dispute which really cUd not affect the substance of the Catholic doctrine. IMisled, it is alleged, by this statement of Sergius, Honorius consented, and even expressed himself in language which would appear to condemn the doctrine of two wills in Christ, After his death, attempts were made at Rome to exculpate his memory from all accusation of heresy, yet he was condemned and anathematized by the (Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in GSO, and this sentence was confirmed at different times, as, \\<r iusiaiicc. by Leo II, who anathematized him as bcrciic i'ur li.niiiL;- ;iii<iiipted apostoKcam eccksiam — projhixi /iroi/i/int/r iiiiiiinriilatam suhverlere (Mansi, x, 731). Modern Roman Catholic historians have tried in various ways to exonerate Ho- norius. Baronius says that the acts of the Council of Constantinople were falsified ; BcUarmine says that this was the case with Honorius's letter to Sergius; ^vhile (Jarnier and Ballerini claim tliat he was not anathema- tized for heresy, hut propter neglifientia-m. Some Roman Catholic historians, however, maintain that even in dis- claiming the belief of two wills iir Clirist, Honorius merely denied the existence in Christ of two discordant or conflicting wills, that is, of a corrupt ami sinful hu- man will opposed to the divine will, and that he did not put forth any dogmatic declarations irreconcilable with the strict ultramontane doctrine of infallibility. Orsi went even so far as to maintain that Honorius com- posed this letter to Sergius as "a private teacher;" but the expression doctor privatus, when used of a pope, is lilce talking of wooden iron (comp. Jaiuis, The Council and (he Pope, p. 405). In modern times, the agitation of the question of papal infallibility has given a special interest to the letters of Honorius. The champions of infallibility, following the lead of the above-mentioned writers, tried all kinds of arguments to explain a^vay the assent of Honorius to the heretical doctrines of Sergius, without being able to adduce any new argu- ment. The Jesuit Bamberger even attempted a full justification of the course of Honorius. Most of the Roman Catholic writers, however, admitted that the words, though they maj-- bear an orthodox construction, must have appeared as favoring the heretics, and that Honorius probably fell into a trap which the shrewd patriarch of Constantinople had set for him. The Gal- ileans, and the opponents of papal infallibility, have in general endeavored to show that Honorius was really a iavorer of Monothelism. The ablest treatment of the subject from this school in the Roman Catholic Church may be found in the work on Thp Pope ami the Council, by Janus; two works by P. Le Page Renouf (The Con- demnation of Pope Honorius, London, 1868) ; and [in reply to the ultramontane reviews of the first work by Dr. 'iVard, the editor of the Dublin Review, and the Jes- uit Bottalla] The Case of Pope Honorius reconsidered (London, 1869) ; in two letters, by the distinguished I'rench Oratorian and member of the French Academy, P. Gratry {JJeccqne d^ Orleans et Varcheveque de M alines, Paris, 1870) ; and in an essay by bishop Hefele, pub- lished in Naples, 1870. Renouf, whose thoroughness and keenness is admitted by all his opponents, in his works, undertakes to prove three assertions: 1. Hono- rius, iu his letters to Sergius, really gave his sanction to the Monothelistic heresy ; 2. Honorius was, on account of heresy, condemned by general councils and popes ; 3. Honorius taught a heresy ex cathedra. The fact that Honorius was condemned by general councils and popes as a heretic is admitted by many of those Catho- lic writers who insist that his words may be indeed, though they are obscure, explained in an orthodox sense. Since the convocation of the Vatican Council iu 1861), many Roman Catholic theologians (among them Dbllinger and Gratrj'), who were formerly regarded as personally favorable to the doctrine of papal infallilnl- it}', now, after a new investigation of the question, strongly urge the case of Honorius as an irrefutable argument against it. The literature on the Honorius question is so voluminous that, according to the opinion
of the learned DiJllinger, during the last 130 years more has been written on it than on any other point of Church History within 1500 years. Recent monographs on the subject, besides the works already mentioned, lunx been written by Schneemann (Studien iiber die HoiKirins- fratje, 1864) and Reinerding {lieitrdye zur IlvNurids- urul Libei-iusfrufje, 1865). It is also extensively dis- cussed in a number of articles in the theological re- views, especially those of the Roman Catholic Cinn-cli, in the larger works on Church lliston,^, and in particu- lar, since 1869, in a vast number of works treating of the question of papal infallibility. See iNi-'ALLiiiiL- ITV. See l.'icluT, //l.i/oria Ciiiril. ,/eneral. i, 296; Du Pin, De a,iih,,„i ,rrl,s. ,i;,ri,,li„„.\K 349; M. Havc- lange, Ecrl.,si,f ii//',i//!hi'/i/as in I'mli.^ (lof/nuiticis (Journ, hist, et li/f. Aprif I. 17',MI); F. I^larchesius, Clypeus for- tiuni (IG.SO) ; Hiicfcr, Xouv. Biofj. Generale, xxv, 88; Chambers, ( 'ncUiiKidld, v, 407; Ceillier, Hist, des aut. sac. xvii,522sq.; lloxcniQ, Die Piipste,\, lOfi-Jdil ; Scliniclili. Kirchengesch. xix, 492 sq. ; Bower, Histon/ nj' the J'h/hs, iii, 11 sq, ; Fuhrmann, Hamlworterb. d. Kirc/i(i/;/rscli. ii, 340 sq,; Neander, Ch. History, iii, 179, 195; DiKjimis. ii, 439; W\\v!\a.\\, Latin Christianity, u, 169; Riddk% llhlnry of the Papacy, i, 195; Hardwick, Church Hist. (:\Iiddlc Ages), p. 70 and n. 3, p. 75 and n. 8 ; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrines, vol. ii ; West. Review, Oct. ]8()S, p. 239 ; Edinb. Rev. Oct. 1869, p. 160; Aschbach, Kirrhen-T.erikon, iii, 322 sq. ; Lefevre, in Revue Cuthal. d< I.otindu, February, 1870; Hefele, Honorius u.d.sechsf<' nl/./nn. Concil. (Tiib. 1870, 8vo). See Monotheism. (J.ii.W.j