pay; these behaved with unusual insolence, and struck terror into the minds of the people. The mob was frequently up in one part of the town or another; one while they threatened the pope's nuncio, and another while the queen mother, upon which they retired out of the kingdom; but the queen herself stood by her friends; she had a convent of capuchins in her court, and protected great numbers of the king's subjects and others, from the sentence of the laws. The lord-mayor was commanded to bring in a list of Popish recusants about London; and all the Papists in the several counties were ordered to be disarmed; "which though it had little or no effect (says lord Clarendon *), served to keep up fears and apprehensions in the people of dangers and designs," which will appear presently not to have been groundless. This was the melancholy state of the nation, when on a sudden it was thunderstruck with the surprising news of one of the most barbarous massacres of the Protestants in Ireland, that the records of any age or nation can produce.

Lord Clarendon is of opinion, that the parliament, instead of adjourning, should now have broken up and returned home, since the principal grievance of church and state had been redressed, and the constitution secured by the act for triennial parliaments. But not to trouble the reader with affairs of state; what religious grievances were actually redressed? except the shortening the power of the spiritual courts, by the acts for abolishing the court of high-commission and star-chamber? not one of the late innovations was abolished by law; nor was there any alteration in the liturgy, or form of church-government. The sole power of the bishops in ordination and jurisdiction remained to be regulated; nor was there any reformation of deans and chapters; all which the puritans hoped for and expected. In short, the whole government of the church remained entire, notwithstanding the fierce attacks of the commons against it. The act for triennial parliaments will appear not to have been a sufficient security to the constitution, if we consider how many acts of parliament the king and his arbitrary ministers had broke through the last fifteen years; that his majesty had still the same principles, and was likely to be in the same hands upon the dissolution of this parliament. Besides, it was said that these laws had been extorted from him by force, and therefore were not binding; and if a parliament should be called after three years, that it was dissolvable at pleasure; so that in all probability things would have returned to the old channel if the parliament had now dissolved themselves. Supposing therefore, but not admitting, that the principal grievances of church and state had been redressed, I leave it with the reader, whether in the present situation of affairs, a mere redress of past grievances was sufficient without some security against the return of the like in time to come.

* Vol. 1. p. 290.

Among the remarkable divines who died about this time was Dr. John Davenant bishop of Salisbury, born in London, and educated a fellow-commoner in Queen's college, Cambridge, of which he was afterward master, and lady Margaret professor in the same university. He was a celebrated Calvinist, and one of those divines appointed by king James to represent the church of England at the synod of Dort, where he behaved with great prudence and moderation; and upon his return to England was preferred to the bishoprick of Salisbury; but in the beginning of the reign of king Charles he became obnoxious to the court, for venturing to preach on the doctrine of predestination, contrary to his majesty's declaration, and was forced to make his submission before the privy-council. He was a quiet and peaceable prelate, humble and charitable, a strict observer of the sabbath, an enemy to the pomp and luxury of the clergy, and one who lamented the high proceedings of the court. He had a great reputation in foreign parts for profound learning, and an unblemished life; and after he had enjoyed his bishoprick about twenty years, ended his days in peace and honour, April 20, 1641, a little before the beginning of the troubles that afterward came upon the church and kingdom. He died of a consumption, and a few hours before his death prayed pathetically for a quarter of an hour, "blessing God for his fatherly correction, forasmuch as his whole life having been full of mercy, he had been ready to doubt, whether he was a true child of God till this last sickness."+

Dr. Richard Montague, bishop of Norwich, was a divine of a different character; he was born in Westminster, educated in Eaton-college, and afterward fellow of King's college. Mr, Fuller says he was a celebrated Grecian, and church antiquary, well read in the fathers, but a superstitious admirer of churchceremonies. He was a thorough Arminian, a creature of archbishop Laud's, and an ill instrument between the king and parliament in the late times, and therefore voted unfit for any church-preferment; but when the king resolved to govern without parliaments, his majesty preferred him first to the bishoprick of Chichester, and then to Norwich, where he showed his zeal for the church, by a vigorous and illegal prosecution of the Puritans. He was accused by the present parliament, for superstitious innovations; and would no doubt have felt their resentments, if

• Fuller's Worthies, b. 2. p. 207; and Church History, b. 11. 176.

+ This eminent and worthy prelate was a benefactor to Queen's college in Cambridge; giving to it the perpetual advowsons of the rectories of Cheverel-Magna and Newton-Tony in Wiltshire, and a rent-charge of 31. 10s. per annum for the founding of two Bible clerks, and buying books for the library in the same college. Biogr. Britan. vol. 4. second edit. p. 631.-ED.

: Fuller's words, as Dr. Grey observes, are, but all his diocess being not so well skilled in antiquity as himself, some charged him with superstitious urging of ceremonies." He is allowed to have urged ceremonies; but according to Fuller and Dr. Grey, that is not superstition, though they may be unauthorized by S ture, if they be sanctioned by antiquity.-ED.

he had not gone, as Mr. Fuller expresses it*, a more compendious way, to answer for all his proceedings in the high court of heaven. He died April 12, 1641.

The Rev. Mr. John Eaton, M.A. and vicar of WickhamMarket, was born in Kent 1575, and of a peculiar mould, says Mr. Echard +, very paradoxical in his opinions, and reckoned a great Antinomian, and one of the founders of that sect, for which he more than once suffered imprisonment. His chief performance was a book entitled, "The honeycomb of free justification by Christ alone;" for which he was imprisoned in the Gate-house at Westminster. Mr. Echard admits, that by means of his zeal, his exemplary patience, and piety, he was exceedingly admired in the neighbourhood where he lived, and strangely valued for many years after his death. In truth, though he committed some mistakes in his assertions about the doctrine of grace, he was nevertheless, says Mr. Archdeacon, a pattern of faith, holiness, and cheerfulness, in his sufferings, to succeeding generations. He died in the sixty-seventh year of his age.

CHAPTER X.

FROM THE REASSEMBLING OF THE PARLIAMENT, TO THE KING'S LEAVING HIS PALACE OF WHITEHALL, JANUARY 10, 1641-2.

BEFORE his majesty left Scotland, advice came to London [November 1] of a general insurrection of the Papists in Ireland, and of a most cruel and bloody massacre of the Protestants of that kingdom. The project of an insurrection was formed in the months of March and April 1641, not without the privity of the English court, and executed October 23 following; no information of it having been given to the Protestants till the very night before it was to take place, when it was too late to prevent the effects of it in the country, and almost to save the city of

† Ath. Ox. vol. 2. p. 1-6.

Book 11. p. 194. A fair judgment of this horrid affair, it may be observed, cannot be formed without considering it in connexion with the causes that led to it. It should be viewed as the result of various circumstances, which for a course of years had irritated the minds of the Irish, and at last raised them to a pitch of frenzy and cruelty, of which we cannot read without being shocked at the recital. The Irish had been pursued with a constant, rigorous, and unremitting persecution. They had suffered extortions, imprisonments, and excommunications. Their estates had been seized under the pretext of a judicial inquiry into defective titles, in which inquiry verdicts against them were extorted from jurors. They had been heavily taxed for their superstitions, and totally precluded the exercise of their religion. Their application to Charles I. for a toleration had been scornfully rejected, in consequence of a protestation against it, drawn up by the primate Usher, and twelve bishops. The detail of their sufferings may be seen in "Jones's letter to the united societies of Belfast." By which it will appear, that from the Reformation they had been the

of religious persecution and civil devastation; as, to use the author's words, instify, but certainly to extenuate, the dreadful ensuing period of 1641,

Dublin itself. When the express that brought the news was read in the house, it produced a general silence for a time, all men being struck with horror. When it was told without doors it flew like flashes of lightening, and spread universal terror over the whole kingdom. Every day and almost every hour, produced new messengers of misery, who brought farther intelligence of the merciless cruelty of the Papists towards the poor Protestants, whose very name they threatened to extirpate out of the kingdom.

