hereunto nor oppose any impediment Now this power of the Pope whatsoeuer it be is farre from that which your confused words insinuate which to your weaker readers I suppose will sound as if the Pope had power to absolue the subiects of any kings from their fidelity and dispose of their kingdomes when to whom and for what cause so euer they pleas'd which is nothing so Yet if this power of the Popes were so vast as you belieue it or would haue others to belieue it why should it trouble you And why should you be more tender of the interest of Princes than they themselues and all their courts about them who either receiued this Canon immediatly from the Councell as I haue sayd and proued or else suffered it to be coseningly thrust vpon them as you haue sayd but not proued And I wonder that you a Protestant should fasten vpon this decree of deposing of Princes by the Pope to make the decrees of this Councell odious and incredible when as it is well knowne that the Popes in sixteene hundred yeeres haue not deposed so many as Protestants in one hundred for almost whersoere the gangrene of that heresy hath spread it selfe they haue either actually deposed and expelled their Princes as in Swede Denmarke Scotland Netherlands Geneua or diuers times attēpted by violence to doe it as in France often in Bohemia in Poland and now it is feared in England And if you say that though these Puritane Protestants haue both taught and done these things yet the true Protestant of the Church of England he neuer taught such doctrine he cānot thinke such a thought without horror surely wee haue nothing but your bare and often broken word for our security For what experience hath the king or his few predecessors of your religion had that in case they should haue depriued you of your desires as they denyed to graunt the desires of the Puritanes if they should haue turned you out of your Bishoppricks and Deaneries taken from you the Church vsurped Liuings set vp a religion that would not haue endured wiuing preachers what experience haue they had that in these or the like cases your Protestants of the Church of England would not attempt their destruction and if they were able lay the axe on their necks as your Supreme Gouuernour of your Church of England Queene Elizabeth and her instruments did on the necke of the renowned Mary Queene of Scotland and Dowager of France Can you then thinke much that the Pope a person of an other quality and more dis-interessed than the subiects of Princes should haue some kinde of power by all conuenient wayes to reduce and correct hereticall Princes Especially seeing the Emperours Kings and Princes gaue their votes vnto this Decree and were for so much as concerned themselues the makers thereof But you will not belieue that this decree was made in the Councell but thinke that you haue proued the contrary My aduice then is that you acquaint the Kings and Princes on this side the seas with this strange cheat that is put vpon them it is like to be a matter of high acceptation to them of great reproach to their vnfaithfull seruants that would not discouer that which you haue done and of great prayse and preferment to your selfe You further obiect against the Act of the expedition for the recouery of the Holy Land which you call the 71. Canon but no body else doth so that I know because it runnes say you in a Popes stile not in the stile of à Councell By which I perceiue that though you are one of the Court yet you are none of the Councell for you are not skild in the stiles of Popes and Councells Otherwise you would haue knowne that it is the manner in those Councells where the Pope himselfe is present to decree things in his name with this addition sacro approbante Concilio as in the Councell of Florence in literis vnionis euen as Acts of Parliament of England are made in the kings name with the aduice or consent of the two houses You say moreouer that Card. Bellarmine and Eudaemon Cidonius doe confesse out of Platina that there was no such decree made Your Eudaemon Cidonius I cannot meet with heere nor is it much materiall for that answer which serues your quotation of Bell will serue him also seeing as you say it is both their confessions out of Platina For the finding of your citatiōs out of Bell you vse vs very ill giuing vs no direction but a booke of perhaps twenty leaues in folio to finde out twēty words which whē wee haue found to recōpence our paynes we finde your mistake and falshood For Bellarm. doth not speake directly of the particular chapter of the expedition whether that were made in the Councell or no but of the buisinesse of the Holy Warre in generall de hoc articulo cū multa disputata fuissent nihil certi definiri potuit and there is a difference sure betwixt nihil certi and nihil omnino nothing certaine and nothing at all as you would haue it And I suppose this nihil certi is meant in regard of the further and more particular managing of the warre from which they were hindred by the present warre in Christēdome and which is no denyall of the Decree of the expedition which consists of a few generall heads concerning the raysing of contributions to this great worke from the clergy wherein the Pope himselfe gaue a great example of punishments on those that hindred it and indulgence to them that aduanced it with the like All which though they were vndoubtedly decreed yet it may be sayd with Bell out of Platina that after much disputation there was nothing certaine defined in regard of the neerer and more particular articles for the managing of the warre being put frō it by the present warre in Christendome Yea it might be sayd nihil certi in regard of this decree it selfe not of the letter and intention of it but of the wars at home yea rather the contrary was certaine namely that it was not executed And if Platina or Bellarmine out of him had intended to exclude this Decree of the expedition which is all that wee affirme to be done in that kinde why did they expresse it with these reseruations of apertè and certi and not say directly and without limitation nihil as you doe which had beene more plaine and agreeable to the grauity of those writers Therfore by these reseruations they must needs intend some thing which as I conceiue is that which I haue expressed Howsoeuer certaine wee are that this Decree was made in the Councell by all that proofe whereby wee haue proued the whole Councell of which this is a part and particularly because you heere make a particular obiectiō against it by Matth. Paris who intimateth so much by repeating a Matth. Paris hist ma. p. 189. the substance of this very Decree in
almost as many words as they are in the Councell which are too long to set downe heere Your further say that he that made these two decrees of absoluing subiects from obedience to their Princes and of recouering the land of Promise from the Saracens may well be thought to haue made the decree of Transubstantiation also And you say truth in that but it will not helpe you for Pope Innocent made them all but sacro approbante Concilio that is the whole Councell consisting of the Pope and the rest of the Prelats decreed them Nor haue you reason so to boggle at the word Transubstantiation or at this Councell for the word seeing the thing knew no beginning since our Sauiour as our Catholique bookes doe sufficiently proue and euen the word it selfe was in vse before this Councell as appeareth by Roger Houenden in Henrico 2. where he hath these words b Annal. ◠576 Confessi sunt etiam quod Sacerdos noster bonus siue malus iustus vel iniustus corpus sanguinem Christi posset conficere perministerium huiusmodi Sacerdotis virtutem diuinorum verborum quae à Domino prolata sunt panis vinum in corpus sanguinem Christi verè transubstantiantur Also by Blesensis who was king Henry the second his Chaplayne who saith c Blesens p. 140. Et vt gratia exempli in vno Sacramentorum videas abyssum profundissimam humano sensui imperceptibilem pane vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum caelestium in corpus sanguinem Christi c. Both these wrote in the dayes of Henry the second and the Councell of Lat. was held in the dayes of king Iohn who raigned the second after him And in both these good English authors doe wee finde the word transubstantiated applyed to the bread wine chāged into the body bloud of Christ nor doe wee finde in any story that these men were questioned for the vse of these words as if they did import any thing more in their sense than that which was the generall beliefe of that and the foregoing ages It is not therfore the Decree of transubstantiation made in this Councell afterwards which hath made such a noyse in the world as you say it hath but the heretiques and Schismatiques that haue opposed it Nor was this Coūcell for this decrees sake called Maximū omniū generale celeberrimum but because it was summoned by the Pope frō all parts of the Christian world and there met together the greatest and most renowned assembly both of Clergy and Laity that euer was in the world which therfore it ill becomes you to deride In fine the three particular decrees you heere oppose but haue proued nothing against them are first inserted into the Decretalls which was done by Pope Gregory IX not many yeeres after the Councell was held who therein vsed the seruice of one of the best men of the world as I haue proued before Secondly they are put into the number of the Canons of this Councell by Crab who as I haue also proued tooke them out of the Originall Records Thirdly they are also reckoned amongst the rest of the Canons by all others that haue made edition of this Councell as Surius Binius and whosoeuer else Lastly they are receiued and allowed by the Catholique Church the strongest testimony of all others and doe you thinke to ouerthrow them Who is sufficient for this he therfore that attempts it deserues the name of haereticorum maximus omnium generalis celeberrimus In the next place you inuade vs with an Arithmeticall argument but when I haue reckoned with you it will appeare that you are not a man of good account for thus you cast it C. But as it should seeme he that first composed it and stiled it so or afterwards set it forth and entituled it a Generall Councell had not his lesson perfect For betweene the seuenth and the eighth Generall Councell I trow there cannot another Generall Councell interueene as this notwithstanding is made to doe if it were so Great and so Generall as they say it is They count the second of Nice for the seuenth Generall which was held in the yeare 787. and the Councell of Florence held in the yeare 1449. for the eighth Generall as is there in the last session of it expressly set downe Finis octaui Concilii Generalis factus est 21. Iulii c. So that vnlesse they will make two eight generall Councells this of Lateran could be none ANSWER You passe from the matter of this Councell to disproue the title therof and say he that entituled it a generall Councell had not his lesson perfect and that because as you say they count the second of Nice for the seuenth generall Councell and the Councell of Florence for the eighth betweene the seuēth and the eighth there cannot another interueene as this is made to doe if it were so great and so generall as they say it is Truly if he that published this Councell had had his lesson no perfecter than he that made these obiections he deserued to be whipt for a trewant for neuer were there such idle obiections made I pray who are these they that account the Councell of Florēce the eighth generall Councell your reader cannot but thinke you meane vs Roman Catholiques against whom you heere dispute and whom you would make to appeare so simple that they cannot tell eight But it is not the Roman account I trow that you heere follow but the schismaticall Grecian who yet will giue you no more thankes for it nor no more admitt you a member of their Church than will the Catholiques You must know then if you did not before that the eighth generall Councell was celebrated in Constantinople against Photius who made a schisme betweene the Latin and Greeke Church they of the schisme reiected this eighth and many other generall Councells which were celebrated in the west amōgst which this fourth of Lateran you so strongly and weakly fight against was one vntill the Grecians meeting againe with the Latins in the Councell of Florence the Grecians called that the eighth generall Councell which yet soone after they reiected and so at this day allow but seuen But if men may receiue and reiect Councells at their pleasure then you may with the Lutherans allow but six with the Eutychians which are yet in Asia but the first three with the Nestorians which are yet in the East but the first two with the Arrians and Trinitarians which are in Hungary and Poland none at all And this you and yours may doe with as good reason as they doe reiect and reuile this of Lateran and aboue all the sacred Oecumenicall Councell of Trent And that you may againe fall into the fault of which you falsely accuse others you are out in your computation of the yeeres of the holding of the Councell of Florence but this I doe not mention as a matter of moment it
of priesthood for the hearing of Confessions so neither haue you any seale vpoÌ„ your lippes wherby though like the asinus apud Cumanos in the lioÌ„s skin you bray keepe some in awe yet it may be they will be instructed to discouer you and make your vayne aspiring the obiect of their contempt and laughter as it is of ours and euen of all your fellow reformadoes Your owne conclusion therfore which you discharge against us recoyles vpon your selfe nihil ibi actum quod quideÌ„ constet in all that you haue done it is certaine that you haue done nothing And your obiections and discourse haue in them neither any generall counsell nor except the Counsell of the vngodly so much as any counsell at all And now let mee tell you that it were much more for your credit to forbeare such bold brauing of the whole Catholique Church especially in a Catholique Country and in the Court of a Catholique Queene and that with such feeble and vnschollerly arguments of which were not your iudgment ecclipsed by partiality and your passion swelld by opposition and your ouerweening conceipt of your selfe the producer of extraordinary confidence and insolence in you you could not render your selfe guilty Also your presumptuous and offensiue language euen to the Masters of those schooles wherein you are not worthy to be a disciple is sufficiently obserued though couered with that patience which you haue not deserued Otherwise your weakenesse or malice or both would ere this haue beene characterd on your brow had not the hands of our Catholique Priests beene bound vp with modesty and charity and respect to those who see suffer but I belieue approue not your boysterous behauiour And in this buisinesse of writing your shame is layd open with the bookes you cite wherein your quotations are not sooner examined than your corruptions are discouered If therfore you haue not grace enough to become a vertuous Roman Catholique of which you made shew as there is good proofe when you came first into these parts yet learne at least to be rationall in your discourse honest in your allegations and ciuill in your language both to particular reuerend and learned men and especially towards the whole Catholique Church And then if you haue a disposition to say or write any more you shall be answered with solidity and equall ciuility And whereas one Mr Crowder hath reported that I haue renounced the booke I lately set forth and will not stand to it and that Doctor Holden who approued it for Catholique hath also refused to iustify it or words to this purpose and giueth this for his reason why hee doth not publish the answer which he and his Coadiutors as it is sayd haue framed thereunto which is indeed but a retreate for their inability to answer it I say it is false in him whosoeuer saith it and malicious in him that inuented it And I further professe to him and to the world that notwithstanding the slanders to the contrary I doe auow the sayd booke for mine and for Catholique and so doth Doctor Holden And if he or any or all his fellow Ministers will publish any thing that they will call an answer thervnto they shall not loose their labour they shall haue a reply wherein I make no question their weaknesse shall be made to appeare as herein appeareth the weaknesse of D. Cosens FINIS POSTSCRIPT IF D. Cosens or any one on his behalfe shall say that I haue not heere set downe truly what he wrote whosoeuer desires to be satisfied therein may if he please see the originall vnder his owne hand which is in my keeping And although his name be not set to it yet euery one that knowes his hand will grant he wrote it and the Countesse of Denbigh by whose order I receiued it sayd that it was deliuered to her by Doctor Cosens Which paper and others of his also he inwardly shrinking at his owne guilt hath mightily laboured to recall into his owne hands that soe there might remayne no handwriting of his owne against him but it was not fit that one of his temper should finde so much fauour but that they should remayne vpon the perpetuall registry of time by being committed to the presse seeing he hath deserued to haue part of the diuine handwriting against him that was against the blasphemous Baltazar THEKEL Thou art weighed in a ballance and art found too light ERRATA â— 15. in the margent oner against the â— line put pag. 877. C. p. 16. This quotation in the margent vol. 2. p. â—15 place it six lines higher p. 39. â— 24. after see it adde or seeing it p. 40. l 19. for yea read yet p. 52. l. 12. for explication read duplication p. 60. l. 3. before exprest read is p. 64. l. 14. after vnionis adde in diuers other Councells p. 66. l. 13. after intention of it adde but of the execution which was not certaine nor likely and for but read because p. 68. l. 10 after iniustus draw a little line p. 91 l. 10. after bee adde done p. 93. l. 23. for here read hers
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
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
himselfe should afterwards write a preface to another mans edition of the same Councell But suppose this coniecture you mention to wit that these decrees were collected and brought into this forme he presents them by Pope Innocent himselfe some while after the Councell was done be some where to be found what excuse is this I pray or what doth it excuse If the coniecture be true it confimes the whole cause against you namely that all these decrees were made in the Councell if it be false it is nothing But you draw cōsequences from hence which are certainly most pittifull and inconsequent with which while you thinke to strengthen your cause you doe weaken the credit of your owne vnderstanding You say what reader will like it well that the decrees of a Councell should be written some while after the Councell is ended And I say what reader but your captious selfe will dislike it Indeed if the decrees of the Councell had beene written some while before the Councell began you might iustly haue asked who would haue liked it but to aske who will like that they should be written afterwards is most ridiculous But you suppose because it is sayd in the coniecture you alleadge that they were collected and digested into the forme they are in after the Councell was done that therfore they were not written in any forme no not at all in the Councell it selfe to which purpose you say that it was alwayes the vse of Councells to write their owne decrees and to signe them too as very pertinently you adde before they went away intimating hereby that they did not so in this Councell and your reason is because Pope Innocent did collect them into the forme they now are in some while after the Councell was done Surely you did not consider what all impartiall men would conceiue of your ability seeing you make such an inference as this so poore that few in the world would haue made themselues guilty of the like And I demand of all the world whether the decrees of the Councell could not be written and signed too by and in the Councell and yet be brought into this forme or method wherein theynow are by Pope Innocent some while after euery one that hath but common sense will conclude against you Yea his collecting and putting them into a forme some while after is à proofe cleane contrary to what you inferre namely that they were written some where and in some forme or other before For otherwise from whence should Pope Innocent collect these decrees out of his memory that is most improbable Collection imports not the inuenting or making them but the gathering of them out of some Records or other and out of the originall it is most likely if he gathered them at all that he tooke his collection seeing he liued in the time and place of this Councell and was present and president therein Your argument then is no better than this The Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles were collected and brought into a forme written and printed againe and againe after the first writers were dead and gone therfore they were not at first written by themselues or their assignes You further labour to assoyle Pope Innocent from the guilt of forging these Decrees for you take it for graunted that they were forged and Cochlaeus you are most constant to for the man that forged them because Pope Innocent was not so weake ascribe you say to make the Synode quote it selfe Wherein you might well haue spared your paynes for Quis quaeso vnquam vituperauit Herculem who I pray euer accused Pope Innocent hereof you thinke Cochlaeus doth because he coniectures as you say that these Decrees were collected and brought into this forme by Pope Innocent after the Councell was dissolued as if to collect decrees and bring them into some or other forme after the dissolution of the Councell were all one as to forge them A conceipt surely vnworthy of any iudicious man Innocēt the Pope you say and truly was not so weake a Scribe as to make the Synod quote it selfe he knew well enough what belonged to it Yet so vnhappy are you that you cannot support this truth which no body puts you to by denying but by affirming a greater falshood namely that this Councell doth cite it selfe But if you had beene so good a Scribe as to haue knowne aswell what belongeth to the making of obiections against a Councell as Pope Innocent did the stile of Councells you would I thinke haue kept your owne counsell and beene more silent in this matter But you goe on and say C. Wee had best therfore belieue Platina non est decretum ibi quicquam non potuit ibi decerni quicquam Improbauit Innocentius ipse Abbatis Ioachim libellum damnauit ipse Almericum He sayes It was not the Councell of Lateran that made any decrees to condemne them but that Pope Innocent condemned them himfelse And 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 those Canons whoeuer he was that compiled them into the forme of a Councell ANSWER You say wee had best therfore belieue Platina which I graunt wee may doe but not your sense of his words which I haue already refuted But what degree of trust soeuer wee yeeld vnto Platina himselfe I am sure wee had best giue none vnto you in your citation of Platina who haue wronged both him and vs in all that you haue heere alleadged All that he sayes is what you brought and is answered in the beginning nec decerni tamen quicquā apertè potuit insteed whereof you make him say non est decretum ibi quicquā nō potuit ibi decerni quicquā wherein besides the explicatiō and chāge of the words you leaue out the mayne word apertè which changeth the whole sense Platina saith nothing could be decreed openly you alleadge him saying there was not nor could be any thing at all decreed whereas the decreeing of nothing openly doth imply that something was decreed though not openly and for the meaning of Platina's words I referre the reader to the first paragraph where I shew that these words of Platina were spoken with relation to the businesse of the Holy warres and not concerning the decrees of this Councell And as heere you leaue out a word to the corrupting of the sense so in the following words which you alleadge as if they were placed in Platina as they are in you and were a further proofe of the same assertion whereas they haue no connexion together in sense and are aboue a dozen lines asunder you put in a word which is the very hindge on which the sense is turned and turned contrary to the assured truth thereof and that is the word Ipse he himselfe as if the condemnation of Almericus and the booke of Ioachim had