When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the
divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they
take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of
Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a
Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh
was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation,
perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly
divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart?
So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between
the Godhead of the Son and the dullness of the flesh. As the
human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is
the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the
same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and
the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the
soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the
soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the
body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his
passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do
the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and
represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall
into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from
the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality
of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a
fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as
not being made divine, that which has been made divine by
being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image
of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted,
and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites),
or he represents the body of Christ as not made
divine and separate and as a person apart, like the
Nestorians.
The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however,
is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no
other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to
represent his incarnation . . .
