thirteenth session of the fourth Council of Constantinople the value which it deserves.

But Leo II., we say, sanctioned the formula of faith, and confirmed the condemnation of Pope Honorius; and, moreover, Pope Hadrian II. authentically declared that the Orientals had condemned Honorius with the consent of the Holy See. It is only on this account that Pope Honorius's condemnation becomes a subject worthy of consideration. How is it then that the Holy See authorized the Council to condemn Pope Honorius, whilst it seems evident that Agatho in his letter did not intend anything of the sort? Moreover, in what sense did the new Pope accept and sanction the condemnation of that Pontiff? F. Colombier has already remarked that the Council, after having hurriedly condemned Honorius in the thirteenth session, held two more sessions of no importance, and soon after it suspended its sittings for three full months, from the 26th of April to the 9th of August; and he thinks it certain that, during that time, ambassadors were sent to the newly elected Pope, and a consent obtained from him to the condemnation of Pope Honorius. Doubtless, Leo II. sent to Constantinople, as a new Legate, the sub-deacon Constantine, whom he mentioned in his letters of confirmation of the Synod.* It is also certain that the condemnation of Honorius was in some way renewed in the sixteenth session, and afterwards inserted in the formula of faith, which was enacted in the eighteenth session.

We do not doubt that Leo II. consented to the condemnation of Pope Honorius. The Pontiff must have known that the wirepullers of the faction against Honorius were the Emperor and the Court, supported by the Patriarch of Constantinople. A blunt refusal to adhere to the condemnation of his predecessor would have elicited a refusal on the side of the Emperor to ratify his election; and it would have occasioned a new schism. We feel sure that Pope Agatho, being in different circumstances, and in possession of more authority, would not have sanctioned an act which stamped one of his illustrious predecessors with ignominy. Leo II. ventured to consent to that act of supreme rigour against a Pope, in order to avoid a far more difficult position for the Apostolic See. But did he consent in the intention of that Synodical faction which wished to brand Pope Honorius with the charge of heresy? We have fully answered this question in another part of this article. Pope Leo condemned Honorius so far as that Pontiff's acts deserved condemnation, whatever his personal intentions may have been. But those acts amounted to nothing like the profession of heresy.

* Rescriptum Leonis Papæ ad Const. Imp. (ibid. p. 1471).

Again, how far did the Council agree with Pope Leo's view? Did the whole Council condemn Honorius for heresy, or rather for his having been grievously negligent in repressing the Monothelite error? We have said that, even if the whole Synod had condemned Pope Honorius for heresy, its decree would have been without authority in the Church, since Leo II. did not stamp that judgment with his authentic sanction. But we think that there are reasons to believe, that at least a large number of the Eastern Bishops in the Council did not hold that opinion. We are fully aware that several passages of the Council concerning Honorius, prima facié regarded, convey the idea that Honorius was in truth condemned by the Orientals for heresy; and we do not doubt that really this was the intention of a part of the Council, led by the Byzantine Patriarch and the Imperial Court. Nevertheless, we think that if we consider the same passages, divested of the hard language in which they are dressed up, we may be convinced that a large portion of the assembly, whilst yielding to the current, and affecting fully to submit to the rod of the imperial magistrates, did not intend to mix up Honorius with the rest of the heretics, though they were not able to frame their opinion and judgment in such form as might clearly express their idea. With this view, we examined in our pamphlet those passages in which the Pope was condeinned, apart from the Monothelite heretics, as well as those in which he was condemned in solidum with the others.

But Mr. Renouf, in his usual style, ignores our view; he misapprehends our appreciations, and casts ridicule on our explanations. When examining the decree which was pronounced by the Synod against Honorius in the thirteenth session, we remarked that the Fathers had purposely drawn a line of distinction between the cause of the Monothelites and that of Honorius; that they said of the former: "These are the names of those whose impious doctrines we execrate"; but of Honorius they spoke apart from them, and declared that they anathematized him only because he followed in all things the mind of Sergius, and gave weight to his impious doctrines. We found that the same distinction has been kept in the prosphonetic letter to Constantine, and in the Edict of the Emperor, wherein the Monothelites condemned by the Council are called "inventors of heretical novelties," whilst of Honorius it was said that he "eos in his sequutus est," and that he was "hujus hæreseos confirmator, qui etiam sui extitit oppugnator." We remarked that, if these expressions had been used in the case of persons who had professed heretical doctrines,

they might be understood as implying the crime of heresy. But since they were applied to Pope Honorius, whose letters, as we have proved, contained nothing heretical, they should be taken in a different sense. What is then their meaning? We have again and again shown that the fault, the grievous fault, of Pope Honorius before the Church was that of neglect in the discharge of his Pontifical duties. He abstained from examining and condemning the errors of Sergius and Cyrus, and he thought to quench the controversy between them and Sophronius by following the advice of Sergius, and by imposing the economy of silence on both the parties, with regard to the use of the terms "one or two operations"; that economy was truly an injury to the Catholic doctrine, and calculated to encourage heresy. This was the fault pointed out by Leo II. as a cause of the condemnation of Honorius. And without the least doubt, when Leo II. sanctioned his predecessor's condemnation, the whole Synod, or its majority, must have agreed in that essential point. A faction of Bishops may have remained obstinate in their determination to condemn Honorius as a heretic, but the majority must have been glad to find support to their own conviction of the view expressed by Pope Leo II., and they whould have willingly agreed with him. If that was not the case, how is it that the Eastern Bishops did not utter any word of protest, or any remark whatever, when Leo II. published his view on the condemnation of Honorius, which would, in that hypothesis, have been opposed to their own view? But if that view was agreed upon by the majority of the Council, what meaning might they intend when they said of Honorius, in their own prosphonetic letter to Constantine, that he "eos (Sergium et Cyrum) in his sequutus est"? They could surely not mean heresy; it would have been against their agreement with Leo's view; it must then refer to the fault with which Leo charged Honorius, who was in nowise guilty of the heresy of Sergius, but assented to his proposal concerning the economy of silence. But the words "qui eos in his sequutus est," do not differ from those of the sentence of the thirteenth session : "ejus (Sergii) mentem in omnibus sequutus est." Then we concluded that the Council, or its majority, really alluded to Honorius having consented to the economy of silence proposed by Sergius, which gave growth and strength to the erroneous dogmas of the Byzantine Patriarch. Likewise, when the Synod said of the letters of Honorius that they had followed the teachings of the heretics, we remarked that the fundamental signification of the verb roua is not only "to follow," but also to help" and "to support"; therefore, we intimated that the

.

*

Council meant by these words, in as much as they concern Pope Honorius, that his letters had favoured the teaching of the heretics; as the same Council says, lower down in the same decree, that Honorius had confirmed the impious dogmas of the heretics: et impia dogmata confirmavit."

Now Mr. Renouf qualified our explanation as a comedy or farce. He argues that the letter of Honorius is declared by the Council altogether alien from the Apostolical teachings. But he does not see that the Council spoke there indiscriminately of the letter of Sergius together with that of Honorius, while the said Council in the second part of the decree, by qualifying apart the fault of Honorius, supplies an explanation to the words of the first part, concerning the letter of that Pope. Therefore, if from the second part it does not appear clearly proved that the Council condemned Honorius for heresy, the first part must be toned down so far forth as it concerns Honorius, and must be explained in harmony with the second. Now let us suppose for a moment that the second part, in which it is said that "Honorius Sergii mentem sequutus est et impia dogmata confirmavit" should yield the meaning mentioned above, why could not the words referring to the letters of Honorius, " alien from Apostolic teaching," mean alien from that Apostolical foresight against heretical doctrines in the Government of the Church, which has always been traditional in the Church? Why could not the word ouai be rendered by helping and supporting, implying that the letters of Honorius had given help and support to the false teaching of the heretics? I do not see with Mr. Renouf, why, if a soldier, who follows his commander, could be said to help and support him, the letter of a Pontiff, who wrongly approved an economy of silence, which gave strength to heresy, could not be said to give support to it.

But Mr. Renouf thinks in the second part of the decree the words τῇ γνώμῃ ἐξακολουθήσαντα could not be referred to the economy of silence, because r yvóun cannot philologically bear that meaning. It was certainly by no means necessary that Mr. Renouf should remark that yvóun is not interpreted by lexicographers to mean "scheme," or still less, "economy either of silence, or otherwise. But when we say that a person follows the mind of another, we mean that he follows his principles, his maxims, his designs, his plan, his scheme, according to the special circumstances to which we allude. Now we had

Those words of the Decree refer to the letters of Sergius and to that of Honorius. But the Synod could not say them with reference to Honorius's letter, in the same meaning which they imply with regard to the letters of Sergius.

shown that Honorius approved in Sergius's letter only the proposal of the economy of silence, and that so far he plainly agreed with him and favoured his view. We therefore inferred therefrom that when the Council said that Honorius had followed Sergius's mind, it meant to allude to his having adhered to Sergius's proposal as to the economy of silence. What have the philological curiosities of Mr. Renouf to do with all this? Finally, neither from Stephanus, nor from Schleusner can Mr. Renouf prove to evidence that the words περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἡμαρ TηKÓτas necessarily imply a formal error in faith, and not also any other sin, which may concern faith, since the fundamental meaning of auaprávo is "to sin."* Finally as to the term "heretic" of the eighteenth session, if Mr. Renouf would not attribute it to the synodical faction so embittered against Honorius, it should be understood in a secondary meaning. And F. Colombier supplies several examples of that meaning in his first article in defence of Pope Honorius.†

And of this we have said enough. If our reasoning will not satisfy Mr. Renouf or others, no matter. The cause, which we defend, cannot be in the least affected thereby. It would therefore be useless for Mr. Renouf to return to that subject with his lexicography, or to fill pages with passages of old theologians, without criticism, whose name has been long since forgotten, and whose authority in our age is nought. In this fashion he will never gain the least ground as regards the main question at issue. Even should he prove to evidence that the whole Sixth Council condemned Pope Honorius for heresy (which many Catholics of our age admit), he would have proved nothing, as we have repeatedly said, against Papal Infallibility; nor even would he do much damage to the orthodox repute of that illustrious Pontiff; since the perusal of his letters would sufficiently clear him from that stain, and the style of the proceedings against him in the sixth Synod gives very little authority to the thirteenth session.

But what does Mr. Renouf think of a decision ex cathedrû, of which he treats in the last part of his pamphlet? How can he believe that the supposed error of Honorius was an ex cathedra teaching? He argues as follows: The letters of Pope Honorius are called decreta and decretales, which have binding authority; but in order to have binding authority, they are

* Suarez said, "Omissive censetur favere hæresi qui omittit facere quod tenetur, &c." On this account Honorius could be said to be guilty against faith.

+"Etudes Relig. Hist.," Dec. 1869.

We speak of a great part of those theologians who are alleged by Mr. Renouf in support of his opinion.