then transported there, it received fitting psalmody and interment. For eighteen years it was kept in that same island, and preserved safe and incorrupt by the Holy Spirit who had dwelt within it, to such a degree that the power of corruption did not even touch its skin; even though that most blessed body was by nature A of that kind which is wont to decay. Afterward, the relics of Theodore were solemnly translated to his fold of Studium, at the beginning of our Week of Orthodoxy, while the most holy patriarch Methodius, the destroyer of the heresy of the Half-Christians, was celebrating the liturgy. Theodore was deposited in the sarcophagus of the most holy Plato, his former abbot, together with Joseph, archbishop of Thessalonica, his own brother—our God and Savior Jesus Christ so willing it, that having them as guardians and physicians of our souls and bodies, and as intercessors before the holy and simple and uncreated and consubstantial Trinity, we might always be delivered through their prayers from all divine wrath, and from the harm and damage of visible and invisible enemies, praising the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, our one God, for ever and ever. Amen. B
DOGMATIC WORKS OF OUR HOLY FATHER AND CONFESSOR THEODORE, ABBOT OF STUDIUM, FIRST ANTIRRHETIC AGAINST THE ICONOCLASTS.
(Editt. Sirmond., p. 70.)
It is time to speak, and not to be silent, for anyone who is able in any way to speak, since a heresy is rising up against
A the truth, and settling upon unstable souls through empty babbling. By speaking, the speaker will accomplish two things: he will greatly strengthen his own mind, turning over and solidifying in his thoughts the demonstrative proofs concerning the proposed subject, and he will share his findings with others, if there are any who wish to lend an ear. Therefore, I too, destitute though I am in both respects, yet trusting in the prayers and exhortations of the father, shall attempt to set forth my own argument as best I can. For it is better, says the theologian’s tongue, to contribute what one can than to fail completely; especially since, in the *Steliteuticos* which I have published, I have not explained it with sufficient abundance. But now, my discourse will proceed by way of opposition between our own dogma and its contrary, so that through the contention of both, the counterfeit and adulterated type of impiety may be cast aside as if by an *election* of the approved and unadulterated character of truth. B But the Lord will give a word to those who bring good tidings with great power, if indeed it is right for me, the unworthy, to speak as I begin.
I. There is, O you people, but one worship and adoration for us Christians: that is, to the Father, I say, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. For that which is worshipped in the nature of the Godhead is one, even if it is conceived as three in hypostatic properties, as if by consequence.
II. HÆR. It is not one, indeed, since the erection of images argues that our worship is of multiple adoration; an activity which, by the worst art of the devil, has been transferred to the Catholic Church from the pagan rite of idol worship. For all theologians agree that God is altogether incomprehensible and uncircumscribed.
ORTH. That God is incomprehensible and uncircumscribed—I will add also that He is infinite, and boundless, and without shape, and whatever else is stated by the removal of those things which do not befit Him—is manifest to all. But what fellowship, to speak aptly, C has light with darkness? Or what concord has Christ with Belial, or sacred images with the idols of demons? Otherwise, one would have to honor and worship the causes themselves rather than those things that have arisen from the causes: Astarte, I mean, and Chamos, the abomination of the Sidonians; Apollo, and Jupiter, and Saturn, and all the other gods of the Greeks of every kind, who, through the ignorance of demonic error, having transferred their worship from the God who made them to His creations, served, as it is written, the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1, 25), sliding into the one common pit of the polytheistic abyss. But for us, there is one God, whom we worship in the Trinity. And D as far as the tenets of theology are concerned, not only is it not permitted to devise a form of circumscription or comprehension—far be it!—for this is a product of Greek invention; but not even do we know what the Divinity is, or what it is that It alone perceives concerning Itself. Yet, because for our sake, out of goodness, It has come into human nature,
A becoming like us, the One of the Trinity; and there has occurred a mixing of the unmixable, and a blending of the unblendable—namely, of the uncircumscribed with the circumscribed, of the interminable with the terminable, of the infinite with the finite, of the formless with that which is subject to form; which is paradoxical and truly marvelous. For this reason Christ is depicted, and He who is invisible is seen; and He receives the circumscription of His own body, existing as uncircumscribed by His own proper Divinity, that by these things both may be demonstrated in reality, and that the one, which is what it is, may not be gainsaid according to your suppositions.
III. HERETIC. But they deny that the Divine remains uncircumscribed when Christ is circumscribed bodily. For when the Divinity is united to the flesh according to hypostatic union, it is necessary that the uncircumscribed Divinity be circumscribed in the circumscription of the flesh; for it is not permitted to divide one from the other, lest a detestable mode of separation be introduced.
ORTHODOX. If the things you prattle are true, then He cannot even remain incomprehensible while He is being comprehended; and yet He was wrapped in swaddling clothes. Nor invisible while He is being seen; and yet He was beheld. Nor untouchable while He is being touched; and yet He was handled. Nor impassible while He is suffering; and yet He was crucified. Nor immortal while He is dying; and yet He was put to death. Believe, therefore, that He remained uncircumscribed even while He is being circumscribed. For these properties are in a similar way—except that those indeed pertain to the uncircumscribed nature, in which He is recognized as being God; B but these pertain to the circumscribed nature, in which it is confessed that He is man. And neither has one altered the other, nor has it ceased to be what it was; nor has one been changed into the other. For thus there would be a confusion, which we have avoided; but He is one and the same in hypostasis, containing the unconfused account of His own natures within their proper limits. Therefore, either accept the circumscription, or, if you reject this, take away at the same time the vision, and the contact, and the comprehension, and all things of the same order; and thus you will be seen to deny that the Word Himself became flesh, which is the height of impiety.
IV. HERETIC. It is most absurd, they say, to call Christ a mere man; but it is of a mere man to be circumscribed; therefore Christ is not mere man, because He is by no means circumscribed.
ORTHODOX. You seem to me to be prattling, repeatedly thrusting forward this "uncircumscribed" of yours; neither refuting sense with sense, nor being devoid of demonstrative proof, nor empty of syllogistic reasoning. But come, and by this too I shall completely cast you down. Christ was indeed not born as a mere man; for no one of the pious would say that He assumed some particular man, but the universal, or the whole nature, in an individual, etc. C D
A how can He also be seen, according to that whereby He is seen and figured? He is touched and circumscribed, He eats and drinks, He grows and increases, He labors and rests, He sleeps and watches, He hungers and thirsts, He weeps and sweats, and all other things that each person performs and suffers. Therefore, Christ is circumscribed, even if He is not a "mere man"; for He is not one of a multitude, but God become man; lest those saying that He came only in appearance and fantasy—whose footsteps you yourself follow—should have the dragons of heresy suddenly pounce upon them. And again, He is uncircumscribed, even though He has become God-man, so that the impious dog who prattles that He took His beginning from Mary may be repelled. For this is the new mystery of the dispensation: that a union of divine and human nature has taken place in the one hypostasis of the Word, preserving the properties of each whole and entire in an inseparable union.
B V. HERETIC. It is forbidden, they say, by the divine Scriptures, to set up images in general. For the Scripture says thus: "Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol, nor any likeness of whatsoever things are in the heaven above, and whatsoever are on the earth below, and whatsoever are in the waters beneath the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: for I am the Lord thy God."
ORTHODOX. When and to whom? Before grace, and to those who were being kept under the Law, and were being instructed in the monarchy of one Person, when God had not yet appeared in the flesh, and those of old were being fenced off from external idols. For it was necessary that to those who had gathered again into a chosen nation through the forefather Abraham, and had fled from the manifold abyss of gods, it should be proclaimed: That there is one God and Lord of all, whom no man has seen, nor indeed can see, as the Word says; of whom there is no designation, no likeness, no circumscription, no termination, nor finally anything else that falls under the comprehension of the human mind, and of whom it can rightly be said: "To whom have you likened the Lord? or to what image have you made Him like?" C I pass over the fact that what is absolutely forbidden in God is not similarly prohibited in other things. For He who had previously forbidden it through the hierophant Moses, immediately commanded: "You shall also make two cherubim of gold, turned with a hammer, on both sides of the oracle. They shall cover both sides, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and they shall look at one another with faces turned." Thence I will command, and I will speak to thee. And in Leviticus: "Make for thyself a bronze serpent, and set it for a sign; and whoever, when struck, looks upon it, shall live." And Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it for a sign; and it came to pass that when the bitten looked upon the bronze serpent, they were healed. D You see that these are the words of Scripture, although angels do not have our mass, and although the serpent differs greatly in its wild shape, which was assumed enigmatically as a figure of Christ. But if God formerly permitted the serpent to be used to signify [Him], so that it might heal those who had been bitten; how is it not pleasing to Him, and consistent,
A that the image of His bodily form be set up, from the time that He became man? And if the beast-like type, by being seen, healed only those who had been bitten, how much more will the sacred character of Christ, when looked upon, sanctify those who have beheld it?
HER. God therefore contradicts Himself, speaking things that are at variance with one another.
ORTH. O, the madness! For the negation was aiming at this: that God should not be assimilated to any of the creatures—I mean the sun, the moon, and the stars, or whatever else it may be—in which resides the making of idols. The affirmation, however, was B so that through certain effigies and likenesses, Israel might be led symbolically, as far as was possible, to the contemplation and worship of the one God. Is not even the very pattern of the whole tabernacle a manifest preview of spiritual worship, foreshadowed after a fashion through symbolic contemplations to the great Moses by the God of all?
VII. HER. It is derogatory, they say, and demeaning, to depict Christ in material forms. For let Him remain in the contemplation of the mind, so that He may be formed in us all the more [deeply], with the Holy Spirit C infusing a certain divine formation through sanctification and righteousness. For the Scripture says: "What profiteth the graven image, that the maker thereof hath graven it? The molten image, and a false image, that the maker of his work trusteth therein?" And again: "For it is a wood cut out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, and the molten image, of silver and gold."
ORTH. It is clear that you do not depart from the same refrain, or rather from the same blindness, while you malignantly proceed from this to that. For what you bring forward as being indecent and humble, that same thing is consistent with God and sublime in the majesty of the mystery. For is it not glory for the sublime to be humbled, just as it is, conversely, a disgrace for the humble to be exalted? So, too, for Christ, remaining in the proper height of His divinity and adorned with the glory of immaterial unboundedness, the material circumscription of His own body is an honor—the honor of His own most high condescension to us. For He who created all things became matter, or rather, flesh; and He does not refuse to be, and to be called, that which He assumed. But it is the property of matter to be circumscribed materially. D For what is said to be sufficient—the consideration of the mind, as if He were formed in us through the Holy Spirit—let that have its place in baptism. But the discourse is not about expressing in us the figure of the substance of God and Father, but about us ourselves expressing the human-formed image in material colors. For if contemplation by the mind alone were sufficient, it would have sufficed for Him to have come to us just that far; and again, it would have been a mere appearance and illusion in the things He did, had He not truly put on a body and suffered in the things among us without deceit. But away with you! Flesh suffered in the flesh, and has eaten and
A drunk in like manner, and all other things which individual men do, sin excepted. And thus what in your opinion seemed a disgrace is an honor to the Word, who is filled with every honor and glory. Cease, furthermore, to bring forward against us ignorantly the voices of Scripture that were uttered against the idolatrous likenesses of the Greeks, while adapting them to the image of Christ. For who, if he has any sense, would not understand the difference between an idol and an image: that the former is darkness, but the latter is light; the former is deceitful, but the latter is without error; the former is the clearest sign of the multitude of gods, but the latter of the dispensation?
VIII. HER. How, they say, is what is written concerning the cross not also the case concerning the image? “For the word of the cross,” he says, “is to those who are perishing folly, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1, 18). And: “Far be it from me,” he says, “to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galat. vi, 14); and whatever other things are woven together in the Holy Scriptures. But where would you show that such a thing was said by anyone concerning an image? B
ORTH. Tell me, you audacious man, which did he praise, and in which did he boast; the cross, or the figure of the cross? Undoubtedly in the former; nor, however, is the derivative separated in glory from the prototype, just as neither is a shadow from a light. For whatever is said of the cause, these same things will necessarily be said of that which was produced from the cause; but the former properly, because by nature; the latter not properly, because by name [homonymously]. Thus also, with Christ being proclaimed from the beginning, the discourse concerning the image followed relatively; and you have just as many proofs concerning the image of Christ as have been uttered concerning Christ Himself; and concerning the figure of the cross, as many as have appeared concerning the cross itself. C But nowhere [is there a complaint] concerning the figure and the image, even if both are the same in meaning; for it is invalid to seek this, as if they existed simultaneously in power among those things in our experience that are caused, along with their causes. Or is not every image a certain seal and impression, bearing within itself the proper form which it is also called? For we call the seal itself a cross, because it is also a cross; and there are not two crosses. And we call the image of Christ, Christ, because it is also Christ, and there are not two Christs; as it is not permissible for the one to be separated from the other by homonymy, but by nature; just as the divine Basil (a) teaches that the king is called king, and the king's image as well, and they are not two kings; for neither is the power divided, D nor is the glory partitioned; and deservedly the honor of the image passes to the prototype, just as vice versa.
IX. HER. It happens, they say, that many Lords and Christs are spoken of according to the difference of the image; and thence comes the multitude of gods: but to us there is one Lord and God whom we worship.
ORTH. What then? Is the Father not Lord? Is the Son not Lord? Is the Spirit not Lord? Just as He is God, and God, and God? Certainly. Are there, therefore, three gods and lords? It is impious. For there is one God and Lord. And in images
A this very thing must be understood, my friend: that even if the characters are many in number, Christ is one, and not many; just as the Lord is the same and not diverse. For just as the nature B there does not suffer division into three persons, the unity of the name — God and Lord — fits it, so here the appellation of the same name recalls the many characters to one species, and from this your foolish objection appears completely empty.
X. HER. Let it be granted, they say, that Christ is represented in an image; but according to the hierology handed down by God: *Do this*, He says, *in my commemoration* [Luc. XXII, 19]; as if, forsooth, it could not be imaged otherwise than by commemorating; in which it is true that it is expressed, and that to express is sacred.
ORTH. That you have appeared to conflict with yourself, conceding that Christ is circumscribed, you who did not admit this before, could have sufficed for your overthrow. But because it is not fitting that any proposition of yours should go away without correction, let us proceed C to a refutation of the individual things that have been said by you. How do you designate those things that are handled by the priest in the hierology and sacred hymns? As an image, or as truth? If as an image, O absurd thing! You rush from blasphemy into blasphemy, like those stuck in a certain mire, who, while they move one foot, stumble onto something more slippery. For in order for the proposition to apply, you have chosen to be condemned for impiety. But if as truth, as in fact it is—for the faithful truly confess it to be the very body and blood of Christ while they receive it, according to the God-spoken word—why do you babble, translating the mysteries of the truth into figures? *Do this in my commemoration*, the Word said; and very appositely; for this mystery is D a certain summation of the entire dispensation; signifying the whole through the principal part by synecdoche. For it is not because He said, *Do this in my commemoration*, that it is permitted to all, but to those to whom the power of sacrificing belongs. But neither did He forbid us the celebration of other mysteries. For it is possible to see us performing the memory of the Nativity and the Theophany; and now we carry branches as a symbol of Him who sat upon the foal of an ass; now we embrace one another as a sign of the resurrection. I pass over the ascent to the temple, and the temptation of the tempter, on account of which we observe the forty-day abstinence, and other things of the same nature. *Do all these things in my commemoration*, so it is to be judged that the Word commanded through the summary mystery with a certain reticence, as I have already said. Is it not permitted to think the same regarding His corporeal representation on a tablet, just as with the divinely written Gospels? For He did not command the condensed word to be written anywhere; yet it has been written by the apostles up to the present, and here also by paper and ink. Thus also in an image, it is fashioned through various colors, or perhaps some other material. For what the speech of history sets before us, this, silent, the art of painting shows through imitation.
A Thus we are taught to depict not only those things which fall under sense and touch and color, but also anything else that is grasped by the mental agitation of thought. Therefore, it has been the custom from the beginning to represent not only angels, but also to depict the future judgment, both the stations on the right and on the left, and expressions both sadder and more joyful. For God alone is in every way uncircumscribed; of Him there is no concept that can be grasped, nor any auditory meaning that belongs to nature; in addition to which, circumscription is denied of Him. But all other things, since they are limited—being grasped by the mind—are also circumscribed by hearing or by sight; for the reason is one and the same for both. B
XI. HERETIC. What then is that which is shown: the image of Christ, or Christ, and not two? For shadow and truth are not the same. And how is one to speak of both in each, or one or the other? And the absurdity is manifest.
ORTHODOX. No one would ever be so mad as to suppose that shadow and truth, nature and free imposition, archetype and derivative, cause and that which has arisen from a cause, are the same according to substance, and to say that in each there are both, or one or the other, so as to suppose or state that Christ and His image are one thing in this way. But rather, Christ is one thing, and the image of Christ is another by nature, even if the identity is found in the undivided union of the name. And when one looks at the nature of the image itself, he would say that what is seen is neither Christ nor even the image of Christ. For it is, perhaps, wood, or color, or gold, or silver, or some other such various material, from which it also receives its name. C But when one looks at the figure expressed through the likeness of the archetype, then it is both Christ and Christ's; but Christ homonymously, and Christ's relatively: for an example is an example of an archetype; just as a name is the name of that which is named. The demonstration from the divine Scriptures is at hand. "Josias," it says, "lifted up his eyes to the sepulcher of the man of God, who spoke these words, and said: What is that monument which I see? And the men of the city said to him: It is the man of God, who came from Juda. And he said: Let him be; let no man move his bones." Do you understand what the Scripture says? It called the monument itself, or the sepulcher, the man of God, naming the structure from the body that lay in it. How much more, then, must the prototype be named from the image? D And again, God to Moses: "Make me two golden Cherubim," not "images of Cherubim." See, therefore, how even in this place the example is called by the proper name through homonymy; and cease to devise foolish things, and to reason against reason.
XII. HERETIC. How do you say that in the image of Christ is the divinity?
physically? A Since it is adored together with it, or not? And if it is in it, circumscription follows. If it is not in it, to adore it is impious. For it is not what is spoken of that is adored, but what is not. But the flesh of Christ is always adored with the divinity, because it is inseparably united to it; but the image is not.
ORTHODOX. You revolve in the same absurdities. For since the archetype and the image are by no means one, because the former is truth and the latter a shadow, why do you argue as if you were wise? For in the Lord's body, by natural connection, the divinity is adored and glorified conjunctly, even though the flesh is subject to circumscription. For how could it not be, since it is tangible, graspable, and visible, and in no way receives the properties of the incomprehensible nature on account of the union? B Since, as has been said, the flesh suffered, while the impassible substance did not suffer with it. But as for the image, in no way. For where not even the nature of the flesh itself, which is represented, is present, but only a relationship, much less could you say the divinity is uncircumscribed; which is present and adored in the image only to the extent that it exists in it as in a shadow of the flesh united to it. For where is the place where the divinity is not, both in rational and irrational beings, in animate and inanimate things? But it is present according to the analogy of the receiving natures, more or less. Thus, one who says that the divinity is present in the image would not err from what is fitting; since it is present also in the figure of the cross and in other divine offerings, though not by physical union—for it is not the flesh that has been deified—but by relative participation, in that they partake by grace and honor. C
XIII. HERETIC. And what do they say? That it is not good for the image to be shown and not adored? For it is rather useful that, on the one hand, through hearing, which is equal to sight, there should be a return and remembrance of the things themselves; and on the other hand, so that we might avoid the groveling nature of material depiction. For "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth," as it is written.
ORTHODOX. If you confess that the power of sight is equal to hearing, which is indeed true, then accept what is equivalent; and let the holy Gospel remain by hearing alone, without being adored, although it is to be honored. But if this is foolish, why is the former not so? For it has been judged by you as equal. Or how is it that one is not to be adored and the other is, as if it were fighting against itself through benefit and harm? And thus, D whether in an image, or in a Gospel, or in a cross, or in any other of the things that have been consecrated, God is seen being adored in spirit and truth; the materials being set aside by the elevation of the mind toward God. For the mind does not stop at them, because it does not trust in them, as is the error of idolaters; but through them it ascends to the prototypes, as the faith of the Orthodox teaches.
XIV. HERETIC. Ought one, they say, to adore the letters, or the im-
image, whose name is inscribed? And must it be one of these entirely, and not both? And which one?
ORTHODOX. It is like asking whether one ought to adore the Gospel, or the name written upon it; the form of the cross, or the letter upon it; I would add, even in the case of those among us, this particular person, or the name of this one—say, of Paul or Peter, and of each of the individuals under the same species. How is this not foolish, not to say ridiculous? For what is there among things before our eyes that lacks a name? Or how is the glory of its own proper appellation to be split so that we might bestow adoration on the one, while depriving the other? For these are relative terms. The name is the name of the one named, and it exists as a kind of natural image of the one of whom it is spoken; in these, the unity of adoration is not divided. A
XV. HERETIC. Should the cross be adored before the image: with equal honor, or with less?
ORTHODOX. Since there is a natural sequence in things, you seem to me to be speaking to no purpose. For if the cross is taken as the archetype, why should it not? For in it, the impassible Word suffered, whose power is so great that by its very shadow the tribe of demons is burned, and flees far from those who are sealed. But if it is taken as a figure, it is not well-considered. For by as much as the causes excel, by so much do the things arising from the causes excel in honor, since everything taken for some utility is inferior in honor to that for the sake of which it was taken; just as the cross of Christ—for even though it was previously an instrument of a curse, it was later sanctified, having been taken up for the use of the divine passion. B
XVI. HERETIC. There is, they say, no difference between an idol and an image; for they are the same in meaning; because the "eidos" gives the name to the former, that is, the form or species in general; for it is not the proper subject itself that is seen; but for the latter, in so far as it signifies a likeness. And a likeness is nothing other than that which is not the prototype; and thus an idol, and thus an image. For both carry the same meaning. C But to adore an image, in the supposed act of adoring Christ through the description of a painting, is impious. For it has been forbidden everywhere by the word of truth.
ORTHODOX. From the same concept—that likenesses are not God, but lay claim to the truth in themselves—there is no difference; because in the divine Scriptures, this is forbidden with equal strictness: not only the image in the manner of an idol, but also the pillar, and the representation, and if there is any other thing. "For you shall not make for yourselves," He says, "things made by hand, nor graven things, nor shall you raise up a pillar for yourselves; nor shall you set up a boundary stone in your land to adore it; for I am the Lord your God." D And in another place: "Did the craftsman make an image, or did the goldsmith, having melted gold, plate it with gold, or prepare a likeness of it?" For on both sides there is the danger of idolatry; not, however, because that which was forbidden of old by God according to
denounced as something inadmissible to us, just as are the corresponding terms. Rather, we use the word "image" more appropriately in regard to the bodily character of Christ, as it was signified at the beginning in the creation of the world, during the forming of man. "Let us make man," He says, "after our image and likeness." And immediately after, according to the divine question, "Whose is this image?" from which the usage is appropriately derived. We use the terms "character" and "likeness" by catachresis, but the term "idol" not in any way whatsoever, even if its significance tends toward the same visual appearance. For it has been assigned to the ancient worshipers of created things—and to any who are such now—by whom the Trinity, indivisible in nature and glory and power, is not adored, nor the incarnation of the Word believed. "But the gods that have not made the heaven and the earth, fashioned from wood and stone and every kind of material, divided among themselves and fighting not only by nature but also by will and glory and worship, let them perish," as the Scripture says. And they will put before us, as if we were trapped by this, the image of the Lady, and every other sanctifying image. B
XVII. HERETIC. They say it is not necessary for images to be depicted and adored. Why so? Because, they say, it is not an honor for those who have attained heavenly glory to be fashioned in material figures; rather, the inscription made by words remains, which is more worthy of value than that on tablets, because it is more useful.
ORTHODOX. They will say these same things also about Christ; and the refutation is manifest, so as not to repeat the same things. For hearing is equal to sight, and it is not possible that they should not be two. For he who removes one will certainly remove the other as well; and conversely, it is right that he who commends the one should commend the other, unless we are devoid of sense.
XVIII. HERETIC. But not everyone who is represented by an image is to be adored, they say; for such-and-such a person, and such-and-such a person—perhaps obscure and not worthy of praise.
ORTHODOX. But in this case they are venerable and glorious, because C their holiness was attained through the blood of martyrdom or a life of sacred dignity.
XIX. HERETIC. Hence, they say, a multifarious adoration arises. But there is one adoration, and not many.
ORTHODOX. The latreutic [adoration of worship] is, of course, one and for God alone; regarding others, there are other [modes of] adoration. For kings and rulers are adored by us, masters by servants, fathers by children—but not as gods; although the mode of adoration is the same, the understanding of it is not. For they are human, and the honor shown to them is a service, whether for the sake of law, or for fear, or for affection. Therefore, you who know the difference in adoration, by which the prototypes are adored through their images, assign this [latreia] as proper, D strictly and privately, to the Deity alone; but the others according to the analogy of those whose derivatives they are—the Theotokos as Theotokos, the saints as saints.
For truly they are holy, placed in sight in the Churches of God, to every eye of man, just as are those that consist of words to the ears; and in like manner they are to be venerated, for they have equal power, or perhaps even excel by the superiority of the sense which affects the sight. But where, again, shall we place the custom that has prevailed from the B beginning until now, as it is possible to discern from every divine temple and holy votive offering? Did the choir of those who bore God act impiously? Was the immaculate Church an idolater? And when will it be purged of idols, and by whom? Clearly, this contention is of the Antichrist. And how shall the long-accepted consequence of ancient nations and traditions be moved, when the divine Fathers exhort us to hold fast—even if this were superfluous for logical demonstration? For they say: "Let the simplicity of faith be stronger than logical demonstrations." And elsewhere: "Let ancient customs prevail." Or how, having called the Church of God an idol-temple on account of the erection of images, O bold one, would you not appear to have arisen from the dregs of all heresies? Stand therefore far away with the opposing party; unless perhaps you repent, hearing a voice like a stone striking you, and forbidding you to step upon the mount of the Church, as a heretical beast.
XX. If anyone, therefore, does not confess our Lord Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh, to be circumscribed in the flesh, while remaining uncircumscribed in his divine nature, he is a heretic.
If anyone, from the fact that the flesh of the Word is circumscribed, should contend that the divinity is circumscribed at the same time, not C distinguishing both in the one hypostasis according to natural property, so that the one does not nullify the other in the inseparable union, he is a heretic.
If anyone does not call the circumscription of the bodily form of the Word the image of Christ, or Christ homonymously, but calls it an idol of error, he is a heretic.
If anyone rashly declares the relative adoration of Christ in the image to be the adoration of idols, and—since the glory of the prototype is not divided in the derivative, according to the great Basil as witness—does not [refer it to] Christ himself, he is a heretic.
If anyone, when the image of Christ is shown, says that it is sufficient for him if he neither honors nor dishonors it, he, as one who already rejects the relative adoration of honor, is a heretic.
If anyone transfers the prohibitions of Scripture against idols and adapts them to the holy image of Christ, so as on that account to call the Church of Christ an idol-temple, he is a heretic.
If anyone, while venerating the image of Christ, says that the divinity is venerated in it physically, and not in so far as it is a shadow of the flesh united to it, while God is also everywhere, he is a heretic. D
If anyone attributes the anagoge, or uplifting, which is made through the venerable images to the prototypes, to those who crawl upon the ground, as
to substitute them, as if without them one might move from hearing alone to the contemplation of the archetype, and does not grant the same power to the silent imitation of painting as to the historical narrative, as does the great Basil, he is a heretic.
If anyone does not say that the image of Christ, just as the figure of the cross, is in every place to be engraved and shown for the salvation of the people of God, he is a heretic.
If anyone does not grant the congruent adoration to the image of the Theotokos and of all the saints, the Theotokos as Theotokos, and the saints as saints, according to the distinction of the adoration of the Mother of God and of fellow servants, but says that the saving ornament of the Church is a demonic invention, he is a heretic.
If anyone does not count among the other heresies that which rages against the venerable images, as something that separates one no less from God, but says that communion with them is a matter of indifference, he is a heretic.
If anyone, excessively exalting the honor of Christ's image, says that one should not approach it—for it is of no benefit unless one has first been purified from all sin—he is a fool.
ANTIRRHETICUS II
The speech of truth, such as it is, being by nature immutable, is not accustomed to be subject to the divisions of opinions nor to the changes of times; for it always thinks the same things, and confesses the same, inasmuch as it is immune from all detraction or addition. But the fable of falsehood, being manifold and teeming with innumerable opinions, and easily leaping from one thing to another, now indeed puts this forward, now follows the opposite; never planting its foot on the same ground, exposed to the frequent motions of changes and conversions. Such is also now the barking of the Iconomachians, who sometimes call the image of our Lord Jesus Christ a Dfatuous idol, and at other times say it is not at all; but they affirm that a painting is a good thing, and that it has the power of narration and commemoration, though not of adoration; and therefore they place it in high and lofty spots, fearing that, if by chance it is set in lower places and gains occasion for adoration, it might provide for them a cause of idolatry. Of whom who would not admire their wisdom, which does not perceive that in that very fact—that they fear its humble station and its adoration—there lies a suspicion of an idolatrous profession? For it is not enough for them for the certain belief of those...
who are truly scrupulous, and for the removal of the error of that vain opinion, to remove only the images cast down to the ground and at their feet, if they leave those placed on high: since neither in the books of Kings are others read to have pleased God, except David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, who, along with those that were cast down, also removed the high places. Wherefore, if the impious were to strive to please God as much as they could, or rather for the sake of that state of mind in which they fancy themselves to be, they would not leave a single holy house under heaven which they would not despoil, or whose divine gifts, containing the history of some event, they would not burn. But concerning these matters we have spoken enough, as far as the capacity of our weak mind allows, and have dissolved their irrational objections and contrary arguments. Now, however, because they have been constrained by our refutations, they admit that our Lord Jesus Christ can be represented in an image, yet they deny that the image dedicated to him ought to be adored, and by this reasoning they endeavor to disturb the minds of the simpler folk, as if by adoring it they were serving the creature rather than the Creator. On this subject, this brief discourse has been prepared by me, with God’s guidance, through the dialogue of two persons—that is to say, an Orthodox believer and an iconoclast—so that the force of what is said may shine forth here more clearly and distinctly in its opposing turns.
A I. ORTHODOX. Do you confess that the Son and Word of the Father, after he became flesh, is circumscribed in flesh, while remaining uncircumscribed in his divinity by nature?
HERETIC. I confess it; for why should I not? Since the theologian Fathers announce it thus: Gregory saying, "Circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in spirit"; and Athanasius in these words: "Being invisibly God and truly existing, yet visibly he is touched as man and truly exists."
II. ORTH. Do you not then confess that such a circumscription, or image of Christ, is to be adored?
HER. By no means; since this has not seemed so to any of the God-bearing Fathers. But I will ask you in turn, and you answer me: where is it written in the Old or New Testament that an image is to be adored?
III. ORTH. Wherever it is written that the prototype is to be adored.
HER. "You shall adore the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." This indeed is written. We are commanded to be zealous for him, certainly not for the prototype, much less for an image, as you say.
IV. ORTH. We are not discussing theology, my good man—a subject into which neither mention nor suspicion of likeness enters—but the dispensation, in which the prototype and the derivative are seen, if you confess that the Word became flesh, having taken on a nature like ours.
HER. When the Scripture says, "You shall adore the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," does the word not command us to offer adoration to the Father and the Son together?
V. ORTH. Manifestly; but not as having assumed flesh, B
A the ancients were commanded to worship; for “no man has seen God at any time,” as the sacred Scriptures teach; whereas after He became flesh, He who is uncircumscribed was seen within the bounds of circumscription, and He who is intangible and invisible fell under human sight and touch. He is worshipped together with the Father, as being God equal to Him; He is worshipped also in His own image, of which He is the prototype, as having become man like us in all things, sin excepted.
HER. That Christ is to be worshipped, all divine Scripture testifies most clearly; for it says: “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” But as for the prototype and the image, by no means.
VI. ORTH. When it is written of Christ, “And let all the angels of God worship Him,” what else is to be understood save that the discourse is about the prototype? For since He became man while remaining God, and since every man is the prototype of his own image, and there cannot be found a man who does not have his likeness as a derivative, clearly Christ also, as having been made in all things similar to us, is the prototype of His own image, even if it be not written in those very words. Wherefore when you ask, where is it written that the image of Christ is to be worshipped? you shall hear, that it is precisely where it is written that Christ Himself is to be worshipped; for the derivative cannot be separated from the prototype. B
HER. Furthermore, since it is not written that Christ is the prototype of His own image, the opinion should not be accepted, inasmuch as it is not comprehended in our confession of faith.
VII. ORTH. Many things indeed which are not written in those very words, but which have the same meaning as those that are written, have been proclaimed by the holy Fathers. For the Son, being consubstantial with the Father, was not declared in divine Scripture, but was later set forth by the Fathers; just as also that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Mother of the Lord is Theotokos, and other things which it would be long to enumerate; if these are not confessed, our true religion is denied. Yet they were received into confession when the necessity for the eradication of rising heresies demanded it. What wonder is it then, even if it is not written that Christ is the prototype of His own image, that this C should be said now, when the time demands it on account of the reborn heresy of the iconoclasts, while the truth itself most certainly demonstrates it? For if He is not the prototype of His own image, neither has He taken flesh, remaining outside of circumscription by the infinity of the Godhead. But if He has been incarnate and seen among us, why should you not attribute to Him the same things as to any other man, according to the consequence of likeness? D
HER. Because Christ, being at once God and man, is not [a man] in restricted sense, as one of us; therefore, it is surely not pious to call Him the prototype of His own image.
A VIII. ORTH. That Christ is not called "restricted" [or "bare"] was not said by the Fathers with the intent of denying that He is circumscribed, but to teach that He is both God and man at once, a state which belongs to no one among us. For in that regard, all of us are called "restricted." But He, being as He is, is the prototype of His own image, just as any one of us is; yet He is not "restricted" in this sense.
HER. I acknowledge, indeed, that He is circumscribed; but I deny that He holds the status of a prototype.
B IX. ORTH. And how could He be circumscribed if He does not hold the status of a prototype? For this very thing, that which is called circumscribed, is also a prototype. For that which is circumscribed is also what is set forth for the production of an image of the one who is depicted. Therefore, by acknowledging that Christ is circumscribed, you would be conceding, even if you are unwilling, that He is the prototype of His own image, just as every man is the prototype of his own likeness—as the divine Basil also says: "Let Christ, the President of the contests, be inscribed upon the panel." By these words he plainly showed that Christ is the prototype of His own image; since everyone who is depicted on a panel is produced from a prototype form.
HER. And what communion of adoration has the prototype with the derivative?
X. ORTH. Such as the life-giving Cross has with its own expressed figure.
HER. Whence is this taken by you? For I will not accept you as a new lawgiver.
C ORTH. The doctrine is from two God-bearing Fathers. From Dionysius the Areopagite, who says: "The truth is in the likeness, the archetype is in the image, both in each, aside from the difference of substance." And from the great Basil, who says: "For he who gazes upon the king's image in the marketplace and calls him 'king' who is perceived on the panel does not confess two kings, [the one absent and the one whose image it is]; nor, showing the one on the panel, if he says 'This is the king,' has he despoiled the prototype of the title of king; nay, rather he has confirmed the honor to him by this profession. For if the image is king, it is much more consonant that He who provided the cause for the image is king." And again elsewhere: "Everything, moreover, which is fashioned as an image D taken from the prototype, receives the likeness and participates in the figure of that [prototype] through the mind of the craftsman and the impression of his hand. Thus the painter, thus the stone-carver, thus he who fashions a golden or bronze statue, takes the material, looks toward the exemplar, receives the figure of the thing he has contemplated, and imprints this into the material."
HER. Even if the Fathers have philosophized in this way, still an adoration common to both has not been spoken of by them.
A XII. ORTH. Since Basil said that the honor of the prototype is confirmed by the confession of the exemplar, what else do you think, other than that the honor or adoration of both is one? HER. In the honor I concur, but not in the adoration; for this change of term comes from you, not from the Father.
XIII. ORTH. What then, when you hear the blessed Athanasius speaking thus: "For in the image of the king the species and form appear, and in the king [appears] the species of the image; and without any discrepancy the likeness of the king is expressed in the image; so that he who sees the image may see in it the king, and he who in turn looks upon the king may recognize that this is he who is in the image. And from the fact that the likeness does not differ, to one desiring to see the king after the image, the image might say: 'I and the king are one; for I am in him, and he is in me. And what you have seen in me, this you see in him; and what you see in him, this you see in me.' He therefore who adores the image, adores the king himself in it; since the image itself is nothing other than the form and species of the king." Just as—if I may add something of my own—he who adores the figure of the cross, adores in it the life-giving cross. For its species and description is the figure.
HER. Refrain from speaking about the cross in this place; for this is the invincible trophy against the devil.
XIV. ORTH. B Refrain yourself also from speaking about the image of Christ in this place. For He is the Savior of the world; through whom the cross, though it was formerly an instrument of destruction, has become a symbol of immortality through His extension upon it.
HER. But it is not possible for His image to share in the adoration of Christ; nor for it to have the same name as Christ.
XV. ORTH. Receive in turn a corresponding assumption from me. Nor is it possible for its figure to share in the adoration of the life-giving cross; nor for it to bear the same name as the life-giving wood.
HER. Away with these absurdities! For there is one and common adoration of both; and by whatever name the life-giving wood is called, by that same name its figure is also designated; for both are "cross."
XVI. ORTH. C Victory is mine from you, since I have spoken of like things. For in the same way, there is one and common adoration of Christ and His figure; and by the same name by which Christ is called, His own effigy is also named. For Christ is both; just as the doctrine of the God-bearing Fathers has previously proved. For whatever things are said about the prototype, these same things must needs be said about the exemplar; but in the case of the prototype synonymously, because it is proper; whereas in the case of the exemplar homonymously, because it is not proper.
HER. In what sense, then, do you say these things? For I do not yet clearly understand. A
XVII. ORTH. The Cross is so called, upon which Christ was lifted up, both in the significance of the appellation and in the nature of the life-giving wood. But its representation is a cross in the significance of the appellation and in the honor of the life-giving wood—for it is commonly fashioned from wood, or from gold, or from silver, or from stone, or from any other material designation whatever. And it shares in the name of the prototype, just as it does in the honor and the veneration, but it is entirely estranged from its nature. Therefore, by as many names as the life-giving Cross is called, by just as many is its representation also called. For if we should say that the life-giving Cross is the boast of the world, in the same way its representation is also called the boast of the world. B If we should call it light and life, in the same way its representation is also called light and life. If we should call it a scorching-iron of demons, in the same way its representation is also called a scorching-iron of demons. And there is nothing in which the derivative does not share in the significance of the prototype. So also is the consideration concerning Christ and His image. For Christ is called God Himself together with man, both in the significance of the appellation and in the nature of the divinity and the humanity. But His representation is Christ in the significance of the appellation, not in the nature of the divinity and the C humanity; for it consists of the quality of painting, perhaps, or of a varied composition of tesserae, or of the craftsman’s skill in carving, or of gold, or of silver, or of any other material designation whatever. And it shares in the name, just as it does in the honor and the veneration; but it is far estranged in nature. Therefore, by as many names as Jesus Christ is called, by just as many is His representation also called. For if we should say that Christ is the Lord of glory, in the same way His representation is also called the Lord of glory. If we should say that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, in the same way His representation is also called the power of God and the wisdom of God; if we should call Christ the Son of man, in the same way His representation is also called the Son of man. Therefore, since God the Word Himself says, "I am the light of the world," this, His representation would also say through its inscription. Again, when Christ says, "To Me every knee shall bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth," this His representation would also say through its inscription. Again, when Christ says, "I am the life and the resurrection," this His representation would also say through its inscription. And there is not a single name by which the Savior is designated in the divinely inspired Scripture that His image is not also D filled with.
HER. Great is this claim of identity, and you imply that the derivative is nothing else than the prototype itself. For where has every knee of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth bowed, or where will it bow, to the image of Christ?
XVIII. ORTH. If you had attended to what the much-suffering Athanasius says, that "in the image of the king the form
A of the king exists; and in the king, the form of the image exists." And again, that "the image would say: 'I and the king are one. For I am in him, and he is in me; and what you see in me, this you behold in him, and what you see in him, this you behold in me.'" He, therefore, who bows before the image, bows in it before the king; for the image is the form and likeness of him. And since the divine Cyril again says in the *Thesaurus*: "Just as if anyone were to look upon a most beautifully painted image, and were to marvel at the bearing of the king, and at all things that are visible in him, being able to see these also in the depiction and having the desire to see the king himself, the depiction might well say to him: 'He who has seen me has seen the king.' And again, 'I and the king are one,' as far as regards likeness and most exact representation. And again, 'I am in the king, and the king is in me,' according to the form of the figure; for the likeness of him is preserved entirely in the depiction, and the likeness of the depiction is preserved in him"—you would have understood B that when Christ is worshipped, His image also is worshipped, as being in Christ; and when His image is worshipped, Christ is worshipped, for it is in it that He is worshipped. Since, therefore, it is acknowledged that every knee of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth bows to Christ, it is acknowledged, clearly, that to His image also, as being in Christ, every knee of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth bows. So that, by this alone, this is stated, and the identity of the worship is not of the material, which indeed cannot even partake of worship, even though the one depicted is seen worshipped in it. C But for the confirmation of what we have said, it would be worthwhile to confirm our argument also with patristic testimony. Saint Sophronius, therefore, in the miracles of the martyrs Cyrus and John, says these things word for word: "Having come, then, to a certain temple of perfect workmanship, tremendous in form and beyond measure splendid, and in height reaching unto the heavens themselves, and having gone inside and examined everything, lo, we saw a most great and marvelous image, depicting in the center our Lord Jesus Christ; and on the left, Christ’s Mother and our Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary; and on the right, John the Baptist, the Forerunner of our Savior, who from the womb worshipped Him with leaps, although D while he was yet speaking within it, he could not be heard. Also, some of the choir of the apostles and prophets, and of the assembly of the martyrs, among whom were seen Cyrus himself and John the martyrs, who, placed before the image, were falling down before the Lord, bending their knees and bringing their heads to the ground, and interceding for the healing of the youth." And after a few words: "But when they had stood not far from the image, 'Do you see,' they say, 'how the Lord does not wish to grant you salvation?'" And after other words: "And coming a third time to the image, they used the aforesaid words and manners; and when an hour
passed, they finished what had been commanded them and were shouting. Christ, moved by compassion, nodded; and He said, 'Before the image, give it to them.' You see the martyrs before the image, as if adoring Christ Himself, and a voice having gone forth from it as if from Christ Himself, which nodded to their prayers. But that which the martyrs adored was surely conceded to be adored by the angels likewise. B
HER. These are spectacles, even if they are recounted by a saint; and they do not have the authority of a dogmatic sentence.
XIX. ORTH. I do not deny that they are spectacles; but they would not be commemorated by a saint unless they were true. And indeed, the dogmatic sentence has already been handed down by us by way of art; now, however, we have also employed these theorems, for the sake of example, as it were. For examples of words are both seen and spoken. Moreover, Blessed Athanasius teaches something even more marvelous than these, to such an extent does the example communicate in the things of the prototype, that he held the passion of the image of Christ to be the passion of Christ Himself. "Come," he says, "lift up the eyes of your mind, and behold this new spectacle. Then, taking down the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jews said among themselves: 'As our fathers once mocked Him, so let us also do to this one.' Then they began to spit into the face of the image of Christ, and struck it with palms from here and there, saying: 'As much as our ancestors did to Him, let us also do to this image of His.' And they said: 'Since those mocked Him, let us do the same.' And so, with countless C illusions, they had mocked the Lord's image, which we do not dare to recount. Again they say: 'We have heard that His feet and hands were fixed to the cross; let us do this to it.' Then they fixed the hands and feet of the image of the Lord with nails. After this, overcome by fury, they say: 'We have heard that they offered Him vinegar and gall to drink with a sponge; let us do this to it.' And this they also did, applying to the mouth of the image of the Lord a sponge full of vinegar. Again they say: 'We have learned that our elders struck His head with a reed; let us do the same.' And taking a reed, they were striking the head of the Lord. Finally they said: 'As we have truly learned, they pierced His side with a spear; let us not lack anything, and let us add this also'; and they ordered the spear to be brought, and commanded someone to take it; and with a forceful blow he pierced the side of the D image of the Lord. Which having been done, a multitude of blood and water immediately flowed from it. You see what is said? For I silently pass over the miracles of healings that were produced in those who were flowing from the side."
HER. The miracle was seen by the Jews. For signs are for the incredulous, and for those who do not believe.
A XX. ORTH. I also assent. But even if miracles do not occur now, the derivative nonetheless shares the same adoration as the prototype; and conversely, the prototype with the derivative; and for both there is one adoration, just as has been said concerning the life-giving cross and its figure. For the confession of the figure is a confession of the life-giving cross, just as it is also a denial of the life-giving cross. Therefore, by analogy, you will apply the same to the image of Christ and to Christ himself. HER. You state this rightly and with every good reason regarding the divine cross and its figure, but not regarding Christ and his own likeness. For the analogy does not fit; since an image is to be compared with an image, and a figure with a figure.
XXI. ORTH. The clarity of what was said before was sufficient, my good man, to express your agreement. But nevertheless, accept a small question from me. Which is greater and more honorable, Christ or the cross? HER. The former, undoubtedly; for in Christ the cross was sanctified.
XXII. ORTH. Is the image of Christ something greater and more honorable than the figure of the cross? HER. There is no room for doubt among those who are able to reason even a little, that the derivatives also differ according to the difference of the prototypes; since the image of Christ is much more excellent than the figure of the cross.
XXIII. ORTH. If, therefore, that which is lesser and yields in honor, when rightly considered, is well-regarded, B would it not be foolish to say that that which is greater and more excellent is not also rightly considered? For what is closer to the image of Christ as a paradigm than the figure of the cross, since image and figure are of the same notion? For we speak of the figure of the life-giving cross as its image by catachresis, and the image of Christ as his figure; for the image, according to etymology, signifies the "like"; and the "like" signifies the "similar"; and the "similar" is understood, said, and seen both in the image and in the figure. HER. I indeed agree to this; but still, you must compare image with image, and figure with figure; so that you might say the first is equivalent to the second.
XXIV. ORTH. This has already been demonstrated above, and not obscurely, if you have paid attention, by the God-bearing Fathers. If not, let us now hear holy Basil, who illuminates our minds. "The king," he says, "is called the image of the king as well; C and yet there are not two kings. For neither is the power split, nor is the glory divided." Just as the authority and power that rules over us is one, so too the glorification that we offer to him is one, and not many. Therefore, the honor of the image passes to the prototype. And as for the fact that this paradigm fits the image of Christ, who would gainsay the argument? For in the same way, it must be said that Christ is also called the image of Christ, and there are not two Christs; for not even here is the image...
A divided, nor is the glory divided; and the honor of the image passes to the prototype.
HER. The example of the king ought not to be compared to the God-bearing image of Christ, but rather to Christ himself, who is the invisible image, namely, of God and of the Father.
XXV. ORTH. In this, truly, is the wonderful thing: that what the God-bearing one used as an artificial image, for the natural and changeless identity of Father, I say, and Son—this has been used by us not for the natural image, but for the artificial image of Christ. And there, an artificial image was compared to a natural one; but here, an artificial one is compared to an artificial one. And as much and as great as the distinction is, yet, because the God-bearing one found no other example more suitable, he used that of the king. B How much more appropriately for us, in regard to the artificial image of the true king Christ, has the image of any king whatsoever been used! It draws as near to the image of Christ as it is superior in honor to all things below; since even he who rules on earth is bearing an image according to the name of the dignity of the true king Christ. For the Scripture says that: *Power is given to you by the Lord, and sovereignty by the Most High; who will examine your works, and search out your thoughts; because, being ministers of his kingdom, you did not judge rightly* (Sap. VI, 5, 6).
HER. Even if the divine Basil said that the honor of the image passes to the prototype, he did not speak of an artificial [image], but of a natural one, that is, of the image of the Son towards the Father; and that, indeed, most rightly. C
XXVI. ORTH. Stop, my friend; for he did not say, "God is called also the image of the invisible Father, and there are not two Gods"—which indeed would be true—but since he used the example of the king for the establishment of the theological dogma, having said that a king is spoken of, and the image of the king, and there are not two kings, in consequence he added the conclusion. Because of this, also, when he said, "The honor of the image passes to the prototype," he added: "That which is here the image by imitation, is there the Son by nature," as the king was taken as the prototype in relation to his own image, and not the Father in relation to the Son; for otherwise he would have had it the other way around: "That which is here the Son by nature, is there the image by imitation." Furthermore, the prototype and derivative seem to be of the human order, which is used both for Christ and for his image. D For he is confessed to have become man according to us, even if he is the same God. So that, as a matter of common principle, and regarding any king whatsoever, it has been said: "The honor of the image passes to the prototype."
HER. But honor, and not adoration, is understood by the God-bearing men; for honor is one thing, and adoration is another.
XXVII. ORTH. And how could you concede that the power is not split, nor the glory of the prototype divided, for the sake of the—
derivative, unless you understand that both belong to one and the same adoration? For honor and adoration are conjoined and inseparable concomitants of power and glory; while they differ in the diversity of the terms used, they possess the same force in dignity. HER. He stated that honor passes over, but not adoration. And I, in a healthy manner, honor the image of Christ, leaving it in a lofty position, but I do not adore it, as has been stated. XXVIII. ORTH. One thing I must ask you before all else: whence do you derive that you honor the image of Christ while "leaving it in a lofty position"? For Basil did not say it in this way, but said simply that it is to be honored. Wherefore your proposition has already collapsed. Secondly, how is it that what is honored is not also adored, whether it is viewed in a lofty or a lowly place? For we both honor and adore the figure of the life-giving cross, whether it is shown on high or viewed below. And in the examples of our own affairs, we see the king sitting on high, and we see him below; likewise the commander, and the prefect, and the master, and the teacher in the same way. But let us transfer the question to the divine oracles. What, then, do you think when they say: "You are worthy, O Lord and our holy God, to receive glory and honor and power"? And again: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing"? And again: "To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and power for ever and ever. Amen." Item: "Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen." Behold, in all these cases, adoration is nowhere included. Shall we therefore, because it is not included, deny adoration to the Lamb who was slain, that is, to our God and Savior? Or are all these things rather of the same order and of the same significance? For he who is worthy of honor is also worthy of adoration; and he who is worthy of strength is also worthy of virtue; and he who is worthy of blessing is also worthy of glory; and so it is with all that is uttered in parallel fashion. If, then, you detract the adoration of the image from the prototype, you would likewise detract the honor, and indeed the power and the glory; but it cannot be that where one exists, the others are not also present in power. Take also another dart against yourself: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." What seems to you? Is the honor that is offered to the Father and the Son devoid of adoration? Truly, it is not the mind of a sane person to think this. Again, when the God of all says through the Prophet Isaiah: "Behold, I lay in Zion a precious corner-stone," shall we, because he did not add "and to be adored," deny that the Son of God is to be adored? And again, the Scripture says: "Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, and that you may live long upon the earth." And again: "He who honors his father shall make atonement for sins; and he who honors his mother is as one who lays up treasure." Is it not that honoring parents
is commanded here, and not merely to honor them? This is a sign of great folly. The great Apostle says: "Fear God; honor the king." Does he command to honor only, or also to worship? And who among the more intelligent does not understand this? For my part, hearing the priest, I understand the honor to be of equal rank and equal power with worship: "For to thee," he says, "is due all glory, honor, and worship." Therefore, when divine Basil said that the honor of the image passes to the prototype, he implicitly declared at the same time that the worship of the image also passes to the prototype, in accordance with the words of the blessed Athanasius. B
HER. Let the discourse be fortified by collected testimonies of the Fathers, so that it may be more firm for inducing conviction in the hearers.
XXIX. ORTH. The blessed John, from whose lips golden words flow, says this: "Whatever you did in names, this you also did in his image. For in the bezels of rings, and in cups and vials, and on the walls of chambers, and everywhere, many have depicted that holy image, so that they might not only hear that name, but also see his body's form everywhere, and have a certain twofold consolation of the absent one."
HER. Of whom should I say this image was?
XXX. ORTH. Of Meletius, the bishop of the Antiochenes.
HER. He called it holy, but not worshipful. For not everything that is holy is also worshipful; for the holy Apostle says somewhere thus: "The first C tabernacle indeed had ordinances of divine service, and the worldly sanctuary. For the first tabernacle was built, in which were the lampstand, and the table, and the setting forth of the loaves, which is called holy. And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies; having the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden pot holding the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it the Cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which it is not possible now to speak in detail." D When the Apostle calls all these things holy, he has by no means taught that they are also to be worshipped.
XXXI. ORTH. The holy Apostle, in calling these things holy, has by synecdoche also said they were to be worshipped. But let the discourse on these remain for a short while, as it will have a more extensive exposition. Answer me this meanwhile, to which I am inquiring: In what category do you hold the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?
HER. They are holy, without doubt. For, "Holy things to the holy," is proclaimed by the priest.
A XXXII. ORTH. Do you judge these, then, also to be worthy of adoration? HER. And who would hold such an impious opinion as not to confess at the same time that they are holy and worthy of adoration?
XXXIII. ORTH. Do you not, therefore, contradict yourself, having said before that what is holy is not necessarily also worthy of adoration, and now again denying what you had just affirmed? HER. But my discourse was not concerning the mysteries, as these are already agreed upon by all, as I have said.
XXXIV. ORTH. But what do you think of the Gospel, when it is called holy; is it not also worthy of adoration? And the sign of the life-giving cross, and all holy offerings? HER. They are indeed holy, and worthy of adoration. But the likeness of a holy one is far removed from the holiness of these. Wherefore, even if an image is called holy, it is nonetheless not worthy of adoration.
XXXV. ORTH. I myself also admit that it is very far removed from them in regard to this holiness; for indeed they are called B the Holy of Holies. However, whatever is holy is worthy of adoration, even if one thing happens to be inferior to another in holiness and adoration; for that which is entirely unworthy of adoration is also entirely devoid of holiness. But do you show me where something has ever been called holy, that is not also worthy of adoration. HER. I brought forward the apostolic words concerning those things that were called holy in the Law, which you promised you would address.
XXXVI. ORTH. Firstly, I will say this: whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law; and the old things are not to be thrust upon those who are in grace, for otherwise we would keep the Sabbath, and be circumcised, and many things contrary to us would follow; but only in shadow and outline. For the Law, having a shadow and not the very image of the things, has been spoken of by the Apostle. Secondly, it is also possible to demonstrate that things called holy in the Law are likewise worthy of adoration. For if the Cherubim C are called the Cherubim of glory, and glory is equal and akin to honor, and honor to adoration, it is clear that what is affected by glory is holy; and what is holy is also worthy of adoration, whether you wish it or not. HER. You have reasoned that what is holy is also worthy of adoration according to a certain succession and sequence in the Old Testament, but not from certain and altogether indubitable testimonies.
XXXVII. ORTH. We shall indeed hear the leaders of the Fathers themselves; Gregory the Theologian speaking thus somewhere in his discourses: "I know of Eli the priest, and a little later, of Oza; the former, for the sin of his children, which they dared to commit against the sacrifices, taking the firstfruits of the flesh from the pots before it was lawful, paid the penalty; and this, though he did not approve of their impiety, but indeed frequently rebuked it. The D
A one, because he had dared only to touch the ark when it was pulled by the ox, preserved it indeed, but perished himself, God guarding the reverence due to His ark. And again in the same discourse: "So far was it from being the case that just anyone might boldly approach the Holy of Holies, which it was lawful for only one person to enter, and only once a year. So far was it from being the case [that it was permitted] for everyone to look upon or touch the veil, or the propitiatory, or the ark, or the Cherubim." Basil the Great also says concerning the ark of the holy covenant of God, that things happened to it which had never been heard of before; so that it, which it was not lawful for the Israelites, nor indeed for all the priests themselves at all times to touch, nor could just any place receive it—this was carried about from one place to another by the hands of the impious, and instead of being kept among the holy things, was placed in the temples of idols.
HER. That it is true that they are holy and to be venerated, is certain; but the Fathers have not said that they are to be worshiped. B
ORTH. And how could they be holy and to be venerated, if they do not happen to be worthy of worship? The divine Apostle says therefore in the Acts: "Passing through and observing your objects of worship, I found also an altar on which was inscribed: To the Unknown God," signifying that objects of worship are indeed objects of adoration. And again, the emperor is called *Sebastos* [Augustus]. For Paul, it is said, appealed to be kept for the judgment of the *Sebastos* [Augustus]. And a little further down: "But when I realized he had done nothing worthy of death, and he himself had appealed to the *Sebastos* [Augustus], I decided to send him." Do you understand that what is *sebastos* is also to be worshiped? For no one compos mentis would say that the emperor is to be venerated but not to be worshiped. But the fact that it was not lawful either to look upon or to touch the aforementioned holy things, C or even to handle them, the argument shows indicates a high degree of dignity. And if the ark of God performed signs and wonders, both in the case of Oza and among the strangers who had taken it, how could it not be full of all glory, honor, and worship, just like the Cherubim and all the other things mentioned by the Apostle? Thus, therefore, and the Fathers of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, in the sacred canons set forth by them afterwards, speaking in harmony say: "In some depictions of the holy images, the Lamb is represented being pointed out by the finger of the Forerunner, which was taken as a type of grace; showing us the true Lamb, Christ our God, through the law. Embracing, therefore, the ancient types and shadows as symbols and prefigurations of the truth delivered to the Church, we prefer grace, and D we receive the truth as the fulfillment of the law. In order, therefore, that what is more perfect may be presented to the eyes of all even in the variety of colors, the character that, according to the human
A nature, belongs to Christ our God, who takes away the sin of the world, we decree shall be set up from now on in depictions, in place of the old Lamb. Through Him, perceiving the height of the humility of God the Word, and being led by the hand to the memory of His conversation in the flesh, of His passion, and of the saving death, and of the redemption which thereby arose for the world. You see that they declared the ancient types and shadows to be worthy of veneration, by saying: "Embracing." For indeed to embrace is to venerate and to prostrate oneself. But also Theodorus, Archbishop of Antioch, in his Synodicon, says the same things: "Regarding those who contend in a heretical manner, and say that the images of the saints ought not to be venerated because they are man-made, and who foolishly, or rather impiously, call them idols: let such people know that the Cherubim and the mercy-seat, the ark and the rod, and the table which the divine Moses fashioned, were man-made and yet were venerated. But the divine Scripture blames only those who attribute B worship to carved objects."
HER. For what reason then did Hezekiah crush the bronze serpent? For it is written: And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the groves, and crushed the bronze serpent that Moses had made; because until those days the sons of Israel were burning incense to it.
XXXIX. ORTH. Because the bronze serpent has no place among the holy things enumerated by the Apostle; concerning which the Theologian Gregory says: "But the bronze serpent is raised up against the biting serpents. Not as a type of Him who suffered for us, but as an antitype; and it saves those who look upon it. Not because it is alive, but because it is dead and kills the powers subject to it, having been destroyed as was fitting. What, then, is the epitaph suitable for it from us? Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O Hades, your victory? By the cross you have been struck down; by the Life-giver you have been put to death. You are C breathless, dead, motionless, inactive, even if you preserve the form of a serpent hanging ignominiously on high." And rightfully it was crushed, being burned with incense by the Israelites; for of that whose prototype is not to be worshipped, even its derivative must be rejected. But the divine Cyril demonstrates that all the holy things of the tabernacle were prefigurations of the spiritual worship.
HER. I believe that what has been said in this place is correct. But since those who were produced by you a little while ago are more recent and not from the number of the ancients, they ought not to be accepted as testimony.
XL. ORTH. Indeed, if what is said by them is not in agreement with Basil and the other divinely inspired ones, nor
A if they are not consonant and kindred—not only if they spoke two hundred years ago, when those we have mentioned spoke, but even in our own time, if there be anyone saying the same things and accepted alongside the Church of God and numbered within the doctrine of the truth along with the holy Apostles themselves, not to mention the more recent God-bearers—then you should receive it. In accordance with this, accept also the acts of the holy and much-suffering Maximus, in which he says: "Lords, since it has seemed good that this be done, let the outcome of what has been decided be as you command, and I follow you." And upon this, all rose with tears of joy, and there was repentance, and a prayer was made. And each B of them touched the holy Gospels and the precious cross and the image of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and they embraced [the image of] our Lady who bore Him, the all-holy Theotokos, having placed their own hands there for the confirmation of what had been said. And I refrain from saying more, for fear of causing weariness in the discourse, as an immense abundance of authorities, both of the ancients and the recent ones regarding the veneration of the icons, lies ready to hand if we should wish to unfold them.
HER. And to me also there is a great multitude of authorities from the ancients and the recent available; but they are opposed to the erection and adoration of the icons.
XLI. ORTH. If your opposition tended toward the non-erection of the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, it would be permissible for you to bring forward such authorities. But now, since you have admitted the painting C while rejecting only the adoration, why do you fluctuate again, falling back from this position to that, which is a mark of falsehood?
HER. Although it has been conceded that our Lord Jesus Christ was circumscript, yet this was only up to the Passion, and not after the Resurrection; for the Apostle says somewhere: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know Him no longer." And again the Theologian Gregory: "He is perfect not because of the divinity alone, than which nothing is more perfect, but also because of the assumption [of the flesh] which was anointed by the divinity, and became the same as that which anointed it, and, I dare to say, homothean." But if the assumed flesh is homothean, how could it be circumscribed, being joined with the immortality of the divinity?
XLII. ORTH. Yet you have conceded that before the Passion Christ was circumscribed, and that He is to be adored in such D a description of His image.
HER. Even if I concede it, and do not resist, what conclusion does your argument draw for you?
XLIII. ORTH. That the authorities you have commenced to bring forward appear to admit that Christ was circumscribed neither before the Passion nor after the Resurrection; nay, that He was not circumscribed at all, but that the image remains on high and is not adored. And why do you bring forward as supporting testimonies those things which you propose—
partially contradict your position? Therefore, you must seek other authorities that support your argument in every respect. For Christ A remained circumscribed even after the resurrection. Hear Him, in fact, saying to His own disciples, when after the resurrection they thought they were seeing a spirit: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." If, therefore, He said that He was that same person who was with them before the passion, whom they also saw after the resurrection—manifestly, just as He was circumscribed before the passion, so He was supposed to be circumscribed after the resurrection, not having lost the properties of human nature. For what hands and feet did He show, my good sir? And why did He order Himself to be touched, as having flesh and bones? And why did He accept food? Is it not, therefore, necessary that one who has and does these things be circumscribed, or, if he is not circumscribed, that he be a spirit, as He was thought at that time by the apostles to be?
HER. But although Christ may be said to have these things, yet it is not as we do; and therefore He is not circumscribed.
XLIV. ORTH. If, then, He does not have these things as we do, neither is He believed to have been made as we are. But if this second point is true, how is the former not to be believed? Or do you perhaps think that there were in Christ indications of certain operations, which are called members in Him, and not the truth of the things themselves, as is asserted in theology, that is, in the explanation of the divine nature? For thus the divine Basil says: "There are many human signs, and we do not on that account deem God to be a man." And after other things: "When you hear of the 'hands' of God, understand His effective power; when of 'ears,' the power of hearing; when of 'eyes,' the power of discerning; when of 'wings,' the power of protecting; and all other things in the same way." It is necessary, therefore, if you take it in this way, for you to hold that our Lord Jesus Christ was not made man. But if He was made man, which is the truth, believe also that it is true that He has flesh and bones even after the resurrection. C
HER. Using modes of condescension, the Lord showed Himself to the apostles after the resurrection: retaining the properties of a body, but without density and without circumscription: for that reason He stood in their midst while the doors were shut, and was thereafter taken from their eyes.
XLV. ORTH. If, therefore, you grant that Christ was not circumscribed, because He was without density after the resurrection, you will also grant that He was not even seen by the apostles. For if He was seen, He was also circumscribed. For everything that falls under sight must also fall under circumscription: much more so that which has hands and feet, flesh and bones, which is touched and associates with others. D
HER. The apostles saw the Lord with purified eyes, which it is not permitted for us to behold.
A ORTH. But what says the Lord to Thomas? "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Therefore, just as the apostles both delivered, both before the passion and at the resurrection, so have we received, and so do we circumscribe Christ. For they did not say to us that those things which they themselves saw with their eyes are not permitted for us to be seen; since even before the passion, when they were about to be swamped in the boat, the Lord suddenly stood by, walking upon the sea; which was not of human nature, for the water [was] unstable, as the divine Dionysius says, sustaining the weight of material and earthy feet, not yielding, but by a supernatural power standing firm so as to be supported. Yet even before the passion, he wished to display things that were above nature. For what is not at hand for him by his power when he wills it? So likewise, even after the resurrection, although he was outside of density, yet those things that pertain to density, when he willed, he displayed, and by these he was touched, and he associated with others; B which are the properties of evident circumscription.
HER. In what sense, then, can the apostolic statement be understood which says: "And if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know him no longer"?
ORTH. First of all, we learn from the Apostle himself that we are fellow-bodies and fellow-participants with Christ; and we certainly have not, by being deemed worthy of such grace, ceased to be subject to circumscription. If, according to you, Christ were uncircumscribed after the resurrection, we too, as fellow-bodies with him, would need to be uncircumscribed. But just as the "same-godhood" is considered with regard to connection, so also is the "fellow-bodily" nature. And it does not follow from this that Christ is uncircumscribed, just as it does not follow from that that we are fellow-bodies with him. Next, hear the Theologian Gregory saying: "For there is one God and one mediator between God C and men, the man Jesus Christ. For he still even now intercedes as man for my salvation; because he is with the body that he assumed, so that he may make me God by the power of the incarnation; even if he is no longer known according to the flesh, by which I mean the carnal passions, and other things without sin." Do you see that he is now with the body that he assumed? And that "not to be known according to the flesh" meant carnal passions and things without sin, and not, as you think to suppose, that he is not circumscribed? For he himself says, "Circumscribed by body, uncircumscribed by spirit," not speaking for a defined time, nor absolutely for eternity. And again, he speaks thus: D "And where shall we place the fact that he is written to have been touched after the resurrection, or that he will be seen at some time by those who pierced him? For the Godhead by itself is invisible. But he will indeed come with the body, as the word says; and he will be such as he was seen by the disciples on the mountain, or shown as the fleshly part surpassing..."
divinity, already shown before the resurrection.» A
HER. What if I bring forward new authorities of the holy Fathers; and how will you dissolve them, since they altogether forbid setting up an image of the Lord, I say, and of the Theotokos, or of any of the saints?
XLVIII. ORTH. They are not citations from holy men, but from forgeries and heretics; for otherwise they would agree with the truth and with the divinely inspired Fathers.
HER. Epiphanius is among them, preeminent among the saints and famous.
ORTH. We know Epiphanius to be both holy and great in miracles, whose temple his disciple Sabinus built after his passing, decorating it with the entire history of the Gospel; and he would not have done this had he not been of the same mind as his own teacher. But furthermore, Leontius, the interpreter of the words of the divine Epiphanius, who served as bishop of the Church of Neapolis in that very Cyprus, shows most clearly in the oration written about him how unshakable he was concerning the venerable images, mentioning nothing dissonant regarding the divine Epiphanius. Therefore, the writing that is circulated against the images is spurious and not of the divine Epiphanius. B But hear also in this place the great Basil saying: «For my part, I would not yield, not only if some person receives a letter from men and boasts in it because of this. But not even if he should come from the very heavens, if he does not walk in the sound word of the faith, can I consider him a participant of the holy ones.» And again Chrysostom saying, that the dignity of persons is not respected by Paul when the word is about the truth. Or rather, let us listen to Paul himself in a certain place crying out: *But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema.* And again: *If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be anathema.* (Gal. 1, 8, 9). C But because we have received from the apostles themselves even until now the custom of setting up the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Theotokos, or of any of the saints, cast your eyes around and look at the whole world, and throughout the sacred houses and the divine offerings in them, seeing these represented and necessarily adored in the places where they are depicted. For even if a dogmatic discourse and the voices of the divine Fathers were lacking for the establishing of their erection and adoration, the ancient tradition itself, which is held fast, would suffice for confirming the truth. And who could be able to contradict these things? By this very fact, he falls far away from God and from the flock of Christ, as one thinking like the Manichaeans and Valentinians, who were in that heresy, and who foolishly babbled that God conversed with men only in appearance and fantasy. D
ANTIRRHETICUS III
A David indeed, the Psalmist, is celebrated for having struck down the alien Goliath with a single cast of a stone from a sling. I, however, unskilled and untrained in the art of war, striking this third blow of discourse in addition to the two former, profess that I shall utterly overthrow the alien mindset of the Iconomachists, even if this undertaking should surpass my strength. I shall use, for the subject of this discourse, certain syllogisms—not those convoluted by the formulas or trifles of Aristotelian logic into an artificial texture, but rather those rooted in the power of truth in a simpler style of speech. And perhaps this work will not be useless to those who encounter it: to the wise, providing an occasion for deeper contemplation; to the unskilled, a certain foundation to assist B in maintaining a right opinion against the madness of the Iconomachist heresy, which is currently causing such great labor. And since a distinct and clear division greatly delights the reader, I shall distribute the discourse into four chapters, providing arguments for each chapter that tend toward the same goal.
1. On the delineation of the image of Christ in the body. 2. That Christ, being circumscribed, has an artificial image in which He is contemplated, just as He is Himself in Christ. 3. That the adoration of both, Christ and His image, is one and undivided. 4. That Christ, being the prototype of His own image, has one relation to it, just as He does for the adoration.
CHAPTER I. On the delineation of the image of Christ in the body.
Common notions are confessed by all equally: as, for example, when the sun is above the earth, it is day, and it is not night. And again: if any animal is rational, mortal, and capable of knowledge, it is man. And again: every body is three-dimensionally extended, has solidity, falls under sight and touch, and is circumscribed. What then, you best of men, does it seem to you? Is that which the Word of the Father took upon Himself when He became man a body? If they would agree, they must also admit that it is completely circumscribed; but if they should deny D it, it is no different than saying that when the sun is above the earth, it is not day but night; or that if any animal is rational, mortal, and capable of intellect and knowledge, it is not a man. But to think and speak in this way is the mark of those who are mad; and to argue with the mad is the mark of the senseless. Therefore, we have no discourse with those who are willingly deaf, but only with those who have ears to hear.
A II. Sight is prior to hearing, in both the position of place and the sensory apprehension. For one first sees something, and then transmits what has been seen to the hearing. As, for example, Isaiah saw the Lord seated upon a high throne, and the six-winged Seraphim surrounding and praising Him. And Ezechiel again gazes upon the chariot of God and the Cherubim. But indeed, the divine disciples also, having first seen the Lord, subsequently committed the account to writing. If, therefore, these things are so, and if you cast your view in any direction, you will find that all writing is recalled to inspection and terminates in it; it is absolutely necessary, then, that if the inspection of Christ is taken away, all writing concerning Him should be taken away first; but if the latter is inscribed, the former must necessarily be inscribed likewise.
B III. If to be uncircumscribed belongs to the essence of God, and to be circumscribed to the essence of man, and Christ consists of both, then He must be known from a double property, just as He is known from a double nature. And how is it not impious to call Him uncircumscribed in body as He is in spirit, when, with the removal of circumscription, His human nature is also overturned?
C IV. Those things whose properties are not the same, have also different essences. Now the property of the Divinity is to be uncircumscribed, incorporeal, and foreign to shape. But the property of the Humanity is to be circumscribed, subject to touch, and endowed with triple dimension. Therefore, if Christ consists of both, He is certainly both uncircumscribed and circumscribed. But if He were only one of these, He would be of the single essence whose property He bears, which is impious.
V. If by uncircumscription, circumscription is exterminated, as if it were impossible for the other to exist in Christ, it is absolutely necessary that by that which does not fall under touch, that which is subject to touch should be banished; and so in the same way with all other things that are mutually opposed in either of His natures. But if this is impious, it will also be impious to deny that He was circumscribed according to the nature of the body He assumed. D
VI. If Christ is not circumscribed, neither will He be passible; for the principle of impassibility is equal to that of uncircumscription. But He is passible, as the divine Scripture testifies; therefore, He is also circumscribed.
Another. That which says, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works; and before all the hills he begets me," is declarative of the two natures of Christ: the uncircumscribed, that is to say, and the circumscribed. If the former, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works," belongs to His humanity, and the latter, "Before all the hills he begets me," to His divinity; it is necessary that...
A one should say that as a created being it falls under circumscription, and as uncreated, it is uncircumscribed. But if, because the one is circumscribed, the other also must be circumscribed—that is, the uncreated by the created—there is an absolute necessity that the one should pass from being uncircumscribed into being circumscribed, and the other from being circumscribed into being uncircumscribed; each nature giving to the other what is its own, and losing the natural and incommunicable property inherent to itself; and consequently, not a single truth would remain in Him, on account of this vain interchange; which is absurd.
Another, by way of reduction to the absurd. VIII. B If we understand the saying, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways," not as meaning that the Word was changed into flesh on account of the union that took place between divinity and humanity, but that, remaining in the proper excellence of His divinity, He became flesh, then in the same way, when we say that He is circumscribed, we believe that He has not been changed into circumscription insofar as He is God, but insofar as He appeared as a man, having become like us. But if, by the fact that He is circumscribed, the condition of being uncircumscribed is altered, then it follows that by the fact that He became flesh, the nature of the divinity is also altered; which is absurd.
Another. IX. It is the same to say, "The Lord created me," as to say, "The Lord circumscribed me." C For if, because it is not written, "The Lord made me," "The Lord clothed me with a body," it is wrong to deny that He became these things; so, since it is written, "The Lord created me," it is equally clear to those who wish to think rightly that it also means: "He circumscribed me." For creation, in the judgment of those who understand even a little, is a property of circumscription.
Another. X. If Christ is uncircumscribed, as you say, not only according to His divinity but also according to His humanity, then humanity also is uncircumscribed. For those things that have the same properties have also one and the same nature. But indeed He is from two natures, and therefore from two properties; lest, by the removal of the circumscribed, the nature of humanity itself be also removed.
Another. XI. D Every image is an image of form, or shape, or figure, or color, and these are in Christ; since, according to the Scriptures, He "took the form of a servant," and "was found in fashion as a man," and possessed a "form" that was "dishonored and wanting," which are indicative of a body; therefore, He is depicted in such a circumscription of His likeness.
Another. XII. Just as the uncircumscribed, that which cannot be touched, and that which is without form, go together, as they are of the same order; so too the circumscribed, that which is subject to touch, that which is capable of form, and all other such things are contrasted with one another. If, therefore, Christ...
were uncircumscribed in that He is man, it would follow that we must say He is also untouchable and formless; for both belong to the same category. But if this is absurd, and one cannot be severed from the other—just as the uncircumscribed cannot be separated from the untouchable and formless—it is necessary that He who is susceptible to touch also exist as circumscribed, lest by reason of being uncircumscribed we should grant that He is untouchable, which is impious. A Another.
XIII. There are many species of circumscription: comprehension, quantity, quality, position, places, times, shapes, bodies—all of which are negated in God; for nothing of these falls into the divine. But Christ, having become man, is enclosed as if by the boundaries of all these. For He who was incomprehensible was enclosed in a virginal womb; and He who is immense became three cubits in height; and He who is devoid of quality was conformed by quality; and He who is beyond position stands, and sits, and reclines; and He who is beyond the bounds of place was laid in a manger; and He who is older than all time becomes twelve years old through the progress of age; and He who is formless was seen in the form of a man; and He who is incorporeal, having assumed a body, said to His disciples: *Take, eat, this is my body*. Therefore, the same one is circumscribed and uncircumscribed: the former by His humanity, the latter by His divinity—even if the most impious Iconoclasts do not wish it. B Another, by evangelical comparison.
XIV. If no one has ever seen God, as the only-begotten Son of the Father, who is Himself God, has revealed, how does He say to the blind man who had received his sight: *You have seen him, and he who talks with you is he*? Therefore, the same one is visible and invisible; but the latter according to the uncircumscribed nature—for what is uncircumscribed is invisible—and the former according to the circumscribed humanity—for what is circumscribed is visible; which is indeed true. C Objection as if from the part of the Iconoclasts.
XV. If Christ wondrously assumed flesh into His own hypostasis, but it was undesignated, as if it did not signify a certain individual but denoted man in general, how is it possible that it be touched and depicted with various colors? The argument is futile, and the thought false. D Solution of the same.
If Christ wondrously assumed flesh into His own hypostasis, but it was undesignated, as you say, as if it did not signify a certain individual but denoted man in general, how did it subsist in Him? For universals have their existence in individuals; for example, humanity [exists] in Peter and Paul and the rest of the same species. But if the particulars cease to exist, the common man is destroyed. Therefore, humanity in Christ...
A if it does not stand in some way in Him, it remains to say that He was incarnate only as a phantom, according to which He could not be touched, nor circumscribed by differing colors. But this is the opinion of the Manichæans.
Another. XVI. That by which universals are seen is the mind and thought; but that by which particulars are seen are the eyes, which behold things that fall under the senses. If, therefore, Christ assumed our universal nature, and not that which is seen in an individual, then He can only be seen by the mind and grasped by thought. But He says to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." And again: "Bring your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side"—comparing sensory things to the sensory. Christ is, therefore, sensory, palpable, and visible to the eyes of the body, and for this reason B circumscribed.
Another. XVII. When I say "a man," I signify the common substance. But when I add "someone [a particular]," I denote the existence of the thing signified, standing by itself, and, so to speak, a circumscription composed of certain properties through which they differ from one another, though they share the same nature; such as Peter and Paul. Therefore, when Christ said to the Jews: "Now you seek to kill me," if He had said only "a man," He could have signified the universal. But when He added: "who have told you the truth," He revealed His own subsistence or person. For the word "who," as an article, is equivalent to the name "someone." Therefore, even though He took on the universal nature, He took it on as observed in an individual, in which it is C in its nature to be circumscribed.
Another. XVIII. "Universal man" is an appellative noun, but "someone," for example, Peter and Paul, is a proper name, to which it belongs, along with the proper name, to be addressed also by the appellative or universal name. For Paul is also called man; but in as far as he shares with those of the same species, he is man, but in as far as he differs by subsistence, he is Paul. If, therefore, Christ, having become man, were spoken of in Scripture only as God and man, then He would have assumed only our universal nature; which, if it is not observed in an individual, has been demonstrated not even to subsist. But see, Gabriel says to the Virgin: "Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus." D Therefore Christ is called not only by an appellative name, but also by a proper name, which distinguishes Him from the rest of men by hypostatic properties; and for this reason He is circumscribed.
Another. XIX. If Christ does not denote someone, as you say, but man in the universal, how does He say to His disciples: "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?"
A Thus, He is one according to us, even if He is God, the one of the Trinity; just as there He is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit by a filial property, so here He is set apart from all men by hypostatic properties, and for this reason is circumscribed.
Another. B XX. If Christ does not denote a particular individual, as you say, but universal man, in what way does He say to the Jews, "Whom do you seek?" They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He says to them, "I am." So, therefore, Christ is someone, just as He is called by the proper name Jesus the Nazarene. But if He is someone, He is also circumscribed, having been characterized by hypostatic properties.
Another. C XXI. Those who are of the same species are one according to essence, but hypostatically distinct from one another; there is this one, and that one. If, therefore, Christ did not denote a particular individual, but the universal, as you say, He would not be distinct from another person. And how does He say to Peter: "Therefore the sons are free. But lest we should offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first; and when you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for Me and for you." So, being distinct from Peter, and paying the didrachma equally, He would also be circumscribed equally, as one who denotes a particular individual, even though He has assumed the common nature.
Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts. D XXII. If the Word assumed human nature in His own hypostasis, since that [nature] is invisible and without shape, if it were to be shaped through the circumscription of a painting, another person would be introduced into the hypostasis of Christ. But this is absurd and favors the heresy of Nestorius by advocating a duality of persons in Christ.
Solution of the same. If we were to say that the flesh assumed by the Word has its own hypostasis, the argument would have a semblance of truth. But since, according to the ecclesiastical tenet, we confess the hypostasis of the Word to be the common hypostasis of both natures, sustaining human nature in itself, with the properties that distinguish it from others of the same species, we rightly say that the same hypostasis of the Word is uncircumscribed according to the nature of His divinity, but circumscribed according to our own essence; which [nature] did not result in an existence in a person subsisting of itself and circumscribed outside the hypostasis of the Word, but in Him Himself, that the nature might not be lacking subsistence; and in Him it is viewed as in an individual and is circumscribed.
Another. XXIII. If, because another person is not inserted into the hypostasis of Christ, they say that it is uncircumscribed according to His humanity, it is absolutely necessary that they preach one nature
A of the Word compounded from two natures, and therefore uncircumscribed, as if one of the properties were abolished; which is akin to the opinions of the Acephali and of Apollinaris.
Another. XXIV. If they say it is uncircumscribed according to humanity because another person is not inserted into the hypostasis of Christ, then in truth He did not assume this, but was in the likeness and figure of a body, which is the doctrine of the Montanists. But if He did truly assume it, as is confessed, then the hypostasis of Christ is circumscribed—not according to His divinity, which no one has ever seen—but according to the humanity viewed within Him in the individual; otherwise, how would He be the mediator between God and men, being one who should preserve the properties of each nature from which each consists intact?
Another. XXV. "Where" signifies the place by which a body is encompassed. And not only is the body circumscribed, but also the place that encompasses it; since only that which is outside of place, as being without limits, is uncircumscribed. If, therefore, Christ is not circumscribed, He is not only not a body, but He is also outside of place. And how does He Himself say, "The bread that I will give is my flesh" [John VI, 52]? And again, when Andrew and another disciple asked, "Where do you dwell?" He answered them, "Come and see"; and they "came and saw where he dwelt" [John I, 38, 39]. Therefore, He is circumscribed, as one having assumed a body, staying at home, returning home, and going forth from home.
Another. XXVI. An apparent contradiction, because Christ is not circumscribed, in that Scripture says: "You heard a voice of words, and you saw no likeness, but a voice" [Deut. IV, 12]. If you heard a voice of words, says Moses, speaking of the God of all, and you saw no likeness, but a voice: and again Isaiah [Isa. LIII, 3]: "We saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his form was dishonored and failing before all the sons of men": how do these harmonize with one another, if one does not conflict with the other? For without doubt, the discourse of both is about the same One; the one, indeed, denying that form exists in God, because the divinity is invisible, and therefore empty of form C and likeness; the other, however, affirming that the same Lord, having assumed the form of a servant, was seen in our species. Whence also He is circumscribed in body, although uncircumscribed in divinity.
Another, interrogatively by way of reduction to the absurd. XXVII. If Christ is uncircumscribed, and Isaiah [Isa. LIII, 3] says of Him, "A man in a state of being struck, and knowing how to bear infirmity": I ask now, whether that which received the stroke is a body, or whether it is incorporeal? But if it is incorporeal, it seems to be a spirit. But if it is a body, [how is it not περιγραπτόν — circumscribed?]
A Another. If Christ is not circumscribed, how does he himself say: "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to buffets, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting"? For these are the properties of circumscription: a back being scourged, cheeks being buffeted, a face being spat upon. Therefore, if he who suffered speaks the truth, he who says that he is not circumscribed is speaking falsely.
Another. If Christ is uncircumscribed, how does he himself say: "They pierced my hands and my feet; they numbered all my bones"? For that which is uncircumscribed has no nature capable of being pierced, nor even of having its bones numbered. But he speaks of hands being pierced and bones being numbered, the confirmation of which is a confession of circumscription.
Another, from philosophical speculation. A line is length without breadth, contained by two points, from which circumscription takes its beginning. A figure consists of at least three lines, from which a body is formed out of various figures, and is defined by place. Therefore, that which is uncircumscribed is removed from these; and it does not fall under the line itself, let alone under figure, place, and body. If, therefore, Christ is uncircumscribed, he would be found not to have existed in a figure, nor in a place, much less in a body. But yet he was found in a figure, as man, according to the Scriptures; and he was circumscribed by place, dwelling in Nazareth, and he became flesh, as the evangelist testifies. Therefore, he is also circumscribed.
B Another, from an evangelical comparison. If Christ is uncircumscribed, how does the Precursor say: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"? For that which is uncircumscribed is not seen, much less is it pointed out by a finger. But if these things were to happen to him, he would be included in a circumscription, as if expressed by a finger. Therefore, Christ is circumscribed.
Another, proposed by way of questioning. If Christ is not circumscribed, he is not of two natures, namely divinity and humanity, seeing that he does not have the property of the one, since it is the property of humanity to be circumscribed. But if he is of two, how does he not also have the properties of those whose natures he possesses?
Another, by a comparison with the heresy of the Theopaschites. If, because Christ was crucified in the flesh, it is impious to say that the divinity suffered along with him, because this belongs to the Theopaschites; in the same way, because he is circumscribed in the flesh, it is impious to say that the divinity is circumscribed along with him; for this belongs to the Iconoclasts, C and it is by so much more impious, inasmuch as the divinity, by nature, is ...
closer in union to the flesh than is the image representing that flesh, which has only a relative reference to it. A
Objection from the perspective of the Iconoclasts.
XXXIV. If Christ is from two natures, how is it that you, who claim to depict him, do not depict him from the natures that he is, and in which he is, if your argument is true? For since the one part is falsified, not having the uncircumscribed nature of the divinity within the human circumscription, it is impious to circumscribe Christ.Solution of the same.
Of everything depicted, it is not the nature, but the hypostasis that is depicted; for how could a nature be depicted that is not beheld in a hypostasis? For example, Peter is not depicted insofar as he is a reasoning animal, mortal, capable of mind and knowledge; for this defines not only Peter, but also Paul and John, and all who are under the same species. B But he is depicted insofar as, along with the common definition, he has taken on certain properties—such as a hooked or snub nose, or curly hair, or a fair complexion, or beautiful eyes, or any other thing that characterizes the appearance of his countenance, by which he is distinguished from all of the same species. And further, being from soul and body, he does not bear any property of the soul in the form of his character; for how could he, since that is invisible? C So too with Christ; he is not depicted insofar as he is simply man, while also being God; but insofar as he is distinguished from all of the same species by his hypostatic properties, and has been crucified, and is endowed with such a form. Christ is therefore circumscribed according to hypostasis, even if he is uncircumscribed in divinity, but not from the natures of which and in which [he is] composed.Aliud.
XXXV. If Christ is not circumscribed, as you say, lest his glory be diminished, then he was not even conceived in the virginal womb, lest he suffer injury. But if he was conceived without injury, then much more is he circumscribed without shame, having been born an infant.Another by reduction to absurdity.
XXXVI. Everything that proceeds is not a species that has a universal notion; for this is invisible, without form, and without shape, and for this reason is uncircumscribed. But it is an individual, which consists of the properties that constitute it; D for this is what is seen, what is moved, and what speaks, such as, for instance, James and John. If therefore Christ is uncircumscribed, he is not beheld.A or is it not circumscribed? Unless, perhaps, the mystery of the dispensation is a mere phantasy.
Another. XXXVII. If of things of different genus and of not the same essence, there are properties different along with the essences—namely, of divinity and of humanity—how is it that Christ, who consists of these, is not affected by them, since each essence is distinguished from the others by its own proper property? But if he is affected by them, he is then circumscribed, just as he is uncircumscribed.
Another. XXXVIII. The true properties of essences are the identifiers and marks of those things of which they are properties: of divinity, indeed, the uncircumscribed; of humanity, however, the circumscribed. If, therefore, Christ is of both, he is then circumscribed just as he is uncircumscribed. But if he is not circumscribed, neither is he truly man, just as he is truly God. But indeed he is truly man; therefore he is truly circumscribed.
Objecton as if from the person of the Iconoclasts. XXXIX. If the Son is the unchangeable image of the Father, so that He is seen in Him, according to what is written: "He who sees me, sees also the Father," B it is necessary to say that He who came forth from the uncircumscribed Father is uncircumscribed. For how else could the uncircumscribed ever be seen in the circumscribed? Therefore, Christ is uncircumscribed.
Solution of the same, from equal speculation. If he who came forth from the uncircumscribed Father is uncircumscribed, assuredly he who came forth from the circumscribed mother will also be circumscribed; unless, perhaps, one may be allowed to suspect the former to be true and the latter false. But if both are true in the one Christ, he therefore possesses the properties of both nativities, being at once uncircumscribed and circumscribed.
Another by reductio ad absurdum. XL. If the archetype appears in the image, then in every respect let it also be that. But Christ is endowed with a body; therefore the Father, according to whom the image was fashioned, C is also in a body. But if this is absurd, let it by all means be as follows: insofar as He is the image of the Father, He is uncircumscribed, for the Father is uncircumscribed because He is also incorporeal; but insofar as it was said by Him that He is the Son of man—do not marvel at this—He is circumscribed, for every man is circumscribed because he is also corporeal; which is true.
Another. XLI. If Christ said, "He who sees me, sees also the Father," regarding the corporeal form, as you wish, it is absolutely necessary that there be present in Him by nature all those things that are also in the Father; for thus the likeness will be exact. But the Father is without form, D without figure, and is uncircumscribed. Therefore, Christ is the same. For how, in that which is endowed with form, could that which is without form be displayed, or in
that which is contained, that which is uncontained? To say this is impious; it would be impious to say that he was speaking according to the bodily form: *He who has seen me has seen the Father*. It remains that he spoke according to the form of the Godhead, which is true. A
*Objection, as if from the person of the Iconoclasts.*
XLII. If Christ were naked, they say, he would also be circumscribed; for it is the property of the naked to be circumscribed. But since he is not naked, being as he is both God and man, he is not circumscribed.
*Solution of the same.*
If, because it is necessary to deny that Christ is naked, they call him uncircumscribed, they must universally say that he is also devoid of body; for from this it is recognized that a thing is circumscribed and endowed with figure, whence it is also understood to be a body. For when such properties are removed, it is necessary that the body itself, which they affect, be removed as well. But a body and a figure befit Christ; therefore, a circumscription also befits him. B
*Another.*
XLIII. If, because Christ is not naked, they call him uncircumscribed according to his humanity, since this is an idiom of the divine nature, then things that cannot be mixed will be mixed: the circumscribed in the uncircumscribed. But those whose properties are mixed, their natures are also mixed. If it is impious to say or think this, then Christ is not naked, even if he is circumscribed by a body, so that, while he is circumscribed, things that cannot be mixed may not be mixed. C
*Another.*
XLIV. The uncircumscribed is simple and not at all composite, as being removed far from every situation. But since Christ is dual and composite, if he were not circumscribed, he would have lost the mode and definition of duality and composition. Yet he is conceded to be both dual and composite; therefore he is circumscribed; which is true. D
*Another.*
XLV. Male and female are sought only in the forms of bodies, since in those things which lack a body, no difference is recognized which characterizes both. If, therefore, Christ is uncircumscribed, as being outside of a body, he would also be outside the aforementioned difference. But he was born male, as Isaiah says, from the prophetess; therefore he is circumscribed.
*Another.*
XLVI. Some bodies are divisible in thought—which are intangible, and for this reason are uncircumscribed; others are so in act, which are dense, as subject to touch, and for this reason are circumscribed. If, therefore, Christ assumed an indivisible body, he is then also uncircumscribed. But it was divisible; for the divinely-speaking Luke says: *And when the eight days were fulfilled for his circumcision*—
[=] A which is the truth.
Objection as from the perspective of the Iconoclasts. XLVII. If all things that are bodies and are indivisible and untouchable are also uncircumscribed, and since angels are incorporeal, how are they subject to circumscription? Therefore, those who are circumscribed are also corporeal. But if they are incorporeal, they are not, therefore, circumscribed.
Solution of the same. By comparison with a gross and dense body, the nature of angels is incorporeal; but by comparison with the Godhead, it is neither incorporeal nor uncircumscribed. For this reason the Apostle says: *And there are celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial* (I Cor. XV, 40). For that which is properly incorporeal is also infinite and uncircumscribed; which is to be understood only of the divine nature. But an angel is limited by place, and therefore is circumscribed. For when, having journeyed to Nazareth, he cried out the "Hail" to the Virgin, he was not present elsewhere. But the Word of the Father, having been conceived in the womb of the Theotokos, was both present there and was above all things. And for this reason, insofar as He is God, He is uncircumscribed as being infinite; even if, insofar as He is man born of the Virgin, He is circumscribed.
Another. XLVIII. If, according to the form of a servant which He took, He who was in the form of God is not circumscribed, then this would be none other than the divine form; for it is of this, indeed, to be uncircumscribed. But if it is another, and consubstantial with us, how, having taken its form, did He not also take its property? Therefore, Christ is circumscribed, since we are also, whose form He took.
Another. XLIX. If, from those things by which Christ as man is circumscribed, those things by which He as God is not circumscribed are undermined, it is entirely necessary that, by those things which He is seen doing and saying as man, those things by which He is shown discoursing and working wonders as God should be violated. If, however, here this is not violated by that, with both remaining within their own limits in the one Christ formed from both, then neither there will the circumscribed be overturned by the uncircumscribed.
Another from comparison with divine Scripture. L. Addressing the Jews, the Savior said: *Before Abraham was, I am* (Joan. VIII, 58). And again the evangelist: *The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham* (Matth. I, 1). How, therefore, is He who is before Abraham, the son of Abraham? Shall we not clearly understand that the one was said in a way befitting God, and the other in a way befitting man? The same must also be thought concerning the circumscribed and the uncircumscribed; that the one will not injure the other in the one Christ C who is known from both.
Another. LI. If every mediator is of two things opposed to each other, maintaining in himself the rights of each in equal balance D and clearly...
by natural unity connecting the extremes with just judgment, it is absolutely necessary that Christ, who is the mediator of God and man, be uncircumscribed in spirit, but circumscribed in body; lest, by attaching himself only to the one—that is, the uncircumscribed—and not preserving the circumscribed portion unharmed, he might cease to be a just mediator. Another. LII. If Christ died as man, and no shame is inflicted upon him as God, then neither would he be injured if he were circumscribed as man. And if this were a disgrace, then death itself would be so to a much greater degree. B Objectio tanquam ex persona Iconomachorum. LIII. To circumscribe Christ is, in a way, abhorrent and is forbidden by Divine Scripture. For it says: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the voice of the words, but you saw no similitude, only a voice" [Deut. iv, 12]. Therefore, to raise up an image of Christ is to conflict with divine prohibitions. Solutio ejusdem. Those who speak in this way are willfully blind, as they do not consider why the prohibition of form, or of a likeness, or of any other idol-like image was placed in the Holy Scriptures: for the discourse C there concerns the divine nature. For the Divine is without quantity and without form, and possesses no resemblance to any likeness whatever. But this does not concern the Word who has been invested with the form of our nature. For if it concerned him, how does the Evangelist say: "And it happened, while he prayed, that the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening" [Luc. ix, 29]? See, therefore, that he who is without appearance had an appearance, or a likeness; and he who is without form was fashioned; and he who is without quantity fell within the bounds of quality. And since, therefore, he had a face circumscribed by certain properties, Christ is undoubtedly circumscribed according to his bodily aspect, just as he is uncircumscribed according to his invisible essence. Another, per deductionem ad absurdum. D LIV. If it is necessary that what is born of anyone be of the same nature as she who gives birth, and the Mother of Christ is circumscribed, then Christ must also be circumscribed, as being from her, even if he is God by nature. But if he is not circumscribed, he is not consubstantial with his Mother, from which it would follow that his Mother is not his Mother: which is absurd. Objectio tanquam ex persona Iconomachorum, per comparationem apostolicam. LV. That to fashion an image of Christ is an invention of idolatrous thought, everyone will understand. For thus the Apostle said somewhere: "And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image of the likeness of corruptible man, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" [Rom. i, 23, 25]. Solutio ejusdem. Truly, to use the apostolic words, the Iconomachs in
A a reprobate mind, their B senseless heart was darkened; and professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish. They understand neither what they say nor of what they strongly affirm. For if what the Apostle said—"They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man"—is intended to forbid the imaging of Christ, then it is not yet acknowledged that He became like unto men. And how does he say elsewhere: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God: but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man; He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross"? They are therefore in contradiction with themselves: in one way denying that God has been made like unto men, and in another way confirming that He has been made in the likeness of men. But away with such folly! For that was said of idolaters, who truly "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." But this is said of the faithful, to whom it is believed that the Word of God and the Father, being in the form of God, was made similar, not insofar as He is equal to God, but insofar as He emptied Himself and was found in habit as a man; which are the properties of circumscription.
Another. C LVI. If we are the body of Christ, and members in part, and our head is Christ, then the head must certainly be circumscribed, just as the members are. But if He is uncircumscribed, we cease to be members of Christ, because we are subject to the form of circumscription. How could this not be of the utmost insanity?
Another, on the text: "I am the vine."
LVII. If the Savior, as He says, is the vine, and we are the branches, then the branches are clearly not of a different nature from the vine. But if this is true, how is it that, when the branches are circumscribed, the vine is not also circumscribed? For the vine is known from the branches.
Another. D LVIII. Things of a different kind and of a different nature cannot have the same property; for no one would say that fire tends downward, or water upward; but just as they have a distinct definition of essence, so also a mode of property. Since, therefore, Christ consists of things that are of a different kind and not of the same essence—that is to say, of divinity and humanity—He must be known by two properties: by the one, as uncircumscribed; by the other, as circumscribed. For if the property is overturned, the essence which is formed and designated by it is also removed.
CHAPTER II
A That the circumscribed Christ has an artificial image in which He is beheld, just as He Himself is in Christ.I. The artificial is fashioned in imitation of the natural; for nothing would be called artificial were the natural not to precede it. Therefore, there is an artificial image of Christ, just as there is a natural image of the Mother who bore Him. But if the one is true and the other false, there would be no natural image of the one who bore Him, if he did not have an artificial image according to that [model]; which is absurd.
Something else. The image possesses the resemblance to the archetype, but the natural [does so] naturally, and the artificial, artificially. Inasmuch as the former is identical at once in essence and in likeness, it is that of which it is the seal—as is Christ, according to His divinity, in relation to His own Father; and according to His humanity, in relation to His own Mother. But the latter, while identical in likeness, is alienated from the essence of the archetype, as is the image of Christ in relation to Christ Himself. Therefore, there is an artificial image of Christ, to whom it has acquired the resemblance.
B An Objection, as if from the Iconoclasts. If Christ, in that He is the natural image of the one who bore Him, has an artificial image, so that He might not differ from the resemblance to her; [then] He would also have an artificial image in that He is the image of the invisible Father. And if this is so, the divine would be subject to circumscription; which is impious.
The Solution to this. Out of great folly, the Iconoclasts, mixing things that are unmixable, do not understand how to attribute to each birth its own properties, by which Christ is both uncircumscribed and circumscribed. For in that He proceeded from the uncircumscribed Father, being uncircumscribed, He could not have an artificial image; for to what likeness would the divine be likened, of which a representation is forbidden by the God-inspired Scripture? But in that He was born from a circumscribed Mother, He rightfully has an image, comparable to the maternal workmanship of the image. And if He does not have one, He would not be from a circumscribed Mother, and He would exist by one birth only, that is to say, the paternal; which is something that overturns His whole dispensation.
C Something else. If the demonstration of an image has a reference to the prototype—and it is not possible for a prototype to exist without there also being an image, according to what was said by the Lord, "Whose is this image and inscription?" and His answering those who asked, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"—then Christ has an artificial image, as having become one of us, referred to Him through the likeness of resemblance. And if He does not have one, He is not even that which He is called, Christ. But yet, the truth itself is and is called Christ. Therefore, He has also an image, whose re-
-Alation of adoration passing over to Him is never separated by any division of glory.
Another, on the text: "Let us make man in our image and likeness."
V. That man was created in the image and likeness of God teaches that the production of images is a divine thing. And since an image is transcribed from an image, Christ, being man, even if He is also God, would be portrayed not in spirit but in body. And if He is portrayed by another, He certainly has an image that refers to Him, for the mutual demonstration of likeness.
Another.
VI. If Adam, the first man, is circumscribed in form, then Christ, the second Adam, who is God and man, will equally be portrayed in corporeal form. And if "as was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are heavenly" (1 Cor. xv, 48); and since we are such, we are portrayed; and Christ, therefore, as He is the author of the salvation of all, is the archetype of His own image.
Another.
VII. If God needs no help and is not capable of any suffering, how does the Apostle speak of Him: "Who, in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered" (Hebr. v, 7)? Is it not clear that He who is without flesh, having taken flesh, is both impassible and passible, lacking nothing and yet needy, just as He is also uncircumscribed and circumscribed? And if He is circumscribed, He has, therefore, an image that refers to Him for the mutual demonstration of likeness.
CHAPTER III. That the adoration of both, Christ and His image, is one and undivided.
Objection to these things, as if from the person of the Iconoclasts.
I. If everything that is made according to the likeness of something else falls short entirely of the equality of the prototype, and is inferior to its glory, then without doubt Christ will not be the same in adoration as His own effigy. But if these things are different, the adoration that is introduced is also different. It is, therefore, a cause of idolatrous worship.C
Solution of the same.
The prototype is not in the image according to substance; otherwise, the image would also be called a prototype, just as the prototype would, in turn, be called an image: which does not happen, because the definition of the nature of each is proper; but it is in the image according to the likeness of the hypostasis, in which there is no other reason for definition. Therefore, that the image falls short of the equality of the prototype, and is inferior in its glory, is not taken according to the likeness, but according to the difference of substance.
which is not even capable of being worshipped, although the one depicted within it is seen to be worshipped. Therefore there is no introduction of a second worship, but one and the same worship of the image towards the prototype, according to the identity of the likeness. A
*Another.* B II. It is by no means the substance of the image that is worshipped, but the form of the prototype imprinted upon it, while the substance of the image remains without worship. For it is not the matter that is worshipped, but the prototype together with the figure, and not the substance, that is worshipped. And if it is an image, its worship is one with the prototype, just as the likeness is the same. There is no introduction, therefore, of another worship when the image is worshipped, apart from the worship of the prototype.
*Another.* III. Those whose figures are not the same, of these the worships are also different; but those whose figure is the same, of these the worship is also one. Now the figure of the image and of the prototype is one; therefore the worship is also one.
*Another.* IV. Everything that is unequal is different from what is equal; and that which is posterior in glory is other than that which is prior. These, moreover, are two, and not one. In those things, however, in which equality is perceived, the unequal is excluded; and in those where there is identity, the prior and posterior are removed. Yet the king is named, and the image of the king is also named, and they are not two kings. For, he says, neither is the power divided, nor is the glory split. Therefore there is one, and no other worship is introduced, by which the image of Christ is worshipped, and Christ Himself; so that it is indeed inferior and posterior in glory, according to the principle of essence. C
*Another.* V. Even if we grant that the image is not equal in form to the prototype due to lack of skill, not even so will the argument be absurd. For it is not in so far as it departs from the likeness, but in so far as it is similar, that it is worshipped; since in this respect the image equals the form of the prototype, and not two things are worshipped, but one and the same, and the prototype in the image: just as in the figure of the cross [one worships] towards the life-giving cross itself; although the effigy here does not entirely equal the form of the archetype, either in length, or in breadth, or in any other such property; because it is depicted in various ways. For you may see it sometimes small and sometimes large, wider and narrower, with obtuse or acute extremities, with a title and without a title. I do not even mention the changes and the reliefs of the chains, and then the variations of the craftsmen. D Nevertheless, in such differences there is one worship of it and of the prototype; in so far, that is, as the same likeness is perceived in both.
A VI. Another from example. If the life-giving cross is B worshiped in its own figure, and there are not two acts of worship—because the worship is not of another essence than that of which the figure consists—it is necessary also that when Christ is worshiped in his own image, there should not be two acts of worship, because the essence of the image is not what is worshiped; but there is one and the same worship of Christ, even when in the image.
Another. VII. If, from the fact that the Son differs somewhat from the Father (though he differs only by the filial property), nothing prevents him from being of the same essence and worthy of the same worship as the Father, then neither does anything prevent the image, from the fact that it differs somewhat from the prototype (though it differs according to the account of essence), from being of the same likeness and worthy of the same worship as the prototype. For just as there, the Christ is distinguished from his image by substance, as he is distinguished from the Father there by hypostasis.
Another. VIII. If the image is of a different worship than its own prototype, how is the latter seen in the former, and the former in the latter? For we certainly do not behold the form of Peter, for instance, in Paul; nor, again, would anyone see the form of Paul in the form of Peter. For the like appears in the like, but those things which differ from one another in likeness can never be seen in each other. But the image of Peter is manifest in Peter, just as Peter is in his own image. Therefore, the image of Christ is not of a different worship from him, but of one and the same worship, as it refers to him and is like him by its very nature.
Objectio as if from the person of the Iconoclasts. IX. If worship is due only to God, both from us and from the angels, how then will there be one worship of the image and of Christ, if it is granted that the one is worshiped by relation, but the other by nature? Therefore, there will be two acts of worship in the one Christ because of the worship of the image; which is impious.
Solution of the same. If, for the reason that we offer worship to God alone, it is not proper to worship the image of Christ, as if two acts of worship were being introduced alongside the one and latreutic one, in so far as the image and the prototype are two—then there would also be a twofold worship for the Father and the Son, on account of the duality of the hypostases. But if it is impious to say this, because there is one and the same—in accordance with the unity of nature, that is—then there is also one worship of Christ and of his image, in accordance with the unity of the hypostatic likeness, and not by the difference of natures.
Another. X. Relationship is said to exit in so far as the derivative is in the prototype; and it does not follow from this that one is divided from the other, except by the difference of nature. Therefore, since the image of Christ is said to have the species of Christ in its own depiction, its worship along with Christ will be one, and not different.
A
Proposition as if from the person of the Iconomachs.
XI. In what way can the identity of worship be preserved in Christ and his image, if Christ is so by nature, but the image by position? For it is absolutely necessary to say that that which is such by nature varies in nothing. And if this is so, nothing prevents us from saying that the image is by nature, and Christ by position; and all things will be confounded.Solution of the same by mutual questioning.
And how, O excellent men, could the identity of worship not be preserved in Christ and his image, if the image is Christ's likeness and shows Christ in itself? For it is surely known and confessed by all that no one, in the face of another—for instance, Thomas—could see the face of a different person—for instance, Luke. Nor is there anyone who, having seen Thomas, could say that he has seen Luke. For in those things that bear the same species, the demonstration of likeness is perceived, not in those which differ from one another by [their] figurative property. If this, therefore, is true, and he who has seen the image of Christ has seen Christ in it, it is necessary that it be said to be identical B both as regards likeness and as regards worship, [this] image of Christ with Christ.Another.
XII. That which is similar in some respect participates in worship with that to which it is similar, according to that in which it is similar. But that which is similar in all respects is also a participant in worship, universally. Now the Son is similar to the Father in all respects, just as He is also consubstantial; wherefore He is also worshipped simultaneously. But the image of Christ represents Him according to His hypostatic likeness alone; therefore, according to this, it will be a participant in worship with Him.Another.
XIII. If anyone who has seen the image sees in it the likeness of the prototype, it is entirely necessary that he who worships the image worships in it the species of the prototype. But since the likeness is one, the worship of both will also be one.Objection as if from the person of the Iconomachs.
XIV. If the image of Christ, which represents Him, participates in the worship of Christ, how does He Himself say: "My glory I will not give to another" (Isa. xlii, 8)? Therefore, it does not participate. C And if it does not participate, it is manifest that it is worshipped idolically, as if another worship had been introduced into it.Solution of the same.
The image of Christ is nothing other than Christ, except, of course, for the difference of essence, as has often been demonstrated. Whence also the worship thereof is the worship of Christ; so that the matter of the image is not worshipped, but only the Christ who is expressed in it through likeness. But those whose likeness is one, their worship is also surely one. Christ, therefore, does not give His glory to another in His own image, in which He rather DA claims for Himself: since matter is one thing, and the likeness another. Certainly, the figure expressed in diverse materials is the same in all of them. Yet it would not remain invariable in diverse materials, unless it had this quality: that it communicates nothing with them, but is by thought separated from those things in which it exists.
Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts.
XV. If God is Spirit, as it is written, and it behooves those who worship Him to worship in spirit and truth 87: how, in the image—since you also say that Christ is to be worshipped in spirit, B seeing that He is God—do you not introduce a specimen of idolatry?Solution of the same.
Who would not wonder at the Iconoclasts, full of madness, who do not distinguish that the dogma of the dispensation is one thing, and the dogma of Theology—to which that saying, "It behooves to worship in spirit and truth," must be applied—is another? For since God and the Father is Spirit, He is understood to be worshipped in the Holy Spirit, and in Truth, His only-begotten Son. But when Christ is said to be worshipped in an image, the matter concerns the dispensation; because, even if He is Spirit as God, yet He is also flesh as man: whose corporeal image, C although it is represented in matter, is inseparable from Christ, just as a shadow is from its own body; and it is not the matter of the image that is worshipped, but Christ who is expressed therein, with whom the Father and the Holy Spirit are worshipped at the same time.CHAPTER IV. That since Christ is the prototype of His own image, He has one relation to it, just as He has one worship.
I. The prototype and the image are indeed one by hypostatic similitude, but two by nature: not as if one thing were divided into two likenesses, so that they have no mutual communication D and relationship between them; nor as if one and the same thing were called by a double name, so that sometimes the prototype is called the image, and sometimes the image the prototype. For the prototype will always be called the prototype, just as the image is [called] an image, never changed into one another. Since, however, the matter is so, and the number consists in a binary: there is one likeness for both, and an appellation according to the likeness; for example, a king is called [a king], and the image of the king is also called [a king], and there are not two kings. If this is true, then the worship of the image of Christ is one with Christ His prototype.
Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts.
II. If Christ, having the status of a prototype toward His own image, is said to be [so] by nature, but the image by position, how is that which is by nature the same as that which is by position? For neither was Christ seen at the same time, and His image depicted and translated.Solution of the Same.** If to every body its proper shadow follows inseparably, no sensible person would say there is a shadowless body. But one may see in the body the shadow following, and in the shadow the body preceding; thus, neither would anyone say that Christ is without an image, if a body is characterized within Him. But one may see even here, in Christ, His image subsisting, and in the image Christ seen, as the prototype. From the fact that both are together, it is shown that when Christ was seen, then also His image was seen potentially, from which it was also taken and impressed upon any material whatsoever. B
**Another.** III. Although they are not together by nature as they are by position—as is Christ with His image—nevertheless, because it exists potentially, even before it is fashioned by art, one may always discern it in Christ; just as, for example, a shadow is always present with a body, even if it is not shaped by a beam of light. In this way, it is not incongruous that Christ should be considered together with His image among those things that exist simultaneously.
**Another.** IV. The prototype and the image are relative things, like the double and the half. For the prototype necessarily brings with it the image of which it is the prototype; and the double will necessarily bring with it the half, in relation to which it is called double. For there could not be a prototype if there were no image; nor could there be a double, if some half were not conceived. These things are both conceived and subsist together. Therefore, no time intervenes between them, nor is the adoration of the one different from that of the other, but it is one and the same for both. C
**Another.** V. The prototype and the image have, in a certain way, a mutual existence, and when one is removed, the other is simultaneously removed, just as, for instance, when the double is removed, the half is also removed. If, therefore, Christ cannot be, because His image exists as if by power, and even before it was fashioned by art, it always exists in the prototype; then he who does not confess that His image is to be adored simultaneously with Him, abolishes the adoration of Christ. D
**Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts.** VI. What is similar in one respect is, in turn, not similar in another; just as the image is fitting to the prototype according to likeness, but not fitting according to nature. Therefore, the image is not entirely what the prototype is. Since this is so, the adoration that belongs to both is neither total nor the same. If it is not total, then it is absurd to say that there is one adoration for both.
**Solution of the Same.** The image, in so far as it relates to the prototype, according to
A its whole likeness, is a participant, and partakes of the whole worship due to the prototype; it does not take to itself the matter in which it appears for the sake of worship. For this is the nature of an image: to be identical according to the likeness of the prototype, whilst differing according to the principle of essence, in which consists the homonymy. But if it were similar in every respect, that which is called and is the prototype would cease to exist. But indeed it is similar in total likeness, though not in nature, to the prototype. Therefore, the worship of likeness in both is also whole and one.
Another example from theology.
VII. B And if the Son is similar to the Father according to essence, nevertheless that which is begotten is not similar to the Unbegotten, nor indeed is that which proceeds: for these things, being considered regarding the divine nature, are distinguished by mutual communion. Yet the divinity is one in the three characters, as is the worship, and it is in no way disparate according to the difference of properties from the natural identity. So therefore also in the case of the image of the prototype; because, although according to the distinction of substance the worship is not one in both—for neither is it the nature of the image that is worshipped, although he who is expressed is seen in it—nevertheless, according to the identity of the hypostatic likeness, the adoration is the same, identified proportionally with the one and whole likeness in both, just as it is in the case of the representation of the cross and the life-giving cross itself; C the worship in the representation not being diminished in comparison with the life-giving cross according to the difference of the natures, but rather being equalized with the total likeness of the prototype.Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts.
VIII. If the image exists in Christ as in a prototype, even before it was transferred by art into any material, it would be superfluous for this to be depicted, since it suffices to be seen and worshipped in Him.Solution of the same.
That it is true that the image of Christ exists before it is technically depicted, as in a prototype, is true. For that which is not yet formed at all is not even a human being, but a kind of abortion; nor can anything at all be called a prototype D that does not have beneath itself an image transferred into material. Wherefore, since it is confessed that Christ has the rationale of a prototype, like any other of the particulars, it is absolutely necessary that he also have an image transferred from his form and impressed into material: lest He even cease to be a human being, if He is not seen and worshipped through the exhibition of an image.Another example.
IX. A seal is one thing, and the impressed effigy is another; yet even before the impression, that effigy is in the seal; nor, moreover, is a seal effective which is not impressed in some material. Therefore, if Christ is not seen in an artificial image, He is idle and ineffective according to this, which is absurd even to contemplate.Another by way of example.
AX. If someone sees a seal and its impression, he sees the form, similar and invariable, in both; therefore, the impression exists within the seal even before the stamping. But it demonstrates its own excellence when it imparts itself to be stamped upon many and various materials. In the same way, while we believe that Christ's own image exists in Him as one endowed with human form, nevertheless when we see it depicted in matter, we then celebrate His majesty more abundantly. For if the exemplar does not proceed to the material, the fact that He is endowed with human form is nullified.
Another.
BXI. The image is directed toward the archetype, and the archetype toward the image; it exists, and is seen, and is adored, not by the substance being identical, but by the likeness being unified, according to which there is also a singular adoration for both, not divided by a diversity of natures.
Another by way of example.
XII. It is impossible for a shadow to be separated from a body, as it always accompanies it, even if it is not visible; in the same way, neither can Christ's own image be separated from Him. And just as a shadow comes forth more into the open by the ray of the sun, so also the image of Christ becomes manifest to all when, stamping itself upon materials, it has appeared.
Objection from the person of the Iconoclasts.
CSince our Savior is now in the heavens, it is not proper to fashion a likeness of Him; for the divine Apostle says: "We walk by faith, not by sight."
Solution of the same.
"Sight" (or "species/form") is spoken of as that which is distinguished from a genus, such as universal man; but "species/form" is also spoken of concerning the individual appearance of each one, according to which we differ from one another; but the Apostle is not speaking of these things here. Rather, one must understand him to be speaking of that vision of future realities which surpasses the present forms. For having said, "We walk by faith, not by sight," he adds, "We are confident and well pleased to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." And elsewhere again: "For now we see in a mirror, in an enigma; but then face to face. Now I know in part; D but then I shall know just as I also have been known. And now faith, hope, love remain." It is by this faith, therefore, that he said we walk, in which, as though through a mirror, we see face to face without error the truth of future things. But that it was not his purpose to forbid the depiction of the bodily form of Christ even after Christ was taken up, hear him elsewhere saying: "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was depicted, in