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

also simply reckons Cardinal Orsi among the
defenders of the orthodoxy of Honorius. We
can ourselves attest to the fact that Cardial
Orsi maintains an opinion in this controversy
directly the reverse of that attributed to him
by Pr. Dollinger. So much, then, for the
accuracy of Dr. Dollinger. The very authorities
whom he has cited in behalf of his opinion speak
against him. In repudiating Dr. Dollinger's
assumption of the right of putting an exclusive
monothelite interpretation on Pope Honorius'
letters to the Patriarch Sergius, in exposing the
inaccuracy, to say the least, of his quotations,
and the paucity and untrustworthiness of the
witnesses he brings into court against the
orthodoxy of the Pope, and, above all, in
reminding Catholics that the acts of a Council
are only valid in so far as they are confirmed
by the Pope, F. Schncemanu has, by antici-
pation, completely cut the ground from be-
neath Mr. Renouf's feet. Mr. Renouf, with
uncritical blindness, seems in his pamphlet to
have relied implicitly on Dr. Dollinger's asser-
tions, trusted to his authorities, and servilely,
though without acknowledgment, adopted his
conclusions ; he cannot, therefore, be surprised
that his rude and blundering attacks on the
orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, on the sanctity,
on the venerable wisdom, and the profound
learning of so many saints, theologians, and
historians, should disentitle him to any con-
sideration beyond what is charitably extended
to a blind, and, therefore,' partly irresponsible,
follower of an untrustworthy leader. Mr.
Renouf has the greatest right to complain of
Dr. Dollinger.

We should do P. Schneemann an injustice
were we not, before quitting this portion of our
subject, to refer to his philosophical remarks
on the general principles of interpretation. It
is in this particular power of referring facts
to general principles that Dr. Dollinger is
deficient. In spite of his learning and acute-
ness, he is sadly wanting in breadth of mind
' and in the power of philosophic generalization.
This want is conspicuous among many and
great excellencies in his Church history; it
lies at the bottom of most of his inconsistencies
and errors. The very keenness of his mental
vision contracts its range and predisposes him
to seize upon isolated facts to the neglect of
general principles, by which alone these facts
can be reduced to an intelligible and consistent
system. Under the impulse of irritation of
external circumstances, this original defect is
painfully conspicuous in. most of Dr. Dollinger's
recent publications, but more especially so \in
his Papstfabele Judged by the rule which F.
Schneemann lays down as a universal principle
in Canon as well as in Civil law, Dr. Dollinger's
judgment on Pope Honorius must be reversed.
This principle recognised in like manner in
the Roman law lays down as a universal rule
that ambiguous expressions admit of an in-
terpretation, especially by him who made use
of them, and by his successor in legislation ;
and, lastly, great weight is attached to the ex-
planation of science, especially if it be unani-
mous. Applying this principle to the decision
of the Honorius question, F. Schneemann says
it is not evident that the words of the Pope
are to be taken in the heretical sense, he -will
moreover, even grant, that it is not clear that
they are to be understood in an orthodox
sense. Room is left for interpretation. If, then,
Honorius, especially in his first letter, expressed
himself inaccurately, yet in his second he ex-
plained himself more clearly, and maintained
in a most unmistakeable manner the Catholic
Dogma against the MonOthelites. Moreover,
ambiguous words are to be explained according
to the intention of the author, and abundant
evidence, as we have already seen, attests to
what was the real meaning .of Pope Honorius.
How is it possible, says F. Schneemann, after
duly weighing the various testimony as to the
intention of the Pope, the report of his secre-
tary who composed the letters, the judgment
of the Roman clergy, and the official decla-
ration of his successor, together with the almost
unanimous agreement in the CathOlic world of
science and letters as to the orthodox meaning
of Pope Honorius, how is it possible, then, in
contradiction to all this evidence, to attach an
heretical sense to his words.

In justice to F. Schneemann we ought to
mention here that we have had to omit, partly
for want of space, and partly on account of its
scientific character, the exhaustive energetical
examination of the-two incriminated letters
of Honorius, the result of which we may state
is a conclusive proof, to be evaded only
by subterfuge or perversion of facts, that the
letters of Honorius in no way teach or contain
heresy. In vain did so great a genius as
Bossuet expend twenty years' labour in endea-
vouring to convict the Pope of teaching heresy ;
in vain have been the labours and the learning
of Dr. Dollinger; all their efforts have been
dashed againstto pieces the Rock on which
the Church was founded ; for " Peter," as
Bossuet himself says, "lives in his Successors."
If, then, as we have seen, no heretical inter-
pretation can justly be put on Pope Honorius's•
letters, what becomes of the allegation so loudly
and so raehly blurted out, not indeed so much
by Dr. Dollinger as by his indiscreet disciple,
Mr. Renouf, as to the utter and evident un-
tenableness of the theory of Papal infallibility?
Next week we shall enter more particularly into
this aspect' of the question, and by the help of
Dr. Ward's latest publication—the ablest, per-
haps, and the most convincing of his invalu-
able series-:-contrast Mr. Renouf's attempt to
substitute for Papal infallibility the infallibility
of General Councils with F. Ryder's attempt,
so to circumscribe and limit the infallibility
of the Pope and Church as to make its exer-
cise not a matter of constant use, but of rare
occurrence in the course of centuries. Were
we now called upon to express an Opinion as
to the relative dangers to Catholicity of the
two schemes we should, not speaking of the
manner in which they are propounded, with-
out hesitation pronounce F. Ryder's novel and
insidious theory to be by far the more danger-
ous, since its adoption by English Catholics
would practically render, as far as they are
concerned, the infallible judgment of the
Church inoperative on all but very -rare and
exceptional occasions, and would, as Dr. Ward,
we think has somewhere well observed, com-
pletely revolutionize the • attitude of their
minds towards the Church.