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. VII.

Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers.

H. T. proceeds thus. Objections solved. Object. You have made frustrate the Commandments of God for your Tradition, St. Matth. cap. 15. v. 4. Beware lest any man deceive you by vain fallacy according to the Traditions of men, Col. 2. Answ. These Texts are both against the vain Traditions of private men, not against Apostolical tradition.

I Reply, they are against the Popish unwritten Traditions, which are falsly called Apostolical, which are indeed the meer Inventions of men, either de∣vised by superstitious Prelates, Priests, Monks or people, or upon uncertain re∣port received by credulous people, as from the Apostles, as the Traditions about Easter, Lent Fast, Christ's age, and many more shew. And in such kinde of mens Inventions doth almost all the Popish Worship and Service consist, which causeth breaking the command of God to observe mens Traditions, as is manifest in Monkish Vows, whereby honouring of Parents is made void, and the keeping of the Cup from the people, whereby the express command of Christ is evacuated.

Object. There is no better way to decide controversies than by Scripture. Answ. Than by Scriptures expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apostolical tradition, I grant: than by Scripture according to the dead Letter, or expounded by the private spirit, I deny. For so (as Tertullian says) there is no good got by disputing out of the Texts of Scripture, but either to make a man sick or mad. De praescript. cap. 19.

I reply, it is well this man will grant, There is no better way to decide contro∣versies than by the Scriptures expounded by the Church, and according to the Rule of Apostolical tradition: then Knot's Reasons for a living Judge against Dr. Potter come to nothing: we desire no other than to have our controversies de∣cided this way, rejecting any one infallible Judge that shall take on him, as the Pope doth, to prescribe to the Church of God how they shall understand the Scripture. The Church of God, that is, the company of believers, who are the Church of God by Papists own definition, having the help of their godly and learned Guides may expound the Scriptures any where in the World, at Ge∣neva, London, Dort, and other places as well, and better than the Pope and his Cardinals at Rome, or a Council of Canonists, titular Bishops, sworn vassals of the Pope, that never knew what it was to preach the Gospel, sophistical School-men at Trent. And for the Rule of Apostolical tradition, we like it well to expound Scripture by it, meaning that which is in the Books of Scri∣pture, as Austin taught, lib. 1. de doctr. Christ. cap. 2. 35. 37. 40. lib. 2. cap. 8. 9. 11.

lib. 3. cap. 2 3. 5. 10. 17. 18. 27. 28. lib 4. cap. 3. as the words are cited and vin∣dicated from Hart's Replies by Dr. John Rainoll, Confer. with Hart. chap 2. divis. 2. Nor do I know any other Apostolical tradition, which is a Rule to expound Scriptures by for deciding controversies but their Epistles, and other Writings. If H. T. can shews me any such to expound them by, let him pro∣duce them, and I will embrace them. Sure I am Popes Expositions and Popish Councils, Canons, are so far from being Apostolical traditions, that they are rather the most ridiculous, profane, and blaphemous pervertings of Scripture that ever any sober man used, as may appear by their Canon Law. Yea, the very Council of Trent hath absurdly abused Scripture, as might be made ma∣nifest by going over their Canons, and the like may be said of the Roman Ca∣techism.

What H. T. means by the dead Letter I understand not, unless he mean the literal sense, which sure Bellarmine and others allow for one sense, and that most genuine, and if it be not, why did the Trent Council decree the vulgar Translation not to be refused? Why did Cajetan, Arias Montanus, the R••e∣mists, and many more translate and expound according to the Letter? Is the Scripture any more a dead Letter than the Popes Breves or Trent Canons? Are they any more a living Judge than the Scripture? Pope Pius the fourth ties Papists to expound the Scriptures according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which is, except in very few things, a meer nullity, and, if it were a reality, impossible to be done, yet however could it be done the exposition must be by a dead Letter in H. T. his sense as much as the Scripture. But how in∣tolerable is it that such a Wretch as H. T. should thus blasphemously call that a dead Letter, which Stephen calls Living Oracles, Acts 7. 38. Paul the word of life, Phil. 2. 16. It is true for Popes, of whom some, if Alphonsus a Cast•••• lib. 1. advers. Haeret. cap. 1. say true, were so unlearned as not to understand Grammar, it is desirable that the Scripture should not be expounded according to the Letter, sith they are unable to do it, that they may vent their illiterate fopperies under pretence of Apostolical tradition, of which sort many of their Decrees are in their Canon Law.

But me thinks all the learned Romanists; even the Jesuits themselves, speci∣ally those that have written large Commentaries according to the literal sense, as Salmeron, Maldonat, Lorinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Tirinus, and many more should reject this foolery of H. T. concerning the expounding of Scripture, not according to the literal sense, which he calls the dead Letter, or else at once blot out all they have written for finding it as a meer encumbrance to the World. And the same may be said of not expounding by the private spirit. For why do these private men take so much pains to publish Commentaries? Is not their spirit as much private, as Calvin's, Beza's, Luther's, and others, and these mens spirit as publick as theirs? Let any man assign Reasons if he can why all the Commentaries of the Romanists should not be cashier'd under this pretence as well as the Protestants, who are as learned, industrious as they, and far more sincere and impartial. Why should not the Popes expositions be rejected as well as others? Have they any more than a private spirit? Do not their very Breves, and Monitories, and Decrees, shew that it is a private spirit they act and decide by? Sure the Spirit of God would not dictate such vain things as they utter, and which sometimes they are fain to recall, lest their

nakedness appear. Do not the Popes by their own confessions in correcting the vulgar Latin Translation, and other things they set forth, declare, that they use industry and the help of learned men? If they have a publick spirit, why do not the Popes make us an Exposition of Scripture, which all must own? Is it not because they are for the most part a race of ignorant and unlearned men, specially in the Scriptures, and, should they attempt such a thing, would make themselves appear ridiculous, and shew their asinine ears, though now they seem terrible, and to carry majesty with their Lions skin? Is there any thing the Popes can do more necessary than this, that they may end all contro∣versies, and guide all souls aright? But the truth is, the Popes have been so unhappy in alleging Scripture in their Bulls, and Breves, and Monitories, in their dicisions of controversies, that no side will acquiesce in their determinations they are so vain or so partial, but as of old in the controversies between Domi∣nicans and Franciscans about the Virgin Maries immaculate Conception, so of late between the Molinists and Jansenists about Gods Decrees, each party holds what they held, notwithstanding the Popes decision, which for the most part is so composed, that each party may think it makes for him, and he may loose neither. And about the Edition of the vulgar Translation in Latin of the Bible, how much have the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clemens the eighth discovered their unskilfulness, when after such profession of diligence and use of learned men as the Popes make, yet they have published their Editi∣ons contrary one to another! The words of Tertullian are cap. 17. against those Hereticks Valentinus, Marcion, and such as agreed not with Christians in the Rule of Faith set down cap. 13. whom he denies to be Christians, and such he thinks it would be unfit to dispute with out of Scripture, but he doth not so judge concerning such as agree in the Rule of Faith, though some term them Hereticks. I may more truly say, there is no good got by Popes inter∣pretations of holy Scripture but to make a man sick or mad: such Expositi∣ons as Alexander the third made of Psalm 91. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the Asp and Basili••k, when he trode on the Emperour Frederick's neck, or Boni∣face the eighth, when to prove himself above Emperours and Kings, he alleged Gen. 7. 16. God made two great Lights, that is, the Pope and the Sun, and the Emperour as the Moon, with many more of the like sort are no better than sick mens dreams or mad mens freaks.

It is added. Object. All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for teach∣ing, for arguing, for reproving, and for instructing in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work, 1 Tim. 3. 16, 17. therefore Traditions are not necessary, Answ. St. Paul speaks onely there of the old Scripture, which Timothy had known from his childhood (when little of any of the new could be written) as is plain by the precedent Verse, which we acknowledge to be profitable for all those uses, but not sufficient; neither will any more follow out of that Text, if understood of the new Scriptures: so that your consequence is vain and of no force.

I reply, that which is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, instruct in righteous∣ness, so as that the man of God may be entire, fitted, or instructed for every good work. Sure that is a sufficient Rule for Doctrine of Faith and good Works, and so to salvation. But such is the Scripture, as the Text tells us. Ergo. The Major is apparent, sith no more is required to a sufficient Rule of

Doctrine, if there be, let it be shewed, that it may be known wherein this is de∣fective. Sure that which is profitable for all uses to which Doctrine serves is a sufficient Doctrine. The Answer of H. T. here is so far from being a full Answer to the Objection (as he vainly vaunts in the Title page of his Book) that indeed it is a confirmation of the Objection. For if the old Scriptures were so profitable as to make the man of God a Teacher of the Church, entire, that they were able to make him wise to salvation, and furnish him with instru∣ction to every good work, much more when the Books of the New Testament were added, of which one of the Gospels is by H. T. here pag. 104. said to have been written eight years after the Death of Christ, and doubtless Timothy knew it, and however he had the former Epistle to himself before the Epistle in which this passage is, which is ill printed, 1 Tim 3. 16, 17. it being 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. and therefore the Scripture he had was a sufficient Rule to him a Bishop without Traditions, much more to others, and so Traditions unwritten are proved unnecessary and superfluous.

Again saith H. T. Object. If any one shall add to these God shall add to him the Plagues written in this Book, Apoc. 22. 18, 19. Therefore it is not law∣full to add Traditions. Answ. It follows immediately, And if any one shall diminish from the words of this Prophecy God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life, vers. 19. By which St. John evidently restrains that Text to the Book of his own Prophecies onely; which is not the whole Rule of Faith; and therefore by that you cannot exclude either the rest of the Scriptures or Apo∣stolical Traditions from that Rule.

I reply, there is no reason why the same thing is not to be understood of the whole Canon, and each particular Book, sith there is the like Deut. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31. 2 Thess. 2. 1, 2. wherein are general Warnings of not recei∣ving additions to the Scripture, yea, though the names of Moses and Paul were pretended, especially when the Traditions do adulterate the written Word as Popish traditions about Images, Fasting, single life, of the Clergy, Monastick Vows, and others of their Traditions do.

Yet he adds. Object. We may have a certain knowledge of all things ne∣cessary to salvation by the Bible or written Word onely. Answ. No, we can∣not; for there have been, are and will be infinite Disputes about that to the worlds end, as well what Books are Canonical as what the true sense and mean∣ing is of every Verse and Chapter. Nor can we ever be infallibly assured of ei∣ther, but by means of Apostolical tradition; so that if this be interrupted, and failed for any one whole Age together (as Protestants defend it for many) the whole Bible, for ought we know, might in that space be changed and corrupted: nor can the contrary ever be evinced without new revelation from God: the dead Letter cannot speak for it self.

I reply, this profane Wretch it seems takes delight in this blasphemous Title which he gives to the holy Scripture often in reproach terming it the dead Let∣ter, which he hath no Warrant to do. For though it is true that Ro. 7. 3, 6. 2 Cor. 3. 6. the Law or old Covenant be termed the Letter, and is said to be dead and killing, yet this is not meant of the holy Scripture of the Law, because it is writ∣ten, but because it was abrogated in the Gospel, as killing by its Sentence Sin∣ners that continued not in all things written in it, Gal. 3. 10. And yet it can speak for it self as well, yea, incomparably better than any Writings of Popes, Councils,

or Fathers from whence he hath his Traditions, which are as dead a Letter as the Scripture. And in this his expression there is so much the more iniqui∣ty, in that he prefers before the holy Scripture the uncertain reports of credu∣lous superstitious men, and the Decrees of doating Popes, as more lively than the holy Scripture inspired of God And for this man who but the next Page before confessed, that the words of the Apostle, which tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy written Letters were able to make Timothy wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3 15. to be meant of the old Scripture, and yet here to say, that we cannot have a certain knowledge of all things necessary to salvation by the Bible or written Word onely, what is it but flatly to gainsay the Apostle? which is the more impiously and impudently done, in that he ascribes that to uncertain unwritten Tradition, which neither he nor any of his Fellows are able to shew where it is, or how it may be certainly known, which he denies to holy Scripture. As for his Reason it is frivolous. For a man may have a certain knowledge of that of which there will be infinite Disputes to the Worlds end, else hath he no certain knowledge of the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, po∣wer in Temporals, superiority to a Council, of which yet there have been and are likely to be infinite Disputes. As there have been Disputes about the Ca∣nonical Books, so there have been about unwritten Traditions, as about the time of keeping Easter, Rebaptization, &c. Nor is it true that there are in∣finite Disputes about the true sense and meaning of every Verse and Chapter of the Bible. Sure among Christians there is no dispute of many fundamental truths, which every Christian acknowledgeth; and yet if there were, it is no other thing than what is incident not onely to Philosophers Writings, but also to the Popes Decrees, about which there are infinite Disputes among the Ca∣nonists, to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, about which there were Disputes between Catharinus, Soto, Vega, Andradius, and others, to the Popes Breves, as to Pope Paul the fifth his Breves about the Oath of Al∣legeance, which were not onely disputed by King James and other Protestants, but also by Widrington and other Popish Priests, and to his Monitory and In∣terdict of Venice disputed by Frier Paul of Venice and others against Bellar∣mine, Baronius, and others. And if we can never be infallibly assured of ei∣ther the Canonical Books or their sense but by Apostolical tradition unwritten, then can H. T. never be assured of the Popes Infallibility, or Supremacy but by it, and if so, then the Scripture is not his ground of it, and so he cannot demon∣strate the truth of his Catholick Religion by Texts of holy Scripture, as he pretends in his Title-page, and therefore they are impertinently alleged by him, he should onely allege Tradition: which whether it be Fathers, Councils, or Popes sayings, it cannot assure better than the Scripture, they being more con∣troverted than it, and therefore by his reasoning there can be no certainty in his Faith, and then he is mad if he suffer for it, as he is who suffers for any mans saying, who may be deceived. But we are assured both of the Books of Canonical Scripture, not onely by Apostolical tradition unwritten, but also by universal tradition, and the evidence of their authour by their matter, and of the meaning without Popish tradition, not onely by common helps of under∣standing and arts gotten by study, and the benefit of later and elder Exposi∣tours, but also by the Spirit of God assisting us when we seek it duly. And for the interruption of this Tradition the Protestants do not pretend it to have

been one whole age or day, though it have been sometimes more full than at other times: and we have infallible assurance that the whole Bible hath not been changed or corrupted so but that by reason of the multitude of copies, and special providence of God, the chiefest points are free from change, and what is corrupted may be amended so far as is necessary for our salvation.

And considering Gods providence for the keeping of the Law, we assure our selves the Lord will preserve the Scripture, which me thinks to H. T. should give good assurance, sith pag. 119 he saith, The Church is by Christ the Depo∣sitory of all divinely revealed veritie, necessary to be known by all, and hath the promise of divine assistance to all; whereby and by other arguments it may be evinced without new revelation from God, that though H. T. his apostoli∣cal tradition unwritten should have failed for any one whole age together, yet the whole Bible should not in that space be changed or corrupted. And this is Reply enough to his venemous Answer to that Objection, which tends to de∣press the Scriptures authority (which confessedly comes from God) to exalt the authority of the worst of men, the Popes of Rome, as the stories of their Lives proves sufficiently

It is further urged. Object. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book, but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have Life in his Name, St. John 20. 30, 31. Therefore St. John's Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation. Answ. I deny your Consequence; for St. John omitted many things of great moment, as our Lord's Prayer and his last Supper, which are both necessary to be believed. And though he say, These things are written that we may believe and have life, he says not, that these things onely were written, or are sufficient for that purpose, which is the thing in question, so that he excludes not the rest of the Gospels nor Apostolical traditions. And it is no unusual thing in Scripture to ascribe the whole effect to that which is but the cause in part; thus Christ promiseth beatitude to every single Christian virtue. St. Matthew 5. and St. Paul, Salvation to every one that shall call on the Name of our Lord, or confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe that God hath raised him from the dead, Rom. 10. 4, 9, 10. Yet more than this is requisite to sal∣vation.

I reply. He that saith, These things are written that you may believe, and believing have life, doth inculcate that these are sufficient so far as writing or revealing is requisite to these ends, or else he should make a vain attempt. Fru∣stra sit quod non assequitur finem, That is done in vain which attains not the end, and that is vainly done even deliberately, which is attempted to be done by that means which is foreknown to be insufficient. And therefore H. T. must either yield St. John's Gospel sufficient to beget saith and procure life, or else John to have been imprudent to intend and attempt it by writing it. And therefore he doth ill to deny the Consequence till he can avoid these absurdi∣ties. As for his Reason it is insufficient. For though the Lord's Prayer and the Lord's Supper omitted by John be necessary to be believed, yet they are not so necessary but that we may believe, that Jesus is the Son of God, and have life in his Name without them. And though he say not, that these things one∣ly were written, yet he saith, These things onely which were written were for belief and life; and therefore sufficient thereto. And though he excludes

not the rest of the Gospels, nor Apostolical Traditions, yet he determines that they might believe and have life without them. As for the ascribing beatitude and salvation to each single Christian virtue, it is either because the beatitude is meant of a beatitude in part, or in some respect, as Matth. 5. 5. the reason doth import, or else because all other Christian virtues and duties necessary to salva∣tion are connex or comprehended in that one which is named. And thus this Objection is vindicated.

The next is. Object. St. Luke tells us he hath written of all those things which Jesus did and taught, Act. 1. 1. Therefore all things necessary to salvation are contained in his Gospel. Answ. He writ of all the principal passages of his Life and Death, I grant, (and that was the whole scope and intent of the Evangelists) of all absolutely which he did and taught, I deny; for in the same Chapter he tells us, that during the fourty days which Christ remained with them after his Resurrection, he often appeared to them, instructing them in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, very few of which instructions are mentioned by St. Luke, nor does he or any other of the Evangelists say any thing in their Gospels of the coming of the Holy Ghost, or of the things by him revealed to the Church, which were great and many according to that, I have many things to say to you, but you cannot now bear them, but when the Spirit of Truth cometh he shall teach you all Truth, and the things which are to come he shall shew you, St. John 16. 12, 13, 14. Add to this, that if all things which Jesus taught and did should be written, the whole World would not contain the Books, St. John cap. 21. vers. last. Therefore your Consequence is false, and that saying of St. Luke is to be limited.

I reply, I grant the saying of Luke is to be limited, and yet the consequence is not false. It is true, that St. Luke did not write all absolutely without limi∣tation which Jesus did and taught, neither doth he say it, nor is the argument so framed as if he did; but thus, Luke wrote of all the things which Jesus began to do and teach untill the day that he was taken up, and these were all things ne∣cessary to salvation, therefore Luke's Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation. The Romanists say, that things of meer belief necessary to salva∣tion are contained in the holy-days, Creeds, and Service of their Church, and H. T. himself in the next leaf, pag. 118. says, The whole frame of necessary points of Christian Doctrine was in a manner made sensible and visible by ex∣ternal and uniform practise of the Church Now these are onely the principal passages of Christ's Life and Death, besides which many more practical points and all fundamental Gospel-truths are delivered therein, therefore even by their own grant all necessary points of Christian Doctrine are taught in the Gospel of Luke. It is certain their intent especially of John was to write of his divine nature, and such Sermons as tend to rectifie the Errours of the Pharisees and Sadduces, and predictions of his Death, Resurrection, and state of the Church after his Ascension. It is true, he did instruct them for fourty days after his Resurrection in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, but whether they are mentioned by Luke or not it is uncertain; that they are delivered by Tradition oral, unwritten or necessary to salvation, so as that without an explicit knowledge of then it cannot be had, is not proved. The same may be said of the things mentioned John 16. 12, 13, 14. & 21. vers. last, and therefore the consequence is not infringed by these Exceptions. I add that

H. T. says not true, that Luke says not any thing in his Gospel of the coming of the Holy Ghost. For Luke 2. 33. the Prediction of Christ, of sending the Promise of the Father, which Acts 2. 33. is expresly termed the Promise of the Holy Ghost, is set down.