ANSWER.

It was called, Maximum, you say, for the number of eight hundred Priors and Abbots, (who had no voyce in Councell but by priuiledge from the Pope) was as great againe as the number of the Bishops. Tis true that it was iustly called maximum partly for this reason, though not for this only, for the number of voyces, not only of Bishops who haue their suffrages by common right, but euen of Abbots and Priors, who haue theirs by the Popes grant, doth main­ly contribute to the greatnesse of a Coūcell. Yet suppose the greatnesse of this Councell be to be measured by the nūber of Bishops only, how many can there be named greater? but very few in the world; and therfore it may well be called, Maximum. And Cele­berrimum [Page 8] also; not, that so many met together, but did nothing, (as you say;) but because there were present the Pope in person, two Patriarchs in person, and the other two by their Legats, the Greeke and Roman Em­perours by their Legats, the Ambas­sadours of the kings of France, Spaine, England, Hierusalem and Cyprus, with others; as I shall proue anon. But if to be famous for doing nothing, and for being to no purpose deserue the title of Celeberrimum, these goodly obiections, when they are well knowne, will iustly beare that title on their brow.

You further tell vs, that Platina (whose words you cite) was the Popes owne Secretary: and you doe it either to no purpose, or else to insinuate, that therfore hee was more knowing in the truth of the story, or the more faithfull historian, or both. For the former, it had indeed beene likely, if hee had beene Secretary to the Pope, vnder whom this Councell assem­bled, as any one would thinke you [Page 9] meant, when you added this note in such a weighty parenthesis. But cer­taine it is, that Platina was borne ma­ny yeares after the celebration of this Councell, and died in the yeare 1481. which was aboue 260. yeares after this Councell; as saith Trithemius de scriptorib. Eccles. as hee is cited in the workes of Platina, the page before the Epistle. This therfore is but a de­ceiptfull insinuation of yours. Or if you did not say this with intent to de­ceiue others, but were your selfe de­ceiued; surely your care to informe your selfe well before you write, is very small. Besides if it were true, that hee had beene the Popes owne Secre­tary, as for greater emphasis you ex­presse it, yet his authority cannot counterpoyse the authority of all that are of a contrary mind, (to that you thinke Platina was of,) whom I shall by and by produce. And lastly Platina doth not affirme to the pre­iudice of this Councell, that which you erroneously imagine hee doth, as I shall presently shew. As for his [Page 10] faithfullnesse, I doe not thinke you will make his being the Popes owne Secretary an argument therof; men of your coate are not such honourers of the Pope.

Now for the words themselues of Platina, you misvnderstand them; for you apply those words, nec decerni ta­men quicquam aperte potuit, generally, to the whole businesse of the Coun­cell, whereas the intent of them, at the most, is but particular concerning the Holy Land, as the fore-going words doe shew, which are these: At Pontifex vbi videret Saracenorum po­tentiam in Asia concrescere, apud Late­ranum, maximum Concilium celebrat. Venere multa tum quidem in consultatio­nem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit, quod & Pisani & Genuenses ma­ritimo, & Cisalpini terrestri bello interse certabant. These words then, nec decer­ni tamen quicquam apertè potuit, are at the most to bee referred to the bui­sinesse of the Holy Land, of sending ayde thither, and making resistance against the Turkes in Asia, and to [Page 11] nothing else. And the reason why nothing could bee decreed in that matter, was the warres hee mentions, which could not bee a hindrance from their making of other Canons in that Councell.

And as it is apparent enough, that this at most, was the meaning of Pla­tina, to wit, that nothing was decreed concerning the Holy warre; and that therfore this place makes nothing to your purpose, who hereby would make voyde all the Canons of this Councell; soe it is also apparent that Platina (if soe much was his meaning) was deceiued euen in that; and that there was something decreed con­cerning the sending of assistance to the Holy Land, as appeareth by the decree of the Expedition, which is at the end of the Canons, whose truth I shall further proue by and by. Yea, and that Platina did not soe much as deny the decree of the Expedition, in his words, nec decerni quicquam aperté potuit, is very probable; for then hee would rather haue said, nec decerni [Page 12] quicquam potuit, absolutely; but his qualification of it by the word apertè, seemes to grant that something was done, though not apertè. And that something was decreed, is manifest by that which I shall say hereafter; what then hee meanes by these words, nec apertè, in that which was decreed, is not manifest. Perhaps by Decree, hee meanes the execution of the Decree, in actuall warring against the Turkes, wherein there was nothing openly done, whatsoeuer might bee secretly done tending to their preiu­dice. If this bee his meaning, (as no other can bee with truth in the thing) then, though his words bee obscure, and improper to signifie thus much, yet his meaning is true, but nothing to your purpose.

But Nauclerus doth open this ob­scurity, and makes it cleere against you; for hee speaking of the same bui­sinesse, and vsing the same words with Platina, in the rest, insteed of Platina's apertè, hee saith aptè; [...] Vol. 2. [...].914. nec de­cerni tamen quicquam aptè potuit, quod & Pisani & Genuenses &c. There could [Page 13] nothing bee fitly, conueniently, and to the purpose decreed in regard of the tyme because of the warres in Eu­rope. And immediatly after hee saith, (to confute that which you say, that there was nothing done heere) Editae tamen nonnullae constitutiones re­feruntur, but there are diuers constitu­tions declared to bee made.

As for Matthew Paris his Historiae minor, I cannot meet with it, and in the volume of his whole workes both maior and minor, set forth lately by D. Wats of London: I can finde no such words as you cite. And if you had beene willing that your quotation should haue beene examined, you would haue giuen a man a neerer ayme than a whole history, whether maior or minor, to finde it in, especially in a quotation so important to your mayne designe; vnlesse you meant to giue a man more trouble than is faire in one that writes a controuersie. The like you haue also done in some of your following authorities. But if these words, Et cum nihil geri in tanto [Page 14] negotio cernerent, which are all that concerne your purpose, bee to bee found in him, hee speakes of the same expedition of the Holy Land, and of the execution therof, not of the Decree it selfe, as the word geri will aswell beare in its signification: and if hee meāt otherwise hee had no good intelligence in the buisinesse, (as I shall presently proue;) for though hee liued in the same time of this Councell, yet hee liued in a farre di­stāt place. And his words, in tāto nego­tio, doe surely poynt at some one par­ticular matter, which though it haue beene the occasion of calling many Councells, yet when the Prelats were met, they discussed and decreed many other things for the good of the Church. Soe that though it bee true that nothing was executed in the great businesse of the Holy warres, by reasō of the warres in christēdome, yet it is farre frō prouing that which you soe boldly affirme, that neither the De­cree of the expedition for the Holy Land, nor any one Canon was made in this Councell. They met (say you) [Page 15] but did nothing; nor haue you (I am sure) done any thing against them. And that you may further see the in­tegrity of this your Author, in matters concerning the person of this Pope, (which is the purport of all the other words by you alleadged out of him,) reade Baronius in his last tome, anno 1197. who telleth vs, that this Mat­thew Paris seemeth to haue writ his history of purpose to take occa­sion to sclander the Popes; and then reciting a story, concludeth thus. Vi­disti Lector Parts ingenium, animique male compositi malam sententiam, res fin­gere, verbaque formare indigna Romano Pontifice, & ab hoc vno tam patenti men­dacio caetera discas, & caueas vide asque qua tunc sit homo fide dignus, cū totus sit in carpendis Rom. Eccles. Pontificibus. And therfore his accusation of the Pope for exacting a great summe of mony of the Councell, first as it is imperti­nent to your buisinesse, (for his couetounsesse could not nullifie the Canons of the Councell) so also is it most vnlikely to be true, because Paris [Page 16] is recorded for a slanderer, and Pope Innocent III. for a worthy and ex­cellent man.Naucle­rus vol. 2. p. 876. Nauclerus calleth him, vir doctrina & moribus insignis. And Platina, in his life, saith, constat cum in quouis genere vitae probatissimum fuisse, dignumque qui inter Sanctos Pontifices censeatur. And againe in the next words to those you cite, cuius vita adeo probata fuit, vt post eius mortem, nihil eorum quae in vita egerit, laudanerit, im­probaueritque, immutatum est. The same also saith Nauclerus; and adds, quin & religionis apprimè studiosus. But you are glad to cite any thing to the dis­paragement of à Pope, though there be no colour of truth for it.

Now that nothing at all was done in this Councell, which is the mayne matter you driue at,Vol. 2. p. 915. & for which you haue misinterpreted the meaning of Platina and Paris, is very vntrue. Which I proue, first by the authority of Gregory IX. who liued in the time of this Councell, and was created Pope but about eleuen yeares after, and commanded the Decrees should [Page 17] be put in the body of the Canon law, wherein hee vsed the seruice of Ray­mundus, of whom Platina thus wri­teth, In vita Greg. IX. fine. Raymundum autem Barchino­nensem, quo adiutore in compilando libro Decretalium, Gregorius vsus est, ita qui­dam tàm laudant, So say the Annal Ec­cles post Ba­ron tom 13. p. 439 XV. vt maiori commenda­tione laudari nemo possit. And Binius in the life of the sayd Gregory IX saith that this Raymundus was Canonized by Clement VIII.

Secondly,S. Thom. 4. sent. dist. 17. q 3. art. 1 ad tertiam. I proue it by the testi­mony of the greatest Diuines of that age, S. Thomas, and S. Bonauenture, who speaking of the precept of yearly confession,S Bonau. 4. sent dist. 17 q. 2. arg. 3. say that the Church did institute it, and the Fathers command it in this Councell.

Thirdly, by the testimony of the Councell of Trent, which speaking of the same Decree, calls it,Conc. Tria sess. 14 can 8. the consti­tution of the great Lateran Councell. And that the Acts of this Councell were alwayes extant, and are not counter­fait, appeares, in that they now are, and haue beene in the body of the Ca­non law, euer since the time of Greg, [Page 18] IX. who commanded them to be in­serted; andAnnal. Eccles. post Baron. tom. 13. anno 1234. XV. anno 1234. which were but nineteene yeares after the Coun­cell, approued the collection. Neither could any man haue meanes to know the truth of the Canons better than hee, the Councell hauing beene held not long before, by his vncle, in that citty, where hee being Pope could command the sight of all the monu­ments; and many were still aliue who had beene present in the Councell ce­lebrated but nineteene yeares before the publishing of these Canons, & knew therfore what was done in it, better than those who were further remoued, either in time as Platina was, or in place as was Matthew Paris, if they had (as you suppose) said any thing against it. Nor was it likely that Pope Gregory either would or could haue obtruded them before the eyes of such great Prelats and Princes, for decrees made in Councell, had they not beene so indeed. Nor would the Church (the things there determined soe much concerning her) nor they [Page 19] who did soe much emulate her pro­ceedings, haue beene silent, had such a thing beene attempted.

Lastly I proue that there were Ca­nons made in this Councell, yea and that those Canons were receiued in England, (a thing which you deny towards the end of your discourse) by aMatth. Paris. hist. ma. anno 1222. generall Coūcell (so it is stiled) of England, held at Oxford, by Ste­phen Archbishop of Canterbury, in the yeare 1222. which was but seuen yeares after this of Lateran, and about 12. yeares before the Canons therof were put into the Decretalls by Gre­gory IX. where towards the end it is said,Binij Cō ­cil. tom. 7. part. 2.2. fol. 833. Vt autem omnia fine bono conclu­dantur, Lateranense Concilium sub san­ctae recordationis Papa Innocentio cele­bratum, in praestatione decimarum in aliis capitulis praecipimus obseruari. But this is not all you haue to say against this Councell;

ANSWER.

You further say, that there are many things besides, which may make you iustly suspect the authority of this pretended great Councell, as you are pleased to call it. I easily be­lieue that there are many things that make you not only to suspect, but flatly to reiect the authority of this and many other Generall Councells, but none iustly. But it is not the au­thority of this Generall Councell, (which is the same in all,) but the verity of the Canons and Decrees therof (you would haue sayd) and the authority of thē that affirme those De­crees, that you with so much sagacity suspect. And if you thinke the Councell and the Canons thereof but pretended, which are acknowledged true by the voyce of all the Catholi­ques of the world, what shall make them to be accounted reall? or shall the voyce, of one pretended Deane di­minish their reality? And if you thinke this Councell but pretendedly Great, which consisted of the greatest num­ber, [Page 22] of the greatest persons both Ec­clesiasticall and secular, that euer met together in the world, I must needs thinke that the common sence and vnderstanding of a man, is in you but pretended. Doth not Platina the Popes owne Secretary, close by the words cited by you, say, Pontifex apud Late­ranum, maximum Concilium celebrat? And doth not your owne Mathew Paris, in the words by you cited, say Concilium illud Generale? besides many more and better witnesses. And can you after all this, call it soe scornefully a pretended Great Councell? yea no Generall Councell, no Councell at all? as you doe in the latter end of your pamphlet. Surely you are Go­liath that defie the whole hoste of Is­raël, yet euery one, though as little as Dauid, is able to cut of your head, with your owne sword.

Now the grounds of your suspi­tion, wherby you would dismount the Canons of this great Councell, are so feeble, that they shew you are no skilfull enginier. Wherof one is, be­cause [Page 23] Merlin hath it not in his edition, hee could not meet with it, to set it forth. But this is a poore argument; for first wee know that there were many other Councells which Merlin could not meet with, which haue since beene put forth, and Protestants I thinke will not deny, that there were such, as the second of Nice, fower of Lateran, two of Lions, one of Vienne, and one of Florence; and this of Flo­rence was celebrated later than any that hee sets downe, and was the last Generall one that was held before his publishing of his booke, about fower­score yeares before it. And yet it seemes that hee could not meet with the Records of this Councell, or else hee did purposely omit it, which is not likely, how much more easy then was it for him to misse this of Late­ran, which was held about 300. yeares before. Besides, it is manifest that nei­ther the world at that time, nor hee himselfe did belieue, that hee had set forth all the Councells; as appeares by the king of France his Priuiledge at the beginning of his worke, and [Page 24] his owne words at the end of his Epistle before the second volume. The words of the kings Priuiledge are these, Concilia quae in Ecclesia à tempo­ribus Apostolorum vsque ad concessum Basiliensem celebrata potuerunt coacer­uari, by which it appeares that as they were all that they could then get, so they were not absolutely and certainly all that were. The words of Merlin himselfe are these. Nam si authentica, integra, solida, & à mēdis expertia fue­rint exēplaria, vnde haec fideliter excerp­ta sunt, apprime castigata sunt, pura, vera, & sincera quae profero, suorū Archetyporū quidem germanam conditionem prae se fe­rentia, quae si grato animo tuleris, prope­diem (confide) ampliora nostris te sudori­bus assecuturum: by which it likewise appeares that hee did belieue that there were diuers others which hee had not set downe. Now for you to inferre that because hee could not meet with this Councell of Lateran, therfore there was none such, is a very vniust consequence, and is as strong against the eight other aboue named, as against this.

Another ground of your shrewd suspition is, because Cochlaeus first put it forth, and because hee put it forth but lately; soe that you obiect both against the person, and against the time. For the person of Cochlaeus, you say, hee was not a man so well to bee trusted; and to make that pro­bable, you say, that hee feigned ma­ny things in writing Luthers life. Against the time of Cochlaeus his edition you obiect, because it was late­ly set forth, to wit, in the yeare 1538. three yeares after Merlin set forth his edition of the Councells. I will first consider the truth of what you say, and then the force therof. Concer­ning Cochlaeus his edition of this or any other Councell, I can find no­thing, but that Bellarmine in his con­trouersies reckons him amongst such as haue writ of the Councells, yet hee doth not reckon it amongst the cata­logue of his workes, in his booke de Script. Eccles. nor can I find is heere in Paris. Yet taking what you say in this for granted, I doe not find that [Page 26] hee was a man lesse to be trusted than Merlin, or any other; for Bell: calleth him, Vir doctissimus, & fidei Catholicae propugnator eximius; and therfore you who traduce a man without any proofe are much lesse to be trusted than he: yea than any man I know, for your many falsifications, proued both in this and your other writings. As for your saying that hee faigned many things in writing Luthers life, that is but a new slander which as you doe not offer to proue, so it is impossible you should; for how can you know the heart of another mā from whence his faigning must proceed? Hee may indeed write that which is false, but that hee did so by his owne fiction, and not by others misinformation, you cannot be assured, vnlesse hee himselfe had confessed it, which you doe not proue that hee hath. Nor doe you proue so much as that hee hath written any thing false of Luther.

You also suspect Cochlaeus his edi­tion of the Councells in regard of the time, because hee set it forth lately. [Page 27] And what I pray, is lately? you say, the yeare 1538. which is a hundred and eight yeares agoe. Indeed in compa­rison of the Apostles times it is but lately, but in comparison of the inuention of printing, which was but about two hundred yeares agoe, and according to the ordinary ac­count of schollers in editions of bookes, I belieue none will ac­count a booke set forth a hundred and eight yeares agoe, a thing lately set forth. Much lesse haue you reason to accoūt it so, seing you doe not account Merlins so, which yet (as you say) was set out but three yeares before. It is a paradox to say, Merlin an antient writer in the yeare 1535. Cochlaeus a late writer in the yeare 1538. Can three yeares odds in a hundred and eleuen make one to be called late, and therfore to be (as you say) suspected, and not the other? Surely if this your argument of latenesse be good against one, it is so against both; wherby you may, according to your prudence, suspect all the Councells set forth by [Page 28] Merlin. But I will giue your suspition yet more scope; for Merlin published the Councells in the yeare 1524. as appeares by the last words of the whole worke; so that Cochlaeus his edition was full fourteene yeares after Merlins, according to your com­putation of Cochlaeus. And now to turne the poynt of your argument vpon your selfe, this laternesse of Co­chlaeus is so farre frō being a ground of suspitiō, that it is (by iust so much) a stronger confirmation of the truth and exactnesse of his worke. It was but by accident that the Councells were printed at any time; they might haue beene let alone till this present yeare, or not printed at all, would that haue made you suspect the truth of them all? it would then haue made the world suspect you for à very weake man, or rather haue put you below all suspi­tion. But it so falling out that the Councells were printed at seuerall times, by the care of seuerall men, the later they were printed, the more mea­nes had the publisher to make further [Page 29] search, and to enforme himselfe out of the Manuscripts more fully; as wee find, that in all editions of bookes, the latest (if the publisher apply due dili­gence) are most full, most pure, and most correct. I hope you will not say that the late edition of S. Chryso­stome by S^r. Henry Sauill, is ther­fore the more suspitious. So that heere is neither truth in the grounds of your suspition, nor reason that this last should be any ground, though it were true.

You say moreouer, that Cochlaeus sayes, that hee had the Decrees of this Councell out of an antient booke, but where hee got that booke, or who first compiled it, or of what authority it was, hee tells vs nothing at all. And you adde your coniecture, as weake as your former suspition, that it is most likely, that that booke was the Popes Decretalls, where the supposed Ca­nons of This Councell are scattered in seuerall places. Concerning Coch­laeus I can say nothing, seeing I cannot meet (as I said before) with this his [Page 30] worke that you cite, but I will fauour you so farre as to suppose you say true, & thē cōsider the purpose of it, which indeed is none at all. But for that hee had it out of an ancient booke is much to his purpose, which booke (I will be bold to coniecture, seeing you are so for your liking) was the very Originall of the Councell it selfe; and where hee got it, is impertinent for you to demand. And for this my con­iecture I will giue you good ground, this, that in Crabs edition of the Councells I finde an Epistle to the Reader before the beginning of this Councell, the title wherof is this; Bartholomeus Laurens Nouimagensis, Lectori; the beginning of the Epistle this. Haec sunt quae ex Archetypo illo cuius supra mentio fit, lectu adeo difficili, sum­mo labore descripsimus; quae si cui grata & vtilia fuerint, primum gratias agat Deo, qui horum qualecunque exemplar hucus­que seruauit; deinde F. Petro Crab, qui hoc ipsum vt inter Cōcilia ederetur, procu­rauit. And this perhaps is the preface which you mention hereafter and as­cribe [Page 31] to Cochlaeus, for other I finde not. But whose soeuer it was, it proues thus much, that this Councell (which was first published (that I can find) by Peter Crab) was taken out of the Original Record, than which there can be no better authority; and so hee saith againe in the body of his Epistle, certè in editione hac sedulo curatum est, ne quicquam ei ab Archetypo alienum ingeri posset. And in this edition is the De­cree of the expeditiō, and the others, which in particular you hereafter seeke to nullifie, wherby those obie­ctions are beforehand answered; yet I will say more when I come to them. But suppose the Decrees of this Coun­cell had beene taken out of the Popes Decretalls (the originall being lost, as were the Canons of the first Coun­cell of Nice, which makes so much vncertainty about the number of thē) into which they were inserted (as I shewed before) by Gregory the ninth, but a few yeares after they were made; in seuerall places, according to the seuerall titles to which they were [Page 32] to be referred (which you disgrace­fully call scattering) what impeach­ment is this vnto their credit? The Popes Decretalls are a testimony of no small reputation amongst all learned Christians. And why I pray scatterings? the Decretalls are not a collection of the Councells, that so you should expect euery Canon in his order, but à digestion of the Ca­nons of all the Councells that per­tayne to one matter, vnder one head; like the collection of the Statutes of England by Rastall and others; (out of which if one would vndertake to extract all the lawes made in Queene Elizabeths raigne, hee must looke perhaps in a hundred seuerall places) which yet I thinke you will not call scattering, but methodicall digestion. But these are the reproaches throwne vpon the chiefe spirituall father of the Christian world, by those whom God hath (like Symeon and Leui) for the cruell schisme they haue made in the Church, diuided in Iaacob and scattered in Israel. But from whence [Page 33] soeuer the first publisher of this Coun­cell tooke the Canōs thereof, certaine it is that they were acknowledged, and ascribed to this Councell, by a testi­mony aboue all exception, namely, of the whole clergy of England in a Councell at Oxford, as I haue shewed before, & that, 12. yeares before the booke of the Decretalls was compi­led. So that from the Decretalls is not the first view that wee haue of the Canons of this Councell.

You againe repeat, and say, Those scatterings (you belieue) Cochlaeus or some other did collect together, and made vp one body of them in manner and forme of a Councell. But so ill fauoured a forme hee hath giuen it, that it often betrayeth it selfe not to be genuine, and taken out of any au­thentique coppie. Euen now you sayd (without doubt) that it was Cochlaeus that set forth this Councell, now, it was hee or some other; and this I must needs grant is very true; for if it be set forth, certainly it was either by one or another. And if it were not Coch­laeus, [Page 34] then haue you lost much la­bour in seeking to poyson his credit herein. And if it were some other, then is your decrying this Councell by reason of this edition of Cochlaeus, of no force, for then I affirme, that this some other, was a man of the greatest credit of all other, and so the case is cleere against you, out of your owne words, and you say no­thing heere to impeach the credit of this other; which I wonder at, for you may aswell speake against you know not whom, as say you know not what, as you doe in all this discourse. You tooke it ill of Cochlaeus that hee did not tell you where hee had that an­tient booke; and haue not wee much more reason to take it ill of you, that will not tell vs who it was that first put forth this Coūcell you so much finde fault with, nor giue vs any ayme to finde out this editiō you meane (writ­ten by you know not whom) from any other? but although you heere fayle vs, yet you thinke you come home to vs in that which followes; [Page 35] and although you know not who first put forth this Councell, and that wee know that both first and last haue done it in the same manner; yet with­out relation to the publisher, the very forme of this Councell, you say is so ill fauoured, that it often be­trayeth it selfe not to be genuine, and taken out of any authentique coppy. Which deepe charge of yours against this Councell will recoyle vpon your selfe, and by the ill fauoured forme therof, betray it selfe not to be schol­lerly, nor taken out of any authenti­que coppy, either of reason or autho­rity.

ANSWER.

Will any man thinke these be the words of a man that considers what hee sayes? who will belieue, who can persuade himselfe, that a pillar of his sect, should frame an accusation against a Councell, which (to phrase it most gently,) is (I belieue) the greatest ouersight that euer was yet committed in this kinde? You say that [Page 37] this Councell while it was sitting, doeth cite it selfe, as a Councell that had sitten some while before; and to proue it you alleadge six places, wherein there is mentiō of the Coun­cell of Lateran; and you most weakly imagine, that the Councell of La­teran there spoken of, is this Councell of Lateran that speaketh. Know then (and a great shame it is that you should be guilty of such an ignorance, as not to know it before you framed this terrible obiection) that there were foure Councells of Lateran, (according to the most re­ceiued opinion concerning the place) of which three were before this; and the Councell of Lateran cited in this, was that which was celebrated next before this, vnder Pope Alexander the third, in the yeare 1180, wherein all those places you (more punctually than any other) doe alleadge, are to be found. And is it possible that you (who talke sometimes, as if you had beene Secretary to all the Councells) could be so ignorant, as neuer to haue [Page 38] read or heard of any Councell of La­terā but this, so that finding in this the Councell of Lateran cited, you should thinke this Councell cited it selfe? for if you had but read this Councell in Binius, you should haue found all these places by you cited, re­ferred in the margēt to their particular chapters, in the former Councell of Lateran, vnder Alexander the third. Or if any man had forged this Coun­cell (as you iniuriously to vs imagine) could you thinke him so silly a fel­low, as to conceiue such a grosse ab­surdity as this, should steale away vn­obserued? And if hee did not belieue hee should alwayes escape vndisco­uered, (as to his eternall vnhappi­nesse, by your seuerer inquisition, hee hath not,) could you thinke him so foolish as to doe a thing in it selfe most absurd and impertinent, which had no end in it, (for it was all one whe­ther this Councell cited the Coun­cell of Lateran or no,) and which could arriue at no other end, but the ruine of that which was his maine [Page 39] designe, namely, the begetting of the worlds beliefe to this his edi­tion of this Councell; to which he must needs foresee, that this would be the vndoubted ouerthrow?

