Hymns on Faith

Notes

1. The heretics said the Son was created as an instrument to create the creatures: to this the Fathers replied, that would be to make the creatures the final cause of the Creator. See Petav. de Trin. ii. 5. §. 16. To some such arguing St. E. is probably alluding: the connection is: the title Father implies the existence of the Son: else God the Father must have been at some time lacking, and have become Father which He once was not. Neither was it any other cause external to the Father, which led to the generation of the Son.
2. Assem. renders ‘voluntate progenuit, nullâ vi coactus:’ the last clause is his own, and the whole version is a paraphrase. ‘In or by His Love’ is the literal rendering, which would imply, though not near so distinctly, that the Father begot the Son ‘voluntate:’ which mode of expression is of sufficiently frequent occurrence not to require in itself any apology whatever. See Petav. de Trin. vi. 8. the context, therefore, if any thing, must be what gives an awkwardness to the expression. Still, ‘in His Love’ may bear the paraphrase A. puts upon it, and imply that the Father begot the Son voluntarily in the same sense that He exists Himself voluntarily, that is, not at will, but with His will, since He cannot will Himself to be else than He is. Again, Love is a name used for God, and therefore possibly the expression might mean ‘in Himself.’ Thus St. Austin, de Trin. xv. §. 37. “Other Son of God’s Love there is none save He, Who of His Substance is begotten;” speaking of Col. 1, 13. see the margin, where our version following the Syriac renders ‘beloved.’ Possibly, however, the text is corrupt, [Syriac] should be read [Syriac], ‘in His womb or bosom.’ See further note at the end of this R.
3. The proposed emendation requires the change of a single letter: how far the present letter in the codices may be like the proposed one, in default of any accurate description of the character used in them, (known to me,) I cannot judge; but I think there is strong internal evidence in its favour which I proceed to state.
   It is a thing very much to be observed, as bearing not only on this, but on other passages, that St. Ephrem’s manner is not to quote Scripture, but to allude to it. Now whoever reads over this section, must see, at first sight, that something, supposed to be known, is wanting to make the connection between its parts clear. St. John 1, 18. which has in the Syriac the very word proposed, will supply this want. In the Syriac it runs thus: ‘No man hath seen God at any time: God, the Only- Begotten, Who is in the Bosom of His Father, He hath declared Him.’ Assume that St. E. is expecting his readers to be familiar with this text, and the passage becomes clear: insist on the present reading, and the allusion is lost.
   Next, the word [Syriac], (which it may seem to a Syriac scholar supererogatory to assert,) is in frequent use with St. Ephrem for the Womb, or Bosom of the Father. As the passages in which it occurs, will of course throw light upon the passage in question, it may be useful to put some of them together here.
   (§. 1.) One of them has occurred already in R. iii. §. 2. “Blessed, Lord, be he that knoweth that Thou art in the Bosom of the [Divine] Essence, and hath remembered that himself is fast falling into the bosom of the earth, his mother.” See also §. 7. and ix. 45.
   (§. 2.) In lx. §. 3. he says, “Leave ye unto God Himself the names that He called His Son: He affirmed that He begat Him from His own Bosom, (or Womb,) yet not after our custom, but in a way above it, and all-wonderful.”
   (§. 3.) And §. 5. ‘The Holy One in [His Name] ‘Eternal,’ is consistent with His Eternity, in [His Name] ‘Just,’ with His Justice, in [His Name] ‘Good,’ with His Goodness: in these He is consistent; and how comes His Fatherhood to be different, in that it is inconsistent with Itself, if [that is] He has no glorious Son from His Bosom?’ Here besides the [Syriac] we have the same epithet of the Son [Syriac].
   (§. 4.) Contr. Scrut. i. §. 2. fin. “If thou canst find out the Father, then along with Him shalt thou find out the Son? He is with His Mouth when commanding, with His Arm when He ordereth things. By Him He worketh, by Him likewise He commands: the One for the Other alone sufficeth: in His Bosom is He when He embraceth, &c.”
   (§. 5.) Ib. §. 14. ‘The Father, in whose Bosom is the Son, alone knoweth, &c.’ And iii. §. 10. ‘If thou canst measure that Eternal One, then thou hast measured the Son, that is from His Bosom.’ Vol. ii. p. 330. a. ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ rose unto us from the Bosom of His Father.’ Ibid. p. 472. ‘Praise thou the Son that dwelleth in His Bosom, and possesseth all things.’
   (§. 6.) To these passages shall be added one, in which I suspect there is the same mistake as in the text, as it will serve as an introduction to two or three other passages, that will be found to bear upon the doctrine in the text. It occurs contr. Scrut. i. §. 30. “How should a fruit be named so, if in reality it were not so? Name thou the Father ‘Root,’ surname the Son as His ‘Fruit.’ He is blended with Him, and distinct from Him. He is in His Bosom, and on His Right Hand. For if He were not blended with Him, then His Beloved were not in His Bosom. If again He were not distinct from Him, He would not be sitting at His Right Hand. Blended with Him is He, seeing He is in His Bosom, distinct from Him, seeing He is on His Right Hand. They are One in one Will: They are Two in two Names: They have not two Wills. They have two appellations. The Name of Fatherhood belongeth to the Father: His Name guardeth His Honour. The Name of Generateness belongeth to the Son, His Name guardeth His Generation,” &c. see the place. Presently he adds, “Fruit and tree also are not one, though they are one. The fruit is known as the fruit, and the tree as the root. In one equal love are they mingled.” Perhaps ‘bosom’ should be substituted here.
   As then St. E. so frequently uses the word ‘Bosom’ in the sense here contemplated, as he uses it in a similar connection in (3.) to that of the present context, as a reference to St. John i. 18. will clear up the abrupt transition to the Incarnation; as the phrase the Father Himself seems to have so little force with the present reading; it seems not unlikely that the first letter of the word [Syriac] is wrong.
   The context with the proposed reading would be capable of some such paraphrase as this: Though human eyes cannot gaze at the Son, as He is in the Bosom of the Father, as neither can they at the sun’s light in its bosom; still in His Dispensation for man’s good, the Son may be beheld.
   As St. E. is writing against the Anomœans, it may serve further to illustrate the text, if some passages are put together which tend to shew that his view of doctrine is such as would preclude his sympathizing much with the Semi-arian way of opposing them. To the Anomœan tenet that the Son was unlike the Father, the Semi-arians opposed their statement, that He was in all things like (ὁμοιούσιος not ὁμοούσιος), and by this rejection of the ὁμοούσιον precluded the possibility of asserting that They have one Will except figuratively, as brethren, who dwell together at unity, have one will. Doubtless the tone of the Semi-arians in many cases was better than their statements implied: still likeness of substance is not sameness, and therefore implies unlikeness, as St. Austin has on another matter observed, (c. Faust. Man. xvi. §. 15.) and as the Semi-arians at Ancyra (ap. Epiphan. i. p. 855. a.) seem to have seen. Neither am I able to see how the Two Persons, if not consubstantial, can possibly be conceived (save figuratively) to have one Will. So Greg. Nys. ii. p. 376. d. “The identity of choices (προαιρέσεων) necessarily indicates the community of nature in those that so choose.” This (as has been shewn me) was proved by passages from the Fathers to be their usual doctrine, in the Lateran Council in A.D. 649. see Harduin’s Conc. vol. iii. p. 858. Petav. de Trin. iv. 15.
   The doctrine of the Perichoresis is taught in the passage just given from St. E., the perfect in-dwelling of One Person in the Other being expressed by the word I have rendered ‘blended,’ which, as is plain from this and other passages, (see above, p. 34, n. g. and xl. §. 1.) does not imply any confusion. Vol. ii. p. 471. d. puts his view on this point beyond a doubt. “One Name hath the Eternal, who hath none other that is equal to Him. But if He (be repeated in His Son, i. e.) is two owing to having a Son, how can He dwell in Him when He is not generate from Him? Great perplexity seeing that if the two eternals dwell in each other, lo! there is confusion with blasphemy. But if it be space in which they dwell, then the space is greater than the eternal, seeing it limiteth the same. It is clear that if Eternal dwell in Eternal, either He is His Son, or of His framing. But if the eternals dwell from everlasting each in his own place, &c.” Here he is arguing against the Manichæan notion of two eternal principles; he winds up with the passage just quoted §. 5. from p. 472, “Praise thou the Son, &c.” and assumes the doctrine of the Perichoresis to be known, and that it will at once clash with the Manichæan doctrine. To speak of a coeternal Son in a co-eternal Father is consistent: to speak of a bad and good principle mutually indwelling in each other is inconsistent, and must lead to the assumption of a space in which they dwell, and which is greater than they. See on St. Austin’s Confess. p. 314.
   To return to the ‘one Will.’ In vol. ii. p. 396. O. G. he says on his death-bed, “Not by the Three Names of Fire, not by their One Movement and Will, have I ever doubted touching the Church or the power of God: If I have magnified the Father more than His Son in my mind, may He shew no mercy on me, or if I have made the Holy Spirit less than God, dark be mine eyes: If I have not confessed according to these words, to outer darkness may I go, or if I am speaking figuratively ([Syriac]) with the wicked in the fire may I burn.” This solemn asseveration is consistent with the above cited passage, as also (as we shall see) with lxxvii. §. 5. and contr. Scrut. i. §. 32. ii. §. 8.
   Again in xlvi. 4. he argues against the heretical dilemma, ‘if the True One begat, He begat either by His Will or against His Will.’ But the reading in the text is not what one should expect from a writer aware of that dilemma, and arguing against it in another part of the same work.
   In lii. §. 1. the very term in the present text is used I think unquestionably of the sonship which is by grace. ‘As by His Names He is comprehended to be God, and Just and Good, so the Name of Father evinceth Him to be a Generator. For the very Name of Fatherhood used of Him beareth witness of the Son, and as He was the Father of One, in His Love it is that He is so of many. Praises be to His Grace!’ which doctrine of sonship by grace occurs again in xxix. §. 1. in other terms. See v. §. 3.
   The epithet ‘glorious’ seems to me to suggest to St. E.’s mind the idea of the sun shining in his might. Hence he passes off to the giving of ‘that Light’ to us, through the Incarnation, and the blessings, sacramental or other, attending it. Or he may mean more generally, that we do not grasp the Divine Essence shining in its strength, but only some small part of Its operations. ‘For look’ (he says, vol. ii. p. 518, c. on another point) ‘at the source of this sun which we see, and observe that the fountain-head of its rays is unbearable, but when the shining of it spreads abroad, feeble and dulled does the might of its rays become: heat too and the gleam of it which is from fire is dulled and minished each moment. How much more dulled then will the Brilliance be which from a lengthened distance extendeth unto us!’
   It is quite possible that a scribe who looked over the passage before transcribing might purposely substitute ‘love’ for ‘bosom’ to suit the immediate context, if unlearned; and if heterodox to meet the wishes of others. But in §. 3. St. E. seems plainly to return to the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and to be arguing §. 5. that though commanded, He was in no way inferior, as the Homœousian system at least tended to make Him.
   It may be noticed also that St. Cyril in Joan. p. 106. d. e. mentions some heretics who got over the text of St. John, to which I suppose St. E. to be referring, by asserting, that ‘bosom’ meant ‘love’ in that passage; and not (as St. C. says it should be taken) of the Son’s being ‘from the Father and in the Father,’ the word bosom being used for ‘Essence.’ St. Cyril’s view of the text of St. John will meet the only further difficulty which seems likely to be made to the proposed reading, viz. that it is usual to speak of the Son being begotten from the Bosom of the Father and not usual to speak of His being begotten in the Bosom of the Father. St. E. however, if alluding to that text would take a word or two, as he found them in that text, especially when the [Syriac] ‘in the Bosom’ also contradicts the heretical notion that the Son was external to the Father. Yet in matter of fact St. Greg. Nys. who had the same reading of St. John thus comments on it in c. Eun. ii. p. 432, b. “Fair, yea beyond all fairness, is God the Only-begotten, Who is in the Bosom of the Father: He that is in the Bosom of the Father, is He not begotten in it? ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ οὐχὶ ἐγγινόμενος;”
   To conclude: the question here raised is not whether the reading in the text does or does not contain a questionable expression: but, whether that expression does or does not fall in with St. E.’s ordinary teaching. To have illustrated this may be useful, even though the present reading seem to others perfectly satisfactory. I should add, that a similar passage from a Latin translation of St. E. is discussed by Petav. de Trin. vi. 8. §. 24. which, for reasons given in the Preface, I have omitted.
4. or Eternal
5. See above, p. 68, n. q. It was the doctrine of all the early Fathers that it was the Son and not the Father who manifested Himself. (Vide Petav. de Trin. ii. 9. §. 9.) As St. E. holds Them to be equally incomprehensible, he must here mean to refer to that office of the Son spoken of in St. John i. 18. Vol. ii. p. 507. c. will illustrate the sequel, “By His truth He made us many medicines; He made His greatness little by borrowed names. But that we might not think that this was the whole of Him, He disclosed His Greatness not such as it is, but proportioned to our strength. Even this Greatness is but a littleness, seeing it is a spark from Him which He shewed us: according to our pupils he set before us of the multitude of His mighty rays.” St. Justin Mart. c. Tryph. p. 358. uses the Ray in a similar way as a type of the Incarnate Son. Later writers usually employ it as St. E. does below, xl. §. 1. lxxiii. §. 1. of His Divine Nature. See p. 133.
6. R. xlii. §. 5. contr. Scr. i. §. 33.
7. see R. x. §. 3. pp. 19. 50.
8. p. 90, n. c.
9. p. 49, ref. 2. see also on R. 1. fin.
10. Gen. 1, 3.
11. Ib. v. 26.
12. This text has been already quoted, p. 68. with the same view as here. So on Gen. p. 18. d. The earth “brought forth cattle in such way as was fitting for the service of him who on that very day transgressed the commandment of his Lord. After having said of the creeping things, beasts, and cattle, that they were created on the sixth day, he proceeds to write of the creation of man who was formed, as it here saith, on that same sixth day. And God said, &c. To whom then did God say, here and in all places, when creating? It is plain that it was to the Son He said it. Of Him the Evangelist said, ‘All things were by Him, and without Him was not any thing made.’ John 1, 3. Paul also setteth to his seal concerning Him, and saith, In Him was created whatsoever is in heaven and on earth, all things visible and all things invisible. Col. 1, 16. In p. 128, b. he explains it as said by the Father to the Son and Spirit. See on Athanas. p. 120. n. p. We see from p. 68, the text, and this passage, that the idea of explaining away the passage by the artifice of a ‘pluralis majestatis’ does not enter into the mind of one familiar with a Semitic language.
13. On Judg. xiv. fin. he says, “That Samson’s riddle was explained on the seventh day shews that in the seventh thousand [of years] all the riddles and types which have been spoken are to be interpreted, before there be seen the table prepared for the spiritual marriage feast of the Bride of Christ.” It was a common opinion that the world would last seven thousand years. Of these six were supposed to have gone before Christ. See Bede on Genes. 5. and compare St. Ephrem upon Deut. i. p. 259. where he speaks of five divisions of time before Christ. Perhaps the real meaning of this was, before Christ all was toil, after Christ the giving of rest and an easy yoke began. On Gen. p. 20 and p. 139. St. E. notices the seventh day as the type of the eternal Sabbath in Heaven, and not as here and implicitly, and on Judges more explicitly, of the Kingdom of Christ on earth. The two views are easily reconciled: the same Wood of the Cross which sweetens man’s labour upon earth will give a more full rest in Heaven, of which the Church is but the Image. See p. 10, n. b. Pearl vi. §. 2.
14. S. in the thousand after the sixth
15. p. 127, note.
16. This St. E. notices ii. p. 444. as a Grecian error; it is certainly a pagan error, and was thence adopted by the Gnostics, (see Iren. i. §. 24. Clem. Strom. ii. §. 38. p. 449. Potter. Athan. c. Ar. ii. §. 21. Archel. Caschar. c. Man. cap. x. Epiphan. i. p. 52. p. 62. p. 109—10.) and also by the Jews, (see Basil Hex. fin. Voisin ad R. M. Pug. fidei, fol. 392.) This is one of the many instances in which St. E. glances at other heretics than those against whom he is writing. See however Athan. c. Ar. i. §. 56. p. 262. O. T. where it is pointed out how Arianism would run up into this error. ‘Audacity’ [Syriac] is almost a technical word with St. E. for heresy, heretical boldness.
17. In a passage presently quoted, p. 129. St. E. repeats this, “by Him He works and by Him commands.” So St. Athan. de D. S. N. §. 9. p 15. and p. 118. O. T. quoting as was commonly done Ps. 33, 9. Others however objected to speaking of the Father commanding the Son, lest an inferiority should thereby be implied. See Petav. de Trin. ii. 7. §. 8. whence it will appear that St. Athan. (c. Ar. Or. ii. 31. see also on §. 21.) does not differ in doctrine from St. E. on the point; for in the expression with [Syriac] a voice is implied that there was no interval, as in the case of human commands, between the command and the creation, the use of the word ‘He said’ being an accommodation to our mode of thought. See Greg. Nys. c. Eun. p. 470—2. St. E.’s own words to that effect may be added; vol. i. p. 128. “God said, Let Us make man in Our Image and Our Likeness. It is obvious that the words are addressed by the Father to the Son and the Spirit for the creation of man. By these words preparatory to the production of man it is seen, that God was making for him a glory greater than that of all the sensitive creatures which He created before him. For of these He spake commandingly only: ‘Let there be light, let the earth bring forth, let the waters produce,’ but of the production of man He speaketh words that have a resemblance to the considering and reconsidering and the preparations which men make in their doings.”
18. S. minister
19. Epiphan. lxxiii. §. 12. mentions that the insisting on the application of οὐσία to the Son, originated in the attempt of Paul of Samosata and Marcellus to make the Word a mere spoken word. Then quoting ‘Let there be, &c.’ he says, ‘the words which the Father speaketh to the Son are not Sons,’ to which alternative the heretical interpretation of ‘God said’ must come if followed out.
20. S. are overcome
21. S. His Second
22. loosened
23. Companion. Archel. Casch. as above, mentions that Manes looked on the passage as implying a ruler speaking to other rulers.
24. See Rom. 11, 34.
25. or Æon
26. This must be considered (as the immediate mention of Humiliation shews) as a transition to the Incarnation. See on §. 1. After considering that the Son is alone able to hear the Father, (so to speak of Him who is all hearing,) he breaks off with a thanksgiving for the revelation God made of Himself by His Son in the flesh.
27. Gen. 2, 16.
28. 2, 21.
29. The Syriac has the masculine pronoun here in the printed text. If this be correct, I am unable to understand it. I have ventured to render, as if it were the feminine point, which the editor appears from his version to have intended it to be.
30. Heb. 1, 3.
31. Gen. 1, 20.
32. p. 127, note.
33. Vol. ii. p. 479. d. “Of (Adam) man alone is it written, that ‘I have repented, (Gen. 6, 6.) though he was fairer than all the creeping things and beasts without discernment.’ The force of the next words seems to be this: the heretics assert, that to say the Son is very God, implies that He is Ingenerate: therefore there will be two Ingenerates. (See Didymus de Trinitate p. 38. St. Greg. Nys. ii. p. 384.) To this St. E. replies; ‘Adam, though a created being, was ingenerate, seeing he was not gendered as others are. Still he is not unfruitful: he has a son without there being thereby another ingenerate. If this is so with created beings, how much more might it be conceived of an uncreate Nature.’ Vide Greg. N. ibid. p. 386. d.
34. It may not be easy to ascertain precisely what is here in St. E.’s mind. St. Barnab. Ep. ix. St. Irenæus fr. [p. 345.] St. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. §. 145. p. 816. Pott. St. Jerome in Zechar. viii. fin. Epiphan. viii. 6. l. 3. lxx. 12. and others cited by Cotel. ad Const. Ap. ii. 25. notice the I in our Lord’s name as referring to ten in one way or other. Above, p. 38. St. E. uses the ten as the symbol of Christ’s Humanity, in part perhaps, because the Yod is the smallest of the letters. (See Matt. v. 18.) Here then he may mean, one jot of Thee is too great for me: in that which is least in Thee I linger, praying of Thee to make Thy Incarnation a way whereby I may pass over to the Trinity. St. Austin de Doctr. Christian, ii. §. 25. may perhaps throw some further light on the passage. ‘The number ten signifieth the knowledge of the Creator and the creature: for the three belongs to the Creator, and the seven indicates the creature by reason of the life and body. For in the former there are three things, whence it comes that God is to be loved with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the mind; in the body the four elements, of which it consists, are quite obvious.” This meaning of four occurs in St. E. i. p. 233. d. f. of our Lord’s Body. As persons of late years found mysteries in the name Latinus, or as alpha and omega are insisted on in Holy Writ, so was Christ’s holy name of old. St. E. may refer to what was obvious enough to devotional people of the day. Didymus de Trin. p. 264. treats in a like way of the word περιστερά.
35. S. sign