MM PGrPE HONORIUS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL Of reason AND HISTORY. ( V* ROMA Xv Digitized by Google AND SON, ORtAT .NOliTHKKN TUINTING WORKS, PANCRAH ROAD, N.W. f Digitized by Google I POPE HONORITJ8 BEFORE TBB TRIBUNAL OF REASON AND HISTORY. BY THE LONDON: BURNS, OATES, AND COMPANY, POBTMAN 8IKEET, PORTMAN SQUARE. 1868. Digitized by Google I Digitized by Coogle I PEEFACE. It had been the writer’s intention, on issuing his recent work on the Supremacy of the Roman Pon- tiff,'' to follow up the argument by the publication of another volume on Papal Infallibility. But cir- cumstances have led to an alteration in his plan, and have induced him to anticipate a little, and at once publish an Essay on the supposed fall and heresy of Pope Honorius. This change is renckred advisable by the pamphlet of Mr. P. Le Page Renouf, which appeared in May last, entitled The Condem- naitdti of Pope Honorim. Mr. Renouf has not been satisfied "with following in the steps of Dr. DoUinger in that writer’s unfortunate crusade against Papal Iiifallibility ; he must aim yet higher. He believes Ifiat “ an influential party in the Church is looking forward with impatience to the day in which their favourite dogma (Papal Infallibility) shall be dil^ fined as an article of faith, introduced into "our Catechism, and made obligatory under pain ° of ana- D'';iiized by Google vl Preface. thema upon all the children of the Church.”* lie seems to suppose himself, on this account, to have received from on high the mission of giving the alarm to all the theologians of the Catholic world that Ultramontanism is preparing to win a new vic- tory over the opposite party. He, a layman, with- out any solid foundation of theological study, comes forward to caution Catholic theologians against the artifices prepared and the snares laid for them; he informs them that they are about to be led to reject “ the old maxim of Vincent of Lerins, * quod sem- per, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,’ as a test of Catholic doctrine;” that they •will have to “abjure the Cre4d of Pope Pius, according to which they have sworn that they will never interpret Scripture otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”^ He is therefore good enough to instruct them that there is not a single Father who favours the Ultramontane theory of Papal Infalli- bility; not a Council which has believed it;® that “the existence of such privilege was in fact never heard of till after the separation of the East from the West;”* that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not consistently developed before the sixteenth * The Condemnation of Pope Honoriue, p. 27 ; London, 1868. * * Ib. p. 28. » Ib. pp. 28-30. Ib. p. 30. Digitized by Google Preface. V century;® but rather “elaborated in that age;”® that Ultramontanism is of recent date, for the greater proportion of the mediaeval theologians rejected an opinion, afterwards adopted by writers whose “ com- bined weight cannot even tend to make an article of faith. The bold assertions heaped up by Mr. Renouf in tribus pagellis is not so amazing as the tone of contempt and the unbecoming and even outrageous language which he adopts towards the most learned theologians, and the whole body of Catholic writers who have attempted to defend Papal Infallibility, whether in general, or in the particular case of Pope Honorius. “ They represent,” Mr. Renouf tells us, “ a pseudo-scientific method of reasoning in theo- logy ;”® “ they strangely misunderstand the spirit of ;”® St. Thomas, whom they ignorantly admire “ they betray an utter ignorance of the real nature of the controversy ;”^® “ they altogether misrepresent the matter.”^^ He condemns in the strongest terms their “ ignorant assertions, which have been,” as he says, “common of late;”*^ he attributes to them “bad arguments,” “ monstrous forms of hypothesis,” “ mi- serable evasions, which cannot have heen sincerely believed in by their authors.”^® He goes still fur- * The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 31. * Ib. p. 7. T 19 Ib. pp. 37, 38. » 1. c. 9 1. c. Ib. p. 14. n » Ib. p. 23. Ib. p. 1 note. » Ib. pp. 7, 10, 24. Digitized by Google Preface. X in reprobating the use of such language. Mr. llenouf has no words of praise or commendation for any of the Catholic writers who belong to Avhat he calls the the skies all Ultramontane school ; but he exalts to those who' were the pfomoters "Df Gallicanism. He gives the epithet of great to the well-knovm Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani, by which book he thinks “ the Ultramontane theory may be said to have been thoroughly exploded.”** He calls e.rcellent the book of Cardinal de la Luzerne on the declara- tion of the French clergy in 1682, in attempted re- futation of Cardinal Orsi’s work on Papal Authority and Infallibility.*® “ All the learned priests he met in France,” he asserts, “or indeed heard of, were determined Gallicans, and they were men of eminent piety.”®® On the contrajy, the founder of the Univers, who, as he believes, “ brought a laige portion of the French clergy to share his o^vn view” (of Ultra- montanism), is described by him as “a fiery, ig- norant, and unscrupulous convert from unbelief or indifference.”®* He seems to lament that “ the most ardent apostles of Ultramontane theories have been laymen rather than priests, converts rather than rrfen’who have always been Catholics.”®® We are Tho Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 38. ‘ »» Ib. note. “ Ib. p. 39. L c.- « L c. Digitized by Google X Preface. able to give him some comfort by the assurance that neither is the success of Ultramontanism in Germany Avholly due to the influence of Giirres and Windisch- mann, nor “was the impulse to it first given in England by the Tablet, under the editorship of two ardent converts, who were for a long time a terror to the ecclesiastical authorities.”^® We are fully con- vinced that in Germany, as well as in England, the Catholic Clergy would indignantly reject so ground- less an assertion. But how is it that, whilst Mr. Renouf bitterly deplores the influence of laymen in these affairs, he, a layman, appears to aim at the leadership of the English Catholic Clergy in a career of upholding Galilean theories ? We do not take upon ourselves to judge the j^rivate intentions of the author : we judge his pamphlet, which, by its dog- matic tone, certainly appears to manifest some such hopes. Even if this were not Mr. Renouf s inten- tion, how is it that he, a Catholic, comes forward to arouse the rebellious spirits of this country against the infallible authority of the Vicar of Christ ? Does he think that the English Catholic Clergy want scien- tific advice, or that they are willing to receive it at his hands ? We have foimed far too high an estimate of their solidity in holding Catholic principles to be “ The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 40. Digitized by Google Freface. xi able to harbour such an idea of them. We are sure that the Catholic Clergy of England have one opinion concerning Mr. Renouf’s conduct,—namely, that he need not trouble himself with Catholic controversies ; that he may safely leave to them the care of theo- for logical matters ; and that he may hojKj better success in his labours if he confine himself to Egyp- tian philology. We should have taken no notice of the im- moderate and insulting language of Mr. Renouf, had he not mixed it up with a heap of undigested difficulties against Papal Infallibility. By such an accumulation of charges, without any order or ex- planation whatever, simple people may be easily led into error. Therefore it is necessary to clear up, analyse, and examine as to their bearing and pur- port, such difficulties and charges. But as this cannot be done within the limits of a pamphlet, and since we hope shortly to publish the second part of our work — The Pope and the Church— on Papal Infallibility, we will refer to it for the ex- planation of those difficulties which Mr. Renouf has scraped together from some half- forgotten books, and then dressed up with the purpose of proving that Papal Infallibility is untenable. At present we limit ourselves to pleading the cause of Pope Hono- Digitized by Google xii Preface. rius, against whom Mr. Renouf’s pamphlet is prin- cipally aimed. We are glad to assume the position of humble followers of such men as Mamachius, Baronius, Pagi, Petavius, Gamier, Thomassini, Bel- larmine, Natalis Alexander, Orsi, Ballerini, and other theologians of the greatest reputation for learning, who, in defending the cause of Pope Honorius, have defended Papal Infallibility ; and we are proud to take to ourselves a part of those outrageous in- vectives which Mr. Renouf does not blush to cast upon some of the most eminent writers which the Catholic Church has produced. ; Digitized by Google — CONTENTS. I. Ch'igin.and Nature of Monotlielism, pp. 1-16. < .'Monophytism : its persistency, growth, -'and power for tliree cen- turies ; it enervated the Empire and threatened it with ruin Heraclius State endeavours to save the from destruction ; he is gmned over by Sergius to favour Monothelism— with the political view of uniting the religious factions ^Three patriarchates in the hands of the Monothelites—Sophronius resists in Alex- andria and in Jerusalem—Sergius has recourse to Pope Hono- rius against Sophronius —The heretics who first denied two operations and wills in Christ—The new Monothelites a sec- tion of the Monophysites, although giving an outward assent to the formula of Chalcedon—Similarity of the dogma of the Monothelites with that of Severus—Both heresies the product of Apollinarism—^Artifices of the Monothelites to conceal and to propagate their dogma—Summary.