Ir any Bishop either procured, or directly helped to obtain, Bunyan's liberation, he deserves to be called "The Angel of the Church" of England, and ought to be named for ever along with the Angel who released Peter from prison. No man would more readily or cheerfully award this tribute of gratitude to Bishop Barlow, than myself, if I could make it even highly probable that Bunyan was indebted to him for liberty. Now there are, certainly, some probabilities in Barlow's favor. No other Bishop has ever been named, as at all friendly to Bunyan, or as even affected in the least by his sufferings: whereas, there can be no doubt that he both sympathized with him, and interchanged (not Letters indeed, but) messages with Dr. Owen, about "straining a point to serve" the author of the Pilgrim's Progress. That Work could not fail to commend itself to such a scholar as Dr. Barlow; and, as he was a Calvinist of Bunyan's order, and thus obnoxious to Archbishop Sheldon, he would naturally prize a popular Allegory which threw around the Genevan Creed, the charms of genius and practical wisdom. Accordingly, all testimony concurs in the fact, that he both admired and pitied Bunyan. I give prominence as well as priority to this fact, that it may make its own impression, and maintain its influence in favor of Dr. Barlow, whilst other facts claim our attention.

Now Bunyan was released from prison, at least two years

before Dr. Barlow was made Bishop of Lincoln; and thus whatever he owed to the Doctor, he owed nothing to the Bishop, in the matter. Bunyan was released late in 1672, or early in 1673; and Barlow was not raised to the Bench until 1675. It does not follow from this, however, that he had no influence with the State before he was made a Prelate. The probability is, indeed, that he had more influence before than after; as Sheldon was not his friend, nor Calvinism a court virtue then. He was, however, too near the Bench in 1672, to employ his own influence directly, even for Bunyan, although Owen appealed to him as his old tutor: but he may have used some, though not at Owen's request. This, I have no doubt, is the true solution of Barlow's conduct. He had enemies on the Bench, because of his Calvinism; and he was afraid of making more, by patronizing even a nonconformist Genius, at the request of a nonconformist Doctor. He thus persuaded himself that he could not afford to be liberal, until the Mitre was upon his head.

Ivimey's version of this affair is as follows: "This event has been generally ascribed to Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln. What assistance he afforded, may be seen by the following extract from the Preface to Dr. Owen's Sermon, p. 30, printed at London, 1721. The author observes that notwithstanding the Doctor's nonconformity, he had some friends among the Bishops, particularly Dr. Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, who was very cordial to him; and Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, formerly his tutor; who yet, on a special occasion, failed him, when he might have expected the service of his professed friendship.

"The case was this, Mr. John Bunyan had been confined to a jail twelve years, upon an excommunication for nonconformity; now there was a law, that if any two persons will go to the bishop of the diocese, and offer a cautionary bond,

that the prisoner shall conform in half a year, the bishop may release him upon that bond; whereupon a friend of this poor man desired Dr. Owen to give him his letter to the bishop on his behalf, which he readily granted. The bishop having read it, told the person that delivered it, that he had a particular kindness for Dr. Owen, and would deny him nothing he could legally do; nay, says he, with my service to him, I will strain a point to serve him. (This was his very expression.) But, says he, this being a new thing to me, I desire a little time to consider it, and if I can do it you may be assured of my readiness. He was waited upon again about a fortnight after, and his answer was, That indeed he was informed he might do it; but the law providing, that in case the bishop refused, application should be made to the Lord Chancellor, who thereupon should issue out an order to the bishop, to take the cautionary bond, and release the prisoner. Now, said he, you know what a critical time this is, and I have many enemies; I would desire you to move the Lord Chancellor in this case, and upon his order I will do it. To which it was replied, this method was very chargeable, and the man was poor, and not able to expend so much money, and being satisfied he could do it legally, it was hoped his Lordship would remember his promise, there being no straining a point in the case. But he would do it upon no other terms, which at last was done; but little thanks to the bishop.'

"From this account, it should seem the honor given to Dr. Barlow has been ill bestowed, as it is evident, that even his friendship for Dr. Owen did not operate sufficiently powerfully to exercise his ability, lest it might expose him to the censures of the high Church party."-Ivimey's Bunyan, p. 291.

This conclusion, although not exactly unfair, is drawn with more asperity than such facts warrant; unless, indeed, it could be shown that Barlow had before him examples of magnanimity

which ought to have inspired him to prefer Bunyan's rights, to an episcopal throne, as Frederic did Luther's, to the Pope's smile. But, who ever risked a Mitre for the sake of a Nonconformist? This is too much to expect from any man, who believes that a Mitre is useful! It may be very easy for those who regard it as a mere bauble, and the episcopate as unscriptural, to assure themselves that they would have preferred the fame of liberating John Bunyan, to the Primacy itself. So would I. But this is nothing to the point. The real question is, ought Dr. Barlow, believing as he did in diocesan episcopacy, to have periled his prospects for the sake of John Bunyan? It is impossible to answer, except in the negative. He must have thought his own elevation a greater benefit to the world, than the liberty of Bunyan. It did not, indeed, turn out so: but, who could have foreseen that?

Besides, Barlow was not the man to make sacrifices of any kind, for the sake of Nonconformists. He was not a timeserver, indeed; but he humored the Times dexterously, in all things save his Calvinism. In 1660, whilst the King was yet talking about Toleration, the Doctor wrote in favor of it to Sir Robert Boyle: but in 1684, he published a Charge to his Clergy, calling on them to enforce the laws against Dissenters, "agreeably to the Resolutions of the Bedfordshire Justices, (Bunyan's old enemies!) adopted at Ampthill." He published also in 1679, a Treatise on the Canon Law for whipping Heretics: but whether for or against that canonical virtue, I cannot tell; its title only being given in the Biog: Brit: and in the Bibliographies. Another of his Works attempts to prove, that real Grace ought to be judged of, rather by its kind than its degree. And, perhaps, his own good will towards Bunyan can only be proved to be very hearty, by giving it all the benefit of this distinction. It was good in kind; but small in degree. Be it remembered, however, that it was both more and better than

that of any Bishop of the age, elect or enthroned. I both remembered and felt this fact when, in a former Chapter, I merely called the following passage from "The Life," in the British Museum, imperfect: "Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, coming into these parts, and being truly informed of Mr. Bunyan's sufferings, took a speedy care, out of true Christian compassion, to be the main and chief instrument in his deliverance: for which, as a hearty acknowledgment, Mr. Bunyan returned him his unfeigned thanks, and often remembered him in his prayers, as next to God his deliverer." This is, I think, substantially true of Dr. Barlow, although not at all so of the Bishop of Lincoln. The Mitre spoiled his sympathies, as it has done those of many; but he must have befriended Bunyan in some way, at some time; for all contemporary parties give him credit for it.

This view of the matter will not, I fear, set the question at rest. Barlow's conduct in this affair, like his Work on "Weighty Cases of Conscience," will be edited by a "Sir Peter Pett," both for and against him; but not on either side so wisely as did the worthy Knight, in 1692.-Watts' Bibliography. The pettish on one side will ask, where are Bunyan's own acknowledgments to Dr. Barlow? And I can neither produce them, nor refuse to admit that their absence is a suspicious fact; for he was not the man to forget or conceal his obligations. On the other side, it will be asked, and not without reason, why should Dr. Barlow be deprived of all the credit, seeing there is no other claimant? Dr. Southey felt the difficulty, and said, "How Bunyan's enlargement was effected is not known." I long entertained the opinion, that the Cabinet had sense enough, when the Pilgrim produced a sensation, to have done "the people a favor;" but I found that to be a more untenable position than even the liberality of a Bishop. The Ministers of Charles II. had neither sense nor conscience enough to