Refutatio et Eversio 1 part 7/21

and according to his nature and essence with respect to the Father, uncreated, invisible, uncircumscribed, unalterable, immutable, impassible, incorruptible, immortal, creator of all things; but according to the nature of his flesh, and ours, the same one is created, passible, circumscribed, containable, mortal;

the same one indeed, but not in the same respect, on account of the natures from which and in which he has his being.

Further, the same divine Gregory, in his first letter to Cledonius, laying hold of the same idea, declares:

For we do not separate the man from the divinity, but we teach one and the same person: first, not man, but God, and Son only, and pre-eternal, unmixed with body;

and finally, also having assumed manhood for the sake of our salvation, passible in flesh, impassible in divinity;

circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in spirit, the same one both earthly and heavenly, visible and intelligible, containable and uncontainable, so that the whole man, fallen under sin, might be refashioned by the same one who is wholly man and God.

Let this divine teacher enlighten us also from what was said by him in his oration on the [feast of the] Lights:

Since the nature subject to generation and decay was not able to bear his pure divinity, for this reason things unmixable are mixed:

not only is God mixed with generation, nor mind with flesh alone, nor the timeless with time, nor the uncircumscribed with measure, but also birth with virginity, and dishonor with him who is higher than all honor, and the impassible with suffering, and the immortal with the corruptible.

It is clear that here the Father used "measure" in place of "circumscribed," setting it in opposition to "uncircumscribed."

For everything that falls under measure is altogether circumscribed.

And that this is so must be believed from the remaining antitheses, according to which he set the opposites against one another.

Next let there also be set forth the great Eustathius, who formerly was president of the Antiochenes, in his oration entitled, in a speculative manner, "On the Inscription of the Stele-Writing," speaking thus, making his discourse concerning the lawgiver Moses:

It appears, then, that he posits two kinds of stelae:

for he would not, while approving Jacob's stele favorably, have rebuked those of his opponents as impiously set up.

But those stelae impiously impress false, demonic phantasms of idolatry, whereas that of the forefather Jacob does not display the same purpose as those.

For that righteous man, having been instructed inwardly by the Holy Spirit, saw first the very bodily form of Christ vividly pre-depicted, which is visible and subject to spatial circumscription;

and secondly he also relates the victorious trophy of the cross, represented in the likeness of a ladder.

For upon this he was also fixed on high, drawing all men to himself.

Adorning the hierarchy, let the divine Gregory enter in addition to these, proclaiming similar things in his Catechetical Orations:

But, he says, human nature is small and easily circumscribed, whereas divinity is infinite:

And how could the infinite be encompassed by the individual? And who says this, that the infinity of divinity was encompassed by the circumscription of the flesh as though in a vessel? For not even in our own life is the intellectual nature enclosed within the bounds of the flesh, but while the mass of the body is circumscribed by its own members, the soul, by the movements of its thought, freely extends itself over all creation as it has authority.

Let the holy Amphilochius, who was overseer of the Iconians, write to his friend Seleucus, and, concurring with what has been set forth, teach more clearly:

so that the form of God and the form of a servant together constitute one person, that of the Son and Lord Jesus Christ:

Thus I confess the Son of God to be both God and man, one Son of two natures, one passible and the other impassible, one mortal and the other immortal, one palpable and the other impalpable, one without beginning and the other having begun, one uncircumscribed and the other circumscribed.

The Master Christ, the Son of God, is therefore born of holy Mary, not according to the uncircumscribed but according to the circumscribed nature.

For I said above that Christ, the Son of God, is both uncircumscribed and circumscribed:

according to the divine nature uncircumscribed, but according to the human nature circumscribed:

according to which Christ the Son of God was circumscribed both in the manger and in swaddling clothes and on the cross and in the tomb, whereas according to divinity he both contained and contains all things without limit and without circumscription.

And going through the contents of the letter with equivalent expressions, he concludes his discourse thus:

One, therefore, is Christ the Son of God, passible and impassible; passible in flesh, but impassible in divinity; visible in flesh, invisible in divinity; circumscribed in flesh, uncircumscribed in divinity:

having a temporal beginning according to the flesh, but without beginning according to divinity.

And these things, as I have persuaded myself, I have set forth well.

Let the holy Methodius, who distinguished himself in the church of Myra, hasten into this holy assembly, offering us, as it were, a holy and concise method in the festal oration he composed for the day called the Hypapante, and let him sing in accord with what has been set forth, and let him proclaim, toward the all-pure Mother of God, the hymns sung in blessings:

Blessed are you, all-blessed and all-beloved!

