Appello Cæsarem A iust appeale from two vniust informers· / By Richard Mountagu.

POINTS OF POPERY IN PARTICVLAR.

CHAP. II.

The Church Representative, and Points Fundamentall, what they are. All that Papists say, is not Popery. Particular Churches have and may erre. The Ca∣tholick universall Church hath not, cannot erre. Of Generall Councels. The Author farre

from the Iesuits fancy. The XXI. Article of the Church of Eng∣land explaned.

INFORMERS.

HE saith, that the Church Representa∣tive, true and lawfull, never yet erred in Fundamentals; and therefore that hee seeth no cause but to avouch, The Church Repre∣sentative cannot ERRE. pag. XLV.

MOUNTAGU.

IN this Accusation are two Propositions distinct, though connexed and dependent: First, The Church Representative, true and lawfull, did never erre in Fundamentals. Se∣condly, The Church Representative, so true and lawfull, cannot erre in Fundamentals. Now, whether Proposition of these two is Poperie? or are both these Propositions, jointly or se∣verally taken, Popery? To explicate the tearms, and draw up to anatomize your confusednes: The Church Representative is a GENERALL COUNCELL; not titularly so, as the Conven∣ticle of Trent; but plenarily true, generall, and lawfull. Points Fundamentall bee such as are immediate unto faith: for instance, the

ARTICLES of our CREED; which only be those Tenents and Points of faith, that have indeed, and so must have, Universality, Anti∣quity, Consent, Knowledge. No man can be saved, that beleeveth them not; no man can be saved, that knoweth them not: which must bee understood de viâ ordinariâ, except that GOD himselfe have disposed otherwise, who may dispense with his owne Ordinances as he will▪ as in case of Infants, Naturals, fran∣tick persons, which through invincible disabi∣lity are extra Censure Ordinariorum. Otherwise the knowledge and beleeving of them is abso∣lutely necessary, and required necessitate medij unto salvation. To say they are Fundamentals, to propose them for Fundamentals, that are thus required, and must bee knowne and ac∣knowledged upon so great and dangerous an exigence, is no Popery, as I conceive; no not in your opinion. The Papists rather are ad op∣positum. For they enlarge their Tenour, make their dignity and degree too common; abu∣sing that honour peculiarly due to them, by promiscuously communicating it unto other points of inferiour rank and reckoning; espe∣cially those XII. new ARTICLES of the Tri∣dentine CREED. Thus, upon explication of the tearms, we come unto the assertion.

It is, belike, Popery to say, that in them, in these Fundamentall Points, A true and lawfull generall Councell never erred de facto, because

(forsooth) Papists say, that a generall Coun∣cell cannot erre. If this were right and regu∣lar, yet first, Bate me an ace. For all is not Po∣pery that Papists say: but what they say as Papists, as a Faction divided, as in particular by themselves, that haply is Popery. All is not Heresie that Hereticks hold: nor is all Purita∣nisme that PURITANS beleeve or maintaine. They hold many things right with the Church of England: but what they hold as PURITANS, that is, as a schismaticall Party divided from, and opposed against the doctrine, or discipline, or both, of the Church of England, that wee may be bold to call so. Semblably wee are to judge of Papists: and so, what is said of Papists, is not presently and indistinctly Pope∣ry; but may be said in terminis by Protestants, and they be never a whit the more any Pa∣pists for so saying.

Againe, to say that this Proposition, A true and lawfull Generall Councell never did Erre, is Popery, cannot sinke into my understanding. For I demand, Quo warranto? hath any Classis, or Consistory of Lay-elders, or others, conclu∣ded it so? It may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mis∣report, an error in Storie, which goeth no far∣ther than unto the thing done or not done. Historicall mistakings, mis-relatings; who made them Poperie? though I professe, I neyther know nor acknowledge any mis-report or er∣ror in point of Story in so saying. Let any

Puritan living shew me where, when, in what any Generall Councell, according to true accep∣tion, or Church representative, hath so erred in the resolution and decisions of that Councell: for in the debating of doubts, questions, pro∣positions, the case is otherwise, and not the same. I conceive and acknowledge but foure Councels of this kinde; that of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon. Shew me in what Fun∣damentall point of Faith any of these Generall Councells have erred. But it is Popery perad∣venture to say, It never was; therefore in all probability it cannot be. If so, then inconse∣quences and Non sequiturs in Logick, are, in your opinion, to be ranged under Points of Popery: and so, by this your assignement, Popery will extend it selfe very farre indeed; farther than ever any POPE or Papist did pretend or claime. And if you will grant the POPE this so universall and transcendent jurisdiction, yet M. MOUNTAGU'S Popery cometh not up so high as unto generality illimited. It cannot bee at all: it insisteth but upon some points onely; and that not by or with a generall vouchee neither, but thus only, I see no cause. Now there may be cause, though I see it not. It may be, though I think, and speake, and write other∣wise, or you eyther, yet both of us may bee deceived.

But somewhat there was which these men intended, and would have said, if so bee they

could have hit upon it. It is a Conclusion of the Romane Schooles, The Church cannot Erre. which Proposition, I may both affirme and deny, as it is proposed. The Church CANNOT Erre. The Church CAN Erre. For first it i•• ambiguous subiectivè; What the Church is, which cannot Erre. The word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and must be distinguished. And secondly we may consider it obiectivè; In what things the Church cannot Erre; and Quous{que}, that Not erring doth reach forth Extensivè: To this purpose, I differenced Churches two wayes: into Topicall or Particular Churches; into Ca∣tholick or Vniversall. I divided also the ob∣jects of erring or not erring, two wayes: in∣to Fundamentalls, or superstructives. For Parti∣cular locall Churches, such as Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatyra, Laodicea, &c. it is in Confesso on both sides, that They may Erre: for it is e∣vident that they have Erred, both in inferiour and in higher points of Faith. And so have Erred oftentimes, that through their Erring in Fundamentalls in that sort, they have ceased to be Churches any more. The Catholick or uni∣versall Church, I considered two wayes; con∣ceiving it to be Diffusive, or Representative. and that diffusion to runne out two wayes: into Vniversality of ALL, both Time and Place; or into Vniversality of Time alone. The first is so ample, that it fetcheth in the APO∣STLES and all; and so includeth within the

Verge that part of the Catholick Church which is now regnant in heaven, and free from all Error, as partaking of that blisse which leadeth infallibly, holdeth inseparably in all Truth. In this sense and acceptation, the propo∣sition is not quarrelled: The Church so, hath not, cannot Erre. The second divided part, stinted from so large an extent, is yet enlar∣ged respectively, to all members, to every member in particular of the Catholick Church, living any where, at any one time. so that the whole aggregation of all Christian professors, make and compose this Church. And as yet, I thinke, the Informers doe not quarrell us for Popery. Their whole stitch is against the Church Representative in a Generall Councell. In which, though I should resolve simply and punctually thus, A Generall Councell cannot Erre, yet could I not be counted a Papist. For the Tenent of the Papists, if you (my Informers) know it not, in their Schooles, is this; A Ge∣nerall Councell can no way Erre in the Decisions finall thereof, which is allowed by the POPE. By which they necessarily inferre, as also they stick not to expresse, that unlesse the POPE give ratification, any Generall Councell whatso∣ever may erre in any point of Faith, of what nature soever. And therefore (such is their Doctrine since the IESUITES have dominee∣red in their Schooles) all the validity and as∣surance of not Erring, which a Generall Coun∣cell

hath or can have, either in fide or mori∣bus, is onely from that impossibility of Erring which the POPE hath, as Haeres ex asse unto S. PETER, to whom our SAVIOUR behighted that impossiblity alone. So that pretend the IESUITES as long as they will, that fair and specious shew and title of the CHURCH never so much, have they nothing in their mouthes, but, The CHURCH, the CHURCH; the POPE is that Church: and their conclu∣sion heer is not for the Church, but for HIM. Now, doth M^r. MOUNTAGU come up unto, nay, looketh he toward this Catholick Roman fancy and infallible madnes? Nothing lesse. Hee directly pitcheth upon the Church Repre∣sentative in a generall Councell, WITHOUT the Pope; I meane, without the Pope as Head, or exceeding the bounds and limits of a Patri∣archicall Bishop. I go not unto all things dis∣cussed or determinable in a Councell, but rest upon that which is Fundamentall. Nor doe I resolve it as certum & de fide, or tender it un∣to others to be beleeved. I say no more but, I see no cause why I may not so resolve: and that also but upon suppositions, if the Coun∣cell be truely GENERALL indeed: and of SUCH, none yet ever erred, that ever I yet read or observed, in Points Fundamentall. And therefore I saw and see no cause but a man may say, Such a Councell shall never erre in Fundamentals.

But concerning Fundamentals, if your stitch bee against them, I answer with B. MORTON in his Appeale, THE beleefe of some Articles is so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church, as a reasonable soule is for the es∣sentiall being of a man. In such as these are, shew me an error. D^r. REYNOLDS himself, though maintaining the contrary, was not a∣ble in his VI. Conclusions, out of all his reading (and yet therein was his excellency), to afford us so much as a peece of an example in An∣tiquity, for a Generall Councell erring in FUN∣DAMENTALS: and I am perswaded, no man living can instance it. Of such onely doe I speak, and in such onely do I conceive infal∣libility: and so, as I conceive it, the promise of OUR SAVIOUR may and doth hold, HEE shall leade you into ALL TRUTH; as also that other to the same purpose, Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, I AM THERE in the MIDDEST of them.

The Church of England may seem to have been of a contrary minde in her determinati∣ons; and to have taught, and prescribed to be so taught, that such Generall Councels, true and lawfull, not onely may erre for possibilitie, but also have erred in reality. For Artic. XXI. we reade thus: GENERALL Councels may not be gathered together without the commandement and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, for as much as they bee an Assembly of

men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD, they MAYERRE, and some∣time HAVE ERRED, even in things appertai∣ning unto GOD. Which decision of the Ar∣ticle is not home to this purpose. First, the Article avoucheth, that GENERALL Councels have erred: which cannot be understood of my limitation, Fundamentals; because there is no such Extat of any Generall Councell, true and lawfull. Secondly, things appertaining unto GOD are not all Fundamentals; but points of Piety, GOD'S Service, and Religion, which admit a very large interpretation. For many things ap∣pertaine unto GOD, that are not of necessity unto salvation, both in practice and speculati∣on. In these haply Generall Councels have erred: in those other none can erre. The Councell of Nice determined the controversie of Easter: it was not Fundamentall. I put the case, that in it they erred. It was a thing appertaining unto GOD, in his service: this may come un∣der the sense and censure of the Article; but this toucheth not my opinion, concerning on∣ly Fundamentals. Thirdly, the Article speaketh at large concerning Generall Councels, both for debating and deciding. I onely spake of the de∣termination: wherein it may be possible they nor can, nor shall erre, that may and have er∣red in the discussing. In that very Councell of Nice, it was an Error in debating, though not fundamentall, touching that yoke of single life,

which they had meant once to have imposed upon the Church: but in conclusion they er∣red not. PAPHNUTIUS gave better advice, and they followed it. The Article may very well have aimed at this difference in Prosecution and Decision, in saying, ALL are not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD; which is most true. but some are: and those some, in all pro∣bability, ever may prevaile, as ever hitherto in such Councels in those cases they have pre∣vailed, against the greater part formerly resol∣ved otherwise. Againe, the Article speaketh of Generall Councels indefinitely, without precise∣ly determining w^ch are Generall, which not; what is a Generall Councell, what not: and so may and doth conclude reputed or pretended GENERALL Councels, univocè GENERALL, though not ex∣actly and truely indeed (such as was the Councell of Ariminum) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak; my speech being limitted with true and lawfull: of which sort are not many to be found. Lastly, the Article spea∣keth of things that are controversae fidei, and contentiosi juris. I speak of things plainely deli∣vered in HOLY SCRIPTURE: for such are the Fundamentall points of our Faith. And that it is so, the ensuing words of the Article doe insi∣nuate; Things necessary unto Salvation, must bee taken out of SCRIPTURE alone. COUNCELS have no such over-awing power and authori∣ty, as to tye men to Beleeve, upon paine of

Damnation, without expresse warrant of GOD'S Word, as is rightly resolved in the Article. They are but Interpreters of the Law; they are not absolute to make such a Law. Interpretation is required, but in things of doubtfull issue: our Fundamentals are no such. COUNCELS are supposed not to exceed their commission, which warranteth them to debate and deter∣mine questions and things litigiosi status. If they doe not hoc agere sincerely, if they shall presume to make lawes without warrant, and new articles of Faith (who have no farther authority than to interprete them) lawes with∣out GOD'S word, that shall binde the consci∣ence, and require obedience upon life and death; our Church will not justifie their pro∣ceedings, nor doe I. Non debet se Ecclesia CHRISTO praeponere, cùm ille semper veraciter judicet; Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines, plerun{que} fallantur, saith S. AUGUSTINE against CRESCONIUS the Donatist. but he speaketh not there of Fundamentals; indeed not of the Church representative, as I explaine my selfe. Nor doth that principall place of all make a∣gainst me, which is in him contra Donatistas, concerning the erring of Generall Councells: Et ipsa Concilia, quae per singulas regiones & pro∣vincias fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati, quae siunt ex universo Christiano orbe, cedunt; ip∣sa{que} plenaria saepè priora à posterioribus emendan∣tur: cùm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod

clausum er at; & cognoscitur, quod latebat. For he taketh Councells in a generall acception, as it is plaine by him: and hee speaketh not of Fundamentall points of Faith; as both the cause it selfe argueth, and his assigning of better in∣formation in tract of time, to direct consequent Councells in determining contrary to precedent. who, for any thing he saith to the contrary, might have truely determined, as things then stood. To conclude, this Information is a meer cavill. De tali Concilio, & saniori parte, & con∣clusionibus in fide, probabile est. No more.

Notes

• Page 443.
• Lib. 2. cap. 27.
• Lib. 2. cap. 3.