[47] Louis Maimbourg was born at Nanci, in 1610, and became a Jesuit in 1626. But he was degraded from that order by the General, because he espoused, in some of his writings, the cause of the Gallican church against the claims of the Roman see. He retired to the Abbey of St Victor, where he died in 1686. His historical writings, which are numerous, are now held in little esteem, being all composed in the spirit of a partizan, and without even the affectation of impartiality. They are, however, lively and interesting during the perusal; which led an Italian to say, that Maimbourg was among the historians, what Momus was among the deities. [48] Maimbourg’s History of the League was first published at Paris in 1683. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF YORK’S PAPER. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF YORK’S PAPER. One of the first acts of King James the Second’s reign, was the publication of two papers found in the strong box of his deceased brother Charles, assigning various reasons to prove, that the church of Rome was the only true church; with a copy of another written by his first duchess, Anne Hyde, stating the grounds of her conversion to the Catholic faith.[49] These papers were announced to be published by his majesty’s command; and, thus authenticated, were industriously dispersed over the kingdom. The learned Stillingfleet stood forward as the champion of the church of England, in refutation of the arguments alleged in the papers of the royal proselytes.[50] In answer, appeared “A Defence of the Papers written by the late King, of blessed Memory, and Duchess of York, against the Answer made to them. _By Command_. London, 1686.” This defence, like the answer of Stillingfleet, was divided into three parts, applying to the three papers; and it seems that these were drawn up by different hands. Dryden informs us, that he was concerned in the _last_, which seems to exclude the idea of his having any share in the first and second parts of the Defence;[51] which, indeed, are written in a style more approaching to polemic controversy than that assumed by Dryden. Stillingfleet returned to the conflict, and published a “Vindication of his Answer;” in which he is severely personal upon Dryden, “the brisk defender,” as he calls him, of the duchess’s paper, and the “new convert” to the church of Rome. Dryden, personally assaulted, made a personal retort, both directly upon Stillingfleet, and upon Burnet, his coadjutor in the controversy; and to this we probably owe the character of the Buzzard in “The Hind and Panther,” as well as the reflections upon the moderate clergy, or Low Church divines, with which that piece abounds.[52] In order to understand Dryden’s defence, it is necessary to prefix the duchess’s paper, and Stillingfleet’s answer to it. COPY OF A PAPER WRITTEN BY THE LATE DUCHESS OF YORK, &c.