haue put you below all suspition But it so falling out that the Councells were printed at seuerall times by the care of seuerall men the later they were printed the more meanes had the publisher to make further search and to enforme himselfe out of the Manuscripts more fully as wee find that in all editions of bookes the latest if the publisher apply due diligence are most full most pure and most correct I hope you will not say that the late edition of S. Chrysostome by Sr. Henry Sauill is therfore the more suspitious So that heere is neither truth in the grounds of your suspition nor reason that this last should be any ground though it were true You say moreouer that Cochlaeus sayes that hee had the Decrees of this Councell out of an antient booke but where hee got that booke or who first compiled it or of what authority it was hee tells vs nothing at all And you adde your coniecture as weake as your former suspition that it is most likely that that booke was the Popes Decretalls where the supposed Canons of This Councell are scattered in seuerall places Concerning Cochlaeus I can say nothing seeing I cannot meet as I said before with this his worke that you cite but I will fauour you so farre as to suppose you say true thē cōsider the purpose of it which indeed is none at all But for that hee had it out of an ancient booke is much to his purpose which booke I will be bold to coniecture seeing you are so for your liking was the very Originall of the Councell it selfe and where hee got it is impertinent for you to demand And for this my coniecture I will giue you good ground this that in Crabs edition of the Councells I finde an Epistle to the Reader before the beginning of this Councell the title wherof is this Bartholomeus Laurens Nouimagensis Lectori the beginning of the Epistle this Haec sunt quae ex Archetypo illo cuius supra mentio fit lectu adeo difficili summo labore descripsimus quae si cui grata vtilia fuerint primum gratias agat Deo qui horum qualecunque exemplar hucusque seruauit deinde F. Petro Crab qui hoc ipsum vt inter Cōcilia ederetur procurauit And this perhaps is the preface which you mention hereafter and ascribe to Cochlaeus for other I finde not But whose soeuer it was it proues thus much that this Councell which was first published that I can find by Peter Crab was taken out of the Original Record than which there can be no better authority and so hee saith againe in the body of his Epistle certè in editione hac sedulo curatum est ne quicquam ei ab Archetypo alienum ingeri posset And in this edition is the Decree of the expeditiō and the others which in particular you hereafter seeke to nullifie wherby those obiections are beforehand answered yet I will say more when I come to them But suppose the Decrees of this Councell had beene taken out of the Popes Decretalls the originall being lost as were the Canons of the first Councell of Nice which makes so much vncertainty about the number of thē into which they were inserted as I shewed before by Gregory the ninth but a few yeares after they were made in seuerall places according to the seuerall titles to which they were to be referred which you disgracefully call scattering what impeachment is this vnto their credit The Popes Decretalls are a testimony of no small reputation amongst all learned Christians And why I pray scatterings the Decretalls are not a collection of the Councells that so you should expect euery Canon in his order but à digestion of the Canons of all the Councells that pertayne to one matter vnder one head like the collection of the Statutes of England by Rastall and others out of which if one would vndertake to extract all the lawes made in Queene Elizabeths raigne hee must looke perhaps in a hundred seuerall places which yet I thinke you will not call scattering but methodicall digestion But these are the reproaches throwne vpon the chiefe spirituall father of the Christian world by those whom God hath like Symeon and Leui for the cruell schisme they haue made in the Church diuided in Iaacob and scattered in Israel But from whence soeuer the first publisher of this Councell tooke the Canōs thereof certaine it is that they were acknowledged and ascribed to this Councell by a testimony aboue all exception namely of the whole clergy of England in a Councell at Oxford as I haue shewed before that 12. yeares before the booke of the Decretalls was compiled So that from the Decretalls is not the first view that wee haue of the Canons of this Councell You againe repeat and say Those scatterings you belieue Cochlaeus or some other did collect together and made vp one body of them in manner and forme of a Councell But so ill fauoured a forme hee hath giuen it that it often betrayeth it selfe not to be genuine and taken out of any authentique coppie Euen now you sayd without doubt that it was Cochlaeus that set forth this Councell now it was hee or some other and this I must needs grant is very true for if it be set forth certainly it was either by one or another And if it were not Cochlaeus then haue you lost much labour in seeking to poyson his credit herein And if it were some other then is your decrying this Councell by reason of this edition of Cochlaeus of no force for then I affirme that this some other was a man of the greatest credit of all other and so the case is cleere against you out of your owne words and you say nothing heere to impeach the credit of this other which I wonder at for you may aswell speake against you know not whom as say you know not what as you doe in all this discourse You tooke it ill of Cochlaeus that hee did not tell you where hee had that antient booke and haue not wee much more reason to take it ill of you that will not tell vs who it was that first put forth this Coūcell you so much finde fault with nor giue vs any ayme to finde out this editiō you meane written by you know not whom from any other but although you heere fayle vs yet you thinke you come home to vs in that which followes and although you know not who first put forth this Councell and that wee know that both first and last haue done it in the same manner yet without relation to the publisher the very forme of this Councell you say is so ill fauoured that it often betrayeth it selfe not to be genuine and taken out of any authentique coppy Which deepe charge of yours against this Councell will recoyle vpon your selfe and by the ill fauoured forme therof betray it selfe not to be schollerly nor taken out of any
sence and vnderstanding of a man is in you but pretended Doth not Platina the Popes owne Secretary close by the words cited by you say Pontifex apud Lateranum maximum Concilium celebrat And doth not your owne Mathew Paris in the words by you cited say Concilium illud Generale besides many more and better witnesses And can you after all this call it soe scornefully a pretended Great Councell yea no Generall Councell no Councell at all as you doe in the latter end of your pamphlet Surely you are Goliath that defie the whole hoste of Israël yet euery one though as little as Dauid is able to cut of your head with your owne sword Now the grounds of your suspition wherby you would dismount the Canons of this great Councell are so feeble that they shew you are no skilfull enginier Wherof one is because Merlin hath it not in his edition hee could not meet with it to set it forth But this is a poore argument for first wee know that there were many other Councells which Merlin could not meet with which haue since beene put forth and Protestants I thinke will not deny that there were such as the second of Nice fower of Lateran two of Lions one of Vienne and one of Florence and this of Florence was celebrated later than any that hee sets downe and was the last Generall one that was held before his publishing of his booke about fowerscore yeares before it And yet it seemes that hee could not meet with the Records of this Councell or else hee did purposely omit it which is not likely how much more easy then was it for him to misse this of Lateran which was held about 300. yeares before Besides it is manifest that neither the world at that time nor hee himselfe did belieue that hee had set forth all the Councells as appeares by the king of France his Priuiledge at the beginning of his worke and his owne words at the end of his Epistle before the second volume The words of the kings Priuiledge are these Concilia quae in Ecclesia à temporibus Apostolorum vsque ad concessum Basiliensem celebrata potuerunt coaceruari by which it appeares that as they were all that they could then get so they were not absolutely and certainly all that were The words of Merlin himselfe are these Nam si authentica integra solida à mēdis expertia fuerint exēplaria vnde haec fideliter excerpta sunt apprime castigata sunt pura vera sincera quae profero suorū Archetyporū quidem germanam conditionem prae se ferentia quae si grato animo tuleris propediem confide ampliora nostris te sudoribus assecuturum by which it likewise appeares that hee did belieue that there were diuers others which hee had not set downe Now for you to inferre that because hee could not meet with this Councell of Lateran therfore there was none such is a very vniust consequence and is as strong against the eight other aboue named as against this Another ground of your shrewd suspition is because Cochlaeus first put it forth and because hee put it forth but lately soe that you obiect both against the person and against the time For the person of Cochlaeus you say hee was not a man so well to bee trusted and to make that probable you say that hee feigned many things in writing Luthers life Against the time of Cochlaeus his edition you obiect because it was lately set forth to wit in the