WAS JOHN BUNYAN A GIPSY f 



AS regards the nationality of John 

 Bunyan, it can be said that he 

 told us most positively what he was, 

 and v/hat he was not, and it would 

 be strange if no intelligible meaning 

 could be attached to what he in- 

 formed us on that head. You know 

 that we hang people on circumstan- 

 tial evidence, actually hang them on 

 the mere force of circumstances, 

 without direct proof, and justly so. 

 Cannot we then use such evidence 

 to prove a simple fact regarding the 

 nationality of a man whose praises 

 are in all the Churches, and indeed 

 in all the world, when every moral 

 and religious, every humane and 

 God-like purpose is to be served by 

 it ? And why cannot a question of 

 that kind be settled by society by as 

 rigid rules as would be enforced in 

 a court of justice? Each juryman 

 is sworn to decide by the evidence 

 laid before him, and in no other 

 way. He is also challenged, and if 

 he has already made up his mind on 

 the case, he is excluded. A witness 

 is sworn, and can be imprisoned if 

 he will not testify, and if he testifies 

 falsely, sent to the hulks. 



In Grace Abounding, John Bun- 

 yan says : 



" For my descent, it was, as is well 

 known to many, of a low and inconsid- 

 erable generation, my father's house 

 being of that rank that is meanest and 

 most despised of all the families of the 

 land." 



Here he speaks most positively 

 of what he was that is, the meanest 

 and most despised of ALL the families 

 of the land ; and as positively of 

 what he was not : 



" Another thought came into my 

 mind, and that was, whether we [his 

 family and relations] were of the Israel- 

 ites or no ? For finding in the Scrip- 

 tures that they were once the peculiar 



people of God, thought I, if I were one 

 of this lace [how significant is the ex- 

 pression !] my soul must needs be hap- 

 py, Now, again, I found within me a 

 great longing to be resolved about this 

 question, but could not tell how I should. 

 At last I asked my father of it, who told 

 me, No, we [his father included] were 

 not." 



Can we possibly apply the lan- 

 guage contained in these two ex- 

 tracts to any other than the Gipsies ? 

 To assert that Bunyan was not a 

 Gipsy, but a tinker, would be as 

 meaningless as to say that he was 

 not a Gipsy, but a tailor. There 

 can be no question that the genera- 

 tion and family to which he belong- 

 ed were Gipsies the meanest and 

 most despised of all those of the 

 land, where they had lived for up- 

 wards of a century, and had existed 

 in Europe for more than two centu- 

 ries. Hence, as the tribe is an enig- 

 ma to itself, no less than to others, 

 the question, and the great trouble to 

 solve it, on John Bunyan's part, to 

 ascertain whether he was a Jew. 

 Could the language quoted, by any 

 possibility, mean that he was a com- 

 mon native of England of any kind 

 or calling ? But why did he not say 

 plainly that he was a Gipsy ? Sim- 

 ply for the reason that it' was death 

 by law to be a Gipsy, and " felony 

 without benefit of clergy " for " any 

 person, being fourteen years, whe* 

 ther natural-born subject or stran- 

 ger, who had been seen in the fel- 

 lowship of such persons, or dis- 

 guised like them, and remained with 

 them one month at once or several 

 times ; " to say nothing of the popu- 

 lar odium attaching to the name, 

 which was, in all probability, the 

 greatest reason he had for not using 

 the word, as it is the greatest bar (I 

 might say the only bar) to his na- 

 tionality being acknowledged to- 

 (157) 



