Refutation and Subversion of the Impious Poems of the Iconoclasts

to you crucified? ^A If we have so believed, that we see Christ himself crucified; deservedly, by always representing him, we are not deceived. For that which is perceived by the intellect on account of an absence, if it be not also perceived by sense through a painting, cannot be contemplated even by the intellect.

Epigram of Constantine who transcribed the book of Theodore the Studite

BY THE SAME REFUTATION AND SUBVERSION OF THE IMPIOUS POEMS OF JOHN, IGNATIUS, SERGIUS, AND STEPHANUS, THE NEW CHRIST-FIGHTERS, FIRST INDEED BY METRICAL VERSES EQUAL IN NUMBER TO THEIR NAMES AND OTHERS, THEN BY PROSE, TOGETHER WITH THE IMPIOUS DELINEATION OF THE IMPIOUS DOGMA.

JOANNIS

IGNATII

νύσιν τε τὴν σὴν ἐμφ^Aνῆ δείξῃς πλέον τον δέδωκας ΣΤΑΥΡΟΝ ἐγγράφειν μόνον ἐξιοῖς δὲ τε^Bχνικῆς ὕλης ὑπὸ γραφεῖσθαι, δῆλον ὡς πρὶν ἐνθάδε. ^C Ἰδοὺ γὰρ αὐτὸν οἱ μέγιστοι δεσπόται νικοποιὸν ἐγχ^Dράττουσι τύπον.

ΣΕΡΓΙΟΥ.

ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ.

ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ.

Χριστὸν τοπάσαι γραπτόν, αἴνεσις.

Θεοτόκῳ ἔννομος αἶνος, ὡς αἰσίᾳ.

αἰτία, ^A Diminishing the night of all ancient error, Whom thou dost embrace, and bearest as utterly depicted, Shining with divine aspect in thy image, As Lord, and truly thy Son.

ACROSTIC: To Theodore it is pious to praise Christ.

^B

ACROSTIC: To Theodore the Cross is about to bring miracles.

^C Let Christ be depicted; do not remain in error, O deceivers; Not according to His divinity, but as He appeared a mortal in the flesh: Since He ought to be known according to both natures: Having from the Father that He cannot be depicted, from the Mother that He can: Lacking no property of either nature: Since He is perfect. How, being without even one thing, Would the Word made man be perfectly complete? Something would indeed be lacking in Him, if He could not be depicted, And that not a small thing, but one whole nature: If indeed the idea of the human form first occurs in Him. Which thou, by a perverse argument, as if it were an error, abolishing, Consider thyself to be slandering and denying Christ.

^D Of the same.

ACROSTIC: The peace of Christ.

^A Bearing a sword as a shadow of the cross on his head. For He destroyed the powers of the prince of darkness, The King of all, drawing us up from below, And having set us on high, giving the glory of the heavens. By the same.

ACROSTIC: Praise for the Theotokos.

^B

ACROSTIC: Iambic Eructation.

Christ is depicted as flesh, even though He is the Word. Whoever has a mind for divine things acknowledges this with a prudent mind. For He came bearing a human image, By this, with divine power, destroying Every shadow, which is this deception for mortals. Then the moderator of the scepter for the future, Removed in this way these burdensome deceptions. By the same.

Christ here depicted shines forth once again, Not at all to oppose the sign of the cross. For He always bears it on His head: But that He may dissipate the heresy that deceives the people. Which, having struck with a word, as if with the sword of divine judgment, The most powerful Lord has taken away. OF JOHN. The divine orators exhibit the golden effigy of Christ According to the voices of the prophets, not looking to the things below. ^D The divine writers indeed describe Christ in words, O noble one: for this is what you call "golden painting" when you are puffed up and swollen; yet they do not do so simply by prophetic diction, but as those who have grasped it through their own eyewitness—"For what we have seen,

experience, and our hands have touched concerning the Word of life. ^A And surely, do we not, in looking at things below, lead the eye of the mind to the underlying subjects? At one time we gaze upon him reclining in the manger; at another, carried in maternal arms; and now sitting thus by the fountain; and then walking upon the sea; and at other times descending to Capharnaum; and other times ascending into the mountain. And what need is there to recount the ten thousand things which in many ways he presents for us to see, and not just in accordance with the things above? So that your proposition is proven false on both counts.

Those who trample upon the re-emerging error of the sketchers Openly, as an abomination to God. Those who agree with them, who wear diadems.

^B II. Since it is customary for absurdities to follow upon absurdities, the second things proceed from those that correspond. Whom, then, do you call sketchers, if not clearly the painters? And what is the "re-emerging error," if not obviously that Christ is depicted? For Christ is an idol if depicted before the incarnation. Would that we had not run back to the beginning, when the Lord did not rule over us, nor was the manifestation of the Trinity in effect, and thus Christ would be an idol if depicted before his incarnation. The Hebrews have conquered, and those who have the name of Christ have been defeated, and it is necessary to Judaize. Heaven was amazed at this, and shuddered more exceedingly, says the Lord; for John has committed two evils: he has called Christ an idol, and has falsely claimed that he himself is hated by God—falsely, he says, by God, as if it were an abomination. But the matter is not so, O reviler of Christ. For error is not truth, nor has the Christian profession turned back to idolatry since God was seen in our nature, [and] continues to this day to depict and worship Christ. For he was seen precisely so that he might be depicted; so that those who had been accustomed to worship idols might be able to worship Christ depicted in human form. ^C For as long as God the Lord has appeared to us, then idolatry shall cease: as we keep watch on the threshold for the coming of Antichrist, of whom you are clearly the forerunner, persuading the people to remain in error; so that the man of sin may be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every object of worship or so-called god. For if the image is not despised, then the prototype will not be denied. Take heed to yourself, my friend; for yours is the re-emerging error, having begun from a false conventicle long ago, then interrupted, and now bubbling up again like muck from the mire.

III. But, he says, it is an abomination to God, speaking from the earth, babbling from the mouth of the devil. It is not an abomination to God, O senseless one, but even greatly beloved. For how could that happen which he hates to be done? ^D For man has nothing else in his properties first, other than that he is such that he can be depicted. But that he is of such a nature as this...

^A IV. Do you see what you concede from these things that you foolishly speak of Christ, who out of supreme benignity longed to become man truly in all things? But how indeed could the like purify the like, as he says who treats of divine matters most excellently, unless he were depicted similarly to us? It remains, therefore, that you contradict the Theologian, and assert that the unlike is purified by the unlike. But how will it be believed that he assumed flesh from the most holy Virgin, if he were not depicted equally to us? For there is a necessity, a necessity, that the offspring be such as that which begets; since every son is also an image of him who begat him, nor is there lacking to him who is begotten any of those things which by nature belong to the mother. And one thing, and the primary one among those things that exist, is the representation of the bodily form through an image. If, therefore, he is not represented through an image, it is clearly not a body from her, but ^B from elsewhere. And seek whence this might be: whether heavenly, as Valentinus says; or angelic, and this also without quantity and without quality, intangible and untouchable, without food and without sleep. For these things and more than these must belong to a body which is not suited to be depicted. And accordingly, the Redeemer did not pay the price for us to death, as the divine Basil says; he did not break asunder the empire of death by himself. For if that which was held under death was one thing, and that which was assumed by the Lord was another (but how would it not be another, if he were not depicted similarly to us?), death would not have ceased to work the things that are its own, nor would the sufferings of the God-bearing flesh have become our gain. ^C He would not have put an end to sin in the flesh; those who were dying in Adam would not have been made alive in Christ; that which had fallen would not have been reshaped; that which had been shattered would not have been renewed; that which had been alienated through the deception of the serpent would not have been reconciled to God. For all these things are taken away by those who say that the Lord came having a body that cannot be depicted, that is to say, a heavenly one; for the argument looks to the same end. Cease, therefore, from the error, if you will, O man, and know that Christ, having truly become man, is determined by the God-inspired writers both to be spoken of and to be depicted. Some, he says, adorn him with the word, others engrave him on tablets, and each leads me to the same truth. For whatever the ^D narrative of history presents through hearing, this silent painting demonstrates through imitation. The same God-inspired one was saying this, and also cried out somewhere thus: "Let Christ, the rewarder of the contests, be depicted on the tablet; whose image, when it is honored, he himself is the one being honored; and when it is dishonored, he himself is the one being subjected to ignominy." For the honor of the image, he says, ascends to the prototype; therefore, so does the dishonor. See, therefore, whom they trample upon.

Agreeing with these, those who wear the crowns ^A Splendidly extol the cross with pious judgment.

V. What do you say? Is the cross honored while Christ is despised? Is not the glory of the cross from the honor of Christ? How then, when he himself is trampled upon in the image, is the cross exalted, and will he not rather be trampled upon at the same time, even if you seem to be exalting the cross? Why do you strive to show the scepter as opposed ^B to the King of all? Why do you bestow divine honors upon that which is less, and despise that which is greater? "Fools and blind," says the Lord, "what is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?" Thus, also, regarding those who seem to honor the form of the cross while they treat with ignominy the image of Christ, it is surely fitting to hear this. So be it.

OF IGNATIUS

That you might confirm divine worship ^C among mortals, O Word, And provide a clearer knowledge of yourself: You decreed by law that the cross alone should be depicted.

VI. From where, O empty-talker, do we have it firmly established that, so that the Word might confirm worship among mortals and provide a clearer knowledge of himself ^D, he gave a law that the cross alone should be depicted? For we have not heard this even to this day; rather, we have heard that "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works." The Word, therefore, gave himself by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, not to judge the world, but to save the world, as He himself has said. And indeed, even his own body, as he says again: "And the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." This, then, is worship in the primary sense; this is the much more manifest knowledge, the law, and the participation in the divine mysteries, since we are commanded by divine ordinance to do this in remembrance of him. But if the cross is added, we do so gladly and very rightly; yet not with equal honor, but much more sparingly. For the lance, and the nails, and whatever else was employed in the life-giving passion is also honored. But that is what suffered, while these are the instruments of the passion. That is holy and divine; these have been sanctified and deified. See how great is the difference. How, therefore, do you pass over what is written and speak what is unwritten? And how, when you do speak, do you neglect what is primary and bring forward what is of lesser importance? And how can you assert that this is written and declare it to be a divinely delivered law? Behold the stupidity, behold the lawless madness. Such is falsehood: it has no light, nor any proof of truth. But the proposition he sets forth must be examined again.

^A You have decreed by law that the Cross alone is to be depicted. But you disdain that it should be painted on walls with artificial material, as has been done here hitherto. You see, then, how again, without logic and by mere authority, this noble man pronounces, as if he were not speaking to ears capable of listening? Why, therefore, is that which he disdains in the Word himself, he deems worthy to be done in the case of the Cross for his own honor and greater knowledge? Surely it is because he was not made man, you will say. But indeed, he became flesh, which is definitely circumscribed, just as all human flesh is, by artificial material. For such an image is called artificial, whether it be on a wall, or on a panel, or in whatever material it is viewed; and the same applies to the Cross. But why is the painting on a wall spoken of by you as robust, even though it is weak as a means of support? Is it perhaps because the painting is considered dishonorable? How then does it assist in the honor and knowledge of him in the case of the Cross? For that which is such is honorable and decent, and pertains to his dignity rather than to his disgrace. Indeed, an artisan would much rather prefer to be held in estimation for his own sake than through his own instrument; and anyone who is eager for sight prefers far more to behold the artisan depicted than the instrument which he uses skillfully. Unless, perchance, he is incorporeal, and therefore cannot be painted. For if he is corporeal, how can it be that he is not portrayable? No one who is gifted with mind and reason could understand that. Do you not hear God saying to the prophet, ^B "Take for yourself a large, new volume, and write in it with the stylus of a man"? (Isa. viii, 1). For what reason? Because when the only-begotten Son of God became man, then indeed there was a use for the human stylus, and, in accordance with us, so that we might know that he who is uncircumscribed with the Father and the Holy Spirit was seen for our sake, and in accordance with us, and so became also circumscribed, as the choir of the saints proclaims. In whatever way, therefore, you take the stylus, it is an indication of circumscription; and circumscription is the representation by an image. And what does the painting of the Cross signify? Does it not signify the life-giving wood? And what does this declare, if not the Word slain in it in the flesh? How, then, can that which slew be representable, while that which was slain is unrepresentable? It is altogether incompatible, and does not follow the logic of nature. Or does it hold thus conversely: that the unrepresentable slays the representable, that is, the incorporeal the corporeal? For nothing corporeal is unrepresentable. Not even those who fashion goat-stags would have dreamed of this. ^C For did he not, having been pierced by a lance, pour out blood and water from his side? Did he not deliver up his spirit, having bowed his head? Was he not buried, having been wrapped in a linen cloth with spices? Are these not sensible things? Is not everything sensible representable? He then who suffered such things, in a manner like to us, is he not circumscribed? He who deigned to suffer such things (for I pass over telling of the things in his birth, the things that happened later, the dishonors, the insults, the reproaches, the betrayal, the binding, the mockery, the scourges, the slaps, the spittings, for the salvation of the world) — he is depicted; but you disdain it, even though these very things demonstrate him before our eyes most clearly than the significance conveyed through speech.

^A Whence, I ask, this disdain? Add to this, then, that it was not willingly that he suffered. For he who has suffered in such a way considers it an insult if the matter is spoken of by anyone or written down. But if he were willing—then, on the contrary, he would surely consider it an insult if it were not spoken of and not written down. For there is no one who does not love for those instances suffered for the sake of one's neighbor out of love to be brought to remembrance both by speech and by painting; for this would bring him immortal glory.

VIII. Do you see, O most mindless and most unwise one, how you are injurious toward God, to whom Christ seems to declare that he disdains himself, and therefore did not suffer willingly? ^B What have you imbibed, and from what dregs of the filth of impiety have you vomited forth such a flow of filth? Away with this stench! I ask again: how can he who can be seen not be depicted? Or how, when the Word has become man, does he have a nature such that it cannot be depicted in the form of a body? For this thing is like a riddle. Just as if someone were to propose that there is a man in every way similar to all men in nature and truth, yet it does not pertain to him to be embodied, or to be seen, or to be touched, or to eat, or to drink, or to sleep, or to walk, or to converse, nor to be crucified, nor to have died, nor to have been buried, yet he [is said] to be of such condition and nature that he is depicted in the form of a man. ^C What then? Is this not ridiculous and to be numbered among fables? And all the more so, or at least to the same degree, is the laughter and the fable if someone, concerning the incarnate Word—whom all confess to be in all things similar to us—should say the opposite of all the aforementioned things, yet contend for this one thing alone: that it is impossible for him to be depicted. For just as there, the circumscription brings in all that was denied affirmatively, so in Christ, the negation of the painting removes everything that is affirmed about him negatively. And thus appearance and vain imagination arise, and thence again Marcion springs up, and Manes, and Valentinus, and from the same school, Ignatius.

OF SERGIUS. ^D Clearly Moses overcame principalities in a type, Conquering the enemy. But now the glory of the faithful, The Cross, has stemmed the mighty torrent of error.

IX. You seem to me, most excellent man, to have started on a level road, but to have been swept headlong into the precipice of perdition. For what does Moses seem to be to you but a figure of Christ, when he slew Amalek in the figure of the cross, which his outstretched hands displayed? How, therefore, while you admit figures there, do you here in the archetypes deceitfully separate one from the other, bringing forward only the cross and remaining silent about the Crucified? Will the axe be glorified without him who cuts with it, as I may speak with the prophet, or will the instrument perform work by itself, without the craftsman who works it? The cross does not by itself...

remove, but it is He who was crucified, Christ, as it is written: ^A *Disarming the principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in himself* (Coloss. II, 15). Understand what the Scripture says; and why have you acted foolishly in your utterance? What error do you speak of, or what is this deception? I see clearly, then, that your discourse is about the representation of the cross, and the image of Christ; further, you named the representation 'cross' by the name of the prototype, as is the custom to name it, and so also with every derivative; but the image of Him—for it also is called by the same name—you have called a mighty stream of error checked by the cross. O, greater in audacity than Jewish insanity! Since even those who said He had a demon and called Him a Samaritan appeared less insulting. So, the weapon destroys the warrior; *Christ is divided against himself* (Matth. XII, 26), destroyed by His own weapon. Oh, who would endure such blasphemy? And of what sort is this error, I seek to learn: has the Christian been carried away toward Hellenic polytheism, having departed from the worship of the Trinity? Or is it denied that Christ has become man? Tell us, I pray, who are they that have perished, who are they that have denied? So that, having known the destruction, we may be persuaded by your logomachy. But if no one has suffered anything of the sort seeing a depicted Christ—on the contrary, has rather been greatly strengthened to believe in Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ^B knowing the dogma of the theology and confessing the mystery of the dispensation (for there is no other confession of this than to behold the depicted Christ—for this confirms that He has truly become man)—consider and see that the mighty stream of error has not subsided, but recently gushed forth again from the sea of impiety, through which the presence of Christ is made doubtful and the people are in a swell of unbelief. For what, indeed, follows from this? Will one not think the holy temples are ruins? The divine offerings, desecrations? The God-bearing men, deceived? Will one not count whatsoever an impious person might say as full of atheism, from which come the shipwrecks of many concerning the faith, and those deaths of the soul? But let us proceed to what follows.

For it is written thus: *Soul-destroying in life/ Is the simulacrum of art, as a hidden weapon/ Twisted by an impious impulse, it was utterly removed.* ^C

What do you say, O audacious one—is the saving likeness of Christ to the world "soul-destroying in life"? Is it a "weapon of impious impulse," a "bringer of error"? Since from the moment anyone who has been bitten by the intelligible serpents begins to look upon it with faith, the sight of the serpent—seen of old—puts to flight the deadly venom. When the Word was not incarnate, it saved, it did not destroy. And now, when He became incarnate by the...

^A likeness according to us, does His body not only not save, but even destroy the whole world? Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken: I have raised children and exalted them, but they have rejected me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s manger; but Sergius has not known me; and I would add, he has even grossly insulted me. O most perditious, most wicked, and most antichristian man, are you against Christ? Are you against the image of Christ, which both angels revere and demons tremble before? For what is the name inscribed upon it? Is it that of Saturn or Zeus? Of Ares or Aphrodite? Of Artemis, or some other of the falsely named gods, whose invocation is deceit, and whose introduction is godlessness? But if it is Jesus Christ—and "no one can say ‘Lord Jesus’ except in the Holy Spirit," as the Oracles say—see that you have blasphemed in a Judaizing manner not only against Christ, but also against the Holy Spirit, by calling the name of Jesus Christ, which is written and spoken in the Holy Spirit, a soul-destroyer in this life. O impious tongue! O mouth speaking iniquity against the height of God! For what is an idol, says the Apostle, or what is that which is sacrificed to idols? But that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. To us, however, there is one God, who in Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit is worshiped and adored. We know, moreover, that the Son of God, having truly become man, also became like us in all things. And since every man is represented by an image, so too is Christ; and we have the writing and the likeness as a sacred light, a saving memorial, as we behold Him born, baptized, working miracles, crucified, buried, rising again, ascending into ^B the heavens, in which we are not deceived that the matter stands otherwise, with sight concurring with the contemplation of the mind; and through both we are confirmed in the faith of the mystery of the incarnation, with all fruitfulness and the greatest sense of piety. You, however, having removed all these things, and setting the sign of the cross in opposition, have introduced a very great error. For I ask for what reason the cross is inscribed by you, but he who was crucified is not inscribed along with it? And you will certainly say, because he is not naturally adapted to be inscribed. I will say then: If he is not naturally adapted to be inscribed, then he is much less naturally adapted to suffer. And this, every man of sound mind will admit. How? Because not even an angel, being incorporeal and impassible, is naturally adapted to be inscribed according to us, yet he was depicted by Moses at God’s command. But he who is not naturally adapted to be inscribed, did not suffer, clearly. It is concluded, therefore, from what you see and what you say, that the truth of the mystery of the dispensation is a phantasy; which is the error. Denounce yourself, therefore, O deceiver, for both the error and the soul-destroying doctrine in this life, a lawless dart sprung from the den of godlessness, ^C that the truth of the mystery of the dispensation is an empty vision; which is a great deception. Call it, therefore, O impostor, a delusion, a soul-destroying document in this life, a wicked weapon springing forth from the sheath of impiety.

^A For it is right for those who know Christ to think in this way. Does the man of blinded mind understand what he is saying? For as much as he transferred the insult which he devised against the image of Christ from the preceding arguments unto Christ Himself—which is true, even if he does not think so—for neither having said anything in the preceding about Christ, but having made an outrageous attack upon His image, he immediately adds: "For it is right for those who know Christ to think in this way." In what other way, then, can one who hears these things think, other than as has been said? But if he should say that we must think of the Cross, which checked the error, even this is not only inconsistent, but also impious; for the Cross is not Christ.

STEPHANI. Column of the faithful, and divine object of worship, O Word, The life-giving type of the passions You have given us the cross, for salvation.

^B That, indeed, the Word gave the Cross to us as a support for the faithful and a divine object of worship for salvation is clear to everyone; but this is not the life-giving type of the passions, O empty-talker. For how will Christ be represented in the figure of a cross as being apprehended, bound, struck with the palm of the hand, spat upon, crucified, pierced with a lance, or suffering anything else? Not in any way at all. For the Cross signifies Christ, it does not represent Him. Hence it is also called a "sign" by Holy Scripture. For it says: "Moses placed the serpent upon a sign," that is, upon a cross. But a sign is one thing, and a type is another; just as the morning star signifies the day, but the sun itself represents, or rather exhibits, the day. As, therefore, Christ is signified in the cross, ^C so He is represented in His own image. For in the image the archetype is revealed, as the divine Dionysius says; and the image and the type are taken as parallel both by him and by other Fathers. What is the life-giving type of the passions, the image that interprets Christ, which you, wishing to hide, have uncovered against your will? The type of the cross, however, is the significance of this. If, then, the significance is a support of the faithful and an object of worship, much more so is the formative image-making. Thus, therefore, the word of truth is correct, not as your mendacious discourse has defined it.

Thou hast removed the explicitly depicted representation Which was earlier an error, against divine law, O Word.

^D That which is illegitimate is evil, but not that which is legitimate; that which is contrary to nature, not that which is according to nature. If, therefore, there were a representation by an image before the incarnation of the Word, it would not only be evil, but also highly absurd, to suspect that the Word, not yet incarnate, possessed flesh; and to make Him who is like to no one appear like to all in the likeness of a man. Concerning which that saying from God was spoken: "To what likeness have you likened Me?" And this is idolatry, and clearly abolished by Him. But since after the incarnation, understand, O enemy of God, both the evil and the deception and the destroyer of that which was depicted for the salvation of the world—

^A even though you may be carving a cross—you attempt in opposition to show that things which follow upon one another are contraries; for in the icon of Christ, one can see the cross also being depicted. For did not the One who is above God truly subsist and become man, appearing in a form like our own? Did He not possess a body subject to touch and color, which is endowed with quantity and quality—upon which follow location in a place and extension in time? Does not he who has even a slight skill in reasoning understand that these are the properties of circumscription? How then is He who possesses these not circumscribed? How then, having become in the likeness of men, is He not depicted in the likeness of men? How, having been found in fashion as a man, could He be without fashion? What is this folly, and this fighting against things that are evident? It is as if, while the sun was rising, someone were to insist that it was night. Is a line not formed from points? Is not the first figure, a triangle, formed from lines, and likewise the other remaining figures? Is a face not fashioned from various shapes, and is it not acknowledged that what is depicted in the icon is a man, as also seems good to the divinely inspired Scripture? Is Christ without form? The Apostle cries out that He took the form of a servant. And you point Him out as formless? Found in fashion as a man, and you say unfashioned? Become in the likeness of men, and you say unlike? For an image is a likeness. O you who are full of all deceit and all knavery, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, do you not cease to pervert the straight ways of the Lord? And these are not from me; Paul will chant this to you, the new Elymas. ^B Otherwise, consider this, you wanderer, that the properties of the same nature are of equal power and interconnected; and if one exists, the others necessarily exist also; just as if one is removed, all of them are removed together. Such are the properties of the divine nature, for example, that it is incorporeal, invisible, incomprehensible, uncircumscribed, immutable, impassible, and whatever else; if, therefore, someone should happen to try to remove or swap one of these by hypothesis—for instance, the incomprehensible—and say that the Godhead is comprehensible, since all things are spoken of based on properties circling it, the removal of the one immediately changes all its coordinate properties. And it follows that one must say of it, as it is comprehensible, so also is it corporeal, visible, circumscribed, mutable, and passible; and it is not possible, as has been said before, that with the change or removal of the one, the rest should not also be changed or removed together. The same argument applies also to the ^C humanity of Christ. Therefore, its properties are to be corporeal, visible, circumscribed, mutable, passible, and whatever else is present in every man. You have therefore exchanged or definitively removed one of the stated properties, namely, that of being circumscribed? And Christ would be, according to His humanity, just as He is uncircumscribed, so also incorporeal, and invisible, and incomprehensible, and immutable, and impassible; or none of the things said [can be removed] by the removal of the one, necessarily, because of your collected heap of impieties and your structures built of sand.

1 The law it is fitting for all to keep, That indeed to worship, to which, being affixed, thou hast saved us.

XIV. Behold, again the fabulist is caught playing the fool. As if we were to say that a king saved a city by casting his spear at someone, and the babbler were to add that, the king being ignored, the spear ought to be worshipped. It is right to say: He to whom, being affixed, thou hast brought salvation, him according to thee we worship: first, clearly, the one who saved; then the cross, through which salvation was brought. But this man, out of excessive blindness, has heaped divine honor upon the one and, for the present, has passed over the other, while previously he had treated it with contumely, cursing its image. O terrible spectacle! O bitter news! Stephanus declares war on Christ. ^B

In a mute species and void of spirit Not bearing for Christ to be depicted, the emperor, By earthly matter which the Scriptures trample underfoot, Leo with his son new Constantine, Imprints the thrice-blessed type of the Cross.

XV. "The fool," says the Scripture, "will speak folly, and his heart will meditate error." But it must be asked for what cause, O weaver of lies, the sovereign does not tolerate Christ being depicted, as a mute species and void of spirit? Is it so that, under such a taken-away species and form, the figure of the cross may be fashioned for him, which is vocal and breathing? By no means. Is it because there is some image that emits a voice, which leads by spirit, and the image of Christ does not have this? But it is clear that every image made by art lacks voice and spirit; otherwise it is not an example, but a prototype, and a natural image, such as each one is the image of his own father. How then does he who is in every image of man refuse to look even upon the image of Christ, who is like to all men in all things, and who likewise participated with us in flesh and blood, as it is written? Unless, indeed, he derogates from the faith in these things which are written and has decided with himself to contemplate Christ as having appeared without blood and flesh, in the Manichaean sense, of course. But if he believes what he confesses, and allows Christ to be depicted just as other men, to whom he was made like in all things without sin, [he should do so] lest the negation of the picture argue in him the negation of the true incarnation. Moreover, the image of Christ is not of the soul, which does not fall under the aspect, much less of the divinity, but is the figure of his body itself, just as that of any man whatever. But his holy body lacked voice and spirit upon the cross; wherefore also a "dead image" it has been called by the divine Gregory the Armenian. Therefore, rightly and deservedly, Christ has been depicted as a species lacking in voice and destitute of spirit, like from like. And thou, indeed, hast shown thyself inept, babbling in vain. But let us again resume what you proposed.

XVI. Whether Christ is to be depicted in earthly matter, which the Scriptures reject.

XVI. I would gladly ask him: is the figure of the cross not imprinted upon earthly matter, which you claim the Scriptures reject? How then does the Lord suffer ignominy in this? For the cross is imprinted in [Christ’s] place. He is thus at odds with himself; and while he bears that with an equal mind, he yet does not bear it with an equal mind. ^A Do you see, whoever is wise, how these trifles are insulting to Christ? What then? Is not the divine flesh from the mass of Adam, and was not Adam himself earthly, and is not any human flesh earthly matter? Is there not something earthly within you? But it is not the case, most foolish man, that all matter is simply repudiated by the sacred Scriptures, but only that which incurs this censure. For there are many things among the gifts dedicated to God that are formed of matter, and they are in no way repudiated. But your whole design is to label the image of Christ an idol, and to prove it evidently. For you think you are obeying those words of the Apostle: *You know that when you were Gentiles, you were led along to mute idols, however you were led* (I Cor. XII, 2). And from there you try to show that Christians are falling into ruin in the manner of the Gentiles, after the idol has ceased to be in the world according to the Apostle's sentence; after the blessed name has been invoked in the whole world; after we have confessed one Lord, one faith, one baptism; after the pure oblation has been set against the sacrifices of idols; after the image of Christ has been expressed in almost all sacred temples from the rising of the sun ^B even to its setting; after so many holy synods, which had Christ depicted before their eyes; after the advent of Christ is at the doors. You see an error worse than all the heresies that have sprung up after Christ; for none of them manifestly attempted to deny Christ, but here this occurs. Does he who denies the figure of the cross not deny the cross? Most certainly. And he who spurns the image of Christ has altogether spurned Christ. For if you concede the first to be true, how is the second not as well? Why then do you mix what should not be mixed, demonically transferring to the image of Christ those things that are said about idols? Does not whatever the law says, speak to those who are under the law? Does not whatever the Apostle condemns, proclaim it to those who were then living like Gentiles? ^C Do you not hear Saint Athanasius crying out: “We faithful do not adore the images as gods—far be it!—in the manner of the Gentiles, but we show only the affection and the yearning of our love toward the form of the person of the image”? Hence, when the effigy is often worn away, we then consign the image to the fire, as wood that is thereafter useless. But the Gentiles confessed that the wood itself, according to its nature, and the gold and the silver, sculpted with human figures, were their gods. These are the idols that are condemned both prophetically and apostolically; and as [the Scripture says], ^D “See what the idols of the nations mean, [being] silver and gold, the works of the hands of men.”

^A They have eyes, but see not; they have mouths, but speak not; and whatever else is considered of that kind, it is devoid of efficacy. Cease henceforth, O good sir, to blaspheme against Christ in the Judaic manner.

SUBSCRIPTION

vunt, so that they are of similar form with Him who marks them with the crucified image of His own impeccability, he calls images and sacred ornaments the same. Finally, images are all things which are seen in mystical ceremonies. What then? Is not all this the making and adoration of images? Most certainly: which you, while you despise, have manifestly despised not simply the doctrine of the apostles and Fathers, but also the New Testament; if indeed the New, then certainly also the Old. ^A I see, however, that you are despised by yourself, and the angels are despised. Man is the image of God, since he can imitate Him who is not to be equaled by anyone in imitation. For Scripture says: *In the image of God I made man* (Gen. I, 27). The angel is the image of God, says the divine Dionysius. You will therefore concede that the making and adoration of images are both, even if unwillingly. For both the angel is adored, and man. ^B You have therefore despised, as it seems, both earthly and heavenly things. For you did not separate this from that, the painted from the natural; but you have shown yourself to despise the making and adoration of images collectively, excepting nothing specifically, except the holy Trinity. For It alone is not a making of an image, since It is not created but uncreated; nor could your proposition be understood clearly in any other way. But let us return again to that which is under discussion.

Following the doctrine of the Apostles and Fathers, rejecting all making and adoration of images.

The voice of Peter, prince of the apostles.

C. Bring forth the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and express it in a small tower, so that the peoples may see what form the Son of God assumed.

The voice of Saint Dionysius.

XX. The benign primitive initiation described supercelestial minds by sensible images in the context of the Scriptures, expressing sacred things.

The voice of Saint Athanasius.

XXI. We who are faithful do not adore images as gods in the manner of the gentiles: far be it! but showing only the zeal and affection of our love toward the form of the person of the image.

The voice of Saint Basil.

XXII. Be present with me now, O illustrious painters of athletic contests, illustrate the mutilated image of the leader with your art. And after other things: Let Christ, the judge of the contests, be painted on the tablet. ^D

The voice of Saint Gregory Nazianzen.

XXIII. Seeing Polemon painted and prominent.

Seeing this—for it was venerable— She went off at once, defeated by the sight, As if ashamed before the living one who was depicted.

^A Vox sancti Chrysostomi. XXIV. I also have loved the wax-cast writing, for it is filled with piety; for I saw a vision of an angel driving away the swarms of barbarians. I saw the barbarian tribes being trampled underfoot, and David truly crying out: "O Lord, in thy city, thou wilt bring their image to nothing." (Ps. LXXII, 20.)

Vox sancti Gregorii Nysseni. XXV. I have often seen an image of the Passion in a painting, and I did not pass by the sight without tears, for the art clearly brought the history before my eyes. Isaac lies…

Vox sancti Cyrilli. XXVI. I saw on a wall a painting of a maiden struggling in the arena; and I did not behold this spectacle without tears.

Vox Patrum sanctæ synodi VI. XXVII. In some of the paintings of the venerable images, a lamb is depicted being pointed out by the finger of the Forerunner. And after other things: In order, therefore, that the perfect might be set before the eyes of all, even through the rendering of colors, we decree that Christ our God, the Lamb ^B who takes away the sin of the world, be from now on established and depicted in images in his human form, in place of the ancient lamb.

XXVIII. These are a few things from many, so as not to cause weariness. Behold again the apostolic and Patristic teaching; the loftiness of the apostles; the foundation of the Fathers; the keys of the doctrines; the rule of orthodoxy: to which he who speaks against it, even if he be an angel, is condemned and declared anathema. For he is not in harmony with the apostles, nor with the Fathers, but is a bastard, bearing a false name. You have rejected it, O man, and while you say you are not rejecting it, you are rejecting the array of images and the honorary veneration of them, like Moab of old.

Et Ecclesiæ institutis obtemperans. XXIX. The law is therefore altogether holy: the ancient customs, which great Basil excellently commanded to be retained by us. It is certainly established by ecclesiastical tradition: ^C just as the Church which is on earth cries out in her own use, in her holy temples and votive offerings, even from the first times of the evangelical preaching, that venerable images are to be fashioned, which you now destroy. Behold, therefore, the ecclesiastical institution in part. You have rejected this too; if by the part, you have rejected the whole with all your might.

^A Accepting the six holy and ecumenical synods. The synods, both the ecumenical and the local orthodox ones, are as many in number as they may be; yet they are all one in divine understanding, just as there is one confession of faith if viewed in its primary power. In due time, however, they proceeded against the heresies that were rising up, and though they varied in their opposition to evil understanding, they remained in the same orthodox dogma. Just as—that I may use an example—the grain of wheat is indeed one when sown, yet it has the power within itself to produce, at the proper time through the fruitfulness of the season, grains multiplied in action. Let us see, therefore, how, if you accept the first, you may at the same time accept them all. He says, therefore—that I may omit what preceded, as not pertaining to the question at hand—"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man." He, therefore, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, is confessed by all the saints to be one in hypostasis, ^B but dual in nature; perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; uncircumscribed from the Father, since the Father is also uncircumscribed; circumscribed from the Mother, since the Mother is also circumscribed. Such as the Father is, such also is the one begotten of Him in all things. And such as the Mother is, such also is that which was begotten of her in all things, lest, if anything at all were missing, the perfection be taken away and the whole be destroyed. Since, therefore, the Mother is naturally depicted by the features of the body, as one circumscribed, this is also true of Christ naturally, as His offspring, who is circumscribed. Otherwise, He is not truly and naturally her son. But He is truly her son, just as He is Himself the true Son of the Father. Therefore, He is also depicted by the features of the body according to the Mother, He who is uncircumscribed in divinity according to the Father; so that the one might verify the other by witnessing to it out of every natural necessity. This, indeed, the first holy ecumenical synod proclaimed ^C as in a summary of power: that Christ is to be depicted, since it confesses Him to have been incarnate and to have become man. For nothing that consists of flesh is undepictable, and no man who has been seen is unrepresentable. For indeed, it did not even call Mary "Theotokos" in a proper sense; but when it decreed that the Son of God was incarnate of her and became man, it proclaimed her "Theotokos" in potentiality. For if the one born is God, then the one who gave birth is consistently Theotokos; the third synod gave utterance to this in act, for its part, and struck down Nestorius. Nor, indeed, did it explicitly state that there are two natures and such and such wills in Christ; but since it knows Him to be at once God and man, the two births...

^A of Him and, in consequence of the natures, the two wills, it declared: giving over the actual and explicit voicing of this to the fourth and sixth synods, and striking down those who professed one nature and one will in Him. It would be a long task to indicate how it [the first synod] strikes down each heresy, opposing in power the orthodox dogma that was explicitly proclaimed by the synod of the time. Now that the argument has been sufficiently resolved and refuted—for you ineptly reject the first synod, because you abolish all pictorial composition and veneration, whereas that synod, by its power, as has been said, proclaimed that Christ is to be depicted according to the human character—it follows that you do not accept the remaining synods either. For there is one and the same mind in them all.

[You say:] I accept also the synod at Blachernae and the one assembled for its confirmation.

Truly; for you are a follower and in agreement with these opponents of the truth, and [they are] alien to all Apostolic and Patristic teaching, as has been shown above. For they abolish all pictorial composition and veneration. And you reject those whom they rejected, and accept those whom they accepted.

Yes; but like the council of Caiaphas, which accepted Barabbas and denied Christ. While you reject the assembly under Tarasius.

Well done, and very rightly so; but [you reject it] because it followed the first holy synod, in that it proclaimed that Christ should be depicted according to his human character; and that his image, together with that of the life-giving cross, and of the Theotokos, and in addition that of every saint, should be venerated in honor of the prototypes; from which you have broken away, as Judas from Christ. ^B And you anathematize those who do not hold to this.

Obviously; but you anathematize all the saints in a body, as an adversary of Christ.

[You say:] I have signed in my own hand.

Indeed; but as Pilate used the pen for the sentence against Christ.

[Heading: The Profession of an Orthodox Person]

XXXV. Obeying all the evangelical and apostolic commands and edicts; being confirmed by the oracles and documents of the prophets and Fathers; and accepting also the six holy and ecumenical synods, along with those local ones that agree with the former in the observance of dogmas and canons; admitting with them also the one [the Trullan] which, after the sixth, treated of the venerable images and enacted what was worthy of God; and the second holy synod in Nicaea, which, as to what it previously ^D dogmatized in an orthodox manner...

^A I accept, and I reject all whom the synods have excommunicated, and I communicate with those whom they have approved; and I submit myself to every holy law and ecclesiastical custom that has flowed down from Christ even to this day, or that has been piously instituted afterward; and I embrace with my whole heart and kiss every image, whether of Christ our God, or of the life-giving Cross, or of the Theotokos, or of angels, or of any holy man or woman, as it has been piously expressed for the salvation of men. But the assembly long ago gathered in Blachernae, and the council that confirmed it, I reject, as being each of them hostile to Christ and to all the saints; and I subject those who do not think in this way to eternal anathemas, with God. ^B I have signed with my own hand.

IAMBI OF THE ICONOCLASTS

JOANNIS. Acrostic: Christ’s Passion is hope to John.

1. Christ has destroyed with the divine power of the Cross 2. The force of the troop of demons; to those who live, 3. He has become strength, and hope into a mighty safeguard, 4. Clearly teaching to pay heed to Him alone. 5. Therefore, to paint the Master upon walls is not lawful; 6. For He is wholly God, not changed through error, 7. Exalting pious kings in the kingdom.

IGNATII. Acrostic: The Cross is glorification to Ignatius.

1. The Cross, which joined things that were previously scattered, 2. Sincerely confirms piety. ^C 3. For overturning every spectacle of images, 4. It has openly exalted Thy glory, O Word, 5. Recognized as the valid strength of faith. 6. Which the emperors, as is meet, adoring, 7. Drive away enemies, subdued by this power.

^D

HOSTES ET OCCIDO BARBAROS.

Those who received power from God alone, Leo and Constantine, wearing their crowns, Propose the image of the Lord for us to see, Bearing the longing for Him in their hearts. Yet, since that which was previously and pointlessly joined has been rashly compared, They have removed from here the spectacle of images. ^A

OF THE SAME: CERTAIN PROBLEMS AGAINST ICONOCLASTS, WHO SAY THAT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST CANNOT BE DEPICTED ACCORDING TO HIS BODILY CHARACTER

I. If Christ exists of and in two perfect natures, tell me according to which one He cannot be depicted: that which assumed, or that which was assumed? And if according to the first, can He be depicted according to the second? Or vice versa? If, however, according to both, how can this be, unless one perfect nature and one property is composed from both? He would be neither depictable nor undepictable, but a "depictable-undepictable" being, come together from halves, and perfect in neither. If this is so, how is Christ not of a different nature from the Father and from us? From us, for we, since we consist of a body, are depicted; from the Father, however, who because of the simplicity of His nature is not circumscribed at all. ^B

II. If the property of each nature is immovable, and the circumscription is in the humanity of Christ, but He is not depicted according to it, it has clearly moved. But once moved, where did it go? Into the nature of His divinity? But if this is so, the Trinity has received an addition, having taken on a property not congenital to Itself; which is impossible. But if it did not pass over there, where then could it be? And if it has perished, of necessity the nature to which it belongs perishes as well, since it is acknowledged that one cannot be separated from the other. ^C