The Importance of the Diary for a Study of Archbishop Laud Essays

The Importance of the Diary for a Study of Archbishop Laud Essays The Importance of the Diary for a Study of Archbishop Laud Paper The Importance of the Diary for a Study of Archbishop Laud Paper Essay Topic: History William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633 has traditionally been seen as one of the twin pillars of Stuart despotism1, and the councillor whose influence cost Charles his crown. Though a great deal of contention has surrounded these, and other assumptions about the Archbishop in recent years, the diary, which Laud kept between the years of 1602 and 1643 has not been widely used as a source for his study. It is important to consider Laud not only as primate, but also as an individual in order to obtain the fullest possible understanding of him. As Gaunt has argued that Laud is one of those unfortunate historical figures whose biography has been penned largely from the writings of his enemies2, I feel that an attempt should be made to study Laud solely through his own writings, but in particular his diary, as it was Pynnes falsification of the text after he seized it in 1643 that led to such negative views about the Archbishop, and tainted contemporary and even later historical opinion. Through examination of the diary, I wish to ascertain what can be discovered about Lauds aims and beliefs, his significant relationships, his fears and crucially, his character, and how all of these affected his policies and decisions. The primary source for the dissertation will be Lauds diary, with the composition chiefly focused upon perceptions raised from it, using Lauds other works, letters and charges, as well as Prynnes commentary of the diary and Clarendons account of Laud to supplement these notions. However this may mean that a large proportion of the dissertation will be theoretical as much of my argument will be based on what can be inferred from what Laud does, and even fails to record. A study of the diary is particularly important to me because I find Laud to be a fascinating character around whom much historiographical argument is centred. He was pivotal to the breakdown of the Personal Rule, and I believe it will be particularly interesting to examine events from his perspective. . Religion has been labelled a fundamental and deep-rooted cause of the English Civil war3; hence there has been much debate over the key priorities and aims of William Laud, who as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, played a crucial role in the formation and enforcement of religious policy during the 1630s. Historians, such as McGee, have long claimed that Lauds outlook compromised of three central features; he set himself firmly against public theological controversy and believed in the benefits of ceremony. Underlying and informing these was his deep conviction that the Reformation had deprived clergymen of authority restoration of the clerical estate to its rightful place was absolutely necessary4. As evidence exists within the diary which supports this argument, each of these directives will be considered in turn through an examination of the text, in an attempt to determine the strength of Lauds ecclesiastical aims, and ascertain if there was, as McGee claims, a key priority within these. It is manifest that Laud believed the prevention of theological debate was imperative if order and stability were to be brought to the Church of England; an objective which led him to pursue a fierce campaign against radical opinion, focused particularly on Puritans. By rejecting the common forms of worships, Laud thought that they segregated themselves from the community and encouraged religious controversy, and were thus acting as a fifth column within the church; these are dangerous men, they are a scattered company5. Preaching, to Puritans the essential task of the ministry, was to Laud one such dangerous source of contention in need of regulation, a mindset which is palpable throughout the diary, for example 1625, he writes of the schedule he compiled at the Duke of Buckinghams request, in which the names of many Churchmen were marked with the letters O. and P. 6, in order that the King should be advised when appointing clerics as to which were Orthodox, and which were Puritan, and therefore suitable and unsuitable respectively. Aware that the Puritan laity were able to increase their influence over religion by financing lecturers from impropriated titles; lecturers who were often chosen to reflect their patrons preferment rather than uphold the articles of the church, Laud resolved to overthrow the feoffment, dangerous to both Church and State, an irrefutably strong intention given that he ranked it second in the extensive list of Things which I have projected to if God bless me in them7,written at the back of his diary. True to Lauds suspicions, in 1632 Attorney General William Noy uncovered that many lecturers paid for by the feoffees for impropriations, the City organisation involved with the buying up of church tithes and patronages, remained accountable to them, leading to allegations that the feoffees were an illegal corporation which was attempting to create a church within a church, outside the authority of the King. Noting in February 1632 his relief that the feoffees for impropriations were dissolved in the Chequer Chamber, Lauds adds that they were the main instrument for the Puritan faction to undo the Church8, which