Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. From the Subtle Doctor in 2 dist. 15: that the faculties of the rational soul are not really distinct from it, as we abundantly proved in the Physics, disp. On the Soul, q. 3, conclusion 2. Which truth St. Augustine plainly hands down lib. 1. De Trinitate, cap. 11, where he says: These three therefore, memory, understanding, and will, since they are not three lives but one life; nor three minds, but one mind; certainly not three substances, but one substance. To him subscribes St. Bernard Sermon 11 on the Canticles: There are, he says, certain things in the contemplation of the soul, memory, understanding, and will. And this triad is the very soul itself. And the Doctor proves this truth: First, because nature always tends to unity and suffers no plurality unless some necessity demands it: but no necessity appears for establishing a real distinction between the soul and its faculties; especially since they cannot exist apart, nor does the soul physically produce its faculties: for if the soul produced its faculties by a real action, it would follow that it was productive independently of them, and consequently such faculties would be superfluous to it; for why should it not be able to elicit its vital acts as immediately as its faculties? From which it is clearly gathered that, if this natural reason is considered, since Christ assumed the rational soul, he must also be said to have assumed intellect and will, and its faculties. Truly, however, since heretics contend against this truth, of whom some, as we saw in the prelude of this Treatise, take away from Christ the Lord a human intellect, others proscribe the human will, contending that he understood and willed only with the intellect and will of the Word: therefore I judged it worthwhile in this Question to demonstrate that Christ the Lord truly had an intellect and human will.

NOTE 2. That the Monothelite heretics, of whom we treated in the prelude of this Treatise, acknowledged two perfect and entire natures in Christ, divine and human, against Apollinaris and Arius, and these not confused, against Eutyches; but whether they truly denied a double will in Christ, acknowledging only the divine; or rather denied only a double action, which they thought was one of both natures, and that divine — is disputed among Theologians. For Vazquez in 3 part. disp. 53 cap. 11 contends that the Monothelites did not deny in the man Christ the power of operating and willing, but only the action.

Their error, he says, was that in Christ there was only the effect of the divine will, but not the human, by whose bidding the lower members were moved to their actions and works: so that the members obeyed only the motion of the divine will, which stood in place of the human; but that there was no human one, whereby, as in us, the members would be moved to their actions. So that they called that effect of the will in Christ, whereby they said the members were moved to their operations, one will, and one operation only, and that theandric, which word St. Dionysius first used in Epistle 4, which is to Caius. And they said the theandric operation in Christ was composed not of two operations, namely of two affections of two wills, which they called operations; but of one operation of the will, and the action of the members, or of another will, which they called operation, or motion, or work.

Which legitimate sense of the error Vazquez boasts himself first to have detected. De Lugo subscribes to him, disp. 25, and some others. But the other Theologians cry out against this, contending that those heretics took away not only the operations of the human will, but this faculty of willing besides. Which truth Petavius proves most copiously from the Holy Fathers themselves lib. 8 cap. 1, especially from the fact that the Saints who attacked those heretics always distinctly assert that they denied two wills and two operations in Christ. Here I bring forward Euthymius alone in the Panoplia near the end of title 15, among other sentences of the Fathers which he collects there: Of those, he says, whose nature is the same, their will and operation are the same: but of those whose nature differs, their will and operation differ. Moreover we do not call those wills and operations hypostatic, nor personal, nor gnomic, that is, the faculty of willing and operating. Nothing indeed is clearer than this, to show that the will and operation about which the question lay between the Monothelites and Catholics is not only action, but also faculty. I add that the heretics themselves denied human will and operation as two things: for in the 6 Synod, Act 8, Macarius Bishop of Antioch, patron of the Monothelites, asked whether he confessed two natural wills and two natural operations in the Incarnation of Christ the Lord, answers that he acknowledges neither two natural wills nor two natural operations.

NOTE 3. That the Monothelites were not the first inventors and asserters of that heresy; for, to pass over the rest, Hippolytus relates in his Collectanea that Simon of Valentine, having rejected his heresy, having constituted a single and singular operation, confounded the divinity and humanity of Christ. Similarly Apollinaris taught one operation in Christ, as Pope Martin reports from some sayings of his in the Lateran Council. For he said: Of those who have one operation, these have one essence: therefore the essence of the Word and of flesh was made one. Before all these the Eutychians shone forth, whom they called by the common name Monophysites, whose offspring we said the Monothelites were in the prelude: for they too, arisen long before this, established one operation and will in Christ, and condemned the two with anathema: thus Severus, mentioned by Pope Agatho in the synodal epistle which is in the Acts of the sixth Synod, pronounced anathema upon the Synod of Chalcedon and upon the epistle of St. Leo to Flavian, and upon all those who say, or have said, that our Lord Jesus Christ after the ineffable and incomprehensible union is one in two natures, and consequently confessing two operations or properties. Yet from the very Monophysites the Monothelites differed in this, that these acknowledged with the Catholics two perfect and entire natures in Christ, as is evident from the 6 Synod, in which this heresy was diligently expounded and damned, inasmuch as in Act 6 Macarius of Antioch, chief of that faction, in that profession of faith which he published at command, distinctly preaches that Christ after the Incarnation exists in two perfect natures without confusion and division, in one person and one hypostasis, nowhere differing by the removal of the union of the natures: but rather the natures concurring into one person and one hypostasis with each property preserved. Those heretics, however, did not agree among themselves in rendering the reason of their heresy and making its exposition. For some established a certain operation of God and man in Christ, which they called both Divic and Theandric: others acknowledged two operations and wills, as Pope Agatho of Rome relates in the Synodal Epistle, which is recited in Act 1 of the Synod; others decreed that neither one nor two should be said, as in the Ecthesis of Heraclius, and the Typus of Constans, of which we treated in the prelude of this Treatise. — There remains therefore to be proved against these and other heretics, that there were truly in Christ two intellects, two wills, and the operations of those faculties; which we shall accomplish in the two following Conclusions.

First conclusion. — Christ had a twofold intellect, divine and human. This is against the Apollinarians contending that the divine Word did not assume a human mind, or faculty of understanding, whose office they affirmed the divine Word to discharge.

It is proved first from sacred Scripture, by all those oracles wherein it appears that Christ the Lord exercised the operations of the human intellect, and especially those in which he is said to have wondered. Thus Matth. 8, he wondered at the faith of the Centurion; which wonder, the Theologians teach, befitted Christ the Lord as regards experimental knowledge: just as he who knows a coming eclipse by science no less wonders when he knows it by experience. From which I thus argue: Christ could not wonder by reason of the divine intellect, since we wonder only at those things whose cause does not lie hidden; nor yet by reason of the sensitive soul, whose part it is not to investigate and uncover the causes of things: therefore it remains that that wonder befitted Christ on the part of the rational soul endowed with its intellect: and therefore in Christ there was a human intellect. — Second, this same thing is clear from those places in which Christ the Lord is related to have had knowledge and wisdom, counsel, and the other perfections pertaining to human intellect; for none of these could belong to him by reason of the divine intellect; especially if you attend to that argument of experimental knowledge, according to which it is said Luke 2, Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men. — Finally this Catholic truth is gathered from those oracles in which it is held that Christ the Lord prayed, and spent the night in prayer to God; for prayer is the elevation of a created mind to God. — Add to these what we said in the 1 Question, demonstrating that Christ assumed the entire human nature, because he assumed everything that was to be healed: but the intellectual faculty was wounded through sin, as was said in the fourth volume, where we demonstrated that all the faculties of the soul are vitiated in many respects through original sin: therefore, that it might be healed, it behooved to be assumed by Christ together with the soul itself. There is nothing weighty, or at least but light, that heretics can thrust against this truth.

Second conclusion. — Christ truly has a divine and human will. This is determined of faith in very many Councils against the Monothelites, especially in the 6 Synod, where this heresy was examined and proscribed, and in the Lateran Council under Martin I, Consultation 5, Canons 12, 13, and 14, and in the VII Synod Act 7, and in the confession of faith wherein the aforesaid heretics are condemned; and in the Florentine Council in the decree of Eugene.

