A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

LIBERIUS.

LIBERIUS Succeeded Pope Julius in the See of Rome, in the Year 352. He protests in one of his Letters, That 'twas much against his Will, that he was promoted to this Dignity. In the * 1.1 Fragments of St. Hilary, there is a Letter attributed to this Pope, which was written to the Bishops of the East, soon after his Elevation to the Pontificate, wherein he acquaints them, That he had sent to St. Athanasius, three Priests of the Church of Rome, Luke, Paul and Aelianus, to cite him to Rome, that Judgment might be given about his Cause, according to the Discipline of the Church; That he had also directed another Letter to him, wherein he acquaints him, That in Case he did not come to Rome, He would declare him Excommunicated from the Roman Church. He adds, That these Priests being returned, and having inform'd him that Athanasius refus'd to come, he had fol∣low'd the Judgment that the Eastern Bishops gave against him; That he would Communicate with them, and all the Bishops of the Catholick Church; That on the contrary, Athanasius was faln from his Communion, as well as from that of the Roman Church, and from all Correspondence with it by Letters.

This is the Substance of this Letter attributed to Liberius, which would not be much for his Ad∣vantage, if it were really his: But I think, 'tis very probable, that he never wrote any such thing, and that this Epistle was forg'd by him that made the Collection of the Fragments of St. Hilary. For First, Is it any ways Credible, that Liberius should Excommunicate St. Athanasius, without any Cause, and without any Regard to the Judgment of his Predecessor, or to that of the Council of Sardica?

Secondly, The Author of this Letter says, That the Eastern Bishops had wrote to Julius against St. Athanasius, without mentioning the Judgment which this Pope gave in his Favour.

Thirdly, St. Athanasius never complains that Liberius had Excommunicated him before he was Banish'd; but on the contrary, he supposes, That he was always for him, till he Subscrib'd in the place of his Banishment.

Fourthly, The Words of St. Hilary which follow this Letter, have no connexion with the Contents of it, and plainly show, That he referrs to a quite different Letter: The Words are these; [Is not this a very Holy Letter? What does it contain in it that proceeds not from a Spirit full of the Fear of God? But Potamius and Epictetus, desiring to condemn the Bishop of Rome, as is said in the Synod of Ariminum, would not obey him; and tho' Fortunatianus sent this Letter to many Bishops, he lost his Labour.] Now is it credible, That St. Hilary should so commend a Letter that contain'd the Condemnation of St. Athanasius? What he adds, does yet more clearly prove what we have said, and confirm our Opinion. [They would rather prejudice their own Interests, and hazard all, than refuse Communion to St. Athanasius, or reflect upon the Authority of the Council of Sardica, which had absolv'd him. The Egyptians wrote to Liberius, that he should maintain Communion with St. Atha∣nasius, as they had formerly written to Julius, to desire him, that he would restore him to it.] These words plainly discover, that Liberius had not Excommunicated St. Athanasius, since the Egyptians do not desire him, as they had formerly done Julius, to restore him to Communion, but only to maintain Communion with him. Qualis ad Julium pridem de reddenda exulanti Communione, talis nunc, ut de subjectis intelligitur, datae sunt de tuenda.

Fifthly, Liberius himself is a Witness, That he never Excommunicated St. Athanasius. For in his Letter to Lucifer, where he gives an Account of what happen'd about the Cause of this Saint, at the beginning of his Pontificate, he says, That the Bishops of the East had written Letters against him, that he had not suppress'd them, as he was accus'd, but had read them in Council, and yet gave no Credit to them: Queis fidem & sententiam non commodavimus nostram: [Which we did neither believe nor approve,] because he at the same time receiv'd Letters from 75 Bishops of Egypt, in behalf of St. Athanasius. Does not this plainly shew, That the Letter which we now speak of, was none of Liberius's, since it supposes, that he believ'd the Letter from those of the East, and Excommunicated St. Athanasius?

Sixthly, If Liberius had Excommunicated St. Athanasius at the beginning of his Pontificate, would not the Officers of Constantius have alledg'd this as a Reason to make him Subscribe to his Condemna∣tion? And how could he have maintain'd so stoutly as he did, That the Church of Rome had always held him Innocent?

Seventhly, Tho' Liberius should have conceal'd or suppress'd this Letter, while he was of St. Atha∣nasius's Party; yet would he not have produc'd it immediately after he had Sign'd against him? For then he could have no Interest to conceal it, but on the contrary, was oblig'd to publish it: And yet

even then he confesses, that he was always of St. Athanasius's side. [Because Julius my Predecessor of happy Memory, receiv'd St. Athanasius into his Communion, I was afraid, lest I should have pass'd for a Prevaricator, if I should have condemned him; but as soon as I understood that you had justly con∣demn'd him, I follow'd your Judgment.] Does not this plainly shew, that Liberius did not Condemn St. Athanasius at the Beginning of his Pontificate, but that on the contrary, he did always Protect him, upon the Authority of his Predecessor?

Lastly, There are some Expressions in this Letter, that were not us'd till after Liberius's time.

From all which, I conclude it to be false, that Liberius did write this Letter, or Excommunicate St. Athanasius. On the contrary, immediately after he was exalted to the Pontificate, he wrote to him a Letter of Communion. The Bishops of the East wrote to him against this Saint, and those of Egypt for him. He read their Letters in a Synod, where 'twas decreed that Communion must be continued with St. Athanasius, as it had always been in the West. This happened towards the End of the Year 352, or at the Beginning of 353, before the defeat of Magnentius. After the Death of this Tyrant, Constantius conven'd a Council at Arles. Liberius sent thither Vincentius of Capua, in his Name, together with Marcellus a Bishop in Campania, and gave them Order to entreat the Em∣perour, That he would call a Council at Aquileia. These Bishops were so far from being stedfast, that they suffer'd themselves to be impos'd upon, and Subscrib'd to the Condemnation of St. Athana∣sius, together with all the other Bishops of the Council, excepting only Paulinus the Bishop of Triers: Liberius understanding this, sent Lucifer Calaritanus, with Pancratius a Priest, and Hilary a Deacon, to carry a Letter to the Emperour Constantius, wherein after he had given an Account of what we have already said concerning every thing that had been done since the Beginning of his Pontificate, in the Cause of St. Athanasius, he prays him to Order the Examination of this Affair in a Free Council, upon Condition that they should begin with Confirming the Nicene Creed. He gave to the same Deputies a Letter of Recommendation, address'd to Eusebius Vercellensis, and indeed, he wrote two other Letters to him, one of Recommendation, and another of Thanks. About the same time, He wrote also to Hosius, and to other Bishops concerning the Lapse of Vincentius of Capua. Immediate∣ly after, the Council of Milan, held in the Year 355, which was not more favourable to St. Athana∣sius, than that of Arles had been before. Liberius wrote an Elegant Letter to Eusebius Vercellensis, Denys and Lucifer then in Banishment, wherein he praises them for their Constancy, and testifies to them, That he was ready to suffer the same Persecution for the same Cause. He says, He knew not whe∣ther he should be griev'd for their Absence, or rejoyce for their Glory; which he observes to be greater than that of former Martyrs, because these suffer'd only the Torments of their Pagan Persecutors, but they endur'd the Injuries of their false Brethren. He prays them to assist him with their Prayers, That God would give him Grace to bear with Patience and Constancy, the Tryals that he was threaten'd with. And indeed, a little after, Constantius perceiving that there was none almost left but Liberius, who justified the Innocence of this Saint, and desiring to confirm his Condemnation by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, sent an Eunuch thither, who urg'd him to Subscribe to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius to no purpose; for all the Answer he could get from him, was, That he should call a Free Council in some place, that was distant from the Court, where there should be neither Guards nor Officers; That this Council should begin with making a Profession of the Faith, as it had been explain'd in the Council of Nice; That it should drive away all the Arians, and anathematize their Error, and then afterwards should examine the Cause of St. Athanasius. The Em∣perour having receiv'd this Answer, sent an Order to the Governour of Rome, to surprize Liberius, and send him to Court; which Order was executed. And when he was in the Emperour's presence, he spoke to him with no less Constancy, than he had done at Rome to his Eunuch. We have his An∣swers in Theodoret in B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 16. wherein he discovers an unconceivable Firmness of Mind, in refusing to Subscribe to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius. Constantius objected to him, That he had been condemned by all the World; and, says he, You are the only Bishop in the World, that justifies an impious Disturber of the Peace; to which he answered with great Constancy, Tho' I were alone, yet the Cause of Faith is nevertheless Good, for at another time there were found but three young Men that disobey'd the Orders of the King. After this, he pray'd him, That he would call a Synod, but withal, desir'd, That before they should proceed to examine St. Athanasius's Cause, He would make all the Bishops Subscribe the Nicene Creed. Constantius being enrag'd against St. Athana∣sius, as supposing him the cause of that Enmity, which his Brother Constans had against him; Libe∣rius, as to this, answer'd him wisely, You ought not, Sir, to make use of Bishops to revenge your Quarrels; for the hands of Ecclesiasticks, ought not to be employ'd, but only to Bless and to Sanctify. At last, Constantius threatning him with Banishment; I have already, says he, bid adieu to my Bre∣thren at Rome, for the Ecclesiastical Laws are to be preferr'd before my Living there. Three Days time were given him to consider of it, and because he did not change his Opinion in that time, he was Banish'd two Days after to Beraea, a City of Thrace. The Emperour, the Empress, and the Eu∣nuch Eusebius, offer'd him Money to bear the Expence of his Journey, but he refus'd it, and went away chearfully to the place of his Banishment. The Clergy of Rome, having lost their Head, took an Oath to chuse no body in the Room of Liberius, as long as he was alive: But Constantius, by the management of Epictetus, Bishop of Cent•…•…cellae in Italy, procur'd one Felix a Deacon, to be ordain'd Bishop, who was himself also one of those that had sworn not to chuse a Bishop in the Room of Liberius. St. Jerom, says, That Acacius had a hand in this Ordination. St. Jerom and Socrates accuse this Felix of Arianism; but Theodoret and Ruffinus, say, That he was not an Arian in Doctrine, but only communicated with that Party. However, all the Ancients agree, That this

