Oration against the Iconoclasts; Letters to Theophilus and to Plato

THE SAME: EPISTLE TO THE EMPEROR THEOPHILUS ON THE HOLY AND VENERABLE IMAGES.

THE SAME: EPISTLE TO PLATO HIS FATHER ON THE CULT OF SACRED IMAGES.

^A We console ourselves when we converse with our holy head. For what greater consolation can there be for a son than to hold discourse with a father, and that, too, such a one and so great, whose virtue many cities, regions, and islands celebrate with their proclamations? And such is my most dear father: even if the fruit be not like the tree, on account of the barrenness of my own insignificance; yet you are set before us as a rule of piety: not for us alone, but for all who wish to lead a pious life, to strive for the perfection of virtue, and to be spurred on toward a prosperous course. Since your holiness has long since requested of me that I explain how one ought to venerate the sacred image of Christ—not because you are ignorant of this, but wishing by this means to stir up my silent speech—at that time it was not granted to me to answer. But now, becoming mindful of it, I have deemed it right to fulfill what was commanded me by you, as far as it is possible with the assistance of your holy prayers, even if I have perhaps sufficiently spoken of this same matter elsewhere.

Everything artificial that is an image is a likeness of that of which it is the image, and contains in itself the form of its ^B

^A exemplar, by way of imitation, as the great Dionysius, who is well-versed in divine things, says: truth in the likeness, the exemplar in the image, the one in the other, except only for the difference in substance. Therefore, he who venerates the image, venerates him whom the image securely displays. For he does not venerate the substance of the image, but the one who is depicted in it; nor yet does he divide the image from the exemplar in terms of the identity of the veneration. For the image is the same as the exemplar in its likeness. Thus, therefore, does the great Basil also say: that the image of the king is also called king, and there are not two kings. For neither is the power divided, nor is the glory separated. For just as the authority and power that rules over us is one, so also the doxology from us is one, and not many. Because the honor of the image passes on to the prototype. And if it passes on to the prototype, it is not one honor and another, but one and the same honor of veneration; just as that which is venerated is one, even if it be in the image as a prototype.

But another thing is a natural image, and another is one by imitation. The former, indeed, has ^B not a natural difference from its cause, but a hypostatic one, as the Son is to the Father; for one is the hypostasis of the Son, and another is that of the Father, but one essence, clearly. But the latter, conversely, has a natural difference, but not a hypostatic one; as the image of Christ is to Christ. For one is the nature of the painted material, and another is that of Christ; yet it is not another hypostasis, but one and the same of Christ, even when depicted in the image. The same divine Basil again says: "What, therefore, is an image here by way of imitation, that is the Son there by nature; and just as in artificial objects the likeness is according to the form, so in the divine and simple nature, the union is according to the communion of the Godhead." See, therefore, the difference, that in the case of the natural image and its cause, namely the ^C Son and the Father, since the nature is one, the veneration is also one according to the identity of nature, and not of the hypostasis; since we confess one nature, and one veneration and doxology of the holy Trinity, but three hypostases, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But in the case of the imitative image and its archetype, namely Christ and the image of Christ, since there is one hypostasis of Christ, there is one veneration here too, clearly according to the identity of the one hypostasis, not according to the difference of the natures of Christ and the image. But if, as we speak of the identity of the hypostasis, we were to say also that it is according to the identity of the nature that the veneration of the image is one with respect to the prototype, we no longer recognize the difference between the image and the thing depicted; but it will be as one ^D hypostasis, so also one nature of the image of Christ and of Christ himself; and we fall into Greek polytheism, deifying all material characterized as the image of Christ. And thence we shall open the tongue for the iconoclasts to accuse us, who venerate one God in three hypostases, of venerating and worshipping many gods, not without cause. But if neither, again, according to the identity of the

^A nature, anyone were to say that the veneration of the image toward the archetype exists, evidently he ^B has fractured the power and divided the glory of the archetype from the image; and thus, by worshipping the image of Christ, he is clearly an idolater, introducing not one, but two acts of worship. This is what the iconoclasts hasten to demonstrate, undermining thereby, as is likely, that Christ is circumscribed by flesh, and being convicted of impiety before those on earth, just like those who claimed that God dwelt among men only in appearance and phantasy. But let the impiety of both be cast equally into its own darkness. The true faith of Christians, as has been said before, as it confesses one worship in the holy Trinity because of the communion of the Godhead, so also in the image of Christ it confesses one and the same worship according to the identity of the person of Christ. For it is the same that is worshipped, even if it be inscribed. For it would not be an image if it were separated and divided in honor from the prototype, but it would happen to be a thing with a separate hypostasis. And thus, finally, even in the worship of the image of Christ, the worship and glorification of the all-hymned and blessed Trinity is one. ^C But someone might perhaps say this: "Therefore, since the worship is latria, it results that the image of Christ is worshipped with latria together with the holy Trinity." But such a one seems ignorant of the difference in worship; for we worship the saints, but we do not accord to them the cult of latria; and we worship rulers according to the law of God, but we do not accord latria even to them. Then let him learn again that it is not the substance of the image that receives worship—for this is absurd and appropriate to those who serve the creature rather than the Creator—but Christ worshipped in the image, the iconic material remaining utterly unparticipant of that which is being worshipped in it, namely Christ within the likeness, which is proper to the person of Christ and distinct from the material, even if it be seen within it. And it seems to me to resemble the example of a mirror; for there too the face of the one looking is, as it were, outlined; and the likeness remains outside the material; and even if one should seem to embrace his own image there, he does not embrace the material; for he does not approach it for the sake of the material, but for his own likeness depicted in it; wherefore also he approached the material. ^D Indeed, upon the removal of the mirror, the image departed with it, as if having no share in the material of the mirror; just so, then, and in the case of the iconic material: for when the likeness seen in it, upon which the worship centers, has disappeared, the material remains unworshipped, as having no share in that likeness. Let there be, again, a ring engraved with a royal image; then let it be impressed in wax, in pitch, in clay; the seal, indeed, will be one and the same, unchanging in both materials; yet these differ from one another; but would the sign not remain entirely the same, even in different materials, because when

communicates not with those things, but remains in the ring, the idea itself separated from those things. Thus, therefore, the likeness of Christ, in whatever matter it may be expressed, in no way communicates with the matter in which it is perceived, remaining in the person of Christ Himself, to whom indeed it belongs. And to speak in a word, the cult of latria is by no means exhibited to the image of Christ, but to Christ who is worshipped in it; and it is necessary to venerate the image according to the identity of the person of Christ, however much its substance may differ. ^A And in this way, as it seems to me, the veneration of the image of Christ is confirmed by the doctrine and instruction of the holy Fathers: which if it be taken away, the economy of Christ itself is likewise taken away; and if the image is not worshipped, the veneration of Christ Himself is likewise taken away. ^B Therefore, holy Father, it is necessary to approach it with fear and reverence, and to render honor to it, as that honor pertaining to Christ Himself; and it must be held for certain that divine grace supervenes upon it, and through it all who approach with faith are sanctified. Since, just as in the type of the life-giving cross, so also in the image of the most holy Mother of God, and of other saints, every sacred cult of images, through those who are represented in them, reaches up to God. And for this reason, one and the same is the latreutic veneration of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, on account of which a different cult is shown to others, and to which all other veneration tends. ^C But if I have said anything wrongly through ignorance, whether less or more than is fitting, do you, as a good Father, not hesitate to correct, supply, or remove it: praying again and again for my humility, that I may think what is right, and that my speech may be free from offense, and my deeds from reproach.

II. ORATIONS.

PREFACE OF JOANNES LÆVINEIUS, CANON.

I do not think you expect, friendly reader, that I should splendidly and at length commend to you an author who, even by the reading of these our Catecheses, if I mention nothing else, will easily betray himself, as the saying goes, by his own judgment—a most sharp defender of the adoration of sacred images (as will clearly appear from the sermon), a unique defender of ecclesiastical and monastic dignity, a most severe censor of morals (especially among his own), a most courageous contemner of death and of Christian crises—just as a certain monk Michael, whose book on the Life of Theodore (which we read) exists in the Vatican—more copious than it is learned—relates that he was three times proscribed and banished to the islands by the most cruel emperors, who, having followed (after Constantine Copronymus, under whom he was born in Constantinople, his father being Photinus, quaestor of the royal revenues, and his mother Theoctiste, the sister of Lord Plato, so often praised in this work) many iconoclasts, [had him] most atrociously and not infrequently beaten with lashes. Indeed, there exists in our codex a final epigram, so-called, in which it is handed down that he died