And it is proved above all from Scripture by the testimonies by which two wills are intimated in Christ. Thus Matth. 26, not as I will, but as thou; Luke 22, not my will, but thine be done: John 6, I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. He had therefore a will subject to the Father: not the divine, therefore the human. Likewise from those oracles in which Christ is read to have obeyed: thus Phil. 2, made obedient unto death. Hebrews 5, He learned obedience by those things which he suffered. For obedience is an act of will: not the divine, because obedience acknowledges a superior. But God has no superior: therefore the human. Third, the same truth is confirmed from those places in which Christ is said to have merited salvation for us. For merit pertains to the will: not the divine, because merit is of one tending toward perfection: therefore the human. — Finally it is gathered from those places in which Christ is said to have performed studious and praiseworthy acts, as an exemplar which we ought to imitate: such studious acts he could not exercise without a human will. For if there is no human will, neither will there be free choice; without liberty, moreover, an act can be neither praiseworthy nor studious.

It is proved secondly by all those arguments wherewith the Holy Fathers attacked the heresy of the Monothelites: the first of which is formed from the fact that the Monothelites acknowledged a double perfect nature in Christ. For thus the Fathers of the 4th Synod in their discourse to Emperor Constantine:

Perfect therefore in divinity and in humanity, perfect according to the ancient traditions of the Fathers and the divine formula sanctioned at Chalcedon we preach: and as we have received two natures, so also we acknowledge two natural wills, and his natural operations. For we do not forge to assert either nature in Christ devoid of will or operation in his Incarnation, lest, losing their properties, we perish the natures into one.

St. Damascene uses the same argument lib. 3 cap. 15, saying: The difference of the natures being preserved, the operations also will be preserved, for no nature is devoid of operation, etc. In the same way reasons St. Maximus in the Epistle to Nicander:

How, he says, if nature properly God, and nature properly man, were the same, had He not also a divine will and operation by proper nature, and a human will and operation by proper nature, deficient in neither of these according to nature; through which, preferring the names congruent with things, and again affirming the very things by these names, He was manifestly acknowledged as the same, obtaining and exercising both divine and human things naturally, and thence reasoned to be what He was believed to be from, and in, and whereby? Whereas if natural will and natural operation be taken away, who will be God, or man? Who will be shown to be this and that according to substance, if he retains not the property of both natures without any defect?

They prove secondly: If there were only one will in Christ, it would be either simple or composite. If simple, it would be proper either to God alone, or to man alone: if composite, many absurdities would follow from it, as that it would be created and uncreated at once, and then that Christ would be neither God nor man, but something mixed of both: which argument St. Maximus thus presses in Euthymius title 18:

If only one will in Him, says he, and one operation is said of us, we shall plainly profess that the same is either not by nature man, but God only, or by nature man only, and not God; or neither man nor God, just as if we perchance said a natural will of God. Either this will be altogether divine, or human: if divine, then by it the divine Word naturally willeth, showing Himself by nature God only, and of one will with His generator, not man: for nature does not suffer that from that which is by nature divine, that which is by nature human should take its own proper form and character: even as it cannot come to pass that through that which is according to substance human, that which is divine should be distinguished in substance. Nor will the reason of consequence differ, if we say that the same will of Christ is human.

The Monothelites objected first indeed certain authorities of the ancient Fathers. — But it was demonstrated in the VI Synod that these were partly fictitious, partly fraudulently contrived and depraved by them; partly finally misinterpreted and twisted elsewhere; for their arts and calumnies there were openly detected and convicted: for certain books falsely attributed by those men to the ancients are mentioned. So act. 3 and 12 and 11, the Epistle of Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius concerning one will of Christ: and two books of Vigilius himself, one to the Emperor Justinian, the other to his wife Theodora, asserting one operation. In action 8 and 5 of the same Synod many passages collected from various monuments of the Holy Fathers by Macarius of Antioch are alleged, which, compared with authentic codices of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Synod discovered had been gathered in bad faith and truncated, and therefore they were condemned by the common suffrages of all. Further, the testimonies which flatter their heresy under some appearance are few. First indeed they drew from St. Cyril book 4 on John, where that great light of the Church says: Christ showed one kindred operation through both natures. — But St. Martin the Pope answers this objection in Euthymius:

One, he says, he calls action by reason of union: but kindred by reason of the parts; inasmuch as it was of the same efficient dominion over all, and of the attraction of holy flesh: for by both these God the Word manifestly showed it, in that He quickened through the flesh, demonstrating it to be vivific through the whole. Even as fire burning through iron, by that vision whereby it is joined with it, makes the iron endowed with the power of burning. So that therefore the burning is thereafter not of fire alone according to nature: but also of the iron by reason of the union: and similarly the divine operation of the Word in miracles comes not on account of its own nature only; but also of His holy flesh itself, by reason of the hypostatic conjunction with it: since He made it partaker with Himself of action in performing divine things.

They objected further the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, as may be seen in the 6 Synod, Action 12, who writing against Eunomius asserts: That the Divinity itself wrought through the body which He put on the common salvation truly of all, so that the suffering of the flesh might be an operation of God. Consonant with this is that saying of Philo in the book De Cherubim, where he says: It is proper to God to do, which it is unlawful to attribute to anything made: but proper to the creature to suffer. From these they gathered that the human nature in Christ was not operative, but that the divine only operated in Him. — But St. Maximus in the disputation against Pyrrhus, and St. Damascene book 3 chapter 13, turn back that argument upon the heretics: for if therefore there ought to be one operation in Christ because action belongs properly to the Divinity alone, but passion to humanity; the same necessity of consequence will make that there be only one nature of God in the same Christ, if namely that alone operates, and the created alone is passible: since nature is gathered only through motion and operation. Therefore where there is the operation of one nature only, there also one nature only: nor does it matter that every created nature suffers; for this does not hinder it from being also active, for every created agent, especially corporeal, while acting undergoes passion.

They objected 3. Every instrument has no action from itself, but only from the principal agent: but the human nature, according to the Holy Fathers, is called the instrument of the Divinity: therefore from itself it was not operative, but only served, as instrument, the operation of the Divinity itself. The major stands from the Philosophers.

But they proved the minor from St. Cyril in the dialogue De Incarnatione Verbi, part 5, where he says: Christ used His own flesh as an instrument for works of the flesh, and for natural infirmities and other such things, which were without reprehension, likewise His own soul for human passions devoid of vice: for He is said to have hungered and to have borne the labors of long journeys, etc. The same has St. Athanasius in oration 1: Being God, he says, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument, He was made man for our sake. Therefore those things are said to belong properly to the flesh itself because they were inherent in it, such as hungering, thirsting, etc.

I distinguish the major: An artificial instrument, which lacks a principle of acting, and is moved only by the impulse of the mover, I concede: a natural, or substantive instrument, which is endowed with its own form and virtue and power of effecting, and has true affection of itself, and converts into the work to be done, I deny. Similarly, distinguishing the minor, I deny the consequence. For the human nature in Christ, if it is an instrument of the divinity, is not an artificial but a natural instrument; because it exercises its own action from itself, nor merely undergoes. — Add that since Christ had operations of a twofold kind, some indeed purely natural, as cognition, volition, speech, touch, etc.; others exceeding the power of nature, as all miraculous operations which Christ performed either by touch or by word, as the curing of infirmities, the raising of the dead, and other such miracles, whose natural cause was not the human nature; the humanity itself was the principal cause of the former actions: but not a mere instrument; but the latter actions the Divinity alone wrought, and the human nature used the action, namely touch or speech, for accomplishing those marvelous effects, as an instrument.

