Library › St Ephrem the Syrian › Hymns on Faith

Hymns on Faith

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

60. Rhythm the Sixtieth

What was it, pray, that compelled the true Father, who ‘generated¹’ all things, to use the names ‘Generate,’ ‘Father,’ and ‘Son?’ “It was because He chose to do so.” What, chose to lead us into error²? “To adorn Himself was what He chose, and He denied Himself.” But if this were the case—but far be this from being so, nor let such things come into the mouths of the faithful—still from this selfsame expression, if it did ‘adorn’ Him, does He who denied Himself, in spite of His not being so, yet prove to be a Generator³? And since this is a thought⁴ concealed, that was from every creature⁵ hidden, who was it, pray, that was too hard for it, that detected it and disclosed its secret so fully, that even children in the streets⁶ proclaim it?—Speak on the heretics’ side again: say, ‘Never did He Himself deny in saying He was a Generator.’ On what then was it that the worlds were weighed, if so be He weighed them not? Or who is to assert that this was so, if He had not asserted that it was by His Son that He created every thing? But if His Son be truly so, seeing He did surname Him so, and made us believe that He generated Him, then does that ‘borrowed⁷’ term ‘Father’ shew that He is truly so.

Because the bold [disputers] preached that He was not the Son, which yet is in the Prophets and in the Apostles⁸, if these bold men be found true, are then the Prophets in error? And if the Apostles of the True One be true, let us despise the bold ones, since these err, and lead into error. Now who revealed this, which the bold disputers preach with their whole mouths? for it agreeth not with that which hath been preached unto us by mouths of the faithful⁹, in whom the Spirit spake, whose writings also are like and agree with their words. For they that be faithful are silent, and they that are bold are open-mouthed. Who would not give glory to Him that hath put them to confusion?

Fear, ye faithful persons: leave unto God the Names which He hath given to His Son. He asserted that He generated Him from His Womb¹⁰, yet not after our fashion, but in one above it, and wonderful in all respects; for our offspring which is born from our womb, is but a shadow of it. Let us then all maintain of the Son, that He is Generate from His Womb, and is the Fruit of that Hidden One¹¹.¹²

The Lord that knoweth all¹³, asked of the devil what his name was; and the unclean devil denied not his own name;¹⁴ as neither did the devils deny His Name: and the clerks¹⁵ are put to shame who have called our Redeemer a creature; for the devils themselves betrayed that He was the Son of¹⁶ God. Of His own self alone Legion taught, that as his own name of Legion agreed with the interpretation of it¹⁷, so he cried out because he felt that He was the Son of God, whose Name implied¹⁸ His Father. But if His Name comforted the sick, even His mortal Name, which agreed with His Human Nature, how much should that of our God [comfort us]?

For who would compare the Names¹⁹ of the Holy One, [and not see] that He agreeth with Himself in all, in that of ‘Eternal’ with His Eternity, in that of ‘Just’ with His Justice, in that of ‘Good’ with His Goodness? in these He agreeth, and how comes it that His Fatherhood is different, in that it agreeth not with itself²⁰, if He hath no glorious Son from His own Womb! Who is there that does not see whether these surnames agree with the [things] themselves; with dust Adam [agreeth], Eve with ‘living,’ Phaleg with ‘division,’ and Babel with ‘confusion.’ Since we have touched on this confusion, let us avoid agitation. Receive in order²¹ the Names threefoldly. For from Babel one learns, that even there Three came down²² and confounded. For it says, Come Ye²³, let Us go down, and this of One only no one could say, for to one it had been, Come thou, let us go down. The wicked one with these tongues that are confused, hath confused in this our day the²⁴ Church instead of Babel!

Who would not marvel that there is now room for error to strengthen itself by reason of our weakness; now we are very weakly: and if the might of our agreement were to come back to us again, and the love of our concord too²⁵, who is there that would restrain us, since our faith in earth and in heaven would loose and bind²⁶?

Notes

This word is not probably meant to be St. E.’s own, but to give what was an heretical explanation of the term ‘Father,’ it being a device of the Arian school to confuse generation and creation. See Petav. de Trin. ii. 5. §. 2.
R. lii. §. 6.
The text has [Syriac] ‘his mouth,’ a misprint, as the Latin shews, for [Syriac] ‘mouths.’ The Latin is a good paraphrase rather than a version of this section, the difficulty of which arises from the rapid change from question to answer, from one person to another, as if the reader were expected to have the thing before him dramatically, as is the case in some of the Psalms, or in Isaiah Ixiii. (which Aretas, p. 460, calls ‘Ἠσαΐου δραματουργία.’) The words, which would be those of the heretics, are marked in the text by inverted commas. The whole passage may be paraphrased as follows: The orthodox may fairly ask the heretics, when they want men to confuse generation with creation, why God does not call creatures ‘creatures’ always, but uses names, which imply Persons whose existence does not depend upon creation. It is idle for them to say, that such terms are merely arbitrary on God’s part, as that is tantamount to saying, that He led us purposely into error. Neither is there any use in their saying that His object was to adorn Himself, or (in other words) to commend Himself to us for His fatherly care of us, though in doing so He used terms which belied His real Nature. For the self-same expression ‘Generator’ or ‘Father,’ &c. if really calculated to commend Himself to us, will prove Him who so belied Himself (in your view) to be a Generator. For since the whole idea that He belied Himself is based upon the assumption, that there was some one who, antecedently to the existence of any creature, could see His secret thoughts and disclose them: and as this is manifestly false of any creature, it proves at once the falsehood of your assertion, and the fact that He who did disclose even to babes and sucklings things hidden from the wise and prudent, was a Son, and did know the Father, and was able to reveal Him. (Matt. xi. 27.) But if the defender of the heretics is shocked at having his words taken as though he made God a liar, and asserts that He ‘generated’ the worlds, a fact which is ample reason for the title; then we may refer him to Isaiah xl. 12—14. and ask how he means to take the account of the creation there given, so as not to deny the plain assertion of Scripture, (Heb. 1, 2.) that God made the worlds by His Son, and that without Him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1, 3.) For here ‘Son’ is plainly distinguished from ‘creature,’ and therefore a relation between Him and the Father antecedent to the existence of creatures is implied. Such a relation implies also that ‘Father’ cannot be (as you make it) a ‘borrowed’ name, but must be one which expressed the reality which Catholics contend it does express. The heretics argue a great deal from the confusion arising out of the Greek words, γένεσθαι and γεννᾶσθαι, ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος, ποιεῖν παῖδας, and the like, a confusion based perhaps as much on the heathen ideas out of which the Greek use of the words sprung, as in any thing. There is not this confusion in the Semitic languages, or at least not to the same extent, which is an additional reason to account for the obscurity of passages such as that before us.
Comp. p. 140, n. g.
S. Nature R. l. §. 3. ref. 10.
p. 80, n. s.
R. lii. §. 1.
R. lix. §. 2.
i. e. the sacred penmen—an expression equivalent to that of οἱ ἅγιοι common in Greek writers.
or Bosom, p. 131.
Or, more literally ‘of the Invisibleness.’ The Arians contended that Invisibleness was an attribute of the Father’s which the Son did not possess. St. E. then would imply in the text that the Son is the Fruit and consubstantial with the invisible Father; the Invisibleness of the Son would be implied in that of the Father, because ‘generate from’ means ‘having the same nature from’ the Father. See St. Aust. c. Maxim. ii. cap. 9.
R. lxxvi. §. 2.
The expression ‘that knoweth all’ might be noticed as bearing upon the question, (p. 190, n. g.) whether our Lord grew, really, in wisdom; but the meaning of the original is far from clear. See n. d. on R. lxxvii.
Mark 5, 9.
R. lvi. §. 3. S. scribes
ib. 7.
R. lxxv. §. 4. vol. iii. p. 575. in n. b. p. 267.
S. agreed with
pp. 200, 201, 313, n. c.
R. vi. §. 1. R. lii. §. 1.
p. 301, n. b.
Gen. 11, 7.
See p. 68, n. r. The Heb. and Sam. have the singular [Hebrew] in the present text; the Chaldee and Syriac and the Vulgate also have the plural: the LXX. δεῦτε. As St. E. elsewhere refers to readings found in the Hebr. only (e. g. in Vol. i. p. 539, d. to the Cethibh in 2 Kings viii. 10.) it seems likely that some Codices then had the reading from which he here argues, [Hebrew], although de Rossi gives no such reading. There is however the same difference in Gen. xi. 3, 4. and Ex. i. 20. where the singular [Hebrew] occurs again with a plural verb, which might be alien to the usage of Chald. and Syr. but is akin to the use of ἄγε in Greek (Kuhner Synt. §. 430. n. α.) and ‘age’ in Latin (Ramshorn 70. ii. 2.) with a plural. The passage is used by other Fathers to prove a plurality of Persons, (see Sabatier on the place, Petav. de Trin. ii. 7. 10.) but they do not seem to insist particularly upon the ‘Venite.’ It is right to add that this passage according to the Talmud (see Voisin ad R. Martin, fol. 559.) was altered by the LXX. to the singular to prevent the heathen from deducing a plurality of Gods from it.
R. lxvi. §. 2.
R. xxxix. §. 1. R. lxvii. §. 2. R. lxxix. §. 5.
This (as the beginning of the next R. suggests) probably alludes to Matt. xviii. 17—19. where the power to bind and loose is put in juxtaposition with the promise to united prayer. Some have thought that in a certain way the prayers of the Church as a whole might be looked upon as the cause of those sacramental gifts which yet are more properly said to be dependent upon certain definite forms. See Toutte on St. Cyril Hieros. diss. iii. §. 96. This is objected to by others. See Berti de Theol. Disc. xxxiii. 7. §. 1. In Vol. i. p. 547, f. St. E. notices several instances in the Old Testament in which God made blessing dependent upon external forms, and speaks of that dependence as the lesson the churchman ought to derive from such instances, [Syriac]. In Vol. iii. p. 528, e. he has a prayer which seems to ascribe the same effects to incense (which was offered at the Eucharist). “The smoke of the incense that we have offered to the honour of Thy Godhead, do Thou receive, O Lord, as the frankincense of Aaron; and as the plague was stayed from the people that insulted Thy Name, stay from Thy Church sects and divisions: thereby also may there be commemorated the departed and the holy Fathers that have confessed Thy Name, and are fallen asleep in Thy hope, &c.” It is evident that all St. E. means is, that the continuance of the Gifts depends upon the worthiness of the recipients, which, in a certain way, may be called the remote cause of the Gifts themselves. St. Hilary’s words on Matt. xviii. 19. are quite parallel to St. E.’s in the text. “To such a degree was Christ zealous for the agreement of peace among mankind, that He asserted that all things to be asked of God in prayer should by the merit of unity be obtained, and that where two or three are gathered together in the same spirit and will, there did He promise to be in the midst of them. For Himself being Peace and Charity will take up His abode in wills good and peace-making.”