Sergius "—a circumstance, which, taken in conjunction with his letter to the latter, has led to much controversy in later times; so that his orthodoxy has been disputed by non-Catholics, to this day. Evidently, Honorius was misled by the crafty Greeks. At the same time, it must be admitted that, by the tenor of his letter to Sergius, and by his forbidding any discussion of the question raised by the Monothelites, he laid himself open to the charge of favouring the new doctrine, which he ought at once to have authoritatively condemned. "From his inconsiderate letter," as observed by Doctor Döllinger, "matter was drawn in later times both for his condemnation and exculpation."2 Pope Leo II., in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain, on the Acts of the Sixth General Council, blames Honorius, "because he did not, as became the Apostolic authority, immediately extinguish the flame of heretical error; but by his negligence added fuel to the fire." was condemned, observes Pagi, "not as a heretic, but as a favourer of heretics."4 "We are fully justified," says Doctor Döllinger, "in supposing that Honorius thought much more correctly than he expressed himself." Indeed his cotemporary, Saint Maximus, asserts that he was "an opponent of the Monothelites:" and his own secretary, the Roman Abbot John, affirms that his letter to Sergius was falsified by the Greeks. "Who then is the more worthy of faith and authority as the interpreter of that letter," asks Saint Maximus, "he who wrote it on behalf of Honorius, and who is

He

1 It is positively asserted by Baronius, that the Acts of this Council were, in this passage, falsified by the Greeks. Annales," viii. 570,

et seq.

2 Döllinger, "Church History," period ii. chap. iv. sec. 7.

Leonis, P.P. II. Epist. ad Episcopos Hispaniæ. "Flammam hæretici dogmatis, non, ut decuit Apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit.

"Damnatus est

Pagi, "Pontificum Romanorum Gesta," i. 350. Honorius Papa, non quidem ut hæreticus, sed ut hæreticorum fautor." "Döllinger, "History of the Church," period ii. chap. iv. sec. 7.

still alive, and who has enlightened all the West by his virtues and teaching of the true Christian faith, or they at Constantinople who spoke their own feelings?"1

Cardinal Baronius has written at great length, in his Annals, in vindication of Honorius; and besides him there are many able and learned apologists of that Pontiff, in the past, as well as in modern times. In our day, the controversy has been revived by the celebration of the Vatican Council; and the result is that, during the last fourteen years, considerable additions have been made to the literature of the question.

In reviewing the whole case, it is necessary to bear in mind the following facts, if we would arrive at a just conclusion: 1. When Honorius wrote to Sergius, no definition had ever been made by the Church, with respect to the doctrine which formed the subject of the correspondence. 2. Honorius in his letter, made no definition himself: nay, he expressly said that he did not mean to do so. 3. He forbade any further discussion of the doctrinal point submitted to his notice instead of immediately examining it, with the aid of his council, and deciding it with the Apostolic authority; and it is for this omission, or negligence, or temporizing policy, that he is most generally censured. 4. Anything that Honorius actually wrote, or might have written, to Sergius, could never be regarded as that to which alone Infallibility is believed by Catholics to attach; namely, a solemn ex Cathedra definition, addressed by the Supreme Pontiff to the Universal Church. This will be more clearly understood, when we have before us, further on, in the chapter on Papal Infallibility, the conditions, all of which are essential

1 "Disputatio Sancti Maximi cum Pyrrho," apud Baronium, "Annales Ecclesiastici," viii. 699. "Maximus: Quis fuerit fide et auctoritate dignus epistolæ hujus interpres, qui eam ex persona Honorii scripsit, adhuc superstes, et qui totum Occidentem cum aliis virtutibus, tum dogmatibus fidei Christianæ, illustravit ; an ii qui Constantinopoli quæ ex corde erant loquebantur ?'”

to constitute an ex Cathedra pronouncement, as laid down by the Vatican Council.

"Centuries of controversy have established beyond all doubt," observes Cardinal Manning, " that the accusation against Honorius cannot be raised by his most ardent antagonists to more than a probability. And this probability, at its maximum, is less than that of his defence. I therefore affirm the question to be doubtful; which is abundantly sufficient against the private judgment of his accusers. The cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff outweighs all such doubts." 1

Here may be appositely quoted the following words of Pope Agatho, in his Doginatic Epistle, addressed to the Emperor, on the occasion of the assembling of the Sixth General Council: "For this is the true rule of faith, which in prosperity and in adversity is firmly held and defended by this spiritual mother of your most serene Empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, which, through the grace of Almighty God, will be proved never to have erred from the path of Apostolic tradition, and which has never succumbed, corrupted by heretical novelties: but as, from the beginning of Christian faith, she has learned from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, she remains undefiled to the end, according to the Divine promise of our Lord and Saviour Himself, which He spoke to the Prince of His Disciples in the Sacred Gospels, saying, 'Peter, Peter, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.' Wherefore let your Serene Clemency consider, that, since the Lord and Saviour of all, of whom faith is, and who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, admonished him to confirm his brethren, the same, as all know, has ever been confidently done by the Apostolic Pontiffs, my predecessors

1 Manning, "Petri Privilegium," iii. 223; London, 1870.

H

of whom my littleness, although unequal and the least, desires to be a humble follower, for the sake of the ministry assumed by me, through the Divine mercy; for it will be woe to me, if I shall neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they sincerely preached."

Surely, Saint Agatho would not have written thus, on such an occasion, and only forty-two years after the death of Honorius, if he believed that the latter, one of "the Apostolic Pontiffs, his predecessors," had swerved. one iota from the faith of Peter. All this tends to strengthen the conclusion, that it was only for having favoured heretics by his negligence in restraining them that Honorius was condemned.

It is a matter to be especially noted, that the six general councils treated of in this chapter were mainly composed of Eastern bishops, were held in the East, and were under the influence of the Emperors of the East; which circumstances go to prove still more conclusively, if possible, the complete supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as visible Head and Teacher of the Universal Church, in the early ages of Christianity.

To adduce further evidence on this subject would be superfluous; for, as all readers of Ecclesiastical history are aware, the supreme authority of the successors of Saint Peter, in their relations with councils, as in all other respects, became more and more developed, in each successive age, with the growth and extension of the Church.

1 The Western bishops were prevented from attending, in numbers, by the dangers and difficulties of the long journey, as well as by the circumstance of their presence being required at home, to mitigate the evils entailed on their flocks by wars, dissensions, and the Barbarian incursions.

CHAPTER VII,

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOLY SEE.

"Ipsi sunt canones, qui appellationes totius Ecclesiæ ad hujus sedis examen voluere deferri; ab ipsa vero nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt; ac per hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium."-POPE GELASIUS I., A.D. 493.1

THE recognition of the supreme authority of the Holy See, from a very early period, is further evidenced by the appeals addressed to it from distant Churches, its intervention in the affairs of those Churches, its deposition of unworthy and schismatical bishops, its restoration to their sees of bishops unjustly deposed, its excommunication of heretics, and receiving back to communion those who had abjured their errors, as well as its firm and decisive condemnation of the proceedings of irregular synods, convened without its sanction, and lacking the stamp of its approval and confirmation.

The interposition of Saint Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome, in the affairs of the Church of Corinth, in the year of our Lord 96, has already been referred to.2 Next, we have the excommunication of Cerdon, a Syrian heresiarch, by Pope Hyginus, A.D. 140, and the condemnation of the heresies of Valentine and Marcion by his successor, Saint Pius I., ten years later.

1 Gelasii Papæ L., Epist. iv. "They are the canons which will, that appeals of the whole Church be brought to the examination of this See; and have decreed that no appeal be ever made from it; and that thus it judges of the whole Church, but itself goes to be judged by no one. Gelasius I., an African, governed the Church, A.D. 492-496. 2 Vide supra, chap. v.