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
AN ANSVVER TO A LIBELL WRITTEN BY D. COSENS AGAINST THE GREAT Generall Councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent the third Wherein the many and great errors of the said D. Cosens are manifested to the world By THOMAS VANE Doctor in Diuinity of Cambridge 2. Tim. 3.13 But euill men and seducers shall waxe worse and worse deceiuing and being deceiued Printed at PARIS Anno Dom. 1646. With Permission Approbation TO THE MOST NOBLE AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED Gentleman Sr KENELME DIGBY KNIGHT c. SIR I doe not dedicate this crauing your protection thereof against calumny and censure the greatest Princes I know cannot doe it yea their owne persons are not censure-proofe against the meanest varlets Nor hereby to engage you to any fauour or defence thereof beyond the direction of your owne iudgment your free minde I know disdaynes to stoope to such a lure and mine to cast it out Let the booke suffer its owne fate for so it will hee that finds fault with it let him tell mee so and if I cannot defend it I will acknowledge the error Nor to take occasion to flatter you you are aboue it and impossible attempts vanish euen in the vndertaking Nor yet to pay you your due prayse I am below it and Fame her selfe dischargeth that debt borrowing the tongues of all men for her helpe But to testifie the honour I beare you for your transcendent worth in your selfe and the gratitude for your great fauours to mee It wants proportion I confesse to either which proceeds from my pouerty of materialls but as small pictures compar'd with greater tables so this being all I haue to offer may present mee as liuely though not so largely SIR Your most humble and obliged seruant THO. VANE TO THE READER READER Doctor Cosens since his coming into these parts hath writtē diuers papers against the Catholique doctrine and beliefe and hath shewed them or deliuered the substance of thē in discourse to diuers persons thereby to draw them or keepe them from the Catholique Communion who not hauing ability or leisure to examine their truth I beleeue thought better of them than they deserued These papers of his came afterwards into the hands of seuerall Catholiques and each one answered that which hee hapned on or which was if any was more particularly addressed to him which is the reason that hee hath more answerers than one though to them all any one was more than enough Amongst his papers this against the fowrth Councell of Lateran came to my hands to which I soone after returned a briefe answer and so the matter rested but hearing since that hee and some that thinke well of him haue triumphed in these his workes as though hee had gayned great victories that I might vndeceiue them for so much as I vndertooke if at least they will suffer it and to informe all others that please to reade 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 hee thought fit to print what hee hath written in answer to Doctor Cosens could perhaps discouer more corruptions of his than we haue done But heere are more than enough to warrant vs to say of him as a 1. kings 5.25 Abigal said of Nabal for by his deeds he makes true the significatiō of his name and that they that rely on him will bee like those that leane on a broken reedy staffe which will run into their hands and wound insteed of supporting them D.C. OF THE GREAT GENErall Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius the third said to bee Maximum celeberrimum Concilium Anno Domini 1215. MAXIMVM for the number of eight hundred Priors and Abbots who had no voyces in Councells but by priuiledge from the Pope was as great againe as the number of the Bishops Celeberrimum for it was euery where famous for this one thing of speciall note in it that so many men met together to no purpose met but did nothing Therfore of this so Great and so famous a Councell these be the words of Platina who was the Popes owne 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 liued in the same time when this Councell 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 betweene 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 voyce in Councell but by priuiledge from the Pope was as great againe as the number of the Bishops T is true that it was iustly called maximum partly for this reason though not for this only for the number of voyces not only of Bishops who haue their suffrages by common right but euen of Abbots and Priors who haue theirs by the Popes grant doth mainly contribute to the greatnesse of a Coūcell Yet suppose the greatnesse of this Councell be to be measured by the nūber of Bishops only how many can there be named greater but very few in the world and therfore it may well be called Maximum And Celeberrimum also not that so many met together but did nothing as you say but because there were present the Pope in person two Patriarchs in person and the other two by their Legats the Greeke and Roman Emperours by their Legats the Ambassadours of the kings of France Spaine England Hierusalem and Cyprus with others as I shall proue anon But if to be famous for doing nothing and for being to no purpose deserue the title of Celeberrimum these goodly obiections when they are well knowne will iustly beare that title on their brow You further tell vs that Platina whose words you cite was the Popes owne Secretary and you doe it either to no purpose or else to insinuate that therfore hee was more knowing in the truth of the story or the more faithfull historian or both For the former it had indeed beene likely if hee
in carpendis Rom. Eccles Pontificibus And therfore his accusation of the Pope for exacting a great summe of mony of the Councell first as it is impertinent to your buisinesse for his couetounsesse could not nullifie the Canons of the Councell so also is it most vnlikely to be true because Paris 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 quouis genere vitae probatissimum fuisse dignumque qui inter Sanctos Pontifices censeatur And againe in the next words to those you cite cuius vita adeo probata fuit vt post eius mortem nihil eorum quae in vita egerit laudanerit improbaueritque immutatum est The same also saith Nauclerus and adds quin religionis apprimè studiosus But you are glad to cite any thing to the disparagement of à Pope though there be no colour of truth for it Now that nothing at all was done in this Councell which is the mayne matter you driue at e Vol. 2. p. 915. for which you haue misinterpreted the meaning of Platina and Paris is very vntrue Which I proue first by the authority of Gregory IX who liued in the time of this Councell and was created Pope but about eleuen yeares after and commanded the Decrees should be put in the body of the Canon law wherein hee vsed the seruice of Raymundus of whom Platina thus writeth e In vita Greg. IX fine Raymundum autem Barchinonensem quo adiutore in compilando libro Decretalium Gregorius vsus est ita quidam tà m laudant So say the Annal Eccles post Baron tom 13. p. 439 XV. vt maiori commendatione laudari nemo possit And Binius in the life of the sayd Gregory IX saith that this Raymundus was Canonized by Clement VIII Secondly S. Thom. 4. sent dist 17. q 3. art 1 ad tertiam I proue it by the testimony of the greatest Diuines of that age S. Thomas and S. Bonauenture who speaking of the precept of yearly confession S Bonau 4. sent dist 17 q. 2. arg 3. say that the Church did institute it and the Fathers command it in this Councell Thirdly by the testimony of the Councell of Trent which speaking of the same Decree calls it Conc. Tria sess 14 can 8. the constitution of the great Lateran Councell And that the Acts of this Councell were alwayes extant and are not counterfait appeares in that they now are and haue beene in the body of the Canon law euer since the time of Greg IX who commanded them to be inserted and f Annal. Eccles post Baron tom 13. anno 1234. XV. anno 1234. which were but nineteene yeares after the Councell approued the collection Neither could any man haue meanes to know the truth of the Canons better than hee the Councell hauing beene held not long before by his vncle in that citty where hee being Pope could command the sight of all the monuments and many were still aliue who had beene present in the Councell celebrated but nineteene yeares before the publishing of these Canons knew therfore what was done in it better than those who were further remoued either in time as Platina was or in place as was Matthew Paris if they had as you suppose said any thing against it Nor was it likely that Pope Gregory either would or could haue obtruded them before the eyes of such great Prelats and Princes for decrees made in Councell had they not beene so indeed Nor would the Church the things there determined soe much concerning her nor they who did soe much emulate her proceedings haue beene silent had such a thing beene attempted Lastly I proue that there were Canons made in this Councell yea and that those Canons were receiued in England a thing which you deny towards the end of your discourse by a f Matth. Paris hist ma. anno 1222. generall Coūcell so it is stiled of England held at Oxford by Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare 1222. which was but seuen yeares after this of Lateran and about 12. yeares before the Canons therof were put into the Decretalls by Gregory IX where towards the end it is said g Binij Cōcil tom 7. part 2.2 fol. 833. Vt autem omnia fine bono concludantur Lateranense Concilium sub sanctae recordationis Papa Innocentio celebratum in praestatione decimarum in aliis capitulis praecipimus obseruari But this is not all you haue to say against this Councell C. There be many things besides which may make vs iustly to suspect the authority of this pretended great Councell For first before Cochlaeus put it forth it was neuer extant and it was but lately neither that hee put it forth in the yeare 1538. Three yeares before whē Merlin put forth the Councells there was no such Councell that hee met withall 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 Luthers life tells vs 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 It is most likely that antient booke was no other but the booke of the Popes Decretalls where those things that are said by him to be decreed in this Councell are heere and there scattered in seuerall places Those scatterings I belieue did Cochlaeus or some other collect together and made vp one body of them in manner and forme of a Councell But so ill-fauored a forme hath hee giuen it that often it betrayeth it selfe not to be genuine and taken out of any authenticke coppy ANSWER You further say that there are many things besides which may make you iustly suspect the authority of this pretended great Councell as you are pleased to call it I easily belieue that there are many things that make you not only to suspect but flatly to reiect the authority of this and many other Generall Councells but none iustly But it is not the authority of this Generall Councell which is the same in all but the verity of the Canons and Decrees therof you would haue sayd and the authority of thē that affirme those Decrees that you with so much sagacity suspect And if you thinke the Councell and the Canons thereof but pretended which are acknowledged true by the voyce of all the Catholiques of the world what shall make them to be accounted reall or shall the voyce of one pretended Deane diminish their reality And if you thinke this Councell but pretendedly Great which consisted of the greatest number of the greatest persons both Ecclesiasticall and secular that euer met together in the world I must needs thinke that the common
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
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