1640, having been often brought before the king's-beneh, but still a prisoner for his nonconformity, he presented his petition to the parliament for relief; when he was most probably released. In the year 1644 Mr. Snelling appeared as witness against the archbishop at his trial;+ but when he died we are unable to ascertain.

GEORGE HUNTLEY was minister in Kent, a nonconformist to the superstitious ceremonies, and grievously censured in the high commission court. In the year 1627, for refusing to preach at a visitation, though his body was in a weak state, and he sent twenty shillings to the archdeacon to pay another for preaching, he was convened before the high commission for contempt; when he was fined a great sum and cast into prison. Having lain in prison about two years, he was brought to the bar upon his habeas corpus; when the cause of his commitment was returned, a default in his canonical obedience. He was at first bailed, because the breach of canonical obedience was an offence punishable by the ordinary, by ecclesiastical censure only; and not by the commissioners ecclesiastical, by fine and imprisonment. But afterwards, by the solici tations of Bishop Laud, he was again delivered, and again brought into the high commission court; when a great fine was imposed upon him. He was deprived of his living, degraded from the ministry, and committed to a loathsome prison, where he continued about ten years, to the impoverishing of himself and family. What inhuman and shocking proceedings were these! At the same time Mr. Austin, the archbishop's chaplain, was presented to his living.

Upon this barbarous usage Mr. Huntley brought his action of false imprisonment against the keeper and several of the commissioners. The business was carried into the king's-bench; when the attorney-general, by command of the king, moved that the commissioners might be spared, and the proceedings be only against the keeper. At length, after much debate, it was ordered that only two of the commissioners should answer. It was Archbishop Abbot who blew the coals in this business, and engaged the commissioners in these mad courses. He pressed the king, by

* Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 51.

+ Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 344.

Whitlocke's Memorials, p. 13.

Huntley's Prelates' Usurpations, p. 161, 185, 186.

means of Bishop Laud, to stay the proceedings against the commissioners.

As this cause made a great ferment at court, it will be proper further to observe, that the king sent his advocate, Dr. Rives, to the chief justice, requiring that there should be no further proceeding in the business till he had spoken to him. The chief justice answered, "We receive the message;" but, upon consultation together," the judges conceive the message not to stand with their oaths, commanding an indefinite stay of a cause between party and party, and might stop the course of justice so long as the king pleased." On this occasion Judge Whitlocke insisted upon these points:-1. "That it was against law to exempt any man from answering the action of another that would sue him.-2. That if the court should exempt any, where should they begin, and where should they end?-3. That it was altogether agreeable to the king's monarchical power, and was lawful for any subject to complain before him of any other subject, and to be answered in that complaint."

The high commissioners, not content with the answer of the judges, urged the king to take the cause into his own hands, who sent for the judges and COMMANDED THEM NOT TO PUT THE DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER. This did the tyrannical king, at the importunity of Laud and the archbishop, who carried on the business with great violence. In the conclusion, "the king expressly commanded, that they should not put the commissioners to answer;" but the learned judges stoutly answered, "that they could not, without breach of their oaths, observe that command;" so they parted in displeasure.

Afterwards, by the king's special command, the business was brought before the council-table, in the presence of the judges. After a long debate and hearing of Bishop Laud, the Bishop of Winchester, two of the privy council, the judges, and the king's attorney, it was agreed that the commissioners should answer. This was a bold stand against the oppressions of a despotic monarch, prompted by the tyrannical court prelates to exercise an illegal power, to the unspeakable injury of his subjects.

* Archbishop Abbot, it is said, was suspected and accused of being a puritan, because he would not, like his predecessor Bancroft, persecute them, nor blindly follow the maxims of the court with respect to government. But the zealous courtiers had, surely, no reason to complain on the present occasion.-Rapin's Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. p. 179.

+ Whitlocke's Mem. p. 15.

Though this important point was gained, it does not appear with what success Mr. Huntley prosecuted the commissioners. He could not expect any considerable recompence from the high commission. He contended with cruel and barbarous oppressors. Having endured the most cruel imprisonment for many years, he was released, most probably, upon the meeting of the long parliament. In the year 1644 he was one of the witnesses against Archbishop Laud at his trial; and this is all that we know of him.

