Did Ministers Matter? War and Religion in England, 1642-1649

by Barbara Donagan
Did Ministers Matter? War and Religion in England, 1642-1649
Barbara Donagan
The Journal of British Studies
Start Page: 
End Page: 
Select license: 
Select License

Did Ministers Matter? War and Religion in
England, 1642- 1649
Barbara Donagan

When the Scots advanced on England in August 1640, reports of their formidable progress quickly reached London. Their march was

very solemn and sad much after the heavy form shewed in funerals. In the first place do march after the trumpets (which carry mourning ribbons & c.) a hundred ministers, whereof one in the middle carrieth the Bible covered with a mourning cover. 'There follow a great nurnbcr of old men with petitions in their hands, and then the lords that are commanders wearing black ribbons or some sign of mourning, and in the last place the soldiers trailing thcir pikes with black ribbons on them, and thc drums beating a sad march, such as they say is used in the funerals of officers of war. '

It would be hard to find a more vivid example of the integration of war and religion, of assent by military laymen to clerical authority, or of manipulation of ritual to impart a message: the presence of ministers and the Bible even more than the sobriety of the troops asserted that this army was the agent of God, to the comfort of its soldiers and the terror of its enemies.

Could England achieve comparable godliness, order, and confi- dence in execution of divine purpose in the conduct of its own war'? Parliamentary clergy lived in' hope of similar recognition and achieve- ment. Yet at best ritual must be distinguished from accompanying practice, as the conduct of Scottish soldiers in Newcastle and its envi-

BARBARA is a research scholar at the Huntington Library, San Marino,

DONAGAN California. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a conference on "Puritanism in Old and New England" at Millersville University, Pennsylvania in April 1991. The author is grateful to participants at the conference and to this journal's anonymous reader for comments and corrections.

' Henry E. Huntington Library (HEHL), San Marino, California, Rridgewater MS 7852.

Journul of British Studic,s 33 (April 1994): 119-156 6 1994 by The North American Conference on British Studies. All rights reserved. 0021-937 119413302-0001$01.00

rons was to demonstrate; at worst the clerical message was derided and ign~red.~

On the one hand, clergy proclaimed themselves trumpets of the Lord, guides to parliament, instruments of private spiritual health and public reformation, and God's agents to inspire his armies to victory and godliness. On the other hand, war and politics went their secular way, and ministers lamented disappointments and godliness unachieved.

Attention to elements in this contradiction cail help to illuminate the larger question of the role of religion in the English civil war. There was a time when this question hardly arose, when professional historians and the general public took the importance of religion for granted. For historians in the great Whig/nonconformist tradition, its role scarcely posed a problem: parliamentary liberty, toleration, and puritanism were inextricably if sometimes uncertainly linked. For his- torians who chose to call the wars "the puritan revolution," the term itself provided an answer to the implied question. Popular stereotypes, which have changed remarkably little over the years, incorporate these religious presuppositions, presenting, on one side, romantic Cavaliers and, on the other side, pious, disciplined, russet-coated Cromwellians. Such professional or popular perceptions owe much to an assumption that religious commitment and military performance were closely con- nected. We are told, for example, that in 1642 "puritan soldiers made up in religious zeal" for their lack of experience, "and it was this that kept them together at Edgehill," and, in the New Model Army, "sense of mission" and "godly spirit" fostered by chaplains and preachers "helped to promote a unique esprit de corps," while "religious energy . . . made a palpable difference to its fortunes on the b~ittlefield."~ The parliamentary army was both successful and distinctive because it was godly.4

'In practice military discipline, not godly precept, controlled the Scottish army. Commanders could protect the civilian inhabitants of Newcastle only by keeping the common soldiers out of the town, and they failed to save the country people from depredation. "The common soldiers are intolerably insolent," complained one Englishman, but they retained their sense of righteous mission, "for they would make the country believe that all this is for their own good" (HEHL, Bridgewater MSS 7859, 7872, 7874).

Godfrey Davies, "The Parliamentary Army under the Earl of Essex, 1642-5," English Historical Review 49 (1934): 53; Lois G. Schwoerer, "No Stnnding Armies!" The Anti Army Ideology in Seventeenth Century England (Baltimore, 1974), p. 52; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645-1653 (Oxford, 1992), p. 115.

See, e.g., Michael Walzer, The Revolution of the Saints (London, 1966), pp. 10-13. For classic expressions of such views, see C. H. Firth, "The Raising of the Ironsides," in Essays in Modern History, ed. Ian R. Christie (l,ondon, 1968), p. 121;

For a time historians' attention shifted from Whiggish, noncon- formist interpretations of the heroic war years to other matters, among them class, county communities, and political and religious radicalism; in the latter instances, attention also shifted from the fighting years up to 1646 to the later period of army idleness (only briefly interrupted in 1648) with its very different problems and opportunities. Religion as "cause" of war or as energizing principle in its conduct was not forgot- ten but receded from the foreground, and the armies of both parties were perceived as equally the bane of civilians who suffered their presence. Meanwhile military narratives of the war attributed parlia- mentary success to the talents of Oliver Cromwell or Sir Thomas Fair- fax more than to alliance between God and their ~oldiers.~

Yet religion has now returned to the fore. Anthony Fletcher, not- ing the "call to apocalyptic warfare that thundered from the London pulpits in 1642" and the "militant Puritans who looked for an evangeli- cal reformation in Church and state," finds that "there is a real sense in which the English civil war was a war of religi~n."~ Conrad Russell cautions that "to say the parties were divided by religion is not the same thing as to say religion caused the Civil War," but he concludes that, despite "all the qualifications, . . . many people, and very many of the first activists, did fight for religi~n."~

John Morrill, distinguishing between degrees of prewar "passion" aroused by constitutional and religious issues and the greater confidence that infused the latter, ar- gues that "it was the force of religion that drove minorities to fight, and forced majorities to make reluctant choices." The civil war, he

and William Haller, "The Word of God in the New Model Army," Church History 19 (1950): 15, 17, 20-24, 31-33. For a more cautious but still flattering appraisal, see Leo

F. Solt, Saints in Arms: Puritanisnz and Democracy in Cromwell's Army (Stanford, Calif., 1959), pp. 13-15; for a powerful recent statement of this position, see Gentles, chap. 4.

'See, e.g., John Kenyon, ?'he Civil Wars of En'nglnnd (London, 1988), pp. 76-77, 138-40. Kenyon observes that Cromwell's regiment of 1643 was "composed of men heartily committed to the cause, usually for religious reasons," but he emphasizes the importance of discipline rather than religion in their performance. The New Model of 1645, he notes, was half-conscript at its formation, which "makes nonsense of the claim . . . that this was an Clite force of highly motivated and dedicated men. It was a professional army through and through." See Gentles, pp. 32-34, 88, on conscription ("over a third . . . were conscripted"), desertion, and the royalist component of the New Model.

Anthony Fletcher, ?'he Orntbrerrk of the Engli.sh Civil War (London, 1981), pp. 405, 417-18. Fletcher also notes the importance of religion in "activism" on the royalist side; ibid., p. 406.

'Conrad Kussell, The Crruscs ofthe f<nglish Civil War (Oxford, 1990), pp. 59, 62; cf. the "Erastian anticlericalism" that he finds characteristic of many royalists; ibid., at n. 9.

concludes, "was not the first European revolution: it was the last of the Wars of Religi~n."~ If religion has been reinstated, albeit beset by cautions and caveats, in a causative role, its part in the drive for reformation of manners has also won renewed attention: although all respectable society had an interest in controlling drunkenness and bas- tardy, the intensity of lay and clerical "puritan" anxiety to do so, as well as to suppress more ambiguously harmful phenomena such as maypoles and Sunday sports, can hardly be denied. Fletcher, for ex- ample, has examined its prewar characteristics and subsequent disap- pointments; Derek Hirst has demonstrated its discouraging postwar record."hese discussions of religion have been largely confined to events up to 1642, to individual alignment-often reluctant-once hostilities started, and to effects off the field, particularly after hostilities had ended and in the form of religious, political, or social radicalism. Most recently, however, Jan Gentles has returned to the earlier tradi- tion, by his emphasis on the godliness and even the virtue of the New Model Army. Godliness had "its practical consequence in high mo- rale," and the army was distinguished by the "volume and range of religious activities" and by "spiritual and intellectual energy," which in turn produced solidarity, egalitarianism, and personal discipline. These, bolstered by confidence in the favor of divine providence, shaped "the army's spirit and conduct" and issued in success in battle.

"The officers were the religious vanguard who set their stamp on the army," he argues, although he records a contemporary's observation that among the rank and file there were "many as ungodly as ever I saw."'"et the effects of religion in the war itself still largely go by default. Latter-day assumptions that disorder and predation were attributes alike of royalist and parliamentarian armies coexist with sur- vival of the godly and victorious Ironsides.

What follows is a reconsideration of the role of religion and its

John Morrill, "The Religious Context of the English Civil War," in The Nature of the f<nglish Revolution (London, 1993), pp. 47, 58, 68. For the assumption of this idea into a new orthodoxy, see Jonathan Clark, "Sovereignty: The British Experience," The Times Litc~rary S~lpplanzent (November 29, 1991), p. 15, on "the wars of religion which devastated Europe . . . of which the 'English' Civil War was one instance." See also Patrick Collinson, "Wars of Religion," in his The Birthpangs ofProtestc4nt Englnnd: Religious and Cnlturnl Chnnge in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centnries (London, 1988).

'Anthony Fletcher, Rqfornz in the Provinces (New Haven, Conn., 1986), pp. 266- 73; Derek Hirst, "The Failure of Godly Rule in the English Republic," Past and Present, no. 132 (1991), pp. 33-66; see also Gentles, pp. 110-15.

'O Gentles, pp. 87, 94-95, 103-4, 115. It may be argued that Gentles is generous in the credence he gives to the evidence of Hugh Peter and William Dell, active army chaplains and propagandists and hardly disinterested witnesses, and to other proarmy publicists.

prime agents, the clergy, on the parliamentary side in the English civil war. Its scope is limited, and its purpose modest: to help clarify what we mean when we talk about religion and the civil war by making some distinctions between ideal and reality, whether of clerical importance, ideological particularity, or moral reformation and military perfor- mance. The process requires, as counterpoint, some attention to reli- gious expression on the royalist side, although this underexplored sub- ject still awaits its historian. It is an attempt to look at religion as it worked on the ground, as distinct from what its professional theorists and public relations men said it was, and to do so in the context of the war as it was really fought, that is, as an untidy, mobile affair, conducted by troops who were often literally interchangeable, a war profoundly integrated with civilian society and only intermittently a matter of set-piece battles. In the past, religious and military historians have tended to follow separate paths that rarely do more than intersect as they wind through the landscape of the 1640s. This is an attempt at least to get them onto the same road, by examining the relation be- tween teachings of the clergy and conduct in the war.

Today any attempt to assess ministers' influence immediately meets an obvious objection: does not war by its nature-its fear, bloodshed, confusion, noise, urgency, even hubris-muffle or render irrelevant voices of reason and conscience? Advocates of military sci- ence would deny the demise of reason. Believers in professional, per- sonal, and-in the European context-Christian standards would af- firm the necessary survival of conscience. In seventeenth-century England this also meant affirmation of the role of those whose mCtier was guidance of the individual to act according to right conscience and to help him to hope (although certainty was unattainable in this world) for salvation. Contemporaries of right and left were sure that religious teaching must influence life: "Lecturers have preached your Majesty out of your kingdoms," declared the earl of Newcastle, and Sir Si- monds D'Ewes was convinced that the departure of a godly minister could cause "those who have made some beginnings in goodness Ito fall] back again to profaneness."" In modern secular wars the minister may seem a "well-meaning . . . and ineffectual" irrelevancy.12 In the

'I Newcastle is quoted in Ian Roy, "'She English Republic, 1649-1660: The View from the Town Hall," in Sclzriften des Historischen Kollegs Kolloquien 11: Keprihlilien rind Rep~~blikanisrn~~s

irn Eriropa der Friihen Nerizeit, ed. Helmut Koenigsberger and Elisabeth Muller-Luckner (Munich, 19X6/87), p. 213; Vernon F. Snow and Anne Steele Young, cds., 2'he Pri~fcrte Jorirnrrls of the 1,ong Purliarnent: 7 March to 1 June 1642 (New Haven, Conn., 1987), p. 86.

