II

In the eighth century the iconoclastic controversy supplied the absorbing subject of theological thought among Eastern Christians. The beginning of the controversy itself may be reckoned from the edict of the Emperor Leo III., known as “the Isaurian,” which was issued in the year 726. Before the reign of this Emperor the reverence given to the images of the saints by means of outward acts of veneration had reached a high pitch. The edict of 726, the tenth year of his reign, was directed against any such veneration; and a further edict, issued in 730, prohibited the use of images for purposes of religion altogether. These edicts led to a prolonged struggle. Leo III. continued to use the power of the State against the veneration of images until his death in 741. His successor, Constantine Copronymus, carried on the same policy; and under his auspices a Council was held at Constantinople in 754, which decreed that all images should be banished from the churches, and forbade the making or veneration or possession of any image. In spite of the resistance of most of the bishops, of the monks as a body, and of the people in general, Constantine Copronymus endeavoured until his death in 775 to put down the use of images, and met with much apparent success. The policy of the State remained unaltered during the reign of Leo IV., which lasted from 775 to 780. After his death the Empress Irene assumed the government during the minority of her son Constantine VI. She was a zealous advocate of the veneration of images; and her rule made possible the meeting of the Second Council of Nicæa in 787, which decreed that honour was to be paid to images, and was eventually recognised as the Seventh Œcumenical Council. The chief theologian of the East in the eighth century, St. John of Damascus, took a prominent part in the iconoclastic controversy, and was one of the most notable defenders of the rightfulness of the cause which was victorious at the Second Council of Nicæa. He was born before the end of the seventh century, and died probably sometime between the Council of 754 and that of 787.

In the first of his Discourses on the Holy Images St. John of Damascus ascribes to the opponents of the veneration of images a line of thought which is Jewish and even Manichæan. This line of thought, he maintains, is grounded on notions of antagonism between what is divine and what is human which are untenable since the redemption of man, and requires a degree of contempt for material things which is inconsistent with the way in which they have been used in the works of salvation and grace. The wood of the cross, the tomb whence our Lord rose, the book of the Gospels, are all material things; and each one of them has had its spiritual office to perform. In the celebration of the Eucharist the same principle holds good.

“Is not the life-brining Table, which ministers to us the bread of life, material? Are not the gold and the silver, from which crosses and patens and chalices are made, material? Above all these, are not the body and blood of our Lord material?”

The same argument, in almost identical language, is repeated in the second of the Discourses on the Holy Images. By using it St. John of Damascus appears to take for granted that the food which is given and received in the Holy Eucharist is the actual human body and blood which our Lord took in the Incarnation. In his comments on the First Epistle to the Corinthians he reproduces the teaching of St. Chrysostom that “that which is in the chalice is what flowed from the side” of Christ on the cross, and that communicants are the body of Christ, but does not reproduce St. Chrysostom’s phrase that being “broken” in the Eucharist Christ “suffers what He did not suffer on the cross”.

In his great doctrinal treatise On the Orthodox Faith St. John of Damascus treats the subject of the Eucharist at greater length. After recounting the facts of the institution he proceeds:—

“If then the word of God is living and active, and the Lord hath done all things whatsoever He hath willed; … if the heaven and the earth, fire and water and air, and all that pertains to them, were made complete by the word of the Lord, and moreover man, the most famous of living creatures; if God the Word Himself by the exercise of His will became man, and the pure and spotless blood of the holy ever-virgin supplied to Him flesh without generation by man—cannot He make bread His own body and the wine and the water blood?… God said ‘This is My body,’ and ‘This is My blood,’ and ‘Do this for a memorial of Me’ and by His almighty command it comes to be until He come.… For, as all things which God did He did by the operation of the Holy Ghost, so also now the operation of the Holy Ghost performs the things which are beyond nature, which faith alone can grasp. ‘How shall this be to me,’ says the holy Virgin, ‘seeing I know not a man?’ The Archangel Gabriel answers, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee’. And now thou askest, How does the bread become the body of Christ, and the wine and the water the blood of Christ? I also say to thee, The Holy Ghost comes on them and makes them those things which are beyond reason and thought. Bread and wine are taken; for God knows the weakness of man.… As in the case of Baptism, since it is customary for men to wash with water and anoint themselves with oil, He has linked with the oil and the water the grace of the Spirit, and has made it to be the laver of regeneration, so, since it is customary for men to eat bread and to drink water and wine, He has linked with them His Godhead, and has made them His body and blood, in order that by means of wonted and natural things we may reach those which are supernatural. The body, that is the body which was derived from the holy Virgin is truly united to Godhead, not that the body which ascended comes down from heaven, but that the bread anti wine itself is transmade (μεταποιεῖται) into the body and blood of God. But it you inquire as to the method, how this comes to be, it is enough for you to hear that it is by means of the Holy Ghost, as also from the holy Mother of God by means of the Holy Ghost the Lord took to Himself flesh to be His own. And we know no more than that the word of God is true and active and almighty, while the method is inscrutable. But there is no harm in saying this, that, as in the processes of nature bread through being eaten and wine and water through being drunk are changed (μεταβάλλονται) into the body and blood of him who eats and drinks them. and do not become a different body from his former body, so the bread that is offered and the wine and water are by means of the invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost supernaturally transmade (μεταποιοῦνται) into the body and the blood of Christ, and are not two things but one and the same thing.… The bread and the wine are not a figure of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid) but the body of the Lord itself that is filled with Godhead, since the Lord Himself said, ‘This is My’—not figure of the body but—‘body,’ and not figure of the blood but ‘blood’.… The bread of the Communion is not mere bread but united to Godhead; and the body united to Godhead is not one nature only, but one nature of the body and another of the Godhead that is united to it, so that both together are not one nature but two.… The flesh of the lord is life-giving spirit, because it was conceived of the life-giving Spirit; for that which is born (τὸ γεγεννημένον) of the Spirit is spirit. Now this I say, not removing the nature of the body but wishing to make clear its life-giving and divine character. If some have called the bread and the wine the antitypes of the body and the blood of the Lord, as hold Basil said, they in using this word spoke of the offering not after the consecration but before the consecration. It is called participation, for by means of it we partake of the Godhead of Jesus. It is called and really is Communion, because through it we have communion with Christ and receive His flesh and Godhead, and also through it have communion with and are united with one another; for since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood and members one of another; being called sharers in the body of Christ.… And they are called antitypes of the things to come, not as not being really the body and blood of Christ, but because now by means of them we partake of the Godhead of Christ, while hereafter we shall partake of it spiritually (νοητῶς) by means of the vision only.”

This explicit teaching of St. John of Damascus has points of contact with that found in an earlier period in writers so different from one another as St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Macarius Magnes. Like St. Ambrose St. John of Damascus lays stress on the parallels of the exertion of the almighty power of God in the work of creation and in the birth of our Lord from a virgin. Like St. Gregory of Nyssa he uses the phrase “transmade” of the effect of consecration on the elements and compares the ordinary physical process by which bread and wine which are eaten are changed into the flesh and blood of him who eats them. Like Macarius Magnes, who uses parallels in the same order of thought from the production of bread and wine from the earth and the change of the blood of a mother into milk so as to be her infant child’s food, he repudiate the phraseology which describes the elements after consecration as the figures of the body and blood of Christ. This denial that the consecrated elements are figures was probably due partly to an instinctive dislike of language which might be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with the doctrine that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ, and partly to the stress of the iconoclastic controversy and the fear that if the consecrated elements were described as figures this might lead to a view that they were no more the body and blood of Christ than the image of a saint is that saint. In this latter connection there are important allusions to the phraseology in the Acts of the councils already mentioned as held at Constantinople in 754 and at Nicæa in 787.

The Acts of the iconoclastic council held at Constantinople in 754 contain the following statement:—

“Let them be glad and rejoice and be full of boldness who with most sincere soul make and desire and reverence the true image of Christ, and offer it for salvation of soul and body, which the High Priest and God, having wholly taken from us the mass of our nature, at the time of His voluntary passion delivered to His faithful ones as a figure and most clear memorial. For when He was about voluntarily to give Himself up to His glorious and life-giving death He took the bread and blessed it, and gave thanks and brake it, and have it to them and said, ‘Take, eat, for the remission of sins; this is My body.’ In like manner also He gave them the cup and said, ‘This is My blood, do this for My memorial.’ Thus no other form under heaven was chosen by Him, and no other figure can be an image of His Incarnation. See then the image of His life-giving body made honourably and worthily. For what did the all-wise God intend by this? Nothing else than plainly to show and make clear to us men the mystery which was accomplished in His dispensation. For, as that which He took from us is only the material of human substance perfect in all respects but not formed in the likeness of any individual person lest an addition of person be made to the Godhead, so also He commanded selected material, that is the substance of bread, to be offered as His image, not wrought into the form of man lest idolatry should be introduced. As therefore the natural body of Christ is holy since it is united to Godhead, so also it is plain that that body which is His by adoption, that is His image, is holy since it is united to Godhead by grace through some consecration. For this also, as we have said, our Master Christ brought about, that, as He united to Godhead the flesh which He took with its own natural sanctification from the union itself, so also He was pleased that the bread of the Eucharist as a true image of His natural flesh being consecrated by means of the descent of the Holy Ghost should become a divine body, the priest mediating by making the offering in the transference of that which is common so as to be holy. Further the natural flesh of the Lord which was possessed of soul and mind was anointed with the Holy Ghost so as to be of the Godhead. In like manner also the God-given image of His flesh, the divine bread, together with the cup of the life-giving blood from His side, was filled with the Holy Ghost. This then has been shown to be the true image of the fleshly dispensation of Christ our God, as was said before, which He Himself, the true Creator of our nature, has with His own mouth delivered to us.”

This statement of the iconoclastic Council of Constantinople of 754 was read at the Second Council of Nicæa in 787; and a document subsequently read by Epiphanius the deacon, though without the authority of the formal decree, evidently expressed the mind the latter council upon it. It is there said:—

“None of the trumpets of the Spirit, the holy Apostles, none of our glorious fathers, ever called our bloodless sacrifice. which is for a memorial of the passion of our God and of His whole dispensation, the image of Hs body. For they did not thus receive from the Lord to speak or acknowledge.… Never did the Lord or the Apostles or the fathers call the bloodless sacrifice which is offered by the priest an image but the body itself and the blood itself. It has indeed seemed good to some of the holy fathers that they should be called antitypes before the completion of the consecration.… Before the consecration they were called antitypes but after the consecration then are called, and are, and are believed to be properly the body and blood of Christ. But these fine fellows in their desire to do away with regard for the venerable images have brought in another image, which is not an image but body and blood.… They have explained that this divine oblation is made by adoption. As to say this is sheer madness, so also to call the body and blood of the Lord an image is equally insane and is as impious as it is ignorant. Then leasing their falsehood they lay hold of a little bit of the truth, saying that it becomes a divine body. Yet if it is an image of the body it is not possible for it to be the divine body itself.… They are like madmen who imagine things to be different from what they really are, saying at one time that our hallowed sacrifice is an image of the holy body of Christ, at another time that it is His body by adoption.”

It is instructive to compare the statements of these two councils. The aim of the iconoclastic council of 754 was to exclude the veneration and even the use of images by saying that the Eucharist is the image and the only image of Christ, though at the same time allowing that the elements become the body and blood of Christ by consecration through the descent of the Holy Ghost. The aim of the Seventh Œcumenical Council was to protect and secure the use and veneration of images by saying that the consecrated elements are not an image but the actual body and blood of Christ, and that such a term as antitype can be applied to them rightly only before consecration. The decision embodied in the formal decree on the subject of images was eventually received in the whole Church. The statement about the Eucharist, which, as has been pointed out, does not possess the authority of the formal decree, is apparently historically in error in saying that the fathers had used the word antitype only of the unconsecrated elements. The truth rather is that by a different terminology some fathers had called the Eucharist the image or symbol or figure of the body and blood of Christ, while at the same time regarding it as actually His body and blood. The distinction made by St. John of Damascus and the bishops of the Seventh Œcumenical Council that the elements are the image of Christ’s body and blood before consecration and His actual body and blood after consecration had an important effect on the religious practice of the Eastern Churches in promoting the prevalence of the veneration of the Sacrament as an image of Christ before consecration.

