THE Necessity of Reformation, With respect to the Errors and Corruptions OF THE CHURCH of ROME.  
The Second Part.  
Wherein is showed, The Vanity of the Pretended Reformation of the Council of Trent; and of R. H's Vindication of it; in his Fifth Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies.  
IMPRIMATUR:  
Martii 6. 1685/ 6. Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis.  
LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1686.   

The CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I. NO hope of Reformation from the CHURCH of ROME. 2  
CHAP. II. The Authority of Father Paul's History of the Council of TRENT asserted. 29 

Sect. 1. The Author's Sufficiency for the Work, and his Sincerity in performing it. Ibid.  
Sect. 2. The Credit of this History so fan from being overthrown, that it is rather established by those that endeavoured to destroy it. 68    
CHAP. III. The Vanity of the pretended Reformation of the Council of TRENT. 61 

Sect. 1. In those Matters in which a Reformation was most necessary, not the least Reformation made, or so much as pretended. 62  
Sect. 2. In those Matters in which a mighty Reformation was pretended, little, or rather none, was really made. 68  
Sect. 3. Instead of Reformation, the Council produced a greater Deformation: What it found bad, it left in many respects worse. 91      

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. in Not. l. 1. read Fascic. rerum expetend. P. 9 Not. l. 2. r. Meritorum. P. 10. Not. l. 2. r. exoptata. P. 12. Not. l. 3. r. cognoscitur. P. 16. l. 22. for too, r. to. P. 19 Not. l. 5. r. Luitprand. P. 23. l. 10. blot out of, l. 22. put as before has, l. 30. r. generality. P. 38. Not. l. 1. r. Not. P. 60. l. 18. r. Mufottus. P. 64. l. 9 for he proceeds, r. they proceed. P. 69. in Not. l. 3. r. prurientes. P. 70. l. 8. r. infallible. P. 71. in Not. for at, r. atque. l. 4. r. Apostolicae. P. 77. in Not. l. 1. ●. obedientia. P. 79. l. 22. r. King. P. 80. l. 4. after composed, add as. P. 81. in Not. l. 1. r. egregium. P. 83. l. 5. for (z) r. (y). l. 11. for (a) r. (z). l. 18. for (b) r. (a). l. 19 r. prohibits. l. 26. for (c) r. (b). P. 100 l. 30. after As, put in if, and for Truths, r. Truth.   

The Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome.  
THIS will be manifest to all unprejudiced Persons, by the proof of these Six PROPOSITIONS.  
Prop. I. That the Church of Rome is not only fallible, but had actually erred.  
Prop. II. That her Errors were not slight, and in Matters of small Moment; but so gross and enormous, when the Reformation was set on foot, that there was a necessity of reforming them.  
Prop. III. That no hope was left, that the Church of Rome would either reform these Errors in herself, or give consent to the Reformation of them in any other Church that communicated with her.  
Prop. IU. That every Particular National Church, had a Right to reform itself without her leave.  
Prop. V That this Right of the Church of England in particular, was unquestionable; And therefore as a necessary Conclusion from these Premises.  
Prop. VI That the Church of England was indispensably obliged to reform herself.  
The two first of which Propositions having been already proved, in a foregoing Discourse, the third comes next in order to be treated of.  

CHAP. I. No hope of Reformation from the CHURCH of ROME.  
PROP. III. That no hope was left, that the Church of Rome would either reform these Errors in herself, or give consent to the Reformation of them in any other Church that communicated with her therein.  
Which though it contains these two Propositions;  
1. That there was no hope that she would reform those Errors in herself.  
2. That there was no hope that she would consent to the Reformation of them in any other Church that communicated with here therein: Yet because the latter of ●hese will plainly follow from the proof of the former, I ●hall therefore insist upon that only.  
Tho her Corruptions were numerous, and many of them in their Nature and Consequence very dangerous; yet if she could have been persuaded to purge them out, and return to her Primitive Purity, the Protestants would have accepted the Reformation from her Hands, and have hearty thanked her for it. But alas, there was no hope left, that she would ever be cleansed; but the greatest reason to fear, that She that was filthy, would be filthy still. As will be manifest by the following Considerations. For;  
1. Can there be any just ground of hope, that she would ever reform, after she had obstinately refused, and shown herself incorrigible, notwithstanding those frequent Complaints, that for many Ages had been made against her Corruptions, by many great Men, both Ecclesiastical and Secular, of her own Communion? Passing over those that are more remote, I shall take notice of the Complaints of later Ages only.  
In the twelfth Century, the Emperor Frederic I. 
(a) Naucleri Chronograph. vol. 2. generat. 39 p. 849. Sigon. de Regno. Ital. l. 14. . Hen. II. King of England, 
(b) Matth. Paris in Hen. II. An. 1164, 67, 68 . And Lewis VII. King of France, 
(c) Matth. Paris ad Anno 1146. . St. Bernard, 
(d) Serm. 6. in Psal. 90. Serm. 33. in Cantic. . Honorius of Austun, 
(e) De Praedest. & lib. Arbit. Dialog. inter opera Cassand. & in Biblioth. Patr. tom. 15. . John Sarisburiensis Bishop of Chartres, 
(f) Policrat. l. 6. c. 24. l. 8. c. 17. & in aliis locis. . Petrus Blesensis  of Bath, 
(g) Epist. 5, 8. & in multis aliis. . Arnulphus a famous Preacher at Rome, 
(h) Platin. in Vita Honorii II.  made grievous Complaints against the Tyrannies, Usurpations, and Abuses of the Pope and his Clergy.  
In the 13th Century the same Complaints were continued and increased by the Emperor Frederic II. 
(i) Aventin. Annal. Bojor. l. 7. p. 531, 532, 542. Bas. 1580. . Maenardus Count of Tirol, 
(l) Avent. Annal. Bojor. l. 7. p. 577. . Probus Bishop of Toul, 
(m) l. 7. p. 572, 573. . Everhard Archbishop of Saltzburg, 
(n) l. 7. p. 546. 547. . Rob. Bishop of Lincoln, 
(o) Matth. Paris in Hen. III. ad An. 1253, 1254. . And Peter Cassiodore, 
(p) Epist. de Tyrannide Pontif. Rom. apud Goldast. vol. 1. .  
In the 14th Century, Ludovicus Bavarus the Emperor, with the consent of the States of the Empire, proclaimed the Pope to be the Arch-Heretick, and the Antichrist which sat in the Temple of God, 
(q) Aventin. Annal. Bojor. l. 7. p. 610, 611, 612. . Edw. III. and Rich. II. Kings of England, not only complained, but made severe Laws against his Encroachments, 
(r) 27. Edw. III. c. 1. & 25. Edw. 3. 16. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. & 13. R. 2. c. 3. See Coke upon these Statutes, Institut. part. 3. c. 54. . And many of prime note among the Clergy, such as William Occam (their invincible Doctor) 
(s) Disputat. Sup. Potest. Praelat. Eccles. atque Princip. terrar. Commiss. Goldast. vol. 1. . Leopold Bishop of Bamberg, 
(t) Aventin. l. 7. p. 629. . Durand Bishop of Menda, 
(u) Tract. de modo Generalis. Concil. Celebrand. partis 3. tit. 1. 27, 28, 29. & passim in aliis titulis, . Marsilius of Milan, 
(w) Defence. Pacis, pars 2. c. 23, 24, 25, 27. & per totam. . Francis Petrarch, Archdeacon of Parma, 
(x) Epist. de Jur. Imp. Rom. & Injur. Pap. Rom. Ejusque Asseclar. Goldust. Monarch. tom. 2. p. 1345. . The Divines of Paris and Bononia, made doleful outcries against the Rapines and Oppressions, the Pride and Covetousness, the Luxury and Sensuality of the Bishop and Court of Rome.  
In the 15th Century, the Emperor Sigismond, 
(y) Goldast. Constit. Imper. p. 1. p. 146. . Petrus de Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray, 
(z) De Emendat. Eccles. Patrib. olim. oblat. in Council Constant. . John Gerson Chancellor of Paris, 
(a) Serm. de Tribulat. ex defect. Ecclesiast. Regim. & Serm. coram. P. P. Benedict. & Alexand. . Nic. de Clemangis Archdeacon of Bayeux, 
(b) Tract. de corrupt. Statu Eccles. & de Reparat. & Ruina Eccles. . Jacob. de Paradiso, 
(c) Collect. de Sept. Statib. Eccles. . And many more made dismal Complaints of Corruptions and Abuses, and vehemently called for the Reformation of them.  
And what was the Fruit of all these Complaints and Outcries? Was any Grievance Removed? any Abuse reform? No, not so much as one; but rather on the contrary, the Corruptions were daily increased and multiplied, like an impetuous and irresistible Torrent, they swollen the higher, by how much the more they were opposed.  
Obj. It will perhaps be said, that these Complaints were made against the Corruptions of the Court, not of the Church of Rome.  
Ans. 'Tis true; That many of them were more immediately leveled against the Pope and his Court, those especially made by Kings and Emperors, who chief concerned themselves in vindicating their Rights, against the Usurpations of the Court of Rome: But many more, against those Corruptions which generally obtained in the Church. And the truth is, the Corruptions of the Court cannot be confined to themselves, but derive themselves into, and overspread the Church; so that it can hardly be avoided, but that in proportion to the corruption of the one, will be that of the other, (as will appear in the sequel of this Discourse.)  
2. The Reformation of the Church of Rome was yet more hopeless, because not only these, but many other Attempts made toward it, had by the Pope and his Court been already defeated. How earnestly did the Emperor Sigismond endeavour, that a Reformation might be wrought by the Council of Constance? And many Decrees were passed by the Council in order to it, 
(d) Sess. 4, 5, 39, 40. . And what was the Event? Did any Reformation follow thereupon? Not the least; the Decrees were all eluded by the Popes 
(e) Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 2. c. 3. p. 261. . Which Gerson reflecting upon, makes this Remark; I see, says he, That a Reformation will never be made by a Council, without the presidency of such a Guide, as is well affected toward it, 
(f) Richer. ibid. . And that he was not in this a false Prophet, is too manifest by the like fruitless event of succeeding Councils. None ever more endeavoured the reforming of Abuses, and the restoring the Church to its Rights and Liberties, than the Council of Basil; but to as little purpose as the Council of Constance had done before: For when the Pope saw what they were resolved upon, he broke the Synod in pieces, by translating it first to Ferrara, and then to Florence (whither a great part of them refused to go, and declared those that went a Conventicle of Schismatics) and then not a word more was heard of Reformation 
(g) Richer l. 3. p. 481. : And though some good Constitutions and Decrees were made by it; yet so far was the Pope from putting them in execution, that he rejected them all, and made it his endeavour to punish those who observed them; as Tho. de Orbellis, the Nuncio of the Council of Basil, told the Council of the Church of France assembled at Bourges 
(h) Verum magnus dolor in Ecclesiam irruit, cum ille qui primus sacros Canones exequi debebat, & caeteris viam salutis ostendere, omnia haec Constituta & Decreta (quantum ipsum concernebant) rejiciebat; ita ut nullum unquam Decretum Concilii concernens Reformationem, in efficacem executionem ponere compertus est; quinimo condemnationes censurarum & poenarum in eos proferre conabatur, qui ea Decreta observabant. Richer l. 3. p. 605, 606. .  
The Fathers of the second Pisan Council, decreed to reform the Church; but before they could put their Decree in execution, that Council was dissolved by Julius TWO, who pronounced them a pack of Schismatics, and threatened Damnation to all those who adhered to them; and by a Council of his own choosing, summoned to Rome, reprobated and disannulled all their Acts 
(i) Sleidan. Comment. l. 2. .  
When the Princes and States of Germany would no longer be put off with words, but in case the Pope would not effectually set himself to Reform, threatened to take the Work into their own hands 
(k) Fascic, rerum expétend. ac fugiend. fol. 188. ; the utmost that could be obtained from Campegius the Pope's Legate, was such a light Reformation of the Inferior Clergy, as would have proved a Remedy worse than the Disease. As for the Abuses of the Court of Rome, (the Source from which all others derived themselves) he would yield nothing; but when they began to discourse of them, he either said, that it was Heresy to reprehend them, or that he referred them to the Pope himself 
(l) Soave 's Hist. of the Council of Trent, l. 1. p. 32. printed at Lond. 1640. : Since therefore the Heads of the Church of Rome had withstood, and defeated so many Attempts for Reformation, he must needs be a Man of a sanguine temper, who could still hope that he should at length see her reform.  
3. There was yet greater reason to despair of ever seeing this; because after all these Complaints and Endeavours, her Corruptions were so far from being removed, that they were indeed confirmed, rendered more fixed and immovable than they were before. That Patient, doubtless, is desperate, who is made more sick by the most proper means of Cure. This was plainly the case of the Church of Rome; by the Medicines applied, her Disease was strengthened, and became more obstinate. For in the last Lateran Council, that nothing might remain to give check for the future, to the Exorbitancies of the Pope and his Court, the pragmatic Sanction was abrogated, and so much of the Council of Basil, as set Bounds to their lawless Tyrannies; the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII, was renewed, 
(m) Sess. 11.  which determins it necessary to Salvation, for every human Creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome; and the Pope's Supremacy set so high, that none might say unto him, what dost thou?  
