The first 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 "First Refutation of the Iconoclasts" (c. 814) takes the form of a dialogue between an iconoclast and an Orthodox Christian. The work is divided into 20 chapters. In the introduction, the author explains the reasons for writing the work. Each chapter then reveals the key themes of the controversy with the iconoclasts: the worship of the Holy Trinity (chapter 1), the impossibility of describing God (chapter 2), the Incarnation of God the Word as the basis for the image of Christ (chapter 3), the describability of Christ as a “simple man” (chapter 4), the comparison of idol and icon (chapters 5-7), the Cross of Christ (chapters 8-9), the Holy Gifts as an icon (chapter 10), the connection between the prototype and the image (chapters 11-12), the worship of the icon (chapters 13-19). The central argument of Rev. Theodore is the Christological justification for the icon: since the Son of God became incarnate, taking on human flesh, He became describable according to His human nature. This does not make His Divine nature describable, but emphasizes the reality of the Incarnation. The essay consistently refutes the main arguments of the iconoclasts: 1) the author clearly distinguishes the veneration of icons from pagan idolatry. Idols are images of false gods that are worshiped as gods. Icons are images of the true incarnate God and His saints, and their worship does not relate to the material, but to the prototype that is depicted on them, according to the principle of St. Basil the Great: “The honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype”; 2) prp. Theodore the Studite explains that the Old Testament prohibitions were temporary and directed against the image of the incomprehensible God in order to protect the Jewish people from polytheism. At the same time, God Himself commanded the creation of images (cherubim in the tabernacle, copper serpent), which proves that images in themselves are not evil; 3) the author claims that the material image does not humiliate Christ, but, on the contrary, glorifies His humility and condescension towards man through the Incarnation. He emphasizes the equivalence of sight and hearing as ways of knowing God: if the Word of God is perceived by hearing, then the visible image also has the right to exist and be worshiped; 4) the monk explains that the Eucharist is not an image, but the very Body and Blood of Christ, while an icon is an image that helps remembrance and spiritual ascent. The work ends with a dogmatic conclusion (chapter 20), which clearly formulates the Orthodox teaching on icons and condemns as heretical those positions that deny the describability of Christ by humanity, confuse the icon with an idol, or reject the worship of images. * Title of the work in Greek: Αόγοι αντιρρητικοί τρεις κατα εικονομάχων. * Title of the work in Latin: Antirrhetici adversus iconomachos. The time has come to speak, and not to remain silent, for anyone who is at all able, since a certain heresy has arisen, rebelling against the truth and instilling fear in the souls of the unconfirmed with idle talk. The one who speaks can achieve benefit in two respects: by revealing and collecting reliable evidence regarding the proposed subject, he can completely strengthen his own mind and help others, if, of course, anyone wants to listen. Therefore, although I am insufficient in both respects, however, encouraged by the prayers and encouragements of the fathers, I will try to offer my best reasoning. It is better, says Gregory the Theologian, to offer a feasible word than to completely ignore it, especially since in the Styliteutik 1 I compiled, I did not present this subject sufficiently. Now a word will be proposed regarding the opposition between our dogma and that of others, so that the counterfeit and deceptive image of wickedness, after a comparison and some selection has been made, will be presented completely apart from the pure and genuine character of the truth. And “The Lord will give the word to those who bring good news with much power” (Psalm 67:12). May it be permissible to apply these words to the unworthy me who is beginning my speech. 1. Orthodox. So, opponents, we Christians have one faith, service, and worship, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: although the Worshiped One is one in the nature of the Divinity, yet according to the hypostatic properties we understand three, as if in gradual succession. 2. Heretic. No, we do not have only one faith, since the object of your veneration seems to be widely worshiped due to the erection of icons, which passed through demonic evil into the Catholic Church from the Hellenic tradition of worshiping idols. After all, the Divinity is completely immense and indescribable, according to the concordant testimony of theologians. Orthodox. To the fact that the Divinity is immense and indescribable, I will add that It is limitless, limitless and has no external image; and in general, here we can add everything that, as is clear to everyone, is obtained by denying that It is not. “What communion of light with darkness,” is it appropriate to say here, or “what... agreement between Christ and Belial” (2 Cor. 6:14–15)? What do sacred icons and demon idols have in common? Shouldn’t it be, instead of what was produced, to honor its Cause and worship Her, and not to worship, for example, Astarte, Chemosh, the Sidonian abomination and the rest of the various gods of the Greeks? These latter, out of ignorance of demonic delusion, transferred worship