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. III. S. Athanasius obiected by Doctor Morton.

THat S. Athanasius beleeued not the necessity of vnion and subiection to the Roman Church, you proue(d), for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope, he regarded not his excommunication. This we deny: It is peraduenture true though not altogether certaine(e), that Liberius wearied out with two yeares banishment, and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor, yeilded to signe the con∣demnation of Athanasius, and entred into communion with the Arians, and thereby became a Schismatike. But that he excommunicated Athanasius, is not reported by any writer: nor is it true, but a fiction of yours. And were it true, the excommunication had not only bene iniust, as being pronounced against an innocent person, (and ther∣fore no way obligatory) but also inualid; for as much, as

Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholikes, and entring into communion with heretikes, was fallen from his Papacy, and had no power to pronounce excommu∣nication against Athanasius: or if he had pronounced it, Athanasius had not bene bound to obey. To proue, that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome, you should haue proued that whiles Liberius was true Pope, he excommunicated Athanasius, and that A∣thanasius refused to obey; which you proue not, and ther∣fore your obiection is impertinent, and your assertion false.

For who knoweth not, that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church, when being cast out of his Bishoprick, he appealed to Iulius Pope, and Iulius by the dignity and prerogatiue of the Roman See, restored him againe to his Church(f) ? And what els did he meane, when he and the rest of the Aegyptian Bishops, writing to Marcus Pope, endorsed their letter, To the holy, and Venerable Lord of Apostolicall Eminency, Marke, Father of the holy Roman, Apostolike See, and of the vniuersall Church? And in the letter: We desire, that by the authority of the Church of your holy See, which is the Mo∣ther, and Head of all Churches▪ we may deserue to receaue the copies of the Nicen Canons, by these our Legates, for the instruction, and comfort of the faythfull, that being fensed by your authority &c. And againe(g): We are yours, and with all that are committed to vs, are and will euer be obedient to you. And in his Epistle to Fe∣lix Pope: For as much as our Predecessors, and we, haue alwayes re∣ceaued assistance from your holy Apostolike See, and haue had expe∣rience of the care you haue of vs, we following the decrees of the Ca∣nons, fly for succour vnto it, as vnto a Mother, from whence our pre∣decessors haue receaued their orders, doctrine, and reliefe. And a∣gaine(h): Which by no meanes we dare presume to do (to wit to define matters of fayth) without consulting you, the Canons com∣manding, that in maior causes nothing be determined, without the B. of Rome &c. For therfore Christ hath placed you, and your predeces∣sors in the height of Eminency, and commanded you to haue care of all Churches &c. And he addeth(i), that, It belongs to the Pope to iudge the causes of all Bishops.

If therfore to appeale to the Pope, as to his Iudge; if to acknowledg in him, power, to restore the greatest Pa∣triarkes to their Sees; if to professe that the iudgment of Bi∣shops belongeth to him, and that all maior causes are to be referred to his tribunall; if to belieue the Roman Church to be the Head, and Mother of all Churches, and the Pope to be Bishop of the vniuersall Church; and finally if to pro∣fesse actuall, and promise perpetuall obedience to the See Apostolike, be Arguments of S. Athanasius his beliefe of the soueraigne authority of the See Apostolike, & of his o∣bligation to obey her, and to liue in vnion with her, and in subiection to her; then are you guilty of Imposture, in o∣mitting these, and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind, extant in his second Apology, and obiecting in lieu of them, a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athana∣sius, deuised by your selfe to seduce your readers.

And hereby you are conuinced of another vntruth, in saying(k), that, Athanasius sought not any vnion with Felix, who was Pope insteed of Liberius: for these his testimonies shew, that he was in communion with him, and acknowledged him∣selfe subiect to him, as to the Gouernor of the vniuersall Church.

But you say(l) (and that impertinently to the matter in hand, which is to proue S. Athanasius his no subiection to the Roman Church) that, When we esteeme Felix to be the legitimat Pope, and Liberius a Schismatike remoued from the society of Catholikes, and from his Papall function, wee fight notably a∣gainst our owne principles, which are: 1. That there cannot be two Popes together: and 2. That no Pope can be deposed vnlesse he appeare to be a manifest heretike; which if he be, he ceaseth to be Pope, with∣out any iudgement at all. That there cannot be two Popes to∣gether, we acknowledge to be a principle of ours. Nor did it happen otherwise, in the case of Liberius: for when he returned to the Papacy, it was by acceptation of the Clergy & people of Rome equiualent to a new election; and this, not vntill after Felix his death. For as Sozomen prudently obserueth(m). God by his speciall prouidence called Felix out of this life soone after Liberius returned to Rome, lest the

See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schisme, two Popes gouerning at once, contrary to the lawes of the Church. The second principle is not ours, but an ignorance of yours: For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholike, & consequētly falleth from his Papacy, not only by publicke profession of heresy, but also by making publicke profession of Schisme, and out∣ward communion with heretikes, though in his hart he detest their doctrine: for to be a Catholike, it is not only necessary to belieue the Catholike fayth inwardly, but also to make profession thereof outwardly, abandoning the cōmunion of heretikes. Wherfore the syllogisme which here you make(n), concludeth nothing; the Minor propositi∣on, that, Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemna∣tion of Athanasius, and communicating with heretikes, was a Catho∣liks Bishop, is absolutely false. And wheras you professe, to set downe this Minor as the words of Bellarmine, you fal∣sify him: for albeit he say, that if a Pope become a mani∣fest heretike he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope, yet in the same place(o) he sufficiently expresseth, that not only here∣tikes, but also schismatikes are out of the Church, and loose all spirituall iurisdiction ouer those, which are in the Church.

Notes

• (d)

  Pag. 190.
• (e)

  Onuphr in Not ad Plati. Ruffin. l. 1. hist••c. 27. So∣zom. l. 4. c. 14.
• (f)

  Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7.
• (g)

  Eadem Ep.
• (h)

  Ibid.
• (i)

  Ibid.
• (k)

  Pag. 191.
• (l)

  Pag. 190.
• (m)

  L. 4. c. 14.
• (n)

  Pag. 190. sin. 191.
• (o)

  L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia.