If He is describable and can suffer, then, of course, it is necessary to worship Him in the form in which He is depicted. For the glory of the prototype is not divided in the image, as Basil the Great put it. The honoring of the image passes to the prototype [2], i.e. the honoring of any image, whether natural or artistic.

In the same way, it is necessary to reason about the image of the Venerable Cross: through the veneration of this image, the Life-Giving Tree is also honored with veneration; and, conversely, along with the destruction of the first, the second is necessarily destroyed. Is not the confession of this image a confession of the Life-Creating Cross? In the same way, the rejection of the Transfiguration is rejected by the Cross itself.

A similar relationship should be assumed between the icon of Christ and Christ Himself to every sensible person. However, now is not the time for a dogmatic exposition, which can easily convince even the feeble-minded to recognize the light of truth.

Such is our Gospel faith of sinners, such is our apostolic confession of the humble; such is the worship of God handed down to us, the lowlies, from the Fathers! Moreover, if not only one of the present or ancient, but even if Peter and Paul speak of the impossible, as if it were possible, even if he who comes from heaven itself should teach and preach differently (see Galatians 1:8), then we cannot receive him into communion, as not agreeing with the sound teaching of the faith.

Finally, however pleasing your authority may be, our humility is ready to suffer unto death rather than to renounce our sincere confession.

Notes

1. This and the following letter were written in 815 on the occasion of the renewal of the iconoclastic heresy under the emperor Leo the Armenian. In the title of this letter is added: "As if on behalf of all the abbots."

2. To Amphilochius on St. Spirit. Ch.18. Creations in Russian translation. Vol. III, p. 244. Moscow, 1891.

Epistle 2 (61). To the monastics

At the present time, when Christ is persecuted through His icon, not only the one who has the advantage in rank and knowledge must asceticize, conversing and instructing in Orthodox teaching, but also the one who takes the place of the disciple must boldly speak the truth and freely open his mouth. These words do not belong to me, a sinner, but to the divine Chrysostom, as did the other Fathers.

As for the fact that the gentlemen abbots, who were detained by the emperor, did not do the above, although they were superior in rank and knowledge to all the abbots of this country, but, on the contrary, were rather silent, and not only were they silent, although this was difficult, but they also signed with their own hands that they would neither gather together nor teach. This is a betrayal of the truth, a renunciation of the pastoral ministry, and the destruction of the subordinate and equal.

The Apostles, having received a command from the Jews not to teach in the name of Christ, said: "Judge whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God" (Acts 4:19); and again, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). The same and similar things should have been said to those abbots, so that God would be glorified through them, for the edification of the Orthodox, in order to strengthen the monasteries, in order to strengthen the suffering in exile.

Why do we prefer monasteries to God, the well-being received from them to suffering for the good? Where are the words, "He spoke before kings, and was not ashamed" (Psalm 118:46)? Where is the saying, "Behold, I will not hinder my mouth" (Psalm 39:10)? Where is the glory and power of our calling? Do you remember how the blessed Sava and Theodosius, at the time when the emperor Anastasius had given himself over to impiety, rebelled fervently in defense of the faith, now anathematizing false teachers in the Church, now testifying in the letters they sent to the emperor that they were ready to suffer death rather than change anything of what had been decreed?

These same gentlemen abbots, as they say, say: "Who are we?" then there are the monastics, who should not be carried away by anything except those who are not attached to the world and independent; then there are the abbots, who turn away temptations from others and should not give anyone a reason for temptation; that the ministry, says the Apostle, should be blameless (2 Corinthians 6:3). And what temptation and temptation, or rather humiliation, did they produce with their own signature, is it necessary to speak of this? For if silence is in part agreement, how shameful is the affirmation of such agreement by signing before the whole Church?