Exomologesis, or, A faithfull narration of the occaision and motives of the conversion unto Catholick unity of Hugh-Paulin de Cressy, lately Deane of Laghlin &c. in Ireland and Prebend of Windsore in England now a second time printed with additions and explications by the same author who now calls himself B. Serenus Cressy, religious priest of the holy order of S. Benedict in the convent of S. Gregory in Doway.

CHAP. XV.

An answer to twelve Questions of Mr. Chillingworth, in pursuance of the former Quotations.

1. AS concerning the twelve Questions which I said before (cap. 26.) that Mr. Chillingworth adjoyned to these Quotations to the end to presse the force of them more effi∣caciously as thinking them unanswerable, which notwithstanding I found nothing at all diffi∣cult, I will according to my promise set them downe in order, and adjoyne to each an an∣swer.

2. To the 1. Question therefore, viz.

Whether S. Luke did not undertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand?

I answer, Yes.

To the 2.

Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among Chri∣stians?

I answer likewise, Yes. But then I must adde, not all those things but the principall; and the principall onely among

those which concerned our Saviour in Person while he lived on earth till his Ascension, as all the Evangelists expresly say: for a further proof whereof I adde this, It will not surely be denyed but that among the Mysteries of Christianity that of Pentecost holdes a princi∣pall place, at which time was the Sealing, as it were, of the Apostles Commission by the Holy Ghost visibly descending and enabling them to performe that for which our Saviour was borne, preached, prayed, wrought miracles, dy∣ed, rose againe and was glorified, that is, the promulgation and propagation of the Evan∣gelicall law (as the Jewish Pentecost was ap∣pointed to commemorate the Promulgation of the Mosaicall law:) Surely then this Mystery is a principall one, and necessary to be believed and commemorated, at least by most Christians capable of instruction, however by a well ordered Christian Church. Yet meerly because this My∣stery of the descent of the Holy Ghost hapned ten dayes beyond the time that all the Evange∣lists fixed to their Gospells not any of them re∣lates it: far was it from them to agree in the omitting of it upon this opinion that it was not necessary.

To the 3. Question, viz.

Whether the whole Gospell of Christ, and every necessary doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians?

I answer, Yes. Yea more, that not onely the Gospell, that is, the Historicall narra∣tion of Christs life, Sermons, &c. but whatsoe∣ver the Holy Ghost afterward taught & ordered in the Church, was the object of Christian faith, as perteining to the Gospell, that is, the New Covenant.

To the 4.

Whether they which were eye-witnesses and Ministers of the word from the beginning delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ?

I Answer, Yes, in this sence, that all this Gospell, as far as concernes our Saviours personall actions and passions during his abode among men hath been delivered sufficiently in the〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by the foure Evangelists all together; but in particular, S. Marke omi••s the Incarnation, birth, &c. of Christ S. Iohn, the Lords Prayer, the Blessed Sacrament, &c. very substantiall things in Christian Religion surely.

To the 5.

Whether S. Luke doth not under∣take to write in order those things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first?

I answer still, Yes.

To the 6.

Whether he had not perfect un∣derstanding of the whole Gospell of Christ?

I answer, Yes: yea more, that if by the Gospell of Christ we meane, as he does, the story of Christ, he could have added many more parti∣culars, not unconsiderable, if he had pleased, and if he had not thought that that which he did write was sufficient for his purpose, and many more particulars, yet he could have written of the Gospell of Christ, if by that be meant Christian Religion in generall.

To the 7.

Whether he doth not undertake to write to Th••ophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed?

I answer, Yes, keeping within the limits of his designe.

To the 8.

And whether he had not been in∣structed in all the necessary points of the Go∣spell of Christ?

I answer, Yes, viz. under∣stood as before.

To the 9. Whether in the other Text (of Act. c. 1.) those words, all things which Jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things? I an∣swer, Yes, keeping to his subject.

To the 10.

Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctours in their annotations upon this place?

I answer, I know not.

To the 11.

Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith, without the belief where∣of no man can be saved be not the principall and most necessary things which Jesus taught?

I must answer by parcells. 1. I cannot assent to that, that no man can be saved without the beliefe of all these Articles, viz. conteined in the Creed, of which he treates in this Chapter: for I doubt not but some particular man in some cases and extremities may be saved with∣out having received information of our Saviours being borne of a Virgin, of his being three dayes in the Grave, his Descent into Hell, &c. 2. I am assured that now Christians (having means of more sufficient illumination) are bound to be∣lieve more then the simple bare twelve Arti les of the Creed; for the four first Generall Coun∣cels do much enlarge the signification of them, and besides p••opose other points, at least indi∣rectly objects of our belief. 3. To the following words I answer that though those points were the principall and most necessary things, which Jesus taught, yet this makes nothing against Catholique doctrine. 1. Because many men are necessarily bound to know more then what is in it selfe simply necessary: and, 2. Our Saviour

himselfe sayes expresly that besides those points which himselfe taught them, there were others more sublime and surely necessary to some, which till the Comforter came, and en∣abled them further, they were not able to beare.

To the 12. and last Question, viz.

Whe∣ther many things which S. Luke hath written in the Gospell be not lesse principall, and lesse necessary then all and every one of them?

I answer, Yes, and good reason for it; since his intent being to write a History and not a Catechisme, it was fit for him to relate (grosse modo) all things that Jesus said or did, whether necessary, or not: for as every circumstance and action of Christ (though worth the know∣ing) was not a mystery necessary to be related; so neither were all his words articles of Faith necessary both to be known and believed.

3. Whereas for a Corollary and Appendix to these Demands, Mr. Chillingworth adds this Prosopopaea, to his adversary,

When you have well considered these proposalls, I believe you will be very apt to thinke (if S. Luke be of any credit with you) that all things necessary to salvation are certainly conteined in his wri∣tings alone:

If his learned adversary would give me leave, I would answer; That truly I have according to the capacity of my weake understanding well considered these proposalls, and S. Luke is of very great credit with mee, and yet I doe not finde in my selfe any aptitude at all to believe that all things necessary to salvation, (that is, with respect to all men and all Churches as the present controversy requires)

are certainly conteined in his writings alone; and this for severall reasons before alledged: to which I will adde this one more for a close of this whole conclusion, viz. Because I judging Mr. Chillingworth's opinion to be very reaso∣nable, that upon this hypothesis (that all things necessary are conteined in Scripture) it must follow that they are conteined there most cleare∣ly, expresly and so as no reasonable honest man can doubt of the sense of them; I am notwith∣standing most assured that no man can finde in S. Lukes writings expresse words sufficient to confute all Haeretiques that ever taught any thing destructive to salvation. It may be in∣deed so excellent a wit as Mr. Chillingworth's by the advantage of Logick and diligent rea∣ding of Fathers, &c. may out of S. Lukes Gospel draw conclusion after conclusion, and so at last infer propositions contrary to Socinian doctrine, for example: yet he should deny his owne prin∣ciples, if he should call that doctrine a Haeresie, or so much as an errour of the least danger, which contradicts perhaps the fifth or sixth con∣sequence drawne from an Article of Faith it selfe. Let any man therefore for tryall take S. Luke, or all the four; Gospells, yea the whole Bible, and I am perswaded he will finde it a more then Herculean labour out of all to frame such a Creed as the Nicene or Athanasian, and much more, all the points concluded in the four first Generall Councells, which truly I believe necessary to be believed, and I do not begin to believe so now, I was taught so when I lived in England.