〈…〉 ry of the Divorce of HENRY VIII. 〈…〉 KATHERINE of ARRAGON.  

〈…〉 sense of Sanders. The Refutation of the Two first 〈…〉 ●●he History of the Reformation of Dr. Burnett. By 〈…〉 ●●e Grand. With Dr. Burnett's Answer and Vindi●… 〈…〉 himself.  
WE have not as yet seen any more than the first Part of this Work, which was published the Fifth of this Month. I know not whether a Man may judge of the two other Parts by this, which seems at first but an Abridgement of the two first Books of the History of the Reformation by Dr. Burnet, though the Author promises to refute them in the two following Volumes.  
First, It seems that M. le Grand foresaw that Men would have this Idea of his Work, which is the Reason he has put before that History a preliminary Discourse, where he endeavours, yet without telling his Design, to divert the Reader from having any such Thoughts. He relates at first a Conference that he had with Dr. Burnett, in the King's Library, in the Presence of M. Thevenot, and M. Auzout. The Makers of Dialogues frequently introduce two Persons, one of which puts the Question, and the other Answers: One is the Master, and the other is the Scholar: Or at least, they make him more learned that teaches, than he that propounds the Difficulties. But in the Relation of this Conference we find quite the contrary. Mr. Burnett, who, according to the Author's Character, is a Person of a quick piercing Wit, laborious, indefatigable, and most capable to defend the Reformation; whose Expressions are always free, bold and full of fire; and who speaks upon this Occasion with an Eloquence that charms them that hear him: Yet this Mr. Burnett leaves the principal Points undetermined, or else consents and submits every thing that is opposed against him. But M. Le Grand, who propounds his Difficulties after a plain humble Manner, and rather as Doubts than as real Objections, makes evident, quotes, attacks, and at length leaves Mr. Burnett with hardly a Word to say for himself.  
There is no Wonder to be made, that so soon, as M. Le Grand began to write, he should so suddenly overturn a Man of that Learning and Reputation as Dr. Burnett. For though never any Man wrote with more Cunning, or knew better how to link and chain one Event to another; yet, as the Author says, he never studied the History of England. He that romaged all the most considerable Libraries of the Kingdom, to fetch out Registers and authentic Records and Acts, and Copies of Dispatches, Memoirs and other Manuscripts of those times, out of which to compose his History; who has printed a Volume in Folio of those sort of Pieces, in justification of what he says; he to whom the whole Nation, and the Parliament itself, gave public Testimonies of the Esteem which they had for his Work. But the Reason that M. Le Grand, alleges for his Adversary's Ignorance in the History, is because he does not refute the Errors which M. Varillas has committed in several Things that concerned England, in his first Book of the History of Heresy; having no other Design than to criticise upon the Ninth, which only relates to the Reformation, as appears by the Title, A Critic upon the Ninth Book of the History of M. Varillas, where he speaks of the Revolutions, etc.  
Mr. Burnett and M. Varillas being such defective Historians in M. Le Grand's Opinion, there is no Wonder if he threaten them, to raise up a Third, that shall make them lose a good Part of the Reputation which they have gotten. And that which confirms his Hopes is this, because 'tis Plain, That those Authors are very Negligent, and that their last Works are less valuable than their first. As for M. Varillas, since it could never be believed that a Historian, so partial, could write after a rational manner, I never gave myself the Trouble to compare his Works together; and so I cannot say whether his Answer to his Adversaries Critic, be better or worse than his Histories. But as for Mr. Burnett's Travels into Italy, I must take the Liberty to inform the Public, that M. Le Grand, who citys that Book to confirm what he writes, made his Judgements upon the French Version, though Mr. Burnet hath declared, That he had but too frequently mistake his Meaning.  
As to the Memoirs which the Author made use of, he says nothing but what he has taken out of the Letters and Dispatches of Francis I Henry VIII. the Cardinals, Woolsey and Grandemont, the Bishops of Auxerres, Maion, Tarbes, etc. Where we find that M. Le Grand makes two Persons of Cardinal Grandemont and the Bishop of Tarbes, whereas they were but one and the same. As for the Letters and Dispatches, etc. of Henry VIII. and Cardinal Wolsey, a great many of them being in English, as may be seen in Mr. Burnett's Collection, perhaps they might be of little Use to our Author; for we are apt to believe that he did not understand the Language; as well for that by the Judgement which he makes of the Travels into Italy, as by what Mr. Burnett shows in the Letter which follows this Extract, it appears that M. Le Grand never cast his Eyes upon that Collection of Pieces which is added to the English Edition of the History of the Reformation of England.  
