CHAPTER XXIX.

BUNYAN'S JAILOR.

1661.

BUNYAN, like Joseph in Egypt, found a friend in "the Keeper of the prison;❞—and he equally deserved one. Would we knew his Jailor's name! But, like that of Joseph's, it is unknown. It will be said of both keepers, however, until the end of time, that "God gave" their prisoners favor in their sight.

Bunyan says of his Jailor, "By him I had some liberty granted me, more than at the first: so that I followed my wonted course of preaching; taking all occasions that were put into my hand to visit the people of God, exhorting them to be steadfast in the faith of Christ Jesus, and to take heed that they touched not the Common Prayer, but to mind the Word of God, which giveth direction to Christians in every point; being able to make the man of God perfect in all things through faith in Jesus Christ, and thoroughly to furnish him unto all good work.""" 2 Tim. iii., 17. "Touch Not;"-this seems, at first sight, but a sorry return for the freedom so generously granted by the friendly Jailor. It was, however, like Paul's "Nay, verily, let them fetch us out," addressed to the Jailor at Philippi. It was not to peril him, but to maintain the rights of Roman Citizenship, that Paul spoke thus. So with Bunyan. Had he been silent on the subject of the Prayer Book, out of consideration for his Keeper, he would have stultified his own cause, now that the Prayer Book was made the hinge upon which even Citizenship turned. Besides, to give any quarter to the claims

of that Book then, would have been to concede all the rights of conscience; for not only was no discretionary use of it permitted, but it was employed to enforce attendance upon the ministry of men who, in many instances (judging merely from Bishop Burnet's account of them), were unworthy of taking its holy petitions upon their unhallowed lips. Whilst, therefore, it is a melancholy fact in the annals of genius, that Bunyan denounced the Book itself as if it had been weak or worthless, it is a glorious fact in the annals of religious Liberty, that he dared death, as well as endured bondage, in order to dissuade his own adherents from touching the Common Prayer: for to touch it then, whilst it was both the symbol and shibboleth of Intolerance, would have been homage to Tyranny, and high treason against the first Principles of Protestantism. Bunyan felt this, and flung it to the winds at all hazards.

This hostility to the Prayer Book had a re-action which did good. It led the thoughtful admirers of the Liturgy to throw their soul into the prayers, and compelled even hirelings to read them with something like devotion; and thus the prejudices of many were conciliated, wherever the Service was well conducted. This is, happily, the case still. Less justice would be done to the Prayers in many Churches, if fewer Chapels rejected the use of them. Bunyan is not to thank, nor are the Nonconformists, for this re-action; for they did not intend to produce it. Nonconformists, however, rejoice in it now. The Churchmen who doubt this, do not know them. blame Bunyan for teaching "Touch Not;" but they bless God on behalf of every devotional man who pours the spirit of prayer into the forms of the Church; just as they rejoice in the multiplication of evangelical Clergymen. There is no inconsistency, on their part, in this. It implies no concession to Church or State, of even the shadow of a right to impose forms of worship. The whole body of Dissenters agree, on

They do not, indeed,

that point, with a clerical Editor of Bunyan's Pilgrim, “that nominal Protestants, enacting laws requiring conformity to their own creeds and forms, and inflicting punishments on such as peaceably dissent from them, are actually involved in the guilt of the heathen persecutors, and of their anti-Christian successors, even if their doctrine and worship be allowed to be scriptural and spiritual. For these methods only serve to promote hypocrisy, and to expose the conscientious to the malice, envy, or avarice of the unprincipled."-Scott's Notes.

Bunyan's Jailor seems to have been of this opinion. At least, he acted agreeably to it, as far and as long as he could. He not only allowed Bunyan to visit his family and his flock, but even permitted him to go to London. This last step periled both. It can hardly be called a rash step, however, on the part of Bunyan. He needed more influential friends, in prospect of a second Trial, than Bedford could furnish. Besides, all the Baptists of the County were not sufficiently his friends, to make a joint and hearty effort on his behalf. His "Open Communion" Church and Creed, shut up some of their sympathies; and most of his Brethren had quite enough to do to take care of themselves. It was also the right time, in one sense, to visit London. The King was juggling the Dissenters, and the Mayor harassing the Quakers and Baptists, and the Cabinet hatching the Act of Uniformity. Thinking men were thus upon the alert to learn from the persecutions in the country, what more might be expected in town. Henry Adis (a Free Will Baptist, as he calls himself) was also preparing his THUNDER against the City Magistrates, and especially against Alderman Brown, in a pamphlet entitled, "Thunder to Brown the Mayor, by one of the Sons of Zion become a Boanerges." Altogether Bunyan found

"Fit audience, if few,"

to listen to his complaints and appeals against his unjust sen

tence. It was also of importance to him to become acquainted with the few Baptists in London, who maintained open Communion. One of these, Henry Jesse, was a man whose talents, learning and philanthropy, would have given additional weight to any good cause. Bunyan knew this, and defended himself with Jesse's weapons, when the strict Baptists assailed him. This was wormwood to his opponents: for all these Churches knew that Jesse was a convert to Immersion, to boast of· because he had prepared a new translation of the Scriptures, and was the almoner of the poor Jews in Jerusalem, as well as the most influential minister of the Denomination.

Thus although hazardous, it was not rash in Bunyan to visit London, whilst his Jailor allowed him to be a prisoner at large. He won friends there, who, although they could not deliver him, appreciated him, and became both the means and the medium of bringing him before the world as an author. Indeed, but for them, it is impossible to see how his first Works in prison could have been published to his advantage, or even published at all. He had no money, and his fellow prisoners had no influence with the Trade; and thus instead of pointing old truths with pure Saxon, or setting. "apples of gold in frames of silver," he must have continued as he began, to tag stay-laces with old brass, had not his London friends interfered.

With these ultimate consequences of Bunyan's visit to London before us, it is not difficult to excuse his Jailor's dereliction of official duty. Even Dr. Southey says, "He had fortunately a friend in the Jailor." But, did not the Jailor betray the trust confided to him, and Bunyan sin in accepting freedom? Now the former certainly went far beyond all the discretionary power which Law or Custom allowed to Jailors. He did not, however, stretch his prerogative further in Bunyan's favor, than the Judges strained theirs against Bunyan. If he violated his office by favoring him, they violated theirs by insulting him.

The Judges went as far beyond Law when the prisoner was at the bar, as the Jailor stopt short of the Law when the prisoner was condemned. Thus one extreme begat another. Undue severity on the part of the Judges, produced an excess of leniency in the Jailor.

But the man deserves to be acquitted as well as excused. He was paying both King and Law a high compliment, in taking for granted that they were more equitable than Keeling and Twisdon. Charles had made promises, and issued proclamations, in favor of Nonconformists, which it was the Jailor's duty to believe, until they were revoked: and they were not revoked when he mitigated Bunyan's sentence. That sentence was in the very teeth of the royal proclamations, and thus it tacitly called the King a liar and a hypocrite: an implication which, however true, the Jailor had no reason to believe at the time. Thus he had no alternative but to disobey the Judges, or give the lie direct to the King. He preferred the former until the King gave the lie to himself.

There is, I am aware, special pleading in this argument. Be it so! It is thus one of the many proofs furnished by experience, that it is impossible to revere the majesty of Law, when the administration of Justice is either cruel or insulting. In Bunyan's case, an honest man could no more blame the Jailor, than he could praise the Judges; for his departure from the letter of the Law appears a virtue in the presence of their outrages against the spirit of the Law.

I once thought, judging from the lengths which the Jailor ventured to go, that he must have made up his mind to lose his situation rather than enforce iniquitous sentences. It was, however, only in Bunyan's case that he dared any thing; although there were other prisoners equally innocent. He was, however, kind to them all; and peculiarly so to Bunyan even after he could not allow him to ramble. His confidence in him