given reasons for thinking that the pope had withdrawn his communion from the saint in the course of the preceding year.1 Under such circumstances, the two parties would naturally communicate together." And the fact that, after united deliberation in synod, they signed the same profession of faith, and that then the whole body of bishops at Sirmium wrote to Felix, the de facto Bishop of Rome, and to the clergy of the Roman Church, directing them to receive Liberius as joint bishop with Felix,3-all this surely constitutes a sufficient proof of intercommunion. Is it likely that the Easterns would restore Liberius to a position of enormous influence if he was persisting in regarding them as excommunicate? The question answers itself.4

Another objection which has been raised in the course of the hopeless struggle to discredit the fact of Liberius' fall may be thus formulated : If the faithful at Rome, it is said, rejected with such horror the ministrations of Felix II. because he freely communicated with bishops suspected of Arianism, how can it be supposed that they would receive with joy the returning Liberius, if he had equally communicated with men like Valens and Ursacius, and had also repudiated the suμooúσtov-a crime which has never been imputed to Felix? The answer is that in all probability the ministrations of Felix were rejected by the great mass of the population, not so much because he communicated with Arianizers," as because he had intruded into a see which was not vacant, and of which the legitimate occupant was a persona gratissima to his flock. On this point I cannot do better than quote the admirable remarks of Duchesne. He says,

1 See note 2 on p. 283.

2 It was, perhaps, more difficult for Basil of Ancyra, who was in the first fervour of his revulsion from the supporters of the blasphemous creed put forth by Valens and Ursacius in 357, to communicate with those miscreants, than for Liberius to do so, seeing that he had already got on to the down-grade by his desertion of S. Athanasius. Nevertheless we know from Sozomen (iv. 24) that on this occasion Basil did communicate with Valens and Ursacius. No doubt the bishops assembled at Sirmium, whether Eastern or Western, entered into communion with each other on the basis of the formula put together by Basil. Mgr. Duchesne points out (Liber Pontif., i. 209) that Sozomen implies that the arrangement made by the bishops at Sirmium for the joint tenure of the Roman see by Liberius and Felix was made "du consentement de Libère luimême."

3

Hefele (E. tr., ii. 235) mentions, as one of the results of the Sirmian meeting, "that Liberius from henceforth held communion with the three bishops, who, like himself, had signed the Sirmian formula." The three bishops on the Eastern side, who are mentioned nominatim by Sozomen as having signed, are Ursacius, Germinius, and Valens. But all the rest also signed, and all were no doubt admitted by Liberius to his communion, and they on their side admitted him to their communion.

5 I am not intending to deny that the fact that Felix had communicated with Arianizers would, before the fall of his rival, be made much of by his opponents, and would in the eyes of some of them be a very serious addition to the other disabilities under which he laboured; but as soon as the lapse of Liberius became known in Rome, the Liberian party would cease to bring forward Felix's former communion with Arianizers as an argument against him. Mommsen, following the Liber Pontificalis, is of opinion that, before Liberius' return, Felix had cut off Valens and Ursacius from his communion, and had proclaimed in a synod his adherence to the Nicene faith. There must have been many among the Christians at Rome, especially among the clergy, who would regard Nicene orthodoxy as the paramount consideration. Such persons would no doubt, if Mommsen's view is correct, side with Felix rather than with Liberius, when the struggle began.

"La population demeura fidèle à Libère, si bien que l'empereur, auquel, du reste, Libère donna satisfaction sur certains points, se vit obliger de rappeler le pape légitime. . . . La tradition populaire sur le pape Libère ne pouvait que lui être favorable. Saint Jérôme et l'auteur de la préface du Libellus precum,1 qui écrivaient sous Damase, témoignent tous les deux de l'enthousiasme qui l'accueillit à son retour de l'exil. Ces deux écrivains, Saint Jérôme surtout, ne dissimulent pas les concessions par lesquels ce retour avait été acheté; mais ces questions de formule et de signatures n'étaient pas de nature à être bien comprises de la masse des fidèles romains; l'arianisme dogmatique ne les intéressait que fort indirectement. Ce qui les avait blessés, c'était l'enlèvement brutal de leur intrépide évêque ; ce qu'ils voulaient, ce qu'ils réclamaient en plein cirque à l'empereur Constance, c'était son retour, sans compromis avec l'intrus Félix; ce qui les combla de joie, ce fut le triomphe de Libère, reprenant possession de son siège malgré Félix et en dépit du gouvernement. Quant à ce qu'il pouvait avoir signé à Bérée ou à Sirmium, ils ne s'en inquiétaient guère. Les clercs, il est vrai, accordaient plus d'attention à ces détails; la chronique de saint Jérôme et son De viris (c. 97), deux livres fort répandus, même dans les régions les moins aristocratiques de la littérature, en perpétuèrent le souvenir." 3

In concluding this investigation, which does not claim in any way to be exhaustive, I would draw attention to the fact that I have made no use of the three letters, Pro deifico timore, Quia scio vos filios pacis, and Non doceo sed admoneo, which are attributed to Liberius, and which are to be found in the sixth Fragment of S. Hilary. The genuineness of This preface sometimes bears the title, "Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos." It has been referred to under that title in note 2 on p. 283. Its author was evidently an Ursinian, and for that reason would presumably have no grudge against Liberius. Ursinus was elected by the partisans of Liberius, whereas his successful rival, Damasus, had been chosen by the followers of Felix ; at least so we are told by the Ursinian author of the preface. Even if the truth of his assertion is doubted, it still remains the fact that the Ursinians claimed, whether rightly or wrongly, to represent in a special way Liberius, and it is consequently not easy to suppose that they would go out of their way to calumniate him. Yet we read in the preface that Liberius, before Constantius' visit to Rome in 357, manus perfidiae dederat." The allusion is no doubt to Liberius' preliminary lapse at Beroea in 357. It follows that, if the author of the preface was well informed, that preliminary lapse took place in the early part of the year.

2 Stiltinck, who sticks at nothing in his efforts to whitewash Liberius, treats these Hieronymian passages as spurious interpolations. It is interesting to notice that Duchesne, who as a critic inclines, perhaps, to the side of severity, assumes the genuineness of these passages, without thinking it necessary to make any answer or even allusion to Stiltinck's objections. Hefele also accepts (E. tr., ii. 236) the passages as authentic and truthful. I am glad fo see that the Catholic Dictionary, a work which bears the imprimatur of Cardinal Manning and of Cardinal McCloskey, in its article on Liberius (p. 516, 6th edit., New York, 1887), says, "Stilting and his numerous followers, who exculpate Liberius altogether, are driven to expedients which we cannot help regarding as desperate." It need hardly be added that Dr. Rivington does his best (Prim. Church, pp. 186-188) to rehabilitate these "desperate expedients."

Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, Introduction, pp. cxxi., cxxii.

I might, for example, have quoted from S. Athanasius' Apology against the Arians (cap. 89), and from S. Hilary's Liber contra Constantium Imperatorem (cap. 11). This last passage is, however, quoted in a note on p. 272.

these letters was attacked in the last century by Stiltinck and others, and in our own times by Hefele. It is true that several Roman Catholic critics of great learning and acumen have declared that Hefele's arguments do not appear to them to be convincing, but I think that it must be admitted that, as things stand at present, the genuineness of these letters cannot be regarded as above suspicion, and I have therefore thought it fairer to refrain from building anything upon them.

Addendum to Appendix G.

In a manuscript now in the imperial library at S. Petersburg, there is a collection of epitaphs, mostly Roman, which has been published by De Rossi, under the title of the Sylloge Centulensis, in the second volume of his Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae. Among these epitaphs there is one of great interest and considerable length, which commemorates a pope who is represented as dying in exile for his adherence to the Nicene faith, and who is evidently regarded by the author of the epitaph as a saint and a wonder-worker. Both De Rossi

in the Bolletino di Archeologia Cristiana for 1883, and Duchesne in his edition of the Liber Pontificalis (tom. i. pp. 209, 210), make great efforts to prove that this epitaph commemorates Liberius. Duchesne, however, admits, in the course of his argument, that the supposition, which he defends, presents great difficulties. Lately Mommsen has applied himself to the solution of the problem, and in a remarkable article, entitled Die Römischen Bischöfe Liberius und Felix II., which was published in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft for October to December, 1896, argues in favour of identifying the pope of the epitaph with Felix II., the rival of Liberius. Mommsen continues to adhere to this identification in the prolegomena to his new edition of the Liber Pontificalis, published in 1898. His article at first convinced Duchesne, and the latter no longer felt able to defend the thesis which he had maintained in his notes to the Liber Pontificalis. Further consideration has, however, led him to recede from his adhesion to Mommsen's conclusions. He now holds that it is not possible, with our present knowledge, to identify with any certainty the pope of the epitaph. He says indeed, "Je suis disposé à laisser Libère en possession provisoire et hypothétique;" but he adds, "je considère comme grandement imprudentes les personnes qui tirent des arguments apologétiques d'un document si difficile à expliquer et d'attribution si incertaine." It is much to be hoped that the discovery of this epitaph will in time lead to the clearing up of some of the obscurity which hangs over the careers of Liberius and Felix II. Fuller light thrown on their careers will necessarily result in fuller light being thrown on the situation of the Roman Church during the years which intervened between the exile of Liberius in 355 and his readmission to the communion of S. Athanasius in the winter of 362–363.

1 See p. xxix.

* See the Nuovo Bolletino di Archeologia Cristiana for 1897, pp. 132, 133, 137. 3 Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, année xviii. p. 397.

The Roman Church has canonized Felix II. His name is entered in the Roman Martyrology (edit. Ratisbon., 1846, p. 145) on July 29.

LECTURE IX.

THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.-III.

From the death of Julian to the death of Valens (363-378).

ON June 26, 363, a Roman army, retreating from Persia, and commanded by Julian the Apostate, was attacked by the Persians at a place named Phrygia, on the eastern bank of the Tigris. Julian received a spear-wound in his right side, and died during the following night. The next day an officer of the imperial body-guard, named Jovian, was proclaimed Emperor by the troops. The new Emperor was a Catholic. He made a somewhat disgraceful peace with the Persians, and led his army by way of Nisibis and Edessa to Antioch. At Edessa he was joined by S. Athanasius, who had rapidly and secretly journeyed thither from Upper Egypt.1 He accompanied the Emperor to Antioch, which was reached some time in October. Here S. Athanasius spent three months, and he naturally turned his attention to the divided condition of the orthodox in that city. There were the two separate communions-the great church ruled by S. Meletius; and the little body of the Eustathians, who now also had their own bishop, Paulinus. S. Athanasius had in old days been in communion with Paulinus; but it seems clear that the irregular and most reprehensible consecration of the latter by Lucifer had brought about a cessation of intercourse between the Eustathians and the Church of Alexandria. S. Eusebius of Vercellae, the legate of the Council of Alexandria and the representative of S. Athanasius, had refused to communicate with Paulinus, when he discovered that he had allowed Lucifer to make him a bishop. As we have seen, S. Eusebius quitted Antioch without communicating with either of the two rival bishops. An expression used by S. Basil in his 214th Epistle makes it clear that, during the twelve months which elapsed between S. Eusebius' departure from Antioch and S. Athanasius'

1 S. Athanasius seems to have crossed the Euphrates near Hierapolis on the eighth of Thoth (September 6). Compare Robertson's Prolegomena, p. lxxxiv.

arrival in that city, the latter had made the action of the former his own, and had refrained from corresponding with Paulinus. We also gather from what S. Basil says that in October, 363, when S. Athanasius arrived in Antioch, his first impulse was to establish intercommunion between himself and S. Meletius. S. Basil says, "The most blessed Pope Athanasius, when he arrived [at Antioch] from Alexandria, exceedingly desired that communion between him [Meletius] and himself [Athanasius] should be brought about; but by the incapacity of counsellors their union was deferred to another occasion. And would that this had not happened!" 2 On this passage the Benedictine editors of S. Basil observe, in a note to the 214th Epistle, "This desire of Athanasius to communicate with Meletius shows what he felt about the episcopate of Meletius, and what about the episcopate of Paulinus. . . . Athanasius, before he came to Antioch, clearly did not favour the cause of Paulinus. For at that time he was more inclined to Meletius, and 'exceedingly desired that communion between Meletius and himself should be brought about.'" 8 What the argument in favour of postponement, used by S. Meletius' counsellors, was, we do not know with certainty. Very probably it was connected with the fact that S. Athanasius had not yet publicly separated Marcellus from his communion. In another letter, addressed to S. Meletius, S. Basil, referring to this same negotiation, says that S. Athanasius "grieved because he had been sent away at that time without being admitted to communion." 5

After having received this rebuff from S. Meletius, S. Athanasius determined to overlook the irregularity of Paulinus' consecration, and to renew his ancient relations with the Eustathians. But first of all it was necessary that Paulinus should make it clear that he did not follow his consecrator, Lucifer, in his schismatic rejection of the decrees of Alexandria, and also that he repudiated the errors of Sabellius and Photinus, and also those afterwards championed by Apollinarius, with which he was supposed by some of the followers of S. Meletius to sympathize. Accordingly, in self-defence, he signed the synodical tome of the Council of Alexandria, which had been addressed to the Antiochenes, and he also

1 Compare S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. § 2, and see the Benedictine note e in loc. (S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 321).

2 S. Basil. Ep. cclviii. ad Epiphanium, § 3, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 394.

3 S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 321, note e.

This agrees, I think, with Dom Maran's view (compare Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxvii. § 6, S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., tom. iii. p. clxviii.).

S. Basil. Ep. lxxxix. ad Meletium, Opp., iii. 181, Avπeîσ0αi dè öti Kal TÓTE παρεπέμφθη ἀκοινώνητος.

U