Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.

SECT. VIII.

The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries.

IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Professors to the year 400. of whom some were of the African Churches, some of the Greek, some of the Asiatick, some of the Latin Churches: but he shews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy, or the Doctrine of the Romanists, which he maintains against the Protestants. Sure Hierom was no Assertor of the Papacy, who in his Epistle to Euagrius makes Bishops and Presbyters the same, and the Bishop of Rome of no higher, but of the same merit and Priesthood with the Bishop of Eugubium. And for the Nations converted which he men∣tions, there were some of them, as Indians and Ethiopians, who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church, nor had any conversion from them. No•• is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Su∣premacy, or any point of Doctrine, they now hold in opposition to the Pro∣testants.

As for the fourteen Popes of this century, what ever their succession were, (which is not without question) yet that they did assert as due to them such a Supremacy as the Popes now claim, or that faith, which now the Papists hold in opposition to the Protestants, cannot be proved. The same may be said of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century, to wit, the first Nicene, and the first Constantinopolitan: which never ascribed to the Bishop of Rome any more power than to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, nor after them the Ephesin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century. H. T. himself saith onely, The first Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester, but doth not affirm that either he called it, or was present at it, or was President of it, And it being confessed that Hosius Bishop of Corduba was President there by Bellarmine himself, lib. 1. de concil. & Eccl. c. 19. tom▪ 2. controv. he ima∣gines, but proves not Hosius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council, or any one that was there. And whereas H. T. saith, The first Constantinopo∣litan Council (Fathers 1. 50.) Pope Damasus pre••iding, Anno 381. against Macedonius, it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the same place. It is also mani∣fest that the Roman Pope was not President there, but Nectarius Bishop of

Constantinople: of which thing the cause is, because the Roman Pope was neither present by himself, nor by his Legates. What he adds of Pope Caelestin his presi••ing in the Council at Ephesus against Nestorius, Anno 431. is not true, sith it is manifest from the subscription to the Council, that Cyril of Al••xandria was President there, and with him Juvenal of Jerusalem. And though it be said, that Cyril held the place of Pope Caelestinus, yet that was in giving suffrage to shew the agreement of the Patriarchs, not in presidency, or if in presidency, yet so as to be president, suo jure, by his own right, as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome. H. T. adds, The Chalcedon Coun∣cil (Fathers 600.) Pope Leo presiding, Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches. But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates, and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, did pre∣side. And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome, yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople.

But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor? He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees, as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence. But those Arabick canons are of no credit, being but lately (as they say) brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria, and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian, in which are eighty canons: whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty, and the Letter of the African Bishops (of whom Augustin was one) in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome, assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice, and the copies they had from Cyril of Ale∣xandria and Atticus of Constantinople, had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts, which three Bishops of Rome alleged; but the true ca∣nons of the Nicene council, to wit, the fifth and the sixth being against the arro∣gated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome, in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead. And for the canon, that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present, (which he bring for the counte∣nancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass) the genuine words of the canon men∣tion not a power in priests (as he terms them) to offer sacrifice, which Deacons have not, but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist, Presby∣ters being present, which they might do in their absence. And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals, for Baptisms, purging away sin, and the unbloody Sacrifice, they are of no validity, being not taken out of the acts of the Council, but the compiler of the canon-law, who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations, whether they were chaff or wheat, genuine or supposititious. And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine.

The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius, which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome, proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops, but the con∣trary. For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief, not under the Bi∣shop

of Rome, but next him, and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome, though in order of mentioning, sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome.

In the first Ephesin council, if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles, yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them, but priority in order, and excellency in virtue. The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles, John 20. 23.

In the third action (saith H. T.) Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop. And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo, yet they made him not Uni∣versal Bishop over all bishops in the world, but he was styled Occumenical Arch∣bishop of old Rome, not by the council, but by particular men of the council, which yet did give it to John of Constantinople: but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it; for that ve∣ry council did ascribe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates; which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecu∣menical, or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy & power over all bishops, and churches, as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title, and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour, but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches, in like manner as Paul said of himself, 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches: which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities, and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants, by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass, even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches: the regiment of the churches in those days much follow∣ing the government of the Empire, as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times. It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter, and did it too immoderately, and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use: and this proves that then ambiti∣on had crept in among the bishops, and the affecting of vain titles increased, and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops, which grew to an extreme height afterwards; yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church, which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part, and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches, and some other.

That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain, and the second of Atles in France, about Priests abstaining from their Wives, or else to be degraded, and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised, is but of provincial Synods, not general councils, about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline, not a point of Faith, about which alone is the Question, whether he can prove such a Succession as he as∣serts in all ages: besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives;

and it appears that till then they did use them, and that there were married priests: but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the de∣basing of it as carnal, and extolling Virginity as meritorious, began to put that yoke on men, which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests, against Gods allowance, and the practice of for∣mer ages.

The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches, who, though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen, yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged, nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants.

As for the Nations converted, Scots, French, the Martyrs of Africa, which he mentions, it is not shewed, that either they were converted by any from Rome, or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop, or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants. And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years, within which he included his Demonstration, which were better than the later, though not without their corruptions. I pro∣ceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following.