Religious Fears as the Cause of the English Civil War

Isaac Freedman10/11/22

Religious Fears as the Cause of the English Civil War

What caused the English Civil War is a topic of contention and

disagreement. On the one hand, there were long-term, structural

factors - deep-seated political, social, economic, and religious

tension in English society - that made war in 1642 inevitable. On

the other, the causes of the war might be situated in the five

years before its outbreak. Each interpretation either neglects

important historical forces or the decisions made by principal

actors. For example, the long-term constitutional interpretation

falsely represents the conflict as indicative of mankind’s march

toward modernity and democracy. The short-term interpretation

situates the causes out of context, in a historical vacuum.

Still, in the years before war, contemporaries did not foresee an

inevitable eruption of conflict. Most did not wish to see

conflict at all. Political conflict did not cause the civil war.

Rather, its origins can be found in understanding the reaction of

Protestant Englishmen to the perceived religious policies of

Charles. These policies aroused fears of a popish plot that would

undermine the Anglican Church and subvert the existing religious

order.

Constitutional Conflict: Parliament versus King?

The constitutional struggle that begins with James I

accession to the English throne often marks a starting point for

discussion about the structural causes of the civil war. It was

at this time that there were conspicuous conflicts between

Parliament and the Monarchy, the two principal actors in the

Civil War. The reign of James I marked a period of increased

tension, at least more so than under his predecessor. In 1603,

James I had been invited to the English throne as successor to

Queen Elizabeth, and soon proclaimed his authority over all other

men. James is commonly thought to be a believer in the “Divine

Right of Kings” which put all the power of the state in the

divinely ordained monarch. In his 1598 Trew Law of Free Monarchies,

published before his coronation, James proclaimed Kings as “God’s

vice-gerents on earth, that there were no legal limits to their

power, and that the sole function of elected assemblies was to

give advice.”1 In a series of instances from 1604 until Charles’

accession in 1625, including the famous ‘Addled Parliament’ in

1614 James clashed with MPs over attempts to impose taxation

without Parliament’s consent.

2

Certainly, at first glance James’ Trew Law could appear to

engender an almost unlimited assertion of the King’s power. Yet

in seventeenth century England, the King was considered divine,

as God’s chosen ruler, and James’ assertion would not be

considered out of place. Surrounding the monarch was a religious

aura; Englishmen considered him divinely ordained and

legitimated. Moreover, despite such assertions on James’ part, he

seemed to understand the limits of his power in practice. In a

speech to Parliament in March 1610, James distinguished between

the original state of Kings and state of civil monarchy in

England: The King “is bound to observe that paction made to his

people by his laws.”2 Such a proclamation illustrates James’

understanding of the limits of the King’s power. But it is also

indicative of the wider importance of the ‘ancient constitution’

– the binding limits on the Kings power. Most educated Englishmen

considered England’s constitution as both a religious and a legal

document. Sir Edward Coke, a strong believer in English common

law, considered it of “the laws of God and nature.”3 Religious

and constitutional issues were intimately interconnected.

3

James’ willingness to concede to the limits of his power did

not stop a series of conflicts between the King and Parliament

from fissuring. In 1604 Parliament prepared the Apology of the House

of Commons, which sought to defend its “privileges and liberties”

against monarchical encroachment.4 Upon his accession, James

inherited a large debt, as well as a larger problem of receiving

royal revenue, from wars with Spain and in Ireland. In order to

pay off these debts, James with the help of his confident, Robert

Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, exacted impositions on imports and

exports. In the Bates Case of 1606, the judges of the exchequer

ruled in favor of James and his right to levy impositions on

trade. The House, in response, voiced their concern for their

right to property, which suggests Parliament envisaged a limit on

the King’s absolute power.5 Finally, after Salisbury became Lord

Treasurer in 1608 he increased impositions on almost all imported

commodities, a move which the Commons called for an inquiry on

immediately upon reconvening in 1610.6

Despite such conflict, James had been particularly adept at

maintaining political stability. Conflict did not materialize

into serious political violence. Perhaps such a feat can be

4

credited to James’ “political realism.”7 James was an adroit

manipulator of the existing arrangements of political and

administrative power. In the midst of changing societal patterns

of wealth and social resources, James created and expanded the

local offices of the state in order to permit the rising gentry

to have more of a voice in governance. And such reapportionment

required “very sensitive management.”8 After the publication of

Robert Cowell’s 1610 Interpreter had raised considerable

controversy in Parliament, James decided to ban it. He took this

action even though the publication claimed absolute monarchical

power to taxation as well as argued against legal laws being

binding on the King.9 For the first half of James reign,

“disagreements and tensions in the Church were held in

balance.”10 James did not strongly promote a particular religious

ideology within the Jacobean Church. In 1618, for example, he

withdrew his declaration to English clergy to read from the

pulpit the Book of Sports after Puritan voiced their strong

opposition. In 1633, in stark contrast, King Charles ordered the

republication of the Book and then ordered it read by all

clergy.11 Rather than permit the development of religious

5

tension, James sent directions to preachers to quiet theological

disputes.12 Thus, James’ success can also be credited to his

religious realism, in which the Church focused on reconciliation

among competing religious groups.

The political conflict, starting in the 1620s and continuing

until the outbreak of war in 1642 between Parliament and Charles

does at first offer a neat and tidy explanation of the causes of

the civil war. Under such a constitutional lens, there are a

series of escalating crisis that begin with forced impositions in

the 1620s in an effort to raise treasury revenues and finance

Charles’ European wars. In this view, conflict in the 1620s led

to the passage of the Petition of Right in 1628, which sought to

restrict non-parliamentary taxation, the forced billeting of

soldiers, imprisonment without due cause, and restrictions on the

use of martial law. Charles then dissolved Parliament and began

his eleven-year personal rule under which he continued to issue

forced levies without consent. Once Charles reconvened Parliament

in 1640 in order to finance his Bishops Wars against Scotland,

the constitutional struggle resumed, and Parliament ultimately

emerged victorious.

6

Yet that simplistic view obscures the realities of the time.

As Kenyon points out, keeping in mind that the 1630s were a

decade before a civil war, there had been a considerable amount

of political composure in Parliament save the occasional arousal

of indignation concerning fiscal expedients, such as the re-

enforcement of antiquated forest laws and the distraint of

knighthood.13Even once the Long Parliament met, there were no

calls for removing or persecuting the enforcers of such laws.14

After the government’s imposition of the “most comprehensive,

onerous and controversial tax, ship-money” in 1635, there had not

been considerable opposition until 1638 with the case of John

Hampden. Whether such opposition can be credited to the tax or

the Scottish Rebellion in 1638 is difficult to determine.15 These

issues did not determine the side to which MPs flocked at the

outbreak or war. In the Long Parliament both sides were willing

to concede their objections to the other. The levies imposed in

the 1630s “should not loom large in explanations of political

breakdown.”16 Until mid-1641, the House of Lords, Commons and

most of the Charles’ privy councilors were largely united on

7

important issues.17 By the end of 1641, no past dispute remained

on the agenda.18

Still, the ship money case cannot be easily cast aside.

These impositions, which were supposed to cover the cost of a

potential war in coastal cities, were levied without

Parliamentary approval and could be considered a crucial point in

the events leading up to the civil war. In the Long Parliament,

for example, Charles’ opponents were adamant about its repeal and

considered it a breach of the King’s royal prerogative. Yet, as

Sharpe points out, opposition to the ship-money case in 1640-41

stemmed more from political considerations than to disputes over

Charles supposed absolutist tendencies.19 Instead of a

philosophical debate surrounding the authority of the King,

controversy arose over the technicalities of the case itself.

Even Henry Parker’s famous political pamphlet The Case of Shipmony,

which supposedly signified a belief in parliamentary absolutism,

did not appear until 1640, almost five years after the tax had

been implemented.20 Indeed, even in 1642, religious literature

dwarfed pamphlets on constitutional issues.21 Hampden’s lawyer,

Sir Robert Holborne, became a royalist.

8

Further evidence also shows that Charles did not intend to

restructure the existing political structure and impose his own

absolutist rule. Instead, he and most all of his subjects

believed in the reproduction of the hierarchical divine order

itself, “the sine quo non of the survival of the commonweal.”22

Tradition determined action, and to that extent neither the King

nor his opponents were consciously pursuing constitutional

change. To explain the nature and cause of the civil war, it is

imperative to understand the importance of tradition in

seventeenth century England, and the belief in the continuity of

monarchy. Of course, the debates in the decades prior to the

Civil War were not devoid of political arguments. More so, there

were in debates over the nature of the King’s authority and the

limits to his power. But as Morrill points out, in early Stuart

England, “clear and unquestioned ways of expressing dissent”

existed – for example, parliamentary and kingly petitions – and

were used without a need to resort to forms of violence. The

intention of the remedial legislation of 1641 that pushed England

closer to civil war had not been “to create parliamentary

9

sovereignty” but to scale back Charles’ powers and preserve the

existing order.23

The Anglican Church: Protestant or Catholic?

In seventeenth century England, religion had a profound

impact on social relations. Religion, more than a private matter

of individual belief and contemplation, was an entire way of

life. It structured society and peoples everyday lives, and it

took on a significance that was much more personal,

irreconcilable and rigid than can be understood today. On the

European Continent, the Reformation had led to a series of wars,

persecutions, and severe strife. In 1559, after its separation

from the Roman Church in 1533, England became a Protestant nation

with a national church, the Anglican Church. The King, as the

spiritual head of the Church, was considered “supreme head on

earth.”24 In light of the forces of the Counter-Reformation most

Englishmen considered it imperative that England maintained its

uniformity of religion and would have consequently looked to the

King for such direction. The Church also had a “multi-functional”

role to play in society. It crossed into realms such as property

disposal at will and marital separation, both of which would be

10

considered secular issues in modern times.25 Religion, and in

particular Protestantism, played a fundamental role in peoples’

lives and in social relations.

Unlike James, Charles I took on a much more active role in

the Church. He did not hesitate to pursue a common unified

religious doctrine in all three of his Kingdoms – Ireland,

Scotland and England. Rather than James’ strategy of integrating

Scottish and Anglican religious tenets, Charles pursued unity “by

shifting Scotland and Ireland towards the interpretation of the

English settlement… most remote from the Scottish and Irish

Churches.26 In addition, whereas his predecessor had concerned

himself with the more juridico-political aspects of the Church,

Charles put an emphasis on his role as spiritual head of the

clerical hierarchy.27 To Charles, “True religion meant… the

practice of worship in accord with the prescribed liturgy of

[the] Church.”28 And in order to effect such a belief, Charles

sought to elevate the role and status of the clergy. Charles

began to refer to the clergy as “Priests”, instead of minister,

which conveyed a much more sacramental episcopate.29 Moreover,

the clergy’s status was heightened in localities. In university

11

and cathedral cities he instituted immunity from civic

jurisdiction for the clergy. Finally, in local parishes, in an

attempt to implement a sweeping, expensive Church beautification

process, Charles eliminated special pews and seats for the upper

classes. The efforts of Charles to secure the independence and

authority of the Clergy and Church, in the eyes of the gentry,

“threatened… to overturn the victory the laity secured at the

time of the Reformation.”30

Bent on maintaining religious unity, rather “playing one off

against another” like his predecessor had done, Charles sought to

force upon his subjects’ religious unity.31 To that extent, his

goals aligned well with those of William Laud who became

Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 and considered “community and

uniformity of worship” essential.32 In fact, Laud sought to

increase the clergies’ position and the bishops’ authority in

order “to restore [the Church’s] autonomy” and reform the

Church.33 To Laud, the Bishops were considered the crucial link

between the Anglican Church, which Laud still considered

essentially Catholic, and the ‘ancient church’ of the Apostles.34

That is not to say that Laud sought to impose Catholicism on the

12

Church of England. But Laud’s emphasis on the more Catholic-

seeming aspects of Christianity and his belief in a common

European Christian identity did not sit well with most

Englishmen. Charles’ goal to maintain religious unity,

unfortunately, had the effect of giving “some men at least a

doctrinal or spiritual motive for opposing his secular rule.”35

The most persistent, and personal fear in England during

this time had been Catholicism and the English Church’s ties with

Rome. It is first important to note the young age of

Protestantism in England. King Henry VIII’s initial declaration

of himself as head of the Church of Rome had only occurred in

1533. It was not until 1559 that England adopted the Thirty-Nine

Articles and allied itself with the Calvinist doctrine of

predestination. A 1570 Papal Bull excommunicated the Queen and

discharged all Englishmen from obedience to her. Subsequent

decades witnessed an increase in Jesuit and seminary priest

activity in both Ireland and England, and a sustained attack from

the Roman Church’s Counter-Reformation.36 Protestants had, at

this time, still been in the minority and it was not until 1600

that Catholicism had been reduced to the religion of just a few

13

tens of thousands, and most Protestants, then, were more so in

name than in practice.37 For instance, in a 1629 document,

Parliament worried about the “extraordinary growth of popery”

alleging an increase of known recusants from about none to 2,000

since the reign of Elizabeth.38 Whether such figures are inflated

does not hide Parliament’s impression of a threatening increase

of Catholicism.

Moreover, the basic structure of the Catholic Church

remained intact in England. The Anglican Church was complete with

Bishops and Archbishops, as well as ceremonial deans, archdeacons

and the diocesan courts. The 1559 English Book of Common Prayer also

kept the medieval Catholic mass and removed elements objected to

by Protestants. In the early seventeenth century, “to admirers of

the Swiss and German Reformed churches, the Anglican church was

only half reformed in ceremonies despite the acceptability of its

doctrinal beliefs.”39 It is certain, then, that Laud’s policies

of restoring ceremonies and liturgical practices in the Church in

the 1630s would have aroused discontent. Indeed, in November

1640 he was “the most detested [man]” in England. 40 It is also

important to note the perceived effects of Laud’s policies on

14

localities that cherished tradition in the religious, social and

political areas of life. The Laudian Church’s newfound efforts to

introduce episcopate uniformity and “beautification” met

considerable discontent and hostility.41 In any event, Charles

had permitted control over the English faith to deviate from the

commonly held seventeenth century principle of ‘erastianism.’

Erastianism in in early Stuart England meant “that the power to

determine doctrine and exercise within the Church of England

rested ultimately with the civil magistrate whether that be king,

parliament or king-in-parliament, rather than with any

ecclesiastical body.”42

Furthermore, there were accusations of Arminianism in the

Church of England. Armininian doctrine, based on the teachings of

Jacob Arminius, reasserted the idea of free will, an idea that

did not conflict with the essential Catholic position,

“concerning the co-operation of grace and free will in us.”43 The

doctrine of Arminianism emerged in 1624 with the publication of

Richard Montagu’s book A New Gag for an Old Goose. It accepted

modified forms of transubstantiation, and permitted the use of

pictures, images and status in Church. Such a piece presented

15

objections to Calvinism stance on predestination. It also did not

refute the notion of the Roman Church “as indubitably anti-Christ

or of the Pope as a the man of sin.”44 After objections were

raised in the House to the New Gag, the King pronounced, in

reference to Montagu, “If that is to be a Papist, so am I a

papist.” 45 Later on in the 1620s, there appeared a multitude of

works arguing against Montagu, but even in the midst of such

publications Charles appointed Montagu to Bishop of Chichester

and in 1629 put all of the English sees in the hands of Laud’s

allies.46 “Feared to be the fifth column through which the

papists would insinuate themselves and corrupt the faith,”

