A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

St. EPHREM Patriarch of Antioch.

ST. Ephrem, altho a Syrian by Nation, understood perfectly the Greek Tongue. After he had pass'd thro Secular Offices, he arriv'd at the Dignity of a Count in the East, and was promoted to the See of the Church of Antioch, about the Year 526. He signaliz'd himself chiefly by the great Alms he gave. He compos'd many Treatises, of which three Volumes fell into the hands of Photius, who assures us, That all the Works of this Author were written in Defence of the Doctrine of the Church, and of the Holy Council of Chalcedon. The same Author makes long Extracts out of those which he had seen.

The first is a Collection of divers Pieces, whereof the first is a Letter address'd to Zenobius Scho∣lasticus of Emesa, who was infected with the Error of the Acephali. St. Ephrem there defends the Letter of St. Leo, and the use of the Trisagion. He observes in the first place, that the Orientalists attribute to Jesus Christ, this Epithet in praise of him, Holy, holy, holy, and then they add, who was crucified for us; whereas those of Constantinople and the West refers this Epithet to the Trinity, and therefore cannot add, who were crucified, because the three Divine Persons cannot be subject to Sufferings: That in many Churches of Europe, instead of these words, Who were crucified for us, are put these other words, Holy Trinity, have pity on us. He adds, That according to these two diffe∣rent senses, this Expression may be us'd or not us'd, but that the Hereticks Acephali having abus'd it, he thought fit not to use it at all. After this Remark he undertakes the Defence of St. Leo's Letter; and observes, that we must not compare what St. Leo says, when he speaks of the Incarnation, with what the Fathers say when they speak of the Divinity, but with those places where they speak of the Incarnation. He proves afterwards, that St. Leo in this Letter acknowledg'd the two Natures in the Union of one Person only, and plainly condemn'd the Error of Nestorius. In the second Chap∣ter he proves, that the Expressions which this Pope us'd to denote the difference of the Natures and Operations, were agreeable to those of the Greek Fathers, and even to the Doctrine of St. Cyril. In the third he proves, that the Articles which are added to note the distinction of the two Natures, do not signifie that there are two Persons in Jesus Christ, but only two Natures united with an insepa∣rable Union. In the fourth and fifth he defends some particular Expressions of St. Leo, by compa∣ring them with the modes of speaking, us'd by the other Fathers, which are altogether like them.

This Letter to Zenobius was follow'd with many others: There is one to the Emperor Justinian, wherein he commended this Prince for being Religions; another concerning the Monks who liv'd in the Desert, wherein he gives good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Piety. In the third he maintains that the Acts of the Sy•…•… Decision of A•…•… contain nothing contrary to Faith. The fourth was written to An∣thimus himself, after 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was past against him: He does not dissemble his Approbation of Con∣demning him; but he declares thoe he would have him receiv'd, tho with very much Precaution. There is a fifth Letter to Domiti•…•…, about the manner in which the two Natures are united in Je∣sus Christ; and a sixth to Syneleti•…•… of Tarsus, wherein he explains the Judgment of the Fathers a∣bout the Union of the two Natures. The seventh was address'd to Anthimus Bishop of Trebizonde against the Error of Eutyches; wherein he p••••ises Justinian as a most Catholick Prince. The eighth was to one Persa•…•…, called Barses, wherein be explains the Mystery of the Trinity and the Incar∣nation by the Scripture. The ninth was address'd to the Monks who desir'd to be undeceiv'd of the Errors which they held, by showing them from Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Actions of the two Natures are found in one Person only. This Letter was follow'd with the Synodical Letter of a Council held by St. Ephrem, against Syncleticus Bishop of Tarsus, and against the Monk Stephen his Chaplain, who was accus'd of the Eutychian Errors: In it is explain'd this famous Maxim of St. Cy∣ril, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, by saying, that he us'd the Word Nature, for that of Person: There it is noted that Syncleticus did make Confession of the true Faith before the end of the Council. There was after this a Letter to Magnus Bishop of Berraea, wherein St. Ephrem ju∣stifies the Doctrine of the fourth General Council, that Jesus Christ was composed of two Natures, and proves that this Expression, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, was us'd against those who separated the two Natures, but not against those who distinguish'd them, tho they were united in one and the same Person. There was another Letter to the Monk Eunoius, about Corrup∣tion and Immortality, wherein he proves that Immortality was a Perfection of our Nature before its Fall, and that Corruption was an Imperfection. After these Letters follow seven Sermons: The first upon the Festival of the Prophets; the second upon the Feast Christmas; the third upon the Fasts of the Year; the fourth about the Instruction of Catechumens; the fifth about the Feast of St. Michael, which was preach'd at Daphne, the Suburbs of Antioch; the sixth about Lent; the se∣venth about a Sunday of Lent; the eighth to the Novices in the four first days of their Baptism. This is what is contain'd in the first Volume of St. Ephrem's Works, which fell into the hands of Photius.

The second contains four Treatises. In the first he explains the sense of St. Cyril in his Letter to Successus, wherein he opposes the Heresie of the Severians: In the second he answers Anatolius Scho∣lasticus, about those things wherein he desir'd to be instructed. The third was an Apology for the Council of Chalcedon, address'd to two Monks of Cilicia, call'd Domnus and John; and the fourth, An Admonition to the Monks of the East, who were entangled in the Errors of the Severians. Pho∣tius makes long Extracts out of these four Treatises. The Extract out of the first is about the U∣nion and Distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, which he confirms by the Testimonies of St. Cyril and other Fathers. The Extracts out of the second inform us, that Anatolius had propos'd five Heads of Questions to St. Ephrem: The first, Whether Jesus Christ is yet in Flesh. 2. How he being descended from the Children of Adam could be Immortal. 3. What proof there is that the Apo∣stle St. John is yet alive. 4. How Adam, being created Immortal, could be ignorant of what was useful for him. 5. What is meant by these words of God, Behold, Adam is become like one of us. As to the first Question, he proves by many Passages of Scripture, that Jesus Christ has still his Flesh. As to the second he says, That whether it be affirm'd that Adam was created Mortal or Immortal, 'tis certain that the death of the Body and Soul was the effect of the Sin which he committed by his Free-will; and that tho Adam by his Nature was not Immortal, yet he had not died unless he had finned. To the third he answers, That he knew by Tradition that St. John was not dead, no more then Elias and Enoch, and that this Consequence might be inferr'd from the words of Jesus Christ concerning him in his Gospel, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? That it cannot be concluded from thence that he was Immortal, but that he was reserv'd for the Day of Judgment: That if Eusebius has noted the number of the years that he liv'd, this is to be understood of the years that he was upon Earth: That the Acts of the Life of this holy Apostle make it credible, that he disappear'd all on a suddain: Nevertheless, he says that this Question does not concern the Faith; but that it is always profitable in this kind of Questions to take the better side. Upon the fourth Question, he says, that we must not wonder, that Adam, tho immortal, did not know what was useful for him, since the same thing happen'd to the bad Angels. As to the last Question, he says, that these words, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, are an Irony which God uses to upbraid the Man for his Sottishness, or that God speaks according to the false imagination of Adam, to cover him with shame.

The Extracts out of the third Book are Citations out of many Works of the Fathers, to shew that the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, which recognizes two Natures in Jesus Christ is not new, but the ancient Doctrine of the Church. He cites, besides the Authors that are known, as St. Peter of Alexandria, St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the St. Gregories of Neocae∣sarea, Nazianzum and Nyssa, Amphilochius, St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, Proclus and Paul of Emesa, Atticus of Constantinople, St. Cyril of Alexandria; he cites, I say, besides these Au∣thors,

the Books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, a Book of Hilary about Faith and Unity, one Cyria∣cus Bishop of Paphos, who, as he says, was one of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, the suppositi∣tious * 1.1 Letters of Pope Julius, and one nam'd Erecthius. Of these Authors there are but five who made use of this Expression, There is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, who are Gregory of Neo-caesarea, St. Athanasius, Julius, St. Cyril, and Erecthius. He shews that the sense wherein this man∣ner of speaking ought to be taken, does not exclude the two Natures, since they themselves acknow∣ledg'd them.

He goes on in the Extracts of the fourth Book to quote passages of the Fathers, to prove that the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ are two different Natures. Among these last he cites St. E∣phrem of Syria, a Letter of Simeon, and of Baradanus to Basil of Antioch, and another Letter of the same to the Emperor Leo, and a Letter of James to Basil the Bishop.

Photius neither says any thing, nor makes any Extracts out of the third Volume of St. Ephrem, so that we have no knowledge of it. What Photius says and relates out of the two former, gives us a great Idea of this Author, and informs us, that he had read many of the Works of the Fathers, and that he reason'd very well about the Mysteries of our Religion. He died in the Year 544.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Procopius of Gaza.