Letter 476: Theodore Studite, Letter 476; Greek heading: Νικήτᾳ σπαθαρίῳ.

It has been made known to me by your good brother that one of our hierarchs has slandered me before the honorable person of Your Charity, alleging that I deify the icon [eikon, the sacred image] of Christ, and that this is set down in my letter to brother Athanasius. At this slander I, the humble one, groaned, reflecting how those who have been put on notice that they shall render account even for an idle word on the day of judgment can nevertheless, in matters so weighty (for what is greater than the faith?), speak so simply and incautiously, wounding the guiltless with the dart of accusation, and not rather, if indeed there were something amiss, lovingly admonishing in accordance with what is written: "You shall surely reprove your neighbor, and you shall not incur sin on his account" [Leviticus 19:17]. But to slander in this way is not only destructive of the commandment; rather, by the very name of slander [diabole] the man declares himself worthy to be called by it [that is, a diabolos, slanderer/devil]. And what could be worse than that among men? But let the discourse turn to the charge. "He deifies," he says, "the icon of Christ." By no means is this so, O thrice-longed-for one, in my letter; rather, that the icon of Christ is not to be served with worship [latreia, the adoration due to God alone] (for this is the mindset of idolatry; for this is to be rendered to the Holy Trinity alone), and that Christ, who is venerated in His own icon, is served with worship together with the Father and the Spirit; but that the icon of Christ is to be venerated [proskynesis, reverential veneration] with relative veneration, and that in venerating it we venerate Christ, who is not divided according to hypostasis [the concrete person], but distinguished according to the principle of essence -- which is indeed true; for the archetype is made manifest in the icon, and each is in each apart from the difference of essence, as the all-wise Dionysius says. How then, the letter being thus, can the man who is of the opposing party bring this slander, and prove himself set against the saints? But what does he wish? That we who venerate the icon of Christ should confess that we venerate another hypostasis? Alas for the absurdity! For this is to divide the indivisible. But it is not admissible; for neither is the dominion split nor the glory divided, as again the Great Basil says. Wherefore, when the icon is venerated, Christ is venerated, whose likeness it also is, and not the matter that has received the likeness -- as is also shown in the case of the figure of the cross; for he who supposes that he venerates the matter is an infant, devoid of reason. Neither, therefore, is the matter on which the icon is, in either case, venerated, nor is any hypostasis other than that of the one represented; for the deviation has impiety equally in both. For this very reason, then, the figure of the cross is also called a cross, and the icon of Christ is also called Christ -- not properly, but by a transferred usage [katachresis]. If, then, this should persuade us not to name the figure of the cross a cross, it would persuade us also not to name the icon of Christ Christ; and if, in the first case, those who venerate the figure do not venerate the cross, then neither, in the second case, do those who venerate the icon of Christ venerate Christ. But surely the first is true, namely that its own figure is both called a cross and venerated; therefore the second is also true, namely that its own icon is both called Christ and venerated; and he who, contrary to these things, thinks or says anything more novel babbles in vain. These things I have written, at once setting myself clear of blame, and at the same time sparing your loving eminence, that you may champion the orthodox faith and not be swept away by the words of heterodox teaching.

Ἐδηλώθη μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ καλοῦ σου ἀδελφοῦ ὅτι τις τῶν ἡμετέρων ἱεραρχῶν ἐνδιέβαλέν με ἐπὶ τοῦ τιμίου προσώπου τῆς ἀγάπης σου ὡς θεοποιούμενον τὴν Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα καὶ τοῦτο κεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἀθανάσιον ἐπιστολῇ μου. ἐφ' ᾗ διαβολῇ ἐστέναξα ὁ ταπεινός, ἐννοούμενος πῶς οἱ κατηγγελμένοι καὶ περὶ ἀργοῦ ῥήματος δώσειν λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἐπὶ τῶν οὕτω μεγίστων (τί γὰρ μεῖζον πίστεως;) ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀφυλάκτως φθέγγονται, κατηγορίας βέλει τιτρώσκοντες τοὺς ἀνευθύνους καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον, εἴπερ καί τι ἦν ἐσφαλμένον, ἀγαπητικῶς ὑπομνῆσαι κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον· ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ οὐ λήψῃ δι' αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν. τὸ δὲ οὕτως ἐνδιαβάλλειν οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἀναιρετικόν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τῆς διαβολῆς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἄξιον ὀνομάζεσθαι ἀποφαίνει· οὗ τί χεῖρον εἶεν ἐν ἀνθρώποις; Ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὴν ἔγκλησιν ὁ λόγος. "4θεοποιεῖται"5, φησί, "4τὴν Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα"5. οὔ τί που τοῦτο, ὦ τριπόθητε, ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μου, ἀλλ' ὅτι τῇ εἰκόνι Χριστοῦ οὐ λατρευτέον (εἰδωλολατρείας γὰρ φρόνημα τοῦτο· μόνῃ γὰρ τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι τοῦτο ἀναθετέον) καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ εἰκόνι προσκυνούμενος Χριστὸς λατρεύεται σὺν πατρὶ καὶ πνεύματι, τὴν δὲ Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα προσκυνητέον σχετικῇ προσκυνήσει καὶ ὅτι ταύτην προσκυνοῦντες τὸν Χριστὸν προσκυνοῦμεν, οὐ διαιρούμενον κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλὰ διαφορούμενον κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον, ὅπερ καὶ ἄληθες· τὸ γὰρ ἀρχέτυπον ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι ἐκφαίνεται καὶ ἑκάτερον ἐν ἑκατέρῳ παρὰ τὸ τῆς οὐσίας διάφορον, ὥς φησιν ὁ πάνσοφος Διονύσιος. Πῶς οὖν, οὕτως ἐχούσης τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ἐνδιαβάλλοι ὁ δι' ἐναντίας καὶ ἀποδείκνυσιν ἑαυτὸν ἀντίθετον τοῖς ἁγίοις; ἀλλὰ τί βούλοιτο; προσκυνοῦντας ἡμᾶς τὴν Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα ὁμολογεῖν προσκυνεῖν ἄλλην ὑπόστασιν; φεῦ τῆς ἀτοπίας· τούτῳ γὰρ μερίζειν ἐστὶ τὰ ἀμέριστα. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐνδέχεται· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ κράτος σχίζεται οὔτε ἡ δόξα μερίζεται, ὡς αὖθίς φησιν ὁ Μέγας Βασίλειος. διὸ καὶ προσκυνουμένης τῆς εἰκόνος ὁ Χριστὸς προσκυνεῖται, οὗ ἐστι καὶ ὁμοιότης, καὶ οὐχὶ ἡ ὑποδεξαμένη ὕλη τὴν ὁμοιότητα, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ τύπου τοῦ σταυροῦ διαδείκνυται· ὁ γὰρ τὴν ὕλην δοκῶν προσκυνεῖν νήπιος, ἄλογος. οὔτε οὖν ἡ ὕλη, ἐφ' ᾗ ἡ εἰκών, προσκυνεῖται ἐπ' ἀμφοτέροις οὔτε παρὰ τὴν τοῦ εἰκονιζομένου ἄλλη ὑπόστασις· ἐφίσης γὰρ ἡ παρατροπὴ τὸ ἀσεβὲς ἔχει. τοιγαροῦν διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ τύπος τοῦ σταυροῦ σταυρὸς εἴρηται καὶ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ Χριστοῦ Χριστὸς εἴρηται, οὐ κυρίως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κατάχρησιν. ἐὰν οὖν τοῦτο ἡμᾶς πείσῃ μὴ τὸν τύπον τοῦ σταυροῦ σταυρὸν ὀνομάζειν, πείσειεν ἡμᾶς μήτε τὴν εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ Χριστὸν ὀνομάζειν· καί, ἐὰν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τὸ μὴ προσκυνεῖν τὸν σταυρὸν προσκυνοῦντας τὸν τύπον, μηδὲ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ προσκυνεῖν Χριστὸν προσκυνοῦντας τὴν Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα. ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸ πρῶτον ἄληθες, ὅτι σταυρὸς καὶ λέλεκται καὶ προσκυνεῖται ὁ οἰκεῖος αὐτοῦ τύπος, οὐκοῦν καὶ τὸ δεύτερον ἄληθες, ὅτι Χριστὸς καὶ λέλεκται καὶ προσκυνεῖται ἡ οἰκεία αὐτοῦ εἰκών, καὶ μάτην εἰκαιολογεῖ ὁ παρὰ ταῦτα καινότερόν τι φρονῶν ἢ λέγων. Ταῦτα γέγραφα, ὁμοῦ μὲν ἑαυτὸν ἔξω αἰτίας τιθείς, ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ τῆς σῆς φειδόμενος ἀγαπητικῆς ὑπεροχῆς εἰς τὸ ἀντιποιεῖσθαι ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως καὶ μὴ παρασύρεσθαι λόγοις ἑτεροδιδασκαλίας.