Finally they objected: If Christ had had two wills, He would also have had a battle of wills, since the human would have resisted the divine, and consequently He would not have been wholly without sin, for everyone sins who struggles against the divine will: but to assert this is injurious to Christ the Holy of Holies: therefore, etc. — I deny the major, for although Christ had two wills, it does not follow thence that the human resisted the divine; nay rather it was subject to it in all things always: since Christ was made obedient to the eternal Father unto death, Philippians 2. Hence Matthew 26 He said: Not as I will, but as thou wilt, and Luke 22: Not my will, but thine, be done. Wherefore He testifies John 5: I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Add that by this argument the Monothelites ought no less to have denied the sentient appetite in Christ: for this appetite seems much more easily to war with the divine will than the human will does; nor thence, as the heretics wished, need it be guarded that Christ be shaken into sin: for, as St. Ambrose noted in book De Incarnationis dominicae sacramento, chapter 7, He who delivered others from the slippery fall of the flesh, could He fear lest He too be conquered by a certain dominion of that flesh?

They objected moreover that the supreme Roman Pontiffs, chiefly Vigilius and Honorius, stood on their side and patronized their sentiment, as appears in the disputation of Pyrrhus with St. Maximus. — But how false and mendacious that assertion was, that it may appear more clearly, it is worth while here to examine more fully whether truly those two supreme Pontiffs stood on the side of the Monothelites, which I shall indeed perform in the two following paragraphs.

§ I. — Whether Vigilius the Roman Pontiff was a Monothelite.

Thus he is accused by Pyrrhus in the disputation with St. Maximus the martyr, affirming that that Pontiff by his vote approved the little book offered by Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, in which it is affirmed that there is one will in Christ. But the most holy Martyr purges this calumny in these words:

I wonder how you, being Patriarchs, wish to lie: he who preceded you wrote in his letters to Honorius that he had indeed been warned concerning that little book, but that it was neither offered nor shown to him; but you yourself said in your Epistle to Pope John that it was offered and shown, and even read through the quaestor Constantine: which therefore shall we believe? You, or him whom you succeeded? For both cannot have spoken the truth.

Whence when Pyrrhus granted that it was so written by Sergius his predecessor, he was forced to confess that Vigilius could not be blamed on this head.

You will urge: Truly Mennas offered his little book to Vigilius, as is clear from the epistle of Sergius to Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, which was read in the sixth Synod, act 12, wherein it is affirmed that that little book was handed to Vigilius himself by Mennas. For he says:

When we had signified to him by our rescripts those things which were within our knowledge, sending also the acclamatory discourse of Mennas of holy memory once Patriarch: this, for the preserving of that royal city, offered by him, here preceding the present Vigilius of holy memory, predecessor of your holiness, having also various paternal testimonies concerning the one operation and one will of our Savior Christ.

Therefore truly that little book was offered to Vigilius, and approved by him. — I answer, denying the consequence; for although it were true that the little book was offered to Vigilius himself, it does not nevertheless follow that it was approved by him. I answer secondly, that in that little book of Mennas those words about the one operation and the one will of our Savior Christ were added by the Greek Monothelites: for when the Monothelites had produced this little book in the VI Synod act 3, as read, namely that there is one will in Christ, then, as is related there, rising up, the Legates of the Apostolic See cried out that the codex had been vitiated by the Monothelites, and that that epistle, or little book, in the name of Mennas to Vigilius had been added, because the genuine acts themselves did not contain it; and they brought forward for this a certain sure argument, that Mennas died in the year 21 of Emperor Justinian; but the fifth

Synod, at whose beginning the epistle of Mennas is said to have been read, was assembled only in the year 27 of his empire. Hence it must necessarily be inferred that a little book could not have been sent by Mennas to Vigilius at the time of the fifth Synod, since Mennas had already died six years before the Synod was assembled. Moreover the falsification of that little book and the imposture appeared by example, as is clear from the acts of that 3rd session, where these things are had:

And then inspecting, the most pious Emperor with the most glorious Judges together with certain ones from the holy Synod, Bishops beloved of God, and opening and discerning, they found three quires applied at the beginning of the book, not having the notation of number which according to custom is affixed upon quires: but in the fourth quire having the first number, and in the following quire the second, and third, with a fourth subsequent; otherwise, and unlike, were the letters of the same, in the beginnings of the submitted quires, in which was contained the discourse called Mennas to Vigilius.

From which appears the fraud and craftiness of the heretics. — But when the Monothelites pressed it in defense of their error, in act 12, so that again that little book might be read, the Judges and Council said:

Superfluous has been the present reading of the discourse, which is altogether fictitious and false, because in the deposited records of this venerable Patriarchate the discourse of Mennas of most holy memory Antistes of this royal city, called Mennas to Vigilius, did not appear among the letters.

In the same Act 3 it is again objected by the Monothelites that Vigilius wrote two books: one to Emperor Justinian, the other truly to Theodora Augusta wife of Justinian; in which books was contained: But we anathematize Theodore, who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, as one who always stood aloof from the Church, and an adversary of the Holy Fathers, who does not confess that the Word of God was made incarnate, that is, that Christ is one subsistence, and one person, and one operation. The Monothelites moreover added that these books are found in Act 7 of the 6 Synod. — But the Legates of the Roman See again accused the Monothelites of falsity; because they had plainly added "and one operation": and they set forth the argument for demonstrating the falsity and imposture; because if mention of one operation had been made there, doubtless that would have been inserted in the definition of the Council. — Besides, the Synod itself ought to have professed the error of that same one operation, seeing that Vigilius was received by the Synod. Which since it cannot be said, neither must that be thought of Vigilius. — Whence in Act 12 of the same Council, while the same little books were again brought forward, thus the Judges, thus also the Council:

We hold in memory that then (that is, in Act 3) they pursued, who on the part of the Apostolic See of ancient Rome proclaimed that the 7th Act had been falsified, because two fallacious little books are contained in it, as if offered by Vigilius, to Justinian, and Theodora of pious memory.

From these things it stands that Vigilius the Roman Pontiff is falsely accused of the error of the Monothelites. But as regards Honorius, the matter is far more difficult, as will appear in the following §.

§ I. — Whether Honorius professed the dogma of the Monothelites and patronized its assertors.

The affirmative part is defended not only by heretics but also by certain Catholic theologians with Melchior Cano book 6 De Locis Theologicis, last chapter; who judge that Honorius truly patronized the error of the Monothelites: Both because in his two Epistles, which were read in Action 12 and 13 of the sixth Synod, he approves the doctrine of Sergius, chief of the Monothelites, and decrees that it is not to be said that Christ has two wills or two operations: And because in that same VI Synod he is condemned as a heretic, because, say the Fathers of the Council Act. 13, we find through the writings which he made to Sergius that he followed his mind in all things, and confirmed impious dogmas; whereupon, decreeing, the same Council expunctuated his name from the sacred diptychs, and his writings were burned with fire as profane and pernicious to the soul: Then because in the VII Synod, in the final Action, anathema is said against Honorius together with Sergius and the other Monothelites, as is read in the Epistle of the same Synod to all the Clergy: Then because in Action 7 of the eighth Synod there was read and approved the Epistle of the Roman Council under Adrian II, in which it is related that Honorius was judged after death by the VI Synod because he had been accused of heresy: Finally because from Agatho's Epistle to the Emperor Constantine, which is found in Act. 1 of the VI Synod, anathema is said against Honorius as of the Monothelites; and from Leo II's Epistle to the same Emperor, which stands at the end of that same Council, it is written that Honorius died in the heresy of the Monothelites, and therefore had been condemned by the just sentence of anathema.

Nevertheless, not notwithstanding these things, the more numerous and more noble company of Doctors protests, together with Ecclesiastical Annalists and Historians, whose sentiment I judge to be truer and more certain; that we may prove it more efficaciously and demonstrate it more clearly, three things must here be demonstrated severally: First indeed, that Honorius truly was not an assertor of the error of the Monothelites; Second, that he is not to be accused of the same error on the ground that at the beginning of the controversy he communicated with Sergius by letters given and received; Third finally, that in the VI Synod he was not at all condemned and proscribed as a heretic. But that these may appear more clearly, those things must be repeated which we said at the beginning of this Treatise concerning the origin, propagation, and condemnation of the heresy of the Monothelites. Especially must be recalled that when Cyrus Patriarch of Alexandria had convoked a Synod under pretext of recalling to the Church the heretics the Nestorians, in it it was defined in chapter 1 that there is one God-man operation in Christ; whose Synod's acts he sent as soon as possible to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, together with an Epistle full of flattery, which was read in the VI Synod Action 13; but when this definition of the one operation of Christ had become known to Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem, he strove with all his might with Cyrus that he would rescind it; and since he could not obtain this, he wrote to Sergius of Constantinople, and also to Honorius the supreme Pontiff, that that definition of the Alexandrian Synod be rescinded. But when Sergius had received those letters from Sophronius, he wrote to Honorius the celebrated Epistle which is found in Action 12 of the VI Synod, in which he explains that for the good of peace it seems to him that both opinions should be repressed by silence, whether that which defends one will and one operation in Christ, or that which admits two: yet he submits his own opinion in all things to the judgment and censure of the Apostolic See. Having received the letters from Sergius, Honorius wrote a twofold Epistle to him, in which the adversaries will have it that he patronized the Monothelites. Honorius dying, Severinus was substituted in his place: whom Ioannes IV succeeded, who having convened a Council at Rome condemned the Monothelites. Ioannes dying, his successor Theodorus anathematized Paulus Bishop of Constantinople because he favored the Monothelites, and deprived him of his Episcopate. Martin, successor of Theodorus, convenes a Lateran Council, in which the Monothelites are again condemned, and it is defined that there are two wills and operations in Christ, in hatred of whose assertion Martin is driven into exile, wherein amid various hardships he merits the crown of martyrdom.

But when after his death Constantinus Pogonatus, truly orthodox, held the Empire, he treated first with Domnus successor of Martin, then with Agatho, who had succeeded Domnus upon his death, about convening a general Council. Therefore the VI general Synod is convened at Constantinople: the Legates of the Apostolic See preside, the Emperor himself also is present with graver men. The Monothelites, whose chief was Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, are heard peacefully. Finally it is defined that there are two wills and two actions in Christ, and anathema is pronounced against the authors and principal holders of that heresy.

Honorius is not to be called a Monothelite on account of the Epistles given and received with Sergius at the beginning of the controversy.

Proof: No one ought to be called a heretic who communicates by letters given and received with some Bishop who is celebrated by all and held as a Catholic, and falls under no suspicion of another's error: but when Honorius received the Epistle from Sergius and wrote back to him, Sergius was held by all as a Catholic, and fell under no suspicion of anyone's error: therefore on account of communication with him, Honorius is not to be condemned as a heretical Monothelite. The major stands: otherwise all the holy Fathers who communicated with heretics before they fell under suspicion of error would have to be accused of heresy, as Jerome with Rufinus, Augustine with Julian. The minor, however, is proved, namely that Sergius at that time was held as a Catholic and the best Pastor of the Church of Constantinople. It is proved, I say, first from the Epistle of Sophronius Bishop of Jerusalem to Sergius, where he celebrates him with many encomiums:

To you, he says, we send (the confession of faith) who know not only how to discern approved dogmas from adulterated ones, but can perfectly supply what is lacking, on account of perfect charity in Christ. I shall proceed therefore to say those things which I learned, fostered and nourished from the beginning in the holy Catholic Church, and received from my tenderest years, and to hear them preach divinely, etc.

Therefore at that time Sergius was held as a Catholic. — Next, he who submits his doctrine to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, nor does it contain manifest error, cannot be held a heretic: but Sergius in his Epistle to Honorius submits his doctrine, containing no manifest error, to his judgment; for he says near the end:

We exhort you, most holy ones, to read all these things, and following the charity pleasing to God and most full, which is in us now also, if you find anything more or less, to fill it up through the grace given you by God, and by your holy syllables together with desirable charity preserve, let it be signified concerning those things which we have said above that they please.

By which it stands how humbly Sergius submits himself to the judgment of Honorius, while he asks that the Roman Pontiff himself, if he should know anything less or more in the Epistle, add likewise or take away; although these things were put forward subtilely by him, lest he be detected as a heretic. — Finally, there was nothing in the Epistle of Sergius to Honorius from which it could be judged that Sergius himself patronized the Monothelites: for he declares his opinion so that he seems only to pursue the good of peace and to provide for the tranquillity of the Church: since elsewhere he attested his sound and integral faith concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ in the unity of person; for he says:

You truly considering that from this contention begins to blaze forth among certain here, and knowing that always from such contentions those dissensions of hereses have been effected; we judged it necessary to bestow all study upon calming and cutting away that superfluous conflict of words, and we wrote to the often named most holy Patriarch of Alexandria, that after he composed unity with those who formerly separated themselves, with His aid, he permit thereafter no one to bring forth one or two operations in Christ our God, but rather, as the holy and universal Councils delivered, to confess the one same only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ true God operating, as well divinely as humanly, and every operation worthy of God and worthy of man proceeding undividedly from the one same incarnate Word of God, and reducing to one same; because the voice of one operation, although said by certain holy Fathers, nevertheless seemed strange, and to disturb the ears of certain suspecting that this is brought forth confusedly unto the perdition and according to subsistence of the two natures united in Christ our God, which never is, nor ever was. Similarly however, the saying of two operations scandalizes many, as issued by no Saint, nor by probable institutors of the Church. Moreover, its consequence is to preach two wills, having contrarieties mutually among themselves, as though indeed God the Word willeth salvifically the passion to be fulfilled, but His humanity resisting His will, and opposing it, and accordingly two contraries willing being introduced; which is impious. For it is impossible in one same subject two wills simultaneously, and contraries toward this very thing, to subsist. For the salutary doctrine of the Fathers bearing God instructs worthily, that never did the intellectually animated flesh of the Lord separately, and from its own appetite contrary to the assent of the Word of God united to itself according to subsistence, effect its natural motion, but when, and what sort, and how much God the Word Himself wished. And (that it may be said more fully) even as our body is ruled and adorned and disposed by our intellectual and rational soul; so also in the Lord Christ the whole admixture of His humanity moved always by the very Deity of the Word in all things, was movable by God, according to Gregory of Nyssa saying against Eunomius thus: according as He was God the Son, He is assuredly impassible and immortal: but if any passion of Him is said in the Gospel, certainly through the humanity, which underwent the passion, He wrought things of this kind. For truly the Deity operates through the body which is around Him the salvation of all, that there be indeed in the flesh the passion, but the operation of God.

But he relates that there he seems to disapprove the opinion of Sophronius blaming the definition of the Alexandrian Synod, and to approve the opposite definition and the sentiment of Cyrus: for that he does only to signify how much tranquillity that definition gave to the Church of Alexandria: which peace indeed he judged hard to disturb by rescinding that definition of the Alexandrian Synod.

How, he says, would it not be hard and very burdensome, when to dissolve this and overturn it was going to destroy all that concord and unity, which had been well effected, as much in the great city of Alexandria as through all the provinces subject to it, which had at no time up till now acquiesced, even to make simple mention of the name of our divine and laudable Father Leo, or of the holy and great universal Council of Chalcedon; now truly preaching this with illustrious and great voice in the divine mysteries of the Masses?

Therefore there is no reason why from thence Sergius should be accused by Honorius of any error. Wherefore Honorius had no cause at that time why he should withdraw himself from communication with Sergius, and consequently therefore is not to be charged with the error of the Monothelites.

Nor is he to be reproached with error on account of the doctrine expressed in his letters to Sergius.

For Honorius, as we said above, gave two Epistles to Sergius himself: but in neither of them is contained the error of the Monothelites, nor anything that tends to the patronage of that same error: therefore Honorius is not to be condemned on account of those Epistles.

The minor is proved: First indeed from the prior Epistle: since in it he teaches: First, that Christ the Lord is God and man, who shone forth in flesh full of divine miracles, He Himself, and having become fleshly, fully God and man. Secondly he confesses that He suffered passions and reproaches not in both natures, since it stands that the divinity can undergo no human passions, and therefore His humanity was assumed not from Heaven but from the holy Genetrix of God. Thirdly he teaches that on account of the ineffable conjunction of the human and divine nature God is said to have suffered, and the humanity to have descended from heaven: For, he says, He Himself speaks thus in the Gospel: No man ascendeth into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven, surely instructing us that flesh passible was united to the Divinity ineffably and singularly, and discretely and without confusion, so indivisely believed to be joined, that assuredly it may be known to be united wonderfully with marvelous keeping of the differences of both natures. Fourthly he teaches Christ the Lord to have wrought divine things mediately by humanity naturally united to the Word of God, and the same to have wrought human things ineffably and singularly. By which he signifies that on account of the communication of idioms he believes one willing and operating in Christ, as one is His person: although he asserts that on account of the diverse properties of two natures simultaneously indivisely and without confusion conjoined, equally distinct and unconfused wills also are found in Him. — Finally, he confesses that there is one operator of divinity and humanity: Because, he says, that our Lord Jesus Christ Son Word of God, through whom all things were made, Himself is the one operator of Divinity and humanity, the sacred Letters abundantly demonstrate more clearly: but whether on account of the works of divinity and of humanity twofold operations ought derivatively to be said or understood, that pertains not to us, leaving those things to Grammarians, who are wont to vend exquisite names by speaking them to little ones. Therefore Honorius professes one operator in Christ, saying that the unity of operation agrees not to the person, but to the operator. So St. John Damascene book 3 chapter 11 treating of these things teaches that by reason of one person there cannot be said one will, but one willing, nor one operation, but one operating, namely in two natures, which while he asserts indivise, without confusion, and inconvertibly conjoined, he plainly necessarily introduces two operations and wills. In these things indeed nothing more Catholic could be said, nothing more pious and holy, nothing finally in those times could seem more usefully devised for preserving peace in the Churches. Which Catholic truth indeed (I shall say freely with Campensis, says Baronius) not only could no Synod ever condemn, but if an Angel from heaven should announce another thing besides what has been said, let him receive anathema inflicted on such by the Apostle.

You will say: The same Pontiff in the same Epistle openly said: whence also we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ. — St. Maximus answers in the disputation against Pyrrhus that he said one will not of humanity and divinity together, but of humanity alone; for when Sergius had written that certain men called the two wills in Christ contraries, Honorius answered, says the holy Martyr, we said that Christ had not two contrary wills; of flesh, I say, and of spirit, as we have after sin, but only one, which naturally signified His humanity; which response indeed is confirmed from the very Epistle of Honorius, for when he had said, We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ; immediately he subjoins:

Because chiefly by the divinity was our nature assumed, not guilty, that certainly which before sin was created never after the transgression vitiated. And below: it was not therefore assumed, as we prefaced, a vitiated nature by the Savior, which would resist the law of His mind: but He came to seek and to save what had perished, namely the vitiated nature of humankind: for there was not another law in the members, or diverse or contrary will to the Savior; because He was born above the law of the human condition. And since it is written: I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me, the Father, and: not what I will, but what thou wilt, Father, and other such like: these are not of diverse will, but of dispensation of the humanity assumed; for those things were said on our account, whereby He gave example that we may attain His footsteps, the pious Master imbuing disciples, that each of us prefer not his own will, but rather the will of the Lord to all.

These words of Honorius: therefore when you hear Honorius say one will, you must understand him so to speak with respect to the two mutually warring contrary wills toward evil and good.

You will insist: Honorius in the same Epistle says that Sergius wrote rightly and providently to Sophronius when he took away the novelty of the word, evidently disapproving the dictum of Sophronius who admitted two wills in Christ. — I answer, Honorius did not more blame Sophronius because he admitted two wills than the adversaries who professed one will in Christ; but he wished only that for the sake of preserving peace the assertion of one or of two wills be silent: For you, he says, we have perceived from the sacred Letters not one operation or two, not one Jesus Christ, and His Holy Spirit, but multiformly we have known Him operating. By which he signifies that indeed one operator of divinity and humanity must be said. — But whether there were two wills or operations he was unwilling to define, for a twofold cause: The first is, because in defining new things one must proceed cautiously: but he judged that thing new: for neither in the Gospels nor in the Synods did the matter seem clear to him.

It behooves, he says, that dogmas be referred back to these Ecclesiastical ones, which neither synodal decrees examining above, nor canonical authorities ever condemned: that anyone should presume that one or two virtues of Christ God are preached, which neither Evangelic or Apostolic letters, nor the synodal examination held concerning these, ever terminated.

The second is, lest if two operations, he might seem to favor Nestorius; if one, Eutyches.

And we, he says, according to the sanctions of the divine Oracles ought to think or hope, refuting namely those things which even now are known to generate scandals in the holy Churches of God, and neither being offended at the appellation of two operations, following Nestorians, they judge our pride to have been cut down: nor certainly, if again we judged that one operation of our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed, should we be thought to confess with most eager ears the foolish madness of the Eutychianists.

The second cause why he decreed nothing concerning this controversy was perhaps lest by this definition the Ecclesiastical peace be disturbed and the unity of the Churches be utterly taken away. Add to these that Honorius would seem no more blameworthy on this account because he judged that both assertions, of one or of two wills, were to be kept silent than Sophronius himself, who judged the same silence to be observed: but Sophronius is accused by no one of heresy because he judged abstention from that new manner of speaking to be necessary: therefore neither on that account ought Honorius be blamed. That Sophronius however consented to abstain from this formula of speaking stands from the epistle of Sergius to Honorius, where he says:

Finally it stood and pleased that the aforesaid venerable Sophronius should henceforth move no discourse concerning one or two operations, but let it suffice him with the cautious and well-trodden tradition and doctrine of the Holy Fathers prestated. Content with these things, therefore, the often named venerable Man, certifying that he keeps these, etc.

Similarly in the posterior epistle of Honorius there is nothing for which at that time he could be accused of heresy: since in it only these things are contained:

The appellation of one or of twofold operation newly introduced let it be removed from the preaching of the faith: for those who say these things, what else do they suspect than that, according to the appellation of one or twofold nature of Christ God, so also one or twofold operation is suspected, on account of the simplicity of men, and that inextricable labyrinths of questions are to be cut away, rather than that one or two operations are defined in the Mediator of God and men? But both natures in one Christ conjoined in natural unity operating with communion of each other we ought to confess as operating and operatrix, and indeed the divine, whereby they are of God, operating, and the human, whereby they are of flesh, executing, teaching neither dividedly nor confusedly or convertibly the nature of God into man made, nor the human converted into God, but confessing whole the differences of the natures. And below: Taking away therefore, as we said, the scandal of the novel invention, neither does it behoove us detaining to preach one or two operations, but instead of one (which certainly they say) operation, it behooves us truthfully to confess one operator Christian the Lord in both natures, and instead of two operations, removed the appellation of twofold operation, rather those very two natures, namely of Divinity and flesh assumed in one person of the only-begotten Son of God the Father without confusion, indivisibly, and inconvertibly with us preach as operating properly. And this indeed we have provided to be intimated to your most blessed fraternity, that we might show to your unanimity of holiness the purpose of one confession, that assuredly breathing in one spirit, we may inspire with equal document of faith. He adds moreover: writing also to the common Brothers Cyrus and Sophronius antistes lest they seem to insist upon or dwell upon the new word, namely the appellation of one or twofold operation; but erased the appellation of this new word, may they preach one Christ the Lord in both natures, divine or human, operating. Although this, which the aforesaid brother and Conbishop of ours Sophronius sent to Us, We instructed, lest they strive to preach princes of two operations; which most urgently they promised the aforesaid man would do, if also Cyrus Brother and Conbishop of ours shall depart from the appellation of one operation.

So far from the posterior epistle of Honorius to Sergius the sixth Synod; from which it appears that he signified that the appellation itself of one or of two operations must be equally kept silent by either party, for the good of peace: which also the Legates of Sophronius promise to observe. Therefore since Sophronius on account of the imposed silence concerning either expression, nor on account of communication and consent with Sergius fell anywhere into suspicion of error; so neither ought Honorius on account of the same come into suspicion of heresy: especially since with this reason Honorius consulted peace so that he committed no prejudice to truth. For prejudice could be done to truth only in one of these two ways, either because he had confirmed the heresy of the Monothelites concerning the one will and operation of Christ: but not so; because he expressly forbids saying one unique, just as he forbids saying two: or because by his simulation and indifference he might seem secretly to favor the Eutychians: but not so, because he wills expressly that we believe both natures in Christ conjoined in natural unity, neither dividedly nor confusedly or convertibly the nature of God into man, nor the human converted into God; but whole the differences of the natures: therefore so far is he from being judged a heretic on account of the epistles, that rather it stands, as we rightly established, that he at that time prudently provided for the affairs of the Church, lest namely the Church long vexed by the heretics the Eutychians and Nestorians, and not yet enjoying peace firm and solid in every respect, suffer herself to be harassed by new controversies arising.

It is more probable that Honorius in the sixth Synod was not reckoned among the heretics, nor condemned.

This last part of the vindication of Honorius appears far more difficult of proof than the preceding ones; because in the acts of the sixth Synod, which circulate through the universal Church and are in the hands of all, he is read to have been reckoned among the heretics; which some subsequent general Synods also did, as we warned at the beginning of this controversy. Nevertheless I judge it must be said with the more noble company of Doctors and Annalists of the Church, truer, that the name of Honorius was inserted by the Monothelites themselves, together with the other condemned holders of their error, that they might the more easily elevate the authority and definition of the sixth Synod, and summon patronage for their pretensed innocence and just condemnation. For they valued so highly the memory of Honorius, that even until now Monothelite Patriarchs of Constantinople preserved his name inserted in their diptychs, the names of his successors expunctuated, by whom they had been condemned: but toward defending this opinion I am moved by arguments not lighter, but, as it seems to me, most weighty.

First I recall from the Lateran Synod celebrated under Martin Pope and Martyr in the year of Christ 649, that is, ten years after the death of Honorius: to which Synod one hundred and five Bishops were present, the supreme Pontiff himself presiding, in which the cause of the Monothelites was exactly weighed and treated; and after diligent inquisition there were condemned together with the heresy, and with their writings, Theodore Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus Patriarch of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus successors of the Patriarch of Constantinople, authors and champions of the error: but concerning Honorius there was so deep a silence that he suffered no calumny whatsoever from the heretics concerning heresy, nor was he assailed by the holy Synod even with the lightest suspicion: since otherwise Honorius would not have escaped the same sentence with the other condemned authors and patrons of that error; or certainly Martin with the Council would have gravely failed in his duty, who accepted the person of the same to the prejudice of truth; which indeed no one can judge without crime of so great a Pontiff and glorious Martyr. For with this exception he would have approved the doctrine of Honorius himself, and thus by silence seemed to approve what by decreeing he disapproved: therefore if the silence of that Council is the most valid testimony of the innocence of Honorius, is it credible that the sixth Synod could have pronounced sentence against that innocent Pontiff, and numbered him with the heretics? What knowledge could the sixth Synod have concerning the mind and sentiment of Honorius which escaped the Fathers of the Lateran Council? For the memory and doctrine of Honorius was more recent among these than among those; and with easier negotiation the Lateran Fathers could know his mind, inasmuch as they still had very many survivors of the familiars of Honorius, with whom Honorius had treated that cause, and from whom they could learn his mind. It is said that Honorius was condemned in the sixth Synod on account of the mere reading of his two epistles to Sergius: but were these unknown at Rome, or less understood by the Roman and Latin Prelates than at Constantinople, whose Synod the greatest part was Orientals? whereby it behooved those epistles to be translated into the Greek idiom: certainly no one judging equitably will esteem this.

The second argument is sought from the Roman Council celebrated under Agatho in the year 680, that is, in the same year in which the sixth Synod was celebrated, to which one hundred twenty-five Bishops were present, as stands from the synodal epistle, which was as it were the instruction of the Legates who were sent by the same Agatho to the sixth Synod, and exists in action 1 of the same sixth Synod; in which synodal epistle three things are contained: The first is the profession of faith, wherein expressly is contained the Catholic doctrine of the two wills and operations in Christ. The second, the condemnation is repeated of the same patrons of the Monothelite error, Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus; nor is slight mention indeed made that Honorius similarly erred: which certainly ought not to have been dissimulated, if it were true. Third finally, it is affirmed that the predecessors of Agatho taught the same faith always, and defended it constantly even unto the exit of their soul, not seduced by blandishments, nor terrified by perils, etc. But with what face would these things be subscribed by one hundred twenty-five Bishops, together with the supreme Pontiff, if not long before Honorius labored under the same error which was condemned in that Lateran Synod, and whose condemnation was to be procured from the Legates setting out to that sixth Synod? Who is so light as to believe that so many Prelates wished so shamefully to impose upon the whole Church gathered in an OEcumenical Council, and that they were so heartless and prodigal of their fame, who, that they might preserve the name of Honorius untarnished, would rather expose themselves to the open peril of mendacity before the whole assembly of the Church? It is confirmed from the epistle directed in the name of Agatho alone to the Emperors Constantine, Heraclius, and Tiberius through the same Legates, which likewise is related at the beginning of action 1 of the same sixth Synod, where the Symbol of faith, which expressly contains the truth of the twofold will and operation, is brought forth, and the Pontiff subjoins with free mouth and firm and reiterated contestation professes that never at any time has the Apostolic See deviated from the right path of faith. For he says: By the assisting protection of Christ this Apostolic Church of his hath never turned aside from the way of truth in any part of error. And shortly after:

This is indeed the rule of true faith, which in prosperity and adversity this spiritual mother of your most tranquil Empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has vigorously held and defended, which by the grace of almighty God will be proved never to have erred from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor corrupted by heretical novelties to have succumbed: but as from the beginning of the Christian faith she received it uncorrupted from its authors the chief Apostles of Christ, so she has remained even unto this time. And concerning his own predecessors shortly after he adds specially these things: Let your tranquil clemency consider, therefore, since the Lord and Savior of all, whose is the faith, who promised that the faith should not fail, admonished to confirm His brethren: that the Apostolic Pontiffs, predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this, it is known to all: whose my littleness also, although unequal and least, yet having undertaken the ministry of divine condescension, desires to be a follower. For it will be a tedium to me if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, whom they sincerely preached.

These words of Agatho, which indeed he could not assert so firmly, preach freely, and confess sincerely, if for confirming the same heresy which he confesses, Honorius could have been brought into accusation. Which you will judge most true if you consider who said these things, where, to whom, and when he wrote; namely the most holy Agatho, praised by the mouth of all, in the great synodal convention of the Fathers, writing these things with the consent of all to those very Emperors dwelling at Constantinople, whose predecessors had favored the error, as stands from the Ecthesis of Heraclius and the Typus of Constans: and he would write this at the time when the OEcumenical Synod was about to be celebrated, namely in that city whose Patriarchs Agatho himself had condemned with his Council; but he would have exposed himself to just accusation of accepting persons if to the prejudice of truth he had excepted guilty of that error with the same favorers and patrons of the Monothelites. — Add to these that long before those supreme Pontiffs St. Maximus vindicated Honorius from that very calumny, in that disputation which he held with Pyrrhus; for when that heretic clamored that Honorius stood for him: What, he kept saying, do you have to answer concerning Honorius, who openly handed down to my predecessor that there is one will of our Lord Jesus Christ? Holy Maximus liberates him from this insimulation of error, showing that he was always a keenest champion of the true faith, and said one will in the Lord, not of His divinity and humanity, but of humanity alone, lest he admit contrary wills of flesh and spirit in Christ. It is confirmed from this, that in the year 610, that is, second after the death of Honorius himself, when the Monothelites attempted to draw him over to their party on occasion of the aforesaid epistles to Sergius, Ioannes then sitting in the Chair of Peter summoned him, who had written those two epistles to Honorius, that he might disclose the mind of the deceased Pontiff, and write to the Emperor Constantine what he had judged. He obeyed, and as St. Maximus martyr relates, he signified to the Emperor that thus far only Honorius said one will in Christ, so far as he denied the human will contrary, namely of flesh and of spirit; not truly that he denied the double, whereof one is divine, the other human. Therefore it stands that before the sixth Synod, both from the letters of Honorius himself, and from the writings of St. Maximus, and from the two Councils celebrated at Rome, then from the letters of the Roman Pontiffs Ioannes, Martinus, and Agatho, by no means can Honorius be charged with error; and consequently no just estimator of things can be induced to believe that the name of Honorius, with other patrons of that heresy, was inserted by the sixth Synod; nay rather he will easily judge that this was compacted by the crafty artifice and fraud of the Monothelites. In what manner however this was done, we shall soon disclose.

The third argument, whereby the faith of Honorius can be vindicated whole, and that his condemnation in the sixth Synod appear fictitious, is gathered both from the terms and from the circumstances of that condemnation, which is read and written out in action 28 of this Council, whose words are these:

The holy Council said: according to the promise which has been made by us to our glory, reexamining the dogmatic epistles which were written by Sergius formerly Patriarch of this royal city preserved of God, as well to Cyrus who was then Bishop of Phasis as to Honorius formerly Pope of ancient Rome; similarly also the epistle ⟦that⟧, namely written back by Honorius to the same Sergius: and finding ⟦incernientes⟧ that they are altogether alien from the Apostolic dogmas and from the definitions of the holy Councils and of all probable Fathers, but follow the false doctrines of heretics; these we reject altogether, and execrate as noxious to the soul. But those whose, namely of the same, impious dogmas we execrate, their names also we judge to be cast out from the holy Church of God. (namely Sergius formerly Bishop of this royal city preserved of God, who undertook to write concerning such an impious dogma, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paulus, who also themselves exercised the office of bishop in the see of this city preserved of God, and felt things similar to them: ⟦ad haer⟧, and Theodore formerly Bishop of Pharan): of all the above-written persons mention was made by Agatho most holy and thrice most blessed Pope of ancient Rome, in the suggestion which he sent to the most pious and confirmed of God our Lord and great Emperor; and afterwards he casts them out, as feeling things contrary to right faith, whom we define to be subjected to anathema. With these we command with justice to be cast out together from the holy Catholic Church of God, and at the same time anathematized, Honorius also, who was Pope of ancient Rome, because we find through the writings which were made by him to Sergius that he followed his mind in all things, and confirmed impious dogmas.

So far, the sentence as it is carried against the heretics condemned in the Synod.

This is the principal stronghold of the adversaries, whereby as many as will have it that Honorius was guilty of the error of the Monothelites rely upon it. But I demonstrate that the aforesaid sentence has been falsified, and that the name of Honorius was falsely inserted by the craft and fraud of the heretics, by several arguments, and those not lighter. First indeed, because the Synod says it condemns those whom it says were precondemned by Pontiff Agatho in his own epistle to the Emperor: but in that epistle Honorius is not found among the condemned heretics; nay rather Agatho testifies most constantly that never hath the Apostolic Church turned aside from the way of truth into any part whatsoever of error, nor through the grace of almighty God ever erred from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor corrupted by heretical novelties succumbed: which certainly would be most false if he had judged that Honorius himself had lapsed into the error which he himself Agatho condemned: therefore since the Synod testifies that only those are condemned whom Agatho precondemned in his epistle to the Emperor, the consequence is that Honorius in that Synod was not condemned, inasmuch as he was not named among the heretics condemned by Agatho. Secondly it is said in that sentence that Honorius was therefore condemned because his epistle to Sergius is alien from Apostolic dogmas and from the definitions of the Holy Councils and of all probable Fathers, but follows false doctrines of heretics: but all these things are most false, as has been proved above; seeing that in those epistles there is nothing that does not breathe Catholic doctrine. Then even if those epistles (which cannot be said) presented something of error, ought Honorius himself to have been condemned by the Synod on account of them, and not rather, after the manner of the ancients, inquiry made whether it could be found that he, his opinion changed, abjured the error before he closed the last day? Moreover, since it was known that there existed the posterior epistle of the same Honorius to the same Sergius: why was its reading not awaited, which was only made in the following session, from which posterior epistle it could stand as certain argument, as we said above, that the Pontiff himself asserted two operations, and as many wills in Christ? Surely there is no one who does not judge this preposterous and headlong condemnation of the Roman Pontiff suspect of imposture and falsification. Thirdly, since the Legates of the Apostolic See presided over that Synod, how would they have kept deep silence hearing the Antistes of that same see condemned with such premature violence, especially in a matter so open and already sufficiently discussed, both through the preceding judgment of Ioannes Roman Pontiff sent to Constantinople, and through the defense of St. Maximus martyr, promulgated to the whole Catholic world in the public disputation with Pyrrhus, which had repelled this calumny from Honorius? Finally since in the epistles of Agatho, whose offices they discharged, they had most expressly that none of the Roman Pontiffs had lapsed into any error? In what manner would they have labored under so profound a lethargy that not even one or other of them perceived and rose up, at least as defenders of the letters of Agatho, especially since from those letters they had received that nothing was to be decreed by themselves except those very things alone which were contained in the same letters? Add that even if truly the epistles of Honorius breathed some error, why did not the Legates urge that proceedings be suspended until it stood established that he had not laid aside that error, but died in it? Can it come into anyone's mind, who knows with what firmness of soul the Legates themselves resisted the Monothelites while they attempted to draw Vigilius the Roman Pontiff over to their party; yet they heard with quiet mind the other Antistes of the same see condemned, not even a word being uttered for his detention? What? On account of the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the condemnation of the writings of Theodoret and Ibas Bishop, the whole Christian world ought to have been moved and an OEcumenical Synod convened; yet it was accomplished only with the greatest labor: but the Antistes of the first See, who judges all and is judged by none, was to be condemned from the simple reading of those Epistles, no inquisition being made whether before he should meet his last day he had abjured that error? Fourthly, if truly Honorius had been condemned as a heretic, why after the celebration of the sixth Synod was his name not expunctuated from the sacred diptychs together with the names of the condemned Patriarchs? for Anastasius Bibliothecarius relates that when the Synod was concluded the names of all the condemned Patriarchs were deleted, and their images removed from the Churches. But it stands that Honorius was buried with orthodox Pontiffs in the Basilica of St. Peter, and his sepulchre adorned with very many elogies and honorific titles, which Baronius relates under the year of Christ 638 n. 2 and following. Among other things however his Epitaph offers this:

Whom mighty in doctrine, whom the rule of sacred life, alike of Pontiffs the glory decreed to have. Of thy master ever of holy speech the inventions shone forth in thee as though exceedingly fruitful. For the footsteps of Gregory so great a just one while eagerly thou followest, and bearest his merit, of eternal light Christ vouchsafing everlasting, with the holy Fathers possess now the day.

Which verses although they carry no elegance about them, and savour of the ruder Muse of that age: nevertheless sufficiently disclose him to have been an upright man and imitator of St. Gregory: which certainly the Roman see would not suffer to be said of a heretical man, nor would allow his name to be inserted in the list of orthodox Pontiffs, nor would suffer his image woven in mosaic in the apse of the Church of St. Agnes, which he himself had restored, to be seen hitherto publicly exposed to the veneration of Christians. — From these things therefore it ought to stand sufficiently that the acts of that Synod were falsified, and that the name and Epistles of Honorius were deceitfully inserted with the assertors of the condemned error by the craft of the Monothelites.

THIRDLY IT IS INQUIRED: who can be induced to believe that anyone arrived at such audacity as to corrupt the acts of a general Council? — I answer, that this does not seem wonderful to a man expert in Ecclesiastical affairs; for this trick was most frequent among the Greeks, whom we saw above falsifying the acts of the fifth Synod, and convicted of falsehood in the cause of Vigilius. — Moreover, St. Gregory book 5 Epistle 11, which is to Narses, testifies that they corrupted the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where he adds that he suspects that they corrupted also the Ephesine Synod, whence he subjoins there that the codices of the Romans are more truthful than those of the Greeks: Because, he says, the Romans have as they have no acuteness, so neither impostures. Similarly that they corrupted the Canons of the second Synod is evident from Action 16 of the Council of Chalcedon and from the letters of St. Leo concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople. — Finally, that they corrupted the acts of the seventh Synod no less than those of the preceding, Anastasius Bibliothecarius testifies in the prefation of the History to the sixth Synod; after which he subjoins:

Thus therefore the Greeks, having accepted the occasion of the universal Councils celebrated, frequently are made clear to have acted, now diminishing, now adding or changing, now in the absence of colleagues, now in hidden corners, now outside the Synod, now after the Synod with their craft, nay fraud, abusing common sanctions, and unto their ⟦liking⟧ violently bend all things which shall have seemed good to them.

FOURTHLY IT IS INQUIRED: who indeed that bold interpolator may have been, who dared to tamper with such synodal acts, and insert the name of Honorius with the condemned patrons of the heretics. — I answer, it does not seem improbable, as Baronius teaches under the year 681 n. 29, that the artificer and author of this imposture is held to be Theodore Patriarch of Constantinople, a Monothelite and the most audacious defender of that heresy, who broke out into such insolence as to take away the names of the Roman Pontiffs deceased since the controversy arose from the sacred diptychs, and above all Vitalian's, retaining only the name of Honorius, as stands from the fact that George of Constantinople, who had been substituted in his place, in the sixth Synod Action 8 demanded that the name of Pontiff Vitalian be restored, which was granted spontaneously. But when that most crafty man had been restored to his own see with simulated penance in the year 682, George dying namely after three years and as many months, it is credible that he, having obtained the summit of affairs, and gained the prototype of the Synod, deleted his own name from the number of the condemned. Nor indeed can it be said that he was not condemned in that Synod: Both because the Synod passed judgment upon all the Bishops of Constantinople since this heresy arose, and condemned Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, and Petrus: but Thomas, Ioannes, and Constantinus, predecessors of that Theodore, were declared orthodox; why therefore not Theodore himself, since he felt the same as the other heretical Patriarchs, and on that account had been deposed, be likewise condemned with the heretics? Then because Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who reduced the actions of the same sixth Synod into compendium, has this:

Thereupon, he says, the most pious and most serene prince brought forth the tomus to be reread, in which alone the heretical dogma of Macarius had been conscribed, and its subscription in his hand openly affirming one will in the Lord: beneath whose subscription, and of Theodore Patriarch certainly close by, the tenor of subscription was there.

Therefore it stands that Theodore was guilty of the same error; and yet nothing of this sort is found in the acts which are in hand: whence no light argument is drawn that he expunctuated from the autograph of the synodal acts those things which tended to his own ignominy, and inserted the name of Honorius and restored it in place of his own name, both that he might attempt thereby to fulfill that hatred which he had conceived against the Roman Church: and especially that his own guilt and that of the other successors of Sergius, and also of Sergius himself might seem less, inasmuch as they had had as companion in the same error the Pontiff of the universal Church.

You will urge: How then in the seventh Synod in the final Action was that fraud not detected? since in it anathema is said against Honorius and Sergius and the other defenders of the Monothelite heresy; which is also found in the Epistle sent in the name of the Synod to Emperor Constantius and Irene his mother. — I answer, that likewise the acts of that Council were interpolated by the Greeks out of hatred of the Roman Church, the name of Honorius being substituted in place of Theodore, as had been fabricated in the sixth Synod by Theodore himself Patriarch of the Constantinopolitan See, that the guilt of the condemned might appear less, whom certainly the Pontiff of the Roman Church Honorius had preceded. — Some answer, that the Fathers of this seventh Synod, deceived by the corrupted acts of the sixth Synod, pronounced anathema against Honorius. Truly that has no appearance of probability; for the Legates of Adrian the Roman Pontiff, who presided over the Council in his name, would not have suffered so great an injury to be inflicted upon the Roman Pontiff, whom Ioannes supreme Pontiff and St. Maximus Martyr had declared immune from error.

You will urge: If these things are so, why then does the Roman Council under Adrian II testify that Honorius was rejected in the sixth Synod? for in the Epistle of that Council it is held: That Honorius was judged after death by the sixth Synod, because he had been accused of heresy. — I answer, that in it is not said that Honorius was condemned by the sixth Synod, as the objection falsely supposes, but only that he was condemned by the Orientals: which indeed we do not deny; but we rightly have cause to complain of that unjust condemnation, both because Honorius was altogether innocent; and because the first See is not to be judged by another inferior. Therefore his condemnation did not emanate from an OEcumenical Synod, by which however he would truly have deserved condemnation if he had been infected with that error.

Some object the authority of Agatho, as though in it Honorius were condemned. — But the contrary stands most openly, seeing that it contains, as we saw above, most expressly that the Roman Church never departed from the path of the Apostolic See, nor corrupted by heretical novelties succumbed; which would be plainly false if he himself condemned Honorius in it.

Finally they object the epistle of Leo II to Emperor Constantine, which is had at the end of the sixth Synod, whose acts it confirms and approves: in which it is written that Honorius died in the Monothelite heresy; for he says: Likewise we anathematize the inventors of the new error, namely Theodore Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, successors of the Church of Constantinople, rather than Prelates, and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this Apostolic Church with the doctrine of Apostolic tradition, but attempted by profane betrayal to subvert the immaculate faith. — Baronius answers under the year of Christ 687 n. 19 and following, that Epistle of Leo to be spurious; and he proves it because it contains contradictories: for first it is written: given on the nones of May indiction tenth: and yet in the context it is had that Leo received the imperial letters and the synodal acts, elapsed recently of the tenth indiction, in the month of July, and received the Legates returning from the Synod. Secondly because Leo could not have received the Legates together with the letters and acts of the sixth Synod in the month of July; seeing he sat barely ten months, but was created Pontiff in the month of August. Thirdly he says he received in the month of May, tenth indiction, the Epistle of the Emperor, and yet it stands that it was sent by the Emperor only within the same indiction, in the month of December. Which things all plainly contradict one another, it must be confessed that that Epistle circulated under the name of Leo is spurious and counterfeit. And therefore from all these arguments it stands that Honorius was utterly immune from that error, and by no means reckoned among the heretics by the sixth Synod, nor condemned with them.

You will urge: Therefore Leo Pontiff wrote to various Prelates of the Christian world, but especially to the Spaniards and their King Ervigius, to whom he transmitted this definition and the acts of the sixth synod through Peter notary regionary, so that they might be fortified by the subscriptions of all those, which had been enacted in that OEcumenical Council: but in those very acts transmitted by Leo there is found that condemnation of Honorius and proscription of the same Epistles: therefore truly Leo approved that condemnation of Honorius, and held it legitimate.

Baronius denies the major under the year 683 n. 21 and following, and demonstrates those Epistles which circulate under the name of Leo to the Prelates of Spain and King Ervigius to be spurious and supposititious: first because in each of those Epistles it is asserted that the same OEcumenical Synod was concluded in indiction 9. But it stands from the last action of the same Synod that it was concluded only in indiction 10. Secondly in the Epistle to the Prelates of Spain these things are had: But of the diverse Councils subject to this holy Apostolic See, whose ministry we exercise, Archbishops have been sent by us, who with the pious Prince, at once and with all, who convened by his mandate, presiding over the Prelates of Churches; and confidently first indeed the five holy universal Councils, etc. But it is false that any Archbishop sent from Rome assisted at the Synod; for none is reported in the acts of that Synod: therefore this appears fictitious. Finally thirdly, in the Epistle to King Ervigius he says that the Emperor wrote to Pope Agatho that Legates be directed to Constantinople to celebrate the Synod: but it stands both from the letters of Agatho and from the acts of the Synod themselves that the Emperor wrote not to Agatho, but to his predecessor Pope Donus. Add that that Epistle relates that the Emperor wrote these things in the ninth indiction; which is found equally most false; since those letters of the Emperor to Donus are found given in the sixth indiction on the day before the ides of August, which certainly corroborate the argument of imposture.