far we are from wishing in any way to extenuate Honorius's grievously culpable neglect. But the question here to be asked is simply this,-Did Sergius express Monothelite tenets so distinctly, that the Pope's acquiescence in his letter and in his policy is a proof of Honorius being infected with those tenets? As to the indubitably Monothelistic passages in Sergius, neither of the two was reproduced by Honorius in his reply, either expressly or equivalently; one of the two, moreover, having been quoted by Sergius (however perversely) from a most orthodox Father. Nay, Mr. Renouf is even forward in urging (p. 14) that the phrase "one energy "" had the sanction of great Catholic authorities"; and he quotes textually (p. 34, note) one most strong expression of the kind from S. Cyril of Alexandria. How then can Honorius's Monothelism be inferred from the mere fact of his not anathematizing the phrase "one energy,"-unless S. Gregory Nyssen and S. Cyril are thereby proved Monothelites, who actually adopted it? Nor has Mr. Renouf and let this be carefully observed-made any attempt whatever to paraphrase Honorius's Letter as a whole in an unorthodox

sense.

In truth, his view of Honorius's doctrine violates historical probability, in a degree which cannot be exaggerated. Nothing can be more intelligible than the account commonly given by Catholic historians as to the origin of Monothelism. The Eutychian doctrine prevailed very extensively in the East. Various persons accordingly, who were infected with that doctrine but were unwilling for various reasons to break with the Church, took up a ground essentially Eutychian, but which was as yet external to the Church's formal anathema. But how can any one suppose that Honorius caught the infection? Neither Eastern sojourns nor Eastern intimacies had borne any part in his history. He had been exclusively nurtured among Western traditions; and Western traditions, as the event showed, were intensely Duothelistic. On the other hand it has never, we suppose, been so much as alleged, that he was concerted by Sergius's letter that letter did but give him occasion of expressing the doctrine which he had always held. That he should have utterly failed in imagining even the existence of so unchristian a doctrine as the Monothelite, is among the most probable of suppositions; that he should himself have been a Monothelite, is among the most unhistorical theories ever invented. And the whole of this argument applies equally to the Abbot John, whom Mr. Renouf thinks the probable author of the Letters which were issued in his own name by Pope Honorius.

:

Here however an objection has been raised against our whole argument, founded on our very statement: for it has been urged, that if the Western tradition was thus intensely Duothelistic, Honorius could not have failed to see through Sergius's craft.

رو

But this objection is based on a complete misconception of our meaning. We do not say that the Western tradition at that time was "explicitly," but that it was "intensely " Duothelistic; and these two expressions mean something very different. When we say, as we do, that the Roman tradition was not "explicitly Duothelistic before Monothelism arose,—we mean that the Westerns were not acquainted with the terminology introduced by that controversy, nor had otherwise given their mind to consider the question. When on the contrary we say that the Western tradition was from the first "intensely" Duothelistic, we mean that, so soon as they came to apprehend the new doctrine, they saw most vividly and intensely its fundamental contradictoriness to the Faith which they had learned from infancy. In no state of mind would Honorius be so likely as in this, to make the very mistake which we ascribe to him. The intensity and the non-explicitness of his Duothelism would combine to prevent him from even imagining the existence of such a heresy as Sergius's. Whereas on the other hand if, as Mr. Renouf thinks, he did understand that heresy, he must have thereby been aware how fundamentally it contradicted the doctrine prevalent in his own Church. On Mr. Renouf's supposition therefore,-viz. that he regarded Monothelism as the Apostolic dogma,—it is quite incredible that he should not have earnestly laboured to put down Duothelism in the West.

There is another circumstance, which Mr. Renouf has failed to observe; but which is very manifest from Honorius's second Letter, and which alone would be decisive. After the Pontiff had received the full explanation given him by S. Sophronius's envoys, he still considered that there was no dogmatic difference between the two patriarchs. Evidently therefore he interpreted Sergius's views by S. Sophronius's, and not the reverse.

