Part 3 (1/2)
After describing the confession of faith signed by that council, which declared that the images of the saints are to be wors.h.i.+pped, because they remind us of those whom they represent, and make us partic.i.p.ators in their merits, he says:-
”The last pa.s.sages showed that G.o.d was making miracles by means of images; and in order to confirm it, a discourse, ascribed to St Athanasius, was read. It contained the account of a pretended miracle, which happened at Beryt, with an image of Christ, which, having been pierced by the Jews, emitted blood, which healed many sick persons. The fathers of the council were so much moved by this account that they shed tears. It is, however, certain, that this discourse is not by St Athanasius, and it is even very doubtful whether the story which it contains is true. Thus it appears that amongst all the bishops present at this council, there was not a single one versed in the science of criticism, because many other false doc.u.ments were produced in that a.s.sembly. This proves nothing against the decision of the council, because it is sufficiently supported by true doc.u.ments. It only proves the ignorance of the times, as well as the necessity of knowing history, chronology, the difference of manners and styles, in order to discern real doc.u.ments from spurious ones.”(59)
Thus, according to the authority of one of the most eminent writers of the Roman Catholic Church, the second Council of Nice, the first synod which has given an explicit and solemn sanction to one of the most important tenets of the Western and the Eastern churches, was composed of such ignorant and silly prelates, that an absurd fable, contained in a forged paper, could sway their minds and hearts in such a manner as to make them shed tears of emotion, and that there was not a single individual amongst these venerable fathers sufficiently informed to be able to discover a fabrication so gross that it did not escape the attention of scholars who lived many centuries afterwards.
Irene rigorously enforced the decrees of this council against the opponents of images; and that woman, guilty of the death of her own son, and suspected of that of her husband, is extolled by ecclesiastical writers as a most pious princess. A contemporary Greek writer, and a zealous defender of image-wors.h.i.+p, the monk Theodore Studites, places her above Moses, and says that ”she had delivered the people from the Egyptian bondage of impiety;” and the historian of the Roman Catholic Church, Baronius, justifies her conduct by the following argument: that the hands of the fathers were raised by a just command of G.o.d against their children, who followed strange G.o.ds, and that Moses had ordered them to consecrate themselves to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother, Exod. x.x.xii. 29, so that it was a high degree of piety to be cruel to one's own son; consequently Irene deserved on this account the first crown of paradise; and that if she had committed the murder of her son from motives of ambition, she would be worse than Agrippina, mother of Nero; but if she did it through zeal for religion, as it appears by the encomium which she had received from very holy men who lived at that time, she deserves to be praised for her piety.
Irene's piety, shown by the restoration of images, and the persecution of their opponents, was indeed so much appreciated by the church, that she received a place amongst the saints of the Greek calendar. She was, however, less fortunate in her worldly affairs; because she was deposed in 802 by Nicephorus, who occupied the imperial throne, and exiled to Lesbos, where she died in great poverty. He did not abolish the images, nor allow the persecution of their opponents; and the ecclesiastical writers represent him, on account of this liberal policy, as a perfect monster.
Nicephorus perished in a battle against the Bulgarians in 811, and his successor Michael, who persecuted the iconoclasts, unable to maintain himself on the throne, retired into a convent, after a reign of about two years, and the imperial crown was a.s.sumed by Leo V., a native of Armenia, and one of the most eminent leaders of the army, which elevated him to this dignity.
Though all that we know about Leo V. is derived from authors zealously opposed to his religious views, yet, notwithstanding all their _odium theologic.u.m_, they are obliged to admit that he was gallant in the field, and just and careful in the administration of civil affairs. Being the native of a country whose church still resisted the introduction of images, he was naturally adverse to their wors.h.i.+p, and the manner in which he abolished it in his empire deserves a particular notice; because, though related by his enemies, it proves that he was a sincere scriptural Christian.
According to their relation, Leo believed that the victories obtained by the barbarians, and other calamities to which the empire was exposed, were a visitation of G.o.d in punishment of the wors.h.i.+p of images; that he demanded that a precept for adoring the images should be shown to him in the gospels, and as the thing was impossible, he rejected them as idols condemned by the Word of G.o.d. They also say, that the attention of Leo being once drawn to this pa.s.sage of the prophet Isaiah, ”_To whom then will you liken G.o.d? or what likeness will you compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold and casteth silver chains_,” (xl. 18, 19,) this circ.u.mstance irritated him more than any thing else against the images. He communicated his sentiments to the patriarch, and requested him either to remove the images, or to show a reason why they were wors.h.i.+pped, _since __ the Scriptures did not order it_. The patriarch, who was an adherent of the images, tried to elude this demand by various sophisms, which, not having satisfied the emperor, he ordered divines of both parties to a.s.semble in his palace, and represented to them that Moses, who had received the law, written with the hand of G.o.d, condemned, in the most explicit terms, those who adored the works of men's hands; that it was idolatry to wors.h.i.+p them, and great folly to attempt to confine the Infinite in a picture of the size of an ell. It is said that the defenders of the images refused to speak for the three following reasons:-1. That the canons prohibited to doubt what had been determined by the second Council of Nice; 2. That the clergy could not deliberate upon such matters in the imperial palace, but in a church; and, 3. That the emperor was not a competent judge on this occasion, because he was resolved to abolish the images. The emperor deposed the patriarch, who defended the images, replacing him by another who shared his own sentiments, and convened a council, which, with the exception of a few of its members, decided for the abolition of the images. The emperor ordered their removal, and sent several of their defenders into exile; he soon, however, allowed them to return, and only some few of the most zealous of them died in exile. The most celebrated of these sufferers was Theodore Studites; and as he has obtained on this account the honour of saints.h.i.+p, his opinions on the nature of images deserve a particular notice. He maintained that as the shadow cannot be separated from the body, as the rays of the sun are inseparable from that planet, so the images are inseparable from the subjects which they represent. He pretended that an image of Christ should be treated as if it were Christ himself, saying, ”_The image is nothing else than Christ himself, except the difference of their essence; therefore, the wors.h.i.+p of the image is the wors.h.i.+p of Jesus Christ_.” He considered those who were removing images as ”_destroyers of the incarnation of Christ, because he does not exist if he cannot be painted_. We renounce Christ if we reject his image; and refuse to wors.h.i.+p him, if we refuse to adore his image.”(60)
This defence of image-wors.h.i.+p is, I think, a faithful exposition of the anthropomorphistic ideas, which, as I have mentioned before, p. 9, had been chiefly generated by the morbid imagination of the Egyptian monks, and were supported by that numerous cla.s.s, which formed the most zealous and efficient defenders of the images. Leo V. was murdered in a church in 820; and Michael II., surnamed the Stammerer, whom the conspirators placed on the throne, did not allow the images to be restored, though he was moderate in his religious views. He recalled the defenders of the images from exile, and seemed to steer a middle course between the enemies and the defenders of images, though he shared the opinions of the former. He was succeeded in 829 by his son, Theophilus,-a most decided opponent of images,-and whose valour and love of justice are acknowledged by his religious adversaries. He died in 841, leaving a minor son, Michael III., under the regency of his wife, Theodora. This princess, whose personal character was irreproachable, governed the empire during thirteen years, with considerable wisdom; but being an adherent of images, she restored their wors.h.i.+p,(61) which has since that time continued in the Greek Church in perhaps even a more exaggerated form than in the Roman Catholic one, and which can be without any impropriety called _iconolatry_, since _idolatry_ may be perhaps considered as an expression too strong for ears polite.
The struggle between the iconoclasts and the iconolaters, of which I have given a mere outline, but which agitated the Eastern empire for nearly a century and a half, ending in the complete triumph of the latter, deserves the particular attention of all thinking Protestants; because it is virtually the same contest that has been waged for more than three centuries between Protestantism and Rome,(62) and which seems now to a.s.sume a new phasis. I do not think that the ignorance of those times may be considered as the princ.i.p.al cause of the triumph of the iconolatric party, and that the spread of knowledge in our own day is a sufficient safeguard against the recurrence of a similar contingency. There was in the eighth and ninth centuries a considerable amount of learning at Constantinople, where the treasures of cla.s.sical literature, many of which have since been lost, were preserved and studied.(63) The Greeks of that time, though no doubt greatly inferior to the modern Europeans in physical science, were not so in metaphysics and letters, whilst the gospel could be read by all the educated cla.s.ses in its original tongue, which was the official, literary, and ecclesiastical language of the Eastern empire. The Byzantine art was, moreover, very inferior to that of modern Europe, and could not produce, except on some coa.r.s.e and rustic intellects, that bewitching effect, which the works of great modern painters and sculptors often produce upon many refined and imaginative minds. It has been justly remarked, by an accomplished writer of our day, that ”the all-emanc.i.p.ating press is occasionally neutralised by the soul-subduing miracles of art.”(64)
The Roman Catholic Church perfectly understands this _soul-subduing_ power of art, and the following is the exposition of her views on this subject by one of her own writers, whom I have already quoted on a similar subject, p. 51.
”That pictures and images in churches are particularly serviceable in informing the minds of the humbler cla.s.ses, and for such a purpose possess a superiority over words themselves, is certain.
”Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fldelibus et quae Ipse sibi tradit spectator.”
-_Horace de Arte Poetica_, v. 180.
”What's through the ear conveyed will never find Its way with so much quickness to the mind, As that, when faithful eyes are messengers, Unto himself the fixed spectator bears.”
”The remark of a heathen poet is corroborated by the observations of the most celebrated amongst ancient and modern Christian writers. So persuaded was St Paulinus of Nola, fourteen hundred years ago, of the efficacy possessed by paintings for conveying useful lessons of instruction, that he adorned with a variety of sacred subjects the walls of a church which he erected, and dedicated to G.o.d in honour of St Felix.
”Prudentius a.s.sures us how much his devotion was enkindled, as he gazed upon the sufferings of martyrs, so feelingly depicted around their tombs and in their churches. On his way to Rome, about the year 405, the poet paid a visit to the shrine of St Ca.s.sia.n.u.s, at Forum Cornelii, the modern Imola, where the body of that Christian hero reposed, under a splendid altar, over which were represented, in an expressive picture, all the sufferings of his cruel martyrdom.(65) So moved was Prudentius, that he threw himself upon the pavement, kissed the altar with religious reverence, and numbering up with many a tear those wounds that sin had inflicted upon his soul, concluded by exhorting every one to unite with himself in intrusting their pet.i.tions for the divine clemency to the solicitude of the holy martyr Ca.s.sia.n.u.s, who will not only hear our request, but will afford us the benefit of his patronage.”(66)
The anecdote of Prudentius evidently proves that what originally had been intended for the instruction of the people, may very easily become an object of their adoration. If a man of a superior education, like Prudentius,(67) could be carried away by his feelings in such a manner as to address his prayers to a dead man, how much greater must be the effect of images upon less cultivated minds! and I have related, p. 88, on the authority of the great Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, that the fathers of the second Council of Nice, who, according to the same authority, were a very ignorant set, shed tears at the sight of an image represented in an absurd and fict.i.tious story.
Such are the effects produced in teaching religion by means of images.
There can be no doubt about the truth of the observations contained in the lines of Horace, which the author of ”Hierurgia” quotes in defence of images; but these observations refer to the theatre, and it appears to me that the application of purely scenic precepts to the house of G.o.d is something very like converting divine service into a comedy.
The limits of this essay allow me not to discuss the chances of an iconolatric reaction in our days. I shall only observe, that in several countries where the iconoclasts of the Reformation had gained a predominant position, they were entirely crushed by the iconolatric reaction, and that a _fond alliance of females and monks_, supported by the ruling powers of the state, achieved in these parts as great a victory as that which it obtained in the east under Irene and Theodora, not only over the reason of man, but even over the authority of the Word of G.o.d; and I believe that the only human means of preventing similar contingencies are free inst.i.tutions, which allow the fullest liberty of discussion in regard to all religious opinions.
I have said before, p. 82, that the Pope opposed the abolition of images proclaimed by the Emperor Leo III., and that this opposition was shared by the imperial provinces of Italy, which revolted on that occasion against their sovereign, and separated from the Byzantine empire. It was therefore natural that the second Council of Nice, which restored the wors.h.i.+p of images, should obtain the approbation of Pope Hadrian I.; but his desire to impose the enactments of that council upon the churches of the West met with a decided opposition on the part of Charlemagne. This great monarch, who is so celebrated by his efforts to convert the Pagan Saxons, prosecuted with all the barbarity of his age, and whom the church has placed amongst her saints, was so offended by the enactments of the second Council of Nice in favour of the wors.h.i.+p of images, that he composed, or what is more probable, ordered to be composed in his name, a book against that wors.h.i.+p, and sent it to Pope Hadrian I., as an exposition of his own sentiments, as well as of those of his bishops, on the subject in question. This work, though written in violent language, contains many very rational views about images, and unanswerable arguments against all kinds of adoration offered to them. The substance of this celebrated protest is as follows:-
Charlemagne says, that there is no harm in having images in a church, provided they are not wors.h.i.+pped; and that the Greeks had fallen into two extremes, one of which was to destroy the images, as had been ordained by the Council of Constantinople, under Constantine Cop.r.o.nymus, and the other to wors.h.i.+p them, as was decided by the second Council of Nice under Irene.
He censures much more severely this latter extreme than the former, because those who destroyed images had merely acted with levity and ignorance, whilst it was a wicked and profane action to wors.h.i.+p them. He compared the first to such as mix water with wine, and the others to those who infuse a deadly poison into it; in short, there could be no comparison between the two cases. He marks, with great precision, the different kinds of wors.h.i.+p offered to the images, rejecting all of them. The second Council of Nice decided that this wors.h.i.+p should consist of kisses and genuflexions, as well as of burning incense and wax candles before them.
All these practices are condemned by Charlemagne, as so many acts of wors.h.i.+p offered to a created being. He addresses the defenders of the wors.h.i.+p of images in the following manner:-
”You who establish the purity of your faith upon images, go, if you like, _and fall upon your knees and burn incense before them_; but with regard to ourselves we shall seek the precepts of G.o.d in his Holy Writ. _Light luminaries before your pictures_, whilst we shall read the Scriptures.
_Venerate, if you like, colours_; but we shall wors.h.i.+p divine mysteries.