Saint Quintianus, Bishop of Asculum

^A For your exposition brings a grave innovation against them into the Catholic Church. And indeed you did not reject it, although many bishops warned you, especially the most holy archbishop Felix, to turn away from it and to be a direct and orthodox follower of saving preaching: but you were certainly an affecter of heresies, and you hid the talent of divine doctrine in the earth, and you did not rather choose to set it upon the table, to wit, to sow sound doctrine in the hearts of ^B men; but on the contrary you sowed tares. And who will still endure you, perverting the Gospel of Christ? You do not preach one Son in two natures, our Lord Jesus Christ, and him crucified; but you say the strong God, the immortal God, that is, the one substance of the Trinity, was crucified: and not only so, but you say there is one nature of God the Word and of the flesh. And if there is one nature of God the Word and of the flesh, and moreover one nature of God the Father and of the Word, why is the nature of the Father and of the body and of the Word not the same single nature? But if there is not one nature of God the Father, and of human flesh, and of the Word, tell me how there is one nature of the Word and of the flesh? For how are the created and the uncreated one nature? But if this is impossible, how are the flesh and the uncreated Word one nature, and not two changed [together]? But if Christ is of one nature, and not two, why do you not call Christ created, like Arius, or uncreated, like Manichaeus? Where then is the nature of Christ’s temporal generation, and the eternal ^C generation of his divinity? Where is that saying: "Today I have begotten thee"? And that: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and for ever"? And how do you also say: before the union of God the Word and the flesh, there were two, or even that there was a union according to subsistence out of the Virgin? For if the flesh of Christ exists before Mary, according to the impious doctrine of Valentinus, how were there two natures before Mary? And whose expression is this—if not of Eutyches, or rather Alyches—to say that out of two there was one nature made? But if you hold the same opinions as he does, how do you reject him, while receiving his most wicked innovations? For if in truth this were done, you would certainly have accepted the holy fathers who were at Chalcedon against him. Tell me, however, how the Father and the Son ^D and the Holy Spirit is called the Trinity, being the one and only God, if you do not accept the saying that there are two natures in one Son? And if the Trinity is one God, how should God, and our body united to him, not be called one Son in two natures? But if God the Word and the flesh are one nature, either the Word has been changed, or the flesh. And if the flesh has been changed, it has become the Word, and will no longer be flesh. But if to these no change has happened, how are there not two natures in Christ? For flesh is flesh, although it is God’s flesh; and the Word is the Word, although he assumed our own.

no change has occurred, how can there not be two natures in Christ? For the flesh is flesh, even if it is God’s flesh; and the Word is the Word, even if He has taken on our assumption. But if He was changed, ^A how is the flesh not consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, even as the Word is? And if the flesh is of a different substance from the Father, inasmuch as it is recent while the Father is timeless, how is the Word not also recent? For you affirm that there is one nature of the flesh and of the Word of God, and you also affirm Him to be of a different substance from the Father. But if the nature of the Word of God and the nature of the flesh are not the same, how are they not two, the flesh and the Word? And if the whole Godhead has become flesh, how did the Word remain what He was? And how, since He was ^B inalterably incarnate, is Christ not in two natures? How did the Word of God, having been incarnate, remain what He was? And if the Word of God is passible, while the Father is impassible, how is God one and alone? And how, moreover, is there one nature for these? And if the Trinity is impassible, how did the Word of God suffer for us? And if He did not suffer, how did the other nature, the flesh, not suffer? And if everything that suffers is created, how is the Word of God not created, since He suffers in the flesh? And if God suffers in the flesh, how does He not suffer in His Godhead? And if He does not suffer in His Godhead, in what way is it that He suffers in the flesh? But if He suffers in the flesh, how does God not suffer in Himself? If it is the same thing to say "God suffered in the flesh" and "Christ suffered in the flesh," how will it not be the same thing to say "The Divine Spirit suffers in the flesh," since God is Spirit? If it is not the same thing to say "God suffered in the flesh" and "Christ suffered in the flesh," how is it possible for the Word of God to be more closely identified with the flesh than the Father is identified with the things that belong to the Word of God? And how, if the Word of God suffers in the flesh by association, will the Father not also be the sufferer in the Word of God by association? And if the Word of God died in the flesh, how is He consubstantial with the Father in immortality? For He who died for us is not immortal; for He died according to the Scriptures. And if one of the Trinity died, the Trinity was at some point a duality. And if the Trinity never became a duality, how did one of the Trinity die? If, indeed, the other nature of the Word of God, such as the nature of men, did not die. And if the trisagion voice, the Trinity, does not subsist, it is clear that you are saying the Trinity is of one substance. And how are you not shown to be a Sabellian? And if one nature of the trisagion voice subsists in three hypostases, how do you not say that the Trinity was crucified, and how do you not say that you yourself are without God, ^D just like the Marcionites?

ST. QUINTIANUS'S XII ANATHEMAS.

I. Therefore, whoever says one nature of the Word of God and of the flesh, and not two united and indivisible ones, let him be anathema.

II. And if anyone confuses the two natures of Christ, saying that God suffered in the flesh and not that Christ suffered in the flesh, according to the Apostle, let him be anathema.

^A

III. If anyone says that the impassible and immortal God the Word was turned into suffering and death, and does not attribute this passion to his flesh, let him be deposed.

IV. If anyone says that the trisagion, that is, "thrice holy," refers to the divinity crucified for us, and not to our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, let him be deposed.

V. If anyone, after the phrase "thrice holy," says that God was crucified for us, and not rather the one Son, who is hymned in the midst of the thrice-holy phrase, let him be deposed.

VI. If anyone says that it was a man who for our sake was crucified, or God, by dividing the natures and not joining them in his crucifixion, let him be deposed.

VII. If anyone says he was a mere man, as did Paul of Samosata or Photinus, ^B let him be anathema.

VIII. If anyone speaks of two persons or substances, and not rather of two natures concurring in one person and one subsistence, let him be deposed.

IX. If anyone says that the flesh of the Lord is of a different substance from our flesh, and not rather consubstantial with us, without sin, let him be deposed.

X. If anyone says he was a god-man, and not rather God and man, let him be deposed.

XI. If anyone says the Word of the Father is a creature, and not rather his flesh; and if anyone says the flesh of the Lord is consubstantial with God and the Father, and not rather God the Word, let him be deposed.

XII. If anyone says that our Lord Jesus Christ was without a mind and soul, and that he had divinity in place of a soul, and that for this reason God the Word is said to have suffered in the flesh, and does not rather say that God the Word took on a mind with a rational soul, and that the same one is to be called impassible in his divinity but passible in his humanity, let him be deposed. ^C

I send you these twelve depositions, so that, terrified by these judgments, you might turn away from all your wicked novelty; knowing that one ought to follow the revelation given to the most holy Proclus, bishop of the Church of Constantinople: how, when the city itself was reeling under an earthquake and everyone was crying out with lamentations, he ran out into the field with the whole population; and how a child was suddenly raised into the air by some power, and was commanded to teach the trisagion for the litany and to say: "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us"; and he was ordered to announce these things to the bishop. And so, standing for three hours in the tribunal at the feet of the bishop himself, he recounted these things. And thus, after they had performed the litanies, the earthquake ceased. So you, too, perform litanies, and the wrath which is to be brought against you will cease. If not, the deposition from our father Felix will come upon you. May God preserve the world from scandals. To whom be glory now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen. ^D

ANNO DOMINI CDXCI.

CANDIDUS ISAURUS, CHRISTIAN WRITER.

NOTITIA.

Candidus Isaurus, a Christian writer favoring the Council of Chalcedon, wrote during the reign of Anastasius, as it appears, in a labored style—as Photius argues—three books of History from the beginnings of Leo the Thracian ^A to the death of Zeno the Isaurian ^B. The same Photius, in codex 79, where he reviews the argument of the work, says the following regarding the author, who was a Christian: "He is from the fatherland of Isauria, as he himself says, of the Rugged [Isauria], and he held the occupation of an under-secretary (notarius or tabularius) to those who wielded the greatest power among the Isaurians." He was a Christian in his religion and orthodox; for he crowns the Fourth Council ^C with praises, and he justly attacks those who were making innovations against it. We yearn for these three books of Histories, besides the excerpts preserved by Photius in the cited codex, which Philipp Labbe published in volume I of the *Scriptor Historiam Byz.* after the excerpts on embassies with his own notes, Paris, 1648, folio. Suidas has a fragment from Candidus the historian under *Xeirizo*, where for *Kadros historiographos*, which Simler also included in his *Bibl.* and Mallincrotus in his *Paralipomena on Greek Historians* from a corrupted place in Suidas, Küster, and before him Reinesius (III, 11, *Var. Lect.*, p. 366) and Valesius (p. 74 to Evagrius II, 16), noted that one ought to read *Kandidios*. (a) Promoted to emperor in A.D. 457. (b) In the year 491.

EXCERPTS FROM THE HISTORY OF CANDIDUS THE ISAURIAN.

[17] Three books of the history of Candidus have been read. He begins the history from the appointment of Leo ^D, who was from Dacia in Illyria, when he 1 directed the military regiment and was the leader of the troops in Selymbria, and [began] the rule…

PHILIPPI LABBEI NOTÆ.