We must conclude however our treatment of Mr. Renouf's first thesis, by frankly admitting that Honorius did make one serious doctrinal mistake; for he considered the phrase "two energies" an inappropriate expression of Catholic dogma. In July, 1868 (p. 225), we said we were "not very clear on this point; but on further consideration, we cannot but account it certain, that Honorius's view on this verbal question differed from that which was afterwards infallibly determined. It need hardly however be pointed out, (1) that in his time the Church had not spoken ou that particular question; and (2) that the gulf is most wide, between heresy in dogma and mistake in mere dogmatic expression.

Still, argues Mr. Renouf, and this is his second thesis,—even if Honorius could be acquitted of heresy on the internal evidence of his Letters, this will avail nothing: for he has been infallibly condemned as heretical. But in order to establish this thesis,

Mr. Renouf has resorted to a most singular paralogism. We repelled his assault in July, 1868, by maintaining a certain doctrine concerning the "subject" of infallibility: but this doctrine, replies our opponent (p. 55), is a "notion" which "can only be maintained by Ultramontanes of a very peculiar school." How can that fact possibly signify? His whole argument is "ad hominem," and otherwise would be simply worthless. Were he to prove by mathematical demonstration that, according to his ecclesiastical theory, Honorius has been infallibly condemned of heresy, such a conclusion need not show more-to our mind it most certainly would not show more-than that Mr. Renouf's ecclesiastical theory is totally mistaken. He alleges Honorius's heresy, as an argument for the falsehood of Ultramontanism; and then he assumes the falsehood of Ultramontanism, as an argument for Honorius's heresy. Never was there a more transparent (we had almost said more childish) fallacy. What he had to prove-if his argument were to be worth more than the paper on which it is written is, that Ultramontanes, on their ecclesiastical theory, are obliged to account Honorius a heretic. Now, Ultramontanes consider that the voice of infallibility is never heard, except when the Pope speaks ex cathedrâ for even the definitions of a Council, according to Ultramontanes, are not infallible, except so far as the Pope ex cathedrâ confirms them. What Mr. Renouf has to prove then, if he would advance his cause one single step, is that some Pope has ex cathedrâ condemned Honorius's doctrine as heretical.

On the whole this will perhaps be the most convenient place for considering a statement of Mr. Renouf's, which is at once the most fundamental, and the most paradoxical, in his whole pamphlet and to which, nevertheless, he does not devote more than a quarter of a page out of his hundred pages. When Ultramontanes say that a Pope is not infallible except when speaking ex cathedrâ, nothing can be more definite than the sense in which they use this phrase: they mean, that a Pope is not infallible unless where he purports to teach the whole Church obligatory doctrine. To this definition Mr. Renouf objects in effect (p. 77, note), that no Pope in the early ages ever did purport to do this; and consequently, that modern Ultramontanes must in consistency deny infallibility to have existed at all, until long after the days of Honorius and S. Leo II. When Janus made a similar assertion, we did not think it worth while to argue at length on a matter so undeniable see our last number, p. 213. But Mr. Renouf having now endorsed the statement, we must add a few more words to what we said in January. We will beg Mr. Renouf's attention,

:

*See the second note to p. 252 of our last number.

*

therefore, to the following facts. They all belong to a period preceding the reign of Honorius; and throughout we place in italics those words to which we desire particular attention.

Pope S. Hormisdas required from the repentant Acacians a certain profession, as a condition of communion. It was subscribed at the time by all the Eastern bishops, and afterwards by all the Fathers of the Eighth Council. It begins with stating that "to preserve the rule of right faith is the commencement of salvation"; and that, in accordance with Christ's "Tu es Petrus," "religion has ever been preserved without defilement in the Apostolic See." "Wherefore," it presently continues, "we receive and approve all the Letters of Pope Leo concerning the Christian religion";

66

'following in all things the Apostolic See, and preaching all her Constitutions."

At a later period, Pope Vigilius addressed a Letter to the Greek Emperor. In this Letter, after having recited various Letters of his predecessors, S. Leo, S. Hormisdas, S. Agapetus, which had never been placed before any Ecumenical Council, the Pope thus proceeds :

With regard then to those things which have been defined concerning the Faith by the Fathers of the four holy Synods, and by the before-mentioned Letters of Pope Leo of happy memory, and the Constitutions of our venerable predecessors-condemning, by the authority of the Apostolic See, those who do not follow these in every particular (per omnia non sequentes), and who oppose their doctrines, we anathematize those who shall have attempted either perversely to dispute or faithlessly to doubt concerning the exposition or rectitude of that Faith; and we sever from the unity of the Catholic Faith persons who think against those things concerning the Faith which are contained in the most holy Synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and in the above-mentioned Letters of our predecessor Leo of happy memory, or all those things which his authority sanctioned (lib. i. c. 19, art. 2).

Nor was this only Vigilius's claim: the claim was admitted. Orsi (de Irreformabili, &c., 1. i. c. 19, art. 2) draws attention to one particular part of Vigilius's "Constitutum." In this the Pontiff quotes a letter, addressed to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople and by several Eastern bishops, promising that they would in all things follow the Letters of S. Leo and the Constitutions of the Holy See, whether as regards faith or as regards the authority (firmitate) of the four preceding Councils. And the Emperor also held the same doctrine for, as Orsi proceeds to point out, another passage from Vigilius's "Constitutum " proves this. Vigilius speaks with approbation of Justinian's having influenced the bishops to put forth "professions" of faith, whereby they "were shown to adhere to the

definitions and judgments of the holy Fathers, and of the four venerable Councils, and of the bishops of the Apostolic See." But Mr. Renouf will not deny-see e. g. his language in p. 54—that every Catholic at that period regarded the definitions of those Councils as irreformable and (in modern language) infallible: such therefore, and no less, was the authority which Vigilius claimed, as due to those "definitions and judgments of bishops of the Apostolic See" to which he refers.

No historical fact then can well be more certain, than that, by Vigilius's time at all events, it was a recognized and customary habit for Pontiffs to put forth certain "definitions," "judgments,' "constitutions," concerning the Faith, which claimed from all Catholics absolute and unreserved interior assent. It is perfectly clear that many such then existed; and that an indefinite number were expected for the future.† An early instance of such dogmatic Letters was Pope S. Celestine's addressed to the Third Council. He had told his Legates that they were to "judge on the opinions of the bishops, not to enter into dispute with them"; and the bishops, in anathematizing Nestorius, declared that they had been compelled thereto (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες) by the sacred canons and by the Letter of their most holy father and fellow-minister, Celestine." The Monothelite controversy itself again presents a very remarkable specimen of such a Letter, in S. Agatho's address to the Sixth Council. The argument derivable from this Letter is admirably drawn out by F. Bottalla, from p. 85 to p. 90. See also Orsi's important reasoning on the same Letter: 1. 1, c. xxiii. n. 3.

We consider then, that we have sufficiently established on this subject all which is necessary for our controversy with Mr. Renouf: and we have no space for more. Suffice it further to say that, according to that view of Christian doctrine which we earnestly maintain, each Pope from the first was invested by God with full power of issuing such Acts, whenever he might think their issue desirable; and that by divine promise their teaching is always infallibly true. On the other hand it need hardly be added, that no other Pontifical Acts are regarded by an Ultramontane as

By the "holy Fathers are here meant the bishops assembled in Ecumenical Council: as is made clear by a letter presently quoted by Orsi from Justinian, in which he says that he "follows the Constitutions of the holy Fathers, i. e. the 318 assembled at Nicaa."

"Tota mea argumentatio fundatur in duobus factis historicis, quæ proculdubio extra omnem controversiam posita sunt... Primum factum. Constat ex historiâ ecclesiasticâ usque ab antiquissimâ ætate quod Romani Pontifices sæpius ... libellos et professiones fidei a singulis episcopis subscribendas indixerunt, vel decreta et constitutiones de Fide ediderunt per universam Ecclesiam cum præcepto obediendi ad omnes episcopos directo, &c." --Muzzarelli, de Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, c. xii. sec. 4.