of Lateran: but the council of Trent* directed that "the religious should not hear the confessions of "the laity without the approbation of the bishop; 46 or, if he required it, without a previous examina"tion by him."

This council not having been received in France, as to discipline, some regulars contended, that no such previous approbation was necessary in that kingdom; but this assertion was unanimously condemned in 1656, by the French bishops; and the see of Rome afterwards repeatedly† ratified their censure. The differences on this and other points in contest between the prelacy and the regulars had, before this time, risen to such an height, that, in 1633, cardinal de Richelieu assembled, at Paris, the superiors of most of the religious houses in that city, and caused them to sign, under his eye, a declaration, by which they acknowledged, in the "names of themselves and of all the religious of "their respective orders, whose assent they under"took to procure, that they could not and ought "not to preach without the approbation of the or"dinaries; and that these had a right to revoke their

permission, whenever they should deem it proper, "on account of the notorious incapacity of the party, or to prevent public scandal:-but they

* Sess. 23, c. 13. Pius the fifth announced it by the bull Romani pontificis.

By St. Pius the fifth, in his constitution, "Romani ponti"ficis," 1;-Urban the eighth, in his constitution, "Cum "sicut accepimus," 192;Clement the tenth, in his constitution, "Superna."

supplicated, at the same time, that, when such a "measure should be thought necessary for securing "the useful and worthy administration of the sa

craments, the prelates would not resort to it be"fore they had informed the superior of the causes "of the revocation, that he might take the proper "measures; yet that, on his neglect, the bishop "himself might proceed, in the manner suggested." This recognition was signed by the superiors of the dominicans, augustinians, friars and jesuits: but it left untouched the question respecting confession.

Dr. Smith arrived in London in May 1625, and was received with respect, both by the clergy and laity. Some time after his arrival, doubts were started whether the decree of the council of Trent and the bull of Pius had not rendered it necessary, that the regular as well as the secular clergy of England should obtain the approbation of the prelate to qualify themselves canonically for hearing confessions; and whether the want of these had not invalidated the confessions which they had heard. Dr. Smith convened a meeting of the superiors of the benedictine monks and jesuits, and intimated to them his opinion, that no person should hear a confession, without the previous approbation of the ordinary still, with a view to prevent disputes, he offered, as a provisional measure, that should not prejudice the merits of the question, to grant a general leave of hearing confessions to all the regulars, who should be approved by their respective superiors. This pacific suggestion was not accepted,

and a war of words and pamphlets ensued. Father Rudisend Barlow, the superior of the benedictine monks, having published a treatise, in support of the exemption claimed by the regulars, in which he exceeded the moderation of just defence, it was condemned at Rome as scandalous and erroneous, and the printed copies of it were ordered to be burned *.

But it had been extensively circulated even among protestants; and it greatly indisposed several persons of each communion against the prelate. Suggestions were insinuated that he intended to establish a court, that should take cognizance of marriages, testaments, and other matters, which, in foreign countries, are assigned to the jurisdiction of bishops in ordinary. Upon this, father Rudisend Barlow, in the work which we have just mentioned, laid great stress; he described it "as a new tribu“nal, as an ecclesiastical jurisdiction highly offen"sive to his majesty, and all the protestants of the

kingdom;" and moved that " his majesty should, "by a public edict, prohibit all his subjects, under "pain of death, from receiving into their houses, or assisting in any manner, the bishop of Chalcedon, or any of his officials; and order them immediately to discover and denounce them to the

magistracy, as dangerous and turbulent men, and "as enemies to his majesty and his temporal go"vernment." The bishop modestly replied to this charge: he observed, that "the church had both an "external and an internal court;" that," as the * Dodd, vol. iii. p. 157.

"external court can bind notorious and scandalous "sinners, by censures, deprivations, and suspen

sions, which is a pure spiritual authority, so "likewise, in catholic countries, it decides divers litigious causes, and inflicts temporal as well as

spiritual mulcts and punishments, and is vulgarly "called the bishop's court:" he declared that "he "pretended not in the slightest degree to the last, "but that the former was his essential due."

Thus there had not been the least ground for father Barlow's violent charge; but it considerably increased the general irritation. The catholics were divided; all the secular clergy sided with the bishop, all the regulars took part against him; the laity were split into similar parties; the protestants were scandalized, offended, and disgusted; and government, at length, took the alarm. On the 11th December 1628, a proclamation was issued for the apprehension of Dr. Smith. This obliged his lordship to abstain from the exercise of his functions, and to live in great retirement. The clamour, however, continued, and, on the 24th of March, in the following year, a second proclamation for his apprehension was issued, with an offer of 100%. to any person who should apprehend him*. Upon this second proclamation, he retired to the house of the French ambassador; and thus sheltered, he exercised unobservedly, during some time, his episcopal functions. But clamour pursued him into his retreat; he endeavoured to appease it by flight, * Dodd has inserted both proclamations, vol. ii. p. 143.

and repaired to Paris, and continued to govern his flock by his grand vicars.

A remonstrance against him and some of his measures was attempted to be procured: sir Thomas Brudenel, sir Toby Matthews, and sir Basil Brooke, took a very active but not a very accurate part in obtaining signatures to it. With such as could be obtained, it was forwarded to Rome; but it was soon followed by a counter remonstrance, more numerously and respectably signed.

The opposition continued; and its violence increased. It appears that, when Dr. Smith arrived in England, he, as Dr. Bishop his predecessor had done, assumed the title of ordinary of England and Scotland. This might be an error; but at most it was venial; for, as the pope had given them the power, it was natural for them to consider that they should bear the name of ordinary. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his correspondence with bishop Smith, had given him that title; and the cardinals Bentivoglio, Lodovici, and Campiani, and the nuncio at Brusselles, directed their letters to him as ordinary of England and Scotland. Other cardinals, and father Rudisend, president of the English congregation of benedictines, father Leander, its prior, father Joseph de St Martino, provincial of the province of Canterbury, in his own name, and in that of father Bede, provincial of the province of York, addressed him by the same title; it was given him in the agreement signed by him and the superiors of the benedictines; and finally, the instruc