had declared that the baptisms and ordinations performed by Acacius after the sentence which had passed on him at Rome were valid. In this1 he contradicted the decisions of his predecessors. Alger here agrees in the main with his contemporary Gratian. Gratian has quoted the declaration of Anastasius,—according to which the efficacy of sacraments is not dependent on the character of the dispenser, and, consequently, even the sacraments administered by a bishop who has lapsed into hercsy are valid, and under proper conditions efficacious,-as an instance of a false decision in matters of faith given by a pope, respecting which the Roman correctors have since contradicted him. 2

On the other hand, William of Saint-Amour (about

2 Alger himself does not mean, as he afterwards explains, that the sacraments administered by Acacius were forthwith null and void. He distinguishes thus: "Quod vera, quamvis non rata pos"sint esse sacramenta cujuslibet mali sacerdotis, vel hæretici, vel "damnati."-c. 83 But he fancies that Anastasius erroneously declared that the sacraments administered by Acacius were "rata." That is to say, he starts from the principle which certain shortsighted defenders of papal supremacy had already put forth, that a pope who became heretical, immediately, and before even he had in any way made known his heretical opinions, ceased to be pope, and hence all that he subsequently did was null and void. In which case the Church, which nevertheless, could not possibly do otherwise than recognize him all the while, would find itself in unavoidable

error.

1 Decret. distinc., 19, c. 7, 8.

He

A.D. 1245) confuses Anastasius with Liberius. knows nothing more than that in the time of Hilary, a pope lapsed into heresy, of whom it is recorded “nutu divino fuit percussus;" and he conjectures 1 that this may have been Anastasius II., mentioned by Gratian.

3

Alvaro Pelayo, who, next to Augustine of Ancona, furthered the aggrandisement of the papal power, with the greatest zcal, beyond all previous bounds, and almost beyond all limits whatever, in his great work on the condition of the Church, makes mention of the judgment 2 which came upon Anastasius, in order to prove his dictum, that a heretical pope must receive a far heavier sentence than any other. Occam, also, makes use of the "heretical" Anastasius as an instance to prove, what was his main point, that the Church erred by his recognition. The council of Basle in like manner, with a view to establishing the necessary supremacy of an œcumenical council over the pope, did not fail to appeal to the fact, that popes who did not obey the Church were treated by her as heathens and publicans, as one reads of Liberius and Anastasius.1

2 Opera, ed. Cordes. Constantiæ (Parisiis), 1632, p. 96.

3" Divino judicio percussus fuit, nam dum assellaret intestina "emisit."-De l'lanctu Ecclesiæ, 2, 10, Venetiis, 1560, ii., 38. 4 Opus Nonaginta Dierum., Lugd., 1495, f. 124.

1 In Harduin, viii., 1327.

"The pope," says Domenicus dei Domenici, bishop of Torcello, somewhat later, in a letter addressed to pope Calixtus III. (1455-1458), "the pope by himself "alone is not an infallible rule of faith, for some popes "have erred in faith, as, for example, Liberius and "Anastasius II., and the latter was in consequence "punished by God." 1 After him the Belgian John le Maire, also, says (about 1515), Liberius and Anastasius are the two popes of ancient times, who, subsequent to the Donation of Constantine, obtained an infamous reputation in the Church as heretics. 2

1 De Cardinalium Legit. Creat. Tract., in M. A. de Dominis, De Republ. Eccl, Londini, 1617, i., 767 ss.

2 "In hæresin prolapsus est, et reputatur pro secundo Papa infami "post donationem Constantini."-De Schismatum et Concil. Differ. Argentor, 1609, p. 594.

VIII. THE CASE OF HONORIUS. 1

WHILST Anastasius, most undeservedly, was counted as a heretic, the memory of Honorius, on the other hand, was held in honour; and the fact that a general council had pronounced an anathema on this pope for holding heterodox opinions and countenancing heresy, was in the Middle Ages usually ignored. The circumstances were as follows: The Monothelite heresy was a dangerous and unhappy attempt to reunite the Monophysites with the Church by means of a very comprehensive concession, devised and introduced into the Church, by certain Oriental prelates, who herein had probably an understanding with the emperor Heraclius, and were acting in accordance with his wishes. The point of difference was this: the council of Chalcedon had declared that the two natures in Christ are united without any confusion or changing of one into the other; there must, therefore, be also a duality of wills, and a human and a divine will be distinguished in Christ. The Monophysites,

1 [On this case see a translation of Bishop von Hefele's essay on Honorius, with notes, by H. B. Smith, in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, New York, April, 1872 ]

on their side consistent, made the human will vanish in the presence of the divine, allowing to the Logos alone in Christ the full exercise of the power of volition. The Monothelites, who had formed themselves into a middle party, having for its object the reconciliation of the Monophysites with the Church, on this point agreed with the latter; and thus Cyrus, in Alexandria, brought about a union between the followers of Severus there and the Catholics. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, who had an understanding with Cyrus, sought and obtained the assent of pope Honorius against the opposition raised by Sophronius. The manner in which the pope and the two patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria held essentially the same view, was this: Honorius had declared, quite in the sense of the other two, that the two decisive texts, in which the human and created will is most clearly distinguished from and opposed to the divine will of the Logos, are merely an "economy" in Christ's mode of speaking, that is to say, an accommodation to be taken only in a figurative sense, by means of which Christ merely intended to exhort us to submit our own wills to the divine will. He was compelled therefore, equally with the Orientals, to recognize only a single will in Christ, the divine or theandric, that is, a will having its source in the Logos,