Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:49:08.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Barbara Donagan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 number 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 their pikes with black ribbons on them, and the 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 confidence in execution of divine purpose in the conduct of its own war? Parliamentary clergy lived in hope of similar recognition and achievement. Yet at best ritual must be distinguished from accompanying practice, as the conduct of Scottish soldiers in Newcastle and its environs was to demonstrate; at worst the clerical message was derided and ignored.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 119 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Henry E. Huntington Library (HEHL), San Marino, California, Bridgewater MS 7852.

2 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).

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

4 See, e.g., Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints (London, 1966), pp. 10–13Google Scholar. For classic expressions of such views, see Firth, C. H., “The Raising of the Ironsides,” in Essays in Modern History, ed. Christie, Ian R. (London, 1968), p. 121Google Scholar; and Haller, William, “The Word of God in the New Model Army,” Church History 19 (1950): 15, 17, 20–24, 31–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more cautious but still flattering appraisal, see Solt, Leo F., Saints in Arms: Puritanism and Democracy in Cromwell's Army (Stanford, Calif., 1959), pp. 13–15Google Scholar; for a powerful recent statement of this position, see Gentles, chap. 4.

5 See, e.g., Kenyon, John, The Civil Wars of England (London, 1988), pp. 76–77, 138–40Google Scholar. 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 é1ite 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.

6 Fletcher, Anthony, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), pp. 405, 417–18Google Scholar. Fletcher also notes the importance of religion in “activism” on the royalist side; ibid., p. 406.

7 Russell, Conrad, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, 1990), pp. 59, 62Google Scholar; cf. the “Erastian anticlericalism” that he finds characteristic of many royalists; ibid., at n. 9.

8 Morrill, John, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,” in The Nature of the English Revolution (London, 1993), pp. 47, 58, 68Google Scholar. For the assumption of this idea into a new orthodoxy, see Clark, Jonathan, “Sovereignty: The British Experience,” The Times Literary Supplement (November 29, 1991), p. 15Google Scholar, on “the wars of religion which devastated Europe … of which the ‘English’ Civil War was one instance.” See also Collinson, Patrick, “Wars of Religion,” in his The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religious and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1988)Google Scholar.

9 Fletcher, Anthony, Reform in the Provinces (New Haven, Conn., 1986), pp. 266–73Google Scholar; Hirst, Derek, “The Failure of Godly Rule in the English Republic,” Past and Present, no. 132 (1991), pp. 33–66Google Scholar; see also Gentles, pp. 110–15.

10 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.

11 Newcastle is quoted in Roy, Ian, “The English Republic, 1649–1660: The View from the Town Hall,” in Schriften des Historischen Kollegs Kolloquien 11: Republiken und Republikanismus im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Koenigsberger, Helmut and Muller-Luckner, Elisabeth (Munich, 1986/1987), p. 213Google Scholar; Snow, Vernon F. and Young, Anne Steele, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 7 March to I June 1642 (New Haven, Conn., 1987), p. 86Google Scholar.

12 For example, Father Mulcahy in “M*A*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.

13 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 Donagan, B., “Puritan Ministers and Laymen: Professional Claims and Social Constraints in Seventeenth Century England,” Huntington Library Quarterly 47 (1984): 81–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Kishlansky, Mark, “Ideology and Politics in the Parliamentary Armies, 1645–9,” in Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. Morrill, John (London, 1982), p. 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also John Morrill, “Introduction,” in ibid., p. 18.

15 British Library (BL), Add. MS 30,305, fol. 31. For John Burgess's ministry in Germany, see BL, Add. MS 4275, fols. 68–68v; Willen, Diane, “Godly Women in Early Modern England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 43 (1992): 574CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Laurence, Anne, Parliamentary Army Chaplains, 1642–1651, Royal Historical Society Studies in History 59 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1990), p. 106Google Scholar.

16 See, e.g., John Syms's list of books and borrowers at Plymouth, BL, Add. MS 35, 297, fols. 179v–183v; and see Miller, Amos C., “John Syms, Puritan Naval Chaplain,” Mariner's Mirror 60 (1974): 155, 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Capp, Bernard, Cromwell's Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution, 1648–1660 (Oxford, 1989), p. 308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 [Wharton, Nehemiah], “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, 323Google Scholar. Compare the Yorkshire minister Jonathan Scholefield at the assault on Leeds in January 1643, who “begun, and [the company] sung the 1 verse of the 68 psalm, Let God arise, and then his enemies shall be scattered and those that hate him flee before him,” (A True Relation of the Passages at Leeds, on Munday, the 23. of January, 1642, in The Autobiography of Joseph Lister, of Bradford, ed. Wright, Thomas [London, 1842], p. 76)Google Scholar; and Peter Ince of Weymouth, “a great incouragement to the souldiers in the late seige [sic] …, soe that … he was very instrumentall in the preservation of the place” (Historical Manuscripts Commission [HMC], Fifth Report. Appendix, “Manuscripts of the Towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis” [London, 1876], p. 589Google Scholar). See also The Autobiography of Richard Baxter, ed. Keeble, N. H. (London, 1974), p. 35Google Scholar, and see pp. 34, 45, 50 for Baxter's linking of godliness, valor, and success.

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

19 See, e.g., Journals of the House of Lords (LJ), 9:579Google Scholar; Sprigge, Ioshua, Anglia Rediviva; Englands Recovery (London, 1647), p. 203Google Scholar; Stearns, R. P., “Letters and Documents by or Relating to Hugh Peter,” Essex Institute Historical Collections 72 (1936): 128–311Google Scholar; Memoirs of Denzil, Lord Holies, in Select Tracts Relating to the Civil Wars in England, ed. [Maseres, F.], 2 vols. (London, 1815), 1:273Google Scholar; Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses, 2d ed., 2 vols. in 1 (London, 1721), vol. 2, cols. 512–13Google Scholar.

20 Sprigge, p. 70.

21 Baxter, , Autobiography, pp. 55–56Google Scholar; Morrill, J. S., Cheshire, 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 164–65Google Scholar; Vicars, John, The Burning-Bush not Consumed, in Magnolia Dei Anglicana (London, 1646), p. 163Google Scholar; and cf. Marshall, Stephen, A Sacred Record To be made of Gods Mercies to Zion (London, [1645?]), pp. 28–29Google Scholar. For Peter as a “trumpet” for Irish service, see Carte, Tho., A Collection of Original Letters and Papers, 2 vols. (London, 1739), 1:274–75Google Scholar. For an election sermon, see Keme's sermon of February 28, 1646, “upon the choyce of the new Burgesses of Bristol” (Kem, Samuel, The King of Kings his privie Marks for The Kingdoms choyce of new Members [London, 1646])Google Scholar.

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

23 HEHL Bridgewater MS 7682; LJ, 10:66–70; Military Orders And Articles Established by His Maiesty, For the better Ordering and government of His Majesties Army (Oxford, 1643), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; 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 failed 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 chaplains and secure attendance at services. See The Swedish Discipline, Religious, Civile, and Military. … The second Part, in the excellent orders observed in the Armie (London, 1632; printed with The Swedish Intelligence), pp. 41 (misnumbered 14)–44Google Scholar.

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. 1. 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, 31, 41, 54–55, 57–59. Cf. Gentles's total of forty-three New Model chaplains for 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 Kishlansky, Mark A., The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 70–73Google Scholar.

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.

26 Note, e.g., the offer of the Weymouth living to Peter Ince after two years as “preacher to the garrison” (HMC, Fifth Report: Appendix, “Weymouth MSS,” p. 588Google Scholar). 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).

27 The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 1616–1683, ed. Macfarlane, Alan (London, 1976), p. 42Google Scholar; HEHL, STT Military Box 1 (26); Scholfield, Bertram, ed., The Knyvett Letters, 1620–1644, Norfolk Record Society 20 (1949), p. 114Google Scholar.

28 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 Keme, 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, , Autobiography (n. 17 above), p. 43Google Scholar.

30 Laurence, pp. 123–24, 144–45; Morrill, , Cheshire, pp. 165–66Google Scholar.

31 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 Donagan, B., “Codes and Conduct in the English Civil War,” Past and Present, no. 118 (February 1988), pp. 65–95Google Scholar, particularly pp. 73–87.

33 Bernard, Richard, The Bible-Battells. Or The Sacred Art Military (London, 1629), p. 24Google Scholar; compare Gouge's dismissal of the argument that Christians should turn their swords to ploughshares: “propheticall phrases are somewhat hyperbolicall” (Gouge, William, The Churches Conquest over the Sword, in Gods Three Arrowes: Plague, Famine, Sword [2d ed.] [London, 1631], p. 212)Google Scholar; see also Hale, J. R., “Incitement to Violence? English Divines on the Theme of War, 1578 to 1631,” in Renaissance War Studies, ed. Hale, J. R. (London, 1983), pp. 487–517Google Scholar; Donagan, , “Codes and Conduct,” p. 76Google Scholar.

34 For effects of the rise of Quakerism in the 1650s, see, e.g., Firth, C. H., Cromwell's Army, 4th ed. (London, 1962), pp. 341–43Google Scholar: 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, Reay 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.” Reay, Barry, The Quakers and the English Revolution (London, 1985), pp. 41–43Google Scholar.

35 Caryl, Joseph, Ioy Out-joyed: or Joy in overcoming evil spirits and evil men, Overcome by better Joy (London, 1646), sig. A2vGoogle Scholar; Beech, William, More Sulphure for Basing: or, God will fearfully annoy and make quick riddance of his implacable Enemies, surely, sorely, suddenly (London, 1645), p. 26Google Scholar. Edw. Symmons, A Military Sermon, wherein by the word of God, the nature and disposition of a Rebell is discovered, and the Kings true Souldier described and Characterized (Oxford, 1644), p. 21Google Scholar; [Ferne, H.], The Camp at Gilgal. Or, a View of the Kings Army, and spirituall provision made for it (Oxford, 1643), p. 4Google Scholar. See also Gouge, p. 211. But cf. the “black note set upon the Souldiers Profession by the licentiousnes of many in it”; this too was a bipartisan concern ([Ferne], Gilgal, p. 2).

36 See, e.g., Bernard, pp. 38–46; Gouge, pp. 214–17; Donagan, “Codes and Conduct,” pp. 76–78.

37 “[Y]ou are assured it is for the established Religion, for the Freedome of Parliament, 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 Nation 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.”

38 HEHL, Bridgewater MS 6874; Beech, pp. 19–20. The “Tygers of Rome” and the Irish rebellion threatened “another Mary-martyrdome,” declared Beech.

39 Marshall, Stephen, A Copy of a Letter written by Mr Stephen Marshall To a friend of his in the City (London, 1643), pp. 23–25Google Scholar.

40 Caryl, sig. A2v; compare Chillingworth, William, A Sermon Preached At the publike Fast Before his Maiesty at Christ-Church in Oxford (Oxford, 1644Google Scholar; probably in fact a “spurious” London edition of a sermon preached at Reading in November 1642), p. 12, on “a just war, because necessary.”

41 Gouge, p. 296; see also T. J., The Christian Souldier. Or, Preparation for Battaile (London, 1642), p. 4Google Scholar: the “civill valour” of the perfect soldier enables him to “kill without cruelty.”

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

43 The civility 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.

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” (Swadlin, Thomas, The Soldiers Catechisme: Composed for the King's Armie [Oxford, 1645], pp. 6–8)Google Scholar.

45 Chillingworth, p. 12.

46 A Narration of the Siege and taking of the town of Leicester (London, 1645), p. 8Google Scholar; Firth, C. H., ed., The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow Lieutenant-general of the horse in the army of the commonwealth of England, 1625–1672, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1894), 1:95–96, 119–20Google Scholar. 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 impious Rebells, any thing that savours of immodesty, Barbarousnesse, 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).

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

49 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.

50 Grose, Francis, The Antiquities of England and Wales, new ed., 8 vols. (London, [1783–1987]), 1:34, 42–43, 50–51Google Scholar; Hereafter Ensue certayne Statutes and ordinaunces of wane made ordeyned enacted & establyshed by the … moste Cristen Prynce our moste dreade Soueraygne lorde Kynge Henry the. viii. ([London], 1513), passimGoogle Scholar; Statutes and ordinances of the wane (London, 1544), p. AiiGoogle Scholar. (These articles omit or compress some of the moral provisions of 1513.)

51 Calendar of State Papers, Foreign, 1562, pp. 326–27.

52 For a sampling of these developments, see, e.g., Lawes and Ordinances, set downe by Robert Earle of Leycester … in the Lowe Countries … to be published and notified to the whole Armie (London, [1586])Google Scholar; and see also Cruickshank, C. G., Elizabeth's Army, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1966), pp. 296–303Google Scholar; Lawes and Orders of Wane, established for the good conduct of the service in Ireland (London, 1599), p. 2 and passimGoogle Scholar; Public Record Office (PRO), State Paper (SP) 9/208, fols. 259–62 (“Martiall Lawes” for a domestic army, [1625]); Lawes and Ordinances Of Wane, For the better Government of His Majesties Army Roy all … Under … Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Earl Marshall of England (Newcastle, 1639), pp. 3–6Google Scholar (for laws “Concerning Religion: and breach of Morall du[t]ies”). Note also the influence on English military law of Dutch and Swedish example.

