Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:50:44.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PREDESTINATION AND POLITICAL CONFLICT IN LAUD'S LONDON

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2003

DAVID R. COMO
Affiliation:
Stanford University

Abstract

This article examines the policy pursued by William Laud during his tenure as bishop of London, focusing specifically on the way in which he enforced the various royal edicts against discussion of predestination. It is argued that Laud enforced Charles I's decrees in an unbalanced manner, attacking Calvinists while apparently leaving their anti-Calvinist opponents untouched. It is likewise argued, however, that this strategy was accomplished not through a policy of overt judicial persecution, but through a more subtle regime of quiet threat and harassment. Such a policy was necessary because, at least in London, the question of predestination had by 1629 become a serious and explosive issue, one that was inextricably linked in the minds of many observers to more explicitly ‘secular’ matters of government and policy. In the process of examining Laud's strategy, the article seeks to untangle the question of why both the Caroline authorities and their enemies saw the seemingly scholastic question of predestination as a matter of such crucial political significance. Ultimately, the article helps to revise our understanding of the political atmosphere that prevailed in England at the outset of the personal rule, while likewise contributing to a deeper understanding of the political breakdown that led to civil war and revolution in the 1640s.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Pacific Coast Conference on British Studies, the Folger Institute, Keele University, and the Institute of Historical Research, and the author would like to thank the participants of those panels for their comments. Alastair Bellany, Ken Fincham, Peter Lake, Paul Seaver, Nicholas Tyacke, and the readers of this journal commented on earlier drafts and the final product has benefited greatly from their input. The author would like to extend particular thanks to Kevin Sharpe, who subjected the paper to trenchant and very helpful criticisms, despite clear areas of scholarly disagreement.