"Christians, knowing the One Immanuel, Christ the Lord, depict Him, for "the Word was made flesh." For just as in depicting a man they do not represent a soulless man, but the depicted (materially) remains spiritualized, and his image is called an icon (εικων) ξt of the word "to be like" (παρα το εοικέναι), so in making an icon of the Lord, we confess the flesh of the Lord to be deified (τεθεωμενην). Yet we recognize the icon as nothing other than an icon, which is only an imitation of the prototype — πρωτοτυπου.

From where the icon acquires His name and through the name it joins Him, and thanks to this it becomes revered and holy (σεπτη και αγια). For the other is the icon, and the other is the prototype. And none of the sensible people seeks in an icon anything else than to commune through the name with the one whose icon it is, but not yet to communicate in essence. Those who worship God in spirit and truth have icons only for interpretation and memory (και τας εικονοκας αναζωγραφήσεις εις εξηησιν και αωαμνησιν μονον εχοντες)."

In the first part of this argument, the Orthodox subtly approach the idea that talk about the depiction of only one flesh (without a soul) even in a human portrait is crude and unwise. And therefore in the icon of Jesus Christ His divinity is partly reflected.

And in the second part, and even more subtly, they approach the revelation of the spirituality and divinity of the icon through the name of Christ, inherent in it. And His name "unites" the one who prays to Him.

These subtle considerations, however, are weakened by the fathers of the Council with their reservations: "and yet," "but not in essence," "only for interpretation and remembrance." All this is already for the purpose of apologetics in the atmosphere of the moment. Meanwhile, in the fourteenth century, in the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, it is precisely this essential communion with the divine energies that is revealed. This destroys all the remnants of iconoclastic rationalism and positivism, which crept into Orthodox theology and pressed on the minds of the defenders of icons.

Constantine's persecution

Thus, the servile Greek hierarchy betrayed the icons and, by inertia, submitted to the will of their Caesar. However, the six-month duration of the council indirectly testifies to the hidden conflict of opinions behind the scenes of this council. Now Constantine believed that his hands were untied for the forcible implementation of the decisions of the "ecumenical council."

It began with the cleansing of churches from icons. Characteristically, the Council of 754 ended not in the Church of St. Sophia, which shone with mosaic icons and monumentally testified to the faith of the former Church, but in the Church of Blachernae, which had previously been painted with pictures of the Gospel history. These frescoes were ordered to be painted over and hastily painted on the new ground with arabesques and vignettes of birds and plants, so that, to the great chagrin of the Orthodox, the church became like "a green shop and a bird exhibition" (οπωροφυλακειον και ορνεοσκοπειον).

In various public buildings and palaces, sacred images were painted over, and, according to the life of St. Stephen the New, "satanic images of horsemen, hunting, theatrical scenes, horse races remained in high esteem and were preserved."

Some bishops were zealous, and churches were stripped bare and deprived of icons. Books decorated with icon miniatures were destroyed and mutilated. According to the catalog of the Sofia Library, two such books were burned. The illustrated lives of all the holy martyrs turned out to have cut out sheets. In other books, sheets with testimonies about icons were cut out. These specimens, mutilated by iconoclasts, still appear before us at Byzantine exhibitions. Much was completely destroyed. In the Ephesian district, for example, in the city of Phocia, more than 30 books were burned.

Although the council did not reject the relics, the extreme secular party and the emperor himself were opponents of the relics. Under all sorts of pretexts, they tried to eliminate them. Thus, Constantine ordered the revered church of St. Euphemia in Chalcedon (the site of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) to be closed and the relics of the martyress to be drowned in the sea, and the church to be turned into an arsenal.

* * *

The iconoclastic emperors met the main opposition in the matter of icon veneration among the monks, and therefore their special enmity and struggle were concentrated on monasticism. Constantine showered the monks with all sorts of abusive nicknames. He declared their very title politically unreliable and ostracized them, forbidding acquaintance with them. And the lackeys publicly persecuted, vilified the monks and threw stones at them. So in Constantinople "not even a trace of monastic clothing could be seen: everyone disappeared from sight." The obstinate were put on trial and turned out to be martyrs. The monk Andrew Kalivit, who called Constantine the new Valens and Julian, was whipped at the hippodrome (762). Hegumen John, who refused to trample on the icon of the Mother of God, was simply executed. But the executions of St. Stephen the New and his disciples made a particularly deep impression. It was they who made it necessary to compare the time of Copronymos with the time of Diocletian.