HONORIUS
454
HONORIUS
sion, but had declared that Honorius and Sergius had
used it in an orthodox sense. But John IV had
neither defended nor blamed Honorius and Sergius
for wishing the expression "two operations" to be
avoided. It was consequently assumed that Honorius
was right in this, and it was quite logical to assimilate
the question of one or two wills to that of one or two
operations. The penalties were severe; but both
patriarch and emperor declared that they forced no
man's conscience. The Type, unlike the Ecthesis,
was not an exposition of faith, but a mere prohibition
of the use of certain words, for the avoidance of
wrangling. The edict was issued about the first half
of 649. Pope Theodore died in May, and was suc-
ceeded by St. Martin I, who in the great Lateran
Council of 649 solemnly condemned the Ecthesis and
the Tj-pe as heretical, together with C^tus, Sergius,
PjTrhus (who had fallen back), and Paul. The em-
peror was furious. He had the pope dragged to Con-
stantinople, loaded with chains, and exiled him to the
Crimea, where he died a mart^T for the Faith in 655.
St. Maximus also suffered for his devotion to ortho-
doxy and liis loyalty to the Holy See. The decrees of
the "Lateran Council which were sent to all bishops
by St. Martin as papal dogmatic decisions, mark a
new stage in the Honorius controversy. Honorius
and Sergius must stand or fall together. John IV
defended both. St. Martin condemns Sergius and
Cyrus, and not a word is said in favour of Honorius.
It was evidently felt that he could not be defended, if
the T.vpe was to be condemned as heretical because it
forbade the orthodox expressions "two operations"
and "two Wills", since in this it was simply following
Honorius. But be it carefully noted that the Type
of Constans is not Monothelite. Its "heresy" con-
sists in forbidding the use of orthodox expressions
together with their heretical contraries. A study of
the Acts of the Lateran Council will show that the
question was not as to the toleration of Monothelite
expressions, for they were forbidden by the Type, but
the prohibition of the orthodox formul:e. No doubt it
was still held at Rome that Honorius had not in-
tended to teach "one Will", and was, therefore, not a
positive heretic. But no one would deny that he
recommended the negative course which the T^^pe
enforced under savage penalties, and that he objec-
tively deserved the same condemnation.
In Wh.^t Sense Honorius W-vs Condemned. — Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Con- stantine Pogonatus, probably did not trouble to en- force the Type, but East and West remained divided until liis wars against the Saracens were over in 678, and he began to think of reunion. By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remember- ing Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condeinns the Ecthe- sis and the Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, PjTrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council. The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verifie<l. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Ahicarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were ex- amined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned l)y no one else. In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to
Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to
Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the
thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius
were condemned, and the councU added: "Those
whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that
their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of
God", that is, Sergius, Cvtus, PjTrhus, Peter, Paul,
Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy
Pope Agatho in liis letter to the pious and great em-
peror, "and were cast out by him, as holding views
contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define
to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these
we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder
Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of
God, and be anathematized with them, because we
have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed
his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked
dogmas". These last words are true enough, and if
Sergius was to be condemned Honorius could not be
rescued. The legates made no objection to his con-
demnation. The question had indeed arisen unex-
pectedly out of the reading of Macarius's packet ; but
the legates must have had instructions from the pope
how to act under the circumstances.
Some other ^Tilings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Hon- orius, and these were all condemned to be burnt. On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned " that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is, Sergius, P>Trhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the sug- gestion. But there was no attempt to save the repu- tation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the sjmod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it en- thusiastically accepts the letter of St. .\gatho. The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with liis followers. The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter " which we recognize as pronoimced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no sup- port from the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possil)ility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforcctl under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Hon- orius " the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not con- demned by the council as a JlonotheUte, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well ac- quainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, an<l (he