Arminianism seemed to flourish. Supposed Arminian clergy were

promoted in the Anglican Church.47

Such discontent and resentment saw its strongest expression

in the Puritans. Puritans, religiously conservative but

politically active, were hostile to the idea of an English

episcopate. Puritans regarded Charles and Laud “as abdicating

their responsibilities under God to promote true religion”48 – as

blind to if not supportive of popery. In a general sense Puritans

considered the Roman church the anti-Christ, and considered

16

Laud’s measures to increase ceremonies reminiscent of

Catholicism. Catholicism epitomized the negation of all that

Lutheranism had accomplished. Thus, any associations of the

Anglican Church with Protestantism brought considerable

discontent. Laud sought to actively repress Puritanism, evidenced

by his willingness to prosecute ministers who failed to recite

the Book of Sports after it was republished in 1633. He

considered Puritanism a seditious faction undermining the

Church’s authority.49 In 1637, the Court of the Star Chamber,

under Laud’s direction, had puritan pamphleteers Pryne, Bastwick

and Burton “fined 5,000 pounds a piece, to be perpetually

imprisoned in the remotest castles, where no friends must be

permitted to see them, and to lose their ears without

redemption.”50 Such a severe sentence caused a popular uproar.51

England’s involvement in a war against Catholic Spain in

1625 and both Spain and Catholic France in 1626 intensified fears

of Catholicism. There were little signs of England winning either

of these wars. Not only had there had been symbolic importance

attached to Charles’ inability to take over for the Huguenot

citadel of La Rochelle, but there also were practical

17

consequences.52 Would Protestantism survive? Parliamentary

proceedings provide a glimpse of the pervasive fears of

Catholicism in England. In a memorandum circulated at a sub-

committee for religion in the House in February 1629, Parliament

declared the English Kingdom:

Threatened with certain dangers…from abroad...Their combined counsels,forces, attempts and practices, together with a most diligent pursuit oftheir designs, aiming at the subversions of all Protestant Churches inChristendom… The weak resistance that is made against them… Theirvictorious and successful enterprises, whereby the Churches of Germany,France and other places, are in great part already ruined [or] in themost weak and miserable condition.”53

If England, to both Englishmen and foreigners, not only appeared

incompetent to defend herself against Catholic powers but also

smacked of Catholicism, she would lose the support of other

Protestant nations abroad. Popery had “to be winnowed out of the

Church of England.”54

With such fears mounting, all signs of Catholicism within

the Anglican Church were considered dangerous. And perhaps the

most visible sign of Catholicism within the Church was Charles’

wife and Queen, Henrietta Maria. Henrietta Maria was a devout,

practicing Catholic. She considered it her duty to protect

English Catholics. Her household became a public place of

Catholic worship - “the conspicuous headquarters of

18

Catholicism.”55 The fact that the King and Laud did not condone

such activity did not negate the impression the French queen’s

presence had on English society. By the latter half of the 1630s,

Englishmen feared a Charles’ marriage to Henrietta Maria would

bring a reunification of the Roman and Anglican Churches.56 The

presence of Gregorio Panzani and George Conn – representatives of

the papacy sent to England to explore the possibility of

reunification – in the 1630s also exacerbated fears. Panzani and

Conn’s memoirs suggest that Charles had been attracted to many of

the tenets of Catholicism, and was perhaps considering

reconciliation.57 The King and his Archbishop caused considerable

anxiety of a resurgence of Catholicism. The perceived effect of

Charles and Laud’s shift toward Arminianism and Catholicism in

the 1620s and 1630s is quite significant and provides an

important backdrop to the events in the years prior to the civil

war.

