|
A.D. 754.
The reader will find all the
information he desires with regard to the great iconoclastic controversy in the
ordinary church-histories, and the theological side of the matter in the
writings of St. John Damascene. It seems, however, that in order to render the
meaning of the action of the last of the Ecumenical Councils clear it is
necessary to provide an account of the synod which was held to condemn what it
so shortly afterward expressly approved. I quote from Hefele in loco, and would
only further draw the reader's attention to the fact that the main thing
objected to was not (as is commonly supposed) the outward veneration of the
sacred icons, but the making and setting up of them, as architectural
ornaments; and that it was not only representations of the persons of the Most
Holy Trinity, and of the Divine Son in his incarnate form that were denounced,
but even pictures of the Blessed Virgin and of the other saints; all this is evident
to anyone reading the foregoing abstract of the decree.
(Hefele, History of the Councils,
Vol. V., p. 308 et seqq.)
The Emperor, after the death of the
Patriarch Anastasius (A.D. 753), summoned the bishops of his Empire to a great
synod in the palace Hieria, which lay opposite to Constantinople on the Asiatic
side of the Bosphorus, between Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, a little to the north
of the latter. The vacancy of the patriarchate, facilitated his plans, since
the hope of succeeding to this see kept down, in the most ambitious and
aspiring of the bishops, any possible thought of opposition. The number of
those present amounted to 338 bishops, and the place of president was occupied
by Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus, already known to us as son of a former
Emperor--Apsimar, from the beginning an assistant in the iconoclastic movement.
Nicephorus names him alone as president of the synod; Theophanes, on the
contrary, mentions Bishop Pastillas of Perga as second president, and adds,
"The Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not
represented [the last three were then in the hands of the Saracens], the
transactions began on February 10th, and lasted until August 8th (in Hieria);
on the latter date, however, the synod assembled in St. Mary's Church in
Blachernae, the northern suburb of Constantinople, and the Emperor now solemnly
nominated Bishop Constantine of Sylaeum, a monk, as patriarch of
Constantinople. On August 27th, the heretical decree [of the Synod] was
published."
We see from this that the last
sessions of this Conciliabulum were held no longer in Hieria, but in the
Blachernae of Constantinople. We have no complete Acts of this assembly, but
its very verbose oros (decree), together with a short introduction, is preserved
among the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
This decree was by no means
suffered to remain inoperative.
(W. M. Sinclair. Smith and Wace,
Dictionary of Chr. Biog., sub voce
Constantinus VI.)
The Emperor singled out the more
noted monks, and required them to comply with the decrees of the synod. In A.D.
766 he exacted an oath against images from all the inhabitants of the empire.
The monks refused with violent obstinacy, and Copronymus appears to have amused
himself by treating them with ruthless harshness. The Emperor, indeed, seems to
have contemplated the extirpation of monachism. John the Damascene he persuaded
his bishops to excommunicate. Monks were forced to appear in the hippodrome at
Constantinople hand in hand with harlots, while the populace spat at them. The
new patriarch Constantinus, presented by the emperor to the council the last
day of its session, was forced to foreswear images, to attend banquets, to eat
and drink freely against his monastic vows, to wear garlands, to witness the
coarse spectacles and hear the coarse language which entertained the Emperor.
Monasteries were destroyed, made into barracks, or secularized. Lachanodraco,
governor of the Thracian Theme, seems to have exceeded Copronymus in his
ribaldry and injustice. He collected a number of monks into a plain, clothed
them with white, presented them with wives, and forced them to choose between
marriage and loss of eyesight. He sold the property of the monasteries, and
sent the price to the Emperor.Copronymus publicly thanked him, and commended
his example to other governors.
(Harnack. History of Dogma, Vol.
V., p. 325 [Eng. Tr.].)
The clergy obeyed when the decrees
were published; but resistance was offered in the ranks of the monks. Many took
to flight, some became martyrs. The imperial police stormed the churches, and
destroyed those images and pictures that had not been secured. The iconoclastic
zeal by no means sprang from enthusiasm for divine service in spirit and in
truth. The Emperor now also directly attacked the monks; he meant to extirpate
the hated order, and to overthrow the throne of Peter. We see how the idea of
an absolute military state rose powerfully in Constantinople; how it strove to
establish itself by brute force. The Emperor, according to trustworthy
evidence, made the inhabitants of the city swear
that they would henceforth worship
no image, and give up all intercourse with monks. Cloisters were turned into
arsenals and barracks, relics were hurled into the sea, and the monks, as far
as possible, secularized. And the politically far-seeing Emperor, at the same
time entered into correspondence with France (Synod of Gentilly, A.D. 767), and
sought to win Pepin. History seemed to have suffered a violent rupture, a new
era was dawning which should supersede the history of the Church.
But the Church was too powerful,
and the Emperor was not even master of Oriental Christendom, but only of part
of it. The orthodox Patriarchs of the East (under the rule of Islam) declared
against the iconoclastic movement, and a Church without monks or pictures, in
schism with the other orthodox Churches, was a nonentity. A spiritual reformer
was wanting. Thus the great reaction set in after the death of the Emperor
(A.D. 775), the ablest ruler Constantinople had seen for a long time. This is
not the place to describe how it was inaugurated and cautiously carried out by
the skilful policy of the Empress Irene; cautiously, for a generation had
already grown up that was accustomed to the cultus without images. An important
part was played by the miracles performed by the re-emerging relics and
pictures. But the lower classes had always been really favourable to them; only
the army and the not inconsiderable number of bishops who were of the school of
Constantine had to be carefully handled. Tarasius, the new Patriarch of
Constantinople and a supporter of images, succeeded, after overcoming much
difficulty, and especially distrust in Rome and the East, after also removing
the excited army, in bringing together a General Council of about 350 bishops
at Nicaea, A.D. 787, which reversed the decrees of A.D. 754. The proceedings of
the seven sittings are of great value, because very important patristic
passages have been preserved in them which otherwise would have perished; for at
this synod also the discussions turned chiefly on the Fathers. The decision
(oros) restored orthodoxy and finally settled it.
I cannot do better than to cite in
conclusion the words of the profoundly learned Archbishop of Dublin, himself a
quasi-Iconoclast.
(Trench. Lect. Medieval Ch. Hist.,
p. 93.)
It is only fair to state that the
most zealous favourers and promoters of this ill-directed homage always
disclaimed with indignation the charge of offering to the images any reverence
which did not differ in kind, and not merely in degree, from the worship which
they offered to Almighty God, designating it as they did by altogether a
different name. We shall very probably feel that in these distinctions which
they drew between the one and the other, between the "honour" which
they gave to these icons and the "worship" which they withheld from
these and gave only to God, there lay no slightest justification of that in
which they allowed themselves; but these distinctions acquit them of idolatry,
and it is the merest justice to remember this.
(Trench. Ut supra, p. 99.)
I can close this Lecture with no
better or wiser words than those with which Dean Milman reads to us the lesson
of this mournful story: "There was this irremediable weakness in the cause
of iconoclasm; it was a mere negative doctrine, a proscription of those
sentiments which had full possession of the popular mind, without any strong
countervailing excitement. The senses were robbed of their habitual and
cherished objects of devotion, but there was no awakening of an inner life of
intense and passionate piety. The cold, naked walls from whence the Scriptural
histories had been effaced, the despoiled shrines, the mutilated images, could
not compel the mind to a more pure and immaterial conception of God and the
Saviour. Hatred of images, in the process of the strife, might become, as it
did, a fanaticism, it could never become a religion. Iconoclasm might proscribe
idolatry; but it had no power of kindling a purer faith."
|