But howeuer, you make bold to slight and traduce some particular Catholiques, though most learned and vertuous, yet (to vse a frequent word of your owne, but much more seasonably) I wonder how you dare, so easily to condemne all Catholiques in generall; as to suppose that all the Popes, Catholique Bishops, Diuines, Canonists, and other learned men in­numerable of the Catholique Church, yea those whose interest is mightily concerned in this Councell, euen all temporall Princes, whose Lay-depen­dants are not few in number, nor faint in courage, nor all defectiue in lear­ning, but some of them very eminent therein, were all so blind to this grand absurdity as not to see it, if they were Clergy, not one amongst so many millions not to haue so much feare of the God of heauen nor honesty [Page 40] as to discouer it; if they were of the Laity, not to haue so much regard to the God of this world, proper in­terest and to humane prudence, as to publish this prodigious forgery; but to suffer these Canons to be blanched ouer with the title of a great Generall Councell, and by that meanes cur­rant through the world, vntill you with much industry and art, come and discouer this long hidden secret, and mystery of iniquity, to Catholiques eternall shame (as you surely thinke) and your owne eternall honour.

But now you may see, that when men with pride and obstinacy fight against the truth, they fall into that pit of shame and folly, that they pre­par'd for others. Yea you goe on with more courage than foresight, thus;

ANSWER.

First you made Cochlaeus guilty of a fowle fault, and now you bring him in making an excuse, and both falsely. First, I can finde no such coniecture as you speake of, and secondly if it were to be found, it is no excuse. You say [Page 42] it is to be found in his preface to this Councell set forth by Crab; but wee may sooner gather the Sibylls leaues than finde it, for there is no such thing. There is indeed an epistle of Bartholomaeus Laurens, which I haue mentioned before, & by which you were confuted, it being thereby pro­ued that that edition was taken out of the originall, for which there needs no excuse. Besides, it is a thing in it selfe improbable, that Cochlaeus who (as you say) wrote this Councell himselfe, should afterwards write a preface to another mans edition of the same Councell. But suppose this coniecture you mention (to wit, that these decrees were collected and brought into this forme he presents them, by Pope Innocent him­selfe, some while after the Councell was done) be some where to be found; what excuse is this I pray, or what doth it excuse? If the coniecture be true, it confimes the whole cause against you: namely, that all these decrees were made in the Councell; if it be false, it is nothing. But you draw cōsequences [Page 43] from hence which are certainly most pittifull and inconsequent, with which while you thinke to strengthen your cause, you doe weaken the credit of your owne vnderstanding.

You say, what reader will like it well; that the decrees of a Councell should be written some while after the Coun­cell is ended? And I say, what reader (but your captious selfe) will dislike it? Indeed if the decrees of the Councell had beene written some while before the Councell began, you might iustly haue asked, who would haue liked it; but to aske who will like, that they should be written afterwards, is most ridiculous. But you suppose, because it is sayd in the coniecture you al­leadge, that they were collected and digested into the forme they are in, after the Councell was done, that therfore they were not written in any forme, no not at all in the Councell it selfe; to which purpose you say, that it was alwayes the vse of Councells to write their owne decrees, and to signe them too, (as very pertinently you [Page 48] adde) before they went away; intima­ting hereby, that they did not so in this Councell; and your reason is, be­cause Pope Innocent did collect them into the forme they now are in, some while after the Councell was done. Surely you did not consider what all impartiall men would conceiue of your ability, seeing you make such an inference as this; so poore, that few in the world would haue made them­selues guilty of the like. And I de­mand of all the world, whether the de­crees of the Councell could not be written, and signed too, by, and in the Councell, and yet be brought into this forme, or method, wherein theynow are by Pope Innocent some while after? euery one that hath but common sense will conclude against you. Yea his collecting and putting them into a forme some while after, is à proofe (cleane contrary to what you inferre, namely) that they were written some where, and in some forme or other before. For otherwise from whence should Pope Innocent [Page 49] collect these decrees? out of his me­mory? that is most improbable. Col­lection imports not the inuenting or making them, but the gathering of them out of some Records or other; and out of the originall it is most likely (if he gathered them at all) that he tooke his collection, seeing he li­ued in the time and place of this Councell, and was present and presi­dent therein. Your argument then is no better than this, The Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles were col­lected and brought into a forme writ­ten and printed, againe and againe, after the first writers were dead and gone; therfore they were not at first written by themselues or their as­signes.

You further labour to assoyle Pope Innocent from the guilt of forging these Decrees, (for you take it for graunted that they were forged, and Cochlaeus you are most constant to, for the man that forged them,) be­cause Pope Innocent was not so weake ascribe (you say) to make the Synode [Page 50] quote it selfe; Wherein you might well haue spared your paynes, for Quis (quaeso) vnquam vituperauit Hercu­lem? who, I pray, euer accused Pope Innocent hereof? you thinke Coch­laeus doth, because he coniectures (as you say) that these Decrees were col­lected and brought into this forme by Pope Innocent, after the Councell was dissolued; as if to collect decrees, and bring them into some or other forme after the dissolution of the Councell, were all one as to forge them? A conceipt surely vnworthy of any iudicious man. Innocēt the Pope (you say, and truly,) was not so weake a Scribe as to make the Synod quote it selfe, he knew well enough what be­longed to it. Yet so vnhappy are you, that you cannot support this truth, (which no body puts you to, by de­nying) but by affirming a greater falshood, namely, that this Councell doth cite it selfe. But if you had beene so good a Scribe, as to haue knowne aswell what belongeth to the making of obiections against a Councell, as [Page 51] Pope Innocent did the stile of Coun­cells, you would I thinke haue kept your owne counsell, and beene more silent in this matter. But you goe on, and say.

ANSWER.

You say, wee had best therfore be­lieue Platina; which I graunt wee may doe, but not your sense of his words, which I haue already refuted. But [Page 52] what degree of trust soeuer wee yeeld vnto Platina himselfe, I am sure wee had best giue none vnto you, in your citation of Platina, who haue wronged both him and vs, in all that you haue heere alleadged. All that he sayes, is what you brought, and is answered in the beginning, nec decerni tamen quic­quā apertè potuit; insteed whereof you make him say, non est decretum ibi quic­quā; nō potuit ibi decerni quicquā; where­in besides the explicatiō and chāge of the words, you leaue out the mayne word apertè, which changeth the whole sense. Platina saith, nothing could be decreed openly, you alleadge him saying, there was not, nor could be any thing at all decreed, whereas the de­creeing of nothing openly, doth im­ply that something was decreed, though not openly; and for the mea­ning of Platina's words, I referre the reader to the first paragraph, where I shew, that these words of Platina were spoken with relation to the busi­nesse of the Holy warres, and not con­cerning the decrees of this Councell.

And as heere you leaue out a word to the corrupting of the sense, so in the following words which you al­leadge, (as if they were placed in Pla­tina as they are in you, and were a further proofe of the same assertion, whereas they haue no connexion to­gether in sense, and are aboue a dozen lines asunder,) you put in a word, which is the very hindge on which the sense is turned, and turned contrary to the assured truth thereof; and that is the word, Ipse, he himselfe, as if the condemnation of Almericus and the booke of Ioachim had beene the Popes act without the Councell, that so you might proue the Councell fal­sified, wherein the sayd acts are recor­ded to haue passed. And then you adde as another saying of Platina, or as your construction of the former words of Platina, He sayes, it was not the Councell of Lateran that made any decrees to condemne them, but that Pope Innocent condemned them himselfe. But Platina hath neither any such formall words, nor are they the meaning of [Page 54] the words he hath; for his saying the Pope did condemne them, doth not necessarily imply that the Councell of Lateran did not condemne them, for it might be done by both, either seuerally or together, and this latter way it was done, as I haue already proued, and doe now againe by the testimony ofBeluac. l. 30 hist. cap. 64. Beluacensis, who spea­king of this Councell saith, that the Abbot Ioachim and Almericus were condemned therein. So that you are Ipse, He himselfe, that haue falsified Platina, layd vniust obiections against the Councell of Lateran, and (apertè) manifestly condemned your selfe of fowle play by the euidence of the fact,

For a close to this section, you say, wee may well conclude, that both these and other things de quibus nihil decerni potuit in Concilio, were by the Pope set downe in his owne Decre­talls; out of which he tooke these Ca­nons, whoeuer he was that compiled them into the forme of a Councell. Your conclusion is like your premis­ses, [Page 55] there is no truth in either of them both; you say, that both these and other things, (I suppose you meane all the Canons ascribed to this Coun­cell,) were set downe by the Pope in his owne Decretalls, that is, accor­ding to your meaning, inuented by the Pope, and put first into his Decre­talls; for if they were first decreed in Councell, and afterwards put into the Decretalls, it is not for your purpose, but against you; and that it was so, I haue already sufficiently proued; and doe yet againe by the title of these constitutions, as they are set downe in the Decretalls; which are not barely ascribed to the Pope, as many others are; but to him in a generall Coun­cell; thus, Innocentius tertius in Concilio generali. Wee may therefore well con­clude; that your conclusion built on your extreme corruption of Platina, hauing so rotten a foundation must needs fall to the ground.

Lastly you say, that he tooke them out of the Popes owne Decretalls, whoeuer he was that compiled the [Page 56] Canons into the forme of a Coun­cell. But I haue proued before, that he tooke them out of the originall Records of the Councell; and if he had taken them out the Popes De­cretalls, it had bene well enough; those Decretalls not being the Popes owne, singly, as you haue sayd, but the Popes and Councells of Late­ran together, as I haue many wayes proued. So that of all that you haue hitherto sayd, there is not one word but is either vntrue, or impertinent; and to vse your owne words, de qui­bus nihil decerni potest. Yet as if you had not sayd enough of this nature, you goe on to make faults, in steed of finding them (as you suppose) in others.

Answer.

The third Canon of this Coun­cell, [Page 58] concerning the excommunica­tion of temporall Princes, you say, is one of the Extrauagants, cap. 13. de Haereticis, but you are very Extra­uagant in saying so; for there is no such matter in the place by you cited, nor indeed any such place as you haue here rashly set downe. All that is to be found is this; that in the fifth booke of the Extraua­gants, there is a Title de Haereticis, vnder which title are only three chapters, and in them not a word of this matter. And this for the truth of your quotation; I will now con­sider the sense of what you say, and the truth thereof. The third Canon (say you) is one of the Extraua­gants, that is, Pope Innocents owne Decree. By which it seemes, that it is the same thing with you, to be one of the Extrauagants, and to be Pope Innocēts owne Decree; as if the Extrauagāts were Pope Innocēts owne decrees; whereas it is apparāt by the ti­tles to whom they are ascribed, that not one of them was made by Pope In­nocent; so mightily are you mis­taken [Page 59] in this matter. This Decree then is not Pope Innocents owne, and not the Councells of Lateran, as you say, but Pope Innocents owne, and the Councells of Lateran; his, in and with the Councell of Late­ran, as I haue proued. You also cite your selfe (for it is to be found in no authour else) against the Coun­cell of Lateran, saying, vbi nihil de­cerni potuit, where nothing could be decreed; against which I oppose (besides all that I haue sayd before) a man of much better authority, Al­bertus Crantzius, who saithCrantz. Metrop. l. 9. cap. 1. sect. Innoc. 3. Con­cilium maximum congregauit Latera­num; ibi multa constituta, quae hodie ex­tant in corpore iuris, there many things were decreed, which are at this day ex­tant in the body of the law.

Moreouer the sense of this Canon you doe lamely, and with change of the tearmes set downe; for there is no mention of kings nor king­domes; and then the Popes ab­soluing of the vassalls of temporall Lords (for those are the words of [Page 60] the Canon) from their fidelity to them, and exposing their land to be occupied by Catholiques, exprest to be but in the case of neglect to purge their land of heresy, and con­tinuance therein after excommuni­cation by the Bishops, and after a yeeres contempt of making satisfa­ction; and then there is added this reseruation also, Saluo iure Do­mini principalis, &c. sauing the right of the principall Lord, so that he giue no obstacle hereunto, nor oppose any impediment. Now this power of the Pope, whatsoeuer it be, is farre from that which your confused words in­sinuate, which to your weaker readers (I suppose) will sound, as if the Pope had power to absolue the subiects of any kings from their fidelity, and dispose of their kingdomes when, to whom, and for what cause so euer they pleas'd; which is nothing so. Yet if this power of the Popes were so vast as you belieue it, or would haue others to belieue it, why should it trouble you? And why should you [Page 61] be more tender of the interest of Princes than they themselues, and all their courts about them, who either receiued this Canon imme­diatly from the Councell, as I haue sayd and proued, or else suffered it to be coseningly thrust vpon them, as you haue sayd, but not proued.

And I wonder that you a Prote­stant, should fasten vpon this decree of deposing of Princes by the Pope, (to make the decrees of this Coun­cell odious and incredible,) when as it is well knowne, that the Popes in sixteene hundred yeeres, haue not de­posed so many, as Protestants in one hundred; for almost whersoere the gangrene of that heresy hath spread it selfe, they haue either actually depo­sed and expelled their Princes, as in Swede, Denmarke, Scotland, Nether­lands, Geneua; or diuers times attēp­ted by violence to doe it, as in France often, in Bohemia, in Poland, and now it is feared in England. And if you say, that though these Puritane Prote­stants haue both taught and done [Page 62] these things, yet the true Protestant of the Church of England, he neuer taught such doctrine, he cānot thinke such a thought without horror; surely wee haue nothing but your bare and often broken word for our security. For what experience hath the king, or his few predecessors of your religion had, that in case they should haue de­priued you of your desires, as they denyed to graunt the desires of the Puritanes, if they should haue turned you out of your Bishoppricks and Deaneries, taken from you the Church vsurped Liuings, set vp a reli­gion that would not haue endured wiuing preachers, what experience haue they had, that in these or the like cases, your Protestants of the Church of England would not attempt their destruction, and if they were able, lay the axe on their necks, as your Su­preme Gouuernour of your Church of England Queene Elizabeth and her instruments did, on the necke of the renowned Mary Queene of Scot­land, and Dowager of France.

Can you then thinke much that the Pope, a person of an other quality, and more dis-interessed than the sub­iects of Princes, should haue some kinde of power, by all conuenient wayes to reduce and correct hereticall Princes? Especially seeing the Empe­rours, Kings, and Princes gaue their votes vnto this Decree, and were, for so much as concerned themselues, the makers thereof. But you will not belieue that this decree was made in the Councell, but thinke that you haue proued the contrary. My aduice then is that you acquaint the Kings and Princes on this side the seas, with this strange cheat that is put vpon them; it is like to be a matter of high acceptation to them, of great re­proach to their vnfaithfull seruants, that would not discouer that which you haue done, and of great prayse and preferment to your selfe.

You further obiect against the Act of the expedition for the recouery of the Holy Land, (which you call the 71. Canon, but no body else doth so [Page 64] that I know) because it runnes, say you, in a Popes stile not in the stile of à Councell. By which I perceiue, that though you are one of the Court yet you are none of the Councell, for you are not skild in the stiles of Popes and Councells.

Otherwise you would haue knowne, that it is the manner in those Coun­cells where the Pope himselfe is pre­sent, to decree things in his name, with this addition, sacro approbante Con­cilio, as in the Councell of Florence in literis vnionis, euen as Acts of Par­liament of England, are made in the kings name, with the aduice or consent of the two houses.

You say moreouer, that Card. Bel­larmine and Eudaemon Cidonius doe confesse out of Platina, that there was no such decree made. Your Eudae­mon Cidonius I cannot meet with heere, nor is it much materiall, for that answer which serues your quota­tion of Bell: will serue him also, seeing (as you say) it is both their confessions out of Platina. For the finding of your citatiōs out of Bell: you vse vs very ill, [Page 65] giuing vs no direction, but a booke of perhaps twenty leaues in folio to finde out twēty words, which whē wee haue found, to recōpence our paynes, we finde your mistake and falshood. For Bellarm. doth not speake directly of the particular chapter of the expe­dition, whether that were made in the Councell or no, but of the buisinesse of the Holy Warre in generall, de hoc articulo, cū multa disputata fuissent, nihil certi definiri potuit; and there is a diffe­rence sure betwixt nihil certi, and nihil omnino, nothing certaine, and no­thing at all, as you would haue it. And I suppose this nihil certi is meant in re­gard of the further and more parti­cular managing of the warre, from which they were hindred by the pre­sent warre in Christēdome, and which is no denyall of the Decree of the ex­pedition, which consists of a few ge­nerall heads concerning the raysing of contributions to this great worke from the clergy, (wherein the Pope himselfe gaue a great example) of pu­nishments on those that hindred it [Page 66] and indulgence to them that aduan­ced it, with the like. All which though they were vndoubtedly decreed, yet it may be sayd with Bell: out of Pla­tina, that after much disputation there was nothing certaine defined, in re­gard of the neerer and more particu­lar articles for the managing of the warre, being put frō it by the present warre in Christendome. Yea it might be sayd nihil certi in regard of this de­cree it selfe, not of the letter and in­tention of it, but of the wars at home, yea rather the contrary was certaine, namely, that it was not executed. And if Platina (or Bellarmine out of him) had intended to exclude this Decree of the expedition (which is all that wee affirme to be done in that kinde) why did they expresse it with these reseruations, of apertè and certi, and not say directly and without limita­tion nihil as you doe? which had beene more plaine, and agreeable to the gra­uity of those writers. Therfore by these reseruations they must needs intend some thing, which (as I con­ceiue) [Page 67] is that which I haue expressed. Howsoeuer, certaine wee are, that this Decree was made in the Councell, by all that proofe whereby wee haue pro­ued the whole Councell, of which this is a part; and particularly (because you heere make a particular obiectiō against it) by Matth. Paris, who inti­mateth so much, by repeatingMatth. Paris hist. ma. p. 189. the substance of this very Decree, in al­most as many words as they are in the Councell, which are too long to set downe heere.

Your further say, that he that made these two decrees, of absoluing sub­iects from obedience to their Princes, and of recouering the land of Promise from the Saracens, may well be thought to haue made the decree of Transubstantiation also. And you say truth in that, but it will not helpe you; for Pope Innocent made them all, but, sacro approbante Concilio, that is, the whole Councell, consisting of the Pope and the rest of the Prelats, de­creed them Nor haue you reason so to boggle at the word Transubstan­tiation, [Page 68] or at this Councell for the word; seeing the thing knew no begin­ning since our Sauiour, as our Catho­lique bookes doe sufficiently proue; and euen the word it selfe was in vse before this Councell, as appeareth by Roger Houenden in Henrico 2. where he hath these words.Annal. [...].576. Confessi sunt etiam, quod Sacerdos noster, bonus siue malus, iustus vel iniustus, corpus & sanguinem Christi posset conficere, & perministerium huiusmodi Sacerdotis, & virtutem diui­norum verborum, quae à Domino prolata sunt, panis & vinum in corpus & sangui­nem Christi verè transubstantiantur. Also by Blesensis, who was king Henry the second his Chaplayne, who saithBlesens. p. 140. Et vt gratia exempli, in vno Sa­cramentorum videas abyssum profundissi­mam, & humano sensui imperceptibilem, pane & vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum caelestium in corpus & sangui­nem Christi &c. Both these wrote in the dayes of Henry the second, and the Councell of Lat. was held in the dayes of king Iohn, who raigned the second after him. And in both these good [Page 69] English authors, doe wee finde the word transubstantiated, applyed to the bread & wine chāged into the body & bloud of Christ; nor doe wee finde in any story, that these men were que­stioned for the vse of these words, as if they did import any thing more in their sense, than that which was the generall beliefe of that and the fore­going ages. It is not therfore the De­cree of transubstantiation made in this Councell afterwards, which hath made such a noyse in the world, as you say it hath, but the heretiques and Schismatiques that haue opposed it.

Nor was this Coūcell for this decrees sake called Maximū omniū, generale, & celeberrimum, but because it was sum­moned by the Pope frō all parts of the Christian world, and there met toge­ther the greatest and most renowned assembly both of Clergy and Laity, that euer was in the world: which therfore it ill becomes you to deride. In fine, the three particular decrees you heere oppose, but haue proued [Page 70] nothing against them, are first inser­ted into the Decretalls, which was done by Pope Gregory IX. not many yeeres after the Councell was held; who therein vsed the seruice of one of the best men of the world, as I haue proued before. Secondly, they are put into the number of the Canons of this Councell by Crab: who (as I haue also proued) tooke them out of the Originall Records. Thirdly, they are also reckoned amongst the rest of the Canons, by all others that haue made edition of this Councell, as Su­rius, Binius, and whosoeuer else. Lastly, they are receiued and allowed by the Catholique Church, the stron­gest testimony of all others; and doe you thinke to ouerthrow them? Who is sufficient for this? he therfore that attempts it, deserues the name of hae­reticorum maximus omnium, generalis & celeberrimus. In the next place, you inuade vs with an Arithmeticall ar­gument; but when I haue reckoned with you, it will appeare that you are not a man of good account; for thus you cast it;

ANSWER.

You passe from the matter of this Councell, to disproue the title therof; and say, he that entituled it a ge­nerall Councell had not his lesson perfect, and that because (as you say) they count the second of Nice for the seuenth generall Councell, and the [Page 72] Councell of Florence for the eighth, & betweene the seuēth and the eighth there cannot another interueene, as this is made to doe, if it were so great and so generall, as they say it is. Truly if he that published this Councell, had had his lesson no perfecter than he that made these obiections, he de­serued to be whipt for a trewant, for neuer were there such idle obiections made. I pray who are these, they, that account the Councell of Florēce the eighth generall Councell? your reader cannot but thinke you meane vs Roman Catholiques, against whom you heere dispute, and whom you would make to appeare so sim­ple, that they cannot tell eight. But it is not the Roman account, I trow, that you heere follow, but the schis­maticall Grecian, who yet will giue you no more thankes for it, nor no more admitt you a member of their Church, than will the Catholiques. You must know then, if you did not before, that the eighth generall Coun­cell was celebrated in Constantinople [Page 73] against Photius, who made a schisme betweene the Latin and Greeke Church, they of the schisme reiected this eighth, and many other generall Councells, which were celebrated in the west; amōgst which this fourth of Lateran (you so strongly and weakly fight against) was one; vntill the Grecians meeting againe with the Latins in the Councell of Floren­ce, the Grecians called that the eighth generall Councell; which yet soone after they reiected, and so at this day allow but seuen. But if men may re­ceiue and reiect Councells at their pleasure, then you may with the Lutherans allow but six; with the Eutychians which are yet in Asia, but the first three; with the Nesto­rians which are yet in the East, but the first two; with the Arrians and Trinitarians which are in Hungary and Poland, none at all. And this you and yours may doe with as good reason, as they doe reiect and reuile this of Lateran, and aboue all, the sacred Oecumenicall Councell of Trent.

And that you may againe fall into the fault, of which you falsely accuse others; you are out in your com­putation of the yeeres of the hol­ding of the Councell of Florence; but this I doe not mention as a matter of moment, it being brought in but on the by. But I cannot omitt a weighty passage that you haue a little before, where you say, that betweene the seuenth and the eighth generall Councell you trow, there cannot come another, if it were so great and so generall, as this is sayd to be. Wherby you intimate, that the great­nesse of this Councell was the hinde­rāce that it could not come betweene the seuenth and the eighth, and by consequence, that if it had beene a little one, it might haue come be­tweene; which is a very new and pretty fancy. A little generall Coun­cell it seemes might haue crowded in betweene the seuenth and the eighth as an appendix to the former, or otherwise haue found place and vnion with it vnder the same name and [Page 75] number of the seuenth, but this being so great and so generall, could not possibly finde a roome betwixt them, but that it must make two eights, as you say, rather than an eighth and a ninth, which ninth (if it had beene so, in this case) might yet haue beene called the eighth in some other re­spect, as I haue shewed. But I had thought that Councells in regard of number being of discrete quantity, did not require any place by reason of their greatnesse, (as if they were in this regard, of continued quantity also,) more than if they had beene little: the abstract number of eight, (I trow) can no more come in, betweene seuen and eight, in a small subiect thā in a great; and therfore the great­nesse of this Councell was no more hinderance to its coming in be­tweene the seuenth and the eighth, without chāging the name and order of the number, than if it had beene neuer so little.

You tell vs also, that in the last session of the Councell of Florence [Page 76] it is expressely set downe, Finis octa­ui Concilij generalis, &c. yet the words more expressely than you haue set thē downe are, Finis generalis octauae Synodi, which though not different in substance, yet the difference of the words Concilium and Synodus if you had vnderstood the reason thereof, had beene enough to preuent your obiection. For it appeares hy an epistle of Bartholomaeus Abramus to the Archbishop of Rauenna, set downe by Crab at the beginning of this Councell, and by Binius at the end, that the Latin Originall of this Councell was lost, and that this that is now extant, was translated by the sayd Abramus out of the Greeke, for which reason he vseth the word Synodus according to the Greeke, & not Concilium; and it is called octaua because it was so in the greeke which hee translated; and the Greekes set it downe so, because (as I sayd before) they accounted no Councells gene­rall, but where they themselues were present and which they did receiue, [Page 77] of which this was indeed the eighth. But this account is (for very good reasons) reiected byPraefat. huic Synod. Surius andNotis in Concil. Flo­rent. Bi­nius, and by all Catholiques. And Crab though hee haue no caueat vp­pon this place, yet that you may see he spake according to the letter of the greeke coppy, and not his owne minde, he calleth all the Councells betwixt the 2. of Nice, and Floren­ce, Generall Councells; all that the Church accounteth so; and particu­larly of this Councell of Lateran he sayth, Instituta generalis Concilij Late­ranensis tempore Innocentij Papae tertij.

