7A

AQA A-LEVEL HISTORY (7042)

HIS1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION TWO Revolution, 1629-1649

Topic 7 Religious divisions: Laudianism and Puritanism to 1640

Key Question A: What was the impact of Laudianism during Charles I’s Personal Rule?

The imposition of Laudianism in England

By 1629, William Laud was already Bishop of London and a high-ranking member of the Privy Council. In 1633, he was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury upon the death of the previous incumbent, George Abbott (an orthodox Calvinist). Such was Laud’s pre-eminence during Charles I’s Personal Rule (1629-40) that a new term – ‘Laudianism’ – entered the religious lexicon to describe the reforms made to the Church of England while he exercised ultimate control.

Laudianism was not a coherent set of religious beliefs, but it was closely associated with Arminianism and was definitively anti-Calvinist. Two key characteristics lay at its core:

1. A rejection of Calvin’s key doctrine of predestination – the idea that an individual’s soul had been selected before birth to either go to Heaven or Hell.

2. An insistence that ritual, ceremony, order and decorum should be given a prominent place within all religious services. The phrase ‘beauty of holiness’ was used to denote the visible element of decoration that Laud encouraged in churches throughout England.

Charles’s decision to pursue Laudian policies and impose a new and more restrictive religious uniformity broke the ‘Jacobethan balance’ and would gradually unite most Protestants against the King as the 1630s went on.

Following his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, Laud embarked upon a wide-ranging programme of reform. The key changes are outlined below.

Church appearance: This was the most contentious of Laud’s reforms, as it involved a number of alterations visible to everyone, such as:

  • the re-introduction of stained glass windows;

  • the installation of organs and choir-stalls to encourage the singing of hymns;

  • the return of statues and the decoration of fonts;

  • the compulsion of worshippers to bow at the name of Jesus;

  • the instruction given to ministers that colourful vestments (the cope) should be worn in place of plain white robes (the surplice).

The ‘Altar Policy’: Laud’s obsession with order and decorum also required significant changes to the Altar Table (upon which the bread and wine are consecrated during the communion service). This was now to be permanently aligned from north-to-south against the far east wall of the church, where the Catholic Altar had traditionally stood. Furthermore, the space around the Table was to be raised on a platform, separated from the rest of the church by a rail, and decorated with an embroidered cloth and lighted candles. This created the two important impressions: that the minister was distinct from his congregation, implying his ability to mediate with God, and that communion was a sacrificial service (as Catholics believed), not merely one of commemoration (the Protestant interpretation).

Church ceremony: The catechism was introduced – a list of statements in the form of questions and answers that were to be recited by the congregation at specific points during the service. This was designed to give a sense of greater order and conformity to Church services, much to the disappointment of Protestants.

The status of the clergy: As part of his quest for uniformity, Laud aimed to enhance the power of the Church hierarchy. He did this in a number of ways:

  • Bishops were instructed to visit each of their parishes at least once every three years, and ideally to live in their local benefice;

  • Archbishops were expected to report directly to the King;

  • some priests were given secular jobs as Justices of the Peace (JPs) and an increasing number of Bishops were installed as Privy Council members;

  • the prerogative courts, especially the Court of High Commission, were increasingly used to judge local religious cases – with harsh punishments passed down upon anyone who criticised Laud’s reforms.

The campaign against unlicensed preaching: Many of the more Puritan parishes held additional sermons on Sunday afternoons. Services such as these that were held after the regular morning service did not need to conform toLaud’s established pattern of worship. Charles and Laud disliked preaching because it was difficult to control the content of sermons, and they were worried that preachers might deliberately undermine the authority of the episcopacy that consolidated the power of the King.

The attack on preaching began immediately. Laud limited the delivery of sermons to the Sunday morning service (thus ensuring they conformed to the liturgy he had set out for the Church) and launched a direct legal attack on the Feoffees for Impropriations, an influential Puritan organisation which raised money to sponsor preachers and control over the appointment of ‘appropriate’ clergymen to local parishes. In 1633, the Feoffees were banned and the parishes they had controlled were taken over by Laudian supporters.

The re-issue of the Book of Sports, 1633: James I had published the original Book of Sports in 1618 to counter Puritan pressure in some local areas to refrain from participating in leisure activities on a Sunday. Those who saw Sunday as solely a day to worship God and nothing else were known as Sabbatarians (and were usually Puritan by nature). The book outlined a range of activities, such as archery and dancing, in which people could legally take part in their parish after attending the compulsory Sunday morning service. Charles ordered that all ministers must read the book from the pulpit, with the threat of expulsion and imprisonment for those who refused.

Other more general measures imposed by Laud during the Personal Rule included:

  • any anti-Laudian books and pamphlets were strictly censored;

  • town corporations and individuals who appointed Puritan lecturers to give street sermons were prosecuted;

  • tithes were to be paid directly to the Church rather than collected by the local gentry, as had been the case since the Reformation;

  • the clergy were encouraged to preach Arminian-style sermons supporting the divine nature of royal authority;

  • box pews that had been placed in some churches by members of the gentry (to emphasise their social standing in the community) were removed to establish greater Church control over the laity.

  • more Bishops were appointed to prominent places in the government, e.g., William Juxon, Bishop of London, was made Lord Treasurer in 1635.

These measures were not all entirely new; indeed, Laud could claim that reforms such as repositioning the Altar Table was simply enforcing an aspect of Elizabeth I’s Religious Settlement that had been widely ignored. However, the real resentment was aroused by the strict way in which Laud insisted upon conformity to his personal vision of the Church. His motto of ‘Thorough’ illustrates his determination to see that orders were properly carried through and efficiently administered. The regular visitations to local parishes carried out by Bishops and Archbishops ensured that Laudianism gradually became more entrenched throughout the 1630s. In 1640 (when Parliament was finally summoned again) Canon Laws were passed through Convocation to make official all the changes that Laud had made.

The unpopularity of Laudianism, especially among the Political Nation in London, also lay in its apparent association, however unintended, with the growth of Catholicism at Court. Many were still concerned with the King’s choice of wife, Henrietta Maria, not to mention the fact she had brought with her a large Catholic entourage and for whom a Catholic chapel had been built in central London. In addition, those of a more Puritan disposition could now point to a number of worrying trends:

  • Catholicism became fashionable at the Royal Court and there was a spate of high-profile conversions thanks to the work of George Con, a Scottish agent of Pope Urban VIII who had been sent to London with express instructions to convert the nobility;

  • the population of English Catholics is said to have increased by 50% between 1603 and 1640;

  • there were an estimated 750 Catholic priests resident in England, (their very existence had been a capital crime under Elizabeth I);

  • the King’s own artistic and architectural tastes and Laud’s preference for ‘beauty of holiness’ chimed strongly with the aesthetic nature of Catholicism – Inigo Jones was commissioned to design a number of neo-classical buildings in London.

In many ways, the association drawn by Puritans between Laudian reform of the Church and the apparent strength of Catholicism at Court was the product of misunderstanding, but the perception itself was enough to do significant political damage to the King’s reputation.

It should not be assumed, however, that Laud’s religious reforms were universally unpopular. Many people from the lower classes appeared to have appreciated the reissue of the Book of Sports, which permitted the enjoyment of recreational pursuits on a Sunday afternoon, and his initiative to force wealthy lay people to remove their box pews, which frequently obstructed the views of the ordinary parishioners, was also well-received by some. Additionally, the restoration and beautification of churches and chapels may have pleased those who found their existing places of worship uninspiring and frequently ill-kept.

It was also the case that the extent to which Laudian commands were implemented and enforced in a particular parish would very much depend on the attitude of the local Bishop, the vicars and the gentry. Therefore, it is likely that the reaction to Laudianism across the country ranged from strong support to apathy to outrage depending on the local area in question.