OCCASIONAL DISCOURSES  

1. Of Worship and prayer to Angels and Saints.  
2. Of Purgatory.  
3. Of the Pope's Supremacy.  
4. Of the succession of the Church.   
Had with Doctor Cousins, by word of mouth, or by writing from him.  
By THOMAS CAR Confessor of the English Nunnery at Paris.  
AS ALSO, An answer to a libel written by the said Doctor Cousins against the great General Council of Lateran under Innocentius the third, in the year of our Lord 1215.  
By THOMAS VANE Doctor in Divinity of Cambridge.  
Printed at PARIS Anno Dom. 1646. With Permission & Approbation.   

A LETTER TO A Gentleman at S. Germains.  
HONOURED SIR,  
As by many other just titles, so I am yours by this in particular of the last of Octob. for that you have been pleased thereby to signify what passes at S. Germains, and that you so truly resent the wrong which is done to Truth in the proclaiming of victories (especially by such, as you express it, as are not guilty of too much understanding) gained by the Lord of London-Derrie, D. Cousins (and who not?) over all the Papist Priests they meet withal: bearing all down before them, as they please to term it. Sir, I am easily persuaded to believe, that the bruiters of such untruths were not very understanding indeed, and that they spoke accordingly. For I myself am witness, that the Lord of London-Derrie honestly and fairly denied that there were any such reports occasioned by him, or that indeed there was any such cause: and I am much mistaken, if D. Cousins be found so little ingenuous, as to abett so absolute an untruth. For sure, he met with none weaker than myself, and yet, to speak sparingly, he bore no advantage away; as I hope this scantling Of prayers to Angels, which I have under his own hand (& some other occasional discourses which he will not deny) will partly make good. At least I most willingly leave it to the indifferent reader to judge of the Lion, ex illo ungue, rather than to have Truth suffer through my silence, where my weak endeavours might be able to contribute any thing to its liberty and lustre. Certainly my labour therein was not so much to answer difficulties, as to discover corruptions, mistake of, and violence made against the Authors genuine sense, which being once discovered, the former seeming difficulties vanished of themselves, Sir, if you do me that right, (which I easily promise myself from your friendship, yea even your justice) as to conceive I use candour herein, and speak but a measured truth; you will admire with me, how this could be made a subject of triumph and glory. Thus fare to my friend then. Now to every courteous Reader, I have this humble suit to make, that, while he hears corruptions, mistake of, and violences made against the genuine sense of the Authors, he permit not his judgement to be forestalled with a prejudicate opinion, that these words are but the effects of passion: but contrarily that without passion or preoccupation, he would have patience to read and judge: and if he find them not real truths, no false aspersions, let me pass for an impostor: But if truths indeed; let truth be published, vindicated and known; let men be our friends, but let Truth be incomparably more our friend; let the Fathers be heard speaking their own sense without force, that streams of honey may be conveyed from them into the hearts of the unlearned, not strains of poison; And let such as use violence against it know, that Truth for a time may be clouded, but cannot be overcome: That iniquity for a time may flourish, but cannot be permanent; Finally, that no victory is more glorious, then to be subdued by Truth. Superet igitur Veritas volentem, nam & invitum ipsa superabit.  
The ensuing discourse of Prayer to Angels etc. I purposed fairly and friendly to have examined betwixt Mr. Cos. and me, and therefore I addressed it to himself in the terms following.   

APPROBATIO.  
PErlegimus nos infra scripti in sacrâ Theologiae facultate Parisiensi Magistri, duos hosce tractatus, Anglicano scriptos idiomate, quorum titulus est, Occasional discourses of worship & prayer to Angels and Saints etc. had with D. Cousins by word of mouth, or by writing from him, by THOMAS CAR Confessor of the English Nunnery at Paris. As also an Answer to a libel written by the said D. Cousins against the great General Council of Lateran under Innocentius the third, Anno Domini 1215. by THOMAS VANE etc. quibus & fidei Catholicae elucescit veritas & hominis haeretici deteguntur imposturae: cuius in hac parte an praevaleat inscitia, an audacia, haud facile est iudicare. Hos itaque tractatus utiliter posse typis mandari, in bonum scilicet tùm fidei tùm pietatis Christianae, nostris hîc testamur chirographis. Datum Parisiis 4. Maij, 1646.  


H. HOLDEN.  
IAC. DULAEUS.     

The same in English.  
We whose names are underwritten, Doctors in Divinity of the sacred faculty of Paris, have perused these two treatises written in the English tongue, entitled, Occasional Discourses of worship & prayer to Angels & Saints etc. had with D. Cousins by word of mouth or by writing from him, by THOMAS CAR Confessor of the English Nunnery at Paris: As also an answer to a libel written by the said D. Cousins against the great General Council of Lateran under Innocentius the third, An. Dom. 1215. by THOMAS VANE etc. wherein as well the truth of Catholic belief is mainly illustrated, as the cozening wiles of an heretical man are plainly discovered: whose whether ignorance, or boldness be more prevalent in this behalf, is hard to judge. Wherefore we testify by these our hand-writings, that the said treatises may profitably be given to the Press, for the furtherance of Christian faith & piety. Given at Paris this 4. day of May, in the year of our Lord 1646.  


H. HOLDEN.  
I. DULEE.     


NOBLE Sr.  
After a sincere protestation, that I as much love and honour your person, as I hate what Catholic belief oblidges me to judge error in you; let me use freedom, without offence, to tell you in all Christian Charity, that of 14. objections which you have made out of the holy Fathers against worship and prayer to Angels and Saints, There are six corrupted, the words, or sentences, most important and even decisive of the controversy, being absolutely left out, though they were in the very midst of the passages cited or immediately following, as 

1. That of the Council of Laodicea.  
2. That of S. Augustine Conf. 10. c. 42.  
3. That of the same Saint contra epist. Parmeniani.  
4. That of Irenaeus.  
5. That of S. Ambrose.  
6. That of S. Bede.    
Five either forced to speak against themselves, or else nothing at all for you: as 

1. That of Theodoret twice.  
2. That of Origene against Celsus.  
3. That of Athanasius.  
4. That of Epiphanius.    
And finally three brought in for witnesses which speak not of the worship, or prayer to Angels or Saints at all, and therefore not to the present purpose; as 

1. That of S. Austin.  
2. That of Tertullian twice.  
3. That of S chrysostom.    
Now that I may not only say this, but make it appear in effect, I will observe this order, fairly to put down your several objections, severally, and in as many, and the same words without changing or omitting one syllable produced by you, and attend each of them in particular with my answers, apprehending that the most perspicuous, and satisfactory way, to the readers or hearers, and least subject to be misconstrued or misconceaved.   

Of the worshipping and praying to Angels.  
COUSIN'S THat this was forbidden by S. Paul, and condemned by the ancient fathers of the Church is manifest, both from the testimony of Theodoret and others, and from the Canon made against it in the Council of Laodicea.  
CAR. That the worship and prayer to Angels, as it is practised in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church (which is the thing in question) is not forbidden by S. Paul, or condemned by the ancient Fathers, etc. which you pretend to make good by sundry passages of the Fathers here puttdowne, I hope to make as clear, as the said Fathers own plain words can make it.  
COS. Let no man seduce you through humility and the Religion or worshipping of Angels. They that maintained the law, induced the Colossians to worship Angels, telling them, that the law was given by Angels and therefore that they ought to be worshipped. And this vice continued a great while among them both in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore the Council which was gathered together at Laodicea, which is the Metropolitan City of Phrygia, forbade it by a law, and commanded them, that they should not pray to Angels. To this day are to be seen the oratory's which they and their neighbours made, to the Angel S. Michael. And this they did (praying to them) out of humility, saying that the God of Heaven and earth was invisible and incomprehensible, to whom they could not come; and that therefore it behoved them to procure his favour by the Angels. And this was it which S. Paul meant when he said, Let no man seduce you through humility, and the worshipping of Angels.  
CAR. We answer that that passage of S. Paul is to be understood of such as are so seduced as that they give away to creatures, sovereign worship which is due to God alone. And in this sense we with S. Paul cry out Let no man seduce you, etc. And that this is not said gratis, but is indeed the true sense of S. Paul, appears first out of S. chrysostom upon the same place saying. There are some who say that we are to be brought to God by Angels and not by Christ. 2. by the cōtext or sequel of words in the very next verse, and not holding the head, to wit Christ, but in lieu of Christ substituting Angels, as saith the said Theodoret and S. Anselme. 3. by the Council of Laodicea itself, to which we have Theodoret wholly alluding and referring to it, and therefore is to be interpreted by it. Let us hear then what it saith, and consequently what Theodoret would and must say.  
COS. The words of the Canon made by the Council of Laodicea about 1300. years since be these.  
CAnon 35. That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and go to the Angels, making private meetings for that purpose which are wholly forbidden: therefore if any one shall be found, to follow this secret and private Idolatry let him be accursed.  
Car. Here is somewhat not rightly put down, some thing quite left out. Take it as follows.  
That we ought not to relinquish the Church of God, and departed thence, and nominate Angels, and to make assemblies which are known to be forbidden. Therefore if any shall be found, to follow this secret Idolatry, Let him be accursed. Because he forsook our Lord jesus Christ the son of God, and abandoned himself to Idolatry, or went to Idols. These words (because he forsook our Lord jesus Christ the son of God and abandoned himself to Idolatry, or went to Idols) are quite left out, being yet the most important to decide the difficulty betwixt us, though immediately following, and clearly delivering the reason, or cause of what preceded.  
Is there now any need of further answer? Do Catholics hold that they ought to forsake the Church of God and to departed thence to name, call, or (if you please) invocate Angels? Do they to that purpose, make any secret assemblies which are publicly forbidden? Do they finally forsaking our Lord jesus Christ the son of God give themselves over to Idolatry, and thereby draw the curse vpon their shoulders, it being imposed for no other cause, as the Council it self expounds itself, designing the particular reason of the curse saying Because he forsook our Lord, etc. why did you then deal so spareingly with your friends, as by leaving out what was most important, to leave them with some apparent doubt quaking under the fear of a curse if they should worship or pray to a Saint, whereas the words, being produced, made most clear, that there was indeed no cause of fear at all.  
In a word that this Canon cannot be meant of the Religious worship which the Catholic Church pays to Angels and Saints, is further manifest both by the Canon 34. immediately preceding in the same Council where the Religious worship of a true Martyr is approved in these words. A Christian ought not to forsake the Martyrs of Christ, and go to false Martyrs. And also by the 51. art. following. We ought not to celebrate the birthdayes of Martyrs in Lent, but only to make a memory. (which we call now a commemoration) of them upon saturday and sunday. judge then whether it were likely that the holy Council would with one breath, both establish and destroy the worship due to Angels or Saints, the difficulty equally urgeing against them both.  
Again the phrase of the Council being nominare Angelos I would fain know by what rule it is rather englished to go to the Angels, then as the words usually signify by the common consent of men, to nominate or name the Angels, which is wont to be done in conjurations and enchantements, etc. which sense the canon 36. immediately following seems particularly to favour and confirm, as rendering the reason of the precedent canon: because (saith it) the ministers of the Altar or Clerks, ought not to be Magicians or enchanters, or to make certain scrolls (Phylacteria) wherein things are written, etc. in such were the pharisees accustomed to write the Commandments, and to wear them about their heads or arms in a superstitious manner as appears by Hierome Oleaster upon Deut. c 6.  
Nor doth this passage of Theodoret any whit prejudice the Catholic cause, all things being well balanced. First, because his sense herein is the sense of the Council, which you see toucheth us not. Secondly his words being duly considered, they fie not with a Catholic proceeding; for he imputes only the worship of Angels as a vice to those who did it upon this motive, that they delivered the law (telling them that the law was given by Angels, and therefore they ought to be worshipped) which is no Catholic ground of that worship: and again in that they said the God of heaven and earth was invisible and incomprehensible, to whom they could not come, and therefore they ought to procure his favour by the Angels. As though, forsooth, God's invisibiltie and incomprehensibility were the true reason concluding that man cannot approach him, and that therefore we were necessitated to procure access by the Angel's favour: which is a dream falling into no Catholic heart: For though we willingly profess that the mediation of Angels and Saints is good, holy, useful, and always usual in the Church of God, yet is it not upon a mistaken ground, that there is no other way to get access to him. We know that by the feet of heavenly Love we are able to walk home to that invisible and incomprehensible Deity; which Love is heard, though the Angels were even silent, and is not refused entry. So that the mediation of Angels is neither necessary for that reason, nor indeed (for any thing I have yet been taught) necessary at all, by an absolute necessity obliging every one in particular. The words of the Council of Trent being these: that it is good and profitable humbly to call upon them, etc. and to fly to their prayers help and assistance, etc. not that that is the only means to approach unto God, etc.  
COS. Again; Theodoret's words (upon the 3. Coloss.) are these and to the same purpose.  
FOr in as much as they willed men to worship Angels, the Apostle forbiddeth it, and commandeth the contrary, that so all their words and works might beset forth by the remembrance of Christ. And give thanks (saith S. Paul) to God the Father by Christ not by the Angels. Which rule the Council of Laodicea held. and for a salve to that old sore, made alaw, that Angels should not be prayed to.  
Car. This place requires no new answer. The solution of the former clears this too. for in as much as they willed men to worship Angels, in the manner about declared, the Apostle most justly orbiddeth it, and so doth the Council of Laodicea after him, and all Catholics say Amen. Whether according to the said Council, 
Vbisupra,  because they forsook our Lord jesus Christ the son of God, and abandoned themselves to I idolatry. Or according to S. Paul in the same place, because they held not the Head, which is Christ, Non tenens caput. Or following S. chrysostom for that the Colossians which made their approaches to God by the Angels, 
Upon the firstch to the Coless Upon he 2 th' to the Co loss.  had many judaical, Grecian or Ethnicall observations. Or following Theophylact, because by the appearances and shadow of humility you (the Colossians) were set upon, tempted and deceived: for these seducers affirmed it a thing unworthy the Matestte of the onelybegotten (Christ) that you (Colossians) should be brought to God by his guidance, and that this is a work, fare outstriping man's poverty (littleness) whence they also say it is more aggreeable to reason, to aver that this office, of conducting to God, is performed by the Angels: Whereupon doubtlessly they introduced a worship, professed a Religion, and persuaded the unlearned, that they should apply themselves to them, and, in their access to God, use them (who had brought us saluation) for their Guides. And again in the same Chapter ver. 10. Why therefore, saith he, he (Christ) being omitted or left (omisso) Do you betake yourselves to the Angels, as Guides to conduct to the Father. Finally the same Theop in the beginning, or argument of the said Epistle, in discovering the scope of it, or the reason moving S. Paul to write to them, discovers also what kind of worship of Angels he reprehends in them And this did induce him (S. Paul) to write to the Colossians because a wicked tenet was of late received among them: for they apprehended that there was no access to God and the Father by the son, but by the Angels; esteeming it an absurd thing to believe that the son of God should come in these last ages, since in the old Testament all things were done by the Ministry of the Angels. They further observed divers judaical institutions, and customs of the Gentiles, etc. And had M. Cos. read on one line further (for it immediately followed in the same place) he had found the solution. Nor ought our Lord jesius Christ to be relinquished. Behold how all of them concur in this, to condemn the worship. invocation, or religion of Angels, which excludes the Mediation of jesus Christ, which Catholics do as much detest as any, and consequently here is nothing against Catholic doctrine.  
Cos. Cardinal Bellarmine and some others answer, That the old Heretics said, no man could come to God by Christ, but by the Angels; and therefore that they ought to be prnyed to, and worshipped, not Christ.  
Car. Card. Bellarmine, for as much as I am able to discover, hath neither the words, nor the sense heero put down for his own reply: how beit such an an swear had not been without good ground: for he brings in S. Chry sostome saying no less, in his 7. Hom. upon the Epist. to the Colossians, who affirm that we are not to be reconciled and come unto God by Christ; but by the Angels. And hath not Theophylacte the same in terms, as I have newly cited him in his argument upon the Epistle to the Collossians. They thought, saith he, there was no coming to God the Father, by the son (Christ) but by the Angels? Yea doth not even Theodoret himself say as much too in effect, about, where he is alleged against us, when he affirms they said that the God of heaven and earth was invisible and incomprehensible to whom they could not come, and therefore they ought toprocure his favour by the Angels? How do you then M. Cousins forget yourself, and go on saying?  
Cos. But neither doth the Council of Laodicea, nor Theodoret, nor S. Paul, attribute any such opinion to them.  
Car. Yes Sir, Theodoret you have newly heard speak; and the Council and S. Paul above, both which do in formal words reprehend and accurse such abominable Religion to Angels, as causeth usto forsake the only begotten son of God, etc. so the Council: & not to hold the head: so S. Paul. How unduely therefore do you thence affitme that they (the Council, Theoph. S. Paul) condemned them only for giving religious worship to Angels, in praying to them, that they would become Mediators for them to God. And with all, forsooth, that that should be it, which they call a secret kind of Idolatry, and a forsaking of Christ and his Church.  
For further satisfaction, and the absolute clearing of the place, and discovering Theodoret's sense in point of honouring and praying to the Saints or Angels let himself be heard speak, where he discourses more plainly and fully upon that subject.  In his Epitome of Divine dccrees. De Angelis, c. 7. THe divine Daniel the Prophcte did also affirm, that some (to wit Angels whereof he spoke) were Princes of Nations, etc. And added withal, that no other did help him, while he made intercession to God for the liberty of the I ewes, than Michael their Prince. The 8. book of the cure of the Grecian affections. THe generous souls of the triumphant Martyrs walk now in heaven, and are present amidst the Quires of Angels. Marry even their bodies are not contained in their particular monumets: 
The ancient devotion to relics which is never heard of amingst the protestants.  but the cities and villages having divided them amongst them instile them conservers of their souls and Physicians of their bodies, and worship them as Precedents, and keepers of their cities; and making use of their intercession to God, they obtain divine gifts through their favour. 
Their intercession made use of.  Their bodies being cuttin pieces, the virtue of them remains entire and undivided. And those so little and diminutive relics have an equal virtue to the whole Martyr, 
Favours and cures obtained at and by means of their relics.  while undivided, and uncutt into pieces. For the virtue present distributes favours and proportions its liberality to the faith of the suppliants. And even these things move not you to praise their God, but you deride and scoff at the honour, which all every where exhibit to them, and repute it an abominable crime to draw near their graves. In the same book about à leaf after. Why are you offended with us, who make not Gods, 
Their honour.  but honour Martyrs, as witnesses of God and most loving servants. Again in the same book. But the fair and famours Temples of the victorious Martyrs appear illustrious for greatness, 
Temples built to God in their name, and honour.  excellency, and all kind of ornament, and streams out the splendour of their beauteousnes on every side. Nor do we frequent them once twice of five times a year, but we celebrate frequent assemblies, nay often we sing praises every day to their Lord and Master. And those that are in good health, beg the conservation of it, such as are afflicted with any disease, entreat to be freed of it. They also demand children who want them, and such as are sterile desire to become mothers, etc. Travellers sue to them to be companions, and guides of their journey: who return safe, render thanks. 
Prayer to them.  Nor do they go to them as to Gods but pray to them as heavenly men, and deseech them to be pleased to be intercessors for them. Now that such as faithfully demand obtain their desires, their Donaries speaking their cures, openly publish. For some hang up resmblances of eyes, others of hands and feet, made of silver or gold. To wit their Master accepts of small things and of little value, measuring the gift by the ability of the giver. And a little after. NAy further they are careful to call their newborn children by their names, procureing to them thereby security, and safe custody. 
Is it possible that this Authors testimony should ever be used against honour and prayer to Saints? Did ever or could ever any Catholic speak more advantageously in his own behalf? Can the Author ever more clearly express himself a Catholic, or even more fully, and freely and evidently deliver Catholic duty, and practise in this behalf? Which he himself also observed in his Religious History c. 3. of Macarius his life, saying in the end of the same. I making an end of this narration, pray and beseech that by the intercession of all these (of whom he spoke) I may obtain the divine assistance. And c. 18 of Eusebius, And I pray that I may obtain that intercession, which hitherto I have enjoyed while he was yet alive, etc. And finally in c. 27. of Baradatus. Grant that by the assistance of their prayers I may approach to that Mountain, etc.  
COUSINS. Saint Augustin in his 10. book of Confessions chap. 42. hath these words. Whom should I find, that might reconcile me to thee o my God? Must I go to the Angels? With what prayer? with what Sacrament should I do it? I hear that many desiring to return to thee, and being not able to do it by themselves have made trial of this way, and have been very deservedly deluded by it.  
CAR. There is some thing in that Passage, which is most material, omitted, some what also false translated. Take therefore the passage word for word as it lies.  
Whom could I find, that might reconcile me to thee? Was I to go to Angels? With what prayer? with what Sacraments? (was I to do it, is not in the text, howbeit that much imports not) Many desiring to return to thee, and not being able to do it by themselves, as I hear, have tried these things (haec) can not, at least be referred to the Angels alone) and have fallen into a desire of curious visions (this clause of curious visions is quite left out, though most material (and were held worthy of illusions or to be illuded by it, these words, byit, are added to the text, because they may seem to refer to the going to the Angels, as though that were the cause of their being illuded, which serves the better to patch up the Doctor's sense whereas indeed their being illuded, might either be imputed to their going to the Angels: Prayer: Sacraments: or else more immediately and apparently, to the desire they had to have curious visions, which can never be devoid of fault. But if he will needs have all the mischief be put upon their going to the Angels, Let him please either to look upon the marginal notes in what impression so ever of his whole works where he will find remedia vitiorum à Daemonibus: the remedies of vices from the Devils: or else take the pains to read on five or six lines further, and he will discover what Angels S. Augustine spoke of, who saith. For they being highminded, sought thee in the pride of their learning, and did rather exalt their hearts then kenecke their breasts. And so they drew the Princes of the air towards them, who conspired and were companions with them in the same pride, and by them they were deluded through magical powers, etc. For the devil was transforming himself into an Angel of light. Behold how, and by what Angel they were deluded; and consequently how this apparent difficulty falls all in pieces. If any desire a clearer prospect vpon S. Augustins' mind herein, by knowing of whom he had heard this opinion of being purged and reconciled to God by the mediation of the Angels, etc. Les him take the pains to read what the same Saint saith in his 9 and tenth book of the city of God all over, and he will plainly discover to what he there alludes, to wit, to the opinions of Trismegistus, the Platoniques (and after them, it may be, to the Symoneans who were sick of the same disease) as saith Tertullian in these terms. The discipline of the Magicalart of the Symoneans riȝtwysnes the Angels, is counted among the idolatries. Who held that men were to go to the supreme God by the lesser Gods or Angels, having first used holy purifications or purgations As l. 10. c. 9 speaking against Porphyrius a Platonique. For Forphyrius doth promise a certain purgation, as it were of the soul, by him called Theurgia, yet he doth it with a certain hesitation and (as one would say) with a blushing kind of disputation and denies that any by this Art is helped to return to God: so that one may discover him wavering betwixt the vice of sacrilegious curiosity, and a Philosophical profession now putting one opinton, now another. For now he warns us to beware of this Art as deceitful, and dangerous in the deed doing, and prohibited by the law. And soon after, as giving way to such as praise it, affirms it conducible to the cleansing a part of the soul, not the intellectual part, wherein the Truth of intelligible things which have no corporeal similitudes are discovered, but the spiritual part capable of corporeal images (or resemblances) for this part saith he, is adapted and fitted by certain Theurgicall consecrations, which are called (Teletae) to the receipt of spirits and Angels, whereby to see the Gods.  
And ibid. ch. 16. whereas therefore some Angels do excite men to worship this one (God) and some again excite them by working wonders to honour themselves with sovereign worship (Latriâ) and so too, that those, forbidden that these should be worshipped, let the Platonique say to whom we should rather give credit, yea let what Philosophers soever say, let the Theurgi or rather the Perurgi, etc. Nay lastly let even men say, if there be yet any sense of humane nature, whereby they are created reasonable creatures, in any measure left in them, whether we ought rather to sacrifice to those Gods, or Angels who command that sacrifice should be offered to them, or to him alone, to whom these command it, who forbid that sacrifice be offered either to themselves or to those others.  The 9 book of the City. Lest any should East any should thinks he ought to follow them as good (Daemons) Angels, by whose means or mediation, as it were, while he doth desire and studiously en deavour to be reconciled, to the Gods, which every one beleevees to be good, etc. he may wander far from the true God But that which I most admire is that you Mr. Cos. whom reports have always delivered to us for a learned, moderate, and ingenuous man, should pick out such abstruse passages (which being well looked into make nothing at all for you) and endeavour amidst such darkness to wrest your will from a Father by forcing him to speak against what he hath dogmatically and clearly delivered in so many other passages, which you might, with as much facility, have met withal, as In the II. book of the City of God Chap. 31. But the holy Angels, after whose society and company we groan in this most perilous pilgrimage, as they have an eternal permanencic, so have they a facility in knowing, 
We are a●●●sted by them.  and a felicity in reposing: for without difficulty they help us, because they labour not in their spiritual, pure, and free motions. Epistle 121. chap. 9 OR happily let them (to wit our prayers) be known to the Angels who are with God, that in what manner they are to offer them to God: and what counsel they are to use therm. 
T●●y offer our praters to God.  And what by his command (to wit Gods) they know aught to be fulfilled, etc. they may bring unto us either openly or covertly: for the Angel said to the man (Tobic.) And now when thou and Sara didst pray, I offered your prayer in the sight of God's clarity. In his 6. Chap. of his Annotations upon job. Have mercy on me have mercy on me (o friends) heseemes to 
Welairfully pray to them.  bescech the Angels, that they would become intercessors for him, or at least the Saints, that they would pray for a penitent. The City of God the 22. book. Chap. 8. I Had begun to dispute more diligently of the whole cause: and behold while I disputed, other voices of new gratulations are heard from the Martyr's shrine. 
The public practice of praying at the shrines of the Martyrs  My Auditors turned and began to run that way: for she (to wit Palladia Paul's Sister) as soon as the was down the stairs (where she had stood) she was gone to pray to the holy Martyr: (ad sanctum Martyrem orare to pray to the Martyr, or at the shrine of the Martyr to wit S. Stephen as is plain by these words following. What was in the hearts of those that exulted, but the faith of Christ, for which Stephen's blood was poured out?) who as soon as she had touched the rails, falling as it were down into a sleep, she risen sound. 
A mirucle Wrought in S Augugustins' sight.  While therefore we made inquiry what had befallen, which had caused that joyful noise, they brought her sound into that part of the Church where we were, from the place where the Martyr lay. Then both men and women made so great an admiting noise, that the bruit continuing with tears seemed to find no period. She was lead to that place where a little before she had stood trembling, etc. The 7. book and 1. Chap. against the Donatists. LEt him (S. Syprian of whom he spoke) help us by his prayers in the mortality of this flesh, 
A saint prayed to in particular.  as persons labouring in a dark cloud, etc. Upon Psalm the 83. ALl the Martyrs which are with him (Christ) do intercede for us: 
The Saints intercede for us.  Their intercessions are not ended save with the end of our sobbings. The 1. Sermon on the feast of S. Stephen. SAint Stephen was heard that by his prayers saul's sin might be blotted out. 
We counselled to pray to S. Stephen.  Let us therefore commend ourselves to his prayers: For much more is he now heard for those that pray rightly to him? In Psalm. 88 Sermon 2. LEt us celebrate the birthdayes of Saints with sobriety, 
Their birthdays celebrated.  that we may imitate them who went before us; and let them rejoice in us, who pray for us, that the blessing of our Lord, may for ever remain with us. In the City of God. 10. book the 12. chap. When his Angels do hear, 
The Angels hear us.  he (God) doth hear in them, as in his true temple, not made by the hands of men. Against Faustus. the 20. book the Chap. 21. Christian people do celebrate together the Memories of Martyrs with a religious solemnity; 
Religious worship  both to excite imitation, 
Sacrifice  to be made fellow partners in their merits, and to be helped by their prayers: yet so as we offer sacrifice to none of the Martyrs, but to the very God of Martyrs, 
Altars.  though we erect Altars in the Memories of Martyrs, etc. 
If then saint Augustins' mind be made good by so many and so manifest places; To what end should the D. come yet coldly dropping another seeming place out of the said saint? or to what purpose should I answer it? Howbeit lets yet hear him speak for every ones full satisfaction.  
S. Augustin. l. 2. contra Ep. Parm. chap. 8.  
Cos. IF the Apostle had said, you shall have one for your Advocate, and I will pray the Father for your sins, what good or faithful Christian would have endured it, or accounted him one of Christ's Apostles? and not rather have looked upon him, as upon an Antichrist.  
Car. I answer first that by Advocate (which is indeed in the text Mediator) the D. will either have S. Augustine after the Apostle to mean the Principal and immediate Mediator, 
Mediator.  which if the Apostle had assumed to himself, he had justly been looked upon by all good Christians, not as an Apostle of Christ, but rather as an Antichrist: or else the mediate, less principal, and impropre Mediator (which he must mean if he would have the place to make any thing against a Catholic and to his purpose.) And such certainly the Apostle both might be and was, and yet is fare from incurring the censure of an Antichrist, sigh S. john was doubtlessy a Bishop, and every Bishop if we believe S. Paul Heb. 5. is taken from among men and is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin, which is to be some kind of Mediator or Advocate representing their miseries, pleading their cause, and mediating their reconcilement to God by Christ the only properly true Mediator of Redemption. In this kind of Mediation are the Priests employed saith joel c. 2. Between the porch and the Altar, shall the Priests, the Ministers of our Lord weep, and shall say, spare o Lord, spare thy people, and give not thine inheritance into reproach, that the heathens should rule over them, and thus finally (concludes S. Aug. in this place) do all Christian men commend themselves mutually to one another's prayers. So fare is he from speaking against mediating in this second sense, or consequently from apprehending that derogatory to Christ our prime Mediator.  
I answer secondly that here again is a whole clause left out, whence the clearing of the difficulty was to be demanded to wit, (As Parmenianus in a certain place put a Bishop Mediator betwixt the people and God.) And how did Parmenianus put Bishops Mediators & c? marry, as purifiers and justifiers of men by their own virtue and justice, since they (the Donatists) allowed virtue and effect to the Sacraments and Sacrifice only according to the quality of the Minister or offerer, which was indeed to assume to themselves the proper Mediation of Christ jesus who only of himself is able to appease God's wrath against sin, as being our principal, immediate, primary Mediator and indeed our only Mediator of Redemption, who by the right of his own merits obtains grace forus: the others only by him and by his merits. Such a Mediator it is manifest S. Aug. spoke of in this place (and such we admit none but Christ alone) who spoke against the pride of the Donatists, which forsooth would have no spot or vice to be amongst them or their fellows, as saith S. Augustine in the chap. immediately before, which was a prerogative due to Christ alone, who was that one and true Mediator for whom none prayed, & he prayed for all, as saith the said St. in this 8. chap. In fine one of S. Augustine's principal designs in this place was to prove against the Donatists that they injustly separated themselves from the Catholic Church upon pretence of the wickedness of the Bishops and priests in the Church: for, dato that it were so indeed, yet were that no just cause of a division or schism; since (be the Bishops and priests what they will) we ought always to be secure of one Mediator, jesus Christ the just, whom we have an Advocate with the Father, and he is the propitiation for our sins. Hence I believe the weakest may observe, that it is not fairly done of Mr. Cos. to make use of the mistaken sense of an obscure passage in an Author, to stagger the unlettered, who are not able to examine him, while being examined he bears no show of difficulty along with him.  
COUSINS. S. Irenaeus against Heresies 2. book chap. 57  
THe Church Catholic doth not invocate Angels, but purely calleth upon God and Christ.  
CAR. Still something is left out most important to the clearing of the difficulty. S. Irenaeus his words are these. Neither doth it (to wit the universal Church) doc any thing by Angelical invocations nor by incantations, nor by any other wicked curiosity, (these words by incantations nor by any other wicked curiosity, are omitted) but cleanly, purely, and manifestly directing prayers to God, etc. Now what do these words incantations, and wicked curiosities, lead us to, but the old heretics to wit the Symonians, the Marcites, Meandrians, and Carpocratians, against whom he had spoken, showing here that the Catholic Church in working her true miracles did not use their proceeding in working false ones (which they did by the invocation and superstitious naming of Angels, to whom they ascribed the creation of the world) by incantations and spells whereby they deluded many, especially poor women, robbing them of fortunes and honour, with the exercise of innumerable villainies (as is to be seen in the 9 20. 22. and and 24. chapters of his first book) but by fasting and prayer performed chastely, purely, openly, and without hope of lucre. His words are: That universall Church which is in every place, demanding by fasting and much prayer, the spirit os life returned to the dead man, who was given to the Saints prayers. What is here yet I pray, against the invocation of Saints?  
Cos. Origene against Celsus l. 5.  
ALl prayers are to be sent and offered up unto God by our Angel and high Priest, who is the Prince and Lord of all Angels. Nor will our Religion permit us, to supplicate or pray to any other whom so ever.  
Car. Answer. First your choice herein is not very happy, if you should make him stand up alone against all antiquity, ingenious men would not esteem his word were sufficient caution after his so many errors, yea even in this place where he destroys Christ's Divinity making him inferior to his heavenly Father. Howbeit if you admit his authority upon this matter, so do I: and thus I produce him speaking of the Angels in the same place. O Angels receive man converted from his old error again: they (the Angels, holy souls, and blessed spirits) endeavour, saith he, to reconcile God to such as shall serve him, and pray jointly with us, contra Celsum l. 8. pag. 432. Again infinite millions of Angels make intercession for maukind. Again, who doubts but all the holy Fathers assist us with their prayers in Num. c. 32. hom. 26. Now make him blow hot and cold with the same breath, and speak for you saying, all prayers are to be offered to God, etc. nor will our religion permit us to supplicate or pray to any other whomsoever. Lo you have made him quarrel with himself, but what have you gotten? save only by contradicting himself you have destroyed the credit of the Author you depend upon, while you hurt not us who want not a number of others to rely upon. Were it not better to save his credit saying with S. Hierome, Origene, Methodius, Euscbius, and Apollinaris write against Celsus and Porphyrius. Consider with what arguments and with how many gliding problems they dissolve the things which were woven by the spirit of the Devil, and because sometimes they are compelled to speak, they speak not what they think, but what they are forced by necessity to oppose to the Doctrine of the Gentiles. For saith he not in the same book that had he discourered that Celsus had by Angels understood true Angels as Gab. Mich. etc. he would then according to his ability have said something to the matter by rejecting the word Adoration, and the actions of the Adorer, that is offerings and Sacrifices, and the giving of the worship of Latria, so that it is manifest that he denies not the prayer to the Saints absolutely, but only in the sense in which they held their false Gods were to be prayed to and adored, which according to Plato they termed Angels, and gave them sovereign honour, as is clear from S. Aug. in his 10. book of the Gitty and is partly cited above, where they are termed lesser Gods. For saith he of the Angels in the same place, though they do descend, etc. and offer the prayers of men, yet are they not at all so called Gods as that we are commanded to adore them, or to worship them with divine honour. And to this we all say; so be it, contenting ourselves to afford them an inferior honour, sortable to servants, which bears no proportion to that sovereign and divine honour, which we reserve for the Great Master alone.  
Cos. Tertullian in his book of Prayer chap. 12.  
THese prayers are vain, and deservedly farelted, which are made without the authority and precept of Christ or his Apostles. For such prayers be not for religion, but superstition.  
Car. Sincerity is still desired: The authors words are still either so indirectly, or sparingly put down, that it is impossible they should bear out his sense and make it intelligible to the Reader. Tertull. in this place speaks not one word of Prayer to Angels or Saints, either in express terms, or can the exigency or scope of his meaning be wrested to it. He speaks only of certain frivolous forms (which he points out in particular leaving no place to mistake what he meant) or observations in prayer, which he saith rather conduce to superstition then to religion, as is, saith he, the custom of some to put of their cloaks to pray, etc. Mark his own words as they lie, and then indge what reason you have to make use of them. Having described some manner of praying, he goes on saying. But sigh we have touched one certain point (or part) of an idle observation, I will not fail to mark out the rest (caetera) to which vanity is deservedly exprobrated, because they are done without the authority of any precept either of our Lord, or his Apostles. What was it then which was reputed vain, as being done without authority, etc. what but the rest (caetera.) And what was the rest? was it happily prayer to Saints? No, not any syllable intimating that; but the rest was such as was the unum aliquod, to wit empty observation, such then, (and not prayer to Saints) must the rest be in good consequence, nor dare any deny it, since not I but the Author himself a line after concludes it saying: as is that of certain persons putting of their cloaks to pray (this clause clears the doubt and yet is left out and not looked upon.) Let us now examine whether any fairer dealing, or more sincerity be used in the next allegation out of the same Author.  
In his Apologet. ch. 30. Cos. THese things I can ask and pray for of no other, but of him who I know is able alone to give them to me, and whom alone I serve.  
Car. Nor here again is there any mention made of Angels in terms, nor doth the subject oblige to any thought of them. Nor are indeed the Authors words put down fairly as they lie, though the sense is almost the same. These things (saith he) I can pray for of no other, then of whom I know I shall obtain them, because even he it is who alone doth give, and I am he whose part it is to impetrate, being his servant who observe him alone. Mark only what these things were which he prayed for, in whose person he spoke, and to whom; and you will easily discover this place contains no difficulty at all. The things he prays for are (as himself declares in the precedent line.) Long life to all Emperors, asecure reign, a safe Palace, strong armies, a faithful Senate, an honest people, a peaceable world, etc. He speaks it in the person of Christians, who were accused by the Ethnics that they prayed not to their Gods for the Emperor. Where vpon he makes an Apology for them to the Emperor, showing that though they pray not to their false Gods, who were but indeed dead men, and therefore less powerful than himself, yet he retorts upon the Ethnics in these terms, but you are irreligious who seek safety (to wit by the means of false Gods) where it is not; you demand it of those that are not able to give it, overpassing him in whose power it is, and so concludes that Christians have not recourse to their Gods as they have, but to the true God, in these words. But we call upon the eternal God, the true God, the living God, because he alone is able to give it. He, I say, not the false Gods, whom alone he excludes from that power of helping the Emperor, without having any thought, or making any relation to the Angels or Saints at all, which yet he should have done to have made this place useful for your purpose, as you must needs confess.  
Cos. S. Athanasius l. 4. against the Arrians.  
NO man should pray to God and the Angels to receive any thing, but aught to petition the Father and the son, etc.  
Car. Still is the Author surprised, as it were, and forced to speak what he means not, and what the subject doth not ●●acte, as shall be shown by the context and the scope of the Author In the interim take his words as they lie. For never would any pray to receive any thing of God, and the Angels, or of any created things: nor did any conceive this form of words, GOD AND THE ANGELS GIVE it THEE, but contrarily of the Father and the son, for their unity, and uniform reason of giving. Nor doth the Cathol. Church use any such form of prayer, as joining the Angels with God, by reason of their unity and uniform reason of giving, which is the holy Father's sense. Which that it may plainly appear to be so indeed, let us only reflect against whom he speaks, and what argument he useth. He is here disputing against the Arrians, upon this passage of S. john, Ego & Pater unum sumus. The Arrians would have that place to be understood of one in will; S. Athanas. of one in substance: and thus he argues a little before the place in question. If, saith he, for that reason (to wit because they will and nill the same) the Father and the son were to be held to be the same thing, and by that means the Word were esteemed to be like the Father: then were it necessary too that Angels, and other things more excellent than we, the Principalities, Powers, Thrones, Dominations, and the rest which appear in heaven, the sun moon and stars should be so esteemed the sons of God as Christ is his son, and this speech also should be pronounced of them, they and the Father are one, sigh what God wills they also will. Which if it were true, they also would be admitted into the same power of giving with the sonne: but that is false, therefore and that too which preceded. That that is false, he goes on proving out of S. Paul, grace and peace be to you from God our F. and from jesus Christ, etc. admitting none of the creatures into his fellowship, in the power of giving (ratione, in that behalf or respect.) Now, saith he, the very manner of giving, doth convince the unity of the Father and the son; for never doth any prey to receive any thing in this form of words, God and the Angels give me such a thing, as we say, God the father and the sonne give me, etc. with S. Paul 〈◊〉 that this passage doth not at all speaake of prayer to Angels in the sense we defend it in, that is, as they make intercession to God for us in quality of faithful servants of his; as being his creatures, infinitely inferior to him, etc. not by reason of their unity with him, and uniform power of giving, as above, which alone is the sense rejected by S. Athanasius: not the honour and prayer to the Angels and Saints, which was the practice of that Age, as may partly appear by these few passages.  
In a Sermon of our Blessed Lady, towards the end which is among his works, and very ancient, if not his own.  
ANd now give ear, o thou daughter of David and Abraham, and incline thine ears to our prayers, forget not thy people, nor us, who are of thy family and of thy Father's house.  
Again in the same place. Where upon all the rich among the people pray to thee, as being enriched with these goods and spiritual contemplations. We cry unto thee, be mindful of us, Most holy Virgin, etc.  
A little after. We exalte thee with shrill and resounding voices, saying: I salute thee Lady full of grace, our Lord is with thee, make intercession for us, o Mistress, Lady, Queen, and Mother of God.  
And the same is made good more fully by the Fathers of the same Age. First by  
S. Hilary. The Angels of the little ones are over the prayers of the faithful. 
In Mattheun 18.  And again. The Angels do daily offer up to God, the prayers of those which are saved through Christ.  
S. Ephraem. O my most clement God, have mercy on thy creature, 
In fine orationis de laudibus sanctae Dei matris.  by the intercession of the mother of God always a Virgin; and of the Hosts of Heavenly spirits, and companies of Angels, of Cherubin, Seraphim, Prophets, Martyrs, etc.  
S. Basile. By the intercession of the Holy Mother of God and all these who have fore●● glorified thee, 
Basil. in his Liturgy.  sanctify our souls and bodies, and grant that we may serve thee in sanctity all the days of our life.  
Again. Who is in tribulation flies to the forty Martyrs: 
In Homilia in 40. Martyrs. prope finem.  such as are in prosperity betake themselves to them too: the one to be delivered from his affliction: the other to be continued in his prosperous condition. This good woman is heard to pray for children: and to sue for a safe return to her husband abroad; and for his health while he is infirm.  
S. Gregory Nyssene. He (to wit Meletius deceased) makes intercession for us, and for the sins of the people. 
In oratione De obitu Meletij Episcopi.   
Again. We stand in need of many benefits: intercede, 
In oratione de Theodoro Martyr.  and make earnest entreaty for our country to our common king and Lord.  
Again. As a soldier pray for us; as a Martyr use the liberty of speech for thy fellow servants, etc. Beg for peace that these public assemblies may not be interrupted; 
Ibiden paulo post.  lest the cruel and wicked Barbarian may rage's and make violence against the temples and Altars; lest the profane and impious tread ●●ly things under their feet: for even we who are conserved fafe and sound, aseribe that benefit to thee: and petition for safe guard and security for the time to come, etc.  
S. Gregory Nazianzene. But thou o sacred and dinine man, look down upon us from above, 
In fine orationis in l●●d●m S. Basilij.  and either stop the sting of the flesh which God hath given us for our exercise, or prevail that we may endure it with courage, etc.  
Saint Ambrose also followed in in this age, and gave testimony to this Truth, as you will see in my answer to the ensuing objection.  
COUSINS. S. Ambrose in 1. cap. ad Rom.  
THey that neglect to come unto God himself, and go to him by others, use to make this miserable excuse, that by the help of others they can come to God, as by the help of noble men they can come to the king. Go to, It is treason to take the honour or Majesty of a king, and to give it to a Lord. And do these men think to escape, if they give the honour of God to a creature and worship it? For therefore do men go to a king by great and noble personages, because the king is no more than a man himself. But to come to God (who knows every thing) and to procure his favour there is no such need of a helper or suffragator. For where ever any one will speak (or pray) unto him, he will himself be ready to hear and answer him.  
CAR. This place upon the first sight may seem both lively to express, and at once to improve the Catholic custom of making use of the Saints intercession to God. But truly were S. Ambrose the Author of it, as he is not by any scholar believed to be, even Caluin himself affirming of those Commentaries, that they have nothing worthy of S. Ambrose, yet if I make it not appear to any scholar that it was neither spoken nor meant to that purpose, I will be content to lose the small credit I own. The Authors discourse then, (be he who he will) was vpon this verse of S. Paul. Saying they were wise men they were made fools. Upon which he. For they think themselves wise men, because they think to find out Philosophical reasons, searching the courses 〈◊〉 the stars, and the qualities of the elements, but despising the Lord of them; therefore they are made fools, seeing if these things ought to be praised, how much more their Creator? yet being ashamed of their neglect of God, they are wont to use this miserable excuse, saying, that by those, (to wit, fellow servants or creatures whereof the speech was before, and are after named conserui) they are able to go to God, as by the Countess they come to the king. Go to, is any one so mad, or so unmindful of his salvation, as that he would challenge the honour of a king to a Count, sigh if even any be but found to treat of his matter, they are justly condemned guilty of treason? And these think not themselves guilty, who give away the honour of God's name to a creature, and forsaking the Lord and Master adore their fellow servants, as though there were yet some further thing reserved for God. For even therefore it is that we go to the king by the means of the Tribunes or Counts, because indeed the king himself is a man, and he knows not in whose hands to intrust the Common wealth. But to procure favour with God from uhom nothing lies hid (for he knows all men's merits) there is no need of a saffragator but a devoute mind. For where ever such a one shall speak unto him, he will answer him.  
Observe hereupon, that Mr. Cos. in his translation of this passage, 

1. In steed of (ipsos those) which must needs have relation to some persons or things going before whereby the sense is cleared, he puts, others, which quite obscures and changes the sense.  
2. He leaves out this clause most important and decisive, Forsaking the Lord, adore their fellow servants.  
3. He puts any one where as indeed it is such an one (talis) referring to one mentioned before, devoute in mind: such an one indeed will be heard without a suffragator, that is without needing any to suggest their merits, as though God were ignorant of them: whereupon he saith, for he knows all men's merits.    
In a word, this Author is here reprehending the pagan Philosophers, who knowing God did not worship him accordingly, but gave away the honour due to him alone, to creatures, to stocks, stones, and statues, whom they called and honoured as their gods, as is evident all through the chapter. In particular, where he saith. So was their heart blinded, that they changed the Majesty of the invisible God, whom by these his works they did acknowledge, not into men, but (which is worse, and even a crime not to be excused) into the similitude of men, that the form of a corruptible man, that is the picture of man is by them termed their God, that so they may receive the pictures of them being dead into the glory of a God, to whom being alive they durst not ascribe Deity.  
And a little after. Changing the truth of God into a lie, that they gave the name of the true God, to those wuich are not Gods: for taking from stones, wood, and other mettle, what they are indeed; they attribute to them what they are not, etc. for they are not now called wood or stone, but God, and this is rather to serve the creature, (which is called above, their fellow servant, and in that name condemned) then the Creator. So that it is manifest, that the Author doth not at all in this passage, touch or point at, much less reprehend or condemn the Catholic practice of giving an inferior honour to the Saints; and praying to them to become intercessors for us: which will yet more clearly appear to such as will take the pains to read his book de viduis after the midst, where he saith. Peter and Andrew therefore prayed for the widow, I wish to God there were any so ready to pray for us, at least he who prayed for his mother in law, Peter, and Andrew his brother, They could then impetrate for affinities sake, now they are able to do it for us and all men. You see that one subject to a great sin, is less fit to pray, at least to obtuyne for herself: Let her therefore employ others to pray to the Physician. For the sick are not able to pray for themselves, unless the Physician by the entreaty of others be invited to come to them. Flesh is infirm, the myned is sick, and hindered with the chains of sins. It is not able to make one weak step towards the seat of that Physician. We must therefore heartily beseech the Angels in our behalf, who are given for our help, we must pray to the Martyrs, of whom we seem to challenge à certain kind of patronage by the privilege of flesh and blood. They have ability to pray for our sins, who if they had any sins of their own, washed them with their blood; For they are Gods Martyrs, our Prelates, the overseers of our life and actions: Let us not blush to make use of them for intercessors of our infirmity; since they themselves experienced the infirmity of flesh and blood, even while they were victorious.  
As for that sentence, to wit: To procure favour with God, there is no need of a suffragator, which may seem most to urge against a Catholic sense. I answer first; 
Psal. 129.  according to that of S. Hilary. The nature of God hath no need of their intercession (to wit of the Angels) but our infirmity. And this in case a suffragator signified a helper or intercessor, which yet is never in proper speech but only by metaphor, much less here the true sense of the word. For suffragator will be found another thing if we take Tully for our Master in finding out the true sense of a latin word: suffragatio, saith he, est ipsa voluntatum & animorum declaratio quae fit suffragiis, the act of suffragating is the very declaration of men's wills and minds which is done by suffrage: (he calls it not a helping or praying for) so that it truly imports as much as informer, giver of advice, or one having a deliberative voice, the word suffrage having been primarily instituted to signify the voice which the Citizens of Rome gave in the election of any Magistrate, or in the resolution of any other importat affair of the Common wealth, put to the people's deliberation. Whence we are wont to say that Bishops only have right of suffrage, or deliberative voices in the Counsels, etc. Hence, such towards the Emperors, as had the credit to give their voices, advice or opinion touching the capacities or incapacities of persons pretending preferments, were called suffragators, that is informers, helping to supply the Emperor's want of knowledge, of the merits or demerits of particular persons aiming to bear office in the common wealth. And such suffragators, saith the Author and we with him, God needs none, sigh as is said in the same place, For be knows all men's merits: from whom nothing lies hid, and so needs not any to inform him of the worth and abilities of his subjects, as the Emperors needed the advice of the Tribunes or Governors of Provinces, of the sufficiency of persons within their precincts, and was enabled thereby to discern who, were fit to be employed.  
Now that it is not a mere imagination of mine, for the clearing of this place but a certain truth that it was conceived by some heathen Philosophers, that the greater God or Gods stood in need of advice from the lesser Gods, Angels, or devils let S. Aug. speak: 
City of God l 8. c. 28.  Some heathen Philosophers think (saith he that the celestial Gods who have care of humane affairs, would not know what men do, if the devils of the air did not announce it to them, because heaven is fare distant from earth, and suspended on high, 
In his book● de Mundo.  whereas the air is contiguous (or toucheth) to Heaven and earth. And Aristotle seems to say no less, where he compares God with the great king of Persia, etc.   

S. chrysostom Hom. de Profectu Euang.  
Cos. We are more prevalent with God, when we pray to him by ourselves, then when others pray for us, You have no need of a Patron with God.  
Car. Here are two things affirmed, and both true being well understood, and make nothing at all against us, The first that a man is more prevalent praying alone for himself, then when others pray for him. That is, it is a surer way to be heard, for a man to pray for himself, then only to depend upon another man's prayers, he not praying himself. The second. That a man hath no need of a Patron with ●●od. Absolutely, as that God would not hear him without a Patron, I grant●●, And what is this against a Catholic, And thus or to this effect, must as well the D. as we, interpret him, unless we will have him to make head against common sense, S. Paul, and himself, where he speaks, (and that more plainly) of the intercession of Saints, for here indeed despeakes not of it at all, (unless in consequence) and therefore, this is not the fittest place to decide a controversy.  
That he Should oppose common sense, it is evident; because at least if another's prayers help not, no reason can be suggested, why they should hurt, and therefore we should be more prevalent praying alone.  
That he should contradict S. Paul's counsel is no less manifest, who in the 5. Thess. 25. verse saith, Brethren pray for us. Heb. 13. ver. 18. Pray for us, and the 5. of S. Iames ver. 16. Pray for one another that you may be saved.  
And that he should quarrel with himself. is as clear if we read what he saith, in his 28. Homily to the people of Antioch, touching the intercession of the Angels in the time of the Sacrifice. The Angels do then in lieu of olie branches propose the very body of our Lord, pray for mankind, as though they should say, We pray o Lord for these whom thou hast loved in so large measure, that for their love thou incurredst death, and gavest up thy spirit upon the Cross, we beseech thee for these, for whom thou freely givest thy blood, we pray to thee for those, for whom thou didst Sacrifice this body.  
Give therefore this flood of eloquence leave to speak for himself, and he will sweep away all hints for cavils to catch hold on. If we be negligent saith he, and slothful, we cannot be saved even by the merits of others, etc. But these things we say, not to deny that one may pray to the Saints for sinners, 
In Math. Hom. 8.  but lest we ourselves might fall into sloth and idleness, and leave the care of our own affairs to others while we ourselves sleep.  
Again. The prayers and supplications of Saints, have force for us, 
in Matt. Hom 5.  yea and that most great: Marry than it is, when we ourselves too demand the same thing by Penance.  
Again. Wherefore let us frequently visit them, let's touch their shrines, and with great faith embrace their relics, to the end we may receive some benediction: for as soldiers show the wounds which they receive in battle to the king speaking with confidence; so these bearing their heads which were cut of, 
Hom. 40. to the people of Antioch.  and proposing them; are able to obtain of the king of heaven what ere they please   

S: Epiphanius haer. 79.  
Cos. LEt no body worship the Virgin Marie, nor any man or woman besides. To God is this holiness or religion due.  
Car. Let no man worship her as à Goddess, by giving her sovereign honour testified by sacrifice: I grant it. Let no man worship her by ascribing to her inferior honour, I deny it. And that both the parts of this distinction is saint Epiphan. not my ne, and consequently that it was his true sense, is evident to any, who will please to look upon the place. For first the title is against the Collyridians', women who sacrificed a loaf, a bun, or cake (whence they take their name) to our B. Lady, and the whole discourse is spent upon the same subject all through, distinguishing betwixt sovereign worship, expressed by adoration, and subordinate worship, by the word honour. As let Marie be honoured, but let the Father, Son and holy Gh. be adored. And again, Though Marie be most beautiful, holy and bonored, yet not so fare forth as to be adored. In fine, he concludes in these words. Let Marie be honoured. Let Christ be adored. fiat, fiat.   

Bede in Proverb.  
Cos. We ought to invocate (that is by prayer to call upon) none for help but God alone:  
Car. The answer is easy, add only two little monosyllables which you have left out (to wit in nos, into us, and leave out as many for help) and read, We ought to invocate, that is, by prayer to call into us, none but God alone, and you will perceive the difficulty insensibly and without force vanished away.  
For the rest, if you desire indeed to know S. Bedes sense upon this subject, be pleased to read him vpon the 4th. of S. Luke, where writing upon these words, It is written, thou shalt adore the Lord thy God and serve him alone; he speaks both exactly and amply with all: some (saith he) peradventure will demand, how these two be reconciled together, to wit what is here commanded to serve God alone; and that of the Apostle, screw one another mutually out of Charity. But this finds an easy solution out of the original Greek text, whence the Scripture was translated, where the service is named in two different manners, bearing withal a divers signification, for it is called both Latria and Dulia: true it is that Dulia is taken for a common service, that is à service which of its own nature, is indifferently exhibited to God, or any other thing whatsoever. Whence also we have the word servant which the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Latria contrarily is taken for that service alone which belongs to the worship of the Divinity; which is communicable to no creature at all. Whereupon they are pronounced Idolaters who offer vows prayers and Sacrifices to Idols, which they own to God alone. Wherefore we are commanded to serve one another through Charity; which the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And we are commanded to serve God alone: with that worship which the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Again. Let us always serve such a Queen, who forsakes them not who hope in her. jesus Christ, being pleased in, and hearing the prayers of the Saints, doth much more hear his mother, when she prays for sinners. In one of his Sermons of our Blessed Lady in his 7. Tom.  
Again. Let us demand for us the frequent intercessions of the Saints be they Angels or men, to the mercy of our gracious Creator. Upon the Cant. l. 4. c. 24.  
Again. Let us pray to all the Saints to make intercession for us to God. In a Serm. upon the great Litanics, Tom 7.  
Having now given full satisfaction, as I presume, to any impartial reader, not only that all these specious passages alleged out of the Holy Fathers against us, conclude nothing at all (many of them being manifestly corrupted: others forced, others mistaken (but contrarily, having evidently made good by positive and plain allegations out of the said Fathers, (others I would not in this short discourse, though with great facility I could have alleged) that they are wholly for us: I will pass on to another of his assertions spoken, and put down under his hand, with an admirable confidence against Purgatory, in these terms.    

OF PURGATORY.  
Cos. THAT none of the Greek Fathers holds Purgatory in the sense, in which the Council of Trent holds it.  
Car. I believe, Mr. Cousins, were you obliged to make always good the propositions, which upon all occasions, you advance, with such an absolute boldness, and in such a generality, as this is now assevered, you would fall as fare short in your proofs, as you overlash in your positions. The Council of Trent consisted (if we should even abstract from the assistance of the holy Ghost, which I dare not think was wanting, not have I any reason for it, no more then for the first four General Counsels, that assistance being promised to the Church in general, in what time, or place soever, that the spirit of truths hall be with you for ever, in aeternum, S. john cap, 14. And shall teach you all truth, ibid., cap. 16.) of such a company of learned and pious Prelates, and other Ecclesiastical persons, as it ought, in common sense, to be exempted from the rash censure of every single opponent, whilst it is generally admitted in all matters of Faith by all the symbolical Church spread over all the world, and in community with the Church of Rome: and was rejected by none, save only by a diminutive part of the least part of the world, Europe; which actually then made a schism from it, which was then confessedly the only visible Church of Christ.  
Howbeit for every ones satisfaction we will hear what the greek Fathers have sa●d upon this subject.  
S. Denis. And then the divine Prelate drawing near, 
Ecclesiast. Hier. c. 7.  he finisheth his holy prayer over the deceased, and after the prayer the same Prelate salutes him, and withal all the assistants every one in their rank. This prayer petitions the divine mercy to pardon all the sins, which the deceased had committed through humane frailty, and that he would place them in light, and in the Land of the living, and in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, in the place where forrow, sadness and wailling is banished, etc.  
Origene. 
l. 8. in Rom. 11.  He alone to whom the Father hath given all judgement, is able to know, for how long a time, or what ages sinners may be tormented in this purgation which is made by fire.  
Euseb. Alexandrinus. Memento, etc. 
Hem. de Dominica.  Be mindful in the oblation (or as we now say, put them into your Memento) of your parents and brethren, who are already departed this life; for by this means you procure great rest to the dead. Accomplish thy prayers.  
S. Zenon. 
Serm. de Resur. extat to. 2. ●. b. PP.  By her (he speaks of a widow lamenting the death of her husband) profane wailing, she interrupted the divine solemnities, wherein the Priests were accustomed to commend the deceased to God.  
Eusebius Caesariensis. 
In vita Constan. l. 4 cap. 71.  A great multitude of people together with the Priests, not without tears, and truly with great expression of sorrow, poured out prayers to God for the soul of the Emperor, etc.  
Athanasius. 
Quaestione 34.  Why then? do even the souls of sinners perceive any benefit, when assemblies are made for them, exhibitions of good works and oblations? If they did participate no benefit thereby, there would be no commemoration made in the care taken, and in their funerals. But as the vine doth flourish abroad in the fields, and the wine shut up in the vessel resents its odour, and flourisheth together with it: so we understand that the souls of sinners do partake some benefit by the unbloody sacrifice, and good works done for them, as our God alone doth order and command, who hath power over the living and the dead.  

OBSERVATION.  
Behold the souls of sinners have benefit by the unbloody sacrifice, and good works done for them.  
Cyrillus Hier●●ol. 
Catechesi My●ag 5  And then as soon as that spiritual sacrifice, and that unbloody worship over that propiiiatorie host● (propitiationis Hostia) is performed, we beseech God for the common peace of the Churches, for the quiet of the world, forkings, for soldiers. And then we make mention of such as died before us. First of the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that God by their prayers would receive ours. Then for the deceased Fathers and Bishops. Finally we pray for all those who died from amongst us: believing that it is a great help to their souls, for whom the obsecration (or prayer) of that holy and dreadful sacrifice which is put upon the altar, is offered. Which I will demonstrate unto you by an example; for I know many do say, what doth it profit a soul departing out of this world in sin, that mention is made of him in this sacrifice? for if any king should send such into banishment as offend him, and after their kindred making a crown; should present it to the same king for those banished men who suffer punishment, whether would he not bestow upon them some part of the remission of their sins? in the same manner using prayers for the dead, though otherwise sinners, we plaite not indeed a crown, but we offer God sacrificed for our sins, that we might make him who is most mild, propitious both to ourselves and them.   

OBSERVATION.  
Mark here an unbloody worship: and a propitiatory host, over which memory was made, of such as departed this life before us, etc. entreating that by their prayer, ours might be heard. In fine prayer for all in common: out of a belief that it is a great help to their souls. A dreadful sacrifice put upon the Altar, and offered for our sins. What Church, but the Rom. Catholic doth still observe this ancient custom?  
Gregory Nazianzene. 
In his oration in commendations of his deceased brother Caesarius. Anno 380.  And such things they are which we offer, which if small and unanswerable to deserts, yet while we do according to our possibility they are acceptable to God. And some (to wit things or duties) we have already paid, and other we will pay, offering anniversary honours, and comemorations, etc.   

OBSERVATION.  
Anniverssaries and commemorations for the dead, which we in communion with the Church of Rome, still observe, and none but we. At least the book of common Prayer expresseth not such practice.  
Gregory Nyssene. 
In his oration, That we are not to lament their death who died in faith. Lib. de anima & Resur.  That either being purged in this life, by prayers, and the study of wisdom; or expiated after death by the furnace of a purging fire, etc.  
Again. It is altogether necessary that while that which is faulty is consumed in purging fire, the soul also which is united with the same faultiness, should remain in the fire, till that bastard, material, forged, and corrupt mixture, be entirely abolished, being consumed by fire, etc.   

OBSERVATION.  
Expiation after death by purging fire. The soul relayned in fire, till what is vicious and corrupt in it, be purged by fire.  
S chrysostom. 
Hom 12. in Matt.  Why dost thou after the death of thy friends call the poor together? why dost thou beseech the priests, to pray for him? I am not ignorant that your reply will be, to the end the deceased may attain to repose, and that he may find his judge more propitious (or favourable) etc.  
Again. 
Hom 21. upon the Acts.  Then shall his wife with confidence pray to or petition him (God) putting down the price of our Redemption for him, By how much he was more subject to sin, by so much more stood be in need of alms deeds. Call the widows, and tell his name. Order every one to make supplications and prayer for him. This will appease God, though it be not performed by himself, but another for his sake be the Author of the Alms. And this is a doctrine of the dinine Mercy. God hath given us many ways of salvation, etc. Oblations, prayers and alms are not made in vain for the dead. The holy Ghost disposed all these things, willing that we should help one another.  
Again. 
Oration ● 1. upon the first to the Corinth.  supplications, alms, oblations, which he mentioned immediately before) were not rashly invented, nor do we in vain make memory in the divine mysteries of the deceased, and approaching, we beseech the proposed lamb who took away the sin of the world, in their behalf, but that they might have some consolation thereby. Neither doth he who is present at the Altar while the venerable mysteries are performed, cry in vain, For all those who have reposed in our Lord, and those also who celebrate their memories, etc. for what we do are not stageplayss, God defend; but these things are done by the ordinance of the Holy Ghost.  
Again. 
In his Epist. to the Philipp. the 3. serm. moral.  These things were not establisbed in vain by the Apostolical laws (or Constitutions) that a memory should be made of those who have departed this life, in the venerable and dreadful mysteries,   

OBSERVATION.  
The priest makes prayer to God for propitiation to the sins of the dead. For their repose. The price of our Redemption, is put down for them. Use of the name of the deceased, which the Catholic Church observes yet in the Collect of the Mass of the dead, as Peter, Paul, etc. Prayer and supplications, though performed by others, appease God's wrath, is a doctrine of the divine mercy: disposed by the holy Gh. An Apostolical constitution, that memory should be made in the divine mysteries (or Mass) of the souls departed.  
Theodoret. 
In the 5. book of his Ecclesiastical history ●. 36.  The Emperor Theodosius, having placed his eyes and aspect upon the bier (wherein were the relics) of that holy man (S. chrysostom) he poured out prayers for his parents, and entreated that they might be pardoned the injuries which they had done through ignorance. Now his parents were deceased long before, etc.  
Again. He offered prayers to God for the deceased, beseeching him to remit, 
In the History of the holy Fathers of james Nisibit●.  what he had offended in his life time, and that he would deign to receive him into the Choir of Angels.   

OBSERVATION.  
Prayers at, or over the Relics of Saints (a thing never heard of in our English Protestant Church) for the souls departed that the injuries which they had done might be pardoned: not that the number of the elect be shortly actomplished, etc. which only was the custom of the English Protestants in their Form of Burial.  
Basilius Seleucius. 
In his serm. of Lazarus his being raised to life.  If he who died were a sinner and had much offended God, we must not only weep but give alms also, offer the Sacrifice of the Altar, and perform such other things, as may afford some consolation to the soul departed.   

OBSERVATION.  
Alms given, and the Sacrifice of the Altar offered for the souls departed. This practice is not found in the Order for the burial of the dead in the book of Common prayer: but is peculiar to the Catholic Rom. Church.  
Procopius Gazaeus upon the sixth chapter of isaiah, makes mention of a purging fire.  
Gregorius Presbyter. 
In Theodoro Archiman drita.  Where some said to him that his mother was dead, thou art deceived, quoth he, she is not dead, but lives. He poured out prayers to our Lord for her fasting for the space of a week, that our Lord would pardon her.  
Leontius. 
In the life of john the Almoner.  A certain man was lead captive to the Persians and was shut up in prison. But some flying thence, and coming in to Cyprus, and being asked by his parents whether they had seen him there, they made answer and said, we buried him with our own hands (It was not indeed the man where of they were asked, but another not unlike to him) and withal they signified the month and day of his death. And they (his parents) as if he had been deceased indeed, made three Collects be made for him every year. But after three years, making a escape from the Persians, he returned into Cyprus whre upon his friends said to him: truly brother we heard you were dead, and we made à memory of you thrice a year. When he heard they had made memories of him thrice a year: he asked them in what month they celebrated them; and they answering, etc. he said, that in those three times a year, there came one as bright as the sun, and freed me from my iron chains and prison, etc.   

OBSERVATION.  
The custom of praying for the dead in the beginning of the 7 ●h. Age proved, and approved from heaven by miracle.  
Maximus. The prayers of the just do only profit those who are worthy of mercy, whether they be alive or dead, etc. From this place he gins to expound, that prayers do profit the dead and declares that this question had been agitated before that tyme.  
S. Damascene. And who is able to declare the multitude of testimonies touching these things, in order as they are put in the lives, and divine revelations of Saints, whereby it is evidently shown, that those prayers, Masses, and Alms which are offered for them, do greatly profit the dead, even after death. This is the will of that merciful Lord, and it is acceptable to him, that all of us, as well in our life time, as after the end of our labours, should one help another: nor had he otherwise afforded us this occasion, that in the unbloody sacrifice memory should be made of those that are departed this life: Nor that we should celebrate Mass (sacra) in memory of them in the third, ninth, and fortieth day, or at the years end (which yet the Catholic and Apostolic Church constantly observes, without all controversy) unless it were agreeable in his sight.   

OBSERVATION.  
That it is an undoubted custom in the Catholic and Apostolical Church to make memory of the dead in the unbloody sacrifice, as a thing which doth greatly profit them. No such memory is made at all in the Protestant Church of England.  
Theophylact. 
c. 12. upon S. Luke.  The sinners which die are not always sent into Hell (Gehennam) but they are in God's power to be dismissed: and this I affirm in respect of the oblations and distributions which are made for the dead, which do not a little conduce even to such as died in great sins. He doth not therefore having killed, always send into Hell, he hath power indeed to send, yet makes not still use of this power, etc. but remittes certain sins etc.  
Will you rather hear the sense of the later and present Greek Church upon this subject, to see if they contradict their ancient Fathers, as you do? Hear it then speak, first as it is put down in the Council of Florence in the 3. Decree in these terms.  
Item we define, that if persons truly penitent departed this life in the love of God, before they had yet done satisfaction for commissions and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls shall be purged with purging pains. And that they are helped to be freed from such pains, by the suffrages of the faithful yet living; to wit, by the Sacrifices of Masses, prayers, Alms, and other offices of piety, which are wont to be performed by the faithful for the faithful, according to the Church's institutions.   

OBSERVATION.  
Behold a general Council (above 200. years ago) consisting of 141. Bishops, as well of the Greek as Latin Church, called by Pope Eugenius the 4. (at the instance of the Emperor of the East) who presided in person (the Patriarch of Constantinople being also present) Defines, that souls departing this life without doing full satisfaction for their sins, suffer purging pains: and are thence released by Masses &c. according to the custom and Institution of the Church.  
Secondly, as it is delivered by Hieremi: Patriarch of Constantinople in his answers to the Divines of Wirtemberg about the year 1578. as follows:  
It is not in vain established by the Apostles, 
Taken out of Chrysost. hom. 69. ad pop. Ant. & 3. upon the Philip.  that in the dreadful mysteries mention should be made of the Dead. They know that hence great prosit and great utility doth accrue unto them: for when all the people doth stand with hands lifted up, and all the company of the Priests: and the dreadful Sacrifice is proposed, how is it possible that we should not work their Lord to take pity on them (or be merciful unto them) by praying for them.   

OBSERVATION.  
Lo mention or commemoration made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries (or Mass) and that with much profit: as being the means whereby God is moved to mercy.  
And mark, that we have not this from a private man, or a man of small note, or upon some light, and slight account: but even from the great Patriarch of Constantinople, the second or new Rome, upon an occasion most pregnant to produce a precise profession of the faith of the Greek Church, since it was sent to another part of the world, where it was not like to pass in private, but was liable and likely to be discussed to the full; by a people (to wit the Divines of Wittenberg) who in lieu of being admitted into their communion, found their expectations fo●●lely frustrated, their profession of faith, which they sent to be approved, opposed, and affronted, and their Doctrine rejected, as not aggreeing with the Greek Church.  
Thirdly, as it is expressed in the Synodical Decree of Parthenius present Patriarch of Constantinople, upon the renets of Caluin printed in Paris 1643  
Lastly (saith he) to find a pretext, to reject the fire of Purgatory, he (Caluin) goes about to repudiate (or reprove) our ordinary and lawful Commemorations for the dead, whereby we hope that God will grant rest to them, and a refreshing (or time of breathing) from the vexations or torments (acerbitates) which do afflict them.  
The same is delivered by the Liturgies or Masses of S. Basile the great, and S. john chrysostom. The first in these terms.  
The Priest with a loud voice beseeches God to be mindful of all who have departed this life. Let him recreate them in his Tabernacle, let him lead them through horrid Mansions, and place them in lightsome Tabernacles: Let him deliver them out of most thick darknesses, tribulation, and dolour, lest he should enter into judgement with them. Let him pardon them, what ever, as men, they may have offended, while they were yet clothed with a fleshly garment.  
The seconde in these.  
Further we offer unto thee this reasonable observance for the faithful departed, for our brethren and sisters, by the intervention of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors and all the Saints.  
Again. Remember o Lord, as being good, thy servants, and pardon what ever they trespassed in their life.   

OBSERVATION.  
Lo a Memento Domine, pronounced aloud, Prayer made for the dead that they might be delivered from darkness, tribulation and sorrow: pardoned what in this life they might have offended. oblation made for them: The intercessions of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles etc. employed. judge whether it is the Catholic or Protostant practice which is here expressed: and whether of these doth more emulate the primitive customs of their forefathers.  
By these more than sufficient testimonies of the Greek Fathers, in their writings, Council, Liturgies etc. it is most manifest that it was, and is the practice of the Greek Church, to offer Sacrifice, to give Alms, to pray for the souls departed, that their sins might be pardoned, and they delivered from their purging pains, their purging fire, whereby what is vicious and corrupt might be purged. It rests only that we show that it is in the sense, in which the Council of Trent holds it: which is that which Mr. Cousins denies. Hear the Council of Trent.  
Whereas the Catholic Church instructed by the holy Ghost, 
Sess. 25.  by holy Writ, and the ancient Tradition of Fathers, hath taught in holy Counsels, and lastly in this universal Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the Sacrifice of the acceptable Altar; the holy Synod commands the Bishops to use a diligent endeavour, that the wholesome doctrine of Purgatory, delivered by the holy Fathers and Counsels, be believed, held, taught, and preached every where, by the Faithful of Christ.  
Again. If any affirm, that after the receipt of justifying grace, the fault is so remitted, and the guilt of eternal pains so blotted out to any penitent sinner, 
Sess. 6. can. 30.  that there remains no guilt of tempor all punishment to be paid, either in this life, or the next in Purgatory, before we can get entry into the kingdom of heaven, let him be accursed. What I pray, is here, which sounds not the very same, & bears not the same sense with the precedent passages of the Greek Fathers?  
The Council of Trent saith, There is a Purgaterie.  
The Grecian Fathers say, A Furnace of purging fire.  
The Council of Trent affirms, that the Catholic Church instructed by the Holy Gh. etc. was taught this doctrine by holy Scripture, and the ancient Tradition of Fathers.  
The Grecian Fath. The holy Ghost disposed all these things. They were not rashly invented. They were not established in vain by the Apostolical laws.  
The Council of Trent avers, That the souls there detained (to wit in Purgatory) are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, especially by the Sacrifice of the Altar.  
The Grecian Fath. That the souls of sinners partake some benefit by the unbloody Sacrifice, and good works done for them. That they prayed for all those who died from among them, believing that it is a great help to their souls, for whom the obsecration of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice which is put upon the Altar, is offered, and the price of our Redemption is put down. That Oblations, Prayers, Alms, are not made in vain for the dead. The Priest prays that the deceased may find his judge more propitious: That God would become propitious to the sins, not only of the living, but also of the dead, That it is an undoubted custom in the Catholic, and Apostolical Church.  
The Council of Trent commands, That the wholesome doctrine of Purgatory should be believed, held, taught, preached etc.  
The Grecian Fath. believe, hold, teach, and preach it.  
The Council of Trent accurses such as deny, that after we have received justifying grace, there remains any guilt of tempor all punishment either to be paid in this life, or in the next in Purgatory etc.  
The Grecian Fath. affirm that such as are in purging pains, are helped to be freed from them by the suffrages of the faithful yet living, to wit, by the Sacrifices of Masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety. That the sinners which die are not always sent to hell. That the oblations and distributions which are performed for the dead, doc not à little conduce even to such as died in great sins.  
Was there ever, or even could there ever be imagined, a greater and sweeter harmony upon any point of doctrine, betwixt the East and the west the Greek and the Latin Church? Is owm ovo similius? Is it not then a boldness without the warranty of all reason, to affirm the contrary point blank? to wit, forsooth, that they held it not in the sense the Council of Trent held it! Did they at least hold it in the sense it is held by the Prot. Church of England in her 39 Articles? Where she saith: The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory etc. is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.   

Observe the contrariety betwixt the Greek, and English Protestant Church.  
Origene.  
Sinners are tormented in a purgation made by fire.  
The Prot. Church of England.  
It is a fond thing. 
Article 22.   
Eusebius Alexand.  
By the means of prayers great rest is procured to the dead.  
The Prot. Church of England.  
It is a thing vainly invented. 
Art. 22.   
S. Athanasius.  
The souls of sinners have benefit by the unbloody Sacrifice, and good works done for them.  
The Prot. Church of Eng.  
The Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said, 
Art. 31.  that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.  
Cyrillus Hier.  
A dreadful Sacrifice put upon the Altar, and offered for our sins.  
The Prot. Church of Eng.  
Blasphemous fables, dangerous deceits.  
Cyrillus Hier.  
He believed that it (to wit prayer for the dead) was a great help to their souls.  
The Prot. 
Art. 22.  Church of Eng.  
A fond thing vainly invented.  
S. Greg. Nyssenus.  
Expiation after death by purging fire.  
The Prot. Church of Eng.  
There is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone, 
Art. 31.  (to wit the bloody oblation finished once upon the Cross.)  
S. chrysostom.  
A Doctrine of the divine mercy.  
The Prot. Church of Eng.  
A fond thing. 
Art. 22.   
S. Chrys.  
A thing not rashly invented.  
The Prot. Church of Eng.  
A thing Vainly invented.  
S. Chrys.  
Disposed by the Holy Ghost.  
The Prot. 
Art. 31.  Church of Eng.  
A dangerous deceit.  
S. Chrys.  
An Apostolical Constitution that memory should be made of the souls departed in the divine mysteries.  
The Prot. Church of Eng. 
Art. 22.   
Grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.  
In fine. S. Damascene  
Delivers it for an undoubted custom in the Catholic and Apostolic Church to make memory of the Dead in the undloudie Sacrifice.  
But the Prot. Church of England, will have it to be a fond thing, vainly invented; and the Sacrifice of the Mass ablasphemous fable, a dangerous deceit, rather repugnant to the word of God.  
See what a goodly accord there is between the ancient Greek Fathers and our new Reformers! or rather behold their apparently jarring and irreconcilable discord which the smoothest wit is not able, even speciously to appease, or to tune it up to any their least advantage. Their stolen and cold replies drawn from the diversity which they pretend to be amongst Catholics themselves upon this subject, gain no credit, nor are of any moment with rational men; As,  
That they agree not about the place where Purgatory should be.  
Nor about the Tormentors, whether Angels or Devils.  
Nor about the torments; whether by fire or water, or neither.  
Nor about the causes of the torments of Purgatory; whether venial sins only; or mortal sins also, for which full satisfaction hath not been made in this life.  
Nor about the time which the souls tormented may remain in Purgatory etc.  
Nor about their state etc.  
For all these things swerve from the purpose, as not coming home to the state of the question betwixt us and the English Protestants: which is, Whether there be a Purgatory; not where the place of Purgatory is; who are the Torments; what torments there be: whether pure and true fire, or some other thing equivalent etc. of all which we pronounce with S. Basile, Superuacua in Ecclesia sileant, Let not superfluous and unnecessary questions be heard of in the Church: especially so fare as to confound matter of Faith with matter of opinion. Now these things, touching the place of Purgatory etc. pass among Catholics for matters of opinion, not of Faith; and are with amity, humility, and submission disputed in our schools, but have not yet been defined in our Counsels, whence the belief or not belief of them, are of free choice amongst us; we being neither made of the number of the faithful by that, nor miscreants by this. We are not of those presumptuous souls who think to have access to all the divine secrets, while we know by Saint Paul that we are none of his Counselors. We are willingly persuaded by S. Basile to praise what we have received upon the account of faith, and what hath been delivered over in trust to us, but do not curiously sound hidden mysteries. We finally receive of the Catholic Roman Church, that there is A Purgatory; and of that we dare not doubt: but where and what it is &c. (she having of that delivered no Decree) in all humility we dispute; nor do our doubts therein, violate, touch or call in question the belief of Purgatory, that stands still undoubted and inviolable.  
Since therefore all the Eastern Bishops and Fathers, as we have seen, deliver the same doctrine with one heart, one mouth, one faith, touching purging fire etc. Prayer, Alms, Sacrifice for the dead etc. whereby great rest is procured to their souls: may not I justly admire to hear one man stand up, and affirm the contrarie and that with so much confidence as that he feared not to pass his word to yield himself à Catholic upon the proof of it; 
Contra julianum l. 2. s. 2.  and may I not with just offence speak to him in S. Aug. words saying, To what purpose doc these your words serve, but to make evident to the world, either how negligent you have been to acquaint yourself with the words and sense of Catholic Doctors in this behalf; or having used diligence to know them, with what fraud you go about to circumvent the ignorant & c.? Si nesciens hoc fecisti cur non miseram respuis imperitiam? si sciens, cur non sacrilegam deponis audaciam? si cernis cerne, & tandem tace. Pelagianam (Lutheranam) linguam tot linguis Catholicis deprime; tot venerandis oribus, proterua ora submit.  
Hitherto I have insisted upon the productions of the Greek Father's authority only, because the challenge called thither alone, though I could have used a more sure and satisfactory way (the Scriptures as they are understood both by the Greek and Latin Fathers together with the practice of the whole Church of God) and have said with S. Augustine; 
Vbisupra.  I conceive that part of the world ought to suffice you, in which it pleased our Lord to crown the first of his Apostles with a most glorious Martyrdom: if you would have given care to Blessed Innocentius, presiding over that Church, you had forthwith freed your perilous youth from the Pelagian (Lutheran) snares. For what could that holy man have answered to the African Counsels (Anglicanis convicijs) but what the Apostolical and Roman sea holds with the rest of the Churches etc. There is no reason therefore to provoke to the Bishops of the East, because they two are Christians, and that faith of both the parts of the world, is one and the same, because faith itself is Christian; and certes the Western part brought you out, the western Church did regenerate you etc.) It rest that I make the great Saint Augustine alone speak for the practice of the Latin Church and himself, because I perceived by a paper which M● Cousins himself presented me with, that he had used some endeavour to draw him to his side, or at least, if he could prevail no further, to render his testimony doubtful: to the end that he or others might build wood, hay, stubble or worse (upon that mistaken foundation) which he doth most clearly in these ensuing passages.  
S. AUGUSTIN. CONF. lib. 9 cap. 12.  
The Sacrifice of our price is offered for her. 
Sacrifice offered for her soul.   
And. c. 13. book the same.  
Now I beseech thee hear me for the sins of my Mother. 
He prays for her sins.   
Again a little after.  
She desired only that à Memory should be made of her at thy Altar, 
She desired to be remembered at the Altar.  at which she served without intermitting any day, where she knew the holy victim was dispensed, whereby the hand-writing was blotted out, which was contrary to us.  
To these passages some have made answer, that they do admit prayer for the Dead; a Commemoration to be made for them at the Altar; yea, and Sacrifice to be offered also. Howbeit not as we mean, to deliver them from their pains, but for divers other effects. And that thereby, we cannot enforce a Purgatory; nor did S. Augustine speak of purging fire. Let the holy Father therefore answer for himself.  
S. Augustine li. 2. c. 20. de Genesi against the Manichees.  
After this life he shall have either purging fire, 
Purging fire  or eternal punishment: So fare are any from escaping this sentence.  
Again upon the 37. Psalm.  
They would be secure, etc. not only from that eternal fire which shall torment the wicked for ever; but also from that too, which shall purge (emendabit) those, who shall be safe by fire. And a little aster. That fire shall be more grievous, than any thing a man can suffer in this life.  
Now we have found in the Father's formal terms, (not in our own forced consequences, which were not in question) Prayer made at the Altar; Sacrisice for the Dead; yea, and Fire too, wherein their souls are tormented: and yet some will not be satisfied, but will have that fire to be understood of the Fire of Conflagration at the day of Doom. Let us therefore yet hear saint Augustine wipe away this scruple.  
De Ciu. Dei, l. 21. c. 23. 
Pains suffered before the day of judgement.   
And it is manifest that such are purged by temporal pains (which their spirits suffer) before the day of judgement.  
Again in the same book, chap. 13.  
Some suffer temporal pains in this life only; others after death; some both now and then; yet before that most severe, and last judgement. And the same again the 21 book, chapter the first.  
So that now out of S. Augustine, we have found Prayer, Memory at the Altar, Sacrifice, Fire which is temporal, and that too punishing the spirit, or ghost of the dead, even before the day of General Conslagration at the day of Doom.  
To think to answer all that hath benesaid, by opposing some few obscure places culled out of the same Father: and so, (were it possible) to force him to contradict himself, were in my judgement, but very bad payment. For first, this is not to produce evidences; but doubts; not to clear, but to obscure difficulties; and consequently, aught to have no force at all to thrust a man out of his possession. Possideo, quia possideo, still dasheth such weak opposition upon the head. Secondly, it is but a poor shift, to make a Father seem to stand up against himself, to the end he may stand with them. Thirdly it is to treat a holy Father unworthily, to endeavour to draw his sense from his words, 
In his book de Doctrina Christiana  against his own rule, and the Rule of Reason, which is, that clearer places should illustrate obscure places; not that obscure places should be industriously employed to cloud clear places. That is but to put out the light, to see better; or rather to hate and fly the light, lest it might lay them naked, and they be discovered by it. The worst of arguments was want to be, to aim to prove an obscure thing, by a thing more obscure; and yet it is fare worse to darken a clear thing by an obscure, and yet (forsooth) think to have so preposterous a proceeding pass for an argument.  
Our proceeding is not such: our Catholic custom is to pray for; to make Commemoration of; to Sacrifice at the Altar for the souls departed that they may be relieved, or freed from their pains which are caused by fire, before the day of judgement. And we bring in our judge saint Augustine, to whom we have both appealed, pronouncing sentence for us in terms, in the very same words the Church doth believe and practise it. We do not make his sentence for him, but take from him, such as he pleaseth to deliver it. We use no violence to him to make him speak what we please, but we are well pleased with what he speaks. we go not about to surprise him, and wrest a word from him, and then force it to our purpose, which was spoken only by the buy, while he was treating upon another subject. But we take his judgement from places, where, on set purpose, he is handling that subject which is in question betwixt us.  
In fine, we take it not from one or a few (which is another Rule of reason, to understand a few places by many places) but from abundance of places, all clear and consonant, and to the life expressing the present practice of the Catholic Church. Hear him again and again in these ensuing passages, which I will here promiscuously put down as they shall occur; omitting yet a many more.  
S. Aug. de Ciu. Dei, l. 21. c. 16.  
He speaks of Children soon after their infancy, and says: If he have received the Sacraments of our Mediator, though he end his life even in these years, that is, being translated out of the power of darkness, into the kingdom of Christ, he is not only not prepared for pains eternal, but shall not even suffer any purging torments after this life.  
De Ciu. Dei, l. 21. c. 24.  
The prayer of the Church, or of certain pious people, are heard for those, who being regenerated in Christ, neither led see very ill a life in this mortality, as they should be judged unworthy of such mercy; nor yet so very well, as that they should be found not to need such mercy.  
De verb. Apost. Ser. 32.  
It is not to be doubted, but the Dead are helped by the prayers of the holy Church, and the saving Sacrifice, and alms, which are employed for their souls, that our Lord may deal more mercifully with them than their sins deserved; for the Universal Church observes this, delivered by their forefathers, that prayers should be made for those who died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when at the Sacrifice they are remembered in their place, and memory is made that it is offered even for them too.  
And again in the same place.  
But let them employ these things (to wit) Oblations, Prayers, and gifts, or Almsdeeds, which help the souls departed, more observantly, instanly, and abundantly for them, to wit. the dead.  
Enchir. c. 110.  
It ought not to be denied that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their surviving friends, when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, or alms are given in the Church.  
And again, in the same place.  
When therefore the sacrifices, either of the altar, or what almsdeeds soever, are offered for all the dead which are baptised; they are thankesguings for such as are very good: they are propitations for those who are not very evil: and though to such as are very evil, they be no helps to the dead, yet are they some kind of comforts to the living.  
De verbis Apostoli, Serm. 17.  
Therefore doth ecclesiastical discipline observe that which the faithful know, when the Martyrs in that place are recited at the Altar of God, where we pray not for them, (the Martyrs) but we pray for the rest of the departed, whereof commemoration is made. For it is an injury to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ourselves ought to be commended.  
De cura pro mortuis. Cap. 18.  
Which being so, let us not esteem that the dead have any advantage (by being buried in this or that part of the Church whereof he had spoken) save only by the solemn supplications which we make for them, either in the Sacrifices of the Altar, or of prayer, or almsdeeds. Though yet they profit not every one they are made for, but those alone who obtain in their life time, that they may profit them.  
De Haeresibus: haer. 53.  
The Aerians took their names for à certain Aerius, who being Priest, was said to be troubled he could not be made Bishop, and falling into the Arrians heresy, added some of his own tenets, affirming that it was not lawful to pray or offer Sacrifice for the Dead.  
De cura pro mortuis c. 1.  
In the books of the Maccabees we read that a sacrifice was offered for the dead. Howbeit though it were not at all read in the ancient Scriptures, the authority of the universal Church which is evident in point of this custom, is no small matter; where the commendation of the dead hath its proper place in the prayers of the priest, which are poured out to God at his Altar.  
Here you will mark two things. The first is that saint Augustine esteemed the Maccabees to be Scripture, since he argues for Purgatory from it: and indeed he confirms the same both in his seconde book of Christian Doctrine, the eight Chapter; and also in his 18. book of the City of God 36. Chap. in these words. The books (to wit two) of the Maccabees are held to be Canonical, not by the jews, but by the Church. The seconde, that though there were no scripture for it, yet ought the authority of the universal Church to prevail, at it doth in many other things of greater con sesequence. Witness the said Saint in divers passages, which both the Catholic and Protestant do admit of.  
For first, 
Epist fundamen.  moved by the authority of the Church we believe the Gospel itself, which without it we should not believe. I would not, saith he believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church did move me to it.  
Secondly, we believe many things which are not in the Scripture, as that the son is consubstantial with the Father: It is not found written in holy writ, saith he, and yet that it is said, is defended in the assertion of faith. That the Father is unbegotten. We read not in those books (the scriptures) that the Father is unbegotten: 
Epist. 174.  and yet we make good that we ought to say so: in the same place. That the Holy Ghost is to be adored: Give me say you (he means Maximinus an Arrian) some testimonies where the Holy Ghost is adored: as though, forsooth, (replies saint Augustine) out of these things which we read, we understood not also some things which we read not. That it was written when the Apostle saint Paul was baptised, no mention being made of the rest of the Apostles: It is written when the Apostle saint Paul was baptised: and it is not written when the rest of the Apostles were baptised: and yet we must understand that they also were baptised. Finally, that a child which cannot yet speak, is said to believe, and may be baptised. Be it fare from me to affirm that children believe not &c. he believes in another, who offended in another. It is answered (dicitur) he believes: and it is of force: and he is numbered among the faithful baptised.  
See what a necessity is imposed upon all Christians to have some other infallible ground besides Scripture, to stand upon, both to make good Scripture itself (to wit that it is the true word of God: that there are so many books of it and no more: that we have the true sense of it etc.) and many other main grounds of Christianity, which, you see, we dare not deny, while yet we can produce no formal scripture for them. Now what ground that is, let the same Saint Augustine deliver. Saint Cyprian, faith he, doth admonish us that we should run bacl to the fountain, that is to the Apostolical Tradition, and so bring down the channels to our times. It is the best way, 
l 5. cap 26. contra Donatistas'.  and to be done, without doubt. And again it is manifest, that in a thing doubtful, the authority of the Catholic Church confirmed by the order of Bishop's succeeding one another, and the consent of people, 
Ex libro contra Manichaos Dist. 11.6. Palam.  from the very foundation of the seas of the Apostles, till this present time, is of force to faith (valet ad fidem.) And to know which is an Apostolical Tradition, which not, 
De Bap. con. Don. l. 4. c. 24. and l. 2. c 7. and Epist. 118. c. 1.  the same saint Augustine leaves us another Rule thrice over for failing. What the UNIVERSAL CHURCH holds, and is not yet established in Counsels, but is always observed, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical authority. Whence he concludes that it is a most insolent madness to dispute whether that aught to be done, which the whole Church frequents all over the world. But the whole Church all over the world, in the year 1517. frequented (as all our adversaries confess, and condemn in us) an unbloody sacrifice, prayer, alms, etc. for the dead, that they might be freed from their sins, etc. therefore it was (following saint Augustins' phrase) and is, a most insolent madness to deny it.  
In conclusion, either hath the proposition and practice of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH authority, to convince the belief of a thing not otherwise written, yea or no? If not: It were but meet that the simpler sort should be instructed clearly and fairly upon what infallible warranty they believe these ensuing points, which they meet not with in their Bible.  

1. That Christians have indeed the whole revealed word of God.  
2. That it is contained in so many books, neither more nor fewer.  
3. That the Epistle to the Hebrews is a part of it, how ever it was some times doubted of.  
4. That there is a certain number of Sacraments, etc. as above out of saint Augustine.    

But if you grant me that the universal Church hath such an infallible authority, and that upon it you depend for the certainty of the precedent articles, I may say with S. Augustine, you observe by this of what importance the authority of the Cathol. Church is: but you must also answer me, why Catholics may not with equal confidence depend upon the same authority, in point of assurance of purgatory? I am not able to discover a disparity, or apprehend how being held credible in the delivery of those, she should not also be credible in this, since both are equally proposed: both rely upon the same veracity or credit. Be pleased to ponder this part well, and afford the world a clear and satisfactory answer. The grounds of Christianity seem to me to be shaken, if the Church's veracity herein beviolated, and great pity it were, that the animosity to make good our private opinions, should betray Gods known truths. An erring Disputant, saith saint Augustine, is pardonable in other questions, which are not yet maturely digested, 
De verbis Apost. Serm. 14.  nor confirmed by the full authority of the Church, their error is to be borne with: but it must not advance so fare, as to endeavour to shake the very foundation of the Church.  

Of the Pope's supremacy.  
Against the Pope's supremacy Mr Cosens used 4. or five arguments which I will put down as they passed.   

The first.  
Cos. S. Gregory being demanded certain questions of Augustine Achb. of Canterbury, answered him that he was to learn of neighbour Churches how he was to behave himself, seeming thereby to say in effect, why dost thou ask me, who have no such authority, learn of the nearest Churches, etc.  
Car. To this it was answered, that this objection was nothing to the purpose: because S. Augustins' demand was in matter of ceremony, not of Faith: of particular observance of a small part of the Church, not of the general government of the whole, wherein the Pope's supreme power is especially and properly exercised and known. For these are the words of his third demand. Why, there being but one faith, are the customs of Churches so divers? And there is one custom of Masses in the Roman Church, and another is observed in the Churches of France. So that it appears evidently that saint Augustins' demand to saint Gregory was only about the divers customs of saying Mass (the very word will hardly now be welcome) and was indeed like to that of januarius to the great saint Augustine Doctor of the Church: 
Epist. 209.  and saint Gregory's answer again entirely consonant to the great S. Augustine's, speaking of an indifferent, no necessary observation. Let's hear them both.  
Saint Gregory. Your brotherhood is acquainted with the custom of the Church, wherein you will remember you were bred. But it pleaseth me, that if you have found any thing, either in the holy Roman Church, that of France, or in what other soever, which may be more agreeable to Almighty God, you carefully make choice of it, and pour out by special institution, in the English Church (which is as yet young in faith) the choicest things which you can cull out of divers Churches: for the things ought not to be loved in respect of the places, but the places by reason of good things. Cull therefore what is religious, pious, and right, out of what Church soever, and having gathered them, as it were into a bundle, settle them as a custom in the heart of the English.  
Saint Augustine upon the like occasion. But other things which are diversified in divers places and regions: as is that, that some fast saturday, some not: some daily communicate the body and blood of our Lord, others receive certain days only: in some place no day is omitted, wherein it is not offered: in others, on saturday and sunday only, in others again, on sunday alone: or what ever may be observed of this nature, the whole kind of them have free observances: nor can a grave and prudent Christian observe any better rule or discipline herein, then to behave himself according to the Church where he chanceth for the time to light: for what is neither enjoined against faith, nor good manners, may be indifferently observed, and may be kept for their society amongst whom we live.  
Now, how out of these premises of Saint Gregory, this conclusion which was in question (Ergo saint Gregory did not acknowledge himself the Head of the Church) can be inferred, I confess I am not able to divine. It will belong to him who made use of it, to make it appear, or else to cease with his, to brag of a victory, when the weakest may discover he falls so fare short of all show of a proof: and consequenly (as was replied in his presence) that passage alleged, made nothing at all to the purpose pretended, which was to conclude against the Pope's supremacy.  
For the rest, how truly saint Gregory did acknowledge, vindicate and exercise the supreme authority of the Church of Rome, shall be made manifestly and plentifully appear upon occasions of answer to Mr Doctors other objections as they occur. Though the same might be partly observed too, even out of his said replies to saint Augustins' questions, as when he saith to the 9th quest. We give thee no authority over the Bishops of France: because the Bishop of Arles received the Pall from ancient times of my predecessors, whom we ought not to deprive of the authority received.  
Again in the same place. But we commit the care of all the Britain Bishops to thy brotherhood: that the unlearned may be taught; the infirm strengthened by persuasion; the perverse corrected by authority.  
Again in the answer to the 8. quest. We will have thy Brotherhood so to order Bishops in England, etc.    

OBSERVATION.  
Mark how he gives him authority over the Bishops of Brittany; denies him authority over the Bishops of France as having formerly received authority from the same sea by the gift of a pall which is practised by the Roman Church till this day, finally how he expresses himself by Volumus, we will etc. all which are the words of a master, and speak his power to the life, at least, if we make him the judge of the Controversy, as Mr Cousins his argument will have it.  
Cos. Again the same saint Gregory cried out against john Patriar. of Constantinople, for proudly assuming to himself the pompous name of universal Bishop etc. ergo, he did not allow the supremacy of Rome. Car. This was his seconde medium, and I confess it were specious enough had it never before been heard of, but being too obvious and even worn threadbare with every ones frequent handling, it is transparent to vulgar eyes, and he walks but in a net, who makes use of it for a cloak.  
To this my answer was, that therefore saint Gregory exclaimed against the proud and pompous title of UNIVERSAL BISHOP which john Patriarch of Constantinople assumed to himself, because he apprchended that thereby all the office or dignity of Bishop was absorbed or exhausted, so as none should be Bishop but himself. Now whether this apprehension was true we labour not, it is sufficient to show that saint Gregory at least made such a conceit, or feared so much. Which is evident by these passages drawn out of his own Epistles.  
1. 
l. 4. Epist. 32.  If therefore (saith he) that name (of universal Bishop) be assumed by any to himself in that Church etc. the universal Church therefore (which God forbidden) doth fall from its state when he falls which is called universal. But may that name of blasphemy be fare from the hearts of Christians, wherein the honour of all priests is taken away, while one doth madly arrogate it wholly to himself.  
2. And it is very hard to be patiently endured; in so much as despising all, 
Epist. 34. l. 4. Indict. 13.  my said Brother & fellow Bishop should only endeavour to be called The Bishop.  
3 Because if one be called an universal Patriarch, 
Epist. 36. ibid.  the name of Patriarch is taken from the rest.  
4. Lest some private thing being given to one, 
l. 4. Epist. 32.  all the priests might be deprived of their due honour.  
Hence it is manifest that saint Gregory understood john the Patriarch of Constantinople so to arrogate the name of universal Bishop, as that he did derogate thereby from all other Bishops; that he did madly arrogate that power wholly to himself; that with the contempt of his brethren, he alone would be called Bishop; that the name of Patriarch would be taken from the rest, etc. As though, forsooth, he alone were properly the only true Bishop; all the rest being but as his Deputyes or Delegates. Which were indeed an intolerable, sacrilegious, abominable attempt, & altogether repugnant to the sense & practice of the Catholic, Apostolic & Roman Church, which holds the least & lowest of Bishops, to be as absolute, proper, & perfect, in genere Episcopi, as the greatest in place & dignity.  
For the rest, it is so evident that universal Bishop, or universal Patriarch, may be taken in some other tolerable (though not in this pompous & odious) sense, that none can with any appearance of reason deny it. For read we not in the 1. Act. of the Council of Constantinople under Menas, an address to Pope Agapetus in these words? To our most holy & most blessed Lord, Archbishop of the Ancient Rome, & Ecumenical (or universal) Bishop, Agapetus. Yea doth not even saint Gregory himself often deliver, 
In his Epist. 32 & 34. of his 4. book, & 30. of his 7.  that the same Title of universal Bishop was given to his Predecessors (however out of humility or fear of scandal they refused it) in the Council of Chalcedon, one of those 4. General Counsels which he professed to receive & honour as the 4. Gospels; affirming in particular of that of Chalcedon, that he embraced it with his whole heart, & observed it with a most entire approbation; and therefore could not conceive that any thing was there attributed to the Sea Apostolic which had no good sense at all. So fare must he needs be from crying against it in all senses!  
But to lose no more time about a Title, or in a question de nomine (the worst of questions) which I discover not to be so important to the Catholic cause, that it should stand or fall by the Presence or Absence of it; Seruus Seruorum Dei being without controversy the most Christian & most usual with all our Popes (having been left them by the same saint Gregory l. 12. Ep. 32. I thus answer M Cousins his Argument in form. Saint Gregory cried out against the proud title of universal Bishop, etc. In that odious sense, whereby he conceived, or feared, that john of Constantinople so pretended to be Bishop as that he would not be content to be unus è multis, one amongst many; but, unus solus, the only one (ut despectis fratribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari) excluding all others from that dignity (which out of his words I have showed to be his doubt above, Page 123.) I grant it most willingly, as he did it most worthily. He cried out against it in all senses imaginable; in particular, as it signifies Bishop & Head of the universal Church, or imports the Supremacy (which is the only thing now in question) I deny it, & undertake to convince the said Denial to be rational & good out of the same Saint, by many evident titles, omitting for brevity's sake the multitude of authorities out of others, which with ease I could produce.   

THE FIRST TITLE BY WHICH Saint Gregory makes good the Supremacy, is his own words.  
FIRST, 
l. 11.6.54.  by his own formal words in many places of his works: As in the 11th book 54. Chapt. where he saith, If answer be made that there was neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, one must reply that the cause ought to be heard and judged by the Sea Apostolic, which is the head of all the Churches.  
2. 
l. 7. Ep. 63.  Whereas he (to wit the Primate of Bizacium in Africa) saith, he is subject to the Sea Apostolic; if any fault be found in a Bishop, I know not what Bishop is not subject to it. Marry when faults exact it not, all are equal in the way of humility.  
3. 
Hom. 21. upon the Gospel.  Why God all mighty permitted him (Peter) whom he had appointed to be over all the Church, to be afraid at the word of à maid, & to deny himself.  
4. 
5. Pavit. Psalm. v. 9  And the temerity of his madness (he speaks of a certain Heretic) goes so fare, that he does challenge to himself the Roman Church, the head of all the Churches.  
5. 
l. 6. Ep. 48.  When I knew that Maximus was made Bishop, against reason & custom, I dispatched away letters that he should not presume to celebrate the solemnity of Masses. Which letters of mine being published in the City, etc. he caused publicly to be torn, & did publicly insult in contempt of the Sea Apostolic; which how I endure you know, who am readier to die then that the Church of Blessed Peter the Apostle, should degenerate in my days.  
6. 
l. 6. Ep. 48.  I earnestly beseech & exhort you with the affection of a Father, that every one would suspend himself from an unlawful communion; and that he would utterly avoid such as the Sea Apostolic admits not into the fellowship of her Communion, lest that he thence stand guilty in the sight of the eternal judge, whence he might have been saved.  
7. 
l. 4. Ep. 34.  Though Gregory's sins (saith he himself to Constantina Augusta) be so great as to deserve to suffer such things; yet the sins of Peter the Apostle are none, that he should merit to endure them in your reign. Therefore I beseech you again & again, for God almighty's sake, that as the precedent Princes your Parents, sought for the favour of saint Peter the Apostle, so also you would endeavour to seek & conserve the same, not permitting that his honour may in any sort be diminished with you (by reason of our Sins who serve him unworthily) who may both now be a helper to you in all things, & hereafter may be able to absolve your sins.  
8. 
l 7. Ep. 64  Whence have they (the Grecians) till this day, that the subdeacons' go in Linnen-Coates (tunicis) but that they received it from their mother the Roman Church?  
9 
Ibid.  As for that which they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts but it is subject to the Sea Apostolic.  
10. 
l. 7 Ep 54  Perverse men etc. will not be subject to the precepts of the Sea Apostolic; & they reprehend us, as it were, in point of faith, 
l. 4. Ep. 32.  which they know not.  
Lastly, in his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor, (being the very place, which is worthy to be observed, where he exclaims against that pompous title of universal) saying: It is evident to all who know the Gospel that the care of the whole Church is committed by our Lord's voice to S. Peter the Apostle the Prince of all the Apostles: for to him it was said, Peter dost thou love me? feed my sheep, etc. behold he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven: the power of binding ad losing is given to him: the care and principality (principatus, sovereignty or dominion) of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called universal Apostle.   

OBSERVATION.  
Receive from saint Gregory's own mouth then, that the Sea Apostolic is the head of all the Churches: That all Bishops found in fault, are subject to it: That Peter was placed over all the Churches: That the Roman Church is the head of all the Churches: That it is known to all that know the Gospel, that the Care of the whole Church is committed by our Lord himself to Peter the Prince of all the Apostles: and that yet, he is not called universal Apostle. What other thing is this, I pray, then to cry out with a loud voice, and to make open demonstration to all the world, that while he exclaims against the title of universal Bishop; he refuses not the headship of all the Churches, but professeth to have jurisdiction, and superintendency over all the other Bishops. Archbishops, and Patriarches; as doth partly appear by what I have already cited out of him: and more fully shall yet appear in my ensuing discourse.   

THE II. TITLE WHEREBY saint Gregory makes good the supremacy, is, The exercise of such power all over the Christian world.  
FIRST over the Bishops of Europe; 
l. 12. Ep. 15. to s. Aug.  in particular, over the Bishops of England, Let the Bishop of York order 12. Bishops, and enjoy the honour of a Metropolitan: but let all the Bishops of England be subject to thy brotherhood.  
Secondly, 
l. 7. Ep. 112.  over the Bishops of France. Granting the use of the Pall to the Bishop of Auston, he saith: And withal we perceived we were to grant, that the Church of the city of Auston should be after the Church of Lions, and to challenge to itself this place and rank, by the favour (indulgentia) of our Authority.  
Thirdly over the Bishops of Spain, saying. Let him, who presumed, while the innocent Bishop was yet alive, to be ordered in his Church against the Canons, being deprived of priesthood, be cast out of all Church-ministerie: and withal let him be kept in safe custody, or else be sent unto us. Let the Bishops who ordered him, being deprived of the Communion of the body and blood of our Lord for the space of six months, be appointed to do penance in a Monastery.  
Fourthly. 
l. 7. Ep. 32.  Over the Bishops of Africa. In particular, thus to the Bishop of Carthage. By loving the Sea Apostolic, you haue recourse to the source of your office or dignity, knowing whence priestly ordination had its beginning in Africa.  
Again. 
l. 10. Ep. 2.  Writing to Columbus a Bishop of Numidie etc. he saith: You are diligently to examine all the contents of his Petition (to wit Donadeus Deacon degraded by Victor a Bishop of Numidie) and if his complaint be accompanied with truth, let canonical rigour be used against his Bishop Victor.  
Fiftly. 
l. 2. Ep. 6.  Over the Bishops of Greece. In particular, over john Bishop of justiniana prima, in these words. As for the present, having first disannulled, and made of no effect the Decrees of thy sentence, we decree, by the authority of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, that for thirty day's space thou shalt be deprived of the holy Communion, that with very great penance and tears, thou mayst prevail with Almighty God to pardon thy so great an excess. And if we shall come to perceive that thou dost coldly perform our sentence, know that then, not barely thy injustice, but the contumacy also of thy brotherhood, shall be more severely punished.  
Again. 
l. 5. Ep. 7.  Writing to the Bishops of Epirus, he saith: Know that we have sent a Pall to Andrew our brother and fellow-Bishop; and have granted (or confirmed) him all the privileges, which our predecessors conferred upon his.  
Again. Writing to john Bishop of Corinth, 
l. 4. Ep. 51.  touching Secundinus a Bishop whom he had deputed to examine and depose one Anastasius Bishop, quam (causam) ei examinandam iniunximus, he saith: And because, in that sentence (whereby it is evident that the fore named Anastasius was justly condemned, and deposed) our  brother and fellow Bishop so punished certain persons, that he reserved them to our arbitrimenet. And a little after speaking of another, we pardon him this fault, and we appoint that he should be received in his rank and place. Again. We will have them, to wit, Euphemius and Thomas, to remain deposed as they are: and we decree that they shall never more be received into holy orders, under what pretext of excuse soever.  
Sixtly. 
l. 5. Ep. 14.  Writing to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna vpon the difference which was between his Church and Claudius the Abbot, he saith: And do not you yourself know, that in the cause which was agitated by john Priest, against john of Constantinople (our brother and fellow Bishop) recourse was made to the Sea Apostolic, following the Canons, and the cause was ended (definita) by our Sentence. And thence saint Gregory frames an argument a fortiori in these words which immediately follow: If therefore the cause be devolved to our knowledge even from the City where the Prince (to wit the Emperor) resides; how much more is the business which is against you, to be determined, or judged here, the truth being known. The like speeches bearing a face of authority with them, are all his Epistles so full of (as may with ease be seen in Dr. Sander's visible Monarchy) that who would take the pains, could hardly light upon an Epistle, where he should not meet with them. If he should look upon the 11. book and 10. Epistle he would find him instile the kings his sons, saying: according to the writing of our sons the most excellent kings etc. And in the end of the same Ep. And we command that all these things shall be observed for ever, which are contained in this our Decree, as well by thyself (he speaks to a certain Abbot) as by all those who shall succeed in thy place and rank, or whom it may otherwise concern. And if any king, Priest, judge or secular person, having knowledge of this our Constitution, shall offer to oppose it, let him be deprived of his honour and dignity, and acknowledge that he stands guilty of the iniquity committed in the sight of the divine judgement. And unless he do either restore the things which he wickedly took away, or expiate his iniquity with the tears of worthy repentance; let him be kept from the most sacred body and blood of our Lord God, jesus Christ our Redeemer, and be liable to a strict punishment at the day of Doom,  
If upon the 4. book, 34. Chap. there he excommunicates or suspends from Mass the Bishop of Salonitane, who was made without his knowledge against custom as he complains: The Bishop of the City of Salonitane was ordered without my own, or my Nuntius his knowledge, wherein a thing was done, which never happened under the reign of any the preceding Princes. And concludes with a covered reflection, or reprehension against the Emperors themselves. And, saith he, if the causes of Bishops who are committed to me, are carried with my most pious Lords, by siding and the supportation of others, what do I, unhappy man, in this Church? But, I give thanks to God, and impute it to mine own sins, that my Bishops should contemn me, and fly to secular judges for refuge against me.  
In conclusion, fearing to trespass upon the patience of my gentle Reader, I omit a number of other clear passages, and appeal to every Christian heart, whether it be not even industriously to endeavour ones own loss, to dwell upon the words of an Author, which manifestly contain some doubtful and odious sense, and thence force the conclusion to what our passion aims at, without going on with the same Author to hear him out, and to take along with us what he plainly, positively and frequently delivers upon the same subject. It is true saint Gregory cries out against the proud title of universal Bishop, yet speaks he not in a limited sense, and points he not particularly at what he fears in it? saying: Lest all priests should be thereby deprived of due honour: Lest he should endeavour to be called Bishop alone etc. as I have intimated from himself above. pag. 123. But is it not also true, that he more than any (such is God's providence) preaches, proclaims, practices the power of supreme Head of the universal Church? Terming the Sea of Rome, THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES. NOT KNOWING WHAT BISHOP IS NOT SUBJECT TO IT. WHERE PETER WAS APPOINTED BY ALMIGHTY GOD TO BE OVERDO ALL THE CHURCH: THAT NO COMMUNION IS LAWFUL WHICH THAT CHURCH ADMITS NOT. THAT IT IS THE MOTHER CHURCH: THAT THEY ARE PERVERSE MEN WHO WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO IT. Will you hear these propositions seconded and confirmed by his public practices, which suffer no gloss? Is it not he who governs and gives laws to Europe, Africa and Asia?  
Doth he not order all the Bishops of England to be under saint Augustine? Doth he not send the Pall to Auston in France, and by the favour of his authority rank it next to Lions?  
Doth he not in Spain, deprive a Bishop (ordered against the Canons) of Priesthood and all Ecclesiastical ministry, depriving the Bishops too who consecrated him of the body and blood of Christ, etc.  
Doth he not in Africa command Columbus to use canonical rigour against Bishop Victor, if Donadeus Deacon whom he (Victor) had degraded, had right on his side.  
Doth he not in Greece, by the authority of Blessed Peter prince of the Apostles, disannulle what the Bishop of justiniana Prima had done, and deprive him of the holy Communion for thirty days?  
Doth he not profess openly, that the cause of the Patriarch of Constantinople (though the Emperor resided there) was, according to the Canons, devolved to the Sea of Rome, and was ended by his SENTENCE?  
If we will then hear Gregory, let's hear him throughly: If we fly to his authority, let us stand to his verdict. Let not his word be taken where it pleases you, and rejected where it displeases you, for so I shall have cause to make use of a passage of saint Augustine against the Manichees in in Ep. Fundam. and say: Do you conceive me a fool in such a measure, that without giving any reason at all, I should believe what you please, and what you please not, I should not believe? No, that were not to deal fairly and ingenuously: If Gregory must be our umpire, LET ROME BE TERMED THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES, as he styles it: and exercise jurisdiction over all the Churches, as we have seen him practise, and let not UNIVERSAL BISHOP which we cannot, or will not understand aright, stand betwixt us as a wall of division, a seed-plott of irreconcilable discord: The fortunes of Greece depend not upon it; nor Christian Beatitude. If it signify head or chiefe-bishop of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH, it is but ROME'S DUE: if it would entail the whole right, power, and dignity of Bishop upon Rome alone, Rome rejects it as sacrilegious and blasphemous, and so do we.  
Mr Cousins his third Medium or argument was, that appeals to Rome were prohibited in the Milevitane and 6th. Carthaginean Council; and that under pain of excommunication. Ergo the Africans did not acknowledge the Supremacy of Rome.  
Car. My answer was, that for minor or lesser persons, or minor and lesser causes, appeals were prohibited; I granted it: That Appeals were forbidden for Maior or greater persons, at least in mayor or greater Causes, I denied it. And consequently I denied the Conclusion intended, to wit, Ergo the Africans did not acknowledge the Supremacy of Rome. And the reason is; because the Supremacy of Rome is discerned, and exercised in greater causes, as in matter of faith, or the general government of the universal Church.  
For such they precisely are which Rome did always challenge, as properly belonging to her own jurisdiction. Hear in confirmation of this, what saint Gregory writes to the Bishop of justiniana prima l. 2. ep. 46. If any cause of faith, or crime, or Money-matter, be commenced against our fellow-Bishop Adrian Bishop of Thebes, if it be a thing of little importance, let it be judged by our Nuncio'es (Responsales) who are, or shall be in the Royal City (Constantinople) but if it be a matter of weight, let it be referred hither, to the Sea Apostolic. And such Africa never denied to Rome, to wit, aknowledgment of jurisdiction, and subjection in GREATER CAUSES, but contrarily, had frequent recourse to the Popes of Rome with due submission and aknowledgment. Yea the very Fathers (to the number of 61.) of the Milevitane Council wrote to Pope Innocentius in these terms. Whereas God by his special grace hath placed thee in the Sea Apostolic, and hath given us thee such an one (talem, one so qualified, or so good) in our days, that it would rather be imputed to our negligence, if we should conceal from thy veneration, what we judge aught to be represented for the Church's advantage; then that we need to apprehend, that thou wouldst esteem it importune or otherwise slight the same: we beseech thee deign to employ thy pastoral care in the great dangers of the infirm members of Christ: for a new and most pernicious heresy, etc. Again in the same place; while we intimate these things to thy Apostolical heart, we need not use many words to exaggerate so great an impiety, which we doubt not thou wilt so deeply resent, that thou wilt not be able to contain thyself from correcting them &c. Again, But we conceive (by the mercy of our Lord God Christ jesus, who daignes both to direct thy counsels, and to hear thy prayers) that they who hold those perverse and pernicious tenets, will easily yield to the authority of thy Holiness which is drawn from the authority of the holy Scriptures. And in the end of the same Epistle, We addressed these writings to your Holiness from the Council of Numidia (to wit from Milevi) imitating our fellow-Bishops of the Province of Carthage, who we perceive have written upon this subject to the sea Apostolic, which (sea Apostolic) thou a blessed man dost illustrate, (or which your holiness doth govern, quam Beatus illustras.)  
Thus did the whole Council defer to the Sea Apostolic. Hear now how this respect is received by Pope Innocentius. With care, saith he, and congruity did you exhibit respect to the Apostolical honour, (to his honour, I say, who besides what was without, had the solicitude of all the Churches) in seeking what sentence you are to hold in points of great difficulty, following therein the form of the ancient rule, which you know the whole world observes with me. Behold how Pope Innocentius ascribes the honour done to himself, to S. Peter: as to one who had the care of all the Churches, and declares, that in having recourse to him, to know what they should hold in points of GREAT DIFFICULTY, they do but follow the ancient form of proceeding, which (as he saith they knew) all the world observes. Hear again, S. Augustine confirming the same: What answer could that holy man return to the African Counsels, but that which the Apostolical Sea and Roman Church holds of old perseverantly with the rest? And what form of proceeding did they (amongst the rest) express? Marry that they were to betake themselves to his Pastoral care in the great dangers of the infirm members of Christ, as to condemn Heresy, etc. That they were to intimate such things to his Apostolical heart to have them corrected: That the authority of his Holiness, is drawn out of the authority of holy Scripture. Is this to misacknowledge or deny the supremacy of Rome? No: let only this form of proceeding be observed; this correction endured; this authority be acknowledged, and we shall thus fare most willingly join hands, and make the very Counsels which are alleged against us, the model of our practice. So fare falls Mr. C. short in his proofs drawn from the Council of Milevi: Will you hear how much better he speeds in the 6. Council of Carthage, where it is pretended, that appeals to Rome were prohibited, yea even in Mayor persons too, as in Bishops, Metropolitans & c? Certes, if that Council be well looked into, and with an indifferent eye, it will be found so fare from concluding against the supremacy, that it doth absolutely convince the truth of it. for  
First, what was there said, was said against the manner, and frequency, not against the right of Appeals; as manifestly appears by the Epist. of the African Bishops to Pope Celestine in these terms. 
Conc. A●●ri● c. 15.  The office of a due salutation being premised, we beseech you with our whole affection, that you do not easily admit such as come from hence to your ears, and that you would no more receive to Communion such as we may have excommunicated, etc. let not then those who were barred from Communion in their own Provinces, appear to be restored to Communion by your Holiness, with precipitation, and otherwise then is meet.  
Behold the company of the Bishops of Africa become humble suitors to the Bishop of Rome (and consequently acknowledge his jurisdiction, otherwise it were a most silly part to sue to him in those terms) not that he would not admit any appeals at all, but not easily admit them & c? Not that he would restore none at all to Communion &c. (which yet they should have done, and have denied he had any such authority, had they opposed the supremacy) but only that it should not appear that they were reslored with preoipitation, and otherwise then was meet, always presupposing such a power.  
Secondly, what was said, was said in point of Minor causes, as in civil, pecuniary, scandalous and criminal matters &c. (such as was that of Apiarius an African Priest, and that of Anthony Bishop of Fussal: both which appealed to Rome, and their Appeals were there admitted) to prove or disprove which, productions of witnesses would often be necessary, to wit, people of divers sexes and ages, little fit to undergo the difficulties of such a voyage: to say nothing of the charges, or other impediments, as is expressed in the Epist 105. of the African Council to the Pope of Rome, Celestine.  
Thirdly, whatsoever was said, nothing was done; what ever was proposed, nothing was enacted or decreed against the right of Mayor persons, to wit Bishops, in their appeals to Rome, who kept their privileges, according to that of S. Augustin, speaking of Ceoilianus Archbishop of Carthage deposed by a Council of seventy Bishops, saying: He might have contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies, because he saw himself in communion with the Church of Rome by Communicatory letters, wherein the Principality (or sovereignty) of the Sea Apost. did always flourish, where he was prepared to plead his cause. Nay what was even proposed too, was done dependently of what should be discovered in the Council of Nice, which they had sent for to the patriarchal Churches in the East; and that with all possible submission to the Church of Rome the while: witness their own words as they are put down in the said 6. Council, 
In Ep. ab omni Concilio Africano ad Bonifacium Vrbis Romae Episcopum.  in answer to the propositions contained in the monitory sent to them from Pope Zozimus, by Faustinus Bishop his Legate etc. Wherein he recommended to them the observance of the 7. canon of the Council of Sardis indeed, 
Conc. Sardis. cap. 7.  but under the name of the Council of Nice, it being esteemed an appendix of this, touching Appeals to Rome, as follows. But if he (to wit a Bishop judged and deposed by the Assembly of Bishops of the same Country) who demands to have a new hearing of his cause, have by petition moved the Bishop of Rome, to send a Priest (è latere suo, commonly called Legatus à latere) it shall be in the Bishop's power to do what he will and what he judge's fit: And if he decree to send some, endowed with his authority from whom they are sent, who being present with the Bishops, should judge, it is in his free disposition. And if he believe the Bishop's sufficient to put a period to the affair, he shall do what in his own most wise counsel, he judges behooveful.  
Now the African Bishops, not finding this in the Council of Nice, and not otherwise being acquainted with the Council of Sardis, save only  a spurious one, (made near Sardis by the Arrians) as S. Aug. gives testimony, and favoured by the Donatists: And on the other side, being wearied out with frequent, costly and disorderly appeals (as in the present with that of Apiarius a simple priest) for the second time, were willing doubtless to have lighted upon some lawful redress in that behalf: yet mark, I beseech you, with what humility and respect to the Sea of Rome, it is sought for. They sue, they supplicate, they protest in the interim, to observe what was enjoined them by the Pope's Legates, which certainly they had had no reason to do, had they apprehended no authority in the Pope to command.  
We profess (saith Alypius Bishop of Tagaste) that we are willing to observe what is established in the Council of Nice, 
In the 6. Council of Carthage.  and a little after, but we find it not as our brother Faustinus brought it. And thereupon he applies himself to Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage, that the Acts of the Council of Nice should be sent for into Greece, that all ambiguity might be removed, saith he, and concludes, Howbeit We profess, as I said before, that in the mean while we will observe these things, till the entire Copies (exemplaria concilij Niceni) shall come.  
With which the Pope's Legate Faustinus was so fully satisfied, that he pronounced vpon it, Nor doth your sanctity forejudge or do a prejudice to the Church of Rome etc. in that our brother and fellow-Bishop Alypius daigned to say the Canons were doubtful: but only please to write these very things to our holy and most Blessed Pope etc.  
To which Aurelius Archb. of Carth. replied. Besides these things which we have promised in the Acts, we must of necessity withal, most fully intimate by the letters of our Towns, every thing we treat of, to our holy brother, and fellow Priest Boniface. Which the whole Council seconded with, Placet.  
And we profess, adds Aug. Bishop of Hippon, we will observe this, saving a more diligent inquisition about the Council of Nice.  
Finally, the whole Council resolves to expect the Acts of the Council of Nice, authenticated under the three patriarchs hands whereby, say they, the chapters (which are contained in the present instructions (commonitorio) of Faustinus &c.) being there found, shall be strengthened by us, or not being found, shall be more fully handled in a subsequent Synod collected to that effect.  
Let now indifferent persons judge what could ever be spoken with more submission and indifferency, and less entrench upon the Pope's known authority, which even by this their proceeding, clearly discovers itself, and shines, as it were, through this seeming mist of the African opposition. Otherwise 

1. 
In Ep ad Cel●st. Gone. Afric. c. 15.  Why is a Council expressly called in obedience to Pope Celestine.  
2. And why doth the same Pope give this honourable testimony of S. Aug. who was one of the chief supposed Antiappellants, that for his life and merits they always had him in their communion, and that he was never touhed with so much as a rumour of any sinister suspicion?  
3. Why did the same S. August. in cause of an Appeal made by Bishop Anthony of Fussal, to Pope Celestine, have free recourse to him as to caompetent judge, instructing and commending the cause unto him, acknowledging that some for certain faults, the very Sea Apostolic (as he saith ep. 261.) judging, or confirming the judgements (or sentences) of others, were neither deprived of Episcopal dignity, nor yet left altogether unpunished: desiring him to command all the things directed to him (to wit the Process) to be read before etc. It was neither for want of wit, virtue nor learning sure, for in that quality what Pope might not rather have had recourse to him?  
4. Why is Faustinus admitted into their Council, and permitted to propose the Pope's pleasure which they promise to observe till farther inquiry be made in a matter ministering just cause of doubt?  
5. Why is Apiarius (a turbulent and wicked priest) in virtue of the Pope's release, (by provision as it is called) and by his order, admitted to a second hearing in Africa, after he had been twice cast out by the votes of the Bishops there?  
6. Why doth Faustinus himself pronounce in the full assembly, that by this their proceeding no prejudice was done to the Sea of Rome?  
7. Why did Aurelius esteem it a point of necessity to impart all the particulars of their treaty to Pope Boniface?  
8. Finally, why is it concluded by the unanimous consent of the whole Council, that if the things which Faustinus had in his instructions, be found in the Acts of Nice, they will confirm it, If not (they do not say they will forthwith cast of obedience to the Church of Rome) they will call another Council, and treat the business more fully?    
But I will yet go on and say, Fourthly, put case I would give what can never be proved, nay what is contrary to the known truth of the Fact: That the Africans opposition had been against the right of Appeals to Rome, not against the manner only: and that in mayor persons, and causes too; in a word, that what they proposed only, had been decreed also: and that conciliariter too, yet how would this conclusion be made good by Mr. C. Ergo the Pope of Rome is not supreme head of the Church? Certainly in a Protestant sense it could not, sigh they affirm that even General Counsels etc. both may err, and have sometimes erred, in the 21. article of the 39 Ergo a fortiori, this of Africa which was but a Provincial Council, may have erred, and consequently one should be convinced of rashness, to conclude any thing out of it (especially in matter of faith) till men's consciences were assured, that though it might, yet indeed it did not err here in which how it should he made good I am not wise enough to guess. Nor yet can it be made an argument ad hominem, and conclude against a Catholic, for he doth not place the infallibility of the Church in the decree of a provincial, but in the Definition of a General Council. Ergo nothing follows hence neither. Ergo (to be short) I will conclude this part with these few testimonies of the African Fathers, as well before as after this 6. Council of Carth. in point of the Pope's Supremacy; omitting a number of most pregnant places out of other Fathers: partly for brevity's sake, and pratly because the Africans are most concerned herein.  
Tertull. l. de Pudicitia c. 1. n. 5.  
He styles the Pope of Rome the High priest and Bishop of Bishops, and terms the Church of Rome, 
In Praesc. ●. 36. n. 212.  Happy Church, to whom the Apostles poured out all their doctrine together with their blood.  
S. Cyprian.  
The Primacy (or chief place, rule and authority, 
In l de unitate Ecclesiae.  the word Primatus being so Englished by the best Grammarians) is given to Peter etc.  
They dare sail to the Chair of Peter and to the Principal or chief Church. 
Epis. 55. ad Cornelium Papam.   
And writing to Stephen Pope of Rome, he saith, Let thy letters be dispatched into the Province of Arles, and to the people there residing, whereby Marciane (who being Bishop of Arles favoured the Novatian heresy) being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place and the flock of Christ may be gathered together, which to this day is contemned, being dispersed and wounded by him.  
Optatus Milevitanus.  
A Bishop's chair was first conferred upon Peter in the City of Rome: 
In l. 2. cont. Parmenianum.  wherein the HEAD of all the Apostles, Peter, sat etc.  
Victor Vticensis.  
And especially the Roman Church which is the HEAD of all the Churches. 
In l. 2. de Persec. Van.   
S. Augustine l. 2. de Bap. contra  
Donat.  
Peter the Apostle, in whom the Primacy of the Apostles, had the preeminency, with so exceellent a grace, (or advantage.)  
Again. Like as all the causes of Mastership were in our Saviour, 
In quaest. Novi Test. q. 75.  so after our Saviour they are all contained in Peter; for he constituted him to be the HEAD of them (the Apostles) that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock, Eugenius who was one of Aurelius his Successors in the bishopric of Carthage.  
The Roman Church is the HEAD of all the Churches.  
Fulgentius de Incarn. & Gratia c. 11.  
That which the Roman Church (which is the HEAD or top of the world, holds) and teaches, and which the whole Christian world, together with it, both believes without hesitation to justice, and doubts not to confess to faluation.  
I conclude then, that since it is most evident, that the Africans were for us Catholics both in their words and practices, as well before and in the fore said Counsels, as after the same, it is altogether in vain for the Protestants, thence to hope for any help or support to their Cause.  
Now Mr. C. having returned you a fair, full, and satisfactory answer to each of your objections: permit me the favour of one of your settled answers, to that one only demand which I then made, and often iterated, and still iterate, as being the very sum and abridgement of all controversies to wit, where was your Church in the year 1500. etc. till the year 1517. when Luther began to storm?  
This is the rule I have been taught by the ancient Father's First by Irenaeus, who had the happiness to have seen Policarpe S john's scholar. We, saith he, can number those, who were instituted Bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors even unto us, who taught, or knew no such thing as these do madly fancy to themselves. And a little after, But whereas it is too long to number the successions of all the Churches in such a volume as this, we confounded all those who by any means gather more than they ought, either by their wicked self-complacencie, or vain glory, or else by their own blindness, and erroneous sense, by pointing out that tradition which that greatest, most ancient and most known Church to all men, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and by faith announced to men, brought down even unto us, by the successions of Bishops; for unto this Church by reason of its more powerful principality, every Church ought to resort, that is, all the faithful all over the world, wherein that Tradition which is from the Apostles, is conserved by those which are all over (undique.) And so names the Popes from Linus who succeeded S. Peter etc. till Eleutherius, who was in his time of whom he saith, Now Eleutherius in the twelfth place hath the Bishopric from the Apostles, and he adds: By this ordination and succession the TRADITION which is in the Church from the Apostles and the proclamation of Truth is brought down unto us: And this is a most absolute demonstration (plenissima ostensio) that it is conserved in the Church from the Apostles till this day, and is delivered over in truth.  
Behold the succession of Bishops, is esteemed by him, and delivered unto us, for a certain demonstration, that those who have it on their side, have the same lively faith conserved even from the Apostles time till this day.  
Secondly, by the learned Tertullian in the same age, saying: 
In Praescri p. c. 32.  Let them produce the origin's of their Churches; let them declare the row or process of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning by successions, that that first Bishop may have had some one of the Apostles, or Apostolical men, which yet persevered with the Apostles, for his Author and Predecessor. Let the Heretics, saith he a little after, even forge any such thing if they can. And he counts, Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacetus, Auarestus, Alexander, Sixtus etc.  
Thirdly, Optatus Milevitanus, 
In 4 Tom. carm contra Martion.  saying: In that singular (unica) Chair, Peter first sat, to whom Linus did succeed &c. to julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius at this day, who is our fellow; with whom (or in whom) all the world agrees with us in one society of Communion, by the commerce of letters form (to wit a kind of circular or communicatory letters used in those times to discover them to be of the same commanion) Produce the origine of your chair, you who will needs challenge the Holy Church to yourselves.  
Fourthly S. Augustine, 
In his Ep. 165.  thus: If the order or process of Bishops who succeed one another be considerable, how much more certainly, and indeed savingly, do we count from Peter himself &c. For Linus succeeded Peter etc. and so counting down to Anastasius, who then was Pope, he concludes in these words: in this rank or line of succession, no Donatist (Protestant) Bishop is found etc.  
Now to know of what consideration and weight the succession is with the same S. Augustine, let's take it from himself in his Ep. Fundamenti cap 4. where he professeth, that the succession of priests, from the very Sea of Peter the Apostle till this present Bishopric, most justly retains him in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  
That this is a reasonable demand in itself, I am most confident, because Fathers so learned and able, provoked to it in their times, with so much confidence, and taught others to do the same. It is necessary, saith Tertullian, 
Praescrip. c. 20.  that every family should be brought bacl and reduced to its origine. And that it is reasonable in particular from us, it seems no less evident, because what we demand we are ready to exhibit: to discern whether you or we are true successors to S. Peter, we name our men immediately from him, who have succeeded one another till this day, till this present Popedom of Innocentius: and we desire you, fairly to produce the like evidence, or else cease unjustly to pretend the succession which you can show no right to. Finally that it is the only short and sure way to discern truth from falsehood which is the only thing we ought to aim at, the great Tertull. testifies and makes manifest. What the Apostles preached, saith he, that is, what jesus Christ revealed unto them, ought not to be tried, 
Praescrip. c. 21.  nor proved, save only by the same Churches which the Apostles founded, by preaching unto them by word of mouth, or afterwards by their Epistles. Which things being so, it is evident thence, that all doctrine which doth conspire or agree with those Apostolical Churches which are the Mothers (matrices) and sources of faith, is to be esteemed true, as holding without all controversy, what the Churches received of the Apostles, the Apostles of Christ, Christ of God. Marry all other doctrine ought to be prejudged of falsity, which savours against the Truth of the Churches, Apostles, Christ, and God etc. But we Catholics (miscalled Papists) communicate for the present and did communicate with the Apostolical Church of Rome in her Pastor Alexander the VI in the year 1500. as holding no doctrine contrary to it, but conspiring with it; therefore our Doctrine is to be judged true, the contrary to be prejudged false: This (concludes Tertullian) is an EVIDENCE of Truth: or accordin to Irenaeus, plenissima ostensio, a most full DEMONSTRATION.  
Such a Demonstration it is which we demand of you in the hehalfe of your Protestant Church from the year 1500. downward: of your Church, I say, whether you define it as in the 39 Art. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, 
Art. 19  in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered etc. Or as you describe it by opposition to ours, terming it a Congregation of men etc. which opposeth Masses unbloody Sacrifice, adoration of the consecrated host, worship of Angels and Saints, and prayer to them, Purgatory, the Supremacy, the infallibility of the Church etc.  
Assign the place where this Congregation appeared, give up the names, at least of some of their chief Bishops, or Pastors, or Doctors, or Elders.  
Verify that they preached against the Mass, unbloody Sacrifice etc.  
Rational and modest men, will judge I am spareing enough in these my demands, sigh it is to go no further than a Definitione ad definitum, to know where this Congregation etc. then was, yea even your own men confess it: For will not 
a Fulke against  Fulke say that Pastors and Doctors have always been in the Church, 
Heskins and Sanders p. 69  and that they have continually from Christ to Luther's time, resisted false doctrine? will not others maintain 
b Bancroft in Recognitione pag. 441. : That the administration of the word and Sacraments, is absolutely necessary to salvation. 
c Willet in his synopsis pag. 71.  That the Church continues no longer than it hath these marks 
d Hiper in his common places l 3. p. 548. . That these marks ought to be external and visible, to the end men may know where the Church is, and to what society every one of the faithful aught to join himself. Finally 
e Whitgift in Def. p. 465. , that the Church of God is not to be shut up in one kingdom etc.  
My demand is sparing enough then, I say, for I might well require further (according to the Ancient Father's Rules above) to have it evidently proved, that such a Church or Congregation had always been, in all times and places, one and the same, and that too made good by continual, and vninterrupted, succession: that so it might appear to have descended from some of the Apostles, and consequently be indeed, as the true Church is defined in the Nicene Creed one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic. Howbeit knowing well that never yet any Protestant hath returned a fair answer, even to these few demands, I will presume you will find it work enough for the present, to point us out, within the time prefixed,  
The place where the Congregation was assembled.  
The names of the Preachers, or Preacher at least, with evidence that he preached or held the Doctrine of the thirtienyne Art. or what else may be meant by the pure word of God: or, opposed that which is contained in the Council of Trent.  
And that they, or he, duly administered the Sacraments, (and that but two only) according to Christ's ordinance etc.  
Do not, I beseech you, as you sometimes did, name S. Ignatius. That is too prodigious a leap, at once to skip above 1400. years backwards, and yet not prove your affirmation neither, to which every disputant is liable. I could with like facility name him too, and yet you would not admit that for good payment. You will please to remember, the thing I demand is, that you would acquaint us with the names of some of your Bishops, or Pastors etc. in the beginning of the 16. Age not in the end of the first. As S. Ignatius passed too timely for our present purpose, so Bishop Tunstall and B. Gardner came too sat (though you made no bones to name them too) but sure you were not serious with your friends in a subject which exacted it; or else your poor answer is a plain conviction how desperate your cause is. They have both left learned works behind them which will ever speak them Roman Catholics. 
a Tunstall. pag 47. de verit. Corp. Christi. Ed. Parisianae 1554.  The Transubstantiation, and the 
b Idem in codem lib. pag. 93.  Sacrifice of the Mass, are not tenets of the Protestant Church, to name no more. 
a Et Gard. in Confutatione etc. pag. 73.  Nor did Bishop Tunstall sure die a Prisoner in Lambeth, in Queen Elisabeths' time, for being a Protestant. 
b Idem in codem lib. p. 5.  If this assertion then (to wit, that Bishop Tunstall and Bishop Gardner helped to continue the succession of the Protestant Church) which came accompanied with no countenance or appearance of Truth, were termed impudent, what wrong were done to it? since it could not fall from a man, as having any thing of satisfaction, any face of reason, but as a Mercury of every wood, to stand in the light, and to stop the course of Truth; which S. Augustine might have haply termed inanissimam vocem temeritatisque plenissimam l. de moribus Ecclesiae Cath. c. 29. For was it ever written, ever affirmed, ever called in question by any? By any! I do not say by Catholics, but even by Protestants themselves? Nay do not even 
a In l. de Praesulibus Anglia in vita Tunstalli  Good man and 
b In Elisabetha pag. 37.  Camden deliver the contrary and put it out of all doubt?  
Do not fly to the Catholic Roman Church neither: that were too poor a shift, to beg a succession of her, against whose Idolatry you daily cry out. Nor is it that Church we inquire after, we know that that City placed upon a hill never lay hid: that Tabernacle seated in the sun, was always illustrious, constant, permanent: we can bring in, reum confitentem upon that subject, we have convictions from our Adversaries own mouths. 
c The surveyor of the pretended discipline 6.8.  Priests of all sorts, together with the people, from the top to the toe were drowned in the puddles (or dregs) of popery, saith one. Even 1260. years the Pope and his Clergy possessed the outward and visible Church of Christians reigning without any debatable contradiction, saith another. 
d Luther de Capt. Bab. de Bap.  The Pope's tyranny for many ages hath extinguished Faith etc. saith a third. This Idolatrous Roman Harlot then, this chair of pestilence, this whore of Babylon (for thus yours please to qualify the Spouse of Christ, his wholly fair, in whom there is found no spot or blemish) was easily found, by such as even sought her not; she lived, she reigned, soveraignely too, without contradiction; entirely without limitation or reserve, over priest and people; perseverantly, even for the space of 1260. years. But we desire (Remember I pray) to have the obligation to be led to the Protestants Church within the time prefixed: to hear their sermons: to see the administration of their two Sacraments only: let this be shown and we are ready to communicate with them under what kind or kinds they please. But if, as it indeed never was, so it be impossible it should be proved; nay if the same be publicly professed by your own Authors, saying, In the ages passed there was no face of a true Church: for some ages the pure preaching of the word vanished, 
e Inst. l. 4. c. 1. § 11.  so Caluin. From 400. years and more the Religion of Christ was wholly turned into Idolatry, adds 
f in his Acts pag. 767.  Fox. The Church was at that time invisible and could not be shown, confesseth Regius 
g lib. Apol. pag. 176. : The Truth was then unknown and unheard of, when Martin Luther, etc. openly pronounceth 
h In Apo. p. 4. c. 4. Divis. 2.  I well: We say that for many ages before Luther's time, a general Apostasy endeavoured the face of the earth, nor was our Church in that time conspicuous (or visible) to the world, concludes 
i In exposit. symb. p. 400.  Perkins) permit me to ask by what iniquity are poor souls fed, or rather starved, with falsity? and to conclude with that strongly reasoning Tertullian, in the person of the Catholic Church, saying: who are you? when, and whence came you? what do you do in my possession, being none of mine? By what right dost thou (o Martion, o Protestant) cut down my wood? By what prerogative dost thou (o Valentine) diverte my fountains? By what authority dost thou, o Apelles, transport my bounds? THIS POSSESSION IS MINE, why presume you being strangers, to feed and sow herein at your pleasure? THE POSSESSION IS MINE. I POSSESS IT OF OLD. I POSSESS IT FIRST. I HAVE SURE RECORDS (OR EVIDENCES) FROM THE OWNERS, TO WHOM THE THINGS BELONG. I AM THE HEIR OF THE APOSTLES. And this, by best right; (may the Catholic Roman Church affirm) because she alone is able, by her never interrupted succession of her Bishops, to derive her pedigree from the same Apostles. Counting confidently (without fearing to be contradicted by any, though her very enemies) 
In the first Age. 


Petrus, Linus,  
Cletus, Clemens.     
The 2 Age. 


Anacletus, Euaristus.  
Alexander, sixtus I.  
Ye'esphorus,  
Hyginus, Pius,  
Anicetus, Soter,  
Ileutherius, Victor.     
The 3. Age. 


Zephyrinus, Calistus,  
Vrbanus, Pontianus,  
Anterus, Fabianus,  
Cornelius, Lucius,  
Stephanus, Sixtus II.  
Dionysius, Felix,  
Eutychianus, Caius.  
Marcellinus     
The 4. Age. 


Marcellus, Eusebius,  
Miltiades, Sylvester,  
Marcus, julius,  
Liberius, Felix II.  
Damasus, Siricius,  
Anastasins.     
The 5. Age 


Innocentius I.  
Zozymus,  
Bonifacius,  
Celestinus I.  
Sixtus III.  
Leo magnus,  
Hilarius, Simplicius,  
Felix III. Celasius I.  
Anastafius II.  
Symmachus.     
The 6. Age. 


Hormisdas,  
joan. I. Felix IU.  
Bonifacius II.  
joannes II.  
Agapitus, Silver. us,  
Vigilius, Pelagius,  
joanues III.  
Benedictus I.  
Pelagius II.  
Gregorius magnus.     
The 7. Age. 


Sabinianus,  
Bonifacius III.  
Bonifacius IU.  
Deusdedit.  
Bonifacius V.  
Honorius I.  
Severinus. joan. IU.  
Theodorus,  
Martinus I. Eugenius,  
Vitatianus,  
Adeodatus, Donatus,  
Agatho, Leo,  
Benedictus II.  
joan. V Conon,  
Sergius.     
The 8. Age. 


joannes VI.  
joannes VII.  
Sisinnius,  
Constantinus,  
Gregorius II.  
Gregorius III.  
Zacharias.  
Stephanus II.  
Stephanus III.  
Paulus I.  
Stephanus IU.  
Adrianus, Leo III.     
The 9 Age. 


Steph. V paschalis,  
Eugenius II.  
Valentinus,  
Gregorius IU.  
Sergius II. Leo IU.  
Benedictus III.  
Nicol. I. Hadrian. II.  
joan. VIII. Martinus,  
Hadrianus III.  
Stephanus VI.  
Formosus,  
Bonifacius VI.  
Stephanus VII.     
The 10. Age. 


joan IX. Benedict  
Leo, Christoph.  
Sergius,  
Anast. Lando,  
joan X Leo VI.  
Stephanus, joannes,  
Leo VII. Stephanus,  
Martinus, Agapitus,  
joannes, Leo, Benedictus, joannes,  
Donus, Benedictus,  
Benedictus, joannes,  
joannes, joannes,  
Gregorius V.  
Sylvester II.     
The 11. Age. 


joannes XVII.  
joannes XVIII.  
Sergius. V  
Benedictus VIII.  
joannes XX.  
Benedictus IX.  
Gregorius VII.  
Clem. Damas'. Leo,  
Vict. Steph. IX.  
Nicol. Alexand.  
Greg VII. Vict.  
Vrban. Paschas.     
The 12. Age. 


Gelas, Calixtus,  
Honorius II.  
Innocentius II.  
Gelestinus II.  
Lucius, Eugenius,  
Anastasius IU.  
Hadrlanus, Alexand.  
Lucius, Vrbanus,  
Gregorius VIII.  
Clemens III.  
Celestinus III.  
Innocentius III.     
The 13. Age. 


Honorius III.  
Gregorius IX  
Celestinus iv  
Innocentius IU.  
Alexander IU.  
Vrbanus IU.  
Clemens, Gregorius,  
Innocent. Hadrian.  
Nicol. Martinus,  
Honorius IU.  
Nicol. Celestinus,  
Bonifacius VIII.     
The 14. Age. 


Benedictus X  
Clemens V.  
joannes XXI.  
Benedictus XI.  
Clemens VI.  
Innocentius VI.  
Vrbanus V.  
Gregorius XI.  
Vrbanus VI.  
Bonifacius IX.     
The 15. Age. 


Innocentius VII.  
Gregorius XI.  
Alexander V.  
joannes XXII.  
Martinus III.  
Eugenius IU.  
Nicolaus V.  
Cailistus III.  
Pius II. Paulus II.  
Sixtus, Innocent. VII.  
Alexander VI.     
The 16. Age. 


Pius III. julius, Leo,  
Hadrianus, Clemens,  
Paulus, julius, Marcellus, Paulus IU.  
Pius IV. Pius V  
Gregorius. XIII.  
Sixtus V urban. VII.  
Gregorius XIV.  
Innocentius IX.  
Clemens VIII.     
The 17. Age. 


Leo XI. Paulus V.  
Gregorius XV.  
Vrbanus VIII.  
Innocentius X.      
Thus did S. Irenaeus bring down the succession of the Church, by naming the Bishops of Rome, who immediately succeeded one another, from S. Peter to his tyme. And he judges it a most ABSOLUTE DEMONSRATION.  
Thus did Tertullian etc. And he puts it down for an EVIDENCE of TRUTH.  
Thus did Optatus, etc. And he concludes, that in Pope Siricius, who then sat, all the world agreed with them (Africans) in one Communion.  
Thus did S. Augustine etc. And he confesses it retains him in the bosom of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.  
Thus finally do we Catholics to this day. And we instantly demand, 

1. Why the like proceeding should not be held an absolute Demonstration; an Evidence of Truth, as well from us, as from them.  
2. Why we English Catholics may not by as good right be said to agree with all the world in one Communion in Pope INNOCENTIUS, who sits at this day, as the Africans in Siricius who then sat?  
3. Why it should not retain us without all he sitation or staggerring, as it did Saint Augustine, in the bosom of the CATHOLIC CHURCH?    
Et hic murus aheneus esto.    

AN ANSWER TO A LIBEL, WRITTEN BY D. COUSINS AGAINST THE GREAT General Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third.  
Wherein the many and great errors of the said D. Cousins, are manifested to the world.  
By THOMAS VANE Doctor in Divinity of Cambridge.  2. Tim. 3.13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 
Printed at PARIS Anno Dom. 1646. With Permission & Approbation.   

TO THE MOST NOBLE AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED Gentleman, Sr KENELME DIGBY KNIGHT etc.  
SIR,  
I do not dedicate this, craving your protection thereof against calumny, and censure; the greatest Princes (I know) cannot do it; yea their own persons are not censure-proofe against the meanest varlets. Nor hereby to engage you to any favour or defence thereof, beyond the direction of your own judgement; your free mind (I know) disdains to stoop to such a lure, and mine to cast it out. Let the book suffer its own fate, for so it will; he that finds fault with it, let him tell me so and if I cannot defend it, I will acknowledge the error. Nor to take occasion to flatter you; you are above it: and impossible attempts vanish even in the undertaking. Nor yet to pay you your due praise, I am below it; and Fame herself dischargeth that debt, borrowing the tongues of all men for her help: But to testify the honour I bear you, for your transcendent worth in yourself; and the gratitude, for your great favours to me. It wants proportion (I confess) to either; which proceeds from my poverty of materials: but as small pictures compared with greater tables, so this (being all I have to offer) may present me as lively, though not so largely  
SIR, Your most humble and obliged servant, THO. VANE.   

TO THE READER.  
READER, Doctor Cousins (since his coming into these parts) hath written divers papers against the Catholic doctrine and belief; and hath showed them, or delivered the substance of them in discourse to divers persons, thereby to draw them, or keep them from the Catholic Communion; who not having ability or leisure to examine their truth, I believe, thought better of them than they deserved. These papers of his came afterwards into the hands of several Catholics, and each one answered that which he happened on, or which was (if any was) more particularly addressed to him; which is the reason that he hath more answerers than one, though to them all, any one was more than enough. Amongst his papers, this against the fourth Council of Lateran came to my hands, to which I soon after returned a brief answer, and so the matter rested; but hearing since that he, and some that think well of him, have triumphed in these his works, as though he had gained great victories; that I might undeceive them, for so much as I undertook, (if at least they will suffer it,) and to inform all others, that please to read, I thought good à little to enlarge my former answer, and to print it with Mr. Carres. And others there are, at least one other, that I know, who if he thought fit to print what he hath written in answer to Doctor Cousins, could perhaps discover more corruptions of his than we have done. But here are more than enough to warrant us to say of him, as 
a 1. kings 25.25.  Abigal said of Nabal; for by his deeds he makes true the signification of his name: and that they that rely on him, will be like those that lean on a broken reedy staff, which will run into their hands, and wound instead of supporting them.   

D. C. OF THE GREAT General Council of Lateran under Innocentius the third; said to be Maximum & celeberrimum Concilium, Anno Domini 1215.  

MAXIMUM, for the number of eight hundred Priors and Abbots (who had no voices in Counsels but by privilege from the Pope) was as great again as the number of the Bishops. Celeberrimum, for it was every where famous for this one thing of special note in it, that so many men met together to no purpose; met, but did nothing. Therefore of this so Great and so famous a Council, these be the words of Platina, (who was the Pope's own Secretary,) in vita Innocent. III. Venere multa tum quidem in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit, quòd & Pisani & Genuenses maritimo, & Cisalpini terrestri bello interse certarent. Eò itaque proficiscens tollendae discordiae causa Pontifex, Perusii moritur. And to the same purpose are the words of Matth. Paris (in Historia minori) who lived in the same time when this Council was called together. Concilium illud Generale, quod more papali, grandia prima fronte prae se tulit, in risum & scomma desiit, quo Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Decanos, Archidiaconos, omnesque adid Concilium accedentes ludificatus est. (For after the Pope was gone to appease the tumults between the Genuenses and them of Pisa, there was nothing done) Et cum nihil geri in tanto negotio cernerent, redeundi ad so a cupidi, veniam sigillatim petierunt. Quibus Papa non concessit, antequam sibi grandem pecuniam promisissent, quam a mercatoribus Romanis prius accipere mutuò, Papaeque soluere coacti sunt, antequam discedere Roma potuissent. Papa iam accepta pecunia, quaestu osum Concilium dissoluit gratis, tot usque Clerus abiit tristis.  

ANSWER.  
It was called, Maximum, you say, for the number of eight hundred Priors and Abbots, (who had no voice in Council but by privilege from the Pope) was as great again as the number of the Bishops. 'tis true that it was justly called maximum partly for this reason, though not for this only, for the number of voices, not only of Bishops who have their suffrages by common right, but even of Abbots and Priors, who have theirs by the Pope's grant, doth mainly contribute to the greatness of a Councell. Yet suppose the greatness of this Council be to be measured by the number of Bishops only, how many can there be named greater? but very few in the world; and therefore it may well be called, Maximum. And Celeberrimum also; not, that so many met together, but did nothing, (as you say;) but because there were present the Pope in person, two Patriarches in person, and the other two by their Legates, the Greek and Roman Emperors by their Legates, the Ambassadors of the kings of France, Spain, England, Jerusalem and Cyprus, with others; as I shall prove anon. But if to be famous for doing nothing, and for being to no purpose deserve the title of Celeberrimum, these goodly objections, when they are well known, will justly bear that title on their brow.  
You further tell us, that Platina (whose words you cite) was the Pope's own Secretary: and you do it either to no purpose, or else to insinuate, that therefore he was more knowing in the truth of the story, or the more faithful historian, or both. For the former, it had indeed been likely, if he had been Secretary to the Pope, under whom this Council assembled, as any one would think you meant, when you added this note in such a weighty parenthesis. But certain it is, that Platina was borne many years after the celebration of this Council, and died in the year 1481. which was above 260. years after this Council; as saith Trithemius de scriptorib. Eccles as he is cited in the works of Platina, the page before the Epistle. This therefore is but a deceitful insinuation of yours. Or if you did not say this with intent to deceive others, but were yourself deceived; surely your care to inform yourself well before you writ, is very small. Besides if it were true, that he had been the Popes own Secretary, as for greater emphasis you express it, yet his authority cannot counterpoise the authority of all that are of a contrary mind, (to that you think Platina was of,) whom I shall by and by produce. And lastly Platina doth not affirm to the prejudice of this Council, that which you erroneously imagine he doth, as I shall presently show. As for his faithfulness, I do not think you will make his being the Popes own Secretary an argument thereof; men of your coat are not such honourers of the Pope.  
Now for the words themselves of Platina, you misunderstand them; for you apply those words, nec decerni tamen quicquam aperte potuit, generally, to the whole business of the Council, whereas the intent of them, at the most, is but particular concerning the Holy Land, as the foregoing words do show, which are these: At Pontifex ubi 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 be referred to the business of the Holy Land, of sending aid thither, and making resistance against the Turks in Asia, and to nothing else. And the reason why nothing could be decreed in that matter, was the wars he mentions, which could not be a hindrance from their making of other Canons in that Council.  
And as it is apparent enough, that this at most, was the meàning of Platina, to wit, that nothing was decreed concerning the Holy war; and that therefore this place makes nothing to your purpose, who hereby would make void all the Canons of this Council; so it is also apparent that Platina (if so much was his meaning) was deceived even 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 prove by and by. Yea, and that Platina did not so much as deny the decree of the Expedition, in his words, nec decerni quicquam apertè potuit, is very probable; for than he would rather have said, nec decerni quicquam potuit, absolutely; but his qualisication of it by the word apertè, seems to grant that something was done, though not apertè. And that something was decreed, is manifest by that which I shall say hereafter; what than he means by these words, nec apertè, in that which was decreed, is not manifest. Perhaps by Decree, he means the execution of the Decree, in actual warring against the Turks, wherein there was nothing openly done, whatsoever might be secretly done rending to their prejudice. If this be his meaning, (as no other can be with truth in the thing) then, though his words be obscure, and improper to signify thus much, yet his meaning is true, but nothing to your purpose.  
But Nauclerus doth open this obscurity, and makes it clear against you; for he speaking of the same business, and using the same words with Platina, in the rest, instead of Platina's apertè, he saith aptè; 
b Vel. 2. p. 914.  nec decerni tamen quicquam aptè potuit, quod & Pisani & Genuenses etc. There could nothing be fitly, conveniently, and to the purpose decreed in regard of the time because of the wars in Europe. And immediately after he saith, (to confute that which you say, that there was nothing done here) Editae tamen nonnullae constitutiones referuntur, but there are divers constitutions declared to be made.  
As for Matthew Paris his Historia minor, I cannot meet with it, and in the volume of his whole works both mayor and minor, set forth lately by Dr Wats of London: I can find no such words as you cite. And if you had been willing that your quotation should have been examined, you would have given a man a nearer aim than a whole history, whether mayor or minor, to find it in, especially in a quotation so important to your main design; unless you meant to give a man more trouble than is fair in one that writes a controversy. The like you have also done in some of your following authorities. But if these words, Et cum nihil geri in tanto negotio cernerent, which are all that concern your purpose, be to be found in him, he speaks of the same expedition of the Holy Land, and of the execution thereof, not of the Decree itself, as the word geri will aswell bear in its signification: and if he meant otherwise he had no good intelligence in the business, (as I shall presently prove;) for though he lived in the same time of this Council, yet he lived in a fare distant place. And his words, in tanto negotio, do surely point at some one particular matter, which though it have been the occasion of calling many Counsels, yet when the Prelates were met, they discussed and decreed many other things for the good of the Church. So that though it be true that nothing was executed in the great business of the Holy wars, by reason of the wars in christendom, yet it is fare from proving that which you so boldly affirm, that neither the Decree of the expedition for the Holy Land, nor any one Canon was made in this Council. They met (say you) but did nothing; nor have 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 all eadged out of him,) read c Baronius in his last tome, anno 1197. who telleth us, that this Matthew Paris seemeth to have writ his history of purpose to take occasion to slander the Popes; and then reciting a story, concludeth thus. Vidisti Lector Paris ingenium, animique male compositi malam sententiam, res fingere, verbáque formare indigna Romano Pontifice, & ab hoc uno tampatenti mendacio caetera discas, & caveas videasque qua tunc sit homo fide dignus, cum totus sit in carpendis Rom. Eccles. Pontificibus. And therefore his accusation of the Pope for exacting a great sum of money of the Council, first as it is impertinent to your business, (for his covetounsesse could not nullify the Canons of the Council) so also is it most unlikely to be true, because Paris is recorded for a slanderer, and Pope Innocent III. for a worthy and excellent man. 
d Nauclerus vol. 2. p. 876.  Nauclerus calleth him, vir doctrina & moribus insignis. And Platina, in his life, saith, constat cum in quovis genere vitae probatissimum fuisse, dignumque qui inter Sanctos Pontifices censeatur. And again in the next words to those you cite, cuius vita adeo probata fuit, ut post eius mortem, nihil eorum quae in vita egerit, laudaverit, improbaveritque, 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 Council, which is the main matter you drive at, 
e Vol. 2. p. ●15.  & for which you have misinterpreted the meaning of Platina and Paris, is very untrue. Which I prove, first by the authority of Gregory IX. who lived in the time of this Council, and was created Pope but about eleven years after, and commanded the Decrees should be put in the body of the Canon law, wherein he used the service of Raymundus, of whom Platina thus writeth, 
e In vita Greg. IX. fine.  Raymundum autem Barchino nensem, quo adiutore in compilando libro Decretalium, Gregorius usus est, ita quidam tàm laudant, ut maiori commendatione laudari nemo possit. 
So say the Annal Ee●lEs post Bason tom 13. p 459 XV.  And Binius in the life of the said Gregory IX saith that this Raymundus was Canonised by Clement VIII.  
Secondly, 
S Thom. 4. sent. dist. 17. q 3. art. 1 ad tertiam.  I prove it by the testimony of the greatest Divines of that age, S. Thomas, and S. Bonaventure, 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 Council.  
Thirdly, by the testimony of the Council of Trent, which speaking of the same Decree, calls it, 
Conc Tried, sess. 14 can, 8.  the constitution of the great Lateran Council. And that the Acts of this Council were always extant, and are not counterfeit, appears, in that they now are, and have been in the body of the Canon law, ever since the time of Greg. IX. who commanded them to be inserted; and 
f Annal. Eecles. post Baron. tom. 13. anno 1234. XV.  anno 1234. which were but nineteen years after the Council, approved the collection. Neither could any man have means to know the truth of the Canons better than he, the Council having been held not long before, by his uncle, in that city, where he being Pope could command the sight of all the monuments; and many were still alive who had been present in the Council celebrated but nineteen years before the publishing of these Canons, & knew therefore what was done in it, better than those who were further removed, 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 have obtruded them before the eyes of such great Prelates and Princes, for decrees made in Council, had they not been so indeed. Nor would the Church (the things there determined so much concerning her) nor they who did so much emulate her proceed, have been silent, had such a thing been attempted.  
Lastly I prove that there were Canons made in this Council, yea and that those Canons were received in England, (a thing which you deny towards the end of your discourse) by a 
f Matth. Paris. hist. ma. anno 1222.  general Councell (so it is styled) of England, held at Oxford, by Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1222. which was but seven years after this of Lateran, and about 12. years before the Canons thereof were put into the decretals by Gregory IX. where towards the end it is said, 
g Binij Conoil. tom. 7. part. 2.2. fol. 833.   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 have to say against this Council;    

C.  
There be many things besides, which may make us justly to suspect the authority of this pretended great Council. For first, before Cochlaeus put 〈◊〉 forth, it was never extant; and it was but lately neither that he put it forth, in the year 1538. Three years before, when Merlin put forth the Counsels, there was no such Council, that he met withal, to set out; it is not in his edition. But Cochlaeus (a man not so well to be trusted, & who feigned many things in writing Luther's life) tells us, that he had the Decrees of this Council out of an ancient book; but where he got that book, or who first compiled it, or of what authority it was, he tells us nothing at all. It is most likely, that ancient book was no other but the book of the Pope's decretals, where those things that are said by him to be decreed in this Council, are here and there scattered in several places. Those scatter (I believe) did Cochlaeus, or some other, collect together, and made up one body of them in manner and form of a Council. But so ill-favoured a form hath he given it, that often it betrayeth itself not to be genuine, and taken out of any authentic copy.  

ANSWER.  
You further say, that there are many things besides, which may make you justly suspect the authority of this pretended great Council, as you are pleased to call it. I easily believe that there are many things that make you not only to suspect, but flatly to reject the authority of this and many other General Counsels, but none justly. But it is not the authority of this General Council, (which is the same in all,) but the verity of the Canons and Decrees thereof (you would have said) and the authority of them that affirm those Decrees, that you with so much sagacity suspect. And if you think the Council and the Canons thereof but pretended, which are acknowledged true by the voice of all the Catholics of the world, what shall make them to be accounted real? or shall the voice, of one pretended Deane diminish their reality? And if you think this Council but pretendedly Great, which consisted of the great est number, of the greatest persons both Ecclesiastical and secular, that ever met together in the world, I must needs think that the common sense and understanding of a man, is in you but pretended. Doth not Platina the Pope's own Secretary, close by the words cited by you, say, Pontifex apud Lateranum, maximum Concilium celebrat? And doth not your own Matthew 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 so scornfully a pretended Great Council? yea no General Council, no Council at all? as you do in the latter end of your pamphlet. Surely you are Goliath that defy the whole host of Israël, yet every one, though as little as David, is able to cut of your head, with your own sword.  
Now the grounds of your suspicion, whereby you would dismount the Canons of this great Council, are so feeble, that they show you are no skilful engineer. Whereof one is, because Merlin hath it not in his edition, he could not meet with it, to set it forth. But this is a poor argument; for first we know that there were many other Counsels which Merlin could not meet with, which have since been put forth, and Protestants I think will not deny, that there were such, as the second of Nice, four of Lateran, two of Lions, one of Vienne, and one of Florence; and this of Florence was celebrated later than any that he sets down, and was the last General one, that was held before his publishing of his book, about fourscore years before it. And yet it seems that he could not meet with the Records of this Council, or else he did purposely omit it, which is not likely, how much more easy than was it for him to miss this of Lateran, which was held about 300. years before. Besides, it is manifest that neither the world at that time, nor he himself did believe, that he had set forth all the Counsels; as appears by the king of France his Privilege at the beginning of his work, and his own words at the end of his Epistle before the second volume. The words of the king's Privilege are these, Coneilia quae in Ecclesia à temporibus Apostolorum usque ad concessum Basiliensem celebrata potuerunt coaceruart, by which it appears that as they were all that they could then get, so they were not absolutely and certainly all that were. The words of Merlin himself are these. Nam si authentica, integra, solida, & à mendis expertia fuerint exemplaria, undehaec fideliter excerpta sunt, apprime castigata sunt, pura, vera, & sincera quae profero, suorum Archetyporū quidem germanam conditionem prae se ferentia, quae si grato animo tuleris, propediem (conside) ampliora nostris te sudoribus assecuturum: by which it likewise appears that he did believe that there were divers others which he had not set down. Now for you to infer that because he could not meet with this Council of Lateran, therefore there was none such, is a very unjust consequence, and is as strong against the eight other above named, as against this.  
Another ground of your shrewd suspicion is, because Cochlaeus first put it forth, and because he put it forth but lately; so that you object both against the person, and against the time. For the person of Cochlaeus, you say, he was not a man so well to be trusted; and to make that probable, you say, that he feigned many things in writing Luther's life. Against the time of Cochlaeus his edition you object, because it was lately set forth, to wit, in the year 1538. three years after Merlin set forth his edition of the Counsels. I will first consider the truth of what you say, and then the force thereof. Concerning Cochlaeus his edition of this or any other Council, I can find nothing, but that Bellarmine in his controversies reckons him amongst such as have writ of the Counsels, yet he doth not reckon it amongst the catalogue of his works, in his book de Script. Eccles. nor can I find it here in Paris. Yet taking what you say in this for granted, I do not find that he was a man less to be trusted than Merlin, or any other; for Bell: calleth him, Vir doctissimus, & fidei Catholicae propugnator eximius; and therefore you who traduce a man without any proof, are much less to be trusted than he yea than any man I know, for your many falsifications, proved both in this and your other writings. As for your saying that he feigned many things in writing Luther's life, that is but a new slander which as you do not offer to prove, so it is impossible you should; for how can you know the heart of another man from whence his feigning must proceed He may indeed write that which is false, but that he did so by his own fiction, and not by others misinformation, you cannot be assured, unless he himself had confessed it, which you do not prove that he hath Nor do you prove so much as that he hath written any thing false of Luther.  
You also suspect Cochlaeus his edition of the Counsels in regard of the time, because he set it forth lately. And what I pray, is lately? you say, the year 1538. which is a hundred and eight years ago. Indeed in comparison of the Apostles times it is but lately, but in comparison of the invention of printing, which was but about two hundred years ago, and according to the ordinary account of scholars in editions of books, I believe none will account a book set forth a hundred and eight years ago, a thing lately set forth. Much less have you reason to account it so, seeing you do not account Merlin's so, which yet (as you say) was set out but three years before. It is a paradox to say, Merlin an ancient writer in the year 1535. Cochlaeus a late writer in the year 1538. Can three year's odds in a hundred and eleven make one to be called late, and therefore to be (as you say) suspected, and not the other? Surely if this your argument of lateness be good against one, it is so against both; whereby you may, according to your prudence, suspect all the Counsels set forth by Merlin. But I will give your suspicion yet more scope; for Merlin published the Counsels in the year 1524. as appears by the last words of the whole work; so that Cochlaeus his edition was full fourteen years after Merlin's, according to your computation of Cochlaeus. And now to turn the point of your argument upon yourself, this laternesse of Cochlaeus is so fare from being a ground of suspicion, that it is (by just so much) a stronger confirmation of the truth and exactness of his work. It was but by accident that the Counsels were printed at any time; they might have been let alone till this present year, or not printed at all, would that have made you suspect the truth of them all? it would then have made the world suspect you for à very weak man, or rather have put you below all suspicion. But it so falling out that the Counsels were printed at senerall times, by the care of several men, the later they were printed, the more means had the publisher to make further search, and to inform himself out of the Manuscripts more fully; as we find, that in all editions of books, 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. chrysostom by Sr. Henry Savill, is therefore the more suspicious. So that here is neither truth in the grounds of your suspicion, nor reason that this last should be any ground, though it were true.  
You say moreover, that Cochlaeus says, that he had the Decrees of this Council out of an ancient book, but where he got that book, or who first compiled it, or of what authority it was, he tells us nothing at all. And you add your conjecture, as weak as your former suspicion, that it is most likely, that that book was the Pope's decretals, where the supposed Canons of This Council are scattered in several places. Concerning Cochlaeus I can say nothing, seeing I cannot meet (as I said before) with this his work that you cite, but I will favour you so fare as to suppose you say true, & then consider the purpose of it, which indeed is none at all. But for that he had it out of an ancient book is much to his purpose, which book (I will be bold to conjecture, seeing you are so for your liking) was the very Original of the Council itself; and where he got it, is impertinent for you to demand. And for this my conjecture I will give you good ground, this, that in Crabs edition of the Counsels I find an Epistle to the Reader before the beginning of this Council, the title whereof is this; Bartholomens' Laurens Novimagensis, Lectorl; the beginning of the Epistle this. Haec sunt quae ex Archetypo illo cuius supra mentio sit, lectu adeo difficili, summo labore descripsimus; quae sicui grata & utilia fuerint, primum gratias agat Deo, qui horum qualecunque exemplar hucusque seruavit; deinde F. Petro Crab, qui hoc ipsum ut inter Concilia ederetur, procuravit And this perhaps is the preface which you mention hereafter and ascribe to Cochlaeus, for other I find not. But whose soever it was, it proves thus much, that this Council (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 he saith again in the body of his Epistle, certè in editione hac scdulo curatum est, ne quicquam ei ab Archetypo alienum ingeri possei. And in this edition is the Decree of the expedition, and the others, which in particular you hereafter seek to nullify, whereby those objections are before hand answered; yet I will say more when I come to them. But suppose the Decrees of this Council had been taken out of the Pope's decretals (the original being lost, as were the Canons of the first Council of Nice, which makes so much uncertainty about the number of them) into which they were inserted (as I shown before) by Gregory the ninth, but a few yeares after they were made; in several places, according to the several titles to which they were to be referred (which you disgracefully call scattering) what impeachment is this unto their credit? The Pope's decretals are a testimony of no small reputation amongst all learned Christians. And why I pray scatter? the decretals are not a collection of the Counsels, that so you should expect every Canon in his order, but à digestion of the Canons of all the Counsels that pertain to one matter under one head; like the collection of the Statutes of England by Rastall and others; (out of which if one would undertake to extract all the laws made in Queen Elizabeth's reign, he must look perhaps in a hundred several places) which yet I think you will not call scattering, but methodical digestion. But these are the reproaches thrown upon the chief spiritual father of the Christian world, by those whom God hath (like simeon and Levi) for the cruel schism they have made in the Church, divided in jaacob and scattered in Israel. But from whence soever the first publisher of this Council took the Canons thereof, certain it is that they were acknowledged, and ascribed to this Council, by a testimony above all exception, namely, of the whole clergy of England in a Council at Oxford, as I have showed before, & that, 12. years before the book of the decretals was compiled. So that from the decretals is not the first view that we have of the Canons of this Council.  
You again repeat, and say, Those scatter (you believe) Cochlaeus or some other did collect together, and made up one body of them in manner and form of a Council. But so ill favoured a form he hath given it, that it often betrayeth itself not to be genuine, and taken out of any authentic copy. Even now you said (without doubt) that it was Cochlaeus that set forth this Council, now, it was he 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, then have you lost much labour in seeking to poison his credit herein. And if it were some other, then is your decrying this Council by reason of this edition of Cochlaeus, of no force, for than I affirm, that this some other, was a man of the greatest credit of all other, and so the case is clear against you, out of your own words, and you say nothing here to impeach the credit of this other; which I wonder at, for you may aswell speak against you know not whom, as say you know not what, as you do in all this discourse. You took it ill of Cochlaeus that he did not tell you where he had that ancient book; and have not we much more reason to take it ill of you, that will not tell us who it was that first put forth this Councell you so much find fault with, nor give us any aim to find out this edition you mean (written by you know not whom) from any other? but although you here fail us, yet you think you come home to us in that which follows; and although you know not who first put forth this Council, and that we know that both first and last have done it in the same manner; yet without relation to the publisher, the very form of this Council, you say is so ill favouted, that it often betrayeth itself not to be genuine, and taken out of any authentic copy. Which deep charge of yours against this Council will recoil upon yourself, and by the ill favoured form thereof, betray itself not to be schollerly, nor taken out of any authentic copy, either of reason or authority.    

C.  
For secondly, who will believe? who can persuade himself, that this Council of Lateran should cite the Council of Lateran in the Decrees and Canons which were there compiled? that is, that it should cite itself, as à Council not now sitting, but passed and held a long time (or some time at least) before it? The stile of other Counsels useth to be, Haec sancta Synodus decernit, or placuit huic Sanctae Synodo, as asession now in being, when they make their Decree. But this Council of Lateran speaks of itself, as of some other Lateran Council, than was at that time sitting, Fuit, & noscitur fuisse, as of some decrees made before, six several times together; once in the 11. chapped. twice in the 29. three times more in the 33.46. and 61. Chapters. In Lateranensi Cōcilio pia fuit institutione provisum. De multa providentia fuit in Lateranensi Cōcilio prohibitum. Devolatur collatio secundum statutum Lateranensis Concilii. Et in Lateranensi Concilio noscitur fuisse prohibitum. Will any man think these be the words of the Council of Lateran itself?  

ANSWER.  
Will any man think these be the words of a man that considers what he says? who will believe, who can persuade himself, that a pillar of his sect, should frame an accusation against a Council, which (to phrase it most gently,) is (I believe) the greatest oversight that ever was yet committed in this kind. You say that this Council while it was sitting, doth cite itself, as a Council that had sitten some while before; and to prove it you allege six places, wherein there is mention of the Council of Lateran; and you most weakly imagine, that the Council of Lateran there spoken of, is this Council 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 objection) that there were four Counsels of Lateran, (according to the most received opinion concerning the place) of which three were before this; and the Council of Lateran cited in this, was that which was celebrated next before this, under Pope Alexander the third, in the year 1180, wherein all those places you (more punctually than any other) do allege, are to be found. And is it possible that you (who talk sometimes, as if you had been Secretary to all the Counsels) could be so ignorant, as never to have read or heard of any Council of Lateran but this, so that finding in this the Council of Lateran cited, you should think this Council cited itself? for if you had but read this Council in Binius, you should have found all these places by you cited, referred in the margin to their particular chapters, in the former Council of Lateran, under Alexander the third. Or if any man had forged this Council (as you injuriously to us imagine) could you think him so silly a fellow, as to conceive such a gross absurdity as this, should steal away unobserved? And if he did not believe he should always escape undiscovered, (as to his eternal unhappiness, by your severer inquisition, he hath not,) could you think him so foolish asto do a thing in itself most absurd and impertinent, which had no end in it, (for it was all one whether this Council cited the Council of Lateran or no,) and which could arrive at no other end, but the ruin of that which was his main design, namely, the begetting of the world's belief to this his edition of this Council; to which he must needs foresee, that this would be the undoubted overthrow?  
But however, you make bold to slight and traduce some particular Catholics, though most learned and virtuous, yet (to use a frequent word of your own, but much more seasonably) I wonder how you dare, so easily to condemn all Catholics in general; as to suppose that all the Popes, Catholic Bishops, Divines, Canonists, and other learned men innumerable of the Catholic Church, yea those whose interest is mightily concerned in this Council, even all temporal Princes, whose Lay-dependants are not few in number, nor faint in courage, nor all defective 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 have so much fear of the God of heaven nor honesty as to discover it; if they were of the Laity, not to have 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 over with the title of a great General Council, and by that means currant through the world, until you with much industry and art, come and discover this long hidden secret, and mystery of iniquity, to Catholics eternal shame (as you surely think) and your own eternal 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 prepared for others. Yea you go on with more courage than foresight, thus;    

C.  
Therefore thirdly, Cochlaeus is feign to excuse the matter by a conjecture, (in his preface to this Council set forth by Crab) that these decrees were collected and brought into this form, wherein he presents them, by Pope Innocentius himself, some while after the Council was done. He citys three chap. of the Council to that purpose, (three of those six that are named afore) and says, the Reader will easily deprehend as much. But what reader will like it well, that the decrees of a Council should be written some while after the Councell is ended? It was always the use of Counsels to write their own decrees, and to sign them too, before they went away. And Innocent the Pope was not so weak a Scribe, as to make the Synod itself speak after such a manner, In Lateranensi Concilio noscitur fuisse prohibitum; or, fiat hoc, secundum quod provisum est in Lateranensi Concilio etc. which certainly is not the stile of the same Council concerning itself; Innocent the third knew well enough what belonged to it.  

ANSWER.  
First you made Cochlaeus guilty of a fowl fault, and now you bring him in making an excuse, and both falsely. First, I can find no such conjecture as you speak of, and secondly if it were to be found, it is no excuse. You say it is to be found in his preface to this Council set forth by Crab; but we may sooner gather the Sibylls leaves than find it, for there is no such thing. There is indeed an epistle of Bartholomaeus Laurens, which I have mentioned before, & by which you were confuted, it being thereby proved that that edition was taken out of the original, for which there needs no excuse. Besides, it is a thing in itself improbable, that Cochlaeus who (as you say) wrote this Council himself, should afterwards write a preface to another man's edition of the same Council. But suppose this conjecture you mention (to wit, that these decrees were collected and brought into this form he presents them, by Pope Innocent himself, some while after the Council was done) be some where to be found; what excuse is this I pray, or what doth it excuse? If the conjecture be true, it confimes the whole cause against you: namely, that all these decrees were made in the Council; if it be false, it is nothing. But you draw consequences from hence which are certainly most pitiful and inconsequent, with which while you think to strengthen your cause, you do weaken the credit of your own understanding.  
You say, what reader will like it well; that the decrees of a Council should be written some while after the Council is ended? And I say, what reader (but your captious self) will dislike it? Indeed if the decrees of the Council had been written some while before the Council began, you might justly have asked, who would have liked it; but to ask who will like, that they should be written afterwards, is most ridiculous. But you suppose, because it is said in the conjecture you allege, that they were collected and digested into the form they are in, after the Council was done, that therefore they were not written in any form, no not at all in the Council itself; to which purpose you say, that it was always the use of Counsels to write their own decrees, and to sign them too, (as very pertinently you add) before they went away; intimating hereby, that they did not so in this Council; and your reason is, because Pope Innocent did collect them into the form they now are in, some while after the Council was done. Surely you did not consider what all impartial men would conceive of your ability, seeing you make such an inference as this; so poor, that few in the world would have made themselves guilty of the like. And I demand of all theworld, whether the decrees of the Council could not be written, and signed too, by, and in the Council, and yet be brought into this form, or method, wherein they now are, by Pope Innocent some while after? every one that hath but common sense will conclude against you. Yea his collecting and putting them into a form some while after, is à proof (clean contrary to what you infer, namely) that they were written some where, and in some form or other before. For otherwise from whence should Pope Innocent collect these decrees? out of his memory? that is most improbable. Collection imports not the inventing or making them, but the gathering of them out of some Records or other; and out of the original it is most likely (if he gathered them at all) that he took his collection, seeing he lived in the time and place of this Council, and was present and precedent therein. Your argument then is no better than this, The Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles were collected and brought into a form written and printed, again and again, after the first writers were dead and gone; therefore they were not at first written by themselves or their assigns.  
You further labour to assoil Pope Innocent from the guilt of forging these Decrees, (for you take it for granted that they were forged, and Cochlaeus you are most constant to, for the man that forged them,) because Pope Innocent was not so weak ascribe (you say) to make the Synod quote itself; Wherein you might well have spared your pains, for Quis (quaeso) unquam vituperavit Herculem? who, I pray, ever accused Pope Innocent hereof? you think Cochlaeus doth, because he conjectures (as you say) that these Decrees were collected and brought into this form by Pope Innocent, after the Council was dissolved; as if to collect decrees, and bring them into some or other form after the dissolution of the Council, were all one as to forge them? A conceit surely unworthy of any judicious man. Innocent the Pope (you say, and truly,) was not so weak a Scribe as to make the Synod quote itself, he knew well enough what belonged to it. Yet so unhappy are you, that you cannot support this truth, (which no body puts you to, by denying) but by affirming a greater falsehood, namely, that this Council doth cite itself. But if you had been so good a Scribe, as to have known aswell what belongeth to the making of objections against a Council, as Pope Innocent did the stile of Counsels, you would I think have kept your own counsel, and been more silent in this matter. But you go on, and say.    

C.  
We had best therefore believe Platina, non est decretum ibi quicquam; non potuit ibi decerni quicquam. Improbavit Innocentius ipse Abbatis loachim libellum, damnavit ipse Almericum. He says, It was not the Council of Lateran that made any decrees to condemn them; but that Pope Innocent condemned them himself. And we may well conclude, That both these and other things, de quibus nihil decerni potuit in Concilio, were by the Pope set down in his own decretals; out of which he took those Canons, whoever he was that compiled them into the form of a Council.  

ANSWER.  
You say, we had best therefore believe Platina; which I grant we may do, but not your sense of his words, which I have already refuted. But what degree of trust soever we yield unto Platina himself, I am sure we had best give none unto you, in your citation of Platina, who have wronged both him and us, in all that you have here alleged. All that he says, is what you brought, and is answered in the beginning, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit; instead whereof you make him say, non est decretum ibi quicquam; non potuit ibi decerni quicquam; wherein besides the explication and change of the words, you leave out the main word apertè, which changeth the whole sense. Platina saith, nothing could be decreed openly, you allege 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 refer the reader to the first paragraph, where I show, that these words of Platina were spoken with relation to the business of the Holy wars, and not concerning the decrees of this Council.  
And as here you leave out a word to the corrupting of the sense, so in the following words which you allege, (as if they were placed in Platina as they are in you, and were a further proof of the same assertion, whereas they have no connexion together in sense, and are above a dozen lines asunder,) you put in a word, which is the very hinge on which the sense is turned, and turned contrary to the assured truth thereof; and that is the word, Ipse, he himself, as if the condemnation of Almericus and the book of joachim had been the Pope's act without the Council, that so you might prove the Council falsified, wherein the said acts are recorded to have passed. And then you add as another saying of Platina, or as your construction of the former words of Platina, He says, it was not the Council of Lateran that made any decrees to condemn them, but that Pope Innocent condemned them himself. But Platina hath neither any such formal words, nor are they the meaning of the words he hath; for his saying the Pope did condemn them, doth not necessarily imply that the Council of Lateran did not condemn them, for it might be done by both, either severally or together, and this latter way it was done, as I have already proved, and do now again by the testimony of Beluacensis, 
a Beluac l 30 hist. cap. 64.  who speaking of this Council saith, that the Abbot joachim and Almericus were condemned therein. So that you are Ipse, He himself, that have falsified Platina, laid unjust objections against the Council of Lateran, and (apertè) manifestly condemned yourself of fowl play by the evidence of the fact,  
For a close to this section you say, we may well conclude, that both these and other things de quibus nihil decerni potuit in Concilio, were by the Pope set down in his own decretals; out of which he took these Canons, whoever he was that compiled them into the form of a Council. Your conclusion is like your premises, there is no truth in either of them both; you say, that both these and other things, (I suppose you mean all the Canons ascribed to this Council,) were set down by the Pope in his own decretals, that is, according to your meaning, invented by the Pope, and put first into his decretals; for if they were first decreed in Council, and afterwards put into the decretals, it is not for your purpose, but against you; and that it was so, I have already sufficiently proved; and do yet again by the title of these constitutions, as they are set down in the decretals; which are not barely ascribed to the Pope, as many others are; but to him in a general Council; thus, Innocentius tertius in Concilio generali. We may therefore well conclude; that your conclusion built on your extreme corruption of Platina, having so rotten a foundation must needs fall to the ground.  
Lastly you say, that he took them out of the Popes own decretals, whoever he was that compiled the Canons into the form of a Council. But I have proved before, that he took them out of the original Records of the Council; and if he had taken them out the Pope's decretals, it had been well enough; those decretals not being the Popes own, singly, as you have said, but the Popes and Counsels of Lateran together, as I have many ways proved. So that of all that you have hitherto said, there is not one word but is either untrue, or impertinent; and to use your own words, de quibus nihil decerni potest. Yet as if you had not said enough of this nature, you go on to make faults, in steed of finding them (as you suppose) in others.    

C.  
For the third Canon of this Council (concerning the excommunication of temporal Princes, and the Pope's power to free their subjects from all obedience to them, and to give away their kingdoms) is indeed one of the Extravagants;, cap. 13. de Haereticis, that is, Pope Innocents' own Decree, and not the Counsels of Lateran, ubi nihil decerni potuit. So in the 71. Canon, concerning the recovery of the Holy Land from the Saracens (for which this Council was chief called, and met together) the compiler hath made the words to run in a Pope's stile, and not in the stile of a Council, Ad liberandam terram sanctam de manibus impiorum, sacro Concilio approbante definimus, etc. neither in the Council was there any such Decree made; as both Card. Bellarmine (against king James' Apology,) and Eudaemon Cidonius (in his Parall. Torti & Torture.) do confess out of Platina. He therefore that made these two decrees, of absolving subjects from obedience to their Princes, and of recovering the land of promise from the Saracens, may well be thought to have made that decree also of Transubstantiation, which hath made such a noise in the world, and for which this Council is so often quoted under the name of Maximum omnium, Generale, & celeberrimum Concilium.  

Answer.  
The third Canon of this Council, concerning the excommunication of temporal Princes, you say, is one of the Extravagants, cap. 13. de Haereticis, but you are very Extravagant in saying so; for there is no such matter in the place by you cited, nor indeed any such place as you have here rashly set down. All that is to be found is this; that in the fifth book of the Extravagants, there is a Title de Haereticis, under 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 Extravagants, that is, Pope Innocents' own Decree. By which it seems, that it is the same thing with you, to be one of the Extravagants, and to be Pope Innocents' own Decree; as if the Extravagants were Pope Innocents' own decrees; whereas it is apparent by the titles to whom they are ascribed, that not one of them was made by Pope Innocent; so mightily are you mistaken in this matter. This Decree than is not Pope Innocents' own, and not the Counsels of Lateran, as you say, but Pope Innocents' own, and the Counsels of Lateran; his, in and with the Council of Lateran, as I have proved. You also cite yourself (for it is to be found in no author else) against the Council of Lateran, saying, ubi nihil decerni potuit, where nothing could be decreed; against which I oppose (besides all that I have said before) a man of much better authority, Albertus Crantzius, who saith 
a Crantz. Metrop. l. 9 cap. 1. sect. Innoc. 3.  Concilium maximum congregavit 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.  
Moreover the sense of this Canon you do lamely, and with change of the terms set down; for there is no mention of kings nor kingdoms; and then the Pope's absolving of the vassals of temporal Lords (for those are the words of the Canon) from their fidelity to them, and exposing their land to be occupied by Catholics, expressed 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 years contempt of making satisfaction; and then there is added this reservation also, Saluo iure Domini principalis, etc. saving the right of the principal Lord, so that he give no obstacle hereunto, nor oppose any impediment. Now this power of the Pope, whatsoever it be, is fare from that which your confused words insinuate, which to your weaker readers (I suppose) will sound, as if the Pope had power to absolve the subjects of any kings from their fidelity, and dispose of their kingdoms when, to whom, and for what cause so ever they pleased; which is nothing so. Yet if this power of the Popes were so vast as you believe it, or would have others to believe it, why should it trouble you? And why should you be more tender of the interest of Princes than they themselves, and all their courts about them, who either received this Canon immediately from the Council, as I have said and proved, or else suffered it to be coseningly thrust upon them, as you have said, but not proved.  
And I wonder that you a Protestant, should fasten upon this decree of deposing of Princes by the Pope, (to make the decrees of this Council odious and incredible,) when as it is well known, that the Popes in sixteen hundred years, have not deposed so many, as Protestants in one hundred; for almost wheresoe'er the gangrene of that heresy hath spread itself, they have either actually deposed and expelled their Princes, as in Swede, Denmark, Scotland, Netherlands, Geneva; or divers times attempted by violence to do it, as in France often, in Bohemia, in Poland, and now it is feared in England. And if you say, that though these Puritan Protestant's have both taught and done these things, yet the true Protestant of the Church of England, he never taught such doctrine, he cannot think such a thought without horror; surely we have 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 have deprived you of your desires, as they denied to grant the desires of the Puritans, if they should have turned you out of your Bishoprics and Deaneries, taken from you the Church usurped Live, set up a religion that would not have endured wiving preachers, what experience have 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 Gowernour of your Church of England Queen Elizabeth and her instruments did, on the neck of the renowned Mary Queen of Scotland, and Dowager of France.  
Can you then think much that the Pope, a person of an other quality, and more disinteressed than the subjects of Princes, should have some kind of power, by all convenient ways to reduce and correct heretical Princes? Especially seeing the Emperors, Kings, and Princes gave their votes unto this Decree, and were, for so much as concerned themselves, the makers thereof. But you will not believe that this decree was made in the Council, but think that you have proved the contrary. My advice then is that you acquaint the Kings and Princes on this side the seas, with this strange cheat that is put upon them; it is like to be a matter of high acceptation to them, of great reproach to their unfaithful servants, that would not discover that which you have done, and of great praise and preferment to yourself.  
You further object against the Act of the expedition for the recovery of the Holy Land, (which you call the 71. Canon, but no body else doth so that I know) because it runs, say you, in a Pope's stile not in the stile of à Council By which I perceive, that though you are one of the Court yet you are none of the Council, for you are not skilled in the styles of Popes and Counsels.  
Otherwise you would have known, that it is the manner in those Counsels where the Pope himself is present, to decree things in his name, with this addition, sacro approbante Concilio, as in the Council of Florence inlueris unionis, even as Acts of Parliament of England, are made in the king's name, with the advice or consent of the two houses.  
You say moreover, that Card. Bella mine and Eudaemon Cidonius do confess out of Platina, that there was no such decree made. Your Eudaemon Cidonius I cannot meet with here, nor is it much material, for that answer which serves your quotation of Bell: will serve him also, seeing (as you say) it is both their confessions out of Platina. For the finding of your citations out of Bell: you use us very ill, giving us no direction, but a book of perhaps twenty leaves in folio to find out twenty words, which when we have found, to recompense our pains, we find your mistake and falsehood. For Bellarm. doth not speak directly of the particular chapter of the expedition, whether that were made in the Council or no, but of the business of the Holy War in general, de hoc articulo, cum multa disputata fuissent, nihil certi definiri potuit; and there is a difference sure betwixt nihil certi, and nihil omnino, nothing certain, and nothing at all, as you would have it. And I suppose this nihil certi is meant in regard of the further and more particular managing of the war, from which they were hindered by the present war in Christendom, and which is no denial of the Decree of the expedition, which consists of a few general heads concerning the raising of contributions to this great work from the clergy, (wherein the Pope himself gave a great example) of punishments on those that hindered it and indulgence to them that advanced it, with the like. All which though they were undoubtedly decreed, yet it may be said with Bell: out of Platina, that after much disputation there was nothing certain defined, in regard of the nearer and more particular articles for the managing of the war, being put from it by the present war in Christendo me. Yea it might be said nihil certi in regard of this decree itself, not of the letter and intention of it, but of the wars at home, yea rather the contrary was certain, 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 we affirm to be done in that kind) why did they express it with these reservations, of apertè and certi, and not say directly and without limitation nihil as you do? which had been more plain, and agreeable to the gravity of those writers. Therefore by these reservations they must needs intent some thing, which (as I conceive) is that which I have expressed. Howsoever, certain we are, that this Decree was made in the Council, by all that proof whereby we have proved the whole Council, of which this is a part; and particularly (because you here make a particular objection against it) by Matth. Paris, who intimateth so much, by repeating 
a Matth. Paris. histma. p. 189.  the substance of this very Decree, in almost as many words as they are in the Council, which are too long to set down here.  
Your further say, that he that made these two decrees, of absolving subjects from obedience to their Princes, and of recovering the land of Promise from the Saracens, may well be thought to have made the decree of Transubstantiation also. And you say truth in that, but it will not help you; for Pope Innocent made them all, but, sacro approbante Concilio, that is, the whole Council, consisting of the Pope and the rest of the Prelates, decreed them. Nor have you reason so to boggle at the word Transubstantiation, or at this Council for the word; seeing the thing knew no beginning since our Saviour, as our Catholic books do sufficiently prove; and even the word itself was in use before this Council, as appeareth by Roger Hovenden in Henrico 2. where he hath these words. 
b Annul. p. 576.  Confessi sunt etiam, quod Sacerdos noster, bonus sive malus, iustus vel iniustus, corpus & sanguinem Christi posset conficere, & perministerium huiusmodi Sacerdotis, & virtutem divinorum verborum, quae à Dominoprolata sunt, panis & vinum in corpus & sanguinem Christi verè transubstantiantur. Also by Blesensis, who was king Henry the second his chaplain, who saith 
c Blesens. Ep. 140.  Et ut gratia exempli, in uno Sacramentorum vide as abyssum profundissimam, & humano sensui imperceptibilem, pane & vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum caelestium in corpus & sanguinem Christi etc. Both these wrote in the days of Henry the second, and the Council of Lat. was held in the days of king john, who reigned the second after him. And in both these good English authors, do we find the word transubstantiated, applied to the bread & wine changed into the body & blood of Christ; nor do we find in any story, that these men were questioned for the use of these words, as if they did import any thing more in their sense, than that which was the general belief of that and the foregoing ages. It is not therefore the Decree of transubstantiation made in this Council afterwards, which hath made such a noise in the world, as you say it hath, but the heretics and Schismatics that have opposed it.  
Nor was this Councell for this decrees sake called Maximun omnium, generale, & celeberrimum, but because it was summoned by the Pope from all parts of the Christian world, and there met together the greatest and most renowned assembly both of Clergy and Laity, that ever was in the world: which therefore it ill becomes you to deride. In fine, the three particular decrees you here oppose, but have proved nothing against them, are first inserted into the decretals, which was done by Pope Gregory IX. not many years after the Council was held; who therein used the service of one of the best men of the world, as I have proved before. Secondly, they are put into the number of the Canons of this Council by Crab: who (as I have also proved) took them out of the Original Records. Thirdly, they are also reckoned amongst the rest of the Canons, by all others that have made edition of this Council, as Surius, Binius, and whosoever else. Lastly, they are received and allowed by the Catholic Church, the strongest testimony of all others; and do you think to overthrew them? who is sufficient for this? he therefore that attempts it, deserves the name of haereticorum maximus omnium, generalis & celeberrimus. In the next place, you invade us with an Arithmetical argument; but when I have reckoned with you, it will appear that you are not a man of good account; for thus you cast it;    

C.  
But as it should seem, he that first composed it, and styled it so, or afterwards set it forth, and entitled it a General Council, had not his lesson perfect. For between the seventh and the eighth General Council, I trow there cannot another General Council interueene, as this notwithstanding is made to do, if it were so Great and so General, as they say it is. They count the second of Nice for the seventh General, which was held in the year 787. and the Council of Florence (held in the year 1449.) for the eighth General, as is there, in the last session of it, expressly set down; Finis octavi Concilii Generalis factus est 21. julii etc. So that unless they will make two eight general Counsels, this of Lateran could be none.  

ANSWER.  
You pass from the matter of this Council, to disprove the title thereof; and say, he that entitled it a general Council had not his lesson perfect, and that because (as you say) they count the second of Nice for the seventh general Council, and the Council of Florence for the eighth, & between th● seventh and the eighth there cannot another interueene, as this is made to do, if it were so great and so general, as they say it is. Truly if he that published this Council, had had his lesson no perfecter than he that made these objections, he deserved to be whipped for a truant, for never were there such idle objections made. I pray who are these, they, that account the Council of Floremce the eighth general Council? your reader cannot but think you mean us Roman Catholics, against whom you here dispute, and whom you would make to appear so simple, that they cannot tell eight. But it is not the Roman account, I trow, that you here follow, but the schismatical Grecian, who yet will give you no more thanks for it, nor no more admit you a member of their Church, than will the Catholics. You must know th●n, if you did not before, that the eighth general Council was celebrated in Constantinople against Photius, who made a schism between the Latin and Greek Church, they of the schism rejected this eighth, and many other general Counsels, which were celebrated in the west; amongst which this fourth of Lateran (you so strongly and weakly fight against) was one; until the Grecians meeting again with the Latins in the Council of Florence, the Grecians called that the eighth general Council; which yet soon after they rejected, and so at this day allow but seven. But if men may receive and reject Counsels at their pleasure, than 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 do with as good reason, as they do reject and revile this of Lateran, and above all, the sacred Ecumenical Council of Trent.  
And that you may again fall into the fault, of which you falsely accuse others; you are out in your computation of the years of the holding of the Council of Florence; but this I do not mention as a matter of moment, it being brought in but on the by. But I cannot omit a weighty passage that you have a little before, where you say, that between the seventh and the eighth general Council you trow, there cannot come another, if it were so great and so general, as this is said to be. Whereby you intimate, that the greatness of this Council was the hindrance that it could not come between the seventh and the eighth, and by consequence, that if it had been a little one, it might have come between; which is a very new and pretty fancy. A little general Council it seems might have crowded in between the seventh and the eighth as an appendix to the former, or otherwise have found place and union with it under the same name and number of the seventh, but this being so great and so general, could not possibly find a room betwixt them, but that it must make two eights, as you say, rather than an eighth and a ninth, which ninth (if it had been so, in this case) might yet have been called the eighth in some other respect, as I have showed. But I had thought that Counsels in regard of number being of discrete quantity, did not require any place by reason of their greatness, (as if they were in this regard, of continued quantity also,) more than if they had been little: the abstract number of eight, (I trow) can no more come in, between seven and eight, in a small subject than in a great, and therefore the greatness of this Council was no more hindrance to its coming in between the seventh and the eighth, without changing the name and order of the number, than if it had been never so little.  
You tell us also, that in the last session of the Council of Florence it is expressly set down, Finis octavi Concilij generalis, etc. yet the words more expressly than you have set them down are, Finis generalis octavae Synodi, which though not different in substance, yet the difference of the words Concilium and Synodus if you had understood the reason thereof, had been enough to prevent your objection. For it appears by an epistle of Bartholomaeus Abramus to the Archbishop of Ravenna, set down by Crab at the beginning of this Council, and by Binius at the end, that the Latin Original of this Council was lost, and that this that is now extant, was translated by the said Abramus out of the Greek, for which reason he useth the word Synodus according to the Greek, & not Concilium; and it is called octava because it was so in the greek which he translated; and the Greeks' set it down so, because (as I said before) they accounted no Counsels general, but where they themselves were present and which they did receive, of which this was indeed the eighth. But this account is (for very good reasons) rejected by 
a Praefat. huic Synod.  Surius and 
b Notis in Concil. Florent.  Binius, and by all Catholics. And Crab though he have no caveat upon this place, yet that you may see he spoke according to the letter of the greek copy, and not his own mind, he calleth all the Counsels betwixt the 2. of Nice, and Florence, General Counsels; all that the Church accounteth so; and particularly of this Council of Lateran he saith, Instituta generalis Concilij Lateranensis tempore Innocentij Papae tertij.  
In the end of this section you make this notable conclusion; So that unless they will make two eight general Counsels, this of Lateran could be none; which out of your discourse may as justly be inferred thus, so that unless they will make two, or nine eight general Counsels, that of Constantinople the fourth, the four of Lateran, the two of Lions, that of Vienne, that of Pisa, that of Florence, or some one of these could be none. Can be none, is a false consequence, could not be the eighth, is true; nor is that of Florence or Lateran numbered for the eighth by any Catholics at this day, but this is reckoned the twelfth, that most commonly the sixteenth. But that the number of eight, which you so hunt here, may come in (because nos numeri sumus) he that first made this objection (which I believe was not you) shall by my consent be reckoned Sapientum octaws, the eighth wise man, which he shall be without a rival, 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 interueene in the order of number, between the eighth and the ninth, as you have taught us for our learning.    

C.  
Besides, if it were a general Council, how came it to pass, that the Canons of it were never generally received? as amongst us in the Church and kingdom of England they were not, and as without doubt they would have been, had the Council in those days been accounted general, and the Decrees of it under that stile and title sent abroad into the world. But with us in England ever since that time, and contrary to the 46. pretended Canon of it, subsidies have been paid to the king, inconsulto Pontifice; and against the 41. Canon, with us Currit praescriptio, though oftentimes ex bona fide ortum non habeat; and yet again contrary to the third Canon there, with us, Clericorum bona qui de haeresi convicti sunt, they go not to the use of the Church, but are always brought into the king's Exchequer.  

ANSWER.  
The generality of this Council you further go about to disprove, because the Canons thereof were not (as you say) generally received; and this you prove, because they were not received in England; but that they were not received in England you do not prove, but by three instances, which you do not prove; and if you had, they had proved nothing. For it is not properly the general receiving that makes a Council to be general, but the general calling thereof from all parts of the Christian world, and such was this. Otherwise no Council could be styled general in the calling of it, or while it was sitting, or when it was concluded, until it did appear that all the world had received it, which is a condition that never happened to any Council, because some or other heretics (against whom all general Counsels have been commonly called) or perhaps all, did refuse to receive it. So that by this your character of a general Council, you have plainly cashiered all the general Counsels that ever were; for even the first four, which you seem to magnify, and grant them the title of General, were the Canons of them generally received? It is manifest that they were not, but were rejected by all those sorts of heretics who were the occasion of their calling.  
Moreover, your reason to prove that the canons of this Council of Lateran were not generally received to wit, because they were not received in England; if it were true, yet it is inconsequent, and your deceit or mistake lieth in the indistinction of the word Canons, whereof some be of faith, some of manners and discipline. Now that a Council be accounted to be generally received, it is not required that the Canons of discipline and practice be received in all kingdoms, but it is sufficient that the Canons concerning matters of faith be generally received, to style the reception general, and the Council general, for so much as the generality of reception can contribute to the title of its being general. As for example, the kingdom of France doth not receive the decrees of the Council of Trent concerning government, but of faith it doth, as do all other Catholic Countries, for which reason, even this kingdom which denies to receive the Council of Trent in matters of government, doth notwithstanding acknowledge it general. By which it appears, that you are not so well versed in General Counsels and their reception, as to know distinctly the meaning of the words according to their Catholic use. Now there is no doubt that the kingdom of England did receive this Council for the matters of faith, otherwise it would have been noted heretical as now it is, and for it's not receiving the Canons of discipline and government, you prove not but by your own bare word, which I may most justly deny; yet I have other proofs against you.  
But first I will take notice of your mistake (if not unfaithfulness) in your description of the 46. pretended Canon (as you call it) contrary to which, you say, subsidies have been paid to the king, inconsulto Pontifice; as if that Canon had said, that no subsidies at all should be paid to the king but by the advice of the Pope, whereas the Canon speaks only of the subsidies of the Clergy, as requiring the Pope's advice. As for the practice of England contrary to these three Canons you mention, if it be true (which I do not believe, because I have heard good lawyers in England say the contrary in one, which concerns prescription) yet it doth not prove that these Canons were not received; for these cross of the Canons may happen, either through indulgence of the Pope granted to the kings, or the king's usurpation contrary to the Canons received; or in your instance of prescription, through the headstrong impiety of the people, who will not observe the good laws they receive, being contrary to their evil customs. If England had observed all the Canons they have heretofore received, when they were as wise, as learned, as pious, as judicious (at the least) as now they are, you and I (I believe) should not have been at this bay, that now we are. Now contrary to your proofelesse assertion, I prove that the Canons of this Council were received in England, as well those of manners as of faith; first by the testimony of Linwood, and the municipal laws of the land, as they are affirmed by Franciscus à sancta Clara, in his article of transubstantiation.  
Secondly by the Council of Oxford before cited, held by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, but seven years after this of Lateran, (which was the very first Council in the world, that was held after this) where it is said, 
a Binij tom. 7. part. 2. pag. 233.  That all things may be concluded which a good end, we enjoin that the Lateran Council celebrated under Pope Innocent of holy memory, in the paying of tithes, and in the other chapters be observed. By which it appears, how much you are deceived, in saying that in England the Canons of this Council were not received: as you also are in saying.    

C.  
Lastly, I believe no good story can be showed to confirm the pretended title of this Council, that the Patriarch of jerusalem and Constantinople were present at it, and 70. Metropolitans besides; though that will not make it general neither, for want of the two other Patriarches of Antioch and Alexandria, who are not mentioned to have been among them. Howsoever, nihil ibi actum quod quidem constet; and so was it neither any General Council, nor so much as any Council at all.  

ANSWER.  
What you believe imports not, for I know you believe many heresies and errors, amongst which errors this is one, That no good story can be showed that the Patriarches of jerusalem and Constantinople were present at this Council etc. One is said to be present either in person or by deputy; that those two Patriarches 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 above 70. metropolitans, besides a very great number of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, some in person, and some by Proxy; and with these the Legates and deputies of the two Emperors, of all (or almost all) the Kings, Princes, cities 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 work, as witnesses (as you thought) against the Canons of this Council. 
a Matth. Paris. hist. mai. p. 188. i.e.  Paris and Vrspergensis speak almost in the same words; 
b Vrspergens. Chronic. p. 320.  thus: Anno ab Incarnatione Verbi 1215. celebrataest sancta universalis Synodus Romae, in Ecclesia Saluatoris, quae Constantiniana vocatur, mense Novembri, 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 gravi languore detentus, venire non potuit, sed mifit pro se Vicarium, Anthedarensem Episcopum: Alexandrinus vero sub Saracenorum dominio constitutus, fecit quod potuit, mittens prose Diaconum suum Germanum; Primates autem & Metropolitanis 71. Caeterùm Abbates & Priores ultra octingentos; Archiepiscoporum vero & Episcoporum, Abbatum, & Priorum, & Capitulorum absentium Procuratorum non fuit certus numerus comprehensus. Legatorum vero Regis Siciliae in Romanorum Imperatorem electi, Imperatoris Constantinopolitaniss, Regis Franciae, Regis Angliae, Regis Vngariae, Regis Hierosolymitani, Regis Cypri, Regis Arragoniae, necnon & aliorum Principum, & Magnatum civitatum, aliorumque locorum ingens fuit multitudo. Hear is your erroneous belief plainly and amply confuted. I wonder what histories you have read concerning this Council, that these should escape you; especially Paris the Pope's dear friend, and Platina the Pope's own Secretary. I have therefore reason to believe that you took up these objections upon trust, and of men that were not faithful, who have greatly deceived you. And therefore the title of this Council which you again so scornfully and boldly call pretended, shall be really accounted General, by the best and noblest part of the world, the Catholic Church, when all other pretended Churches, Counsels, and their Canons, their Bishops, Deans, and Chapters shall have no being, nor memory but of dishonour.  
You further say, (according to your manner, without proof,) that this Council vas not General, for want of the personal presence of two of the Patriarches; wherein you are much mistaken: for otherwise the first four commonly styled General, and for such acknowledged by very many Protestants, cannot be truly such, because the Chief Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome, was not present in any of them, but by his Legates. Unless you will say, that though two may not be absent, yet one may, especially when that one is the Pope, a man whom you (I know) can very well spare, not only out of the Council, but out of the world. And yet I wonder that you that have had the fortune to be the pretended Dean of S. Peter's Borough and the pretended Master of S. Peter's house, should yet be such an enemy to S. Peter's chair. But if you desire to know what makes a Council general, and what are the insufficiencies thereof, which you ought to have expressed and proved, before you had shot your hasty bolt of condemnation against this Council, read Turrecremata, and Canus upon this subject.  
You at last conclude thus, Howsoever nihil ibi actum quod quidem constet, and so was it neither any general Council, nor so much as any Council at all Wherein first your proposition is false and hath no authority (that I know of) but the worst in the world, your own. Yet you set it down in Latin, as if they were the words of some author, but neither express the place, nor so much as his name, and therefore I take it for yours, and reject it. Secondly if it were true that nothing as done there, yet your inference from thence is inconsequent, to wit, that therefore it was neither any general Council, nor so much as any Council at all; concerning the nullities of a Council, or of the generality thereof, I need say no more than I have done, seeing it rests on you to prove, that doing nothing is one. And for your affirmation that nothing was done, I have fully disproved it through this whole discourse. I will therefore only add the testimony of Matth. Paris, who though he were no friend to this Pope, as I have showed before, yet speaking of this Council in the place above 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 jesu Christi de contingentibus omittatatur, volumus & mandamus, etc. And so repeats at large the substance of the Decree of the Expedition for the recovery of the Holy land. So that it is manifest by this, and that which hath been said before, that there were many things done in this Council, yea all that are affirmed to be. And it is called a Council, and a general Council, by Vrspergensis, Paris, Platina, Grantzius, Nauclerus, Beluacensis, and all that I can find that have any way written thereof, except your uncontrowlable self. Besides it hath the allowance of the Holy Catholic Church, the awful spouse of Christ, more true, more wise, more vigilant, and infinitely more reverend than all the sects & Synagogues of Schismatics, & Heretics; & therefore their objections against her, whom they ought to believe and reverence above all things on the earth, especially when they are propounded peremptorily, as these are, are fit to be rejected than to be answered. I conclude with the words of Surius: ᵃ Nemo sanae mentis ambigere potest, hanc quae sequitur Synodum Lateranensem cum primis insignem & vere oecumenicam fuisse, quip in qua de negotiis religionis summa Latinae & Graecae Ecclesiae concordiâ 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 Jerusalem, Galliae, Hispaniae, Angliae, & aliorum. Quodsi 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 ut ea minor sit, sed se dignum reddit, qui eius pondere penitus opprimatur.  
No man well in his wits can doubt, that this Council of Lateran was very famous, and truly general, because therein were handled the matters of Religion, with very great agreement of the Greek and Latin Churches, & wherein were present the Patriarch of Constantinople, and jerusalem, and 70. Archbishops Greeke and Latin, Bishops 412. Abbots and Priors above 800. all the Prelates together were one thousand two hundred and fifteen, or more. Neither were there absent the Ambassadors of the Greek and Roman Emperors, of the kings of jerusalem, France, Spain, England, and others. But if this Council seem to any to have less weight, because it is later, he truly seems to be willing to make Christ a liar, who hath promised his perpetual presence to his Church, and his Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, which remaineth with her for ever? The authority of the Catholic Church doth always abide here, which who soever presumes to despise, he doth not lessen her, but renders himself worthy to be crushed to pieces with her weight.  
And now instead of your proving the Catholic writers liars, and forgers, and the Catholic Church credulous, negligent, and ignorant (which you endeavoured) you have proved yourself, unwise, unlearned, and audacious; and I believe will lose all credit and reputation of integrity, or capacity, in the judgement of all prudent men, of what religion soever they be, that shall read these your unworthy works. But suppose the thing itself were true, that you have laboured for (abstracting the authority to the contrary) to wit, that there had been no Canons made in this Council, yea suppose there had never been any such thing as this Council, what is it to your purpose? What article of our Catholic Faith is thereby canceled? how is your invisible Church of England, or your Chapel in France (where God hath his Church) defended? Not at all, by aught that you have said. No nor by your Mimic acting of the priest in hearing of confessions, (which we perhaps shall hear too, at the third or fourth hand, for as you have no character of priesthood for the hearing of Confessions, so neither have you any sealeupon your lips) whereby though like the asinus apud Cumanos in the lion's skin, you bray & keep some in awe, yet it may be they will be instructed to discover you, and make your vain aspiring the object of their contempt and laughter, as it is of ours, and even of all your fellow reformadoes. Your o●ne conclusion therefore which you discharge against us, recoils upon yourself, nihil ibi actum, quod quidem constet; in all that you have done, it is certain that you have done nothing. And your objections and discourse have in them neither any general counsel, nor (except the Counsel of the ) so much as any counsel at all.  
And now let me tell you, that it were much more for your credit, to forbear such bold braving of the whole Catholic Church, especially in a Catholic Country, and in the Court of a Catholic Queen, and that with such feeble and unschollerly arguments; of which, (were not your judgement eclipsed by partiality, and your passion swelled by opposition, and your overweening conceit of yourself the producer of extraordinary confidence and insolence in you) you could not render yourself guilty. Also your presumptuous and offensive language, even to the Masters of those schools wherein you are not worthy to be a disciple, is sufficiently observed; though co●ered with that patience which you have not deserved; Otherwise, your weakness, or malice, or both, would ere this have been charactered on your brow, had not the hands of our Catholic Priests been bound up with modesty, and charity, and respect to those, who see, suffer, but (I believe approve not your boisterous behaviour. And in this business of writing your shame is laid open with the books you cite, wherein your quotations are not sooner examined, than your corruptions are discovered. If therefore you have not grace enough to become a virtuous Roman Catholic, of which you made show (as there is good proof) when you came first into these parts, yet learn at least to be rational in your discourse, honest in your allegations, and civil in your language, both to particular reverend and learned men, and especially towards the whole Catholic Church. And then if you have a disposition to say or write any more, you shall be answered with solidity, and equal civility.  
And whereas one Mr Crowder hath reported, that I have renounced the book I lately set forth, and will not stand to it; and that Doctor Holden who approved it for Catholic, hath also refused to justify it; or words to this purpose; and giveth this for his reason, why he doth not publish the answer which he and his Coadjutors (as it is said) have framed thereunto: which is indeed but a retreat for their inability to answer it; I say, it is false in him whosoever saith it, and malicious in him that invented it. And I further profess to him and to the world, that (notwithstanding the slanders to the contrary) I do avow the said book for mine, and for Catholic, 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 thereunto, they shall not lose their labour, they shall have a reply; wherein I make no question their weakness shall be made to appear, as herein appeareth the weakness of D. Cousins.    
FINIS.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
IF D. Cousins, or any one on his behalf, shall say that I have not here, set down truly what he wrote; whosoever desires to be satisfied therein, may if he please see the original under his own hand, which is in my keeping. And although his name be not set to it, yet every one that knows his hand, will grant he wrote it, and the Countess of Denbigh by whose order I received it, said that it was delivered to her by Doctor Cousins. Which paper, and others of his also (he inwardly shrinking at his own guilt) hath mightily laboured to recall into his own hands, that so there might remain no handwriting of his own against him; but it was not fit that one of his temper should find so much favour, but that they should remain upon the perpetual registry of time, by being committed to the press; seeing he hath deserved to have part of the divine handwriting against him, that was against the blasphemous Baltazar; THEKEL, Thou art weighed in a balance, and art found too light.