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

H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right.

H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie, and begins thus. No∣thing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie: we shall here briefly shew what they are, and who are justly chargeable therewith. Our Tenet is, that not onely Heresie (which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church) but also Schism (which is a separation from her government) is damnable and sacrilegious, and that most Sectaries are guilty of both.

Answ. I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie, and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour's own sense, as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church, and owning the Pope, or being the Pope himself is an Arian, as Pope Liberius, or a Mono∣thelite

as Pope Honorius. And for his definition of Heresie, it is in mine ap∣prehension too obscure and imperfect. For it neither shews what is the Catho∣lick Church, the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie, nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie, nor what separation in heart or profession, or other act, nor when it is wilfull when not, nor how it may be known to be wilfull. Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets, who acquit many from Heresie, who wilfully separate from the Do∣ctrine of the Catholick Church, as they define it, to wit, that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope. As for instance, The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie, yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope, contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth. Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour, but taken as granted, though it may be justly questioned. And for the use of the terms [Heresie] and [Hereticks] in the Ancients it is certain, that many are put in the Cata∣logue of Hereticks by Philastrius, Epiphanius, Augustin, and also by other Writers elder and later, and those opinions termed Heresies, which were not so. The like faults are in the definition of Schism, in not setting down which is the Catholick Church, what is her government, what separation of heart, or out∣ward profession, or other act it is which makes Schism. Nor is this a defini∣tion, which doth agree with their own grants; For the Councils that deposed Popes separated from the government of the Pope, and the French in their pragmatick Sanction, and the Venetians that refused to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory, deny themselves to be Schismaticks. Nor is it shewed how either is damnable or sacrilegious, nor how Protestants are Sectaries, or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either. So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection: yet sith by what follows we may ghess his meaning: let's view his dispute.