What is your view about the extent to which the English Civil War was caused by religious
divisions? (3,989 words)
The extent to which the English Civil War was caused by religious, political, or
socioeconomics is debated amongst many historians. Revisionist interpretations and those
of a Marxist perspective are at the core of the debate. Marxist historians, such as the likes of
Christopher Hill, focus on the Civil War being a ‘British Revolution’ that rose from the
discord between the gentry and the old English feudal order. However, the revisionist view
takes the opposing side of the Marxist interpretation as some revisionists pose a convincing
argument that it was in fact the religious divisions that led to the outbreak of war, whereas
some specify that it was deeper political issues amongst the 3 kingdoms, as well as inside
Parliament that built up tensions. These views became more mainstream during the 1980s
and drew the eyes away from the traditional Marxist or Whig interpretations. As opposed to
the Whig interpretations, revisionist interpretations look at short-term causes such as those
religious or political conflicts, such as the interpretations of John Morrill and Conrad Russell.
In this essay, I am going to discuss the interpretations of John Morrill (the religious context
of the civil war), Christopher Hill (The English Revolution 1640), and Conrad Russell (The
British Problem and the English Civil War.) Each historian/interpretation poses extremely
convincing arguments, but each has strengths and weaknesses. For example, John Morrill is
very hasty to diminish the idea that the social changes during the 16 th Century may have
been a cause or a minor contribution. Christopher Hill, too, does not examine the root of
religion in British society in thorough detail in the context of how it may have individually
led to the war. I agree with John Morill, that the English Civil war was caused by religious
divisions, despite there being minor input from other areas.
John Morrill
Morrill's argument is one around the idea ‘that there was, in 1640, an ideological crisis as
well as a functionalist crisis.’1 Morrill covers all areas of the build-up to the war, that of
social and economic crisis, Charles’ supposed failure of personal rule, and his main
argument of religious conflicts and divisions. He is swift to state that the local and legal
constitutionalists who risked their careers and their liberty in protesting against fiscal
feudalism were a waste. Morrill also quickly discards Hill’s Marxist interpretation of viewing
the English civil war through a socio-economic scope; Morrill states that ‘these perceptions
of misgovernment lacked the momentum, the passion, to bring about civil war.’ 2 The
localism during the period of the build-up to war explains the nature of the war, such as the
perception of arbitrariness, innovation, and disruption explaining the mood of 1640, but it
does not explain the cause of the war. His view is that Parliament lacked the urgency to
remedy itself following Charles’ personal rule in comparison to the Laudianism outbreak.
Sheila Lambert argues that “the proceedings of Parliament during the first few weeks were
entirely in accordance with the precedents of the early Stuarts.” 3 By 1640, the complaints
put forward in Parliament were towards Charles himself and his misuse of power. However,
1
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.157
2
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.157
1
, once archbishop Laud began to promote his program, it caused much resentment toward
the pair.
Morrill uses extremely critical sources to illustrate how divisive Laudian reforms were such
as John Pym calling them the “sty of all pestilent filth” 4 which suggests the reforms were a
deeply rooted cause for polarisation and rising tensions. By 1640, the Laudian program had
aroused disenchantment among its most committed and important members, creating
more tension than that surrounding constitutional issues. These reforms alienated many
people and removed key aspects of traditional puritan/protestant worship. These concerns
surrounding religion were the main topic of most Parliamentary debates and were more
regularly mentioned than secular issues, such as the bishop's war. Many petitions called for
reforms of the reformation and there was a gradual increase in the attack on the church. A
key factor to suggest that religious concerns were more prevalent than legal constitutional
ones was the fact that Parliament’s Anglican Party had transformed into a Royalist one
which suggests their will to prioritize their religious beliefs within Parliament. Morrill quotes
Jacqueline Levy in saying that both parties, the Scots, and the English, ‘viewed the civil war
as a war to establish true religion.”5 Morrill points to the fact that by the end of the first
Long Parliament session, the MP’s decisions shifted from pruning and cleansing the church
to abolishing and re-establishing it. Throughout 1642, the religious conflict was widespread
through the press, the public, and Parliament but this was not prevalent with constitutional
issues, suggesting that the religious conflicts were more important to the public as religion
was deeply rooted in the people. Morrill boldly states that the English civil war was the ‘last
of the wars of religion’,6 which is a controversial but agreeable statement.
Christopher Hill
Hill offered the first radical, Marxist interpretation of the causes of the English Civil war in
the 1940s. Hill takes an approach of focusing on the civil war not being a war of religion, nor
political struggles but rather a revolution. By arguing so, Hill rules out other interpretations
by suggesting that ‘the causes of the civil war must be sought in society, not in individuals.’
7
Through the scope of many Marxist historians, including Hill, the divide between the gentry
and the aristocratic class was caused by increasing trade markets which lead to a growing
merchant class, who thus, began to demand more political power and involvement in the
system which remained feudal. Hill states the civil war was a class war, in which the
despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church
and conservative landlords. Hence, the war in his view was a revolution that arose due to
rising tensions and dissonance between feudalism and the emerging capitalist system. Hill
also examines the root cause of the supposed religious conflicts. He appreciates the impact
3
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.156
4
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.164
5
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.171
6
John Morrill, The Religious Context of the English Civil War, (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
1984) p.170
7
Christopher Hill, The English Revolution 1640, (Lawrence and Wishart, 1940) p.4
2
