jured the work by displaying too boldly his party prejudices (Whiston, Memoirs of Clarke, 3rd edit. p. 99). 4. 'Sermons on Several Occasions,' 3 vols. London, 1731, 8vo, published by subscription by his widow, with a dedication to the queen. An additional volume was published by the Rev. T. Archer, M.A., from the author's original manuscripts, London, 1750, 8vo. Of Marshall's many separately published sermons, one entitled ' The Royal Pattern,' on the death of Queen Anne, passed through five editions in 1714; his funeral sermon on Richard Blundel, surgeon, 1718, is reprinted in Wilford's 'Memorials and Characters,' p. 411; and his sermon on the death of John Rogers, 1729, elicited 'Some Remarks' from 'Philalethes.'
[Addit, MS. 5876, f. 93; Bruggeman's View of English Editions, &c., p. 728; Cooke's Preacher's Assistant, ii. 225; Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 270; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. i. 141, 153, 481, iii. 616, vii. 253; Secretan's Life of Nelson.]
MARSHALL, STEPHEN (1594?–1655), presbyterian divine, was born at Godmanchester, Huntingdonshire, apparently about 1594. His father was a glover and very poor. As a boy Marshall went gleaning in the fields. He matriculated at the university of Cambridge on 1 April 1615 (Baker), entered as pensioner at Emmanuel College on 14 March 1616, and graduated B.A. in 1618, M. A. in 1622, proceeding B.D. in 1629. Leaving the university in 1618, he became private tutor to a gentleman in Suffolk. In 1618 he succeeded Richard Rogers (d. 21 April), the nonconformist, as lecturer at Wethersfield, Essex, where he boarded with one Wiltshire. When the neighbouring vicarage of Finchingfield, worth 200/. a year, fell vacant, the patron, Robert (afterwards Sir Robert) Kemp of Spains Hall, presented Marshall. On 10 Nov. 1629 he signed the petition to Laud drawn up by forty-nine beneficed and 'conformable' clergy in favour of Thomas Hooker [q. v.] In the report (12 June 1632) rendered to Laud, as the result of inquiry into the conduct of lecturers, by Robert Aylett [q. v.], a man evidently of conciliatory temper, it is stated that Marshall ' only preacheth on the holy days, and is in all very conformable.' In 1636 he was reported for 'irregularities and want of conformity,' but authority is wanting for the statement in Brook that he was suspended and silenced. On the contrary, Sir Nathaniel Brent [q. v.] described him to Laud in March 1637 as 'a dangerous person, but exceeding cunning. No man doubteth but that he hath an inconformable heart, but externally he observeth all ... He governeth the consciences of all the rich puritans in those parts and in many places far remote, and is grown very rich.' Brent speaks of his distributing a benefaction of 200l. from Lady Barnardiston, viz. 150l. towards the unifying scheme of John Durie (1596–1680) [q. v.], and 50l. to Anthony Thomas for preaching in Welsh. Brent's report throws light on Fuller's character of Marshall, that 'he was of so supple a soul that he brake not a joynt, yea, sprained not a sinew in all the alteration of times.' His unfriendly biographer professes to 'have great reason to believe . . . that he was once an earnest suitor to the late unhappy Duke of Buckingham for a deanry . . . the loss of which . . . made him turn schismatick.'
His great power was in the pulpit. In the first quarter of 1640 he was one of those who 'preached often out of their own parishes,' to influence the elections for the 'short parliament' on the side of the puritan leader, Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick, lord-lieutenant for Essex. On 17 Nov. 1640, shortly after the assembling of the Long parliament, he was one of the preachers before the commons at a solemn fast in St. Margaret's, Westminster. This was the first of a long succession of sermons, delivered to the same audience 'with a fervid eloquence which seemed to spurn control' (Marsden). The saying ascribed to Nye, his son-in-law (i.e. John Nye, not Philip), was probably spoken in jest, ' that if they had made his father a bishop, before he was too far engaged, it might have prevented all the war.' It is certain, however, that the 'intense emotions' excited by his. pulpit handling of ' the great quarrel' (ib.) constituted a political force.
In ecclesiastical matters Marshall was at this crisis a leading advocate for a reformed episcopacy and liturgy. He had much to do with the ministers' 'petition' and 'remonstrance,' signed by over seven hundred of the moderate puritan clergy, and presented to the commons on 23 Jan. 1641. Clarendon accuses the managers of this petition (naming Marshall in particular) of cutting off the signatures from the original document, and attaching them to 'a new one, of a very different nature.' In a sense the charge is true. Several clerical petitions for reform had been forwarded to a committee in London; their general purport was formed into a common 'petition,' while the specific grievances, extracted from all, were arranged into a 'remonstrance' comprising nearly eighty articles. The names of all the various petitioners were appended to these documents, on the authority of a meeting of over eighty ministers. Clarendon is right in saying that
