to his charge (13), and in answer to the great argument adduced by our adversaries, that in the Thirteenth Act of the Sixth Council it was declared that he was anathematized-" Anathematizari prævidimus, et Honorium eo quod invenimus per scripta, quæ ab eo facto sunt ad Sergium, quia in omnibus ejus mentem secutus est, et impia dogmata confirmavit"-replies that the Synod condemned Honorius, not because he formally embraced the heresy, but on account of the favour he showed the heretics, as Leo II. (Optimo Concilii Interprete, as N. Alex. calls him) writes to Constantine Pogonatus in his Epistle, requesting the confirmation of the Synod. In this letter Leo enumerates the heretics condemned, the fathers of the heresy, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, successors in the See of Constantinople; he also anathematizes Honorius, not for embracing the error, but for permitting it to go on unmolested: "Qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicæ Traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam maculari permisit." He also writes to the Spanish bishops, and tells them that Theodore, Cyrus, and the others are condemned, together with Honorius, who did not, as befitted his Apostolical authority, extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine in the beginning, but cherished it by negligence. From these and several other sources, then, Noel Alexander proves that Honorius was not condemned by the Sixth Council as a heretic, but as a favourer of heretics, and for his negligence in putting them down, and that he was very properly condemned, for the favourers of heresy and the authors of it are both equally culpable. He adds that the common opinion of the Sorbonne was, that although Honorius, in his letters, may have written some erroneous opinions, still he only wrote them as a private doctor, and in no wise stained the purity of the faith of the Apostolic See; and his letters to Sergius, which we quoted in the last paragraph, prove how different his opinions were from those of the Monothelites. 9. On the death of Honorius, in 638, the Monothelite heresy was very much extended by the publication of the Ecthesis of the Emperor Heraclius. This was an edict drawn up by Sergius himself, and published in the name of Heraclius. It was called Ecthesis, the Greek word for exposition, as it contained an exposition of the Faith regarding the question of one or two operations in Jesus Christ. It commences by an exposition of the Faith regarding the Trinity, speaks of the Incarnation, and distinguishes two natures in the single person of Christ, and it then proceeds: "We attribute all the operations of Christ, Divine and human, to the Incarnate Word, and we do not permit it to be said or taught that there are one or two operations, but rather, according to the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils, we declare that there is one Jesus Christ (13) Nat. Alex. t. 11, Hist. Ecclesias. Diss. II. Prop. 3. alone, who operates things both Divine and human, and that both one and the other operations proceed from the same Incarnate Word, without division or confusion; for although the expression of one or two natures has been made use of by some of the Fathers, still others look on it as strange, and dread lest some may avail themselves of it to destroy the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. On the other hand, the expression of two operations scandalises many, as it was never made use of by any of the principal Doctors of the Church, and because it appears to be the same thing to admit two contrary wills in Christ, as to admit two Persons. And if the impious Nestorius, although he admitted two Sons, did not dare to say that there were two wills-nay, more, he declared that in the two Persons supposed by him, there was only one will-how then can Catholics, who recognize one Jesus Christ alone, admit in him two wills, and even one will contrary to the other? We, therefore, following in all things the Holy Fathers, confess in Christ one will alone, and we believe that his flesh, animated with a rational soul, never of itself made any movement contrary to the Spirit of the Word which was united in one Person." Such was the famous Ecthesis of Heraclius, confirmed afterwards by its author, Sergius, in a Cabal or Council held by him in Constantinople; we perceive that in the commencement it prohibits the expression of one or two operations, to deceive the people, but afterwards the dogma of one will, the formal heresy of the Monothelites, is maintained (14). This Ecthesis was sent to Pope Severinus, but, either because it did not come to hand, or that he died before it reached Rome, we hear nothing of its condemnation then, but it was subsequently condemned by Pope John IV. (15). 10. Notwithstanding the condemnation of the Ecthesis, the Monothelite heresy still continued to flourish, through the malice of Pyrrhus and Paul, the successors of Sergius in the See of Constantinople. Paul pretended, for a long time, to be a Catholic, but at length he threw off the mask, and induced the Emperor Constans to publish, in 648, an edict called the "Type," or for mula, imposing silence on both parties. In this formula there is a summary review of the reasons on both sides, and it then proceeds: "Wherefore, for the future, we forbid all our Catholic subjects to dispute about one or two wills or operations, without prejudice, however, to what was decided by the approved Fathers, relative to the Incarnation of the Word. We wish, therefore, that they should hold by the Holy Scriptures, the five General Councils, and the simple expressions of the Fathers, which doctrine is the rule of the Church, without either adding to, or diminishing, anything, nor explaining anything by the private opinions of others, but let (14) Nat. Alex. t. 12, c. 2, s, 2, n. 4; Fleury, t. 6, l. 38, n. 21. cit. n. 22. (15) Fleury, loc. everything be in the same state as it was before this controversy sprung up at all, and as if it had never taken place. Those who will dare to contravene this decree, if they are bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed; if monks, excommunicated and banished from their monasteries; if in public employments, cashiered; if private individuals, their property shall be confiscated; and all others shall suffer corporal punishment, and be transported." Such is the "Type" of Constans (16). 11. We should here remark, that on the death of Sergius, he was succeeded by Pyrrhus, and he resigned the See, of his own free-will, afterwards, on account of disputes he had with his people, and Paul, the Econome of the Cathedral Church, was elected in his place (17), and he followed the heretical doctrines of both his predecessors. Pope Theodore laboured hard, both by writing to him and through his Legates, to bring him back to the Catholic Faith, but finding it all in vain, at length, by a formal sentence, deposed him (18). It is supposed that this took place in the same Council in which Theodore condemned Pyrrhus, for after he had made his retractation in Rome at the Pope's own feet, as he had promised St. Maximus he would do, when he disputed with him in Africa (as we shall see hereafter), he went to Ravenna, and again relapsed into Monothelitism. It is probable he was induced by the Exarch, who was a heretic himself, to take this step, hoping to regain his See of Constantinople, and in fact he again got possession of it in the year 655. When Pope Theodore heard of his relapse, he convoked a partial Synod of bishops and the Roman clergy, and pronounced an anathema and sentence of deposition against him, and not only that, but he had the chalice with the consecrated blood of the Redeemer brought to him, dipped the pen in it, and thus signed the awful sentence with the precious Blood of Christ (19). 12. We have spoken of the dispute of Pyrrhus with St. Maximus the Abbot, in Africa. The controversy was about the one or two wills and operations, and it is worthy of remark how forcibly the learned St. Maximus refuted him. If Christ is one, said Pyrrhus, he should only will as one person, and, consequently, he has but one will. Tell me, Pyrrhus, said St. Maximus, Christ is cer tainly only one, but he is, at the same time, both God and man. If, then, he is true God and true man, he must will as God and as man in two different manners, though but one person all the time, for as he is of two natures, he must certainly will and operate according to the two natures, for neither of these natures is devoid of will, nor devoid of operation. Now, if Jesus Christ willed and operated according to the two natures, he had, as they were, two, (16) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. n. 6; Fleury, loc. cit. n. 45. in fine. (17) Fleury, t. 6, l. 38, n. 24, (19) Fleury, loc. cit. we must admit that he had two natural wills and two essential operations, and as the two natures did not divide him, so the two wills and operations essentially attached to the two natures did not actually divide him, and being united in Christ did not prevent him from being one alone. But, Pyrrhus replied, it is not possible, for as there are several wills there should be several persons. Then you assert, said St. Maximus, that as there are many wills there must be many persons to wish; but if you go by this rule, you must also admit, reciprocally, that as many persons as there are, so many wills must there be; but if you admit this, you must grant that there is but one Person, as Sabellius teaches, for in God and in the three Divine Persons there is but one will alone, or, you must grant that as there are in God three persons, so there are three wills, and consequently three natures, as Arius taught, if according to the doctrine of the Fathers the number of wills must correspond to the number of persons. It is, therefore (concludes St. Maximus), not true that wherever there are many wills, there are many. persons, but the real truth is that when several natures are united in the same person, as in Jesus Christ, there are several wills and operations, though only one person. Pyrrhus raised more difficulties, but St. Maximus answered them all so clearly that he was at last convinced, and promised him that he would go to Rome, and retract his errors at the feet of the Pope, which he soon after did, and presented to his Holiness the instrument of his retractation (20); but again, as we have seen, relapsed. 13. But to return to the Type of Constans; that, together with all the Monothelite doctrine, was condemned in Rome in a Synod held by Pope Martin; and in consequence, the holy Pontiff was bitterly persecuted by Constans, and ended his days in the Crimea, in 654, where he was banished (21). Constans himself, after practising so many cruelties against the Pope and the faithful, especially in Syracuse, was called away by God, in the year 668, the twenty-seventh year of his reign, and met an unhappy end. He went into the bath along with an attendant, who killed him with a blow on the head, inflicted with the vessel used for pouring out water, and instantly took to flight; his attendants, astonished at his long delay in the bath, at last went in to see what was the matter, and found him dead (22). Cardinal Gotti (23) says, he also put St. Maximus to death; and among his other acts of cruelty related by Noel Alexander (24), on the authority of Theophanes, Cedrenus, Paul the deacon, &c., is the murder of his brother Theodosius. He first got him ordained a deacon through envy, by the Patriarch Paul, but he never after enjoyed peace of mind, for he frequently dreamed he saw his brother clad in the diaconal (20) Fleury, t. 6, l. 38, n. 36 & 40. (21) Danæus, Temp. Natio. p. 158. (22) Fleury, t. 6, L. 39, n. 42. (23) Gotti, Vic. adver. Her. c. 68, f. 4, n. 41. (24) Nat. Alex. t. 12, c. 5, ar. 3. robes, and holding a chalice filled with blood in his hand, and crying out to him, "Drink, brother, drink." 14. The scene was changed. Constantine Pogonatus, son to Constans, mounted the Imperial throne; he was a lover of faith and justice, and lost no time in procuring the assembly of the Sixth General Council in Constantinople, in 680 (25), which was presided over by the Legates of Pope Agatho. Noel Alexander informs us that authors are not agreed as to the number of bishops who attended; Theophanes and Cedrenus reckoned two hundred and nineteen, while Photius only counts one hundred and seventy. This Council was happily brought to a conclusion in eighteen Sessions, and on the 18th of October, the definition of the Faith, in opposition to the heresy of the Monothelites, was thus worded: "We proclaim. that there are in Christ two natural operations, invisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, and unconfusedly, according to the doctrine of the Fathers." This definition was subscribed by all the Fathers (26). Thus was concluded the Sixth General Council; the zeal of the prelates was seconded by the approbation and authority of the Emperor, whose faith was lauded by the assembled Fathers, and he was decorated with the title of the Pious Restorer of Religion. The Pope, St. Leo II., the successor of Agatho, who died during the celebration of the Council, confirmed its decisions and decrees, and as Graveson (27) says, confirmed by his Apostolic authority this Sixth Council, and ordained that it should be numbered among the other General Councils. 15. We should here remark, that Cardinal Baronius (28), to wipe off the stain of heresy from Pope Honorius, says, that the Acts of this Council have not been handed down to us fairly, but were corrupted through the artifice of Theodore, the Bishop of Constantinople. But Graveson properly remarks, that this conjecture is not borne out by the learned men of our age, because (as he says) Christian Lupus, Noel Alexander, Anthony Pagi, Combesis and Garner, clearly prove the authenticity of the Acts. Graveson (29), besides, remarks that several follow Cardinal Bellarmine's opinion, and endeavour to clear Honorius, by saying, that the Fathers of the Council were in error in the examination and judgment of Honorius; but, he adds, it is very hard to believe that all the Fathers, not alone of this Council, but also of the Seventh and Eighth General Councils, who also condemned Honorius, were in error, when condemning his doctrine. I think it better, then, to keep on the highway, and conclude, that Honorius can, by every right, be cleared from the Monothelite heresy, but still was (25) Nat. Alexander, t. 12, c. 2, a. 1, s. 4; Herm. c. 240; Fleury, t. 6, l. 4, n. 11; Berti, t. 1, sec. 7, c. a. (26) Tournely. Theol. Com. t. 3, in appen. p. 304. (28) Baron. ap. Grav (27) Graveson, Hist. Ecclesias. t. 3, p. 60; Collog. 4. (29) Grav. loc. cit. p. 27. |