(A.D. 806.)
[By Greeks and Latins on the same day. Authority:--His life by
Ignatius, deacon and keeper of the sacred vessels at Constantinople,
afterwards bishop of Nicæa, a disciple of Tarasius; also the Church
historians of the period.]
The Incarnation of God was the descent of the Most High to the level
of human necessity. Man had found a difficulty in believing in and
loving the Infinite; human language failed to express the nature of
God save by a multitude of abstractions and negations. He was not
limited, had no localized habitation, was not comprehensible by man;
so the philosophers taught, and so they strove to make men believe;
men made the effort, believed, and in the effort, their devotion
expired. The philosophers had lifted God into the region of an idea,
and in so doing, had divested him of personality; and when His
personality was lost, all interest in Him died away. God was to them
an object of speculation, not an object of worship. God the Father,
knowing man's natural incapacity for realizing the Godhead, sent His
Son into the world clothed in flesh. Man had now a God-Man, whose
nature and personality had been brought vividly before him to believe
in and to love. God was "manifest in the flesh," the visible and the
invisible, the spiritual and the material, the finite and the
infinite, the local and the omnipresent were united in One.
Thenceforth the law of God's dealings with man was to be in accordance
with his natural capacities, the visible was to become the medium of
the invisible, the material the vehicle of the spiritual, the
omnipresent adorable through a local presence, the infinite
discernible through the finite. In Jesus Christ men saw God and lived;
and when He was withdrawn from the eyes of men, He did not leave them
orphans, but perpetuated his presence in the Holy Eucharist, even unto
the end of the world.
In the old heathen world men had been idolaters or philosophers. The
idolater saw in the material image his God; the philosopher declared
that God was everywhere present, and he despised the idol.
Christianity combined in one the truth taught by the philosopher, and
the craving felt by the idolater. Through the sacraments as outward
and visible means, grace was conveyed to man, chiefly through the Holy
Eucharist; and through sacred images and the holy cross, worship was
addressed to God. Through the seen to the unseen, to God; from the
unseen through the seen to man, is the law of the Incarnation.
At first, on account of the idolatry which surrounded them, the early
Christians did not deem it prudent to introduce images into their
churches. Idolatry was so prevalent, that the first lesson they had to
insist upon to the heathen, was the omnipresence of God; but when
heathenism was conquered, the danger of idolatry ceased, and the peril
was in the other direction; men began to insist on the infinity of the
essence of the Godhead, and to deny the possibility of His becoming
local by incarnation. They were ready to admit that Christ was
inspired with a divine afflatus, but not that He was very and eternal
God. Then, at once, it became necessary for the Church to use her
every effort to impress on men's minds and hearts the truth that God
had become very man, of the substance of His mother. Then pictures and
images were introduced into churches. We must remember that the
Church, to defend the truth, had to assume successively opposite
positions, for the truth was double,--if we are to understand how she
first opposed images, and then defended them. She did not contradict
herself, her attitude was forced upon her, to maintain a two-fold
truth.
The use of images was commonly received in the east, when the Emperor
Leo the Isaurian, resolved to abolish the practice. The contest began
about the year 725. He was opposed by Pope Gregory II., Germanus,
patriarch of Constantinople, and S. John Damascene. The first wrote
vehemently to him on this subject. He maintained that the Word by
having rendered Himself visible in taking a human body, subjected
Himself to all conditions of a man, and that as it was lawful to
represent any man, emperor or prince, so it was lawful to make
representations of Christ. But, said he, Christians do not worship the
cloth on which the picture is painted, nor the stone out of which the
statue is hewn, but they use these visible representations as means of
renewing the memory of the saints, and of raising up the mind to God.
He denied that images received divine honours, but if "Lord Jesus,
save us," be said before an image of Christ, "Holy Mother of God,
intercede with Thy Son for us," before one of the Virgin, and
"Intercede for us," before one of a Martyr; these prayers are not
addressed to the image, but to Christ, or the Holy Virgin, or the
Saint whom the figure is designed to portray.
Constantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, followed in his father's
steps, and for the better establishing his purpose, he called together
a council (A.D. 754) at Constantinople, composed of 338 bishops. It
began its sittings in February and ended in August. The Western
Church, and the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
were not represented at this council, which was thus composed of
prelates under the immediate control of the emperor, gathered together
in his imperial city, surrounded by guards, and, unfortunately, the
majority of these bishops partook of that time-serving and obsequious
disposition which characterised and disgraced the episcopal order in
the Eastern Empire for many centuries. This council decreed the
destruction of images in churches, and the erasure of paintings on the
walls.[70]
By the authority of the emperor, a great part of the Eastern Church
received and executed this decree; but Irene, who had married Leo the
Fourth, son of Constantine Copronymus, though a cruel, ambitious
woman, espoused, perhaps out of caprice, the opposite side, and on the
death of her husband, during the minority of her son Constantine, who
was but ten years old, assumed the regency, and stopped the savage
persecution of the monks, and the ruthless destruction of images which
had proceeded without intermission through the three preceding reigns.
Paul III., patriarch of Constantinople, had been raised to that
dignity by the late emperor. Being a timid man, desirous of remaining
in favour with court, he had bowed to the will of the emperor in the
matter of images. But he was a good and charitable man, greatly
beloved by the poor. Finding that the Iconoclasts were now out of
favour, and fearing for himself, he suddenly resigned his patriarchal
see, and took refuge in a monastery.
The empress and her son visited him, and endeavoured to dissuade him
from his intention, but found him resolved. Tarasius, an officer of
the court, noted for his piety, was then appointed patriarch, in spite
of his urgent remonstrance. He declared that he would not accept the
office till a council had been called, which exhibited those marks of
being oecumenical which the former council had lacked, and which
might compose the differences which had agitated the Eastern Church.
This being agreed to, he was solemnly declared patriarch, and was
consecrated soon after, on Christmas Day.
His first act was to write synodal letters to the patriarchs of Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, convening a general council. Pope
Adrian sent two priests to act as his legates, and the Eastern bishops
did the same. The council assembled on the 1st August, 786, in the
Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, but a tumult having broken
out, and the soldiers having besieged the bishops in the church, and
endeavoured to break up the council, it was adjourned till the
following year, when it met at Nicæa. The papal legates sat in the
first place, then Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, then the
deputies of the Eastern bishops, who were themselves unable to attend
because not permitted by the Saracen conquerors, afterwards Agapetus,
bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, John, bishop of Ephesus,
Constantine, metropolitan of Cyprus, with 250 bishops and archbishops,
and above 100 priests and monks, and two commissioners of the emperor
and empress to maintain order.
The first session was held on the 24th September, 787, in the Church
of S. Sophia; it opened with the reading of the letter of the empress
Irene and the emperor, wherein they assured to the bishops that they
had assembled the synod with the consent of the patriarchs, and that
they left the bishops at full liberty to speak their minds; that Paul,
the last patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledging his fault in
having received the decrees of the council of the Iconoclasts, had
quitted his see, and had caused Tarasius to be elected in his room;
that Tarasius had refused the dignity, but having been urged to accept
it, had required a council to be held to suppress the schism which
divided the Church on the subject of images; and that, therefore, in
accordance with his request, this council was convened. In conclusion,
the empress and her son exhorted the bishops to judge truthfully and
courageously, in accordance with Catholic doctrine and practice; and
they said that letters had been received from Pope Adrian, which
should be read to the assembly.
After this many of the prelates who had taken part with the
Iconoclasts, or had submitted to the decrees, seeing that the
direction of the courtly breeze had changed, veered round with
obsequious readiness. Such were, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, Theodosius
of Myra, Theodosius of Amorn, Hypatius of Nicæa, and others, who now
acknowledged that they reverenced sacred images.
In the next session the letters of Pope Adrian were read, declaring
the utility of images as means of teaching the ignorant, and of
awakening piety and compunction. He demanded also that all archbishops
of his patriarchate should receive ordination from the bishop of Rome,
and that the primacy of the see of Rome should receive general
recognition, as also that the patriarch of Constantinople should be
prevented from assuming the title of "Universal Bishop." These latter
articles were not transcribed by the Greek fathers. Dupin, the
judicious historian, suggests that probably the legates of the Pope
did not judge it prudent at that moment to present them. A letter from
Adrian to Tarasius was then read, expressing the trouble given to the
Pope by the news of the nomination of a layman to the influential see
of Constantinople, and exhorting him to procure the condemnation of
the synod which had forbidden images in churches. After the reading of
this letter, the Papal legates asked Tarasius whether he approved of
it. He answered that he did, and that he did reverently honour the
images of Christ, the Holy Virgin, and the saints, but that to God
alone was due true adoration and worship (latria). Of this the synod
approved. Our English word _worship_ has got at the present time a
meaning which it had not of old. Worship now means to adore as God,
with supreme reverence; and such worship may not be given to
creatures, however exalted; but the old signification of the word had
not this force, but was synonymous with reverence. Thus, in the
Anglican prayer book, in the marriage service, the husband says to the
wife, "With my body I thee worship," _i.e._, honour; and magistrates
are called the "worshipful." When Protestants accuse Catholics of
worshipping images, in one sense they are right, but in another sense
they are wrong. Catholics do worship sacred images so far as to render
them respect and honour, but they do not give to them that honour
which is implied by the word "worship" in its modern sense. In the old
signification of the word, the sailor worships the quarterdeck when he
touches his cap on passing it, the soldier worships the royal standard
when he presents arms to it, and the peers the throne when they bow to
it on taking their places in the House of Lords.
In the third session of the council, a letter from the patriarch of
Jerusalem, approved by his bishops, was read, wherein he acknowledged
that reverence and honour were to be shown to sacred images.
In subsequent sessions the acts of the Iconoclastic Council at
Jerusalem were examined and refuted in order, and the council closed
with the usual acclamations and prayers for the prosperity of the
emperor and empress; after which synodal letters containing the
decrees were sent to all churches. Pope Adrian approved of all that
had been decreed, and sent copies of the Acts into France, where
pictures and images were used historically, but no honour, such as
burning candles or offering of incense before them, was allowed. On
receiving these copies, Charlemagne wrote, or caused to be written, or
put forth under his name, a work containing an examination of the
decrees of the second council of Nicæa, by some of the bishops, of
whom Alcuin was chief. This contained a repudiation of these Acts, and
a rejection of image-worship. It maintained that respect was due to
pictures and statues of the Saviour and the Saints, but refused the
right of offering them any sort of religious honour, as by lighting
candles and incensing them. This work was presented to Pope Adrian by
Engilbert, the ambassador of Charlemagne, and it drew forth from the
pope an answer which, however, did not alter the practice of the
Gallican Church, for in the Council of Frankfort, held in 794, the
decrees relative to the worshipping of images passed by the second
Council of Nicæa were rejected, as was the case again in a council
held at Paris, in 824. Tarasius, in the meantime, obedient to the
decrees of the synod, restored holy images throughout the extent of
his patriarchate. His life was a model of perfection to both clergy
and laity. He lived a quiet, austere life, in the midst of
magnificence and luxury. He reduced to the smallest possible amount
the expenses of his household, and gave to the poor what he had
economised. He often took the dishes of meat from his table to
distribute among them with his own hands: and he assigned them a large
annual revenue. And that none might be overlooked, he visited every
house and hospital in Constantinople. His discourses turned on the
mortification of the senses, and he was particularly severe against
all theatrical entertainments, which served then to encourage and
diffuse licentiousness. Some time after, the emperor became enamoured
of Theodota, a maid of honour to his wife, the empress Mary, and,
after having spent seven years in marriage, in 795, he resolved to
divorce the empress. He used every effort to gain the patriarch. He
sent an officer to him to inform him that a plot of the empress to
poison him had been discovered. S. Tarasius, however, received the
request to divorce the emperor, and marry him to Theodota, with a
stern refusal. "Tell him that I will rather suffer death and all
manner of torments than consent to his design." The emperor, hoping to
prevail with him by flattery, sent for him to the palace, and said, "I
can conceal nothing from you, whom I regard as my father. No one can
deny but I may divorce one who has attempted my life. The Empress Mary
deserves death or perpetual penance." He then produced a vessel, full
of the poison, which he pretended she had prepared for him. The
patriarch, with good reason, judging this to be an attempt to impose
upon him, answered, that he was too well convinced that his passion
for Theodota was at the bottom of all his complaints against the
empress. He boldly declared to Constantine that even if she were
guilty of the crime laid to her charge, a second marriage during her
lifetime would be adulterous. The monk John, who had been legate of
the Eastern patriarchs in the council at Nicæa, being present, also
spoke resolutely to the emperor, who was so irritated that he drove
them both out of his presence, and John narrowly escaped with his
life. As soon as they were gone, he turned the empress Mary out of the
palace and obliged her to assume the veil. Tarasius persisted in his
refusal to marry him to Theodota, and the ceremony was performed by
Joseph, the treasurer of the church of Constantinople. The patriarch
became thenceforth an object of persecution to the emperor, who placed
spies about his person, suffered no one to speak with him without
their leave, and banished many of his relations and servants. This
confinement gave the patriarch more leisure for prayer and
contemplation. In the meantime, the ambitious Irene, discontented at
being no longer at the head of the administration, formed a conspiracy
to dethrone her son. The secret was faithfully kept above eight
months, till the emperor, suspicious of his danger, escaped from
Constantinople, with the design of appealing to the provinces and
armies. By this hasty flight the empress was left on the brink of a
precipice. She addressed a private epistle to the friends whom she had
placed about his person with a menace that, unless they accomplished,
she would reveal, their treason. Their fear rendered them intrepid.
They seized the emperor on the Asiatic shore, and transported him to
Constantinople, where his mother and the other conspirators decided to
render him incapable of the throne by blinding him. Her emissaries
assaulted the sleeping prince, and stabbed their daggers into his
eyes. He survived for several years, oppressed by the court, and
forgotten by the world; whilst his unnatural mother resumed the
sovereign power, of which he had divested her by becoming of age. She
reigned for five years, during which she recalled all the banished,
and favoured the Catholics. But she was in turn conspired against by
the high treasurer, Nicephorus, who was secretly invested with the
purple, and crowned at S. Sophia by the patriarch. The empress was
sent into exile in the isle of Lesbos, where she was obliged to earn a
scanty subsistence by the labours of her distaff, till her haughty
spirit consuming her, she died of grief.
Under Nicephorus, S. Tarasius persevered peaceably in his practices of
penance, and in the functions of his pastoral charge. Through his last
sickness he continued to offer daily the holy Sacrifice as long as he
was able to move. A little before his death he fell into a trance, as
the author of his life, who was an eye-witness of the scene, relates,
wherein he was heard disputing with a number of accusers, very busy in
sifting his whole life, and objecting to his actions. He seemed to be
in fear and agitation, and defending himself against everything laid
to his charge. This filled all present with fear, seeing the
endeavours of the enemy of man to find some condemnation in the life
of so holy and so irreprehensible a bishop. But a great serenity
succeeded, and the holy man gave up his soul to God in peace, on the
25th of February, in 806, having sat twenty-one years and two months.
God honoured his memory with miracles, some of which are related by
the author of his life. His festival began to be celebrated under his
successor.