SECT. I. The Author's sufficiency for the Work, and his sincerity in performing it.

First, The Credit of any History bears proportion to the Authority of the Writer; and the Authority of the Writer, to his sufficiency for the Work, and his sincerity in perform­ing it: By how much the greater his knowledge was of the things he delivers, and by how much the greater evidence there is of his sincerity in delivering them; by so much the greater is his Authority; and by consequence, so much the more unquestionable the truth of his History. In case then there be no reason to suspect, that the Writer is defective in either of these Qualifications; but a Person of un­questionable Ability, and approved Sincerity, there can be no reason to question the truth of what he relates; but on the contrary the greatest reason in the World to entertain it as a faithful saying. To apply this to the Historian we now treat of:

1. No Man can doubt of Soave's Ability, who considers, That he wanted neither that Judgment nor those means of In­formation that were needful to qualifie him for such a Work.

1. He could not want Judgment, who was the Miracle of his age for all sorts of Learning: Not only for such, as are wont to be found in Cloysters; but such also, by which the Physician, the Lawyer, the Gentleman and the Statesman are recommended to the World: and particularly, for his Skill in History, both Sacred and Profane, (as may be seen in his Life, written by Fulgentius.) To which if we add, That he wrote this History, not in his greener years, but when his Un­derstanding was fully ripe, we must needs grant, that he had a sufficient talent of Judgment and Discretion for such a Work. So admirable indeed was his Judgment in all matters, That (as the Author of his Life tells us) never any thing was proposed to him, whereto he did not as readily and solidly answer, as if it had been in his only Profession; and he gave no answer so suddenly, that seem'd not to be long and studiously consider'd of, and such an one as could not be better'd Life, p. 131. printed at Lond. 1651..

2. Nor could he want means of being rightly inform'd, and sufficiently instructed in those things he delivers. He was a Neighbour to the place where the matters he writes of were transacted. He lived in a City full of learned and in­quisitive Persons, who had collected Memorials of what had passed in this great Affair Jur. Hist. Reflect. p. 94.. He had the sight of the Letters, Diaries and Memorials of many great Men; some of which were employ'd in matters relating to the Council, others were themselves parts of it, and prime Actors in it. As the Diary of Cheregat Soave, p. 24. Pope Adrian's Nuntio in Germany. The Re­gister of the Letters of Cardinal Monte, Pope Paul's prime Legat in Trent P. 114.. A great number of Letters that passed to and fro between the Pope and the Legats before they could [Page 31] agree to open the Council P. 118.. The Memorials of those who had part in the Disputes about the certainty of Grace P. 207.. Thirty four Votes, in that one Article of Residence, in that form in which they were delivered, and the Conclusions of all the rest P. 486.. The Letters of Charles Visconte, Bishop of Vin­timille P. 517., (Pope Pius his secret Minister in the Council) out of which he extracted, what he has written in his Three last Books, about the famous Dispute of Residence, and the grand Question of the Institution of Bishops. The publick Monuments, in which was Register'd, what he relates of the Negotiation of Cardinal Morone with the Emperour L. 7. p. 705.. The Memorials of Cardinal Amulius P. 815. Pal­lavicino. l. 14. c. 14. n. 2., who was so dear to Pius IV. that he call'd him his Vessel of Election Pallav. l. 15. c. 6. n. 7., and chose him Cardinal, in spite of all the resistance he was able to make. He was highly in favour with Cardinal Ca­stagna, who was afterward Pope Ʋrban VII. and with Car­dinal Borromeo Life of Father Paul., who had particular advice of whatsoever happen'd in the Council under Pius Soav. l. 6. p. 517.. He most intimate­ly conversed with Camillo Olivo, Secretary to the Cardinal of Mantua Life, p. 10. Soav. l. 6. p. 517, 518., who was President of the Council. He was admitted by the Republick into the two Secrets of Venice; that is, the two Chambers, in which, besides the publick Rea­sons of State, the Fundamental Laws, &c. the Records of the publick Negotiations of all States are kept Life, p. 142, 143. Amelot. Preface.; In which it may be presumed, he had the view, as of many other mat­ters relating to the Council, so of the Legation of Cardinal Contarini, at the Diet of Ratisbon (of which he hath given an account in his first Book). And that he had seen the In­structions and Letters of the King of France to his Ambassa­dors, [Page 32] his Letters to the Legats and Fathers of the Council; the Lettets of Monsieur de Lisle, his Ambassador at Rome; the Letters of Monsieur de Lansac, de Pibrac, du Ferrier, his Ambassadors at the Council; and the Letters of the Cardinal of Lorain; no Man will question, who will but take the pains to compare his History with them, as they are published in the French Memoires of the Council. To which if we add, That for a long time he gather'd with extream di­ligence, whatsoever he could attain to know concerning this great Affair, either by Cost or Friendship, not only in Italy, but from abroad, sparing neither Labour nor Mony, we can­not imagine, but he was sufficiently furnished with Instructi­ons and Materials for this Work P. 97..

I know Pallavicino represents Father Paul, as one who col­lected his History from those who were either suspected for Hereticks, or were really such Pallav. Apparat. ad Hist. c. 4.. The falsity of which Ac­cusation, is so manifest by what hath been already said, that it needs no further Confutation. But because it is not so much the want of ability, as of sincerity, that Father Paul is by his Adversaries charged with; Consider,

2. That the Arguments of his Sincerity are so bright, that he must be either blind, or wink hard, that can avoid the sight of them. For,

1. He was a Person exemplary for Piety, Modesty, Hu­mility, Charity, Forgiveness of Injuries, and all other Virtues both Christian and Moral, as Father Fulgentius (who most intimately knew him) tells us. Even in his Youth, says he, he was never reprehended for speaking an undecent word, or doing an unbeseeming act Life, p. 16.. Can it then be suppos'd, that in his elder age, he should publish to the World a Book fraught with malicious Lyes?

[Page 33] 2. To what purpose, can we suppose, he should report things otherways than he knew them to be? Men are not wont to play the Knave, for nought, but in hope of some ad­vantage, which may accrue to themselves thereby; and the Baits by which they are allured, are either the lust of the Flesh, or the lust of the Eye, or the pride of Life.

To the lust of the Flesh, he was so mortified, that he drank nothing but Water till he had passed the 30th Year of his Age; and then not without much averseness, was he prevail'd with by his Physicians, in order to his Health, to drink Wine; and among other things, which he repented himself of, this was one; that he had been perswaded to the use of Wine. His Food was so slender, that for the most part he eat nothing but Bread and Fruits; of Flesh very little, till he had passed his 55th Year. His Life was the most toilsome and painful, that any Religious Man was able to lead See his Life, P. 18. 20, 156, & passim..

The lust of the Eye, had so little power over him, That he never had of Money any more, than was necessary for a days use; though he had daily opportunities of heaping up Riches. He yielded his service freely in all causes, without receiving any Recognition whatsoever. And though many attempted to fix a Gift upon him, yet he never received the least Gratuity; being always content with this only Reward, of having done well P. 132, 133..

And for the Pride of Life, he so much despised it; That he not only not desired, but refused to accept many great Ho­nours and Preferments that were offered him; and was con­tent to spend his life in a Cell, so far from any manner of Pomp and State, that he never had any Ornament for his Chamber, nor more than one simple Garment to put on. In short, the manifest truth is; that had he sought after world­ly Glory or Greatness in any kind, his Temptations lay all on the other hand; for would he but have humour'd, and [Page 34] flatter'd the Pope, and his Court, he might have easily been advanced, to be the chief Minister of State under him Et si Papae adulari assentarique animum induxisset, Ministrorum Pontificiae do­minationis facile Princeps..

It is, I know, said by some, that all this was to get a Name. But what can be said with less pretence of Truth or Reason? since this was that he studiously declined. How many use­ful Inventions does the World owe to him, which he would not own himself to be the Author of? How many secrets did he discover, which he was pleased others should have the honour to publish, as if they had been Theirs? How resolute was he to leave nothing behind him, either of his own hand, or o­ther Mens that might carry his name, or preserve his memo­ry P. 157. 158, 159.? And had his design been to render himself infamous to all succeeding Generations, the belying of the Council, had been a most proper means in order to this end; there being those memorials in many Mens hands in France, in Spain, in Germany, in Italy, by which the Falsity might be detected, and he exposed to the reproach of all the World.

3. But be it so, that none of the flattering temptations were able to corrupt him; yet 'tis certain (say others) that having been highly disobliged by the Pope and his Court, he was resol­ved to be reveng'd for the wrongs they had done him. Which aspersion is easily wiped off by considering these two things: 1. His wonderful Charity, not only in Giving, but Forgiving. 2. How earnestly he endeavoured, when he had the greatest provocations to the contrary imaginable, to conceal those things, that might reflect Disgrace upon the Religion he professed. Of both which Father Fulgentio hath given us pregnant Proofs in his life. When he was treacherously Assaulted, and barbarously Wounded (by wretches hired by the Pope to murder him) what was his Revenge? He pray'd the high Council often, that as he with all his heart did pardon him that offended, so [Page 35] they would make no other demonstration of it, but what might serve to defend him better, if God should please to prolong his Life; expressing in his actions as a Christian, and Son of the Heavenly Father, his due obedience to the Gospel; and as a Philosopher, that he had eradicated out of his Soul all spirit of Revenge Life, P. 123. 124.. And when it was reported, not many hours after, that the Assassins were apprehended, he seemed to be much displeased at the news, saying, Perhaps they may discover something, that may give scandal to the World, and prejudice to Religion P. 126.. when another Plot against his Life was dis­cover'd, instead of making a requital, he interceded for the Murderers, and that not slightly, but petition'd often upon his Knees, demanding this as a favour in recompence of his best services done for the Publick, that for his sake, they should not be made spectacles, to the dishonour of his Religion P. 144.. When not only his Life, but (which is more) his Honour was at­tacqu'd by the most opprobrious Libels, he never shew'd the least sign either of Disdain, or Revenge. In such perfection was his meekness, that those of his Religion, with a general Voice render'd him this Testimony, that they never knew him endea­vour any the least kind of Revenge P. 148.. And 'tis Fulgentio's Note upon his Charity expressed toward his Assassins, That it was not a singular action of his, upon that offence only; but that formerly, and after in the whole course of his Life, he never procured any Revenge, although the injuries were never so great. And the most that was ever heard to come out of his Mouth, with respect to his Wrongs, though most insufferable; was to say sometimes, with a serene Countenance, Videat Dominus & requirat.

Nor did he think it enough, not to return the evil, but so great was his Charity, that it put him upon doing Good, as he had opportunity, to his implacable Enemies. He was [Page 36] no less zealous after the Stabbs given him, than he had been be­fore, in defending the lawful Rights of those, to whom he im­puted that Villainous Act Non minus etiam post, quam ante lethale Vulnus pro eorum legitimis juribus stetit, quibus ipse cum plerisque patratum facinus adscribebat. Com. Jul. Clem. Not. 64. Moral. P. 43.. To conclude this particular: What shew of probability is there, That the Frier should compile this History, out of Spite and Revenge, for the Wound given him, and the Snares laid for him by the Pope? when 'tis certain, That he had undertaken this work many Years before, (and perhaps by that time finish'd it), it being not the Product of a suddain Passion, but, as Pallavicino confes­ses, the Work of almost his whole Life Desudavit in hoc opere non aestu quodam celeri, sed tanta laboris matu­ritate, ut in hoc vitam fere totam impenderit..

By what hath been said, is manifest; as his Charity for his Enemies, so his Piety toward God too: That he had a value for his Religion, more than for his Life; was so ten­der of its Reputation, that in comparison he neglected his own.

4. Though this alone is enough to clear him, from the black charge of Impiety and Hypocrisie, that Pallavicino prefers against him; yet because the Jesuit pretends to prove what he says, I shall briefly consider the proof he produces. The Charge in brief is; That he did not believe the Faith he profess'd, but was a Catholick in pretence only, an Heretick in truth Apparat. ad Hist. c. 3. n. 4.. And four arguments are brought to prove it.

1. Because his History of the Council, is a Book destructive of the Faith he profess'd Appa­rat. ad Hist. c. 2.. 'Tis granted, that he sometimes speaks freely, of those Errors both in Doctrine and Practice, by which the Christian Faith was shamefully corrupted in the Church of Rome: But if this be to subvert the Faith, how many must be put into the list of Hereticks, who yet pass in the Roman Church for good Catholicks? Let them produce any one instance out of Soave's History, that is most [Page 37] derogatory to their Faith, and I promise to produce the same, or one equivalent, out of some other Romish Writer, who is not yet censured for an Heretick. And what pal­pable iniquity is it, to make that a note of Heresie in him, which they account not so in others?

But what if Pallavicino's own History be more injurious to the Roman Faith than Father Paul's? It is so in the judg­ment of some learned Romanists. Aquilinus says roundly, That it is more mischievous, and he gives these reasons for it; Because, says he, Pallavicino relates many scandalous pas­sages which Soave omitted; and frequently interprets, ampli­fies and defends those ill things, that are written by him; and those things which are for the honour of the Council, and are truly reported by Soave, they are either lessen'd, or omitted, or contradicted, by Pallavicino Refert enim quamplurima quae scandalum inducunt, & apud Petrum Soave non sunt; ac non semel malorum quae ab illo scripta sunt, est Amplificator, Interpres, atque Defensor, p. 51. Ex dictis optime liquet, quanto pernicios [...]or fit Pallavicini quam Petri Soave Historia, cum in illa & offendatur Romanorum Pontificum fama, Haereticorum dicta enumerantur & amplificantur; rixae, contemptiones & scandala inter Catholicos, quae in Concilio acciderunt, sigillatim referuntur; & quae bona & recta à Petro Soave enarrata vel minuuntur, vel praetermittuntur, vel in contradicti­onem vocantur; quae omnia aperte indigitant, quantum Catholicae fidei, & Concilii Tridentini causae non leviter noceant. p. 95.. So that he concludes, That by special Divine Providence it came to pass, that his Hi­story swell'd into two Volumes, that very few might be found, and those none but such as are exceeding flegmatick, who will have the Patience intirely to read it. Another learned Man of that Church, is much of the same mind; for he says, That the Cardinal, who complains that Frier Paul does nothing but defame the Legats and the Fathers, had done them much more honour, if he had not reported so much of those matters, which may give advantage to Hereticks and to Criticks, may scandalize weak Persons, and destroy that grand conceit, which People ought to have of the Majesty of Councils, and that Re­verence [Page 38] which that of Trent deserves Amelot. Preface Histoire du Concile de Trente.. And Comēs Ju­lius Clemens, (another learned Man of the Roman Commu­nion) shews, that his History is scandalous, and more per­nicious than Father Pauls Nat. Moral. &c. p. 18, & 41.. Judge now, which of the two Historians does best deserve the name of Here­tick.

2. The Cardinal thinks to prove him a counterfeit Ca­tholick, by certain Letters intercepted, supposed to be his, writ­ten to Castrine a Hugonot in France, in which he seems to wish well to the Hugonots Cause. But does not the Cardinal himself seem to doubt, whether these Letters were his, when he says, That either they were written with his own hand, or by signs and efficacious proofs known to be his. He dares not say they were written with his own hand; what then are the efficacious proofs? Not the least shadow of proof is produc'd, unless this may pass for one, That they were sent as his, to Paul V. by Cardinal Ubaldin the Pope's Nuncio in France. And verily, if the Cardinal's prime argument against Father Paul be efficacious, so far is this from being a proof that they were his, that it is an efficacious argument, that they were not. For what is the Argument he most insists upon, to prove that no credit is to be given to Father Paul; but because he was an Enemy to the Pope and Catholicks? And can it be supposed that he was a greater Enemy to the Pope, than Ʋbaldine was to him, who made it his constant practice to defame him with odious names Questo sempre infamava il Padre, con nomi odiosi, per i scritti pub­licati. Vita del Padre Paolo. p. 223.? whose enmity against him was so monstrous, that he profess'd, That he the more believed him to be a lewd Wretch, and an exquisite Hypocrite, from his irreprehensible life Al che replicava il Nuntio Ubaldini, che tanto piu si consermava nella sua opinione, che fosse un'huomo tristo & un hypocrita esquisito, dalla sua irreprensibil vita. p. 224.. Is there any Calumny so gross that such a Man [Page 39] would boggle at? May we not therefore conclude, by Pallavicino's own Logick, that he either forged the Let­ters, or at least corrupted them? But in case he did not, may it not be reasonably suppos'd, that some other Per­son did, if we consider, 1. The palpable forgeries that in his life time were foisted into some of his printed Dis­courses. 2. The numberless Calumnies that were spread of him by the Popes Creatures. 3. The false Reports raised of him by that great Man Cardinal Maffeo Barba­rini (who was afterward Pope Ʋrban VIII.) so base and unworthy, that the Author of his Life was ashamed to mention them P. 290.. 4. The frightful Stories divulged of him presently after his Death; as that he died howling, and crying out of the apparition of black Dogs; that in his Cell and Chambers hideous noises were heard P. 317, 318.. These things considered, it may well be supposed, that the passages al­ledged are none of Soave's, especially considering, 1. That nothing is produced to prove that they are. 2. That he was so far from any inclination to change his Religion, that when he had the strongest Temptation to it, he ex­pressed his firm Resolution to adhere to it (as will pre­sently appear).

Nor is this to be looked upon as the shift of an Here­tick, for the learned Romanist before quoted, asserts the very same thing. It is to be believed, says he, that these Letters are either forged, or at least kneaded with a Foreign Leven, that has corrupted the whole Lump Mais il est a croire, qu'elles sont, on suposées, ou du moins repetries avec un levain étranger, qui en a corrumpu toute la masse, Amelot.. I proceed to Pallavicino's next Argument.

3. Claudius Sarravius, a Calvinist, saw several Letters of Father Paul's to Philip Mornay, and Villerius Hottoman. [Page 40] who were also Calvinists. But is any thing quoted out of these Letters, that smells of Heresie? Not a word. How then doth it appear by these Letters, that Father Paul was an Heretick? because they were written to those that were Hereticks. As if it had not ever been the practice, and ever will be, for learned Men of different Religions, to hold correspon­dence by Letters. As if a Counsellor of State in England, could not write to a Papist in France, but he himself must be a Papist; or a Papist write to a Protestant, but he also must turn Protestant. If this Argument be conclusive, how many pernicious Hereticks will be found to be right good Catholicks? But Sarravius speaks of the Father, with respect and honour. And so does Melancthon of the Bishop of Ausburg Melancth. Epist. l. 1. Epist. 65., and the Bishop of Breslaw, and of Julius Pflug and Groperus Lib. 3. Epist. 45.; and yet I trow, these were no Hereticks. And Cardinal Sadolet in his Epistle to Melan­cthon, speaks highly in his commendation, and makes pro­fession of great friendship to him, who yet was never thought to be either Lutheran, or Calvinist, or Zuin­glian. Lib. 3. Epist. 39. But the killing Argument comes last, viz.

4. That Father Paul thus address'd to Sommerdick the Hol­land Ambassador, I exceedingly rejoyce, that I have lived to see in my Country, an Ambassador of that Commonwealth, that together with me acknowledges this truth, That the Bi­shop of Rome is the Antichrist Laetor summopere me eo usque vixisle, dum in Patria mea cerne­rem legatum illius Reipublicae, quae mecum hanc veritatem agnoscit, Romanum Pon­tificem esse Antichristum. Apparat. c. 2.. This would indeed do the work, were not the Calumny too broad to gain cre­dit. For put case it be true, That the Pope is Antichrist; yet is it credible that Father Paul believed it? When (as the Author of his Life tells us.) he always spake and writ with great Reverence concerning the Popes, and the Apostolical [Page 41] Chair P. 102. Edit. Lond. 1651.. That (when upon the Interdict of Paul V. many Pamphlets were published to render the Pope odious, and to provoke the Republick to change their Religion) he inculcated upon them the necessity of adhering to it; That God by his singular Grace, had placed them in the Catholick Apo­stolick Roman holy Church, for which they were bound to ac­knowledge his Divine Favour, and to render him continual Thanks, since no greater misfortune could befal them, than that they should abandon or forsake it: That no Man ought to suffer himself to be shaken in his confidence; nor the Prince to give way, that a change or alteration should be so much as spoken of P. 160, 161.. In a word, That in all his Consultations and Writings, he always honoured the See Apostolick, and the Popes, with a Supreme Reverence P. 165..

