became Dean of Gloucester he put his principles into practice on this point, and the Bishop of the Diocese was so enraged at this that he declared he would never enter the Church again as long as Laud was there, and it appears that he kept his word. It is not difficult, however, to account for the Bishop's heat. The Bishop, a learned man, was a Calvinist, and [1]"under him," says Hore, "the Cathedral was falling into decay, and the services resembled those of a conventicle." Laud was the last man to tolerate this state of things. He, therefore, restored order and reverence in worship. For a long time after these reforms there was a cry raised throughout the land against Laud, quite out of all due proportion to their importance.
Although Archbishop Laud was not a Papist, he did desire to see Rome reunited to the English Church. But, before that was possible, he stated that Rome would be compelled to lose most of its distinctive doctrines. Laud was what to-day would be described as a High Churchman and a Ritualist. He tried to enforce his views in very unfortunate times, and with a spirit which was not agreeable to the Puritans. He suffered, however, as much through the mistakes of the king as through his own acts of indiscretion. He was considered to have been the king's chief adviser, and whatever mistakes the king made were therefore visited upon himself. But the Puritans were blind, and future history has shown them to be as "blind leaders of the blind."
No! For the true character of Archbishop Laud we must not go to the opinions of his enemies. He was not what his enemies made him out to be. He was greatly misrepresented,
- ↑ Hore, p.331.