MR. LEIGH was many years a laborious minister of the gospel at Wolverhampton, and enjoyed a prebend in the cathedral of Lichfield, but was silenced by order of Archbishop Laud, for nonconformity. The archbishop, giving directions to Sir Nathaniel Brent, his vicar-general, says, "Take special notice of Mr. Leigh; and if you can fasten upon him any thing, whereby he may justly be censured, pray see it be done, or bring him to the high commission court to answer it there. Let him not obtain any license to preach any lecture there or in another place hard-by, at Tetenshall, whither those at Wolverhampton do run after him out of their own parish." He is charged with having churched refractory women in private, with being averse to the good orders of the church, and with having ordered the bell-man to give notice in open market of a sermon; for which, in the year 1635, he was suspended:+ Upon Mr. Neal's mention of this case, Dr. Grey boldly and triumphantly asks, "And can Mr. Neal be so weak as to think this an insufficient cause of suspension? The rubricks,' he adds, "are the law of the church, and are well known to be part of the statute-law of the land." Here, without taking notice of the author's opinion of the rubricks, it may be observed, that Mr. Neal, with all men of liberal principles, would undoubtedly think, without discovering any peculiar weakness of mind, that this was no sufficient reason for an eccclesiastical censure, so tyrannically oppressive on the liberty of the subject. Mr. Leigh, who was thus removed from his flock, and driven from his sphere of ministerial usefulness, afterwards settled at Shrewsbury,

where he was highly esteemed.

Upon his removal from

this place, he, in 1614, became minister at Shoreditch, London, by order of parliament. It does not appear how long he remained in this last situation, nor can we obtain any further information concerning him.

HENRY SCUDDER, B. D.-This excellent person was educated in Christ's college, Cambridge, and afterwards minister at Drayton in Oxfordshire, where, on account of his exemplary piety, great prudence, and excellent ministerial labours, he was highly esteemed. Afterwards he became minister of Collingborn-Dukes in Wiltshire; and, in the year 1643, was chosen one of the assembly of divines, when he constantly attended. Fuller has placed him among the learned writers of the above college; and Granger denominates him "an eminent presbyterian divine." He was author of an excellent work, entitled, "The Christian's daily Walk in Holy Security and Peace." It passed through numerous editions, and is held in high repute among serious christians in the present day. Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen prefixed to it their recommendatory epistles. The former says, "I remember not any book which is written to be the daily companion of christians, to guide them in the practice of a holy life, which I prefer before this: I am sure none of my own. For so sound is the doctrine of this book, and so prudent and spiritual, apt and savoury, and all so suited to our ordinary cases and conditions, that I heartily wish no family may be without it." The latter says, "There is generally that soundness and gravity in the whole doctrine of the book, that weight of wisdom in the directions given for practice, that judgment in the resolutions of doubts and objections, that breathing of the spirit of holiness, zeal, humility, and the fear of the Lord, in the whole; that I judge, and am satisfied therein, that it will be found of singular use unto all such as in sincerity desire a compliance with his design." This work was in so high a repute, that it was translated into high Dutch, by the learned Mr. Theodore Haak. Mr. Scudder wrote the life

* Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 371. + Prynne's Cant. Doome, p. 380.

Clark's Lives annexed to his Martyrologie, p. 318.

Fuller's Hist. of Camb. p. 92. Granger's Biog. Hist. vol. ii. p. 183. ¶ Mr. Haak translated "The Dutch Annotations upon the Bible" into English, and is said to have projected the first plan of the Royal Society in London.-Ibid.

of Mr. William Whately, prefixed to his "Prototypes." He was one of the preachers before the parliament; and one of his sermons is entitled, " God's Warning to England by the voice of his Rod, delivered in a Sermon before the honourable House of Commons, at their late solemn Fast, October 30, 1644."

LAWRENCE CLARKSON was a zealous preacher among the separatists in the beginning of the civil wars, and in the year 1644, having embraced the sentiments of the antipædobaptists, was baptized by immersion. He appears to have preached at various places in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; and even in a few months after avowing a change of sentiment, warrants were issued against him in both counties, for the marvellous sin of dipping. He was soon apprehended, and, by the committee of Suffolk, was sent to prison. Having lain in prison several months, and his friends in those parts having petitioned the committee for his release, but without success, an order was at length obtained, either from a committee of parliament, or from the chairman of it, requiring his discharge. The county committee, however, refused to obey this order. They were resolved not to release him.' After confinement upwards of six months, Mr. Clarkson himself petitioned the committee, and signified his retraction of his sentiments concerning baptism. This petition was as follows:

"The humble petition of Lawrence Clarkson humbly "sheweth-That whereas your petitioner hath been above "six months in bonds for dipping; in which time he has "taken great pains, both by dispute and searching the "scriptures, in which he doth find, and is convinced, that "he ought not to dip any more. Neither, after the day of "his conviction, being July 10, will your petitioner either "dip or teach the same; but only wait upon God for a "further manifestation of his truth. So, expecting your "worship's answer, shall daily pray.

"LAWRENCE CLARKSON." Upon Mr. Clarkson's appearance before the committee, he was required to sign the following recantation, as entered in the committee's books:

"July 15, 1645.

"This day Lawrence Clarkson, formerly committed for "an anabaptist, and for dipping, doth now before this "committee disclaim his errors. And whereas formerly