from the God who created to the creatures, “serving, as it is written, the creatures more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25) and fell into one abyss of polytheism. We have one God, worshiped in the Trinity. Moreover, according to the teaching of theology, not only should we avoid trying to find a way to describe or understand (the Divinity) - this is an invention of the Hellenic invention - but we do not even know how God exists or what He is, since He knows about Himself only Himself. When the One of the Trinity, by His ineffable goodness, descended into human nature, becoming similar to us, then the union of the incompatible, the mixing of that which does not mix, took place - the indescribable with the describable, the unlimited with the limited, the infinite with the finite, the imageless with the outer image. All this is extraordinary. Therefore, Christ is depicted in the icon, and the invisible becomes visible; He who by His Divinity remains indescribable receives a natural description of His body, so that both (natures) may appear in reality as they are, and neither of the two is false, contrary to your imagination. 3. Heretic. But they say that the Godhead does not remain indescribable while Christ is represented in bodily form. Since the Divinity is united with the flesh in hypostatic unity, then, of necessity, the unlimited, indescribable Divinity is also depicted in the outline of the flesh. For it is impossible to separate one from the other without at the same time introducing an unpleasant division. Orthodox. According to your reasoning, the immensity cannot remain so at the moment when it is embraced - and yet Christ was wrapped in swaddling clothes; and the invisible cannot remain so when it is seen—and yet Christ was visible; and the intangible cannot remain intangible when it is tangible—and yet Christ was tangible; and the impassive cannot remain so when it suffers - and yet Christ was crucified; and what is immortal cannot remain so when it dies—and yet Christ was put to death. In the same way, imagine that Christ remains indescribable even at the time when He is depicted (on icons). The same are His properties: some are the properties of His indescribable nature, in which God is known; others - by the properties of His described nature, in which man is manifested. Both of these properties did not form anything new, and did not cease to be what they were and did not change from one to another - this would be a confusion that we avoid; but He remains one and the same in hypostasis, having within established boundaries the unconfused beginning of both of His natures. Therefore, either accept describability, or, if you do not agree, also reject visibility, tangibility and perceptibility and everything that belongs to the same category, and then you will find yourself not accepting even the fact that the Word was made flesh, and this is already the height of wickedness. 4. Heretic. It is extremely absurd to admit, they say, that Christ is a simple man; Descriptibility is a property of a simple person. Consequently, Christ is not a simple person, which is why he is completely indescribable. Orthodox. It seems to me that you are talking idle, repeatedly referring to the indescribability that is pleasant to you and refuting with reason what is incomprehensible to it, with evidence - the unprovable, with syllogisms - that which does not consist of syllogisms. However, let us begin to reason, and from this point of view you will be completely refuted. So, Christ was not born only as a simple man, and none of the pious can say that He took on any specific person, but the whole or entire nature, although contemplated in an individual person. For, otherwise, how could He be visible? According to His nature, He is visible and imaginable, tangible and describable; in accordance with it, He eats food and drink, matures and grows, works and rests, sleeps and wakes, hungers and thirsts, sheds tears and sweat - in general, He does and endures everything that is characteristic of every person. So, Christ is describable, although He is not a simple man, for He is not one of many, but God incarnate - and therefore let not the dragons of heresies rush to invade in the person of those who claim that He came in an apparent image or in the imagination - which you yourself follow. And, at the same time, Christ is indescribable, although He is God made man, and therefore we must reject the wickedness of those who talk idlely that He received the beginning from Mary. For this was the expression of the new mystery of the economy, that the union of the divine and human nature was accomplished in one Person of the Word, and the properties of each were preserved intact in an indivisible unity. 5. Heretic. They say that the erection of images is generally prohibited in Scripture. For it says this: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness, such as the tree in heaven, and the tree upon the earth below, and the tree in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them: for I am the Lord thy God” (Ex. 20:4-5). Orthodox. When and to whom (was this said)? Before grace - kept under the law and raised to monotheism - when God had not yet appeared in the flesh and the ancients were protected from pagan idols. For those who, through the forefather Adam, grew into the chosen people, this had to be legalized in order to turn them away from the abyss of polytheism. (And they were informed) that there is one God and the father of all, “whom no man has seen, he is able to see” (1 Tim. 6:16), as it is written, who has no designation, no likeness, no outline, no limitation, or anything at all that can be comprehended by human thought. One can say about Him quite definitely: “Who will you liken the Lord to? and to what will you liken him” (Is. 40:18)? Let me keep silent about the fact that not everything that is prohibited in relation to God is also prohibited in relation to another. He who had previously forbidden the sacred Moses then soon commanded: “And make,” He says, “two cherubim carved in gold, ... in both countries: Let the cherubim spread out their wings on top, let their wings co-shade over the purification, and their faces towards each other... And I will be known to you from there and will speak to you” (Ex. 25, 18-22). And in the book of Numbers: “Make yourself a serpent and put it on a banner: and if the serpent bites a man, everyone who is bitten by it will live. And Moses made a copper serpent, and set it on a banner: and when the serpent bit a man, he looked at the copper serpent, and lived” (Num. 21:8-9). You see that these are the words of Scripture, although angels do not have a rough body like ours, although the serpent, which was mysteriously accepted as the image of Christ, was too different in its appearance as an animal (from this image). If in ancient times God was pleased that He should be mysteriously represented by the image of a serpent, then is it really displeasing and indecent for Him that an image of a bodily form should be erected since He became a man? And if one sight of an image of an animal healed those who were bitten, then how much more can the sight of a sacred image of Christ sanctify those who look at it? 6. Heretic. So, does God contradict Himself? Orthodox. Oh madness! The prohibition concerns the depiction of God on any objects in the likeness of any creature - I mean (images of) the sun, moon and stars or anything else, which is the design of idols. Approval refers to the fact that Israel, through images and statues, is, as far as possible, led to the contemplation of the one God and serving Him. Was not the very plan of the entire tabernacle, the shadow of which was shown by God to Moses in symbolic contemplations, a clear outline of service in the spirit? 7. Heretic. They say that to depict Christ in material forms is to humiliate and belittle (Him). Let (the image of Christ) remain in the contemplation of the mind, let, as much as possible, some divine image be depicted in us, which is implanted (in us) by the Holy Spirit through sanctification and justification. Scripture says: “what is used is that which is carved, as it was carved: having created a merger, a false dream, as if he created his trust in his creation” (Hab. 2:18). And again: “before... the tree is cut from the forest, a tectonic work, and a merger: the essence is decorated with silver and gold” (Jer. 10: 3). Orthodox. You love to resort to identity or, rather, to blindness, cunningly moving from one to another. What you try to present as uncharacteristic of God and base, is in reality befitting of God and sublime in the greatness of the mystery. Can't the glory of the high be humiliated, and the dishonor of the humiliated cannot, on the contrary, be exalted? So for Christ, abiding in His characteristic majesty of Divinity, adorned with the glory of immateriality and indescribability, His highest condescension towards us and the material describability of His body serve to the glory. For He who created everything became substance, then flesh. And He does not deny being and being called that which He perceived; the property of a substance is to have a material outline. As for being content with the contemplation of the mind, since His image in us is impressed by the Holy Spirit, this could be understood in relation to baptism. And we are talking, of course, not about imprinting on us the image of the hypostasis of God and the Father, but about us imprinting the image of the human species with material paints. If only contemplation of Him in the mind were enough, then in the same sense it was enough for Him to come to us; but in this case, the appearance and deception would be in what He did, not coming in the body, but also in His innocent suffering, similar to ours. But let's move on. The flesh suffered in the flesh, took food and drink, and did everything that every person does, except sin. And thus, what seems dishonor to you actually serves to honor the all-honorable and glorious Word. Stop holding the words of Scripture against us, referring to the image of Christ what is said against the Greeks - regarding idol images. Who among those who have intelligence is not aware of the difference between an idol and an icon: one is darkness, the other is light; one is error, the other is free from error; one is a manifestation of polytheism, the other is the clearest proof of the economy. 8. Heretic. Why, they say, is it not written about the icon, as it is (written) about the cross. “For the word of the cross,” he says, “is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved the power of God is” (1 Cor. 1:18). Also: “let me not boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14). And some other things are glorified in Scripture. Can You show that such a thing was said by anyone regarding the image? Orthodox. Tell me, bold one, what (the apostle) glorifies and boasts of—the cross or the image of the cross? Obviously the first. And yet the glory of the likeness is inseparable from the prototype, just as a shadow is (inseparable) from light. And everything that is said about the cause can well be said about what happened from this cause; but one thing is said in its own sense, because (determined by) nature; the other is in an improper sense, because it is said in likeness. In the same way, when at the beginning there was a sermon about Christ, it was accompanied by a corresponding speech about the image, and we have as much evidence regarding the image of Christ as is said about Christ Himself. Likewise, as much evidence has been presented regarding the image of the cross as about the cross itself. Nowhere (is it said) regarding the image and the icon, although both of them represent the same thing in meaning, it is illogical to study (this), since in everything that we observe, the cause and what comes from the cause are the same in meaning. Isn’t every image a seal or imprint, bearing in itself the true image of the one by whose name it is called? We call both the imprint of the cross and the cross itself a cross, and yet not two crosses; and Christ we call both the image of Christ and Christ Himself - and yet not two Christs, since one differs from the other not by the commonality of names, but by nature. This is why the divine Basil says that the image of a king is also called a king, and yet not two kings, for neither power is cut, nor glory is divided; and it is natural that the glory of the image passes to the prototype, as well as vice versa. 9. Heretic. As a result, as they say, it turns out that many are called Lords and Christs, according to the difference in their images; and hence polytheism; We have one Lord and worshiped God. Orthodox. What is it? Isn't the Lord (God) the Father? Isn't the Lord God the Son? Isn't it the Lord the Holy Spirit? Isn't it God, God and God? Yes, sure. But is that why there are three Gods and Lords? This is wicked. One God and Lord. Also, my dear, one should understand regarding icons: although there are many images in number, there is one Christ, and not many; also the Lord is one and the same, and not different. Understand, just as there the single name God and Lord does not prevent nature from being divided into three persons, so here the invocation of one name (raises) many images to a single form; From this the emptiness of your unreasonable objection is visible. 10. Heretic. Let it be allowed to figuratively represent Christ, but in accordance with the sacred words handed down from God: “Do this,” He said, “in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19), so, obviously, it is not allowed to depict Him otherwise than through remembrance. In it, what is depicted is true, and what is depicted is sacred. Orthodox. To refute you, it is enough that you find yourself in contradiction with yourself, agreeing that Christ is describable, although you did not admit this before. But since not a single objection of yours should be left without evaluation, let us proceed in order to the refutation. What do you call what, on the part of the priest, is expressed in sacred words and hymns? Image or truth? If so, then this is the height of nonsense. From blasphemy you move to blasphemy, just as those who find themselves in some swamp, when they step with one foot, end up in an even swampier place. You even chose to be condemned as atheists so that your objection would be valid. If you say that the truth is presented in words and hymns, then this is so in reality. In accordance with the divine testimony, everyone confesses that believers receive the very Body and Blood of Christ. How do you talk idle words, translating the secrets of truth into images? Do this in remembrance of Me, it is said, and absolutely precisely: this sacrament is the focus of the entire economy: in its most important part, it briefly designates everything. Although Christ said: do this in remembrance of Me, this is not allowed to everyone, but only to those who have the authority to perform sacred functions. But He did not forbid us to celebrate other sacraments. We commemorate the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany, and at the same time we hold branches in the image of Him sitting on a donkey, or we hug each other as a sign of the resurrection. I'm not even talking about His ascent into the church and the temptation of the tempter, in memory of which we observe forty days of abstinence, and about some other things done out of the same impulse. It should be recognized that the Word commanded that all this be done in His remembrance, through the most important sacrament, keeping silent about some things, as I have already said. Is it not possible to understand regarding the depiction of His bodily appearance on the board in the same way as regarding the Gospels inscribed by God? He did not order even a short word to be written anywhere; however, His image was inscribed by the apostles (and preserved) to the present day; What is depicted there using paper and ink is depicted on the icon using various paints or some other material. What the word of history represents is what silent painting depicts through imitation, as Basil the Great says. Therefore, we are taught to depict not only what is subject to sensation, touch and color, but also everything that is embraced by thought through the contemplation of the mind. In view of this, from the beginning it was customary to depict not only angels, but also the future judgment, standing on the right and left sides, a darker and more joyful appearance. The Deity alone is completely indescribable; It is incomprehensible to thought, and the explanation of Its nature cannot be perceived by hearing; hence His image and description are impossible. And since everything else is limited, due to comprehension by the mind, at the same time it is described (depicted) either through the perception of hearing or vision: in both cases the meaning is the same. 11. Heretic. So what is made visible? Image of Christ or Christ? Of course, not both together, since shadow and truth are not the same thing. And how can one say that each of these two contains both, or one of the two? This is patently ridiculous. Orthodox. No one could reach such madness as to consider shadow and truth, nature and its manifestation, the prototype and its likeness, the cause and what came from the cause to be essentially identical, and say that each of them contains both, or one of the two. Likewise, no one could accordingly admit or assert that Christ and His image are one and the same; but by nature Christ is different, and His image is different, although by their inseparable name they are one and the same. And if someone began to consider the natural property of the icon, then not only could he not say that he sees Christ Himself, but he could not even say that he sees His image. It will turn out to be, perhaps, wood, or paint, or gold, or silver, or some other of the various other materials from which it gets its name. If (attention is drawn) to the resemblance (achieved) through the image to the prototype, then (the icon) is called Christ or an image of Christ; but Christ (is called) by the same name, and the image of Christ is called in relation to Him, for the likeness is the likeness of the prototype, and in the same way the name is the name of what is called by it. Here's the proof. “Josiah...,” says the Scripture, “lifted up his eyes to the tomb of the man of God, who spoke these words. And he said: What is this grave, even as I see it? And the men of the city decided to him: ... he is the man of God who came from Judah... And he said: Leave him, so that no man can move his bones” (2 Kings 23, 16-18 Do you understand what Scripture says? It calls a stone a man of God, or a tomb because a body lies in it. And again God says to Moses: create for me “two golden cherubim” (Ex. 25:18), but not images of cherubim. Notice that here too the similarity is called by the same name as the real object, and stop conceiving unreasonable things, trying to draw conclusions about what you cannot comprehend through rational arguments. 12. Heretic. In what way do you suppose that the Divinity of Christ is present in the image? By nature? and in this case, He is also worshiped, or not? And if the Divine is really present in the image, then (it follows) His describability. If it is not present, then the worship is impious, for one cannot worship that which is (only) called, but which (in reality) is not (the Divine). Christ's flesh is always worshiped, together with the Divinity, because they are inseparably united, but this is not an image or an icon. Orthodox. You continue to be in (the area of) the same absurdities. If the prototype and the image are not at all the same thing, since one is the truth and the other is a shadow, then what is the point in your conclusion? In the body of the Lord, the Divinity, due to the natural union, dwells together with Him, is worshiped and glorified, although the flesh is subject to limitations. And how could it not be subject (to this limitation), when it can be tangible, visible, and perceived by the senses, and in no case receives properties of an unlimited nature that do not belong to it? That is why, as already said, the flesh suffered, while the passionless essence did not suffer with it. Regarding the icon (this cannot be said) in no way. Where even the nature of the depicted flesh is not present, but only one external appearance, there it is even less possible to talk about the describability of the Divinity, which is as much present and worshiped in the icon as it is present in it, as in the shadow of the flesh united with Him. Where is the place in which there would be no Deity - in rational and irrational creatures, in animate and inanimate? But, according to the perceiving natures, (It is present everywhere) to a greater or lesser extent. Likewise, anyone who would say that the Divine is present in the icon would not sin against the truth. It is, of course, also present in the image of the cross and in other divine objects, but not by the unity of nature, since (these objects) are not deified flesh, but by their relative participation in Him, since they also participate in grace and honor. 13. Heretic. This is what they say: isn’t it more useful to just show icons, but not worship them? And it is even more useful to simultaneously, through hearing, rise to the objects themselves and (them) remember them, in order to avoid the base image of matter. “The Spirit [is] God: and whoever worships Him is worthy to worship in Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), says Scripture. Orthodox. If you recognize the clarity of vision as equal (with the clarity of hearing), which is true, then recognize their equal significance. And let the sacred Gospel remain with one hearing, without worship, although it also serves as an object of veneration. But if this is unreasonable, then will not the previous one also be so? After all, you recognized their equal meaning. Or how is it that each of the two (can be held) not to be worshiped, but contradicting itself in respect of benefit and harm? Thus, in the icon, and in the Gospel, and in the cross and in every other sacred object, God is worshiped in spirit and truth; the material is eliminated due to the elevation of the mind to God. Believers do not stop at the substance because they do not believe in it - which is the delusion of idolaters; but through it they rise to the prototype, just as the Orthodox believe. 