call for proof, scripture proof, to convince

me it is a duty to refuse communion with those of the saints that

differ from them about baptism: at this Mr. P[aul] takes offence,

calling my demanding of proof for their rejecting the unbaptized

believer, how excellent soever in faith and holiness, a clamorous

calling for proof, with high and swelling words, which he counteth

not worthy of answer; but I know the reason, he by this demand is

shut out of the Bible, as himself also suggesteth: wherefore when

coming to assault me with arguments, he can do it but by seeming

imports, suppositions, and strong presumptions, and tells you

farther in his reply, 'That this is the utmost of his light in

the scriptures urged for his practice'; of which light thou mayest

easily judge, good reader, that hast but the common understanding

of the mind of God, concerning brotherly love. Strange! that the

scripture that everywhere commandeth and presseth to love, to

forbearance, and bearing the burden of our brother; should yet

imply, or implicitly import that we should shut them out of our

Father's house; or that those scriptures that command us to receive

the weak, should yet command us to shut out the strong! Thinkest

thou, reader, that the scripture hath two faces, and speaketh with

two mouths? yet it must do so, by these men's doctrine. It saith

expressly, 'Receive one another, as Christ also received us to

the glory of God' (Rom 15:7). But these men say, it is not duty,

it is preposterous, and idolatrous; concluding that to receive

this brother, is not a custom of them, not yet of the churches

of God: consequently telling thee, that those that receive such a

brother are not (let them talk while they will) any of the churches

of God: see their charity, their candour and love, in the midst

of their great pretensions of love.

But be thou assured, christian reader, that for these their

uncharitable words and actions, they have not footing in the word

of God, neither can they heal themselves with suggesting their

amicable correspondence to the world. Church communion I plead

for, church communion they deny them, yet church communion is

scripture communion, and we read of none other among the saints.

True, we are commanded to withdraw 'from every brother that

walketh disorderly,--that he may be ashamed, yet not to count him

as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother' (2 Thess 3:6,14,15).

If this be that they intend, for I know not of another communion,

that we ought to have with those, to whom we deny church communion;

then what ground of rejoicing those have that are thus respected

by their brethren, I leave it to themselves to consider of.

In the meanwhile, I affirm, 'that baptism with water, is neither

a bar nor bolt to communion of saints, nor a door nor inlet to

communion of saints.' The same which is the argument of my books;

and as some of the moderate among themselves have affirmed, that

neither Mr. K., Mr. P. nor Mr. D'Anvers, have made invalid, though

sufficiently they have made their assault.

For Mr. Denne, I suppose they count him none of themselves, though

both he, and Mr. Lamb, like to like, are brought for authors and

abetters of their practice, and to refel my peaceable principle.

For Mr. Denne, if either of the three will make his arguments

their own, they may see what their servant can do: but I shall

not bestow paper and ink upon him, nor yet upon Mr. Lamb; the one

already, having given his profession the lie, and for the other

perhaps they that know his life, will see little of conscience in

the whole of his religion, and conclude him not worth the taking

notice of. Besides Mr. P. hath also concluded against Mr. Denne,

That baptism is not the initiating ordinance, and that his utmost

strength for the justification of his own practise is, 'suppositions,

imports, and strong presumptions,' things that they laugh at,

despise and deride, when brought by their brethren to prove infant

baptism.

Railing for railing, I will not render, though one of these opposers,

Mr. Dan. by name, did tell me, that Mr. Paul's reply when it came

out, would sufficiently provoke me to so beastly a work: but what

is the reason of his so writing, if not the peevishness of his

own spirit, or the want of better matter.

This I thank God for, that some of the brethren of this way, are

of late more moderate than formerly, and that those that retain

their former sourness still, are left by their brethren, to the

vinegar of their own spirits, their brethren ingeniously confessing,

that could these of their company bear it, they have liberty in

their own souls to communicate with saints as saints, though they

differ about water baptism.

Well, God banish bitterness out of the churches, and pardon them

that are the maintainers of schisms and divisions among the godly.

'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell

together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head,

that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down

to the skirts of his garments; [farther it is] As the dew of Hermon,

that descended upon the mountains of Zion: [Mark] for there the

LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore' (Psa 133).

I was advised by some, who considered the wise man's proverb, not to

let Mr. Paul pass with all his bitter invectives, but I consider

that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God; therefore

I shall leave him to the censure and rebuke of the sober, where

I doubt not but his unsavoury ways with me will be seasonably

brought to his remembrance. Farewell.

I am thine to serve thee, Christian, so long as I can look out at

those eyes, that have had so much dirt thrown at them by many.

J. BUNYAN

OF THE LOVE OF CHRIST

The love of Christ, poor I may touch upon:

But 'tis unsearchable. Oh! there is none

Its large dimensions can comprehend,

Should they dilate thereon, world without end.

When we had sinned, in his zeal he sware,

That he upon his back our sins would bear.

And since unto sin is entailed death,

He vowed, for our sins he'd lose his breath.

He did not only say, vow, or resolve,

But to astonishment did so involve

Himself in man's distress and misery,

As for, and with him, both to live and die.

To his eternal fame in sacred story,

We find that he did lay aside his glory,

Stept from the throne of highest dignity;

Became poor man, did in a manger lie;

Yea was beholden upon his, for bread;

Had of his own not where to lay his head:

Though rich, he did, for us, become thus poor,

That he might make us rich for evermore.

Nor was this but the least of what he did;

But the outside of what he suffered.

God made his blessed Son under the law;

Under the curse, which, like the lion's paw,

Did rend and tear his soul, for mankind's sin,

More than if we for it in hell had been.

His cries, his tears, and bloody agony,

The nature of his death doth testify.

Nor did he of constraint himself thus give

For sin, to death, that man might with him live.

He did do what he did most willingly,

He sung, and gave God thanks, that he must die.

But do kings use to die for captive slaves?

Yet we were such, when Jesus died to save us.

Yea, when he made himself a sacrifice,

It was that he might save his enemies.

And, though he was provoked to retract

His blest resolves, for such, so good an act,

By the abusive carriages of those,

That did both him, his love, and grace oppose:

Yet he, as unconcerned with such things

Goes on, determines to make captives kinds

Yea, many of his murderers he takes

Into his favour, and them princes makes.

FOOTNOTES:

1. A tender conscience, jealous of grieving or offending the

Holy Spirit, is of an inestimable value. If in our conscientious

conclusions we offend others, we must leave to them an equal right

to their own conclusions without harsh judgment.--Ed.

2. 'Squibbling,' feeble, ill-natured ridicule; now obsolete.--Ed.

3. 'Without the lids of the Bible,' not within it; a popular Puritan

saying.--Ed.

4. 'Frump,' to mock, flout, scoff. 'You must learn to mock; to

frump your own father on occason.' Ironically used in Ruggle's

Ignoramus.--Ed.

5. Mr. D'Anvers, in a postscript to his History of Baptism, the first

edition, 1673, thus violently attacks his brother Bunyan:--'Having

read his book, I took myself concerned to give some short return

to it, leaving his "manifold absurdities," "contradictions,"

"unbrotherly tauntings and reflections," "contemptions," "traducings

the wisdom of Christ, and his holy appointments," to be called to

account by that band that hath so well begun to reckon with him.'

He was in prison, and his brother thus visits him with gall and

wormwood instead of consoling cordials. He goes on to confound

water baptism with that of the Spirit, and charges Bunyan with

'ignorance and folly--dangerous and destructive to religion itself,'

'contradicting the authority of Christ,' calls him 'egregiously

ignorant,' 'self-condemning.' All this uncharitable vituperation

was because Mr. Bunyan would hold communion with all those who

had been baptized into, and put on, Christ. The passage quoted is

correct, except that 'married estate' should be 'marriage state.'

So satisfied was D'Anvers with the just and Christian correction

given him for so egregious a blunder, that if he did not repent

with tears, he took special care to leave out all this absurd

reference to the marriage ceremony performed in water from his

second edition.--Ed.

6. Strife and contention--evil speaking of surmisings among

professors, are tokens of a carnal mind, injurious to spiritual

peace, and abominable to God. The envious, discontented, and

malicious, are the devil's working tools. If such die unsubdued

by divine grace, they plunge themselves into the bottomless pit.

True wisdom avid strife and contention, is moderate in doubtful

opinions, patient and cautious in judging others.--Ed.

***

A CASE OF CONSCIENCE RESOLVED; VIZ.,

WHETHER, WHERE A CHURCH OF CHRIST IS SITUATE, IT IS THE DUTY OF

THE WOMEN OF THAT CONGREGATION, ORDINARILY, AND BY APPOINTMENT,

TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR BRETHREN, AND SO TO ASSEMBLE

TOGETHER, TO PERFORM SOME PARTS OF DIVINE WORSHIP, AS PRAYER,

ETC., WITHOUT THEIR MEN?

AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE USE OF FOR THAT PRACTICE, EXAMINED.

BY JOHN BUNYAN.

EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.

This exceedingly rare tract was first published in 1683, and was

not reprinted, either separately, or in any edition of Bunyan's

works. The public are indebted to the owner of a copy in perfect

preservation, who kindly lent it, with a painful prohibition that

he is to remain unknown; but with full allowance to any one who

wishes to collate it with this new edition, by applying to the

editor.

At the time this case was drawn and submitted to Mr. Bunyan for his

opinion, he was one of the most popular preachers in the kingdom,

and universally esteemed in all the churches of Christ, for his

profound knowledge of the sacred Scriptures. This may account for

such a case being sent to him, in preference to those illustrious

divines, who for learning and talent have been unrivalled in any

age.

The Reformation had progressed through state impediments so

slowly, that the masses of the people were involved in the grossest

darkness. So Mr. Keach complained--"The church is but newly come

out of the wilderness of popish darkness; and not so fully neither

as to be as clear as the sun; as in due time she shall."[1]The

era of the commonwealth let loose a flood of religious light and

liberty: those who had just emerged from the darkness of Popery,

and those who had received, implicitly, and without investigation,

their religion from the formal services of the Liturgy, were now

alarmed with the thunder of faithful exhortations, personally

and prayerfully to examine the sacred Scriptures, upon pain of

everlasting death. A light so new, and so marvellous, dazzled and

perplexed those who rushed into it, without earnest prayer for

divine guidance. They were like men who had been born and brought

up in a dark, a deep, a noisome mine, when, suddenly emerging into

light, are overpowered by its splendour. Long and sharp was the

controversy whether singing ought to be used in public worship;

whether the seventh day of the week or the first was to be

consecrated; whether ministers were to be paid for their services;

and in this case, to define the privileges and duties of women as

helpers in the gospel; and it is surprising that this question is

almost as new now as it was then. It is thus stated--"Whether it

is the duty of the women of the churches of Christ to separate

themselves from their brethren, and, as so separate, to perform

divine worship by themselves."

It appears that some females in Bedford were in the habit of thus

meeting, under the advice of a Mr. K. They held prayer meetings

for special purposes, at the imminent risk of imprisonment; but

whether, in these meetings, they exhorted, or preached to each

other, does not appear. John Bunyan was applied to for advice,

which he plainly gives. He was a stern advocate for scriptural

authority in all things pertaining to divine worship; and one

who, in regarding the invaluable virtues of women, most admired

retiring modesty as the loveliest adornment of the female character.

The terms he uses, and the spirit in which he writes, intimate

plainly that his own wife, who was remarkable for her devotion to

God and her affectionate attachment to her husband, was also the

most obedient of her sex.

In this tract we find no unmeaning gallant fribbling, but the

solemn language of one who had death and judgment before his face.

He conducts the inquiry with great care, as becomes a subject of

such universal interest: and the great majority of Christians remain

to this day his disciples. The Society of Friends is an exception,

as to females being admitted to the ministry; while the Wesleyan

Methodists have gained a most beneficial influence, by embracing,

to the full extent, Bunyan's notions of rendering available the

tender zeal, in comparatively private labours, of their pious

females, in spreading the hallowed influences of Christianity.

The Society of Friends stands upon high ground in justifying its

practice in allowing females to minister in holy things. J. J. Gurney

says--"Friends believe it right, freely and equally to allow the

ministry of both sexes." His reason is--"That all true ministry is

under the immediate spirit of the influence of Christ: therefore we

are bound to make way for the exercise of the gift of all persons

that the Spirit may direct into this service. We dare not say to

the modest and pious female, 'Thou shalt not declare the word of

the Lord,' when we believe that an infinitely higher authority

has issued a directly opposite injunction."[2]

The difference arises as to the more public work of the ministry

in proclaiming or preaching the kingdom of Christ to the world.

In the ordinary ministry, by teaching the young--by a godly

conversation--by visiting and praying with the sick and afflicted--by

encouraging the inquirers and directing their way to the kingdom

of heaven,--in these important duties there appears to be neither

male nor female in Christ Jesus--all are equal.

John Bunyan would have united to a great degree with John Gurney

in these sentiments. But as our Lord appointed no female evangelists,

or apostles, or missionaries; and as the Holy Ghost has directed,

that all bishops or elders should be married MEN, it would appear

a strange innovation to place a female in the pastoral office.

Bunyan believed that God usually commissions men and not women

to this important work. J. J. Gurney fully admits that women "are

forbidden to usurp authority over the man," and therefore no active

part is assigned to them in public assemblies for the settlement

of the affairs of the church. [3] The women's meetings were

established for the purpose of exercising a wholesome care over

their own sex. [4] "That faithful women should be helps to the

men in the service of truth, as they are outwardly in civil and

temporal things." [5] And to this who can refuse his hearty AMEN.

There is too much sectarian spirit in all our controversies.

Reader, in considering this subject, endeavour to forget for the

time those opinions in which you have been trained. Examine the

question by the Word alone, and may the Holy Spirit inscribe upon

your hearts that divine record, which is to be found only in the

Christian system: "There is neither male nor female: for ye are all

one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). G. OFFOR. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY

TO THOSE GODLY WOMEN CONCERNED IN THE FOLLOWING TREATISE.

HONOURED SISTERS,

'Tis far from me to despise you, or to do anything to your reproach.

I know you are beloved of God for the sake of Christ, and that

you stand fixed for ever by faith upon the same foundation with

US. I also know that the Lord doth put no difference betwixt male

and female, as to the communications of his saving graces, but

hath often made many of your sex eminent for piety; yea, there hath

been of you, I speak now of ordinary Christians, that for holiness

of life have outgone many of the brethren: Nor can their virtuous

lives but be renown and glory to YOU, and conviction to those of

US that have come behind you in faith and holiness. The love of

women in spirituals, as well as naturals, ofttimes outgoes that

of men.

When Christ was upon earth, we read not that any man did to, and

for him, as did the woman that was a sinner, Joanna, Susanna, and

many others (Luke 7:36-38, 8:1-3). And as they have shewed themselves

eminent for piety, so for Christian valour and fortitude of mind,

when called of God to bear witness to, and for his name in the

world: as all histories of that nature doth sufficiently testify.

They were WOMEN, as I take it as well as men, that were tortured,

and that would not accept of deliverance, that they might obtain

a better resurrection (Heb 11:35). Wherefore I honour and praise

your eminency in virtue; and desire to be provoked by the exceeding

piety of any of you, in all holy conversation and godliness.

And although, as you will find, I have not without a cause, made

a question of the lawfulness of your assembling together, by

yourselves, to perform, without your men, solemn worship to God: yet

I dare not make you yourselves the authors of your own miscarriage

in this. I do therefore rather impute it to our leaders, who whether

of a fond respect to some seeming abilities they think is in you

for this, or from a persuasion that you have been better than

themselves in other things; or whether from a preposterous zeal,

they have put you upon a work so much too heavy for you: I shall

not at this time concern myself to inquire into. But this is

certain, at least it is so in my apprehension, that in this matter

you are tempted by them to take too much upon you.

I am not insensible but that for my thus writing, though I thereby

have designed your honour and good order; I am like enough to run

the gauntlet among you, and to partake most smartly of the scourge

of the tongues of some, and to be soundly brow-beaten for it by

others: specially by our author, who will find himself immediately

concerned, for that I have blamed him for what he hath irregularly

done, both with the Word, to you, and me. I look also to be

sufficiently scandalized, and counted a man not for prayer, and

meetings for prayer, and the like; but I will labour to bear them

with patience, and seek their good that shall be tempted to abuse

me.

I had not, indeed I had not, spoke a word to this question in this

manner, had not Mr. K. sent his paper abroad, and amongst us, for

the encouraging this practice with us, in opposition to our peace.

I do not say he designed our breach, but his arguments tended

thereto; and had not our people been of a wise and quiet temper,

his paper might have set us into a flame. But thanks be to God,

we are at quiet, and walk in love, notwithstanding the LIFTS that

have been to make us do otherwise. There are also the mouths of

some opened against me for this, who lie at wait for occasions,

and shew that they are glad to take them before they are given

by me: to whom I now shew by this ensuing discourse, that I had

a reason to do what I did.

I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able

to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among them that are

sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ: to whom be honour and glory

for ever. And remain, your faithful friend and brother to pray

for you, to love you in the gospel, and to do you what Christian

service I can,

JOHN BUNYAN.

The Women's Prayer Meeting A CASE OF CONSCIENCE RESOLVED, &c.

The occasion of my meddling in this manner with this controversy,

is this. After I had, for reasons best known to myself, by searching

found, that those called the women's meetings wanted for their

support, a bottom in the word: I called them in our fellowship

into question. Now having so done, my reasons for so doing, as

was but reason, were demanded; and I gave them, to the causing of

that practice with us to cease. So subject to the word were our

women, and so willing to let go what by that could not be proved

a duty for them to be found in the practice of. But when I had so

done, by what means I know not, Mr. K., hearing of my proceeding

in this matter, though I think he knew little of question or

answer, sets pen to paper, and draws up four arguments for the

justification of these meetings. The which, when done, were sent

down into our parts; not to me, but to some of his own persuasion,

who kept them, or sent them, or lent them whither they thought

good: And so about two years after, with this note immediately

following, they were conveyed to my hand.

Bro: Bunyan, This enclosed, was sent to me from godly women,

whose custom for a long time hath been to meet together to pray:

who hearing of your contrary opinion, sent this. It came from Mr.

K., who would desire to know what objections you have against it:

and he is ready to give his further advice. Pray be pleased to

give your answer in writing, for Mr. K. expects it.

Your friends in the Lord, S. B. S. F. Pray be pleased to leave

your answer with S. F. [6]in Bedford.

Now having received the papers, and considering the contents thereof:

I was at first at a question with myself, whether the thing was

feigned, or true; and to that purpose, writ to these women again:

but calling to mind, that I had heard something of this before,

I concluded there was ground to believe, as I do, [that it was

true, and not feigned:] And so resolved to answer his demand and

expectation. But to say nothing more as to this, I will next

present you with the arguments he sent, and then with my manner

of handling of them. Mr. K.'s Arguments for Female Prayer Meetings.

He begins with this question, Whether women fearing God may meet

to pray together, and whether it be lawful for them so to do? Which

done, he falls to a wonderment, saying, It seems very strange to

me, that any who profess the fear of God, can make any question

touching the lawfulness thereof: The rule for praying being so

general to all, and there being so many instances for the practice

thereof, upon several occasions in the word of God, for their

encouragement therein.

He next presents us with his arguments, which are in number four,

but in verity not one, to prove that thing for the which he urgeth

them: as I hope to make appear by that I have done.

First, saith he, If women may praise God together for mercies

received for the church of God, or for themselves? then they may

pray together: The proof whereof is plain (Exo 15:20,21). If it be

objected the case was extraordinary, and that Miriam was a prophetess;

To which I answer, That the danger of ruin and destruction, and

our deliverance from it, if the Lord grant it, cannot be looked

at but as extraordinary. The designs of ruin to the church, and

servants of God, being as great as at that time when God delivered

his people from the hand of Pharaoh. [7] And will call for praises,

if the Lord please to send it, as then. And whereas it is further

objected, that Miriam was an extraordinary person. To which I answer,

That the duty itself of praising God for the mercy, was incumbent

upon all, in as much as they were partakers of the mercy. And the

same spirit of Christ that was in her, is also in all his servants:

given for the same end, both to pray for mercies we stand in need

of, and to praise God for [them].

Second, If women have in imminent danger to themselves and the

church of God, prayed jointly together for deliverance, and God

hath answered and approved of the same: then may women jointly

pray together. The instance we have is famous (Esth 4:16). We there

see she and her maidens did pray and fast together, and the Lord

gave a gracious answer and deliverance.

Third, If God hath in gospel times promised the pouring out of

his Spirit to women, to that very end that they may pray together

apart from men; then it is not only their liberty, but duty to

meet and pray together. But God hath promised his Spirit to that

end (Zech 12:10-13). Which Scripture is plain is a promise of

gospel times. And it is to be noted that the text doth not in the

singular number, say He shall pray apart, and his wife apart; but

THEY shall pray apart, and THEIR wives apart. And (Mal 3:16) God

takes notice of all them that speak often together, and call upon

his name.

Fourth, If God hath so approved of women's meeting together to pray

in gospel times, as then, and at that time to take an advantage

to make known to them his mind and will concerning Jesus Christ:

then it is lawful for women to pray together. But God hath so

approved of their meeting to pray together (Acts 16:13). By which

text it appeareth it was a frequent practice for women to meet

and pray together.

These are Mr. K.'s arguments; the conclusion of his paper follows.

And besides all these particular instances, says he, what means

those general rules to build up one another in our most holy faith,

and pray in the Holy Ghost (Jude 20). But it extends to all that

believe, both men and women; unless any will say women are not to

be built up in their most holy faith. Therefore let not any hinder

you from a duty so incumbent upon you in a special manner, in such

a day as this is. Cannot many women that have used this practice,

by experience, say, they have met with the Lord in it, and have

found many blessed returns of prayer from God, both to themselves and

the church, wherein God hath owned them? Therefore what God hath

borne witness to, and approved of, let no man deter you from. Pray

turn to the Scriptures quoted, which I hope will give you full

satisfaction. Mr. Bunyan's Answer.

These are his arguments, and this his conclusion, in which I cannot

but say, there is not only boldness, but flattery. Boldness, in

fathering of his misunderstanding upon the authority of the word

of God: and flattery, in soothing up persons in a way of their

own, by making of them the judges in their own cause: the which

I hope to make farther appear anon.

For since his women in their letter told me that Mr. K. expects

my answer, I count myself called to shew the unsoundness of his

opinion. Indeed he would, as they insinuate, confine me to answer

by writing. But his papers have been I know not where, and how to

put check to his extravagancies, that also, I know not, but by

scattering mine [answer] abroad. And as I will not be confined to

an answer in writing: so neither to his methods of argumentation.

What scholar he is, I know not; for my part, I am not ashamed to

confess, that I neither know the mode nor figure of a syllogism,

nor scarce which is major or minor. Methinks I perceive but little

sense, and far less truth in his arguments: also I hold that he

has stretched and strained the holy Word out of place, to make

it, if it might have been, to shore up his fond conceits. I shall

therefore, first take these texts from the errors to which he hath

joined them, and then fall to picking the bones of his syllogisms.

[8]

But as I shall not confine myself to his mode and way of arguing,

so neither shall I take notice of his question upon which he stateth

the matter in controversy. But shall propound the same question

here, which, for the substance of it, was handled among us, when

the thing itself was in doubt among us, namely,

Whether, where a church of Christ is situate, it is the duty of

the women of that congregation, ordinarily, and by appointment,

to separate themselves from their brethren, and so to assemble

together, to perform some parts of divine worship, as prayer, &c.

without their men?

This was our question, this we debated, and this Mr. K. might have

sent for, and have spoken to, since he will needs be a confuter.

And, courteous reader, since I have here presented thee with the

question, I will also present thee with the method which I took

when I handled it among my brethren.

First, I opened the terms of the question.

Second, Then shewed what assemblies they were that used to perform

divine worship to God.

Third, And so shewed whose prayers in such worship was used, or

by Paul and others desired.

First, By church of Christ, I mean, one gathered or constituted

by, and walking after the rule of the Word of God. By situate, I

mean, where such church shall happen to be, in whole, or in the

parts thereof. By separating, I mean, their meetings together by

appointment of their own, and as so met, to attempt to perform

divine worship [by] prayer without their men.

Second, To shew what manner of assemblies they were that used to

perform divine worship to God of old. Now I find that there have

been three sorts of assemblies, in which divine worship has been

performed.

1. It has been performed in mixed assemblies; in assemblies made

up of saints and sinners. I say divine worship has been performed

in such assemblies, for, that there, the saints have been edified,

sinners convinced and converted, and made to confess their sins,

to the glory of God. Of these assemblies we read (Matt 5:1, 13:1,

23:1; Mark 4:1, 2:1, 6:2, 10:1; Luke 5:1, 8, 12:1, 13:1, 15:1,

20:1; 1 Cor 14:23). And in many other scriptures.

2. I also find that the church, by herself, or as distinct from the

world, have met together to perform it by themselves (Mark 4:34;

Acts 2:1-4, 13:1,2; 15:4, 20:7; John 20:19-26).

3. I find also that assemblies for divine worship have been made

up of the elders, and principal brethren of the church, none of

the rest of the congregation being present (Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1;

Acts 1:3, 2:17,18; Gal 2:1,2) with several other scriptures beside.

