Ephraim of Antioch, Patriarch

to the homeland, to fellow-tribesmen and all men, and much more so to the Father and Creator.

From Evagrius: "Woe to self-love that hates all things!"

TITLE. On Murderers.

From the Questions of Philo on the Law: "How terrible it is to suffer beyond what is right, and to seize something that has been entrusted."

TITLE. On the Eye.

From the first book of Philo’s Questions on Exodus: ^B Vision differs from the other senses also in this, that the others are mingled with the objects of sense; for instance, taste is mingled with juices, smell with emitted vapors, and hearing with the sounds that slip into the ears. But in the case of vision, the like does not happen; for it does not penetrate into the depth of bodies, but merely touches the surface insofar as it presents itself, nor do bodies enter into the sight.

SAINT EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH

NOTITIA

Ephraim the Younger, distinct from Ephraim the Syrian monk, Patriarch of Antioch (before the middle of the sixth century), who, although he was a Syrian himself, also wrote many things in Greek, varied discourses, and various writings for the defense of the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon against Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, and the Acephali, all of which have long since been lost. Photius testifies that he had examined three volumes of these, but he mentions the arguments of only two. The first contained an Epistle to Zenobius, a scholastic of Emesa, of the Acephalus sect, who was casting aspersions on Leo the Roman, in which Ephraim denies that the Orientals had sinned when they added to the Trisagion Hymn the words, "who was crucified for us," because they referred these words to Christ; he asserts, however, that the Byzantines had sinned, who understood those words as referring to the Holy Trinity. He also mentions a unique Collection of ecclesiastical canons (customary, it seems, among the Syrians at that time), in which the second canon of the second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, was the 166th canon. In the same first volume were letters of Ephraim: III. To the Emperor Justinian. IV. To Anthimus, Bishop of Trapezus, concerning the condemnation of Eutyches. V. To Domitianus (I do not know if this is the same as that Bishop of Melitene, to whom Eulogius of Alexandria [writes] in Photius, codex 225 and 250, p. 459). VI. To Syncleticus, Metropolitan of Tarsus, against the Acephali. VII. To Anthimus again, and VIII. To Brazes the Persian. IX. To the monks inclined toward the heresy of Nestorius. X. To Calli-

Callinicus the deserter, regarding those who isolate themselves, where the words: “that those who meet together beyond this (the Church of God) are caves of conspirators,” should be rendered thus, and that those who hold meetings outside her (the Church of God) are caves of robbers, not as Schottus translates: “and those who hold meetings to her detriment.” X. A synodical act regarding certain Eutychian libels offered to Syncleticus, bishop of Tarsus, and his syncellus, the monk Stephen. XI. Epistle to Megas, or Magnus, bishop of Berrhoea. XII. To the monk Eunoius. XIII. Eight panegyric sermons. 1. At the dedication of the temple of the Holy Prophets. 2. On the Nativity of Jesus. 3. Before the fasts. 4. Catechetical address to the newly baptized. 5. At the dedication of the temple of the Archangel Michael in Daphne. 6. On holy Lent. 7. On one of the nine [days] of Lent. 8. On holy Wednesday for those to be baptized.

Another volume of the same St. Ephraem, divided into four books, in the first, third, and fourth of which is contained the greatest part of the apology of Cyril of Alexandria and the synod of Chalcedon against the calumnies of the Nestorians and Eutychians, especially the Oriental Severian monks and the Theopaschites; the second contained a dissertation on five questions proposed by Anatolius the scholastic: I. Whether Christ is still born even now according to the flesh? ^B II Cor. v, 16. II. If Adam was of a composite substance, how was he created immortal? III. Whence is it evident that John the Evangelist still remains? John xxi, 22. IV. If Adam was created immortal, how was he ignorant of whom he was? V. What is the sense of the words Gen. iii, 22: Behold, Adam has become as one of us? The third book was dedicated to Domnus and John, monks residing in Second Cilicia. Cf. Reines. V. lect. p. 152 and 153, and Coteler. tom. II Monument. p. 651. Here, if I am not mistaken, Photius makes mention of Peter. V. the same Coteler. in Const. apost., tom. II, part. II, p. 416 b.

Index of authors, whom Photius mentions from Ephraem; the numbers denote the pages of the Greek edition of Hæschel.

Ambrosius, 425. Amphilochius, 405. Iconiensium episcopus, 413, 414, 422, 423. Antiochus of Ptolemais, 411. Apollinarius, 411, 413, 420, 423, 426, 436. Arius, 528. Arians, 413. Athanasius, 405, 421, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 433. Epistle to Epictetus, 413. To Julian the emperor, 427. To virgins, 423. To Maximum the philosopher, 423. From the work against the Arians, 420. On the faith, 424. From diverse discourses, 420, 423. He from Cappadocia who illuminated the whole world, 414. The bright herald of the Church, 434. On the faith, 416, 424. On the Eucharist, 420. In the first chapter, on the Epiphany, 435. Atticus of Constantinople in an epistle to Eupsychius, 424. Baradatus. Look below under Simeon. His epistle to Leo the emperor, 437. To Basil, bishop of Antioch, 437. Baronius (at the year of Christ 555), as Assemani teaches in *Bibl. orientali*, tom. I, p. 19, confuses this Baradatus and Jacob, Catholic monks, with Jacob Baradaeus, a follower of Severus of Antioch, and interprets the words of Photius poorly. Basilius of Caesarea, 405, 425, 427, 431. Epistle to the Sozopolitans, 420, 423. To Apollinarius, 420. Cyriacus, bishop of Paphos, who was present at the 318 Fathers in the Council of Nicaea, 423, 435. Cyrillus of Jerusalem, 422. Cyrillus of Alexandria, 404, 406, 411, 412, 419, 421, 426, 437. The Victor, 429, 431. In the refutations, 420. Apologies for the 12th anathema, 420. In the work against the Synousiasts, 420, 423, 424, 425, 429, 430, 434. In the interpretation of the "scapegoat" (apopompaion), 416, 420. From the Treasures, 420, 425, 424, 425, 429, 430, 434. First epistle to Succensus, 411, 414, 423, 430, 431. The second, 410, 420, 423, 425, 426, 435. To the Orientals, 431, 422, 435. In the work against Nestorius, 425, 429, 432. To Nestorius, 413, 414. First epistle, 432, 434, 420. To Acacius, bishop of Scythopolis, 416. To Acacius of Melitene, 423, 431. Ninth book of the commentaries on the Evangelist John, 420, 430. On the seven, eight, nine [books], 420. In Leviticus, 432. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 420, 423, 430. In Isaiah, 420. In Matthew, 431, 432, book I, 429. In the eighth psalm, 420. In the prophet Malachi, 424. Zechariah, 430. On the faith, 429, 430. From the discourse on apathy, 420. On suffering, 420. In the work against Arius, 432. On the incarnation, 420, 423, 430, 435. In the seventh [book] on the worship in spirit, 431. In the ninth book, 424, 432. In the third chapter of the anathemas, 427. From the scholia, 420, 425, 427, 431, 432. In the work on the incarnation and on the "pearl," 430. In the first chapter on heresy, 424. Dionysius the Areopagite, 420. The perverse explanation of the words of John 1, 14: *And dwelt among us*, by Domnus, is rejected, 421. St. Ephraem in the work on the incarnation and on the "pearl," 430. Epiphanius, 424. In the first [book] on heresy, 424. Erechthius, 425, 426. Eusebius Pamphili, *Ecclesiastical History*, 418.

Eustathius the Great, priest of the Antiochians, 411. ^A Eutyches, 406, 407, 415, 419, 423, 426, 428, 435, 436. Flavianus, 419. Gregorius Neocaesariensis, 425. Gregorius Nyssenus, 404, 405, 424, 425. His catechetical work, 423. Contra Apollinarium, 421, 430. Book against Eunomius, 423. Gregorius the Theologian Nazianzen, 433, 434, 425, 405, 416, 420, 421, 424. Homily on the birthday of Jesus, 423. Second epistle to Cledonius, 423, 424. Hilarius the confessor, 423. Ignatius the God-bearer, 405. And martyr, writing to the Smyrneans, 421. Isidorus the monk, of Alexandrian birth, Epistles, 406. Jacobus (see below under Simeon); his epistle to Basilius of Antioch, Bishop, 437. Joannes the Evangelist, acts and life, 418. Joannes Chrysostom, 405, 421, 424, 425. Expounding the Gospel according to John, 422. In the eleventh homily, 422. The wise Joannes, 430. On the discourse regarding the Ascension, 435. Regarding the union of the body with the Godhead, 423. In the epistle to Docius, 424. Against those who contend against the divine incarnation of the Word, 427. In the discourse on the consubstantial, 436. Julius of Rome, Bishop, 404, 405, 425, 426, 427, 433, 435, 436. Paulus Emesenus, Bishop, 422. This passage should be read thus, in the judgment of Cotelerius, tom. II, Monum., p. 631, which you may compare. Paulus Samosatensis, 426, 436. Petrus the Apostle, the chief, the mouth of the apostles, 423. Petrus Alexandrinus, martyr, 423. Proclus of Constantinople, 405, 415. Homily on the Quadragesima, 422. On the nativity discourse, and in various others, 423. In the Pulcherian homilies after the nativity, 430. Severianus of Gabala, in the fourth discourse on faith, 423. On the discourse regarding union, ibid. Those from Severus, 404, 405, 410, 420, 422, 427. The heresy of Severus, 410. ^B Simeon Stylites’ epistle, 437. Simeon, Baradatus, and Jacobus are lauded for their probity and love of concord, 408 and 419. The Nicene Synod, the faith which the 318 holy Fathers set forth, 428, 436. The proceedings of Cyril against Nestorius at Ephesus, 428. Against the third holy synod he brought forward testimonies against Nestorius, 435. Regarding the 150 Synod, some of the Egyptians desired to know if it had even taken place, 436. The Robber Synod, 419. Theopaschite monks, certain Orientals, 429. Their epistle, which Ephraemius of Antioch refuted, 436. Valentinus, 425, 436. Macedonian, 428.

FRAGMENTS.

ADMONITION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING FRAGMENT.

The orthodoxy of Ephraemius, Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth century, is celebrated, which he demonstrated in many writings against heretics. When a dogmatic fragment of his work presented itself to me in two codices of the Vatican library—excerpts of which were made at great length by Photius in codex 228, though this Vatican fragment is missing in Photius—I published it formerly in Greek, but now I wish to bring it to common notice in Latin as well, especially because he deserves well of our pontiff Leo, whose renowned epistle he defends.

From the Apologia for the Synod of Chalcedon and the Epistle of Saint Leo, by Ephraemius, Archbishop of Antioch.

Tell us, my friend, while keeping your mind free from all importunate hostility: was there ever a time after the incarnation when the Word, made flesh, being God, did not have His own...

animate flesh complete? Or because He walked upon the waves of the sea, did His feet not preserve the property of human nature? Yet, my good friend, in human nature Christ our God performed those things which are above nature, without His own human flesh being destroyed or caused to vanish; and the very form of the operation persuades you to confess that the flesh remained within its own nature. For to travel on foot and to walk with feet, if it did not happen as a phantasm, clearly demonstrates that the operation belongs to the feet of our own nature. Wherefore the very form of the operation cries out that the flesh was preserved within its primitive standards, and there is no one who would not call such a walk corporeal and sensible. The walking upon the sea was brought about by the divinity, working through human flesh. If, then, we said that this operation was performed by the flesh alone, the reasoning would be uncertain, just as it would be if we attributed the walking to the divinity alone, assigning the custom of walking to it and confessing that it stepped with feet in reality. But now, since we confess that the incarnate Word of God performed such an operation, we say that the secondary aspect was brought about according to the nature of the flesh, while the rest was because of the supernatural nature of the divinity; so that here too we observe two operations. However, because the operation was worthy of God, manifesting the union according to hypostasis of the Word of God, one should not on that account dare to say that the flesh was not perfected in its own properties, but rather that it was defective and incomplete; for to say that is thoroughly evil and foolish. ^B

From the third book of Ephraim, most holy bishop of Antioch, against Severus.

^C As, therefore, we speak of diverse natural properties in the divine nature—that is to say, that it is uncreated, without beginning, unchangeable, uncircumscribed, immutable, and whatever is akin to these and accords with the divine essence alone—so too in the willing power of God are many things in the holy Scriptures said to be wills of God. In the same way, think also ^D of the soul created according to the image of God. For it possesses one and the same intellectual and rational faculty of willing, which it has received essentially so as to embrace and perform the divine commandments. This faculty, in so far as it exists according to nature, is called neither sin nor justice, but is a disposition of the soul apt for willing. From this faculty of the soul, therefore, which enjoys free choice, two species of will arise—I mean, of course, the divine and the evil. And whenever we incline our impulse toward the commandment of God, our will is called divine, not according to essence, but according to action; but when it is again dragged down toward obedience to the Evil One, then it is deservedly called a carnal will; for instance—to give an example—of our rational nature, the will is...

^A that which loves life; but carnal will is again the desire to live passionately; while the divine will is to despise and renounce life.

Of the same, from his discourse on the apostolic saying which declares: "One who has been tempted in all things, save only for sin."

Thence the choir of the Fathers, taking their starting-point, worships Christ as perfect, just as in divinity, so also in humanity; seeing that he is consubstantial with us in every way, save only for sin. And just as the substance of the bush of Sinai was one and undivided, surrounded on every side by fire without harm, neither did the power of the fire dim the activity of the plant, nor did the force of the flame itself harm the plant, so therefore, in the unique person of Christ, I understand the divine and human property without conflict. ^B And after other things: Wherefore the likeness and prototype of the Son of God was prefigured in the furnace of the children. For just as the human nature of those children was almost entirely joined with the power and nature of the flame, moving and walking about with the strength and motion of the body, and singing in spiritual resolve, and the fire harmed none of the properties of their body or soul, but Azarias was perfect in the fire and in humanity, so also concerning Emmanuel must we judge: that the fire of his divinity, as a kind of breath of life, was joined with soul and body, and while it sanctified them, it did not in any way diminish the essence of the soul and body. ^C

Of Saint Ephraim on the Pearl. (Mal. loc. cit., 17).

Christ possesses a perfect dual nature, so that he does not lose either; he neither appeared on earth as a demigod, nor did he ascend into the heavens as a demi-man. But perhaps the enemies of the truth will object, saying that Cyril, in his epistle to Nestorius, said that the one and unique Christ is not double, and likewise in the second volume against Nestorius, he affirmed that he was not double. Do not those who truly utter such things manifest that they are trying to pit the holy Fathers against each other and against others, so that they might extract dissension from agreement? And by bringing this upon those to whom Christ left His peace, do they not imitate the devil, ^D while they slander men who are in the greatest agreement as if they were opposed to one another, and while they labor to show that Cyril himself is fighting against himself? We, however, do not think so, nor does anyone who is sound of mind; rather, indeed, according to Gregory and the rest of the Fathers, we say with Cyril that he is indeed double according to nature, but according to that very same mind of Cyril, he is not double as regards his characteristic hypostasis, since the God Word remained one even after the incarnation.

Of Saint Ephraim, from his discourse on the Pearl, against Marcion.

What you see and touch, let that be a testimony to you [*]

^A of that nature which you do not know how to explain: that the Son is born without seed, and two opposites according to substance have conspired, the hypostasis being demonstrated in each nature. (ANG. MAI, Spicileg., X, 94.)

Of the Great Ephraim, from his discourse on the Pearl.

The precious pearl is a participant in two natures, in order to show Christ, that, being the Word of God, He was born man from Mary. He did not possess a partial nature, since He was not some other animal; from the perfect, perfect; from man, man; from God, God; from the Virgin, Christ. (ANG. MAI, Spicileg., X, 38.)

Ephraim the Syrian, from his discourse on the Pearl.

Look upon the pearl and you shall see that it contains two natures; it is most radiant because of the divinity, and white because of the incarnation. (ANG. MAI, Script. Vet., VII, 131.)

Of Saint Ephraim, Archbishop of Antioch, from the third chapter of his work on John the Grammarian and the Synod.

Truth is sufficient for those who attempt to contend against it, to draw them unto itself; so that it might be clearly recognized as an invincible and utterly unconquerable weapon. [S. JOAN. DAMASC. ed. Lequin. t. II, p. 754.]

Of Saint Ephraim, from his discourse on Cain.

Do not doubt, O heretic, that there is a judgment of souls and bodies, since you have a proof. Sodom lives, and it is dead; it lives being judged, and it is dead being condemned. You see the fire, and you do not behold it; it smolders, and does not smoke; it is corrupted, and is not corrupted; it is diminished, and flourishes; it has a hypostasis, and is useful for nothing. ^C O the wisdom of God! In that while refuting it is silent, and while teaching it is not present, and while threatening it does not appear. O the power and efficacy of the divinity! In that it gave the sentence upon those who do not suffer, and displayed in the land of Sodom the future, endless punishment, so as to blunt the wickedness of evils beforehand, because to the rejected no repentance is given. For just as the land of Sodom has every hypostasis but cannot act, so also the impious are then judged, possessing the hypostasis of will and reason, but deprived of action because of the punishment. ^D If, therefore, in inanimate land the judgment perseveres, how much more so in human beings endowed with reason! You have before your eyes fire that burns and does not consume; you have the temporary that is eternal, the mortal that is immortal. Let us fear the future, learning the grievous things from these examples. [Loc. cit., p. 755.]

More concerning Saint Ephraim and his works you may read in the Bibliotheca Photii, cod. 223, which we intend to edit.