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).