A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

Iewel.

Pope Liberius vvas an Arian Heretike.

Harding.

Or els you are an errant sclaūderous lier. The truth wit∣nessed by al sortes of writers, is, that he suffered bannish∣ment by Constantius the Arian Emperour, for the true Ca∣tholik faith,* 1.1 and (as S. Hierome reporteth, being ouercome with the tediousnesse of his bannishmēt, subscribed to the Heresie after a sort, to wit, by setting his hand to the ban∣nishment of Athanasius. For the Popes power was then knowen to be so great, that the Emperour knew the Pa∣triarke Athanasius could not seeme iustly to be deposed,

onlesse both other Bishoppes, and specially the Bishop of Rome had agreed vnto it. But when Liberius would not agree to the Emperours vniust request, he was bannished,* 1.2 and as Theodoritus witnesseth, he returned home to his See at the request of the vertuous Matrones of Rome, who knew him to be farre frō the Arians heresie, and iud∣ged so wel of him for it, that they would not cōmunicate with Felix, whom the Emperour had placed in Liberius roume. For somuch as no man knew the cause, and state of Liberius better then Athanasius, of al otherlie is chiefly to be heard. His wordes are these.* 1.3 Liberius deinde post ex∣actum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minis{que} mortis ad sub∣scriptionem inductus est. Verùm illud ipsum quoque, & eorum violentiam, & Liberij in haeresim odium, & suum pro Atha∣nasio suffragium, cùm liberos affectus habebat, satis coarguit. Afterward, Liberius hauing passed ouer two yeres in bā∣nishement, stooped, and by threates of death was brought to subscribe. But that very selfe same facte of his is a suffi∣cient argument, both of their Violence, and of the hatred, that Liberius bore to the heresie (of the Arians) and what his consent, and opinion was concerning Athanasius, at what time he had his desires free, that is, when he might both speake, and do freely, what semed to him most mete and expediēt in that cause. How plaine are these wordes against you M. Iewel? Athanasius, who liued together with Liberius, and knew his whole state, sawe right wel, that the Subscription, which he made, proued him not an Arian Heretik, but rather a Catholike, bicause he subscri∣bed not voluntarily, but violently cōstrained, and that not with a vaine feare only, but also with the present bannish∣ment of two yeres, and farther with the threatninges

of death. Therefore although Liberius sinned greuously in yelding for feare, yet he neither was an Arian, nor preached he their heresie in his Churche at Rome after his returne: but rather repented his deede of subscrip∣tion, and amended it by preaching, and doing al that he was hable against the Arians, and therfore after his death, Epiphanius calleth him beatum,* 1.4 blessed: and Theodori∣tus calleth him sanctissimum, most holy.

In an other place Athanasius writeth of him thus. Exi∣miarum vrbium Episcopi, & capita tantarum Ecclesiarum, et verbis mihi patrocinati sunt, & exilia sustinuerunt, in quo∣rum numero est & Liberius Romanus praesul, qui, quanquam non vsque ad finem exilij maela perpessus est, biennium tamen in ea transmigratione perdurauit, non ignarus sycophantia∣rum quas patiebamur. The Bishops of famous cities, and the heades of great Churches fauoured me bothe in wordes, and (for my sake also) susteined bannishement. Emong whom was Liberius the Bishop of Rome: who although he suffered not the miseries of bannishement vntil the ende, yet he continued in that place whiche he was carried vnto, two yeres, not vnwitting what were the sclaunders that we suffered.

This Liberius then, although perhaps he subscribed at the length, yet was there neuer good, or honest man, that euer would cal him an Arian, who in dede neuer loued the Arians, but abhorred their opinion. But perhaps (per∣haps I say) he was wearye of his long bannishement, and after terrible threates of death being otherwise weake subscribed. Wel maie such a forced subscriptiō argue the lacke of fortitude, certainely it proueth not heresie. For an Heretike doth stubbornely defende his opinion. But

Liberius was so farre from defending the Arian heresie, that he could hardly with terrour of death after two yeres banishmēt be forced, to put his hand vnto the booke against Athanasius, which was in deede a derogation to the faith by a cōsequēt, but directly it was not Arianisme.

How seemeth not this wicked generation to spring of the Deuil, sithence it maketh the worst of euery thing, speaking euil of that, which may wel, and ought chari∣tably to be defended? And yet if he had benne an Arian with al his harte, so long as he neuer decreed any thing according to the Arian heresie, nor did set it foorth by publike authoritie of the See of Rome: that should not hurt our matter of Succession.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hieron. in Chronicis & in Ca∣talogo.
• * 1.2

  Theodorit. lib. 5 hist. Tripart. cap. 18.
• * 1.3

  Athana∣sius in Epist. ad Solitariā vitam agentes. VVhat Athana∣sius iud∣ged of Li¦berius.
• * 1.4

  Epiphan. Haeres. 75 Tripart. lib. 7. c. 23 In Apo∣log. 2.