To what extent should conflict between Crown and Parliament in the C17th be seen as religious conflict?

By Max Robson
It is widely acknowledged that the English Civil War was largely about setting the power limitations of the royal family and so therefore allowing the country to move forward to become somewhat of a modern state ruled by politicians that were experienced in the ways government rather than a deluded king who had delusions of grandeur on a epic scale. So how does religion fit into this crucial moment in British history? The causes of the English Civil War have been discussed, dissected and argued by historians as much as any historical event in the history of the world, and therefore there are many conflicting ideas on the subject. However there seems to be a little more of a consensus between the academic community which is generally split between the revisionists, counter- revisionists, and post- revisionists and not least it will have something to do with many academics giving up on the subject all together. The consensus which is generally being accepted is that religion was the main factor in causing the bloody conflict and in comparison with the more traditional beliefs that it was more politically rooted has been less accepted. In the last 10 years a well respected academic by the name of Professor Glenn Burgess of the University of Hull published in his journal called " Was the Civil War a War of Religion" and he expanded further on this belief and explained in great detail in how the Parliamentarian religious advisers gave credence to resisting and fighting the kings beliefs on a purely religious standpoint(Burgess, 1998). However Burgess later describes in the years of 1642-43 that the war was vindicated through a legal basis rather than a religious one(Burgess,1998). However the evidence that Burgess examines doesn't show that the Parliamentarian publishing during that period offered a complete explanation on religious grounds but rather to illustrate a point that the signing of a National Covenant in Scotland led English theologians to show to the Long Parliament that the English Civil War can be presented as a holy war. And this can show how important the National Covenant was when it was inaugurated by Scottish clergyman on the 28th of February 1638 in a graveyard in Greyfriars, Edinburgh. It rejected attempts by the English king Charles I and the archbishop of Canterbury to force the Scottish church to convert the English liturgical practice and church governance. Even though the Covenant urged loyalty to the King it allowed the Roundheads to argue that it was a war that was to be fought in God's name, a war of the godly against the ungodly (Vallance,2002) and to be fought without mercy. This Covenant also allowed the Parliamentarians to believe that not only were the people were

party to it but the King was also which in turn it allows force to be taken against him if he didn't follow it. But the interpretation of the Covenant by the Parliamentarians allowed the justification of direct action against perceived "agents" of the pope in England which resulted in many innocent people to be imprisoned, banished and killed thought the Civil War (Vallance,2002). These ideas were a common theme that ran though the Civil War during the Winter of 1642/43 and allowed them to construct what can only be described as almost "radical resistance" theories as David Wootton writes in his journal '

From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter Radicalism' (Wotton,pp105,1990).

of 1642/43 and the Origins of Civil War

John Morrill the historian also looked into the effects of religion on the English Civil War and came to the more modern conclusion that religion was a main force behind the conflict and had some negative thoughts on its influence, "religion is simply the most combustible of several elements in the noxious cocktail that sparked of the English Civil War" (Morrill,pp47,1993) he went further by saying" the force of religion that drove minorities to fight and forced majorities to make reluctant choices"(Morrill,pp47,1993). So the religious radicalization in the Long Parliament was mainly due to the inept ability to rule and being untrustworthy rather than by constitutional initiatives by the government (Vallance,2002). Furthermore as mentioned before the belief that there was a plot to convert England back to Catholicism by the pope created a hostile attitude towards Charles I and therefore preventing the concessions he was offering. Peter Lake wrote that just because there were "anti-popery" beliefs that doesn't mean there were anti-Catholicism attitudes by the population, but the hatred by the Roundheads and by large parts of the population wasn't just because of the religious element but a large part by the political changes that would occur if the "popish" conspiracy had succeeded (Vallance,2002). Burgess has researched the connection between the political and the religious ideals by analysing the justifications that the powers used at the time for the continual use of force against the King and his allies and he probes as to whether the Parliamentarians ever justified the war on a purely religious grounds (Vallance,2002) and which has been suggested by church historian Roland Bainton as a holy war (Bainton,1963). As Bainton goes into great depth in his book he discovered that church divines or clergyman believed that the conflict was entirely a religious war and that force was necessary to achieve its goal of protestant security in the country and that it should be fought with a "crusading ideal" (Vallance,2002) and Bainton found a quote by a unknown source which accurately shows the feeling at the time: The cause shall be holy, and no cause is more holy than religion, that the war shall be fought under God and with his help, that the crusaders shall be godly and their enemies ungodly, that the war shall be prosecuted unsparingly. (Bainton,pp267,1963)

