It must not, however, be supposed that the vast Russian territories were suddenly transformed as if by magic, nor yet that Christianity was able to establish its supremacy without a struggle. In the north-eastern regions of Russia, idolatry, backed by a divination of the black arts, presented an impenetrable front to the new ideas. Mongol supremacy, which from 1224 to 1480 dominated both Church and State, was a severe stumbling-block to the progress of the Gospel. For centuries, too, the Popes never ceased to covet the land, and pursued their goal of romanisation by sending out at times Dominican and Franciscan friars, at others whole crusades, as did Pope Innocent IV, who in the middle of the thirteenth century incited the king of Sweden to attack Russia. But in spite of everything, the Orthodox faith both survived and prospered. This was due on the one hand to the perseverance in the Orthodox faith of the Russian Kings and Emperors, who followed in the footsteps of the saintly Vladimir, and on the other to the zeal of the prelates of the Russian Church, most of whom were for centuries sent straight from Constantinople.

Iconoclastic and other Disputes.

Leo the Isaurian and His Programme of Reform.

   The first in date and importance of the religious differences that disturbed our Church in the Middle Ages are the iconoclastic disputes, which spread over nearly a century and a half. Leo, the Isaurian (717-741), though a brave Emperor and a patriotic man, was, unfortunately, ignorant of popular psychology and apt to be carried away to extremes. At that time, enthusiasm for the monastic life was draining the community of its worthiest citizens, the people devoted a great deal of their time to celebrating the festivals of saints, and the multiplication of images and other sacred objects was distorting the spiritual character of Christianity and drawing upon it the criticism both of Mohammedans and Jews. Seeing all this, Leo decided to carry out radical religious reforms, beginning with the images, which seemed to be the most urgent need. In acting thus, he was not entirely without justification, even from a Christian point of view; for the ignorant brought into the use of icons abuses which degraded the spiritual nature of the Christian religion and savored once more of idolatry. He forgot, however, that images are the books of the illiterate; that the art of painting has always served to inspire and perpetuate virtue; that man will always have need of material symbols, and that abuse of them does not preclude their prudent use.

The War Against Images.

   When, therefore, Leo issued his two proclamations against images in 726 and 730, the first ordering that all images should be raised higher up, and the second commanding their total removal, he found ranged against him not only the people, but men of proved distinction in learning and piety; such as Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who preferred to retire rather than proceed to such extremes, John of Damascus, who published three fiery apologies for the right use of images, and the Pope of Rome, Gregory II, who protested to the Emperor by letter. But the Isaurian yielded neither to the advice of those wiser than himself nor to the insurrection of his people, and stubbornly carried on his plan of campaign against the images. More unfortunately still, those who carried out the royal commands were uneducated men who committed acts of sheer vandalism. Thus it came about that precious works of art, which would have been the pride of any art gallery, were ruthlessly consigned to the flames; valuable manuscripts were destroyed because of the miniatures that adorned them; the Ecumenical School at Constantinople was burnt down with its splendid library of rare books; and Christian blood was shed when the image of Christ was being hacked down from the Bronze Gateway of the Imperial Palace. For the sake of one abuse, which might have been corrected by the better education of the people, all these abuses were committed, and the state was divided into two fiercely opposed camps: that of the image-lovers and that of the image-breakers.