Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 5 | Page 8

rigorously
proscribed; and it should seem, that a solemn abjuration of idolatry was
exacted from the subjects, or at least from the clergy, of the Eastern
empire. ^25
[Footnote 21: The holy confessor Theophanes approves the principle of
their rebellion, (p. 339.) Gregory II. (in Epist. i. ad Imp. Leon. Concil.
tom. viii. p. 661, 664) applauds the zeal of the Byzantine women who
killed the Imperial officers.]
[Footnote 22: John, or Mansur, was a noble Christian of Damascus,
who held a considerable office in the service of the caliph. His zeal in
the cause of images exposed him to the resentment and treachery of the
Greek emperor; and on the suspicion of a treasonable correspondence,
he was deprived of his right hand, which was miraculously restored by
the Virgin. After this deliverance, he resigned his office, distributed his
wealth, and buried himself in the monastery of St. Sabas, between
Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. The legend is famous; but his learned
editor, Father Lequien, has a unluckily proved that St. John
Damascenus was already a monk before the Iconoclast dispute, (Opera,
tom. i. Vit. St. Joan. Damascen. p. 10 - 13, et Notas ad loc.)]
[Footnote 23: After sending Leo to the devil, he introduces his heir,
(Opera, Damascen. tom. i. p. 625.) If the authenticity of this piece be
suspicious, we are sure that in other works, no longer extant,
Damascenus bestowed on Constantine the titles. (tom. i. p. 306.)]
[Footnote *: The patriarch Anastasius, an Iconoclast under Leo, an
image worshipper under Artavasdes, was scourged, led through the
streets on an ass, with his face to the tail; and, reinvested in his dignity,
became again the obsequious minister of Constantine in his
Iconoclastic persecutions. See Schlosser p. 211. - M.]
[Footnote !: Compare Schlosser, p. 228 - 234. - M.]

[Footnote 24: In the narrative of this persecution from Theophanes and
Cedreves, Spanheim (p. 235 - 238) is happy to compare the Draco of
Leo with the dragoons (Dracones) of Louis XIV.; and highly solaces
himself with the controversial pun.]
[Footnote 25: (Damascen. Op. tom. i. p. 625.) This oath and
subscription I do not remember to have seen in any modern
compilation]
The patient East abjured, with reluctance, her sacred images; they were
fondly cherished, and vigorously defended, by the independent zeal of
the Italians. In ecclesiastical rank and jurisdiction, the patriarch of
Constantinople and the pope of Rome were nearly equal. But the Greek
prelate was a domestic slave under the eye of his master, at whose nod
he alternately passed from the convent to the throne, and from the
throne to the convent. A distant and dangerous station, amidst the
Barbarians of the West, excited the spirit and freedom of the Latin
bishops.
Their popular election endeared them to the Romans: the public and
private indigence was relieved by their ample revenue; and the
weakness or neglect of the emperors compelled them to consult, both in
peace and war, the temporal safety of the city. In the school of
adversity the priest insensibly imbibed the virtues and the ambition of a
prince; the same character was assumed, the same policy was adopted,
by the Italian, the Greek, or the Syrian, who ascended the chair of St.
Peter; and, after the loss of her legions and provinces, the genius and
fortune of the popes again restored the supremacy of Rome. It is agreed,
that in the eighth century, their dominion was founded on rebellion, and
that the rebellion was produced, and justified, by the heresy of the
Iconoclasts; but the conduct of the second and third Gregory, in this
memorable contest, is variously interpreted by the wishes of their
friends and enemies. The Byzantine writers unanimously declare, that,
after a fruitless admonition, they pronounced the separation of the East
and West, and deprived the sacrilegious tyrant of the revenue and
sovereignty of Italy. Their excommunication is still more clearly
expressed by the Greeks, who beheld the accomplishment of the papal

triumphs; and as they are more strongly attached to their religion than
to their country, they praise, instead of blaming, the zeal and orthodoxy
of these apostolical men. ^26 The modern champions of Rome are
eager to accept the praise and the precedent: this great and glorious
example of the deposition of royal heretics is celebrated by the
cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine; ^27 and if they are asked, why the
same thunders were not hurled against the Neros and Julians of
antiquity, they reply, that the weakness of the primitive church was the
sole cause of her patient loyalty. ^28 On this occasion the effects of
love and hatred are the same; and the zealous Protestants, who seek to
kindle the indignation, and to alarm the fears, of princes and
magistrates, expatiate on the insolence and treason