The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-01-18
For rHE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
INFALLIBILITY OF HONoRIUS I.

MOsheim assigns the ponti6cate of Homo
rius to the years 626-69S inclusive. The
charge that we bring against has infalibilty
is not that it was self-cOntradictory, but op-
posed to the infalhbility Of other Roman
POntiHs of equal authority upon the same
points of Christian doctrine. In other words,
HOnOrius was a Monothelte,
The MonOthelite controversy began to
agitate the Church very soon after the En-
perOr Heraclius, in the year $50, published
an edict, in which he required that this
faith should be received and taught, viz /:
that in Jesus Christ, after the union of the
two natures, there was but one will and one
voluntary operation. The doctrine ad-
yanced in this decree had been approved by
the patriarch of COnstantinople before the
decree was pubGshed and the edict itself
met with favorable reception from the pa
triarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. But
in The year 634, SophrOnius, monk of
Palestine was elevated to the See of Jerusa-
lem; and ne issued circular letter to the
other patriarchs on occasion of his consecra-
ton, and presented aa elaborate discus
sion Of the subject, and host of quotations
from the fathers in proof that the doctrine
of two wills and two operations was the only
true doctrine" "He drew over many,
PARTICULARLY among the monks, to his senti-
ments; aud he made special efforts to gain
over Honorius, the Roman Pontiff, to his
side. But Sergius Of Constantinople wrote
a long and discreet letter to HonOrius,
which induced him to decide that there was
one will and one operation in Christ" The
translator of DR.. Mosheim adds in a note,
that HonOrius was made acquainted by
Sergius with the origin and whole progress
Of the controversy; and he was 50 impressed
that in his answer to Sergius, he so far
agreed with Sergius that he would not have
either one or TWO operations and divine
wills affirmed; yet he did very clearly main
tain but one will in Christ, expressed his
disapprObatiOn of Sophronius, and declared
the whole controversy to be unimportant and
mere logomachy. There is extant also, an
extract from a second letter of HOnorius to
Sergius, in which he still farther confirms his
opinion
From these statements it is manifest that
however unimportant Honorius may have
deemed the controversy then going on, and
whatever may be said of his tolerance toward
those who differed from himself, he did new
ertheless declare in favor of the MonOthehte
doctrine; and he did this, not as an ordina-
ry bishop, not even as a patriarch, but as
an universal bishop, the legitimate successor
of Peter, the authoritative, infalible ex-
FOUNDER of apostolic doctrine.
John ~, however, who became sovereign
PontiF in the year $40, did not agree with
the infalhble Honorius. He assembled a
numerous council and condemned the eothe-
sis'-this was the edict of Heraclius-" as
vel as all its fayorers and adherents" And
"alter the adjournment Of the council the
Pope FASTENED to expedite its proceedings to
the court of COnstantinople, with an apOs-
tOEcal letter, in which his holiness sought to
extenuate the enormity of the heresy of his
predecessor, HOnorius, admitting all the
while that he had partaken of the errors of
the schismatics Here wehaye one infalli-
bility acknowledging that another infallibil-
ity had partaken of the errors of the schis-
MATES.
But HOnorius was not even then allowed
to rest in peace. Theodore 1 and Martin 1
both pronounced against the MonOthelites,
and thus condemned the views of Honorins.
But the sixth general council, which met at
Constantinople in the year $50, went even
further than this. According to De Cor
menin, that assembly rendered this judg-
ment:" After having examined with pro-
found attention the dogmaticaI letters of
Sergius of Byzantium to Cyrus of Alexan-
dria, and the replies of the Pontiff HonOrius
to Sergius, we declare that we have found
them contradictory of the doctrine of the