II.
Puritanism at the accession of Charles I. English Puritanism throughout the reign of James I had been the party of strict morals, of austere and Pharisaic scrupulosity, of rigid Sabbath observance, and of Calvinistic dogmatism. During that reign it had passed through its last transformation in becoming a political party—the party of anti-Catholic politics at home and abroad. Because Parliament was on its side, the mere course of events had made the Puritan party favor the predominance of Parliament, and this brought it to represent liberalism in politics. By his unconcealed partisanship, James had contrived to make the Puritans a permanent opposition suspected of disliking monarchy itself. Charles I was even more the antagonist of Puritanism than James.
Later Puritanism conservative. In one other respect the position of Puritanism had been gradually changed by mere parallax. In Elizabeth's reign it had been the party of innovation. It was no longer the party of change in religion when Charles came to the throne. The adoption of the Arminian system of doctrine by many of the High-churchmen, and the reactionary innovations now proposed by ecclesiastics like Laud, had left Puritanism to stand for Protestant conservatism. It was immeasurably the gainer with the mass of slow-moving people by this change of relative position. The parliamentary struggle with James and Charles added to the religious Puritans a numerous body of political Puritans who, without much care about religion, were fain to ally their political discontent with the discontent of those who resisted ecclesiastical retrogression. This compact party, powerful after all its defeats, was bound by its position to cherish every aspiration for the improvement of morals, every indignant movement for the suppression of abuses, and it became the ally of every popular resentment against royal absolutism or episcopal encroachment, and the advocate, almost to fanaticism, of an anti-Spanish foreign policy, and a domestic policy in which repression and persecution of Roman Catholics held first place.
III.
Rise of Laud. But the king and the High-churchmen were the party in possession. Buckingham, in the first years of Charles, was more than ever dominant at court, and Buckingham's favorite, just rising above the horizon, was Dr. Laud, Bishop of St. Davids at the death of James, and soon afterward translated to Bath and Wells and then to London. It soon came to be understood that he was only waiting for the death of his opponent, Archbishop Abbott, to take the primacy, much of the power of which he had already contrived to grasp. [Note 2.] On the death of Buckingham, Laud succeeded him as chief favorite at court. The one great and real service which this able and indefatigable divine rendered the world is the last he would have chosen. He was the main spur to the settlement of Puritan colonies in New England.
Character of Laud. Do our best, we moderns shall hardly avoid injustice in our opinion of Laud. The changes of time and the advance of ideas have rendered a sympathetic judgment of him difficult. Ecclesiastic above all, he was not, like Whitgift and Bancroft, a Protestant High-churchman. He sought to make the English church Catholic and mediæval, yet he would on no account attach it to Rome. Like Whitgift, he made the church dependent on royal authority, and in this he was far removed from the earlier churchmen. There was nothing spiritual in his nature; his personal devotion had neither agony nor exaltation. He had none of the mediæval enthusiasm that prompted the vigils of his contemporary, Nicholas Ferrar, for example, and elevated the master of Little Gidding to a saintship, amiable and touching. Notwithstanding the energy of Laud's devotion, his nature was as shallow and objective as it was sincere. It has been remarked that when Laud spoke of the beauty of holiness he meant no more than decorum in public worship, the beauty of a well-ordered church and of proper intonation and genuflexion. He seemed to touch a modern note when he proposed to suppress the futile debate between Calvinists and Arminians because it tended to disturb Christian charity; but Laud's Christian charity, like his holiness, was purely external; it was merely quiet submission to one ritual and one form of discipline. His relentless, vindictive, and even cruel temper toward opponents showed him incapable of conceiving of charity in any spiritual sense. He disliked controversy because it put obstacles in the way of uniformity, and he had no taste for speculative debate because it tended to undermine authority. His intellect was utterly practical and phenomenally acute. It was incredibly energetic, and its energy was intensified by its narrowness. His attachment to the church had no relation to the beneficent utilities of the church. The church was a fetich for which he was ready to die without a murmur. In his zeal he was reckless of personal danger and sometimes unmindful of the moral complexion of his actions. His egotism was so interblended with his zeal that he could not separate one from the other, nor can the student of his character. A disservice to him was an affront to Almighty God. The very honesty of such a man is pernicious; a little duplicity might have softened the outward manifestations of his hard nature. Unhappily, there was not even indolence or self-indulgence to moderate his all but superhuman activity, which pushed his domination to its possibilities, and, with a vigilance aspiring to omniscience, penetrated to the minutest details in the administration of church and state. He even filed papers giving the elements of the debates on good works as an evidence of sanctification carried on between Hooker and Cotton in the cabin meeting-houses of New England. For the rest he presents the paradoxes one expects in so marked a character. While he had no taste for the credulous dogmatism of his time, he showed a certain relish for superstitions in recording dreams and omens, yet he had none of the timidity of superstition. He was, moreover, fearless in peril, and he faced unpopularity without flinching. Stubborn and inflexible with the clergy and the populace, obdurate and pitiless with those who had offended him or his king or his church, he was flexible and insinuating in his relations with those in power. His unworthy yielding to his early patron, the Earl of Devonshire, in a matter which concerned his ecclesiastical conscience, gave him a bitter and lifelong repentance. His complacence to Buckingham, and his servile devotion to Charles, seem a little despicable. Letter to Selden in Chalmers, art. Laud. He was even willing at the last to make terms with Parliament, when it became plain that Parliament was the new master. Though obsequious, he was the farthest possible from a coward, and he accepted death on the scaffold with the serene composure of a martyr.
IV.
Political conditions promote emigration. The great migration to New England set in soon after the beginning of Laud's ascendency in the ecclesiastical government of England. It waned as he declined, and ceased forever with his fall. There is a witty justness in the phrase by which a colonial historian dubs Laud "the father of New England." Other archbishops had contented themselves with crushing the Separatists, but, with characteristic boldness and logical thoroughness, Laud struck at the powerful Puritan party which had contrived for more than half a century to remain in the Church of England while protesting against the discipline and service of the church. The arbitrary government of the new king, the dissolution of Parliament, and the imprisonment of liberal leaders cut off hope of securing church reform or a relaxation of oppressive laws. Gorges's Briefe Narration. High-church pulpits resounded with arguments in favor of the king's absolute authority and the duty of unquestioning obedience, while the declared principles of the king and his court left the property, liberty, and life of the subject exposed to the rapacity or the vindictiveness of those in power. In view of these things, some of the Puritans began to think the American wilderness a better place of residence than England.
V.
Religious motives for Puritan emigration. The state of the church was even more a reason for removal than the oppressions of the government. Persecution had failed to drive Puritan ministers or their followers into what they deemed the capital sin of schism. They hated the domination of the bishops, communion with the ungodly, and the absence of a rigid discipline. But they had been sustained through long years of waiting by the hope of delivering the church from those who oppressed and defiled her. They proposed, whenever they could gain power, to winnow the chaff from the wheat, and they probably destined the chaff to swift destruction. But the hope of seeing a church without spot or wrinkle, prayer book or bishop, died under the reactionary policy of Buckingham and Laud, and many came to look with favor on a project whose full import was only whispered in the ear, to found in the wilds of America a "particular church," as they phrased it—a new church with a right of priority in a new land and backed by the sanction of the government of the country. It was no modern generalized love of liberty, civil or religious, but a strenuous desire to find a place where they might make real their ideal of church organization that brought the Puritans out of their comfortable nests in England to dwell in poor cabins in a wilderness. It is a motive for braving dangers by sea and land hard of comprehension in our Sadducean age.