書信集 第 1 章 第 33/55 段

to whom I thought it good to write again;

and I wrote not as from myself alone, but, as before, from both of the abbots named in the letter, except the one from Eukairia;

for this one, as I have learned, has fallen away, on account of my sins;

so then, with full knowledge and common consent, by a secret message and the reading of the letter, we wrote as we did then, as the letter that was sent also made clear.

But now, even though I have not been able to do this on account of security, yet this very letter is as if both parties were already of one mind;

and perhaps afterward it will be possible for them too to come to recognize it.

Go, then, O good Epiphanius;

manifest yourself to the West as a faithful, prudent messenger, known of old, delivering the letter; and, in accordance with what has been divinely set forth in the holy apostolic, exemplary manner and word of the sacred Methodius and the holy bishop of Monembasia, do you yourself also join as an envoy and entreat that these things be brought to completion by God's good pleasure — his, who is able both to bring you safely through and to present you before the sacred and blessed Head.

Great is your reward, and great the contest;

Greet all the saints, and especially those more familiar to you, above all my holy father the archimandrite, and also my lord the chartophylax (keeper of the archives), whose love is lodged in my humble heart.

{To the same} And again I heard your voice, beloved child, and I seemed to see you before my eyes and to embrace you.

Are you grieved that you were let go, to be unbound? Thanks be to the Lord who so ordered it; yet in purpose you remain bound, and in your confession you are blessed.

Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring forth.

Be prepared, then, and let whatever concerns you be led wherever is pleasing to God;

everyone has need of watchfulness; everywhere the persecutor is an enemy.

These things are necessary — for they evidently take away even the letters as well.

But learning what has been done there by the one who formerly presided, I was astonished, and ended in lamentation;

and how is it that you gave no word concerning Philagrius, whose care weighs upon my humble soul? {To the same} Your letter came to me unexpectedly, O dearest child;

for the one whom I expected to be speaking Latin in Rome, speaks to me from Byzantium, and the one whom I reckoned to have been set free, comes to me a prisoner.

What is this? Clearly it is the work of God's providence, that you too might share with your sacred brothers in the sufferings for Christ's sake — not only as being among those who excel, but also as surpassing many in knowledge and holding the first rank among the scribes; and I would add, too, as being the mouth of my humility.

You, then, spoke what you spoke in your letters, extolling what is mine (though it would be truer to call it yours, since what belongs to the father belongs also to the son), overstepping due measure out of affection; but I exhort you to stand nobly in the contests for Christ's sake, enduring all things even unto blood, since the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us, as it is written — and all the more since from the outset you chose to be numbered among the confessors, and have well-nigh cast yourself into the danger.

Thus a lawful martyrdom has been ordained for you, brother, now that you have been duly led according to reason.

Let us not, then, shrink back, I beseech you, nor spare the flesh, but let us give it up to whatever Christ may prepare, so that we may cast both soul and body into immortal blessings.

Pray also, in like manner, for me the sinner.

The brother who is with me greets you.

{To my child Naucratius} I rejoice over you, my brother Naucratius, that you are proving yourself a son of joy, which is to suffer for Christ's sake.

For what could be more gracious than this, or more glorious? You were scourged in imitation of Christ, taken from prison to prison, and delivered into the hands of the impious John, on whose account I, in my humility, was also greatly troubled;

but that when he assailed you, you were not overturned — on the contrary, you sent the vain-minded man away refuted — at this I, wretched as I am, greatly rejoiced and took heart.

May you have help from the Lord also henceforth, against whatever may befall you.

But since you said that in the debate he put forward sayings for the overthrow of the holy icons — namely, those of Asterius, Epiphanius, and Theodotus — I have thought it necessary, for the instruction of you both, to set down here, even though it exceeds the style proper to a letter, those very sayings of theirs, and, with God's help, our own refutation of them, unlearned though we are.

The words of Asterius, then, are these, verbatim:

For the one humbling of the incarnation, which he willingly accepted for our sake, is sufficient for him;

but in your soul, bearing the bodiless Word intellectually, carry him about.

Let the writer of this discourse, then, be asked why, having forbidden that Christ be depicted, he says that the one humbling of the incarnation is sufficient for him — as though, having once chosen the inglorious humbling, he were now avoiding a second manifestation of that humbling.

And how is it voluntary, if inglorious? For what is voluntary is glorious, not possessing the inglory that belongs to what is involuntary.

But if this is not the reason, but rather that it is a 'repetition,' how is a depiction a 'repetition,' when it shows, by way of likeness, that very same, original thing? And how will he not also reject being commemorated through hearing, if being triumphantly proclaimed through sight is, as a 'repetition,' odious to him? For each is joined to, and equal in force with, the other, as the divine mouth, Basil the Great, declared.

By the same analogy it would also have to be reckoned that the cross, once depicted, is the 'repetition' of another cross — as also in the case of the Gospel;

and since both are continually depicted, it would follow that there are countless crosses, and likewise countless Gospels, rather than one and one.

But if the cross, even though depicted ten thousand times, is one and not a second; and the Gospel, even though depicted infinitely, is one and not a second; then Christ too, even though likewise depicted, is one and not two.

Nor indeed does the eye multiply from the act of seeing;

that God became man, and that the Eternal One appeared as an infant;

and he who nourishes all things is nourished with milk; and he who cannot be contained is held in arms; and he who is above all godhead in dignity is treated as a man; and the abyss of wisdom is baptized; and he who is above all being does things befitting both God and man; and the Lord of glory is crucified; and he who gives life to all things is buried and rises again; and he who is contained nowhere is taken up in a manner befitting man.

Let him cease, then, forbidding this manifestation, in both respects, which is so salvific for the world, taking the glory of the Lord to be inglory, and supposing the voluntary humbling to be involuntary; and let him also cease opposing Basil the Great, whose voice is the voice of God, when he commands somewhere as follows:

Let Christ, the judge of the contests, also be inscribed upon the panel.

Let the following affirmation also be cast out, somewhere, from the divine choir, together with the present pronouncement, as containing an equal absurdity;

for what does he say? 'But in your soul, bearing the bodiless Word intellectually, carry him about.'

For nowhere has any divine mouth called the Word bodiless after he became flesh.

For the sacred apostle has said that Christ is no longer known 'according to the flesh' — but he has not said he is bodiless — where he says:

'But from now on we know no one according to the flesh;'

'and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.'

which, in interpreting, Gregory the Theologian said: 'the fleshly passions, apart from sin, are ours;'

as he also says elsewhere: 'no longer flesh, yet not bodiless.'

But he who calls the Word bodiless would be in conflict not only with these two Fathers, but indeed with all the God-bearing Fathers.

It has been shown, then, that an absurdity has followed upon an absurd account of nature;

and, in refutation of the falsehood, let the truth be set down in its stead.

How? Depict Christ wherever it is fitting, even while having him dwelling in your heart, so that, being both read of in the book and seen in the icon — thus made known through the two senses — he may doubly illumine your mind, so that you, having been instructed by word, may also see with your eyes that very thing which you learned.

and indeed, in thus being heard and seen, it is not in the nature of things that God should not be glorified and the pious man not be pierced with compunction;

and what could be more salvific than this, and more acceptable to God? Thus, then, do we, who are of no account, understand the truth — even if some of the sacred Fathers before us have understood the matter here refuted otherwise.

Now that this man's statement has been dealt with, what of that of Epiphanius? 'Your piety will understand whether it is fitting for us to have God depicted in colors.'

He did not say 'Christ' — in whom both the circumscribed and the uncircumscribed are made manifest, for here is the indication of both natures — but rather 'to have God depicted,' stripping the Word of his humanity with a Manichaean mindset, and putting forward a naked God, so that by the absurdity of the proposition he might astonish the hearer.

Thus, indeed, it would also be absurd to speak of God as visible, if, as the sacred oracles say, 'No one has ever seen God.'

And yet the only-begotten Son, being God and being seen, has himself made this known;

but it is quite clear that no one has seen God naked of humanity.

But since the Only-begotten is not naked after the incarnation, for this reason he is also visible.

