77

hypostatic, as the Son to the Father (for the hypostasis of the Son is one and that of the Father is another, but clearly one nature), but the other, conversely, having a difference in nature, but not in hypostasis, as the icon of Christ to Christ; for the nature of the painted matter is one and that of Christ another, but not another hypostasis, but one and the same of Christ, which is also depicted in the icon, as the same divine Basil says again: "what therefore the icon is here by imitation, the Son is there by nature; and just as in things made by art the likeness is according to the form, so in the divine and uncompounded nature the union is in the communion of divinity." See, then, the difference: that in the case of the natural icon and its cause, that is, the Son and the Father, when the nature is one, the veneration is also one according to the identity of nature, not of hypostasis (since we confess one nature, and one veneration and doxology of the Holy Trinity, but three hypostases, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit), but in the case of the imitative icon and the archetype, that is, the icon of Christ and Christ, when the hypostasis of Christ is one, here too the veneration is one, clearly according to the identity of the one hypostasis, not the difference of the natures of Christ and of the icon. But if we should say that the veneration of the icon toward the prototype is one according to the identity of nature just as it is according to the identity of hypostasis, we would no longer recognize a difference between the icon and the one depicted, but just as there is one hypostasis, so too there would be one nature of the icon of Christ and of Christ himself, and we fall into Hellenic polytheism, deifying every piece of matter fashioned into an icon of Christ. And from there we would open our mouths for the iconoclasts to accuse us, who venerate the one God in three hypostases, of not unreasonably venerating and revering many gods. But if, on the other hand, someone were to say that the veneration of the icon toward the archetype is neither according to the identity of hypostasis nor according to the identity of nature, it is clear that he has split the power and divided the glory of the archetype from the icon, and thus in venerating the icon of Christ he manifestly commits idolatry, introducing not one but two venerations; which the iconoclasts are eager to prove, from there denying, as is likely, that Christ can be circumscribed in the flesh, being convicted of impiety equally with those who say that God sojourned among those on earth in appearance and fantasy. But let the impiety of both be cast equally into its proper darkness. But the true faith of Christians, as has been said before, just as it confesses one veneration for the Holy Trinity in the communion of the divinity, so also in the case of the icon of Christ it confesses one and the same veneration according to the identity of the hypostasis of Christ; for the hypostasis that is venerated is the same, even if it is depicted. since it would not be an icon, if it is separated and divided in honor from the prototype, but happens to be some thing with its own hypostasis. And so then, even in the veneration of the icon of Christ, the veneration and doxology of the much-hymned and blessed Trinity is one. But someone might seem to say this also: "4Therefore, since veneration is worship, it follows that the icon of Christ is worshipped together with the Holy Trinity"5. but such a one seems not to know the difference in veneration; since we venerate saints, but we do not worship them with latria, and rulers according to the law of God, but neither do we worship them with latria. Then let him learn again that the veneration is not of the substance of the icon (for this is absurd and the work of those who worship the creature rather than the creator), but of Christ who is venerated in the icon, with the matter of the icon remaining completely without communion with the Christ who is venerated in it by the likeness; which is proper to the hypostasis of Christ, separated from the matter, even if it is seen in it. And it seems to me to be like the example of a mirror; for there too the face of the one looking is, as it were, outlined and the likeness remains outside the matter. and though he might seem to kiss his own

77

ὑποστατικήν, ὡς ὁ Υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα (ἄλλη γὰρ ὑπόστασις τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἑτέρα τοῦ Πατρός, μία δὲ φύσις δῆλον ὅτι), ἡ δὲ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν, φυσικὴν διαφορὰν ἔχουσα, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὑποστατικήν, ὡς ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ Χριστοῦ πρὸς τὸν Χριστόν· ἄλλη μὲν γὰρ φύσις ὑλογραφίας καὶ ἕτεραι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἄλλη δὲ ὑπόστασις, ἀλλὰ μία καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κἀν τῇ εἰκόνι γεγραμμένη, τοῦ αὐτοῦ θείου Βασιλείου πάλιν λέγοντος· ὃ οὖν ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα μιμητικῶς ἡ εἰκών, τοῦτο ἐκεῖ φυσικῶς ὁ Υἱός· καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν τεχνητῶν κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν ἡ ὁμοίωσις, οὕτως ἐπὶ τῆς θείας καὶ ἀσυνθέτου φύσεως τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς θεότητος ἡ ἕνωσις. Ὅρα οὖν τὸ διάφορον· ὅτι ἐπὶ τῆς φυσικῆς εἰκόνος καὶ τοῦ αἰτίου, ἤγουν τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πατρός, ἡνίκα μία φύσις, μία καὶ προσκύνησις κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς φύσεως, οὐ τῆς ὑποστάσεως (ἐπειδὴ ὡς μίαν φύσιν, μίαν καὶ προσκύνησιν καὶ δοξολογίαν ὁμολογοῦμεν τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος, τρεῖς δὲ ὑποστάσεις, Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος), ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς μιμητικῆς εἰκόνος καὶ τοῦ ἀρχετύπου, ἤγουν τῆς εἰκόνος Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡνίκα μία ὑπόστασις Χριστοῦ, μία καὶ ἐνταῦθα προσκύνησίς ἐστι, κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν δῆλον ὅτι τῆς μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως, οὐ τὸ ἑτεροῖον τῶν φύσεων Χριστοῦ καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος. εἰ δὲ ὥσπερ κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς ὑποστάσεως οὕτω καὶ κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς φύσεως μίαν φαίημεν εἶναι τὴν προσκύνησιν τῆς εἰκόνος πρὸς τὸ πρωτότυπον, οὐκέτι διαφορὰν εἰκόνος καὶ εἰκονιζομένου γνωριοῦμεν, ἀλλ' ἔσται ὡς μία ὑπόστασις οὕτω καὶ μία φύσις τῆς εἰκόνος Χριστοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ δὴ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἐμπίπτομεν εἰς ἑλληνικὴν πολυθεΐαν, πᾶσαν ὕλην εἰς Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα χαρακτηριζομένην θεοποιοῦντες. κἀντεῦθεν ἀνοίξομεν γλῶσσαν τοῖς εἰκονομάχοις κατηγορεῖν ἡμῶν, τὸν ἕνα θεὸν ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσι προσκυνούντων, πολλοὺς θεοὺς προσκυνεῖν τε καὶ σέβειν οὐκ ἀπεικότως. εἰ δὲ μήτ' αὖ κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μήτε κατὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς φύσεως λέγοι τις εἶναι τὴν τῆς εἰκόνος πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον προσκύνησιν, δῆλον ὅτι ἔσχισε τὸ κράτος καὶ ἐμέρισε τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀρχετύπου ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος, καὶ οὕτως προσκυνῶν τὴν εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ εἰδωλολατρεῖ φανερῶς, οὐ μίαν ἀλλὰ δύο προσκυνήσεις εἰσφέρων· ὅπερ ἀποδεικνύναι σπεύδουσιν οἱ εἰκονομάχοι, ἀναιροῦντες ἐντεῦθεν ὡς τὸ εἰκὸς Χριστὸν σαρκὶ περιγράφεσθαι, ἴσα τοῖς ἐν δοκήσει καὶ φαντασίᾳ ἐπιδεδημηκέναι θεὸν τοῖς ἐν γῇ ἀσεβεῖν ἀπελεγχόμενοι. Ἀλλ' ἐρρίφθω τὸ ἀμφοτέρων ἐπίσης ἀσεβὲς ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ σκότει. ἡ δὲ ἀληθὴς τῶν χριστιανῶν πίστις, καθὼς προείρηται, ὡς μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ προσκύνησιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς εἰκόνος Χριστοῦ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν προσκύνησιν ὁμολογεῖ κατὰ τὴν ταὐτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἡ αὐτὴ γάρ ἐστι προσκυνουμένη, κἂν γεγραμμένη εἴη. ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη εἰκών, εἰ μεσολαβεῖται καὶ διασχίζεται τῇ τιμῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου, ἀλλ' ἰδιοϋπόστατόν τι πρᾶγμα τυγχάνει. καὶ οὕτω λοιπὸν κἀν τῇ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσκυνήσει μία ἡ προσκύνησις καὶ δοξολογία τῆς πολυυμνήτου καὶ μακαρίας Τριάδος. ∆όξειε δ' ἄν τις κἀκεῖνο λέγειν· "4οὐκοῦν, ἐπειδὴ ἡ προσκύνησις λατρεία, συλλατρεύεσθαι συμβαίνει τὴν εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι"5. ἀλλ' ἔοικεν ὁ τοιοῦτος μὴ εἰδὼς διαφορὰν προσκυνήσεως· ἐπεὶ προσκυνοῦμεν ἁγίοις, ἀλλ' οὐ λατρεύομεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἄρχουσι κατὰ νόμον θεοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐδ' αὐτοῖς λατρεύομεν. ἔπειτα μανθανέτω αὖθις ὅτι οὐ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς εἰκόνος ἐστὶ προσκύνησις (τοῦτο γὰρ ἔκτοπον καὶ τῶν λατρευόντων τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ἔργον), ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι προσκυνουμένου Χριστοῦ, ἀκοινωνήτου μενούσης παντάπασι τῆς εἰκονικῆς ὕλης πρὸς τὸν προσκυνούμενον ἐν αὐτῇ Χριστὸν τῷ ὁμοιώματι· ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἴδιον τῆς ὑποστάσεως Χριστοῦ, κεχωρισμένον τῆς ὕλης, κἂν ἐν αὐτῇ ὁρᾶται. καί μοι δοκεῖ τῷ ἐν κατόπτρῳ παραδείγματι ἐοικέναι· κἀκεῖ γὰρ οἱονεὶ διαγράφεται τοῦ ὁρῶντος τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ μένει ἔξω τῆς ὕλης τὸ ὁμοίωμα. κἂν δόξειεν ἀσπάσασθαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