'? For example, Father Mulcahy in "M'LA"S*H''." I owe this dispiriting description and analogy to Cynthia Herrup. Perhaps fundamentalist Islam offers closer parallels to the role some Puritan ministers fancied.

civil war, when salvation was still man's final end, the minister, al- though often resented and ignored, retained for most men an ill-defined but necessary function.I3

An attempt to assess the extent to which ministers' teaching was heeded as distinct from applauded or reviled requires consideration of what that teaching was and of its special characteristics, as well as of its reception and effectiveness. Before turning to these issues, how- ever, we should briefly set the New Model Army, which figures so largely in stereotypical discussions of the war and religion, in perspec- tive. Despite its ultimate political and religious predominance, parlia- ment in fact fought most of its war with other armies. The New Model was not formed until early 1645, after some two-and-a-half years of hostilities; it was in action for little more than eighteen months before bccoming a restless and volatile peacetime army; it then returned to action for the brief, futile, but bitter second civil war of 1648. Even in the triumphal year of Naseby, it was only one of parliament's armies. Conduct of provincial forces is as relevant to the question of clerical influence among parliamentarians as that of the vauntedly godly New Model, and even there, as Mark Kishlansky has warned us, we should remember "the heterogeneity of. . . composition and conduct."14 We should also remember, when comparing parliamentarian and royalist, that Puritanlparliamentarian views on war and religion were not con- sistently distinctive. There was much common ground, shared not only with royalist opponents but also with English predecessors and Euro- pean contemporaries. Reduced concentration on the New Model Army and recognition that soldiers spent most of their time not singing psalms, listening to sermons, or politically engaged significantly lessen the degree of difference between opposing armies.
Ministers at War

Some of the ministers who will appear below were famous trum- pets of the Lord, like Stephen Marshall and Hugh Peter; others were merely local godly voices; some were army chaplains; some were roy-

''For ambivalence in relations between clergy and laity, both men and women, in peace as well as war, note. e.g., spiritual dependence on ministers on the one hand, and resistance to their disciplinary authority and social claims on the other. See B. Donagan, "Puritan Ministers and Laymen: Professional Claims and Social Constraints in Seventeenth Century England," Huntington Library Quarterly 47 (1984): 81-11 1.

l4 Mark Kishlansky, "Ideology and Politics in the Parliamentary Armies, 1645-9," in Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642-1649, ed. John Morrill (London, 1982), p. 163; and see also John Morrill, "Introduction," in ibid., p. 18.

alists. They dispensed religious and moral precepts specially relevant to war, through sermons, pamphlets, catechisms, and advice, but their self-proclaimed combat role should not lead us to forget the continued importance of their private relations. The value placed on their pres- ence was not new. An English regiment in Germany in 1621 regretted the return to England of its chaplain Dr. Burgess, for they would "greatly miss" him.'' It is unlikely that in the 1640s the many officers and men who had sought instruction, comfort, and warning from their ministers in peacetime through sermons and pastoral counseling ceased to value thcm in war, while clerical practices that had prcvi- ously helped and supported laymen-from lending books to sustaining the sick, from friendship to burial of the dead-were perpetuated.'" Nor can we doubt what the presence of ministers meant to many sol- diers in ways in which the private and the public can hardly be disen- tangled. Examples of enthusiastic and appreciative soldierly audiences for sermons need little elaboration: young Nehemiah Wharton's let- ters, for example, are studded with references to "famous," "worthy," and "heavenly" sermons which heartened him and his fellows as they marched with the Earl of Essex's army in 1642. Clergy cared for personal as well as corporate morale, and Richard Baxter assures us that Parliament's soldiers prayed and sang psalms on guard duty, talked of religion, and flocked to sermons.I7 Even clerical disappoint- ments, such as failures in "further reformation" or indifference to their godly message, did not mean that men ceased to desire comfort

l5 British Library (BL), Add. MS 30,305, fol. 31. For John Burgess's ministry in Germany, see BL, Add. MS 4275, fols. 68-68v; Diane Willen, "Godly Women in Early Modern England," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 43 (1992): 574. Cf. Anne Laurence, Parliamentary Arrny Chaplains, 1642-16.51, Koyal Historical Society Studies in History 59 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1990), p. 106.

'"ee, e.g., John Syms's list of books and borrowers at Plymouth, BL, Add. MS 35, 297, fols. 179v-183v; and see Amos C. Miller, "John Syms, Puritan Naval Chaplain," Mariner's Mirror 60 (1974): 155, 161; Bernard Capp, Crornn~ell's Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution, 1648-1660 (Oxford, 1989), p. 308.

"LNehemiah Whartonl, "Letters from a Subaltern Officer of the Earl of Essex's Army, written in the Summer and Autumn of 1642," Archaeologia 35 (1853): 313, 318,

323. Compare the Yorkshire minister Jonathan Scholefield at the assault on Leeds in January 1643, who "begun, and [the company] sung the I verse of the 68 psalm, Let God arise, and then his enerrlies shall be scattered and those that hate lzirnjlee before him," (A True Relation oftlze Passages at Leeds, on Munday, the 23. c?f'January,1642, in The Autobiography ofJoseph Lister, ofBrac&)rd, ed. Thomas Wright [London, 18421,

p. 76); and Peter Ince of Weymouth, "a great incouragement to the souldiers in the late seige [sic]. . . ,soe that . . . he was very instrumental1 in the preservation of the place" (Historical Manuscripts Commission [HMC], Fifth Report. Appendix, "Manuscripts of the Towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis" [London, 18761, p. 589). See also The Autobiography of Richard Baxter, ed. N. H. Keeble (London, 1974), p. 35, and see pp. 34, 45, 50 for Baxter's linking of godliness, valor, and success.

in extremity or, in prebattle excitement and apprehension, to respond to their message.I8

The public functions of paraliamentary ministers were varied, and many were nonpriestly. They wrote newsletters; they were messengers and reporters, negotiators between enemies and go-betweens for allies, and auxiliaries for miscellaneous business.lVet they also had singular claims to authority and special talents, most obviously as "trumpets" to extol victory, explain defeat, and exhort to further effort and refor- mation, duties they shared with royalist counterparts. They raised ci- vilian morale and encouraged troops; before the storm of Bridgewater in July 1645, for example, Hugh Peter and Edward Bowles preached "Preparation Sermons," and I'eter did his part, we are told, "tarn Murte, quam ~evcurio."~~

Such battle sermons were of course de- signed to spur troops to action, but they also served to connect men in the field to thc larger, national purposes of the war, for ministers were spokesmen for parliament as well as for God. They served as apologists for particular policies and actions and were spokesmen for political and religious parties. Baxter "disput[ed] against thc . . . confounding errors" of the sectaries (with limited success); Samuel Eaton "spurred . . . on" Sir William Brereton in the Independent cause; more dubiously, ministers exploited religious authority to cast the best light possible on a massacre of women after Naseby and to urge unpop- ular enlistment for re land.^'

Only some of the ministers who performed these varied military and quasi-military functions were officially appointed to armies.22 Al-

'"ompare sailors' uncharacteristic attendance at a thanksgiving service after a narrow and terrifying escape (Capp, p. 324); and see Gentles (no. 3 above), p. 88.

l9 See, e.g., Journa1.s of the House of Lords (LJ), 9:579; Ioshua Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva; Englands Recovery (London, 1647), p. 203; R. P. Stearns, "Letters and Docu- ments by or Relating to Hugh Peter," E.ssex Institute Historical Collections 72 (1936): 128-311; Memoics ofDenzil, Lord Holles, in Select Tracts Relating to the Civil Wars in England, ed. LF. Maseres], 2 vols. (London, 1815), 1:273; Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, 2d ed., 2 vols. in 1 (London, 1721), vol. 2, cols. 512-13.

20 Sprigge, p. 70.

21 Baxter, Autobiograplzy, pp. 55-56; J. S. Morrill, Cheshire, 1630-1660: County Govemwlent and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 164-65; John Vicars, The Burning-Bush not Consuw~ed, in Mugnalia Dei Anglicanu (London, 1646), p. 163; and cf. Stephen Marshall, A Sacred Record ?h be rnade of Gods Mercies to Zion (London, L1645'!]), pp. 28-29. For Peter as a "trumpet" for lrish service, see Tho. Carte, A Collertion of' Original Letters and Pupecs, 2 vols. (London, 1739), 1:274-75. For an election sermon, see Keme's sermon of February 28, 1646, "upon the choyce of the new Burgesses of Bristol" (Samuel Kem, The King of Kings his privie Marks ,for Tlze Kingdorns choyce of'new Mernhers LLondon, 16461).

22 Although Parliament's clergy have been extensively studied, the king's as yet remain more elusive.

though both sides stipulated a chaplain for each regiment (as well as others attached to the general's staff), there were never enough.23 Even in 1642-43, when many ministers enthusiastically went to parliament's armies, they could not man all regiments. Indeed, the total number of chaplains appears to have been surprisingly small; Anne Laurence suggests only about two hundred and seventy for all parliamentary armies over nine years (1642-51).~~

Many early chaplains later re- turned home or were placed in livings made available by ejections, sometimes to be replaced by unordained preachers, with well-known consequences for the rise of radicalism and antagonism from the or- dained. Laurence estimates that overall 50 percent of Essex's chap- lains had held benefices before the war but that some 69 percent were beneficed after it.2' Thus while chaplains were drawn from both bene- ficed and unbeneficed clergy, army service could be a step on the way

"HEHL Bridgewater MS 7682; LJ, 10:66-70; Military Orders Artd Articles Estab- lished by His Maiesty, For the better Ordering and government of His Majesties Arrny (Oxford, 1643), pp. 3-4; this version of the royalist articles is Godwin Pamphlet 682 (3) in the Bodleian Library (Bodl.). Each regimental chaplain was to read prayers daily and to preach or expound a portion of scripture or catechism each Sunday and holiday; trumpets or drums were to alert the regiment, while chaplains who ljiled to appear forfeited pay. The two chaplains on the general's staff acted as judges of offenses by their regimental colleagues and by others "against the immediate service of God." Sale of beer, ale, and other commodities were prohibited during the time of services, on pain of imprisonment in irons and forfeit of profit by the sellers. Later royalist articles dropped most of these detailed regulations, which probably derived from the Swedish model of Gustavus Adolphus, but they demonstrate bipartisan concern to provide chap- lains and secure attendance at services. See The Swedish I)iscipline, Religious, Civile, and Military. . . . The second Part, in the excellent orders observed in the Arrnie (London, 1632; printed with ?'he Swedish Intelligence), pp. 41 (misnumbered 14)-44.

24 Laurence, p. 18; i.e., the ninety-two chaplains with prewar ordination constituted 35 percent of the whole. For discussion of numbers, appointment, duties, ordination patterns, etc., see ibid., chap. I. Figures for individual armies show sharp variations: Essex's had thirty-one chaplains in 1642 and eighteen in 1644; Waller's army had at least two in 1644; the Eastern Association had fourteen in 1644; and provincial armies reached a peak of thirty-two in 1645. New Model figures rose from nine in 1645 to twenty in 1647 and declined to three or four in 1651; they totaled forty-two for the period 1645-51. Ibid., pp. 18, 3 1, 41, 54-55, 57-59. Cf. Gentles's total of forty-three New Model chaplains Ihr the period 1645-51 (n. 3 above), p. 96. Even Laurence's careful estimates probably understate numbers. She notes that "virtually nothing is known about Waller's chaplains"; the implausibly low figures for his army are probably explained by its "considerable turn-over of personnel" (Laurence, p. 11). For discussion of political importance of army chaplains, see Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of'the New) Model Arrny (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 70-73.

25 Figures for chaplains beneficed before service in the New Model (thirteen out of forty-two, or 31 percent) are not comparable: some acquired their benefices through vacancies caused by war, while some represent a new age cohort. Figures for Waller's and the Earl of Manchester's armies are too small to be statistically significant. Those for provincial armies (thirty-three out of eighty-seven, or 38 percent) represent a longer period overlapping both Essex's and the New Model armies. Laurence (n. 15 above),

p. 20.

to a living. Since at all times the number of chaplains with a university education excecdcd the number previously beneficed, we can assume a pool of potential candidates for livings, whether holders of fellow- ships or lectureships or the young and recently educated. Chaplaincies attracted committed beneficed clergy, usually for limited periods, but also offered interim jobs for the unbeneficed and in some cases presum- ably satisfied a desire for variety and ad~enture.~~

Long-term chaplaincies made up only a small part of the picture. On both sides some were local, ad hoc, short-term affairs, like the parliamentarian Ralph Josselin's service under his friend Richard Har- lakenden or that of the royalist Mr. Wyatt, "Chaplain to the Band" that enlisted at Brill for service against the parliament in January 1643. Some were involuntary, like that of the prebend of Norwich who acted as chaplain to his fellow prisoners at Wind~or.~~

On both sides, further- more, the work of chaplains was supplemented by local parish clergy; by preachers sent from London or Oxford, the great gathering points of committed or ejected clergy; and by refugees who sought safety and employment, like the ministers who flocked to Gloucester or like John Syms who fled to Plymo~th.~~

Nor can we infallibly distinguish be- tween civilian and military sermons. "Civilian" sermons to exhort to effort or reform, to repair morale, to give thanks for victory, all had a war purpose and often had soldiers among their hearers. In sieges and garrison towns the distinction was particularly artificial, for the congregations of parish clergy were willy-nilly military participants. Yet there were distinctions, and some sermons were particularly de- signed for soldiers. Baxter differentiated between his weekly sermon in Coventry "to the soldiers" and the other "on the Lord's-day to the pe~ple."~WhilePeter's and Bowles's sermons before Bridgewater, like William Chillingworth's after the king's capture of Reading, were

2%otete, e.g., the offer of the Weymouth living to Peter lnce after two years as "preacher to the garrison" (HMC, Fifth Report: Appendilr, "Weymouth MSS," p. 588). Compare Capp (n. 16 above), pp. 313-15, on naval chaplaincies as "the first step on the professional ladder" and "stopgaps" for the ejected; in the navy, pay was less, status lower, and conditions worse than in the army. Capp believes that most army chaplains were beneficed ministers (ibid., p. 312).

"The Diary qf'Ralph Jossc.lin, 1616-1683, ed. Alan Macfarlane (London, 1976), p. 42; HEHL, STT Military Box 1 (26); Bertram Scholfield, ed., The Knyvett Lefters, 1620-1644, Norfolk Record Society 20 (1949), p. 114.

2X Roy (n. 11 above), p. 219; for Syms, see below at nn. 72-74. In 1642 Wharton heard sermons from ministers officially despatched from London, such as Simeon Ash, the Sedgwick brothers, Samuel Kerne, and Stephen Marshall, but also one from an unnamed "Warwickshire minister, which the Calvalleres had pillaged to the skin." Wharton (n. 17 above), pp. 315, 323-24, 331-32.

29 Baxter, Amtobiography (n. 17 above), p. 43.

formulated for soldiers in a particular military situation, others were less narrow in purpose and presented conventional if partisan religious messages to soldiers and civilians alike. Brereton's associates Nathan- iel Lancaster and Samuel Eaton combined chaplaincies with civilian pastoral and lecturing function^.'^ The two capital cities of London and Oxford may be distiguished, however, in the degree to which military and civilian were integrated. In both, military and political messages mingled, but Oxford's life was transformed by its role as capital, as garrison and as headquarters to an extent far surpassing London's, where scale of population, physical size, and administrative and economic diversity could absorb war activities and war voices in a manner impossible in overcrowded, restricted, radically changed Oxford. A sermon before the king at Christ Church was a sermon before the commander in chief; any sermon in St. Aldate's was one to civilians who were inescapably involved in the city's supply and defense.31 Size of community, circumstances of delivery, and pres- sures of war had much to do with the nature and reception of ministers'

Precepts and Rules

War had its rules of conduct, of which the teachings of the clergy were only a part.32 Its norms were largely international and nonsectar- ian: often, indeed, they were not specifically Christian, for much de- rived from the classical world, and much was shared by peoples out- side the western European tradition. In prewar England clerics had been the leading expounders both of ius ad hellum and of ius in hello, but in practice their teachings were supplemented by professional codes, both the unwritten "laws of war" and the written articles of war that governed the conduct of men in armies. Ius ad hellum addressed the legitimacy of war, while ius in hello comprised both general moral rules applicable to participants and particular forms of prohib- ited behavior. In view of their common heritage, it is not surprising that royalist and parliamentarian ministers expressed similar views.

Anxiety about the legitimacy of war, per se, need not detain us long. Both sides accepted traditional arguments that a just war permit-

'' Laurence, pp. 123-24, 144-45; Morrill, Cheshire, pp. 165-66. 3' See Bodl., MS Add. D.114 passim, for a sense of what the war meant to civilians in Oxford.

32 For discussion of some of these "rules" and of the extent to which they were observed, see B. Donagan, "Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War," Past (2nd Pre~ent,no. 118 (February 1988), pp. 65-95, particularly pp. 73-87.

ted violence against enemies. They agreed with Richard Bernard's dictum on "The Sacred Art Military": "Some, as the Anabaptists, hold it not lawful1 for Christians under the Gospells to make warres; but such are but dreamer^."'^ Pacifism was not a serious issue in the

1640s; neutralism was another matter, but its aim was to exclude vio- lence or move it elsewhere, not to disavow it on principle.34 Both sides indeed paid some attention to the question of whether a Christian could be a soldier, but neither found it difficult to resolve, citing the same texts to show that "God is . . . n man of wnrre" and that the "Profes- sion of a Souldier, as 'tis Honourable, so it may be Holy."35

Nor was there any difficulty in establishing the justice of the cause, whether king's or parliament's. Clerical publicists met the chal- lenge enthusiastically, drawing on the ample roster of circu~nstances that traditionally made war "warrantable," which ranged from defense of religion and liberty to vengeance on idolaters and suppression of rebellion.36 Neither side was ever at a loss, and their shared culture appeared in the shared language of apologists.'7 Nevertheless, each

"Richard Bernard, Thr Bible-Battc.11~. Or The Sacred Art Military (London, 1629),

p. 24; compare Gouge's dismissal of the argument that Christians should turn their swords to ploughshares: "propheticall phrases are somewhat hyperbolicall" (William Gouge, The Churches Conquc.st over the Sword, in Gods Three Arrowes: Plague, Fum- ine, Sword [2d ed.] [London, 16311, p. 212); see also J. R. Hale, "lncitement to Vio- lence? English Divines on the Theme of War, 1578 to 1631," in Rrnui.s.sance War Stuti- ies, ed. J. R. Hale (London, 1983), pp. 487-517; Donagan, "Codes and Conduct," p.


j4 For effects of the rise of Quakerism in the 1650s, see, e.g., C. H. Firth, Cromwell's Army, 4th ed. (London, 1962), pp. 341-43: one officer wrote, "I fear . . . these people's principle will not allow them to fight, if we stand in need, though it does to receive pay," quoted ibid., p. 341. See also Capp, p. 325. However, Keay has shown the "ambiguity" of the Quaker position before 1661: in the 1650s they were neither "consistent pacifists" nor "pacifist in any modern sense of the term." Barry Keay, The Qrnukers and the English Revolution (London, 1985), pp. 41-43.

"Joseph Caryl, loy Out-joyed: or Joy in ovc.rcoming evil spirits and c~il men, Overcome by brttc.r Joy (London, 1646), sig. A2v; William Beech, More Sulphr~rc. for Busing: or, God will feayfi~lly annoy and make quick riddance qf'his implacable Bnc.rrzic.s, surely, .sorc.ly, suddenly (London, 1645), p. 26. Edw. Symmons, A Military Sermon, wherein by the word of God, the nature and disposition ofa Rebell is discovc.rc.d, and the Kings true Souldier described und Characterizrti (Oxford, 1644), p. 21; [H. Ferne], The Camp at (;ilgal. Or, a View qf'thr Kings Army, und spiritrnall provision made for it (Oxford, 1643), p. 4. See also Gouge, p. 21 1. But cf. the "black note set upon the Souldiers Profession by the licentiousnes of many in it"; this too was a bipartisan concern (Ib'ernel. . <, . ,

(iilpal. o. 2).'"ee, e.g., Bernard, pp. 38-46; Gouge, pp. 214-17; Donagan, "Codes and Con- duct," pp. 76-78.

""IYlou are assured it is for the established Keli~ion, for the Freedome of Parlia- ment, for the Liberty of Subjects that you bare Armes," declared one minister. In our "quarrell," said another, "Religion, and Lawes, and Liberties, and the verie being of' our English Nution lie at stake." 'The first was royalist, the second parliamentarian ([Ferne], Gilgal, p. 8; Beech, p. 23). Admittedly there are subtexts to these quotations, signaled by "established Religion" and "English Nation."

side had special strengths and difficulties. Obedience proved the stick- ing point for many Englishmen and was, as we shall see, a major weapon in the royalist apologetic armory. Parliament's champions, however, found ample dispensations for resistance. War was legitimate when the king allied himself with "factious villains." War as reprisal was validated by events in Ireland which activated God's law that blood would have blood, for as William Beech demanded in a sermon outside Basing House, which was not incidentally the stronghold of a catholic peer, "how can you heare the name of Ireland, and not be filled with indignation?"18 And Stephen Marshall invoked the right to a preemptive use of "defensive Ar~nes."'~ There were no difficulties in establishing the justice and therefore the legitimacy of this war. God himself, whom "nothing shews . . . more a God then warre," had sent "the victories and successes of a just warre."")

Ministers and laymen agreed nevertheless that it should be con- ducted according to certain general moral rules, which together made up an attitude epitomized in the adjuration "Slay in love."41 Soldiers must not delight in blood, they must eschew cruelty, they must kill cleanly without "exquisite torments," they must be merciful to the defeated, they must (normally) keep promises. These rules did not exclude appalling actions: "Torments," for example, were permissible to elicit information or in reprisal.42 That such atrocities remained rela- tively rare in England owed more to soldierly prudence and recognition of the dangers of a spiral of reprisal and to the brevity of the second civil war than to clerical teaching." Nevertheless, ministers on both sides continued to alleviate their rhetoric of justified violence with reminders of moral duties. At Basing, Beech railed against the enemy's "Crueltie" and "bloodie resolves," against "Irish vermine" and "cursed neutralitie," but he also admitted, "True it is, we must keep

38 HEHL, Bridgewater MS 6874; Beech, pp. 19-20. The "Tygers of Rome" and the Irish rebellion threatened "another Mary-martyrdome," declared Beech. '"tephcn Marshall, A Copy ofa Letter written by Mr Stephen Marshall To a friend ofhis in the City (London, 1643). pp. 23-25.

40 Caryl, sig. A2v; compare William Chillingworth. A Sermon Preuched At the prrh- like Fast Before his Muiesty at Christ-Church in 0sji)rd (Oxford, 1644; probably in fact a "spurious" London edition of a sermon preached at Reading in November 1642), p. 12, on "a just war, because necessary."

Gouge, p. 296; see also T. J., The Christian Sorrldier. Or, Preparationfor Battaile (London, 1642), p. 4: the "civil1 valour" of the perfect soldier enables him to "kill without cruelty."

42 Bernard, pp. 245-51; Gouge, pp. 295-96.

4'~hecivility of the civil war has been exaggerated; fragile at best, it was breached by atrocities at worst, while notorious cruelty against the Irish, in England as well as Ireland, was justified on grounds of reprisal and of their barbarian "otherness." The second civil war posed an even more serious threat to "civility" than did the first.

promise with our enemies, though they faulter, and prove base and treacherous to us, we must not promise to save them, and then destroy them; we must not agree to receive them to protection, and afterwards work their confusion."" On the other side, William Chillingworth re- minded royalists of the biblical injunction to do no wicked thing against one's enemies; the cause was best served by conducting a "faire and merciful1 . . . Warre."45 On both sides, clerical moralists recognized the pressures and crises of soldiering, without abandoning ethical stan- dards; they distinguished, for example, between actions performed in hot and cold blood, a distinction accepted by soldiers and lay civilians in whose eyes the fury of the royalist capture of Leicester, "cruel" as it was, differed from Sir Francis Doddington's premeditated hanging of harmless clothiei-s.46 Both sides recognized the danger that violence readily became cruel and ~ncontrollable.~~

Nor did the parties differ on moral obligations not directly related to combat; they agreed that certain categories of persons merited spe- cial protection and that certain kinds of conduct were unequivocally condemned. Clergy, moralists, and articles of war had long asserted that the weak who could do no harm should not themselves be harmed. Old Testament protections for weak women and young children had

44 Beech, pp. 1, 24, 28, 31. The duty to keep promises was not simple, as casuistic theory had long recognized. See Thomas Swadlin on royalist soldiers who had taken the covenant: were they bound in conscience to perform what they had solemnly vowed? He concluded that "A Sacrament of Piety must not be a Bond of Inquity" and that even "Just vowes may be nulled and made voyd by the Superior" (Tlhomas] Slwadlin], The Soldiers Cafechisme: Cornposedji~r the King's Arrnie [Oxford, 16451, pp. 6-8).

"Chillingworth, p. 12.

4h A Narration ofthe Siege and taking of the town ofleicester (London, 1645), p. 8; C. H. Firth, ed., The Memoicy ofEdmunti Lutilow Lieutenant-general of the horse in the urmy qf'the commonwealth qf'England, 1625-1672, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1894), 1:95-96, 119-20. By the laws of war, Leicester's refusal to surrender "legitimated" plunder and killing, although they remained "cruel"; there was no similar excuse for Doddington.

47 See, e.g., Edward Symmons, the godly friend of Stephen Marshall in the 1630s turned godly royalist in the 1640s, who told Rupert's troops at Shrewsbury that con- science and reputation required that "you neither do, nor . . . suffer to be done, in coole blood, to the most in~pious Kebells, any thing that savours of immodesty, Barba- rousnesse, or inhumanity. To uncloath men and women of their Garments, and to expose their nakedness to open view, (as the Enemies did in Ireland) is most immodest and offensive to God and all good men: To be an houre or 2 in hacking and torturing a woefull wretch, or in takeing away that miserable life, which might be concluded in a moment, or to wreake ones fury upon a dead Carkasse, is a most barbarous, cowardly, and impious thing, and odious to God . . . ; so to use revileing speeches, and cursed execrations, against them that are ready to dye, or are going out of the world, full of wounds, and paines, is most inhumane: nay 'tis plainely Diabolicall to insult over men in misery, be they never so vile, never such wretched Enemies" (Symmons [n. 35 above], p. 35).

been extended to other classes, including the clergy.4N And a combina- tion of Christian and more primeval sanctions is evident in rules that protected women in childbed, prohibited rape, and abhorred mutilation of the dead: it colors the extravagant horror of much normative and descriptive civil war writing.4% sense that certain classes of people merited special protection then as now shaped attitudes to conduct in war. In private morality too, even in the sphere of "further reforma- tion" where we might expect at last to find significant differences be- tween royalists and parliamentarians, the common ground is striking. The terms in which ministers of both sides told their hearers that they were morally wanting were interchangeable, for they found them ad- dicted to the same litany of sins that incurred divine wrath and judg- ment. Bipartisanly the clergy deplored the evils of drink, sex, swear- ing, quarreling, disorderliness, and irreligion.

Armies did not rely on exhortation and providential judgment for reform, however. Secular legislation in military articles of war pro- vided for enforcement without waiting for divine action, and here too much was bipartisan. The content of these military articles cannot be attributed to puritanism. From the time of Richard 11, increasingly comprehensive articles had addressed religious and moral as well as strictly military discipline. Henry VIII's articles of 1513 mandated hanging for sacrilege and branding for prostitution; protected church persons and property, women in childbed, and young children; forbade robbery of civilians; and prohibited rape and gambling; in 1544 he added a prohibition of icon~clasm.~~'

By 1562 English soldiers were subject to imprisonment and other penalties for swearing, drunken- ness, and gambling and were forbidden to keep women other than their wives." Later sixteenth-century articles, like the modernizations of the 1620s and 1630s, continued to legislate morally. Rules "Concerning Religion: and breach of Moral1 du[t]iesM were an established part of

48 See the discussion of the Pas Dei and the associated truce of God in Julius Goebel, Felony and Misdemeanor: A Study in the History of English Criminal Procedure (New York, 1937), pp. 298-309.

4y Prewar knowledge of events in Germany and, in 1641, in Ireland (both massively reported in England) prepared the ground for intense anxiety and heightened response to instances of "barbarity" in England.

'"Francis Grose, The Antiquities ofEngland and Wales, new ed., 8 vols. (London, [1783-87]), 1:34, 42-43, 50-51; Hereqfrer Ensue certayne Statutes and ordinannces of warre made ordeyned enacted & establyshed by the . . .moste Cristen Prynce our moste dreade Sorneraygne lorde Kynge Henry the. viii. ([London], 1513), passim; Statutes and ordynances qf the warre (London, 1544), p. Aii. (These articles omit or compress some of the moral provisions of 1513.)

Calendar of State Papers, Foreign, 1562, pp. 326-27.

military law well before 1642 and were retained by both sides.52 Parlia- mentary articles prohibited blasphemy, cursing, neglect of divine wor- ship, drunkenness, "Unnatural1 abuses" (including rape), and adul- tery. The king's articles likewise began with prohibition of blasphemy, "Unlawful1 Oathes and Execrations," and absence from sermons and morning and evening prayer; added a clause against sacrilege, icono- clasm, and wrongs against God's ministers; and went on to stipulate punishments for drunkenness and rape.j3 The military legislation of both armies hoped to produce troops who were religious and moral as well as orderly and efficient. On all scores, hope was freyuently misplaced. Unfortunately, the virtual absence of runs of court-martial records makes it difficult to judge how strenuously and systematically the "moral" provisions of articles of war wcre enforced.j4

The clergy's den~~nciations and exhortations therefore built on an

I* For a sampling of these developments, see, e.g., Lawes clnd Ordinances, set dok'ne by Robert Earle of Leycester . . . in the Lowe Countries . . . to be published and notijied to the vvhole Armie (London, [1586]); and see also C. G. Cruickshank, Elizabeth's Army, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1966), pp. 296-303; Lavves and Orders of Warre, established for the good conduct of the service in Ireland (London, 1599), p. 2 and passim; Public Record Oftice (PRO), State Paper (SP) 91208, fols. 259-62 ("Martiall Lawes" for a domestic army, 116251); Lawas and Ordinances Qf Warre, For the better Government of His Maiesties Army Royal1 . . . Under . . . Thomas Earl ~f'ilrundel and Surrey, Earl Marshall of England (Newcastle, 1639), pp. 3-6 (for laws "Concerning Religion: and breach of Morall dultlies"). Note also the influence on English military law of Dutch and Swedish example.

'' See, e.g., Lawes and Ordinances of Warre, Established,for the better Conduct of the Army by His Excellency The Earlc of Essex (London, 1642), pp. [A], B2-b2v; later issues of parliamentary articles retained these provisions. For the royalists, see Military Orders And Articles Established by His Maiesty (1643) (n. 23 above), pp. 2-4, 9, 18. Shorter versions of royalist articles did not contain a clause against rape; compare Military Orders, And Articles, ELstahlished by His Maiestie (Oxford, [1643]), pp. 4-5, par. nos. 1-4, 18. See also earlier royalist articles for Newcastle's forces in the north, prohibiting blasphemy, swearing, drunkenness, and rape (Orders and 1nstitution.s of War, Made and ordained by His Maiesty, and . . . delivered to . . . The Earle of Newcastle [London?, 16421, pp. A2, 4).

I4 See John Adair, "The Court Martial Papers of Sir William Waller's Army, 1644," Journal of the Society ,for Army Historical Research 44 (1966): 205-26; Godfrey Davies, eds., "Dundee Court-Martial Records 1651," Miscellany of the Scottish Histovy Society, 2d ser., 19 (1919): 1-67. Context affected enforcement. Priorities differed for an army in action and an army of occupation: in 1644 swearing was more tolerable than desertion. Royalists seem normally to have placed pragmatic military considerations above moral ones (although parliamentarians, e.g., Waller, could also waver on this point); see the case of the drunken and violent royalist Lieutenant Colonel David Hyde, BL, Harleian (Harl.) MS 6851, fols. 72-94 passim, 118-19, and Harl. MS 6852, fol. 70; T. T. Lewis, ed., Letters of'Lady Brilliana Harley, Camden Society 58 (1854), p. 253 (n. for p. 21);

P. R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660 (New York, 1981),

p. 208; B. Donagan, "Understanding Providence: The Difficulties of Sir William and Lady Waller,"Journal ofEcclesia.stica1 History 39 (1988): 442. In both armies seriously criminal offenses such as rape and highway robbery were severely punished.

existing militaryllegallmoral framework. On both sides, they sought to reinforce rules of order and humanity in military endeavors.j5 And on both sides, among soldiers and civilians alike, they confronted simi- lar social and religious evils. Their voices reechoed between parties. The parliamentarian Joseph Caryl's warning against the "heart . . . ruin'd, or life unshap't" had its royalist counterpart in Chillingworth's call for faith, repentance, study of scripture, "effectual1 conversion and reformation of life" and for a religion of the heart that did not depend on the formalism of either sacraments or serm~ns.~Winisters on both sides could agree with the royalist who declared that only the repentance and reform of an impenitently sinful people would bring "the Enruged Diety [sic] to put up his S~ord."~~

In London and Ox- ford, ministers denounced the same catalog of lusts, covetousness, "exotike fashions," "naked breasts," beauty spots, and swearing and demanded reformation to pacify God and turn away judgment.jx

One must not exaggerate similarities. Caryl's account of God's two books, the black book of death filled with the names of the repro- bate and the white book of life with those of his saints written in gold, was distinctively parliamentarian in its vivid and aggressive emphasis on the theology of election. The fervent defense of the Prayer Book by John Pearson, later an army chaplain and later still bishop of Ches- ter, was unmistakenly royaIi~t.~"urthermore, similarities of education

55 On offenses such as absenteeism, tumults, and "Cruel plunder," see, e.g., [Fernel

(n. 35 above), pp. 18-19, 43-45; Rlobert] Ram, The So~tldiers Catechisme: Composed ji,r the Parliaments Army, 7th ed. ([London], 1645), pp. 19, 21, 26-27. Chillingworth (n. 40 above), pp. 5, 7, 13-14, 25-28; Caryl (n. 35 above), p. A2v.

57 Rlichardl Hlarwoodl, The loyall Subiect's retiring-roome. Opened in a sermon at St Maries, on the 13th day r!fIltly . . . 1645 (Oxford, 1645), pp. 11, 35, and see p.

36: "Is there a nasty drr~nkard, a rotten adltlterer, or a damned swearer the lesse for these sad times? . . . Never speake of peace more, so long as thou art thus at open Warre with Heaven." Compare [Fernel, Gilgal (n. 35 above), p. 21.

Compare strikingly parallel royalist and parliamentarian diatribes: H[anvoodl, The loyall Sr~biect's retiring-Roome, pp. 8-9; Edmund Staunton, Phinehas's Zeal in Execr~tion ofludgement. Or, A Divine Remedy Ji)r Englands Misery (London, 1645), p.

14. Note also a 1647 warning to Yorkshire against sins encouraged by "security" that "all danger is past. . .land] the seat of war. .. removed"; they included the "bravery" and "ornaments" of "proud" and "haughty" women, highly traditional elements in catalogs of sin. Will[iaml Meeke, The Fhithfull Scout: Giving an Alarme to Yorkshire, (especially to the Enste-IZyding) (York, 1647), pp. 40-42.

5Y Caryl, p. 5; John Pearson, "The Excellency of forms of prayer, especially of the Lord's Prayer," in The Minor Theological Works of John Petzrson, D.D. Bishop of' Chester, and sometime Mtzster of'Trinity College, Cambridge, ed. Edward Churton, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1844), 2:99, 105-6. However, for a moderate, pragmatic, parliamentarian view on use of the Prayer Book, expressed by a long-serving army chaplain, see [Edward Bowlesl, Manifest Truths, or an inversion of Truths ManiJest. Containing a Narration of the Proceedings of the Scottish Army, und tz Vindictztion of the Purliament c~nd Kingdome qf England (London, 1646), pp. 32, 34.

and culture could develop differently under stress of war. Yet ministers did not change the style of their preaching because they elected the royalist over the parliamentarian side; so an old godly preacher of the 1630s like Edward Symmons sounded much the same when he turned against former allies, even if he now preached obedience and the dan- gers of radicalism." And Bruno Ryves, the clamorous royalist Mercu- rius Rusticus, was scarcely a voice of ecumenical mildness. Neverthe- less, although many sermons of the war years did not depart from well-trodden prewar paths, many parliamentary sermons employed a militant, violent language expressive of a conviction that hearers were providential instruments of God, soldiers of the Lord chosen to crush religious deviates and evildoers: rhetorically, Antichrist, the whore of Babylon, Turks, Jews, and the notoriously heathen and cruel were readily conflated with royalist armies.61 Sermons before battle, of course, had certain common characteristics, for it was an intrinsically bloodthirsty and inspiriting genre. In general, however, we may tenta- tively identify a more traditional, moderate, obedient, irenic tone in royalist sermons, one that looks forward to Restoration moderation as much as back to H. R. Trevor-Roper's golden age of the Erastian 1630s. John Berkenhead's Oxford sermon of 1644 on "The Necessity of Christian Subjection" substituted an "Anglican" emphasis on the virtue of passive endurance for parliamentary militancy and activism when he declared, "The blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the Church. The bloud [sic], not the sword, that were too T~rkish."~~ Differences of tone and substance were evident on matters ranging

"Symmons, Military Sermon (n. 35 above); note also continuities of sermon organi- zation and mnemonics in, e.g., John Berkenhead, A Sermon Preached before His Majes- tie at Christ-Church in Oxford, On the 3. of Novemb. 1644 (Oxford, 1644), p. 2.

See, e.g., Beech (n. 35 above), pp. 6, 10, 20, on the "Qgers ofRome," and on "the heathenish and cruel1 . . . French Philistims [sic], Welsh Egiptians, Cornish Hun- garians [and] . . . degenerate Ismalites of the Renegado English."

H. R. Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Ar~glicans and Puritans (Chicago, 1988), chap. 4, pp. 166-230; Berkenhead, p. 13. This royalist note of resignation to suffering, of hope deferred but not abandoned, became stronger as time passed. See, e.g., H. Ferne, A

Sermon Preached Before His Majesty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, November 29, I648 (London, 1649), pp. 1-2, 8-10,20, on the "Trouble" of seeing all go "contrary . . . to the course of Divine Providence, and rule of Justice"; yet for those who waited, "Assurance" would ultimately come: "to a whole Nation, upon their remarkable, and more general1 repentance, there is a deliverance assured." Compare the increasing pas- sivity of Puritan providentialism as disillusion spread in the late 1640s and 1650s; see Blair Worden, "Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England," Past and Present, no. 109 (1985), pp. 79-80, 89, 98, and "Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan," in History, Society and the Churches: Essays in Honour ofOwen Chadwick, ed. D. Beales and G. Best (Cambridge, 1985), p. 140; Donagan, "Understanding Providence," pp. 433-35. 443-44.

from obedience to the Irish. Some represented large ideological divi- sions; some were special problems, as in royalist condemnations of duels and quarrels, which reflected their dangerous and distinctive role in royalist c~lture.~"et despite differences there was a touch of bipartisan clerical despair when it came to religious and moral reforma- tion and the fit between cause and agents. Clerical exhortation rein- forced military discipline and hoped by precept to transform conduct, but both God's cause and the king's remained subject to scandal.64

The Word in Action?

Did ministers then affect actions in the war? Was exhortation reflected in conduct'? We may conclude that, as spiritual comforters, they were intermittently invaluable to many soldiers. As reformers they were part of the long line of preachers whose diatribes calling for amendment have changed little over the centuries, whose hopes are rarely fulfilled, and whose effect on lay practice-allowing for some exceptions like Savonarola and the Reverend Moon-remains ultimately inscrutable. An examination of three fields in which distinc- tively "puritan" characteristics have been identified-swearing, iconoclasm, and the issues, inextricably connected, of obedience and resistance-reveals the indeterminacy of the links between word and action and casts light on the relation between clerical teaching and lay practice.

Much has been made of puritan condemnation of oaths, but how distinctive and how effective was it? Royalists and parliamentarians alike deplored and legislated against blasphemy and swearing, and both sides retained the penalties of prewar military law, namely, boring through the tongue with a red-hot iron for blasphemy and loss of pay and other discrctionary punishment for "Unlawful1 Oathes and Exe- crations."" The two offenses should not be confused, as the respective

63 For obedience and the Irish, see text below. Although quarrels were also a parali- mentarian problem, they were more visible and damaging among royalists. Bodl., MS Tanner 61, fol. 106, and MS Tanner 62, fol. 420v; C. E. Long, ed., Diary oj'the Marches of the Royal Army during the Great Civil War; kept by Richard Symonds, Camden Society 74 (1859), pp. 30, 36, 276; Newman, pp. 208, 380 and passim; for the spectacular quarrels of the royalist David Hyde, see n. 54 above; for a royalist minister's linking of drink, honor, quarrels and duels, see [Fernel, Gilgal, p. 35.

64 Chillingworth, p. 13; and compare the earl of Denbigh's unavailing attempt to reform his parliamentarian troops in 1643: they should not "scandalize" their cause, "for now they are employed in a service that tends to God's glory, now they are carrying on a work of reformation" (Bodl., MS Tanner 62, fol. 381v).

h5 "Of Duties to God," in Lawes and Ordinances of Warre . . . Essex (n. 53 above), no p. (no pagination); par. nos. I, 11; Military Orders, And Articles, E.stabli.shed by His

severity of punishments indicates. Blasphemy was an intentional in- sult to God, bringing in its train denial of faith and subversion of reli- gion and ultimately of society; for the royalists it retained its historic connection with sacrilege, although for parliamentarians the distinction between sacrilege and iconoclasm grew blurred. Swearing, however, in its various manifestations of oaths, execrations, and curses, was more venial: the insult to God by taking his name in vain was uninten- tional and thoughtless, although its devaluation of the language of seri- ous oaths and bonds potentially endangered a society so dependent on good faith between parties for enforcement of legal, economic, and social compacts.

Swearing does indeed seem to have been widespread, although it was of course not new and was not confined to soldiers. In the war years, however, there was a sense that it had become more common among civilians, a development in part blamed on the presence and example of soldiers among whom it was a notorious professional attri- b~te.~~

The royalist Henry Ferne told his Oxford audience that it was "as if you could not speak one to another, or your Leaders and Officers give you a Command without an Oath or a Curse," and this despite the king's forbidding the practice. Indeed, the "contagion" had so spread since the city became a garrison that he now heard "with hor- ror . . . even Boyes and Women Swearing and Cursing."67 There were

Maiestie (n. 53 above), no p.; par. nos. 1-3. The seventeenth-century penalty for blasphemy was more severe than that of the late sixteenth century, when Leicester and Essex imposed primarily financial sanctions. However, Henry VIIl and his predecessors had mandated drawing and quartering for the more narrowly defined offense of sacrilege; cf. a draft contract for mercenaries to serve Henry VIll in 1545, leaving penalties for blasphemy and oaths to captains' discretion (Gilbert J. Millar, "Henry VIII's Prelimi- nary Letter of Retainer to Colonel Frederick von Reiffenberg for the Raising of 1500 Men-at-Arms," Journal of the Society for Arrny Historical Research 67 119891: 224). Articles drawn up for Charles 11's forces in 1673 continued to specify boring the tongue with a red-hot iron for blasphemy or speaking against any article of the Christian Saith, as well as lesser, progressive penalties for "Swearing or Cursing" (Articles and Rules for the better Government Of His Majesties Forces by land During this Present War

[London, 16731, pp. 2-3). It is hard to judge how much the tongue-boring punishment was used in the Civil War; in 1645 it was inflicted on a royalist soldier for calling Kupert and Maurice "bastards," surely closer to Iese-majeste than to blasphemy (BL., Harl. MS 2125, fol. 148~).

66 On naval profanity-"there is much swearing in the seaM-see Capp (n. 16 above), p. 323. "Swearing" was an elastic concept; some instances seem distinctly venial, e.g., "saying two several times in court upon my life was adjudged to be within the act of swearing." Quoted in Hirst (n. 6 above), p. 64.

h7 [Ferne], Gilgal (n. 35 above), pp. 14-15; compare Symmons, Military Sermon, pp. 43-44, on cursing among men, women, and children at Shrewsbury. For royalist prohibitions of swearing and the use of "unchristian & new coined oaths & cxccrations," see BL, Harl. MS 6802, fol. 215, and Harl. MS 6804, fols. 75-76, 81-81v; and see

good reasons for parliamentarians calling cavaliers "Goddammes," and the unfeigned revulsion of the defenders of Brampton Bryan at the "rotten language" and "poisoned words" of royalist besiegers was a characteristic godly response." Both armies seem to have made attempts to enforce their rules against swearing, although the paucity of court-martial records again makes it difficult to tell how energeti- cally they did so. Those of Cromwell's army in Scotland in 1651 show prosecutions for "swearing in a grosse manner, . . . 'by God's bloud and wounds,' . . . 'by God,' or 'as God shall judge mee,' " or "a pox of God take them"; but it is noteworthy that they accounted for a small part of all offenses and that punishment, though sharp, was ~hort.~'

There are signs that in parliament's armies as in the king's neither ministers nor legislation could cure soldiers of swearing, although the more godly refrained, and exceptional officers, through discipline, ex- ample, and force of character, could effect reform.70 Swearing, in fact, seemed ineradicably part of the character of the soldier. In 1640 Samuel Keme, later an indefatigable clerical "trumpet" to the parliamen- tary cause, had told an artillery garden audience that, although they would take it amiss if he said they were not God's soldiers, "yet they are discharging whole volleyrs of oaths against him."7' The experience of Syms, a refugee minister who fled to Plymouth and there became a ship's chaplain, suggests that the coming of godly war changed little. One night in the captain's cabin the reason for a "difference" among officers at Plymouth was mooted. A major explained "that one chief cause was my Lord Robartes his punishing four of them for swearing."

James F. Larkin, ed., Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, Royal Proclamations ofKing Charles 1, 1625-1646 (Oxford, 1983) pp. 909-11 (no. 424), 1021-23 (no. 484). These proclamations also required regular attendance at services and sermons.

68 HMC, Manuscripts of the Marquis ofBath, 1:6; and see, e.g., HMC, Fifth Report. Appendix, "Weymouth MSS," pp. 587-88.

h' Davies, ed., "Dundee Court-Martial Records" (n. 54 above), pp. 12-13,21. Three offenders were sentenced to an hour on the wooden horse, gagged, wearing a placard saying "For swearing"; the fourth, already imprisoned for ten days, was released with a "sharpe reproof." Fornication, attempted rape, and purely military offenses were more severely punished. See also Adair (n. 54 above), pp. 205-26; this record contains no blasphemy offenses; instead, discipline addressed offenses more immediately danger- ous to an army on active service. Note the comment that, in the navy, had fines been levied for swearing according to the law, sailors "would soon have cursed beyond the value of their entire wages and indeed beyond the value of the ship itself" (Capp, p. 323). See Gentles (n. 3 above), pp. 106-7, 470, n. 115, for instances of punishment of blasphemy in the New Model Army.

''One seaman went so far as to claim that in three years he never heard an oath on Blake's flagship, or indeed in the whole fleet. Capp, p. 324. " Samuel Keme, The New Fort oj'trme Honour, Made Imnpregnable. Or., The Mar- tialists dignity and dutie (London, 1640), p. 24.

Syms's account of what happened next shows the difficulties of a godly reformer:

Our captain said, my lord Robartes was much to blame, & that there was no commander but must & would swear at times; whereupon I answered him in a mild way, that certainly were the heart seasoned with saving grace there would be a restraint of this sin by reason of which the land mourns & for which the Lord hath a controversy with his people: at which answer our captain broke out in to blasphemy & said a fart for grace; I being somewhat moved herewith, & reproving him, said withall, that 1knew some commanders in Plymouth that would not swear at all; he replied, you, what have you seen but a fool's head of your own; you puritanical fellows will not swear but you will lie & whore & be drunk as well as others, and gave me very abusive terms.72

The quarrel dragged on by land and sea. Syms was beaten in the street in Plymouth and rebuffed in ond don.'^ His failure was not unique. Nor did the creation of the New Model produce a reformation of soldierly language. The 1645 edition of Robert Ram's Souldiers Catechismr still lamented swearing and blasphemy, among other soldierly sins, and in 1646 a defender of the New Model admitted the persistence of swearing and drunkenness. Significantly, both placed the blame on officer lax- ness, a revealing acknowledgment of where they thought the ultimate power of army reformation lay.74

iconoclasm is more complex. There is no doubting puritan horror at "idolatry" or its place in the pantheon of sins: "adultery and idola- try are sister sins," proclaimed Edmund Sta~nton.'~

The actions of an

72 BL, Add. MS 35, 297, fols. 53v-54. The protagonists in this quarrel were both land and sea officers; it cannot simply be argued that the navy was more foul-mouthed than the army. See also Miller (n. 16 above), pp. 157-60. For the persistence of strains and incomprehension between clergy and soldiers on this topic, see the dismissal in 1862 by Henry James's brother of a "credulous" chaplain's sermon against profanity. Of a swearing colonel James added, "If profanity makes such, for goodness' sake let us all swear" (R. W. B. Lewis, The .Iarnesrs: A Family Narrutive [New York, 19911, pp. 127-28).

73 He was defeated by the solidarity of "the commissioners [who] being captains were all for" his enemy. BL, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 57v, 62.

74 Ram (n. 55 above), p. 19; W. G., A Just Apologie for An Abused Armie (Idondon, 1646), p. 12. Compare Meeke's complaint about the prevalence of swearing among the general population in 1647: "walke the streetes, and without listening, you may heare most horrid oathes and curses on every side" (Meeke [n. 58 above], p. 42).

75 Staunton (n. 58 above), p. 2; Beech (n. 35 above), p. 6. On the link between adultery and idolatry, and on punishments for both sins, see Margaret Aston, England's Iconoclasts, vol. I, Laws against Images (Oxford, 1988), pp. 468-79, and see chap. 3, passim. See also Morrill, "Religious Context," in The Nature of the English Revolution

ideologue like Sir Robert Harley or of the soldiers who rampaged through Canterbury cathedral or parish churches in the late summer of 1642 did not need the immediate stimulus of ministerial urging, although there was a long history of protestant teaching behind them. Nehemiah Wharton's hubristic early letters in which sermons rubbed shoulders with iconoclasm and pillage of papists did not suggest cleri- cal in~itement.~~

Clerical justifications of iconoclastic action, indeed, remained defensive. Ram felt the need to confront the question, "Is it well done of some of your Souldiers (which seeme to be religious) to break down Crosses and Images?" His answer made a convenient distinction. First he condemned "tumultuous" action, but then he le- gitimated "correct" soldierly initiative: "Seeing God hath put the Sword of Reformation into the Souldiers hand, I think it is not amisse that they should cancel1 and demolish those Monuments of Supersti- tion and idolatry." Iconoclasm by troops was unexceptionable when God had "stirred up the spirits of some honest Souldiers to be his instruments."77

Ram's proviso about "tumult" signaled reservations to which we shall return, but we can also be seriously misled by a narrow religious focus. Not every incident of desecration was religiously motivated: organ pipes and church roofs provided lead for bullets as well as ideo- logical sati~faction.~'

More important, apparently straightforward icon- oclastic incidents need to be fitted into a larger context. Some exam- ples will demonstrate layers of significance in "triumphs" and "tumults" so often reported with self-righteous approval. At Mars- worth, Buckinghamshire, after soldier-apprentices had broken down communion rails and beaten the painted glass from the windows, they "tore the service books all to pieces, scattering some of the leaves

(n. 8 above), p. 67, and "The Church in England," ibid., pp. 154-55, 170; for Gentles's argument that parliamentary iconoclasm did not constitute "an orgy of destruction," see pp. 109-110, 471-72 (n. 132). For an account of the "tumultuary," "foaming" rabble aroused to defend church images, see Baxter, Autobiography (n. 17 above), pp. 38-40.

''The Copy of a Letter Sent to arz Horzolnrable Lord, by Doctor Puslie, Slnhdeune of Canterbury (Idondon, 1642), pp. 4-5; A perfect Diurnal1 qf'the severull pussuges in our late journey into Kent, froin ALIR. 19. to Sept. 3 1642. by the appointment of both House.s of Purliarnent (n.p., n.d.), p. 8; HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7765. Objections to "idolatry" did not necessarily lead to destruction; some "idols" were turned to the benefit of the godly state, e.g., in 1645 it was ordered that "the crucifix and other popish pictures of Mr Pitt a delinquent be forthwith sold for the use of the state" (BL, Add. MS 29,974.2, fol. 404). Did they go to already corrupted papists'!

'"Ram, pp. 20-22.

7X For equally practical reasons, both sides quartered soldiers, prisoners, horses, and arms in churches.

about the streets, and carrying the rest away upon the points of their swords, and afterwards one of them took the surplice and put it on him, as the minister useth to do, and so marched away to Ailesbury triumphing in contempt and derision."" The frenzy at Canterbury of- fered richer opportunities for destruction and predation. There, even after some wanted to call a halt, "indiscrete Zealots" stabbed and disemboweled representations of Christ in the arras hangings and shot at his statue in the south gate, "forty shot at the least, triumphing much when they did hit it in the head or face," until at last one of the parliamentary commanders came "to the reliefe and rescue" and appeased the tumult^."^^ At Norwich, once the cathedral had been devastated, "what tooting and piping upon the destroyed organ pipes, and what a hideous triumph on the market-day before all the country, when in a kind of sacrilegious and profane procession, all the organ- pipes, vestments, both copes and surplices, together with the leaden cross . . . ,and the service books and singing books . . . were carried to a fire in the public market-place; a lewd wretch walking before the train in his cope trailing in the dirt."x' At one level these are all ac- counts of religious enthusiasm, if carried to excess. At another they are examples of the joys of vandalism, misrule, inversion, and aban- donment of social discipline. The recurrence of "tumults" and "tri- umphs" in such accounts signals a dual anxiety: at straightforward threat to public order and at overtly expressed popular satisfaction in defiance of hierarchy.

The danger in releasing these genies from the bottle led to reserva- tions and second thoughts about this form of religious zeal, for it was closely allied to quite secular pleasures of vandalism and destruction which found ample scope in war. When there was so much legitimate, official destruction, it was difficult to rein in soldiers (and civilians) at the point at which military or ideological objectives had been satisfied. Fire, for example, was an endemic urban danger even in peace and a common wartime method of creating a cleared field for action and of threatening or punishing civilians, but soldiers also became incendi- arists for pleasure. Not all pyres were bonfires of the vanities like that

"HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7765. "[Paske], Copy oj'a L,errer, pp. 4-6; Perfect Dirirnall, p. 8; HMC, Fifth Report, Part I: Appendix, "House of Lords Manuscripts" (London, I876), p. 46; L,J, 5:346.

" Quoted in Aston, p. 69; compare P. Styles, "The Royalist Government of Worces- tershire during the Civil War, 1642-1646." Transactions oj'thc. Worce.stershirc~Archac~ological Society, 3d ser., 5 (1976): 26, on "the Puritan soldiery" at Worcester in 1642 who "performled] profane imitations of the services and danc[edl in the streets decked out in the vestments."

at ~orwich.~*

On both sides soldiers plundered and trashed, destroying with gusto what they did not carry away or sell, leaving streets full of chaff and feathers from slit mattress ticks and tearing "in pieces . . . Accounts, Writings, and evidence^."'^ Such instances offended sense of order and threatened property across the social spectrum.x4 A new note speedily entered Wharton's letters, moderating the early euphoria with which he had reported breaking of communion rails and soldiers' extortion of meat and money from papists and seizure of "whole greate loaves and cheeses, which they triumphantly carry away upon the points of their swords."85 He continued to be edified by sermons and diverted by mockery of church ceremonies, but he quickly discovered that his own property too was threatened when predatory instincts were ~ncontrolled.~"

Threat to property was matched by threat to order. Inconoclasm, neither purely religious nor confined to soldiers or government agents, reinforced prewar anxiety that the social crust was very thin. Existing nervousness about "Captain Hohh" and his followers was intensified by the bipartisan disorders of the war's early months and was not reduced by claims of religious motivation. Gentlemen faced by a "rav- enous crew" feared "a dissolution of all government."87 Iconoclasm gave new opportunities to soldiers and civilians to vent old habits of mockery and inversion; their acts of "contempt and derision" were secular as well as religious. Mock hangings, with the full legal panoply of trial and reprieve on the scaffold, subverted respect for legal pro-

"On fire and destruction, see Stephen Porter, "The Destruction of Urban Property in the English Civil Wars, 1642- 1651" (D.Phil. thesis, University of London, 1983), chaps. 4-6; for examples of the confused character of many firings, part intentional, part accidental, see, e.g., BL, Harl. MS 2125, fol. 67, 134 (Chester and Handbridge); Sprigge (n. 19 above), pp. 73-74 (Bridgewater); A Brief Relation of' The taking qf Bridgew~tterby the Parliaments Forces under . . . Sir Tho: Fairfas (London, 1645), pp. 3-4; and the pamphlets collected in Four Tracts relative to The Battle of Birmingham Anno Dornini 1643 [ed. Leonard Jay] (Birmingham, 1931), pp. 13, 16, 31-33.

83 lister, Autobiography (n. 17 above), p. 26; Mercurius Ruslicus (n.p., 1646), pp. 56-57, 67.

"The poor suffered as well as the rich; see, e.g., K.Andrewes, A perfect Declara- tion of the Barbaroris and Cruc.11 practises comrnittc.d by Prince Robert, the Cavalliers and others (London, 1642), pp. A3 ff.

" [Wharton] (n. 17 above), pp. 31 1-14.

'"bid., pp. 320-22, 330-31. Wharton "experimentally found" it truc that parlia- mentary horse preyed on their own foot, for they took f3 worth of his property and "pillaged . . . and robbed" him of goods that, so he claimed, had been given to him in gratitude (ibid., p. 322).

See the observations of a moderate parliamentarian on the attack on the recusant Countess Rivers's house in 1642 (Arthur Wilson, "Observations of God's I'rovidence, in the Tract of my Life," in The Inconstant Lady, a Play [London, 18141, pp. 134-37); and see LJ, 5:302, 327-28; Journals of the House. qfcommons (CJ), 2:725.

cesses as explicitly as "sacrilegious and profane processions" led by a "lewd wretch" in a pillaged cope or surplice did religiou~.'~ When parliamentary soldiers brought a horse to the font and christened it "Charles," their action was subversive as well as sa~rilegious.~"he insistent "triumphalism" of accounts of iconoclasm emphasizes affin- ity to traditional rituals of revelry and reversal, as does recurrence of the motif of procession turned populist comedy: whether swords bore cheeses or pages of servicebooks, the comedy lay in the derogation of official pomp and dignity."

The "tumultuous" nature of the occasions emphasizes the diffi- culties implicit in Ram's justification of iconoclasm; it was virtually impossible to exclude "tumult" from the process, to ensure that it was carried out, if not by official agents, then only by soldiers truly "stirred up" by God to be his instruments. Like much else in war, it readily threatened order, personal safety and property, and unleashing of the "rabble." Ministers of the kind discussed here had no wish for such chaos, although some hedge preachers may have felt differently. By their general teaching they supported old protestant, anti-Arminian reformation of idolatry and ritual, but in practice they faced the di- lemma of destructive mob action. Their wartime justification of icono- clasm depended on a distinction unsustainable in practice between its orderly and inspired and its tumultuous manifestations. Control and management of the phenomenon depended on enforcement of military and civil law, not on preaching or catechisms.

Problems of tumult and discipline were at the heart of ambivalent treatment of another thorny issue, that of resistance and obedience. Here parliamentary divergence from the royalist position was striking, yet at the practical military level the two sides again converged. Insis- tence on the duty of absolute obedience to the king is one of the most distinctive characteristics of royalist sermons and apologetics. One comprehensive title summed up their position, "prov[ing] by holy Scriptures, ancient Fathers, constant Martyrs, and our best modern Writers, that it is no wayes lawfull for any private man, or any sort or

Perfect Diurnall (n. 76 above), p. 9; HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7856; for prewar anxieties, see, e.g., HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7834, Bridgewater MS 7835.

x"ymonds, Diary (n. 63 above), p. 67; for continued anxiety about occasions of traditional release, see the fear of Colchester authorities in 1648 that "a tumultuous array . . . intend to rise in a riotous manner to plunder & commit some outrages tomor- row being May Day." BL, Stowe MS $42, fol. 14. For a prewar example of "folk" religious mockery, see Calendar of stat^ Paper.r, Ilomestic (CSPIl), 1637-1638, p. 63.

"O The tormenter of an aged royalist minister was described as "the master of this misrule" (Merc~nrius R~nstic~s),

p. $1.

degree of men . . . for any cause, compelling to Idolatry, exercising Cruelty, practizing Tyranny, or any other pretext, how fair and spe- cious soever it seems to be, to Rebell, take armes, and resist the authority of their lawfull King." "Colour of religion" could not justify "Resisting the Lawful1 Magistrate."" The obligation of obedience and the duty of loyalty produced a response among some clerical royalists that was as much visceral as intellectual, one that helps to explain the "defection" to the king's ranks of some old godly Calvinists like Edward Symmons." "Who can lijt up his hand against the Lords Anoynted, and he innocent?" asked Chilling~orth.'~ To rebel was to renounce Christianity; God required "passive obedience and absolute subjection." Disobedience to God's vice-regent entailed "Disobedi- en[ce] to Parents, Naturall, Ecclesiastical, and Politicall," abdicated power to the multitude, and led to the breakdown of civil society: "what Robberies, what Rapes, what Murthers, what Burglaries, what

" Gr. Williams, Vindiciae Regum; or, The Grand Rebellion that is, A L,ooking- glasse, for Rchcls. . . . (Oxford, 1643)-the passage quoted in the text is part of the continuation of Williams's title; [Henry Hammondl, Of Resisting the L,awfnll Magistrate Under colorir of Religion, and Appendent to it, of the word . . . rendred Darnnation, Rom.13 (Oxford, 1644), listed in Falconer Madan, Oxford Books: A Bibliography of Printed Works Relating to the University and City of Oxford, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1895- 1931), 2:344. Compare also a sermon preached at Ludlow in 1639: "It is certain that religion cannot be right, that resists princes," and "Never was true Christian rebel to his Prince" (HEHL, Bridgewater MS 6873; see also H. Ferne, Conscience Satisfied. That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by Snbjects [Oxford, 16431). Compare the less absolute position of Robert Sanderson in July 1640, allowing morally diligent inquiry into the lawfulness of any order from the magistrate that raised "just cause for doubt." Once doubt was satisfied, however, "we are . . . to submit and obey without any more ado" (Robert Sanderson, "The Twelfth Sermon," in Serrnons by the Right Reverend Father in God, Robert Sanderson, late L,ord Bishop of Lincoln, ed. R. Montgomery, 2 vols. [London, 18411, 2:289-90). Most "puritans" would have had no difficulty with this position. On the awkwardly Calvinist, anti-Puritan, but flexible Sand- erson, see Porter G. Lake, "Serving God and the Times: The Calvinist Conformity of Robert Sanderson," Journal of British Studies 27 (1988): 81-1 16.

'' On the "passionate" response to issues of obedience and resistance, see Morrill, "Religious Context" (n. 8 above), pp. 63-64. See [Edward Symmons], A L,oyall Subjects Beliefe, Expressed in a Letter to Master Stephen Marshall . . .from Edward Symmons a neighbour Minister. . . . With The Answer to his Objections for resisting the Kings personall will by .force of Armes. And The Allegation ofsorne Reasons why the Authors Conscience cannot concrirre in this way of resistance with some ofhis Brethren (Oxford, 1643), sig. 2, 2v (see chap. heads I, 5, 6, 9). Compare Lionell Gatford, An E,~lzortation to Peace: With an Intimation oj'the prime Enemies thereoj'(London, 1643), pp. A-Av, A2v: before the war, Gatford had "darledl freely to reprove corruption and innovation in Religion and religious worship," but, when he "saw the sword come," he "stood obliged" to proclaim to the nation the duty of obedience to the king and the evil of rebellion.

93 Chillingworth (n. 40 above), p. 11.

Extortions, what Exactions."" Theirs were arguments of conscience just as much as were puritan claims of the right to resist, and they made up a formidable position, linking as they did personal loyalty, Christian hierarchy and order, and fear of lawless chaos.

Parliamentarians responded energetically in pamphlets, sermons, and catechisms. In a 1642 sermon Calybute Downing declared, "I have studied obedience as much as in me lieth, I have studied by prayer, by meditation, I find obedience due to the king as king in parliament, but not as head of factious villains, & the very scum of the kingdom."95 The themes of primacy of duty to obey king in parliament rather than king in person, of false councillors, of popish and Irish threat, of ur- gency to preserve "Religion, and Lawes, and Liberties" and identity as 'tfree-borne English men," were endlessly reiterated. It was also argued that the king had broken his contract. As Beech told parlia- ment's soldiers outside Basing House, there was a reciprocity of duty between prince and people, "as the people by the lawes of God and Nature are bound to render lawfull obedience to their Prince, so ought the Prince reciprocally to be, not only the Defender of the Fu~th, but a Protector of his Subjects: everie School-boy hath learned so much of State matters." When "the Lords Anoynted" had so signally failed to protect the faith and his dutiful people, they must defend them- selves." Ram's catechism instructed soldiers how they were to gloss the awkward text of Rom. 13: 1-3: "That place requires not obedience to any unlawfull Commands, neither doth any other place of Scripture, we are no further to obey man, then may stand with the will of God."97 Yet although godly ministers, soldiers, and other laymen could be confident that it was the will of God that they should defy the king, it later grew difficult to decide whom, among their own ranks, God had willed that they could disobey.

One of the most objectionable spheres for exercise of individual conscience in this matter was military discipline. On this parliamentari- ans and royalists were at one. Their articles of war uniformly con- demned and imposed heavy punishments for disobedience and mutiny, as well as other expressions of individual choice such as flight, precipi-

''Berkenhead (n. 60 above), pp. 1, 5-6, 13. The sermon is headed "The Necessity of Christian Subjection"; Berkenhead appears to have limited active obedience, as dis- tinct from nonresislance, to "commands which are not directly against Cod" (ibid.,

p. 16). " HEHL, Bridgewater MS 6874.''Beech (n. 35 above), 23-24. See also Ram (n. 55 above), pp. 2-6, for a similar

catalog of justifications for taking up arms against the king. ''Ram, p. 5.

tate surrender, desertion, or free-enterprise plunder. The reasons for the military rules are obvious, if any kind of army was to be kept together and sent into coherent action. More interesting is the insis- tence on obedience in Ram's catechism, which rested ultimately on hierarchy. "Inferiour Souldiers" must acknowledge and honor their officers as superiors. Moreover, "they must be exactly obedient to their command, even for conscience sake; Rom. 13.5. of all men soul- diers are most strictly tied to obedience, the want whereof may prove of dangerous consequence." Mutineers were particularly reprehensi- ble, "dangerous cattell . . . [who] will hardly ever prove good Soul- diers."" In mutinies, as in the "tumults" that accompanied icono- clasm, soldiers took matters into their own hands, defied authority, created disorder, and endangered structures of discipline and hierar- chy. Ministerial urging to soldierly obedience remained awkwardly reconciled with justification of resistance according to conscience but was firmly based in abhorrence of "tumults." Yet although ministers may have been important in securing respectability for principled resis- tance to the king, on the matter of soldierly obedience they remained marginal; commanders depended on their officers and on army law for army discipline.

These three "puritan" phenomena are thus less simple than they at first appear. Swearing proves to be a stubborn problem of both armies, deplored in both and eradicated in neither. Iconoclasm was indeed uniquely sanctioned by parliamentarian apologists, but its ex- pressions owed much to secular tradition and mob psychology, and its excesses threatened social order and property that the godly valued as much as their enemies. And obedience and resistance were in danger of becoming case studies in situational ethics. The voice of the clergy was only one among many engaged in defining the bounds of legiti- macy; their part in enforcing discipline in reformation was closer to that of chorus than hero.
Preachers and Hearers

If the message of the parliamentary clergy was less than novel or distinctive on some apparently "puritan" issues, what remains of their

"Ibid., pp. 26-27. In fact mutinies were endemic in both armies, were handled with discretion rather than with uniform rigor, and were often the work of troops who before and after fought well. See also the "Nuremberg defence" in S[wadlin] (n. 44 above), pp. 12-13: royalist soldiers must obey the king's commands even if unjust, for they "make Himselfe onely guilty: your ready obedience will approve you Innocent."

role as God's agents and instruments in the war? Did they retain some special authority recognized by the men to whom they ministered?

We have already noted ways in which their presence was valued, and the sincerity of much of the testimony is unquestionable. Yet there is also evidence of social and moral ambivalcnce toward ministers that was heightened by war but not peculiar to it. First, there was the chronic problem of the status of clergy. As in peacetime, their claims to spiritual authority fitted awkwardly with economic dependence and an ambiguous place in the ranks of secular society. On some matters the peer and the gentleman acknowledged their expertise and de- pended on them for guidance and reassurance; on others they expected the clergy to know their place. Yet the sons of Levi aspired to recogni- tion of their gentle status, to good pay, and to worldly respect.99

One measure of their standing was reward. They can be placed in the army hierarchy by their pay. Although it may be objected that, for some, army pay was no more than an adjunct to livings or fellowships, the numbcr of such double-dippers was small, and the question of whether dual income invalidates army pay as a marker of status is in any case moot; the same objection could be made for captains who had a landed income or for ensigns whose families sent them money .Io0 For mcch of thc war a chaplain's pay seems to have been 8s. a day, but in November 1647 it was set at 6s. 8d.; this was the same as a physician's, more than either an apothecary's (5s.)or a surgeon's (4s.), but less than the chief legal officer's (10s.). A colonel's pay was 12s. a day, normally with an extra captain's loading of 10s. or 8s. The captain of an independent foot company got 8s. a day, but at least lieutenants (5s.4d. or 4s.) fell below ministers.lO' Army chaplains were

"Rosemary O'Day, '"The Anatomy of a Profession: The Clergy of the Church of England," in The Projc~ssions in Early Modern England, ed. Wilfrid Prest (London, 1987), pp. 53-58; Donagan, "Puritan Ministers and Laymen" (n. 13 above), pp. 81-1 11.

lo" See n. 25 above for chaplains beneficed before the war; and see Laurence (n. 15 above), pp. 31, 42, 55. 'The more conscientious holders of livings surrendered all or part of their income when they became absentees, as John Owen apparently' did to Constant Jessop at Coggeshall, Essex, in 1647 (B. Donagan, "The Clerical Patronage of Robert Rich, Second Earl of Warwick, 1619- 1642," Proceedings q/'the American Philosophical Society 120 119761: 394, 398 In. 561).

lo' PRO, SP 28117, fol. 181; PRO, SP 28126, fol. 455; PRO, SP 28130, fol. 171; PRO, SP 281126, fols. 16, 57; LJ, 10:66-71. Laurence, p. 15, believes that chaplains' pay was 8s. a day both at the beginning of the war and in the New Model, but she does not note the 1647 rate. In 1645 chaplains, unlike other officers, were granted their full pay without "respiting" part against future payment. CJ., 4:70; and cf. C. H. Firth and R. S. Kait, Acts and Ordinancc~s of the Interregnr~rn, 3 vols. (London, 19 1 1) 1:619. Prewar rates were 6s. 8d. each for two chaplains attached to the general staff and 4s. a day for regimental preachers. 'The 4s. daily rate may have persisted in royalist armies (HEHI,, Bridgewater MS 7682, fols. 52v, 59; Devon Record Office, Seymour of Berry Pomeroy

decently paid by clerical standards but counted as no more than middle management in the army's reward structure."* AS with physicans and surgeons, patronage and reputation brought extra returns; this carried civilian practice into war, for clergy were accustomed to discretionary payments to supplement regular income. While these emphasized their economically dependent status, they could also radically change it for the better. Some of the most active ministers did very well out of the war. On one occasion in 1647 a grateful Housc of Lords voted £500 each out of royalist estates to Stephen Marshall and Philip Nye. Mar- shall apparently grew rich, and Hugh Peter gained an estate (only to lose it in 1660). Yet such financial success, dependent as it was on visibility and favor, only emphasizes clerical economic dependence on laymen."'

Most ministers associated with armies did not benefit comparably and still had to struggle to assert their status vis-a-vis the laity. Some, indeed, through the hazards of war, notably ejection, flight, or plunder, had their hard-won prewar status endangered. The royalist Edward Symmons lost his savings and endured the indignity of being pointed at by children in the street who said, "There goes he that was in the Gaole"; there is pathos in his cry ''I have beene some body hereto- fore."Io4 The parliamentarian John Syms, abused by the village consta- ble, forced into hiding and then to flight, arrived in Plymouth without means of support and dependent on friends for his maintenance.''' Furthermore, ministers faced problems in asserting what they felt should be their position. Baxter's complaints about his exclusion from

MSS 1392 MIL 1643167). In 1653 chaplains in Scotland were retroactively granted 8s. a day, in terms implying that 6s. Xd. was the normal rate of pay (CSPI), 1652-1653, p. 338; and see Firth, Crornwell'.~Arrny In. 34 above], p. 325). As an example of variations in pay rates, note that Ralph Josselin received 10s. a day in 1645 (Iliary c?j'Xal~~h.losselin In. 27 above], p. 42).

lo' Their situation could have been much worse. Compare the position of chaplains to the Spanish army in Flanders, who, in the late sixteenth century, were paid only twice the basic soldier's wage. It is not surprising that their "professional standards . . . were . . . abysmal"; improvement in the seventeenth century came through the efforts of the Jesuits, Catholic counterparts of militant, Protestant, and godly army chaplains (Geoffrey Parker, The Arnzy r?/'l~'lunders unil the Spunisk Road, 1.567-16.59 ICambridge, 1990, corrected ed. I, pp. 17 1-72).

"I3 LJ, 9:612; [Giles Firmin], "A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal," in Thc~ Q~lestions Between the Conformist und Nonc~onf'orrni.st (London, 1681). (Marshall reputedly died worth f10,000; see Hugh Peter, A Dying Fathers 1,ast 1,egacy to un Onely Child ILondon, 16611, p. 102). For exarnples of discretionary lay largesse to ministers, see, e.g., Donagan, "Clerical Patronage," pp. 404-5.

"I4 [Symmonsl, 1,oyull Suhjc~c.ts BelieJe (n. 92 above), sigs. 2-2v.

lo' BI,, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 19v-23. One of the jobs they found for Syms was to go round the defenses, overseeing administration of the covenant.

the "councils and meetings of the officers" at headquarters have a whiff of social as well as religious pique."~yms's quarrel over swear- ing modulated into one over status. First the captain threatened to cane him-an indignity in itself for a gentleman-then he excluded him from his table, declaring that Syms only ate there as a courtesy and that he took no one into his ship as his equal. Syms's duty "was not to please the men but him." Syms was outraged: "What said I, against God. . . . Neither came 1 (1 told him) to be an underling, & that if 1 had thought not to be admitted as his collateral 1 should not have come thither at all.""' Man, minister, and God were insulted. Mr. Bate, the aggressively reformist minister of Mobberley, Cheshire, encountered similar resistance when he stepped outside the acceptable clerical sphere. "[Wlhen he is in the pulpit preaching the word of God he [sh]ould have . . . regard thereunto and not clamour and envy against particular men so publicly," said his critics; he should "not use pulpits to rail and ~candalise.'"'~

Nonetheless demand for their presence and anxiety to hear their message provided a countervailing solace to affronted ministers. Even Syms could take comfort from the number aboard the I-'uovidence who supported him against its captain.lO"et we should add a few grains of salt to self-serving and God-serving evaluations of clerical influence. Sermons, for one thing, provided diversion, as well as being a man- dated part of army routine. That many were lively is evident from the printed page, and puritan preachers were self-conscious performers; histrionic skill had long been professionally cultivated. Symmons con- ceded that the "best Preachers" were on parliament's side."' Contin

lo' Baxter, A~ltohiogruphy(n. 17 above), p. 52.

lo' BL,, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 54v, 55v.

"'"L,, Add. MS 11,331, fols. 10v-11; and see R. N. Dore, ed., The Letter Boolts oj'Sir Willintn Brc~reton, vol. I, .lunr~ury 3lst-May ZYth, 1645, Record Society of L,anca- shire and Cheshire, vol. 123 (1984), pp. 262-63. As Dore indicates, Bate had defenders as well as critics and victims. One of his provocative actions was denial of money collected for the poor to his Mobberley parishioners because "they were not tit to receive it," not being "of the household of faith"; his opponents were characterized as "base fellows and drunkards and whoremasters" (EL, Add. MS 1 1,331, fol. I I).

'09 BL, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 54v-55v. Compare the divisions arising from Baxter's departure to the army from Coventry (Baxter, Autohiogruphy, pp. 51-52); and Wey- mouth's anxiety to retain the services of Peter Ince, "preacher to the garrison" (HMC, "Weymouth MSS," Fifth Report: Appendix, pp. 588-89-but see also abuse of Ince, ibid., p. 587).

"" Symmons, Mi1itur.y Scrmon (n. 35 above), pp. 15-16: see also R. P. Stearns, The Strennous P~lritnn: H~lgh P~trr (lirbana, Ill., 1954), p. 234, on Peter as a "rabble-rouser"; Donagan, "Puritan Ministers and 1,aymen" (n. 13 above), pp. 85-86, and "Clerical Patronage" (n. 100 above), pp. 405-6, on Puritan emphasis on preachers' performance.

ued legislation requiring presence at sermons and public worship sug- gests, however, that royalist chaplains may not have been alone in suffering from troops who sometimes preferred "lying undcr hedges, & sporting by the high wayes" to their ministrations."' And hearers may not always have been straight-faced. One royalist pamphleteer caught Peter's flavor in an "oration" to parliamentary sailors that be- gan, "My true Trouts, as ever waler wet 1 have hungred and thirsted to lift up my voice like a Trumpet amongst you.""2 Peter himself was aware zcal could make him ridiculous: "I am sorry I caus'd any unexpected smiles, " he told one a~dience."~

Finally there was the question of whether ministers should be on the battlefield at all or actively engaged in partisan encouragement of combatants. They were, as we have noted, among the classes of per- sons who should not be harmed, a categorization based on the assump- tion that they were themselves harmless, holy, and noncombatant. The rhetoric of horror when ministers were hurt or insulted by enemy forces was loud on both sides. Yet ministers, having identified a just cause, regarded its publicization as legitimate and pastoral care for its agents as a duty. They tried to define their proper role. Baxter insisted that he "never hurt the person of any man," and Symmons declared, "1 am a Minister of the Gospell of Peace, and 'tis against my calling and my conscience" to incite war.l14 Marshall went to the army "onely to teach them how to behave themselves according to the Word, that God might be with them."lI5 Unfortunately the border between clerical and soldierly status was not always clear. Marshall, "Souldier like, g[o]t him a Buffe Coal, and r[o]de from his home with his Sword and Pisloll." Keme, of whom Laud complained in 1643 that he "preached in the Tower-Church, in a Buff-Coat and a Sword, but had a Gown on," seems a soldier manque, and indeed became one in practice.

"I IFernel, Gilgal (n. 35 above), pp. 30-31.

Mercurius Pragmaticus, A Most Pithy Exhortation Delivered in an Eloquc~nt Ora- tion To thc~ watry Generation Aboard their Adtnirall at Graves-end. By the Right Rever- end, Mr Hugh Peters (n.p., 1649), p. A2.

"'Hugh Peterls], Gods Doings, and Mans Duty (Lnndon, 1646), 2d dedication. We should also recall an old soldier's warning that the speeches of generals to their armies before battle belonged in romances rather than in histories, "since 'tis impossible for any General to speak audibly, in an open Field, to above a Regiment at once" (Roger [Royle], Earl of Orrery, A Treatise Ofthe Art oJ' War [(London), 16771, p. 185). Obvi- ously print and word of mouth could later extend a sermon's effect, and professional training may have given ministers an edge over generals.

'I4 Baxter, Al~tohiography,p. 37; [Symmons], Loyal1 S~~l?j~c,ts

Beliqfe (n. 92 above), sig. 2. Symmons's caveat was limited to preaching against the king and his cause. "'Stephen Marshall, A Copy of a 1,ptter written by MY Stephen Marshall (n. 39 above), p. 22.

There were clearly a few combatant clergy on both sides, but they were cxceptional. "'

For others, rhetorical violence replaced physical. Collinson has called attention to the "affinity . . . of religion as conflict and the actual violence of real warfare.""' The rhetoric of much parliamentary preaching exemplified this affinity: it was notably bloody, vainglorious, unforgiving, and, by most standards, unchristian. In a striking exercise in justification of dubious bloodshed, and in one of the war's more deplorable sermons, Staunton urged rigorous enforcement of parlia- ment's 1644 ordinance denying quarter to captured Irish soldiers. He callcd for the "healing virtuc" of "fuith acted" by "sacrijice of blood nocent." His ringing peroration was "execution ofjudgement, execution ofjudgement, that is Gods way to pacify Gods wrath."'1H Yet to kill soldiers who surrendered and threw down their arms contravened the laws of war and invited reprisal.'" The sermon is an interesting attempt to manage opinion and to secure enforcement of controversial legislation, but, despite rabid anti-Irish feeling and widespread belief that the Irish were outside Christian and civil standards, and despite some barbaric killings, neither the ordinance nor Staunton's exhorta- tion was universally heeded. The reasons were as much utilitarian and professional as religious and moral: Prince Rupert's warnings about

"'Edward Symmons, Scripture Vindicated, ,from The. Misapprelrensions. Misinter- pretutions and Misapplicutions qfMr Stepkc~n Murshall (Oxford, 1644), p. 28; The His- tory yf the, Troubles und Tryul of'The Most Reverend Father in God, and Blessed Martyr, Williarn Laud (London, 1695), p. 210; Samuel Kem, Orders given out; the, Word, Stund Fust . . . in a,fare~:ell Sermon by Mujor Sarn~lc.1 Kc~m, to the Q/jicers und Soi~ldiers r?f his Regiment in Bristoll (London, 1647); Laurence (n. 15 above), pp. 8-9, 141. For a royalist captaintpriest, see BL, Add. MS 35,297, fol. Xv; and see Mrs. Hutchinson on Laurence Palmer, rector and captain: "This man had a bold, ready, earnest way of preaching, and liv'd holily and regularly as to outward conversation, whereby he gott a great reputation among the godly, and this reputation swell'd his spiritt, which was very vaineglorious, contentious, covetous, and ambitious. He had insinuated himselfe so as to make these godly men desire him for their Captaine, which he had more vehe- ment longing after than they, yett would have it believ'd that it was rather prest upon him than he prest into it." She had a low opinion of Palmer's courage in action (Memoirs of the Life yf Colonel Hritchinson, ed. James Sutherland [London, 19731, pp. 94, 160). See also A True Relation of the Passages at Leeds, in Lister (n. 17 above). p. 76, for the minister who progressed from singing psalms to deploying musketeers; Capp (n. 16 above), p. 313, on John Vincent who "would serve as well with a sword in his hand as the Word in his mouth"; and Gentles (n. 3 above), p. 96, on Hugh Peter at Naseby with a Bible in one hand and a pistol in the other.

"'Collinson (n. 8 above), p. 134.

Staunton (n. 58 above), pp. [Av, A~V], 30.

"'Staunton obliquely acknowledged objections, admitting "Politick reasonings in the Case," "subtle Dispute," and even "a blush of irregularitie," but he saw it as a litmus test of friends and enemies "to our English Israel" (ibid., pp. [A2vl, 5, 13).

reprisal and irreconcilability were telling.'20 Violent rhetoric could in- spire and encourage, but it rarely overcame professional prudence or reciprocal obligation and honor between soldiers. It may well have contributed to doubts about the propriety of some wartime clerical activities.

Active but nonfighting partisans-including clerical leaders of the clubmen-created antipathies that often nullified clerical protection~.'~'

The royalists specifically ruled that a "parson may be tryed at a counsill of war," while suspect clergy on both sides found their cloth did not save them from ejection, plunder, or br~ta1ity.I~~

Their special status received recognition in that many surrender treaties con- tained separate provisions for their welfare but-as at Bridgewater in 1645-the right to protection could be overridden by ministers' malig- nancy, and it was often forgotten in day-to-day relations between clergy and hostile ~o1diers.l~~

Instead, persecution and ill-treatment might be justified on the grounds that they were enemies of the godly or alternatively of king and Prayer Book; or they might be victims of mob actions, in some of which old communal and personal quarrels found expression; or they might, like other noncombatants such as surgeons, be caught up in battle and find themselves dead, wounded, or prisoners at its end.'24 Like other members of the respectable classes, they experienced reversals of expected standards of life through cruelty, squalor (especially as prisoners), or social disrespect and ignominy.12' What happened to them, like what happened to

Iz0For one version of the well-known exchange between Rupert and Essex on this topic, see Bodl., MS Add. D.114, fols. 148-49, 153-56v. For the parliamentary view, see LJ, 7:304-6.

12' Bodl., MS Tanner, 62/1A, fols. 23, 105, 107; [Edward Bowlesl, The Proceedings of the Army Under the Command of Sir Tho. Fuirfux (London, August 11, 1645), pp. 2-5; A. R. Bayley, The Greut Civil Wur in Dorset, 1642-1660 (Taunton, England, 1910), pp. 264, 277, 279-80, 444; and see, e.g., proceedings against the outspokenly royalist Vicar Stamp of Stepney in 1643, Bodl., MS Tanner 62/18, fols. 21 1- 12.

'" Symonds, Diary (n. 63 above), p. 252; and see the case of the minister killed by a soldier for calling the king "Perjured and Papisticall" (Four Tracts relutive to The Ruttle of Rirminghum [n. 52 above], p. 23).

Iz3At Bridgewater the royalists' proposed terms of surrender (refused by Fairrax) included freedom for all clergy to march out with the troops or to remain behind unmo- lested; instead "malignant Clergy" were marched out as prisoners (Sprigge [n. 19 above], pp. 72-73). See BL, Add. MS 11,331, fol. 9v, for an appeal to the convention that captured chaplains should be freed without exchange, fees, or ransom.

lz4See, e.g., Nurrution of the Siege and taking of. . . Leicester (n. 46 above), pp. 11-12; The Inhumunity of the Kings Prison Keeper ut Oxford (London, 1643), in A Collection of Scurce und Vulr~uhle Tracts . . . of. . . Lord Somers, ed. Walter Scott, 2d ed., 13 vols. (London, 1809-15), 4:507, 508, 510.

The Memoirs of Edmrlnd L~ldloclj . . . , 1625-1672 (n. 46 above), 1:80-81. For use of minister prisoners (including Robert Ram the catechist) as "human shields" to

women and the old, to whom special care was also due, depended more on the chances of combat, on the extent to which discipline was enforced, and on recognition of the dangers of reprisal than on their theoretically protected status. It is arguable that the degree of engage- ment of many ministers in the war reduced the sense that they were holy men of peace who should be more immune than others from its dangers.
Marginal Ministers'?

Professional and traditional standards proved resistant, for good and ill, in many fields where the clergy asserted themselves. Ministers failed to prevent offenses against basic moral and religious codes, as they failed by further reformation to achieve a uniformly godly force. Soldierly habits died hard, and even Joshua Sprigge, clerical publicist for Fairfax's army, allowed that "armies are too great Bodies to be sound in all parts at once."'26 Drunkenness and swearing lived on, although "for the most part to be found amongst inferiour officers, and private Souldiers." Uncontrolled plunder and rapacity still hindered operations and remained a potent threat against uncooperative civil- ian~.'*~

Apologists for the army recognized secular, conventional, rather than religious, remedies for these faults. The "deboist" were kept within bounds by the thought that "the Councel of War will reckon with us"; energetic "Justice upon Offenders" was the way to "some degree of Reformation in their Military state." And reformation of senior officers would set an example for other ranks.'2x Military justice and officer influence did not constitute a radical recipe for a reformed army.

Must we then abandon the godly parliamentary army, morally reformed and riding orderly into battle singing psalms, "conquer[ing] better as they [were] Saints, th[e]n Souldiers," leaving "something of God as well as Caesar behind them," and urged both to reform and

deter parliamentary attack at Crowland, see The Memoirs qf Generul Fuicfux (Leeds, 1776), pp. 70-71. In a demonstration of double standard at work, the outraged parliamen- tarians nonetheless considered it legitimate to fire at "the priest of the town."

'26 Sprigge, pp. 323-24.

12' W. G., Just Apologie ,for An Abused Armie (n. 74 above), pp. 11-12. See Fair- fax's threat of the consequences to the citizens of London if means were not found to keep his men warm and comfortable in winter (A Declaration Qf His Excellency the Lord General1 Fuirfax. Concerning the Sripply qf Bedding lieqriired from the City qf London.fir the lodging qf the Army [London, 16481).

12' W. G., Just Apologie .for An Abused Armie, pp. 11-12.

victory by the clerical trumpets of God?I2%ot entirely. But we also need to see parliament's armies, including the New Model, as less different from other seventeenth-century armies, including the royal- ists', than some admirers have liked to think, and as retaining the characteristics-violent, predatory, disorderly-that contemporaries expected, feared, and deplored in soldiers. Even at Naseby some men of the New Model loitered sulkily on the field when forbidden to plun- der, while others succumbed to a frenzy of bloodlust and pillage when they came on the royalist baggage train.I3O

Many parliamentary soldiers were pious and loved sermons, but piety coexisted easily with predation and disorder. Many were well disciplined, but many were intermittently mutinous, and not just on issues of radical political and religious principle. Many were coura- geous, but many were deserters, stragglers, even side changers. Many were, at different times, all of the above. In this, they were like royalist soldiers. Royalists too could be orderly, disciplined, and courageous under the command of officers like the professional, humane-and Catholic-Colonel Henry Gage, as well as rank plunderers like George Goring's troops. In such instances, as in parliament's armies, prior training and discipline explained much. Commanders' control over their troops on both sides was uncertain, but the way in which it was asserted through training and law enforcement was of primary importance in performance on and off the field.

Emphasis on military explanations of performance seems to leave little scope for the clergy. Should we then agree with the assessment implied in Hugh Peter's understandable minimization of his role when, in extremis in 1660, he claimed, "I was not considerable, men mistook who thought me more than a fly on a wheele"?I3' If we consider reli- gion "in bello," he had a case, for despite the clergy's noise and visibility, and despite their value as moral raisers, apologists, and pub- licists, the influence of parliamentary ministers on the course of the war and conduct in it was marginal. But if we consider religion "ad bellrtm," we must acknowledge not only the religious "cause" as such, but also, on the one hand, the clergy's role in justifying the war and rendering resistance morally and intellectually acceptable and, on the

12" Sprigge, pp. 323-24.

130 Edward Wogan, "The Proceedings of the New-moulded army," in Carte (n. 21 above), 1:28-29; A moreJ exact and Perfect lic~lution Of the grc,ut l'ictot-y . . . In Naseby F'ic,ld (London, lh45), pp. 4-5; A True, lic,lufion Of a Victory . . . For~~ht

hc~twc~c,nc~ Harborongh, and Naseby (London, [ 16451). p. A3v; Sir Edward Walker, Historiccrl I>jscor1r.5c~.5,upon Several Oc~c~u.5ions (London, 1705), p. 115 (misnumbered for p. 131).

"' HMC, "'The Manuscripts of the IIouse of Lords," pt. I, Appendix.

other, their part in the prewar "formation" of parliamentary officers and men instrumental in its successful prosecution. We return, by a circuitous route, to one aspect of Morrill's "Wars of Religion."

Parliamentary armies in which "the religious party . . . had better success than the other sort of common soldiers," and to which officers, from general Sir William Waller to young Edward Harley, brought a serious and disciplined professionalism that was a form of godly call- ing, enjoyed an advantage over often more flamboyant but also often less focused and unified royalist officers and men, despite the ability and courage to be found among the latter, and despite the prevalence in both armies of soldiers of the old, unreconstructed kind.'12 The clergy, both before and during the war, were important in the "forma- tion" of the religion, character, and criteria governing the actions of this body of men and officers. Yet here too secular influences were bipartisanly at work, for knowledge of the Thirty Years' War and the spread of professional expertise through service in Europe and study of a flood of military publications also "formed" future soldiers of both sides.

All in all, it was a disappointing war for ministers. Moral reforma- tion proved elusive. Unordained upstarts threatened their status and authority. Flattering tributes and their own self-advertisement could not disguise the fact that they failed to achieve the kind of recognition granted to the Scottish ministers in 1640. We may note in conclusion that the plans for England's greatest victory parade, the "triumph" that rolled through London after Naseby, classical in its overtones and secular in its participants, made no place for the clergy.Ii3

On claims for the greater success of the godly, see Baxter's admittedly partisan view, Baxter, Autobiogruphy (n. 17 above), p. 45; and see Gentles (n. 3 above), pp. 99, 103-4. Baxter's comment ignores many other factors contributing to comparative parliamentary and royalist success and failure, such as organization and command struc- ture. For the latter, see Ronald Hutton, The lioyulist Wur Efj>rt, 1642-1646 (London, 1982), passim; 1 address the issue in more depth in a work in progress, "War in En- gland."

'" The Munner how the Prisoners ure to be brought into the City of Lontlon, . . . the 21.th duy of Ir~ne, 1645 (London, 1645); Exchange Intelligenc,er ([London], June 18-24, [16451), pp. 43-45; Weekly Account (London, June 18-24, 1645), entry for June 21, 1645.

  • Recommend Us