What is your view about the extent to which the English Civil War was caused by
religious divisions?
The cause of the English Civil War has been a topic of great debate among historians since it
was fought, beginning in 1642. The first popular interpretation came from the Whig historians,
who believed that the war was caused by a shift from a mediaeval-style monarchy surrounding
religious persecution to a Parliamentary ruling with religious toleration. This view was
challenged by historians such as R.H. Tawney, H.R. Trevor-Roper, and Christopher Hill, who
used their personal beliefs and social contexts to analyse the Civil War through a
socio-economic lens, focusing on class structures and economic developments. They see the
war as a step in a societal revolution. Then, in the 1970s, a "revisionist" perspective was
developed, which has some differing views but disagrees with previous arguments. The leading
cause acknowledged by the Revisionists is religion, and John Morrill pioneered this stance,
arguing that the growing group of Puritans, exacerbated by Charles' appointment of William
Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury, created tension in the country. The historical context
surrounding this cause supports the view, as the Protestant Reformation had recently spread
through Europe, causing many religious tensions. Alternatively, there are other revisionists such
as Conrad Russell who look at religion as part of the issue, as well as other issues including the
Three Crowns and Charles’ character, combining multiple factors in their concluding decision of
the war’s cause. More recently, the Post Revisionist view has appeared, which does not argue
one single cause, but takes multiple factors into account for contributing to the war. These
different interpretations will be judged through criteria to determine which is the strongest
argument; the criteria suggested by Arthur Chapman are the purpose of their argument, the
methods they used in their argument, and the assumptions made by the historians. This essay
will judge the historians' arguments using the outlined criteria and determine whether the
argument in support of religious divisions having caused the Civil War is the strongest.
There is no doubt that religious divisions were a cause of the English Civil War, and according to
John Morrill, in "The Religious Context of the Civil War," it is "impossible to overestimate the
damage caused by the Laudians." An evident division is between the Laudians and the
Protestants, the latter group finding Charles’ appointment of Laud and his Arminian views
offensive. Morrill argues that the Protestants saw Charles as "abdicating" his responsibilities
under God, such as to promote "true religion." This claim can be supported by contextual
evidence, as during Laud’s reforms of the church, the more extreme group, the Puritans, were
told to obey and attend ceremonies or to leave and be punished, giving them little choice or
religious freedom. In 1637, three men were branded on the cheek, had their ears cropped, and
were imprisoned for life for attacking the rule of the bishops and criticising Laudian doctrines.
These punishments received by the men demonstrate how serious Charles and the Laudians
were about enforcing their religious views, despite not being an immensely popular religious
branch, and support Morrill’s view on how divisive religion was. Holding a similar view to Morrill,
Cressy argues that "few topics were as potentially divisive as the positioning and treatment of
the furnishings for holy communion," emphasising the extent of the religious differences
between the Protestants/Puritans and Laudians and how the Laudians created a greater split
religious divisions?
The cause of the English Civil War has been a topic of great debate among historians since it
was fought, beginning in 1642. The first popular interpretation came from the Whig historians,
who believed that the war was caused by a shift from a mediaeval-style monarchy surrounding
religious persecution to a Parliamentary ruling with religious toleration. This view was
challenged by historians such as R.H. Tawney, H.R. Trevor-Roper, and Christopher Hill, who
used their personal beliefs and social contexts to analyse the Civil War through a
socio-economic lens, focusing on class structures and economic developments. They see the
war as a step in a societal revolution. Then, in the 1970s, a "revisionist" perspective was
developed, which has some differing views but disagrees with previous arguments. The leading
cause acknowledged by the Revisionists is religion, and John Morrill pioneered this stance,
arguing that the growing group of Puritans, exacerbated by Charles' appointment of William
Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury, created tension in the country. The historical context
surrounding this cause supports the view, as the Protestant Reformation had recently spread
through Europe, causing many religious tensions. Alternatively, there are other revisionists such
as Conrad Russell who look at religion as part of the issue, as well as other issues including the
Three Crowns and Charles’ character, combining multiple factors in their concluding decision of
the war’s cause. More recently, the Post Revisionist view has appeared, which does not argue
one single cause, but takes multiple factors into account for contributing to the war. These
different interpretations will be judged through criteria to determine which is the strongest
argument; the criteria suggested by Arthur Chapman are the purpose of their argument, the
methods they used in their argument, and the assumptions made by the historians. This essay
will judge the historians' arguments using the outlined criteria and determine whether the
argument in support of religious divisions having caused the Civil War is the strongest.
There is no doubt that religious divisions were a cause of the English Civil War, and according to
John Morrill, in "The Religious Context of the Civil War," it is "impossible to overestimate the
damage caused by the Laudians." An evident division is between the Laudians and the
Protestants, the latter group finding Charles’ appointment of Laud and his Arminian views
offensive. Morrill argues that the Protestants saw Charles as "abdicating" his responsibilities
under God, such as to promote "true religion." This claim can be supported by contextual
evidence, as during Laud’s reforms of the church, the more extreme group, the Puritans, were
told to obey and attend ceremonies or to leave and be punished, giving them little choice or
religious freedom. In 1637, three men were branded on the cheek, had their ears cropped, and
were imprisoned for life for attacking the rule of the bishops and criticising Laudian doctrines.
These punishments received by the men demonstrate how serious Charles and the Laudians
were about enforcing their religious views, despite not being an immensely popular religious
branch, and support Morrill’s view on how divisive religion was. Holding a similar view to Morrill,
Cressy argues that "few topics were as potentially divisive as the positioning and treatment of
the furnishings for holy communion," emphasising the extent of the religious differences
between the Protestants/Puritans and Laudians and how the Laudians created a greater split