The Precipitants: Scotland, Ireland and Catholicism

If the Scottish uprising had not occurred in 1638 it is

unclear whether Charles would have called a session of Parliament

before the war broke out. His Personal Rule had already lasted

19

eleven years and there were little signs of it ending soon. The

crisis within England, thus, cannot be divorced from wider

considerations within his kingdoms. It was in response to

Charles’ imposition of the English Book of Common Prayer in 1637

that riots broke out in Edinburgh. Presbyterians in Scotland

emphasized the Calvinist doctrine of Christ as head of the Church

with all other members as equal - a stark contrast to the

Anglican Church’s focus on bishops and clergy.58 Conflicting

conceptions of the Church were only exacerbated once Charles

decided to interfere physically with the Scottish Church. With an

“unco-ordinated [sic] force of Irish Catholics, Highland

Catholics and an English army containing many Catholics, all to

be paid for with cash to be provided from Rome and Madrid, he

turned the anti-Catholic fears which his policies and his

cultural values had stimulated into a deep paranoia.”59 . In

February 1638, the Scottish Church introduced the National

Covenant, which rejected Laud and Charles’s attempts to adopt

English liturgical practices and church governance, and called

for revolt against the personal rule of Charles. In November 1638

the General Assembly of the Scots abolished the role of bishops

20

and began a full-scale rebellion against Charles. Revolt,

however, might be an understatement. The Scottish Covenanters

“regarded themselves as God’s chosen people… their struggle as a

crusade” against a King bent on eradicating Presbyterianism.60

It was Charles’ attempts to unify Scottish and English

religion that provoked the first military conflict in the decade.

But, returning back to England, it is also clear that the most

important issues in the first session of the Long Parliament were

religious in nature. Almost immediately, on December 18 1641

Parliament set out to impeach Laud for “promoting false doctrine

which lent support to the King’s arbitrary actions… abusing his

own jurisdiction…to impose unlawful observance and to silence

‘professors’ of the true religion.”61 Laud’s response to such

charges of impeachment in February 1641 is helpful in

understanding the fears of Parliament. At first asserting he had

not usurped the king’s powers, he goes on to declare that he has

“neither urged nor enjoined any popish or superstitious

ceremonies.”62 His denial of such accusations suggests, in turn,

Parliament’s attitude toward him. It is true that fears of

Arminianism had disappeared by 1640.63 But that fact does not

21

obscure the lingering fears and perceptions of popery. In his

first speech to the first session of the Long Parliament soon to

be leader of the Commons’ opposition John Pym announced his fear

of a popish plot subverting the Anglican Church and English

state. Indeed, at such a time “the papist scare dominated the

agenda and coalesced the commons.”64 That body went after

Ministers suspected of supporting Laudianism and ceremonies far

more vigorously than it pursued secular figures of authority.65

It is also important to illuminate the influence of the

Scots within the first session of the Long Parliament. Indeed,

the Parliament had been called because of the Scots. With an army

occupying Northumberland and Durham, the Scots demanded the

meeting of English Parliament to redress their grievances and

refused to negotiate with the King unless his emissaries as well

as the whatever treaties emerged were approved by Parliament.66

The Long Parliament only became long after the Scots prolonged

the negotiations. Such a relationship between Britain, Scotland

and soon Ireland meant that an interpretation of the causes of

the war cannot be isolated from a wider “British Problem”.67 In

fact, Russell argues that “those who spoke for and who against

22

the Scots provides a better predictor of allegiance in the Civil

War than any other issue.”68 Religion again is fundamental to the

war since the Scottish uprising resulted from Charles’ own

religious policies.

But, in order for a war to break out there must be two

parties involved. As Morrill points out, despite such fears of

popery in Parliament, there also emerged another image of

Charles. By 1641, Charles had abandoned Archbishop Laud in the

Tower and had announced his intention to protect non-Laudian

Anglicanism. Moreover, he promised to protect the Anglican Church

against Catholicism and to defend English Protestantism. Pym and

his fellow Commoners – seen as permitting riots in London and

dealing with social disturbances throughout the country with

leniency – were the biggest threat to order in England.69 Perhaps

the King had not been as strict about Protestantism as some would

have preferred. But the King could not be questioned. He had the

sanction of God and the duty to maintain order and tradition.

Indeed, “when men and women came to make choices in 1642,

religious commitments were often decisive in their alignment.”70

In terms of Russell’s argument, those that supported Scotland

23

would be inclined to find Charles’ religious policies

overbearing, tyrannical, and outside of his bounds of authority.

The common thread between those supporting the Scottish and those

opposing their uprising was the fear of what else Charles’

policies attempting to implement religious uniformity would

entail.

Once, the Irish uprising broke out in October 1641 fears

surged to unprecedented levels. The fact that the rebellion

consisted of Catholics rising up against a Protestant state that

was considered subordinate to the English state provoked

considerable fear in England. It began, in large part, because of

Irish fears of the implications of a closer alliance between the

Protestant parliaments of Scotland and England. Since Ireland was

majority-Catholic country with an established Protestant Church,

Irish Catholics feared harsher treatment under such an alliance.

Within England, though, the Irish rebellion created more fears of

a papist plot just as the Second Session of the Long Parliament

began in October 1641. After the rebellion broke out, the leaders

claimed that their actions were “defending the King and his royal

prerogative… that the King had authorized them to raise an army

24

to defend him.”71 Those aware of Charles’ 1639 negotiations with

Randal MacDonnell, Earl of Antrim, to raise an Irish army to

suppress Scotland would have had good reason to believe such a

proclamation.72 The banning together of the Catholic gentry in

Ireland and the Old English in opposition to the English

Parliament furthered fears of a Catholic uprising undermining

England.

The measures that are thought to be evidence of the

constitutional nature of the civil war, such as the 1642 Militia

Ordinance and the Nineteen Propositions, must be understood with

respect to deeper, structural religious issues. These issues

were perhaps “the occasion of the civil war but not the actual

cause.”73 The actual causes of the war can be found in MPs

beliefs about the failure of Charles to safeguard and uphold the

Protestant faith as the true religion of England. Charles, rather

than adhering to his presumed role of advancing and defending

“the true reformed religion”, permitted Laud to increase the

episcopacies decision and enforcement powers over religion to an

intolerable degree. He had failed to uphold the Protestant faith

and “had to be rescued from the contagion of popery, to be

25

shielded and deprogrammed, to be decontaminated.”74 Moreover, it

was only after the issues of religion were encapsulated within

the Long Parliament that there emerged the potential for civil

war. Once the King refused to accept Parliament’s proposals for

more control over his ministers the opposition radicalized.75 Pym

as well as the King’s other opponents in Parliament feared for

their country’s religion, and life.

Conclusion

The nature of the English civil war, with the English Parliament

set against King, at first leads to a straightforward

interpretation of its causes. Through Parliament, the English

nation sought to secure its privileges and liberties against a

tyrannical, absolutist King. Such an approach, though, does not

withstand the test of historical analysis. Neither King James nor

Charles was determined to establish an absolutist state.

Parliament did not consider either ruler a political threat to

the constitutional order to the extent that political violence

would be requisite. Rather, it was Charles religious policies, in

particular his perceived Catholic tendencies, that were

fundamental to the cause of the civil war. Protestantism in

26

England in the seventeenth century was still nascent; the forces

of the Counter-Reformation were knocking on England’s front door.

The decision to impose the English prayer book on the Scots in

1637 marked the beginning of an end to Charles’ reign. Fears of

religious Catholic despotism increased. Without the means to

protect itself, the opposition in Parliament had to take

initiative. Otherwise, there would be no future bulwark against

the forces of the Anti-Christ.

27

1Endnotes

John Philipps. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution: 1603-1688 : Documents and Commentary (Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986), 8.

2 Ibid., 12

3 Norah Carlin, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford England: Blackwell,1999), 78.

4 Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution, 31

5 Carlin, The Causes of the English Civil War, 80


7 Carlin, The Causes of the English Civil War, 81.

8 John Morrill, Brian Manning, and David Underdown, "What Was the English Revolution?," in The English Civil War: The Essential Readings, ed. PeterGaunt (Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 15.

9 Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution, 48.

10 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 277.