It is true, this Council was summoned by Julius TWO, upon pretence of reforming the Church; but that which he really intended was, to defeat the Reformation decreed by the Council of Pisa, as Du Ranchin tells us 
(n) Review of the Council of Trent, l. 4. c. 7. : And that this was no uncharitable Surmise, is sufficiently evident by the Event. For what one Act can be mentioned of Julius, during those five Sessions he lived, that so much as looked toward a Reformation? And when after some Years Travel, by the Midwifery of Pope Leo X, something called a Reformation, was brought forth; what was it else, but a Reformation from better to worse? For as it takes no notice of any Corruption in Faith or Worship, but supposes them entirely sound: So,  
1. Not one in ten of those Abuses in other matters, which were most complained of, are so much as mentioned; as will appear to any Man who will be at the pains to compare it with the Grievances; which not long after were presented by the Princes of Germany; to Pope Adrian VI, 
(o) Fascit rerum expetiend. ac fugierd. fol. 177, 178.  and with the Articles of Reformation presented by the select Council to Paul III. 
(p) Richer. l. 4. p. 136.  and with other Catalogues of Abuses concerning Ecclesiastical Persons and Things, published long before, by Petrus de Alliaco, Gerson, and other Members of their own Church. As for those Abuses which it meddles with, what are they for the greater part, but such as were in matters of small moment? How triflng is all the Reformation that concerned the Cardinals, who above all others (his Holiness only excepted) stood in need of being reform?  
2. Several of those Abuses it would seem to abolish, it does it with such Reserves and Exceptions, as do in truth give Protection to them. For instance, In the first Decree, which is ushered in with such a solemn Preface, that if a Man read no further, he will conclude, that certainly some great Matter follows: and so indeed it is, as to the matter of the Decree; but then an Exception is added, which renders it utterly insignificant. For the Decree is, That Patriarchal, Metropolitical and Cathedral-Churches, and Monasteries, shall be disposed, not at the instance of any Person by way of Commendam; but shall be provided with such Bishops and Abbots, as are of suitable Age, Learning, and Gravity of Manners: Hitherto well; but see now the Exception: Unless it shall be thought good, that with respect to the profit of the Churches, they be conferred upon Men otherwise qualified, upon the account of their Prudence, Nobility, Probity, Experience, or for that they have been Ancient Courtiers, and deserved well of the Apostolic See 
(q) Nisi ratione utilitatis Ecclesiarum, Prudentiae, Nobilitatis, Probitatis, Experientiae, atque curalitatis antiqae cum competenti literatura, & in sede Apostolica veritorum, aliter visum fuerit faciendum. Sess. 9 in Decret. Reformat. . Is not the Mockery now manifest? Does not the Exception pull down, as much as the Decree sets up? Was not the Church (notwithstanding this solemn Decree) like to be provided with excellent Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarches, when it was sufficient qualification, that they were Noblemen, ancient Courtiers with a competency of Learning, or such as had done the Pope good Service? To as good purpose was it decreed, That no Man should be dispensed with to hold more than two incompatible Benefices, without a great and urgent Cause 
(r) Bulla Reformat. Sess. 9 . For when the Pope has a mind to gratify a Favourite, will he not easily find such a Cause? Beside, That a manifest Abuse is hereby established, viz. Dispensations without any urgent Cause, to as many as the Pope pleases, to hold two such Benefices as are incompatible.  
3. Instead of the Removal, some very pernicious Corruptions and Abuses were by express Law established. I shall instance in one, viz. The Exemption of Churchmen (both as to their Persons and Purses) from the Jurisdiction of all Secular Powers 
(s) Reformat. Curiae & alior. ; which is utterly inconsistent with Civil Government, and hath been one main Cause of those numberless Treasons, Seditions and Rebellions, in which that Church hath the preeminence of others.  
4. As for some other Decrees which respect Manners and Discipline, namely, That Clergymen especially should live chastely; and that they who live otherwise, should be severely punished according to the Canons: That the Constitutions of former Popes against Simonists should be renewed 
(t) Ibid. . Can they be otherwise than insignificant, as long as the causes of these Corruptions were still maintained, and no provision made for putting the Canons in execution? For the Pope to talk of reviving the ancient Canons, without first reforming his own Court, from whence the neglect and contempt of these Canons mainly proceeded, was as absurd, as to go about to cleanse the Stream, while the Fountain remains polluted. And that de facto, the Censures decreed by this Council, were for the most part never executed, is confessed even by the Bigot Carranza 
(u) Summa Concilior. p. 897. .  
I need say no more; Nor was it indeed needful to say so much, since I might have spared the pains of proving that, which was so notorious by the event. I appeal to the Romanists themselves, whether Corruptions and Abuses did not more abound; and whether Complaints against them were not more loud and clamorous, after the celebration of this Council, than before? A worthy Reformation! so palpable was the Cheat, that divers of their own Church speak of it with Indignation and Abhorrency. This, says the Doctor frequently quoted, is that excellent Reformation, so earnestly desired by all Christian Nations for 200 years; or to speak more truly, this is the Cover and Daub for the Abuses of the Roman Court 
(w) Haec illa est eximia & tantopere à Christianis Nationibus ducentis abhinc annis exoptatat Reformatio; vel ut verius dicamus, abusuum Curiae-Romanae incrustatio atque involutio. Richer. l. 4. p. 26. . And speaking again of this Council, he represents it, as that which might make any Man despair of ever seeing a good Reformation: For since, says he, Diseases, Injuries and Corruptions flow thence, from whence Medicine and wholesome Laws ought to proceed; who would not abandon all hope of the public Safety, and of the Restauration of the Church, to a better state 
(x) Cum igitur morbi, injuriae atque corruptelae illinc, unde medicina juraque salutaria debebant promonare, scaturiunt; quotusquisque & de Ecclesiae in melius instauratione, & de publica salute spem omnem non merito abjiciat? l. 4. p. 117, 118. ? What those Diseases, Injuries, and Corruptions were, which flowed from this Council, and how grievous and intolerable, the same Author largely represents, in many foregoing pages. Of the same Judgement was Beatus Rhenanus, who in the year 1522 (about five years after the ending of this Council) thus concludes his Invective against the Pope's Usurpations: Farewell, Christian Reader; and together with me lament the Discipline of the Church, daily declining to the worse 
(y) Vale, Christiane Lector, & Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae ad deteriora prolabantis quotidie (quoniam aliter nihil fere restat) communibus mecum suspiriis ingemisce. Goldast. Monarch. S. Rom. Imp. vol. 1. p. 647. .  
Nor can any Man think it strange, that this Council produced no better Fruits, if he considers, That those few Bishops of which it consisted, were purely the Pope's Creatures 
(z)— In qua vix alium, quam Aulicum Episcopum invenias. Richer. l. 4. p. 14. Haec Synodus ex solis Curiae Romanae Ass●clis conflata est: p. 19 , and that nothing was decreed by it, but what was before decreed, and made ready for their hands, by the Pope and his Cabinet Council 
(a) Hic autem solus Papa tanquam absolutus Monarcha, illa quae domi in secreto & oligarchico Concilio, etc. P. 24. item l. 2. p. 187. : so that nothing was synodically discussed and concluded, but all things determined by the Pope's Omnipotent Fiat 
(b)— Nulla est Sessio in qua aliquid Synodice conditum fuérit, sed cuncta despotico Imperio edicta & conclusa sunt; etiam a Julio & Leone x. armatis, p. 48, 49. ; I say Omnipotent, because no less than all Power both in Heaven and Earth, was in this Council blasphemously ascribed to him 
(c) Sess. 9 p. 117. Bin. Edit. 1636. . No Man, I say, that considers these things, will much wonder, that matters were so carried. For to proceed:  
4. Who could hope that the Pope would consent to a Reformation in good earnest (without whose Consent to suppose it could be wrought in the Church of Rome, is as absurd, as to suppose that the Body should move one way, and the Head another); Who could so much as dream that the Pope would ever consent to that, which was so directly opposite to his dearly beloved Inclinations and Interests? The Pope was now quite another Man from what he was in the beginning; from a Servant of Servants, he was now exalted to be King of Kings, and Lord of the World 
(d) Regum Rex, & Orbis Terrarum Monarcha. : All Kings and Emperors were become his Subjects, or rather his Slaves 
(e) 
Quod solius Papae pedes omnes Principes deosculentur. Dictat. 9 Greg. VII. Bin. tom. 7. part 1. p. 362, Baron. Annal. Anno 1076. N. 32,  
Innocent. III. told the Emperor of Constantinople, That the Pope is as much greater than the Emperor, as the Sun is greater than the Moon. Quanta est inter  & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognosciter. Decretal. l. 1. de Majorit. & Obed. c. 6. Innocent. iv reckoned Kings no better than the Pope's Slaves. Matth. Paris Hist. in Hen. 3. ad An. 1257.  ; and he such an absolute Sovereign over them, that he might give away their Kingdoms at his Pleasure. He was to be acknowledged the alone Fountain of Honour, and all the Wealth of the World was to flow to his Exchequer, to maintain the Pomp and Granduer of his Court. Whereas Humility and Charity, Poverty, and Patience, and Suffering, were his ancient Characters; he was now known and distinguished from other Mortals, by his numerous and splendid Retinue, by the Prostration of Kings at his Feet, and by setting his Feet on their Necks; by exalting himself above all that is called God, or worshipped. In a word, Pride and Ambition, Covetousness and Rapine, Tyranny and Oppression, were those Graces in which the Pope was become more excellent than his Neighbours.  
For as if these were now his inseparable Adherents, how meek, and humble, and mortified a Man soever he was before, when he came to the Popedom, or to approach so near as to be within the hope of it, he was presently transformed into a Man of another Spirit. How zealous against the Usurpations of the Roman Court and Bishop was Nicholas Cusan, when Pope Eugenius first attempted to dissolve the Council of Basil? 
(f) Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 3. c. 6. p. 477.  But when he was promoted to be a Cardinal, his Eyes were so dazzled with the shine of his red Hat, that the Pope seemed a Person of a quite different Character from what he formerly was: He that before was not only falliable, but had so grossly erred, (at least in Practice) that he was thought above all others to stand in need of being reformed, was now become such an  Judge, that no Appeals might be made from him, 
(g) Invect. Greg. Heimb. .  
There had been no Pope for some hundreds of Years, from whom more good might in reason have been expected, than from Pius II. who while he was Aeneas Silvius, and unacquainted with the Arts of the Roman Court, had a great Zeal for Reformation: but some time after, when from Aeneas Silvius, and Canon of Trent, he was promoted, first to be Bishop of Trieste, then designed Bishop of Sienna, and a little after created Cardinal, he fairly faced about, and wholly bend his Studies to oppose that Truth, which when poor and private he had defended 
(h) Qui quidem cum esset privatus, necdum Curiae Romanae arts & studia nosset (ut ipse in literis retractationis Actorum Synodi Basiliensis à se Scriptorum testificatur) strenue quidem pro veritate, & necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae pugnavit. Sed postquam ex Aenea Sylvio & simplici Canonico Tridentino, primum Turgestinus, deinde Senensis Episcopus à Nicolao V designatus, & aliquanto post Anno 1456. creatus est Cardinalis à Calixto III. totus quidem in studium oppugnandae atque involvendae veritatis, quam pauper & privatus defenderat, & enucleaverat, incubuit. Richer. l. 4. part. 1. p. 6. . And no sooner was he exalted to the Papal Throne, but he laboured, with might and main, to obliterate the memory of those Decrees of Basil, which as Secretary of that Council he had before published, and highly recommended to the World, 
(i) Richer. l. 4. part. 1. p. 35. . None more zealous against the Pope's Supremacy than Aeneas, 
(k) Maimb. Prerogat. of the Church of Rome, c. 25. p. 338. . Which he so stoutly asserted when Pius TWO, that he huffed and hectored Kings. In a word, Canon Silvius, and Pope Silvius, were as opposite in their Judgements, Tempers and Behaviours one to the other, as Massianello the poor Fisherman, to Massianello the domineering Tyrant.  
Must not he then be a fond Man, who could hope for a good Reformation from the Bishops of Rome? A Reformation! there was nothing in the World they were so averse from; Death and Hell were not more odious to them. And why? This would wrest the Temporal Sword quite out of their Hands, and tumble the Triple Crown from their Heads; they must then quit claim to their Universal Empire, and be content with their ancient Enclosure, the Suburbicary Region: Their Dispensations and Commutations, their Pardons and Indulgences, and a thousand Crafts more, by which they get their Wealth, would then be set at nought. In brief, they would then be divested of their usurped Power and Greatness, and rendered as poor and despised, as the Crow in the Fable, when stripped of those fine Feathers he had plucked from others. And could it be supposed that his Holiness would consent to be so degraded, that he would pull down with his own Hands, that pompous Fabric which for a thousand Years he had been raising? When Satan casts out Satan, we may then expect that the Pope will in good earnest endeavour a Reformation.  
5. The Reformation was yet more hopeless, because the Bishops, and the rest of the governing part of the Churchmen, were several ways engaged to submit themselves to, and follow the Pope's Conduct: So that supposing they had any good wishes for a Reformation themselves, yet both their Tongues and their Hands were so tied up, that they might neither speak, nor act, for the promoting of it, without leave first obtained from his Holiness. There was a twofold Bond, besides other (which shall be afterward mentioned) by which they were more especially enslaved to the Pope's Pleasure; the one of an Oath, the other of Interest 
(l) Considerations touching the true way of suppressing Popery, etc. p. 138, 139. .  
1. Every Popish Bishop, at his Consecration, had taken an Oath, from that time forward to be faithful to St. Peter, and to the Holy Roman Church, and his Lord the Pope, and his Successors canonically entering; to help them to defend, and to keep the Papacy, and the Rules of the Fathers, etc. which Oath may be seen more at large in the Decretals 
(m) Decretal. l. 2. Tit. 24. c. 4. . And though one would think this Oath were enough; yet, as if it had left them too much at liberty, several Additions have been since made to it, by which the Pope hath bound them more closely to their good Behaviour, (which render Reformation now more desperate); The Rules of the Holy Fathers, are changed into the Royalties of St. Peter 
(n) Regalia Sancti Petri. . They Swear to be Obedient, as well as Faithful 
(o) Fidelis & obediens cro. Dom. N. Papae, etc. ; not only to endeavour to preserve and defend, the Rights, Honours, Privileges and Authorities of the Pope, but to increase and advance them 
(p) Jura, Honours Privilegia & Authoritatem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, Domini nostri Papae & Successorum conservare, defendere, augere, promovere curabo. ; yea, to the utmost of their Power, to cause the Pope's Commands to be observed by others, as well as to observe them themselves 
(q) Mandata Apostolica totis viribus observabo, & faciam ab aliis observari. Pontifical. Rom. de Consecrat. Elect. in Episcop. ; together with many other things not contained in the Oath of Greg. VII. And is not this a strong tie to all those who make Conscience of an Oath? that is, to all those, who say not in their Heart, there is no God. And,  
2. For those, whose Consciences are so debauched, that they despise an Oath, the Pope hath them so much the more secured by their worldly Interest. For what will not such Men do for Riches and Honours? and from whom can they hope for these, so soon as from his Holiness? The Cardinals are all Creatures, purely of his own making; and no Man can be a Bishop, or an Abbot, but if he be not made, he must at least be allowed and confirmed by him: All the best Preferments do some way or other depend upon his Pleasure; and whom should he rather promote to them, than those who approve themselves his most obedient Servants? This is the only Argument that prevails with many to be fast Friends to the Papacy. It is Richerius his Note upon Cusan's Revolt from the Council of Basil, and going over to the Pope's side. By this, saith he, we know, that many who defended the Truth, while they were poor, desert the same in hope of Dignities, and a richer Fortune, and especially moved with ambition of the Cardinal Purple 
(r) Ex quo datur cognosci, permultos qui veritatem in statu paupertatis defenderunt, eandem spe dignitatum, atque pinguioris fortunae, & praesertim desiderio purpurae Cardinalitiae deseruisse. l. 3. p. 479. . And therefore John Major spoke to the purpose, when he said, It ought not to seem strange to any Man, that more teach that the Pope is above a Council, than that a Council is above the Pope; because the Pope gives Dignities and Ecclesiastical Benefices, but a Council gives none.  
Obj. It will perhaps be said, That these Reasons can be of no force, because they are contradicted by Experience. For it is sufficiently known, that in the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, many of the Prelates ran Counter too, and openly opposed the Pope.  
Ans. To which it is easily answered, That this was an extraordinary Case, such as, considering all Circumstances, never happened before or since, and it is likely will never happen again; as will soon appear, by a short reflection upon each of these Councils.  
I. As to the first Pisan Council (as 'tis usually reckoned) let these things be considered.  
1. That the Pope's Title was then disputed. For that Council was summoned by the Cardinals, on purpose to extinguish the Schism, that had been long before raised, and was then continued by the two Anti-popes', Gregory XII. and Benet. XIII. 
(t) Bin. Praefat. ad Concil. Constant. Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 2. c. 2. . Nor was the Council able to determine which of the two was the rightful Pope. Tho therefore the Bishops had sworn Obedience to the Pope, yet in that case, their Oath did not oblige them to obey one rather than the other; that is, to obey either of them. And as they were loosed from the Bond of Conscience, so neither could the Temptation from Interest then take place. For as there was in effect no Pope (since it could not be known who he was) so it was uncertain who would in the end obtain the Popedom; whether either of those who thought it his due, or some other Person who did not yet pretend a Title to it. And so indeed it happened, for those who laid claim to it, were by the Council both rejected, and another chosen, to whose lot the disposal of those Preferments fell, which the Pope's Parasites gape after.  
2. The two Anti-popes' (besides other enormous Crimes) were both convicted of notorious Heresy 
(u) Sess. 9, 10, 11, 15. . And therefore in case they had been duly elected, had lost their Right to the Papacy. For as their Canon Law expressly teaches, that an Heretical Pope may be judged 
(w)— à nemine judicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius. Distinct. 40. c. 6. ; so Cardinal Bellarmine himself affirms, That a Pope who is a manifest Heretic, ceases to be Pope, and Head of the Church; as he ceases to be a Christian, and a Member of the Body, the Church 
(x) Est ergo quinta opinio vera, Papam Hereticum manifestum, per se definere esse Papam & Caput, sicut per se desinit esse Christianus & membrum Corporis Ecclesiae. Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 30. . And this he says is the judgement of all the Ancient Fathers, and of the most learned Modern Writers.  
II. As to the Council of Constance, let these things be considered:  
1. That though the Pisan Council had deposed Greg. XII, and Benet XIII, and put Alex. V, into the Chair; yet neither of the deposed Popes could be brought to submit to the Sentence of the Council. When therefore the Council of Constance assembled, so far was the Schism from being lessened, that it was indeed increased into one branch more than it had before: For whereas before, two only laid claim to the Papacy, there were now three 
y— Revixit continuo Schisma quod extinctum putabatur; imo vero non revixit (neque enim erat extinctum) sed cum in occulto flamma lateret, repent majori impetu erupit, majusque incendium excitavit. Cum enim Gregorius & Benedictus, Synodo parere, seque Pontificatu abdicare nollent, statim illud in Controversiam venit; num Synodus Pisana in illos animadvertere potuerit; praesertim cum eorum alteruter verus esset Pontifex tametsi uter is esset, non plane constaret. Itaque cum hoc Schisma duo tantum capita haberet initio, Synodusque utrumque abscindere vellet, tria simul eodem tempore extitere, etc. Hist. Council Constantiens: apud Bin. , each of which had fair Arguments on his side; and it was very difficult, if not impossible, for the Council to determine whose Right it was 
z Inchoato deinde Concilio, tametsi eam ob causam potissimum erat coactum, ut Schisma extingueretut; nunquam tamen in eo elaborarunt Patres, ut singulorum Pontificum jus perpenderent, aut quis reliquis praeferendus esset, rationibus & argumentis exquirerent, erat enim id difficillimum, vixque unquam ad exitum fuisset causa perducta, ibid. . And therefore in this Case, the Ties  must be also loosed. Besides, that the Roman Courtiers themselves grant (as Richerius tells us) that in case of Schism, the Pope loses his Sovereignty, and becomes subject to a Council 
a Hist. Concil. General. l. 2. c. 3. §. 25. . But,  
2. Let it be granted, That John XXIII (who succeeded Alex. V) was owned by the Council for the true and lawful Pope, (as indeed he was by the major part) yet he had forfeited his Title to the Papacy these two ways especially. 1. By Heresy. 'Tis true, that Heresy is not mentioned in the Sentence passed against him, as that for which he was condemned; yet 'tis also true, That as he was accused of Heresy, so it was believed that he was guilty 
b Concil. Const. Sess. 11. in Concilior. Collect. Regia Gers. Viag. Reg. Rom. prima direct. salut. in via verit. . 2. By the most notorious, enormous and incorrigible Scandal; of which he was convicted in more than forty Articles proved against him 
c Concil. Const. Sess. 11. Plat. in ejus vita. . Now the Gloss upon their Canon Law tells us, That if the Pope's Crime be notorious, and the Church be scandalised thereby, and he incorrigible, he may be accused; and gives this Reason for it, Because Contumacy is called Heresy 
d  credo, quod si notorium est crimen ejus quandocunque & inde scandalizatur Ecclesia, & inco●●igibilis sit, etc. Gloss. in Can. si Papa distinct. 40. Vide Consil. Decii apud Richer. l. 4. part 1. p. 241, 242, 243. . Yea, that in this case he may be legally deposed, the Romanists must grant; if they consider, That for this very cause John XII was deposed by a Council 
e Luit. prand. de rebus Imperat. & Reg. l. 6. c. 7, 8, 9, 10. , the Legality of which hath been owned, and its Acts approved, by the constant Tradition of the Roman Church; and among others, by three Cardinals, who were vehement Assertors of the Pope's Prerogatives, as Launoy hath proved at large against Baronius and Binius 
f Launoii Epist. parte quarta ad Lud. Maraesium. . The same is also confirmed by the concurrent Judgement of learned Divines of the Romish Church, of which you may find a great number in the Epistle now quoted. 3. Before the Council proceeded to accuse and condemn him, the ancient Doctrine was established as an Article of Faith, namely, That a General Council is above the Pope 
g Sess. 4. . I know Platina tells us, That they first deposed him, and passed this Decree afterward in their own defence 
h Plat. in vita Johan. . But he that will take the pains to read the History of the Council, will plainly see, that Platina was mistaken. For this Decree was made in the fourth Session, whereas he was not deposed before the twelfth; it being then a point of Faith in this Council, That the Bishops, who in their single capacities are the Pope's Subjects, when met in Council, are raised to a Sovereignty over him; that Oath which they had severally taken as his Subjects, they concluded did now cease to oblige them, when become his Sovereign. As the Oath of Obedience which a Priest takes to his Bishop binds him, as long as he remains a bare Priest; but if he be once advanced to be the Bishop's Metropolitan, is of no force.  
3. As to the Council of Basil (omitting many others), I shall propose these two things; First, That this Council depended on the Council of Constance, as a River on its Fountain; it being the Execution of the Decrees of the iv, v, xxxix, xl, & xliv Sessions of that Council 
i Richer. l. 3. c. 1. . 2. In the Council of Basil, the Bishops were set free from their Oaths of Subjection to the Pope, by the Pope himself; first, by Martin V, who had confirmed those Decrees of the Council of Constance, which made the Pope subject to a Gen. Council 
k Concil. Const. Sess. 45. Rich. l. 2. c. 3. §. 23. Maimb. Prerog. of the Church of Rome, c. 21. . Secondly, by Eugenius IV, who ratified the same Decrees of the Council of Basil 
† Plat. in vit. Eugenii. , and that before the Council had proceeded to any judicial Act against him 
‖ Richer. l. 3. c. 3. §. 1. Maimb. Prerog. of the Church of Rome, c. 21. . So that now the Bishops when met in a General Council, representing the whole Church, by the Pope's own Act were made his Superiors; and therefore the Oath they had before taken of Subjection to him as single Persons, was now out of doors. But when the next Lateran Council came, the case was quite altered, the Pope was then mounted above a Council; and his Supremacy, and their Subjection owned by them, and by the succeeding Council of Trent.  
The sum of what hath been said, may be reduced to these four Heads, which quite evacuate the force of the Objection.  
1. That in the Councils of Pisa and Constance, the case with respect to the Pope, was as different from what it was, and ever will be, when there is a Pope whose Right is not disputed, as the case of Subjects under a Prince, whose Title is unquestionable, from what it is under many Pretenders, who are not able to make out their Claim. The Subjects are obliged in Conscience, and usually by Interest, to obey the former, but by neither, to obey the latter.  
2. Suppose their Title was at first unquestionable, yet they lost it by Heresy, Schism, and their prodigiously scandalous Vices.  
3. In the Councils of Constance and Basil, it was reckoned a Point of Faith, That the Bishops change their place in relation to the Pope, when united in a General Council; and by consequence, were no more bound by the Oath they had taken to the Pope, than a Servant who swears Obedience to his Master is, in case he cease to be his Servant, and his Master become Servant to him. And,  
4. In the Council of Basil, the Pope himself had set the Bishop's free from their Oath of Subjection to him, by voluntarily subjecting himself to them.  
By this time it is, I think, evident enough, that (notwithstanding this Exception in an extraordinary case) the Reasons before mentioned stand good. But what need I prove, that the Sun is up at Noon? The Reason, the Sense, and common Observation of Mankind, do all tell us; that as Men who have any Religion, cannot but have a great Veneration for an Oath: so on the other hand; that they who have none, cannot but be swayed by their worldly Interests: Where the Carcase is, thither will the eagle's resort. Since therefore the governing part of the Church of Rome, were so miserably enslaved to the Roman Bishop, could there be any hope of Reformation, when there was no reason to hope that the Bishop of Rome would consent to it?  
Obj. Some perhaps may say, that I wrong the Popes, in representing them as so obstinately set against Reformation. For as many of them pretended a Zeal for it; so 'tis certain there was one at least (viz. Adrian VI) who did himself earnestly endeavour it.  
Ans. But what kind of Reformation was it he endeavoured to make? In matters of Faith, and of the Sacraments, he would allow no Man liberty, so much as to dispute what had been once decreed by General Councils 
l Soave l. 1. p. 25. Sleid. Comment. l. 4. , that is, by any of those Councils which he called General, many of which were no more than Italian or Papal Councils. Whosoever was so bold, as to call any such thing in question, he was to be dealt with as John Huss and Hierom of Prague 
m Soav. ibid. ; so that if any Man denied the imaginary Fire of Purgatory, he must presently be confuted by real Flames.  
The Pope's usurped Power and Greatness (the source of numberless other Corruptions) so far was he from retrenching, that he rather endeavoured to set it higher. The Princes of Germany were looked upon as too saucy, and thought to entrench upon his Prerogative, for desiring only, that a Council might be called with the Emperor's Consent 
n Soav. l. 1. p. 28. .  
What then was the Reformation Adrian aimed at? Why, the Churchmen were in their Morals so monstrously degenerated, that in almost all places they were become abominable: The Abuses in Discipline were grown so intolerable, that the Princes of the World were resolved no longer to endure them: That therefore which he designed was, to reduce the Clergy to somewhat better Manners, and to correct some gross Enormities in Discipline, which were most offensive. This was all the Reformation he endeavoured; for other Corruptions, so far was it from his intention to reform them, that he was resolved more firmly to establish them. And yet this piece of Reformation he did not effect, though he much desired it. Which leads me to another Consideration, which further shows how hopeless the Reformation of the Church of Rome was. For,  
6. Let us suppose, That such a Man had been advanced to the Papacy, who would have set himself in good earnest to make an impartial Reformation (one of the most unlikely things in the World, as the state of that Church then was, and for a long time before had been) he would have failed in his Attempt, and not have been able to accomplish it. And that for these two Reasons: 1. Because he could have made no such Reformation, unless he first made void those Obligations, by which the governing part of that Church, both in point of Conscience and of Interest, were held in subjection to him. 2. Because of that opposition, which, they being so let lose, would for the generality have made against him.  
1. Because he could have made no such Reformation, unless he first made void those Obligations, by which the governing part of that Church, both in point of Conscience and Interest, were of held in subjection to him. The great holds he had upon their Consciences, proceeded from several corrupt Doctrines, and those Practices of the Popes that were built upon them. For instance, That the Pope is by Divine Ordination Head of the Universal Church; that all other Bishops are his Subjects, and that he hath power to impose an Oath upon them, as their Sovereign; that he is the Supreme Judge of Controversies, and all Men obliged to stand to his Sentence. These, and several other Doctrines of a resembling nature, have been defined by the Popes themselves, and with great Zeal asserted as unquestionable Truths, by their Flatterers; and had been so far owned by the governing Clergy, that they had bound themselves by solemn Oath (has as been already showed) to be obedient to him.  
But now no Reformation to purpose could have been made, but the Pope must condemn these Doctrines, and divest himself of those Prerogatives, which, by virtue of them, he lays claim to: Because these are not only great Errors themselves, but productive of all other the grossest Corruptions 
o Richer. Hist. Concil. General. l. 1. c. 13. .  
Nor must he only lose the tie of Conscience, but that of Interest too (which with the generality of Men, is the stronger of the two). He must no longer assume to himself the sole power of erecting, and pulling down of Bishoprics; of electing, confirming, deposing and restoring of Bishops; of disposing of all the greater Dignities and Ecclesiastical Benefices; of conferring those that are incompatible upon the same Person: In a word, of trampling upon all the ancient Canons. And should the Pope have once parted with these Prerogatives, together with many other of the like nature, which must have been done if a Reformation had been made to purpose, he would have been able to do nothing more. For,  
2. The Prelates (as has been before showed) 
(h) First part, p. 55, 56, 57  were so deeply sunk into Earthliness and Sensuality, that there was nothing they would have more vehemently opposed than a Reformation. This they gave a sufficient proof of, in that they were so distasted with that Confession of their Excesses, which Adrian made to the Diet at Nuremberg 
(i) Soave l. 1. p. 29. : For if the bare Confession of their Faults was so displeasing, how much more grievous would the reforming of them have been? Which though Adrian likewise promised, yet how unable he would have been to perform it, we may conclude from that ill success he met with in Rome itself: For though he resolved to reform Abuses at home, before he sent his Legate to treat with the Princes of Germany; yet he met with so much difficulty in the Attempt, that he was forced to quit his Resolution 
(k) P. 24. . And can it be supposed that he should be able to reform the Universal Church, who could not correct the Disorders of his own Court 
(l) Palpabiliter cernitur, ipsam ejus Curiam, maxima indigere Reformatione, sicut omnia clamaverunt ultimo celebrata Generalia Concilia. Quam suam Curiam, si non potest, aut non vellet reformare, quam sub alis suis contegir, quomodo credendum est, quod tam late diffusam reformare possit Ecclesiam. Jacob de Paradis. Collect. de Authorit. Eccles. ? And therefore after he had made some trial of his strength, and found how unequal it was to his undertaking, he said to his familiar Friends, That the condition of the Popes was very miserable, since matters were come to that deplorable pass, that though they never so much desired it, yet they were not able to reform the Church 
(m) Saepe enim sanctissimus Pontifex, ubi Curiae Rom. arts & consilia perspecta habuie, cum Gulielmo Encurtio & Theodorico Hezio suis familiaribus conquestus est, permiseram esse Pontificum Romanorum conditionem; eoque in statu res esse, ut quanquam maxime vellet, Ecclesiam emendare non posset, etc. Richer. l. 4. part. 2. p. 133. Soave, p. 24. .  
And what was the reason he was not able to effect what he so earnestly endeavoured? One main reason doubtless was, that he in some measure let lose that Tie which he had upon them from their worldly Interests. No plurality of Benefices with cure of Souls was to be expected from him; He was resolved, as he said, to adorn Churches with Priests, and not Priests with Churches 
(n) Lannoii Epist. part. 4. Epist. ad Hen. Barrill. . Such a little piece of Reformation as this, the corrupt Manners of the Courtiers were not able to bear; they therefore set themselves to oppose him; and being impatient of enduring him any longer, 'twas by some suspected that they hastened him into another World by an Italian Trick 
(o) Raynald. in Adriano, n. 13●. .  
The plain consequence of what hath been said, is this; That the Reformation of the Church of Rome must needs be very hopeless; since the Pope himself, though he should have seriously endeavoured it, could not have made it; because he could not have made it without doing that, (which as the case of that Church then stood) would have disabled him to make it. A desperate case indeed! when it could not be effected, whether the Pope were for it, or against it: If the the Pope were against it, the rest of the Prelates were not able without him to compass it; if the Pope were for it, he must in order to it, do that which would have rendered him unable to compass it.  
Obj. If it be objected, That the Reformations attempted in the Councils of Constance, Basil, and the last Pisan, are an evident Argument, that the Romish Bishops were not generally so averse from a Reformation.  
Ans. I answer. 1. That in the Councils of Constance and Basil, many of the Bishops were overawed by the good Emperor Sigismond, whose Authority at that time bore a much greater sway, than the Popes. 2. In these Councils, the inferior Clergy had a decisive voice, which was denied them in the succeeding Florentine, Lateran, and Trent Councils. And Ludovicus Cardinal of Arles, and John Bishop of Segovia. (whose Authority in this matter is unquestionable) assure us, that it was not the Bishops, but the inferior Clergy, by which Matters were carried in the Council of Basil for the Reformation, and against the Pope 
p Aeneae Sylu. Comment. l. 1. p. 29, 34. . 3. 'Twas but a piece of Reformation these Councils designed, and that not the most considerable. Those demands of Reformation in the Head and Members, says the Cardinal of Perron, propounded before the last division of the Church, have been demands of Reformation, not in the Doctrine of Faith, and the Sacraments, but in Manners, and in the practice of Ecclesiastical Discipline, which even these words of Reformation both in the Head and Members, principally used in the time of the Councils of Constance and Basil signify 
q Reply to the King of Great Brit. l. 4. c. 30. . And those matters of Discipline they aimed at, were such as did almost all concern the Exorbitances of the Pope and his Court, as appears by the eighteen Articles of Reformation proposed in the Council of Constance 
r Sess. 40. . And therefore no wonder if the Bishops did the more easily yield their Consent to them. 4. Tho the second Pisan Council voted a Reformation both in Faith and Manners. Yet it is sufficiently known, That that Reformation was resolved upon to serve a Design against the Insolences of the present Pope, in opposition to whom that Council was called, by some of the Cardinals who had been disgraced and insolently treated by him. Tho even that was a plain Argument of the necessity of it, and how earnestly it was desired by the Christian World.  
But because in discoursing afterward upon the Council of Trent, I shall have occasion to say those things, which will be more than an Answer to this Objection, I shall only at present add, That if the Bishops were not generally abandoned to Ambition, Covetousness, Sloth, and Sensuality, 'tis not I, but the Romish Writers themselves that slander them. For this I appeal to Marsilius of Milan, Nicolas Clemangis, the Germane Bishop who wrote the Book called Onus Ecclesiae, Father Paul; yea even to Pope Pius TWO himself, before he was Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop, who in his Comments upon the Council of Basil, hath left on record this sad Complaint, (among many others) of the Cardinal of Arles; Alas, at this day a Prelate who does not prefer temporal things before those that are spiritual, is rarely found! 
s De Gest. Concil. Bas. l. 1. fol. 12. .  
7. There is one Consideration still behind, which of itself (without the Assistance of any of those forementioned) amounts to no less than a Demonstration; viz. That the Church of Rome was so remote from reforming her Errors, that she would not be brought to acknowledge, that she could err in any of her Definitions; but on the contrary, condemned them for Heretics, who did not take her most palpable Errors for unquestionable Truths. And though the Romanists cannot agree among themselves about the subject of this Infallibility; but if you ask them where, or in whom it is seated? they answer with confusion of Language, like that of Babel; yet they all agree in this, That they have it somewhere, and make this the Foundation into which they resolve their Faith.  
Now what hope can there be of curing that Person, who is so far from seeking out for a Remedy, that he will by no means hear that he is so much as capable of being sick? Such was the condition of the Church of Rome: Tho she was sick, even nigh unto Death; yet she would not endure those who said no more, than that it was possible she might not be well. This rendered her Disease absolutely incurable.  
Though the Arguments produced, will, I question not, be thought satisfactory by all disinteressed Judges: yet it cannot be expected, but some Persons will be found, who will think they can easily confute them by plain matter of Fact; that is, by showing, that the Reformation so much desired before, and in Luther's time, has been long since made. If they can indeed do this, it must be granted, That these, and all other Arguments of the like import, are no better than Fallacies. For as Diogenes sufficiently confuted Zeno (who denied the possibility of Motion) by rising and actually moving; so if any Man can show, That those Errors and Corruptions so much complained of, have by the Church of Rome been reformed, he must be not only absurd, but impudent, who shall still assert, That the Reformation was desperate. And to convince you, That this Reformation has indeed been made, they will send you no farther than the Council of Trent, in which they will tell you, this work was so completely done, that nothing was left undone, that could be thought needful to a thorough Reformation.  
This being the thing which the Romanists chief insist upon, and make their boast of: That my Answer may be the more full and satisfactory, it will not be amiss to spend a little time in showing what sort of Reformation it was, that was made by that Council; by which it will be manifest, how much they endeavour to impose upon the World, who represent it as a Reformation so entire, that nothing of moment, can by any unprejudiced Person be found wanting in it.  
'Tis confessed; That as that Council was called, as the Pope pretended, for the Reformation of the Church; so that in pursuance of that Pretence, many Decrees concerning Reformation were made by it: But that the Reformation they made such a noise about, was indeed no more than Noise (a great Cry and no Wool) designed to abuse Princes, and to put a cheat upon the World, by amusing them with the name, that they might beguile them of the thing, will, I think, so plainly appear by the sequel of this Discourse, that those whose great Interest it is not to confess it, will scarce have the face to deny it.  
But because two famous Jesuits, namely, Scipio Henricus, and Cardinal Pallavicino, have made it their business to blast the Credit of the History of this Council, written by Father Paul, by representing it to the World as a slanderous Libel, made up in great part of malicious Forgeries: before I proceed, it may not be amiss to vindicate its Credit from their false Imputations, though it be not indeed necessary in order to that which I intent; because the Charge I shall draw up against the Council, will not be taken from that History alone, but from other Authors, and for the most part from the Decrees and Canons of the Council itself.   

CHAP. II. The Authority of Father Paul's History of the Council of TRENT asserted.  
THE Credit of the History will be sufficiently cleared by showing these two things: 1. How well the Historian was qualified for the work. 2. That it is so far from being overthrown, or so much as impaired; that it is rather strengthened and established, by those who endeavour to destroy it.  

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 Judgement nor those means of Information that were needful to qualify him for such a Work.  
1. He could not want Judgement, who was the Miracle of his age for all sorts of Learning: Not only for such, as are wont to be found in Cloisters; 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 talon of Judgement and Discretion for such a Work. So admirable indeed was his Judgement 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 seemed not to be long and studiously considered of, and such an one as could not be bettered 
(f) Life, p. 131. printed at Lond. 1651. .  
2. Nor could he want means of being rightly informed, 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 
(g) Jur. Hist. Reflect. p. 94. . He had the sight of the Letters, Diaries and Memorials of many great Men; some of which were employed in matters relating to the Council, others were themselves parts of it, and prime Actors in it. As the Diary of Cheregat 
(h) Soave, p. 24.  Pope Adrian's Nuntio in Germany. The Register of the Letters of Cardinal Monte, Pope Paul's prime Legate in Trent 
(i) P. 114. . A great number of Letters that passed to and fro between the Pope and the Legates before they could 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 
(k) 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 public Monuments, in which was Registered, what he relates of the Negotiation of Cardinal Morone with the Emperor 
* L. 7. p. 705. . The Memorials of Cardinal Amulius 
(l) P. 815. Pallavicino. l. 14. c. 14. n. 2. , who was so dear to Pius iv that he called him his Vessel of Election 
(m) Pallau. 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 Vrban VII. and with Cardinal Borromeo 
(n) Life of Father Paul. , who had particular advice of whatsoever happened in the Council under Pius 
(o) Soav. l. 6. p. 517. . He most intimately conversed with Camillo Olivo, Secretary to the Cardinal of Mantua 
(p) Life, p. 10. Soav. l. 6. p. 517, 518. , who was Precedent of the Council. He was admitted by the Republic into the two Secrets of Venice; that is, the two Chambers, in which, besides the public Reasons of State, the Fundamental Laws, etc. the Records of the public 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, his Letters to the Legates 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 gathered with extreme 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 Money, 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 Heretics, or were really such 
q Pallau. 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 
r Life, p. 16. . Can it then be supposed, that in his elder age, he should publish to the World a Book fraught with malicious Lies?  
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 alured, 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 prevailed with by his Physicians, in order to his Health, to drink Wine; and among other things, which he repent himself of, this was one; that he had been persuaded 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 
s 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 
t 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 humoured, and flattered the Pope, and his Court, he might have easily been advanced, to be the chief Minister of State under him 
u 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 own 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 men's that might carry his name, or preserve his memory 
w 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 memorial in many men's 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 revenged 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 prayed the high Council often, that as he with all his heart did pardon him that offended, so 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 
x 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 
y P. 126. . when another Plot against his Life was discovered, instead of making a requital, he interceded for the Murderers, and that not slightly, but petitioned often upon his Knees, demanding this as a favour in recompense of his best services done for the Public, that for his sake, they should not be made spectacles, to the dishonour of his Religion 
z P. 144. . When not only his Life, but (which is more) his Honour was attacked by the most opprobrious Libels, he never showed the least sign either of Disdain, or Revenge. In such perfection was his meekness, that those of his Religion, with a general Voice rendered him this Testimony, that they never knew him endeavour any the least kind of Revenge 
a 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 no less zealous after the Stabs given him, than he had been before, in defending the lawful Rights of those, to whom he imputed that Villainous Act 
b 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 show of probability is there, That the Friar 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 finished it), it being not the Product of a sudden Passion, but, as Pallavicino confesses, the Work of almost his whole Life 
c 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 Hypocrisy, 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 professed, but was a Catholic in pretence only, an Heretic in truth 
d 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 professed 
e 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 Heretics, who yet pass in the Roman Church for good Catholics? Let them produce any one instance out of Soave's History, that is most 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 Heretic. And what palpable iniquity is it, to make that a note of Heresy 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 judgement 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 lessened, or omitted, or contradicted, by Pallavicino 
g 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 palavicini 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 swelled into two Volumes, that very few might be found, and those none but such as are exceeding phlegmatic, who will have the Patience entirely to read it. Another learned Man of that Church, is much of the same mind; for he says, That the Cardinal, who complains that Friar Paul does nothing but defame the Legates and the Fathers, had done them much more honour, if he had not reported so much of those matters, which may give advantage to Heretics and to Critics, may scandalise weak Persons, and destroy that grand conceit, which People ought to have of the Majesty of Councils, and that Reverence which that of Trent deserves 
h Amelot. Preface Histoire du Concile de Trente. . And Comens Julius Clemens, (another learned Man of the Roman Communion) shows, that his History is scandalous, and more pernicious than Father Paul's 
i Nat. Moral. etc. p. 18, & 41. . Judge now, which of the two Historians does best deserve the name of Heretic.  
2. The Cardinal thinks to prove him a counterfeit Catholic, by certain Letters intercepted, supposed to be his, written to Castrine a Huguenot 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 produced, 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 Catholics? And can it be supposed that he was a greater Enemy to the Pope, than Vbaldine was to him, who made it his constant practice to defame him with odious names 
k 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 professed, That he the more believed him to be a lewd Wretch, and an exquisite Hypocrite, from his irreprehensible life 
l Al che replicava il Nuntio Ubaldini, che tanto piu si consermava nella sua opinion, che fosse un'huomo tristo & un hypocrita esquisito, dalla sua irreprensibil vita. p. 224. . Is there any Calumny so gross that such a Man would boggle at? May we not therefore conclude, by Pallavicino's own Logic, that he either forged the Letters, or at least corrupted them? But in case he did not, may it not be reasonably supposed, 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 Pope's Creatures. 3. The false Reports raised of him by that great Man Cardinal Maffeo Barbarini (who was afterward Pope Vrban VIII.) so base and unworthy, that the Author of his Life was ashamed to mention them 
m 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 
n P. 317, 318. . These things considered, it may well be supposed, that the passages alleged 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 Heretic, 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 
o Mais il est a croire, qu'elles sont, on suposées, ou du moins repetries avec un levain étranger, qui en a corrumpu toute la mass, 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. who were also Calvinists. But is any thing quoted out of these Letters, that smells of Heresy? Not a word. How then doth it appear by these Letters, that Father Paul was an Heretic? because they were written to those that were Heretics. 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 Heretics will be found to be right good Catholics? But Sarravius speaks of the Father, with respect and honour. And so does Melancthon of the Bishop of Ausburg 
p Melancth. Epist. l. 1. Epist. 65. , and the Bishop of Breslaw, and of Julius Pflug and Groperus 
q Lib. 3. Epist. 45. ; and yet I trow, these were no Heretics. 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. 
r Lib. 3. Epist. 39  But the kill Argument comes last, viz.  
4. That Father Paul thus addressed to Sommerdick the Holland Ambassador, I exceedingly rejoice, 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 
s Laetor summopere me eo usque vixisle, dumb 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 spoke and writ with great Reverence concerning the Popes, and the Apostolical Chair 
t 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 Republic 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 Catholic Apostolic Roman holy Church, for which they were bound to acknowledge his Divine Favour, and to render him continual Thanks, since no greater misfortune could befall 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 
u P. 160, 161. . In a word, That in all his Consultations and Writings, he always honoured the See Apostolic, and the Popes, with a Supreme Reverence 
w 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 unhandsome 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 Republic was of their Honour in point of Religion, and how highly offended when Pius iv seemed to think, that they had recommended to him for Cardinal, a Person suspected of Heresy; That he who (after he entered upon public 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 Heresy, the State would be so too, because in all matters relating 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 spoke to but occasionally, and in haste 
x— Incidissetque ipsi opportunitas cursim illius alloquendi. Apparat. c. 2. ?  
But now for once, to gratify the Cardinal, let us grant, That, in his notion of Heresy, Father Paul was an Heretic; 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 Heretics, 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 Precedents of the Council, and the Catholics (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 Precedents of the Council.  
1. To begin with the Popes. He says of Leo X. That he was careless in things that concerned Religion and Piety. 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, joined with incomparable Liberality, and a great inclination to favour those that were Learned, and endowed with any extraordinary Quality. Which Virtues were not found in that See of a long time before, neither equal, nor near unto his 
y 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 
z 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 
a Ibid. . Of Julius III That he spent whole days in Gardens, plotted out delicious Buildings, and showed himself more inclined to Pleasure than Business 
b Lib. 3. p. 299. . But is it not commendable, that he made choice of Cardinal Pool, for his Legate 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 
c Lib. 5. p. 384. ? He represents Paul IU. 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 IU. 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 
d Lib. 1. p. 30. . What says he of Marcellus TWO? He was a Man grave and severe by nature, and of a constant mind, that showed 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 Pomp's and Vanities, but would preserve and enlarge it 
e 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, 
f 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 deformed, as drawn by others (who yet were no Heretics) 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. 
g Hist. l. 1. c. 2. . Whether the Character he gives of Julius III. does not make more to his disgrace 
h L. 13. c. 10. n. 8. , than that Soave giveth 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 valued him above his desert, when they exalted him to the Papal Throne 
i Furio Ecclesiastico ottimo, Pontifice in verita mediocre, etc. l. 2. c. 9 . And for Marcellus, though he falls foul upon Soave for defaming him, yet see what a worthy Eulogy he has left of him. 'Twas happy for him that he died so soon, for had his Reign been long, he would hardly have maintained by his actions, that high opinion the World had conceived of him 
k 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 
l Certum sane apparet, quantum detrimenti Catholicae reipublicae inducat haec Pallavicini historia in his quae de Romans Pontificibus narrat. Unde e contra minus damni Petrus Soave in suo opere afferre videtur. p. 77. . Quis tulerit Gracchoes?  
2. Having seen how fairly he treats the Popes, let us now look, whether he hath showed himself so just to their Legates in the Council. Pallavicino says, That he defames not only some, but all the Precedents, and that perpetually 
m Non parlo del vituperio perpetuo col quale infama e tutti i Presidenti di essa, etc. 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 Precedents 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 
n 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 Legates admonition (at the opening of the Council) was accounted Pious, Christian, Modest, and worthy the Cardinals 
o L. 2. p. 132. . And this, I hope, is not to disgrace them. Again, That they proposed to the Pope's consideration, that it would be good, to make some effectual Reformation in Rome 
p L. 2. p. 254. . And that at Trent in the next Congregation, they proposed the Reformation of divers Abuses 
q P. 256. . These things are spoken of the Legates in common.  
Let us now see, what he says of each of them apart, and first of Marcellus. When a great and rich Prelate 
r This was the Cardinal of Trent. , in the Congregation went about to show, 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 
s 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 
t P. 215. . And truly says he, concerning these particulars, it is not fit to rob the Cardinal of his due Praise 
u 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 complained 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 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 Pastor's being absent from the Flock, no Man hath care to instruct those, or correct these, etc. 
w L. 2. p. 191. . When his Master, the Pope, ordered the Legates, 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 
x 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 
y P. 247. . And his Zeal, Courage, and undaunted Resolution, upon all occasions in asserting and maintaining the Pope's Power and Greatness 
z 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 Dependants of the Farnesis, 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 
a P. 298, 384, 405. . That many in England were scandalised, and aliened 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 Precedents of the Council under Julius III were Marcellus Crescentius, Cardinal of S. Marcellus; Sebastianus Pighinus, Archbishop of Siponto; and Aloisius Lipomannus Bishop of Verona; the first in the capacity of Legate, the two last as Nuncii, but of equal authority with the Legate. And why, says Soave, did the Pope pitch upon these? Upon Marcellus, because among all the Cardinals, he found none more trusty, and withal 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 
b 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 Precedents 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 
c L. 4. p. 317. .  
Of the Legates and Precedents 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 
d L. 5. p. 444. . And one great instance of his Virtue, is the freedom (Soave tells us) he used 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 doth promise much for Reformation, yet seeing nothing to be executed, they do not think, that he hath any inclination to it 
e L. 7. p. 675. .  
Seripando, he says, was a Divine of much fame 
f L. 5. p. 445. . That when he came to be prime Legate, upon the death of Mantua, he wrote to the Pope, That he would be glad his Holiness would send another Legate, his Superior, to govern the Council, or remove him; But in case he would leave him prime Legate, he told him, he would proceed as God should inspire him; and that otherwise it were better to remove him absolutely 
g L. 7. p. 678. . But that which especially commends this Precedent, is the account Soave giveth of his death. He died, saith he, to the great grief of all the Prelates, 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 returned to his Bed, and in the presence of five Prelates, etc. he confessed his Faith, wholly conformable to the Catholic of the Roman Church, spoke of the works of a Christian, of the Resurrection of the Dead, of the Council, recommending the progress of it to the Legates, etc. 
h 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, etc. the other, his own readiness to do what the Pope had commanded him. He prayed 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 
i L. 7. p. 697. . Is there any thing in this, that Pallavicino can interpret to the discredit of Morone.  
I think I have now proved, what I undertook as to the Popes and Precedents 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 confirmed 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 Catholic Religion; and this he hath digested into an History of the Council. In the second (which is divided into five Sections) he hath gathered together the Tares (as he calls them) and bound them up in Bundles to be burnt 
(k) 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 confirmed the truth of Soave's History.  
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 borrowed almost nothing from the Writings of others, but that his History is made up of those things alone, which are contained 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 Catholic 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 Lies. First, some of them in case they are so, are Lies 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 Lies, that he will be thereby the more inclined, to believe all the rest Father Paul says to be true.  
1. Some of them are Lies of his own making, by misrepresenting Soave's Words. For instance, The Historian, says Henry, lies, in saying, that the Fathers themselves were not Divines; for since in every Session they had Sermons, certainly some of them were Divines 
(l) Mentitur Historicus dicendo Patres ipsos non fuisse Theologos; cum enim per singulas Sessiones Conciones in eyes 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 nothing like it. There were, says he, few Divines but of less than ordinary sufficiency 
(m) 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 condemned 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, etc. are foisted in by himself, to furnish out matters for a Lye.  
2. Other matters which he says are Lies, 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] aught not to be condemned for Heretical. Why? Because it was afterward condemned by the Council 
(†) Sect. 2. Art. 3. ; As if the Bishops in Session, might not condemn that for Heresy, which the greater part of the Divines in Congregation, were of opinion deserved 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 Lies, that he will for their sakes be the more inclined, 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 resolved either to find or make them) was forced to reckon for lies, such things as these.  
1. Those things which are reported by other Historians of untainted Credit. For instance, That the Council was translated to Bologn, by the Pope's order 
(n) Sect. 4. art. 2. . Which is expressly affirmed by Onuphrius 
(o) In vita Pauli III. . And as Aquilinus tells us, Mamfrinus Rosseus, and Dionysius à Foeno, and those Italians that writ 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 Pope's Mandates 
(p) P. 32. . And so pitiful are the Reasons Scipio (and Pallau. too) give to the contrary, that they are despised by Aquilinus, and represented as ridiculous, by Amelot 
(q) Preface. .  
2. Those things, which if they are lies, the Bishops of the Council, the Princes and their Ambassadors, yea the Pope and his Cardinals are the liars. 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 
(r) Quare vanum & ridiculum est, imo & figmentum mentientis Historici, si declaretur Epscoporum Residentiam sive Institutionem, etc. 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 lie; 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 Ambassador then at Rome 
(s) Cét article de residence est reputé de grand prejudice, au Pape & à ceste Cour, & de grande efficace pour croistre la dignité & authority des Evesques, etc. 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 & damageable consequence. Exit 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 lie. But if it be so; the Emperor, the King of Spain, the King of France, together with their Ambassadors, and the Spanish, French and Polonian Bishops, were also Liars: For they frequently complained that the Council was in servitude.  
3. Divers other matters in which he gives Soave the lie, 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 allege for it Pope Innocent, whose Epistle doth yet remain, in which he saith it plainly 
(t) L. 6. P. 539. . Now here the Jesuit with open Mouth cries out, that he belies both S. Austin and Pope Innocent. For what he saith (says he) of the Authority of Austin, is a manifest lie; and 'tis certain, that the Historian after his wont manner, belies Pope Innocent 
(u) 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 lie! These two things he says of S. Austin. First, that he does affirm the necessity of the Eucharist for Children. Secondly, That he does allege for it Pope Innocent: Both which will presently appear to be most manifest Truths.  
As to the first, no Man that hath looked 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 Infants signify 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 which he may find such words as manifestly prove this 
(w) 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 the Peccator. Merit. & Remis. l. 1. c. 20. etc. 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 saved, 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 alleges 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 
(x) 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 determined, that little Children can no way have life, unless they eat the Flesh of the Son 
y Sancto Innocentio vide quid respondeas, qui nihil aliud de hac re sapit, etc. 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 Lie, doth appear to be a Truth, as manifest as Day.  
But 'tis certain, says he, that he belies 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 belies 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 
z 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 
a 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, etc. 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, etc. his Note is; Hence it is manifest that in the judgement of Innocent I. the Eucharist is necessary even for Infants 
b 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 Lie, That Binius and Maldonate expressly affirm the same, both of Innocent and S. Austin: And not only so, but that this Opinion prevailed in the Church, for about 600 Years 
c 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 
d Sess. 21. Can. 4. . It is certain, That either Pope Innocent I, S. Austin, and other the most eminent Fathers for 600 Years were Heretics, or Pope Pius IU. and the Council of Trent have erred. If any Person desires more Instances of this nature, they shall soon be produced.  
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 Louvain (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 
e L. 12. c. 11. . 'Tis false, That many of the Spanish Prelates did make instance to the Legates, 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 Legates, or of the Spanish Ambassador, to Cardinal Borromeo 
f L. 18. c. 5. n. 4. . 'Tis not to be imagined, That the Emperor wrote to Cardinal Morone, That all former evils did arise from the oppressions attempted by the ecclesiastics against People and Princes; because he found no such matter in the public Registers 
g 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, which he could not be informed 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 writ 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 Lie, 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 
h— Che apertament esprimevano di continuare il Concilio in Trento. l. 11. c. 11. n. 4. . But this is plainly to belie Soave, for he hath no such word as continuing, but his words also are to reassume and prosecute it 
i 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 surprised, 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 
k Quant aux 361. faults, 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 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 Hermit? 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 ?  
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 reckoned in Friar Paul's 
* Car je pourois bien en trouver un aussi. grand nombre que celui des faults, urays 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 Lie, in ascribing the rise of Heresy (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 discoloured by their own Passions and Appetites; the brightest Truth will appear a Lie, to him who is resolved to have it so; and so is that Man, who is resolved 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 
(l) 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, etc. 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 selfdenying, 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 Legates in the Council, had two sorts of Instructions: one Letter was to be showed 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 citys, 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 Cardinal's 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 valued by many Men, than it was before.    

CHAP. III. The Vanity of the pretended Reformation of the Council of TRENT.  
HAving given Father Paul his due, I shall now proceed to treat of the Reformation made by the Council.  
I might premise several general Considerations, by which all impartial Persons will be abundantly satisfied, that no Reformation to purpose could be made by it: viz. such as these:  
1. The Pope and his Court, were very averse from such a Reformation.  
2. The Pope by his Legates, presided in the Council.  
3. The proposal of all matters to be treated of, was reserved to the Legates.  
4. The Legates in doubtful matters confulted the Pope, before they proposed them to be discussed.  
5. After matters had been discussed in the Congregations, before they were proposed in the Session, the Legates sent to Rome to know the Pope's Pleasure.  
6. The Bishops of the Council, were generally such as were addicted to the Pope; either as they were Italians, or as they were his Pensioners, or both: And therefore such as would not contradict him, except in such rare Cases, in which the Pope's Interest, and their own could not be reconciled; such as the Exemption of Regulars, and the Divine Right of Episcopacy.  
7. When any considerable opposition was like to be made, all Arts were used, the most disingenuous not excepted, to bring over the Dissenters to the Pope's Party.  
8. Nothing was proposed in the later Sessions to be defined, till they were before secure of a Party, to carry it that way which the Pope desired. He that considers these things, cannot expect any good from this Council.  
But passing over all these, I shall at present consider matter of Fact only, what was done, and what was not done, by the Council, which shall be reduced to these three general Heads:  

1. That in those matters in which a Reformation was most necessary, not the least Reformation was made, or so much as pretended.  
2. That in those matters, in which a mighty Reformation was pretended, little or rather none was really made.  
3. That instead of Reformation, the Council produced a greater Deformation; what it found bad, it left in many respects worse.   

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. 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 showed 
(a) 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) resolved 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 Noonday 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 introduced into the Church, to be believed, and accounted necessary to Salvation. And particularly, as to Tradition, we entirely believe and confess, as a true Article of Faith, That which the Council of Trent hath determined in the Decree of the third Session. And although we cannot prove this (for we plainly confess between ourselves, that we cannot prove, that which we hold and teach concerning 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 
b Lutherani Symboli Apostolorum, Nicaeni & Athanasii Articulos omnes recipiunt, etc. 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 flourished in the times of the Apostles, but have brought in another quite different from it 
c  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 tossed. 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 
d 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, etc. 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 Pope's Favourite, that he made choice of him before all others, for his Legate, to reduce the Heretics in Germany.  
Forty years before this, the Cardinals and Bishops in the Council of Pisa, not only confessed their Errors in Doctrine, but decreed a Reformation in Faith, as well as in Manners 
e 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 
f 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 condemned. Yea, so far was the Council from making any alteration in Doctrine, that the Emperor with all his Authority, could not obtain leave for the Protestants, so much as to propose their Doctrine 
g 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 Prelates 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 
h 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 those Doctrines, which they were not permitted to examine?  
But 'tis needless to show that no Reformation was made in Doctrine, since R. H. confesses, That the Tridentine Fathers were unanimous in condemning the Protestant Tenets 
i Considerate. 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 concur in condemning them 
k 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, etc. But notwithstanding the importunity of these great Catholic Princes, backed 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 denounced against those who shall dare to say, that Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue 
l 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 judged amiss, so far as that iron Age would permit 
m Considerate. 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 rectify it, and therefore (it seems) judged nothing amiss in it; for had they done so, the obstinacy of the Age, could not have hindered 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 entirely to the Pope's Judgement 
n 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, etc. 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 professed, that they did not look upon these, as sufficient ground, to break with the Church of Rome. But that their Errors in Faith; their Sacrilege, 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 followed thereupon. This is indeed all, that the zealous Patrons of the Council assert; Yea all, that the Council itself 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 passed 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 mere sham's and Illusions. But  
4. 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 for obtaining their end; yet they in effect revoked them all again. And  
5. That these things are so notorious, that they are confessed, and complained 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 complained of, did chief, if not wholly proceed from the Popes themselves.  
2. That the Council made no provision for reforming of them.   
1. That the Popes themselves were the Fountain from which the evils chief flowed. For the proof of this (passing over many others as needless) I shall content myself 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 reformed; who presented to him upon Oath, That the Original of the evils the Church groaned under was, that some Popes (his Predecessors) having itching ears, had heaped 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 
r 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 etc. 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 Judgement of one of the better sort of Popes in this matter; I mean Adrian VI. who confessed 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 Prelates. As for what concerns us, says he to his Legate, Thou shalt promise that we will use our utmost endeavour, that this Court from whence peradventure all this evil did proceed, may be first reformed; that as the corruption hath flowed from thence to all Inferiors, so the Health and Reformation of all, may proceed from the same too 
(s) Scimus in hac Sancta Sede aliquor jam annis, multa abominanda fuisse, Abusus in spiritualibus etc. 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 
(t) 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 sat during the Council 
(u) Paul. iii. Julius iii. Marcellus two. Paul iv. Pius iv. , there was but one (viz. Marcellus) who was not infamous for Vice; and his Reign was so short 
(w) He died the 20th day of his Popedom. Papir. Masson. in vita ejus. , that it deserves not to be mentioned.  
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 Misdemeanours 
(x) 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 practised 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 mentioned by R. W. 
(y) Considerate. on the Counc. of Trent, c 12. , his Power is a little contracted, and the Profits of his Court in some things abridged: But that this was done for show only, and not with an intention to bind him, nothing can be more manifest, because they themselves let him lose again, and amply restore to him whatsoever they seemed 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 Apostolic See is always excepted and reserved 
(z) Postremo sancta Synodus omnia & singula sub quibuscunque clausulis & verbis, quae de morum Reformatione, at Ecclesiastica disciplina tam sub Fel. rec. Paulo. three 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 Pope's 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 
(a) Gerson de Potest. Eccles. Considerate. 12. Dictat. Gregorij. seven. etc. . So that to say, That in all their Decrees the Authority of the Apostolic See is preserved, is to say, (if the Pope be Judge, 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 reformed, 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 argued in the Council, to the great displeasure of the Papalins 
(b) Soav. l. 6, p. 533. .  
2. Let us consider the Abuses and Diforders which the Council passed 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 
(c) Gerson. Declarat. Defect. Viror. Ecclesiast. Pet. de Alliaco de Reformand. Eccles. Onus Ecclesiae. Centum Gravam. Nic. de Clemang. de corrupt. statu Eccles. Marsil. Patau. Defence. 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, etc. , 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 affirmed, That for Reformation, nothing had been proposed, but matters of no moment 
(d) Soav. p. 570. . After the 22. Session, the Archbishop of Prague told the Assembly of Ambassadors, That much time was consumed by the Council in doing nothing; that the Legates 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 
(e) 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); 
(f) Considerate. on the Counc. of Tr. c. 12. s. 206.  Count Luna, the Spanish Ambassador complained, That the principal matters for which the Council was assembled were omitted 
(g) Soav. l. 8. p. 802. ; so that in the judgement 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 
(h) Caes Aqu lin. de Trib, Hist. Concil. Trident, p. 49. .  
I grant, that some of those things mentioned by R. H. are matters of moment 
(i) Considerate. etc. 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 forced to live for the future a little more becoming the Vicar of the Prince of Peace? Who could have imagined, but that he had been forbidden, under forfeiture of his Triple Crown, to share the Church Revenues between his Byblows and his Donnaes'? And to transfer the Government of the Universal Church from himself, to a young Gallant called 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 practised in the Worship of Images? And to prevent those shameless Cheats that were put upon silly People by Counterfeit Relics? And that (if not for Conscience, yet for shame at least) the Penitentiary Tax should have been utterly abolished, and the yearly Kine turned out of their fat Pastures? That mercenary Whores might no longer brave it in Palaces, and mounted upon their Mules, be attended at Noonday by Nobles and Clergymen thorough 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) 
(k) 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 touched. 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 mischievous were wholly neglected, must it not needs be a goodly Reformation? That Physician 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 passed upon the great Reformation made in the 21. Session 
(l) 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 that slight Reformation they would seem to make; and that upon this twofold account. 1. Because many of them, it passed no Decrees to reform them, but referred them to the Pope. 2. For others, concerning which it passed Decrees of Reformation, many of the Decrees are mere sham's and Illusions.  
First, Several of those Abuses it took notice of, it referred 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 Judgement. 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 determined which is expedient for the Universal Church 
(m) 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 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 Salvoes, Exceptions and Limitations which defeat their force, are but mere sham's 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 Diocese, 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 increasing, 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 
(n) Si quis a patriarchal, Primatiali, Metropolitana, seu Cathedrali Ecclesia sibi quecunq, titulo, causa, nomine seu jure commissa, quacunque ille dignitate, gradu & praeeminentia praefulgeat, legitimo impedimento, seu justis & rationabilibus causis cessantibus, sex mensibus continuis extra suam Diocesin morando abfuerit, etc. . 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 practised 
(o) Soav. p. 2●9. . Unless the Council had determined 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 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 referred 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 passed, for granting one gratis).  
It will perhaps be said, That what was wanting in this Decree, was supplied 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 Bishoprics (Cardinals not excepted) are obliged to Personal Residence; nor may they be absent from their Churches, except for causes there mentioned, 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 
(q)— 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 own 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 Bishoprics, may by Virtue of this Decree be obliged 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 reckoned from the confirmation of the Decrees of the Council 
(r) 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 obtained 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 interested before the Ordinary, they shall be presumed to be surreptitiously obtained, and therefore shall be of no force, unless it shall be otherwise declared by the Apostolical See 
(s) 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 concerned, shall be Valid, if it seem good to the Apostolic 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 
(t) Considerate. etc. 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, Privileges and Faculties were granted, the exercise of which is by those Decrees prohibited 
(u) Soav. l. 4. p. 352. . And Ch. 5. the exception in the conclusion is of larger extent than all the Remainder 
(w) p. 353. .  
But because R. H. recommends to our consideration above all the rest, the Decrees of the Twenty fourth Session 
(x) Considerate. etc. Cap. 12. S. 206. , I shall proceed to them; and (for brevity's sake) passing over those which concern Matrimony, shall in a word reflect upon some of the rest.  
Chap. 8. To those which Sin publicly, public Penance is decreed. But the Decree is void by what follows, viz. Yet the Bishop may change this public Penance into another secret, when he shall judge it more expedient, 
(y) Episcopus tamen publicae hoc poenitentiae genus, in aliud secretum poterit commutare, quando ita magis judicaverit expedire. . Chap. 17. Plurality of Benefices is straight 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 
(z) Decretal. L. 6. Cap. 1. Tit. 16. Cap. Ordinarii. .  
The Decree of Cognition of Causes in the first instance, Chap. 20. was quite destroyed, 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 preserved, and the Symptom only cured. And however the adjunct (for urgent and reasonable Causes) did seem to moderate the matter well; yet Men of Understanding knew, that it was as much as to say, for any Arbitrary Cause 
(a) 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 obtained, cannot be a thing so ordinarily happening as to overthrow the whole benefit of the Decree 
(b) Considerate. etc. 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 Ambassadors had often declared against it, (as that which destroyed 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 Patiented 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 of the Decrees concerning matters to be reformed, 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, rendered no further binding than the Pope pleased) 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 Apostolic See in all things. This was expressly premised to the Decrees of Reformation, Sess. 7. 
(c) 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 declared (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 Apostolic See is excepted and preserved 
(d) Sess. 25. c. 21. .  
And what is meant by the Authority of the Apostolic See in this matter, but an Authority of dispensing with the Canons and Decrees, whensoever the Pope shall judge it convenient? Thus it is interpreted by Espensaeus 
(e) In cap. 1. Epist. ad Tit. , Richerins' 
(f) Hist. Concil. general. l. 4. par. 2. p. 182, 183. , and other Romish Doctors. Thus it was understood by Cardinal Amulius, when he persuaded 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 
(g) Soav. p. 815, 816. . But 'tis needless to produce Witnesses for the proof of this; since, as Father Paul says, Every Fool knew what this Exception meant 
(h) P. 260. . And was not this to pull down all they had before built up, as Richerins' says 
(i) 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 
(k) 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 although 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 
(l) 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 
(m) Sess. 24. c. 19 , by another Accesses or Regresses to Ecclesiastical Benefices, are forbidden 
(n) 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 practised by the Court of Rome 
(o) Comment. in cap. 1. Epist. ad. Tit. p. 483. Edit. Paris. 1619. .  
The Council decreed, That no Ecclesiastical Person, though a Cardinal, should hold two Bishoprics, or other Ecclesiastical Benefices 
(p) 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 Archbishoprics, and six of the richest Abbeys; another was possessed at once, of twelve Abbeys, and one of the fattest Bishoprics 
(q) 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 
(r) 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 Privilege which they call, Os apertum 
(s) Et inter alios, Cardinals propter Privilegium, quod os apertum nominant, nulla omnino indigent Dispensatione, ad omnia omnis generis Beneficia quantumvis incompatibilia possidenda, ibid. ? (How wide is a Cardinal's mouth when opened)? 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 Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Benefices 
(t) Sess. 24. c. 1. etc. 18. . And were not these well observed, when six Abbeys, and one Archbishopric, were reserved for a Child of three years old 
(u) Richer. l. 4. par. 2. p. 192. ? And was not Vrban 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 refused, 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 Live as She was pleased to direct and command 
(w) Rycaut in the Life of Innocent X. . And Clement X. was not 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 
(x) Id. in his Life. .  
There is another Decree, by which all Titles and Rights to Benefices, that were obtained by Simony, are made void 
(z) 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 Churchmen, and to hate their Ministry 
(a) 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, (though 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 publicly, and without shame, to bargain and contract for Offices and Benefices 
(b) Long 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 judgement 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 Gregory XIII. Sixtus V. Paul V Greg. XV. Vrban VIII. Innocent X. Alexander VII. and Clement X. did so observe this Decree, as to show that they consulted, either their Conscience, or their Honour. 
(y) Sess. 24. c. 14.   
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 referred to his Holiness 
d 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 forbade 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 seemed to any man obscure, and to need any interpretation and decision, commanded that he should have recourse to the Apostolic See, the Mistress 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 ourselves, as the holy Synod hath decreed 
e 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, etc. 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 easy 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 Bishoprics, one of them, which they chose, being retained, they should quit all the rest 
e 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 
f 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 Bishoprics, and as many Abbeys, the fourth part of the Profits only being assigned, to the person to whom he resigned 
g Ibid. .  
As Chemists 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 ware of; and therefore when the Pope's Officers dissuaded the Confirmation of those Decrees, which they thought prejudicial to their Profit: He like a better Politician, counselled 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 Apostolic 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 Apostolic See, the Rights and Prerogatives of the Church of Rome, will not only not be diminished, but increased and enlarged 
(h) Soav. l. 8, p. 816, 817. .  
By what hath been said, it is sufficiently evident, that the learned Dr. Stillingfleet spoke 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 
(i) Considerate. etc. Cap. 7. §. 124. .  
I have now showed, 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 referred them wholly to the Pope; Others, the Decrees to reform them, were many of them mere sham's and Illusions. 4. That supposing the Council had extended their Decrees to all Persons, and to all things that stood in need of being reform; 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 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 
(k) 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 preferred against the Council, by Protestants only, is not true, but manifestly false; as will appear by the last Argument proposed 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 of those many which offer themselves, I shall select a few Witnesses whose Authority is unquestionable.  
The Emperor when the Twenty second Session was passed, 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 
l 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 
m 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 
n p. 692. . Yea after the same Cardinal had been highly caressed by the Pope, and made entirely 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 entire 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 chief 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 
o 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, etc. Rich. l. 4. par. 2. p 241, 242. . Du Ferrier, the Ambassador of the King of France, thus addressed 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 Months'? 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 complete; 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, etc. 
p 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. etc. Thuani. l. 35. . A Jest was made of the Reformation in France; and in Germany it was not thought considerable, no not by the Catholics 
q Thuani. l. 3●. Rich. l. 4 par. 2. .  
But let us hear what was the Judgement of some of their most learned Divines. Espencoeus who was present at the Council under Paul III. could not be persuaded 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 
r 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 
s 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 Colleague 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 
t Monsieur vous ne fustes jamais mieux inspiré que de ne venir point, ear je croy que fussiez mort des indignitez qu'on comet par decà, pour obvier à la reformation. Memoirs Pour le Conc. de Trent, p. 441. . The Complaints of Gentianus Hervetus are so large, that I shall not Transcribe them, but refer the Reader to his long Epistle to the Jesuit Salmeron 
u 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 
w Venio ad decreta de morum & Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae reformatione; ad quam universae Nationes Christianae cum animo ardentissimo ab ducentis amplius annis anhelabant: Tandem pro vera atque 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 
x Quamobrem omnes Christiani Principes, atque 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 show, and outward Pomp only; and that all things should be referred to the Splendour and Profit of the Roman Court 
y Hic Tridentinae reformationis fuit exitus & scopus, ut nihil ad veritatem, sed in quandam speciem & pompam externam, atque 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 considered, that the Censure passed by them, was sufficiently confirmed 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 obliged to the Fathers, says he, that in reforming Manners and Discipline, they have used that Moderation and Indulgence toward us, that if we ourselves had chosen to take the work upon us, we had certainly used more severity 
z 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. Pallau. l. 24. c. 9 n. 5. . If any have 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 judgement 
a 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 showed, 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 Shame and Mockery. I proceed to show:   

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 showed. I now add, That they undertook the Defence of them, made Decrees to confirm them, and cursed all those who should dare to oppose them. The Pope's Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Host, Communicating in one Kind, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, and of Relics, Purgatory, Indulgences, were all established, and (as much as in them lay) rendered 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 Tenants (that is, in condemning all those Doctrines that were opposite to the Romish Errors) and in asserting the contrary 
(b) R. H. Considerate. etc. 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 
(c) Soav. l. 2. p. 228. . (Thanks to Father Aristotle. One would think his Logic and Metaphysics added to the Holy Scriptures, might make them a complete Rule, without the Addition of unwritten Traditions).  
'Tis true, that some of those Points were not then first broached, 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 show, 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.  
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 
(d) Sess. 4 .  
2. That the Books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, and the two Books of Maccabees, are Canonical Scripture 
(e) Ibid. . The contrary to which was Catholic Doctrine at Rome itself, but a few years before this Council 
(f) 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. verse 1. , and approved by Pope Clement VII. 
(g) 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 parts, quibus ipsi penitus carent. Cajetan Epist. Dedicat. ad Pap. Clement. VII. ante Comment in Libros Hist. V T. See Bishop Cousin's Scholast. Hist. of the Canon of the Scripture. . I know R. H. 
(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 paltry 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 conferred in Baptism, all that which hath the true and proper nature of Sin, is removed 
(i) Sess. 5. c. 5. .  
4. That Concupiscence in the Regenerate, is not truly and properly Sin 
(k) Ibid. .  
5. That the Works of justified Persons are truly Meritorious of Eternal Life, and increase of Glory 
(l) Sess 6. Can. 32. .  
6. That the Catholic Church from the beginning, hath always observed the manner of confessing to a Priest alone in secret 
(m) Sess. 14. Can. 6. .  
7. That Confession to a Priest is necessary to Salvation, by the Law of God 
n 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 
o 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 
p 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 
q Sess. 13. Can. 11. .  
11. That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice 
r 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 
s Can. 2. .  
13. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is Propitiatory, and aught to be offered for the Living and Dead; for Sins, Punishments, Satisfactions, and other Necessities 
t 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 
u 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 gratify the Pope) received in many Provinces, though 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 true Roman Rite observed within 300 years, is not that which is now observed by the Priests in the City, but that which is retained 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 
w Soav. 1. 6. p. 548, 549. . This Discourse displeased 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 Friar as scandalous or rash, did first condemn himself as uncapable of Truth 
x Ibid. .  
15. That not only the Degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity, expressed in the Book of Leviticus, hinder or dissolve Marriage 
y Sess. 24. Can. 3. .  
16. That Matrimony confirmed, not consumnated, is dissolved by the solemn Profession of Religion of either party 
z Can. 6. .  
17. That Matrimony contracted by Clergymen, is made void by their Vow 
a Can. 9 .  
18. That the Roman Church is the Catholic Church 
b Bulla super forma Juramenti Profess. 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 
c 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 acknowledge, 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.  
20. That all things delivered, defined and declared by the Sacred Canons, by General Councils, and especially by the Council of Trent, are necessary to Salvation 
d 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 easy 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 Falsehoods: 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 stiffly 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 Heretic, 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 Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved. Part of which Catholic 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 enjoin assent under Anathema to the contradictory Preposition, nor make it an Article of Faith necessary to be believed under the penalty of being reputed an Heretic 
e 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 
f Ibid. . Since he hath referred us to Canus, let Canus be Judge; provided those other words and Rules in Canus, which he hath unsaithfully omitted, may be supplied. And  
1. The first Rule Canus gives, by which we may know that a Decree is the side, is this, (which he says is manifest) If those who assert the contrary, are judged to be Heretics 
g 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 
h Asserentes contrarium perpetuo damnat & Anthematizat. Sess. 14. ; that is, judges them to be Heretics. And in the conclusion of the Doctrine concerning Matrimony, the Synod decrees the following Anathematisms expressly against Heretics 
i— Hos in ipsos Haereticos, eorumque errores decernens Anathematismos. . And therefore by this Rule, the contradictory to every one of those Propositions which are anathematised in the Thirteen Canons concerning Penitence, the Four concerning Extreme Unction, and the Twelve concerning Matrimony, is an Article of Faith necessary to be believed, under the Penalty of being reputed an Heretic: Such for instance are these,  
That Penance, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, are truly and properly Sacraments.  
That no Man can be saved who does not confess to a Priest, those circumstances of Mortal Sin which change the kind.  
That Matrimony consers Grace.  
