Liberius

ON ST. LIBERIUS, POPE AND CONFESSOR,

AT ROME

In the year CCCLXVI.

CRITICAL-HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Liberius, Pope and Confessor, at Rome (S.)

BY J. S.

§ I. The memory of Liberius celebrated by the praises of the Fathers, and inscribed in the sacred Calendars of the Latins and the Greeks.

[ ] Although the memory of St. Liberius the Pope is not read in the present Roman Martyrology, Even though the name of St. Liberius has been omitted in several Calendars, and was probably omitted there by Baronius, both because Usuard in his Martyrology gave no place to Liberius, and because some stain seems to have clung to Liberius's memory from the things which he is said to have done against St. Athanasius and in favor of the Arians: yet neither reason can suffice for me to omit St. Liberius in our Work. For neither can Usuard's omission tell against St. Liberius, when martyrologists older than he and contemporary with him speak: nor ought that report, by which he is believed by many to have yielded to the Arian emperor Constantius, to be more effective for denying Liberius's sanctity than was the opinion by which it was long believed that St. Marcellinus offered incense to idols, for removing that holy Pontiff from the sacred Calendars; and perhaps Liberius's lapse is no more certain than Marcellinus's. Certainly, whatever meanwhile be the case concerning the lapse, which I shall show below to be uncertain and less probable, the holy Fathers of his own and nearly his own age thought excellently of Liberius; and he defended the faith in the last years of his life with such constancy and fortitude that it seems chiefly to have been brought about by Liberius's authority and constancy that the Catholic faith quickly saw that grave wound, which it had received by the lapse of all the Fathers of the Council of Rimini, closed over and healed. Wherefore, if we deservedly venerate among the Saints some of the fathers of Rimini, and several others, of whose lapse it is established, because by penitence and by right deeds afterward they washed away the stains before contracted; there seems to be no reason why we should deny the title of sanctity to Liberius on account of a doubtful lapse; especially since we do not give that glorious title to St. Liberius, but find it given to him in the most ancient Martyrologies: and for that cause it is no more lawful for us to take it away from St. Liberius than it would be lawful to call others Saints whom we find numbered among the Saints neither by immemorial possession nor by the judgment of the Church.

[2] yet he was praised for sanctity by Fathers of nearly his own age, St. Ambrose, a Roman by origin, who as boy and youth had given himself to studies at Rome while Liberius administered the Pontificate, so that he knew his manners and his repute excellently well, in book 3 On Virgins, from chapter 1, recites to his sister St. Marcellina, who had received the veil of virginity from St. Liberius, an oration then delivered by him, and prefaces it with these words: It is time, holy sister, to go over again the precepts of Liberius of blessed memory, which thou art wont to discuss with me, that, the holier the Man, the more gracious may the discourse be. And in chapter 4, after the oration recited, he subjoins: These things Liberius of holy memory said with thee. So Ambrose spoke, when the memory of St. Liberius was fresh among the Romans, to his sister Marcellina living at Rome. And since she must have known St. Liberius through the whole time of his Pontificate, and have seen him often at Rome both before and after his exile, Ambrose could not so have addressed his holy sister unless he had known that her esteem also for the sanctity of Liberius's manners was great. Wherefore Ambrose would not have given so honorable a testimony to St. Liberius, had he not been well assured of the sanctity of his manners while living, on account of which he is called the holier Man, and of the happy end of his life, for the sake of which the title of blessed memory and of holy memory is attributed to him. This testimony of St. Ambrose alone, therefore, can suffice for us not to wonder that the memory of St. Liberius was inscribed in the most ancient Calendars. There are added, however, other Fathers too: for at nearly the same time by St. Basil, in epistle 263 (elsewhere 74) written in the name of the Eastern bishops to the Westerns, he is called the most blessed bishop Liberius. St. Epiphanius, Heresy 75, names Liberius, bishop of Rome, of blessed memory. St. Siricius the Pope, in the Epistle to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona, calls Liberius his predecessor of venerable memory. I pass over Theodoret, and several others who celebrate St. Liberius with wondrous praises, since their words are to be recited afterward, and I proceed to the Martyrologies.

[3] In the Hieronymian Martyrologies in Fiorentini, at the XXIII of September: [and he is commemorated in the Hieronymian and other ancient Calendars at the 23rd of September,] At Rome, the deposition of holy Liberus the bishop. In the most ancient Epternach codex: At Rome, of Liberus the bishop. In the Corbie: At Rome, the deposition of holy Liberius the bishop. Not only in all the codices which Fiorentini had is the memory of St. Liberius announced; but in the more contracted ones too, almost all of them, in which not a few others are omitted, this holy Pontiff is celebrated, on days however in some measure different. At the XXIII of September already named the Augustan Martyrology has thus: At Rome, of Liberius the Pope. The Labbean and the Gellonense: At Rome, of Liberius the bishop. The Martyrology of Tours in Martène, after St. Thecla, gives Liberius alone in these words: At Rome, of Liberius the bishop. In the first Martyrology in the same author, tome 6 of the Ample Collection, Liberius is thus commemorated between Linus and Thecla: And the deposition of S. Liberius the bishop. Waldelbert at the same day celebrates St. Liberius in this little verse after Thecla:

And Liberius the Pope consecrates (the ninth Kalends of October) through the Roman city.

There are added some manuscript Martyrologies of the Hieronymian kind, the supplements of Bede, the Appendix of Ado, several supplements of Usuard in codices and editions, and finally very many Martyrologies of more recent writers, together with Galesini, whose Martyrology the Roman Church used before the Baronian one. Peter de Natalibus in the Catalogue of Saints, and the author of the manuscript Florarium of the Saints, likewise agreed upon the same day, so that there is no doubt that the greatest part of the martyrologists, both the more ancient and the more recent, celebrate the memory of St. Liberius on this day, on which for that reason we too treat of him.

[4] Some of the most ancient Martyrologies, however, commemorate St. Liberius on the following day, the XXIV of September. in others at the 24th of the same month: and the same is more probable, At this day the Rheinau Martyrology has thus: At Rome, the deposition of Liberius the bishop. The Reichenau agrees in plainly the same words. Rabanus has: At Rome, the birthday of Priscilla, and of Liberus the bishop and confessor. At the XVII of May in the Hieronymian transcripts mention is also made of some Liberius, a bishop, who is announced at Rome after some martyrs, but in a manner somewhat different, and in some with the name dislocated. Fiorentini in the Annotations doubts whether this be the Liberius the Pope of this day, and inclines rather to the opinion of believing that the bishop Martyr is distinct from Liberius the Pope. Henschen at the XVII of May treated of the Roman Martyrs to whom Liberius is joined or subjoined, and followed the said opinion of Fiorentini. Their chief reason is that Liberius the Pope is announced in the Hieronymian Martyrologies at the XXIII of September. But that argument is little effective, since many other Saints are repeated on various days in the same Hieronymian codices, and in such a way that everywhere the natal or death day seems to be implied. Wherefore, having weighed the passages diligently, it appears to me more probable that he is not other than Liberius the Pope who is joined at the XVII of May after the Roman martyrs in the same place as a bishop confessor, whether this was done on account of some translation of the body, or for another cause unknown to us. And so I transfer the texts of the Martyrologies hither.

[5] In Fiorentini, in the text, after three martyrs at Rome is read, of Liberius the bishop. The Corbie codex after the same three has, of Liberius the bishop. In the Gellonense and the Augustan the bare name of Liberius occurs mixed in with other Martyrs, who is celebrated in various Calendars at the 17th of May. as in the Labbean the corrupted Pliberus for Liberius. But in these no place is assigned to any martyrs of that day, as not seldom happens in those three. In Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota, in the Hieronymian to which the editor attributes an age of a thousand years, among the other martyrs announced at Rome the name of Liberus is found without mention of an episcopate. All these things favor rather the martyrdom of that Liberius than his Pontificate. But three other Martyrologies of good note clearly announce Liberius as a confessor, or at least as not belonging to the number of Roman martyrs of the same day. The most ancient Epternach, with the name of Liberius dislocated, has thus: And the deposition of Libus the bishop. The Reichenau: And the deposition of Liberius the bishop. The Martyrology of the Queen of Sweden: And the deposition of Liberus the bishop. From their consent it appears to me far more probable that Liberius has nothing in common with the preceding Roman martyrs except the place and the day on which they are announced; and I can hardly doubt that it is Liberius the Pope himself who is designated. For no bishop Liberius has become known who died or is venerated at Rome, to whom we might have regard. Filippo Ferrari in the General Catalogue of Saints mentions St. Liberius at the IX of September, on which day, namely, he is said to have died in the old Catalogue of the Pontiffs.

[6] The same is celebrated among the Greeks and the Copts at the 27th of August, The Greeks celebrate the memory of St. Liberius at the XXVII of August, at which day he is adorned with a eulogy in the great printed Menæa, and in the Basilian Menology. In the latter he is thus praised, according to the translation of the Urbino edition: Blessed Liberius, champion of the truth, was bishop of Rome while Constantius reigned. And since he burned with zeal for the orthodox faith, he took up the cause of the great

Athanasius, harassed by the heretics and driven from the throne of Alexandria, because he himself openly defended the truth. For while Constantine and Constans, the elder sons of Constantine the Great, were among the living, the orthodox faith was preserved: but when they died, and Constantius was left master of affairs, the younger (nay rather the middle one between Constantine and Constans) son, who was an Arian, the heretics prevailed. Wherefore Liberius too, after he had much refuted and rebuked the impiety of the heretics, was banished to Berœa, a city of Thrace. But since the Romans were bound to him by faith and love, they went to the emperor, demanding him back: and therefore, being sent again to Rome, when he had rightly governed his flock, he died. In the Menæa, in which his memory is announced as of a Saint and confessor, he is commended in nearly the same manner, but a little more briefly. It is even more openly asserted there that Constantius employed pains to draw Liberius away from the communion of St. Athanasius, and to draw him over to his own heresy; but that he could not effect this. And so the lapse of St. Liberius is there openly denied; and he is said to have been sent back to Rome on account of the prayers of the Roman people. These two Greek verses are added, to which I subjoin a Latin translation:

Τὸν πλοῦτον ἀντλεῖν Λιβάριος νῦν ἔχει, Ον οὐρανοῖς ἦν ἐμφρόνως θησαυρίσας.

Liberius now has riches to draw upon, Which he wisely treasured up in the heavens.

St. Liberius is announced on the same day in the Calendars of the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia in Job Ludolf, page 39, in these words: Liberius, Roman Patriarch. In the same Calendars he is commemorated also at the VI of October. Thus far concerning the memory of St. Liberius in the sacred Calendars; some other things which imply a translation I shall give at the end of the Commentary.

§ II. Whether the Fragments published under the name of St. Hilary can be reckoned as collected from a Work of St. Hilary.

[ ] The Fragments published under the name of St. Hilary, Before I undertake to narrate the deeds of St. Liberius themselves, certain documents seem to be examined which more recent historians have commonly used as legitimate, since they appear to me plainly supposititious, and the whole history of Liberius defiled by them with six hundred errors. In the first place comes that collection of writings which was first published under the name of St. Hilary by Nicolas Le Fèvre, then reprinted in the most recent edition of the Works of St. Hilary by the learned Benedictines from column [ ], where it has the title: Fragments from a book of S. Hilary of Poitiers of the province of Aquitaine etc. The author of that edition, as we have it from the Library of the Benedictines of the Congregation of S. Maur, is Pierre Coustant, who published some other things too. The first editor, although he gave a prolix preface, alleges almost only the style to prove that it is a genuine Work of St. Hilary. But Coustant in his preface chiefly aims at showing that St. Hilary is the author of the Work. Since, however, he calls them Fragments from a book, and even in his own words acknowledges that the whole book has by no means come down to us, it is not to be asked whether that Work, in the manner in which it exists or has been published, was composed by St. Hilary: but only whether those disconnected Fragments were collected from the Work of St. Hilary alone.

[8] Now the Work of Hilary, of which they suspect these to be Fragments, whether they were collected from his Work alone, is asked. is indicated by St. Jerome in the Catalogue of writers, chapter 100, in St. Hilary, in these words: And a book against Valens and Ursacius, containing the history of the synod of Rimini and of Seleucia. Coustant himself says that he doubted whether the Work, or the said Fragments, could be attributed to Hilary, and asserts that others somewhat doubt, and alleges some grounds for doubting; but he tries to answer these, and to vindicate that Work for St. Hilary. To me, to indicate in few words what I think, those Fragments do not seem to be of any Work of St. Hilary against Valens and Ursacius, Arian bishops; but rather documents collected by an unskilled copyist, and heaped into one volume no less without judgment than without order, so that I judge they are more rightly to be called a loose broom than the Fragments of St. Hilary. If this censure seem to anyone severe, let him weigh the reasons to be alleged, and then at last pass judgment. To me certainly it is not permitted to pass another judgment about those Fragments, since I am compelled to investigate the truth, and cannot doubt about the truth.

[9] First, as Coustant confesses, the Fragments were not found in the manuscript codices in that order and manner Part of the manuscript Fragments is not ascribed to St. Hilary, in which they were published by Le Fèvre, nor even in the same order in which Coustant published them; but there was in the manuscripts a certain monstrous face of things, and a disordered and confused heap of various epistles. Besides, again as Coustant confesses, the whole collection in the manuscripts did not bear the name of St. Hilary; but the former part, which consists of Fragments XI, XIII, III, VIII, IX, V, and VII, is inscribed neither with Hilary's name nor with anyone else's; only the latter part in the manuscripts, which comprises Fragments I, II, IV, XII, XIV, XV, VI and X, is ascribed to Hilary both at the beginning and at the end. Let it now be permitted to ask whence the editors could have known that those Fragments of the first Part, which in the manuscripts were ascribed to no one, had been copied out from a Work of St. Hilary. I certainly find no argument by which they can be attributed to St. Hilary. The inscription in the manuscripts cannot be alleged, since Coustant confesses that there they are inscribed neither to Hilary nor to another. The style of St. Hilary cannot be recognized in them, since they are the bare writings of others, destitute of those annotations and reasonings which could have been added, and in which we should otherwise in some measure recognize the style of St. Hilary. These things seem to me so clear that I cannot find even the shadow of a reason by which I might believe the editors moved to attribute them to St. Hilary. For they were not such strangers and foreigners among manuscript codices as to have been able to think that little works of different authors are not found in the same codices. But if they knew this, as they ought to have known, why did they publish under the title of Fragments of St. Hilary a medley of Epistles, which are severally attributed to their own authors in the manuscript codex, and which contain nothing at all by which they might seem collected from any book of St. Hilary? I look for some reason of any kind, and find none.

[10] [and some things there are rendered into Latin otherwise than in the Work of St. Hilary.] Secondly, there is no lack of reasons from which we may understand that the Fragments of the former part in the manuscript are not St. Hilary's, but were transcribed from elsewhere by the collector of the codex. The first reason for saying that those Fragments are not St. Hilary's is had from the third Fragment in two places. For St. Hilary in the book On the Synods, numbers 33 and 34, produces part of the same decree in a manner much different. First, in the enumeration of the provinces from which those Arian bishops came, there is a notable discrepancy not only in the words, but in the very provinces. In Hilary, after the Thebaid is placed Egypt, omitted in the Fragment: for Cœle Syria in Hilary, in the Fragment Syria: then in the Fragment Isauria is added, omitted in Hilary: in Hilary the two Phrygias, in the Fragment only Phrygia: finally in Hilary are added Mysia and the two Pannonias, unknown to the Fragment. The order too of the provinces is one in Hilary, another in the Fragment. Likewise the exposition of faith, there framed by the Arians, is conceived in other Latin words in Hilary, and in others in the Fragment, below at number 29. I easily conceive indeed that this diversity arose from a different translation of the Greek text; but I shall not equally grant that a formula of the Arians' belief, conceived in the same Greek words, was inserted by Hilary into his own Works in Latin words so different that in the whole you would scarcely find two lines agreeing. Coustant says indeed that this could have happened from change of place; and he adds that in one and the same book On the Synods the pseudo-Sardican symbol and the Sirmian against Photinus were translated into Latin by Hilary in more ways than one; and thence he strives to infer that it is not to be wondered at if he interpreted the same formula in different ways in different Works. But the change of places, which Hilary was compelled to undergo on account of his exiles, will never persuade me that Hilary gave interpretations of the same formula so different in different Works. What is added about a different interpretation of the same symbol in the same Work, I should rather have proved than generally asserted: for I do not find a different interpretation of the same symbol in the book On the Synods; or at least I find none so notable that it could not have arisen from the transcription of the codices.

[11] The ridiculous argument of our adversaries is sifted Further, since Coustant in his Preface, number 5, says: Each (part of the Fragments), as Nicolas Le Fèvre observed, has in some places the words of the author mixed in with the Acts themselves, which exhibit the phrasing of the most holy confessor (Hilary); and since the editors attributed those Fragments to St. Hilary chiefly on this ground, I call upon the attentive eyes of the studious reader: for I shall transfer hither all the words inserted into the Acts which Coustant gave from that whole first part of the codex. Fragment XI, which is first in the manuscript, contains these words of the collector: Here begins the Catholic faith set forth at the city of Farisea by the Gallican bishops to the Eastern bishops. And after the Acts of the council of Paris, as they will have it, again the collector: Here ends the Catholic faith set forth at the city of Farisea by the Gallican bishops to the Eastern bishops. Presently follows: Here begins the Epistle of Eusebius to Gregory, bishop of Spain. Then after the Epistle: Here ends the Epistle of Eusebius to Gregory, bishop of Spain. In the codex follows Fragment XIII, in which are these words of the collector: Here begins the Epistle of Germinius the bishop against the Arians. They had already subscribed in the council of Rimini, knowing that they did ill. At the end, Here it ends. In the third place in the manuscript is Fragment three, to which the collector prefixed these words: Here begins the decree of the synod of the Eastern bishops at Sardica on the side of the Arians, which they sent to Africa. At the end, Here ends the decree, and the other words already given. To Fragment VIII, which follows in the manuscript, the collector prefixed this title: There follows the Epistle of the council of Rimini to the emperor Constantius, where the bishops prevaricated from the true faith. After the epistle these annotations are subjoined: With this Epistle the Catholic bishops subscribing to the entire faith sent ten legates to the emperor. Nonetheless the party of the heretics also sent ten legates from their own body. Who, when they came to the emperor, were received; so that the legates of the Catholics were not received, and, wearied by long delay and terrified by the emperor's threats, condemned the entire faith which they had before defended, and took up the perfidy which they had before condemned. That this is so, thou wilt find from what is subjoined. Then: The Acts, where the legate bishops prevaricated from the true faith, begin. After the Acts again this little note: But what is the confession of faith to which they afterward subscribed, which Valens also carried with him to Rimini, thou wilt recognize from what is written below. Here it ends. Then in the manuscript follows Fragment IX, of which

the collector says thus: Here begins a copy of the faith of the epistle sent to the emperor Constantius by the perfidious bishops. At the end: Here it ends. Then in the manuscript follows Fragment V, to which these words are prefixed: Here begins the Epistle of the legates, sent to the emperor Constantius by Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, through Lucifer the bishop. At the end: Here it ends. The last, finally, of that anonymous part in the manuscript is Fragment VII, to which the collector prefixed these words: Here begins a copy of the Epistle of the emperor Constantius to the Italian bishops who had come together in the council of Rimini. After the Epistle again the collector: Here begins the Catholic definition, made by all the Catholic bishops before they were terrified by earthly power and joined to the fellowship of the heretics, in the council of Rimini. Again after this document the collector subjoins: In the same council, after it was determined that nothing of the paternal tradition ought to be diminished, those also who came against it were condemned by the spiritual voice of all conspiring into one, of which treatise this is a copy. Coustant subjoins from column [ ] an appendix which he confesses is not St. Hilary's, because it was found by Nicolas Le Fèvre in another codex. And so I have given all the words of the first part of the codex, in which Coustant said that the phrasing of St. Hilary shines forth.

[12] But it is pleasing to ask a few questions: for I do not easily conceive that wondrous skill of recognizing someone's phrasing and style. I have always believed that a few words or short annotations do not suffice concerning the style of St. Hilary in the Fragments, for us to recognize the author from them, unless perhaps they contain something almost proper to him and little used by others. It is pleasing therefore to ask what in the words or terms alleged is so proper to St. Hilary that his phrasing is at once recognized. For various things seem to me more worthy of the unskillfulness of some copyist than of the erudition and style of St. Hilary. Did the editor wish to recognize St. Hilary's style from that here begins and here it ends which is always set at the beginning and end of the documents? But in the book On the Synods, in which Hilary recites very many documents, he never did this. It was therefore the custom of the copyists who had collected the codices, not of St. Hilary. Did he wish to gather St. Hilary's phrasing from the city of Farisea (or Parisea); or from the title of the Epistle written to Gregory bishop of Spain? These are indeed singular, but unworthy of Hilary, worthy of an unskilled copyist. For St. Hilary was not ignorant by what name Spain was called in Latin: he knew that Gregory was bishop of the city of Elvira, nor was he ignorant of the city of which Eusebius, the writer of the epistle, was bishop. He would therefore have indicated whose Epistle, of what Eusebius, it was, if he had inserted it into his Work, nor would he have called Gregory bishop of Spain. Did he wish to have regard to the title of Fragment XIII, where the profession of faith of Germinius, a Semiarian bishop, is called an Epistle of Germinius the bishop against the Arians; whereas it is neither an Epistle, nor does Germinius discourse against the Arians? Or does St. Hilary's phrasing shine forth in the title of the third Fragment, where the Acts of the Arians of the council of Sardica are said to have been sent to Africa, although they are inscribed to Gregory bishop of Alexandria, to the bishop of Nicomedia, to the bishop of Carthage, to the bishop of Campania, to the bishop of Naples in Campania, to the bishop of Ariminiadenum in Campania, to the bishop of Salona in Dalmatia, … and to all fellow-priests throughout the world etc.? Was it St. Hilary's part to set upon Acts of this kind, sent in every direction, this frigid note, Which they sent into Africa; or the part of some unskilled collector, to whom the contrivances of the Arians were little clear?

[13] as they will have it, discovered. From the title of Fragment VIII, too, the phrasing of St. Hilary is by no means recognized, since the Epistle of the men of Rimini, most Catholic and given by Catholics before their prevarication to Constantius, is said to have been written where they prevaricated from the true faith. In vain did Coustant try to excuse this error of the collector by a subtle exposition, as if where were the same as in whose presence, and the future lapse of the legates were indicated. For this exposition is too violent, and the lapse of the legates is signified by the title of the following document, thus expressed: The Acts, where the legate bishops prevaricated from the true faith. Better indeed is the observation interposed between the two documents; but he is worthy of laughter rather than of refutation, if anyone judges that the phrasing of St. Hilary can be gathered from it. But the observation subjoined to the Acts of Nicæa in Thrace is again inept, since it promises the confession of faith to which the men of Rimini subscribed, and there is subjoined the Epistle of the men of Rimini to Constantius without a formula of faith. Again inept is the title set before Fragment IX: Here begins a copy of the faith of the epistle etc. Equally inept the title of Fragment V: Here begins the Epistle of the legates etc., since it is an epistle of Liberius, as is even afterward added. No less inept a title did the unskilled collector prefix to Fragment VII, when he directs the Epistle of Constantius, given to all the bishops of the council of Rimini, to the Italian bishops who had come together in the council of Rimini. Who would call it worthy of St. Hilary's skill to make Italians of four hundred bishops gathered from Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, Africa, Illyricum, in short from the whole Western empire? This an unskilled copyist could do some centuries later; St. Hilary certainly could not. And so in those Fragments there are many things unworthy of St. Hilary, and nothing at all from which his style can be recognized. But let these things suffice concerning the anonymous part of the manuscript codex; let us pass to the other.

[14] Not even for this part alone would Coustant have rightly brought forward the authority of the manuscript codices, The argument of Coustant from the inscriptions of the codex, which he alleges for the whole collection in his preface, number 2, writing thus: And first indeed we have judged that the authority of the manuscripts is by no means to be despised, which ascribe this Work not once, but a second and a third time to St. Hilary… For if anyone should think that the paper codex of Pithou is not to be trusted safely enough, because it is more recent and written only three hundred years ago, he will not deny that credit must be given to the copy of S. Remigius of Rheims, which Sirmond, in whose power it was, in his Notes on the council of Paris CALLS VERY ANCIENT; in which there was the same order of matters and the same inscriptions. This copy indeed we have sought in vain: but Stephen Baluze, born for the aiding of letters, by supplying the various readings of Sirmond, has in some measure repaired our loss. I shall not assail the manuscript codices: let everything have been in the same order in the codex which Sirmond had; that certainly will not profit Coustant. Nevertheless Sirmond, in tome 1 of the Councils of Gaul, page 594, where he speaks of that codex, does not assert that the same inscriptions are found in it; but only says: Yet it (that very ancient codex) supplied exceedingly few things, especially in this Epistle (of the council of Paris), which differed from Le Fèvre's edition. Let us nevertheless grant gratuitously that everything in that codex is the same; and let us only examine how legitimate are the consequences which Coustant deduces from them.

[15] The first inscription, on his testimony, runs thus: Here begins the book of S. Hilary of Poitiers of the province of Aquitaine, by which one document only is attributed to St. Hilary, in which are all the things which show either how, for what causes, at whose urging, under the emperor Constantius the council of Rimini was held against the little formula of the Nicene treatise, by which all heresies had been comprehended. The editor observes that for comprehended must be read compressed. Let it be so indeed: for not even an unskilled copyist would say that all heresies had been comprehended by the Nicene formula. Indeed the author of the titles which are prefixed to the several Fragments, or even to the several documents, seems to have been unskilled enough to have been able to say that all heresies were compressed by the Nicene formula. But St. Hilary knew the contrivances of the Arians too well to have said that all heresies were compressed. Wherefore that title is no less the work of some unskilled collector than are all the rest in the same manuscript. But whether he rightly adjudged to St. Hilary the little work to which that title is prefixed, I shall not inquire more laboriously. If any wish also that the style of St. Hilary shines forth in it, I shall not gainsay. This alone I shall observe, that it seems to be the beginning of some Work which has nothing in common with the other documents of the same codex, and that it is thus attributed to St. Hilary in the codex, just as all the other documents in the same codex are ascribed, whether truly or falsely, to their own authors. For just as it is prefixed in the title, Here begins the book of S. Hilary etc., so at the end is read, here it ends, namely the book of S. Hilary. Wherefore I do not sufficiently understand by what reasoning, or with what likelihood, the editors dared to attribute everything to St. Hilary; since in the codex itself what is believed to be St. Hilary's and what others', was designated by the copyists' customary words Here begins and here it ends.

[16] is examined and refuted: But, says Coustant, In the middle of Fragment VI again it is read of Liberius: S. Hilary pronounces anathema upon him. But those words, S. Hilary pronounces anathema upon him, he neither gives in the text, nor judges to be St. Hilary's, even though he found them in the text, but believes that they were first written in the margin of the codex. If the matter stands so, on what ground are all the documents of the same codex attributed to a Hilarian Work from an interpolation of an unskilled copyist, since not even that seems to have been the opinion of that copyist? But how contrary the words alleged are to the opinion of the editors, and how utterly unworthy of the modesty of St. Hilary, I shall show below, and I shall separately examine the credit of the epistles to which they are added. Meanwhile let us hear what further Coustant brings forward. At last, he says, at the end of Fragment X these words are read: Here ends the book of S. Hilary from the historical Work. But since Fragment X is the last in the manuscript (although it is not the last of that Work which the editors attribute to St. Hilary), the editors seem to have believed that all the documents of that codex pertain to some Work of St. Hilary. But the end of the codex was not the end of the Hilarian Work. That inept man therefore erred who says that the end of the book from the historical Work is there. But if he manifestly errs, if he clearly shows his unskillfulness in very few words; with what criticism, with what judgment did they so easily believe a most inept man, and one erring more clearly than daylight; so that they judged that they could compose, out of various documents heaped into one codex, a Work worthy of St. Hilary? I certainly, the more I weigh Coustant's reasons, the less do I find what I seek.

[17] his other reasons discussed For all the things which he brings forward seem to me so feeble for claiming such a Work for St. Hilary that I scarcely care to weigh more. He adduces the title of the first Fragment, to prove that it is the proem of a History of the council of Rimini. But let it have been the proem of such a History, which I shall grant gratuitously; it certainly was not the proem of a History of the council of Sardica, of which nevertheless more is read in the Fragments than of the council of Rimini. He says that in the first Fragment a Gallican bishop is recognized, and St. Hilary painted in his own colors. This too I shall admit gratuitously; but from it I cannot infer that all the documents, found in the same codex without any order, are fragments of a prolix Work of which that was the proem.

To assert this is indeed to divine without foundation. He says again that in the said proem (or Fragment 1) there is indicated a Work to follow, which consists of various epistles and synods, and that it repeats the History of the council of Rimini from further back, from the acts of the council of Arles and of other earlier councils. I answer that in the said Fragment a Work is indeed promised in which Epistles and synods would be alleged, and that the author wishes to take his beginning from the conventicle of Arles. But the author does not say that he will give a History of the council of Arles, and still less does he promise the most prolix Acts of the council of Sardica, both of the Catholic bishops and of the Arians. And so, since the remaining Fragments contain nothing about the conventicle of Arles, much about that of Sardica, and much that is later than the council of Rimini, there was no reason why the editors should try, out of various Acts of Synods and Epistles, to foist upon St. Hilary a Work which he himself never saw, nor would ever have composed thus. Again he says that all those documents in some way have regard to the History of the council of Rimini. I answer that many are later than the council of Rimini, and that certainly the three last fragments are utterly useless for the History of that council, as are not a few others; but that others are so prolix, and make so little for the History of the council of Rimini, that it is not likely they were inserted by St. Hilary into his Work against Valens and Ursacius, in which the History of the council of Rimini was narrated. St. Hilary wrote against Auxentius the Arian, he wrote at different times against Constantius; he wrote the book On the Synods, in which more things had to be discussed; nowhere is he so prolix, nowhere does he adduce such prolix documents. Who therefore would believe that the Acts of Sardica were inserted by St. Hilary into the book against Valens and Ursacius, when they alone exceed in prolixity the book against Auxentius and the several books against Constantius? Who, I say, would believe this from men asserting it without any authority, and with no other reason than that they were found in a manuscript codex in which there is a Fragment of some Work attributed to St. Hilary — that is, with no reason at all?

[18] How unworthy of St. Hilary are all those things which were added to the documents in the first part of the codex, The first part of the Fragments contains many things I have shown above. Let us therefore run through the other part also, that we may examine whether the reasonings of this part are more worthy of St. Hilary. But since more things are here annotated, I shall select only a few: for it would be too long to recite everything. Of the first Fragment, which is ascribed to Hilary, I say nothing further. Fragment 2 contains the Epistle of the council of Sardica to all the churches, and another sent to S. Julius the Pope. The first is found also in St. Athanasius, in the Apology against the Arians, tome 1, page 162. Whoever wishes will therefore be able to compare the Latin translation of the Fragment with the Greek text or the Latin version in Athanasius, and will not with difficulty see that the translation of the Fragment is utterly unworthy of St. Hilary, since it is inept and unfaithful. From the names of the bishops who subscribed the reader will gather how accurate the rest is. In St. Athanasius the subscription begins thus: Hosius from Spain, Julius of Rome by the presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus etc. In the Fragment: Ossius from Spannia of Cordova. Annianus from the Spannias of Castulo. The Greek word indeed is Σπανία, but St. Hilary knew that in Latin it is called Hispania, nor would he have inserted into his Work a translation so ridiculous, in which more things are faulty than rightly expressed. Besides, not even the names of a fourth part of the bishops are expressed. Let us now examine the notes subjoined to the Acts of the council, which the editor attributes to Hilary. First, Ischyras, the notorious accuser of St. Athanasius, is everywhere called Scyrus, as if St. Hilary had been ignorant of the name of a notorious man, and had been a stranger in the history of St. Athanasius. Then it is said: At Mareotis there is no church. Nevertheless there were several churches in Mareotis, since Athanasius in the Apology, page 137, says: Witnesses are all the presbyters of Mareotis, who always accompany the bishop as he goes about, and who then wrote against Ischyras. Perhaps the unskilled collector had read in the Apology of St. Athanasius, page 193, or elsewhere, that Ischyras had no church. But on whatever occasion he could say that there was no church in Mareotis, at least I shall not believe that a lapse of this kind is St. Hilary's. I do not examine those things which are said a little afterward about Photinus condemned in the council of Milan, and which perhaps are no better, even though they are adduced by some learned men as words of St. Hilary.

[19] But how much the things which the collector observes about Photinus are to be valued, faulty things, the studious reader will gather not only from what has already been said, but still more from what is to be said about Marcellus of Ancyra. For in Fragment 2, after the two Epistles of Valens and Ursacius, many reasonings again follow. It is said there, at column [ ], that Athanasius separated Marcellus of Ancyra from his communion, and that indeed at an earlier time than that at which Photinus was accused of heresy. Here most clearly that excellent Hilary attributes to St. Athanasius what was done by the Eusebians or Arians. Let us hear St. Athanasius in the History of the Arians to the Monks, tome 1, page 347. But concerning Marcellus, bishop of Galatia, he says, it will perhaps be superfluous to make mention: for it is known to all that the Eusebians, having been before accused by him of impiety, accused him in turn, and that by their doing that old man went into exile. But he, having set out for Rome, cleared himself, and delivered his faith in writing at their demand, which the synod of Sardica itself approved. These things Athanasius himself says, who is said to have excommunicated him already before the synod of Sardica. Nay, still more ridiculous things are presently added in those excellent Annotations, in which the editors recognize St. Hilary from the style. But why is Athanasius written back as guilty of communion denied to Marcellus? And presently, in excuse of St. Athanasius: For communion having been denied him by Athanasius, Marcellus abstained from entering the church. Coustant saw that these things are full of errors. Would that he had also seen that Works are not so easily to be foisted upon the holy Fathers, and many errors along with Works of this kind! Presently in the same reasonings, at column [ ], it is asserted that there were two Ariuses, preachers of a most profane faith. This passage indeed Coustant somehow excuses, when he shows that among the first Arians there was another Arius too. I doubt, however, whether St. Hilary would have set down two Ariuses as heresiarchs. Again a little below it is said: And so, for the sake of repressing that evil, three hundred bishops or somewhat more are gathered at Nicæa. But in the book On the Synods, number 86, Hilary neatly sets three hundred and eighteen bishops in the council of Nicæa. Let these things suffice concerning the second Fragment.

[20] false things, I pass therefore to the fourth, since this follows in the manuscript codex. I certainly do not know with what fairness the editors could attribute to St. Hilary that Fragment, worthy of an inept calumniator, unworthy of a learned bishop. It is an Epistle forged under the name of Liberius the Pope, which Coustant himself confesses and proves at length to be supposititious and forged by a calumniator. What then will the defenders of this Hilarian Work say? Was St. Hilary of such simplicity that he could hold for genuine an Epistle so clearly foisted upon Liberius, and insert it into his Work to the ignominy of an illustrious Pontiff, who was excellently defending the Catholic Church against the assaults of the Arians, and prudently repairing the lapse of the bishops of the council of Rimini, at the time when Hilary is said to have written that Work? If they say this, they cast a stain upon the fame of a most holy doctor. For he could not here be ignorant that Liberius, at least down to his own exile, had been the bravest defender of Athanasius: no more could he fail to perceive that, according to the fictitious Epistle, already at the beginning of his Pontificate Liberius had withdrawn from the communion of St. Athanasius and had embraced the communion of the Eastern Arians. There will not be, I think, a defender of that inept Work — which in later ages others composed in St. Hilary's name — so impudent as to presume to say these or other like things.

[21] inept things, The notes added to the Epistle are likewise the work of an unskilled man, who seems himself not to have known what he was saying. Receive the beginning, reader, and judge whether St. Hilary is recognized in them. What in these letters is not of sanctity, what is not the outcome of the fear of God? But Potamius and Epictetus, while they rejoice to condemn the Bishop of the city of Rome, as is contained in the council of Rimini, were unwilling to hear these things. Nay, even Fortunatian the bishop, sending the same Epistle again to various bishops, profited nothing. Was it holy and proceeding from the fear of God to withdraw from the communion of St. Athanasius and to embrace the communion of the Arians? That St. Hilary could not say this all acknowledge, and therefore some will have it that the said Annotations have regard to another Epistle. But Coustant resists, and tries subtly to loose the knot. And indeed, he says, although this whole Work of Hilary is altogether confused and disturbed, yet no appendix of this kind occurs torn away and dragged from its proper place. Wherefore we judge that this too has not been moved from its position, nor is unworthy of Hilary, but that what most think to be praises of the preceding Epistle is mere irony. We suspect also that Potamius and Epictetus, the architects of the same Epistle, are here signified, and that for they were unwilling to hear these things must be read they were able to dare these things. But he tries in vain to extricate himself: for there is no indication of irony in the whole context. The title prefixed to the Epistle also resists, by which it is thus attributed to Liberius: Here begins a copy of the Epistle of Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, to the Eastern bishops. With this the inscription itself also agrees. If St. Hilary had believed the Epistle to be fictitious, he would not have set upon it a title of this kind, which is plainly mendacious; nor would he by an obscure irony have consulted the fame of St. Liberius, wounded by such an epistle; but he would have declared clearly the fraud of the Arians. Wherefore those notes are the work of an unskilled collector; nor do I wonder that a man who found no church in Mareotis, who said that Marcellus of Ancyra was excommunicated by Athanasius already before the condemnation of Photinus, who seems to set down two Ariuses as heresiarchs, who discourses ineptly on many other matters, could fall also into an error of this kind, so as to transcribe a supposititious Epistle for a genuine one, and to celebrate with praises what deserved censure. I wonder much more that a man everywhere inept could be taken for St. Hilary by several learned men.

[22] I pass with the manuscript codex to Fragment XII, things not conducing to the purpose and written later, in which two Epistles are contained. To the former the collector gave this title: Here begins a copy of the Epistle of Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, made to the Catholic bishops of Italy. The other is furnished with this title: Likewise a copy of the Epistle of the bishops of Italy. Each is later than the council of Rimini; nor are any Annotations joined to them. If St. Hilary had inserted the former Epistle into his Work, he would at least not have been ignorant that St. Liberius was opposed to the council of Rimini, and prudently labored to reconcile the lapsed to the Church. With what fairness or prudence, therefore, would he have inserted into his Work letters about the lapse of Liberius, fitted to create infamy for him and to turn men away? What follows in the manuscript, Fragment XIV, has likewise no Annotations, but is a single Epistle marked with this title: Here begins a copy of the Epistle of Valens, Ursacius and the other

to Germinius. This the editor notes as written in the year 366. Like it is Fragment XV, which follows in the manuscript, and has this title: Here begins the rescript of Germinius to Rufianus, Palladius, and the rest. This Epistle the editor fixes to the year 367, in which Bolland, Tillemont and Baillet fix also the death of St. Hilary. Now let us show in few words how little likely it is that these are Fragments of a Hilarian Work against Valens and Ursacius. Coustant in the preface, number 13, observes that the Work against Valens and Ursacius seems to have been at least begun from the year 360, and while Constantius was alive, and he tries to show this from a Fragment which certainly was not written after the death of Constantius. Let the studious reader now weigh whether Epistles written after the year 360 down to 366 and 367, which were found in the manuscript codex with bare titles and without any other appendages, are probably attributed and inserted into a Work which St. Hilary is said to have begun from the year 360 or earlier against two notorious heretics. If St. Hilary began the book against Valens and Ursacius from the year 360, I can scarcely doubt that he published it in the same or the following year; for he did not write to fill his own desk, but to profit the Church and to oppose himself to the advances of the Arians. On what ground therefore are Epistles taken up for the composing of a Work for Hilary, which he perhaps never saw, and which certainly conduced nothing to the purpose? Coustant disapproves, column 1343, of Nicolas Le Fèvre's plan, in that he had mingled a certain fragment from the Der codex with the rest found in the Pithou codex. But I do not see that it was a better plan to reduce all the documents, found in the codex without any order, into an order of some kind, and to thrust them upon Hilary even against his will.

[23] and things utterly unworthy of the sanctity, In the aforesaid codex follows Fragment VI, containing five Epistles attributed to Liberius the Pope with a few Annotations. This whole fragment again is in the highest degree unworthy of St. Hilary, and worthy of some Luciferian schismatic or unskilled collector. For first, what could it profit St. Hilary against Valens and Ursacius to prove by so many epistles the lapse of Liberius the Pope, and to make it known to the whole world, since Liberius, if he really lapsed, quickly came to his senses and disapproved the lapse of the council of Rimini? It would have been the part of a prudent man to keep utter silence about that lapse, if it was little known; if it had become too widely known, to attribute it to the emperor's violence, and to teach that it was quickly repaired. For the defense of the faith no one's authority could profit more than that of Liberius the Roman Pontiff, and in fact by no one was the lapse of the men of Rimini so happily repaired as by Liberius and his legates. Of what prudence therefore would St. Hilary have been, if he had turned his arms against a defender of the faith, and wounded him with injurious words, and even undertaken to strike him with anathema? Yet all these things Hilary did, if the Work which we are examining is his; and I see that some French writers too hesitate in doubt whether the anathemas which are inserted into the Epistles ought not altogether to be denied to Hilary. But of the anathemas presently; of the Epistles themselves I shall treat more fully in §3, where I shall show that most of them are supposititious. From these things, however, let the fair reader consider with what judgment a Work so ridiculous is attributed to St. Hilary, since in it so many supposititious Epistles are recited, and those utterly opposed to St. Hilary's purpose, which Valens and Ursacius might rather have brought forward against the Catholics than Hilary ought to have produced against the heretics. If the architects of that new Work had attributed their construction to some Luciferian schismatic, I should in some measure grasp whither that confused mass of matters could tend, namely to showing that the faith remained among the Luciferians alone; but by what reasoning they made everything conduce to St. Hilary's purpose against Valens and Ursacius, the inventors of the Work themselves, I think, did not understand.

[24] prudence Now how far from the modesty and prudence of St. Hilary are all the things which have been inserted into the Epistles in the said Fragment, I shall clearly show. After the earlier epistles of Liberius, given before his exile, at column [ ] the collector writes: After all these things which Liberius had either done or promised, being sent into exile, he brought them all to nothing, writing to the prevaricating Arian heretics, who had passed an unjust sentence against holy Athanasius, the orthodox bishop. Is not this to assail a Catholic friend and the leader of the Catholics, and rather to help than to assail Valens and Ursacius, who had at one time changed their opinion — if St. Hilary wrote thus in a book against Valens and Ursacius? Did not fairness at least require that, if Hilary had written these things at all, he should likewise have taught that Liberius rose again quickly after his lapse, and never consented to the prevarication of the men of Rimini? But not only does that new book of Hilary have nothing about these matters; it presently rises up far more vehemently against Liberius, then the chief defender of the faith, than it ever inveighs against those very men, Valens and Ursacius, whom it is said to assail. For it subjoins three supposititious Epistles of Liberius, into the first of which it inserts the following: This is the Arian perfidy. This I noted, not an apostate. And after the Epistle these Annotations follow: But the perfidy written down at Sirmium, which Liberius calls Catholic (namely in the Epistle where he is also said to have accepted it), set forth to him by Demophilus, these are they who composed it: Narcissus, Theodorus, Basilius, Eudoxius, Demophilus, Cecropius, Silvanus, Ursacius, Valens, Evagrius, Hyreneus, Exuperantius, Terentianus, Bassus, Gaudentius, Macedonius, Marthus, Acticus, Julius, Surinus, Simplicius, and Junior to be inquired into — all heretics.

[25] First I ask what all these things do against Valens and Ursacius the Arians, erudition, against whom they will have that Work to have been written. Then it is certain, as I shall show in its place, that the second Sirmian formula, which is heretical, could not have been composed by the bishops just named: it is equally certain that the first Sirmian formula is excused as Catholic by Hilary himself. St. Hilary therefore could not write those things, save either by contradicting himself or by shamefully erring, as I shall show more fully in §9, where I shall prove that it is altogether uncertain and not probable enough that Liberius ever subscribed any formula proposed by the Arians. Petavius, in his animadversions on St. Epiphanius, page 317, says of the words alleged: But whatever is to be thought of those Fragments, this subscription certainly does not seem to be from Hilary's hand, but from that of some unskilled man, who had not sufficiently perceived the divisions of the Arian sect. Tillemont, tome 6, Note 55 on the Arians, disapproves and calls wonderful this answer of Petavius; and prefers to confess that he finds no solution of the difficulty proposed. Tillemont was evidently unwilling to come to an examination of the Fragments, and this I greatly wonder at, since he adduces those Fragments so often in the History of the Arians. But I can by no means wonder at the answer of Petavius, who openly implies his doubt about the Fragments, and clearly saw that the words alleged are utterly unworthy of Hilary. I shall say that in that whole medley of Fragments I have found nothing worthy of St. Hilary, except the first Fragment alone, which alone in the Codex was ascribed to St. Hilary.

[26] Further, the said Epistle is again interpolated with these words: and modesty and justice Anathema be said by me to thee, Liberius, and to thy companions. And after a few words: Again anathema to thee, and a third time, prevaricator Liberius. Then to the following Epistle these words are subjoined: Anathema said by me to the prevaricator together with the Arians. Besides, Coustant observes that these words too were inserted into the former Epistle in the Pithou manuscript: Saint Hilary pronounces anathema upon him. But he suspects that these were first written in the margin, and thence crept into the text. In the preface, however, number 7, he argues about the said anathemas, and does not dare to deny them to St. Hilary; nay, he even tries to show from the Apostle that it was not unlawful for St. Hilary to hurl anathemas of that kind against Liberius. In the Annotations, however, he adds the following: But if perhaps these additions are not unworthy of Hilary, when he first learned of Liberius's lapse; nevertheless it seems alien to him that, when he sent forth this Work of his into public, Liberius being already corrected, he did not then wholly erase and suppress them. Tillemont, Note 54 on the Arians, likewise reasons on both sides, and does not dare to say — or at least does not say — that it was unworthy of the modesty and sanctity of St. Hilary to insert the anathemas already mentioned against Liberius into the said Epistles when he first received them; nay, he even intimates with Blondel that they could have remained inserted in the Epistles. I certainly wonder at the diversity of Tillemont's criticism. If some martyr is said to have uttered certain harsher words against some Decius or Diocletian, most notorious persecutors of the Church, whose crimes were manifest to all Christians, at once the severe Aristarchus cries out that the Acts do not deserve credit, lest the Martyrs should seem to have done injury to emperors, since honor is to be paid to princes. But here he seems to find no difficulty except this alone, that Liberius had repaired his lapse by opposing himself to the council of Rimini, and this very difficulty he tries to remove. But let us examine more closely the fact itself, in which Tillemont and Coustant seem to find nothing unworthy of Hilary.

[27] of St. Hilary. Neither of them certainly will admit, nor any defender of theirs, that St. Hilary was rash or unjust. Yet it would have been of the utmost rashness, on account of any sort of rumor of a Liberian lapse, at once to hurl an anathema against him; since St. Hilary could not be ignorant how many false rumors had been forged by the Arians against St. Athanasius and others. But such an anathema would have been not only of signal rashness, but also of manifest injustice: for Liberius never seems to have been questioned about his lapse, and still less convicted. For this a few copies of letters, which perhaps were circulated in his name, could not suffice, since Hilary was not ignorant that letters had likewise been forged against St. Athanasius. St. Hilary was not Liberius's judge, nor had Liberius confessed his crime, or been condemned by any council; with what justice therefore or prudence would he have hurled an anathema against him? Besides, if Liberius lapsed at all (which I do not believe), he lapsed only after a long exile and out of human frailty; and he rose again so quickly that it could scarcely be certainly established about the lapse without the fallen man's entire faith becoming known again. If therefore St. Hilary had with ridiculous rashness at once interpolated the copies of the letters he had received; was it not at least a matter of his prudence and fairness to delete the inserted anathemas as soon as possible, when he had heard of Liberius's constancy in defending the Catholic faith against the prevarication of Rimini? Let our adversaries meditate here as long as they please, they will never find such an escape as to persuade a prudent man that the said interpolations, by which Liberius is called an apostate and struck with anathema, would not have harmed the fame of St. Hilary, if it were established that they were his, more than that of Liberius himself, against whom they were hurled with ridiculous rashness; and that they are not more worthy of Luciferian schismatics than of St. Hilary.

[28] Wherefore those Fragments are ascribed to St. Hilary without reason. I proceed to Fragment X, the last in the manuscript codex, of which it is not necessary to say much. It is an Epistle of the Eastern bishops, as the title has it, which they gave to the legates on their return from Rimini. To the Epistle are subjoined certain reasonings, of which it may be doubted whether they were uttered against the Arians or Semiarians by a Catholic, or against the Catholics by some Luciferian. Certainly they do not seem to be argued against Valens and Ursacius by name; since at number 2 the author speaks thus: If that book of Valens and Ursacius is not of your faith, why do you not acquiesce in its condemnation? I add nothing further. But as concerns the style of St. Hilary, I certainly could find it in no Fragment except the first, which is of about two little pages, and seems to be the beginning of a larger Work. Whether this Fragment is to be attributed at all to St. Hilary, to whom it is ascribed in the codex, I should not dare to determine. Certainly the author seems at once to say that not only charity, but also faith and hope will remain in the blessed life. But whether St. Hilary thought this, I have not leisure to investigate more laboriously. But concerning all the rest, that they must be denied to St. Hilary, no doubt at all remains to me. For for adjudging them to Hilary the manuscript codex is of no profit, in which only various documents and fragments were collected without order, just as has been done in countless other codices. But by what reasoning Nicolas Le Fèvre could think that all those documents belong to one Work, that indeed I do not sufficiently perceive, especially since this was nowhere said, and all the documents are assigned to their own authors. What the editors said about the style of Hilary shining forth in the Fragments has been abundantly refuted. What they added, that everything has regard to the history of the council of Rimini, is plainly inept; since many things are later than that council, many plainly useless to that end. No more could everything conduce to the refuting of Valens and Ursacius; but not a few things would rather favor than hinder them, and not a few others Hilary would never have adduced against them at such length. But let these things suffice, that we may restore the Fragments lightly attributed to St. Hilary to their several authors, if indeed some of them are not supposititious.

§ III. Four Epistles published under the name of Liberius are examined and shown to be supposititious.

[ ] An Epistle forged under the name of Liberius, The Fragments having been examined in general, which were wrongly attributed to St. Hilary, I now come nearer to the four Epistles of Liberius inserted into the said Fragments, of which the three later ones Baronius also published from another source at the year 357, from the Cresconian Collection. The first in the Fragments, column 1327, has this inscription: To our most beloved brethren and fellow-bishops established throughout the East, Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, eternal health. Then the Epistle follows, woven of these words: Being zealous for the peace and concord of the churches, after I received the letters of your charity concerning the name of Athanasius and the rest, made to the name of Julius the bishop of good memory; following the tradition of our elders, I sent from my side the presbyters of the city of Rome, Lucius, Paul and Helianus, to Alexandria to the aforesaid Athanasius, that he might come to the city of Rome: so that in his presence that might be determined concerning him which the discipline of the Church has provided. I also gave letters to the same by the aforesaid presbyters, in which it was contained that if he should not come, he should know that he was estranged from the communion of the Roman Church. The presbyters therefore having returned announced that he had been unwilling to come. Following at last the letters of your charity, which you gave to us concerning the name of the aforesaid Athanasius, know by these letters, which I have given to your unanimity, that I have peace with all of you and with all the bishops of the Catholic Church: but that the aforesaid Athanasius is estranged from my communion or that of the Roman Church, and from the fellowship of ecclesiastical letters.

[30] as written at the beginning of his Pontificate, It is clear that this Epistle must have been written at the beginning of Liberius's Pontificate, if it is his: for the Easterns are said to have directed their letters to Julius, Liberius's predecessor. But it is not necessary to inquire whether it must have been given in the first, second, or even third year of Liberius's pontificate, since for our purpose it suffices that it was at least not written except before St. Liberius's exile, which happened in the year 355, when he was already in his fourth year in the Pontificate. From this observation alone it is gathered with sufficient certainty that the Epistle is fictitious, whether the Arians forged it while Liberius was living, as they also concocted others against St. Athanasius, or whether it is the abortion of some Luciferian, or of a schismatic of another sect, which we cannot know for certain. For below, in narrating the deeds of St. Liberius, we shall see how bravely and constantly Liberius defended St. Athanasius, so that he preferred to suffer exile rather than consent to his condemnation. Nicolas Le Fèvre, who first gave the said epistle to the light in the Fragments, confesses in his preface that the context of the Epistle, or the excommunication of St. Athanasius by Liberius, cannot stand with the history of the Arians, and left the knot to be loosed by Baronius. For, although he confesses that the context of the Epistle seems false, he nevertheless subjoins: But the style denies that it is false or spurious: and besides, to whose advantage? He alleges two reasons for the genuineness of the Epistle, namely the style, and that no reason or usefulness for a forgery appears. But as concerns the style, I can scarcely restrain laughter. For the style is that of some youth learning the Latin tongue, who does not yet sufficiently understand the first precepts, and certainly does not know well enough how to express his thoughts in even tolerably neat and clear speech. Le Fèvre errs greatly if he perhaps judged that the Latin tongue in the IV century could not have been better known to the Roman Pontiffs than it was to the architect of that Epistle. Let anyone who wishes compare with it the Epistle of Liberius to Constantius, which follows in the same Fragments, and he will at once see how great is the difference of style. Concerning the cause of the forgery I answer that the Arians could have forged it in order to persuade men that Liberius had from the beginning been opposed to St. Athanasius. But of these matters more hereafter.

[31] disapproved by Baronius and others, it is defended by Tillemont. Baronius, to whom Le Fèvre had left the knot to be loosed, in the Appendix of tome 3 at the year 352, page 22 of the Antwerp edition, shows at length that the Epistle mentioned is fictitious and fraudulently foisted upon Liberius, and in the same place declares sufficiently that all the Hilarian Fragments, which had then recently been published by Le Fèvre, cannot prudently be attributed to St. Hilary. Coustant in the Annotations on the Fragments, at column [ ], follows Baronius's judgment, and, having alleged various arguments to prove it, thus concludes: Which things being so, we the more willingly agree that this Epistle was forged by the Arians, in that Athanasius himself demonstrates that several letters of this kind were published by the same men about the same time both in the name of Athanasius and in that of the emperor, Apol. ad Constant. pp. 180 and 186. Which the council of Sardica also confirms, in which "there were read letters made falsely by Theognitus against Athanasius and Marcellus," as we have heard in Fragment 2, number 3. Thus they, and others. But that certain other writers have said that that Epistle is not so certainly supposititious seems to have happened because it had been inserted into the Fragments of Hilary. Certainly our Papebroch, at the 2nd of May in St. Athanasius, chapter 2, declares indeed a vehement suspicion of forgery, but does not dare to call it certainly fictitious, because he saw it inserted into the said Fragments. Tillemont, tome 6, in the Arians, article 48, narrates the content of the Epistle, and again in tome 8, in St. Athanasius, article 64, where he tries to set forth, as also in Note 68, why he does not altogether reject that Epistle as supposititious. But since Tillemont seems beyond the rest to undertake the defense of that Epistle, and uses it in two places as legitimate, it will be worth while to examine his reasons.

[32] In the said Note he confesses that it is not to be wondered at that the Epistle seemed supposititious to Baronius and Coustant. His feeble little reasons are set forth, He adds, however, that a forgery is little probable, and that it could not be made credible to certain most learned men, both Catholics and Calvinists. I have already said that the Fragments published under the name of St. Hilary, of which the learned had not seriously undertaken an examination, have imposed upon many, and that the venerable name of Hilary has fought for that Epistle too among some, so that they would less certainly call fictitious what they could not defend by reasons. But Tillemont, when he saw that the Epistle could not otherwise be maintained, believed it could be said that the Epistle of Liberius was not sent, but remained secret, and was not made public by Liberius except after his lapse. He had already offered similar conjectures in article 66, where he says that the Epistle is more to the disgrace of its author, namely Liberius, than of St. Athanasius; but that it can hardly be rejected, since it is mixed with many others, and those excellent. He understands, I suppose, the Fragments of Hilary, thrust into the light under that name without judgment, and received too indulgently by the learned and by Tillemont himself first of all, whose business it chiefly was to examine them. Then he says that an answer can be made to part of Baronius's and Coustant's arguments by saying that, after the Epistle was sent, Liberius soon repented of the deed; or rather, that, the Epistle of the Egyptian council (in favor of St. Athanasius) having been received before this was sent, he did not give this one except afterward, when, St. Athanasius having been publicly condemned, he was doing whatever he could to conciliate to himself the affection of the Easterns. Others might say that it was forged by Liberius himself at that time, feigning that he had done what he had never done. He says that by this latter conjecture all difficulty is indeed removed, but that he does not know whether those suspicions suffice for accusing Liberius of so signal a fraud. These conjectures Tillemont brings forward in favor of the Epistle. But, since the matter concerns an Epistle which he himself in various places pronounces to be to Liberius's disgrace, that severe critic could either have abstained from those things which he narrates from this Epistle as though ascertained, or at least ought to have implied his doubt in the same place. For the conjectures given cannot make the Epistle certain, nor even probable, as I shall show. Baillet at the XXIII of September in Liberius, and Fleury in the Ecclesiastical History at the year 352, number 10, although they frequently follow Tillemont, seem to have utterly disapproved his conjectures, since they report nothing from that Epistle.

[33] I shall not here speak of the gaping style of the Epistle, which in no way agrees with the more certain writings of Liberius. and are refuted But I shall show that none of the conjectures given brings it about that the Epistle can be reconciled with the most certain documents. From the Epistle of Liberius to Constantius in the Fragments, at column [ ], we have it that the Arians pretended that their letters against Athanasius had been suppressed by Liberius. This certainly they could not or ought not to have said, if Liberius had sent to them the Epistle mentioned, in which he had made mention of their Epistle, and, having left communion with Athanasius, had embraced their communion, even if he had soon repented of the deed. Besides, the emperor Constantius, when with others he was urging Liberius to condemn

Athanasius, never objected inconstancy to him, nor did he or any other ever say that Athanasius had been condemned by him already at the beginning of his Pontificate. Which certainly the Arians and Constantius would not have omitted, if the Epistle had been sent. These things can be confirmed by many others; but here we have Tillemont himself confessing. And so I proceed to his own conjecture, by which he believes that the Epistle was written, but not sent except after the lapse. First I ask whether it appears likely that an Epistle of such moment, of the writing of which its author at once repented, was not immediately destroyed, but preserved for years? Was Liberius conscious of his future lapse, so that he wished to preserve a shameful Epistle, to be published at that time at last? I do not disapprove of conjectures, if they have any sound sense; but this seems too ridiculous. Let us nevertheless show that it is contrary to history no less than to sound sense.

[34] by an argument taken from other letters of Liberius; Liberius in the aforesaid Epistle to Constantius refutes the suppression of the Easterns' letters against Athanasius objected to him, in these words: But it is clear enough to all, and no one denies, that we made known the letters of the Easterns, read them to the Church, read them to the council, and also answered these things to the Easterns: we who did not lend our credit and opinion, because at the same time the judgment of eighty Egyptian bishops concerning Athanasius stood against it: which likewise we recited and made known to the Italian bishops. Whence it seemed even against the divine law, since the number of bishops in favor of Athanasius was greater, to lend consent to any part. From these words Coustant in the Annotations refutes the conjecture of Tillemont, which he here took from Hermant in the Life of St. Athanasius, book 6, chapter 25, writing thus: Hence again is refuted what some have devised for defending the truth of the preceding Epistle, namely that Liberius, moved by the letters of the Easterns, wrote it, but was called back from publishing it by other letters of the Egyptians. For how could he have received at the same time the letters both of the Easterns and of the Egyptians, if, moved by the letters of the former, he first sent presbyters to Athanasius, and awaited the return of those sent, before he heard anything from Egypt? Tillemont had seen Coustant's Annotations. Why then does he bring back the most inept conjectures of Hermant, and pass over Coustant's answer in silence? This I gladly leave to others to divine. But it is most manifest that Liberius had at the same time two epistles, and that he did not consent to the Epistle of the Arians against Athanasius, because he had another in favor of Athanasius. And so all the things collapse which Tillemont narrated from the fictitious Epistle. For Liberius neither summoned Athanasius to Rome, nor did Athanasius refuse to come, nor for that cause did Liberius write letters about Athanasius excommunicated, as Tillemont narrated repeatedly, here departing too far from the severity of his own criticism.

[35] and confirmed by other reasons. Tillemont's last conjecture remains to be examined, which, as making Liberius suspect of a too open fraud, he does not dare to adopt as his own. He believes that all difficulties would be removed if one should say that the Epistle was forged by Liberius himself after his lapse. But at least the things would remain false which he himself has cast upon paper, invidiously against Liberius, about Liberius's first inconstancy, and about Athanasius first summoned and then excommunicated. But how little likely the conjecture itself is, reader, attend. If Liberius after his lapse had forged and published that Epistle as written by himself at the beginning of his Pontificate, by such a fraud he would have shown himself fraudulent and lying to all the bishops, both Catholic and Arian, and to the emperor Constantius. For Catholics as well as Arians knew, and Constantius himself most of all, how often in his letters, how often in the meetings at Rome and Milan, Liberius had repeated that it was unlawful for him and contrary to the divine law to condemn Athanasius; they knew with what great freedom he had resisted and answered first Eusebius the eunuch, then the emperor Constantius, when they demanded the condemnation of Athanasius; and with what constancy he had gone into exile. The deeds of St. Liberius in defending the innocence of St. Athanasius, and his notable contests against Eusebius the eunuch of Constantius, and against Constantius himself, the studious reader will find in §6, where also there will be related the exile to which he was banished because he constantly defended Athanasius. And since these contests, continued through years, were most notorious to Catholics and most notorious to Arians, how would not all have cried out that Liberius was a liar and a hypocrite, who either had lied consistently for so many years before, or was then lying by a detestable fraud, that he had done what he had never done? And so let this be the conjecture of men who show themselves hostile to right judgment and reason no less than to the Roman Pontiffs, and let it not be Tillemont's, to whom it appears too absurd. There is therefore no doubt that that Epistle is a figment of Liberius's enemies, and probably of the Arians, although afterward the Luciferians too could feign the like.

[36] Receive now, reader, another Epistle attributed to Liberius, Another epistle published under the name of Liberius, about whose forgery it seems to me likewise not to be doubted. In the Fragments, column 1335, it is marked with this inscription: To our most beloved brethren the presbyters and fellow-bishops of the East, Liberius. The Epistle, with the interpolations, runs thus: Through godly fear your holy faith is known to God and to men of good will. As the law speaks, Judge just things, ye sons of men, I do not defend Athanasius : but because Julius the bishop of good memory, my predecessor, had received him, I feared lest perhaps by someone I should be judged a prevaricator. But when I learned, when it pleased God, that you had justly condemned him, I presently lent my consent to your judgments, and gave letters concerning his name (that is, concerning his condemnation ) to be carried by our brother Fortunatian to the emperor Constantius. And so, Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all, whose very letters are not to be received by me, I say that I have peace and unanimity with all of you and with all the Eastern bishops, or throughout all the provinces. For, that you may more truly know that I speak these things in true faith through this Epistle , my lord and our common brother Demophilus, who has deigned of his benevolence to set forth your and the Catholic faith, which at Sirmium was discussed, set forth and received by many of our brethren and fellow-bishops (This is the Arian perfidy; this I noted, not an apostate. Liberius: what follows) by all who were present; this I have received with a willing mind, (anathema be said by me to thee, Liberius, and to thy companions) in nothing have I contradicted , I have lent my consent, this I follow, this is held by me. (Again anathema to thee, and a third time, prevaricator Liberius.) Indeed I have thought your sanctity should be entreated, since you already perceive that I am in all things in agreement with you, that you would deign by common counsel and zeal to labor that I may at length be released from exile, and return to the see which was divinely entrusted to me. Thus far the Epistle, which was published also from the Cresconian collection in Baronius, and thence I have noted the variant readings in the margin. One, because it is larger, I here indicate. In place of these words: And so, Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all, whose very letters are not to be received by me, in Baronius is read: And so, Athanasius being removed, concerning whom the decrees of you all are to be received by me together with the Apostolic See. Besides, I observe that the Epistle is interpolated in four places, and has nowhere been found without those interpolations, as Coustant observes in the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, where he reprints it at column 441. The first interpolation is an explanation of the words concerning the name, which the interpolator sets forth as concerning the condemnation, and not rightly enough, as it seems to Coustant. Then in three places the interpolator pronounces anathema upon Liberius. These interpolations, which did not proceed from a sound brain, would make the Epistle altogether suspect, if it otherwise seemed genuine.

[37] which is proved supposititious from its style, But the more diligently I survey the Epistle itself from head to foot, the more it seems to me to shrink from the style, the judgment, and the magnanimity of Liberius. For first, the style is plainly gaping and rough, such as is in the Epistle already convicted of forgery, and in two others which I shall likewise show to be supposititious. But it is not likely or credible that Liberius was so unskilled in the Latin tongue that he did not know how to write short epistles in a style tolerably Latin, and without solecisms or barbarisms, since he was by origin a Roman, and flourished in the middle of the IV century, when the Latin tongue was the vernacular of the Romans, and in which several men distinguished for eloquence lived. Besides, other and more certain Epistles of Liberius are far more eloquent, and certainly do not labor under so great a barbarity of style as is conspicuous in those four. The reader will be able to see them in the course of this Commentary. Theodoret gave us, book 2, chapter 16, the Dialogue which Liberius had with the emperor Constantius. Let the reader see it below in §6, and judge whether it be of a man who does not know how to connect words in his native tongue, such as those four Epistles are; or rather of an eloquent man, who not only with great freedom, but also with wonderful dexterity, made a fitting reply to all the objections of Constantius and of Epictetus the bishop. St. Ambrose in the third book On Virgins, chapters 1, 2 and 3, wove in a more prolix discourse of Liberius. Certainly no one will contend that it is of a man who knows how to utter his thoughts only barbarously, as happens in these Epistles. Some believe that that discourse is of a more elegant style than can be attributed to Liberius, such as it stands; and will have it that the style was corrected by Ambrose; namely because they judge that Liberius's style was such as is that of the Epistles which we assail.

[38] which is the same in it as in the other supposititious ones, But they consider too little how unlikely are the things they say; when they make a Roman man, sprung of an illustrious family and raised to the supreme Pontificate, so unskilled in his own native speech that his diction had to be polished and corrected by Ambrose. Wherefore that conjecture does not seem likely to me: for it would not have been the discourse of Liberius, but of Ambrose, if the latter had notably changed the style, as I shall afterward prove at more length. Besides, not only is the diction both of this and of the three other Epistles gaping, but it is also destitute of all charm and point. It lacks the due connection of statements, it has nothing of salt or eloquence. It is finally such as it seems altogether incredible was written by a supreme Pontiff of the IV century. Wherefore, since of the four Epistles in which Liberius's prevarication is asserted the first and the third are shown by certain arguments to be supposititious, the style alone, with the addition of the defect of judgment, seems to suffice for denying the second and the fourth likewise to Liberius. I shall not assail the less Latin words, or the faulty phrases, since the whole Epistle is gaping and unworthy of Liberius. I pass over too that in the title the presbyters are set before the bishops, because the presbyters are omitted in Baronius. Concerning the anathemas and the other things inserted into the Epistle, without which the Epistle has not been found, I add nothing to what was said at number 26.

[39] But how unworthy the Epistle is of the judgment and

magnanimity of Liberius, and because it is plainly contrary to the prudence, I shall now briefly show. That the man himself was prudent, brave and magnanimous will be clearly plain from all the deeds to be narrated in the course of this work. But a prudent man, if by human infirmity he has brought his mind to do something which he long refused to do, and which he does not do willingly, will not publish his counsels without just cause, nor make manifest to the whole world that, conquered and compelled, he will now do what before he detested. Of what counsel therefore, and of how great imprudence would it have been, if Liberius had given letters to all the Eastern bishops about his lapse, about the condemnation of Athanasius, and about the Sirmian formula accepted, especially since it was plain from the outcome that he did what he did, if indeed he did anything unworthy of himself — which will be examined afterward — not from love of the Arians, not from hatred of Athanasius, not from an error of the understanding? Let whoever believes the Epistle genuine choose whether he will have it that Liberius sent as many copies of the Epistle as there were bishops in the East; or rather that he destined a few copies to the chief metropolitans, that they might communicate the Epistle to their suffragan bishops. Neither could he do without signal infamy to himself, and either would have been useless. For Constantius was not in the East, but through the whole year 357, in which the Epistle is feigned to have been given, he remained in the West, as also in the following year. And so, if the Eastern bishops, from whom Liberius was distant by a long space of lands, had first to receive his letters and weigh them, and then by common counsel and zeal to labor for him with the emperor, their prayers would not have come to the emperor except after a long time. Wherefore it was not the part of a prudent man to have recourse to the Easterns by such an epistle, and to declare to all of them his own infirmity and defeat; but to act with a few friends of the emperor: for if Liberius had wished to do whatever Constantius had demanded before his exile, a few friends with him could have sufficed to obtain his return.

[40] Besides, the Easterns were divided among themselves, the fortitude and magnanimity of Liberius. since some were Arians, others Semiarians, others Catholics. How therefore would they have labored by common counsel for Liberius; and by what reasoning would all have approved what the Epistle has, that he has peace with all the Eastern bishops? The Epistle also contains open falsehoods, if it be Liberius's, who never believed Athanasius justly condemned, and the faith of the Easterns holy. And these falsehoods, as also the most abject entreaties, are not the marks of a prudent and magnanimous man, who in another and less unworthy way would easily have obtained his return. For Liberius does not seem to have been ignorant with how great zeal the Romans, and especially the noble matrons, before the time at which these letters are said to have been given, had pressed Constantius that he might be sent back to Rome; and how far Constantius had yielded to their prayers. With what counsel therefore could a brave and prudent man give suppliant letters to all his enemies, and those stuffed with lying flattery, at which he could not but blush all his life, and by which he openly condemned all his own deeds in the cause of the faith? For the rest, most of the reasons by which I have shown this epistle to be supposititious equally tell against the following one, which is feigned to have been given to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, Arian bishops in Illyricum. I subjoin it entire.

[41] A third Epistle equally fictitious, Because I know that you are sons of peace, and that you also love the concord and unity of the Catholic Church; therefore, compelled by no necessity, God being my witness I say it, but for the good of peace, which is set before martyrdom, I address you by these letters, my lords and dearest brethren. Let your prudence therefore know that Athanasius, who was bishop of the church of Alexandria, was condemned by me before I sent the letters of the Eastern bishops to the court of the holy emperor, and that he was separated from the communion of the Roman Church, as the whole presbytery of the Roman Church is witness. This alone was the cause why I seemed to give letters concerning his name to our brethren and fellow-bishops of the East somewhat late, namely that my legates, whom I had sent from the city of Rome to the court, or the bishops who had been deported, might themselves also, if it could be done, be recalled from exile along with them. And this too I wish you to know, that I asked our brother Fortunatian to go with my letters to the most clement emperor Constantius Augustus, to ask that, for the good of peace and concord, in which his piety ever exults, he would bid me return to the Church divinely handed over to me: that in his times the Roman Church may endure no tribulation. But that I have peace with all of you, bishops of the Catholic Church, you ought to know by these my letters with a fair and simple mind, dearest brethren. For you will gain great consolation for yourselves in the day of retribution, if by you the peace of the Roman Church shall have been restored. And I wish also our brethren and fellow-bishops Epictetus and Auxentius to know through you that I have peace and ecclesiastical communion with them: which I believe they will receive gladly. But whoever shall dissent from our peace and concord, which throughout the world, God willing, has been established, let him know that he is separated from our communion. To the Epistle these words are subjoined: Anathema said by me to the prevaricator together with the Arians. Which seem to be the work of the first collector.

[42] as Baronius long ago proved, Tillemont dissembling. Now the Epistle given, besides a style unworthy of Liberius, and besides the most shameful flatteries, much at variance with the character of Liberius, by which the leaders of the Arians and the chief authors of all the disturbances are called sons of peace, has the most manifest marks of falsity. The most eminent Baronius at the year 357 first recited it, as a legitimate and genuine offspring of Liberius. But in the Appendix of the same tome, page 25, he noticed that it cannot be genuine, and writes thus: By all these things, and by the others lately said from Athanasius himself, from Liberius and from Constantius, thou mayest equally refute the Epistle written in his name to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, in which Athanasius is said to have been condemned at Rome before Liberius himself was dragged to the court, since he himself was carried off from Rome and led to Constantius and thence sent into exile for no other cause than that he had been unwilling to condemn Athanasius. Plainly one and the same was the scorpion's hand which wrote both Epistles in the name of Liberius, namely on this occasion, that Liberius was said to have written against Athanasius under compulsion of force, and to have condemned him. That this therefore might not be said, Epistles were feigned by which it should be asserted that already at the very outset of his See Athanasius had been condemned by Liberius, and that this was done at Rome before the presbytery of the Roman Church. Thus far Baronius, who, if he had examined a little more attentively, before he published the Epistles in which the condemnation of Athanasius is treated, and had at the same time attended to how ruinous are the foundations on which all the things said about Liberius's lapse rest, would without doubt have equally disapproved all four. Tillemont was not ignorant of Baronius's argument; but he preferred to dissemble, and to praise as certain the Epistle which in the Arians, article 69, he observes to be to Liberius's even greater disgrace than the preceding, rather than to call its truth to examination. Nay, that severe critic even attributes the anathema subjoined to the Epistle to St. Hilary, as if that holy doctor had pronounced anathema upon Liberius on account of his lapse even after he was corrected. So far did that critical Samson, to imitate his own words, at once lose all critical strength, not to say sound judgment, when there was question of documents fitted to brand a mark upon Liberius.

[43] Coustant in the Annotations tried to loose Baronius's argument, To Baronius's argument Coustant and to defend the Epistle as written by Liberius. He confesses that Binius subscribes to Baronius, and that Labbe does not gainsay: and presently he argues thus: But certainly meanwhile they must needs concede that it was neither suspected of falsity by the judgment of our author (he means Hilary), nor differs in style from the other letters of the same Pontiff. But I answer that those Fragments were attributed to St. Hilary without foundation, without authority, and without judgment, as Baronius at once saw, and as I have proved at length in §2. Concerning the style I answer that it is of the same style as the three other supposititious ones; but that a far better style shines forth in the genuine writings of Liberius. Further, the passage from which Baronius took his argument is expressed in another way by Coustant, from Sirmond's manuscript, as he says. Baronius has: Let your prudence know that Athanasius, who was bishop of the church of Alexandria, before I had come to the court of the holy emperor, was, according to the letters of the Eastern bishops, separated from the communion of the Roman Church, as the whole presbytery of the Roman Church is witness. But by these words it is most clearly signified that St. Athanasius was condemned before Liberius in the year 355 was led to Milan to Constantius. Of this understanding of the passage Coustant says: If he (Baronius) understands it rightly, he deservedly attributes this whole Epistle to those who forged the preceding one (namely the first of the four). But he tries to expound the passage in another way, both according to the reading which he gave from Sirmond's manuscript, never seen by him, and also according to Baronius's reading.

[44] He expressed the passage thus: Let your prudence therefore know replies some things, that Athanasius, who was bishop of the church of Alexandria, was condemned by me before I sent the letters of the Eastern bishops to the court of the holy emperor etc. Tillemont, Note 53 on the Arians, offers a conjecture concerning the passage, which in Le Fèvre is faulty, reading it thus. And so I rightly doubt whether that reading was not given rather from conjecture than from Sirmond's manuscript, which Coustant confesses he never saw. But from wherever it came, it seems not a correction of the passage but a corruption; and this is gathered from what follows. The sense in Baronius coheres rightly: because he is said to have condemned Athanasius before his own exile, he is also feigned to allege the testimony of the whole Roman presbytery, which certainly could bear witness about deeds at Rome. But about deeds in Thrace he would stupidly have alleged the testimony of the Roman clergy. The Epistle therefore says that Athanasius was condemned at Rome by Liberius, as the Easterns had asked at the beginning of his Pontificate, and as the first supposititious Epistle has it. Tillemont and Coustant, to escape this weapon, say that from this passage it is gathered that Liberius wrote about the condemnation of Athanasius first to the Roman clergy. But this is feigned gratuitously, nor is it likely that Liberius wished to make all the Romans more certain about his lapse, since the Romans were Catholics. Yet even so he would ineptly have alleged the testimony of the Roman clergy; rather he would have alleged his own Epistle as witness.

[45] which are refuted. Besides, how does he excuse himself for having written somewhat late about the condemnation of Athanasius to the Easterns, if he already had the Easterns' answer, and had sent it to the emperor, while he was writing this Epistle? For the passage, as it is corrupted in Coustant and expounded by him, implies that the letters of the Easterns were sent by Liberius to the emperor before this one was written. But if this had been done, he ought rather to have excused his slowness in writing to those to whom he was writing so much later. But the Epistle itself again implies that no letters of the Easterns had been sent by Liberius to the emperor

before he was writing this; but that this was written at nearly the same time as the Epistle to the Easterns. For in both Liberius is feigned to write as of a new matter that Fortunatian the bishop had been sent by him with letters to the emperor. And so Coustant's reading in no way coheres, and Baronius's reading must altogether be retained, according to which Liberius is feigned to have condemned Athanasius at the beginning of his Pontificate, or at least before his exile. Coustant, however, has recourse to some escape, Baronius's reading being kept, and says that the words before I had come are not to be understood of Liberius's coming to Milan before his exile, but of his coming to Sirmium, whither he says he was summoned by Constantius, Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15. But this last plank of a shipwrecked man is too frail. For if we must stand by Sozomen, Liberius was so summoned to Sirmium by Constantius that there too he received leave to return to Rome. How therefore does he speak in this Epistle as an exile, and with prayers too abject demand the patronage of his enemies, that it may be permitted him to return, if it was written after he had before been summoned to Sirmium? The whole account of Sozomen, especially if it be compared with Theodoret and others, rather implies that all the things which are said about Liberius's lapse arose from the calumnies and lies of the Arians, as I shall show in its place.

[46] The fourth The last of the four letters which I do not doubt were foisted upon Liberius is said to have been given to Vincent of Capua, and in the Fragments runs thus: I do not teach, but admonish thy holy mind, dearest brother, in that evil converse corrupts good manners. The snares of evil men are well known to thee, whence I came to this trouble: and pray that the Lord may grant endurance. My most beloved son Urbicus the deacon, whom I seemed to have as a comfort, has been taken from me by Venerius, an agent in affairs. I have thought it should be signified to thy sanctity that I have withdrawn from that contention over the name of Athanasius, and have given letters to our brethren and fellow-bishops of the East concerning his name. Whence, because, God willing, there is peace to you everywhere, thou wilt deign to convene all the bishops of Campania, and to make these things known to them, and from their number, together with your Epistle, to write to the most clement emperor concerning our unanimity and peace, that I too may be freed from great sadness. And in his own hand: May God keep thee safe. Likewise in his own hand at the foot of the page written out: With all the Eastern bishops we have peace, and I with you. I have discharged myself before God; you will see to it: if you shall wish me to fail in exile, God will be judge between me and you.* Thus far the Epistle, as it is printed. The variant readings in Baronius are of no moment.

[47] likewise falsely ascribed to Liberius. This again is of the same style as the preceding, and probably of the same architect, although otherwise it has not such clear marks of falsity. Liberius is feigned to write that he had given letters to the Easterns about the condemnation of Athanasius, which I have already observed to be unlikely. He is feigned to implore the patronage of all the bishops of Campania, and to declare to them for this end his lapse. But he did not need the patronage of the Campanians to obtain his return, if he was willing to yield to Constantius, since the emperor had yielded to the prayers of the Romans and had promised that he would send Liberius back, under that condition at least. The bishops of Campania too, who were either all, or at least for the greater part, Catholics, he would by such an Epistle have alienated from himself rather than conciliated.

[48] There remain to be set forth some reasons by which the falsity of all those epistles becomes known. The forgery of those Epistles is confirmed by other reasons. First, none of the ancients makes mention of those Epistles of Liberius, none said that his return was obtained by the patronage of other bishops. Wherefore either the falsity of those Epistles was quickly known, if they were forged by the Arians; or they were afterward struck out by the Luciferians or other schismatics. For who would believe that all those epistles could be unknown to Rufinus, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and others, since they would at once have been published by the Arians? But if the said Epistles had become known to the said historians, who are all contemporary or nearly so, and had been held for epistles of Liberius, Rufinus could not doubt about the lapse of Liberius, asserted in so many of his Epistles, as we shall see in §8 that he did doubt. Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret could not speak so magnificently of the fortitude and constancy of Liberius as we shall see that they really spoke, and attribute his return to the prayers of the Romans alone, if Liberius had given in his own Epistles as many marks of a petty and abject mind as are found in the said Epistles. If St. Ambrose had held those Epistles, which he could not be ignorant of if they were Liberius's, for Epistles of Liberius, he would not have commended the sanctity of Liberius in those words which I gave at number 2. These things suffice for me to deny without hesitation to Liberius the four Epistles in which mention is made of the condemnation of St. Athanasius. Nor will the fair reader wonder at my judgment, provided he has weighed the reasons, and at the same time considered how many things have been published by calumniators under other men's names.

elsewhere juste*

elsewhere, in the manuscript, defendi*

elsewhere in*

elsewhere litteras adhæcque*

elsewhere damnatione*

elsewhere veram fidem*

elsewhere Epistolam meam proloqui*

elsewhere Sirmii*

elsewhere contradicens, the following being omitted down to sane*

elsewhere semper videtis*

elsewhere nobis*

§ IV. The Pontificate of St. Liberius, and his deeds in it down to the year 355.

[ ] Liberius raised unwillingly to the Pontificate, Of the deeds of St. Liberius before the supreme Pontificate I find no documents. The Catalogues of the Pontiffs — which all acknowledge to be most faulty in Liberius, where the first ends — have it that he was by country a Roman, born of a father Augustus. Baillet at the XXIII of September says that he was named Marcellinus Felix Liberius: whence he took this he does not add. From the Epistle of Liberius to Constantius, which I shall recite below, it is in some measure gathered that he was born of an illustrious house, and was either deacon or presbyter before the Pontificate, which he undertook unwillingly. For he speaks thus: But God is my witness, the whole Church with its members is witness, that by faith and by fear toward my God I tread and have trodden underfoot all worldly things, as the Evangelical and Apostolic rule has prescribed. Not with rash frenzy, but with the divine law established and observed, and living in another ecclesiastical ministry, I fulfilled nothing through boasting, nothing through desire of glory, of what pertained to the law: and to that Office (of the Pontificate) my God is my witness, I came unwillingly etc. Of the year and month in which he obtained the Pontificate it is established from the first Catalogue of the Pontiffs, written in Liberius's own time. For there he is said to have been created Pontiff in the consulship of the emperor Constantius for the fifth time and of Gallus Cæsar, that is, in the year 352 of the Christian era, on the XI Kalends of June, or the XXII day of May. Papebroch, however, and Pagi will have it that he was ordained on the XXIV of May, because that was a Sunday.

[50] he is asked by letters from the enemies of St. Athanasius to condemn him, But he had scarcely obtained that dignity when he was called to brave contests against the Arians, in which he showed himself such, whether we consider his prudence or his constancy, that he is to be compared with the greatest Pontiffs, unless he really lapsed for a short time, as is now nearly the common opinion — which nevertheless I shall show in its place to be ill founded and less probable. The emperor Constans being dead, who had shown himself favorable to the Catholics and to St. Athanasius, and the tyrant Magnentius being conquered, who in the year 353 killed himself, the Arians vehemently pressed Constantius the Arian, made master of the whole empire, that St. Athanasius might again be driven from the see of Alexandria, new calumnies being devised against him; and at the same time they labored that he might be condemned by all the bishops, and namely by the Roman Pontiff. To this end they not only impelled Constantius to persecute all who were unwilling to consent to the condemnation of St. Athanasius; but the Eastern bishops also sent letters to the Roman Pontiff to obtain the condemnation of St. Athanasius. These letters St. Liberius received at the beginning of his Pontificate, as we have it from his aforesaid Epistle to Constantius, in which it is not expressed whether they had been given to S. Julius his predecessor, as the supposititious Epistle, worthy of no credit, has it, or to Liberius himself after the death of S. Julius and the substitution of Liberius had been learned in the East. But whether they were given to Julius or to Liberius, Liberius at the same time received other letters also from Egypt, which eighty Catholic bishops sent in favor of St. Athanasius. That in the year 352 there was therefore some conventicle of the Arians or of the enemies of St. Athanasius, from which those letters were given, must altogether be confessed; and likewise it must be said that there was a council of eighty bishops in Egypt, from which were given letters testifying to the innocence of St. Athanasius.

[51] [but he, a council having been held and other letters received in favor of Athanasius, does not consent.] But what Liberius did, who could not be ignorant of the frauds of the Arians attacking St. Athanasius with feigned crimes, he himself sets forth. He denies that he suppressed the said letters, lest the crimes of him (Athanasius) whom they were said to have condemned should be plain to all, as the Arians afterward calumniously alleged. But he testifies that he gathered a council to examine the said letters, writing thus: But it is clear enough to all, and no one denies, that we made known the letters of the Easterns, read them to the Church, read them to the council, and also answered these things to the Easterns. The Epistle of Liberius by which he answered the Easterns has not hitherto been found. From what follows, however, it is plain that Liberius did not consent to the Easterns. For he thus proceeds: We who did not lend our credit and opinion, because at the same time the judgment of eighty (in Baronius, seventy-five) bishops stood against it: which likewise we recited and made known to the Italian bishops. Whence it seemed even against the divine law, since the number of bishops in favor of Athanasius was greater, to lend consent to any part. Presently it is added that those writings of the Egyptians were brought by a certain Eusebius, or Theosebius, as it is in Baronius; and that afterward they were carried to the council of Arles by Vincent of Capua. This only does St. Liberius say about that first attempt of the Arians under his Pontificate. He could without doubt have added another reason for not receiving the accusations of the Easterns against Athanasius; namely, that they were unworthy of credit because of their false calumnies frequently repeated against Athanasius: but by that answer he might have exasperated Constantius too much.

[52] Even so, however, he took it most ill that the condemnation of Athanasius was refused, He sends legates to Constantius staying at Arles, as Sulpicius Severus narrates in the History, book 2, chapter 39, where he has thus: Therefore, when our men would not receive their sentence — that is, the Arians' — which they had given about Athanasius, an edict was set forth by the emperor, that those who did not subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius should be driven into exile. For the rest, there were then councils of our bishops at Arles

and Buteræ, towns of the Gauls. That council of Arles was held toward the end of the year 353, or perhaps at the beginning of the year 354: for it is established that Constantius was present, whom Ammianus, book 14, chapter 5, testifies to have remained at Arles in that winter season. Liberius with the Italian bishops had asked the emperor that a council be celebrated at Aquileia; but the emperor, since he was staying in Gaul after the slaughter of Magnentius, seems to have called the bishops to Arles, that he himself might be present. And so Liberius sent thither as legates Vincent and Marcellus, bishops of Campania, the first of whom had discharged various embassies of this kind, and had been even in the Council of Nicæa. They seem, however, to have been sent rather to the emperor to obtain the convoking of a plenary council, such as Liberius desired, than to celebrate a council at Arles with a few, and those for the greater part Arians. For Liberius writes thus to Constantius about the writings of the Egyptians carried to Arles: All which writings, however, afterward, lest they should perhaps be lacking for the obtaining of a council, Vincent, who had been sent with the rest, carried to Arles.

[53] But how violently everything was transacted at Arles where a council is gathered, in which the Arians use guile and force, is plain from the few words which the aforesaid Sulpicius subjoins: It was asked, he says, that before they were compelled to subscribe against Athanasius, they should rather dispute about the faith: and that the matter should not be judged only after judgment had been passed upon the person. But Valens (the Arian bishop) and his companions desired first to extort the condemnation of Athanasius, not daring to contend about the faith. From this conflict of parties Paulinus is driven into exile; namely S. Paulinus of Trier, of whom we have treated at the XXXI of August. Of the violence done to Vincent of Capua, Liberius's legate, St. Athanasius makes mention in the Apology to Constantius, tome 1, page 312, although there he joins together deeds of different times. What the legates wrote about their doings there, Liberius narrates in the Epistle to Constantius in this manner: There remain the letters of the legates who had been sent to thy clemency, which lately came: in which they signify that, on account of the disturbance indeed of all the churches, they had wished beforehand to yield to the judgments of the Easterns, but had proposed a condition, that if those same men should condemn the heresy of Arius, being in this manner inclined they would obey their judgments. The agreement, as they themselves signify, is confirmed by the witness of writing, they go into the council, they receive after deliberation the answers, that they could not condemn the doctrine of Arius, and that Athanasius, which alone they demanded, must be deprived of communion. This Liberius to Constantius, condemning the perfidy of the Arians, in that they had not kept their promises; but without doubt no more approving the promise of his own legates about condemning Athanasius if they should condemn Arius: for Athanasius did not become guilty if Arius were condemned. But the legates perhaps, because they were pressed with excessive threats, tried to extricate themselves by offering a condition which they judged would not be accepted.

[54] [and the legate subscribes to the condemnation of St. Athanasius: Liberius's grief.] But whatever was the occasion of that infirmity, it paved the way to the lapse. For the Arians so pressed and terrified the legates that they held ratified the condemnation or excommunication of St. Athanasius, the cause of Arius being even dropped, or at least they no longer opposed themselves. St. Liberius grieved vehemently on hearing of their prevarication, as we learn from his letters to Hosius, bishop of Cordova, which Baronius partly recites at the year 353, number 19, in this manner: Because in nothing ought I to pass by thy conscience; many bishops from Italy have assembled, who with me had entreated the most religious emperor Constantius that he would order, as had long since pleased him, a council to be gathered at Aquileia. I make known to thy sanctity that Vincent of Capua, with Marcellus, likewise a bishop from Campania, undertook our embassy. Of whom, since I hoped many things, because he both held the cause excellently and had frequently sat as judge in the same cause with thy sanctity; I had believed that the Gospel of God could be preserved by his embassy. Not only did he obtain nothing, but he himself too was led into that dissimulation. After whose deed, being consumed with a twofold grief, I have determined that I must rather die for God, lest I should seem to stand forth as the latest informer: for he seems to have accommodated his consent to their judgments. These same words are read in the Fragments, column 1334, where the last words are thus expressed: or to lend consent to judgments against the Gospel. In the same place also these words are given, as written by Liberius to the bishop of Spoleto: I would not have the deed of Vincent call thee back from the intent of a good work, dearest brother. Again in the Epistle to S. Eusebius of Vercelli, to be recited below, he makes mention of the lapse of Vincent, which, as above, he calls a dissimulation: because the innocence of St. Athanasius was too well known to Vincent for him to be able to condemn him in his mind, although he dissembled that he adhered to the judgments of the Easterns against him. For the rest, that Vincent afterward rose again from that lapse we shall see in its place.

[55] The Pontiff sends other legates to Constantius, But Liberius was afflicted not only by that grief; he was also assailed with calumnies before the Roman people by letters of the emperor Constantius sent to Rome on account of his defense of the cause of St. Athanasius, whom the Arians traduced as an enemy of Constantius. Wherefore, having heard the unhappy outcome of his first embassy, he thought at once of sending another embassy, and chose for it the bravest men, of whose constancy he could be confident, namely Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, who had come to Rome at that time and offered himself of his own accord, as we have it from the letters to Eusebius of Vercelli to be given below; Pancratius a presbyter and Hilary a deacon, to whom Eusebius of Vercelli wished to join himself, being asked by Liberius in repeated letters. For either before the departure of the legates, or to be carried by the legates themselves, he first gave these letters to S. Eusebius: Liberius the bishop to his most beloved brother Eusebius. Me, dearest brother, thy unconquered faith raises up for the comfort of the present life, by which, following the precepts of the Gospels, thou hast in no way departed from the fellowship of the Apostolic See: which I believe not without the impulse of God, who keeps one worthy of himself in the priesthood, thou hast fulfilled with good will. Since therefore after his embassy Vincent was led into that dissimulation; and the remaining bishops throughout Italy had been compelled by a public assembly to obey the judgments of the Easterns; by God's providence our brother and fellow-bishop Lucifer arrived from Sardinia, who, when he had learned the hidden places of the inner cause, and had come to a knowledge of it, that under the occasion of the name of Athanasius the heretics wished to attempt these things; out of devotion to his faith was willing to undergo a just labor, and to proceed to the court of the religious prince: that at length, the order of the whole cause being set forth, he might obtain that all the matters which have come into the midst might be treated in an assembly of the priests of God.*

[56] And so, because I know that the holy warmth of thy faith accords with his mind, and asks Eusebius of Vercelli, I ask thy prudence that, if by God's providence he shall have thee present, thou wouldest strive by whatever means thou canst carefully to keep watch, that you may be able to make known to the most clement emperor all things which the Catholic faith demands: that at length some time, his indignation of mind being laid aside, he may do what may be able in all things to suit both our quiet and his own salvation. But I have thought it superfluous to make known the ordering of the whole cause by letters to thy honorableness, since my aforesaid brother or his companions can in person relate all things by their own report. May God keep thee safe, my lord and dearest brother. This and the other Epistles to S. Eusebius presently to be given Baronius first published from Vatican and Vercelli manuscripts: then Stefano Ferrero, bishop of Vercelli, in the Life of S. Eusebius, and finally from these Labbe in the Councils, and Coustant in the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, reprinted them. Wherefore the things which seem faulty in Baronius have partly been corrected from Ferrero, and it is partly indicated in the margin by conjecture how it seems to have been written.

[57] After the departure of the legates, who, because Constantius in the earlier months of the year 354, that he may join himself to them; in which these things were done, was staying in Gaul, could easily pass through Vercelli, Liberius again gave these letters to Eusebius. Liberius the bishop to his most beloved brother Eusebius. My son Callepius returning to his own country, I have thought it best to salute thy sanctity by him, my lord and dearest brother, praying the clemency of God that thou mayest receive my letters safe and cheerful. Indeed, because I know that thy unconquered mind faithfully does what God has prescribed, I commend to thee our brother and fellow-bishop Lucifer, and also my dearest sons Pancratius the presbyter and Hilary the deacon, who for the state of the Church, with manly mind and godlike virtue, at a seasonable time, have gone forth against the enemies of the Church, whom God will destroy with the spirit of his mouth. For I know that the fervent Spirit of God is in thee, that thou mayest go forth together with them: that the faith which was handed down by the Apostles to the Catholic Church may in no way be broken in upon. Certainly thou deignest to hold, if the public laws do not condemn an absent man, that thy faith may join itself to their fellowship, and that thy sanctity, being like them, may be present where they shall be, and that with one converse, one counsel, you may do that which pleases God and his angels, and is expedient for the Catholic Church. For this labor may Christ our Lord repay you with a heavenly reward, an unfading crown, the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. We salute all who with thee faithfully serve God. Salute all the clergy. May God keep thee safe, my lord and dearest brother.* Thus far Liberius, whose will S. Eusebius promptly obeyed.

