Romanism Discussed, Table of contents
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 Succeſſion 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 Succeſſion 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, ſeventh, 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
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 demand. ibid.
2. The Argument of H. T. againſt Proteſtants doth as well prove the nullity 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, notwithſtanding 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 Proteſtants. 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 neceſſary 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 Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chryſoſtome, Auguſtine, prove ſuch a Church viſibility 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 Apoſtolick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Chriſtian Faith. 69
1. … in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Diſcipline is not eſſentially preſuppoſed 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, Auguſtine 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 Infallibility. 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 Infallibility. 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 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 Fathers 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
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 Supremacy. 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, Chalcedon, 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 Traditions 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
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 Reformation. 221
3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Proteſtants Hereticks or Schiſmaticks. 224
4. H. T. hath not ſolved the Objections acquitting Proteſtants from Schiſm and Hereſie, and condemning Papiſts. 226
FINIS.
End of the text · John Tombes, Romanism Discussed (1660)