53 See, e.g., Lawes and Ordinances of Wane, Established for the better Conduct of the Army by His Excellency The Earle of Essex (London, 1642), pp. [A], B2–b2vGoogle Scholar; 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, 18Google Scholar. Shorter versions of royalist articles did not contain a clause against rape; compare Military Orders, And Articles, Established by His Maiestie (Oxford, [1643]), pp. 4–5Google Scholar, 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 Institutions of War, Made and ordained by His Maiesty, and … delivered to … The Earle of Newcastle [London?, 1642], pp. A2, 4)Google Scholar.

54 See Adair, John, “The Court Martial Papers of Sir William Waller's Army, 1644,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 44 (1966): 205–26Google Scholar; Davies, Godfrey, eds., “Dundee Court-Martial Records 1651,” Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, 2d ser., 19 (1919): 1–67Google Scholar. 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; Lewis, T. T., ed., Letters of Lady Brilliana Harley, Camden Society 58 (1854), p. 253 (n. for p. 21)Google Scholar; Newman, P. R., Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660 (New York, 1981), p. 208Google Scholar; Donagan, B., “Understanding Providence: The Difficulties of Sir William and Lady Waller,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39 (1988): 442CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In both armies seriously criminal offenses such as rape and highway robbery were severely punished.

55 On offenses such as absenteeism, tumults, and “Cruel plunder,” see, e.g., [Ferne] (n. 35 above), pp. 18–19, 43–45; Ram, Robert, The Souldiers Catechisme: Composed for the Parliaments Army, 7th ed. ([London], 1645), pp. 19, 21, 26–27Google Scholar.

56 Chillingworth (n. 40 above), pp. 5, 7, 13–14, 25–28; Caryl (n. 35 above), p. A2v.

57 Harwood, Richard, The loyall Subiect's retiring-roome. Opened in a sermon at St Maries, on the 13th day of My … 1645 (Oxford, 1645), pp. 11, 35, and see p. 36Google Scholar: “Is there a nasty drunkard, a rotten adulterer, or a damned swearer the lesse for these sad times? … Never speake of peace more, so long as thou art thus at open Wane with Heaven.” Compare [Ferne], Gilgal (n. 35 above), p. 21.

58 Compare strikingly parallel royalist and parliamentarian diatribes: H[arwood], The loyall Subiect's retiring-Roome, pp. 8–9; Staunton, Edmund, Phinehas's Zeal in Execution of Iudgement. Or, A Divine Remedy for Englands Misery (London, 1645), p. 14Google Scholar. Note also a 1647 warning to Yorkshire against sins encouraged by “security” that “all danger is past… [and] the seat of war … removed”; they included the “bravery” and “ornaments” of “proud” and “haughty” women, highly traditional elements in catalogs of sin. Meeke, Will[iam], The Faithfull Scout: Giving an Alarme to Yorkshire, (especially to the Easte-Ryding) (York, 1647), pp. 40–42Google Scholar.

59 Caryl, p. 5; Pearson, John, “The Excellency of forms of prayer, especially of the Lord's Prayer,” in The Minor Theological Works of John Pearson, D.D. Bishop of Chester, and sometime Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, ed. Churton, Edward, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1844), 2:99, 105–6Google Scholar. However, for a moderate, pragmatic, parliamentarian view on use of the Prayer Book, expressed by a long-serving army chaplain, see Bowles, Edward, Manifest Truths, or an inversion of Truths Manifest. Containing a Narration of the Proceedings of the Scottish Army, and a Vindication of the Parliament and Kingdome of England (London, 1646), pp. 32, 34Google Scholar.

60 Symmons, Military Sermon (n. 35 above); note also continuities of sermon organization and mnemonics in, e.g., Berkenhead, John, A Sermon Preached before His Majestie at Christ-Church in Oxford, On the 3. of Novemb. 1644 (Oxford, 1644), p. 2Google Scholar.

61 See, e.g., Beech (n. 35 above), pp. 6, 10, 20, on the “Tygers of Rome,” and on “the heathenish and cruell … French Philistims [sic], Welsh Egiptians, Cornish Hungarians [and] … degenerate Ismalites of the Renegado English.”

62 Trevor-Roper, H. R., Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans (Chicago, 1988), chap. 4, pp. 166–230Google Scholar; Berkenhead, p. 13. This royalist note of resignation to suffering, of hope deferred but not abandoned, became stronger as time passed. See, e.g., Ferne, H., A Sermon Preached Before His Majesty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, November 29, 1648 (London, 1649), pp. 1–2, 8–10, 20Google Scholar, 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 generall repentance, there is a deliverance assured.” Compare the increasing passivity of Puritan providentialism as disillusion spread in the late 1640s and 1650s; see Worden, Blair, “Providence and Politics in Cromwellian England,” Past and Present, no. 109 (1985), pp. 79–80, 89, 98Google Scholar, and “Oliver Cromwell and the Sin of Achan,” in History, Society and the Churches: Essays in Honour of Owen Chadwick, ed. Beales, D. and Best, G. (Cambridge, 1985), p. 140Google Scholar; Donagan, , “Understanding Providence,” pp. 433–35, 443–44Google Scholar.

63 For obedience and the Irish, see text below. Although quarrels were also a paralimentarian problem, they were more visible and damaging among royalists. Bodl., MS Tanner 61, fol. 106, and MS Tanner 62, fol. 420v; Long, C. E., ed., Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army during the Great Civil War; kept by Richard Symonds, Camden Society 74 (1859), pp. 30, 36, 276Google Scholar; 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 [Ferne], 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).

65 “Of Duties to God,” in Lawes and Ordinances of Wane … Essex (n. 53 above), no p. (no pagination); par. nos. I, II; Military Orders, And Articles, Established by His 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 VIII 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 VIII in 1545, leaving penalties for blasphemy and oaths to captains' discretion (Millar, Gilbert J., “Henry VIII's. Preliminary Letter of Retainer to Colonel Frederick von Reiffenberg for the Raising of 1500 Men-at-Arms,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 67 [1989]: 224)Google Scholar. Articles drawn up for Charles IPs forces in 1673 continued to specify boring the tongue with a red-hot iron for blasphemy or speaking against any article of the Christian faith, 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, 1673], pp. 2–3Google Scholar). 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 Rupert and Maurice “bastards,” surely closer to lese-majeste than to blasphemy (BL., Harl. MS 2125, fol. 148v).

66 On naval profanity—“there is much swearing in the sea”—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.

67 [Ferne, ], Gilgal (n. 35 above), pp. 14–15Google Scholar; 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 & execrations,” see BL, Harl. MS 6802, fol. 215, and Harl. MS 6804, Ms. 75–76, 81–81v; and see Larkin, James F., ed., Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, Royal Proclamations of King Charles I, 1625–1646 (Oxford, 1983) pp. 909–11 (no. 424), 1021–23 (no. 484)Google Scholar. These proclamations also required regular attendance at services and sermons.

68 HMC, Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath, 1:6Google Scholar; and see, e.g., HMC, Fifth Report. Appendix, “Weymouth MSS,” pp. 587–88Google Scholar.

69 Davies, , ed., “Dundee Court-Martial Records” (n. 54 above), pp. 12–13, 21Google Scholar. 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 dangerous 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.

70 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.

71 Keme, Samuel, The New Fort of true Honour, Made Impregnable. Or, The Martialists dignity and dutie (London, 1640), p. 24Google Scholar.

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” (Lewis, R. W. B., The Jameses: A Family Narrative [New York, 1991], pp. 127–28)Google Scholar.

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 (London, 1646), p. 12Google Scholar. 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 Aston, Margaret, England's Iconoclasts, vol. 1, Laws against Images (Oxford, 1988), pp. 468–79Google Scholar, and see chap. 3, passim. See also Morrill, , “Religious Context,” in The Nature of the English Revolution (n. 8 above), p. 67Google Scholar, 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. 38–40Google Scholar.

76 The Copy of a Letter Sent to an Honourable Lord, by Doctor Paske, Subdeane of Canterbury (London, 1642), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; A perfect Diurnall of the severall passages in our late journey into Kent, from Aug. 19. to Sept. 3 1642. by the appointment of both Houses of Parliament (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?

77 Ram, pp. 20–22.

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

79 HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7765.

80 [Paske, ], Copy of a Letter, pp. 4–6Google Scholar; Perfect Diurnall, p. 8; HMC, Fifth Report, Part 1: Appendix, “House of Lords Manuscripts” (London, 1876), p. 46Google Scholar; LJ, 5:346.

81 Quoted in Aston, p. 69; compare Styles, P., “The Royalist Government of Worcestershire during the Civil War, 1642–1646,” Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 3d ser., 5 (1976): 26Google Scholar, on “the Puritan soldiery” at Worcester in 1642 who “perform[ed] profane imitations of the services and danc[ed] in the streets decked out in the vestments.”

82 On fire and destruction, see Porter, Stephen, “The Destruction of Urban Property in the English Civil Wars, 1642–1651” (D.Phil, thesis, University of London, 1983), chaps. 4–6Google Scholar; 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 of Bridgewater by the Parliaments Forces under … Sir Tho: Fairfax (London, 1645), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; and the pamphlets collected in Four Tracts relative to The Battle of Birmingham Anno Domini 1643 [ed. Jay, Leonard] (Birmingham, 1931), pp. 13, 16, 31–33Google Scholar.

83 Lister, , Autobiography (n. 17 above), p. 26Google Scholar; Mercurius Rusticus (n.p., 1646), pp. 56–57, 67Google Scholar.

84 The poor suffered as well as the rich; see, e.g., Andrewes, R., A perfect Declaration of the Barbarous and Cruell practises committed by Prince Robert, the Cavalliers and others (London, 1642), pp. A3 ff.Google Scholar

85 [Wharton] (n. 17 above), pp. 311–14.

86 Ibid., pp. 320–22, 330–31. Wharton “experimentally found” it true that parliamentary horse preyed on their own foot, for they took £3 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).

87 See the observations of a moderate parliamentarian on the attack on the recusant Countess Rivers's house in 1642 (Wilson, Arthur, “Observations of God's Providence, in the Tract of my Life,” in The Inconstant Lady, a Play [London, 1814], pp. 134–37)Google Scholar; and see LJ, 5:302, 327–28; Journals of the House of Commons (CJ), 2:725Google Scholar.

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

89 Symonds, , Diary (n. 63 above), p. 67Google Scholar; 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 tomorrow being May Day.” BL, Stowe MS 842, fol. 14. For a prewar example of “folk” religious mockery, see Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (CSPD), 1637–1638, p. 63.

90 The tormenter of an aged royalist minister was described as “the master of this misrule”; (Mercurius Rusticus), p. 81.

91 Williams, Gr., Vindiciae Regum; or, The Grand Rebellion that is, A Looking-glasse, for Rebels.… (Oxford, 1643)Google Scholar—the passage quoted in the text is part of the continuation of Williams's title; [Hammond, Henry], Of Resisting the Lawfull Magistrate Under colour of Religion, and Appendent to it, of the word … rendred Damnation, Rom. 13 (Oxford, 1644)Google Scholar, listed in Madan, Falconer, Oxford Books: A Bibliography of Printed Works Relating to the University and City of Oxford, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1931), 2:344Google Scholar. 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 Ferne, H., Conscience Satisfied. That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by Subjects [Oxford, 1643])Google Scholar. 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” (Sanderson, Robert, “The Twelfth Sermon,” in Sermons by the Right Reverend Father in God, Robert Sanderson, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln, ed. Montgomery, R., 2 vols. [London, 1841], 2:289–90)Google Scholar. Most “puritans” would have had no difficulty with this position. On the awkwardly Calvinist, anti-Puritan, but flexible Sanderson, see Lake, Porter G., “Serving God and the Times: The Calvinist Conformity of Robert Sanderson,” Journal of British Studies 27 (1988): 81–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 On the “passionate” response to issues of obedience and resistance, see Morrill, , “Religious Context” (n. 8 above), pp. 63–64Google Scholar. See [Symmons, Edward], A Loyall 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 of some Reasons why the Authors Conscience cannot concurre in this way of resistance with some of his Brethren (Oxford, 1643), sig. 2, 2v (see chap, heads 1, 5, 6, 9)Google Scholar. Compare Gatford, Lionell, An Exhortation to Peace: With an Intimation of the prime Enemies thereof (London, 1643), pp. A–Av, A2vGoogle Scholar: before the war, Gatford had “dar[ed] 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.

94 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 distinct from nonresistance, to “commands which are not directly against God” (ibid., p. 16).

95 HEHL, Bridgewater MS 6874.

96 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.

97 Ram, p. 5.

98 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.”

99 O'Day, Rosemary, “The Anatomy of a Profession: The Clergy of the Church of England,” in The Professions in Early Modern England, ed. Prest, Wilfrid (London, 1987). pp. 53–58Google Scholar; Donagan, , “Puritan Ministers and Laymen” (n. 13 above), pp. 81–111Google Scholar.

100 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 (Donagan, B., “The Clerical Patronage of Robert Rich, Second Earl of Warwick, 1619–1642,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 120 [1976]: 394, 398 [n. 56])Google Scholar.

101 PRO, SP 28/17, fol. 181; PRO, SP 28/26, fol. 455; PRO, SP 28/30, fol. 171; PRO, SP 28/126, fols. 16, 57; LJ, 10:66–71. Laurence, p. 15, believes that chaplains' pay was is. 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. Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 3 vols. (London, 1911) 1:619Google Scholar. Prewar rates were 6s. Sd. 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 (HEHL, Bridgewater MS 7682, fols. 52v, 59; Devon Record Office, Seymour of Berry Pomeroy MSS 1392 M/L 1643/67). In 1653 chaplains in Scotland were retroactively granted 8s. a day, in terms implying that 6s. Sd. was the normal rate of pay (CSPD, 1652–1653, p. 338; and see Firth, Cromwell's Army [n. 34 above], p. 325). As an example of variations in pay rates, note that Ralph Josselin received 10s. a day in 1645 (Diary of Ralph Josselin [n. 27 above], p. 42).

102 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 (Parker, Geoffrey, The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659 [Cambridge, 1990, corrected ed.], pp. 171–72)Google Scholar.

103 LJ, 9:612; [Firmin, Giles], “A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal,” in The Questions Between the Conformist and Nonconformist (London, 1681)Google Scholar. (Marshall reputedly died worth £10,000; see Peter, Hugh, A Dying Fathers Last Legacy to an Onely Child [London, 1661], p. 102Google Scholar). For examples of discretionary lay largesse to ministers, see, e.g., Donagan, , “Clerical Patronage,” pp. 404–5Google Scholar.

104 [Symmons], Loyall Subjects Beliefe (n. 92 above), sigs. 2–2v.

105 BL, 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.

106 Baxter, , Autobiography (n. 17 above), p. 52Google Scholar.

107 BL, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 54v, 55v.

108 BL, Add. MS 11,331, fols. 10v–11; and see Dore, R. N., ed., The Letter Books of Sir William Brereton, vol. 1Google Scholar, January 31st-May 29th, 1645, Record Society of Lancashire 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 fit to receive it,” not being “of the household of faith"; his opponents were characterized as "base fellows and drunkards and whoremasters” (BL, Add. MS 11,331, fol. 11).

109 BL, Add. MS 35,297, fols. 54v–55v. Compare the divisions arising from Baxter's departure to the army from Coventry (Baxter, , Autobiography, pp. 51–52Google Scholar); and Weymouth'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).

110 Symmons, , Military Sermon (n. 35 above), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; see also Stearns, R. P., The Strenuous Puritan: Hugh Peter (Urbana, Ill., 1954), p. 234Google Scholar, on Peter as a “rabble-rouser”; Donagan, , “Puritan Ministers and Laymen” (n. 13 above), pp. 85–86Google Scholar, and “Clerical Patronage” (n. 100 above), pp. 405–6, on Puritan emphasis on preachers' performance.

111 [Ferne, ], Gilgal (n. 35 above), pp. 30–31Google Scholar.

112 Pragmaticus, Mercurius, A Most Pithy Exhortation Delivered in an Eloquent Oration To the watry Generation Aboard their Admirall at Graves-end. By the Right Reverend, Mr Hugh Peters (n.p., 1649), p. A2Google Scholar.

113 Peter[s], Hugh[s], Gods Doings, and Mans Duty (London, 1646)Google Scholar, 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” (Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery, A Treatise Of the Art of War [(London), 1677], p. 185Google Scholar). Obviously print and word of mouth could later extend a sermon's effect, and professional training may have given ministers an edge over generals.

114 Baxter, , Autobiography, p. 37Google Scholar; [Symmons], Loyall Subjects Beliefe (n. 92 above), sig. 2. Symmons's caveat was limited to preaching against the king and his cause.

