A LETTER Concerning the COUNCIL OF TRENT.  
SIR,  
Having perused the 
* The History of the Council of Trent, written in Italian by Pietro Soave Polano, translated by N.B. printed London. 1676. in fol. pages 769. If my Reader have a different Edition, he may observe his whole number of pages, and (by the Rule of Three) as this of mine is to that, so will my quotations be to his.  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, the other in depressing of the Council. But yet I am not of opinion that this was the only difference betwixt them. palavicini had the freedom of the Vatican Archives; He refers himself to the Records of the Council, & the writings of 
* He sets down their names, l, 8. c. 10. n. 14.  such Persons as were Members of it: Moreover, He is so far from being partial, that 
* D. Still. Rat. Account.  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 Friar, I must mind you, that he was a Venetian Papist, that he lived in a time of great dissensions betwixt the State of Venice and the Pope, & that he was even then engaged in writing against the Pope's proceed. 'tis hard to say how much he was a friend to the Church, But any man may see how bitter 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. palavicini, you'll 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 lose time in disputing what grains of allowance are due to each of them. Upon condition you'll believe your friend Soave when he speaks well of the Council, I am content to believe palavicini 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 its circumstances, as the first four Councils were, you must needs own yourself 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: 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 noncontradiction. Three British Bishops sat 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 British 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 Dr. Field, who in his book of the Church freely confesses, that The Decrees of Popes made with the consent & joint concurrence of the other Western Bishops, do bind the Western Provinces that are subject to him as Patriarch of the West. 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 considered at leisure, 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. Gou. P. IU.  
1. A General Council requires, either the presence of all the Catholic Patriarches, 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 Catholic 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, etc. The first four Councils, of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, & Chalcedon, by reason of the Oriental Heresies, were held in the East, & consisted principally of Oriental Bishops. In the I. were present only the Pope's two Legates, & three Western Bishops. The II. had not Western Bishop at all, but only was afterward confirmed by the Pope & his Council. The III. had only three Delegates, sent by the Pope & his Occidental Council. They transacted most of their business, & condemned 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 Heretics, & for his contumacy against the See of Rome.  
3. If all Catholic 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 Catholic Prelates, that is, of such as were not before shut of the Church by Heresy or Schism. The II. & V General Councils became such by the confirmation & after-acceptation of Damasus & Vigilius with their Western Bishops: and 'tis a fundamental principle of Government not simply Monarchical, that No Laws can be promulgated, no Unity preserved, if of their Governors 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 Heresy or Schism. The Catholic 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 summoned to Trent. The Eastern Bishops, in the Turks Dominions could not conveniently come, there being war betwixt Christians & Turks. The Division, which occasioned the Assembly, arose only in the West, & therefore there was less need of their presence. Moreover six Greek Bishops sat in the Council: And, ten years after, the Wittenberg 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 
* 1629.  published a Calvinistical Confession: But his immediate Successor Cyril of Iberia assembled at Constantinople a Synod of 23. Bishops, besides the Patriarches of Alexandria & Jerusalem; And again, his Successor Parthenius assembled another of 25. Bishops, & amongst them the Metropolitan of Moscovy: Both these Synods anathematised Lucar with his Adherents; and also justified these Tenets of the Council, the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body & Blood with the Symbols; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of sacred Images; Prayer & Alms for the Faithful deceased with repentance, as betterable in their present condition by them; Free will; seven Sacraments; Church Infallibility, etc. See Leo Allatius, De perpetuo Consensu etc. 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 its being General. 1. They who are not Bishops, have no right to sit there. 2. 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 anathematised in former General Councils. Veneration of Images was declared lawful 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 recompensed 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'll 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 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'll say, subscribed 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 Patriarches. 3. The subscriptions were manifestly irregular, because the Bishop of Antioch, who was the III. Patriarch, suscribed after the Bishops of Egypt, & 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 Patriarches, & two Assemblies of their Prelates approved the chief points. The Protestants had not right to a decisive voice: Their opinions had been censured in former Councils, and were like to be condemned again in this: If, for these reasons, they absented; 'twas 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 privilege, have any right to be present, or to deliver their opinion, in General Councils, were summoned 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; 
* p. 451.  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 
* p. 408.  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 answered 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 recompensed in the end, by a numerous & unanimous ratification of all, & by the acceptation of the absent Prelates afterward. Soave says, that, under Pius IU. 
* p. 504.  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, 
* p. 757.  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 pleased that Confirmation should be demanded of Pope Pius iv of all things decreed under Paul, Julius, & his Holiness; and they answered, not one by one, but all together, Placet. palavicini says the same; only he proves that 
* l. 24. c. 8.  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 Pope in the beginning of the Council. The second part, being barely asserted, looks like a groundless calumny, & may justly be supposed 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 usurped by the Councils of Constance & Basil; but never assumed by any Council, which was totally approved. You know very well, that Catholic Divines are divided upon the point; whether the Pope be superior to a General Council; or whether a General Council, without him, be so complete a Representative of the Universal Church, as to be superior to the Pope? They who maintained the superiority of a General Council, were zealous for this Title; and the others constantly opposed 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 received by the Protestants: Nor by the French Catholics. A. 1. The Council of Nice was never received by the Arians. 2. It was universally received by both Ecclesiastical & Civil State of France, in point of Doctrine 3. The Decrees of Reformation were approved by all the Catholic 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 begged 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, chief because they are tied & bound to all Laws, so made by the Catholic 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, etc. In the General Assembly of the States at Paris, in the year, 1614 Cardinal Perron, & Cardinal Richelieu, than Bishop of Luson, prosecuted in vain the same request. Thus you see the Catholic 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 guests at the reasons of excepting against it, by what the Queen Regent, Catherine de Medicis, was pleased to tell the Pope's Nuncio; that the Council could not be admitted, because by the Council's Decrees the King could not gratify 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 declared that Luther & his Adherents were Heretics: Being therefore already condemned, why should they come to Council? A. 1. Their Errors had been condemned in former General Councils: and, since it really was so, Why might not the Pope say so? 2. Because the Pope had condemned them therefore they 
* See Soave p. 11.  appealed to a General Council: and, since they had appealed 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 questioned, first made friends to be tried in Germany. As soon as he was there condemned by Cajetan, he appealed to the Pope. Immediately after, foreseeing his condemnation there, he intercepted this appeal with 
* ibid. p. 8.  another, from the Pope to a General Council; having ground to imagine, He would never call one, who was supposed, to fear that it would severely reform him & his Court. As soon as he saw that, in good earnest, a Bull was published, in the year, 1537. to call a Council at Vicenza; he began presently, to vilify 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 Than he appealed 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 
* p. 17.  used to say that he was so well assured of his Doctrine, that, it being Divine, he would not submit it so much as to the judgement 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.  

* p. 600.  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 preferred, that is, those which were regulated by the word of God. You will not deny, but that in England we have had some Kings 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 called 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 Allegiance; 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 preferred. 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, but that it may help to open your eyes.  
VIII. The Parties concerned were Judges in their own case. A. No more than in the I. of Nice. The world was then divided into Catholics & Arians, as now into Catholics & Protestants: And, as the Catholics 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 counteraccused one another of Heresy; and yet the Pope legally presided in the iv General Council which condemned 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 necessity is found in supreme Civil power. Inferior Courts are liable to Appeals: But, if some of the King's subjects rebel against him, & oppose his prerogatives or laws; 'tis evidently necessary that the King must judge his own case, or the Offence must not be judged at all. What must the King do? Substitute an equal number of Royalists & Rebels? 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 interested; & 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 allowed 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-countrieses Remonstrants seeing themselves like to be over-voted by the Protestants, made the same excuses; saying, that the major part of the Synod was declared of a contrary party; that they were already 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 discouraged 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 Heretics might ever have pleaded the same exception against the Orthodox Fathers: that Divines neither are, nor aught 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 (not body knows where) to look for 'em. This was the substance of their Answer; which I here set down in the Latin, to satisfy your curiosity. Nunquam praxim hanc Ecclesiarum fuisse, ut pastors, 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 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 delivered their opinion in these terms: 1. Huic sententiae refragatur perpetua praxis omnium Ecclesiarum. Name in Synodis Oecumenicis, Nicaeno, etc. two. 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 pastors, 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 Parties be Judges in the Council of Trent, as well as in the Synod of Dort? If, in one case, the Remonstrants were obliged to submit to the Protestants. Why were not the Protestants obliged to submit to the Catholics in the other? The Synod was forced to pretend some disparity; and, for want of a better, alleged 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. Does the division of Civil Power destroy the Unity of the Catholic Church, which we believe in our Creed? Or, if there be any reason why (when any Schism 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 allowed, for once, to give a Placet, it should be no prejudice to the right & honour of the present & future Councils: which looks as if the Council were not fully resolved to deny this to them, if much insisted upon. 2. They, who openly maintain such doctrines as have been formerly condemned in General Councils, are cut of from the Catholic 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 Catholic Divines, by the same rule as the Protestants, there remained 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 Laics indifferently chosen, in an equal number, on both sides. Another time, they appealed to 
* p. 73.  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 the Laity would please to do there▪ for 
* ibid.  the Pope making himself a party to the cause, it was just that the manner and form of the proceeding, should be determined by the Princes. This was the 
* ib.  Answer of 15. Princes, & 30, Cities, assembled in Smalcalda, 1535. Again, about two years after, when the 
* p. 76.  Emperor sent his Vice. Chancellor to exhort them to receive the Council, they answered, 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 called 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-condemned, as to Authority; And therefore they never intended to appear in any legal Council, but hated the very thought of it: Although 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 
* p. 413.  answered 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 Emperor, they began to unmask & speak as plainly as the Duke did. Read Soave's Annals, 1562. he says that, 
* p. 599.  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 joint demand, for a free & new Council, in which the resolutions of Trent might be examined, the French men of the old Catholic Religion giving hope also that they would agree unto it ... But the 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. 
* p. 411.  In Germany, says he, the Princes of the Augustan Confession, assembled in Neumburg, being ashamed that their Religion should be esteemed 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 differed, 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 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 answered, that they could not stop the eyes & ears of the world, that they should not see & hear their differences; & that if they would make show of union, where they were at variance, they should be convinced of vanity & lying: And, after many contentions, they remained without agreement in that point. How should the Catholics 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 might otherwise be offered to him, either going, staying, or returning: but however, if, after a fair Trial, he be legally condemned: 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 published in the beginning of his Works, & says he was an eyewitness of what passed. He relates the words of the Emperor Sigismond telling Huss to his face, at Constance; 
* Acta johannis Huss. p. 15.  Although,. says he, Some say that, by your friends & patrons, you received our Letters of Public 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 received 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, & answer for yourself, before the whole Council, concerning your faith & doctrine. And this, you see, the most Reverend Lords, Cardinals & Bishops, have so performed, that I have reason to give them many thanks ... Now therefore we advise you, not to defend any thing obstinately, but to submit yourself, 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 dismissed by the Council. If not ... We truly will never patronise your obstinacy & your errors.  
In this discourse of the Emperor I observe, 1. That the Letters of Public 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 endeavoured to make his escape, his imprisonment was just, and no injury done. See Bremus a Protestant Lawyer, Quaest. ult. de Securitate, who citys a great number of others, agreeing with him this opinion▪ that Public Faith is ended or forfeited, if a man, having received Public Faith, commits a new crime, be cause, for this, he may be punished. 2. That the friends of Huss made no great 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 Emperor would be obliged 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 Emperor; & makes me more apt to believe the Relation of it, set down by Ulricus Reichental, an inhabitant of Constance, an eye witness of what happened, & 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 received and favourably treated at Constance, as well as all the way thither. This he confesses himself, in his Letters to his friends. 
* Epist. 5.  We came, says he, to Constance, after the feast of All Saints, passing through the Cities without any ill usage, And we lodge in a street which is nigh the Pope's Palace. Again; 
* Ep. 6.  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 Emperor had recommended him, he says, 
* Ep. 5.  They have been with the Pope, & have spoken to him concerning me; Who answered, 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 
* Ep. 4. Hussiticarum.  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 people flocked 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 resolved to contrive his escape. Upon the third Sunday in Lent, when Huss did not appear at dinner, Latzembock went immediately to the Governor of the City, and complained 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 covered with hay & straw, which had been ordered 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 impriprisoned. But this Noble Bohemian (who knew very well what Safe-conduct he had, he being committed to his care, by Signismond) answered, 'Tis so Decreed, that either you must justify your Cause, 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 called an Injury, And, by the same rule, that the Emperor was not obliged, according to his Letters, to patronise his obstinacy & his errors, neither was he obliged to protect him from the course of Common Law in this occasion.  
Nevertheless I am apt to believe, that the Emperor did really design to procure (as much as he could, by fair means) more favour for him than the rigour of the Law allowed. Among other reasons which incline me to this opinion, these two may suffice at present: 1. that John Chlum 
* Inter Epist. Hussiticas. num. 57  complained, his Master's Safe-conduct was violated: 2. that the Emperor himself in his Answer to the Nobles of Bohemia, writes, He 
* Cochlaus l. 4, Hist. Hussitarum. p. 155.  often solicited 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 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 lawful for me to speak any more, of this Business; because, by so doing, the Council would have been dissolved. Thus He behaved himself; And, whether it were Vanity, or Generosity, or Policy, that moved him, is not my business to inquire; 'tis enough for your satisfaction & mine, that, by his Letters of Public Faith, He was not obliged, 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'll 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 defy 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 followed him soon after, to Constance, upon the same terms, with a Safe conduct from the Council. 
* Sess. 6.  Citamus ... 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 saluâ; 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 Emperor?  
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 Safe-conducts; Damus tibi Fidem Publicam, causam dicendi in Judicio, CONTRA VIM, NON CONTRA JURIS EXECUTIONEM. Mynsingerus, Observ. 82, upon the Judgement of the Imperial Chamber, says, Quando datur 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. citys 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 expressly 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. which I shall cite in the following Objection. That the Safe-conduct, which he had from the Emperor, 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 Emperor's Letters of Public Faith, dated from Spire, Octob. 18. 1414. extant in Goldastus his Appendix Documentorum ad Commentarios de Regni Bohemiae Juribus & Privilegiis. p. 81. We hearty recommend, to all & every one of you, the honourable Master John Huss Bachelor 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 & aught to show 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 pass, to stop, to stay, & to return, by any passages, ports, bridges, lands, dominions, jurisdictions, cities, towns, castles, villages, & whatsoever places of yours, without any expense of tribute, toll, or any other payment; And, that you will, & aught, for the honour & respect of our Majesty, to provide Secure & Safe conduct for him & his, when occasion shall ' require.  
All this the Emperor commanded, as much as lay in Him, And, in all this, his subjects obeyed, 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 Emperor 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 Emperor's Letters; in which there is no sign of these two promises, 1. that he should not be imprisoned, if by any misdemeanour he deserved it; 2. that he should nor be executed, if legally condemned.  
Both these promises were plainly included in the Extraordinary Safe-conduct which the Tridentine Council granted to the Protestants: And therefore, as I told you in the beginning, The Case was quite different. Read Soave, and if you believe him, you'll begin to be ashamed of your objection. 
* p. 348, Conc. Tried Sess. 15. & 18.  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, approved COUNCILS, Consent of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, & Authority of the Holy FATHERS; adding, that they SHALL NOT BE PUNISHED upon PRETENCE OF RELIGION, or OFFENCES commited, 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 knowledge of the Deputies of the Synod, that 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 NULLIFY THE BENEFIT OF THIS PUBLIC FAITH, he shall be PUNISHED BY THEIR OWN Protestant JUDGES, so that the Synod may be satisfied: and, on the other side, if any Catholic in coming hither, remaining here, or returning, SHALL COMMIT ANY THING which may VIOLATE THIS SAFE CONDUCT, he shall be punished by the Synod, WITH APPROBATION OF THE GERMANE Protestant 's THEMSELVES, who shall be present in Trent .... which things it promiseth faithfully, in the name of all faithful Christians, Ecclesiastical & Secular. If Huss & Jerome had come to Constance with such a Safe-conduct, they had neither been imprisoned, nor executed. With such a one as this, the Bohemians went afterwards to Basil, were civilly used, & returned quietly home. With this the Wittenberg Protestant's went to Trent, remained quiet there, & returned without receiving any affront. That no more of the Protestants followed their example, in going thither, was their own fault: They knew very well, they might have gone, remained, & returned, securely, if they pleased. Consider 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 lawful to break the faith of any Safe-conduct whatsoever. A. Read the Decrees; you'll plainly see the contrary. The Council of Constance does not say, 'tis lawful 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 satisfy the World, that, although the Emperor had pretended to grant an Extraordinary Safe-conduct, such as exempts a man from Justice as well as Violence, it could nor have hindered 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 emperor's Safe-conduct; Nor can I blame them for it. See Soave, p. 298. Duke Maurice wrote to the Emperor, that his Safe-conduct was not sufficient. For, in the Council of Constance, it was determined, that THEY MIGHT PROCEED AGAINST THOSE THAT CAME TO THE COUNCIL, THOUGH THEY HAD SAFE-CONDUCT FROM THE EMPEROR. And that, therefore the Bohemians would not go Basil, but under the Public Faith of the whole Council. See p. 307. The Ambassadors went all together to the Precedents, & told them, that the Emperor had given the Protestants a Safe-conduct, but that they were not contented with it, alleging that it was decreed in the Council of Constance, and really executed, that THE COUNCIL IS NOT Bound BY THE SAFE-CONDUCT 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 itself, & 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, & alias contra eos DEBITE PROCEDERE, eosdemque PUNIRE, QUANTUM JUSTITIA SUADEBIT, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiamsi de Salvo conductu confisi ad locum venerint Judicii, alias non 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 & lawful 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 obliged 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 obliged 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 virtue of the supreme Ecclesiastical Power implied in that Title. They commanded All Governors Ecclesiastical & Secular, to prosecute the Laws against the followers of Huss & Wickliff, revoking & forbidding all privileges, 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 does the Council of Trent insert this clause in the end of the Safe-conduct, that 
* p 348.  the Synod shall not use, or suffer any to use, any authority, power, right, statute, or privilege, of laws, canons, or Councils, ESPECIALLY that of Constance, & of Sienna; which things, in this behalf, & for this time, the Council doth disallow? Why does it disallow these Statutes, if they were fair & just? A. It does not disallow them absolutely, but only conditionally; that is, IF they contain any doctrine contrary to the Security of Public 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 persuade 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 say, what the Pope said upon an other occasion, They 
* p. 408.  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, & published in the 15. Session, Jan. 25. 1552. Observe how Soave relates it. 
* p. 343▪  The Emperor's Ambassadors desired to have the draught of it, before it was published, to show 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 Emperor's Ambassadors called the Protestants to them, & the Ambassador Pictavius exhorted them to give some little part of satisfaction to the Council, as they received much from it; told them that it was concluded, to receive their Mandates & Persons, and to hear their Propositions, and to defer the conclusion of the points of Doctrine, though already discussed & 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 entered into the business, occasion will make them obtain many things which before seemed hard ... that they themselves, the Emperor'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 withal, that they must go on cunningly; that they themselves have daily experience, what dexterity & art must be used in treating with the Pope's Ministers. Therefore let their Divines come, who should have a convenient audience in all things, and when they shall see themselves wronged, it shall ever be free for them to departed. 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. 
* p. 349.  The Imperialists persuaded them to go on with dexterity; saying, as before, that with time they should obtain all; but, seeking things distasteful, & 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 expressed, because good usage was promised. Ambassador Toledo had told them, 
* p. 344.  that the chief importance was in the Security of coming & departing; that the residue appertained 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 laws to the whole Church. After all this, 
* p. 352.  the Protestants received 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 mere calumny. 
* ibid.  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 Legate answered, that the nineteenth of March being a day appointed for the Session, they would then consider about 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, 
* p. 352.  the Protestants often desired the Action should begin (it seems, they were in great haste) but difficulty was still raised, sometimes about the manner of treating, sometimes about the matter with which to begin ... 
* p. 353.  the Adherents of Cesar, Spaniards, & others, moved by the Emperor'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, embraced 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. 
* ibid.  The first of April, the Elector of Saxony besieged Ausburg, which did render itself the 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 embarked, & went down the river Adice, to go to Verona, and the Protestants determined to departed. 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 Catholics: 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, 
* p 355.  The Emperor 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 Emperor'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 Catholics of Spain & France: 2. the Pope's forces had no access thither; 'twas in the Emperor'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 refused 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 proved by witnesses that live upon the place.  
XIV. The Council was not free. It was called by the Pope: And nothing could be determined 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 
* p. 31.  that by the Pope, with consent of the Emperor, a free Council should be intimated as soon as was possible: he says, the Emperor sent Letters to the Diet of Spira, that 
* p. 34.  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 IU. he says, 
* p. 304.  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 lawful 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 determined, which any considerable part resisted. Soave himself confesses, 
* 538.  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 Pensioners to the Pope. A. Soave acknowledges, that several 
* p. 116.  of the Bishops, moved by poverty, made grievous complaints, & threatened that they would departed. If therefore the Pope maintained 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 Emperors. 2. Secular Princes had more money than the Pope; and, if it had been the policy of his Holiness, they might easily have countermined 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 besides 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 by the Lutherans in Germany, required their Bishop's residence to secure Catholic Religion at home; otherwise they would not have been absent from the Synod. 3. The dissensions that happened betwixt the Pope, the Emperor, & King of France, and the civil wars betwixt Catholics & Protestants, hindered the Bishops, sometimes of one Nation, sometimes of another, from attending the Council. 4. All this was fully recompensed, in the third & last Convocation of the Council, under Pius IU.  
