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. I.

The Argument for Apostolical Tradition unwritten as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered.

H. T. intitles his eighth Article of Apostolical Tradition, and saith, Our Te∣net is, That the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition, or a delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, and nothing ought to be received as Faith, but what is proved to have been so delivered, which we prove thus.

The first Argument. That is now the true Rule of Faith which was the essen∣tial means of planting and conserving it at first: But oral and Apostolical Tradition, not written Books, was the essential means of planting and con∣serving it at first; therefore oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books is the true Rule of Faith. The Major is proved, because the Rule of Faith must be immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is. The Minor is proved, because the first Gospel was not written till eight years after the Death of Christ or thereabouts; in which space the Apostles had preach∣ed and planted the Faith of Christ in many Nations over almost all the World. Add to this that many Ages were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; so that when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age they were not to inquire what had been written, but whether the Apostles so taught.

Answ THis Doctor, whether it be by reason of his ignorance, or heedlesness, or malignity to the holy Scriptures, determines worse than his fellows, yea, against the Doctrine of the Trent Council and Pope Pius the fourths Bull. For whereas in the Trent Council, Sess. 4. it is said, that the truth and Di∣scipline of Christ and his Apostles is contained in written Books and Traditions without writing, and would have both to be received with equal affection and reverence of piety; and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull requires the admission of the sacred Scripture and Apostolical Tradition. H. T. concludes, that written Books are not the true Rule of Faith, but oral and Apostolical Tradition. If he had said, they had not been the entire Rule of Faith he had agreed with the Trent Council, and the Popes Bull; but now he contradicts them as well as the Protestants, and his Argument doth as well conclude, that the holy Scri∣pture is no part of the Rule of Faith, as that it is not the whole. But leaving him to be corrected by his fellows, let's view his Dispute.

Setting aside his non-sense speech of being received as Faith, in stead of be∣ing received as the object of Faith, and taking Apostolical Tradition to be meant of that which is truly so called, I grant his Tenet, and say with him that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition, that is, the Do∣ctrine which the Apostles delivered, or that delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, and that nothing ought to be received as Faith, that is, a thing to be believed with a Christian divine Faith, which all Christians are bound to believe, but what is proved to have been so deli∣vered. For though in general any divine revelation is to be the object of Christi∣an Faith by whom or what way soever it be delivered, and God hath delivered divers revelations in the Books of the Old Testament, which are objects of Faith, yet sith now Christ and his Apostles have delivered those divine revelations as the oracles of God, and what the Apostles preached and thought needfull for us to know, and believe to salvation is written, and these Writings are conveyed from father to son by hand to hand, we grant the Tenet being meant of them, and yield further, that if they can prove there are Traditions truly Apostolical besides those which are written, and this Tradition, that those Books which we call holy Scripture are divine Writings, we will embrace them as things to be believed. But then, 1. We say it is manifest that in the Apostles days there were Traditions put on the Apostles which were not theirs, 2 Thess 2. 1. 2. That the Apostolical Tradition written is sufficient for faith to salvation. 3. That unwritten Traditions are uncertain, and much corrupted. 4. That there is no certain Rule to know which are Apostolical Traditions but by the Scripture or Apostolical Writings. 5. That neither the Popes nor Church of Rome nor general Councils determination is a sufficient assurance of Aposto∣lical Tradition unwritten. 6. That therefore to us now the holy Scripture is the onely Rule of Christian faith and life. And to the Argument of H. T. I answer, 1. By denying the Major, giving this as a Reason, because the means of planting and conserving faith, though it were the essential means,

yet is not the rule of faith necessarily, there being great difference between these two. The means of faith is any way God useth to beget it, as by dreams, visions, the speech of Balaam's Ass, his Prophecy, Caiaphas Pro∣phecy, the Star which guided the Wise-men, Matth. 2. the Wives good con∣versation, 1 Pet. 3. 1. yet these are not the Rule of Faith, but the divine reve∣lation it self. And if it were supposed any one of these, or any other, were the essential means of Faith, that is, that means by which Faith is, and without which it were not, yet it were not therefore the Rule of Faith, but the divine revelation or truth delivered by that means. And to the proof of the Major which seems to be thus formed, That is the true Rule of Faith which is immu∣table, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is. But the essential means of planting and conserving it at first is immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is. Ergo. I answer, 1. By denying the Major, there are many things immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith it self is, and yet are not the true Rule of Faith, as namely, Gods Decrees and purposes, the being of the Heavens, the obedience of the Angels, &c. 2. By denying the Minor. For whether the immediate Declaration of God to Adam, Gen. 3. 15. or Christ's preaching by himself were the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first, or any other, yet it is not immutable, and the same in all Ages, as Faith it self. God's Declaration immediately, or Christ's preach∣ing by himself are not the same in all Ages; yea, Heb. 1. 1. it is said, that God hath spoken to us in divers manners, ways and times by the Prophets, and in these last days onely hath spoken to us by his Son, vers 2. & chap. 2. 3. The salvation was at first begun to be speken by the Lord, and since was confirmed by them that heard him: which shews the means to be variable, by which Faith is planted and conserved. The Apostle tells us, 1 Pet. 3. 1. that without the Word those that believe not the Word may be won by the conversation of the Wives: so that their good conversation was at first a means of converting them, and yet that was not to be the Rule of their Faith. Whence it may ap∣pear that this Argument goes upon these false Suppositions.

1. That there is some means essential to the planting and conserving of Faith at first. 2. That the same means is essential to the planting and conserving of Faith at first. 3. That this means is immutable and the same in all Ages as Faith it self. 4. That what is the means of planting and conserving Faith at first must be the true Rule of Faith.

2. I deny the Minor, that oral and Apostolical Tradition, not written Books, was the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first. And to his proof I answer, that by oral and Apostolical Tradition, in his Tenet he means, a delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles: now if it be granted, there was no Gospel written till eight years after the death of Christ, or thereabouts, it must be granted also, that there was no delivery of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, but onely their preaching viva voce, with living speech, in their own persons, and therefore if that which was according to H. T. the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first must be the true Rule of Faith still, and no other, then that Rule must neither be unwritten nor written deli∣very of Doctrine from father to son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, but their own personal Tradition viva voce, which now ceasing there

is no Rule of Faith at all left; but the Quakers device of each mans light with∣in him to be his Rule must take place. But to me the Rule of Faith is divine revelation, by what means soever it be delivered: be it the Law written in the heart or in the Book, by the signer of God in Tables of stone, or delivered by an Angel in a Dream, Vision, Apparition, by Christ, or his Apostles, or any other. But sith God hath been pleased to order it, be it sooner or later, that what Christ and his Apostles taught should be written, we are assured God would have us to take it for the Rule of our Faith, and if Scripture be not the Rule of our Faith Christ and his Apostles did not well to commend it to us, Luk. 16. 31. Joh. 5. 39. and to commend them that searched the Scriptures, Act. 17. 11. nor the Apostles to direct us to them, 1 Pet. 1. 19, 20. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. nor to allege them, Act. 3. 22. & 13. 33, 34, 35. nor Christ to have used them against the Tempter, Matth. 4. 4. 7. 10. nor to have imputed errour to the ignorance of them, Matth. 22 29. nor to have sent the Revelation of John to the seven Churches of Asia, with declaration of blessedness to the observers of it, and denunciation of a curse to the corrupters and infringers of it, Revel. 1. 1, 3. & 22. 18, 19. nor the Apostles to write a Letter to the Churches, Act. 15. 23. nor the Apostles to write several Epistles to several Churches. And if many Ages (though I think H. T. therein doth exceed) were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; yet it is certain some were, and they must be the Rule of Faith which were accepted. And when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age, though they were to inquire of the Apostles what they taught, yet when they could not speak with them, they made use of their Letters written, as Acts 15. 31. 1 Cor. 7. &c. And if we are not to do so still, why doth this Authour allege Scripture for the Churches Infallibility, the Popes Supremacy, &c. and tells us here, pag. 113. There is no better way to decide Controversies than by the Scripture expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apostolical Tradition? But this is an evidence of Gods infatuating these Romanists, that though they have no shew of proof for Peter's Supremacy, and consequently the Popes, without the Scripture, and therefore allege it, yet determine it not to be the Rule of Faith, and so make void their own proof, and the very Rule of Faith, which they would fain establish.