14. Heretic. Should one, they say, worship the inscription or only the image whose name is written? And, in any case, one of them, and not two? And to what exactly? Orthodox. This question is similar because someone asked whether one should worship the Gospel or the name (written) on it - the image of the cross or what is written on it? I would add regarding people, (should one venerate) a famous person or - his name - for example, Paul and Peter, and each of the individual objects of the same kind. Isn't this unreasonable, not to say ridiculous? And what of what is visible with the eyes is devoid of a name? And how can that which is called (by a known name) be separated from its own name, so that we give worship to one of them, and deprive the other (of worship)? These things presuppose each other: the name is the name of what is called by it, and, as it were, some natural image of the object that bears this name: in them the unity of worship is inseparable. 15. Heretic. Should a cross be venerated rather than an icon? Equally or less? Orthodox. Since there is a natural sequence in the objects themselves, it seems to me that you are talking idle talk. If the cross must be accepted instead of the archetype, then how can one not (bow)? After all, the impassive Word suffered on it, whose power is such that even His shadow burns the demonic horde and runs far away from those who are imprinted by it. If (the cross is accepted) as a well-known image, then it is unreasonable (to bow). For to the extent that the causes differ, so much is that which comes from the causes preferred (one over the other), since everything that is taken for some use is inferior in honor to that for which it was taken. So is the cross of Christ: formerly an instrument of curse, it was later sanctified, becoming an instrument of divine suffering. 16. Heretic. They say that there is no difference between an idol and an icon: in meaning they are one and the same, because (both) are “appearance” (ε ἶ δος) in general. For what is visible is not reality itself, but only a likeness insofar as it denotes likeness. Similarity is nothing more than that which is not a prototype; and this is exactly how an idol appears, and this is how an icon is. The meaning of both items is the same. To worship an idol, even though the worship apparently relates to Christ represented in the image, is impious. This is completely prohibited by the word of truth. Orthodox. In the idea that idols are not gods, but they (illegally) assimilate the truth, there is nothing inconsistent (with the truth), because in the Holy Scriptures not only the image of an idol is equally prohibited, but also a pillar, a statue, and something else (of the same kind). “You shall not make for yourselves [images] made with hands, lower than those engraved, you shall place them lower than a pillar, you shall place them lower than a stone in your land as a sign to worship him” (Lev. 26:1). And in some other place: “the food image (εἰκόνα) create the woodmaker, or the goldsmith, merging gold to gild it; or create it in its likeness” (Is. 40:19). On both sides there is a danger of idolatry. One should not think that, since in ancient times the name of the image (ἡ τῆς εἰκόνος φωνή), then we should not use it, as well as anything else of the same kind. It is better to use the word “image” (κατ ’ εἰκόνα) in relation to the image of Christ in bodily form, as in the beginning, in the story of the creation of the world, when we are talking about the education of man, for designation this is the word used. “Let us create,” he says, “man in our image (εὶκόνα) and in our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). And in another place, in the question proposed by God: “Whose image is this” (Matthew 22:20)? Hence, as naturally, the use of this name arose. In an inaccurate sense, the expressions are also used - imprint ( χαρακτὴρ) and likeness (ὁμοίωμα); as for the name “idol,” it is not used anywhere, although these names are similar in meaning (this name) was used by the ancient worshipers of the creature, and at present it is suitable only for those who do not worship the inseparable nature, glory and the power of the Trinity and do not recognize the incarnation of the Word. The gods who did not create heaven and earth, made of wood, stone and any other material, divided and at war with each other not only in nature, but also in will, glory and worship, “let them perish,” as it is written (Jer. 10:11). Let icons of the Lord and all other saints be erected among us, even if made from the same materials. 17. Heretic. They say that you should not make images and worship them. Why? Therefore, they answer, depiction in material images cannot be an honor for those who have received heavenly glory. It is much more worthy and useful to glorify by word than on boards. Orthodox. This (they could say) about Christ, but the exposure (of their wrongness) is obvious - so as not to repeat what has already been said. After all, there is agreement between hearing and vision, but it cannot be that these are not two different senses. Whoever extols the one must, in any case, extol the other: and in both respects, everyone who is worthy of glorification should be glorified, if we have not lost our minds. 18. Heretic. But, he says, not everyone depicted on the icon is worthy of worship, but only one or the other; and it is possible that there will be those who are not glorified and unworthy of praise. Orthodox. However, on the other hand, there are those worthy of worship and glorification, for some should be honored for their martyr's blood, others for their holy lives. 19. Heretic. But then, he says, worship would be multifaceted. In fact, there is one worship, not many. Orthodox. There is only one worship in relation to God, but in relation to others there are different worships. Kings and rulers receive worship from us, masters from slaves, fathers from children, but not as gods. Worship (to them) is given the same in form, but different in meaning, for they are people, And depending on their honor, respect (is given to them) either by law, or by fear, or by love. Hence, knowing the difference in worship that is given to archetypes through their images, render worship in the proper sense and especially to God alone; the rest (images) - in accordance with those (persons) of which they serve as likenesses - (icons) of the Mother of God, as the Mother of God, (icons) of saints, as images of saints. There are sacred books that lie in plain sight in all of God’s churches, accessible to both the sight of every person and the ear - those that are read; and they are worshiped because they have the same power - or even those that are accessible to sight are worshiped preferentially, due to the superiority of the senses (sight). How else will we relate to the custom that has prevailed from the beginning to the present time, which can be learned from (examination of) every church of God and sacred accessories? Did the host of God-bearing (fathers) act wickedly? Has the immaculate Church really allowed idolatry? And when will it be cleansed of idols and by whom? It is clear that this is the work of the Antichrist. And how can the observance of ancient customs and traditions, which have been faithful since ancient times, be overthrown? Let us hold fast (to them); asserted by the divine fathers, although it is difficult to prove logically. For they say that “simplicity of faith must be stronger than logical proof,” and in another place: “let ancient customs reign.” Having called the Church of God a pagan temple, due to the fact that icons were erected there, you, impudent one, did not you turn out to be the end of all heresies? Stand further with the hostile crowd, unless you repent after hearing a voice, under threat of stoning, forbidding you, like a heretical beast, to touch the elevation of the church. 20. So, whoever does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh, is describable by the flesh, but by divine nature remains indescribable, he is a Heretic. If anyone asserts that the Divinity is also describable due to the fact that the flesh of the Word is describable, and at the same time does not distinguish both in one hypostasis according to their natural properties, whereas in fact one does not destroy the other in an indivisible unity, he is a Heretic. If anyone does not call the description of the physical form of the Word an image of Christ, or Christ, by the same name, but calls it an idol of error, he is a Heretic. If anyone boldly calls the worship of Christ, relating to the depiction of His appearance, the worship of idols, and not of Christ himself, whereas, according to the testimony of Basil the Great, the glory of the prototype is inseparable from the likeness, he is a Heretic. If anyone begins to say that the image of Christ alone is enough, and neither honors him nor dishonors him, as rejecting the worship related to His veneration, he is a Heretic. If anyone brings and applies the prohibitions of Holy Scripture relating to idols to the sacred image of Christ and, as a result, calls the Church of Christ a pagan temple, he is a Heretic. If someone, worshiping the image of Christ, says that he worships the Divinity in it by nature, and not insofar as it is a shadow of the flesh united with the Divinity, although the Divinity is present everywhere, he is a Heretic. If someone considers the elevation to prototypes through sacred images to be base, since he, as if even without these images, is raised through hearing to the contemplation of the prototype, and does not consider a silent pictorial image to be equal to verbal narration, as (acknowledges) Basil the Great, he is a Heretic. If anyone denies that the image of Christ, in particular the one that is imprinted on the cross, should be drawn and shown in every place for the salvation of the people of God, he is a Heretic. If someone does not give due veneration to the icons of the Mother of God and all the saints, to the (icon of) the Mother of God, as the Mother of God, to the (image of) saints, as saints, according to the difference in the worship of the Mother of God and fellow servants, but calls the saving decoration of the Church an idolatrous invention, he is a Heretic. If someone does not put along with other heresies that heresy that rages against sacred images, while it equally separates from God, but says that communication with such people is indifferent, he is a Heretic. If anyone, exaggerating the honor of the icon of Christ, says that one should not even begin to approach it, because it does not bring any benefit to someone who has not first been cleansed from all sin, he is unreasonable. “Στηλιτεντικὸς λόγος “is one of the surviving works of St. Theodore the Studite against the iconoclasts. You might be interested in: