least amiss and indeed this is all the praise that can belong to any part of his Books for tho all that is in them is amiss yet some parts are less amiss than others And is roving about Political projects are certainly less amiss than his plain and impudent Falsehoods XX. I had accused Mr. Varillas for saying that all England witout excepting any one person professed the same Religion under Henry the Seventh and I shewed him that the putting this so generally must be false since in the second year of Henry the Eighth's reign there were a great many condemned of Heresy he pretends to excuse this since the Spaniards boast that Heresy never past the Pyrenees tho many have suffered in the Inquisition for it But if any Spaniard had said that there was never so much as one Heretick in Spain I should have told him that he did not write exactly and because I press this no further than to shew by it that Mr. Varillas is a careless Writer and am willing to let it pass with a gentle censure because I had greater things to lay to his charge he according to his usual sincerity pretends that I acknowledged the weakness of the Objection and abandoned it XXI He pretends that I accuse him falsly for denying the consummation of P. Arthur's Marriage whereas he says he determined nothing positively concerning P. Arthur's Impotence But that was never the Question for it was never brought under debate whether he was impotent or not and that for which I had chiefly accused Mr. Varillas was that he affirmed that P. Arthur was then sick and not yet recovered out of a great disease this is all Fiction and is disproved by Witnesses upon Oath but he says not a word to justify this 2. Here the pretends to tell at what pains he was to examin the Affairs of England that he thought the English and Germans of both Religions might be too partial that the Italians were too short that Ribadeneira might be suspected because of his Orders and therefore he thought Florimond de Raimond the best Author to depend upon But if he had read Sanders alone he would have found that both his Florimond and his Ribadeneira was nothing but Sanders over and over again 3. He accuses me for making him say that P. Arthur died Seven moneths after the Marriage whereas he had said Five moneths But in my English it was five moneths so he has no reason to blame me for this since I am not bound to answer for a Translation and tho this was a good and exact Translation in which my meaning was not mistaken as it has been too often in a Translation of a late Book of my Letters concerning Italy yet so small a mistake was no great matter and in a thing of this nature Mr. Varillas ought to have got some who understand English to examin my Book in the Language in which I writ before he had aecused me of having put seven for five on design to deceive my Readers 4. He justifyes his false Citation of the Bull by the most exact of all those who have continued Baronius in whom the words he had cited are to be found But why then did he cite the third Tome of the Bullarium on his Margin and why did he not name this Writer and the place of his Book for such a way of citing especially in Mr. Varillas is very suspicious and if that Author does not set down the Bull it self but only delivers these words as his sense of them then this was like the rest of Mr. Varillas's Citations to give this on the Margin as drawn out of the Bull. 5. He pretends that there is no material difference between his Citation and mine But as it was enough for me to shew that the words he cited were not in the Bull so tho Mr. Varillas boasts in another place how much he has studied the Law yet I must take the Liberty to tell him that he has lost his time extreamly while he pursued that Study if he does not know a difference between a Confirmatory Clause which may have passed with less observation and what is set forth in a Preamble which being the ground upon which the grace is granted and set at the head of the Bull is of much more importance and was probably much better considered than any general Clause XXII He accuses me for having said That Henry the Eighth was educated as his Brother had been who knew only Latin and some general Elements of Learning and tells me how learned King Henry was It appears by my words that I spake only of his first Education and not of the Improvements that followed 2. He seems mightily concerned for the Memory of King Henry the Seventh as if by this affected Zeal he would make some reparations to the Royal Family for the Injuries he has endeavoured to do them but I will be so plain as to tell him roundly that Henry the Seventh weakned the Rights of the Crown of England more than any that ever reigned in it He knew that he could not found his Title on his Descent from the House of Lancaster for then he could never have been more than Prince of Wales since his Mother by whom he had that pretension out-lived him a year and he would not hold the Crown by his Queens Title for then the Right must have been in her and have passed from her to her Children upon her death or to her Sister if she hapned to dye without issue therefore he who would not hold the Crown upon such a doubtful tenure made that dangerous Law that whosoever is in possession of the Crown is to be acknowledged as the Legal King And if King Henry the Seventh had been so Wife a King as some Flatterers have made him he would never have suffered the Dutchy of Bretagne to have fallen in to the Crown of France it having been always considered that the preserving that in a separated Principality was one of the most indispensible Maxims of the English Policy yet he tho he made use of this as a pretence to ask Money of his Parliament to oppose it no sooner had the Money than he gave way to it for which it was believed that he had Money from France 3. He denies that learning wâ—s then esteemed among Princes and says that the Cardinal of Lorrain was the first Prince that valued himself upon his Learning But is it not known that Francis the First valued himself upon the protection that he gave to Learning and the Glory of the Houses of Est and Medici was not a little encreased by the care they took of learned men of which I could convince Mr. Varillas by his own Anecdotes if I were not ashamed to cite so bad an Author XXIII He reproaches me for my insupportable Ignorance in not knowing the difference between the Council and the Parliament of England and in great
been ever so nobly born The Dowager of France that was King Henry's Sister had none of those considerations for hiding her Marriage with Brandon and the other Sister the Queen Dowager of Scotland had no reason at all to hide her Marriage for she made it to secure her in the Government Dowglas Earl of Angus being then the greatest Subject in the Nation so the keeping this Marriage with Tudor secret does not at all prove that He was no Gentleman 6. But Mr. Varillas does not pretend to answer the main thing that I laid to his charge which was that he speaks of the Tudor that married into the Family of the Plantagenets as a mean man when he was the Kings uterine Brother so that I shewed that when he writ his History he knew nothing of that Marriage since it is not to be imagined that any man who knew it could pretend to reckon up the Race of the Tudors without mentioning its chief Dignity 7. If I had thought so slight a fault which Mr. Varillas magnifies so much in me of calling a Great-grand-mother a Grand-mother worth mentioning here I have proved him guilty of it for he calls the Tudor that married the Plantagenet Great-grand-father to King Henry the VIII whereas he was only his Grand-father 8. He tells us in his Justifying the Succession of Bastards that the Rank of the King's Bastard was much higher than Owen Tudors was but tho the French have so far flattered the Lewdness of their Kings as to esteem their Bastards Princes born yet in England they have no Rank at all till the King gives them a Title and then their Rank is only according to the degree and the date of their Creation VI. He confess here the very words that I cited out of him and yet he pretends that I had accused him falsely But that he may have some colour for this he charges on me words that are not in my Reflections He had said The four principal Cantons had suffered themselves to be seduced in less than a year whereas this was ten years work and now he thinks to save this by saying that a great part was abused in less than a year but even this belonged only to Zurich whereas he had said that the four Cantons suffered themselves to be seduced besides that what he speaks thus of the Cantons in general cannot be meant of some Individuals but must be understood of the Magistracy and yet now he confesses that they were ten years a considering this matter before it was generally received by the Government to whom only the name of the Cantons belongs and as the Bigness of the Town of Basil does not hinder its being one of the little Cantons so the pensions that France might pay an Age ago to Schaffhouse will never change its rank among them nor does he say a word to justify his Mustring up of the seven Popish Cantons among the small ones or his raising Appensel and Glaris to be among the middlesised VII Here he remembers me of my Fault of having said That his way of writing wanted none of the Beauties of History except that of Truth which he thus repeats according to his ordinary sincerity that I my self had avowed that he wanted none of the Qualities proper for writing History without putting in my exception of that of truth that even by this citation he might justify my accusing him of want of truth but he tells us that by his Copyers fault his Preface to his third Book was lost so he was forced to make that up the best he could and then he comforts himself with his meditation that the Books of Authors are subject to Fortune as well as other human things but I was not bound to know the secrets that past between him and his Copyer no more than I am bound now to believe what he says of it The Books of Authors are subject to Fortune for by a great chance his were once in some esteem but as we say of the Dead that they are beyond the reach of Fortune so his Books very likely may be soon exempted from Fortune in that sense In short he seems to confess that the Preamble he sets before Luthers affair is Impertinent and I said no more of it VIII He gives me an Advice how I should have begun my History With the Indignation that the English Nation had to the Papacy ever since King John had subjected his Crown to the Holy See and had established the Peterpence that this was encreased because a Pope had made them lose Guienne by binding one of their Kings to levy the tenths on the Church Lands that King Henry the Eighth's lewdness gave him a great byas to schism which he pursues in a full career and repeats those Absurd Calumnies concerning Anne Bullen which I had to copiously refuted and at last he adds That King Henry raised mean persons to great Imployments that these by the Laws and Government of England could not enrich themselves but moderatly and in many years and therefore since they resolved they would be rich all of the sudden they saw they must do it at the Churches cost I do not wonder that Mr. Varillas should advise me to have made up a Preface in this manner that so I might write in his own way but I think I have sufficiently convinced him that I have not such an esteem of him as to be much inclined to follow his Councel 1. It was King Ina and not King John that setled the Peter-pence 2. K. John's Action was a personal Baseness in him which did not at all affect the Kingdom so that there was scarce any notice taken of that meanness of his unless it was to make him that was guilty of it contemptible for a King of England can neither alienate nor subject his Crown to any forreign power 3. What he says of Guienne seems to be one of his Discoveries for it is not mentioned by any of our Historians that I know of 4. At the time that Guienne was lost the Popes by residding at Avignon and being considered as in the power of France had so little credit in England that as there were many Laws made all that while against the Papal Pretensions so a Bull at that time could not have been so much as executed in England without the Kings leave much less could it have obstructed the Subsidies levied upon the Clergy 5. He understands the Interest of England as little as he does other things that fancies the Nation was much troubled for the loss of Guienne which lay at so great a distance and was defended at so vast a charge that the Nation that received no profit by it in an Age in which there was little trade was glad of getting out of this necessity of giving the King so many Subsidies If he had apply'd that which he says of Guienne to Normandy it had been more pertinent but Mr. Varillas is as
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
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
charity he explains it to me and so he says that I confound what he had said of the Council of England with the Parliament 1. If I were ignorant of this my Ignorance were indeed insupportable or which is all one it were as great as his own 2. But tho he speaks indeed of the Council yet when he had the confidence to cite on the Margin the Petition of the Parliament to the Pope I had reason to discover something else which is in him that is yet more insupportable than Ignorance and to prove his forging of Authorities by shewing that the Parliament never medled in this matter which I do yet more evidently in my Appendix since no Parliament met at that time 3. He affirms here that the Council of England knew that care was taken that the Marriage with P. Arthur could not be consummated which is another character of that insupportable quality for which I charge him I clearly prove that the Privy Councellors knew there was no such matter since they deposed the contrary upon Oath 4 But at last he betakes himself to his Florimond and there I leave him in Company like himself XIV He accuses me of an irreparable Injury that I have done the Memory of Henry the Seventh in taxing him of Avarice which he says no Historian Protestant or Catholick had done before me This is a good discovery of his acquaintance with our Historians in particular with Chancellor Bacon since that whole reign but chiefly the last year of it was a course of Extortions and as the vast Treasure which he left behind him shewed this so if Mr. Varillas had known Henry the Eighths History he would have seen that the very day he came to the Crown he sent the two chief Instruments of his Fathers Oppressions to Prison and that their Process was made and they were soon after executed So certain it is that Mr. Varillas read no History of that Reign 2. He excuses the Impertinence with which I had taxed him in calling Henry the Eighth Duke of York after his Brothers death by saying he did it to avoid a Galimathias which he thinks had followed if he had called both the Brothers Princes of Wales but having once shewed that by the death of the Elder the Younger became Prince of Wales this had been no more a Galimathias than to call any Successor to a Crown the King which will create no confusion in the Readers mind or if he was too tender in this point he might have distinguished them by their names of Arthur and Henry which was both clearer and shorter XXV He excuses himself here and says he drew from a Letter of the Catholick King 's that which he had asserted of their Apprehensions and adds that Authors are not to be blamed when they write out of good Memoirs But I do not blame him for writing out of good Memoirs but for forging false ones 2. His confidence in putting himself in the Class with Salustius and Tacitus is another of his insupportable Qualities 3. His spending two pages in repeating over again that for which I had charged him as if he had read it in a Letter of the Catholick King 's does not make any man believe this a whit the better If he had told where that Letter was to be found what the date of it was and to whom it was writ and if he had given it in the Language in which it was writ originally then this might have had some appearance of a Proof but he had several very weighty Reasons that kept him from doing this and he hoped that as Downright Impudence was the shortest way so it would be the surest to make him be believed 4. He goes on to justify that of Henry the Sevenths power to alienate the Crown of England by saying that he was a Conquerour and was the Master of the Kingdom as much as William the Conquerour was and so he might dispose of it as he pleased This is a new Theory of Mr. Varillas's that one who pretends to be the right Heir and is so happy as to defeat an Usurper is upon that to be accounted a Conquerour for this was the case both of William the Conquerour and of Henry the Seventh the one pretended a Title from Edward the Confessor and defeated Harold as the other did derive a Title from the House of Lancaster and defeated Richard but neither the one nor the other pretended that the Nation was a Conquest no more than Henry the Ninth of France did when he broke the League 5. He says I needed not tell him that K. Henry the Seventh chused rather to hold the Crown by his Marriage with the Heir of the House of York than by his right of Conquest I told him no such thing for I know it is false since for the Reasons that I formerly named he would never consent to hold the Crown in his Wife 's Right 6. He pretends that I am banished England for having been in the design of the Exclusion of the present King All this is equally false that I was in that design that I was banished the Nation and that it was on that account so his Sentence set in Capitals is only a more evident discovery that he makes of himself which he has done indeed in Capital Letters XXVI He had said somewhat to purpose upon the Article of P. Alexander the sixth if he had given any sort of proof that he had refused to grant the Dispensation for the Marriage XXVII If instead of all the Relations both printed and Manuscripts which he mentions so indefinitly he had cited any one printed Relation of an Author that deserves credit or any Manuscript that may be examined this had deserved an Answer Mr. Varillas had not said as he would have it pais now that Ferdinand only pretended to give his Daughter to the Duke of Calabria but he had affirmed positively that he intended it and yet all the proof he brings for this is that there is no inconvenience in thinking that at some time or other of his life he might have been touched with the Remorse of the Injustice he had done the Duke of Calabria I am not to examin the State of Ferdinands Conscience nor what his secret Remorses might be tho in matters of Injustice his was not very tender But it is a new sort of proof and well becoming our Author who being called on to make good a thing which he had positively affirmed tells us there is no Inconvenience in thinking it true but then I see as little Inconvenience in thinking otherwise it was convenient indeed for Mr. Varillas to have it believed but his Conveniences do not determin me XXVIII He pretends that I had denied that Henry the Eighths Parents thought of Marrying him to Francis the Firsts Sister He tells me It was ordinary in those days to contract Marriages among Children and therefore it was not
inconvenient that the French Ambassador should have proposed that Marriage And whereas I had denyed that the French Ambassadors writ Relations of their Ambassies he mentions some that writ them And whereas I had shewed the Improbability of a design of the Court of France's advancing the Count d'Angolesmes Sister to the Crown of England He tells me that Lewis the twelfth never intended to cut off his Cousin Francis ' s Right of Succession and that his Sister was of a Rank fit to be a Match to the Heir of the Crown of England and that the Duke of Lorrain married one that was many degrees further from the Crown than Margaret of Valois was And now are not all these good substantial Proofs and as he calls them Discoveries of Errors that are insupportable in me I never deny'd that Henry the Eighth's Parents would not think of this but I lookt upon the whole thing as a Fiction 2. If it was ordinary in those days to contract Children does that prove that this Proposition was ever made 3. Mr. Varillas's new discoverys in Logick makes him now a second time offer to prove a thing because it was not Inconvenient 4. It is no proof that Mr. de Piennes writ a Relation of his Embassy because some others writ their own Memoirs and this was the thing in question so he should have justified that Citation 5. There is a great difference between the not cutting off of Francis's Succession and the raising his Interest by giving him so powerful an Ally In short I denied the Fact and he instead of proving it tells me it was not inconvenient nor a Match below Henry which I had never pretended XXIX He tells mighty things of his performances with Relation to England and says it is but too well known how it comes that these things appear not in his History But if what is lost is of apiece with what appears now the world may wellbear the loss 2. He denys that I have cited any passage of his Book in which he had raised the power of the Parliament above the King 's Tho I told him that in this very place he had said that the Parliament being careful to maintain the Authority which they had over the King obliged him by repeated Remonstrances to marry 3. But if he has said it he will make it good and he tells me that he will cite two Authorities for this which I dare not contradict the one is of King Iames the First who in his Advice to this Son says That the Parliament of England had not always kept its power within its due Limits but had often enlarged it to the prejudice of the Royal Authority to this he adds another long Citation of his that filled a Page indeed but had not one word to prove a Superiority in the Parliament to the King on the contrary it proves that it was a Court assembled by the King for the great Affairs of the Kingdom now tho I will not presume to dispute this Authority yet I will take the Liberty to tell Mr. Varillas that it makes against him for if Parliaments have sometimes gone beyond their Limits and have carried their power to the prejudice of the Kings Authority then by our Laws the Parliament is not Superiour to the King but has its Limits and it exceeds those Limits when it attempts to raise it self above the Kingly power 4. His second Authority is taken from an Italian of Bologna and he sets down in Capitals his words whereas ordinary Letters served for the Citation of King Iames's words but he thought the one did him not such service as the other and therefore he bestowed the Capitals in gratitude to him that did him the best service The Writer of Bologna indeed does say That the Parliament of England has pretended a great Superiority above the King of England As for this Author Count Majolino Bisaccioni I know nothing of him so whether this is one of Mr. Varillas's Inventions or not I will not determin but I cannot imagin why this should be such an Authority that I dare not dispute it It is true the Author is of Bologna where men are easily assassinated yet I do not think that this Count or his Heirs are so spiteful as to send one to the City of Holland according to Mr. Varillas's Geography to Murder me if I contradict this Authority for besides this I cannot imagin what should make me not dare to dispute the Authority of one of Bologna in a matter relating to the Government of England But after the pains our Author has been at to depress the Dignity of the Kings of England and the Capitals that he has bestowed upon it I confess he needs no more deny that he pretends to a Pension from thence 5. In conclusion he cites his Florimond tho he had the confidence to cite on the Margin the Articles of the Parliament 1509. but now he runs to his Author but tho he has done himself the Honour as to say he is his Eccho yet I never heard of Eccho's that repeated more than had been said some repeat over and over again but none add yet Mr. Varillas who cited Florimond to prove that the Parliament had obliged the King by reiterated Remonstrances to marry the Infanta finds neither these Remonstrances nor the Parliament in the Citation that he gives us out of him for he says only that the Princes the Lords the Council and the People of England approved of it by their consent and made no Opposition to it XXX For the Kings five Children by Queen Catherine He brings again Florimond who says She bore him three Sons and two Daughters and as if this had been a solid proof Mr. Varillas triumph and says He does not know upon what principle in Arithmetick I reckon if I deny that 2. and 3. make 5. I think I may allow Mr. Varillas so much of Arithmetick as this essay amounts to but I will scarce allow him much more of it or of any thing else XXXI He does indeed give an Author here for that which I thought was his own Invention but still it is no other than Florimond I do confess I read him very carelesly I found Sanders was transcribed by him and that he could not pretend to any good Information but now I see one Writer of Legends refines upon another and as Mr. Varillas adds some few things of his own Store to Florimond so the other had added a great deal to Sanders but his Voucher was an Author of so little credit that I confess I read him so superficially that finding some strokes in Mr. Varillas that were new to me I fancied that he was the Author of them but now I see he has an Author such as he is For what he says concerning Flattery it is to so little purpose that I use him kindly in passing over it XXXII He cites again Florimond for his Garand and
mentioned his coming over from Flushing to Kent while K. Henry was at Calais but now I tell him plainly that I see by his Citation that neither before nor now does he know any thing of the Voyage into England of which I had made mention for this that he speaks of here was in the year 1520. and the Enterview was at Dover and was design'd to hinder the ill effects which the Emperour apprehended from the late enterview that had passed between Henry and Francis that had carried him over to Calais But that which I spake of was two years after this in the year 1522. which passed with more Magnificence for then the Emperour was Install'd Knight of the Garter and contracted to King Henry's Daughter XXXVII Concerning Card. Wolsey he tells me that if I have seen some Manuscripts that never were in his hands he has likewise seen those that have escaped me and he mentions a Letter of Lewis the twelfths in which Wolsey is so excessively commended that it is neither sutable to the dignity of him that writ it nor of him to whom it was writ therefore he supresses many particulars that are in it