Secondly, The Divorce of Henry VIII. is too well known to make an Extract of it. We shall therefore make some Remarks, which will absolutely undeceive those who may imagine that M. Le Grand's Book is an Abstract of one part of Mr. Burnett's. In short, the Method and Design of those Two Books is extremely different, as well as the Memoirs upon which they are grounded. 1. M. Burnet has no other Aim in Writing the History of Henry VIII. than to represent how the Proceed of that Prince, whose irregular Conduct he does not undertake to justify, leveled the Way to that Reformation which was made under his Successors: M. Le Grand makes Henry to be always in the wrong, as if he had never done good. 2. M. Le Grand bestows his Encomiums upon those that he thinks deserve them, though never so great Enemies of the Reformation, as Fisher, More and Cardinal Poole. He never dissembles the Faults of those that contributed most to the Reformation, as Cromwell, Cranmer, the Duke of Somerset, etc. because he has observed by an infinite Number of Examples out of sacred and ecclesiastical History, That God never makes use of perfect Instruments for the Execution of his Designs. M. Le Grand seems to have had very opposite Ends. All those that contributed to advance the Reformation are very ill handled by him in his History; where he gives them the honourable Title of False Prophets, particularly to Ann Bolen, and Cranmer, whom he calls the False Prelate; and Cromwell, whom he abuses, as Man as ignorant as ever was in the World. This Minister, who is never permitted to justify himself, is condemned under pretence of having exceeded his Master's Orders, in granting Passports for the Exportation of Money and Corn. But heresy was the capital Accusation that was laid to his Charge. Nevertheless the Author assures us, That the Impeachment against him was grounded particularly, upon several Letters that were found among his Papers, wherein he acknowledged that he held private Correspondences with the Princes of Germany. unknown to the King.  
Now in regard that History is but a Texture of Original Letters, and that every Politician has his particular Remarks upon an Affair which he does not well understand, no wonder that M. Le Grand represents so variously the Designs and Inclinations of those who had the greatest Share in that Negotiation. He says, That Francis I. was weary at last of the Capriccio's of Henry VIII. and consented to the definitive Sentence, which condemned him to retake his Wise under Pain of Excommunication. Nevertheless he observes, that after that Sentence, Francis I. sided with Henry VIII. in all his Affairs with all the Zeal imaginable. That Francis I. would not hear the Proposal of Clement VII. That that Pope had promised before to do for the King of England all that lay in his Power: That the Pope made some Scruple at it, but at length gave him his Promise. But all these new Promises could not make the Holy Father forget those that he had made at the beginning of the Process to the General of the Cordeliers, the Emperor's Agent. Clement himself acknowledged that he had promised that he would never pronounce Sentence upon the Divorce, and that he would do nothing in that Affair without giving Charles I. Notice. If the Church of Rome be so excessively tied to Decisions, the Court of Rome, on the other side, is as little tied to Promises. And therefore we must confess that the Complaisance of that Church goes sometimes a very great way. In those Ages, saith our Author, speaking of those that followed the Tenth, The Discipline touching Marriages was not so severe as afterwards. King's put away their Wives upon slight occasions, and never sought for any Pretence. Afterwards they were desirous to have one, and it was as easy to find one; because they could not marry with a Kinswoman on this side the Seventh Degree: So that Princes that could not ally themselves indifferently with all sorts of Persons finding themselves all united in Blood, and coming to dislike their match, proved there near affinity, 〈◊〉 away their Wives and took others. 〈◊〉 there were some Princes who had Two or Three Wives living, and Princesses that had Two or Three Husbands. This was practised in the Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Ages; and in these times of Darkness and Ignorance it was, that these Shoals of Canonists and Scholastic Divines became so numerous.   

A Letter to Monsieur Thevenot, being a full Refutation of Mr. Le Grand's History of HENRY VIII 's Divorcing KATHERINE of Arragon. With a plain Vindication of the same by Dr. G. B.  
PErmit me, Sir, before I pay you all those marks of Respect which are your due, to assure you that I am so well persuaded of your Probity and Sincerity, that maugre the difference of persuasion that is between us, nevertheless I dare adventure to submit to your Judgement in the Contest, that seems to be between me and M. Le Grand, in a matter that has no small relation to Religion. Opinions, and the speculative Consequences whi●h Men draw from matters of Fact, appear very much different, according to the different Ideas which Men have of the Things: But the matters of Fact themselves have but one Face, and present themselves after the same manner to all that seek the Truth. Therefore in regard that our dispute moves altogether upon matters of Fact, I am apt to believe I can hazard nothing in taking you for my Arbitrator.  
During our last Residence at Paris, having had the Honour to visit you several times, I had time to observe with how much justice you made yourself the subject, and the esteem, and admiration of all the World. I was convinced of it more particularly by the Civilities which you heaped upon me, and by the pains you took to bring me into a Conference with M. Le Grand, in your own and the Presence of M. Auzout. I was the less scrupulous when I found myself in a place where I could expect nothing but fair dealing from a person that lived in the House of a Man no less considerable for his extraordinary Virtues, than for the great Employments with which he was entrusted, and who frequently conversed with the Learned M. Bulteau, who as often visited the famous M. Baluze, whose Sincerity equals his profound Learning, a thing rarely to be found in our Age: And, which was more than all the rest, a Friend of M. Thevenot's. This made me look upon M. Le Grand, as a person that had all those noble Qualities that were to be expected from a fair Adversary.  
I should give you too great a trouble to recall to your memories all those little Things that were upheld in your Presences, and at which you yourselves were so much distated, that you confessed ingeniously how much you were ashamed to hear them. You made this acknowledgement not only to me, after M. Le Grand's departure, but to several others also; and you were so well satisfied in this, that though what had been propounded, was not worth the talking of, yet that I had fully answered the Discourse, as mean and frivolous as it was. M. Auzout desired likewise at the same time, that I would make no noise of it, to which request I was readily induced to condescend: For to say the very truth, I did not find that my Adversary was a subject worthy my Triumph, or the pains of boasting in public a Victory over him. And therefore as to what I have deemed requisite to insert of our Discourse, among the Remarks which I have made upon some passages of the History of M. Varillas, I have managed M. Le Grand with all the Circumspection that he could expect from me. Though, if in the pursuit of this Discourse, I happen to wound him more to the quick, he must thank himself, and not lay the blame on any body else.  
I can easily brook all those Reflections which he has made upon my Ignorance, and shallowness of Capacity, more particularly upon what he says, That I never studied the History or the Laws of England. For thus he expresses himself after he had bestowed great Praises upon me, and such as I never deserved. Nevertheless, by the sudden change of his Pen, he seems to look upon me as a Person of little worth. But that same Thick skulled, and common Artifice of some People to praise those whose Reputation they have a design to destroy will never surprise men of Understanding; nor will heinous and dirty reproaches pass among them under the Covert of a few generous Encomium's. I must be contented with that small measure of Knowledge and Capacity, which come to my just share, especially now that I have to do with a person of so mean a Talon, as M. Le Grand appears to be by this same Treatise of his.  
I could only wish that they, who would be better informed of the truth of that celebrated Passage of the History, which is the Subject of our Dispute, would give themselves the trouble to read what  and myself have written, and then peruse the History of M. Le Grand. I am assured they will conclude, That there must be some fault in the Title Page, where he promises the Defence of Sanders, and the Refutation of the Two first Books of my History. The whole substance of his Work agrees altogether with mine, unless it be in some parts, where he shows that great Art of his, wherein I yield him willingly to outdo me. In all things else he so perfectly concurs with me, that I am tempted to believe, He only took his Pen in hand, to fulfil those Offers which he made me in your Presence, to furnish me with Memoirs sufficient for the Confirmation of what I have wrote upon this Subject. True it is, I have not read any more as yet than the First Part of his Book; nor can I imagine how he can justify , whom he has abandoned during the whole course of his History. He forsakes him in the whole History of Ann of Boulogne, and in all the progresses of the Story that depends upon it, though it be the chief Head of Sanders' Accusation, and which he presses most vigorously, as being a Nullity in the Title of Queen Elizabeth, and consequently an Original pretence for Rebellion. He acknowledges also the Decretal Bull, nor does he insist upon the Carriage of Sr. Thomas Moor. In a word, if you examine the Fourscore Faults of which I have accused  in my Additions, you will find that M. Le Grand has confessed above Seventy, and confirms what I have maintained in opposition to him. Which will most evidently appear, if his work shall ever be thought worthy a larger Examination.  
I say nothing of his Style, for that his Readers without much consideration or study will easily find it to be the Style rather of an Advocate that pleads a Cause, than of a person disinterested, that cordially and barely relates matter of Fact. For to argue with heat and passion, and reproach his Adversaries, are unpardonable faults in an Historian. Besides that, there is something so sacred in the very Ashes of Kings, that they are never to be spoken of but with great Caution; and if at any time there be an unavoidable occasion to blame some of their Actions, softer Terms are to be made use of, than those of Lie and Imposture. Add to this, that the principal Point, and upon which the whole Question moves, being, Whether the King's own Cause ought not rather to be judged in England, and by his Clergy, than at Rome, and in the Consistory; that man can never be thought to act conformably to the Gallican Church, who takes part with the Pope upon this occasion. It is rather to be wondered at, that at a time when there is so little respect given at Versailles to the Vatican Thunder, and where the ancient Custom is renewed of appealing from the Pope to the General Council; I say, it is a wonder, at such a time as this, a Subject of this nature, should not be handled with more freedom and sincerity. Perhaps this is one of the little Tricks of those sort of People, which M. Talon has more frankly described, than I have a design to do, who make hideous portraitures of the Actions of Henry VIII. to observe the glory of those of Lewis the Great. And perhaps our Author is neither so great a Politician, nor so well knowing in Affairs, as to have such distant prospects in his Eyes, or else this work being his first Essay, he did not study the Point with that Application which was requisite, believing that trouble to no purpose while he has to do with a person, that gives no better proofs of his Understanding than myself. I shall therefore insist only upon six of his principal Errors, which are nothing to the great number of mistakes which he has committed, and which I could easily make appear, had I the Liberty to enlarge myself in a writing that must be inserted into the Universal Library.  
I. He calls in question the Contents of the Decretal Bull, which Cardinal Campeggio brought, upon this Ground, That having been only shown to the King and Cardinal Woolsey, no Body can tell what it was; and if it had been a definitive Sentence in that matter, the Legates Commission had been at an end, and the King would have contracted his Second Marriage, as formerly Lewis the XII. did, without expecting any other proceed.  
Had Monsieur Le Grand given himself the trouble to read that Bull which I have published, he might have spared himself so many useless Remarks. The Bull was contrived in England and sent to Rome, where, though some few Alterations were made, it appeared nevertheless by all the Letters, that were written reciprocally from Rome and England; that the Bull which was given to Compeggio was in substance the same. Certain it is, that Bull declared the King's Pretences to be just, gave power to the Legates, to examine the Truth of them, and to pronounce Sentence upon the proofs that should be made before them. For though this Bull implied a definitive Sentence of the Pope, upon a supposition of the Validity of the King's Pretensions; nevertheless it left many things for the Legates to do. They were to inform themselves, 

1. Whether the King had not desired this Marriage himself.  
2. Whether it would not occasion a War between Spain and England, should a Dispensation be granted.  
3. Whether this Dispensation had been annulled by the Protestation which the King made against the Marriage, when he came to be of Age.  
4. Whether any of the Princes, in favour of whom the Dispensation was allowed, were Dead before the Marriage was consummated.    
It is apparent that that same Bull for the dissolution of the Marriage between Henry and Catharine, being only granted upon supposition, that all the matters in Question were as the King maintained them to be, had been void in case he could not have proved his suggestions; which is the thing that confounds all the Author's Arguments.  
But I must confess that M. Le Grand has something of Reason on his side in what he says concerning Rodulphus, whom I believed to have been Campeggio's Bastard. He proves out of Sigonius, who writes the Life of that Cardinal, that Rodulphus was his Legitimate Son. Sigonius is a very good Author, and I acquiesce in his Authority. But had M. Le Grand cast but his Eyes upon the English Edition, he would have seen that it was not without sufficient Ground, and not out of any design to blacken the Reputation of C. Campeggio, that I called Rodulphus Bastard; since I quote the very Discourse wherein he is so called, which was Composed by Sr. William Thomas, Secretary to the Privy Council, under the Title of the English Pilgrim. I had the misfortune not to have seen the Life that was written by Sigonius, so that it is only a fault of Omission, which the Author would aggravate into a malicious Invention. And I make this acknowledgement of my Error so much the more frankly, because it is the only mistake among all the rest of which the Author accuses me, that is well grounded.  
II. M. Le Grand labours to destroy the Authority of the Decision of the Sorbom in favour of Henry. But in regard this Decision was printed the Year following, and acknowledged for true and real, since no person in those times taxes it of being counterfeited, we have no reason now to suspect it; for neither does Cardinal Poole, who was then at Paris, when it was made, nor any other writer of the Roman Communion, tax the King of Imposture upon that occasion. Add to this that the Bishop of Tarbes being continued to solicit in Henry's behalf at the Court of Rome, after he was made Cardinal, and that the King had publicly acknowledged before the Legates, how privy that Prelate had been to his Scruples conceived upon his Marriage, has given an undeniable Confirmation of this matter, whatever our Author says to the contrary. The same thing is to be said of the Sorbonn; for that never having been charged with falsehood in the particular of this Decision, there is no question but that they made it. So that all M. Le Grana's Arguments can never prove any thing more, than only that it has occasioned great Disputes, and that Beda was a real promoter of Sedition. By the way, we may observe that the ecclesiastics of France were very ill satisfied with the Conduct of Francis the First, who had sold their Liberties by the Concordate, of which the University of Paris was so sensible, and for that reason full of Malcontents. And therefore it might be perhaps that so many of the French Clergy were so ill affected to Henry's Cause, because they knew that Francis the first so passionately supported his Interests. After all, the Author confesses, That he sound in the scrutiny Fifty three voices for the Divorce, and Forty two against it; and Five, that were of Opinion that the matter should be referred to the Pope. And this is sufficient to justify the printed Decision, which only says, That the greatest number of Doctors were for the Divorce, and declared the Marriage illegal, which may serve for an Explanation of the words of the Letter of the first Precedent, That that same Declaration would do the King more hurt than it would advance his Affairs; In regard all the other Universities had judged in his Favour, whereas the Opinion of the Sorbonn favoured him only by the plurality of voices.  
III. The Author, who pretends to publish an Extract of the Reasons which the Favourers of Henry alleged against his Marriage, has forgot the Principal, and that which supported all the decisions of the Romish Church; that is to say, That the Scripture, explained by Tradition, is the Rule according to which all Controversies are to be determined: They alleged a perpetual succession of Provincial and general Councils, of Popes, and the Chief of the Greek and Latin Fathers; particularly, the Four most famous Fathers of the Western Church, whereas the Imperialists had neither Father nor Doctor on their side. Nevertheless the Author says no more, but that the English quoted the Canons of some Provincial Councils concerning Incontinency; with certain passages out of Tertullian, St. Basil and St. Jerom about Virginity, and against second Nuptials. I am sure the Reader must here take notice, That there is something wanting in this Relation which is more essential to an honest Man, than a great stock of Capacity. For the Canons of Councils and the Passages out of the Fathers which they quoted, speak expressly of the Degrees of Marriage, forbidden in Leviticus. He names Three Popes whose Letters they produced; but he passes over in silence the Chief, in reference to England, who was Gregory the Great. For the Saxons being converted at what time he held the See, this Pope gave express Order to Austin the Monk to disannul all Marriages that had been contracted with Brother's Wives. Now England having submitted to this Law, upon its first embracing Christianity, they who defended the King's scruples looked upon this as the Principal Foundation of his Cause. So that if M. Le Grand would have acquired the Reputation of a sincere Historian, he ought to have mentioned this Particular. Moreover he should not have passed over in silence as he does, all that was alleged against the Power which the Popes assume to themselves of dispensing with all Ecclesiastical, and every the Divine Laws themselves. Nor ought he to have forgot that other great Reason urged by the King, that according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, the determination of that matter belonged of right to the English Church, and not to the Pope. If the Author be a True Member of the Gallican Church, he ought to grant these Maxims; and if he would be thought a Faithful Historian, he ought not to pass them over in silence. But though he do not set down all the King's Reasons, he adds several New Reasons to the Queens pleading, which her Advocates never dreamed of, and we do not meet with in any Story or Relation of that time. They all tend to prove that the Rules touching the degrees of Consanguinity have not been always observed in Marriages with the same Exactness. But the Church is governed by Rules and not by Examples.  
