William Laud's Measures Flashcards
What did Laud change about the communion table? What visitations were introduced? What were removed? What did 1640 canons explain?
Laud moved the communion table from the nave of the parish church to be altar-wise at the east end, and railed off, emphasising the sacrament of the altar, spiritual grace, and attacking predestination.
Archiepiscopal metropolitan visits were rented to enforce uniformity.
Communion tables were railed off, making it seem to Root and Brance petitioners of the 1640s as a way to usher in the masses.
Family pews were removed, which accommodated people viewing the communion table and to accommodate the new positioning. This was to enforce conformity in its own sake, with the 1640 canons claiming that it would not be esteemed a way to make the altar represent Christ’s actual sacrifice.
There is no evidence Laud was ... What other divines was he similar to? What did he want to play down, and what did he want to focus on/achieve? What ideology did his ideas stem from? What did he want to enforce?
Laud was considered Arminian but there is no evidence he was inspired by Jacobus Arminius, or had even read the Dutch theologists’ work. Like earlier divines such as Hooker, Whitgift, Andrewes, Howson, and Buckeridge, he wanted to play down sermons and focus on sacrements. He believed in beautification of Church, as a ceremonialist stemming from 1559. He wanted to beautify Church fabric and achieve heightened status of clergy, He claimed he was enforcing canons and statutes of the Church.
What did he want to enforce with episcopal church visits, and what did Dr George Morley claim Arminians owned?
He wanted to ensure conformity with episcopal Church visits, alongside acquiring a monopoly over senior Church offices. Dr George Morley, when asked what Arminians owned in England, claimed : ‘all the best bishoprics and deaneries.’
What discussion was banned, and so what did protesters focus on instead?
What was beautification of Church considered by Peter Lake? What did Laud say ceremony protected the Church from? What changes did he want?
What did Neile ask people who wanted to sit around the chancel?
Charles banned discussion of predestination, and so protesters focused on the idea of beautification of Church, changes considered by Peter Lake as ‘Laudian style,’ to foster the beauty of holiness. Laud claimed that ceremony shielded the Church from profaneness and sacrilege which the Church often suffered. He wanted the altar at the east-end of the Church against the chancel, and railed in, with communicants kneeling when receiving bread and wine. He wanted the tables railed off to prevent dogs from desecrating on the table. Seats around the chancel had to be removed, as Bishop Neile asked if people really considered themselves worthy of sitting above the Lord’s Board in 1632.
In 1633 what did parishioners near St Gregory’s Church, St Paul’s Cathedral, challenge? What did Charles rule?
What did Francis Dee of Peterborough do in 1637?
In 1633, the parishioners of St Gregory’s Church, near St Paul’s Cathedral, on orders of its Dean and Chapter, challenged the east positioning of the altar. At a test case, Charles ruled that the bishop should have the right to decide in each diocese. However, in 1637, Francis Dee of Peterborough, a Bishop, demanded pews be three feet tall, causing the high pews of gentry and aristocracy to be destroyed.
In 1637 what happened to John Williams of Lincoln when he wrote ‘The Holy Table, Name, and Thing.’ What did he argue?
In 1640, what percentage of altars were railed in, and what did the HOC allow in 1641? What did Laud want to move focus to?
In 1637, bishop John Williams of Lincoln was fined and imprisoned for writing ‘The Holy Table, Name, and Thing,’ where he argued communion tables should be lengthwise in the chancel and at the east end for communion. While in 1640, 80% of altars were railed in, when the HOC gave permission to move them in 1641, the majority of Churches did. Laud wanted to move focus from sermons to sacraments, particularly the eucharist, and claimed that altars were the ‘greatest place of god’s residence,’ in 1637, which came close to the idea of transubstantiation.
Who could be the only preachers of sermons? What would happen to afternoon sermons?
In February 1633 what would happen to Impropriations for Feoffees? What did Charles consider it?
What did one contemporary consider?
What was reissued in October 1633?
Laud wanted to ensure that only ministers of parishes could preach sermons, and that afternoon sermons be turned into catechising, conversion. In February 1633, the Impropriations for Feoffees, was ended as it was seen as a way to fund lecturers through paying back for impropriated tithes. He saw the Feoffees as a Puritan plot. One contemporary claimed he drove people to darkness. This led to the reissuing of the Book of Sports, October 1633, where archery and dancing were allowed. It was seen as an attack on Calvinism and sabbath.
What did David Cressy argue about unpopularity compared to Jacobethan period?
What new reforms were introduced, including ‘churching.’?
David Cressy argued Laudian measured were unpopular as they ended the tolerant state of the Church during the Jacobethan period. Moreover, new reforms were introduced such as women having to wear veils during ‘churching’ after childbirth, fonts on Church doors south-west, and bowing at baptism. This was seen as backsliding into popery.
What did Laud claim of bishops above clergy? Who became the first clerical Lord Treasurer since reign of Mary? Who disliked the gain of authority? What did Earl of Bedford say as the Church was positioned closer to Rome?
Bishops had new authority, with Laud claiming their divine right to office above the rest of the clergy. They also gained new positions in office, such as Bishop Juxon of London, who became the first clerical Lord Treasurer since Mary’s reign. Alongside regaining alienated Church lands, efforts to gain authority were met with hostility by the gentry.
Moreover, Earl of Bedford saw Laud as the ‘little thief,’ who was put in the window of the Church to restore popery as the Church was positioned closer to the Church of Rome as opposed to Geneva.
Who was fined in 1637? For how much? What were they charged with, and what had they done? What reputation was blackened?
In 1637, William Prynne, Henry Burton, and John Bastwick were fined £5000, in trouble for libel, and imprisoned for life with their ears cut for producing pamphlets denouncing Laud and the bishops for encouraging popism, and the reputation of the Star Chamber was blackened.
Robert Woodford protested in his diary. What did he say about the ceremonies?
What did Lord Brooke do to protest? How many emigrated to New England?
Why did Calvinists have a louder voice? What was the appeal of Laudianism to ordinary people? What percentage of the 9000 parishes had railed in altars?
Robert Woodford, steward of Northhampton, protested in his diary that the ceremonies were promoted by favourers of superstition and idolatry, while Lord Brooke had secret meetings at Lord Castle. 15,000 emigrated to New England during this time.
Many of the literate were more vocal in protest, giving the Calvinists a louder voice, as they were more likely to attend Parliament. Most ordinary people found appeal in the softness of salvation through the sacraments and would follow consensus of the time, having fondness for the former Roman Catholic Church. Over 75% of the 9000 parishes had railed off altars, but most removed these in 1641.
What did L J Reeve and M Young argue about Charles and Laud’s reforms?
L J Reeve : Arminians didn’t succeed until 1633 when Abbott died and Laud succeeded to Canterbury, pushing for altars to be railed off.
M Young : Charles wanted to achieve beautification of Churches, make clergy independent of lay control, enforce liturgy, reduce sermons, and enforce ‘beauty of holiness,’ with ministers wearing surplice and worshippers to bow to Jesus, alongside the altar being railed off.
