POPE HONORIUS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OF REASON AND HISTORY.

III.

Orthodox Doctrines containing the two letters of Pope Honorius to Sergius

 

Two hundred years ago De Marca, a learned man of his time and a Gallican, left the following words in a manuscript dissertation, prepared by as an apology for Pope Honorius, and which he had promised, to his friend the erudite Labbe. Baluze, who put together the notes prepared by De Marca for the projected work which death prevented him from completing, does not question the correctness of his view. We may say, then, without fear of contradiction, that the view which represents Pope Honorius as having actually held Monothelite doctrine, has for nearly two centuries become almost exclusively the possession of Protestants and schismatics. But unfortunately Cardinal de la Luzerne, in the early part of the present century, revived this false accusation in his work La Declaration de l’Assemblée du Clergé de France a.d. 1682.

Later on, some professors in Germany took up the question of Pope Honorius, but unhappily in this case they did not apply those just principles of judgment with which some of their countrymen, Catholic and Protestant, have vindicated the memory of certain among the Popes, for centuries the victims of calumny and falsehood. Prejudice and passion interfered with their knowledge of facts and misled their judgments.

Hefele, in his History of the Councils, believes that Honorius expressed himself badly from inability to state his meaning correctly. But Dr. Döllinger, in his work on the Papal Fables of the Middle Ages, tries by every means, even by the distortion of historical evidence, to prove that Pope Honorius was a rank Monothelite, and was condemned as such by the Sixth Synod.

Mr. Renouf, who is so full of admiration of the German Positive School represented by Dr. Döllinger, in which the Gallican principles which have been exiled from France find refuge, thinks himself in perfect security by the side of such a champion. He seems also to believe that, supported by the authority of so great a name, he can speak very dogmatically, and set at defiance all the theologians and historians in the world who have ever attempted to clear Pope Honorius and his letters from the charge of heresy. He treats them all in the most contemptuous manner, saying that they betray an utter ignorance of the real nature of the controversy.

Now, let us hear how Mr. Renouf reasons in the matter which he boastingly claims to have thoroughly mastered. It is undeniable, he says, “that Honorius sided with Sergius against Sophronius, that he asserted his perfect agreement with the former, that he acknowledged but one will in Christ, and condemned as scandalous the assertion of two operations”. Here let us pause. These three undeniable propositions of Mr. Renouf’s are three gross blunders; and yet that gentleman, as he assures us, “has studied most carefully and conscientiously the original sources and entire literature of this and other portions of ecclesiastical history!” But, in order to see clearly that Pope Honorius did not in any manner teach the heresy of the Monothelites in his letters, we must recall to our mind the leading doctrine of that sect.

As we have shown at length in the first section of this pamphlet, the leading error of the Monothelites was identical with that of the Apollinarists and the Severians. They deprived the humanity of Christ of its natural operation, and consequently of its will; they regarded it as an inactive instrument moved by the Divine Logos. Therefore their Monophytism (in the form given it by Severus) was not, as Mr. Renouf believes, “a mere logical consequence asserted by its adversaries”; but it was the fundamental principle of the whole, and the source from which the system derives its very being.

The first question, then, to be examined is, whether Pope Honorius held any doctrine at all resembling the Monophytism of Severus, with its denial of the natural operation of Christ's humanity.

It is undeniable that the doctrine of Honorius on this point is an explanation of St. Leo's doctrine in his dogmatic epistle, where he teaches the distinction of the two natures in Christ, and therefore the possession by each of a peculiar and intrinsic principle of operation, although under the government and dominion of the Word.

The great Pope evidently lays down the doctrine of the two operations in Christ, in accordance with the distinction of His two natures, as well as that of the governing power of the Godhead by which the humanity was ruled. The doctrine of the two operations is so clearly expressed in this passage that Cyrus of Phasis could not refrain from mentioning his anxiety on this score to Sergius; and the most honest Patriarch of Constantinople could not otherwise do away with his difficulty than by a solemn lie, by alleging, namely, that no one had ever said that Pope Leo, in the words quoted, asserted the doctrine of the two operations.

Moreover, as we have already said, Severus condemned St. Leo's dogmatic letter on account of its containing that doctrine. Now, what did Pope Honorius teach in his letters to Sergius, if not the identical doctrine set forth by Pope Leo in the foregoing passage and by Sophronius in his synodical letter? He says, the human actions of Christ are to be attributed to the agency of human operation, not to that of the divine Word. But at the same time, the human nature, which of its own virtue operates what is peculiar to itself, is not separated from the divine nature, although distinct from it, because of its hypostatical union with the Godhead.

Sophronius, as we have remarked, professed this very identical dogma in his famous synodical letter. “As the two natures in Christ”, he says, “keep each its own property in its entirety, so the one and the other operate what belongs to each one with the communication of the other; the Word operates what is proper to the Word with the communication of the body, and the body executes what is of the body with the communication of the Word in the action itself. Because they are not separated, whilst they act what is their own.

On the other hand, Sergius also, in his letter to Honorius, hypocritically referred to this passage of St. Leo; but he did so only in the hope of thereby disguising his error, in which, however, he was not altogether successful. His doctrine is seen to be Monothelite at a glance, and in opposition to that of Honorius and Sophronius. He expressed himself as follows: “We confess that the only-begotten Son of God, who is at the same time God and man, operates divine and human actions, and that all divine and human operation flows from the Incarnate Word of God without separation and division. For Leo, doorkeeper of heaven, taught us so”.

The Monothelite doctrine clearly appears from these words, however they may have been intended to deceive.

As long as Sergius had said that the Son of God, who is at the same time God and man, operates divine and human actions, it could receive a Catholic explanation. But when he adds that divine and human operation flows from the Incarnate Word of God, he points manifestly to the Monothelite doctrine of one divine operation in Christ, flowing from the Word into His humanity, which has not in itself any principle of action. And this is the more clear, because he had a little before declared that as the soul is the principle of movement in our body, so is the Word in His humanity, which is moved by Him alone.

The Monothelite error is expressed here as clearly as in the extracts of Theodorus of Pharan, quoted in the first section. How, then, can it be said that “Honorius sided with Sergius against Sophronius”, when the doctrine of the former perfectly agrees with that of Pope Leo, as well as with that of Sophronius, and is in direct contradiction of the error of Sergius? But what did Honorius mean when he expressed his wish that they should refrain from the expression “one or two operations”? Did he mean that everybody was to be free to reject the dogma of the two operations in Christ? Mr. Renouf and his friends look on this as undeniable. But those who read Honorius’ letter without prejudice, see that his meaning is quite the contrary.

Two fundamental doctrinal principles are here laid down by Honorius: the first is, that the Divine Word is the only leading primary principle of all divine and human, free, or natural and necessary, actions of Christ; and therefore under this aspect the Word may be called the only source of operation. This doctrine was repeatedly inculcated in the synodical letter which Sophronius wrote against the Nestorian error.

The second is, that, notwithstanding that hegemonic principle in Christ and the hypostatical union of His operations, both His natures preserved their integrity and their natural power of acting; so that, as the Pope says, we are to profess that both the natures operate in the unity of the divine Person. We have here the exact doctrine which the sixth synod proposed to the belief of the faithful in its definition of faith. But it is proper here to remark, that Honorius did not always use the word “operation” or “energy” in the sense of an internal principle of action implanted in our nature; but he employed it in his first letter to mean what the Greeks called the effect of the external action itself, meaning the interior agency or power of the soul. Therefore that multiplicity of actions in Christ evidently alludes to the external manifestation of the natural energy, not to the energy or agency itself. And this is the more manifest as Honorius quotes St. Paul's words, in which the Apostle speaks of external acts, not of natural operation.

But “it is undeniable”, insists Mr. Renouf, following in the footsteps of Dr. Döllinger, “that Pope Honorius acknowledged but one will in Christ”. Certainly, it may be undeniable for dreamers who deal with phantoms, mistaking them for living realities, not for such as study historical documents with a mind free from prejudice and a heart free from passion. Every time we read the words of Honorius, we are amazed that men who profess an extended and scientific knowledge of literature have been able to disguise from themselves the natural and obvious purport of his words.

Now it is really undeniable that Pope Honorius does not assert that there is only one will in Christ, and that divine, but on the contrary maintains that in the humanity assumed by the Word there is only one will, and that the spiritual will. His argument is as follows: the Word of God took to Himself our nature, not the sin which is in it; our nature as it was created before sin, not as it was corrupted by transgression.

Now, our natural will, the will as a power of our soul, is not a fruit of sin; it was an essential part of human nature, even before this was stained with sin. Hence the Word of God by assuming our nature must have assumed its natural will. Again, the will which is a fruit of sin, and which is called sin in the Scripture, the will which did not exist in human nature in its state of innocence, is our concupiscence. The Word of God, therefore, by assuming our nature could, not assume that will; that is to say, our concupiscence.

From this clear and conclusive reasoning it is manifest that Pope Honorius excluded from the Incarnate Word nothing but the will of the flesh, or, in other words, our concupiscences. In fact he quotes several passages of St. Paul from his Epistle to the Romans, and the first to the Corinthians, in order to prove that after the first transgression a hard struggle arose in our nature between the fleshly will and that of the mind; these being contrary to each, other in their tendencies and desires; whereupon he concludes that in Christ there was no contrariety whatever, since He did not assume the fleshly will. Honorius foresaw that an exception could be raised against his assertion founded on the passages of the gospel, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt”; and “I am not come to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me”. He answers the objection, by saying that the passages quoted and similar texts do not im­ply any contrariety of wills in Christ, but that they reveal a peculiar economical design of His assumed humanity.

The Incarnate Word assumed our humanity, not only that He might be a victim consecrated to His Father’s glory, but also in order to become the pattern which we should copy in ourselves. Now Christ became our pattern because He practiced what He taught, and by His example He opened the path which we should follow, so that, by perfect submission of His will to the will of His Divine Father, He gave us a great example of perfect resignation to the will of God. But Christ, whilst perfectly complying with His Father's will, had not to endure any struggle with the concupiscence of the flesh, which fights against the wishes of our mind; He did not feel in Himself any such disorderly feeling, even when His will submitted to things which, by themselves, are not agreeable to the original unfallen tendencies of our nature.

The “not  quod ego volo” does not imply contrariety of wills in Christ, originating from the law of concupiscence, for this last did not exist in Him; but it only points to what would naturally agree with our inclinations, and please our will. But the very same language (non quod ego volo) transferred to our nature, as it is affected by the Fall, means not merely what in itself is not pleasant to our lawful tendencies, but moreover what is positively and strongly opposed by our fleshly will, which strives to carry with it the will of our mind.

Wat, then, is the meaning Honorius intended in the following passage? “Ista propter nos dicta sunt quibus dedit exemplum ut sequamur vestigia ejus; pius magister discipulos imbuens, ut non suam unusquisque nostrum, sed potius Domini in omnibus preferat voluntatem”. First, it cannot mean that there was no human will in Christ; for if Christ had no human will, how could He afford us example of submission to God, and how could we follow His footsteps? But Honorius plainly asserted that we are to do this; therefore he at the same time plainly asserted the existence of a human will in Christ; because where there is no distinction of wills, no submission of any kind can have place.

Secondly, according to Honorius, Christ by the above words taught us to contradict our fleshly will, in order to submit our spirit to God. But although Christ could not us example of the denial of the fleshly will, which He had not, He could give us an instruction and precept; and these He imparted to us in words made stronger by His own example of perfect resignation. His example bears on the submission of the human will to God’s will; His instruction points to the battle against our concupiscences, in which we should willingly engage in order to submit our will to God.

Such is the true meaning of the doctrine of Honorius, when he acknowledges only one will in Christ’s human nature. These are not, as Mr. Renouf says they are, “subterfuges which will not bear examination”. The explanation which we have given will defy the examination of a hundred critics like Mr. Renouf, and also of all those who fully understand the real question at issue.

On the following page of Mr. Renouf's pamphlet we find a remark which betrays a strange ignorance of the state of the controversy. If Honorius, he says, “believed that this was the real question at issue (the existence in Christ of two human and contrary wills), he ought to have condemned Sophronius for manifestly heretical doctrine”.

Mr. Renouf is quite wrong in attributing to those who have given the foregoing explanation of the passage in question the belief that Honorius ever thought that to be the question at issue. What the Pope says against the existence of two contrary wills in Christ’s human nature has nothing to do with the Monothelite controversy. But Honorius having spoken, according to St. Leo's doctrine, of the unity of person in Christ, and of the diversity of His natures hypostatically united, was brought by his subject to speak of the integrity of His assumed nature.

Some writers have made it their business to blacken the memory of Pope Honorius, and have followed the Monothelite Pyrrhus in distorting the meaning of the words we have cited—“unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi”—in order to fasten upon them a Monothelite meaning. Honorius is in no way accountable for this: his meaning was quite different.

If Mr. Renouf will deign to listen to our advice, he will put aside all preconceived views, and read carefully the letters of Pope Honorius: he will soon be convinced that what he has represented as undeniable is false; what he has called absurd is right; what he has qualified as untruth is the truth; and what he has declared to be Monothelism is the Catholic doctrine.

But in historical controversies, when it happens that the perversity of man has misrepresented facts, the testimony of contemporaries is the most satisfactory means of arriving at the truth; and when the clear language of documents concurs with the evidence of contemporaries, no doubt can remain; in such case the narrative cannot properly be said to establish the truth of what we read in the documents, but only to ratify and confirm it. We have an instance of this in the controverted passage of Pope Honorius on one will in Christ.

The passage itself tells its own meaning, as we have seen, independently of any external evidence. The testimony, therefore, of contemporary authorities must have still greater power to put the truth of the explanation beyond all doubt. With this view we can refer to the evidence of St. Maximus, who after the death of Sophronius was the great doctor of the Eastern Church, the leader of the Catholics against the Monothelite faction, the man who, after having convinced Pyrrhus, the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, that he had been upholding error, persuaded him to place a written retractation in the hands of Pope Theodore, the man who suffered persecution and finally martyrdom for the faith. In like manner we can refer to the testimony of Pope John IV, who succeeded Honorius in the pontifical see after the twomonths reign of Severinus, and who wrote and addressed to the Emperor Constantine an apology in favor of Honorius against the calumnious letter of Patriarch Pyrrhus.

Finally, we can bring forward the evidence of Abbot John, secretary both to Honorius and to John IV, who drew up the letter addressed by Honorius to Sergius, and who could not fail to understand its purport correctly, while his character af­fords us a guarantee of his veracity; for, as we learn from St. Maximus, he was a man who had illustrated all the West with his virtues and religious doctrine. Now St. Maximus, Pope John IV, and Abbot John, all testify most clearly that Pope Honorius, when asserting one will in Christ our Lord, had in view the sacred humanity only, in which he denied the existence of two contrary wills. What contemporary witnesses could be found whose evidence upon this subject ought to have more weight in the balance of history and good sense? The learned, Garnier had good reason not to hesitate to call them tres locupletissimos testes in favor of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius.

But in the pages of Mr. Renouf’s pamphlet we have prejudice instead of history, passion in the place of good sense; hence it is that this writer sets no value on the evidence of these three witnesses. “The evidence”, he says, “of the tres locupletissimi testes is really that of one man, and that one an interested and mendacious witness. St. Maximus, when confronted with the authority of Pope Honorius, appeals to the evidence of Abbot John as having really written the letter of Honorius to Sergius, and therefore being the best judge of its meaning. This very man was also secretary to Pope John IV, and wrote a letter in this Pope's name, giving a lying account of the controversy, and explaining away the letter of Honorius”. This passage is one tissue of impudent assertion, suppression of truth, and blundering error. It is sheer impudence to apply the terms “interested and mendacious witness” and “liar” to the Abbot John, a man who in his own age was held in such high esteem both in West and East; it is a piece of insolence to give the lie to the learned martyr St. Maxi­mus, who thought so highly of the character of the Abbot John as to call him a most holy man.

Mr. Renouf is further guilty of suppressing the truth. He has, he tells us, “thoroughly mastered the literature of the subject”, and must therefore have read the letter of St. Maximus to the priest Marinus. Well, in that letter the learned martyr, “confronted with the authority of Pope Honorius, does not merely appeal to the evidence of Abbot John”, but fully examines the passage in question. He shows, from the very expressions of Pope Honorius and the context of his letter, that no Monothelite sense can be given to the doctrine there expressed; that Honorius evidently speaks of one will in Christ's humanity; and he quotes a passage from St. Anastasius, who used the like language when writing against Apollinaris.

Then, after having discussed the true Catholic meaning of Honorius’s letter through more than four pages, he refers to the authority of Abbot Anastasius and Abbot John, not in order to prove his thesis, but in order to confirm it and put it more beyond dispute. In proof of this we remark that St. Maximus, before adducing those witnesses, openly declared himself fully persuaded that what he gave was the true sense of the passage of Honorius, and he does not entertain the least suspicion to the contrary. Why did Mr. Renouf suppress this evidence of the holy martyr, and mention only the passage taken from his depute with Pyrrhus?

In that dispute the learned doctor was satisfied with opposing the authority of the holy and learned John, who had written the letter of Honorius, to the interpretation of Pyrrhus and other Byzantine writers who had given it a wrong meaning. That was at the time sufficient for the purpose of St. Maximus, who intended to confute with the authority of a holy and learned man, the actual writer of the letter of Honorius, the Byzantine Monothelites, who had put a fanciful interpretation, in accordance with their wishes, upon the words of Honorius. And he attained his end, since Pyrrhus, moved by the weight of such a witness, confessed the mistake of his predecessor and surrendered.

It seems as if Mr. Renouf was purposely endeavoring to conceal this result. In the letter, however, addressed to Marinus, St. Maximus explained the whole question at length, but Mr. Renouf, with a somewhat lax notion of literary honesty, has kept the evidence hidden from the eyes of his readers. Finally, is it true that Pope John or his secretary gave a lying account of the controversy? It is evidently false. The Apologia pro Honorio Papa, written in the name of John IV, may be divided into two parts: the first points out the meaning of the passage of the letter of Honorius which had been misrepresented by Pyrrhus; the latter demonstrates the opposition which exists between the doctrine of Honorius and the error of the Monothelites, which is shown to be a disguised Eutychianism and Severianism.

It is in this second portion that the writer states the true view of the controversy. This Apology of Pope John IV, as we said above, was written when Pyrrhus published an extract from the letter of Honorius to Sergius, with the purpose of showing that the Pope had taught only one will in Christ. The apologist therefore was bound to prove, first, that Honorius had not asserted the unity of the will in the divinity and humanity of Christ, but in the humanity alone, which the Word assumed totally free from concupiscence; secondly, that this doctrine had nothing to do with the error of the Monothelites, who denied any will and active operation in the humanity of Christ, and necessarily admitted the errors of Severus.

In the two parts of the Apology he handled successively these two points; and it cannot be said that in so doing he gave a lying account of the controversy. Mr. Renouf has fallen into a gross and unjustifiable mistake. Moreover, how can it be said that the evidence of St, Maximus, of Pope John IV, and of Abbot John, is really that of one man?

It cannot be maintained that either the Saint or the Pope wrote in the name of the Abbot John, nor that they threw upon him the responsibility of their assertions. Each of them pledged his own credit in the defense of Pope Honorius which they put forward. Their language is absolute and without reserve, as became men who were thoroughly familiar with the whole controversy. It is absurd, therefore, to assert that “their evidence is really that of one man”.

But we must not feel surprise at the dogmatic manner in which Mr. Renouf disposes of the external evidence in favor of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius; he has asserted or suppressed exactly what Dr. Döllinger in his well-known pamphlet Die Papst Fabeln had already asserted or suppressed. It is not so much the English School-Inspector as the Munich Professor that treats with so much contempt the evidence of St. Maximus no less than that of Pope John and of the Abbot John; that stigmatizes the latter as a liar; that regards as absurd the explanation given by Pope John of the doctrine of Honorius; that suppresses what St. Maximus wrote of Honorius in his dogmatic treatise addressed to Marinus, as well as the conversion of Pyrrhus and his retractation, caused by the authoritative evidence of Abbot John, quoted by the saintly martyr; and that speaks of the triple evidence we have adduced as being that of one man.

Mr. Renouf indeed tells us that he had not seen the Die Papst Fabeln before he wrote his Condemnation of Pope Honorius; we must therefore conclude that some great similarity of character exists between the two writers, which has led to their independent adoption of the same line of argument, which derives what force it has wholly from the same baseless assertions and unwarrantable suppressions.

Mr. Renouf was not content with finding Monothelite tenets in the vexed passage of the letter of Honorius, and with casting contempt on all those who maintained its orthodox interpretation, but he also thought he saw in the confession of Honorius an identity of idea with the Ecthesis and the Typus; and he went so far as to assert that “one of the most important parts of the Ecthesis is copied verbatim from the letter of Honorius”.

His friend Dr. Döllinger had said before him that the doctrine of Honorius had given origin to the two imperial decrees called the Ecthesis of Heraclius and the Typus of Constans, because, as he imagined, the letter of Honorius gave the Emperor ground to believe that the Roman See would not oppose the doctrinal rule of the Ecthesis. This is the whole foundation for what Mr. Renouf asserts as to the identity of doctrine of the letter of Honorius and of the two imperial edicts. But it is a mere calumny, which can be quickly dispelled by simply confronting the Pope's letter with the imperial decrees.

The Ecthesis of Heraclius, it cannot be denied, contains no more error than what is insinuated in the letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius, and other missives of the same prelate; but it is in perfect contradiction to the doctrine expressed by Honorius in his letters to Sergius. This Pope, as we have proved above, clearly taught a twofold operation in Christ, one belonging to the divinity, and the other to the humanity; although the Person of Christ being one, the Operator is one. If he speaks of one will in Christ, he refers to the humanity, where there cannot be two contrary wills in a state of struggle and reluctance.

The Ecthesis, on the other hand, maintains a doctrine altogether opposite. It states that all the operation of Christ, divine and human, must be attributed to the Word Incarnate alone, and therefore it did not permit any other profession of faith. Moreover it declares, in conformity with that erroneous and heretical tenet, that if we confess two operations in Christ, we must necessarily admit in His Person two contrary wills; and hence it openly maintains one will only in Christ.

We are not anxious to enlarge on this exposition by pointing out the contradictions to be found in the Ecthesis, a document in which the Patriarch Sergius, its author, summed up his errors and made them a law of the State. All who read this section will readily acknowledge that we find in that iniquitous document the mind of Sergius rather than that of Honorius. Mr. Renouf, however, is under an obligation of proving that the most important passages of the Ecthesis are taken verbatim from the letter of Honorius.

Let us pass on to consider the case of the Typus of Constans. Mr. Renouf assures us that the position taken up in this document is exactly that of Pope Honorius, whose authority, he says, it followed. This time Mr. Renouf chances to be more moderate in his language than Dr. Döllinger, who has charged Honorius with having gone far beyond the limits of the Typus. Nevertheless, both Mr. Renouf and Dr. Döllinger agree in this, that Honorius as well as the Typus prohibit the discussion of one or two wills and operations. We, however, maintain, on the other side, that their difference concerns what is substantial and peculiar to each of them.

The Typus was the work of the Monothelite Patriarch Paul, successor of Pyrrhus, but it was published in the name of the Emperor Constans. This prince, with the purpose of furthering his political views, usurped a right which belongs to the supreme ecclesiastical authority alone—a right to which the civil powers are bound to yield respect, and cannot control by the power of the sword. Constans, by enforcing the Typus, and substituting it for the Ecthesis made him a most powerful instrument of the Monothelite faction. The Typus, indeed, has an appearance of placing the doctrinal element more in the background, and of aiming only at putting an end to violent disputes, and restoring peace to the Church. It does not appear to favor either Monothelism or Dithelism; it decides in favor of neither, but strictly and under the most heavy penalties forbids the holding and defending of either of the two contrary views of the controversy, and prohibits all further contention on these points.

We need say nothing here of the injustice and tyranny of the prince who signed and sanctioned that decree. We will consider the Typus in its doctrinal purport only, and with reference to the Monothelite dogmas. The Typus contains the words “operation” and “will”, in the sense of the physical, internal power of nature, and natural active faculty. Therefore, by forbidding the profession of two operations and wills in Christ, it not only places a Catholic doctrine on the same level with the heresy which admits one single operation and will in Christ, but it also forbids the subjects of the Empire to profess in our Lord what is essential to the existence of His two natures; and consequently it forbids the profession of the faith of Chalcedon and of the dogmatical letter of Pope Leo, in which that essential doctrine is expressly stated. The Typus, then, besides the unchristian indifferentism, which was the root from which it sprang, embodied a skilful artifice to check for the time being the assertion of the Catholic truth, in order to open the way to heresy; and this after the solemn condemnation pronounced by the Popes Severinus and John IV against the errors of the Monothelites.

The character, therefore, of the Typus was manifestly heretical, and it deserved to be stigmatized as blasphemous and most impious by the Lateran Council under Martin I.

Now we would ask Mr. Renouf and Dr. Döllinger to point out to us the place in which Pope Honorius forbade the profession of two wills in Christ. We would remind both of what we have said in the beginning of this section, namely, that Honorius not only never forbade the profession of two operations in Christ our Lord, but also declared it to be a duty of every Catholic to believe and confess them, according to St. Leo’s doctrine.

We would inform them that when Honorius suggests the expediency of refraining from the expression, “one or two operations”, he did not employ the word “operation” in the sense of the internal power of a nature, but in the sense of its external acts; which, if referred to the person, may be summed up into one operation, as the operator is one; but if referred to the two natures, may be said to be two or more operations, according to the multiple mode of working of the two natures. Hence he says it is useless to inquire whether, on account of the working of Christ’s divinity and humanity, there should be said to be one or two derived operations; for this reason he adds that there is no canon of a Council in the matter, and that the Scripture teaches the contrary; and this is why he asserts that the expression, “one or two operations”, is a novelty which may turn out dangerous to the faith.

In the whole of this passage, as we have proved above, the Pope does not allude to the physical internal operations of Christ, but to the external acts. Dr. Döllinger, we have already said, himself acknowledged what we here state; and it is somewhat remarkable that his admiring disciple Mr. Renouf has not profited by his master's lesson, and so escaped falling into a lower depth of blunder than the author of the Papst Fabeln has reached.

Let us conclude. The Typus prohibits the confession of two operations in Christ; Honorius commands that they should be confessed and preached. The Typus speaks of operations in the sense of substantial virtue of nature; Honorius speaks of them in the sense of acts, and distinguishes between the operation peculiar to each nature. The Typus prohibits the confession of a doctrine of faith with reference both to the two natural operations and to the two wills of Christ; Honorius merely advises abstinence from forms of expression which do not belong to the ecclesiastical dogma. Does all this show an identity of tenet, and not rather an essential opposition?

