Anti-Mortonus or An apology in defence of the Church of Rome. Against the grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. Whereto is added in the chapter XXXIII. An answere to his late sermon printed, and preached before His Maiesty in the cathedrall church of the same citty..

SECT. VII. Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles, Catholike Epistles.

THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Ro∣man Church aboue all others, is a thing manifest, if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges. Them you must giue vs leaue to follow, and forsake you, fighting against S. Paul and them.

Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more: The first is(l), that whereas the epistles of S. Iames, Peter, Iude, and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistle••, if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome, he would haue intituled the Church of Rome, the Catholike Church, and at least in∣scribed his epistle▪ Catholike. The second is(m), that he giueth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church, which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians, Galathi••ns, and Thessalonians he giues to those Churches.

To the first I answere, that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles. That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames, Peter, Iohn, & Iude by the Church for diuers reasons, which you may reade in Salmeron(n) and chiefly because (as S. Augustine(o) witnesseth) they were written against the heresy of Si∣mon Magus, defending Iustification by only fayth, wherin Protestants are his heires. And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes, and the keeping of Gods Commandements, and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse. And for the same cause S. Iohn(p) ad∣monisheth the faythfull, to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning, because many seducers are gone out into the world. And S. Iude(q) exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth, shewing them by examples, that it is dam∣nable not to be constant in it.

To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome, that they which were but a small number newly conuerted, and weake, S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church, to comfort them; but not those, that were more in number, and of longer standing, as the Ro∣mans were, when he writ vnto them. For this reason I say, that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, by the name of a Church in expresse words, so neither did he the Romans, but only virtually and impli∣citly, saying(r) To all that are at Rome the beloued of God, called Saints, which title cannot agree to any congregation, but to a true Church of Christ, as(s) Salmeron learnedly proueth, and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge, saying:(t) S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place, omitteth the name of a Church, and mentioneth only the persons saying: To the Saints at Colosse: To them at Rome be∣loued of God, called Saints. But because you mention Salme∣rons solution, I will giue the reader notice, how fouly you abuse and fallify him. He giues three solutions to this Argu∣ment. The first, he most approueth; and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader, that he giues not three, but only the two later: and therfore wheras he begins the second thus: Posset secundò commode dici, you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution, but his first: and to the same end you say, allata alia solutione, ad hunc redit, that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this, saying, but the first solution in my iudgment is more so••de, which words containe a most notorious falsification: for he returnes not to this, which you make the first, by leauing out secundò, but to the first of the three, which you neuer mention. And wheras he sayth, that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide, you by falsifying, apply this his saying to the second; against which because you can make a shift to cauill, you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution, and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three.

But of what import to your cause is this iugling? Marry, that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth

the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles, you may inferre, that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be (as other Churches) subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions: and in proofe therof you say,(u) that, not only our Professors among themselues, but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes, and factions &c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty; an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares. Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church, is Stapleton. The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke, De princip. Doctrin. Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all. But be it, that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Ro∣man Church: Schisme is not a sinne against fayth, but a∣gainst Charity. If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity, was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Ro∣man Church? If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure, who can stay in your Protestant congregation, diuided & subdiuided into Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Bro∣wnists and a thousand other Sects vnder these? new ones daily arising among you, as Separatists and Socinians, all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity, but in the very substance of fayth.

And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her: for since (as our Authors haue aduertised) nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors, nor the Gothes and Vandals, nor the Turke, nor any sacks, or massacres by Alaricus, Gensericus Attila, Borbon, and others, nor the emulation of secular Princes, (were they Kings or Empe∣rors) nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes, nor the manifold difficul∣ties & dangers in their elections, nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons, nor any scan∣dall, haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church, as they haue done the Churches of the East, and many of the

West; it is a manifest signe (& so much the more euident, the greater the persecutions, and the more and longer the schismes haue bene) that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow.

Notes

• (l)

  Pag. ••••.
• (m)

  Ibid.
• (n)

  Disp. 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi.
• (o)

  De fide & oper. c. 14.
• (p)

  Ep. 1. vers. 24. & 27.
• (q)

  Vers. 4.8. & seqq.
• (r)

  Rom. 1.7.
• (s)

  Tom. 13. disp. 7. in ep. ad Rom.
• (t)

  Pag. 7••. sin.
• (u)

  Pag. 69.