Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	part_n	write_v	2,577	5	5.7704	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50025	The history of the divorce of Henry VIII and Katharine of Arragon with the defence of Sanders, the refutation of the two first books of The history of the reformation of Dr. Burnett / by Joachim le Grand ; with Dr. Burnett's answer and vindication of himself.; Histoire du divorce de Henry VIII, roy d'Angleterre, et de Catherine d'Arragon. English	Le Grand, Joachim, 1653-1733.	1690 (1690)	Wing L960; ESTC R12003	14,775	16

〈…〉 ry of the Divorce of HENRY VIII 〈…〉 KATHARINE of ARRAGON 〈…〉 sence 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 WEE 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 Authors Character is a Person of a quick peircing 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 suddainly 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 authentick 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 it self gave publick Testimonies of the Esteem which they had for his Work But the Reason that M. Le Grand alledges 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 concern'd England in his first Book of the History of Heresy having no other Design than to criticize upon the Ninth which only relates to the Reformation as appears by the Title A Critick upon the Ninth Book of the History of M. Varillas where he speaks of the Revolutions c. 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 't is 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 my self the Trouble to compare his Works together and so I cannot say whether his Answer to his Adversaries Critick be better or worse than his Histories But as for Mr. Burnett's Travels into Italy I must take the Liberty to inform the Publick that M. Le Grand who cites that Book to confirm what he writes made his Judgments upon the French Version though Mr. Burnet hath declared That he had but too frequently mistook 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 c. 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 c. 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 Judgment which he makes of the Travels into Italy as by what Mr. Burnett shews 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 extreamly 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 Proceedings of that Prince whose irregular Conduct he does not undertake to justify levelled 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 c. 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

that I call'd Rodulphus Bastard since I quote the very Discourse wherein he is so called which was Compos'd 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 acknowledgment 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 sollicit in Henry's behalf at the Court of Rome after he was made Cardinal and that the King had publickly 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 falshood 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 Ecclesiasticks 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 Male-contents 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 referr'd to the Pope And this is sufficient to justifie 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 President 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 favour'd him only by the plurality of voices III. The Author who pretends to publish an Extract of the Reasons which the Favourers of Henry alledged 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 alledged 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 expresly 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 Brothers Wives Now England having submitted to this Law upon its first embracing Christianity they who defended the Kings 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 alledged 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 Maximes 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 Kings Reasons he adds several New Reasons to the Queens pleading which her Advocates never dream'd 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 abolish'd together with their Republick whereas the Laws of Leviticus concerning this Matter are to be look'd 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 my self 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 Byass of Interest IV. Our Author says that the Parliament abolish'd the Oath which the Bishops swore to the Pope at the time of their Consecration and form'd another which they were to swear to the King But this is not that which he calls understanding to the Bottom the Laws