COMMENTARY ON THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND DOCTRINE OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM
WRITTEN BY HERMANN AGATHO NIEMEYER LICENTIATE IN THEOLOGY, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, SENIOR OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. (Halle, at the Orphanage Press. 1825.)
PREFACE
I have added a third part, along with appendices, to the first and second parts of my commentary on Isidore of Pelusium, which were published two months ago in order that I might be granted the authority to teach theology at the Frederick University. Since, therefore, the entire work is now finally completed and must be submitted to the judgment of the learned, and since I fear that many might be surprised that I have discussed an obscure monk of the fifth century at such length and in such detail, I wish—before explaining the rationale of my undertaking—to set forth briefly how it came to pass that I chose this subject above others.
For the fact that Semler, who is often considered to have passed overly severe judgment upon the Church Fathers (in *Selectis historiæ ecclesiasticæ Capitibus*, vol. 1, p. 284), maintained that Isidore of Pelusium had opposed Theophilus and Cyril, and that his epistles, which are for the most part of a noble character, are far more useful than the vast corpora of many others, moved me in particular to inquire with singular zeal into the life, writings, and doctrine of this man. Nor do I regret the task I undertook. For since Isidore, a man excellent both in the wealth of his doctrine and in the integrity of his life, flourished at the same time that the prelates of the most powerful churches were contending among themselves, his epistles, from which it is apparent both what he himself thought and what others held regarding the dissensions of the bishops, are of no little importance.
To prove this, we point to the letters he addressed to the Emperor Theodosius *περὶ τοῦ ποιήσασθαι ἀσφάλειαν τῆς συνόδου*, "on providing for the security of the synod" (lib. 1, ep. 311; cf. Comment. p. 20). Closely connected to these are the letters written to Cyril at the time he was traveling to Ephesus, in which these most serious words appear: "Many are mocking you, among those gathered at Ephesus, as one who is merely avenging a personal feud and not as one searching orthodoxly for the things of Jesus Christ. They say that he is a nephew of Theophilus, mimicking his judgment. For just as that man cast clear madness upon the God-bearing and God-beloved John, so too does this one desire to boast, even if there is a great difference between those being judged" (lib. 1, ep. 310; cf. Comment. p. 20). From these words, one may easily gather how many of the Egyptian bishops, even if they rejected the doctrine of Nestorius, were disposed toward Theophilus (who was already dead) and Cyril.
Nor should those things be passed over in silence in this place which Isidore wrote to the monk Simon concerning John Chrysostom and Theophilus, whom he calls *λιθομανῆ καὶ χρυσολάτρην* ("stone-mad and gold-worshipper"—for so *χρυσολάτριν* should be written). By these words he signifies nothing other than this: that Theophilus, burning with an excessive desire for erecting buildings and an excessive love of gold, had acquired riches for himself even in an unjust manner. By this judgment of Isidore, it is exceedingly confirmed what Palladius—whom many have asserted to have written with anger and bias—handed down: that the Alexandrian prelate had employed excessive magnificence in building churches, and had sold the priesthood (see *Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi*). The remaining matters that pertain to this subject I either touched upon briefly or set forth in the first part of my commentary.
A Furthermore, the letters in which the Pelusiote sought out passages from Christian antiquities are not unworthy of mention. Let those things which he said be compared before others: concerning the gravity of deacons (lib. I, ep. 29), concerning the relics of the saints (lib. I, ep. 55; cf. lib. II, ep. 5), concerning the singing of women in churches (lib. I, ep. 90), concerning the formula: *Peace be to you*, which priests in that time were accustomed to use when preaching, and the response of the audience to them (lib. I, ep. 122), concerning the linen cloth which deacons used while celebrating the holy supper (lib. I, ep. 136), and concerning the small Gospels which women wore (lib. II, ep. 150; cf. Comment. [col. 97 A]). Nor must it be passed over that Emmanuel a Schelstrate, in his *Antiquitate Ecclesiæ dissertationibus et monumentis illustrata* (vol. II, diss. v, cap. v, § 1, p. 368, 369), showed—both by other testimonies and most especially by Isidore’s letter to Cyril (lib. II, ep. 127)—that the Metropolitan of Alexandria possessed the right and power to ordain, proscribe, and depose presbyters in all the provinces of Egypt.
By these examples, as I indeed judge, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently proven that the letters of Isidore of Pelusium can be of great use to those studying the ecclesiastical history of that age, and that they are not unworthy of singular study. B Added to this is the fact that none of the learned men who have written about Isidore hitherto have treated his life, writings, and doctrine with the diligence that the subject requires, either because it was alien to their project or for some other reason. He who examines what Tillemont (Hist. eccl., vol. XV, p. 97 and 119), Dupin (Nov. auct. eccl. Bibl., vol. III, part II, p. 4-14), Fabricius (vol. X, p. 478), Ceillier (Hist. auct. sacr. et eccl., vol. XIII, p. 600-640), Schröckh (Hist. eccl., vol. XVII, p. 521-529), Richard Simon (Crit. commentat. N. T. hist., cap. 21, p. 307-314), Rosenmüller (Hist. interpr. LL. SS., vol. IV, p. 180-215), and Heumann (Diss. de Isid. Pel. ejusque epp.) have said, and what others have brought forth—some discharging the whole investigation of his life, writings, and doctrine in a few words, and others dealing with these matters only cursorily—will agree with me.
But lest anyone demand more in this commentary than I myself either wished or was able to provide, it remains that I briefly discuss the method of my undertaking. C What became known to me regarding his life, both from Isidore's own writings and from those of other Fathers, I set forth in the first part of the commentary, and in this place nothing is to be added or retracted.
Indeed, in the second part, I have discussed Isidore's writings. And so, first, having accurately enumerated his lost works, I spoke of the editions and the number of the letters which survive. Next, the opinion of Heumann, that most of them are specimens of eloquence to be imitated by those whom the author of the letters had as students of the art of rhetoric, was so refuted by me—with Schröckh leading the way—that I must confess that every reader will favor my side. Yet this refutation, since it was a very easy matter to judge, did not entail much labor or difficulty. For which reason it is the more to be wondered at that Christian Friedrich von Matthaei, in his *Admonitio de Isidoro Pelusiota* (cf. *Nov. ex Joan. Chrysost. eclog.* LII, p. xv), wrote these words: "Learned men have long since taught that most of these letters are fictitiously attributed." Regarding this matter, Weismann judged cautiously and much better in his *Historia ecclesiastica* with these words: "But if it were nevertheless true, as the venerable Heumann thinks, that Isidore indeed wrote letters of this kind but did not in reality send them to the persons to whom they are inscribed, there would have been no need for a private intent to write these things." (See the cited dissertation, where he adorns this hypothesis in his own manner with many and learned arguments. Cf. Weism. Hist. eccl., vol. I, p. 471, ed. alt.) D Finally, we have attempted to prove that very many of Isidore’s letters did not arrive at our age in the form in which they are printed in published copies, but were excerpted by monks. Yet in this, we did not see the whole truth. For, as my Reisig has taught me, there are found among Isidore’s letters not only those which were excerpted by monks, but even those which were interpolated by them. Wherefore, intending to judge which of the letters—those found twice in printed copies—proceeded from Isidore, we must be careful not to hold that any one is genuine on the grounds that it is contained in more words. For these can have proceeded from an interpolator or a glossator. He who reads my presentation of Isidore’s letters below with an attentive mind will undoubtedly perceive the truth of this opinion. Truly, as that same Reisig understood, in that letter which is in the second book, the glossator added "first" in order to explain *τὸ ἱερᾶσθαι*, the words *τὸν δοκοῦντα εἶναι πρεσβύτερον*; then, for the sake of clarity, he added the pronoun *αὐτόν*, and in place of *ἀντεπιστέλλω* he set the simpler and poorer *φήσαιμι*; next, he added *καὶ φιλαγάθου* for the sake of interpreting *μισοπονήρου* in the manner of scholiasts, and shifted *εἰκότως* with *δικαίως*. For the gloss exists in Hesychius and Suidas: *εἰκότως = δικαίως*. The same interpolator inserted *ἐστίν* before *ἄξιος*. For what is placed at the end, *ἐκκωμῳδῶν* for *ἐκτραγῳδῶν*, seems to have arisen from a diversity of scripture; but the *διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεός* which was mixed in perhaps seems to have been poured out by the interpolator's own quickened spirit. Moreover, in the next letters cited by me from book V, ep. 239, and from book IV, ep. 56, the former is interpolated by the addition of the words *μετὰ τὸ προληφθῆναι*; the reasoning of the subject matter proves the other to have been mutilated by a copyist's error in *μηδὲ καταδεξάμενος*. For previously it seems to have been written *οἱ δὲ μὴ διδαχθῆναι καταδεξάμενοι*. Finally, as for the epistle 272 of book I, which I mentioned in col. 49, Reisig thinks it was written after that which is book I, 303; wherefore he considers *γέγραφα* should be recalled from the manuscripts in place of *γέγραψας*.
