Luther's and Calvin's ought to have been besides we of the Reformed Religion do not so absolutely reject all Tradition as not to accept of it according to the famous expression of Vincent of Lerins When the Tradition is Universal in all Times and in all Places LXIV He pretends to justify Cardinal de Bellay's words concerning the Zealous Catholicks as if by the Zealous were to be understood the False Zealots But this same expression without any such qualification returns so often in his third and fourth Tomes always indeed when he had occasion to speak of the Rebels in England that I have reason to believe that he adds this of False Zealots now because he dares not say otherwise when he is forced to explain himself but his hardiness in denying that the Sorbon in the time of the League or that Cardinal Perron in his Harangue to the third Estate did own that doctrine of deposing Heretical Princes is no surprise to me since it comes from him for I can assure him that I am past the being amased at his Ignorance or his Confidence either in asserting or denying If any Protestants have failed in their duty of their Princes it was not an effect of their Religion as it is in the Church of Romes it being decreed by a General Council that Popes may depose Heretical Princes and absolve their Subjects from their Allegeance So that Papists when they rebel act as good Papists whereas Protestants that rebel act against their Principles and as bad Protestants LXV Mr. Varillas appeals to all those who do him the honour to read this Book It is certain that those who read it do him more honour than they do themselves He says here that two years had passed after King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen when the Cardinal de Bellay was in England whereas it is clear that only one year had passed for she was married the 14. of November 1532. and the Cardinal de Bellay came to London in November 1533. but so small a fault as two years for one is inconsiderable and tho he had himself in his History said that she was married the 22. of November 1532. yet now when a turn was to be served by a bold denial he was more hardy than to stick either at contradicting himself or me but tho he will perhaps be easily reconciled to himself yet I am not so ready to forgive such faults He accuses me for having said That the Pope had sent a formal Assurance to the King that he would Judge in his Favour I cited for this in my History an Original Letter of the Archbishop of York's and of Tonstal Bishop of Duresm that affirm positively that the Pope had promised that he would judge for the King against the Queen if he would but send a Proxy to Rome because he knew his Cause was good just This and F. Paul's History of the Council of Trent are two such Authorities that I will forgive him every thing that he advances on such grounds He ends this Article with his ordinary stile of boasting his having read all the Original Letters of Cardinal de Bellay that are in Mr. de la Moignon's hands and I believe this as I do the rest of what the affirms LXVI He denies he had said that for which I had cited him concerning the passages into Italy being stopt by the Emperour's Garrisons and he hoped his Readers would believe him when they saw a Quotation of almost a Page out of him in which that is not to be found but he just begins his Quotation at the words that follow a whole Page that he had spent upon that for which I had cited him This is a Confidence in Disingenuity that never man that I know of assumed before himself and I beg the Readers to turn his Book here and examin this for by this one essay they may judge of his Sincerity It is in the 287. Page of the Edition of Amsterdam he begins to cite the last words of the Page and passes over the half of a Page that went before because it contained that which I had mentioned and which he here denies and says he never thought it and upon this single point I desire that his sincerity may be measured The comparing his History and my Reflections and his Answer in this particular will be no great trouble and I promise my self that most Readers will be so complaisant as to grant me this Favour for I cannot bring my self to submit to the labour of copying out so much impertinence LXVII He had set down Queen Catherine's death after the Session of Parliament so I reckoned that he intended to make his Reader believe that she died immediatly after now he owns that as I had accused him it was two year after the Parliament before the Queen died and he fancies to save all this because he had begun a linea but I am not bound to guess that a linea in his stile stands for two years all Historians carry on the series of time in their Narrations or if some remarkable Circumstances makes them at any time break it they warn their Reader of it and if warning is not given a Reader naturally reckons that the series goes on and that it is not discontinued by every a linea But he neglects the main point of this Article which is the false Date that he gives with his usual Confidence to that famous Session of Parliament that enacted the Breach between England and the See of Rome LXVIII He cites a whole Page out of his own History for he is here his own Eccho and tho every tittle of it is false he concludes it in these word Is there any thing here that deserves the least Censure But is there any Censure so severe as that he gives not here so much as his Florimond for his Garand So here again the Eccho speaks I had said that it is certain King Henry pretended not to have seen any thing that could any way disgrace Anne Bullen and he fancied I had said that he had owned this upon which he protests that he neither thought it said it nor writ it and that it could not be found in any page of his Books But I can assure him when I say it is certain I never think of him for his Authority and Certainty are the two things in the World that are the most opposite to one another in my thoughts I had denied that any thing had appeared in the Tilting at Greenwich but to prove the contrary of this he gives me two Arguments that are equally strong The one is that once at Naples something like this fell out and the other is Florimond's Authority and if I will not believe these two he leaves me to my Incredulity LXIX He says I shew a very good Opinion of my self if I expect to be believed in this point whether Anne Bullens Father was one of her
because he had it seems one of Mr. Varillas's Artifices of citing boldly Papers that never were and so cites those of Cardinal Campege Mr. Varillas upbraids me with my not having seen them but I believe both their Citations alike I have indeed printed a long Letter of that Cardinals writ to the Pope in conjunction with Cardinal Wolsey while he was in England in which he asserts the Justice of the Kings cause and presses him to give Sentence in his favour he assures the Pope that nothing but Conscience moved the King in the matter and in short says all that even Mr. Varillas would have said if he had been animated with the prospect of a good Pension XXXIII He says I contradict my self in denying that the K. of Scotland sought the Daughter of Henry the Eighth confessing it afterwards I denied only that the Father had ever sought it since he was dead before she was born and here Mr. Varillas has the confidence to deny all that long Scheme that he had given of the project that the King of Scotland had set on for his Son so that the Imposture of suppressing his Text with which he charges me lies on his side and he leaves out all that he had said of the Machines that the King of Scotland was managing for his Son the Prince who was no other than King Iames the Fifth so the King must be King Iames the Fourth his Father and for that which he says of King Iames the Fifths going with an Army to France it fell out many years after this so it could not be the Reason that made King Henry deny his Daughter to the King of Scotland it being long after even the year 1533. after which time he owns that he does not say that the King of Scotland pretended to her and whereas he pretends that he only said that the Scots had pressed the Marriage that is one of his common practices to which I will not give the name that it deserves for he had expresly named both the King and the Prince who he said asked her with all the Submissions that were compatible with the Dignity of Soveraigns whereas as the one was dead before she was born and the other was an Infant at that time His Discourse of the Design of Uniting the whole Island into one Monarchy and his taking a start over into Spain is one of his Impertinencies to which he fly's to cover his shame and the Contradiction with which he charges me before he ends this Article is worthy of him He says I own that King Henry was Master of his Parliament and yet I denied that his Government was Tyrannical I never denied this last on the contrary I have set it out as fully as was necessary but tho I had denied it the saying that he was the Master of his Parliaments is so far from being a Contradiction to that that it agrees exactly with it Queen Elisabeth was always the Mistress of her Parliaments tho guilty of no Tyranny and it was because she was not Tyrant but governed well that she was the Mistress both of her Peoples Hearts and Purses and likewise of her Parliaments so the Triumph that he makes upon this Contradiction which he says the most able Sophister of Europe will not be able to set to rights turns upon himself XXXIV He pretends to justify his Impertinence in reckoning the Emperour and the King of Spain as two of the Pretenders to Queen Mary by saying that Charles the fifth was for three years King of Spain before he was chosen Emperour and that during all that time he pretended to her but tho he cites his Florimond here yet he finds no such thing in him so that here the Eccho does not repeat but speaks of it self and as he cannot give the least shadow of proof for this confident Assertion of his so he himself contradicts it in his own words which he cites afterwards in which he had said that the Emperour was the second that pretended to this Princess so then he was not only King of Spain but already Emperour when he began that pretension All the digression that he makes concerning Charles the fifth is a continued Impertinence to hide his Shame the only thing he had to do was to prove that he began that pretension while he was no more than King of Spain 2. he trys how Raillery will do with him because I had only named Arragon and Castile instead of the many other Kingdoms that lie within Spain but he is equally sublime both in his Ridicule and his serious strains for since the conjunction of all these Titles rise out of the Marriage between Arragon and Castile I writ correctly in naming these two only instead of all the rest that lay in Spain XXXV Our Author will still justify what he had said concerning K. Henry's rejecting the match with Scotland because the King of Scotland had declared himself for France during the last War in which K. Henry had been engaged with Francis now it is to be considered that all the propositions for Queen Mary that our Author sets forth fell out before the year 1527 in which the sute of the Divorce was begun for after that time none courted her as he himself confesses therefore this War between England and France in which Scotland took part with the latter and for which the King lost his Unkles favour must be before that time since then there had been no war between France and England in which Scotland took part after that battel of Floddon in which K. Iames the Fourth was killed and after which during the interval between the year 1513. and the year 1527. which is the only time in debate nor indeed for many years after it all this is an ill-laid fiction which destroys it self so what K. Iames the fifth might do ten years after the year 1527. cannot be brought to excuse that which had been given for a reason of K. Henry's rejecting him before that year XXXVI He accuses me for denying in one place that the Emperour pretended next and yet afterwards confessing it but I only excepted to this because he says the Emperour pretended the second after the K. of Scotland whereas I shew that the Dolphin was the first that pretended and by the Contract for that Marriage which is yet extant it appears that his dream of Charles's pretending to her while he was yet King of Spain is not only without ground but is a downright falsehood for that contract bears date the ninth of November 1518. so that during this Interval in which Charles was only King of Spain she was promised to another 2. Whereas I had discovered his Ignorance of those Transactions by this that he knew nothing of Charles the fifth's coming to England in Person to contract this Marriage he tells me that he had writ of this in his History of Francis the first where he had
