For what he saith says he of the Authority of Austin is a manifest lye and 't is certain that the Historian after his wonted manner belyes 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 lye These two things he says of S. Austin First that he does affirm the necessity of the Eucharist for Children Secondly That he does alledge for it Pope Innocent Both which will presently appear to be most manifest Truths As to the first no Man that hath look'd into the writings of S. Austin against the Pelagians can be ignorant that he frequently and with zeal asserts this if the words Parvuli and Infantes signifie Children But because the Jesuit says that the Historian ought to have quoted the Places and the words though it will be too tedious to transcribe the words they are so many yet I will refer the Reader to at least nine places in 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 de Peccator Merit Remis l. 1. c. 20. c. 24. do make the Eucharist as necessary to Children as Baptism And which is observable S. Austin makes the drinking of the Blood of Christ no less necessary to Infants than the eating of his Flesh which is a manifest proof that in his days the Cup was thought necessary for the Laity 'T is true that Aquinas in the place quoted by Henry asserts the contrary Doctrine out of S. Austin But nothing can be truer than that Aquinas either ignorantly or wilfully abuses the Father by perverting first his words in changing cogitatis into cogitetis for so it is in Aquinas and then wresting them to a sense directly contrary to S. Austin's meaning for those very words are used by him to prove that little Children cannot be sav'd without receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as will be evident to any Man who will be at the pains to consult the context What he says S. Thomas quotes out of S. Austin to the same purpose qu. 50. Art 7. is certainly false because there is no 7th Art under that Question And as manifest it is That S. Austin alledges Pope Innocent for this Doctrine which is the other thing Father Paul says of him For behold saith he Pope Innocent of Blessed Memory says That little Children have not Life without the Baptism of Christ and without partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ (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 determin'd 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 c. Qui denique parvulos definivit nisi manducaverint carnem filli vitam prorsus habere non posse Contra Julian Pelag. l. 1. col 943. to 7. Edit Bas I think by this time what the Jesuit calls a manifest Lye doth appear to be a Truth as manifest as Day But 't is certain says he that he belyes Pope Innocent All that he says concerning Innocent is That his Epistle yet remains in which he plainly says this If then it be certain that Father Paul belyes him it must also be certain That when he wrote this there was no such Epistle of Pope Innocent's in being And yet it is certain that this Epistle remains still and any one that lists may see it among S. Austin's Epistles viz. Epist 93. and in Binius 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 c. says That some Men of good Learning have thought that Innocent understood this place of S. John not of the Eucharist but of Baptism But they were deceived says he in that they did not apprehend the force of the Argument which the Pope uses For he proves the necessity of Baptism for Children because the Eucharist is necessary of which they are not capable with ut Baptism And upon these words Illud vero c. his Note is Hence it is manifest that in the judgment of Innocent I. the Eucharist is necessary even for Infants 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 Lye That Binius and Maldonate expresly 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 Hereticks or Pope Pius IV. and the Council of Trent have erred If
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 Republick to change their Religion he inculcated upon them the necessity of adhering to it That God by his singular Grace had placed them in the Catholick Apostolick Roman holy Church for which they were bound to acknowledge his Divine Favour and to render him continual Thanks since no greater misfortune could befal them than that they should abandon or forsake it That no Man ought to suffer himself to be shaken in his confidence nor the Prince to give way that a change or alteration should be so much as spoken of u P. 160 161. In a word That in all his Consultations and Writings he always honoured the See Apostolick and the Popes with a Supreme Reverence 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 unhandsom reflecting word might slip from his Pen That he who took so great care that nothing might pass the Press that might be just occasion of offence to the Pope and his Court That he who well knew how tender the Republick was of their Honour in point of Religion and how highly offended when Pius IV. seem'd to think that they had recommended to him for Cardinal a Person suspected of Heresie That he who after he enter'd upon publick employment denied himself the pleasure of converse with many learned Men that none might take occasion to reflect upon the State That he who knew that if he was suspected of Heresie the State would be so too because in all matters relating to Religion he was their Oracle and that nothing could be more dangerous to the State than to fall under such a suspicion Can it I say be supposed by any Man not forsaken of Sense and Reason that such a Person as this should utter those words and that he should utter them to a Stranger and to a Stranger that he spake to but occasionally and in haste x Incidissetque ipsi opportunitas cursim illius alloquendi Apparat. c. 2. But now for once to gratifie the Cardinal let us grant That in his notion of Heresie Father Paul was an Heretick For he did not believe that the Pope is above a Council or that he hath power to depose Princes He did not believe him to be an infallible Dictator and that in case he err Men are bound to own his Errors for Truths And such Hereticks I think we may reckon Gerson Espensaeus Richerius and the generality of the Gallican Church But to proceed 5. There cannot be a more undoubted Argument of Sincerity in an Historian than Impartiality and this is in many things so visible in Father Paul's History that he must shut his Eyes close who does not discern it Pallavicino 't is true frequently represents him as a Man of such malignity against the Popes the Presidents of the Council and the Catholicks as they call themselves in the general as prompted him always to defame them But this is a wilful misrepresentation He