CHAPTER VII.

THE EASTERN CHURCH-CONTROVERSIES OF CHARLEMAGNE'S AGE.

A.D. 775-814.

I. CONSTANTINE Copronymus was succeeded in 775 by his son Leo IV., who, although opposed to the worship of images, was of gentler and more tolerant character than the earlier princes of the Isaurian line. Although the laws of the iconoclastic emperors remained unaltered, the monks who had been persecuted and banished were now allowed to return; and a great excitement was raised by the reappearance of these confessors in the cause of the popular religion. The empress, Irene, was of an Athenian family noted for its devotion to images; she herself cherished an enthusiastic reverence for them, and, although her father-in-law, Constantine, had compelled her to forswear them, she appears to have thought that in so sacred a cause her oath was not binding. She now exerted her influence as far as she dared; by her means some monks and other friends of images were promoted to bishopricks, although for the time they were obliged to conceal their opinions."

Notwithstanding the general mildness of Leo's disposition, his feeling on the subject of images was strong; and, when some of them had been found under Irene's pillow, he ordered certain great officers, who had been concerned in introducing them into the palace, to be flogged and tonsured; he put one of these officers, who had especially provoked him, to death; and he separated from the empress, although she denied all concern in the affair.b

After a reign of four years and a half Leo died,-more probably by a natural consequence of the illness with which he had long been afflicted, than either by a miracle of judgment on his impiety, or (as some modern writers have supposed) by poison; and Irene

Theophanes, 696; Gibbon, iv. 412-3, 492; Schlosser, 250-3.

Theophan. 701; Schlosser, 258-9. Mr. Finlay questions this story. ii. 83. Theophanes (702) says that Leo, being excessively fond of jewels, took down and wore a crown adorned with very precious gems, which hung in the cathedral; that in punishment of this sacrilege, carbuncles broke out in the

spots where the crown had touched his head, and that he died in consequence. The supposition of poison is put forward, more or less positively, by Spanheim (789), Basnage (359), Mosheim (ii. 65), and, of course, by Gfrörer, who everywhere discovers mysterious crimes (ii. 155); but is declared by Schlosser (259) to be groundless.

was left in possession of the government, as guardian of her son Constantine VI., a boy ten years old. The empress,

A.D. 780.

necessary to proceed with She was, indeed, sure of the authority of a council, which

however, felt that it was caution in carrying out her wishes. monks and of the populace: but the claimed the title of Ecumenical, was against her: the great body of the bishops was opposed to images; and, although the well tried pliancy of the eastern clergy gave reasons for hoping that these might be gained, there was a strong iconoclastic party among the laity, while the soldiery adhered to the principles of the late emperor, whose memory was cherished among them as that of a brave and successful general. At first, therefore, Irene ventured no further than to publish an edict for general liberty of conscience. The monks who were still in exile returned, images were again displayed, and many tales of past sufferings and of miracles swelled the popular enthusiasm.

In August 784, Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, suddenly resigned his dignity, and retired into a monastery, where he was visited by Irene and some high officers of the empire. When questioned as to the cause of his resignation, he professed deep remorse for having consented to accept the patriarchate on condition of opposing the restoration of images; he deplored the condition of his church, oppressed as it was by the tyranny of the state, and at variance with the rest of Christendom; and he declared that the only remedy for its evils would be to summon a general council for the purpose of reversing the decrees of the iconoclastic synod which had been held under Constantine. We need not seek for an explanation of the patriarch's motives in the supposition of collusion with the court. He may, like many others, have been sincerely attached to the cause of images, and, when seized with sickness, may have felt a real compunction for the compliances by which he had gained his elevation. And his death, which followed immediately after, is a strong confirmation of this view.g

Irene summoned the people of the capital to elect a new patriarch. No one possessed of the requisite qualifications was to be found among the higher clergy, as the bishops were disaffected to the cause of images, while the abbots were too ignorant of the management of affairs. The person selected by the court, and,

according to one writer, suggested by Paul himself, was Tarasius, a secretary of state, a man of noble birth, of consular dignity, and of good personal reputation. The multitude, who had no doubt been carefully prompted, cried out for his election, and the few dissentient voices were overpowered. Tarasius, with an appearance of modesty, professed his reluctance to accept an office so foreign to his previous habits, and declared that he would only do so on condition that a general council should be forthwith summoned for the consideration of the all-engrossing subject.' With this understanding he was consecrated; and Adrian of Rome, on receiving a statement of his faith, admitted him to communion, professing to consider the exigency of the case an excuse for the irregularity of his promotion.k

A council was now summoned, and measures were taken to render it yet more imposing than the numerous synod by which images had been condemned under the last reign. The pope was invited to send representatives, if unable to attend in person. He deputed Peter, chief presbyter of his church, with Peter, abbot of St. Sabas, and furnished them with a letter, in which he hailed the emperor and his mother as a new Constantine and a new Helena, and exhorted them to repair the misdeeds of their predecessors by restoring images in the church." Some things of a less agreeable kind were added:-a demand for 'the restoration of all that the iconoclastic emperors had taken from St. Peter, remarks on the irregularity of raising a layman to the patriarchate of Constantinople, and objections to the title of Ecumenical, which had been given to Tarasius in the imperial letter.°

As the empire was at peace with the Saracens, invitations were also addressed to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. But the bearers of these letters fell in with some monks, who, on learning the object of their journey, earnestly im

b Ignatius, in his Life of Tarasius. See Walch, x. 493. But the story is unsupported and improbable. Ib. 509. iHard. iv. 24-5; Theophan. 709-712. * Hard. iv. 97; Theophan. 713. Hard. iv. 22; Walch, x. 532. See Hefele, iii. 414-6.

Hard. iv. 79-92.

Ibid., 93-6. Basnage (1362), Gibbon (iv. 492), and others, suppose that the two Roman presbyters had no special commission and were disowned by the pope on their return. The only au thority for this is Theodore the Studite, who states (Ep. I. 38, p. 254), that the envoys were deposed, "as they say,"

because, having been sent on other business, they had acted in the council, although they professed to have done so under compulsion; and that Rome regarded it as only a local synod. But Theodore's statement is contradicted by the documents, and is supposed to have arisen out of the circumstance that, when the meeting of the council was deferred, the legates did not procure any new commission. (Schlosser, 288; Neand. v. 314-5.) Theodore was inclined to disparage the council because he thought it too lenient in its treatment of persons who had formerly opposed images.

plored them to proceed no further, since any such communication from the empire would be sure to exasperate the jealousy of the Mahometan tyrants, and to bring additional oppressions on the church. The monks offered to send to the council two of their own number, whom they proposed to invest with the character of secretaries to the patriarchs; these, they said, would sufficiently represent the faith of the eastern church, and the personal attendance of the patriarchs was no more requisite than that of the Roman bishop. The messengers agreed to this strange proposal, and returned to Constantinople with two monks named John and Thomas.P

The council was to meet at Constantinople in the beginning of August 786. But during the week before the appointed day, the opponents of images held meetings for the purpose of agitation, and, although Tarasius ordered them to leave the city, many of them still remained. On the eve of the opening, there was an outbreak of some imperial guards and other soldiers belonging to the iconoclastic party; and on the following day a still more serious tumult took place. When Tarasius and other members of the council were assembled in the church of the Apostles, a multitude of soldiers and others, abetted by some iconoclastic bishops, broke in on them, and compelled them to take refuge in the sanctuary. The soldiers who were summoned to quell the uproar refused to obey orders. Tarasius ordered the doors of the sanctuary to be shut. The iconoclasts forced them, but, without being dismayed by the threatening appearance, the patriarch opened the council, and conducted its proceedings until a message arrived from Irene, desiring her friends to give way; on which the iconoclastic bishops raised a shout of victory. The empress allowed the matter to rest until, having lulled suspicion, she was able quietly to disband the mutinous soldiers and to send them to their native places; and in September of the following year, a synod of about 350 bishops, with a number of monks and other clergy, met at Nicæa, a place at once safer from disturbance than the capital, and of especially venerable name, as having been the seat of the first general council.

The first places of dignity were given to the Roman envoys, who had been recalled, after having proceeded as far as Sicily on their

P Hard. iv. 136-141, 456; Spanh. 805-8; Walch, x. 551-8. Schlosser (281) not altogether unfairly reminds us of Pseudartabas in the Acharnians.' On the other side see Hefele, iii. 427. 4 Hard. iv. 25-8; Theophan. 714-5; Walch, x. 535-7; Schlosser, 285-6.

r

Theophan. 715-6; Theodor. Studit. Laudatio Platonis, 24 (Patrol. Gr. xcix.).

s On the number of which the council consisted, see Walch, x. 550; Schlosser, 288-9.

way homeward. Next to these was Tarasius, the real president of the assembly;" and after him were the two representatives (if they may be so styled) of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. A number of civil dignitaries were also present. The first session took place on the 24th of September, and the business proceeded with great rapidity. Six sessions were held within thirteen days, a seventh followed a week later, and the final meeting was held at Constantinople on the 23rd of October.

From the beginning it was assumed that the object was not to discuss the question, but to re-establish the worship of images; bishops who were known to be opposed to it had not been invited to attend. The pope's letter was read at the second session, but with the omission of the reflections on Tarasius, and of the request that the rights of the Roman see might be restored. A number of bishops who had taken part in the iconoclasm of the last reigns, came forward to acknowledge and anathematise their errors, and humbly sued for admission to communion. In answer to questions, some of them said that they had never until now had the means of rightly considering the subject; that they had been educated in error; that they had been deceived by forged and garbled authorities; or that they had been sealed up under a judicial blindness. Questions arose as to admitting them to communion, as to recognising them in offices to which they had been consecrated by heretics, and, with respect to some, whether, as they had formerly been persecutors of the faithful, they ought not to be treated with especial severity. The monks were throughout on the side of rigour; but the majority of the council, under the guidance of Tarasius, was in favour of a lenient course. The canons were searched for precedents; and a discussion ensued as to the application of these-with what class of heretics were the iconoclasts to be reckoned? Tarasius was for putting them on the footing of Manichæans, Marcionites, and Monophysites, as these sects had also been opposed to images; all heresies, he said, were alike heinous, because all did away with the law of God. The monastic party declared that iconomachy was worse than the worst of heresies, because it denied the Saviour's incarnation.' But the majority was disposed to treat the penitents with indulgence, and they were received to communion. There were loud outcries