The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

A POINT OF Law. .In the Court of Common Pleas
the case of the Mayor and others, of Manchester (appel-
lants) v. Chapman (respondent) was decided. The point
in dispute was whether the owner of land at the end of a
street in the city of Manchester, which was a cul de sac,
and whose land was separated from the street by a dead
wall, was liable to contribute to the expenses of paving and
sewering the street. The stipendiary magistrate at Man-
chester, before whom proceedings had been taken by the
corporation of Manchester to recover the defendant's pro-
portion, decided that the defendant was not liable, and
stated this case for the opinion of the court by way of
appeal. After hearing the arguments, the court decided th 9
case in favour of the corporation, holding that the respon•
lent was liable.

FORGERY BY A WOOL BROKER. -At the Central
Criminal Court, William Whiley, a wool broker, pleaded
guilty, and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude,
for forging an acceptance to a bill of exchange for £2,000,
with intent to defraud Messrs. Jacomb, Sons, and Co., wool
brokers. After being committed for trial the accused
stated that he had received the bill from one of the prose-
cutors' clerks ; since then he denied that such a statement
was correct.

HEAVY SENTENCE FOR DIGAMY.—At the same court,
Henry Wilshire was tried and convicted of feloniously
marrying Mary Susan Leslie, his first wife being alive at
the time. The prisoner was the son of a farmer at
Hounslow, and received a considerable amount of pro-
perty from his first wife on his marriage, which, however,
he soon spent in dissipation and riotous living, and
behaved in so cruel a manner to his wife that she wai
frequently without food. Since contracting that alliance,
Wilshire has been tried for forgery and acquitted,
Soon after this occurrence he made the acquaintanceship
of Miss Leslie, a lady who is a minor, but on coming of
age will be entitled to a large fortune. This lady he mar.
tied, representing that he would be entitled to a
large sum of money at his brother's death ; but
things were not allowed to run thus smoothly,
for the accused was arreste i when on his wedding
tour. The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the
prisoner knew that Miss Leslie would at a future day
become the possessor of £4,000 India Stock, and he had
not only obtained possession of her, but bad his eye on the
property, which he had endeavoured to get by a gross
fraud. The accused was sentenced to five years' penal
servitude, to the manifest satisfaction of a crowded court.
STEALING A STEAMER.— At the Glasgow Baillie Court
Thomas Gourlay, Hugh Mackay, and a third person,
named Murphy, were severally charged with the theft of
a small screw steamer from the Kingston Dock. The two
first-named persons, who were quite boys, seem to have
lit a fire on board the vessel and got the steam
up, and subequently shipped Murphy, who, after
sailing down the liver for some time, was put
ashore. The two youths found that it was easier to
get the steam up than to stay it, and in their endeavours
to accomplish the latter feat the vessel ran aground. The
prisoners were lucky enough to land on terra firma, and
adjourned to a neighbouring hostelry, but on their return
the steamer had been sunk by the surge from steamers of
larger dimensions. Murphy was discharged, and the
other two prisoners were sent to the High Court of Juts-
ticia.rv.

-POPE HOAORIUS AND PAPAL EVTALLI-

BILI 7 Y.

(From the iVestminster Gazette.)
" That Pope Honorius shared the errors of
the Monothelites," says a German divine of
repute, "is maintained by very many modern
heretics, but by very few Catholics." One of
these very few .Catholics is Mr. Le Page

Renouf, the author of the pamphlet which

stands second in our list

F. Schneemann, a German Jesuit, in strik-
ing contrast to Mr. Renouf's heated partizan-
ship, vindicates, in a calm and critical exami-
nation, Pope Honorius from the charge of
having given a decision ex cathedra in favour
of the Monothelite heresy, and proves, by
indisputable evidence, that he was condemned
by the Sixth (Ecumenical Synod, not as being
guilty of heresy, but only of having promoted
by his mistaken conduct the disastrous spread
of the Monothelite errors. The orthodoxy of
Honorius, and the purport of the anathema
pronounced against him have at various times,
and more especially during the Gallican dis-
pute as to Papal infallibility, been an inex-
haustible source of controversy. Since 1650,
almost every theologian of name, says Dr.
Manger, has been engaged in this contro-
versy, so that, within a period of 130 years,
more has been written on this ecclesiastico-

historical question than upon any other subject
in 1,500 years. What has been the result of
this long controversy ? What judgment has
Catholic literature pronounced on Pope Hono-
rius ? Did Pope Honorius, as Head of the
Church, declare an heretical decision, and was
he condemned as a heretic by Councils and
Popes ? Such are the questions which F.
Schneemann undertakes to examine. His work
is divided into four chapters. The first chapter
treats historically of the Pontificate of Hono-
rius I ; the second is devoted to an inquiry
into his conduct in regard to the Monothelite
disputes ; the third to an elaborate exegetical
examination of the two celebrated letters of
Pope Honorius to the Patriarch Sergius, and
the fourth and concluding chapter explains
the real signification of the anathema of the
Sixth Synod pronounced against Pope Hono-
rius.
We will briefly examine some of the points
discussed in the second and fourth chapters,
reserving a more complete notice of this able
and interesting work until it appears in an
English version, as we understand will shortly
be the case.
Immediately after his death, says F. Schnee-
mann, the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius un-
derwent a most thorough examination. The
Monothelites were making the most of his
letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, and by giving a perverted interpreta-
tion to certain passages in it, endeavoured to
make it appear that Honorius had shared and
approved of their errors. In order thoroughly
to investigate these charges, Abbot Anastasius
was sent to Rome. He made numerous and
careful inquiries concerning them among the
most eminent and pious members of the Roman
clergy concerning these charges against Hono-
rius. What was the result of this investigation ?
Abbot Sohn, to whose great virtue St. Maximus
bears testimony, but whom Mr. Renouf con-
temptuously describes as a lying secretary, de-
clared that in the letter in question—in the
composition of which he was employed by the
Pope, consequently was a competent judge
of Honorius's meaning—the Pope in speaking
of there being but one will in Christ, did not
deny the natural will in the humanity of Christ,
but only wished to exclude the corruption of
the will as it exists in us, the sinful opposition,
inasmuch as Christ had assumed, according to
the teaching of the Scriptures and of the
Fathers, a flesh free from sin. The other
members of the Roman clergy on being much
pressed by Anastasius on the point in question,
showed great indignation at the accusations of
the Monothelites, and justified Honorius. These
explanations were of such weight as not only
completely to convince St. Maximus of the
orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, but had also the
same effect on the Patriarch Pyrrhus, one of
the chief supporters of the heresy. In order
fully to appreciate the importance of St.
Maximus's testimony, it is but right to in-
quire what weight ought to be attached to
his judgment. Dollinger, says F. Schnee-
mann, calls him the most learned and the
acutest theologian of his time, and a noble
fruit on the tree of Grecian philosophy. In
truth, continues F. Schneemann, be was a man
profoundly versed in patristic learning and
most skilful in its application against the
Monothelites, whom he opposed with such a
zeal as to lay down his life in testimony of the
truth. As a friend of the Pope's and of St.
Sophronius, Anastasius was perfectly familiar
with the controversies of the time. Such,
then, was the man who, as often as he speaks
of Honorius, defends his orthodoxy, praising
him in the highest terms, and even counting
him among the opponents of the Eastern
heresy. In the same period we find other and
not less weighty witnesses in favour of Hono-
rius. John IV., who about two years after
Honorius's death ascended the Papal chair,
wrote an Apology of Pope Honorius, ad-
dressed to the Greek Emperor, in which he
declared that he would relate with the most
scrupulous fidelity the course of events which
were still fresh in everyone's memory. What,
then, is the testimony of this Pope ? He de-
clared that the Monothelite interpretation of
the words of Honorius was altogether alien to
the mind of this Prince of the Church
(penitus alienum, a meats Catholic', Patris).
Pope John IV. then proceeds to explain at
length that Honorius, in the words he made
use of, intended to exclude in Christ only
the sinful will of corrupt nature, the concu-
piscence which the apostle calls volunlas carnis.
He infers this not only from the whole drift
of the arguments made use of by Honorius,
but also from the letter of Sergius, which
likewise speaks of two contradictory wills. But
quite apart, says F. Schneemann, from the his-
torical and scientific value of this testimony, it
is on a special ground entitled to a decisive
weight, as being an authentic explanation .on
the part of a Pope—to whom, as to every
prince, such a right belongs—of the decrees
of his predecessor. Again, continues our author
in another point of view, is this document
of Pope John useful for our purpose, for it
shows us that the whole of the West, as the
Pope had learnt from numerous expressions
of opinion, was in a state of great excitement
on account of the letters of the Patriarch Pyr-
rhus, in which he gave currency to the new
errors, and, in order to confirm them, perverted
from their right sense the words of Honorius.
In the East also the faithful entertained a
favourable opinion of the orthodoxy of Hono-
rius. This is shown by a touching event re-
lated by the Bishop of Dora at the Lateran
Council. St. Sophronius, seeing that his op-
position against the Monothelite heresy, not
only produced no fruits, but, on the contrary,
only still further embittered his opponents,
took the Bishop of Dora, as he himself relates,
to Calvary, and thus adjured him :—" You
will have to give an account to Him who on
this spot was crucified, and who once again
will come to the terrible judgment if you make
light of the great danger which the faith is
now exposed to. Go, since lam prevented
doing so by the invasion of the Saracens, from
the East to the West, until you arrive at the
foot of the apostolic chair, where the founda-
tions of the orthodox doctrines are, and do not
cbpeeacseomtoplleaty bare to the holy men at Rome the
proceedingse
completely
yf thedes
oheretics,ed until
From th eti inewisa
chceorue
nsyt--
it is evident, remarks F. Schneemann, that St.
Sophronius, although Honorius, on the advice
of the Patriarch Sergius, had recommended
him to keep silent on the controversy, was,
nevertheless, firmly persuaded of the ortho-
doxy of this Pope—nay, regarded him as a
prop of the true faith. This testimony is the
more important since it was given after the
return of his ambassadors from Rome, and
when, consequently, he was fully informed