Second refutation of the iconoclasts

Some of the most important works in defense of icon veneration and refutation of the heresy of iconoclasm are 3 short treatises by St. Theodore Studite "Refutations of the Iconoclasts" ("Antirrhetics"). The treatise “The Second Refutation of the Iconoclasts” (49 chapters, after 815) takes the form of a dialogue between an iconoclast and an Orthodox Christian. The central theme is a refutation of the iconoclast argument that the description of Christ is possible, but the worship of His icon is impossible. The author also raises questions such as the relationship between the prototype and the image, the Cross and the icon, the relationship between veneration and worship. St. Theodore explains the difference between worship, which is due only to God as Creator and Ruler, and veneration, which is given to the image not as a deity, but as a symbol, but at the same time relates to the prototype. An icon is not an idol because it does not replace God, but only points to Him. The author consistently proves that denying the possibility of depicting Christ leads to denying the truth of His incarnation. If God the Word really took on flesh, becoming a man, then He can and should be depicted in this flesh. The icon of Christ is a testimony to His true humanity. The monk emphasizes that through the Incarnation of Christ, all matter was sanctified and became capable of being a bearer of grace. The icon, being a material image, does not thereby become unclean or idolatrous, but, on the contrary, through its connection with the prototype it becomes a means of grace-filled communication with the spiritual world and saints. In his argumentation, the author refers to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church. He uses various logical techniques and understandable analogies (for example, the relation to a portrait of an earthly king or to a seal). * Title of the work in Greek: Αόγοι αντιρρητικοί τρεις κατα εικονομάχων. * Title of the work in Latin: Antirrhetici adversus iconomachos. The word of truth, being unchangeable and unshakable by its nature, is usually not subject to either division of opinions or changes in time, for it always affirms and honors the same thing, as free from any decrease or addition. The word of lies, on the contrary, being changeable and subject to a countless variety of opinions, changing from one to another, now honors one thing, at another time praises another, the opposite, never and in no case stands on the same thing, subject to fluctuations of change and transformation. The same is the attack of the iconoclasts: they either blasphemously call the image of our Lord Jesus Christ an idol of error, or they do not say this, but (assert) that painting is a wonderful thing, but it has the meaning of interpretation and remembrance, and not worship; and therefore they reserve a place for the icon of Christ on high places, fearing that if it were placed in lower places and given a reason for worship, it might become the cause of idolatry. How not to be surprised at their intelligence, which does not understand, however, that the very fear of placing an image below and bowing to it has its reason in the obvious recognition of idols. For them, according to a seemingly infallible opinion, it is not enough to simply remove the images cast down to the ground, which, however, must be on high - because, as it is written in the book of Kings, all the other (kings) did not please God, except David, Hezekiah and Josiah, who, along with what was on earth, rejected the sublime. Thus, if they had chosen what, in their opinion, was completely pleasing to God, or rather, if they had (preferred) to completely follow such (their) wicked opinion, then there would not have been (a single) sacred building left under heaven, which they would not have deprived of decorations, and equally (there would not have been) sacred objects with images in them, which they would not have burned. But I have already said enough about this, as far as the poverty of my talents allowed me, and I resolved their absurd objections and evidence of the opposite meaning. And now, in view of the fact that they, forced by our evidence, agree that our Lord Jesus Christ can be depicted on icons, but (they claim) that the image dedicated to Him should not be worshiped, and by this they try to confuse the minds of the simple-minded, as if they are serving with their worship a creature other than the Creator; then, with the help of God, I will have a real weak speech about this - with the participation of two persons: I mean an Orthodox and an iconoclast, so that in this way the meaning of what is being said will be more understandable and clearer. 1. Orthodox. Do you acknowledge that the Son and Word of the Father, after being made flesh, can be described according to the flesh, but by the nature of the Divinity remains indescribable? Heretic. I agree. How can one not admit it, since this is proclaimed by the theologian fathers. So, Gregory says: “described in body, indescribable in spirit.” Athanasius says: “like God, He is invisibly contemplated by the mind, and truly exists; as a person, visibly touches, and is actually present.” 2. Orthodox. Don’t you admit, at the same time, that this description, or image of Christ, should be given worship? Heretic. Of course not, because none of the God-bearing (fathers) said this. But I will ask you in return, you answer me: where in the Old and New Testaments is it written that an icon should be venerated? 3. Orthodox. Everywhere where it is written that one should worship its prototype. Heretic. “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” (Matt. 4:10; cf. Deut. 6:13). This is what is written. This is what is prescribed to be venerated, and not at all to the prototype, and especially not to the icon, as you say. 4. Orthodox. What you are talking about, most respected one, is not the doctrine of God (in Himself), regarding Whom it is impossible to observe resemblance and likeness, but an economy in which one can see a prototype and likeness, if only you recognize that the Word, having taken on flesh, became like us. Heretic. When Scripture says: “Worship the Lord thy God and serve Him alone,” does not the Word (of God) command us to worship the Father and the Son together? 5. Orthodox. Obviously. But the ancients were commanded to worship the Son as not yet clothed with flesh, for, according to the words (of Scripture), “No one has seen God anywhere” (John 1:18). But after He became flesh, He, unlimited, found himself within the limits of describability and became accessible to vision - intangible and invisible, He, in His bodily appearance, became subject to touch and vision. He, together with the Father, accepts worship, since He is God equal with Him: but, on the other hand, He accepts worship in His own image, of which He is the archetype, as having become a man similar to us in everything except sin. Heretic. That Christ is to be worshiped is most definitely spoken of in all the inspired Scriptures. For it says: “And let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6); but not (said) about the prototype and the image. 6. Orthodox. When it is written about Christ: “and let all the angels of God worship Him,” what else can be understood if not that here we are talking about a prototype? After He became a man without ceasing to be God (and every man is the prototype of his own image and would not be a man if he did not have a likeness in his own image), then it is obvious that Christ, having become like us in everything, is the prototype of His own image, although this is not written in certain words. Therefore, when you ask where it is written that one should worship the image of Christ, you will hear that (this is written everywhere) wherever it is written that one should worship Christ, since the likeness is inseparable from the prototype. Heretic. But since it is not written that Christ is the prototype of his own image, then this word is unacceptable, just as it is not accepted by our confession of faith. 7. Orthodox. But much of what is not written in the same terms has equal force with what is written, as proclaimed by the holy fathers. And the fact that the Son is consubstantial with the Father is not explained in the inspired Scripture, but later in the Fathers, as well as the fact that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Mother of the Lord is the Mother of God, and much more that would take a long time to list. That which should not be confessed is rejected by our true worship of God. The truths of faith were accepted into confession when necessity required it - for the overthrow of the rebel heresies. So, what is surprising if it is not written that Christ is the prototype of his own image? Now this must be said in view of the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy, when the truth itself has most convincingly shown this. If He is not the prototype of His own image, then He did not become incarnate; remaining, due to the immensity of the Divine, outside the outline. If He became incarnate and appeared like us, then why don’t you attribute to Him the same thing as every (other) person, according to His likeness? Heretic. Since Christ is God and man, he is not a simple (man) like one of the people like us; therefore it is naturally impious to say that He is the prototype of His own image. 8. Orthodox. The fact that Christ is not called a simple man, and His describability is not denied, is said by the fathers in agreement with us; but the fact that He is God and at the same time a man is not characteristic of any of our kind (people). That's why we are all called simple (people). Being described, Christ is the prototype of His own image, just as if He were one of people like us; and yet in this respect He is not a simple man. Heretic. I, of course, admit that God is describable, but I do not (admit) that He has the significance of a prototype. 9. Orthodox. But how could He be describable if He did not have the meaning of a prototype? After all, the very thing that is said to be describable is the prototype, because when producing an image of the thing being described (the object), what is meant is the very thing that is being described. Confessing that Christ is describable, you, although against your will, agree with the fact that He is the prototype of his own image, just as every person is the prototype of his own likeness; in this sense, the divine Basil says: “may Christ, the director of the competition, also be written on the image” 1 . Having said this, he definitely showed that Christ is the prototype of his own image, since everyone inscribed on the board is represented on the basis of the external appearance of the prototype. Heretic. What does the worship of the prototype have in common with (the worship of) the likeness? 10. Orthodox. The general thing is the same as (in relation to) the life-giving cross to its engraved image. Heretic. Where did you get this from? I cannot recognize you as a newly-minted legislator. 11. Orthodox. This is the opinion of two God-speaking (fathers). Thus, Dionysius the Areopagite says: “truth is in likeness, the prototype is in image, and one is in the other, except for the difference of essence.” And Basil the Great, in turn, says: “if someone carefully examines the royal image in the square and calls the one (depicted) on the board king, then he does not recognize two kings - the image and the one whose image it is; in the same way, if he, pointing to the image inscribed on the board, said: “this is the king,” then he would not have deprived the prototype of the name of the king; or rather, with this recognition he would confirm his respect for the king. For if the image, according to him, is a king, then, of course, it is all the more natural for the one who served as the reason for this image to be a king” 2. And again in another place St. Vasily says: “in every way, the created image, translated from the prototype to the substance, receives its likeness and reflects its form, thanks to the artist’s intention and the art of the hand. So the painter, the stone carver, the one working on a gold or copper statue, took the material, looked at the prototype, perceived the appearance of the object being examined and imprinted it on the substance” 3. Heretic. Although the fathers taught wisdom in this way, however, without a doubt, they did not say that the veneration of both is common. 12. Orthodox. If the divine Basil says that the recognition of similarity confirms the veneration of the prototype, then what else can it seem to you, if not that both (should be given) the same veneration, or worship? Heretic. Regarding veneration, I also agree, but not regarding worship, for (such) renaming comes from you, and not from the father. 13. Orthodox. What (do you understand) when you hear the words of Blessed Athanasius: “in the image of the king (observed) the appearance and external form, and in (the) king himself there is a similarity with what is (seen) in the image of the king, so that the one looking at the image sees the king in him; in turn, the one who sees the king recognizes that it is he (represented) in the image. Since the likeness does not differ (from the prototype), the image could say to someone who would like to see the king after the image: “I and the king are one; I am in him, and he is in me; and what you saw in me, you see the same in him; and what you see in him, you see the same in me. Therefore, he who worships an image worships the king in it, for the image is his image and form” 4. In the same way, I will add on my own behalf, he who worships the image of the cross worships the life-giving cross in it. For the image (of the cross) is its appearance and outline. Heretic. Leave in this case talking about the cross: - an invincible monument of victory against the devil. 14. Orthodox. And you leave talking here about the image of Christ. For He is the Savior of the world; For His sake, the cross, which was previously an instrument of death, became a symbol of incorruption after Christ was crucified on it. Heretic. But it is impossible for His image to take part in the worship of Christ and for it to be called by the same name as Christ. 15. Orthodox. Accept a similar objection from me. It is also not allowed for its image to take part in the worship of the life-giving cross and for it to be called the same as the life-giving tree. Heretic. Full of (to speak) absurdity! After all, there is one common worship of both; and by whatever name the life-giving tree is called, its image is also called by the same name, for both are crosses. 