In the end of this section you make this notable conclusion; So that vn­lesse they will make two eight generall Councells, this of Lateran could be none; which out of your discourse may as iustly be inferred thus, so that vnlesse they will make two, or nine eight generall Councells, that of Constan­tinople the fourth, the fower of La­teran, the two of Lions, that of Vienne, that of Pisa, that of Flo­rence, or some one of these could be [Page 78] none. Could be none, is a false con­sequence, could not be the eighth, is true; nor is that of Florence or La­teran numbred for the eighth by any Catholiques at this day, but this is reckoned the twelfth, that most com­monly the sixteenth. But that the number of eight, which you so hunt heere, may come in (because nos nu­meri sumus) he that first made this ob­iection (which I belieue was not you) shall by my consent be reckoned Sa­pientum octauus, the eighth wise man, which he shall be without a riuall, there shall not be two of them; espe­cially if he that next aspires to it be a great one, for then (I trow) he can­not interucene in the order of number, betweene the eighth and the ninth, as you haue taught vs for our learning.

ANSWER.

The generality of this Councell you further goe about to disproue, because the Canons thereof were not (as you say) generally receiued; and this you proue, because they were not receiued in England; but that they were not receiued in England you doe not proue, but by three instances, which you doe not proue; and if you had, they had proued nothing. For it is not properly the generall receiuing [Page 80] that makes a Councell to be generall, but the generall calling thereof from all parts of the Christian world, and such was this. Otherwise no Councell could be stiled generall in the calling of it, or while it was sitting, or when it was concluded, vntill it did appeare that all the world had receiued it, which is a condition that neuer hap­pened to any Councell, because some or other heretiques (against whom all generall Councells haue beene commonly called) or perhaps all, did refuse to receiue it. So that by this your character of a generall Councell, you haue plainly casheired all the generall Councells that euer were, for euen the first fower, which you seeme to magnifie, and grant them the title of Generall, were the Canons of them generally receiued? It is manifest that they were not, but were reiected by all those sorts of he­retiques who were the occasion of their calling.

Moreouer, your reason to proue that the canons of this Councell of [Page 81] Lateran were not generally receiued to wit, because they were not recei­ued in England; if it were true, yet it is inconsequent, and your deceipt or mistake lyeth in the indistinction of the word Canons, whereof some be of faith, some of manners and discipline. Now that a Councell be accounted to be generally receiued, it is not required that the Canons of discipline and practise be receiued in all kingdomes, but it is sufficient that the Canons concerning mat­ters of faith be generally re­ceiued, to stile the reception gene­rall, and the Councell generall, for so much as the generality of recep­tion can contribute to the title of its being generall. As for example, the kingdome of France doth not re­ceiue the decrees of the Councell of Trent concerning gouernment, but of faith it doth, as doe all other Catholique Countries, for which reason, euen this kingdome which denies to receiue the Councell of Trent in matters of gouernment, [Page 82] doth notwithstanding acknowledge it generall. By which it appeares, that you are not so well versed in Gene­rall Councells and their reception, as to know distinctly the meaning of the words according to their Catho­lique vse. Now there is no doubt that the kingdome of England did receiue this Councell for the matters of faith, otherwise it would haue beene noted hereticall as now it is, and for its not receiuing the Canons of discipline and gouernment, you proue not but by your owne bare word, which I may most iustly deny; yet I haue other proofes against you.

But first I will take notice of your mistake (if not vnfaithfullnesse) in your description of the 46. pretended Canon (as you call it) contrary to which, you say, subsidies haue beene payd to the king, inconsulto Pontifice; as if that Canon had sayd, that no subsidies at all should be payd to the king but by the aduice of the Pope, whereas the Canon speakes only of [Page 83] the subsidies of the Clergy, as requi­ring the Popes aduice. As for the practise of England contrary to these three Canons you mention, if it be true (which I doe not belieue, because I haue heard good lawyers in Eng­land say the contrary in one, which concernes prescription) yet it doth not proue that these Canons were not receiued; for these crossings of the Canons may happen, either through indulgence of the Pope granted to the kings, or the kings vsurpation contrary to the Canōs receiued; or in your instāce of prescription, through the headstrong impiety of the people, who will not obserue the good lawes they receiue, being contrary to their euill customes . If England had ob­serued all the Canōs they haue heere­tofore receiued, when they were as wise, as learned, as pious, as iudi­cious (at the least) as now they are, you and I (I belieue) should not haue beene at this bay, that now we are. Now contrary to your proofelesse assertion, I proue that the Canons of [Page 84] this Councell were receiued in Eng­land, as well those of manners as of faith; first by the testimony of Linwood, and the municipall lawes of the land, as they are affirmed by Franciscus à sancta Clara, in his article of transubstantiation.

Secōdly by the Councell of Oxford before cited, held by the then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, but seuen yeeres after this of Lateran, (which was the very first Councell in the world, that was held after this) where it is sayd,Binij tom. 7. part. 2. pag. 833. That all things may be con­cluded wich a good end, wee enioyne that the Lateran Councell celebrated vnder Pope Innocent of holy memory, in the paying of tithes, and in the other chapters be obserued. By which it appeares, how much you are deceiued, in saying that in England the Canons of this Coun­cell were not receiued: as you also are in saying.

ANSWER.

What you belieue imports not, for I know you belieue many heresies and errors, amongst which errors this is one, That no good story can be shew­ed that the Patriarchs of Ierusalem and Constantinople were present at this Councell &c. One is sayd to be present either in person or by deputy; that those two Patriarchs which you first mention, were there in person, is affirmed by Platina, Paris, and Vrs­pergensis; and that the other two were there by their deputies, with aboue 70. Metropolitanes, besides a very great number of Archbishops, Bi­shops, Abbots, and Priors, some in [Page 86] person, and some by Proxy; and with these the Legats and deputies of the two Emperours, of all (or almost all) the Kings, Princes, citties and other places of the Christian world, is recorded by Paris, and Vrspergen­sis. And I suppose you will not deny any of them to be good historians, es­pecially Paris and Platina, whom you called in, in the beginning of this your worke, as witnesses (as you thought) against the Canons of this Councell. Matth. Paris. hist. mai. p. 188. l. e. Paris and Vrspergēsis speake almost in the same words;Vrsper­gens. Chro­nic. p. 320. thus: Anno ab In­carnatione Verbi 1215. celebrataest sancta vniuersalis Synodus Romae, in Ecclesia Saluatoris, quae Constantiniana vocatur, mense Nouembri, praesidente Domino In­nocentio Papa tertio, Pontificatus eius anno 18. in quo fuerunt Episcopi 412. in­ter quos extiterunt de praecipuis Patriar­chis duo, videlicet, Constant: & Hiero­sol: Antiochenus autem graui languore detentus, venire non potuit, sed misit pro se Vicarium, Anthedarensem Episco­pum: Alexandrinus vero sub Saraceno­rum dominio constitutus, fecit quod po­tuit, [Page 87] mittens pro se Diaconum suum Ger­manum; Primates autem & Metropoli­tam 71. caeterùm Abbates & Priores vl­tra octingentos; Archiepiscoporum vero & Episcoporum, Abbatum, & Priorum, & Capitulorum absentium Procuratorum non fuit certus numerus comprehensus. Legatorum vero Regis Siciliae in Roma­norum Imperatorem electi, Imperatoris Constantinopolitani, Regis Franciae, Re­gis Angliae, Regis Vngariae, Regis Hie­rosolymitani, Regis Cypri, Regis Arra­goniae, necnon & aliorum Principum, & Magnatum ciuitatum, aliorumque loco­rum ingēs fuit multitudo. Heere is your erroneous beliefe plainly and am­ply confuted. I wonder what histories you haue read concerning this Coun­cell, that these should escape you; es­pecially Paris the Popes deare friend, and Platina the Popes owne Secretary. I haue therfore reason to belieue that you tooke vp these obiections vpon trust, and of men that were not faith­full, who haue greatly deceiued you. And therfore the title of this Coun­cell which you againe so scornefully [Page 88] and boldly call pretended, shall be really accounted Generall, by the best and noblest part of the world, the Ca­tholique Church, when all other pre­tended Churches, Councells, and their Canons, their Bishops, Deanes, and Chapters shall haue no being, nor memory but of dishonour.

