LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND HISTORY. [To TER EDITOR OP THE " SPHOTATOB:21 SIR,—Will you allow me to correct two misstatements which- your reviewer of Father Richardson's book has made respecting myself P (1.) He says (August 10th) : "De Mance, who is quoted as s great authority by Father Richardson and Mr. Rivington.'' I have never quoted De Marca at all ; and I consider him a. most untrustworthy writer.
(2.) Your reviewer says (August 3rd) : "Mr. Rivington, fresh from the critical habits which he learnt in the Church
he has abandoned boldly asserts that Liberius never. fell at alL" I have never made this assertion. And, con. sidering the -pains I have taken to guard myself against being supposed to make such a statement, I consider it hard that it should be, nevertheless, attributed to me.
In the paragraph with which your reviewer deals, I haver only said "that it is not an established fact that Liberius signed anything heretical." And in my new book, " De- pendence " (to which your reviewer must have seen a refer- ence in support of the above thesis, and to which, therefore, I think he ought, in common fairness, to have made some allu- sion), I have said :—" I propose, however, to show that- altogether the fall of Liberius cannot be claimed as an established fact ; that if he signed anything, it could not have been anything that compromised the inerrancy of the Holy See ; and that, as a matter of fact, it is not proved' that her signed anything. More than this I do not attempt to show,. and this amounts only to showing that the 'fall' of Liberius. is not proven." (p. 68). My words were carefully weighed,. and the chapter in which they occur, entitled "Liberius the Confessor," contains, I venture to think, some strong reasons. for deprecating the assumption that a failure of duty has been proved against Liberius,—an assumption which probably originated with certain schismatics, who were equally dis- pleased with St Athanasius, and who were the Puritans of
Previous page
