What is the Mandylion?

From early ages, pictures and images had been introduced into churches without, as far as can be gathered, any thought of their being worshipped, But in the dark ages images were not merely treated as works of art, but foolish tales were related respecting them, and believed: some of them had fallen from heaven; others were declared to have been the work of St. Luke the evangelist. Of a picture it was said that Abgarus, king of Edessa, when in correspondence with our Lord, had commissioned a painter to take the portrait of Christ. But the artist was so dazzled by the glory of the countenance that he could not attempt it, whereupon our Saviour Himself impressed His image on a piece of linen and sent it to the king This had been hidden for ages, but was said to have been discovered by a vision. Together with these tales of the origin of the images and pictures, went forth a long list of pretended miracles wrought by them.

I will now go on to the Seventh General Council, if we can find out which it is. An Emperor, Leo the Isaurian, who had long known the Arabs, and seen them despise the idolatry of Christendom, had a strong desire to reform the abuses of image worship. He issued a decree in 726, forbidding them to be worshipped, and the pictures and images were directed to be put high up, but were not ordered to be taken away; but Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory II opposed vehemently; the Greeks rose in insurrection, and, advancing to Constantinople, were defeated. The Emperor now went farther, and in 730 had the images and pictures destroyed; thence tumults, murder, and reprisals by the Government. Germanus and the popes sustained their cause by appealing to the most ridiculous fables, which no one believes now, that Christ sent a miraculous picture of Himself to Abgarus, King of Edessa; insulted the Emperor in the grossest possible language; and Gregory the pope says that Uzziah profanely removed the brazen serpent which David had sanctified, and put with the ark into the temple — a confusion a child could have avoided who had read a little scripture. Hezekiah is commended for doing it. He says, where it is said, "Where the carcase is there are the eagles gathered together," the carcase meant Christ and pious Christians, living men flocking to see Him at Jerusalem, and that so strong was the impression of the figure of Christ on their minds, that at once they made portraits of Him, and carried them about to convert people with. However, he says they did not of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But now even that is done.

In speaking of his own edification from beholding the pictures and images in the churches, we have a passage of great historical interest as showing the usual subjects of these paintings. "The miraculous portrait of Christ sent to Abgarus, king of Edessa; the paintings of the Lord's miracles; the virgin mother, with the infant Jesus on her breast, surrounded by choirs of angels; the last supper; the raising of Lazarus, the miracles of giving sight to the blind; the curing the paralytic and the leper; the feeding of the multitudes in the desert; the transfiguration; the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the sacrifice of Isaac."*

The charge of absurdity which we have brought against this letter is fully borne out by the pope's further statement, that no sooner had the disciples cast their eyes on Christ "than they hastened to make portraits of Him, and carried them about, exhibiting them to the whole world, that, at the sight of them, men might be converted from the worship of Satan to the service of Christ:" and furthermore, that "pictures and images had been taken of James, the Lord's brother, of Stephen, and all other saints of note. And so having done, he dispersed them over every part of the earth, to the manifest increase of the gospel cause."

Germanus argued that images were not meant to represent the Trinity, but the Incarnation. That Old Testament prohibitions were no longer in force since Christ appeared in human form, and referred to the reputed Edessan impression of our Lord's countenance, and to the pictures painted by St. Luke. No council had condemned them, and he could make no innovation on the faith. He resigned rather than subscribe the new edict.

63 Let us look a little into these cases, for this is the true epoch of the establishment of the doctrine by Rome. I may first mention the second Council of Constantinople of three hundred and thirty-eight prelates (Hard. Conc. 4, 367; 2nd Conc. of this Action 6) in 754. The Council was against images, but they say, "you could not bring the divine infiniteness of Christ in glory into a painted finite image," and adds, "he chose no other form under heaven or type to give the image (eikonisai) of His incarnation than the Eucharist which "He gave to His initiated (mustais) for a type and effectual remembrance … He ordained the substance of bread to be offered having no way the form of a man that idolatry might not be brought in." They call "the bread of the Eucharist" a true image (apseude eikona) of his natural flesh (phusikes sarkos). And a good deal more; but this suffices. His flippant respondent Epiphanius objects to calling it an image after it has been consecrated, saying it has never been so called; a statement so notoriously false that the Roman Catholic annotators have corrected it and cited instances in the margin.

But the lying spirit goes on to say, that the visible appearance of Christ in the flesh made such an impression on the minds of the disciples, that "no sooner had they cast their eyes upon Him than they hastened to make portraits of Him, and carried them about with them, exhibiting them to the whole world, that at the sight of them men might be converted from the worship of Satan to the service of Christ, — but so only that they should worship them, not with an absolute adoration, but only with a relative veneration." In like manner the pope assured Leo, that "pictures and images had been taken of James, the Lord's brother, of Stephen, and all other saints of note. And so having done, he dispersed them over every part of the earth, to the manifest increase of the gospel cause."

Beyond the dominion of the emperor, some strongly defended images, perhaps none more so than John of Damascus. He wrote against the emperor's edict, and this caused Leo to seek his destruction. He forged a letter in which John offered to deliver up Damascus to the emperor. This was sent to the Caliph of Damascus, who, without staying to hear any defence, cut off John's right hand. This was exposed in the market-place until evening, when John begged that it might be given him, for he suffered great pain while that hung in the air. On receiving his hand he placed it to his arm, and fell down before an image of the Virgin Mary, praying to her to restore it, as he had lost it in the defence of images, and it should be devoted to her service. He then went to sleep, and in the morning the hand was joined to his arm!

Such is the narrative of his historian. Can it be wondered at when such legends were told respecting the images � and believed � that the images should be respected, prayed to, and adored?

If we give credit to some historians, miracles have always been found in the church, from the apostles downwards, and have been wrought in various ways: at first, by the direct agency of the living saints; but afterwards by means of their bones and relics; by the consecrated bread of the Eucharist; and even by pictures and images! One is tempted to turn away from all such records with disdain. Our Lord did not promise that such wonders should be wrought by means of dead men's bones, much less by images and pictures; besides which we cannot shut our eyes to the exposure, in modern times, of the tricks by which many a professed miracle was wrought, and this too in that which professes to be the church of God.