— 216 — 



tho proprest person. D/ Smith was accordingly ordained bishop and sent 

 to assist in theenglish mission by performing thosefunctions, which were 

 not of the corapetancy of simple priests , such as tlie administration of cor- 



firmation, blessing the oils, etc But the new bishop no sooner arrived 



in England, then seized with ambitious views, and forgetting the end for 

 which he was sent, he set up for ordinary of ail England and Scotland, 

 caused himself to he so stiled , subscribed his name with that tittle, and 

 claimed a jurisdiction and authority equally extravagant over ail Great 

 Britain. F. Barlow, his friend , and who , as I said , put the miter of his 

 head , seeing the exhorbitant prétentions of the new bishop , opposed him 

 in them. The affair was carried to Rome : the Pope blamed the bishop and 

 declared that no such jurisdiction was ever meant to be given him. But 

 still he insisted upon it in England, and made so much noises about it, 

 thatit came to the ears of the gouvernment; and D.' Smilh was at last 

 obliged to fly out of the kingdore. 



Now i will leave you or any candid person lo judge whelher it be pro- 

 bable that the roman cathollks would dare attempt to interest the court in 

 their disputes about Ihe beginning of the reign of king Charles the first, at 

 a time when they scarcely durslshew their heads; or whether it be not 

 more probable that the rumour of this new episcopal tribunal and juris- 

 diction over ail Great Britain , coming to the ears of a jealousministry, 

 was the true cause of the persécution comraenced againsl bishop Smith. 



But let us spupose for a moment , with the above cited french historian, 

 that the regulars, and particularly the monks, had so much interest with 

 Charles the fîrst as to oblain that king's protection against the unaccoun- 

 table pretensions of the bishop. The accusation would rather turn out to 

 the honour of the regulars , for as much as , if it were to appear that king 

 Charles took their part , it would he a proot that he looked upon them as 

 the better subjects ; for we cannot suppose him to hâve had any other in- 

 terest in those disputes. But whatever the truth of the may be, the béné- 

 dictins will allways think themselves honour'd by accusations of this kind, 

 as they prove no more than that they cousted and obtain'd the protection 

 of their lawfuU kings ; I wish some of our political bishops could clear 

 themselves of having paid their dévotions to power of a later date, in which 

 lime alone they found means to extend their authority. 



When i first saw the above mention'd paragraph in thefrench historian . 

 i Immediately imagined some foui play, not thinking it possible that a fo- 

 reign writer, unbiased in our disputes, could give so partial an account 

 of them. But I was soon satisBed as to that article : for a few days after, 

 I had a visit from Dj Holden , then superior of the english seminary at 

 Paris; who very polilely, according to his usual custom , begun himself 

 the discourse on the new published church history, but particularly on 

 that part which regarded our disputes in England. 1 told him I was sur- 

 prisert that the french historian should be acquainted with them. The doc- 

 lor owped the truth of my reasoning, and boastingly added , that our 