taken alongside his diary entry of 1638, the tumults in Scotland about the Service-Book offered to be brought in hath now brought that king down in danger. No question, but theres a great concurrence between them and the Puritan party in England9, conclusively demonstrates his deeply-held and unwavering belief that Puritans were engaged in organised political activity to destabilise the Caroline regime. Thus, despite the assertions of other ministers, such as Archbishop Abbott, that there is not in the Church of England, left any inconformable minister, which appeareth10, it is evident from the diary that Laud in no way shared this view, and instead set himself firmly against the danger posed by theological controversy which he believed Puritans, in particular, engendered. The diary also demonstrates the emphasis Laud placed on the prevention of predestination discussion, which by start of the Personal Rule had become a serious and explosive issue within the public and political sphere. Richard Montagus, A Gagg for the New Gospel, published in 1624, had ignited debate on the matter through his controversial Arminian assertion that the Church of England hath not taught it, doth not believe it, hath opposed it11. Though Charles and his Privy Council went to lengths to quieten controversy thereafter, Laud remained fearful that the political repercussions of the cause, book and opinions of Richard Montagu would constitute what he described as, a cloud arising and threatening the Church of England12. Attempts to control the destabilising impact of theological debate culminated in a royal proclamation in 1629 which banned discussion of predestination, as Charles and Laud believed that the way to secure orthodoxy was not to prove the true doctrine, but to silence all disputation which could lead to a re-opening of public debate. However, there has been much historical debate as to whom was truly impacted by the proclamation; Kevin Sharpe has argued that Laud himself was indifferent to the varying abstractions of predestination, as his main attachment was to uniformity of worship rather than the minutiae of theological dispute13, and thus where predestinarian debate was curbed, it was done so in an unbiased manner, a view supported by Julian Davies, who uses the Woodstock hearing of August 1631 as the foundation for his debate, asserting that it is here that Lauds theological attitude is most convincingly illustrated. At the hearing, Charles personally oversaw the case of several Oxford clerics accused of delivering Calvinist statements in direct contravention of the royal proclamation against predestination preaching. During proceedings, allegations were made that whilst these men had been silenced and punished for their beliefs, others had been freely permitted to express Arminian views, causing Charles, having ever desired that those points should be forborne on both sides indifferently, to demand of Laud the truth of the matter. Faced with Charles intervention, Laud made a solemn promise before God that he had upon all occasions required that those who preached either way should be proceeded with indifferently14. Davies and Sharpe have been content to take these words at face value, and indeed there is nothing in the diary that directly suggests Lauds subjective stance on the matter of predestination; his account of the hearing, though lengthy, is wholly factual, and nowhere does he record his own theological views or express any opinion on the issue, which lends weight to Sharpes claim that Laud did not debate doctrine because it was not of great interest to him15. David Como, on the other hand, refutes this claim and instead argues that Laud was engaged in a systematic policy to cut down Calvinist discourse, and that his assertions of impartiality at Woodstock were for the benefit of the manuscript of proceedings, which he knew would be printed and circulated, and were thus little more than a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion and quell rumours of unjust treatment towards anti-Laudians16. It is evident that Laud placed a huge amount of importance on the Woodstock hearing, as it is one of only eleven events that he lists in his days of observance to me at the fore of his diary, meriting a place beside incidents such as the Duke of Buckinghams death and the birth of Charles II. It must therefore be questioned why Laud should place so much significance upon Woodstock; if Como is to be believed, perhaps Laud recognised it as the key moment in which his neutrality on the issue of predestination was publicly accepted by the King and key privy councillors, despite the Arminian gloss he was in fact promoting on the articles of religion. However this is little more than an assumption as evidence on the issue is not wholly conclusive, thus the diarys vital importance lies in alerting the reader to Lauds fear of public predestinarian debate, and the importance he placed on the hearing at Woodstock in conjunction to this, though further speculation is required if the extent of significance the latter held for him is to be fully understood. Though McGees argues that Laud placed great value on the beauty of holiness, as he believed that the people would not respect the inward part of religion, the greater part, if the outward face were neglected17, extraordinarily little evidence to substantiate this can be found within the diary. Laud briefly writes of his desire to repair St. Pauls, and visits made to consecrate and view various parish churches, yet does not mention anything on the reforms implemented within them, nor his views on the controversy these changes caused, which is rather peculiar considering at his trial in 1645 he stated that for his whole career he had laboured nothing more, than the external worship of God (too much slighted in most parts of this kingdom) might be preserved18. Most divisive of these interior reforms 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 annoyance19, which is usually accredited by historians as highly significant; indeed it is the only point out of thirteen in Lauds June 1635 Metropolitical Visitation Charge which is completely new. It is therefore surprising that nothing is mentioned in the diary of the November 1633 case of St. Gregorys, which held great importance because of its usage as a test case, in that Laud and Charles brought the relatively minor issue of the complaints of the St. Gregorys parishioners concerning the altar policy before the Privy Council in order to use their ruling as the national example. Davies argues that Charles was the chief enthusiast of the altar policy, because he believed that the communion table, as the seat of Gods 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 right20, and indeed if it was Charles who pushed for the reform, whilst Lauds support was only half-hearted, this could explain why nothing is recorded on the issue in his dairy. However, from records of the St. Gregorys hearing this does not seem plausible as it is Laud, not Charles, who attempted to drive the policy forwards; it is he who highlights the importance of consistency within the church and the significance of St. Gregorys close proximity to St. Pauls; when strangers come from beyond the sea and saw the table stand altar wise in St. Pauls but out at the door and saw the table stand otherwise in St. Gregorys, 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 chancel21. Although Charles ruled against the parishioners of St. Gregorys, his verdict in fact limited the extent of effective altar reform, as he left 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 direction22, and therein lies the most probable explanation for Lauds silence; as he only achieved a half-victory at the hearing, it is plausible that he did not wish to record it due to disappointment, or perhaps anger. Nevertheless, despite this conjecture, it remains questionable that so little is mentioned of the other ceremonial and aesthetical reforms that were implemented under Laud, thus the possibility must be considered, despite the claims of multiple historians, that they were not as prominent a concern in Lauds daily life as other ecclesiastical aims. Last, and most important of Lauds key aims as argued by McGee, was that of his desire to re-establish the authority of the Church of England, an objective which stemmed from his belief that since the Reformation in the late 1530s the church had greatly diminished in power and influence. The loss of lands after the dissolution of the monasteries had led to a reduction of church income and eventual deficit of wealth, a concern of Lauds that is most clearly demonstrated in his diary entry of March 1624, in which his suggestion is recorded that, for the sake of the poorer priests, the four subsidies voted by the Clergy in Convocation should be paid by instalments. The idea was first presented by Laud to the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Durham, who strongly approved of the notion, and affirmed that, it was the best office that was done for the Church this seven years. However, when suggested to James, the proposal was met with his grave displeasure and the comment that never any Bishop attempted the like at any time, nor would any but myself have done it. That I had given the Church such a wound, in speaking to any laity to it23; a reaction which is very telling of the strength and singularity of Lauds determination if none but he would have dared propose schemes which benefited the clergy at the cost of the crown. From Lauds arguably rather impertinent response to James that I thought I had done a very good office for the Church: and so did my betters think. And I hoped, being done out of a good mind, for the support of many poor vicars who must needs sink under three subsidies in a year, my error (if it were one) was pardonable, the strength of Lauds feelings on the issue are indisputable as despite James strong negative reaction, Laud appears loath to relinquish his position on the matter, or admit his proposal as a mistake. Such devotion to the restoration of church wealth can also be seen through examination of Lauds attentions to Ireland, reports of the dearth of which had shocked him to such an extent that he avowed in his list of Things which I have projected to if God bless me in them, that he would procure King Charles to give all the impropriations, yet remaining in the crown, within the realm of Ireland, to that poor Church. 4 Lauds letters to Strafford verify that he did indeed acquaint his Majesty with this, and he likes it well25, which arguably demonstrates his particular fervency for this aim; having already experienced James severe displeasure when proposing a similar scheme which involved the loss of his own wealth in order to benefit the clergy, it is surprising that he risked a similar negative reaction from Charles, though it is possible he was more confident of his compliance with this aim.