駁毀像派 第 1 章 第 6/21 段

For from this, once again, the church of God is split and divided, and the tunic of Christ, woven from above and throughout, is torn apart.

And why need many things now be enumerated? For this has already been stated with due measure in the preface of this treatise.

Let them answer us when we ask for what reason indeed this novel and mountebank assembly was convened.

What account of any heresy that had ever sprung up alongside the church has it brought to light in its midst? What is the disturbance? What absurd and irrational thing has appeared? What is the irrational zeal? Who is the one stirring it — among the high priests, or those in office, or of whatever fortune, age, and rank? But you would not be able to say, even if, toiling greatly, you fabricated countless things, since all were at peace and blended together in one faith and confession and piety toward God, and were sending up to the God of all a common and harmonious doxology.

Or is it not, once again, that certain accursed men, filled with all impurity, wishing to establish their own shame and ruin rather than glory, did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God; and — God having overlooked it — having seized power to the destruction of soul and body, vomited forth the venom and deceit of unbelief which they had before concealed and been in travail with against our holy religion, and, their soul greatly swollen, breathed forth against the evangelical proclamation, so that through a single assault upon the sacred images they might overthrow the whole mystery of the divine economy? But since so great a depth of error has been overturned and uncovered, let us pass over certain utterances lying in its midst that are to be shunned and most repugnant, and ourselves proceed to what follows.

For after this they also arrogantly boast that they follow and accept the holy synods.

But it must be noted that here, in enumerating the six synods as if in a catalogue, these men have made no mention whatsoever of the harlot-faction that has just now midwifed them into being — having done well in this one thing alone, and that unwillingly.

For it is not lawful for the accursed [assembly] to be numbered together with those declared by God.

But so that we may not ramble on, we shall state that briefly.

...of Phinehas, [zeal] reaching those who were entangled with one another in impiety...

For indeed it has already been said at greater length earlier concerning those men, how they follow the synods.

In the catalogue, then, of the synods which these condemned as advancing heresies, they add certain things such as these:

"But these heresies, once again, those who gave veneration to lifeless images have granted fresh occasion for their former absurdity — either circumscribing together with the image him who is uncircumscribable, or cutting off the flesh from the divinity, correcting one evil with another evil;"

"for in fleeing one absurdity, they fall into [another] absurdity."

And indeed, at the very time these sacred synods were being convened, these venerable [images] were being depicted everywhere, and their likenesses were being venerated by all Christians; among these [synods], the God-declared sixth synod also made a certain yet more divine pronouncement of edification concerning them.

Therefore, here too they are caught babbling in vain, not departing from their customary falsehood, so that no occasion whatsoever for confusion or division has appeared from this.

For when heresies, at various times, corrupted life, then indeed there was need also for the assembling of synods;

such was also the case with that which they now advocate — not a heresy, but an apostasy.

For when the doctrine against the divine incarnation, like a gangrene consuming its pasture, was devouring the people of this realm, the second holy synod held at Nicaea was convened, casting down that wicked and godless doctrine —

"either circumscribing together with the image him who is uncircumscribable, or cutting off the flesh from the divinity."

And from where can you say this? If indeed you have heard it from the one who paints [the icon], the folly must be attributed to him;

for nothing is more foolish or more irrational than to say these things.

For how could any of these things possibly appear as a result of Christ being depicted? But if you have heard it from nowhere — and indeed you have not heard it — you brand your own derangement, filling your mind with phantoms;

and the things which, vainly puffed up and irrationally imagining, you have fashioned in the vanity of your mind and the rottenness of your idle reasonings, in order that you might declare the incarnation of Christ to have been utterly insulted, you transfer, accusingly, onto the supposition of the Christians, and, as though by mere invention, you gaze dreamily upon things that were in no way whatsoever said, or conceived, or could exist at all — just as those who fashion hippocentaurs and goat-stags, composing their myth-making with great ease through empty words;

which one might more properly call not invention, but derangement and ecstasy.

