OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book V/Chapter 1

Chapter I.—After the Death of Valens the Goths again attack Constantinople, and are repulsed by the Citizens, aided by Some Saracen Auxiliaries.
After the Emperor Valens had thus lost his life, in a manner which has never been satisfactorily ascertained,
the barbarians again approached the very walls of Constantinople, and laid waste the suburbs on every side of it. Whereat the people becoming indignant armed themselves with whatever weapons they could severally lay hands on, and sallied forth of their own accord against the enemy. The empress Dominica caused the same pay to be distributed out of the imperial treasury to such as volunteered to go out on this service, as was usually allowed to soldiers. A few Saracens also assisted the citizens, being confederates, who had been sent by Mavia their queen: the latter we have already mentioned.
In this way the people having fought at this time, the barbarians retired to a great distance from the city.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 26.
* ↑ Cf. IV. 36.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book V/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—The Arians excite a Tumult at Constantinople.
At the time when the emperor was thus occupied on his military expedition, the Arians excited a great tumult at Constantinople by such devices as these. Men are fond of fabricating statements respecting matters about which they are in ignorance; and if at any time they are given occasion they swell to a prodigious extent rumors concerning what they wish, being ever fond of change. This was strongly exemplified at Constantinople on the present occasion: for each invented news concerning the war which was carrying on at a distance, according to his own caprice, always presuming upon the most disastrous results; and before the contest had yet commenced, they spoke of transactions in reference to it, of which they knew nothing, with as much assurance as if they had been spectators on the very scene of action. Thus it was confidently affirmed that ‘the usurper had defeated the emperor’s army,’ even the number of men slain on both sides being specified; and that ‘the emperor himself had nearly fallen into the usurper’s hands.’ Then the Arians, who had been excessively exasperated by those being put in possession of the churches within the city who had previously been the objects of their persecution, began to augment these rumors by additions of their own. But since the currency of such stories with increasing exaggeration, in time made even the farmers themselves believe them—for those who had circulated them from hearsay, affirmed to the authors of these falsehoods, that the accounts they had received from them had been fully corroborated elsewhere; then indeed the Arians were emboldened to commit acts of violence, and among other outrages, to set fire to the house of Nectarius the bishop. This was done in the second consulate
of Theodosius Augustus, which he bore with Cynegius.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 388 a.d.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume XIII/On Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians/On First Thessalonians
## Contents

* 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3
* 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10
* 1 Thessalonians 2:9-12
* 1 Thessalonians 3:5-8
* 1 Thessalonians 4:1-3
* 1 Thessalonians 4:9,10
* 1 Thessalonians 4:13
* 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
* 1 Thessalonians 5:1,2
* 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13
* 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—Victor’s Dilemma: He Must Either Say All Infants are Saved, or Else God Slays the Innocent.
Let him, then, find an answer, if he can, when the question is asked of him, why it was that the soul, without any sin whatever, either original or personal, deserved so to be condemned to undergo the original sin of another as to be unable to be delivered from it; let him see which he will choose of two alternatives: Either to say that even the souls of dying infants who depart hence without the washing of regeneration, and for whom no sacrifice of the Lord’s body is offered, are absolved from the bond of original sin—although the apostle teaches that “from one all go into condemnation,”—all, that is, of course, to whom grace does not find its way to help, in order that by One all might escape into redemption. Or else to say that souls which have no sin, either their own or original, and are in every respect innocent, simple, and pure, are punished with eternal damnation by the righteous God when He inserts them Himself into sinful flesh without any deliverance therefrom.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. v. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 16

Chapter 16 [XIII.]—Difficulty in the Opinion Which Maintains that Souls are Not by Propagation.
This means, then, of settling the point whereby the soul was sent into the flesh until what time it should be delivered from the flesh,—seeing that the soul of an infant, which has not grown old enough for the will to become free, is the case supposed,—makes no discovery of the reason why condemnation should overtake it without the reception of baptism, except the reason of original sin. Owing to this sin, we do not deny that the soul is righteously condemned, because for sin God’s righteous law has appointed punishment. But then we ask, why the soul has been made to undergo this sinful state, if it is not derived from that one primeval soul which sinned in the first father of the human race. Wherefore, if God does not condemn the innocent,—if He does not make guilty those whom He sees to be innocent,—and if nothing liberates souls from either original sins or personal ones but Christ’s baptism in Christ’s Church,—and if sins, before they are committed, and much more when they have never been committed, cannot be condemned by any righteous law: then this writer cannot adduce any of these four cases; he must, if he can, explain, in respect to the souls of infants, which, as they quit life without baptism, are sent into condemnation, by what desert of theirs it is that they, without having ever sinned, are consigned to a sinful flesh, there to find the sin which is to secure their just condemnation. Moreover, if he shrinks from these four cases which sound doctrine condemns,—that is to say, if he has not the courage to maintain that souls, when they are even without sin, are made sinful by God, or that they are freed from the original sin that is in them without Christ’s sacrament, or that they committed sin in some other state before they were sent into the flesh, or that sins which they never committed are condemned in them,—if, I say, he has not the courage to tell us these things because they really do not deserve to be mentioned but should affirm that infants do not inherit original sin, and have no reason why they should be condemned should they depart hence without receiving the sacrament of regeneration, he will without doubt, to his own condemnation, run into the damnable heresy of Pelagius. To avoid this, how much better is it for him to share my hesitation about the soul’s origin, without daring to affirm that which he cannot comprehend by human reason nor defend by divine authority! So shall he not be obliged to utter foolishness, whilst he is afraid to confess his ignorance.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 17

Chapter 17 [XIV.]—He Shows that the Passages of Scripture Adduced by Victor Do Not Prove that Souls are Made by God in Such a Way as Not to Be Derived by Propagation: First Passage.
Here, perhaps, he may say that his opinion is backed by divine authority, since he supposes that he proves by passages of the Holy Scriptures that souls are not made by God by way of propagation, but that they are by distinct acts of creation breathed afresh into each individual. Let him prove this if he can, and I will allow that I have learnt from him what I was trying to find out with great earnestness. But he must go in quest of other defences, which, perhaps, he will not find, for he has not proved his point by the passages which he has thus far advanced. For all he has applied to the subject are to some extent undoubtedly suitable, but they afford only doubtful demonstration to the point which he raises respecting the soul’s origin. For it is certain that God has given to man breath and spirit, as the prophet testifies: “Thus saith the Lord, who made the heaven, and founded the earth, and all that is therein; who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk over it.” This passage he wishes to be taken in his own sense, which he is defending; so that the words, “who giveth breath to the people,” may be understood as implying that He creates souls for people not by propagation, but by insufflation of new souls in every case. Let him, then, boldly maintain at this rate that He does not give us flesh, on the ground that our flesh derives its original from our parents. In the instance, too, which the apostle adduces, “God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him,” let him deny, if he dares, that corn springs from corn, and grass from grass, from the seed, each after its kind. And if he dares not deny this, how does he know in what sense it is said, “He giveth breath to the people”?—whether by derivation from parents, or by fresh breathing into each individual?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. xlii. 5.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 38.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 2

Chapter 2 [II.]—He Receives with a Kindly and Patient Feeling the Books of a Young and Inexperienced Man Who Wrote Against Him in a Tone of Arrogance. Vincentius Victor Converted from the Sect of the Rogatians.
I am somewhat pained, however, at being thus far less understood by your Holiness than I should like to be; forasmuch as you supposed that I should so receive your communication, as if you did me an injury, by making known to me what another had done. You may see, indeed, how far this feeling is from my mind, in that I have no complaint to make of having suffered any wrong even from him. For, when he entertained views different from my own, was he bound to preserve silence? It ought, no doubt, to be even pleasant to me, that he broke silence in such a way as to put it in our power to read what he had to say. He ought, I certainly think, to have written simply to me, rather than to another concerning me; but as he was unknown to me, he did not venture to intrude personally on me in refuting my words. He thought there was no necessity for applying to me in a matter on which he seemed to himself least of all liable to be doubted, but to be holding a perfectly well-known and certain opinion. He moreover, acted in obedience to a friend of his by whom he tells us he was compelled to write. And if he expressed any sentiment during the controversy which was contumelious to me, I would prefer supposing that he did this, not with any wish to treat me with incivility, but from the necessity of thinking differently from me. For in all cases where a person’s animus towards one is indeterminate and unknown, I think it better to suppose the existence of the kindlier motive, than to find fault with an undiscovered one. Perhaps, too, he acted from love to me, as knowing that what he had written might possibly reach me; being at the same time unwilling that I should be in error on such points as he especially thinks himself to be free from error regarding. I ought, therefore, to be grateful for his kindness, although I feel obliged to disapprove of his opinion. Accordingly, as regards the points on which he does not entertain right views, he appears to me to deserve gentle correction rather than severe disapproval; more especially because, if I am rightly informed, he has lately become a catholic—a matter in which he is to be congratulated. For he has freed himself from the schism and errors of the Donatists (or rather the Rogatists) in which he was previously implicated; and if he understands the catholic verity as he ought, we may really rejoice at his conversion.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [The Edinburgh translator conjectures minime dubitandam here: “on which he seemed to himself to be holding no doubtful, but a perfectly well-known and certain opinion.”—W.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 21

Chapter 21.—The Second Passage Quoted by Victor.
On the same principle we treat the passage in which God says: “For my Spirit shall go forth from me; and I have created every breath.” Here the former clause, “My Spirit shall go forth from me, must be taken as referring to the Holy Ghost, of whom the Saviour similarly says, “He proceedeth from the Father.” But the other clause, “I have created every breath,” is undeniably spoken of each individual soul. Well; but God also creates the entire body of man; and, as nobody doubts, He makes the human body by the process of propagation: it is therefore, of course, still open to inquiry concerning the soul (since it is evidently God’s work), whether He creates it as He does the body; by propagation, or by inbreathing, as He made the first soul.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. lvii. 16. In the Septuagint it is, Πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίσα.
* ↑ John xv. 26.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Soul and its Origin/Book I/Chapter 20

Chapter 20.—Other Ways of Taking the Passage.
There are also some persons who understand the prophet’s words, “He gave breath to the people upon it,” that is to say, upon the earth, as if the word “breath,” flatus, were simply equivalent to “soul,” anima; while they construe the next clause, “and spirit to them that walk over it,” as referring to the Holy Ghost; and they suppose that the same order is observed by the prophet that is mentioned by the apostle: “That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” Now from this view of the prophet’s words an elegant interpretation may, no doubt, be formed consistent with the apostle’s sense. The phrase, “to them that walk over it,” is in the Latin, “calcantibus eam;” and as the literal meaning of these words is “treading upon it,” we may understand the idea of contempt of it to be implied. For they who receive the Holy Ghost despise earthly things in their love of heavenly things. None of these opinions, however, is contrary to the faith, whether one regards the two terms, breath and spirit, to pertain to human nature, or both of them to the Holy Ghost, or one of them, breath, to the soul, and the other, spirit, to the Holy Ghost. If, however, the soul and spirit of the human being be the meaning here, since undoubtedly it ought to be, as the gift of God to him, then we must further inquire, in what way does God bestow this gift? Is it by propagation, as He gives us our bodily limbs by this process? Or is it bestowed on each person severally by God’s inbreathing, not by propagation, but as always a fresh creation? These questions are not ambiguous, as this man would make them; but we wish that they be defended by the most certain warrant of the divine Scriptures.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 46.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book II
## 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book II/Chapter 1

Book II.
Chapter I.—Return of St. Athanasius.
The divine Athanasius returned to Alexandria, after having remained two years and four months at Treves. Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great, whose imperial sway extended over Western Gaul, wrote the following letter to the church of Alexandria.
Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, the son of Constantine the Great, to the Alexandrians.
“Constantinus Cæsar to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria.
“I think that it cannot have escaped your pious intelligence that Athanasius, the interpreter of the venerated law, was opportunely sent into Gaul, in order that, so long as the savagery of these bloodthirsty opponents was threatening peril to his sacred head, he might be saved from suffering irremediable wrongs. To avoid this imminent peril, he was snatched from the jaws of his foes, to remain in a city under my jurisdiction, where he might be abundantly supplied with every necessary. Yet the greatness of his virtue, relying on the grace of God, led him to despise all the calamities of adverse fortune. Constantine, my lord and my father, of blessed memory, intended to have reinstated him in his former bishopric, and to have restored him to your piety; but as the emperor was arrested by the hand of death before his desires were accomplished, I, being his heir, have deemed it fitting to carry into execution the purpose of this sovereign of divine memory. You will learn from your bishop himself, when you see him, with how much respect I have treated him. Nor indeed is it surprising that he should have been thus treated by me. I was moved to this line of conduct by his own great virtue, and the thought of your affectionate longing for his return. May Divine Providence watch over you, beloved brethren!”
Furnished with this letter, St. Athanasius returned from exile, and was most gladly welcomed both by the rich and by the poor, by the inhabitants of cities, and by those of the provinces. The followers of the madness of Arius were the only persons who felt any vexation at his return. Eusebius, Theognis, and those of their faction resorted to their former machinations, and endeavoured to prejudice the ears of the young emperor against him.
I shall now proceed to relate in what manner Constantius swerved from the doctrines of the Apostles.

## Footnotes

* ↑ From Feb. 336 to June 338. The “Porta Nigra” and the ruins of the Baths still shew relics of the splendour of the imperial city. The exile was generously treated. Maximinus, the bishop of Treves, was orthodox and friendly. (Ath. ad Episc. Ægypt. §8.) On the conclusion of the term of his relegation to Treves Constantine II. took him in the imperial suite to Viminacium, a town on the Danube, not far from the modern Passarovitz. Here the three emperors met. Athanasius continued his journey to Alexandria via Constantinople and the Cappadocian Cæsarea. (Ath. Hist. Ar. §8 and Apol. ad Const. §5.)
* ↑ In Nov. 338. His clergy thought it the happiest day of their lives. Ath. Ap. Cont. Ar. §7.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Prologue

The ECCLESIASTICAL HistorY of Theodoret.
Book I.
Prologue.—Design of the History.
When artists paint on panels and on walls the events of ancient history, they alike delight the eye, and keep bright for many a year the memory of the past. Historians substitute books for panels, bright description for pigments, and thus render the memory of past events both stronger and more permanent, for the painter’s art is ruined by time. For this reason I too shall attempt to record in writing events in ecclesiastical history hitherto omitted, deeming it indeed not right to look on without an effort while oblivion robs noble deeds and useful stories of their due fame. For this cause too I have been frequently urged by friends to undertake this work. But when I compare my own powers with the magnitude of the undertaking, I shrink from attempting it. Trusting, however, in the bounty of the Giver of all good, I enter upon a task beyond my own strength.
Eusebius of Palestine has written a history of the Church from the time of the holy Apostles to the reign of Constantine, the prince beloved of God. I shall begin my history from the period at which his terminates.

## Footnotes

* ↑ συλαω. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8
* ↑ Cf. Basil de Spir. Sanct., 29. “ὁ παλαιστῖνος” means “of Cæsarea,” his see, to distinguish him from his namesake, Bishop of Nicomedia.
* ↑ The last event mentioned by Eusebius is the defeat of Licinius, who was put to death a.d. 324.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book I/Chapter 32

Chapter XXXII.—The End of the Holy Emperor Constantine.
The emperor was now translated from his earthly dominions to a better kingdom.
The body of the emperor was enclosed in a golden coffin, and was carried to Constantinople by the governors of the provinces, the military commanders, and the other officers of state, preceded and followed by the whole army, all bitterly deploring their loss; for Constantine had been as an affectionate father to them all. The body of the emperor was allowed to remain in the palace until the arrival of his sons, and high honours were rendered to it. But these details require no description here, as a full account has been given by other writers. From their works, which are easy of access, may be learnt how greatly the Ruler of all honours His faithful servants. If any one should be tempted to unbelief, let him look at what occurs now near the tomb and the statue of Constantine, and then he must admit the truth of what God has said in the Scriptures, “Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Whitsunday, a.d. 337.
* ↑ Valesius explains this allusion by quoting the Arian Philostorgius (ii. 17), who says that “the statue of Constantine, standing on its porphyry column, was honoured with sacrifices, illuminations, and incense.” The accusation of idolatrous worship may be disregarded. Cf. Chron. Alex. 665, 667.
* ↑ 1 Sam. ii. 30
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/The Life of Constantine/Book III/Chapter 34

Chapter XXXIV.—Description of the Structure of the Holy Sepulchre.
This monument, therefore, first of all, as the chief part of the whole, the emperor’s zealous magnificence beautified with rare columns, and profusely enriched with the most splendid decorations of every kind.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/The Life of Constantine/Book III/Chapter 35

Chapter XXXV.—Description of the Atrium and Porticos.
The next object of his attention was a space of ground of great extent, and open to the pure air of heaven. This he adorned with a pavement of finely polished stone, and enclosed it on three sides with porticos of great length.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/The Life of Constantine/Book III/Chapter 29

Chapter XXIX.—How he wrote concerning the Erection of a Church, both to the Governors of the Provinces, and to the Bishop Macarius.
Immediately after the transactions I have recorded, the emperor sent forth injunctions which breathed a truly pious spirit, at the same time granting ample supplies of money, and commanding that a house of prayer worthy of the worship of God should be erected near the Saviour’s tomb on a scale of rich and royal greatness. This object he had indeed for some time kept in view, and had foreseen, as if by the aid of a superior intelligence, that which should afterwards come to pass. He laid his commands, therefore, on the governors of the Eastern provinces, that by an abundant and unsparing expenditure they should secure the completion of the work on a scale of noble and ample magnificence. He also despatched the following letter to the bishop who at that time presided over the church at Jerusalem, in which he clearly asserted the saving doctrine of the faith, writing in these terms.