From what we have said of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, our readers may conclude that the position of our adversaries is quite untenable; and that there exists such an accumulation of various evidence in favor of the Pontiff, that the maintenance of the opposite view implies a large amount of obstinate prejudice. We shall, however, be repaid if we institute a still further inquiry as to the opinions held by the contemporaries of Honorius regarding the faith of the Pope. And first let us consider what was the judgment of Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople.

It is undeniable that this prelate was convinced of the thorough orthodoxy of Honorius, and of his being in no way inclined to the Monothelite views. Had not this been so, Sergius would have made a point of circulating the letters of Honorius throughout the East, whereas he withdrew them as much as possible from the knowledge of the public. If it be true that the doctrine held by Honorius is really identical with that of the Ecthesis, why did not the writer of that document claim the support of the papal authority, or why was its publication delayed until after the death of the very Pope who is said to have been its patron? But we need not confine ourselves to negative arguments, for the records of the time afford us more positive testimonies.

Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the great leader of the Catholics in the struggle against the Monothelite error, must have been acquainted with the letters and teaching of Pope Honorius. Yet Sophronius, as we have seen, sent Stephen, Bishop of Dora, to Honorius, to urge upon the Pope the necessity of passing a definitive sentence on the disputed points. We have quoted above the terms in which he spoke of the Roman See, “where the foundations are laid of the orthodox faith”.

Now if Sophronius entertained the least suspicion that Pope Honorius was himself infected with the error, he would certainly not have sent to him a solemn embassy in order to obtain his definitive judgment in a matter of faith. Nor must it be thought that any different opinion was held by St. Maximus, the successor of Sophronius in the defense of the Catholic cause, and heir alike of his doctrine and his zeal.

The Patriarch Pyrrhus had already spread abroad a most grievous calumny against the memory of Honorius. Extracts from his letters were being circulated both in the East and in the West, and were exciting suspicions against the faith of that Pope; hence Maximus, as the leader of the Catholics against the Monothelite faction, was bound to make public the common persuasion with regard to the doctrine and orthodoxy of Honorius. Now St. Maximus declared himself the apologist of the Pope whose orthodoxy he defended in his dispute with Pyrrhus; he returned to the subject in his dogmatic Tomus to the Priest Marinus; he insisted on the same point in the Epistle “ad Petrum illustrem”. In this letter he represented Pope Honorius as not only unstained with any blemish of Monothelism, but also as one of the zealous Pontiffs who resisted that heresy, and endeavored to bring its author into the path of truth. After proof of this, the assertion of Dr. Döllinger must seem strange indeed when he says that, whilst all the West, and principally Rome, arose vigorously to oppose and condemn Monothelism, Pope Honorius alone showed favor to it, and was on this account abandoned by all.

But if so, how is it that the Romans, after his death, compared him with St. Gregory the Great for his doctrine as well as for his virtues; and expressed sentiments of praise and admiration for him in an epigraph engraven on his sepulcher? Had they entertained the least doubt of his orthodoxy, nothing of the kind would have been written on his tomb,nor would the Romans have immortalized with lying praise the name of a heretic. Lastly, the successors of Honorius in the chair of St. Peter lent their authority to confirm the high character for orthodoxy and virtue which the public voice gave to Honorius. Thus Pope John IV testifies to the scandal given to all Christendom when the heretical leader Pyrrhus dared to appeal to Honorius as a supporter of his errors.

Pope Martin opening the Lateran Council, did not hesitate to assert that his predecessors had most constantly resisted the Monothelite errors, and had endeavored to bring their authors into the path of truth. To speak thus of his predecessors without exception or limitation would have been impossible,had he believed that Honorius betrayed the Catholic truth; especially seeing that Pyrrhus had already charged Honorius with Monothelism, and that his successor Paul, in his letter to Pope Theodore, had appealed to Honorius as a witness in favor of the same heresy. Under these circumstances the declaration of Pope Martin was designed to dissipate all doubt regarding the orthodoxy of Honorius. His general assertion, considering the time in which it was made, is equivalent to what St. Maximus advanced in favor of Honorius in his Epistle "ad Petrum illustrem."

Pope Agatho also shows himself equally convinced of the orthodoxy of Honorius. In his dogmatic letter addressed to the Emperor Pogonatus, which was read in the Sixth Synod, he testified to the solicitude of all his predecessors in repressing the new heresy, and he mentions especially their suggesting silence to the partisans of error. By these words he undoubtedly referred to Honorius; and although he did not say whether the economy adopted by Honorius had been well-advised and calculated to attain its end,yet it is undeniable that he gave the most favorable evidence of the orthodoxy of that Pope. Had he felt any misgivings on that score, he could not have classed Honorius with John IV, Theodore, and Martin I,as one of those who opposed Monothelism; he could not have said that Honorius by his policy of silence intended to check the Monothelite heresy, had he thought him a Monothelite. So then, the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius was publicly and repeatedly testified to by all his contemporaries till the very opening of the Sixth Council. Throughout that interval no one Catholic called it in question, while it was expressly defended against the attacks of Pyrrhus and Paul by the principal leaders and martyrs of the orthodox party, and the Popes, who were most energetic in their opposition to the heresy.

We must here notice a difficulty raised by Mr. Renouf. “The fact”, he says, “that Pope Martin I and the Lateran Council heard Honorius quoted in a dogmatic letter as an authority for Monothelism without any contradiction being offered, is a sure sign that his cause was no longer held to be defensible”. The same remark had been made also by Dr. Döllinger, who seems desirous of suggesting some charge of injustice against the Lateran Council. We must, however, confess that Dr. Döllinger in his way of putting the point was somewhat more honest than Mr. Renouf. First, this last-named writer mentions a “dogmatic letter”, in which Honorius is quoted as an authority for Monothelism. Allusion is here made to the letter of the Patriarch Paul, the author of the Typus; but we do not know any ground for asserting that this letter was ever called “dogmatic” by the Lateran Council. Certainly the Bishops who required it to be read called it simply “letter”. Pope Martin ordered to be read “the letter of Paul” (epistolam Pauli). Theophylact, the prothonotary of the Apostolic See, declared that he had in his hands the “letter of Paul”. The letter itself bears no other title than “letter of Paul of Constantinople to Pope Theodore”. The Bishop Deusdedit, speaking of the document, called it a “letter”. The epithet “dogmatic” does not appear anywhere.

Again, Mr. Renouf does not tell us that the “dogmatic” letter in which Honorius is quoted as an authority for Monothelism,is the letter of a Monothelite Bishop, theauthor of the Typus, who, like Pyrrhus, calumniated that Pope. Thirdly, he does not notice (nor does Dr. Döllinger) that in the letter quoted the Patriarch Paul not only appeals to Honorius but also to St. Gregory Nazianzen, to St. Athanasius, to St. Cyril of Alexandria, and in short to all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as partisans of the Monothelite view. Now we may retort the argument against Mr. Renouf in this manner. The Fathers of the Lateran Council heard without any contradiction the names of St. Gregory, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, and the rest, quoted as authorities for Monothelism, and yet no one believes this to be a sure sign that the cause of these holy Doctors was no longer held to be defensible: in the same manner then in the case of Honorius. This is not all: there is another argument which may help to show the rashness of the inference so confidently drawn by Dr. Döllinger, and adopted with equal confidence by his pupil.

Pope Martin beyond doubt well knew what the Byzantine Patriarch Paul had written against Honorius in his letter to Pope Theodore, and on this account, as we said above, after the opening of the Council, he made a solemn declaration in favor of all his predecessors, in order to reject beforehand the infamous charge of the Monothelite champion. Moreover, the Pope with all the Synod condemned Paul and his letter, but no one thought it necessary to mention the name of Honorius. This argument will gain still more strength if we remark that Pope Martin, after the opening of the Synod, explicitly declared that it was his intention and that of the whole Council to discover and bring to light all the authors of the Monothelite heresy. He mentions the four Patriarchs, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but he does not use a word directed against Honorius. In the course of the Council itself many Libelli were read, all concerning the Monothelite controversy. We may consult those of Stephen of Dora from Palestine; of the Monks and Abbots of Africa, of Palestine and Armenia; of Victor Bishop of Carthage; of Sergius of Cyprus; of Maurus of Ravenna; the Synodical Letters of the Councils of Numidia, of Mauritania, and of Byzacene. In all these Libelli and Synodical Letters the Roman See is spoken of as the foundation of faith, as the teacher of truth, as the centre of Catholic doctrine: in all of them the four Patriarchs are unanimously denounced, together with other partisans and promoters of the new heresy. But we find no allusion, direct or indirect, to Pope Honorius. This omission cannot be explained except by supposing that no one considered the doctrine of Honorius deserving of such denunciation. We must not, then, follow Mr. Renouf in believing that at the time of the Lateran Council the cause of Honorius was held to be no longer defensible; on the contrary, it was then considered that no plausible ground could be found for any charge of heresy against him.