Ordination was not lawful a 1.2; and some la••e Authors, are very much to be blam'd for putting this Man in the Catalogue of Popes, and yet they have far less Reason to place him among the Holy Martyrs in very many Martyrologies b 1.3.

But Liberius, who had given proof of so great Constancy in time of Peace, could not long endure the te••••ousness of Ban••••hment; for before he had been two Years in it, he suffer'd himself to be over-perswaded by Demophilus Bishop of that City, to which he was banish'd, and did not only Subscribe the Condemnation of St. Athanasius; but he also consented to an Heretical Confession of Faith c 1.4;

whether it was the First or Second Confession of Sirmium, is disputed among the Learned. Which∣soever 'twas, he did certainly write one Letter of Communion, to the Bishops of the East, wherein having declar'd St. Athanasius to be cast out of his Communion, and acknowledg'd his Approbation of that Confession of Faith which Demophilus presented unto him, he desires them to use their Interest and Prayers with the Emperour, to obtain his Deliverance from Banishment, and restauration to that Church which God had entrusted him with. He wrote also at the same time two Letters, which contain'd for the most part the same things, one to Ursacius and Valens, and the other to Vincentius of Capua; which are preserved amongst the Fragments of St. Hilary.

After these Letters, Liberius quickly obtain'd his Desires; for the Emperour being satisfied, sent immediately for him to come to Sirmium, where he found Deputies of Bishops from the East and from the West. There was held a kind of a Council, which made a Collection of all the Creeds that had been approv'd by the Semi-Arians, wherein the Son was declar'd like unto the Father in Sub∣stance. These Creeds Liberius was oblig'd to sign, and then was sent back to Rome, with a Letter from the Synod directed to Felix, importing that Liberius and he should govern the Church of Rome as Co-partners. But Liberius was no sooner return'd thither, but Felix was forc'd to depart, and when afterwards he endeavour'd to return by Force, he was driven away with disgrace.

Now Liberius seeing himself in peaceable Possession of his See, as he had Subscrib'd against his will to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, and the Creeds of the Arians, so he quickly repented of what he had done, made Profession of the Nicene Creed, and reconcil'd himself to St. Athanasius. He wrote one Letter to all the Bishops of the World in the Year 362, wherein he would have all those Bishops pardon'd, who through surprize, had approv'd of the Error of the Arians; but he absolutely Anathe∣matizes the Heads of their Party, and those that would not return from their Error. This Letter is set down in the Fragments of St. Hilary. At last the Semi-Arians seeing themselves over-power'd by the Anomaeans, who had more Interest in the Emperour Valens, had recourse to Liberius, and sent to him, in the Year 366, Eustathius of Sebaste, together with Sylvanus and Theophilus Bishops of Cilicia, who presented him with Letters from the Council of Lampsacus: Liberius at first would not receive them, because, he said, they were of Arius's Faction; but they perswaded him that they would retract that Error, and profess that the Son is perfectly like his Father, and of the same Substance; yea, they made Profession of the Nicene Creed it self, approv'd the word Consubstantial, and condemn'd the Creeds of Ariminum and Seleucia. Liberius having exacted of them these Declarations, wrote into the East in their favour; and he died within a little time after in the Year 366 d 1.5. The History which we have now given of Liberius, informs us of the number of Letters that were written by this Pope, as well as the time, the occasion and subject of every one of them: And therefore it will be sufficient here to give a Catalogue of them, and to mark out those that are falsly attributed to him; and in doing of it, we shall follow the Order that is observ'd in the two Volumes of the last Edition of the Councils.

The 1st. is that which was written to Hosius upon the Lapse of Vincentius of Capua, publish'd by Baronius, and taken from a Manuscript in the Vatican. This appears to me to be Genuine, and agrees with the History of that time.

The 2d. is a Letter to Constantius, at the End of Lucifer's Works, and in the Fragments of St. Hilary.

The three following to Eusebius Verceliensis, are taken out of the Acts of this Bishop, and appear to me to be Ancient.

The 6th. to the Confessors in Exile, is in the Fragments of St. Hilary, and in the Acts of which we have spoken already.

The 7th. which was written to the Eastern Bishops after he had sign'd against St. Athanasius, is taken out of the Fragments of St. Hilary, and is very Genuine.

The 8th. is that which is suppos'd to have been written to those in the East, immediately after his Advancement to the Pontificate, wherein he declares St. Athanasius Excommunicated: But we have shown that 'tis very doubtful, though it is in the Fragments of St. Hilary.

The 9th. written to Ursacius, to Valens, and Germinius, and the 10th. to Vincentius of Capua, from the place of his Banishment, after he had sign'd, are Genuine, and taken out of the Fragments of St. Hilary.

The 11th. written to the Bishops of Italy after the Council of Ariminum, is unquestionable, and is preserved in the same place.

The 12th. which is a Confession of Faith addressed to St. Athanasius is Supposititious, as we have already prov'd when we discours'd of the Works of that Father, among which it occurs.

The 13th. which is suppos'd to be that which Eustathius and the other Deputy-Bishops from the East, obtain'd of Liberius, and presented to the Synod of Tyana, agrees very well with the Hi∣story of that time.

The 14th. and 15th. ought to be rank'd among those Letters that are forg'd by Isidore, and are rejected by all the Criticks.

The three Decrees attributed to this Pope, have not any respect to the Discipline of his time, nor have they any Authority.

The Conference e 1.6 which he had with Constantius and Epictetus, is preserved by Theodoret, B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 6. and was by him drawn out of the Ancient Acts written in Liberius's time.

The Stile of Liberius is Simple and without Ornament, but strong and clear. His Conduct unblame∣able, if he had not suffer'd himself to be overcome by the Love which he had for the City of Rome, and his Church: But he made amends for that Fault by the Constancy which he show'd after his Return.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Liberius.
• a 1.2

  However, all the Ancients ••gree, That this Ordina∣tion was not lawful.] St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to those that lead a Monastick Life; says, that he was or∣dain'd in the Palace without the Consent of the Peo∣ple, or the Election of the Clergy, by Epictetus, in the Presence of Three Eunuchs, and Three Bishops, who were rather Spies than Bishops; that the People would not permit him to enter into the Church, and withdrew themselves from his Communion. St. Jerom says that he was an Antipope. Optatus and St. Austin in the Catalogue of Popes, make no mention of Felix, but place Damasus immediately after Liberius. And certainly Liberius being a lawful Bishop, another could not be ordain'd in his Room. And whereas 'tis sup∣pos'd, that after his Lapse he fell from his Bishop-rick. This can never make the Ordination of Felix valid which was null from the Beginning: Besides Liberius was not depos'd after his Fall, but on the contrary was always acknowledg'd as a lawful Bishop, and conti∣nued in the Possession of his See with the Consent of all the Bishops of the Catholick Church.
• b 1.3

  They have far less Reason to place him among the holy Martyrs in very many Martyrologies.] His Festival is kept on August 4th. Mombritius was the first that pub∣lish'd his Life, and after him B••lusius put forth a more correct Edition of it. There was a Dispute about the Saintship of Felix, among the Correctors of the Ro∣man Martyrology in the Time of Gregory; and 'tis said, there was then found an old Inscription in the Church of St. Cosmus and St. Damian, express'd in these words: The Body of St. Felix Pope and Martyr, by whom Con∣stantius was Condemn'd. But the Life of this Felix and these Monuments are apochryphal: For, first they suppose that Constantius put him to Death; But 'tis evi∣dent by the Testimony of Marcellinus the Presbyter, that Felix surviv'd Constantius. 2. How could it possi∣bly be, that neither St. Athanasius, nor Hilary, nor Luci∣fer, &c. nor any other of the Ancients should ever speak one word, either of the Condemnation of Con∣stantius by Felix, or the Martyrdom of this Pope? 3. The Acts of Mombritius relate, that Constantius was condemned for being twice baptiz'd by Eusebius of Ni∣comedia: But 'tis manifest from the Testimonies of St. Hilary and Lucifer, that Constantius was a Catechumen, and was not baptiz'd till about the latter end of his Life by Euzoius as St. Athanasius relates in the Book of Synods. The Authority of these Martyrologies is of little worth, as well as that of Anastasius the Library-keeper. The Inscription found in the Church of St. Cosmus, and St. Damian is an Argument of little weight.
• c 1.4

  Consented to an Heretical Confession of Faith.] Baro∣nius and many others maintain, that he subscrib'd only the first Creed of Sirmium which was not heretical: But if this had been so, St. Hilary who approv'd this Creed, had never call'd that which was sign'd by Libe∣rius, the Perfidiousness of the Arians, and anathema∣tiz'd Liberius so often upon the Account of his Sub∣scription. St. Jerom says also, that Liberius was forc'd to sign Heresy, and all the Ancients speak of the Fall of Liberius, as the Approbation of the Heresy of the Arians, which made Faber, Blondel and Peta••ius think that Liberius subscrib'd the Second Creed of Sir∣mium. But this Opinion has its Difficulties, for St. Hilary says, that the Creed sign'd by Liberius was com∣pos'd by 22 Bishops, which were for the most part Eastern; and that the Second Creed was made by Pota••ius and the Western Bishops. Basil is reckon'd among those that approv'd the First, and condemn'd the Second Creed of Sirmium assoon as it appear'd. In short, Liberius return'd not from his Exile, till after the Council of Ancyra; in which, the Eastern Bishops had already thrown out the Second Creed of Sirmium. What Probability is there then, that they should offer it to him to sign? To answer these Dif∣ficulties and clear up this Matter, we must observe, that Demophilus caus'd Liberius to sign or approve a Creed while he was in Exile, different from that which he sign'd after his Return to Sirmium; that the Creed which Demophilus presented to him, was made at Sir∣mium by many Bishops, quae, says Liberius in his Let∣ter, Sirmium à pluribus Fratribus, & Coepiscopis nostris translata & suscepta est: Words which can be understood of none, but the Second Creed of Sirmium, which begins thus; Cum nonnulla putaretur esse de fide disceptatio, diligenter omnia apud Sirmium tractata sunt & discussa, praesentibus sanctissimis Episcopis: And therefore we must say, that the Creed which Liberius approv'd in his Exile was the Second of Sirmium: For Demophilus was an Arian, and of the Party of Ursacius and Valens, who maintain'd the Second Creed of Sirmium. 'Twas for this Reason that Eudoxus and Aëtius spread a Report that Liberius was of their Opinion, and Liberius himself wrote to Ursacius and Valens, that he was of their Judgment; but being afterwards call'd to Sirmium, where he found Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius, and the other Semi-Arian Bishops, who a little before had con∣demn'd the Arians in the Council of Ancyra, he and those other Bishops sign'd a Book, which contain'd the Creeds of Antioch, the First of Sirmium, and those o∣ther Creeds that asserted the Son to be like unto the Father, and were oblig'd to condemn those that said he was unlike to him. See Sozomen B. IV. ch. 15. of his Hist. Nevertheless it may be objected, That the Second Creed of Sirmium was not made by Basil and the other Eastern Bishops; but that which was pre∣sented to Liberius by Demophilus, was made by these Bishops as we are assured by the Fragments of Hilary. To this, I know of no other Answer but by saying, that the Names of these Bishops were added by the Author who made these Extracts out of St. Hilary, who has put in the Margin, Inquirendum, i. e. we must enquire if these were the Bishops: Which plainly discovers, that he was not certain of it, but might set down those Names at a venture. This is what I thought my self obliged to say of this Question, which is very difficult and famous, though of no great use: [Though it is of no great Importance for us to know who precisely were the Bishops that drew up the Se∣cond Sirmian Creed; yet it is of great Moment to know whether that or the Creed of the First Council of Sirmium were signed by Pope Liberius: Our Author, who knew the thing was too gross to be quite omitted, shuff••es it off at last as if it had been a critical Que∣stion, only started at first to employ the learned: But when the ablest Advocates of the Church of Rome have confessed, that an Arian Creed was deliberately signed by one of its Bishops, they must also own that this destroys Infallibility effectually: And St. Hilary's Carriage, who declaimed against Liberius's Apostacy with all the Warmth that he usually employ'd upon such Occasions, shews how the Orthodox Bishops of that Age, thought a Bishop of Rome might be treated, when guilty of a Crime which they thought equal to that of denying the Faith in the Times of Paganism.]
• d 1.5

  He died in the Year 366.] St Jerom and Marcelli∣nus say so in their Chronicles.
• e 1.6

  The Conference.] 'Twas rather an Examination which Liberius under-went in the Emperor's Council.