CHURCH HISTORY.

THIRD PERIOD.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES TO THE REFORMATION. FROM A.D. 726–1517.

FOR THE GENERAL LITERATURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, SEE THE LITERATURE PREFIXED TO THE SECOND PERIOD.

FIRST DIVISION.

TO THE TIME OF NICOLAUS I. OR TO THE APPEARANCE OF THE PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS.

FROM 726-858.

FIRST PART.

HISTORY OF THE GREEK CHURCH.

Sources are, the Byzantines: Nicephorus (patriarch of Constantinople, † 828) till 769, Theophanes († 817) till 813, and his continuator, Constantinus Porphyrogenneta († 959), Joseph Genesius about 940 (A.D. 813-867), Georgius Monachus (till 959), Simeon Logotheta (till 967), Leo Grammaticus (till 1013). From these Georgius Cedrenus (1057), Joh. Zonaras (1118), and Michael Glykas (1450?) have drawn their histories.

§ 1.

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING IMAGE-WORSHIP.

Imperialia decreta de cultu imaginum in utroque imperio promulgata, collecta et illustrata a Melch. Haiminsfeldio Goldasto. Francof. 1608. 8. Jo. Dallaeus de Imaginibus. Lugd. Bat. 1642. 8. Lud. Maimbourg. Hist. de l'heresie des iconoclastes. Paris, 1679, 8. 3. 2 voll. 12. Frid. Spanhemii Historia imaginum restituta. Lugd. Bat. 1686. 8 (recus. in ejusd. Opp. t. ii. p. 707). Walch's Ketzerhistorie, Th. 10 u. 11. Neander's K. G. iii. 398. Gfrorer's K. G. iii. 1, 97. F. Ch. Schlosser's Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des ostromischen Reichs. Francf. a. M. 1812. 8. The Roman Catholic point of view is maintained by J. Marr, der Bilderstreit der Byzant. Kaiser. Trier, 1839. 8. THE worship of images had long assumed a very unchristian form, when Leo III. Isauricus (716-741), an intelligent and

1 Comp. 99. Even the author of the oratio adv. Constantinum Cabalinum, a fanatical image-worshiper of the 8th century, knew of no other reply, c. 13, to the objection of oppo

5

powerful prince, became opposed to it, but in what way is uncertain.3 At first he was satisfied with a simple prohibition (726), but afterward he commanded the pictures themselves to be taken away (730). The measure was enforced by the removal of Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, who opposed him, in whose place was put the pliant Anastasius; and by the vigorous suppression of some tumultuous movements." He was obliged to allow his measures to be blamed with impunity only in Rome, which refused obedience to him, and in the east,

7

nents: ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἐθεοποίησεν τὰς εἰκόνας than ὀφείλεις διδάξαι τὸν ἀγράμματον λαόν. Cf. Joannis Damasc. Opp. ed. Le Quien, i. 621 and 622.

2 Attempts at explanation may be found in Walch, x. 202. Schlosser, S. 161. Deserving of attention is Theophanes ad. ann. vi. Leonis, p. 336 : Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει ἠνάγκαζεν ὁ βασιλεύς τους Εβραίους καὶ τοὺς Μοντανοὺς βαπτίζεσθαι, and then ad ann. vii. follow the first declarations against images in which the renegade Beser, and Constantine bishop of Nakolia, were principal assistants of the emperor. In the Synodicon vet. c. 138 (in Fabricii Bibl. graec. xi. 248) Leo is said: Τῇ πλάνῃ Κωνσταντίνου ἐπισκόπου Νακωλείας, καὶ Βίσηρ Πατρικίου σαρακηνόφρονος τῶν αἱρεσιαρχῶν χραινόμενος. It is worthy of remark that Leo considered the ravages of a volcano that arose in the Cretan sea as a punishment for the worship of images. Nicephori Breviar. p. 37: Ὡς ἐκ τῶν εἰκονισμάτων ἱδρύσεώς τε καὶ προσκυνήσεως γεγονέναι οἰόμενος τὸ τεράστιον. Cf. Theophanes, Ρ. 339.

