Seven chapters against the iconoclasts

The essay “Seven Chapters Against the Iconoclasts” was written by St. Theodore the Studite during his imprisonment for icon veneration in Vonita in 816-819. The treatise consists of 7 separate chapters, each of which is devoted to the analysis and refutation of a specific iconoclastic argument: 1) against accusations of deification of icons. St. Theodore separates idolatry (the worship of created things as God) from icon veneration. He argues that Christians do not worship the material of the icon, but the Person depicted on it - Christ, the Mother of God or the saints. The honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype. We describe the incarnate God the Word, who took on human flesh, according to His human nature; 2) about the absence of direct mention of icons in the Gospel. St. Theodore explains that not all truths are stated directly in the Holy Scriptures; some are implied indirectly. He gives examples from the Gospel (for example, the episode with the didrachm and Caesar's denarius), showing that the concept of the “image” of a person associated with the person himself is inherent even in everyday life and, even more so, in the spiritual dimension; 3) about the superiority of the image of the Cross over the image of man. The author refutes the idea that since there is no image of a person in heaven, but there is an image of the Cross, then only the Cross should be worshiped. He explains that God ordained both the Cross and the image of man (in Adam) before the Incarnation. The veneration of the Cross and the image of Christ stems not from their heavenly or original appearance, but from the redemptive feat of Christ, who sanctified the Cross and human flesh. 4) about the priest’s use of the Cross, and not the icon. St. Theodore explains that the priest, being the “image of Christ,” is himself a mediator in the Sacraments and therefore uses the “image of the Cross,” which in its meaning is identical to the image of Christ as an instrument of salvation, and does not replace the icon; 5) about driving away passions and demons with the Cross, and not with an icon. The author distinguishes between the external, sensual image of the Cross and the internal, spiritual “cross” that every believer bears, crucifying his passions. Both types of “cross” - an external sign and an internal spiritual action - have saving power, and one does not exclude the other; 6) refutation of the quote “what is revered is indescribable.” St. Theodore explains that this objection is based on a misunderstanding of the polysemy of the word “honored.” The Fathers of the Church, speaking of the “indescribable,” meant the Divine nature of Christ, and not His human nature, which is completely describable and revered; 7) refutation of the quote “if anyone worships creation... he worships idols.” This saying of St. Gregory the Theologian was directed against the Arians. Worship of the icon is exalted to the one Person of Christ, without confusing His Divine and human natures. * Title of the work in Greek: Κατα εικονομάχων κεφάλαια επτά. * Title of the work in Latin: Adversus iconomachos capita septem. Contents I. Against those who say that Christians, by venerating the icon of Christ, the Mother of God or any of the saints, deify the icon II. Those who wonder why it is not written in the Gospel regarding the image of Christ III. Against those who say: since there is no image of a person in heaven, but (there is) an image of a cross, then he should be worshiped IV. Against those who say that the priest imprints the babies brought to him, using not an icon, but the image of a cross V. Against those who say that everyone, using the image of a cross, but not an icon, drives away both passion and the demon in himself VI. Against those who cite what the Theologian said regarding the icon of Christ: “what is revered is indescribable” VII. Against those who cite what Saint Gregory said regarding the icon of Christ: “if anyone worships the creation, even if he does it in the name of Christ, he worships idols.” I. Against those who say that Christians, by venerating the icon of Christ, the Mother of God or any of the saints, deify the icons To idolize (someone) means - we will speak on the basis of the very composition of the word - when someone considers as God that which is not God, and serves him (as God), in accordance with what the apostle said: “and changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the corruptible image of man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23). As for the first kind of creatures (people), - for the quaternity must be explained, - (they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image similar to) Kronos and Zeus, Hera and Aphrodite and the like of both sexes - (in number) very many, as far as possible; in the second (genus) they worshiped God in the likeness of an eagle, a vulture, or any other of the various species of the same genus; as for the third (genus), then (they worshiped God in the likeness of) a bull, a goat, or any other of the various genera of the same species; in relation to the fourth (genus) they worshiped God in the likeness of a snake, lizard, or some other (creature) of the various species of the same genus. The Hellenes, barbarians, Scythians, having deified their images, “serving,” as the apostle says, “the creature more than the creator” (Rom. 1:25), created many gods and goddesses of various kinds and at the same time competing with each other, - of which nothing was, and is, and will not be God. And they are blamed not for the fact that they generally made an image of anything that exists, but like Moses, so as not to talk about others, he depicts both the serpent and the cherub, and when he intended to build the entire tabernacle, he saw its image in the revelation (received) from God, for (God) says: “See, and create in the image shown to you on the mountain” (Ex. 25, 40). God), having created a countless chain of polytheism, out of ignorance of what really exists, only God, the incorruptible and invisible. To them (says) the sacred apostle: “Because the generation is of God, we must not despise the Divinity as gold, or silver, or finely carved stone, or the imagination of man” (Acts 17:29). This is what happens when those previously mentioned deify images. Those with whom “there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6), and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, (for them) to erect an image of the bodily form of Christ does not mean, O men, to invent gods - away (such a delusion!) - but (means) to confess Him as appearing in an image similar to ours, as it is written: “And in the image He who is of God is not equal to God by admiration; but he humbled himself and took on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of humanity, and being found in the image of a man: he humbled himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:6-8). His image is not in the likeness of a corruptible man, which is condemned by the apostle; but - in the likeness of man, as He Himself said earlier, not corruptible, but (precisely) incorruptible. For, as the great Peter says, “His soul did not remain in hell, nor His flesh in the form of corruption” (Acts. 2:31), because Christ is not a simple man, but God made man, described in bodily form, since he was in the likeness of man, but remaining indescribable in divine essence, since, together with the Father and the Spirit (Holy), He is not like everyone else. Then, how will Christ actually turn out to be the Word of the Economy, if He, unlike the Father and the Spirit (the Holy One), beyond the filial property, cannot be depicted in bodily form? Therefore, it does not (at all) mean that those who depict the image of Christ and worship (him) deify icons - away, my dear, (such madness)! For we do not say that we have a created God, but (we say that we have) an incarnate God, and not two Gods, but one in three persons. And indeed, when we worship an image, we do not impiously think that we worship the substance on which (this image) is printed, but (we think that we worship) that very (image), which, although imprinted on it (that is, on the substance) in the likeness of a seal, is by nature, however, in Christ. For the images of prototypes, imprinted on a substance processed by art, do not participate in the nature (of the prototypes), but show, as if in a mirror, only the similarity with (those objects) in relation to which they are imprints. For, otherwise, in the image of the cross, represented on every substance, we would find ourselves worshiping every substance. But - away with foolishness! There is one power, glory and worship in both, as Basil the Great proclaims, since the similarity of the image and the prototype is not (the similarity) of two faces, but of one face. Apart from the difference in essence, the prototype and the image are one and the same, (as) the wisest Dionysius says. The same applies to the Mother of God. For, depicting (Her) and worshiping Her in the icon, we do not recognize paganly (ἑλληνκῶς) that we have and honor a goddess, but the Mother of God. It is the same with regard to the saints: we honor and worship not many gods and goddesses, but one God and the servants of one God, for whose sake honor comes to all and to whom (again) it returns. Don't you think that the divine ointment is taken into the image of Christ? What is the divine throne (taken) for a life-giving tomb? What veil (placed) on it (is taken) for that (shroud) entwined with which (Christ) was buried? What is the sacred spear (taken) for that spear with which the ribs of (His) Divine body were pierced? What is the sponge (taken to be) the sponge from which He was drunk with gall? What is the image of the cross (taken) for the life-giving tree? Destroy all this, as well as anything else, if it represents the image or likeness of the divine, since you say that to worship and (even) to create an image in the image and in honor of Christ means that those who create (him) and worship (him) create gods. In reality, the idle talkers thus (commit) an ungodly deed along with the Hellenes. For those before the Incarnation believed that God can be depicted, although He is indescribable; these same ones, after the Incarnation, stubbornly insist that He cannot be depicted, although He is describable in body. II. Those who are perplexed why it is not written in the Gospel regarding the image of Christ It seems to me that lovers of objections do not know that in the Gospel words one thing is proclaimed directly, and the other indirectly, since the (Holy) Spirit has arranged it so that for the majority the acquisition of useful things is not without difficulty, but that on the contrary, we achieve useful things by diligent research so that it (i.e. acquired) through this is durable and therefore cannot be easily taken away; and this is natural. For if there were no seeking, there would be no acquisition. So, let's prove this question by comparison. Peter in one place says to Jesus: “Lord, if You are, command me to come to You on the waters. He said: come. And Peter got out of the ship, walking on the waters, to come to Jesus: seeing the wind strong, he was afraid, and began to drown, crying out, saying: Lord, save me. And Jesus stretched out his hand, and said to him: O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt? And when he got into the ship, the wind stopped” (Matthew 14:28-32). So, it does not say that Peter walked on the water again after Jesus supported him, but it is expressed indirectly. For no sane person could say that he was carried by Jesus either through the air or on a stretcher - until they entered the boat together. Now (return) to the subject under discussion and try to understand what is being said. “I approached,” says (the evangelist), “those who accepted didrachms to Petrov and decided: will your teacher give didrachms? Verb: her. And when he entered the house, Jesus preceded him, saying: What do you think about Simone? From whom do the tsars of the zemstia accept tribute or kinson? From your own sons, or from strangers? Peter said to him: from strangers. Jesus said to him: for these are free sons: but let us not offend them; when we go to the sea, cast a line, and if you have a fish first, take it: and he opened its mouth, and found the statir: give it to them for Me and for you” (Matthew 17:24-27). So, the expression - for Me and for Sya indirectly means: instead of the image of Mine and yours - not only because these pronouns mean individuals, and individuals (have) images, but also because everyone who pays tax for his own image (i.e. for his own person), brings the royal image in payment of a tax to Caesar, which was called poll tax; the head is nothing more than an image. And this is clear from the speech of the Lord: why do you tempt Me? Bring me a denarius so that I can see. They brought it. “And the verb said to them: Whose image and writing is this? [And] I said to him: Caesar. Then say to them: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and the things that are God's to the Gods" (Matthew 22:18-21). As a man who voluntarily ranked Himself among the subordinates, like everyone else, He paid for His own image (that is, for His own personality) a didrachm, or, together with Peter, a statir, for a statir is two didrachms. In any case, the statir, or didrachm, or denarius bears the image of the one they wear and also has an inscription. So, in connection with the previous one, as we stated, it is said that Peter again walked on the waters, and it is impossible to (suppose) otherwise; so here, along with the expression - for Me and for this, it also silently speaks about the image of Christ and also Peter - (and this is clear to everyone), which are not too unreasonable. I'm not even talking about the fact that everywhere in Christ the image (of Him) is present by nature. For where there is a prototype, there is obviously an image related to it. For they (i.e., the prototype and the image) are located in each other and are connected to each other. But, in addition to (what was said) above, I must also say that the image that He paid to Caesar was drawn by Him Himself in an unknown way. How? Because it was not by chance, and especially not by agreement, that the fish swallowed the statir (for that would have been humane), but it is more pious to believe that through the action of the omnipotent Divine Spirit, simultaneously with the word (of Christ), it turned out to be in the stomach of the fish. For this is fitting for God. That speech, says (Scripture), was: “He commanded it, and it was created” (Psalm 149:5). III. Against those who say: since there is no image of a man in heaven, but (there is) the image of a cross, then he should be worshiped God, who knows everything before His existence, prefiguring before the foundation of the world the mystery of His economy in the flesh, depicted a cross in the sky through the stars, and on earth He represented Himself in the creation of Adam, who, according to the word of Blessed Paul, is the image of the future. For it was necessary that (who descended) from heaven (be depicted) on earth, and (who came) from earth should be depicted in heaven, so that the contemplation of (both) would show that the heavenly would be united with the earthly; in the sky, in addition, an image of a person could not be presented, where, despite the fact that this (image) did not exist, people mistakenly worshiped the stars: even more so (people would have worshiped) if they had seen a human image. Therefore, the great Moses says: “Let not when you look up to the sky, and see the sun and the moon and the stars, and all the beauty of heaven, be deceived, bow down to them, and serve them” (Deut. 4:19). Thus, before the coming of Christ, along with other star figures, (there was) the image of the cross, which was not used for worship. For, if the prototype at that time was considered cursed, then the image, of course, should have been the subject of anger. But after Christ in his prototype suffered out of love for people, (the image of the cross became) revered and saving, even if it was visible in heaven - just as the image of the Sufferer becomes visible on earth everywhere where it was previously imprinted - if only the iconoclastic hand had not rushed to Judaize 2. So, the image of the cross should be especially revered, not because it is in heaven, but for the sake of the life-giving tree, which is sanctified by the fact that Christ was nailed on it, just as the image of Christ (is revered) not because it was first imprinted in Adam, but because He was incarnate from the Virgin. IV. Against those who say that the priest imprints the babies brought to him, using not an icon, but the image of a cross The priest, having become a mediator between God and people, imitates Christ in sacred invocations. For the apostle says: “There is one God, and one mediator for God and men, a man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). So, being the image of Christ, he necessarily (uses) not an image (for how could an image use the image of His prototype?), but the image of the cross, obviously imitating Christ. For just as He (i.e. Christ) “brought to shame the principalities and powers through boldness” (Col. 2:15) by the cross, as it is written; so this one (i.e., the priest), as the image of Christ, in the image of the cross - for the image and the image are one and the same in terms of similarity - accomplishes the salvation of the child, so that here too, obviously, priestly dignity is understood as the image of Christ. V. Against those who say that everyone, using the image of the cross, but not the icon, drives away both passion and demon in himself The present question has a solution similar to the previous one. How and in what way? Because each of the believers through the “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) is conformed to the image of Jesus God, according to what the Apostle said (Rom. 8:29). And in another place: “a man... must not eat to cover the head, the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7). In addition, the Supreme Apostle says: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy tongue” (1 Peter 2:9). Thus, everyone must also be a priest for himself according to his conscience - in what relates to salvation. Although the believer is an image (of Christ), this cannot exclude the possibility that the image of Christ exists on the substance. For the image, (acquired) through conformity by divine birth, is understood in relation to the inner man. How could Christ be similar in bodily form to those who in (external) appearance are infinitely different from each other? Only that image of Christ created by art exists and is called (that), which bears the properties of a bodily form or image and (has) all other external signs. And in relation to the image of the life-giving cross one can see the same thing. For when the apostle says: “Christ was crucified” (Gal. 2:19), then, obviously, he does not say in a sensual sense that he crucified himself, and not using the sensual image of the cross (he did this), but (he was crucified) according to the inner man and, obviously, with a spiritual cross - I mean an action that mortifies passions. And this is clearer from the words of the Lord: “Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). So, just as here both - the cross and the crucifixion - are of two kinds, so with regard to the image of Christ: I mean the image created by art, and the image that is received by the believer according to the inner man. VI. Against those who cite what the Theologian said regarding the icon of Christ: “what is revered is indescribable.” This objection (is given) due to ignorance of the meaning of similar expressions (τῶν ὁμωνύμων), or due to an unwillingness to understand the correct reasoning. For the word “revered” (σεπτόν) is a homonym (i.e., an expression that simultaneously means different objects), which can be considered in different meanings. For example, the word φῶς is used in relation to the sun, but it is also used in relation to a person, for the word φῶς is called a person. So, if I say - τό φῶς is not a person, then this is true, for (this word) is understood by me in relation to (the light of) the sun. If I say again - ὁ φῶς is a person, then this too is true, for (in this case the word) is understood by me in relation to a person. And neither of the two is false, due to the change (of the meaning of the word) in both cases. In the same way, in relation to what is revered, the expression of the same name is used in a double meaning: in some cases in relation to the indescribable, in other cases - in relation to the describable. For “that which is revered is indescribable” was said by the (holy) father when he theologized about the divine nature, to refute those who confined the Divinity to the boundaries of describability. And truly (he said). In fact, it was not meant to speak about the economy. For one is the teaching of theology, and the other is of economics, in which it is not possible to present identical definitions. And the divine Cyril indifferently uses (the word) hypostasis: sometimes he takes (it) in the meaning of nature, sometimes in the meaning of personality, due to the fact that the word has a double meaning. Then, he also recognized that what was described can be revered, as he himself says: “bow down at the manger in which you, being foolish, were raised by the Word.” What is worshiped, obviously, is also venerated. I will no longer speak regarding the Lord's body. Isn't it describable? What word would contradict (this)? What then? Isn't it revered? Even the stones will agree (with this). What can you say about the life-giving cross? About (his) likeness? About the altar? About the divine meal or the throne? About the sacred Gospel? About any other sacred property of the church? Are not the very remains of saints all describable? Quite obvious, but together they are revered, just like the icon of Christ. The fathers of the Holy Sixth Council, who spoke in some writings about venerated icons, testify to this. VII. Against those who, regarding the icon of Christ, cite what was said by Saint Gregory: “if anyone worships the creation, even if he does it in the name of Christ, he worships idols.” This is said against the Arians, who said that the Son of God is a creation. But since, in venerating the icon of Christ, we Orthodoxy think that we are worshiping Christ Himself - one and the other with one worship, not different, due to the difference in essence, but on the contrary identical, due to the unity of the Person, then we are not worshiping the creation - let it not be - because Christ is not a creation, although there is (something) created in Him - since that which is more powerful has overcome (the created), as (the Holy Father) says. Do not look any more at the substance from which (Christ) is separated by thought, although in it through an image, I will say again, he appears, as in a mirror. If you say that (the image) does not contain (Christ), then you, equal in blindness to a pig, having only external eyes, (you turn out to be one) whom God the Word did not command to throw away the pearls of the words of truth. The vulture is a mythical four-legged bird. That is, where the iconoclasts did not destroy the images of Christ. You might be interested in: