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
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
unanswerable thing that deserves well to be set in Opposition to Original Papers XLII Here comes Florimond again but because I had mentioned the Pictures of Anne Bullen which shew that what was said of her person was false he tells me that Painters and Poets have always taken liberties and because his good Judgment made him fancy that this wanted a proof he gives me two storys to make it good But after all a Painter is as well to be believed as a Poet at any time So I may set Hans Holben that was a very good Painter against two such ill Poets as Florimond and Mr. Varillas the first saw her and the others only heard of her so they copied whereas he drew to the life XLIII Here again comes Florimond as his Garend for four Pages and he thought it was necessary to produce him since here as almost every where else I accuse him of a want of Sincerity but I will never give over this Accusation till he produce those Manuscripts out of which he pretends to have drawn his History XLIV After I had refuted Sanders he tells me this does not touch him who had not made use of him but if Florimond does in these Lines copy Sanders then by refuting him I refute all that Copy from him whether it be at first or second hand Mr. Varillas's saying that Cardinal Pool is the Writer of all the Catholicks that has blackned Henry the least shews how carelesly he has read him or how boldly he cites him Pool compares Henry to the wickedest Princes in History and makes a War against him to be more meritorious than against Infidels I had said that the Calumnies by which Anne Bullen was defamed not being objected to her upon her fall this shews that they were not thought on in that Age to this he answers That this shews the Moderation of the Catholicks but the not mentioning such things in History had been a vicious Moderation and indeed their Writers of that Age were as seldom guilty of any excess on that hand as he himself is in this He says also that it was needless to speak of the former Scandals of her Life after she was convicted to Adultery and Incest with her own Brother But when both she and her Brother died denying this and that it was generally thought she suffered injustly then former Scandals should have been alledged to make the Justice of her Sentence appear the more evidently therefore the silence of the Writers of that time and upon that occasion is still a good Negative Argument but he turns this matter upon me with some shew of Reason and says That since none writ a justification of Anne Bullen neither then nor afterwards this is a just prejudice against her But the Unfortunate have seldom pens imployed for their Honour and in Queen Elisabeth's time it was thought below the Dignity of the Daughter to examin too critically all the Reports that malicious Writers had set on foot against the Mother For if any impudent man would question the Birth and Descent of a Crowned Head severer tools than Refutations are thought the properest ways of answering them He then tells me why should I be believed more than the Catholick Writers But I ask not to be believed on my own word but I have shewed the Impossibility of the story that Sanders and our Author from him at second hand had contrived of Anne Bullen for what is impossible can never be true by my Logick but our Author shews how little he ought to be believed upon his Word for I having given for a proof of Anne Bullens good Reputation this that she served Claude Queen of France which he had set down truly in one page but in the very next page being to repeat and examin this he turns it as if I had made her serving Lewis the twelfths second Queen a proof of her vertue I knew the vertues of Queen Claude were as sublime as the others were questioned therefore I had made her serving the one as an evidence of the good esteem in which she was and this he would turn aside in a way very lime himself and wheras he had mentioned English Authors in the Plural and had set only Sanders on the Margin I had reason to ask if he could make a plural out of him as he had done out of Charles the fifth he tells me he had cited Florimond de Raimond but I do not yet find another to justify the plural of the English for whatever Title the King of England may have to Guienne so that Florimond may be reckoned in some sort among his Subjects yet all this does not put him among the English Authors so the Sanders is still all that we have for the plural and all the Histories that have appeared since his time by the Writers of that Communion are nothing but he over and over again in different languages and a little differently drest XLV He had cited a Petition to P. Clement the 7. for which I had accused him of forgery and had told him that he shewed his ignorance since tho the matter for which he invented it is mentioned by Card. Pool yet he was not so well Informed as to cite him now he alledges Florimond as his Garand for that citation whose authority is of so little credit and yet he has the confidence to think that was a more formal proof than if he had cited Cardinal Pool as if an Author that writ 80. years after those matters were to be put in competition with Cardinal Pool who lived and writ in that time he tells me he had Cardinaal Pools book before his eyes while he was writing but by this way of writing it seems he did not open him and his lying shut before him could not Inform him much when a Petition was cited and brought in question no body besides Mr. Varillas would have called the citing of an Author that lived about 80. year after the going to the source for it XLVI He gives me a notable proof of the credit due to Florimond in the matters relating to the Bishop of Tarbes because he had greatengagements with that Bishops heirs so that it is very probable that they communicated to him that Prelate's Papers And are not these very convincing Proofs Sometines a thing is to be believed because it is not Inconvenient at another time because it is probable but when he comes to answer the Reason I had given to demonstrate all this story to be false which was that it is not to be imagined that when that Bishop came to end the marriage of his Masters Son with the Heir of the Crowen of England that he I say could have been prevailed on to let that go and to set on a new Negotiation for Henry's marrying Francis's sister He sayes that Wolsey cheated the Bishop and made him believe that the other marriage was sure notwithstanding this new
