OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 58

Chapter 58 [L.]—Even Pious and God-Fearing Men Resist Grace.
Observe also what remark he adds, by which he thinks that his position is confirmed: “No will,” says he, “can take away that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature.” Whence then comes that utterance: “So then ye cannot do the things that ye would?” Whence also this: “For what good I would, that I do not; but what evil I hate, that do I?” Where is that capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? See, it is human beings who do not what they will; and it is about not sinning, certainly, that he was treating,—not about not flying, because it was men not birds, that formed his subject. Behold, it is man who does not the good which he would, but does the evil which he would not: “to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good is not present.” Where is the capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? For whomsoever the apostle represents by himself, if he does not speak these things of his own self, he certainly represents a man by himself. By our author, however, it is maintained that our human nature actually possesses an inseparable capacity of not at all sinning. Such a statement, however, even when made by a man who knows not the effect of his words (but this ignorance is hardly attributable to the man who suggests these statements for unwary though God-fearing men), causes the grace of Christ to be “made of none effect,” since it is pretended that human nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 15.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 18.
* ↑ 1 Cor. i. 17. Another reading has crux Christi instead of “Christi gratia,” thus closely adopting the apostle’s words.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 63

Chapter 63 [LIV.]—Does God Create Contraries?
He next endeavours, by much quotation from the apostle, about which there is no controversy, to show “that the flesh is often mentioned by him in such a manner as proves him to mean not the substance, but the works of the flesh.” What is this to the point? The defects of the flesh are contrary to the will of man; his nature is not accused; but a Physician is wanted for its defects. What signifies his question, “Who made man’s spirit?” and his own answer thereto, “God, without a doubt?” Again he asks, “Who created the flesh?” and again answers, “The same God, I suppose.” And yet a third question, “Is the God good who created both?” and the third answer, “Nobody doubts it.” Once more a question, “Are not both good, since the good Creator made them?” and its answer, “It must be confessed that they are.” And then follows his conclusion: “If, therefore, both the spirit is good, and the flesh is good, as made by the good Creator, how can it be that the two good things should be contrary to one another?” I need not say that the whole of this reasoning would be upset if one were to ask him, “Who made heat and cold?” and he were to say in answer, “God, without a doubt.” I do not ask the string of questions. Let him determine himself whether these conditions of climate may either be said to be not good, or else whether they do not seem to be contrary to each other. Here he will probably object, “These are not substances, but the qualities of substances.” Very true, it is so. But still they are natural qualities, and undoubtedly belong to God’s creation; and substances, indeed, are not said to be contrary to each other in themselves, but in their qualities, as water and fire. What if it be so too with flesh and spirit? We do not affirm it to be so; but, in order to show that his argument terminates in a conclusion which does not necessarily follow, we have said so much as this. For it is quite possible for contraries not to be reciprocally opposed to each other, but rather by mutual action to temper health and render it good; just as, in our body, dryness and moisture, cold and heat,—in the tempering of which altogether consists our bodily health. The fact, however, that “the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would,” is a defect, not nature. The Physician’s grace must be sought, and their controversy must end.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 62

Chapter 62.—Concerning What Grace of God is Here Under Discussion. The Ungodly Man, When Dying, is Not Delivered from Concupiscence.
Now, whereas it is most correctly asked in those words put to him, “Why do you affirm that man without the help of God’s grace is able to avoid sin?” yet the inquiry did not concern that grace by which man was created, but only that whereby he is saved through Jesus Christ our Lord. Faithful men say in their prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” But if they already have capacity, why do they pray? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from, but, above all else, “the body of this death?” And from this nothing but God’s grace alone delivers them, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not of course from the substance of the body, which is good; but from its carnal offences, from which a man is not liberated except by the grace of the Saviour,—not even when he quits the body by the death of the body. If it was this that the apostle meant to declare, why had he previously said, “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members?” Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! Why need he presume so much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defence of its capacity, that it stands in need of. It requires the grace of God, not that it may be made, but that it may be re-made. And this is the only grace which by our author is proclaimed to be unnecessary; because of this he is silent! If, indeed, he had said nothing at all about God’s grace, and had not proposed to himself that question for solution, for the purpose of removing from himself the odium of this matter, it might have been thought that his view of the subject was consistent with the truth, only that he had refrained from mentioning it, on the ground that not on all occasions need we say all we think. He proposed the question of grace, and answered it in the way that he had in his heart; the question has been defined,—not in the way we wished, but according to the doubt we entertained as to what was his meaning.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. vi. 13.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 23.
* ↑ See above, ch. 59, sub init.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 6

