L A 
members of that church fhould make their humble rever¬ 
ence to God, not only at their firft entrance into the 
choir, but at their approaches towards the holy table. 
Thefe changes gave great offence to many perfons, on ac¬ 
count of their fuperffitious tendency 4 and particularly to 
Dr. Miles Smith, bilhop of Gioucelter, who from that 
time never entered the church again fo long as he lived. 
In 1617, Dr. Laud procured fome royal directions to be 
fent to Oxford, for the better government of that univer- 
fity ; and, above all, with a view to prevent the further 
fpreading of puritanifm. In the fame year, he had the 
honour of being appointed to attend the king in a jour¬ 
ney to Scotland ; when it was intended, among other 
things, to attempt to bring the church of Scotland to an 
uniformity with that of England : a favourite fcheme of 
Laud, and other divines. But “the Scots were Scots,” 
fays Heylin, “and refolved to go their own way, wliat- 
foever came of it.” So that the king gained nothing by 
this expenfive journey, but the negleft of his commands, 
and a contempt of his authority. 
Upon his return out of Scotland, Dr. Laud was in¬ 
ducted into the reCtory of Ibftock in Leicefterfliire, wdiich 
lie received from the Liifhop of Rocheffer in exchange for 
Norton ; and, in 1620, he was inffalled into a prebend of 
Weftminlter. In the following year he was nominated to 
the bilhopric of St. David’s, though the king was at firft 
averfe to grant him this dignity, but was prevailed on by 
the lord-keeper Williams, at the inftigation of the fa¬ 
vourite Buckingham, to whom Laud had recommended 
himfelf. On the day before his confecration, he refigned 
the prefdentfhip of St. John’s college, in conformity to 
the college-ftatutes; but he was permitted to keep his 
prebend of Weftminfter, in commendam ; and foon after¬ 
wards was prefented by the king, on the fame ground, to 
the reClory of Creeke in Northamptonffiire. About this 
time the king thought proper to iffue directions concern¬ 
ing preachers and preaching, in which he took upon him 
to prohibit the introduction into the pulpit of the doc¬ 
trines of predeftination, election, irrefiftibility of divine 
grace, &c. or of any matter relating to the power, pre¬ 
rogative, or authority, of fovereign princes; and other 
points. Thefe directions were levelled againff the puri¬ 
tans ; and, as bilhop Laud was thought to have been 
concerned in forming them, he provoked againlt himfelf 
an increaf.ng holt of enemies among perfons of that de- 
feription. In the year 1622, he held a conference with 
Filher the Jefuit, before the marquis of Buckingham and 
his mother, in order to confirm them both in the pro- 
teftant religion, w ith refpeCt to which they were then wa¬ 
vering; an account of which w'as afterwards printed. 
From this time a clofe intimacy fubfilted between Laud 
and Buckingham, who made the bilhop his confeffor and 
counfellor; and, when he went with prince Charles into 
Spain, left him as his agent at court, with whom he 
maintained a frequent correfpondence. In the courfe of 
that correfpondence, Laud gave an account of the unea- 
finefs and murmuring occafioned in England by that ill- 
ad vifed journey ; and reported that, among others, the 
lord-keeper Williams could not conceal his difcontent. 
This circumftance, to which that prelate attributed his 
fubfequent difgrace, occafioned rnoft violent quarrels, and 
a fettled enmity between the two bifhops; Williams ac- 
cufing Laud of the deepeft ingratitude on that account. 
Our prelate alfo correfponded with the duke of Bucking¬ 
ham during his journey into France, to bring about a 
marriage between the princefs Henrietta-Maria and king 
Charles I. Supported by Buckingham’s favour, to whom 
he is charged with having rendered himfelf too fubfer- 
vient, bilhop Laud had now gained the confidence of the 
new king; and Roger Coke cails him vicegerent to 
Buckingham, obferving, that “thefe two (topped up both 
the king’s ears from any other dodtrines, in church or 
(late, but what were infufed by them.” As an evidence 
of his influence with his majefty, it is recorded that, foon 
after his acceflionto the throne. Laud was ordered to fur- 
U D. ' 28 ? 
nifh him with a lift of all the eminent divines in the king¬ 
dom, with their principles and qualifications, that proper 
perlons might be felected for royal chaplains, and other 
promotions; in which lift the perfons whom he approved 
were marked O for orthodox, and thofe whom he dif- 
liked P for puritans. At the coronation of that prince, 
alfo, in 1626, bilhop Laud officiated as dean of Wefhnin- 
fter, by the king’s appointment, in the room of biffiop 
Williams, who was then in difgrace ; and was accufed, 
but without fufficient evidence to fupport the charge, of 
having altered the coronation-oath on that occafion. I11 
the fame year he was tranflated from St. David’s to the 
bilhopric of Bath and Wells, and was alfo appointed dean 
of the chapel-royal. In 1627, he was fworn a member of 
the privy-council ; and, in 1628, tranflated from the fee 
of St. David’s to that of London. 
When archbiffiop Abbot was fequeftered, biffiop Laud 
was nominated one of the commiffioners for exerciling the 
archiepifcopal jurifdidlion ; and by his advice the king 
was now almoft entirely governed in the difpofiil of eccle- 
fiaftical preferments. In the third parliament of king 
Charles I. he was voted to be one of the favourers of the 
Arminians ; and, accordingly, his name was inferted in 
the lift of thofe who were lulpefted to hold unfound opi¬ 
nions, in the remonftrance of the houfe of commons. 
This circumftance, together with his zealous fupport of 
the duke of Buckingham’s adminiftration, which was ex¬ 
ceedingly unpopular, and the lufpicion that he was the 
maker of the king’s fpeeches, See. rendered him fo very- 
obnoxious to the people, that not only great clamours 
were railed againft him, but even his life was threatened. 
Upon the alfaffination of the duke of Buckingham by 
Felton, Laud perfuaded himfelf that fome of the mem¬ 
bers of parliament, or fome of the puritans, were privy 
to the murder; and he threatened Felton, at the council- 
board, with the rack, to induce him to difeover his ac¬ 
complices. He alfo prevailed upon the king to fend to 
the judges for their opinion, “whether, by law, Felton 
might not be racked ?” But crown-law was, upon this 
occafion, more favourable to the fubjedt than crown-di¬ 
vinity ; foi the judges returned their opinion, “that, ac¬ 
cording to the laws of England, Felton could not be 
racked.” Biffiop Laud was alfo the moft adlive and lead¬ 
ing member of the high-commiffion court; the arbitrary 
and fevere proceedings of which were juftly odious to the 
nation. Of the extreme vigour and cruelty which marked 
their proceedings, the cafe of Dr. Alexander Leighton, a 
learned Scotch divine, affords a (Hiking inftance. He 
had publifhed “An Appeal to the Parliament; or, Zion’s 
Plea againft Prelacy.” For the publication of this trea- 
tife, he was brought before the high-commiffion court ; 
which decreed that, for this offence, “he fhould pay a 
fine of ten thoufand pounds, and be degraded from his 
miniftry; that he fhould be brought to the pillory at 
Weftminller, while the court was fitting, and be there 
whipped ; after which he fhould be fet in the pillory a 
convenient time, and have one of his ears cut off, one 
fide of his nofe flit, and be branded in the face with S. S. 
as a fower of 1'edition ; that then he fhould be carried 
back to pril'on, and after a few days be pilloried a fecond 
time in Cheapfide, and be there likewife whipped, and 
have the other fide of his nofe flit, and his other ear cut 
off; and then be flint up in the pril'on of the Fleet for 
the remainder of his life.” No fooner had this mercilefs 
fentence been pronounced, than bilhop Laud pulled off 
his cap, and gave God thanks for it 1 This tranfadtion, 
as well as many others in which Laud was concerned, ftif- 
ficiently evinced the juftice of lord Clarendon’s obferva- 
tion relating to this prelate, that “he intended the difei- 
pline of the church fhould be felt , as well as fpoken of.’ T 
In the year 1630, bifhop Laud was elefted chancellor of 
the univerfity of Oxford, to which he was a great bene- 
faffor. He adorned it with many noble buildings; and 
enriched it with books and manuferipts. Of the latter 
defeription, he gave the univerfityj at feveral times, thir¬ 
teen 