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 Emperor, 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, 
* p. ●22.  it was publicly said by the Papalins (so he is pleased to call them) that France had ever pretended to limit the Pope's power, & subject it to the Canons; Canons; and that this opinion would be followed 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 seemed 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 approved by all, that they should be received, 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, & showed 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 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 subtlety & 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 determined in the General Congregation, to use an expression so universal as might be accommodated to the meaning of both parties, without approving 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 sat in Council. A. 1. They never swore to vote against their judgement: They only swore Canonical obedience & fidelity to him, that is, such obedience & fidelity as the Canons of former Councils require, 
* Bellarmin, De Council. lib. 1, cap. 21.  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 Heretic. 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 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 lose 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 Catholic 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 complained, the Council was not free. A. This happened only once, & satisfaction was presently given Soave relates it thus. 
* p. 593.  The Bishop of Guadice speaking of the last 
* Seff. 23.  Canon, where it was determined, that Bishops called by the Pope are true & lawful, said that there were also Bishops, not called by the Pope, nor confirmed by him, which nevertheless were true & lawful. For example he brought four Suffragans, elected & ordained 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, called him Schismatic, and said he ought to be put out of the Council. Immediately there followed 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 called 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 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 punished. Here you have a full account of the whole matter. It was only a sudden heat, & soon over. The public reprehension, of those who made a noise, was satisfaction abundantly sufficient for what was passed: 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 complained, before the satisfaction was given, & the Canon altered, 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 humoured, & when they are crossed, a small matter is enough for great complaints. I'll give you an instance out of Soave. 
* p. 615.  Lorain and Madruccio had composed a form concerning Residence; The Legates approved 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 disparaged. 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 received without examen; if, out of compliment to them, it had been approved 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 
* ibid.  did not forbear to say, there was a secret Council, within the Council, which did arrogate more authority. The Canonists, who examined the form which they two had composed, are here called 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 idolised, 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 straightened for want of room, & complain for want of liberty. So, when Guzdellun came to the Council, & had 
* p. 617.  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 happened 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 aught 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 turned 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 determined as he pleased, than 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 order, & if you believe your own Historian, you will find they had no reason to complain.  
1. 
* p. 474.  They complained 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. 
* p. 470.  He commended them for speaking according to their Conscience .... He complained of those who referred themselves unto him, because the Council was assembled that every one may deliver his opinion ... 
* p. 471.  He was pleased 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 informed 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 & persuasions do compel them 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 
* p. 515.  complained of the Legates for not suffering the point of Residence to be concluded, before they could have an answer from Rome. A. They themselves acquainted the King with these matters: Why might not the Legates inform the Pope? They 
* ibid.  beseeched his Majesty to consult with godly men about this Article: Why might not the Pope consult with godly men, as well as He? They 
* ibid.  assured 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 complained 
* ibid.  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 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 complained that 
* p. 475.  when a proposition is made in which 70. Bishops do uniformly agree, they are hindered even to speak thereof. A. Who hindered them? Soave tells us, that the King of Spain wrote to his Ambassador to let 
p. 505.  his Prelates know, He thought the Declaration did not befit the present time, & therefore wished them to desist; & that the French Ambassadors wrote to their Master, how little hopes they had of 
p 507.  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, 
* p. 470,  commended them for speaking according to their Conscience. Neither did the Legates with them to desist: They only 
p. 473.  answered, that the Article was not fit to be proposed in that Session, but that it should be done in time convenient: which was so far from being any hindrance of their speaking, that upon the very next occasion 
* p. 477.  they began to discourse again of it ... & the heat grew so great, that some of the Ultramontans threatened to protest & departed; 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 Emperor 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 numbered, 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 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 pleased to give his Royal Assent. Would you take this for the language of his Reason or his Passion? 2. Although he seemed a Catholic when he sat 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 
* p. 464.  a fourth part only against the divine right of Residence, & observing how 
* p. 465.  they came to words of some bitterness, they exhorted the Fathers to modesty, gave them leave to departed, & 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 employed his Rhetoric to oppose the Bishop of Aiace, & to prove that it was lawful for Bishops to 
* p. 457.  busy themselves in the Courts of Princes, & in the Affairs of the world, as being Judges, Chancellors, Secretaries, Counsellors, Treasurers, etc. which was, as Soave observes, a plain 
* p 458.  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 moved by nerves which were none of their own, the country bagpipes 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 busy as the best of them, giving his suffrage with them, against the Decree of Residence? Who hired him? what nerves moved 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 weighed but numbered: And, in your History, the agreement of the Legates, not to determine a point of Doctrine, which 
* p. 464.  a fourth part did dislike, makes it plainly appear, that the votes of Bishop Dudith's party were not only numbered but weighed. 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 Cloak-bag to have helped in time of need: And, if Soave's History may be believed, the Papalins in this occasion were 
* ibid.  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 leisure. 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 transferred from Trent to Bolonia, defies any man 
* p. 251.  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 
* p. 239.  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 considered, that all the Reformation aimed to restrain his Authority, & to enlarge the power of Bishops ... that 
* p. 241.  the Spaniards, are a wise Nation who step not one foot forward without looking a great way before them ... He thought that this web was secretly spun by the Emperor, in regard his Ambassador did daily treat with them ... He weighed above all, his words used to the Nuncio, that he had no greater enemy than the Pope. He feared that when he had established 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, seemed the best Counsel ... Bolonia seemed the best place ... & he resolved to cause it to done by the Legates, by the Authority given them in the Bull of Translation. Being thus resolved, he sent a private Gentleman, with Letters of credit, to do this Ambassage to both the Legates ... 
* p. 248.  The 21. of April, the Pope's messenger appeared & declared to the Legates his Credence ... At this time, it happened 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 examined, & a Process made concerning the Pestilent infirmity ... the Process was prosecuted until the 8. day, when news came that Verona would traffic 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 Emperor's Prelates answered that the disease & dangers were not so great, and looked upon it as 
* p. 250.  a pretence. The next day a Congregation was called 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 proposed 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 Emperor's subjects, etc. In this Relation I have purposely omitted several clauses, not only for brevity sake, but because I cannot think that any man is obliged to believe such abusive constructions & 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 happened fitly for the purpose.  
2. How much power the Emperor had over all his Prelates. Soave says, 
* p. 250.  the Imperialists were commanded by the Emperor's Ambassador, not to departed, until his Majesty were informed, & gave them order. He gives an account afterwards of their 
* p. 253.  remaining in Trent by express order from the Emperor, and obstinately 
* p. 260.  refusing to go or send to Bolonia, to acknowledge the Council; although the Pope 
* p. 262.  prayed them, either to come, or send Proctors.  
3. The Pope praying on the one side, the Emperor commanding on the other; the prayers being slighted, the commands being punctually obeyed; 'tis easy to conclude, which was most likely to restrain the liberty of the Council, when returned to Trent: especially, if we consider the Emperor's being then 
* p. 283.  King of Spain and Naples, Prince of the Low-Countries, & having other adherencies in Italy.  
4. The Emperor's Protestation, read by Valasco in the Council of Bolonia, shows plainly what liberty might be expected from him, who assumed to himself the arbitrary privilege of judging the 
* p. 263.  opinions of the Fathers, & determining who did speak for conscience sake, & 
* p. 264.  who, though not so many in number, aught to be preferred, as more wise. At this rate, All the other Prelates of the Universal Church, what would they signify? Though they were ten for one against them, 'tis no matter; the Prelates of the Emperor must always be supposed to be the men who speak for conscience sake, the men who are more wise, & therefore the men who ought to be preferred.  
5. If the Pope, having just reason to suspect the future servitude of the Council, endeavoured 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, 
* p. 251.  it scandalised every one. And yet I know not why they should be scandalised, any more than you & I were, when King Charles removed 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 rehearsed how the Fathers at Bolonia unanimously agreed, not to treat of returning to Trent, till those, who remained there, first came to Bolonia, to unite with the rest, and acknowledge the Council;) concludes with these words, 
* ibid.  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; 
* p. 260.  and, if you believe him, you'll believe he is mistaken here.  
1. Pray what spirit formerly moved 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 persuaded us that Concord & Discord are all one, he might easily have made us believe that in Bolonia, The spirit worked as formerly it had done. Besides, These of Bolonia were the major part, & 'tis no wonder they persevered 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, & 
* p. 262.  prayed them, either to come, or to send Proctors, they still remained 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 was wont to move the Ambassadors to think as the Emperor 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 proceed of the Legates were contrary to the instructions they received from Rome. 
* p. 470.  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: 
* p. 464.  Altemps followed Simoneta, and the other two adhered to Mantua. By which you may clearly see that your Historian was grievously mistaken, 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 
* p. 473.  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 followed them ... On the other side, the Emperor's Ambassadors used strong persuasions to the contrary, saying they would presently departed & protest ... The Legates were divided: Seripando had no other aim, but that it should be determined 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 
* p 474.  news came to Rome, the Pope was sorry to see that Cardinal joined with the Spaniards in the point of Residence, and opposite to them in the Continuation; which was to cross him in all things.  
5. Afterwards 
* p. 478  the Pope resolved that the Continuation should be declared, let the Emperor do what he could; and dispatched a Currier to Trent with this Commission. If the Spirit had been wont to move the Legates to think as the Pope did, why does Soave tell us that, this Commission being arrived the second of June, they all resolved uniformly to inform the Pope better, & show him the impossibility to perform his Order? Why does he tell us, that the next day ... at night, a Currier came with Letters, that his Holiness did refer all to the wisdom & judgement of the Legates? I might cite you a great deal more, to this purpose; but this is enough to show, 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 which were proposed. 2. In great Assemblies such a method is necessary, to avoid confusion. 3. It was at length 
* Sess 24. cap. 21. the Reform.  declared, that the clause was not inserted with design of changing the usual method of treating matters in General Councils; and then, Soave says, 
* p. 728.  The difficulty received an end, with satisfaction of all.  
You that have read Soave, may easily remember a great many passages, in which the Prelate's overruled the Legates, & forced them to debate things which they had no mind to. 1. This clause, proponentibus Legatis, was 
* ibid.  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 pushed perhaps too far, if the Legates had not wisely counterpoised it, with proposing a suitable Reformation of Secular Princes. 6. Concerning the grant of the Cup, demanded by the Emperor, you read in Soave, that 
* p. 530.  the Legates were desirous to give him satisfaction, but could not, because the party of the negative prevalled. 7. About admitting the Protestant Divines to disputation, you find that 
* p. 343.  this opinion was readily embraced, first by the Dutch, then by the Spanish Prelates, & at last somewhat coldly by the Italians, the Legate remaining , and showing plainly that he stood quiet, being forced 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 remained 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 practice, & 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 Emperors, 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 pacify 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 approved 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. 
* p. 550.  Granata, Braganza, Messina, & Segovia, having obtained 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 conferred together, answered, that it was fit to declare, a Bishop is superior, but 
* p. 551.  that it was not necessary to say, quo jure. Granata replied, 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 
* ibid.  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 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, 
* p. 558.  that howsoever it be true and certain, that Bishops are superior jure Pontificio, yet the Lutherans are not in this regard to be condemned for Heretics, because that cannot be an Article of Faith, which is grounded only upon the Law of man.  

* ibid.  John Fonseca a Divine of the Archbishop of Granata followed, saying, it neither was, nor could be forbidden to speak of it. For the Article being proposed to be discussed, 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 proved by many Authorities out of the Fathers. He added, that to be confirmed 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 Diocese from the Pope, & authority from Christ. Their Superiority over Priests he proved 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. 
* p. 559.  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 remembering that that point was forbidden to be spoke of. Here it is that Soave would make us believe, that Grossetus feared some bad encounter, but, I am sure, if any bad encounter had ever happened 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 delivered their opinions in the following Congregations, and then Pl give you leave to tell me, if you can, what bad encounter they feared.  
The Archbishop of Granata said, 
* p. 565.  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 confirmed 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 Pope's Innocentius and Bonifacius are likewise called Brothers; &, which is most plain, not only in the Epistles of those two Saints, but of many others, the Pope is called Colleague ... that it is against the nature of a College to consist of persons of divers kinds ... In this College 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 Apostolic See, but otherwise all are equal by reason of humility, which Christian Humility is never separated from the Truth. He inveighed against those Theologues who said, that S. Peter had ordained the other Apostles Bishops ... 
* p. 566.  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; ask 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 until 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.  

* p. 567.  The Archbishop of Braga proved at large, the Institution of Bishop's de jure divino. He said, that the Pope cannot take 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 followed by the Bishops of Segovia, of Segna, & others, who spoke as boldy as himself, not fearing any bad encounter; and Soave says 
* p. 569.  almost the half were of that opinion.  
Afterwards, 
* p. 577.  to quench the boiling heat of the controversy about the Institution of Bishops, that it might not increase, by means of so many who were prepared 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 
* p 578.  three or four of them joined 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 
* ibid.  as a Prince does institute, in a City, a Judge of the first instant, & a Judge of Appeal, who though he be superior, yet cannot take authority from the other, 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 
* p. 582.  that it was decided in the Congregations under Julius III. that Bishops are instituted jure divino; though it was not published in Session, by reason of the sudden dissolution of the Council ... The Cardinal of Mantua caused the Acts of that time to be searched, & 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 harkened unto, who say that Bishops are not instituted jure divino, it appearing manifestly by the words of the Gospel, that Christ our Lord hath himself called 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 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 answered 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 
* p 583.  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, 
* p. 596.  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 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 
* p. 596.  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, 
* ibid.  The French Prelates, who spoke after Lorain, did not use the same ambiguity, but maintained openly, that the Authority of Bishops was de jure divino.  
Again, in another Congregation, 
* p. 598.  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 received in France, they pronounce it to be abusive, & forbidden the execution. 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 
* p. 728.  satisfaction; as in the clause, Proponentibus Legatis. In some, a considerable part opposed, as in the Doctrine of Residence; which therefore, according to the 
* p. 538.  general Maxim of the Council, could not be determined. 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 pleased to tell us quite another story. Lorain (who, at his first coming to Trent, had opposed the 
* p. 583.  declaration of these points, & had 
* p. 596.  exhorted the Fathers to leave it) 
* p. 684.  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, 
* ibid.  an Order came from the Emperor to his Ambassadors, to use all means that the Authority of the Pope should not be discussed 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? Why so averse from it? Why did they, to secure themselves, shift sides so often betwixt the Emperor & King of France? A. You might as well have asked me, Why does a Pilot fear a storm? Why is he so averse from it? Why does he trimm the boat so often? S. Peter's Ship, in those days, was grievously tossed, & almost covered with the waves: But our Lord, who seemed to sleep, at length arose, commanded the winds & the Sea, & there followed 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 served? Why did they openly declare, that a Council is ever dangerous, when the Pope's Authority is questioned? A. You'll 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 believe that a Parliament (though, otherwise, excellent in itself) is always dangerous, when the King's Authority is questioned? 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 worried the whole Church. If S. Paul was in perils among false Brethren, the Successor of S. Peter was no less. 
* p. 284.  Not only the Protestants did impugn his Authority, but many Princes also would restrain it, & many Bishops did think to moderate it. 
* p. 205.  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 
* p. 522.  ever pretended to limit the Pope's power, & subject it to the Canons & Councils, 
* p. 34●.  The Emperor'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 Emperor had a design to advance himself, by debasing of the Papacy. This was enough to make the Popes, of that Age, take care to look before they leaped. But yet this was not all, if Soave says true. The 
* p. 17.  Governors 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 & Friars 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 reformed, and it was necessary that others should have the charge thereof, who could not be deceived 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 ecclesiastics to their beginning: They were to be brought to their Staff and Scrip again, & sent about their business, whilst the Reformers plundered the Church, & divided the spoils. 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 deceived by their proper interests. This Reason, I confess, if it had taken place, would have been worth its 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 aught to deliver; because your interest blinds you but He cannot be deceived 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 deserved to have the charge of those matters, and that it was necessary they should have it, because they could not be deceived by their proper interests?  
If such a Throughout-Reformation as this, had been effectually procured, All had been well: Complaints would then have ceased, because there would have been nothing left to complain of: The Reformers would have reduced the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops Priests & Friars, to their beginning, which in plain English is little better than reducing them to their end: The Faction would then have triumphed, according to their hearts desire; just as our Rebels did, when they had brought our Monarchy to its 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 Critics were so sharp in censuring & ridiculing the Decrees, as soon as each Session of the Council was published 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, compared with what they would have done themselves, was no 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 does 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, which a curious man would be desirous to know: And besides, although I have compared 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 altered 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, 
* p. 173. n. 1.  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 Stipendiary, 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 assigned, 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 
* p. 693. n. 18.  the institution of Seminaries, it was constituted, that every Episcopal Church should have a certain number of boys, brought up in a College, to learn, among other things, the Holy Scripture. All this 
* Sess. 5. c. 1.  The Holy Synod ordereth & decreeth [least that heavenly Treasure of Sacred Books, which the Holy Ghost has so liberally bestowed upon mankind, should lie neglected.]  
2. Concerning ecclesiastics. 
* p. 732. n. 1.  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 & forgetful of their duty] Christ will demand an account of his Holiness. 
* p. 733. n. 3.  That [Patriarches, Primates, Metropolitans, &] Bishops, shall be bound to visit [their proper] Diocese ... 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 ... 
* ibid. n. 4.  That the Bishops shall be bound to preach in person; or, having a lawful impediment, by others. And in case the Parish Priest be hindered, that he cannot preach in his own Church, he shall, at his charge, maintain another 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. 
* p. 734, n. 10.  That where Visitation, or Correction of manners, is in question, no exemption or appeal, though to the Apostolic See, shall [any way] hinder or suspend the execution of that which is decreed or adjudged. 
* p. 735. n, 17.  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. 
* p. 753. n, 1.  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 of [householdstuff & 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 
* p. 75●.  The Synod teaches no more, than that there is a Purgatory, & that the Souls detained in it, are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, & the Sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore it doth command Bishops to teach sound doctrine in this matter [such as is delivered by the Holy Fathers, & Sacred Councils] and cause it to be preached, without handling subtle questions before the ignorant people, nor suffering uncertain & unlikely things to be published; Prohibiting curiosities, superstition, & unhonest gain.  
2. Concerning Masses. 
* p. 537.  A Decree was read concerning abuses, to be corrected, in the celebration of Masses: And contained in substance; that the Bishops ought to forbid all things brought in by Avarice, Irreverence, or Superstition.  
3. 
* p. 751.  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 only Saviour & Redeemer. Concerning Images; that those of Christ & the Saints, aught to have due honour given them; but that there is no divinity or virtue in 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 Relics, & in use of Images, be taken away.  
4. Concerning Indulgences. 
* p. 757.  The Synod doth only anathematise 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, 
* p. 733, n. 2.  which shall be called 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 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, 
* p. 756. n. 18.  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 whosoe'er they are, to whom it appertains: Otherwise, the Dispensation shall be judged 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 was great joy in Rome, for having cheated the world, and advanced their interest, where they feared to have their wings clipped. A. Here I know not how you'll 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 
* p. 759.  the Court, understanding that the Pope was resolved upon the Confirmation, changed their joy into grief; All the Officers complained 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 considered 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 mortify me 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 Gospel less Sacred, because there are so few who live according to the maxims of it? If this be the only reason, why you Protest against the Council of Trent, because the Decrees of Reformation are not every where, in all things, punctually observed; I see no reason, why you may not, with as good a grace, Protest against the Gospel, & 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 endeavoured to be as short as possibly I could, because, when I deal with a man of your parts, a 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, persuade 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, 
* p. 2.  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 called them, a pack of Villains. He tells us indeed, in the same place, that he is not possessed with any passion, which may make him err; 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 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 knowledge 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'll tell me more than he does 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 Friar; 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, & by the severe reflections of his own, which he intermixes with those of the Lutheran Critics; 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 Friar, 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 Catholic Jew to comment upon the Gospel, & to write the life of Christ, as I would choose a Protestant Friar 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 
* C. II. p. 1.  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, & by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong: that 
* ibid.  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 
* ib.  Christ left his Spirit & Power to his Church, by which they were the Judges, even of the Scripture itself, many years after the Apostles-which Books were Canonical, & which were not: that 
* ibid. p. 2.  the Judgement of the Church, is without Appeal; otherwise, what they decide would be no farther to be followed than it agrees with every man's private Judgement: that because, in the Apostles Creed, we believe in the Holy Catholic 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 proved to be as General, as free, & as legal in all its circumstances, as any of the first four Councils were; than you must needs own yourself obliged in Conscience to submit to it, & to leave of Protesting against it.  
This last part I have here endeavoured to prove, out of Soave himself, your own Historian, who always makes the worst of things, & never speaks a favourable word, but when the Power of Truth constrains him to it. If I have not performed 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 received 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 show himself,  
Sept. 22. 1686. Your Obedient Servant, N. N.   

Page. 70. line. 1. read. rewarded. p. 75. *. 4. r. ch. 14. p. 76. l. 8. r. his 9 book. p. 85. l. 26. r. many. p. 86. l. 29. r. the year 831. p. 89. l. 8. deal de. p. 114. l. 21. r. his 2. book. p. 152. l. 27. r. shut out. p. 161. l. 6. r. it has. p. 165. l. 1. r. your. p. 168. l. 5. r. haereticis. p. 172. l. 3. deal an. p. 176. l. 26. r. in this. p. 189. l. 22. r. to Basil. p. 190. l. 9 r. the case. ibid. l. 13. r. HAERETICIS. p. 194. l. 1. r. another. p. 225 l. 3. r. Charles II. p. 240. *. 2. r. 590.  
FINIS.