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. XLI.

His reasons proving no Church of one de∣nomination to be infallible, answered.

1. IN the second place we will weigh his rea∣sons to prove that no Church of one de∣nomination is infallible, and by consequence no Church at all. His words are, after he had said that he was willing upon courtesie to grant that Christ made a promise (absolute) of inde∣fectibility to his Church,* 1.1 but

be interprets it only in this sense, viz. That true Religion shall never be so far driven out of the world, but that it shall alwaies have some where or other some that believe and pro∣fesse it in all things necessary to salvation, and that such believers shall never erre in funda∣mentalls, for if they did, they were not a Church. But he denyes utterly that there is any Church fit to be a guide in fundamen∣talls, because no Church is fit to be a Guide but onely a Church of some certaine denomi∣nation, as the Greek, the Roman, the Abys∣sine, &c. For, sayes he, otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted, and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine, but by the true do∣ctrine to the Church. Now, sayes he, that there is not any Church of one denomination infallible in fundamnntalls is evident: for 1. If it were an infallible guide in funda∣mentalls, she would be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be belie∣ved. 2. That being a point of so m••••n conse∣quence, certainly the Scripture would have na∣med that Church. 3. Because Catholiques themselves build the assurance of the churches infallibility onely upon motives very credi∣ble, but not certain. Lastly, beeause it is evi∣dent, and even to impudence it selfe undenia∣ble, that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present church as taught by Christ, errour was held. For example, the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants, and that in S. Augustines time, and that by

S. Augustine himself; and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as truth. The same may be said of the doctrine of the Chiliasts, which S. Irenaeus and S. Justin Mar∣tyr say was a traditionary doctrine from the A∣postles times, &c.

2. To answer this discourse by parcells: And first concerning his exposition of Christ's promise of indefectibility to his Church, it ha's been answered in more then one place already. 2. Where he sayes, that there is no Church fit to be a guide in fundamentalls: I desire to know whether those whom Christ ha's appointed in his church to be Overseers (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Teachers (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Governors & Assistants〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.) be not fit to be accounted guides, at least in Fundamentalls? Againe, whether an agreement of all these Governours meet∣ing in a Generall Councell be not the su∣premest authority? Thirdly, whether that au∣thority which is indeed supreme, be not unap∣pealable from, and necessarily to be submitted to by all particular subordinate persons? To say such persons have no authority to be Guides, is to contradict expresse Scripture: And to say that there can be a subordination of authority without one that is supreme: Or that that which is indeed supreme, may by particulars (persons, or churches) be op∣posed, or so much as appealed from, is to con∣tradict not onely what is assumed, but evident reason, and all order. 3. Where it is said, That no Church is fit to be a Guide in Funda∣mentalls,

but only a Church of one denomina∣tion, as Greek, Roman, Abyssine, &c. For o∣therwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church, but only by a pre-examination of the doctrines, and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the Church. I answer, That a Catholique Church there is (as we profess in the Creed) and that this Catholique Church is visible and easily to be designed, plainly distin∣quishable from new Sects and innovating con∣gregations; and that this body representatively united is the supreme authority on earth, and that every particular Church or member of this Catholique Church, as such, is a sufficient guide to those that live in her Communion. As concerning his phrase, a Church of one deno∣mination; I grant that God ha's not apparent∣ly obliged himself to confine his Promises to any particular Dioecose, Province, or Nation, no not perhaps even to Rome it self: Only this may certainly be affirmed, that the Catholique Church shall by vertue of Christs promises continue to the worlds end a visible Church, teaching all substantiall doctrines of Christia∣nity, guided by a lawfull succession of Pastors, under one visible Head, which visible Head ha's hitherto for above sixteen Centuries been the Bishop of Rome; and that is a fair presumpti∣on that it will be so to Christs second coming: for I know nothing but a generall earthquake there and swallowing up of that place that is likely to hinder such a succession, since it ha's already abidden all variety of oppositions and tempests, when the whole power of the Roman

and infernall Empire sought to extinguish it, and when all sorts of Heretiques and Schisma∣tiques sought to undermine it. But I shall speak more of this when I come to the last conclusion, concerning the perpetuall visibility of the Church.

4. In the fourth place, to his first proofe, that no Church of one denomination can be an infallible guide in fundamentalls, because if so, then she should be infallible in non-funda∣mentalls also. I answer, that even by Mr. Chil∣lingworth's own confession it does not follow that if Christ hath promised to preserve his church from all errour in fundamentalls, that therefore by vertue of that promise she should be exempted from all errour whatsoever, and the reason given by Mr. Chillingworth is worth the marking. The Church, sayes he, may erre, and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her: for seeing you (Catholiques) do and must grant that a particular Church may hold some errour, and yet be still a true member of the Church; Why may not the universall Church bold the same errour, and yet remain the uni∣versall Church, unlesse every the least errour be one of the gates of hell?

5. And indeed many Catholique Writers there are, who, upon the same grounds with Mr. Chillingworth, extend the promise of the holy Spirits assistance to the church, not to all inconsiderable circumstantiall doctrines, but substantiall and traditionary only; And for a further proof we may add, that there are some Fathers of great antiquity and authority, who hold (whether justly and truly or no, I debate

not, but they hold) that there are reall differen∣ces between the four Evangelists, in some cir∣cumstances of no considerable moment related by them, and by consequence there must of ne∣cessity in their opinion be an errour, such as it is, in some one of them at l••ast: The which in∣considerable differences, whether reall or ima∣ginary, there being an exact demonstrable a∣greement amongst them all in points of Do∣ctrine, do rather in S. Chrysostomes judgement (in Mat. Hom. 1) establish then invalidate, or any way prejudice the divine infallibility of their writings; since thereby it is apparent (sayes he) that they did not compose them by consent and conspiracy; for then they would have been scrupulously punctuall in all, even the smallest circumstances, but in the ingenuous simplicity and sincerity of their hearts. In like manner S. Hierome tells us, that in his time some learned Catholiques were of opinion, that the Apostles and Evangelists in the New Te∣stament quoted some passages of the old Testa∣ment, and the Septuagint meerly out of their memory, not looking into the books them∣selves, and that by that means their memory failing, their quotations were not exactly true, yet notwithstanding those Fathers were far from questioning the authority or infallibility of any one of the Evangelists, as concerning a∣ny substantiall doctrine contained in any of their Gospells, &c. So likewise in the Latin Translation of the Bible, there are not only differences of senses from Originalls, Hebrew, or Greek now extant, not only great and un∣certain variety of reading in the antient Latin

Copies, but likewise, as the Protestants brag, very great diversity between the Impressions published by the Authority of Pope Sixtus Quintus and Clemens Octavus, since the Councell of Trent (wherein notwithstanding they are mistaken, for though Sixtus Quintus had design'd an Impression, and prepared a Bull for the authorizing of it, yet God took him a∣way before he effected his intent, thereby as it were, signifying that it was his pleasure to take away from Heretiques all seeming advantages against his Church. But though this had been as the Protestants imagine, surely a more cor∣rected reimpression does not imply that the Church wanted the true Scripture, since none of such differences are of such considerable mo∣ment, as to cause any uncertainty in points of Doctrine. For I conceive it was never heard that any errour was grounded meerly upon a various reading of any Text of Scripture.) But to proceed, certain it is that there were much greater differences between the antient Italica and other Latin Translations of the antient Church and this of S. Hierome; as likewise yet greater between the Septuagint and the He∣brew; and yet neither do the Apostles refuse to quote some passages out of the Septuagint, wherein the Translation is manifestly faulty, however in a matter inconsiderable: neither will any Catholique affirm that the promise of the holy Spirits assistance did fail the antient Church, although it only made use of a Tran∣slation of the Scripture very imperfect, if com∣pared with S. Hieromes; no not though upon such differences of reading it were possible to

ground doctrines which might be circumstanti∣ally erroneous: It is true, such doctrines would be of no considerable moment; but how∣ever they might be erroneous, yet without any prejudice to Christs promises to his Church. So that the Church, even when she does upon supposition erre, yet she does not even then lead any man out of the way to heaven, or within the danger of hell gates; seeing the promises of Christ are infallible that his Spirit shall con∣duct, or rather preserve his Church in the be∣lief and profession of all truths, at least necessa∣ry: and as for points supernumerary or unne∣cessary, neither unwilfull ignorance, nor una∣voidable mistake shall be imputed as sinfull to any man.

6. To the second proof, viz. That if the promise of infallibility had been made to any Church of one denomination, certainly the Scripture would have named that Church, and have directed all Christians to have recourse unto her, it being a point of so main impor∣tance. I answer, 1. The inference is not at all concluding, as I shewed before in the first con∣clusion. 2. The Scripture ha's expressely men∣tioned such promises made to the Church, and if we will follow either reason or Catholique Tradition interpreting Scripture, we must at least apply those promises to the whole body and succession of the Catholique Church uni∣ted under one Head; since no particular man or Church, considered only as a distinct member of the whole can pretend to these promises as peculiarly applicable to themselves. Now this whole body was as apparent and distinguishable

from particular sects in the times of S. Augustine and S. Gregory, as if it had been a Church of one denomination, since they framed all their arguments and discourses from the apparent vi∣sibility of it: and surely to any one that would not shut his eyes, would have appeared as clear and demonstrable in Luthers time also.

7. To the third proof of Mr. Chillingworth, viz. That Catholiques build their assurance of the infallibility of the Church only upon falli∣ble and uncertain grounds and marks. I an∣swer, that I have made the contrary appear in severall places before, demonstrating that it is grounded upon the most firm unshaken foun∣dation that reason can have, viz. Universall Tradition, by which it is more effectually pro∣ved then any particular book of Scripture hath been.

8. To his last proof against the Churches infallibility from his two examples, wherein the Church is said to have erred universally in points pretended to be of Tradition, as name∣ly, about the giving the blessed Sacrament to Infants, mentioned by S. Augustine; and the doctrine of the Millenaries; by S. Justin Mar∣tyr and S. Irenaeus. For the first example, I re∣fer my self to the satisfactory answer given by Cardinall Perron to the same objection made by King James. Perr. repl. l. 2. obs. 3. c. 11. 2. Concerning the other example of the do∣ctrine of the Millenaries, &c. I answer, that S. Justin Martyr (dial. cum Trypho.) saith not that it was a Catholique Tradition, nor received by the whole Church, but only of himself, and many other Christians; but withall, that there

were many also who were of a pure and pious Christian beliefe which did not acknowledge it. And when all that could be alledged to prove that doctrine to have been an Aposto∣lique Tradition, was said, the proof ended up∣on the report of Papias, a very credulous man, one that loved to tell stories, many of which could not find belief in the Church, a man meanely learned, and by consequence one that might very probably mistake what he sayes S. John told him concerning that point.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr. Chil. c. 2. parag. 139. &c. 3. per tot. &c.