11 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, S. v. "Book of Sports," Accessed December 04, 2011, Http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561039/Book-of-Sports.

12 Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles, 278.


14 John Morrill, "The Religious Context of the English Civil War," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 34 (1984): 162.

15 Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution,175.



18 Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,” 170.

19 Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles.

20 See Mendle (1989) for an argument on Henry Parker’s The Case of Ship Money pamphlet. Mendle argues that Parker’s pamphlet signifies the first developed argument in a political pamphlet concerned with issues of Parliamentary absolutism. Michael Mendle, "The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism*," The Historical Journal 32, no. 03 (September 1989): 513-14, accessed December 3, 2011, doi:10.1017/S0018246X00012401.

21 Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,”


23 Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,” 159-160.


25 Ibid., 49

26 Russell, Conrad. "The British Problem and the English Civil War." In The English Civil War: The Essential Readings, edited by Peter Gaunt, 79-103. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 100.










36 D. Alan Orr, "Sovereignty, Supremacy and the Origins of the EnglishCivil War," History 87, no. 288 (2002): 478.




40 Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,”

41 Orr, "Sovereignty, Supremacy and the Origins of the English Civil War,” 483.

42 Ibid., 480.


44 Samuel Rawson Gardiner, History of England under the Duke of Buckingham & Charles I. 1624-1628. (London, 1875), 206.


46 Ibid., 132-135

47 Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles, 295-297

48 Morrill, “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,” 162

49 Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles, 289

50 John Rushworth, Historical Collections., vol. 2 (London, 1706), 293.


52 Ibid., 132-135.

53 Ibid., 140-141.

54 Ibid., 131.

55 Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles, 305

56 Ibid., 306.

57 Ibid., 308.

58 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, S. v. "presbyterian," Accessed December 04, 2011, Http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475049/presbyterian.

59 Morrill et al., “What was the English Revolution,” 16.

60 Ian Gentles, "Why Men Fought in the British Civil Wars, 1639-1652," The History Teacher 26, no. 4 (August 1993): 409.



63 Carlin, The Causes of the English Civil War.



66 Russell, "The British Problem and the English Civil War," 90.

67 Russell, “The British Problem and the English Civil War.”

68 Ibid., 94.

69 Morrill et al. "What Was the English Revolution?", 18-19.




73 Morrill et al., “What was the English Revolution”, 17.



References w

Carlin, Norah. The Causes of the English Civil War. Oxford England: Blackwell, 1999.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, S. v. "Book of Sports," Accessed December 04, 2011, Http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561039/Book-of-Sports.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, S. v. "presbyterian," Accessed December 04, 2011, Http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475049/presbyterian.

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. History of England under the Duke of Buckingham & Charles I. 1624-1628. London, 1875.

Gentles, Ian. "Why Men Fought in the British Civil Wars, 1639-1652." The History Teacher 26, no. 4 (August 1993): 407-18.

Kenyon, John Philipps. The Stuart Constitution: 1603-1688 : Documents and Commentary. Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986.

Mendle, Michael. "The Ship Money Case, The Case of Shipmony, and the Development of Henry Parker's Parliamentary Absolutism*." The Historical Journal 32, no. 03 (September 1989): 513. Accessed December 3, 2011. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00012401.

Morrill, John, Brian Manning, and David Underdown. "What Was the English Revolution?" In The English Civil War: The Essential Readings, edited by Peter Gaunt, 14-32. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

Morrill, John. "The Religious Context of the English Civil War." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 34 (1984): 155-78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679130.

Orr, D. Alan. "Sovereignty, Supremacy and the Origins of the English CivilWar." History 87, no. 288 (2002): 474-90. doi:10.1111/1468-229X.00237.

Rushworth, John. Historical Collections. Vol. 2. London, 1706.

Russell, Conrad. "The British Problem and the English Civil War." In The English Civil War: The Essential Readings, edited by Peter Gaunt, 79-103. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

Sharpe, Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Religious Fears as the Cause of the English Civil War

Documents

Transcript of Religious Fears as the Cause of the English Civil War