This was none of the best advices given to such a person, to read Dr Heylin's History for her satisfaction: For there are two distinct parts in the history of our Reformation; the one ecclesiastical, the other political: the former was built on scripture and antiquity, and the rights of particular churches; the other on such maxims which are common to statesmen at all times, and in all churches, who labour to turn all revolutions and changes to their own advantage. And it is strange to me, that a person of so great understanding, should not distinguish these two. Whether Henry VIII. were a good man or not, whether the Duke of Somerset raised his estate out of the church-lands, doth not concern our present enquiry; which is, whether there was not sufficient cause for a reformation in the church? and if there was, whether our church had not sufficient authority to reform itself? and if so, whether the proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the rules of scripture, and the ancient church? These were the proper points for her to have considered, and not the particular faults of princes, or the miscarriages of ministers of state. Were not the vices of Alexander the Sixth, and many other heads of the church of Rome, for a whole age together, by the confes

*Heylin's extreme animosity against the Puritans, hurries him into the opposite extreme of favouring the Catholics. Nicolson has observed, that he falls foul of all the princes of the time, without regard to their good or ill wishes to the Protestant interest. Historical Library, p. 98.---Burnet even charges him with delivering "many things in such a manner, and so strangely, that one would think he had been secretly set on to it by those of the church of Rome;" but adds, "I doubt not he was a sincere Protestant, but violently carried away by some particular conceits.”--Burnet's History of the Reformation, Preface.

sion of their own greatest writers, as great at least as those of Henry the Eighth? And were these not thought sufficient to keep her from the church of Rome; and yet the others were sufficient to make her think of leaving our church? But Henry the Eighth's church was, in truth, the church of Rome under a political head, much as the church of Sicily is under the king of Spain. All the difference is, Henry the Eighth took it as his own right; the king of Spain pretends to have it from the pope, by such concessions, which the popes deny. And suppose the king of Spain's pretence were unlawful to that jurisdiction which he challengeth in the kingdom of Sicily, were this a sufficient ground to justify the thoughts of separation from the church of Rome?

But the Duke of Somerset raised his estate out of church lands, and so did many courtiers in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Are there not miscarriages of the like nature in the church of Rome? What is the pope's making great estates out of the church lands, for their nephews to be princes and dukes? a thing not unheard of in our age: And is it not so much worse to be done by the head of the church?

These, she confesses, were but scruples, but such as occasioned her examining the points in difference by the holy scripture. Now she was in the right way for satisfaction, provided she made use of the best helps and means for understanding it, and took in the assistance of her spiritual guides. But it seems, contrary to the doctrine of the church of Rome, she found some things so easy there, that she wondered she had been so long without finding them out. And what were these? No less than the real presence in the blessed sacrament,

the infallibility of the church confession, and praying for the dead.

These were great discoveries to be made so easily; considering how those of the church of Rome, who have been most versed in these matters, have found it so difficult to make them out from thence.

(1.) As to the real presence, as it is in the dispute between us and the church of Rome, it implies the real and substantial change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. But where do our Saviour's words, in calling the sacrament his body and blood, imply any such thing? The wisest persons of the church of Rome have confessed, that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it; but there needs the authority of the church to interpret them in that sense. How then could she so easily find out that, which their most learned men could not? But there is nothing goes so far in such discoveries as a willing mind.

(2.) As to confession, no doubt the word is often used in scripture, and therefore easily found. But the question between us is not about the usefulness, or advantage, of confession in particular cases; but the necessity of it in all cases, in order to remission of sins. And I can hardly believe any bishop of our church would ever say to her, that confession, in this sense, was ever commanded by God; for then he must be damned himself, if he did not confess every known sin to a priest. But some general expressions might be used, that confession of sin was commanded by God; "confess your sins one to another:" but here is nothing of a particular confession to a priest necessary, in order to forgiveness of sin.

(3.) As to praying for the dead, it is hard to find any place of scripture which seems to have any

tendency that way, unless it be with respect to the day of judgment, and that very doubtfully. But how came this great person to think it not possible to be saved in our church, unless we prayed for the dead? How did this come to be a point of salvation? And, for the practice of it, she saith, the bishops told her they did it daily. Whether they did it or not, or in what sense they did it, we cannot now be better informed; but we are sure this could be no argument for her to leave the communion of our church, because she was told by these bishops they did it, and continued in the communion of it.

(4.) Lastly; as to the infallibility of the church; if this, as applied to the Roman church, could be any where found in scripture, we should then indeed be to blame not to submit to all the defini. tions of it. But where is this to be found? Yes, Christ hath promised to be with his church to the end of the world; not with his church, but with his apostles: And if it be restrained to them, then the end of the world is no more than always. But suppose it be understood of the successors of the apostles; were there none but at Rome? How comes this promise to be limited to the church of Rome; and the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria, and all the other eastern churches (where the bishops as certainly succeeded the apostles as at Rome itself) not to enjoy the equal benefit of this promise? But they who can find the infallibility of the church of Rome in scripture, need not despair of finding whatever they have a mind to there.

But from this promise she concludes, that our Saviour would not permit the church to give the laity the communion in one kind, if it were not lawful so to do. Now, in my opinion, the argument is stronger the other way: the church of

Rome forbids the doing of that, which Christ enjoined; therefore it cannot be infallible, since the command of Christ is so much plainer than the promise of infallibility to the church of Rome.

But, from all these things laid together, I can see no imaginable reason of any force to conclude, that she could not think it possible to save her soul otherwise, than by embracing the communion of the church of Rome: And the public will receive this advantage by these papers, that thereby it appears, how very little is to be said by persons of the greatest capacity, as well as place, either against the church of England, or for the church of Rome.