13. But Leo IV. being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his perfidious wife Irene in the year 780, images became triumphant; for that guilty woman who governed the empire during the mino 12. The son of Leo, Constantine sur-tained the same views as his father and named Copronymus' by the furious tribe grandfather had done; for when he saw of image-worshippers, after he came to that the abettors of images were not to be the throne A.D. 741, trod in his father's moved at all by mild and gentle measures. steps, for he laboured with equal vigour to he coerced them with penal statutes. extirpate the worship of images, in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than his father; and being aware that the Greeks were governed entirely by the authority of coun-rity of her son Constantine, with a view to cils in religious matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary, according to the views of the emperor, and therefore condemned images. But the pertinacity of the superstitious, who were borne on by their zeal for images, was not to be overcome by these decisions. None made greater resistance than the monks, who did not cease to disturb the public tranquillity and to excite sedition among the people. Constantine therefore being moved with just indignation, punished many of them in various ways, and by new laws bridled the turbulence of this restless class of people. Leo IV. who succeeded to the throne A.D. 775 on the death of Constantine, enter 2 1 This nickname was given to Constantine, from his having defiled the sacred font at his baptisın.-Macl. 2 This council was composed of 338 bishops, a greater number than had ever before been assembled in any council. In his circular letter calling the council, the emperor directed the bishops to hold provincial councils throughout the empire for discussing the subject; so that when met in the general council, they might be prepared to declare the sense of the whole church. The council held its sessions in the imperial palace of Hiera over against the city on the Asiatic shore, and deliberated from the 10th of February till the 7th of August; when they adjourned to the church of St. Mary ad Blachernas in Constantinople, and there published their decrees. The patriarch of Constantinople, Anastasius, died a few days before the council met, and the emperor would not appoint a successor to that see till the deliberations of the council were closed, lest it should be thought he placed a creature of his own at the head of it." Of course two other bishopsnamely, Theodosius, exarch of Asia, and Pastillus, metropolitan of Pamphylia, presided in the council. Its Acts and deliberations have all perished, or rather been destroyed by the patrons of image-worship; except so much of them as the second Nicene council saw fit to quote, for the purpose of confuting them in their sixth act. (Harduin, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 325-444.) From these quotations it appears that the council deliberated soberly, and reasoned discreetly from Scripture and the Fathers; that they maintained that all worship of images was contrary to Scripture and to the sense of the church in the purer ages; that it was idolatry and forbidden by the second commandment. They also maintained that the use of images in churches and places of worship was a custom borrowed from the pagans, that it was of dangerous tendency and ought to be abolished. They accordingly enacted canons expressive of these views, and requiring a corresponding practice. Sec Walch's Hist. der Kirchenversam. page 463, &c.; Cave, Hist. Liter. vol. 1. p. 646, &c.; Bower's Lives of the Popes, vol. iii. p. 357-368. On the side of the Catholics may be consulted Baronius, Annales, and Pagl, Critica, ad ann. 754.-Mur. establish her authority, after entering into a league with Hadrian, the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the second Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors, together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople, were abrogated, the worship of images and of the cross was established, and penalties were denounced against those who should maintain that worship and adoration were to be given only to God. Nothing can be conceived more puerile and weak than the arguments and proofs by which these bishops support their decrees.3 And yet the ii. cap. v. p. 52, ed. Frankf. 1707; Lenfant, Préservatif 3 Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Trident. par. iv. loc. contre la Réunion avec le Siège de Rome, par. iii. lettre hypocritical, ambitious wornan, eager after power, and xvii. p. 446. [Irene was undoubtedly an ungodly, from this passion prone to crucities even the most unnatural, and she was at the same time much devoted to image-worship. Her first step was to grant liberty to every one to make use of images in his private worship. She next removed Paul, the patriarch of Constantinople, because he was an Iconoclast; and made Tarasius her secretary, who was devoted to images and to her, to be patriarch. And as the imperial guards were inclined to iconoclasm and might give her trouble, she caused them to be marched out of the city under pretence of a foreign invasion, and then disbanded them. At last, in the name of her son Constantine, who was a minor, she called the council of Nice. Tarasius directed the whole proceedings. Yet there were two papal envoys present. In the Acts which we still have entire (in Harduin, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 1-820), there is mention of the representatives (TO) of the two eastern patriarchs, those of Alexandria and Antioch. But according to credible accounts, under this high title two miserable and illiterate monks were designated, whom their fellow monks had arbitrarily appointed and whom forged letters legitimated. The bishops assembled were at least 350. Besides these, two officers of the court were present as commissioners, and a whole army of monks. At first Constantinople was appointed for the place of meeting; but the Iconoclasts, who had the greater part of the army on their side, raised such a tumult that the empress postponed the meeting, and changed the place to Nice. In the 7th act of this council, the decree was made that the cross and the images of Christ, Mary, the angels and the saints, were entitled to religious worship (TNT poσkúvnois); that it was proper to kiss them, to burn incense to them, and to light up candles and lamps be fore them; yet they were not entitled to divine worship (Aarpeía). The proofs adduced by these fathers in support of their decree, and their confutations of the contrary doctrine, betray their gross ignorance and their total want of critical sagacity, if not also some intentional dishonesty. Their Acts are full of fabulous tales of the wonders wrought by images, of appeals to apocryphal books, of perversions of the declarations of the fathers, and of other false and puerile arguments. Even Du Pin and Pagi cannot deny the fact; and it seems strange that it was possible for doctrines sup Romans would have these decrees held sa- | tins it seems did not in that age deem it cred, and the Greeks were as furious against impious to dispute the correctness of the those who refused to obey them as if they decisions of the Roman pontiff, and to dishad been parricides and traitors. The other card his opinions.5 enormities of the flagitious Irene, and her end, which corresponded with her crimes, it belongs not to this history to narrate. 14. In these contests most of the Latins --as the Britons, the Germans, and the French took middle ground between the contending parties; for they decided that images were to be retained indeed and to be placed in the churches, but that no religious worship could be offered to them without dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular, Charlemagne, at the suggestion of the French bishop, who were displeased with the Nicene decrees, caused four books concerning images to be drawn up by some learned man, which he sent in the year 790 to the Roman pontiff, Hadrian, in order to prevent his approving the decrees of Nice. In this work the arguments of the Nicene bishops in defence of imageworship are acutely and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled in the year 794, a council of three hundred bishops at Frankfort on the Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council approved of the sentiments contained in the books of Charlemagne, and forbade the worship of images; for the La ported by such false reasonings, to become the prevailing doctrines of the whole church. See Walch's Hist. der Kirchenversam. p. 477, &c.—Schl. 1 This most atrocious woman procured the death of her own son Constantine in order that she might reign alone. But in the year 802 she was banished by the emperor Nicephorus to the island of Lesbos, where she died the year following. 2 On the abhorrence of the Britons of image-worship, sce Spelman, Concilia Mag. Britan. tom. i. p. 73, &c. 3 These books of Charlemagne, De Imaginibus, are still extant, republished when become very scarce with a very learned preface, by Heumann, Hanover, 1731, 8vo. The venerated name of the emperor Charlemagne is attached to the work; but it is easy to discover that it was the production of a learned man bred in the schools, or of a theologian, and not of the emperor. Some very learned men have conjectured that Charlemagne employed Alcuin, his preceptor, to draw up the book. See Heumann's Preface, p. 51, and the illustrious Bünau, Historia Imperii Germanici, tom. i. p. 490. Nor would I contemn the conjecture. And yet it appears to me somewhat doubtful; for when these books were written Alcuin was resident in England, as is manifest from his history, he having gone to England in 789 whence he did not return till the year 792. 4 See especially Mabillon who is ingenuous on this subject in his Præf. ad Acta Sanctor. Ord. Bened. tom. v. p. 5, &c.; also Dorscheus, Collatio ad Concilium Francfordiense, Argentor. 1649, 4to. [The council of Frankfort was properly a general council, for it was assembled from all the countries subject to Charlemagne, Germany, France, Aquitain, Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Delegates from the pope were present. Charlemagne presided. Two subjects were discussed, the heresy of Felix of Urgel, and the subject of image 15. While these contests respecting images were raging, another controversy sprang up between the Greeks and the Latins respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit, which the Latins contended was from both the Father and the Son, but the Greeks that it was only from the Father. The origin of this controversy is involved in much obscurity, but as it is certain that the subject came up in the council of Gentilly, near Paris, A.D. 767, and was there agitated with the ambassadors of the Greek emperor, it is most probable that the controversy originated in Greece amidst the collisions respecting images. As the Latins defended their opinion on this subject by appealing to the Constantinopolitan creed, which the Spaniards first and afterwards the French had enlarged, (though at what time or on what occasion is not known) by adding the words and from the Son' to the article concerning the Holy Spirit, the Greeks charged the Latins with having the audacity to corrupt the creed of the church universal by this interpolation, which they denominated sacrilege. From a contest about a doctrine therefore it became a controversy about the insertion of a word." In worship. Charlemagne laid his books, De Imaginibus, before the council. The council approved of them, and passed resolutions in conformity with them; that is, they disapproved of the decisions of the Nicene council, and decided that while images were to be retained in churches as ornamental and instructive, yet no kind of worship whatever was to be given to them. See Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversam. p. 483; and Harduin, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 904, can. 2.-Mur. 5 On this protracted and violent controversy see Milman's Gibbon's Decline and Fall, &c. vol. ix. p. 113, &c.; Gieseler, Lehrbuch, &c. Cunningham's Transl. voi. ii. p. 1, &c. with the valuable extracts in the notes; Waddington's Hist. of the Church, vol. ii. p. 357, &c. The student will see in Walch, Biblio. Theol. Selecta, tom. iii. p. 888, 889, the names of several important works on image-worship; the only English one referred to is by Jas. Owen, The History of Images and of Imageworship, &c. Lond. 1709, 12mo.-R. 6 See Le Cointe, Annales Ecclesiast. Francor. tom. v. p. 698. 7 Men of eminence for learning have generally supposed that this controversy commenced respecting the word filioque, which some of the Latins had added to the Constantinopolitan creed; and that from disputing about the word they proceeded to dispute about the thing. See above all others Mabillon (whom very many follow), Acta Sanctor. Ord. Bened. tom. v. Præf. p. 4. But with due deference to those great men, I would say the fact appears to have been otherwise. The contest commenced respecting the doctrine, and afterwards extended to the word filioque or to the interpolation of the creed. From the council of Gentilly it is manifest that the dispute about the doctrine had existed a long time, when the dispute about the word commenced. Pagi, Critica in Baronium, tom. iii. p. 323, thinks that the controversy grew out of the contest respecting images; that because the Latins pronounced the Greeks to be heretics for opposing images, the Greeks retaliated the charge of heresy upon the Latins for holding that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as CHAPTER IV. HISTORY OF RITES AND CEREMONIES. 4 the following century this dispute became forbidding the worship of images as we have more violent, and accelerated the separation already seen, he limited the number of of the eastern from the western churches.' holidays, rejected the consecration of bells with holy water, and made other commendable regulations. Yet he did not effect much, and chiefly from this cause, among others, that he was excessively atthe patrons of the lovers of ceremonies. tached to the Roman pontiffs, who were His father, Pepin, had previously required the mode of singing practised at Rome to be everywhere introduced. Treading in his steps, and in obedience to the repeated exhortations of the pontiff Hadrian, Charlechurches of Latin Christians not only to magne took vast pains to induce all the copy after the Romish church in this matter, but to adopt the entire forms of the Romish worship. There were however a few churches, as those of Milan, Chur, &c. which could not be persuaded by any arguments or inducements to change their old forms of religious worship. 1. THE religion of this century consisted almost wholly in ceremonies and external marks of piety. It is therefore not strange that everywhere more solicitude was manifested for multiplying and regulating these, than for correcting the vices of men and removing their ignorance and impiety. The mode of celebrating the Lord's supper, which was considered the most important part of the worship of God, was protracted to a greater length, and deformed rather than adorned by the addition of various ceremonies.2 The manifest traces of private and solitary masses, as they are called, were now distinctly visible, although it is uncertain whether they were sanctioned by ecclesiastical law or introduced by the authority of individuals.3 As this one practice is sufficient to show the ignorance and degeneracy of the times, it is not necessary to mention others. 2. Charlemagne, it must be acknowledged, was disposed to impede the progress of superstition to some extent; for, besides the Father. But this is said without authority and without proof, and is therefore only a probable conjec ture. See Pithoeus, Hist. Controversie de Processione Spiritus Sancti, subjoined to his Codex Canonum Eccles. Roman. p. 355, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, tom. iii. p. 354; Vossius, De Tribus Symbolis, diss. iii. p. 65, but especially Walch, Hist. Controversiae de Processione Spiritus Sanct. Jena, 1751, 8vo. [Respecting the opinion of the fathers of the first six centuries on this point, see Müncher's Dogmengeschichte, vol. iii. p. 500-505.-Mur. 2 We here subjoin a few facts, from which it will appear how much superstition then dishonoured this holy ordinance of Christ. Pope Gregory III. among his decisions (in Harduin, Concilia, tom. iii. p. 1826, No. 23) gives the following:-"If any one through negligence shall destroy the eucharist, i.e. the sacrifice, let him do penance one year or three Quadrigesimas. If he lets it fall on the ground carelessly he must sing fifty Psalms. Whoever neglects to take care of the sacrifice, so that worms get into it, or it lose its colour or taste, must do penance thirty or twenty days; and the sacrifice must be burned in the fire. Whoever turns up the cup at the close of the solemnity of the mass must do penance forty days. If a drop from the cup should fall on the altar, the minister must suck up the drop and do penance three days; and the linen cloth which the drop touched must be washed three times over the cup, and the water in which it is washed be cast into the fire." This same passage occurs in the Capitula of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, cap. li-Schl. 3 See Charlemagne, De Imaginibus, lib. ii. p. 245; Calixtus, De Missis Solitariis, section 12, and others. [The private or solitary masses were so called to distinguish them from the public, or those in which the cucharist was imparted to the congregation; and they were masses in which the priest alone partook of the eucharist. The introduction of these private masses led to a more rare distribution of the eucharist to the assembly; at first only on the three principal festivals, and at length but once a year.-Schl 4 At the Council of Mentz, A.D. 813 (Harduin, duin, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 843.-Mur. 7 See Charlemagne, De Imaginibus, lib. i. p. 52; Eginhard, De Vita Caroli Magni, cap. xxvi. p. 94, ed. Bessel. and others. 8 Among the barbarous nations of Europe also, there were still some Arians remaining. 9 From Asseman we obtain some knowledge of the Nestorian patriarchs, the most distinguished of whom were the following. Ananjesu, under whom the Sigan monument was erected A.D. 781. Timotheus who suc Monophysites was easy and agreeable under the dominion of the Arabians; nor were they without ability to annoy the Greeks, their foes, and to propagate their faith abroad. 4 bert & Frenchman, and Clement a Scotchman, who Of 2. In the new Germanic churches collected by Boniface, there were many perverse men who were destitute of true religion, if confidence can be placed in Boniface and his friends. But this can scarcely be the case; because it appears from many circumstances that the persons whom he calls patrons of error were Irishmen, Franks, and others, who would not subject themselves to the control of the Roman pontiff, which Boniface was labouring to extend. Among others the most troublesome to him was Adalbert, a Frenchman, who obtained consecration as a bishop against the will of Boniface, and also Clement, a Scot or Irishman. The former, who created disturbance in Franconia, appears to have been not altogether free from error and crime; 2 for, not to mention other instances of his disregard to truth, there is still extant an Epistle which he falsely asserted was written by Jesus Christ, and brought down from heaven by Michael the archangel. The latter ex-equality with the apostles of Christ, he disdained to 3 ceeded Ananjesu, and greatly extended the sect by the 1 Of the Monophysite patriarchs and writers we also obtain some knowledge from Asseman. Conspicuous as writers among them were Elias of Sigara who commented on the books of Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodosius of Edessa who wrote poems. Among the Maronites, the patriarch Theophilus obtained renown. He appears to have been the same person with that Maronite author of the same name who lived about A.D. 785, and who not only translated Homer into Syriac but also composed large historical works. See Baumgarten, ubi supra, p. 1318.-Schl. 2 See Hist. Littér. de la France, tome iv. p. 82, &c. 3 The Epistle is published by Baluze in the Capit. Regum Francorum, tom. ii. p. 1396. [Semler in his Hist. Eccles. selecta Capita, tom. ii. p. 185, &c. conjectures that this Epistle was fabricated by the enemies of Adalbert, and palmed upon him for the sake of injuring him. This however is doubtful. The caption of the epistle purports that it is an Epistle of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which fell down at Jerusalem, and was found by the archangel Michael near the gate of Ephraim; that a priest read it, transcribed it, and sent it to another priest who sent it into Arabia. After passing through many hands it came at length to Rome, &c. Accompanying this letter, as transmitted by Boniface to the pope, was a biography of Adalbert, which stated that his mother had a marvellous dream before his birth, which was interpreted to signify that her child would be a distinguished man; also a prayer said to have been composed by him, in which he invoked four or five angels by name who are not mentioned in the Bible. The letter of Boniface containing the accusation against both Adalbert and Clement, states that Boniface had now laboured thirty years among the Franks, in the midst of great trials and opposition from wicked men; that his chief reliance had been on the protection of the Roman pontiffs whose celled perhaps Boniface himself in know- 4 The errors of Clement are enumerated by Boniface, Epist. cxxxv. p. 189. [See them stated in the concluding part of the preceding note.-Mur.] Among these errors there is certainly no one that is capital. See Ussher, Sylloge Epist. Hiber. p. 12, and Nouveau Diction. Histor. Crit. tome i. p. 133, &c. [For the history of the controversy with both Adalbert and Clement, see Walch's Hist. der Ketzer. tom. x. p. 3-66.-Mur. the Roman pontiff Zacharias, at the instigation of Boniface, in a council at Rome A.D. 748; and both it appears died in prison. could be imposed upon Elipandus by the Christians, because he lived under the Saracens of Spain. Many believe, and not without reason, that the disciples of Felix, who were called Adoptionists, differed from other Christians not in reality but only in words, or in the mode of stating their views; but as Felix was not uniform in his language, those who accuse him of the Nestorian error have some grounds of argument.3 Littér, de la France, tome iv. p. 434, &c. [This sect tome ii. p. 79, and by the Benedictine monks in Hist. is fully treated of in Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ix. P. 667-940, and in his Hist. Adoptianorum, Götting. 1755, 8vo. See also Schroeckh, Kirchengesch. vol. xx. p. 459-498.-Mur. 2 Dorscheus, Collat. ad Concilium Francof. p. 101; 3. Much greater commotions were produced in Spain, France, and Germany, towards the close of the century by Felix, bishop of Urgel in Spain, a man distinguished for his piety. Being consulted by Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, respecting his opinion of the Sonship of Christ, the Son of God, he answered in the year 783 that Christ, as God, was by nature and truly the Son of God, but that as a man he was the Son of God only in name and by adoption. Elipandus imbibed this doctrine from his preceptor, and disseminated it in the pro-Werenfels, De Logomachiis Eruditor. in his Opp. p. vinces of Spain, while Felix spread it in Septimania [or Languedoc.] But in the view of the pontiff Hadrian and of most of the Latin bishops, this opinion seemed to revive the error attributed to Nestorius, or to divide Christ into two persons. Hence Felix was judged guilty of heresy, and required to change his opinion; first in the council of Narbonne A.D. 788, then at Ratisbon in Germany A.D. 792, also at Frankfort on the Maine A.D. 794, afterwards at Rome A.D. 799, and lastly in the council of Aix-innovation was not a ground for so great an alarm la-Chapelle. And he revoked his opinion ostensibly but not in reality, for he died still maintaining it at Lyons, where he was banished by Charlemagne. No creed 1 459; Basnage, Præf. ad Etherium, in Canisius, Lec- union of the two natures, was born a servant of God throughout the whole church, as if he had assailed the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.-Mur. 3 The Adoptians having lost their leaders soon sank into oblivion. In the middle ages Folmar, about 1160, defended the Adoptian notions; and Duns Scotus about 1300 and Durandus about 1320, admit the expression, filius adoptionis, in a certain sense. Walch, Hist. Adopt. 1 The authors who have treated of the sect of Felix p. 247 and 253. In later times the Adoptians have are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Biblio. Lat. Medii been defended among the Roman Catholics by the Evi, tom. ii. p. 482. To these add De Marca in the Jesuit Gabr. Vasquez, Comment. in Thomam, Ingols. Marca Hispanica, lib. iii. cap. xii. p. 368, &c.; De Fer-1606, fol. par. iii. diss. 89, cap. vii.; and among the reras, Hist. Générale d'Espagne, tome ii. p. 518, 523, 528, 535, &c. 560; Mabillon, Acta Sanctor. Ord. Bened. tom. v. Præf. p. 2, &c. Of Felix in particular, an account is given by Colonia, Hist. Littér. de la Ville de Lyon, Protestants by Geo. Calixtus, De persona Christi, &c. |