The Pretended Fall of Liberius [pp. 110-118]

Tle Pretended Fall of Liberius.
It is wonderful with what pains
those who did not perceive the
falsity of these letters have labored
to reconcile all the evident contradictions which they involve, and
how many absurdities they have
put forward in the endeavor. At
the present time these Epistles are
rejected by all, and hle who would
cite them seriously would only
nmake himself ridiculous.
2. St. Hilary is said to specify
the formula to which Liberius subscribed, and to pronounce more
than once anathema against Liberius as a heretic.
Now, in the genuine works of St.
Hilary not a single word is found
against Liberius. To the end of
the works of St. Hilary have been
tacked on certain "Fragments of
St. Hilary " which are spurious.
In these fragments are found the
passages cited against Liberius.
These fragments were published in
the seventeenth century, first by
Labbe, and afterwards by Constant. That they are spurious is
proved as follows:
These fragments are nothing else
than a promiscuous collection of
detached passages, letters, canons,
parts of sermons, historical anecdotes, evidently collected by some
one as miscellaneous scraps which
hle could put to use. All refer to
the Arians. They have no general
title, but each part has its own
special heading. The first chapter is headed: "Fragments of Hilary" (Fragmenta zilarii), and
it contains twvo pages. These, perhaps, may be referred to St. Hilary,
but they are found in no work of
his, and they may be the production of some other Hilary, not St.
Hilary of Arles. This heading
being the first in the manuscript,
Labbe published the whole thing
under the'same title
In this manuscript are contained
many things unworthy of St. Hilary and altogether false (for example, the four Epistles of Liberius), and which, moreover, do not
agree with what hle has written in
his undoubted works.
The editors themselves, Labbe
and Constant, confess that many
of these thlings cannot be reconciled with the wvorks of St. Hilary.
For other arguments to the same
effect, should any others be desired, it would be well to consult
Stilting's learned treatise on these
fragments.
3. St. Athlanasius, in his Letter to the Solitaries, says that
" Liberius, after two years spent in
exile, at length gave way, and, being terrified by threats of death,
subscribed."
This is most clearly an intercalated and spurious passage, for this
letter was. written at Easter-tide in
the year 357-that is to say, a
whole year before the return of
Liberius of which he there speaks;
therefore it is absolutely impossible that these words could have
been written at the same time witlh
the letter. "But," it may be said,
"they might have been added afterwards by Athlanasius." Were
they, in fact, so added by Athlanasius? We must answer witlh
an absolute negative; because in
this same letter Athanasius lauds
Liberius' fortitude. Also, to prove
his own innocence, he adduces
the judgment of Liberius. Therefore had he himself added the
passage in question, hle would
have altered these two other passages.
Had Athanasius added the disputed words, Ist, he would have
done it more aptly, not interrupting abruptly the thread of his discourse. 2. He would not have
I15