Having perused the ^* Au­thor you so much recommended to me, I am apt to fancy that never any two Historians disagreed more than yours & mine; the one so zealous in ex­alting, [Page] [Page 147] [...] [Page 148]the other in depressing of the Council. But yet I am not of opinion that this was the only difference be­wixt them. Pallavicini had the freedom of the Vatican Archives; He referrs himself to the Records of the Coun­cil, & the writings of ^* such Persons as were Members of it: Moreover, He is so far from being partial, that ^* Aquilino says He has done the Church more disservice by his Answer, than his Adversary had done by his History. As for your friend Soave, I am afraid he's apt to make the worst of things, even when he speaks truth as to the substan­ce. His intimate acquaintance with the Archbishop of Spalatro, & his corres­pondency with the French Huguenots. are enough to make me suspicious of him. If you tell me, he was a Popish Frier, I must mind you, that he was a Venetian Papist, that he lived in a time of great dissentions betwixt the State of Venice and the Pope, & that he was even then engaged in writing against the Pope's proceedings. Tis hard to say how much he was a friend to the Church, But any man may see how bit­ter [Page 149]an enemy he was to the Court of Rome. He liked well enough to be medd­ling with State-Affairs, & the Senators consulted him as an Oracle: which unusual honour was enough to make him proud & factious; and, whether it did or not, He only knows who sees men's hearts. However all this put to­gether is enough to make me suspect him. Pallavicini, you'l say, being of the Court-party deserves to be suspec­ted too. But, if that be all you have to say against him, we will not quarrel about preliminaries, nor loose time in disputing what grains of allowance are due to each of them. Upon condition you'l believe your friend Soave when he speaks well of the Council, I am con­tent to believe Pallavicini whensoever he speaks ill of it.

You remember how easily, when I saw you last, you agreed with me, that if the Council of Trent were as General, as free, and as legal in all it's circumstances, as the first four Councils were, you must needs own your self obli­ged in conscience, to submit to it, & to leave of Protesting against it. 'Twas fair & reasonable, & what I might expect from a Son of the Church of England: [Page 150]I desired no more in hand, but was willing to give credit for the rest.

I might have told you that if the Coun­cil had been only Patriarchal; it would have bound the English Reformers to the obedience of non-contradiction. Three Brittish Bishops sate in the I. Coun­cil of Arles: & S. Athanasius in his 2. Apol. says that they were present in the Council of Sardice, which ratified the Pope's power in decision of Appeals: From whence you may conclude, that the Brittish Clergy were subject to the canons of Arles & Sardice, & consequent­ly to the Western Patriarch. We find them also afterwards in the Council of Constance, where voting by Nations the English were one of the four in con­demning these doctrines of Huss▪ & Wickliff, that The Pope is not the imme­diate Vicar of Christ, & that The chief Bishop of the Roman Church has no Pri­macy over other particular Churches. I might have added the testimony of your own D ^r. Field, who in his book of the Church freely confesses, that The Decrees of Popes made with the consent & joynt concurrence of the other Western Bishops, do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West. [Page 151]But this is not the case: the Council of Trent is truly General; and, if the Re­formers cannot manifestly prove the contrary, they remain without excuse. The Objections which you sent me in your Letter, I have considerd at leasure, and according to promise, have sent you here my Answers: but, before I set them down, I must beg your pardon if I try your patience with some few re­marks which follow. Ch. Gov. P. IV.

1. A General Council requires, either the presence of all the Catholick Pa­triarchs, or their Legates, with the Bis­hops of so many Provinces as can well convene, or their Delegates; or else (in their necessary absence) it requires that the Acts & Decrees be approved, either by all, or by the major part of the absent Prelates.

2. As for such a General Council as comprehends all the Bishops of the Ca­tholick Universe, there never was yet any. We find always a greater or lesser number, according to divers cir­cumstances; propinquity of place, peace of Princes, numerosity of Sects, &c. The first four Councils, of Nice, Constantino­ple, Ephesus, & Chalcedon, by reason of the Oriental Heresies, were held in the [Page 152]East, & consisted principally of Oriental Bishops. In the I. were present only the Pope's two Legates, & three Western Bis­hops. The II. had no Western Bishop at all, but only was afterward confirm'd by the Pope & his Council. The III. had only three Delegates, sent by the Pope & his Occidental Council. They transacted most of their business, & condemn'd Nestorius, without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch. The IV. had only four Legates sent by the Bishop of Rome, two African Bishops, & one Sici­lian. They acted without Dioscorus the Alexandrian Patriarch, They deposed him for favouring Hereticks, & for his contumacy against the See of Rome.

3. If all Catholick Prelates, or the much greater part, by personally present in the Council, there's no need of far­ther acceptation to confirm it. But, this wanting, 'tis supplied by the after-ac­ceptation of such persons as are capable of a vote, and so many as, if they had been present, would have made it the much greater part of Catholick Prelates, that is, of such as were not before shut of the Church by Heresie or Schisme. The II. & V. General Councils became such by the confirmation & after-accep­tation [Page 153]of Damasus & Vigilius with their Western Bishops: and 'tis a funda­mental principle of Government not simply Monarchicall, that No Laws can be promulgated, no Unity pre­serv'd, if of their Governours the lesser part be not regulated by the greater.

4. The Council remains General, notwithstanding the absence of some considerable Churches: 1. if they can­not conveniently come: 2. if they re­fuse without just hindrance: 3. if they were formerly cut of by Heresie or Schisme. The Catholick Church is narrower than Christianity and a Council may be General, though the Church were reduced to one Patriar­chate.

5. All that were capable of a voice in any General Council, were sum­mon'd to Trent. The Eastern Bishops, in the Turks Dominions could not conveniently come, there being war betwixt Christians & Turks. The Di­vision, which occasion'd the Assembly, arose only in the West, & therefore there was less need of their presence. Moreover six Greek Bishops sate in the Council: And, ten years after, the Wit­tenberg [Page 154]Divines sent the Augustan Con­fession to Hieremy Patriarch of Constan­tinople, whose Answer to them differs very little from the Decrees of Trent. Tis true; Cyril Lucar ^* publish'd a Cal­vinistical Confession: But his immediate Successor Cyril of Iberia assembled at Constantinople a Synod of 23. Bishops, besides the Patriarchs of Alexandria & Hierusalem; And again, his Successor Parthenius assembled another of 25. Bis­hops, & amongst them the Metropolitan of Moscovy: Both these Synods anathe­matiz'd Lucar with his Adherents; and also justified these Tenets of the Coun­cil, the Corporal Presence of Christ's Bo­dy & Blood with the Symboles; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of sacred Images; Prayer & Almes for the Faithfull de­ceas'd with repentance, as betterable in their present condition by them; Free will; seven Sacraments; Church Infallibility, &c. See Leo Allatius, De perpetuo Con­sensu &c. l. 3. See Monsieur Arnauld's Answer to Claude l. 4 ch 7.

6. The absence of the Protestant Cler­gy from the Council did not hinder it's being General. 1. They who are not Bishops, have no right to sit there. 2. [Page 155]When Bishops contumaciously absent themselves for fear of Censure, their presence is not requisite; otherwise fare­well the Power of all General Coun­cils. 3. There is no place due to them whose Doctrines have been anathema­tiz'd in former General Councils. Vene­ration of Images was declared lawfull in the II. of Nice. Our Canon of Scrip­ture, Purgatory; Seven Sacraments, & Pope's Supremacy, were defined in the Council of Florence: Auricular Confes­sion & Transubstantiation, in that of La­teran.

7. Although in the first Sessions under Paul III. there were only about 48. Bis­hops, 3. Benedictine Abbots, 5. Gene­rals of Religious Orders, with about 40. able Divines by way of Counsellors: This paucity under Paul or Julius was amply recompenc'd by a greater num­ber of Prelates under Pius IV who all unanimously received & ratified the former Acts of the Council. If you count them, you'l find in the Catalogue, 270. to which if you add the learned Divines who assisted, the whole number a­mounts to about 450. persons.

8. A General Council requires, that the Pope either preside in it; or approve [Page 156]the Acts of it, as in the case of the II. & V. General Council. In the IV. VI. VII. & VIII. the Protestants allow that he presided. To the III. he depu­ted S. Cyril. To the I. he sent his Le­gates. Osius, you'l say, subscrib'd before them. 1. Tis thought he presided in the Pope's name with them 2. If not, it was a pure indulgence of honour to him: The Legates subscribed before all the Patriarchs. 3. The subscriptions were manifestly irregular, because the Bishop of Antioch, who was the III. Patriarch, suscribed after the Bishops of Aegypt, & also those of Palestine, which were sub­ject to him. I have now done with my remarks, & shall make what hast I can with your objections, setting them down in the same order you sent them.

I. The Eastern Bishops were absent: & the Protestants would not go to the Council. A. 1. There were six Greek Bishops present: Afterwards three Eastern Patriarchs, & two Assemblies of their Prelates approv'd the chief points. The Protestants had no right to a de­cisive voice: Their opinions had been censur'd in former Councils, and were like to be condemn'd again in this: If, for these reasons, they absented; 'twas [Page 157]their own fault: The Council was ne­ver the worse for't. 2. Read the Bulls of Convocation: you will find that all & every one who, either by law, by custom, or by priviledge, have any right to be present, or to deliver their opinion, in Ge­neral Councils, were summon'd to ap­pear in Trent. 3. Soave himself relates how there was a deliberation of sen­ding, & granting safe-conduct, to the Greek Churches under the Turk; ^* but it was presently seen, says he, that these poor men afflicted in servitude, could not without danger, & assistance of money, think of Councils. He says also, that ^* al­though the Pope was put in mind, that to send Nuncio's into England & to Prin­ces elsewhere, who do profess open Sepa­ration from the See of Rome, would be a disreputation to him; yet he answer'd that he would humble himself to Heresy, in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ, did become that See.

II. In some of the first Sessions there were not above fifty Bishops. A. The difficulties & disturbances of the Times bear all that blame. All was fully re­compenc'd in the end, by a numerous [Page 158]& unanimous ratification of all, & by the acceptation of the absent Prelates after­ward. Soave says, that, under Pius IV. ^* the Actions of this Council were in grea­ter expectation than in former times, in regard the number of the Prelates were assembled four times as many as before. He says, ^* All the Decrees made in this Council, under Paul and Julius, as well of Faith as Reformation, were recited: And the Secretary going into the midst did interrogate, whether the Fathers were pleas'd that Confirmation should be demanded of Pope Pius IV. of all things decreed under Paul, Julius, & his Holi­ness; and they answer'd, not one by one, but all together, Placet. Pallavicini says the same; only he proves that ^* the votes were given, as usually, one by one.

III. Many of the Bishops were only Titular: And many made, during the Council, that the Papalins might over-vote the Ultramontans. A. As to the first part; Soave takes notice only of two Titular Bishops, the Archbishop of Ar­magh in Ireland, and Upsal in Sweden; both driven from their Sees by persecu­tion of Protestants, both true Bishops by their Ordination, and both sent by the [Page 159]Pope in the beginning of the Council. The second part, being barely asserted, looks like a groundless calumny, & may justly be suppos'd such, till some proof appear.

IV. The Popes, of those times, & major part of the Prelates, would ne­ver allow this Title, of the Council, Representing the Universal Church: Therefore they themselves did not look upon it as a General Council. A. Here I must beg your pardon, if I think you very much mistaken in your inference. This Title was usurp'd by the Councils of Constance & Basil; but never assum'd by any Council, which was totally approv'd. You know very well, that Catholick Divines are divided upon the point; whether the Pope be superior to a General Coun­cil; or whether a General Council, without him, be so compleat a Repre­sentative of the Universal Church, as to be superior to the Pope? They who maintain'd the superiority of a General Council, were zealous for this Title; and the others constantly oppos'd it: But both parties always agreed, that the Council of Trent was as truly General, as the first four Councils were, or any have been since.

V. It was never receiv'd by the Pro­testants: Nor by the French Catholicks. A. 1. The Council of Nice was never receiv'd by the Arians. 2. It was uni­versally receiv'd by both Ecclesiastical & Civil State of France, in point of Doc­trine 3. The Decrees of Reformation were approv'd by all the Catholick Clergy of that Kingdom. In the Assem­bly at Blois, in the year, 1576. The Archbishop of Lions in the name of all the Ecclesiastical State of France begg'd the assistance of the King's Authority to put this Reformation in execution. In the Assembly of Melun, 1579. the Bishop of Bazas, in their name, made the same request to the King, chiefly because they are tied & bound to all Laws, so made by the Catholick Church, upon pain of being reputed Schismatical, & of incurring the curse of Eternal Damnation. At Fon­tainebleau, in the year, 1582. The Arch­bishop of Bourges tells the King, The stain & reproach of Schism rests upon your Kingdom amongst other Countries. And this is the cause, why the Clergy doth now again most humbly desire, &c. In the General Assembly of the States at Paris, in the year, 1614. Cardinal Perron, & Cardinal Richelieu, then Bis­hop [Page 161]of Luson, prosecuted in vain the same request. Thus you see the Catho­lick Clergy of France unanimously re­ceiving & approving the Council of Trent in matter of Discipline. The Ci­vil State, as it has no share in the Votes of the Council, so their non-appro­bation cannot diminish the Authority of it. You may guess at the reasons of excepting against it, by what the Queen Regent, Catherine de Medicis, was pleas'd to tell the Pope's Nuncio; that the Council could not be admitted, be­cause by the Council's Decrees the King could not gratifie such Ministers of State, as had done him singular service, with the means of Religious Houses, & of Church-Benefices.

VI. Leo X. before the Convocation of the Council, had declar'd that Luther & his Adherents were Hereticks: Being therefore already condemn'd, why should they come to Council? A. 1. Their Errors had been condemn'd in for­mer General Councils: and, since it real­ly was so, Why might not the Pope say so? 2. Because the Pope had condemn'd them therefore they ^* appeal'd to a Ge­neral Council: and, since they had ap­peal'd [Page 162]to it, Why should they not go to it?

VII. It was not a legal Council. A. That is to say, it was not such a one as they had a mind to. Luther, being que­stion'd, first made friends to be tried in Germany. As soon as he was there con­demn'd by Cajetan, he appeal'd to the Pope. Immediately after, foreseeing his condemnation there, he intercepted this appeal with ^* another, from the Pope to a General Council; having ground to imagine, He would never call one, who was suppos'd, to fear that it would se­verely reform him & his Court. As soon as he saw that, in good earnest, a Bull was publisht, in the year, 1537. to call a Council at Vicenza; he began presently, to vilifie Councils, & put out a book De Conciliis, to prove that they always did more harm than good; not sparing so much as the first Councils of Nice, or of the Apostles Then he appeal'd from Council to Scripture, where He that makes himself supreme Judge of the Sense, may easily maintain what ab­surdity he pleases. Soave tells us, he was ^* used to say that he was so well assured of his Doctrine, that, it being [Page 163]Divine, he would not submit it so much as to the judgment of Angels; yea, that with it he was to judge all, both men & Angels. After this, his Followers thought it more plausible not to shuffle so visibly, but to admit a Council, & clog it with such conditions as would quite disarm it, & make it useless. You may read them in Soave, as follows.

^* 1. That it should be celebrated in Germany; 2. That it should not be inti­mated by the Pope; 3. That He should not preside, but be part of the Council, subject to the determinations of it; 4. That the Bishops & other Prelates should be freed from their Oath given to the Pope; 5. That the Holy Scripture might be Judge in Council, & all Humane Authority excluded; 6. That the Di­vines of the States of the Augustan Con­fession, sent to the Council, might not only have a consulting, but a deciding voice; 7. That the Decisions in Council should not be made, as in Secular mat­ters, by plurality of voices; but the more sound opinions preferr'd, that is, those which were regulated by the word of God. You will not deny, but that in England we have had some Kings [Page 164]whose title to the Crown has been unquestionable, & that some free & legal Parliaments have been assembled during their reign. Give me leave to put the case, that two or three Coun­ties had revolted, protesting against all that would be done in such a Parlia­ment, & refusing to send any Depu­ties to it, but upon these conditions: 1. that it be assembled in their Ter­ritory; 2. that it be not call'd by the King; 3. that his Majesty may be sub­ject to it; 4. that all the members of it be freed from their Oath of Alle­geance; 5. that all Humane Authority of former Parliaments may be exclu­ded; 6. that they may depute as many as they please with a decisive voice; 7. that (for fear of being over-voted) the Decisions be not made, as usually, by plurality of voices, but that the more sound opinions, (that is, their own) may be preferr'd. What would you think of these Articles? Would you conclude, the Parliament was illegal, if it did not submit to their demands? I do not pretend here, to make an ex­act parallel betwixt the Monarchy of the Church & that of England: yet however the parity is not so unequal, [Page 165]but that it may help to open your eyes.

VIII. The Parties concern'd were Judges in their own case. A. No more than in the I. of Nice. The world was then divided into Catholicks & Arians, as now into Catholicks & Protestants: And, as the Catholicks had then a right to judge the one, so now they had the very same right to judge the other. If any part separate from the whole, it does not therefore acquire a right of saying, that the Whole, from which they divide themselves, is now a Party, & therefore must not judge them. Pope Leo and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexan­dria counteraccus'd one another of He­resy; and yet the Pope legally presided in the IV. General Council which con­demn'd Dioscorus, Neither was it ever thought a sufficient excuse for Dioscorus to say, the Pope was a Party & Judge in his own case.

Mr. Chilling worth confesses, that, in controversies of Religion, it is in a manner impossible to avoid but the Judge must be a Party. For this must be the first controversy, whether he be a Judge or no; and in that he must be a Party. Such is the Pope's Case, in the Definition of his Supremacy. The same [Page 166]necessity is found in supreme Civil po­wer. Inferiour Courts are liable to Ap­peals: But, if some of the King's sub­jects rebell against him, & oppose his prerogatives or laws; 'tis evidently ne­cessary that the King must judge his own case, or the Offence must not be judg'd at all. What must the King do? Substitute an equal number of Royalists & Rebells? This can never be an ef­fectual provision for the Common Peace of Government. Or must he remit the arbitration to a neighbouring State? 1. This state is always interess'd; & there­fore partial. 2. This does not leave, within the compass of any Kingdom upon earth, sufficient power to procure the common good. 3. Were it allow'd in Civil Power, it cannot be applied to our present case, unless Controversies in Religion could be decided out of the Church, by men of no Religion at all.

In the National Synod of Dort, in the year, 1618. the Low-country Re­monstrants seeing themselves like to be over-voted by the Protestants, made the same excuses; saying, that the ma­jor part of the Synod was declar'd of a contrary party; that they were already [Page 167]excommunicated by them; and, there­fore, they ought not to be Judges. To this, the Synod replied: that, if this ex­ception were admitted, it would sub­vert the whole frame of Ecclesiastical Government: that Pastors would be discourag'd from their duty of oppo­sing the first beginnings of Heresy, if therefore they must forfeit their right of giving suffrages, or being Judges, afterwards: that the Arians & other Hereticks might ever have pleaded the same exception against the Orthodox Fathers: that Divines neither are, nor ought to be, indifferent in matters of Religion; so that, if only Neuters may be judges, there will be none left in the Church, and we must go abroad (no body knows where) to look for 'em. This was the substance of their Answer; which I here set down in the Latin, to satisfie your curiosity. Nunquam praxim hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse, ut Pa­stores, quoties exorientibus erroribus ex officio se opponerent, propterea jure suffra­giorum, aut de illis ipsis erroribus judi­candipotestate, exciderent, Ita enim om­nem everti judiciorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinem; efficique ne Pastores officio suo fideliter fungi queant .... Eos qui in do­ctrinâ [Page 168]aut moribus scandalorum autores sunt, semper Censores suoge, Consistoria, Classes, Synodos, ceu partem adversam, rejicere .... ad eum modum Arianis, aliisque olim hereticis, adversus Ortho­doxos Pastores semper licuisset excipere. The English Divines deliver'd their opi­nion in these terms: 1. Huic sententiae re­fragatur perpetua praxis omnium Eccle­siarum. Nam in Synodis Oecumenicis, Ni­caeno, &c. ii. qui antiquitus receptam doctrinam oppugnarunt, ab illis, qui ean­dem sibi traditam admiserunt & appro­barunt, examinati, judicati, damnati sunt. 2. Ipsius rei necessitas huc cogit. Theologi enim, in negotio religionis, neque esse solent tanquam abrasae tabulae, neque esse debent. Si igitur soli neutrales pos­sent esse judices, extra Ecclesiam in quâ lites enatae sunt, quaerendi essent. 3. Ip­sa aequitas suadere videtur. Nam quae ratio reddi potest, ut suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi Pastores, qui ex of­ficio receptam Ecclesia Doctrinam pro­pugnantes secus docentibus adversati sunt. Si hoc obtinuerit, nova dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisteret, ne ipso fac­to jus omne postmodum de illis controver­siis judicandi amitteret. Pray, give me leave now to ask, Why might not the [Page 169]Parties be Judges in the Council of Trent, as well as in the Synod of Dort? If, in one case, the Remonstrants were oblig'd to submit to the Protestants. Why were not the Protestants oblig'd to submit to the Catholicks in the other? The Synod was forc'd to pre­tend some disparity; and, for want of a better, alledg'd this; that the Pro­testants and Remonstrants were under the same Magistracy. And, what if if they were? We are not now talking of Civil Assemblies, but of Ecclesiastical. Dos the division of Civil Power de­stroy the Unity of the Catholick Church, which we believe in our Creed? Or, if there be any reason why (when any Schisme arises) the Autho­rity of the Whole is devolved to the major part, does not the same Reason conclude as evidently in favour of a General, as of a National, Council?

IX. To make it better appear, which was the major part, the Protestants ought to have had a decisive voice in Council. A. 1. Binius says, that the Council premitted this caution; that, if the Protestants were allow'd, for once, to give a Placet, it should be no prejudice to the right & honour of [Page 170]the present & future Councils: which looks as if the Council were not fully resolv'd to deny this to them, if much insisted upon. 2. They, who openly maintain such doctrines as have been formerly condemn'd in General Coun­cils, are cutt of from the Catholick Church; they are not Members of it; & therefore can have no right to a decisive voice. 3. If it had been per­mitted, they were still certain to be over-voted by 270. Bishops; to whom if you add the Catholick Divines, by the same rule as the Protestants, there remain'd no ground for any hopes. This the Protestants saw well enough, & there­fore were willing to wave all Eccle­siastical Judges. Soave tells you, how they shuffled in this point. One time, they proposed a Decision by Laicks in­differently chosen, in an equal number, on both sides. Another time, they ap­peal'd to ^* a godly & free Council, which is not the Tribunal of Pope & Priests only, but of all the Orders of the Church, not excluding the Seculars. Here indeed the Clergy were admitted to this godly & free Council; but it was only, by way of spectators, to see what [Page 171]the Laity would please to do there▪ for ^* the Pope making himself a party to the cause, it was just that the manner and form of the proceeding, should be determin'd by the Princes. This was the ^* Answer of 15. Princes, & 30, Cities, assembled in Smalcalda, 1535. Again, about two years after, when the ^* Em­perour sent his Vice. Chancellor to exhort them to receive the Council, they ans­werd, that they had always demanded a free & Christian Council, that every man may freely speak, Turks & Infidels being excluded. Here you see, that every man, who call'd himself a Christian, (no matter how otherwise qualified) was to have a free Vote in Council: only Turks & Infidels were to be excluded. Judge you, what a free & godly Council this was like to be. Mean time, all this was only a copy of their countenance▪ They clearly foresaw that the much greater part, of those to whom God has com­mitted the care of his Church, would certainly condemn their errors: They were already self-condemn'd, as to Au­thority; And therefore they never in­tended to appear in any legal Council, but hated the very thought of it: Al­though [Page 172]the Name of a Council was very plausible, and fit to be made use of, for a time, to amuse the world with [...] an opinion of the Reformers, that they were not proud & obstinate; but always willing to hear reason, & desirous to be better informed.

The Duke of Prussia was more sin­cere, when Canobius came to invite him; He ^* answer'd plainly, without any mincing or disguising of the mat­ter, that he was of the Augustan Confes­sion, & therefore could not consent to a Popish Council. Yet, after all, to do the Protestants justice, I must needs confess that, as soon as they were no longer in fear of the Emperour, they began to un­mask & speak as plainly as the Duke did. Read Soave's Annals, 1562. he says that, ^* so soon as the Diet was assem­bled in Francfort, the Prince of Condé sent to treat an union of the Huguenots with those of the Confession of Ausburg; and, in particular, to make a joynt de­mand, for a free & new Council, in which the resolutions of Trent might be exa­min'd, the French men of the old Ca­tholick Religion giving hope also that they would agree unto it ... But the [Page 173]Dutch Protestants were most averse from a Council, so long as Germany might be in peace without it. And therefore a book was printed in Francfort, full of rea­sons why they neither would, nor could, come to Trent, with protestation of the nullity of all that was, or would be, done in that place.

One thing, which makes me less wonder they could never agree to any Council of ours, is this, that I find in Soave, they could not agree in a Council of their own. ^* In Germany, says he, the Princes of the Augustan Confession, assembled in Neumburg, being ashamed that their Religion should be esteem'd a Confusion for the variety of Doctrines amongst them, did propose that they might first agree in one, & then resolve whe­ther they ought to refuse or accept the Synod ... They said, the Augustan Con­fession was to be the ground of their Dot­trine; but, there being divers copies of that Confession, which differ'd, in regard of divers additions made in divers of them, some approving one & some ano­ther, Many thought they ought to take that only which was presented to Charles in the year, 1530. Whereunto those [Page 174]of the Palatinate did not consent, unless it were declared, in a Proheme made unto it, that the other Edition did agree with it. The Duke of Saxony answer'd, that they could not stop the eyes & ears of the world, that they should not see & hear their differences; & that if they would make shew of union, where they were at variance, they should be convinc'd of vanity & lying: And, after many contentions, they remain'd without agree­ment in that point. How should the Ca­tholicks please them, if they knew not how to please themselves?

X. The burning of John Huss was a sufficient excuse for the Protestants, not to rely upon any Safe conduct, A. I must beg your pardon, if I believe no such matter. It was no excuse at all. His Safe conduct was of the ordinary form; Theirs was extraordinary: And, there fore the Case was quite different.

'Tis certain that the Ordinary Safe-conducts secure a man only from unjust violence, but not from the just execution of a legal sentence, if he be found guilty. When a person, suspected of a crime, is cited to appear, & to answer for him­self, the Ordinary Safe-conduct secures him from all abuses or affronts which [Page 175]might otherwise be offer'd to him, ei­ther going, staying, or returning: but however, if, after a fair Trial, he be legally condemn'd: it will never save him from suffering according to Law. If this were all the Security that Huss relied upon, we may justly admire his confidence, in going so boldly to the Council; but can­not reasonably wonder, either at his imprisonment, or execution.

That this was all the Security given him, appears by the testimony of one of his own Disciples, who wrote his Acts which are publish'd in the beginning of his Works, & says he was an eyewitness of what pass'd. He relates the words of the Emperour Sigismond telling Huss to his face, at Constance; ^* Although, says he, Some say that, by your friends & patrons, you receiv'd our Letters of Publick Faith, fifteen days after your imprisonment; yet we can prove, by the testimony of many Princes & men of chief note, that, before you lest Prague, you receiv'd our Letters by Wenceslaus of Duha. & John of Chlum, to whose trus­ty care we recommended you, THAT NO INJURY MIGHT BE DONE TO YOU, but that you might speak freely, [Page 176]& answer for your self, before the whole Council, concerning your faith & doctri­ne. And this, you see, the most Reve­rend Lords, Cardinals & Bishops, have so perform'd, that I have reason to give them many thanks ... Now therefore we advise you, not to defend any thing ob­stinately, but to submit your self, with what obedience you ought, to the Autho­rity of the Holy Council. If you do this, we will endeavour, that, for our sakes, you may be favourably dismiss'd by the Council. If not ... We truly will never patronize your obstinacy & your errors.

In this discourse of the Emperour I observe, 1. That the Letters of Publick Faith were given to Huss, only that no injury might be done to him: And there­fore conclude, that, if contrary to the common law of Safe-conducts he endea­vour'd to make his escape, his imprison­ment was just, and no injury done. See Bremus a Protestant Lawyer, Quaest. ult. de Securitate, who cites a great number of others, agreeing with him this opinion▪ that Publick Faith is ended or forfeited, if a man, having receiv'd Publick Faith, committs a new crime, be cause, for this, he may be punish'd. 2. That the friends of Huss made no great [Page 177]scruple of telling stories in favour of him, & of raising a false report that the Letters were given him the fifteenth day after his confinement; thinking, perhaps, that by this rumour the Empe­rour would be oblig'd in honour, to rescue him out of prison: Which de­ceitful dealing makes me less wonder, either that his Disciples make no men­tion of his endeavouring to escape, or that the Nobles of Bohemia, take no notice of it in their Letters of complaint to the Emperour; & makes me more apt to believe the Relation of it, set down by Ulricus Reichental, an inhabitant of Constance, an eye witness of what hap­ned, & an accurate Historian of the Council, whom if you understand not in the original Teutonick, you may read this part translated into Latin by Coch­laeus, lib. 11. Hist. Hussitarum, pag. 73.

Before Huss was guilty of this crime, he had been kindly receiv'd and favou­rably treated at Constance, as well as all the way thither. This he confesses him­self, in his Letters to his friends. ^* We came, says he, to Constance, after the feast of All Saints, passing through the [Page 178]Cities without any ill usage, And we lodge in a street which is nigh the Pope's Palace. Again; ^* All my affairs are in a good posture, says he; Scitote quod bene sto per omnia. And, in his Letter above cited, speaking of Latzem­bock and Lepka to whose care the Em­perour had recommended him, he says, ^* They have been with the Pope, & have spoken to him concerning me; Who answer'd, that he will do nothing by violence. Besides, his Chamber-fellow Plebanus de Jannowitz wrote a Letter dated from Constance, the Saturday be­fore S. Martin's feast; in which he tells, how ^* the Bishop of Constance with his Official, came to their Lodging, let­ting them know that the Pope suspended the interdict & the sentences of excom­munication against Master John; desi­ring him nevertheless, that, to avoid scandal & discourse of the People, he would absent himself from the solemn services of the Mass; otherwise, that he might freely go about to see the Town, the Churches, or any other places, as he pleased.. We have, says he, full liberty in Constance.

Afterwards, as Ulricus relates it, the [Page 179]people flock'd together, to hear Huss say Mass in his Lodging; which being a scan­dalous thing, (he having been excom­municated for Heresy, & not having yet justified himself) the Bishop of Con­stance, as Ordinary of the place, prohi­bited his doing so: But, Huss still persis­ting to celebrate, & the Bishop forbid­ding the people to be present, he began to look upon it as an evil omen of his future condemnation, and resolv'd to contrive his escape. Upon the third Sun­day in Lent, when Huss did not appear at dinner, Latzembock went immediat­ly to the Governour of the City, and complain'd of the flight of John Huss. The gates being shut, & search made, Huss was found hid in a Cart of the same Latzembock, where he lay cover'd with hay & straw, which had been or­der'd to be transported out of town, that afternoon. Latzembock made him be set on horse back, & brought him to the Pope's Palace. He pleaded, that, having Safe-conduct, he ought not to be impri­prison'd. But this Noble Bohemian (who knew very well what Safe-conduct he had, he being committed to his care, by Signismond) answer'd, 'Tis so Decreed, that either you must justifie your Cause, [Page 180]that it is not heretical; or die, unless you renounce it. I do not say, this was not severe; The Imperial Laws are se­vere enough: but yet, since it was ac­cording to the Common Law of Ordi­nary Safe-conducts, it cannot be truly call'd an Injury, And, by the same rule, that the Emperour was not oblig'd, ac­cording to his Letters, to patronize his obstinacy & his errors, neither was he oblig'd to protect him from the course of Common Law in this occa­sion.

Nevertheless I am apt to believe, that the Emperour did really design to procure (as much as he could, by fair means) more favour for him than the rigour of the Law allow'd. Among other reasons which incline me to this opinion, these two may suffice at present: 1. that John Chlum ^* complain'd, his Master's Safe-conduct was violated: 2. that the Emperour himself in his Ans­wer to the Nobles of Bohemia, writes, He ^* often sollicited for him; often, in a passion, went out of the Council; yea rather, upon his account, departed from Constance; till they said, If You will [Page 181]not give Justice leave to take its course in Council, what have We to do here? Whereupon says he, I concluded, it was not in my power to do any thing more, in this matter. Neither was it lawfull for me to speak any more, of this Busi­ness; because, by so doing, the Council would have been dissolv'd. Thus He be­haved himself; And, whether it were Vanity, or Generosity, or Policy, that moved him, is not my business to en­quire; Tis enough for your satisfaction & mine, that, by his Letters of Publick Faith, He was not oblig'd, either in Conscience, or in Honour, to rescue him out of the hands of Justice, but only to protect him from Unjust Violence.

Tis incredible, you'l say, that Huss should be such a fool as to go to Constance upon these terms. Neither can I deny but that it must be some degree of folly for any man to be so confident of his own abilities as to cope with a whole Council, & to defie all his Opposers to convince him of his errors. But why might not the Master be as bold as the Scholar? I mean Jerome of Prague who follow'd him soon after, to Constance, upon the same terms, with a Safe con­duct from the Council. ^* Citamus ... [Page 182]quatenus compareas ... recepturus, ac facturus, in omnibus Justitiae comple­mentum, ad quod A VIOLENTIA, JUSTITIA SEMPER SALVA, om­nem Salvum-conductum nostrum, quan­tum in nobis est, & Fides exigit Ortho­doxa, praesentium tenore offerimus. Ob­serve these words, a violentiâ; The Safe-conduct was only to secure him from unjust violence. Observe also the follow­ing clause, Justitiâ semper salvâ; He was not to expect any protection against Justice. If Jerome desired no more than this from the Council, Why might not Huss be content with as much from the Emperour?

That this was the Ordinary form of all Safe conducts, granted according to Common Law, appears evidently by the general consent of Lawyers; among which, for your better satisfaction, I shall cite only such as were Protestants. Bremus, q. 7. de Securitate, says, this is the common Imperial form of Safe­conducts; Damus tibi Fidem Publi­cam, causam dicendi in Judicio, CON­TRA VIM, NON CONTRA JURIS EXECUTIONEM. Mynsingerus, Ob­serv. 82, upon the Judgment of the Im­perial Chamber, says, Quando datur [Page 183]alicui Securitas, vel Salvus-conductus, Tunc intelligitur solum de VIOLEN­TIA, quae de facto CONTRA JUS in­fertur. Et ideo, meo tempore, cuidam, qui habebat Salvum-conductum, capto propter delictum, vel maleficium, & sup­canti in Camerâ pro Mandato de relax­ando ... petiti Processus a Dominis As­sessoribus sunt denegati. Again, Everar­dus Specklan, another Lawyer, Centu­riâ 1. q. 1, §. 18. cites a great many Authors, All agreeing that such is the usual form. And, in the Jus Camera­le, Tit. 276. (See the Edition of Gol­dastus) this Law of Maximilianus Au­gustus is read; Subditos Judicio Rotwi­tensi avocaturi, Fidem actori Publicam. CONTRA VIM, NON CONTRA JUS, dare tenentor. Any man, that un­derstands Latin, sees plainly by these quotations that Common Law, in such Cases, always grants Security from Inju­ry, but not from Justice.

That Huss had no Safe-conduct from the Pope, he expressely acknowledges, Epist. 6. I came, says he, to Constance, without Safe-conduct from the Pope. That he had none from the Council, appears not only by his silence, but by Soave's History, pages, 298. & 307. [Page 184]which I shall cite in the following Ob­jection. That the Safe-conduct, which he had from the Emperour, was never intended to hinder the Council's pro­ceeding against him, according to the Canons, is manifest, not only by what has been already said, but by the Emperour's Letters of Publick Faith, dated from Spire, Octob. 18. 1414. extant in Gol­dastus his Appendix Documentorum ad Commentarios de Regni Bohemiae Juri­bus & Privilegiis. p. 81. We heartily recommend, to all & every one of you, the honourable Master John Huss Batch­elor of Divinity, & Master of Arts, the Bearer of These, whom We have ta­ken into Our protection & Safeguard of the Holy Empire, passing from the Kingdom of Bohemia to the General Council which is shortly to be held in the City of Constance: Desiring you to receive him kindly, & treat him favou­rably whensoever he shall come unto you, and that you will & ought to shew your readiness, in promoting what be­longs to his speed & safety, either by Land or Water, permitting also, him, his servants, his horses, & all things else beionging to him, freely, & without any hindrance, to passe, to stop, to stay, & to [Page 185]return, by any passages, ports, bridges, lands, dominions, jurisdictions, cities, towns, castles, villages, & whatsoever places of yours, without any expence of tribute, toll, or any other payment; And, that you will, & ought, for the honour & respect of our Majesty, to pro­vide Secure & Safe conduct for him & his, when occasion shall 'require.

All this the Emperour commanded, as much as lay in Him, And, in all this, his subjects obeyd, as much as lay in them. He had no Authority over the Council, in matters of Religion: Nor do I find the least syllable of any promise, made by the Emperour to him, that the Council should not proceed against him, according to Law. He came upon his good behaviour, and in his own defence; confiding in his own prudence and abilities, as well as in the Emperour's Letters; in which there is no sign of these two promises, 1. that he should not be imprison'd, if by any misdemea­nour he deserv'd it; 2. that he should nor be executed, if legally condemn'd.

Both these promises were plainly in­cluded in the Extraordinary Safe-con­duct which the Tridentine Council granted to the Protestants: And there­fore, [Page 186]as I told you in the beginning, The Case was quite different. Read Soave, and if you believe him, you'l begin to be asham'd of your objection. ^* The Sy­nod doth make Faith to all Priests, Princes, & Persons of what condition soever ...Safe conduct, to come, remain, PROPOSE. & speak IN THE SY­NOD, to HANDLE & EXAMINE WHAT THEY THINK FIT. give Ar­ticles, & confirm them, ANSWER the OBJECTIONS of the Council, & DIS­PUTE with those, whom it doth elect, declaring that the CONTROVERSIES in this Council shall be handled accor­ding to the HOLY SCRIPTURE, Tra­ditions of the APOSTLES, approv'd COUNCILS, Consent of the CATHO­LICK CHURCH, & Authority of the Holy FATHERS; adding, that they SHALL NOT BE PUNISH'D upon PRETENCE OF RELIGION, or OF­FENCES COMITTED, or which WILL BE COMMITTED ...and shall RETURN, when it shall seem good un­to them, WITHOUT LET, with SAFE­TY OF THEIR ROBE, HONOUR, & PERSONS, but with the knowledg of the Deputies of the Synod, that [Page 187]provision may be made for their Secu­rity: granting that, in this Safe-co­duct, ALL those CLAUSES be held to be included, which are NECESSARY FOR REAL & FULL ASSURANCE: Adding, that if any of the Pro­testants, either in coming, or in Trent, or in returning, SHALL COMMIT ANY ENORMITY, which shall NUL­LIFIE THE BENEFIT OF THIS PUBLICK FAITH, he shall be PU­NISH'D BY THEIR OWN Protestant JUDGES, so that the Synod may be satisfied: and, on the other side, if any Catholick in coming hither, remaining here, or returning, SHALL COMMIT ANY THING which may VIOLATE THIS SAFE CONDUCT, he shall be punish'd by the Synod, WITH AP­PROBATION OF THE GERMAN Protestant 's THEMSELVES, who shall be present in Trent.... which things it promiseth faithfully, in the name of all faithfull Christians, Ecclesiastical & Secular. If Huss & Jerome had come to Constance with such a Safe­conduct, they had neither been im­prison'd, nor executed. With such a one as this, the Bohemians went after­wards to Basil, were civilly used, & [Page 188]return'd quietly home. With this the Wittenberg Protestants went to Trent, remain'd quiet there, & return'd with­out receiving any affront. That no more of the Protestants follow'd their example, in going thither, was their own fault: They knew very well, they might have gone, remain'd, & return'd, securely, if they pleas'd. Confider all this, at leisure; and then, tell me (if you can) what's become of your Excuse.

XI. The Councils of Constance & Sienna had declared it lawfull to break the faith of any Safe-conduct what­soever. A. Read the Decrees; you'l plainly see the contrary. The Council of Constance dos not say, 'tis lawfull for any, whosoever they are, to violate the faith of their promises; but only declares, that no Secular Power can legally hinder the exercise of Eccle­siustical Jurisdiction, because it is, not only independent of it, but manifestly superior to it, in matters of Religion. Tis a common Maxim of the Law; Superior legibus aut pactis Inferioris non ligatur. And, in all appearance, the design of the Council was to sa­tisfie the World, that, although the [Page 189]Emperour had pretended to grant an Extraordinary Safe-conduct, such as exempts a man from Justice as well as Violence, it could nor have hindred the supreme Power of Pope & Council from proceeding according to the Ca­nons, in Causes which are purely of Religion.

This was the reason why the Prote­stants would not rely upon the Empe­rour's Safe-conduct; Nor can I blame them for it. See Soave, p. 298. Duke Maurice wrote to the Emperour, that his Safe-conduct was not sufficient. For, in the Council of Constance, it was de­termin'd, that THEY MIGHT PRO­CEED AGAINST THOSE THAT CAME TO THE COUNCIL, THOUGH THEY HAD SAFE-CON­DUCT FROM THE EMPEROUR. And that, therefore the Bohemians would not go Basil, but under the Publick Faith of the whole Council. See p. 307. The Ambassadors went all together to the Pre­sidents, & told them, that the Empe­rour had given the Protestants a Safe­conduct, but that they were not conten­ted with it, alledging that it was de­creed in the Council of Constance, and really executed, that THE COUNCIL [Page 190]IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAFE­CONDUCT OF ANY, WHOSOEVER HE BE; & therefore they required one from the Synod. These Protestants, you see, understood the Council in the same sense as I do: How come you to understand it otherwise?

Let the Decree speak for it self, & judge case betwixt us. It runs thus: Presens Sancta Synodus, ex QUOVIS SALVO CONDUCTU per Imperato­rem Reges, & alios Seculi Principes, HAERETICIS vel de Haeresi diffama­tis, putantes eosdem sic a suis errori­bus revocare, quocunque vinculo se ad­strinxerint, CONCESSO, NULLUM Fi­dei Catholicae, vel JURISDICTIONI ECCLESIASTICAE, praejudicium gene­rari, vel IMPEDIMENTUM PRAES­TARI POSSE seu DEBERE declarat, QUOMINUS dicto Salvo-conductu non obstante, LICEAT JUDICI competen­ti & ECCLESIASTICO de hujusmodi personarum erroribus IN QUIRERE, & aliàs contra eos DEBITE PROCE­DERE, eosdemque PUNIRE, QUAN­TUM JUSTITIA SUADEBIT, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusave­rint, etiamsi de Salvo conductu confisi ad locum venerint Judicii, aliàs non [Page 191]venturi: Nec sic promittentem, cum fe­cerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum. Conc. Const. Sass 17.

The Council does not say, that any one, who makes a promise, is not obliged in conscience to keep it, to the utmost of his just & lawfull power: But only declares, that every man's Promises, & Obligations of per­formance, are confined within the limits of his own Jurisdiction, which he cannot lawfully exceed; And that, therefore, No man either can promise, or be by promise oblig'd to perform, any more. This is the plain sense of those words: Nec ipsum promittentem Imperatorem, Regem, vel alium quem­vis Secoli Principem, cum fecerit quod in ipso est, quod nimirum, ex officio, & jure suo, potest ac debet, ex hoc Salvo-conductu, in aliquo, quod Juris­dictioni obsit Ecclesiasticae, remansisse ulteriùs obligatum. Can you blame this Doctrine? Does not every body know, 1. that any man may promise, & every man ought to perform, what lies in his power? 2. that no man can, either promise to encroach upon a power su­perior to his own, or be oblig'd to per­form it?

The 1. Act of the Council of Sienna proceeds upon the same principles. Though it was very inconsiderable in its issue & conclusion, it was General in its convocation & design; It imitated the Council of Constance, in assuming the Title of Representing the Universal Church; And, by vertue of the supreme Ecclesiastical Power implied in that Title. They commanded All Governours Ecclesiastical & Secular, to prosecute the Laws against the followers of Huss & Wickliff, revoking & forbidding all priviledges, immunities, exemptions, & Safe-conducts whatsoever; Privilegiis, Exemptionibus, Immunitatibus, SAL­VIS CONDUCTIBUS, a quibuscumque Personis, Ecclesiasticis vel Secularibus, etiamsi Pontificali, Imperiali, Regali, aut Ducali; aut aliâ quâcumque Eccle­siasticâ vel Seculari praefulgeant dignita­te, concessis vel concedendis, NON OB­STANTIBUS QUIBUSCUNQUE. You may look upon this Persecuting Decree as a severe thing, & blame it (if you please) upon that account: But you cannot justly blame the Doctrine upon which 'tis grounded, it being the very same with that of the Council of Constance.

If you ask me, Why then dos the Council of Trent insert this clause in the end of the Safe-conduct, that ^* the Synod shall not use, or suffer any to use, any authority, power, right, statute, or priviledg, of laws, canons, or Councils, ESPECIALLY that of Constance, & of Sienna; which things, in this behalf, & for this time, the Council doth disallow? Why dos it disallow these Statutes, if they were fair & just? A. It dos not disallow them absolutely, but only con­ditionally; that is, IF they contain any doctrine contrary to the Security of Pub­lick Faith. The reason of this procee­ding was, because among the Protestants there were a great many who had an ill opinion of these Decrees, and were very jealous of them. 'Twas more easy for the Council to protest, that, whatsoever they were, they should not prejudice the Safe-conduct; than it was, to per­swade them that the Decrees were inno­cent. It was the charitable design of the Council to use all condescension possible, and give such an extraordinary Safe-conduct, as might prevent all jea­lousies & take away all excuses. And here it is, that the Synod might justly [Page 194]say, what the Pope said upon an other occasion, They ^* humbled themselves to Heresy, in regard that whatsoever was done to gain souls to Christ, did become that Council.

If you have a mind to see a great deal more of this charitable conde­scension towards them, read Soave's History, where he tells you how, the Council having granted them a Safe conduct in the 13. Session, they ex­cepted against it, & demanded another of a more ample form, which was soon after granted, & publish'd in the 15. Session, Jan. 25. 1552. Observe how Soave relates it. ^* The Empe­rour's Ambassadors desired to have the draught of it, before it was publish'd, to shew it the Protestants, that if it did not give them satisfaction, it might be so amended, that they might not have an occasion to refuse it, as they did the other. Afterwards the Em­perour's Ambassadors call'd the Protes­tants to them, & the Ambassador Pic­tavius exhorted them to give some little part of satisfaction to the Coun­cil, as they receiv'd much from it; told them that it was concluded, to [Page 195]receive their Mandates & Persons, and to hear their Propositions, and to defer the conclusion of the points of Doctrine, though already discuss'd & diges­ted, to expect the Divines, and hear them first; that they have a very am­ple Safe-conduct, as they desired ... that it was necessary to yield some­thing to the time, & not to desire all at once; that when they shall be en­tred into the business, occasion will make them obtain many things which before seem'd hard ... that they them­selves, the Emperour's Ambassadors, have matters to propose of great mo­ment, and do stand only expecting that the Protestants should begin, that af­terwards they themselves may come forth also. For this cause he prayed them to proceed slowly in their demand, that the Pope should submit himself to the Council. For the Fathers do know that there is something to be amended in the Papal greatness; but withall, that they must go on cun­ningly; that they themselves have dayly experience, what dexterity & art must be used in treating with the Pope's Ministers. Therefore let their Divines come, who should have a convenient [Page 196]audience in all things, and when they shall see themselves wrong'd, it shall ever be free for them to depart. The Protestants retiring & considering the draught of the Safe-conduct, were not content. They required four things more; 1. a decisive voice; 2. that the Scrip­ture, & interpreters conformable to it, should be Judges; 3. that they might exercise their religion in their own hou­ses; 4. that nothing should be done in contempt of their doctrine. ^* The Im­perialists perswaded them to go on with dexterity; saying, as before, that with time they should obtain all; but, seeking things distastfull, & before there was opportunity, every thing would be more hard: that the 3. article was under­stood to be granted, because it was not forbid: & that the 4. was plainly ex­press'd, because good usage was promis'd. Ambassador Toledo had told them, ^* that the chief importance was in the Security of coming & departing; that the residue appertain'd to the manner of their Negotiation, which might more easily be concluded by the presence of the Divines, that it was too much obstinacy, to yield in nothing, & to desire to give [Page 197]laws to the whole Church. After all this, ^* the Protestants receiv'd the Safe-con­duct; but, with protestation, that they did it, only to send it to their Princes. Would not any body think, these men were very hard to please?

XII. When some of the Protestants came to Trent. they were denied au­dience, & liberty of disputing. A. Nei­ther the one, nor the other, was denied them. Tis true, they were not heard: but whose fault was that? It was because the victorious Army of the Protestants made the Bishops run away from Trent, before the preliminaries of the Treaty could be well agreed upon. They came about the middle of March, & departed in the beginning of April. Have but a little patience to hear Soave tell the story, and you will presently see that this objection is a meer calumny. ^* The Electors of Mentz and Collen departed the eleventh of March.... four Divines of Wittenberg and two of Ar­gentina came to Trent afterwards, & desired to begin the Conference. The Legat answer'd, that the nineteenth of March being a day appointed for the Session, they would then consider about [Page 198] a form how to treat. Was this, denying audience? Afterwards a resolution was taken, to prolong the Session till the first of May. This was some Delay indeed, & little enough to deliberate upon the preliminaries of so unusual a Treaty; but however, it was no Denial. Mean time, ^* the Protestants often desir'd the Action should begin (it seems, they were in great hast) but difficulty was still rais'd, sometimes about the manner of treating, sometimes about the matter with which to begin... ^* the Adherents of Cesar, Spaniards, & others, mov'd by the Emperour's Ambassadors, desired to proceed; but the Papalins (he has always a fling at the Court) suspecting that the end of the Imperialists was to come to the Reformation of the Court of Rome, embrac'd all occasions of delay. The Legate, says he, was thought to feign himself sick; but Soave, I presume, did not think so himself, because he tells us in the very next page, that he died soon after at Verona, which was no good proof of his dissimulation. But let us go on with his story. ^* The first of April, the Elector of Saxony besieg'd Ausburg, which did render it self the [Page 199]third day, & the sixth news came there­of to Trent, & that all Tirol did arm, & meant to go to Inspruc ... Therefore many of the Italian Bishops embark'd, & went down the river Adice, to go to Verona, and the Protestants determin'd to depart. See here the true cause of their departure: and tell me no more, of their being either denied audience, or liberty of disputing.

XIII. The place was not secure. A. Very true; it was far from being secure for the Catholicks: The Protestant Army forced them to suspend the Council, April, 28. Neither was it any wonder, that they were so much afraid of their victorious arms: Soave says, ^* The Emperour was forced to fly by night, with all his Court from Inspruc, & to wander in the mountains of Trent, and that a few hours after, Maurice arrived there, the same night, & made himself Lord of the Emperour's baggage. Consider here, on the one side, how littie reason the Protestants have to complain of the choice of this place: 1. it was nigher the Pro­testants of Germany, than the Catho­licks of Spain & France: 2. the Pope's [Page 200]forces had no access thither; 'twas in the Emperour's power: 3. the appea­rance only, of the Protestant Army, was enough to fright away the Coun­cil. On the other side, you see how justly the Pope refus'd to call a Coun­cil in any City of Germany, for fear of the Protestant arms. As for the Ca­non, Ut illic lites terminentur ubi exor­tae sunt, 'tis understood of those causes, where some fact is to be prov'd by witnesses that live upon the place.

XIV. The Council was not free. It was call'd by the Pope: And nothing could be determin'd till the Pope sent his instructions from Rome. A. If any man have a right to convocate the supreme Ecclesiastical Assembly, 'tis certainly He who has from God the supreme Ecclesiastical power upon earth; and this right, of calling it, ap­pertains as manifestly to the Pope, as the convocation of a Provincial Coun­cil belongs to the Metropolitan. More­over, Soave says, the Princes in the Diet of Noremberg desired ^* that by the Pope, with consent of the Emperour, a free Council should be intimated as soon as was possible: he says, the Emperour [Page 201]sent Letters to the Diet of Spira, that ^* he was resolved to pass into Italy, and to Rome, to treat with the Pope, for the calling of a Council: and afterwards, under Pius IV. he says, ^* all Princes had agreed in demanding it.

As to the Second part of your objec­tion; 'Tis certain that, if it had stood with the Pope's conveniency, He ought to have been present. In his absence, 'twas necessary for the Legates, repre­senting his person, to receive frequent directions from him, that they might the better supply the want of his pre­sence. If, for this reason, it was lawfull to give them instructions before the Council began; why not, afterwards, as long as the Council was fitting? In fine, whatsoever advice came from Rome, Nothing in matter of Doctrine was determin'd, which any considera­ble part resisted. Soave himself confes­ses, ^* that it was a general Maxim in this Council, that to establish a Decree of Reformation, a major part of voices was sufficient; but that a Decree of Faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict.

XV. Many of the Bishops were [Page 202]Pensioners to the Pope. A. Soave ac­knowledges, that several ^* of the Bis­hops, moved by poverty, made grievous complaints, & threatned that they would depart. If therefore the Pope maintain'd some of them, it was a great charity done by him; a good example to Prin­ces; a thing which formerly used to be done by the Emperours. 2. Secular Princes had more money than the Pope; and, if it had been the policy of his Holiness, they might easily have countermin'd it. 3. All the Popes, in their Bulls of Convocation, desired & exhorted all Secular Princes to send as many of their Bishops as possibly they could. 4. His Pensioners were not ne­cessary for him, at least in the Protestant Controversies; & therefore this is no excuse for the Reformation.

XVI. In some Sessions, under Paul and Julius, there were scarce any be­fides Italians. A. 1. The Council being drawn out from 1545. till 1563. & actually sitting for about four years, it cannot be rationally expected that any great frequency of Bishops should be continually present. 2. The disorders, caused by the Calvinists in France, and [Page 203]by the Lutherans in Germany, required their Bishops residence to secure Catho­lick Religion at home; otherwise they would not have been absent from the Synod. 3. The dissentions that hapned betwixt the Pope, the Emperour, & King of France, and the civil wars be­twixt Catholicks & Protestants, hindred the Bishops, sometimes of one Nation, sometimes of another, from attending the Council. 4. All this was fully re­compenc'd, in the third & last Convo­cation of the Council, under Pius IV.

XVII. In the end of the Council, we find 187. Italian Bishops, and all the rest make only 83. A. 1. All these Ita­lians were not of the Pope's Territory, but a great many of them subject to the Emperour, the King of Spain, the Duke of Florence, & the State of Venice. In several matters they had different instructions, & adhered to their divers interests, even in opposition to the Pope, when the Ambassadors of their Princes craved their assistance. Soave tells us, ^* it was publickly said by the Papalins (so he is pleas'd to call them) that France had ever pretended to limit the Pope's power, & subject it to the Ca­nons; [Page 204]Canons; and that this opinion would be follow'd by many Italians, who, because they cannot, or know not how to make use of the preferments of the Court, do envy those that do; besides those, who are desirous of novity, they know not why, of whom there seem'd to be a con­siderable number.

2. 'Tis no great matter, as to our present purpose, whether the Pope had all the Italian suffrages at his beck, or no; because 'tis certain he had no need at all, of any such assistance, in deci­ding the Protestant controversies, in which the Bishops, of all nations, unani­mously agreed. See what Soave says, concerning the following points. Apos­tolical Traditions. p. 145. It was ap­prov'd by all, that they should be re­ceiv'd, as of equal authority with the Scriptures. Vulgar Edition of Scripture. p. 150. It was approved almost by a general consent. & p. 152. the Congre­gation being ended, the Cardinal Santa Croce assembled those that had opposed the Vulgar Edition, & shew'd they had no reason to complain, because it was not prohibited, but left free, to correct it, & to have recourse to the Original; but that only it was forbid to say, there [Page 205]were in it Errors of Faith for which it ought to be corrected. Original Sin. p. 164. No man resisted the condemnation of the Articles. Justification & Merit. p. 215. In condemning the Lutheran opinions all did agree with exquisite U­nity. Sacraments▪ p. 219. All the Di­vines agreed in affirming the number seven, & condemning the contrary opi­nion as heretical. Baptism & Confirma­tion, p. 232. All parties were satisfied. Worship of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 306. All agreed. Communion under one kind. p. 306. All made use of long discourses, but all to the same purpose. & p. 485. They all agreed that there was no necessity, or precept, of the Cup. Transubstantiation. p. 309. There was a contention between the two Schools, Do­minican and Franciscan, which troubled the Fathers, with the subtility & small fruit thereof. The Dominicans said, the one substance is made of the other; The Franciscans said; the one doth succeed the other; Both agreed, that it is properly & truly called Transubstantiation: & p. 310 it was determin'd in the General Congregation, to use an expression so uni­versal as might be accommodated to the meaning of both parties, without appro­ving [Page 206]or condemning, either the one, or the other. Sacrifice of Mass. p. 508. In the discussions of the Divines, all were uniform in condemning the Protestant opinions; although there was some con­tention, whether or no Christ at supper offered himself; p. 538. some saying, that, in regard of the three & twenty contradictors, it was not lawfully deci­ded; and others answering, that an eighth part could not be called conside­rable. Auricular Confession. p. 328. 329. 330. No disagreement appears among the Prelates or Divines, concer­ning the 6.7. & 8. can. of the 14. Session. Extreme Unction. p. 330. The Divines spoke with some prolixity, but without any difference among themselves. Promotion of married persons to holy Orders. p. 698. The Fathers did uniformly, & without difficulty, agree upon the negative. Matrimony. p. 730. The doctrine, & anathematisms, were read; to which all consented. Purgatory. Invocation of Saints. p. 749. The De­crees were read, & all approved, with great brevity & little contradiction. In­dulgences. p 757. The Decrees were read, & approved by all.

XVIII. Proxies were not allowed to have decisive votes. A. 1. There were but seven in the Council. 2. They had votes in consultations, among the rest. 3. They had no right to a decisive vote. 4. Were it indifferently allowed, it would encourage Bishops to pretend necessity of their absence.

XIX. All the Bishops were sworn to the Pope, before they sate in Council. A. 1. They never swore to vote against their judgment: They only swore Ca­nonical obedience & fidelity to him, that is, such obedience & fidelity as the Canons of former Councils require, ^* as long as he is Pope, and so long as he commands those things, which, ac­cording to God, & according to the Canons, he can command; but they do not swear, that they will not in Council say what they think; or that they will not depose him, if they convict him of being a Heretick. 2. An Oath taken in general terms, to defend his Canonical rights, leaves the Council in perfect liberty to examine what is Canonical, & what not. 3. Without the Oath they are strictly bound, by the Canons, to the same obedience & fidelity; so that [Page 208]it induces no new obligation, but only confirms what was their duty before. 4. Parliament-men swearing fidelity to their King, according to the Laws, do not loose the freedom of their Vote, nor the power of changing many Laws, & making others, with the King's con­sent. 5. Every Bishop in the English Church, at his consecration, swears due obedience to his Archbishop & his Suc­cessors: Why may not Catholick Bishops swear as much obedience to the Pope? And what harm is there, if they take the very same Oath again, before they sit in Council?

XX. In one of the Congregations the Bishop of Guadice was interrupted & affronted; and the Cardinal of Lorain complain'd, the Council was not free. A. This hapned only once, & satisfac­tion was presently given Soave relates it thus. ^* The Bishop of Guadice spea­king of the last ^* Canon, where it was determin'd, that Bishops call'd by the Pope are true & lawfull, said that there were also Bishops, not call'd by the Pope, nor confirm'd by him, which nevertheless were true & lawfull. For example he brought four Suffragans, [Page 209]elected & ordain'd by the Archbishop of Salzburg, who take no confirmation from the Pope. Cardinal Simoneta did not suffer him to proceed, saying, that whatsoever the Archbishop of Salzburg or other Primates did, was all by the Pope's authority. The Bishop of Cava, and two more, call'd him Schismatick, and said he ought to be put out of the Council. Immediatly there follow'd a great noise among the Prelates, as well of whispering as of fee [...], partly in offence of the Prelate that gave his voice, & partly in defence. The Legates did hard­ly appease the stir, by making others proceed, who were to speak in that Con­gregation; which being ended, Lorain said the Bishop had not spoken ill.... & indeed it was found that the Bishop had not spoken ill, and the Canon was corrected; for whereas it said, the Bis­hops call'd by the Pope of Rome, it was altered thus; the Bishops assumed by the authority of the Pope of Rome..... Mantua did also reprehend the noise made with feet & words, saying that, if hereafter they did not speak with respect, They, the Legates, would go out of the Congregation.... Lorain com­mended the admonition, & said that as [Page 210]the Legates ought not to go out of the Congregation, for any occasion what­soever, so it was most just that the perturbers of it, should be punish'd. Here you have a full account of the whole matter. It was only a suddain heat, & soon over. The publick repre­hension, of those who made a noise, was satisfaction abundantly sufficient for what was past: And the altering of the Canon, according to the Bishop's ad­vice, was a very extraordinary encou­ragement for him, & every body else, to speak freely for the future. The Car­dinal complain'd, before the satisfaction was given, & the Canon alter'd, but not after. Besides, it is not impossible for great men to find fault when there is but little reason for it. They are used to be humour'd, & when they are cross'd, a small matter is enough for great complaints. I'l give you an instance out of Soave. ^* Lorain and Madruccio had composed a form concerning Resi­dence; The Legates approv'd it at first sight; afterwards, consulting with the Canonists, they disliked one part. Lorain and Madruccio were much offended with this mutation, & thought they were [Page 211]disparag'd. Lorain said, it was not a free Council. Why was not the Council free? If the form which they two had composed, had been blindly receiv'd without examen; if, out of compliment to them, it had been approv'd nemine contradicente; All had been well; The Council had been free enough: But because some others took the liberty to consider it, & spoke their minds freely in contradicting it; therefore the Coun­cil was not free. Madruccio ^* did not forbear to say, there was a secret Council, within the Council, which did arrogate more authority. The Canonists, who examin'd the form which they two had composed, are here call'd a secret Council, & accused of arrogancy; not because they assumed more autho­rity, but because they pretended to an equal liberty of speaking as freely against the form as others had spoken for it. So proud & so ambitious we are, to have our own opinions idoliz'd, and to enlarge the empire of our fancies by enforcing them upon our neighbours; that when we meet with any opposi­tion, though ever so reasonable, we are streightned for want of room, & com­plain [Page 212]for want of liberty. So, when Guzdellun came to the Council, & had ^* seen the passages of one day, he said, he understood plainly the Council was not free. What these passages were, Soave does not tell us: and, I am sure, if any thing had hapned contrary to the liberty of the Council, the Relation of it would have been nuts to him. Since therefore your Historian leaves us to conjecture what we please; for ought I know, Guzdellun might have so great an opinion of himself, as to imagine, that, when he came to Council, the weight of his reasons would have pre­sently turn'd the scale of their delibera­tions, & that in one day he should carry all before him: but afterwards, when he plainly sound his mistake, and saw he could not in one day have all things determin'd as he pleas'd, then it was he understood plainly, the Council was not free.

XXI. In the History of the Council we find several grievous complaints of the Spanish Prelates, that they had not their liberty in proposing & determi­ning the divine right of Residence. A. Let us hear their several complaints in [Page 213]order, & if you believe your own His­torian, you will find they had no reason to complain.

1. ^* They complain'd of the Pope for holding the Council in servitude, to which he ought to leave free power to handle & determine all things, and not to meddle himself. A. This last clause is manifestly unreasonable; Why should not he meddle as well as they? Pray, read Soave, & see in what manner he meddled with them. ^* He commended them for speaking according to their Conscience.... He complain'd of those who referr'd themselves unto him, be­cause the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his opinion... ^* He was pleas'd that every one should deliver his opinion freely... but said, it was a strange thing, that he who was Head of the Church, and other Prelates, who have voice in Council, may not be inform'd of what is handled, and speak their opinion... whereas, on the other side, it is plain that so many Prelates come to Trent with commission from their Princes, according to which they proceed; & that the Ambassadors by Letters & perswasions do compell them [Page 214]to follow the interests of their Masters, & yet, for all this, no man says, that therefore the Council is not free. This He amplified with much vehemency, & certainly with a great deal of reason.

2. In their Letter to the King of Spain, They ^* complain'd of the Legates for not suffering the point of Resi­dence to be concluded, before they could have an answer from Rome. A. They themselves aquainted the King with these matters: Why might not the Le­gates inform the Pope? They ^* beseech'd his Majesty to consult with godly men about this Article: Why might not the Pope consult with godly men, as well as He? They ^* assur'd themselves that, after mature deliberation, He would favour their opinion: Whether He would or not, was more than they could tell, till they had an answer; & Why might not an answer be expected from Rome, as well as from Madrid?

3. In the same Letter, they com­plain'd ^* that there was no liberty in the Council, because the Italians did overcome with plurality of voices. A. In the same Letter they tell the King, that two thirds of the Prelates did desire [Page 215]the Definition, & that all the Ambassa­dors did favour the Truth herein. If two thirds were for them, & only one third against them, can you tell me how twas possible for them to be overcome with plurality of voices?

4. They complain'd that ^* when a proposition is made in which 70. Bishops do uniformly agree, they are hindred even to speak thereof. A. Who hindred them? Soave tells us, that the King of Spain wrote to his Ambassador to let ⁶¹ his Prelates know, He thought the Decla­ration did not befit the present time, & therefore wisht them to desist; & that the French Ambassadors wrote to their Master, how little hopes they had of ⁶² reforming the Court of Rome, because the Spaniards, who were very zealous for the Reformation, were cooled, & put in fear, by the reprehension of their King. But the Pope, instead of wishing them to desist, ^* commended them for speaking according to their Conscience. Neither did the Legates with them to desist: They only ⁶⁴ answer'd, that the Article was not fit to be propos'd in that Session, but that it should be done in time convenient: which was so far from [Page 216]being any hindrance of their speaking, that upon the very next occasion ^* they began to discourse again of it ... & the heat grew so great, that some of the Ultramontans threatned to protest & depart; and perhaps would have departed, had not the Ambassadors pa­cified them. So unreasonably jealous men are of their Liberty, that, even when they take too much, they think they have too little.

XXII. Andrew Dudith, Bishop of Five-churches, sent by the Emperour Ferdinand as his Ambassador to the Council, writes afterwards a Letter to Maximilian II. in which he complains that the votes were not weighed but numbred, that the Pope had a hundred for one, that the Holy Ghost was sent from Rome in a Postillons Cloak bag... O monstrous extraordinary madness! Nothing could be ratified which the Bis­hops did decree, unless the Pope made himself the Author of it. A. 1. His Lordship was perhaps a little angry when he wrote this Letter; & an angry man, you know, is apt to talk ex­travagantly: Iratus nil nisimonstra loqui­tur. What would you say, if a Member [Page 217]of the House, a friend of yours, should complain at the same rate; O monstrous extraordinary madness! nothing could be ratified in Parliament which the Lords & Commons did decree, unless his Ma­jesty were pleas'd to give his Royal As­sent. Would you take this for the lan­guage of his Reason or his Passion ? 2. Although he seem'd a Catholick when he sate in Council, yet he declared him­self a Protestant soon after; which is another motive to suspect he makes the worst of things. 3. 'Tis remarkable that his conceit of the Cloak-bag was first made use of in Trent, when the Legates, finding ^* a fourth part only against the divine right of Residence, & observing how ^* they came to words of some bitterness, they exhorted the Fa­thers to modesty, gave them leave to depart, & agreed to give the Pope an account of all. This did not please the Spaniards: but, why Bishop Dudith should find fault, I cannot understand. Soave tells us, he employ'd his Rheto­rick to oppose the Bishop of Aiace, & to prove that it was lawfull for Bishops to ^* busie themselves in the Courts of Princes, & in the Affairs of the world, [Page 218]as being Judges, Chancellors, Secreta­ries, Counsellors, Treasurers, &c. which was, as Soave observes, a plain ^* contra­dicting of those who thought that Re­sidence was de jure divino. Pray, help me now, if you can, to reconcile your Friend's History with the Bishop's Letter.

1. In his Letter, we find him very bitter against the hireling Bishops, the images of Daedalus that mov'd by nerves which were none of their own, the country bag-pipes which could not speak, but as breath was put into them. And who would think, after all this, that in your History we should find him among these very Papalins, & as busie as the best of them, giving his suffrage with them, against the Decree of Residence? Who hired him? what nerves mov'd him to side with them? Whose breath was put into him to make him speak in favour of them? 2. In his Letter, he complains the votes were not weigh'd but num­bred: And, in your History, the agree­ment of the Legates, not to determine a point of Doctrine, which ^* a fourth part did dislike, makes it plainly ap­pear, [Page 219]that the votes of Bishop Dudith's party were not only numbred but weigh'd. 3. If we believe his Letter, the Pope had an hundred for one, & if those had not been enough, he could have sent a thousand more in a Cloak­bag to have helpt in time of need: And, if Soave's History may be be­liev'd, the Papalins in this occasion were ^* a fourth part only; They had three for one against them. How to accord these matters, I confess, I am at a loss: when you have nothing else to do, you may try you skill at lea­sure. Mean time, I can discover no other reason, he had to quarrel with the Council, but that it was a Body with a Head. He had a mortal aver­sion against the Pope: And, whether the Papalins were for Dudith or against him, 'twas all the same: If his Holiness were consulted, he had not pa­tience to support it without exclai­ming, O monstrous extraordinary mad­ness! What shall you & I call Passion, if this must pass for Reason?

XXIII. Soave himself, after having related the manner how the Council was transferr'd from Trent to Bolonia, [Page 220]defies any man ^* to say what liberty they had. A. Let us hear him tell his own story; take it in pieces; & see whether Soave be not able to answer himself.

The Article of Residence being set on foot by the Spaniards, together with several other points of Reforma­tion; the Legates wrote to Paul III. that ^* the Prelates did every day take more liberty, not refraining to speak of the Cardinals without respect, and with small reverence of his Holiness: that hereafter it would be hard to keep them in order, because they had many private assemblies among themselves... & that it was not likely they would be so bold, without they were upheld, & perhaps incited, by some great Prince. The Pope considerd, that all the Reformation aim'd to restrain his Au­thority, & to enlarge the power of Bishops ... that ^* the Spaniards, are a wise Nation who step not one foot for­ward without looking a great way be­fore them ... He thought that this webb was secretly spun by the Empe­rour, in regard his Ambassador did dayly treat with them ... He weigh'd [Page 221]above all, his words used to the Nun­cio, that he had no greater enemy than the Pope. He fear'd that when he had establisht an absolute authority in Ger­many, he would think to do alike in Ita­ly, making use of the Council to suppress the Papacy ... To translate it to a place where he had more absolute authority, seem'd the best Counsel ... Bolonia seem'd the best place ... & he resolv'd to cause it to done by the Legates, by the Authority given them in the Bull of Translation. Being thus resolv'd, he sent a private Gentleman, with Letters of credit, to do this Ambassage to both the Legates ... ^* The 21. of April, the Popes messenger appear'd & de­clar'd to the Legates his Credence ... At this time, it hapned fitly, that many in the families of the Prelates were sick ... the air had been moist many days before ... the Physicians spoke as if the disease were contagious ... it was reported that the neighbour places would have no commerce with the City.. The Physicians were examin'd, & a Pro­cess made concerning the Pestilent infir­mity ... the Process was prosecuted until the 8. day, when news came that Vero­na [Page 222] would trafick no more with them... Therefore, the 9. day, a general Congrega­tion was held, & Monte took this oppor­tunity to propose the Translation of the Council, & cause the Pope's Bull to be read ... The Emperour's Prelates ans­werd that the disease & dangers were not so great, and look'd upon it as ^* a pretence. The next day a Congregation was call'd to consult upon the same matter. It was found that 11. Prelates were already parted; & they began to speak of the place, whither to go. That it should be in Germany all did abhor. It could not be in the State of any Prince, because they had treated with none. The Legates propos'd Bolonia ... The Imperialists did contradict: but the ma­jor part consented... The next day, the Session being held, & the Decree read. 25. Bishops & 3. Generals did assent, but the Cardinal Pacceco & 17. other Bis­hops opposed. Among those that consen­ted, there was not one of the Emperour's subjects, &c. In this Relation I have purposely omitted several clauses, not only for brevity sake, but because I cannot think that any man is oblig'd to believe such abusive constructions & [Page 223]conjectures, without better proof than Soave's bare word for't. And now you may here observe,

1. How little power the Pope had in Trent, since he thought it not fit to ap­pear in this business, & since the Legates were in great danger of finding an in­superable opposition, had not the sick­ness hapned fitly for the purpose.

2. How much power the Emperour had over all his Prelates. Soave says, ^* the Imperialists were commanded by the Emperour's Ambassador, not to depart, until his Majesty were inform'd, & gave them order. He gives an account after­wards of their ^* remaining in Trent by express order from the Emperour, and obstinately ^* refusing to go or send to Bolonia, to acknowledg the Council; al­though the Pope ^* pray'd them, either to come, or send Proctors.

3. The Pope praying on the one side, the Emperour commanding on the other; the prayers being slighted, the com­mands being punctually obey'd; 'tis easy to conclude, which was most likely to restrain the liberty of the Council, when return'd to Trent: especially, if we con­sider the Emperour's being then ^* King [Page 224]of Spain and Naples, Prince of the Low-Countries, & having other adherencies in Italy.

4. The Emperour's Protestation, read by Valasco in the Council of Bolonia, shews plainly what liberty might be expected from him, who assumed to himself the arbitrary priviledg of judg­ing the ^* opinions of the Fathers, & determining who did speak for consci­ence sake, & ^* who, though not so many in number, ought to be preferr'd, as more wise. At this rate, All the other Prelates of the Universal Church, what would they signifie? Though they were ten for one against them, 'tis no mat­ter; the Prelates of the Emperour must always be suppos'd to be the men who speak for conscience sake, the men who are more wise, & therefore the men who ought to be preferr'd.

5. If the Pope, having just reason to suspect the future servitude of the Coun­cil, endeavour'd to prevent the great disorders, which might happen in Trent, by giving secret instructions to his Le­gates, to transfer the Synod to Bolonia, Who can blame him?

Soave says, ^* it scandaliz'd every [Page 225]one. And yet I know not why they should be scandaliz'd, any more than you & I were, when King Charles re­mov'd the Parliament from Westmin­ster to Oxford. He goes on, if the two Legates could command all the Prelates to part from Trent, & compel them by censures, Let any man say that can, what liberty they had. 'Tis easily said; They had, all of them, liberty to vote freely according to their conscience; The Le­gates commanded no body; The mat­ter was put to Votes, & the Majority carried it: And now, Let any man say, that can, what liberty they wanted.

XXIV. This is not all. The same Author (having rehears'd how the Fa­thers at Bolonia unanimously agreed, not to treat of returning to Trent, till those, who remain'd there, first came to Bolo­nia, to unite with the rest, and acknow­ledg the Council;) concludes with these words, ^* The Spirit which was wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did, & the Bishops to believe as the Le­gates, did work as formerly it had done. A. Have but patience to consider well what Soave himself has said elsewhere; ^* [Page 226]and, if you believe him, you'l believe he is mistaken here.

1. Pray what spirit formerly mov'd all the Imperialists to stay behind at Treat, when the rest went with the Legates to Bolonia? In Trent the Bishops formerly had disagreed about going thence: Afterwards in Bolonia they all agreed about staying there. And, truly, if Soave could have perswaded us that Concord & Discord are all one, he might easily have made us believe that in Bo­lonia, The spirit workt as formerly it had done. Befides, These of Bolonia were the major part, & tis no wonder they persever'd in their resolutions: Those of Trent were the lesser part, which ought to have submitted; and yet, although the Pope exhorted them to their duty, & ^* prayd them, either to come, or to send Proctors, they still remain'd as obstinate as the others were constant. And, I must needs say, betwixt you & me, if your Friend Soave had been impartial, he would never have committed such a mistake in the misplacing of his jest: He would have told us (with a great deal of Truth, & without appearance of impiety) that The spirit which [Page 227]was wont to move the Ambassadors to think as the Emperour did, & the Bis­hops to believe as the Ambassadors, did work as formerly it had done.

2. If, by this conceit, he would insi­nuate that the Legates were always Pa­palins; I must beg your pardon, if I un­dertake to prove it notoriously false, by his own History. He often tells us, how the proceedings of the Legates were contrary to the instructions they receiv'd from Rome. ^* The Court did generally complain of all the Legates, for suffering the Article of Residence to be proposed... because they had an example of the dis­order, which this dispute caused in the first Council.

3. Although I do not find that, in this Council, the Ambassadors of any Secular Prince ever dissented among themselves, in things relating to their Master's interests; yet Soave himself assures us, that, in this case of Resi­dence, only two of the Legates were for the Papalins, & three against them: ^* Altemps follow'd Simoneta, and the other two adhered to Mantua. By which you may clearly see that your Historian was grievously mistaken, [Page 228]when he said, the spirit was wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did; for, by his own computation, there were three to two among them, who were moved to think quite con­trary.

4. You remember the contest which arose, concerning the third Convocation of the Council: The Spanish Ambassa­dor ^* made earnest suit in the King's name, that it might be declared a Continuation of the Council, begun un­der Paul III. & prosecuted under Ju­lius. He was assisted by the Spanish Prelates, and others who follow'd them ... On the other side, the Emperour's Ambassadors used strong persuasions to the contrary, saying they would pre­sently depart & protest... The Legates were divided: Seripando had no other aim, but that it should be determin'd to be a Continuation... but Mantua did constantly resist... Here you may take notice once more, that Soave's jests are not always true ones: The Spirit did not move Mantua to think as the Pope did: for when the ^* news came to Rome, the Pope was sorry to see that Cardinal joynd with the Spaniards in [Page 229]the point of Residence, and opposite to them in the Continuation; which was to cross him in all things.

5. Afterwards ^* the Pope resolv'd that the Continuation should be declar'd, let the Emperour do what he could; and dispatch'd a Currier to Trent with this Commission. If the Spirit had been wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did, why dos Soave tell us that, this Commission being arrived the second of June, they all resolv'd uniformly to inform the Pope better, & shew him the impossibility to perform his Order? Why dos he tell us, that the next day... at night, a Currier came with Letters, that his Holiness did refer all to the wisdom & judgment of the Legates? I might cite you a great deal more, to this purpose; but this is enough to shew, 1. that the Legates spoke freely their minds, and acted according to their Conscience; 2. that the Pope did not endeavour to hold the Council in servitude.

XXV. Nothing could be debated but what the Legates proposed; the Pope's Commissions running with this clause, proponentibus Legatis. A. 1. At least the Council voted freely upon the matters [Page 230]which were proposed. 2. In great As­semblies such a method is necessary, to avoid confusion. 3. It was at length ^* declar'd, that the clause was not in­serted with design of changing the usual method of treating matters in General Councils; and then, Soave says, ^* The difficulty receiv'd an end, with satisfaction of all.

You that have read Soave, may easily remember a great many passages, in which the Prelates over-ruled the Le­gates, & forced them to debate things which they had no mind to. 1. This clause, proponentibus Legatis, was ^* much agitated: 2. The Title of the Council, Representing the Universal Church: 3. The divine right of Resi­dence: 4. The Institution of Bishops being de jure divino: 5. The general Reformation of the Church: which point might have been pusht perhaps too far, if the Legates had not wisely counterpoised it, with proposing a suta­ble Reformation of Secular Princes. 6. Concerning the grant of the Cup, de­manded by the Emperour, you read in Soave, that ^* the Legates were desirous to give him satisfaction, but could not, [Page 231]because the party of the negative pre­vall'd. 7. About admitting the Protestant Divines to disputation, you find that ^* this opinion was readily embrac'd, first by the Dutch, then by the Spanish Prelates, & at last somewhat coldly by the Italians, the Legate remaining im­moveable, and shewing plainly that he stood quiet, being forc'd by necessity.

Give me leave to add one instance more, and if you are not fully satisfied with it, I shall know what to think of you. Read Soave, p. 498. & 499. and observe, 1. how boldly the Bishops of Veglia and Sidonia spoke their minds concerning the corruptions of Rome, & Reformation of the Pope himself; 2. how moderately the Legates & other Papalins discoursed about it, when, the Congregation being ended, they remain'd in the place together to consider the holdness, & too much licence, of the Prelates, in broaching new mat­ters.

Upon this occasion Castello, who had been Speaker under Julius, told them that Cardinal Crescentius was used to interrupt them & sometimes impose them silence. But the Cardinal of Varmia sharply reprehended this practise, & [Page 232] said, that Nothing is more necessary to a Christian Synod than Liberty; and that, reading the Councils of the better times, one shall find contentions & dis­cords in the heginnings of them, even in the presence of the Emperours, which notwithstanding did, in the end, turn, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, into a marvellous concord; and that was the miracle which did pacifie the world. He said, there were infinite contentions in the Nicene Council, & most exorbitant in the Ephesine, and therefore no won­der if there were now some diversity of opinions civilly carried, which he that would resist by human & violent means, will let the world know that the Council is not free, & take from it all reputa­tion; that it is good to refer the cause unto God, who will govern Councils, & moderate those who are assembled in his name. The Cardinal of Mantua approv'd this opinion, & disliked the proceeding of Crescentius, but said, it was not contrary to the liberty of the Council to moderate abuses with Decrees, prescribing the order & time of speaking, & distributing to every one his own part. This was com­me [...] by Varmia, & they agreed to [...] for it.

XXVI. Notwithstanding all this, the Legates would not give leave to propose the Article concerning the Institution of Bishops. ^* Granata, Braganza, Messina, & Segovia, having obtain'd audience of the Legates, desired that they might handle the Articles, that Bishops are in­stituted by Christ, & are Superior to Priests jure divino. The Legates, after they had conferr'd together, answerd, that it was fit to declare, a Bishop is supe­rior, but ^* that it was not necessary to say, quo jure. Granata replyd, that there was a Controversy, and that, if the Di­vines did dispute it, the necessity of deci­ding this point would be known. The Le­gates would not consent by any means. A. 1. They did not absolutely forbid the debating of this matter. 2. After expe­rience of the contentions about Resi­dence, they could not but foresee that this dispute, so much connected with the other, might occasion greater disor­ders, of which they would have been guilty, had they given leave: & therefore they ^* would not consent by any means. 3. The Divines & Prelates freely took leave, though it was not given them; & never spoke more boldly, than they did [Page 234]upon this subject. If you will not believe me, believe your friend Soave: Read what follows, & believe your own eyes.

Michael Orencuspe, a Divine of the Bishop of Pampelona, argued, ^* that howsoever it be true and certain, that Bishops are superior jure Pontificio, yet the Lutherans are not in this regard to be condemn'd for Hereticks, because that cannot be an Article of Faith, which is grounded only upon the Law of man.

^* John Fonseca a Divine of the Arch­bishop of Granata follow'd, saying, it neither was, nor could be forbidden to speak of it. For the Article being propos'd to be dis­cuss'd, whether it be heretical or no, it is necessary to understand whether it be against Faith; against which it cannot be, if it do not repugn to the Law of God. He said that if the Pope be instituted by Christ, because he hath said to Peter, Feed my Lambs, Bishops are likewise in­stituted by him, because he hath said alike to all the Apostles, as my Father hath sent me, so I send you. And, if the Pope be Successor of S. Peter, the Bishops are Successors of the Apostles; which he prov'd by many Authorities out of the Fathers. He added, that to be confirm'd [Page 235]or created by the Pope, did not conclude, that they were not instituted by Christ, or had not authority from him. For the Pope himself is created by the Cardinals, and yet hath his authority from Christ: So the Bishops receive the Diocess from the Pope, & authority from Christ. Their Superiority over Priests he prov'd to be jure divino, by authority of many Fathers, who say that Bishops succeed the Apostles, & Priests the seventy two Disciples.

Antony Grossetus insisted upon the same point. ^* He said it was necessary to declare, that Bishops have not com­mission, for their Office, from men; for so they would, be Hirelings, to whom the Lambs do not belong, because the man, who had committed the care unto them, being satisfied, they had no more to think on .... In the end, he excused himself, that he had spoken without premedita­tion ... not remembring that that point was forbidden to be spoke of. Here it is that Soave would make us believe, that Grossetus fear'd some bad encounter, but, I am sure, if any bad encounter had ever hapned to him, upon this account, Soave would have taken care to let us know it. Have but a little patience to observe how freely & boldly the Bishops deli­ver'd [Page 236]their opinions in the following Congregations, and then Pl give you leave to tell me, if you can, what bad encounter they fear'd.

The Archbishop of Granata said, ^* They must needs declare both these two points, that is, that Bishops are in­stituted jure divino, and are jure divi­no superior to Priests: And he confirm'd his opinion at large, with many reasons, arguments, & authorities...He cited Pope Eleutherius, who, in an epistle to the Bis­hops of France, wrote, that Christ had committed the Church Universal to them. He added, that Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Corinthians saith, that the Bis­hop holdeth the place of Christ, & is Vi­car of the Lord ... that there are extant Epistles of Cyprian to Fabianus, Corne­lius, Lucius, and Stephanus, Popes, where he giveth them the title of Brothers; and of Austin, written in his own name, & of the Bishops of Africa, in which the Popes Innocentius and Bonifacius are likewise call'd Brothers; &, which is most plain, not only in the Epistles of those two Saints, but of many others, the Pope is call'd Colleague ... that it is against the nature of a Colledge to con­sist of persons of divers kinds... In this [Page 237]Colledg of Bishops, the Pope is Head; but, for edification only ... that S. Gre­gory saith in his epistle to Johannes Sy­racusanus, that when a Bishop is in a fault, he is subject to the Apostolick See, but otherwise all are equal by reason of humility, which Christian Humility is never separated from the Truth. He inveigh'd against those Theologues who said, that S. Peter had ordain'd the other Apostles Bishops ... ^* He jested at those Divines who had said, that all the A­postles were instituted by Christ, and made equal in authority, but that it was per­sonal in them, & ought not to pass to their Successors, except that of S. Peter; asking them, as if they had been present, with what ground, authority, or reason, they were induced to make such a bold affirmation, invented within these fifty years only, expressly contrary to the Scripture, in which Christ said to all the Apostles, I will be with you untill the end of the world, which words, be­cause they cannot be expounded of their particular persons only, must be necessa­rily understood of the succession of all.

^* The Archbishop of Braga prov'd at large, the Institution of Bishops de jure divino. He said, that the Pope cannot take [Page 238]from Bishops the Authority given them in their consecration, which doth contain in it the power, not only of Order but of Jurisdiction ... that to Titular Bishops a City is allotted, which would not be necessary, if the Episcopal Order could sub­sist without Jurisdiction. He was follow'd by the Bishops of Segovia, of Segna, & others, who spoke as boldy as himself, not fearing any bad encounter; and Soave says ^* almost the half were of that opi­nion.

Afterwards, ^* to quench the boyling heat of the controversy about the Insti­tution of Bishops, that it might not in­crease, by means of so many who were prepar'd to contradict Laynez. they would not hold any Congregation for many days. And yet they were so far from fearing any bad encounter, that almost every day ^* three or four of them joyn'd toge­ther, & went to some of the Legates to renew the instance. And, one day, the Bishop of Guadice, with four others, told them, among other things, that ^* as a Prince dos institute, in a City, a Judge of the first instante, & a Judge of Appeal, who though he be superior, yet cannot take authority from the other, [Page 239]nor usurp the causes belonging to him: so Christ in the Church hath instituted all Bishops, & the Pope superior, in whom the Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was; yet so, that others had theirs depen­ding on Christ alone.

After all this, the Bishop of Segovia, when the Prelates met again in Con­gregation, argued ^* that it was decided in the Congregations under Julius III. that Bishops are instituted jure divino; though it was not publisht in Session, by reason of the suddain dissolution of the Council... The Cardinal of Mantua caused the Acts of that time to be search'd, & that to be read by the Secretary, which was then defined to be published... Three Heads of Doctrine were then composed, and in the third, which was of Hierar­chy, it was said, The Holy Synod doth teach, that those are not to be hearkned unto, who say that Bishops are not insti­tuted jure divino, it appearing manifestly by the words of the Ghospel, that Christ our Lord hath himself call'd the Apostles, & promoted them to the degree of Apostle­ship, into whose place the Bishops are subrogated; neither ought we to think that this so eminent & necessary a De­gree, hath been brought into the Church [Page 240]by human institution. There were also eight Canons, the last whereof said thus: He that shall say, that Bishops are not instituted Jure divino, or are not Supe­rior to Priests, or have not power to ordain, or that this doth belong to Priests, Let him be Anathema. This the Cardinal of Man­tua interpreted, only of the power of Order, & the Bishop of Segovia understood it of All, which containeth Order & Juris­diction; and, though he answer'd reve­rently in appearance, there past so many replies, that they were forced to break up the Congregation.

When the Cardinal of Lorain came to Trent, he told the Cardinal of Man­tua, he ^* would not be curious in un­profitable questions; that, for his own part, he was more inclined to the opinion which doth affirm the Institution of Bishops, & the Obligation of Residence, to be de jure divino; but, though it were certainly true, he saw no necessity, or opportunity, to proceed to a declaration thereof. Ne­vertheless, when Lorain came to Council, ^* The Bishop of Liria, to in­form him of all the reasons of the Spa­niards, did recapitulate, with great elo­quence, whatsoever they had said in this [Page 241]matter: And added besides, that nothing was more in favour of the Lutherans, than to say that Bishops are instituted by the Law of man.

When Lorain gave his suffrage, he proposed the reasons on both sides; he ^* concluded in the end, that the Ques­tion was boundless; and exhorted the Fa­thers to leave it, omitting jure divino, & saying instituted by Christ. But not­withstanding this, ^* The French Pre­lates, who spoke after Lorain, did not use the same ambiguity, but maintain'd openly, that the Authority of Bishops was de jure divino.

Again, in another Congregation, ^* The French made proof of their liber­ty. They said, that the Institution & Jurisdiction of Bishops was de jure di­vino, as well as that of the Pope; that there was no difference, but in degree of Superiority; and that the Pope's Au­thority is confined within the limits of the Canons, relating & commending the stile of the Parliaments of France, that when any Pope's Bull is presented, which containeth any thing contrary to the Canons receiv'd in France, they pronounce it to be abusive, & forbid the exe­cution. [Page 242]Have you never heard, that such boldness as this, even in a free Parlia­ment, has been enough to send a man to the Tower? And yet, Soave confes­ses, They were heard with much pa­tience. Consider well these passages, from the beginning to the end of this Dispute; and tell me then, what liber­ty was wanting in the Council.

XXVII. If the Prelates were so bold, & took such liberty, How was it pos­sible for the Council to end so quiet­ly? A. In some matters, they had full ^* satisfaction; as in the clause, Propo­nentibus Legatis. In some, a considera­ble part opposed, as in the Doctrine of Residence; which therefore, according to the ^* general Maxim of the Coun­cil, could not be determin'd. In others, as the Institution of Bishops, & the Pope's Authority, although their argu­ments had been urged, repeated, & am­plified, in several Congregations, yet still the major part was of another opinion; it was, therefore, impossible to come to any determination: And, you know, how natural it is, for reasonable men, to be quiet and silent, when they plainly see, it is in vain to speak.

XXVIII. Was not the Pope's Autho­rity, at length, made use of, to restrain their liberty, under pretence of their abusing it? A. Soave himself, who ne­ver makes the best of things, is pleas'd to tell us quite another story. Lorain (who, at his first coming to Trent, had oppos'd the ^* declaration of these points, & had ^* exhorted the Fathers to leave it) ^* proposed the omission of the two Articles, of the Institution of Bishops, and Authority of the Pope, as things wherein the parties were too passionate. And very fitly, says your Author, ^* an Or­der came from the Emperour to his Am­bassadors, to use all means that the Au­thority of the Pope should not be dis­cuss'd in Council; which his Majesty did, because he saw the major part inclined to enlarge it ... The Ambassadors, ha­ving treated with the Legates in confor­mity hereof, as also with Lorain, & other principal Prelates, did cause this Article to be omitted, as also that other of the Institution of Bishops. But first they made many consultations about it, that all might rest contented.

XXIX. Why were the Popes, of those times, so afraid of a General Coun­cil? [Page 244]Why so averse from it? Why did they, to secure themselves, shift sides so often betwixt the Emperour & King of France? A. You might as well have ask'd me, Why dos a Pilot fear a storm? Why is he so averse from it? Why dos he trimm the boat so often? S. Peter's Ship, in those days, was grievously toss'd, & almost coverd with the waves: But our Lord, who seem'd to sleep, at length arose, commanded the winds & the Sea, & there follow'd a great Calm.

XXX. Why did they avoid, & defer so long, the General Reformation? Why were Bulls given secretly to the Legates, to suspend or transfer the Council, as occasion serv'd? Why did they open­ly declare, that a Council is ever dan­gerous, when the Pope's Authority is question'd? A. You'l never have done with these cramp-questions, except a man give you as good as you bring. Is not the Reformation of Abuses, in the Church, as dangerous as the Redressing of Grievances, in the State? If our Na­tion were in the same ferment, as un­der the reign of Charles I. would you blame his Majesty for pretending to pro­rogue or dissolve as he pleases? And have we not, ever since, great reason to [Page 245]believe that a Parliament (though, other­wise, excellent in it self) is always dan­gerous, when the King's Authority is question'd? In those tumults of Eccle­siastical Affairs, Reformation was a dan­gerous business: And, had the Reformers been let slip at the Abuses, they would perhaps have worry'd the whole Church. If S. Paul was in perils among false Brethren, the Successor of S. Peter was no less. ^* Not only the Protestants did impugn his Authority, but many Prin­ces also would restrain it, & many Bis­hops did think to moderate it. ^* The Spaniards had a secret, which they com­municated only among themselves, to make great the Episcopal Authority, so that the Pope could not restrain it. The French had ^* ever pretended to limit the Pope's power, & subject it to the Canons & Councils, ^* The Emperour's Ambassadors had given the Protestants hope to moderate the Papal Authority, & said that they expected to see a Gate laid open by their negotiation, that after­wards they might second it: and Julius III. had intelligence, that the Emperour had a design to advance himself, by de­basing of the Papacy. This was enough [Page 246]to make the Popes, of that Age, take care to look before they leap'd. But yet this was not all, if Soave says true. The ^* Governours of Countries regarded not much, what the Council might deter­mine concerning Doctrines; but desired it might be such a one, as might reduce the Priests & Friers to their beginning; hoping that by that means the regalities & temporal jurisdictions might return unto them. And therefore they said, it was in vain to call a Council where the Bishops, & other Prelates, only, should have a deliberative voice; because they ought to be reform'd, and it was neces­sary that others should have the charge thereof, who could not be deceiv'd by their proper interests. Here you see, in plain English, what the Reformation was like to come to. 1. The design was laid to bring the Ecclesiasticks to their begin­ning: They were to be brought to their Staff and Scrip again, & sent about their business, whilst the Reformers plunder'd the Church, & divided the spoiles. 2. To do it with more ease, it was in vain to call a Council of Bishops, but the Laity were to have the charge thereof, who could not be deceiv'd by their pro­per interests. This Reason, I confess, if [Page 247]it had taken place, would have been worth it's weight in gold: but, pray, give me leave to make the case your own. Suppose a man should demand your purse; and, upon refusal, tell you He is the better Judge, whether or no you ought to deliver; because your interest blinds you but He cannot be deceiv'd by his proper interest. Would you believe this honest Gentleman? How did you like this method of Reforming, when our English Rebels threw the Sovereign­ty out of doors, & the Church of Eng­land out of the windows? Did you fancy that those Church-and-State-Menders deserv'd to have the charge of those mat­ters, and that it was necessary they should have it, because they could not be de­ceiv'd by their proper interests?

If such a Throughout-Reformation as this, had been effectually procured, All had been well: Complaints would then have ceas'd, because there would have been nothing left to complain of: The Reformers would have reduced the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops Priests & Friers, to their beginning, which in plain English is little better than reducing them to their end: The Faction would then have triumph'd, according to their hearts de­sire; [Page 248]just as our Rebels did, when they had brought our Monarchy to it's be­ginning, by beheading of the Govern­ment. But, this not being effected, All the rest was nothing to the purpose. One would think that eleven or twelve De­crees, containing above 140. chapters of Reformation, might be some degree of satisfaction to any reasonable men: But, when people are disappointed in their principal design, right or wrong 'tis all the same, they are out of humour; and, when they are so, tis a hard matter to please them. This was the reason why the Lutheran Criticks were so sharp in censuring & ridiculing the Decrees, as soon as each Session of the Council was publish'd in Germany. p. 504. The Birth of the Mountains, was a proverb much in vogue, which Soave has recorded in more places than one, though otherwise worded, The travail of the mountains, and the nativity of the mouse: an ex­pression proper enough to let us under­stand, what vast projects they had laid of reducing all things to their beginning; & how much they were disappointed in them; since what was decreed by the Council, compar'd with what they would have done themselves, was no [Page 249]more than a mouse to a mountain. In the same page, he goes on; Concerning the Reformation it was said, that more light points could not be handled, nor more lightly; and that they did imitate the Physician, who, in a hectical body, laboured to kill the Itch. This was ano­ther pleasant jest, which Soave took care of, for fear it should be lost. But, let him jest as he pleases, the Itch, he talks of, is not so easily cured. This humour, of Reforming, is a very itching humour: And the Itch is a strange restless disease: Even the wiser sort of mankind, when they have once got it, cannot for their lives forbear Scratching, though they know by experience that it dos more harm than good.

Read the Decrees of Reformation from the beginning to the end, and if you read them with a serious attention, I am very confident, an impartial man, as you are, will not say they are, either light, or lightly handled. If you have the Council in your Library, I had rather you would read them there, than in Soave; who, I must needs tell you, is not so exact as I could wish him. Un­der pretence of relating the substance, he leaves out a great many circumstan­ces, [Page 250]which a curious man would be de­sirous to know: And besides, although I have compar'd a very small part of his translation with the original, I find se­veral mistakes in it. p. 503. n. 1. he reads is, for is not. p. 692. n. 12. he reads six, for five. p. 733. n. 2. he reads two, for three. p 753. n. 1. of two express com­mands, he has made only one ex­hortation. Such negligences as these are enough to make me suspect him in other matters; & are a great argument that it was more his business, to find fault with the Reformation, than to give an exact account of it. But, whether you consult the Council or his History, that you may find out all the Decrees in order, with­out any trouble, I have directed you to all the Sessions of the one, & pages of the other. V. 173.174. VI. 211.212. VII. 247.248. XIII. 320.321. XIV 331.332.333.334. XXI. 503. XXII. 537.538. XXIII 691.692.693. XXIV. 730.731.732.733.734.735. XXV. 751.752.753.754.755.756. And, for your better satisfaction, I have set down some few instances of Soave's Translation, com­paring it with the Original, & enclo­sing, what he has either alter'd or omit­ted, in a parenthesis like [this.]

1. Concerning Scripture. The first point of Reformation, in the first chapter, of the first Decree, is this, ^* that in the Churches, where there is a stipend allot­ted for reading Divinity, the Bishop should provide that the Holy Scripture should be read by the Stipendary, if he be fit; and, not being fit, the Bishop should depute a Substitute to perform the charge: But, for hereafter, that the Bene­fice should not be conferred but upon a sufficient person. That in the Cathedral Churches of populous Cities, & Collegiate Churches of great Castles, where no such stipend is assign'd, the first Prebend that falleth void, should be applied to that use, or a simple Benefice, or a contribu­tion of all Beneficed men, to institute the Lecture. And again, concerning ^* the institution of Seminaries, it was constitu­ted, that every Episcopal Church should have a certain number of boys, brought up in a Colledge, to learn, among other things, the Holy Scripture. All this ^* The Holy Synod ordereth & decreeth [least that heavenly Treasure of Sacred Books, which the Holy Ghost has so libe­rally bestow'd upon mankind, should lye neglected.]

2. Concerning Ecclesiasticks. ^* The Decrees of Reformation did contain, That whosoever have right in the Promotion, shall be admonished that it is a mortal sin, if they shall not use all diligence to promote the most worthy & most profitable to the Church. And it was added, How necessary it is, that the Pope, in regard of his Duty, should endeavour to assume Cardinals of [most] excellent worth, & to provide the Church of fit Pastors, be­cause if the flock should perish by [the evil government of persons negligent & forgetfull of their duty] Christ will de­mand an account of his Holiness. ^* That [Patriarchs, Primates, Metropolitans, &] Bishops, shall be bound to visit [their proper] Diocess... That the Visitor shall go with a modest train of men & horses, dispatching the Visitation, as soon as may be; and shall not receive any [money, or present, whatsoever it be, or in what manner soever it be offered] but frugal & moderate Diet ... ^* That the Bishops shall be bound to preach in person; or, having a lawfull impediment, by others. And in case the Parish Priest be hindred, that he cannot preach in his own Church, he shall, at his charge, maintain another [Page 253]to do it, deputed by the Bishops... That the Bishop shall admonish every one [that, where it may conveniently be done, he ought] to go to his own Parish, to hear the Sermon: and that None [either Secular, or Regular, even in the Churches of their own Order,] shall preach against the Bishop's will. ^* That where Visitation, or Correction of manners, is in question, no exemption or appeal, though to the Apostolick See, shall [any way] hinder or suspend the execution of that which is decreed or adjudged. ^* That no Ecclesiastical person, though a Cardinal, shall have more than one Benefice, which not being able to main­tain him, another simple Benefice may be added, so that they do not both require Residence; which shall be understood of all Benefices, of what title or quality soever, though Commended. And he that hath now more Benefices than one, shall be bound to leave all but one, within six months; or, if not, they shall be all void. ^* The Reading of the General Reformation did follow, which, after an Exhortation to Bishops, for exemplary life, [commandeth, not only that they be content with] modesty & frugality [Page 254]of [houshold-stuff & table; but also, that in the rest of their way of living, & in their whole house, nothing may appear but what bears the character of simplicity, zeal, & contempt of Vanities: And absolutely] doth forbid them to enrich their friends or kindred, with the revenues of the Church; but, if poor, to allot them their distribution, as to the rest of the poor. What has been said of Bishops, it Decreeth to be observed by all beneficed Eccleasticks, either Secular or Regular, and also by the Cardinals.

Here I have cited only eight points, a very inconsiderable part, of the whole Reformation which contains above a hundred & forty chapters: But, for a man of your skill, a pattern is enough to judge of the whole piece. And, besides all these Decrees, there are also others of Doctrine, forbidding & condemning several abuses, which are worth your taking notice of.

1. Concerning Purgatory ^* The Synod teaches no more, than that there is a Pur­gatory, & that the Souls detain'd in it, are assisted by the suffrages of the faith­full, & the Sacrifice of the Mass. There­fore it doth command Bishops to teach sound doctrine in this matter [such as is [Page 255]deliver'd by the Holy Fathers, & Sacred Councils] and cause it to be preached, without handling subtil questions before the ignorant people, nor suffering uncer­tain & unlikely things to be published; Prohibiting curiosities, superstition, & unhonest gain.

2. Concerning Masses. ^* A Decree was read concerning abuses, to be correc­ted, in the celebration of Masses: And con­tain'd in substance; that the Bishops ought to forbid all things brought in by Avarice, Irreverence, or Superstition.

3. ^* In matter of Saints, it doth com­mand Bishops, & all others who have the charge of teaching, to instruct the people concerning the intercession & invo­cation of them, according to the an­cient doctrine of the Church, consent of Fathers, & decrees of Councils, teaching, that the Saints do pray for men, that it is profitable to invocate them, & to have re­course to their prayers & assistance, to ob­tain benefits from God, through Jesus Christ his Son our Lord, who is our onely Saviour & Redeemer. Concerning Ima­ges; that those of Christ & the Saints, ought to have due honour given them; but that there is no divinity or virtue in [Page 256]them ... Afterwards it addeth, that, de­siring to take away the abuses, & occasions of pernicious errors, it doth Ordain ... that all Superstition, in invocation of Saints, in worship of Reliques, & in use of Images, be taken away.

4. Concerning Indulgences. ^* The Synod doth only anathematize those that shall say, they are unprofitable, & that the Church hath not power to grant them. It doth command that all those offices of Pardon-mongers be abolished: And, for the other abuses [which have taken their rise from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any other way, Whereas they cannot conveniently be forbidden, in particular, by reason of the manifold cor­ruptions of provinces, & places where they are committed,] it doth command the Bishops, that every one shall collect all those of his own Church, to propose them in the Provincial Synod, ^* which shall be call'd by the Metropolitan, or the most an­cient Suffragan, within one year, at the most, after the end of this Synod, and af­terwards, every [three] years, at least.

Tell me now your opinion concerning these matters, All these points, are they light, and lightly handled? Are they all [Page 257]nothing to the purpose? Suppose the Vine­yard had been a little neglected, & the Vines wanted pruning, Will nothing else serve your turn, but reducing them to their beginning, & cutting them up by the Roots?

I had almost quite forgot to tell you that, in the end of the General Reformation, the Council has taken particular care, that no Dispensing power may obstruct the force & benefit of the Decrees. Be it known to all men, says the Council, ^* that the Canons shall be observed [exactly &] in­distinctly by all, & shall not be dispensed, but for [an urgent and just] cause, heard with [great] maturity, & without cost [by whosoere they are, to whom it appertains: Otherwise, the Dispensa­tion shall be judg'd Surreptitious.] If the Cause be, not only just but urgent; if the justice and urgency be well known before the grant of it; if nothing be given to any whosoever for it; Such a Dispensation is unquestionably blameless. And now, I desire to know, How was it possible for the Council to provide more effectually for the punctual observance of all these three conditions, than by declaring that otherwise the Dispensation is, & shall be, surreptitious, & of no effect?

XXXI. In the end of the Council, there [Page 258]was great joy in Rome, for having chea­ted the world, and advanced their inte­rest, where they fear'd to have their wings clipp'd. A. Here I know not how you'l be able to make the two ends of Soave's History meet. In his first book, he talks much at this rate; and, in his last, he largely contradicts it. He tells us, in the end, how the Pope and Cardinals delibe­rated upon the matter, whether or no the Decrees of Reformation, were to be confirmed; And says, that ^* the Court, understanding that the Pope was resolved upon the Confirmation, chang'd their joy into grief; All the Officers complain'd of the losses they should receive in their offi­ces, if that Reformation were executed... Supplications also, & Memorials, were given to the Pope, by those, who, having bought their Offices, & foreseeing this loss, demanded restitution... The Pope having diligently consider'd thereof, deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirma­tion; & to think upon some remedies for the complaints of the Court... He concludes, It is certain, that they who did procure the Council, had no aim but to pull down the Pope's Authority; And, while the Council did last, every one did speak, as if it had power to give Laws to him.

After all, you think to mortifie me [Page 259]with objecting, that the corruptions of the Court, & the abuses tolerated in the Church, are as great as ever. But you must give me leave to tell you, 1. I am not obliged to take your bare word for't; 2. Whether it be true or false, 'tis nothing to my present purpose. If false, you are to blame for saying so: If true, 'tis none of the Council's fault. Having proceeded legal­ly, & having made good Laws, the Coun­cil has done its part: 'tis ours, to do the rest. My business is to defend the Coun­cil: I have nothing to do, to rake the dung­hill of the Church. Has the Decalogue less Authority, because the greatest part of mankind are so disobedient? Or is the Ghospel less Sacred, because there are so few who live according to the maxims of it? If this be the onely reason, why you Protest against the Council of Trent, be­cause the Decrees of Reformation are not every where, in all things, punctually observ'd; I see no reason, why you may not, with as good a grace, Protest against the Ghospel, & the Ten Commandments.

I have now done with your Objections: And although I am not of the Poet's mind, that Brevity is always good, be it, or be it not, understood; Yet I have endeavour'd to be as short as possibly I could, because, when I deal with a man of your parts, a [Page 260]word is enough to the wise, & few words are best.

As for Soave, whom you so much ad­mire, I desire to ask you a few questions, before I tell you what I think of him. Suppose a mortal enemy of yours should Libel you, by the way of History; call you Rogue & Rascal in the very Preface; and, at the same time, perswade his Rea­der, that he follows exactly the truth: Would you have me take this Author for an Oracle? Would you not think me rea­sonable, if I suspected almost every word he said? And ought not I to do the Coun­cil as much Justice, as I would my Friend? Tis certain that Soave was a mor­tal enemy of the Council: In the very be­ginning, he declares it: He says, ^* it has caused the greatest deformation that ever was, & calls it the Iliad of the Age; which is as kind a compliment to the Fathers, as if he had call'd them, a pack of Villains. He tells us indeed, in the same place, that he is not possess'd with any passion, which may make him erre; and this was well enough said; But how shall a body do to believe him? If it were your own case, I'm sure you would not like my being credulous: And how do I know but that an Enemy of the Council [Page 261]may deserve as little credit, as an Ene­my of yours?

Another reason, why I do not like him, is because he takes upon him to write men's private thoughts, with as much assurance as he writes their words and actions. He hardly ever speaks of any in­telligence coming to Rome, but he enter­tains his Reader with a pleasant Scene, in which he brings the Pope alone upon the Stage, discoursing with himself his secret apprehensions & deliberations upon every matter; such thoughts as no wise man would trust his neighbour with, although he were the best & surest friend he had in the world. How Soave could possibly come to any certain knowledg of such things, I am not able to comprehend: And truly, if a man, in one case, will tell me more than he can know; I have just reason to be afraid that, in another, he'l tell me more than he dos know.

A third reason, which weighs more with me than all the rest, is this: You tell me, on the one side, He was a Popish Frier; And, on the other, I cannot be­lieve, but that (although perhaps, for some reasons, he did not openly profess it) He was really a Protestant. It appears so plainly, by his censuring the Decrees of Doctrine, as well as those of Reforma­tion, [Page 262]& by the severe reflections of his own, which he intermixes with those of the Lutheran Criticks; that I do not con­ceive how any man of sense, who reads him with attention, can be of another opinion. Had he been a barefaced Protes­tant, I should be more inclined to believe him. There is something of integrity & honour in a man that openly professes what he is: And, although passion & pre­judice may blind him, yet I am apt to think that such a person will never de­ceive me, more than he deceives himself. But a Protestant, that lives & dies in the profession of a Popish Frier, How can I believe his words, when the most serious of his actions are only so many lies ? For my own part, I would as soon make choice of a Catholick Jew to comment upon the Ghospel, & to write the life of Christ, as I would choose a Protestant Frier to write the History of a Gene­ral Council.

Before I end my Letter, give me leave, once more, to mind you of the Discourse we had, when we saw one another last. We both agreed, that ^* it were a very irrational thing to make Laws for a Coun­try, & leave it to the inhabitants to be the Interpreters & Judges of those Laws; for then every man will be his own Judge, [Page 263]& by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong: that ^* therefore we cannot suppose, that God Almighty would leave us at those Uncertainties, as to give us a Rule to go by, & leave every man to be his own Judge: that ^* Christ left his Spirit & Power to his Church, by which they were the Judges, even of the Scrip­ture it self, many years after the Apostles-which Books were Canonical, & which were not: that ^* the Judgment of the Church, is without Appeal; otherwise, what they decide would be no farther to be follow'd than it agrees with every man's private Judgment: that because, in the Apostles Creed, we believe in the Holy Catholick Church, therefore we ought to believe in the first four General Councils, which were true & legal Representatives of it: And lastly, that if the Council of Trent were prov'd to be as General, as free, & as legal in all it's circumstances, as any of the first four Councils were; then you must needs own your self obliged in Conscience to submit to it, & to leave of Protesting against it.

This last part I have here endeavour'd to prove, out of Soave himself, your own Historian, who always makes the worst of things, & never speaks a favourable [Page 264]word, but when the Power of Truth constrains him to it. If I have not per­form'd according to expectation; 'tis your own fault, who are to blame for ha­ving a better opinion of me than I deserve. I am no Doctor, nor Graduate; but every way unfit to be a Champion of the Cause. Yet, having receiv'd your Commands, I have just reason to expect, that you will easily pardon a man, who in this occa­sion is guilty of no other crime than being ready to shew himself,