But in all the Scripture, I find not that the women of the churches

of Christ, did use to separate themselves from their brethren, and

as so separate, perform worship together among themselves, or in

that their congregation: or that they made, by allowance of the

Word, appointment so to do. Thus far therefore this must stand

for a human invention, and Mr. K. for the promoter thereof.

Third, This done, in the third place, I come to shew you whose

prayers, or by whose mouth prayer in such assemblies, as are above

proved lawful, used to be made, or by Paul or others were desired.

1. Whose prayers were used, or who was the mouth? and I find them

called the prayers of the church in general, or of the principal

men thereof in particular (Judg 2:4,5, 20:8,26; Joel 1:14, 2:15-17;

Acts 12:5, 13:1-3).

2. Also when Paul, or others, desired that prayers should be made

of others for them. They either desired the prayers of the church

in general, or of the brethren in particular (but never desireth,

or biddeth a woman's meeting, that prayers might there be made

for them). (1.) He desireth the prayers of the church in general

(Col 4:2; Phil 1:19, 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17; Heb 13:18). (2.) Or if

he desireth prayers of certain persons, he only calls upon the men

and brethren in particular; but never upon a woman by name nor sex

to do it (1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1; Rom 15:30; 1 Tim 2:8). Nor

was, as I said, the apostle alone in this thing. Christ speaks a

parable to this end, that MEN ought always to pray (Luke 18:1).

James saith, the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous MAN (5:16).

Moses sent the young men to sacrifice (Exo 24:5). And the people

in the time of Zacharias, sent their MEN to pray before the Lord

(Zech 7:2). I do not believe that by any of these the prayers of

women are despised, but by these we are taught, who, as the mouth

in assemblies to pray, is commended unto us.

One word more, The women in the time of Jeremiah the prophet,

when they had made their cakes to the queen of heaven, (though the

thing which they did was as right in their own eyes, as if they

had done true worship indeed) and was questioned by the prophet

for what they had done, could not justify what they had done as

to the act, but by pleading, They did it not "without their men"

(Jer 44:17-19).

Thus having premised these few things, I shall now come more

directly to discourse of the question itself, TO WIT, Whether,

where a church of Christ is situate, it is the duty of the women

of that congregation, ordinarily, and by appointment, to separate

themselves from their brethren, and as so separate, to assemble

together to perform divine worship, [by] prayer, without their men?

This was our question, and this I will now give a negative answer

unto. For I find not in Christ's testament any command so to do;

no nor yet example: and where there is none of these, it cannot be

a duty upon them; no, nor yet liberty, but presumption to attempt

it.

The command, says Mr. K., is general to all. But I answer, yet

limited, and confined to order and manner of performance. Women

may, yea ought to pray; what then? Is it their duty to help to

carry on prayer in public assemblies with men, as they? Are they

to be the audible mouth there, before all, to God? No verily, and

yet the command is general to all to pray. Women of the respective

churches of Christ, have no command to separate themselves from the

men of their congregations, to perform prayer in their own company

without them, and yet the command is general to all to pray. We

must therefore distinguish of [between] persons and performances,

though we may not exclude either. The manner also, and order in which

such and such duties must be done, Mr. K. knows is as essential,

in some cases, as the very matter of worship. But we will come

to my reasons for my dissenting from Mr. K. in this. After which

I will consider his arguments, and the scriptures that he would

under-prop them with. As for my reasons for my dissenting from

him, they are these:--

First, To appoint meetings for divine worship, either in the whole

church or in the parts of it, is an act of power: which power,

resideth in the elders in particular, or in the church in general.

But never in the women as considered by themselves. Mr. K. indeed

doth insinuate that this power also resided in them; for he saith,

God hath in gospel times promised the Spirit to women to that

very end, that they may pray together, apart from men. Now if the

Spirit is given them to THIS very end, that they may do it apart

from men, then they have a power residing in themselves to call

their own sex together to do it. And what brave doings will such

a conclusion make, even the blind himself will perceive. But further

of this anon; meanwhile we will attend [to] our own assertion.

Namely, "that to call the church, or parts thereof together, to

perform divine worship to God, is an ACT of POWER, which power

resideth in the church in general, or in the elders in particular."

We will treat of the last first.

1. For the eldership, Moses and Aaron of old were they, with the

priests, that were to call the church together to perform divine

worship to God, and that both as to the whole, or as to the parts

of it (Num 10:7,8; Deut 4:14, 31:11,12; Exo 4:29, 12:21, 17:5).

Also, in after times, they were the elders and chief of the church,

that did it (Josh 24:1; Ezra 10:5-9; Acts 14:27, 15:3). Or,

2, if their calling together to perform divine worship, was not

by the elders alone: yet it was by the power that resided in the

church for that thing, who jointly ordered the same (Judg 20:8,18:

Ezra 3:1; Zeph 2:1-3; Acts 12:12; 1 Cor 5:4, 11:20). All these are

plain cases. But never, as I ever did read of in the Bible, did

women, ordinary believing ones, assume this power of the elders,

or of the church, to themselves.

If it be asked, Who did appoint that meeting made mention of in

Acts 12:12?

I answer, It was appointed by the power of the church, who, for

her own conveniency, if she cannot come all into one place at once

to perform the duty, as it is not likely four or five thousand

should, in times of persecution, which was their case, [they] may

meet some here, some there, for their edification and comfort.

Compare verse 5 with 12 and 17. Nor do I question the lawfulness

of this or that part of the church's assembling together for

prayer: though the elders, and greatest part of the brethren, be

absent. If, first, such MEN that call such assemblies are countenanced

by the elders, or church, to do it (1 Tim 2:8; 2 Tim 2:22). But

that the sisters of this or that church, may call their own sex

together to perform such worship by themselves to God (for this

is the thing in debate) I find no warrant for.

Second, Because this kind of worship, when done in and by a company,

is MINISTERIAL to that company, as well as petitionary to God.

That is, they that, as the mouth in assemblies pray to God, teach

that assembly, as well as beg mercies of him. And I find not

that women may assemble to do thus. That such prayer is a kind of

ministering in the word to standers by, consider well 1 Corinthians

14:15-19. Wherefore let them keep silence in the church, and in

the parts thereof, when assembled to worship God.

In all public worship by prayer, teaching is set on foot, two

ways: 1. By propounding to that assembly the things that must, by

agreement, be prayed for. 2. And by proving them to suit with the

will of God, that prayer may be made in faith (1 John 5:14).

1. For all such prayer must be made for the things agreed upon

first; and consequently for things that by the word are proved

good, and suitable for the seasons, persons, or things, for or

about which such prayers are made. For they that have meetings

for prayer, without this, pray at random, and not by rule.

"If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching anything that they

shall ask [according to God's will] it shall be done for them,"

saith Christ, "of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 18:19). Now,

I say, if things prayed for in assemblies must first be jointly

agreed upon, then must such things, by some one, or more of that

assembly, be first propounded, expounded, and proved to be good

by the word. Good for such persons, seasons, or things, for which

such prayer is made. And, besides, the gifts required to do this,

if this is not teaching I am out. And yet this must first be done

to instruct all present, to help their faith, and to quicken their

spirits to, and in that worship. That they may as one man have

their eyes unto the Lord (Zech 9:1). But that this power is given

to women, to ordinary believing ones that are in the highest

account in churches, I do not believe. I do not believe they

should minister to God in prayer before the whole church, for then

I should be a Ranter or a Quaker; nor do I believe they should do

it in their own womanish assembly, for the reason urged before.

And I will add, if brethren not heretofore called by the church

to open scriptures, or to speak in the church to God in prayer,

[9] are not at first to be admitted to do this, but before the

elders or principal brethren, that they may hear and judge (1 Cor

14:26-29). How can it be thought to be meet or lawful for women,

of whom it must be supposed, that they have received no such gifts,

that they should use this power? I say, how can it be imagined

that the women should be bound of God to do this in such sort as

doth utterly exclude the elders and all the men in the congregation

from a possibility of understanding and of judging of what they

do? And yet this is the doctrine of Mr. K.; for he saith, "That

the Spirit of God is promised to women to this very end, that they

may pray together, apart from men." But God is not the author of

this confusion in the churches.

2. But secondly, As teaching by prayer in assemblies, is thus set

on foot; so every one also that shall in such meetings be the mouth

of the whole, to God, ministereth so, doctrine to that assembly,

as well as presenteth petitions to God. Else how can that assembly

say AMEN at their prayer or giving of thanks? For to say AMEN is

an effect of conviction, or of edification received of the stander

by, from him that now is so ministering in that assembly before

God (1 Cor 14:15-17). Yea, I believe that they that pray in

assemblies, or that shall give thanks for mercies received there,

ought to labour to speak, not only with fervency of words, but

with such soundness of doctrine while they mention, urge, or plead

the promise with God, that that whole assembly may be enlightened,

taught, taken, and carried away in their spirits, on the wing

of that prayer, and of faith, to God, whose face they are come

to seek, and whose grace they are gathered together to beg. Now

this is called praying and praising, to the teaching and edifying

of others, as by the scripture afore named is made appear (1 Cor

14:14-19). But by what word of God the sisters of the respective

churches may set up this way of teaching of one another in their

assemblies, I am ignorant of.

Third, The Holy Ghost doth particularly insist upon the inability

of women, as to their well managing of the worship now under

consideration, and therefore it ought not to be presumed upon

by them. They are forbidden to teach, yea to speak in the church

of God. And why forbidden, but because of their inability. They

cannot orderly manage that worship to God, that in assemblies is

to be performed before him; I speak now of our ordinary believing

ones, and I know none extraordinary among the churches. They

are not builded to manage such worship, "they are not the image

and glory of God, as the men are" (1 Cor 11:7). They are placed

beneath, and are called the glory of the man. Wherefore they are

weak, and not permitted to perform public worship to God. When our

first mother, who was not attended with those weaknesses, either

sinful or natural, as our women now are, stept out of her place

but to speak a good word for worship, you see how she was baffled,

and befooled therein; she utterly failed in the performance, though

she briskly attempted the thing. Yea she so failed thereabout, that

at one clap she overthrew, not only, as to that, the reputation

of women for ever, but her soul, her husband, and the whole world

besides (Gen 3:1-7). The fallen angel knew what he did when he

made his assault upon the woman. His subtilty told him that the

women was the weaker vessel. He knew also that the man was made

the head in worship, and the keeper of the garden of God. The Lord

God took the man, said unto the man, commanded the man, and made

him keeper of the garden (Gen 2:15-17). Wherefore the management

of worship belonged to him. This, the serpent, as I said, was

aware of. And therefore he comes to the woman, says to the woman,

and deals with the woman about it, and so overcomes the world.

