( 173 )

A rt .

V II.--TH E ORTHODOXY OP POPE HONORITJS.

The Condemnation o f Pope Ilonorius. By P. L e P age R enouf. London :

Longmans.
Pope Ilonorius before the Tribunal o f Reason and History. By the Rev.
P aul B ottalla, S.J. London : Bums, Oates, & Co.

T has sometimes been said that this or that book fulfils the
Ianswerable
end of its existence, by eliciting some complete and un
reply, and then subsiding into oblivion. We
account this to be the case with Mr. RenouPs assault on the
orthodoxy of Pope Honorius. After P. Bottalla* s answer,
nothing more, we think remains to be said. Never was any
thing more complete and exhaustive. Mr. RenouPs incidental
statements indeed, concerning infallibility, are avowedly re
served by P. Bottalla for his future volume on that general
subject; but we do not think that there is one single remark
made by Mr. Renouf against Honorius*s orthodoxy, which
is not directly met in the pamphlet before us. I t is the
more likely to be final, because the author fully accepts as
genuine existing documents (p. 141), and his argument there
fore in no respect depends on uncertain questions of criticism
and philology. Por ourselves, we have already once brought
the case of Honorius before our readers; viz. last July, soon
after the appearance of Mr. RenouPs pamphlet.
In re
viewing however F. Bottalla;s labours, we will avoid, as far
as possible, all repetition of what we have already said, and
make our second article supplementary to our first.
In regard to Honorius;s connection with Monothelism, there
are two distinct questions to be considered: first, did he
teach heresy or error ex cathedra ? and secondly, was he
himself polluted by any taint of heresy ? It is only the first
of these two questions which concerns Ultramontanes as such.
They only allege, that no Pope is permitted by the Holy Spirit
to teach heresy or error ex cathedra; and even were it true
therefore that Honorius was a heretic, his heresy would
not in itself even tend to disprove their doctrine. But in
fact no assertion can be made more monstrously and more
demonstratively false, than that Honorius had so much as the
faintest leaning to Monothelism. And as it is a very im
portant fact indeed that no Pope has hitherto fallen into
heresy, no treatment of the Honorius controversy will content

174

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

a true Catholic, which does not vindicate that Popes personal

orthodoxy. Moreover, there are the claims of reverence and
gratitude due to an illustrious Pontiff; claims peculiarly
imperative, as F. Bottalla well points out (p. 138), on the
Catholics of England. To Honoriuss paternal endeavours
indeed (p. 140), after Gregory the Great, England is indebted
for its conversion to Christianity. *
In the first place however we will consider the more vital
question of the two ; viz., whether Honorius taught heresy or
error ex cathedra. Mr. Renouf indeed has so inextricably
mixed up the two different issues, that wo must ourselves
look through his pages, for the purpose of discovering which
arguments are intended for one and which for the other.
Mr. Renoufs first proposition then is, that Honorius taught
Monothelism ex cathedra. And his first argument for this pro
position is taken from the condemnatory sentence of various
Popes and Councils. This argument is so wild, that we really
think the author would not have alleged it, had he seen clearly
in his mind the distinction between the two above-mentioned
issues. Whoever reads carefully the language on which Mr.
Renouf relies, even as he himself adduces it, will be irresistibly
convinced that no such notion even occurred to the imagina
tion either of Popes or Councils, as that of Honorius having
taught Monothelism ex cathedra. Even as to the Eastern
bishops of the Sixth Council, the strongest view which could
possibly be taken of their unfavourableness to Honorius would
be, that they declared him a heretic in the same sense in which
they so declared Sergius, Cyrus, and the rest. But such
censure is in a totally heterogeneous sphere, from any which
would condemn him of having taught heresy ex cathedra.
F. Bottalla adduces a reply on this head whichthough no
reply is needed to such an argument as Mr. Renoufsyet is
not only conclusive in itself, but has a far wider range of
importance than the particular controversy before us. If any
inquirer desires to know the true relation which exists between
Pope and Council, the one source of information which
would most readily occur to him must be their respective
demeanour when a Council assembles. No single instance
can be named, in which any Pope has so spoken to a Council,
* The various triumphs of Honoriuss Pontificate" are well recounted by
F. Bottallas reviewer in the Tablet of Nov. 28. He speaks of Honoriuss
successful exertions to make England Catholic, and Rome more than ever a
city of perfect beauty ; and mentions also that the same Pope, had brought
to a happy conclusion the seventy years schism of the Three Chapters in the
churches of Istria, and another which had lasted so long in Scotland and
Ireland concerning the time of celebrating Easter.

The Orthodox]) o f Pope Honorius.

175

as to imply that its decision could add anything whatever to

the irreformableness of a Pontifical judgment already pro
nounced. In many cases indeed, the Pope begins by laying
down the law, enunciating the necessary decision, and requir
ing the assembled bishops to confirm it. Whenever this claim
is put forth, you never find them protest against it as a
tyranny or usurpation; on the contrary, they invariably take
it as a matter of course. The Sixth Council affords a con
spicuous instance of this. Pope S. Agatho, in addressing the
bishops,
sets before them the formula of Catholic faith, which is the formula of the
Apostolic Magisterium of the Roman See ; and he informs them they must
believe and confess it, and, on the other hand, condemn and reject every
dogma contrary to it. Should they refuse to submit to this rule of faith,
they would be in error, in schism, and reprobation. But he could not impose
a formula of hath to be believed and confessed, unless his Magisterium was
universally acknowledged as infallible. Therefore he repeatedly insists on
that capital point o f doctrine. He declares that the Roman See has never
erred, and that it never shall err. He confirms and explains his assertion,
by referring to the promises of Christ, to the example of all the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, and of the (Ecumenical Synods themselves, which
had alicays received from Rome the paradigm, of the doctrine theri rccre to
define.(pp. 89, 90.)
And now let us see how the assembled Fathers received his two Letters.
Did they lift up their voice in protest against the fundamental doctrine of
infallibility, which Agatho attributed to his See, and which he rested on the
promises of Christ Himself ? Was objection raised to the magisterial tone
of the letters addressed to an (Ecumenical Council ? That large and in
fluential assembly of bishops not only found nothing to censure in the letters
of the Pope, but it received them as a whole and in all their parts as if they
had been written by S. Peter, or rather by God Himself. The Fathers
testified to their admitting the infallible and divine authority of the Letters,
in the eighth session, as well as in the Synodical Letter addressed to Agatho ;
and in the Prosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor they regarded them as a
rule of faith . No sooner did a suspicion arise that four bishops and two
monks refused to adhere to them, than the Council ordered them to give an
explanation of their faith in writing and on oath. They submitted, and
solemnly affirmed that they accepted without reserve all the heads of doctrine
contained in the Letters. Again Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, was, by
sentence of the Council, deposed from his dignity and expelled from the
Synod, because he refused to adhere to the letters of Agatho.(pp. 90-92.)

Mr. Renouf at all events is not ignorant of logic. He will

not maintain, on reflection, that the bishops first took for
granted the infallibility of all Popes in all their ex cathedra
decrees, and then proceeded to condemn of heresy one par
ticular ex cathedra decree of one particular Pope.

176

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honor ins.

Ultramontanes indeed generally allege, that all good Catholics

at that time believed, more or less explicitly and consistently,
in Papal infallibility. To this common allegation Mr. Renouf
makes a reply, which is worth noticing, because it indicates
another serious error into which he has fallen. He fancies
that the Church teaches nothing as of faith, except that which
she may have expressly defined. In his well-known Munich
Brief, Pius IX. thus reproves this error : Even if the ques
tion concerned, he says, that subjection of intellect which
is to be yielded in an act of divine faith, yet such subjection
ought not to have been limited to those things which have
been hitherto defined by express decrees of (Ecumenical
Councils or of Roman Pontiffs and this Apostolic See, but
extended to those things also which are delivered as divinely
revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church
dispersed through the world. Now the dogma that Christ
has a human will and a human principle of operation, was
taught by the Church as of faith from the very first. Yet Mr.
Renouf argues that S. Sophronius and S. Maximus did not
believe Papal infallibility, because they would not express
their readiness to abandon that dogma at the Pope's bidding.
F. Bottalla's remarks on this are so admirably expressed
and so practically important, that we will give the whole
passage:
There are two kinds of cases in which doctrines may be said to be defined
by the Pope. One regards doctrines which are not contained in a clear
manner in the universal magisterium of the Church, and which are disputed
on both sides ; as was for several centuries the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, with many others. The second concerns doctrines clearly revealed
and universally believed as dogmas of faith, although they have never been
defined explicitly and under anathema by the authentic magisterium. Such
was the doctrine of the Consubstantiality of the Divine Word, and generally
all the doctrines concerning the Incarnation.* Now, the denial of a doctrine
of the first class, before its infallible definition, does not constitute a sin of
heresy : and if either of the two rival schools seek the supreme judgment of
the Pope upon the question, it must be prepared to submit to that judgment,
and be ready to reject the doctrine till then defended, and even to embrace
the contrary teaching were it proposed by the Pope ex cathedra. But it is
not so with doctrines of the other kind. A doctrine universally believed in
the Church is infallibly de fide ; the consent of the Church being equivalent
to a formal and explicit definition. Therefore the Arians, the Nestorians,
and the Eutychians were generally looked upon by the Catholics as heretics,
* It will be seen that F. Bottalla here draws the same distinction which
we drew in our last number (p. 547), in reference to a certain argument urged
against Mr. Liddon.

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

177

even before any infallible sentence had been 'pronounced against them. In
such cases, when a definition is required either from the Pope or from an
(Ecumenical Council, the request is made not properly fo r the instruction of
the orthodox as to what they should believe in the matter, but only to crush
and destroy error with the overwhelming authority of a supreme judgment.
As to Catholics, those who, from ignorance or prejudice, have been led into
error, are bound to wait for the infallible decree, and must hold themselves
in readiness to submit unreservedly to the same ; but others, who are fully
acquainted with the teaching of the Church, must be steady in their adhesion
to it, while expecting that infallible decision which will finally confirm their
faith. For the divine truth proposed in a decree of faith cannot possibly
differ from the divine truth believed in the Universal Church. Consequently
in such cases, when Catholics, already in possession of the Catholic truth,
apply to the Pope or a General Council for a definition necessary to ensure
the triumph of the Faith over heresy, they should not harbour in their heart
the smallest doubt concerning the doctrine laid before the Apostolic See.
Much less should they say, as Mr. Renouf would have them do, that they
will change their opinion if the Pope decides the other way !(pp. 42, 43.)

We are still engaged with Mr. Renouf's first proposition, that

Honorius taught heresy or error ex cathedra. We pass to his
second argument for this proposition. I t is plain, he considers,
from intrinsic evidence and contemporary circumstances, (1)
that the Pope's Letters to Sergius express Monothelism; and
(2) that the doctrine of those Letters was imposed on the
Church by their writer, in his capacity of Universal Teacher.
There are hardly any facts in history more certain, than are the
' contradictories of these two allegations. I t will be more
convenient however if we defer to the later part of our article
our argument against the former. Here therefore we will
only maintainwhich is amply sufficient for the issue now
before usthat Honorius's Letters to Sergius were not put
forth ex cathedra at all. This particular part of the subject
has been so exhausted by previous writers such as Orsi and
Mazzarelli, that very little is left for F. Bottalla (as very little
was left for ourselves in July) except to repeat their arguments.
This however he does with great force and perspicuity. Thus
first as to the extrinsic proof that Honorius was not speaking
as Universal Teacher :
According to the discipline and practice of the Church in ancient times,
which was preserved for many centuries, there are some solemnities which
were ordinarily observed when dogmatic constitutions were despatched by
Roman Pontiffs. They were previously read and examined in the synod of
the bishops of Italy, with whom the prelates of neighbouring provinces were
sometimes associated; or in the assembly of the clergy of the Roman Church.
Again, they were sent to the patriarchs, or even to the primates and metro
politans, that they might he everywhere known and obeyed. Finally, the
vol. xir.no. xxiii. [New Series.]
n

178

The Orthodoxy o f Tope Honorius.

signatures of all the bishops were often required to those papal constitutions,
to show their submission and adhesion to them. We do not now mean to
spend time in demonstrating these points of ancient ecclesiastical discipline ;
they will be found proved beyond all question in the learned works of
Coustant, Thomassin, and Cardinal OrsL It must be distinctly understood
that we do not maintain the absolute necessity of the above-mentioned
characters, as if no Papal utterance of that age could be ex cathecM if any
one of these marks were wanting; but we maintain affirmatively, that
Papal utterances bearing all these characters were to be regarded as certainly
issued ex cathedra; and negatively, that no Papal decree could be con
sidered at that time as cx cathedra, if wanting in all and each of those
characters.(pp. 18, 19.)

Secondly, as to the intrinsic proof that the Letters to Sergius

were not ex cathedra. On this point it seems to us that our
author speaks more consistently and intelligibly, than most of
his predecessors. For these, in their desire to rid themselves
of responsibility for such utterances as Honorius's, have often
laid down tests of an ex cathedra Act, which in their obvious
sense would equally exclude S. Leo's Dogmatic Letter and
many other such documents. Nowhere have we seen the
thing better expressed than by F. Bottalla :
In order that a Papal utterance may have the character of a teaching ex
cathedrd, it is requisite first, not only that it should treat of a question of
faith, but that it should propose a doctrine to be believed or condemned ;
secondly, that the Pope should show the intention of teaching as Pope, and
of enforcing his doctrinal decrees on the Universal Church. I f either of
these two qualities he wanting, the letter cannot be said to contain any
teaching ex cathedra. This is what all Catholics, without exception, admit
as necessary and essential to an infallible document issued by Papal autho
rity. (p. 18.)

But what doctrine can Mr. Renouf even allege, as having

been proposed in either of Honorius's Letters? Why, the
Pontiff declared again and again that ho intended to define'no
doctrine at all; but, on the contrary, as F. Bottalla well ex
presses it (p. 31), to quiet the controversy by an economy of
silence." In July we drew out this argument at length
(pp. 213, 4), and shall here therefore say no more on the
subject.
Mr. Renouf indeed argues (p. 20) that S. Sophronius had
expressly applied for an cx cathedra judgment, and that
JJonorius's first Letter was a reply to that application. Now
even if he had applied for such a judgment, it would be mon
strous to infer from that circumstance that the Pontiff thought'
fit to give one. But F. Bottalla conclusively shows (pp. 36-41)
that Mr. Renouf has confused two totally different embassies,

I
179

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

sent by S. Sophronius to Rome; and that the one sent through

Stephen of Dora, to which Mr. Renouf refers, did not reach
Rome until after Honorius's death. Indeed, F. Bottalla (p. 40)
retorts S. Sophroniuss authority against Mr. Renouf. For it
was after Honoriuss first Letter to Sergius had been received,
that S. Sophronius solemnly declared that the foundations of
orthodox doctrine rest on the Apostolic See. Most certainly
then he did not think that Honorius's response had committed
the Apostolic See to any unorthodox doctrine.
Through the whole range of controversy then there can
hardly be found a more certain fact, than that which by itself
abundantly suffices for the Ultramontane argument: we mean
the fact, that Honorius did not teach heresy or error ex
cathedra. But in real truth there is no shadow of pretext
for alleging, that he was personally infected with the heretical
leaven at all. We are here to examine Mr. RenouFs arguments
against this position; while in the course of doing so, we trust
to show that the position itself is absolutely impregnable.
We will first consider the only one of these arguments, which
possesses even any colourable or superficial plausibility; viz.
that derived from the language of the Sixth Council, and again
of the Eighth. Now Mr. Renouf is arguing, not of course
against Gallicans, but against Ultramontanes; and Ultramontanes hold that no doctrinal decree of a Council is infallible,
except so far as, and in the sense wherein, a Pope may confirm
it. It is interesting doubtless, as a point of history, to consider
what the bishops assembled at Constantinople intended to
declare; but the only inquiry of doctrinal importance is, which
of their decrees received Pontifical confirmation and in what
sense.
We will begin with the otiose historical question. What did
the bishops intend to declare? As we said in our former
article, we think it more probable that in some of their state
ments they intended to accuse Honorius of heresy. F. Bottalla
adopts a conclusion less discreditable to them. No one of
them, he considers (p. 97), believed that the Pope held the
impious doctrines which were execrated. In the decree
of the 13th Session Honorius was not condemned for any
heretical tenet (p. 107). Still he thinks (ib.) that there was
a Greek faction in the Sixth Synod, which it was impossible
to keep in thorough control; and which not improbably con
trived to vent all its bitterness against Honorius in the final
synodical exclamations : though he denies that this faction
prevailed in the previous decrees. Nay even as to the decrees,
he recognizes and strongly denounces the exaggeration
n

180

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

and bitterness of expression which they display (p. 108): due,

as he thinks, to a strong faction which exercised its influence
in that Council and carried the day. I t is with great
diffidence that on any question of ecclesiastical history,
however comparatively insignificant, we differ from F.
Bottalla; but we still think the other view more probable. '
We think it more probable, that the majority of bishops in
tended, in their decrees no less than in their acclamations, to
declare Honorius hereticalth o u g h they were careful to insert
no such expression in their definition. This latter of course
they did not attempt; for they well knew how hopeless it
would be to expect Pontifical confirmation of any such
sentence.
We will not however argue this little point with F. Bottalla.
Nor indeed should we have referred again to the question at
all, were it not for the great importance of making perfectly
clear to Mr. Renouf and his sympathizers, that it is one of no
controversial importance whatever, and one freely debated
among Ultramontanes themselves.
.
There is nothing then about the Sixth Council which
concerns our argument, except S. Leos confirmation thereof.
Now S. Leo II.s infallible judgment contained two different
portions : he confirmed a certain declaration of the Council,
and he added a certain elucidation of his own. What was that
declaration of the Council ? Exclusively the definition. F.
Bottalla proves this with irrefragable cogency from p. 108 to
p. 110. In addition to the testimonies for this conclusion
which we cited in July (pp. 219, 220), he mentions that the
bishops themselves, in petitioning the Emperor to acquaint
the patriarchal sees with what had been done, requested him
only to send to those sees an authentic copy of the definition.
I t has sometimes been urged indeed, that S. Leo, by not
expressing any disapproval of the Acts when he received them,
implied assent to every single portion of their contents. We
cannot for a moment acquiesce in such reasoning. We have
more than once had occasion to comment on the inexpressibly
difficult task, which in each successive century devolves on the
Holy Father. He must not permit anything which shall com
promise the T ruth; yet, on the other hand, he must so defend
the Truth, that there may be the smallest possible dissension
among Catholics, and that unstable minds may be exposed to the
smallest possible temptation toward* rebellion and schism. It '
was in this critical and most anxious navigation between
Scylla and Charybdis, that Honorius himself made the one
mistake of his otherwise illustrious Pontificate. And the ties
between East and West were even looser in the time of S.

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Eunorius.

181

Leo II. than they had been in those of his predecessor. One
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 Honoriuss 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 instru
ments for his design of promoting Monothelism, and Honorius
was one of them. But even had its wording been doubtful,
S. Leos 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. 110
113. He anathematizes the inventors of the new erro r;
and also Honorius, who permitted the immaculate to be
defiled. *
And the meaning of these words he still more clearly
explained in his Letter to the Spanish bishops, where he says
that Honoriuss offence was his having fostered the heresy
by neglect, instead of repressing it at (jthe outset. Indeed,
as we argued in July (p. 221), S. Leos language not
only does not condemn Honorius of heresy: it emphatically
* Ty /3ej3jjX^ n-poSooig, piavOrjvat rr\v aairiXov Kapt\ij)pi]<n.1' 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. Leos
context: for the very word betrayal suggests a remembrance of what
S. Leo had said just before ; viz., that certain successive patriarchs of Con
stantinople had been ujrocaStordc traitors lying in ambush. A t the same
time the importance of F. Bottallas amendment rather consists, we think, in
greatly softening the tone of S. Leos language about Honorius, than in affect
ing 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. Leos words
are conclusive for his belief in Honoriuss 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
Honoriuss conduct.

182

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Ronorius.

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 tho
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 neglectinstead of being
a calamitywould have been the best thing for the Church
which under circumstances could happen.
Now lastly, how much is involved in tho 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 th e ' 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,

-(p p . 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. Bottallas 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 con
demned as a Monothelite heretic. We rather incline to think,
that the majority of the bishops of the Sixth Council did con
sider and declare him heretical. But their definition, at all
events, contains no traco of this, and S. Leo II. only con
firmed their definition. Moreover, in the very act of confirm
ing this definition, he pronounced expressly, or at least by
most manifest and undeniable implication, his predecessors

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honoring.

183

innocence of heresy. He anathematized Honorius, not for

heresy, but for what may be called misprision of heresy.
We are encountering Mr. RenouFs 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 Ju ly ;
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).
,
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 secretaryj and in that capa
city 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 S ,
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

184

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

witness the tradition of Honorius's orthodoxy, which pre

vailed 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. Eenouf speaks
(p. 15) as though S. Maximus said nothing in the Pontiff's
behalf, beyond appealing to Abbot John's testimony; where
as 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. Eenouf 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 pre
decessors had most constantly resisted Monothelism. I t 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. I t 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, S. Cyril, S. Atha
nasius, 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 im
plication 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, os 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. B ut we find no allusion, direct or indirect, to Pope Houorius.
This omission cannot be explained, except by supposing that no one con
sidered the doctrine of Honorius deserving of such denunciation. We m ust.
not, then, follow Mr. Renouf in believing that at the time of the Lateran
Council the cause of Honorius wa8 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. Eenouf (4) speaks disparagingly (p. 15) on the nega

tive testimony of Pope Agatho.'' But wo showed in our

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

185

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. Dollinger's
parallel assertion, that Honorius was abandoned by all" at
Rome, because of his Monothelism. But how is all this con
sistent, 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 con
sistent with the undeviating testimony of Honorius's successors,
from John IV. to S. Agatho ?
Nor is there indeed any appearance whateverbut much
the contrarythat 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 ac
cepted 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 wo 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. I t 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 Mono
thelism gives an intelligible account of itself; and it has

186

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honoriu.%

moreover the advantage of retaining the Catholic phraseology,

on Christ's existence in two natures." We hope we shall
not be thought irreverent if, for the sake of illustrating this
Monothelite doctrine, we avail ourselves of a well-known
Eastern story. Its hero shall be its narrator:
I was endowed by this beneficent genius with a singular
power of deserting my own body when I pleased, and shooting
my soul into the body of any dead animal I might meet.
My first experience of this power was with the body of a
magnificent stag, which had just died from breathless exhaus
tion in running. Immediately its bodynow my bodyrose
into life, and I gazed with complacency on the beautiful form
reflected in a neighbouring brook. Soon however the hunter's
horn sounded at a distance. My cervine nature at once ex
perienced a keen emotion of deadly fear, while my human
nature at the same moment experienced an emotion of wonder
at that fear. Speedily however my reason told me that danger
was near at hand; and my feet, set in motion by command of
my will, carried me off at a speed to me astonishing, till they
placed me in a safe spot."
Here appears on the surface a true case of one person in
two natures. The narrator says, I experienced at once a
cervine emotion of fear, and a human emotion of wonder at
that fear." We cannot be surprised, in the parallel case, that
Monothelites sincerely believed themselves to hold the dogma
of two natures." But a little consideration of the fable will
show that (without speaking of the human nature) the cervine
nature at all events was not possessed in its integrity, but on
the contrary was destitute of its principal element. There
was no cervine principle of operation. The immediate cause,
which set in motion the narrator's cervine legs, was his human
will. The fable therefore affords a true analogy to the Mono
thelite tenet. According to that tenet, there is in Christ no
human principle of action, no human will; but all things
done by the sacred humanity are caused immediately by
command of the divine will.
Now it would carry us much too far, if we attempted to
give any sufficient account of the frightful results which issue ,
logically from Monothelism. But it is important, even for our
present purpose, to touch the matter superficially; and we will
briefly indicate therefore two of these results.
Firstly there is no more vital dogma of the Faith, we need
not say, than that the acts and words of Jesus Christ are the
acts and words of God the Son; and not in any proper sense
the acts and words of God the Father, or God the Holy Ghost. ,
This vital dogma is utterly overthrown by Monothelism. Let

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

187

us explain this statement; and let us begin with contemplating

His words.
Now we ask this preliminary question:To what person
are those words truly ascribed, which are uttered by human
organs ? Of course to that person who has power over those '
organs, and who commands them to articulate those words.
Read F. Sunn's most interesting narrative about the Ursulines
of Loudun. Some evil spirit possesses a certain nun, and com
pels her mouth to utter frightful blasphemies. Whose words
are these blasphemies ? The nun's ? No one would dream
of saying so; they are the words of the evil spirit.
Consider then our Blessed Lord pronouncing, e. g., the
Sermon on the Mount. Whose are those blessed words ?
They are the words of Him who commands our Lord's vocal
organs to articulate them. But according to the Monothelites,
this command is issued by no will except the divine; and
every- act of the divine will is common of course to the Three
Divine Persons. According to Monothelism then, it is the
Father no less truly and primarily than the Son, Who says,
Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit" ; Not My
will, but Thine be done " ; The Father is greater than I " ;
&c., &c. If Christian dogma really resulted in such an issue
as this, it would of course be self-contradictory and self
condemned. And what we have said on Christ's words, applies
with equal force to His acts.
Then, secondly, Jesus Christ came on earth, as for other
reasons, so also very prominently for this; that by practising
human virtue, He might leave us an example for us to follow
His steps." We shall see subsequently the stress laid by
Honorius on this doctrine. But human virtue consists exclu
sively in due regulation of the human will; above all, in its
absolute and unreserved submission to the divine will. The
Monothelites then in effect denied that He gave us any ex
ample of human virtue whatever.
Our direct purpose, in mentioning these two results of the
heresy, is to make clear the precise and most unmistakable
distinction between Monothelism and orthodoxy. But we
have been far from unwilling incidentally to show, that this
distinction is no minute and subtle splitting of hairsas
misbelievers and indifferentists love to declarebut on the
contrary among the deepest and widest distinctions which can
possibly be imagined; that the Monothelite heresy subverts
Christianity from its very foundation.
Whoever would see a fuller explanation of the Monothelite
tenet, and an exposition of its historical relations with Eutychianism, cannot do better (as we have already said) than

188

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

study carefully F. Bottalla's most instructive pages. For

ourselves we thus briefly sum up. Catholics and Monothelites
agree that Christ possesses, not. only human sensations of the
body, but human emotions of the soul. They differ, in that
Monothelites will not ascribe to him any human will, any
human principle of operation; whereas Catholics say that His
human nature is in itself operative, its operative principle
being His human will.
To our mind it is one of the most instructive facts in the
world, as showing the absolute blindness which prejudice can
superinduce, that persons have been found, who can read
Honorius's Letters and suspect them of any the remotest
tendency to Monothelism. We have no hesitation in saying,
that they demonstrate him to have held the orthodox dogma
as clearly and explicitly, as it was held by S. Sophronius,
S. Maximus, S. Martin I., S. Agatho, or S. Leo II. V/o
cannot of course say that he expressed that dogma quite so
clearly as did those Saints; simply because he knew nothing
about Monothelism, and did not therefore express orthodox}7
with a direct view to the contradiction of that heresy. But
even in the way of expression, we must maintain that his
Letters are fully as complete and distinct as the renowned
exposition of S. Leo I . ; and indeed, as will presently appear,
somewhat more so. So completely is this the case, that if
other circumstances permitted one to consider the doctrinal '
portion of his Letters as having been put forth ex cathedra,
there would be nothing in their doctrine to invest this suppo
sition with any kind of improbability.
The Monothelite issue assumed different forms, as the con
troversy advanced through successive stages. At first the
question asked was, Are there in Christ two operations, or
is there only one ? : but latterly the question rather was, Are
there in Him two wills, or is there only one ? It is quite
immaterial however, which of these questions you a sk : for on
both, Honorius's answer on the orthodox side is as clear as
noonday light. We begin with the first. Did Honorius
hold that there is in Christ a human principle of operation ?
In other words, did he hold that Christ's human natureHis
human soulis operative ? Or, on the contrary, did he hold
(with the Monothelites) that it is purely passive ? We should
be glad to see how Dr. Dollinger or Mr. Benouf could give a
more simply unmistakable answer to this question, than does
Honorius in his second Letter. We ought to confess," he
says, two natures in Christ . . . . operating and principles
of action :" Ivtpyovaag kcu TrpaKTiKag : operantes atque
operatrices." Again. Let us preach," he says, the two

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

189

natures . . . . each operating its own proper acts: " rac Si>o
(pvasit; . . . . ivtpyovaaq ra *$10. duas naturas propria operantes."*
So mucli on the human operation. But put the issue
in its other shape. Did he hold that in Christ there is a
human will? Turn to his first Letter. We profess/' he
says, one will of our Lord Jesus Christ: because plainly
our nature was assumed by the Godhead, not the sin in it;
that is, our nature as it was created before sin existed, not
that which was corrupted after the transgression." The
question to be here asked is most simple, and admits but of
one possible reply. Is Honorius speaking in these words of
Christ's divine or human will? Mr. Benouf makes the as
tounding remark (p. 16) that the context of this passage"
proves its reference to the divine will. Can he be in his
senses ? Does he think, or did Honorius think, that Adam
before the fall was a plant ? a vegetable ? at the utmost a brute ?
Was not Adam created in possession of a will ? That which
he was happyin not possessing, was a second will at variance with
the first. Now Honorius's distinct argument is this : Since
Christ assumed that human nature which existed before the
fall, He has only one will, and not two." T et Mr. Benouf
will have it, and Dr. Dollinger will have it, that the will of
which the Pontiff speaks is the divine. When should we have
heard the last of it, if some unlucky Ultramontane had talked
such nonsense ? Judging indeed from his pamphlet, we can
not ascribe to Mr. Benouf any high order of ability; and wo
are confident that Dr. Dollinger's intellectual power has been
egregiously overrated : but still neither of the two is an idiot.
How can we account for so stupid a blunder, unless we ascribe
it to the blinding force of prejudice ?
Mr. Benouf, in desperation we suppose, attempts this
argum ent: If Honorius believed that the real question at
issue " concerned two human and contrary wills, he ought
* There is a little misprint, operands instead of operantes,in F. Bottallas citation of this passage (p. 52), which would much lessen the force of
his argument if it were not observed.
Mr. Benouf (p. 22) cites, almost entire, the fragment of Honoriuss second
Letter from which these two quotations are derived ; and yet on-'ts the former
quotation, merely substituting marks of omission. This is pointed out by
F. Bottalla. In our former article we mentioned (p. 214, note) that he ends
his quotation in the midst of a sentence ; and that if he had inserted the
two remaining lines, the complete fallaciousness of his argument would have
been manifested. In October we had to complain (p. 450) that in quoting
two sentences, as from S. Jerome, to prove the fall of S. Liberius, he omitted
from one of them three words, which would have shown the sentences to be
in flagrant mutual contradiction. All this is incredibly unfair.

190

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

to have condemned Sophronius for manifestly heretical doc

trine " (p. 16). Never was there a more suicidal piece of
reasoning. It is Mr. Renouf's very contention, that Honorius
thoroughly agreed with Sergius; and Ultramontanes on their
side (F. Bottalla is an instance) always admit, that he did
thoroughly coincide with what he understood to be Sergius's
mind. Did Sergius then represent S. Sophronius and himself
as having been at issue, on the question of two human wills in
Christ ? It was not possible he could have ventured on such
a calumny ; which must at once indeed have aroused the Pope's
suspicion, and overthrown Sergius's whole iniquitous design.
The most cursory perusal of that Patriarch's letter will show,
that he represented S. Sophronius and himself as absolutely
unitod on every point of dogma, and as only having,differed for
a time (though not still differing) on the advisableness of a
certain expression. In what Sergius said about two human
and contrary wills, he was adducing an argument against the
advisableness of the phrase two operations." Such a phrase,
he said, scandalizes many; (1) because it has not been used
hitherto by Christian teachers, and (2) because a misunder
standing of it leads men to preach the impious tenet, of two
human and contrary wills in the Incarnate God. Since
Sergius then had expressly said that the phrase two opera
tions " was leading men to this impious doctrine, what could
be more natural, than that the Pope should occupy a consider
able portion of his Letter in denouncing the said doctrine ?
In fact Honorius, thoroughly and explicitly versed though
he was in Catholic dogma, had not the slightest or most
rudimental knowledge of the Monothelite heresy, nor any sus
picion whatever of Sergius's real drift. And we are thus able
to understand the fault, for which he was afterwards anathe
matized. It was twofold. Sergius's letter was most care
fully worded indeed, still it contained one or two expressions
which were indubitably Monothelistic :* yet these did not
awaken the Pontiff's suspicion. Then secondly, even if
Sergius had avoided every the slightest indication of his heresy,
it was still Honorius's duty, not to take Sergius's statement of
the case for granted, but to investigate through trustworthy
persons the true theological phenomena of the East. He
* For instance : As our body is ordered and directed by our intellectual
and rational soul, so also, in the case of our Lord Christ, His whole human
composition was always . . . . moved by God (Otoidvrjrov). The divine
nature truly operates the salvation of all, through the body which clothes it
, (row 7npl avrijv awyaroc), so that [His death] is the suffering indeed of the
Jlesh, but the operation of God (rov Si Oeov rr)v lvkpyuav).n F. Bottalla gives
an excellent analysis of Sergiuss letter in pp. 50, 51.

The. Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

191

failed to perform tliis duty, and by bis failure brought down on

the;Church a heavy calamity.
But it will be more satisfactory and will greatly strengthen
our case, if we proceed to give an analysis of the Pope's two
Letters; and if we print them in extenso at the end of our
article, that our readers may be the better able to judge on the
correctness of our analysis. We wrill but premise, that they do
not exist in the original Latin; but only in a Greek transla
t i o n , and in a Latin translation of that translation. If
therefore there is found in them occasional awkwardness or
obscurity of expression, there is no reason whatever for thence
inferring, that such awkwardness or obscurity is attributable to
Honorius himself.
He begins his first Letter by praising Sergius warmly for
vetoing a new theological term, which might scandalize the
more simple; " and he continues by declaring the dogma of
the Incarnation, in terms which remind one forcibly of S. Leo's
Dogmatic Letter. We must not however fail to point out
that this exposition contains one clause, which is more express
in the assertion of Duothelism than is any portion of S. Leo's.
He speaks of Jesus Christ as operating divine acts through
the mediation of the sacred humanity," tvtpyovvra ra Qua
p.zaiTzvovor\Q rrjg avOpivirorriTog." These words cannot be
explained at all satisfactorily, except by the Catholic dogma of
two wills. The one illustration of Christ's divine acts, given
both by S. Leo and by Honorius, is the working of miracles :
Honorius therefore declares that Christ wrought miracles,
through the mediation of the sacred humanity." What
sense could a Monothelite possibly affix to this phrase ? He
must say, we suppose, that it refers merely to that utterance
of Christ's human organs,which in each case preceded a miracle:
to His words, e.g., Lazarus come forth," or I will, be thou
clean." Now firstly, this is a most meagre explanation of so
strong and emphatic a phrase. But secondly and more im
portantly, in various cases there was no vocal utterance imme
diately preceding a miracle : as, e.g., when the ten lepers were
cleansed on their way to the priest; or when S. Peter found a
coin in the fish's mouth; or when our Lord miraculously
multiplied bread. No explanation in the least satisfactory
can be given of the Pope's teaching, except that which
Catholic theology supplies; viz., that in each case Christ's
human will echoed, if we may so express ourselves, the
command of His divine will, and was the immediate agent of
the miracle.
In his second paragraph Honorius inveighs against that
detestable tenet of two human and contrary wills in Christ, which

192

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

lie understood from Sergius to have been originated among

some Easterns by the phrase two operations. He prefaces
his denunciation, by declaring that the Hypostatic Union took
place, the differences of each nature marvellously remaining ''
unchanged: language which, taken by itself, it is difficult or
impossible to reconcile with a notion, that Christ's human
nature had lost its operating principle by the union. Because
of this ineffable conjunction between the two natures, he adds,
on one hand God is said to have suffered; while on the other
hand the sacred humanity (of which Honorius has already
affirmed once, and presently affirms again, that it was assumed
by Christ from the Most Holy Virgin) is said to have come
down from heaven with the divine nature. For which
reason, he adds, we profess that Christ's will is but one;
because manifestly He took that human nature which was
created before the existence of sin.'' His argument is as
follows. This common saying, that the sacred humanity came
down from heaven, shows by itself that the humanity assumed
was not that of Adam fallen, but of Adam innocent. It is true, as
he goes on to say in his next sentences, that the Word was made
flesh, and that the word flesh sometimes means in Scrip
ture the carnal m ind: '' as in three instances which he
gives. But the word is also used in Scripture, he points out,
to express human nature'' in general; and of this too he
gives three instances. He then repeats emphatically, that in
Christ there was no law of the members warring against the
law of the spirit.
Here let us pause to consider this paragraph as far as it has
gone; since some of Honorius's accusers have marvellously
thought that it tells on their side. And firstly, as to the very
phrase one will.'' Let it be remembered, that the polemical
phrase at issue in Honoriuss time between Catholics and Mono
thelites did not speak of one will but one operation. On the
other hand, the phrase one will had been in use for cen
turies among the orthodox, in that very sense in which we
maintain Honorius to have used it; viz., as expressing the
absolute harmony between Christ's divine and human wills.*
* Thus F. Schneeman quotes a passage from S. Chrysostoms comment on
John vi. 38, in which the Saint says that Christ willed what the Father w illed;
and that therefore there was not one will of the Father and another of Christ,
but manifestly one will." A still stronger passage has been shown the
present writer by a friend, from S. Athenasiuss treatise against Apollinaris,
c. 2, s. 10. This passage indeed, in its particular mode of expressing a denial
that in Christ there was any carnal will, would really appear on the surface to
admit a Monothelistic interpretation, which most certainly no line of
Honoriuss Letters has the remotest appearance of admitting. Yet else

193

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

That Honorius therefore should have so used the phrase, is

just what might have been expected.
Next, as the argument of the paragraph. Honorius begins
by declaring Christ's human nature to be so intimately united
with His divine, that the former is commonly said to have
come down from heaven with the latter. What inference does
he draw from this premiss ? That the sacred humanity had
no will," say his accusers : that it had no carnal will," say
his defenders. In Christ there was but one will," says the
Monothelite, because all His human acts were immediately
commanded by the divine will." In Christ was perfect
unity of will" says the orthodox believer, because He took
the will of Adam innocent." This latter statement involves
of course a direct contradiction to the former; and it is
Honorius's statement. Therefore," says the Pontiff, His
will is one; for He took Adam's nature as it was before the
fall."
It is true," Honorius proceeds, that the Word
was made flesh : but this last expression must not be under
stood as signifying the carnal will." This was the one thing
in the Pontiff's mind, that Christ had no carnal will. It is
really plain enough for a child to see, that the very notion, of
Christ having no human will at all, had never occurred to
Honorius (as men say) in his very dreams. And to expound
his words as asserting that heretical tenet, shows either that
the expositor has not fairly given his mind to the matter, ro
else that he is utterly blindedby passion or prejudice.
Honorius next proceeds to notice the argument for two
contrary wills, raised from such sayings of our Lord as non
quod volo, sed quod Tu vis; " and the like. As to these pas
sages he says, Ouk dart ravra Sunfiopov OeXrjparog, aXXa rrjg
ohcovofilag rijg avOpwTroTijTog rfjc irpoaXr\^Quar\g.>> Here again
his opponents try to make great controversial capital out of
his sentence.
But their interpretation of it is so simply
monstrous, that we can imagine no excuse for them, except
the undoubted fact that the sentence does not absolutely ex
hibit on the very surface its true explanation. Before we enter
on its exposition, it will perhaps be more satisfactory if we
make a short but (we trust) not uninteresting digression.
We will consider then how Catholic theologians interpret those
sayings of our Lord, to which Honorius refers. No one
perhaps has explained the matter more fully and precisely,
than Lugo.
We shall be able to set forth the Catholic doctrine more
where (de Incamatione contra Avianos, c. 21) S. Athanasius says expressly
that in Christ there are two wills.
vol.

xii.no. xxm. [New Series.']

194

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

clearly, if we avoid, in the first instance, that complication

which arises from Christ's unity of Person, and take our illus
tration from the Immaculate Mother of G od: for she was no
less absolutely exempted than her Son from all combat between
flesh and spirit. Take any one suffering then inflictod on her
by G od: e. g. His first announcement to her, that her Son
was to die in anguish on the Cross.* She was totally exempt
from concupiscence; and there was therefore no emotion, how
ever transient, of discontent or repugnance : still there was
the keenest emotion of what we may call resigned sorrow.
An act of the will would at once be elicited, in harmony with
this emotion; and this act of the will may best be analyzed as
a hypothetical act. If this were not God's will, I should
wish it otherwise." There was no shadow of sin or imper
fection in such an a c t; nothing inconsistent with the most
spotless sanctity: it was united throughout with the most
unreserved and intense submission to God's will.
Let us now apply this to our Blessed Lord. And let us
take His words, as reported by S. Matthew. Pater, si possibile
est, transeat a Me calix iste; veruntamen non sicut Ego volo,
sed sicut Tu." He experienced the keenest emotion of sorrow
which was ever experienced on earth. Tristis est anima Mea
usque ad mortem; " that is, as Lugo explains, Has anguish
would have destroyed life, except for a miracle : and it issued
in the previously unknown prodigy of a bloody sweat.
This emotion of resigned sorrow was accompanied, according to
the laws of human nature, by a corresponding act of the will;
which, as in the preceding case, may be thus analyzed: If
this were not Thy will, I should wish it otherwise."
Finally
He expressed this act of the will, by praying God that if it
were possiblethat is, if it were consistent with God's supreme
decisionthe cup might pass from Him. That this hypo
thetical act was accompanied all through by the most
unreserved submission to God's will, is distinctly and empha
tically expressed by the words, Non sicut Ego volo, sed
sicut Tu."
Dr. Dollinger indeed, who dares to accuse
Honorius of heresy, is himself guilty of a deplorable lapse
from orthodoxy, and speaks as follows : A passing wish
came over Him, says Dr. Dollinger, that if it were possible
the chalice of agony might pass from Him . . . but the next
instant the clear returning consciousness of the irrevocable
counsel of God triumphed in H im " ( First Ago of Chris
* W e prescind here of course from the wholly irrelevant question,
whether, before the Incarnation, she knew that the Messias wouldj be
crucified.

195

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

tianity, Mr. Oxenham's translation, vol. i. p. 54). That our

Blessed Lord forgot for an instant "th e irrevocable counsel
of God33 concerning His death, and that afterwards the re
turning 33 consciousness of that counsel triumphed33 in His
soulthese are statements which can only excite the amaze
ment and horror of orthodox believers.
Now the question which Honorius seems to have asked him
self is th is:Why are such expressions of Christ recorded,
seeing that they may lead unstable souls into the monstrous
error, of ascribing to Him two contrary wills ? He replies
thus:<cOvk u (ti ravra Biatfropov Qz\.r\PaTQ " these are no
indications of a will at variance with the divine. * " AXXa Trig
olKOvopiag TVjQ av0pb)ir6Ti]Toq Trig irpoaXtityOdariq 33 : " but they
indicate an ohcovopua,'3 an exhibition for our instruction,
of the assumed humanity: i.e. they are recorded, for the purpose
of impressing on us the vital truth, that Christ has really a
human will. And so the next sentence explains the former :
For these things were said/or our sake, to whom He has given
an example that we should follow His footsteps ; teaching His
disciplesteacher as He is of godlinessthat we should not
follow our own will, but each should prefer in all things the
will of the Lord. In other words, by submitting so unre
servedly His human will to the divine, He set us an example
of our also submitting ours : but He could not set us this
example, unless He made it unmistakably manifest that He
had a human will. The purpose therefore of these expressions
having been recorded, was to make unmistakably manifest
this essential doctrine.
It is simply impossible to devise any interpretation of the
two sentences, substantially different from this most em
phatically Duothelistic interpretation. The accusers of Ho
norius must translate the words as meaning, that Christ so
spoke for the purpose of impressing on us a false notion
of His assumed humanity. Let any patristic scholar be con
sulted whether, as a mere matter of language, the word
oiKovopia can bear any such sense : meanwhile for ourselves
let us consider the thing as a matter of doctrine. Honorius,
says Mr. Benouf, accounts such words of our Blessed Lord as
economical expressions used for our sakes 33 (p. 16). What
does he mean by for our sakes33 ? " For the sake of pro
ducing in us a true33 or a "false impression33? If he gives
the former answer, he admits at once the perfect orthodoxy of
* As a mere matter of language, the word (lSia<p6pov must signify at
variance, not simply different in entity. The latter would be aXXov or
trtpov.

O2

196

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

Honorius; which it is his very purpose to deny. If he gives

the latter answer, what is the view which he ascribes to
Honorius ? This; that God the Son used language, which in
every sense was totally mendacious, for the express purpose of
deceiving His creatures into the acceptance of false doctrine.
So unimaginable are the absurdities, into which prejudice may
draw a man not naturally stupid.
It will be asked however, if Honorius was thus orthodox,
why he objected to the phrase two wills.- If he did object
to that phrase, our preceding remarks show it to be demon
stratively certain, that such objection did not arise from his
failing to hold Duothelism most explicitly. His objection must
have arisen from his thinking, either that the novel phrase
would foster the notion of two contrary wills; or else that it
would at least be disliked by many orthodox persons, from
dread of such being its tendency. But we know of no reason
whatever for supposing that he did object to the phrase.
Certain it is that he stated no objection to it, not having been
consulted about it at all. The phrase submitted to his judg
ment was not two wills, but two operations.
Of this latter phrase, it is indubitable that he expressed the
gravest disapproval. Now, even if we were totally unable
to account for this, our controversial position would not be
affected. He says no doubt expressly, that the phrase two
operations is most undesirable and mischievous; but he says
no less expressly, as has been seen, that Christ's human nature
is operative and a principle of action, and that it operates
those works which appertain to it. It is really not more
certain that Honorius wrote his second Letter at all, than it
is that He held firmly a principle of operation in Christ's
human nature. Our position then would be quite impregnable,
even if we could make it no stronger than this : if we had
merely to say, that Honorius most certainly believed in Christ's
human principle of operation; though for reasons, at this dis
tance of time undiscoverable, he objected to the phrase two
operations.
It so happens however, that F. Bottalla has made a most
important remark (pp. 52, 53), which throws a flood of new
light over the whole subject. Petavius had already pointed
out the different senses of the word Ivepyeta ( De Incarnatione, 1. 8, c. 1). This word, says F. Bottalla, was used in
one sense by Sergius, and in a totally different sense by
Honorius. The Greeks of the time commonly used it as
signifying a principle of operation; but Honorius under
stood it as synonymous with lvipyr\p.a the effect and
external action itself. This sense, as F. Bottalla points out,

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

197

was not unknown to the Greeks of the sixth century; for

where Honorius quotes the word tvepyripaTtov from S. Paul,
the Greek translator of his Letter gives the word Ivzpyuwv.
And that in point of fact Honorius understood the word in
this sense, is manifest, not only from this very quotation of
S. Paul, but also from the circumstance that this simple
hypothesis removes all difficulty and obscurity from his Letters.
It is not that, on any imaginable supposition, any sentence of
those Letters presents the most superficial resemblance to
Monothelism; but that there are various portions of them, to
which, on any supposition except F. Bottalla's, one cannot
very easily affix any definite meaning at all.
When therefore Honorius heard of the phrase Suo
tvipytiai being ascribed to Christ, he understood that those
who so spoke ascribed to Him two, and two only, classes of
actions. And he judged this on the one hand to be an
artificial and unmeaning form of speech; while on the other
hand it tended (so he thought) to encourage alike the Nestorian heresy of two operating Persons, and the no less detest
able error of two human contrary wills. This being assumed,
we take up his first Letter at the precise point where we left
it, and proceed with its analysis.
Let us leave to heretics, he says, the phrases proper to
heretics : toiq . . . alperiKolg ta oliceia KaTaXipTravovreg. [Let
us leave, that is, the phrase one operation to Eutychians,
and two operations to Nestorians.] And if any one [e.g.,
Sophronius] has used one of these expressions as his means
for imbuing simple folk with Christian doctrine, let us not
confuse the invention of an individual with the Church's
definition. Scripture is express in saying that Christ is the
One Operator of both divine and human actions ; but whether,
because of there being divine and human actions, it is right to
talk of two operations," is a question which we may leave to
the grammarians. [Whether or no however it be gramma
tically appropriate, on theological grounds we had very far
better avoid either of the two phrases.] What we find in
Scripture is, not that Christ and His Spirit put forth one
operation or two, but that He works in many ways. So S.
Paul says that there are diversities of operations, but the same
Operator. If then the Spirit Who proceeds from Christ
works multiformly in Christians, how much more does Christ
work multiformly and, ineffably His various works in the flesh,
with the participation and co-operation of both His natures.
Ho\vTpoicwQ
a(f)pd<JTU>Q . . . r y KOtvwvtq. tKarepag <f>v<Tiog
a vrov Iv zp y u v .
W e ought then to speak as Scripture

speaks; 'and avoid new-fangled phrases, which may be most

198

Thu Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

seriously misunderstood. I t is a far greater calamity that the

simple should he led astray, than that idle speculators should
be indignant at our want of philosophical completeness: nor
shall any one by vain philosophy seduce the disciples of the
fishermen.
Of Honorius's second Letter, two fragments alone are
extant, which were road in the Council. Of these the first
denounces it as altogether frivolous (iravv naraiov) to say
that Christ is either of one or of two operations. Now most
certainly no Christian of the time, were he Catholic or Monothelite, who underst.ood by Ivipyeia a principle of operation,
could say by possibility that the question was a frivolous one.
It is obvious then that Honorius must have understood the
word in some different sense altogether; and assuming F.
Bottalla's hypothesis as to the Pontiffs meaning, nothing can
be more just than the Pontiff's comment. As to the second
fragment, its drift is now so superabundantly evident, that
it would be merely wearisome to take it point by point.
We repeat then, that no more orthodox Pontiff' than Hono
rius ever sat on S. Peters throne. In fulfilling however his
office as guardian of the Faith, he made one serious lapse,
from which his memory has severely suffered. Yet Catholics
must not on that account cease to remember his various claims
to their gratitude and reverence. S. Leo II. cannot have
intended this by his anathema; because (as F. Bottalla points
out) he left Honorius's name in the diptychs, and his pictures
in the churches.
We cannot better conclude, than by briefly character
izing and contrasting the two writers on whom we have
commented throughout. As to Mr. Rcnouf, it would be an
extravagant compliment to call him a Gallican; for, as we
pointed out in our former article (p. 204), he more than
insinuates that the Ecclesia Doccns herself does not possess
the gift of infallibility. We believe there is no theologian,
who would qualify this tenet with a lighter censure than that
of heretical. We may sum up then Mr. Renouf's con
troversial character, with a certain epigrammatic completeness
but really without a particle of exaggeration, by saying that
his arguments are pitiable, his arrogance intolerable, and his
doctrine heretical.
F. Bottalla has accomplished a very great work indeed; and
it is a great pleasure to think that, in these critical and
anxious times, the orthodox cause has at its service so learned
and effective a champion. Now, for the first time, full justice
has been done to the strength of Honorius's cause. That
Pontiff's first apologists of recent times placed themselves in

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honvrius.

199

a false position, by denying the authenticity of the documents.

On the other hand, later writers (as we implied just now) have
underrated the strength of the case, which can be made for
him after every necessary admission of facts; and for this
reason have spoken of him in too subdued and apologetic a
tone. From the position in which F. Bottalla has now placed
the controversy, we are very confident that no future critic will
be able to dislodge it.

The Latin translation of the Greek translation of Honoriuss

first Letter runs as follows:
Scripta fratemitatis vestrse suscepimus, per quse contentiones quasdam et
novas Yocum qusestiones cognovimus introductas per Sophronium quemdam,
tunc monachum nunc vero (ex auditu) episcopum Hierusolymitanse urbis constitutum, adversus fratrem nostrum Cyrum Alexandrise antistitem, unam
operctionem Domini nostri Jesu Christi conversis cx hseresi prsedicantem.
Qui denique ad restrain fratemitatem Sophronius veniens, querelamque
hujusmodi deponens, multiformiter eruditus, petiit do his quse a vobis fuerat
instructus paginalibus sibi syllabis reserari: quarum literarum ad eumdem
Sophronium directarum suscipientes exemplar, et intuentes satis provide
circumspecteque fratemitatem restrain scripsisse, laudamus novitatem vocabuli auferentem, quod posset scandalum simplicibus generare. Nos enim in
quo percepimus oportet ambulare. Enimvero duce Deo perveniemus usque
ad mensuram rectse Fidei, quam Apostoli veritatis scripturarum sanctarum
funiculo extenderunt, confitentes Dominum Jesum Christum Mediatorem Dei
et hominum operatum divina media humanitate verbo Deo naturaliter unita,
Eumdemque operatum humana ineffabiliter atque singulariter assumpta
came discrete, inconfuse, atque inconvertibiliter plena divinitate: et Qui
coruscavit in came plena divinis miraculis, Ipse est et cameus effectUs plene
Deus et homo: passiones et opprobria patitur Unus Mediator Dei et
hominum in utrisque naturis : Verbum caro factum, et habitavit in nobis :
Ipse Filius hominis de coelo descendens : Unus atque Idem, sicut scriptum
est, cracifixus Dominus majestatis: dum constet divinitatem nullas posse
perpeti humanas passiones : et non de ccelo, sed de sancta est assumpta
caro Dei genitrice: (nam per se Veritas in evangelio ita in q u it: Nullus
ascendit in ccelum, nisi Qui de ccelo descendit, Filius hominis qui est in
ccelo : ) profecto nos instraens, quod divinitati unita est caro passibilis
ineffabiliter atque singulariter, ut discrete atque inconfuse sic indivise
videretur conjungL
U t nimirum stupenda mente mirabiliter inanentibus utrarumque naturaram
differentiis cognosc.atur uniri. Cui Apostolus concinens, ad Corinthios a it :
Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, sapientiam vero non hujus sseculi,
neque principum hujus sa?culi, qui destruuntur, sed loquimur Dei sapientiam
in mysterio absconditam, quam prsedestinavit Deus ante ssecula in gloriam
nostram ; quam nemo principum hujus sseculi cognovit: si enim cognov issent,

200

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

nunquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent. Dum profecto divimtas nec

crucifigi potuit, nec passiones humanas experiri vel perpeti, sed propter
ineffabilem conjunctionem hamanaj divinseque naturae, idcirco et ubique
Deus dicitur pati et humanitas ex coelo cum divinitate descendisse. Unde
et imam voluntatem fatemur domini nostri Jesu C hristi: quia profecto a
divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa: ilia profecto quae ante
peccatum creata est, non quae post praevaricationem vitiata. Christus enim
Dominus, in similitudine camis peccati veniens, peccatum mundi abstulit, et
de plentitudine Ejus omnes accepimus : et formam servi suscipiens, habitu
inventus est ut homo : quia sine peccato conceptus de Spiritu sancto, etiam
absque peccato est partus de sancta et immaculate virgine D ei genitrice,
nullum experiens contagium vitiatae naturae. Camis enim vocabulum duobus
modis sacris eloquiis boni malique cognovimus nominari. Sicut scriptum e s t:
Non permanebit Spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quia caro sunt. Et
Apostolus: Caro, et sanguis regnum D ei non possidebunt. Et rursum :
Mente servio legi Dei, came autem legi peccati. Et video aliam legem in
membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae, et captivum me trahentem in
legem peccati quae est in membris meis. Et alia multa hujusmodi in malo
absolute solent intelligi vel vocari. In bono autem ita, Isaia propheta
dicente : Yeniet omnis caro in Hierusalein, et adorabunt in conspectu Meo.
Et Job: In came meS, videbo Deum. Et alii; Videbit omnis caro
salutare Dei. Et alia diversa. Non est itaque assumpta, sicut praefati
sumus, a Salvatore vitiata natura quae repugnaret legi mentis Ejus, sed venit
quaerere et salvare quod perierat, id est, vitiatam humani generis naturam.
Nam lex alia in membris aut voluntas diversa non fuit vel contraria
Salvatori, quia super legem natus est humanae conditionis. Et si quidem
scriptum e s t : Non veni facere voluntatem Meam, sed Ejus qui misit
Me, Patris. : e t : Non quod ego volo, sed quod Tu vis P a te r : et
alia hujusmodi: non simt haec diversae voluntatis, sed dispensationis
humanitatis assumptae. Ista enim propter nos dicta sunt, quibus dedit
exemplum ut sequamur vestigia ejus, pius magister discipulos imbuens, ut
non suam unusquisque nostrum, sed potius Domini in omnibus praeferat
voluntatem. Vi& igitur regia incedentes, et dextrorsum vel sinistrorsum
venatorum laqueos circumpositos evitantes, ne ad lapidem pedem nostrum
offendamus, Idumaeis, id est terrenis atque haereticis, propria relinquentes,
nec vestigio quidem pedis sensfts nostri terram, id est, pravam eorum
doctrinam, omnimodo atterentes, ut ad id quo tendimus, hoc est ad fines
patrios, pervenire possimus, ducum nostromm semita gradientes. Et si forte
quidam balbutientes, ut ita dicam, nisi sunt proferentes exponere, formantes
so in specimen nutritorum, ut possent mentes imbuere auditorum, non
oportet ad dogmata haec ecclesiastica retorquere, quae neque synodales apices
super hoc examinantes, neque auctoritates canonicae visae sunt explanasse, ut
imam vel duas energias aliquis praesumat Christi Dei praedicare, quas neque
evangclicac vel apostolicae literae, neque synodalis examinatio super his
habita, visae sunt terminasse: nisi fortassis, sicut praefati sumus, quidam
aliqua balbutiendo docuerunt, condescendentes ad informandas mentes atque
intelligentias parvulorum, quae ad ecclesiastica dogmata trahi non debent j
quae unusquisque, in sensu suo abundans, videtur secundum propriam

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

201

sententiam explicare. Nam quia Dominus Jesus Christus, Filius ac Verbum

Dei, per Quem facta sunt omnia, Ipse sit Unus Operator divinitatis atque
humanitatis, plen* sunt sacra litera luculentius demonstrantes. Utrum
autem, propter opera divinitatis et humanitatis, una an gemin* operationes
debeant derivat* dici vel intelligi, ad nos ista pertinere non debent; relinquentes ea grammaticis, qui solent parvulis exquisita derivando nomina
venditare. Nos enim non unam operationem vel duas Dominum Jesum
Christum Ejusque Sanctum Spiritum sacris literis- percepimus, sed multiformiter cognovimus operatmn. Scriptum est enim : Si quis Spiritum
Christi non habet, hie Ejus non est. E t alibi : Nemo potest dicere,
dominus Jesus, nisi in Spiritu Sancto. Divisiones vero gratiarum sunt, Idem
autem Spiritus : et divisiones ministrationum simt, Idem autem Dominus : et
divisiones operationum simt, Idem vero Deus, Qui operatur omnia in
omnibus. Si enim divisiones operationum sunt mult*, et has omnes Deus
in membris omnibus pleni corporis operatur, quanto magis Capiti nostro
Christo domino h*c possunt plenissime coaptari ? ut caput et corpus unurn
sit perfectum, ut profecto occurrat, sicut scriptum est, in virum perfectum, in mensuram setatis plenitudinis Christi. Si enim in aliis, id est
in membris Suis, Spiritus Christi multiformiter operatur, in Quo vivunt,
moventur, et sunt : quanto magis per Semetipsum, Mediatorem Dei et
hominum, plene ac perfecte multisque modis et ineffabilibus confiteri nos
communione utriusque natura condecet operatum ? E t nos quidem secun
dum sanctiones divinorum eloquiorum oportet sapere vel spirare; ilia videlicet
refutantes, quae quidem novae voces noscuntur sanctis Dei ecclesiis scandala
generare : ne parvuli aut duarum operationum vocabulo offensi, sectantes
Nestorianos nos vesana sapere arbitrentur : aut certe, si rursus unam
operationem Domini nostri Jesu Christi fatendam esse censuerimus, stultam
Eutychianistarum attonitis auribus dementiam fateri putemur : pracaventes,
ne quorum mania arma combusta simt, eorum cineres redivivos ignes
flammivomarum denuo renovent qusestionum; simpliciter atque veraciter
confitentes Dominum Jesum Christum Unum Operatorem divinse atque
human* natur*, electius arbitrantes, ut vani naturarum ponderatores:
otiose negotiantes et turgidi adversus nos insonent vocibus ranarum
philosophi, quam ut simplices et humiles spiritu populi Christiani possint
remanere jejuni.
Nullus enim decipiet per philosophiam et inanem
fallaciam discipulos piscatorum, eorum doctrinam sequentes ; omnia enim
argumenta scopulosa disputationis callid* atque fluctivaga in eorum retia
sunt collisa. H *c nobiscum fratemitas vestra pradicet, sicut et nos ea
vobiscum unanimiter pradicamus ; hortantes vos, ut unius vel gemin* nov*
vocis inductum operationis vocabulum aufugientes, Unum nobiscum Dominum
Jesum Christum Filium Dei vivi, Deum verissimum, in duabus naturis
operatum divinitus atque humanitus, fide orthodoxa et unitate catholica
pradicetis.Deus te inculumem custodiat dilectissime atque sanctissime
frater.

The two extant fragments of his second Letter run as

follows, in the Latin translation of their Greek translation:
Nec non et Cyro fratri nostro Alexandri* civitatis prasuli, quatenus

202

The Orthodoxy o f Pope Honorius.

novae adinventionis unius vel duarum operationum vocabulo refutato, claro

Dei ecclesiarum prseconio nebulosarum concertationum calcines offundi non
deboant vel asporgi; ut profecto unius vel gemmae operationis vocabulum
noviter introduction ex praedicatione fidei cxiniatur. Nam qui haec dicunt,
quid aliud nisi juxta unius vel geminae naturae Christi Dei vocabulum, ita
et operationem unam vel geminani suspicantur? Super quod clara sunt
divina testimonia. Unius autem operationis vel duarum esse vel fuisse
Mediatorem D ei et hominum Dominion Jesuiu Christum, sentire et pro
mere satis ineptum est.
Et quidem, quantum ad instruendam notitiam ambigentium, sanctissimae
fratemitati vestrae per earn insinuandam praevidimus. Ceterum quantum
ad dogma ecclesiasticum pertinet quod tenere vel praedicare debemus, propter
simplicitatem hominum et amputandas inextricabiles quaestionum ambages,
sicut superius diximus, non unam vel duas operationes in Mediatore Dei
et hominum definire ; sed utrasque naturas, in uno Christo imitate naturali
copulatas, cum alterius communione operantes atque operatrices confiteri
debemus: et divinam quidem, quae Dei sunt operautem ; et humanam, quae
camis sunt exequentem : non divise, neque confuse, aut convertibiliter, Dei
naturam in hominem et humanam in Deum conversam edocentes ; sed
naturarum differentias integrals confitentes : Unus enim atque Idem cst
humilis et sublimis : aequalis Patri et minor P a tre: Ipse ante tempora,
natus in tempore est : per Quern facta sunt scecula, factus in sseculo e s t : et Qui
legem dedit, factus sub lege est, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret: Ipse
crucifixus, Ipse chirographum quod erat contra nos evacuans in cruce, de
potestatibus et principatibus triumphavit. Auferentes ergo, sicut diximus,
scandalum novellae adinventionis, non nos oportet unam vel duas opera
tiones definientes praedicare ; sed pro unfi, quam quidam dicunt, operatione,
oportet nos unum Operatorem Christum Dominion in utrisque naturis
veridice confiteri: et pro duabus operationibus, ablato gemina1 operationis
vocabulo, ipsas potius duas naturas, id est, divinitatis et camis assumptae,
in una Persona Unigeniti Dei Patris, inconfuse, indivise, atque inconvertibiliter nobiscum praedicare propria operantes. E t hoc quidem beatissimae
fratemitati vestrae insinuandum praevidimus, quatenus unius confessionis
proposition unanimatati vestrae sanctitatis monstremus, ut profecto in uno
spiritu anhelantes, pari fidei documento conspiremus. Scribentes etiam
communibus fratribus Cyro et Sophronio antistitibus, ne novae vocis, id est,
unius, vel geminae operationis, vocabulo insistere vel immorari videontur : sed
abrasa hujusmodi novae vocis appellatione, Unum Christum dominum nobis
cum in utrisque naturis divina vel humana praedicent operantem. Quamquam hos, quos ad nos praedictus frater et coepiscopus noster Sophronius
misit, instruxhnus, ne duarum operationum vocabulum deinceps praedicare
innitatur ; quod instantissime promiserunt praedictum virum esse facturum,
si etiam Cyrus frater et coepiscopus noster ab unius operationis vocabulo
discesserit.

( 203 )

A rt .

Y m .IRELAND AND THE NEW MINISTRY.

Speeches of the Right Hon. W . E. Gladstone, M .P ., delivered at Warrington,

Ormslcirk, Liverpool, Southport, Newton, Leigh, and Wigan, in October,
1868. London : Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.

HE crisis which for four years we have desired and pre

dicted has at last arrived. In 1865, when Lord Palmerston
as Prime Minister had just assured the House of Commons
that emigration to America was the real and only cure for
the ills of Ireland, and when Sir Robert Peel, who was Chief
Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, had lately declared that his
noble chief and he were determined to stand or fall with the
Irish Church Establishment, we ventured to say that there
was wanted a Policy for Ireland. * Ireland, we said,
wants on the part of British statesmen a policy; and still
more, on the part of the British Parliament, good will to
assist and give efficacy to that policy. Eor we continued,
the animus of Parliament (of the majority of Parliament,
taking both Houses together, we mean of course), in consider
ing the affairs of Ireland, is even still, three generations after
the Union, that of one nation dealing with another nation;
dealing with it not perhaps exactly as an enemy, but as an
obstacle, a nuisance, a reproach, a cause of continual incom
prehensible annoyance, and occasional serious danger, an
opposite moral essence3 to itself, with different instincts and
habits, which it is impossible to gratify and not even easy to
apprehend. We ventured to hope that Parliament would not
always act, where Irish interests are concerned, only under
the influence of alarm; but we also feared, though the
Government of that time did not recognize the very exis
tence of Eenianism, that we were approaching a period of
such ignominious arguments again/ Having stated in general
outline our views of what a policy for Ireland ought to be,
we said, looking some little way beyond the regime of Lord
Palmerston, that it ought to be possible to persuade one of
the coming statesmen of the next ten years, Mr. Gladstone if
not Mr. Disraeli, that it is his interest, and in a sense his
necessity to have a clear and comprehensive policy for
Ireland. What we ventured to hope has happened exactly

* D ublin Keyiew, April, 1865, Art. VI. 'Wanted a Policy for Ireland.