Chapter 6 [VI.]—The Pelagians Have Very Strong and Active Minds.
If we are simply wise according to the Scriptures, we are not compelled to dispute against the grace of Christ, and to make statements attempting to show that human nature both requires no Physician,—in infants, because it is whole and sound; and in adults, because it is able to suffice for itself in attaining righteousness, if it will. Men no doubt seem to urge acute opinions on these points, but it is only word-wisdom, by which the cross of Christ is made of none effect. This, however, “is not the wisdom which descendeth from above.” The words which follow in the apostle’s statement I am unwilling to quote; for we would rather not be thought to do an injustice to our friends, whose very strong and active minds we should be sorry to see running in a perverse, instead of an upright, course.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. i. 17.
* ↑ Jas. iii. 15.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 61

Chapter 61 [LIII.]—Paul Asserts that the Flesh is Contrary Even in the Baptized.
Now let us see whether we anywhere read about the flesh being contrary in the baptized also. And here, I ask, to whom did the apostle say, “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 wrote this, I apprehend, to the Galatians, to whom he also says, “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” It appears, therefore, that it is to Christians that he speaks, to whom, too, God had given His Spirit: therefore, too, to the baptized. Observe, therefore, that even in baptized persons the flesh is found to be contrary; so that they have not that capacity which, our author says, is inseparably implanted in nature. Where then is the ground for his assertion, “How can it be that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him?” in whatever sense he understands the flesh? Because in very deed it is not its nature that is good, but it is the carnal defects of the flesh which are expressly named in the passage before us. Yet observe, even in the baptized, how contrary is the flesh. And in what way contrary? So that, “They do not the things which they would.” Take notice that the will is present in a man; but where is that “capacity of nature?” Let us confess that grace is necessary to us; let us cry out, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” And let our answer be, “The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ Gal. iii. 5.
* ↑ See the context of Gal. v. 17, in verses 19–21.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 24, 25.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 57

Chapter 57 [XLIX.]—It Does Not Detract from God’s Almighty Power, that He is Incapable of Either Sinning, or Dying, or Destroying Himself.
“Inasmuch,” says he, “as not to sin is ours, we are able to sin and to avoid sin.” What, then, if another should say: “Inasmuch as not to wish for unhappiness is ours, we are able both to wish for it and not to wish for it?” And yet we are positively unable to wish for it. For who could possibly wish to be unhappy, even though he wishes for something else from which unhappiness will ensue to him against his will? Then again, inasmuch as, in an infinitely greater degree, it is God’s not to sin, shall we therefore venture to say that He is able both to sin and to avoid sin? God forbid that we should ever say that He is able to sin! For He cannot, as foolish persons suppose, therefore fail to be almighty, because He is unable to die, or because He cannot deny Himself. What, therefore, does he mean? by what method of speech does he try to persuade us on a point which he is himself loth to consider? For he advances a step further, and says: “Inasmuch as, however, it is not of us to be able to avoid sin; even if we were to wish not to be able to avoid sin, it is not in our power to be unable to avoid sin.” It is an involved sentence, and therefore a very obscure one. It might, however, be more plainly expressed in some such way as this: “Inasmuch as to be able to avoid sin is not of us, then, whether we wish it or do not wish it, we are able to avoid sin!” He does not say, “Whether we wish it or do not wish it, we do not sin,”—for we undoubtedly do sin, if we wish;—but yet he asserts that, whether we will or not, we have the capacity of not sinning,—a capacity which he declares to be inherent in our nature. Of a man, indeed, who has his legs strong and sound, it may be said admissibly enough, “whether he will or not he has the capacity of walking;” but if his legs be broken, however much he may wish, he has not the capacity. The nature of which our author speaks is corrupted. “Why is dust and ashes proud?” It is corrupted. It implores the Physician’s help. “Save me, O Lord,” is its cry; “Heal my soul,” it exclaims. Why does he check such cries so as to hinder future health, by insisting, as it were, on its present capacity?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ecclus. x. 9.
* ↑ Ps. xii. 1.
* ↑ Ps. xli. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 59