115 Marshall, Stephen, A Copy of a Letter written by Mr Stephen Marshall (n. 39 above), p. 22Google Scholar.

116 Symmons, Edward, Scripture Vindicated, from The Misapprehensions, Misinterpretations and Misapplications of Mr Stephen Marshall (Oxford, 1644), p. 28Google Scholar; The History of the Troubles and Tryal of The Most Reverend Father in God, and Blessed Martyr, William Laud (London, 1695), p. 210Google Scholar; Kem, Samuel, Orders given out; the Word, Stand Fast … in a farewell Sermon by Major Samuel Kem, to the Officers and Souldiers of his Regiment in Bristoll (London, 1647)Google Scholar; Laurence (n. 15 above), pp. 8–9, 141. For a royalist captain/priest, see BL, Add. MS 35,297, fol. 8v; 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 swelPd 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 vehement 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 of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. Sutherland, James [London, 1973], pp. 94, 160Google Scholar). 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.

117 Collinson (n. 8 above), p. 134.

118 Staunton (n. 58 above), pp. [Av, A2v], 30.

119 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. [A2v], 5, 13).

120 For one version of the well-known exchange between Rupert and Essex on this topic, see Bodl., MS Add. D.I 14, fols. 148–49, 153–56v. For the parliamentary view, see LJ, 7:304–6.

121 Bodl., MS Tanner, 62/1A, fols. 23, 105, 107; [Bowles, Edward], The Proceedings of the Army Under the Command of Sir Tho. Fairfax (London, August 11, 1645), pp. 2–5Google Scholar; Bayley, A. R., The Great Civil War in Dorset, 1642–1660 (Taunton, England, 1910), pp. 264, 277, 279–80, 444Google Scholar; and see, e.g., proceedings against the outspokenly royalist Vicar Stamp of Stepney in 1643, Bodl., MS Tanner 62/1B, fols. 211–12.

122 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 relative to The Battle of Birmingham [n. 52 above], p. 23).

123 At Bridgewater the royalists' proposed terms of surrender (refused by Fairfax) included freedom for all clergy to march out with the troops or to remain behind unmolested; 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.

124 See, e.g., Narration of the Siege and taking of… Leicester (n. 46 above), pp. 11–12; The Inhumanity of the Kings Prison Keeper at Oxford (London, 1643)Google Scholar, in A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts … of … Lord Somers, ed. Scott, Walter, 2d ed., 13 vols. (London, 1809–1815), 4:507, 508, 510Google Scholar.

125 The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow …, 1625–1672 (n. 46 above), 1:80–81Google Scholar. For use of minister prisoners (including Robert Ram the catechist) as “human shields” to deter parliamentary attack at Crowland, see The Memoirs of General Fairfax (Leeds, 1776), pp. 70–71Google Scholar. In a demonstration of double standard at work, the outraged parliamentarians nonetheless considered it legitimate to fire at “the priest of the town.”

126 Sprigge, pp. 323–24.

127 W. G., Just Apologie for An Abused Armie (n. 74 above), pp. 11–12Google Scholar. See Fairfax'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 Of His Excellency the Lord Generall Fairfax. Concerning the Supply of Bedding Required from the City of London for the lodging of the Army [London, 1648])Google Scholar.

128 W. G., Just Apologie for An Abused Armie, pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

129 Sprigge, pp. 323–24.

130 Wogan, Edward, “The Proceedings of the New-moulded army,” in Carte (n. 21 above), 1:28–29Google Scholar; A more exact and Perfect Relation Of the great Victory … In Naseby Field (London, 1645), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; A True Relation Of a Victory … Fought betweene Harborough, and Naseby (London, [1645]), p. A3vGoogle Scholar; SirWalker, Edward, Historical Discourses, upon Several Occasions (London, 1705), p. 115 (misnumbered for p. 131)Google Scholar.

131 HMC, “The Manuscripts of the House of Lords,” pt. 1, Appendix.

132 On claims for the greater success of the godly, see Baxter's admittedly partisan view, Baxter, Autobiography (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 structure. For the latter, see Hutton, Ronald, The Royalist War Effort, 1642–1646 (London, 1982)Google Scholar, passim; I address the issue in more depth in a work in progress, “War in England.”

133 The Manner how the Prisoners are to be brought into the City of London, … the 21.th day of Iune, 1645 (London, 1645)Google Scholar; Exchange Intelligencer ([London], June 18–24, [1645]), pp. 43–45Google Scholar; Weekly Account (London, June 18–24, 1645)Google Scholar, entry for June 21, 1645.