heaven.' Boniface V. invested the churches with those rights of asylum, which afforded to all villains a licence to commit crimes without much danger. The art of ornamenting churches magnificently, was perfected with great diligence by Honorius. For, as neither Christ nor his apostles had enjoined anything on this subject, it was but reasonable that their vicar should confer this favour on mankind. Of the sacerdotal garments, and the rest of the apparatus, which was deemed necessary in the celebration of the Lord's supper, and for giving dignity and grandeur to the assemblies for public worship, I shall say nothing.

CHAPTER V.

HISTORY OF HERESIES.

§ 1, 2. Remains of the earlier sects-§ 3. Nestorians and Monophysites-§ 4. Monothelites § 5. Their prosperous circumstances - § 6. Their adversities-§ 7. Contests arising out of the keeσis and the Tumos-§ 8. The sixth general council - § 9. Sum of the controversy§ 10. Different opinions among that sect-§ 11. Their condition after the council of Constantinople-§ 12. The council called Quinisextum.

§ 1. THE Greeks during this century, and especially in the reigns of Constans, Constantine Pogonatus, and Justinian II., were engaged in fierce combat with the Paulicians; whom they considered as a branch of the Manichæans, and who lived in Armenia and the adjacent countries. The Greeks assailed them, not only with arguments, but still more with military force, and with legal enactments and penalties. For one Constantine, during the reign of Constans, had resuscitated this sect, which was then exhausted and ready to become extinct; and had propagated its doctrines with great success. But the history of this sect, which is said to have originated from two brothers, Paul and John, will be stated more explicitly under the ninth century, at which time its conflicts with the Greeks came to an open and bloody war.

§ 2. In Italy, the Lombards preferred the opinions of the Arians to the doctrines of the Nicene council. In Gaul and in England, the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian controversies still produced some disquietude. In the East, the ancient sects, which the imperial laws had repressed, but had by no means subdued and extinguished, assumed courage, in several places, and were able to secure adherents. Fear of the laws and of punishment, induced these sects to seek a temporary concealment; but when the power of their foes was somewhat abridged, they again resumed courage.

§ 3. The condition of the Nestorians and Monophysites, under those new lords of the East, the Saracens, was far happier than before; so that, while the Greeks were oppressed and banished, both sects took everywhere a commanding position. Jesujabus, chief pontiff of the Nestorians, concluded a treaty first with Mahumed, and afterwards with Omar, and obtained many advantages for his There is likewise extant an injunction or Testament, as it is commonly called; that is, a diploma of Mahumed himself, in which he promises full security to all Christians living under his dominions:

61.

Photius, Contra Manichæos, lib. i. p. Peter Siculus, Historia Manichæor. p. 41, &c. George Cedrenus, Compend. Hist. p. 431, ed. Venice.

2 Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vaticana, t. iii. pt. ii. p. xciv. &c.

and though some learned men doubt the authenticity of this instrument, yet the Mahumedans do not call it in question.' The successors of Mahumed in Persia, employed the Nestorians in the most important affairs and business both of the court and of the provinces; nor would they suffer any patriarch, except the one who governed this sect, to live in the kingdom of Babylon.2 The Monophysites, in Egypt and Syria, were equally fortunate. In Egypt, Amru, having taken Alexandria in the year 644, directed Benjamin, the Monophysite pontiff, to occupy the see of Alexandria; and from that time, for nearly a century, the Melchites, or those who followed the opinions of the Greek church, had no prelate.3

§ 4. Among the Greeks, who were otherwise greatly distracted, there arose a new sect, in the year 630, during the reign of Heraclius, which soon produced such commotions that both the East and the West united to put it down. An ill-timed effort at peace produced war. The emperor Heraclius, considering the immense evils resulting to the Greek empire from the revolt of the Nestorians to the Persians, was exceedingly desirous of reconciling the Monophysites to the Greek church, lest the empire should receive a new wound by their secession from it. He therefore, during his war with the Persians, first had a conference in the year 622, with one Paul, a principal man among the Armenian Monophysites; and afterwards, in the year 629, at Hierapolis, with Anastasius, the Catholicus or