To this second part, I have added three appendices [(a)]; in the first of which, among many of Isidore's letters,
those which were published in the Parisian edition and brought forth by the authors of the catenae are collated, with the intention of proving that many of his letters were not transcribed verbatim by the copyists. The catenae of the Greek Fathers which were at hand—and which we have collated—are these: 1. A *Chain on the Octateuch and the Books of Kings*, first edited in print by the request of Gregory Alexander Gika, under the supervision of Nicephorus. Vol. I, II. Leipzig 1772. 2. *Exposition of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms*, compiled by Balthasar Corderius. Antwerp, 1643. 3. *Chain of the Greek Fathers on blessed Job*, edited by the work and study of Patricius Junius. London, 1637. 4. *Symbols of the Greek Fathers on Matthew*, collated by Balthasar Corderius and Peter Possinus. Toulouse, 1646. Vol. I, II. 5. *Chain of the Fathers, Greek, on John*, edited in light by Balthasar Corderius. Antwerp, 1650. 6. *Cotelier’s Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta.*
When we collated the catenae of the Fathers which we numbered in the first and fourth places, fragments attributed by their authors to our Isidore appeared; and since I had sought for these in vain for a long time and at great length in the editions of this man's letters, I have taken care to have them printed. B Although I would not indeed affirm that not even one among all these fragments could be found in Isidore's letters or in another writer, yet since I have read through his writings attentively and repeatedly, and have found nothing in these fragments which conflicts with his mode of thinking or writing, I may be permitted to contend that they all originated from Isidore, at least until I am better instructed by someone else.
In the second appendix of this part, I have enumerated the catenae and the collections or selections of the sayings of the Fathers, which have not yet been edited, are preserved in libraries, and in which either letters or fragments of letters of Isidore exist. Finally, in the third, I have set forth the codices of the letters known to me, and, given the occasion, I have diligently noted the variation in reading at p. 143 from the Gudian codex, which the most learned Ebert has allowed me to use with the greatest generosity.
The third part of the commentary, in which Isidore’s doctrine is treated, could be fittingly divided into three chapters. In the first, what he felt regarding the most significant dogmas is declared, in such a way that it is recorded, first, what he established concerning the sources of the Christian religion, then concerning God, then concerning the divine counsels and institutions which look toward the repairing of human salvation through Jesus Christ, and finally concerning future things. Regarding all these, we have indeed accurately set forth his opinion, and we have taken care to have his most significant sayings on any given dogma printed in the notes; C but to prevent this entire discussion from becoming too long, neither has a judgment been added, nor has a comparison been instituted with the doctrines which were accepted by other Fathers of the same age.
In the second chapter of this part, we have spoken of Isidore the apologist; and thus his method of disputing against the heathens, Jews, and heretics has been declared in few words. Finally, in the third, we have dealt with Isidore as an interpreter of the sacred books, and we have attempted to prove by many examples that he is neither to be completely despised, as Croius and Heumann considered, nor worthy of the praises with which he is adorned by Dupin, Simon, and Rosenmueller.
But if anyone should perhaps reproach me because I have completely neglected the ethics and the precepts which he gave, let them understand that I wish to imply not that I have not dealt with these separately, but that in every part of the commentary which pertains to the doctrine of morals, I have had recourse to Isidore's tenets. To which is added the fact that anyone who wishes to reduce these to a system would undoubtedly be wasting his efforts, since Isidore, according to the exigencies of his counsel, taught that first this virtue, then that, and then several others, were primary. Moreover, Neander brought much that pertains to this in his book on John Chrysostom, a work no less golden than that of the ancient man of the same name.
It remains, therefore, to say a few things concerning the text's diversity, which, where Isidore's Greek words have been brought forward by us, has been diligently noted. The reading which we have noted as "Codex Bav." is repeated from the Rittershusian edition (cf. p. 37). The rest is taken from Peter Possinus’s *Collationes Isidorianae* (cf. p. 39 and p. 40); D these will undoubtedly be of the greatest use to one preparing a new edition of these letters. For he rightly says in his preface: "From these, countless errors are corrected, the author's meaning, not previously understood, is opened up, the most tangled knots are unraveled, and many things omitted by accident and necessary for the meaning are supplied." Since these things are so, if anyone should undertake the task of editing Isidore's letters anew, it is to be hoped that, if this writing of mine attains any praise, I myself shall perform the duty most gladly.
Written at Halle in the month of February, MDCCCXXV.
COMMENTARY ON THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND DOCTRINE OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM. PART ONE. THE LIFE OF ISIDORE.
Isidore, who is commonly called the Pelusiot A, an Egyptian B, was born in Alexandria, according to the testimony of Ephraim of Antioch C. However, in what year he was born, by what parents he was begotten, what relatives he had, how he was educated, or by whom he was instructed, nothing certain is known. For what is related in the Greek Menologies D—that Isidore was born of a noble family, was a kinsman of Theophilus and Cyril, and after leaving behind great wealth withdrew into a monastery—they do not prove. And the account given by Nicephorus Callistus [E], that Saint John Chrysostom was Isidore’s teacher, and which many after him, such as Baronius [F], Natalis Alexander [G], Cave [H], Fabricius [I], and others [J], state with one voice, is not without controversy. For it is denied by Heumann [K], who considers the historian Nicephorus to be a writer not suitable for the trustworthiness of this matter; especially since Isidore himself, although in several letters [L] he makes mention of Chrysostom, and that an honorable one, does not state that he used him as a teacher. Schröckh [M] agrees with Heumann. However, the argument which he drew here from the notation of times is of less importance. For John Chrysostom, having died only in the four hundred and seventh year after the birth of Christ, could have been the teacher of Isidore, who at that time was already thirty or even forty years old. Nevertheless, I would not give credence to the tradition of Nicephorus, since a suitable reason can be brought forward for why he recorded this. For Isidore, as Dallæus [N] and Rittershusius [O] observed, and an A credulous B writer of the fourteenth century [considered him] not suitable for the reliability of this matter; especially since Isidore himself, although he mentions Chrysostom in many letters— and that honorably—does not mention that he used him as a teacher. Schröckh agrees with Heumann. But the argument which he drew here from chronological notation is of less weight. For John Chrysostom, who died only in the four hundred and seventh year after the birth of Christ, could have been the teacher of Isidore, who was already thirty or even forty years of age at that time. I would not, however, place faith in the tradition of Nicephorus, since a suitable reason can be presented for why he recorded this. For Isidore, as Dallæus and Rittershusius observed,
A has imitated Chrysostom in many places, whose writings he appears to have read diligently. Hence that narrative could very easily have arisen; and therefore, since no testimonies of other writers support it, it should not be rashly accepted as true.
It is certain, however, that Isidore went to a monastery situated on a mountain not far from the city of Pelusium, whence he is called "Pelusiota." For if you were to conjecture that he was a hermit from the fact that Leontius Byzantinus calls him such, and that he himself commemorates his "withdrawal" in an epistle to Thaumasius, you would undoubtedly stray from the truth. For in an epistle sent to the monks of Tabennesi, he calls himself a monk, and writes to Calliopius that, having left behind his urban life, he had gone to a monastery—a course which he strongly urges others to follow in another epistle. B Furthermore, from the diversity of the wording which the Vatican codex 649 and the Altaem. codex exhibit, supplementing the title of the epistle of the first book, the one hundred and fiftieth, thus: "To the monastery before Pelusium," one may conclude that a certain monastery existed outside the city. Added to this is the testimony of Jerome, who recounts that Saint Hilarion went to Pelusium and there visited the brethren living in the desert not far from the city.
But since it is manifest from the thirty-seventh epistle of the first book, as I see Tillemont has already observed, that Isidore did not dwell within the city of Pelusium itself, I for my part judge him to have been an inhabitant of this coenobium. Nor can we doubt that the monastery in which Isidore was an inhabitant was situated on a mountain, since, as Heumann notes, the Pelusiota himself, exhorting someone to the monastic life—which he frequently adorns with the name of "philosophy," according to the custom of this and later ages of ecclesiastical writers—says: "Betake yourself to our mountain, that you may look to the salvation of your soul." C He was himself, moreover, so devoted to this austere manner of living that he proposed the example of John the Baptist as one to be imitated by all monks, and offered immense thanks to Zenobius the presbyter, who had fulfilled the request he had made for a tunic, so that, having not two tunics, he might fulfill the commandment of the Baptist. And in truth, he seems to have fulfilled it throughout his entire life; a fact which is equally evident from that epistle which we have just praised, and from the epistle sent to Paul the deacon. For to him he commends his friend Simon, who, about to leave Egypt, was in need of clothing, and asks him to give him a garment as a gift. Many sayings of this kind appear in the epistles of Isidore, one of which place it here that readers may judge for themselves regarding this matter. Chrysostom, hom. I on Romans: "For," he says, "one must take votes not from the sick, but from those who are in health." Isidore, as Rittershusius says, has imitated this twice in his epistles, as in lib. III, ep. 212: "For one must not take votes regarding matters from the sick, but from those who are in health"; and lib. IV, ep. 99: "One must not follow the votes of the sick, but must take proofs from the judgment of the healthy." So much for him. To these things, however, can be added the words that exist in Isidore’s epistle to Serenus, in this manner: "But one must take votes from the healthy, not from those who are sick." D
A If the emperor, he says, had placed you in charge of a city besieged by enemies, would you not try in every way to repel the enemy's attack? Thus I, appointed by the most high God as a teacher of the Church, judge that Arius and his doctrine must be resisted, and that every danger must be held in contempt. Furthermore, he writes to Heron, a scholar, whose servant had recently been brought to him by the gatekeeper and, received with the human kindness he was accustomed to, had confessed his sin with many tears and bent knees; for which reason he says he cannot but offer prayers for him with this letter. Comparable to these is the letter to the Archimandrite Lucas, to whom he announces that a monk from his monastery had come to his own, and had begged him as a suppliant to speak on behalf of him—a man who had committed a certain light sin—so that, as he had not yet arrived at a habit of sinning, he might forgive him. It is apparent, however, from both epistles that those who approached the monastery by the prayers of Isidore were led to him. For if anyone wishes to conjecture that Heron and Lucas had a friendship with Isidore—since, knowing this, those fugitives had asked the gatekeeper to be taken to Isidore—this person would justly fall into the suspicion of being overly doubtful, especially since the words in the epistle to Heron stand in the way of this hypothesis: "Since it is our habitual readiness to receive everyone into our home, etc."
Nor was he honored and highly esteemed by his contemporaries only for the sanctity of his life, but also for the abundance of his doctrine. Indeed, Tillemont, from an epistle sent to Bishop Gregory, concludes that Gregory of Nyssa sent him letters and sought from him a certain interpretation of the Old Testament. Although this cannot be demonstrated clearly, I do not see a reason why it should be denied; especially since those who held the greatest authority in the Church, such as Theophilus, Cyril, Hermogenes, and others, conversed with him through letters B. It is established that Cyril adorned Isidore with the honorable title of father. Why, then, can it be proven, from the epistle to Zeno, which we have brought up on another occasion, that his family members, during the time he was still among the living, held the things he had used as sacrosanct? Considering all these things, as I for one assume, Ephraem Syrus calls him the "most illustrious," and "revered by the high priests." These words, indeed, Schottus, as has already been noted by Basnage, incorrectly translated thus: "and illustrious among the prelates, as if Isidore had been one of the bishops of the flock." He says these Greek words ought to be rendered: "and to be venerated by bishops." He was not, therefore, adorned with the episcopal dignity; yet it is easy to show, both from his own epistles and from the testimonies of ancient writers, that he fulfilled a certain illustrious office. For from them it is apparent that he was not enrolled in the rank of monks. For in the epistle to Therasinus C, if all these things have not persuaded you that Isidore held some office, read the epistles which he wrote to Lampetius, to the monks of Pelusium, and to the presbyter Didymus. Having perused these, you will no longer linger in doubt on this matter. For he announces to Lampetius that no one who is in his monastery is to eat with him if he follows the custom of Manes and Marcion. He reproves the monks, however, about whom many have complained of many things, D [who have] a [clear] conscience; [and] having sent it again, he will ask again; but we will not give. Besides, it must be noted that Isidore of Pelusium was counted by both the Greek and Latin Church among the saints, and was not omitted by Usuard in his Catalog of Saints. The writings, however, which pertain to this matter have been accurately collected in the *Acta Sanctorum*, month of February, p. 468.
And, furthermore, in the epistle given to him, Didymus promises that if some men should bring false reports to him about him, he would compel them to the necessity of rendering satisfaction, and would remove the disobedient from the assembly. A
As we inquire a little more accurately into what office he held, we must examine the testimonies of the ancient writers regarding this matter, by which, as I for my part believe, it can be clearly proven that Isidore was the prefect of his monastery. For even if we make little of the authority of Nicephorus, together with Heumann, especially since his words have a doubtful interpretation, our opinion nevertheless stands. For Sirmond refers to the words of an anonymous author, drawn from an old manuscript, which go as follows: "I have recounted all these letters of the blessed Isidore, presbyter and abbot of Pelusium, and translated them from his two thousand letters, which are distributed by five hundreds in four very ancient codices of the Acoemetae monastery." These are found word-for-word, with few changes and additions, in the *Epistles of Various Fathers* first edited by Christian Lupus, in which exist these words of Irenaeus, metropolitan of the Tyrians: "I have excerpted and translated all these from the two thousand letters of blessed Isidore, presbyter and abbot of Pelusium, which are distributed by five hundreds in four codices of the Acoemetae monastery." Where also the number of each is contained in order. And the last is that which I have also placed last. Thanks be to God. These words of Irenaeus, repeated from his own *Tragedy*, along with those letters, were translated into the Latin language by an anonymous author. Wherefore, establishing that Sirmond had a lapse of memory and attributed the words of Irenaeus to the anonymous interpreter of them—I would not doubt this, had not Lupus affirmed that that old manuscript which Sirmond cites is different from the one he himself used. For, he says, the Latin translation is not conceived in the same words. And our present codex does not bring forward all, but only certain letters of St. Isidore pertaining to the affairs of Nestorius. And the scholion of our codex is more extensive. Be that as it may, it is certain that Irenaeus, a contemporary of Isidore, called him an abbot. On his authority, almost all learned men who have touched upon this matter, such as Sirmond, Sixtus Senensis, Lupus, Pagius, Basnage, Tillemont, Ceillier, Graveson, Heinsius, Arnold, Saxius, Weismann, and Rosenmüller, believe that Isidore was the prefect of his monastery. B Against them all arises Heumann, who denies that he was an abbot, since Isidore himself in the hundred and fiftieth epistle of the first book mentions that the prefect of his monastery is someone other than himself. But that of course proves nothing. For unless you wish to take refuge in the conjecture of Schroeckh, who opines that Isidore sometimes fled the company of monks and withdrew into solitude, it is permissible to suppose that he wrote this letter before he was received into the society of monks or while he was traveling. Nor is the other argument which Heumann brought forward for the sake of confirming his opinion of great moment. For he is offended by the fact that Stephanus Gobarus, Ephraem, Facundus, and Evagrius, all heaping the highest praises upon Isidore, do not say a word about this office of his. But all these, except Facundus, did not report more than that the Pelusiote was raised to the rank of presbyter; nor yet did this C prevent the learned. For Irenaeus the count, or rather bishop, a sworn enemy of the Council of Ephesus and a most bitter defender of the doctrine as well as of Nestorius himself, wrote a booklet about the Ephesian synod to which he gave the name *Tragedy*. It was, as Lupus continues, a work divided into several books, of which one was about history, which contained many things, letters, synods, sacred commands of princes, and other things of this kind. D
Theodosius the presbyter B declares that he is always ready to endure injuries and insults with a quiet and equable mind; he laments, however, that he has not yet attained what is the greatest honor for anyone—namely, to offer and possess thanks for the one bringing the injury, and to send up prayers to God from the depth of his soul for the salvation of his adversaries.
But in recounting the tribulations which Isidore endured, I must not pass over what the anonymous author of the Life of Chrysostom has handed down, who, intending to explain the cause why Theophilus of Alexandria was so greatly angered at St. John Chrysostom, provided us with a narrative of this kind: Theophilus C came into conflict with Isidore of Pelusium, a pious man whom the great Athanasius had ordained, and also with Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, with whom he had previously been on familiar terms. For since they would not submit to and obey his impious commands, he corrupts with gifts five wicked and low-authority men, and has them accuse the others of Origenism and condemns them unheard, removing them from their offices and execrating them. These took refuge first with Bishop Silvanus, then with Chrysostom, and were kindly received by him.
Since these things have been handed down by that author at great length, I too would have narrated them more fully, were it not clearly demonstrable that all these things did not happen to the Isidore of whom we are treating. For although we know from Stephen Gobarus, of whom Photius D treated, that Severus also alleged a certain agreement between Isidore and Origen, it does not follow from that that the Pelusiot suffered tribulations for this very reason; nay, rather, one may collect the opposite from those things which Stephen adds. Wherefore, by the testimony of Severus, the truth of that tradition cannot be proven, against which even Isidore himself, in the letter sent to Symmachus [(l)], and all who have written about him,
A consider that he was dead before the bishops gathered in the city of Ephesus, or before their wicked decrees became known to himself.
However, I neither wish nor am able to be persuaded by the testimonies which those men have used to prove their opinion—namely that Isidore was not yet dead at the time when the Eutychian heresy invaded Egypt. For if he had still been among the living at that time, he would certainly have inveighed against Eutyches and his dogmas in distinct and grave words, as he often did against the doctrine of Marcion, Mani, and others. Everyone must admit that this has not been done, based on the argument we have accurately set forth regarding the letters which Tillemont and Ceillier have brought forward.
Both attest to an epistle which Isidore wrote to Hermogenes B the bishop, in which exist the words of the same: "Egypt again exercises the rule of Pharaoh, not indeed commanding those who dwell in the cities to perform the labors of building, but exacting a tribute of heresies from all who are outside. See to it, therefore, that no one leads you astray, but stand firm as a solid foundation. For God, when He assumed human form, suffered neither mutation, nor commixtion, nor any partition; but He is one Son, who is also without beginning and eternal, and both before the planting of the flesh and after it, such is He adored by us." — Then, from the same writers, C an epistle of the Pelusiote to a certain Constantine is adduced, in which he is censured in this manner: — "But you furiously persecute those who piously and holily worship the divine deity, teaching a certain confusion and commixtion and conversion of the Word of God into flesh, either changing the divine nature into flesh and bones, or rejecting the reality of the flesh." — Next, Tillemont D [adduces] an epistle to Timotheus the lector.
A His judgment is that Isidorus favors his own opinion; in that [letter] he speaks thus of the two natures in Christ: "Therefore, take care not to accept only one nature in Christ after the incarnation. For he who confesses only one nature removes the other: either the divine nature being changed, or our own being diminished." The same author, in the fourth place, brings forward an epistle (a) to Cyril, to whom Isidorus writes: "As to the fact that the sovereign Lord of all things truly became man, neither departing from what he was, nor assuming what he was not, but existing as one Son from two natures, without beginning or end, recent and eternal—not even you yourself would deny this." Finally, the same person praises the letter of Isidorus to Theodosius the deacon, in which these words are found: "For even though the Son of God assumed flesh, Christ did not, however, become a mere man; but rather, as he assumed a human body, the Son of God existed as one in two natures (b)."
B That Isidorus, in these passages I have brought forward, spoke against those who either established a confusion or, as it were, a mixture of the two natures in Christ, or who acknowledged only one nature of Jesus Christ, no one can fail to see. Furthermore, everyone will concede to Tillemont and others who favor his opinion that he spoke of these matters in such a way that one who wishes to refute the Eutychian heresy can make excellent use of his words (c); yet it does not follow from this that Isidorus dealt with the doctrine of Eutyches in those epistles. For Eutyches did not bring forth a new doctrine, but before him many, both heretics and orthodox, proposed similar, if not identical, dogmas (d). Wherefore, I believe the Pelusiote spoke of Eutychianism before Eutyches. C For although I willingly admit that the circumstance we already mentioned above—that mention of this heretic is never made in the epistles—is of minor importance, yet when another argument, which must be explained in a few words, is added, I hold to my opinion. Eutyches was already very old, as Mosheim says in his *Ecclesiastical History* (e), and in order to suppress Nestorius—to whom he was vehemently hostile—with greater force in the year 448, he taught: "that there is only one nature of the Word, truly incarnate (f)." D One of the epistles brought forward by Tillemont was given to Cyril of Alexandria, who died in the year 444. Therefore, Isidorus could not have spoken of the doctrine of Eutyches in this epistle. However, he set forth therein his own opinion regarding the two natures in Christ in the same manner as in the others which he [Tillemont] praised. For which reason, I for my part see no cause why it must be determined that all these were written at a later time.
But we must not stop here; rather, we must see if we can define, with a little more precision, the time when Isidorus wrote these epistles. He wrote them all, if I am not mistaken, at the time when the Eastern bishops were struggling with Cyril regarding the condemnation of Nestorius and the two natures in Christ. For John of Antioch, whose authority among the bishops of the East was great, thinking that Cyril’s anathemas against Nestorius savored of the doctrine of Apollinaris, together with Theodoret of Cyrus and Andrew of Samosata—who had already written against the bishop of Alexandria before the Council of Ephesus—argued that he taught this mixture and confusion of two natures in Christ. Although he [Cyril] attempted with all his might to cast this from himself and openly declared that the doctrine of Eunomius and Apollinaris was false, and it is established that Isidorus did not stand on the side of the Orientals, nevertheless, the Pelusiote seems to have sent the epistle which we placed in the fourth position to Cyril, with the intention of recalling to his mind the correct and true doctrine of two natures in Christ, at a time when he [Cyril] was, perhaps too incautiously, teaching one nature in Christ—that is, the incarnate Word. At the same time, I believe the epistle we touched upon in the second position, and all the rest we have mentioned, with the exception of the letter to Hermogenes, were written. This latter, namely the epistle written to Hermogenes, was finished only after Cyril had reconciled with the Eastern bishops in the year 434. Therefore, I do not doubt that Isidorus, in writing that "Egypt exacts a tribute from every powerful heresy," was referring to Cyril, who until that time had been a most strenuous defender of the true faith. For Isidorus stood on the side of those (g) who sharply criticized the bishop of Alexandria because he had made peace.
B He writes to him elsewhere: "He who is void of virtue boasts only of his office. Hence it comes to pass that he is celebrated by all as a man whose manner of thinking and acting is altogether consistent with his dignity; the latter is marked as a spurious person, and unworthy of such a position."
"You must," he says, "always remain firm and constant; in such a way that you neither betray heavenly things through fear, nor appear to be at war with yourself. But if what you have now written is compared with what you previously confessed, you will appear either as one prone to adulation, or as a minister of levity, as one who succumbs to vainglory but does not imitate the struggles of the great and holy champions, who for their whole life in a foreign land preferred to be crushed and harassed rather than admit even to their ears a perverse or false opinion." Therefore, Tillemont and all who favor his opinion seem to have rashly concluded from these letters that Isidorus was still among the living in the year 449 or 450.
But he is also mistaken in this, C that he thinks it appears from Isidorus's letters written to Marcion the presbyter and to Zeno, that Isidorus had passed away after Hermogenes, the bishop of Rhinocorura, had already died. For in that letter the author compares two bishops, namely Hermogenes, a pious and just man, with Eusebius, a wicked and depraved man, in this manner: "He who is clear in virtue is considered to have a twofold grace and ornament of the priesthood; but he who holds the priestly office and is inflated by honor alone, is in reality cast aside among the spurious. And so Hermogenes, a man acceptable to God, received a dignity befitting his virtue. For he strove for both capabilities, having obtained the ornament of the priesthood and the majesty of virtue, a D debt owed to him by divine grace. But Eusebius, hostile to God and..." ...in this letter to Zeno, he speaks of Hermogenes thus: "Hermogenes the bishop is a man of integrity, if ever there was one. For, educated in the law of Christ and instructed by apostolic examples, he feels and executes what is worthy of a bishop. Wherefore he has attained glory and honor befitting his times. For envy, which is accustomed to openly attack those endowed with virtue, does not even dare look upon this man, because of his incredible gentleness of character and singular modesty."
There is no need for us to add the rest; for what has been cited proves sufficiently and more than enough that Isidorus in this letter is not dealing with the glory and honor which he enjoys in the life to come, but with the just and deserved glory which Hermogenes obtained among all mortals. For celestial glory, and that in which every just man rejoices before God, is above all envy. Therefore, just as it does not follow from those [former] letters that Isidorus of Pelusium was still among the living in the year 449 or 450, so it cannot be proven from these [latter ones] that he passed away after the death of Hermogenes.
But since I have truly found nothing in his letters by which this dispute can be entirely resolved, I consider it enough to have proven that he died after the year 434. A more accurate definition of the year of this man's demise I leave to men who are more discerning and learned.
Commentary Part II, Part Second. On the writings of Isidorus of Pelusium.
PART TWO. ON THE WRITINGS OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM.
A Isidore of Pelusium, besides the epistles which we shall treat more fully later, also wrote other books which have not reached our age; and to prove this, it is not necessary to have recourse to the authority of Suidas and Nicephorus, since he himself has mentioned his book against the Greeks twice. For to Herminus the Count, who asked how it happens that wicked and criminal men very often have success in everything, while the upright, on the contrary, and those distinguished by piety, find themselves in the most bitter evils and calamities, he replied that he had solved this difficult question in his B *Discourse to the Greeks* as far as it was possible. That he also attacked the art of divination of the Greeks sharply in the same book, we know from the beginning of his letter to Harpocras the Sophist, in which he speaks of this matter in this manner: "That divination among the Greeks was a labor and was vainly noised abroad, has been demonstrated by me in my *Discourse to the Greeks*." It is certain, therefore, that he composed a book against the Greeks or the Gentiles; but whether this book is different from that *Upon the non-existence of Fate*, which he mentions in another letter to the same Herminus, or whether it is the same, seems to require a new inquiry. Rittershusius thinks them the same, with whom Dupin agrees, who, from the words of Isidorus himself, boldly argues that he treated of one and the same book in those three epistles. Fabricius disagrees, who, from the subject matter of the book against the Greeks, as described by me as far as possible, gathers the contrary. But the little book which Isidore wrote *On Fate* was written against the heathens, and in that book against the Gentiles, in which, as we have already said, he discussed the misery of pious men and the happiness of the wicked, it was undoubtedly an excellent occasion for speaking of fate. Wherefore, from the subject matter of both books, it is not permitted to conclude that both books were different from one another; nor, however, do I willingly admit that the contrary follows from that. But if anyone should object to me that Isidore brought forward two titles of books, and therefore it is necessary that there should also exist two books—in response to this, I reply that this double title can well suit one and the same book, provided we accept that Isidore composed his *Discourse to the Greeks Concerning the non-existence of Fate*. And what Heumann brings forward—who, for that very reason, to use his words, because Isidore deems the book *On Fate* to be called a *logidion* (little discourse) rather than a *logos* (discourse), determines that it is different from that which he wrote against the Greeks, which is twice honored with the name of *logos*—is not of great moment. For Isidore, highly praised by Herminus, out of the singular modesty in which he excelled, could well have called his book a *logidion*, although it was worthy of the name of *logos*. Wherefore, by all these things, it cannot be proved that Isidore's writing against the Greeks is different from his book *On Fate*. What if someone, for that reason, since both epistles—namely, those which we have praised in the first and third place—were addressed to the same Herminus, should try to contend and prove the contrary? For he could put forward reasoning of this kind, which is not far removed from probability: that just as it appears from that epistle of the second book to Herminus that Isidore replied to Herminus the questioner himself that he had already discussed this matter more fully in his book against the Greeks, there is nothing more likely than that the person to whom he owed an accurate adjudication of the question should have gently requested his friend to send that book. Nor, as we see from the other letter to Herminus, did he reject his prayers, but sent along with these letters the book which he had requested. Which opinion, although it may have pleased at first glance, nevertheless, whoever peruses the letters of the third book to Herminus with attentive mind will immediately reject it. For they are contained in these words: "Since you wrote to me recently that I had composed a little book on fate, which, by some having been exalted to the very heavens with great praises, and by others being preferred to all writings in which the same argument is treated, you have prayed that I send this book to you..."
I have sent it. And it appears, as I indeed believe, from the beginning of this letter, that the book on fate is not the same one which Isidore had commended to his familiar friend in the letter. For the words which Herminus used: "You have recently composed a book on fate," which we can elicit from the letter of Isidore sent to him, declare quite sufficiently, in my opinion, that he had not yet spoken of this book with his friend, neither by letter nor in personal conversation. If this is true, this little book on fate cannot be one and the same as the book which the Pelusiote composed against the Greeks. Fabricius and Heumann therefore judged correctly, even if they did not see the reason why one should think so.
Therefore, one might be allowed to leave this point and pass on to other writings of Isidore, were it not for the fact that there exists a long letter to Harpocras the sophist, which, since the opinion of those who believe in fate is refuted in it, one might take for the little book *peri tou me einai heimarmenen* [on the non-existence of fate], of which we have just spoken; especially since Isidore called another letter, which was written to Eulogius, a *logidion* [little discourse]. Since I can neither confirm nor refute this opinion with other arguments, I only advise that from that letter to Harpocras the sophist, we can best understand the mode and method which the Pelusiote followed while disputing on fate. B
The remaining points which must be stated concerning the lost writings of Isidore can be finished more briefly. For the writings of his that are mentioned by Evagrius as being to Cyril are, as has now been observed by Dupin, Ceillier, Fabricius, and Heumann, nothing other than Isidore's letters to this man, which Facundus, Nicephorus, and others, when the opportunity arose, attributed to other matters. Therefore, Cave is rightly criticized, for he included a book against Cyril among the lost writings of Isidore; but far more gravely to be criticized is Joannes Langus, the translator of Nicephorus Callistus. For he, as Jacobus Billius and Joannes Chatardus, and many others after them, have noted, rendered the words of Nicephorus: *Oios ekeinos Isidoros ho tou Pelousiou orous kathegesamenos; Neilos te kai Markos eti de kai ho ten sophian polys Theodoritos - hon eurys kleos kata ten poiesin* - in this manner: "Such was Isidore, who presided over the monks on the mount of Pelusium, Nilus and Marcus and the wise Theodoret, whose praise in poetry is great"; thus he makes them out to be eminent poets, when, however, as Jacobus Billius says, it is not recorded that any of them flourished in poetic studies.
But that nothing worthy of mention may seem to have been omitted by us, we must note in the fourth place that the anonymous author, of whom we have already spoken in the first part of this commentary, the author of the *Life of Chrysostom*, placed at the beginning of his catalogue of writers concerning the life of this man, under this title: *Hosoi eis ton bion tou Chrysostomou synegraphsanto*—included Isidore of Pelusium among them. Although I indeed well understand that it cannot be proven by the testimony of this anonymous author that the Pelusiote wrote the life of that most famous bishop, I have nevertheless deemed that this information should not be omitted, because, so far as I know, it has been mentioned by no one who has expressed an opinion concerning Isidore and his writings. It seems to be of greater significance that Hardt, in his catalogue of the Bavarian library's codices, D identifies the time in which Isidore lived.
A Migne’s published work in manuscript, as it is testified to exist, is inscribed thus: *’Ισιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις* (Questions and Answers of Isidore of Pelusium). This codex contains not only the questions and answers of Isidore, but also those of Chrysostom, Basil, Olympiodorus, Nilus, Marcus, Maximus, and Theodosius, which an anonymous author collected. For my part, because the opportunity was not given to me to inspect the codex itself, I do not dare to determine whether anything unpublished lies hidden within it; but I have a strong suspicion that a collector merely transcribed these questions and answers—all of which seem to pertain to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—from the works of Chrysostom, Basil, and others, just as he did from the epistles of Isidore, finding them suited to his own purpose. For this reason, I have little hope that there are unpublished items in that codex, just as Hardt (a) gathered from its title. Nor do I think anything remains unpublished in the book (b) whose title is this: *Isidorus Pelusiota de nativitate Domini* (Isidore of Pelusium on the Nativity of the Lord). However, the opportunity to inspect this little book was lacking. So much for that.
EDITIONS OF THE EPISTLES
There appeared at Paris in 1585, in folio: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ epistolarum amplius mille ducentarum libri tres nunc primum Græce editi* (Three books of more than twelve hundred epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, now published for the first time in Greek). To these was added, on the facing page, the Latin interpretation of that distinguished man, Jacques Billi de Prunay, formerly superior of the monastery of St. Michael in the Desert. Prefixed to this B edition is a letter from Jean Chatard to Godofroy Billi, by which we are informed that Jacques Billi, his brother, translated the 1213 Greek epistles of Isidore into the Latin language, but that he himself was prevented by premature death from publishing this translation. Jean Chatard therefore assumed this duty and at the same time took care that those epistles were also printed in Greek. The diversity of the readings is noted in the margin. Appended are two books of Sacred Observations by Jacques Billi.
These three books of more than twelve hundred epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, translated by Jacques Billi, were reprinted in the *Magna Bibliotheca VV. PP.* (Great Library of the Holy Fathers), ed. Cologne, year 1618, vol. V, p. I, pp. 476–621. To these three books of epistles, Rittershusius added a fourth, and published them all under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ de interpretatione divinæ Scripturæ libri quatuor* (Four books of St. Isidore of Pelusium on the interpretation of Divine Scripture). The first three of these appeared for the first time twenty years earlier in Paris with the Latin interpretation of Jacques Billi. Now, however, having been recalled to the press, they have been significantly augmented, supplemented, and corrected through the aid of the Bavarian manuscript codex. The fourth book now emerges for the first time, new from the same Bavarian codex—corresponding to a Venetian codex in the library of St. Mark—transcribed and rendered into Latin by Konrad Rittershusius, Jurisconsult. From the Commelinian press, 1605.
Rittershusius diligently inscribed in the margin both the scriptural diversity which Jean Chatard noted, and that which he himself extracted from his own codex; so much so, indeed, that if one or more words were added in the Bavarian codex, he would note with a star the position which they held in the text, and would enclose in brackets the words omitted in that manuscript. C Appended are very rich indices and other items of lesser importance. Otherwise, this edition was reprinted in the same shop in the following year without a line being changed.
Finally, in the year 1623, Andreas Schott published 559 epistles of Isidore from the Vatican codex at Antwerp, in 8vo, under this title: *Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς Ἰσιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐπιστολαὶ ἀνέκδοτοι. S. Isidori Pelusiotæ epistolæ hactenus ineditæ de locis sacræ Scripturæ moribusque formandis; ex Vaticana pontificis bibliotheca nunc primum erutæ notisque et argumentis illustratæ ab Andrea Schotto, societatis Jesu presbytero* (Unpublished epistles of the holy Father Isidore of Pelusium. Epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, hitherto unpublished, on passages of Holy Scripture and on the forming of morals; now first brought forth from the pontifical library of the Vatican, and illustrated with notes and arguments by Andreas Schott, priest of the Society of Jesus). The following year, the same man published the Latin interpretation of these epistles at Rome.
At Frankfurt, however, in 1629, the same were reprinted in such a form that they could be joined to the Rittershusian edition, under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ presbyteri epistolarum, quæ in Billii et Rittershusii editionibus desiderantur, volumen reliquum; quas ex Vaticana S. Patris bibliotheca nuper erutas, nunc primum Græce et Latine conjunxit, notisque et argumentis illustravit R. P. Andreas Schottus, societatis Jesu presbyter* (The remaining volume of the epistles of the priest St. Isidore of Pelusium, which are missing in the editions of Billi and Rittershusius; which, having been recently brought forth from the Vatican library of the Holy Father, the Reverend Father Andreas Schott, priest of the Society of Jesus, has now for the first time joined in Greek and Latin, and has illustrated with notes and arguments).
Sed Lutetia finally saw the publication of five books of Isidore's epistles in 1638, in folio, under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ de interpretatione divinæ Scripturæ libri quinque; quorum tres priores ex interpretatione Jacobi Billii, quartus autem a Cunrado Rittershusio IC., qui et notas uberiores, et summas, et indices prioribus libris adjecit: et quintus ab Andrea Schotto, nunc primum in Gallia prodeunt* (Five books of St. Isidore of Pelusium on the interpretation of Divine Scripture; the first three of which are from the interpretation of Jacques Billi, the fourth, however, from Konrad Rittershusius, Jurisconsult, who also added better notes, summaries, and indices to the previous books; and the fifth by Andreas Schott; now appearing in France for the first time). In this edition, which abounds with many typographical errors, D
even this is to be censured: that the stars, by which A Rittershusius wished to signify in the Bavarian codex that one or more words had been added, were received into the text; yet the diversity of the readings was not indicated. What happened, therefore, was that Petrus Possinus, in the book with which we shall be dealing momentarily, believing these stars to indicate lacunae, often took a gloss for the true reading. In the same way, the brackets, which Rittershusius certainly employed with a specific plan, as was stated before, seem to have been heedlessly received in this edition.
Furthermore, all the letters of Isidore exist in Latin alone in the *Maxima Bibliotheca VV. PP.*, vol. VII, pp. 499-802.
B In these editions of Isidore, I mean the Parisian and the Venetian, two thousand and twelve letters are printed. For the first book contains five hundred, the second three hundred, the third four hundred and thirteen, the fourth two hundred and thirty, and the fifth five hundred and sixty-nine. The anonymous author of the *Historia ecclesiastica*, which was published at Cologne, is therefore mistaken in thinking that two thousand, one hundred and seventy-nine letters of Isidore are printed. Ignatius Hyacinthus de Graveson, Caveus, and Fabricius are also mistaken, who affirmed that all of Isidore’s letters, two thousand and thirteen, have been printed. This error of these men, without a doubt, arose from the fact that Schott appended to the five hundred and sixty-ninth letter, which is the last of the fifth book, one letter of the fourth book which he had edited more accurately.
But in the year 1670, the Isidorian Collations were published at Rome, in which all the letters of St. Isidore of Pelusium edited up to that time are compared with many ancient manuscripts of the best quality, and hence are supplemented or corrected in about two thousand places. From the Barberini library. For Cardinal Francesco Barberini, through a man who—as he who provides the preface, Petrus Possinus, says—was a man of exceptional learning and at that time his own intimate, the late Francesco Arcudius, a Greek from Calabria and later Bishop of Noscara, had all the Isidorian letters compared with six excellent manuscripts of the most ancient hand—two Vatican, as many Altaems, one Sfortian, and a sixth Barberini—with the various readings and supplements being exactly inscribed in the margins of the Parisian edition, by the side of each place needing such help. This C copy of the Parisian edition was handed over by Carlo Moroni, prefect of the Barberini library, to Petrus Possinus of the Society of Jesus, who edited these collations, so called by him because—to use his own words—in them that Parisian edition of Isidore of which I spoke is compared with codices that are not a little better. "I have striven," he writes, "to explain all things in such a way that any reader could, with the greatest ease, by comparing my writing with the example of that edition, correct the faulty places in the printed text and supplement the mutilated ones. To this end, I have diligently noted the numbers of the letters, pages, and verses to which these observations pertain. For the most part, I have reported only what was different or new in the codices; sometimes I have interjected my own judgment; nor have I concealed conjectures arising from the signs of various readings concerning the archetypal writing; yet I have rarely done that, content D as if to have opened a field and offered an occasion, through the more critical, for each one to divine according to his own acumen."
The author of the edition which appeared at Venice in 1745, in folio, under this title: *Sancti Isidori Pelusiotae de interpretatione divinae*... made use of these Collations.
But if you wished to gather from these that we have two thousand and twelve of Isidore’s letters surviving, which have been printed in type, you would undoubtedly fall into error. For it has been beautifully observed by Tillemont that sometimes one letter has been cut into two, such as book IV, letters 206 and 207, and book I, letters 271 and 272, and that some are placed twice, of which he brings forward two examples. But many more were noted by Heumann, whose note regarding this matter I may be permitted to transcribe here: "Schott," he says, "published several from his Vatican codex which had already been published by Billius or Rittershusius. For book V, letter 239 is the same as book IV, letter 147; book V, letter 91 is the same as book IV, letter 147; book V, letter 138 is the same as book IV, letter 190; book V, letter 43 is the same as book IV, letter 199; book V, letter 139 is the same as book IV, letter 122; book V, letter 187 is the same as book IV, letter 124; book V, letter 324 is the same as book I, letter 233. Confer—for thus he continues—also book V, letter 116 with book I, letter 162; book V, letter 24 with letter 567, and book V, letter 374 with book II, letter 116, which you will find differ little from each other. Nor are letters already edited previously present only in the fifth book, but in the earlier books also some are found twice. Certainly book II, letter 1 and 39 are the same; book I, letter 29 and book IV, letter 188. Thus also book I, letter 303 occurs in almost the same words, and is indeed divided into two, no. 271 and 272 (as was already observed by Tillemont). Also book IV, letter 180 and book I, letter 185 are the same." To these things noted by Heumann must be added, as Petrus had already seen...
A [Possinus (a), book 1, letter 4, which recurs in book V, where it holds place 195]. Finally, it also seemed to me that book V, letter 221 and book III, letter 203, of which we shall speak more fully later, are the same. Therefore, all these being calculated, it seems that one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven of Isidore’s letters have come down to our age; and since no one, as far as I know, has doubted that all of these were written by Isidore, we could immediately add to the manuscripts in which the letters of this man are contained that have become known, were it not for the fact that Heumann, whom Hamberger (b) follows, considers most of Isidore’s letters to be fictitious. Whose opinion must be examined a little more accurately.
Heumann (c) opines that most of Isidore’s letters, to use his own words, are fictitious and composed in a rhetorical manner, not so that those whose names are prefixed to them would receive and read them, but so that they might be specimens of eloquence for those whom Isidore had as students of the art of rhetoric. But before he explains the arguments for this opinion more fully, he brings forward the judgments of Suidas (d) and Ephraim of Antioch (e) concerning Isidore, from which it appears that he was both a rhetorician and distinguished by the praise of eloquence. Then, from the Epistles of the Pelusiote himself, he shows that he was sufficiently knowledgeable in the art of rhetoric, since in a letter to Nilus (f) he describes the virtues of speech according to Hermogenes, in another to Ophelius the grammarian (g) he discourses on the epistolary character, and writes to Elapius the bishop (h) that an intense love and zeal for eloquence had taken hold of the minds of mortals in that age. To these testimonies, he could have added the two hundred and seventeenth letter of the fifth book, in which Isidore, when he deals with the various kinds of rhetoricians, proves sufficiently and more than enough that he is skilled in this art. Finally, Heumann proves with many examples, which it is tedious to repeat, that rhetoricians were accustomed not only to the art of writing letters but also to fashioning B letters and exhibiting them to their students to be imitated.
But by all these things, as I guess, he wished to demonstrate nothing other than that Isidore could have produced such specimens for the use of his students, according to the custom of the rhetoricians of the age in which he lived. And not even this is sufficiently proven by those testimonies. For it remains to be shown that Isidore had students of the art of rhetoric. Which is a mere hypothesis of Heumann. But lest I fall into the suspicion of being overly doubtful, let us leave these things aside and pass to an accurate exposition and adjudication of the arguments which he has brought forward.
PART II OF THE COMMENTARY
But since below, where I shall explain Schroeckh’s opinion on Isidore’s letters, more needs to be said on this matter, let us leave it aside and proceed to review the remaining arguments that Heumann has brought forward. He continues with these words: "I refer here to several letters of the same argument; which itself is a certain sign that our rhetorician wished to show his own fluency of speech. Of this class are the second, third, and fourth letters of the fourth book, in which a certain passage of the Psalter is treated in the same way, but with words varied by art."
But, even though it cannot be denied in any way that the saying from the Psalter, which has already been dealt with in the second letter, recurs in the third and fourth, nevertheless, to us inquiring into the matter a little more accurately, it seemed probable that Isidore truly sent these three letters to Zosimus, whose name is prefixed to all of them. For in the second letter, Isidore mocks the stupidity of Zosimus, who, given over to wine and all pleasures, dares to pray: "Pierce my flesh with your fear." For, he says, this is the prayer of those who prefer eternal salvation to a luxurious life; but it does not befit those who, with their skin well-cared for, surpass the athletes themselves. For you seem to act as if, while clinging to the embraces of harlots, you wished to become composed in chastity. Cease, therefore, from leading a soft life full of pleasures; C restrain the infinite and dishonest desire for constant feasting, lest you make yourself ridiculous, when you wish to attain one thing and do another. This is the argument of the first letter to Zosimus.
From the other, however, it appears that that gluttonous man replied to Isidore, and by way of defense, as is wont to happen, asked from it, what meaning finally he should attribute to those words: "Pierce my flesh with your fear"? For Isidore writes back: "Since you asked me through a letter what that saying of the Psalmist means, listen. Underlying those words is this sentiment: May reverence toward God cause that, [your] desire... D
for the body’s pernicious force be diminished, once the bodily impulses have been extinguished A. Having understood this interpretation of the words, then, desist from using those words of the Psalmist; or, if you wish to use them rightly, cast off your dissolute morals and adopt new ones, especially since you are not serving your own stomach with food, but are a hanger-on at the tables of others. With the argument of each epistle thus set forth, who is there who does not see that the purpose of these letters is different? Who is there who does not understand that Isidore has not treated the statement repeated from the Psalms in these epistles in the same way and with words merely varied by art, as Heumann contends, but rather in a way that is altogether different? For in the former he shows Zosimus to be ridiculous, while in the latter he interprets the Psalmist's statement.
But we must also discuss the fourth epistle of this book, which certainly has a great similarity to the second. For Isidore teaches that a man endowed and adorned with virtue should invoke the divine power for assistance; but that he who, having abandoned virtue, dares to invoke the supreme power, will achieve nothing by these prayers. What then, he continues in this way, is this but madness, that while you lead a disgraceful B and wicked life, you dare to pray: "Pierce my flesh with your fear." This prayer does not only not befit you, as a petulant, luxurious, and drunken man, but is full of mockery, nay, of danger. For you are attempting to deceive God himself. Just as, therefore, Isidore, for whom nothing was more an object of concern than to recall petulant men to sober morals, had shown in the second epistle to Zosimus that his prayers were ridiculous and inept, so in the fourth epistle, whose argument we have just set forth, he tries to demonstrate to him that the invocation in his own mouth is impious and dangerous.
Wherefore, although it must be conceded to Heumann that a great similarity exists between both epistles, yet we believe it can be rightly argued that the purpose of each is different from the other; and so we judge that Zosimus did indeed receive these letters. To this opinion, that also seems to favor it, that many epistles to this same Zosimus exist by Isidore, from all of which it appears that he was such a man as is described in these letters C. Added to this is the fact that it is apparent from the epistle of the same [Isidore] given to Athanasius the presbyter that Zosimus’s vicious life was a cause of offense to other men as well, to whom the Christian religion was dear.
Nor are the remaining examples which Heumann brought forward to strengthen his own opinion sufficiently apt. For the same man, he says, you will find if you compare letters 289 and 519 in the fifth book, which, so that each one may be able to judge about this matter with easy effort, I have set down in Greek.
D It is indeed true that there are some who are clever at deceiving so as to go unnoticed, and once caught, are clever at distorting the truth; but the wise man, being superior to these, will detect the deceit and will refute the cleverness.
In this [fourth epistle], however, Isidore speaks of the same matter in this way: "Even if there are some who are clever at deceiving so as to go unnoticed, and clever at distorting the truth once they are caught; yet the God-beloved man is found to be superior to these, being wise enough to perceive the deceit, and wiser still to refute the cleverness hidden in their words."
Certainly no one will deny that the same sentiment exists in each epistle; and no one will agree with Heumann, who boldly affirms that Isidore, in writing these epistles, wished to show off his own copiousness of speech and to set himself up as a model to his own disciples. For in truth, with significant skill, he varied his speech in each epistle, when in the former he calls fallacious men "those distorting the truth" (παραλογιζομένους) and in the latter "those deceiving" (ἀπατῶντας), and those whose frauds have been detected he calls in the former "those caught" (ἀλόντας) and in the latter "those detected" (φωραθέντας); when secondly, the man whom he named "wise" (σοφὸν) in the former, he calls in the latter a "God-beloved wise man" (θεοφιλῆ σοφὸν), and calls the one censuring the fraudulence of those men "wiser" (σοφώτερον); when finally he adds in the latter a few things of lesser moment. But who is there who would prove his own copiousness of speech by such arts? Who is there who, wishing to prove this, would begin with a hypothetical particle as Isidore does in both epistles; and then join, as was done by Isidore, the first and second announcement of words with the particles *men* (μέν) and *de* (δέ); and proceed, as Isidore does, with the particle *alla* (ἀλλά)? This certainly does not belong to a rhetorician who wishes to propose epistles for his disciples to imitate. But since I must recur to these epistles below, let it be allowed now to pass over them and pass on to the last example that Heumann brought forward.
He proceeds then with these words: "You will not easily find an epistle more wise as an exercise for a school of rhetoric than that one of the second book which holds the one hundred and fifty-third place." Here is some specimen of it from the mouth of the interpreter: "It would be fair for you to enter into a reasoning by which you might obliterate this persecution; you will obliterate it, however, if you return to a better frame of mind; but you will return, if you believe the Holy Scriptures to be true; you will believe, however, if you enjoy them continuously; you will enjoy them, however, if you understand their sense; you will understand, however, if you have had constant association with men endowed with divine wisdom; you will have this, however, if you have fled from vice; you will flee, however, if you have feared the punishments themselves that hang over you; you will fear, however, if you have believed that God exists; you will believe, however, if [...]."
they have emerged from that frenzy. But enough, for thus Heumann proceeds, and a second argument follows with equal gradation. Who, I ask, would seriously write to anyone in this way? Certainly no one in our times who has any taste. Nor would anyone in our times, who has a disciplined judgment, interpret the sayings of the Old and New Testaments as many have been explained by Isidore. Does it follow from that that Isidore is not the author of the letters in which absurd or ridiculous interpretations of the prophets or apostles are contained? This line of argument can be approved by no one; if we reject it, Heumann’s reasoning will fall at the same time. Furthermore, it seems to me that a teacher who proposes such a letter for his students to imitate is more worthy of ridicule than the one who sends letters of this kind to anyone.
B But the other argument, by which Heumann wanted to show, as he himself says (a), that most of Isidore’s letters are fictitious, is drawn from the fact that some were written to those who had long since ceased to live: such as book 5, letter 437, to Oribasius, the physician of the Emperor Julian; and so long ago, as he says, carried off to the place from which no one returns. This must be proven by the testimony of ancient writers. For Julian finished his final day in the year 361, at which time Oribasius was perhaps thirty or forty years old, and was able to see the end of this age and the beginning of a new one, and nothing was preventing Isidore from sending a letter to that most celebrated physician. But let us grant that Oribasius, the physician of Julian, was already dead. From where, then, does Heumann have it confirmed that these letters of Isidore to Oribasius the physician were addressed to Oribasius the physician of Julian? Could another person endowed with the same name not have been able to live in the time of the Pelusiot? And if we establish this, Heumann’s opinion falls. It is permitted to assert, since no trace exists within the letter itself from which we can gather, that this was addressed to the physician of Julian.
As for the fact that Heumann contends that letter 391 of the same book was written to a certain physician, such that this too is an example of rhetorical variation, it is an error either of his own or of the copy of the text he used. For in my copy this letter is addressed to Domestius (b) the physician, and neither in the notes of Rittershusius nor in the Collationes of Petrus Possinus is any variation in the text noted that would support Heumann’s opinion.
What I said a little earlier concerning the letter to Oribasius can also be said regarding the letter of book 1, 108, to the sophist Proaeresius, a contemporary of Oribasius. Nor, as Heumann opines, does letter 186 of book 5 plainly reveal a scholastic fiction, C for the letter, as he himself says, is addressed to the children of the Greeks, and to those same children who are ordered to flee the public games and spectacles. For if you compare this with the letter that precedes it, you will understand how Isidore could have written to adolescents. For by the words of this letter, which was sent to Harpocras the sophist, Isidore declares in the final part that he was provoked by him for having written to adolescents who, because of bad upbringing, were accustomed to depraved habits (c). But if you think that these letters to Harpocras are not fictitious, you will not say that the letter written to the children of the Greeks is composed in the rhetorical style.
Quinto, Heumann brings forward letter 251 of book 2, inscribed to Peter the apostle. But it is inscribed "to Peter," to whom many other letters have also been sent. It is asked why he added the name "apostle." He himself answers: that he signifies this Peter, and not another of that age, we seem able to discern partly from the address (what name, he says, should I call you that would be equal to your merits), and partly from the subject matter of the letter. This is nothing but a pleasant expression, which Isidore occasionally used even in other letters sent to other people (d); this, in fact, proves the contrary. For in this letter, Isidore explains the reasons why mortals willingly received the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, and he posits that these were the "worthy word" and the "manner of those preaching." A monk of the fifth century, forsooth, had to explain all these things to the apostle Peter! What then? The Pelusiot speaks of the apostles as men long since dead, when he calls them "citizens of heaven," which he certainly would not have done if he had wanted to show students by example how one should write to the apostle Peter. Feeling this same thing, Heumann continues in this manner: "With greater and clearer right we place under the catalogue of fictitious letters book 5, letter 461, written to a woman by the name of Theano. The daughter or wife of Pythagoras did indeed use this name. Since she is read to have been a cultivator of philosophy, our Isidore not absurdly affixed this name to a Christian woman professing philosophy, whom he exhorts that, mindful of her profession, she not strive to please men." In these things many things are to be censured. D First, for Heumann must prove that it was necessary for Isidore to have affixed that name to a woman professing Christian philosophy. For from where does he have it confirmed that a woman adorned with this name did not live in the time of the Pelusiot? Secondly, it had to be demonstrated that in these letters it is a question of a woman philosopher, in which there is not one trace of this matter. Finally, it must be shown that the name was not absurdly affixed to a Christian woman. For what? The wife of Pythagoras... [the commentary continues, comparing the laudatory terms used for others].
woman who is the subject of these writings, as we have already said, is not certain; she was devoted to her father's or her husband's philosophy; but Isidore’s Theano, to the doctrine of Christ, which on her view certainly had no similarity with the tenets of Pythagoras. Wherefore Isidore would have acted absurdly if he had honored a Christian woman with the name of Theano. Nor did he do this, but he sent this epistle to Theano, a certain man; which from the inscription itself, A Θέανῳ, as it stands in all the manuscript books collated thus far, I judge can be gathered. For indeed, if it had been given to a woman, it would have been necessary to write Θέανου; which Heumann himself, sensing, believes the inscription must be corrected, and when we ask for the cause of this correction, "The thing itself," he replies, "cries out, that feminine adornment is marked with a censorious note." Which words, if I am not mistaken, concern the beginning of this epistle, which is contained in these words: "The love of ornamentation and the blossoming of stones, and the mixture of gold with these, and twisted braids, and the painting of the eyes, and the sophistry of beauty, and the tricks practiced concerning these, of which you," etc. But all these things alike suit men as much as women, and women as much as men who are eager to please. Do not many adolescents of our age adorn themselves with gems? Do they not wear gems set in gold? Do they not use curling irons, and use many other things which are instruments of luxury? B Wherefore, for my part, I do not see why we must concede to Heumann that feminine adornment should be marked with a censorious note. But even if these things were conceded, our case will remain safe, provided we establish that a Christian woman honored with the name of Theano lived in the times of Isidore.
Wherefore, neither has Heumann sufficiently confirmed his opinion with this other argument to which he attributes so much. Having explained these things, we may pass to the third which he has brought forward. "We confirm, he says, our opinion with a third argument, which the contumelious epistles of this work provide us. For how can we believe that those men, whom Isidore vexed with such sharp, nay, even petulant censure, left it unpunished? But if they truly punished him with many evils, how, I ask, has it come about that not even the slightest mention of this matter occurs?" What words Heumann could write, I for one cannot understand at all. For indeed, from those epistles of Isidore which we produced in the first part, one could understand that he was harassed by men into whose morals he had bitingly inveighed, if he had not read the epistle of Chatardus to Godfrey Billius, in which he proves by one example alone that the Pelusiote, a most sharp critic of vices, had incurred the hatred of many, and that many snares had been laid for him. But even if Isidore had lived quietly, C Heumann would have been able to bring forward a convincing argument to confirm his opinion. For as he claims to be unable to believe that those men, whom Isidore vexed with such sharp, nay, even petulant censure, left it unpunished, he falls again into error. For when thinking about the authority which the monks had attained at that time, and remembering the seditions which they are said to have stirred up in many provinces, and especially in Egypt, it seems to me that it could certainly have happened. Add to this that Isidore, the abbot of his monastery, was a man notable for the integrity of his morals and the abundance of his learning, and grave in his authority. Wherefore we conclude that all those epistles, which are counted by Heumann as fictitious because they were given to men who were, to use his own words, eminent in either civil or ecclesiastical dignity, were in truth sent to the men to whom they were written.
But we must return to the epistles which he called invectives, and which he tries to prove were written for the sake of practicing one's style from some epistle to Harpocras the sophist. D "For to this man," he says, "who had sent him a satire against Martinianus, Zosimus, and Eustathius, he writes back that he would not send it to them. For since these men are said to be implacable beasts, he would not bring it about that Harpocras should be challenged as if by some war by others." Now, what Isidore did not wish to happen to Harpocras, it is to be believed he did not wish to happen to himself either. I have transcribed all these words of Heumann here with the sole intention of proving by his example that a man otherwise prudent and learned can be swept away into various errors by a preconceived opinion which he conceived in his mind; so much so that he thinks that even things contrary to him favor him. I think this happened to Heumann when he was about to prove his opinion with these letters to Harpocras. For from these it appears that Isidore did not wish to pass the writing sent to him by that man to Martinianus, Zosimus, and Eustathius, because it contained a satire. For even if you, he says, had exhorted those petulant men in an epistle, I would have sent this to them; but it pleased me to retain the satire. For indeed, in Isidore's opinion, those who labor under vices are to be reproved, but to harsh words there must be added those full of humanity and gentleness. Having explained these things, it is not necessary that we speak more fully about each of the examples he has brought forward.
Furthermore, let those who favor Heumann's side see to it that they do not impute wicked and shameful morals to Isidore. For he himself writes to Maron, that he does not want to mock him, as many do, despairing altogether of the salvation of the wicked, but, when he had seen the conversion of many, he considers it his duty to recall every petulant person to sober morals. And if that holy man...
truly believed it to be his duty, Heumann, if he wishes his position to hold, must necessarily ascribe hypocrisy to him, seeing as he wrote these letters for the purpose of exhortation but did not send them to those whose names he prefixed to them, contenting himself with having recited them before his disciples. But if Isidore believed that this was not his duty, then he is a liar in writing that letter to Maron.
To ensure we do not consider Isidore a simulator and dissimulator, we depart from Heumann’s opinion, and we trust that every reader, having read the following seven letters with careful attention, will favor our side. See then, Lib. II, ep. 21, to Bishop Hermogenes; Lib. III, ep. 35, to the presbyter Hierax; Lib. III, ep. 70, to Ophelius the grammarian; B Lib. III, ep. 270, to Bishop Lampetius; Lib. III, ep. 282, to Archontius the government official; Lib. IV, ep. 205, to the presbyter and scholar Olympius; Lib. V, ep. 219, to Theodorus the deacon.
Many other letters can be compared with these, in which Isidore clearly declares that he has often sent letters to those petulant and luxurious men; as, for example, Lib. II, ep. 67, 90, 323, 397; Lib. V, ep. 84, 210, 285, 561.
Since, therefore, Isidore himself has declared in many places that he sent letters to Eusebius the bishop, and to Zosimas, Maron, Martinianus, and Eustathius the presbyters, it can hardly be understood how Heumann could conclude that all the letters directed to these men were composed in an "academic shadow," as he himself says, and not sent to those whose names C are prefixed to them; especially since he himself, on page 45, affirmed that he had read through Isidore’s letters and had scrutinized them with the proper attention.
But it is not enough to have refuted the opinions of others; I must explain my own opinion regarding Isidore's letters, which, if possible, ought to be proved by the testimonies of ancient writers and by firm arguments drawn from the very letters of this man. I myself believe that Schroeckh (a) was correct in his perception—that he acutely conjectured that most of Isidore’s letters did not reach our own age in the form in which they appear in the printed editions, but were excerpted by monks. And since he himself deemed it alien to the plan of his undertaking to prove this opinion of his with arguments, this province is left to us.
Moreover, in my judgment, that statement of Irenaeus, which we already cited in the first part of this commentary and whose words pertaining to this matter are as follows: "I have excerpted and translated all these (letters) of the blessed Isidore from his two thousand letters," favors Schroeckh’s conjecture. D These words can indeed be explained in a twofold way. For Irenaeus, as Lupus well noted, did not mean that he had transcribed all of Isidore’s letters contained in those most ancient codices of the Acoemetae monastery, but only those which he judged could be of use to his purpose. Still, both for the words and for the thing itself, the other way of explaining these words seems to me more suitable. For I maintain that Irenaeus intended this meaning by those words: "I have not transcribed all these letters of Isidore word for word, but I have excerpted them, and I have translated the excerpts into my own work." And certainly, he would have wasted his effort had he transcribed not only those words of Isidore by which he judged his own opinion could be proved, but also those that were completely irrelevant to the matter—everything, that is, that concerns the epistolary form, greetings, and other things of that nature. Since this is so easy to understand, I judge that not only Irenaeus, but many transcribers of these letters, have felt the same. Nor will anyone who compares Isidore’s letters, which exist in the Catenae of the Fathers, with those which are printed in the Parisian edition, take this opinion for a mere hypothesis. For from a deliberate comparison of the Catenae, it is very easily understood that the authors did not transcribe the Pelusiote letters religiously. Although I could show this immediately with certain examples, I may here omit all of those, since, not being alien to the intent of our project, we have noted everything while comparing the Catenae with the letters edited by Chatard, Rittershusius, and Schottus in order to share them with a benevolent reader, and since the opinion of Schroeckh, having been proved by other arguments as well, must be returned to.
Furthermore, it is rightly concluded from the fact that most of Isidore’s letters lack any epistolary form that they were not written by the author exactly as they appear in the Parisian edition. Cf. Lib. I, ep. 103, 161, 228, 236, 238, 244, 279, 294, 295, 296, etc.
The third, and indeed the most serious, argument by which we attempt to prove this opinion concerning Isidore’s letters is taken from the letters that exist twice in the printed exemplars. For in these, while they for the most part correspond word for word, it sometimes happens that a matter explained in many words in one is finished in a few in the other; so that a thought omitted entirely in one is added in the other, and finally, wonderful transpositions of many words are found. All of which, as I for my part judge, you will be able to explain correctly only if you favor Schroeckh’s opinion. But in order for every reader to be able to judge about this matter, it is necessary that certain examples be brought forward.
LIB. II, EP. 162. Since you have written that you marvel how there could be any trouble in Zosimas being ordained, who is seen to be a presbyter, it does not seem to be any trouble to him who illegally ordained him...
LIB. V, EP. 116. Since you have written that you marvel how there could be any trouble in Zosimas being ordained, it does not seem to be any trouble to him who illegally ordained him; I reply that you indeed...
rightfully feel indignant—for no one can dispute this—out of a hatred of wickedness and a love of goodness. But I also thought it proper to advise you to keep your tongue free from calumny. For if he, as you have written, is worthy of ten thousand deaths, not having been improved by his office, but having used the priesthood as a weapon of wickedness and daring the undarable, then he will also, unless you are fighting against the truth, be required to pay most severe penalties by the impartial judge; for God is not unjust. Yet, you are not righteous to defile your own mouth by mocking his filthy deeds. A
BOOK IV, EPISTLE 56
The heresy, I suspect, was born either from the love of power or from prejudice—two passions difficult to contend against; for the one part, not deeming it worthy to be among the submissive, nor having accepted being taught, have cast the seeds of new teachings, not deigning to remain in the status quo. B
BOOK I, EPISTLE 271
Human nature, my admirable friend, is neither incapable of evil, nor does it possess evil by nature; but by its own will, it admits these things and suffers a falling away from good things.
BOOK I, EPISTLE 272
The first man suffered what he wrote; but the second man restored to him his former form, having become that in a way past understanding, and having divinely corrected it. C And the first man fell from salvation; the second man, who was from him, restored to him the true nature which he had received within himself—for being truly God, he truly became man; being one Son of God from two natures, not changed into what we are, in becoming what he was.
BOOK V, EPISTLE 474
To Paul.
Honor the virtues, do not cultivate prosperity; for the former are an immortal possession, while the latter are easily extinguished.
BOOK II, EPISTLE 136
To Paul concerning the feasts.
Honor the virtues, do not cultivate prosperity; for the former are an immortal possession, while the latter are easily extinguished. So much for that. But do not be unaware that God, both long ago and now, has bound the memorials of his benefits to the feasts, so that those observing the festivals, having the memory of these things ringing in their ears, might not turn to drunkenness, but to thanksgiving and virtue. D
BOOK V, EPISTLE 239
Human nature, my admirable friend, is neither incapable of evil, nor does it possess evil by nature; but by its own will and sloth, it suffers a falling away from good things—which the first man also suffered, and of the terms...
His, quas ultimo loco attulimus, litteris inter sese collatis solis luce clarius apparet, virum qui huic Isidori epistolae addidit inscriptionem quique longiorem ejus tradidit recensionem, eam si non ad verbum, at certe religiose descripsisse; hunc vero ethicum illud præceptum magni æstimantem, et quid Pelusiota de festis censuerit parum curantem omisisse. Quæ mea sententia mirum in modum eo confirmatur, quod Cotelerius in Ecclesia Græca Monumentis in codice manuscripto, ex quo Patrum apophthegmata ad ethicen spectantia collegit, primam tantum hujus epistolæ partem exstare tradidit.
Postremo in medium proferre placet, quas p. ultimo loco attulimus Isidori epistolas:
BOOK V, EPISTLE 221
To Eutonius the deacon.
Know, my good man, that if we should commit sins that are bearable, and light, and curable, and suffer something grievous here, we might wipe them away...
BOOK III, EPISTLE 203
To Eutonius the deacon.
If we should commit sins that are bearable, and light, and curable, and suffer something grievous here, we might wipe them away...