little unacquainted with the Laws of England for I have discovered his Ignorance in other things that are less pardonable yet he is so uneasy at this that he cannot bear my saying that such matters were above men of his form and upon that he says he does not know whether he or I has studied the Law most and no more do I but I am sure if he was long at that Study he has spent both his time and his money to very little purpose and if he is no better Lawyer than he is Historian I doubt he will hardly ever recover the Money that he laid out on that Study I assure him I will not compare with him in any thing and I do not know a greater Injury that can be done me in such matters than to be put into a comparison with him But to convince his Reader of his Learning in our Law he gives us another long Quotation out of Florimond which is all the rest of this Article LX. He justifies his saying that Audley the Chancellour was meanly born he cites an Author that had mentioned the mean-birth of a Chancellour and says this was necessary for the History to shew what a sort of men King Henry imployed but what needs all this I had only said that the raising a man of a mean-birth to that post ought not to be taken notice of as a very extraordinary thing since it is very ordinary to see men of the Profession of Law raised upon their merit to that Dignity If he had been to write that Audley's life I acknowledge he must have mentioned his Birth but since his Hero Chancellour More was of no better extraction I am not yet convinced of the Importance of this Reflection and Mr. Varillas will do wisely for himself not to examin too anxiously the birth of the Chancellours of Europe for this last Age but in conclusion a Quotation of Florimond's comes to set all right yet even in it Audley is not said to be a Churchman so here the Eccho did not repeat but speak LXI Here again Florimond is brought out with the honorable Character that Mr. Varillas assumes of being his Eccho which must pass for one of his Sublime Strains But here I must explain one part of my Book for some have mistaken my Reflections in one point as if at every time that I speak of Mr. Varillas's Religion I had meant of the Religion of the Church of Rome but they do me wrong for I mean it only of his Religion in particular according to the notion that he gives us of it that it enslaves a mans powers so far as to hinder him from examining whether what he writes is true or false All the rest of his Article is a sequel of such Impertinences that I grow weary to examin them as well as the Character that he gives his Florimond as an Author that is worthy of Credit against whom the English have never excepted But if they have always excepted against Sanders who is copied by him than there is no reason to expect that we should have any regard to him His Excuse for his turning the Affairs of Amours so ill is like himself this it seems went to his heart for tho I have destroyed his credit as a Writer of History yet there is some comfort left if he may be still considered at least a good Author of Romances LXII He thinks It is the chief of all the Qualities necessary for the writing of History to be able to describe the Intriques of great men in the matters of Amour and it he has not that as he reproaches me for denying it to him since I had allowed him all the good qualities of a Historian except that of Truth those who praise his works chiefly in this point are much deceived and then he justifies himself with a Quotation out of Florimond I will not dispute much with him whether the quality of setting forth Amours is the Principal one of a Historian tho I do not deny but in a Reign of much Dissolution this is necessary but I will add that this is the hardest to be found out unless one has lived in the time for those are matters in which as it is easy to slander so the only persons who know those Secrets are very shye of writing them and are generally men of Pleasure themselves and not much given to writing I have already satisfied Mr. Varillas by my retracting the praises that I had undeservedly given him but I find he would let that of Truth go and would compound the matter if he might but have the other Qualities allowed him but now I am worse-natured and will allow none of them to him and I as little believe what he says of the Praises that some give his works on that account as I do his other Quotations After this he calls me the rashest of all men this from any man but him would have put me in some disorder but I know his way of writing now too well to be alarmed at any thing he can say One should have thought that I had robbed Churches or coined money or done some very hardy thing to deserve to be called the rashest of all men but all is safe for my only Crime is that I had denied an Assertion of his so modestly as only to say I had never found it in any Author upon which he pretends to infer That to justify this I must say two things the one that I have read all Books whether printed or Manuscripts the other is that I have forgot nothing of that which I have read which two things says he very gravely are not found in any one man without a miracle Tho I should have thought that neither the one nor the other could be found in any man without a miracle and now is it not evidently made out that I am the Rashest of all men LXIII Here again comes the often named Voucher and after that comes another piece of our Authors reasoning I had shewed him that King Henry when he pretended to obtain his Divorce had argued upon the principle of Tradition which is so much considered in the Church of Rome and that it had been made out that the Tradition of the whole Church all down to Cajetans time was clearly of the King's side since the degrees of Marriage prohibited in Leviticus had been considered in all the Ages of the Church as Moral and Indispensable Laws so I had added that according to the Principles of the Church of Rome his Marriage with his Brothers Wife was Unlawful He reproaches me for this since I am of a Religion that rejects Tradition absolutely But still it made the Kings cause good against that Church which makes Tradition the only sure Expounder of Scripture for if the Tradition was here of the King's side then all Cajetans Reasoning against it was no more to be considered than according to themselves