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.