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 5.25.  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 ad id 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 sua 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, quaestuosum Concilium dissoluit gratis, totusque 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 meaning 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 aperté potuit, is very probable; for than he would rather have said, nec decerni quicquam potuit, absolutely; but his qualification 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 tending 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 ● Vol. 2. ●. 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 Historiae minor, I cannot meet with it, and in the volume of his whole works both mayor and minor, set forth lately by D. Wat's 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 alleged out of him,) read 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 Parts ingenium, animique male compositi malam sententiam, res fingere, verbaque formare indigna Romano Pontifice, & ab hoc uno tam patenti mendacio caetera discas, & caveas vide asque 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, laudanerit, 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. 915.  & 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 Barchinonensem, quo adiutore in compilando libro Decretalium, Gregorius usus est, ita quidam tàm laudant, 
So say the Annal Eccles post Baron tom 13. p. 439 XV.  ut maiori commendatione laudari nemo possit. 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. Tria 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. Eccles. 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 Concil. 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 it 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 greatest 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, Concilia quae in Ecclesia à temporibus Apostolorum usque ad concessum Basiliensem celebrata potuerunt coaceruari, 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, unde haec 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 (confide) 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 is 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 several 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; Bartholomeus Laurens Novimagensis, Lectori; the beginning of the Epistle this. Haec sunt quae ex Archetypo illo cuius supra mentio fit, lectu adeo difficili, summo labore descripsimus; quae si cui grata & 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 sedulo curatum est, ne quicquam ei ab Archetypo alienum ingeri posset. 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 beforehand 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 years 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 favoured, 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 a session 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. Devoluatur 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 as to 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 the world, 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 theynow 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 Ioachim 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 himfelse. 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 
a Beluac. l. 30 hist. cap. 64.  Beluacensis, 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 in literis 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. Bellarmine 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 Christendom. 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 hist. ma. 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 Annal. ●. 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 Domino prolata sunt, panis & vinum in corpus & sanguinem Christi verè transubstantiantur. Also by Blesensis, who was king Henry the second his chaplain, who saith 
c Blesens. p. 140.  Et ut gratia exempli, in uno Sacramentorum videas 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 the 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 then, 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 interucene 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. 833.  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. l. 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 misit pro se Vicarium, Anthedarensem Episcopum: Alexandrinus vero sub Saracenorum dominio constitutus, fecit quod potuit, mittens pro se Diaconum suum Germanum; Primates autem & Metropolitam 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 was 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 concordia tractatum est, cuique interfuere Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, & Hierosolymitanus, & Archiepiscopi tum Lani tum Graeci 70. Episcopi 412. Abbates & Priores plus 800. simul omnes Praelati 1215. aut eo plures. Nec defuere Legati Graeci & Romani Imperatoris, Regum Jerusalem, Galliae, Hispaniae, Angliae, & aliorum. Quod si verò ea cuiquam propterea minus ponderis habere videatur, quod recentior sit, ille certè Christum mendacem facere velle videtur, qui perennem praesentiam suam promisit Ecclesiae suae, & Spiritum sanctum suum, Spiritum veritatis, qui cum illa maneat in aeternum. Manet sua semper Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas, quam quisquis contemnere ausus est, non ille efficit 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 seal vpon 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 own 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 covered 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.   

ERRATA.  
● 15. in the margin oner against the ● line, put, pag. 877. C. p. 16. This quotation in the margin [vol. 2. p. ●15.] place it six lines higher. p. 39 ●. 24. after see it, add, or seeing it. p. 40. l, 19 for yea. read, yet. p. 52. l. 12. for explication, read, duplication. p. 60. l. 3. before expressed, read, is p. 64. l. 14. after unionis, add, & in divers other Counsels. p. 66. l. 13. after intention of it, add, but of the execution, which was not certain, nor likely; and for but read because. p. 68 l. 10 after iniustus draw a little line. p. 91 l. 10. after be add, done. p. 93. l. 23. for here, read hers.