Conor Muller
Historians have disagreed about the extent to which the First English
Civil War was caused by religious divisions.
What is your view about the extent to which the First English Civil
War was caused by religious divisions?
The degree to which the First English Civil War was caused by division in politics, religion,
economics and social class is contested. Marxist interpretations were pioneered by R. H.
Tawney and cemented by Christopher Hill in the middle of the twentieth century, during which
time it was the dominant view of the First English Civil War. Typically, Marxist historians argue
that the Revolution, as they call it, was a battle between the old feudal order and a rising
gentry, plus a bourgeois merchant class that pioneered an early form of capitalism. 1 The
monarchy, they asserted, was reactionary and conservative and obstructed capitalism’s freer
development.2 So-called revisionist interpretations are characterised by their contrasting ideas
to the Marxist consensus that preceded their work. Historians who put forward such arguments
point to religious division and battles for the Church3 while others cite political power struggles.
They say that the King had a seemingly impossible task in governing the kingdoms of Britain in a
way that satisfied all three.4 Both groups brand King Charles I as incompetent, uncompromising
and short-tempered, arguing that Charles went too far too quickly in his pursuit of change in
both the Church and the State. These interpretations began to question Marxist ones from the
1980s onwards and have become increasingly mainstream since although a new way of
thinking, post-revisionism, is emerging. Historians minded to this view accept the importance of
religious and political factors in causing the Civil War. However, they argue that the causes of
these lay deeper in the past and look to tensions and interactions that may have played a role
in the causes of the war. When they mention long-term causes, they do not mean underlying
processes toward parliamentary democracy like the ‘Whig’ historians of the nineteenth century
did or class interactions as argued by the likes of Hill, they instead mean a long-term build-up of
tension over issues like religion or politics, for example.
Marxist-influenced interpretations see religion through a lens of class conflict, suggesting that
the warring classes used religion to justify their cause in the war and used the ideology that
suited them best because people in seventeenth century Britain used religion as a means of
discussing not just theology but also politics and socio-economics. In this sense, they accept
religion as a cause but place greater emphasis on its role in a wider class-fuelled dispute. Few
1
Christopher Hill, The English Revolution 1640, 3rd edn., London, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd,
1955, pp. 6-13
2
Ibid.
3
John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution, London, Longman, 1993, p. 69
4
Conrad Russell, Why did Charles I fight the Civil War?, History Today, June 1984, pp. 31-34
1
, Conor Muller
historians with Marxist interpretations place great emphasis on matters of conscience like
personal religious beliefs in causing the Civil War. Some more revisionist viewpoints put such
great emphasis on the role of religion that they call the Civil War a war of religion. 5 Other views
see religion as creating a political headache from which Charles could never recover. Some
argue that the Civil War was caused by religion, some that it was only made possible by religion
– but all recognise it as completely distinct from class conflict.
Each group and each individual historian has strengths and weaknesses in their interpretations.
Historians who hold Marxist interpretations of religion are right to not simply examine religion
at face value by comparing the religious beliefs of the opposing sides. However, this can be
taken too far, risking the overlooking of fury over religious policy. Certainly, Christopher Hill in
his early work is too hasty to dismiss religion and not see it as a matter of conscience for
Englishmen for which they were willing to take a stand. They were opposed to “repugnant”,
“damnable” popery and became convinced that Charles’ corrupt advisors were conspiring to
return England to Catholicism.6 On the other hand, other historians like John Morrill are too
quick to write off the transition from feudalism to capitalism as a cause – maybe out of
irritation at a crude application of the Marxist understanding of religion which they see as
diminishing it and in pursuit of a completely fresh approach which sees it as an area of
genuinely furious debate.
Analysis
Religious tension
John Morrill stresses the importance of religion in causing the First Civil War by putting forward
his “contention that what made civil war possible in 1642 was a crisis of religion.” 7 Morrill cites
widespread parish-level anger at Charles’ changes which many perceived as ‘popish’ 8 and
emphasises the importance of “a flood of petitions” 9 in ‘rattling’ the Puritan House of Commons
– several hundred during the Long Parliament alleged “ceremonialism”.10 Much of England was
genuinely outraged at Charles’ religious policy – anger didn’t just come from a small hard core
of parliamentary militants like John Pym. Under pressure and genuinely fearing for the future of
Puritanism, MPs began to take action against the King’s advisors like the Earl of Strafford.
Although religion is central to Morrill’s argument, he also takes other factors for civil war into
5
Morrill, op. cit., p. 69
6
Robin Clifton, ‘Fear of Popery’ in: Conrad Russell, The Origins of the English Civil War, London,
Macmillan, 1973, p. 147
7
Morrill, op. cit., p. 69
8
Ibid. p. 82
9
Morrill, op. cit., p. 77
10
Ibid. p. 75
2