Chapter 59 [LI.]—In What Sense Pelagius Attributed to God’s Grace the Capacity of Not Sinning.
In order, however, to escape from the odium wherewith Christians guard their salvation, he parries their question when they ask him, “Why do you affirm that man without the help of God’s grace is able to avoid sin?” by saying, “The actual capacity of not sinning lies not so much in the power of will as in the necessity of nature. Whatever is placed in the necessity of nature undoubtedly appertains to the Author of nature, that is, God. How then,” says he, “can that be regarded as spoken without the grace of God which is shown to belong in an especial manner to God?” Here the opinion is expressed which all along was kept in the background; there is, in fact, no way of permanently concealing such a doctrine. The reason why he attributes to the grace of God the capacity of not sinning is, that God is the Author of nature, in which, he declares, this capacity of avoiding sin is inseparably implanted. Whenever He wills a thing, no doubt He does it; and what He wills not, that He does not. Now, wherever there is this inseparable capacity, there cannot accrue any infirmity of the will; or rather, there cannot be both a presence of will and a failure in “performance.” This, then, being the case, how comes it to pass that “to will is present, but how to perform that which is good” is not present? Now, if the author of the work we are discussing spoke of that nature of man, which was in the beginning created faultless and perfect, in whatever sense his dictum be taken, “that it has an inseparable capacity,”—that is, so to say, one which cannot be lost,—then that nature ought not to have been mentioned at all which could be corrupted, and which could require a physician to cure the eyes of the blind, and restore that capacity of seeing which had been lost through blindness. For I suppose a blind man would like to see, but is unable; but, whenever a man wishes to do a thing and cannot, there is present to him the will, but he has lost the capacity.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. vii. 18.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 60

Chapter 60 [LII.]—Pelagius Admits “Contrary Flesh” In the Unbaptized.
See what obstacles he still attempts to break through, if possible, in order to introduce his own opinion. He raises a question for himself in these terms: “But you will tell me that, according to the apostle, the flesh is contrary to us;” and then answers it in this wise: “How can it be that in the case of any baptized person the flesh is contrary to him, when according to the same apostle he is understood not to be in the flesh? For he says, ‘But ye are not in the flesh.’” Very well; we shall soon see whether it be really true that this says that in the baptized the flesh cannot be contrary to them; at present, however, as it was impossible for him quite to forget that he was a Christian (although his reminiscence on the point is but slight), he has quitted his defence of nature. Where then is that inseparable capacity of his? Are those who are not yet baptized not a part of human nature? Well, now, here by all means, here at this point, he might find his opportunity of awaking out of his sleep; and he still has it if he is careful. “How can it be,” he asks, “that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him?” Therefore to the unbaptized the flesh can be contrary! Let him tell us how; for even in these there is that nature which has been so stoutly defended by him. However, in these he does certainly allow that nature is corrupted, inasmuch as it was only among the baptized that the wounded traveller left his inn sound and well, or rather remains sound in the inn whither the compassionate Samaritan carried him that he might become cured. Well, now, if he allows that the flesh is contrary even in these, let him tell us what has happened to occasion this, since the flesh and the spirit alike are the work of one and the same Creator, and are therefore undoubtedly both of them good, because He is good,—unless indeed it be that damage which has been inflicted by man’s own will. And that this may be repaired in our nature, there is need of that very Saviour from whose creative hand nature itself proceeded. Now, if we acknowledge that this Saviour, and that healing remedy of His by which the Word was made flesh in order to dwell among us, are required by small and great,—by the crying infant and the hoary-headed man alike,—then, in fact, the whole controversy of the point between us is settled.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 9.
* ↑ In the next chapter.
* ↑ Luke x. 34.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 56

Chapter 56 [XLVIII.]—The Assistance of Grace in a Perfect Nature.
Not only, then, are these similes employed by our author false, but so is the matter which he wishes them to illustrate. He goes on to say: “In like manner, touching the possibility of our not sinning, we must understand that it is of us not to sin, but yet that the ability to avoid sin is not of us.” If he were speaking of man’s whole and perfect nature, which we do not now possess (“for we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it”), his language even in that case would not be correct to the effect that to avoid sinning would be of us alone, although to sin would be of us, for even then there must be the help of God, which must shed itself on those who are willing to receive it, just as the light is given to strong and healthy eyes to assist them in their function of sight. Inasmuch, however, as it is about this present life of ours that he raises the question, wherein our corruptible body weighs down the soul, and our earthly tabernacle depresses our sense with all its many thoughts, I am astonished that he can with any heart suppose that, even without the help of our Saviour’s healing balm, it is in our own power to avoid sin, and the ability not to sin is of nature, which gives only stronger evidence of its own corruption by the very fact of its failing to see its taint.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. viii. 24, 25.
# Landon in The Literary Gazette 1824/Indian Song

Literary Gazette, 17th January, 1824, Page 41
INDIAN SONG. Founded on a romantic species of Divination practised by Indian Maidens.
To the moonlit waters of the lake
 My little bark I gave,
And gentle as the jasmin's sigh
 Was the wind that swept the wave.
I chose the night from many a one,
 It was so very fair;
Scarcely the cocoa's light green plumes
 Waved on the languid air.
Last year, beneath the summer moon,
 I planted a young rose,
I watered it at the sunrise,
 And at the evening's close.
I only let one single flower
 Amid the boughs abide,
Soon as they came I culled the heads
 Of every bud beside.
I shaded it from the hot noon,
 And from the midnight dew,
And fresh, and red, and beautiful,
 My lonely rosebud grew.
This morning it was in its prime,
 And then my bark I made
Of the green fragrant grass that grows
 In the bannana's shade.
I made a taper of white wax
 From my own hive, whose bees
Had fed but upon hyacinth bells
 And on young myrtle trees.
And in the bark that taper stood,
 Hung with a wreath of green,
And in the midst my lovely rose
 Sat like a fairy queen.
I threw rich spice and scented oils
 Around the lighted flame,
And gave it to the stream, and called
 Upon Camdeo's name.
My cheek blushed warm, my heart beat high,
 The bark moved slowly on;
There breath'd no wind, there moved no wave,
 Yet like a thought 'twas gone.
Alas, my bark! Alas, my rose!
 Yet what could I expect?
I sent them on a voyage of love,
 And when was love not wreck'd?—L. E. L.
# Landon in The Literary Gazette 1824/Faded Flowers

Literary Gazette, 25th December, 1824, Pages 825-826
FADED FLOWERS.
Lingers yet a perfum'd breath
Even mid these flowers' death?
Once on these dry leaves was red,
Like that o'er the ruby shed;
Yellow, like the serpentine
Of the rainbow's softest line;
Blue, like that of April's sky;
Purple, like the Tyrian dye;
Not one hue is left, of all
That lighted up this coronal!
Were it not for the perfume,
Haunting, like a ghost, their tomb,
Who would dream that they had been
Fairies of a summer scene!
Passing thus with time away,
The sweet gifts of youth decay;
Fleet their blooms, thus one by one,
Till their very form is gone;
Memory left but to declare
How beautiful and sweet they were!
In the first blue noon of Spring,
Who can think on withering?
Sear'd leaf and scentless flower
Seem'd but made for Autumn's hour;
Yet how much of blight and doom
Mingles with May's breath and bloom!
And the faded blossoms fall
As November ruled them all.
Youth and spring are both alike;
Flowers rise and pleasures strike—
These, to fade, and those to be
Nothing in reality—
Till the heart is like a bed,
But, with yellow leaves o'erspread;
With the faintest odour left,
As to make them more bereft;
By recalling what they were,
And yet being what they are!
# Landon in The Literary Gazette 1824/Lake 1

Literary Gazette, 27th March, 1824, Pages 203-204
ORIGINAL POETRY.
It is a lovely lake, with waves as blue
As e'er were lighted by the morning ray
To topaz—crowded with an hundred isles,
Each named from some peculiar flower it bears:
There is the Isle of Violets, whose leaves,
Thick in their azure beauty, fill the air
With most voluptuous breathings; the Primrose
Gives name to one: the Lilies of the Valley,
Like wreath'd pearls, to another; Cowslips glow,
Ringing with golden bells the fragrant peal
Which the bees love so, in a fourth. How sweet
Upon a summer evening, when the lake
Lies half in shadow, half in crimson light,
Like hope and fear holding within the heart
Divided empire, with a light slack sail
To steer your little boat amid the isles,
Now gazing in the clouds like fiery halls, Till head and eye are filled with gorgeous thoughts
Of golden palaces in fairyland;
Or, looking through the clear, yet purple wave,
See the white pebbles, shining like the hearts
Pure and bright even in this darksome world; There is one gloomy isle, quite overgrown
With weeping willows, green, yet pensively
Sweep the long branches down to the tall grass;
And in the very middle of the place
There stands a large old yew—beneath its shade
I would my grave might be: the tremulous light, Breaking at intervals through the sad boughs,
Yet without power to warm the ground below,
Would be so like the mockery of hope.
No flowers grow there—they would not suit my tomb:
It should be only strewed with withered leaves;
And on a willow, near, my harp might hang,
Forgotten and forsaken, yet at times
Sending sweet music o'er the lake.
# Landon in The Literary Gazette 1824/Farewell

Literary Gazette, 27th March, 1824, Pages 203-204
THE FAREWELL.
Yes, I am changed; yes, much much changed
 Since first I sang to thee;
I marvel, knowing what I am,
 At what I once could be.
The trace of pleasure on my heart
 Was like that of the wind,
And sorrow's self had not then left
 A deeper trace behind.
My song was like the bursting forth
 Of the first birds in spring;
I had some thought of future flowers,
 But none of withering.
I thought of love, but of love as
 Love never yet was known;
Of truth, of hope, of happiness—
 But all these dreams are flown.
As sometimes on Italian shores
 At dawn of day is seen
A fleeting show of fairy land,
 Just such my life has been.
How I now loathe my dreams of song!
 They have been so untrue;
But more I loathe the dearer dream,
 The one that dwelt with you!
Farewell to one, farewell to all,
 Both song and love are o'er;
The essence of their life is past,
 For they deceive no more!