OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIII/Gregory the Great/Book XII/Letter 2

Epistle VIII.
To Columbus, Bishop of Numidia.
Gregory to Columbus, &c.
How serious, and intolerable even to be heard of, is the complaint of Donadeus, the bearer of these presents, who describes himself as having been a deacon, will be made manifest to your Fraternity by the petition presented by him, which is contained in what is subjoined below. But, since it has come to our ears that he had been deposed for bodily sin, let your Love make full enquiry into this, and, if it is so, let him be consigned to penance, that he may free himself by tears from the bond of the profligacy of which he has been guilty. If, however, he should be proved innocent of any such transgression, all that his petition contains must be enquired into with diligent examination by you, together with the primate of the council, and others our brethren and fellow-bishops. And, if his complaint is supported by the truth, let both such strictness of canonical discipline be brought to bear on his bishop Victor, who has not lighted to commit so great a wickedness against God and his own priestly profession, that he may understand the wickedness of what he has done; and let the man himself be restored to his order: for it is indeed preposterous, and confessedly against ecclesiastical order, that any one whom his own fault or crime does not depose from the rank of the office which he fills should be deprived invalidly at the will of this or that person.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. II. 48, note 8.
* ↑ Victor was Primate of Numidia. See IV. 34, note 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 22

Chapter 22.—Measure in Some Sense is Suitable to God Himself.
But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." For it might also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Luke i. 33.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 24

Chapter 24.—It is Proved by the Testimonies of Scripture that God is Unchangeable. The Son of God Begotten, Not Made.
Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and so may deserve to know. But let not those who understand, but are less instructed in ecclesiastical literature, suppose that we set forth these things from our own intellect rather than what are in those Books. Accordingly, that God is unchangeable is written in the Psalms: "Thou shalt change them and they shall be changed; but Thou thyself art the same." And in the book of Wisdom, concerning wisdom: "Remaining in herself, she renews all things." Whence also the Apostle Paul: "To the invisible, incorruptible, only God." And the Apostle James: "Every best giving and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of light, with whom there is no changeableness, neither obscuring of influence." Likewise because what He begat of Himself is what He Himself is, it is said in brief by the Son Himself: "I and the Father are one." But because the Son was not made, since through Him were all things made, thus it is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word; this was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing;" that is, without Him was not anything made.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. cii. 27.
* ↑ Wisd. vii. 27.
* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 17.
* ↑ James i. 17.
* ↑ John x. 30.
* ↑ John i. 1-3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 29

Chapter 29.—That God is Not Defiled by Our Sins.
And yet, though all things that He established are in Him, those who sin do not defile Him, of whose wisdom it is said: "She touches all things by reason of her purity, and nothing defiled assails her." For it behooves us to believe that as God is incorruptible and unchangeable, so also is He consequently undefilable.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Wisd. vii. 24, 25.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 3

Chapter 3.—Measure, Form, and Order, Generic Goods in Things Made by God.
For we Catholic Christians worship God, from whom are all good things whether great or small; from whom is all measure great or small; from whom is all form great or small; from whom is all order great or small. For all things in proportion as they are better measured, formed, and ordered, are assuredly good in a higher degree; but in proportion as they are measured, formed, and ordered in an inferior degree, are they the less good. These three things, therefore, measure, form, and order,—not to speak of innumerable other things that are shown to pertain to these three,—these three things, therefore, measure, form, order, are as it were generic goods in things made by God, whether in spirit or in body. God is, therefore, above every measure of the creature, above every form, above every order, nor is He above by local spaces, but by ineffable and singular potency, from whom is every measure, every form, every order. These three things, where they are great, are great goods, where they are small, are small goods; where they are absent, there is no good. And again where these things are great, there are great natures, where they are small, there are small natures, where they are absent, there is no nature. Therefore all nature is good.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 26

Chapter 26.—That Creatures are Made of Nothing.
Because therefore God made all things which He did not beget of Himself, not of those things that already existed, but of those things that did not exist at all, that is, of nothing," the Apostle Paul says: "Who calls the things that are not as if they are." But still more plainly it is written in the book of Maccabees: "I pray thee, son, look at the heaven and the earth and all the things that are in them; see and know that it was not these of which the Lord God made us." And from this that is written in the Psalm: "He spake, and they were made." It is manifest, that not of Himself He begat these things, but that He made them by word and command. But what is not of Himself is assuredly of nothing. For there was not anything of which he should make them, concerning which the apostle says most openly: "For from Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things."

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. iv. 17.
* ↑ 2 Mac. vii. 28.
* ↑ Ps. cxlviii. 5.
* ↑ Rom. xi. 36.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—"From Him" And "Of Him" Do Not Mean The Same Thing.
But "from Him" does not mean the same as "of Him." For what is of Him may be said to be from Him; but not everything that is from Him is rightly said to be of Him. For from Him are heaven and earth, because He made them; but not of Him because they are not of His substance. As in the case of a man who begets a son and makes a house, from himself is the son, from himself is the house, but the son is of him, the house is of earth and wood. But this is so, because as a man he cannot make something even of nothing; but God of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, had no need of any material which He had not made to assist His omnipotence.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ex ipso and de ipso.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 28

Chapter 28.—Sin Not From God, But From The Will of Those Sinning.
But when we hear: "All things are from Him, and through Him, and in Him," we ought assuredly to understand all natures which naturally exist. For sins, which do not preserve but vitiate nature, are not from Him; which sins, Holy Scripture in many ways testifies, are from the will of those sinning, especially in the passage where the apostle says: "But dost thou suppose this, O man, that judgest those who do such things, and doest them, that thou shall escape the judgment of God? Or dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, not knowing that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to the hardness of thy heart and thy impenitent heart, thou treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render unto every one according to his works."

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. ii. 3-6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 21

Chapter 21.—From Measure Things are Said to Be Moderate-Sized.
Therefore now by common usage things small and mean are said to have measure, because some measure remains in them, without which they would no longer be moderate-sized, but would not exist at all. But those things that by reason of too much progress are called immoderate, are blamed for very excessiveness; but yet it is necessary that those things themselves be restrained in some manner under God who has disposed all things in extension, number, and weight.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Modus, modica.
* ↑ Wisd. xi. 21.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 23

Chapter 23.—Whence a Bad Measure, a Bad Form, a Bad Order May Sometimes Be Spoken of.
Therefore a bad measure, a bad form, a bad order, are either so called because they are less than they should be, or because they are not adapted to those things to which they should be adapted; so that they may be called bad as being alien and incongruous; as if any one should be said not to have done in a good measure because he has done less than he ought, or because he has done in such a thing as he ought not to have done, or more than was fitting, or not conveniently; so that the very fact of that being reprehended which is done in a bad measure, is justly reprehended for no other cause than that the measure is not there maintained. Likewise a form is called bad either in comparison with something more handsome or more beautiful, this form being less, that greater, not in size but in comeliness; or because it is out of harmony with the thing to which it is applied, so that it seems alien and unsuitable. As if a man should walk forth into a public place naked, which nakedness does not offend if seen in a bath. Likewise also order is called bad when order itself is maintained in an inferior degree. Hence not order, but rather disorder, is bad; since either the ordering is less than it should be, or not as it should be. Yet where there is any measure, any form, any order, there is some good and some nature; but where there is no measure, no form, no order, there is no good, no nature.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 25

Chapter 25.—This Last Expression Misunderstood by Some.
For no attention should be paid to the ravings of men who think that nothing should be understood to mean something, and moreover think to compel any one to vanity of this kind on the ground that nothing is placed at the end of the sentence. Therefore, they say, it was made, and because it was made, nothing is itself something. They have lost their senses by zeal in contradicting, and do not understand that it makes no difference whether it be said: "Without Him was made nothing," or "without Him nothing was made." For even if the order were the last mentioned, they could nevertheless say, that nothing is itself something because it was made. For in the case of what is in truth something, what difference does it make if it be said "Without him a house was made," so long as it is understood that something was made without him, which something is a house? So also because it is said: "Without Him was made nothing," since nothing is assuredly not anything, when it is truly and properly spoken, it makes no difference whether it be said: "Without Him was made nothing or Without Him nothing was made," or "nothing was made." But who cares to speak with men who can say of this very expression of mine "It makes no difference," "Therefore it makes some difference, for nothing itself is something?" But those whose brains are not addled, see it as a thing most manifest that this something is to be understood when it says "It makes no difference," as when I say "It matters in no respect." But these, if they should say to any one, "What hast thou done?" and he should reply that he has done nothing, would, according to this mode of disputation, falsely accuse him saying, "Thou hast done something, therefore, because thou hast done nothing; for nothing is itself something." But they have also the Lord Himself placing this word at the end of a sentence, when He says: "And in secret have I spoken nothing."  Let them read, therefore, and be silent.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xviii. 20.
* ↑ It is difficult for us to understand why Augustin should have thought it worth while to refute so elaborately an argument so puerile. But it is his way to be prolix in such matters.—A.H.N.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon III

Canon III.
Concerning those who fall into many marriages, the appointed time of penance is well known; but their manner of living and faith shortens the time.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon III.
The time of polygamists is well known. A zeal for penance may shorten it.
Hefele.
As the Greek commentators have remarked, this canon speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It is not known what were the ancient ordinances of penitence which the synod here refers to. In later times digamists were condemned to one year’s penance, and trigamists from two to five years. St. Basil places the trigamists for three years among the “hearers,” and then for some time among the consistentes.
Van Espen.
“The appointed time of penance is well known.” These words Zonaras notes must refer to a custom, for, says he, “before this synod no canon is found which prescribes the duration of the penance of bigamists [i.e. digamists].” It is for this reason that St. Basil says (in Epist. ad Amphilogium, Can. 4) in speaking of the penance of trigamists “we have received this by custom and not by canon, but from the following of precedent,” hence the Fathers received many things by tradition, and observed these as having the force of law.
From the last clause of this canon we see the mind of the Fathers of this synod, which agrees with that of Ancyra and Nice, that; with regard to the granting of indulgences, for in shortening the time of penance, attention must be paid to the penitence, and conversation, or “conversation and faith” of each one separately.
With this agrees Zonaras, whose remarks are worthy of consideration. On this whole subject of the commutation of the primitive penance and of the rise of the modern indulgences of the Roman Church Van Espen has written at length in his excursus De Indulgentiis (Jure Eccles., P. I. i., Tit. vij.) in which he assigns the change to the end of the XIth century, and remarks that its introduction caused the “no small collapse of penitential discipline.”
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian, Decretum, Pars II., Causa xxxi., Quæst. i., c. viij. where for “conversio,” (ἀναστροφὴ) is read “conversatio,” and the Greek word is used in this sense in Polybius, and frequently so in the New Testament.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The reader is referred also to Amort, De Origine, progressu, valore ac fructu Indulgentiarum, and to the article “Ablass” in the Kirchen Lexicon of Wetzer and Welte. Also for the English reader to T. L. Green, D.D., Indulgences, Absolutions, and Tax tables, etc. Some of the difficulties which Roman theologians experience in explaining what are called “Plenary Indulgences” are set forth by Dr. Littledale in his Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome, in which the matter is discussed in the usual witty, and unscrupulous fashion of that brilliant writer. But while this remark is just, it should also be remarked that after the exaggeration is removed there yet remains a difficulty of the most serious character.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon V

Canon V.
If a catechumen coming into the Church have taken his place in the order of catechumens, and fall into sin, let him, if a kneeler, become a hearer and sin no more. But should he again sin while a hearer, let him be cast out.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon V.
If a catechumen falls into a fault and if while a kneeler he sins no more, let him be among the hearers; but should he sin while among the hearers, let him be cast out altogether.
Zonaras.
There are two sorts of catechumens. For some have only just come in and these, as still imperfect, go out immediately after the reading of the scriptures and of the Gospels. But there are others who have been for some time in preparation and have attained some perfection; these wait after the Gospel for the prayers for the catechumens, and when they hear the words “Catechumens, bow down your heads to the Lord,” they kneel down. These, as being more perfect, having tasted the good words of God, if they fall, are removed from their position; and are placed with the “hearers”; but if any happen to sin while “hearers” they are cast out of the Church altogether.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon VI

Canon VI.
Concerning a woman with child, it is determined that she ought to be baptized whensoever she will; for in this the woman communicates nothing to the child, since the bringing forward to profession is evidently the individual [privilege] of every single person.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
If a woman with child so desires, let her be baptized. For the choice of each one is judged of.
Van Espen.
That the reason of the canon may be understood it must be noted that in the first ages of the Church catechumens were examined concerning their faith before they were baptized, and were made publicly to confess their faith and to renounce openly the pomps of the world, as Albaspinæus (Aubespine) observes on this canon, “A short while before they were immersed they declared with a loud voice that they desired baptism and wished to be baptized. And since these confessions could not be made by those still shut up in their parent’s womb, to them the thing (res) and grace of baptism could not come nor penetrate.” And altogether in accord with this is the translation of Isidore— “because the free will of each one is declared in that confession,” that is, in that confession he declares that he willingly desires to be baptized.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon VIII

Canon VIII.
If the wife of a layman has committed adultery and been clearly convicted, such [a husband] cannot enter the ministry; and if she commit adultery after his ordination, he must put her away; but if he retain her, he can have no part in the ministry committed to him.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII.
A layman whose wife is an adulteress cannot be a clergyman, and a cleric who keeps an adulteress shall be expelled.
Van Espen.
Although the Eastern Church allows the clergy to have wives, even priests, and permits to them the use of marriage after ordination, nevertheless it requires of them the highest conjugal continency, as is seen by the present canon. For here it is evident that the Fathers wished even the smallest possible kind of incontinence to be absent from men dedicated to holiness.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxxiv., c. xi.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon II

Canon II.
If a woman shall have married two brothers, let her be cast out [i.e. of communion] until her death. Nevertheless, at the hour of death she may, as an act of mercy, be received to penance, provided she declare that she will break the marriage, should she recover. But if the woman in such a marriage, or the man, die, penance for the survivor shall be very difficult.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon II.
A woman married to two brothers shall be expelled all her life. But if when near her death she promises that she will loose the marriage should she recover, she shall be admitted to penance. But if one of those coupled together die, only with great difficulty shall penitence be allowed to the one still living.
It will be carefully observed that this canon has no provision for the case of a man marrying two sisters. It is the prohibited degree of brother’s wife, not that of wife’s sister which is in consideration. Of course those who hold that the affinity is the same in each case will argue from this canon by parity of reasoning, and those who do not accept that position will refuse to do so.
In the Greek text of Balsamon (Vide Beveridge, Synod.) after the first clause is added, “if she will not be persuaded to loose the marriage.”
Van Espen.
The meaning of this canon seems to be that which Balsamon sets forth, to wit, that if a woman at the point of death or in extremis promises that if she gets better she will dissolve the marriage, or make a divorce, or abstain from the sacrilegious use of matrimony, then “she may be received to penance as an act of mercy”; and surely she is immediately absolved from the excommunication inflicted upon her when she was cast out and extruded from the Church. For it is certain that according to the discipline of the Fathers he was thought to be loosed from excommunication whoever was admitted to penance, and it is of this that the canon speaks; but he did not obtain perfect reconciliation until his penance was done.
To this performance of penance this woman was to be admitted if she got well and dissolved the marriage according to her promise made when she was in peril of death, as the Greek commentators note; and this too is the sense given by Isidore.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Van Espen gives “fructum pœnitentiæ consequatur” as the translation of ἕξει τὴν μετάνοιαν.