RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Liber Vitas Liberius
eign Missions withdrew in 1899, transferring all its property and churches to the presbytery of West Africa. Educational work has been pushed by all these Churches, some of their schools being of high grade. Apart from these, elementary schools are numerous, and there are a few of secondary grade. Considerable attention is paid to industrial training, notably in the Lutheran Muhlenberg Mission. It was in Liberia that the Methodist Bishop Taylor inaugurated his scheme for African industrial missions. The fact that only a comparatively narrow strip of land along the coast is effectively administered, and that the inland territory is occupied by some of the fiercest African tribes, has given much prominence to the missionary enterprises in the country. The work is conducted for the most part by the negroes, on account of the climate and the general type of life, although there is a considerable force of white missionaries on the coast. The four societies report over 5,000 communicant members, nearly one hundred schools with 5,000 pupils, a considerable portion of whom are from the inland tribes. See Africa, II. Edwin Munsell Bliss.
Bibliography: See the literature under Africa.
LIBERIUS, lai-bi'ri-us: Pope 352-366. He was of Roman birth and parentage, was the choice of both factions in the Arian controversy and of the Emperor Constantius as successor to Julius I., and was probably consecrated May 17, 352 (cf. Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, p. ccl.). The favor of Constantius was due to his purpose, First steadily entertained since he had be- Period, come the sole ruler (353), to achieve till His the peace of the Church by disavowal Exile. of Athanasius and abolition of the Nicene Creed (see Arianism, § 5), a result which obviously hinged on the type of occupant of the Roman see. At a synod at Rome convened by Liberius, the majority of the bishops declared for Athanasius; but, at the synod called by the emperor at Aries (353), the pope's delegates, Vincentius and Marcellus of Campania, as a peace measure, consented to support the decision of the East against Athanasius. Liberius, dissatisfied with the action of his own representatives, addressed a letter of urgent remonstrance to the emperor (Epist. ad Constantium) , and furthermore managed to engage Eusebius of Vercellse to support him. Nevertheless, the Synod of Milan (355) completed the victory over Athanasius, and the bishops who had continued steadfast were driven into exile. The same fate awaited the pope unless he yielded. The imperial eunuch Eusebius, who came to confer with him at Rome, attempted to move him by argument to subscribe adversely to Athanasius and to accept ecclesiastical fellowship with his opponents. Liberius resisted, possibly relying upon the sentiments of the Roman populace, which ran counter to the imperial endeavors (Ammianus Marcellinus, XV., vii. 10). Hereupon the pope was apprehended by night by the prefect of the city and removed to the imperial court. In an audience with the emperor, reported by Theodoret (Hist, eccl, ii. 13; NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 77-79), he made a spirited appeal for general acceptation of the Nicene Creed, recall of the exiles, and con-
vention of a synod in Alexandria to examine the charges against Athanasius. The one consequence was his own exile to Beraea in Thrace, in 355, when Constantius had the Roman archdeacon Felix consecrated as pope (see Felix II.).
The new pope encountered great opposition, not because of any doubt as to his personal orthodoxy, but rather because people believed him tainted with irregular ordination and ecclesiastical fellowship with the contrary party. While the emperor was in Rome in May, 357, in answer to an appeal by some ladies for the return of Liberius (Theodoret, II., xiv.), the emperor let it appear that negotiations with the exiled pope had led to Acceptance the desired result. Liberius did not of Homoi- return to his congregation, however, ousianism. till the summer of 358. The emperor wished that he and Felix superintend the Church in common; but this was found impossible, and Felix had to yield. Various explanations have been given of the emperor's change of mind. Some speak of a collapse on the part of Liberius, and assert that he reversed his dogmatic position. But this is not borne out by the report of Sozomen (Hist, eccl., iv. 15), who alone reports on the subject. The sole fact apparent is that, after somewhat prolonged negotiations, in the spring of 358 Liberals expressed his willingness to waive the term homoousios. He had been convinced that the formula at issue was liable to misunderstanding, and declared himself in harmony with the theory of the Homoiousians, according to which the Son is " like " to the Father (of like essence and attributes). That he rejected the term homoousios, or that he consented in any degree to the thought of designating the Son as unlike the Father (anomoios), Sozomen pronounces a malicious invention. Yet it is open to question whether the tone of Sozomen adequately accounts for the sharp utterances of Athanasius (Historia Arianorum-, xli.; NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 284) and Jerome (Chronicon, and De vir. ill., xcvii.) against Liberius, in which Athanasius states that Liberius grew languid in exile, and subscribed in dread of threatened death, while Jerome reproaches Liberius with heresy. Athanasius and Jerome are supported by four letters ascribed to Liberius, preserved in the so-called Fragmenta ex opere historico of Hilary of Poitiers; if these letters are genuine, their contents put the result in a light unfavorable to the pope, showing that Liberius acquiesced in the condemnation of Athanasius and accepted a homoian statement, the second Sirmian formula of 357 But the genuineness of the letters is doubtful, since it is almost universally conceded that the four letters are not to be separated one from the others, in which case the weight of evidence turns against the genuineness of all the letters by the fact that certain particulars in one of the letters (the one which begins: Studens pad) totally contradict well-attested history. There is the possibility that during his exile, under the stress of constant pressure, Liberius may have used some utterances which seemed to give occasion to the charge against him. But that he directly belied his earlier position can be asserted only on the ground of doubtful documents.
Liberius Liberty