Assess the view that Charles I rather than Archbishop Laud directed ecclesiastical affairs during the 1630s

Authors Avatar

Christina Whitehead                                                .

Assess the view that Charles I rather than Archbishop Laud directed ecclesiastical affairs during the 1630’s

        William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, has traditionally been seen as ’one of the twin pillars of Stuart despotism’, playing a key role in the formation and enforcement of ecclesiastical policy during the 1630’s.  However recent work on this area, mainly by Davies and Sharpe, has challenged this assumption, suggesting instead that it was Charles I who was the architect of change and innovation, and that Laud merely acted as a figurehead for his religious ideals.  Whilst it is certainly conceivable that Charles I as King and Supreme Governor of the Church was actively involved in the clerical matters of England, to so diminish Laud’s role seems incongruent, thus it is far more plausible, as Fincham has suggested, that the two had a close working relationship, forming what can be seen as a partnership in religious endeavours.

        There is a lack of sources available to historians on the direction of religious policy during the 1630’s as Charles conducted much of his affairs in person, leaving barely any written verification, and Laud publicly provided little reasoning for the changes that were implemented , leaving it to others, such as Heylyn to provide intellectual justification.  Whilst some have accredited that this to Laud’s belief that the laity were too involved in ecclesiastical matters and thus did not need to openly explain himself, Sharpe interprets this silence as evidence of Laud’s nominal position, stating that ‘Laud did not debate doctrine because it was not of great interest to him’.  Davies too argues that Laud’s contribution to policy was minimal, recognising Charles as the author of religious change, responsible entirely for the re-issuing of the Book of Sports for example, and thus prefers to use the term ‘Carolinism’ rather than ‘Laudianism’ to describe these reforms of the reign, arguing that to use the latter ‘has always given the impression that their source was inherently ecclesiastical and that they emanated invariably from Laud’.  However, there is argument which reasonably contradicts this hypothesis; whilst Charles’ name was inscribed on the book of sports, his responsibility for it can not be irrefutably proved, furthermore, some of the religious ideas adopted in Charles’ reign can be seen to stem from Laud due to the claims he made to them many years prior; one such example is ’iure divino’, the radical view that bishops form the very essence of the Church which Laud committed himself to in 1608.  Furthermore, it has also been reasoned that whilst there is little direct evidence of Laud’s personal involvement in religious policy , there is even less to support Charles,  and advancing his role simply by downsizing Laud’s is simply to ‘substitute one for the other [which] solves nothing’, demonstrating that to side definitively with either Laud or Charles as the eminent policy-maker can not be conclusively substantiated, which gives rise to the idea that perhaps both worked together, or were involved in different aspects of the creation and implementation of reform across the kingdom, and thus when considering this issue it must be concluded as more of a collaboration between the two than a case of either-or. Aquire

        One of the most controversial aspects of Laud and Charles’ religious policy was the charge to alter the placement of the Communion table from the centre of the church to ‘the upper end of the chancel north and south and a rail before it or round it to keep it from annoyance‘.   It has been fervently debated between historians who was the author of this policy; Davies argues that Charles was its chief enthusiast due to his belief that the communion table, the seat of God‘s presence in church , should be shown as much respect as his own throne, and thus its elevation was ‘a visual and mnemonic means of impressing a greater respect for his pretensions to divine right’.   Although this argument is plausible, his claim that Laud only gave his half-hearted support for it is not; as Foster points out, if this were truly the case then why did Laud get himself into so much trouble on the issue when dean of Gloucester in 1617?  Fincham too argues, there are ‘major methodological and evidential problems about accepting [Davies‘] interpretation’, some of which are evident through analysing the November 1633 case of St. Gregory’s, which is significant due to its status as a ‘test case’, as Laud and Charles brought the relatively minor issue of the complaints of  the parishioners before the Privy council in order to use their ruling as a national example.  Sharpe argues that during the hearing Charles proved far more intransigent than Laud, and that it was he who recommended the altar be set at the East end of the church whilst Laud enquired only whether it was placed ‘in such a convenient sort as that the minister be best heard‘, thus suggesting that Laud’s enthusiasm for the policy was far less than Charles’. However closer examination of this interpretation reveals it to be flawed, as it appears to be Laud, not Charles, who attempts to drive the policy forwards, which indicates his dominance on the issue.  It is he who highlights the importance of consistency within the church and the significance of St. Gregory’s close proximity to St. Pauls; ‘when strangers come from beyond the sea and saw the table stand altar wise in St. Paul’s but out at the door and saw the table stand otherwise in St. Gregory’s, what a disunion would they say  was in the Church of England’, and he who argues the legality of the reform due to its basis in tradition, citing a ruling made under Queen Elizabeth that the communion table should be set in the chancel.  Although Charles ruled against the parishioners of St. Gregory’s, his verdict can be seen to in fact limit the extent of effective altar reform, as he leaves the decision of how the communion table should be placed to the discretion of  each parish ordinary ‘whose place and function it doth belong to give direction‘.  As a result the impression that is left is of Laud’s mere half-victory on the issue; since not every cleric shared Laud and Charles’ Arminian beliefs, there was an inconsistency in the implementation of this policy across England, and as a consequence suggests a higher level of noncommittal from Charles rather than Laud due to the flexibility he allowed with his ruling.

Join now!

        It has been proposed that the evidence of Charles’ own hand on religious reports, proclamations, declarations and signet letters indicates the extensive control that he maintained over the religious reorganisation of his kingdom.  Indeed Sharpe has declared his support for Davenant’s biographer’s view that Charles I took the role of ‘universal bishop’ within England, so great does he believe his involvement in religious matters to be.  Whilst it seems clear that Charles did take his job as Supreme Governor of the Church seriously, demonstrated most distinctly via the comments that he made in the margins of his bishops’ accounts of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay