upon some articles: it does not appear whether libel was laid to their charge, or not; only their examination following the other motion so soon gives ground to apprehend that it might be the matter under examination. In the fifty-fifth session, the king's pardon was read to them; and it seems, exceptions being taken to some things in it, in the fiftyeighth session, the emendations that the king's council had made were read to them, in which it seems they acquiesced, for we hear no more of it.

After that there was a long conference with relation to Crome's errors; but the matter was referred to the prolocutor and the clergy. The prolocutor had, in the forty-fifth session, complained of Tracy's Testament, but, no answer being made, he renewed his complaint in the sixty-second session, and desired that it might be condemned, and that Crome should be proceeded against; as also that Bilney and Latimer might be cited: but, for some reasons not expressed, the archbishop thought fit to delay it. In the sixty-fourth session the prolocutor repeated his motion for condemning Tracy's Testament; so in the sixty-sixth session, on the 23d of March, the archbishop gave judgment against it. Tracy's son was examined about it: he said it was all written in his father's own hand; and that he had never given a copy of it to any person, except to one only. In the sixty-ninth session, the archbishop examined Lambert (alias Nicolson, who was afterwards burnt) before two notaries; and in the seventieth session, the sentence condemning Tracy's Testament was publicly read; and, after two other sessions, the convocation was prorogued to October.

It appears from all this, that the convocation was made up of men violently set against our Reformation. But I turn now to another scene. The king, seeing no hope left of succeeding in his suit at the court of Rome, resolved to try the faculties of divinity in the several universities: his chief reliance was upon France; and on those three brothers formerly mentioned: he began to suspect there was some secret negociation between the court of Rome and the king of France; yet, though he opened this to the bishop of Bayonne, he did on all other occasions express an entire confidence in that king; and the new ministry seemed zealous in the interests of France, and studied to remove all the jealousies that they apprehended Wolsey might have given of them.

At this time the bishop of Tarbe, then Cardinal Grandimont, was with the pope, and had a particular charge sent

* P. 383.

to him to assist the English ambassadors. He wrote to the French king on the 27th of March*, "that he had served Boleyn, then Lord Rochford, all he could; that he had pressed the pope to show the regard he had for the king of France, as well as to the king of England: he writes, that the pope had three several times said to him in secret, that he wished that the marriage had been already made in England, either by the legate's dispensation, or otherwise, provided it was not done by him, nor in diminution of his authority, under the pretence of the laws of God. He also wrote that the emperor had pressed the pope to create some new cardinals upon his recommendation; but that the pope complained, that when he was a prisoner, he had made some cardinals who were a disgrace to the college: the emperor said, he was sorry for it; but it was not by his order. The pope said, he knew the contrary; for he saw the instructions sent to the Cardinal Cordelier, signed by the emperor, in which they were named: so the pope refused to give the two caps that he desired."

There was then an Italian, Joachim Sieur de Veaux†, at the court of England, who was an agent of France: he, in a letter to the king of France, March the 15th, writes ‡, that the king thought, that by his means he might have the opinion of the faculty at Paris, in his cause. On the 4th of April he writes, that the king expected no good from the pope, and seemed resolved to settle his matter at home, with the advice of his council and parliament. He looked on the pope as simoniacal, and as an ignorant man, and not fit to be the universal pastor; and resolved not to suffer the court of Rome to have any advantage from the benefices in his kingdom, but to govern it by a provincial authority and by a patriarch; and he hoped other kingdoms would do the same.

After some interval, the bishop of Bayonne's letters are again continued. In one, of the 29th of December, he writes, "That the king was marvellously well pleased with the account his ambassadors wrote to him, of what the divines of Paris had done; though he understands there is one Beda, a dangerous person, among them. That declaration which their divines had made, was such, that all other things were forgiven, in consideration of it."

The next letter is from his brother William; who writes, "That the good answer that came from the doctors and universities of Italy, made the king wonder that those of Paris were so backward. It was suspected in England,

* P. 399,

+ P. 411.

+ P. 418.

§ P. 421.

that the king of France, or his counsellors, had not recom→ mended the matter effectually to them. He had a letter from one Gervais, a doctor there, who had much advanced the king's affairs, for which Montmorency had made him great acknowledgments. He showed this letter to King Henry; who, upon that, carried him to his closet where his books lay, and there he entertained him four hours: he told him, he was in such perplexity, that it was not possible for him to live longer in it.'

This De Bellay was to go to Paris, to talk with the doctors; therefore he prayed Montmorency, that he might find a letter from the king, empowering him so to do, that so he might not seem to act without his orders; and he promised to manage the matter with discretion.

In a letter that the bishop of Bayonne wrote from Lusignon, on the 13th of April*, where he was then with the French king, he says, that the matter of the divorce was entirely dispatched at Paris, as it had been before that done at Orleans, by his brother's means. But he adds, some represented to the king, that he had showed too much diligence in procuring it, as if he was serving two masters. Joachim had before that, on the 15th of February, written to the king, that King Henry thanked him for his commands to the doctors in Paris in his matter, which he laid to heart more than all other things; and desired they would give their opinions in writing, that they might be laid before the pope.

It does not appear that the pope took any other pains to be well informed in the matter, but by consulting Cardinal Cajetan, who was then justly esteemed the learnedest man of the college. He, when he wrote commentaries upon Thomas's Sum†, though that father of the schoolmen thought, that the laws in Leviticus, concerning the degrees of marriage that are prohibited, were moral, and of eternal obligation; Cajetan, in his commentary, declares himself to be of another mind, but takes a very odd method to prove it for, instead of any argument to evince it, he goes only on this ground; that they cannot be moral, since the popes dispensed with them; whereas they cannot dispense with a moral law and for that he gives an instance of the marriage of the king of Portugal; to which he adds, the present queen of England had likewise consummated her marriage with the late brother of the king of England, her husband. By which, as it appears, that they took it then

for granted at Rome, that her first marriage with Prince Arthur was consummated, so he departed only from Aquinas's opinion, because the pope's practice of dispensing in such cases could not be justified, unless he had fors ken his master in that particular. And here he offers neither reason nor authority to maintain his opinion, but only the practice of the court of Rome. Which is, in plain words, to say, that what opinion soever is contrary to the practice of the popes, must for that reason be laid aside for he offers no other argument, but three modern instances, of which this of the queen of England is one, of popes dispensing with those laws. But now, being required by the pope to consider the present case more particularly, he, on the 13th of March this year, gave his opinion in writing to him. Raynaldus has inserted it in his Annals. In it, after he had compared the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy together, he concludes, "That the marrying a brother's wife was simply unlawful; but that in some circumstances it might have been good, if a much greater good should follow on such a marriage than that provided for in Deuteronomy, of continuing the name of a brother dead without children. Now he argues, that the reason of a provision made in a private case would be much stronger in a case of a public nature; so that a marriage being made to keep peace between two nations must be held lawful, since a dispensation was obtained for it. This was not only good in itself, but it was warranted by the apostolical authority. He confesses, that the pope cannot in the least alter or derogate from the laws of God, or of nature: but in doubtful cases, he may determine with relation to the laws of God, and of nature. He insists chiefly upon England's being delivered from a war by the marriage. He acknowledges that both councils, popes, and holy doctors, have condemned such marriages, as contrary to the laws of God and of nature; but they do not condemn them, when other circumstances accompany them, when it is not for the good of both parties, and for a common good; and therefore he justifies Pope Julius's dispensation:" who, as the same Raynaldus tells us t, did it with the view of the advantages that Spain and England would have; but chiefly, because it was hoped, that, by this conjunction of force, they would be able to depress the French.

This opinion of so great a man was sent over to King Henry, signed by himself, bearing date the 27th of January,

*Ad. an. 1530, No. cxiv.

† Ad. an. 1503, No. xxii.

1534*; but this date is, perhaps, only the date of his sign ing that copy. It had not the effect they expected from it; especially because it was defective in that way of writing that was then the most cried up against heretics. For he brought no authority from any ancienter writer to confirm his opinion; so that he argued from his private way of commenting on scripture, against the streams of tradition; which was called the heretics' way of writing.

The pope made a new step on the 7th of March; for he sent a breve to the king, setting forth a complaint made by Queen Catharine, that King Henry intended to proceed to a second marriage; he therefore prohibited that, under the pain of the severest censures, threatening to put the whole kingdom under an interdict; and charged the king, in the solemnest manner, to live with the queen as formerly." This was granted at Boulogne, upon the emperor's pressing instances. This had been attempted before, but was afterwards disowned by the pope. For when the avo cation was sent over to England, there was sent with it an inhibition to proceed further in the mattert: threatening censures and punishments in case of disobedience. But complaint being made of this, the pope did by a bull, dated the 5th of October, 1529, declare, that the censures threatened in the inhibition were added against his mind; so he annuls them, and suspends the cause to the 25th of December.

In a letter that the Cardinal Grandimont wrote to Montmorency, he tells him, that the emperor said he would have the matter of the marriage carried through: if it was judged unlawful, he would not support his aunt; but if otherwise, he would support her. And when Boleyn once offered to answer him, he stopped him, and said, he was a party, and ought not to speak in the matter. The cardinal told Boleyn, he had orders from the king of France to solicit that matter as if it was his own; but Boleyn thought it was best to look on for some time, to see how matters went ; for if the pope and the emperor should fall into new quarrels, then they might hope to be better heard.

On the 12th of June, Bellay wrote to the king a long account of his proceedings with the doctors of the Sorbonne §; by which, it seems, what is formerly mentioned of their giving opinion in the king's favour, was only as private doctors, and not in a body as a faculty. The young

*Cott. Libr. Vitell, B. 14.
* P. 454,

+ Rymer, vol. 14.
§ P. 458.