ICONOCLASTAE

ICONOCLASTAE

199

tJd ;, u May such things be far from us, that we,as pare iu heart, may truly deserve to see God.’*Such is the substantial argument of the letterto which the patriarch Nicephorus, a. D. 800, inthe work discovered by cardinal Pitra, devotesa lengthened reply, seizing with great skill uponthe many vantage points which the letteraffords, as Eusebius again and again expresseshimself with the theological inaccuracy whichcharacterises so many of the aute-Nieene fathers.Here we may just note that Eusebius in thisletter suggested the line of thought which theIconoclasts adopted and worked out; nay, eventhe very language they used when he spoke ofthe glorified humanity of the Saviour as changedinto God, and therefore “ incomprehensible/’« unbounded,” “ uncircumscribed,” “ 6\?]7 tto 5,”and incapable of delineation in a limited andcircumscribed figure. In opposition to this, asthey said, Monophysite view, the image worship-pers contended for the reality and limitation ofHis glorified body and the consequent possibilityof its delineation, which, of course, apparentlyplaced them on the side of Catholic orthodoxy asagainst heresy. This much we say by anticipationthat the reader may see the important bearingof this document upon the entire controversy.As to the practice and belief of the church atthat period, this letter, in union with the decreeof Elvira, is decisive, and shews that thoughsome attempts had been made to innovate uponthe ancient rule, no church sanction could asyet be pleaded for such action. Two other docu-ments have come to light of late years whichestablish the same conclusion though fromopposite points of view, viz., the works ofMacarius Magnes, a writer of the 3rd or 4thcentury, published at Paris in 1877, and theAntirrhct. of Nicephorus, by Card. Petra in hisSolesm. Spicileg. t. i. The arguments of MacariusMagnes were pressed by the Iconoclasts at thetime of the second Nicene council and wereanswered by Nicephorus [Macarius Magnes].During the rest of the 4th century we discoverno further trace of this question as a contro-versy, though the use of painting was graduallyintroduced more and more, as we learn, forinstance, from the oration of Gregory of Nvssaupon the martyr Theodore (Migne, Patr, Graec.xlvi. 738), where we are told that the scenes ofmartyrdom were depicted upon the wall of thechurch, but with express mention that it wasfor instruction, not for reverence or worship.The case of Paulinus at Nola, discussed in theDict. of Antiq. (/. c.), shews the same tendencyin the West, while the celebrated destruction ofthe painted curtain at Bethlehem by St. Kpipha-nius proves that the introduction of paintings:n any shape was distasteful to very many. Thisis the first instance of Iconoclasm in the historyof the Christian church, one which afforded muchtrouble to John of Damascus, and of which hecould only dispose by declaring, in his firstoration, the story to be a forgery. The circum-stances are related in Epiphanius’s own letter toJohn of Jerusalem (Hieron. Epist. li. in Migne,Patr. Lat. xxii. 517-527). This letter provesthat Epiphanius held the strictest view, andregarded any use of pictures in the church aswrong. It is abundantly evident, however, thatthe laxer view was widely spread by the year 400.Vet that no reverence or adoration of any kind

was paid to such pictures between 400 and 420,is shewn by two pieces of evidence both of anegative and yet most convincing character.

(1) Vigilantius seems to have been a verv keencensor of the errors of his time. He condemnsand ridicules relic worship, invocation of saintsand martyrs, use of lights, masses at the gravesof the martyrs, and monasticism. Yet he neveronce hints at image worship as an existing evil.

(2) St. Augustine, in commenting upon Psalmcxiii. 5, and in Ep. 102, ad Deograt. , speaksof the special danger connected with images, re-futing the argument of the pagans, who, taughtby the Neoplatonic philosophy, anticipated thefavourite defence of image worship put forth bythe second Nicene council. St. Augustine wouldnot sanction any relative worship which says“ nec simulacrum, nec daemonium colo, sedeffigiem corporalem ejus rei signum intueor,quam colere debeo.” He expressly mentions andrepudiates the distinction between Aarpefa andirpo(TK^vT}(ns as applied to images b (Migne, Patr.Lat. tom. xxxvii. 1483; cf. also Hagenbach,Kirchengeschichtc des Mittelalt. ii. 42, and Neander,H. E. iii. 407-418, where are given other testi-monies against the practice drawn from Asterius,Amphilochiu’, and other writers of the 4th cen-tury). The introduction into churches ofmosaics and paintings of all kinds became uni-versal during the 5th century. The HolyGhost was commonly represented as a goldendove, placed over the altar and over the font(Amphiloch. Vita S. Basil, c. vi.; Ambros. Lib.:le its qui Myst. Usit. c. iii.; Du Cange, s. v.Columba; Fleury, H. E. lib. xxx. c. 18). TheNestorian controversy also gave a great impetusto the introduction of pictures of the BlessedVirgin and the Holy Child Jesus; while, again,the Eutychian discussions, by empnasising thereal and continuous existence of His glorifiedhumanity, intensified the tendency to honourChrist’s image, which, as many believed, testifiedto this truth. Two other circumstances accele-rated during this century the aesthetic movementwithin the church. (1) The patronage of theimperial family and of the wealthy classes whrfollowed their example. By them magnificentchurches were built, into whose decoration themost expensive paintings were introduced withoutremonstrance. Kngler ( Handbook of Painting ,pp. 25-28) mentions mosaics of the 5th centuryas still existing in the cathedral at Ravenna, anda full-length picture of Christ in the monu-mental chapel of the empress Galla Placidia inthe same place. (2) The desire to make thetransition from heathenism to Christianity aseasy as possible, by Christianising every customwhich possibly could be adopted.

The development of image worship from thispoint was very rapid, as is minutely traced inthe Dict. of Antiq. (Art. Cross; Crucifix;Images), till the church, in its Eastern divisionespecially, was wholly devoted to the practice.Yet we are not to imagine that a change socomplete and so striking took place without

b The distinction thus rejected by St. Augustine wasadopted by Leontius of Cyprus and all later writers indefence of image worship. In fact we find a direct con-tradiction of St. Augustine’s words in the first letter ofpope Gregory II. to Leo ihe.lfwwian (Mansi* t. xli.<)59 sqq.y