This matter, together with other more vitally important questions, came before the assembly of bishops and doctors, which, according to Philip’s instructions, had been convoked by the Duchess.  The opinion of the learned theologians was, on the whole, that the views of the Trent Council, with regard to reformation of ecclesiastical morals and popular education, was sound.  There was some discordancy between the clerical and lay doctors upon other points.  The seigniors, lawyers, and deputies from the estates were all in favor of repealing the penalty of death for heretical offences of any kind.  President Viglius, with all the bishops and doctors of divinity, including the prelates of St. Omer, Namur and Ypres, and four theological professors from Louvain, stoutly maintained the contrary opinion.  The President especially, declared himself vehemently in favor of the death punishment, and expressed much anger against those who were in favor of its abolition.  The Duchess, upon the second day of the assembly, propounded formally the question, whether any change was to be made in the chastisement of heretics.  The Prince of Orange, with Counts Horn and Egmont, had, however, declined to take part in the discussions, on the ground that it was not his Majesty’s intention that state councillors should deliver their opinions before strangers, but that persons from outside had been summoned to communicate their advice to the Council.  The seigniors having thus washed their hands of the matter, the doctors came to a conclusion with great alacrity.  It was their unanimous opinion that it comported neither with the service of God nor the common weal, to make any change in the punishment, except, perhaps, in the case of extreme youth; but that, on the contrary, heretics were only to be dealt with by retaining the edicts in their rigor, and by courageously chastising the criminals.  After sitting for the greater part of six days, the bishops and doctors of divinity reduced their sentiments to writing, and affixed their signatures to the document.  Upon the great point of the change suggested in the penalties of heresy, it was declared that no alteration was advisable in the edicts, which had been working so well for thirty-five years.  At the same time it was suggested that “some persons, in respect to their age and quality, might be executed or punished more or less rigorously than others; some by death, some by galley slavery, some by perpetual banishment and entire confiscation of property.”  The possibility was also admitted, of mitigating the punishment of those who, without being heretics or sectaries, might bring themselves within the provisions of the edicts, “through curiosity, nonchalance, or otherwise.”  Such offenders, it was hinted, might be “whipped with rods, fined, banished, or subjected to similar penalties of a lighter nature.”  It will be perceived by this slight sketch of the advice thus offered to the Duchess that these theologians were disposed very carefully to strain the mercy, which they imagined possible in some cases, but which was to drop only upon the heads of the just.  Heretics were still to be dealt with, so far as the bishops and presidents could affect their doom, with unmitigated rigor.