Honorius demanded of him-it follows that Honorius never imposed on him any obligation of withdrawing the charge of heresy. But if Honorius imposed no such obligation on Sophronius, certainly he imposed no such obligation on the whole Church. It is demonstratively certain therefore, that Honorius never imposed on the whole Church any obligation of holding, that Sergius's and Cyrus's denial of the "two energies" was no denial of revealed truth. In other words, it is demonstratively certain that Honorius never taught this ex cathedrâ as a dogmatical fact.

We have defined then an ex cathedrâ Act, as an Act in which some Pope purports to teach the whole Church obligatory doctrine. And this definition being supposed, we say, with the utmost confidence that Honorius did not teach any false doctrine ex cathedrâ. We say this with the utmost confidence; because no one can so much as name any one false doctrine, in regard to which he will even allege that Honorius imposed on the whole Church an obligation of believing it.

There remains however one difficulty of a broader and more general kind, which may be felt even by those who admit that our arguments establish the full conclusions for which we have adduced them. At last, it may be said, all this is a mere fine-spun theory, which may satisfy mere controversialists, but which is repulsive rather than otherwise to practical men. If a Pope can be permitted by the Holy Ghost to "throw the whole weight of his See into the heretical scale "-if he can be permitted to give an answer which has a widespread and potent effect in disseminating heresy then practically it is not safe to trust Rome's doctrinal guidance. If Catholics were turned aside from revealed truths by following the very guide whom God had given them, it was God Himself who led them astray.

This objection supposes, as we have said, that the facts of Honorius's case are as we have represented them: and this therefore of course we are to assume in our reply. That reply then is simple enough. We do not question the fact, that Honorius's Letters may have served as an excuse for numbers, who, on totally different grounds, chose to embrace Monothelism. But we maintain that none who really wished to ascertain and follow the judgment of the Holy See, could possibly be so hoodwinked. Those who were really bitten by the heresy, could not but see (if only they chose to look) that Honorius's Letters, even interpreted in their own light, set forth the precise contradictory of Monothelism. But even were this otherwise, no sincere inquirers could acquiesce in any given version of Honorius's meaning, until they had read that letter of Sergius's to which Honorius's was a reply. In doing so, they would at once see how simply Sergius had aimed at deceiving

Indeed, the theory that Honorius taught Monothelism ex cathedrâ, is best refuted by being fully stated. If he was a Monothelite, he necessarily understood that the Western tradition was intensely Duothelistic yet it is most certain, that he neither circulated his Letter among Westerns, nor took any step whatever towards extirpating their Duothelism. According therefore to the theory which we are assailing, his purpose was, that the East indeed should be orthodox, but that his own Church and all the West except himself should continue to hold what he accounted heresy.

In fact the only mistaken definition which can be ascribed to Honorius without simple absurdity, concerns, not the dogma, but its expression. It may be contended that Honorius taught ex cathedrâ the doctrine, that either of those two phrases" one energy," "two energies," is an inappropriate expression of the revealed verity. But, as it oddly happens, the last sentence of the second Letter is as simply fatal to any such supposition, as though Honorius had presaged the future controversy, and had resolved to make all misconception impossible. S. Sophronius's envoys promised that their patriarch would abstain from the phrase "two energies," if Cyrus would only abstain from the phrase "one energy" and with this promise Honorius declared himself abundantly satisfied. On the view which we are opposing, Honorius had commanded Sophronius, Cyrus, and all other Catholics, to hold with irreformable interior assent, that the two phrases are both of them inappropriate. Yet what are the facts? So far from commanding them to hold any such doctrine, he did not even ask them to form any such opinion. All he desired was external conformity; and he obtained his full purpose, as soon as that external conformity was secured. The whole proceeding was disciplinary, not doctrinal, from beginning to end.

As a last resource it may be alleged, that Honorius imposed an obligation of holding, as a dogmatic fact, that Sergius's and Cyrus's denial of the "two energies" was no denial of revealed truth. But it is certain, as we have already shown, that S. Sophronius's envoys made the whole submission which Honorius desired at their hand. It is certain therefore, either that the Saint came to hold that Sergius's and Cyrus's denial of the "two energies" was no denial of revealed truth, or else that the Pope never imposed on him any obligation of holding this. But the former branch of the alternative is simply out of the question. Honorius was undeniably doing everything he could towards promoting union between Sophronius and Sergius; and if therefore he could possibly have told the latter that the former withdrew his accusation of heresy, he would beyond all question have said as much most loudly and emphatically. Since therefore S. Sophronius did not withdraw his accusation of heresy -and since nevertheless he made all the concession which

Honorius demanded of him-it follows that Honorius never imposed on him any obligation of withdrawing the charge of heresy. But if Honorius imposed no such obligation on Sophronius, certainly he imposed no such obligation on the whole Church. It is demonstratively certain therefore, that Honorius never imposed on the whole Church any obligation of holding, that Sergius's and Cyrus's denial of the "two energies" was no denial of revealed truth. In other words, it is demonstratively certain that Honorius never taught this ex cathedrâ as a dogmatical fact.

We have defined then an ex cathedrâ Act, as an Act in which some Pope purports to teach the whole Church obligatory doctrine. And this definition being supposed, we say, with the utmost confidence that Honorius did not teach any false doctrine ex cathedrâ. We say this with the utmost confidence; because no one can so much as name any one false doctrine, in regard to which he will even allege that Honorius imposed on the whole Church an obligation of believing it.

