Letter 528: Theodore Studite, Letter 528; Greek heading: Ἰωάννῃ Γραμματικῷ.

When I had come, in conversation, to the subject of the holy icons (our own Plato [Theodore's uncle and fellow monk, Plato of Sakkoudion] was present and taking part in the discussion), he said that Your Eloquence had some time ago received a letter of mine on this very subject and had been perplexed by it, as though it had not been clearly framed in its doctrine, or perhaps had even been leading the hearer away from the truth. Now I, for my part, if the one who had thrown out the objection had been one of the ordinary sort, would not quickly have turned back to it, knowing that I would have to endure both the darts of envy and the censures of people who do not understand. But since the criticism came from a friend, and from a most wise friend, I judged it necessary to bring the very letter before your eyes and, after examining it as far as I am able, to send it to Your Friendship, either as resolving the difficulty or as corrected by your sagacity; for the one who censures must, in exchange for the opinion he has found fault with, be presented with one's own considered judgment. The letter, then, is this. [Theodore to Athanasius.] "How is it," you say, "that the icon of Christ is not given worship [latreia, the worship due to God alone], but rather Christ who is venerated [proskynesis, the veneration also given to holy things] in it, since the veneration directed at both is one?" Because, in the case of Christ himself, the veneration is latreutic [an act of divine worship] (for in venerating him I venerate together the Father and the Holy Spirit alike, which is our Trinitarian veneration and worship), whereas in the case of the icon the veneration is the same one (for how could it not be? for of those whose power is one and whose glory is one, of these, plainly, the reverence is one and the veneration is one), yet it is nevertheless relative, that is, homonymous [bearing the same name by relation]. For in venerating the icon I did not venerate together with it [the persons of the Trinity], but I venerated Christ, who is not divided according to hypostasis, but distinguished according to the principle of essence [ousia]. This [veneration] is relative, not latreutic, even though it is the same: there [in the case of the Trinity] it is so understood and so called, inasmuch as it is Trinitarian, that is, natural; here [in the case of the icon] the reverse, inasmuch as it is relative, that is, hypostatic. For if you were to call it latreutic, you would be signifying that the Father and the Spirit had become incarnate, as the Son has, which is absurd. Therefore, in venerating the icon of Christ I do not venerate the Godhead, as some say (for that is what is signified of the Trinity; and the Trinity has not become incarnate, far from it!), but what then? I venerate Christ himself relatively; for he alone is God the Word made flesh. And in venerating Christ himself it is clear that I have venerated together with him the Father alike and the Spirit. So that in the case of the icon the veneration would reasonably be understood and called relative, but in the case of Christ himself latreutic, since the Father and the Spirit are co-conceived and co-venerated. Well then, my good man, the principle seems to me to hold thus: in the case of the blessed and venerable Trinity the preposition "with" [syn-] has been taken up (for the "with," suggesting a distinction of the hypostases, sets forth a natural unity, just as is sung in the symbol of the faith [the Creed] among all Christians), whereas in the case of the veneration of Christ and of his icon the preposition "with" has no place to be taken up; for it would, by separating the one hypostasis into a dyad of hypostases according to the argument set out, carry us off into the impiety of worshiping the created order [kosmolatreia]. Accordingly, the term-by-relation [antonymia] was reasonably adopted, which, preserving the singleness of the hypostasis in both cases, distinguishes the otherness of the natures. And indeed, as the all-wise Dionysius [the Areopagite] says, each is in each, except for the difference of essence. In speaking, then, of a difference of essence, he plainly indicated an identity of hypostasis according to the "each in each," in accordance with which the veneration by relation is also contemplated. For the relation, as they say, belongs to the category of things-relative-to-something; for it both exists simultaneously and reciprocally turns toward the other, as does the archetype toward the icon. For the one could not exist if the other were not present, in accordance with which it has also been philosophically determined that they belong to the simultaneous things. And there is added, namely, the word "homonymous," and this expression too is of the same import; for the name is the name of what is named. So that here too the discussion concerns things-relative-to-something, since, even according to the definition of philosophy, we are taught that those things are homonymous of which the name alone is common, but the principle of the essence corresponding to the name is different, as are Christ himself and the one depicted [in the icon]. And since "hypostatic" is also added, this has been expressly demonstrated: that there is not another hypostasis besides that of Christ in his icon, but it is the very hypostasis of Christ, that is, the character [charakter, the imprinted likeness], that, manifested by the form of his figure, both is present in the icon and is venerated; and the whole argument stands firm for those who think soundly. But in order that the argument may rather carry conviction, I have thought it necessary to append three patristic citations to the letter, so that here too the principle may be fulfilled, that "by two and three witnesses every word shall be established," to speak in the words of Scripture. [Of Chrysostom, from the interpretation of the washbasin (the foot-washing).] When imperial likenesses [charakteres] and images are carried into a city, the rulers and the people go out to meet them with acclamation, honoring not the wooden panel nor the wax-poured painting, but the likeness of the emperor; so too creation honors not the earthly figure, but reveres the heavenly likeness. [Of the synod at Antioch under Theodoretus the patriarch.] Not as another in form, but as himself the one Lord existing in one form, according to which there is also one likeness [charakter] that has come to be of the hypostasis of the Father, and who before the flesh was incorporeal and one, and in the flesh is one, and in the icon is the same one, not divided into two likenesses, nor split into two glories, but gathered into one. And after some other things: but just as he himself is one out of the two contraries and is gathered into one person, so too his icon is one and of the same one Christ; and we shall not call one likeness that which appeared to us according to the flesh and another the likeness shaped according to the icon in the appearance of his form, but the same one, since the likeness has not been spoken of in respect of body, but in respect of the incorporeal. And this will be more clearly settled by the divine Chrysostom, when he calls the likeness heavenly, since from heaven also, not in respect of body but in respect of the incorporeal, the only-begotten God, having come down from the heavens, became incarnate and appeared, putting on our body. And after a little: therefore, since he shows the likeness itself to be by way of reference, we venerate Christ himself and not the matter artfully shaped in the icon. [Of the second synod at Nicaea.] And the one who venerates the icon venerates in it the hypostasis of the one depicted.