Obrazy na stronie


Leo II. than they had been in those of his predecessor. only question have men any right to ask. Did S. Leo speak with sufficient explicitness in his official Letter, to make clear in what sense he consented to Honorius's anathematization? This he certainly did. It would have been wrong to say less; but under then circumstances it would probably have also been wrong to say one iota more.

What is said then concerning Honorius in the definition strictly so called? Nothing which implies ever so remotely that Honorius held, or tended to hold, the Monothelite heresy. "The devil," it is declared, "had found suitable instruments for his design" of promoting Monothelism, and Honorius was one of them. But even had its wording been doubtful, S. Leo's own statement is the one decisive and authentic authority, as to the sense in which Catholics are to receive that definition. Now S. Leo not only does not class Honorius with the heretics, but draws the most express distinction between him and them: as F. Bottalla points out in pp. 110113. He anathematizes "the inventors of the new error; and also Honorius, who "permitted" the immaculate to be "defiled."*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

And the meaning of these words he still more clearly explained in his Letter to the Spanish bishops, where he says that Honorius's offence was his having fostered the heresy by neglect, instead of repressing it at the outset. Indeed, as we argued in July (p. 221), S. Leo's language not only does not condemn Honorius of heresy: it emphatically

* “Τῇ βεβήλῳ προδοσίᾳ μιανθῆναι τὴν ἄσπιλον παρεχώρησε.” F. Bottalla translates this "permitted the immaculate to be polluted by profane betrayal;" so that "profane betrayal" shall be ascribed, not to Honorius, but to the Monothelites. We quite agree with him (p. 112) that "the Greek text easily and without the slightest strain yields" this sense, and that in every respect this sense is preferable to the other. And in a letter to the "Tablet" of December 12, he adduces a strong confirmation of his view from S. Leo's context for the very word "betrayal" suggests a remembrance of what S. Leo had said just before; viz., that certain successive patriarchs of Constantinople had been "vroкabiσràç" "traitors lying in ambush." At the same time the importance of F. Bottalla's amendment rather consists, we think, in greatly softening the tone of S. Leo's language about Honorius, than in affecting its substance. We are obliged to say this in self-defence, because in our former article we acquiesced in the other interpretation. Whichever of the two be taken, our argument in the text equally proves, that S. Leo's words are conclusive for his belief in Honorius's perfect orthodoxy. And when the divinely appointed guardian of the Faith culpably permits the growth F. deadly heresy, it seems to us quite intelligible that such neglect should be characterized as a "profane betrayal " of his duty. At the same time of Bottalla has quite convinced us that S. Leo did not apply the phrase to Honorius's conduct.

acquits him of that charge. 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 acquitting him of all sympathy with the mutiny. Had Honorius been himself disposed to Monothelism, his neglect-instead of being a calamity would have been the best thing for the Church which under circumstances could happen.

Now lastly, how much is involved in the sentence of anathema passed upon Honorius by S. Leo II.? F. Bottalla is careful to answer this question:

It implies nothing but that his name was to be erased from the diptychs, and his likeness from the pictures in the churches; because it was customary, especially from the beginning of the seventh century, for the names of all orthodox Bishops to be inserted in the diptychs, and their portraits exposed in the churches. Now Anastasius relates that, after the sentence of the Sixth Synod, the names of Sergius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter were expunged from the diptychs, and the pictures of them destroyed; but he does not say anything of the name of Honorius having been erased, or of his images being removed from the churches or effaced. His name undeniably is found in the Oriental diptychs, and we still have the laudatory notices which accompanied his name. All things tend to corroborate the view, that the severe sentence pronounced by the Sixth Synod against that Pope was tempered in its execution, because he had not been condemned for heresy. -(pp. 135, 6.)

In regard to the Eighth Council, we spoke of its definition in July (pp. 222, 3). Over and above what we there said, we would refer our readers to F. Bottalla's excellent remarks in pp. 132-4. But we must not go a second time over the same ground.

To sum up. Mr. Renouf maintains that Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite heretic. We rather incline to think, that the majority of the bishops of the Sixth Council did consider and declare him heretical. But their definition, at all events, contains no trace of this, and S. Leo II. only confirmed their definition. Moreover, in the very act of confirming this definition, he pronounced expressly, or at least by most manifest and undeniable implication, his predecessor's

innocence of heresy. He anathematized Honorius, not for heresy, but for what may be called misprision of heresy.

We are encountering Mr. Renouf's second proposition; viz., that Honorius was personally imbued with Monothelism. And we have now considered what, as we observed, is the only argument of his, which possesses even superficial plausibility. He also, however, infers Honorius's unorthodoxy, from the whole series of events which elapsed, between the writing of that Pontiff's Letters and the Sixth Council. This part of his argument we totally omitted to consider in July; but F. Bottalla gives it a crushing reply in every particular.

Mr. Renouf then argues (1) that Sergius regarded the Pope as assenting to his own Monothelite doctrine. But F. Bottalla answers (p. 33), that if the heretical patriarch had really so thought, it is most unaccountable why he gave the Pontifical Letters no publicity. Yet he "was anxious rather to withdraw them from view and bury them in the archives of the Church of Constantinople; where they were found in their Latin autograph, accompanied by a Greek version, at the time of the Sixth Council. Pyrrhus also, the successor of Sergius, does not appear to have published them; but only to have put in circulation a small extract from the first of them, which admitted of being misconstrued in an heretical meaning (pp. 33, 4).

[ocr errors]

Then (2) great stress has been laid by orthodox writers on three distinct and independent contemporary witnesses of Honorius's orthodoxy: Abbot John, Pope John IV., and S. Maximus. Mr. Renouf replies (p. 15) that their evidence is "really that of one man, and that one an interested and mendacious witness:" or, as he puts it more amiably in a letter to the "Westminster Gazette," that Abbot John was an interested liar." F. Bottalla pays Mr. Renouf off in his own coin; and tells him roundly that his "passage is one tissue of impudent assertion, suppression of truth, and blundering error." Let us look at the facts.


Abbot John was Honorius's secretary; and in that capacity wrote the very Letter which has been chiefly called into question. He testifies that it denied the existence in Christ, not of a human will, but of two distinct and contrary human wills. Mr. Renouf replies to him in effect, what Dr. Johnson on one occasion said outright: "Sir, you lie, and you know you lie." And this to one who, as F. Bottalla points out (p. 62), was declared by S. Maximus " a most holy man"!

Abbot John spoke from personal knowledge; while Pope John and S. Maximus argue from the contents themselves of the Letter. But all three distinctly and independently

witness the tradition of Honorius's orthodoxy, which prevailed in their time; and (as F. Bottalla observes in p. 65) "each of them pledged his own credit in the defence of Honorius which they put forward." Again, Mr. Renouf speaks (p. 15) as though S. Maximus said nothing in the Pontiff's behalf, beyond appealing to Abbot John's testimony; whereas F. Bottalla mentions (pp. 62, 3) that in his epistle to Marinus the Saint fully examines Honorius's Letter, and argues for its orthodoxy from its own internal evidence. Nay in that epistle (Bottalla, p. 73) "he represents Honorius as not only unstained with Monothelism, but also as one of the most zealous Pontiffs who resisted that heresy."

Mr. Renouf thus argues (3): "the fact that Pope Martin I. and the Lateran Council heard Honorius quoted in a dogmatic letter as an authority for Monothelism without any contradiction being offered, is a sure sign that his cause was no longer held to be defensible" (p. 17). But (Bottalla, p. 75) that very Pope, on opening that very Council, declared that his predecessors had most constantly resisted Monothelism. It is the oddest possible reasoning, to argue from his silence on one occasion, that he had spoken mendaciously on another. Two further replies are also given by F. Bottalla. It was not only Honorius's Letter, he urges, which the Fathers heard alleged for heresy without contradiction. They "heard without any contradiction the names of S. Gregory, Š. Cyril, S. Athanasius, and the rest, quoted as authorities for Monothelism; and yet no one believes this to be a sure sign that the cause of these holy Doctors was no longer held to be defensible" (p. 78). But in truth Honorius's heterodoxy was by implication denied throughout the Lateran Council.

In the course of the Council itself many Libelli were read, all concerning the Monothelite controversy. . . . . In all these Libelli and Synodical Letters the Roman See is spoken of as the foundation of faith, as the teacher of truth, as the centre of Catholic doctrine: in all of them the four patriarchs are unanimously denounced, together with other partisans and promoters of the new heresy. But we find no allusion, direct or indirect, to Pope Houorius. This omission cannot be explained, except by supposing that no one considered the doctrine of Honorius deserving of such denunciation. We must not, then, follow Mr. Renouf in believing that at the time of the Lateran Council the cause of Honorius was held to be no longer defensible; on the contrary, it was then considered that no plausible ground could be found for any charge of heresy against him.-(pp. 79, 80.)

Mr. Renouf (4) speaks disparagingly (p. 15) on "the negative testimony of Pope Agatho." But we showed in our

former article (p. 218) that S. Agatho's "testimony" was by no means "negative;" that he characterized Honorius as a man "thoroughly instructed in the Lord's doctrine."

Mr. Renouf's statement (5) will have been observed, that so early as S. Martin I.'s time Honorius's cause was no longer considered at Rome to be defensible. In p. 13 he speaks more distinctly. "His own Church first defended him, then maintained an ominous silence about him, and finally joined in his condemnation." F. Bottalla (p. 74) cites Dr. Döllinger's parallel assertion, that Honorius was "abandoned by all" at Rome, because of his Monothelism. But how is all this consistent, asks F. Bottalla, with the epigraph engraven on his sepulchre, in which he was described as a worthy successor to S. Gregory, both in doctrine and virtue? How is it consistent with the undeviating testimony of Honorius's successors, from John IV. to S. Agatho?

Nor is there indeed any appearance whatever-but much the contrary-that any predecessor of S. Leo II. considered Honorius to have injured the orthodox cause by his unwise discipline of silence. We ascribed this change of Roman view, in our former article (p. 222), to the information from the East which S. Leo must have received on return of the Legates. At the same time we need hardly say, that S. Leo's solemn judgment on a dogmatical fact must be humbly accepted as infallibly true; and that no Catholic, since that judgment, has been at liberty to doubt the existence of this one drawback, from the merits of a Pontificate otherwise so glorious.

We now come finally to what must be considered at last the one most satisfactory appeal on this issue; viz., the actual content of Honorius's Letters. This question we expressly deferred in our former article (p. 224) to a future occasion; and by discussing it, we answer the only further argument of Mr. Renouf's which remains to be considered.

F. Bottalla has expressed in a few pages (7-16) with such masterly clearness and completeness the Monothelite tenet, that nothing remains for us so far, except briefly to place his view in our own way before our readers. Among all the ramifications of Eutychianism, Monothelism seems on its surface the least unintelligible. It was the fundamental notion of Eutyches, that Christ's two natures are blended and mixed up together by their union in God the Son; but when the question was asked him what is the "tertium quid" which results from this intermixture, he was baffled. Now Monothelism gives an intelligible account of itself;

and it has

« PoprzedniaDalej »