There remains however one difficulty of a broader and more general kind, which may be felt even by those who admit that our arguments establish the full conclusions for which we have adduced them. At last, it may be said, all this is a mere fine-spun theory, which may satisfy mere controversialists, but which is repulsive rather than otherwise to practical men. If a Pope can be permitted by the Holy Ghost to "throw the whole weight of his See into the heretical scale "-if he can be permitted to give an answer which has a widespread and potent effect in disseminating heresy then practically it is not safe to trust Rome's doctrinal guidance. If Catholics were turned aside from revealed truths by following the very guide whom God had given them, it was God Himself who led them astray.

This objection supposes, as we have said, that the facts of Honorius's case are as we have represented them: and this therefore of course we are to assume in our reply. That reply then is simple enough. We do not question the fact, that Honorius's Letters may have served as an excuse for numbers, who, on totally different grounds, chose to embrace Monothelism. But we maintain that none who really wished to ascertain and follow the judgment of the Holy See, could possibly be so hoodwinked. Those who were really bitten by the heresy, could not but see (if only they chose to look) that Honorius's Letters, even interpreted in their own light, set forth the precise contradictory of Monothelism. But even were this otherwise, no sincere inquirers could acquiesce in any given version of Honorius's meaning, until they had read that letter of Sergius's to which Honorius's was a reply. In doing so, they would at once see how simply Sergius had aimed at deceiving

Honorius: for (to mention no other particulars) they would read therein the shameless lie, that there was no dogmatic difference between Sophronius and the writer.

The fair way to estimate the value of Rome's doctrinal guidance will be this. Let us suppose some Eastern bishop really perplexed by the new heresy, and at the same time firmly resolved to make the judgment of Rome his one Rule of Faith. He sends envoys to the eternal city, and in due time they forward him their report. They find Roman tradition intensely Duothelistic, and no one more profoundly penetrated by that tradition than the Pontiff himself. They have been unable indeed to persuade him, that Sergius can really be questioning so very elementary an article of the Faith as Duothelism; and they have also found him strongly wedded to his opinion, that the phrase, "two energies," is a most inappropriate and unwisely-chosen expression. As to the former of these points however, he has made no attempt to force on them his own view; and they know that, on such a matter of fact, those who live in the midst of the controversy must be indefinitely better judges than a Pope who resides thousands of miles off. On the appropriate dogmatic expression, the case is different and not improbably their reverence for the Holy See might lead both themselves and their bishop to suspect, that S. Sophronius has made a mistake in laying such uncompromising stress on the phrase "two energies." This is the amount of doctrinal evil which they would suffer through Honorius's perverseness. And (considering that the Church had as yet said nothing whatever on the appropriateness of that phrase) no one will say that such evil is very serious. *

We by no means wish to extenuate the disastrous results of Honorius's fault, but they were utterly different from what the objection supposes. He was called on by his office at once to anathematize the new heresy, and to define ex cathedrâ "the two energies." He would thus have expelled the heresiarchs from the Church, and compelled Eastern bishops promptly to take their choice between Duothelism and excommunication; whereas, by

*S. Sophronius himself may be supposed to illustrate the very supposition we have made. But there is one essential difference between his case and that of our imaginary bishop, because he was far too firm in the Faith to have suffered a moment's perplexity. He regarded the Monothelites from the first as open heretics: in that they denied an elementary revealed dogma, which the Church had from the first implicitly enforced as such.

Mr. Renouf (p. 11 and note) says, in effect, that neither Arians nor Monothelites could be formal heretics, until the Church had expressly condemned them. We must protest most earnestly against this statement: though it would carry us entirely too far, if we attempted duly to set forth its falsehood and omnigenous mischievousness. See, however, Perrone de Locis theologicis, par. 3, n. 339.

neglecting to do this, he allowed the heresy to assume far larger and less manageable proportions. Moreover he discredited and discouraged the orthodox champion; praised and encouraged the heresiarch; denounced the phrase which was imperatively needed for the maintenance of revealed truth. But all this is quite different in kind from such mischief as the present objectors ascribe to him quite different in kind from leading those into heresy, who consulted him under the sincere belief that he was their divinely appointed teacher.

We must not conclude without a very few final remarks on Mr. Renouf himself. And firstly as to what F. Bottalla so justly reprobates his language towards "some of the most eminent writers whom the Catholic Church has produced." To our amazement, he speaks (p. 73 et alibi) of our own "overbearing and insulting language" towards himself. Our language concerning him is quite milk-and-water, in comparison with the language he has used against his most illustrious opponents. He should speak with respect of others, if he wishes himself to be treated with respect.

It is not however only to eminent Catholic theologians, but to the Church's supreme authority, that Mr. Renouf has had an opportunity of exhibiting disloyalty. His first pamphlet was placed on the Index, as containing unsound doctrine and as perilous to unwary readers. Mr. Renouf no less simply ignores the existence of this censure, than if it had proceeded from the Presbyterian Assembly or (say) the London Court of Common Council.

At last however, our chief complaint against Mr. Renouf is his reticence on his own positive doctrine. The opinion on which he insists, is an opinion held by him in common with Protestants, deists, and atheists; viz. that a Pope is not infallible when speaking ex cathedrâ. Persons anxious for truth rather inquire who is infallible, than who is not yet on this question he is profoundly silent; and we on our part, therefore, must speak hypothetically. If he holds the Gallican doctrine, we have no very severe remark to make; for he does but hold a doctrine which as yet is tolerated by the Holy See. But in his first pamphlet (p. 32, note) he called it "the old view that both Popes and Councils may err, and that the Church alone is infallible." Twice we have called his attention to the possibility that these words may be understood, as vesting infallibility exclusively in the body of the faithful; but we have entirely failed to elicit from him any disclaimer. We can only say therefore, that if he intends to maintain this tenet, all Catholics must account him (for reasons given in an earlier article of our number) as a rebel against the Church's authority and as an enemy to the Catholic Faith.