ters. It is certain he had few or none of the qualifications of a primitive bishop; he hardly preached a sermon in twelve years, and gained his preferments by flattery and servile court compliances. He was a zealous advocate for pompous innovations in the church, and oppressive projects in the state, for which he would have felt the resentments of the house of commons, had he lived a little longer; but he died very seasonably for himself in an advanced age, Oct. 31, 1640, three days before the meeting of the long parliament.

[To the divines, to whose memory Mr. Neal pays the just tribute of respect in the last chapter, may be added the great Mr. Joseph Mede. He was descended from a good family, and born in October, 1586, at Berden in Essex. He received his grammar learning first at Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire, and finished it at Weathersfield in Essex. While he was at this last school, he bought Bellarmine's Hebrew grammar, and without the assistance of a master, attained considerable skill in the Hebrew tongue. In 1602 he was sent to Christ's college in Cambridge. In 1612 he took the degree of master of arts; and 1618, that of bachelor in divinity; but his modesty and humility restrained him from taking the degree of doctor. After taking the first degree, by the influence of bishop Andrews he was chosen fellow of his college having been passed over at several elections, as one suspected of favoring puritanical principles. In 1627, at the recommendation of archbishop Usher, he was elected provost of Trinity college, Dublin, but declined accepting this preferment; as he did also, when it was offered him a second time, in 1630. On the small income of his fellowship and a college lecture he was extremely generous and charitable; and constantly appropriated a tenth of it to charitable uses. Temperance, frugality, and a care to avoid unnecessary expences, enabled him to do this. His thoughts were much employed on the generous design of effecting an universal pacification amongst protestants. It was a favorite saying with him: "That he never found himself prone 'to change his hearty affections to any one, for mere difference in opinion." He was a friend to free enquiry. "L cannot believe," said he, "that truth can be prejudiced

by the discovery of truth; but I fear that the maintenance thereof by fallacy or falsehood may not end with a blessing." He was an eminent and faithful tutor. It was his custom to require the attendance of his pupils in the evening, to examine them on the studies of the day; the first question he then proposed to every one in his order was, Quid dubitas? What doubts have you met with in your 'studies to-day ?" For he supposed that to doubt nothing, and to understand nothing was nearly the same thing. Before he dismissed them to their lodgings, after having solv ed their questions, he commended them and their studies to God's protection and blessing, by prayer. He was auxious and laborious in his study of history and antiquities, and diligently applied every branch of knowledge to increase his skill in the sacred writings. He led the way in shewing that papal Rome was one principal object of the apocalyptic visions; and was the first who suggested the sentiments since espoused and defended by the pens of Lardner, Sykes, and Farmer, that the demoniacs in the New Testament were not real possessions, but persons afflicted with a lunacy and epilepsy. His days were spent in studious retirement. He died on the first of October 1638, in the fifty-second year of his age. In 1677, a complete edition of his works was published in folio by Dr. Worthington. British Biography, vol. iv. p. 446,-452, and his Life prefixed to his works. Ed.]

CHAP. VII.

King Charles I. 1640.

The Character of the Long Parliament. Their Arguments against the late Convocation and Canons. The Impeachment of Dr. WILLIAM LAUD, Archbishop of Canterbury. Votes of the House of Commons against the Promoters of the late Innovations.

WE are now entering upon the proceedings of the long parliament, which continued sitting with some little intermission for above eighteen years, and occasioned such prodigious revolutions in church and state, as were the surprise and wonder of all Europe. The house of commons have been severely censured for the ill success of their endeavors to recover and secure the constitution of their country but the attempt was glorious, though a train of unforeseen accidents rendered it fatal in the event. The members consisted chiefly of country gentlemen, who had no attachment to the court; for, as Whitlock observes, though the court labored to bring in their friends, yet those who had most favor with them, had least in the country; and it was not a little strange to see what a spirit of opposition to the court proceedings was in the hearts and actions of most of the people, so that very few of that 'party had the favor of being chosen members of this parliament." Mr. Eachard insinuates some unfair methods of election, which might be true on both sides; but both he and lord Clarendon admit, that there were many great and worthy patriots in the house, and as eminent as any age had ever produced; men of gravity, of wisdom, and of great and plentiful fortunes, who would have been satisfied with some few amendments in church and state.

Before the opening of the session the principal members consulted measures for securing the frequency of parlia ments; for redressing of grievances in church and state; and for bringing the king's arbitrary ministers to justice; to accomplish which it was thought necessary to set some *Memorials, p. 35.

bounds to the prerogative, and to lessen the power of the bishops; but it never entered into their thoughts to overturn the civil or ecclesiastical constitution, as will appear from the concurrent testimony of the most unexceptionable historians.

"As to their religion (says the noble historian,*) they 'were all members of the established church, and almost 'to a man for episcopal government. Though they were 'undevoted enough to the court, they had all imaginable 'duty for the king, and affection for the government estab'lished by law, or ancient custom; and without doubt the majority of that body were persons of gravity and wisdom, who being possessed of great and plentiful fortunes, had no mind to break the peace of the kingdom, or to 'make any considerable alterations in the government of the church or state." Dr. Lewis du Moulin, who lived through these times, says, "that both lords and commons were most, if not all, peaceable, orthodox church of England men, all conforming to the rites and ceremonies of 'episcopacy, but greatly averse to popery and tyranny, and 'to the corrupt part of the church that inclined towards Rome." This is further evident from their order of Nov. 20, 1640, that none should sit in their house but such as would receive the communion according to the usage of the church of England. The commons, in their grand remonstrance of Dec. 1, 1641, declared to the world, "that "it was far from their purpose to let loose the golden reins of discipline and government in the church, to leave private persons, or particular congregations, to take up what 'form of divine service they pleased; for we hold it re'quisite (say they) that there should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that order which the law en‘joins, according to the word of God." The noble historian adds further, "that even after the battle of Edgehill the design against the church was not grown popular in the house; that in the years 1642 and 1643, the lords and commons were in perfect conformity to the church of England, and so was their army, the general and officers both by sea and land being neither presbyterians,

* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 184, &c.

'independents, anabaptists, nor conventiclers; and that when they cast their eyes upon Scotland, there were in truth very few in the two houses who desired the extirpation of episcopacy. Nay, his lordship is of opinion, that the nation in general was less inclined to the puritans than to the papists; at least, that they were for the establishment, for when the king went to Scotland, [1641] 'the common-prayer was much reverenced throughout the kingdom, and was a general object of veneration with the people.There was a full submission and love to 'the established government of the church and state, es'pecially to that part of the church which concerned the ' liturgy and book of common-prayer;" which, though it be hardly credible, as will appear hereafter by the numbers of petitions from several counties against the hierarchy, yet may serve to silence those of his lordship's admirers, who through ignorance and ill-will have represented the long parliament, and the body of the puritans at their first sitting down, as in a plot against the whole ecclesiastical establishment.

If we may believe his lordship's character of the leading members of both houses, even of those who were most active in the war against the king, we shall find even they were true churchmen according to law; and that they had no designs against episcopacy, nor any inclinations to presbytery or the separation.

The earl of ESSEX was captain-general and commander in chief of the parliament army, and so great was his reputation, that his very name commanded thousands into their service, It had been impossible for the parliament to have raised an army, in lord Clarendon's opinion, if the earl of Essex had not consented to be their general; and yet this ' nobleman," says he,* "was not indevoted to the function of bishops, but was as much devoted as any man to the book of common-prayer, and obliged all his servants to be present with him at it; his household chaplain being al'ways a conformable man, and a good scholar."

The earl of BEDFORD was general of the horse under the earl of Essex, but he had no desire that there should be any alteration in the government of the church; he had

* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 182, 185, 189, 211, 212, 233, 507; and voy ii p. 211, 212, 214, 462, 597, &c.