Like doctrine to that in the proceedings of the Seventh Œcumenical Council is contained in the writings of Nicephorus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 806, was deposed in 815 through the dominance of the iconoclasts which followed the accession of the Emperor Leo V., known as “the Armenian,” in 813, and died in exile in 825. His body was translated to Constantinople as the relics of one who had suffered for the truth on the accession in 842 of the youthful Emperor Michael III., known as “the Drunkard,” whose mother Theodora favoured the veneration of images. According to the teaching of Nicephorus “by means of the ministry of the priest” the Eucharist “becomes properly and really the body of Christ,” “that body which He took from the holy Virgin”; it is “neither image nor figure of that body, but the actual body of Christ” as God the Word was conceived by the Virgin, and as bread and wine and water which are eaten and drunk are naturally changed into the body and blood of him who eats and drinks them, so the Eucharistic elements “at the invocation by the priest and the descent of the Holy Ghost are supernaturally changed into the body and blood of Christ”; and they are “called antitypes not after the consecration but only before it”.

The Byzantine rite current in the eighth and ninth and tenth centuries, as shown in the texts of the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom given in the manuscripts of that date, denotes the belief that in answer to the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost the elements are made by God to be the body and blood of Christ.

In the Liturgy of St. Basil are the words:—

“We draw nigh to Thy holy altar and offering the antitypes of the holy body and blood of Thy Christ we pray and entreat Thee, Most Holy One, that by the pleasure of Thy goodness Thy all-holy Spirit may come on us and on these gifts which are presented to Thee and bless and sanctify them and manifest this bread as the precious body itself of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. And this cup as the precious blood itself of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Which was poured out for the life of the world. Amen.”

The corresponding passage in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is as follows:—

“We offer to Thee this reasonable and bloodless service and entreat and pray and supplicate, Send down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts which are presented to Thee and make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ changing it by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen. And the which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ changing it by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen.”

In the Liturgy of the presanctified as used since at any rate the latter part of the eighth century, at the Great Entrance, when the elements consecrated at a previous celebration are brought in from the sacristy to the altar, these words are said:—

“Now the powers of heaven with us invisibly do service; for, behold, the King of glory enters; behold, the mystic accomplished sacrifice is escorted; let us draw near with faith and fear, that we may become partakers of life eternal.”

A short treatise entitled On the Stainless Body of which We are Partakers, which has found a place among the works of St. John of Damascus but is probably of later date than his time, may be noticed here. Most of the teaching contained in it is of the same character as that of St. John of Damascus and lays stress, as he does, on the parallel between the Holy Ghost descending on the holy Mother of our Lord and causing her, though a virgin, to conceive her divine Son and the descent of the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist whereby the bread and wine are supernaturally made to be the body and blood of Christ. But there is one remarkable passage in which the contrast between the preresurrection and the risen body of Christ is pushed to the extent of saying that the risen body had no blood, and it appears to be implied that the body of Christ which is given and received in the Eucharist is in the condition of the preresurrection not the ripen body. After speaking of the institution of the Sacrament, the writer goes on:—

“For what reason did He so act not after the resurrection but before the resurrection? Because the body that is incorruptible by means of the resurrection is not broken nor eaten nor drunk; neither does the incorruptible body possess blood, as also it would not in the proper sense be called flesh.… This body and blood of our God of which we partake is corruptible, being broken and poured out, eaten and drunk.”