William Laud
William Laud, the son of a prosperous merchant,
was born in Reading in 1573. He was educated at
Reading Grammar School and St. John's College,
Oxford. Laud was ordained in 1601 and soon made
it clear he was sympathetic to Catholics and
hostile to the growing Puritan movement.
With the support of a rich patron, George Villiers,
Duke of Buckingham, Laud made steady progress in
the Church and was appointed archdeacon of
Huntingdon (1615), dean of Gloucester (1616),
Bishop of St. Davids (1621), Bishop of Bath and
Wells (1626), Bishop of London (1628) and finally
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the most
powerful position in the church. This was after the
death of the Calvinist Archbishop George Abbot,
who had been sympathetic to puritans. An anti-Calvinist mood had been increasing in
the Church of England since 1625, however, with the death of Abbot, the antiCalvinist ‘Laudians’ came to dominate the church. The problem was that there was a
general Calvinist consensus in the country. Charles, by siding with Laudianism and
attempting to impose a new more restrictive uniformity, broke this consensus and
thereby united most Protestants, no matter what their differences against him.
Laud also became Charles I’s main political adviser. In 1626 Laud was appointed to the
Privy Council, which shows how he was able to win powerful positions outside the
church. Laud argued that the king ruled by Divine Right. He claimed that the king had
been appointed by God and people who disagreed with him were bad Christians.
Charles liked this idea, and inevitably gave further support to Laud.
Laud believed that Church reforms had gone too far. Anglicans (members of the
official Church of England) tended to support the policies of Laud but the Puritans
strongly disagreed with him. When Laud gave instructions that the wooden communion
tables in churches should be replaced by stone altars. Puritans accused Laud of trying
to reintroduce Catholicism. Other policies introduced by Laud are epitomised by the
phrase ‘Beauty of holiness’. This meant that Laud changed the decoration and
appearance of churches. These included the use of music in services, increased
emphasis on ceremony and moving the communion table to the east end of the church
and railing it off as an altar.
The Puritans claimed that Laud was trying to make English churches look like those in
Catholic countries. When Puritans complained about these reforms, Laud had them
arrested. In 1637 John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne had their ears cut
off for writing pamphlets attacking Laud's views.
Laud also upset the Puritans (Presbyterians) in Scotland when he insisted they had to
use the English Prayer Book. Scottish Presbyterians were furious and made it clear
they were willing to fight to protect their religion. In 1639 the Scottish army
marched on England. Charles, unable to raise a strong army, was forced to agree not
to interfere with religion in Scotland. Charles also agreed to pay the Scottish war
expenses.
Charles did not have the money to pay the Scots and so he had to ask Parliament for
help. The Parliament summoned in 1640 lasted for twenty years and is therefore
usually known as The Long Parliament. This time Parliament was determined to
restrict the powers of the king.
Under the leadership of John Pym, a law was passed which stated that Parliament
should in future meet every three years. It was also decided to take away the king's
right to dissolve Parliament. Other laws were passed making it illegal for the king to
impose his own taxes. Parliament then passed a law that gave members control over
the king's ministers.
Laud was arrested and sent to the Tower of London. He was eventually found guilty of
"endeavouring to subvert the laws, to overthrow the Protestant religion" and was
beheaded on Tower Hill in 1645.
Charles and Religion
When Charles was crowned in 1625, his relationship with the increasingly numerous Puritans in
the House of Commons should have got off to a fresh start and in a different direction to the
relationship Puritans had with his father James I. For a start, it was assumed that Charles had
none of the social baggage that came with his father. The lax lifestyle of James, which had
offended many puritans, could not be pinned on his son. While Charles was cold, severe and
grave, his behaviour at court was decent. The alarm bells that had rung among some when he
went courting the hand in marriage of the Spanish Catholic Princess had now quietened. Charles
should have made a good start to his reign but he did not. What went wrong?
