reformation, in the beginning of king Henry's reign, before ever Luther had preached in Germany, and several years before that king's divorce came to be treated of in England. I therefore judged it was necessary for me to let the reader know what I found in our registers of those matters; how that many were tried, and some condemned upon those opinions, that were afterwards reckoned among the chief grounds of our separating from the church of Rome. It seemed a necessary introduction to my work, to open this as I found it upon record. My censurer blames me for not opening more copiously what the opinions of the Lollards and the Wicklifists were: he may see in these articles that I mention what the clergy were then charging them with, and what was confessed by those who were brought into their courts. I wrote in English for my own countrymen. There are many books that give a very particular account of Wickliff and his followers: this being so well known, it was not necessary for me to run this matter up to its original; all that was incumbent on me, was to shew the present state of that party, and their opinions and sufferings in the beginning of the reign of king Henry: so that a fair judge will not think that a few pages spent in opening this was too great an imposition on his patience; this having such a relation to my main design in writing. It is he, and not I, that has transgressed Polybius's rule: he considers these particulars as little stories, without observing the end for which I set them down; though I have made that appear so plainly, that I have more reason to complain of his sincerity than of his judgment.

His next exception is, that I give abstracts of the reasons on which the proceedings in the reformation were grounded. He thinks that in this I plead as an advocate, and do not write as an historian. I do believe there are few things in my History with which he is more displeased than this. I give no reasons of my own making, nor do I put speeches in the mouths of our reformers; though if I had done this, he knows that I could have said that I followed the precedents set me by the best writers of history, both among

the Greeks and the Romans. But since I was engaged to write of a reformation of errors in doctrine, and of abuses in worship and government, I must have been very defective, if I had not set out the reasons upon which those of that time went, as well as I related the series of what was done by them. Both father Paul, and cardinal Palavicini, in the histories that they wrote of the council of Trent, have related the arguments used of all sides very copiously. In political matters, the chief use and beauty of history is the laying open the secret reasons of state upon which all parties have proceeded: and certainly those who write concerning matters of religion, ought to open all that comes in their way of the grounds on which any changes were made.

He thinks all the king's reasonings for the divorce were fully answered by queen Catherine's reasons against it: but he does not consider that he is in a communion, in which tradition is set up, as that which must decide all controversies. King Henry's arguments run all upon tradition; whereas the queen pretended to no tradition, but only brought arguments of another sort, which was the way of those called heretics: but in that matter the king insisted upon tradition, the great topic of papists. He censures me for bringing a Jew on the stage after I had set out the opinions of the universities: but it seemed very reasonable to shew the notions that the Jews had of their own laws.

He returns again to reflections on the divorce of Anne of Cleve. It seems he had few things to reflect on, when in so short a paper he returns twice to the same matter. From her he passes to Anne Bullen: he fancies my whole design in writing was to establish her descent; but that I do not acquit her mother of the imputations Sanders had laid on her; nor herself of the amours in the court of France, and king Henry's ill commerce with her. If the crown of England had remained in a line derived from that queen, it might be supposed that some would have wrote on such a design but that not being the case, there is little reason to think that any man would have given himself the trouble, only on design to justify her title to the crown. I have

made it fully out that a great part of Sanders's charge on her was an ill invented calumny, to bring her right to the crown in question; and, by proving some part of his relation to be false, I have destroyed the credit of the whole. I cannot be obliged to prove the negative in every particular, the proof lies upon the affirmative; and the author of a train of defamation is sufficiently disproved, when it is apparent that some parts of his relation must certainly be false. If any of these slanders had been in any sort believed in that time, there is no reason to think that the pope or the emperor would have published them: for the court of Rome kept none of the measures of common decency with the king. Nor were these things objected to Anne Bullen after that her unhappy fate gave some colour to believe every thing to her prejudice. Her brother and she did both at their death deny all criminal commerce together: nor was any thing proved against them, only the testimony of a dead woman was alleged to destroy them.