[58] And Liberius learned this from the answer received from him, and when he had promised, he is stirred by other letters to act bravely: and, being affected with great joy at the embassy undertaken by Eusebius, wrote a third Epistle to him, which I subjoin: Liberius the bishop to his most beloved brother Eusebius. I knew, my lord and dearest brother, that, being fervent with the Spirit of God in the cause of the faith, which can commend us to the Lord, thou wouldest deign to show faithful comfort to our brother and fellow-bishop Lucifer, and to Pancratius our fellow-presbyter, who had set out together with my son Hilary the deacon, and that thou couldest not deny thyself to those whom thou knewest to have undertaken so great a labor of journeying out of devotion to their faith. Great relief therefore has my mind received from the reading of thy letters: nay, I now confidently trust that the cause itself can advance for the better, God favoring, because thou hast been unwilling to desert our brethren. Labor therefore as a good soldier, thou who awaitest the reward of the eternal Emperor, and strive to display that virtue of mind by which I know that thou hast despised the enticements of this world, against those who are indeed bereft of the light of the Church, having, as thou hast, contempt of this life. Show thyself a truth-speaking priest, that, while you labor for the state of the Church, a council may be able to be celebrated; that all the things which, coming from the other side, they have subtly contrived to the prejudice of the faith, may be able to be reformed for the better. Eternal rewards accompany this labor, which thy excellent faith knows better: upon which, even if exhortation should grow cold, the fervent Holy Spirit who is in thee would, for the unity of the holy Church, at every moment goad thy mind to greater comforts.*

[59] Liberius wrote also to Fortunatian of Aquileia. To our brother and fellow-bishop Fortunatian also, whom I knew neither to stand in awe of men's persons and rather to think of future rewards, I have dispatched letters; that he too, for the sincerity of his heart and for the faith which he knows he has kept even at the risk of this present life, might deign even now to keep watch with you. Whom indeed I know, for the sanctity of his heart, without hesitation both to strengthen your prudence by his counsel, and, if it shall so please you, to deny his presence in nothing to your love. May God keep thee safe, my lord and dearest brother. Thus far St. Liberius, who certainly omitted nothing by which he might hope for a happy outcome of the embassy, and a better state of the Church. And we shall see four legates indeed bearing themselves most bravely; but ill treated by Constantius and banished into exile. But the hope conceived about Fortunatian deceived Liberius. For Fortunatian, bishop of Aquileia, seems to be designated, who afterward showed himself not constant enough, but succumbed to the threats of the Arians and of the emperor Constantius in the council of Milan. From the Epistle given, however, it is gathered that Fortunatian did not lapse at the same time as Vincent of Capua, as some have wrongly gathered from the words of St. Athanasius, to be recited afterward.

[60] The Epistle given to the legates for Constantius, To these at last I subjoin the more prolix Epistle of Liberius, praised again and again, which he gave to the legates to carry to Constantius. In it he strives to appease Constantius, modestly refutes the calumnies scattered by him against himself, touches upon some things concerning the violent frauds of the Arians, and demands a council in which all things may be diligently examined. The inscription is: To the most glorious Constantius Augustus, Liberius the bishop. And the Epistle is thus published in Coustant: I beseech thee, most tranquil emperor, that thy clemency grant me kindly ears, whereby the purpose of my mind may appear to thy mildness. For of a Christian emperor and the son of Constantine of holy memory I deserve to obtain this very thing without hesitation. But I understand that I labor in this, that by repeated satisfaction I cannot recall to favor toward me thy mind, which is placable even toward the guilty. For the discourse of thy piety, long since sent to the people, greatly wounds me indeed, who must patiently bear all things: but that thy mind, which is ever free for gentleness, which never, as it is written, keeps its anger to the going down of the day, should retain indignation toward me, is to me a marvel.

[61] For I, most religious emperor, seek with thee a true peace, which is not composed of words with an inward disposition of deceit; by which he tries to appease the emperor, but reasonably confirmed by the precepts of the Gospels. Not the business of Athanasius only, but many other matters have come into the midst, on account of which I had entreated thy mildness that a council should be held: that above all — which the sincere devotion of thy mind toward God especially desires — when the cause of the faith, in which our first hope toward God lies, had been diligently treated, the [ ] of those who ought to admire our observance toward God might be brought to an end. And it had been worthy of a worshipper of God, worthy of thy empire, which is ruled and increased by the piety of Christ, that thy clemency should especially afford us this very thing for the reverence of the holy religion to which thou art prudently intent, for the obtaining of these things.

[62] But many hasten to tear the members of the Church, who have pretended that I suppressed letters, lest he gives reasons for not having condemned Athanasius the crimes of him whom they were said to have condemned should be plain to all. What letters were those? Of the Eastern and of the Egyptian bishops, in which in all the same crimes against Athanasius were contained? But it is clear enough to all, and no one denies, that we made known the letters of the Easterns, read them to the Church, read them to the council, and also answered these things to the Easterns: we who did not lend our credit and opinion, because at the same time the judgment of eighty Egyptian bishops concerning Athanasius stood against it, which likewise we recited and made known to the Italian bishops. Whence it seemed even against the divine law, since the number of bishops in favor of Athanasius was greater, to lend consent to any part. These writings, if Eusebius, who had been sent, owes faith to God, he left with us as he hastened to Africa: all which writings, however, afterward, lest they should perhaps be lacking for the obtaining of a council, Vincent, who had been sent with the rest, carried to Arles.

[63] Thy prudence sees therefore that nothing has entered into my mind he defends himself, which it had not been worthy of those who serve God to think. But God is my witness, the whole Church with its members is witness, that by faith and by fear toward my God I tread and have trodden underfoot all worldly things, as the evangelical and apostolic rule has prescribed. Not with rash frenzy, but with the divine law established and observed, and living in another ecclesiastical ministry, I fulfilled nothing through boasting, nothing through desire of glory, of what pertained to the law: and to that office, my God is my witness, I came unwillingly; in which I desire indeed to remain without offense to God, so long as I shall be in the world. And I have never carried out my own decrees, but the apostolic, that they might ever be established and kept, following the custom and order of our elders; I have suffered nothing to be added to the episcopate of the city of Rome, nothing to be diminished: and, keeping that faith which has run through the succession of so many bishops, of whom many were martyrs, I ever desire that it be kept unimpaired.

[64] Finally, ecclesiastical solicitude and my very devotion persuade me now to open the cause to thy piety. he sets forth why there cannot be peace with the Arians, The Easterns signify that they wish to be joined to our peace. What peace is there, most clement emperor, when there are of those very parties four bishops, Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Martyrius, who eight years ago, when at Milan they had been unwilling to condemn the heretical opinion of Arius, went out from the council with angry minds? Whether it be lawful to lend consent to their judgments, of what sort that were, or what danger it has, thy equity and clemency will be able to estimate. It is nothing new that is now subtly attempted under the occasion of the name of Athanasius. There remain the letters of Alexander the bishop, once sent to Silvester of holy memory, in which he signified that before the ordination of Athanasius he had cast out of the Church eleven, both presbyters and also deacons, because they followed the heresy of Arius: of whom certain now, set outside the Catholic Church, are said to have found conventicles for themselves, with whom it is asserted that Georgius also at Alexandria communicates by letters. What peace therefore can there be, most tranquil emperor, if bishops when produced are compelled, as has now been done throughout Italy, to obey the judgments of such men?

[65] he implies that Athanasius was wrongly condemned, Receive another thing, since thy tranquillity patiently admits it. There remain the letters of the legates who had been sent to thy clemency, which lately came, in which they signify that, on account of the disturbance indeed of all the churches, they had wished beforehand to yield to the judgments of the Easterns, but had proposed a condition, that if those same men should condemn the heresy of Arius, being in this manner inclined they would obey their judgments. The agreement, as they themselves signify, is confirmed by the witness of writing, they go into the council; they receive after deliberation the answers, that they could not condemn the doctrine of Arius, and that Athanasius, which alone they demanded, must be deprived of communion. Hence now let thy clemency consider this also, the right of the Catholic religion being duly preserved, whether a man's cause ought to be diligently and thoroughly treated.

[66] he demands a council, Whence again and again we ask thy mildness and thy mind devoted to God, by the power of him who has proved to all mortals how great he is in thy defense, that, having before thine eyes the benefits of him who rules thy empire in all things, thou wouldest cause these matters to be diligently treated with all consideration in an assembly of bishops: that, the times being pacified through thee, God favoring, and thy tranquillity consenting, all things may be so discussed that the things which shall have been confirmed by the judgment of the priests of God — when it shall be established that all have agreed upon the exposition of the faith which was confirmed among so many bishops at Nicæa, thy father of holy memory being present — may with that example be kept hereafter: so that the Savior himself, who from above beholds the purpose of thy mind, may rejoice that in so great a dispatch of affairs thou hast not undeservedly set the cause of faith and peace before even the necessities of the commonwealth.

[67] and intimates the sending of the legates. To entreat therefore thy mildness, that thou wouldest deign with benevolent mind to hear our allegations, it has pleased that my brother and fellow-bishop, the holy man Lucifer, with Pancratius the presbyter and Hilary the deacon, should set out. Whom we believe can not with difficulty obtain from thy clemency a council for the peace of all the Catholic churches. May the clemency of Almighty God keep thee for us, most clement and most religious Augustus. These things Liberius wrote to Constantius in the year 354. But in what month, or in what place, the legates found Constantius, I nowhere find, nor any more how they were received by the emperor. But it is established that a council was proclaimed, and that it was held in the following year, 355, at Milan, of which we must now treat.

dignos*

perhaps iter*

exserere*

perhaps negotia*

§ V. The unhappy outcome of the tyrannical council of Milan: the exile of Liberius's legates: his Epistle to the exiles.

[ ] [The council of Milan, at which some will have it that more than 300 bishops were present,] The time of the council of Milan, if that is to be called a council, is in some measure gathered from Sulpicius praised above, when on page 264 he says: Thus those whom we mentioned above were driven into exile forty-five years ago, Arbitio and Lollianus being consuls. For these held the consulship in the year 355, and Sulpicius speaks of the exile of those who from that council were led into exile, so that he seems to fix the council in the same year. But this, I confess, is not so clear but that that council could have been begun at the close of the year 354, since in this year the emperor came from Gaul into Italy in the summer season, and Sulpicius speaks also of the exile of Liberius, who certainly remained at Rome for a notable space after the exile of his legates, as will easily be gathered from what is to be said. Of the time therefore nothing more certain seems able to be said than that that tyrannical conventicle was held either toward the end of the year 354, or more probably at the beginning or in the earlier months of the year 355. Of the number of bishops who assembled it is not sufficiently established. Sozomen indeed, book 4, chapter 9, implies that a very great number of bishops was gathered at Milan, in these words: When therefore, the emperor urging it, a synod had been gathered at Milan, from the parts of the East indeed very few came together, the rest either on account of sickness, or because of the length of the journey, as one may suppose, declining to come thither. But of the Western bishops more than three hundred were present. The same things Socrates also writes, book 2, chapter 36.

[69] But I can with difficulty believe that the number of bishops was so great. it was not so numerous: yet the Pontiff's legates were present, but Eusebius Certainly Baronius, tome 9 of the Annals, in the Appendix of the year 355, page 867, recites the names of the bishops who there first subscribed against St. Athanasius, as he received them

from the archive of Vercelli. Now these were thirty in number, and although others could afterward have been added to these, it does not seem likely that there were more than three hundred Western bishops at Milan: for neither does Sulpicius imply that that council was numerous. And in the letters by which the emperor Constantius bade Eusebius of Vercelli, who declined to come to the council, be present, given in Ferrero from the archive of Vercelli, a few from each province are said to have come to Milan. Wherefore the number of bishops seems to have been far smaller than Socrates and Sozomen said. Baluze in the New Collection, column 29, from the Life of S. Eusebius of Vercelli gave the Acts of the council of Milan, and there Liberius the Pope, Hilary of Poitiers, Paulinus of Trier, with others, are said to have taken part in the council. But it will be clearly plain that Liberius was not present, just as Hilary and Paulinus were not present. But it is established that the legates of St. Liberius were present, namely Lucifer of Cagliari, Pancratius the presbyter and Hilary the deacon. S. Eusebius of Vercelli, because from the circumstances of affairs, and perhaps from the first meeting of the legates with Constantius, he did not dare to hope for a happy outcome of that assembly, refused to be present. Wherefore the bishops first invited him in the name of the whole council by letters and legates. Then Constantius himself wrote to him that he should come; and at last the Pontifical legates, not yet having cast away all hope, exhorted Eusebius by their own letters also to come to the council. He yielded at length, and came to Milan, as may be seen more fully in Ferrero in the Life of Eusebius, page 18 and following. But since all those matters are to be examined among us more at length at the XVI of December, on which S. Eusebius is venerated, passing over these things I only subjoin how he was received at Milan, and to whom he joined himself there.

[70] had to be asked repeatedly, and afterward was ill received. This St. Hilary narrates, book I to Constantius, number 8, writing thus: Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, is a man serving God in his whole life. He, after the synod of Arles, when Paulinus the bishop had gone against such great crimes of those men, is bidden to come to Milan. The synagogue of the malignant being already gathered there, he was for ten days forbidden to approach the church, while against so holy a man perverse malice consumes itself. Then, all their counsels having festered, he is called in when it pleased them. He is present together with the Roman clerics (namely Pancratius the presbyter and Hilary the deacon) and with Lucifer, bishop of Sardinia. Being urged to subscribe against Athanasius, he says that it ought first to be established about the priestly faith, that certain of those who were present were known to him to be defiled with the stain of heresy. He set in the midst the faith expounded at Nicæa …: promising that he would do all things which they demanded, if they should write the profession of faith. Dionysius, bishop of Milan, first took the paper: when he began to write what was to be professed, Valens violently wrested the paper and the pen from his hands, crying out that it could not be that anything should be transacted from thence. The matter, after much outcry, was brought to the knowledge of the people: a grave grief of all arose, the faith was assailed by priests. Fearing therefore the judgment of the people, they (the Arians) pass from the Lord's house into the palace. What kind of sentence they wrote against Eusebius long before he entered the church, the sentence itself speaks of itself. Thus Hilary, from whose words it is plain enough that the Catholics had no liberty; that the Arians with Constantius aimed at this one thing, that all should ratify the condemnation of St. Athanasius, or be driven from their sees.

[71] But when the legates would not subscribe against Athanasius, Of the deeds of SS. Dionysius and Eusebius at that time more is read in the Life of S. Dionysius of Milan, given at the XXV of May, and in the preliminary Commentary there. That an equal constancy shone forth in Lucifer of Cagliari, and perhaps even a greater freedom in speaking, since the Arians and the emperor were unwilling that he should be present at the council in the church except for a very short time, the studious reader will be able to learn from the same Acts of S. Dionysius, and from what has been said among us about S. Lucifer at the XX of May. In both places also he will find that the legates were seized by Eusebius the eunuch, and led into exile, before that tyrannical council of the Arians was ended. This too Sulpicius sufficiently implies, when at once, where he speaks of the council of Milan, he says: Then Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Caralis in Sardinia, bishops, were banished. Presently he relates more about Dionysius, and subjoins his exile also. St. Athanasius in the History of the Arians to the Monks, number 33, seems to reckon Paulinus of Trier among those who contended at Milan, but he joins together the deeds at the council of Arles and at that of Milan, as he himself implies at number 31, since in both the violence of Constantius was equal, which he graphically depicts, writing thus: Of whose number are men who have already made an illustrious confession, and religious and upright bishops themselves, Paulinus bishop of Trier the metropolis of Gaul, Lucifer bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli a city of Italy, Dionysius of Milan, and this too is a metropolis of Italy.

[72] For, having summoned them, the emperor commands that they subscribe against Athanasius, then the bishops Eusebius and Lucifer, and communicate with the heretics. And when they were astonished at the strangeness of the thing, and said that this was not of the ecclesiastical canon, he at once: "But what I will," he said, "let that be held for a canon: for the Syrian bishops bear with me speaking thus. Either therefore obey, or you too shall be banished." Hearing these things, and marveling exceedingly at the matter, the bishops, with hands stretched out to God, addressed the man and taught him that the empire was not his but God's, who had handed it over: they asked that he would fear him, lest he should suddenly take away what he had given: they threatened him with the day of judgment, and urged him not to ruin ecclesiastical affairs; nor to mingle the Roman empire with ecclesiastical statutes, or to introduce the Arian heresy into the Church of God. But he neither listened, nor permitted them to say more; nay, he threatened them more sharply with a drawn sword, and had even ordered some of them to be led off to punishment: but afterward, like Pharaoh, he changed his sentence. And so, shaking off the dust, those Saints, with eyes raised to God, neither dreaded the threats of the emperor, nor for fear of the drawn sword betrayed the truth, but held exile as the duty of their ministry. Of their contests with Constantius and of their exile he again treats at number 76, where he says that Constantius showed himself the accuser of Athanasius in these words: "I," he said, "am now the accuser of Athanasius; for my sake give credit to their (the Arians') words." But he subjoins that the bishops again answered these things prudently and bravely. In other places also he makes mention of their exile; and in the Apology to Constantius, number 27, he speaks also of the lapse of others, but joining together deeds of various times.

[73] Of the contest of two others of Liberius's legates, then others are banished into exile. namely of Pancratius the presbyter, whom he calls Eutropius, and of Hilary the deacon, he treats in the aforesaid History to the Monks, number 41, where he thus declares his indignation: These deeds of theirs likewise, who that hears them would not judge them to be anything rather than Christians? When Liberius had sent Eutropius the presbyter, and Hilary the deacon, with letters (recited at number 61) to the emperor, at which time also Lucifer with his companions was making confession; they at once banished the presbyter into exile: but Hilary the deacon, after they had stripped him and beaten his back with scourges, they likewise sent into exile. And while they scourged him, they cried out these things: "Why didst thou not withstand Liberius, but carry his letters?" That deed Ursacius and Valens committed with the eunuchs. But the deacon, while he was being beaten, blessed the Lord, mindful of him who says: I gave my back to the scourges. But they, beating him, mocked and made sport of the man: nor did they blush to treat a levite with contumelies: and while they poured forth their laughter, they were doing what was consistent with themselves: and he persevered in blessing. For to be beaten is the part of Christians, but to beat Christians is the deed of Pilate and Caiaphas. Thus therefore from the beginning they tried to shake the Roman Church itself, desiring to mingle with it their own impiety. Thus St. Athanasius. But when Liberius at Rome learned that tragic outcome of the council, from which all who had resisted the threats and terrors of the Arians seem to have been cast into exile, he could not but be affected with the utmost grief, not only over the exile of brave men, but still more over the lapse of others who subscribed to the unjust sentence against Athanasius. Among these, in St. Athanasius in the Apology to Constantius, number 27, Fortunatian of Aquileia is numbered, of whose lapse it is established, whether he subscribed against St. Athanasius at Milan or afterward. Thus among the confessors who were banished from this council St. Hilary seems to be numbered in Sulpicius, who was sent into exile not from the council of Milan, at which he was not present, but from the council of Béziers.

[74] St. Liberius praises the exiles, consoles them, Liberius, moreover, to whom all these things were reported, wished by his letters at once to console the exiled bishops and to encourage them to constancy. His Epistle was found in the archive of Vercelli, as though given to Eusebius alone, but among the Fragments to which the name of St. Hilary was wrongly attached it is said to have been written to Eusebius, Dionysius and Lucifer, bishops set in exile, so that it was probably sent in the same terms to each, because they were living in different places. It is worthy of the great soul of Liberius, and no less worthy to be transferred hither entire. Wherefore I subjoin it entire from Coustant's edition, the chief variants being noted. Although under the image of peace the enemy of the human race seems to have raged more vehemently against the members of the Church, yet you, priests most acceptable in the Lord, an excellent and singular faith has both shown here approved to God, and has already marked out as martyrs for future glory. With what proclamation of praise therefore, with what exultation of voice I may set forth the merits of your virtue, placed as I am between the sorrow of your absence and the joy of your glory, I altogether cannot find: except that I know that hence I offer you more approved consolations, if you believe that I have been thrust into exile together with you. In short, I am sad enough that I still hang in that very expectation, because a harder necessity meanwhile drags me from your fellowship. For I had desired, most devoted brethren, to be spent first for you all: that by me your love might rather obtain an example of glory. But let this be the palm of your merits, that you have come first, from perseverance in the faith, to the illustrious glory of confession. I beseech therefore your love that you believe me present with you; and that with that affection you feel that I am not absent, and understand that I grieve enough that I am meanwhile parted from your fellowship.

[75] and exhorts them to constancy. In short, how great glory you have obtained you can the better know from this, that if any have been crowned in persecution, they could feel the bloody swords of the persecutor alone: whereas you, soldiers of God devoted in all things, having experienced even false brethren as enemies, have borne away the victory over perfidy: whose violence, the more it could grow in the world, so much the more is it found to confer rewards of praise upon holy priests. Be therefore, concerning the heavenly promise,

secure: and because you have been made nearer to God, by your prayers lift me, your fellow-priest, the servant of God, up to the Lord, that the assaults which come upon us, which as they are announced from day to day inflict graver wounds, we may be able to bear tolerably: that, the faith being inviolate and the state of the Catholic Church safe, the Lord may deign to make me equal to you. And because I desire to know more faithfully the things which were done in that encounter , I beseech your sanctity that you would deign to make known all things faithfully by letters: that either my very mind, which is tormented by various rumors, or the strength of my very body, which is already worn thin, may be able to feel a greater increase from your exhortation. And in another hand. May God keep you safe, my lords and brethren.* Thus Liberius. But Coustant in the Annotations judges that this was written to the bishops alone; because he seems to address the bishops alone, whom he calls priests and brethren. And so another was written to Pancratius the presbyter and to Hilary the deacon; nay, probably Liberius wrote to all separately, since each was living in different places. For the rest, if anyone should wish to compare this Epistle and the four preceding with the four supposititious ones given in §3, in these he will find Liberius prudent, constant, brave, pious, weighty; not so much in eloquence indeed as in prudence and fortitude, yet uttering his thoughts in tolerable speech: but in those he will find a man imprudent, inconstant, faint-hearted, condemning all his own deeds in order to obtain his return, lying, flattering, with abject mind supplicating his enemies, and finally ignorant of his own native speech.

elsewhere congregatione*

§ VI. The notable contests of Liberius at Rome with Eusebius the eunuch of Constantius: being violently carried off to Milan, with equal fortitude he refutes the sayings of Constantius, and is banished into exile.

[ ] The contests of St. Liberius How great contests threatened him St. Liberius could conceive from the things which had been violently perpetrated at Arles and Milan against the Catholic bishops who refused to comply with the tyrannical commands of the Arians. And these were begun in the same year, probably not long after the council of Milan, Constantius still staying at Milan; and were continued down to the exile of Liberius, which must be attached to the same year. St. Athanasius in the History of the Arians to the Monks, number 35, tome I, page 364, narrates the impiety of the Arians and the wonderful constancy of Liberius in refuting them, beginning thus: For neither did they (the Arians) spare Liberius, bishop of Rome, from the very beginning, but even to the citizens of that city they extended their fury, having no reverence for the fact that that is an Apostolic throne, nor that Rome is the metropolis of the Roman world: nor did they remember that they had before named those men Apostolic in their own letters. But confounding all things together, they forget all at once, nor was anything at heart to them but impiety. For when they saw him a cultivator of the sound faith, and an adversary of the Arian heresy, and the author to all of turning away from it and shrinking from it, those impious men judged that, if they could seduce Liberius, they would at once overcome all: wherefore they calumniate him before the emperor.

[77] He, hoping that by Liberius's help he would as soon as possible conciliate all to himself, with Eusebius the eunuch, sent to Rome by Constantius sends with letters a certain eunuch, Eusebius by name, bearing gifts: that he might flatter with gifts, but threaten with the letters. The eunuch, having set out for Rome, at first urged Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius, and to communicate with the Arians: "That," he said, "the emperor greatly desires, this he bids thee do." Hence, having displayed the gifts, he exhorted him: and, handling Liberius's hands, he said: "Obey the emperor, and receive these." But the Bishop in turn admonished him, and taught the man in these words. "How, I ask, is this done against Athanasius? For him whom not one only but a second synod, gathered from the whole world, has justly declared pure and blameless, whom the Roman synod dismissed in peace, in what manner can we condemn? Who will approve us if, having lovingly received one present and admitted him to communion, we turn away from him when absent? That is not of the ecclesiastical canon, nor have we ever received such a tradition from the Fathers: which traditions indeed they themselves received from the blessed and great Apostle Peter.

[78] in the cause of St. Athanasius: But if the emperor cares for ecclesiastical peace: if he bids that what has been written among us in favor of Athanasius be abrogated; let there likewise be abrogated whatever has been done by them against him, let there be abrogated what has been done against others: and finally let an ecclesiastical synod be gathered far from the palace, where neither the emperor appear, nor a count approach, nor a judge threaten, but let the fear of God suffice with the Apostolic constitution: that in that way the ecclesiastical faith may above all be preserved, as it was defined by the Fathers in the Nicene synod. Let the followers of Arius be cast out, and let their heresy be condemned with anathema. And at last, judgment having been rendered concerning the charges brought against Athanasius or against any other; likewise concerning the charges of which they are accused; then at last let the guilty be expelled, and let the blameless live with confidence and security. For it is not lawful that those be numbered in a synod who are impious in faith: nor is it fitting that the inquiry into any other business be preferred to the inquiry into the faith. For first every dissension about the faith must be cut off, and then at last let other matters be inquired into. For our Lord Jesus Christ did not heal the sick before they showed and declared what faith they had toward him. These things we have learned from the Fathers: these report to the emperor: these conduce both to him and to the edification of the Church. Let not Ursacius and Valens be heard: who, since they have done penance for the deeds they did before, are now by no means worthy of credit." Thus the Bishop Liberius.

[79] and the eunuch's insolence and anger. But the Eunuch, indignant, not so much because he refused to subscribe, as because he found him an adversary of the heresy: and forgetting that he stood before a Bishop, having sharply threatened him, departs with the gifts, and attempts a nefarious thing, such as would be abhorrent to Christians, and of greater audacity than becomes a eunuch. For imitating the prevarication of Saul, and having gone to the martyrium of Peter the apostle, he there set down those gifts. The thing being discovered, Liberius was gravely angry with the keeper of the place, because he had not forbidden the man: and he cast away those very gifts as an unlawful sacrifice: which thing stirred the castrated man to still greater anger. Thus far St. Athanasius. But in what manner that impious Eusebius the eunuch, whom Socrates, book 2, chapter 2, calls Provost of the royal bedchamber, and Sozomen, book 3, chapter 1, Provost of the royal house, was drawn into the Arian heresy, and led other eunuchs and the empress, the wife of Constantius, into the same impiety, the aforesaid writers narrate in the places alleged. In Socrates afterward, book 3, chapter 1, and in Sozomen, book 5, chapter 5, you will find that that impious man paid the penalty with capital punishment after the death of Constantius.

[80] The Eunuch, prevailing by great authority with Constantius, With how grave words St. Athanasius complains that Constantius had, by a plan truly ridiculous, permitted eunuchs the power of judging ecclesiastical matters, it is pleasing to declare in a few words, leaving out much which may be seen there. Moreover it was eunuchs, he says at number 38, who set on foot these and other deeds against all men. And what is to be wondered at in snares of this kind, the Arian heresy, which denies the Son of God, relies on the help of eunuchs. And presently: Wherefore the law forbids them (eunuchs) to be admitted to an ecclesiastical council. Yet now they reckon these men lords of ecclesiastical judgments: and by their arbitration Constantius judges, while those who are called by the name of bishops dissemble. Alas! who will hand down such things in writing? who will narrate them to another generation? who will believe the narrator, that eunuchs, forsooth, to whom domestic ministries are scarcely entrusted, … those men, I say, now rule ecclesiastical affairs, and that Constantius, subject to them, has prepared snares against all, and has sent Liberius into exile? These things Athanasius says gravely; but heretics in other times too have cared little whether judgments were exercised by lawful judges, provided they could attain by fair means or foul the end set before them. Let us hear therefore what Eusebius, the chief either of the eunuchs or of the ecclesiastical judges with Constantius, after he had returned to Milan, effected against Liberius.

[81] He therefore stirs the emperor with these words, says the aforesaid Athanasius: he sharply stirs him against Liberius, "It is no longer our concern that Liberius should subscribe: but this rather troubles us, that he so thinks against the heresy as to strike the Arians by name with anathema." He provokes the other eunuchs to say the same thing, for most, nay all, about Constantius are eunuchs, with whom all power there rests, and nothing is done save by their judgment. The emperor therefore sends letters to Rome: and again palace officials, notaries and counts, and letters are sent to the prefect, that either they should send Liberius, secretly withdrawn from Rome, to him in the camp, or should pursue the man by force. These and such letters being sent, fear arose, and snares were prepared through the whole city.

[82] In how many houses therefore did they lay snares? to how many men were what great promises made, that he, by the emperor's command, that they might act against Liberius? how many bishops, on perceiving these things, hid themselves? how many free women, because of the calumnies contrived by the enemies of Christ, withdrew into the country? how many ascetics did they lay snares for? how many men dwelling there, who had obtained a settled home there, did they cause to be driven out? how often and with what zeal did they guard the harbor and the exits of the gates, that no one of the orthodox might enter and visit Liberius? Then Rome too experienced the monstrousness of the enemies of Christ, and knew at last what before it did not believe, when it heard how great devastation they had brought upon the other churches and upon individual cities. And below, after just complaints about the eunuchs, at number 39 he subjoins: For while he was busy writing to Rome, while he held out threats, sent legates, and prepared snares, at last the Alexandrian persecution occurred (not pertaining to our subject), and Liberius is dragged to the emperor.

[83] Ammianus, a heathen man, book 15, chapter 7, adds some things may violently and secretly from the people be dragged to Milan. which I bring over hither, omitting however those which he unskillfully records about the cause of St. Athanasius. While Leontius held this administration (as prefect of the City), Liberius, prelate of the Christian law, was ordered by Constantius to be sent to the court, as opposing the emperor's commands and the decrees of very many of his own associates (namely the Arian bishops). Then, as a heathen, he sets forth the cause of St. Athanasius badly, and subjoins: Liberius, being admonished at the prince's command to cast this man (Athanasius) from his priestly seat by his subscription, agreeing with the rest, perseveringly resisted, often crying out that it was the utmost wickedness to condemn a man neither seen nor heard, plainly kicking against the emperor's will. For he, always hostile to Athanasius, although he knew it accomplished, nevertheless strove with ardent desire that it be confirmed also by the authority in which the Bishops of the eternal City are more powerful (elsewhere which they possess, and perhaps more correctly). This not being obtained, Liberius was with great difficulty carried off in the middle of the night, hardly, for fear of the people, who burned with love of him. Tillemont, tome 6, in the Arians, article 58, observes that Leontius was not made prefect of the City except after the VI of July, as is gathered from a law given on that day to Orfitus, prefect of the City, in Godefroy in the Chronology

prefixed to the Theodosian code. And so, since Leontius was prefect of the City when Liberius was torn from Rome, this certainly happened after the VI of July, and perhaps toward the end of the year.

[84] The dealings of Liberius with Constantius summarily set forth by Athanasius, What further happened at Milan between Liberius and the emperor St. Athanasius does not narrate fully. He sets forth, however, Liberius's speech in general, and the exile which followed, in these words: And he (namely Liberius), using much freedom in speaking, said: "Cease to persecute the Christians; lest by our agency thou attempt to introduce impiety into the Church. We are indeed prepared to endure all things, rather than be called Ariomaniacs: lest thou compel us, who are Christians, to become Christomachi, that is, enemies of Christ. Of this counsel too we are the authors to thee, that thou fight not with him who handed over to thee this empire: nor render impiety to him in return for thanks: nor persecute those who believe in him, lest thou too hear: It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. But would that thou wouldest listen, that thou too, as the blessed Paul, mightest obey. Behold, we are here, we have come before they could devise their accusation. Therefore we hastened, knowing that exile must be looked for by us from thee, that we might suffer before an accusation was framed, and that it might be plain to all that all the others suffered on the same ground as we, and that the accusations brought against them were forged by enemies: all whose sayings were nothing but calumnies, nothing but lies." Liberius, having spoken thus, was an object of admiration to all. But he gave no other answer than that he ordered him to be sent into exile: and he separated each from the other, as he had done before. Which manner of exile he himself devised, that in inflicting punishments he might be more cruel than the earlier tyrants and persecutors. For in the former persecution Maximian ordered several confessors to be banished together, and by the consolation of fellowship mitigated the penalty. But this man, far more cruel than he, separated from one another men who were companions in freedom of speech and in confession, and disjoined those who were joined by faith, so that not even in death might they enjoy the sight of one another, thinking that the separation of the body would also disjoin the affection of the soul, or that they, separated from one another, would forget concord and unanimity. These things Athanasius says summarily, who in other places too makes mention of Liberius's exile.

[85] set forth a little more fully by Sozomen together with the exile. Sozomen suggests more about the dealings between Constantius and Liberius, book 4, chapter XI. But, since Theodoret has accurately handed down the conversation of Constantius and others with Liberius, I shall transfer hither from him only a few things, and those done after that conversation. When Sozomen had brought forward two causes of the exile, namely that Liberius was unwilling to agree with the Arian bishops, and that he declined to condemn St. Athanasius, he subjoins: When therefore Liberius by no means obeyed the commands of the prince, the emperor ordered him to be deported into Thrace, unless within two days he should change his opinion. But Liberius said: "For me indeed, O emperor, there is no need of deliberation. For these things have long since been weighed and determined by me: and even now I set out upon the journey." Further, when he was being led away into exile, they say that the emperor sent him five hundred gold pieces: but that Liberius spurned them, and said to him who had brought them: "Go, and announce to him who sent this gold, that he should bestow it upon the flatterers and actors whom he has with him: whom, through insatiable greed, continual want daily urges and torments, ever indeed desiring riches, but never satisfied. But to us Christ, who is in all things like the Father, supplies both provisions and all good things."

[86] Theodoret, book 2, chapter 15, about to give the whole conversation of the emperor and Liberius in chapter 16, Theodoret prefaces this concerning it: Now it is pleasing in this place to set down the confidence of the most celebrated Liberius and the admirable discourses which he held in defense of the truth before the emperor Constantius. For they were written down by pious men who lived at that time, as being such as can sharpen those zealous for divine things, and rouse them to emulation. From these words Baronius gathered, at the year 355, number 44, that public Acts, taken down at the time by Notaries, are given by Theodoret. That dialogue certainly has the form of Acts of that kind. But the speakers, besides Constantius and Liberius, are Epictetus, an Arian bishop of Centumcellæ in Italy, whom St. Athanasius in the Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, number 7, calls a Stage-player, and says that both he and Auxentius — likewise to be mentioned below, whom the Arians had thrust into the bishopric of Milan in place of S. Dionysius — were promoted that they might frame calumnies against the orthodox bishops. Both he paints in the blackest colors also in the History of the Arians, number 73. Eusebius the eunuch, already before mentioned, played his own part too unskillfully, when he said that Athanasius had been condemned in the Council of Nicæa. But sometimes Liberius did not answer the sayings of Eusebius and Epictetus, directing his discourse to Constantius. These things being premised, I subjoin the Dialogue itself.

[87] The emperor Constantius said: We, since thou art both a Christian and Bishop of our city, he sets forth the conversation of the emperor have therefore thought that thou shouldest be summoned and admonished to cast away the communion of the nefarious madness of the impious Athanasius. For the whole world has judged this to be just, and has decreed by a synodal sentence that he is estranged from ecclesiastical communion. Liberius the Bishop said: Ecclesiastical judgments, O emperor, ought to be made with the highest equity. Wherefore, if it please thy piety, order a judgment to be constituted. And if indeed Athanasius shall seem worthy of condemnation, then according to the form of ecclesiastical order let sentence be passed upon him. For a man cannot be condemned by us whom we have not judged. The emperor Constantius said: The whole world has passed sentence upon his impiety, in that from the very beginning he makes sport of the times. Liberius the Bishop said: Whoever subscribed had not themselves seen the deeds; but for empty glory and for fear, and lest they should be visited with disgrace by thee, they subscribed. The emperor said: What glory is there, what fear, what disgrace? Liberius answered: Whoever do not love the glory of God, they, preferring thy gifts, condemned him whom they themselves had neither seen nor judged: which is alien from Christians. The emperor said: But he was judged in person in the council of Tyre: and all the bishops of the whole world condemned him in the council. Liberius said: He was never judged in person. For as many as, gathered at that time, condemned him, condemned him without reason after Athanasius's departure from the judgment.

[88] Eusebius the eunuch said: In the Council of Nicæa he was shown to be estranged from the Catholic faith. with Liberius Liberius said (answering to the sayings of Constantius): Five only judged of those who sailed with Ischyras into Mareotis: whom indeed they had sent to draw up acts against the accused. Of those who had then been sent thither, two have departed from this light, namely Theognius and Theodorus. The remaining three are still surviving, Maris, Valens and Ursacius. Against these, who had been sent into Mareotis, sentence was passed at Sardica for this very business. Who afterward in the synod presented petitions, asking pardon for the acts which by calumny, only one party being present, they had drawn up against Athanasius in Mareotis. Which petitions indeed we now have in our hands. To which of these ought we to assent and communicate, emperor? To those who first condemned Athanasius and afterward sought pardon, or to those who lately condemned these men?

[89] with the interlocutions of others, Epictetus the bishop said: Not for the cause of the faith, nor for the defense of ecclesiastical judgments does Liberius speak, O emperor, but that he may boast among the senators of the city of Rome that the emperor has been overcome by him. (An interlocution worthy of a stage-player bishop, by which he stirs up Constantius, perhaps wavering.) The emperor said to Liberius: What part art thou of the world, that thou alone shouldest wish to give thy vote for an impious man, and dissolve the peace of the Roman world and of the whole earth? Liberius said: Even if I be alone, the cause of the faith is not therefore diminished. For of old too there were found only three who resisted the king's command. Eusebius the eunuch said: Dost thou make our emperor a Nebuchadnezzar? Liberius said: By no means. But thou rashly condemnest a man about whom we have not judged. But I demand that first a general subscription go before, which confirms the faith set forth at Nicæa. Then, our brethren being recalled from exile and restored to their sees, if those who now stir up tumults in the churches shall seem to agree with the Apostolic faith, then let us all, assembling at Alexandria, where both the accused himself and the accusers are and their defender, having examined their business, pronounce a concordant sentence. Epictetus the bishop said: But the public post will by no means suffice for the conveyance of the bishops. Liberius said: Ecclesiastical affairs have no need of the public post. For the several churches can easily conduct their bishops as far as the sea at their own expense.

[90] and the admirable The emperor said: Things which have already received the form of a judgment cannot further be undone. For the sentence of the greater number of bishops ought to prevail. Thou alone art he who retains the friendship of that impious man. Liberius said: We have never heard, emperor, that in the absence of the accused a judge objects impiety to him, as though he waged private enmities with him. The emperor said: All indeed he has injured in common: yet no one so much as me. Who, not content with the destruction of my elder brother, never ceased to incite Constans of happy memory to undertake enmities with me: had we not with greater mildness borne the assault both of him who incited and of him who was incited. And so I count no victory of such worth, not even that which I won over Magnentius and over Silvanus, as to remove this wicked man from the administration of the Church. Liberius said: Do not, emperor, avenge thy enmities through bishops. For the hands of ecclesiastics ought to be free for blessing and sanctifying. Order therefore, if it please thee, that the bishops be recalled to their own sees, and, if indeed they shall seem to agree with him who now defends the right faith once set forth at Nicæa, then, assembling into one, let them provide for the peace of the world, that it be not proved that a man who has done no wrong has been branded.

[91] constancy of Liberius, The emperor said: There is one thing which is sought. For I wish to send thee back to Rome, when thou shalt have embraced the communion of the churches. Assent therefore to peace, and subscribe, and so return to Rome. Liberius said: I have already bidden farewell to the brethren who are at Rome. For the ecclesiastical laws are of more account than a dwelling at Rome. The emperor said: Therefore thou hast the space of three days for deliberating whether thou wilt subscribe and return to Rome, or for considering to what place thou desirest to be deported. Liberius said: An interval of three days or of three months does not change my judgment. And so send me whither thou wilt. Two days after, the emperor, having summoned Liberius, and he not departing from his opinion, ordered him to be banished to Berœa of Thrace.

[92] And when Liberius had gone out, the emperor sent him five hundred solidi for his expenses. and his magnanimity in undertaking exile.

But Liberius said to him who had brought them: Go, give these back to the emperor. For he has need of them, that he may furnish them to his soldiers. Likewise the empress sent him as many solidi. Liberius said: Give these back to the emperor: for he has need of them for the pay of his soldiers. But if the emperor has no need of them, let him give them to Auxentius and Epictetus. For these have need of them. When therefore he had been unwilling to receive from these, Eusebius the eunuch brought him others. To whom Liberius said: Thou hast made the churches of the world empty and desolate: and to me, as though guilty, thou bringest alms. Go, and first become a Christian. And after three days he was banished, having received nothing. Thus far Theodoret. Concerning Berœa of Thrace, the place of his exile, I observe this, that it must be distinguished from Berrhœa of Macedonia. Le Quien, tome 1 of the Oriens Christianus, column [ ], places it, and says that it is rather called Beroë, as indeed it is read in Greek in Sozomen, book 4, chapter XI, and that it is situated toward Mysia between Philippopolis and Nicopolis, and that afterward in place of Beroë it was called Irenopolis. Of the time of the exile I add nothing to what has already been said, since all agree that it happened in the year 355, in which it is narrated by Ammianus. Of Felix, substituted by the Arians in Liberius's place, I shall treat when the deeds of Liberius in exile have been set forth.

§ VII. At what time Liberius returned from exile: for what cause Constantius sent him back.

[ ] Concerning the years in which Liberius was in exile, The more ancient documents about the deeds of Liberius, just as they do not accurately set forth in what month of the year 355 the aforesaid Pontiff was banished into exile, so by no means agree about the time in which he remained in exile, or about the year or month in which he returned to Rome. Sulpicius Severus, book 2, chapter 40, implies an exceedingly short exile, writing thus: But Liberius a little after is restored to the City on account of the Roman seditions. Socrates, book 2, chapter 37, is of nearly the same opinion about the shortness of the exile (but he wrongly narrated it after the council of Rimini). For having related Liberius's exile, he subjoins these words: For the rest, Liberius, not long after being recalled from exile, recovered his See, when the Roman people, a sedition having been made, had driven Felix from the church, and the emperor, though unwilling, had lent his assent to them. In the Chronicles of S. Jerome and S. Prosper, whose words I shall give in §9, only a year or a little more seems to be attributed to Liberius's exile, since Felix, whom the Arians substituted for him, is said after a year to have been cast out with his followers. If anyone, however, should wish to judge that Felix was not substituted immediately upon Liberius's going into exile, and should understand that after a year from the ordination of Felix, it becomes uncertain how much time is attributed in the said Chronicles to Liberius's exile. In the Works of St. Athanasius, in two places Liberius is said to have been in exile for two years. Great would be this authority, if the words were Athanasius's own: but that both passages were afterward inserted into the Works of St. Athanasius, I shall clearly show in §8, and for that reason we shall not here plant a firm foot.

[94] Theodoret, book 2, chapter 17, says that Constantius came to Rome two years after the banishment of Liberius. Now Constantius came to Rome, and concerning the time in which he returned, the authors as most of the more recent chronologers judge, in the year 357, at the end of April, and remained there thirty days, that is, until nearly the end of May, or until the IV Kalends of June, as Ammianus affirms, book 16, chapter 10. Baronius indeed and some others fixed that entrance of Constantius in the year 356, and Ammianus seems in some measure to favor them. But Pagi, at the year 356, number 13, proves that that entrance happened in the year 357, and Tillemont proves the same by several arguments, tome 4 of the Emperors, Note 39 on Constantius. Godefroy also agrees, in the Chronology of the Theodosian Code, at the year 357. Their consent, resting on many arguments, causes me not to dispute at greater length about that entrance, especially since from it one cannot certainly gather in what year Liberius returned. From it we have only this, that he did not return before the month of May of the year 357. Theodoret indeed speaks as though at the prayers and solicitations of the Romans, which from him we shall relate below, the Pontiff had at once been recalled by Constantius; but Sozomen, presently to be cited, interposes various things between those prayers of the Romans and the return of Liberius, which require a notable time. Theodoret in respect of time seems to have been followed by the often lying author of the preface which is read before the Libellus precum of Marcellinus and Faustinus, Luciferians, when on page 3 he speaks thus: After two years (from the banishment of the supreme Pontiff) Constantius came to Rome, and is entreated for Liberius by the people, and presently assenting he says: You have Liberius, who, such as he set out from you, will return better. That schismatic author implies that Liberius had consented to Constantius before the latter came to Rome. But this is certainly a lie, as will afterward be shown. But what Theodoret says, that after two years had elapsed, and the other, that after two years Constantius came to Rome, is not to be taken strictly: for in the month of May of the year 357 the second year of the exile was still running.

[95] Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15, narrates the deeds of certain bishops in the assembly of Sirmium, the ancients do not sufficiently agree. at which there were legates from the council of Ancyra, bishops namely Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. But since the council of Ancyra was held a little before Easter of the year 358, as is established by most certain arguments, the legates of that council could not reach Sirmium before May or June of the same year, since Easter in that year fell on the XII of April, and certainly they do not seem to have been able to depart from Ancyra for Sirmium except after the Paschal festival. And since Constantius too was at Sirmium before the end of May and in the month of June, as is gathered from the laws passed there, which may be seen in Godefroy in the Chronology of the Code, everything implies that at the end of May or in the month of June of the year 358 that assembly was held. But the aforesaid Sozomen asserts that Liberius too was summoned to Sirmium by Constantius at the time of that assembly, and that when the assembly was concluded he was at last sent back to Rome, that together with Felix he might administer the Roman Church. If those assertions of Sozomen be true, Liberius did not depart for Rome before June or July of the year 358. But since Sozomen alone says that Liberius was at that assembly, and has no ancient writer agreeing with him, I shall prove in §10 that his opinion, both for this cause and for other reasons, appears uncertain and less probable. Wherefore Sozomen's account cannot make us certain that Liberius's exile was so long.

[96] Nevertheless the opinion of Baronius, Pagi, Tillemont and our Papebroch seems to me certain enough, who by unanimous consent fix Liberius's return in the year 358. Some add from Anastasius that he returned to Rome on the 2nd day of August. But the authority of Anastasius alone is not so great with me, Yet the return seems to be fixed with the chief chronologers in the year 358: especially in the eulogies of Liberius and Felix, which are disfigured by ridiculous errors, that I should judge anything certain must be determined about the day of the return. The chief argument by which they prove that Liberius did not return in the year 357 is drawn from Law 14 On Bishops, which is read as given on the VIII Ides of December, Constantius for the ninth time and Julian for the second being consuls, that is, in the year 357. For since the Law was given to Felix the bishop, and we can judge this Felix to be no other than the Felix who was ruling the Roman Church while Liberius was in exile, the aforesaid writers infer that Liberius was still in exile on the VI day of December of the year 357, and consequently did not return to Rome in that year. There is added another reason too, which implies that Liberius was not sent back to Rome immediately after Constantius's arrival in the City, or even after his departure. For Socrates, Sozomen and Sulpicius Severus assert that he was sent back on account of the tumults and seditions of the Romans. But those seditions were not stirred up while Constantius was present; but they then pressed only with prayers, that they might obtain the return of their Pontiff. To such prayers the emperor answered, and promised that he would satisfy the Roman people, as Theodoret and Sozomen assert, in a manner however somewhat different.

[97] Theodoret, book 2, chapter 17, narrates in order the urgent prayers of the Roman people to the emperor while he was staying at Rome for the recall of Liberius, The Romans asked Constantius, present at Rome in the year 357, for him, and the effect which followed, writing thus: The glorious Athlete of the truth therefore went into Thrace, as had been commanded. But two years having elapsed (not however full years) Constantius set out for Rome. And the wives of the senators and of the men of honor asked of their husbands that they should go to the prince, and ask that he would restore their Pastor to his flock: adding that, unless they obtained this from them, they would depart from them and migrate to that great Pastor. But those men said that they dreaded the prince's anger. "For to us," they said, "as being men, he will perhaps grant no pardon. But you who ask he will doubtless spare: and one of two things will happen, that either he will assent to your prayers; or, if he refuse, he will at least dismiss you unharmed." Those most excellent women, having embraced this counsel, went to the emperor in solemn attire and adornment, so that, when he had conjectured from their dress that they were noble, he might receive them with reverence and gentleness. So therefore adorned, when they had come to the emperor, they asked him as suppliants that he would have pity upon so great a city bereft of its Pastor and exposed to the snares of wolves.

[98] But he answered the matrons that the city needed no other Pastor: and Theodoret says that by those prayers Liberius's return was obtained, for it had a suitable prelate to take care of it. For after the great Liberius one of his deacons had been ordained, Felix by name. Who kept indeed whole and inviolate the formula of the faith set forth by the Nicene fathers: yet freely communicated with those who impaired it. And for this cause none of the Roman citizens entered the church while he was within. And this those women then suggested to the emperor. The emperor therefore, being moved, ordered that excellent man, most worthy of all praise, to return from exile: and that both should administer the Church in common. When this letter of the emperor had been recited in the circus, the people cried out that the emperor's sentence was fair. For the spectators were divided into two factions, named from their colors: therefore one Bishop ought to preside over this faction, and the other over that. In this way, when they had hissed the emperor's Epistle, all with one voice acclaimed: One God, one Christ, one Bishop. For I have thought it fair to set down their very words here. After these acclamations of the most Christian people, full of piety and justice, that admirable Liberius returned.

[99] the matter, however, does not seem to have been accomplished so quickly, If now we weigh this whole account diligently, from it we shall not ineptly gather that Liberius did not return while the emperor was staying at Rome, since mention is made of his Epistle read from the ambo, by which he ordered Liberius and Felix at the same time to preside over the Church. And the Epistle implies that Constantius was not at Rome when he gave that command. Concerning

such an Epistle Sozomen agrees, book 4, chapter 15, but he less probably attributes the Epistle to the bishops gathered with the emperor at Sirmium in the year 358. And so from this Epistle, of which I shall presently say more, it is abundantly gathered that Liberius's return was not decreed by Constantius at Rome. And so it is likely that Constantius's first answer was that the Romans had Felix as prelate, as Theodoret has it. But to their repeated prayers I judge that Constantius answered as Sozomen has it, book 4, chapter XI, writing thus: But when the emperor had entered Rome, the Roman people did not cease to interrupt him with frequent acclamations on behalf of Liberius, and to ask that he be restored to them. And so the emperor, having taken into counsel the bishops who were with him, answered that he would recall him and restore him to those who asked, if he should be willing to agree with the priests who were in his own retinue. But this promise could not satisfy the Romans, who were not demanding back a prevaricator, but a Catholic. For if no one was willing to enter the church while Felix was in it, because he was stained by communion with the Arians, how would they gladly have received Liberius agreeing with the Arians?

[100] but only after the Roman people stirred up tumults and seditions, Nor does Theodoret alone say how greatly the Roman people shrank from Felix on account of his communion with the Arians; but St. Athanasius likewise testifies the same in the History of the Arians, number 75, where he says that Felix was ordained by the Arians in the palace, adding this reason: For the peoples, having observed the prevarication of the heretics, did not allow that they should enter the churches, but withdrew far from them. And before, at number 41, he says in general of the peoples of the exiled bishops: But the peoples in the several churches, holding the faith which they learned, await their teachers, and shun the heresy hostile to Christ … all as a serpent. Such a promise therefore as Sozomen expresses could not please the people; and therefore it is likely that the people were afterward little by little stirred up to tumults and seditions, as Socrates, Sozomen and Sulpicius assert happened. Those counsels were indeed desperate, and most unworthy of a Christian people; but the fury of an injured people frequently does not listen to reasons; and therefore against the testimonies of writers nearly contemporary we cannot judge that they were not done. Nor can there be any doubt that the seditions of the Romans were fitted to bring fear of a graver evil to Constantius, since ambitious men used such occasions for seizing tyranny; and four or five tyrants had already usurped the empire in the time in which Constantius had reigned. And so it does not seem necessary to seek any other cause for Liberius's being sent back to Rome than the immense zeal and desire of the Roman people, declared by prayers, tumults, and seditions.

[101] then sent back, that he might preside together with Felix. The very manner in which Liberius was sent back to Rome sufficiently implies that Constantius consented to his return more from fear of the Roman people than from love of Liberius himself. Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15, has thus: These things having been accomplished through the legates of the Westerns, the emperor granted Liberius leave to return to Rome. The bishops also who had assembled at Sirmium wrote to Felix, who then presided over the Roman Church, and to the clergy of the same city, that they should receive Liberius, and that both should govern the apostolic See, and discharge the priesthood together without any dissension; and should consign to oblivion whatever trouble had arisen on account of the ordination of Felix and the absence of Liberius. For the Roman people loved Liberius exceedingly, as a man in every way excellent, and one who had bravely resisted the emperor for religion's sake; so much so that for his sake they stirred up a most grievous sedition, and broke out even to slaughter. This zeal of the Roman people, evidently, wrested Liberius's return from Constantius. But the hatred with which the Arian bishops pursued Liberius brought it about that Constantius did not remove his rival Felix, and by a ridiculous counsel ordered two at once to preside over the Church. Valois in his Annotations on the passage alleged observes that these things could only have been decreed by a council, since it is repugnant to ecclesiastical rule and discipline that in one and the same church there should be two bishops alike. These things would be rightly said, if Constantius with his Arians had never done anything against ecclesiastical discipline. But since for many years he did almost nothing according to the ecclesiastical laws, who will wonder that by Valens, Ursacius and Germinius, who were commonly at Constantius's side, he could be persuaded to try to make the Roman Church two-headed? This an assembly of a few bishops, such as that at Sirmium in the year 358, could no more do; so that for that reason it should be necessary to say that it was decreed in a council.

[102] Liberius, moreover, returned toward Rome: but, if we believe Theodoret, But on Liberius's return, Felix either yields or is expelled, an epistle of Constantius went before, and it was recited in the circus, and received with laughter by the Roman people. After the jests, says Theodoret, All with one voice acclaimed: One God, one Christ, one Bishop. And he says that he sets down their very words. Wherefore Constantius indeed sent Liberius back; but the people restored him when sent back to the Pontificate, and, the emperor's command being disregarded, brought it about that Felix either yielded of his own accord or was cast out. For Theodoret says: After these acclamations of the most Christian people, full of piety and justice, that admirable Liberius returned. But Felix, withdrawing, betook himself to another city. According to Socrates, and the Chronicles of Jerome and Prosper, Felix was cast out. If we believe the author of the preface added to the Libellus precum of Marcellinus and Faustinus, Felix was twice cast out by the people. For on page 4 he speaks thus: In the third year (of the exile) Liberius returns, and the Roman people went out to meet him with joy: Felix, censured by the senate and the people, is driven from the City, and after a short time, at the instigation of the clerics who had perjured themselves, breaks into the City, and presumes to hold a station in the basilica of Julius across the Tiber. Whom the whole multitude of the faithful and the nobles cast out of the City again with great dishonor. To this expulsion of Felix Constantius lent his consent, though unwilling, if Socrates says true. This is certain, that Liberius alone presided, and that Felix either yielded of his own accord or was compelled.

[103] Nevertheless Sozomen makes no mention of the expulsion of Felix; and he leads a private life until his death; but believed that he died a little after, writing thus: But after these things, when Felix had survived a short time, Liberius alone administered the Church. Which indeed divine providence so ordered, lest the See of Peter should be dishonored by being governed by two prelates at once: which is a sign of discord, and alien from ecclesiastical laws. But I find none of the ancients who agrees with Sozomen. Philostorgius, book 4, chapter 3, says that Liberius thereafter presided, and adds concerning Felix: But Felix, who in Liberius's absence had been ordained bishop, betook himself to his own, retaining indeed the dignity of a bishop, but presiding over no church. The said preface has: After eight years, Valentinian and Valens being consuls (that is, in the year 365), on the X day of the Kalends of December Felix died. I do not inquire whether this be the true epoch of Felix's death. Certainly that schismatic author, who is vehemently hostile to Felix, deserves little credit. He could, in support of his own schism, cautiously pass over the martyrdom with which Felix is believed to have been crowned for having condemned Constantius, and invent an epoch of his death later than Constantius.

[104] who is said to have died crowned with martyrdom, Certainly ancient Martyrologies make mention of S. Felix as a martyr under Constantius, as has been proved in S. Felix II at the XXIX of July. Nor would anyone here rightly say that the condemnation of Constantius by S. Felix, and his martyrdom for that cause, are equally incredible. For, as I shall presently show, matters were rightly settled between Liberius and Felix after the former's return. But since Felix had freely communicated with the Arians while Liberius was in exile, it is not likely that Liberius would have been willing to communicate with him, unless he washed away the suspicion of heresy, and the stain contracted by communion with the Arians, by some signal deed, such as was the condemnation of Constantius and of the Arians. And from the condemnation of the Arians the martyrdom itself does not become incredible, since Felix could easily be killed in his own villa.

[105] it is not to be doubted that he acknowledged Liberius as Pontiff. Now that matters were rightly settled between Felix and Liberius, after the latter had recovered his See, is gathered from the very preface mentioned again and again, in which on page 4 Liberius is said to have received Felix's clerics after his death in their own places. This a schismatic author asserts, hostile even more to Felix than to Liberius, and no ancient in fact affirms that there were any contests, at least long continued, between Liberius returned and Felix departed elsewhere. Yet he could, by the favor of Constantius, who had ordered both to be Pontiff, have claimed some see at Rome, if he had preferred to serve ambition rather than justice and the ecclesiastical laws. There seems therefore to remain no reason for doubting that Felix venerated Liberius on his return as supreme Pontiff, and that this is the reason why all his clerics were left in their own places, that is, in the rank which they had obtained under Liberius or Felix, probably even before Felix's death. Wherefore, whether S. Felix was a martyr, as the Martyrologies have it, or survived quietly for some years, there is no reason for denying the sanctity of Felix, abundantly vindicated at the XXIX of July.

[106] Felix in our opinion was not supreme Pontiff, It may further be asked whether Felix seems to be held not only for a Saint, but also for a Roman Pontiff. I gladly confess that I cannot find a legitimate Pontificate of Felix, whatever my Elders thought with Baronius. All agree that Felix was ordained while Liberius was the legitimate Pontiff, nor will anyone dare to affirm that by the exile inflicted by Constantius he ceased to be true Pontiff. Liberius in exile could indeed have yielded the Pontificate, so that Felix might become legitimate Pontiff. But that Liberius did this, none of the ancients affirms: nor is it at all likely or credible, since the contrary is plain from what was done at Liberius's return. I seek therefore a fact by which Liberius should have lost the Pontificate, and I find none which has even the least likelihood or probability. I admit no prevarication of Liberius, no subscription to any Arian formula, no condemnation of St. Athanasius, nor communion with the Arians. And so in the opinion which I defend, the reasons which Baronius adduced at the year 357, number 44, cease.

[107] I confess, however, that not even in Baronius's opinion do I find a legitimate Pontificate of Felix. nor the supreme Pontificate of Felix in Baronius's assertions, For he says that Felix began to be held for true Pontiff when Liberius returned, stained, as he will have it, by the unjust condemnation of St. Athanasius, by communion with the Arians, and by subscription to the first Sirmian formula. These things being said at number 42, he sets forth the election of Felix at number 44 in these words: Because he had so shamefully consented to Constantius, he found the minds of very many alienated from him: and so those who before shrank from Felix, and, avoiding his communion, were cleaving to Liberius, on hearing the matter fell away from him and to Felix, raising the standard of the Catholic faith,

joined themselves. From which time Felix, before a schismatic, began now to be held by them the legitimate Pontiff of the Roman Church: and Liberius was judged, on account of his manifest communication with the heretics from the Epistles written by him (nay rather foisted upon him, which the Romans probably had never seen), and on account of his connivance with the Arians, utterly banished from the communication of Catholics; since all judged it impossible that the same Liberius could communicate both with heretics and with Catholics. Since therefore it was so manifestly established concerning his communion entered into at Sirmium with the heretics; from that very thing he seemed necessarily excluded from Catholic communion, and on that account also wholly estranged from the function of the Pontificate. Thus far Baronius, who nevertheless contends that Liberius was not a heretic.

[108] Now I have not adduced the words of Baronius quoted because I judge that what is said about the alienation of minds from Liberius, and about the running together to Felix — whose Pontificate could not become legitimate by the mere flocking of the people — is true. which are contrary to all the ancients, I have recited the words of that most Eminent man only that the studious reader may understand in what manner he judged that Liberius must have been received by the Romans, if they knew him a prevaricator. For since from no ancient author, nay not even from Anastasius, can it be proved that even one of the Romans opposed Liberius on his return, or was alienated from him; Baronius wrote those things not because he found them in any author worthy of credit, but because he believed that a prevaricator ought not to have been received by a Catholic people in a more gracious manner. Wherefore, if Liberius was received in a plainly different way and with the utmost zeal of the Romans, if Felix either withdrew of his own accord or was expelled by the Roman people, as all the plainly ancient monuments agree; I do not see with what probability it may be said that any prevarication of Liberius became known to the Romans before his return, and that on that occasion the Pontificate was conferred upon Felix. Either I am vehemently deceived, and the ancient authors deceive, or Liberius had the Roman people favoring him, but the Arians opposing; Felix on the contrary the Romans opposing, the Arians favoring. This matter has not been discovered by my own meditation; but is clearly drawn out from the assertions of the ancients. The Romans urgently demanded back from the emperor Liberius their Pontiff, and for his sake stirred up tumults and seditions. Constantius and the Arians, since they did not dare longer to resist the demands of the Romans, were nevertheless unwilling wholly to restore Liberius to his See and to expel Felix; but attempted to make the Pontificate two-headed, that so they might retain at least a part in their own communion. The Romans, not content with this ridiculous arrangement, expel Felix, and receive Liberius with joy. But Constantius, even unwilling, says Socrates — not therefore from love of Liberius or hatred of Felix — lent his assent to the Romans. So speak the ancients, from whom we must not depart without cause.

[109] I am able in no way to find it. By no reasoning therefore can I admit that Felix was made legitimate Pontiff when Liberius returned: for the latter is not read to have yielded to Felix, but Felix is everywhere said either to have been driven out or to have departed. Finally there is no mention of any schism in the Roman Church after Liberius's return: yet a schism would doubtless have arisen if the Romans had followed the party of Felix. For the things which Baronius relates at number 45 about a persecution stirred up in the Roman Church from the very day on which Liberius returned rest upon no monuments worthy of credit. He cites Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs written long afterward, which it is agreed are stained with plainly absurd and ridiculous errors in the eulogies of Liberius and Felix. He adds the Life of S. Eusebius, a Roman presbyter, which has been proved fabulous in our Work at the XIV of August, where S. Eusebius was treated of. If, however, in the first days after Liberius's return the Romans made some tumult, as is likely, because they are said to have expelled Felix with the clerics adhering to him; the Romans did not stand against Liberius, but for Liberius against Felix, and against the emperor's command by which he wished to make the Church two-headed. But such are not the things which are read in the fabulous Life of S. Eusebius, in which Constantius and Liberius, who were never at Rome together, are feigned together at Rome to persecute Eusebius for the Catholic faith. A lying dialogue is woven between Constantius, Liberius and Eusebius. These figments are therefore plainly insipid. But from a Life so fabulous we can by no means know whether S. Eusebius died after Liberius's return, or long before, or at the time of his exile. So many lying documents, by which the fame of St. Liberius is assailed, I should believe to have been produced from the workshops of schismatics.

[110] A reasoning for Liberius's innocence, It is pleasing now to subjoin from what has been said a brief reasoning, from which it may be plain how little likely or probable is that lapse of Liberius which from documents almost supposititious the middle age adopted. The Romans, adorned with the Catholic faith and most opposed to the Arians, demanded back Liberius from exile with the utmost zeal, and received him on his return with equal joy. Who therefore would easily believe that any prevarication of Liberius was known to the Romans when they received him on his return? The Romans, the emperor's command being disregarded, either compelled Felix to depart from the City or expelled him: would they do so much for a prevaricator, stained by communion with the Arians, or by the unjust condemnation of St. Athanasius? The Romans shrank from Felix because he had been ordained by the Arians and communicated with them: how therefore could they so greatly love Liberius, and receive him with such joy, if they knew him liable to those prevarications which heretics or schismatics invented, and which a too credulous posterity received as true? I certainly cannot square so great a joy of the Romans over Liberius's return, and so great a zeal of theirs to claim the Pontificate for Liberius alone, by any likely reasoning with a subscribed Arian formula, with the condemnation of St. Athanasius, with Liberius's communication with the Arians. Baronius too did not find how he might rightly reconcile these things; and for that cause, against the authority of all the ancients, and resting on no ancient testimony, he preferred to say that Liberius found the minds of the Romans alienated from him. This, however, can easily be excused in the most learned founder of the Annals, who began to purge Ecclesiastical History; but he could not do all things alone. So had he persuaded himself of Liberius's lapse, on account of the great names cited in favor of that lapse — Athanasius, Jerome, and Liberius's own letters (which names, however, we shall see to be nothing but names) — that he does not seem even to have thought of calling Liberius's lapse into doubt. He preferred therefore to say from conjecture that Liberius was not well received by the Romans, than to adopt the testimonies of the ancients, which do not cohere well enough with Liberius's prevarication.

[111] Tillemont, tome 6 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, in the Arians, article 75, narrates Liberius's triumphant return from the same writings of the ancients formed partly from what has been said, which we too have used, and acknowledges that he was received with the utmost joy of the Romans; but that Felix was expelled, and that even repeatedly — which last, resting on the preface alone of a schismatic man, is not equally certain, since all the rest are silent about a return attempted by Felix. But I by no means grasp how a man otherwise critical, who not seldom with excessive severity strives to banish from Ecclesiastical History even documents that are not bad, ought not to have perceived that many things had before been related by him from most suspect documents, which do not rightly cohere with so great a joy of the Romans over Liberius received. For in article 69, where he narrates the lapsed Liberius, he adopts all the things which are read in the Epistles foisted upon Liberius; and not content with these, he asserts that Liberius wrote about his lapse to the Roman clergy also. And all these Epistles he sets as written from the year 357, that is, seven months at the least, or almost a whole year, before Liberius's return, so that his lapse could not but be most notorious at Rome. And in those Epistles (which I have shown to be fictitious in §3) Liberius is said to embrace the communion of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, Auxentius, Epictetus, who were the chief Arians in Pannonia and Italy, as also of Demophilus in Thrace, and of all the Easterns; likewise to condemn Athanasius, and gladly to accept and approve their confession of faith.

[112] Now let any defender of Tillemont candidly declare partly by other reasons whether it is to be believed that the Romans in the year 358 were Arians, or at least so disposed that they believed it made no difference whether they received Liberius as an Arian, or at any rate liable to six hundred prevarications, or as a Catholic and a worthy successor of S. Peter. Could they so greatly rejoice over a prevaricator received, and pursue Felix, who was a Catholic, but polluted by communion with the Arians, with such hatred that they expelled him from the City for the sake of a man most closely joined with the Arians? Meanwhile, so far as I judge, St. Ambrose, who was probably at Rome when Liberius returned, would not have celebrated his sanctity in those words which I gave at number 2, if he had believed Liberius's return obtained by such crimes as Tillemont imagined for himself. Besides, if so many letters of Liberius about his own prevarication were extant, if his lapse was sufficiently established from elsewhere, how shall we say it came about that no mention of it is found in the writings of the Fathers of the same time? Of Hosius's lapse St. Hilary frequently and sharply complains in the book On the Synods and Against Constantius; nowhere of Liberius, although he could not be ignorant of his lapse, if it be true. St. Athanasius extols Liberius with praises; nowhere accuses him of prevarication: for the things which are read about Liberius's lapse in his Works we shall see to have been added afterward. In those times too there wrote against the Arians Lucifer of Cagliari, Marius Victorinus the African, S. Phœbadius bishop of Agen. None of them makes mention even by a word of any prevarication of Liberius.

[113] But the last answers to the lapse of Hosius objected by the Arians without any mention of Liberius, confirmed so that hence it is not ineptly gathered that the Arians did not dare at that time to maintain the calumny which after Hosius's lapse they had scattered about Liberius. Besides these, there is nowhere found any trace of even the least dissension which for that cause would have existed between Liberius and the Catholic bishops, or between him and the Romans. Liberius is never read to have excused or defended himself; which would certainly be strange, if the opinion about his lapse were true. He ruled the Church after his exile as he had ruled it before: the council of Rimini, in which by the fraud of the heretics the Catholics had subscribed to heresy, he at once disapproved, and called back the deceived bishops to penitence. Finally he did many other excellent things in those eight years in which he afterward lived; and I have found no complaint about his government among the writers of the same time. Wherefore the things which posterity believed about his lapse seem forged by schismatics, chiefly Luciferians, among whom Hilary the deacon was notorious. These could renew the earlier calumny of the Arians, since they had almost nothing by which to defend themselves except lies. But let us come at last to examining the foundations of our adversaries.

§ VIII. Whether Liberius seems to have subscribed to a formula of faith composed by the Arians, or against St. Athanasius? The passages usually brought forward from the Works of St. Athanasius are not Athanasius's.

Rufinus doubted about the true cause of Liberius's return, Rufinus, book 10 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 27, speaks doubtfully about the cause of Liberius's return, writing thus: For Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, returned while Constantius was alive. But whether this was because he acquiesced in his (Constantius's) will to subscribe, or whether he indulged the favor of the Roman people, by whom he had been entreated on setting out, I do not hold ascertained for certain. These words of Rufinus cast no small doubt upon me, since I saw that by almost the common consent of more recent writers it is handed down that Liberius subscribed to some formula composed by the Arians and to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, and that by them it is brought into controversy only whether it was the first or the second or the third Sirmian formula to which he subscribed, as if a subscription to some formula were certainly established. For thus I reasoned with myself. If Rufinus, who as a young man could have known Liberius, who certainly had known at Aquileia — where he pursued his studies — Fortunatian, bishop of Aquileia, to whom Liberius's lapse is imputed, did not hold it ascertained for certain whether because he acquiesced in the emperor's will to subscribe, or whether on account of the prayers of the Romans, Liberius was released; whence can more recent writers hold ascertained the things which they hand down with such consent? That doubt grew, both because I observed that writers nearly contemporary are wholly silent about Liberius's lapse, and attribute his restoration to the prayers of the Romans alone or to the tumults stirred up by the people; and because I perceived that above all against Liberius there are hurled by more recent writers the letters foisted upon his name, of whose falsity I cannot doubt, and those Fragments ridiculously attributed to St. Hilary, of which I have treated abundantly.

[115] but the opinion about his lapse is not proved by certain arguments, By what reasoning this medley of documents, collected without order in one codex by some copyist, with the few Annotations of an unlearned and unknown man, could first be thrust forward as a Work of St. Hilary, and be so easily received by many learned men, I shall never understand. Meanwhile I see that from those Fragments authority was sought for the supposititious letters of Liberius, and very many stains wrongly cast upon the fame and name of Liberius, so that I do not hesitate to call those Fragments the fount of six hundred errors which have crept into the History of the Arians of Tillemont and others, and above all where the deeds of Liberius are treated. For even if some lapse of Liberius were sufficiently established from elsewhere, still very many things would not be true which have been written from those Fragments against Liberius with a biting pen. But neither any lapse of Liberius, nor any subscription to a formula of the Arians or Semiarians, is proved by such certain arguments that it does not appear to me more probable that all those things which are said about Liberius's lapse took their origin from the calumnies of the Arians. Certainly the moderns are much divided about the formula to which he subscribed, while some assign the first Sirmian, others the second, others finally the third. But if we weigh the arguments of all, we shall find none who can make his own opinion probable, except only by refuting the opposite ones, or by showing that these cannot probably be maintained.

[116] For which cause I see a necessity imposed upon me of examining and therefore it must be diligently examined. whether the lapse of Liberius really seems sufficiently certain or probable. For just as we examine those things which conduce to the honor and glory of the Saints, that it may be plain how certain or uncertain they are; by the same reasoning we believe it wrong to admit without examination things which are to their dishonor, even though they have been received by a sufficiently common consent of the moderns. For from the opinion about the lapse of S. Marcellinus, which was formerly common, and in this time is believed false by most of the learned, it is abundantly gathered that some opinions prevailed in the middle age which by a diligent and critical examination of the ancient writers are found either uncertain, or improbable, or even certainly false. I shall dissemble none of the arguments by which Baronius and others asserted Liberius's lapse; but shall give them one by one in order, and examine their force, setting against them, however, the things which in turn shall offer themselves to me for breaking the force of the arguments, or for confirming the opinion of Liberius's perpetual constancy.

[117] First Baronius at the year 357, number 32, adduces a passage from the Epistle of St. Athanasius To the Solitaries, Passages from the Works of St. Athanasius alleged for Liberius's lapse: or from the History of the Arians to the Monks, as it is called in the Paris edition of the Benedictines, where at number 41 these words are read: Further, Liberius, having been banished, at last after two years was broken, and, terrified by threats of death, subscribed. But by that very fact both their violence is proved, and Liberius's hatred of that heresy, and his suffrage in favor of Athanasius, so long, that is, as it was permitted him to act freely and at his own choice. For the things which are elicited by the force of torments contrary to a previous opinion are the resolutions not of those who dread, but of those who harass. To the same sense concerning Liberius's lapse are drawn the words from the Apology of St. Athanasius against the Arians, in which at number 89 these things are read: But since they not only patronized me in words, but also endured exile, and of their number is Liberius bishop of Rome: for although he did not endure the hardships of exile to the end, nevertheless, because he well knew the conspiracy blown up against us, he remained for two years in the place of exile. These last words could easily be set forth of an exile not indeed perpetual, but endured for two years, unless in the earlier ones some lapse of Liberius were more clearly indicated. For those words, although he did not endure the hardships of exile to the end, only signify that although he was not in exile to the end of his life, yet he was in it for two years. Nor do the Greek words signify more. For this cause perhaps Baronius did not allege that passage.

[118] But another answer offers itself to both passages: for both the Works praised were written before the time in which Liberius is said to have lapsed, but those Works of St. Athanasius were written earlier, so that Athanasius certainly did not write those things when he composed those Works. This others have long since seen and acknowledged, even though they did not doubt about Liberius's lapse. I shall begin from the Apology against the Arians, which was composed even before Liberius's Pontificate itself. The Benedictine editors of the Works of St. Athanasius, in their preface, page 118, judge that the Apology against the Arians was written about the year 350, that is, nearly two years before Liberius's Pontificate, and seven or eight before his return from exile. And they give this reason: For from several passages of this Apology, and chiefly from its very beginning, it is plain that it was published before Ursacius and Valens, who had recoiled from the Arian party and had confessed their own sycophancy against Athanasius, fell back into impiety, and joined themselves again to the Arians against Athanasius; which, that it happened later than the year CCCLII, will be demonstrated elsewhere. That argument is clear, and from it it is proved that the Work was written between the year 349 and 352. Receive, reader, other passages being omitted, the last words of the Apology, as it seems to have been written: Who, on beholding things of this kind, would not confess that Valens and Ursacius rightly declared themselves guilty, and, coming to their senses, wrote letters of this kind against themselves, because they preferred to be suffused with shame for a little while, rather than to pay the eternal punishment of sycophants? Hence in the Annotations the editors observe that these are the last words of the Apology (which they show by another argument too), and that the rest down to the end was added here long after the Apology was written, namely the two last articles, in which Liberius and Hosius are treated of.

[119] and the Apology indeed about the year 349 or 350. Our Papebroch, in St. Athanasius at the 2nd of May, chapter 19, number 220, had said nearly the same about the time of the writing of that Apology, and about the later additions; nay, also in the preface, number 15, although there by a typographical error is read CCCXLII for CCCXLIX. That this is a typographical error the added reason shows, Since it contains no Acts accomplished after his return from exile. For Athanasius's return happened, and is fixed by Papebroch, in the year 349. The same reason Papebroch again alleges at number 220, where there is no error in the number, writing thus: But that it was composed at this time I chiefly maintain for this reason, that it contains nothing beyond the year CCCXLIX, in which Ursacius and Valens signed their penitence in writing. For the things about Liberius and Hosius which are added at the end, when and how they came in, I have already said in the preface, and shall indicate again in its place. Since therefore Papebroch's meaning is the same in both places about the time of the Work's composition, about the year 349, Tillemont too negligently, in Note 81 on St. Athanasius, exhibits Papebroch as writing things contrary to himself, and devises a ridiculous occasion by which he fell, as he will have it, into error in the first place. But such a prelude had to be used, that he might begin to refute the opinion of Papebroch, adopted by the Benedictine editors. Let us hear therefore what he brings forward to reform it.

[120] Tillemont's objections against the epoch given. He was writing, he says, when a new judgment about his cause was being demanded, of which it is not likely that there was any thought except when in the year CCCLIII Constantius obtained the peaceful lordship of the whole empire. These are Tillemontian trifles, which our Papebroch has already refuted as though foreseen. For he shows in chapter 19 that new commotions of the Arians arose at once on account of Marcellus of Ancyra, absolved together with St. Athanasius in the council of Sardica in the year 347. Wherefore I altogether do not grasp on what ground Tillemont could object those things; since he himself narrates for almost every year new machinations of the Arians or Eusebians against Athanasius; nor was he ignorant that in the same year 347, in which his cause was declared just in the council of Sardica, he was again condemned by the Eusebians in the conventicle of Philippopolis. Nay, the reason alleged is rather contrary to Tillemont: for in the year 356, in which he will have the Apology to have been composed, the Arians and Constantius did not want a new judgment about Athanasius, but by force and exile compelled all to subscribe to the sentence passed by the Arians against him. His other reason is that in the two later articles are read the exiles of Liberius, of Hosius, and of many other bishops, whose names are not expressed. But that these things were partly not known to Athanasius, partly also were not done before the year 356, he rightly observes. But that they were added afterward he contends that he cannot believe.

[121] He prefers therefore to believe that those things alone were afterward inserted into the Work by way of parenthesis The things about the Athanasian Work are refuted. which are there read about Liberius's lapse (as he sets forth the words alleged), and about Hosius's lapse. For our purpose indeed it is enough that Tillemont is here compelled to admit this; for it does not become more likely that those parentheses were added by Athanasius himself than that the whole latter part was, as I shall afterward show. But this is not enough for establishing the true epoch of the Apology. For that Apology might have seemed ridiculous if it had been published by Athanasius in the year 356 or 357. For since it contains nothing about the things objected to Athanasius

by calumnies after the year 349, which nevertheless were manifold and grave, as may be seen in his own Apology to Constantius, which can have been written in the year 356 or later, the Arians would deservedly have laughed at such an Apology, and would not ineptly have answered that a man judged and absolved ten times can even so be called into judgment again, if he be accused of new crimes. That Apology therefore would have been untimely and ineffective in the year 356, since in it there are not refuted the calumnies forged by the Arians after the council of Sardica, or at least after the year 349, on account of which Constantius had begun a new persecution against Athanasius, and wished all to subscribe to the sentences passed against him.

[122] But let us now examine whether it be likely that those things of which we treat were added by Athanasius himself. The articles of the Athanasian Apology added long afterward For this pertains more to our purpose. Whether the Benedictine editors believed that that last fragment was joined to the Apology by Athanasius himself or by another, they do not declare in that place; but only observe that it was added long afterward. To me, however, scarcely any doubt is left that it is a patch stitched on by an unskilled man long after the death of St. Athanasius. Certainly that fragment is utterly unworthy of St. Athanasius: nor does the style, the dialectic, the genius, or the method of writing of St. Athanasius shine forth in it, nor is it rightly connected with the Apology. All these things will be manifest, so far as I judge, to those who rightly understand the Greek speech and attend carefully to particulars. I begin from the uselessness of the fragment. After St. Athanasius had set forth in the Apology the judgments passed in his favor, both before and in the year 347 in the council of Sardica, and the penitence of Ursacius and Valens, at number 58 he implies what matters he will treat of further, in these words: But that it may be plain that they were not induced by any favor, nor by necessity or force, to do these things, it is pleasing, with your good leave, to narrate the matter more deeply from the beginning, that you may know that the bishops wrote such things from zeal for what is fair and good, and that Valens and Ursacius, however late, nevertheless confessed the truth. When he had performed these two things, at number 88 he concludes the Apology in this manner: Who, observing these things, would not confess that no indulgence or favor had place in our cause, but that rightly and deservedly so great a throng of bishops, both singly and gathered together, wrote such things in our defense, and condemned the sycophancy of our enemies? Who, on beholding things of this kind, would not confess that Valens and Ursacius rightly declared themselves guilty, and, coming to their senses, wrote letters of this kind against themselves, because they preferred to be suffused with shame for a little while, rather than to pay the eternal punishment of sycophants? These things rightly, and in an elegant style.

[123] for various reasons But the exiles of the bishops which are afterward attached do not make for Athanasius's purpose. For he wished to show that he had been rightly absolved by various judgments, and that therefore there was no need of a new judgment, as is plain from the beginning of the Apology. But the exiles were afterward inflicted upon bishops in the years 353, 355 and 356, because they were unwilling to subscribe to that new judgment instituted by the Arians, and to the sentence passed against him as though convicted of new crimes. Wherefore, before he could rightly cite the judgments of the exiled bishops in his own favor, it was needful to show that the Arians and others agreeing with them, who after the council of Sardica had condemned Athanasius in the conventicles of Sirmium, Arles, Milan, Béziers, and in other assemblies of the Easterns, had proceeded badly and deserved no credit. For the bishops were in exile because they had been unwilling to subscribe to the judgments of those conventicles. If without doubt he would reason badly who should say: I was absolved in the year 347 and often before; I cannot therefore be guilty in this year 356 (as is plain from Marcellus of Ancyra, who was absolved together with Athanasius, and yet afterward was condemned not only by heretics but also by several Catholics), it is manifest that the author of that Appendix likewise argues illegitimately, when from the judgments of the year 347 and earlier alone he strives to infer that the bishops from the year 353 to 356 rightly refused to subscribe to the Athanasian condemnation, especially since that sentence had been passed on account of new calumnies. Such certainly is not the dialectic of St. Athanasius, who, if he had wished to add those later matters to his Apology, would have shown by many reasons that the exiled bishops could not prudently give credit to those new calumnies of the Arians, or acquiesce in their judgments, but would not have inferred this solely from things long past, against sound dialectic.

[124] are utterly denied to St. Athanasius. Then it was not of the prudence and wisdom of St. Athanasius to weave such a shred onto an Apology furnished with solid reasons after some years. For besides the Egyptians and others subject to his own church, he could bring forward in the year 356 only a few who had shown themselves constant. For the Arians, who for each one adhering to Athanasius would easily have boasted ten bishops opposed to him, partly from love of the Arian heresy, partly from fear of the emperor Constantius, being superior by so great a number of adherents, would plausibly have inferred that the later judgments were to be preferred to the earlier. Wherefore it was not the part of a prudent man in the year 356 or the following to allege the number and judgments of bishops for the Athanasian cause, and so to spoil an excellent Apology with an inept argument. Other arguments had then to be used against the Arians, and other ones in fact Athanasius uses in the Apology to Constantius written at that time. For in it he refutes the calumnies of the Arians, on the occasion of which he had been condemned by them. He sets forth their very great violence, by which they had compelled so great a multitude to prevarication, so that from these things anyone could infer that nothing was to be attributed to such judgments of theirs, nor was the multitude itself to be much regarded, since very many had consented by force and fear alone.

[125] Now if the number of the bishops of that time was not to be contended over, they are utterly denied to him. much less of all of them were Liberius and Hosius alone to be named, if Athanasius knew of the lapse of both; but rather were to be praised Paulinus of Trier, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Cagliari, whose exile Athanasius records in the Apology to Constantius, number 27. But he was ignorant of the lapse of Liberius and of Hosius, if we believe Tillemont, when he first wrote those things; but afterward, when he had learned of it, he added it to cut off the cavils of the Arians. His reason is drawn from the discourse: for the diction coheres better without those things which are read inserted about the lapse. Let us believe for the moment that the things said about the lapse of both were afterward stuffed in. This certainly was not done by Athanasius himself. For a little after, those two alone being again named at number 90, these words are subjoined: They are also a pattern and example (Liberius and Hosius alone being expressly named) to our posterity, that they should contend for the truth even to death. Shall we say that Athanasius did not see how ridiculously men who by the discomforts of exile had fallen into injustice are called a pattern and example of contending for the truth even to death? Or would the praised Athanasius not have seen that things about the lapse of the bishops whom he had praised, if they had afterward to be noted, could more rightly have been subjoined to a Work about to be finished? We shall do injury to that most skillful Father, if we ascribe to him so great a negligence. Wherever therefore I turn my thought, I cannot attribute to St. Athanasius those additions about the lapse of Liberius and Hosius; but I judge that the whole of that later fragment is rather the work of an unlearned man, who neither knew the Greek tongue perfectly, and still less the art of reasoning. For he sometimes misuses the particles by which the parts of a discourse are joined; and his diction in some places sticks and is hampered; and his reasonings he frames plainly wretched. But if anyone believes that those faults of the discourse arose chiefly from the parentheses about the lapse of Liberius and Hosius added afterward, I shall not contend vehemently, provided he confesses that they are inserted too ineptly to be attributed to St. Athanasius.

[126] Let us now pass to the words given from the History of the Arians to the Monks, The History of the Arians was written by St. Athanasius by which the lapse of Liberius is openly asserted, and let us inquire whether they are to be reckoned St. Athanasius's. That this History too was interpolated, some things being added about the lapse of Liberius and about the lapse and death of Hosius, our Papebroch judges, but in this matter he does not have the Benedictine editors agreeing. Tillemont seems to have fled that inquiry, and only lightly says that he does not see so great a necessity of admitting that those passages are interpolated. The Benedictines near the end of their preface allege the death of Hosius, to show that that History was written in the year 358, and are silent about the interpolation. Papebroch declared his observation only briefly; but I here undertake to prove it at greater length, as altogether certain and undoubted. First, excepting those things which we believe added, St. Athanasius relates almost nothing in that Work which does not seem to have been done before the end of the year 356, in which St. Athanasius went out from Alexandria and sought hiding places in the desert: or at least he narrates nothing which does not seem to have happened before the Easter of the year 357, to which the martyrdom of S. Secundus the presbyter, related at number 65, must be fixed, since it is said to have happened in Lent.

[127] Now from the manner in which Athanasius narrates it, he seems to have written his History at the same time about Easter of the year 357, as is shown. in which S. Secundus was killed. For in the same place, after he had said that the persecution had not yet quieted, after other things he attaches at the last place the slaying of S. Secundus in these words: Certainly now (in Greek οὕτω γὰρ καὶ νῦν, For so also now) men of the utmost audacity, Secundus of Pentapolis, that most wicked man, and Stephen the partner of his conspiracy, knowing that however great injuries they inflicted they would always have the heresy for their defense; when they saw at Barca a presbyter not obedient to them, Secundus by name, a heathen indeed to the heretics, but not of the same faith, killed the man by kicking him.* Presently he adds, aggravating the crime of the murderers, that the slaying was perpetrated in Lent itself. This last seems to be the particular fact related by Athanasius in that Work, since he passes at once to a general exposition of the crimes committed by the Arians. Wherefore St. Athanasius seems to have written the History of the Arians about Easter of the year 357, or at least not long after. Nay, he could even have begun it at the beginning of the year, and finished it about or not long after Easter; and Easter fell on the XXIII day of March.

[128] The death of Leontius of Antioch, which from Socrates This epoch of the writing of the Work I shall make manifest by another argument too. In it St. Athanasius speaks at various times of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, whose death he nowhere indicates, but at number 4 clearly signifies him as living, in these words: Of whose number is Leontius the castrated, who is now bishop of Antioch. And so either Leontius was living, or Athanasius was still ignorant of his death. But the death of Leontius seems to have happened in the earlier months of the year 357. Socrates, book 2, chapter 37, asserts that the death of Leontius was learned by Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, who was then at Rome. That Constantius too was at Rome at the same time Socrates implies, proceeding thus: And having craftily conversed with the emperor, as though the city of Germanicia needed his comfort and providence, he asked that leave be granted him as soon as possible

of returning thither. But the emperor, suspecting no guile, dismissed the man. But he, having found the chief chamberlains of the king as helpers, having left his own city (Germanicia), seized by fraud the episcopate of Antioch. Valois in his Annotations on this passage fixes the death of Leontius in the year 356, because he judges that Constantius was at Rome in that year. But, as I observed before with Tillemont and others, Constantius was at Rome in the year 357 from the later days of April until nearly the end of May. And so probably in the month of May Eudoxius heard of the death of Leontius, if Socrates narrates truly.

[129] was learned at Rome about May of the year 357, If therefore we consider the immense length of the journey which lies between Antioch and Rome, we shall not be able to judge that Leontius lived after the month of March of the year 357, or at least after the middle of April, if perhaps by a prosperous voyage the messenger came to Rome not long before the end of May. Tillemont and the Benedictine editors confess that Socrates is contrary to their chronology; but they determine that credit must here be denied him, as one often erring. For the authority of Socrates, whose most frequent errors I know, I shall by no means contend: but I shall only show that he here either did not err, or at least so little that it cannot profit our adversaries. Sozomen, book 4, chapter 12, only says that Eudoxius was with the emperor in the parts of the West when he heard of the death of Leontius. And so he neither denies that this happened at Rome, nor expressly affirms it: for Constantius was in the same year also at Milan and at Sirmium, and in other less noble places.

[130] Further, for our purpose it is enough if we show [it cannot be deferred to the end of the year, because it was learned before the lapse of Hosius.] that Eudoxius heard of Leontius's death and departed into the East before the lapse of Hosius. And this seems certain: for no one makes Eudoxius the author of the second Sirmian formula, to which Hosius is believed to have subscribed; but its chief authors, together with Potamius and Hosius, are said to be Valens, Ursacius and Germinius. Wherefore Eudoxius was no longer with the emperor when that formula was published; but it was at once transmitted to him. We understand this from Sozomen, book 4, chapter 12, where he attributes Valens, Ursacius and Germinius to Hosius as authors of that impious formula, and says that Eudoxius with Acacius of Cæsarea and Uranius of Tyre published a like impiety in the assembly of Antioch, and wrote letters in which they gave thanks to Valens, Ursacius and Germinius, and ascribed to their ministry that the Westerns thought rightly, that is, had received the impious formula. By Westerns they mean Hosius, Potamius, and perhaps a few others. The Latin version wrongly attributes those letters of thanksgiving to Eudoxius alone, and therefore I have not given the words themselves.

[131] Besides, the very multitude of things done between the intrusion of Eudoxius and the council of Ancyra, and the multitude of things done between the death of Leontius held before Easter of the year 358, abundantly implies that Leontius did not live until July of the year 357. For let us feign for the moment that he died in the middle of July. Eudoxius would scarcely have learned of his death at Sirmium before September or October, and so, on account of the approaching winter, would scarcely have come to Antioch before January. When he had come thither, and the impious Aëtius had learned this in Egypt, he came to Antioch to Eudoxius. Again a month at least would be needed here, especially in the winter season, for a messenger to come from Antioch into Egypt, and thence Aëtius to come to Antioch: and so it would have been February before he came thither. For, as Theodoret witnesses, book 2, chapter 27, Aëtius was at Alexandria with Georgius the Arian bishop, and returned from Egypt while Eudoxius had seized the episcopate of the church of Antioch.

[132] Let us now believe gratuitously that Eudoxius before the arrival of Aëtius had called the bishops to a council, and the council of Ancyra does not allow it to be fixed so late, in which he tried to restore him to the order of the diaconate from which he had been cast down, as Socrates certainly has it, book 2, chapter 37: and that that council could have been held in the month of February. Even so a notable time again is required by the things of which Georgius of Laodicea complains in his Epistle to the Semiarian bishops of Asia Minor, Macedonius, Basil, Cecropius and Eugenius, writing thus in Sozomen, book 4, chapter 13: The shipwreck of Aëtius has embraced almost all Antioch. For Eudoxius, receiving all the disciples of the execrable Aëtius, who have been branded with ignominy by you, promotes them into the clergy, and pursues Aëtius himself, the heretic, with special honor etc. Wherefore according to our hypothesis it is not likely that these things were written by Georgius before the end of February or March. This Epistle therefore could with difficulty have reached Ancyra before the council was gathered there, since it was not carried by a swift courier, but by clerics harassed by Eudoxius, as the praised Sozomen testifies, writing thus: When Eudoxius was thus disturbing affairs, many of the church of Antioch who resisted his attempts were cast out by him. Who, having received the letters of Georgius, bishop of Laodicea, came to Ancyra of Galatia. Yet that they received these letters before they began the council, the bishops of the council of Ancyra testify in their own letters in S. Epiphanius, Heresy 73, number 2.

[133] than Tillemont fixes it, Now, since I have set down nothing in that order of events which Tillemont himself has not narrated, I altogether do not grasp by what chronological criticism he could fix the death of Leontius about the end of the year 357, as he does in the Arians, article 7, and Note 56, where he adds for that epoch a most wretched reasoning, to which nevertheless he judges an answer cannot easily be made. Eudoxius, he says, when he had seized the see of Antioch, sent Asphalius the presbyter to Constantius, doubtless to seek Constantius's confirmation. But Asphalius was still at Sirmium when the legates of the council of Ancyra came thither about the middle of May. Hence he infers that the death of Leontius is not to be fixed earlier than about the end of the year 357. Tillemont would reason rightly, if swallows had carried the news of Leontius's death to Sirmium; if Eudoxius himself could have flown to Antioch after the manner of swallows, and thence with the same swiftness have sent Asphalius to Sirmium. But he who without any necessity believes that the longest and most difficult journey which lies between Antioch and Sirmium was undertaken three times in four winter months by presbyters and bishops, seems to me to be repelled rather by honest laughter than by serious refutation. Tillemont saw in that very dissertation that men make a journey in another way: for he requires a whole month, and deservedly, for the legates to come from Ancyra to Sirmium, and that in the months of April and May. Yet that journey will be traversed far more easily in one month in the spring season than the Antiochene one, which is much longer, in two winter months. Wherefore that reasoning of Tillemont is inept, and it is certain that Leontius died some months earlier; and I can scarcely doubt that Socrates truly said that Eudoxius received at Rome the news of Leontius's death: for so everything could rightly be accomplished.

[134] but he implies that it must be fixed in March or April. For if in the month of May Eudoxius learned at Rome of Leontius's death, he could by a journey by land or sea reach Antioch before winter, and summon Aëtius to himself, celebrate a council, favor the Aëtians, and by that manner of acting exasperate the Semiarians. And these thus had time also to confer counsels against Eudoxius, and to set out for Ancyra. But that Asphalius the presbyter was at Sirmium in the month of May, where he had finished his business, as Sozomen witnesses, book 4, chapter 13, profits Tillemont nothing, even against Socrates: for Asphalius, a most ardent favorer of the teaching of Aëtius, was probably sent only when Eudoxius had conferred counsels with Aëtius and had in some measure strengthened his own party, so that it is not to be wondered at if in the winter season he could set out later, and arrive later at Sirmium. Nay, if immediately after Eudoxius's arrival Asphalius had wished to sail into Italy, where Eudoxius had left the emperor, he could have been compelled to pass the winter in some intermediate port, and so after winter to come into Italy, and thence in the month of April or May to Sirmium. These chronological trifles I have drawn out at greater length, both because our Bosch, in the chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch before tome IV of July, adopted Tillemont's chronology in Leontius, and that I might show most clearly to learned readers that it can in no way be maintained that Athanasius wrote, while he was composing the History of the Arians, those things which are read inserted in it about the lapse and death of Hosius, and above all about the lapse of Liberius.

[135] From the said chronology the interpolation of the Athanasian Work is certain: The lapse of Hosius is commonly fixed in the year 357, and that it happened in no other year is manifest from the council of Ancyra, held at once in the year 358 before Easter against the impious Sirmian formula, as also from the book of St. Athanasius On the Synods. Tillemont believes the formula to which Hosius is said to have subscribed was composed in the month of July, and certain others later; the death of Hosius Tillemont fixes about the end of 357, tome 7, Note 7 on Hosius. It cannot at least be fixed earlier, because after his lapse he returned from Sirmium into Spain, and there survived for some time, and perhaps for several years. For the alleged lapse of Liberius I see no month assigned; nor do I wonder at this, since no one can declare with certainty in what that lapse consists, or on what occasion it happened. But most learned men of today agree, as I have proved before, that Liberius did not return to Rome before the year 358. Wherefore neither is he to be said to have lapsed before that year, since Constantius promised the Romans Liberius's return if he should agree with the bishops following the court. And so, just as he dismissed Hosius after he had consented, so without doubt he would at once have sent Liberius back, if he too had consented. Let the studious reader now attend, I beseech him. St. Athanasius wrote his History in Egypt in the year 357 about March or April, as I have proved; but let us believe that he was occupied with it even until July or August; how then could he speak of the lapse of Hosius, which happened at Sirmium in the month of July or later? how of the death of Hosius, which he did not undergo except about the end of the year, and perhaps after some years, in Spain, so great a space of lands removed from Egypt? How could he know in Egypt of the alleged lapse of Liberius, before it had happened in Pannonia? These things therefore leave me no doubt that all those matters were afterward added to the Athanasian Work.

[136] But let us feign for the moment that the History to the Monks or to the Solitaries was written about the end of the year 357, and that not even in Tillemont's twisted chronology as Tillemont will have it, tome 8, in Athanasius, article 89, and in other places: and that Leontius of Antioch lived until then, or died not long before, so that St. Athanasius did not yet know of his death. Let us feign, I say, that those things are true which we have shown to be in no way likely. Even so it will never become likely that either the death of Hosius or the lapse of Liberius was known to Athanasius. He could about the end of the year

357 have learned of the lapse of Hosius together with the false rumor which about Liberius's consent the Arians had at the same time scattered abroad, as Sozomen observes, book 4, chapter 15. But Liberius's lapse, which is said in the additions in Athanasius to have happened after two years of exile, and which according to this would have to be fixed at the end of the year 357, or rather in the year 358, in which he returned to Rome, could not yet about the end of the year 357 have become known to Athanasius in the desert of Egypt. For in the IV century letters could not be dispatched by ordinary couriers appointed for that purpose, as is done in our times; but had to be committed to someone who was making that journey, and so came more slowly to remote provinces. And so with difficulty in three winter months would that report have been carried from Pannonia into the desert of Egypt. But as concerns the death of Hosius, Tillemont in Note 3 on Hosius fixes that death in the year 357, but confesses that it can be deferred if it be believed to have been added afterward to St. Athanasius. I certainly do not see by what criticism this is not said, especially since he confesses that some things were inserted in various places into the Works of St. Athanasius. But how improbably it is said that the death of Hosius became known to St. Athanasius before the end of the year 357, I shall show in a few words.

[137] That the emperor Constantius was present at Sirmium when the impious Sirmian formula was published, it can probably be denied. Tillemont himself confesses in the Arians, article 68, and rightly gathers it from these words of St. Hilary On the Synods, number 78: For they deceived the king in his ignorance, so that, being occupied with wars, he set forth the belief of a perfidy of that kind, and, not yet regenerated, imposed a form of believing upon the churches. Again Tillemont in the same place, and in tome 4 of the Emperors, from laws passed at Milan in the month of July, rightly infers that he did not come to Sirmium in that year except at the end of July. Rightly, I say, he infers that Constantius did not come earlier to Sirmium. But that he came to Sirmium in that very month is less likely, since he was coming on account of hostile irruptions into Illyricum, and therefore probably first set out for the army opposed to the enemy. But let us believe that Constantius came to Sirmium about the end of July, and, the cares of war being laid aside, held an assembly of bishops in which the Sirmian formula was conceived, approved, subscribed. Let Hosius, whom some make ninety and others a hundred years old, have departed for Spain in the very month of August, before which certainly the assembly could not be held. Let the reader now attend to the immense tract of lands which lies between Sirmium and Cordova, and he will easily see that a decrepit old man probably did not come to Cordova except in the last months of the year. But since he survived in Spain for some time at least, it is not likely that he died in the same year. If, however, we feign that he really died in the month of November or December, in what manner at last did the news of his death fly across the immense spaces of lands into the desert of Egypt, and reach St. Athanasius before the end of the year? I require geographical eyes, that men may see that his most twisted chronology cannot stand, even if we suppose several of his errors as so many foundations. Now if we attend to the sayings of St. Hilary about Hosius in the book On the Synods, which was written at the end of the year 358 or in the year 359, we shall see that Hosius is everywhere mentioned as living, and that nothing at all is implied about his death, so that he seems to have lived at least for some time after the year 357, as Tillemont himself sufficiently saw.

[138] [From the passages themselves it is proved that the things which are read about Liberius's lapse,] Further, what we have shown by chronological arguments is gathered also from the added passage itself. For the discourse of St. Athanasius is far more perfect if the passage added at number 41 about Liberius's lapse be altogether cut away. St. Athanasius had narrated the notable contests and exile of Liberius. Then he relates the exiles of his two legates, namely the presbyter and the deacon, and concludes the injuries inflicted upon the Roman Church by the Arians in these words: Thus therefore from the beginning they tried to shake the Roman Church itself, desiring to mingle with it their own impiety. And after the added passage: Nothing indeed (in Greek μέντοι, which was wrongly rendered therefore) did they leave unattempted for the sake of their heresy. But the peoples in the several churches, holding the faith which they learned, await their teachers, etc. These follow excellently. But if the added words be interposed, those words, Nothing indeed for the sake of their heresy etc., are not rightly connected; nor are the peoples aptly said to hold the faith and await their teachers immediately after the lapse of the chief Teacher has been related. Besides, Athanasius would not prudently have written the things which are subjoined after the contests of Liberius related at number 40, writing thus: He is ignorant, forsooth (Constantius, who separated the exiled bishops in different places), that even if they dwell singly apart, yet the Lord, whom all together confessed, is present to each one, who will bring it about that many more are present to each (as he once did for the prophet Elisha) than there are soldiers with Constantius. These things certainly and many others Athanasius would not have written about the future constancy of the exiled bishops, if he had known of the lapse of Liberius and Hosius, whom he celebrates more than any others, much less would he have subjoined them after those very things which he had narrated about Liberius's fortitude, and before his lapse and Hosius's presently to be related.

[139] Finally, if he had known of the lapse of Hosius when he wrote that Work, St. Athanasius [and about that of Hosius in the Historical Work of St. Athanasius, are stitched on.] would not have celebrated him with such great eulogies as he celebrates him from number 42 to 46, where twice, alluding to the name ὅσιος, holy, he names him truly Holy. For he would not have called a man agreeing with heretics truly Holy. Let anyone who will now cast away the things which are said at number 45 about the lapse and death of Hosius, and he will find that there too what follows coheres better with what precedes. For after what is said about Hosius he subjoins these things: Who, if he see these things, or only hear them, will not be astonished, and cry out to the Lord: Wilt thou give Israel to utter destruction …? The fathers of the peoples and the teachers of the faith are taken away, and the impious are thrust into the churches. Who, when he saw Liberius the Roman bishop cast into exile, or the great Hosius, the father of the bishops, afflicted with such evils: who, when he beheld so many bishops from Spain and from other parts made exiles, did not hold it ascertained, even if he were endowed with moderate sense, that the accusations brought against Athanasius and against others were forged, and all full of calumny? For therefore they thought that all evils must be endured, because they held ascertained the snares constructed from their sycophancy. How could he say, They thought that all evils must be endured, if they had yielded to evils and had lapsed? But I draw these things out further than is necessary. For so far was he from knowing of Hosius's lapse when he wrote that Work, and much less of Liberius's, that he does not seem to have known even of the exile of St. Hilary, which preceded by one year. Certainly he makes no mention of Hilary's exile, although he repeats again and again the exiles of Paulinus of Trier, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Cagliari.

[140] Now, since I trust that I have manifestly shown But those interpolations are not to be attributed to Athanasius himself, that Athanasius, while he was composing his Works, did not write those things which are now read in them about the lapse of Liberius the Pope, it remains to be investigated whether it becomes likely that they were afterward inserted by Athanasius himself, as our Papebroch conjectured. I answer that it is far more likely to me that they were added long afterward by some interpolator, who perhaps did not consider that those Works had been written before the true lapse of Hosius, and before the fictitious one of Liberius, which he believed true. For first (as I have proved of both passages) some things preceding and following are said imprudently and ridiculously when the sayings about the lapse of Liberius and Hosius are held in the context of the argument, so that it seems contrary to the prudence of St. Athanasius to add such things in the very context of the discourse as he could not have written at the beginning, unless not a few other things were omitted or changed. And so, if he had wished to observe anything about the lapse of those whom he had praised, he would himself have warned that these things were added afterward, or, if he had been unwilling to do this, he would have deleted and changed all the things which do not rightly stand with the mention of the lapse. Then the very words added about Liberius's lapse seem unworthy of St. Athanasius, and rather worthy of an unskilled man who did not know what he was saying. Liberius, says the interpolator, having been banished, at last after two years was broken, and, terrified by threats of death, subscribed. But this too shows their violence indeed, and Liberius's hatred of the heresy, and his suffrage in favor of Athanasius, when he had free choice. For the things which are done for the sake of torments contrary to a previous opinion are the counsels not of those who fear, but of those who torture. These last words I have translated word for word from the Greek. Now I observe first that it is not very likely that threats of death were held out to Liberius, which I find asserted by no one else: secondly, that it is not credible that Athanasius labored under such a lack of reasons that from the very consent to an evil he should try to infer a previous hatred of that evil, against the common opinion by which anyone who at last consents to some evil is commonly believed to have shrunk less from it before; and that he should so speak as if he believed that by force and fear a man's free choice is taken away: for the words altogether signify this, unless they be helped by a kindly interpretation.

[141] nor do they seem to have been found in his Works by the historians I proceed now to another argument, by which it seems to be proved that the lapse of Liberius the Pope was not asserted in the Works of St. Athanasius throughout the IV century, and probably even for some centuries afterward. Certainly the three Greek historians who flourished not far advanced in the V century, namely Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, do not seem to have been able to be ignorant of Liberius's lapse, if it was read asserted in the Works of St. Athanasius. For even if we should believe that the Works of St. Athanasius had not been read through by them, they would at least have heard from others who read them that Liberius, overcome by long exile, at last succumbed. But they did read the Works of St. Athanasius, and transcribe many things from them. Socrates, book 2, chapter 28, relates the Alexandrian persecution from the Apology of St. Athanasius on his own Flight, and praises it. Nevertheless Socrates most certainly was ignorant of Liberius's lapse, since in book 2, chapter 37, he writes thus about Liberius's return: For the rest, Liberius, not long after being recalled from exile, recovered his See, when the Roman people, a sedition having been made, had driven Felix from the church, and the emperor, though unwilling, had lent his assent to them. If Constantius recalled him unwilling, and on account of the sedition of the Roman people, therefore not on account of consent to any formula of faith of the Arians, nor on account of the condemnation of St. Athanasius. Yet the same Socrates, who of all can least be suspected of wishing to dissemble a known lapse of Liberius, was neither ignorant of nor omitted the lapse of Hosius, whom he relates, book 2, chapter 31, to have consented to the Arians, driven by force and necessity. He could indeed

learn the lapse of Hosius from others, as being true, or at least asserted as true by many; and he could likewise have learned the lapse of Liberius, if it had been asserted and believed by the more ancient writers.

[142] Greeks of the V century, Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15, narrates Liberius's return, and I have already given his words. Wherefore I here repeat only a few. For the Roman people, he says, loved Liberius exceedingly, as a man in every way excellent, and one who had bravely resisted the emperor for religion's sake; so much so that for his sake they stirred up a most grievous sedition, and broke out even to slaughter. The same author says that a false rumor about Liberius's lapse was scattered by the Arians, writing thus: When Eudoxius, and those who with him favored the opinion of Aëtius, had received at Antioch the epistle of Hosius, they published by scattered rumors that Liberius too had condemned the word "consubstantial," and confessed the Son unlike the Father. This writer therefore knew indeed of Hosius's lapse, knew of the false rumor scattered about Liberius's lapse, knew of the seditions stirred up at Rome for Liberius's sake. But he had not read in the Works of St. Athanasius that Liberius at last from fear of death withdrew from his duty: for if he had believed this, he would not have said that he bravely resisted the emperor for religion's sake; but that he at last succumbed, as he writes about Hosius in chapter 12. Theodoret, who survived past the middle of the V century, book 2, chapter 15, recites a prolix passage from the Apology on Flight, in which mention is made of Liberius, Hosius, and others exiled for the cause of St. Athanasius, and those very words which our Papebroch observed at number 5 to have been added about Hosius's lapse he altogether omits, although he had recited all that precedes. Nay, he makes no mention of Hosius's lapse, so that he seems to have been ignorant of it, or to have held it only as doubtful, just as Sulpicius Severus, older than Theodoret, in fact doubted about Hosius's lapse. But if Theodoret had believed Liberius's lapse, or had read it in St. Athanasius, he ought not to have been called by him νικηφόρος τῆς ἀληθεῖας ἀγωνιστὴς, the victorious Athlete of the truth, as he calls him in chapter 17.

[143] There is added the silence of the later Greeks also. Theophanes at the year 352 says only this about Liberius's return: or even by the later Greeks. The emperor at last, compelled by the prayers of the Romans, recalls Liberius from exile and restores him to his throne. Nicephorus Callistus, book 9, chapter 17, narrates Liberius's return in nearly the same manner as Sozomen. Photius in the Bibliotheca makes mention of Liberius's exile in the Life of S. Athanasius, codex 258, not of a lapse. These are the chief among the Greeks who took pains to scrape together their materials from the ancients, so that it would be a marvel that Liberius's lapse was observed by none of them, if Athanasius had asserted it. I have consulted others too among the more recent Greeks, not however all, lest I should waste labor; but I have hitherto found among the Greeks of the middle age no mention of any lapse of Liberius. What then is to be said? Were the Greeks ignorant of St. Athanasius's History of the Arians? This certainly is not likely. Or did even the schismatics themselves wish to spare Liberius? This too is much less probable. I had rather therefore believe that the interpolation about Liberius's lapse was not found in the codices which the Greeks saw.

[144] Philostorgius does not lessen this suspicion, but rather increases it, An answer is made to Philostorgius. when in his Epitome, book 4, number 3, Photius writes thus: But he (Constantius), having set out for Sirmium, settled there. At which time also he restored to his citizens Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, whom the Romans demanded with the utmost zeal, having recalled him from exile. Then also that the same Liberius, and together with him Hosius the bishop, subscribed against the word "consubstantial" and against Athanasius, Philostorgius says; when a certain synod had been gathered there and had drawn the above-mentioned men over to its own opinion. But after they had subscribed, Hosius returned to his own see, namely Cordova in Spain, and governed the church of that place; but Liberius presided over the Roman Church. It is manifest that these things were not drawn from Athanasius; but that the false rumor which the Arians scattered when Hosius lapsed, about Liberius's consent to the same heresy, is narrated by Philostorgius, an Arian calumniator, as true history. The falsity is clearly plain from this, that he asserts that both lapsed at the same time, and were at the same time sent back to their own church; whereas it is agreed that Hosius returned in the year 357, Liberius in the year 358.

* i.e. of the same name

§ IX. The objections from the Works of St. Jerome and other writers are examined.

[ ] Two passages from the Works of St. Jerome are objected, contrary to one another, To show Liberius's lapse, two passages likewise are alleged from the Works of St. Jerome. The first is read in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 97, in the eulogy of Fortunatian, bishop of Aquileia, at the end of which it is said: And in this he is held detestable, that he was the first to solicit and break Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, as he was going into exile for the faith, and compelled him to subscribe to heresy. Hard words indeed, and no less false than harsh, which I shall prove are not to be reckoned Jerome's. But let us first recite the other passage, never to be reconciled with the former, which is brought forward from the Chronicle of S. Jerome at the year 352, where these things are read: Liberius is ordained the XXXIV bishop of the Roman Church. When he had been thrust into exile for the faith, all the clerics swore that they would receive no other. But when Felix had been substituted by the Arians in the priesthood, very many perjured themselves, and after a year were cast out with Felix; because Liberius, overcome by the weariness of exile, and subscribing to heretical depravity, had entered Rome as though a conqueror. These things seem to have proceeded from the workshop of lies of Faustinus and Marcellinus, Luciferian presbyters. Before, moreover, we prove that neither passage is prudently to be attributed to Jerome, let us briefly dash the one against the other. In the former Liberius is said to have been broken by the solicitation of Fortunatian while he was going into exile; in the latter he is asserted to have been overcome by weariness of exile after a year. If he was broken and compelled to subscribe while he was going into exile, how did he succumb after a year, how was he overcome by weariness of exile? That these things do not cohere, anyone will easily see: nor do they cohere any better with the things stuffed into the Works of St. Athanasius, where he is asserted after two years at last to have been broken … and, terrified by threats of death, to have subscribed.

[146] nor consonant with any other documents alleged for Liberius's lapse. Another figment was handed down by that most lying author who attached a Preface to the Libellus precum of Faustinus and Marcellinus. After two years, he says on page 3, Constantius came to Rome, and is entreated for Liberius by the people, and presently assenting he says: You have Liberius, who, such as he set out from you, will return better. But this he indicated about his consent, by which he had given his hand to perfidy. In the third year Liberius returns, and the Roman people went out to meet him with joy, Felix, censured by the senate and the people, is driven from the City etc. This Luciferian calumniator wished to reconcile the figment about Liberius's lapse with the true cause of Liberius's return, that is, with the prayers of the Roman people, and so he is at variance with all the other asserters of the Liberian lapse, when he feigns that Liberius consented to the heretics before the Roman people asked for him. How certainly these things are false I shall show below. Here I only observe that the passages alleged from the Works of Jerome neither agree with one another, nor with any other documents of any antiquity in which Liberius's lapse is asserted. For Philostorgius, praised above, places the lapse after the prayers of the people, together with the lapse of Hosius, which is equally contrary to the Hieronymian passages and to the rest. Those who held the supposititious letters of Liberius about his own lapse for genuine, and attributed the commonly called Hilarian Fragments to St. Hilary, preferred to narrate the history of Liberius's lapse chiefly from these, and paid little attention to the words brought forward from the Works of St. Jerome. But, passing over these things, let us examine the first passage, that we may understand whether these seem to be St. Jerome's words.

[147] The Catalogue of Writers, from which the first passage is given, St. Jerome wrote the book On Illustrious Men, as he himself called his Work, or the Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, as it is not seldom otherwise called, in the year 392 of the Christian era. For he implies in the preface that he will carry it down to the fourteenth year of the emperor Theodosius, which coincides with 392, and in chapter 135, or the last, he begins to write thus about himself: Jerome, born of the father Eusebius, … down to the present year, that is, the fourteenth of the prince Theodosius, have written these things. From this epoch of the writing of the Work it is manifestly gathered that that Work of St. Jerome is not free from additions and interpolations proceeding from another hand, as the latest editors of the Works of St. Jerome have already observed, Martianay in the Paris edition, and Vallarsi, or his helper Maffei, in the Verona one. St. Jerome's own eulogy at the end has been enlarged by the addition of these words: Two books against Jovinian, and to Pammachius an Apologetic and an Epitaph. These Martianay omitted; Vallarsi added them enclosed in brackets (to signify that they are not Jerome's), from most of the common editions and from the Greek translator. Martianay besides observes that in the Cluny codex, which in his preface he calls elegant and very ancient, these things are read thus: Likewise after this book was dedicated, two books against Jovinian the heretic, and an Apologetic to Pammachius. That he found several additions in the manuscript codices Martianay abundantly implies in his last annotation, which he expresses in these words: For the rest, I have neglected the various additions of various copyists, because I judge them unworthy to come forth into the light published in print.

[348] He brings forward, however, a notable passage from the very ancient Cluny codex at chapter 129, is interpolated in various eulogies: which contains a very short eulogy of S. John Chrysostom, in place of which he testifies that these things are read in the aforesaid codex: John, first a presbyter of the church of Antioch, afterward bishop of the city of Constantinople, a most skilled expositor, and a distinguished extempore declaimer, a follower of Eusebius of Emesa and of Diodorus, composed many things. Then he reviews seven Works, of which Jerome named one only; and subjoins: And other things without number, which it is not easy to find with anyone however studious: but throughout the whole world his writings, both those published in the Greek tongue and those translated into Latin, travel like flashing lightnings. He flourished chiefly under the prince Arcadius, by whom also, through the private indignation of his wife the empress, he was driven into exile and died. And after many years the relics of his body, carried with great glory by Theodosius his son to Constantinople, lie laid up within the shrines of the Apostles. Upon these things the aforesaid editor observes that they could not have been written by Jerome when in the year 392 he composed that Work. Nor let anyone rejoin that they could have been added afterward by Jerome himself. For if he had wished to enlarge that Work toward the end of his life, he could have added very many writers contemporary with himself or nearly so: but since he did not do this, it is not likely that even the least thing was afterward added by Jerome. Wherefore it is established that the eulogy of Chrysostom was in certain codices enlarged and changed, and that the eulogy of Jerome himself was likewise enlarged at the end.

The Verona editors, in the preface to the aforesaid book, which they published in tome 2, at number 6 warn that ten eulogies of Apostolic men were added in Greek, which they gave after the book itself in an Appendix both in Latin and in Greek, but they warn that the Latin translation is Erasmus's. Several interpolations in some codices, and not a few corruptions, the aforesaid editors observe, namely in Origen, in Eusebius of Cæsarea, in Gregory Nazianzen, and in others.

[149] Wherefore I am compelled vehemently to doubt whether the words are Jerome's so that it is altogether doubtful whether those words are St. Jerome's, which I have recited from the eulogy of Fortunatian, which without them stands entire. Certainly those words are utterly unworthy of Jerome, and clearly opposed to other assertions of St. Jerome, so that the holy doctor could not have written them, unless plainly forgetful of himself. For it is manifestly false, as seems to be asserted, that Liberius, as he was going into exile, was by Fortunatian so solicited and broken that, being compelled to subscribe to heresy, he really did subscribe; as the words seem to sound. For it is ascertained by all that Liberius was for a long time constant in exile, and either never consented to the heretics against faith or justice, or at least did not do this except after a long exile of nearly two years. In what manner therefore could Jerome write that he was compelled to subscribe to heresy when he was going to exile? If anyone believes that St. Jerome's words must be explained in this sense, that he only wished to signify that Fortunatian on his own part did everything he could to solicit Liberius, to break his constancy, and finally to compel him to subscribe to heresy, when, going into exile, he was passing through Aquileia; but by no means to indicate that all these things were then brought to effect by Fortunatian: I shall not indeed vehemently gainsay that kindly explanation of the words; but at the same time the question will cease: for if the author of those words did not mean to say that Liberius subscribed when he was going into exile, no more did he declare that he did this afterward.

[150] nay it is more probable that they are not Jerome's, since they are false. Either therefore the words alleged signify nothing beyond the impious attempt of Fortunatian; or they are openly false. For whatever Jerome says, or the interpolator of the Hieronymian Work, is referred to the time in which Liberius was going into exile in Thrace. But that at that time Liberius's constancy was wonderful, which St. Athanasius and others celebrated with many eulogies, no adversary can deny. Besides, when Liberius went into exile, there was no question of subscription to heresy, or to any formula of the heretics; but only of the condemnation of St. Athanasius, whom the Arians then accused of treason, not of heresy. This is manifest from the Apology of St. Athanasius to Constantius, as also from the dialogue between Constantius and Liberius which I gave in §6. Of this Jerome himself was not ignorant, who in chapter 95 says that Lucifer of Cagliari was banished, since he was unwilling under the name of Athanasius to condemn the Nicene faith. For by these words Jerome explains what the Arians were openly contriving, namely the condemnation of Athanasius; and what they were secretly aiming at, namely to pave a way for themselves to the condemnation of the Nicene faith. Wherefore, since St. Jerome was not ignorant of what the Arians were openly doing with Constantius, and of what besides they were secretly aiming at, he does not seem able to have judged that at that time there was question of subscription to any formula of the heretics, or to have written the things which are now read in his book. I shall give more arguments why this does not seem to have been St. Jerome's mind, when I have examined the other passage, given from his Chronicle.

[151] The interpolation of St. Jerome's Chronicle is established: In it Liberius is said to have returned to Rome after a year. The reason for returning is given, that he subscribed to heretical depravity. And this he is asserted to have done, overcome by weariness of exile. There is added the oath of all the clerics about not receiving another Pontiff, and at last Liberius is said to have entered Rome again as though a conqueror. It need not be laboriously proved that St. Jerome's Chronicle in manuscript and printed books has been most corrupted by many additions and interpolations. That it was such the editors of the preceding century themselves acknowledge, Pontac and Scaliger, and with them Tillemont, tome XI, in St. Jerome, article 20. And so it only remains for me to prove that the passage alleged does not seem wholly St. Jerome's. But so many things persuade of this that I cannot even doubt about the interpolation. I judge that in that place these words alone are Jerome's: Liberius is ordained the XXXIV bishop of the Roman Church. All the rest perhaps about Liberius's exile and return is the interpolator's. For of Liberius's exile Jerome treats after having related the exiles of Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari and others, who were banished in the same year as Liberius, but some months earlier; and he has thus: Liberius, bishop of Rome, is sent into exile.

[152] But let us show in a few words that the passage, as it is now read in St. Jerome's Chronicle, nor are the words which are alleged from it to be reckoned Jerome's, is utterly unworthy of St. Jerome, and worthy of the Ursinian and Luciferian schismatics. First, I shall never think it is Jerome's, what is asserted about the perjury of the clerics of the Roman Church, since this was the foundation of the calumnies which the Ursinian and Luciferian schismatics scattered against S. Damasus. Their lies could be received by a credulous posterity. But I shall with difficulty allow myself to be persuaded that St. Jerome, who flourished and wrote his Chronicle under Damasus, could give them credit, and transfer their calumnies into his Chronicle. But how hostile the Ursinians and Luciferians were to S. Damasus is plain from the Libellus precum of Marcellinus and Faustinus, and from the Preface stitched onto it, in which on page 2 the following is read: With Liberius (as he went into exile) Damasus his deacon pretends to set out. Whence, fleeing from the journey, he returned to Rome, corrupted by ambition. But on the day on which Liberius was setting out for exile, the whole clergy, that is, the presbyters and Felix the archdeacon, and Damasus himself the deacon, and all the officers of the Church, all alike, in the presence of the Roman people, confirmed under oath that while Liberius lived they would in no wise have another Pontiff. But the clergy, contrary to right, which was by no means seemly, with the utmost crime of perjury received Felix the archdeacon, ordained in the place of Liberius. This is the foundation of all the calumnies which that most lying writer poured out against S. Damasus.

[153] If now we consider how much St. Jerome esteemed S. Damasus, no less contrary to S. Damasus than to S. Liberius: with how great eulogies he frequently celebrates him, and with how great friendship he was joined to him, we shall not believe that an atrocious calumny could be written by him, by which the Ursinian and Luciferian schismatics tried in vain to blacken a most holy Pontiff and the clergy adhering to him. Tillemont indeed, tome 8, in S. Damasus, article 1, wishes to free S. Damasus and his electors from the crime of perjury. But I do not see by what reasoning this may be done probably enough, if we admit the oath itself and the perjury of many. This at least is certain, that Damasus with the rest was falsely accused of perjury by the schismatics, and therefore it is not credible that St. Jerome wrote in general about that perjury, and that too while Damasus was living, without any exception. Nor does the Chronicle of Prosper move me, even though it has the same things about the perjury of the clerics, as it was given entire in the last edition of the Works of S. Prosper, where at the consuls Philippus and Salia, who belong to the year 348, these things are read: Liberius is ordained the XXXIV of the Roman Church, and when he had been thrust into exile in the ninth year of his episcopate for the faith, all the clerics swore that they would receive no other. But when Felix had been substituted by the Arians in the priesthood, very many perjured themselves, and after a year, Liberius having returned to the City, they were cast out with Felix. I shall not inquire whether these things are Prosper's or an interpolator's. If they are Prosper's, he does not seem to have drawn them from the pure Chronicle of St. Jerome, since it is incredible that St. Jerome, who could have seen Liberius, so erred from the true time of his exile as to fix in the ninth year of his Episcopate what had happened in the fourth. Prosper therefore had an interpolated Chronicle of St. Jerome, if from it he drew the words given about the perjury of the Roman clerics. But if anyone should believe that those things were afterward stuffed into Prosper's Chronicle also, so much the less did they flow from the Hieronymian one. Whatever it be, the reasons alleged suffice for us not to attribute to St. Jerome those assertions about the perjury of the clerics of the Roman Church.

[154] The assertion about Liberius's subscription But the aforesaid Prosper does not seem to have found in the Hieronymian Chronicle another assertion, more pertinent to our purpose, that Liberius subscribed to heretical depravity: certainly he makes no mention of it. For other causes too I cannot believe that St. Jerome wrote any such thing. For in Epistle 15 of the Verona edition (elsewhere 57), to Damasus the successor of Liberius, Jerome writes in the year 376, that is, eighteen years after Liberius's return from exile, things which he does not seem at all likely to have said if he had believed Liberius to have subscribed to heresy. Some of them I bring over hither. Since the East, dashed against itself by the ancient fury of peoples, tears in pieces bit by bit the undivided tunic of the Lord …, therefore I have judged that the Chair of Peter, and the faith praised by the Apostolic mouth, must be consulted by me. And presently: The patrimony having been squandered by evil offspring, among you alone is the uncorrupted inheritance of the fathers preserved. There the earth, with fruitful soil, renders back the purity of the Lord's seed with a hundredfold fruit. Again: You are the light of the world, you the salt of the earth, you the golden and silver vessels. And at number 2: I, following none first save Christ, am joined in communion with thy Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter, and I know the Church built upon that Rock. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. If anyone has not been in the ark of Noah, he shall perish while the flood reigns. Again: I do not know Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee, scatters; that is, he who is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. The aforesaid Vitalis, Meletius and Paulinus were contending for the episcopate of Antioch, and therefore Jerome asks with which of them in Syria he ought to communicate, as the following Epistle at number 2 more clearly explains. Another question which Jerome proposed to Damasus was much agitated in the East, whether he ought to say three hypostases. He feared, namely, lest some fraud lay hidden in that manner of speaking. Nevertheless at number 4 he writes thus to Damasus: Decree, I beseech you, if it please you, and I shall not fear to say THREE HYPOSTASES. And again, after various arguments brought against that ambiguous manner of speaking: Or if you think it right to say THREE HYPOSTASES with their interpretations, we do not deny it. Then at number 5: Wherefore I entreat thy Beatitude, … that by thy letters authority be given me either for keeping silence about the hypostases or for speaking of them. In the following Epistle he asks with equal ardor with which of the three who were called bishops of Antioch he ought to communicate, expressing what he was to do in that doubt in these words: I meanwhile cry out, if anyone is joined to the Chair of Peter, he is mine.

[155] likewise seems to be denied to Jerome. Let us now examine whether it be likely that St. Jerome believed Liberius to have subscribed to heresy nearly eighteen years before he wrote these things. Jerome consults Damasus, not because he was more learned than all the other bishops, but because he sat in the Chair of Peter, in which before him Liberius had sat: for he did not cease to be Pontiff, or to sit in the Chair of Peter, while he was in exile. In neither Epistle does Jerome ask Damasus to convoke a council, to examine the question proposed with the Roman clergy, to do all those things which Pontiffs are wont to do when they wish to define some controversy of faith ex cathedra, as the theologians speak. He demands only that Damasus by letters directed to him alone should teach with which of the three who at Antioch called themselves bishops he ought to communicate, and whether it be lawful to say three hypostases. And he shows such great confidence, provided he receive an answer, that he says, I shall not fear to say three hypostases, namely if it should please Damasus, although he otherwise shows that that expression was most suspect to him of fraud. How could St. Jerome have such great confidence in Damasus's letters, to be directed to himself alone, if he believed that Liberius, Damasus's predecessor, had subscribed to heresy, or to heretical depravity; whether he believed that he did this by the persuasion of Fortunatian, or overcome by weariness of exile? Certainly, if he had been persuaded of Liberius's lapse, he might deservedly have feared lest Damasus too should be overcome by the solicitations of the Semiarians or by weariness of long contentions, and should consent to something which favored the heretics more than the Catholics: and for that cause he would not have attributed so much to letters to be written back to him. Besides, Jerome does not seem able to have said, Among you alone (namely the Roman Pontiffs) is the uncorrupted inheritance of the Fathers preserved, that is, the faith transmitted from the Fathers by a quasi-hereditary succession, if the predecessor of Damasus had not preserved that inheritance uncorrupted. No more would he have said, You are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth, you the golden and silver vessels; if Liberius, not yet twenty years past, had been an earthen and broken vessel; for Jerome speaks of the Roman Pontiffs; and he seeks out the judgment of Damasus, because he was Pontiff, in his doubts, that he may follow it.

[156] If now we consult other writers of that time, and inspect the matter more closely, By other reasons Liberius's innocence is likely, we shall scarcely doubt that from the calumny of the Arians, which by Liberius's return had been made plausible, flowed the whole of what was bandied about concerning Liberius's lapse in the times of the Ursinian and Luciferian schism. Of the chief cause of Liberius's being sent back by Constantius it is altogether established. Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Sulpicius Severus testify, and Philostorgius the Arian likewise confesses the same, that the Roman people pressed Constantius with the utmost zeal that Liberius should be sent back to his See; nay, that they broke out for that cause into tumults and seditions too, Sozomen and Sulpicius say. There can be no doubt therefore that this reason alone could move Constantius to send Liberius back, lest the Romans should at last leap forth to more desperate counsels. Certainly the same Constantius afterward sent St. Hilary back to his see, the Arian bishops also so advising, although on account of Hilary's exile those tumults were not to be feared which the Romans had stirred up for Liberius's sake. Again it is established from Sozomen that the rumor scattered by the Arians about a heretical formula subscribed by Liberius was false. But that that rumor acquired strength through Liberius's return, and was believed true by some, is most likely. It is equally likely that the aforesaid report was again published by the Arians at Liberius's return, and was boasted of by them as the cause of his return, lest Constantius should seem to have been conquered by Liberius. This indeed the words of St. Hilary in the book Against Constantius, number XI, seem to me to imply, where he thus addresses the emperor: Then thou didst turn thy war even to Rome, thou didst snatch a Bishop thence: and O wretched thou, who — I know not whether with greater impiety thou hast banished him than sent him back. These words, I say, which are twisted by our adversaries to a plainly different sense, I judge must be understood in this sense, that he implies that Liberius's fatherland and Roman see were taken from him while he was banished, but that when he was sent back his good name, so far at least as lay in the Arians, was snatched from him by the report of a subscription scattered abroad. Certainly he who snatches from someone his good name, and ascribes to him a reputation of heresy, seems to inflict no less an injury than if he should snatch away his fatherland and episcopate.

[157] and namely from the words of St. Hilary Baronius at the year 357 brings forward the words of Hilary alleged to confirm Liberius's lapse; adding, however, no reason. Perhaps that most Eminent writer believed that it is of no less impiety to restore a heretical man to the Church than to tear a Catholic from it. This indeed I shall not deny: but neither does Baronius himself hold Liberius for a heretic, so that on that ground he could draw Hilary's words to that sense: nor was that St. Hilary's mind. For in that place he sets forth the violent oppressions of the churches, and the injuries inflicted upon their bishops, not the intrusions of heretics. St. Hilary therefore cannot signify that Liberius was perhaps sent back with greater impiety than he had been carried off, except by implying that Constantius perhaps sinned more gravely against Liberius, or against the Roman Church itself, when he sent Liberius back, than he had sinned in banishing him. Against Liberius he sinned most gravely without doubt, if he took care that a reputation of heresy, or of consent with the heretics, should be ascribed to him; and in that sense Hilary could rightly say that he did not know whether Liberius was banished with greater impiety than he was sent back. St. Hilary could perhaps say the same either because Constantius wished to make the Roman Church two-headed, by commanding that Liberius and Felix should administer it together, or on account of the violences exercised at Rome at Liberius's return, if those happened by Constantius's order. If St. Hilary's words be expounded in either way, they will neither favor the opinion of Liberius's lapse nor be contrary to it. But I altogether do not find by what dialectic I could legitimately infer that by the words alleged Liberius's lapse is implied. Nay, I rather judge that Hilary would have kept silence about Liberius's exile, if he had believed that he really lapsed. Certainly he does not complain by name about Hosius torn from his own see, although Hosius, on account of his old age and long constancy, would have come to be mentioned among the first; but Hosius too, at number 23, he sharply censures, calling his formula the ravings of Hosius. So neither does he complain of the banishment of any other who lapsed, so that probably he would not have named Liberius either, unless he had thought with us about his constancy and victory.

[158] and from his silence about his lapse. But not in that place alone was St. Hilary silent about Liberius's lapse; but in his other Works also, and especially in the book On the Synods, which he wrote at such a time that he could not be ignorant of Liberius's lapse, if it be true; nor yet know of the repairing of the lapse. For he wrote that Work in Asia Minor at the end of the year 358 or the beginning of the following, at which time he knew all the things which had been done at Sirmium about the middle of the year 358; but he could not equally know what Liberius had done at Rome after his return. In that book he makes Hosius and Potamius, at numbers 3 and 9, the authors of the heretical Sirmian formula, which he calls a blasphemy. Again at number 63 he says that through Hosius, unmindful of his own deeds and words, that new impiety broke forth. Then at number 87, discoursing against the Semiarians, who had opposed themselves to the said formula and had taken care that it be abolished, since they wished the word ὁμοούσιον to be passed over in silence, but the word ὁμοιούσιον to be retained, he replies that the old man Hosius wished both to be passed over in silence, and he too was too fond of his own sepulchre. And so, since St. Hilary found so many occasions of censuring the old man Hosius, who before his lapse had been venerated by all, would he have found no occasion or necessity of speaking about Liberius's lapse, if that had followed not long after Hosius's lapse? Certainly the Semiarians, against whom he was arguing, could have objected Liberius's authority, if they had had him agreeing with them; and yet Hilary nowhere implies that they did this, or makes any mention of Liberius. Wherefore Hilary is so far from favoring the opinion of Liberius's prevarication, that his silence rather implies that that opinion was born of the false rumors of the Arians, and afterward received strength through the schismatics, who forged fictitious Epistles in Liberius's name, or adopted those which the Arians had already before foisted upon Liberius.

[159] Let us now enumerate all the foundations upon which the opinion of the prevarication of Liberius the Pope rests, Upon what ruinous foundations the opinion of Liberius's lapse that we may see more clearly how feeble and ruinous they are. Let the words of Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15, go first, however: When Eudoxius, and those who with him favored the opinion of Aëtius, had received at Antioch the Epistle of Hosius (after his lapse), they published by scattered rumors (in Greek, they feigned) that Liberius too had condemned the word Consubstantial, and confessed the Son unlike the Father. This calumny Philostorgius adopted, book 2, number 3, since he asserts the same about Liberius and Hosius, and writes, against manifest truth, that both were sent back to their See at the same time. Wherefore the authority of Philostorgius, which is otherwise slight too in matters transacted between Catholics and Arians, as being that of an Arian man, is here plainly none. The second foundation of that opinion is the four Epistles forged in Liberius's name, whether they were struck out by the Arians, like several others, or by schismatics who followed afterward — which we cannot know for certain, nor does it help to examine. That credit was given to these Epistles in the middle age, while criticism flourished little, I by no means wonder, and therefore neither can I wonder that the opinion of Liberius's lapse became common among the Latins, but not so among the Greeks. But that those Epistles were received with the same readiness by the critics of the past and of this century, and namely by Tillemont, who commonly professes a rigid criticism, I wonder more. Yet he boldly pronounces, in Note 55 on the Arians, that Liberius's prevarication cannot be called into doubt, after the things which Liberius himself said about it. So much, forsooth, does that severe critic attribute to those Epistles, of which Baronius had already called two supposititious, and which he did not even take pains to defend, but preferred everywhere to cite as legitimate.

[160] The third foundation of the Liberian lapse is the Fragments rests, on which, against all sound criticism, Nicolas Le Fèvre bestowed the name of St. Hilary. Baronius in the Appendix of tome 3 at the year 357 asserts at various times that those Fragments are of an uncertain author, and unworthy of the name of St. Hilary. But Tillemont, severe where it pleases him, seems everywhere to attribute to them the same authority as to the Works of St. Hilary themselves. I confess that others too, nay sometimes our own Elders, cited the same Fragments under the name of St. Hilary. But it is one thing to cite some Work under the name of him to whom you find it attributed, without further examination; another to number it among the undoubted Works of St. Hilary, as Tillemont does

in tome 7, in St. Hilary, article 13. For this seems to me the mark rather of a blind man than of a critic. The fourth foundation of Liberius's lapse is two texts from the Works of St. Athanasius, recited at number 117, which I have shown to have been afterward intruded into the books of that Saint so incongruously that they do not cohere with what precedes and follows, so that it is not likely that St. Athanasius wished to spoil his own reasonings with them. The fifth foundation is two passages brought from those Works of St. Jerome which beyond all the rest have been most interpolated. And those assertions are such that they neither agree with the other assertions of St. Jerome, and also conflict with one another, and contain manifest errors. Wherefore we cannot prudently believe that they are Jerome's; but we believe that they, with several other things, were inserted into those Works of his.

[161] is shown by the enumeration of them all. There remains the lying preface prefixed to the Libellus precum of the schismatics Marcellinus and Faustinus, in which on page 3 these things are read: After two years Constantius came to Rome, and is entreated for Liberius by the people: who presently assenting says: You have Liberius, who, such as he set out from you, will return better. But this he indicated about his consent, by which he had given his hand to perfidy. In the third year Liberius returns, and the Roman people went out to meet him with joy. I do not dispute whether the preface be that of Marcellinus and Faustinus themselves, or of another schismatic, as some deservedly judge. For the passage itself bears manifest marks of falsity. Constantius is asserted to have assented at once to the prayers of the Romans, whereas nevertheless Liberius remained in exile nearly a whole year after that fictitious promise of Constantius. But if he had already then given his hand to perfidy, as the calumniator asserts, there was no reason why Constantius should defer Liberius's return. Wherefore the author of the preface either ascribed a false answer to Constantius, whom Sozomen and Theodoret narrate to have really answered otherwise to the people, or, if perhaps among other things Constantius answered something similar, because he hoped that Liberius would at last be bent, he ascribed a false interpretation to Constantius's answer: for it is established that Liberius at that time at least had not yet consented to the will of the Arians. And so all the foundations of the Liberian lapse are equally ruinous, and are overturned at the least impulse of critical examination.

[162] But the Fathers were silent about Liberius's lapse, Since therefore all that is asserted about Liberius's lapse has for foundation documents so uncertain and conflicting with one another, we ought not to wonder that none of the holy Fathers who lived with Liberius, or who after Liberius in the fourth and fifth century illustrated the Church by their writings, made mention of Liberius's lapse even by the least word. They could not narrate a lapse which they found asserted in no authentic document: for they did not give credit to the calumnies of the Arians or the Luciferians, who seem alone to have scattered the report about Liberius's lapse. What reason will our adversaries now find by which they may make the silence of so many Fathers probable in their own opinion? For all those Fathers who contended against the Arians were silent about Liberius's lapse; and they were so silent that from their silence we can rightly gather that the Arians did not dare afterward to object to the Fathers the calumny about Liberius's lapse forged at the beginning. The Arians themselves therefore by their silence condemned that earlier calumny. For indeed Liberius struck the Arians bravely after the synod of Rimini, as we shall see. How great was their modesty, if they had once had Liberius agreeing with them, and even so never objected inconstancy to him?

[163] nor did the Arians object it to the Catholics. Nevertheless neither St. Hilary nor St. Phœbadius, who wrote against the Arians next after Liberius's return, made mention of Liberius's lapse. Hosius's lapse Hilary frequently records, as we have already seen; Liberius's nowhere. That the same Hosius's lapse was objected to the Catholics by the Arians St. Phœbadius testifies in the Lyons Library of the Fathers, tome 4, page 305, writing thus: But I am not ignorant that, when all these things have been discussed and set forth in the light of public understanding, the name of Hosius, a most ancient priest and one of ever ready faith, is being tempered as a kind of battering-ram against us, by which the rashness of contradiction may be repelled. S. Phœbadius answers, neither denying nor affirming Hosius's lapse. What alone pertains to our purpose is this, that the Arians could in the same way have objected Liberius's authority, if he had consented to them; or the Semiarians, if he had lent his assent to their tenets. But the Arians are never read to have done this, never the Semiarians, whom we shall afterward see professing the Nicene faith under Liberius. Liberius's lapse is not touched upon, whether by asserting it, or by merely recording it as objected, or by relating an amendment following the lapse, by any of the Fathers, Greek or Latin, who were so numerous after Liberius in the IV, the fifth, and the following centuries. All the historians of any name who flourished in the same and the next following centuries are silent about it, nay even the later Greeks, so that everything seems to have been drawn by the Latins of the middle age from supposititious documents, and from the calumnies of the Arians and Luciferians.

§ X. The opinions of those who will have it that Liberius subscribed to the first, second or third Sirmian formula are examined separately: whether he subscribed to the 12 anathemas of the council of Ancyra?

[ ] Many will have it that Liberius subscribed to the first Sirmian formula: I proceed now to examine the opinions of those who fight with one another about the Sirmian formula to which they believe Liberius subscribed. For some will have it that he subscribed to the first, others to the second, others to the third. But if I shall show that none of the three opinions is probable, as I trust I shall clearly prove, the studious reader will be able thence legitimately to infer that the very opinion about Liberius's lapse is not probable enough; but took its origin from the calumnies of the Arians and of the Schismatics, to which a credulous posterity gave credit. Tillemont, Note 55 on the Arians, inquires at length whether Liberius seems to have subscribed to the first or the second Sirmian formula, and at once at the beginning of the discussion professes that the difficulty of that examination is immense, and at the end says that it is perhaps better to remain in doubt than to decide anything for either side. From this alone let the reader gather how certain the subscription itself is. Nevertheless Tillemont shows himself more inclined to the first than to the second, not even discussing the third. Baronius at the year 357, number 38, embraced the same opinion about a subscription to the first formula, composed against Photinus. Noël Alexandre in the Ecclesiastical History of the IV century, dissertation 32, article 1, fights for the same formula, as do most others, whom it would be long to enumerate. And that formula St. Hilary recites, and sets forth as Catholic, in the book On the Synods from number 38 to 63, where he says: But nothing ought to seem wonderful to you, dearest brethren, that expositions of faith have been begun so frequently. For so great is the peril of the Eastern churches that it is rare to find either priests or people of this faith (of what sort it is, do you judge). For by certain men authority has ill been given to impiety: and by the exiles of the bishops, whose cause you are not ignorant of, the strength of the profane has been increased. The council of Sirmium, in which Photinus was condemned and the aforesaid formula of faith framed, more recent historians commonly fix, from Socrates and Sozomen, in the year 351, with Petavius, who proves it was held in that year in his Annotations on S. Epiphanius, page 317 and following.

[165] their opinion is made probable by no authority or likely reason: Now let us weigh how probable it is that Liberius subscribed to the said formula of the year 351. First, none of the ancients ever wrote that it was proposed to Liberius for subscription, or even to any other after the Sirmian council of the year 351. Secondly, it was rare at the end of the year 358, while the aforesaid Hilary was writing, to find priests or people of the faith contained in that formula in the East, and no less rare in Thrace, where Liberius was in exile. Who therefore in the years 357 and 358 would have offered it to Liberius for subscription? Not Demophilus, who was bishop of Berœa, not Valens or Ursacius, who until the middle of the year 358 prevailed with Constantius: for all those three were Arians, whose strength was increased by the exiles of the Catholic bishops, and who were bringing to birth more open impieties, which they brought forth in the second Sirmian formula. Thirdly, neither Liberius nor the other bishops who in the year 355 were driven into exile were ordered to subscribe to a Sirmian formula, but to condemn St. Athanasius. Why then shall we say that they were afterward solicited to it, when the Arians were meditating other formulas, and were little concerned about that one? Wherefore I do not hesitate to assert that a subscription to that formula is asserted by more recent writers without any ancient author, without any suitable reason, without any likelihood, nay against all likelihood. This the aforesaid Petavius saw, page 316, even though he did not weigh all our arguments, and therefore he said: But this is most certain, that he did not subscribe to that former one published against Photinus; and, if of the three Sirmian ones he admitted any, he approved no other than the second, to which Hosius also assented. Rightly says Petavius, not maintaining that Liberius subscribed to the second, as some wrongly assert of him; but certainly excluding the first and the third, and greatly doubting about the second, as he declares in express words.

[166] what Tillemont and Alexandre brought forward for it The aforesaid Tillemont and Noël Alexandre allege for the first formula the words from the Fragments ridiculously attributed to St. Hilary. But I look for some Œdipus, that he may be able to know whether those words were written in St. Hilary's age, or many centuries later. The words, however, which are read in Fragment 6 in the Benedictine edition, page 1337, I subjoin: But the perfidy written down at Sirmium, which Liberius calls Catholic, set forth to him by Demophilus, these are they who composed it: Narcissus, Theodorus, Basilius, Eudoxius, Demophilus, Cecropius, Silvanus, Ursacius, Valens, Evagrius, Hyrenius, Exuperius, Terentianus, Bassus, Gaudentius, Macedonius, Marthus, Acticus, Julius, Surinus, Simplicius and Junior … all heretics. Having recited these words, they teach that many of the bishops enumerated were certainly not the authors of the second Sirmian formula, which I gladly acknowledge to be most true. But I shall not equally admit what Tillemont infers from it, that therefore it can scarcely be doubted that the said bishops are the authors of the first Sirmian formula. For that this consequence might be legitimate, many things had first to be proved, of which Tillemont or Alexandre proved nothing, and no patron of their opinion will ever prove anything, so far as I judge. Baronius and Petavius denied that the words alleged are St. Hilary's, and Baronius denied the whole medley of Fragments to Hilary; and Petavius on page 317 speaks thus: But whatever is to be thought of those Fragments, this subscription certainly does not seem to be from Hilary's hand, but from that of some unskilled man, who had not sufficiently perceived the divisions of the Arian sect. Wherefore Tillemont ought not merely to have wondered at Petavius's answer; but to have proved first that those Fragments are St. Hilary's, and then that those very words, however alien

they be from St. Hilary's mind, are nevertheless Hilary's. This he did not dare even to attempt, as neither concerning the Epistles foisted upon Liberius; but everywhere with a wonderful confidence of assertion he wished to supply what was lacking to the authority of the documents which he produces. Thirdly, that the consequence might be legitimate, it had to be proved that all the bishops enumerated were present at the council of Sirmium in the year 351; and that it is truly said by the author that all were heretics. Fourthly it had to be proved that that writer did not err about the formula to which Liberius subscribed; and fifthly, that he did not take an Epistle foisted upon Liberius for a true Epistle of his.

[167] But let us show how ineptly the words alleged are attributed to St. Hilary: from the Fragments, as they are called, of Hilary, for concerning all the Fragments the same has been proved before. St. Hilary explains the whole Sirmian formula as Catholic, as Tillemont confesses, in the book On the Synods, drawn up a little after Liberius's return. How therefore, after three or four years, could the same confession be called by him an Arian perfidy? Did it in three or four years, without any change, become Arian from Catholic? Would anyone bear a man, if someone should substitute Hilary himself for Liberius, and in Annotations upon his own book On the Synods should speak thus? This is the Arian perfidy. And: But the perfidy written down at Sirmium, which Hilary calls Catholic etc. No one will doubt that he would do injury to St. Hilary who should subjoin an annotation of that kind to his book, and above all if for that cause he should traduce St. Hilary as a prevaricator. With what judgment therefore those words are attributed to St. Hilary, I should like someone to explain to me. Was it lawful for Hilary to reprehend in Liberius what he himself did much more abundantly? For that formula he not only sets forth at length as Catholic, but pursues with many eulogies. Besides, Hilary would not have called all the bishops reviewed heretics. For the Semiarians in the book On the Synods he everywhere treats as brethren, and at number 88 thus addresses them: Grant me the pardon, brethren, which I have so often asked. You are not Arians: why, by denying the homoousion, are you reckoned Arians?

[168] The same was the mind of St. Athanasius in his book On the Synods, it is plainly inept and null. in which at number 41 he speaks thus: But men who receive indeed all the other things written at Nicæa, yet are doubtful about the word Consubstantial alone, it is fitting not to regard as enemies. For we do not attack men as Ariomaniacs, or adversaries of the Fathers; but we discuss as brethren with brethren, who are of the same opinion as we, one name only being brought into controversy. For since they confess that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and not of another substance, and that he is not a creature or a work; but a genuine and natural offspring, and that from eternity together with the Father the Word and the Wisdom exists, they are not far from receiving the word Consubstantial. Such is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote about the faith. Yet this very Basil of Ancyra is among the bishops enumerated, as also Silvanus of Tarsus, afterward joined in great friendship with S. Basil the Great, who, if he was at one time among the Semiarians, was afterward certainly a Catholic, and such he died. There were probably several others among them either only Semiarians or even Catholics, whom St. Hilary would not have called heretics; but the unskilled copyist, who composed those annotations perhaps some centuries later, did not sufficiently know how the Semiarians were treated by the Fathers before many of them fell into the Macedonian heresy. Wherefore, so long as our adversaries bring forward that authority alone, it will be to me in the same place as if they had brought forward none. For the first unskillfulness of that man was to adopt a fictitious epistle of Liberius for a true one; the second, to enumerate many bishops whom he did not sufficiently know, and boldly to pronounce them all heretics. The third, rashly to divine of what formula there was question in the fictitious Epistle. But so great was the man's rashness, not to say frenzy, that upon Liberius, who died a Catholic, whom the Fathers celebrate with eulogies, whom the sacred Calendars commemorate, whose sanctity Ambrose testifies, he pronounces anathema three times. Unless these are the acts of a frenzied man rather than of a sane one, I do not know what it is to rave.

[169] [Those who will have it that Liberius subscribed to the second are refuted from Sozomen,] Let us pass to those who will have it that the second Sirmian formula, which is certainly heretical, was received by Liberius. For this opinion Tillemont sets first Blondel, a heterodox writer, and wrongly joins to him Petavius, since the latter on page 316 openly declares that he is not disputing whether he subscribed to any formula, and expressly says that it may have been that he by no means subscribed to heretical depravity; but that the heretics falsely boasted that the heresy had been approved by him. That this in fact happened, Sozomen, cited at number 159, is the authority. Tillemont besides observes that the time at which Liberius subscribed favors the second. But the contrary is truer, unless he only meant to say that the time is less repugnant to the second than to the first, which I shall readily admit. The second Sirmian formula was composed in the year 357, probably in the month of August or September. But Liberius was sent back to Rome in the year 358. But since Hosius, after that formula had been received, was sent back into Spain, we cannot doubt that Liberius would likewise have been sent back to Rome as soon as he had received the same impiety, since Constantius had promised the Romans Liberius's return. But what Liberius had not done, Eudoxius and other Arians in the East published by false rumors that he had done, as Sozomen affirms. And that this testimony of Sozomen is true, the lying Philostorgius sufficiently shows, who in book 4, chapter 3, makes Hosius and Liberius subscribe together. Let us examine therefore whether to Sozomen, who in express words denies a subscription to the second formula, and charges the Arians with a lying calumny, we can gather other witnesses.

[170] from St. Hilary, St. Phœbadius, St. Hilary in the book On the Synods not only frequently says that Hosius received the second Sirmian formula, no mention anywhere being made of Liberius, but also at number 87 clearly implies that Hosius was the only one of those who were not Arians who had received that formula, or who had consented that not only the word ὁμοούσιος, consubstantial, but also ὁμοιοούσιος, of like substance, should be omitted concerning the Son of God — which was first attempted in that formula by the Arians. For arguing against the Semiarians, and proving that on account of the perverse exposition of certain men the word Consubstantial is not to be omitted, because like arguments could be brought also against the word of like substance, he speaks thus: I beg you, let no other of these be found, save the old man Hosius, and he too too fond of his own sepulchre, who thinks that both must be passed over in silence. These words, I say, imply that besides the Arians Hosius alone, and he led by an excessive love of returning to his fatherland, decreed that both ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιοούσιον should be omitted, as was done in the said formula. Hence the Arians objected to the Catholics the authority of Hosius alone, not of Liberius the Roman Pontiff (which certainly would have been of no small weight), as we understand from the little work of S. Phœbadius against the Arians already cited. S. Phœbadius answers: It cannot be prescribed by his authority, because either he errs now, or he always erred… For if for nearly ninety years he believed ill, I shall not believe that after ninety he thinks rightly. Those who objected these things about Hosius, would they have kept silence about Liberius, if he had admitted the same formula? Let those believe it who have believed not a few other things, however incredible, about Liberius; but to me this very thing seems utterly incredible.

[171] If the authority alleged of SS. Hilary and Phœbadius, who first of all wrote after the lapse of Hosius, and by several others they are refuted. and probably while he was living, does not suffice, we can add Socrates and Sozomen, both agreeing about Hosius's lapse, but narrating the contrary about Liberius. S. Epiphanius likewise, Heresy 86, number 14, affirms that the Arians marvelously triumphed over Hosius's lapse, whom nevertheless he charges with fraud in these words: On which account they (the Arians) thought they could condemn the Church by those letters which they took away by fraud from the venerable bishop Hosius, in which "of unlike essence" is read. If the consent of Hosius, perhaps fraudulently obtained and in part fictitious, was matter of so great a triumph, what triumphs would the Arians not have sung, if they could have said as much of the Roman Pontiff? They attempted it indeed by calumny; but the mouths of the slanderers were quickly stopped, as is gathered from the silence which presently followed. Sulpicius Severus, book 2, chapter 40, relates the common opinion about Hosius's lapse, and scarcely believes it on account of his former constancy, unless, he says, with his age failing (for he was more than a hundred years old, as S. Hilary relates in his Epistles) he became doting. But again not a word about Liberius's lapse, whose return he attributes to the tumults stirred up at Rome. Evidently Sulpicius had indeed read the Epistles of St. Hilary; but he had not seen the Hilarian Fragments, whose disordered heap could not stand in the way of a new Work being struck out for St. Hilary, in which Liberius himself should confess his own lapse, in which he should be said to have approved the Arian perfidy, in which finally St. Hilary too should inflict an anathema upon him. This Work of St. Hilary, I say, Sulpicius had not seen: nor indeed is it any wonder, since two hundred years earlier it did not yet exist. Wherefore there is no need to answer more to the Annotations of an unknown man, who, unless perhaps he be a Luciferian schismatic, seems to have lived at that time in which the opinion about Liberius's lapse had prevailed.

[172] Pagi at the year 357, number 12, gave from Valois a new formula of faith Those who say that Liberius subscribed to the third are refuted. to which Liberius subscribed, and calls it the third Sirmian. But Pagi and Valois confuse various things there, in the Annotations on Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15. Each will have it that in the assembly of Sirmium of the year 358, at which were the legates of the council of Ancyra, namely Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, a formula of faith was composed which Liberius received. Each adds that this seems to be the formula of faith which Hilary calls a perfidy written by the Arians. I truly pity men otherwise learned, when I see such great trifles brought forward by them so confidently. For if they had attended a little to the authors of the formula whom the masked Hilary reviews in the Fragments (I gave the names at number 166), and had compared with them the bishops who were in the Sirmian assembly of the year 358, out of the twenty-two whom the author of that Fragment sets down for the formula, they would have found only three, namely Basil of Ancyra, Valens and Ursacius. No other of the twenty-two seems to have been present at that assembly, and certainly Eudoxius of Antioch was not there, as is clear from Sozomen, chapters 13 and 14. But, to omit other things, in that assembly, certainly in the year 358, no new formula of faith was composed, as is plain enough from the book On the Synods, in which St. Hilary sets forth at length the acts of that assembly of a few bishops. The third Sirmian formula was composed in the following year 359, as

St. Athanasius teaches in his book On the Synods, where he recites it at number 8 under this title: The Catholic faith was published, our most pious lord and emperor Constantius Augustus, eternal and venerable, distinguished by victories, being present, under the consulship of the Flavii Eusebius and Hypatius, most illustrious men, at Sirmium on the eleventh Kalends of June; that is, the XXII of May of the year 359. But Liberius had already in the preceding year returned to Rome. And that there was no intermediate formula between that one and the second Sirmian is gathered from the same book of St. Athanasius, in which he numbers all the formulas of the Arians, and after the second Sirmian, recited at number 29, presently at number 29 proceeds to the one just named. To this formula therefore Liberius did not subscribe, as being composed after his return; nor is it probable that he subscribed to any of the three.

[173] The acts of the Sirmian assembly of the year 358 are set forth, Someone will now ask what was done in the Sirmian assembly of the year 358. I answer that that assembly was held at the entreaty of the legates of the council of Ancyra, held in the same year, in which the second Sirmian formula had been reprobated. It was therefore treated before Constantius, through the bishops Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius, that those very men who were the chief authors of the impious formula, namely Valens, Ursacius and Germinius, should be compelled to subscribe to the anathemas composed against it at Ancyra, and so to condemn the open impiety which they themselves had brought forth. These things are manifest from the book On the Synods, which St. Hilary wrote a little afterward to the bishops of Gaul, who had condemned the same formula. For at number 2 he congratulates the Gauls on the Sirmian formula condemned by them. And presently at number 3 he says that by their example the Easterns did the same, yet not by framing a new formula of faith, but by certain decrees of their own opinions. Nevertheless a distinction must be made between those things which were done at Sirmium through the legates, and the acts themselves of the council of Ancyra. These St. Hilary says in the same place were done not without some scandal to the ears and offense to pious solicitude. But that the things which were done at Sirmium through the legates lack all reprehension, Hilary says in words presently to be given. Namely, out of the several anathemas framed at Ancyra, the last of which abrogated the word Consubstantial concerning the Son of God — which St. Hilary deservedly disapproved — twelve only were carried by the legates to Sirmium, that they might be strengthened by the subscription of all, the article about abrogating the word Consubstantial being omitted, with certain others.

[274] in which only twelve of the Ancyran anathemas were received, But the twelve anathemas which the legates of Ancyra carried to Sirmium St. Hilary recites and explains from number 12 to 27, where he subjoins: We have run through, dearest brethren, all the definitions of faith published by the Eastern bishops, which they framed against the heresy lately emerging, a synod having been gathered among themselves. And a little afterward: And this indeed, dearest brethren, is the whole doctrine of the faith which was published by a few Easterns, in comparison with the whole body, in these very days in which you rejected the heresy thrust upon you (namely in the second Sirmian formula). He does not say that all this is the doctrine which was framed at Ancyra, but all which was published at Sirmium, and therefore he carefully adds published, and which was published. For clearly toward the end of the Work he implies that the acts of Ancyra were not unknown to him, and that they were not equally irreprehensible with those which were done at Sirmium through the legates of the council. Addressing the legates at number 90, St. Hilary writes thus about these things: For I fear, brethren, the heresies of the East, springing up at every season: and why should I say that I fear? I have already read them too. Nothing indeed in these things which you, ministers of the embassy undertaken, brought to Sirmium to be subscribed, concerning the assent of certain Easterns, nothing of suspicion has been left. But they had from the outset something of offense, which I believe you, most holy men, Basil and Eustathius and Eleusius, passed over in silence, that it might be abolished, lest any scandal should be brought. Which, if they were rightly written, ought not to have been passed over in silence. But if, because they were not rightly written, they are now passed over in silence; care must be taken that they be not at some time spoken. For sparing you, I as yet say nothing about them: yet you acknowledge with me that not all the faith written at Ancyra was so. I do not speak the tale of rumor: I hold the credit of letters, not taken from laymen, but given by bishops. And so it is clear that St. Hilary distinguished between the decrees of Ancyra, which he does not all approve, and the part of them received at Sirmium, or the 12 anathemas.

[175] But these do not contain a full formula of faith, as will be plain to one who inspects them, nor was any formula of faith framed there. but a condemnation of certain heretical opinions, and chiefly of those which were contained in the second Sirmian formula. Wrongly therefore do Valois and Pagi assert that in the Sirmian assembly of the year 358 the third Sirmian formula was framed; and still more negligently do they add that this seems to be the formula which St. Hilary called the Arian perfidy. Plainly iron are the words of Valois, and unworthy of a learned man: This is, I think, the formula which Hilary in the Fragments calls "the perfidy written by the Arians," and which Liberius calls Catholic, and which he says in the Epistle to the Easterns that he received when offered to him by Demophilus. For which deed Hilary three times pronounces anathema upon Liberius. St. Hilary says that nothing of suspicion has been left in the things which were subscribed at Sirmium in the year 358. But if we believe Valois divining, he calls these in the Fragments the perfidy written by the Arians. The bishops Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius brought them to Sirmium and took care that they be subscribed. But Valois, who will have it that Liberius subscribed in that assembly, divines that this is the formula delivered to Liberius by Demophilus, although Demophilus at that time was not at Sirmium. For his subscription to this formula Hilary three times pronounced anathema upon Liberius, if we believe Valois. But Hilary discourses with those very legates, who were the authors of all that was then done, as with brethren, and pursues their acts at Sirmium with many praises. Wherefore such conjectures are no less contrary to the honor of St. Hilary than to that of Liberius, and lack all probability. But Valois and Pagi saw that a subscription to neither the first nor the second Sirmian formula could probably be attributed to Liberius, and on that occasion Valois invented a third Sirmian formula before that one which really is the third, but was certainly framed after Liberius's return.

[176] The words of Sozomen deceived Valois, which he does not seem to have compared with St. Hilary's book On the Synods; Although Sozomen said that Liberius was present at that assembly, for according to this Sozomen must be expounded, or, if he cannot be, must be convicted of error. Sozomen believed that Liberius took part in the Sirmian assembly with four African bishops. But neither of Liberius nor of those African bishops is there any mention in Hilary, or in any other, so that I had rather believe that Sozomen erred, especially since he inserts other errors too into the same account, than that this was known to him alone. Let us hear nevertheless the whole context of Sozomen, book 4, chapter 15. Not long after, he says, the emperor, having returned from the City of Rome to Sirmium, when the Western bishops had sent an embassy to him, summoned Liberius to himself from Berœa. And when the legates of the bishops of the East were present, having called together the priests who were in his retinue, he began to compel Liberius to profess that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father. And Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius, who had chief authority with him, pressed and urged the emperor to this. Who, when they had thrown into one little book (or writing, in Greek γραφὴν) the things which had been decreed against Paul of Samosata and against Photinus at Sirmium, and besides the formula of faith published at the dedication of the Antiochene basilica, as though certain men under pretext of the word Consubstantial were trying to establish their own heresy, brought it about that Liberius, and Athanasius, Alexander, Severian and Crescens, bishops of Africa, consented to that formula (in Greek there is only to it, that is, to the little book or writing of which he had spoken). There consented likewise Ursacius and Germinius bishop of Sirmium, and Valens of Mursa, and as many bishops as were present from the parts of the East. But they also received in turn a confession from Liberius, in which he pronounced those estranged from the Church who should assert that the Son is not according to substance and in all things like the Father. Thus far Sozomen, most of whose assertions seem to have been unknown to St. Hilary, who was excellently informed about the acts of that Sirmian assembly.

[177] yet this does not become probable, because St. Hilary First, St. Hilary names no bishops in that assembly except the three legates of the council of Ancyra, Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius; and likewise three Arians who were commonly at the emperor's side, Ursacius, Valens and Germinius. These were compelled by twelve anathemas to condemn the second Sirmian formula. That the three former believed the same things as the Catholics about the Divinity of the Son of God, but wished the word Consubstantial to be omitted, because Paul of Samosata, Photinus and their followers had abused it, Hilary declares in various places. The same men he everywhere makes the actors against the authors of the second Sirmian formula; and he attributes to them all the glory of the condemned formula. But those who were compelled to subscribe he names Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, whom he implies to have been the chief authors of the impious formula, although they had not dared to promulgate it by themselves, but had done this through the emperor, as he says at number 78. But nowhere does he imply that any other subscribed at Sirmium, or that any other bishop at all was at Sirmium while those things were being done. For Hosius and Potamius he indeed names among the authors of the impious formula, but not as present when it was condemned. But of the three others at number 81 he thus makes mention, addressing the legates of the council of Ancyra: The Epistle which Valens and Ursacius and Germinius demanded from you at Sirmium concerning the exposition of the Homousion and the Homœusion, I have read. I understand that in certain points it is no less circumspect than free. And the very demonstration of the Homousion and the Homœusion has left no difficulty. And indeed about the Homœusion, which is "of like essence," the judgment is common. Those three alone are said to have asked an exposition from the legates, whence it becomes likely that the legates dealt with those alone before the emperor, especially since those legates had not set before themselves to act against Catholics, but against heretics and the authors of the heretical formula. Therefore in various places Hilary testifies that the heretics were compelled to condemn what they themselves had done, implying the three already mentioned.

[178] At number 3 he asserts that they were compelled to a profession of ignorance and error, so that by subscribing they should in turn condemn sets forth at length the acts there, and nowhere concerning Liberius what they had done. Again at number 27, after the anathemas have been set forth, he says of the legates: And those who had written this at Sirmium, confessing their ignorance, they compelled to the subscription of such decrees. Then at number 63, after he had censured Hosius, a professor of the second formula along with the Arians, he subjoins again about these men: Hence it is that some of those who before had written otherwise were compelled to the profession of subscribing the faith.

Nor do I complain of those most patient men, the Eastern bishops (Basil, Eustathius and Eleusius), for whom, after the will to blaspheme, a compelled profession of faith at least sufficed: for it seems matter for congratulation that amid so great a heretical obstinacy of blaspheming bishops any one of them should be received as penitent. Afterward, directing his discourse to the legates of the council of Ancyra, at number 79 he teaches that the Arians who had subscribed are not to be trusted: For they deceive, he says, as much as I both fear and as it seems to me, dearest brethren, they deceive, because they have always deceived: and that very present subscription is not free from falsity. For they excuse themselves that they wished the Homousion and the Homœusion to be passed over in silence, because they thought that one and the same thing was signified by both words. And when he had argued at length against that lying excuse, he subjoins: I do not much complain of the pardon which you gave: it is religious to reserve to God what is his, and the error of ignorance is human. But let the two bishops Valens and Ursacius now pardon me that I do not believe that they were ignorant, considering their age and their practice. And it is most difficult that they should not be thought to lie, who in another matter cannot clear themselves except by a lie.* He does not here join Germinius, because he was younger, and so more liable to error, and not yet convicted of lies, as Valens and Ursacius had been convicted of the lies scattered against St. Athanasius.

[179] All that has been alleged implies that in that Sirmian assembly action was taken solely against the authors of the impious formula, makes mention, or of the legates of the Westerns. Sozomen therefore, and that no controversy between Catholics and Semiarians was there handled. Wherefore it is false that Liberius was there solicited to profess that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father. For the anathema made at Ancyra against the word Consubstantial the legates themselves cut away, as Hilary implies in the words given at number 174, and this becomes most certain from the 12 anathemas recited by Hilary, among which that one is not found. They indeed omitted that word in their anathemas, which are not an entire profession of faith, but only a condemnation of heresy; but nowhere in them did they say that the word Consubstantial must be omitted in a full formula of faith. But what Sozomen says, that two formulas, namely the first Sirmian against Photinus and the Antiochene, were thrown together into one little book or writing, can be truly expounded in no other way than by saying that the anathemas which the legates brought to be subscribed were conformable to the said formulas of faith, and put together out of what they contained. Hence St. Hilary in the book On the Synods sets forth those two formulas also, the Antiochene at number 29 and following, the Sirmian from number 38 to 63, not because they were then renewed at Sirmium, but that the bishops of Gaul might perceive more clearly from several formulas of faith what the opinion of the Easterns about the faith then was. For at number 28, the exposition of the anathemas framed at that time having been given, when he wished to set forth also the formulas composed long before, he prefaces this reason: But since already in earlier and different times, many causes requiring it, it was necessary that other statements of faith should be written, of what sort these are will be understood from themselves. For when all the things which have been done by them are known, we shall then more easily and more fully bring a religious solution, agreeable to unity, of those matters about which there is question among us. He brings similar reasons at numbers 33 and 37, coming again to set forth other formulas. But nowhere does he imply that they were again in the year 358 proposed for subscription, so that Sozomen without doubt erred, if he meant this, as the words present it.

[180] who plainly errs there in many things, and confuses various matters, Sozomen certainly errs in this, that he says Liberius was solicited to profess that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father. He errs again, if it be understood, as the words have it, that a new formula of faith was there composed out of the preceding ones. He errs thirdly in the time, when he says: Not long after, the emperor, having returned from the City of Rome to Sirmium etc. For these words imply that those things were done at Sirmium as soon as Constantius had returned from Rome to Sirmium. But it is established that he returned in the year 357, and there passed the following winter. But those things which were done at Sirmium through the legates of the council of Ancyra did not happen before June of the year 358; so that not this assembly of bishops, but that in which Hosius accepted the second Sirmian formula, must be fixed at the time designated by Sozomen. Fourthly Sozomen errs when he joins to the assembly of the year 358 legates of the Western bishops, and then attributes to these the honor of the thing accomplished, in these words: These things having been rightly accomplished through the legates of the Westerns, the emperor granted Liberius leave to return to Rome. But in the assembly of which we treat nothing is attributed in Hilary to legates of the Westerns, nor do any legates of the Westerns seem to have taken part. Wherefore, if any legates of the Westerns, and chiefly of the Romans, came in the year 358 to Sirmium to Constantius to demand Liberius's return, and on that occasion Liberius was summoned to Sirmium, Sozomen will have confused the acts of the legates of the Westerns with the acts of the legates of the council of Ancyra: and this is most likely, since his whole account is full of confusion. Fifthly he probably errs when he attributes to the assembled bishops an Epistle which seems to have been given in Constantius's own name to the Romans while Liberius was returning. Sixthly he errs when he implies that the Roman Church was administered by Liberius and Felix together for some time.

[181] [erred likewise in this, and Liberius was sent back on account of the prayers of the Romans,] From so many errors therefore I not undeservedly infer that Sozomen does not deserve credit either in those things which he alone affirms about the presence of Liberius at that assembly, and about his acts there. For the silence alone of St. Hilary, who treats so at length of that Sirmian assembly, and of all other writers, about the presence of Liberius and of legates of the Westerns, makes it far more probable and likely that Liberius was not there then, but had before returned to Rome. But if any legates of the Western bishops, as becomes likely enough from the zeal of the Romans for Liberius, came in the year 358 to Constantius to demand Liberius's return, these could allege the kindled zeal of the Romans, and so obtain what they sought. For, as I proved in §7, most writers allege no other cause for Liberius's being sent back than the prayers and tumults of the Romans, earnestly demanding his return. Nor let anyone here say that it is not likely that Liberius was sent back by Constantius before he consented. For for a lesser cause St. Hilary was afterward sent back to his church. Each was sent into exile for refusing the condemnation of St. Athanasius, not for declining to subscribe to any formula. But that fervor of the Arians, desiring to confirm the condemnation of St. Athanasius by the subscription of all, seems to have slackened after he had fled from Alexandria about Easter of the year 356 and was seeking hiding places. Hence it is by no means to be wondered at that Constantius, according to his own inconstancy, at last acquiesced in the prayers of the Romans, and consented to Liberius's return.

perhaps coacta*

§ XI. The unhappy outcome of the council of Rimini: Liberius, opposing himself to it, is said to have lain hid: Felix was not then substituted as Pontiff for him.

[ ] The council of Rimini, held in the year 359, From the year 358, in which Liberius was sent back to Rome, the emperor Constantius wished to gather a new general council of the bishops of the East and of the West, as is plain from St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, and the Historians who flourished at the beginning of the following century. St. Athanasius in the book On the Synods, number 1, makes the Arians the authors of this council, and says that it was first decreed to hold that council at Nicæa in Bithynia. But, he says, a second order came forth, that the Western bishops should assemble at Rimini in Italy, but that the Easterns should be summoned to Seleucia which is called Rough, in Isauria. And the pretext of an assembly of this kind was that there should be treatment (as they boasted) about the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. For they had taken care to scatter that report, from Pannonia indeed Ursacius, Valens, and a certain Germinius: but from Syria Acacius, Eudoxius and Patrophilus, bishop of the city which took its name from the Scythians. I pass over other cities which were named for the council, before Rimini for the Westerns and Seleucia for the Easterns had been chosen. For at Rimini at last and at Seleucia in the year 359 those councils were held. The aforesaid Athanasius at number 8 says of the council of Rimini: Where more than four hundred bishops were found. St. Liberius, however, was not present, whether he was not asked, or was unwilling to come. If he was not commanded by the emperor to go to the council, as is more likely, this very thing implies that the Arians, who again prevailed with Constantius, did not desire that Liberius himself should take part in the council, because they had experienced his invincible fortitude.

[183] It does not pertain to our purpose to narrate the acts of the council of Rimini, [in which at last a formula of faith favoring the Arians was admitted; to it Liberius did not consent.] since Liberius had no part in them. Let it suffice to have said in general that by the Catholic bishops, who were far superior in number, the Catholic faith and the Nicene council were at first confirmed, but the Arians condemned. But things so well begun they befouled with a shameful end: for they allowed the name of substance or usia to be abolished, and, deceived by the guile of the Arians, admitted a confession of faith favoring the Arian heresy. Hence St. Jerome says of the council of Rimini, in the book against the Luciferians: Then the name of usia was abolished: then the condemnation of the Nicene faith was proclaimed. The whole world groaned, and marveled that it was Arian. Those bishops themselves marveled, namely, who had not sufficiently perceived the guiles and captious expressions of the Arians, when the Arians began to boast their palms. This, however, is certain, that many too succumbed from failure of constancy, because they too greatly desired to return to their own sees. Of the council of Seleucia I say nothing, except that most of those who were there were afterward compelled also to subscribe to the decrees of Rimini. Liberius, however, who was not present, never consented to the council of Rimini, as his successor S. Damasus writes with a Roman council of ninety bishops in an Epistle related in Theodoret, book 2, chapter 22, where he speaks thus: For no prejudice could arise from the number of those who assembled at Rimini, since it is established that neither the Roman bishop, whose opinion before all was to be sought, nor Vincent (of Capua), who for so many years preserved his priesthood unimpaired, nor others, lent any consent to statutes of this kind.

[184] [Some will have it that Liberius was for this reason again expelled from the City, which is less likely,] The most eminent Baronius at the year 359, numbers 36 and 37, observes that Liberius's exile is not rightly referred by Socrates and Rufinus to this time. He judges, however, that Liberius was again expelled from the City, and dwelt in the suburban cemeteries. The thing is certainly of itself likely, since Constantius wished that all should consent to the prevarication of the men of Rimini, and Liberius refused to do this: unless perhaps Constantius did not dare again to expel Liberius from the City for fear of the Romans, which seems to me no less likely

from his recent, and in some measure compelled, restoration to his See. For if he restored Liberius to the Romans in the year 358 on account of their prayers and seditions, as we saw in §7, if he did not resist those who expelled Felix against his own command, but consented, as we proved in that place, in these circumstances it becomes little likely that Constantius wished by a new expulsion of Liberius to exasperate the Romans again. Wherefore, since nearly all the ancient writers are silent about a second expulsion of Liberius, and Rufinus and Socrates erred only in the time, I should not dare to affirm for certain that Liberius was again expelled at this time. Sozomen indeed, book 4, chapter 19, relates something from the opinion of others about Liberius being again expelled from the City, where they say that Constantius permitted Valens and other Arian bishops to order the churches of the Western parts at their own discretion, and to promulgate the formula of faith read through at Rimini; but that those who refused to subscribe to that formula they should cast out of their churches, and set others in their place: and that these, having obtained license here, compelled the bishops by force to subscribe to that faith; but those who resisted they drove out of their own churches, and first of all Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome. But these things are likewise related by Socrates, book 2, chapter 37, whose opinion Sozomen there expresses, not his own. And since in both places the bishops of Rimini are said to have departed to their own sees, the council being broken up and against the emperor's will, which is plainly false, the rest too does not seem to be admitted as certain.

[185] [perhaps on account of the persecution he sought hiding places. For he is said to have dwelt in the cemeteries,] Nevertheless, since from Socrates and Sozomen, and also from Rufinus, book 10, chapter 21, and Theodoret, book 2, chapter 22, it is abundantly gathered that the persecution was great; and since in the Acts of Liberius, and in the Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs, Liberius is said at some time to have dwelt in the suburban cemeteries, one of two things seems to be said: either that Liberius was compelled to leave the City, or that he of his own accord sought hiding places, lest, as had happened before, he should unexpectedly be torn from the City. For the rest, says Baronius at number 37, in this last expulsion of Liberius (or withdrawal) we find that no bishop was substituted in his place, but that Damasus the presbyter was left as vicar by Liberius himself, whom, standing on the side of Felix (as has been shown), when Felix was dead, Liberius, concord having been entered upon, received back into the clergy together with the rest, with their offices and honors. These things indeed those most ancient Acts of Liberius the Pope have, gnawed by antiquity, depraved in many things, and weakened by some admixture and addition: from which at least this is not obscurely signified, that Liberius, driven from the City, dwelt in the suburban cemeteries called Novella and Ostrianum: whom, placed there, Damasus and others of the Roman clergy were wont to visit. Those ancient Acts, which Baronius here cites, were published by Coustant in the Appendix to the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, column 89 and following, and there Liberius at number 2 is said to have been ordered by Constantius to dwell outside the city. And it is added: And he dwelt three miles from the City of Rome, as it were an exile, in the cemetery of Novella on the Salarian Way. Then at number 3 he is said to have appointed Damasus the presbyter as his vicar; but Damasus is not said ever to have followed the party of Felix against Liberius. That the often mentioned Preface of a schismatic man has, which also makes Damasus a perjurer, and lies about him in many other things, as does the Libellus itself of Marcellinus and Faustinus, to which it is prefixed. Certainly we cannot believe both: for Liberius would not have made his vicar a perjured man, and one lately reconciled to himself.

[186] In the twin Life of S. Damasus, both of which are prefixed to his Works published at Rome in the year 1638, and that he then had Damasus as vicar, which indeed is not certain, the same things are said about Damasus the presbyter being appointed vicar by Liberius while he stayed in the cemetery. The said Lives are indeed not free from many faults, nay not even from fables; yet since the Life of Damasus, which begins on page 40 and was published from a codex of the archive of the canons of S. Peter, contains also many true things consonant with ancient writers, I do not indeed know whether credit ought to be denied to all of them on account of the Preface of a lying schismatic. For his slanders and calumnies are abundantly convicted of falsity by the testimonies of councils and of contemporary Fathers about S. Damasus's probity and innocence. Wherefore, even if I should by no means wish to deny that those Acts of Liberius are of small authority on account of the ignorance and ineptitudes of their author, and that the aforesaid Acts of Damasus are not much better, being defiled with many errors too; yet I should not wish to refute their assertions from the little work of a schismatic man, who certainly lies in many things about Damasus, as Coustant does in his Admonition to the Acts of Liberius. Certainly French writers would not undeservedly take it ill if anyone with rash criticism should wish to give credit to those heretical writers against St. Hilary, and to make him a prevaricator and a favorer of heretics, as those schismatics do on page 29. Wherefore I shall gladly admit that those Acts of St. Liberius are the work of an unskilled and inept man, and that from them it does not become certain that Damasus was Liberius's vicar; but I shall never say that this assertion is rightly refuted by those words in which Damasus is traduced by his schismatic enemies as ambitious and perjured.

[187] Coustant himself warns, in his Admonitions to the Epistles of S. Damasus, nor yet is it certainly proved false from the schismatic Libellus. that what is read in the Libellus of the Luciferians, offered to the emperors in the name of the presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, in favor of Ursinus and against Damasus, is of suspect or even of no credit. But since such are the things by which Coustant assails Damasus's vicariate, I wonder that things said to be of no credit are so brought forward as if they were certain, and that by them the vicariate of S. Damasus under Liberius should become certainly fictitious. Wherefore I altogether require other arguments for denying with certainty the vicariate of S. Damasus; nay, I have hitherto found no argument by which it can be proved that Damasus ever adhered to Felix against Liberius: which not even the schismatics themselves ever clearly declare in their Libellus or Preface. Baronius indeed believed it, but nowhere proved it. If it were established that Damasus communicated with Felix while Liberius was in exile, I should judge that Felix had been reconciled with Liberius himself before the latter's return. For although Felix was ordained by the Arians, and therefore his entry was faulty, yet since he was a Catholic, he could reconcile Liberius to himself, either because he had suffered violence, or because he seriously repented of the episcopate faultily undertaken and of the communion entered into with the Arians. For this conjecture is made not improbable by the things which followed at Liberius's return, when Felix either of his own accord yielded, or at least did not care to retain the Pontificate for himself: for I should not certainly believe the schismatics, who alone on page 4 assert that Felix after the first expulsion wished to take possession again. And so I should say that Damasus communicated with Felix when the latter was reconciled to Liberius himself, and perhaps his vicar; but nowhere do I find whether Damasus communicated with Felix while Liberius was in exile.

[188] [Someone will have it that Liberius yielded the Pontificate, and that Felix was elected,] Francesco Bianchini, in his Annotations on Athanasius the Librarian, tome 3, page 15 and following, in Liberius and Felix, since he judges that S. Felix must altogether be numbered among the legitimate Pontiffs, brings forward a conjecture about the Pontificate resigned of his own accord by Liberius, and Felix elected in his place, which on page 16 he expresses in these words: In the year CCCLVIII, on the X day of March, Liberius is again in exile after seven months and nine days counted from his return, and yields the Pontificate. In the year CCCLVIII S. Felix is legitimately elected successor on the IX day of August. In the year CCCLIX S. Felix, expelled, either is slain as a martyr, or yields the Pontificate. The Episcopate is vacant… In the year CCCLIX, on the XXI day of December, Liberius is again elected Roman Pontiff, who presides over the Apostolic See until his death. So the learned Bianchini, enumerating minutely the years, months and days which in the most faulty catalogues are attributed to Liberius and Felix. But this whole edifice lacks a foundation. None of the ancients ever implied even by the least word that Liberius ever yielded the Pontificate, and that for that cause Felix was legitimately substituted for him. Of a repeated election of Liberius no one ever made mention. A scrupulous inquiry into years, months and days could have place if it were first established about the legitimate Pontificate of Felix. But, if Liberius had laid down the Pontificate at the time of his second exile, that cession could not be fixed in the year 358, in which he returned from the first exile; but would have to be fixed after the council of Rimini, that is, at the end of the year 359 or the beginning of the year 360: for about that time Liberius again left the City, if he was really driven out, or of his own accord hid himself. Wherefore Bianchini labored in vain when he strove from the faulty numbers of the catalogues to assign their times to two Pontiffs, and from a Pontificate of Felix not well proved to infer cessions and elections never asserted.

[189] because Felix is reckoned among the Pontiffs in various catalogues, Baronius, as we saw at number 107, believed that Felix was made Pontiff when Liberius returned, received with the joy of all, and makes the people run to Felix without any mention of an election; whereas it is established that the people ran to Liberius, and that Felix, unless he yielded of his own accord, was expelled by the people. Bianchini without doubt saw that Pontiffs are not created in that way, and for that cause has recourse to legitimate cessions and elections, but ones resting on no one's testimony. But it had first to be proved by certain arguments that Felix was Roman Pontiff in a legitimate manner. This, whatever our Elders too may have thought in various places, I am by no means able to find. The chief arguments for Felix's legitimate Pontificate are brought forward by Schelstrate, On the Antiquities of the Church, dissertation 2, chapter 9, number XI, where he affirms that among the writers of the middle age there is such agreement about Felix's Pontificate that Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, and Theophanes place Felix in the series of the Roman Pontiffs, and that all the catalogues, both manuscript and printed, acknowledge him. So two catalogues put together in the time of Pope Vigilius… The second Catalogue also, written in the VI century etc. Presently he adds four other catalogues along with Anastasius, then Ivo of Chartres, Anselm of Lucca, and the Series of the Roman Pontiffs painted in the church of S. Paul outside the City. Of these things I shall deny nothing, because I see Felix inserted in all the catalogues. But since the most ancient of these Catalogues are nearly two centuries later than Liberius and Felix, and are defiled with many errors, and since the writers alleged are much more recent still; I could wish that in place of all these the testimony of a single Augustine or Optatus of Milevis could have been brought forward, by which we should be rendered far more certain about Felix's true Pontificate than by all the authorities alleged.

[190] For Optatus of Milevis, book 2 against Parmenian, carries down a catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs to Siricius; but a most weighty authority stands against his Pontificate, but Augustine, Epistle 53 (elsewhere 165), down to Anastasius, each down to the time in which he flourished and wrote. And Optatus

lived at the very time in which Liberius sat, so that he could in no way have been ignorant of Felix's Pontificate, since he wrote under Siricius. But if anyone should wish that Felix's Pontificate was indeed legitimate, but that it was unknown to S. Augustine, he would certainly do injury to that most learned Father, so near to the times of Liberius and Felix that he could not, save by supine ignorance, be unaware of what was done at Rome between Liberius and Felix when he was a boy, or at least who were the Pontiffs in those times. Wherefore it is most certain that neither Optatus nor Augustine was ignorant whether Felix had been a legitimate Pontiff, and no less whether he was numbered among the Pontiffs at that time. I could wish therefore that someone would set forth to me by what reasoning they could without injury exclude Felix from the catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, if they knew him to be a true Pontiff. This no one has hitherto explained: nor, I think, will it be rightly explained: for they do not satisfy who say that Felix's Pontificate was omitted by Optatus and Augustine because it was included in the repeated Pontificate of Liberius; since this is not a just reason for depriving Felix of the honor due to him, and for casting him out of the place which he had rightly occupied. And so the silence of Optatus and Augustine in these circumstances seems to me to be preferred to all the Catalogues put together in the VI century and afterward, and to the writers of the middle age who agree with the Catalogues, especially since none of the holy Fathers who flourished in the VI or V century, nay even later, makes mention of Felix as a true Pontiff.

[191] Besides, there is no lack of reasons for which the collectors of the Catalogues could have believed that Felix should be inserted in them, and a reason is given why he seems to have been inserted in the catalogues. and that the title of Pontiff should be left to him. For since it was established about the blessed end and the cult of S. Felix, and about the Roman Church administered by him while Liberius was in exile, they probably did not believe that a scrupulous inquiry had to be made whether he had administered the Church by his own right, and that a strict and legitimate one, or rather as the vicar of Liberius, or only illegitimately. Many things about Felix we are ignorant of today, and perhaps the collectors of the Catalogues in the VI century or later were ignorant of still more. We know that Felix was unjustly intruded by the Arians in place of Liberius; but we are ignorant whether he received the ordination willingly, or compelled by force. We are ignorant also of the time of the ordination, and therefore we do not know whether Felix did not quickly correct the faulty ordination, who could by legates submit himself to Liberius, and inquire what he wished to be done; and be appointed by him vicar for ruling the Church. Besides, if we believe the schismatics, that Felix sat in schism until Liberius's return — which nevertheless, being the assertion of those who were Felix's enemies and liars, so far from making me certain that I believe it little likely — Felix could at least at that time sincerely submit himself to Liberius; as indeed from the statements of almost all writers he seems to have done, and obtain a blessed end either by martyrdom or by natural death, as his cult, abundantly proved, proves that he obtained. S. Meletius, to say nothing of others, was in the same century intruded by the Arians into the see of Antioch, and afterward, being made legitimate bishop, rested in a blessed end. Thus we can easily admit the sanctity of Felix as certain, but not so his Pontificate strictly so called: for the collectors, since they knew him a Saint, do not seem to have inquired much into the right by which he held the Pontificate. Wherefore, if it were established that S. Felix presided over the administration of the Roman Church when after the council of Rimini Liberius was compelled to leave the City, I should altogether believe that he was then Liberius's vicar. But of that administration of Felix I find no indication, much less of a Pontificate abdicated by Liberius, or of Felix elected.

[192] Certain doubtful assertions from faulty Acts. For the rest, in the Acts of Liberius praised above, which I have already warned are the work of an unskilled man, Liberius is said, at the time in which he lay hid in the cemeteries, to have twice administered holy baptism, Damasus being always present. First, at number 5, he is asserted to have baptized in the Ostrian cemetery, where Peter the apostle baptized. Of the number it is added: At the same time of Easter he baptized of both sexes to the number of four thousand and twelve: who all, Romans or from afar, others neighbors of the Romans, desired to be baptized by him. In the Acts of Damasus, page 45, the diction is more correct, and runs thus: At the same time therefore, counsel having been taken, Liberius the bishop baptized there of both sexes to the number of four thousand and twelve; because not only Romans, but also the neighbors of the Romans, desired to be baptized by him. Then at number 8 he is said to have baptized again at the time of Pentecost in the basilica of Peter the apostle. And of the number it is asserted: And there were baptized of both sexes nearly eight thousand eight hundred and ten. Many at the same time desired to touch the garments of Liberius the bishop. These things about the twofold baptism, in which the number of those baptized is without doubt exaggerated beyond the truth. At the beginning of the same Acts Liberius is said to have been ordained deacon and taught by S. Marcus the Pope, whom, with S. Julius intervening, he succeeded. Nothing is read in those Acts, as neither in the aforesaid Acts of S. Damasus, about any prevarication of S. Liberius or communion with the Arians. But I confess that those Acts are of no weight, and for that cause I omit certain other things asserted about Liberius in them or in the Acts of Damasus.

§ XII. The persecution after the council of Rimini until the death of Constantius: the deeds of Liberius for reconciling the bishops to the Church: he seems then to have had as legates SS. Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, nay and St. Hilary.

[ ] The wretched state of the Church until the death of Constantius That wretched condition to which the Catholic Church had been reduced by the prevarication of the Fathers of Rimini seems to have continued in the year 360 and 361; nay, the persecution even grew, and the number of prevaricators, after the council of Constantinople held in the year 360. For, as Sozomen witnesses, book 4, chapter 26, throughout the whole Roman world a tumult not unlike those which we have related above arose, and a kind of persecution seized all the churches everywhere, of the sort which once raged under the heathen emperors. Nazianzen in Oration 21 on S. Athanasius, page 387, describes the same tempest more fully, and at the same time records the lapses of very many. Hence, he says, some were unjustly driven from the thrones of the churches; others were substituted in their place; yet in such a way that they demanded from them bonds of impiety, just as though some other necessary thing. And ink was at hand, and a calumniator at their back. That matter drove very many away from us, men otherwise unconquered, into deceit, who, although they by no means fell away in mind, were nevertheless carried aside by their subscription, and consented with those men, wicked on both counts,… For if you except a very few, who either were held in contempt on account of the obscurity of their name, or resisted on account of their virtue (who had to be left as the seed and root of Israel, that by the influxes of the Spirit it might blossom again and be recalled to life), all yielded to the time: this only was the difference among them, that some sooner, others later fell into that deceit, and some showed themselves leaders and prelates of impiety, but others were placed in the second rank, namely either struck with fear, or subdued by gain and advantage, or enticed by flatteries, or finally circumvented by ignorance etc. Then on page 389 he subjoins the death of Constantius, by which the persecution was for a time stilled.

[194] But that this was the occasion of repairing in some measure the losses of the Church, after which the exiled bishops return to their churches. St. Jerome more clearly implies in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, writing thus about the state of the Church of that time: The little ship of the Apostles was in peril, the winds pressed, its sides were beaten by the waves, no hope now remained: the Lord is awakened, he commands the tempest, the beast (Constantius) dies, tranquillity returned. I shall speak more plainly. All the bishops who had been driven out from their own sees return to their churches by the indulgence of the new prince (Julian). Now Constantius died in Cilicia in the year 361, on the III day of November, as most affirm. But Julian, who was then in Illyricum, ordered all exiled bishops whatsoever, whether they were Catholics or heretics, to return to their own churches. But these commands probably could not become known at Rome before the year 362, so that it is not likely that Liberius before this year enjoyed full security, or could do much for reconciling to the Church the bishops who had lapsed at Rimini. For this cause the aforesaid St. Jerome, when he had narrated the return of S. Athanasius, which happened in the year 362, of S. Hilary, who had already returned before the death of Constantius, and of S. Eusebius of Vercelli, who could not reach Italy before the year 363, speaks thus about the penitence of the bishops who had been deceived in the council of Rimini: There ran together the bishops who, ensnared by the guiles of Rimini, were reputed heretics without their own consciousness of it, calling to witness the Body of the Lord and whatever is holy in the Church, that they had suspected no evil in their faith. We thought, they said, that the sense agreed with the words, nor did we fear that in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, where there is pure confession, one thing was shut up in the heart and another uttered on the lips. A good estimate of evil men deceived us. We did not judge that the priests of Christ were fighting against Christ. And many other things, which for brevity's sake I pass over, they asserted with tears, ready to condemn both their former subscription and all the blasphemies of the Arians.

[195] The most eminent Baronius at the year 362, number 177, judges that S. Liberius was the very first To the bishops who had lapsed at Rimini and were penitent who stretched out a hand to the lapsed and penitent bishops, and sets forth this opinion, exceedingly probable to me, in these words: Further, that the first author and architect of all these things (done in the Alexandrian council of the year 362) was Liberius the Roman Pontiff, will be disclosed a little below in this same year. For he first, solicitous to repair the shipwreck of Rimini, raised the standard of indulgence, lest those who had been deceived and circumvented by the frauds of the Arians, and, terrified by fear, had yielded to the emperor's threats, and had seemed to desert the confession of Nicæa, should to the great detriment of the Church wander longer outside the Church, and become meanwhile a prey to wolves, if what they had done unwillingly they should now willingly and obstinately defend. For these men, I say, Liberius the Pontiff, about to consult well, thought that first of all the bishops who had lapsed in Italy and were penitent of their error must be helped; and, looking toward the East, making good use of the occasion, he creates legates of the Apostolic See those very Western bishops of great name who were there exiles for the cause of the faith, Eusebius bishop of Vercelli, and Lucifer bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, to one of whom, namely Lucifer, he delegates the care of the church of Antioch, long possessed by the Arians. Thus far Baronius, whose most probable conjecture must be propped up with some reasons.

[196] Liberius seems first to have stretched out a hand, For first it is not probable that the bishops of Italy, who in the year 359 had been deceived at Rimini, remained in their prevarication until nearly the end of the year 362, since S. Damasus the Pope in the Epistle to the Illyrians, recited by Theodoret, book 2, chapter 22, testifies the contrary in these words: But even in the very beginning

it has hitherto been amended by those very men who were compelled to retract this at Rimini, so that they confessed that it had been stolen from them by another kind of disputation, for this reason, that they had not understood that it was contrary to the judgment of the Fathers framed at Nicæa. Then he observes that Liberius and Vincent of Capua never consented, and again says of the lapsed: Especially since, as we have said, those very men who seemed to have succumbed through pressure have protested that by a better counsel the same thing displeased them. If at the very beginning the bishops of Rimini amended their lapse, it is not likely that communion was denied them by Liberius until the decrees of the Alexandrian council were known, which could not be carried to Rome except at the beginning of the year 363. But what S. Damasus asserts most probably about the bishops of Italy, the same we have about the bishops of Gaul from the council of Paris, whose synodal Epistle is recited in the Fragments commonly called Hilarian, Fragment XI. For there the lapsed bishops acknowledge that they suffered a fraud, and retract what was done at Rimini. And the council of Paris seems to have been held before the death of Constantius, in the year 360 or 361. St. Ambrose also agrees, Epistle 21 of the last edition, where he says of the men of Rimini: Who nevertheless at once recalled the opinion into which they had been bent. Wherefore I should not believe that Liberius awaited the judgment of the Alexandrian council in order to stretch out a hand to the lapsed.

[197] and that to this end he created Eusebius and Lucifer his legates. But what Baronius adds, that Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercelli were again created Apostolic legates by Liberius, even though I nowhere find this asserted in express words by the ancients, I judge no less probable. For the acts of both in Egypt and in the East are such that they seem not to have been possible for foreign bishops, unless they had received authority for doing them by an Apostolic legation. For Lucifer of Cagliari went straight from exile to Antioch, that he might set in order that church, torn into two parties of Catholics; and there he consecrated Paulinus bishop. For doing this, as Baronius rightly observes at number 217, a Sardinian bishop would not have had authority, unless he had been an Apostolic legate. Eusebius afterward came to Antioch for the same end; but when he saw that by the over-hasty ordination of Paulinus the evil had been increased, he departed with the matter unaccomplished, yet not straight to his own church, but, as Rufinus will have it, book 10, chapter 30, going about the East and Italy, he discharged the office alike of physician and of priest. Here again Baronius rightly observes that S. Eusebius did those things by the authority of an Apostolic legate. For what right, he says, had those same bishops of the West (Eusebius and Lucifer) in the affairs of the church of Antioch, and in Syria, Asia and Cappadocia, and other regions, to which Eusebius, the restorer of so great a disaster, set out as legate? Wherefore the opinion of Baronius about Eusebius and Lucifer as legates through Liberius is most probable, to whom Liberius could write for this end as soon as he had learned of the death of Constantius, or at least after hearing of the recall of the exiled bishops by Julian. But it is doubtful whether these legates were at least at first of one mind. If we believe Rufinus, book 10, chapter 27, Eusebius desired that Lucifer should go with him to Alexandria to S. Athanasius, that with him they might take counsel together about the affairs of the Church; which Lucifer was unwilling to do, but only sent a deacon, and himself set out for Antioch. But Socrates, book 3, chapter 5, says that this was done by their common counsel, writing thus: At the same time (in which S. Athanasius returned to Alexandria) Lucifer and Eusebius were recalled from exile by the emperor's command… Both therefore, returning from exile from the upper Thebaid, took counsel between themselves how they might succor the ecclesiastical laws, and not suffer them to be violated with impunity. It pleased therefore that Lucifer should set out for Antioch; but Eusebius for Alexandria, that, gathering a synod together with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the Church. And Lucifer indeed sent a deacon in his own place, through whom he promised that he would assent to whatever should be decreed by the synod. With these things Sozomen agrees, book 5, chapter 12; and these seem more probable than Rufinus's account.

[198] Further, that Alexandrian council, at which besides Athanasius and Eusebius other bishops also of Arabia and Egypt took part, Eusebius takes part in the Alexandrian council, which in the year 362 was certainly held in the year 362, and not before the month of November, if the chronology of our Papebroch at the 2nd of May, in S. Athanasius, chapter 27, has been rightly deduced. Pagi, however, opposes himself, at the year 362, number XI and following; Tillemont also, in S. Athanasius, article 95: for both fix that council about the month of August. But their reasons having been weighed, I do not yet see that we must depart from Papebroch's chronology, or that the death of S. Artemius, which his Life fixes at the XX of October, must be removed from this day. Pagi certainly says many things lightly which he could never prove. He rightly indeed observes that after the death of S. Artemius Georgius was slain by the Alexandrians, but that after the death of Georgius S. Athanasius came to Alexandria, and that he was again compelled to depart before the Kalends of December. These things are true, but do not at all stand against Papebroch. Pagi adds that the things which Athanasius did at Alexandria could not have been accomplished except within some months; but this he by no means proves, nor will it ever be proved by anyone, so far as I judge. For all the things which were done in the Alexandrian council could easily, or even more quickly, be accomplished within fourteen days. That many more things were then done at Alexandria by S. Athanasius no one says. At the same time indeed he is believed to have received the relics of S. John the Baptist: but by that reception the time is not lengthened. Nazianzen on page 392 seems to relate various things, but most are referred to the council, and others could be done within a few days, and at the time of the council itself. Certainly I find nothing by which much time had to be drawn out.

[199] seems to have been held in the month of November, Let us believe therefore that S. Artemius was slain at Antioch on the XX of October. This death could become known at Alexandria before November; whether the messengers made their journey by sea or by land. The people of Alexandria, freed from fear of Artemius, broke out into the slaughter of the hated Georgius about the beginning of November. Athanasius, who was nearby, after some days entered the city; and not long after him Eusebius and the other bishops who took part in the council followed. Let us conjecture therefore that the council was held before the middle of November; but that Athanasius before that had done the things which he did for the church of Alexandria on his return. Meanwhile, through the rivals of Athanasius, Arians or heathen, Athanasius's return became known to Julian the Apostate, and he at once sent letters by a courier that he should be expelled. And he wills that he depart from the city before the Kalends of December. These very letters of Julian show that the opinion of Pagi and Tillemont is improbable. For Julian was staying at Antioch, and had only just learned of Athanasius's return when he was writing these letters. For he says: I hear meanwhile that Athanasius … again usurps the see of the episcopate: and that this by no means pleases the religious people of Alexandria, that is, the heathen. That I hear implies that then first complaints about Athanasius's return were brought to Julian, when he was giving these letters, perhaps about the XX of November. Wherefore it in no way becomes likely that Athanasius was living publicly at Alexandria from the month of August, and that Julian, staying at Antioch, heard nothing about that matter before the XX of November. On the contrary, Papebroch's chronology coheres excellently: for if he came to Alexandria at the beginning of November, and Julian only heard of it about the XX, he was not at once informed about the matter by a courier who could easily come to Antioch within eight days, as he complains in his letters to the prefect. And so everything seems to imply that Papebroch's chronology is accurate, and that the Alexandrian council was held about the middle of November of the year 362. Of the day of Artemius's death inquiry can be made more fully at the XX of October, as also of his cult and martyrdom.

[200] where it is decreed that the lapsed are to be received in their own ranks, As concerns now the acts of that council, those chiefly pertain to our purpose which were there determined about receiving those who had lapsed from weakness, even in their own rank. Of these S. Athanasius writes thus in the Epistle to Rufinianus: Know, my most longed-for lord, that at first indeed, when that violence (of the Arians, through the death of Constantius) had ceased, a synod was gathered (at Alexandria), bishops of foreign parts being present: that likewise another was celebrated among our fellow-ministers of Greece, and no less among those who dwell in Spain and in Gaul; and that this very thing pleased both here and everywhere, namely that to those who have lapsed, if they were leaders of impiety, pardon be granted, if indeed they repent, yet that no place in the clergy be given them: but to those who did not patronize impiety, but were drawn by necessity and violence, it was decreed that both pardon be granted and a place in the clergy be given; chiefly because they brought a fitting excuse, etc. This Epistle of S. Athanasius was recited for the greater part in the second Nicene council, and inserted into its Acts in Labbe, tome 7, columns 75 and 76, where these words are read inserted into the Epistle: These things were both written at Rome, and were received by the Church of the Romans. Why the editor of the Works of S. Athanasius did not observe this in the Annotations I do not perceive, since he notes far smaller varieties of readings. There seems, however, no doubt that S. Athanasius wrote those things, and that afterward those words dropped out.

[201] But I doubt whether the Greek words have that sense which S. Liberius likewise determined and approved. which Baronius expresses in Latin at number 210, and Tillemont in S. Athanasius, article 96, namely that the things which the Alexandrian synod had determined were written to Rome. For the Greek words are these: ταῦτα καὶ ἐν Ρώμη ἐγράφη, καὶ ἀπεδέξατο ἡ Ρωμάιων ἐκκλησία. These things were both written at Rome (literally, in Rome), and the Roman Church received them. And so the decrees of the synod were indeed sent to Rome, and there approved and received; but perhaps at the same time it is implied that the manner of receiving the lapsed was first conceived at Rome, and thence carried to the Alexandrian synod by S. Eusebius, that the Eastern churches might observe the same manner of receiving the lapsed as the Westerns. But whatever be the case in these matters, whether Liberius wrote his opinion about receiving the lapsed to the legates Eusebius and Lucifer beforehand, or afterward only approved the decrees about them made in the Alexandrian council; this is certain, that Liberius was of the same opinion as that council, as is plain from his Epistle presently to be recited. The synodal Epistle, which is printed in S. Athanasius, tome 1, part 2, page 770, was sent to Antioch, and inscribed To Eusebius (of Vercelli), Lucifer (of Cagliari), Asterius, Cymatius, Anatolius, bishops of the Eastern Church. And after S. Athanasius, Eusebius subscribed first, then Asterius, to whom also it is inscribed, because these were being sent to Antioch to set in order that church together with Lucifer, Cymatius and Anatolius.

Likewise two deacons subscribed, Herennius and Agapetus, whom Lucifer had sent to the council in his own place.

[202] All these things, I think, Valois did not sufficiently consider in his Annotations on Socrates, book 2, chapter 5, The opinion of Valois, denying the Apostolic legation of Eusebius and Lucifer, when he tried to refute Baronius in these words: What therefore Baronius says, that Eusebius and Lucifer were created legates of the Apostolic See by Liberius for repairing the state of the Church, cannot be true. For the same would have to be said of Hilary and the rest. Add that Rufinus expressly refutes this. For he writes that this legation was enjoined upon Eusebius and Asterius by the Alexandrian synod. These things Pagi eagerly snatched up at the year 362, number 24. But neither of them sufficiently considered the discipline of the Church. For certainly Lucifer was not sent to Antioch by the Alexandrian synod, and yet there he ordained Paulinus bishop, with whom afterward both the Roman Church communicated and the Alexandrian, that is, S. Athanasius himself. Nothing of the kind did S. Hilary do, nor Asterius, whose zeal for repairing the state of the Church is alleged by Valois and Pagi. The Alexandrian council itself of about twenty bishops could not send legates with such great authority that they could ordain a new bishop at Antioch, unless an Apostolic legate had been present, since the church of Alexandria has no right over that of Antioch. Rightly therefore Baronius at the year 362, number 212, says that in the Alexandrian synod legations for restoring the churches fallen from the Catholic faith were decreed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Rufinus, who in book 10, chapter 29, says that the charge of the East was enjoined upon Asterius, and the care of the West upon Eusebius, cannot help Valois. For these things we can understand in no other sense than that they were asked to do this, as is read in the synodal letters. Besides, Asterius seems to have been asked by the council only for the church of Antioch, just as for the same were asked Cymatius and Anatolius, who were at Antioch with Lucifer. These could help the Apostolic legates with counsel; but they do not seem able to have received such great authority from S. Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops that they should order anything in the church of Antioch without Apostolic legates.

[203] is refuted by their deeds, Much less could the Alexandrian council attribute the charge of the West to Eusebius, but it could ask him that he should use the power received from the Roman Pontiff both in the West and in the East, and also instruct him on what conditions the lapsed should seem to be received. It is pleasing to follow Eusebius as he departs from Alexandria, that it may be plain how much he undertook before he reached his own church. Socrates, book 3, chapter 9, has thus: But Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, immediately after the synod departing from Alexandria, went on to Antioch. And when he found there Paulinus indeed ordained by Lucifer, but the people at variance among themselves, … being disturbed because not all consented to that ordination, he condemned the deed indeed within himself. But out of reverence toward Lucifer, dissembling the matter, he departed, promising that he would amend all things in a council of bishops. Afterward, however, although he labored greatly to bring the dissenting parties back to concord, he could not accomplish it… In this manner therefore Eusebius at that time departed from Antioch. He disapproved, as Valois will have it, silently, the ordination of Paulinus, because, being done over-hastily, it had made the Antiochene rift worse; yet not as illegitimate, since he gave the decrees of the Alexandrian council to Paulinus to subscribe, and Paulinus subscribed them at Antioch, and that as bishop, as the subscription stands in S. Epiphanius, Heresy 77, page 1015.

[204] which imply a legation: nay St. Hilary too, while on his return What Rufinus adds to these things in chapter 30, and Sozomen in book 5, chapter 13, that Eusebius abstained from communion with both parties, is not credible, since the Eustathians, for whom Paulinus had been ordained bishop, were thoroughly Catholic. They meant to say, I think, that neither Paulinus nor Meletius was acknowledged by Eusebius as bishop of Antioch, because it could seem contrary to the Alexandrian decrees to deprive Meletius of his episcopate, since he was at that time a Catholic. Sozomen then again says this about Eusebius: Further Eusebius, going about the provinces of the East, began to correct those who had been more negligent in the faith, and to teach what things were to be believed. Then he passed through Illyricum, intent upon the same work, and came to Italy. Socrates has the same, saying that he traversed the provinces like some excellent physician. Rufinus says that he discharged the office alike of physician and of priest; and recalled each several church, unbelief being abjured, to the soundness of the right faith. Hence it becomes likely that by Eusebius's care there was gathered that council in Greece of which Athanasius makes mention above at number 200, and Liberius below at number 208. All these things imply an Apostolic legation, and it is of itself likely, since Eusebius had been Liberius's legate before his exile. What is objected about St. Hilary, who also labored much for the restoring of the churches, does not stand against our opinion. For it is likely enough that Hilary dealt at Rome with Liberius when he returned from exile, and was sent by him as legate for restoring the faith in Gaul and Italy, and for reconciling the lapsed bishops to the Church. It is certainly established that St. Hilary, while he was returning from exile, came to Rome. For Sulpicius in the Life of S. Martin, book 1, chapter 6, narrates that S. Martin set out for the City that he might meet Hilary returning at Rome; but that he came thither when Hilary had already departed.

[205] Since therefore St. Hilary was at Rome, it is most likely was at Rome, he probably received the same legation. that he there dealt with Liberius about those who had lapsed in the council of Rimini, and that it was agreed between them that pardon should be granted to those deceived or lapsed from weakness after the lapse had been retracted. For, as the same Sulpicius testifies in the Sacred History, book 2, chapter 45, St. Hilary was returning doubtful in mind, and tossed by a great mass of cares, since to very many it seemed that communion was not to be entered upon with those who had received the synod of Rimini. And in this doubt he could consult no one more rightly than Liberius, who had neither consented to the men of Rimini, and could by Apostolic authority succor all. Wherefore it seems to have been done according to Liberius's judgment that St. Hilary thought it best to recall all to amendment and penitence; so that, by frequent councils within the Gauls, and by almost all professing their error by letters, the Gauls condemned what had been done at Rimini, and restored the faith of the churches to its former state, as Sulpicius teaches was done. He a little after says again: This was agreed among all, that by the benefit of Hilary alone our Gauls were freed from the guilt of heresy. But since Hilary was at Rome before he undertook these things; and since afterward he labored also in Italy together with S. Eusebius of Vercelli; it seems scarcely to be doubted that for accomplishing all these things with greater authority he received a legation from Liberius the supreme Pontiff. Nor does the silence of the historians about that legation of Hilary press here: for the same historians, namely Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Sulpicius, Theodoret, were likewise silent about the legation of Eusebius and Lucifer which preceded the exile, so that it is not to be wondered at that they were likewise silent about the later legation of the same men and of Hilary, and only narrated such deeds of theirs as plainly imply that they were Apostolic legates.

[206] Further, the acts of St. Hilary and the council of Paris sufficiently show [The decrees of the Alexandrian council for receiving the lapsed were not awaited in the West,] that in the West the judgment of the Alexandrian council was not awaited for reconciling the lapsed to the Church. St. Jerome in the book against the Luciferians might persuade the incautious of the contrary, when he says: After the return of the confessors, it was afterward determined in the Alexandrian synod that, excepting the authors of the heresy, whom error could not excuse, the penitent should be associated to the Church… The West assented to this judgment: and by so necessary a council the world was snatched from the jaws of Satan. But these words must be so expounded as to signify that the West was of the same opinion as the Alexandrian synod; although they did not await that synod's decrees for receiving the lapsed. For S. Athanasius in the Epistle to the emperor Jovian, which was given in the year 363, enumerates most of the Western churches, and testifies that the Nicene faith was received by them, namely by the churches of Spain, Britain, Gaul, all Italy, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mysia, Macedonia, and of Greece and all Africa, Sardinia, Cyprus etc. He adds that he has the letters of these churches. But if the judgment of the Alexandrian council had been awaited in the West, S. Athanasius, when he was writing to Jovian, would not have known how all the Western churches stood, even those most distant in Gaul, Britain and Spain, since the Alexandrian decrees could not reach all except after a long time, and the execution of the decrees would again require a notable time, before news about all these things could be sent to Alexandria.

[207] And so, since it is established that decrees about the reception of heretics or of the lapsed were sent by Liberius the Pope to the provinces, it must be that by the favor of these decrees [but they had already before been received by the decrees of Liberius sent to the provinces;] the churches of the West were reconciled. And of those decrees of Liberius Siricius the Pope makes mention in the Epistle to Himerius of Tarragona, forbidding to rebaptize those baptized by the Arians; since both the Apostle forbids this to be done, and the canons contradict it, and, after the annulling of the council of Rimini, the general decrees sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory forbid it. These things altogether imply that decrees were sent by Liberius into Spain, and without doubt also into Gaul, Britain, Africa, and the other provinces subject to the Roman patriarchate, such as were sent by Athanasius, Eusebius, and the other fathers of the Alexandrian council throughout the East, and promulgated in many places by Eusebius. Liberius's own Epistle presently to be given — if indeed this Epistle be Liberius's, which from the style seems to me very doubtful — clearly implies that another had preceded about pardon to be granted to the lapsed. For Liberius says that there had been some, namely Lucifer of Cagliari and those adhering to his opinion, who were endeavoring by a severer censure to destroy what has already, he says, been fortified by Apostolic authority concerning the kindness, or mercy, to be shown to the lapsed. Then he refutes their opinion in these words: But to me, whom it befits to weigh all things moderately, especially since both all the Egyptians and the Achæans, being accused (read united), have received the opinion, (it seems) that those indeed must be spared about whom we have treated above, namely those who lapsed from weakness or error. Although the Epistle is corrupted with many faults, yet from the words given we understand that Liberius's opinion was that the lapsed who were not authors of the heresy must be spared, and that this opinion of his was received in the Alexandrian council by the Egyptians, and in another council by the Greeks.

[208] [with which the council of Alexandria and another held in Greece decreed things conformable,] The Epistle, which, if it be Liberius's, seems to have been written in the year 363, namely after the decrees of the Alexandrian and of the Greek council had been carried into Italy, I transfer hither from the Fragments commonly called Hilarian, Fragment 12, where it has this inscription: Liberius to the bishops

Catholic established throughout Italy, eternal health in the Lord. In various places it is faulty by the fault of the transcribers, and perhaps also mutilated. And it runs thus: He who comes to his senses blots out the fault of unskillfulness. And this may be observed also from the holy Scriptures. We read that godliness is profitable to all things, to which bodily exercise yields, although this too retains the fruits of profit: which godliness the reason of the present time also demands that we should pursue. For if some perchance who bear this zeal shall have judged that they may impudently destroy by a severer censure what was provided by reason, and make new what has already been fortified by Apostolic authority concerning kindness, when it was said that those are not to be spared who at Rimini acted in ignorance — for whom not to know was unlawful, and it was a seizure of error into which they fell — not for that reason is the truth to be gone back upon. But to me, whom it befits to weigh all things moderately, especially since both all the Egyptians and the Achæans, being accused , have received the opinion with many, it seems that those indeed must be spared about whom we have treated above, but that the authors must be condemned, who by oblique and malignant subtlety and darkness offended the senses of the innocent, by which they might draw a veil over the truth, selling darkness for light, and light for darkness.*

[209] and which Liberius wishes to be observed in the Epistle to the bishops of Italy. Therefore if anyone, coming to his senses from the seizure of ignorance, had by the briefest discourse of our advocacy experienced in himself that pestiferous, crafty and dark poison of the Arian teaching, let him, being restored, drain it out; let him condemn it, and rage more vehemently against its authors, whom he has experienced violent against himself, and let him wholly make himself over anew to the Apostolic and Catholic faith down to the assembly of the Nicene synod. By which profession, even if to some it seems light and remiss, let him recover what by the craft of the wicked he had lost. But if anyone shall be found of so stolid a mind — which I do not believe — who not only is unwilling to be converted, receiving the antidote of health, but shall believe that the noxious venom and poison vindicates itself: he shall both be overcome by reason, and, being reckoned as lost to the author of perfidy, shall be punished by the spiritual vigor of the Catholic Church. Thus far the Epistle, agreeable to the deeds of Liberius, not to his style, unless this has happened through the faults of the copyists.

[210] There follows in the same place another Epistle, written in the name of the bishops of Italy to the bishops of Illyricum, Thus the bishops of Italy received the Nicene faith, which testifies to the conversion of the bishops of Italy and of Illyricum; and it seems written not long after the preceding. The inscription is this: To our most beloved brethren throughout Illyricum who retain the faith of the fathers, the bishops of Italy, eternal health in the Lord. The Epistle itself runs thus: By the grace of the divine gift, that, according to the Apostle, we have all begun to be of one mind, all to confess one thing. And as regards Italy indeed, since it has restored itself to the faith of the fathers, that is, to that written at Nicæa, recognizing the fraud which it suffered at Rimini; we rejoice that God with a merciful nod has regarded Illyricum also; and we give thanks that, the fellowship of unbelief by which it was burdened being cast off, it has begun to approve the things which are of right judgment. Receive therefore, dearest Brethren, our one and the same judgment, made firm by subscription. We preserve the decrees of the Nicene treatise against Arius and Sabellius, by whose partial inheritance Photinus is condemned. The statutes of the council of Rimini, corrupted by the tergiversation of certain men, we by right rescind with the consent of all the provinces: copies of which also we have judged should be transmitted, so that neither in the retaining of the faith, nor in the confuting of the council of Rimini, might any disagreement seem to exist. Whoever therefore desires to have fellowship of our unanimity, whoever desires to have undivided peace with us, let him hasten to approve the things which are of our judgment, and to send us without ambiguity a subscription to the faith we have mentioned and a rescinding of the council of Rimini. This certainly we ask, which we ourselves offer with the consent of very many of these provinces. But that the authors of the Arian or Aëtian heresy, Valens and Ursacius, and the rest of their fellows, were not now condemned when they began to be made manifest in Illyricum, but long ago , is manifest.*

[211] From this Epistle, and from the words of S. Athanasius alleged at number 206, it is in some measure established and that it was restored in the West within a few years under Liberius. that the wound of Rimini was healed within a few years. This very thing the Epistle of Liberius to the Easterns confirms more, recited in Socrates, book 4, chapter 12, and also to be given below, in which he speaks thus: For nearly all those who then, gathered at Rimini, had been deceived partly by enticements, partly by guile, having now returned to a sound mind, have condemned with anathema the formula of faith published by the council of Rimini, and have subscribed to the Catholic and Apostolic faith long ago promulgated at Nicæa. And, communion having been entered upon with us, they are moved with graver indignation against the doctrine of Arius and his disciples. S. Damasus agrees, with the bishops of Italy and Gaul, to the Illyrians, in Theodoret, book 2, chapter 22, writing thus: Which saving definition (of the Nicene council) they afterward attempted indeed by other treatises (at Rimini) to pervert and violate. But even in the very beginning it has hitherto been amended by those very men who were compelled to retract this at Rimini. The remaining words I gave at number 196. Wherefore there is no doubt that under the Pontificate of Liberius, and by his prudence and diligence, with SS. Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli bringing help, and without doubt several others, the Catholic faith was restored in the Western provinces.

perhaps adunati*

condemnatos esse*

§ XIII. Whether Lucifer of Cagliari, when he betook himself to Sardinia, seems to have fallen into schism?

[ ] [Lucifer of Cagliari did not labor with the rest to reconcile the lapsed to the Church,] St. Jerome grieved that Lucifer of Cagliari did not go on laboring toward the saving end of reconciling the lapsed bishops with the Church, writing thus in the Dialogue against the Luciferians: We have come to a most harsh place, in which, against my will and purpose, I am compelled to think otherwise of the blessed Lucifer than both his merit and my own humanity demands. But what shall I do? Truth unlocks my mouth, and a conscious breast drives my unwilling tongue to speak. In such a crisis of the Church, in so great a madness of wolves, having set apart a few sheep, he deserted the rest of the flock; himself indeed a good shepherd, but leaving much prey to the beasts. I pass over those things which certain slanderers defend as sufficiently firm; that he did this out of love of glory, and of transmitting his name to posterity; and also out of the rivalry which he had taken up against Eusebius on account of the Antiochene dissension. None of these things do I believe of such a man. There is one thing which even at present I shall constantly say, that he differs from us in words, not in things; since he does receive those who have obtained baptism from the Arians. So Jerome of Lucifer. But since this holy doctor must have known beyond others in what manner, when, and through whom the schism of the Luciferians arose, against whom he wrote his Dialogue, and yet does not attribute the schism to Lucifer, or anywhere imply that he withdrew from the communion of SS. Liberius, Athanasius, Eusebius, Hilary, and the others who received the lapsed clerics and bishops in their own ranks; I am altogether persuaded that Lucifer did not proceed so far as to withdraw from the communion of the Church. Socrates too, book 3, chapter 9, and Sozomen, book 5, chapter 13, clearly declare that the Luciferian schism indeed arose on the occasion of the dissension between Eusebius and Lucifer, but that he did not withdraw from the Church. Rufinus, book 10, chapter 30, clearly declares nothing for either opinion. All three, however, imply that Lucifer did not revoke the subscription of his deacon, who in his name had subscribed in the Alexandrian council for the reception of the lapsed in their own ranks.

[213] and he judged that they should not be received in their own ranks: Sulpicius Severus alone, book 2, chapter 46, says that Lucifer was so opposed to the men of Rimini that he separated himself even from the communion of those who had received them upon satisfaction or penitence. But he coldly adds: Whether he determined this rightly or wrongly, I should not dare to say. For if Sulpicius did not know this, neither did he know that a schism was blown up by Lucifer, since at least he knew that schism is an evil. Wherefore Sulpicius must be explained of the things done at Antioch by Lucifer, as I shall show below. S. Ambrose and S. Augustine indeed speak more harshly of Lucifer, as was said at the XX of May; yet the words of S. Ambrose are in some measure explained, and it can be said that each spoke thus on account of the Luciferians, who by obstinately defending Lucifer's opinion certainly fell into schism. Wherefore it is established that Lucifer was of such an opinion as to wish that clerics and bishops who had lapsed should not be received in the Church in their own dignities: and since from the Libellus of Marcellinus and Faustinus, page 54, we have it that Lucifer came from exile to Rome, we do not doubt that he tried to persuade Liberius the Pope of his own opinion. But since Liberius was unwilling to approve or follow it, as is plain from the Epistle given at number 208, he at least was unwilling to cooperate for the reception of the lapsed, and therefore probably asked that it might be permitted him to withdraw into Sardinia, to spend the rest of his life in his own church. Nevertheless he does not seem to have wished afterward to defend his opinion by any writing. Certainly S. Jerome, who reviews the writings of Lucifer in the Catalogue, chapter 95, records no further little work of Lucifer, and speaks of him no less honorably than of Eusebius of Vercelli, so that S. Jerome seems by no means to have held Lucifer for a schismatic; but rather for a holy man, since he calls him both blessed and a good shepherd in that very Work which he composed against his obstinate followers.

[214] More things for excusing Lucifer our Henschen brought forward at the XX of May in S. Lucifer of Cagliari. Tillemont, however, contends that he fell into schism; But Tillemont, tome 7, in his Note on Lucifer, tries to defend the contrary opinion, and really to make Lucifer a schismatic. I shall not here examine what he answers concerning the cult of S. Lucifer, and concerning the miracles wrought after the body was found, and asserted by sworn witnesses in a juridical examination instituted at Cagliari. Passing over all these things (although these in a doubtful matter avail very much for laying aside doubt, and for judging in favor of the kinder opinion), I shall only weigh his own words uttered against Lucifer. We do not hesitate, he says, to assert that according to all the rules and the light of history it must be confessed that Lucifer separated himself from S. Eusebius, from S. Athanasius, from Liberius the Pope, from all those who had subscribed to the formula of Rimini, or who communicated with them as they returned to the Church, that is, that he separated himself from the body of the Catholic Church; and that he died in that separation, and left behind him the schismatic body of the Luciferians. But I briefly answer that no ancient author can be assigned who uttered anything of the kind about Lucifer. Whatever the ancients uttered against Lucifer, Tillemont interpreted in a far worse sense. Jerome, who is wont to be sharp against heretics and schismatics, but calls Lucifer both blessed and a good shepherd, and reprehends nothing else in him than that he was unwilling to cooperate in bringing back the lapsed to the Church, he intrepidly cites for imputing schism to Lucifer, and for showing that he died in schism. Rufinus

book 10, chapter 30, he adduces to prove that communion was broken by Lucifer; and yet Rufinus does not say that Lucifer withdrew from anyone's communion.

[215] Nay rather Rufinus implies that Lucifer at last consented to the Alexandrian decrees, and he wrongly cites Rufinus, who says the contrary, though with difficulty: as Socrates and Sozomen clearly declare. The words of Rufinus I subjoin: Meanwhile Lucifer, grieving at the injury that Eusebius had not received the bishop ordained by him, does not himself think of receiving the decrees of the Alexandrian council: but he was bound by the bond of his own legate, who in the council had subscribed by his authority. For he could not cast him off, because he held his authority. But if he had received them, he saw that his whole undertaking must be frustrated, (namely that the ordination of Paulinus would not obtain the church of Antioch, because Meletius could by the Alexandrian decrees be received). Long therefore and much deliberating about this, since he was hemmed in on both sides, he chooses that, his legate being received, he should keep toward the rest a different judgment, but one that pleased himself. What is that different judgment? If we believe Tillemont, it is the excommunication of all who followed the Alexandrian decrees. But if we prefer to listen, as is fitting, to Jerome, cited at number 212, it is Lucifer's withdrawal into Sardinia, the care of reconciling the lapsed to the Church being left aside, and of laboring further with those with whom he had thus far labored. Jerome does not believe that he did this either from vainglory or from anger. He could indeed do it lest new dissensions should arise between himself and Eusebius, or for another cause unknown to us. Meanwhile Rufinus does not speak of communion broken with anyone: and where a little afterward he speaks of a schism, he does not call it the schism of Lucifer, but the schism of the Luciferians. Socrates therefore understood Rufinus better than Tillemont, if from him he wrote, in book 3, chapter 9, what follows: But Lucifer could not fulfill his anger. For he was held bound by his own promises, by which through the deacon he had sent he had engaged that he would assent to the decrees of the council. And so he indeed, retaining the ecclesiastical faith, had withdrawn into Sardinia to his own see. But those who together with him had at first been embittered remain to this day separated from the Church. So too Sozomen, book 5, chapter 13, testifies that Lucifer departed into Sardinia in agreement with the Catholic Church.

[216] and Sulpicius, who treats only of the things done at Antioch by Lucifer: But, says Tillemont in Lucifer, article 5, it can with difficulty be believed that the Luciferians departed from the Church on account of a dissension of a short time between Eusebius and Lucifer, if Lucifer himself did not depart from it. I answer that they were not made schismatics on Lucifer's account, but followed that same opinion so obstinately that they preferred to be separated from the Church rather than to depart from it. It is more incredible that Lucifer obstinately clung to his own opinion, and yet defended it by no writing, as Marcellinus and Faustinus the Luciferians afterward wished to defend theirs in writing. Tillemont further adduces Sulpicius Severus, book 2, chapter 46, who sets Lucifer's manner of acting at Antioch against the counsel of St. Hilary, who received the lapsed in Gaul. For the rest, he says, Lucifer at that time at Antioch was of a far different judgment. Then he adds the words given at number 2. Why does Sulpicius say at Antioch, unless to imply that he was treating only of those things which had been done there by Lucifer, when he ordained Paulinus, and abstained from the communion of those who adhered to Meletius, a Catholic indeed, but stained by communion with the Arians and by their ordination? Hence Sulpicius adds: Whether he determined this rightly or wrongly, I should not dare to say. This he could not say of a schism; he could in some measure say it of the opinion which Lucifer had followed at Antioch by ordaining Paulinus in place of Meletius, and by abstaining from the communion of the Meletians. That such was Lucifer's mind at Antioch Socrates and Sozomen also clearly declare, even though they testify that he afterward consented to the Church. Both also Tillemont adduces for communion with Eusebius then broken. But neither says this clearly, although the Latin translation of Valois has it so. The words of Socrates are: διεκρίνετο οὖν κοινονεῖν Ευσεβίῳ, which can be expounded of deliberation alone. Sozomen says διεφέρετο, which will rightly be expounded of threats uttered, or of a contention urging toward the breaking of communion. Thus each says that he wished to disapprove the Alexandrian decrees.

[217] the writers cited are badly expounded by Tillemont. Now let us consider how rightly Tillemont adduces his authors. Socrates and Sozomen, who in the clearest words make Lucifer consent to the Church, he adduces, where they speak ambiguously, for communion broken by Lucifer with Eusebius. Here indeed, even if they spoke more clearly, they were not to be listened to, since no other has said it, and the thing is not of itself likely. For since Eusebius abstained from the communion of the Meletians, or at least from receiving Meletius, there was no cause for Lucifer to draw back from his communion. But Lucifer could threaten that he would do this, if he should receive Meletius or the Meletians. Presently Tillemont adds Rufinus, to prove that Lucifer likewise withdrew from the communion of Athanasius, of Liberius, and of all who received the Alexandrian decrees. But Rufinus does not speak of communion broken with any mortal, and implies that the Alexandrian decrees were at last received by Lucifer, when he says that his legate was received by him. For to receive the legate means there the same as to receive the Alexandrian decrees, as is proved from these words in which he brings in Lucifer doubting: But if he had received him (the legate), he saw that his whole undertaking must be frustrated — not by the reception of the legate himself, which could not help Meletius against Paulinus, but by that of the Alexandrian decrees, which favored Meletius. Then Tillemont adduces Sulpicius, as though saying the same things as Rufinus, whereas Sulpicius speaks only of the opinion which Lucifer followed at Antioch, and is silent about the rest.

[218] He objects the words of S. Ambrose, who in the Oration on S. Satyrus has it The words of S. Ambrose objected that the church of Cagliari was in schism when S. Satyrus came thither cast up by shipwreck, and thinking of receiving baptism, and he subjoins these words: For Lucifer had at that time separated himself from our communion: and although he had gone into exile for the faith, and had left heirs of his faith; yet he (Satyrus) did not think that there was faith in schism. For even if they held faith toward God, yet they did not hold it toward the Church of God. These words are not without obscurity. That at that time cannot be said of the time in which S. Satyrus came thither, because Lucifer had long before died. It must therefore be referred to the times of Lucifer and of the church of Milan, from which Lucifer separated himself. But during the whole time in which Lucifer survived, Auxentius the Arian presided over the church of Milan, so that Lucifer could and ought to abstain from the communion of the church of Milan. And so, if Ambrose's words, For Lucifer had at that time separated himself from our communion, be understood in this sense, that Lucifer had separated himself from the communion of the church of Milan of his own time, the whole passage alleged will favor Lucifer, since he ought not to communicate with Auxentius the Arian.

[219] But indeed I do not see in what other sense the passage could aptly be expounded: are expounded, and are favorable to Lucifer. for it does not seem to be doubted that Ambrose by the words from our communion understands the communion of the church of Milan, in which he was speaking. That very thing which is interposed, at that time, favors the exposition given. For if he had wished by our communion to understand the communion of the whole Catholic Church, it was not necessary to interpose that at that time, and he could have called Lucifer a schismatic. Again that Although he had gone into exile for the faith, and had left heirs of his faith much favors the exposition given and Lucifer himself, who had gone into exile for the right faith, and had left heirs of the same faith, namely after his death: for if he had been a schismatic and had so died, as Tillemont will have it, he would have left heirs not of his faith, but of his schism. Again what follows favors Lucifer; for where he begins to speak of the schism, he at once speaks of the Sardinians in the plural, not of Lucifer; and says that they, even if they had been heirs of Lucifer's faith, since they had fallen into schism, were not to be reckoned to have faith in schism. This seems the genuine explanation of the passage, and Ambrose seems altogether to imply that Lucifer died a Catholic, through the heirs of his faith whom he left, as Papebroch has already observed; but Tillemont preferred to dissemble rather than to answer anything.

[220] S. Augustine seems to attribute schism to Lucifer, But he proceeds to S. Augustine, who in Epistle 185 (elsewhere 50) to Boniface, number 47, speaks thus: So the Church has been wont to succor multitudes perishing through schisms and heresies. This displeased Lucifer, because it was done in receiving and healing those who had perished by the Arian poison: and he to whom it displeased fell into the darkness of schism, the light of charity being lost. I confess that the words alleged are harsh, and that Augustine seems to be of the opinion that he believed Lucifer a schismatic. Nevertheless it is not altogether certain that Augustine was of that opinion, or certainly believed that Lucifer was as much a schismatic as the Luciferians. S. Augustine says indeed that the reception of the lapsed displeased Lucifer, but that it displeased him even to the point of schism he does not expressly declare. Again he clearly declares that some fell into schism to whom the reception of the lapsed displeased; but he does not add in express words that Lucifer himself was among them. For that and he to whom it displeased is not so certainly referred to Lucifer himself that it cannot be referred to the Luciferians. But if it be referred to these, Augustine will only have said that from Lucifer's opinion the schism was born. In the book On Heresies, chapter 81, he has thus: The Luciferians, sprung from Lucifer bishop of Cagliari and famously named, neither Epiphanius nor Philaster placed among heretics. I believe because they thought that they had founded only a schism, not a heresy. Here S. Augustine says that the Luciferians sprang from Lucifer and were named from him, but attributes the founding of the schism to the Luciferians, not to Lucifer, at least in clear words. Again the aforesaid Doctor, On the Christian Combat, chapter 30, argues against the Luciferians, beginning thus: Nor let us listen to those who, although they rebaptize no one, have nevertheless cut themselves off from unity, and preferred to be called Luciferians rather than Catholics. Here the schism is attributed to the Luciferians, and that repeatedly and even a third time, nor is Lucifer himself ever called the first author of the schism. Wherefore it can in some measure be doubted whether Augustine believed Lucifer himself a schismatic, and whether at least he did not doubt, since he speaks so ambiguously that he could without difficulty have interpreted his own words of the Luciferians alone.

[221] but the opinion of S. Jerome, favorable to Lucifer, is to be preferred, But even if S. Augustine had believed that Lucifer was a schismatic, as he certainly believed the Luciferians schismatics, an error could creep in upon him in this, writing as he was in Africa, when Lucifer had died nearly half a century before. Certainly S. Augustine nowhere shows that he had read S. Jerome's Work against the Luciferians; since he makes no mention of Hilary the deacon, who did not receive those baptized by the Arians. He seems

likewise to have been ignorant on what occasion Lucifer withdrew into Sardinia, and wished thereafter to have care only of his own church. All these things S. Jerome could have thoroughly perceived, who both dwelt at Rome for some time while Lucifer and Liberius were among the living, and not long afterward at Antioch, where he could learn what had passed between Eusebius and Lucifer. And so in this question Jerome is far to be preferred to Augustine, especially since the very name of the Luciferians was fitted to instill a persuasion about Lucifer's schism in all who did not well perceive the beginning of the schism. But S. Jerome nowhere speaks of Lucifer as of a schismatic; nowhere asserts that he withdrew from the church: but on the contrary calls him Blessed, and a good shepherd, with which titles he does not seem likely to have adorned Lucifer if he had believed him a schismatic. But what is said in the Chronicle of Jerome about Lucifer dying, Who never mingled himself with the Arian depravity, does not seem to signify, as Tillemont wrongly will have it, that Lucifer died in schism, but is rather noted in his praise. For if it is made a crime to mingle oneself with heretical depravity, as Jerome was not ignorant, he ought to have spoken more clearly if he wished to indicate a schism.

[222] The silence of SS. Epiphanius and Philaster, who flourished at the very time which many other things also support. in which Lucifer died, and who a few years after his death wrote about heresies, likewise implies that Lucifer's opinion about not receiving bishops and clerics in their own ranks did not degenerate into schism except after Lucifer's death. This silence certainly suffices for denying all credit to Theodoret, who writes thus in book 3, chapter 5: But Lucifer, having returned to Sardinia, added certain new doctrines to ecclesiastical teaching. Those who embraced them took a surname from his name. For they were long called Luciferians. But this doctrine too has been extinguished and consigned to oblivion. Those new doctrines of Lucifer could not have been unknown to Epiphanius and Philaster, nor ought they to have been silent, if Lucifer had really founded any. No more does S. Athanasius seem likely to have been silent, who lived several years after Lucifer's return into Sardinia, and even survived him, if he had introduced new doctrines, or even a schism. For he attacked at once both the Macedonians and the Apollinarists, who arose in those times, and in the Epistle to Rufinianus he treats of the Alexandrian decrees, so that he could scarcely pass over the Luciferian schism, if it had then already arisen. There is added finally the silence of all the writers who wrote in Lucifer's time or even some years after, and of all the councils, since in no council is anything read decreed against Lucifer. Wherefore I altogether judge that the schism arose after Lucifer's death: which it will be well to show by another argument too.

[223] The dissension between Eusebius and Lucifer had arisen from the ordination of Paulinus. By another argument it is proved that the Luciferian schism But the quarrel arising from that ordination between Meletius and Paulinus about the episcopate of Antioch long remained undecided and without any composition of the parties. Both, however, were held Catholics, and both communicated with Catholic bishops. At last about the year 380, that is, nearly ten years after Lucifer's death, it was agreed between Meletius and Paulinus that both, as long as they lived, should each feed his own flock, and that after the death of either, he alone should preside over the whole church of Antioch who should survive the deceased. That these agreements might stand more firmly, on each side the clerics who beyond the rest were capable of the episcopate were bound by an oath not to admit the chair of Antioch as long as either of them lived. This Socrates narrates, book 5, chapter 5, and Sozomen, book 7, chapter 3. The former adds: In this manner, the oath having been given, the people returned to unity, and were no longer divided among themselves. But the Luciferians separated themselves from the rest, because Meletius, who had been ordained by the Arians, had been received to the episcopal office. But Sozomen: Therefore, an oath having been given upon these conditions, nearly the whole people returned to concord. A few, however, of the Luciferians still dissented, because Meletius had been ordained by heretics. Tillemont, tome 8, in S. Meletius, article 15, says that he does not understand those assertions of Socrates and Sozomen, because, he says, Lucifer had formed his schism, and had then been dead for many years. But, since no contemporary writer asserts that Lucifer was divided from the Church by schism, he could refer the beginning of the Luciferian schism, at least at Antioch, to the time at which the Luciferians departed from Paulinus on account of the concord entered into with Meletius.

[224] does not seem to have arisen except after Lucifer's death. Let our adversaries declare, I pray, whether they believe that Lucifer withdrew from Paulinus's communion also. If he communicated with Paulinus, he certainly did not withdraw from those who received the Alexandrian decrees, since Paulinus subscribed them. If he communicated with Paulinus, there is no founded suspicion of communion broken off by Lucifer with the Roman Church or with the Alexandrian, since Paulinus communicated with these. Now if they will have it that Lucifer withdrew from Paulinus's communion also, how will they prove that Lucifer and Paulinus, who were of the same opinion at Antioch, afterward went off into such different opinions that they were separated in communion? From the passages just alleged, the Luciferians communicated with Paulinus until his concord with Meletius; on what ground therefore shall we say that Lucifer himself, whose opinion they followed, did not communicate with Paulinus? Either they were Luciferians before the concord with Meletius, or they were not. If they were Luciferians before that time, they were no more schismatics than the Eustathians. If they were not Luciferians, they certainly were not schismatics. And so, in whatever way I consider the counsels of Lucifer and of his followers, I do not find a Luciferian schism while Lucifer was alive: just as, while he was alive, no one made mention of that schism, either by assailing it, or by defending it, or by condemning it. In that way therefore Lucifer seems to have defended his opinion about not receiving lapsed bishops, as S. Cyprian for some time championed the opinion about repeating the baptism of heretics; namely, as Jerome testifies of S. Cyprian against the Luciferians, not with anathema upon those who had been unwilling to follow him… Since he remained in the communion of those who had gone contrary to his opinion. It is pleasing now, after what has been argued about Lucifer, to add a brief observation in favor of Liberius. If Lucifer, as they will have it, withdrew from Liberius's communion because he admitted lapsed bishops to communion after penitence, how in our adversaries' opinion did he wish before to communicate with Liberius, whom they likewise contend to have lapsed? Certainly Liberius could seem more to be avoided on account of his own lapse, if it be true, than on account of communion alone with the lapsed and those penitent. Of Liberius's lapse therefore Lucifer knew nothing, and therefore it must be said that that lapse is fictitious, of which Lucifer is never read to have complained.

§ XIV. The Epistles of Liberius to Athanasius, and of the latter to the former, are supposititious: the Eastern Semiarian bishops send legates to Liberius, and, the Nicene faith being received, they are received to communion by Liberius and by all the Catholics.

[ ] Certain writings which seem to have been foisted upon Liberius. Baronius at the year 362, number 206, recites a fragment of an Epistle with a profession of faith, in Liberius's name to Athanasius, and in turn at number 208 a profession of faith written under the name of Athanasius to Liberius; nor does he imply any doubt about the authors of those fragments. But Bellarmine, in his Work on Ecclesiastical Writers, in S. Athanasius, page 109, denies those Fragments to Liberius and Athanasius, saying: In the same tome (the first of the Works of S. Athanasius) there is an Epistle of Liberius the Pope to Athanasius, and a reply of Athanasius to Liberius: but neither seems to suit the author to whom it is attributed. For Liberius writes to Athanasius as though he doubted of his faith… But neither is it credible that Liberius ever doubted of the faith of S. Athanasius etc. The reply of Athanasius too has not the form of an Epistle, but of a simple confession of faith: nor is the confession conceived in words sufficiently proper, especially where he says: "That flesh was suspended on the cross, not he himself" etc.… But holy Athanasius is wont to speak most properly and chastely about mysteries of this kind. Accordingly such a writing does not seem to be attributed to holy Athanasius. This judgment of Bellarmine more recent writers commonly follow. Our Papebroch indeed, in S. Athanasius, number 369, clung to Baronius, because probably he did not examine so attentively the said Epistles, found in Baronius and in the Councils. But I altogether judge that Bellarmine's censure must be followed, as most recent writers have followed it. Another Epistle also in the name of Athanasius and of the Egyptian bishops to Liberius is extant in Labbe, tome 2 of the Councils, column 763, where a reply too in Liberius's name is subjoined at column 765; but Labbe observes in the margin that both are commonly held by all supposititious. Again in the same place, column 760, there is an Epistle of Liberius, inscribed to all bishops in general, of which Labbe says in the margin: That it is invented no one fails to see. Not even this shall I try to defend: I confess, however, that this does not seem to me so clearly invented as those four which I disapproved in §3. In Labbe, tome 2 of the Councils, column 768, are read three decrees published in Liberius's name, which to some also seem suspect of forgery.

[226] Now as concerns the lapsed or the heretics brought back to the Church, The legates of the Eastern bishops, who were mostly Semiarians, there remain to be narrated those things which are narrated by Socrates and Sozomen about the Eastern bishops, whom the former names Macedonians, even though not all were of the Macedonian heresy, afterward condemned in the council of Constantinople, but most were Semiarians, because they did not admit the word Consubstantial, and not a few were probably Catholics, at least as to their meaning, as many Semiarians were before the Macedonian heresy against the Holy Spirit had been born or had prevailed. They were pressed by the persecution of the Arians under the reign of Valens the Arian, while the Westerns had a Catholic emperor, Valentinian. Wherefore they sent various embassies to one another, and assembled in various places for a council, namely at Lampsacus in the Hellespont, at Smyrna in Asia properly so called, and also in Pamphylia, Isauria and Lycia, as Socrates has it, book 4, chapter 12. By the said councils and embassies therefore they came to this opinion, that they must of necessity have recourse both to the emperor's brother (Valentinian) and to Liberius, bishop of the city of Rome, and embrace their faith rather than communicate with Eudoxius (the Arian). They send therefore Eustathius bishop of Sebaste, who had already often been deposed, Silvanus of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala, which also is a city of Cilicia; and they charge them not to dissent in faith from Liberius, but to enter into communion with the Roman Church, and to confirm by their consent the faith of the Consubstantial. Thus Socrates, with whom Sozomen agrees, book 6, chapter 10, speaking thus about the sending of the said legates: And they send them to the emperor Valentinian with letters written to Liberius the Roman bishop and to the Western

bishops; in which they exhorted them to help their legates with all their power, and to weigh with them what should be done; and to correct the state of the Church as should seem good to them; as men who retained the upright and stable faith handed down from the Apostles, and who beyond all others ought to have care of religion.

[227] come with letters to Rome to Liberius, Of what was done at Rome the author subjoins: And the legates indeed, when they had come into Italy, learned that the emperor was staying in the Gauls, waging war with the barbarians who dwell about them. And since a journey into the Gauls seemed difficult to them on account of the war, they gave letters to Liberius. And having taken counsel with him about the matters for the sake of which they had been sent, they condemned by their own sentence Arius and others who thought and preached the same as he. Besides, they rejected every heresy opposed to the faith of the Nicene council: and finally they received the word Consubstantial… When Liberius had received from them a written confession of these things, he communicated with them, and wrote letters to the Eastern bishops, praising them for their concord and consent in the faith, and signified to them what had been done with the legates. The aforesaid Socrates shows that the embassy at first was suspect to Liberius, and that the bishops by whom the legates had been sent were those who at Seleucia indeed had disapproved the Arian opinion against Acacius, but afterward at Constantinople had subscribed to the decrees of Rimini. These therefore (the legates), he says, came to Rome with the letters of those who at Seleucia had dissented from Acacius. And it was not permitted them to approach the emperor himself, as he was held in the Gauls, occupied with the war against the Sarmatians: but to Liberius they presented their letters. He at first indeed refused to admit them, saying that they were of the Arian party, and could not be received by the Church, as men who had abrogated the Nicene faith. But they answered that they had long since come to their senses, and had acknowledged the truth: and that they had long ago abjured the doctrine of the Anomœans; but had confessed the Son like the Father in all things, and that the Consubstantial did not in any way differ from the Like — namely if each word be rightly expounded, as each is expounded by S. Hilary in the book On the Synods.

[228] and in their own name and that of all profess the Catholic faith, But that reason would not have helped the legates with Liberius, unless they had admitted the Nicene formula with the word Consubstantial. I return to Socrates: And when they had said these things, Liberius demanded from them a profession of their opinion comprised in writing. They therefore offered him a document, in which the words also of the Nicene faith were written down. The document or writing offered by the legates is recited by both with this inscription: To the lord brother and fellow-minister Liberius, Eustathius, Theophilus and Silvanus, health in the Lord. The beginning is this: On account of the insane opinions of the heretics, who cease not to furnish a cause of offense to the Catholic Church, we, desiring to take away from them every occasion, profess and affirm that the synod of orthodox bishops which was held at Lampsacus and Smyrna and in other places (on whose embassy we bring letters both to thy kindness and to all the bishops of Italy and of the West) holds and guards the Catholic faith which, approved in the most sacred Nicene synod in the times of Constantine of blessed memory by three hundred and eighteen bishops, has hitherto remained perpetually whole and unshaken: in which the word Consubstantial was piously and holily set down against the depraved doctrine of Arius. Likewise that we also, together with the aforesaid, have held and do hold the same faith, and shall keep it to our last breath, we profess with our own hand. After the condemnation of Arius and of other heretics, they add these things expressly about the decrees of Rimini: But especially condemning with anathema that faith which was recited in the synod of Rimini, as being contrary to the aforesaid faith of the holy council celebrated in the city of Nicæa; to which, brought from the town of Nice in Thrace, the bishops at Constantinople, circumvented by guile and perjury, subscribed. After these things the legates subjoin the Nicene formula, and each subscribes; and finally they add the following: But if anyone, after this faith set forth by us, should wish to bring any accusation against us or against those by whom we were sent, let him come with letters of thy Sanctity before orthodox bishops who have been approved by thee, and let him contend with us in judgment before them: and if any crime be proved, let the author be punished.

[229] Socrates subjoins: When Liberius had bound the legates by this document as by a kind of security, and are received into communion by Liberius. he received them into communion, and, having given letters of this kind, dismissed them. Presently the Epistle of Liberius itself is given with this inscription: To the beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Evethius, Cyril, Hyperechius, Uranius, Heron, Elpidius, Maximus, Eusebius, Eucarpius, Heortasius, Neon, Eumathius, Faustinus, Proclinus, Pasinicus, Arsenius, Severus, Didymion, Britannius, Callicrates, Dalmatius, Ædesius, Eustochius, Ambrosius, Gelonius, Pardalius, Macedonius, Paul, Marcellus, Heraclius, Alexander, Adolius, Marcianus, Sthenelus, John, Macer, Charisius, Silvanus, Photinus, Antonius, Aytho, Celsus, Euphranor, Milesius, Patricius, Severianus, Eusebius, Eumolpius, Athanasius, Diophantus, Menodorus, Diocles, Chrysampelus, Neon, Eugenius, Eustathius, Callicrates, Arsenius, Eugenius, Martyrius, Hieracius, Leontius, Philagrius, Lucius, and to all the orthodox bishops throughout the East, Liberius bishop of Italy, and all the bishops of the West, health in the Lord. Sixty-four bishops are here enumerated, for the greater part unknown. But that all these had before been Semiarians I by no means believe, although it is likely that all those too who were not Semiarians communicated with these. It is likely also that not all embraced the Catholic profession of faith with the same sincerity, since some afterward fell away, and several lapsed into the Macedonian doctrine against the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless I do not judge that all acted craftily, since Silvanus, one of the three legates, is after his death called Blessed by S. Basil in several Epistles. But let us now subjoin the whole Epistle of Liberius from Socrates.

[230] The most longed-for joy of peace and concord has been brought to us by your letters, Liberius's Epistle on this matter shining with the light of faith, most beloved brethren, delivered to us by our dearest brethren and bishops Eustathius, Silvanus and Theophilus: and that chiefly because they have affirmed and at the same time demonstrated that your opinion and doctrine altogether agrees and is consonant with our slenderness, and with all the Italians and Westerns. And we acknowledge this to be the Catholic and Apostolic faith, which down to the Nicene council remained whole and unshaken. And this your legates have professed that they hold: and with incredible joy, abolishing every trace and tinder of absurd suspicion, they have set it forth not in words only, but also in writing. A copy of which we have thought must be subjoined to these letters, lest we should leave to the heretics any occasion for again contriving snares, by which, stirring up the incentives of their malice, they may after their manner kindle anew the fires of discord. This moreover they professed, dearest brethren — Eustathius, Silvanus and Theophilus — that both they themselves and your charity have always held this faith, and will keep it to the last breath: that faith, namely, which was approved by three hundred and eighteen Catholic bishops at Nicæa: which both contains the perfect truth, and confutes and overthrows all the bands of the heretics. For not by chance, but by a divine nod, so great a number of bishops was gathered against the madness of Arius: with just such a number, namely, as that with which the blessed Abraham routed so many thousands of enemies by faith. Which faith indeed, comprised in the hypostasis and in the word Consubstantial, as a firm and impregnable rampart, represses and repels all the assaults and engines of the Arian madness.

[231] to the Eastern bishops, Wherefore, when all the bishops of the Western parts had assembled at Rimini, whither the wickedness of the Arians had summoned them with this design, that, compelled by soothing persuasion or, what is truer, by the authority of secular power, they should take away or obliquely deny what had been most carefully set down in the faith; their craftiness profited nothing. For nearly all those who then, gathered at Rimini, had been deceived partly by enticements, partly by guile, having now returned to a sound mind, have condemned with anathema the formula of faith published by the council of Rimini, and have subscribed to the Catholic and Apostolic faith long ago promulgated at Nicæa. And, communion having been entered upon with us, they are moved with graver indignation against the doctrine of Arius and his disciples. And when the legates of your charity saw the proof of this thing, they joined you also to themselves in their subscription: condemning Arius with anathema, and the things which were done at Rimini against the Nicene faith: to which you also, led into fraud by perjury, subscribed. Wherefore it has seemed fitting to us to write letters to your charity, and to succor those who ask what is just: especially since from the profession of your legates we have learned that the Easterns, having returned to a sound mind, agree with the Orthodox bishops of the West. And we signify to you, lest you be unaware, that all the blasphemies of the council of Rimini have been condemned with anathema by those very men who then seem to have been deceived by fraud, and that all with one accord have consented to the Nicene faith.

[232] probably given in a council. But you also ought to make this known to all, that those who by force and fraud have suffered some detriment to their faith may now at last emerge from the heretical darkness into the divine light of Catholic liberty. And if indeed after this council they shall be unwilling to vomit forth the poison of the perverse doctrine, and to reject all the blasphemies of Arius and condemn them with anathema, let them know that they are, together with Arius and his disciples and the other serpents, namely the Sabellians, the Patripassians, or any other heretics whatsoever, strangers and aliens from the communion of the Church, which does not admit adulterine sons. May God keep you safe, dearest brethren. Thus far the Epistle of Liberius, who for this cause Baronius judges to have gathered a council at Rome, at the year 365, number 17. That opinion is exceedingly probable, and the inscription of the Epistle favors it.

[233] [But Liberius does not seem for that reason to have sent legates into the provinces;] He believes besides that legates were sent by Liberius into the Gauls and other Western provinces, that he might make the whole Western church more certain about the Catholic faith of the Easterns returning to the Church. Which also was done, he says, before the legates returned into the East. He gathers this from Sozomen, book 6, chapter 12, where he says that Epistles were carried by the legates into the East, both of Liberius and of the bishops of Italy, Africa, Gaul and Sicily. But since S. Basil in two Epistles makes mention of an Epistle brought by Eustathius the legate from Liberius, and nowhere of several, it may be doubted whether what Sozomen hands down about so many Epistles is true, and what Baronius gathers from it about so many legates then sent by Liberius into the Western provinces. I rather believe that Liberius showed the legates of the Easterns very many epistles of Western bishops who after the lapse of Rimini had reconciled themselves with the Church, and had professed the Nicene faith. For Liberius writes that the legates saw a proof of the reconciliation of the lapsed Westerns with the Church. And this proof will have been their epistles.

to Liberius. I suspect therefore that copies of these epistles were carried by the legates into the East, that the Easterns might perceive with how great zeal the Westerns had returned to the Church and to the Nicene faith.

[234] Another conjecture too the aforesaid Baronius brings forward about Elpidius the presbyter being then sent by Liberius into Illyricum, nor did he send thither Elpidius, who was present at the Illyrian council, in whose presence the Illyrian synod was celebrated. The Epistle of this synod Theodoret gives, book 4, chapter 9, and the same is reprinted in tome 2 of the Councils, column 832, where it is noted as given in the year 365 according to the mind of Baronius. For no other cause, I think, did Baronius refer that Illyrian council to the year 365, than because in the Epistle mention is made of Eustathius the bishop, whom he believed to be one of the three legates. But Tillemont, Note 86, rightly proves that that council was held much later, and this seems clear to me from the whole context of the Epistle. For the emperor Gratian, who in the year 365 or 366 did not yet have that dignity, is joined with Valentinian and Valens in the Greek text of the Epistle of the emperors, sent at the same time and subjoined in Labbe, column 834. Besides, the Illyrian bishops clearly declare that the error of the Macedonians against the Holy Spirit had prevailed among the Asians. But that heresy was not yet so publicly preached in the year 365 or 366: for the legates of the Easterns were not even examined by Liberius about their faith concerning the Holy Spirit.

[235] Tillemont wonders at this, article 109; and seems to believe since that council was held later. that the legates themselves, and those Easterns by whom they had been sent, were then asserters of that heresy. But that suspicion lacks a solid foundation: for it can easily be proved that all three legates were joined in friendship and in communion with S. Basil, but that other bishops in so great a number professed the heresy against the Holy Spirit from the year 366 is openly improbable or rather false, since S. Basil in Epistle 25 (elsewhere 72) says that this part which labors under the disease is small. And so he speaks of the Macedonian heresy in an Epistle which is noted as given in the year 377. Under Damasus therefore that heresy publicly broke out and was condemned, not under Liberius. Finally six Arian bishops are named in the synodal Epistle. But among them are not found Valens and Ursacius, the most notorious of all the Arians in Illyricum, who nevertheless certainly lived some years after 366. No doubt therefore remains that the Illyrian council is some years later than Liberius.

[236] And so let us return to the legates of the Easterns departing from Rome with Liberius's letters. The Easterns, having likewise professed the faith in a Sicilian council, Socrates, book 4, chapter 12, writes these things about them: These letters having been received, those who were with Eustathius set out for Sicily. And when they had caused a synod of the bishops of Sicily to be held there, and had confessed before them the faith of the Consubstantial, and had approved the faith of the Nicene council, having received their letters also written to the same effect, they returned to those by whom they had been sent. With these Sozomen plainly agrees, and presently adds, book 6, chapter 12: At the same time, when a synod of bishops had been gathered at Tyana (in Cappadocia), at which were present Eusebius bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Athanasius of Ancyra, Pelagius of Laodicea, Zeno of Tyre, Paul of Emesa, Otreius of Melitene, Gregory of Nazianzus (the Father of Nazianzen) and several others, who, in the reign of Jovian, gathered at Antioch, had decreed that the doctrine of the Consubstantial must be held, the letters of Liberius and of the Westerns were recited.

[237] are received by the Eastern Catholics in the council of Tyana. Being affected by this thing with immense joy, they wrote to all the churches that they should read through the decrees of the Western bishops, and the Epistles both of Liberius and of the bishops of Italy, Africa, Gaul and Sicily (for the legates sent by the synod of Lampsacus had brought their letters too) and that they should consider the number of all these. For they were far more numerous than those who had sat in the council of Rimini. Besides, that they should be willing to agree and communicate with them: and should indicate by letters that they were of the same opinion. Thus Sozomen. But from the letters brought of the bishops of Gaul and Africa Tillemont suspects, in the Arians, article 110, that in those provinces too there were legates, just as there were in Sicily. But I, as I have already implied at number 233, rather believe that the letters indicated are those sent before to Liberius, in which the bishops of those provinces had embraced the Nicene faith, the council of Rimini being reprobated. Certainly Socrates and Sozomen assert that they set out for Sicily, by sea according to Sozomen, and thence into the East. That they set out for Gaul both deny, and about Africa and Illyricum being visited they make no mention.

[238] S. Basil confirms the aforesaid, charging that Eustathius Of what was done in that legation mention is made also by S. Basil, on occasion of Eustathius, who had already before frequently changed his opinion, and afterward broke off communion with S. Basil, taking it ill that a formula of faith was offered him by Basil to subscribe, or rather using that as a pretext. Hence S. Basil in Epistle 244 (elsewhere 82) speaks thus of Eustathius and others: But this I have wondered at in them, why on account of a subscribed document which we offered them they use so great a zeal for dissension; … but do not consider that their own confession of the Nicene faith, written at Rome, is preserved, and that with their own hand they offered to the synod of Tyana the document brought from Rome, which is preserved among us, containing the same faith. Nay, they have forgotten the address they then delivered, when, coming forward into the midst, they deplored the fraud by which, being deceived, they had consented to the tome composed by the faction of Eudoxius (that is, to the formula of Rimini). Whence also they found this way of purging that error, that, setting out for Rome, they should thence receive the faith of the Fathers, so that what detriment they had brought upon the churches by approving evil, that they should amend by introducing better. But those who undertook the longest journeys for the faith, and delivered that wise address, now revile us… But it is plain also from the things which are now circulated that the Nicene faith has been condemned by them. For they saw Cyzicus, and returned with another faith. From these things we have it that Eustathius either never sincerely embraced the Nicene faith, or after some years relapsed, chiefly in the conventicle of Cyzicus, where the Macedonians again repudiated the Consubstantial, and wrote blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, as S. Basil witnesses in the same Epistle.

[239] Of Eustathius's change Basil again writes to the Western bishops in Epistle 263 afterward relapsed. (elsewhere 72), where, having related the manifold changes of Eustathius in the faith, he says that he was cast down from his episcopate, and proceeds in this manner: And so, being cast out of his episcopate, … he found for himself this way of restoration, that he should betake himself to you. But what was proposed to him by the most blessed bishop Liberius, and to what things he assented, we do not know, except that he brought an Epistle which restored him, and, this being shown to the council of Tyana, he was restored to his own place. He now lays waste that faith on account of which he was received, and is together with those who anathematize the Consubstantial, and offers himself as leader of the heresy of the Pneumatomachi. Since therefore from thence came to him the power of harming the churches, and he uses the confidence given by you for the subversion of many, it is necessary that from thence also should come the amendment, and that it be signified to the churches by letters on what conditions he was received, and how now, being changed, he makes void the benefit granted him by the Fathers who then were. These things S. Basil says of Eustathius, not obscurely demanding that the Roman Pontiff with the Westerns should make his restoration void. But these things were written ten or eleven years after Eustathius's legation and his restoration by Liberius; nor do they pertain to our purpose otherwise than that it may be plain that the legates and the other Eastern bishops whom Liberius had restored to the communion of the Catholic Church were well received both in the East and in the West; but that not all remained constant in the Catholic faith.

[240] Baronius refers everything pertaining to the aforesaid legation, The synod of Lampsacus in the year 365, the rest to be fixed in the year 366. namely the council of Lampsacus, the acts at Rome with Liberius, and the council of Tyana, to the year 365. But the journeys are too long, and the acts interposed between the journeys too many, for it to become credible that everything was accomplished in one year; therefore Baronius warns at number 37 that a part of those acts probably pertains to the following year. Tillemont divided all those things into three years, and referred the council of Lampsacus to the year 365, the acts at Rome and in the West to 366, the council of Tyana to 367. This chronology is indeed more probable than that which includes everything in one year. I do not see, however, why everything could not have been finished in the year 366. For if the council of Lampsacus was held in the year 365, as Socrates asserts, the legates could set out for Rome in the same year, and there pass the winter, but in the following summer of the year 366 sail into Sicily, and thence into the East. But since Sozomen asserts that the synod of Tyana was held at the same time in which they returned, there seems to be no reason why we should remove it from the year 366. And that this was held about autumn I conjecture from the synod proclaimed at Tarsus before the end of the spring of the following year, as Sozomen has it. For if that of Tyana had been held at the beginning or middle of the summer, the bishops present there could have gathered that of Tarsus in the same year, and probably would have done so, since in it they wished to make all concordant in embracing the Nicene faith. But since it was deferred to the following year, probably on account of the approaching winter, it was not held at all, the Arians hindering.

[241] For the rest, the aforesaid Baronius discourses somewhat to excuse Liberius, Liberius seems to have proceeded excellently in receiving the Easterns, because he received the Macedonians to communion, as if it were certainly established that their confession was not sincere. It will perhaps be, he says, that someone will charge Liberius with excessive easiness, who absolved such scoundrels, often condemned elsewhere, and restored to them together with Catholic communion their sees also. But who was ever able to be made secure against a stealthy approach? These men came to Rome not as private persons, but fortified with a public legation, and with letters and documents of sincere faith, confirmed both by their own subscription and by that of very many Eastern bishops, in which they detested both the Arian heresy first of all and other heresies, etc. To these things more is added by which Liberius would rightly be excused, if he needed any excuse. But to me the manner of proceeding which Liberius used seems not only to need no excuse, but to be worthy even of the greatest praise. For it is gratuitously feigned that the Eastern bishops and their legates did not proceed sincerely in admitting the Nicene faith. Of the legates one is certainly known, Eustathius, who afterward withdrew from the Nicene faith. But from the change of Eustathius, whose inconstancy in faith S. Basil frequently charges, it cannot even be proved that Eustathius himself acted fraudulently. But just as Eustathius certainly fell away, so from S. Basil it is sufficiently

certain that Silvanus, the second legate, remained a Catholic. Of Theophilus, the third legate, who also was joined in friendship with S. Basil, I should not dare to affirm either with certainty.

[242] and, although some fell away, more seem to have remained Catholics. That some too of the others fell back from the Nicene faith we have from Sozomen, book 7, chapter 7, where he says that it was objected to the Macedonians in the council of Constantinople that they had received the Nicene faith in the legation to Liberius. From the number, however, of Catholics who in the year 381 assembled to the aforesaid council, about a hundred and fifty; but of Macedonians only thirty-six; it is most probably gathered that many of the Easterns who had been received by Liberius remained constant. For before, there were very few bishops in Asia Minor and in the whole Eastern empire, except Egypt and the neighboring provinces, who were Catholics and preached the Son Consubstantial with the Father, so that their number seems to have grown much by that legation. But that not all remained constant in the Catholic faith which they had professed at Rome, I suspect happened chiefly for two causes. The first is that not all the Semiarians or Macedonians had consented to profess the Nicene faith: for Eleusius of Cyzicus, who certainly was one of the most learned of the Semiarians — since S. Hilary in the book On the Synods, number 63, asserts that, apart from the bishop Eleusius and a few with him, the rest of the bishops of Asia Minor knew almost nothing about God — was not among those who wrote to Liberius; so that it is likely that by him some were again drawn away from the Catholic profession. The other cause seems to be that the council of Tarsus, in which the Catholic profession and communion of all was to be confirmed, could not be held on account of the persecution of the Arians. Whatever it be, Liberius seems to have omitted nothing by which he might render their faith stable; and since it had been determined to receive penitent heretics in their own ranks, there was no just reason why he should not likewise receive these.

§ XV. The discourse of Liberius in S. Ambrose: the Liberian basilica, now called S. Maria Maggiore; the year and day of S. Liberius's death, and his burial, etc.

[ ] The discourse delivered by Liberius to S. Marcellina, Before we come to the death of S. Liberius, there remain a few things to be related which were done by him in his Pontificate, but in an uncertain year. S. Liberius gave the veil of virginity to S. Marcellina, the full sister of S. Ambrose, and at that time delivered a short discourse to Marcellina, in the presence of a countless multitude, which was commended to posterity by S. Ambrose. For the holy Doctor begins the third book On Virgins thus: Since we have set forth in the two preceding books what we had, it is time, holy sister, to go over again the precepts of Liberius of blessed memory, which thou art wont to discuss with me, that, the holier the Man, the more gracious may the discourse be. For he, when on the Savior's Birthday, at the apostle Peter's, thou didst mark thy profession of virginity by a change of dress also (for on what better day than that on which the Virgin gained posterity), several maidens of God also standing by, who vied with one another for thy fellowship, said: "Thou hast desired good nuptials, daughter" etc. Then in three chapters he pursues the discourse itself, whether entire, or curtailed in some part; and in chapter 4 subjoins: These things Liberius of holy memory said with thee, which with others are greater than the truth, with thee less than thy examples etc. But that these things were done at the beginning of S. Liberius's Pontificate the age of S. Marcellina persuades, as has already been said at the XVII of July in S. Marcellina, page 233. For since S. Marcellina seems to have been born about the year 330, and professed virginity as a young woman, as is gathered from the Life of S. Ambrose, Marcellina's profession of virginity cannot probably be deferred until Liberius's return from exile. And so the said exhortation, at which a very great multitude of people was present, will have been delivered between the years 352 and 355.

[244] Tillemont, tome 9, in S. Ambrose, article 4, says which Tillemont will have polished by Ambrosian style, that the precepts which Liberius gave to Marcellina are excellent; but in them he recognizes the style of S. Ambrose, very, he says, unlike the style of Liberius, which was exceedingly simple, not to say rustic and barbarous. This judgment I see afterward pleased others too. But let the learned pardon me if the judgments of Tillemont about the style of Latin or Greek writers do not seem to me to be so much esteemed, especially when they rest on false grounds. He in various places deprives Liberius of every gift of eloquence. In tome 6, in the Arians, article 109, he says of the Epistle given at number 230: This Epistle is of the customary style of Liberius, who certainly did not have the gift of eloquence. But I by no means perceive what in the style of that Epistle could so greatly displease Tillemont that on its account he had to strip Liberius of the gift of eloquence; nay, that censure seems to me so inept that I am compelled to doubt whether Tillemont did not by an error attach to that Epistle a censure passed before upon some other. Certainly that Epistle is weighty, and clear and neat enough, so as not to deserve that censure. But if it had anything unpolished, this could be attributed to the translators, since it was probably first turned from Latin into Greek, then from Greek into Latin. Wherefore Tillemont ought not to have alleged this Epistle to show that Liberius's style was rustic and barbarous, but the four Epistles which I proved supposititious in §3. These indeed are those of a man uttering his thoughts rustically and barbarously, and destitute no less of sound sense than of skill in the Latin tongue. Certainly I am altogether persuaded that Tillemont and others judged of Liberius's style from those supposititious letters; and therefore I cannot wonder that they wrongly judged that Liberius used an almost barbarous Latin speech: I wonder certainly more that Epistles so absurd and inept could be attributed to him.

[245] But if anyone desires to pass a sound judgment about Liberius's speech, does not seem so far to exceed the eloquence of Liberius, let him read his epistles given in §4 to Eusebius of Vercelli, and especially to Constantius: let him read also the Dialogue held with Constantius at Milan, which I gave in §6. From these the prudent reader will be able to perceive that S. Liberius was destitute neither of keenness of wit nor of sufficient eloquence; especially if he consider that in Epistles of that kind, which are written about business to be transacted, far greater care is taken that the things to be done be accurately set forth than that the speech be polished. And so it is certain and undoubted to me that Liberius was far more eloquent than Tillemont and others judged him from supposititious letters. The very Pontificate of Liberius, held in the IV century, in which the Latin speech was in use at Rome, abundantly resists the opinion of our adversaries, lest we be compelled to say that a man almost ignorant of his own native speech was raised to the Pontificate.

[246] so that it must be adjudged to Ambrose against his will. Wherefore I do not find reasons solid enough by which I should assert that the discourse which the holy doctor recites to his sister as the discourse of S. Liberius is rather S. Ambrose's than Liberius's own. In what way does Ambrose say that he goes over again those precepts, that, the holier the Man, the more gracious may the discourse be; if it was not Liberius's discourse? For it was not Liberius's discourse, if his precepts were set forth in Ambrose's words. On what ground therefore could the discourse become more gracious from Liberius's sanctity, if it was not Liberius's discourse, but Ambrose's? How does Ambrose at once at the beginning of the discourse interpose the word said he, to signify that he is giving Liberius's words, if they were not his words, but only his thoughts? But as concerns the style, if anyone diligently compare the style of this discourse with the style of S. Ambrose, he will see that Liberius's diction is more simple, and much more concise, than the discourse of S. Ambrose commonly is; and that such periods do not occur in Liberius's discourse as are most frequent in the writings of S. Ambrose. Wherefore, even if the style of that discourse has some likeness with the style of S. Ambrose, it does not seem so great as to make it necessary to adjudge it to Ambrose against his will, and to say that Liberius was so unskilled in the Latin tongue that Ambrose was unwilling to give the words of him whose precepts he was setting forth.

[247] The basilica founded by Liberius, which is now called S. Maria Maggiore: Of the basilica founded by Liberius at Rome Anastasius in Liberius has thus: He made a basilica for his own name (that is, of his own name, I think) beside the market of Livia. An ample dissertation could here be woven about the construction of this basilica, on account of the festival of S. Mary ad Nives instituted on its account. But since a disputation of that kind pertains rather to a particular Work about the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God and her festivals, which our Elders long ago promised, and to which it has already been remitted in the Prætermissi at the V of August, I shall here gather only the chief traces of the matter. That some sacred basilica was founded by Liberius cannot deservedly be doubted, since after Liberius's death, when the Ursinian schism arose against S. Damasus, the schismatics seized Liberius's basilica, as is read in the Preface before the Libellus of Marcellinus and Faustinus, pages 6 and 8. For I cannot doubt that from its founder Liberius it was called the basilica of Liberius or the Liberian; just as another in the same place, pages 4 and 5, is called the Basilica of Julius, namely from Julius the predecessor of Liberius, to whom also the first catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs attributes the Julian basilica, as its founder. It is established besides that it is the basilica which at various times had different names, and which is now called Saint Mary Major. For in Sixtus III Anastasius has thus: He made the basilica of Saint Mary, which by the ancients was surnamed that of Liberius, beside the market of Libya. For that this was afterward surnamed Major and Ad præsepe all agree, and the matter is clear from what is adduced in Bianchini in the Annotations on Anastasius in Sixtus III. Liberius therefore was the founder of the said basilica, Sixtus III its restorer or enlarger. But very many others afterward there were who restored or adorned the most splendid basilica of S. Maria Maggiore at great expense, and among them no lowest place is held by Pope Benedict XIV, who today happily presides over the universal Church.

[248] But an ancient tradition has it that Liberius was led to build a basilica in that place by the wonderful sign of snow [the tradition about the miracle of snow, on account of which the basilica was built,] which fell upon that hill on the V day of August. The whole matter, contracted from ancient manuscripts, is thus set forth in the present Roman Breviary at the V of August, on which the feast of S. Mary ad Nives is celebrated: In the time of Liberius the supreme Pontiff, John, a Roman patrician, and his wife of equal nobility, since they had not received children whom they might leave heirs of their goods, vowed their inheritance to the most holy Virgin Mother of God: asking of her assiduously with the highest prayers that she would in some way signify upon what pious work she especially wished that money to be expended. Whose prayers and vows made from the heart the blessed Virgin Mary kindly hearing, by a miracle

approved it. On the Nones of August therefore, at which season the greatest heats are wont to be in the City, by night snow covered a part of the Esquiline hill. On which night the Mother of God separately admonished John and his wife in their sleep that in the place which they should see sprinkled with snow they should build a church, which should be dedicated in the name of the Virgin Mary: for that she wished thus to be instituted heir by them. Which John reported to Liberius the Pontiff, who affirmed that the same had befallen him in a dream. Wherefore with a solemn supplication of priests and people he came to the hill covered with snow, and marked out on it the place of the church, which was built with the money of John and his wife, and afterward restored by Sixtus the third. It was at first called by various names, the Basilica of Liberius; Saint Mary ad Præsepe. But since there were already many churches in the City under the name of Saint Mary the Virgin, in order that the basilica which by the novelty of the miracle and by its dignity excelled the other basilicas of the same name might be signified also by the excellence of its title, it was called the Church of S. Mary Major. The memory of whose dedication, from the snow which on this day wonderfully fell, is kept with an anniversary celebration.

[249] Tillemont, who cast away almost all criticism in examining documents was too easily rejected by some, vindicated by others, forged for the staining of S. Liberius's fame, shows himself more severe in admitting this tradition, tome 6, Note 83 on the Arians. He says, namely, that he omits those miracles because they are found only in the lessons of Breviaries, to which he attributes little credit. But Paolo de Angelis, who published a prolix Work about that Basilica in the year 1621 from the Roman press, besides Breviaries and other ritual books cites also not a few other monuments for confirming the prodigy of the fallen snow. Tillemont had not seen that Work; but only considered those things which Fiorentini adduced in Exercitation 12, on the question whether that is the first church at Rome dedicated to the most blessed Virgin Mary. Wherefore that judgment of Tillemont was lightly uttered, without knowledge of the arguments by which that prodigy was asserted by Paolo de Angelis, and without any notable argument, and ought to move no one. Tillemont too has already been refuted, as also Baillet, who with equal levity asserts things unknown to him, by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Benedict XIV in the Work written in Italian on the Feasts of Christ and of Mary, part 2, §84 and following. Wherefore I remit the further examination of the whole matter to the Work on the Most Holy Virgin Mary promised by our Elders.

[250] The other things which are read in Anastasius about S. Liberius The sepulchre of S. Agnes adorned: his ordinations. do not need a laborious examination. For I pass over what is there wrapped in ridiculous errors about Liberius's lapse, since those things have already been sufficiently refuted, and are also refuted by various reasons by Bencini in the Annotations in Bianchini. Other things therefore I briefly subjoin: This Liberius adorned with slabs of marble stone the sepulchre of holy Agnes the martyr. That sepulchre was in the church of S. Agnes, which had been built in the same century by Constantia outside the City on the Via Nomentana, as was said in tome 1 of January, page 355, in S. Agnes. In that church therefore, which still exists, S. Liberius adorned the sepulchre of S. Agnes with marble plates. Of his ordinations Anastasius has thus: He made two ordinations in the City of Rome in the month of December, nineteen presbyters, five deacons, nineteen bishops in various places.

[251] The Saint died in the year 366, Of the year of S. Liberius's death nothing can be had from Anastasius, since in the eulogies of him and of his successors he is full of errors. Most more recent chronologers, however, agree that S. Liberius died in the year 366, on the XXIII or XXIV day of September, because the Preface prefixed to the Libellus precum of Marcellinus and Faustinus, page 4, has these words: And likewise on the eighth Kalends of October, Gratian and Dagalaifus being consuls (that is, in the year 366), Liberius is taken away from human affairs. Nearly all chronologers have followed this assertion, as I have said. It is only doubted whether perhaps the IX Kalends should not be read, because in most of the Hieronymian transcripts the memory of Liberius is recalled on the XXIII of September. Baronius, for investigating the year of Liberius's death, looked elsewhere, and fixed Liberius's death in the year 367. He observes, namely, first, that in the year 367 Viventius was prefect of the City. Then he asserts that the schism between Ursinus and Damasus, which arose after Liberius's death, broke out under the prefecture of Viventius: and thence concludes that Liberius died in the year 367.

[252] not 367. This argument would be rightly deduced if Viventius had not been prefect of the City before the year 367; but from the aforesaid Preface, pages 6 and 7, it is established that he was prefect also in the year 366, that is, Gratian and Dagalaifus being consuls, at least from the month of October. But from another source, from the Chronology of the laws in the code, it is plain that already in the month of August of the year 367 the prefecture of Viventius was ended, and that the prefect of the City was then Prætextatus, to whom there is extant a law about ungrateful children, given on the XV Kalends of September of the year 367. Liberius therefore did not live until the month of September of the year 367, in which Viventius had laid down the prefecture; but died in the year 366, as is confirmed from the very prefecture of Viventius, and on the XXIII or XXIV day of September, not at the fifth Ides of September, as Baronius will have it from the second Catalogue of the Pontiffs among us. Wherefore, since he was created Pontiff in the year 352, in the month of May, on the XXII day, or the XXIV, as some will have it, because this was a Sunday, he sat fourteen years and about four months. The arbitrary computations of Bianchini I do not delay over.

[253] His burial and the translation of his body. Of his burial it is said in Anastasius: Who also was buried in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way, on the eighth Kalends of May, and the Episcopate was vacant seven days. I shall say nothing about the time of the burial here wrongly designated, nor about the day on which S. Damasus, S. Liberius's successor, was elected. Piazza in the sacred Hemerologium at this day writes that the body of S. Liberius is believed to have been translated from the cemetery of S. Priscilla to the Vatican basilica, and to be preserved there even now. Our Papebroch in the Conatus Chronico-historicus on the Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, in S. Liberius, number 3, after some things pertaining to the cult of S. Liberius, subjoins these words: But again the name of the same S. Liberius is reported in the old Barberini manuscript, and in the painted Calendar of the Aventine hill, at the VIII Kalends of May, together with S. Benedict II the Pope; probably on the occasion of a translation common to both, procured by Pope Sergius II (read the first) about the year DCC. That conjecture about a common translation of SS. Liberius and Benedict II Papebroch repeats in tome 2 of May, page 197, in S. Benedict II, subjoining these words after reciting those of the painted Calendar and of the manuscript Martyrology: But from that commemoration of both thus alike noted we can determine nothing else than that in such a month and day some common translation of both was made. Nor do I see whence otherwise the common announcement of both would have flowed. But here Papebroch deservedly doubts more about the author of the translation, since he has found him nowhere designated.

[254] Benno the schismatic Cardinal, and a most lying writer, A festival perhaps formerly celebrated: the Saint's fame traduced in the Life of S. Gregory VII, whom he names only Hildebrand, writes of S. Gregory VII: He ordered that the feast of Liberius should be celebrated. This, evidently, Benno reckons among the crimes of S. Gregory, and on that account strives to make him a favorer of heresy. But if S. Gregory VII really ordered the festival of S. Liberius to be celebrated, which by the testimony of Benno does not become sufficiently certain, this will rather be an indication of a festival already celebrated before, which perhaps had been omitted on account of the calumnies by which the fame of S. Liberius was obscured in the middle age. For that Benno does not hesitate in various places to call Liberius a heretic ought to move us little, since that gross calumniator, in order to make Liberius a heretic, seems to have had no documents except the plainly fabulous Acts of S. Eusebius the presbyter. But that a furious and little learned man, such as Benno is known from his writings to be, gave credit to lying Acts in the XI century, in which no criticism flourished, I certainly do not wonder. But that Stephen Baluze, who acquired for himself the name of erudition among the moderns in France, made much of such ineptitudes, I cannot but wonder at.

[255] Nevertheless he not only reprinted the Life of S. Eusebius with a eulogy in tome 2 of the Miscellanea; from the fabulous Life of S. Eusebius, but from the same he also forged a new council in the New Collection of Councils, column 75, where he prefaces this: Of this council no mention is had elsewhere than in the Life of S. Eusebius, a Roman presbyter. Then he produces these words from the fabulous Life: But Liberius being dead, Damasus is raised up, who by public voice condemned Liberius, a synod having been held with twenty-eight bishops and twenty-five presbyters. This fictitious council is added to the other inventions of the author of that Life, and that Baluze did not see this I scarcely conceive. For Damasus himself in the Epistle to the Illyrians, cited at number 183, observes that Liberius did not consent to the council of Rimini, and all writers both ancient and modern agree that Liberius labored excellently in the last years of his life for the good of the Church, and left an honorable memory of himself. Hence by S. Ambrose, a Roman and a contemporary, he is called of blessed memory and of holy memory, and is named the holier Man. Hence flowed the other honorable titles with which Liberius was adorned by S. Siricius, the successor of Damasus, S. Basil, S. Epiphanius, and others cited at number 2 and throughout the whole course of this Commentary. And so there is no appearance of that council, nor ought Baluze to have attributed so much to an openly lying author as to forge a new council from his calumnies.

[256] whose author is openly a liar, For he could have seen that the anonymous author of that Life — whether he was that Luciferian schismatic, or some other later calumniator — is as hostile to Liberius as the schismatics Marcellinus and Faustinus are to Damasus, and lies even more openly. For first a dialogue is feigned between Constantius, Liberius and Eusebius, as though held at Rome, where they never were together, as has already been said. This dialogue alone shows that the author is openly a liar and worthy of no credit. Secondly the author implies that the Catholics at that time were rebaptized by the Arians. Thirdly Liberius is said to have been a heretic, and of the same opinion as Constantius, which is certainly false. Fourthly Constantius and Liberius together are brought in persecuting the Catholics at Rome, and Constantius is said to have commanded that anyone who did not think with Liberius should be punished with the sword without trial. But these are mere figments, of which no trace is found among the ancients. Fifthly, to omit Baluze's invented council, the author of the Acts is said to be Orosius, a presbyter, the companion and kinsman of Eusebius. By this figment it becomes clear that the author did not write false things from error, but lied on purpose

: for an author living at Rome at that time could not believe that Constantius and Liberius were at Rome together; and so he openly lies either in this, or about his own age and quality; or rather in both, nay in everything, I think, which he uttered about Liberius.

[257] and he has already long since imposed upon others too. But let these things suffice about those lying Acts, from which Baluze produced a fictitious council. That from the same Acts flowed all those fabulous things which are read in Anastasius about Liberius's consent with Constantius, about Liberius's communion with the Arians — excepting the second baptism — and about the persecution stirred up at Rome by Constantius and Liberius, Bencini rightly observes in the Annotations in Bianchini. Tillemont in the Arians, article 75, set forth in French to his readers some things from the fabulous Life of S. Eusebius and from Anastasius; but he confesses that they are drawn from documents of no credit, and that circumstances utterly improbable are mixed in. But of that fictitious council of Baluze I could find nothing in Tillemont. For the rest, that I may set an end to a prolix Commentary, I think fair readers should be asked that, if they find here some things argued at greater length which seem to pertain less to the Acts of S. Liberius, they should at least consider that the credit of many documents had to be examined, that it might become more clearly known upon what feeble reasons rest all the things by which the fame of the holy Pontiff was torn and wretchedly mangled.