[61] “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_. [62] 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. [63] Blandford. [64] 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.” [65] 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.