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 that 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 Danaeus 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. 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 Constantine, 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 to 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[1].
- ↑ 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.; Bernin.; Hermant, t. 1; Orsi, l. 14; Gotti, de Ver. Rel.; Selvaggi, not. 52, ad Mosh.
