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

40. We now come to the case of Liberius. Constantius had promised the ladies of Rome that he would
restore him again to his see; but had also promised the Eusebians that he would not liberate him till he
communicated with them. He, therefore, laid his commands on Demophilus, Bishop of Berea, where
Liberius was exiled, and on Fortunatus, Bishop of Aquilea, another apostate, to leave no means untried to
make Liberius sign the formula of Sirmium, and the condemnation of St. Athanasius. Liberius was now
three years in exile, broken down by solitude and flogging, and, above all, deeply afflicted at seeing the
see of Rome occupied by an anti-Pope, the Deacon Felix, and thus he had the weakness to yield, and
subscribed the formula, condemning, at the same time, St. Athanasius, and communicating with the
Arian bishops.
41. It is a question among authors, which of the three formulas was subscribed by Liberius. Valesius says
it was the third; but this has no foundation, for the third was not drawn up till 359, and St. Athanasius
tells us that Liberius was then after returning to Rome. Blondel and Petavius say it was the second he
signed, and this is the general opinion followed by- heretics, who strive thus to prove that the Catholic
Church may fail. The Protestant Danæus numbers Liberius among the bishops who joined the Arians,
and says that all historians are agreed that he signed this formula, and after that, he says, no one can deny
that the Roman Church can err. But the general opinion held by Catholics, and which is, also, the most
probable, and in which Baronius, N. Alexander, Graveson, Fleury, Juenin, Tournelly, Berninus, Orsi,
Hermant, and Selvaggi, the learned annotator of Mosheim, join with Gotti, who gives it as the general
opinion of Catholic authors, is, that it was the first formula he signed.
(8) Nat. Alex.; Fleury, I. 13
There are very weighty reasons to prove that this opinion is founded on fact : First The formula
subscribed by Liberius was the one drawn up at the time Photinus was condemned, and this was,
indubitably, the first and not the second. Secondly the formula he signed, and which was laid before him
by Demophilus, was not drawn up by the Anomeans, or pure Arians, but by the Semi- Arians, to which
sect Demophilus, Basil of Ancira, Valens, and Ursacius belonged. These did not admit that the Son was
consubstantial with the Father, because they would not approve of the Nicene Creed, but said he was of
the substance of the Father; and this was expressed in the first formula alone, but not in the second, in
which both the words substance and like unto were omitted. These very bishops even who subscribed the
first rejected the second in a synod purposely convoked in Ancira. Nor does it militate against this
opinion, that the formula subscribed by Liberius was also subscribed by the Anomeans, for Constantino,
who, as Socrates informs us, favoured the Semi-Arian party, obliged them to subscribe to it. Another
proof is from Sozymen, who quotes a letter of Liberius, written to the Semi-Arians, in which he declares,
that those who assert that the Son is not like unto the Father in all things, and of the same substance, do
not belong to the Church. From all this it is proved that Liberius signed the formula, from which the
word consubstantiality was omitted, but which approved of the words substantiality and like unto (9).
(9) Tournelly, Theol. t. 2; Blondell. de Primatu, p. 48; Petav. in observ. St. Epiphan.; Danæus, Opus, de
Her.; Baron. An. 357; Nat. Alex., Fleury, Graveson; Juenin, Theol. 40, 3 ques.; Bern in.; Hermant, t. 1; Orsi,
I. 14; Gotti, de Vcr. Rel.; Selvaggi, not. 52, ad Mosh.
42. Because St. Hilary calls the formula signed by Liberius a perfidy, the argument is not weakened, for
Noel Alexander supposes, that these words, and the anathema hurled against Liberius, in St. Hilary’s
fragments, were foisted in by some other hand, for these fragments were written after the return of
Liberius to Rome, when he most strenuously refused to approve of the formula of the Council of Rimini;
others again, as Juenin, imagined, that St. Hilary called the formula perfidious, taking it in the perverse
sense as understood by the Arians, since speaking of it before (considered absolutely in itself), he called it
a Catholic formula. Another argument is deduced from the Chronicle of St. Jerome, for he writes, that
Liberius, conquered by a weary exile, subscribed to heretical pravity, and entered Rome almost like a
conqueror. Noel Alexander says, that St. Jerome means by this, not that he signed a formula in itself
heretical, but that he communicated with heretics, and although the communion with heretics was an
error, it was not heresy itself. Another answer is, that St. Jerome might have written this under the belief
that it was true, since, as Sozymen informs us, the heretics spread every where abroad, that Liberius, in
subscribing the formula, not only denied the consubstantiality, but even the likeness of the Son to the
Father; but, withal, we do not justify Liberius for condemning St. Athanasius and communicating with
Page 36 of 352