Proposition This is to make him resolve to accept the Marriage of one that was to be declared a Bastard by the Divorce and yet he act knowledged before that the King of Scotland would never ask her after that But now he makes an Ambassadour of France lesse sensible of this point of Honour and content to have both these Marriages made at once But besides all this the great advantage of Marrying the Daughter of England was because she was the Heir of the Crown so then if the Bishop of Tarbes would have concurred to help the King to another Marriage by which that Succession might have been cut off from Mary we must conclude him to be as fit a man for Negotiations as Mr. Varillas is for Histories or Panegyricks but he must be pardoned if he cannot alwayes carry up his Fictions to a probability All that he adds of the General powers given to Ambassadours upon which they depart sometimes from all their Instructions and act contrary to them has nothing to do here in a matter of such vast consequence especially when a few dayes delay could have procured him positive Instructions upon any new propositions that might be made him XLVII I had cited his words concerning Cardinal Wolsey exactly and he repeats my quotation wrong that he might give himself a colour to reproach me Then he gives me a long Citation out of Florimond and sends his Reader back to another that is much longer and so he thinks all is well proved XLVIII He argues against a positive Instrument and thinks that some of the Probabilities that he offers and Florimond's Testimony ought to overthrow the plain Proof of a Matter of Fact XLIX He opposes to what I had said concerning Sr. Thomas Wiat his constant Voucher Florimond and then he runs out in his way to argue upon this Foundation of the Truth of that Testimony But instead of pursuing him in such trifling stuff I will here add a more importance Discovery of the Falsehood of all this matter by an Original Paper which fell into my hands since I writ my History but was not in my power when I writ my Reflections on Mr. Varillas yet it comes in here properly enough It is a long account that Sr. Thomas Wiats Son writ of that matter as soon as Sander's Book appeared He says it was never so much as spoken of before that time that his Father was Squire of the Body to King Henry all the while that that Marriage with Anne Bullen lasted and for many years after and yet neither did he in discretion retire out of the Court nor did the King seem jealous nor the Queen offended at him and he shews further the Improbability of the Fiction for upon her fall it was very probable that as Queen Catherine Howards ill life as well before as after her Marriage was examined when she was condemned so the like method would have been observed towards Anne Bullen if there had been any room for it and as to Anne Bullen he says that her Tryal was managed secretly in the Tower and that the Evidence upon which it was pretended that she was condemned was kept so secret among the Peers that tried her that it was never certainly known some of the Lords confessed afterwards that her Defence had cleared her entirely and to all this he adds one remarkable particular that there was none of all her Ladies brought to swear any thing against her now it is certain that no Queen especially in such a Court as that of England was then the Household being the greatest in Christendom could be guilty of so many disorders as were laid to her charge without taking some Woman into the Confidence and yet none were either accused of it or brought to Witness it He adds that his Father was afterwards Ambassadour for several years in Charles the Fifth's Court where he conceived that aversion to the Spaniards and to their Councils that this threw him into the Rebellion that he raised against Queen Mary when she was treating about the Spanish Match for I must here warn the Reader that Mr. Varillas transforms this Wiat into Haviet and makes a long story of him elsewhere In Conclusion a man must be as ignorant of our Affairs as Mr. Varillas is not to know that a Privy Councillor thinks an Ambassy no disgrace but on the contrary a preferment to him and those who know that by the forms of our Court no Officer has a more free and frequent Access to the King's person than the Squire of the Body tho he is but one of the second Rank in the Household will see how ridiculous a contrivance all this story is of Wiats having corrupted Anna Bullen and his revealing it to the Privy Council and their imploying the Duke of Suffolk to acquaint the King with it who was so far from believing it that he would not accept the conviction that Wiat offered to his own eye sight but on the contrary disgraced him for it L. Here is a new long citation of his Garand but at the end of it our Author seems not to comprehend how More could be for the Divorce without being for the Schism and thinks the distinction is a little too Metaphisical but the difficulty of apprehending this must lie in Mr. Varillas's dulness since there is nothing easier to be understood than that More thought there was just reason to move the Pope to annul a Marriage that had been made by vertue of a Papal Bull and yet tho More would have approved of the Divorce if it had been obtained in that manner he did not like K. Henry's doing it by the Authority of his own Clergy and his separating from the Court of Rome upon it More 's works make a huge thick Volum in Folio and were printed in Queen Mary's time by her positive Order nd so great a Book while Printing was yet so low as it was then in England could not be so easily carried thro the Press without some particular Assistance from the Court All that understand English will see that I have cited his Letters true and Mr. Varillas's Reasons against this is arguing against a plain Matter of Fact which can make no Impression upon any mans spirit unless it be to shew the Impertinence of him that undertakes it After this there comes another Impertinence of a Citation of five Pages out of Florimond LI. Before I examin what he says concerning Cajetan I will state the Matter in short He had given a long Abstract of Reasons which he had pretended to have drawn out of Cajetan's Consultation that had no appearance of truth in them such as that of the blocking up of Constantinople the avoiding to Mary in Houses suspect of Heresy with several other Follys I upon that concluded this must be as true as his other Quotations were so I searcht for Cajetans Works not having then by me those Extracts that I
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