224

therefore in another way. For one of two things is absolutely necessary: if he has been seen in the flesh, he is also circumscribed in the flesh, since each is consistent with and causative of the other. If, therefore, the second is not true, then neither is the first; but indeed the first is true, therefore so is the second. Thus, according to both the divine oracles and common reasoning, it is foolish not to confess that God is circumscribed in the flesh, if indeed he has been seen in the flesh. Since elsewhere the noble one says: "4I heard that some profess to depict even the incomprehensible Son of God; it is a shuddering thing to hear."5. Who, then, with any sense, would not laugh at the fool? Has he not read somewhere that they seized Jesus, and bound him, and led him away to Annas the high priest first? And elsewhere again: So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices? Does he not confess that Jesus is God? If he is God, then how was the incomprehensible one seized and bound? Or is it not clear that it was in the flesh, as the all-wise Paul has systematically explained? Let this deceiver, therefore, who rages against Christ, be silent. But if he should hear somewhere that we even have a God who is eaten, perhaps he would not only shudder, but even be torn apart, unable to bear what he heard. But what does Christ say? and he who eats me will live because of me; but he could not be eaten otherwise, unless in the flesh. For Christ, being at the same time perfect God and perfect man, whenever he is named according to each of the natures of which he is composed, and is properly understood and spoken of according to the other, the property of the one is not diminished or confused in the unicity of the hypostasis. And a witness of this argument is God the Word himself, on the one hand saying, why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you? (and yet he who was speaking was also immortal God), on the other hand affirming, you say that you blaspheme, because I said: I am the Son of God; and yet he who said this was also the Son of man. Thus, by assigning the nature of each name to the other nature, we are in no way mistaken. But since this voice has come to an end, what is that of Theodotus? "4We have not been taught to represent the forms of the saints in images made of material colors, but we have been taught to impress their virtues upon ourselves, which are revealed through the writings about them, as living images, being roused by this to a similar zeal for them; since let those who set up such forms say, what benefit, then, they enjoy from them or to what spiritual contemplation they are led through the remembrance of them. But it is clear that such a notion is vain and an invention of diabolical method."5. Immediately the starting-point of the argument is not blameworthy, even if it is productive of the absurdities that follow, since many of the holy teachers also place the account through words as more beneficial than the iconic representation, not disparaging the other, while others the opposite. But it may be equal, as Basil the Great says: For what the word of the story presents through hearing, this painting shows silently through imitation. And not all are painters, nor all are writers, but to each as God has apportioned a measure of grace. Therefore, leaving this proposition aside, let him say what follows: "4since let those who set up such forms say, what benefit, then, they enjoy from them or to what spiritual contemplation they are led through the remembrance of them."5. Let the noble one, therefore, be questioned in turn: for what profit and sacred contemplation is it not possible to find from this? For if this is the nature of an icon, to be a likeness of the archetype, as Gregory the Theologian says, and in the icon the archetype is revealed, as the all-wise Dionysius says, it is clear that from the likeness, that is, the icon, much benefit proceeds, and through the likeness the spiritual contemplation ascends in great measure to the archetype. And a witness is the same divine Basil, saying somewhere thus: the honor of the icon ascends to the prototype. And if it ascends, it is also clear that it descends upon the icon from the prototype. And no one acting foolishly would say the honor is without benefit, nor again that the likeness is not an impression of the one imitated, so as to be

224

οὖν ἑτεροτρόπως. δυοῖν γὰρ ἑκάτερον πᾶσα ἀνάγκη· εἰ ὦπται ἐν σαρκί, καὶ περιγράφεται ἐν σαρκί, ἐπείπερ σύστοιχον καὶ ἀλληλαίτιον ἑκάτερον ἑκατέρου. εἰ οὖν μὴ τὸ δεύτερον ἄληθες, οὐδ' ἄρα τὸ πρῶτον· ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ πρῶτον ἄληθες, οὐκοῦν καὶ τὸ δεύτερον. οὕτω καὶ κατὰ τὰ θεῖα λόγια καὶ κατὰ κοινὸν συλλογισμὸν ἠλίθιον τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν θεὸν ἐγγράφεσθαι ἐν σαρκί, εἴπερ ὦπται ἐν σαρκί. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἑτέρωθι ὁ γεννάδας φησίν· "4ἤκουσα ὅτι καὶ τὸν ἀκατάληπτον υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τινες γράφειν ἐπαγγέλλονται· φρῖξαί ἐστι τὸ ἀκοῦσαι"5. τίς γοῦν νοῦν ἔχων οὐκ ἐγγελάσειεν τὸν ματαιόφρονα; οὔ τί που ἀνέγνω ὅτι συνέλαβον τὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτόν, καὶ ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν πρὸς Ἄνναν πρῶτον τὸν ἀρχιερέα; καὶ ἑτέρωθι πάλιν· ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ἐν ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων; οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ θεὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν; εἰ θεὸς οὖν, πῶς ὁ ἀκατάληπτος ἐλήφθη καὶ ἐδέθη; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι ἐν σαρκί, καθὰ εἱρμολόγησεν ὁ πάνσοφος Παῦλος; σιγάτω οὖν λυττῶν κατὰ Χριστοῦ καὶ οὗτος ὁ πλάνος. ἐὰν δέ που ἀκούσειεν ὅτι καὶ ἐσθιόμενον ἔχομεν θεόν, τάχα ἂν οὐ μόνον φρίξοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαρρηχθείη, μὴ φέρων τὸ ἄκουσμα. ἀλλὰ τί φησιν ὁ Χριστός; καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσεται δι' ἐμέ· οὐκ ἂν δὲ ἄλλως βρωθείη, εἰ μὴ ἐν σαρκί. καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστός, θεὸς ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὑπάρχων, ὁπόταν καθ' ἑκάτερον τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη φύσεων ὀνομάζοιτο, καὶ καθ' ἕτερον κυρίως νοούμενος λέγοιτο, οὐ τῆς θατέρου ἰδιότητος ἐν τῷ μοναδικῷ τῆς ὑποστάσεως μειουμένης ἢ συμφυρομένης. καὶ μάρτυς τοῦ λόγου αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ λόγος, πῇ μὲν λέγων, τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα; (καίτοι γε ὁ λέγων καὶ θεὸς ἀθάνατος ἦν), πῇ δὲ φάσκων, ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον· υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι· καὶ μὴν ὁ εἰπὼν καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἦν. οὕτω τὸ πεφυκὸς ἑκατέρου ὀνόματος θατέρᾳ φύσει ἀπονέμοντες οὔ τί που διασφαλλόμεθα. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦδε τέλος εἴληφεν ἡ φωνή, τίς ἡ τοῦ Θεοδότου; "4τὰς τῶν ἁγίων εἰδέας οὐκ ἐν εἰκόσιν ἐξ ὑλικῶν χρωμάτων ἀναμορφοῦν παρειλήφαμεν, ἀλλὰ τὰς τούτων ἀρετὰς διὰ τῶν ἐν γραφαῖς περὶ αὐτῶν δηλουμένων οἷόν τινας ἐμψύχους εἰκόνας ἀναμάττεσθαι δεδιδάγμεθα, ἐκ τούτου πρὸς τὸν ὅμοιον αὐτοῖς διεγειρόμενοι ζῆλον· ἐπεὶ εἰπάτωσαν οἱ τὰς τοιάσδε ἀναστηλοῦντες μορφάς, ποίας ἆρα ἐκ τούτων καταπολαύοιεν ὠφελείας ἢ ἐν ποίᾳ διὰ τῆς τούτων ἀναμνήσεως ἀνάγονται πνευματικῇ θεωρίᾳ. ἀλλ' εὔδηλον ὡς ματαία ἡ τοιαύτη ἐπίνοια καὶ διαβολικῆς μεθοδείας εὕρεμα"5. εὐθὺς ἡ βαλβὶς τοῦ λόγου οὐ νεμεσητή, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἀτόπων κατασκευαστική, ἐπεὶ καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἱερῶν διδασκάλων τῆς εἰκονικῆς θέας τὴν διὰ λόγου ἱστορίαν προὐργιαιτέραν τίθενται, οὐ διαβάλλοντες τὴν θατέραν, ἕτεροι δὲ τὸ ἔμπαλιν. ἔχοι δὲ τὸ ἴσον, καθά φησιν ὁ Μέγας Βασίλειος· ἃ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τῆς ἱστορίας δι' ἀκοῆς παρίστησι, ταῦτα γραφικὴ σιωπῶσα διὰ μιμήσεως δείκνυσι. καὶ οὐ πάντες ζωγράφοι οὐδὲ πάντες λογογράφοι, ἀλλ' ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἐμέρισε μέτρον χάριτος. Ὥστε τήνδε τὴν πρότασιν παρεὶς λεγέτω τὴν ἑξῆς· "4ἐπεὶ εἰπάτωσαν οἱ τὰς τοιάσδε ἀναστηλοῦντες μορφάς, ποίας ἐκ τούτων ἆρα καταπολαύοιεν ὠφελείας ἢ ἐν ποίᾳ διὰ τῆς τούτων ἀναμνήσεως ἀνάγονται πνευματικῇ θεωρίᾳ"5. ἀντερωτάσθω οὖν ὁ γεννάδας· ποίαν γὰρ ὄνησιν καὶ ἱερὰν θεωρίαν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν εὑρᾶσθαι; εἰ γὰρ αὕτη φύσις εἰκόνος, μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου, καθά φησιν ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, καὶ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἐκφαίνεται, καθά φησιν ὁ πάνσοφος ∆ιονύσιος, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ μιμήματος, ἤγουν εἰκόνος, πολὺ τὸ ὄφελος πρόεισι καὶ διὰ τοῦ μιμήματος πλείστη ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἡ πνευματικὴ θεωρία ἄνεισι. καὶ μάρτυς ὁ αὐτὸς θεῖος Βασίλειος, ὧδέ που λέγων· ἡ τῆς εἰκόνος τιμὴ ἐπὶ τὸ πρωτότυπον ἀναβαίνει. εἰ δὲ ἀναβαίνει, καὶ κάτεισιν εὔδηλον ἐπὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ἀπὸ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου. οὐκ ἂν δέ τις ἀνοηταίνων ἀνωφελῆ τὴν τιμὴν εἴποιεν οὐδ' αὖ τὸ μίμημα μὴ οὐχὶ τοῦ μεμιμημένου ἀποτύπωμα, ὡς εἶναι