You further say, (according to your manner, without proofe,) that this Councell vas not Generall, for want of the personall presence of two of the Patriarchs; wherein you are much mistaken: for otherwise the first fower commonly stiled Generall, and for such acknowledged by very many Protestants, cannot be truly such, be­cause the Chiefe Patriarch, the Bi­shop of Rome, was not present in any of them, but by his Legats. Vnlesse you will say, that though two may not be absent, yet one may, especially when that one is the Pope, a man whō you (I know) can very well spare, not only out of the Councell, but out of the world. And yet I wonder that you that haue had the fortune to be [Page 89] the pretended Deane of S. Peters Bo­rough and the pretended Master of S. Peters house, should yet be such an enemy to S. Peters chayre. But if you desire to know what makes a Councell generall, and what are the insufficiencies thereof, which you ought to haue expressed and proued, before you had shot your hasty bolt of condemnation against this Coun­cell, reade Turrecremata, and Canus vpon this subiect.

You at last conclude thus, How­soeuer, nihil ibi actum quod quidem con­stet, and so was it neither any generall Councell, nor so much as any Coun­cell at all. Wherein first your proposi­tion is false and hath no authority (that I know of) but the worst in the world, your owne. Yet you set it downe in Latin, as if they were the words of some author, but neither ex­presse the place, nor so much as his name, and therfore I take it for yours, and reiect it. Secondly if it were true that nothing was done there, yet your inference from thence is incōsequent, [Page 90] to wit, that therfore it was neither any generall Councell, nor so much as any Councell at all; concerning the nullities of a Councell, or of the generality therof, I need say no more than I haue done, seeing it rests on you to proue, that doing nothing is one. And for your affirmation that nothing was done, I haue fully dispro­ued it through this whole discourse. I will therfore only adde the testi­mony of Matth. Paris, who though he were no friend to this Pope, as I haue shewed before, yet speaking of this Councell in the place aboue cited, saith thus: His omnibus congre­gatis in suo loco praefato, & iuxta mo­rem Conciliorum Generalium in suis or­dinibus singulis collocatis, facto prius ab ipso Papa exhortationis sermone, recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula 60. (where­in is a mistake in the figure, it should be 70.) quae aliis placabilia, aliis vide­bantur onerosa. Tandem de negotio Cruci­fixi & subiectione terrae sanctae verbum praedicationis exorsus, subiunxit di­cens, Ad haec ne quid in negotio Ie­su [Page 91] Christi de contingentibus omitta­tatur, volumus & mandamus, &c. And so repeats at large the substance of the Decree of the Expedition for the recouery of the Holy land. So that it is manifest by this, and that which hath beene sayd before, that there were many things done in this Councell, yea all that are affirmed to bee. And it is called a Councell, and a generall Councell, by Vrspergensis, Paris, Platina, Grantzius, Nauclerus, Beluacēsis, and all that I can finde that haue any way written therof, except your vncontrowlable selfe. Besides it hath the allowance of the Holy Catholique Church, the awfull spouse of Christ, more true, more wise, more vigilant, and infinitly more reuerend then all the sects & Synagogues of Schismatiques, & Heretiques; & ther­fore their obiectiōs against her, whom they ought to belieue and reuerence aboue all things on the earth, espe­cially when they are propounded peremptorily, as these are, are fitter to be reiected than to be answered. [Page 92] I conclude with the words of Surius: ^a Nemo sanae mentis ambigere potest, hanc quae sequitur Synodum Lateranensem cum primis insignem & vere oecumenicam fuisse, quippe in qua de negotiis religionis summa Latinae & Graecae Ecclesiae concor­dia tractatum est, cuique interfuere Pa­triarcha Constantinopolitanus, & Hie­rosolymitanus, & Archiepiscopi tum La­ni tum Graeci 70. Episcopi 412. Abbates & Priores plus 800. simul omnes Praelati 1215. aut eo plures. Nec defuere Legati Graeci & Romani Imperatoris, Regum Hierusalem, Galliae, Hispaniae, Angliae, & aliorum. Quod si verò ea cuiquam prop­terea minus ponderis habere videatur, quod recentior sit, ille certè Christum mendacem facere velle videtur, qui per­ennem praesentiam suam promisit Ecclesiae suae, & Spiritum sanctum suum, Spiri­tum veritatis, qui cum illa maneat in aeternum. Manet sua semper Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas, quam quisquis con­temnere ausus est, non ille efficit vt ea minor sit, sed se dignum reddit, qui eius pondere penitus opprimatur.

No man well in his wits can doubt, [Page 93] that this Councell of Lateran was very fa­mous, and truly generall, because therein were handled the matters of Religiō, with very great agreement of the Greeke and Latine Churches, & wherin were present the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Ie­rusalem, and 70. Archbishops Greeke and Latin, Bishops 412. Abbots and Priors aboue 800. all the Prelats together were one thousand two hundred and fifteene, or more. Neither were there absent the Ambassadours of the Greeke and Ro­man Emperours, of the kings of Ieru­salem, France, Spayne, England, and others. But if this Councell seeme to any to haue lesse weight, because it is later, hee truly seemes to be willing to make Christ a lyar, who hath promised his perpetuall presence to his Church, and his Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, which remayneth with her for euer? The autho­rity of the Catholique Church doth alwayes abide here, which who soeuer presumes to despise, he doth not lessen her, but renders himselfe worthy to be crus­shed to pieces with her weight.

And now insteed of your prouing [Page 94] the Catholique writers lyars, and for­gers, and the Catholique Church credulous, negligent, and ignorant (which you endeauoured) you haue proued your selfe, vnwise, vnlear­ned, and audacious; and I belieue will loose all credit and reputation of in­tegrity, or capacity, in the iudgement of all prudent men, of what religion soeuer they be, that shall reade these your vnworthy workes. But suppose the thing it selfe were true, that you haue laboured for (abstracting the authority to the contrary) to wit, that there had beene no Canons made in this Councell, yea suppose there had neuer beene any such thing as this Councell, what is it to your purpose? What article of our Catholique Faith is therby cancelled? how is your inuisible Church of England, or your Chappell in France (where God hath his Church) defended? Not at all, by ought that you haue sayd. No nor by your Mimique acting of the priest in hearing of confessions, (which wee perhaps shall heare too, at the third [Page 95] or fourth hand, for as you haue no character of priesthood for the hea­ring of Confessions, so neither haue you any seale vpō your lippes) wherby though like the asinus apud Cumanos in the liōs skin, you bray & keepe some in awe, yet it may be they will be in­structed to discouer you, and make your vayne aspiring the obiect of their contempt and laughter, as it is of ours, and euen of all your fellow reformadoes. Your owne conclusion therfore which you discharge against us, recoyles vpon your selfe, nihil ibi actum, quod quidē constet; in all that you haue done, it is certaine that you haue done nothing. And your obiections and discourse haue in them neither any generall counsell, nor (except the Counsell of the vngodly) so much as any counsell at all.

And now let mee tell you, that it were much more for your credit, to forbeare such bold brauing of the whole Catholique Church, especially in a Catholique Country, and in the Court of a Catholique Queene, and [Page 96] that with such feeble and vn­schollerly arguments; of which, (were not your iudgment ecclipsed by partiality, and your passion swelld by opposition, and your ouerweening conceipt of your selfe the producer of extraordinary confidence and in­solence in you) you could not render your selfe guilty. Also your pre­sumptuous and offensiue language, euen to the Masters of those schooles wherein you are not worthy to be a disciple, is sufficiently obserued; though couered with that patience which you haue not deserued; Otherwise, your weakenesse, or ma­lice, or both, would ere this haue beene characterd on your brow, had not the hands of our Catho­lique Priests beene bound vp with mo­desty, and charity, and respect to those, who see, suffer, but (I belieue approue not your boysterous beha­uiour. And in this buisinesse of writing, your shame is layd open with the bookes you cite, wherein your quotations are not sooner examined, [Page 97] than your corruptions are discouered. If therfore you haue not grace e­nough to become a vertuous Roman Catholique, of which you made shew (as there is good proofe) when you came first into these parts, yet learne at least to be rationall in your dis­course, honest in your allegations, and ciuill in your language, both to particular reuerend and learned men, and especially towards the whole Catholique Church. And then if you haue a disposition to say or write any more, you shall be answered with so­lidity, and equall ciuility.

And whereas one Mr Crowder hath reported, that I haue renounced the booke I lately set forth, and will not stand to it; and that Doctor Holden who approued it for Catho­lique, hath also refused to iustify it; or words to this purpose; and giueth this for his reason, why hee doth not publish the answer which he and his Coadiutors (as it is sayd) haue framed thereunto: which is indeed but a retreate for their inability to answer [Page 98] it; I say, it is false in him whosoeuer saith it, and malicious in him that inuented it. And I further professe to him and to the world, that (notwith­standing the slanders to the contrary) I doe auow the sayd booke for mine, and for Catholique, and so doth Do­ctor Holden. And if he, or any, or all his fellow Ministers, will publish any thing that they will call an answer thervnto, they shall not loose their labour, they shall haue a reply; wherein I make no question their weaknesse shall be made to appeare, as herein appeareth the weaknesse of D. Cosens.