Charles’ friendship with the Duke of Buckingham continued. The Duke had made many enemies
at court and it did not bode well for Charles that he very much associated himself with
Buckingham. For Charles he was a pillar to lean on. However, to some, Buckingham was too
closely linked to Catholicism. Their fear was that this would rub off on the new king. Ironically,
Charles did all that he could to associate himself with the Church.
Charles’ wife, Henrietta Maria was a Catholic. Concerns were raised over whether she was
converting the king and his court to Catholocism. There was also a particular concern over
whether their son and heir would be raised a Catholic.
Charles became more and more influenced by William Laud, Bishop of St. David’s. Laud was an
Arminian, which some people considered too close to Catholocism. In February 1626, Laud
claimed in a sermon, that the Puritans were planning a revolution in both the state and the
church. The statement was not only false – it was also provocative. It infuriated Puritan
members of the House of Commons.
Laud’s career was advanced as a result of his association with Buckingham. Even James had
warned Buckingham about Laud. In 1621 James had said to Buckingham, “Take him to you, but on
my soul you will repent it.” Charles was too taken in by the Duke to even be aware of the issues
surrounding Laud. As a result, Laud’s career, effectively blocked under James, flourished under
Charles. By 1633, Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury.
Laud did succeed in bringing the state and the church closer together but he simply widened
the gulf between the State Church and the Puritans. Charles was strongly associated with the
work of Laud and the collapse in the power and authority of one had to have an adverse impact
on the other.
The Arminians
The Arminians were a Christian religious group and took their name from Jacob Arminius.
James I disagreed with a lot of the ideological views of the Arminians, and did not give them
much time or support. James did, however, like the fact that Arminians stressed the idea of
the Divine Right of Kings and upheld his royal prerogative. Richard Neile, a prominent Arminian,
publicly criticised Parliament for failing to give its full support to the king. Neile stated that
the king had a full right to impose Impositions and that Parliament was a “factious, mutinous,
seditious assembly”. The Arminian Lancelot Andrewes stated that when James was experiencing
financial problems, the people should be prepared to help the king out regardless of their own
financial position as this is what God would want them to do.
The Arminians also did all they could to avoid controversy and this appealed to James. As an
example, the early years of the Thirty Years War clearly represented a threat to the
Protestant Church as the forces of Catholicism seemed to be sweeping all before it. Despite
this, the Arminians were liberal in their views on Rome and declared that it was the mother
church of Christendom. They refused to condemn the Pope but they were scathing about the
corruption in the Roman Catholic Church which, they stated, did not exist in the Anglican
Church.
James’ stance on the Arminians was tested when a rector from Essex, Richard Montagu, wrote
“A New Gag for an Old Goose” in 1624. This was a response to a pro-Catholic pamphlet that had
been distributed in his parish called “The Gag for the New Gospel”. In his pamphlet Montagu
stressed the Catholic elements in the Anglican Church and stated that the Church was not
Calvinist as “The Gag for the New Gospel” had claimed. Many in Parliament were alarmed by
Montagu’s pamphlet and complained to James that it expressed the views of Jacob Arminius.
James told the Bishop of London, George Abbot, to investigate. Abbot told Montagu to re-write
the book in a more acceptable manner. Montagu refused to do this and he wrote a book that
pushed his beliefs even further – “Appello Caesarem”. Montagu was called to explain his beliefs
to James in person. After listening to Montagu, James responded with “By God! If this be
popery, I am a papist.” The Dean of Carlisle, Francis White, was asked to declare on “Appello
Caesarem” and he concluded that it contained nothing controversial and authorised its
publication. The Bishop of St. David’s, William Laud, wrote to the Duke of Buckingham on
Montagu’s behalf offering his support for Montagu’s views.
After James’ death, Charles I promoted Armninianism further. Charles became more and more
influenced by William Laud, Bishop of St. David’s. Laud was an Arminian. Laud’s career, effectively
blocked under James, flourished under Charles.
In February 1626, Laud claimed in a sermon, that the Puritans were meditating a revolution in
both the state and the church. The statement was not only false – it was also provocative. It
infuriated Puritan members of the House of Commons.