OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/De Spiritu Sancto/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.
That they who deny the Spirit are transgressors.
27. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow?” For whom is distress and darkness? For whom eternal doom? Is it not for the transgressors? For them that deny the faith? And what is the proof of their denial? Is it not that they have set at naught their own confessions? And when and what did they confess? Belief in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, when they renounced the devil and his angels, and uttered those saving words. What fit title then for them has been discovered, for the children of light to use? Are they not addressed as transgressors, as having violated the covenant of their salvation? What am I to call the denial of God? What the denial of Christ? What but transgressions? And to him who denies the Spirit, what title do you wish me to apply? Must it not be the same, inasmuch as he has broken his covenant with God? And when the confession of faith in Him secures the blessing of true religion. and its denial subjects men to the doom of godlessness, is it not a fearful thing for them to set the confession at naught, not through fear of fire, or sword, or cross, or scourge, or wheel, or rack, but merely led astray by the sophistry and seductions of the pneumatomachi? I testify to every man who is confessing Christ and denying God, that Christ will profit him nothing; to every man that calls upon God but rejects the Son, that his faith is vain; to every man that sets aside the Spirit, that his faith in the Father and the Son will be useless, for he cannot even hold it without the presence of the Spirit. For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none “can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” and “No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
Such an one hath neither part nor lot in the true worship; for it is impossible to worship the Son, save by the Holy Ghost; impossible to call upon the Father, save by the Spirit of adoption.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Prov. xxiii. 29.
* ↑ cf. Gal. v. 2.
* ↑ cf. 1 Cor. xv. 17.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xii. 3.
* ↑ John i. 18. On the reading “only begotten God” cf. note on p. 9. In this passage in St. Basil “God” is the reading of three mss. at Paris, that at Moscow, that at the Bodleian, and that at Vienna. “Son” is read by Regius III., Regius I., Regius IV., and Regius V. in Paris, the three last being all of the 14th century, the one in the British Museum, and another in the Imperial Library at Vienna, which generally agrees with our own in the Museum.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 9

Chapter 9.—13. The elder Felix of Migirpa said: "I think that every one coming from heresy should be baptized. For in vain does any one suppose that he has been baptized there, seeing that there is no baptism save the one true baptism in the Church; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and one Church, in which rests the one baptism, and holiness, and the rest. For the things that are practised without have no power to work salvation."
14. To what Felix of Migirpa said we answer as follows. If the one true baptism did not exist except in the Church, it surely would not exist in those who depart from unity. But it does exist in them, since they do not receive it when they return, simply because they had not lost it when they departed. But as regards his statement, that "the things that are practised without have no power to work salvation," I agree with him, and think that it is quite true; for it is one thing that baptism should not be there, and another that it should have no power to work salvation. For when men come to the peace of the Catholic Church, then what was in them before they joined it, but did not profit them, begins at once to profit them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This section is wanting in the Mss. and in the edition of Amerbach, so that it has been supposed to have been added by Erasmus from Cyprian (Conc. Carth. sec. 2),—the name of Felix (really Primus), which is not found in Cyprian, being derived from the following section of Augustin. So Hartel: Primas a Misgirpa dixit. Migirpa or Misgirpa, was in Zeugitana. This Primus is seemingly identical with the Primus of Cypr. Epp. 67 (following Cæcilius), and 70 (preceding Cæcilius).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII

Book VII.
In which the remaining judgments of the Council of Carthage are examined.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
* Chapter 52
* Chapter 53
* Chapter 54
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—26. Aymnius of Ausuaga said: "We have received one baptism, which same also we administer; but he who says that authority is given to heretics also to baptize, the same makes two baptisms."
27. To him we answer: Why does not he also make two baptisms who maintains that the unrighteous also can baptize? For although the righteous and unrighteous are in themselves opposed to one another, yet the baptism which the righteous give, such as was Paul, or such as was also Cyprian, is not contrary to the baptism which those unrighteous men were wont to give who hated Paul, whom Cyprian understands to have been not heretics, but bad Catholics; and although the moderation which was found in Cyprian, and the covetousness which was found in his colleagues, are in themselves opposed to one another, yet the baptism which Cyprian used to give was not contrary to the baptism which his colleagues who opposed him used to give, but one and the same with it, because in both cases it is He that baptizes of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth."

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ahymmus. See Cypr. Ep. lvi.
* ↑ Ausuaga was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 50.
* ↑ John i. 33.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 10

