Keep us, O Lord, constant in faith and zealous in witness, that, like thy servant William Laud, we may live in thy fear, die in thy favor, and rest in thy peace; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
I admit to very mixed feelings about ++William Laud and remain somewhat surprised that he is included in the festal calendar of TEC. Of his deep devotion to Jesus Christ and the faith once delivered there is absolutely no doubt. Of his saintliness, however, there is certainly plausible reason for doubt, given his brutal and harsh methods of imposing his anti-Puritan views on the realm. The attempt to force a BCP on the Scottish was a colossal blunder, but trying to force an even more catholic BCP on the Church of Scotland than England had (i.e., the proposed 1637 Durham book) was sheer insanity.
OTOH, many of the liturgical reforms that Laud mandated (or inspired) were highly beneficial and praiseworthy, helping to restore neded dignity and reverence to the CoE, as well as correcting the overly-Protestant tone of Anglicanism back then. I think it’s entirely fair to describe the 1662 BCP, as many have, as a Cranmerian Prayer Book text with Laudian (re-catholicizing) rubrics. To the degree that such an assessment is justified, it shows that Laud’s influence on the future of Anglicanism was profound, despite his flaws, and that his heritage remains significant, even if rather ambiguous.
Back when I was a seminary student at Yale, I was astonished to discover that (Puritan) New Haven had streets dedicated to the memory of men who helped bring about ++Laud’s execution as a heretic and traitor. He was seen as an intolerable villain and tyrant (not to mention a crypto-papist), and they were regarded as heroes.
David Handy+
“The attempt to force a BCP on the Scottish was a colossal blunder, but trying to force an even more catholic BCP on the Church of Scotland than England had (i.e., the proposed 1637 Durham book) was sheer insanity.”
Indeed, this tripped the switch that caused the Civil Wars. William Prynne wasn’t too keen on him, either.
You have to love him for using the excuse for returning altar rails to the chancels to be for the purpose of keeping the squires’ dogs off the Holy Table. Unless you’re a member of PETA.
*LOL* good point.
There wasn’t a great deal of difference between Laud’s doctrine and that of most of his opponents. It was more in the practice. He seemed to believe that England would go rushing back to Roman Catholicism if the English people weren’t given “Catholic” pomp in their church services. He ended up forcing practices on England (let alone Scotland) that many did not want, and in the process convinced many (unfairly) that he wanted to drag the English church back into Rome’s orbit. Lacking the tact and restraint of a Cranmer or Matthew Parker (or even his mentor, Lancelot Andrewes), he was ill-equipped for his role and the times.
One could also argue that he trusted too much in Charles I, who let him be a scapegoat for matters that the King had wholeheartedly supported when they seemed popular…
Archibald Armstrong said it best. And as far as I’m concerned, “Archbishop” Laud is an embarrassment.
One of my favorite ABC’s. Both he and Charles I died defending he church.
…in his own mind, yes!