1822.] 
former meeting-house, which was an 
ancient building, is said to. have been 
the place where the celebruted Jolin 
Bunyan most usually preached when in 
London.” To this place, then, should 
Mr. Reid, and the * gentleman’ he 
alludes to, but who is no other than 
* an old friend with a new face,’ turn 
for their antiquarian gratification. It 
will be observed that Duke-street is in 
the Park, which, as there are five 
parishes in Southwark, would seem to 
be the true reading of what is styled 
© the parish in Southwark,” in one of 
the preceding extracts. 
The site of the mecting-house in 
Duke-street, with that of Zear-street 
and others, is marked in a plan accom- 
panying a pamphlet published in 1820, 
entitled an Historical Research con- 
cerning the most ancieut congregational 
church in England, &c. by the writer 
of these strictures. 
Thongh the facts of the first meeting- 
house in Duke-street having been an 
ancient building, and the original so- 
ciety Japtists, with Mr. Wilson’s re- 
mark, may all be considered decisive, 
Mr. Reid and the gentleman are in- 
formed that the carcase of Zour-street 
meeting-house was erected in Septem- 
ber, 1687, according to an agreement 
for that purpose; and that it is, with 
‘the original lease, which is dated Janu- 
ary 30, 1687, that is, 1687-8, now in 
the custody of Mr. Thomas Gibson, 
45, High-street, Borough. And it 
should not be forgotten, that conventi- 
cles and meeting-houses, were formerly 
portions of dwelling-houses, and some- 
times out-houses, wareliouses, &¢c. and 
disgusting as it may sound ina “ velvet 
cushion” episcopalian’s ears—barns. 
With these iaets, then, let the previous 
circumstances be combined, and Dor’s 
information that Bunyan “ died at his 
very loving friend’s, Mr. Strudwiek’s, 
a grocer at Holborn-bridge, London, 
on August 31, 1685.”” 
Hence there is no evidence that 
Zoar-sireet was the place Dr. Barlow 
has had the honour attributed to him 
of providing for Bunyan. The result 
of an investigation into that bishop’s 
conduct will presently appear. In the 
mean time a smile wi}l be excused in 
consequence of the antiquarian excite- 
ments of Mr. Reid and the “ gentle- 
man,” who practising the scrutinizing 
observation of an enamoured virtuoso, 
with a propensity peculiar to an anti- 
quary of the true tact, carried away a 
portion of the relics. 
Monroy Maa. No, 366, 
Misrepresentations in Reid’s Anecdotes of John Bunyan. 
209 
The “old friend with a new face” 
informs us, that “ John Bunyan edified 
and delighted an audience which some- 
times included in its number no less a 
man than the great Dr. OWEN.” The 
notice of so distinguished a name, will 
justify an endeavour to “ render ho- 
nour to whom honour is due,” after re- 
marking that Whitefield, in his preface 
to Bunyan’s works, has gratefully re- 
corded his opinion of this liberal and 
consistent conduct of the learned doc- 
tor, “ when by reason of his being un- 
skilled in the learned languages, and a 
few differences in lesser matters, Bun- 
yan was more lightly esteemed by some 
of less enlarged sentiments.” 
Mr. Reid informs us, that the BisHoP 
of Lirncoun provided Zoar-street 
meeting-house for Bunyan to preach 
in, and he adds, if is “¢a circumstance 
which derives no small confirmation 
from the well authenticated histerical 
fact of the same prelate having, before 
that period, interposed for the de’ivery 
of Bunyan from Bedford gacl, where 
he was imprisoned twelve years. “ This 
liberal and catholic spirit in a bishop,” 
continues Mr. Reid, “is truly admir- 
able.”? So much merit only as Dr. 
Barlow is entitled to, let him retain. 
It will assist the reader in his estimate 
of what follows, to be informed that 
the bishop had no preferment in the 
diocese of Lincoln, according to Willis’s 
cathedrals ef England and Wales, pre- 
vious to his being invested with the 
crosiev. 
The bishop’s eonduct and character 
are now before the reader. It is evi- 
dent that there was no personal regard 
towards Bunyan. The favour, if such 
there were, was yielded in consequence 
of Barlow’s obligation and promise to 
Owen, and to Owen only, and even to 
him not without chicanery. Bunyan, 
therefore, was under no obligation to 
Barlow on that score. And as Zoar- 
street meeting-house was built in 1687, 
so little subseyuent to Barlow's anti- 
tolerating letter in 1654, nothing but 
indubitable evidence will fix his claim 
to a “ liberal and catholic spirit.” 
For what remains to be considered, 
Mr. Reid alene is accountable, and it 
would have been well if he had had 
more regard for his signature than by 
appending it to the particulars he has 
given in continuation of “an old 
friend’s”’ account of Zoar-street.. Why, 
when a number of ministers are known 
to have been connected with that place, 
did Mr, Reid instance (wo names 5 one 
2D not 
