Refutatio et Eversio 1 part 15/21

Trustworthy witnesses are those who beheld it, and the voices of the escorting divine powers, saying that he will come again in the same manner as they beheld him depart.

And let every mouth that speaks unjustly against the divine embodiment be stopped.

For if these things were not so, the dead body has not been raised, and the blasphemy falls upon the heads of the disbelievers:

that the resurrection was also an illusion, and the things that were seen were fabrications.

And these things have been written and believed in vain, so that it would be permitted to them, following their own teacher Apollinarius, not to confess two natures — one to be worshiped and one not to be worshiped — but one nature, proceeding from their confounding and godless madness.

But we, however the unholy ones may interpret the corporeal and servile form, glorify the body as being that of Christ, and, on account of him who assumed it, as venerable and holy and life-giving, wholly deified and the bestower of all sanctification, according to the evangelical and patristic proclamation.

For the teacher himself, treating such matters in other discourses, writes more clearly:

'So that the human is named by the divine, and the divine by the human;'

'therefore also the crucified one is addressed by Paul as the Lord of glory, and, being worshiped by every creature — both heavenly, earthly, and under the earth — he is named Jesus.'

Moreover, he who is named after immortality also declares:

'If anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is from above, and not from the holy Mary the Virgin; or that the Godhead was turned into flesh, or confused with it; or that the Godhead of the Lord is passible; or that the flesh of our Lord is unworthy of worship — regarding it as merely a man's, and not worthy of worship as the flesh of the Lord and God — this one the holy and catholic Church of God anathematizes.'

Since very many words have been spoken on this by the holy Epiphanius, who presided over the church of the Cypriots, which he employed against heresies, setting aside the many we shall content ourselves with a few.

For he, in his treatise entitled 'On the Holy Spirit, how it must be confessed as God together with the Father and the Son,' states the following:

And a king sits in a temple, and those who venerate the king venerate from afar in his own temple, and no one out of his mind says to the king:

'Come out of your temple, that I may venerate you.' For no one dares to say to the Only-begotten:

'Leave aside the body, that I may venerate you,' but rather he venerates the uncreated Only-begotten together with the holy temple which the Word took when he came, and no one says:

'Rise up from your throne, that I may venerate you apart from the throne,' but rather he venerates the king together with the throne, and Christ is venerated together with the body that was buried and raised.

Let the great apostle set the seal on these things, writing to the Philippians:

Let this be your disposition, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it a thing to be seized to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man;

he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death of the cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him and granted him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

To these let the following also be added:

'For our citizenship exists in heaven,' he says, 'from which also we eagerly await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humiliation so that it may become conformed to the body of his glory.'

But how great that body might be, and how it obtained glory and dignity, let the great John Chrysostom declare:

This body becomes conformed to him who sits at the right hand of God;

to him who is venerated by the angels, to him beside whom the incorporeal powers stand, to him who is above every rule and authority and power — to him it becomes conformed.

Let an end be set by the holy Fifth Council, which determines that God the Word is to be venerated together with the flesh in one veneration, as has been written above.

It is necessary to add to these that men of old, being enticed by the deceit of the evil dragon, fashioned certain bodily and material forms in their own faith, clinging to creatures as gods and being ignorant of the only true God by nature;

through Christ the Savior to those on earth, we have been released from the captivity of the bitter tyrant.

and no longer is even a shadow of creation in any way formed in our faith;

for we have been illumined by his grace and have been initiated into what must be venerated.

Therefore we offer our worship in spirit and truth, and our veneration, to the living and true God, that is, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one Godhead and authority and kingdom and lordship, revering a Trinity glorified in three hypostases, and venerating a unity known to be united in essence;

and we place our hope not in a body, not in a creature, but in the God of all.

Let these things, then, be said thus far.

Let us proceed to what follows, in which is set forth a saying of Gregory the Theologian, from his poems, having the following form:

It is an outrage to have faith in colors, not in the heart;

for the faith that is in colors is easily washed away, but that which is in the depth of the mind — that is dear to me.

Having set forth these words, of how much folly would they not be full? For he who is not brought to his senses by the refutation of his neighbor will be judged more senseless than bleating irrationality.

which is exactly what these men, now undergoing it, clearly demonstrate;

For although such a usage was long ago unfolded, and received its due exposition and a clear interpretation of its meaning from those who formerly presided over right doctrine, and although the ignorance and impiety of those who used it badly and foolishly has been refuted, the wretched men, out of folly and shamelessness, do not shrink from stringing it together again in their own arguments;

by which they are exposed as having fallen into ill counsel and lack of education, bringing forward such arguments against the sacred images.

For these words were not spoken by the Father for their sake, but concerning the faith which is not established in the heart but confessed to God by mouth alone.

This is shown more clearly if one attends more carefully even to the first of the poetic discourses;

But to the rest I might well be a laughingstock in telling my cares — men whose faith has but lightly grazed the surface of the heart, into whose inward parts the keen longing for the Master has not come, and who live here thinking only of the things of a day.

And it is clear, since, in the times when this lamp of the church was shining forth, the madness of the Arian-maniacs was prevailing, spreading over almost the whole realm ruled by the Romans, among those in whom there was great fickleness, not being firmly grounded in the faith;

He does the same thing more clearly also in other discourses, discoursing in a didactic manner;

for what seems ambiguous must be resolved from what is agreed upon.

For in the discourse on the Dedication, he says:

Yesterday you held the faith of the times; today come to know the faith of God.

And in the discourse on Baptism, he uses the same wording and sense, saying:

The purification must not be sophistically contrived but sealed upon the soul, made perfectly bright but not merely tinted, and the grace must be not a covering-over of sins but a deliverance from them.

Keep for me what is written, remaining unchangeable amid changeable times concerning an unchangeable matter.

Just as here, then, he shames those who are unstable and ill-inclined toward piety because of the changeableness of the times, and who possess a disposition easily carried along by whatever the shifting of the times decides — so also in the sayings before us, he reproaches again by means of the alterability of colors, inscribing upon them the shame of outrage.

What then does he say is blameworthy and outrageous and alien to the strength of our piety? That, just as colors, being easily removed and easily altered, are readily washed off and rubbed away, so also you are easily transformed with regard to the faith according to the times, and, as it were, re-colored and turned about — whereas it is fitting to be firmly established and to stand as securely as possible, and, according to what is apostolically said, to have the faith inscribed not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of fleshly hearts.

For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.

Was the Father's discourse about colors such as they themselves understood? For he goes on to say:

'The depth is dear to me' (which is what they themselves said:

'that which is in the depth of the mind, that is dear to me') is said in contrast to that faith which is, as it were, colored only on the surface and quickly flows away, just as colors merely tint the surface of the substrate;

It is therefore senseless and unworthy to think that concerning a theological utterance.

But these men, either trusting in the plain surface-impressions of the words according to what is apparent to sense-perception, and standing by the bare utterance of the word, go wrong concerning what is signified by the intent, or, counterfeiting what has been well and rightly said (since this is the most peculiar trait of their manner), they drag it round to their own private purpose.

For just as the words spoken by the holy Gregory of Nyssa in his funeral oration for the great Basil against the Arians, who blasphemed against the church, calling the Son, of one nature with God and Father, a creature — these words they impiously and wickedly thought fit to bring forward for the sake of idol-worship, so also here, making themselves like them, they have transferred to colors and matter what was said by the Father concerning faith;

and what that one adduced by way of an example, these men, badly misunderstanding, take up as applying to the matter of the faith.

But even if one were to grant that these words were said concerning colors, siding with their folly, who among Christians was ever seen to have placed his faith in colors, or to have acquired his hope in visible matter? Therefore no outrage attaches to Christians from this, but rather the derangement of the accusers and their stupidity are manifestly displayed.

And as far as concerns the matter of the faith, let this suffice;

but what remains to be said concerning the God-wise Father for the sake of the sacred images, we shall discuss, taking our starting points from his own doctrines.

It is a law for them, derived from the term 'uncircumscribed,' to deny that Christ can be depicted in an image;

so that assuredly he will be depicted according to what is circumscribable.

If, then, this teacher everywhere proclaims Christ to be circumscribed in body, as we have already cited, he therefore also knows him to be depicted in images, and it is in vain that the wretched men think to slander the pious by means of his words.

The image dedicated by him to the great Basil will refute the foolish, as well as what was written concerning Polemon, as has already been shown.

From here they shift over to another vain labor, saying:

'John Chrysostom, in his homily on Romanus the Martyr:'

'Is Christ, then, circumscribed by walls? Is our Master seen with eyes? My Master, or rather the Master of all, Christ, dwells in heaven and steers the cosmos;'

'and the sacrifice to him is a soul that looks up toward him, and his one food is the salvation of those who believe.'

But let us see what benefit will accrue to them even from this.

The term 'uncircumscribed,' the bulwark of their heresy, they carry about everywhere;

which here, embracing with great delight, and gaping open-mouthed at the word as though it were the most delightful prey, but having dozed off regarding what the term signifies, they went off puffed up with empty hopes.

but they are caught fighting against themselves rather than against others, as though struck down by their own weapons and cast down by the very devices they had invented;

For it has escaped their notice — men who think themselves exceedingly wise and who charge the teachers with ignorance — that 'circumscription' does not signify 'being written,' that is, 'being depicted in an image';

For in what respects these differ from one another has been stated here, and has been treated more extensively elsewhere.

This would also become clear from the words previously put forward by the martyr to his persecutor:

'My Christ,' he says, 'whom you persecute, O tyrant, is not circumscribed by walls, nor is he held or contained by walls, so that he might become comprehensible to you, even if you rage all the more, wielding your bloodied axe.'

How, and in what manner? Because he is not even present on earth now bodily.

And this is shown yet more clearly by both what precedes the citation and what follows it.

What are these? For in the part addressed to the tyrant it says:

"Respect the boundaries of him who was crucified."

The boundaries of him who was crucified are not the walls of the church, but the ends of the inhabited world.

From these, then, let them learn what circumscription actually is—that it is not at all remote from a boundary, since often "inscriptions" are taken in place of "boundaries" where it is necessary to do so, and boundaries themselves are called "inscriptive."

For in this way the word "writing," being compounded variously, is taken with different senses.

And let them know that the statement that Christ is "not circumscribed by walls" does not proclaim that he is not depicted in images by walls (for the passage does not hint at any mention of an image here at all), but that Christ himself, the one who was crucified, is not confined by walls, that is, not circumscribed.

For both expressions signify the same thing.

For just as it was said above that the walls of the church are not the boundaries of him who was crucified, so here it is said that the walls are not a circumscription and boundary that circumscribes and confines Christ.

And what follows, of what sort is it? That "he is not even seen with eyes, nor does he dwell in stone and wood, selling providence in place of oxen and sheep."

"Does an altar of his, then, mediate transactions? This is the greedy begging of your demons."

Does, then, the statement that Christ is not seen with human eyes, or that he does not dwell in stone and wood, produce in us any remembrance of an image of Christ? Or does it not plainly present that Christ himself is neither seen bodily nor dwells in stone and wood? As for not selling providence in place of oxen and sheep, and his altar not mediating transactions—to apply these to images would be the insensibility and brutish folly of the impious;

for among the sensible, whose faculties of soul are healthy, this could never be conceived, nor ever be said.

If, then, the things said signify Christ himself and not the image of Christ, how will not the statement that he is "not circumscribed by walls" likewise fully persuade us to understand it of Christ himself, not the image of Christ? For from the many things that are joined together and are evident, even the one that seems ambiguous must be judged.

What manner of deceit and guile, then, is left to them here, to arm themselves with vain and wicked contrivances against the truth? And what most ought to teach and persuade the disobedient is the very impulse of the persecutor.

For the tyrant who here persecuted the martyr—for the sake of what was he inflicting punishment? Was it for images? Or for the sake of Christ himself? What, then, will they declare concerning what is added next?

"My master," he says, "or rather the master of all, dwells in heaven." Will they, then, ever grant that an image of Christ also dwells in heaven, so that they might be eager also to bring the image of Christ down from the heavens? And how is it not evident from this that "not being circumscribed by walls" means "not dwelling in walls"—that is, that Christ is not confined and bounded bodily within them, which is precisely what the notion of circumscription presents? For here "being circumscribed" is analogous and similar to "dwelling."

Since, then, local circumscription is here clearly shown to us (for there is no mention here of depiction and image), how then shall we answer their ill-conceived suspicions? What, then, do I say? If Christ dwells neither in the stone nor the wood that make up the walls—so that we may take our argument from what they themselves also agree on, and it is surely clear that "to dwell somewhere" is said of a body, not of an image—nor is he present in them, does it therefore follow that he will not be circumscribed in walls either?

For how could someone be circumscribed in a place in which he is not even present? But if he does not dwell in these, he surely dwells altogether in the heavens; and manifestly he will be circumscribed according to the heavens—clearly bodily, since heaven both is and is called the circumscription and boundary of the whole universe.

And in general, to be in this place and to dwell in this one, but not to be nor dwell in that one, suggests to us nothing other than, in every way and altogether, the very notion of circumscription.

But if Christ is even now embodied, as we his true worshippers believe, and it is proper to a body to be circumscribed by place, then Christ is circumscribable—even if the lovers of the uncircumscribable are not persuaded, and they are easily impaled, through unbelief and ignorance, on the very things from which they thought to escape.

And what deceived them most is the term "walls."

More insensate than stones, and more unmoving than they, having made their heart hard and unyielding toward the understanding of true things, and able to conceive nothing beyond what is said or heard and what falls upon their perceptible eyes.

For the walls were not adduced for the sake of icon-painting, but for the sake of containing and enclosing what naturally belongs within walls and is bounded therein.

And the wretches did not understand that all these statements were brought forward in contradistinction to the abominable objects of veneration among the Greeks.

For the Greeks, shutting up their carved images in walls and inner shrines and dark places (since indeed they are truly worthy of darkness), foolishly suppose that only those images that have been housed there are circumscribed there—though they are but wood and stone, or whatever material they may be.

But Christ, our God—to speak truly—not now dwelling bodily upon earth (for as God he is everywhere and above the whole universe), is not believed to be confined by any walls or dwellings;

for ascending into the heavens together with the assumed nature, he made the firstfruits of our lump to sit together with the paternal throne;

and he is enthroned on the seats at the right hand of God the Father, in the manner which he himself knows in a divine way.

Therefore the body of Christ is in every way circumscribable, and what has been said will resound and accord not with their opinion, but rather with the mind of the Church;

and if this is so, then he is surely also depicted in writing and represented in images.

But those who have been darkened concerning the meaning of the word "writing," and suppose "writing" and "circumscription" to be the same thing, fittingly receive in return the refutations of their own ignorance.

For they contend, thoughtlessly and precariously, to hunt everything toward their own purpose, so that by whatever means they might remove the remembrance of Christ;

for he is burdensome to them both when seen in an image and when he comes into remembrance.

What follows what has preceded, as set forth also by them, is as follows:

"And again the same author," they say, "states in his discourse on Abraham:"

"That the three angels came to Abraham and did these things is testified even by the unwilling Greeks."

"For those who inhabit the land of the Palestinians, when painting images of their objects of veneration, paint three angels, and Abraham with them, and Sarah, and a calf, and flour;"

"and all that Scripture says by means of ink, they say by means of statues."

"And this is said, not that faith should come to the faithful through Hellenic means;"

"for we do not accept proofs from those outside." O depth of folly!

See how the servile and unsupervised character of the judgment of these newly-born ones is laid bare with regard to the faith!

For it is worth saying here that they know neither what they say, nor about what they so confidently assert.

For what support does this give to their arguments, when they were not even able to follow the author's own purpose? For he did not intend to discuss certain statues, whether they are to be shunned or not shunned; rather, in recounting the matters concerning Abraham, he draws his argument also toward the Greeks, attempting to lead them too toward the truth of the matter—so that, even if they would not attend to what was written by the Spirit, they might at least be persuaded by what is visible.

For indeed the fate of Sodom lay open to view.

For such things he had said a little before:

"But if any of the Greeks disbelieves either what is said concerning Abraham, that three came to him and were received, or what is said concerning Lot and Sodom, let him see with his eyes what the words say:"

"For Sodom lies overthrown even to this day, and it shows Lot living."

Having set these forth, he adds immediately:

"That the three angels came to Abraham, and all the other things done in that excellent reception, are also contained in the citation before us."

"In whatever, then, the Greeks might dispute concerning the words, let them at least accept the things said concerning Abraham, on the basis of what has been devised by those who belong to them both in kin and in religion."

"It is right that the Greeks accept the account of Abraham, on the basis of what is shown by the Greeks themselves through statues."

What pretext, then, do the impious have to revile the affairs of the Church? Or what blame will be attached to her because the Greeks attempt to display the matters concerning Abraham through statues? Or are not these very ones rather worthy of censure and accusation? For if the Greeks, having seized upon things divine that are also ours, showed zeal for the truth, how much more zealously ought the faithful to have risen up concerning these matters? For it is not because the Greeks write down what is true that we ought to disown the truth, but rather we ought to look to the nature of the facts themselves.

"For this is also why the Jews are condemned: because what once belonged to them has now become ours;"

"for we have plundered and appropriated to ourselves their wealth, because his own people did not receive him who came to his own;"

"so that it is right for the faithful gratefully to accept what has been inscribed on monuments among unbelievers, since it is also proper to, and in agreement with, what has been written."

The teacher further adds, in addition to what has been said:

"And this is said, not that faith should come to the faithful through Hellenic means;"

"for we do not accept proofs from those outside."

For truly, for us who have already been nurtured in the sacred words and teachings, there is indeed no reason at all to accept from outsiders proofs concerning the friendly reception that Abraham gave the angels, nor for any other purpose whatsoever.

"For indeed," he says, "when the demons cried out, the Lord..."

"'You are the Christ,' he rebuked them and did not allow them to speak, disdaining to be testified to by demons."

"But not on account of this shall we also refuse to confess Christ;"

"nor shall we speak ill of Paul because we hear the Python-possessed woman speaking well of him."

"For one must not pay attention to persons, but must judge the matters by the very truths themselves;"

"and indeed, truth, coming from opponents, possesses all the more persuasive and convincing power for belief."

And I myself have already heard, from elsewhere, one of the theologians saying:

"Again, Balaam prophesies, and Samuel is conjured up, if you will, through a medium, and demons confess Jesus unwillingly, even through their opposites, so that the truth might be believed all the more;"

"and consider also the great-souled apostle: how he already tolerates some who preach the gospel, even though they are unbelieving, and though this heaps up upon him no small danger—so that by whatever means, whether by pretext or in truth, Christ may be proclaimed."

They seem to me to have suffered something similar to what the Jews suffered;

For just as those men, seeking to establish their own righteousness, did not submit to the righteousness of God, so also these men, following their own purpose in everything, did not follow the purpose of the teacher.

For being beguiled by the mere wording that says, 'we do not accept faith from outside sources,' and not attending to the intention of the one who wrote it, they took their mind captive to their own depravity, and have wickedly construed something wholly inappropriate against the sacred symbols of the divine economy.

And yet, even if the statement had indeed referred to icons, upon hearing that we accept nothing from outside sources, they ought to have desisted from their irrational impulse and not brought it forward as testimony to their own shame and condemnation.

And thus the Church would have won the glory;

For what is ours has been handed down to us from the beginning, not from outsiders, but from our own faithful and God-fearing people, who were moved by ardent zeal toward piety.

In vain, then, do they boast in those words;

For things that have never been heard even from madmen, when twisted to apply to sacred images, they have brought forward to their own accusation, not their vindication.

They further say: 'Thus also, in another discourse entitled To the Jailer, he says:'

'For if someone, having set up a lifeless image of a child, a friend, or a relative, thinks that the departed one is present, and through that lifeless image imagines him, how much more do we, through the writings, enjoy the presence of the saints, possessing not the images of their bodies but of their souls;'

And no small perplexity will, as is likely, be poured out upon those who read this;

whether one should marvel at how those who absurdly employ this argument have arrived at the extreme of folly and insensibility, or be astonished at how far they have outstripped the impious of former times in derangement.

For from the very things by which they ought to hang their heads and be ashamed, from these very things they speak with boldness and impiously raise their brow against our holy doctrine.

For the wretches did not know, nor did they understand, that this had been provided to them for accusation, not for advocacy, since they walk together in the darkness of both unbelief and ignorance, unable even to attain understanding of the very words they themselves put forward.

For I do not think that even those seized by the affliction of madness would dispute that votive images lead their beholders into memory and imagination of the persons depicted;

and I know well that this will assist all the more those who already champion the cause of the saints.

For what obstacle, then, will stand in the way of our starting from the same premise as this writer, and, using the same form of argument, saying that indeed, by setting up the images of the saints, we behold, as in a mirror, those very persons through them, and contemplate their nobility, their contests, and their love and kinship toward God? From this, too, we may reap benefit, and be roused to imitate their disposition toward God and their struggles on behalf of piety.

So much, then, for the reckless will and derangement of these senseless men.

Now the one who first gathered together these arguments — although he was in fact a fervent champion of apostasy, Mamonas, I mean Constantine — having slipped into the utmost bacchic frenzy and derangement, and being enveloped in the mist of atheism, nevertheless, having at last perceived a little of his folly, was already hastening to withdraw certain citations from among the blasphemies composed in his dung-laden lair.

And perhaps he would have removed this citation before all the others, since it more evidently paraded their folly;