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. II. Others of Doctour Mortons Answeares, to the ancient Fa∣thers, examined.

SOme Easterne Bishops, who with great scandall of the Church, and perturbation of the people, refused to in∣sert

the name of Chrysostome into the Dyptikes, or tables of publike records, were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius, with command, that they should not be admitted into the peace, and communion of the Roman Church, vntill they restored him. This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome, you wrest it to a contrary sense.

Among them, that refused to restore the name of Chry∣sostome were, Alexander Patriarke of Antioch, and Aca∣cius Bishop of Beroë: but these two, to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church, restored his name, and performed what els Innocentius in ioyned them(a) 1.1. Of these two you are silent: they were not for your purpose. But because some others stood out for a time, you lay hold on them, who vpon due examina∣tion will proue as litle to your purpose, as the two you conceale.

Your first example(b) 1.2 is of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria, who stood out vntill the end of his life. But God, that would not haue a man so well deseruing of his Church, to die in the state of excommunication, ordained by his prouidence, that the soule of Theophilus could not depart out of his body, vntill an Image of S. Chrysostome being brought vnto him, he adored it, doing pennance for his former error, and by that meanes restored himselfe to the peace of the Church. This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus, and out of him by S. Iohn Damas∣cen(c) 1.3. Wherfore your deniall of it, is a falsity framed with∣out ground by your selfe, out a desire, that Theophilus should haue died out of the Communion of the Roman Church, as you liue.

Your second example(d) 1.4, is of Atticus Patriarke of Con∣stantinople, who being excommunicated for the same cause, persisted sometime in his error: but at length moued by the example of Theophilus, and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him(e) 1.5, Innocen∣tius yeilded to absolue him; prouided, that he would him∣selfe aske absolution, and restore the name of Chrysostome.

Hereupon Atticus (witnesse Theodoret(f) 1.6 sent many em∣bassages to Rome, to obtaine the communion of Innocen∣tius, but could neuer obteine it, vntill partly by perswasion of the Emperor, and partly fearing a tumult of the people, he restored the name of Chrysostome, and writ letters to Cyrill B. of Alexandria, persuading him to do the like. Wherfore Baronius truly sayth(g) 1.7, that Atticus restored Chry∣sostome by the command and compulsion of Innocentius, and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only, as you comment: for if he feared the tumult of the people, it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring Chrysostome, as Innocentius had comman∣ded. And if (as you obiect(h) 1.8 he called two Bishops, that had died in the communion of the Roman Church, Schismatikes, he spake in passion, seing himselfe excōmunicated by the B. of Rome, and knew (as you also do) that he spake vntruly: for if it were thought Schisme to be in the communion of the Ro∣man Church (as you say he did,) why did he so earnestly desire, and send so many Embassages, to be admitted into her communion? Was is to make himselfe a Schismatike? Nay was it not to free himselfe from schisme? Why do not you imitate him?

Your third example(i) 1.9 is of Cyrill Patriarke of Alexan∣dria, who if for a tyme he obeyed not Innocentius, in re∣storing the name of Chrysostome, it was because he iudged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons, witnesse his owne words alleaged by your selfe(k) 1.10. But his iudgment was erroneous: and because what he did, was out of a pious zeale, as he conceaued, God reduced him by a miraculous Vision, wherin he saw himselfe cast out of the Church by Chrysostome, and a troupe of Saints that assi∣sted him therin; but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him, as one that had defended her honor a∣gainst Nestorius. Cyrill moued with this vision, condem∣ning his owne iudgment concerning Chrysostome, and calling a Prouinciall Synod restored his name to the sacred records, as the other Patriarkes had done.

To this you make two replies: first(l) 1.11 you call this, A tale

of Nicephorus, a fabulous Author, that liued 800. yeares after Cy∣rills death. But you wrong Nicephorus: for he reportes it out of Nicetas, that liued almost 500. yeares, nearer Cy∣rills tyme, then himselfe, and out of other ancient histo∣rians. Hoc (sayth he(m) 1.12 in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia, & apud alios inueni.

2. You reply(n) 1.13, that, Cyrills restoring Chrysostome cannot any whit serue our turne, because he did not simply by submission to the Popes decree, but by vertue of a Vision in a dreame. Surely you seeme to haue bene in a dreame, when you deuised this answeare: for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Popes authority, then that God by a miraculous vision, should notify to Cyril, that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius, he was out of the Church. And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome; he (I say) that being greatly exasperated against other Bi∣shops for the name of Chrysostome, yet neuer let slip from his mouth any the least irreuerent word against Innocen∣tius? And who can be ignorant, that he firmely belieued the supreme authority of the Roman See, when he presided in the Councell of Ephesus, as Vicar to Celestine Pope(o) 1.14 ? Without whose order, as he durst not depart from the Communion of Nestorius, so he executed on his person punctually, what Celestine commanded. And finally his beliefe was, that saluation cannot be had out of the Ro∣man Church(p) 1.15.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Spond. anno 408. n. 11.
• (b) 1.2

  Pag. 258.259.
• (c) 1.3

  L. 3. de imag. prope fin.
• (d) 1.4

  Pag. 257.
• (e) 1.5

  Baron. anno 408.
• (f) 1.6

  L. 5. hist. c. 34.
• (g) 1.7

  Anno 425.
• (h) 1.8

  Pag. 258.
• (i) 1.9

  Pag. 259.260.261.
• (k) 1.10

  Pag. 259. fin.
• (l) 1.11

  Pag. 261.
• (m) 1.12

  L. 14. c. 28.
• (n) 1.13

  Pag. 261.
• (o) 1.14

  See aboue Chap. 18. sect. 1.
• (p) 1.15

  See aboue Chap. 1. sect. 4.