And the sacred apostle has cried out:

'God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.'

The phrase 'in the flesh,' then, must be understood as applying in common to every one of these statements;

for the first phrase serves as a kind of thread running through, not only for the phrases that follow, but indeed for all the properties of the incarnation.

As, then, 'God was manifested in the flesh' applies also to each of the aforesaid statements (for it would not be natural for him to be seen or taken up without also understanding 'in the flesh'), so likewise, evidently, he is nourished with milk in the flesh, and grows in stature, and walks on foot, and sweats in agony, and converses with a tongue, and whatever else belongs to the same category.

for each of these necessarily entails one of two things:

if he has been seen in the flesh, he is also circumscribed in the flesh, since each of these belongs to the same category as, and is the mutual cause of, the other.

If, then, the second is not true, neither is the first;

but the first is indeed true; therefore the second is also true.

Thus, both according to the divine oracles and according to common reasoning, it is foolish not to confess that God can be depicted in the flesh, since he has indeed been seen in the flesh.

For elsewhere too our ‘fine fellow’ says:

I have heard that some profess to depict even the incomprehensible Son of God.

Who then, having any sense, would not laugh at this vain-minded fellow? Have I not read somewhere that ‘they seized Jesus, and bound him, and led him away first to Annas the high priest’? And again elsewhere:

‘Then they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices.’ Does he not confess Jesus to be God? If then he is God, how was the incomprehensible One seized and bound? Is it not clear that it was in the flesh, as the all-wise Paul set forth in order? Let this deceiver, then, who rages against Christ, be silent.

But if he should hear somewhere that we also have a God who is eaten, perhaps he would not only shudder, but even burst asunder, unable to bear the hearing of it.

But what does Christ say? ‘And he who eats me, he too shall live because of me.’

But he could not be eaten otherwise, except in the flesh.

For Christ, being at once perfect God and perfect man, whenever he is named according to each of the natures of which he is composed, and is spoken of as properly understood according to one of them, the property of the other is not thereby diminished or confused within the single unity of the hypostasis.

And God the Word himself is witness to this statement, at one point saying, ‘Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?’ (and yet the one who said this was also immortal God), and at another point declaring, ‘You say that I blaspheme, because I said:’

and indeed the one who said this was also the Son of man.

Thus, in ascribing what belongs by nature to each name to the other nature, we in no way go astray.

Now since this saying has come to an end, what is that of Theodotus? ‘We have not received it as a tradition to reshape the forms of the saints in images made of material colors, but we have been taught to impress, as it were, living images of their virtues by means of what is declared of them in the Scriptures, and thereby to be stirred up to a zeal like theirs.’

Let those, then, who set up such forms in monuments tell us what benefit they could possibly derive from them, or to what spiritual contemplation they are led up by the remembrance of them.

But it is quite clear that such a notion is vain, and an invention of diabolical scheming.

Right from the start, the opening move of this argument is not to be resented, even though it prepares the way for the absurdities that follow, since many of the sacred teachers hold the narrative given through words to be more useful than the visual spectacle of an image, without thereby disparaging the other, while others hold the opposite.

But it holds equal weight, as the great Basil says:

‘For what the narrative account presents through hearing, the painting, though silent, shows through imitation.’

‘And not all are painters, nor are all writers of accounts, but to each God has apportioned a measure of grace.’

Therefore, let him set aside this proposition and state the next one:

Let those, then, who set up such forms in monuments tell us what benefit they could derive from them, or to what spiritual contemplation they are led up by the remembrance of them.

Let the ‘fine fellow,’ then, be asked in return:

For what benefit and sacred contemplation is it not possible to find from this source? For if this is the nature of an image — to be an imitation of the archetype, as Gregory the Theologian says — and in the image the archetype is manifested, as the all-wise Dionysius says, it is clear that great benefit proceeds from the imitation, that is, the image, and through the imitation the greatest spiritual contemplation ascends to the archetype.

And the same divine Basil is witness, saying somewhere as follows:

‘The honor given to the image passes on to the prototype.’

And if it ascends, it is quite evident that it also descends from the prototype to the image.

each is in the other, according to the divine Dionysius:

What could be more beneficial or more elevating than this? For the image is a reflection of very sight itself, and, to use a fitting example, it is like moonlight in relation to the light of the sun.

For if this were not so, of what benefit was the tabernacle of the testimony to the ancients, being an imitation of the heavenly realities? For there too, along with the other things, the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat — that is, images fashioned in human form — were all things leading upward, contemplative realities of worship in the spirit.

Then, according to such a proposition, in vain for us is also the image in the form of a cross, in vain that in the form of a spear, in vain that in the form of a sponge (since these too are imitations, even though not in human form), and in vain are all the other things that, to speak in the manner of Dionysius, have been handed down to us in sensible images, through which, as he says, we are led up, as far as possible, to intelligible contemplations.

Moreover, imagination too is one of the five powers of the soul, and imagination might be considered a kind of image:

The image, then, being like the imagination, is not without benefit.

But if the more excellent one is without benefit, then much more so the lesser one, existing in vain alongside our nature —

and if in vain, then so are its co-ordinate faculties: sense-perception, opinion, discursive reasoning, mind.

Thus, reasoning from the nature of things, the argument, through a more compelling line of contemplation, proves the despiser of the image, that is, of imagination, to be senseless.

But I also admire imagination for another reason:

For some say that a woman who, at the time of conception, imagined an Ethiopian, gave birth to an Ethiopian child.

Such also is the case of the patriarch Jacob with the peeling of the rods, from which imagining the offspring born among the flocks were made variegated.

And, O the wonder, that image-like imagination is seen to be the accomplishment of an actual, real effect!

But let the argument return to the matter at hand:

Let those who set up such forms in monuments tell us what benefit they could derive from them, or to what contemplation they are led up by the remembrance of them.

And who, my good man, does not, after gazing intently upon a pictorial form — whether of the right or of the left — depart carrying its impressions in his mind? If from the noblest subject, then noble impressions; if from the basest, then base ones, so that often, even while remaining at home, one is by the one pierced with compunction, and by the other overcome with passion.

Or does not someone at times, after falling asleep, rise up again either greatly rejoicing or grieved because of the images seen in the night? And if it is so there, how much more, then, can the one who beholds waking images be affected in either direction.

Have you not surely read, my good sir, that those of old worshipped the heavenly realities by means of a pattern and a shadow? What was each of these? Was it not an image? Were they not led up, in the image, to the contemplation of the heavenly things? Does not every man walk about in an image, to speak as David does? Are not you yourself, who fight against icons, an image of God, both begotten according to your father's form, and also depicted iconically on a panel? Or are you alone unable to be depicted in an image, as though you were not a man but an aborted miscarriage, and is it for this reason that you suppose the same of the saints as well? But so that this argument may receive greater confirmation, setting aside dogmatizing on my own authority, I will set before you the luminaries of the inhabited world, answering your question.

‘I have often seen a painted image of the Passion, and I have not passed by the sight without tears, the art vividly bringing the story before the eyes.’

‘I too have loved the encaustic painting, filled as it is with piety.’

‘For I saw in an image an angel driving off hosts of barbarians, I saw the tribes of barbarians trodden underfoot, and David speaking the truth:’

‘O Lord, in your city you will set their image at nought.’

‘I saw upon a wall a painted maiden contending in the arena, and I did not behold the sight without tears.’

‘And Polemon was depicted in the image, leaning over her:’

‘A courtesan, seeing this image (for it was truly awe-inspiring), immediately went away, overcome by the sight, as though ashamed before the painted figure as if he were alive.’

‘Magnify him with your arts:’

‘The victor, painted rather dimly by me, illumine him with the colors of your skill.’

‘Let me depart, vanquished by the painting of the martyr's valiant deeds.’

‘Today, being overcome, I rejoice in such a victory of your skill:’

‘Let me see the struggle of the hand against the fire painted more precisely by you; let me see the wrestler painted more radiantly in your image.’

‘Let the demons weep even now, struck by the martyr's valiant deeds through you:’

‘Let the hand, burning, be shown to them again, and victorious.’

Do you see how the one sets painting above writing, in which the glorification is so great that even demons weep, while another has, in some measure, called the art of image-making venerable, since it proved the chastening of a courtesan? Again, how does another depart not without tears from the pictorial sight, seeing the martyr contending in the painting? Again, how does yet another call the encaustic painting ‘beloved,’ as though having seen in it the very prototypes? And then the one after them — how does he too not depart without tears from this painting, as though he had received the very sight itself? See how many the benefits, consider how great the profits.

And since, having asked, you have heard not from this or that petty and insignificant man, but from those very ones who spoke by the Spirit of God and thundered throughout all that is under heaven, now state the conclusion of the argument, O dogmatist.

But it is quite clear that such a notion is vain, and an invention of diabolical scheming.

It is fitting here to cry out loudly:

‘Be astonished, O heaven, at this, that the sacred doctrines handed down by the God-bearing fathers have been declared to be a vain notion and an invention of diabolical scheming.’

But it is not so, O greatest of deceivers; on the contrary, the flashings of your own tongue must be laid to your own charge.

Since, then, this discourse has come to its end, I want you to know this, brother: that of the citations which the iconoclasts bring forward, some are manifestly from heretics (for it is not possible — no, it is not possible — that falsehood should not subsist alongside the truth, just as tares grow alongside the wheat); others are from the holy fathers, but wrongly taken up by their darkened understanding; and others are altogether strange, applying to the image of Christ what was said against idols.

One must not carelessly accept the voice of these, nor indeed hold discourse with heretics, contrary to the apostolic ordinance.

For the rest, may you be kept safe, my child, and pray that I too may be kept safe.

[Book Two of the Same Author] Theodore, to the brotherhoods scattered everywhere,

[A catechetical letter.] Grace and peace be multiplied to you:

for it is right to address, in apostolic words, those who have been persecuted for Christ's sake.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has opened a door for us, lowly as we are — even though closely guarded — to be joined with you, our beloved brethren, through this discourse by letter.

Truly the word of God is not bound, even though those in power think to bind it.

Truly we ought to rejoice greatly, because we see in ourselves, sinners though we are, the fulfillment of the divine predictions.

Come, brothers, let us say together with the Apostle:

'Who shall separate us from the love of God? Tribulation, or distress, or famine, or persecution, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?' For did he not say this for himself alone, but also on our behalf, that we too might have such a disposition toward God? So let us not lose heart in the afflictions we are undergoing, but let us even love to endure with joy whatever sufferings are still lacking.

For it is an inexpressible joy to suffer for Christ and with Christ, as all the saints have shown, down to Thaddeus our martyr, and any other confessor who has since departed either from prison or from some other place of exile, by a noble zeal and a deed worthy of emulation.

May we too, my brothers, become martyrs in this same manner, ever prepared to be seized, to confess, to be scourged, to die,

to draw near to God, to hate the world, to imagine heaven and the good things laid up for the ages — yet also the grievous things as well.

For such readiness gives the mind no leisure to indulge in pleasure and to dissipate itself passionately here and there, but rather braces the heart, pierces it so that the eyes flow with tears, and makes one long for departure from the body as from some grievous prison.

Let us therefore, from now on, examine what sort of persons we are; and if we are thus disposed, well and good; but if otherwise, let us turn back and be purified.

Let us flee the savage dragon, the devil, and the fiery darts of bitter and deadly desire.

It is not pleasure, but pain; not sweetness, but bitterness; not a good disposition, but hostility, slavery, corruption, demonic possession, a distortion of one's natural condition.

For if it were good and pleasant, how is it that as soon as it seizes those it takes hold of, it shows them to be foolish, brutish, shameful, servile, despairing, dissolute, liable to eternal death?

Thus it works like a poison, deranging and transforming — not being what that arch-witch pretends, just as the demon-possessed do not understand what they are suffering, except after they return to their senses.

Let us therefore now consider, beloved, our lodgings, and our associations — where and with whom.

And if it is harmful there, one must move away; and if it is with someone who causes scandal, one must cut it off; and if it is with no one at all, one must take up company with someone, since a solitary life is to be shunned, unless some necessary circumstance prevents it.

The rest also must be kept watch over — eating, drinking, sleep, work — so that all things be measured, enabling the body to serve the commandments, but not making it savage so as to rise up against the soul.

For if it grows overly fat, it becomes unruly and carries its rider, the mind, down to the ground.

From our own experience we can also speak of yours as well, since all men alike have received from God, as their own sovereign, the reins of free will — even though there is a perpetual war between soul and body arrayed against each other.

Let this, then, be what is said on this matter.

What comes next? The faith must be unwavering, unshaken, just as I delivered it to you and received it from the saints — or rather, both of us alike from one and the same Spirit.

Christ is not Christ, if he cannot be depicted in an image;

for to say 'Christ' is at once to have in mind the mystery of his embodiment;

for the Word, conceived apart from the body, could not be called Christ.

But since the Word became flesh, it is clear that he is also circumscribed in the flesh; and along with the name 'Christ' the property of circumscription is brought in and conceived together with it.

So then, those who say he cannot be depicted — that is, cannot be portrayed in an icon — assume him to be without flesh, and stand far off from the court of Christ, even if they should be a Peter or a Paul, just as Peter and Paul themselves have declared, for our security;

not that any of the apostles or of the saints after them ever said that Christ is not circumscribed in body (far from it!), as the impious say, putting forward spurious writings.

Let us hold fast to this sincere faith, O brothers; let us confess this good confession, in no way being carried away.

Those who do not hold thus are deniers of Christ;

witnesses of Christ are those who stand firm together with the Forty Martyrs, together with the assembly of contestants from all ages.

The Maccabees suffered martyrdom for not tasting swine's flesh, which was then unlawfully forced upon them — and will you, suffering for refusing to deny that Christ can be depicted in images, not be a martyr? John the Forerunner, beaten to death for rebuking Herod with the truth, adorns the rank of martyrs — and will you not, dying for Christ, be among the martyrs? Let no one deceive you with empty words, because of which the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

He who confesses is an unimpeachable witness, and so much the more, in proportion as he abounds in sufferings.

Let not the prevailing of the persecution shake you;

We have not yet endured for many years as the confessors before us did; we have not yet been tried by the enduring fire of the most searching trial;

there is still lead mixed in us, there is still the wrinkle of sin.

Who are you, to intrude into the depths of judgments that cannot be beheld? Consider the things that have been commanded you.

The seed that was promised, in the blessing of God to Abraham, to inherit the holy land — God ordained that it should first be enslaved under Pharaoh's hand for four hundred and thirty years.

Christianity, from the beginning of the apostles' preaching for over two hundred years, until Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was raging under persecution.

Those who came afterward endured it in lesser degree, yet still for many years — apart from the persecution under Julian the Apostate.

Paul the great was persecuted for thirty-five years and died daily — and are you exhausted after only five years? Clement, the much-tried, bore witness for twenty-eight years — and do you gape in dismay after so short a time? Where would I find the time to speak of the other martyrs? Have you not heard of the patience of Job? Was he not tormented for fifteen years, afflicted with a grievous sore in addition to the other calamities brought upon him — and this though he was conscious of having done nothing of the things on the left hand, or rather, of having done what is exceedingly on the right hand? But what was the divine answer given to him? 'That you may be shown to be righteous,' it says.

So also now Providence sifts, as it were, those present, so that the tares may still be cast out, and the wheat may remain pure.

Do you not hear what he says to Jeremiah? 'Put them into the furnace and see whether it is proved genuine, just as I was tested on their behalf.'

Let us endure still more, O noble soldiers of Christ.

The days pass away like shadows, even though the persecutors think they will last forever;

'If they persecuted me,' he says, 'they will also persecute you;'

'if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.'

'But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.'

For in truth they do not know that God the Father sent his only-begotten Son, who was born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those under the law, that he might win the world for his own Father.

For indeed they would be denying that he can be depicted;

for no one born of a woman is without an image, even if he were a miscarriage.