on the Part of the Editor of Haguenau, because he only inferted what had been improperly omitted, against the Confent of the Nations through the Importunity of the Cardinals, and what even cou'd not be omitted without a manifest Contradiction, as has been just now demonstrated.

BUT here is another material Remark for which we are oblig'd to M. Maimbourg. "The Council of Bafil, fays he, ten Years before it "had made the Extract, which tis pretended it has falfify'd, exhibited this "Decree of Conftance just as we have it, and renew'd it in the fecond "Seffion. Cardinal Julian, who was nominated by Martin V. to pre"fide in this Council, and who after that Pope's Death, actually pre"fided therein, in the Name of Eugene IV. confented for the Pope "to this Decree in that fecond Seffion, and warranted it in the Let"ter he wrote to Eugene, to fhew him the Reafons which oblig'd his "Holiness not to attempt the Diffolution of this Council. If this Decree had not been a very fair Exhibition of that of Conftance, wou'd " he have confented? Wou'd he not have exclaim'd against the very "manifest Adulteration? Wou'd he not have protefted that what is "added at the End of the Decree was not there? he, who very well "knew his Council of Conftance, and who study'd it daily, having ex"prefs Order from Pope Eugene to act at the Council of Bafil, as he "fhou'd think neceffary, according as he was enjoyn'd and order'd by the Decrees of the Council of Conftance.

"DOES any body require more? Here then is enough fure to fatisfy " him. Eugene IV. in the Bull which he publifh'd at the Time of the "fixteenth Seffion, declares that according to the Decrees of Confiance,

he had call'd the Council of Bafil for the Extirpation of Herefies, "for the Peace of the Chriftian People, and for the general Reformation " of the Church in Capite & in Membris, and that as the Council was legally begun, it hath always continu'd, and ought ftill fo to continue in "order to obtain those three Ends, as if it had never been diffolv'd. "He afterwards annulls all that he had done to diffolve it, protesting "that he approves of it, and defires to continue it purely, fimply, and "with all Manner of Devotion and Favour. Thus faith this Pope, "who, while a Cardinal, was prefent at the Council of Conftance, of "whofe Decrees he cou'd not therefore be ignorant; and confequently "if the Decree of the fecond Seffion of Bafil reported by "this Council, as the Decree of the Council of Conftance, "had not been the fame in the very Terms, no doubt but Eugene wou'd have faid it was falfe, and then have re"jected it (a).

(a) Maimburg Hift. Treat. of the Ch. of Rome p. 210, 211.

To this 1 add another Remark inferr'd from the Bull whereby the Council in 1442, commiffions the Cardinals, Prelates and Doctors, to make an Abstract of the Acts of the Council of Conftance, as abovemention'd. In this Bull the Council of Bafil own'd that the Council of Conftance was affembled for the Extirpation of Schifm, Herefies, Errors, and for the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. Who can be perfuaded that the whole Council of Bafil wou'd offer to corrupt the Acts of the Council of Conftance by a Bull in all its Forms? And if the Pope excommunicates the Falfifiers of the Pope's Bulls upon every Holy Thursday, wou'd not the Fathers of Bafil have been liable to the Thunder of the Vatican, if they had dar'd to corrupt and falfify the Decrees of a general Council, which undoubtedly are as valid as the Bulls of the Popes, and wou'd not themselves have been excommunicate, as often as they read the Bull, In Cana Domini, during the Con-tinuance of the Council, which was above ten Years? The fame Remark is applicable to the Commiffioners appointed to make this Abridgment of the Acts of the Council of Conftance. They were chofen with. the greatest Impartiality. There were fome of the Council's Party, others of the Pope's Party. If therefore the Words, the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members, had not been made ufe of in the fourth Seffion of the Council of Confiance, wou'd the Cardinal Torquemada, or Turrecremata have fuffer'd them to be plac'd at the Head of the Acts of this Seffion, even in those where they are cut off in the Decree? But as he himself was prefent at the Council of Conftance, and cou'd not but know very well what pafs'd on this Occafion, he left Things as they flood in the Acts, from which the Abridgment was made. Therefore if any one is to be fufpected in this Affair, they are certainly the Collectors of the Acts of the Council of Bafil, who in their Collection have not inferted the Bull which orders the Abridgment to be made: of the Acts of the Council of Conftance, and which makes ufe of the Terms Reformation in the Head and Members. I do not find this Bull neither in Surius, nor in Binius, nor in the Royal Impreffion of the Louvre, nor in the Councils of Labbe and Coffart, nor finally in the new Edidition of Father Hardouin's Councils. This Sufpicion of private Men for having made a Collection of Councils to their own liking, is not fo injurious by far as the Accufation laid at the Doors of a whole Council,, of having falfify'd the Acts of another Council, and of having authentically approv'd fuch a Forgery. For this Collection was faithfully tranferib'd, and had a leaden Seal to it, with a filk String which ran along the inferior Margent of all the Pages; as has been fhewn above. Upon which M. Arnaud fays very well. M. de Schelftrate may depend on't, that thofe new Manufcripts A&t fhall be receiv'd with all Manner of

Respect,

• Refpect, provided he can fhew us that they have as fair Marks of their being Authentick, and fuch illuftrious Pledges of their being undeniably true (a).

(a) Ubi fu

pra, p. 21.