This famous Testament of Mahumed was brought into Europe from the East, in the seventeenth century, by Pacificus Scaliger, a Capuchin monk; and first published, Arabic and Latin, by Gabriel Sionita, Paris, 1630; and afterwards, the Lutherans, John Fabricius, A.D. 1638, and Hinckelmann, A.D. 1690, published it in Latin. See Jo. Henr. Hottinger, Histor. Oriental. lib. ii. c. 20, p. 237. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. t. iii. pt. ii. p. 95. Renaudot, Histor. Patriarchar. Alexandr. p. 168. Those who, with Grotius, reject this Testament, suppose it was fabricated by the monks living in Syria and Arabia, to circumvent their hard masters, the Mahumedans. Nor is the supposition incredible. For the monks of mount Sinai, formerly, showed a similar edict of Mahumed, which they said he drew up while a private man; an edict exceed ingly favourable to them, and beyond all controversy fraudulently drawn up by themselves. The fraud was sufficiently manifest; yet the Mahumedans, a people destitute of all erudition, believed it was a genuine ordinance of their prophet, and they believe so still this imposture is treated of by Demetr. Cantimir, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, ii. 269, &c. The argument, therefore, which Renaudot and others draw, in favour of the Testament in question, from the acknowledgment of its authenticity by the Mahumedans, is of little weight; because,

in things of this nature, no people could be more easily imposed upon than the rude and illiterate Mahumedans. Nor is the argument of more force, which the opposers of the Testament draw from the difference of its style from that of the Koran. For it is not necessary to suppose, that Mahumed himself composed this Testament; he might have employed his secretary: but however dubious the Testament itself may be, the subject matter of it is not doubtful; for learned men have proved by powerful arguments, that Mahumed originally would allow no injury to be offered to the Christians, and especially to the Nestorians.-[This Testament is a formal compact, between Mahumed on the one part, and the Nestorians and Monophysites on the other. He promises to them his protection; and they promise to him loyalty and obedience: he promises them entire religious freedom; and they promise him support against his enemies. Mahumed might have deemed it sound policy to conclude such a treaty with these sectaries; that, by their aid, he might subdue the countries of Asia subject to the Greek emperors. Schl.]

2 Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. t. iii. pt. ii. p. 97, &c. Euseb. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandrinor. p. 163, 169.

3 Euseb. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandrinor. p. 168.

patriarch of the Monophysites, respecting the means of restoring harmony. Both of them suggested to the emperor, that the believers in one nature of Christ, might be induced to receive the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and be reconciled to the Greeks; provided the Greeks would admit and profess, that in Jesus Christ, after the union of the two natures, there was but one will, and one voluntary operation. Heraclius stated what he had learned from these men, to Sergius the patriarch of Constantinople, who was a native of Syria, and descended from parents that were Monophysites. This prelate gave it as his opinion, that it might be held and inculcated, without prejudice to the truth, or to the authority of the council of Chalcedon, that, after the union of two natures in Christ, there was but one will, and one operation of will. Heraclius, therefore, in order to terminate the discord both in church and state, issued a decree, in the year 630, that this faith should be received and taught.1

§ 5. At first the affair seemed to go on well. For although some refused to comply with the imperial edict, yet the two patriarchs of the East, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Athanasius of Antioch, did not hesitate to obey the will of the emperor: and the see of Jerusalem was then vacant.2 The consent of the Latin patriarch, or Roman pontiff, was perhaps not deemed necessary, in an affair which related so exclusively to the Oriental church. Cyrus, whom the emperor had promoted from the see of Phasis to that of Alexandria, held a council, by the seventh decree of which, the doctrine of Monothelitism, which the emperor wished to have introduced, was solemnly confirmed. And this modification of the decree of Chalcedon was so influential with the Monothelites in Egypt, Armenia, and other provinces, that a great part of them returned to the church. They seem, however, to have explained the doctrine of one will in Christ, which was certainly equivocal, according to their own views, and not according to the general sentiments of their sect.

§ 6. But this fair prospect of peace and harmony was blasted, and a formidable contest was excited, by a single monk of Palestine, named Sophronius. He being present at the council of Alexandria, held by Cyrus in the year 633, strenuously resisted the article which

The writers who give account of this sect, are enumerated by Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Biblioth. Græca, x. 204. The account which have given in the text, is derived from the original sources, and rests on the most explicit testimony. [The most important of the ancient documents are found in the Acts of the council of the Lateran, A.D. 649, and in those of the sixth general council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 681, 682. Among the modern writers, the most full and candid is Walch, Hist. Ketz. ix. 3 -667. See also Schroeckh, Kirchengesch. xx. 386-453, and Bower's Lives of the Popes, from Honorius on to the end of this century. Tr.]

2 See Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, iii. 264.

[The documents of this council are in Harduin's Concilia, iii. 1327, &c. The intention of Cyrus was good. He wished to gain over the Severians and the Theodosians, who composed a large part of the Christians of Alexandria; and he considered the doctrine of one will and one operation as the best means for this end. He, therefore, in several canons, spoke of one single theandric operation in Christ (υἱὸν ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα μια θεανδρικῇ ένερ yeía), yet, for the sake of peace, he refrained from affirming either one or two wills and operations. This step, though taken with the best intentions, gave occasion afterwards to the most violent theological contests. Sch!.]

related to one will in Christ. And the next year, 634, being made patriarch of Jerusalem, he assembled a council, in which he condemned the Monothelites; and maintained that, by their doctrine, the Eutychian error, respecting the amalgamation and confusion of natures in Christ, was revived and brought into the church. He drew over many, particularly among the monks, to his sentiments; and 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 those held sound doctrine who taught, that there was one will and one operation in Christ. Hence arose severe contests, which divided the commonwealth, as well as the church, into two parties.

[Sophronius was most sincere and decorous in his opposition to the doctrine of Monothelitism. In the council of Alexandria, he fell down before Cyrus, and entreated him not to sanction such a doctrine. But he was alone in his opposition. Cyrus treated him tenderly, advised him to confer with Sergius the patriarch of Constantinople on the subject, and wrote a letter to Sergius for Sophronius to carry. When arrived at Constantinople, Sergius endeavoured soothe him, represented the point as unessential, agreed to write to Cyrus not to allow any controversy on the subject, but to leave every one at full liberty to speculate as he pleased about it. Sophronius now agreed to keep silence; but when made patriarch of Jerusalem, his conscience would not let him rest.

to

Whether he assembled a provincial synod, as Mosheim asserts, is questionable: but his circular epistle to the other patriarchs on occasion of his consecration, contained an elaborate discussion of the subject, and a host of quotations from the fathers, in proof that the doctrine of two wills and two opera tions was the only true doctrine. See the letter in Harduin's Concilia, iii, 1257. Tr.] 2 This the adherents to the Roman pontiffs have taken the utmost pains to disprove, lest one of the pontiffs should seem to have erred in a matter of such moment. See, among many others, Jo. Harduin, de Sacra mento Altaris, in his Opp. Selecta, p. 255, &c. And, indeed, it is not difficult either to accuse or excuse the man; for he appears not to have known what he did think on the subject, and to have annexed no very definite ideas to the words which he used. Yet he did say, that there was but one will, and one operation of will in Christ; and for this, he was condemned in the council of Constantinople. He was therefore a heretic, beyond all controversy, if it be true that universal councils cannot err. See Ja. Benign. Bossuet, Defensio Declarationis quam Clerus Gallicanus, anno 1682, de Pot state Ecclesiastica sanxit, pt. ii. lib. xii.

VOL. I.

cap. 21, &c. p. 182, &c. Add Ja. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, i. 391, &c. [Honorius was informed, by Sergius, in the above-mentioned letter, of the origin and whole progress of the controversy; and he was so im pressed, that, in his answer to Sergius (Harduin's Concilia, iii. 1319, &c.), 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 maintain 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 (ibid. p. 1351) an extract from a second letter of Honorius to Sergius, in which he still further confirms his opinion. The friends of the Roman church have taken great pains to justify this mistake of Honorius. The Acts of the sixth general council, say they, are corrupted, and the name of Honorius has been wickedly foisted into them. Honorius was not condemned for heresy, but for his forbearance; he meant to deny only that there were two opposite wills in Christ. He wrote only as a private person, and not as a bishop, and also when ill informed by Sergius; and moreover retracted afterwards his opinion. But even catholic writers have confuted these subterfuges: e. g. Richer, Hist. Concil. General. p. 296, &c. Du Pin, Biblioth. vi. 67, &c. Honorius was condemned, not only in the sixth general council, but also in the seventh and eighth, and in that in Trullo, and likewise by his own successors (Agatho, Leo II., Hadrian, &c.), and is named in several Rituals, and particularly in the Breviary, and in the festival of Leo II., together with Sergius and Cyrus, as a person damnate memorie: this is manifest proof, that no one then even thought of an infallibility in the Roman popes, notwithstanding in modern times the name of Honorius has been erased from the Breviaries. Schl.-See Bower's Lives of the Popes (Agatho), vol. iii. Tr.]