was as ready to speak good where there was ground for it as evil of them He relates those things that make for their Credit as well as their Disgrace and sets their Virtues in as clear a light as he does their Vices I shall give some Instances relating to the Popes and Presidents of the Council 1. To begin with the Popes He says of Leo X. That he was careless in things that concern'd Religion and Piety But does he not also say That he adorned the Papacy with many good parts which he brought into it amongst which were his singular learning in Humanity Goodness and a marvellous sweet manner in treating of affairs with a pleasing behaviour more than humane joyned with incomparable Liberality and a great inclination to favour those that were Learned and endowed with any extraordinary Quality Which Vertues were not found in that See of a long time before neither equal nor near unto his 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 shew'd himself more enclined to Pleasure than Business b Lib. 3. p. 299. But is it not commendable that he made choice of Cardinal Pool for his Legat into England thinking that because he was of the Blood Royal and of an exemplary Life he would be the fittest Instrument to reduce that Kingdom to the Church of Rome c Lib. 5. p. 384. He represents Paul IV. as a passionate proud domineering Huff But he withal mentions the severity of his manners in the foregoing part of his life and his endeavours after he came to the Popedom to reform the Court. In like manner he treats Pius IV. In a word those Popes who were most infamous for their Vices he finds something to say of them that is laudable But then what says he of Adrian VI Oh! he was a Man too good for this World For the Court says he being not worthy of such a Pope it pleased God to call him d Lib. 1. p. 30. What says he of Marcellus II He was a Man grave and severe by nature and of a constant mind that shew'd the World that his Dignity had not changed him He thought it necessary to make an entire Reformation and that it would be no loss to the Papacy to cut off its Pomps and Vanities but would preserve and inlarge it 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 deform'd as drawn by others who yet were no Hereticks that his when compared with theirs may be thought to flatter them Yea I appeal to any indifferent Reader whether Pallavicino himself says not more to the discredit of Leo X. 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 gives him And for those Popes which Soave highly commends does not Pallavicino as much defame them Adrian of whom Soave thought the World not worthy Pallavicino represents as a Pope not worthy of the World He was indeed an excellent Priest but in truth a mean Pope the Cardinals valu'd him above his desert when they exalted him to the Papal Throne i Fu Ecclesiastico ottimo Pontifice in verita mediocre c. l. 2. c. 9. And for Marcellus though he falls foul upon Soave for defaming him yet see what a worthy Eulogie he has left of him 'T was happy for him that he died so soon for had his Reign been long he would hardly have maintain'd by his actions that high opinion the World had conceived of him 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 Romanis Pontificibus narrat Unde e contra minus damni Petrus Soave in suo opere afferre videtur p. 77. Quis tulerit Gracchos 2. Having seen how fairly he treats the Popes let us now look whether he hath shew'd himself so just to their Legats in the Council Pallavicino says That he defames not only some but all the Presidents and that perpetually m Non parlo del vituperio perpetuo col quale infama e tutti i Presidenti di essa c. Introduz c. 11. If this Accusation were true it would be a shrewd Argument of his insincerity but how remote it is from the neighbourhood of truth will soon be made appear The Presidents of the Council under Paul III. were John Maria de Monte Cardinal Bishop of Palestrine Marcellus Cervinus Cardinal Priest of the holy Cross and Reginald Pool Cardinal Deacon of S. Mary in Cosmedin Hear now what Soave says of them In this Man viz. Reginald Pool the Pope chose Nobility of Blood and Opinion of Piety which commonly was had of him In Marcellus Constancy and immovable and undaunted Perseverance together with exquisite Knowledge In Monte reality and openness of mind with such Fidelity to his Patrons that he preferred their interest to the safety of his own Conscience 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 Legats 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 Popes 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 Legats in common Let us now see what he says of each of them apart and first of Marcellus When a great and rich Prelate r This was the Cardinal of Trent in the Congregation went about to shew that they ought only to aim at the Reformation aggravating much the common Deformation of the whole Clergy and inculcating that so long as our Vessels were not cleansed the Holy Ghost would not dwell in them The Cardinal of Holy Cross much commended that Prelate for making mention of a thing so holy and of so good example for beginning from themselves they might easily reform all the rest of the World and he earnestly exhorted all to the practice thereof Å¿ 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 complain'd long since of the absence of Prelates and Pastors daily demanding Residence That their absence from their Churches is the cause of all the mischiefs of the Church For the Church may be compared to a Ship the sinking whereof is ascribed to the absent Pilot That Heresies Ignorance and Dissolution do reign in the People and bad Manners and Vices in the Clergy because that Pastors being absent from the Flock no Man hath care to instruct those or correct these c. w L. 2. p. 191. When his Master the Pope order'd the Legats to find out matters to delay the Session Monte who was of an ingenuous Disposition thought it would be hard and could not promise to be constant in so long a Dissimulation 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 Dependents of the Farnesi for his good Disposition were content to elect him Pope to succeed Paul III. That he was of exemplary life That he was acceptable to the Nobility of England for his Wisdom and Sanctity a P. 298 384 405. That many in England were scandaliz'd and alien'd from the Pope for depriving him of his Legation And if this be to dispraise what is it to commend a Man But let it be that in the Jesuits reckoning good Disposition and exemplary Life are no matters of just Commendation The Presidents of the Council under Julius III. were Marcellus Crescentius Cardinal of S. Marcellus Sebastianus Pighinus