Michael Walzer a history and political philosophy Professor at Harvard University has the same beliefs that Bainton concludes, and goes further than him and summarises that the revolutionary ideals ran parallel with the crusading actions and even the puritan religious leaders went as far to mould God into a warlike entity and the continuing moral struggle of man to that of a solider fighting in a great battle and finally the moral discipline that religious saints posses is similar to that of a well disciplined army(Walzer,1966). As with most historical theories there is always a counterpoint that runs alongside it and as James T. Johnson has made clear that the idea of holy war theories from the church were around many years prior the English Civil War and they weren't exclusive to the Parliamentarian side and was a running theory in the Catholic faction just as it was in the Protestant's. The theories of religious war date back to the 1620's and 30's and many call for a pro-Protestant foreign policy that could take advantage of having the Dutch as allies to resist the powerful Catholic nations of France and Spain and partake in what would in today's terms could be seen as a 'Jihad'. Many theologians of the time such as Gouge and Sutcliffe(Gouge,1624) preached holy war on a grand scale and argued that it was a divine right of all English to take part in and they justified it in very intelligent manner and linked it incredibly well with international and godly law and intertwined it with mainland European theories on "just war" (Vallance,2002). The general theory on "just war" is very similar to how most Western nations wage in today's conflicts and that is to avoid killing old men, women and children and for them to be treated well when possible and for any enemies that were captured should also be treated with respect in most cases (Gouge,1624). There was great debate on how to war should be fought and it's justification but there were also theories on how it can be a legal war and not just an idealist conflict and there were Parliamentarian theorists that the war shouldn't be fought by a religious means only and it should be ratified by established law of the land. This was a perfect idea on the parts of the Parliamentarians as the law at the time as it is today has a great deal of religious facets as the law was based on church law and thus it allowed them to not only fight with a just cause and a clean conscious but also with a legal backing(Johnson,1997) and burgess also believed that was a strong link between religion and law(Burgess,1998). There are however a more examples that the war was fought on a religious ground rather than constitutional one and this can be seen across the border into Scotland where the ultra Protestants the Presbyterians were holding court. Many believe that to call the Civil War a English war is untrue as it involved all three Kingdoms and a Scottish army that would later fight on English soil and would hand victory to the Roundheads. However in Scotland the justification for war was for more religiously based than that of the English and in comparison seems almost non religious, but this was clearly due to the denomination of the Scottish people and what can only be described as almost radical in their approach

in their worship. The Scottish covenanters strengthened their case for the war on a purely divine reason. They believed that the people of Britain and the King were tied to God and they must always defend the faith no matter what might stand in its way (Vallance,2002). This was further strengthened for the Scots when the original architects of the National Covenant Alexander Henderson and Archibald Johnston made if very publically clear that the King was just as culpable as the people if it wasn't followed like a divine document. Samuel Rutherford went further by explaining in his book Lex Rex

(1644) that the covenant wasn't just for the people of Scotland but should be a characteristic of all true
Christians across the world. Rutherford also had an opinion when it came to the structure of the parliament and if any of the institutions hindered the defence of the true faith then they should be changed or tore down if it was required(Buchanan,2012). Burgess agrees that the National Covenant was the key factor for the theory that the English Civil War was fought for a religious cause and so the defence of the faith was key factor in the validation for hostilities between the British and so if the Church is under threat then this is the same as the right for one to defend one's own soul as it states in the bible so therefore there is no need for the courts to approve war(Burgess,1998) as it is god's will which supersedes the law of man. More evidence that the English Civil War was that of a religious nature can be strengthened by the signing of the Solemn League and the Covenant by both the Houses of Parliament and the Scottish commissioners on the 25th September 1643. It was a religious covenant and also a military league which joined the forces of the two Protestant kingdoms of Britain allowing for a very powerful force to be brought against the Royalists who were winning many of the battles. The Scots were very scared of the prospect of Irish Catholic troops being brought over to fight with the Royalists and this was made very clear that this could happen through the discovery of the Earl of Antrim's efforts to do so. And so the fact that there was a military alliance between two nations based on a religious commonality between the Scots and the English and through a threat of invasion from a foreign force which had a different religious denomination shows concretely that the turning point in the war was due to a divine reason and makes a strong case for the religious nature of the conflict. As mentioned before there was call for the war to be fought with a understanding of decency from both sides, but there were calls from very influential ministers such as Hezekiah Woodward who was a nonconformist and heavily involved in the pamphlet wars for the war to be carried out like a battle or struggle from a biblical text and in one sermon promoting the National Covenant he flatly refused for the growing call of the people to stop the bloodshed and call for a negotiated peace and was quoted as saying "let them talk what they will of their peace, God has sworn and his people too, that he will have a war with them, avenge upon them the blood of his servants, cast them down, and lay them lower than the earth"(Woodward,