16. Orthodox. From you - my victory, since I say exactly the same thing. In exactly the same way, there is one common worship of Christ and His image, and by what name Christ is called, His own image is also called by the same name. After all, both are Christ, as the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers previously showed. And what is said about the prototype, the same can be said about His likeness, but in relation to the prototype this is said in the proper and main sense, and in relation to similarity - in the meaning only similar and not in its own. Heretic. In what sense are you saying this? I don't understand clearly yet. 17. Orthodox. The cross on which Christ was ascended is called in the exact sense a cross - both by the meaning of the name and by the nature of the animated tree. As for its image, it is called a cross only by the meaning of the name, and not by the nature of the animated tree; for this image consists either of some kind of wood, or of gold, or of silver, or of stone, or of some other material composition. And it receives participation in the name of the prototype, as well as in its veneration and worship; by nature it is completely alien to him. Therefore, whatever names the life-giving cross is called, its image is also called by the same names. If we called the cross the praise of the universe, then its image should also be called the praise of the universe. If we say that (the life-giving cross) is light and life, then in the same way its image should be called light and life. If we call (the life-giving cross) a flame for demons, then its image should also be called a flame for demons. And it is impossible to indicate any such designation of the prototype that would not also be used to designate the likeness. The same teaching applies to Christ and His image. Christ himself is called both God and man, both by the meaning of the name and by the nature of Divinity and humanity. As for His image, it is called Christ by the image of the name, and not by the nature of Divinity and humanity. In terms of quality, it is either a painting, or a various combination of mosaics, or (a work of) sculptural art, or it is made from gold, then from silver, or from some other material. And in relation to the name, the image is similar to the prototype, as well as in relation to honor and worship, but by nature it is completely separate from it. Therefore, whatever names Jesus Christ is called, His image is called the same. If we call Christ the Lord of glory, then His image is equally called the Lord of glory. If we call Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, then His image in exactly the same way is called the power of God and the wisdom of God. If we call Christ the Son of Man, then His image is called the Son of Man in exactly the same way. Therefore, since God the Word Himself says: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), His image could say the same thing through the inscription. In the same way, if Christ says: Every knee will worship me, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, then this could be said through the inscription and His image. Further, since Christ says: “I am ... the resurrection ... and the life” (John 14:6), - His image could say the same thing through the inscription. And no matter what names the Savior is designated in the inspired Scripture, (each of them) His image can be called. Heretic. The proof of identity is extensive, and you want to say nothing more than - similarity is the same as the prototype. However, where (it is said that) every tribe of heaven, earth and hell bowed or will bow to the image of Christ? 18. Orthodox. You should pay attention to what Athanasius, famous for his many victories, says. “In the image of the king, he says, (one can observe) the appearance and external form (of him), and in the king himself there is a similarity with what is seen in the image of the king.” And again: “the image could say: I and the king are one; I am in him, and he is in me; and what you saw in me, you see the same in him; and what you see in him, you see the same in me. Therefore, he who worships an image worships the king in it, for the image is his image and form.” And the divine Cyril, in turn, says: “if someone, looking at a beautifully drawn image, began to be surprised at the posture of the king and, having the opportunity to see in the image the same thing that is observed in the king himself, - with all this, he would strongly wish to see the king himself; that image could rightly tell him: he who sees me sees the king, And again: I and the king are one, as far as similarity and the most exact resemblance are concerned. And again (the image could say): I am in the king, and the king is in me, - according to the outline of the view, because the image perfectly represents its image, and this latter is preserved in it (i.e., in the king)” 5. You could understand that when worship is given to Christ, then His image is also worshiped, as if it were in Christ; and when worship is given to His image, then worship is given to Christ, for in him (i.e. in the image) the one worshiped (is precisely Christ). And if Christ, without a doubt, is worshiped by every tribe of heavenly, earthly and underworld, then it is clear that every tribe of heavenly, earthly and underworld undoubtedly (worships) His image, as being in Christ. Thus, the similarity of the prototype and the image is indicated only in relation to the name, and the sameness of worship is affirmed, and not the substance (the image and the nature of the prototype), which cannot receive participation in worship, although the one depicted in it (i.e., in the substance) is worshiped. To verify what has been said, it would be very good to confirm the speech with paternal testimony. Saint Sophronius, in his account of the miracles of Cyrus the Martyr and John, says literally the following. “Having arrived at a certain excellent church, its appearance inspiring awe and extremely majestic, its height reaching to the very heavens, and being inside it, we looked at the greatest and amazing icon representing in the middle the Lord Christ, painted in colors, on the left side - the Mother of Christ, our Lady Theotokos and the Ever-Virgin Mary, on the right side - John the Baptist and the Forerunner of the Savior, who from the womb he greeted Him with a leap, because even if he had begun to speak, being in the womb, he would not have been heard. On the icon we also saw some of the apostles and prophets (and) from the host of martyrs. With them were the martyrs Cyrus and John themselves. They stood before the image, fell at the feet of the Lord, kneeling, holding their heads on the ground and interceding for the recovery of the young man.” And a little later, he continues: “standing not far from the icon and being close to each other, (one of them) said: you see that the Lord does not want to grant you healing.” And even further: “and approaching the icon for the third time, they addressed the previously mentioned words; and when they prayed for a long time, fulfilling what was ordered to them, and exclaimed, “Christ, as a merciful one, took pity, bowed in agreement and said: give him the fulfillment of what he asks before the icon” 6. You see that the martyrs fell to the icon as to Christ Himself; From the icon, as from Christ Himself, a voice came out, promising (the fulfillment of) the request. What the martyrs worship, the same is, without a doubt, granted to the angels. Heretic. This is a theory and, although it is told by a saint, it does not have a dogmatic basis. 19. Orthodox. That this is a theory, I agree; however, it would not have been written down by the saint if it had not been fair. The dogmatic basis was presented to us earlier; Now, as an example, we have taken (the story) about the incident we saw. After all, examples are the essence and are called obvious evidence of what is being said. In this case, Blessed Athanasius explains 7 something even more amazing, making it clear that everything related to likeness has such communication with the prototype that the suffering of the image of Christ is the suffering of Christ Himself. He says this: “Turn the eyes of your mind and look at this new sight. Once the Jews, having thrown to the ground the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, said: just as our fathers once mocked Him, so we will mock Him. And so, coming from everywhere, they began to spit in the face of the image of Christ, and hit the icon in the face, saying: what our fathers did to Him, we will do to His image. And again they said: how they mocked Him, and we will do the same. And so they committed countless abuses against the icon of the Lord, which we do not even dare to talk about. Then they say: We heard that they nailed His hands and feet; we will do the same with Him. And so they pierced the hands and feet of the icon of the Lord with nails. Having come into a state of rage, they again say: we heard that (our ancestors) gave Him vinegar and gall from a sponge; We will do the same to Him. And they did this by bringing a sponge filled with vinegar to the mouth of the image of the Lord. They say again: we learned that our ancestors beat Him on the head with a cane; we will do the same. And, taking a cane, they beat (with it) the head of the Lord. Finally, they say: we know for certain that (our ancestors) pierced His side with a spear; We won’t omit anything, but we’ll add this too. And, having ordered to bring a spear, they instructed one of their own to lift it and hit the rib of the image of the Lord. And when this happened, blood and water immediately flowed out of the icon in abundance.” Do you see the meaning of what is being said? I will not begin to talk about the healings that took place on those who ate what flowed from the rib. Heretic. The miracle was shown to the Jews, since signs happen to unbelievers, not to believers. 20. Orthodox. And I agree (with this). However, although signs are no longer performed, nevertheless the likeness receives worship in common with the prototype; as well as vice versa, the prototype (receives common worship) with the likeness, and both have the same worship, according to what is said regarding the life-giving cross and its (relief) image. Recognition of the image is recognition of the life-giving cross, as well as denial (the image is denial) of the life-giving cross. Understand accordingly regarding the image of Christ and Christ Himself. Heretic. This is well said and seems completely natural in relation to the divine cross and its (relief) image, and not in relation to Christ and His image. This is not a suitable example, because an icon must be compared with an icon and a relief image with a relief. 21. Orthodox. To confirm compliance, it is enough, most respected, what was clearly said earlier. But in turn, listen to a small question. What is higher and deserves more veneration - Christ or the cross? Heretic. It is obvious that it is Christ, since the cross is consecrated in Christ. 22. Orthodox. Is the image of Christ larger and more honorable than the (relief) image of the cross? Heretic. It is impossible for anyone who can even think a little to doubt (this), because (otherwise) the similarities would not differ according to the difference in the prototypes; the image of Christ is much more excellent than the image of the cross. 23. Orthodox. After the lesser and inferior in respect of honor has been rightly considered, it would be unreasonable to say that the greater and more honorable should not be rightly and well appreciated. What, for example, is closer to the image of Christ if not the image of the cross, since the icon has the same meaning as the relief image? After all, due to the inaccurate use of words, we also call its relief image (ἐκτύπωμα) the icon (εἰκών) of the life-giving cross, as well as the relief image (ἐκτύπωμα) of Christ, we call His icon (εἰκόνα). For ἡ εἰκών in word production means τὸ ἐοικός; ἐοικός means similar; the same thing is thought, called, and seen both in the icon and in the convex image. Heretic. Yes, I agree with this too. But still you should compare icon with icon and raised image with relief, although you say that the first has the same meaning as the second. 24. Orthodox. This is shown quite clearly by the God-bearing fathers, if you would pay attention. If this was not on your part, then here we will listen to Saint Basil 8, enlightening the minds (of the listeners). “A king,” he says, is also called the image of a king, and (however) not two kings; neither his kingdom is divided, nor his glory divided. Just as the power and power that dominates us is one, so the praise we give is one, and not many.” So, the honor of the image goes to the prototype. And that this example fits the image of Christ - who will dispute? In the same way, we can say that the image of Christ is also called Christ, and (however) not two Christs. And in this case, neither the power is cut, nor the glory is divided, and in the same way the honor of the image passes to the Archetype. Heretic. The God-bearing Father in no way should have attributed the example of the king to the image of Christ, but to Christ Himself, the invisible image of God and the Father. 25. Orthodox. What is surprising is that whereas in the God-bearing father the artificial image is taken to express, as I believe, the natural and unchangeable identity of the Father and the Son, this is understood in our opinion in relation not to the natural, but to the artificial image of Christ. There the artificial image is compared with the natural, here the artificial (image) is compared with the artificial. And what and how great is the difference? But, however, the God-bearing father did not find any other, more suitable example, and took (the example of) the king. Moreover, in relation to the artificial image of the true King Christ, it is appropriate for us to take the image of some king. After all, it is as close to the image of Christ as it surpasses all subjects in terms of honor, since he himself, who rules on earth, bears - by name - the image of the dignity of the true King Christ. For the Scripture says: “There is power given to you from the Lord, and strength from the Most High, who will finish your deeds and test your thoughts: for the destruction of His kingdom, do not judge the right” (Wisdom 6:3-4). Heretic. Although the divine Basil says that the honor of the image passes to the prototype, he does not mean an artificial, but a natural (image) - that is, (he speaks about the image) of the Son in relation to the Father - and, of course, with full right. 26. Orthodox. Stop, friend! (The Holy Father) did not say: (Christ) is called God and the image of the invisible Father, and (however) not two gods - which, of course, is true; but since he used the example of a king to present the theological dogma, saying that the image of a king is also called a king - and (however) not two kings - he drew the conclusion consistently. Therefore, having said that the honor of the image passes to the prototype, he adds: what is here an image by imitation, there is a Son by nature, so that the king is taken as a prototype in relation to his image, and not the Father in relation to His Son, or vice versa. What is here by nature is the Son, there by imitation is an image. To this we can add that the prototype and likeness are also characteristic of those like us (people); the same is shown in relation to Christ and His image. We confess that He became a man like us, although the same is God. That is why it can be said about any king in general: the honor of the image passes to the prototype. Heretic. But honor is not considered by the God-bearing fathers to be completely (the same as) worship, for one thing is honor, and another thing is worship. 27. Orthodox. But how can you agree that neither power is split, nor glory is divided - in relation to the prototype to the likeness, if you do not recognize that both are characterized by the same worship, for power and glory are akin and (from them) honor and worship are inseparable. They differ in name, but in dignity they have equal meaning. Heretic. (St. Basil) said that honor passes, not worship. And I honor the icon of Christ, placing it on a dais, but I do not worship, as it is said. 28. Orthodox. I need to ask one thing first. Where do you get the idea that the icon of Christ should be venerated when it is in an elevated place? At St. Vasily - not so, but he speaks generally about veneration - so your opinion disappears. Secondly, how can something be revered which, at the same time, is not worshiped - do we see it above or below? At the very least, we honor the life-giving cross and worship (it) both when it appears above and when we see it below. So in our example, the king (we honor) is both above and visible below; in the same way as a military commander, and a region commander, as well as a master and a teacher. But our thought should be transferred to divine words. What do you imagine when (Scripture) says: “Thou art worthy, O Lord and our holy God, to receive glory and honor and power” (Apoc. 4:11)? And again: “The Lamb who was slain is worthy to receive power and wealth, and wisdom and strength, and honor, and glory and blessing” (Apoc. 5:12). And again: “To him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” Amen (Apoc. 5:13). And again: “Blessing and glory and wisdom and praise and honor and strength and strength be to our God forever and ever. Amen" (Apoc. 7:12). In all these (places) worship is not mentioned anywhere; but is it possible that, due to the fact that it is not indicated, we will refuse to worship the Lamb that was slain, that is, our God and Savior? Or perhaps it is clear that everything that belongs to the same order is of equal power? Therefore, he who is worthy of honor is worthy of worship, worthy of strength is worthy of strength, worthy of blessing is worthy of glory; and everything else is declared to be mutually dependent. So, if you refuse to worship the image of the prototype, then, obviously, you will refuse honor, and strength, and glory; but when there is one property, it is impossible that others of equal value should not exist together. Accept another thought as well. “Whoever does not honor the Son,” says Scripture, “does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). What do you think? Is the honor given to the Father and the Son alien to worship? But it’s unreasonable to even think about it. Again the God of all (existing) speaks through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, I lay... in... Zion the Stone... is the cornerstone, honest” (Is. 28:16). So, will we really deprive the Son of God of worship, in view of what is not added: and the one worshiped. And again (says) Scripture: “Honor your father and your mother, that good may come to you, and that you may live long on earth” (Ex. 20:12). And again: “who honors his father, he will cleanse his sins: and as he treasures, he glorifies his mother” (Sir. 3:3-4). So, does God really not command here to bow to parents, but only to honor them? Such an assumption is filled with much foolishness. And the great Apostle (says): “Fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). Does the Apostle command only to honor (the king) or, at the same time, to give him worship? Who among sensible people will not understand this? But when I hear the words of the priest: for all glory, honor and worship are due to You, I understand that honor and worship are of the same order and the same meaning. Likewise, when the divine Basil says that the honor of the image passes to the prototype, he at the same time silently, in agreement with Blessed Athanasius, announced that the worship (rendered) to the image passes to the prototype. Heretic. Let a proof be presented, drawn up on the basis of various paternal testimonies, and then it can be more convincing to the listeners. 29. Orthodox. Blessed John, from whose lips golden words flow, says the following: “As you did with his name, so did you with his image; many inscribed this holy image on the stones of rings, and on glasses, and on bowls, and on the walls of living quarters, and generally everywhere - so that they could not only hear this name, but also see his physical image everywhere and have, as it were, double consolation in separation from him” 9. Heretic. May I ask whose picture this is? 30. Orthodox. Meletius, primate of the Antiochian Church. Heretic. Blessed John called the image holy, not venerated; for not in all cases what is holy is also what is worshiped. Thus, the holy apostle in one place says: “having the first tabernacle justify the service, it is holy for men: for the first tabernacle was built, in it was a lamp and a table and an offering of bread, which is said to be holy. After the second veil, the tabernacle is said to be the holy of holies, having a censer in gold, and the ark of the covenant is shrouded everywhere in gold, in which there is a vase of gold containing manna, and Aaron’s vegetated rod, and the tablets of the covenant; And the cherubs of glory that overshadow the altar are above him: let us not fly now to speak in detail about them” (Heb. 9:1-5). Although all this is called holy, the holy apostle does not teach that it is also worshiped. 31. Orthodox. The holy apostle, having called the mentioned (objects) holy, at the same time, in relation to his brief expression, called them venerated. But there is no need to say much about this, in view of the more extensive explanation (made by me). Now answer me this question. What do you call the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? Heretic. Of course, saints, because it is about them that the celebrant proclaims: Holy to saints. 32. Orthodox. But you, of course, consider them also worshiped? Heretic. Who could reach such an impious opinion as not to recognize the Body and Blood of Christ as holy and worshiped together? 33. Orthodox. Are you not contradicting yourself when you said earlier that not in all cases the holy is (at the same time) the worshiped, while you again affirm what you previously rejected? Heretic. But my talk was not about the sacrament, since everyone agrees regarding it, as was said before. 34. Orthodox. How do you think about the Gospel, which is called holy - is it both unworshipable and unworshipable? Likewise, about the image of the life-giving cross and about all the sacred accessories of the church? Heretic. These objects are both holy and worshiped. But the image (icon) of the saint is much inferior to them in holiness. Therefore, although the image is called holy, it is not worshiped in all cases. 35. Orthodox. And I agree that in terms of holiness, the image of a saint is far removed from those sacred objects that are called the “holy of holies.” However, everything that is holy is and is worshiped together, although one is inferior to the other, perhaps, in holiness and worship; what is completely unworshipable is completely devoid of holiness. You show me where and when something was called holy, and at the same time was not worshiped. Heretic. I presented earlier the apostolic words about the holy (subjects) regarding which it is said in the law - to which you promised to return. 36. Orthodox. First, I will say this: everything that the law says, it says to those who are under the law, and it is not at all necessary to attribute the ancient decrees to those who are under grace, since, otherwise, we will have to keep the Sabbath, and accept circumcision, and follow many things that are unfavorable for us, which only meant the markings of the shadow. After all, the law has only a shadow, but not the very image of things, as the apostle says. Secondly, it can be proven that what is called holy in the law is also called venerated. If the cherub is called the cherub of glory, then glory is of the same order as honor, and honor is of the same order as worship; it is clear that what is glorified is holy, and what is holy is also what is worshiped, even if you do not want to admit it. Heretic. Through some conclusion and stretching, you skillfully show that according to the Old Testament, the holy is (at the same time) and the worshiped; but this does not follow from undoubted evidence. 37. Orthodox. Let us listen to the most important fathers. Gregory the Theologian in one of his words says this: “I know (what happened) to the priest Eli, and a little after him to Uzzah. One suffered punishment for the iniquity of his sons, when during sacrifices they dared to prematurely choose the best from the cauldrons, despite the fact that the father not only did not approve of their wickedness, but often reproached them (1 Samuel 2:13-14). The other (was punished) only because he touched the ark, carried away by the calf, and although he saved the ark, he himself died (2 Samuel 6, 6-7), since God protected the sanctity of the ark.” And again in the same word, Gregory continues: “It was all the more impossible to decide to enter the Holy of Holies often, where one could enter alone and once a year; much less did anyone dare to stretch out their gaze or touch the veil, or the purificatory, or the ark, or the cherubim.” And Basil the Great says regarding this: “something happened near God’s ark of the holy covenant that had never been heard of before: that same (ark), which was not allowed to be touched either by the Israelis, or even by the priests themselves, or in general (by anyone), which could not be in any random place, was at other times transferred from place to place and placed in churches of idols, instead of the church saints (1 Samuel 4, 1 Kings 5, 1 Samuel 6). Heretic. So, it is true that the holy is at the same time worthy of veneration, but the fathers do not say that it deserves worship. 38. Orthodox. But how could something holy and revered be excluded from worship? The Divine Apostle says in Acts: “while passing through and observing your celebrations, I also found a church, which was not stored for an unknown God” (Acts 17:23). It is clear that objects of veneration are at the same time objects of worship. And the king, in turn, is called “Sebastom” (σεβαστός) or “Augustus,” that is, worthy of veneration. “And to Paul,” says (Scripture), “I will give him the name of being to be until the judgment of Augustus” (Acts 25:21). And a little lower: “having realized that he had made him nothing worthy of death, I will also call him Sebaste and send him to judge” (Acts 25:25). Do you understand that what is revered is at the same time worshiped? Not a single prudent person cannot say that although the king is revered, he should not be worshiped. And the previous speech that no one except the priest is allowed to look at or touch the previously mentioned sacred (objects) testifies to their great advantage in terms of honor. And if the ark of God performed signs and wonders over Uzzah and the foreigners (Philistines) who took him, then how can one not recognize both the cherubim and all other objects that are spoken of in connection (speech) by the apostle as full of all glory, honor and worship? In the same way, the fathers of the sixth holy ecumenical council, in the sacred rules they compiled, say the following: “On some images of honest icons, the finger of the Forerunner indicates a lamb, which is accepted as the image of grace, through the law indicating to us the true Lamb, Christ our God. While we honor the ancient images and canopies dedicated to the church as signs and foretellings of truth, we prefer grace and truth, accepting it as the fulfillment of the law. So, in order that through works of art the perfect would be depicted before the eyes of all, we determine that from now on the image of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, should be represented on icons in human form, instead of the ancient lamb. Cognizing through this the height of the humility of God the Word, we are also brought to the recollection of His life in the flesh, His suffering, saving death and the redemption of the world that was thus accomplished” 10. You see that the fathers called the ancient images and shadows worshiped, using the word “honoring” (κατασπαζόμενοι). After all, “honor” (ἀσπάζεσθαι) means bowing, hugging, kissing. And Theodore, Archbishop of Antioch, in his synodik states the same thing - “against those who oppose heresy, they say that one should not venerate the icons of saints, as if they were made by hand, and it is unreasonable, or better yet, wickedly, to call them idols; Let such know that the cherubim, and the purification, and the ark, and the rod, and the table, which the divine Moses arranged, were made by hands, and yet they were worshiped. On the other hand, divine Scripture condemns those who worship statues.” Heretic. Why did Hezekiah crush the copper serpent? For it is written: “And do what is right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father David did according to all. Destroy that high one, and crush all the churches, and uproot the oak groves, and the copper serpent that Moses created, as even until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it” (2 Kings 18:3-4). 39. Orthodox. Because the copper serpent was not one of the sacred objects listed by the apostle. Gregory the Theologian says about him: “the copper serpent was hung against the wounding serpents, not as an image of the One who suffered for us, but as an image of the opposite, and he saves those who look at him - not out of faith that he lives, but because the one who was deposed - as he was worthy - was (himself) killed and kills with him the forces under his power. And what is the appropriate inscription on the coffin (epitaph) for him from us? “Where are you, death, the sting? Where are you, hell, victory” (1 Cor. 15:55)? You have been deposed by the cross, put to death by the Giver of Life, lifeless, dead, motionless, inactive, and although you retain the image of a serpent, you are nevertheless put on the pillory” 11. And it is natural that the copper serpent was crushed, since the Israelites performed incense before it. Whose prototype should not be worshiped, his likeness should be rejected. Nevertheless, the shrines of the tabernacle were the plans of service in the spirit, (as) the God-bearing Cyril shows. Heretic. I am convinced that the passages cited actually contain a favorable (for the veneration of icons) meaning; but since the fathers you just cited refer to recent times, and not from (the number of) ancient fathers, they are unacceptable as evidence. 40. Orthodox. If what they said did not agree (with the words) of Vasily and other God-bearing fathers, then neither I nor any of the pious (i.e., Orthodox) would accept it. If this is consistent and almost identical (with what was said by the ancient fathers), then (should be accepted), although the mentioned (fathers) said (this) two hundred years ago; but if someone at the present time said the same thing, then he should be accepted into the Church of God and - in relation to the teaching of truth - should be numbered with the holy apostles themselves, and not only with the subsequent God-bearing (fathers). In view of this, accept also the “Active (chapters)” of the holy and glorious Maximus with many victories, in which he says: “Lords! Since the decision has been made, let the decree be executed, and whatever you order, I will follow you. And after that everyone stood up with joy and tears and performed worship (μετάνοιαν), and there was prayer. And each of them kissed the Holy Gospel, the venerable cross, the icon of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, as well as the icon of our Lady, the Most Holy Theotokos, who gave birth to Him, placing their own hands to confirm what was said.” I will not say more, so that the word does not turn out to be boring, since there is a great deal of evidence about the veneration of honest icons, both ancient and recent, if we only wish to reveal them. Heretic. And I have many testimonies from ancient and recent times; but they speak against the erection of icons and the worship (of them). 41. Orthodox. If there was an objection to the erection of an icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, then you should have provided such evidence. But since you have accepted the pictorial image and deny only worship, then why do you hesitate again, moving from one thing to another - which is already a property of lies? Heretic. If it is recognized that our Lord Jesus Christ is describable, then only before suffering, and not after the resurrection. The Apostle in one place says this: “even though we understood according to the flesh of Christ, but now we understand no one” (2 Cor. 5:16). In turn, Gregory the Theologian says: “He (the Lamb of God) was perfect not only in Divinity, more perfect than which there is nothing, but also in the perceived (nature), which was anointed by the Divine, became the same as the Anointed One and, I dare say, equal to God (ὁμόθεον)" 12. If the perceived flesh (is called) equal to God, then how can it, united with the incorruptibility of the Divine, be described? 42. Orthodox. But you, at least, accepted that Christ was describable before His suffering, and in such a description of His image, worship is also given. Heretic. Even if I accepted this and did not object, what conclusion do you draw from this? 43. Orthodox. Of course, the evidence that you proposed to bring does not seem to accept the describability of Christ either before suffering or after the resurrection; and on the other hand, although Christ is indescribable, His icon can remain on top without worshiping it. And why do you cite in your defense such provisions that half testify against you? It's time for you to look for evidence that completely agrees with your opinion. But we can describe Christ even after the resurrection. Listen to how He says to his disciples when, after the resurrection, they thought they saw him as a spirit: “See with my hands and my nose that I myself am” (Luke 24:39). If (Christ) said that He who lived with them before suffering and whom they saw after the resurrection is the same; it is clear that just as before His suffering He was describable, so after His resurrection He was subject to description, because He did not lose the properties of human nature. For, most venerable, what kind of hands and feet did He show? How did He command that He, who has flesh and bones, be touched? What kind of food did He eat? So, it is necessary that He who has all this should be describable, or; if He was not describable, then that means He was a spirit, as the apostles then assumed? Heretic. Although it is said that Christ had this too, but, of course, not in the same way as we have; therefore He is indescribable. 44. Orthodox. If Christ had this differently from us, then we cannot believe that He was like us. If the second is true, then how can one not believe the first? Or, perhaps, do you recognize that in Christ there were signs of certain actions, which in Him are called members, and do not recognize the truth of the things themselves - which is accepted in the doctrine of God (in Himself)? For the divine Basil says: “Many human images are attributed to God; and yet, as a result of this, we do not conclude that God is a man” 13. And a little later: “Hearing about the hands of God, understand His creative power, hearing about the ear, understand His ability to hear, hearing about the eyes, understand the insight of God, hearing about the wings, understand the protection of God, and understand everything else in the same way.” But if you accept in the same way (the testimony of the members of the body of the risen Christ), then you will need to admit that our Lord Jesus Christ was not a man. If He became (man) - as was in reality - then believe that even after the resurrection He had flesh and bones in the true sense. Heretic. After the resurrection, the Lord revealed Himself to the apostles using means of condescension: although He had the properties of a body, it was not in a rough form or in a specific outline. Therefore He was visible among them when the doors were closed, and again became invisible to them. 45. Orthodox. If you admit that Christ after the resurrection became indescribable, due to the fact that he was outside (the boundaries of) gross materiality, then you will have to admit that He did not appear to the apostles. If it was visible, then it was and can be described. Everything that is subject to the sense of sight must also be subject to outline - this must especially be said about the one who has arms and legs, flesh and bones - is subject to touch and is found together with others. Heretic. The apostles saw the Lord with purified eyes, with which it is impossible for us to see. 46. ​​Orthodox. But what did the Lord say to Thomas? “For when you saw Me, you believed: you have not seen bliss and yet believed” (John 20:29). So, just as the apostles saw Christ and passed it on, both before suffering and after the resurrection, so we accepted it, and so we portray Christ. After all, the apostles did not tell us that with the eyes with which they saw, it is impossible for us to see. Likewise, before the suffering, when the apostles had already begun to drown in the boat, the Lord suddenly appeared walking on the sea - as was unusual for human nature. The unstable water, as the divine Dionysius says, withstanding the weight of material and earthly feet, did not part, but was supported by supernatural power so that it did not spill. In the same way, even before suffering, Christ, when He wanted, manifested deeds that were above nature. What was not subject to (His) power when He willed? Then, even after the resurrection, being outside of gross materiality, He, when He desired, revealed properties that seemed to correspond to gross flesh: He was both visible and tangible, and spoke; and all this is the property of undoubted describability. Heretic. How can we understand the apostolic saying that says: “Even though we understood according to the flesh of Christ, now we understand no one” (2 Cor. 5:16)? 47. Orthodox. Firstly, we learn from the Apostle himself that we have the same body with Christ and are partners with Him, and, without a doubt, due to the fact that we have been awarded such grace, we have not ceased to be describable. If, in your opinion, Christ after the resurrection was indescribable, then we, as having the same body with Him, should be indescribable. Then, cocorporeality must be considered in connection with godlikeness. And it does not follow from this that Christ is indescribable, just as (this cannot be concluded) about us from the fact that we are co-corporeal with Him. Next, listen to Gregory the Theologian, who says: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). For even now He intercedes for my salvation as a man [because He remains with the body that He has assumed], until by the power of (His) incarnation He makes me God - although He is no longer known in the flesh - I mean carnal infirmities and (all) ours, except sin. Do you see that Christ still remains with the body that he took on? And the fact that He is not known by the flesh (St. Gregory) said about the infirmities of the flesh and about everything except sin, and not about the fact that He is indescribable, as you claimed. For he (Gregory the Theologian) says: “described by the body, indescribable by the spirit,” asserting this not about a limited time, but unconditionally about eternity. And in another place he says this: “In what sense (should it be understood) that He was both tangible after the resurrection and will once be visible to those who killed Him? - The Deity itself is invisible. But He will come with flesh, in my opinion, the same One Who appeared to the disciples on the mountain, or as He showed Himself to them when the Divinity conquered the carnal nature, although It was revealed before the resurrection” 14. Heretic. What will happen if I present new testimonies of the Holy Fathers? How will you resolve them, since they completely prohibit erecting an icon of the Lord, the Mother of God or any of the saints? 48. Orthodox. This is not the testimony of saints, but of those unjustly ranked among them or heretics; otherwise they would agree with the truth and with the God-bearing fathers. Heretic. Among them is Epiphanius, outstanding and famous among the saints. 49. Orthodox. We know the saint and greatest in miracles, Epiphanius, in whose honor, after his death, his closest disciple Savin erected a church, painted with images of the entire gospel history. He would not have done this if he had not been of the same mind with his teacher. And how unshakable was Leontius, the interpreter of the speeches of the divine Epiphanius, the primate of the Church of Naples in the same Cyprus, in (veneration of) honest icons - this is most clearly evidenced by one word about him, which does not say anything discordant about the divine Epiphanius. Therefore, the writing against the icons is spurious and in no way belongs to the divine Epiphanius. However, listen now to Basil the Great, who says: “I will never agree to deviate (from the truth) because any of the people, having received any scripture, begins to boast about it: but even if it came down from heaven itself, and does not follow the sound word of faith, then I could not recognize him as an accomplice of the saints.” And Chrysostom also says that the divine Paul did not look at the dignity of persons when it came to truth. But let us better listen to Paul himself, who in one place proclaims: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, bring you more good news than he who brings good news to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). And again: “If anyone preaches the gospel to you any more than he eats, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). And that we from the apostles themselves accepted the custom, which continues to this day, of erecting an image of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God or each of the saints - lift your eyes around and look at the heavenly places - and (you will see) that (icons) are depicted in sacred houses and on the divine accessories in them, and they are necessarily given worship in those places for which they were made. If there were no dogmatic teachings and testimonies of God-bearing fathers to confirm (the custom) of erecting icons and venerating them, then the prevailing ancient tradition would be sufficient to certify the truth. And who will be able to object to this? And therefore you have fallen far from God and the court of Christ, as one who thinks in the same way as the Manichaeans and Valentinians, who heretically babbled that God dwelt on earth in appearance and in the imagination. Praise to St. Varlaam (conversation 18). Against Sabellius (conversation 27). Fourth speech against the Arians. Treasure about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, ch. 12. Acta Sanctorum (Bollandist ed.), January 3 (p. 1082). In the work “On the suffering of the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the Holy Spirit, to Amphilochius, ch. 18. Laudatory conversation about our holy father Meletius, ch. 1. Homily 45, for Holy Easter. Of course - during the Transfiguration. You might be interested in: