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. V.

The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture, but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity.

Yet H. T. hath the face to say, But if we refer the whole trial of faith to the arbitrement of Scripture, I see nothing more evident, than that this one Argument ad hominem, gives the cause into our hands, since it clearly proves either many controverted Catholick Doctrines are sufficiently contained in Scripture, or many Protestant ones are not; and thus I frame my discourse. All Protestant Tenets (say you) are sufficiently contained in Scripture; but many Catholick Doctrines (say I) denied by Protestants are as evident in Scripture, as divers Protestant Tenets; therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture. He that has hardiness enough to deny this Conclusion let him compare the Texts that recom∣mend the Churches authority in deciding controversies, and expounding Arti∣cles of Faith with these that support the Protestant private spirit, or particu∣lar judgement of discretion; let him compare the places that favour priestly Absolution with those on which they ground their necessity (not to stand upon the lawfulness) of Infant-baptism, let him compare the passages of the Bible for the real presence of our Saviours body in the Eucharist, for the primacy of St. Peter, for the authority of Apostolical Traditions, though unwritten, with what ever he can cite, to prove the three distinct persons in the blessed Trinity, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, the procession of the holy Ghost from both, the obligation of the Sunday in stead of the Sabbath, so ex∣presly commanded in the Moral Law; and when he has turned over all his Bi∣ble as often as he pleases, I shall offer him onely this request, either to admit the Argument or teach me to answer it.

Answ. H. T. sure hath a singular eyesight, which sees such an evidence in this Argument, as that he sees nothing more evident. What? is not this more evident, that the whole is bigger than a part, that God made the World, that the Word was made Flesh (Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonstration, specially when what the man holds at one time upon se∣cond and better thoughts he relinquisheth: nor is an argument ad hominem fit to establish any truth, but somewhat to lessen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconsistencies; and therefore the cause is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands, that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith, or that Popish Doctrine is grounded on Scripture, because some Protestant tenets have no better proof thence than some Popish tenets de∣nied to be contained in the Scripture.

But that I may gratifie H. T. (as much as in me lieth) in his request, I tell him, The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know, nor (if I would examine the form of it) do I doubt, but that I should finde four terms in it at least, and then H. T. it is likely knows his Sy••logism is naught. Nor do I know how to form it better, unless it be formed dis-junctively: but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him. To it as I finde it I say, that if he mean, that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scri∣pture, who ever he be that saith so, yet I dare not say so: But this I think, that all, or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship, which are controverted between them, are sufficiently contained in the Scripture, and all of them ought to be, or else they may be rejected. And for his Minor I deny it, if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith, which are held by all, or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions, except∣ing some about Discipline, Ceremonies, and Sacraments. And for his in∣stances, to the first I say, I am willing any Reader, who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here, should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture, the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controver∣sies, or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is pro∣pounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope, general Council, or Prelates, who are never called the Church in Scripture. And for the second, I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet, that Infant-baptism is ne∣cessary; and for the lawfulness, I grant, there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it, that is none at all for either. And for the third, there are Protestants, that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist, as the Lutherans, and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver, but not bodily,

but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self, as Scotus long ago resolved. And for the Primacy of St. Peter, it hath been told this Authour, that a Primacy of order, of zeal, and some other en∣dowments, is yielded by Protestants, but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied, and it is proved before, Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture. And for the authority of Apostolical traditions, though unwritten, (if there were any such truly so called) I should not deny it, but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us, he hath not proved in this Article, nor brought one Text for it, but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity. But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians, Arians, Socinians, as to yield, that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed, and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation, the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith. Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons, the Sons consubstantiality, the Spirits procession more evident than, this is my Bo∣dy, for Transubstantiation, Thou art Peter, for the Popes Supremacy; and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions? Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei, cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods na∣ture, and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture.

As for Sunday being in stead of the Sabbath, he should me thinks allow somewhat in Scripture for it, Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Revel. 1. 10. more evident than for his real presence, Peter's Supremacy, unwritten Traditi∣ons. But I see prejudice doth much to sway men, and make them see what others cannot. The Crow thinks her own Bird fairest.

Yet again, saith H. T. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be ap∣plied to the negative, as well as positive Doctrines on either side. All Catholick points denied by Protestants are sufficiently (say you) condemned in Scripture. But many points imbraced by Protestants are as clearly (say I) condemned in Scripture, as divers they deny in opposition to Catholicks; therefore many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture. Where does the Bible so plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead, as this darling Errour and fun∣damental Principle of Protestancy, that any one however ignorant, however un∣stable, ought to reade the holy Scriptures, and unappealably judge of their sense by his private interpretation? Where is it so plainly forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever we believe him to be really present, as it is to work upon the Saturday? Thus if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion, Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick, nor justifie their own.

Answ. The Conclusion may be granted, that many points embraced by Pro∣testants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Protestant cause: Protestants do not pretend to Infallibility, but that the tenets in point of Faith, which in opposition to Papists their Harmony of Confessions avoucheth are sufficiently condemned in Scripture, is more than H. T. or any other can prove. To his Syllogism I answer, by denying his Minor. And to his instances I answer, the Prayer for the Dead, which Protestants say is for∣bidden plainly in Scripture, is Popish Prayer for the Dead to have them eased or delivered out of Purgatory: now this we say is condemned plainly in Scri∣pture.

1. Because it supposeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell, which is an Errour, and every Errour is condemned in Scripture, as contrary to truth. 2. All Prayer is condemned, which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer; now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are, that we should pray in Faith, James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God, 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that sins unto death, vers. 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory, when there is no such place, nor God hath promised any such thing, is not in Faith, nor according to Gods will, but is as vain as to ask for him that sins unto death, it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils should be delivered thence, which were a Mockery of God. 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him, in Jer. 14. 11. there∣fore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory, in which God will not hear, is by parity of reason condemned, as if a man should pray that the Reprobate should not be damned, or the Elect should not be saved.

The Protestants say not, that every one, however ignorant or unstable, ought unappealably to judge of the sense of all Scriptures by his private interpretation. There are plain Scriptures and Points fundamental, and of these they say they may and ought to judge of their sense each one by his own private interpreta∣tion, if by it be meant his own understanding, but not if by it be meant a peculiar fancy such as no man else conceives, nor the words import: but they say in difficult places and points not fundamental they ought not to judge of their sense unappealably, that is, so as not to use the help of the learned, in which number Fathers and Councils have their place, and especially their own Teachers, to finde out the meaning of them: yet when they have used means, they may, and must suspend any judgement at all, or stick to that which in their own understanding seems most probable, or else they must go against their own conscience, which were sin, or they must be Hypocrites, saying, they judge that to be so, which they do not, yea, there should be an impossibility in nature granted, that a man at the same time doth judge that to be the sense of the same thing which he doth not: but they deny, that a man ought so to rest on any Pope, or Councils, or Doctours judgement, as to hold what they hold without any other proof, though it be in their apprehension against Scripture, sith that is plainly condemned, Matth. 23. 10. And they hold that every man, that hath the use of natural understanding ought to reade the Scripture, John 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. 2. Tim. 3. 15, 16. and to judge their sense in this manner, and this is no Errour, much less a darling Errour of Protestancy. Nor can H. T. prove it any where condemned in Scripture. As for the place 2 Pet. 3. 16. to which his words seem to allude, it proves not the reading of the Scri∣pture or judging of the sense to be condemned, yea ver. 3. 15. proves the con∣trary, that Christians should reade Paul's Epistles, in which those things are which are hard to be understood. onely it condemns the wresting of them to their perdition by the unlearned and unstable, which Protestants do condemn as well as Papists.

It is not forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever he is, but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Christ in a Wafer-cake on earth, called the Host by Papists, whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God, and of whom it is said, that the Heaven must contain him

till the times of the restitution of all things. Acts 3. 21. and so it is forbidden to adore that Bread, as if Christ's Body were there, it being a belief of an Er∣rour contrary to an Article of Faith. 2. It is flat Idolatry to adore with di∣vine Worship a piece of Bread, though taken to be the Body of Christ, it being forbidden, Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve. Nor can the imagination of a person acquit the person that does it from Idolatry. For if it could, the Worship of the golden calf, which the Israelites proclaimed to be the Gods that brought them out of Egypt, Exod. 32. 8. and worshipped God thereby, vers. 4. 5, 8. Micah's Worship of his molten Image of the Silver, which he dedicated to the Lord, Judges 17. 2 3 4 and Jeroboam's Worship of the golden Calf, 1 Kings 12. 28. yea, all the Idolatry of the Heathens who worshipped those things which were no Gods should be excused, because they thought them Gods, or intended to worship God by them. As for working upon the Saturday, it is true, it was forbidden to the Jews; but we conceive it not forbidden to us, because the Jewish Sabbath is abrogated, Col. 2. 16. And if H. T. do not think so, he doth Judaize, and if he hold the Lord's day and the Saturday Sabbath too, he agrees with the Ebionites, mentioned by Eusebius, lib. 3. hist. ••ap. 27. so that it is utterly false, that if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion, Protestants clearly can neither con∣demn the Catholick, no justifie their own. B••t it is rather true, which Dr. Carleton in his little Book of the Church avouched, that the now Roman Church is proved not to be the true Church of Christ, because in the Trent Council the Romanists have altered the Rule of Faith. And for my part, to my best un∣derstanding I do judge, that the Romanists are not to be reckoned amongst Christians, though they call themselves so, but that as by their worshipping of Images, burning Incense to them, praying to a Crucifix, adoring the Host, and almost all their Worship, and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity, 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes. 4. 5, 6. and thereby are become Pagans; so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings, to wit, unwritten Traditions, which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him, they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ, which is all one with Christians, Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ, but Papists (which name Bellarmine, lib. de not is Eccles. cap. 4. doth not dis∣own) or the Popes Church truly Antichristian.