Chapter 10.—18. Likewise another Felix of Marazana said: "There is one faith, one baptism, but of the Catholic Church, to which alone is given authority to baptize."
19. What if another were to say as follows: One faith, one baptism, but of the righteous only, to whom alone authority is given to baptize? As these words might be refuted, so also may the judgment of Felix be refuted. Do even the unrighteous who are not changed in heart in baptism, while "they renounce the world in words and not in deeds" yet belong to the members of the Church? Let them consider whether such a Church is the actual rock, the very dove, the bride herself without spot or wrinkle.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Marazana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene. On Felix, see Bk. VI. c. 19. note 2.
* ↑ Eph. iv. 5.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 46.
* ↑ Nec…mutati. "Nec" is restored by the Benedictines from the Mss.
* ↑ Eph. v. 27. See Retract. ii. 18, quoted on I. 17, 26.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—20. Paul of Bobba said: "I for my part am not moved if some fail to uphold the faith and truth of the Church, seeing that the apostle says ‘For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea let God be true, but every man a liar.’ But if God be true, how can the truth of baptism be in the company of heretics, where God is not?"
21. To him we answer: What is God among the covetous? And yet baptism exists among them; and so also it exists among heretics. For they among whom God is, are the temple of God. "But what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" Further, Paul considers, and Cyprian agrees with him, that covetousness is idolatry; and Cyprian himself again associates with his colleagues, who were robbers, but yet baptized, with great reward of toleration.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bobba (Obba) was in ecclesiastical province of Mauritania Cæsariensis, including Tingitana. A bishop Paul is mentioned in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
* ↑ Rom. iii. 3, 4.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 47.
* ↑ 2 Cor. vi. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—22. Pomponius of Dionysiana said: "It is manifest that heretics cannot baptize and give remission of sins, seeing that no power is given to them that they should be able either to loose or bind anything on earth."
23. The answer is: This power is not given to murderers either, that is, to those who hate their brothers. For it was not said to such as these, "whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." And yet they baptize, and both Paul tolerates them in the same communion of baptism, and Cyprian acknowledges them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Dionysiana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium. The name of Pomponius occurs in Cypr. Epp. iv., lvii., lxvii., lxx.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 48.
* ↑ John xx. 23.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 15

Chapter 15.—28. Saturninus of Victoriana said: "If heretics may baptize, they are excused and defended in doing unlawful things; nor do I see why either Christ called them His adversaries, or the apostle called them antichrists."
29. To him we answer: We say that heretics have no authority to baptize in the same sense in which we say that defrauders have no authority to baptize. For not only to the heretic, but to the sinner, God says, "What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?" To the same person He assuredly says, "When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him." How much worse, therefore, are those who did not consent with thieves, but themselves were wont to plunder farms with treacherous deceits? Yet Cyprian did not consent with them, though he did tolerate them in the corn-field of the Catholic Church, lest the wheat should be rooted out together with it. And yet at the same time the baptism which they themselves conferred was the very selfsame baptism, because it was not of them, but of Christ. As therefore they, although the baptism of Christ be recognized in them, were yet not excused and defended in doing unlawful things, and Christ rightly called those His adversaries who were destined, by persevering in such things, to hear the doom, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity," whence also they are called antichrists, because they are contrary to Christ while they live in opposition to His words, so likewise is it the case with heretics.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Victoriana was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacium. [The name Saturninus is found in Cypr. Epp. xxi. 4, xxii. 3, xxvii. 1, 11, lvii. ter. lxvii. bis, lxx. quinquies.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 51.
* ↑ Ps. l. 16, 18.
* ↑ Matt. vii. 23.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—24. Venantius of Tinisa said: "If a husband, going on a journey into foreign countries, had entrusted the guardianship of his wife to a friend, he would surely keep her that was entrusted to his care with the utmost diligence, that her chastity and holiness might not be defiled by any one. Christ our Lord and God, when going to the Father, committed His bride to our care: do we keep her uncorrupt and undefiled, or do we betray her purity and chastity to adulterers and corrupters? For he who makes the baptism of Christ common with heretics betrays the bride of Christ to adulterers."
25. We answer: What of those who, when they are baptized, turn themselves to the Lord with their lips and not with their heart? do not they possess an adulterous mind? Are not they themselves lovers of the world, which they renounce in words and not in deeds; and they corrupt good manners through evil communications, saying, "Let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die?" Did not the discourse of the apostle take heed even against such as these, when he says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds [also] should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ?" When, therefore, Cyprian held the baptism of Christ to be in common with such men, did he therefore betray the bride of Christ into the hands of adulterers, or did he not rather recognize the necklace of the Bridegroom even on an adulteress?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Tinisa (Thinisa) was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. In Cypr. Ep. lxvii. the name Venantius is found.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 49.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 33, 32.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xi. 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 13

Chapter VI.—(12.) The Twelfth Breviate.
XII. “Again the question arises,” he says, “how it is that man is unable to be without sin,—by his will, or by nature? If by nature, it is not sin; if by his will, then will can very easily be changed by will.” We answer by reminding him how he ought to reflect on the extreme presumption of saying—not simply that it is possible (for this no doubt is undeniable, when God’s grace comes in aid), but—that it is “very easy” for will to be changed by will; whereas the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye do not the things that ye would.” He does not say, “These are contrary the one to the other, so that ye will not do the things that ye can,” but, “so that ye do not the things that ye would.” How happens it, then, that the lust of the flesh which of course is culpable and corrupt, and is nothing else than the desire for sin, as to which the same apostle instructs us not to let it “reign in our mortal body;” by which expression he shows us plainly enough that that must have an existence in our mortal body which must not be permitted to hold a dominion in it;—how happens it, I say, that such lust of the flesh has not been changed by that will, which the apostle clearly implied the existence of in his words, “So that ye do not the things that ye would,” if so be that the will can so easily be changed by will? Not that we, indeed, by this argument throw the blame upon the nature either of the soul or of the body, which God created, and which is wholly good; but we say that it, having been corrupted by its own will, cannot be made whole without the grace of God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ ῝Ινα μη ἁ ἂν θελητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε.
* ↑ Rom. vi. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 15

(14.) The Fourteenth Breviate.
XIV. “Again the question must be asked,” he says, “If man’s nature is good, as nobody but Marcion or Manichæus will venture to deny, in what way is it good if it is impossible for it to be free from evil? For that all sin is evil who can gainsay?” We answer, that man’s nature is both good, and is also able to be free from evil. Therefore do we earnestly pray, “Deliver us from evil.” This deliverance, indeed, is not fully wrought, so long as the soul is oppressed by the body, which is hastening to corruption. This process, however, is being effected by grace through faith, so that it may be said by and by, “O death, where is thy struggle? Where is thy sting, O death? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law;” because the law by prohibiting sin only increases the desire for it, unless the Holy Ghost spreads abroad that love, which shall then be full and perfect, when we shall see face to face.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. vi. 13.
* ↑ Wisd. ix. 15.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 35, 36.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 16

(15.) The Fifteenth Breviate.
XV. “And this, moreover, has to be said,” he says: “God is certainly righteous; this cannot be denied. But God imputes every sin to man. This too, I suppose, must be allowed, that whatever shall not be imputed as sin is not sin. Now if there is any sin which is unavoidable, how is God said to be righteous, when He is supposed to impute to any man that which cannot be avoided?” We reply, that long ago was it declared in opposition to the proud, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin.” Now He does not impute it to those who say to Him in faith, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” And justly does He withhold this imputation, because that is just which He says: “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” That, however, is sin in which there is either not the love which ought to be, or where the love is less than it ought to be,—whether it can be avoided by the human will or not; because when it can be avoided, the man’s present will does it, but if it cannot be avoided his past will did it; and yet it can be avoided,—not, however, when the proud will is lauded, but when the humble one is assisted.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. xxxii. 2.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 12.
* ↑ Matt. vii. 2.
* ↑ See above, in his work De Spiritu et Litterâ, 64; also De Naturâ et Gratiâ, 45.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 18

Chapter VIII.—(17.) It is One Thing to Depart from the Body, Another Thing to Be Liberated from the Body of This Death.
He next proposes to establish his point by the testimony of Holy Scripture. Let us carefully observe what kind of defence he makes. “There are passages,” says he, “which prove that man is commanded to be without sin.” Now our answer to this is: Whether such commands are given is not at all the point in question, for the fact is clear enough; but whether the thing which is evidently commanded be itself at all possible of accomplishment in the body of this death, wherein “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would.” Now from this body of death not every one is liberated who ends the present life, but only he who in this life has received grace, and given proof of not receiving it in vain by spending his days in good works. For it is plainly one thing to depart from the body, which all men are obliged to do in the last day of their present life, and another to be delivered from the body of this death,—which God’s grace alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ, imparts to His faithful saints. It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense. For no one, after going hence, shall arrive at fulness of righteousness, unless, whilst here, he shall have run his course by hungering and thirsting after it. “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ Matt. v. 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 11

(10.) The Tenth Breviate.
X. “Since God made man good,” he says, “and, besides making him good, further commanded him to do good, how impious it is for us to hold that man is evil, when he was neither made so, nor so commanded; and to deny him the ability of being good, although he was both made so, and commanded to act so!” Our answer here is: Since then it was not man himself, but God, who made man good; so also is it God, and not man himself, who remakes him to be good, while liberating him from the evil which he himself did upon his wishing, believing, and invoking such a deliverance. But all this is effected by the renewal day by day of the inward man, by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, with a view to the outward man’s resurrection at the last day to an eternity not of punishment, but of life.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. iv. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 14

(13.) The Thirteenth Breviate.
XIII. “The next question we have to ask,” says he, “is this: If man cannot be without sin, whose fault is it,—man’s own, or some one’s else? If man’s own, in what way is it his fault if he is not that which he is unable to be?” We reply, that it is man’s fault that he is not without sin on this account, because it has by man’s sole will come to pass that he has come into such a necessity as cannot be overcome by man’s sole will.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—(1.) The First Breviate of Cœlestius.
I. “First of all,” says he, “he must be asked who denies man’s ability to live without sin, what every sort of sin is,—is it such as can be avoided? or is it unavoidable? If it is unavoidable, then it is not sin; if it can be avoided, then a man can live without the sin which can be avoided. No reason or justice permits us to designate as sin what cannot in any way be avoided.” Our answer to this is, that sin can be avoided, if our corrupted nature be healed by God’s grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. For, in so far as it is not sound, in so far does it either through blindness fail to see, or through weakness fail to accomplish, that which it ought to do; “for the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,” so that a man does not do the things which he would.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.