# Was Bunyan Wrong?



## Irishcat922 (Jan 14, 2005)

This is a guote I found in a biographical sketch of John Bunyan. I found this particularly interesting, was he wrong for standing by his convictions? Keep in mind, If he hadn't been jailed, we would not have Pilgrims Progress.


"Herein is a great controversy. As John Bunyan was married with children to support, and he could have walked out of the jail a free man at any time if he simply promised to stop preaching publicly without a license, one must ask if he really did the right thing. He was not asked to deny Christ or to recant his faith as the Protestant martyrs of a century earlier were. Indeed, many of those around him were openly Christians who shared his faith. Bunyan was simply asked to stop preaching without a license, or to move on. Should Bunyan have simply agreed and walked out of the jail and gone home to fulfill his duties before God as a husband and father? Or did he do the right thing in making those duties secondary to his personal conviction that he should be allowed to preach in that city without a license? Bunyan was not a martyr, nor was he ever violently persecuted, but his convictions, whether admirable or misplaced, were quite strong and vexed the local authorities who viewed him more as a troublemaker than any real threat."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

Yes, he was wrong on both accounts: 1) to the church - not being ordained, and 2) to the magistrate who may have simply wanted him to be licensed.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 14, 2005)

Bunyan was right. He was right not to seek ordination from the state church, and he was right not to seek the state's permission to preach the gospel.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 14, 2005)

He was from my understanding a Deacon in his Church, and was an Itinerant preacher recognized by his Church. Wouldn't that make his ministry lawful?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

Sorry Matt, but that's nonsense.

He would not, and could not, ever have got a license to preach publicly. He was oppressed, as all dissenters were, after the restoration. He was not the only man in prison. 

The only licensing and ordination available was in the church of England.

He was recognised by his local church. His ministry was lawful.

YOU would not have been granted a license to preach back then, Matt. Would you therefore have held your peace?

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2005)

King Charles II revoked the religious liberties that had existed under the Commonwealth in 1660. That's when Bunyan was first imprisoned. Dissenters, Presbyterians or Baptist or otherwise, were not permitted to preach unless they joined the Church of England. That restriction obviously went against Bunyan's conscience. Two thousand Presbyterian ministers were ejected from the pulpit for similar reasons during this timeframe. King Charles II was also the king who presided over the Killing Times in Scotland and the ejection of Presbyterian ministers there. I don't know all the specific provisions of the license required in Bunyan's case, but I am sure it meant becoming an Anglican and submitting to the Erastian/Popish principles of the state church.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

Its not nonsense at all.

You miss my point, I was not saying he should become an Anglican. Think of where history was at this time, subsequent to Wesminter who has formed Presbyterianism as the religion of the Island. Cromwell then came in and politically overturned that, and there was a free for all. The Anglican church took hold, ejected ministers for not conforming. A few years prior to 1654, he meets, and is counselled by, John Gifford, minister of the open communion Baptist Church at Bedford. He moves from Elstow to Bedford and begins to preach in villages near Bedford. His ministry coincided with the Stuart Restoration of 1660 which meant that unauthorized preaching would lead to a punishable offense. Arrested in November 1660 for holding a conventicle (an illegal religious meeting), Bunyan was sentenced in January 1661, initially for three months, to imprisonment in Bedford jail. His continued refusal to assure authorities that he would refrain from preaching if released prolongs his imprisonment until 1672. During the imprisonment, authorities granted him occasional time out of prison, and church records show that he attended several meetings at the Bedford Church. In prison, he made shoe laces (to support his family), preached to prisoners, and wrote various works. Why didn't he simply preach alongside fo the church he was in? Why hold unauthroized meetings when the Baptist Church there WAS NOT closed down? You have lots of puritans not conforming that were not in jail, but licensed by thier church to preach and were not silent. What did Bunyan do that Owen didn't, etc.? If his church would have licensed him, would he have had a problem? Watson has no problem and was a dissenter. Jenkins, Owen, all the puritans, etc. Why were they not all jailed?

Sounds to me like he was a bit too independnet from his church for his own good, and it cost him.

Then get this, on January 21, 1672, the Bedford congregation called John Bunyan as its pastor. In March, he was released from prison"”even though he spent six additional months in prison in 1677"”and on May 9, he was licensed to preach under Charles II´s Declaration of Indulgence. During the same year, the Bedford church became licensed as a Congregational meeting place.

This is what happens when you fly by the seat of your own pants. Been there, done that.

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 14, 2005)

But were they licensed? They couldn't jail EVERYBODY. Also take into consideration each county. Some counties may have left certain ppl alone.

My understanding was that it was the licensing was the issue. If one had to be a member of the state church to be licensed, then how could his church have licensed him...seeing as they were dissenters and not Anglican?

In my humble opinion...I feel for his family...but I also know that my husband would have done the same.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

Matt

The persecution was not a blanket thing. It was very much dependent upon local situations. What did the local magistrate want? Was he sympathetic or unsympathetic?

There was no fairness or equal treatment. 

Do not forget that only a few years later, after the revolt by Monmouth, Independents, Baptists and Presbyterians were thrown into prison _en masse_ as the King clamped down.

