The argument appears to be not that Christ is not the “express image,” or impress of the Father, as He is described in Heb. i. 3, or form, as in Phil. ii. 6, but that this is not the sense in which our Lord’s words in St. John xiv. 9, must be understood to describe “seeing the Father.”  Χαρακτὴρ and μορφὴ are equivalent to ἡ θεία φύσις, and μορφή is used by St. Basil as it is used by St. Paul,—coinciding with, if not following, the usage of the older Greek philosophy,—to mean essential attributes which the Divine Word had before the incarnation (cf. Eustathius in Theod. Dial. II. [Wace and Schaff Ed., p. 203]; “the express image made man,”—ὁ τῷ πνεύματι σωματοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος χαρακτήρ.) The divine nature does not admit of combination, in the sense of confusion (cf. the protests of Theodoret in his Dialogues against the confusion of the Godhead and manhood in the Christ), with the human nature in our Lord, and remains invisible.  On the word χαρακτήρ vide Suicer, and on μορφή Archbp. Trench’s New Testament Synonyms and Bp. Lightfoot on Philippians ii. 6.