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. 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. [Sidenote: Character of Laud.] [Sidenote: Letter to Selden in Chalmers, art. 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.