pp284,1643). In another sermon he was just as severe and said of the people who had sworn to upheld the Covenant "vowed to stand up against this Generation of Vipers, till they are so subdued that they shall no longer sting"(Woodward,1643). This is the kind of propaganda that the Parliamentarian army and general citizens were being exposed to for the purpose to carry on the fight and to fight with absolute conviction and belief of the cause. The promoters of the Solemn League and Covenant made it very clear that they wanted severe punishment anybody who talked bad of it, the Covenant itself had a clause that any person who had took the oath was sworn to find "all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments."(Kenyon, pp 38,1989). The Royalist when they discovered this clause appeared to be alarmed by this and made no pains in making public that this type of action would turn sons against fathers and wives against husbands and accused it of being un-patriarchal and would destroy the family unit(Vallance,2002). Hezekiah Woodward had an opinion on the Royalist reaction and said "they might be my friend, perhaps my Childe....he is an enemy of God"(Woodward,pp11,1643). In Woodward's The Kings Chronicle (1643) he advocated the way to halt the evil in the country was not to "by commanding the sword to be still" but "By striking at the root, Idolatrous person and things" (Vallance,pp407.2002) which is a very poetic way of suggesting to go and commit violence against other people purely from a religious justification. And we can see this type of propaganda from today's conflicts in the Middle East where the justification of violence against people is always backed up by a religious character one way or another. Finally to conclude the evidence that the English Civil War was one of a religious nature one must look to the manner in which it was fought and no other battle during that conflict can testify to this fact. The infamous siege of Drogheda was defining moment for Cromwell and for Ireland and this is because of what happed after the siege was completed. In 1649 Cromwell landed in Ireland with 20,000 troops that made quick work of any resistance that it encountered and Cromwell was on the war path for what the Catholics did in 1641 and for their support of the monarchy and as Barker points out: The nuances of Irish politics meant little to Cromwell, and he cared not one jot that the Anglo-Irish lords had been loyal to the English Crown. In Cromwell's eyes Papists were Papists, and his task was to impose Protestantism on the whole of Ireland and restore order. he also, like all Protestants, remembered the massacres of 1641 and regarded himself as the agent of a wrathful god. (Barker,pp60,2008)

After they had dealt with the surrounding forces they marched on the town, which was a key defensive position in the north of the country and thus it's capture was paramount if the conquest was to be achieved and so the attack was launched as soon as the cannons were placed. Cromwell bombarded the wall's until there many breeches, once the troops were inside the order was given that no quarter was to be given. After the battle was over almost 3,500 citizens were massacred and many of the men were grouped into the town's church which was then set on fire. The Governor was reported to have been bludgeoned to death with his own wooden leg. Cromwell wrote of the siege at Drogheda:

"I forbade my men to spare any that were in arms in the

town: and, I think, that night they put to the sword about 200 men...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of god upon these barbarous wretches...It is good that God alone have all the Glory...."(Barker,pp60,2008) As we can see from this passage Cromwell clearly believed that he was somehow the executioner of god and that no matter what acts of violence were committed it was the will of god and that it shouldn't be interfered with. In conclusion we can see that thanks to 17th Century English academics that the English Civil War left a massive amount of evidence to point towards the theory that it was fought for a largely religious grounds rather than a political one. However as pointed out the religious and political ideals did converge on some occasions which gave the conflict and action against the King a legal backing which gave the Parliamentarians a legitimate reason for war and with the religious backing it gave them a virtuous cause for war. The many high profile clergyman who were fuelling the fire of revolution is also a strong case for the war to be considered religious as many of the sermons were considered the direct word of god and thus anything they did in the war was divine. This was later feared by the New Model Army as many of them had committed hideous acts and later the army wanted to be pardoned by any questionable actions they may have committed.

Bibliography D.Wotton." From Rebellion to Revolution: The Crisis of the Winter of 1642/43 and the Origins of Civil War Radicalism'" English Historical Review 105 (1990): 654-69 E.Vallance."Preaching to the Converted: Religious Justifications for the English Civil War." Hunting

Library Quarterly 65 (2002): 395-419

G.Burgess."Was the Civil War a War a War of Religion?" Huntington Library Quarterly 61 (1998): 173303 H.Woodward, The Solemme League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms (1643) H.Woodward, The Kings Chronicle (1643) George Buchanan (2012): Political Thought in Early Modern Britain and Europe (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History). Edition. Ashgate Pub Co. Gouge, Gods Three Arrows, 1624 James Turner Johnson, 1997. The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions. 1st Edition. The Pennsylvania State University Press. J. P. Kenyon, 1989. The Stuart Constitution, 1603-1688: Documents and Commentary. 2 Edition. Cambridge University Press. John S. Morrill, 1993. The Nature of the English Revolution: Essays. Edition. Longman Group United Kingdom. Michael Walzer, 1982. The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics. Edition. Harvard University Press. Roland Herbert Bainton,1963. Congregationalism: from the Just War to the Crusade in the Puritan Revolution, London

Samuel Rutherford, 2010. Lex, rex, or, The law and the prince: a dispute for the just prerogative of

king and people .... Edition. Gale, Making of Modern Law.

Philip W. Barker, 2008. Religious Nationalism in Modern Europe: If God be for Us (Routledge Studies in

Nationalism and Ethnicity). 1 Edition. Routledge.