by their power absolved them, and so engaged those miserable wretches in a second rebellion." It may be observed in reply, that there was no need for these divines to use these arts, because the prisoners referred to amounted only to 150 men, which could not be much wanted, especially as the city of London was now pouring out multitudes of recruits for the army: and in addition to this, priestly absolution was not then the practice, nor the power of it the claim, of puritan divines; but that which they utterly disbelieved and abhorred.+ Dr. Downing was appointed one of the licensers of the press, and chosen one of the assembly of divines. Wood says, "he sided with the independents, was a preacher of sedition and rebellion, and died suddenly and very unwil lingly." Such kind of abuse this writer usually pours forth against the most holy and useful men, who were zealous to promote a reformation of the church. Dr. Downing died in the year 1644, aged forty years; and he left behind him the character of "a pious man, a warm preacher, and ever zealous to promote the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom and the welfare of his country." Sir George Downing, of East-Hatly in Cambridgeshire, was his son.§ His WORKS.-1. A Discourse of the State Ecclesiastical of this Kingdom, in relation to the Civil, 1633.—2. A Digression discussing some ordinary Exceptions against Ecclesiastical Officers, 1633.— 3. A Discourse of the false Grounds which the Bavarian Party have laid to settle their own Faction, and shake the peace of the Empire, 1641.-4. A Discourse upon the Interest of England, 1641.-5. A Discoursive Conjecture upon the Reasons which produce the present Troubles of Great Britain, different from those of Lower Germany, 1641.-6. Several Sermons, 1643. JOHN DOWNHAM, B. D.-This reverend and excellent divine was the son of Dr. William Downham, bishop of Chester, and brother to Dr. George Downham, bishop of Londonderry in Ireland. He was born in the city of Chester, educated in Christ's college, Cambridge, and afterwards a laborious and useful preacher in London. It does * Clarendon's Hist. vol. ii. p. 62. + Dr. Grey is displeased with Mr. Oldmixon for treating Clarendon's account as a falsehood; while he suppresses the grounds on which Mr. Oldmixon censures it, which are chiefly those we have given.—Neal's Puritans, vol. iii. p. 3, 4.-Grey's Examination, vol. ii. p. 10. Athenæ Oxon. vol. ii. p. 27. [bid. not appear what preferment he obtained; but he was the first who delivered and afterwards promoted the famous lecture at Bartholomew's church, behind the Exchange. In the year 1640, he united with his puritan brethren, the ministers of the city, in presenting their petition to the privy council, against Laud's cruel book of canons; in 1643, he was appointed one of the licensers of the press; and, in 1644, he was chosen one of the London ministers to examine and ordain public preachers. He was a venerable and celebrated divine; and he died at a very great age, about the close of the above year. Fuller, who has classed him among the learned writers of Christ's college, Cambridge, styles him "a grave divine," and says, "he is memorable to posterity for his excellent work, entitled, The Christian Warfare." Wood denominates him "a learned and laborious writer."+ THOMAS FOXLEY.-This pious and reverend divine was lecturer at St. Martin's in the Fields, London; where he suffered grievous persecution from the intolerance of Bishop Laud. This ecclesiastical tyrant put down his lecture, to prevent, as he pretended, the spreading of the plague; whereas the plague was not then in the parish. Upon the suppression of his lecture, Mr. Foxley was deprived, for some time, of the means of procuring a livelihood. Afterwards he was brought before Laud, who charged him "with being concerned in the purchase of impropriations, and thereby endeavouring to bring the bishops within the feoffees' girdles." When Mr. Foxley said that this could not be, since the ministers on whom these impropriations were bestowed, were sent to their respective bishops to be approved by them; Laud replied, "that, if he had known him to have been so much concerned in the business of impropriations, he should not have got off so easily as he did before." Mr. Foxley had his study afterwards rifled by pursuivants, when he was apprehended and kept a prisoner two days; then carried before Sir John Lamb, who required him to give bond for his appearance before the high commission on the Thursday following. Upon his appearance at the time and place appointed, he, with some difficulty, obtained a week's time to consider whether he *Fuller's Worthies, part i. p. 191,-Hist. of Cam. p. 92.-Neal's Puritans, vol. ii. p. 335, iii. 46, 140. might lawfully take the oath ex officio. When the archbishop observed, that he remembered him about the business of the feoffees, Mr. Foxley replied, "That he was encouraged in that business by bishops and privy counsellors, who conceived it to be a good work." He was, therefore, commanded to appear again on the Thursday following, and so dismissed. But the next Lord's day he was apprehended by another pursuivant, who carried him before the counciltable; when, by a warrant under the hands of the archbishop and five others, he was sent to the Gatehouse. There he was kept close prisoner in a chamber not four yards square, for the space of twenty months, without pen, ink, or paper, or the access of any of his friends, excepting his wife; who, with the utmost difficulty, obtained leave to visit him during his extreme sickness, but no longer. He endured all this cruel usage without knowing or even guessing what could be the cause, unless it was his speaking in favour of the feoffees. Laud, indeed, insinuates, that Mr. Foxley was not thus punished on the account of the feoffees, but for some other cause which he refused to mention. However, by this cruel imprisonment, he was ruined in his circumstances, and his wife and four small children exposed to misery and want.+ Upon the meeting of the long parliament, Mrs. Foxley presented a petition to the house of commons in behalf of her distressed husband, still confined in close prison. This petition was read in the house, November 25, 1640, and referred to the committee for Dr. Leighton's petition. It was, at the same time, ordered that Mr. Foxley should have the same favour and privileges of the house as Dr. Leighton. January 15th following, Mr. Rouse, one of the committee, delivered a report of Mr. Foxley's case, when the house resolved: 1. "That the warrant made by Sir John Lamb and others, for apprehending Mr. Foxley and seizing his papers, is illegal and unjust. 2. That the warrant under the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Coventry, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord of the Privy Seal, Lord Cottington, and Secretary Windebank, for committing Mr. Foxley close prisoner, is illegal. 3. "That Mr. Foxley ought to be delivered from the * Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 249. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 387, 388. restraint he is under by colour of this warrant; and ought to have reparations for damages. 4. "That this business concerning Mr. Foxley be committed to the same committee, to prepare it in a fit way for this house to prefer it to the house of lords."* Mr. Foxley was, therefore, released from his long and severe confinement; but whether he received any reparations is very doubtful. The multiplicity of business which the parliament had to look after, and the confusions which followed, most probably prevented it. In the year 1644 he was witness against Laud at his trial.+ This persecuted servant of Christ was a popular and useful preacher in London, as well after as before his troubles; but at what place he was employed in his stated ministerial exercise, and the particular time of his death, we have not been able to learn. The following anecdote, however, may not be unworthy of notice. The celebrated Mr. William Kiffin, being an apprentice in London, and having then no sense of religion upon his mind, became dissatisfied with his situation, and resolved to leave his master; and accomplished his intention early one morning, being then about fifteen years of age. Wandering about the streets of London, he happened to pass by St. Antholin's church, and seeing people go in, he followed them. The preacher was Mr. Foxley, who, preaching on the fifth commandment, unfolded the duty of servants to masters. This was so applicable to the case of young Kiffin as to create his astonishment. He thought the preacher knew, and addressed him personally. The effect was, that Kiffin returned immediately to his master, before his absence was discovered. He afterwards became a very pious man and a useful minister of Christ. LAWRENCE SNELLING was many years the learned and pious rector of Paul's-Cray in Kent; but experienced most cruel usage in the high commission court, chiefly for refusing to read the " Declaration for Sports on the Lord's day." He was brought before his ecclesiastical judges at Lambeth, when he pleaded in his own defence the law of God and the realm, the authority of councils, fathers, and all modern writers. He also pleaded" that the declaration itself did * Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 58, 142, 143. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 387. Wilson's Hist, of Dissenting Churches, vol. i. p. 403. not appear to be his majesty's, though published in his name, because not enrolled in any court, nor published under the great seal, as were all proclamations and briefs to be read in churches: that there was no command from the king that it should be read in the churches by any particular persons, much less by ministers; nor any punishment threatened nor prescribed for not reading it; nor any authority given to archbishops, bishops, high commissioners, or any other persons, to question, suspend, or punish any minister for refusing so to do; and being merely a civil, not an ecclesiastical declaration, nor enjoined by any ecclesiastical canon or authority, but that which is only civil, no ecclesiastical judges could take cognizance of it, much less inflict any ecclesiastical censure for not observing it." These things he affirmed and maintained in his own defence before the high commission, when Archbishop Laud, now at the head of the commission, commanded that his defence should not be accepted, and declared in open court, "That whosoever should make such a defence as he had done, it should be burnt before his face, and he laid by the heels for his pains." Upon this manifesto from the arbitrary prelate, the commissioners expunged as much of his defence as they pleased; and December 11, 1634, he was personally and judicially admonished to read the declaration within three weeks; but, refusing to observe the admonition, he was suspended from both his office and benefice. In the month of April, 1635, he was admonished a second time, and still refusing to comply, he was excommunicated. He was also charged with having, at divers times, omitted to read some parts of the public service, to wear the surplice, and to bow his body, or make any corporal obeisance, at hearing or reading the name of Jesus." He was therefore told, that if he did not read the Declaration for Sports, and conform himself in all other points, before the second day of next term, he should suffer deprivation. For refusing to do which he was accordingly deprived. In addition to the above cruelties, he was cast into prison; and so continued suspended, excommunicated, deprived, and imprisoned many years, to his unspeakable injury. November 16, * Mr. Snelling having observed that there was no penalty mentioned in the Book of Sports, Archbishop Laud, in his own defence, at his trial, boldly asserted, "I say then his obedience, and other men's, should have been the more free and cheerful."-Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. P 345 + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 150, 151.-Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 459-461. |