Refutatio et Eversio 1 part 20/21

For if, acting as a Greek, I honored those things which have been built and are venerated among the Greeks, by which they offer worship to destructive demons, the objection would have some validity.

But if, acting as a Christian, I have striven, rightly accomplishing whatever pertains to the glory of Christ and to the honor of his ineffable condescension, just as has been done by Christians from the beginning, who has slipped into such a depth of stupidity and folly as would dare to find fault with this? For he would not even recognize how great the difference is in these matters—that it differs as much as light from darkness, nor that there is no communion between the temple of God and idols, nor agreement between Christ and Belial. How then, upon beholding Theodosius having accomplished such things and being occupied with these matters, did the one called by them Epiphanius bear it? How did he not accuse him of idolatry, nor rebuke him rather boldly, but throughout the whole treatise praises him, and openly and conspicuously commends him as pious toward God together with his children and his whole royal household from his youthful age? Yet while he is set in great anxiety over the subject going astray after idols, and becomes troublesome to Theodosius, so that, being grieved over the evil, he might be roused to zeal for piety—he has not treated Theodosius himself, though entangled in the very error of idols.

And in order to correct others from their fall, he exhorted them very much; but that man himself, lying in the very same fall, he has left uncorrected.

which is strange to hear and paradoxical.

For how was he capable of preaching correction to others while he himself remained uncorrected? He is shown also, in another respect, to be speaking vainly and lying.

For what is more vain or more irrational than to say that idolatry came again after the heresies? For the heresies had not yet ceased, but were still flourishing and corrupting the souls of many.

But I think it is not right to pass over this point either, which, when added, will expose all the more the mind and the error of these disqualified men.

For if Theodosius is celebrated by all as excelling in piety, how would he have reckoned the holy images equal to abominable idols, or have endured any outrage being done to the sacred images—he who did not even endure the dishonor done to the statues erected in his own honor? For indeed it wanted but little for him to have shown Antioch consumed by fire, had not the intercession of the high priest of the city stayed the emperor’s wrath and rage.

He did not at all reject the petition, out of respect and reverence for the man’s virtue.

But, if the truth must be told, being faithful in the Lord, if he anywhere caught someone who had dared to say or do anything against the Gospel narrative, he would certainly, as is reasonable, have punished him with the greatest torments—

…insulting the Master and destroying his image. For even if retribution does not follow immediately, because of divine longsuffering, nevertheless he will at last reap the wages of his own transgression.

These things, then, disclose the impiety of the one who wrote them, and his senselessness.

And the rest shows great implausibility, if such things were written to an emperor, teaching him such matters as ought to instruct one newly catechized and approaching the initiation into our mystery.

For it would scarcely be fitting to write such things even to an ordinary person, indeed to the lowest of the uneducated, or to the most rustic of artisans.

Such is that admirable and most all-embracing letter.

In keeping with which, the Arabian flute-player, as the saying goes, babbles on and on, causing great annoyance to those who listen.

For garrulity is hostile to the ears, knowing no limit to the repetition of the same things.

But I think it is not at all out of place for those setting out to rise up against falsehood.

For how can these things be attributed to Epiphanius? For we see him, standing firm against the heresies, saying such things as these:

“After the eighty heresies there is one foundation of truth, together with its teaching and saving activity, and the holy Church, the bride of Christ—existing indeed from eternity, but revealed, through the incarnate presence of Christ, according to the succession of time, in the midst of the aforesaid heresies.”

One may clearly observe countless other things similar to these in his own writings, glorifying the security and unassailable character of the Church.

Where then is there here any mention, on the part of the holy Epiphanius, of a second idolatry existing in the Church of Christ? Where is the accusation against the confession of the Christians, the charge against the sacred images? Indeed, in stigmatizing each heresy, he proceeds to name the unholy heresiarchs who first initiated the evil, and those who received the harm, and the places in which it advanced and sprouted, as well as the force and the designation of the heresy itself.

And to each of these he also assigned a number.

There too, running down feminine simplicity, he assails it not moderately.

For certain women in the land of the Arabs, being as it were uninitiated in the manner of the sacred rite performed among us, and having no part in divine doctrines, offered a cake-offering in the name of the holy virgin, the Mother of God.

These women, having migrated from the land of Thrace, brought this vain practice along with them from there.

And he suspected this to be occurring in the guise of idol-making.

If, then, he appears to have spared none of these errors, how—if he had judged the honor and veneration paid to the holy images to be idolatry—has he left it unmentioned and included it nowhere in his own writings? He named neither the one who first initiated this unholy deed, nor whence it took its origin, so that those who received it might, as in the case of the other heresies, bear a designation derived from him. And how could he have failed to say who expounded it and organized it, and by what power he was made strong and was able to overthrow the things of Christ, and to lead back again into the very error from which Christ had freed his own creature when it was going astray, and to show error rising to so great a height, and demons once more being worshipped, whom Christ himself, rather than they, ought to have received the veneration due? But he has assumed nothing of the sort.

For indeed, otherwise, countless books would have been composed by him, and words would have gone forth exceeding all number—words which not even a human tongue would have sufficed to utter, nor ears been able to hear.

Will not these things bring accusation and judgment: that Epiphanius, from Cyprus and dwelling as far away as possible, toiled and dinned in the ears of the emperor, rousing him to zeal for piety, while they themselves, though close at hand and as near as possible, for the most part remained at ease and had grown slack, even as so great a calamity had fallen and error was spreading and expanding everywhere to the destruction of human souls? Where then shall Basil’s mind be shown to us? Where would the Theologian’s tongue, moved by the Spirit, speak forth? Where would the golden mouth open, exhorting things of salvation, and where would the brilliance of the other most radiant light-bearers flash forth in divine teachings—men who regulated and ordered human life down to the very minutiae of gait and movement and manner and character, and who, through the whole of moral and doctrinal teaching, guided the flock entrusted to them; who, when even a widow’s vineyard had been seized, could not bear to remain quiet, but applied the utmost labors in deed and word? What is this mistaken and irrational judgment—that, beholding the most intractable Arian madness then at its height, against which they nobly stood firm and played the man, they called it idolatry, yet, overlooking properly-so-called idolatry itself, never once deemed it worthy even of mention? What need is there to say how much the evil increased, especially with the inflamed heresy of the God-hating Pneumatomachi? Yet in the face of those heresies, they made them intolerable, nor did they consider the assault of impiety bearable, until they had strengthened piety through ecumenical councils and had put the heresies out of the way.

But regarding this present corruption, for what reason did they not convene more councils and apply more zealous efforts, seeing how much worse and more harmful this calamity was? This will not release even Theodosius from the greatest accusation—as one who neglected his subjects, and abandoned wretched souls to destruction, and tolerated demonic worship, and bore so great an outrage against God without effort.

But nevertheless—for why should one dwell on empty and vain matters?—Christians were so far removed from idolatry that not only did they not need such teaching from the fathers, but even the most excellent of the teachers themselves—for why need one speak of the others?—continued possessing, honoring, and attending to the sacred images, and indeed set them up with much longing and reverence for their prototypes, as we have often shown before.

How then are these things bandied about concerning Epiphanius not sheer nonsense, vainly and emptily spoken—things which indeed appear more mythical and more like old wives’ tales than the fables of deranged old women? It is reasonable, then, to examine also the other matters attached to the present quotation.

For the accursed one, having railed no little against our religion, then seems, through what he has written, to bewitch Theodosius with flatteries; he applauds him in a manner of praise for wisdom and depth of thought, mixing together idolatry and piety, everywhere bearing witness to the emperor’s piety while ascribing idolatry to his subject.

But insofar as there is communion between the emperor and those under his hand (for indeed the very name of rule proclaims the relation and the bond with those ruled), to just such an extent it has followed, consequently, that these things have been mixed together.

This too is worthy of his madness and mindset.

He then proceeds, as though bringing an accusation:

“whether it is fitting for us to have God depicted through colors.”

This is the leaven of the Arian dough.

For let Eusebius, likewise Arianizing, the citadel of the Arians, speak in accord with him, writing thus to the empress Constantia: “I do not think it right, after the manner of idolaters, to carry about our God in an image.”

For it is the opinion of the Arians that the flesh has been commingled and confused with the divinity, and for this reason Christ is not even depicted.

“Some profess to paint an image of God”—and again, “I do not recall ever having seen such a thing”—yet now he presents himself as having God depicted through colors.

Thus, being at variance both with himself and with the truth, he nowhere preserves consistency.

But what need is there for further labors, or to toil greatly and cause ourselves trouble, when it is possible, by applying ourselves more carefully to what is written in the letter, to determine from it who ever was its father?

For this will suffice to resolve the entire ambiguity of the matter.

For having begun the letter, then, going a little further and introducing the discourse concerning the faith, praising the emperor for his piety together with his children, and wishing to make a solemn show of orthodoxy, the most impious one, after a few words, says word for word as follows: “Ever existing, and formerly guarded by few, but confessed by the ecumenical council of our holy father-bishops at the city of Nicaea on account of the false doctrine of Arius—and this is the faith, as 318 bishops confessed and subscribed, not setting forth a new faith, but confessing the faith that has always existed;”

“and we too, following these as sons from our youth—both we ourselves and our parents having been born in it—confess and hold the same faith, as also you, O most pious emperor, do:”

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty”—and the rest of the Creed.

Thus he presents himself, tracing his lineage together with those who begot him.

But what do we say to this? “Out of your own mouth you shall be justified, and out of your own mouth you shall be condemned,” said the divine word.

Let him, therefore, receive judgment from his own stated words.

For if he speaks truly concerning himself and those who begot him, and concerning the faith which he received from the beginning, it would be clear and beyond dispute that this man is not the holy Epiphanius, and for this reason he must not be accepted, but must be dismissed together with his blasphemous doctrines, which he has composed against the economy of the Only-Begotten.

For as to what sort of birth Epiphanius happened to have, and from what sort of parents he sprang, and whence, the accounts recorded concerning his life will clearly teach.

For he came from the land of the Phoenicians, a citizen of Eleutheropolis, a Jew by religion, a Hebrew of Hebrews, circumcised as the sign of the covenant.

For it was Jews who begot him — those who lived their whole life, from beginning to end, according to the polity of the old law.

But when his father departed this life, he was left orphaned to his mother at ten years of age.

Later, in the course of time, he was adopted by a certain Tryphon, one of his own people, a teacher of the law who lived by the customs of Moses;

by whom he was instructed with precision in the matters of the old law and the rudiments of the Hebrews, being reared and growing up amid Jewish customs and teachings.

When Tryphon died, he was left heir to all his possessions, and thereafter continued to advance in age and in Hebrew learning.

During this same period his mother, too, departed from human affairs.

After this, it being well granted through the guidance of the Better One, he was catechized in the doctrine of our mystery by a certain monk Lucian, a God-bearing man.

And he immediately came forward eagerly to baptism, and together with his sister received the saving illumination.

And straightway he embraced the monastic life, being about sixteen years of age, and from then on pursued the divine and angelic life.

None of these things will be found to hold true of the pseudonymous Epiphanius.

If these facts are to be accepted, then the point at issue stands proven;

but if to some it should seem implausible on account of the discrepancy of what is narrated, then it is time for them to admit — even from the writings that circulate under Epiphanius's name — that he never existed at all, since it does not accord with the arguments of the opposing side, as is shown in many places and has been gathered in summary chapters at the end of this treatise;

so that, on their own reckoning, Epiphanius is a phantom, and they call him to witness irrationally and senselessly.

But this one — if the false Epiphanius speaks truly of himself — the discrepancy of persons is, from all that has been said, brought forward and made known;

since it is set forth that Jews were the ones who begot him, all the more must he be regarded with suspicion, and as already a liar and impostor be judged alien to the priestly assembly, and a stranger to the whole ecclesiastical choir, as one who accuses the church of Christ and is an enemy of our priestly flock;

so that whether he speaks truly or falsely, he will lie far removed both from the appellation, and from the mind and faith, of the sacred Epiphanius.

But if he himself explicitly cries this out concerning himself, and loudly proclaims to the ears of all that he is not that same divine Epiphanius, how is this not itself a proof of the deceit and ignorance of the foolish? Wherefore the shame, the reproach, and the defeat would most justly be borne by those who have now ingloriously fabricated an 'Epiphanius,' since they refuse to accept him as his own witness concerning what they claim, even as, in this very matter, they fall shamefully into the most contrary opinions about one and the same subject — like certain childish persons gathered together over stage-props, making a game of themselves and of their like-minded companions.

And if they should still shamelessly persist in clinging to this letter, they will be compelled also to follow the other absurdities contained in it — such as that it should be permissible for them, even on Sabbaths, not only during the Forty Days but also at other seasons, to abstain from food until the ninth hour, after which to break the fast and end their abstinence.

But that this too, this absurdity, is already established as alien to the catholic and apostolic church, no one would gainsay.

Let it also here be recognized that it is not Epiphanius but Marcion the abominable who speaks outright;

him whom, in the heresy named after himself, Epiphanius himself stigmatizes — along with his other blasphemies — for babbling this too, saying:

'Marcion preaches fasting on the Sabbath;'

'and his so-called mysteries are performed with the catechumens looking on;'

'and he uses water in the mysteries;'

'and he gives the following reason for fasting on the Sabbath:'

'Since,' he says, 'the Sabbath belongs to the God of the Jews, who made the world and rested from his works on the seventh day, we fast on it, so that we may not perform the will of the God of the Jews.'

So that from this too it is manifest that everything which that unholy man has babbled against the church of Christ is found to be alien to the celebrated Epiphanius.

But if one must speak the proverbial saying:

'He who cast the wound shall also heal it' — or, to put it even more fittingly, 'he who wrote it also erased it.'

For whoever the begetter of these words may be, he first confessed that this drivel is a source of laughter and mockery to most people, and then added: 'Having often advised those who seem wise — although they were bishops, teachers, and fellow ministers — to remove these things, I was not heeded by all, but only by some, and these very few indeed.'

But that it has been heard by none of the pious would not escape the notice of the intelligent and sensible.

Nevertheless, through these very words he reveals to us his own ignorance together with his heresy, becoming his own accuser in that he states that none of the bishops and fellow ministers shared in or gave heed to the things babbled by him — clearly because they were fortified with orthodoxy and equipped with the teachings of our godly wisdom — but only a very few, and these entirely most irrational and most ready for falsehood and such deceit.

Worthy of their folly and ignorance are those who now embrace these things, being clearly shown to be their disciples and followers.

And having thus branded himself, he has freed us from labor and relieved us of superfluous words;

and he will henceforth cease to say anything more concerning this God-warring citation.

On account, then, of the folly and shamelessness of those who have gaped after him, we now proceed to examine the remaining citations appended in their decree, in which the following stands written:

'...did he paint? Who painted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and the rest of the prophets and patriarchs, or Peter, Andrew, James, John, Paul, or the rest of the apostles, on curtains or on walls, and thus made an example and a triumph of them? And indeed it was he himself who said that those who paint such things say, "We do this for the honor and remembrance of the saints."'

But as it seems, he was ignorant both of himself and of his own words.

And indeed it would have been better to remain silent and not answer the fool according to his folly;

for what could be more foolish than this, or more insane? Such things not even those seized by the disease of delirium would have blurted out.

Let us allow those maimed in their eyes to speak;

for they might at some time have heard from those who see how, from ancient times, these things both took place and were beheld — even if this man alone has been deprived of hearing, sight, and reason itself.

Yet for the sake of those who listen and wish both to be concerned for their own salvation and to hold fast to right doctrines, addressing ourselves to this very argument, we say: receive from this very point the refutation of the deceit and derangement —

so that I may begin first from your own sources, from your own faction: let your own Eusebius be set before you — he who stood against the truth, yet touched a little upon the truth on account of the inescapable and unavoidable nature of the facts, himself in writing attesting to have beheld the bronze statue which the woman who had been benefited set up in the name of Christ, so as to bear the memory of the miracle of her healing;

and what could be more ancient than this in relation to the manifestation of the Savior? He is also fair-minded concerning the miracles wrought by the sacred, God-sprung herb growing there, and how it was for all a remedy warding off harm; moreover he adds that 'we too have recorded the images of the apostles themselves, of Paul and Peter, and indeed of Christ himself, preserved in paintings through colors, since the ancients, without restraint, were accustomed to honor him in this manner after the pagan custom, as a savior.'

The workmanship of which, as a pagan custom, has been refuted elsewhere.

And behold, the ancient Eusebius agrees that he has recorded images of Christ and of the saints made by those still more ancient than himself.

Thus, concerning the truth, they are manifestly at odds both with themselves and with one another, but toward falsehood they run together and are of one accord.

Let others of the advocates also be summoned — or rather, of the accusers of falsehood and the interpreters and teachers of our noble lineage —

for it is again fitting to call them.

Let the sacred Gregory of Nyssa, then, have beheld the history concerning Abraham, and let him relate it and persuade the foolish; and moreover, let him relate as much and as such things as he has recorded and written concerning what was depicted in more ancient churches, concerning the holy and all-praised martyr Theodore and the holy and glorious martyr Basiliscus.

And let another possess an image of the apostle, and honor it with reverence; and let him behold the angel driving away the clouds of barbarians, and what has been written concerning these things; and let him love the painting wrought in encaustic wax, and let him record other things similar to these —

this great one is John, the archbishop of the imperial city.

Let Basil the Great, too, again instruct painters to inscribe the images of the holy martyrs more brilliantly together with their contests, and to inscribe on the panels also the very contest-master of the martyrs, Christ himself.

And let Gregory, so great in theology, paint the sacred image of this very one.

Let Asterius, too, again describe the sacred virgin, the all-praised martyr, and let him, composing his discourse in musical fashion, elaborate the painting which he saw while walking beneath the porticoed dwellings.

Let the many other instances now be omitted, so as not to lengthen the discourse.

What do you say, you who exult in the phantasms of the fanciful? Did any of the fathers of old see images of Christ, of the apostles, and of the other saints? Do you yield to these advocates, or do you grow more obstinate, pricked by the goads of your own fantasy? We ought, having set forth one instance in place of all, to resolve the question entirely.

Since you cling to your doctrines, what does your own Asterius say — whom you bring forward as the strongest witness among your own arguments, in whose citation, taken from his discourse on the rich man and Lazarus, you exult against right reasoning — how he too beheld the sacred history depicted even in silken fabrics?

in which, unveiledly and without any change of name, he calls the image of Christ 'Lord' and 'Jesus';

he who also mentions fabrics still more ancient — indeed even more ancient than these.

Let every tongue therefore be muzzled, and every mouth stopped, that utters unjust words against the church of Christ;

for whatever excels in antiquity would surely be worthy of both reverence and honor.

Then he who cannot bear to say that any of the fathers of old painted Christ, a prophet, or an apostle — what could he have said in reply to Christ himself, who imprinted his own divine-formed and venerable image, which even to this day has been preserved for the refutation of unbelievers, and among Christians has been both believed and honored? But the foolish and unbelieving man is seen to be an enemy at once of true words and of the very facts themselves.

And let him who teaches as dogma that no one who painted Peter or the other apostles ever made an example of them, hear — together with his disciples — that this very practice of making examples through images has been the work of the apostles from the beginning.

For an ancient account, both handed down historically and holding to the truth, relates that the very leader of the apostolic choir himself, by his own voice, commanded the painter to form the image of the Savior and Teacher, and indeed also his own image, and that of certain of those being discipled by him for the gospel;

and according to these it is likewise recorded that the rest of the holy apostles did the same.

Concerning these matters we have already set forth more fully above.

If, then, you are persuaded neither by antiquity, nor put to shame by what lies before your very eyes, nor instructed by what has been handed down in histories — then even were someone to rise from the dead and preach, your hard-heartedness and untamed soul would not be persuaded, until the strong and just hand of God should justly come upon you.

The lovers of folly, then, treading the crooked and deceitful path, having removed the greater part of what was disorderly and strangely written by that rash-minded author — in which his phantom-like and childish quality is manifest — append the following to what has been written above:

Do you not see, most God-beloved emperor, that this work is not fitting for God? Therefore I beseech you, most God-fearing emperor and hater of wickedness, refuting every error by the zeal of God that is truly in you, through your firm legislation, decreed with a penalty if possible; and I believe that if you are willing in God, you are able, so that the veils - wherever they are found having, falsely indeed, yet nonetheless, paintings either of apostles or prophets or of the Lord and Christ himself - all these, gathered together from churches or baptisteries or houses or martyria, you shall have delivered for the burial of the poor; and those on walls, through colors, be whitewashed; and those previously done in mosaic be plastered over.

But since such a removal is difficult, it is for you, in the wisdom given to you by God, to know how you shall command.

If it is possible for these to be removed, it would be well;

but if impossible, let it be contented with what has already happened, and let no one paint any longer in this manner.

For indeed our fathers wrote nothing else except the sign of Christ, the cross, on their own doors and everywhere.

What then will anyone say to this, except that, as it is written, 'the wisdom of a fool consists of words that cannot be examined,' and 'the fool will speak folly, and his heart will devise vain things, so as to accomplish lawless deeds and to speak error against the Lord'?

For how is this not a mark of the utmost boorishness and folly - to have already taken such pains concerning the destruction of the sacred images, and to have gotten all the rest out of the way, yet to permit only the mosaic-worked ones to remain standing in their form, on account of some small difficulty - although it ought rather to be said that these especially should have been removed, as being more enticing and alluring than those made of other material? For indeed these, so to speak, are for the most part established in the sanctuaries, where the bloodless sacrifice is performed.

by which, as it seems, the holy place is profaned by the profane things.

Has a small difficulty destroyed the whole of the labor? For having toiled much and written much, he has left, in the sanctuary, the idolatrous institutions and his painted gods, and, so to speak, the whole matter of idolatry which he, in his error, supposed it to be - things truly indeed worthy of his own faith and understanding, both in what he wrote and in what he proposed!

For these things are certainly not marks of correct and precise faith.

The piety of Christians does not stand thus, namely to despise some of the things that pertain to the faith, and to hold fast to others;

For whoever fails in one part has become guilty of the whole, and has thereby fallen from the whole.

This man, then, limping in his own faith, does not rightly handle our piety at all, since our affairs are nowhere disposed in such a way.

For even to the very memory, the things of idols have been abolished by the church;