Library › St Ephrem the Syrian › Hymns on Faith

Hymns on Faith

St Ephrem the Syrian, tr. Morris, 1847; selections

28. Rhythm the Twenty-eighth

If clouds and lightnings and meteors, yea, and earthquakes and whirlwinds and floods, being but fellow-servants, are terrible to [us] servants, when they come impetuously upon our feebleness, and if the ministers that are appointed to minister to him, are thus awful to man who is ministered¹ unto, who shall venture to gaze upon that Might, by Whose² Power all things subsist? Lo! medicines have a different power, which is hurtful to us when they are not mingled, and wine also injureth with its sweetness³, and spices with the strength of their odours. Sleep and food without measure are harmful. And if the weak things, when not [rightly] blended, are hard upon us, how much harder shall it go with the man who without restraint prieth into the consuming Fire?⁴

Therefore the Good One hath appointed us weights,⁵ and measures, and rules, that we should approach with restraint to the creatures, in order to receive from them benefit and comfort. Is it not in measure then that He hath granted to us that men should approach unto Himself, Who is greater than all? or is it to be without restraint? How then cometh He to have put restraints upon all, and upon the disputings of the disputers to have put no restraint? Lo! His bounds are stretched forth upon every thing, and His restraints are spread over all. Over natural⁶ things He sets Him a necessity; over free agents, mind and will. The natural things are fixed; things unbound are preserved; the law is a wall that preserveth free agency. Who can take away that which belongs to natural things, though our free will goeth astray?

Lo! the sun is bounded in his course, and the moon also hath her increases ordered: He hath appointed an order too for the earth and the heavens: the firmament hath He bounded by the waters which are above it. It is not He⁷ which is confused, but we that are perturbed. For if by the⁸ sand the waves are bounded, marvel⁹ at the rash man that proudly lifts himself up above Him Who is Lord of all! Lo! let us from his very self teach, my brethren, to the daring due restraint. For his conception in the belly was bound, as also in the womb of the earth his resurrection is, and his¹⁰ birth [therefrom]¹¹. Lo! the conception limited him, and birth limited him, and death limiteth him, and the grave, and the resurrection! lo! by these the rash man is limited, but his own questionings he limiteth not!¹²

Lo! we will yet farther rebuke his confusion, since his will is perturbed by his liberty¹³. For his nature is overruled by [Divine] Goodness, that nature might be distinguished from liberty. And if any one was minded to injure his members, yet he hateth those that so injure him, and loveth¹⁴ his own members:—thus maintaining the order of his bodily parts, while loosening and perturbing the order of his mental parts!

Lo! the Cherub was a boundary to Paradise, and an awful barrier to Mount Sinai. Whoso approached, was stoned without mercy: by things visible, He warned us from things¹⁵ invisible. If then He set a bound to that mountain for all that day, for eternity He setteth a bound to the loftiness of His invisible Nature. There, there was death for him that was daring: but here, there is Gehenna for the disputatious.

Lo! the leprosy that reproved the talkative, reproveth the insolence of the disputers; for though it was Miriam who spoke against the meek man, yet he wove his lips into a¹⁶ garment of leprosy for her. Her love clave to the child in the water; on the land she made the heart of Pharaoh’s¹⁷ daughter swim. For that child who was swimming—from the wages for himself, he nourished his mother also. O miracle and wonder and amazement! for if Miriam spake against a mortal, who was indebted to her for the kindness done to him in the waters, although she was also older than Moses; yet that righteous man who had commanded elders to be¹⁸ honoured, upon this elder prophetess inflicted a disgrace, a disgrace without mercy; who shall be clear, if he seeks into the First-born of Him Who punisheth the talkative?

If then the Most High avenged the servant of his sister, a prophetess, who intermeddled with him, who shall meddle with the birth of that Majesty, Who is the Son of a Bosom¹⁹ which is consuming Fire, whence there flame forth lightnings and Tongues [of fire]? The prying of daring men is as²⁰ stubble with Him; and the questioner and the contentious like as chaff, and like as thorns, are devoured. Gehazi also who mocked and was mocked, tried to escape his master’s²¹ notice and was disgraced. The daring²² men try to escape men’s notice [when pretending] that they baptize in the Three²³ Names²⁴. Now at the mouth of Three the judges decide. See here be Three Witnesses Who put an end to all strife! And who would doubt about the holy Witnesses²⁵ of His Baptism?

If the Temple was avenged, because dishonour was done it, who would raise lowering questions about the Lord of all? Approach not to His Generation²⁶, lest thou be destroyed. For Uzziah offered incense, and was smitten; and since he was not ashamed to stretch forth [his hand] to the glory of the sanctuary, he was ashamed all his days,²⁷ because his leprosy covered him; and since he dishonoured the hallowed house, he had to shut himself up in his own²⁸ house, as unclean. The hallowed house which halloweth all, from it he went forth a leper all defiled. And the doctrine which rightly ordereth all things, hath been to us²⁹ a fount of questioning disordering all things. The rain which profiteth all, by superabundance of it injureth all; and the sun which illuminates all, by the might of it blindeth all. Bread also which quickeneth all³⁰, to him that eateth gluttonously is a murderer.

His ordering of bounds bringeth the impetuous into order, seeing that it is with fire He hath surrounded His sanctuary. The two hundred men that dared to seize the³¹ priesthood³² a fire befriending the sanctuary consumed: it devoured the sons of Aaron because they offered up strange³³ fire³⁴, as it were a harlot, and the hallowed fire was zealous against the strange fire; and the knowledge of the truth is zealous against the contaminating disputation³⁵. Lo! they are both shadowed forth for the wise in the hidden mirror of thought, as having both put on one shape of wilfulness and one stamp of venom from their liberty of will! Both of them willed to be priests to God. On their visible offering their hidden heart is impressed; for by occasion of their offerings their secrets were openly set forth to shame.³⁶

Notes

p. 208, n. a.
Heb. 1, 3.
R. xxx. §. 5. §. 8. Vol. ii. p. 482, f.
§. 7. Heb. 12, 29.
Prov. 16, 11. Wisd. 11, 20.
S. Macarius, Hom. xv. §. 24. “The nature of irrational animals is tied down, that of the serpent, for instance, is bitter and venomous, and consequently all serpents are so,.... &c. The dove is guileless and simple, and the whole dove tribe are of the same nature. But man is not so: for one man is a rapacious wolf, another is. as a lamb that is the object of rapaciousness; both are to be met with from the same race of mankind.” St. E. vol. iii. p. 366. fin. “As the word of the mouth is loose, so is free-will loose, and as the tongue of the dumb is bound, so is nature bound. He hath not the word of the mouth; neither hath the latter free-will. Put thee on some of the things I have said to thee; taste free-will in thine own person; make trial in thyself of thy power over thyself; see whether thou hast it or no! From thy own self thou mayest thyself learn about free-will.” Compare also St. Athan. p. 349. O. T. Cyril de Ador. in S. and V. p. 499, a.
Gen. 1, 6.
Jer. 5, 22.
S. gaze
Eccles. 11, 5. Ps. 139, 2.
R. xl. §. 1.
Butler Anal. i. 1. p. 40, n. g.
Vol. iii. p. 361, d. “The nature of sweetness is sweet to him that is in health; it tasteth bitter to him that is sick: so also free-will is bitter to sinners; is sweet to the righteous. When a man would investigate the nature of sweetness, it is not by an ill man’s mouth that he investigates and proves it, because he is sick. A man in health is the test (furnace) of savours. Thus too, when a man would investigate the power of free-will, let it not be investigated in an impure man: he is sick and defiled. Let the pure who is in sound health be the furnace for the assaying thereof.” cf. p. 206. comp. Eth. Nic. iii. 6. Again in p. 362, f. there is so ingenious and yet practical, so acute and yet sweetening, a refutation of fatalism, that it is worth adding, even if it bore less upon the text, as serving to develope farther St. E.’s views as to the compatibility of grace with free-will as touched upon in R. xxv. §. 3, &c. “If thy brother offend thee, and thou rebuke him, asking why he offend thee, by him thou dost accuse thyself of being able to keep from offending thy brother or thy God. He that hath sinned, as he wills so he changes his tone; for if he has slipped and offended he makes weakness his own excuse, but if he be sinned against, his brother [he will tell you] utters weak things. If you were to go nigh unto his prayer two tastes would be found in him; he setteth forth how weak his own strength is, and asserteth that the strength of his brother’s will is much stronger than he. He forgetteth his own debts, and accuses his debtor. Which of the two would a man wish to come to? If he assume weakness, he makes a request for his brother: and if he assume a haughty tone, he provoketh his Judge. If a man come to either one of the two, it becomes a plea common to him and to the man who is his debtor: for the weakness is common, and the capability of acting is common. Let us go in the straight path and leaVe crooked ways, that we may come to orthodoxy. A man beseecheth the forgiving God, and he thereby entreats for his brother; but if he call upon Him as Avenger, then he becomes his own adversary. He reduceth himself to a strait, choose which ever he will: if he choose God to be merciful to his own self, then he cannot be oppressive to his brother. The alternatives are placed in the midst: if a man call upon God as forgiving, then he has set his own debtor free; if as Avenger, then he has desired Him to be forgiving to himself. A man’s neighbour then is stationed along with himself in all aspects. Wherever Divine Goodness is, there are his debtors stationed; and wherever Divine Justice is, there are his misdeeds stationed. If he seek to supplicate for his misdeeds, then has he for his debtors also lifted up a prayer: if he draw nigh to Divine Goodness, then he has let his debtors go: if he draw nigh to Divine Justice, then he has summoned his own misdeeds.” This unfolds the meaning of the text: men will not let others hurt them outwardly without seeking redress; but they will mar their own inward constitution, and sell themselves to work wickedness, and then complain that they are slaves.
Eph. 5, 29.
Heb. 10, 28; 12, 20.
Numb. 12, 1. &c.
Exod. 11, 4.
Levit. 19, 32.
R. vi. note. Above, §. 1.
Acts 2, 3. Is. 47, 14.
2 Kings 5, 1. &c.
p. 128, n. h.
S. Trine
See above, p. 155, n. b. and p. 128, n. f. The words ‘try to escape men’s notice’ seem to refer to 1 John v. 9. ‘if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater.’ As this passage seems to contain an allusion to the controverted text, 1 John v. 7- it may be well to specify, first, such other passages of Scripture as it may allude to; secondly, such passages of St. E. as will throw light upon his meaning here; and thirdly, any such evidence in favour of the controverted passage as his words here seem to supply. (1) Now the only other text that has ever struck me as likely to be in the Saint’s mind is John viii. 17, 18. ‘It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true: I am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me;’ which evidently refers to that in the Law: ‘at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established,’ Deut. xix. 15. The objection to supposing St. E. refers to this is, that there is no mention of three witnesses here, and none of baptism; which seems to me most material. Neither do I think that a reference to this text in conjunction with Matt. xxviii. 19. would account for St. E.’s language. (2) St. E. notices the importance of the Name used at Baptism, R. xiii. §. 1. R. lii. §. 1. R. liii. §. 3. (which, as we shall see, is a passage in part parallel to the one before us) R. lix. §§. 1. 3. R. lxii. §. 6. R. lxv. §. 1. R. lxvi. §. 1. But of course it is so common in antiquity to dwell upon the use of the Name used in Baptism, when speaking of the Trinity, that that might be expected; it is the context which marks the passage as somewhat unusual, and makes it open to consider whether, when the copies of the Scripture were torn to pieces in persecutions, (see contr. Scrut. iii. §. 29.) this passage might by any chance have suffered. For it is certain beyond all doubt that some texts of the greatest importance are absent from a whole class of Mss. (e. g. Luke xxii. 44. to which text devotion owes so very much, but which is absent from the whole Alexandrine class,) and so it is just possible that the old Syriac version might originally have contained this important text. As time goes on, it is fair, of course, to put down any thing, however slight, which seems to favour such a supposition; if the evidence against it preponderates ever so much, this is no reason why we should neglect what little there is to put in the opposite scale. And hence there does seem to be the strictest moral obligation to attend to any evidence for its existence, and give it its weight. For as it is with remedies existing in nature, (see St. E.’s own comparison of the two, p. 171, n. e.) so may it be with those in grace; they may lie hid a long time, be rejected with scorn, and at last, after much doubt and disputes which seemed to be endless, be received. See Butler, Anal. ii. 3. p. 259. Nor ought we perhaps in this case to forget that the abundance of heresies in Syria might have helped towards the corruption of the text; because St. E. himself again and again complains of this, (see particularly Vol. ii. p. 441, f. p. 485, a. b. 491, a. 500, d. iii. p. 239, a. and also on contr. Scrut. i. §. 46.) although it must be owned that the best critics are averse to the assumption of such an hypothesis. It is plain, further, from his Comm. on Zech. xiii. 1. that he understood John xix. 34, &c. not only of the Eucharist, as in p. 20, n. m. but also of Baptism. For he understands “the fountain of salvation in the spiritual sense and true meaning, of the stream of the holy Blood and sacred Water which flowed from the side of our Lord to sprinkle from uncleanness and to purify from error;” which application is also followed in the Liturgy of St. James of Sarug used by the Maronites, Assem. Cod. Lit. ii. p. 309, n. 2. p. 341. (3) The drift of the whole passage then would admit of being stated thus: Those who will not believe ‘the record that God gave of His Son’ (1 John v. 10.) are obliged to approach the most sacred rites with a lie in their right hand; they are worse than Gehazi, who thought that none would witness the sacrilegious use he was making of the type only of the Sacrament of Baptism seen in Naaman, (see on the place, p. 532, c. d.) which was ‘by water only;’ but these daring men make the most solemn adjuration a mere trap for men’s souls, and while they call to witness the Three that bear record in Heaven, they thereby constitute all, that keep alive a religious sense of the honour of having had God’s Name sealed upon them at Baptism, judges of their own sacrilegious intentions; they summon from Heaven Three Witnesses against themselves, and prove the Church’s doctrine by the counterfeit of her rites, which to save appearances they are compelled to adopt. (See note d.) It may, in conclusion, be right to remind the reader, that it is not St. E.’s usual practice to quote Scripture; he alludes to it in by far the greater number of instances.
Heb. 6, 16.
genealogy, p. 110, n. b.
2 Chron. 26, 18—21.
Levit. 13, 46.
Comp. Ecclus. 24, 33.
§. 1. vol. ii. p. 472, e.
Numb. 16, 1.
Comp. Vol. i. p. 357, a. in n. e. That this is not a mere illustration may be seen from the following passage from R. xxii. adv. Hær. ii. p. 488, b. “The Most High came down on to Mount Sinai and covered Moses with His hand; Moses laid it upon Aaron, and it reached down to John; hence our Lord said to him, ‘It is righteousness for Me to be baptized by thee,’ (Matt. 3, 15.) that the succession might not be lost to him. Our Lord gave it to His Apostles, and behold in our Church it is continued! Blessed be He that delivered His succession to us! The saying of our Lord restrains them, and lo, what they take to themselves is taken from them! for the Aetians, and Arians, and Sabellians, and the Cathari, and Photinians, and Audians, who received imposition of hands from our Church, have some of them laid violent hands on the faith which was put into writing in that glorious Council. Memorable is the king that assembled them!—Heads they became in the midst of the Churches! Some too were presbyters and deacons! others doctors and readers! some were even religious: and from the Church they stole ordination of each kind of ministers to act as priests, and to baptize, and to break bread, and to teach that our Lord hath come and will come. Blessed He Who hath restrained them all by His Truth!” And just before: “Let them be distinctly asked from whom it was that they received imposition of hands? if it was from us that they received it and then repudiated it, that sufficeth for the truth; but if they have made themselves priests and done arrogantly, that sufficeth to reprove them, for this very thing is to their shame. For every man is a priest if he please, and lays his hand on his own head. A confusion this which cutteth off hope!”
Levit. 10, 1.
p. 39, b.
Here again as above, p. 102, n. d. is an implied parallel between heresy and idolatry. See on R. xxxvii. §. 3. St. E.’s words upon Levit. x. 1. may be interesting. “Nadab and Abihu suffered not upon one count only, but upon many, as Scripture hints; one was, because they brought in strange fire upon the fire which came down and consumed their sacrifices in its time; another was, that they despised Moses and Aaron, and brought incense without having received any permission from them; a third, that they confused the time of beginning their office, and offered incense not in their proper time; a fourth, that they entered into the sanctuary, a place which Aaron their father went into once a year. Now that they offered strange fire is typical. The strange fire he calls the wilfulness of Adam and Eve who were in a haste to become gods.” And so on 1 Sam. xiii. p. 357. a. “By this action and the consequences of it he describeth to us a type of the first Adam, because both of them (Saul and Adam) despised God’s commandment, and both of them also justified themselves and accused their fellow-creatures; both of them harmed both themselves and their sons; both of them dared to lust after a rank of which they were not worthy. Moreover by this they are blamed, who invade the rank of the priesthood, without receiving imposition of hands.” Here we see St. E. again dwells on the wilfulness of the act of Nadab and Abihu as its main feature, though he views it as typifying another thing.
1 Sam. 5, 6. 9.