The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1868.

King, and not under the conditions -.which
its author had imposed. Many doubts, and
not without reason, have been expressed as to
its genuineness. " What kind of judgment,"
asks F. Schneemann, "is to be pronounced on
such a work ? Is a work published after the
death of its author and against his express
wish, and without any of his emendations, en-
titled to very great consideration ? And what
is its internal value ? It is not," our author
remarks with great justice, " the result of
calm investigation ; it is not the work of an
untrammelled. mind ; it is written, indeed, by
great genius, but in the service of an absolute
monarch in defence of a bad cause. What
can the greatest genius do if it fall into evil
ways ?" And yet this book is the chief autho-
rity which is set up against the giants of
Catholic literature and science, who have
defended Pope Honorius. But it is time to
pass on to the other authorities appealed to as
evidence against Honorius's orthodoxy. One
of these is Cardinal de la Luzerne, of whose
judgment on this question Mr. Renouf makes
great use, forgetting, however, to inform his
readers that at the period just prior to the
French Revolution, when•the Honorius ques-
tion was so much discussed, he not only voted
in favour of Pope Honorius, but wrote in de-
fence of his orthodoxy. It was only later on,
after the French Revolution, when he was en-
deavouring to show that the safety of the
Church in France depended on its intimate
connection with the Bourbon throne, that
he wrote an apology of the Gallican articles,
and that he changed his opinions on the Hono-
rius question.

W have now to exainine faults graver
than mere superficial criticism or hasty gene-
ralization into which an unhappy anti-Papal
spirit seems to have betrayed Dr. Dollinger.
Since Dr. Dollinger's influence has not been
without its evil effect in England, we are under
no obligation to attenuate the judgments pro-
nounced by competent critics in• Germany,
that too great a reliance must now no longer
be placed upon the historical accuracy or
critical acumen of Dr. Dollinger, especially in
matters in which the rights and prerogatives
of the Papacy are concerned. F. Schneemann
exposes, without comment or any approach to
severity in statement, several instances, in
which Dr. Dollinger has been guilty of sup-
pression of evidence that told against his case,
and of perversion or misrepresentation of the
judgment of witnesses whom he cites in sup-
port of his views. Let us take, says F. Schnee-
mann, the instance of Cardinal Sfondrate, Bel-
larmine, and Baronius, together with many
others, as is well known, maintained that the
acts of the sixth Synod had been falsified.
Thereupon Dr. Dollinger remarks in his
Papstfabeln that against the endeavours of
Bellarmine, Baronius, and of others after them
to set aside historical and copiously attested
facts by throwing suspicion on witnesses and
documents Cardinal Sfrondate has spoken out
strongly in the following
words : " Quid
hoc est aliud quam contratorrefitem navigare,
omnemque historiam ecclesiasticam in dubium
vocare ? Sublata vero historic et consequenter
traditione usuque ecclesiae, quae to arma contra
haereticos satis valida habebis ? Male ergo,
ut nobis quidem videtur, Ecclesiae illi con-
sulunt, qui ut Honorii causam tueantur, his-
toriam ecclesiastic= exarmant.—Ergo si tes-
tibus agenda res est, Honorius Papa haere ticus
fait." Strong words of a verity, observes F.
Schneemann; but they lose their force, at least
inasmuch they seem to speak against Hono-
rius, Bellarmine, and Baronius by what imme-
diately follows, but which Dr. Dollinger, we
may observe, omits : "Si vero causam ipsam
rationesque attendas, ob quas haeresis postu-
latur Honorius, fatendum est, innocentem esse
et noxa liberum." Cardinal Sfondrate proves
this at length, and maintains that: "Honorius
haeresim Mouotheletarum non adstruit sed
plane destrult.—Clarissime dicit, non esse di-
cendam unam voluntatem vel operationem, sed
unum operantem. Apertissime singulis naturis
propriam operationem tribuit." So much for
the fairness of Dr. Dollinger's mode of mak-
ing use of quotations.
We come now, says F. Schneemann, to
another defender of Papal infallibility. Dr.
Bollinger, atter pointing out that the Jansenists
maintained Honorius had been unjustly treated
by the Sixth Synod, which deceived itself; but
that their opponents by the distinction be-
tween positive and negative heresy, did violence
to the clear words of the Synod, thus speaks of
Fenelon (Papstfabeln, p. 148) ; " But Fenelon
has already reminded us that by all these arti-
fices whereby the orthodoxy of Honorius is in-
tended to be saved nothing is gained." Dol-
linger thus seems, says F. Schneemann, to refer
the criticism of Fenelon to the assertion of
the Jansenists as well as to that of their op-
ponents. But unjustly; for Fenelon in the
passage quoted nowhere designates the dis-
tinction between positive and negative heresy
as an artifice or idle interpretation. We find,
indeed, just before the passage quoted by Bol-
linger, a similar sentence : En vain pour parer
i cet inconvenient ou se retrancherait a dire
que ce Pape n'a etc anathematise par le
concile que comme fauteur d'heresie, et
non pas comme heretiquee. But these are
not the words of Fenelon, but of the Jansen-
ists, whom he is refuting. How, moreover,
could Fenelon call this distinction an artifice,
as he emphatically at least elsewhere expresses
his concurrence with those who maintain this
distinction. But even the words of Fenelon,
which Dollinger quotes but does not trans-
late quite accurately, indicate as much. Fene-
lon writes thus : "Suppose que le sixieme con-
cile suivi en ce point par plusieurs paper, cut
cm que le texte d'Honorius etait heretique,
&e., &c." By this construction Fenelon in-
tends it to be understood that the supposition
which he makes was not made in reality but
was only imaginary, and, consequently, that
the Church had not condemned Honorius as a
heretic. But Dollinger ascribes to Fenelon
just the contrary, making him repudiate as an
artifice the distinction between heresy and the
favouring of heresy. In another point Fene-
lon differs from Dollinger. Dollinger says of
Torquemada, Baronius, Bellarmine, and of
others, that they simply sacrificed the dignity
of an (Ecumenical Council to the interests of
their theory, and maintained, as did the Jan-
senists later, that the Council was deceived in
its judgment of the Decretals of Honorius.
Verily, observes F. Schneemann, a severe re-
proach against such devout and learned men.
Fenelon, he shows, on the contrary, proves by
an exhaustive examination and comparison of
the words of these theologians that the expres-
sions, although inaccurate, had in reality a
Catholic sense.

Referring to Dr. Dollinger, F. Schneemann
says the example of /lonelon shows us with
what care Catholic theologians should follow
the principle, long ago expressed by the
Fathers, that the words of a Catholic should
only, under compulsion, be interpreted in an
un-Catholic sense ; but especially is this true
in regard to the departed worthies of Catholic
theology. Want of space forbids us to pursue
in, further detail the exposure of the misin-
terpretations and false quotationsinto which
Dr. Dollinger has been betrayed. It is enough
to remark that Dr. Dollinger quotes Bishop
d'Argentre as maintaining " that the Council
had rightly condemned Pope Honorius as a
heretic ;" but F. Schneemann shows that
neither the words quoted, nor their equivalent,
are to be found in the passage referred to
by Dr. Dollinger, but that the- direct contra-
dictory is maintained. For in the passage in
question, d'Argentre refers to a treatise of his
on Pope Honorius, in which he expressly main-
tains and proves that it cannot be said that
Honorius was condemned by the Church as a
heretic. Again, Dr. Bollinger claims Cardinal
Orsi, the ardent upholder of Papal infallibility;
as acknowledging the untenableness of the
efforts made by short-sighted theologians to
maintain the orthodoxy of Honorius. But De
la, Luzerne, whom F. Schneemann quotes, not
having himself access to the works of Cardinal
Orsi, says that the Cardinal maintained the
opinion that Honorius was now accused of
heresy
only by Protestants. Professor Hefele,