held and dismissed the meeting before the constable arrived, and
then he might have done as Roberts did--made the best of his way
to the magistrate's house, and demanded, 'Dost thou want me, old
man?' and when asked whether or not he went to church, his ready
reply was, 'Yes, sometimes I go to the church, and sometimes the
church comes to me.'[216]

When Bunyan and the constable came before Justice Wingate, he inquired
what the meeters did, and what they had with them; suspecting that
they met armed, or for treasonable practices: but when the constable
told him that they were unarmed, and merely assembled to preach and
hear the Word, he could not well tell what to say. Justice Wingate
was not the only magistrate who had felt difficulties as to the
construction of the persecuting acts of 35 Eliz. and 15 Chas. II.
Had he taken an opinion, as one of the justices at that time did,
it might have saved him from the infamy and guilt of punishing an
innocent man. The case was this:--'Two persons of insolent behaviour,
calling themselves informers, demanded, on their evidence of having
been present, without summons or hearing in presence of the accused,
that a fine of £100 should be levied; they were at the meeting and
heard no Common Prayer service.' The opinion was that there must
be evidence showing the intent, and that the meeting was held
under colour and pretence of any exercise of religion to concoct
sedition.[217] Mr. Wingate asked Bunyan why he did not follow his
calling and go to church? to which he replied, that all his intention
was to instruct and counsel people to forsake their sins, and that
he did, without confusion, both follow his calling and preach the
Word. At this the angry justice ordered his commitment to jail,
refusing bail, unless he would promise to give up preaching. While
his mittimus was preparing, he had a short controversy with an