Our beloved Richard Baxter was in jail, along with virtually every other worthy contemporary. Baxter was 'licensed' by his church. Didn't save him!

It was never about being 'licensed' by any church - it was whether you were in the Church of England. If not, you were fair game, and only local circumstances (under God's hand) stayed much greater sufferings and persecutions.

Worth noting that in 1685 when others were in prison, Bunyan himself was not.

JH

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> and on May 9, he was licensed to preach under Charles II´s Declaration of Indulgence.[Edited on 1-14-2005 by webmaster]



A wicked piece of legislation that licensed just about everybody because its aim was to repeal all anti-catholic laws and to disguise this by being nice to everybody...

JH

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

> What did the local magistrate want? Was he sympathetic or unsympathetic?
> 
> There was no fairness or equal treatment.



I agree with you here.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > What did the local magistrate want? Was he sympathetic or unsympathetic?
> ...



 First time for everything. Now, hands off my beloved Bunyan!

JH


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 14, 2005)

Jonathan,

I had a couple of articles that I was persuing to see if there was more info on why Bunyan was jailed for so long. Here is an excerpt that may be of help. (Don't get me wrong, Pilgrim's Progress is one of my all time favorites.)

Quote:

In Bedfordshire, Bunyan was a marked man at the Restoration in 1660"”a testimony to his early success as a lay preacher, but perhaps also an indication that the authorities were aware of his contact with the Fifth Monarchists, a group of radical millenarians generally willing to embrace military force as a means of instituting the Kingdom of God. One of Bunyan´s earliest associates in the Bedford church, the silk-weaver John Child, was a Fifth Monarchist, and near the end of his life Bunyan acknowledged that he himself had at one time been sympathetic to those who emphasized Jesus as King"” presumably the Fifth Monarchists. Whatever inclinations toward this group Bunyan may have had in the late 1650´s, after he was imprisoned in 1660 he seems to have had no serious interest in radical political ideology. When a group of Fifth Monarchists led by Thomas Venner rebelled in London in January 1661, Bunyan proclaimed his willingness to behave peacefully. Bedford in any event was not a hotbed of radical political activity in the 1660´s. Elsewhere, however, radical dissidents, many of whom were Nonconformists, repeatedly plotted to overthrow the government in this period. Although their network extended throughout much of England and into Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, Bedfordshire was never a center of their activity. Bunyan´s repudiation of violent political activity after the restoration was thus in keeping with the views of Nonconformists in his county.
Although many Dissenters suffered during the period between the restoration and the Toleration Act in 1689, the severity of Bunyan´s imprisonment"”twelve years in the county jail"”was unusual. Owen, who had the protection of powerful friends, and Dell were not imprisoned, while Cokayne, despite retaining his Fifth Monarchist tenets, was jailed only briefly. Even the Baptist preacher Paul Hobson, who was implicated in the 1663 rebellion in northern England, spent less than two years in prison. The unusual treatment accorded to Bunyan must have stemmed from his adamant refusal to relinquish preaching, his success in the pulpit, and suspicion on the part of the Bedford authorities of his links to Fifth Monarchists such as Child and Cokayne. Bunyan´s exposition of millenarian themes in The Holy City (1663) probably did nothing to quiet such concerns, though in this book he did not call for the saints to take up arms and topple the monarchy. On the contrary, he held out hope that eventually all sovereigns would embrace the gospel. Instead of attributing his suffering to the goverment of Charles II, he laid it directly at the feet of the Antichrist, the "œmistress of iniquity." Persecuting rulers were no more than agents of divine providence, and the suffering of the saints a divinely-sanctioned preparation for their entry into God´s presence.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 14, 2005)

far as I am concern, if a man beleives something, then why shouldn't he go and preach it? Wasn't that what they were commanded to do? And I'm sorry, but with all the church splits and developements throughout history you will find that if you follow many churches histories...somewhere along the line you find someone that hasn't been "ordained" for who would have ordained him? The church they split from?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

Owen 'had the protection of powerful friends'.

Says it all.

I am not saying that brother Bunyan was perfect, indeed some of his early thoughts, theories and sympathies were rather wacky - but then many of us here have been on long theological journeys, haven't we?

His unwise early connections may have kept him in jail rather longer than others, perhaps.

What this all says to me is that the 'licensed/unlicensed' thing has nothing much to do with the situation.

JH


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> far as I am concern, if a man beleives something, then why shouldn't he go and preach it? Wasn't that what they were commanded to do? And I'm sorry, but with all the church splits and developements throughout history you will find that if you follow many churches histories...somewhere along the line you find someone that hasn't been "ordained" for who would have ordained him? The church they split from?



Ssssh Colleen. Don't go there. Please...

Too late, here comes the Presbyterian-wrath...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 14, 2005)

What is your theory on the situation then? His previous wackiness or just his overt zealousness?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> What is your theory on the situation then? His previous wackiness or just his overt zealousness?



Probably both. I am no expert but I am certain that any revolutionary connections, whether meant, imagined, real or otherwise, would have messed him up big-time with the local powers-that-were!

JH


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 14, 2005)

true...plus as an added benefit...he went fairly easily and didn't put up a fight in confinement, had plenty of children that he was supposed to be providing for...sounds like a perfect situation for those looking for someone to make an example of.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

The irony is that under Cromwell and the Independents, Presbyterians had liberty to preach and gather. Baxter and many of the Presbyterians hated Cromwell so much that they helped the Restoration come about, and brought aout (indirectly) the Great Ejection.

Further irony: the Scots, because of political difficulties with Cromwell and the English, supported the Restoration. For their efforts, they saw Presbyterianism wiped out forever in England. Even today it is virtually non-existent.

A less to all of us that even when we think we are doing the right or best thing, we cannot see all ends.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The irony is that under Cromwell and the Independents, Presbyterians had liberty to preach and gather. Baxter and many of the Presbyterians hated Cromwell so much that they helped the Restoration come about, and brought aout (indirectly) the Great Ejection.
> 
> Further irony: the Scots, because of political difficulties with Cromwell and the English, supported the Restoration. For their efforts, they saw Presbyterianism wiped out forever in England. Even today it is virtually non-existent.
> ...



That is indeed one of the biggest ironies of the 17th century history of the Church, and a very significant lesson to us today. 

For even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf, _The Lord of the Rings_.


----------



## Peter (Jan 14, 2005)

1) Bunyan was right not to seek license from the Erastian Government.
2) Cromwell ended Presbyterianism in England. He and the Indepedent army "purged" Parliament of Presbyterian MPs- the rump parliament.
Cromwell also ended Presbyterianism in Scotland after Dunbar. Im not sure to what extent Presbyterianism was tolerated in England and Scotland under Cromwell though.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1) Bunyan was right not to seek license from the Erastian Government.
> 2) Cromwell ended Presbyterianism in England. He and the Indepedent army "purged" Parliament of Presbyterian MPs- the rump parliament.
> Cromwell also ended Presbyterianism in Scotland after Dunbar. Im not sure to what extent Presbyterianism was tolerated in England and Scotland under Cromwell though.



Before 1662 - no great ejection
After 1662 - Great Ejection

Questions?


----------



## Peter (Jan 14, 2005)

The intro to my copy of Jus Divinum, states that London had a functioning presbytery until 1659 (pg xiii, naphtali) so it seems Cromwell didnot dismantle the ecclesiastical courts despite being an independent. Obviously he was a tyrant (murdering ministers of the gospel such as Love and overturning the work of Reformation begun by the Parliaments and the G.A.), but what was his policy towards the church?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The intro to my copy of Jus Divinum, states that London had a functioning presbytery until 1659 (pg xiii, naphtali) so it seems Cromwell didnot dismantle the ecclesiastical courts despite being an independent. Obviously he was a tyrant (murdering ministers of the gospel such as Love and overturning the work of Reformation begun by the Parliaments and the G.A.), but what was his policy towards the church?



My point was never to defend or castigate Cromwell. I think we can readily ascertain that his policy toward the Church was more Biblical and liberal than that of the Restored monarchy, based on the very fact of the Great Ejection.


----------



## Peter (Jan 14, 2005)

Charles II was definiately worse then Cromwell. But the Great Ejection seems small in comparison to the "killing times" in Scotland, though mostly associated with his brother James. Any way, what was Cromwell's reign like, what books are there on the subject?

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 14, 2005)

I guess I was under a mistaken notion, since no one has yet brought it up. I thought the "main deal" in all of this about Bunyan and his refusal to cease preaching centered around "The Book of Common Prayer." I thought that one was not able to be licensed to preach unless one consented to make this book the thrust of the worship service, and since Bunyan could not do this in good conscience, he could not get licensed.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 14, 2005)

I think the point is and probably Bunyan's motivation, was that the Church recognized his authority. He felt like he had God's approval to perform his ministry, he had been lawfully called by his church, why did he or should anyone seek the approval of the civil govt. to do The Lord's work.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 14, 2005)

Another in support of Bunyan - he was right and we need more like him - men who obey God rather then men ( even if those men are in the "church" ). I am glad he stood firm and showed the rest of us the Way.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Another in support of Bunyan - he was right and we need more like him - men who obey God rather then men ( even if those men are in the "church" ). I am glad he stood firm and showed the rest of us the Way.
> 
> Phillip



But isn't it the case that Bunyan didn't run afoul of the Church, but rather the State? The State was what put forth the Nonconformist laws. He was imprisoned not for ecclesiastical reasons, but political - not because he was a baptist or congregationalist, but a nonconformist (much like Matthew Henry was, to name one).

By the way, William Barker cites Edward's _Christian England_ as evidence of Cromwell's "toleration of Protestant separatists" (Puritan Profiles, 309), which would appear to give credence to the Erastian nature, rather than ecclesiastical nature of the imprisonment.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 14, 2005)

the state acting like the church perhaps..... either way, he obeyed God rather than men!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the state acting like the church perhaps..... either way, he obeyed God rather than men!



I guess that might be true about the State. One other thing is that Bunyan was licensed to preach by his church (which was a nonconforming church). He could not get a license from the crown (which was required).


----------

