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 objections of Protestants against the Churches infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from the answers of H. T.

He saith. Objections from Fathers and Councils resolved. Ob. The Council of Fanckford condemned the second Nicene Council for giving soveraign honour to images, as you may see in the Preface to the Carolin books. Answ. The second Nicene Council allows no such honour to images, but onely a salutation or honorary worship, not true Latria (or soveraign honour) which it defines to be due to God onely, Act. 1. 7. The Carolin books are of no authority, they say that Council was not approved by the Pope, which is false, and that it was held at Constantinople in Bythinia, whereas Constantinople is in Thracia.

I Reply, That honour to Images, which Papists will not have to be termed Latria or soveraign honour proper to God; the Scripture makes soveraign honour to be given to God onely in a religious respect; to wit, bowing down the body to them, kissing, burning incense, offering gifts, holding up the hands, lifting up the eyes, praying to them, which the Scripture appropriates to God, and denies to images, Matth. 4. 10. Revel. 19. 10. 1 Kings 19. 18. Exod. 20. 4, 5. Nor doth the Scripture make such distinction of Latria and Dulia, but that it forbids such worship to be given to any image of an invisible being, which shews subjection to them, or dependence on them; for such wor∣ship is religious, and is an acknowledgement of a Deity in them. The Scri∣pture doth no where appropriate Latriam or the soveraign honour or worship due to God onely to offering of sacrifice, but that it also condemns as idolatrous the other acts named, if they be not given to Magistrates or superiors out of civil respects, but to Images, Angels, or Saints alive or deceased in a religious re∣spect as superiors to us to whom we are subject and on whom we depend for help and succour. And therefore this plaister of H. T. is too narrow to cover the foul ulcer that came from the false Synod called the second Nicene. For what is that salutation or honorary worship, H. T. saith the second council of Nice allows to Images? Is it not bowing down to them, which Papists them∣selves call adoration, and difference from veneration, which consists onely in a decent usage without defiling, defacing, or such usage as shews hatred and con∣tempt of the thing or person represented, such as is done to monuments or trea∣sure laid up to be kept, but not as things set up higher then our selves to be wor∣shipped, for that is plain Idolatry, and the very same with the Gentiles adoration of their Idols? now this did the second Nicene Council require to be given to Images, ut erigerentur & adorarentur, &c. yea if Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imagin, Sanct. c. 21. say true, that Council would have them adored not only by accident, that is because joyned with the thing adored, but also of themselves as that, in which is the reason of veneration, nor onely improperly that is in the place of ano∣ther, so as that the proper term of the adoration should not be the Image, but Christ himself, but properly so as that the Image be honoured ratione sui ipsius in respect of it self, as he explains his distinctions, ch. 20. And this adoration it was conceived by Charles the Great, and the Synod of Francfurt that Nicene Council intended to give to Images, and was refuted by the four books set forth by Charles the Greats authority yet to be seen, and condemned by the authori∣ty of the Synod of Francfurt, Anno 794. at which were present the Popes legats and did approve of the Synods determination, or dissembled the Popes opinion. I finde not that the Carolin books say, that the second Nicene Coun∣cil was not approved by the Pope; if they did, and that they were deprived, it makes the more against the infallibility of Councils approved by the Pope, which those three hundred Fathers acknowledged not, who met at Francfurt. The mistake of the Country wherein Nice was, is not such, as Bellarmin or Baronius conceive derogates from the truth of the thing, testified by so many authors of credit, all the ancient historians nearest that time, besides Hin••ma∣rus Agobardus, and after some English writers as Hoveden &c. Bellarmin him∣self, l. 2. de concil. auth. c. 7. confesseth it condemned the seventh Synod: and Platina in the life of Hadrian the first saith, that two worthy Bishops Theophy∣lact and Stephan held a Synod in the name of Hadrian of German and French

Bishops in which the Synod, which the Greeks call the seventh, was abrogated.

H. T. adds, Ob. The Lateran Council under Pope Leo the tenth Sess. 11. defined a Pope to be above a Council, and the Council of Constance, Sess. 4. de∣fined a Council to be above a Pope. Answ. Neither part was ever yet owned by the Church for an Oecumenical decree or definition, and if it were, it would be answered that the Lateran Council defined onely a Pope to be above a Council taken without a Pope, or not approved; and that the Council of Constance onely defined a Council approved by a Pope to be above a Pope without a Council, which definitions are not contradictory, no more than to say, one part of any thing is bigger then another, and the whole bigger then both; so that from hence it cannot be inferred that either Council erred: nor was either decree approved by the Pope.

I reply, this is impudent outfacing with shifts the truth in things manifest to all that enquire into them. He cannot deny that these contrary definitions were of two Councils which he himself, p. 33, 36. terms general Councils, and makes Popes president in both, and both he sets down in his Catalogue made to prove a succession in the Church of Rome, and yet here he denies their defini∣tions to be Oecumenical, what is an Oecumenical definition if that an Oecu∣menical Council be not? How is it an Oecumenical definition when it de∣termins against John Hus, or against Christs own expresse command for com∣munion under one kinde, and nor Oecumenical, when it decrees the supremacy of the Council above the Pope? This is meer jugling of h••••us pocus, which shews that when it likes them the Council shall be approved, when not, re∣jected, and thereby take upon them to be above Pope and Council. But if this be the fashion of their Councils who can tell when one decree is contrary to another if these were not? or who can tell when a decree is approved by a Pope if neither of these were? where's the agreement? where's the infallibility they so vainly arrogate to their Church? Martin the fifth expressely confirmed the acts of the Council of Constance in the 45. Session, of which one was in the fourth Session, that every one though of Papal dignity was bound to obey a gener∣al Council in the things pertaining to faith. That which Bellarm. l. 2. de Concil. aut. c. 19. saith that he onely approved some things not others, because he said, sic conciliariter facta is but a shift; for that expression is not set down by way of limitation and distinction, but explication, noting the reason of appro∣ving all because they were done conciliariter, as the word sic shews, which im∣plies his acknowledgment that they were all so done. Besides he not excepting it expressely could not be interpreted to except that from his confirmation more then any thing else there acted, it might as well be said he excepted the decree about half communion; yea if he had excepted that decree of the Councils be∣ing above the Pope he had meerly deluded the Council, that decree being their principal decree, and for which it was called. Add hereto that the words of his Bull thereupon do more fully manifest that he did not except it; and the decree of the Council of Basil called after by vertue of his Bull shews, that they un∣derstood it to confirm that decree proceeding against Pope Eugenius conform∣ably to it. And for the other Council that Pope Leo the tenth did not confirm the decree of the Popes being above a Council is contrary to Bellarmin l. 2. de Concil. aut. c. 18. who recites the decree as a proof, and c. 5. reckons it among the general Councils approved by the Pope, as appears, saith he, in that he was

president in person. And for the other answer of H. T. it is ridiculous, sith the Councils words are expresse that any person though of Papal dignity was to obey the general Council, and the decree was made of purpose to justifie their fact in putting down a Pope. And there was no question nor need be, who is above other when both joyn, but all the question is and so the definition must be con∣strued, when they are severed. Yea it would be trifling to say the Pope should obey the Council, when the Pope concurred, for it's all one as to say be should obey himself: and to say the Council is above the Pope when the Council and Pope are one is frivolous, for in all such comparisons the words expresse what each is severally as they stand in competition according to their several autho∣rities, and therefore the similitude of H. T. is frivolous as being not to the pur∣pose. Lastly, with what face can this man say that neither Council err'd, when Bellarmin saith c. 7. that in the Florentin and last Lateran the Council of Con∣stance was rejected in respect of the first Sessions, wherein it defined a Council to be above a Pope? so that all the wit of man is not able to avoid this objection, but that according to the suppositions of Popish Doctors either a general Coun∣cil approved by a Pope may erre in a point of faith, or else there is no error in a main point of their faith, when one general Council approved by a Pope con∣tradicts a former general Council approved by a former Pope of greater freedome and celebrity by reason of the Emperours presence and for other causes, which was seconded by another Council not long after, as appears by the next objecti∣on, which is thus set down by H. T.

Ob. The Council of Basil defined, that a Council was above a Pope. Answ. The decree was not approved, nor any other of that Council, but onely such as concerned Church benefices. See Eugenius with Terrecremata l. 2. c. 100.

I reply, I finde no such distinction in Pope Nicolas the fifth his Bull, but that it is confirmed altogether. But it seems when it pleaseth these men the Council shall be approved, when not rejected. So that it is not either the cal∣ling of a Council by a Pope, or the universality of the Fathers, or the approba∣tion of the Pope can confirm it, if another Pope reject it, which they will do when it's against their power and profit. And hereby is proved that Popes are vertiginous, that Popery is as mutable as the weathercock, that there is so little shew of agreement, unity and infallibility in Popes and Councils approved by him, that scarce any states are more full of changes in matters civil then they are in matters Ecclesiastical and of faith, nor in any part of the world more disa∣greement then among Papists.

Further saith H. T. Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianism. Answ. It did not, and that equivocal decree that was there made was never ap∣proved by the Pope; and the Fathers themselves (who were deluded by the Arians with words that bare a double sense when they perceived the fraud) lamented and renounced the fact.

I reply, H. T. his own words confirm the objection. For, 1. If the Fa∣thers were deluded by the Arians then they were not infallible; and so a general Council approved by the Pope may erre in a main point of faith. 2. If that Council did not define Arianism, how were they deluded? wherein was the fraud but in that the words being of double sense, yet indeed decreed Arian do∣ctrine? what need they lament or renounce the fact if it were not so? why

doth Austin l. 3. contra Maximinum c. 14. oppose that council to that of Nice, and Maximinus allege it for himself if it did not decree Arianism? why did Ruffinus, Socrates, Basil cited by Bellarm, l. 1. de concil. c. 6. reject it, and Bel∣larmin reckon it among the reprobate councils, if it were not Arian? and that Pope Liberius did subscribe to, it is related by Hierom in his catalogue of writers in Fortunatianus, in his Chronicle, by Hillary sundry times and others.

Yet saith H. T. Ob. The council of Trent erred by adding to the Canon of Scripture. Answ. It did not: the third council of Carthage approved all the same books by name excepting Baruch whom they compared with the Prophet Hieremy, whose Secretary he was, and this twelve hundred years ago.

I reply, if the council of Trent did not erre, Pope Gregory the great did, who expressely denied the books of Maccabees to be canonical, l. 19. Moral. c. 17. As for the third Synod of Carthage it was not an Oecumenical Synod, and it is over ballanced by the Synod of Laodicea before it, who omitted them. And if the ancients termed the Apocryphal books canonical or divine, they are to be understood according to Ruffinus his explication in his Exposition on the Creed, and others, that they were canonical in a sort as being read in the Churches by reason of some histories or moral sentences, but not so as that they were brought to confirm the authority of faith by them.

H. T. further saith. Ob. The Fathers err'd some in one thing some in ano∣ther. Answ. A part I grant, all together (speaking of any one age) I deny, and they all submitted to the Church and so do likewise our Schoolmen, who differ one∣ly in opinion concerning School points undefined, not in faith.

I reply. 1. That the Fathers of some ages did generally hold errors is ap∣parent in many particulars. Augustine held it an Apostolical tradition that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for infants, as appears l. 1. de pec. meri∣to & remiss. c. 24. and elsewhere, and Maldonat on John 6. v. 53. saith that it was the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent the first, and that it prevailed. in the Church for six hundred years, and yet the council of Trent, sess. 21. c. 4. can. 4. saith, If any say the communion of the Eucharist to be necessary for lit∣tle ones afore they come to years of discretion, let him be Anathema. The like might be said of sundry other points, as that of the Millenary opinion, the souls not seeing God till the day of judgement, &c. 2. That all the Fathers did not submit to the Church of Rome, is manifest by the Asian Bishops opposition to Victor about Easter, to Stephen about rebaptization by Cyprian and others, to Boniface, Zozimus and Celestin about appeals from Africa to Rome by Aurelius Augustinus and a whole council. 3. That the Schoolmen differ in points of faith defined is manifest in Peter Lumbard l. 1. sent. dist. 17. who held the holy Ghost to be the charity whereby we love God, and the dissent from him in that point, the differences about the Popes authority above a council, power to ab∣solve subjects from the oath of allegiance, certainty of faith concerning a mans own justification, Gods predetermination of mans will, and many more yet controverted between Dominicans and Jesuits, Jansenists and Molinists. 4. All submit not to the Pope, but some appeal from him to a council, others by with∣standing in disputes and otherwise decline his sentence in their cause, of which the opposition against Pope Paul the fifth his interdict by the republick of Ve∣nice about their power over Ecclesiasticks is a famous instance, evidently

shewing that all that live in communion with the See of Rome acknow∣ledge not such a supremacy and infallibility to it as the modern Jesuits ascribe to it.

Yet again, saith H. T. Ob. St. Augustin tells St. Hierom that he esteems none but the writers of the Canonical books to have been infallible in all they write, and not to erre in any thing. Answ. Neither do we, we esteem not the writers of councils infallible in all they write, nor yet councils themselves, but on∣ly in the Oecumenical decrees or definitions of faith.

I reply, Augustin Epist. 19. to Hierom doth not onely say thus, I confess to thy charity, that I have learned to give this reverence and honour onely to those books of Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I do most firmly believe no author of them to have erred any thing in writing; but he adds also, But I so read others, that how much soever they excel in holiness and doctrine, I do not think it true because they have so thought, but because they could perswade me either by those Canonical authors or by probable reason that it abhors not from that which is true. Which plainly shews. 1. That he counted only the writers of Canonical Scriptures and those books infallible. 2. That the sentence of others however excellent in sanctity and doctrine, is not to be be∣lieved because they so thought. 3. That their sentence prevailed with him so far as it's proof did perswade. 4. That this proof must be by the Canonical Scriptures or probable reason.

H. T. adds. Ob. St. Augustin Epist. 112. says we are onely bound to be∣lieve the Canonical Scriptures without dubitation, but for other witnesses we may believe or not believe them according to the weight of their authority. Answ. He speaks in a particular case in which nothing had been defined by the Church, namely whether God could be seen with corporal eyes? But the decrees of general councils are of divine authority, as we have proved; and there∣fore according to St. Augustin to be believed without dubitation.

I reply, though he speaks upon occasion of one particular case, yet the speech is universal [but for other witnesses or testimonies (besides the Canonical Scriptures) by which any thing is perswaded to be believed, it is lawful for thee to believe or not to believe, as thou shalt weigh how much moment those things have or not have to beget faith:] There's not a word of exception concerning a thing defined by the Church; yea the opinion of Augustin is full and plain in his second book of baptism against the Donatists, ch. 3. to take away infalli∣bility from any Bishops or councils Oecumenical, which I think fit to translate to shew how contrary it is to Austin to make any councils after the Apostles in∣fallible. Who knows not, saith he, the holy Canonical Scripture as well of the old as of the new Testament to be contained in it's certain bounds, and that it is so to be preferred before all the later letters of Bishops that a man may not doubt or dispute of it at all, whether that which it is manifest to be written in it be true or right, but for the letters of Bishops which have been or are written after the Canon confirmed, it is lawful that they be reprehended, if perhaps in them any thing have deviated (or gone out of the way) from truth, both perhaps by the wiser speech of any man more skilful in that thing, and by the more grave au∣thority of other Bishops, and the prudence of the learned, and by councils. And those councils which are held in single Regions or Provinces are to give place without any windings to the authority of more full councils, which are gathered

out of the whole Christian world, and oft times those former fuller councils may be mended by later, when by some trial of things that is open which was shut up and known which did lye hid, without any smoke of sacrilegious pride, without any swollen neck of arrogance, without any contention of wan envy, with holy humili∣ty, with Catholick peace, with Christian charity.

Yet once more, saith H. T. Ob. St. Athanasius (in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa) tells the Arians they in vain ran about to seek councils, since the Scri∣pture is more powerful then all councils. Answ. He says it was vain for them who had rejected the general council of Nice, nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many respects a preheminence above the definitions of general councils, and a higher degree of infallibility, yet these also are infallible in points of faith.

I reply, the reason of Athanasius shews it was in vain for Arians to seek to councils, because the Scripture was against them, not because the council of Nice was against them, as the very words recited by H. T. shew, who doth well to acknowledge the Scriptures preheminence, which justifies Protestants who stick to the Scriptures against councils, which do often swerve from them and sometimes oppose them. As for the degree of infallibility (if there be any degrees of infallibility, which perhaps a Logician will deny, infallibility being a meer negation of liableness to error or being deceived) H. T. ascribes to them, it is so uncertain what it is, and so weakly proved, that none that loves his soul should rest on it, and not try, what they hold, by the Scriptures confessedly more infallible. As for the speech of the council of Basil there's no reason why Protestants or others should rest on it, when Papists themselves, even H. T. p. 79. rejects it, and says it was not approved in any decree, but such as concern Church benefices; and yet this man concludes with it's speech about the autho∣rity of a general council, as if it were certain. So vertiginous is this Au∣thor.