assembled the first Lateran Council (Oct., 649), so called from being held in the Lateran basilica in Rome. It was attended by one hundred and five bishops, anathematized the one-will doctrine and the two imperial edicts, and solemnly sanctioned the two-will doctrine. It anticipated substantially the decision of the sixth œcumenical council, and comes next to it in authority on this article of faith.1

The acts of this Roman council, together with an encyclical of the pope warning against the Ekthesis and the Type, were sent to all parts of the Christian world. At the same time, the pope sent a Greek translation of the acts to the Emperor Constans II., and politely informed him that the Synod had confirmed the true doctrine, and condemned the heresy. Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus had violated the full humanity of Christ, and deceived the emperors by the Ekthesis and the Type.

But the emperor, through his representative, Theodore Calliopa, the exarch of Ravenna, deposed the pope as a rebel and heretic, and removed him from Rome (June, 653). He imprisoned him with common criminals in Constantinople, exposed him to cold, hunger, and all sorts of injuries, and at last sent him by ship to a cavern in Cherson on the Black Sea (March, 655). Martin bore this cruel treatment with dignity, and died Sept. 16, 655, in exile, a martyr to his faith in the doctrine of two wills.

Maximus was likewise transported to Constantinople (653), and treated with even greater cruelty. He was (with two of his disciples) confined in prison for several years, scourged, deprived of his tongue and right hand, and thus mutilated sent, in his old age, to Lazica in Colchis on the Pontus Euxinus, where he died of these injuries, Aug. 13, 662. His two companions likewise died in exile.

The persecution of these martyrs prepared the way for the

1 See the acts in Mansi, X., and Hefele, III. 212-230.

triumph of their doctrine. In the meantime province after province was conquered by the Saracens.

§ 112. The Sixth Ecumenical Council. A.D. 680. Constans II. was murdered in a bath at Syracuse (668). His son, Constantine IV. Pogonatus (Barbatus, 668-685), changed the policy of his father, and wished to restore harmony between the East and the West. He stood on good or neutral terms with Pope Vitalian (657-672), who maintained a prudent silence on the disputed question, and with his successors, Adeodatus (672–676), Donus or Domnus (676–678), and Agatho (678–681).

After sufficient preparations, he called, in concert with Agatho, a General Council. It convened in the imperial palace at Constantinople, and held eighteen sessions from Nov. 7,680, to Sept. 16, 681. It is called the Sixth Ecumenical, and also the First Trullan Synod, from the name of the hall or chapel in the palace. The highest number of members in attendance was one hundred and seventy-four, including three papal legates (two priests and one deacon). The emperor presided in person, surrounded by civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries. The acts are preserved in the Greek original and in two old Latin versions.2

After a full discussion of the subject on both sides, the council, in the eighteenth and last session, defined and sanctioned the two-will doctrine, almost in the very language of the letter of Pope Agatho to the emperor.3 Macarius, the patriarch of Alexandria, who adhered to Monotheletism, was deposed.

The epistle of Agatho is a worthy sequel of Leo's Epistle to the Chalcedonian Council, and equally clear and precise in stating the orthodox view. It is also remarkable for the

1 Tpoúhov or Tpovλλtov, Trullum, Trulla, Trullus, a technical term for buildings with a cupola. The Acts say that the sessions were held év T σEKρETŲ τοῦ θείου παλατίου, τῷ οὕτω λεγομένῳ Τρούλλῳ, and Anastasius: “in basilica, quæ Trullus appellatur, intra palatium."

2 Mansi, XI. 195-922. See a full account in Hefele, III. 252-313.

See above, 110, p. 493 sq.

confidence with which it claims infallibility for the Roman church, in spite of the monotheletic heresy of Pope Honorius (who is prudently ignored). Agatho quotes the words of Christ to Peter, Luke 22: 31, 32, in favor of papal infallibility, anticipating, as it were, the Vatican decision of 1870.1

But while the council fully endorsed the dyotheletic view of Agatho, and clothed it with oecumenical authority, it had no idea of endorsing his claim to papal infallibility; on the contrary, it expressly condemned Pope Honorius I. as a Monotheletic heretic, together with Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, and Theodore of Pharan.

Immediately after the close of the council, the emperor published the decision, with an edict enforcing it and anathematizing all heretics from Simon Magus down to Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pope Honorius, who in all was their follower and associate, and confirmed the heresy. The edict forbids any one hereafter to teach the doctrine of one will and one energy under penalty of deposition, confiscation, and exile.

Pope Agatho died Jan. 10, 682; but his successor, Leo II., who was consecrated Aug. 17 of the same year, confirmed the sixth council, and anathematized all heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who, instead of adorning the apostolic see, dared to prostitute its immaculate faith by profane treason, and all who died in the same error.'

§ 113. The Heresy of Honorius.

J. VON DÖLLINGER (Old Cath.): Papstfabeln des Mittelalters. München, 1863. The same translated by A. Plummer: Fables respecting the Popes in the Middle Ages; Am ed. enlarged by Henry B. Smith, N. York, 1872. (The case of Honorius is discussed on pp. 223-248 Am. ed.; see German ed. p. 131 sqq.).

1 Comp. Creeds of Christendom, I. 163 and 187.

* τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως. 3 "Honorium [anathematizamus] qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolicæ traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes qui in suo errore defuncti sunt." Mansi, XI. 731; Hefele, III. 289.

See ? 113.

SCHNEEMANN (Jesuit): Studien über die Honoriusfrage. Freiburg i. B. 1864.

PAUL BOTTALA (S. J.): Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History. London, 1868.

P. LE PAGE RENOUF: The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Lond., 1868. The Case of Honorius reconsidered. Lond. 1870.

MARET (R. C.): Du Concil et de la paix relig. Par. 1869.

A. GRATRY (R. C.): Four Letters to the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup) and the Archbishop of Malines (Dechamps), 1870. Several editions in French, German, English. He wrote against papal infallibility, but recanted on his death-bed.

A. DE MARGERIE: Lettre au R. P. Gratry sur le Pape Honorius et le Bréviaire Romain. Nancy, 1870.

Jos. VON HEFELE (Bishop of Rottenburg and Member of the Vatican Council): Causa Honorii Papæ. Neap., 1870. Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Concil. Tübingen, 1870. (The same translated by Henry B. Smith in the "Presbyt. Quarterly and Princeton Review," N. York, April, 1872, p. 273 sqq.). Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. (revised ed., 1877), pp. 145 sqq., 167 sqq., 290 sqq.

JOS. PENNACHI (Prof. of Church Hist. in the University of Rome): De Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio VI. ad Patres Concilii Vaticani. Romæ, 1870. 287 pp. Hefele calls this the most important vindication of Honorius from the infallibilist standpoint. It was distributed among all the members of the Vatican Council; while books in opposition to papal infallibility by Bishop Hefele, Archbishop Kenrick, and others, had to be printed outside of Rome. A. RUCKGABER: Die Irrlehre des Honorius und das Vatic. Concil. Stuttgart, 1871.

Comp. the literature in HERGENRÖTHER; Kirchengesch., III. 137 sqq.

The connection of Pope Honorius I. (Oct. 27, 625, to Oct. 12, 638) with the Monotheletic heresy has a special interest in its bearing upon the dogma of papal infallibility, which stands or falls with a single official error, according to the principle: Si falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It was fully discussed by Catholic scholars on both sides before and during the Vatican Council of 1870, which proclaimed that dogma, but could not alter the facts of history. The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:

1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the onewill heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic

patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: "Therefore we confess one will (équa, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ." He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One willer, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: "two energies," and the heterodox phrase: "one energy" (evépreca, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity. The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.3

1 ὅθεν καὶ ἓν θέλημα ὁμολογοῦμεν τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησ. Χρ.-unde et unam voluntatalem fatemur Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Mansi, XI. 538 sqq.; Hefele, III. 146 sq.

2 Mansi, p. 579; Hefele, p. 166 sq.

The same view is taken by Neander, the fairest among Protestant, and by Döllinger, the most learned of modern Catholic, historians. Neander (III. 179, E. ed.; III. 360, Germ. ed.) says: "Honorius, in two letters, declared his entire concurrence (erklärte sich ganz übereinstimmend) with the views of Sergius, and wrote also in the same terms to Cyrus and Sophronius. He too was afraid of logical determinations on such matters. It seemed to him altogether necessary to suppose but one will in Christ, as it was impossible to conceive, in him, any strife between the human and divine will such as by reason of sin exists in men." ["It seemed to him, as well as to Sergius, that a duplicity of will in one and the same subject could not subsist without opposition." From the foot-note.] "He approved, indeed, of the accommodation (oisovoμía), whereby the patriarch Cyrus had brought about the re-union of the Monophysites with the Catholic Church. But as hitherto no public decision of the church had spoken of 'one mode of working,' or of 'two modes of working' of Christ, it seemed to him the safest course, that in future such expressions should be avoided, as the one might lead to Eutychianism, the other to Nestorianism. He reckoned this whole question among the unprofitable subtilties which endanger the interests of piety. Men should be content to hold fast to this, in accordance with the hitherto established doctrine of the church, that the self-same Christ works that which is divine and human in both his natures. Those other questions should be left to the grammarians in the schools. If the Holy Spirit operates in the faithful, as St. Paul says, in manifold ways,