IT is a sad thing to consider, what a world of Heresies are crept into this Nation.

But is it not a strange thing to consider, that no distinction is here put between the Religion by Law established, and the Parties disowned by it, and dissenting from it? And yet many of these, though justly liable to the charge of Schism, embrace no Heresies against the Four or Six first General Councils. But if the Dissenters were guilty of never so many Heresies, how comes the Church of England to bear the blame of them; when the weakning its Power and Authority was the occasion of such an overflowing of Schisms and Heresies among us? And it is indeed a sad thing to consider how many Ways and Means have been used by all Parties to introduce and keep up Schisms and Divisions amongst us, and then how the Church of England is blamed for not being able to suppress them. But if all Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome be accounted Heresies, then we desire to be informed, how the Church of Rome came to have this Power of defining Heretical Doctrines; or how any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its definitions. For Heresie is an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith. It must therefore be proved, that what the Church of Rome d • clares, doth thereby become a necessary Article of Faith, or it is very unreasonable to lay the • mputation of Heresie upon us. And this can never be maintained, without proving that the Church of Rome hath a Power to make Doctrines not nec • ssary b • fore, to become necessary by her Definition: which is the same thing with making New Articles of Faith. But these can never be proved to be such by Universal Tradition; which the Church of Rome pretends for all her Articles of Faith.

Every Man thinks himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture, as the very Apostles themselves.

Doth Every Man among us pretend to an infallible Spirit? and yet Every Man owns▪ that the Apostles had it. But what is meant by being a Iudge of Scripture? If no more be understood, than that every Man must use his understanding about it, I hope this is no Crime nor Heresie. The Scripture must be believed in order to Salvation, and therefore it must be understood; for how can a Man believe, what he understands not the sense or meaning of? If he must understand the sense he must be Iudge of the sense; so that every Man, who is bound to believe the Scripture in order to his Salvation, must be Judge of the sense of the Scripture, so far as concerns his Salvation. But if by being a Iudge of the Scripture be meant giving such a judgment, as obliges others to submit to it, then among us no particular Man doth pretend to be a competent Iudge of Scripture, so as to bind others to rely upon his Authority in expounding Scripture. We own the Authority of Guides in the Church, and a due submission to them, but we do not allow them to be as competent Iudges of Scripture as the very Apostles.

And 'tis no wonder it should be so, since that part of the Nation, which looks most like a Church, dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects, for fear they should be turned against themselves, and confuted by their own Arguments.

This is directly 〈◊〉 l'd against the Church of England, which is hereby charged with Insincerity or Weakness in dealing with the Diss • nters. But we must consider the meaning of this Charge, It is no wonder it should be so, i. e. That every Man should think himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture, as the very Apostles, because the Church of England dares not use the true Arguments against the Sects. Whence it appears that this true Argment is the Churches infallible Authority, and the Obligation of all Members of the Church to submit their judgments intirely thereto. I confess that if the Church of England did pretend to this against the Sectaries, they might justly turn it against her; because in our Articles, t • ô the Churches Authority be asserted▪ yet Infallibility is denyed. If there can be no Authority in a Church, without Inf • llibility; or there can be no obligation to submit to Authority, without, it, then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Sectaries, But if there be no ground for Infallibility, if the Church which hath most pretended to it, hath been most grosly deceived, if the Heads of that Church have been not barely suspected of Heresie, but one of them stands condemned for it in Three General Councils, own'd by that Church; then for all that I can see, the Church of England hath wisely disowned the pretence of Infallibility, and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority, and the sinfulness and folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it.

The Church of England (as 'tis called) would fain have it thought, That they are Iudges in matters Spiritual, yet dare not say positively, there is no Appeal from them.

Is not the Church of England really what it is called? I would fain know what it wants to make it as good a Church, as any in the Christian World? It wants neither Faith (if the Creed contain it) nor Sacraments, (and those entire) nor Succession of Bishops, (as certain as Rome it self) nor a Liturgy, (more agreeing to Primitive Worship, than is any where else to be found.) Why then the Church of England▪ as 'tis called? Well! But what is this Church now blamed for: They pretend to be Iudges in matters Spiritual, and yet dare not say there is no appeal from them. How then? Are there no true Judges, but such as there lies no Appeal from? There lies an Appeal from any Judges in the Kings Courts to the Court of Parliament; are They not therefore true Judges in Westminster-Hall? There lay an Appeal from Bishops to Metropol • tans, from them to Patriarchs, from Patriarchs to General Councils, according to the An • ient Poli • y of the Church. Were there therefore no true Judges, but General Councils?

What follows relating to the Churches Authority, and every Mans following his own judgment, hath been answered already. I proceed therefore, to what further concerns this matter of Appeal.

What Countrey can subsist in Quiet, where there is not a Supream Iudge, from whence there can be no Appeal?

The natural consequence from hence appears to be, That every National Church ought to have the Supream Power within it self. But how come Appeals to a foreign Jur • sdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church? They have been always complained of in the best Ages of the Church, and by the b • st Men; such as St. Cyprian▪ and St. Augustine▪ and the whole African Churches. The worst Men began them, and the worst Church encouraged them, without regard to the Peace of the Christian Church, so it increased its own Grandeur by them.

We have had these hundred Years past, the sad effects of denying to the Church, that Power in matters Spiritual, without an Appeal.

And our Ancestors for many hundred Years last past, found the intolerable Inconveniencies of an Appeal to foreign Jurisdiction. Whereby the Nation was • xh • usted, Justice obstructed, the Clergy oppressed, and the Kings Prerogative greatly diminished. But these were slight things in Comparison to what we have f • lt these hundred Years past for want of it.

Have not the Kings Courts been open for matters of Law and Justice, which have been fill'd with Men of as great Abilities and Integrity, since the Reformation as ever they were before? Hath not the Appeal to the King in his H • gh Court of Chancery been as much for the King & People, as ever the Appeal was to the Court of Rome? Have not all the Neighbour Princes been forced for the preserving their own Dignity to set Bounds and Limits to Appeals to Rome, and to Orders or Bulls that come from thence? How then comes the want of such an Appeal to be thought to produce such sad effects here? All Christendom groans under the sad effects of them: and it is a very self-denying humour for those to be most sensible of the w • nt of them, who would really suffer the most by them.

Can there be any Iustice done, where the Offenders are their own Iudges, and equal Interpreters of the Law, with those that are appointed to Administer Iustice?

And is there any likelihood, Justice should be better done in another Country, by another Authority, and proceeding by such Rules, which in the last resort, are but the Arbitrary will of a Stranger. And must such a one, pretending to a Power he hath no right to, be Iudge in his own Cause, when he is the greatest Offender himself (But how is this applied to the Protestants in England?

This is our Case, here in England, in matters Spiritual; for the Protestants are not of the Church of England, as 'tis the true Church, from whence there can be no Appeal; but because the Discipline of that Church is conformable at present to their fancies; which, as soon as it shall contradict or vary from, they are ready to embrace or join with the next Congregation of People, whose Discipline or Worship agrees with the Opinion of that Time.

The sense of this Period is not so clear, but that one may easily mistake about it. That which is aimed at, is, that we of the Church of England, have no tie upon us, but that of our own judgments; and when that changes, we may join with Independents or Presbyterians, as we do now with the Church of England. And what security can be greater, than that of our Judgments? If it be said to be nothing▪ but fancy and no true Iudgment, we must beg leave to say, that we dare Appeal to the World, whether we have not made it appear, that it is not Fancy, but Iudgment which hath made us firm to the Church of England. Might it not as well have been said, that the Protestants of the Church of England, adhered to the Crown in the Times of Rebellion out of Fancy, and not out of Iudgment? And that if their Fancy changed, they might as well have joined with the Rebels? Will not this way of Reasoning hold as strongly against those of the Church of Rome? For why do any adhere to that, but because it is agreeable to their Judgment so to do? What evidence can they give, that it is Iudgment in them▪ and only Fancy in us? If Reason must be that which puts the difference, we do not question, but to make ours appear to be Iudgment, and theirs Fancy? For what is an infallible Iudge, which Christ never appointed, but Fancy? What is their unwritten Word, as a Rule of Faith to be equally received with the Scriptures, but Fancy? What is giving honour to God by the Worship of Images, but Fancy? What is making Mediators of Intercession, besides the Mediator of Redemption, but Fancy? What is the Doctrine of Concomitancy, to make amends for half the Sacrament, but Fancy? What is the substantial Change of the Element into the Body of Christ, but Fancy? for both Senses and Reason are against it. What is the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory, by Masses for the Dead, but meer Fancy? But I forbear giving any more Instances.

So that according to this Doctrine, there is no other Church nor Interpreter of Scripture, but that which lies in every Man's giddy Brain.

Let Mens Brains be as giddy, as they are said to be, for all that I can see, they are the best faculties they can make use of, for the understanding of Scripture, or any thing else. And is there any Infallible Church upon Earth, which must not be beholding to Mens giddy Brains for believing it? And it may be, neve • the • ess giddy for doing it? For God • sake why do any Men take the Church of Rome to be Inf • llible? Is it not, because their Understandings tell them they ought so to do? So that by this consequence, there is no Infallible Church, but what lies in every Mans giddy Brain.

I desire to know therefore of every serious Considerer of these things, whether the great Work of our Salvation ought to depend on such a Sandy Foundation as this?

I thank God I have seriously considered this matter, and must declare that I find no Christian Church built on a more Sandy Foundation, than that, which pretends to be setled upon a Rock; I mean, so far as it imposes the new Faith of Trent, as a nec • ssary Condition of Salvation. Had we no other reason to embrace Christianity, than such as they offer for these New Doctrines, I am much afraid Christianity it self, to all inquisitive Men, would be thought to have but a Sandy Foundation. But what is this Sandy Foundation we build upon? Every Ma • 's private judgment in Religion? No understanding Man builds upon his own Judgment, but no Man of understanding can believe without it. For I appeal to any ingenious Man, whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment, who chuset • the Church, as he that chuseth Scripture for his Rule? And he that chuse • h the Church▪ hath many more D • fficulties to conquer than the other hath. For the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures, but the Scriptures may without the Church▪ And it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture. But suppose that be found, he hath yet a harder Point to get over, viz. How the Promises relating to the Church in general, came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome. Which a Man must have an admirable Faculty at d • sce • ning, who can find it out, either in Scripture, or the Records of the Ancient Church.

The places of Scripture which are brought about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World, about the Power to forgive Sins; about the Clergy being God's Labourers Husbandry, Building, having the Mind of Christ; do as effectually prove Infallibility of the Church of England, as the Church of Rome; for I cannot discern the least inclination in any of them to favour one against the other.

And pray consider on the other side, that those who resist the Truth, and will not submit to his Church, draw their Arguments from Implications, and far • fech'd Interpretations, at the same time that they deny plain and positive Words: which is so great a Disingenuity, that 'tis not almost to be thought that they can believe themselves.

This is a very heavy Charge; To resist the Truth, to deny plain and positive Words of Scripture; to be guilty of great Disingenuity, so as not to believe our selves, are faults of so high a nature, as must argue not only a bad Cause, but a very bad Mind. And God forbid, that those of the Church of England, should ever be found guilty of these things. But to come to Particulars; Is it resisting Truth, or arguing from Implications and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture, to say, We must not worship Images; We must make God alone the Object of Holy Worship; We must give the Euch • r • st in both kinds according to Christ's express Institution; We must understand our Prayers, when St. Paul's words are so clear about it: So far at least we have plain and positive Words of Scripture on our side. And for Implications, and far-fetch'd Interpretations commend me to the Pope's Bulls, especially when they have a mind to prove their Authority from Scripture; which they can do from In the beginning, to the end of the Apocalypse. But that which seems to be aimed at here, is, This is my Body; wherein the words seem to be plain and positive on their side, and our sense to be from Implications, or far • fetc'h Interpretations. To which I Answer, That there are Expressions in Scr • p • ure as plain & positive as this, which none think themselves bound to understand in their literal sense. For then we must all believe; that God hath Eyes and Ears, a Face, Hands and Feet, as firmly, as that the Bread was then turned into Christ's Body, when he spake those words. And I would know, whether the Christian Church rejecting the Doctrine of Those who made God to be like to Man, was not chargeable with the same resisting the Truth, and denying plain & positive Words of Scripture, as we are? And yet I hope the Christian Church did then believe it self. Suppose any should assert, That the Rock in the Wilderness, was really changed into Christ's Body; would not he have the very same Things to say against those who denied it? For are not the Words as plain and as positive, That Rock was Christ? But Sacramental Expressions, by the consent of the Christian Church, and the very Nature of the Thing, are of a different sense from Logical Propositions. And if this had been intended in the plain and literal sense, St. Paul would never have as plainly and positively called it Bread after Consecration; nor the Cup be said to be the New Testament in his Blood.

THE Third Paper is said to be written by a Great Lady, for the satisfaction of her Friends, as to the Reasons of Her leaving the Communion of the Church of England, and making her self a Member of the Roman Catholick Church. If she had written nothing concerning it, none could have been a competent Judge of those Reasons or Motives she had for it, but her self: but since she was pleased to write this Paper to satisfy her Friends; and it is thought fit to be publ • shed for general Satisfaction, all Readers have a right to judge of the strength of them; and those of the Churh of England, an Obligation to vindica • e the Honour of it, so far as it may be thought to suffer by them.

I am sensible how nice and t • nder a thing it is, to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is so nearly concern'd; and wherein such Circumstances are mentioned, which cannot fully be cleared, the Parties themselves having been many Years dead: But I shall endeavour to keep within due bounds, and consider this Paper with respect to the main Design of it, and take notice of other Particulars so far as they are subservient to it.

The way of her Satisfaction must needs appear very extraordinary; for towards the Conclusion confesses, She was not able, nor would she enter into Disputes with any Body. Now where the Difference between the two Churches lies wholly in Matters of Dispute, how any one cou'd be truly satisfied, as to the Grounds of leaving one Church, and going to the other, without entring int • matters of Dispute with any body, is hard to understand. If Persons be resolved before-hand what to do, and therefore will hear nothing said against it, there is no such way, as to declare they will enter into no Dispute about it. But what Satisfaction is to be had in this manner of proceeding? How could one bred up in the Church of England, and so well instructed in the Doctrines of it, ever satisfy her self in forsaking the Communion of it, without enquiring into, and comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both Churches? It is possible for Persons of Learning, who will take the pains of examining things themselves, to do that, without entring into Disputes with any Body; but this was not to be presumed of a Person other Condition. For many things must fall in her way, which she could neither have the leisure to examine, nor the Cap • city to judg of, without the Assistance of such who 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 wi • ling to give her their utmost Assistance in a 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,Preface to his Treatise. P. 5. was both able and willing to have removed any Doubts and Scrup • es with respect to our Church, if she would have been pleased to have communicated 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; Letter to her Royal Highness from the Bp. of Winton. P. 3, 4. and was so much concerned at it, that he obtained a Prom • se from her, That if any Writing were put into her Hands by those of the Chu • ch of Rome, that she would send it either to him▪ or the then Bishop of Oxford▪ whom he le • t in Attendance upon her.Blandford. After which, he saith, She was many Days with him at Farnham;Pag. 14. 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, Aug. 20. that Year, wherein she declares her self ch • nged in her Rel • gion: So that it is evident she did not make use of the ordinary Means for her own Satisfaction, at least a to th • se 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 • hings in the Roman Church,Sheldon A.B. of Canterb. Blanford Bp. of Worcester. 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,Blandford B • shop of Worcester. 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 Catholick, 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 • aid, did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholick.

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 allow'd, there could be no Argument from hence drawn for leaving the Communion of our Church, if this Bishop's Authority or Example did signi • y any thing with her. For supposing he did say, That if he had been bred in the Communio • of the Church of Rome, he would not change his Religion: Yet he added, That being of another Church, wherein were 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 B • shop 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 signi • y 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 Catholick after these Discourses: unless the Advantage were taken from the B • shop's calling the Church of Rome the Catholick Religion; If he had been bred a Catholick, he would not have chang'd 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 Salvotion, if we were out of the Catholick Church? Was a B • shop of our Church, and one of the best Bishops of our Church, as she said, so weak as to yeild, That he was sure all things necessary to Salvation were to be had out of the Communion of the Catholick Church?

But again; there is an inconsistency in his saying, • hat he thought it very ill to leave our Church; which no Man of common sense would have s • id, if he had believed the Roman Church to be the Catholick, 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 Catholick 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 consequen • ly 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 a Discourse as is pretended to have been between this Great Person, Preface, p. 2. p. 4. and two of the most Learned Bishops of England. But, God be thanked, the Cause of our Church doth not depend upon the singular Opinion of one or two Bishops in it, wherein they apparently recede from the establish'd Doctrine of it. And▪ I am sure those of the Church of Rome take it ill from us, to be charged with the Opinion of Particular Divines, against the known Sentiments of their Church. Therefore supposing the Matter of Fact true, it ought not to have moved her to any Inclination to leave the Church of England.

But after all, She protests, in the Presence of Almighty God, that no Person, Man or Woman, directly or indirectly, ever said any thing to her (since she came into England) or used the least Endeavour to make her change her Religion; and that it is a Blessing she wholly owes to Almighty God. So that the Bishops are acquitted from having any hand in it, by her own words; and as far as we can understand her meaning, she thought her self converted by immediate Divine Illumination. We had thought the pretence to a private Spirit had not been at this time allowed in the Church of Rome. But I observe, that many things are allowed to bring Persons to the Church of Rome, which they will not permit in those who go from it. As the use of Reason in the Choice of a Church; the Judgment of Sense; and here, that which they would severely condemn in others as a Private Spirit, or Enthusiasm▪ will pass well enough if it doth but lead one to their Communion. Any Motive or Method is good enough which tends to that end; and none can be sufficient against it. But why may not others set up for the Change as to other Opinions upon the same Grounds▪ as well as this Great Person does, as to the Change from our Church to the Church of Rome? And we have no Pretenders to Enthusiasm among us, but do as solemnly ascribe the Blessing wholly to Almighty God; and look on it as the Effect of such Prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders.

But I wonder a Person, who owed her Change so wholly to Almighty God, should need the Direction of an Infallible Church; since the utmost they can pretend to, is no more than to have such an Immediate Co • duct; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can be meant by it, is, that she had no Assistance from any other Persons. Which m • y not exclude her own Endeavours: but supposing them to be employed, and an Account to be here given of them: yet there is no Connexion between any of the Premises, and the Conclusion she drew from them; and therefore it must be Immediate Impulse, or some concealed Motive which determin'd her Choice.

The Conclusion was, That she would never have changed, if she could have saved her Soul otherwise. If this were true, she had good Reason for her Change; if it were not true, she had none; as it is most certain it was not. Now let us examine how she came to this Conclusion; and I will suppose it to have been just in the M • thod she sets it down in.

First, she • aith, She never had any Scruples till the November before; and then they began upon reading Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation; which was commended to her as a Book to settle her; and there she found such abominable Sacriledg upon Henry the 8th's Divorce, King Edward's Minority, and Queen Elizabeth's Succession, that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Counsels.

This was none of the best Advices given to such a Person, to real 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 States-men at all Times, and in all Churches, who labour to turn all Revolutions and Cha • ges to their own Advantage. And it is strange to me that a Person of so great Understanding should not distinguish these two. Whether Henry the 8th were a good Man or not; Whether the Duke of Somerset raised his Estate out of the Church Lands, doth not concern our present Enq • iry; which is, Whether there was not sufficient Cause for a Reforma • ion in the C • u • ch? And if there was▪ Whether our Church had not sufficient Authority to re • orm it self? And if so, Whether the Proceed • ngs of our Reformation were not J • st • fi • ble 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 M • scarri • ges of Ministers of State. Were not the Vices of Alexander the 6th and many other Heads of the Chu • ch of Rome for a whole Age together, by the Confession of their own greatest Writers, as great at least as th • se of Henry the 8th? And were these not thought sufficient to keep her from the Church of Rome; and y • t the others were sufficient to make her think of leaving our Church? But Henry the 8th▪ 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 d • fference is, Henry the 8th 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 • Land • ▪ and so did many Courtiers in the Reign of Queen El • zabeth.

Are there not Miscarriages of the like nature in the Church of Rome? What is the Popes 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 • ound some things so easy there, that she wondred she had been so long without finding them out. And what were these? No less than the Real Pre • ence in the blessed Sacrament; the Infallibility of the Church, Confession, and Praying for the Dead.

These were great Discoveries to be made so e • sily, considering how those of the Church of Rome, who have been most vers'd in these Matters, have • ound 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 wi • est 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 n • t? 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 Usefu • n • ss or Advantage of Confession in particular Cases▪ but the Necessity of it in all Ca •• s, in order to Remssion of Sins. And I can hardly believe any Bishop of our Church would ever say to her, that Conf ••• ion in this sense was ever commanded by God. For then he must be damned himself if he did not confess every known S • n to a Priest. But some general Expression might be used, that Confession of Sin was commanded by God; Confess your Sins one to another: But here is nothing of a p • rticular Confession to a Priest, necessary in order to Forgiveness of Sin.

(3▪) As to praying for the Dead; It is 〈◊〉 to find any place of Scripture which seems to have any tendency that 〈◊〉 unless it be with respect to the Day of Iudgment▪ and that very 〈…〉 Great Person to think it not possible to be saved in 〈◊〉 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 have the Communion of out 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 Definitions of it. But where is this to be • ound? 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 Apostle • ; were there none but at Rome? How comes this Promise to be limited to the Church of Rome; and the Bishops of Antio • h and Alexandria▪ and all the other Eastern Churches (where the Bishops as certainly succeeded the Apostles, as at Rome it self) 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 d • spair of finding whatever they have a Mind to there.

But from this Promise she concludes, That our saviour would not permi • the Church togive the Laity the Communion in One kind, if it were not lawfull 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 enjoyned; 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 sa • e her Soul otherwise, than by embracing the Communion of the Church of Rome. And the Publick will receive this Advantage by these Papers, that there by 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.