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.
Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.
Page  [unnumbered]

The Contents.

    ARTICLE I.
  • THe Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession. Page 1
  • Sect. 1. Of the Title of H. T. his Manual, in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed. ibid.
  • 2. Of the Epistles prefixed, in which he ascribes too much to the Church, and deceitfully begins with her Authority. 3
  • 3. His Tenet of the falsity of all Churches, not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd. 4
  • 4. The Succession required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church. 7
  • 5. None of the Texts alleged by H. T. prove a necessity to the being of a true Church of such Succession as he imagines. 10
  • 6. The Succession pretended in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church, but the contrary. 11
  • 7. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Suc∣cession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years. 13
  • 8. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Suc∣cession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries of years. 18
  • 9. The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in sixth, se∣venth, eighth, ninth, tenth Centuries is shewed. 21
  • 10. The defect of his Catalogue in the eleventh and twelfth Ages is shewed. 25
  • 11. The defect of his Catalogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth Ages is shewed. 28
  • 12. The defect of his Catalogue in the fifteenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed. 32
  • 13. The close of H. T. is retorted. 36
  • 14. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections. 38
    Page  [unnumbered] ARTICLE II.
  • PRotestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God. 42
  • Sect. 1. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists de∣mand. ibid.
  • 2. The Argument of H. T. against Protestants doth as well prove the nul∣lity of the Roman Church for want of Succession as of the Protestants. 44
  • 3. Protestants have had a Succession sufficient to aver their Doctrine. 47
  • 4. The Succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants, not∣withstanding the Exceptions of H. T. 51
  • 5. The Doctrine of Romanists was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years, nor is acknowledged to be so by learned Prote∣stants. 53
  • 6. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain, and the Apostasie of the Roman Church is proved. 56
    ARTICLE III.
  • SUch visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be neces∣sary to the being of a true Church. 62
  • Sect. 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church: and what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church. ibid.
  • 2. Neither Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5. 14. Psalm 18. (19) 4. nor the words of Ire∣naeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augustine, prove such a Church visibi∣lity as H. T. asserts. 65
  • 3. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church, as it is by H. T. asserted. 66
    ARTICLE IV.
  • THe Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church, which in the Aposto∣lick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Christian Faith. 69
  • 1. 〈◊〉 in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Discipline is not essentially presup∣posed Page  [unnumbered] to the universality of the Church militant. ibid.
  • 2. The ambiguity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed. 70
  • 3. Unity of Discipline under one visible Head, and of Faith without division in lesser Points, is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes. 1. 22, 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Acts 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed necessary to the Churches being. 71
  • 4. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one, or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants, and H. T. his Argument from the unity of the Church is better against than for the Roman Church. 73
  • 5. The Argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him for Protestants. 77
  • 6. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Ephes. 4. 12, 13. John 14. 15, 16. Luke 1. 33. for time, Psalm 85. (86) 9. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. Psalm 19. 4. for place, agrees not to the now Roman Church, but may be better said of the Protestants. 78
  • 7. The words of Irenaeus, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augu∣stine are not for the universality of H. T. by which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman Church but against it. 80
  • 8. It is non-sense or false to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church, and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered. 81
    ARTICLE V.
  • THe Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church, nor the highest visible Judge of controversies, nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith, nor to have power from God to oblige all men to obey her under Pain of Damnation, but all this is a meer impudent arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scriptures or Antiquity. 85
  • Sect. 1. The decit of H. T. in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of controversies in the Church, which he means of the Pope, is shewed. ibid.
  • 2. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick Churches Infallibi∣lity. 87
  • 3. Matth 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15, 16. make nothing for the claim of the Roman Church, or Popes, or oecumenical Councils Infallibili∣ty. 88
  • 4. None of these Texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14 26. John 16. 13. Acts 15. 28. do prove the Infallibility in Points of Faith of the Catholick or Roman Church, or the Pope, or a general Council approved by him. 90
  • 5. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning, and of our Salvation without supposing the Churches Infallibility. 93
  • 6. Neither can the Church oblige men under Pain of Damnation to believe Page  [unnumbered] her Definitions of Faith, nor is there any such Judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her, nor do any of the Fathers words cited by H. T. say it is, the words of Irenaeus, Cyprian, lib. 1. Epist. 3. August. contr. Epist. Fundam. cap. 5. &c. are shewed not to be for it, but some of them plainly against it. 97
  • 7. The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the Infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers. 106
  • 8. The Objections of Protestants against the Churches Infallibility from Fa∣thers and Councils are vindicated from H. T. his Answers. 124
    ARTICLE VI.
  • THe Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her sanctity and Miracles. 131
  • Sect. 1. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent. ibid.
  • 2. The sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church. 132
  • 3. The imagined holiness of Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Dominick, proves not the verity of the now Roman church. 134
  • 4. The Roman church is not proved to be the true church by the holiness of its Doctrine, but the contrary is true. 136
  • 5. The Devotion of the Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman church, it being for the most part will-worship and Pharisaical hypocrisie. 139
  • 6. The power of working Miracles is no certain mark of the true church. 143
  • 7. The Popish pretended Miracles prove not the truth of their church, nor the Miracles related by some of the Fathers. 144
  • 8. The Objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman church from the Power of Miracles are not solved by H. T. 147
    ARTICLE VII.
  • THe Pope's or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole church is not proved by H. T. 151
  • Sect. 1. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome, or that he was to have a Successour. ibid.
  • 2. From being the Foundation, Matth. 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ, John 21. 16, 17. neither Peter's nor the Pope's Supremacy is proved. 152
  • Page  [unnumbered] 3. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles, but a Promise of special success in his Preaching. 156
  • 4. John 21. 16, 17, 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole church. 159
  • 5. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren, Luke 22. 31. and his priority of nomination, prove not his Supremacy. 161
  • 6. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter. 164
  • 7. The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Su∣premacy. 165
  • 8. The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10, 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Pope's Supremacy. 169
  • 9. Cyprian, Hierome, Gregory, the councils of Constantinople, Chalce∣don, Nice, are against the Pope's Supremacy. 176
  • 10. Of the Emperours calling Councils, Pope Joan, Papists killing Princes excommunicate, not keeping faith with Hereticks. 18
    ARTICLE VIII.
  • THe unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith. 187
  • Sect. 1. The Argument for Apostolical tradition as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered. ibid.
  • 2. Unwritten traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles. 190
  • 3. The obligation of the church not to deliver any thing as a Point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Tradition a Rule of Faith. 191
  • 4. Counterfeits even in Points of Faith might and did come into the church under the name of Apostolick tradition without such a force as H. T. imagines necessary thereto. 195
  • 5. 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. 198
  • 6. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith. 202
  • 7. Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Tradi∣tions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers. 205
  • 8. H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions. 212
    Page  [unnumbered] ARTICLE IX.
  • PRotestants in not holding communion with the Roman church, as now it is, in their worship, in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head, in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull, are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie. But Papists by ejecting them for this cause, and seeking to impose on them this subjection are truly Schismaticks, and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks. 220
  • Sect. 1. H. T. his Definitions of Schism and Heresie are not right. ibid.
  • 2. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Re∣formation. 221
  • 3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schisma∣ticks. 224
  • 4. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquitting Protestants from Schism and Heresie, and condemning Papists. 226
FINIS.