The Life of John Bunyan [54]
meeting in
Josias Roughead's barn must have been, take them as a whole, a
quiet, God-fearing, spiritually-minded folk, of whom their pastor
could think with thankfulness and satisfaction as "his hope and joy
and crown of rejoicing." From such he could not be severed
lightly. Inducements which would have been powerful to a meaner
nature fell dead on his independent spirit. He was not "a man that
preached by way of bargain for money," and, writes Doe, "more than
once he refused a more plentiful income to keep his station." As
Dr. Brown says: "He was too deeply rooted on the scene of his
lifelong labours and sufferings to think of striking his tent till
the command came from the Master to come up to the higher service
for which he had been ripening so long." At Bedford, therefore, he
remained; quietly staying on in his cottage in St. Cuthbert's, and
ministering to his humble flock, loving and beloved, as Mr. Froude
writes, "through changes of ministry, Popish plots, and Monmouth
rebellions, while the terror of a restoration of Popery was
bringing on the Revolution; careless of kings and cabinets, and
confident that Giant Pope had lost his power for harm, and
thenceforward could only bite his nails at the passing pilgrims."
Bunyan's peace was not, however, altogether undisturbed. Once it
received a shock in a renewal of his imprisonment, though only for
a brief period, in 1675, to which we owe the world-famous
"Pilgrim's Progress"; and it was again threatened, though not
actually disturbed ten years later, when the renewal of the
persecution of the Nonconformists induced him to make over all his
property - little enough in good sooth - to his wife by deed of
gift.
The former of these events demands our attention, not so much for
itself as for its connection with Bishop Barlow's interference in
Bunyan's behalf, and, still more, for its results in the production
of "The Pilgrim's Progress." Until very recently the bare fact of
this later imprisonment, briefly mentioned by Charles Doe and
another of his early biographers, was all that was known to us.
They even leave the date to be gathered, though both agree in
limiting its duration to six months or thereabouts. The recent
discovery, among the Chauncey papers, by Mr. W. G. Thorpe, of the
original warrant under which Bunyan was at this time sent to gaol,
supplies the missing information. It has been already noticed that
the Declaration of Indulgence, under which Bunyan was liberated in
1672, was very short-lived. Indeed it barely lasted in force a
twelvemonth. Granted on the 15th of March of that year, it was
withdrawn on the 9th of March of the following year, at the
instance of the House of Commons, who had taken alarm at a
suspension of the laws of the realm by the "inherent power" of the
sovereign, without the advice or sanction of Parliament. The
Declaration was cancelled by Charles II., the monarch, it is said,
tearing off the Great Seal with his own hands, a subsidy being
promised to the royal spendthrift as a reward for his complaisance.
The same year the Test Act became law. Bunyan therefore and his
fellow Nonconformists were in a position of greater peril, as far
as the letter of the law was concerned, than they had ever been.
But, as Dr. Stoughton has remarked, "the letter of the law is not
to be taken as an accurate index of the Nonconformists' condition.
The pressure of a bad law depends very much upon the hands employed
in its administration." Unhappily for Bunyan, the parties in whose
hands the execution of the penal statutes against Nonconformists
rested in Bedfordshire were his bitter personal enemies, who were
not likely to let them lie inactive. The prime mover in the matter
was doubtless Dr. William Foster, that "right Judas" whom we shall
remember holding the candle in Bunyan's face in the hall of
Harlington House at his first apprehension, and showing such
Josias Roughead's barn must have been, take them as a whole, a
quiet, God-fearing, spiritually-minded folk, of whom their pastor
could think with thankfulness and satisfaction as "his hope and joy
and crown of rejoicing." From such he could not be severed
lightly. Inducements which would have been powerful to a meaner
nature fell dead on his independent spirit. He was not "a man that
preached by way of bargain for money," and, writes Doe, "more than
once he refused a more plentiful income to keep his station." As
Dr. Brown says: "He was too deeply rooted on the scene of his
lifelong labours and sufferings to think of striking his tent till
the command came from the Master to come up to the higher service
for which he had been ripening so long." At Bedford, therefore, he
remained; quietly staying on in his cottage in St. Cuthbert's, and
ministering to his humble flock, loving and beloved, as Mr. Froude
writes, "through changes of ministry, Popish plots, and Monmouth
rebellions, while the terror of a restoration of Popery was
bringing on the Revolution; careless of kings and cabinets, and
confident that Giant Pope had lost his power for harm, and
thenceforward could only bite his nails at the passing pilgrims."
Bunyan's peace was not, however, altogether undisturbed. Once it
received a shock in a renewal of his imprisonment, though only for
a brief period, in 1675, to which we owe the world-famous
"Pilgrim's Progress"; and it was again threatened, though not
actually disturbed ten years later, when the renewal of the
persecution of the Nonconformists induced him to make over all his
property - little enough in good sooth - to his wife by deed of
gift.
The former of these events demands our attention, not so much for
itself as for its connection with Bishop Barlow's interference in
Bunyan's behalf, and, still more, for its results in the production
of "The Pilgrim's Progress." Until very recently the bare fact of
this later imprisonment, briefly mentioned by Charles Doe and
another of his early biographers, was all that was known to us.
They even leave the date to be gathered, though both agree in
limiting its duration to six months or thereabouts. The recent
discovery, among the Chauncey papers, by Mr. W. G. Thorpe, of the
original warrant under which Bunyan was at this time sent to gaol,
supplies the missing information. It has been already noticed that
the Declaration of Indulgence, under which Bunyan was liberated in
1672, was very short-lived. Indeed it barely lasted in force a
twelvemonth. Granted on the 15th of March of that year, it was
withdrawn on the 9th of March of the following year, at the
instance of the House of Commons, who had taken alarm at a
suspension of the laws of the realm by the "inherent power" of the
sovereign, without the advice or sanction of Parliament. The
Declaration was cancelled by Charles II., the monarch, it is said,
tearing off the Great Seal with his own hands, a subsidy being
promised to the royal spendthrift as a reward for his complaisance.
The same year the Test Act became law. Bunyan therefore and his
fellow Nonconformists were in a position of greater peril, as far
as the letter of the law was concerned, than they had ever been.
But, as Dr. Stoughton has remarked, "the letter of the law is not
to be taken as an accurate index of the Nonconformists' condition.
The pressure of a bad law depends very much upon the hands employed
in its administration." Unhappily for Bunyan, the parties in whose
hands the execution of the penal statutes against Nonconformists
rested in Bedfordshire were his bitter personal enemies, who were
not likely to let them lie inactive. The prime mover in the matter
was doubtless Dr. William Foster, that "right Judas" whom we shall
remember holding the candle in Bunyan's face in the hall of
Harlington House at his first apprehension, and showing such