3 The emperor's own explanations in a letter to Gregory II. bishop of Rome, cf. Gregorii Epist. i. ad Leonem. ap. Mansi, xii. 959: Αἱ εἰκονες εἰδώλων τόπον ἀναπληροῦσι·-οἱ προσκυνοῦντες αὐτὰς εἰδωλολάτραι·—οὐ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν χειροποίητα, καὶ πᾶν εἶδος καθ ̓ ὁμοίωμα, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς, μήτε ἐν οὐρανῶ, μήτε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Exod. xx. 4). πληροφόρησόν με τις ἡμῖν παρέδωκε σέβεσθαι καὶ προσκυνεῖν χειροποίητα· κἀγὼ όμο λογῶ, ὅτι θεοῦ νομοθεσία ἐστί.

4 Comp. especially Theophanes, p. 336, 343. Nicephorus, p. 37, 38.

5 Subservient as he had shown himself under Philippicus in acknowledging the Monothelitic doctrines, and afterward renouncing them (Theophanes, p. 320. Nicephorus, p. 31. Walch's Ketzergesch. ix. 466), he was now immovable in favor of images. Three letters of his are in the Aetis Concil. Nicaeni ii. Actio iv. ap. Mansi, xiii. 99. The third ad Thomam Episc. Claudeopoleos is a long defense in favor of the use of pictures. In p. 125 he dwells particularly on the miracles wrought by them, among which the greatest in his view was ἡ ἐν Σωζοπόλει τῆς Πισιδίας τὸ πρὶν ὑπάρχουσα εἰκὼν τῆς παναχράντου θεοτόκου, ἐκ τῆς γεγραμμένης παλάμης αὐτῆς τὴν τοῦ μύρου βλύσιν προχέουσα. Also in his lib. de synodis et haeresibus he speaks in brief terms respecting the image controversy, in the Spicilegium Romanum t. vii. (Romae. 1842. 8) i: 59. Here the only thing he maintains against the opponents of images is: El, ὡς φατὲ ὑμεῖς, εἰδώλων δίκην τὰ σεπτὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀπείργετε εἰκονίσματα, μικροῦ καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ καίρια τῆς πίστεως ἀνατρέπετε οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν βέβαιόν τι ἡ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡμῶν παράδοσις ἕξειν δυνήσεται, τὰ πρὶν ἀθετήσασα.

• Namely the revolt in Greece and the Cyclades (Theophanes, p. 339. Nicephorus, p. 37) and the rebellion in Constantinople at the taking down of the crucifix (called ὁ 'Αντι φωνητής) ἐν τοῖς Χαλκοπρατείοις, Gregor. II. Ep. i. ad Leonem ap. Mansi, xii. 969; Theophanes, 339 (who calls it τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰκόνα τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς χαλκῆς πύλης), comp. Walch, x. 178. Schlosser, S. 177.

7 Gregorii Epistolae 2 ad Leonem Imp. (note 726, but written after 730. Walch, x. 173) in the Actis Concil. Nicaeni ii. ap. Mansi, xii. 959. On the ignorance and indecency in them see Bower's Lives of the Popes, iv. 365. Walch, xi. 271, ex. gr. p. 966 : Καὶ τὰ μι

which was now subject to the Saracens ; but in his own empire the friends of images (εικονολάτραι, ξυλολάτραι, εἰδωλολάτραι) were soon compelled to conceal themselves, and the fanatics who resisted the imperial power had to repent bitterly of their opposition. Other superstitions also were threatened by a more enlightened party, the opponents of images (eixoνομάχοι, εἰκονοκλάσται, εἰκονοκαύσται, χριστιανοκατήγοροι); but

κρὰ παιδία καταπαίζουσί σου· γύρωσον εἰς τὰς διατριβὰς τῶν στοιχείων, καὶ εἰπέ· ότι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ καταλύτης καὶ διώκτης τῶν εἰκόνων· καὶ εὐθὺς τὰς πινακίδας αὑτῶν εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν σου ῥίψουσι, καὶ ὅπερ οὐκ ἐπαιδεύθης ὑπὸ τῶν φρονίμων, παιδευθήσῃ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀφρόνων. Εγραψας, ὅτι Οζίας ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (rather Hezekial, 2 Kings xviii. 4) μετὰ ὀκτακοσίους ἐνιαυτοὺς ἐξήγαγε τὸν χαλκοῦν ὄφιν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ, κἀγὼ μετὰ ὀκτακοσίους ἐνιαυτοὺς ἐξήγαγον τὰ εἴδωλα ἐκ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. ̓Αληθῶς καὶ Οζίας ἀδελφός σου ἦν, καὶ τὸ σὸν πεῖσμα εἶχε, καὶ τοὺς τότε ἱερεῖς ἐτυράννησεν ὥσπερ σύ (Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-18)· ἐκεῖνον γὰρ τὸν ὄφιν ὁ ἡγιασμένος Δαβὶδ εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸν ναὸν μετὰ τῆς ἁγίας κιβωτοῦ.-Ρ. 967 : Συνέφερέ σοι, βασιλεῦ, τῶν δύο προκειμένων, αἱρετικόν σε όνομάζεσθαι, ἢ διώκτην καὶ καταλυτὴν τῶν ἱστοριῶν καὶ ζωγραφιῶν τῶν εἰκόνων καὶ παθημάτων τοῦ κυρίου.

* Johannis Damasceni λόγοι γ' ἀπολογητικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς διαβάλλοντας τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας, in Opp. ed. Le Quien. t. i. p. 305, s3.

• Germanus Lib. de synodis et haeres. in Spicil. Rom. vii. i. 61: 'Απ' αὐτῆς τῆς βασι λείας, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κρατούντων τὰ πράγματα, ἐκμανὴς ἀγανάκτησις τοῖς εὐλαβῶς διάγειν προαιρουμένοις ἐπινενόηται. Τοῦ γε χάριν καὶ κίνδυνος οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν ὀλέθριος, πᾶσαν σχεδὸν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐμπεριείληχε, πλείστων ἱερέων τε καὶ λαϊκῶν, περισσοτέρως δὲ τῶν τῷ μοναχικῷ ἀσκουμένων τάγματι θεοσεβεστάτων ἀνδρῶν, μετανάστων τῶν οἰκείων γεγενημένων, καὶ ἐν ἐξορίᾳ καὶ γυμνητεύσει, μετὰ καὶ τῶν τοῦ σώματος μελῶν ἀφαιρέσεως, εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ ἐρήμωσιν παραπεμφθέντων. Οὐ γὰρ ἠρκέσθησαν οἱ τὰ νῦν τοῦ κηρύγματος τὸν λόγον ἐπιδεικτικῶς· ὑποφαίνοντες τῇ τῶν σανίδων μόνον ἐκποιήσει τᾶ τῶν ἁγίων περιαίρεθαι εἰκονίσματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐν γραφίδι ἐφάμιλλον τούτοις κόσμησιν τῶν σεπτοτάτων νεῶν ὁλικῶς ἐξορύττεσθαι· καὶ ἔμπαλιν τοῖς θείοις θυσιαστηρίοις τὰ τῶν σεβασμίων καὶ ἱερῶν τραπεζώσεων συμβιλικὰ ἐπενδύματα, ἐν χρυσῷ καὶ πορφύρᾳ συμποικιλθέντα, χύδην ἀπομορξάμενοι, ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν οἴκοις ἀνέθεσαν, ὅτι καὶ χαρακτῆρες ἁγίων εὕρηνται ἱστορούμενοι. Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τὸ πάσης ἀνοσιουργίας ἀνάμεστον δρᾷν οὐκ ἐνάρκησαν· τὰ γάρ τῶν μακαρίων καὶ ἀοιδίμων Μαρτύρων λείψανα, ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων συγ κομισθέντα, καὶ ἐν τιμίοις κιβωρίοις σωρηδὸν ἐντεθέντα ἀπογυμνώσαντες, πυρὶ κατανάλωσαν, τὸ ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τοὺς διὰ πίστιν ήθληκότας καταπατῆσαι καὶ ἀτιμάσαι σπουδάσαντες. Holy vessels furnished with images and clothes can not have been taken away in consequence of general measures, but only occasionally by zealous enemies to images; for the Conc. Constant. of 754 forbids such things, καθὼς τοιαῦτα ὑπό τινων ἀτάκτως φερομένων προγέγονεν (Mansi, xiii. 332). How far the fanaticism of individual focs to pictures had proceeded may be seen from the fact, that at this synod, even a bishop was accused (vita Stephani, jun. in Analecta Graeca, ed. Mon. Bened. Congr. S. Mauri. Paris. 1688. 4. i. 480), ὡς ὅτι ἅγιον δίσκον τῶν ἀχράντων τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστηρίων κατεπά τησεν, διότι περ ἐκτετύπωτο εἰκόνας σεπτὰς τοῦ τε Χριστοῦ καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ μητρὸς καὶ του προδρόμου. So also relics may have been attacked by individuals, but certainly very rarely, because traces of it must have been found in the polemics of the period. The tendency, it is true, of the enemies of images must have turned itself also in cousistent devel opment against relic and saint worship, and several may have even proceeded so fer as to reject and renounce it. But the party, on the whole, dependent on the imperial will, did not go so far, without doubt having a regard to the general, popular disposition. It even expressly warded off from itself the suspicion of wishing to attack the worship of saints,

since it was not created by a religious feeling, but merely by the emperor's will, this party fostered a superficial free-thinking, rather than a beneficial reformatory tendency. The measures taken against images were also honestly prosecuted by Constantine Copronymus (741-775), equally honored by his subjects as a prince, and beloved by his soldiers as a general. After Artabasdus, who had endeavored to procure more adherents to his cause by favoring image-worship had been conquered (741-743), and while this practice was constantly assuming a more fanatical character, especially among the monks, the emperor procured its solemn rejection, by calling a general couneil at Constantinople (754)," though the decrees of this council

Conc. Const. ann. 754, Anath. ix. and xi., see note 11 at the end. It is therefore a very exaggerated statement, when Theophanes, p. 340, says of Leo: Οὐ μόνον γὰρ περὶ τὴν σχετικὴν τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων ὁ δυσσεβὴς ἐσφάλλετο προσκύνησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν πρεσβειῶν τῆς πανάγνου θεοτόκου, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· καὶ τὰ λείψανα αὐτῶν ὁ παμμίαρος, ὡς οἱ διδάσκαλοι αὐτοῦ ̓Αραβες, ἐβδελύττετο. The persecutions also of the opponents of images have been greatly exaggerated by later historians, see Walch, x. 286.

10 Theophanes, p. 347, ss.

The opoç of this council in the Acta Concilii Nic. ii. ap. Mansi, xiii. 205, ss.; cf. p. 916: Απέστησεν ἡμᾶς ('Ι. Χ.) ἐκ τῆς φθοροποιοῦ τῶν δαιμόνων διδασκαλίας ἤτοι τῆς τῶν εἰδώλων πλάνης τε καὶ λατρείας καὶ τὴν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκύνησιν παραδέ δωκεν. Ρ. 221 : Παλιν δὲὁ τῆς κακίας δημιουργὸς οὐκ ἠπόρησε κατὰ διαφόρους καιρούς τε καὶ τρόπους πονηρᾶς ἐπινοίας, ὥστε ὑπὸ χεῖρα δι' ἀπάτης ἑαυτῷ ποιῆσαι τὸ ἀνθρώπι· νον· ἀλλ' ἐν προσχήματι Χριστιανισμοῦ τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν κατὰ τὸ λεληθὸς ἐπανήγαγε, πείσας τοῖς ἰδίοις σοφίσμασι τοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁρῶντας μὴ ἀποστῆναι τῆς κτίσεως, ἀλλὰ ταύτην προσκυνεῖν καὶ ταύτην σέβεσθαι, καὶ θεὸν τὸ ποίημα οἴεσθαι τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κλήσει ἐπονομαζόμενον. Ρ. 225: Διὸ δὴ καθῶς πάλαι ὁ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἀρχηγὸς καὶ τελειωτὴς Ἰησοῦς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ πανσόφους μαθητὰς καὶ ἀποστόλους τῇ τοῦ παναγεστατοῦ πνεύματος δυνάμει ἐπὶ ἐκμειώσει τῶν τοιούτων κατὰ παντὸς ἐξαπέστειλεν, οὕτως καὶ νῦν τοὺς αὐτοῦ θεράποντας, καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐφαμίλλους, πιστοὺς ἡμῶν βασιλεῖς ἐξανέ· στησε, τῇ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πνεύματος σοφισθέντας δυνάμει, πρὸς καταρτισμὸν μὲν ἡμῶν καὶ διδασκαλίαν, καθαίρεσιν δὲ δαιμονικῶν ὀχυρωμάτων ἐπαιρομένων κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγξιν διαβολικῆς μεθοδείας καὶ πλάνης. Ρ. 251 : That they who painted pictures of Christ fell either into the Eutychian, or, p. 255, into the Nestorian heresy. P. 324: Ομοφώνως ὁρίζομεν, ἀπόβλητον εἶναι καὶ ἀλλοτρίαν καὶ ἐβδελυγμένην ἐκ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐκκλησίας πᾶσαν εἰκόνα ἐκ παντοίας ὕλης καὶ χρωματουργικῆς τῶν ζωγράφων κακοτεχνίας πεποιημένην· Ρ. 328: Μηκέτι τολμᾷν ἄνθρωπον τὸν οἱονδήποτε ἐπιτηδεύειν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀσεβὲς καὶ ἀνόσιον ἐπιτήδευμα. ὁ δὲ τολμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ παρόντος κατασκευάσαι εἰκόνα, ἢ προσκυνῆσαι, ἢ στῆσαι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἢ ἐν ἰδιωτικῷ οἴκῳ, ἢ κρύψαι, εἰ μὲν ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος εἶεν, καθαιρείσθω· εἰ δὲ μονάζων ἢ λαϊκὸς ἀναθεματιζέσθω, καὶ τοῖς βασιλικοῖς νόμοις ὑπεύθυνος ἔστω ὡς ἐναντίος τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ προσταγμάτων, καὶ ἐχθρὸς τῶν πατρικῶν δογμάτων. Among the thirteen, anath mas affixed are to be remarked ix. p. 345: Εἰ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ τὴν ἀειπάρθενον Μαρίαν κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς θεοτόκον, ὑπερτέραν τε είναι πάσης ὁρατῆς καὶ ἀοράτου κτίσεως, καὶ μετὰ εἰλικρινοῦς πίστεως τὰς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐξαιτεῖται πρεσβείας ὡς παῤῥησίαν ἐχούσης πρὸς τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς τεχθέντα θεὸν ἡμῶν, ἀναθεμα. xi. p. 348: Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀπ' αἰῶνος καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἁγίους, πρὸ νόμου, καὶ ἐν νόμῳ, καὶ ἐν χάριτι τῷ θεῷ, εὐαρεστήσαντας, τιμίους εἶναι ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ψυχῇ τε καὶ σώματι, καὶ τὰς τούτων οὐκ

13

were not admitted in the east, 12 and at Rome,' And because the monasteries were the places of resort to which the pictureworshipers now fled, and which nourished their fanaticism that frequently broke forth into tumultuous resistance, severer measures against the monks followed, amounting in some provinces to absolute persecution." By this means Constantine has become the object of monkish abhorrence; and they have revenged themselves richly on him by historical misrepresentations.15

Under Leo IV. Chazarus (775–780), the laws against muage-worship were still rigidly enforced. Irene, on the contrary, was friendly to it (780-802). At first, indeed, she was compelled to be cautious, by the voice of the capital and the soldiery; but afterward, in conjunction with the new patriarch Tarasius,ls she called a synod, which was broken up by an insurrection at Constantinople," but met again at Nice (Conc. oecumenic. vii., 787), and restored image-worship.18 The decrees

ἐξαιτεῖται προσευχὰς ὡς παῤῥησίαν ἐχόντων ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου πρεσβεύειν, κατὰ τὴν εκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν, ἀνάθεμα.

12 Συνοδικόν of Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, about 766, in Actis Conc. Nic. ii. ap. Mansi, xii. 1135; comp. Walch, x. 376.

13 Cf. Concilium Lateranense, A.D. 769, ap. Mansi, xii. 713, ss.

24 Constantine (762) first put Andrew to death, ἐλέγχοντα αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀσέβειαν, καὶ Ουάλεντα νέον καὶ Ἰουλιανὸν ἀποκαλοῦντα αὐτόν. Theophanes, p. 363. Continued obstinacy called forth a series of cruelties, from 766 to 775. Theophan. p. 367, ss. Nicephorus, p. 45, ss. Acta S. Stephani in the Analectis graecis ed. Monach. Benedict. Paris. 1688. 4. p. 396, ss. Comp. Walch, x. 403. Schlosser, S. 228, ff.

15 Comp. Walch, x. 413. On the surnames Copronymos (see the account of Theoph. p. 334) and Caballinus, see Walch, x. 356.Against Theophanes, p. 370 : Πανταχοῦ μὲν τὰς πρεσβείας τῆς παρθένου καὶ θεοτόκου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως, ὡς ἀνωφελεῖς, καὶ ἀγράφος ἀποκηρύττων, δι' ὧν ἡμῖν πηγάζει πᾶσα βοήθεια· καὶ τὰ ἅγια λείψανα αὐτῶν κατορύττων, καὶ ἀφανῆ ποιῶν, κ. τ. λ. (cf. note 9) see Walch, x. 401. But much superstition connected with the relics certainly disappeared. Concil. Nic. ii. can. 7, ap. Mansi, xiii. 427 : Τῇ οὖν ἀσεβεῖ αἱρέσει τῶν Χριστιανοκατηγόρων καὶ ἄλλα ἀσεβήματα συνηκολούθησαν —ἕτερά τινα ἔθη παραλελύκασιν, ἃ χρὴ ἀνανεωθῆναι —ὅσοι οὖν σεπτοὶ ναοὶ καθιερώθησαν ἐκτὸς ἁγίων λειψάνων μαρτύρων, ὁρίζομεν ἐν αὐτοῖς κατάθεσιν γενέσθαι λειψάνων μετὰ καὶ τῆς συνήθους εὐχῆς.

16 S. Tarasii vita, by his pupil Ignatius, Acta SS. Febr. iii. 576.

17 See in particular the συγγραφὴ σύντομος δηλωτικὴ τῶν πραχθέντων πρὸ τῆς συνόδου ap. Mansi, xii. 990, ss. Theophanes, p. 389.

18 Its acts in Mansi, xii. 951, xiii. 820. In the δρος Actio vii. ap. Mansi, xiii. 377, it is said: Ορίζομεν σὺν ἀκριβείᾳ πάσῃ καὶ ἐμμελείᾳ παραπλησίως τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιμίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ ἀνατίθεσθαι τὰς σεπτὰς καὶ ἁγίας εἰκόνας—ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαις, ἐν ἱεροῖς σκεύεσι καὶ ἐσθῆσι, τοίχοις τε καὶ σανίσιν, οἴκοις τε καὶ ὁδοῖς—(ὅσῳ γὰρ συνεχῶς δι' εἰκονικῆς ἀνατυπώσεως ὁρῶνται, τοσοῦτον καὶ οἱ ταύτας θεώμενοι διανί στανται πρὸς τὴν τῶν πρωτοτύπων μνήμην τε καὶ ἐπιπόθησιν) καὶ ταύταις ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονέμειν (οὐ μὴν τὴν κατὰ πίστιν ἡμῶν ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν, ἢ τρέπει μόνῃ τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, ἀλλ' ὃν τρόπον τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ τιμίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ VOL. II.- -2