yeare 1538. three yeares after Merlin set forth his edition of the Councells I will first consider the truth of what you say and then the force therof Concerning Cochlaeus his edition of this or any other Councell I can find nothing but that Bellarmine in his controuersies reckons him amongst such as haue writ of the Councells yet hee doth not reckon it amongst the catalogue of his workes in his booke de Script Eccles nor can I find is heere in Paris Yet taking what you say in this for granted I doe not find that hee was a man lesse to be trusted than Merlin or any other for Bell calleth him Vir doctissimus fidei Catholicae propugnator eximius and therfore you who traduce a man without any proofe are much lesse to be trusted than he yea than any man I know for your many falsifications proued both in this and your other writings As for your saying that hee faigned many things in writing Luthers life that is but a new slander which as you doe not offer to proue so it is impossible you should for how can you know the heart of another mā from whence his faigning must proceed Hee may indeed write that which is false but that hee did so by his owne fiction and not by others misinformation you cannot be assured vnlesse hee himselfe had confessed it which you doe not proue that hee hath Nor doe you proue so much as that hee hath written any thing false of Luther You also suspect Cochlaeus his edition of the Councells in regard of the time because hee set it forth lately And what I pray is lately you say the yeare 1538. which is a hundred and eight yeares agoe Indeed in comparison of the Apostles times it is but lately but in comparison of the inuention of printing which was but about two hundred yeares agoe and according to the ordinary account of schollers in editions of bookes I belieue none will account a booke set forth a hundred and eight yeares agoe a thing lately set forth Much lesse haue you reason to accoūt it so seing you doe not account Merlins so which yet as you say was set out but three yeares before It is a paradox to say Merlin an antient writer in the yeare 1535. Cochlaeus a late writer in the yeare 1538. Can three yeares odds in a hundred and eleuen make one to be called late and therfore to be as you say suspected and not the other Surely if this your argument of latenesse be good against one it is so against both wherby you may according to your prudence suspect all the Councells set forth by Merlin But I will giue your suspition yet more scope for Merlin published the Councells in the yeare 1524. as appeares by the last words of the whole worke so that Cochlaeus his edition was full fourteene yeares after Merlins according to your computation of Cochlaeus And now to turne the poynt of your argument vpon your selfe this laternesse of Cochlaeus is so farre frō being a ground of suspitiō that it is by iust so much a stronger confirmation of the truth and exactnesse of his worke It was but by accident that the Councells were printed at any time they might haue beene let alone till this present yeare or not printed at all would that haue made you suspect the truth of them all it would then haue made the world suspect you for à very weake man or rather
beene the Popes act without the Councell that so you might proue the Councell falsified wherein the sayd acts are recorded to haue passed And then you adde as another saying of Platina or as your construction of the former words of Platina He sayes it was not the Councell of Lateran that made any decrees to condemne them but that Pope Innocent condemned them himselfe But Platina hath neither any such formall words nor are they the meaning of the words he hath for his saying the Pope did condemne them doth not necessarily imply that the Councell of Lateran did not condemne them for it might be done by both either seuerally or together and this latter way it was done as I haue already proued and doe now againe by the testimony of a Beluac l. 30 hist cap. 64. Beluacensis who speaking of this Councell saith that the Abbot Ioachim and Almericus were condemned therein So that you are Ipse He himselfe that haue falsified Platina layd vniust obiections against the Councell of Lateran and apertè manifestly condemned your selfe of fowle play by the euidence of the fact For a close to this section you say wee may well conclude that both these and other things de quibus nihil decerni potuit in Concilio were by the Pope set downe in his owne Decretalls out of which he tooke these Canons whoeuer he was that compiled them into the forme of a Councell Your conclusion is like your premisses there is no truth in either of them both you say that both these and other things I suppose you meane all the Canons ascribed to this Councell were set downe by the Pope in his owne Decretalls that is according to your meaning inuented by the Pope and put first into his Decretalls for if they were first decreed in Councell and afterwards put into the Decretalls it is not for your purpose but against you and that it was so I haue already sufficiently proued and doe yet againe by the title of these constitutions as they are set downe in the Decretalls which are not barely ascribed to the Pope as many others are but to him in a generall Councell thus Innocentius tertius in Concilio generali Wee may therefore well conclude that your conclusion built on your extreme corruption of Platina hauing so rotten a foundation must needs fall to the ground Lastly you say that he tooke them out of the Popes owne Decretalls whoeuer he was that compiled the Canons into the forme of a Councell But I haue proued before that he tooke them out of the originall Records of the Councell and if he had taken them out the Popes Decretalls it had bene well enough those Decretalls not being the Popes owne singly as you haue sayd but the Popes and Councells of Lateran together as I haue many wayes proued So that of all that you haue hitherto sayd there is not one word but is either vntrue or impertinent and to vse your owne words de quibus nihil decerni potest Yet as if you had not sayd enough of this nature you goe on to make faults in steed of finding them as you suppose in others C. For the third Canon of this Councell concerning the excommunication of temporall Princes and the Popes power to free their subiects from all obedience to them and to giue away their kingdomes is indeed one of the Extrauagants cap. 13. de Haereticis that is Pope Innocents owne Decree and not the Councells of Lateran vbi nihil decerni potuit So in the 71. Canon concerning the recouery of the Holy Land from the Saracens for which this Councell was chiefly called and met together the compiler hath made the words to run in a Popes stile and not in the stile of a Councell Ad liberandam terram sanctam de manibus impiorum sacro Concilio approbante definimus c. neither in the Councell was there any such Decree made as both Card. Bellarmine against king Iames's Apologie and Eudaemon Cidonius in his Parall Torti Tortur doe confesse out of Platina He therfore that made these two decrees of absoluing subiects from obedience to their Princes and of recouering the land of promise from the Saracens may well be thought to haue made that decree also of Transubstantiation which hath made such a noyse in the world and for which this Councell is so often quoted vnder the name of Maximum omnium Generale celeberrimum Concilium Answer The third Canon of this Councell concerning the excommunication of temporall Princes you say is one of the Extrauagants cap. 13. de Haereticis but you are very Extrauagant in saying so for there is no such matter in the place by you cited nor indeed any such place as you haue here rashly set downe All that is to be found is this that in the fifth booke of the Extrauagants there is a Title de Haereticis vnder which title are only three chapters and in them not a word of this matter And this for the truth of your quotation I will now consider the sense of what you say and the truth thereof The third Canon say you is one of the Extrauagants that is Pope Innocents owne Decree By which it seemes that it is the same thing with you to be one of the Extrauagants and to be Pope Innocēts owne Decree as if the Extrauagāts were Pope Innocēts owne decrees whereas it is apparāt by the titles to whom they are ascribed that not one of them was made by Pope Innocent so mightily are you mistaken in this matter This Decree then is not Pope Innocents owne and not the Councells of Lateran as you say but Pope Innocents owne and the Councells of Lateran his in and with the Councell of Lateran as I haue proued You also cite your selfe for it is to be found in no authour else against the Councell of Lateran saying vbi nihil decerni potuit where nothing could be decreed against which I oppose besides all that I haue sayd before a man of much better authority Albertus Crantzius who saith a Crantz Metrop l. 9. cap. 1. sect Innoc. 3. Concilium maximum congregauit Lateranum ibi multa constituta quae hodie extant in corpore iuris there many things were decreed which are at this day extant in the body of the law Moreouer the sense of this Canon you doe lamely and with change of the tearmes set downe for there is no mention of kings nor kingdomes and then the Popes absoluing of the vassalls of temporall Lords for those are the words of the Canon from their fidelity to them and exposing their land to be occupied by Catholiques exprest to be but in the case of neglect to purge their land of heresy and continuance therein after excommunication by the Bishops and after a yeeres contempt of making satisfaction and then there is added this reseruation also Saluo iure Domini principalis c. sauing the right of the principall Lord so that he giue no obstacle