BUT what need we infift more on the first Decree of the fourth Seffion of the Council of Conftance? It has been prov'd to Demonftration. in the Hiftory of this Council (b) that the faid Decree was curtail'd by Cardinal Zabarella, who ftopp'd fhort at thefe () Ubi fupra. Words, the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members; that this fourth Seffion was look'd upon as null, and that Zabarella's Omiffion was repair'd in the fifth Seffion, which is liable to no Manner of doubt, and whofe A&ts have not been corrupted by the Council of Bafil, as the Accufers of that Council have acknowledg'd. Now in this Decree of the faid fifth Seffion the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members is formally exprefs'd. The Fathers of the Coun-cil of Bafil were undoubtedly very unskilful Corrupters in confining themselves to corrupt the Acts of a Seffion which had no Credit, and. in fparing the Acts of a Seffion unanimoufly approv'd and confirm'd by Pope Martin V. himself. Upon this it comes immediately into my Thoughts, fays M. Arnaud fpeaking of M. Schelftrate, that 'tis therefore to very little Purpose to know whether any Alteration has been made in the Decree of the fourth Seffion, becaufe 'tis manifeft by his own Confeffion, that none has been made in that of the fifth Seffion. I am not ignorant that the Ultramontanes raise other Objections against this fifth Seffion.. But they are fully anfwer'd in the Differtation against Father Defirant, inserted in the new Edition of the Council of Conftance; and Meffieurs Maimbourg and Arnaud, as well as M. Von der Hardt have thereupon given the Publick entire Satisfaction..

THEREFORE nothing more remains in order to finish this Differtation, but to infert in this Place the Words of M. Arnaud, upon the: Charge exhibited by Schelftrate (and by Father Defirant) against the Fathers of Bafil, for having corrupted the Acts of the fourth Seffion of the Council of Conftance." Setting a-part the Probity of thofe whom "he charges with this Falfification, for what Reafon fhou'd they go a"bout to do it, and how cou'd they refolve to do it, if they had a "Mind to it? People are not wicked for nothing, and a Man must "be stark blind indeed, to commit a Crime, of which he cou'd not fee "a Way to prevent being very easily convicted. But here both Cafes "meet. For fuppofing, what there's no Appearance of, that this Claufe "&Reformationem Ecclefie Dei, &c. was not in the Decree of the fourth "Seffion which the Deputies of the Council of Bafil revis'd, what "wou'd they have got by inferting that Claufe? Wou'd it not have been "enough for them, that it was without Difpute in the firft Decree "of the fifth? Therefore they cou'd never have been inclin'd to "fuch a Falfification, unlcfs they had a Mind to be wicked for no End "and Purpose. " AND

"AND what evidently fhews that they had no need of this Decree "of the fourth Seffion, and that it was a Thing indifferent to them "which Way it was read, is that when they had reported in feveral Sef"fions, what had been decided in the Council of Conftance for the Su"periority of Councils, they only quote for it the first and fecond Decrees of the fifth Seffion.

tr

"'Tis no lefs evident that 'tis charging them with exceffive BlindСс nefs, to fuppofe that they cou'd refolve to be guilty of fo mean an "Action, tho' they had an Inclination to it. For 'tis not to be doubt"ed but at that Time, a great many Copies of thofe Decrees of the "Council of Conftance were fpread throughout the whole Church, and "that even feveral of thofe Copies pafs'd for Originals, which were dispatch'd by the Notaries of the Council; for we find by the Acts "that this was the Manner. Therefore it wou'd have been expofing themselves to be convicted of a Falfification by all their Adverfaries, "who were very numerous at that Time, because it was a Time of "the greatest Broil betwixt this Council and Pope Engene, if the Per"fons deputed at Bafil for collecting the Acts of the Council of Conftance, "had added any important Words to this first Decree of the fourth "Seffion, which were not to be found in the other Copies of this Council.

cr

THE

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

COUNCIL Of CONSTANCE.

BOOK I

The CONTENTS.

VII.

I The State of Europe. II. The State of the Church. III. The Election of John XXIII. IV. The Death of the Emperor Robert, and Election of Sigifmond. V. John XXIII. unites with Sigifmond to affemble a Council. VI. Council affembles at Rome in 1412. Different Sentiments about the calling of a Council. VIII. Sigifmond's Negotiation with John XXIII. upon that Affair. IX. The City of Conftance chofen for holding the Council. X. Difpatches for calling the Council. XI. The Death of Ladiflaus. XII. Convention about the manner of receiving the Pope at Conftance. XIII. Encomium on the Cardinal de Viviers. XIV. John the XXIIId's Treaty with the Duke of Auftria. XV. Some Particulars of John XXIIId's Journey. XVI. His Arrival at Conftance. XVII. The Opening of the Council is deferr'd. XVIII. The Pope puts it off Atill longer. XIX. The Arrival of John Hufs. XX. The Origin of Huffitifm. XXI. Sequel of that Affair. XXII. The Clamor against John Hufs. XXIII. The Interdiction of him. XXIV. Confequence of it. XXV. His Departure and Journey. XXVI. John Hufs notifies his Arrival to the Pope. XXVII. His Sermon.. XXVIII. The Opening of the Council. XXIX. The Arrival of feveral Prelates. XXX. Assembly of Doctors. XXXI. General Congregation. XXXII. The Ceremonies of the publick Seffions. XXXIII. The firft Seffion. XXXIV. John XXIII. caufes the Arms of Gregory XII. to be taken down. XXXV. John Hufs is arrefted. XXXVI. Congregation of the Cardinals about him. XXXVII. His Con

verfation