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. II.

The Argument of H. T. to prove the nullity of the Protestant Churches for want of Succession is turned against the Roman Church.

H. T. further argues thus, Without a continued number of Bishops, Priests, and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time, a continued Succession cannot be had. But Protestants have no continued number of Bishops, Priests, and Laicks, suc∣ceeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets, the nine and thirty Articles, or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points. There∣fore Protestants have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time. The Major is manifest, because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined. The Minor is proved, because Protestants have never yet been able, nor ever will, to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their nine and thirty Articles, or Luther in his Augustan Confession, when he revolted from the Catholick Church, no nor yet any one single Diocese or Bi∣scop.

Answ. 1. THis Argument is thus justly retorted; Without a continued num∣ber of Bishops, Priests, and Laicks, succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had. But Papists have no continued number of Bishops, Priests, and Laicks, succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets, the Ca∣nons of the Trent Council, the Articles in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points: therefore Papists have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time. The Major is manifest, because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined. The Minor is proved, because Papists have never yet been able, nor ever will, to assign any such number of men, whom they have succeeded in their Trent Canons, and the Articles of the Creed in∣joyned to be professed and sworn to in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth. If any man pretend to such a Catalogue, let him name none but such as held ex∣plicitely the Doctrine of the Tridentin Canons, the Roman Catechism, the Articles of the Creed injoyned by Pope Pius the fourth his Bull, all granting and denying the same points, that the late Faction of Romanists or Italian popish Sectaries granted and denied, or that our new Reformers the Jesuites deny and grant; for if they differ from them in any one material point they cannot be esteemed Catholiks. Let him not name Christ, John Baptist, Peter, Paul, or any the Apostles, or the Roman Church in their days. For they did not admit and embrace the now called Apostolick Ecclesiastick traditions un∣written, and other observances and constitutions of the Roman Church, nor held it the right of the Roman Church to define the true sense and interpretati∣on of holy Scripture to be received by all, nor truly and properly seven Sacra∣ments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; and necessary to the salvation of mankinde, nor allowed the received Rites of the Roman Church used in solemn administration of all the Sacraments, nor all the things which concerning original sin and justification were defined and declared in the Council of Trent, nor did acknowledge that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead: and that in the holy Eucharist is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a con∣version of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, which conversion the Roman Church calleth Transubstantiation, nor that under one kinde onely all and whole Christ, and the true Sacrament is received, nor that there is a Purgatory, and the souls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull, nor that the

Saints reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto, nor their Relicks to be worshipped, nor that the Images of Christ and the Mother of God, always a Virgin, and other Saints are to be had and retained, and that to them honour and veneration is to be given, nor that the power of Indulgences (such as the Pope grants) was left by Christ in the Church, nor that the use thereof is most wholesome to Christ's people, nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church, nor the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, nor that true obedience is to be vowed and sworn to the Bishop of Rome, nor that he is the Successor of Peter, nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the first five hundred years, for they held not these points. Papists pretence to the Fathers of the first five hundred years is very idle, because were it true, as it is most false, that those Fathers were Papists, yet could not that suffice to prove them a continued Succession of sixteen hundred years. Secondly, because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were instructed, and with whom they daily conversed, then our modern Papists can now do, and they have not protested on their salvation that it was the very same with the now popish Doctrine, nor that they received it from them by word of mouth, and so from age to age: and finally, because if our Tenets in which we differ from Papists, and are opposed by them, be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years, then it is wholly impossible they should be for Papists and against us. But our Doctrines (in which we differ from Papists, and are opposed by them) are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years. Therefore it is impossible that the Fathers of the first five hundred years should be for Papists and against us. The Major is manifest of it self. The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of those Fathers, as also by what shall be cited out of them in the following dispute. 2. By the ingenuous confessions of our Ad∣versaries. Cardinal Cusanus in his second Book of Catholick Concord, cap. 13. saith, The Pope is not the universal Bishop, but the first above or among others. Cardinal Bessarion of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, We reade that these two onely Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel. Cardinal Cajetan, tract. de Indulg. cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the begin∣ning of Indulgences: there is no authority of the Scripture, or ancient Fa∣thers, Greek or Latin, that brings it to our knowledge. Durand. in lib. 4. sent. dist. 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be said of certainty, be∣cause the Scripture speaks not expresly of them. Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Ro∣chester, Assert. Luth. confes. art. 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was ve∣ry little mention or none at all, among the ancient, as the Greeks to this day be∣lieve it not: which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent. rerum, cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine, lib. 5. de Just. cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and for avoiding of vain-glory it is most sure and safe to re∣pose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God. Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part. 2. Th. qu. 80. art. 12. qu 3. The custome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church. Georg. Cass in his Defence of his Book entituled [De officio pii viri] saith, The use of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the ministring of this Sacrament, is both of the institution of

Christ, and observed by the custome of the whole Church for above a thousand years, and unto this day of the Eastern Churches. And although the use of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the most learned of those times never taught that it was necessary so to be observed. Tonstal Bishop of Durhom, de verit. corp. & sanguinis, p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist. Polydor Virgil. de invent. rer. l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expur∣gatorius put them out, had these words, By the testimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worship of images for fear of Idolatry. Cassand. consult. tit. de imag. It is verily manifest out of Augustin, writing on Psal. 113. that in his age the use of Images in Churches was not. Claudius Espencaeus a Bishop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apostles by reason of the want of others, Priests were married, Greg. de Val. tom. 4. disp. 9. punct. 5. sect. 9. with others confesseth, that in the most an∣cient times of the Church, and after the Apostles death Priests had their wives. Harding in his answer to Jewel on the third Article; Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary, when the faith was in learning. And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people, for cause of their further instruction, who being of late converted to the faith, and of Pai∣nims made Christians had need in all things to be taught. John Hart in his Epistle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower; In truth I think, that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal, yet they are both of God, neither doth the one depend of the other. Whereupon I gather as a certain conclusion, that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes, is unreasonable and improbable altogether. For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly, much less to depose them, or give away their Kingdoms: that is no part of his commission. He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church, not a Princehood of the world: Christ himself taking no such title on him, nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Disciples. Bishop Jewels challenge and performance is known, Bishop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal, besides many other books are extant; by which it may be plainly discerned, that Papists have not the Fathers of the first five hundred years for them, and that even the learned writers of the Popish party have vented so much in their writings, as yeilds an apology for Protestants in all or many of the points in difference between Pro∣testants and Papists.