2. It is a Decree of Faith, when the Canon runs in this form. If any Man thinks this or that, let him be accursed 
k Siquis hoc aut illud senserit, Anathema sit. Canus ubi supra. . As by this Rule the far greater part of the Propositions defined 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 sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares, the Catholic Church hath never understood to be called 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 
l 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 Relics, it is added, If any Man shall teach or think contrary to these Decrees, let him be Anathema 
m 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,  
That Concupiscence is truly and properly Sin.  
That it is repugnant to the Word of God, to pray to the Saints with Mental as well as Vocal Prayer.  
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 passed upon those who shall contradict (or speak against it) 
n 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 mentioned, but almost all the Doctrines defined by the Council, 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 public dispute, defend the contrary Propositions, or say that the Church hath erred 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 anathemas, 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 expressly said, That it is firmly to be believed by all the Faithful 
o Quarta, si quicquam express & 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 
p— Post hanc Catholicam de Justificatione Doctrinam, quam nisi quisque 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 
q Itaque summorum Pontificum, Conciliorumque 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 Church Universal; in like manner as the Council expressly proposes those of Sess. 14. to be believed and held of all Christians 
(r) 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 Anathematised barely for affirming or denying such or such a Proposition, do enjoin 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 
(s) 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. 
(t) Cap. 11. §. 192. , The contrary to such Propositions, the maintainers whereof, are Anathematised as Heretics, 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 itself 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, 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 mentioned, 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 explicitly to be known, or believed absolutely ratione medii, for attaining Salvation, which was not so formerly. Then none of the Propositions before mentioned, 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 determined 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 Heretics, viz. Erasmus, Cassander, Wicelius, etc. 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 than 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 forgot 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, 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 
u 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 persuaded 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 Judgement we are bound to believe and submit to) declares them to be Divine Truths 
w Ibid. . But how come we to be bound to believe and submit to the Judgement of the Council of Trent? Was it a Council of the Catholic Church? No, but of the Roman Church only. Does the Church of England own any Subjection to the Church of Rome? No, that Church had never any Dominion over her, but what was Usurped. 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 Judgement 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 2 lie, Supposing it hath erred, (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 
x 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 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 God's Glory, some way conducible to Christian Edification, to the Peace of the Church, etc. 
y 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 
z Rom. 7. 7. . That it is any way more advantageous to God's Glory, to believe with the Council, that there is no Divine Precept for the Laity to receive the Eucharist in both Kind's 
a Sess. 21. Cap. 1. , than to believe with Pope Gelasius, that it is Sacrilege to divide that Mystery 
b 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 
c 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 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Council, 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 
e S. 194. . Thereby plainly 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 expressly own the Pope for their Lord; 
(f)— 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 
(g) 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 
(h) 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 delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and general Councils, and especially by the holy Council of Trent. Then it follows, This true Catholic Faith without which no Man can be saved, which at this time I willingly profess, etc. 
(i) Caetera item omnia a sacris Canonibus, & Oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita & declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simulque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatus & rejectas & anathematizatas, Ego pariter damno, rejicio & anathematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, etc.  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 Churchmen 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 
(k) § 195 n. 1. . That is, in any other sense than that which is false; as has been already showed 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 eudenced to him, to be a Definition of the Church 
(l) ibid. ; this absurdity unavoidably follows, viz. That no Man to whom it is sufficiently evidenced, That the Councils of Constance 
(m) Sess. 4. & 5.  and Basil 
(n) Sess. 2. , defined a general Council to be above the Pope; and the Councils of Florence 
(o) Sess. 25.  and Lateran V 
(p) Sess. 11.  defined the Pope to be above a General Council: That the Sixth General Council declared Marriage to be dissolved by Heresy, 
(q) Can. 72.  and the Council of Trent declared the contrary, 
(r) 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 public Liturges of the Catholic Church 
(s) § 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 ask, 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 mentioned, not as first defined, but as confirmed by the Council of Trent. So that setting aside all those which were aded by Pius IU. and the Trent Fathers, we desire no more to justify 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' Decree given to the Armenians 
(t) Summa Concil: p. 873, 874. Edit. Rothomag. 1633. .  
2. The great Lateran Council did, I grant, enjoin 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 
(u) 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 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 own 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, 
(w) 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 fashioned the several rods, and he bound them up into a bundle. 
(x) 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 Pope's only, and not Councils, were his Predecessors; yet by the help of an (i. e.) those rods which were fashioned 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 Luther's appearance 
(y) R. H. c. 11. S. 198. ; As if the Pope had not authority to make a rod without a Synod. Notwithstanding the good service this Author hath done his Holiness here in England, were he at Rome, he would be whipped 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 Luther's time, in which any one of those Rods, I have before mentioned, was fashioned by the Pope.  
But, The Protestants who accuse, seem as guilty 
(z) R. H. S. 199. . In that the Protestants seem as guilty, it is confessed 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 necessary 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 
(a) Disc. 3. c. 7. , that looks toward the proof of this, except this passage; As the Roman Church doth anathematise 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 anathematise those only who affirm the contrary to her Articles to be true? Does she not also expressly anathematise those who think the contrary to several of them 
(b) 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 of, ruins Salvation 
(c) Considerate. S. 192. 194. Disc. 3. S 81. n. 4, 5, 6. ? He says indeed, not because it is in itself, 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 composed 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 
(d.) 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 contained in it, that doth not in the highest degree savour of Holiness 
(e)— 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 God 
(f) 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' Creed run? All things delivered, defined and declared by Sacred Canons, Universal 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 Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved, which at present I freely profess, and truly hold, I the same N. do Promise, Vow and Swear, most constantly to retain and confess entire 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 
(g) Bulla super forma Jurament Profess. 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 acknowledge 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 contained 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 mentioned by R. H. 
(h) § 201. . And it might as easily have been showed, 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 showing these two things: 1. What Corruptions in Discipline were strengthened and confirmed by it. 2. What were created, or introduced anew.  
1. What Corruptions in Discipline were strengthened and confirmed by it. Not that I intent a complete 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 Pope's Absolute Supremacy, or his Superiority over a General Council (which though 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 
(i) § 155. . But if the Council be Infallible, Is it not the same thing to acknowledge, That he hath the Administration of the Universal Church, as they expressly do in one of their Decrees 
(k) 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 Pope's 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 acknowledge the King's 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 acknowledging that whatsoever they do, is of no force unless confirmed by him; than by barely saying a thousand times over, That he is their Sovereign Lord 
(l) 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 
(m) De hac autem absoluta Jurisdictione Pontificis tanquam Ecclesiae gubernandae necessaria, ●epius abunde differ●●imus. Neque Concilii Patres id in Controversiam ●adduxerunt, etc. Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 9 c. 16. n. 4. . And in another, That nine parts of ten were for the Pope's Prerogative above a Council 
(n) l. 24. c. 14. n 12. .  
2. The Exemption of ecclesiastics 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 Conon's, 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 
(o) 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 
(p) Concil. Lateran. sub Innocent. III. Can. 43. . That they be not cited for any Crime, before any Secular Judge 
(q) Bulla Pauli III Idibus Aprilis, 1536. . That they pay no manner of Taxes, without the Pope's leave 
(r) 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. 
(s) 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 dependence 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, 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, than they shall escheat to their Principal Lords 
(t) 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, etc. upon Churchmen, without the Pope's leave; together with all Ecclesiastical Persons that shall pay them 
(u) Decretal. 6. l. 3. Tit. 23. cap. Clericis Laicos. . Which Decree, though as to some intents revoked by Clement V 
(w) Clementin. l. 5. Tit. 17 cap. Quoniam , was entirely renewed by Leo X. in the fifth Lateran Council 
(x) 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 ecclesiastics with Tolls, Taxes, etc. are excommunicated 
(y) 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 
(z) Sess. 9 , which is another of those which the Council of Trent commands to be observed: Now this 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 enforces all the Penalties contained in Bulla Caenae Domini: And particularly it Excommunicates Kings and Princes, who shall impose any Taxes upon Churchmen, or receive any from them, though they pay them willingly 
(a) 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 itself alone an irrefragable Evidence of the Judgement 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, etc. 
(b) Bulla Pauli III. Idib Apr. 1536. Bullarii Rom Tom. 2. . And this Bull was published 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 Schismatic and Heretic; and what punishment he is then liable to, I need not tell you.  
4. Another gross Abuse confirmed by this Council, is giving the Pope the Election into Bishoprics 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 finished, it is to be reduced into a public Instrument, and sent to him, to be examined by four Cardinals, and proposed in Consistory; that his Holiness having full knowledge 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 
(c) Sess. 24. Cap 1. .  
5. The reserving of all such weighty criminal causes of Bishops, as deserve Deposition and Deprivation, to the Pope's Cognizance and Decision. And if the Cause be such, as it must necessarily be tried out of the Court of Rome, that it be committed to none, except such Metropolitans and Bishops as the Pope shall choose: 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 
(d) 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, entirely 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 Pope's beck?  
6. The Exemptions of Monastic Orders from the Jurisdiction of Bishops. This Abuse had been complained 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 Emperor's Ambassadors 
(e) 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 forbidden 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 Apostolic See 
(f) 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 Prelates, by Apostolical Authority 
(g) Sess 6. c. 4. . That the Ordinary of the place, shall every year by the Apostolical Authority, visit all Churches, however exempted 
(h) Sess. 7. cap. 8. . That all Secular Clerks notwithstanding any Exemptions, Declarations, Customs, Oaths, Agreements, shall as oft as there is need, be corrected and chastised for their Excesses and Faults, by the Bishop's resident in their Churches, as Delegates of the Apostolic See 
i Sess. 14. cap. 4. . That the Monastries held in Commendam, the Abbeys, Priories, etc. not tied to a Regular observance, shall be visited by the Bishops, as Delegates of the Apostolic See 
k 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, than the Bishops, as Delegates of the Apostolic 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 defy 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 chief 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 Pope's Delegates, they act purely by a Power derived from him, which he may therefore either revoke, or contract at his Pleasure. A fine Shame! Are not the Bishops highly promoted? They may now visit and correct Churches, Chapters, Colleges, Monasteries, Abbeys, 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 Pope's Tyranny was enlarged, and advanced to a higher pitch than ever. Several of which have been already mentioned, and therefore I shall not now enlarge upon them. As  
1. The Decree of Proponentibus Legatis passed in the first Sesfion under Pius 
l Sess. 17. , That nothing should be proposed to be treated of in Council, but by the Pope's Legates. A Privilege never granted to any Pope, by any foregoing Council.  
2. The making of all their Decrees with the Reservation of the Pope's Authority 
m Sess. 7. & Sess. 25. cap. 21. , (as has been before showed). Another new Prerogative conferred 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 
n 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 ask his leave.  
4. The imposing on Provincial and Diocesan Synods an Oath of true Obedience to the Pope 
o Sess. 25. cap. 2. , another new piece of Tyranny; for though 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 
(p) 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 Diocese, 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 nonresidence, and assign them a competent Salary out of the Fruits? Not by their own Authority, but as they are Delegates of the Apostolic See 
(q) Sess. 6. cap. 2. . May they depute Assistants to unlearned and ignorant Parish Priests? They may, as Delegates of the Apostolic See 
(r) Sess. 21. cap. 6. . May they take upon them to Examine a Notary, and if they find him unfit, forbidden him the Exercise of his Office in Ecclesiastical matters? Yes, but as Delegates of the Apostolic See 
(s) 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 judge necessary for the good of their People, and for the profit of the Church: No, but only as Delegates of the Apostolic See 
(t) Sess. 24. cap. 10.  This is the enlargement of the Bishop's Power, which R. H. so much boasts of 
(u) Considerate. on the Council of Trent, c. 12. § 211 .  
Many more Instances of like nature might be produced, but these may suffice to show 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 
(w) 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 Pope's Power, that it was never so great, nor so solidly founded 
(x) Ibid. . And likewise, that R. H. had as little reason to carp at a like passage of Dr. Stillingfleet's, viz. That which was intended to clip the Wings of the Court of Rome, had confirmed and advanced the Interest of it 
(y) Considerate. c. 12. § 103. . For as all those Decrees, that might otherwise have retrenched their Exorbitances, were themselves so clipped 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 mentioned, 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 
(z) Pallau. 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 Pope's 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. .  
FINIS.     

AN ADVERTISEMENT Of Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
THe History of the Reformation of the Church of England, by GILBERT BURNET, D. D. in two Volumes, Folio.  
The Moderation of the Church of England, in her Reformation, in Avoiding all undue compliances with Popery and other sorts of Fanaticisms, etc. by TIMOTHY PULLER, D. D. Octavo.  
A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church: more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees; by WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo.  
An Answer to Mr. Sergeants [Sure Footing in Christianity] concerning the Rule of Faith; with some other Discourse; by WILLIAM FALKNER, D. D. Octavo.  
A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, against the Romanists; by GILBERT BURNET, D. D Octavo.  
The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bshop of Sarisbury. Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop; Collected and Written by the same Hand; Octavo.  
The LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion. Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English, and Examined by GILBERT BURNET, D D. Octavo.  
The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland; Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition in Sevil in matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience; Quarto.  
The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists; Quarto.  
A Discourse concerning the necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome; Quarto, First and Second parts.  
A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue; Quarto.  
A PAPIST not Misrepresented by PROTESTANTS. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented] Quarto.  
An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  
An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England; Quarto.  
A CATECHISM Explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome; with an Answer thereunto, by a Protestant of the Church of England; Octavo.