His last charge relates to More and Fisher; but how this comes to support his censure of my manner of writing is not so clear. I seem in these matters to write like one that intended to raise their character, rather than to depress it nor do I justify king Henry's violences, but set them out as there is occasion for it. More knew a law was made, requiring the subjects to swear to the king as supreme head, under the pain of perpetual imprisonment; upon which he ought to have gone out of England, since he resolved not to take the oath. Fisher knew that the Nun of Canterbury had in very indecent words foretold the king's death, and had not revealed it, as he ought to have done.

He says my History reflects much on the memory of king Henry. I did not undertake to write a panegyric on him, but only to write the history of that time: in doing this, as I have discovered the injustice of many scandals that have been cast on him, so I have not spared to lay open many ill practices, when I was obliged to do it, by that impartial sincerity to which I obliged myself when I undertook that work though he charges me as biassed by partiality;

a censure I deserved not. But I do more easily submit to his charging me with my ignorance of law, and of ecclesiastical antiquity. Such general censures are little to be regarded: when he is at leisure to reckon up the particulars in which I have erred, I shall be very glad to be instructed by him. For though I have looked a little into law and ecclesiastical history, yet I value myself upon nothing but my sincerity. It is very easy to lay a detracting character in some general words upon any person. The artifice is so commonly practised, that it will not pass upon any, but those who by some prejudices are prepared to take down every thing that is boldly asserted. It seems that how great a mind soever he had to find fault, he could not find much matter for his spleen to work on, when in so short a paper he is forced to return in three several places to the article of the divorce of Anne of Cleve: and he shews such an inclination to censure, that I have no reason to think he would have spared me, if he had found greater matters to have objected to me. So all he says that seems to intimate that, must pass for words of course, which ought to make no impression.

Number 4.

Corrections of the two volumes of the History of the Reformation.

VOL. I. edit. 2.

P. 8. 1. 1. the emperor broke his word,-the cardinal dissembled his resentments, &c.] I have seen a collection of this cardinal's letters; and amongst them, the same letter (I suppose) that is here quoted: wherein he presses the emperor's, and the king his master's, interest with great zeal; and solicits the new elected pope to join with them against the French; and that in such a manner, as seems to leave no room for dissimulation. To the same purpose in the following letter. Collect. MS. p. 27, 43.

P. 37. 1. 16. the king sent-the bishop of Rochester, &c. to sit in that council.] The bishop of Rochester, &c. was in

tended to be sent this year, and again an. 1513-14: but his journey was stopped; as appears both by his own account of this matter, and by a MS. Latin Life I have of this bishop, and otherwise.

P. 45. 1. 2. These houses being thus suppressed by the law, they belonged to the king.] This seems not to agree with what is said p. 523 of this volume.

P. 52. 1. 11. W. Sautre-burnt by writ de hæretico comb.-upon what grounds of law I cannot tell.] Nor will I pretend to say: but from Fitzherbert it seems to appear, that this writ issued before this act of parliament passed; [Fox places Sautre's death anno 1400.] and that the custom for the writ had been formerly so. De Natura Brevium, p. 269.

Ibid. 1. 17. relating to the customs beyond sea.] From the same Fitzherbert, it appears pretty plain this was the customary punishment in England: who quotes Breton, cap. 17. (cap. 9. it should be) "Heretikes sert auxi com"burs et arces, et appiert per ceo Liver, que ceo est le "Comen Ley. Quod vide in Breton, c. 17." Who lived many years before.

P. 63. marg. the king writes against Luther.] No doubt this book was wrote by the king, as other books were, under his name; that is, by his bishops, or other learned men. Sir Thomas More (who must have known the authors) gives this account of it in his MS. Life by Roper: "That after it "was finished by his grace's appointment, and consent of "the makers of the same, I was only a sorter out, and "placer of the principal matters therein contained." So it seems others were makers, and sir Thomas More only a sorter. By the style, it was guessed by some to be wrote by Erasmus; and he (in mirth I suppose) owns the king might have hit upon his style, several letters having passed between them.

P. 74. 1. 15. made Longland, bishop of Lincoln, possess the king's mind in confession.] In a MS. Life of sir Thomas More, wrote not many years after Longland's death, this account is given. "I have heard Dr. Draycot, that was his