As for the Law of Deuteronomy which permitts a Man to Marry his Sister-in-Law, if her Husband died without Children, it has been always considered in the Christian Church, as an Exception to the General Rule; so that in regard it was only made in favour of the Jews, and with reference to their Right of Succession, it was abolished together with their Republic; whereas the Laws of Leviticus concerning this Matter, are to be looked upon as Laws that are Moral and Universally received. In a word if you will take the pains to compare the Books that have been written upon this Subject, with the Extracts which M. Le Grand and myself have given of them, you will presently find that he writes with no Sincerity at all, who descends to a Nicety. For my part I shall not Envy him the High Opinion he has of his, so long as Men will but acknowledge me to have writ sincerely and without the Bias of Interest.  
iv Our Author says that the Parliament abolished the Oath which the Bishops swore to the Pope at the time of their Consecration; and formed another which they were to swear to the King. But this is not that which he calls understanding to the Bottom, the Laws and History of England. For the Truth was this. They read in that Assembly the two oaths which the Bishops took, the one to the Pope, the other to the King; and in regard they found them to be Contradictory, as being two oaths of Homage and Fidelity, which could only be sworn to one Sovereign; they abolished that which was made to the Pope, and let that stand in its full vigour which was sworn to the King. I have given an undeniable Example of their oaths sworn to the King by the Bishops in former Ages, which is to be seen in an Act at the head of the Collection of the Pieces that justify my History. If M. Le Grand had only the French Translation, where those Pieces are not, he might have consulted the English Edition at Mr. Bulteau's, where they are all to be seen. He might have there seen in the Act which I cite, Cardinal Adrian renounce not only all the Clauses of the Bulls which were contrary to the King's Prerogative, or the Laws of England; but also swear an Oath of Fealty to the King, in the same Terms which our Kings have since continued to receive them from the Bishops. The Oath to the Pope, which is an Innovation not known till before the XII. Age, contains besides, so many large and unlimited Clauses, which neither accord with the Doctrine of the Gallican Church, nor with that submission and duty which Prelates own their lawful Prince, since it is apparently an Oath of Homage and Fidelity to a Foreign Power.  
V Mr. Le Grand labours might and main, to make Cranmer to be looked upon as one of the most wicked men in the world. He accuses me for making him a Gentleman, but I have said nothing of it, though I well knew him to be so; not believing that Quality considerable enough to be mentioned in the Eulogies due to the memory of so great a Personage. He cannot believe, That Cranmer was in Germany when Warham died, nor that he was named in his Absence to be Bishop of Canterbury; nor that he stayed Seven weeks after he received the News of his Nomination, because he assisted at the Marriage of the King with Anne Bolen. He cannot allow what I say, That this Affair went on slowly, since it was but three Months between December and January before this Prelate was known to be exalted at Rome. Nor will he be persuaded, That the Provincial Synod of Canterbury pronounced any positive sentence upon the Marriage of the King. See here more mistakes than Varillas himself could have been guilty of. For in the Criminal Process against Cranmer which is Printed, we find that he calls his Judges to witness, with what reluctancy he accepted the Primacy of England; and that he did not return out of Germany till Seven Weeks after the King had signified to him his Intentions. Nor did the Bishops who knew his Judges, and who had been Eye-witnesses of his behaviour at that time, say any thing to it, as not being able to contradict what he said. Twelve Weeks passed from the Twenty third of August, that Warham died, to the Fourteenth of November, that the King was married; so that although the Courier had stayed Fifteen days by the way, Cranmer might have delayed his departure for Seven Weeks, and yet have come time enough to be at the Nuptials of the King. But our Author to change Five Months into three excludes September and January out of his Account, for this only Reason, That he found it requisite to retrench them. As for the Judgement of the Synod of Canterbury, the Sentence of Divorce has it in express Terms, That the two provincial Synods of England had decided the King's Cause.  
But M. Le Grand, above all things makes it a Crime in Cranmer, that he took an Oath of Obedience to the Pope when he was consecrated; and for that he made a Protestation, by which he gave divers Restrictions to the said Oath. But he reports all that he says concerning this Matter, upon the Authority of certain passionate Scribblers, and quite contrary to the Faith of the public Acts. The Protestation of the Archbishop was read twice before the Altar, while he was consecrating, and it is clear that he had no design to make use of Equivocals, since what he did, he did in public, and for that the Bishops usually made Protestations, by which they renounced all Clauses of their Bulls which were contrary to the King's Prerogative. It seems the Canonists, accustomed to this doubling Equivocation, had so much Power over Cranmer as to incline him to take the Oath, and restrain it by a public Protestation, made at the same time; so that if he did any thing amiss in so doing; it was rather a Defect of Judgement in that Prelate, than any want of Sincerity.  
VI The Author says that the King pardoned Moor and Fisher, the Business of the Maid of Kent; and though he confess that the first ridicules her for an idle silly Nun in one of his Letters, yet he seems not to have seen a long Letter of Moore's's, which I published in my justifying Pieces belonging to the Second Volume, where he speaks of the pretended Revelations of that religious Wench, as one of the most horrid Impostures that ever were. As for Fisher, whatever the Author says, he was condemned for favouring that Imposture. To this M. Le Grand adds, That the Chancellor having demanded of Fisher and Moor, what they thought of the Statues made in the last Parliament, they would make no Answer, only they said, That being cut off from civil Society, they minded nothing but their Meditation upon their Saviour's Passion, which Answer cost them their Lives. Here is a Corruption of History, which I shall not call so bad as it deserves; which is so much the more odious, for that writing things as they were transacted, and according to public Acts, he could represent them after a manner so favourable to his own Cause. These two great Men were condemned at first by virtue of a Praemunire, which is loss of Goods and perpetual Imprisonment, for having refused to take the Oath concerning the Succession, by reason of the King's Marriage according to an Act of Parliament. After that they were farther prosecuted, because they opposed the King's Supremacy, or his Title of the supreme Head of the English Church. There is one thing too in Moore's Process which might be sufficient to make a Man Guilty of High Treason, where he says, That a Parliament can both make a King and depose a King.  
Now In regard I have consigned myself within these Six Heads, I shall go no farther; but the abundance of Matter makes me that I have much ado to hold here, I cannot but wonder the Author has forgot so many important Things in his History, and that he could find in the Collection of Letters printed by Camuzat, which I never saw, until he did me the Honour to give them unto me. He says nothing of what the Pope promised Cardinal Tournon, That for Forms Sake he should be obliged to observe some Formalities of Action, to the End he might not show himself too partial to the King of England, in favour of whom he was resolved to do what lay in his Power, for the Love of you, said the Prelate, writing to the King of France. And a little after, I think I am well assured that our Holy Father will comply with you, touching the Request which you have made him in Behalf of your said Brother, Henry VIII. In a Letter of the Seventeenth of August 1533. The same Cardinal writes to Francis I. That the greatest Party of the Cardinals, that were of the Imperial Faction, would have been mad with the Pope, had he not done what he did, in regard there was but little likelihood that the King would submit his Cause, and that the Pope might have some honourable Pretence to act for him, he would do it with as good a Will as was possible. And it may be, adds this Minister, when you meet together (he speaks of the Interview that was to be at Marseilles) there will be found out Expedients. It appears also by another Letter, that Francis I. told the English Ambassador, That the Pope himself had confessed that King Henry 's Cause was just, and that he wanted nothing but a Procuration. Therefore it was that when the King was cited to appear at Rome in Person, or by a Proctor, he took little Notice of it. That if Carne were sent beyond the Mountains in the Quality of an Excuser, it was seen by those Mixtures that it was not in the Name of the King, but in the Nation's Behalf that he went to make those kind of Excuses.  
This Refusal of Henry being looked upon at Rome as an effect of Contempt, which he had of the Holy See, the Pope promised him the Divorce if he would but appear in that City either in Person or by his Proctor, in pursuance of the Assignation which he had caused to be given him, and acknowledge his Authority. Francis the First applauded the King's Conduct in that Affair, and was so far from endeavouring to oppose his Marriage, that he ordered his Ambassador to be Godfather in his Name to the Child that should be born in case it were a Son. The French Ambassador at Rome about that time wrote also several Letters to his Master's Court, where he observes, That the Pope was very ready to do what was desired in the King of England 's behalf, and more if he durst or could, but that the Emperor's People pressed the Affair with so much Importunity, that the half of the time, His Holiness, against God and against Reason, nay, contrary to the Opinion of a good part of the Imperial Cardinals, was constrained above half the time, to act at the pleasure of M. Dosme— We wanted you there to have put a spoke in his Wheel, pursues he, writing to the Cardinal of Grandemont, There is no Man that dares tell him the Truth. And it is as true that this Ambassador who was Bishop of Auxerres, said also speaking to the Pope, That he saw him so pressed by the Emperor, his People, and the greatest part of the Cardinals, that he thought he could do no good but only by Dissimulation. But indeed these cunning Politicians understand so well how to change their Style, according to Occurrences, that there's hardly any trust to be given to their Letters. The same Day that he wrote what we have cited to the Pope's Legate, in another Letter to the Grand Master he observes, that the Pope had told him, that for Four Years the Business of Henry VIII. had been in his Hands, that there was nothing effected as yet; that if he might do what he would, he would do what we would; and says the Minister, This he told me in such a manner, that if I am not deceived he thought what he spoke. All those Letters were dated the 17. of Feb. 1532. But in another of the 13. of Jan. following, he assures that the Pope had told him, That he was resolved to refer the whole Business to a good Time; and that he clearly understood, what the Pope meant by a good Time. To which he adds, that if the Matter had been judged according to the Wishes of the Cardinals, and the eager Instances of the Emperor's People, the most ancient and learned had judged for the King of England. But that there were but few of that Company, and the number of the other was so great, that by plurality of voices the English would have utterly lost it.  
M. Le Grand is very nice and tender, when he comes to that Circumstance, that there arrived a Courier from England to Rome a day or two after Sentence was given; and he omits the haste in which it was pronounced, as if he knew nothing of it. Nevertheless we find in these Miscellanies, a Letter from Pomponio Trivulci, dated from Lions the 16. of April, where he observes, that M. de Paris passing that way upon his return from Rome, told him that the definitive Sentence which the Pope had given against the King of England, had been precipitated. That it was not the Pope's fault that they did not temporize longer; that if they had stayed but Six Days more before they had pronounced it, the King would have submitted to the Holy See. But that the Importunity of the Imperalists and the Consistory was so great, that they would not stay. That the next Day after the Resolution of England came too late, but that then the Consistory and the Imperalists were mad, that they stayed no longer. All these passages plainly show, that the Court of Rome was governed in this Affair, only by the prospects and maxims of Policy. And therefore it is, that according to the Principles of the Gallican Church, M. Talon has maintained with so much Zeal, upon an occasion of much less importance, that the King of England had no reason to have any regard to the Sentences and Thundrings of that Court.  
If I am extremely obliged to M. Le Grand for having made me a present of so good a Book, in which he furnished me with so many proofs of the most important Points of my History, I am no less troubled that he had so little value for himself, as to suppress them, and for his having forced me, as I may so say, to make use of the kindness he has done me to his own disadvantage. But upon such occasions as these, they saying is, Magis amica veritas. And though M. Le Grand imagines that I am jealous of my Productions, were not the Interests of Religion intermixed therewith, I could easily abandon mine. But I will not now push this censure any farther; neither do I know whether I shall write any more upon this Subject, not being able to determine any thing in that matter, till I have seen the Three other parts of this work, and the effects it will produce in the World. I shall conclude with humble request to pardon the Liberty which I take of addressing this Letter to you, and that in so public a manner, not believing a man could otherwise so properly give a censure upon a printed Book.  
I am, Sir, etc. Hague, 20. of June.  
FINIS.