assertion that the majority did not go over to the Pope.609 The Fifth Synod pronounced its sentence of condemnation against the Three Chapters because it learnt from authentic sources that these documents had already been visited with the Papal anathema. In this case then, no less than before, the General Synod followed in the footsteps of the Roman Pontiff, although it had not in hand any controversy of faith. This fact again confirms the great principle that the task of a General Council is not to regulate the conduct of the Roman Pontiff, but to submit to his authentic leadership. Let us suppose for a moment that the Fifth Council had officially received the Constitutum of Pope Vigilius, and had submitted to its orders; what evil consequences would have followed? The Synod in that case would have abstained from a condemnation from which two Ecumenical Councils had previously abstained, without inflicting the slightest injury on the deposit of Catholic doctrine.

But under the combination of the circumstances mentioned above, the Synod of Constantinople, which had the character of an Ecumenical Council, did pass a sentence against the Three Chapters. The Pope was then called upon to decide what course he would pursue. Had he insisted on the observance of his orders, then a new and more fatal schism would have arisen in the Church, and the Eastern party would have received the support of the Emperor Justinian. Vigilius was sincerely anxious for the peace and unity of the Church. But the peace and unity of the Church required once more a change in the economy which he had adopted in the Constitutum. Especially as after more diligent research he found that the state of the things did actually demand the condemnation of writings to which the enemies of the Church looked for support. Moreover, a

609 Du Concile Général, 1. ii., ch. vii., n. viii., t. i., p. 270.

new study of the Acts of Chalcedon had corrected his persuasion that the Council had pronounced a judgment favourable to the orthodoxy of the letter of Ibas. Pope Vigilius, therefore, having taken all this into consideration, after the lapse of six months from the end of the Synod, addressed a Letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, in which he condemned the works and the name of Theodorus, as well as those writings of Theodoret and Ibas which favoured Nestorius.610 But in this document, as well as in the new Constitutum, which was perhaps addressed to the Eastern Bishops,611 he made no mention whatever of the Fifth Council; and the purpose of this omission was to show that other considerations, and not the authority of a Synod which was yet unrecognised, had brought him to this new resolution. Then, and only then, the Synod of Constantinople began to have authority in the Church, and to be ranked among the Ecumenical Councils.

To conclude. The authentic Acts of Pope Vigilius in this intricate controversy, not only give no indication of any change of doctrine, but speak loudly in favour of the moderation, zeal, and generosity of the Pontiff, who thus sufficiently repaired the fault of his shameful seizure of the Pontificate from the hands of Silverius. But the unexampled difficulties brought upon the Pope and the Church in this stormy controversy, are due to nothing but the despotic and obstinate interference of the Byzantine Emperor with matters which must always be above the scope of the civil power.

610 Epist. Decretalis Vigilii Papæ ad Eutychium (Labbe, t. vi., p. 239, seq. In Migne, t. lxix., PP. LL., p. 121, seq.).

611 Constitutum Vigilii Papæ pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum (Labbe, t. vi., p. 281, seq. In Migne, l. c., p. 143, seq.).

SECTION XI.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE SIXTH COUNCIL. CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS.

THE Sixth General Council, and the condemnation of Pope Honorius, form as favourite a topic of the opponents of Papal Infallibility as the Constitutum of Pope Vigilius. Jansenists and ultra-Gallicans of old times and of our days make the utmost efforts to urge this argument, which they believe to be unanswerable. We will try to be not only as clear but also as short as possible, since we have already published a work on the matter, to which our readers can easily apply for further explanation.612

Monothelism was one of the principal forms under which Monophytism struggled to regain life and popular favour. Although in its substance it is of ancient date in the Church, and was taught by Arians and Apollinarists, and also expressly by the Nestorians, still it was a true offspring of Monophytism, especially of the branch of the Severians.613 In reality the Monothelites renewed the errors of Apollinaris and Severus, as is asserted by the first two Councils of Lateran and the third of Constantinople. The new error differed from

614

612 Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History. London, 1868.

613 Ibid., sec. i., p. 7, seq.

614 Libellus Stephani Dorensis. In Conc. Lat., Secr. ii. (Labbe, t. vii., p. 105); et Secr. iv. (l. c., p. 270). Conc. vi., Act. iv., Epist. Agathonis Papa (Labbe, t. vii., p. 692).

that of the Severians in this only-that in the system of Severus it was a corollary from his principles concerning the Manhood of Christ, while in that of the Monothelites it was the fundamental principle itself. This sect maintained from the beginning that, as in Christ there was only one Person, so also there was only one operation. From the documents referred to both in the Council of Lateran and in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, we gather that the Monothelites, while acknowledging that the Humanity of Christ possessed Body and Soul, with all the faculties of each, nevertheless asserted that these were unable to perform any operation whatever by themselves; all operation, both of the human and divine Nature, was ascribed to the Divine Word, Who used His Humanity as an instrument of His Divinity. What we say of the two operations must also be understood of the two wills in Christ. The Monothelites denied the natural will of the Humanity of Christ, and advocated one personal will; they endeavoured to justify their error by arguing that the existence of two wills in the one indivisible Person of Christ would imply a state of struggle and conflict in Him.615 Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, and principally Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors, Pyrrhus and Paul, were the main supporters of the sect and of its errors.

Pope Honorius did not understand the true character of the error, which, strong in the imperial patronage, was spreading all over the East, and preparing great calamities for the Church. He was deceived by the cunning letters of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and believed that if the economy of silence were imposed on each of the contending parties, it would end the new controversy and soon restore peace and calm to the Christian people. That economy was

615 See Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History, sec. i., p. 11, seq.

undoubtedly ill-timed; it had the effect of adding to the strength of the heretical party, and of giving wider currency to the error. But the successors of Honorius, Severinus, John IV., and Theodore, aware of the mistake of their predecessor, solemnly condemned the new heresy. Popes Severinus and John IV., in the years. 639 and 640, in two Roman Synods, anathematised the error of the Monothelites, as well as the Ecthesis of the Emperor Heraclius, in which the new error was enjoined in an obligatory profession of faith.616 Pope Theodore, in 648, in a Council also held at Rome, rejected again the new heresy, and with it the Typus of the Emperor Constans (which, like the Ecthesis, favoured the Monothelites), by forbidding the confession of a doctrine of faith which had been defined by Popes Severinus and John IV.617 Nevertheless, as the Monothelites were becoming more powerful in the Eastern Church under the patronage of the Emperor Constans, Martin I., successor of John IV., assembled in 649 another Synod of 105 Bishops in the Lateran Church, in order to pass a still more solemn condemnation on the heresy and the imperial edicts, both which had already been anathematised by his three predecessors.618 Now Mgr. Maret thinks it impossible to consider that the decisions pronounced by these three Popes, and by Martin I. in the Council of Lateran, were dogmatic definitions of faith; and he holds that an Ecumenical Council was necessary, giving his reason in the words— "On reconnaissait généralement alors que la dernière ne s'etait pas encore prononcée touchant la controverse qui divisait les Chrétiens."619 We cannot agree. The Decrees of Severinus, of John IV., of Theodore, and of Martin,

616 Synodus Romana (Labbe, t. vi., pp. 1507, 1526). 617 Synodus Romana (Labbe, t. vi., p. 1601).

618 Conc. Lateran. i. sub Martino I. (Labbe, t. vii., p. 78, seq.). 619 Du Concile Général, 1. ii., ch. viii., n. iii., t. i., p. 277.