In the blessings of the Lord is your God-graced name, O God-bearer, torch-bearer of all!

the circumscription, so to speak, of the uncircumscribed; the root of the most precious flower; the mother of him who formed all; the nurse of him who nourishes; the container of him who contains all; she who bears him who bears all things by his word.

What else, then, do the aforesaid words of the Father set before us than that Christ was bodily circumscribed, being carried in the womb of the all-holy Virgin, and especially by the very statement of "circumscription of the uncircumscribed" and "container of the container"? Let the divine Hippolytus, who steers the helm of the church of the Portians, loose his holy tongue and denounce, and strike mightily, those Berons and Helicons of the confusion-making faction who have now appeared.

For the infinite admits of motion in no principle or manner, having no whither and no object around which it might be moved:

for motion would be a change of that which by nature, being infinite, is not by nature disposed to be moved.

Wherefore also, having truly become man like us, without sin, the Word of God, having both acted and suffered in human fashion whatever belongs sinlessly to nature, and having, for our sake, submitted to the natural circumscription of flesh, did not undergo change, becoming in no respect at all — in that in which he is identical with the Father — identical with the flesh through the union.

And again it will be said according to the same discourse:

In whatever things he acted divinely, the almighty and all-creative energy of the whole divinity was shown apart from change, remaining outside every circumscription according to nature, even though it shone forth through flesh that was finite by nature.

One must note that "finite" is the same as "circumscribed."

After these, then, let the God-bearing Anastasius rise up, who was entrusted with the helm of the great city of the Antiochenes, and let him bring down those who are unstable and shaken both in judgment and in doctrines, and indeed let him also define terms:

A property is that which is properly and specifically recognized in some nature, but is not found in another.

In the divine nature are pre-eternity, uncreatedness, uncircumscribedness, which do not exist in any other essence whatsoever, nor in the all-holy body of Christ itself according to essence:

for it is neither pre-eternal nor uncreated, nor will it ever be uncircumscribed.

From here let the holy preacher Sophronius come forward, who adorned the throne of the Jerusalemites both in doctrines and in deeds, and let him bring to their senses those who behave licentiously and foolishly:

and let him teach them not to run far from the church's divine ordinances, having written thus somewhere in his dogmatic letter to Honorius, who did not piously expound the priesthood of the Romans:

Believing Christ to be of two natures

we confess the same one to be tangible and intangible, the same one circumscribed and uncircumscribed.

Whence it is surely evident that Christ also passed from place to place as we do, since he truly became man and possessed our nature without diminution, and submitted to the circumscription of the body, and bore the form that is fitting to us.

For it is corporeal, that is, of the body, and the form belongs to the shape according to which he was fashioned when conceived in the womb, and which he has preserved forever and preserves unto the unending age.

Let one Son be acknowledged, who brings forth from himself every activity, both divine and human, lowly and exceedingly great, earthly and heavenly, fleshly and incorporeal, visible and invisible, circumscribable and uncircumscribable, corresponding to his duality of natures.

Let the wise Leontius leap forth leonine and roar terribly, vehemently terrifying the whelps of the adversaries, working in them the greatest dread by means of the divine doctrines, boldly and nobly driving off the savage beasts who had attacked the flock of Christ — those most abominable and godless followers of Nestorius and Eutyches — by the strength and the intricacy of his elegant doctrines, proceeding somewhere in these words:

But the soul, say the champions of division, is circumscribed within the body, and receives passions, and endures pains.

And if the Word is united [to the flesh] in this manner, then it is time to subject him too to the same conditions, and make him passible and circumscribable.

What then? Would I not rather say that it is you who fabricate these very things which you charge against us? For you are afraid to join him to flesh and to a whole man, as though he would of necessity be circumscribed and made to suffer.

If, then, the Word is by nature passible, or receives circumscription in place, these things will be in him on account of himself, and not on account of his union with the circumscribable and passible body;

and thus he will be passible and circumscribable, even if he has not suffered nor been circumscribed.

But if he is by nature unchangeable and uncircumscribable and impassible, then even should he come to be in a body, he would preserve his own principle of impassibility and the entire principle of his unchangeability.

The hierophant of the Cyprians, the blessed Epiphanius, worker of marvel-making signs, whom the impious possess as a manifest accuser rather than an advocate for their own absurd doctrines — let him accordingly set forth for us the doctrine concerning circumscription; even though he does not declare it in these very words, nevertheless, presenting to us through many other words the same notion of circumscription, discoursing clearly, in his book called the Ancoratus, he has written as follows:

...being [what he is], he might accomplish it, leaving out nothing of man, lest the part left out should again become, in its turn, food for the devil.

What could be more indicative for the discovery of what we seek than these words? For the phrases 'whatever is in man' and 'such as man is' and the rest signify the same thing as that [term].

What then would they say concerning perfection in man? If man is not circumscribable, he is by no means perfect;

nor indeed will he be man at all.

So that he proclaimed, more than all the other fathers, that the Savior is, according to his humanity, circumscribable.

Let holy Clement of Alexandria accompany those set forth before, and, writing against those who judaize, let him say the following:

Solomon, the son of David, in the books entitled Kingdoms, having understood the construction of the true temple — that it is not only heavenly and spiritual, but indeed pertains also to the flesh which the Son and Lord of David was to build for his own coming, wherein he had determined to be enthroned as a kind of living statue — and also concerning the church raised up according to the assembly of faith, speaks, word for word, as follows:

'Will God then truly dwell with men upon the earth?' Now the Lord dwells upon the earth, having put on flesh, and dwelling comes to be for him with men in the composition and harmony that pertains to the righteous, as he fashions and raises up a holy temple;

for the righteous are earth, still being clothed with earth, and are earth in comparison with the greatness of the Lord.

Wherefore also the blessed Peter does not hesitate to say:

'And you yourselves, as living stones, are being built up, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.'

But concerning the body, which according to circumscription he consecrated for himself as a divinely indwelt place upon earth, the Lord himself said, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews therefore said:

'This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

It was not necessary to add the citation that follows;

for Theodotus the Galatian, from Ancyra, is not among the notable nor the especially eminent [fathers];

but since our adversaries, distorting his words for the contrary purpose, bring them forward while legislating that Christ must not be circumscribed or depicted in images, we have appended this [citation] for their shame and refutation, so that from this too they may be shown to be introducing spurious and alien statements, out of which they exert all diligence to establish falsehood while concealing the truth.

For in the discourse composed by him concerning the all-hymned Theotokos and Symeon, he has written as follows:

Hail, tiniest receptacle, who contained him who is uncontainable by all!

And who shall declare the generation of him who is older than his own birth? What shall we marvel at — the divine and inexpressible offspring, or the inexplicable childbirth? That which is beyond speech is not grasped by speech;

that which is beyond conception is not circumscribed by the mind.

For even if a painter paints the mother of the dispensation, yet speech does not explain the manner of her conception.

Shall we assign a beginning to his birth? But he did not subsist apart from him who is without beginning.

Shall we call the one who was born an infant? But he possesses the Ancient of Days as his originating and causal principle.

The intensity overcomes the lowering, and the uncircumscribable soars above circumscription.

Such good things does the divine Virgin-Mother always bring forth for us in her holy shinings-forth, because with her is the fountain of life.

But it must be observed that, in introducing the mother of Christ as being depicted, he also knows that the one born of her according to the flesh is likewise depicted, as being consubstantial in flesh with her also.

Likewise, he also applies circumscription to that which pertains to the bodily [nature] in Christ, just as he applies the uncircumscribable to the divinity.

Now the statements which proclaim, in accord with the very wording of the God-bearing [fathers], that Christ is circumscribable according to his humanity, and [declare] that it does not belong to [his] nature for the divine Word to be co-circumscribed with the body that is circumscribed, or to be wholly separated from it (for no argument will be found that could compel this) — these [statements], to set forth as readily as possible and according to my ability,

...introduce him as our God in humanity and as the same one perfect in divinity, and which likewise proclaim the body that pertains to him as circumscribable, just as they proclaim his divinity as uncircumscribable — need I say how extremely numerous and countless these are, and indeed concordant in every respect? If we were to go on appending these to the statements already set forth, we would extend our discourse without end;

but those to whom the rectitude of doctrines and their own salvation are a concern may, if they wish, trace them out with diligence and gather them together, statements that direct and guide toward the goal of the mystery of the divine dispensation.

But those who set themselves in opposition to so great a fleet of holy and blessed men, assembled by the grace of the Spirit, and who contend to stare against the flashing radiance of truth — than whom could any be more wretched, being darkened by the darkness of error? What pardon will they obtain? Or rather, to what condemnations will they not be made liable, being shown, in this present life, to be objects to be shunned and abhorred by the pious, and being condemned, in the age to come, to lengthy chastisement and unending punishment? But let these go their own way;

but let us again return to examine what has been left [unaddressed].

For from this point, the unholy ones, exchanging evil for evil, rush on to more absurd blasphemies, saying:

'Wherefore we, having embraced the straightness of doctrine, banish from the catholic Church the invalid making of falsely-named icons, which was arrogantly made into a dogma.'

Now, concerning the phrase 'it dogmatized arrogantly,' we shall need no words at present, since it has already been sufficiently stated beforehand whence and how that great and sacred council dogmatized.

But as for what is added by the Christ-fighters, what could one say? What ear could bear it? Who would endure such blasphemous and God-fighting words? How boldly and unrestrainedly they dare to open their mouth against Christ!

Where do they direct their blasphemy, and how high does the outrage climb? What further need is there to speak concerning the icons? For it is not unclear that they plainly impute the falsehood to the very archetype itself.

Wherefore here too, as though returning to their own vomit, they again make use of the abominable tongue of the utterly wicked pseudo-Epiphanides.

For that man dared to burst forth with this utterance for the destruction of the true incarnation of the Word, being the most ardent lover of Manichaean madness, and championing, even more extravagantly than the other Docetists, their doctrine of phantasm.

From this point, then, by destroying the truth of the archetype, they accordingly attempt also to make vanish together with it the things typified from it;

for an image could not be called false, unless it lacked a real archetype.

But this could be seen more clearly in their own case:

for if the icon of Christ is falsely named, then they themselves also would have to be called false icons.

For they would run the risk, if indeed it is not permitted for Christ to be depicted in an image, of being entirely cast out from the very concept of 'image' — neither as men partaking of the divine image, nor indeed as priests who have shared in the grace of the first and great high priest, Christ — since they would not grant that he is a high priest at all, unless he is also a man capable of being depicted.

In both respects, then, they falsely-namedly depict him as an image.

But neither could there ever appear any arbitrary argument which, in the case of things that truly exist and are naturally capable of being imaged, would forbid their being depicted in one way while permitting them to be imaged in another;

for it is likewise necessary that, as the concept of the image holds, it either be true everywhere, or false everywhere.

It is worth asking them: whenever they behold an icon of Christ and read the inscribed name, whom indeed do they have in mind, and of whom do they come into remembrance?

If of someone else, let them say so, and let them present that other one as 'Christ';

But if in every way and altogether they have in mind the one who is proclaimed through his own icon (for it is evident that whomever the image signifies and indicates, it also depicts —

corresponding to the one whom it represents), then it is evident that Emmanuel is thereby shown to us through his own icon;

and by renouncing his sight, his remembrance, and his name, they make themselves manifest, showing that Christ is burdensome to them, whether named, or remembered, or seen in an icon.

These things, I think, would persuade both barbarians and Greeks and all mankind that it is not otherwise than thus — unless they should happen to be some among the mad and utterly deranged.

But if these men have been so darkened in their understanding, and have had taken away, along with their intelligible eyes, the very function of their sensible eyes as well, not knowing how to see rightly, then they would be more wretched than all men, and more irrational than the irrational nations, and more faithless than the faithless.

And therefore, let the prophetic utterance be proclaimed over them from above: 'They shall walk in the light of their own fire, and in the flame which they have kindled.'

A human image is a certain likeness resembling in countenance that person which it is indeed naturally suited to depict, and no one who has a share in sense-perception and reason would gainsay this;

and since it bears the likeness [of another], it has fittingly obtained the appellation of those terms which, among those who pursue logical studies, are called 'relatives.'

in which indeed a certain relation is also perceived, according to which they partake of a mutual communion with one another.

And the very name also indicates whence the image derives;

and, that we may linger a little upon this point in our discourse, on account of the ingratitude of those who reject the saving grace —

For it is formed from the verb eiko, which signifies 'to make like,' with one letter added in excess.

Since then the resemblance in these things, being a certain relation, mediates between the extremes that share in likeness -- I mean the thing that resembles and the thing resembled -- it unites and joins these in form, even if they are separated in nature.

For even if each of the two should differ from the other in nature, still they are not different persons.

For through the type, knowledge arises from the outset, and in it the hypostasis of the one depicted is beheld.

Indeed, then, the image of the emperor might say:

'If I and the emperor are one, then he who has seen me has seen the emperor.'

From this, then, it follows that in cases where similar things are set forth as jointly sharing in the relation, they will for the most part be introduced together and abolished together, according to the form of this argument.

And if falsehood should be predicated of the one, the other likewise would also bear away the charge of falsehood;

but if the one has the truth, then surely the other does too -- as, for example, the image of the emperor is like the emperor, whoever he himself happens to be.

Therefore, if the one depicted is a true emperor, then the image depicting him will also be a true image;

but if he is false, then the image made according to him will of necessity be shown to be false also.

And if one must speak more truly still, it is no more accurate to call the image of something in any way false 'false' than to say that it is not an image at all;

such as are the things fabricated (I mean hippocentaurs and goat-stags), which, not having real existence, expose the wretchedness of those who fabricate them, as they cling to idolatrous phantasms.

So then, following the sequence of the argument, whenever the false priests dare to call the images of the great King Christ and God 'falsely-named,' it is entirely necessary -- since image and prototype are mutually indicative of one another and each possesses the manifestations of the other -- that they thereby declare Christ himself to be a false Christ and a false king;

and it will be dogmatized by them still more manifestly that Christ too is 'falsely-named,' existing nowhere in any way at all;

for that falsehood is non-being is surely clear to everyone.

For thus, through the mutual relation, they have attempted, as they suppose, to abolish the archetype, knowing that through the relation of likeness, insult directed against the image is referred back to the prototype.

For an image would not be seen as falsely-named, unless it should fail of an archetype;

for not having anything to which it can be likened, it naturally draws falsehood upon itself, as is reasonable.

For by holding the opinion that the divine Word has been embodied in appearance and phantasy, and not glorifying it in truth, they will be entangled no less in that former blasphemy of falsehood.

Thus, then, through this single word 'falsely-named' their unspeakable secret is exposed, by which they have clearly denied the human nature according to Christ, or rather, they wholly cast off the entire divine economy;

therefore they will most justly be reckoned both falsely-named Christians and Christ-fighters.

But we, confessing that Christ truly and in power is living and reigning and co-reigning with God the Father unto the ages, and that in truth he has appeared as man like us, apart from sin, likewise know that his sacred images are true images;

for they clearly manifest to us the character of his life-originating body, for the confirmation of his true and saving embodiment, being set up among Christians from the beginning;

from which also the remembrance of him, shining forth, is deposited in the minds of the faithful who behold them.

Therefore these images are not falsely-named, even if it should seem so to the servants of falsehood, but they possess the indisputable and firm character, standing fast in the truth.

But let this, then, be considered thus concerning these matters;

for the shamelessness of the unholy compels us also to make use of the arguments of outsiders.

Those who have devoted their study to such matters say that 'cause' is spoken of in many ways:

for it is both efficient and instrumental, and again exemplary and material, and further besides these, final, and whatever else appears together with these here;

and these are observed also in the case of hand-made things, the many things accomplished by art in human life;

among which also the image of someone is produced by such causes.

Since, then, the image of our Savior Jesus Christ is also artificial and hand-wrought -- to pass over the other causes for now -- it possesses as its exemplary cause nothing other than Christ himself, that is, his own form.

The leaders of falsehood, then, through this word do damage to the notion of the cause -- which is to say, they abolish the very bodily form according to which such a depiction has been engraved.

And what could be more blasphemous than this against the incarnation of the Word? And what will those who banish images gain, except to declare themselves accusers of the catholic Church? For if I saw these sacred things being venerated in some part of the Church, as it were in only one nation of the faithful and one region, while the catholic Church did not hold this view, then perhaps their argument would have had some occasion to hinder and correct the practice in part, on account of its disagreement with the universal Church.

But since they decree to banish images from the catholic Church, they confess, even unwillingly, that the whole catholic and apostolic Church has received these images, honoring and cherishing them;

against which they obstinately fight, being conspicuously branded as accusers of all Christians.

Whence they banish themselves from the Church, rather than the making of sacred images.

Now one must attend to the sort of things which these Christ-fighters, indulging themselves, or more truly speaking, deceiving themselves -- these mind-deceivers and buffoons -- go on to add next.

'Not being carried along by an unjudged judgment, but decreeing a just judgment, we overturn the veneration of images unjudiciously proclaimed by Tarasius, and we set aside his synod, as having granted, in the aforementioned manner, excessive honor to colors;'

Such is the synod which these 'noble gentlemen' set aside!

I do not know if anyone else has so shut his eyes and hardened his heart as these men have been hardened, and has arrived at such an extreme of madness and stupefaction, as to be ignorant of what sort of person he himself is and not to know at all what he is doing.

For thus, thrusting out a rash tongue, they cast their vote against their own head, not knowing where this rejection will end up for them --

having set themselves in opposition to the divine canons, against which they have come, and having been wretchedly shown to be liable to judgment before the judgments of God.

On account of which things, indeed, it was also said by us before,

that it had granted, as they say, excessive honor to colors --

the lighting of candles and lamps, the offering of incense, so to speak, an object of the veneration due to worship;