ICON OCL ASX x\.K

ICONOCLASTAB

203

which seemed heretical. On page 338 heshews that the Fathers all testify that “ Christwas perfect in His divine and human natures.They openly proclaim that the distinctions andproperties of each nature met in one person,without change or confusion; so that neitherwas Deity changed into the nature of flesh, northe substance of flesh into Deity. Whence itresults that He is circumscribed according to theflesh, uncircumscribed according to the spirit.”The iconoclasts, having taken up their ground,were forced by him to work out their premises totheir logical conclusions. He shews their views tobe essentially docetic. He calls them phantastici,as they seem to have adopted the idea, which,indeed, was necessarily involved in the Mono-physite conception, that all the bodily actions ofour Lord after His resurrection were not real, butphantastic. Cardinal Pitra (l. c .) regards theircontroversial defeat by Nicephorus as so completethat he describes them in a note as convictedof being men “ qui humanitatem violarentac divinam discerperent Verbi personam” (of.Neander, H. E. v. 300, ed. Bohn, where thearguments of the two parties are ably con-trasted). We have been led thus to unite thehistory of the two councils as the story orarguments of the one cannot be understood apartfrom the other. We can now make our narrative ofthe facts more concise. The council of 754 decreedthe suspension of any clergymen who were pos-sessed of an image, and the excommunication andpunishment by the civil power of any laymenwho offended thus. This enactment was notsuffered to be a dead letter. The emperor firststrengthened his military position by a largeimmigration of fierce iconoclasts, Paulicians,Manichaeans, and Monophysites, from Ger-manicia, Doliche, Melitene, and other towns onthe borders of Armenia (Finlay, ii. 55; Renan,Hist. des Langues Semitiq. p. 281 ; Schmidt,Hist, des Albigeois. Some attribute to this immi-gration the origin of the Albigenses). He thenbegan and maintained till the end of his reign amost vigorous persecution, which was principallydirected against the monks, the most ardentchampions of image-worship. Those desirous ofinvestigating more minutely the history of thisperiod should consult the works of the newBollandists {Acta SS. Oct. 8, p. 131, publishedA.D. 1853), where in relating the martyrdom ofSt. Andrew of Crete, they discuss the chronologyand events of Constantine’s reign. 4 He also

<J The iconoclasts of Constantine’s time are chargedwith various enormities by their enemies, but it iB hardto say with what exact amount of truth. A certainbishop was accused before the council of '754 of havingtrodden under foot a sacramental cup because it wusornamented with figures of Christ and the Virgin Mary.The bishop was pardoned by the assembly on the scoreof his zeal for God’s honour, while his accusers were ex-communicated as defenders of idols. They are again ac-cused of destroying service books with images engravedon them. Leo bishop of Nicaea remarked at the secondcouncil of Nice that in the city where he resided abovethree hundred books bad been burned on account ofimages. While hating the use of images, which reverenceand piety dictated, they are said to have delighted inopposite courses. They painted out the images of Christand the saints in the churches, substituting instead scenesof revelry, of beasts, flowers, and from the chase, whilethe monasteries were turned into inns and taverns, andthe monks compelled to marry, and even o dance publicly

entered (a.d. 757) into negotiations with Pepi*king of France, with the double object of re-gaining possession of the exarchate of Ravenna,and engaging him in an opposition to images.With the embassy in 757 he sent presents,among which was an organ, which was the firstseen in Western Europe (Hefele, Councils , t. iv.§ 338, ed. Paris). Constantine died Sept. 14, 775,and was succeeded by his son, Leo IV., a princeof a gentle and moderate disposition, who pursuedthe policy which had become traditional in theIsaurian line, but who does not seem to haveengaged in any active persecution. However,the seeds of reaction had been already sown.During the lifetime of Copronvmus image-wor-ship had found favour among the female mem-bers of the imperial household. His wife Irene,and his daughter Arethusa, were devoted to thispractice. Severe towards his subjects whotransgressed, he permitted his third wife toprotect a nun who was a devoted worshipperof images, and to whom the education of thisdaughter was entrusted. Leo IV. died Sept. 8,780, when Irene his wife was proclaimed regentduring the minority of her son Constantine VI.Under her name will be noticed the reactionarysteps which issued in the Nicene Synod of 787.The pith of this council’s work was contained inthe seventh actio, where it was decreed that•‘the holy and venerable images may be exposedto sight, as well as the cross, both those whichare made in colours, or any other kind whatso-ever. That they may be placed in churches, setupon sacred vessels, upon sacerdotal vestmentsin houses and highways. That these imagesmay receive kisses and reverence ( [aa-Kaa-fibv tealTifx"f]TtK)]v TT(iocrKvvr)(riv)y but may not be adoredwith the true adoration due to God alone (r$)va\r]9tvT}v Karpeiav ).” By the decrees and de-liberations of this assembly, followed by thewritings of Nicephorus and Theodorus Studita,iconoclasm received a blow from which it neverfully recovered. Other circumstances also tendedto ensure the triumph of the opposite view,especially the practical extinction of the Isauriandynasty, ou whose determination and iron willthe movement had depended for its principalsupport. Constantine VI., however willing hemight have been to follow the traditional polievof his house, was mentally unfitted for doing soby the education his mother had given him, andphysically incapacitated by the same mother,

in the circus locked in the embrace of women of ill-fame.The author of St. Stephen’s Life, for instance, in theAnatecta Graeca, t. i. 446, 454, published by the Maur-inians, thus describes the alterations made by Constantinein a church of the Virgin Mary at Constantinople; ’Owpo<f>v\a.Ktov teal bpveoGKoneLOv Tip e/c»fA.rj(riW eiroir}<revAs for Constantine himself, he is reported to have dis-approved the practice of calling anyone a saint, whilethe iconoclasts in general seem to have anticipated thePuritans in this direction. In the life of St. Stephen(L c. p. 481) we are told that they avoided the phrase incommon use, “ we are going to this or that saint,” viz.his church; they preferred to say, “we are going toTheodore, or to this or that martyr or apostle." Allsuch accusations inde. d must be taken cum grano sal is,as we only possess the accounts of their opponentsHowever, it is evident that a purely negative movementlike theirs would be apt to produce irreverence among thevulgar (cf. Neander, U. E. v. 290-302, and the authoritiesthere cited).