« ForrigeFortsett »
roo See the orthodox faith in Petavius (Dogmata Theolog. tom. v. I. ix. c. 6–1 o. p. 433–447.) : all the depths of this controversy are sounded in the Greek dialogue between Maximus and Pyrrhus (ad calcem tom. viii. Annal. Baron. p. 755-794.), which relates a
real conference, and produced as a short-lived conversion,
A. D. 648.
dience of pope Honorius to the commands of his sovereign was retraćted and censured by the bolder ignorance of his successors. They condemned the execrable and abominable heresy of the Monothelites, who revived the errors of Manes, Appollinaris, Eutyches, &c ; they signed the sentence of excommunication on the tomb of St. Peter; the ink was mingled with the sacramental wine, the blood of Christ ; and no ceremony was omitted that could fill the superstitious mind with horror and affright. As the representative of the western church, pope Martin and his Lateran synod anathematised the perfidious and guilty filence of the Greeks: one hundred and five bishops of Italy, for the most part the subjećts of Constans, presumed to reprobate his wicked type and the impious edihesis of his grandfather, and to confound the authors and their
104 The sufferings of Martin and Maximus are described with pathetic fimplicity in the original letters and acts (Concil. tom. vii. p. 63–73. Baron. Annal. Eccles. A. D. 656, No 2. et annos subsequent.). Yet the chastisement of their disobedience, stagia and wreates assigot, had been previously announced in the Type of
Constans (Concil, tom. vii. p. 240.). 3 - their
their recent defeat, and obliterated the disgrace of the three chapters. The synods of Rome were confirmed by the sixth general council of Constantinople, in the palace and the presence of a new Constantine, a descendant of Heraclius. The royal convert converted the Byzantine pontiff and a majority of the bishops *; the dissenters, with their chief, Macarius of Antioch, were condemned to the spiritual and temporal pains of heresy; the East condescended to accept the lessons of the West; and the creed was finally settled, which teaches the Catholics of every age, that two wills or energies are harmonised in the person of Christ. The majesty of the pope and the Roman synod was represented by two priests, one deacon, and three bishops; but these obscure Latins had neither arms to compel, nor treasures to bribe, nor language to persuade ; and I am ignorant by what arts they could determine the lofty emperor of the Greeks to abjure the catechism of his infancy, and to persecute the religion of his fathers. Perhaps the monks and people of Constantinople” were favourable to the Lateran creed, which is indeed the least favourable of the two: and the suspicion is
10s Eutychius (Annal tom. ii. p. 368.) most erroneously supposes that the 124 bishops of the Roman synod transported themselves to Constantinople; and by adding them to the 168 Greeks, thus composes the sixth council of 292 fathers.
196 The Monothelite Constans was hated by all a ral ravr, (says Theophanes, Chron. p. 292.) said to Sn rocłsz or ea warrar. When the Monothelite monk failed in his miracle, the people shouted, & Aao' aws82nre (Concil. tom. vii. p. 1032.). But this was a natural and transient emotion; and I much fear that the latterisan anticipation of orthodoxy in the good people of Constantinople.
countenanced by the unnatural moderation of the
and visible quarrel of the worship of images ".
Union of the Greek and Latin churches.
107 The history of Monothelitism may be found in the A&ts of the
Synods of Rome (tom. vii. p. 77–395. 601–608.) and Constan
tinople (p. 639–1429.). Baronius extracted some original docu
onents from the Vatican library; and his chronology is reëtified by
afford a tolerable abridgment.