LTBBRTUS
222
LIBEBIU8
ceived for the moinent bv the rumours spread by the
Allans. The author of the preface to the " Liber Pre-
cum of Faust inuB and MarcelUnus is an Ursinian
masquerading as a Luciferian in order to eet the ad-
vantage of the toleration accorded to the latter sect,
and he takes the Luciferian view of Libcrius; possibly
he followed Jerome's *' Chronicle", which seems to b!e
following the forged letters; for Jerome knew St.
Hilary 'a book *' Against Valens and Ursacius", and he
refused to accept the assertion of Rufmus that it had
been interpolated. In his account of Fortunatian
(De Viris Illust., xcvii) he says this bishop " was iji-
famous for having been the first to break the courage
of Liberius and induce him to give his signature to
heresy, and this on liis way into exile". This is in-
credible, for St. Athan:isius twice tells us that the
pope held out two whole years. Evidently St. Je-
rome (who was veiy careless about history) had got
hold of the story that Fortunatian had a letter of
Liberius in his hands after the Council of Milan, and
he concludeb that he must have met Liberius as the
latter passed through Aquileia on his way to Thrace:
that is to say, Jerome has read the forged letters and
has not quite understood them.
Rufinus, who was himself of Aquileia, says he could not find out whether Liberius fell or not. This seems to be as much as to say that, knowing necessarily the assertions of St. Jerome, he was unable to discover on what they were based. He himself was not deceived by the forgeries, and there was indeed no pther basis.
Positive evidence in favour of Liberius is not want>- ing. About 432 St. Prosper re-edited and continued St. Jerome's "Chronicle", but he was careful to omit the words Ujedio victtia exilii in relating the return of Liberius. St. Sulpicius Severn* (403) says Lilxjrius was restored ob seditiones Romanas, A letter of Pope St. Anastasius I (401) mentions him with Dionysius, Hilary, and Eusebius as one of those who would have died rather than blaspheme Christ with the Arians. St. Ambrose remembered him as an exceedingly holy man. * Socrates has placed the exile of Lil^erius after the Council of Milan, through too carelessly following the order of Rufinus; unUke Rufinus, however, he is not doubtful about the fall of Liberius, but gives as sufficient reason for his return the revolt of the Ro- mans against Felix, and he has expressly omitted the story which Sozomen took from Sabinus, a writer of whose good faith Socrates had a low opinion. To Theodoret Liberius is a glorious athlete of the faith; he tplls us more of him than any other writer has done, ana he teUs it with enthusiasm.
But the strongest arguments for the innocence of Liberius are a priori. Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would, have puolished his victory far and wide; there would have Been no possible doubt about it; it would have been more notorious than even that gained over Hosius. But if he was released because the Romans demanded him back, because his deposition had been too un- canonical, because his resistance was too heroic, and because Felix was not generally recognized as pope, then we might be sure he would be suspected of having given some pledge to the emperor; the Arians and the Felicians alike, and soon the Luciferians, would have no difficulty in spreading a report of his fall and in winning credence for it. It is hard to see how Hilary in banishment and Athanasius in hiding could dis}:>e- lieve such a story, when they heard that Liberius had returned, though the other exiled bishops were still un- relieved.
Further, the pope's decree after Rimini, that the fallen bishops could not be restored unless they showed their sincerity by vigour against the Arians, would have been laughable, if he himself had fallen vet earlier, and had not publicly atoned for his sin. Vet, ve oan her quite certain that he made no public conr- fmiongfihftving fallen, no recantation, no atonement.
The forged letters and, still more, the strong words
of St. Jerome have perpetuated the belief in his guilt.
The " Lil>er Pontificalis " makes him return from exile
to persecute the followers of Felix, who becomes a
martyr and a saint. St. Eusebius, mart>T, is repre-
sented in his Acts as a Roman priest, put to death by
the Arianizing Liberius. But the curious "Gesta
Liberii ", apparentlv of the time of Pope Symmachus,
do not make any clear allusion to a fall. The Hiero-
nymian Martyrology gives his deposition both on 23
Sept. and 17 May; on the former date he is commem-
orated by Wandalbert and by some of the enlarged MSS.
of Usuard. But he is not in the Roman Martyrology.
Modern Judgments on Pope Liberius. — Histo- rians and critics have been much divided as to the guilt of Liberius. Stilting and Zaccaria are the best known among the earlier defenders; in the nineteenth cen- tury, Palma, Reinerding, Ilergenrdther, Jungmann, Grisar, Feis, and recently Savio. These have been in- clined to doubt the authenticity of the testimonies of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome to the fall of Liberius, but their arguments, though serious, hardly amount to a real probability against these texts. On the other hand, Protestant and Gallican writers have been se- vere on Liberius (e. g. Mocller, Barmby, the Old- Catholic Langen, and DoUinger), but they have not pretended to decide with certainty what Arian for- mula he signed. With these Renouf may be grouped, and lately Schiktanz. A more moderate view is repre- sented by Hefele^ who denied the authenticity of the letters, but admitted the truth of Sozomen 's story, looking upon the union of the pope with the Semi- Arians as a deplorable mistake, but not as a lapse into heresy. He is followed by Funk and Duchesne (1907), while the Protestant Kriiger is altogether undecided. The newest view, brilliantly exposed by Duchesne in 1908, is that Liljerius early in 357 (because the pre- face to the " Liljer Precum makes Constantius speak at Rome in April-May as though Liberius had al- ready fallen) wrote the letter "Studens paci", and, finding it did not satisfy the emperor, signed the in- definite and insufficient formula of 351, and wrote the three other contested letters; the Arian leader^ were still not satisfied, and LilMjrius was only restored to Rome when the Semi-Arians were able to influence the emperor in 358, after Lil>erius had agreed with them as Sozomen relates. The weak points of this theory are as follows: There is no other authority for a fall so early as the beginning of 357 but a casual word in the document referred to above; the "Sttt- dens paci" is senseless at so late a date; the letter " Pro deifico timore *' plainly means that Liberius had accepted the formula of 357 (not that of 351), and had he done so, he would certainly have been restored at once; the story of Sozomen is untrustworthy, and Liberius must have returned in 357.
It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formuhc in exile, he did so freelv; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admittecl on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance lx?fore his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.
The letters of Liberius, together with his sermcm on the occasion of the consecration of St. Ambrose's sis- t<?r to virginitv (preserv'cd by that Father, " De Virg." I, ii, iii), and^ the dialogue Vith the emperor (Theo* doret, '^Hist. £ccl., II, xvi) are oolleotea in Coustanty