But suppose the Father had thought the Pope to be An­tichrist, can any considering Man believe, that he would have declared it to the Dutch Ambassador? Is it to be imagined, That such a wise Statesman (as his Adversaries grant him to be) That he who in the heat of his Dispute with the Pope, was so cautious, that no unhandsom re­flecting word might slip from his Pen; That he who took so great care that nothing might pass the Press, that might be just occasion of offence to the Pope and his Court; That he who well knew how tender the Republick was of their Honour in point of Religion, and how highly offended when Pius IV. seem'd to think, that they had recommend­ed to him for Cardinal, a Person suspected of Heresie; That he who (after he enter'd upon publick employment) denied himself the pleasure of converse with many learned Men, that none might take occasion to reflect upon the State; That he who knew, that if he was suspected of He­resie, the State would be so too, because in all matters re­lating [Page 42] to Religion, he was their Oracle, and that nothing could be more dangerous to the State, than to fall under such a suspicion? Can it, I say, be supposed, by any Man not forsaken of Sense and Reason, that such a Person as this, should utter those words? and that he should utter them to a Stranger? and to a Stranger, that he spake to but oc­casionally, and in haste —Incidissetque ipsi opportunitas cursim illius alloquendi. Apparat. c. 2.?

But now for once, to gratifie the Cardinal, let us grant, That, in his notion of Heresie, Father Paul was an Here­tick; For he did not believe, that the Pope is above a Coun­cil, or that he hath power to depose Princes. He did not believe him to be an infallible Dictator, and that (in case he err) Men are bound to own his Errors for Truths: And such Hereticks, I think, we may reckon Gerson, Espensaeus, Richerius, and the generality of the Gallican Church. But to proceed:

5. There cannot be a more undoubted Argument of Sin­cerity in an Historian, than Impartiality; and this is in ma­ny things so visible in Father Paul's History, that he must shut his Eyes close, who does not discern it. Pallavicino, 'tis true, frequently represents him, as a Man of such ma­lignity against the Popes, the Presidents of the Council, and the Catholicks (as they call themselves) in the general, as prompted him always to defame them. But this is a wilful misrepresentation. He was as ready to speak good, where there was ground for it, as evil of them; He relates those things that make for their Credit, as well as their Dis­grace; and sets their Virtues in as clear a light as he does their Vices. I shall give some Instances relating to the Popes and Presidents of the Council.

1. To begin with the Popes. He says of Leo X. That he was careless in things that concern'd Religion and Piety. [Page 43] But does he not also say, That he adorned the Papacy with many good parts which he brought into it, amongst which were his singular learning in Humanity, Goodness, and a marvellous sweet manner in treating of affairs, with a pleasing beha­viour more than humane, joyned with incomparable Liberality, and a great inclination to favour those that were Learned, and endowed with any extraordinary Quality. Which Vertues were not found in that See of a long time before, neither equal, nor near unto his P. 4.. He tells us, That Clement VII. was a Ba­stard, and mounted to the Popedom by Simony, and lays open those Artifices by which he eluded the calling of a general Coun­cil: But when he gives us his Character, he also acquaints us with his Virtues, (such as they were) He died, says he, with no small joy of the Court. For though they admired his Virtues, which were a natural Gravity, exemplary Parsimony, and Dissimulation; yet they hated more his Avarice, Rigidity and Cruelty P. 71.. Of Paul III. he says, That he was a Pre­late endowed with good Qualities, and among all his Virtues, he made more esteem of none than of Dissimulation Ibid.. Of Ju­lius III. That he spent whole days in Gardens, plotted out delici­ous Buildings, and shew'd himself more enclined to Pleasure than Business Lib. 3. p. 299.. But is it not commendable, that he made choice of Cardinal Pool, for his Legat into England, think­ing, that because he was of the Blood Royal, and of an exemplary Life, he would be the fittest Instrument to reduce that Kingdom to the Church of Rome Lib. 5. p. 384.? He represents Paul IV. as a passionate, proud, domineering Huff: But he withal mentions the severity of his manners, in the foregoing part of his life, and his endeavours after he came to the Pope­dom to reform the Court. In like manner he treats Pius IV. In a word, those Popes who were most infamous for their Vices, he finds something to say of them, that is laudable.

But then, what says he of Adrian VI? Oh! he was a Man too good for this World: For the Court (says he) be­ing not worthy of such a Pope, it pleased God to call him Lib. 1. p. 30.. What says he of Marcellus II? He was a Man grave and se­vere by nature, and of a constant mind, that shew'd the World that his Dignity had not changed him; He thought it necessary to make an entire Reformation, and that it would be no loss to the Papacy, to cut off its Pomps and Vanities, but would pre­serve and inlarge it Lib. 5. p. 389, 399..

Now is not this to write impartially? Had he hated the Popes, and not their Vices only, he would have spoken ill of one, as well as another. Had he been such a Momus to the Popes, as Pallavicino reports him, Lynceus ille Romanorum Pon­tificum Momus. l. 14. c. 1. n. 6. he could have seen nothing in many of them, besides their Vices: Where­as the truth is, if he was partial, it was rather in their fa­vour. For though indeed the Pictures he hath left of some of them, are ugly enough; yet they are so much more de­form'd, as drawn by others (who yet were no Hereticks) that his when compared with theirs, may be thought to flatter them. Yea, I appeal to any indifferent Reader, whe­ther Pallavicino himself says not more to the discredit of Leo X. Hist. l. 1. c. 2.. Whether the Character he gives of Julius III. does not make more to his disgrace L. 13. c. 10. n. 8., than that Soave gives him. And for those Popes which Soave highly com­mends, does not Pallavicino as much defame them? Adri­an of whom Soave thought the World not worthy, Palla­vicino represents as a Pope not worthy of the World. He was indeed an excellent Priest, but in truth a mean Pope; the Cardinals valu'd him above his desert, when they exalted him to the Papal Throne Fu Ecclesiastico ottimo, Pontifice in verita mediocre, &c. l. 2. c. 9.. And for Marcellus, though he falls foul upon Soave for defaming him, yet see what a [Page 45] worthy Eulogie he has left of him. 'Twas happy for him that he died so soon, for had his Reign been long, he would hardly have maintain'd by his actions, that high opinion the World had conceived of him Lib. 13. c. 11. n. 7.. To conclude this, if we may credit Aquilinus, Pallavicino seems to have done more mischief to the Church of Rome, by what he has written of the Popes, than Soave Certum sane apparet, quantum detrimenti Catholicae reipublicae inducat haec Pallavicini historia in his quae de Romanis Pontificibus nar­rat. Unde e contra minus damni Petrus Soave in suo opere afferre videtur. p. 77.. Quis tulerit Gracchos?

2. Having seen how fairly he treats the Popes, let us now look, whether he hath shew'd himself so just to their Legats in the Council. Pallavicino says, That he defames not only some, but all the Presidents, and that perpetually Non parlo del vituperio perpetuo col quale infama e tutti i Presidenti di essa, &c. Introduz. c. 11.. If this Accusation were true, it would be a shrewd Argu­ment of his insincerity; but how remote it is from the neighbourhood of truth, will soon be made appear.

The Presidents of the Council under Paul III. were John Maria de Monte, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrine; Mar­cellus Cervinus, Cardinal Priest of the holy Cross; and Re­ginald Pool, Cardinal Deacon of S. Mary in Cosmedin. Hear now what Soave says of them. In this Man (viz. Regi­nald Pool) the Pope chose Nobility of Blood, and Opinion of Piety, which commonly was had of him: In Marcellus, Con­stancy, and immovable and undaunted Perseverance, together with exquisite Knowledge: In Monte, reality and openness of mind, with such Fidelity to his Patrons, that he preferred their interest to the safety of his own Conscience L. 2. p. 111.. Is there any thing in this, but what is for the credit of Reginald and Marcellus? and nothing but the last clause that can reflect the least disparagement upon Monte. He says, That the Legats admonition (at the opening of the Council) was ac­counted [Page 46] Pious, Christian, Modest, and worthy the Cardinals L. 2. p. 132.. And this, I hope, is not to disgrace them. Again, That they proposed to the Popes consideration, that it would be good, to make some effectual Reformation in Rome L. 2. p. 254.. And that at Trent in the next Congregation, they proposed the Refor­mation of divers Abuses P. 256.. These things are spoken of the Legats in common.

Let us now see, what he says of each of them apart, and first of Marcellus. When a great and rich Prelate This was the Cardi­nal of Trent., in the Congregation went about to shew, that they ought only to aim at the Reformation, aggravating much the common Deformation of the whole Clergy, and inculcating that so long as our Vessels were not cleansed, the Holy Ghost would not dwell in them: The Cardinal of Holy Cross, much commended that Prelate for making mention of a thing so holy, and of so good example: for beginning from themselves, they might ea­sily reform all the rest of the World; and he earnestly exhorted all to the practice thereof L. 2. p. 144.. He tells us also, That the Cardi­nal took incredible pains to make the Decrees (viz. of the sixth Session) avoiding as much as was possible to insert any things controverted among the Schoolmen, and so handling those which could not be omitted, as that every one might be contented P. 215.. And truly says he, concerning these particulars, it is not fit to rob the Cardinal of his due Praise P. 216.. It seems Soave in­tended this for his Praise.

And so did he many things which he hath left on Record concerning the Cardinal of Monte. For instance, his Dis­course about Residence, in which the Cardinal says, That the World hath complain'd long since of the absence of Prelates and Pastors, daily demanding Residence: That their absence from their Churches, is the cause of all the mischiefs of the [Page 47] Church: For the Church may be compared to a Ship, the sink­ing whereof is ascribed to the absent Pilot: That Heresies, Ig­norance and Dissolution do reign in the People; and bad Man­ners and Vices in the Clergy, because that Pastors being absent from the Flock, no Man hath care to instruct those, or correct these, &c. L. 2. p. 191.. When his Master, the Pope, order'd the Legats, to find out matters to delay the Session, Monte, who was of an ingenuous Disposition, thought it would be hard, and could not promise to be constant, in so long a Dissimulation P. 204.. This may perhaps pass for a Defamation with Pallavicino, the Jesuits being so excellent at the art of dissembling. He elsewhere tells us, That Monte was peremptory against the Abuse of selling the Sacraments P. 247.. And his Zeal, Cou­rage, and undaunted Resolution, upon all occasions in as­serting and maintaining the Pope's Power and Greatness P. 260, 261, 266, 268, 279, 281., one who hath read Pallavicino's new Gospel, would not think the Cardinal should reckon it a Disparagement to him.

Let us now see how Soave defames Cardinal Pool. He says, That he was of the Blood Royal; That the Dependents of the Farnesi, for his good Disposition, were content to e­lect him Pope, to succeed Paul III. That he was of exem­plary life. That he was acceptable to the Nobility of England, for his Wisdom and Sanctity P. 298, 384, 405.. That many in England were scandaliz'd, and alien'd from the Pope, for depriving him of his Legation. And if this be to dispraise, what is it to commend a Man? But let it be, that in the Jesuits reckoning, good Disposition, and exemplary Life, are no matters of just Commendation.

The Presidents of the Council under Julius III. were Marcellus Crescentius, Cardinal of S. Marcellus; Sebastianus Pighinus, Archbishop of Siponto; and Aloisius Lipomannus [Page 48] Bishop of Verona; the first in the capacity of Legat, the two last as Nuncii, but of equal authority with the Le­gat. And why, says Soave, did the Pope pitch upon these? Upon Marcellus, because among all the Cardinals, he found none more trusty, and withall more worthy: upon the Arch­bishop of Siponto, for that great confidence he had in him be­fore his Papacy: upon the Bishop of Verona, for the form of his great Piety, Loyalty and goodness L. 3. p. 310, 311.. And what character, says he did the Pope give of them to the Council? That Marcellus was a zealous, wise, and learned Cardinal; That the Bishops of Siponto and Verona, were famous for Knowledge and Experience. And if we read the Exhortation, which Fa­ther Paul tells us, those Presidents gave to the Fathers of the Council, in the first Session under Julius, I can hardly imagine, that there is any Man in the World, but a Jesuit, who will not think, that the Father intended it for their Commendation; and that there is something in it, which really deserves it, particularly the Conclusion, that they should handle the matters of the Council with all Gentleness, and without Contention, as becometh so great an Assembly, using perfect Charity, and consent of minds, knowing that God doth behold and judge them L. 4. p. 317..

Of the Legats and Presidents under Pius the 4th, I shall take notice of three only, viz. Gonzaga Cardinal of Man­tua, Cardinal Seripando, and Cardinal Morone.

Mantua, Soave tells us, was a man eminent, not only in regard of the greatness of his House, and of his Brother Fe­randus, but for his own Virtue L. 5. p. 444.. And one great instance of his Virtue, is the freedom (Soave tells us) he us'd to the Pope: For he wrote to him with his own hand, that he had not a face to appear any more in Congregation, to give words only, as he had done two years together; That all the Ministers of Princes do say, that howsoever his Holiness [Page 49] doth promise much for Reformation, yet seeing nothing to be executed, they do not think, that he hath any inclination to it L. 7. p. 675..

Seripando, he says, was a Divine of much fame L. 5. p. 445.. That when he came to be prime Legat, upon the death of Man­tua, he wrote to the Pope, That he would be glad his Holi­ness would send another Legat, his Superiour, to govern the Council, or remove him; But in case he would leave him prime Legat, he told him, he would proceed as God should inspire him; and that otherwise it were better to remove him abso­lutely L. 7. p. 678.. But that which especially commends this Presi­dent, is the account Soave gives of his death. He died, saith he, to the great grief of all the Prelats, and of all Trent, having in the morning received the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which he took out of his Bed upon his Knees. After that he return'd to his Bed, and in the presence of five Prelats, &c. he confess'd his Faith, wholly conformable to the Catholick of the Roman Church, spake of the works of a Christian, of the Resurrection of the Dead, of the Council, recommending the progress of it to the Legats, &c. L. 7. p. 687..

Among many things related of Cardinal Morone to his Praise, I shall mention only some passages of that Speech, which he made upon his first coming to Trent. He told the Fathers, That the Wars, Seditions, and other Calamities pre­sent, and imminent for our sins, would cease, if a means were found to appease God, and to restore the ancient Purity. That he brought with him two Things; one a good Meaning of the Pope, to secure the Doctrine of Faith, to correct bad Manners, &c. the other, his own readiness to do what the Pope had commanded him. He pray'd the Fathers that Con­tention and Discord, and unprofitable Questions being laid aside, which do grievously offend Christendom, they would seriously handle the things which were necessary L. 7. p. 697.. Is there any thing in [Page 50] this, that Pallavicino can interpret to the discredit of Morone.

I think I have now prov'd, what I undertook as to the Popes and Presidents of the Council; which was not, that Soave never says any thing to their dispraise, but that he sometimes says those things which are for their Commen­dation; which is a plain Confutation of Pallavicino's Ca­lumny, and an irrefragable argument of Father Paul's sin­cerity. And if the Jesuit so shamefully forges in matters so obvious, what credit is to be given to him in other things, in which the Falsity is not so easily detected? Having said more than enough for the clearing of the first thing proposed, I proceed to the second, viz.

SECT. II. The credit of his History so far from being overthrown, that it is rather established by those that endeavoured to destroy it.

Secondly, The credit of Father Paul's History, is so far from being overthrown, or so much as lessened, that it is rather confirm'd and improved by those who have endeavoured to destroy it. Those are especially the two Jesuits before named, viz. Scipio Henricus, and Sfortia Pallavicino. Scipio Henry's Book is divided into two parts. In the first he hath extracted out of Soave's History, what he thought was good, and advantageous to the Catholick Religion; and this he hath digested into an History of the Council. In the se­cond (which is divided into five Sections) he hath gather'd together the Tares (as he calls them) and bound them up in Bundles to be burnt Et sane admirabile est qua ratione in opere hoc vera cum falsis admixta sint: & ex bonis & pro Catholica Religione utilibus Haereticorum deliramenta orian­tur. Cum ergo pia & impia cognoscantur in hoc Volumine admixta, meum erit Hae­reticorum Zizania alligare in fasciculos ad comburendum, & Catholicae veritatis triti­cum in horreum Christi reponere. Praefat. ad Lect.. In both which he hath very much confirm'd the truth of Soave's History.

[Page 51] 1. In the first, because his own History of the Council is taken out of Father Paul's. He himself tells us, That he hath put in nothing of his own invention; That he hath borrow'd almost nothing from the Writings of others, but that his History is made up of those things alone, which are contain'd in Soave's Work Lectorem admoni [...] volo me in Hist. Concilii Trident. componenda, nihil ex proprio ingenio, nihil fere ex aliorum Scriptis reposuisse: sed ea tantum quae in ip­sius Historici opere continentur. Praefat. ad Lect.. Now these, which are the principal things, he supposes may be all true, (though he says indeed, that he will not vouch for the Truth of them) Praeterea est advertendum, quod ea, quae ex illo volumine extracta in Historiam a me rediguntur, non protinus ut vera & approbata amplectenda esse: sed ut quae in illo opere inventa; & possibisia fuisse non repugnet. Ibid.. Yea, in the passage before quoted, he calls these, the Wheat of Catholick Truth, which is to be laid up in Christ's Granary: And if it be granted, that these are truly reported by Soave; there will be little reason to suspect, that other mat­ters of less moment are forged.

2. In the second Part, he further builds up what he in­tended to pull down, because those things in Soave's Histo­ry which he says are Lyes. First, some of them in case they are so, are Lyes of his own forging. Secondly others, the Reasons he gives are of no force to prove them so. Thirdly, Others are such things which an unprejudiced per­son will be so far from looking upon as Lyes, that he will be thereby the more enclined, to believe all the rest Father Paul says to be true.

1. Some of them are Lyes of his own making, by misrepre­senting Soave's Words. For instance, The Historian, says Henry, lyes, in saying, that the Fathers themselves were not Divines; for since in every Session they had Sermons, cer­tainly some of them were Divines Mentitur Historicus dicendo Patres ipsos non fuisse Theo­logos; cum enim per singulas Sessiones Conciones in eis habuerint, certe aliqui ex eis Theologi erant. Sect 5. Art. 2.. As if Father Paul had said, that none of them were Divines, when he says [Page 52] nothing like it. There were, says he, few Divines but of less than ordinary sufficiency L. 2. P. 163.. Which words suppose, that many of them were Divines, and assert only, that there were but few of those many, whose Abilities were not below the vulgar sort of Divines. As he here abuses Soave, by taking from his words, so in other places by adding to them. As when he makes him say, That the Assertions of Luther were condemn'd by Courtiers that were unlearned and un­skilful, and not fit for matters of so great weight Quinto, quod harum assertionum damnatio facta fuit à quibusdam Aulici, imperitis, & ad res tanti ponderis non bene aptis. Quare Judices isti simpliciter Aulici indocti, ut postea, Historicus asserit, non fuerunt. Sect. 5. Art. 1.. The words, unlearned, &c. are foisted in by himself, to furnish out matters for a Lye.

2. Other matters which he says are Lyes, the Reasons he gives are of no force to prove them to be so. For instance, 'Tis false, says he, that the common opinion of the Divines was, that this Article [Men are not bound to communicate at Easter] ought not to be condemn'd for Heretical. Why? Because it was afterward condemn'd by the Council Sect. 2. Art. 3.; As if the Bishops in Session, might not condemn that for He­resie, which the greater part of the Divines in Congrega­tion, were of opinion deserv'd not so severe a Censure: For the same reason he concludes, that there was no such difference in opinion among the Divines, as Soave mentions, about the Sacramental eating of Christ Ibid..

3. Many of them are such, which an unprejudiced man will be so far from taking for Lyes, that he will for their sakes be the more enclin'd, to believe all the rest that Soave says to be true. For will he not conclude, that certainly un­truths are very rarely to be met with, when a spiteful Ad­versary (who was resolv'd either to find or make them) was forced to reckon for lyes, such things as these.

1. Those things which are reported by other Historians [Page 53] of untainted Credit. For instance, That the Council was transla­ted to Bologn, by the Popes order Sect. 4. art. 2.. Which is expresly af­firm'd by Onuphrius In vita Pauli III.. And as Aquilinus tells us, Mamfrinus Rosseus, and Dionysius à Foeno, and those Italians that write ge­neral Histories, report the same thing; Yea, that all those Writers who before Soave's time, make mention of this Translation, they ascribe it to the Popes Mandates P. 32.. And so pitiful are the Reasons Scipio (and Pallav. too) give to the contrary, that they are despised by Aquilinus, and represented as ridiculous, by Amelot Preface..

2. Those things, which if they are lyes, the Bishops of the Council, the Princes and their Ambassadors, yea the Pope and his Cardinals are the lyars. For instance. It is, says Henry, a vain and ridiculous thing, yea the Forgery of the lying Historian, that if the Residence or Institution of Bishops, be declared to be of Di­vine Right, the Pope can have no more Authority over them Quare vanum & ridiculum est, imo & figmentum mentientis Historici, si declaretur Epscoporum Residentiam sive Institutionem, &c. Sect. 3. Art. 4.. Let it be so ridiculous; but then not Soave, but the Archbishop of Granata, the Bishop of Segovia, and the rest of the Spanish Bi­shops (yea and Lainez the General of the Jesuits) were the Forgers of this ridiculous lye; for they were the men who as­serted it, and Soave as an Historian only reports it of them: Yea, the Cardinals and the Pope himself were almost as much mistaken, as we find by the Letters of Monsieur de Lisle, the King of France's Ambassadour then at Rome Cét article de residence est re­puté de grand prejudice, au Pape & à ceste Cour, & de grande efficace pour croistre la dignité & authorite des Evesques, &c. Let. au Roy du 6. May 1562. Et vous assure que cét article de residence attribuée au droict Divin, avec autres qui en dependent, est reputé icy de grande & dommageable consequence. Ext act d'une let. de Mons. de Lisle à Mons. de Lansac. Memoirs pour le Concil de Trente, p. 189. See also p. 322.. Again, That the Council was not free, Henry reckons for a lye. But if it be so; the Emperor, the King of Spain, the King of France, together with their Ambassadors, and the Spanish, French [Page 54] and Polonian Bishops, were also Lyars: For they frequently complain'd that the Council was in servitude.

3. Divers other matters in which he gives Soave the lye, are such notorious Truths, that no Man who has not the Im­pudence of Jesuit, can have the face to deny them. For instance, Soave says, That he that readeth S. Austin will know, that in nine places, not in word, but in a Discourse, he doth af­firm the necessity of the Eucharist for Children, and two of them do make it equal with the necessity of Baptism: Yea, he saith more than once, that the Church of Rome hath held and defined it necessary for the Salvation of Children, and doth alledge for it Pope Innocent, whose Epistle doth yet remain, in which he saith it plainly L. 6. P. 539.. Now here the Jesuit with open Mouth cryes out, that he belyes both S. Austin and Pope Innocent. For what he saith (says he) of the Authority of Austin, is a mani­fest lye; and 'tis certain, that the Historian after his wonted manner, belyes Pope Innocent Caeterum quod dicit de authoritate Augustini, est apertum men­dacium: Et debuisset Historicus non loqui perperam, sed referre loca atque ejus verba. Op­positum enim ex eodem Augustino asserit S. Thomas 3. P. q. 73. art. 3. referens verba e­jusdem ad Bonifacium contra Pelagianos, quae talia sunt: Nec illud cogitetis, parvulos vi­tam habere non posse, qui sunt expertes corporis & sanguinis Christi. Et ibidem qu. 50. Artic. 7. refert eundem Augustinum asserentem, parvulos ante usum rationis communicandos non esse De Innocentio Papa certum est, Historicum mentiri more solito. Sect. 5. Art. 9. p. 208.. A manifest lye! These two things he says of S. Austin. First, that he does affirm the necessity of the Eucharist for Children. Secondly, That he does alledge for it Pope Innocent: Both which will presently ap­pear to be most manifest Truths.

As to the first, no Man that hath look'd into the writings of S. Austin against the Pelagians, can be ignorant, that he frequently, and with zeal asserts this, if the words Parvuli and Infantes signifie Children. But because the Jesuit says, that the Historian ought to have quoted the Places, and the words; though it will be too tedious to transcribe the words, they are so ma­ny; yet I will refer the Reader, to at least nine places, in [Page 55] which he may find such words as manifestly prove this Epist. 106. Epist. 107. De Peccator. Merit. & Remiss. L. 1. c. 20. & cap. 24. Contra duas Epist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 22. l. 2. c. 4. l. 4. c. 4. Contra Julian. l. 1. Col. 943. & Col. 949. & l. 3. c. 1. Col 991. Contra Pelag. Hypognost. l. 5.. And divers of these places (particularly de Peccator. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. c. 20. &c. 24.) do make the Eucharist as necessary to Children, as Baptism. And which is observable, S. Austin makes the drinking of the Blood of Christ, no less necessary to Infants, than the eating of his Flesh; which is a manifest proof, that in his days, the Cup was thought necessary for the Laity.

'Tis true, that Aquinas in the place quoted by Henry, asserts the contrary Doctrine out of S. Austin: But nothing can be truer, than that Aquinas either ignorantly or wilfully abuses the Fa­ther, by perverting first his words in changing cogitatis into cogitetis, (for so it is in Aquinas,) and then wresting them to a sense directly contrary to S. Austin's meaning; for those very words are used by him, to prove that little Children cannot be sav'd, without receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, as will be evident to any Man, who will be at the pains to consult the context. What he says, S. Tho­mas quotes out of S. Austin to the same purpose, qu. 50. Art. 7. is certainly false, because there is no 7th. Art. under that Que­stion.

And as manifest it is, That S. Austin alledges Pope Innocent for this Doctrine, (which is the other thing Father Paul says of him) For behold (saith he) Pope Innocent of Blessed Memo­ry, says, That little Children have not Life, without the Bap­tism of Christ, and without partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ Ecce beatae memoriae Inno­centius Papa, sine Baptismo Christi, & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi, vitam non habere parvulos, dicit. Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4.. And see (says he) to Julian, what thou canst an­swer to S. Innocent, who hath determin'd, that little Children [Page 56] can no way have life, unless they eat the Flesh of the Son Sancto Innocentio vide quid respondeas, qui nihil aliud de hac re sapit, &c. Qui denique parvulos definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem filli, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Contra Julian. Pelag. l. 1. col. 943. to 7. Edit. Bas.. I think by this time, what the Jesuit calls a manifest Lye, doth appear to be a Truth, as manifest as Day.

But 'tis certain, says he, that he belyes Pope Innocent. All that he says concerning Innocent is, That his Epistle yet remains, in which he plainly says this. If then it be certain, that Father Paul belyes him, it must also be certain, That when he wrote this, there was no such Epistle of Pope Innocent's in being. And yet it is certain, that this Epistle remains still, and any one that lists may see it among S. Austin's Epistles (viz. E­pist. 93.) and in Binius Concil. Tom. 1. p. 768, 769.. His words are these; That which your Brotherhood asserts they Preach (viz. the Pelagians) that little Children may attain the Rewards of Eternal Life, with­out the Grace of Baptism, is very absurd: for unless they eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they shall not have Life Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, parvulos aeternae vi­tae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis gratia posse-donari, perfatuum est: Nisi enim man­ducaverint carnem filii hominis & biberint sanguinem ejus, non habebunt vitam in semet­ipsis.. Binius upon these words, Nisi manducave­rint, &c. says, That some Men of good Learning have thought, that Innocent understood this place of S. John, not of the Eucha­rist, but of Baptism: But they were deceived, (says he) in that they did not apprehend the force of the Argument which the Pope uses. For he proves the necessity of Baptism for Children, be­cause the Eucharist is necessary, of which they are not capable with ut Baptism. And upon these words, Illud vero, &c. his Note is; Hence it is manifest that in the judgment of Innocent I. the Eucharist is necessary even for Infants Hinc constat Innocentii I. sententia (quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, quamque S. Augustinus sectatus est) Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 769.. In short, what the Historian here affirms, is so far from a certain and mani­fest Lye, That Binius and Maldonate expresly affirm the same, [Page 57] both of Innocent and S. Austin: And not only so, but that this Opinion prevailed in the Church, for about 600 Years Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii I. sententiam (quae sexcenros. circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia) Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse. Maldonat. 6. cap. Joh. v. 53.. The manifest consequence of which is; That since the Coun­cil of Trent hath denounced an Anathema, against all those who say the Communion of the Eucharist is necessary for Children Sess. 21. Can. 4.. It is certain, That either Pope Innocent I, S. Au­stin, and other the most eminent Fathers for 600 Years were Hereticks, or Pope Pius IV. and the Council of Trent have erred. If any Person desires more Instances of this nature, they shall soon be produc'd.

2. Nor is Father Paul less beholden to Pallavicino; for the con­futation of his History of the Council; and that upon many ac­counts, a few of which it may suffice briefly to mention.

1. He refutes it by such Arguments, as are apparently vain and unconcluding: viz. That a thing is false, that is not to be found in those Letters, Memorials or Acts, which he had con­sulted. The Divines of Lovain (saith Pallavicino) did not oppose the Reservation of Cases to a Superior Tribunal; Why? Because he found not in the Acts of the Council, that they did L. 12. c. 11.. 'Tis false, That many of the Spanish Prelates did make instance to the Legats, that the Imperialists might not be present at the Consultation about the Chalice; Why? because no mention is made of this in the Acts, in the Letters of the Legats, or of the Spanish Ambassador, to Car­dinal Borromeo L. 18. c. 5. n. 4.. 'Tis not to be imagined, That the Empe­rour wrote to Cardinal Morone, That all former evils did arise from the oppressions attempted by the Ecclesiasticks against People and Princes; because he found no such matter in the publick Registers L. 23. c. 1.. As if those Records which he had seen, must of necessity contain whatsoever was done or spoken in, or concerning the Council; As if Soave might not know many things concerning the Council, [Page 58] which he could not be inform'd of, who was fifty Years more distant; As if he could not have those informations from Men who were Eye and Ear-witnesses of all that passed, which Palla­vicino could by no means attain to, after those Persons were gone into the other World.

When two Persons write of the same subject, is it a good Ar­gument, that whatsoever is said by one of them is false, if it be not also reported by the other? S. Matthew and S. Mark have both written the Life of our Blessed Saviour, may we not as reasonably conclude, that many things delivered by S. Matthew are false, be­cause they are not to be met with in S. Mark?

2. He misreports many things delivered by Soave, and then cries a Lye, when he himself hath made it. He tells us Soave says, That the words of the Pope's Bull for recalling the Council to Trent, were such which plainly expressed the continuation of the Trent-Council —Che apertamente esprimevano di continuare il Concilio in Trento. l. 11. c. 11. n. 4.. But this is plainly to belye Soave, for he hath no such word as continuing, but his words also are to re-assume and prosecute it Oltra che il dire di [...]iassumerlo & proseguirlo.. In the next Paragraph, speaking of a Decree made in the Diet, he leaves out the most material passages, and those which alone were pertinent to the matter in hand, and then represents Soave as contradicting himself. If the Reader please to consult the place, and compare it with Soave, he will no doubt be surpriz'd, if the commonness of Misrepresentations, from the Men of his Society, do not make the wonder cease.

3. The Errors he charges Soave with, are for the greater part in matters of no moment. Of that pompous Catalogue of 360, more than 200, says Amelot, are so slight, that they are not worth the labour of mentioning Quant aux 361. fautes, ou faussetés, que le Cardinal refute, il y en a plus de 200. qui sont si legéres, qu'elles ne valoient pas la peine d'en parler.. What matters it, whether a Con­gregation was held the next day after the Session, or the next but one? Whether a Session was appointed on the 9th of October, or [Page 59] on the 11th? Whether the King of France died the 21st or the 31st of March? Whether such a Man came to Trent the 14th, or the 24th of August? Whether Martinuccio were a Monk of the Order of S. Basil, or of S. Paul the Hermite? Are these things, whether so or so, any thing to the main business? What Histories can be justified, if a mistake in things of this nature is sufficient to condemn them? Since none can be found, which do not as much differ one from another in such Circumstantials, as Father Paul's does from the Vatican Records. Yea may not the Cardinal by the same way of reasoning conclude, that no Credit is to be given to S. Luke's History of the first Council at Jerusalem, since Persons that have written about it, contradict one another in mat­ters as considerable, as those before-mentioned?

4. His own Errors are as numerous, as those he pretends in Soave. I could, says Amelot, easily find as great a number of faults in his Histrry, as that is either of real or pretended Faults, which he hath reckon'd in Frier Pauls Car je pourois bien en trouver un aussi. grand nombre que celui des fautes, vraies ou pretendues, qu'il compte dans l'Histoire de Frà Paolo.. Nor are his Errors only as nu­merous, but many of them such, which it can hardly be supposed, but he himself must know to be Errors. He tells us, That Luther and Sleidan convince Soave of a Lye, in ascribing the rise of Heresie (so he calls Luther's Doctrine) to the abuses in selling Indulgences L. 1. c. 3, n. 5.. What Luther says of this matter, I know not; but whosoever will be at the pains to read the first and second Pages in his Com­mentaries, he will plainly see, that Sleidan says the very same things concerning it that Soave does.

5. Were Soave's History entirely, in every tittle, true, it would nevertheless have appeared false to Pallavicino, whose sight was so enormously vitiated, by the overflowings of his Gall. Men usual­ly see things, not as they are in themselves, but as they are dis­colour'd by their own Passions and Appetites; the brightest Truth will appear a Lye, to him who is resolv'd to have it so; [Page 60] and so is that Man, who is resolv'd to contradict; who needs no more to make him speak ill of a Man (as a Romanist observes of Pal­lavicino) than that Father Paul speak well of him, as if he thought it better to renounce common sense, than not to oppose his Adver­sary: who as if he had lost his discerning faculty, falls foul up­on all he meets with, right or wrong; and rails at as triumphant a rate, against those Errors, which if such, are very harmless ones, as against those that are most pernicious Iste vero summo livore imbutus, omnia ut pessima reprchendit ac promiscue sive bonu sive mala verborum profluvio involvit, atque ut falsa suadere nititur. Aquilin. p. 8..

6. Such are Pallavicino's Proofs as render his whole work suspected. For from whence are they taken? from Memorials and Registers locked up in the Vatican Library. That they are so indeed, he expects we should believe upon his bare word, which yet will not pass for much, among many Men of his own Church. But suppose they are, is it a thing granted, that all is true, that is in the Vatican Manuscripts?

He frequently quotes the Acts of the Council; the Vatican, it seems, is furnished with plenty of them; the Acts of Paleottus, of Mensottus, of the Bishop of Salamanca, &c. O how thankful would many Men be to his Holiness, would he bless the World with the sight of these! Yea, what would they not willingly give to purchase them? If then they are such as will abide the Test, why are they still kept under Lock and Key? Is it not to be suspected, that the Wares are adulterate, when the Merchant will not be persuaded to bring them into the Light? Is the Court of Rome so self-denying, as not to publish those things, which make for their advantage? May we not then conclude, That either they are such as will not endure the Trial; or in case they will, that besides what makes for them, they contain those matters also, which make more against them?

Besides, It is a thing known to the World, that the Legats in the Council, had two sorts of Instructions: one Letter was to be [Page 61] shew'd to give satisfaction to the Bishops and Ambassadors; ano­ther ran counter to it, and was to be concealed: And may we not suppose, that those Letters which the Cardinal so frequently cites, were of that sort only which were to be communicated, which were direct contrary to those that were concealed? What credit then is to be given to his Proofs?

For these, and many other Reasons (which to avoid tedious­ness I omit) the Cardinals Counter-History, hath not met with that esteem among learned Men of the Church of Rome, as was expected; and instead of blasting the Reputation of Fa­ther Paul's History, hath made it to be more highly valu'd by many Men, than it was before.

SECT. I. In those matters in which a Reformation was most necessary, not the least Reformation was made, or so much as pretended.

First, That in those matters in which Reformation was most necessary, not the least Reformation was made, or so much as pre­tended. [Page 63] And these things were of two sorts; matters of Do­ctrine, and matters of Worship. In which, I say, Reformation was most necessary, because Errors in these, are of the most dan­gerous consequence.

First, That the Romish Errors in Doctrine were numerous, and many of them in points of the highest moment, I have already shew'd Part. 1., and therefore shall spare the labour of men­tioning them here. That the Protestants with one Mind and one Mouth demanded a Reformation of these especially, as absolutely necessary, I need not prove, it being a thing noto­rious to all Men, who have read but so much as the Ausburg Confession. Yea, That many Errors in Doctrine were so gross, that those very Romanists, who (in compliance with their worldly Interest) resolv'd not to reform them, were not able to shut their Eyes so close, as not to discern them, we may conclude, from that Counsel which the Bishops assembled at Bononia, gave to Pope Julius III. for the establishment of the Roman Church, viz. The Lutherans receive and confess all the Articles of the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostles Creed. The same Lutherans refuse to admit any Doctrine, except that only which hath the Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles for its Authors, and wish that we would imitate the ancient Churches, and not think of receiving any Traditions, which it is not more manifest than the Noon-day light, were dictated and instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Apostles. But we, on the contrary, following the opinion of your Holiness, will have all Traditions, Constitutions, Rules, and Ceremonies, which have heretofore, either by the Fathers, or Councils, or even by any private Man (with a good Zeal) been intro­duc'd into the Church, to be believ'd, and accounted necessary to Sal­vation. And particularly, as to Tradition, we intirely believe and confess, as a true Article of Faith, That which the Council of Trent hath determin'd in the Decree of the third Session. And although we cannot prove this (for we plainly confess between our selves, that we cannot prove, that which we hold and teach con­cerning [Page 64] Tradition) yet we confess it to be true, because the Roman Church holds it.—But that we may confess the Truth (which must be kept as a secret) in the time of the Apostles, and for some Years after the Apostles, there was no mention of the Papacy, or the Car­dinalship; much less were there these Doctrines, these Laws, these Customs, no, nor the Empire over the Nations, that we now obtain: But all Ministers of all Churches (of the Roman no less than of others) did voluntarily obey Kings, and Princes, and Magistrates Lutherani Symboli Apostolorum, Nicaeni & Athanasii Articulos omnes recipiunt, &c. Consil. de stabiliend. Rom. Eccles. Vergerii Tom. 1. p. 95, 96.. And a little after, he proceeds thus: Certainly we scarce retain in our Churches, so much as a shadow of the Doctrine and Discipline, which flourish'd in the times of the Apostles, but have brought in another quite different from it Certe vix um­bram quandam retinemus in nostris Ecclesiis ejus doctrinae & disciplinae quae Apostolorum temporibus floruerunt, & prorsus aliam accersivimus. p. 97.. And in the conclusion, they give the Pope this Counsel, as the most weighty of all. That he labour with all his might, that as little as possible of the Gospel (especi­ally in the vulgar Tongue) may be read in the Cities, that are under his Dominion; that that very little, which is wont to be read in the Mass, may be sufficient, and that no mortal Man may be per­mitted to read more of it. For as long, say they, as Men were contented with that little, your affairs succeeded according to your wish, which began to decline to the contrary, as soon as Men took upon them to read more. In brief this is the Book, which hath raised the Tempests and Storms with which we are toss'd. And the truth is, if any Man shall diligently consider that Book, and shall take a view of those things which are done in our Churches; he will see, that there is a vast disagreement between them; and that our Doctrine, is not only altogether different from that, but which is more, is often contrary to it Denique (quod in­ter omnia consilia, quae nos dare hoc tempore Beatitudini tuae possumus, omnium gravissi­mum ad extremum reservavimus) oculi hic aperiendi sunt; omnibus nervis adnitendum erit, ut quam minimum Evangelii poterit, (praesertim lingua vulgari) in iis legatur ci­vitatibus, quae sub tua ditione ac potestate sunt; sufficiatque tantillum illud, quod in Missi legi solet, &c. p. 102. 1..

This was the Confession of Popish Bishops, but made in the Pope's Ear, and afterward divulged to the World, by a great Bishop of that Church, who a little before was so zealous an Advocate for the Romish Faith, and so much the Popes Fa­vorite, that he made choice of him before all others, for his Legate, to reduce the Hereticks in Germany.

Forty years before this, the Cardinals and Bishops in the Council of Pisa, not only confess'd their Errors in Doctrine, but decreed a Reformation in Faith, as well as in Manners Sess. 3. Richer. Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. parte 1. p. 430.. For though (as I said before) that Decree was made by them to serve a Design; yet the serving of that Design, was a plain Demonstration that such a Reformation was judged needful by many of the Roman Church. Add to these the Emperor, the King of France and the Duke of Bavaria, who demand­ed such a Reformation from the Trent-Council, as was in ma­ny points plainly repugnant to the received Doctrines of the Ro­man Church Natalis Comes l. 14. Hist. sui temp. Soave. l. 6. p. 513. p. 527. l. 7. 652..

And was any thing done by the Council in compliance with these Confessions and Demands? No, not one of their Do­ctrines, was so much as reflected upon, much less condemn'd. Yea, so far was the Council from making any alteration in Doctrine, that the Emperour with all his Authority, could not obtain leave for the Protestants, so much as to propose their Doctrine Soave l. 4. p. 359. 360. Ver­gerii Secret. Pontif. Actio 1..

And to make all sure, against any such kind of Reforma­tion; the Pope provided, that his most learned Prelats might not come acquainted with any other Doctrine, than what their Mother (the Church) had taught them: For he pro­hibited not only the Bishops, but the Cardinals too, to look into the Books of the Lutherans Verger. secret. Pontif. Act. 3. p. 77, 78, 82, 83.. And were not they, think you, likely to be equal Judges, who were to con­demn [Page 66] those Doctrines, which they were not permitted to examine?

But 'tis needless to shew that no Reformation was made in Doctrine, since R. H. confesses, That the Tridentine Fathers were unanimous in condemning the Protestant Tenets Considerat. on the Counc. of Trent. s. 150.. And that the Pope had no need of the Italian Bishops to that purpose, because the whole Council did concurr in condemning them S. 167.. Nor did the Fathers so much as pre­tend to any such Reformation, the very notion of Reforma­tion being by them limited to so narrow a compass, as not to reach it: Nor could they extend it further, without quitting their claim to Infallibility.

Secondly, Nor was any the least Reformation made in matters of Divine Worship; No, not so much as in the Language in which it was celebrated, though earnestly desired by the Emperor, the King of France, the King of Poland, the Duke of Bavaria, &c. But notwithstanding the importunity of these great Ca­tholick Princes, back'd with the most persuasive Arguments, in plain contradiction to Scripture, and to the Practice of the ancient Church; in defiance to Reason and the common sense of Mankind, the Church-service was still continued in a Language not understood by those that heard it; No, nor many times, by those that read it; and an Anathema de­nounc'd against those who shall dare to say, that Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. Can. 9.. And could it be expected, that they should reform any Abuse in the Object or matter of their Worship, who would not remove that, which defeats its very end, and makes it instead of a reason­ble, a brutish Service? especially considering, that it might (as one would think) have been done, without the least detri­ment to any of their worldly Interests.

I know that R. H. in his Catalogue of those Grievances, which, he says, the Council took into consideration, and rectifi­ed what they judg'd amiss, so far as that iron Age would permit Considerat. on the Counc. of Trent, c. 12. s. 209., mentions the withholding of the Cup, as if this had been one of the Grievances rectified. That the Council took this into Consideration is granted, but 'tis certain they did not rectifie it, and therefore (it seems) judged nothing amiss in it; for had they done so, the obstinacy of the Age, could not have hindred them from rectifying it: for that Iron Age, how stubborn soever in other matters; as to this piece of Reformati­on was so flexible, that (excepting the Spaniards) it generally inclined to it. And yet after all the consideration the Council had about it, they at length determined, not to determine it, but to refer it intirely to the Popes Judgment Hoc decreto Sancta Sy­nodus refert ad Pontificem Max. sententiam & judicium integrum illorum duorum Articulorum, quos antea propositos nondum discusscrat: nimirum, an Consuetudo Catholicae Ecclesiae communicandi Laicos, & non conficientes Sacerdotes, sub una tan­tum specie panis, ita sit retinenda, ut nulla ratione Calicis usus, cuiqu [...]m sit permitten­dus, &c. Decret. super Petit. Conces. Calicis Sess. 22..

Thus we have seen, that no Reformation at all was made, in those matters, in which a Reformation was most necessary, and which in comparison were the only things the Protestants demanded a Reformation of. For though indeed they made great complaints, of Corruptions in Manners and Discipline, yet they withal profess'd, that they did not look upon these, as sufficient ground, to break with the Church of Rome. But that their Errors in Faith; their Sacriledge, Superstition and Idolatry in Worship, were the only Grievances that were in­tolerable; without the redress of which, there was no remedy, but they must forsake her Communion.

SECT. II. In those matters in which a mighty Reformation was pretended, little or rather none was really made.

2dly, It remains then, That if any Reformation was made, it was only in matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline; and so much of Manners as follow'd thereupon. This is indeed all, that the zealous Patrons of the Council assert; Yea all, that the Council it self pretend­ed to. And in these matters (if we will believe some Romanists) great things were done. But if we consider the things them­selves, we shall find them so little, or rather nothing, that they deserve not the name of Reformation. This will, I think, be evident, by considering these five things.

• 1. The Persons who were exempted from the Reformation.
• 2. The Corruptions and Disorders, which the Council pass'd over, without taking notice of them.
• 3. That those Abuses the Council took notice of; for some of them it made no Decrees of Reformation; for others, the Decrees con­cerning them, were many of them meer Shams and Illusions. But
• 4. Supposing the Council had extended their Decrees to all Persons and to all things, that stood in need of being reform'd; That they had so fram'd them, as to render them most effectual for obtaining their end; yet they in effect revoked them all again. And
• 5. That these things are so notorious, that they are confess'd, and complain'd of by the Romanists themselves.

1. The Persons who were exempted. To talk of reforming, and not to correct him, or them in whom the Deformity has its rise, and from whom it descends to others, is as absurd, as to talk of curing a Disease, without removing its prime cause; which no Physician will pretend to, who is not either a Knave or a Fool. And yet such unskilful or unfaithful Physicians, were the Fathers of the Trent Council, as will appear, if we consider these two things.

• 1. That the evils complain'd of, did chiefly, if not wholly proceed from the Popes themselves.
• 2. That the Council made no provision for reforming of them.

[Page 69] 1. That the Popes themselves were the Fountain from which the evils chiefly flow'd. For the proof of this (passing over many others as needless) I shall content my self to produce two wit­nesses, whose Authority is beyond Exception. The first is the Select Council of Cardinals and other Prelates, Deputed by Paul III. to acquaint him with the abuses, and what were the best expedients by which they might be reform'd; who presented to him upon Oath, That the Original of the evils the Church groan'd under was, that some Popes (his Predecessors) having itching ears, had heapt up to themselves Teachers after their own lusts; not such from whom they might learn what they ought to do, but such by whose art and cunning they might find out a way to make what they listed, Lawful; so that the will of the Pope, (whatsoever it was) might be the rule by which his actions were to be directed. From this Fountain, say they, as from the Trojan Horse, so many abuses, and so grievous Diseases have broken into the Church of God, by which it is brought almost to a desperate condition Et quoniam Sanctitas tua spiritu Dei erudita (qui ut inquit Augustinus, loqui­tur in cordibus nullo verborum Strepitu) probe noverat principium horum malorum inde fuisse, quod nonnulli Pontisices tui Predecessores prurientis auribus—Ita quod Voluntas Pontificis qualiscunqe ea fuerit, sit regula qua ejus operationes, & actiones dirigantur; ex quo proculdubio effici, ut quicquid libeat, id etiam liceat. Ex hoc fonte, sancte Pater, tanquam ex equo Trojano, irrupere in Ecclesiam Dei tot abusus & tam gravissimi morbi, quibus nunc conspicimus eam ad desperationem fere salutis laborasse &c. Richer l. 4. par. 2. p. 137. Sleidan Comment. l 12. Thuani l. 35.. This was the Voice, not of one single Cardinal, but of many United, and of those among them, who were thought the most Eminent.

But if that Authority which is next to Infallible, be thought too little, let us hear what was the Judgment of one of the better sort of Popes in this matter; I mean Adrian VI. who confess'd in the Diet at Nuremberg, That many things to be abo­minated, had been for some years past, in the holy See; abuses in spi­ritual matters, excesses in Commands, and that all things were out of order; that the Disease had descended from the Head to the mem­bers, from the Pope to the other Prelats. As for what concerns [Page 70] us, says he to his Legat, Thou shalt promise that we will use our ut­most endeavour, that this Court from whence peradventure all this evil did proceed, may be first reform'd; that as the corruption hath flow'd from thence to all Inferiours, so the Health and Reformation of all, may proceed from the same too Scimus in hac Sancta Sede aliquor jam annis, multa abominanda fuisse, Abusus in spiritualibus &c. Odaric. Raynald. Tom. 20 Thuan. l. 35.. This doubtless, is a Testimony, that no Papalin can refuse. I shall therefore con­clude with it, lest by adding more, I should seem to derogate from the Infafallible Oracle.

Thus we see, That the chief cause of the Deformation of the Church, was the wound in the Head, as James of Paradise ex­presses it Et hanc profecto po­tissimam reor causam deformationis Ecclesiae, quia cernitur in capite vulnus, quod ne­cesse habeat ante curari. Jacob. de Paradis. Collect. de Auth. Eccles.. Which every man will easily grant, who imparti­ally considers, That of those five Popes who sate during the Council Paul. iii. Julius iii. Marcellus ii. Paul iv. Pius iv., there was but one (viz. Marcellus) who was not infamous for Vice; and his Reign was so short He died the 20th day of his Popedom. Papir. Masson. in vita ejus., that it deserves not to be mention'd.

2. Did the Council make provision for curing this Disease in the Head? No, The Pope was Lord Paramount to the Coun­cil, too high to be within the reach of its Power; so sacred was his Person, as to give protection to his Vices.

He is indeed in one Decree, taxed of some Misdemeanors Sess. 24. cap. 1.; But 'tis done so civilly, as if they intended to oblige, rather than provoke him; for he is not plainly and directly, but covertly only and by consequence, accused, by reprehending some abuses in Government, which were practiced by other Bishops, as well as himself. To correct which abuses in part, he is in the same De­cree tied up in the creation of Cardinals, to persons so and so qualified; and in a few other matters mention'd by R. W. Considerat. on the Counc. of Trent, c 12., his Power is a little contracted, and the Profits of his Court in [Page 71] some things abridged: But that this was done for shew only, and not with an intention to bind him, nothing can be more ma­nifest, because they themselves let him loose again, and amply restore to him whatsoever they seem'd to have taken from him: So that suppose all the Reformation, which that Author menti­ons, and much more, had been really Decreed; all those Decrees would have been defeated, by that Decree which the Council concluded with, viz. That in all the Decrees concerning Reformati­on of Manners and Ecclesiastical Discipline, with what words or clauses soever, made under Paul iii. Julius iii. Pius iv. it shall be understood, that the Authority of the Apostolick See is always except­ed and reserved Postremo sancta Synodus omnia & singula sub quibuscunque clausulis & verbis, quae de morum Reformatione, at Ecclesiastica disciplina tam sub Fel. rec. Paulo. iii. ac Julio iii. tam sub Beatissimo Pio iv. Pontificibus max. in hoc sacro Concilio consti­tuta sunt, declarat ita decreta fuisse, ut in his salva semper Auctoritas sedis Apostoliae & sit, & esse intelligatur. Sess. 25. c. 21.. Does not this undo all that was done be­fore? And would it not have done so, had it been a thousand times more than it is? For such is the Plenitude of the Popes Power, (if either the Pope himself or his Creatures may be credited) that it admits of no bounds, but what he himself shall please to give it Gerson de Potest. Eccles. Con­siderat. 12. Dictat. Gregorij. vii. &c.. So that to say, That in all their Decrees the Authority of the Apostolick See is preserved, is to say, (if the Pope be Judg, which the Fathers themselves have made him) that none of their Decrees bind him.

To conclude this first Consideration. Was the Church likely to be reform'd, when no provision was made to reform those from whom the Deformity principally proceeded? The darkness cannot be taken from the Stars, except it be first removed from the Sun; nor the sick body be healed, as long as bad dispositions remain in the Head, which disperses them to all the members, as the Bishop of Segnia Not Sidonia, at it is falsely Printed in the History of the Council. Unanswerably argu'd in the Council, to the great displeasure of the Papalins Soav. l. 6, p. 533..

[Page 72] 2. Let us consider the Abuses and Diforders which the Coun­cil pass'd over, without taking any notice of them; and that both as to their Number, and their Quality: They being many more, and many of them much more mischievous than those which the Council reflected upon.

First, As to their Number, they were many more. Because it would be a tedious work to make a particular recital of all Abuses complained of, I therefore refer the Reader to those Authors and Tracts quoted in the Margin Gerson. Declarat. Defect. Viror. Ecclesiast. Pet. de Alliaco de Reformand. Ec­cles. Onus Ecclesiae. Centum Gravam. Nic. de Clemang. de corrupt. statu Eccles. Mar­sil. Patav. Defens. Pacis. Claud. Espens. Comment. in 1 Cap. Epist. ad Tit. Consult. delect. Cardinal. & alior, Praelat. Appellat. Universital. Paris. advers. Concordat. Soave's Hist. of the Counc. Du Ranchin's Review, &c., which if he will have the Patience to peruse, and then read over the Decrees of the Coun­cil, and compare them together, he will be abundantly satisfied concerning the truth of what I now assert.

2. As they were many more, so many of them were in mat­ters of greater moment, and much more Mischievous both to Church and State, than those which the Council reflected upon. From the beginning to the end of the Council, there were no more than twenty five Sessions. Now after the 21. Session, one of the most noted Bishops in the Council affirm'd, That for Re­formation, nothing had been proposed, but matters of no moment Soav. p. 570.. After the 22. Session, the Archbishop of Prague told the Assembly of Ambassadors, That much time was consum'd by the Council in doing nothing; that the Legats had often promised to handle Refor­mation, and yet they were entertained with Speculations, or with Provision against small Abuses; and that it was now time to make an effectual instance, that they would begin to handle important mat­ters p. 643.. After the Decrees of Reformation in the 24. Session had passed, (which R. H. takes to be the most considerable, and recommends to our perusal above all the rest); Considerat. on the Counc. of Tr. c. 12. s. 206. Count Luna, the Spanish Ambassador complain'd, That the principal [Page 73] matters for which the Council was assembled were omitted Soav. l. 8. p. 802.; so that in the judgment of these great men, (who also made a great figure in the Council) the Decrees of Reformation, may not unfitly be compared to those Night-birds (to which a Romish Writer compares Pallavicino's History of it) which appear great, not because they have much flesh, but many feathers Caes Aqu lin. de Trib, Hist. Concil. Trident, p. 49..

I grant, that some of those things mention'd by R. H. are matters of moment Considerat. &c. c. 12.. But besides, That all of them put to­gether, are but few in comparison of those many, in which a Reformation was needful; so the weightiest of them are but light, if compared with many of those which the Council hath wholly omitted.

When that Gentleman undertook to acquaint us with the great Reformation the Council made concerning the Pope, and Court of Rome, and the Clergy; who would not have expected to have heard, that the Council had effectually provided, That his Holiness should no more take upon him to dispense with all the Ancient Canons, much less with the Divine Laws? That it should not be in his Power to Excommunicate and Depose Kings and Emperors, to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of Allegi­ance, to raise them in Rebellion against their Sovereigns, and to Usurp and Translate Kingdoms at his Pleasure? Who would not have thought, but that his Spiritual Sword had been taken much shorter, and that he had been wholly deprived of the Temporal? (Saving only in those narrow Territories in which he is Prince, as well as Bishop.) That the Weapons of his Warfare should be no longer those carnal ones, by which for many Ages he has been a Man of Blood and Slaughter; but that he should be forc'd to live for the future a little more becoming the Vicar of the Prince of Peace? Who could have imagin'd, but that he had been forbidden, under forfeiture of his Tripple Crown, to share the Church Revenues between his Byblows and his Don­naes? [Page 74] And to transfer the Government of the Universal Church from himself, to a young Gallant call'd Cardinal Padrone? And who would not have expected, That some care should have been taken, to remove those gross Superstitions and Abuses, which they themselves acknowledged were too frequently practiced in the Worship of Images? And to prevent those shameless Cheats that were put upon silly People by Counterfeit Reliques? And that (if not for Conscience, yet for shame at least) the Peni­tentiary Tax should have been utterly abolished, and the yearly Kine turn'd out of their fat Pastures? That mercenary Whores might no longer brave it in Palaces, and mounted upon their Mules, be attended at Noon-day by Nobles and Clergymen thorow the Streets of Rome. (An Abomination, for which the Select Council of Paul III. could find no parallel in any other City of the World) In hac etiam urbe Meretrices ut Matronae incedunt, per Urbem, seu Mula vehuntur; quas affectantur de media die nobiles Familiares Cardinalium Clericique. Nulla in Urbe Videmus han [...] Corruptionem, praeterquam in hac omnium exemplari habitant etiam insignes aedes. Concil. delect. Card. & alior. Praelat. de emendanda Eccles. An. 1538..

These things are no more than what every sober Romanist would have expected should have been done; and yet not on­ly these, but many more of great Importance, were not so much as touch'd. If then we suppose the best that can be, viz. That the Council effectually provided for the Correction of those Abuses it thought good to Reflect upon; yet, since those which were much more mischeivous were wholly neglected, must it not needs be a goodly Reformation? That Physitian is likely to make an excellent Cure, who in an Hectical Body, applies him­self only to the Killing of the Itch. Which was the Censure gene­rally pass'd upon the great Reformation made in the 21. Session Soav. l. 6. p. 539.. And yet,

3. If we consider those Corruptions and Abuses the Council took notice of, it will appear they were not in good earnest in [Page 75] that slight Reformation they would seem to make; and that upon this twofold account. 1. Because many of them, it pass'd no Decrees to reform them, but referr'd them to the Pope. 2. For others, concerning which it pass'd Decrees of Reformation, ma­ny of the Decrees are meer Shams and Illusions.

First, Several of those Abuses it took notice of, it referr'd the Reformation of them to the Pope. We have before heard that the Reformation of the Pope himself, was left to himself; and by consequence, those Abuses which were the Source of all o­thers. We have likewise seen, that the withholding of the Cup, was remitted entirely to his Judgment. To which I add the abuses of Indulgences (which had given infinite Scandal, and were a chief motive to the Reformation); The Synod desiring, that these might be corrected, ordains in the general: That all wicked gains for the obtaining of them, be utterly abolishd. But for other Abuses, which proceed from Superstition, Ignorance, Ir­reverence, or other occasions whatsoever, seeing by reason of the ma­nifold Corruptions of Places and Provinces in which they are com­mitted, they cannot be prohibited in particular, It commands all Bishops, that every one of them diligently collect the Abuses of his own Church, and propose them in the first Provincial Synod; to the end, that being known by the other Bishops also, they may forthwith be presented to the Pope, by whose Authority and Prudence, that may be determin'd which is expedient for the Ʋniversal Church Abusus vero qui in his irrepserunt, & quorum occasione insigne hoc Indul­gentiarum nomen ab Haereticis blasphematur, emendatos & correctos cupiens, prae­senti decreto generaliter statuit, pravos quaestus omnes pro his consequendis, unde plu­rima in Christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit, omnino abolendos esse Caeteros vero, qui ex superstitione, ignorantia, irreverentia, aut aliunde quomodocunque provene­runt, cum ob multiplices locorum, & provinciarum, apud quas hi committuntur, cor­ruptelas, commode nequeant specialiter prohiberi, mandat omnibus Episcopis, ut dili­genter quisque hujusmodi abusus Ecclesiae suae colligat, eosque in prima Synodo provin­ciali referat ut aliorum quoque Episcoporum sententia cogniti, statim ad Summum Romanum Pontificem deferantur; cujus auctoritate & prudentia, quod universali Ec­clesiae expedit, statuatur.. What a heap of Abuses is here at once remitted to his [Page 76] Holiness; for indeed the whole matter of Indulgences, as it is usually taught and practised in the Church of Rome, is nothing else but Abuse.

2. For other Abuses, the Reformation of which, the Synod took to themselves, many of the Decrees by reason of some de­fect or excess; for want of something that should make them effectual, or by the addition of those Salvo's, Exceptions and Limitations which defeat their force, are but meer Shams and Il­lusions. This is manifest in one Decree or other of almost every Session in which any thing is decreed concerning Reformation. But it may suffice to give a few instances.

Sess. 6. c. 1. The Synod ordains, That if the Governor of a Patriarchal, Metropolitic, or Cathedral Church, shall be absent six months together from his Diocess, without a lawful impediment, and just and reasonable causes, he shall lose the fourth part of the revenue of one Year; and if he continue absent six months more, he shall lose another fourth part: and the Contumacy encreasing, he shall (if a Suffragan Bishop, by his Metropolitan; if a Metropolitan, by the Se­nior Suffragan) within three months be delated to the Pope, who by his supreme Authority may punish him, and provide the Church of a more profitable Pastor Si quis a Patriarchall, Primatiali, Metropolitana, seu Cathedrali Ecclesia sibi que­cunq, titulo, causa, nomine seu jure commissa, quacun (que) ille dignitate, gradu & prae­eminentia praefulgeat, legitimo impedimento, seu justis & rationabilibus causis cessanti­bus, sex mensibus continuis extra suam Diocesin morando abfuerit, &c.. Now who that hath but half an eye, doth not see, that this Decree is evacuated these three ways? First, by the exception of just and reasonable Causes: For these will never be wanting when those are Judges, whose Interest it is not to have Residence practiced Soav. p. 2 [...]9.. Unless the Coun­cil had determin'd in particular, what those just and reasonable causes were. 2. In that wirhout any cause, and without any forfeiture too, he may be absent six months together saving a few days; yea, eleven Months, if two or three days of Residence be [Page 77] interposed in the right place (viz. about the middle of the sixth Month) for he loses nothing, unless he be absent six Months to­gether. And, 3. In case he continue contumacious, what is to be done? He is at last to be referr'd to the Pope. And it might be presumed, that his Holiness would be so kind, as to grant a Dispensation upon reasonable terms; (for no Decree had yet pass'd, for granting one gratis).

It will perhaps be said, That what was wanting in this Decree, was supply'd afterward, Sess. 23. c. 1. Where the Synod to pre­vent misinterpretation (as if by Virtue of this Decree, a Person might lawfully absent himself Five Months together) Ordains; That all that have Bishopricks (Cardinals not excepted) are oblig'd to Personal Residence; nor may they be absent from their Churches, except for causes there mention'd, which are to be approved by the Pope, or the Metropolitan. And what are those Causes? Not only Christian Charity, urgent necessity, and the evident profit of the Church or Commonwealth, but due Obedience also —Nam cum Christiana Caritas, urgens necessitas, debita obidentia, ac eviden [...] Ecclesiae vel Reipublicae utilitas, aliquos nonnunquam abesse postulent & exigant, decernit eadem sacrosancta Synodus has legitimae absentiae causas, a beatissimo Romano Ponti­ficae, aut a Metropolitano—in Scriptis esse approbanda [...].: So that when the Pope requires it, Bishops not only may, but are bound to be absent from their Churches, by Virtue of that Obedience they owe to him. And this is no more than what the Pope often requires of bare Bishops; but of Cardinals usually, by Virtue of their Office, which is to be personally assistant to him. So that a Cardinal who holds Five or Six Bishopricks, may by Virtue of this Decree be oblig'd never to see one of them as long as he lives.

Sess. 7. c. 6. The Decree to prevent and annul abusive Unions of Benefices, is illusory. For first it confirms all those Unions right or wrong, that could plead Prescription but of Forty years; yea, but of Twenty eight: For as the Congregation of Cardi­nals interpret that Decree, the Forty years were to be reckon'd [Page 78] from the confirmation of the Decrees of the Council Non datur potestas per Concilium Tridentinum examinandi & revidendi Uniones, quae per 40 annos ante Confirmationem Decretorum ejusdem Concilii factae fuerunt Uniones perpetuae a 40 annis, a publicatione Concilii Tridentini computandae. which was not till Twelve years after that Decree was made. 2. As for other Unions which had been made within that time, those which were obtain'd by false Information shall be declared Void; those which have not taken effect, and which shall hereafter be made, if not made for reasonable Causes, and with Citation of all that were interess'd before the Ordinary, they shall be pre­sumed to be surreptitiously obtain'd, and therefore shall be of no force, unless it shall be otherwise declared by the Apostolical See Uniones perpetuae a quadraginta annis citra factae, examinari ab Ordinariis, tanquam a sede Apostolica legatis, possint—nisi aliter a sede Apostolica declaratum fuerit, viribus omnino careant.. So that all Unions which had not yet taken effect, and which should afterward be made without reasonable Causes, or without Citation of those which were concern'd, shall be Valid, if it seem good to the Apostolick See to declare them so. An excellent Piece of Reformation! But to conceal the Knavery, R. H. thought it adviseable not to make mention of the latter Exception Considerat. &c. Cap. 12. S. 220..

Sess. 14. The Decrees, Ch. 1, 2, 3. are all ineffective for want of express mentioning the Pope, by whom the Licenses, Privi­ledges and Faculties were granted, the exercise of which is by those Decrees prohibited Soav. l. 4. p. 352.. And Ch. 5. the exception in the con­clusion is of larger extent than all the Remainder p. 353..

But because R. H. recommends to our consideration above all the rest, the Decrees of the Twenty fourth Session Considerat. &c. Cap. 12. S. 206., I shall proceed to them; and (for brevities sake) passing over those which concern Matrimony, shall in a word reflect upon some of the rest.

Chap. 8. To those which Sin publickly, publick Penance is decreed. But the Decree is void by what follows, viz. Yet the Bishop may change this publick Penance into another secret, when he shall [Page 79] judge it more expedient, Episcopus tamen publicae hoc poenitentiae genus, in aliud secretum poterit com­mutare, quando ita magis judicaverit expedire.. Chap. 17. Plurality of Benefices is straitly forbidden; but the foregoing Decree, Sess. 7. Chap. 5. is not rescinded, which renews the Constitution of Greg. X; by which this Abuse is established Decretal. L. 6. Cap. 1. Tit. 16. Cap. Ordinarii..

The Decree of Cognition of Causes in the first instance, Chap. 20. was quite destroy'd, says Soave, by the exception added, i. e. Except those which the Pope will commit, and reserve to himself. For Causes were never taken from the lawful Tribunals, but by Commission and Advocation of Popes; and now the cause of the Disease was preserv'd, and the Symptom only cured. And however the adjunct (for urgent and reasonable Causes) did seem to moderate the matter well; yet Men of Ʋnderstanding knew, that it was as much as to say, for any Arbitrary Cause Soav. l. 8. p. 792.. And R. H. himself grants almost as much as this amounts to. For in that he says, A Rescript after the matter is particularly made known to the Pope, and upon this his Hand and Seal obtain'd, cannot be a thing so ordinarily happening as to over­throw the whole benefit of the Decree Considerat. &c. Cap. 12. S. 212. He plainly intimates, that it may so often happen, as to overthrow the Benefit in a great measure.

But what a ridiculous Piece of Mockery was the Explication of the Clause, proponentibus Legatis, Chap. 21. The Emperor's and the Kings of Spain's Ambassadours had often declar'd against it, (as that which destroy'd the Liberty of the Council) and earnestly demanded, that it might be revoked, but could by no means obtain it; at length, when they were now putting an end to the Council, they declare, That the meaning of the Synod was, not to change in any part the usual manner of handling Matters in general Councils: As if a Physician who could not be prevailed with to do any thing for his Patient while there was hope of Life, should set himself to apply his Medicines just when his Patient was dying.

By what hath been said, it is sufficiently manifest, That many [Page 80] of the Decrees concerning matters to be reform'd, were so framed, as to defeat themselves.

4. But let us now suppose, That there had been no fraud in the Decrees themselves, but that they had been all so composed, to render them most effectual for obtaining their ends; That they had been extended to all Persons, and to all matters too, that stood in need of Reformation: Yet they were all in effect re­voked (that is, render'd no further binding than the Pope pleas'd) these two ways. 1. By reserving to the Pope a power of di­spensing with them. 2. By reserving to him, the whole power of expounding them.

1. By reserving to the Pope a power dispensing with them; For nothing was decreed but with this reserve, Saving always the Authority of the Apostolick See in all things. This was expresly premised to the Decrees of Reformation, Sess. 7. Eadem Sacrasancta Synodus, eisdem Praesidentibus Legatis, incaeptum residen­tia & Reformationis Negotium, ad Dei Laudem & Christianae Religionis increnentum prosequi intendens, ut sequitur statuendum censuit, salva semper in omnibus sedis Apo­stolicae auctoritate.. And lest it might be thought not to extend to all the subsequent Decrees, to make all sure, in the Conclusion of the Council, it was again declar'd (as we have before heard), That in all the Decrees of the Council made under Paul, Julius and Pius, with what Words or Clauses soever, it should be understood, that the Authority of the Apostolick See is excepted and preserved Sess. 25. c. 21..

And what is meant by the Authority of the Apostolick See in this matter, but an Authority of dispensing with the Canons and Decrees, whensoever the Pope shall judg it convenient? Thus it is interpreted by Espensaeus In cap. 1. Epist. ad Tit., Richerins Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. par. 2. p. 182, 183., and other Romish Do­ctors. Thus it was understood by Cardinal Amulius, when he per­swaded the Pope to confirm the Decrees absolutely; For that his Holiness might provide for his Ministers by Dispensation, without vio­lating the Decrees of the Council; because, in them the Apostolical Authority is reserved Soav. p. 815, 816.. But 'tis needless to produce Witnes­ses [Page 81] for the proof of this; since, as Father Paul says, Every Fool knew what this Exception meant P. 260.. And was not this to pull down all they had before built up, as Richerins says Septima Sessione ubi de Reformatione agitur, hoc egreginem assumentum omnibus aliis capitibus quae de disciplina aut Ecclesia emendanda Sciscuntur pro exordio praemittitur; quo quidem Caetera omnia diruuntur & antiquantur, l. 4. par. 2. p. 182., or as Du Ranchin expresses it, To put a Gull upon all Christendom Review of the Council of Trent, l. 2. c. 4. n. 26..

I know Pallavicino tells us, (which R. H. lays much weight upon) That altho they may lawfully dispense with these Laws, yet the Popes for their Conscience and Honour sake, require for the most part such weighty Causes, and so rarely happening for doing this, that their Concessions in matters prohibited by the Council, do not amount to the 20th part of those formerly made Ap­parat. ad Hist. c. 10..

Methinks the Jesuit speaks faintly. He says not, that the Popes always, but for the most part require such weighty Causes; which is a plain Concession, that they sometimes not only di­spense with these Laws, but without any such weighty Causes: And if he confess, that sometimes, we may then take it for granted, that they often do so. But whether the Popes, since the Council of Trent, have been so tender of their Consciences and Honour in dispensing with the Laws made by it, let some Instances determine.

By one Decree, Expectative Graces, and secret Reservations Sess. 24. c. 19., by another Accesses or Regresses to Ecclesiastical Benefices, are forbidden Sess. 25. c. 7.. How well those were observed by the Pope, let Espensaeus inform us, who five years after the Council was end­ed, makes doleful complaints of these, and many other Abuses of like nature, then practiced by the Court of Rome Comment. in cap. 1. Epist. ad. Tit. p. 483. Edit. Paris. 1619..

The Council decreed, That no Ecclesiastical Person, tho a Cardi­nal, should hold two Bishopricks, or other Ecclesiastical Benefices Sess. 24. c. 17.. And yet, many years after this Law came to be in force, one French Cardinal had at the same time three of the wealthiest [Page 82] Arch-bishopricks, and six of the richest Abbies; another was possessed at once, of twelve Abbies, and one of the fattest Bi­shopricks Richer. l. 4. par. 2. p. 192.. And we cannot reasonably suppose, but that his Holiness made as liberal Provision for the Cardinals of other Nations, as for those of France. There had need be a weighty Cause indeed, to warrant such enormous and scandalous Dispensa­tions as these. But could there be any cause, why the Rich and the great Ones, should (as Richerius says) without any difficulty obtain from the Court of Rome Dispensations for many Benefices Hercle ad corruptelarum cumulum appri­me facit, quod Divites & Magnates nullo negotio a Curia Romana dispensationes ob­tinent ad plura Beneficia, p. 193.? Yes, a very weighty one; because the Rich and the Great were best able to pay for them. But why should the Cardinals, notwithstanding this express Law to the contrary, hold all sorts of Benefices; how incompatible soever, without a Dispensation, by Virtue of a Priviledg which they call, Os apertum Et inter alios, Cardinales propter Privile­gium, quod os apertum nominant, nulla omnino indigent Dispensatione, ad omnia om­nis generis Beneficia quantumvis incompatibilia possidenda, ibid.? (How wide is a Cardinals mouth when open'd)? Why, to maintain the Pomp and Grandeur of the Roman Court. And is not that a weighty Cause too, and such as rarely happens?

Two other of the most important Decrees, are those by which Provision is made of fit Persons for Bishopricks, and o­ther Ecclesiastical Benefices Sess. 24. c. 1. &c. 18.. And were not these well ob­served, when six Abbies, and one Archbishoprick, were reser­ved for a Child of three years old Richer. l. 4. par. 2. p. 192.? And was not Ʋrban VIII. very scrupulous in dispensing with them, when he gave nothing to those who had best served the Church, but what his Nephews had before refus'd, as unworthy of their acceptance? And Innocent X. did as well observe them, when he committed the Government of the Universal Church, to an imperious and insatiable covetous Woman, and bestowed all Livings as She was pleas'd to direct and command Rycaut in the Life of Innocent X.. And Clement X. was no [Page 83] less careful to put them in Execution; when all Persons of Vir­tue and Merit were rejected, and none but a sort of progging Merchants advanced to Benefices Id. in his Life..

There is another Decree, by which all Titles and Rights to Benefices, that were obtain'd by Simony, are made void Rycaut in his Life.. And this, no question, was worthily executed by the same Inno­cent X. when a rate was set upon all Benefices, great and small, and they were sold as in a common Market by the Lady Olym­pia; when Simony was become so common, that for this cause People began to abhor Church-Men, and to hate their Ministry Id.. And as tender was Clement X. of dispensing with it, when the Cardinal Nephew would not suffer the Seals to pass for any Benefices, without money paid in consideration thereof to him­self, (tho it was a Living of but 10 Crowns a year) when for better management of this Simoniacal Trade, he appointed Brokers in the Palace to set up an Office, and there publickly, and without shame, to bargain and contract for Offices and Bene­fices Longe Major sane, atque vigentior ratio postulare videtur, ut ipse Romanus Ponti­fex, quem tanquam lucernam ardentem super candelabrum in domo sua posuit Altissimus, tam salubria Patrum Constituta retineat, ut caeteris Antistibus ad illa Servanda exem­plo praeluceat..

I shall mention one Decree more (viz. That which prohibts all Bishops to enrich their kindred with the Goods of the Church) because in the judgment of the present Pope, the Pope himself is above all others bound to observe it; For, says he, there is a much greater and stronger reason, why the Roman high Priest himself should observe such wholesome Constitutions of the Fathers, to the end, that he may give an Example to other Prelates to observe them (c). But I appeal to all those who have made any enquiry into their Lives and Actions, whether Greg. XIII. Sixtus V. Paul V. Greg. XV. Ʋrban VIII. Innocent X. Alexander VII. and Clement X. did so observe this Decree, as to shew that they consulted, either their Conscience, or their Honour. Sess. 24. c. 14.

[Page 84] 2. But suppose the Council had reserved no such power of dis­pensing, to the Pope, yet they put it into his hands to make void all their Decrees, or to transform them as he pleased, by leaving to him alone the power of interpreting them. When the Coun­cil was now breaking up, The declaration and resolution of all Doubts, which should happen to arise about the sense of the Decrees, was referr'd to his Holiness Quod si in his recipiendis aliqua difficultas Oriatur, aut aliqua inciderint, quae de­clarationem aut definitionem postulent; praeter alia remedia in hoc Concilio instituta, confidit sancta Synodus Beatissimum Romanum Pontisicem curaturum, ut vel evocatis, ex illis praesertim provinciis, unde difficultas orta fuerit, ijs, quos eidem negotio tract­ando viderit expedire, vel etiam Concilij generalis eclebratione, si necessarium judicave­rit, vel commodiore quacunque ratione ei visum fuerit, Provinciarum necessitatibus, pro Dei gloria, & Ecclesiae tranquillitate consulatur. Sess. 25. c. 5.; And therefore in his Bull of Confirmation (as the Bishop of Bestice advised) he forbad by his Apostolical Authority, all persons both Ecclesiastics and Laics, of what quality or degree soever, to publish any Commentaries, Glosses, Annotations, or any sort of Interpretation of the Decrees; and if any matter seem'd to any man obscure, and to need any interpretation and decision, commanded that he should have re­course to the Apostolic See, the Mistris of all the Faithful. As for Controversies and Difficulties if any arise from the Decrees, we reserve them, saith he, to be declared and decided by our selves, as the holy Synod hath decreed Ad vitan­dam praeterea perversionem, & confusionem quae oriri posset, si unicuique liceret, prout ei liberet, in decreta Concilij Commentarios & interpretationes suas edere, Apo­stolica auctoritate inhibemus omnibus tam Ecclesiasticis personis, cujuscunque sint ordi­nis, conditionum & gradus quam Laicis quocunque honore ac potestate praeditis, &c. si cui vero in iis aliquid obscurius dictum & statutum fuisse, eamque ob causam interpretati­one aut decisione aliqua egere visum fuerit, ascendat ad locum quem Dominus elegit, ad sedem Videlicet Apostolicam, omnium Fidelium Magistram, cujus auctoritatem etiam ipsa Sancta Synodus tam reverenter agnovit. Nos enim difficultates & controversias, si quaeex iis decretis ortae fuerint, nobis declarandas & decidendas, quemadmodum ipsa quoque Sancta Synodus decrevit, reservamus. Bulla Super. Confirmat. Concilij.. Thus the meaning of the De­crees, was by the Council reserved to the Pope, and by the Pope assumed to himself; in pursuance of which, he forthwith constituted a particular Congregation of Cardinals, not only for the Execution, but for the Declaration of them.

Now how easie a matter is it, by adding a little to, or by pa­ring away a little from, by a Distinction, a Limitation, and I know not how many other Arts, which the Pope and his Court are well acquainted with, to make a Gloss that shall quite over­throw the Text.

I shall produce one famous Instance of this kind. The Council decreed, That those who had many Bishopricks, one of them, which they chose, being retain'd, they should quit all the rest Nemo quacunque etiam dignitate gradu aut praeeminentia praefulgens, plures metropolitanas aut Cathedrales Ecclesias in titulum sive commendam aut alio quovis nomine, contra Sacrorum Canonum instituta recipere, & simul retinere praesumat. Qui autem plures Ecclesias contra praesentis Decreti tenorem nunc detinent, una quam maluerint detenta reliquas intra sex menses, si ad liberam sedis Apostolicae dispositionem pertineant, alias infra annum dimittere teneantur: alioquin Ecclesiae ipsae, ultimo ob­tenta dumtaxat excepta, eo ipso vacare censeantur. S. 7. c. 2.. Hear now Pope Paul III. his interpretation. He shall quit the Rest, but so as to Reserve the whole Profits to himself, allowing such a Pittance to the person to whom he resigns, as may serve in some sort to maintain his Dignity: Yea, and when the Church he quits happens to become void, it shall return to him again, that he may again re­sign it upon the same terms Espens. Com­ment. in cap. 1. Epist. ad Tit. Digress. 2. Richer. l. 4. par. 2.. Impudent Mockery! Thus, says Espensoeus, one of the Cardinals who lately died, reserved the Profits of five Bishopricks, and as many Abbeys, the fourth part of the Profits only being assign'd, to the person to whom he resign­ed Ibid..

As Chymists in their analizing of Bodies, by separating some parts, and adding others; by dissolving the former frame, and producing new Coalitions, are wont to extract those substances out of them, that were never formally in them: so while the Pope has the analizing of the Decrees, 'tis certain there will scarce ever any thing be found in them, or extracted from them, that is contrary to his, or his Courts Affections and Interests.

This the Bishop of Bestice was well aware of; and therefore when the Pope's Officers disswaded the Confirmation of those [Page 86] Decrees, which they thought prejudicial to their Profit: He like a better Politician, counsell'd the Pope to confirm them without exception; because, by his Exposition, he might give them a more ample, or a more strict sense; yea, and contrary to that which the words do import: so that if his Holiness ordain, That in all Doubts men come for Exposition to the Apostolick See, no Man will be able to make use of the Council to the prejudice of the Court. If this were done, he foresaw that by the Decrees of the Council, the Authority of the Apostolick See, the Rights and Perogatives of the Church of Rome, will not only not be diminished, but encreased and inlarg­ed Soav. l. 8, p. 816, 817..

By what hath been said, it is sufficiently evident, that the learned Dr. Stillingfleet spake no more evil of the Council than they justly deserved, when he said, That their Decrees apper­taining to Reformation, were merely delusory; and therefore need not much dread that Account which R. H. tells him, he must one day give to the Celestial Majesty, for his speaking Evil of so Sa­cred an Authority Considerat. &c. Cap. 7. §. 124..

I have now shewed, that as to those Matters in which alone a Reformation is pretended, 1. That those Persons were exempted from it, who were the prime Causes of the Abuses. 2. That those Abuses which the Council did not concern themselves about, were as to their Number more; as to their Nature and Quality more mischievous, than those which the Council reflected upon. 3. That those Abuses the Council took notice of, some of them it made no Decrees of Reformation about, but referr'd them wholly to the Pope; Others, the Decrees to reform them, were many of them meer Shams and Illusions. 4. That supposing the Council had extended their Decrees to all Persons, and to all things that stood in need of being reformed; that they had so framed them, as to render them most effectual to the obtaining of their end; yet they in effect revoked them all, both by re­serving [Page 87] to the Pope a Power of dispensing with them, and by reserving to him alone the Power of interpreting them. From whence the Conclusion is plainly this, That even in Matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and of Manners (which were the only Matters the Council undertook to reform) the Reformation was delusory; not in Truth and Reality, but in Word and Pre­tence only: Which was the thing to be proveed.

Object. If it be objected. That this is the Accusation of Pro­testants only, who are Enemies to the Council, and therefore in this Point not to be credited.

Ans. I answer, First, If it were true, That this is the Accusa-of Protestants only, yet that doth not lessen the force of it; but, Secondly, That it is not true, but manifestly false.

1. If it were true, that this is the Accusation of Protestants only, yet that doth not lessen its force; because the Protestants do not desire to be credited upon their own word, but upon the Authority of the Evidence they produce; they demand belief, not of what they say, but of what they prove: As therefore our Blessed Saviour said to the unbelieving Jews: If I do not the work of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, tho' ye believe not me, believe the works Joh. 10. 37, 38.: In like manner may the Pro­testants say; If we do not sufficiently prove what we assert, be­lieve us not; but if we do, though ye believe not us, yet believe our Proofs. And therefore the Questions, Whether the Prote­stants be Enemies, or whether they be Friends, are in this Case wholly impertinent; because credit is due to the greatest Enemy in proportion to the proof of what he asserts. But, Secondly, That this Accusation is preferr'd against the Council, by Prote­stants only, is not true, but manifestly false; as will appear by the last Argument propos'd for the proof of the Second Proposi­tion, (which will for ever silence this Objection). For consider,

5. So notorious was the Cheat, that many great Men of the Church of Rome confess it, and cry out against it. Out [Page 88] of those many which offer themselves, I shall select a few Wit­nesses whose Authority is unquestionable.

The Emperor when the Twenty second Session was pass'd, wrote to the Cardinal of Lorain, That the impossibility of doing good in the Council being palpable, he thought it was the Duty of a Christian and wise Prince, rather to support the present Evil with patience, than by curing it to cause a greater Soav. l. 8. p. 727.. The King of the Romans, after the Twenty third Session, said, That it was good to finish the Council; because it did no good, nor gave any hope that it would do p. 789.. The Cardinal of Lorain told the Bishop of Vintimiglia, That it was plain by long experience, that howsoever his Holiness promised many things, yet nothing was executed in Coun­cil p. 692.. Yea after the same Cardinal had been highly caress'd by the Pope, and made intirely his Creature; when the Decrees of the Twenty fourth Session (though last save one) were read, he made this Protestation both in his own Name, and in the Name of all the Bishops of France: When the Day before yester­day, I declared my Opinion concerning the Articles of Reformation, I premised that I greatly desired, that the Ancient Ecclesiastical Discipline might be restored: But since in these most corrupt Times and Manners, I am sensible that those Remedies cannot be used that are most needful, I in the mean time assent to, and approve the De­crees already made; not that I think them sufficient to work an intire Cure, but because I hope that these lighter Remedies being first used, when the Church can bear those that are more severe, the Popes, and chiefly our most holy Lord Pius, will diligently take care that by supplying those things that are wanting; and finding out more efficacious Remedies, he may restore the Church to its Ancient Soundness Cum nudius tertius meam de Reformationis Articulis dicerem sententiam, prae­fatus sum etiam me valde cupere, ut prisca illa Ecclesiastica restitueretur disciplina, sed cum his corruptissimis temporibus & moribus intelligam non posse ea, quibus maxime opus est, protinus adhiberi rentedia, interim assentiri & probare ea quae nunc sunt decreta: Non quod ea judicem satis esse ad integram aegrotantis reipublicae Chri­stianae Curationem: Sed quod Sperem, his prius levioribus fomentis, adhibitis, &c. Rich. l. 4. par. 2. p 241, 242.. Du Ferrier, the Ambassador of the [Page 89] King of France, thus address'd himself to the Fathers: Give us leave to use the same words which the Orators of the Jews formerly used to Haggai, Malachy, and Zechary the last Prophets: Shall we Fast and Weep yet in the Fifth and Seventh M [...]nths? An 150 years are passed, since the most Christian Kings have demanded of the Popes a Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Discipline; and not­withstanding this, we must still Fast and Thirst; not as those Jews in the Fifth and Seventh Month, but now Two hundred years compleat; and God grant they be not Three hundred and many more: But they say, as he proceeds, You are abundantly satisfied with so many Anathe­matisms and Decisions of Doctrine: We confess indeed, that if it be right to give one thing in payment for another, when the Creditor is unwilling to receive it, we are satisfied▪ but if not, we are still Creditors, &c. Liceat Patres Sancti Nobis Oratoribus Regis Christianissimi iisdem verbis nunc vobiscum agere, quibus olim egerunt Judaeorum Oratores cum Aggaeo, Malachia & Zecharia ultimis Prophetis. Num jejunabimus & flebimus quinto adhuc & Septimo mense. Siquidem CL. anni elapsi sunt ex quo Reges nostri petierunt a Pontificibus, Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, jam tum labentis restitutionem. &c. Thuani. l. 35.. A Jest was made of the Reformation in France; and in Ger­many it was not thought considerable, no not by the Catholiks Thuani. l. 3 [...]. Rich. l. 4 par. 2..

But let us hear what was the Judgment of some of their most learned Divines. Espencoeus who was present at the Council under Paul III. could not be perswaded by the Cardinal of Lorain, to go with him again under Pius IV; because he certainly presaged from what he had before seen, that nothing would be done in good carnest about Reformation Richer. l. 4. par. 2. p. 189.. The same Dr. speaking of the Re­formation made by the Council, says, That nothing was amended, but all hopes of Reformation dashed Et tam diuturnorum motuum non alia causa major, quam quod tot annis. nihil immutatur; nihil emendatur, & omnis Reformandi spes inde abrupta, p. 480. Claudius Sanctius, ano­ther Sorbornne Doctor, who attended the Cardinal of Lorain to Trent, in his Letter from thence to his Collegue Espencoeus, highly congratulates his good Fortune, in that he went not to the Coun­cil: For, says he, I believe it would have been death to you, to see those vile Arts that are used to hinder Reformation Monsieur vous ne fustes jamais mieux inspiré que de ne venir point, ear je croy que fussiez mort des indignitez qu'on commet par decà, pour ob­vier à la reformation. Memoirs Pour le Conc. de Trent, p. 441.. The Com­plaints [Page 90] of Gentianus Hervetus are so large, that I shall not Trans­cribe them, but refer the Reader to his long Epistle to the Jesuit Salmeron Richer. l 4 par. 2.. All Christian Nations, says Richerius, for more than Two hundred years, panted after a Reformation; and at length instead of one that was true and genuine, they had one that was counterfeit and imaginary Venio ad decreta de morum & Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae refor­matione; ad quam universae Nationes Christianae cum animo ardentissimo ab ducen­tis amplius annis anhelabant: Tandem pro vera at (que) genuina, imaginariam & subventa­neam reformationem habueruut. p. 181, 182.. All Christian Princes, says he in another place, vehemently desired of the Trent Fathers, that the whole time might be spent in repairing the Manners of Churchmen; but could never obtain this from the Court of Rome, which gave them only a personated and painted Reformation Quamobrem omnes Chri­stiani Principes, at (que) inter alios Ferdinandus Imperator, Sicut etiam Carolus IX Franciae Rex cum omnibus aliis Catholicis Principibus ardenter flagitabant, a Papa & Tri­dentinis Patribus, ut relictis disputationibus & relictis de doctrina quae a Catholicis minime in dubium revocabantur, totum tempus reparandis moribus Ecclesiasti­corum potissimum impenderetur. Sed hoc nunquam a Curia Romana impe­trare poterunt, quae quidem pro vera Reformatione, personatam & fucatam nobis exhibuit, p. 240.. And again, this was the issue and aim of the Trent Reformation, that no respect should be had to Truth, but to shew, and outward Pomp only; and that all things should be referr'd to the Splendour and Profit of the Roman Court Hic Tridentinae refor­mationis fuit exitus & scopus, ut nihil ad veritatem, sed in quandam speciem & pom­pam externam, at (que) ad privatum Curiae Romanae splendorem & commodum cuncta re­ferrentur. p. 245. 246..

If any thing can be thought wanting to add Authority to the foremention'd Witnesses; let it be consider'd, that the Censure pass'd by them, was sufficiently confirm'd by the Pope himself, at the same time that the Decrees of the Council were, in the Oration that he made to the Cardinals in full Consistory. We are not a little oblig'd to the Fathers, says he, that in reforming Manners and Discipline, they have used that Moderation and Indul­gence toward us, that if we our selves had chosen to take the work upon us, we had certainly used more severity Quibus praeterea non mediocritrr obnoxii sumus, quod in moribus ac disciplina reformandis, ea moderatione, ac indulgentia erga nos, us [...] sunt, ut si maluissemus hanc nos ipsi curam suscip [...]re, eorumq arbitratui non com­mittere, plus certe severitatis a nobis fuisset adhibitum. Pallav. l. 24. c. 9 n. 5.. If any have [Page 91] conceived an ill Opinion of us, as if in those things which respect Re­formation, we would violate the Council: We will when there shall be need, rather correct by our Diligence, the Moderation used by the Fathers, and supply their defects as a thing reserved to our judgment Potius igitur Moderationem limitationemque a Patribus Usurpatam, nos ubi opus fuerit, diligentia nostra corrigemus, & tanquam rei nostro judicio reservatae supplebimus, ibid.. How very little must that Reformation be, which he who thought the least too much, acknowledged to be defective? Yea, must it not be worse than none, when he who was an Abhorrer of all, was thankful for it, and took himself to be obliged to the Fathers for it? That it was so indeed, I shall presently make ap­pear.

Having already shew'd, That 1. In those things in which a Reformation was most necessary, not the least was made, or so much as pretended. 2. In those things, in which a mighty Re­formation was pretended, the Reformation was not real, but Sham and Mockery. I proceed to shew:

SECT. III. Instead of Reformation, the Council produced a greater Deformati­on: What it found bad, it left in many respects worse.

III. THat instead of Reformation, the Council produced a grea­ter Deformation; and that both in matters of Doctrine and Worship, and in matters of Discipline too.

1. For matters of Faith and Worship it left them worse than it found them, upon a twofold Account. 1. By confirming those Errors and Corruptions that were before. 2. By adding others to them.

1. By confirming the Errors and Corruptions before introdu­ced. That the Fathers made no Reformation of these, I have already shew'd. I now add, That they undertook the Defence [Page 92] of them, made Decrees to confirm them, and cursed all those who should dare to oppose them. The Popes Supremacy, Tran­substantiation, Adoration of the Host, Communicating in one Kind, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, and of Re­liques, Purgatory, Indulgences, were all establish'd, and (as much as in them lay) render'd immovable against all Assaults. I need not prove this, because it is not only confessed by all, but is by some insisted upon as a mighty Argument against the Prote­stants, That the Fathers were unanimous in condemning their Tenents (that is, in condemning all those Doctrines that were opposite to the Romish Errors) and in asserting the contra­ry R. H. Considerat. &c. S. 152..

2. Nor did they only support the old, but introduced many new Errors in the Faith. Those who were read in Ecclesiastical Story said, That in all the Councils held in the Church from the A­postles time, until then, there were never so many Articles decided, as in the sixth Session only; in which, saith the Historian, Aristo­tle had a great part, by having exactly distinguished all the kinds of Causes Soav. l. 2. p. 228.. (Thanks to Father Aristotle. One would think his Logick and Metaphysicks added to the Holy Scriptures, might make them a compleat Rule, without the Addition of unwritten Traditions).

'Tis true, that some of those Points were not then first broach'd, but had for some time before been commonly taught and received in the Church of Rome; but none of them were Articles of their Faith, or any more than disputable Points a­mong themselves, before they were defined by the Council. And therefore, in further Prosecution of this, I shall do these two things. 1. I shall mention several of their new Definitions, some of which are at the best but matters of Opinion, others of them palpably False. 2. I shall shew, That these new Articles, some at the best doubtful, others manifestly false, are by the Council made necessary to be believed in order to Salvation.

[Page 93] 1. For their new Definitions (besides many others which I shall omit) take these following; which I shall for the greater part but barely mention.

1. That unwritten Traditions are of the same Divine Authori­ty with the Holy Scriptures Sess. 4.

2. That the Books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, and the two Books of Maccabees, are Canonical Scripture Ibid.. The contrary to which was Catholick Doctrine at Rome it self, but a few years before this Council Et quoniam Hieronymum sortiti sumus Regulam ne erremus in Discretione Librorum Canonicorum, nam quos ille Canonicos Tradidit, Ca­nonicos habemus; & quos ille a Canone discrevit, extra Canonem habemus. Cajetan. Comment. in 1. cap ad Heb. vers 1., and approv'd by Pope Clement VII. Divo Hieronymo, Pater Beatissime Uni­versa Ecclesia Latina plurimum debet, non solum ob Annotatas ab eo in Libris Veteris ac Novi Test. particulas tum adjectitias tum ambiguas, sed etiam propter discretos ab eodem libros Canonicos a non Canonicis. Liberavit siquidem nos ab Hebraeorum op­probrio, quod fingamus nobis antiqui Canoni [...] Libros aut Librorum partes, quibus ipsi penitus carent. Cajetan Epist. Dedicat. ad Pap. Clement. VII. ante Comment in Libros Hist. V. T. See Bishop Cosins Scholast. Hist. of the Canon of the Scripture.. I know R. H. C. 11. §. 198., and many more Romish Writers tell us, That this was defined in the Council of Florence. If it was, this will add but very little, either to its Antiquity, or to its Authority; but that it was, there can be no proof produced, but a spurious Article in Caranza's paultry Epitome; the least Intimation of which is not to be met with in any of the larger Editions of the Councils.

3. That by the Grace conferr'd in Baptism, all that which hath the true and proper nature of Sin, is removed Sess. 5. c. 5..

4. That Concupiscence in the Regenerate, is not truly and properly Sin Ibid..

5. That the Works of justified Persons are truly Meritorious of Eternal Life, and increase of Glory Sess 6. Can. 32..

6. That the Catholick Church from the beginning, hath al­ways observ'd the manner of confessing to a Priest alone in se­cret Sess. 14. Can. 6..

[Page 94] 7. That Confession to a Priest is necessary to Salvation, by the Law of God Ibid..

8. That to obtain Remission of Sins, it is necessary by the Law of God to confess all and every mortal Sin, which a man can call to remembrance, to a Priest Sess. 14. Can. 7..

9. That it is necessary by the Divine Law, to confess the Circumstances of every mortal Sin, which change the nature of the Sin Ibid.. And is there one in an hundred that knows which are the Circumstances that change the kind?

10. That a man conscious of mortal Sin, how contrite soever he thinks himself, is not duly prepared for the Eucharist, with­out preceding Confession to a Priest Sess. 13. Can. 11..

11. That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice Sess. 22. Can. 1..

12. That Christ by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, did institute his Apostles, Priests, and ordained that they should offer his Body and Blood Can. 2..

13. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is Propitiatory, and ought to be offered for the Living and Dead; for Sins, Punishments, Satisfactions, and other Necessities Sess. 22, Can. 3..

14. That the Mystical Benedictions, Lights, Incense, Gar­ments, and many other things of like nature used in the Mass, are by Apostolical Tradition Cap. 5.. This is so palpably false, that it hath not the least Colour of Truth: And this the Trent Fa­thers knew well enough: For Antonius de Valletelina, a Domi­nican, told them, That it was plain by all History, that ancient­ly every Church had her particular Ritual of the Mass brought in by use, and upon occasion. That the Roman Rite hath been (to gratifie the Pope) received in many Provinces, tho the Rites of many Churches are still most different from it. That the Roman also hath had great Alterations (as will appear to him that readeth the Ancient Book called, Ordo Romanus) which have been made not only in Ancient times, but even in the latter Ages also; and the [Page 95] true Roman Rite observed within 300 years, is not that which is now observed by the Priests in the City, but that which is retain'd by the Order of St. Dominick. For the Vestments, Vessels, and other Ornaments of the Ministers and Altars, it appeareth not by Books only, but by Statues and Pictures, that they are so changed, that if the Ancients should return into the World, they would not know them. Therefore he concluded, that to bind all to approve the Rites which the Church of Rome useth, might be reprehended, as a condemning of Antiquity Soav. 1. 6. p. 548, 549.. This Discourse displeas'd the Auditory, but the Bishop of five Churches protected the Author of it, and said, that he had delivered nothing untruly; and that he that would condemn the Fryar as scandalous or rash, did first condemn him­self as uncapable of Truth Ibid..

15. That not only the Degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity, expressed in the Book of Leviticus, hinder or dissolve Mar­riage Sess. 24. Can. 3..

16. That Matrimony confirmed, not consumnated, is dissolv'd by the solemn Profession of Religion of either party Can. 6..

17. That Matrimony contracted by Clergymen, is made void by their Vow Can. 9..

18. That the Roman Church is the Catholick Church Bulla super forma Juramenti Profes. Fidei.. This will perhaps be true, when the part comes to be equal to the whole.

19. That the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches Ibid. & Sess. 7. Can 3. Sess. 14. de Sacramento Extr. Unct. c. 3. Sess. 22. c. 8. Sess. 25. in Decreto de libror. delectu.. If so, the Daughter is the Mother, and the Mother is the Daugh­ter. For they themselves acknowledg, that St. Peter erected a Church at Antioch, seven years before he went to Rome; and this Church at Antioch, was the Daughter of that at Jerusalem: And therefore that at Jerusalem, which is the Mother of all Churches, is at least the Grandmother of the Church at Rome.

[Page 96] 20. That all things deliver'd, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons, by General Councils, and especially by the Council of Trent, are necessary to Salvation The 12th Article of Pope Pius IV. Creed, made in pursuance of a Decree of the Trent Council, and comprehensive, as R. H. grants, of 1200 Articles, c. 11. [...]. 194.. So many Contradictions as are involved in this, so many Falsities at least are contained in it: And those are not a few, since nothing is more easie than to produce Canons and Definitions of such Councils as the Romanists will have to be General, which are manifestly repugnant (not only to Scripture, but) one to ano­ther.

These are a few of those many new Definitions made by the Council of Trent. The greater part of which are most pal­pable Falshoods: The rest were not only disputable points in the Church of Rome, before the Definitions of the Council; but some of them are still disputed, others of them stifly denied by learned men of that Church. So that were the Propositions true, yet the Articles of Faith are false.

2. These Propositions, the best of which are doubtful, the rest manifestly false, are made by the Council so necessary to be believed, that whosoever does not assent to them, is eo ipso branded for an Heretick, and condemned to the portion of Reprobates.

This one would think were evident beyond all contradiction, both by the Anathema affixed to every Canon, and by the De­claration of Pope Pius IV. at the end of his new Creed, viz. This is the Catholick Faith, without which no man can be saved. Part of which Catholick Faith, is the belief of all the Decrees and Canons of the Trent Council.

But R. H. says, That all the Canons in the Council that have Anathsma affixed, do not enjoyn assent under Anathema to the con­tradictory Preposition, nor make it an Article of Faith necessary to be [Page 97] believed under the penalty of being reputed an Heretick S. 186.. How then shall we know which do? For our resolution, he gives us these rules of Canus. When the Decree, to which such Canen relates, binds to assent with a firma fide Credendum,—hoc est dog­ma fidei Catholicae—Contrarium asserentes (or tenentes) judicentur pro Haereticis, or some other equivalent expression: Or when the Canon runs, Siquis hoc senserit, Anathema sit Ibid.. Since he hath referr'd us to Canus, let Canus be Judge; provided those other words and Rules in Canus, which he hath unsaithfully omit­ted, may be suppli'd. And

1. The first Rule Canus gives, by which we may know that a Decree is de side, is this, (which he says is manifest) If those who assert the contrary, are judged to be Hereticks Prima, & ea quidem manifesta, si contrarium asserentes judicentur pro Haereticis, Locor. Theolog. l. 5. c. 5. qu. 4.. Now in the close of the Doctrine of Penance, and Extreme Unction, the Synod for ever damns and Anathematizes those, who assert the contrary Asserentes contrarium perpetuo damnat & Anthematizat. Sess. 14.; that is, judges them to be Hereticks. And in the conclusion of the Doctrine concerning Matrimony, the Synod decrees the following Anathematisms expresly against Hereticks —Hos in ipsos Haereticos, eorumque errores decernens Anathematismos.. And therefore by this Rule, the contradictory to every one of those Propositions which are anathematiz'd in the Thirteen Canons concerning Penitence, the Four concerning Extream Unction, and the Twelve concerning Matrimony, is an Article of Faith necessary to be believed, under the Penalty of being reputed an Heretick: Such for instance are these,

2. It is a Decree of Faith, when the Canon runs in this form. [Page 98] If any Man thinks this or that, let him be accursed Siquis hoc aut illud senserit, Anathema sit. Canus ubi supra.. As by this Rule the far greater part of the Propositions defin'd by the Council, are made no Articles of Faith; so those which are made such, are none of the unquestionable Verities, but as much di­sputed as any. For if I mistake not, this word senserit is but twice used by the Council in this Matter, viz. Sess. 5. Chap. 5. This Concupiscence which the Apostle somtimes calls sin, the holy Synod de­clares, the Catholick Church hath never understood to be call'd Sin, because it is truly and properly Sin in the Regenerate; but because it proceeds from Sin, and inclines to Sin. But if any Man shall think the contrary, let him be Anathema Hanc Concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat, sancta Synodus de­clarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere & proprie in renatis peccatum sit; sed quia ex peccato est, & ad peccatum inclinat. Si­quis autem contrarium senserit anathema sit.. And Sess. 25. after the Decrees concerning the Intercession and Invocation of Saints, the Veneration of Images and of Reliques, it is added, If any Man shall teach or think contrary to these Decrees, let him be Anathe­ma Siquis autem his decretis contraria docuerit aut senserit Anathema sit..

However by this Rule, all those Propositions are condemned as Heretical, which are contrary to those Decrees of the Twen­ty Fifth Session, and to the latter part of the Fifth Chapter of the Fifth Session, such (among many others) are these,

And the contrary to these made necessary Points of Faith.

3. Another Rule laid down by Canus, by which it may be known, that a Decree contains Matter of Faith necessary to be believed, is this. If the Sentence of Excommunication be pass'd up­on those who shall contradict (or speak against it) Tertia est, si in eos qui contra­dixerint (not contra senserint) Excommunicationis sententia ipso jure feratur. ibid.. Now by this Rule, not only all those disputable and false propositions be­fore mention'd, but almost all the Doctrines defin'd by the Coun­cil, [Page 99] are made Articles of Faith necessary to be believed; because an Anathema is denounced, not only against those who shall teach or preach, or in publick dispute, defend the contrary Propositions, or say that the Church hath err'd in defining them; but against those who shall but barely say the contrary to any of them.

And is it not strange, that R. H. should overlook this Rule? But he is to be excused, because his design was to put a favoura­ble gloss upon this odious part of the Council: Or we may cha­ritably suppose, that the sight of so many terrible Anathema's, put him into such a Fright, that he forgot himself.

4. The first part of the Fourth Rule, teaches that Doctrine to be necessary, concerning which it is expresly said, That it is firm­ly to be believed by all the Faithful Quarta, si quicquam expresse & proprie a fidelibus firmiter credendum, aut tanquam dogma Fidei Catholicae accipiendum dicatur, vel aliis similibus verbis aliquid esse Evangelio doctrinaeve Apostolorum contrarium. ibid.. By which Rule the whole Doctrine of Justification, Sess. 6. will be found to be de Fide; because the Synod says, Except a Man do faithfully and firmly receive it, he cannot be justified —Post hanc Catholicam de Justificatione Doctrinam, quam nisi quis (que) fideliter, firmiterque receperit, justificari non poterit.. And the last Clause of this Rule is of such latitude, (viz. by other like words some­thing be said to be contrary to the Gospel, or the Doctrine of the Apostles) that it may be extended to almost all the Doctrinal De­crees.

There is another note proposed by Canus, before these Four already mentioned, which is of such large extent, that there are very few, if any of the Definitions of Trent, that will not fall within the compass of it. 'Tis in short this,

5. The Doctrine of Conncils if proposed to the whole Church, if proposed also with an Obligation of believing it, is a necessary point of Faith Ita (que) summorum Pontificum, Con­ciliorum (que) doctrina, si toti Ecclesiae proponatur, si cum obligatione etiam cre­dendi proponatur, tum vero de fidei causa Judicium est.. Now I think no Doctrine defined by the Council of Trent, is limited to any particular Church; or that any one can be named, which a Romanist will say, is not proposed to the [Page 100] Church Universal; in like manner as the Council expresly pro­poses those of Sess. 14. to be believed and held of all Christians Haec sunt quae de Poenitentiae & extremae Unctionis Sacramentis haec San­cta Oecumenica Synodus profitetur & docet, atque omnibus Christi Fidelibus credenda & tenenda proponit.. And that the Synod intended (what in them lay) to oblige all those to whom they were proposed, to believe them, is manifest by those Curses it thunders out against all those who shall dare to contradict them.

I think it is now evident, That by Canus his Rules, all the Ca­nons of the Council of Trent, in which Persons are Anathema­tized barely for affirming or denying such or such a Proposition, do enjoyn assent under Anathema to the contradictory Proposition.

I need not insist upon what R. H. quotes to the same purpose out of Bellarmine; not only because he himself says, it is much what the same; but because Bellarmine himself speaks doubtfully of it, and dares not trust to it. For after he has told us, what words a Council uses when a Decree is proposed as a matter of Faith, he concludes, When they say none of these things, it is not certain that it is a matter of Faith Quando autem nihil horum dicunt, non est certum, rem esse de fide. De Concil. l. a. c. 12.. It is certain it seems, that it is, when a Council uses such words; but it not certain that it is not, when it does not use them.

But be it so; Yet says R. H. Cap. 11. §. 192., The contrary to such Propo­sitions, the maintainers whereof, are Anathematiz'd as Hereticks, is not hereby made by the Council an Article of Faith, in such a sense. 1. As if it were made a Divine truth now, which was not so formerly. The Council was Modest, in not assuming to it self a power of making Divine Truths. But in case they were not Di­vine Truths sormerly, and by consequence they are not such now; (in that the Council did not make those Divine Truths which were not such formerly), did it not arrogate a little too much, in obliging men under a curse, to believe them to be Di­vine Truths? Or 2. As such Divine Truths were not also revealed, [Page 101] and declared to be so formerly, either in the same Expressions, or in its necessary Principles. It will not, I suppose, be pretended, as to most of the Propositions before mention'd, as false or doubt­ful, that they were formerly declared Articles of Faith in the same Expressions. It will then be well worth the knowing, what were those Principles, those necessary Principles, in which these Articles, for instance, were formerly declared, viz. That the Lights, Odours and Vestments used in the Mass, are of Aposto­lical Tradition; That the Church of Rome is the Mother of all Churches. Or 3. As if any such thing were now necessary explicite­ly to be known, or believed absolutely ratione medii, for attaining Salvation, which was not so formerly. Then none of the Propo­sitions before mention'd, are now necessary to be believed, ra­tione medii. Or 4. As if there might not be such a sufficient pro­posal made to us of such a Point formerly, as that from this, we had then an Obligation to believe it. If there was such a sufficient Pro­posal formerly of all Points determin'd by the Council, how came it to pass, that many of them were not known to be Divine Truths; no, not by those Persons who could not be ignorant of such a Proposal, if any such had been? I mean the most Learned Men of that Church; not those who were suspected to have too much kindness for Hereticks, viz. Erasmus, Cassander, Wice­lius, &c. but the stoutest Champions of the Papacy, and those of highest Authority in that Church, next to the Pope himself; such as Cardinal Cajetan, who not long before the Council, taught things plainly contrary to divers of the Trent Decrees. Or 5. As if the Ignorance of such Point before the Definition of a Council, might not be some loss in order to our Salvation. Some loss! A man then it seems might have been saved, who held the contrary, yet so as by fire. That Sin therefore, which was but Venial be­fore the Definition of the Council, became Mortal after it. A­nother new Article, which the Council forgat to define.

But if not in this, nor that, nor t'other sense, in what sense at last, after all these Limitations and Exceptions, are these Points made, by the Councils defining them, Articles of Faith? Why, [Page 102] in no sense; for they were Articles of Faith before; the only dif­ference is, that they were then less necessary, now more necessa­ry to be believed: For by the Councils desining them, they are made necessary to be believed in some degree of necessity, wherein they were not before R. H. S. 192.. But till it be proved, that they were necessary to be believed before, by some better Argument, than barely say­ing so, we shall hardly be perswaded that they are more necessa­ry to be believed since.

But how comes it to be more necessary now than formerly, to believe these new old Articles? By reason of a more evident Proposal of them, when the Council (whose Judgment we are bound to believe and submit to) declares them to be Divine Truths Ibid.. But how come we to be bound to believe and submit to the Judgment of the Council of Trent? Was it a Council of the Catholick Church? No, but of the Roman Church only. Does the Church of England owe any Subjection to the Church of Rome? No, that Church had never any Dominion over her, but what was Usurpt. Had the Church of England any Repre­sentatives in the Council? No, in the Catalogue of the Bishops, one British Bishop is mentioned, (viz. Tho. Goduclus, Bishop of St. Asaph) but he had no Commission from this Church. Have the Decrees and Canons of the Council been since received by the Church of England? No. Will it not then be a hard matter to prove, that the Members of this Church are bound to sub­mit to the Judgment of this Council? And yet we shall readily submit to it; First, In case it be once proved, (which this Au­thor supposes, and takes for granted) that this Council was In­fallible. Or 2ly, Supposing it hath err'd, (which is most notori­ous) That it is our Duty to assent to its Errors as Divine Truths.

What he says afterward of the obligation that lies upon us from the Definition of the Church R. H. S. 193., is the same thing repeat­ed; because by the Church, he means no more than the Roman Church assembled at Trent: And therefore the Church of England [Page 103] in not submitting to her, is no way defective in her Duty of Obe­dience, because she owes no obedience to her.

But are not the Points themselves defined, such as require our acceptance? Because they are such as are some way profitable to our Salvation, some way advantageous to Gods Glory, some way conducible to Christian Edification, to the Peace of the Church, &c. Ibid.. I wish he had told us what way: for it is hard to conceive, that it is any way more profitable to our Salvation, to believe with the Council of Trent, that Concupiscence is not Sin, than to believe with St. Paul that it is Rom. 7. 7.. That it is any way more advantageous to Gods Glory, to believe with the Council, that there is no Divine Precept for the Laity to receive the Eucharist in both Kinds Sess. 21. Cap. 1., than to believe with Pope Gelasius, that it is Sacrilege to divide that Mystery De Consecrat. Dist. 2. c. 12.. That it is any way more conducible to Christian Edification, to believe that the Books of Maccabees are Canonical, than to believe with Pope Gregory the Great, that they are not Greg. Moral. Expos. in Job l. 19. c. 17.. That it is any way more Subservient to the Peace of the Church, to believe that the Church of Rome is the Mother of all Churches, than to believe with the second General Council, that Jerusalem is [...], Concil, Constantinop. [...] Epist. Episcop..

I shall not insist upon the Bull of Pius IV. by which all men are excluded from Salvation, who do not assent not only to all matters defined, and declared by the Council of Trent; but by other General Councils; because, what I undertook is al­ready so fully proved, that it needs no additional Evidence. It may suffice to make three brief Remarks upon R. H's. Discourse in Vindication of it, in his four next Sections.

1. In that he says, The Clause (haec est Fides Catholica extra quam nemo Salvus) is a Declaration of the Pope, and can have no more Authority than other Papal Decrees S. 194.. Thereby plainly [Page 104] intimating that a Papal Decree is of less Authority than that of a general Council; What can be said more absurd, when spoken with respect to the Council of Trent? Since this Council did not only again and again expresly own the Pope for their Lord; —Decrevit integrum negotium ad Sanctissimum Dominum nostrum esse referendum. Decret. Super Pet. Concess. Calicis Sess. 22. but did also humbly Petition him, that he would vouchsafe to con­firm their Decrees In Decreto de fine Con­cilii. Qua propter nos Johannes Cardinalis Moronus. & Ludovicus Cardinalis, Simoneta—humiliter petimus nomine dicti Concilii Oecumenici Tridentini, ut sanctitas vestra dignetur confirmare omnia & singula, quae tam sub. fel. rec. Paulo iii. & Julio iii. quam sub Sanctitate Vestra in eo decreta & definita sunt. Confirmat Concilii., and many other ways acknowledge his Superiority over them, as will afterward more fully appear.

2. He says, Whatever Profession of Faith is made in the Bull, it concerneth not any Person, save those who enter into Religious Or­ders, or into some Ecclesiastical Benefice c. 11. §. 194.. It concerns not any save them to make this Profession; but the Faith professed, so far concerns all, that (if the Pope do not err) no Man can be saved without it. And one part of this Faith is an assent to all the De­finitions of the Trent Council: For the words are these, All other things likewise do I undoubtedly receive and profess, which are de­liver'd, defin'd, and declared by the Sacred Canons and general Councils, and especially by the holy Council of Trent. Then it follows, This true Catholick Faith without which no Man can be saved, which at this time I willingly profess, &c. Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus, & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita & declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simulque contraria omnia, at (que) haereses quascun (que) ab Eccle­sia damnatus & rejectas & anathematizatas, Ego pariter damno, rejicio & anathema­tizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, &c. So that the Faith pro­fessed concerns every Person, as much as his Salvation does; tho' making a Profession of it in the Solemn form here prescribed, concerns Church-men only.

3. He adds, These Persons are not therein obliged to believe the Articles or Canons of Trent, in any other sense than that which we have but now mentioned § 195 n. 1.. That is, in any other sense than that which [Page 105] is false; as has been already shewed in my Reflections upon § 192.

And for that Clause of the Bull (haec vera Catholica fides extra quam nemo salvus esse potest) if we take it in that limited sense, which R. H. himself contends for, viz. That no Person can be saved, who opposeth or denieth assent to any point therein, when sufficiently evdenced to him, to be a Definition of the Church ibid.; this absurdity unavoidably follows, viz. That no Man to whom it is sufficient­ly evidenced, That the Councils of Constance Sess. 4. & 5. and Basil Sess. 2., defined a general Council to be above the Pope; and the Coun­cils of Florence Sess. 25. and Lateran V. Sess. 11. defin'd the Pope to be above a General Council: That the Sixth General Council declared Marriage to be dissolv'd by Heresie, Can. 72. and the Council of Trent declared the contrary, Sess. 24. Can. 5. can be saved unless he assent to these Contradictions. Which we confess it would be our Duty to do, in case he had once proved that these Councils were all infallible; which he can never attempt with any success, till he has first proved, that both parts of a Contradiction may be true.

As a Confirmation of his foregoing Discourse, he adds in the next Section; That the most or chiefest of the Protestant Contro­versies defined or made de Fide in the Council of Trent, were made so by former Councils of equal Obligation; or also were contained in the publick Liturges of the Catholick Church § 198.. By former Coun­cils of equal Obligation, he can mean no less than General Coun­cils, or such at least as the Church of Rome calls so. Now we freely grant without his asking, that many of the Romish Errors both in Doctrine and Worship, were defined and made de Fide by such preceding Councils; such are those I have before mention'd, not as first defined, but as confirmed by the Council of Trent. So that setting aside all those which were aded by Pius IV. and the Trent Fathers, we desire no more [Page 106] to justifie the Reformation made before that Council assembled: But as the Reformation was necessary before, so (to use the words of our Author) it became necessary afterward in a new degree of necessity, by reason of those new Errors defined by the Council. For how many soever the other Protestant Controversies were, de­fined by former Councils; not so much as one of those, I have before instanced in, was so defined. There are no more than three of them, that can be supposed to be comprehended in the Cata­logue R. H. hath given us of the Controversies before defined: 1. That of the Canon of Scripture. 2. That of Confession to a Priest as necessary by the Law of God. 3. That of the true and proper Sacrifice of the Mass.

The First of these, he says, was declared by the Council of Florence. But that's a Cheat first imposed upon the World by Caranza, who mentions this in Pope Eugenius's Decree given to the Armenians Summa Concil: p. 873, 874. Edit. Rothomag. 1633..

2. The great Lateran Council did, I grant, enjoyn Confession to a Priest once a year; but not from the Obligation of any Di­vine Law, that was the Invention of the Council of Trent.

3. He could, it seems, find no Decree of any foregoing Coun­cil, for the Sacrifice of the Mass; but he has found something else, which he hath put in its room, as if it were of as good Au­thority, tho' in plain contradiction to what he asserts about half a Page after; where he tells us, that the Definitions of Coun­cils only requires submittance. But what says he for the Sacri­fice of the Mass? It is, he says, apparent in the Liturgies of the Church preceding the Council of Trent. Is it so? and so is the story of the Seven Sleepers Breviarium ad usum Eccles. Sarisburiens., and many more which are fit for nothing, but to move Indignation or Laughter. And are these all Articles of Faith too? But if all Matters de­livered in the Liturgies of the Church before the Council of Trent, were Matters of Faith; how came the Trent Fathers to think it [Page 107] necessary to correct many things in their Missal and Breviary? And how many Articles of Faith are now lost, by being left out of the reformed Breviary of Pope Pius V. so that how much soever we owe them for their new Articles, we are little behold­ing to them for robbing us of so many old; and those some of them very pleasant ones. And yet the loss is the less, because they were such, as they themselves were ashamed any longer to own to the world.

And yet after all, it is to be considered, That a Sacrifice is one thing, and a true and proper Sacrifice is another. As the Church of England, and, I suppose, every other Protestant Church asserts a Sacrifice; so, I fear, no Liturgy of the Church of Rome can be-produced, preceding the Council of Trent, in which it is called a true and proper Sacrifice.

But R. H. will say, What need of Proof, when this is no more than what seems to be acknowledged by Bishop Bramhall, S. 198.. It would be hard, if after the Romish Artillery is defeated, we should at last be beaten with our own Weapons. But let us hear the Bishop's words. These very Points, saith he, which Pope Pius IV. comprehended in a new Symbol or Creed, were obtruded upon us before by his Predecessors, as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith. This is the only difference, that Pius IV. dealt in gross, his Predecessors by retail; they fashion'd the several rods, and he bound them up into a bundle. Tom. 1. Disc. 3. p. 222. And what then? These Points were obtruded upon us before by Pope Pius's Predecessors, therefore they were defined by former General Councils. Where lies the con­sequence? Were General Councils, Pope Pius his Predeces­sors? Or were the Popes (his Predecessors) general Coun­cils? But be it so, that Popes only, and not Councils, were his Predecessors; yet by the help of an (i. e.) those rods which were fashion'd by Popes, were fashioned by Councils too; For they (viz. the Popes) fashioned the rods, i. e. in the Synods held in the Church before Luthers appearance R. H. c. 11. S. 198.; As if the Pope had not authority to make a rod without a Synod. Notwithstanding [Page 108] the good service this Author hath done his Holiness here in Eng­land, were he at Rome, he would be whipt for his pains with a Rod of the Popes own making, for derogating so much from his Authority, in setting a Synod above him. And yet after all, I think no Romanist will be able to produce any General Council before Luthers time, in which any one of those Rods, I have be­fore mention'd, was fashion'd by the Pope.

But, The Protestants who accuse, seem as guilty R. H. S. 199.. In that the Protestants seem as guilty, it is confess'd that the Council of Trent is really guilty. The Protestants perhaps seem as guilty to him; that they but seem so, will easily be made appear. For whatever new Definitions the Protestants have made in opposition to the new Romish Errors, they do not make them such neeessary Arti­cles of their Faith, as that without the belief of them, no man can be saved. There is nothing in all this Section, nor in all his tedious Discourse upon this subject in another place Disc. 3. c. 7., that looks toward the proof of this, except this passage; As the Roman Church doth anathematize those, who affirm the contrary to her Ar­ticles to be true; so doth the Church of England, in the Synod held under King James, 1603. Can 5. excommunicate those that affirm any of her Articles to be erroneous. How unfaithfully is this repre­sented! does the Church of Rome anathematize those only who affirm the contrary to her Articles to be true? Does she not also expresly anathematize those who think the contrary to several of them Sess. 5. c. 5. Sess. 25. c. 2.? and that in Points, not only denied by Prote­stants, but by some of her own Children? Yea, does she not make all those Propositions, Articles of her Faith necessary to be believ­ed, which are contrary to those propositions to which in the Canons an Anathema is affixed? (as has been already proved out of Canus, whom our Author has made Judge of this Controversy) Yea, does not he himself tell us again and again, That any man who denies Assent to any Point when sufficiently evidenced to him to be a Definition of the Church, is guilty of such a sin, which unre­pented [Page 109] of, ruins Salvation Considerat. S. 192. 194. Disc. 3. S 81. n. 4, 5, 6.? He says indeed, not because it is in it self, for the matter, necessary to be believed; but because it is defined by the Church, which is infallibly assisted. But does not this render the Tyranny of the Roman Church, so much the more intolerable, unless he also prove, that she is in all her Defini­tions so infallibly assisted? Which if he once do, no Protestant, I presume, will ever again call in question any of her Proposals.

But now the Church of England does not require any man to believe that all her decisions, contrary to those of Rome, are ne­cessary Points of Faith; She censures no man for thinking, but on­ly for speaking or acting; and not for saying, That all her Doctrine is not infallibly true, but that any part of it is false; She excom­municates those only, who affirm, that her Articles are erroneous. But now what a wide difference is there, between not saying that they are erroneous, and saying, that they are necessary; ten thou­sand Propositions may be true, which are no necessary Points of Faith.

This is yet further evident, by the subscription required of those who are admitted to holy Orders, or to any Ecclesiastical Benefice. What is it they subscribe to? That the Book of Com­mon-Prayer was compos'd by men infallibly assisted? That the 39 Articles are as necessary as the Apostles Creed? No. But 1. That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully be used Can. 36. Art. 2, 3. Can a thing be spoken with greater Modesty? In what a different stile does the Council of Trent speak of the Canon of the Mass? The sacred Canon is so free from all er­ror, that nothing is contain'd in it, that doth not in the highest degree savour of Holiness —Ita ab omni errore purum, ut nihil in eo contineatur, quod non maxime sanctitatem, ac pietatem quandam redoleat. Sess. 22. c. 4.. 2. That he alloweth the book of Articles of Religion (alloweth only); and that he acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained to be agreeable to the word of [Page 110] God Ibid.; And every thing is agreeable to the Word of God, that is no way contrary to it; and so thousands of Propositions, which are far enough remote from being Articles of Faith.

But now in what a lofty strain does the Subscription to Pius's Creed run? All things delivered, defined and declared by Sacred Canons, Ʋniversal Councils, and especially by the Council of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and confess; and withal I Condemn, Reject and Accurse all things contrary, and all Heresies whatsoever, con­demned, rejected and accursed by the Church. This true Catholick Faith, without which no man can be saved, which at present I freely prosess, and truly hold, I the same N. do Promise, Vow and Swear, most constantly to retain and confess intire and inviolate to the last gasp; and to take care to the uttermost of my Power, that it be Held, Taught and Preached by those that are under me, or such as I shall have charge over in my Office Bulla super forma Jurament Profes. Fidei..

Again, Can. 6. of the Synod held under Charles I. Anno 1640. the form of Subscription runs thus, I A. B. do Swear, that I do approve, and sincerely acknowledg the Doctrine and Discipline esta­blished in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to Salvation. Not that all things contained in them, are neces­sary to Salvation; but that all things necessary to Salvation are contain'd in them. By what hath been said, it plainly appears, That there are other main differences between the two Churches, in making new Definitions, and requiring assent to them, besides those mention'd by R. H. § 201.. And it might as easily have been shew'd, That those very differences are by him not fairly represented.

I have, I think, sufficiently proved, That the Council of Trent, instead of making any Reformation in Faith and Worship, did on the contrary, not only confirm these Corruptions it found, but superadded many to them.

2. Nor did it only cause a greater Deformity in Faith and Worship, but in Discipline too. This will be evident, by shewing these two things: 1. What Corruptions in Discipline were [Page 111] strengthned and confirmed by it. 2. What were created, or introduced anew.

1. What Corruptions in Discipline were strengthned and con­firmed by it. Not that I intend a compleat Enumeration of Par­ticulars, (that would be too tedious a Work) but only to men­tion some of the greater, and so comprehensive of mischief, that as long as they remain, 'tis in vain to hope for any good Refor­mation in Discipline.

1. The Popes Absolute Supremacy, or his Superiority over a General Council (which tho a point of Doctrine, is the chief point of Discipline too). I grant what R. H. says, That this passed not from the Council as any Decree § 155.. But if the Coun­cil be Infallible, Is it not the same thing to acknowledg, That he hath the Administration of the Ʋniversal Church, as they expresly do in one of their Decrees Sess. 25. c. 1. de Reformat. general.? But, suppose there was not a word in any Decree that looked this way; is it not enough that their Actions loudly declared it? Did they not in all cases consult his Holiness as their Oracle? Was any thing almost treated of without his Direction? Was any thing determined with­out his leave? Did they not submit all their Decrees to him, to be either dispensed with, or interpreted to what sense he plea­sed? Does not the whole Conduct of the Council from the be­ginning to the end speak his Superiority? Was it not convened, continued, translated, suspended, dissolved by the Popes com­mand? In a word, did they not in all things behave themselves towards him, as their Lord and Master? And is not a constant Tenor of Actions, a more real owning of his Supremacy, than the largest Recognition in Words only? Does not the Repre­sentative of the Nation more effectually acknowledg the Kings Sovereignty, by coming and going at his command; by acting, or suspending their acting, as he directs; by submit­ting all their Resolves to him, and acknowleding that what­soever they do, is of no force unless confirmed by him; than by [Page 112] barely saying a thousand times over, That he is their Sovereign Lord See Jur. Reflections on Councils, Review of the Counc. of Tr. l. 4. c. 1.?

But there is no need of reasoning for the proof of this; since Cardinal Pallavicino tells us in one place, That the Fathers of the Council did not so much as call it into question De hac autem absoluta Jurisdictione Pontificis tanquam Ecclesiae gubernandae necessaria, [...]epius abunde differ [...]imus. Neque Concilii Patres id in Controversiam [...]adduxerunt, &c. Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 9. c. 16. n. 4.. And in another, That nine parts of ten were for the Popes Prerogative above a Coun­cil l. 24. c. 14. n 12..

2. The Exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the Jurisdiction of Temporal Princes. This Immunity the Council tells us, is by the appointment of God; and therefore Decrees and Commands, That the Sacred Conons, and all General Councils, and other Papal Constitutions in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons, and the Liberty of the Church (all which by this present Decree it renews) ought to be exactly observed by all men Sess 25. Cap. 20..

Now the Immunities of the Clergy, which are said to be esta­blished by General Councils, and Papal Constitutions, are these, and such like: That they take no Oath of Allegiance to their Prince Concil. Lateran. sub Innocent. III. Can. 43.. That they be not cited for any Crime, before any Secular Judg Bulla Pauli III. Idibus Aprilis, 1536.. That they pay no manner of Taxes, without the Popes leave Concil. Lateran. c. 46.. In a word, That they are not subject to the King, but the King ought to be subject to them, according to the Decretal of the same Pope Innocent III. Decretal. l. 1. Tit. 33. Cap. 6.. And is not that Church like to be well governed, and kept in excellent order, where so numerous and considerable a Body of men, as the Clergy, own no Subjection to, or dependance upon their Prince?

3. Another great Abuse confirmed by this Council, is the Ex­communicating of Princes, and depriving them of their Domini­ons. It Decrees, That the Emperor, Kings, Dukes, Princes, Mar­quesses, [Page 113] Earls, and all Temporal Lords, of what Title soever, who shall grant a place for Duelling in their Dominions among Christians, shall eo ipso, be Excommunicated, and Deprived of the Jurisdicti­on and Dominion of the City, Castle or Place, where such a Duel was permitted, if they were held in Fee from the Church; but if from others, then they shall escheat to their Principal Lords Sess. 25. cap. 19.. All Princes whatsoever (Sovereigns not excepted) are excom­municated; all Feudatary Princes are moreover deprived of the Dominion of the Place where the Duel is fought.

But we shall more fully understand what Liberty this Coun­cil hath taken to Excommunicate Princes, if we consult some of those General Councils and Papal Constitutions, which in favour of Churchmen it renews and confirms. Pope Bonisace VIII. Ex­communicates by his Decretal, Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Counts, Ba­rons, and all other of whatsoever Preeminence, Condition or State, that shall impose any Collection, Taxes, Tenths, &c. upon Church­men, without the Popes leave; together with all Ecclesiastical Per­sons that shall pay them Decretal. 6. l. 3. Tit. 23. cap. Clericis Laicos.. Which Decree, tho as to some in­tents revoked by Clement V. Cle­mentin. l. 5. Tit. 17 cap. Quoniam, was intirely renewed by Leo X. in the fifth Lateran Council Sess. 9.. And Clement V. in the room of it, renewed two other Decrees more ancient: One of Pope Alexander III. the other of Pope Innocent III. which tho in some matters less Scandalous, yet as to the point I am now upon, were in effect the same. That of Innocent was passed in the great Lateran Council, in which were Twelve hundred Fathers, and by it, not only Consuls and Governors of Cities, but others also, who shall presume to burden Ecclesiasticks with Tolls, Taxes, &c. are excommunicated Concil. Lat. Sub. Inno­cent. III Can. 46. Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 49. c. 7.. And that the word others, ex­tends to Kings and Princes, we are taught by no less Authority than the fifth Lateran Council Sess. 9., which is another of those which the Council of Trent commands to be observed: Now this [Page 114] Lateran Council having promised, That no Power is either by Di­vine or Human Laws given to Laymen over Churchmen; it inno­vates all the Constitutions of foregoing Popes, made in favour of Ecclesiastical Liberty, and inforces all the Penalties contain'd in Bulla Caenae Domini: And particularly it Excommunicates Kings and Princes, who shall impose any Taxes upon Churchmen, or receive any from them, tho they pay them willingly Ibid..

I might instance in many more, but it is needless in a matter so notorious. The Bulla Coenoe Domini, as it was published by Paul III. (without those Additions which have been since made) is it self alone an irrefragable Evidence of the Judgment of this Council, as to the excommunicating of Kings: For in that Bull, all secular Powers are excommunicated, who call any Ecclesiastical Persons to their Tribunals, Courts, &c. Bulla Pauli III. Idib Apr. 1536. Bullarii Rom Tom. 2.. And this Bull was pub­lish'd before the Convocation the Trent Council, and twenty seven years before the Decree mentioned was made by the Council, and therefore was confirmed by it: And if any Prince stands a year excommunicated, he is judged a Schismatick and Heretick; and what punishment he is then liable to, I need not tell you.

4. Another gross Abuse confirm'd by this Council, is giving the Pope the Election into Bishopricks in foreign Dominions. As the form of Examination of Persons fit to govern the Churches in every Province, is to be approved by the Pope; so when the Examination is finish'd, it is to be reduced into a publick Instru­ment, and sent to him, to be examined by four Cardinals, and proposed in Consistory; that his Holiness having full knowledg of the whole matter, and of the Persons, if by the Examination and Inquisition made, they shall be found fit, he may out of them profitably provide for the Churches Sess. 24. Cap 1..

5. The reserving of all such weighty criminal causes of Bi­shops, as deserve Deposition and Deprivation, to the Popes Cog­nizance and Decision. And if the Cause be such, as it must neces­sarily [Page 115] be tried out of the Court of Rome, that it be committed to none, except such Metropolitans and Bishops as the Pope shall chuse: But that the Commission be special, and sealed with the Popes own Seal, and that he never give them any more Power, than barely to take Instruction of matter of Fact, and to make the Process, which they shall forthwith send to the Pope; the definitive Sentence being reserved to his Holiness Sess. 24. Cap. 5.. Now as this, and the Abuse next foregoing, are both intolera­ble Usurpations upon the Rights of Princes; so they make the Bishops in the whole Christian Church, intirely dependent on the Pope; He may set them up, and pull them down at his Plea­sure. And is not the Universal Church like to be well governed, when all the Bishops are at the Popes beck?

6. The Exemptions of Monastick Orders from the Jurisdiction of Bishops. This Abuse had been complain'd of long before, as the great bane of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and the chief cause of the lewd and scandalous Lives of the Monks; and the Reforma­tion of it was demanded of the Council by the Emperors Am­bassadors Soav. p. 513.. And what did the Council do in order to the re­moval of this grand Abuse? Did they abolish all Exemptions al­ready granted, and forbid the granting of any more for the fu­ture? No, they ordained indeed, That no Secular Clerk, nor Re­gular, dwelling out of his Monestry, should be exempted (if he offended) from being visited, punished and corrected by the Ordinary of the place, As Delegate of the Apostolick See Sess. 6. cap. 3.. That the Chapters of Cathedrals, and other greater Churches, by no Exemptions, Customs, Oaths, or Agreements, should be freed from being visited and corrected by their Bishops, and other greater Prelats, by Apostolical Authority Sess 6. c. 4.. That the Ordi­nary of the place, shall every year by the Apostolical Authority, visit all Churches, however exempted Sess. 7. cap. 8.. That all Secular Clerks notwithstanding any Exemptions, Declarations, Customs, [Page 116] Oaths, Agreements, shall as oft as there is need, be corrected and chastized for their Excesses and Faults, by the Bishops resi­dent in their Churches, as Delegates of the Apostolick See Sess. 14. cap. 4.. That the Monastries held in Commendam, the Abbies, Priories, &c. not tied to a Regular observance, shall be visited by the Bishops, as Delegates of the Apostolick See Sess. 21. cap. 8.. But for those Monasteries and other Religious houses, in which they are tied to Regular Observance, the Bishops shall provide by Paternal Admo­nition, that the Superiors observe their Regular Constitutions, and cause them to be observed by those that are under them; and if within six months after Admonition, they do not visit and correct them, then the Bishops, as Delegates of the Apostolick See, may proceed to Visitation and Correction.

This is (as I take it) the sum of what the Council hath de­creed concerning Exemptions. In which observe, 1. That the Bi­shops have nothing to do with any Regulars of what Order soever, who do not dwell out of their Religious houses, in case their Superiors take care, that they observe the Rules of their Order: By which, vast numbers of men are left at liberty to defie the Bishops, and to create to them all manner of Molestation. 2. In case their Superiors neglect their Duty, the Bishops cannot pro­ceed to visit, till they have first paternally admonished them; and their six months further neglect, after such Admonition. But 3. That which I chiefly observe is; That not only no Monaste­ries, whether Regular, or not Regular, but not so much as any Churches or Chapters, are otherways subjected to the Bishops, than as they are the Popes Delegates, they act purely by a Power derived from him, which he may therefore either revoke, or contract at his Pleasure. A fine Sham! Are not the Bishops high­ly promoted? They may now visit and correct Churches, Chap­ters, Colleges, Monasteries, Abbies, Priories, Provostships: Yes; so far, and so often as the Pope gives them leave.

We have seen that the Trent Council was so far from making any real Reformation in Discipline, that it not only took no effe­ctual course for the removal of any Abuse, but on the contrary confirmed many; and those such as were of all others most pregnant with mischief. And yet this is not the worst; for as it confirmed the old, so

2. It introduced many new Errors in matters of Discipline (as well as Doctrine) by which the Popes Tyranny was enlarged, and advanced to a higher pitch than ever. Several of which have been already mention'd, and therefore I shall not now in­large upon them. As

1. The Decree of Proponentibus Legatis pass'd in the first Ses­fion under Pius Sess. 17., That nothing should be proposed to be treated of in Council, but by the Popes Legats. A Priviledg ne­ver granted to any Pope, by any foregoing Council.

2. The making of all their Decrees with the Reservation of the Popes Authority Sess. 7. & Sess. 25. cap. 21., (as has been before shew'd). Another new Prerogative conferr'd on his Holiness.

3. The giving the Pope a Power to expound their Decrees (as we have also before heard) in case any difficulty arise about the sense of them, or a necessity of Declaration Sess. 25., which was ne­ver granted by any former Council. They might as well have left it to him to make them, as they in effect did, for nothing was decreed without first asking his leave.

4. The imposing on Provincial and Diocesan Synods an Oath of true Obedience to the Pope Sess. 25. cap. 2., another new piece of Tyranny; for tho the Bishops at their Consecration fomerly took an Oath of Fidelity to him; yet never before was any Oath impo­sed upon them, when met together in Provincial and Diocesan Synods.

5. Usurping the Rights of Bishops, by making them the Pope Delegates in matters which belong to their Ordinary Jurisdi­ction [Page 118] Episcoporum potestas non solum non aucta, sed ex ea multum delibatum est; cum ea potestas quae ipsorum propria est, & ex Dei instituto iis attributa, iis tanquam a sede Apostolica delegatis concedatur, Thuan. l. 6. c. 2. Review of the Council of Trent. l. 6. c. 2.. Whereas anciently every Bishop governed his own Diocess, without Dependence upon, or Subordination to the Pope; by the Laws of Trent, they can do almost nothing, unless by Delegation from him. May Bishops provide Vicars to supply the room of such Clergymen as are dispensed with for non-resi­dence, and assign them a competent Salary out of the Fruits? Not by their own Authority, but as they are Delegates of the Apostolick See Sess. 6. cap. 2.. May they depute Assistants to unlearned and ignorant Parish Priests? They may, as Delegates of the Aposto­lick See Sess. 21. cap. 6.. May they take upon them to Examine a Notary, and if they find him unfit, forbid him the Exercise of his Office in Ecclesiastical matters? Yes, but as Delegates of the Apostolick See Sess. 22. cap. 10.. But surely in matters which belong to Visitation, and the Correction of Manners, the Bishops may of themselves ordain and execute those things which they judg necessary for the good of their People, and for the profit of the Church: No, but only as Delegates of the Apostolick See Sess. 24. cap. 10. This is the en­largement of the Bishops Power, which R. H. so much boasts of Considerat. on the Council of Trent, c. 12. § 211.

Many more Instances of like nature might be produced, but these may suffice to shew how palpably untrue that Assertion of Pallavicino's is, viz. That there is not so much as one Syllable in this Council for any new Emolument to the Pope In hoc Concilio ne una quidem conspicitur syllaba pro novo Pontificis Emolumento. Ap­parat. ad hist. c. 10. n. 3.. And how un­justly the same Cardinal charges Soave with falsity for saying, That this Council hath so established the Popes Power, that it was never so great, nor so solidly founded Ibid.. And likewise, that R. H. had as little reason to carp at a like passage of Dr. Stilling fleet's, viz. That which was intended to clip the Wings of the Court of Rome, [Page 119] had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it Considerat. c. 12. § 103.. For as all those Decrees, that might otherwise have retrenched their Exorbitances, were themselves so clipt by Exceptions or Restri­ctions, or by some other Counter Decree, that they could effect nothing; so many other Decrees were made, by which the In­terest of the Pope and his Court were highly promoted; parti­cularly this last mention'd, of deriving all Jurisdiction from the Pope, by making all other Bishops his Vicars and Commissaries. And therefore no wonder, that his Holiness was transported with Joy, and gave immortal Thanks, that the Council had such an happy Issue Pallav. l. 24. c. 9. n. 5.. For (to use the words of Du Ranchin) you shall never read of any Council that was so much to the Popes Ho­nour and good liking as this. Amongst so many Bulls and Constitu­tions which have come forth since, you shall scarce find any which doth not make mention of this Council, which doth not name it with Honour, which doth not express an earnest desire of the observation of it, and which doth not in some sort confirm it. Among all the Councils that ever were, no compare with this for Reverence and Re­spect. It hath quite defaced and extinguished the memory of all the rest. It is their Minion, their Favourite, their Champion, their Arsenal, their Bulwark, their Protector, their Creature, and good Reason why they should make so much of it Review of the Council of Trent, l. 1. c. 1..