IV.

The Sixth Synod and the Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

 

The Eastern Church had been kept continually in a state of terrible confusion for about sixty years by the Monothelite faction (622-680); and the imperial power, which had been led by considerations of worldly interest to abet the heresy, had reaped the natural fruit of its rebellion against the Church in domestic strife and interior weakness.

The Ecthesis of the Patriarch Sergius, published by the Emperor Heraclius, had increased the general confusion; and the Typus of the Patriarch Paul, to which the Emperor Constans gave the force of an imperial law, had failed to restore calm and concord in the provinces of the East: both these documents, the Ecthesis and the Typus, by favoring Monothelism, had rendered the state of affairs more desperate than ever, and spread still further the internal cancer which had for so long a time been corroding the vital organs of the Byzantine Empire. In fact, whilst the Emperors and their Patriarchs were attacking Catholic doctrine and abetting schism, the Greek provinces were being torn from the unity of the Empire; and now the Emperors, who had put forth all their zeal against the supporters of the Catholic dogma, proved powerless to resist the enemies of their people.

The Popes on their side had spared no means in order to recall the erring factions back to the path of faith and unity. They had repeatedly condemned the Ecthesis and the Typus, as well as the authors of the Monothelite heresies. After many provincial Synods had been fruitlessly held at Rome against the new error, Martin I summoned a Universal Council in the Lateran Palace (654), where, at the head of 105 Bishops, he anathematized the errors of Monothelism with their authors, and formally defined the doctrine delivered by Catholic tradition as a rule of faith, thus binding the conscience of the whole Christian world.

The authority attributed in the Church to this Synod was so great, that it was inserted after the four previous General Councils in the Pontifical Profession of Faith.  But its dogmatic decrees were far from being received by the Emperor Constans with faith and obedience; on the contrary, they increased his hostility to the Catholic doctrine, and gave rise to a confusion greater than any previous. The records of history tell us of the sufferings of the illustrious Pontiff Martin; of the great champion of the faith Maximus, with his two disciples both named Athanasius; and of the other glorious martyrs who at that time received their crowns at the hands of the imperial heretic. The blood of those heroic confessors secured the rapid triumph of the faith.

Shortly after their glorious martyrdom Constans received the recompense of his crimes in a miserable death, and the state of the Eastern Church underwent a complete change. Constantine Pogonatus, a prince nurtured in Catholic principles, took the helm of the Empire, and without delay applied to the See of Rome for the restoration of Catholic union in the Oriental Church. He addressed a letter to Pope Donus, requesting him to send legates to Constantinople, in order to put an end to the Monothelite controversy and restore peace to the Empire. But when the imperial letters arrived at Rome, Pope Agatho had already succeeded Donus.

Agatho received the proposal of the Emperor with favor, and accordingly in 680 he assembled a Council of 125 Bishops at Rome, with the purpose of choosing his legates and of settling the points of faith to be solemnly decreed in the Ecumenical Synod. Then by the authority of the Pope the Sixth General Council was opened at Constantinople on the 7th day of November in the year 680.

The Emperor Constantine in this Synod held the presidency of honor, and sat in the centre of the assembly, as the great Constantine had done at Nicaea. But it would be most wrong to think that he held the presidency of jurisdiction and by right. We should be surprised to hear Mr. Renouf avow such an opinion; but if he does not hold it, we do not understand why he is so anxious to inform us that “the Emperor presided in all the Sessions at which he was present”; and “that he had his way in all things when present”; that “during his absence he was represented by two patricians and two ex-consuls”, and that “Bishops were very small persons indeed”. And again, that “the legates of the Pope and of the See of Jerusalem sat on the left of the Emperor, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, &c. on the right”.

We are thankful to Mr. Renouf for this valuable information, for which he has kindly found room in his notable twenty-six pages against Pope Honorius. But if he thinks that the Legates of the Pope did not really preside in the Council, because they sat on the left of the Emperor, he is grossly deceived. This false impression will be at once dispelled if we merely look at the list of the signatures of the members of the Council appended to the definition of faith and to the Prosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor. In both these documents the names of the Pontifical Legates are the first in the list, preceding even the names of all the Eastern Patriarchs.

On the other hand, the name of the Emperor is written in the formula of faith below those of all the Bishops; and by his signature he only expresses his consent to the decree, without the least show of authority in sanctioning a definition of faith. But the Bishops declare that they sign the formula of faith defining it; and the Legates signed in the name of Pope Agatho, whose authority they represented. Therefore the presidency of the Emperor was merely honorary, without any indication of power or jurisdiction.

Constantine Pogonatus could not forget the traditions of the Empire. His predecessors had openly declared, that if they attended the general assembly of the Bishops, they did it, not in order to display any authority of their own in ecclesiastical matters, but with the purpose of shielding the authority of the Fathers with that of the Empire. If he, like his predecessors, misled by the example of Constantine I, thought it his right to occupy the first place in the general synods, neither he nor they harbored the idea of having jurisdiction over them as presidents.

It is true that the writer of the history of the Sixth Synod, by the expression “Constantine presides” may seem to mean a under the presidency of Constantine;" but “presides” does not mean properly “to preside”, but simply “to sit down before”, or "in front" “to sit in public”. In fact, in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth sessions of the same Council, when the Emperor was absent, the same word is referred to his seat; and of course the seat does not preside, though it was placed in an honorable position. Therefore in the fifteenth session the writer, when speaking of the imperial seat during the absence of Constantine, uses the word “protethimenon”.

But it is idle to insist further upon a subject which we believe we have already made clear enough. With regard to the left side of the Emperor being appointed for the Papal Legates, Mr. Renouf is, as usual, at fault: it is well known that in those times the left side was regarded as the more honorable. According to the ancient Ordo Romanus, in public ecclesiastical assemblies the Bishops were to sit on the left, and the priests on the right.

A more important question now demands an answer, the solution of which will cast great light on the subject in hand. Pope Agatho, after the council held at Rome, sent his Legates to the Ecumenical Synod assembled in Constantinople. What character were these Legates meant to represent in that assembly? In other words, were they sent by the Roman Pontiff in order to learn from the Fathers of Constantinople what doctrine of faith was to be believed? or to enforce the definitions of the Apostolic See, and to procure the solemn confirmation of them by the lawful submission of the Ecumenical Synod? For believers in Papal Infallibility there can be no doubt on this question; and it were to be wished that all Catholics agreed with us in seeing that the mission entrusted to the Legates must have been of the latter nature.

The predecessors of Agatho had repeatedly condemned Monothelism, and had anathematized its supporters. In particular Martin I had already in the Lateran Council defined in the most solemn manner the Catholic teaching concerning the two wills and operations in Christ, and had published his decrees as the standard of faith. To send Papal Legates to the Ecumenical Council in order to discuss anew points of faith which had been already settled, with the intention that they should alter their views, if necessary, according to the new researches to be made in the Council, would have been nothing short of denying Papal Infallibility, by reducing the Universal Doctor of the Church to the rank of any other Bishop, and allowing his solemn judgments of faith to be examined and reformed. But Pope Agatho, like all his predecessors, although he lived six centuries before the complete separation of the East from the West, and ten before the rise of the school of Suarez and Zaccaria, had the firm consciousness of his own infallibility, which he regarded as a doctrine of the whole Catholic Church.

Consequently he sent his Legates with rigorous orders that they should only explain and enforce in the council the traditional doctrine of his Apostolic See, as it had been laid down by his own predecessors. Their mission was not to discuss or examine, as if the matter were doubtful and uncertain, but to set before all in a brief manner the certain and unchangeable doctrine of the Roman See.

Pope Agatho gives a reason for these instructions, and this is the infallibility which, had been divinely conferred on the See of Peter. Therefore he openly asserts that through that supernatural gift his See had always been exempt from any error whatever. On this account he declares that all who wish to save their souls must unanimously profess the formula of faith which rests on the apostolic tradition of Peter, who is the foundation of the Church. Consistently with this, he denounces in the severest terms all who reject this formula, as guilty of a betrayal of the faith, and as deserving a rigorous judgment at the tribunal of Christ.

He judges all to be enemies of the Catholic and Apostolic confession, and subject to perpetual condemnation, who shall refuse to teach the doctrine which he propounds; and over and over again he refers to the infallibility of the Apostolic See as to a pledge and justification of his utterance.

He declares that all the orthodox Fathers and all the General Councils had always venerated the teaching of the Roman See, and entirely and faithfully adhered to it; that it had been calumniated and persecuted by none but heretics.

He solemnly asserts that it had never at any time declined from the straight path of truth, but that it had always been preserved from error since the Apostles placed in it the deposit of revealed doctrine; and that it should always so last till the end of time, pure and immaculate in its teaching.

He alleges in proof of this the promise made by our Lord to Peter, that his faith should never fail. Such is the language with which Pope Agatho and his Synod addressed the Emperor and the Sixth Council.

The Roman Pontiff does not expect from the latter a new definition of faith. He points out to the Bishops that they should believe and profess, and confirm by their decrees, the traditional infallible doctrine of the Roman See, which all his predecessors had always taught.

The language of Pope Agatho is worthy of a successor of St. Peter, but it in no wise differed from that which the Roman Pontiffs used in other times on such occasions. If we read with attention the letters of Pope Agatho to the Emperor and to the Sixth Synod, and compare them with the time and the circumstances in which they were written, we shall be forced to conclude that they form a summary treatise on the supreme infallible authority of the Apostolic See, considered in its principles and in its practical application. The Oriental Church had fallen into schism because it had allowed itself to be led astray by the subtleties of the Monothelite teachers, and had refused to listen to the infallible voice of the Roman Pontiffs. Now it looked for reconciliation and unity from a Universal Council.

Pope Agatho, in his two letters, points out the way to reconciliation and unity. He sets before them the formula of Catholic faith, which is the formula of the Apostolic Magisterium of the Roman See; and he informs them they must believe and confess it, and, on the other hand, condemn and reject every dogma contrary to it. Should they refuse to submit to this rule of faith, they would be in error, in schism, and reprobation. But he could not impose a formula of faith to be believed and confessed unless his Magisterium was universally acknowledged as infallible.

Therefore he repeatedly insists on that capital point of doctrine. He declares that the Roman See has never erred, and that it never shall err. He confirms and explains his assertion by referring to the promises of Christ, to the example of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and of the Ecumenical Synods themselves, which had always received from Rome the paradigm of the doctrine they were to define. At the same time, as supreme and infallible Doctor in the Church, he not only proposes the Catholic formula of faith with regard to the two wills and operations in Christ, but he also exposes the errors of Monothelism, and, by drawing out the traditional doctrine of all the Fathers, he shows the fallacies of the heretics, and affords new weapons for their demolition. Thus we see that the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Roman See is far from being artfully inserted in the Letters of Pope Agatho, as Dr. Döllinger has imagined.

This doctrine is woven into their very substance; it is the groundwork of their whole argument. If we make abstraction for a moment from that teaching, the whole drift of the two letters is pointless and meaningless. How could Agatho proclaim an Ecumenical Council to be in error and reprobation, should it decline to receive at his hands the doctrine of faith, had he not been infallible, had not the doctrine of Papal infallibility been a traditional dogma in the universal Church? And now let us see how the assembled Fathers received his two letters. Did they lift up their voice in protest against the fundamental doctrine of infallibility which Agatho attributed to his See, and which he rested on the promises of Christ Himself? Was objection raised to the magisterial tone of the letters addressed to an Ecumenical Council?

That large and influential assembly of Bishops not only found nothing to censure in the letters of the Pope, but it received them as a whole and in all their parts as if they had been written by St. Peter, or rather by God Himself. The Fathers testified to their admitting the infallible and divine authority of the letters in the eighth session, as well as in the Synodical Letter addressed to Agatho; and in the Prosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor they regarded them as a rule of faith. No sooner did a suspicion arise that four Bishops and two monks refused to adhere to them, than the Council ordered them to give an explanation of their faith in writing and on oath. They submitted, and solemnly affirmed that they accepted without reserve all the heads of doctrine contained in the letters. Again, Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, was, by sentence of the Council, deposed from his dignity and expelled from the Synod, because he refused to adhere to the letters of Agatho.

The simple truth is, that some of the strongest proofs of Papal Infallibility are found in the acts of this Sixth General Council; so that we may be sure that the objection founded by our adversaries upon the condemnation of Pope Honorius has no solid basis. In order that this objection should have real weight, it must be shown that the Council condemned Honorius as having taught heresy ex cathedra; but not only is it impossible to give any proof of this, but the contrary may be proved to demonstration. To maintain that the Council condemned Honorius on account of heretical teaching ex cathedra, is in reality to assert that Pope Agatho and the Synod itself were guilty of the most glaring self-contradiction.

Mr. Renouf admits that “the papal legates, who were strictly tied by their instructions, must have had Pope Agatho's consent to the condemnation of Honorius”. But since there is no trace in his letters of his having given such consent, Mr. Renouf concludes that they must have had secret instructions.

So, according to Mr. Renouf, Pope Agatho must have on the one hand solemnly taught in his letters to the Emperors and to the Synod, that his predecessors had never erred, nor could be led into error, founded as they were on the solid rock of the divine promises, while on the other hand he gave secret instructions to his legates to condemn Honorius precisely for having taught heresy ex cathedra!

Would not such conduct have contained at one and the same time the folly of self-contradiction and the shame of dishonesty?

With regard to the Council, it had repeatedly acknowledged all the heads of doctrine mentioned in Pope Agatho's letter. By adhering to it the Synod had professed that none of the predecessors of Agatho had ever erred, being founded on the rock of Peter, and deriving security from the promises of Christ; implicitly, therefore, it had made a solemn profession that Honorius, being a Pope, had not taught any heresy ex cathedra.

How could it, then, at that very time, condemn him as having taught heresy to the universal Church? Especially as even after the condemnation of Honorius the Fathers show that they had not forgotten the doctrine to which they gave their adherence by adopting Pope Agatho's letter.

In the Synodical Address in which they inform the Pope of all the proceedings of the Council, and in particular of the condemnation of the heretics and of Honorius himself, they solemnly acknowledge the authority of the Papal letters, as if they were written by the Apostle Peter himself; and on this account they leave it to the Pope to decide what is to be done in defense of the faith, because, they say, he rests on the firm rock of faith. In the Prosphonetic Letter to the Emperor Constantine they inculcate the same doctrine, and declare that Peter himself spoke through Agatho.

In these passages we read the authentic commentary of the Synod itself upon its own act in condemning Honorius. The Council consistently maintains throughout the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; wherefore, in condemning Honorius, it could not have meant that he had taught heresy ex cathedra. No council ever committed itself to so flagrant a contradiction and so disgraceful a deceit.

Again, the Synod professed to receive Agatho's letters as divinely written, so that they received them as containing doctrines based on Divine revelation; it is, therefore, incredible that the Council solemnly decreed anything the truth of which would prove that the divine promises were falsified. Pope Agatho, moreover, said to the Council in his letters: “The Roman See has never erred, and never will err, because of Christ's promise”. The assembled Fathers answered: “This, as well as the other doctrinal teachings of his letters, is the teaching of St. Peter”. And they spoke in this tone, not only before the condemnation of Honorius, but also after it, in the final Synodical Letter sent by them in the last session to Pope Agatho, and in the Prosphonetic Address to the Emperor.

On all these grounds it is absurd to think that the Council condemned Honorius for having taught heresy in the Church. Our adversaries not only charge the Council with self-contradiction, but also with having fallen into a most grievous doctrinal error. A Pope and an Ecumenical Council joined in the profession that a certain doctrine was true and divine; and yet it is maintained that they afterwards rejected that doctrine! This they could not do without abandoning their own character for infallibility. Here we see the reason why the Sixth Synod applied the word “dogmatic” to the letters of Agatho; while they never use that epithet of the letters of Honorius.

Mr. Renouf passes over all these points; and after having quoted from Bellarmine a remark upon the subject, he leaves it to u”the partisans of the culpable remissness of Honorius to settle this question with Bellarmine”. This is a very unfair and shuffling manner of shaking off the weight of a strong objection. What, then, was really the offence for which Pope Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Synod? This is a question of great interest, not because the doctrine of Papal Infallibility depends upon it, but because the answer strikes at the very root of the objections raised by our adversaries against the purity of faith of that Pope.

We have several passages in the Acts of the Sixth Council in which Pope Honorius is either decried or spoken of. In three of them Honorius is condemned apart from the Monothelite heretics, and distinct causes are mentioned for the condemnation of him and for that of the others; while in three other places he is condemned in common with the rest. The three former passages are to be found in the Decree of Condemnation, in the Prosphonetic Letter, and in the Imperial Edict. The others may be seen at the end of the thirteenth session, in the Definition, and in the Synodical Letter to Pope Agatho; to these the first part also of the Decree may be added. Now it is clear that the latter class of passages ought to be explained by the former, because, among other reasons, it contains the actual Decree of Condemnation, on which is founded whatever else is said concerning Honorius.

Let us first examine this important document. From it it is clear that the Council purposely draws a line of distinction between the cause of Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Theodore, with others who agreed with them, and that of Honorius. Of the former it is said; “these are the names of those whose impious doctrines we execrate”: the names i.e. of those whom Pope Agatho mentioned in his letters, and condemned as professing doctrines contrary to the faith; and, in conformity with Agatho's sentence, they pronounce anathema on them.

It is evident, then, that Sergius and the rest were condemned as heretics. But Honorius is spoken of apart from them, and the Synod declares that he is anathematized because in all things he followed Sergius, and gave strength to the impious doctrines. No one believed that the Pope had taught the impious doctrines which were execrated, or even that he had held them internally. And accordingly no expression to this effect was used concerning him either in the Prosphonetic Letter to Constantine, or in the edict of the Emperor. In the first of these two documents the Fathers called the Monothelite Eastern Patriarchs inventors of heretical novelties; but as to Honorius they used the very expression of the decree. Now what does the Council mean? We have already answered this question in the preceding section.

Sergius, indeed, applied to Pope Honorius in order to have a sanction to the economy of silence with regard to the expression one or two operations in Christ; and although he artfully insinuated the maxims of Monothelism, still he showed no open anxiety for anything but to obtain the papal confirmation for his scheme of economical silence. And what adherence did Honorius give in his answer to Sergius? Certainly he gave no adherence to the heresy; for the doctrine expressed in his letters is wholly Catholic, and entirely contrary to that expressed by Sergius. But he consented without any limitation to the economy of silence proposed by the Patriarch. In this then, and in nothing else, did he follow Sergius’ mind.

Honorius, in truth, was not guilty of any error in his apprehension of doctrine, as were the other prelates condemned as heretics by the Synod: his error was practical, and consisted only in the economy of silence by which he favored the development of the heresy, and allowed it to strike deep and extrusive root.

It is true that, as appears from his letters, he did not see in that practical economy anything counter to the faith, especially as no Council had yet definitively fixed the language suitable to express the dogma of the wills and operations in Christ. But he did not seek advice from any Roman Synod; he did not inquire into the true course of recent events in the Eastern provinces; he did not obtain reliable information on the character of those prelates who were so anxious to impose silence on the most zealous champions of Catholic truth. His acquaintance both with persons and things was evidently most imperfect; and this aggravates his fault; for he kept silence when he should have raised his Apostolical voice against the promoters of heresy, and brought them back to the Catholic confession, or if this failed, anathematized them, and checked their attempts to corrupt the faith.

But why did he abstain from censuring and condemning the errors insinuated in the letters of Sergius, and defended by Cyrus and the others? Satisfied with having stated in his answers the pure doctrine of the Church, he passed over without any notice the destructive errors which were contained in those letters, and even insisted on the economy of silence, which proved a weapon of great power in the hands of the Monothelite leaders against the Catholic teaching. “We repeat, the enemies of the faith never once sought to obtain from Honorius any consent to their errors; they wanted nothing more than the economical silence, that they might labor undisturbed at the ruin of the Catholic doctrine.

Honorius, in violation of every principle of ecclesiastical prudence, granted what they asked. Here was his fault. Whatever his intention may have been, he fully adhered to the proposal of Sergius, by which the heresy was confirmed and took deeper root in the East. Therefore is he said in the decree to have confirmed the impious dogma of the Patriarch, and in the edict of Constantine he is called “confirmer of the Monothelite heresy”. But at the same time the Synod neither attributed to him the invention of the new heresy, nor any adhesion to it; and in the edict it is pointedly said that he “etiam sui extitit oppugnator”; because, whilst by his fatal economy of silence he contributed to strengthen and spread the new heresy, he, at the same time, advocated the true Catholic doctrine concerning the two operations in Christ.

To proceed now to the language used by the Synod in the other passages where Honorius is condemned, together with the others; we unhesitatingly say that it no way opposes the view we take. For since Honorius, by his imprudent economy of silence and his grievous neglect in the discharge of his duties, contributed to the spread of the new heresy, he partook of the same fault in solidum with the others, although he had not himself been guilty of any heresy whatever; and such language is quite in accordance with the technical and canonical language used by the Church.

We need not wonder then, if in the definition of faith the Pope is joined with the other Monothelites, and called an instrument of the devil, who availed himself of it to spread the new errors; if, in the synodical letter to Agatho the Fathers say that they have slain with their anathemas Honorius, with the Eastern prelates, as sinners in a matter of faith; if in the thirteenth session his letters, in common with the writings of the heretics, are condemned to be burned as soul-destroying, and contributing to the same crime.

Pope Honorius did in truth, by his false economy and his neglect, become an instrument of the devil against the faith; therefore he was guilty of betrayal of the faith, and, in a way different to the rest, he contributed to the same iniquity, that is to say, to the propagation of the heresy and the destruction of souls. In the same manner, in the first part of the decree, Honorius’ letters, as well as the writings of the others, are called “alien from the apostolic teachings, following the false teachings of the heretics, and soul-destroying”. But although these expressions, taken in a general way, are all suitable in solidum, they cannot be referred to Honorius’ letters in the same sense in which they concern those of Sergius, Theodore, Pyrrhus, and other heretical authors. In the strict sense, they relate only to the latter; as is borne out by the second part of the decree, which we have just examined.

The letters of Honorius are truly alien from the apostolic teachings, not because they contain any error contrary to the traditional doctrines handed down by the Apostles, but because they do not reveal that ecclesiastical prudence and diligence, that courage in correcting erroneous doctrines and reducing the minds of heretics to obedience, which have always been traditional in the Church, and ever practiced by the Roman Pontiffs.

The letters followed the false teachings of the heretics, that is to say, they helped and supported the false teachings of the heretics. Sergius and the others, by their writings, helped and supported heresy, because they adopted and directly promoted the spread of false doctrine; Honorius did so, only because, by his fatal economy of silence, he helped that teaching to be spread and gain strength.

We wonder that Mr. Renouf ascribes so great importance to the testimony given by the Patriarchs Pyrrhus and Macarius against the purity of Honorius’ faith. Undoubtedly two Monothelite prelates could not well speak differently; they could not appeal for support to Honorius’ successors, who had openly and solemnly condemned their errors. But Honorius, by his false economy of silence, had already compromised his character, and opened the door to calumny.

However, although it is true that Pyrrhus and Macarius charged Honorius with heresy, yet the Council never intended to condemn him as a heretic. Neither can our adversaries sustain any objection founded upon the words of the Synod addressed to Pope Agatho, when they declare that they have slain with anathema those who were guilty in a matter of faith, according to the sentence previously issued by Agatho against them in his second letter.

In addition to the remarks which we have already made on this passage, it may be here observed that the above words do not properly concern Pope Honorius. The allusion to the decree of the thirteenth session, which concerns only the Monothelite prelates, and the words in question, follow close after the sentence of condemnation of these prelates, in which, as we saw above, Honorius is not comprehended. The Council, after having mentioned the names of Sergius, Cyrus, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, whose impious dogmas it execrates, continues: “quarum omnium suprascriptamm personarum mentionem fecit Agatho sanctissimus et ter beatissimus Papa antique Romae in suggestione quam fecit ad piissimum et a Deo confirmatum dominum nostrum et magnum imperatorem”. It is certain that Pope Agatho mentioned no other names except those of the heretics: neither in his letter to the Emperor, nor in the letter addressed to the Synod, did he allude to anyone else much less to Honorius, who, as we said above, was certainly spoken of in his letter as one of his predecessors, who had endeavored to defend the Catholic doctrine by imposing silence on the Monothelite leaders. On this account, in the synodical address to Pope Agatho, the Fathers made distinct mention of those who had been pointed out in that Pope's letters, and of Macarius and Polychronius, who, although not mentioned by the Pope, had been slain as heretics with their anathemas.

Pope Honorius did not properly belong either to the first class or to the second. But the Synod, in its summary report to the Pope, divided the anathematized persons into those who had departed this life and those who were still living, and it classed Honorius with the former, although he had not partaken in the same manner of their iniquity. At all events, the decree of condemnation inserted in the thirteenth session would have been sufficient to point out the nature of his crime. It is true, however, that the Sixth Synod did not examine the cause of Honorius, nor pronounce sentence against him, without the previous authorization of the Roman See. Otherwise its proceedings would have been unlawful, according to the maxim expressed by Pope Adrian II in his third Allocution to the eighth Ecumenical Council.

But we must consider whether the Roman See authorized the Fathers of the Sixth Synod to condemn Honorius as a heretic. Mr. Renouf sets great value on the acclamations of the sixteenth session, in which anathema was said to Honorius the heretic, as it was to the others who had been previously condemned by the Council in the thirteenth session. On this we remark, first, that the acclamation quoted not only is no definitive sentence, but does not even show what was the feeling of the whole Council.

In the sixteenth session, after the condemnation of Constantine a priest of Apamea in Syria, George the Patriarch of Constantinople declared to the assembled Fathers that he and some others among the Bishops dependent on him were anxious that the Synod, through economy, should, if possible, abstain from anathematizing any person by name in their acclamations, as, for instance, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. If he asked for this kind of condescension in his own name, as well as in that of other Bishops, in favor of the authors of the new heresy, because of their having been Patriarchs of Constantinople, much more must they have intended that no such expression should be used in the case of Honorius, who was not the originator of the error. But the majority of the Synod refused to follow the suggestion of economy, and resolved to anathematize by name all those who were already condemned. It follows that all persons mentioned in the acclamations were to be designated in accordance with the previous decree of their condemnation.

Now we have seen that in the decree Honorius was not condemned on account of any heretical tenet. Why, then, it will be asked, is he termed “heretic” in the acclamations? Two explanations may be given.

Either the Synod, by applying this term to Honorius without qualification, used it in its secondary meaning, according to the opinion of many learned theologians, confirmed by several examples in antiquity, or it is to be attributed to a faction, which, like that of Gerson in the Synod of Constance, contrived to vent all its bitterness against Honorius in the final synodical acclamations. We must admit the existence of such a Greek faction in the Sixth Synod, which it was impossible to keep in thorough control on account of the absence of the Western Prelates. “Honorius”, said Adrian II, “was anathematized by the Orientals”. This remark of Adrian II deserves attention.

We have already admitted the fault of Pope Honorius, and the justice of the sentence pronounced against him. But still we must confess that we feel far greater admiration for the Fathers of the Lateran Council, belonging for the most part to the West, who behaved as dutiful children in concealing their father's shame, than for the Greek Bishops of the Sixth Synod, who gave the first example in the Church of so solemn a condemnation of a Pope. At all events, we cannot help strongly denouncing the exaggeration and bitterness of expression used in his condemnation: these are certainly due to a faction, a strong faction, which exercised its influence in that Council, and carried the day. It is in such facts that we see the reason why the acts of all synods are under the control of the Supreme Pastor and Ruler of the Church.

Even if all the Prelates of the East had joined in condemning Honorius as a heretic (which we deny), their decree would have been without authority in the Church, unless it were sealed with the mark of the Sovereign Pontiff. On this point there is no difference of opinion between Gallicans and the rest of Catholics, whom Mr. Renouf is pleased to call Ultramontane. The assembly of the Bishops cannot represent the Church unless it is in close union with the Pope; and therefore its decrees cannot have authority unless stamped with the authority of the Pope himself. On this account it is idle to pick out of the acts of the Sixth Synod expressions and phrases aggravating the sentence of condemnation against Pope Honorius. The main question is well put by Dr. Ward, in his article in the Dublin Review on Mr. Renouf's pamphlet: “What declarations of the Council against Honorius received Pontifical sanction, and in what sense they received it”.

It is true that Pope Leo II, who succeeded Agatho in the Pontifical See, confirmed the Third Council of Constantinople, and ranked it with the Ecumenical Synods; but what decrees of the Sixth Synod received his supreme sanction, and in what sense did they receive it?

The Fathers of the Sixth Synod, at the end of the eighteenth session, asked the Emperor to send to all the patriarchal Sees an authentic copy of the definition of faith, signed by the Council. Pope Leo II confirmed nothing but the definition of faith, although he received all the acts of the Synod, together with the imperial edict. We have several letters of this Pope in which he either authoritatively confirms the Sixth Council, or communicates to the Bishops his adhesion to it. In all and each of them he pointedly limits his confirmation and approval to the dogmatic definition.

In his official letter to the Emperor he declares only that he confirms the definition of the right faith. In his letter to the bishops of Spain he tells them that he forwards to them the definition of faith sanctioned in the Sixth Synod, the prosphonetic address to the Emperor, and his edict; he promises that he will send the whole of the conciliar acts; but he requires their signatures to no more than the definition of faith.

He says the same in his letter to Simplicius, and in that addressed to King Ervigius. So that no doubt whatever can remain with regard to his intention being really what he expresses. Again, in what manner did he sanction the definition of faith, and in what sense did he anathematize Honorius? “Since the holy, universal, and great Sixth Synod”, he says, “has followed in everything the apostolic doctrine of the most eminent Fathers, and since it preached the same definition of the right faith, which the Apostolic See of the holy Apostle Peter received with veneration, therefore we, and through our exercise of our office this venerable Apostolic See, gives full consent to the things contained in the definition of faith, and confirms them with the authority of the blessed Peter, that, being placed on the solid rock of Christ Himself, it may be supplied by the Lord with strength”.

The main reason, therefore, why Pope Leo sanctions the definition of the right faith is, because he found it conformable to the doctrine of the Pontifical See, by which the Synod itself, as it had already confessed, had been instructed. Hence he exhibited the Pontifical See as the authentic organ of the Apostolical teaching. It was not enough that the doctrine contained in the definition had gone along with the doctrine of the Fathers; it was necessary that it should concur with the teaching of the Apostolic See; for the doctrine of the Fathers is a stream from that head-fountain. But if the truth of a dogmatic doctrine depends upon its agreeing with the teaching of the Pontifical See, we have here plain evidence of the infallibility of that See in its doctrinal Magisterium.

Pope Leo II therefore, no less than Agatho his predecessor, upheld the doctrine of Pontifical Infallibility in the act by which he sanctioned the dogmatical definition of the Sixth Council. Consequently he implicitly declared that whatever was the character of the fault of Honorius, it was certainly not that of having taught any error ex cathedra. Once more: what sanction did Leo II give to the condemnation of Honorius in common with the Bishops of the Monothelite faction, which is to be found in the definition of faith?

In his letter of confirmation of the Sixth Council addressed to the Emperor Constantine, after having anathematized the earlier heretics, he continues: “Likewise we anathematize the inventors of the new error: Theodore Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, traitors rather than rulers of the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, Honorius also, who did not endeavor to preserve pure the Apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but permitted the Immaculate to be denied by profane betrayal”.

Before making our remarks on this passage, we must revert for a moment to Mr. Renouf. This gentleman makes a small addition to Pope Leo's words, and bases on this additional word his answer to the argument derived from the passage. “A passage of Pope Leo II", he writes, “is also appealed to, in which he says that Honorius permitted the immaculate Church to be polluted by his profane betrayal.

I cannot see how this saves Honorius”. It is undeniable that the passage construed as Mr. Renouf construes it cannot save Honorius; his cause is lost if he permitted the Church to be polluted by his profane betrayal. But Mr. Renouf did not find in the text, whether Greek or Latin, that pronoun his which he gratuitously adds in his translation of the original. It does not exist either in the Greek or in the old Latin translation, or even in Dr. Döllinger's Papstbuch über Honorius. If the pronoun be rejected, which has thus been uncritically and unjustifiably inserted, the Greek text easily and without the slightest strain yields a good sense.

For the present we shall say nothing about the similarity which .Mr. Renouf finds between the passage in question and the second profession of faith made by the Roman Pontiffs, as it exists in the Liber Diurnus. Returning, then, to the words of Pope Leo, it clearly follows from them that Honorius was not condemned for heresy, but because, through his negligence, he permitted the heretics to spread in the East the error of one will and operation in Christ.

Pope Leo drew a line of demarcation between the Monothelite Prelates and Pope Honorius : he described the former as inventors of the new error; but he placed the fault of the latter in a grievous neglect in the discharge of his pontifical duties, for which the immaculate Church was allowed to be polluted by profane betrayal. These last words evidently refer to the Monothelite Prelates, inventors of the new error, and they by no means concern Honorius. It is impossible to refer them to him; for he could not be said to have permitted the immaculate Church to be polluted, when he had so acted as to pollute it in a direct manner by his profane betrayal.

In the other two letters addressed by the same Pontiff to the Bishops of Spain and to King Ervigius, he does not make use of expressions calculated to mitigate the force of the condemnation of Honorius, but he explains what he had already expressed in the letter to the Emperor: so that the three letters put together exhibit in full the view taken by Pope Leo of the case. In the former he again draws a marked distinction between the Monothelite Prelates and Honorius: the former are called “perduelliones adversum apostolicae traditionis puritatem”; and this is the crime to which their condemnation is ascribed, namely, the crime of heresy.

Pope Leo does not, as Mr. Renouf ventures to say, include Honorius among the “perduelliones adversum apostolicae traditionis puritatem”. The Pontiff clearly and explicitly alleges the cause of his condemnation, making it quite distinct from that of the heretics; and he rests it on the omission to extinguish at its outset the flame of the heretical error, as required by the dignity of the apostolic authority, and on the negligence which fostered it.

These expressions, no less than those of the letter to the Emperor, do not give any hint whatever of Honorius having privately adhered to the Monothelite heresy, or of his having preached it, and having been condemned for it. Again, in the other letter to King Ervigius, Leo II did not speak of Honorius to any different effect. Nevertheless Mr. Renouf attaches far greater importance to Leo's words in this letter, as supporting his opinion, than is done by any other writer on the same side; and he is surprised that Dr. Döllinger seems not to have recognized their force.

But the Munich professor is so far from laying any stress whatever on the passage in question, that he is inclined to think its expressions are calculated to soften down the impression produced by the condemnation of Honorius. What, then, is the reason why Mr. Renouf makes so much of Leo's words? Speaking of Pope Leo he says, “he includes Honorius among the omnes hi who, unam voluntatem unamque operationem pradicantes, doctrinam hareticam impudenter defendere conabantur”.

This assertion is altogether erroneous, and so evidently erroneous that no one of all the adversaries of Honorius ever dreamt of founding an objection on this passage; but, on the contrary, all of them regard Leo's letter to King Ervigius as an objection to their theory. Pope Leo indeed, in this as well as in the other places quoted above, draws a broad line between the Monothelite Bishops and Pope Honorius.

He terms the former “authors of heretical assertion”, as in the letter to the Spanish Bishops. Of Honorius he says, that he was anathematized una cum eis ; but he evidently denies that he was condemned for the same reason. Had he thought that Honorius was to be included among the “auctores haereticae assertionis”, as one of them, he would have put down his name with the others under the same category, before or immediately following Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter: if he meant this, then una cum eis was no way required. But the Pope's meaning is, that Honorius was associated with the rest in being condemned, but not in the crime for which they were condemned; and therefore it was necessary to use a connecting phrase to make it known that Honorius was not placed in every respect on a par with the heretics condemned by the Council. In fact, Leo immediately goes on to mention the cause of the condemnation of Honorius, saying, “qui immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit”. These words render exactly the same idea as is conveyed by the extracts quoted above from the other two letters of Leo, and together with them they prove to demonstration that Pope Leo characterized the fault of Honorius in such a way as to exclude even the slightest adhesion on his part to any error whatever.

Now, reverting to Mr. Renouf's objection, we argue as follows: Pope Leo includes among the “omnes hi, qui, unam voluntatem unamque operationem praedicants, doctrinam haereticam impudenter defendere conabantur”, all those who had been “haereticae assertionis auctores”. But he evidently excludes from this class Pope Honorius; therefore he does not include him among the omnes hi. Had he intended to do so, he would have contradicted his own assertion; because he could not say that Honorius had consented to the defilement of the rule of the apostolic tradition, if that Pope had been one of those who endeavored impudently to advocate an heretical doctrine.

Mr. Renouf's confusion of thought on this point is inexplicable. As to the Liber Diurnus, we are at a loss to comprehend the stress Mr. Renouf lays on it as the best support of his attack on Pope Honorius. The learned Garnier, who was the first to publish a perfect edition of that book, writes as follows in the preface :

“The principal and only reason for which the Liber Diurnus is at length published, is, that the controversy on Honorius, which has been so long agitated, may be finally so settled by the judgment of nearly one hundred Sovereign Pontiffs, that no doubt may remain as to the truth that the faith of the Apostolic See has never been defiled; that strange corruptions may no longer be introduced into the acts of the Sixth Synod, and other ancient monuments, in opposition to every principle of historical criticism; that no charge of error may be sustain­able against the Sixth Synod, in which legates of the Apostolic See presided; and that while Hono­rius is purged of the charge of Monothelism, he may not be deemed guiltless of all fault.

Thus Garnier shows that not only does the Liber Diurnus furnish documents which cast light on the whole question of the Sixth Council, and of the condemnation of Honorius, but also it affords materials for the defense of that Pope against the charge of heresy brought by his calumniators.

But there is more to be said. When the Archbishop De Marca was preparing to compose a dissertation in defense of Pope Honorius, his friend Labbe sent to him an extract from the ms. copy of the Liber Diurnus, on which De Marca set much value, and which he determined to insert in his Apology, with the other extracts which he had already gathered together. It might seem incredible that the same passage which De Marca regarded as so valuable for the defense, is the very one which Mr. Renouf, following in the steps of Dr. Döllinger, produces as an important part of the case against that Pope!

The passage is found in the second profession of faith, of which Gregory II seems to be the author (715-731). The fact is that the character of being author of the new heretical dogma is not attributed to Honorius, but only to Sergius and the others. Honorius is condemned and anathematized with them, but not because he was one of the authors of the new heresy, but because by his imprudent economy he fostered and encouraged their iniquitous assertions. A distinction is here pointedly drawn between the heretics and Honorius, and the cause of the condemnation of each of the parties is clearly and distinctly stated.

We do not understand how these words could be so far misconstrued as to make them represent Honorius to have been condemned in the same way as Sergius and his followers. What surprises us is that Mr. Renouf quotes the above extract without the least remark, as if it were obvious that it told against Honorius; and he assumes that his readers will extract from it a sense which it evidently excludes. We must not omit to notice in this place what Mr. Renouf says of the similarity between the texts, both Greek and Latin, of Leo's letter to the Emperor, which we examined above, and another passage of the second profession of faith in the Liber Diurnus.

All this goes to show that the readers of the pamphlet are intended to conclude that in the second pontifical profession of faith Pope Honorius is judged to have erred, since he is comprehended among those who immaculatam conabantur corrumpere Ecclesiam, according to the Latin text of Leo's letter to Constantine. But if we consider the passage in its entirety, no difficulty will remain on the point. For in the foregoing extract three classes of men are mentioned as condemned by the Sixth Synod:

(1.) those who simply nitebantur corrumpere Ecclesiam novo et haeretico dogmate;

(2.) those who had been erroris auctores;

(3.) and those who had been in any manner favourable to it, fautores. Now, after a few lines, the names are found of those who are designated as condemned by the Council.

Here likewise they are distributed into three classes:

(1.) auctores novi hoeretici dogmatis, i. e. Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Theodore of Pharan, and Cyrus of Alexandria;

(2.) qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit, namely, Honorius alone ;

(3.) qui haeretica dogmata contra veritatem fidei…; and under this head follow the names of Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius, and others.

Now if we contrast the two passages, it will appear evident that Honorius, qui fomentum impendit, is not included either in the first or in the second category of the first extract, but only in the third, fautoribus. Neither are we forced by the word “fautoribus” to admit in Honorius any intellectual adhesion to error; for the silence of the Pastors of the Church when they ought to raise up their voice against error and heresy, according to the ecclesiastical canons, is to be accounted as an encouragement given to error and heresy. So that the passage in question, far from telling against the purity of Honorius’ faith, affords a new confirmation of our assertion.

But let us now examine a passage concerning Honorius’ condemnation, which we find in the old Roman Breviary in the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II, the 28th of June. Mr. Renouf remarks in his pamphlet that “till the seventeenth century the Roman Breviary spoke of the confirmation by Pope Leo II of the holy Sixth Synod, in which were condemned Cyrus, Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter”. We must warn our readers not to fall into a very possible mistake here: it would be incorrect to suppose that the name of Honorius is mentioned in all the old Latin Breviaries among the persons condemned by the Sixth Synod. In some very old Breviaries of this country no name at all is found, either of Honorius or of the others condemned in that Council.

Now the foregoing words, and the rest of the lessons, are copied word for word from the life of Leo, written by Anastasius, the librarian of the Roman Church, from which also the lessons of the Sarum and Aberdeen Breviaries are taken, with some abridgment, except that in the Roman compilation the words “Novus et Simon” are found by mistake, instead of “novus Simon”, and the word “dispensaverint” for “defensaverint”. In the appendix to the lives of the Roman Pontiffs of Anastasius, evidently extracted from the work of the Pontifical librarian, and written in the ninth century, we read in the life of St. Leo the same passage, but without the words “qui unam voluntatem et operationem in D. X. J. C. dixerunt et praedicarunt”. Now the question arises, whether Anastasius intended to say that Honorius asserted and defended one will and operation in Christ.

In the life of Pope Agatho he relates that, after the sentence of condemnation pronounced by the Sixth Council, Anastasius suppressed the name of Honorius, evidently because the character of having been the source of the heresy could not be applied to him, but only to the Monothelite Patriarchs. In the appendix mentioned above the anonymous author has transcribed the entire passage without any alteration whatever. But apart from this, whoever is acquainted with the Collectanea addressed by Anastasius to John the Deacon, and published by the learned Sirmondi, must be aware that the Roman Librarian never harbored the idea that Pope Honorius had said, or taught, or held in any manner, that in Jesus Christ there was only one will and one operation. He calls those “calumniators” who said that Pope Honorius had ever asserted one only will in Christ; and he distinctly maintained that the Pope can by no means be considered as condemned for heresy in the Sixth Synod.

Now, after those declarations, how can we believe that Anastasius would simply assert in the life of Leo, without any remark or any mitigating expression, that Pope Honorius had been condemned because of his having denied the two wills and operations in Christ? It might be said that Anastasius in this place represents Honorius as guilty in solidum of the same crime with the others, although not in the same manner. But we believe that another explanation of the passage in question may fairly be given.

We can venture to say, in the first place, that all the matter relating to the Sixth Synod and the sentences of condemnation it passed is summarized by the author from the letter of Leo to the Emperor Constantine, from which also is taken the portion we have quoted of the second profession of faith in the Liber Diurnus. Now Pope Leo in his letter, after anathematizing the authors of Monothelism and Pope Honorius himself, for the reason we mentioned above, anathematizes Macarius, his disciple Stephen, and Polychronius, whom he calls the new Simon, and finally all those who hold the same maxims, and who had dared, or ever should dare, to assert in Christ one will and one operation.

Likewise in the second profession of faith in the Liber Diurnus, those heretics are first anathematized who had originated the error of Monothelism, and Honorius, who had fostered it by his imprudent economy. Next to these, Macarius, his disciple Stephen, and Polychronius (the new Simon), and finally all their followers. Now Anastasius in his life of St. Leo carefully distinguished all the categories of persons who had been condemned in the Sixth Council. He merely suppressed the grounds of condemnation stated by St. Leo in his letter to Constantine and in the second profession of faith. But since the last category mentioned in both those documents did not imply any particular person, but, in a general way, all those who either had asserted, or should in future assert, one will and one operation in Christ, therefore Anastasius expressed it by the same words. Again, in the passage in question, the Roman librarian sets before us all the classes of persons who had been condemned by the Sixth Synod, in the same order as that in which they occur in the two above-mentioned documents.

In the first class he places those who had died before the date of the Council, and among them he mentions Honorius, but without stating the cause of condemnation of any of the number. To the first he subjoins the other class of those who had obstinately defended their error before the Sixth Synod itself; in the last place comes the class of those unnamed persons who either had denied, or should ever deny in the future, the two wills and operations in Christ. If Anastasius had put a conjunctive particle between this additional class and the others, as is done by St. Leo in his letter to the Emperor, and by the author of the second profession of faith, the meaning of his words would have been perfectly clear and evident. Mr. Renouf, by quoting only the latter portion of the passage which he found in the Roman Breviary, deprives his readers of the means of discovering the true meaning.

Again, Mr. Renouf complains that “the name of Honorius is no longer to be found in the Breviary, but the other names are still retained”; and he remarks that “it is most unjust to suppress the name of Honorius, and yet retain the other names”. The Union Review, eulogizing the masterly pamphlet which we are considering, says that fact alone speaks volumes. Now the remark is founded entirely on error. It is not true that in the Roman Breviary, as reformed by order of the Council of Trent, all the other names were retained. Out of nine, only three were retained; namely Cyrus, Sergius, and Pyrrhus, the very authors and first propagators of Monothelism. The names of Paul, Peter, Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius, as well as that of Honorius, were expunged, because it was not necessary to state in a short lesson the names of all the heretics condemned in the Council, much less of Honorius, who had not been anathematized for any error whatever, and whom an ignorant reader might have believed to have been condemned for heresy, because his name was found in the same list with some who were undoubtedly condemned for that crime. But what Mr. Renouf adds after the above quoted words, in order to justify his assertion, is perhaps the most absurdly false statement of the many that occur in his ill-starred pamphlet.

“Sergius”, he says, “presented his confession to the Pope, who simply approved it; and he died without the slightest intimation from Rome that his doctrine was anything but orthodox. Had he been a perfect Ultramontane, he could not have acted otherwise”. So then Mr. Renouf puts Pope Honorius on the same level with Sergius, and represents this latter as orthodox till the time of his death, the Patriarch, that is, who forged the libellus of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and that of Vigilius to the Emperor Justinian, in order to support his Monothelism; both which documents were condemned by the Sixth Synod as heretical forgeries.

But after what we have said in our first three sections, the remark of Mr. Renouf is not worth a further answer. It now only remains for us to examine the purport of the anathemas inflicted on Honorius by the Councils which followed the Sixth Synod; for the enemies of Pope Honorius, and Mr. Renouf among them, remind us that the Seventh and Eighth Ecumenical Councils joined in the condemnation of Honorius; therefore our writer concludes: “the condemnation for heresy of a Pope by three Ecumenical Councils, and a long series of Roman Pontiffs, is utterly subversive of the theory of Papal Infallibility”. We have already destroyed this consequence, by showing, not only that no heretical tenet is contained in the letters of Pope Honorius, but also that the Sixth Synod did not condemn him either for any erroneous ex cathedra teaching, or for any heresy whatever.

With regard to the Seventh and Eighth Councils, we again remark, in answer to Mr. Renouf, that even if those Synods had condemned Honorius for heresy, it would not follow from this that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is untenable, unless it is first shown that Honorius was anathematized for having taught heresy ex cathedra. Mr. Renouf is quite unable to prove this point, especially when we consider that both these Synods solemnly acknowledged the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; when the Seventh submitted itself unreservedly to the letter of Pope Adrian I, in which that maxim was enforced, and perfect adhesion to it was imposed; and when, in the Eighth, the profession of faith of Pope Adrian II was unanimously received, in which the previous formulary of Honorius was inserted, declaring that the Catholic doctrine had always been preserved in its integrity in the Roman Apostolic See. We abstain from commenting on these facts, which we shall fully explain in our work upon Papal Infallibility. For the present we limit ourselves to examining whether it is true that the two Councils mentioned really condemned Honorius for heresy.

Certainly the Seventh Council has nothing which countenances the assertion. We do not here take notice of several passages of the Seventh Synod in which Honorius' condemnation is mentioned, as, for instance, in the letter of Tarasius, in that of Theodore, in the tomus of the Deacon Epiphanius, and in a letter of Tarasius to the Clergy of Constantinople. Those passages are not the utterances of the Synod, and cannot therefore be relied upon to represent its opinion in the matter.

The view of the Council may be said to be expressed only in the profession of faith, and in the synodical letter addressed to the Emperor; and in neither of these documents can anything be found against our assertion. In the profession of faith the Fathers of the second Nicene Council declare that they received all the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils; therefore, mentioning the Sixth Synod, they say: “Likewise we profess in Christ two wills and two operations, according to the propriety of His two natures, as the Sixth Synod of Constantinople proclaimed; and we cut off Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, and Macarius, who were not willing to keep faithful to God, and those who follow their mind”. Now in this passage there is nothing which goes to prove the assertion of Mr. Renouf, that Pope Honorius was anathematized by the Seventh Council as a Monothelite. The Fathers of Nicaea mention what the Sixth Council did, without characterizing the condemnation of those who had been anathematized by the Synod. In the synodical letter they anathematize again all those who had been condemned by the six preceding Councils, and among them Honorius; but they do not specify the crime for which he had been stricken with anathema by the Sixth Synod.

Undoubtedly the words of the Eighth Council are apparently stronger, but do not really carry any greater weight than, the decree of condemnation of the Sixth Synod. In fact, in the Greek compilation of the Acts of the Eighth Council it is said that, “after the canons (sanctioned by the Fathers), the definition was read of the same Eighth and Ecumenical Synod, which comprehends the symbol of faith, the profession of the seven preceding Synods, and the anathemas against those whom the Synods had condemned”. The Eighth Council, therefore, did not intend to pronounce a new sentence against Honorius and the others; nor could the assembled Fathers do it, inasmuch as no conciliar examination had preceded. The words referring to Honorius and the others in the definition cannot, then, have any other meaning than that intended by the Sixth Synod itself, since the Fathers do no more than relate as a matter of history the condemnation of Honorius with the other Eastern Prelates.

Now, when speaking of the decree of condemnation pronounced against Honorius in the Sixth Synod, we remarked that, according to the principles of both civil and ecclesiastical law, Honorius can be said to have been guilty in solidum of the crime of the others; not because he was a Monothelite, as Sergius and Cyrus, but because by his imprudent policy and grievous negligence he consented to the pollution of the Immaculate Church; because he did not at the first outbreak extinguish the flame of the heretical error, but fostered it by his culpable remissness.

No wonder then, if, in the following Councils, he is anathematized, together with the others, in solidum. The Fathers of the Seventh and of the Eighth Councils might well suppose the history and the details of the condemnations pronounced in the Sixth Synod to be sufficiently known. They had in hand the settlement of perfectly different questions. In their definition, they gave, as was usual, no more than a summary sketch of the tenets and of the condemnations decreed in the preceding Councils, from the acts of which any further explanation and particulars might be gathered.

In the passage mentioned above, the Fathers of the Eighth Synod describe in a general way the crime for which the Third of Constantinople pronounced its decree of condemnation in its thirteenth session. But they by no means intended that their words should be applied to Honorius in the same sense as they are applied to Sergius and the others. Otherwise it would have been the solemn proclamation of a calumny to assert that Honorius had maintained that Christ's humanity had no operation, when, in truth, he had pointedly maintained the exact contrary.

No; Honorius did not teach that heresy; but by his culpable negligence and imprudent economy of silence he permitted it to be taught and widely spread. He became, therefore, responsible for it, and partook in the crime of its authors. In this sense, and in this sense only, can we receive the words of the Eighth Council, which, if taken in a contrary meaning, would be mendacious and calumnious. Nor can the expressions used by Pope Adrian II, in his third address to the Council, afford the least support to Mr. Renouf's view, since Adrian II never asserted that Pope Honorius had been condemned for heresy, but that he had been super haeresi accusatus.

The Roman librarian Anastasius, who, as Mr. Renouf tells us, “took an active part in the Eighth Council”, does not assert that the Sixth Synod condemned Honorius for heresy, but only that it anathematized him, as if he were a heretic (quasi haeretico); that is to say, the Council put him on a par with the others in the severity of its sentence, but not in the crime for which he was condemned.

What, then, is the meaning of a Council pronouncing an anathema against a Prelate after his death?

It implies nothing but that his name was to be erased from the diptychs, and his likeness from the pictures in the churches; because it was customary, especially from the beginning of the seventh century, for the names of all orthodox Bishops to be inserted in the diptychs, and their portraits exposed in the churches.

Now Anastasius relates that, after the sentence of the Sixth Synod, the names of Sergius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter were expunged from the diptychs, and the pictures of them destroyed; but he does not say anything of the name of Honorius having been erased, or of his images being removed from the churches or effaced. His name undeniably is found in the Oriental diptychs, and we still have the laudatory notices which accompanied his name. All things tend to corroborate the view that the severe sentence pronounced by the Sixth Synod against that Pope was tempered in its execution, because he had not been condemned for heresy.