So much then being understood, our next question is, in what sense S. Leo II. confirmed the Sixth Council's anathema of Honorius. Here are his words:

In like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error: Theodore, bishop of Pharan; Cyrus of Alexandria; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, overthrowers rather than rulers of the Constantinopolitan Church: nay, and Honorius also; who did not labour to preserve in purity this Apostolic Church by the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but permitted the spotless to be polluted by profane betrayal and likewise all who have shared in their error, &c. &c.

These words, clear in themselves, receive further illustration from the same Pontiff's language in addressing the Spanish bishops and king:

Those who fought against the purity of Apostolic Doctrine and have died, have been punished by an eternal condemnation: that is, Theodore, Cyrus, &c. &c.; together with Honorius, who did not extinguish at its outset the flame of heretical dogma, as became his Apostolic authority, but by neglecting fostered it.

All the authors of heretical assertion were cast out from the Church's unity; Theodore, Cyrus, &c.: and with them, Honorius of Rome, who consented that that undefiled rule of Apostolic tradition should be defiled, which he received from his predecessors.

Now we must argue again, as we argued before, that such language is directly inconsistent with the supposition of S. Leo having regarded Honorius as a Monothelite. "Let us take a parallel case. A mutiny arises in some regiment, and the Colonel is accused before a Court Martial of being concerned in it. The Court pronounces, that Captains A and B, Lieutenants C, D, and E, &c. &c., were concerned in the mutiny; nay, and that the Colonel himself did not, as was his duty, detect it at its beginning and promptly put it down; but on the contrary, by his neglect fostered its growth, and permitted the loyalty of the regiment to be stained. No one of common sense would understand their verdict otherwise, than as condemning the Colonel indeed of very culpable neglect, but as acquitting him of all sympathy with the mutiny. Had Honorius been himself disposed to Monothelism, his neglectinstead of being a calamity-would have been the best thing for

is more certain than that these were promulgated as no less integral a portion of the Tridentine Definitions than the canons themselves. Dr. Murray has exhibited in full, following earlier theologians, the irrefragable arguments which establish this conclusion. We gave a summary of them in our number for October, 1867, p. 349, note.

the Church which under circumstances could happen" (Jan. 1869, p. 182).

Mr. Renouf's attempted reply to this is the best imaginable proof that no real reply is possible. "The Abbot John," he says (p. 62), "was the real author of Honorius's heretical Letters; and the real neglect of Honorius consists in allowing those Letters to be written in his name and subscribed with his hand." In other words Mr. Renouf alleges, that the distinction intended by S. Leo II. was between his predecessor's Letters and that predecessor's personal belief. But nothing could be easier to express than this distinction, if the Pontiff had intended it. According to Mr. Renouf indeed, the one thing which S. Leo II. abstained from saying, was the one thing which he intended to say. On the one hand he speaks of Honorius having "permitted," "consented," 'neglected"; on the other hand, he speaks inclusively of Honorius (see our article for July, 1868, p. 223) as "preaching one will and one operation," and "shamelessly labouring to defend heretical doctrine." What would have been simpler than to say, that it was Honorius's Letter which defended heretical doctrine, and that he was personally nevertheless a stranger to heresy? Yet nowhere does S. Leo II. point at such a distinction ever so distantly.

Secondly it is most evident, on a close study of S. Leo's different expressions, that the fault with which he charged his predecessor was neglect of some duty specially incumbent on him as occupant of the Apostolic See. "He did not labour to preserve in purity this Apostolic Church"; he did not act "as became his Apostolic authority"; he failed towards "that undefiled rule of Apostolic tradition which he received from his predecessors." But Mr. Renouf's attempted interpretation entirely fails to meet this requirement; for it would be a grievous offence in any bishop, and not merely in a Pope, to issue letters officially, of vital dogmatic importance, without acquainting himself with their contents.

This brings us to a third objection. Mr. Renouf adopts his hypothesis, in order to explain S. Leo's statement that Honorius. "by neglecting fostered" the heresy. But the conduct ascribed to him by Mr. Renouf is an offence of the most positive possible kind; a grievous offence of commission. You might as well say that burglary is a sin of omission, as that it is a sin of omission for a Pope to issue in his own name two Letters involving the very gravest dogmatic interests, without any examination of their contents. On the other hand if you adopt the ordinary view,-that Honorius wrote in most honest accordance with his convictions, and that his fault was the not taking due pains to enlighten those convictions, you will naturally call his sin, as S. Leo II. called it, a sin of neglect.

Then, lastly, what single instance can Mr. Renouf allege from

all history, in which the Church took cognizance of a fact so purely private and personal as that ascribed by him to Honorius? When did the Church ever inquire, how far this or that bishop used the services of a secretary, and what part such secretary took in composing the episcopal letters?

There is one simple fact, which throws a flood of light on the point at issue. In Roman documents subsequent to the Sixth Council, Honorius is sometimes mentioned by himself, and sometimes in company with the Monothelite heresiarchs. In the former cases it is never once declared that he "preached," or "taught," or held" the Monothelite heresy; but only that he "neglected," "permitted," "consented," "gave encouragement." This fact cannot possibly be accidental; and it is simply fatal to Mr. Renouf's theory. On the other hand, it is frequently said of Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, and the rest, including Honorius, that they "preached one will and one operation"; that they "disseminated heresy "; &c. &c. and this is most intelligible from our point of view. At a certain period a certain detestable heresy arose, which laboured to expel from the Church her fundamental dogma of Christ's two wills and operations. In its first epoch, the method adopted by its originators was to deny that the phrase, "two energies," fitly expresses the revealed dogma. During Honorius's lifetime, this was the critical and the turning point: and on this point Honorius not only agreed with them, but officially declared that agreement; nay, he used every weapon which his position gave him except only an ex cathedrâ definition, to discourage the Church's true champion of orthodoxy. In a most true sense therefore he has been counted among them by more than one successive Pope, and justly included in their anathema.

What was the meaning of this anathema? Primarily, of course, that Pontiff pronounced it for the purpose of expressing due reprobation against Honorius's heresy-favouring conduct. Its immediately practical effect however, as F. Bottalla points out, was "that his name was to be erased from the diptychs and his likeness from the pictures in the churches." Mr. Renouf is indignant against such an inadequate view; and he proceeds to express what is, perhaps, the very oddest theological notion we ever happened to fall in with. "S. Leo II.," he says (p. 66, note), "understood the anathema in a different sense, when he told the Spanish bishops that Honorius and the other Monothelites æternâ damnatione mulctati sunt."" Such then is Mr. Renouf's view of

the Church's power over a departed soul; and let no one henceforth suspect him of undervaluing the Church's prerogatives. Honorius, it seems, may have gone after death to purgatory and heaven but when the Church pronounced her anathema, she thereby extruded him from bliss and condemned him to eternal

torment. Of course Mr. Renouf wrote off his note in a hurry, and we have no wish to pin him down. We will but say, that his remark is only saved from the charge of hideous blasphemy, by the (doubtless true) allegation of its entire unmeaningness.

As to the "otiose historical question," in what sense the Eastern bishops anathematized Honorius,-we have always thought more probable, that it was on the simple ground of his having professed Monothelism. Nor can we be much surprised at their mistake, which was implicitly corrected by S. Leo II. They assembled in a very grave crisis; and the words "two energies," "two wills," "one will," "Sergius," &c. &c., were (so to speak) ever ringing in their ears. Two Letters were produced, expressing most hearty doctrinal concurrence with one of the most prominent heresiarchs, and vehemently protesting that "two energies" is a most inappropriate expression of revealed dogina. So far from wondering that the bishops accounted these Letters heretical,-we think that S. Leo II. might possibly enough have made the very same mistake, had it not been for the Holy Ghost's promised assistance to all ex cathedrâ Acts of the Holy See.

Mr. Renouf's third thesis declares that Honorius taught Monothelism ex cathedrâ: but as it has now been seen that he never taught it at all, he very certainly never taught it ex cathedrâ. Still it is necessary to show that his Letters were not ex cathedrâ : because we have fully admitted that they contain one doctrinal mistake, in condemning the phrase "two energies" as an inappropriate expression of revealed dogma. It is in fact this third thesis on which our whole controversy with Mr. Renouf turns, so far as that controversy concerns the dogma of Pontifical infallibility. It is much to be observed therefore, that our disproof of this third thesis is so rigorous, as rather to resemble a mathematical demonstration than an ordinary historical argument.

:

Yet, curiously enough, Mr. Renouf and ourselves are thoroughly in accordance on the substance of this thesis, and differ only in our use of language. We have to maintain that Honorius never purported, in these Letters, to teach the whole Church obligatory doctrine and Mr. Renouf is entirely of the same mind. Mr. Renouf indeed further says that, up to Honorius's time and for centuries afterwards, no Pope ever issued any document which purported to teach the whole Church obligatory doctrine (p. 77, and note): but to this amazing statement we have already sufficiently replied.

Let our position then be understood once for all. That doctrine of Papal infallibility for which we are zealous, is not that doctrine which Mr. Renouf thinks was once maintained by some Catholics, but that dogma which is upholden by every Ultramontane theoVOL. XIV.-NO. XXVIII. [New Series.]

2 E

logian of the present day; the dogma upholden by Mgr. Dechamps and Archbishop Manning; the dogma, that every doctrine is infallibly true which any Pope teaches as obligatory to the whole Church.* And since Mr. Renouf admits that no false doctrine was so taught by Honorius, he admits that "the case of" that Pontiff presents no objection whatever, against that dogma of Pontifical infallibility which Ultramontanes now uphold.

However, as this dogma has other enemies besides Mr. Renouf, it will be better to show explicitly how extravagant is the supposition, that Honorius's Letters were issued ex cathedrâ. And firstly as to the Sixth Council. Not one syllable has ever been adduced, from anything said at this Council, which gives the faintest colour to any supposition that these Letters were considered ex cathedrâ Acts. They were not called "definitions," "judgments," "constitutions," nor even (when spoken of by themselves) "dogmatic Letters." (See our remark in July, 1868, p. 20.) In the thirteenth session the bishops in some sense drew attention to this fact; by speaking of the dogmatic letter" written. by Sergius, and the "Letter written in reply by Honorius. Indeed, as F. Bottalla so powerfully argues, they sufficiently showed their belief in the infallibility of Pontifical Definitions, by their mode of receiving S. Agatho's Letter.

"

So much on any testimony derivable from the Sixth Council. We are now to show, from the content itself of Honorius's Letters, that he did not therein teach any doctrine whatever as obligatory on the interior assent of Catholics. If he did so, it must have been either by teaching ex cathedrâ the Monothelite heresy, or else by teaching ex cathedrâ some doctrine on the legitimate expression of revealed dogma. We will take these two suppositions successively; and first inquire whether, as Universal Teacher, he enforced Monothelism.

In January, 1869, (pp. 192-202) we printed at length Honorius's first Letter, and also the extant remains of his second. The one thing which on the surface will strike every reader is, that his pronouncements on dogma are entirely ministrative and subordinate to his pronouncements on phraseology. We are not as yet inquiring, whether the pronouncements on phraseology are doctrinal or disciplinary we are only saying, that they obviously compose the pith and drift of the Letters. Honorius's whole position is: "there is no dogmatic difference whatever; why then cause dis

*There is a supplementary side of the Ultramontane doctrine, with which we are not here concerned: viz., the indefectible purity of Roman tradition. See our last number, p. 197. Never was this indefectible purity placed in a clearer light, than by every attendant circumstance of the Monothelite controversy.