Under images were understood the sign of the cross, and pictures of Christ, of the Virgin
Mary, of angels and saints. They may be drawn in color or composed of Mosaic or formed of other
suitable materials, and placed in churches, in houses, and in the street, or made on walls and tables,
sacred vessels and vestments. Homage may be paid to them by kissing, bowing, strewing of incense,
burning of lights, saying prayers before them; such honor to be intended for the living objects in
heaven which the images represented. The Gospel book and the relics of martyrs were also mentioned
among the objects of veneration.
The decree was fortified by a few Scripture passages about the Cherubim (Ex. 25:17–22;
Ezek. 41:1, 15, 19; Heb. 9:1–5), and a large number of patristic testimonies, genuine and forged,
and alleged miracles performed by images.^546 A presbyter testified that he was cured from a severe
sickness by a picture of Christ. Bishop after bishop, even those who had been members of the Synod
of 754, renounced his iconoclastic opinions, and large numbers exclaimed together: "We all have
sinned, we all have erred, we all beg forgiveness." Some professed conscientious scruples, but were
quieted when the Synod resolved that the violation of an oath which was contrary to the law of
God, was no perjury. At the request of one of the Roman delegates, an image was brought into the
assembly, and reverently kissed by all. At the conclusion, the assembled bishops exclaimed
unanimously: "Thus we believe. This is the doctrine of the apostles. Anathema upon all who do
not adhere to it, who do not salute the images, who call them idols, and who charge the Christians
with idolatry. Long life to the emperors! Eternal memory to the new Constantine and the new
Helena! God protect their reign! Anathema upon all heretics! Anathema especially upon Theodosius,
the false bishop of Ephesus, as also upon Sisinnius and Basilius! The Holy Trinity has rejected
their doctrines." Then follows an anathema upon other distinguished iconoclasts, and all who do
not confess that Christ’s humanity has a circumscribed form, who do not greet the images, who
reject the ecclesiastical traditions, written or unwritten; while eternal memory is given to the chief
champions of image-worship, Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and George of
Cyprus, the heralds of truth.^547
The decrees of the Synod were publicly proclaimed in an eighth session at Constantinople
in the presence of Irene and her son, and, signed by them; whereupon the bishops, with the people
and soldiers, shouted in the usual form: "Long live the Orthodox queen-regent." The empress sent
the bishops home with rich presents.
The second Council of Nicaea stands far below the first in moral dignity and doctrinal
importance, and occupies the lowest grade among the seven oecumenical synods; but it determined
the character of worship in the oriental church for all time to come, and herein lies its significance.
Its decision is binding also upon the Roman church, which took part in it by two papal legates, and
defended it by a letter of Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne in answer to the Libri Carolini. Protestant
(^546) Walch (X. 572) says of these proofs from tradition: "Die untergeschobenen Schriften, die in der Hauptsache nichts
entscheidenden Stellen und die mit grosser Unwissenheit verdrehten Aussprüche sind so haeufig, dass man sich beides über
die Unwissenheit und Unverschämtheit nicht genug verwundern kann, welche in diesen Sammlungen sichtbar sind." Even
moderate Roman Catholic historians, as Alexander Natalia and Fleury, admit quietly the errors in some patristic quotations.
(^547) See the acts of the council in the twelfth and thirteenth vols. of Mansi, and a summary in Hefele, III. 460-482. On the
different texts and defective Latin versions, see Walch, X. 420-422, and Hefele, III. 486. Gibbon calls the acts "a curious
monument of superstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly." This is too severe, but not without some foundation. The
personal character of Irene cuts a deep shadow over the Council, and would have been condemned even by the Byzantine
historians, if her devotion to images had not so blinded them and Roman historians, like Baronius and Maimbourg, that they
excuse her darkest crimes and overwhelm her with praise.