Library › St Ephrem the Syrian › Hymns on Faith

Hymns on Faith

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

61. Rhythm the Sixty-first

Who is there that would not fear, since the Lord threatened a millstone to the neck of him that maketh one¹ of the children of light to stumble? They that trouble the simple with questions have their prying for a millstone, they are drowned by scrutinizing², and will not emerge again, since they keep not silence from that evil wrangling of theirs. The word which teacheth patiently³ concerning the Father and the Son⁴, who are united with Each Other, is that, which has either lowered the Father as well as Him to a kinsmanship with the creatures, or else has raised the Son as well as Him to a state different from that of creatures; since the Son would be like His Father.

Any word with a proper meaning in it, is not intended either to leave that meaning unuttered or to give a contrary one⁵; for if the name of Son be suitable to the creatures, then the name of the creatures is suitable to the Creator; and if the name of the creatures is alien from the Creator, then is it alien also from the Son of the Creator. Whatsoever happeneth⁶ to the Nature of Him that begot, may also happen to the Son of Him which begot. The Ray is bright, because bright is He that begot It⁷; and It is not cut off, since It is like to Its Root⁸; neither is It stinted, since It is bound up⁹ in His Surname and like Him in all things. From the Father one may learn the Son; for if the Generator be akin to the creatures, the Generate also would prove a fellow-servant¹⁰ with the creatures. But if the Father be alien from, is His Fruit akin to, them? or shall we separate This from Him and say that He is not the Son? But if He crieth aloud that He is the Son¹¹, then He hath put strife to silence!

Who would not marvel at a wedlock of roots¹² which have lost their own nature and have changed their names; both of them are bereaved of what are their fruits! a Root of freedom¹³ with a Fruit of bondage¹⁰; and a Tree of bondage with a produce of Majesty. How, when blossoming, do They blossom? From this very expression thou shalt learn: for if the Son be verily reckoned so, then is He verily Generate: He must count for a servant if He be not Generate; it must be one of the two. For either both Parties stand good, Each of Them in His proper place; or They have undergone a change, and have loosened Their Names, and fluctuated in Their Natures¹⁴. Who would not enquire, whether, if the Name of the Son is to be made ‘creature’ in his scrutinizing, this [word] ‘creature’ is not to be Son in the enquiry. Since then it was impossible for this name of its to be consistent with itself, it relinquished it: for the thing intended¹⁵ betakes itself to ‘Generate,’ as the Name of ‘Son’ also assorteth not with the creature. For that word ‘creature’ were no longer like a creature, as also ‘Generate’ is not like Son. Whence there arises a great confusion—for the Name of Son will not be consistent with ‘creature:’ and the word hath forced the wrangler to call the Son ‘creature,’ and the creature ‘Son;’ and with the Name he hath also destroyed the worship of¹⁶ the Son of God,—the which be far from happening! It is not for any one to abide in what is right, that hath transgressed what is becoming!

How was Moses demeaned, who received even the Divine Name and a heavenly glory, yet dared not to say he¹⁷ was God, and deceived not the people? When the children of that people went astray in the desert, then he by all methods reproved them in every thing; and he cried against them,¹⁸ and called heaven and earth to witness against them. How again was the saintly Apostle demeaned and his colleague, when the men began to offer sacrifices unto them and to¹⁹ burn incense to them, and called them gods, because they saw their wondrous works? They rent their inward heart and their outward garments, and allowed themselves to be stoned rather than to be worshipped. Why did John exempt himself, saying, ‘I am not the Christ whom ye seek?’ But²⁰ and if the servant had felt that his Lord was his fellow-servant, then the Nazarite who lieth not, did on the contrary deceive greatly. For he set to his seal, that He was the Son of God, and lo! this preacher’s word crieth aloud in the world!

Why did not Gabriel deceive Daniel and say he²¹ was God, or the Seraph not deceive Isaiah and say he was the Son of God? He was an Angel and he deceived not, a Seraph and he lied not. The Apostle is true and deceived us not, and he asserted and revealed Him to be greater than all. Hear what I say,—that if this were not the truth, it would have been confuted and come to an end²². The truth alone is able to increase to the East, and to spread to the West, and to lay hold on the North, and to clasp the South²³. Into the depth It went down and conquered²⁴! into the height It went up and abode and ruled in all places over all!

Notes

Mat. 18, 6.
p. 87, n. i.
Assem. gives this passage an entirely different turn by rendering, Quisquis proprio spiritu ducitur ad disputandum de Patre et Filio, &c. as if the phrase [Syriac] meant ‘is long-winded.’ This certainly is not the usual sense of the phrase which is exactly parallel to the Hebr. [Hebrew], see Gesen. Lex. Heb. p. 150. Nor is it like St. E. to put in such a clause as ‘who are united, &c.’ if it was a sentiment which he meant to reprobate. The sense then would rather be: He who with real patience tries to reconcile all Scripture statements, will not explain the condescension of the Son, as God, in such way as to deny all condescension in the Father, but instead of arguing a difference of Nature in the Son from passages which speak of His condescension, as Man, will from the terms Father and Son conclude a sameness of Nature. See R. xxxii. and the notes, and comp. p. 372, n. n. ‘The spiritual architect, &c.’ I have ventured to translate as if [Syriac] were a misprint for [Syriac], like [Syriac] which occurs in the other clause.
S. wedded see §. 3.
S. ‘The word whose power is in itself, neither means to be silent, nor means to gainsay,’ i. e. the very notion of language implies that certain words shall have a certain sense, and not the opposite—if then you allow the Son to be Creator of all things, and then make Him a creature, you are perverting the use of language, and saying that He did and did not create all things. This confusion he proceeds to illustrate in §. 3. by supposing two roots to yield produces the opposite to which their nature would lead one to expect. What he means by the ‘two roots’ is, the two words creature and Son, which in the heretical system bear meanings just the opposite to what they ought to bear. For the term ‘creature’ with them includes Him who created, and the term ‘Son’ includes a creature under it.—See R. lxii. §. 3. Mystery of course is not confusion, nor, consequently, should the statement of it in words (however difficult it may be) be confused: but heresy, as coming from the author of confusion, is confused in its language, as well as its conceptions.
This is like the use of the word συμβεβηκὸς in Greek Fathers, (see Petav. de Trin. iv. 10. §. 5. Le Quien on Damasc. i. p. 37, n. 5.) for whatever is accessory to the Essence of God in our conceptions of Him, e. g. attributes, whether personal or not; here of course personal attributes are out of the question.
R. xl. R. lxxv.
p. 179, n. e. p. 339, c. c. Scrut. i. 12.
n. c. on R. lxxiii.
R. xlvi. §. 4. p. 272, g.
R. lii. §. 2. R. lxii. §. 1. R. lxv. §. 4.
R. lviii. §. 1.
R. lii. §. 1. R. lxxvi. §. 1. c. Scrut. i. 12.
comp. p. 234, n. f.
S. its reality R. lxii. §. 2.
On Athan. p. 423, n. m.
2 Cor. 3, 7. Ex. 4, 16.
Deut. 30, 19; 31, 28.
Acts 14, 13. 18.
John 1, 20.
Dan. 8, 17. Is. 6, 6.
R. viii. §. 6. R. xxxix. §. 2.
R. lxxiv. §. 2.
p. 328, n. c.