ISAAC EX JUDAEO CHRISTIANUS. — NOTITIA.
A B PSALM 150. The song of the fifteenth decade, alleluia. Celebrate for me the King, and may the choirs of the just follow. Celebrate him, relying on the firm strength of virtue: Celebrate him, exalted by his own powers: Celebrate him, magnified by frequent works: Celebrate him with the blast of the mighty trumpet: Celebrate him with the lyre and lovely harmony: Celebrate him with timbrels and comely choirs: Celebrate him with the cithara and in resonant strings: Celebrate him, striking the shrill cymbals with your hands: Celebrate him, taking up the cymbals of jubilation in your hands: Every spirit, celebrate the Lord.
PSALM 151. Beyond the fifteenth decade is an extra hymn, Which David sang when he had engaged Goliath in single combat. I was very small among my brothers, A youth in my father's house, listening among all, Pasturing the flocks of wool-bearing sheep in the fields. My hands fashioned the shrill cithara, And my fingers composed a harmony pleasing to God. Who shall announce to the all-powerful King? The King himself knows how to hear my words: He himself sent a swift messenger from the heavenly host, And he took me from my father’s flock of sheep, And he himself anointed my body with rich oil. C I had big brothers, and strong ones too: But the King did not wish to give good glory to them. I went out to meet the alien as he called: And he cursed me, relying on his idols: But I, drawing his sharp sword from his thigh, Cutting off his head, I stood over his lofty neck: And I took away the reproach from the circumspect Israel. I offer you divine praise, Supreme among kings, Since you have granted me to complete precisely the whole book, Of the wise and most beautiful David, Though my race is unfortunate among men.
ANNO DOMINI 385.
ISAAC EX JUDÆO CHRISTIANUS.
NOTITIA. (GALLAND., Vet. Patr. Biblioth., t. VII, Proleg. p. xxv.)
I. Of those who have made mention of the writer Isaac the Jew, among the ancients, besides Gennadius, we know no one. But he [says] thus: (a) [index: entries preserved]
ISAAC EX JUDÆO
Isaac wrote a book of very obscure disputation and involuted language regarding the three persons of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of the Lord, confirming in this way that there are three persons in one deity, so that there is something peculiar in each which the others do not have: namely, that the Father has this as his peculiar property, that he himself is the origin of others without an origin; that the Son has this as his peculiar property, that although begotten he is not posterior to the begetter; and that the Holy Spirit has this as his peculiar property, that he was neither made nor begotten, and yet is from another. Concerning the incarnation, he writes in such a way that, while two natures remain in it, one person of the Son of God is believed. This is Gennadius. Furthermore, since this presbyter of Marseille places our writer among those who flourished a little before the year 400 of Christ, Sirmond, who first edited his little book (a), seems to have argued rightly that he flourished at the end of the fourth century. While William Cave and others hold different opinions, Fabricius (b) and Wolf (c) agree with Sirmond. This dating of the period is most strongly confirmed if we admit the conjecture of Tillemont, who thinks (d) that this writer is the same as that Isaac the Hebrew, who, adhering to the faction of Ursinus, assailed the blessed pontiff Damasus with calumnies. There is mention of him in a letter of the Roman council to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian, where the following is contained (e): "Thus at length," the Fathers say, "the faction of Ursinus increased, as Isaac the Jew, having been suborned—who by returning to the synagogue profaned the heavenly mysteries—sought the head of our holy brother Damasus." And a little later, the same Fathers, having addressed the emperors, add: "Since, therefore, the innocence of our aforementioned brother Damasus has been proven by the judgment of your tranquility, and his integrity has been proclaimed; Isaac himself also, when he could not prove the things which he alleged, bore the lot of his own merits, etc." He was sent into exile in Spain, as is clear from the rescript of the same emperors to Aquilinus, the Vicar of the City, in which we read thus (f): "A remote corner of Spain has covered Isaac with the title of condemnation." And we understand that the editor of Sirmond’s works has also conceded to this same opinion of Tillemont (g).
II. Our Isaac, therefore, surely wrote his *Libellus fidei*, and perhaps at Rome, as can be gathered clearly enough from the monuments of the ancients just mentioned, before he abjured the Christian religion which he had embraced and gave his name back to the Synagogue. Sirmond brought such a booklet to light, along with other dogmatic short works, in the year 1630, as we mentioned above, regarding which he has this to say in his note to the reader: "But as to what we have written as 'from the Jew,' we have followed the Pithou codex, in which the title is conceived in these words: *The Faith of Isaac the Jew*." And this inscription indeed seems to be confirmed by those things which we have just cited from the letter of the Roman council: and perhaps Sirmond himself would have confirmed it from that same letter if his *Appendix to the Theodosian Code*—which he published only the following year, 1631—had been available to him at that time. Furthermore, Petrus Pithou had prepared this same booklet of our author for publication, who, as Claude Pelletier reports (h), noted in the third volume of his manuscript collection of councils that he had excerpted this short work from a very ancient codex of canons of the Church of Le Mans, after the Council of Angers: and the same illustrious man adds that the Pithou codex bears an inscription of this sort, *The Faith of Isatis the Jew*, not *Isacis*: which inscription Fabricius (i) preferred to follow later. But if those things are considered which we have adduced here concerning our writer, both from Gennadius and from the remaining more ancient witnesses, we do not think one should depart from the vulgate inscription. For the ancient copyist could have erred by hand, the transcriber could have erred by eye; one or the other, whether describing or reading *Isatis* instead of *Isacis*. But dismissing these things, it is better to notice that the short work of which we are speaking was edited anew from the Pithou codex after Sirmond by the lauded Pelletier at the end of the *Codex of the Canons of the Ancient Roman Church* (j), and at the same time he noted several various readings from the Sirmondian edition, among which four are the principal ones of this sort, compared here to our exemplar transcribed from the Sirmondian.
A In the Pithou codex. I. The will of God generates the soul, and his virtue makes; the creature, however, is created by his virtue. II. For it is permitted to say that God is of the nature of this one. III. It is the Son who, to redeem the human race, fabricated for himself a body from the substance of Mary herself, in which he deigned to dwell.
B In the Sirmond edition. Pag. 597. D. lin. 5. The will of God generates the soul, and his virtue makes; the creature, however, is created by his virtue. Pag. 598. C. lin. 6. For it is permitted to say that God is of the nature of this one. Pag. 598. A. lin. 4. It is the Son who, to redeem the human race, fabricated for himself a body from the substance of Mary itself, in which he deigned to dwell. C D
IV. No one among the dead has risen to immortality except he himself as the first, and he gave an example of resurrection to all who were to follow. Ibid. C. line 8. No one among the dead has risen, except he himself as the first, and he gave an example of resurrection to all who were to follow. This last passage appears restored in our edition, where we have corrected 'resurrection' for 'resurrection'. As to the rest, they are to be supplied and corrected. But enough of these.
ISAAC THE JEW
BOOK OF FAITH.
ON THE HOLY TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD.
All things that exist are five: yet these are three, and two remain in division. Now these things which are three, according to human speech and according to the fact that they are three, are divided and are truly three: and they have within themselves something whereby they are not three, but one. Again, the two which are truly divided from the three, are divided by something, so that they are truly two: yet again by something they are not divided, so that they are one, not two. These two, divided from the three, just as these three are divided from the two, are divided by something, and by something are not divided. Therefore, in that which they are not divided, they are one: yet not one in such a way as those three superior things are one. However, all these five which are divided are three and two. But the two which are divided from the three are the divinity and its works, since, apart from the divinity and its works, there is nothing that is neither divinity nor work. C Therefore, the three which are divided from the two are these: God the Father, unbegotten, not from anything; and God the Son, Only-begotten, from something, that is, from the Father; the Holy Spirit, unbegotten from something, that is, from the Father. And these, which, while being three, are not one, are in this genus three, not one. Firstly, in the speech we use, and not in faith, the Father is unbegotten, not from anything, that is, without origin. That the Father is unbegotten, this he has in common, because the Father is not the only one who is unbegotten, since there are other unbegotten things, and there are other paternities; although he himself is the origin of the unbegotten and of the paternities, yet he is not nascibility. Therefore, that which is proper to God the Father, which is not found in another of those things which exist, except in him alone, is this: that he is the origin of all things without origin. Therefore, in that he alone is without origin, he is alone. Again, the second thing, which is mentioned according to human speech, but which in the property of his nature is not second, is the Only-begotten Son of God, not from himself, but from the Father, because he is the Only-begotten. D Therefore, that he is begotten is not his proper quality, because there are other begotten things, although those things which are begotten are not begotten in this way. Therefore, that which is proper to him, which he alone possesses, is this: that while all begotten things are made, he alone is begotten and not made. Therefore, in that he is begotten and not made, he is alone. Likewise the third, who is truly the third, not in order, in that he does not have that by nature so as to be third, is the Paraclete Spirit. Not because he is spirit is it proper to him alone that he is spirit, nor, because he is the Paraclete, does he have this name as solitary or proper, when by the interpretation of this word he has this in common with the Father and the Son, that he is a Comforter. Nor again, because he is unbegotten, is this proper to him, since the Father is also unbegotten, but it is proper to him because he is unbegotten from something, neither made nor begotten. Therefore, in that he is neither made nor begotten, but proceeds un-born from the Father, he is alone. In these three, therefore, these are the properties, because he is neither made, nor begotten, nor born, but is from something, that is, from the Father. Therefore, these two, the Son (not made, but begotten) and the Paraclete (not made, nor begotten, but from the Father), are not from anything except from something. Since, therefore, these three are truly three, having each their own properties, by the fact that the Father is neither made nor is from anything, and the Only-begotten is not made but is born from the Father, it is most aptly shown by this that they are not created things that are everlasting, since the Son is not made, nor the Paraclete, yet they are not from themselves, but from the Father. You see also that they are not three, because two are from one, but that the whole is one, which these two are, because they are neither from nothing, nor from elsewhere, but from the Father; according to the utterance of speech, therefore, they are understood to be of one nature. Not three as the Father, not three as the Son, nor again one as solitary; and they are not three, because they are one, and they are truly one because they are three. There follows concerning the five parts, the two divided above. But the second part, the only one which has division into two and is one, is the creation of the world. For this world is thus divided: one part which comes to be without birth, the other which comes to be and is born. This part of the world, which
A when newborn, is made by God. But flesh is a part of that part of the world, which, though born, is not; it is a third fullness when it lacks parts of the world, or has been made by birth, or by innascibility. It is certain, therefore, that it is divided into these two parts which were mentioned above, that is, into a soul which is born and made, and elements which are made and unbegotten: because the will of God generates the soul, and His power makes it, but the creature is created through power. Its generation, however, is not from the nature of God, but from His will. Creation, moreover, because it had not existed before, is why the elements are said to have been created by the power and will of God. And this will is not of nativity. For men alone are born into sons and become such, and receive the name of nativity. Thus both are created, but both are not born. Because it is peculiar for them to be born who are born into sons. But the rest are created, even if they themselves were not before. Therefore it becomes peculiar in these two, that one is born, even if both did not exist. These pledges, therefore, are of eternal things, which are from God and have always existed. For when man is called the Son of God, and at one time he did not exist, he himself is not the true Son, but is a pledge of Him. But He who always existed as the Son, and shall exist. So also the other part of the creation of the world, which we said was made and not born—even if it is also unbegotten, and did not exist before—is a pledge of Him, that is, the Paraclete, who is not born, and always is from the Father. Therefore, let the flesh be that which was created and not born, and let the soul be created and born into the image of God, though by the power of the resurrection they become united and inseparable: and thus they shall be one eternal thing in God, according to the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel: *As you are in me, Father, and I in you, that they also may be one in us* (a). And again He says: *Father, as we are one, so also they may be one in us* (b). Which, when He is greater, He is not greater except B by time, or measure, or honor. But when we believe that the Son was born of the Father beyond the ages and without time, how can He be lesser in time who is before times? Or how is He believed to be lesser in measure, who is inestimable, immense, and infinite? And thus He is not even lesser in honor, since He is the Son of God and God, because there is one name of God. But the Son cannot be said to be *like* the Father, because likeness refers to bodies in any species, either of color or of stature. The Son cannot properly be called *equal* to the Father, because equality or inequality is in the quantity of a measure. Therefore, whether equality or inequality, it does not fall into God, because God is incorporeal, infinite, incomprehensible, ineffable, immense. God cannot be contained in any place, even though He is everywhere and in all things, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles: *For in Him we live, and move, and have our being* (c). For although it is said that God is our God by nature, so that He sees all things, hears all things, and understands all things, because He Himself is the creator and founder of all things. And because the Son of God, our God, was born before eternal times, when, how, or where, cannot be said about Him. For when He has time, where designates place, how seems to express measure. But these three do not fall into God, because He is incorporeal. Therefore it is expedient to confess the Father as unbegotten, and the Son as begotten by the Father before eternal times: when, where, and how cannot be said, nor further scrutinized; because our mind, which is enclosed by the world, cannot investigate its maker and God. Neither can three omnipotences be said. There is one omnipotence of the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. For it is said that there is omnipotence because God made the world and all things that are in it by His power and virtue. Therefore all these things were made through the Son, sanctified by the Spirit the Paraclete. And therefore they cannot be called three omnipotents, because one does not operate without the other. For the Father effects all things He wills through the Son, and the omnipotence of the Father speaking is the omnipotence of the Son doing. And by this, the work of the Son is the work of the Father. And therefore He is to be confessed as coeternal with the Father, and the Holy Spirit as unbegotten from the unbegotten Father: that the Son is He who, to redeem the human race, fashioned for Himself from the substance of Mary herself [the body] in which He deigned to dwell; by whose passion also He redeemed us; that the Father is He whom John heard as a witness about the Lord: *This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: hear him* (d). That the Holy Spirit is He whom the Son promised would proceed from the Father: who also descended upon the apostles on the fiftieth day. And that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, whom we call the Paraclete. That the Son is not the Father, nor the Paraclete; that the Paraclete is not the Father, nor the Son. Because when the Son says: *When therefore that Paraclete shall come, whom I*