Help on an Advanced Search in the Church Fathers for a Specific Subject.

Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
This post has 5 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 28
philip wood | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Aug 7 2019 9:42 PM

Hello All

I have access to the relevant church fathers literature through logos.

Can someone advise me on how to do an advanced search in the church fathers on the specific topic of the definition of a divine person? For example, I expect the church fathers had at least the following definitions -

A divine person is -

1)The first subject of predication.

2) A substantial Relation.

3) A mode of the divine essence.

4) And others.

I suspect the fathers such as Nyssa, Basil and Augustine all had their own spins on the topic. 

A similar need for a search in the church fathers is also requested for the topic of why the Trinity has a male gender, rather than a female gender, or no gender at all.

Your help is much appreciated.

Philip Wood

Posts 28953
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 7 2019 10:53 PM

I doubt that such as search can be built but I would start with the Catholic Topical Index and see if I could find useful patterns in the instances listed there. This may also provide some starting points:

(i) The Patristic Era. 1 Clement (A.D. 96) underlines God’s omniscience: “All things are seen and heard by God” (1 Clem. 28). Clement of Rome similarly stresses God’s omnipresence: “Whither can any of us flee from his right hand?” (28), and quotes Ps. 139:7–10, “Whither shall I go … from your presence?”: God is gracious and merciful, but also holy (29). He resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (he cites James 4:6 and 1 Pet. 5:5). God is also Creator (33), who rejoices in his works. God’s omniscience also emerges in Polycarp (c. 69–c. 155), who speaks of “the all-seeing God” (Epistle of Polycarp 7). The Letter to Diognetus may be dated as early as 125, and speaks of God as “the Master and Maker of the Universe, who made all things and determined the proper place of each … slow to anger and true … he alone is good” (8.7). The letter exclaims: “O the overflowing kindness and love of God toward man!… O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable work of God!… One justifies the many that are sinners.… Look on him as Nurse, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, Mind, Light, Honor, Glory, Might, Life” (9.5–6). “God rules in heaven,” the writer adds, and we may begin to talk of the mysteries of God, and admire those who refuse to deny him (10.7). Athenagoras in his Plea Regarding Christians (c. 176) describes the contrasting view of God in Greek philosophers and poets, which amounts to words without deeds (5). The God of the Christians, however, can be “recognized from his works” (5). At least Sophocles and Plato agree with Christians that God is one, eternal, the Creator, and uncreated (6): “From the beginning there was one God who made this universe” (8). God is “the first and the last” (9); “we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable” (10). It is not “stupid” to say that he has a Son or sends the Holy Spirit (10). Athenagoras is interested in philosophical categories, but is not in debt to them. He marks the beginnings of Trinitarian theology.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 200) defended the apostolic faith against Gnosticism. On the doctrine of God, this often meant distinguishing apostolic faith from belief in emanations, or Plērōma. He cites one pair of silent Gnostic emanations; another pair consisting of the Father and the Other; another pair, of Logos and Zoe; and another pair, of Anthropos and Ecclesia (Against Heresies 1.11.1). Against Valentinus and Marcion, he argues that there is one God, “the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth … and there is nothing either above him or after him, influenced by no one except his own free will.… [He is] the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father” (2.1.1). The Gnostics’ belief in the Plērōma is self-contradictory (2.1.3). In particular, he attacks Marcion’s notion of two gods (2.1.4). God created the world. It was not created by angels nor by any other being (2.2.1–5). Irenaeus uses the phrase, later occurring in the creeds, “one God, the maker of heaven and earth” (2.9.1). Humankind is not omniscient, but God alone is omniscient: God is “all reason, all active spirit, all light … comprehending all things” (2.28.4, 5). God’s Holy Spirit inspired both the OT and the NT (3.6.1 and 4.32.1–2). God is eternal; one and the same God spoke through the OT and the NT (3.8.1 and 9.1–3). In Christ God engages with the world: he is “God with us” (3.19.3). Finally, Irenaeus concludes, “Communion with God is life and light” (4.27.2). This coheres with everything in our previous sections, but also shows Irenaeus’s special concern with the corrosive attacks of Gnosticism. Tertullian (c. 150–c. 225) similarly attacks Marcion. God is Creator of all things, “visible and invisible … animate and inanimate, vocal and mute, movable and stationary” (Against Marcion 1.6). He is one God, Creator and Judge (4.17); “He has no room for any diversity in his gods” (1.6). God is good, and not irrational, as Marcion seems to suggest (1.23). “God is eternal and rational” and “perfect” (1.24).
Clement of Alexandria is eager to find common ground with some philosophers. He argues, “God is invisible and beyond expression by words” (Stromata 5.12). In this context he cites Plato, to the effect that “it is difficult to discover the Father and Maker of this universe, and … to declare him,” and likewise cites the OT where Moses “entered into thick darkness, where God was.” He agrees with philosophers that knowledge of God is a gift of God (5.13). God is universal. He quotes Paul: “Is He God of the Jews only, and not also of the Greeks?” (5.14). Where Tertullian seeks to preserve the church from heresy, Clement goes as far as he can to win over the Greek world, and find common ground with it. The Greeks, he argues, have some knowledge of God (6.5). But “God is not a subject for demonstration”; he is “the Alpha and the Omega,” whom humans can truly know only through Christ (4.25).
Origen (c. 185–254), who was Clement’s successor, gives a systematic treatment of doctrine in De principiis, expounding a doctrine of God in 1.1. God is light (1 John 1:5); Spirit (John 4:24); “incomprehensible and incapable of being measured” (De principiis 1.1.1–5). God is “unspeakably and incalculably superior” to any earthly object (1.1.5). Divine Providence has “the plan of this whole world” (1.1.6). God is “the mind and source from which all intellectual nature or mind takes its beginning” (1.1.6). Clearly “the nature of God surpasses the nature of bodies.… God is invisible” (1.1.8): “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Moreover, “what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son” (1.1.8). God may be “ ‘seen’ by those who are pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8; 1.1.9).
God rightly bears the titles “omnipotent” and “almighty,” as well as “Father” (1.3.10). He has “power over all things,” and is eternal (1.3.10–11). Origen quotes 1 Corinthians to the effect that even Christ is subject to God (2.3.6), and God is both the God of the OT and “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2.4.1). He is revealed in Christ, who “is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15; 2.4.3). Origen adds: “In the consummation or end God is ‘all in all’ ” (3.6.1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). “All in all” means “in each individual person” (3.6.3). He explains to Celsus that such models as “hands of God” and “breath of God” are merely approximate metaphors (Against Celsus 4.35–38). Scripture teaches us that God is “a great Lord above all gods” (cf. Ps. 97:9; Against Celsus 8.3). It is often argued that in his desire to extol and honor God, Origen was guilty of “subordinationism.” G. L. Prestige, for example, claimed that in Origen the Logos is both uncreated and derivative from the Father (God in Patristic Thought [London: SPCK, 1952], 138). But sixty years later this is still open to debate. He does say that God is served through Word and Wisdom (Against Celsus 8.6), but Paul says as much, as well as offering at times a “high” Christology.
Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236) declares that God is One, and “Creator and Lord of all … alone in himself,” and that he willed to bring people and things into existence (Refutation of All Heresies 28). But he also says that Christ was “co-existent with his Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world” (Fragments, pt. 1; ANF 5:167). There appears to be no systematic exposition of the doctrine of God in Hippolytus, and it is hazardous to draw too precise an inference from his text. Novatian, however, produced a treatise on the Trinity (c. 250). God, he declares, “included all things … (his) perfect greatness and power, pervading all things and moving all things, and giving life to all things” (On the Trinity 2). It seems that God is both transcendent and immanent. God “contains all things,” but there is “nothing beyond himself” (2). He is eternal, without beginning, and “always unbounded, because nothing is greater than he; he is eternal, because nothing is more ancient than he” (2). God has “all might … all power … all riches … all wisdom … all goodness” (2). Novatian quotes Isa. 40:22,

He … sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers (3),

and Isa. 45:22, “I am God, and there is no other.” God is “perfect, both Parent and Judge” (On the Trinity 4). Novatian quotes, “I am God, I change not” (cf. Mal. 3:6), which in context denotes his stability and faithfulness, although Novatian hints at “immutability” (4). He rejects any anthropomorphic interpretation of God’s wrath (5). A full doctrine of God is expounded, with reference to Scripture, in On the Trinity 1–9. Cyprian (d. 258) offers less explicit material on the doctrine of God.
By 325 the ante-Nicene Fathers had firmly established the confession of God in the Nicene Creed. The Creed of Jerusalem (348) followed Nicaea, and was based on the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. These began: “We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” The Creed of Constantinople (381) virtually followed the same words: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth (hena Theon Patera, pantokratora), of all things visible and invisible” (W. H. C. Frend, ed., Creeds, Councils, and Controversies [London: SPCK, 1989], 21, 114). The Councils of Ephesus (449) and Chalcedon (451) followed the same wording (345–65). The controversies that occurred between the death of Origen and the Council of Constantinople concerned Christology rather than the doctrine of God as such. Dionysius of Alexandria followed Origen’s Trinitarian theology. He condemned Sabellianism, or modalism, which tended to fuse together the persons of the Trinity as three aspects or modes of the one Godhead, although it was alleged that he veered toward subordinationism or potential Arianism. Bishops at Antioch also condemned Paul of Samosata in 268 for teaching a Christology that verged on adoptionism.
Arius (c. 250–336), born in Libya, became bishop of Alexandria but was then excommunicated and, under the leadership of Athanasius, was condemned in 325. Arius taught subordinationism, and that Jesus Christ, as God the Son, was “younger” than God the Father. Rowan Williams notes the popular image of the heresy of Arianism from Newman and Harnack onward. Prestige regarded it as crypto-pagan; Newman regarded Arius as “other” than Christian; Harnack saw Arius as influenced by Aristotle’s rationalism. H. M. Gwatkin saw Arianism as having an affinity with Deism, and also deficient in understanding metaphor, and misunderstanding God’s relation to creatures and the world (Williams, Arius [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, 2001], 2–25). But Williams argues that these critics too readily understood the church of the early fourth century as doctrinally well defined, with sharp boundaries, and Arianism as an equally bounded subsect. The Arian struggle, Williams argues, emerges from the tension between the “academic” explorers and a supposedly “Catholic” system (84–88). The precedent for Arius was Origen and his supposed “school.” In practice Arius held a high theology of God: God alone has aseity, is immaterial and unbegotten (agennētos), without plurality or emanation; he is free, rational, and purposive. He initiated creative processes by bringing the Son into being, so there is a sense in which he is “prior” to the Son. But the Son is not just “one among others” (98). Thus there was a time when God was not a “Father,” for the Son is not eternal (100). Nevertheless, Williams concludes, we must not trace a direct line from Origen to Arius (147). The point is that the debate was far more complex and blurred than many have assumed. Eusebius of Caesarea showed sympathy with Arius and his aims. He actually denies that the Father and the Son coexist eternally (167–74). Indeed, Williams concludes, “Arius was a committed theological conservative” (175). Arius’s ultimate aim was that “no aspect of the created order” should “enter into the definition of God” (231). Hence, although popularly Arius is understood in the context of Christology, his prime concern was to preserve the transcendence and uniqueness of God.
Arius’s formulations and explorations, however, provoked Athanasius to stress the difference in kind between the created order and what was not created. The Son and the Holy Spirit alone belonged to the uncreated order of Being: the Son was “begotten, not made,” and the Holy Spirit “proceeds” or comes forth from God. Indeed, whereas the Creed of Jerusalem (348) simply refers to the Son of God as the “only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father as true God before all ages,” the Creed of Constantinople (381) has “the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made (gennēthenta ou poiēthenta), of one substance with the Father (homoousion tō Patri, of one being with the Father)” (Creeds, Councils, 114). It was Athanasius together with Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory, and others who explicitly formulated a doctrine of God as Trinity, in reaction partly against Arius, and partly against those who explicitly denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit (see Holy Spirit: The Spirit in Historical Theology).
Among the Eastern Fathers, Eusebius (260–337) seeks to exclude modalism or Sabellianism from orthodox catholic faith. God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not merely express himself as three “modes” of being or aspects. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–387) has a biblical, pastoral, and practical approach. He writes, “Let us return to the Scriptures” (Catechetical Lectures 16.11). He sees the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being one in will and Being, but as having distinct and separate roles in relation to the church and the world. He quotes Paul in 1 Cor. 12:4–6: “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.”
In response to challenges to the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Athanasius argues that “the whole Triad is God” (Epistle to Serapion 1.17). Neither Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit is a ktisma, a created being or creature. Like Cyril, he quotes 1 Cor. 12:4–6, and engages in careful exegesis. Athanasius contributed decisively to the theology of God. First, he stressed that the Son was true God, but within a monotheistic framework; that is, he articulated more clearly than before that God is God as Holy Trinity. Second, he elaborated the notion that God created the universe “from nothing” (ex nihilo), and insisted on the ontological distinction between the uncreated and created order of Being. Third, he asserted clearly the goodness of matter as God’s creation, in an era when monasticism was beginning to invite retreat from the world. He prepared the way for the adoption of the homoousios (of the same being) clause in the Council of Constantinople, which was sometimes termed Christ’s “consubstantiality” with the Father, especially after 360 (for more detail, see Holy Spirit: The Spirit in Historical Theology).
The three Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379), his friend Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330–390), and his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330–395), carried the debate further. Basil succeeded Eusebius as bishop of Caesarea, and struggled against Eunomius, who now led the Arians, and against the Pneumatomachi, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He wrote Against Eunomius (three books) and the treatise On the Holy Spirit. He sought to persuade the “semi-Arians” that their proposed creedal clause “of like being” (homoiousios) amounted to the homoousios phrasing of the Council of Constantinople. He argued that God created the heavens and the earth (Hexaemeron 1.1–9). It is clear that for Basil God is not “solitary” but Trinitarian. His first argument in On the Holy Spirit is against those who deny that Christ is “with” the Father (6.13). Basil insists that worship and glory should be ascribed to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and ranked together as one in dignity and glory. In On the Holy Spirit 6–8 he argues for the coequality of the three persons of the Trinity. “Our Lord … cojoins the Spirit with the Father and Himself” in baptism (10.24). In the latter part of the treatise he stresses their coequality, deity, and coglorification (17–22). The three persons are “inseparable” in their relations to humankind (16.37–38).
Gregory of Nazianzus similarly stresses the unity of the persons as one Godhead. “To us there is one God, for the Godhead is One … though we believe in three Persons” (On the Holy Spirit 14); we are not “tritheists” (17). To speak of “three” has nothing to do with quantity (18), as in “three Peters or three Johns” (19). Gregory of Nyssa is even more detailed and emphatic on this point. He expounds it further in his work On “Not Three Gods.” In linguistic terms “three” has a quantitative function only if it is applied to created objects that can be counted or enumerated. It is logical nonsense to apply the term in the same way to God. It implies only distinction, quality, or function in an analogical way. He concludes, “The activity of the Father, the Son and the Spirit is one” (Gregory, On the Trinity 6). To speak of “one” in activity is not philosophical or metaphysical. The Son and the Spirit are “joined to the Father by His uncreatedness” (Gregory, Against Eunomius 1.22). Gregory of Nyssa profoundly influenced the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Meanwhile in the Western Church, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–368) drew partly on Tertullian and Origen, but, like Athanasius, insisted, against Arius, that the Father and the Son were both “of the same being” (homoousion), although he allowed also “of like being” (homoiousion). In 362 he wrote On the Trinity (twelve books). In Latin terminology, he argues that God the Father and God the Son are “one” (unus): “no difference is revealed to sever them; their unity [does] not … contradict their distinct existence (On the Trinity 7.2). We confess “One God from whom are all things” (ultimate sense) and “one Christ our Lord, through whom are all things” (mediate source); “One Source of all, One Agent” (4.6). To be more specific, God, or the persons of the Trinity, is “one in nature, honour, power” (8.19). Hilary appeals to John 15:26 and other verses (8.2). Some have called him the “Athanasius of the West.”
Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397) also emphasizes the oneness of God as Trinity. The OT and NT witness to the same God. He declares, “The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one nature (naturae) and one knowledge” (On the Spirit 2.11). Moreover, their unity is “eternal” (sempiternae; 2.12). In 1 Cor. 12:4–7 the Trinity is “not separated” (2.12). The Holy Spirit “is of one will and operation with God the Father” (2.12). Again in book 3 Ambrose speaks of the “inseparability” of the divine nature (3.6, 7).
Augustine (354–430) produced a vast literature of theological works. On the Trinity he tends to speak of God as a “mind,” or a thinking, willing, purposive self. He accepts that “the Holy Spirit is not inferior to the Father and Son”; the Trinity is “consubstantial and co-eternal” (On Faith and the Creed 9.16). But “The Trinity is One God … as it is written, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God’ (Dt. 6:4)” (9.16). Again, like Hilary, he ascribes Rom. 11:36 to the Trinity: “Of him and in him and through him are all things” (9.16). Unlike some of his predecessors, Augustine believes that the word “person” does not advance our understanding of the Trinity, especially since it too easily suggests tritheism. Augustine writes, “Human language labours altogether with great poverty of speech. The answer … three ‘persons’ is given not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left unspoken” (On the Trinity 5.9). “The Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent” (5.11). But the operative term is not “in the way of substance” (5.11.12; similarly 7.5.10). Humankind somehow still bears the image of God (7.6.12). Hence, “man might be the image of the Trinity: not equal to the Trinity … but approaching it” (7.6.12). Thus “love and mind are not two spirits but one spirit; nor yet two essences, but one” (9.2.2). The loving mind also presupposes self-knowledge (9.3.3). Hence the three are one: the mind, the knowledge of it, and love. The Trinity is the God who loves, and his self-conscious knowledge of this. But it would be absurd to suggest that this represents three beings or substances. He declares, “There remains a trinity: mind, love and knowledge … mutually all in all” (9.5.8), Augustine then reaches his classic formulation. He declares, “These three, memory, understanding, and will, are not three lives, but one life, not three minds, but one mind … one substance” (10.11.18).
Whether this simplifies or obscures the matter has been debated over the centuries. As in some other areas, there are insights in Augustine, but Athanasius, Hilary, and the Cappadocian Fathers offer complementary insights. We find perhaps the closest link between Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers in the Cappadocian emphasis on perichoresis, or mutual interpenetration between the persons of the Trinity as one God, which Moltmann has recently stressed. We have to wait until the late twentieth and the twenty-first century, however, for a return to a “narrative” approach to the Trinity, which some find more helpful.

Anthony C. Thiselton, “God, Trinity,” The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 365–372.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 28
philip wood | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2019 3:44 PM

Thank you for the help.


Posts 25660
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2019 3:51 PM

philip wood:
A similar need for a search in the church fathers is also requested for the topic of why the Trinity has a male gender, rather than a female gender, or no gender at all.

You can search a collection of the church fathers (use the rule series:"Early Church") for male,masculine NEAR gender

No strict need to use a member of the trinity as a gender discussion will often be on this topic.


Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 28
philip wood | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Aug 8 2019 9:59 PM

I've found Basils definition of a divine person -

. Whatever your thought suggests to you as to the mode of the existence of the Father, you will think also in the case of the Son, and in like manner too of the Holy Ghost....

St. Basil the Great, Letter XXXVIII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume VIII, p. 137-138

Posts 13397
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2019 7:21 AM

I don't think there's one single search for this. You'll have to experiment a bit. Gerald Bray's We Believe in One God will probably help you, as might the entry on 'God' in the Encyclopaedia of Ancient Christianity.

What will be crucial for your searching is a collection of the Church Fathers. I have one here that I've made public:

It takes a fairly broad definition of Fathers, covering not just ancient Christianity, but a good deal of the medieval period.

Alternatively, you could copy and paste this rule:

lang:english AND ({Series "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture", "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Rev.)", "Ancient Christian Devotional", "Ancient Christian Doctrine", "Ancient Christian Texts", "Ancient Christian Writers","Ante-Nicene Christian Library","The Apostolic Fathers","Catena Aurea","The Church’s Bible","The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins","Corpus Ignatianum","Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John","Early Christian Literature Primers","Early Church Classics","Early Church Fathers (Protestant Edition)","Early Church Fathers (Catholic Edition)","The Fathers for English Readers","The Fathers of the Church","The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians of the First Six Centuries of the Christian Era","A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church","Life and Works of Saint Bernard","Popular Patristics Series","Rhythms of St. Ephrem the Syrian","S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan","Saint Michael the Archangel: Three Encomiums","The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria","Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts","Translations of Christian Literature: Series II: Latin Texts","Translations of Christian Literature. Series III, Liturgical Texts","Translations of Christian Literature: Series IV: Oriental Texts"} OR {Author "Abba Theodosius of Alexandria","Ambrose of Milan","Ambrosiaster","Andrew of Caesarea","Andrew of Crete","Apringius of Beja","Arnobius","Athanasius of Alexandria","Athenagoras","Augustine of Hippo","Barnabas","Barnard, Leslie William","Barsanuphius","Basil of Caesarea","Bede","Bernard of Clairvaux","Braulio of Saragossa","Caesarius of Arles","Cassiodorus","Clement of Alexandria","Clement of Rome","Cyprian of Carthage","Cyril of Alexandria","Cyril of Jerusalem","Didymus the Blind","Egeria","Ennodius","Ephrem the Syrian","Epiphanius of Cyprus","Eugippius","Eusebius of Caesarea","Eustathius of Trake","Evagrius Ponticus","Firmicus Maternus","Fructuosus of Braga","Fulgentius","Germanus of Constantinople","Gregory Nazianzen","Gregory of Nyssa","Gregory Thaumaturgus","Gregory the Great","Hermas","Hilary of Arles","Hilary of Poitiers","Hippolytus of Rome","Ignatius of Antioch","Irenaeus of Lyons","Isaac of Nineveh","Isidore of Seville","Jacob of Serug","Jerome","John","John Cassian","John Chrysostom","John Damascene","John of Old Lavra","John of Thessalonica","Julian of Toledo","Julianus Pomerius","Justin Martyr","Lactantius","Leander of Seville","Leo the Great","Macarius the Great","Mark the Monk","Martin of Braga","Martin of Tours","Maximus of Constantinople","Maximus of Turin","Maximus the Confessor","Melito of Sardis","Methodius of Olympus","Minucius Felix","Modestus of Jerusalem","Niceta of Remesiana","Novatian","Oecumenius","Origen","Orosius of Braga","Pacian of Barcelona","Palladius","Pamphilus of Caesarea","Papias","Paschasius of Dumium","Paulinus","Paulinus of Nola","Peter Chrysologus","Philotheus Bryennios","Polycarp of Smyrna","Pontius","Possidius","Prosper of Aquitaine","Prudentius","Quodvultdeus of Carthage","Rufinus of Aquileia","Saint Patrick","Salvian","Scythian Monks","Severian of Gabala","Severus of Antioch","Sulpicius Severus","Symeon","Tertullian","Theodore of Mopsuestia","Theodore the Studite","Theodoret of Cyrus","Theoteknos of Livias","Thomas Aquinas","Tyconius of Carthage","Valerian","Victorinus of Pettau","Victorinus, Marius","Vincent of Lérins"})

Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS