Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/511

 HONORIUS

453

HONORIUS

ism, and of teaching two Persons in Christ; while the Catholics supposed the Monophysites to hold that the human nature in Christ was so swallowed up in the Divine that it was non-existent. It does not appear that the Monophysite leaders really went so far as this; but they did undoubtedly diminish the completeness of the human nature of Christ, by referring both will and operation to the one Person and not to the two distinct natures. It followed that a human free will and a human power of action were wanting to Christ's human nature. But this real error of the heretics was not clearly detected by many Catholic theologians, because they spent their force in attacking the imag- inary error of denying all reality to the human nature. Our new knowledge of the Monophysite theology en- ables us to perceive why it was that Cyrus succeeded so easily in uniting the Monophysites to the Church: it was because his formula embodied their heresy, and because they had never held the error which he sup- posed they were renouncing. Both he and Sergius ought to have known better. But Sergius, at the end of his letter, gets very near to accuracy, when he says that "from one and the same Incarnate Word pro- ceeds indivisibly every human and Divine operation ", for this does distinguish the human operations from the Divine operations, though it refers them rightly to a single sul>ject; and Sergius proceeds to quote the famous words of St. Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian: " Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est ", which amount to a condemnation of "one energy".

The Reply of Honorius. — It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situa- tion. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authorita- tively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new ex- pression " one operation ", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid " two operations " also ; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Follow- mg the lead of Sergius, who had said that " two opera- tions " might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomalum, l)y which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came tlown from heaven) adds: " Wherefore we acknowletlge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Other passages of the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter can- not be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less pub- licity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to re- gard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the oppo- nents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two ; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.

The Ecthesis of Heracluts. — Sergius, after re- ceiving the pope's letter approving his recent cau- tiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it

orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions " one opera- tion " and " two operations ". Before Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod at Constanti- nople, which accepted the Ecthesis as " truly agree- ing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was alreaily dead, ami had no opportunity of approving or tlisapproving the imperial document which had been base<l upon his letter. St. Sophron- ius, who had become Patriarch of Jerusalem even be- fore Sergius wrote to the pope, also died before the end of the year, but not before he had collected a large number of testimonies of the Fathers to the " two operations", and had sent to all metropolitans of the world a remarkaljle disquisition, which admirably de- fines the Catholic doctrine. He also solemnly com- missioned Stephen, Bishop of Doza, the senior bishop of liis patriarchate, to go to Rome and obtain a final condemnation of the new error. The Roman envoys who came to Constantinople in 640 to obtain the em- peror's confirmation of the new pope, Severinus, re- fused to accept the Ecthesis, on the ground that Rome was above all synodical law. Severinus only reigned two months, but condemned the Ecthesis, and so did his successor, John IV. Emperor Heraclius then wrote to the pope, laying the blame on Sergius, and disowning the Ecthesis. He died shortly afterwards (February, 641). To his elder son John IV addressed a letter known as the "Apology for Pope Honorius". He explains quite truly that both Sergius and Honor- ius asserted one Will only because they would not admit contrary wills; yet he shows by his argument that they were wrong in using so misleading an expres- sion. St. Maximus of Constantinople, a monk and formerly secretary of Heraclius, now becomes the protagonist of orthodoxy and of submission to Rome. His defence of Honorius is based upon the statements of a certain abbot, John Symponus, the composer of the letter of Honorius, to the effect that the pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary human wills, such as are found in our fallen nature. It is true that the words of Honorius are inconclusively though not necessarily, heretical. LInfortunately the Monophysites haljitually argued in just the same in- conclusive way, from the fact that Clu'ist could have no rebellious lower will, to prove that His Divine and human will were not distinct faculties. No doubt Honorius did not really intend to deny that there is in Christ a human will, the higher faculty; but he used words which could be interpreted in the sense of that heresy, and he did not recognize that the question was not about the unity of the Person Who wills, nor about the entire agreement of the Divine Will with the hu- man faculty, but about the distinct existence of the human faculty as an integrant part of the Humanity of Christ.

The Type of Constans. — Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, was condemned at Rome for refusing to with- draw the Ecthesis. Emperor Constans deposed him for political reasons, and set up a new patriarch, Paul. PjTrhus recanted at Rome. Paul, on his appoints ment, .sent the customary confession of faith to the pope. As it did not confess two wills, it was con- demned by Pope Theodore. Paul first showed anger, but then prevailed on Constans to withdraw the Ec- thesis, for which was substituted a Tt/iros, or " Type ", in which it was again forbidden to speak of one or two operations, but "one Will" was no longer taught; instead it was said that neither one nor two wills were to be spoken of, but no blame was to attach to any one who had used either expression in the past. The pen- alties for disobedience were to l.)e : deposition for bish- ops and clergy, excommunication, loss of goods or perpetual exile for others. This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an improper expres-