It may be conceded that tJie arbitrary and tyrannical' acts of the administration of Charles and of Laud, wheth- er in Church or State, did not go beyond the precedents which had been set from Henry YIII downwards ; but it must be remembered that the spirit of the times had changed, and it was the bounden duty of wise men in high places to know it, and act accordingly. A people educated under Romish domination and superstition might submit to the imposition of taxes or of creeds by the sovereign and established authority, which a people educated under even an imperfect influx of Protestant light, and of its attendant maxims of personal liberty and freedom of thought, could no longer brook. More- over, a tyrannical despotism once constitutionally es- tablished can never be abolished or got rid of unless the governors either yield to the popular demands or are illegally put down b)' revolutionary force and violence.
It mav be conceded that Laud was honest and con-
LAUD
274
LAUD
scientious in defending the extreme doctrines of the di- vine right, of the royal prerogative, and of passive obe- dience, and in his endeavors to suppress the " Puritan faction" in Churcli and State ; but, in a historical esti- mate of his career and character, this proves nothing. The constitution of successive Parliaments shows that this " fiiction" was an increasing majority of the nation ; they, too, were conscientious ; I'ryinie, Bastwick, and Burton were conscientious — fanatically, not by policy, conscientious; the parliamentary leaders, those noble defenders of English liberty, were conscientious ; most despots, tyrants, and conservatives, as well as rebels, revolutionists, and reformers, are conscientious. Their conduct and character must be judged of by rules inde- pendent of their well informed or ill informed private consciences. There may be fault on both sides : one extreme begets another. So it was then ; so it was af- terwards.
It may be conceded that the charge of popery against Laud — a charge from which he suffered more severely than from any other, and which more than any other was the cause of his ruin — was not literally true. What was substantially true was thus put into the false and extravagant formula of the demagogue — it was a cari- cature. Laud was a loyal son of the Church of England, " as by lavv established," so long as the laws were in ac- cordance with his notions, or as he had the interpreta- tion and execution of them in his own hands. It was not Roman popery, but Anglican or Laudean popery which he would establish. No doubt he was more of a Papist than of a Protestant in the true sense of that word. His sympathies were more with Rome than with Augsburg or Geneva; and the people, who are instinc- tively sagacious in questions of this kind, did not fail to perceive it, and they expressed their judgment, as is their wont, in the most summary and positive terms.
As to ecclesiastical ceremonies, Laud's devotion to them and to their enforcement is certainly not among the marks of his greatness of mind. The opposition to them may have been as unreasonable as their imposi- tion; yet the fact was they were generally unpopular and odious, and Laud, in his position, was bound to have the discretion to accommodate himself to that fact. It boots nothing to say that they were not illegal; it is enough that they were both unpopular and unnecessar\\ It boots nothing to talk of the irreverence and slovenli- ness of the Puritan worship ; that is mostly exaggera- tion; but, at all events, decency and reverence could have been preserved without the precision and multi- plied formalities of the Laudean ceremonial.
It may be conceded that Laud was a munificent pa- tron of learning and of the universities, with whose dig- nities he was invested; but it might not be altogether amiss to inquire whence came all the funds of which he made all this lordly distribution; and perliaps we shall find that, in this matter, Laud deserves only this honor above many other men, that he honestly paid over at least a portion of the money to those to whom, after all, it rightfully belonged. He never stinted the splendor or sumptuousness of his own establisbnient, or the ap- pointments of his personal retinue. Of his wealth and grandeur he enjoyed what he could. But let it remain to his credit that his vanity — if it were nothing better — took the form of magnilicent public benefactions.
As to intellectual abilities. Laud's nnist have been consider.ahle, or he could never have been the historical persuuagt' lie was. In the personal habits of his private life he was irre|)roachable. As a clergyman he was in- defatigable and ptmctilious in the discharge of his du- ties. He was always narrow and bigoted in his views, but he lived in narrow and bigoted times. How far his high political positions were compatible with his eecle- siastical character may well lie ddubteil, and his exam- ple can never be repeated again in lOngland. How far the corrupting influence of |)olitical plai'e, and of the association of political persons and of political life, may have contributed to Uovelop and exaggerate his worst
faults — which, after all, were chiefly those of adminis- tration— it is impossible to say. It must be remembered that he was a courtier long before he was even a bishop, and continued a courtier till he became primate of all England, and thereafter till he was '• translated" from the court to the Tower of London. If lawn sleeves could pass unsullied through the scenes of such a life, a natu- rally ambitious churchman could hardly grow in grace in such an atmosphere. Laud's devotional compositions, in the form of private prayers, are often admirable, and are thought to give a very favorable insight into his interior religious life. Let us hope that the prayers were sincere and acceptable.