the history of heresies, and their refutation - Catholic Apologetics ...

But St. Eusebius said, the first thing to be done was, that all should subscribe the formula of the Council
of Nice, and then that other matters could be taken into consideration. St. Dionisius, Bishop of Milan,
immediately prepared to subscribe to it, but Valens of Murcia snatched the pen and paper out of his
hands, and said, that nothing ever would be concluded if that course was followed. When this came to
the knowledge of the people, they murmured loudly, and complained that the bishops themselves were
betraying the faith; so the Emperor, dreading a popular tumult, transferred the council to the church of
his own palace, and told the assembled bishops that they should obey his edict in the affair, and sign a
profession filled with all the errors of Arianism. He called especially on the Legate Lucifer, St. Eusebius,
and St. Dionisius, and ordered them to subscribe the condemnation of St. Athanasius, and when they
determinedly refused to do so, as being against the laws of the Church, he answered: "Whatever is my
will is law, obey me or you shall be banished." The bishops then told him that he would have to answer
to the Almighty if he used any violence towards them; but he became so indignant at being remonstrated
with in this manner, that he actually drew his sword on them, and gave orders that they should be put to
death, but when his passion cooled a little, he was satisfied with sending them into banishment, and they
were sent off from the council, loaded with chains, under a guard of soldiers, to the place of their exile,
where they had to endure a great deal of harsh treatment from the heretics. At the same time, Hilary, one
of the legates, was stripped naked and cruelly flogged on the back, the Arians all the while crying out to
him : " Why did not you oppose Liberius?" Constantius then appointed Ausentius in the place of St.
Dionisius, and obliged Liberius to come to Milan. The Emperor, on Liberius’s arrival, ordered him to
condemn St. Athanasius, and, on his refusal to do so, gave him three days for consideration, and told him
that if he refused he would also be sent into exile. Liberius persevered in his refusal, and was accordingly
banished to Berea, in Thrace, of which Demophilus, a perfidious Arian, was bishop (4).
(4) Sozyræn, I. 4; Soc. I 2; Fleury, Orsi, Ser. Sulp. l. 2.
34. The great Osius was, next to Liberius, the great prop of the Faith in the West, both on account of the
holiness of his life, and his learning; he was at this time sixty years Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, and he
showed his constancy in the persecution of Maximilian, by publicly confessing the faith. Constantius had
him brought before him, and advised him to communicate with the Arians, and condemn St. Athanasius,
but he resolutely refused to do either one or the other. Constantius allowed him to go away for that time;
but soon after wrote to him, and threatened to punish him if he refused any longer to obey his will. Osius
answered him with even greater firmness : If you are resolved to persecute me, said he, I am prepared to
shed my blood sooner than betray the truth; you may then save yourself the trouble of writing to me on
the subject again. Tremble at the last judgment, and do not intermeddle with the affairs of the Church;
God has given you the Empire, the government of the Church he has committed to us. Constantius sent
for him once more, to induce him to yield, but, finding him inflexible, he banished him to Sirmium; he
was then nearly in the hundredth year of his age.
35. We now have to treat of, first, the fall of Osius, and next of Liberius. The principal author of Osius’s
fall was Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon; he was at first a defender of the Faith, but Constantius gained him
over by giving him possession of an estate of the Chancery; he, therefore, joined the Eusebians, and
Osius, burning with zeal, denounced his impiety through all Spain. Potamius, thirsting for revenge, first
got him banished to Sirmium, and then finding the Emperor there, he induced him to use such violent
measures with him, that he broke down his resolution, and caused him to fall. The poor old man was
weakened with torments; he was beaten so violently that his flesh was all torn, and he endured a long
and violent torture; his strength failed him, he could suffer no more, and he unfortunately signed the
second formula of Sirmium, condemning St. Athanasius, and holding communion with the Arians.
Sozymen particularly mentions that Eudosius saw the letter of Osius, in which he disproves of both the
word consubstantial, and the words like in substance. He now was permitted to return again to Spain,
but Gregory, Bishop of Alvira, refused to communicate with him on account of his prevarication. Two
authors, followers of Lucifer, Faustus and Marcellinus, write that Osius died an unhappy death; but St.
Athanasius, who, as Cardinal Orsi justly remarks, deserves more credit, says that at his death he declared
he was subdued by violence, and thus fell into error, and that he anathematized the heresy of the Arians,
and besought all who heard him to hold it in horror (5).
36. We now come to speak of the fall of Liberius. It is said by some that Osius subscribed the second
formula of Sirmium; now, to understand the fall of Liberius, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the
three formulas of faith composed in Sirmium. Noel Alexander says that there was but one formula of
Page 34 of 352