For things which neither have a nature capable of occurring, nor possess any logical consistency — these, in your derangement, you contrive and set forth as dogma.

As if, were someone to show you this disc-shaped solar body painted in some place, just as it is seen represented in certain instances, you would then declare as dogma that the very substance of the light and its radiance is also being painted along with it, or that the light is altogether being severed from the sun;

if you should see a ray of the sun falling somewhere upon a tree, and the tree were cut down, you would suppose that the ray too would be cut down along with it;

and this same thing you will also imagine in the case of fire and certain other things — so that you may justly be mocked and laughed at by children at play, for holding opinions more senseless [than they do].

For if, in the case of the things mentioned, it is not even naturally possible for such a thing to occur, nor to be seen, nor will there be room for it to be said, how much more impossible and unattemptable is it to conceive or say these things concerning the ineffable and divine nature, or concerning the inexpressible and uninterpretable economy of the Savior!

These are the phantom-like ravings of that upstart faction of men who have bowed down to Mammon and to dung,

wallowing in whose clay and mire you defile yourselves, contriving co-circumscriptions and severances, so that you may not yield your vain contentiousness, nor be defeated in your most wicked undertaking and your passionate will that is alien to piety.

You become accusers of things you never heard, but rather of the wicked and godless inventions which you yourselves fabricate;

from which comes the violent and inexorable nature of the assault against the faithful: that one must not confess Christ to be circumscribable, or, confessing it, must either altogether co-circumscribe him or sever him — and, being pursued, suffer irremediable things.

Nor have you understood even this: that building up well and acting for Christ's sake is proper to those who honor and revere Christ, whereas, on the contrary, it is fitting for those who tear down to labor toward his dishonor and contempt.

For you have been so lifted up in arrogance and madness, that you are neither abashed by the length and vastness of time, nor by the multitude of those who lived piously through this life and excelled in the faith and rectitude of doctrine, who, moved by divine longing and fervent zeal, have solemnly honored the sacred iconography, tending it with reverence.

And their stupidity and folly is paraded also in another way:

for these are the ones who everywhere dare to call the images of the Savior by a false name.

But that falsehood is powerless and nonexistent — this no one at all is ignorant of;

which, if applied to the image of Christ, would certainly also possess this same powerlessness and futility [in that image].

If, then, it has been confessed that these things are so, how is it that these true shield-bearers of falsehood have honored falsehood with such might and strength, ascribing to it efficacy and effective power — and this against the ineffable economy of Christ — so as to work confusion or division, not knowing that in prattling these things they set themselves in opposition both to themselves and to the truth? For those who disparage the colors and the material, and belittle the art of painting, and [accuse Christians of] honoring that which they slanderously charge them with — these very men have honored it far more.

And it is no wonder at all if they have accused the divine and all-mighty power of weakness, as though it were not strong enough to rescue mankind from paying homage to the creation, and did not hesitate to charge Christians with idolatry;

and they have presumed to blurt out that Christ suffers these passions by means of colors — as coming from a mind exceedingly irrational and deranged, disposed no better than those who are mad and out of their senses.

The things, then, which they themselves rave about out of passion and stupefaction — these things they foolishly charge against Christians, who neither know nor hold such opinions;

but their utterances dissolve together with their falsehood, whereas the image formed in the name of Christ is a true image, and does none of the things vainly babbled about by them.

The very nature of things teaches this, as does the truth.

For the one who gazes with faith comes thereby to a remembrance of the mystery of the divine condescension, and is in no way harmed, with regard to confusion or division of the natures in Christ, by any other, feebler teaching, being thereby instructed more precisely in the doctrine concerning these matters;

but the one who gazes without faith both disbelieves the flesh and rejects [its] lordship, and it will result that he can in no way whatsoever profit from the mystery.

Having thus abandoned those who wrongly think and speak in vain concerning these matters, we shall proceed to another kind of their wickedness, in which they say:

"correcting one evil with another evil;"

"for in fleeing one absurdity, they fall into [other] absurdities."

