Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Philoxenus, Ascetic Discourses (1894) pp.xxxi-xlviii. Various Creeds by Philoxenus, Against Nestorius, Mani, Marcion, etc.

Note to the online text: This portion of the introduction has required some formatting changes.  Budge has for some reason embedded the translations in his introduction, without headings, and placed the Syriac text elsewhere in the volume.  He has not translated 'Twelve Chapters against those  who maintain two natures in Christ, and one person' (Brit. Mus. Ms. Add. 14,597, fol. 91a ff).  I have placed the headings of the Syriac section over each document by Philoxenus, as best I could (the reference footnotes are clearly in error in some places) and Budge's text in italics.


Apart from the evidence which may be derived from the great work of Philoxenus upon the subject of how "one Person of the Holy Trinity became incarnate and suffered for us"----a work which supplies us with the reasons for the faith which he held, we are able to form a tolerably exact opinion of what he believed in respect of the Trinity from two short but remarkable tracts of which copies have come down to us; in the first he states definitely what reply a man is to make when questioned concerning his belief 1, and in the second he anathematizes the Council of Chalcedon and the creed promulgated thereby 2

The first document reads: ----


I believe in a Trinity, a Trinity which can neither be reduced nor diminished to Two [Persons], nor added unto so that it becometh Four [Persons]. Nothing from the fulness thereof can be diminished, neither can it receive any other person from without. Everything which is outside this Trinity hath been created, but whatsoever is contained therein hath been from everlasting. And it is adorable; nothing outside of it is to be worshipped, and within it there is nothing which |xxxii worshippeth. Outside of it there is no other God at all, neither inside of it is there a man that hath been made. It diminisheth not in its Person, neither doth it add thereunto. In it, which hath existed for ever, there never began [to exist] a Person, and there doth not pass away therefrom a Person who hath come to an end.

Now therefore, one of the Persons of this Trinity came down by the mystery of depletion, and of the Holy Virgin became man. Inasmuch as He was God, His nature was not changed in its being, and no addition to His Person took place, but He remained the Only-begotten, even after He had taken upon himself a body. For the act of coming into being did not introduce into the Only-begotten another first-born, but shewed that the firstborn of the Virgin was the Only-begotten of the Father; for He, Who was the Only-begotten through His birth from the Eternal, Himself became the firstborn by His birth of the Virgin, And since God the Word, Who is of the Virgin, is the Only-begotten, and since because He became man of the Virgin He is the firstborn, the Only-begotten is the firstborn, and the firstborn is the Only-begotten. And being Himself God, He is Son of God [and] Son of man; and Son of man [and Son of] God; Son of the Eternal [and] Son of the Virgin; Son of the Virgin [and] Son of the Eternal; the concealed revealed, and the revealed concealed; a spiritual corporeal Being, and a corporeal spiritual Being; a finite infinity; Who was upon the throne and was in the womb; Who was in the womb and was upon the throne; Son of God Son of man; Son of man Son of God; the visible invisible; the concealed |xxxiii and invisible visible; the passible impassible; the impassible passible ; the dead living, and the living dead ; Who being in heaven was in Sheol, and Who being in Sheol was in heaven. The Only-begotten is One Who hath no number among those who belong to heaven or among those who belong to earth, for the attributes of the Only-begotten belong to the Only-begotten, and not unto various others, as those who are in error say. For do not exalted things belong to the exalted? and lowly things to the humble? and divine qualities to God? and human attributes to man? But to the exalted one who hath been abased belong lowly things; and of the God Who became man we must believe human things; of the hidden One who became revealed must we believe all contemptible things ; and to the infinite God Who of His own will became mortal man, and Who yet remained immortal God in His nature, belong suffering and death. One of the Trinity became the Only-begotten of the Father, the Word God became the Son of man by the Virgin by taking upon Himself the body of our Nature, the nature of the Word remaining unchanged, and He Himself, One God, Who was of God, suffered and died for us. And because He became the Son of Man, and remained [so] in His life and also in His death even as He continued in His unchanging and eternal Being, He was also man in His Being.

The second document reads:----

A CONFESSION OF FAITH (Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 14,529, fol. 68a)

I. We anathematize the Council of Chalcedon 3 |xxxiv because it anathematized the true Council 4 of three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. 

II. We anathematize the Council of Chalcedon because it hath acted hypocritically, and because it hath exceeded all men in wickedness----the ancients, those who come next, and those who have been in these last days; the ancients with Cyril 5 in Ephesus, those who come next with Dioscorus 6 in Ephesus,7 and those who have been in these last days in Chalcedon.

III. And we anathematize it also because it testified concerning itself and said that the canon of the Fathers commanded that anathema should be laid upon everyone who composed another faith.

IV. And we anathematize the Council of Chalcedon also because it anathematized Nestorius, although agreeing with him and with his doctrine.

V. And we anathematize the Council of Chalcedon also because it received Leo 8 the wicked, of Rome, and because it anathematized Dioscorus the confessor of the orthodox faith, who had anathematized Leo the wicked,9 and would not agree with him. |xxxv 

VI. And we anathematize the Council of Chalcedon also because it received Ibas 10 and Theodoret 11 as orthodox.

VII. And we anathematize the Council of Chalcedon also because it renewed the wicked tract and called it the true belief.

VIII. And we anathematize the Council of Chalcedon also because it distinguisheth in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, natures, and attributes, and functions, and celestial and terrestrial qualities, and Divine and human |xxxvi properties. And it considereth Him [to be] Two, and it introduceth an idea of Four, and it worshippeth an ordinary man, and in every particular it findeth Him to be a creature, even as do the Jews and heathen, and it agreeth with the wicked Nestorius who is accursed and doomed to perdition. For all these and for many other similar reasons we have anathematized and we will [always] anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. 

IX. And it shall be anathematized, and heaven, and earth, and all the Church which hath been redeemed by the Blood and Resurrection of God shall say X. that there shall be a curse upon the Council of Chalcedon, and upon every one who hath agreed or agreeth therewith----except he hath already repented, or shall repent----for ever, Amen. Now the wicked Council of Chalcedon met in the days of the heathen Emperor Marcian, in the year seven hundred and sixty-three (A. D. 451).

To those who "divide our Lord" Philoxenus propounded the ten following questions 12:----

AGAINST THOSE WHO DIVIDE OUR LORD (Brit. Mus. Ms. Add. 14,597, fol. 105b).

I. If it be a demonstrable thing that Christ hath two natures, to which of them did the Virgin give birth?

II. If the Son Who was born of the Virgin was called 'Emmanuel', which of the two natures carried off that name?

III. If two natures be defined in Christ, which of the two did the Magi worship?  |xxxvii 

IV. When, the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the Jordan which nature received Him? 

V. Saint Paul said, 'The weakness of God is stronger than men', and if Christ hath two natures what , weakness did God acquire?

VI. If the Cross of our Redeemer be the cleansing of our sins, and our redemption from death----that is, if we ascribe these things to the human nature of Christ----how can Isaiah be right in saying, 'Not a messenger, and not an angel, but the Lord Himself hath redeemed us'?

VII. When God said, 'This is My beloved Son', which nature did He indicate as being that upon which it is right for us to call?

VIII. When Christ took Peter, and James, and John up into a mountain and was transfigured before their eyes, which nature appeared in this glory?

IX. When the only son of the widow died and was taken to burial, which nature of Christ raised him to life again?

X. If He Who was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate is to be worshipped rightly, not only by us, but also by the celestial hosts, doth He not receive this worship as God?

And of his uncompromising opposition to Nestorius and his followers the following brief extracts from a short tract of Philoxenus supply evidence.13

AGAINST EVERY NESTORIAN (Brit. Mus. Ms. Add. 14, 529, fol. 66b)

I. We should anathematize Nestorius, and his doctrine, and his books, and everything which hath been composed by him, and every person who hath been or is of his opinions.  |xxxviii 

II. We should anathematize the book of the heretics his children, and those who hold the same opinion as Nestorius and Diodorus 14 who became Bishop of Tarsus. Now Diodorus was originally a Macedonian,15 but when he had embraced the true faith and had come into the orthodox Church, he fell into the heresy of Paul of Samosata16.

III. And we should anathematize Diodorus who became a disciple of this man, and also Theodoret who became Bishop of Cyrrhus.

IV. We should accept the Henoticon which expelled all the additions and novelties which arose against the faith of the three hundred and eighteen and of the one hundred and fifty Fathers 17.

V. We should accept the Twelve Chapters which Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote against all the blasphemies of Nestorius, and which are also |xxxix written in the Henoticon; and we should anathematize every one who agreeth with them, and also every solution of them [written by] the heretics.

VI. We should anathematize every one who would divide One Christ into two natures.

VII. We should not mingle with heretics by any manner of means, by communion, or by the desire for salutation, or by the gifts which the churches are wont to make to each other, until we have truly anathematized by the Book all their doctrine, and all the works which have been made by man thereupon 18.

In another tract 19, which is divided into twenty short chapters, Philoxenus summarizes his objections to the Nestorian doctrines, the following being the chief points of dispute:----

AGAINST NESTORIUS (Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 14, 597, fol. 98b ff).

I. If God the Word be One, and His Nature [One], and no other God and no other Nature exist, why when thou comest to the word 'God' dost thou say, 'One God Who hath put on a body'? and when thou comest to the word 'natures' dost |xl not say, 'One Nature Who hath put on a body' instead of 'two natures'?

II. If God Who hath put on a body be One, His Person Who hath put on the body is also One; and if the Person of the Word Who hath put on a body be One, the Nature of the Word Who hath put on a body must also be One. Now if the Nature of the Word Who hath put on the body be One, the Word then is not two Natures, but One Nature Who hath put on a body. If He is not One Nature Who hath put on a body, neither is He One Person Who hath put on a body; and if He is not One Person of the Word Who hath put on a body, neither is He God the Word Who hath put on a body.

III. If God the Word became man in His own Person, He also became man in His Nature; and His Nature Who became man is One.

IV. If His own flesh, [that is] the Word, is not like unto all [other] created things, but it existeth in its own Person, then it must exist in its own Nature; and if in its own Nature, no other natural thing can be reckoned [with] His flesh, but the Nature of the Word which is incarnate is One.

V. If two natures of Christ exist, a Divine Nature, and a human nature, there should not be one worship for both. For if the human nature be accounted to be outside the Divine Nature, when thou worshippest the Divine Nature thou dost not worship the human nature, and if thou dost not worship it, it must be another thing, and if it be another thing it must be a created thing.

VI. If Christ be two natures then both must be |xli composite. And if composite, then simple ; and if simple, then incarnate; and if incarnate, then one is in-carnate, and the other simple. What then are they?

VII. If the Word, having become incarnate, be two Natures, the Word having become incarnate must also be two Persons; but if the Person of the incarnate Word be One, the Nature of the incarnate Word must also be One, because the Person of the Word is not inferior to His Nature, for as the Nature of the Word is Godhead, even so also is the Person of the Word Godhead.

VIII. If there be a Nature Who hath individual attributes, which the Person thereof hath not, or if there be a Person Who hath individual attributes, which His Nature hath not, then the attributes of the Nature belong to His Person, and the attributes of the Person belong to His Nature. If a Person existed Whose attributes did not belong to His nature, then His Nature could not exist; and again if a Nature existed Whose attributes did not belong to His Person, then His Person could not exist. If the attributes of the Person belong to the Nature, and the attributes of the Nature belong to the Person thereof, how canst thou say that Christ is two natures?

IX. If thou sayest that Christ is two natures, a Divine Nature, and a human Nature, and One Person, and thou attributest to the Divine Person the attributes of the Divine Nature and the attributes of the human nature, how canst thou attribute terrestrial and celestial qualities to the Divine Person and yet put them away from the Divine Nature ? Is the Divine Person inferior to its Divine |xlii Nature? And what His Person is is not that also His Nature?

X. And how canst thou expect me to accept that which thou sayest, 'One Person', since thou speakest also of 'two natures which run with their individual qualities and attributes and operations' ; for if there be two natures how can there be One Person? Tell me: He must be either Divine or human, or the two make One Person. The Natures must be perfect or imperfect, and they have either Persons or they have not. Which nature of the two is without Person? the Divine or the human? Either one half of the Person worketh each Nature or they have two Persons like two Natures. 

XI. There is not a nature without a Person, neither is there a Person without a nature. For if there are two natures, then there must also be two Persons and two Sons; for if the Person is One, then the nature is One, even as the Person is One.

XII. Tell me now: If thou dost attribute to God the Word after His Incarnation a Divine nature and a human nature, which one is the Person of flesh, and which of Godhead?

XIII. Tell me: Dost thou say that the Word of God, the Son of God, was perfect before the Incarnation of nature and Person, or not?

XIV. In the Person which hath two natures, which redeemed, and which was redeemed? Which suffered and which did not suffer? Which died and which did not die?

XV. Tell me: How canst thou say that the Word after His Incarnation is two natures and One Person? Is it a Divine Person or a human Person? Or |xliii is it a Divine and human Person? If the Person be human how is it that the nature of the Word is without a Person? And if the Person be One, Divine and human, how is that He is not One Nature, even as He is One Person? 

XVI. When thou confessest two natures and One Person, how can confusion be avoided? Tell me now: Is this One Person composed of two Natures or of One? If of two, then each nature constitutes one half of the Person, and if of one then it is either a Divine nature without a Person or a human Nature. If He be Divine and human, it is One Person, and therefore Divine and human are One nature. If He be not One nature, then He is not One Person, and if He be not One Person the matter is answered.

XVII. Can a nature exist which hath attributes which attributes do not belong to His Person? or can a Person exist which hath attributes that do not belong to His nature? Either the attributes of the Person belong to His Nature, or the attributes of His Nature belong to His Person.

XVIII. If the Virgin was the God-bearer then He that was born is God. Who then is He that was born of the Virgin, Jesus Christ? If Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin and the Virgin was the God-bearer, then Jesus Christ is God, and not a man in whom God dwelt.

XIX. Since thou confessest that the Holy Virgin is the God-bearer, and that God was born of the Virgin, why dost thou seek to show that Jesus Christ is not God? For if Jesus Christ is not God then the Virgin is not the God-bearer, and |xliv how canst thou deny and at the same time say that the Virgin is the God-bearer whilst thou sayest that He that is born of her is man and not God?

XX. If she who gave birth be the God-bearer, how can He that was born be a man? But if He that was born be a man, how can she that gave birth be the God-bearer? If He that was born be another, then the mother must have served unto another, and this is ridiculous. 

The writings of Philoxenus against the Nestorian creed do not, however, indicate in any way the utter abomination with which he regarded the beliefs of many other sects and their leaders who lived about his own time, and although a thorough supporter of the Monophysite doctrine would have no difficulty in scenting heresy, however carefully concealed, and wherever found, there were certainly many weak-kneed brethren who could be easily led out of the path which the zealous Philoxenus would have them tread. For the guidance of these and of newly made converts, he found it necessary to draw up a short statement of the principal tenets of the most famous heretics,  and by good fortune a copy of this most interesting document has been preserved unto our times. As in the case of many other tracts of Philoxenus which are extant in a single MS. only, and which were copied a century or two after their author's death, the text, in all places, does not appear to be free from corruptions; but as to the general meaning of the composition there is no doubt whatever. 

The translation is as follows:----20 |xlv

ON THE HERESIES OF MANI, NESTORIUS, &c (Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 14,529, fol. 65b).

Mānī 21, and Marcion 22, and Eutyches 23 deny the Incarnation of the Word God of the holy Virgin Mary, and they consider the mysteries of Divine dispensation to be vain imaginations and idle fancies, and they say that the Word passed through the Virgin as through a tube taking nothing at all from her. Lantīnōs 24(?) and Bar-daisān 25 say that the Word brought down a body from heaven, and that the Incarnation of the Word did not take place of Mary. Apollinaris 26 considered the Incarnation of God the Word in an ignorant manner, and Ennomius 27 said, 'The Word received the body |xlvi only from Mary, and not the soul', but said he, 'divinity took the place of a soul.'

Now Diodorus 28, and Theodorus 29, and Theodoret 30, and Nestorius 31, and Irenaeus 32, and Eutherius 33, and Alexander 34, and Andrew 35, and Ibas 36, and Pūt 37 (Photius?), and Cyr 38, and John 39, and Acacius 40, and Barsaumā 414 say, 'Christ is an ordinary man, and One Who shone by reason of His good works; and God loved Him, and delivered by Him the children of men.' And they say, 'He died, and He Who dwelt in Him raised Him up again.' And they divide Him into two sons, and two natures, and two persons----one of God the Creator, |xlvii and one of man, one made and the other the Maker. Arius 42 said, 'The Son of God is a created thing', and Paul of Samosata 43 said, 'Christ is an ordinary man, like one of the Prophets and [other] righteous men.' And that addition, which took place at Chalcedon, proclaimeth a fourth Person in the Trinity, and it bringeth in Christ after the Trinity. Now the Jews say, 'This Christ Who came, and Whom the Christians worship, was a deceiver and a liar, and being a man He made Himself out to be God, that is to say, the true Christ; and while looking for the lying Christ, that is Antichrist, they will say that He is about to come.

Orthodox Christians, the children of the Holy Church, confess One Nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they believe that one of the Persons of this Trinity----the second Person of the Trinity----Himself came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and He took from her a body, but the incarnation made no addition to His Person, for as it was a Trinity, so it remained, even after one of the Trinity, God the Word, had become incarnate. And He in very truth was born and was made manifest in the world, and He ate, and drank, and was aweary, and rested, and tasted sufferings in truth, and He was crucified, and was buried, and rose on the third day, as it is written. And by the Will of His Father, and by the Will of the Holy Spirit, He sitteth upon the everlasting throne at the right hand of His Father, and He will come |xlviii to judge the dead and the living, to Whom, and to His Holy Spirit be glory, always and for ever and ever, Amen.

[Footnotes renumbered and moved to the end]

1. 2 See Brit Mus. MS. Add. No. 14,529, fol. 69b. See page xcvi.

2.  3 See Brit. Mus. MS. Add. No. 14,529, fol. 68a. See page xcviii.

3. 1 Met A. D. 451, in the reign of the Emperor Marcian.

4. 1 I. e., the first Council of Nicaea, in Bithynia, which met A. D. 325.

5. 2 St. Cyril took an active part in the third Council of Ephesus, which met A. D. 431.

6.  3 Patriarch of Alexandria; he succeeded Cyril A. D. 444, and died at Gangra in Paphlagonia A. D. 454.

7.  4 Two Councils met at Ephesus under Dioscorus, one A. D. 447, and the other A. D. 449.

8. 5 Born about A. D. 400, became Pope A. D. 440, and died A. D. 461.

9. 6 See Mansi, Concilia, vi. 1009, 1148; and vii. 104.

10. 1 Bishop of Edessa, A. D. 435----457. When still a young man he began to translate the works of Theodore of Mop-suestia and of Diodorus into Syriac; compare [Syriac] (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS., p. 644, col. 1 e), and [Syriac] (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS., p. 107, col. 2, no. 3), and see B. O., i. p. 85. Because of this and of his famous letter to Mārī the Persian he was accused of supporting the views of Nestorius; the Councils of Tyre and Bźrūt acquitted him, but the second Council of Ephesus, which met in 449, condemned him, and being deposed Nonnus was chosen bishop in his stead. Two years later, however, the Council of Chalcedon reinstated him, and he sat until 457, when he died. Ibas was the author of a commentary on the Book of Proverbs, certain metrical homilies, and a disputation with a heretic, all of which seem to be no longer extant. See Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 829, col. 2; Duval, Histoire d'Édesse, Paris, 1892, pp. 174, 175; and Assemānī, B. O., iii. i. 86. For translation of the Syriac version of the sessions of the Council of Ephesus see Hoffmann, Verhandhingen der Kirchenversammlung zu Ephesus, 1873; Martin, Actes dit Brigandage d'Éphčse, 1874; and Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus, 1881.

11. 2 Bishop of Cyrrhus; he was born towards the close of the IVth century, and died about A. D. 457.

12. 1 For the text see pp. civ-cxx [note to the online text: seems in fact to be c-civ]. Many minute objections against those who maintain two natures in Christ are urged with great skill by Philoxenus in the short but very important tract the text of which is given on p. cxxi ff.

13. 1 For the text see p. cxxff.

14. 1 He flourished in the second half of the IVth century.

15. 2 I. e., he was a follower of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, who flourished about the middle of the fourth century; on his heresy concerning the Holy Ghost see Socrates, Hist. Eccles. ii. 45.

16. 3 Patriarch of Antioch A. D. 260-270.

17. 4 He goes on to explain that the Henoticon ( e(nwtikon ), "that is to say 'Unifier', is so called because it brought unity "to the holy churches in every place. And it made the Egyptians also, who had been separated from the rest of the "churches from very ancient times, children of their communion". The Henoticon was the work of Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and was promulgated by the Emperor Zeno in 482. The Greek text of this composition is given by Evagrius, Hist. Eccles., iii. 14; for discussions upon it see Gibbon, Decline und Fall, Chap. XLVII; and Milman, Latin Christianity, Vol. i. p. 390.

18. 1 Philoxenus adds, "Now if any man who maketh use of the art or crafty skill of heretics shall say, It is not right that those who have died whilst holding the office of bishop should be anathematized, I reply concerning those who are called Diodorus, Theodorus, and Theodoret, If the memorials of these men be not in their churches, and if their names have been removed from the divine tablets whereon are inscribed the names of Prophets, and Apostles, and Martyrs, and the orthodox Bishops, and at the head of them all is the holy Virgin Mary, the God-bearer, why should they not be anathematized by us?" . 

19. 2 For the text see p. cxxi ff.

20. 1 For the text see p. cxxxvi.

21. 1 I. e., Manes or Manixai=oj, who died probably in the last quarter of the IIIrd century, aged about forty years. He proclaimed himself to be the Paraclete and the Holy Ghost.

22. 2 He was born about A. D. 100, and preached the existence of two Gods.

23. 3 He was born in the second half of the IVth century.

24. 4 It is possible that Leontius the Arian, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 348----357 is here referred to.

25. 5 Born at Edessa A. D. 154, died A. D. 222. He is famous as the author of a History of Armenia, Hypomnemata Indica, and of a number of hymns which were thought highly of in ancient days; the work [Syriac], "The Book of the Laws of Countries", which has commonly been attributed to him, was written by his disciple Philip. On his works and teachings see Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa, 1863, Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker, 1864; Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. Eccles., (ed. Abbeloos) i. col. 47 ; the Edessene Chronicle, ed. Hallier (in Harnack's Untersuchungen), p. 90; Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 827; Duval, Histoire d'Édesse, Paris, 1892, p. 114; and Hahn, Bardesanes gnosticus Syrorum, primus hymnologus, 1819.

26. 6 Bishop of Laodicea: he was born about the middle of the IVth century, and died A. D. 392.

27. 7 Bishop of Cyzicus A. D. 360-364; he died about 392.

28. 1 Bishop of Tarsus about A. D. 379.

29. 2 Bishop of Mopsuestia, commonly called the "Expositor" [Syriac]; he was born at Antioch about the middle of the IVth century, and died about 428.

30. 3 See above, p. xxxi.

31. 4 Patriarch of Constantinople A. D. 428-431 ; he died in great misery about 440.

32. 5 Bishop of Tyre in the first half of the Vth century; he was a friend of Nestorius and Theodoret.

33. 6 Bishop of Tyana in the fifth century.

34. 7 Bishop of Hierapolis in the fifth century.

35. 8 I. e., Andrew, Bishop of Samosata; he died at the end of the first half of the fifth century.

36. 9 See above, p. xxxi.

37. 10 Bishop of Tyre about A. D. 448, and the friend and successor of Irenaeus.

38. 11 I. e., Cyrus, Bishop of Tyre, who flourished in the second quarter of the Vth century.

39. 12 Bishop of Antioch in the second quarter of the Vth century, and friend of Nestorius.

40. 13 Probably the Bishop of Beroea A. D. 380-436 is here referred to.

41. 14 Probably Bar-saumā the Eutychian, who died about A. D.458.

42. 1 He was born about A. D. 250 and died about 335. 

43. 2 Patriarch of Antioch A. D. 260-270.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003.  All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts