hat "as to
that matter he was at a point with the judge," for "that he would repeat
the offence the first time he could," provoked a rejoinder from one of
the bench, and the unseemly wrangling might have been still further
prolonged, had it not been stopped by the gaoler, who "pulling him away
to be gone," had him back to prison, where he says, and "blesses the Lord
Jesus Christ for it," his heart was as "sweetly refreshed" in returning
to it as it had "been during his examination. So that I find Christ's
words more than bare trifles, where He saith, He will give a mouth and
wisdom, even such as all the adversaries shall not gainsay or resist. And
that His peace no man can take from us."

The magistrates, however, though not unnaturally irritated by what seemed
to them Bunyan's unreasonable obstinacy, were not desirous to push
matters to extremity. The three months named in his sentence, at the
expiration of which he was either to conform or be banished the realm,
were fast drawing to an end, without any sign of submission on his part.
As a last resort Mr. Cobb, the Clerk of the Peace, was sent to try what
calm and friendly reasoning might effect. Cobb, who evidently knew
Bunyan personally, did his best, as a kind-hearted, sensible man, to
bring him to reason. Cobb did not profess to be "a man that could
dispute," and Bunyan had the better of him in argument. His position,
however, was unassailable. The recent insurrection of Venner and his
Fifth Monarchy men, he said, had shown the danger to the public peace
there was in allowing fanatical gatherings to assemble unchecked. Bunyan,
whose loyalty was unquestioned, must acknowledge the prudence of
suppressing meetings which, however good their ostensible aim, might
issue in nothing less than the ruin of the kingdom and commonwealth.
Bunyan had confessed his readiness to obey the apostolic precept by
submitting himself to the king as supreme. The king forbade the holding
of private meetings, which, under colour of religion, might be
prejudicial to the State. Why then did he not submit? This need not
hinder him from doing good in a neighbourly way. He might continue to
use his gifts and exhort his neighbours in private discourse, provided he
did not bring people together in public assemblies. The law did not
abridge him of this liberty. Why should he stand so strictly on public
meetings? Or why should he not come to church and hear? Was his gift so
far above