ADVERTISEMENT

PREFIXED BY THE AUTHOR TO AN EDITION OF THE
LIFE OF WICLIF, BEARING DATE MDCCXXIII.

In my Preface to this History of the Life of Dr. John

Varillas.

Wiclif I took notice of the late translation of Varilla's History of Heresy into English with the feigned title of The pretended Reformers; and of the Preface to it, which I call a confused mass of ignorance and scurrility. This I thought I had reason to do, not only to shew the English reader how much he was imposed on, but to caution my countrymen against giving any countenance to that spirit of bigotry which some men among us are so zealous to restore. It is a very just character which the late learned and ingenious civilian Dr. William King gives of Mr. Va- Reflections rillas: Above the rest, says he, Mr. Varillas has used his upon Mr. pen with such a partial extravagance, and with so little regard to modesty and truth, that he has not only provoked the learned of the reformed profession to chastise his impudence in their public writings, but has also drawn upon him the scorn and indignation of several gentlemen of his own communion; who in a sense of honour and common ingenuity, have taken some pains to lay open the smooth impostor. Thus did this ingenious author write in 1688. Nor did he only assert, but prove. And could any body now think that in about thirty years both times and men should be so much changed, as that what was before reckoned a vile piece of impudence and imposture, should be caressed and admired as a desirable work, and the author of it recommended as a candid and impartial historian? And yet thus are this romance and the author of

b

it described by Mr. Prefacer. I will venture to say, says he, this author, viz. Varillas, has made no small progress in such a desirable work, viz. representing the bigoted Papist on the one hand, and the latitudinarian Protestant on the other, in their proper colours, with more candour than those can justly boast of, who fondly call themselves impartial historians.

My thus detecting the fraud and exposing the imposture of the translator, (whom, I confess, I took to be the same with the writer of the Preface,) has, it seems, exceedingly provoked Mr. Prefacer; insomuch that in the Weekly Journal of October 28, 1721, (a paper fit for such a rude advertisement,) I am threatened by him with a serious whipping hereafter, and in the mean time have what he calls a short correction given me: short indeed in this respect, that it entirely misses its aim.

Instead of shewing that I accused him wrongfully in calling his Preface a mass of ignorance and scurrility, which I still think it to be, he goes about to shew the falsehood of what I never charged him with, and about which he says not one word in all his Preface. But what other could I expect from a man so ignorant and forgetful, as not to know that the late Archbishop of Canterbury was dead several years before I published Dr. Wiclif's life, and accordingly to represent me as persuading the world his Grace had a veneration for the memory of Wiclif, when I have not said one word of his Grace?

But, notwithstanding, this pretended history and lying advertisement is gravely referred to in a marginal note by Pref. Johan. a Thomas Hearne: who confirms the calumny, by confiScotichr. dently asserting, that Dr. Wiclif was indeed a rebel, and an impious man; which he goes about to prove by giving us out of his collections an extract from a book (which he calls a very rare one, and says it contains nine sheets, i. e. eight sheets and a half) entitled, The uncasing of Heresy, or the Anatomy of Protestancy, written and composed by M. O. cum Licentia Superiorum. But if I may trust to my copy, which is said to have been printed anno DCXXIII, for 1623, it was written and composed by O. A. who had the confidence to dedicate it To the Right Worshipful Doctors; to the Worshipful Masters; and to the worthy Students of the University of Oxford. Of what credit this author is, whom Mr. Hearne is pleased to make use of as a voucher to abuse the memory of that worthy confessor Dr. Wiclif, may be concluded from hence; that he tells his readers, that the chief Doctors of Protestancy teach a plurality of Gods; that Christ is not omnipotent, nor able to do many things; and that he cannot be adored without idolatry: that he was subject to ignorance and vicious affections: that God does not only permit, but force men to sin; and that howsoever God affirms that he would have all men saved, yet he never meant so.

Who will now wonder at any thing said by this Rabshakeh? And indeed his account of Dr. Wiclif is as false and full of forgery as what he has here said of the Protestant Divines. Not to mention his servile following of others, and licking up their vomit, in direct contradiction to all others; he condemns Dr. Wiclif for allowing that p. 25. all oaths are lawful which are used to confirm bargains and contracts. He has likewise the forehead to tell us, that Matthew Hoe, Pantaleon, Vadianus Zuinglianus, all famous Protestants, repute him for a heretic; and others, viz. Fox, Stow, Melancthon, for a traitor. Mr. Hearne, as living in Oxford, has an opportunity of seeing with his own eyes whether these things are so. As for me, I have been assured by a learned man of that famous University, who, at the commands of a Right Reverend Prelate, searched those books for me, that in Joach. Vab Henry Pantaleon.

• Joachimus Vadianus.

De Disputat. Theol.

dianus, and Henry Pantaleon, there occurred nothing to this purpose! That Matth. Hoe's words are as follows:

Quoties maximi momenti hæresis Ariana in scenam disInstituend. putationis profertur? Quoties Aetiani, Eunomiani, Ano

p. 26, 27.

Collier's

mæi, Macedoniani, &c. -producuntur? Mox Priscillianistæ, crebro Pelagianimemorantur. Ab illis Heluidiani-recensentur: ne dicam de nostrorum temporum sectis, de Wiclefianis, Hussitis, Anabaptistis, Iconomachis, Flacianis, Calvinianis, Sacramentariis, Stenekfeldianis, Papistis, Jesuitis, aliisque monstrosissimis Monstris, quorum continua et perpetua in disputationibus fieri solet mentio. John Fox is so far from reputing Wiclif a traitor, that he vindicates him from that calumny.

None of our historians that I have seen accuse Wiclif of rebellion, or represent him as a traitor. On the contrary, it is well known that he was a learned and stout defender

of the Regale, and that there is not the least proof of his Eccles. His- holding any correspondence, or being at all concerned with tory, vol. i. p. 572. coll. those rebels which gave so much disturbance to the go

The learned Melancthon indeed says of Wiclif, that de dominio civili sophistice et plane seditiose rixatur : but this seems somewhat different from reputing him a traitor. The late writer of Chaucer's life is more just to the memory of this learned and useful man. "As soon as this re"bellion, viz. of Straw, Tyler, Littester, &c. was somewhat "abated, the Parliament began to inquire into the cause "of it: nor were there wanting enemies of Wiclif who "charged him and his followers with being the encou"ragers of it: but that is unlikely to be true; for had the " rebels been Wiclif's friends, they would never have burnt "the Savoy, the palace of his patron the Duke of Lan"caster." To the same purpose the learned Bishop AnAd C. Bel- drews. Calumnia est de Wiclefo. Wiclefo enim hæc (ut et aliæ pleræque) afficta est opinio. [corrigi posse Dominos per populares]- Ex facto ferre licet sententiam. Wiclefus in Dominos incidit qui in mortali peccato, neque intulit tamen eis manus, sed nec inferendas censuit. But it is sad to see how this calumny of King-killers is thrown about; Papists accuse all Protestants of it; and Protestants are so weak as to own the accusation, by charging one another with it.

To return to Mr. Prefacer, I beg leave to put him in mind, 1. That it was Antony a Wood, and not he, who Ath. Oxon. charged Mr. Fox with committing a most egregious falsity Herbert in relation to Grimwood. 2. That I have no where as- Morgan,

serted that Grimwood died infamously in his harvest with a bursting forth of his bowels. 3. That I have not supported the story with affirming it to be true. 4. That therefore, could he make it appear never so plain that Mr. Fox has told this story falsely, this would be no evidence at all of the falsehood of what I charged him with in relation to Dr. Wiclif, concerning whom he has published the following base and false assertions.

vol. i. ver.

coll. 592.

1. Wiclif's cause was first patronized by one who was Pref. p. 7, 8. a secret rebel, and endeavoured to be a vile usurper, and by and whore.

2. The first motive in Wiclif to reform was revenge for Ibid. p. 7, 8. the loss of a bishopric. The man's disappointment made him rail against Prelacy itself, because he could not arrive at the honour.

3. The same spirit which began Wiclif's reformation Ibid. p. 8. animated his followers after his death to rebel under Sir John Oldcastle.

4. He, Wiclif, went on through all his conduct with Ibid. p. 9. evident signs of being a wicked man.

5. Wiclif's notions were wicked and abominable —— Ibid. p. 12. His religion was chiefly supported by two main pillars, viz. sacrilege and rebellion.

6. He, Wiclif, taught that endowing churches was pa- Ibid. p. 12.