On the day appointed, between twenty and thirty thousand of the native Irish appeared in arms in the northern counties, and having secured the principal gentlemen, and seized their effects they murdered the common people in cold blood, forcing many thousands to fly from their houses and settlements naked, into the bogs and woods, where they perished with hunger and cold. No ties of friendship, neighbourhood, or consanguinity, were capable of softening their obdurate hearts, in a cause which they called "the cause of loyalty and religion." Some they whipped to death; others they stripped naked and exposed to shame, and then drove them, like herds of swine, to perish in the mountains; many hundreds were drowned in rivers; some had their throats cut; others were dismembered. With some the execrable villains made themselves sport, trying who could hack deepest into an Englishman's flesh. Husbands were cut to pieces in the presence of their wives; wives and young virgins abused in the sight of their nearest relations; nay, they taught their children to strip and kill the children of the English, and dash out their brains against the stones. Forty or fifty thousand were massacred after this manner in a few days, without distinction of age, sex, or quality, before they suspected their danger, or had time to provide for their defence. In a few weeks the insurrection was so general, that they took possession of whole counties, murdering the inhabitants, plundering their houses, and killing or driving away their cattle. Multitudes of poor distressed creatures and families fled naked and half starved, first to Dublin, and from thence to England, with death and despair in their countenances. At length the Irish army having ravaged all the northern counties, blocked up the city of Dublin itself, with all the poor distressed Protestants who had taken sanctuary in it; but not being masters of the sea, the city was relieved, and part of the country secured, till the parliament was at leisure to pour out all their vengeance upon the heads of the murderers, by the hands of the victorious and terrible Oliver Cromwell.

The frequent expresses which pressed one after another to England, with the multitudes of distressed creatures that got passage into several parts of the kingdom, filled the hearts of all true Protestants with infinite conjectures, and prodigious imaginations of treasonable designs against this as well as the neighbouring kingdom. They were afraid, and not without reason,

that a second part of this tragedy might be acted on themselves; the parliament therefore ordered themselves a guard of trainbands, and entered immediately into measures to secure the nation from the impending storm.

But before we dismiss the Irish insurrection and massacre, it will not be improper to trace it from its original, and inquire into the authors, and the several parties concerned in it. The earl of Antrim, and sir Phelim O'Neal, who were at the head of the Irish Catholics, having acquainted the pope's nuncio, and some of the priests about the queen, how easily they could assume the government of Ireland, and assist the king against the English Puritans, letters were written in the queen's name, and perhaps in the king's*, authorizing them to take up arms, and seize the government. The Irish received the orders with pleasure; and concluded farther among themselves, that it was necessary at the same time to extirpate the Protestants out of that kingdom before they could with safety transport their army into England. That this was their design, appears from their remonstrance, published upon the very day of the insurrection, in which they say, "that having some liberty of religion granted them by the king, they perceived the parliament was wresting his majesty's prerogative from him, in order to extinguish their religion; therefore to support his majesty's prerogative, and to confirm his royal and ever happy love to them, they had taken up arms; and accordingly bound themselves to one another by the following oath:

"That they would maintain the Roman-Catholic religion; that they would bear true faith and allegiance to the king and his heirs, and defend him and them with their lives and estates, against all persons that should endeavour to suppress the prerogative, or do any acts contrary to regal government, to the power and privilege of parliaments, and to the rights and privileges of the subject."

They called themselves the queen's army, and published a proclamation from their camp at Newry, declaring that they acted by the king's commission, under the great seal of Scotland, dated at Edinburgh October 1, 1641, and by letters under his sign manual, of the same date with the commission; which I believe, with lord Clarendon, was a forgery; though it is a little unaccountable, that his majesty should never, by any public act or declaration of

Dr. Grey is severe in his animadversions on Mr. Neal's insinuation, that the English court and even the king were privy to the Irish insurrection. Bishop Warburton, on the same ground, has impeached our author's candour and impartiality: our reply to whom, in the two following notes, will serve as an answer to Dr. Grey. I will add here, that Mr. Baxter says, "that the soberer part could not believe that the Irish rebels had the king's commission." His Life, p. 29, folio. A deed was passed on the credulous with that name, by affixing to it the great seal taken off from some grant or patent. The distinction which Mr. Neal afterward makes between the insurrection and the massacre, is justified by what bishop Burnet ts in a passage quoted in the beginning of the paragraph, where this distincRushworth's Collection, part 3. vol. 1. p. 402.-ED.

curs.

ynne's Introduction, p. 220-252. Burnet's History, Life, and Times, vol. 1. Edinburgh edit. Rushworth, vol. 4. p. 398, &c,