disputes with any body; but this was not to be presumed of a person of her condition: For many things must fall in her way, which she could neither have the leisure to examine, nor the capacity to judge of, without the assistance of such who have made it their business to search into them. Had she no divines of the church of England about her, to have proposed her scruples to? None able and willing to give her their utmost assistance in matter of such importance, before she took up a resolution of forsaking our church? This cannot be imagined, considering not only her great quality, but that just esteem they had for her, whilst she continued so zealous and devout in the communion of our church.

*

But we have more than this to say. One of the bishops, who had nearest relation to her for many years, and who owns in print, † that he bred her up in the principles of the church of England, was both able and willing to have removed any doubts and scruples with respect to our church, if she would have been pleased to have communicated

* This prelate was Dr George Morley, who, during the time of the usurpation, was domestic chaplain to Sir Edward Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon; and educated his daughter, Anne Hyde, in the faith of the church of England. See page 189. Upon the Restoration, Morley was made successively bishop of Worcester and Winchester." He was," says Burnet, "a pious, charitable man, of an exemplary life, but extremely passionate and obstinate." This prelate, who was deeply and justly afflicted with the Duchess's change of religion, vindicated himself from the suspicion of having neglected his duty towards her, by publishing, in 1683, a collection of tracts, with an apologetical preface already quoted, and a letter which he had written to the Duchess in 1670-1, some months before her death, upon hearing a rumour that she was shaken in her adherence to the Protestant faith.

+ Preface to his Treatise, p. 5.

*

them to him. And however she endeavoured to conceal her scruples, he tells her in his letter to her, which he since printed for his own vindication, "that he had heard much discourse concerning her wavering in religion, and that he had acquainted her highness with it, the Lent before the date of this paper;" and was so much concerned at it, that he obtained a promise from her, that if any writing were put into her hands by those of the church of Rome, that she would send it either to him, or to the then bishop of Oxford, whom he left in attendance upon her. After which, he saith," she was many days with him at Farnham; in all which time she spake not one word to him of any doubt she had about her religion." And yet this paper bears date, August 20th, that year, wherein she declares

*Letter to her Royal Highness, p. 3, 4.

66

+" And this I am the rather obliged to believe, because, the last time I had any discourse with your Highness of things of this nature, you did seriously affirm to me, that never any priest of the church of Rome had ever been so bold as to enter into any discourse of religion with you. Whereupon, when I humbly besought your Highness, that if any of them should be so bold at any time afterwards, and you should think fit to hear what they could say, either for their own church, or against ours; your Highness would be pleased to command them to give it you in writing, and that you would be pleased to show me, or my lord of Oxford, any such papers, or paper, they should give you to consider of, and to reply to the which, because you were pleased to promise me you would do, and have never as yet done, (not to me I am sure, nor to him either for aught I know,) I cannot believe that any thing of that kind hath been as yet said to you, at least, not so as to make any impression on you, and much less to gain an absolute belief from you, that there is no salvation to be had but in the church of Rome only, and consequently, that if ever you mean to be saved, you must of necessity quit our communion, and embrace theirs."---Letter to the Duchess.

herself changed in her religion; so that it is evident he did not make use of the ordinary means for her own satisfaction, at least as to those bishops who had known her longest.

*

But she saith," that she spoke severally to two of the best bishops we have in England, who both told her, there were many things in the Roman church, which it were much to be wished we had kept; as confession, which was no doubt commanded of God; that praying for the dead, was one of the ancient things in Christianity; that, for their parts, they did it daily, though they would not own it. And afterwards, pressing one † of them very much upon the other points, he told her, that if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his religion; but that being of another church, wherein he was sure were all things necessary to salvation, he thought it very ill to give that scandal, as to leave that church wherein he received his baptism. Which discourses," she said, "did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic."

This, I confess, seems to be to the purpose; if there were not some circumstances and expressions very much mistaken in the representation of it: but yet suppose the utmost to be allowed, there could be no argument from hence drawn for leaving the communion of our church, if this bishop's authority or example did signify any thing with her. For supposing he did say, "that if he had been bred in the communion of the church of Rome, he would not change his religion;" yet he added, "that being of another church, wherein were

*Sheldon, and Blandford. The former, as already mentioned, was bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury; the latter bishop of Oxford, afterwards of Worcester.

+ Blandford.

وو

all things necessary to salvation, he thought it very ill to give that scandal, as to leave that church wherein he had received his baptism." Now, why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in the communion of our church, than the former to have drawn her from it? For why should any person forsake the communion of our church, unless it appears necessary to salvation so to do; and yet this yielding bishop did affirm, "that all things necessary to salvation were certainly in our church; and that it was an ill thing to leave it.' How could this "add to her desire of leaving our church" unless there were some other motive to draw her thither, and then such small inducements would serve to inflame such a desire. But it is evident from her own words afterwards, that these concessions of the bishop could have no influence upon her; for she declares, and calls God to witness, "that she would never have changed her religion, if she had thought it possible to save her soul otherwise." Now what could the bishop's words signify towards her turning, when he declares just contrary, viz. not only that it was possible for her to be saved without turning, "but that he was sure we had all things necessary to salvation; and that it was a very ill thing to leave our church?" There must therefore have been some more secret reason, which encreased her desire to be a Catholic after these discourses; unless the advantage were taken from the bishop's calling the church of Rome the Catholic religion; "if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not have changed his religion." But if we take these words so strictly, he must have contradicted himself; for how could he be sure we had all things necessary to salvation, if we were out of the Catholic church? Was a bishop of our church, and one of the best bishops of our church,

as she said, so weak as to yield, “that he was sure all things necessary to salvation were to be had out of the communion of the Catholic church?"

But again; there is an inconsistency in his saying, "that he thought it very ill to leave our church;" which no man of common sense would have said, if he had believed the Roman church to be the Catholic, exclusive of all others that do not join in communion with it.

The utmost then that can be made of all this, is, that there was a certain bishop of this church, who held both churches to be so far parts of the Catholic church, that there was no necessity of going from one church to another. But if he asserted that, he must overthrow the necessity of the Reformation, and consequently not believe our articles and homilies, and so could not be any true member of the church of England.

But the late bishop of Winchester hath made a shorter answer to all this; for he first doubts whether there ever were any such bishops who made such answers; and afterwards he affirms, that he believes there never was, in rerum naturâ, * such

* The bishop of Winchester had only heard of this paper from Maimbourg's publication," wherein," says Morley, "he reciteth something, which he saith was written by the late Duchess of York, to justify her leaving the communion of the church of England, to embrace that of Rome. But why should I say any more, or indeed so much as I have said of a non-ens, or of what I believe never was in rerum naturâ; I mean such a discourse, as is pretended to have been betwixt the Dutchess of York, and two of the most learned bishops of England; I know no proof we have, that there was ever any such thing, at least in print, or publicly known, and avowed, but this attestation of Maimbourg the Jesuit, who I am sure was neither eye nor ear witness of it, but must have it by hearsay only, from others, who had it from others, that might be the devisers of it."