Wherefore it is from this consideration that Paul tells Timothy

that he permitted not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority

over the man, but to be in silence. But to call the church or parts

thereof together, to perform solemn worship, and in such a call

to exclude or shut out the men, is an usurping of that authority

over them to a high degree. And he renders the reason of this

his prohibition thus, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve, [and

therefore had the headship in worship]. And Adam was not deceived,

but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression" (1 Tim

2:13,14). But again, it should seem, methinks, if women must needs

be managers of worship in assemblies, they should do it, as Eve,

before Adam, in presence of the men: But that I think none will

allow, though that would be the way best to correct miscarriages;

how then should it be thought convenient for them to do it alone.

If children are not thought fit to help to guide the ship with

the mariners, shall they be trusted so much as with a boat at sea

alone. The thing in hand is a parallel case.

Fourth, If the weightiness of this worship be, as indeed it is, so

great, that the strongest and best able to perform it do usually

come off with blushing, and with repentance for their shortness,

as to the well performance thereof; though they engage therein by

good and lawful authority; what will they do who are much weaker

here, and when, as Eve, they set to it in a way of usurping of

authority, and of their own head and will. To offer strange fire

with incense, which was a type of prayer, you know what it cost

Nadab and Abihu, though men, and the sons of Aaron. [Yet] Mr. K.

cries the sisters, the women, the women's meetings, and the like,

and how they have prevailed with heaven. Poor man, I am sorry for

his weakness, and that he should show that himself is so nunnish[10]

in such a day as this.

But to return, as all worship in assemblies ought to be performed

with the most exact order and solemnity; so this of prayer with

that, if possible, that is more than all the rest; and therefore

this makes it more heavy still. When men preach they have to do

with men, but when they pray in assemblies they have to do both with

men and with God at once. And I say, if it be so great a matter to

speak to men before God; how great a matter is it to speak to men

and God at once; to God by way of petition, and to men by way of

instruction. But I am persuaded if those most fond of the women's

meetings for prayer were to petition the king for their lives,

they would not set women to be their advocates to him; specially

if the king should declare beforehand by law, that he permitted

not a woman in an open auditory to speak before him.

There are also many temptations that attend the duty of praying in

assemblies, especially those that are immediately employed therein.

These temptations, they awake, are aware of, are forced to wrestle

with, and greatly to groan under. Wherefore we put not the weak

upon this service; not the weak, though they be men; not they in

the presence of the strong. How then should the weakest of all

be put upon it, and that when together by themselves. Men, though

strong, and though acting by lawful authority in this, are not able,

but with unutterable groans, to do it: how then shall all those

that attempt it without that authority, perform it as acceptable

worship to God? This work, therefore, is as much too heavy for

our women now, as that about which Eve engaged in at first, was

too heavy for her. But,

Fifth, If this worship may be managed by the sisterhood of the

churches, being congregated together in the absence of their men:

of what signification is it that man is made head of the woman as

well in worship as in nature? (1 Cor 11:3,7). Yea more, why are

the elders of the churches called watchmen, overseers, guides,

teachers, rulers, and the like? If this kind of worship may be

performed, without their conduct and government? (Eze 3:17, 33:7;

Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; Psa 28:72; Heb 13:17).

1. Why is man made the head of the woman in worship, in the

worship now under debate, in that worship that is to be performed

in assemblies? And why are the women commanded silence there, if

they may congregate by themselves, and set up and manage worship

there? Worship was ordained before the woman was made, wherefore

the word of God at the first did not immediately come to her,

but to him that was first formed, and made the head in worship

(Gen 2:16-18; 1 Cor 14:35,36). And hence it is that women are so

strictly tied up to this headship; that if they will learn, they

must ask their husbands at home (v 35), not appoint meetings of

their own sex to teach one another. "But what must they do that have

unbelieving ones? and what must they do that have none?" Answer,

Let them attend upon those ordinances that God has appointed for

the building up and perfecting of the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-13),

and learn as the angels do (Eph 3:10; 1 Peer 1:12).

2. But I say, if they must do as Mr. K. says, they are in duty

bound, to wit, meet by themselves apart from their men, and as so

met, perform this most solemn worship to God: how shall the elders

and overseers, the watchmen, rulers, and guides in worship, perform

their duty to God, and to the church of God, in this, since from

this kind of worship they are quite excluded, and utterly shut

out of doors: unless it be said, that to watch, to oversee, and to

guide, in the matter and manner of performance of this worship in

assemblies, is no part of the watchman or overseer's work; or in

their lawful absence, the work of the principal men of the church.

Nor will the faithful and dutiful overseer leave worship, no, not

in the best part of the congregation assembled to worship, to be

performed by every weak brother, though I believe it might with more

warrant be left to them, than to the strongest among our ordinary

ones of the other sex.