Mr. Varillas's boasting of the Manuscripts that he has seen is like the Chymists boasting of the Philosophers stone which no body believes a whit the more for that A Letter writ by so good a King as Lewis the twelfth would be better received by the world than all that ever Mr. Varillas can print yet since he pretends to be so good a Courtier he should have thought it enough to say that the strain of that Letter was below the Dignity of him who writ it without adding any thing else of the Dignity of him to whom it was written since unless it was to the K. of England there is scarce any other person whose Dignity ought to be named as in parallel with that Kings And since Wolsey was but just entring upon the ministry when that King died it is not probable that he fell into Raptures upon that subject but Mr. Varillas takes more care of Lewis the twelfths honour in not printing it than he does of his own The rest of this Article is in Citations drawn out of Florimond and out of another much worse Author who is Mr. Varillas himself XXXVIII I had printed some Original Letters to discover his mistake concerning Wolsey and he in opposition to that cites what his Florimond had said eighty years before him as if a Falshood by a prescription of 80. years could become true he adds that the proof that I had given to the contrary it not convincing The point in question is whether Cardinal Wolsey knew of the King's design to marry Anne Bullen now I had printed two of her Letters to the Cardinal in one of which there is a Postscript writ by King Henry's hand that speaks plainly of the thing they were both written while Card. Campege was on his Journey any man besides Mr. Varillas would think this is a convincing proof and whereas I had accused him for citing on the Margin Charles the fifth's Letter to Wolsey he justifies this out of Florimond if he had cited these as from him I confess this would have justified him but since he cited them without any such qualification he shews us how little credit is due to his Quotations I had called Charles the fifths coming to England in person The most important Circumstance in all this affair and this he according to his ordinary sincerity turns as if I had said that the secret of the Reformation consisted in that Voyage I was speaking of the Pretenders to King Henry's Daughter and had not so much as the Reformation in view so the affair upon which I was being the disposal of Queen Mary had reason to say that the most Important Circumstance of it was the Emperours coming in person and contracting himself to her The raillery that follows here is another proof that Mr. Varillas is equally happy both in Iest and Earnest If I were to make my Court to the Spaniards I must be as Ignorant as Mr. Varillas is if I think to do it effectually by representing Charles the fifth as having advanced the Reformation XXXIX He meets me here again with another long Citation of Florimond which always goes for nothing with me After which he says somewhat himself that is next to nothing I had told him That the new Treaty that King Francis had made with Henry for his Daughter in an alternative between Francis and his second Son was somewhat extraordinary and if he had known it it would have furnished him matter for his embelishments But to all this he says he could not imagin how Francis that was engaged by the Treaty of Madrid to marry Charles the fifths Sister could court the Princess of England for himself or his second Son Since he was a Prince that valued himself extreamly on the keeping of his word But the Treaty of Madrid was so ill executed by Francis that there is no part of his life to which his Exactness to his word ought to be less applied than to this yet in this he might have observed both Treatys for since the Match with England was agreed in an alternative between him and his Son it being left to himself to declare which of them should have her it was easy for him to observe both these Treatys by declaring that the Duke of Orleans should marry Henry's Daughter and here our Author shews his Judgment in setting such Conjectures as his are against matters so Authentically proved as this is XL. A new Justification from Florimond comes here again with this Preface that if he is deceived it is after Florimond but whose fault it is that he believed him and copied him notwithstanding all the noise he makes with his Manuscripts He adds two of my Expressions and fancies that there is a Contradiction in them That in this he differs from Sanders tho he copies him ordinarly for he says If he invents matters he does not copy him and if he copies him he does not invent But may he not Copy Sanders for the greatest part and yet now and then invent a little without any Contradiction There is a terrible charge against me in the Conclusion of this Article In my English by a fault of the Printer the year 1529. was put instead of the year 1524. and was marked in the Errata now the Translator went on with the error that he found in my Book and so the year 29. being wrong put he triumps but since he pretends to answer me he ought to have examined my English and to have compared the Errata So his accusing me of Impudence falls back on himself XLI All that he says to this Article is that he had writ it after Florimond and to prove this he gives me a Citation of fix Pages and a half long out of him And is not this an