And which of the Christians has ever confessed this to be an evil? Or where has it ever been heard, from the church of the Christians, that, perceiving a former evil, having repented, they might escape it, yet fall into another evil? By no means has this ever been found or heard;

for they stand unmoved upon the same doctrine and confession, from the beginning even until now.

These, again, are the words of madmen and fools.

For what they saw happening in themselves, this they cast off onto the pious, doing the very same thing, out of shamelessness and lack of self-restraint, that those do who live together with licentiousness and profligacy;

for indeed those men also rub off their own shames and reproaches upon the self-controlled and those who live with dignity.

I do not know, then, whether in any other instance the succession of absurdities from absurdities will be seen to occur, if not in their case.

For having first shown themselves faithless with regard to the covenants which they had promised to God upon the divine altar, they did not stop at that evil, but immediately armed their tongues against those who had anointed them, and against Christ himself;

then, having set their profane hands against the divine houses, they tore down the sacred adornment, madly digging into the altars of God.

What need is there to speak concerning the sacred vessels and treasures? Of these, some they hostilely and disgracefully broke, as though they belonged to strangers, while others they made sooty by setting them on fire.

These things having been stated thus more summarily, let us again proceed to the principles and essential points of their doctrine, unfolding a little the argument concerning them, so that we may see whether they are disposed to think soundly about these matters.

For indeed, taking up in hand the term "uncircumscribable", and setting forth this as a premise against piety — by supposing that they are thereby attacking, as though it were something most hostile, our confession — they attempt to strengthen their own suppositions.

But in these matters they appear to be no less impious than ignorant;

for they do not know how great is the distinction and difference between what is depictable and what is circumscribable, and between to depict and to circumscribe.

For though it is proper to say "depict", these foolish men, out of unlearnedness and lack of education, ignorantly say "circumscribe".

For if they had recognized the difference and force of these terms, they would have been ashamed, at least a little, at the refutation of their rashness, having thereby avoided speaking senselessly and emptily.

But they confound these terms together, following the ancient originators of this evil and irrationality — just as indeed they also confound the natures in Christ himself; whereas we have thought it necessary, for the sake of clarity and for the knowledge of those who do not know, to distinguish them more summarily.

For their difference is this:

"Writing" (γραφή), then, is spoken of in two senses: both that which is inscribed through the characters of these elements, syllables, and words, in their proper position and order, and also that which is formed in colors through the art of painters.

"Circumscription" (περιγραφή), to put it more concisely, is comprehended in these three ways:

for that which is circumscribed is circumscribed either by place, or by time, or by comprehension;

by place, as bodies are; by time, as both these [bodies] and things which receive a beginning and an end in time; by comprehension, as those things which fall under concepts.

Neither, then, does he who depicts someone — a man, say — that is, who makes an icon of him (for it is concerning this meaning of the word that we now propose to speak), thereby circumscribe the one depicted in his own icon;

for he is not circumscribed by being depicted;

for "circumscription" is spoken of, and exists, in the three ways mentioned above, which are distinct [from depiction].

Nor, conversely, does he who circumscribes [something] according to these same ways thereby depict the one circumscribed, even though the latter is circumscribable.

Christ, then, having become embodied in these three ways, was circumscribed — not by us (for this is not among the things within our power), but by himself, on account of the [divine] economy;

but he is depicted by us, likewise in a bodily manner;

for he became man in every respect according to our likeness, sin alone excepted.

We, then, do not circumscribe [him], but we depict [him] — even though the wretched men speak empty words.

What, then, will they say, in the case where the body of God the Word — which he assumed from the all-pure Mother of God — was circumscribed in the maternal womb? Was the Word, then, also co-circumscribed with it — whether when it was being swaddled and laid in the manger, or when it was being crucified and placed in the tomb — although he was always inseparable from his own body? If, then, he was not co-circumscribed [with it], he was therefore separated from the assumed [flesh];

but if he was co-circumscribed [with it], they will of necessity grant that the divine Word too is circumscribable, so that at least by this one argument they may in no way escape the blasphemy;

or else, in this way, on account of the one and the same hypostasis, the Word would also suffer together with the suffering body, and would die together with it, and would endure the other things as well — enduring as God those very things which as man he endured to suffer for our sake — or else, what leads even more to godlessness, they will follow their empty teachers, who devise a confusion of the natures in Christ, or [hold] that Christ was seen [only] in semblance and appearance.

The absurdities beset them no less, and they have fallen in disorderly fashion into the very things from which they thought to flee.

But if it is also necessary, out of abundance, to elucidate and expand this argument further, we might adduce the following:

If Christ, while bodily dwelling in Jerusalem, teaching in the temple and performing those miracles befitting God (for as God he is everywhere and above the whole), was therefore at the same time also bodily present in Galilee, or wholly visible in the flesh in other places? And who is so out of his mind and lacking due sense as to insist that these things are so? But if, notwithstanding his being seen bodily, he was not thereby also seen in a divine manner; nor, notwithstanding his being in this place but not in that one in body, was he then already, according to his divinity, present only in that same place; nor, notwithstanding his suffering in the flesh, is he said to have suffered anything also in his divinity — what obstacle, then, will stand in the way of his being, when depicted or circumscribed in the flesh, not thereby cut off from his divinity, or of his divinity being altogether required to be co-depicted or co-circumscribed [with the flesh]? But this is simply contrary to nature; since, likewise, if a man among us (an emperor, say) were depicted as to his body, it would be necessary that his soul too be co-depicted, or else that, being separated [from the body], he must altogether be dead;

for what else is death but the separation of soul from body? What could be said more foolish or more senseless than this? And where at all, in all the ages, has an undepictable or uncircumscribable body ever been heard of? Or how will the definition and principle of body be preserved, if it does not possess these [properties] — given that a body is that which is extended in three dimensions, characterized by shape, resistance, and color, and delimited by mass and magnitude — which properties indeed altogether dictate to us bodily circumscription.

For if it has not been colored, or shaped, or given quantity, then it has not been bounded either, nor is it a body — inasmuch as a body is by nature confined within some place, being here but not being elsewhere.

And altogether, being in this [place] but not in that one — what else does this directly suggest to us but the very concept of circumscription? He, therefore, who does not hold that Christ is depicted or circumscribed in body, either does not know what a body is — from which fact he holds not even a correct opinion — or, knowing it, has refused to accept that [Christ's] body and soul are preserved [as real].

For this man himself is not undepictable or uncircumscribable in his body — if indeed Christ purified like by like;

for we know that what has not been assumed is not healed.

He, then, who confesses that Christ assumed a body such as ours (and this is circumscribable and depictable), must of necessity likewise agree that his [Christ's body] too is depictable and circumscribable;

but if he will not grant the second, then neither [will he grant] the first —

which is altogether irrational and ridiculous.

The doctrines of our holy fathers, then — which is to say, the proclamation of the whole catholic and apostolic Church — clearly and expressly glorify Christ our God, in unison, as [existing] from two natures and in two natures perfect in every respect, but in one hypostasis, that is, one person; and [as existing] from two contraries;

For, he says, having come forth, God, together with the assumption, [became] one out of two contraries, both flesh and spirit.

If, then, the one of these — I mean the divine nature of the Word — is confessed to be undepictable and uncircumscribable, it is altogether necessary, on account of the derivation from contraries, that the other, namely the human [nature], be confessed to be depictable and circumscribable;

for if this [human nature] too were held to be uncircumscribable, where would the principle of contraries stand? Just as, then, the one nature is impassible, unchangeable, timeless, and whatever else is said in a manner befitting God concerning the divine nature, so the contrary things will altogether be said concerning the other nature;

for it was changeable, and passible, and subject to time, and possessed the other properties which characterize the nature that is like ours.

circumscription would appear to pertain also to the Word, so that it would be possible for you to hold him to be both passible, changeable, and mortal, and to subject him to the other passions of the flesh, on account of his union with it;

for to this point your argument of unbelief arrives.

For him whom you say is uncircumscribable, I do not know how, out of foolishness, you also say is co-circumscribed together with the icon — so that, according to you, the same one is, at one and the same time, both circumscribable and uncircumscribable: the one on his own account, the other on account of the icon;

in which your argument turns round into self-contradiction.

But if this is so, why would you not rather say that the Word was not even made incarnate at all, so that he might not, with respect to nature, become body together with the incorporeal — being thereby overturned [in his nature] — along with the other things that are contemplated concerning the doubling of the natures? If, then, the Word were passible by nature, he would possess these [properties] straightway of himself, not on account of the union with the body, nor by being circumscribable;

but if he is by nature impassible and uncircumscribable, then even though he should come to be in a body, he will be neither confused nor divided, nor will he be co-circumscribed or co-depicted with the body itself;

for he would thereby preserve the proper and complete definition and principle of impassibility, unchangeability, and uncircumscribability.

But it is your eager aim, by means of this one term, to have overturned the entire incarnation of our Savior — because it is burdensome to you both that he be circumscribed and that he be seen in an icon.

These matters having thus been examined, I shall now proceed to those sayings (for it would be timely to set them forth in public) from which these men, and their newly-acquired fathers, taking their departure and being initiated, rolled down into so great an impiety.

Of this docetism and fantasy, then, the first to begin was the abominable and god-stricken Valentinus, who, having plundered certain phrases of the Apostle, dares to hurl forth against the mystery of the divine economy such things as these — saying that the Lord took the form of a servant, not the servant himself, and that he came to be in the fashion of a man, [but that] the man himself was not assumed, while the human sufferings pass over onto the very divinity itself.

Yet not even he himself who was operating through that wicked tongue has dared to blaspheme in such terms.

From this, then, it followed for him to say that the body of the Lord is uncircumscribable.

After him, the more abominable and more god-hated Marcion, belching forth from his loathsome heart the foul-smelling mire of fantasy — to set forth but a few among his many blasphemies — asserts that Christ suffered and was buried in semblance [only], and that he was not truly a man, but came to be in the likeness of a man.

The one named after him, by a slight alteration [of the name], though occurring much later, the most godless Marcianus, being corrupted together with the god-hated and many-named heresy of those called Massalians, is marked out as trumpeting the term "uncircumscribable" more openly — since in the eighth chapter of the nonsense written among them, it is recorded as follows:

They say that the man whom the Lord took from Mary, he sometimes changed into spirit, and sometimes into body, and that the very body of the Lord was uncircumscribable, just as the divine nature [is].

He who is most especially more godless and more abominable than these, Manes, named after madness, writes as follows in his letter to Addas:

As for the Galileans naming Christ as possessing two natures, we pour forth broad laughter — since they do not know that the essence of light is not mixed with any other matter, but remains pure, unable to be united with another essence, even though it may seem to be joined with it.

The appellation "Christ" is a name used loosely, signifying neither a species nor an essence.

But the highest light, being consubstantial with its own [members], manifested itself as body among material bodies, itself being, as the whole, one single nature.

Further, the same man, in his letter to Scythianus (though in some [manuscripts] it is inscribed as a letter of Valentinus, the teacher of Manes), speaks thus:

But the Son of the eternal light manifested his own essence on the mountain, not possessing two natures, but one, in both the visible and the invisible.

Following these, Eusebius — the leader of the Arian madness, and the foremost teacher of those who now Arianize, which is to say, of those who Manichaeize — writing to the empress Constantia, when he came to the passage concerning the Transfiguration of the Savior, writes as follows:

Two forms being presented to him, concerning the form of God, I do not think that you yourself are even inquiring;

Then, having proceeded a little further down, he says:

But surely you are altogether inquiring about the form of the servant, and about the flesh with which he was clothed for our sake.

But we have learned that this too has been commingled with the glory of the divinity, and that the mortal has been swallowed up by life.

And it is not at all astonishing if, after the ascension into the heavens, he has appeared to be somewhat of this sort — since even while God the Word was still living among men, giving to his chosen ones a foretaste of the vision of his kingdom, having transformed the form of the servant, he displayed that very [form], on the mountain, above human nature — when his face flashed forth like the sun, and his garments like the light.

Who, then, could be capable of engraving with dead and lifeless colors the gleaming and flashing radiance of such great worth and glory — when he here speaks of "commingled" and "transformed," or, as he proceeds, says that the whole servile form was, from being entirely [servile], transformed? And still further, after this, he sets forth in unveiled language that it was transformed into God.

Then he also impiously glorifies the Only-Begotten as a servant, and moreover as a second god, when he asserts that "the Father who is highest of all has revealed him alone, after himself, as God and Lord and King of all things."

The other blasphemies which he also writes will become evident to those who peruse the letter;

all of which happen to be altogether foreign to our pure confession;

concerning which matters we have also examined elsewhere.

Such, then, is the company of those who [hold] that our nature has been abolished and not preserved in Christ, and who, on this account, speak emptily of the "uncircumscribable" [attribute] in him.

Among these is also a certain Epiphanides, belonging to the phantom-like party (though they inscribe him as Epiphanius, the holy high priest of the island of the Cypriots) — and whoever else has expounded the deceptive docetism, as will be discussed hereafter.

With these, these men too have been thrown together in confusion, from whom they have also been initiated into the fantasy of the "uncircumscribable" — having set at naught the incarnation of our Savior, which came to be in reality and in the proper sense, and having accepted, as it were, the utmost ruin of their souls.

But let all these, together with their blasphemy, be gone!

But as for us, let the divine doctrines of the Church's teachers — resounding as if from some most lofty watchtower of divine inspiration — clearly set forth the unerring and great mystery of the condescension of God the Word, silencing the impiety of those impious ones who let loose their tongues, while strengthening the boldness of speech of the pious, and weaving together for us the concordant and harmonious song of orthodoxy.

I shall now proceed, then, to demonstrate these things also, fittingly and most opportunely.

Let the divine decrees of the holy Third Council take the lead.

If anyone does not confess our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, to be circumscribed according to his humanity, but uncircumscribed according to his divinity, let him be anathema.

Let there also follow what is akin to and accompanies these decrees.

The holy and great Athanasius, then, president of great Alexandria and great champion of piety, speaks as follows against those who hold the opinions of the impious Samosatene, concerning the faith and that Christ is one:

These very things certain people also seek now, being sick with Hellenic and Jewish wickedness, and neither accepting nor at all believing that God became embodied, but rather wishing, by human reasonings and Hellenic wisdom, to know and comprehend things that are great and incomprehensible.

How was the incorporeal begotten, and how does he proceed, and whither goes he who is everywhere and contains all things and fills all things?

And from asking how and in what manner, they have proceeded into unbelief, and in place of begetting they have fabricated a making, and in place of procession they have contrived creation and passing-by.

So again also concerning the incarnation:

Can the uncontainable be made small? And how is the uncreated united to the created, and the uncircumscribed to that which is circumscribed? And how is that great and immeasurable and indivisible one present in part? For either the great was compressed into a small space, or the small became great, or the flesh received a part of the divinity and not the whole.

In accordance with these, let the great Gregory the Theologian also speak, in his oration on the holy Pascha:

[He calls him] yearly, as the sun of righteousness:

either as setting out from thence, or as circumscribed in that which is seen, and returning into himself.

Let the great confessor of piety, Maximus, expound and clarify these things, saying:

The Lord is called the Sun of Righteousness, as maker and consummator of the ages, and as the beginning and end of all things.

He is said to set out from thence, or to be circumscribed in what is seen, either as light from light and true God, setting out from the Father by way of begetting, or as the same one, being man, circumscribed in the visible form of our nature as it is seen by us — just as the sun, seen from heaven, is circumscribed in its apparent disk-shaped body.

Such things he also writes in his dogmatic letter to John the Cubicularius:

confirming both together as true, the divine and the human alike, attested by divine wonders and human sufferings: