OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Apollonius the senator

Chapter XLII.
Apollonius, a Roman senator under the emperor Commodus, having been denounced by a slave as a Christian, gained permission to give a reason for his faith and wrote a remarkable volume which he read in the senate, yet none the less, by the will of the senate, he was beheaded for Christ by virtue of an ancient law among them, that Christians who had once been brought before their judgment seat should not be dismissed unless they recanted.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Died about 185.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Arabianus

Chapter LI.
Arabianus under the same emperor published certain small works relating to christian doctrine.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished about 196.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Archelaus the bishop

Chapter LXXII.
Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, composed in the Syriac language, a book of the discussion which he held with Manichaeus, when he came from Persia. This book, which is translated into Greek, is possessed by many.
He flourished under the Emperor Probus, who succeeded Aurelianus and Tacitus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished about 278.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Apollinaris the bishop

Chapter XXVI.
Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus, to whom he addressed a notable volume in behalf of the faith of the Christians. There are extant also five other books of his Against the Nations, two On truth andAgainst the Cataphrygians written at the time when Montanus was making a beginning with Prisca and Maximilla.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Claudius Apollinaris died before 180.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Asterius the philosopher

Chapter XCIV.
Asterius, a philosopher of the Arian party, wrote, during the reign of Constantius, commentaries On the Epistle to the Romans, On the Gospels and On the Psalms, also many other works which are diligently read by those of his party.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Asterius of Cappadocia, died about 330.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Apollinarius the bishop

Chapter CIV.
Apollinarus, bishop of Laodicea, in Syria, the son of a presbyter, applied himself in his youth to the diligent study of grammar, and afterwards, writing innumerable volumes on the Holy Scriptures, died in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius. There are extant thirty books by him Against Porphyry, which are generally considered as among the best of his works.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Apollinaris the younger, Bishop 362, died about 390.
* ↑ Works“generally recognized as authentic” Matougues.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Apollonius

Chapter XL.
Apollonius, an exceedingly talented man, wrote against Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla a notable and lengthy volume, in which he asserts that Montanus and his mad prophetesses died by hanging, and many other things, among which are the following concerning Prisca and Maximilla, “if they denied that they have accepted gifts, let them confess that those who do accept are not prophets and I will prove by a thousand witnesses that they have received gifts, for it is by other fruits that prophets are shown to be prophets indeed. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet stain her eyelids with antimony? Is a prophet adorned with fine garments and precious stones? Does a prophet play with dice and tables? Does he accept usury? Let them respond whether this ought to be permitted or not, it will be my task to prove that they do these things.” He says in the same book, that the time when he wrote the work was the fortieth year after the beginning of the heresy of the Cataphrygians. Tertullian added to the six volumes which he wrote On ecstasy against the church a seventh, directed especially against Apollonius, in which he attempts to defend all which Apollonius refuted. Apollonius flourished in the reigns of Commodus and Severus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop about 196, flourished 210.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Aristides the philosopher

Chapter XX.
Aristides a most eloquent Athenian philosopher, and a disciple of Christ while yet retaining his philosopher’s garb, presented a work to Hadrian at the same time that Quadratus presented his. The work contained a systematic statement of our doctrine, that is, an Apology for the Christians, which is still extant and is regarded by philologians as a monument to his genius.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished 125, apology presented about 133.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—The Pelagians Understand that the Law Itself is God’s Grace.
But those enemies of grace never endeavour to lay more secret snares for more vehement opposition to that same grace than when they praise the law, which, without doubt, is worthy to be praised. Because, by their different modes of speaking, and by variety of words in all their arguments, they wish the law to be understood as “grace”—that, to wit, we may have from the Lord God the help of knowledge, whereby we may know those things which have to be done,—not the inspiration of love, that, when known, we may do them with a holy love, which is properly grace. For the knowledge of the law without love puffeth up, does not edify, according to the same apostle, who most openly says, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” Which saying is like to that in which it is said, “The letter killeth, the spirit maketh alive.” For “Knowledge puffeth up,” corresponds to “The letter killeth:” and, “Love edifieth,” to “The spirit maketh alive;” because “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us.” Therefore the knowledge of the law makes a proud transgressor; but, by the gift of charity, he delights to be a doer of the law. We do not then make void the law through faith, but we establish the law, which by terrifying leads to faith. Thus certainly the law worketh wrath, that the mercy of God may bestow grace on the sinner, frightened and turned to the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is that wisdom of God of which it is written, “She carries law and mercy on her tongue,”—law whereby she frightens, mercy by which she may help,—law by His servant, mercy by Himself,—the law, as it were, in the staff which Elisha sent to raise up the son of the widow, and it failed to raise him up, “For if a law had been given which could have given life, righteousness would altogether have been by the law,” but mercy, as it were, in Elisha himself, who, wearing the figure of Christ, by giving life to the dead was joined in the signification of the great sacrament, as it were, of the New Testament.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See On the Grace of Christ, ch. 8, and following.
* ↑ 1 Cor. viii. 1.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 6.
* ↑ Rom. v. 5.
* ↑ Rom. iii. 31.
* ↑ Prov. iii. 16.
* ↑ 2 Kings iv. 29 sq.
* ↑ Gal. iii. 21.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—God’s Purposes are Effects of Grace.
What does it profit them, that in the praise of that same free will “they say that grace assists the good purpose of every one”? This would be received without scruple as being said in a catholic spirit, if they did not attribute merit to the good purpose, to which merit now a wage is paid of debt, not according to grace, but would understand and confess that even that very good purpose, which the grace which follows assists could not have been in the man if grace had not preceded it. For how is there a good purpose in a man without the mercy of God first, since it is that very good will which is prepared by the Lord? But when they had said this, “that grace also assists every one’s good purpose,” and presently added, “yet does not infuse the love of virtue into a resisting heart,” it might be fitly understood, if it were not said by those whose meaning is known. For, for the resisting heart a hearing for the divine call is first procured by the grace of God itself, and then in that heart, now no more resisting, the desire of virtue is kindled. Nevertheless, in all things which any one does according to God, His mercy precedes him. And this they will not have, because they choose to be not catholics, but Pelagians. For it much delights a proud impiety, that even that which a man is forced to confess to be given by the Lord should seem to be not bestowed on himself, but repaid; so that, to wit, the children of perdition, not of the promise, may be thought themselves to have made themselves good, and God to have repaid to those who are now good, having been made so by themselves, the reward due for that their work.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See above, Book ii. ch. 11.
* ↑ Prov. viii. 35.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 1

Chapter 1 [I.]—The Subterfuges of the Pelagians are Five.
After the matters which I have considered, and to which I have answered, they repeat the same things as those contained in the letter which I have refuted, but in a different manner. For before, they put them forward as objecting to us things which we think as it were falsely; but afterwards, as explaining what they themselves think, they have presented the same things from the opposite side, adding two certain points which they had not mentioned—that is, “that they say that baptism is necessary for all ages,” and “that by Adam death passed upon us, not sins,” which things must also themselves be considered in their own place. Hence, because in the former Book which I have just finished I said that they alleged hindrances of five matters in which lurk their dogmas hostile to God’s grace and to the catholic faith,—the praise, to wit, of the creature, the praise of marriage, the praise of the law, the praise of free will, the praise of the saints,—I think it is more convenient to make a general discrimination of all that they maintain, the contrary of which they object to us, and to show which of those things pertain to any of those five, that so my answer may be by that very distinction clearer and briefer.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 12

Chapter 12 [VI.]—Of the Praise of Free Will.
Moreover, that, in opposition to the Manicheans, they praise free will, making use of the prophetic testimony, “If ye shall be willing and will hear me, ye shall eat what is good in the land; but if ye shall be unwilling and will not hear me, the sword shall consume you:” what advantage is this to them, when, indeed, it is not so much against the Manicheans that they are maintaining, as against the catholics that they are extolling, free will? For they wish what is said, “If ye be willing and will hear me,” to be so understood, as if in the preceding will itself were the merit of the grace that follows; and thus grace were no more grace, seeing that it is not free when it is rendered as a debt. But if they should so understand what is written, “If ye be willing,” as to confess that He prepares even that good will itself of whom it is written, “The will is prepared by the Lord,” they would use this testimony as catholics, and not only would overcome the ancient heresy of the Manicheans, but would not found the new one of the Pelagians.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. i. 19, 20.
* ↑ Prov. viii. 35.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 17

Chapter 17 [VII.]—Of the Praise of the Saints.
In that, indeed, in the praise of the saints, they will not drive us with the zeal of that publican to hunger and thirst after righteousness, but with the vanity of the Pharisees, as it were, to overflow with sufficiency and fulness; what does it profit them that—in opposition to the Manicheans, who do away with baptism—they say “that men are perfectly renewed by baptism,” and apply the apostle’s testimony for this,—“who testifies that, by the washing of water, the Church is made holy and spotless from the Gentiles,”—when, with a proud and perverse meaning, they put forth their arguments in opposition to the prayers of the Church itself. For they say this in order that the Church may be believed after holy baptism—in which is accomplished the forgiveness of all sins—to have no further sin; when, in opposition to them, from the rising of the sun even to its setting, in all its members it cries to God, “Forgive us our debts.” But if they are interrogated regarding themselves in this matter, they find not what to answer. For if they should say that they have no sin, John answers them, that they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them. But if they confess their sins, since they wish themselves to be members of Christ’s body, how will that body, that is, the Church, be even in this time perfectly, as they think, without spot or wrinkle, if its members without falsehood confess themselves to have sins? Wherefore in baptism all sins are forgiven, and, by that very washing of water in the word, the Church is set forth in Christ without spot or wrinkle; and unless it were baptized, it would fruitlessly say, “Forgive us our debts,” until it be brought to glory, when there is in it absolutely no spot or wrinkle.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Luke xviii. 10–14.
* ↑ Eph. v. 26.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 12.
* ↑ 1 John i. 8.
* ↑ Eph. v. 27.
* ↑ See On the Perfection of Man’s Righteousness, 35, and On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 27.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 18

Chapter 18.—The Opinion of the Saints Themselves About Themselves.
It is to be confessed that “the Holy Spirit, even in the old times,” not only “aided good dispositions,” which even they allow, but that it even made them good, which they will not have. “That all, also, of the prophets and apostles or saints, both evangelical and ancient, to whom God gives His witness, were righteous, not in comparison with the wicked, but by the rule of virtue,” is not doubtful. And this is opposed to the Manicheans, who blaspheme the patriarchs and prophets; but what is opposed to the Pelagians is, that all of these, when interrogated concerning themselves while they lived in the body, with one most accordant voice would answer, “If we should say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” “But in the future time,” it is not to be denied “that there will be a reward as well of good works as of evil, and that no one will be commanded to do the commandments there which here he has contemned,” but that a sufficiency of perfect righteousness where sin cannot be, a righteousness which is here hungered and thirsted after by the saints, is here hoped for in precept, is there received as a reward, on the entreaty of alms and prayers; so that what here may have been wanting in fulfilment of the commandments may become unpunished for the forgiveness of sin.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John i. 8.
* ↑ See above, Book iii. 17.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book II/Chapter 44

Chapter 44.—An Objection of the Pelagians.
Nor do they fail to see this point, that his own sins are no detriment to the parent after his conversion; they therefore raise the question: “How much more impossible is it that they should be a hinderance to his son?” But they who thus think do not attend to this consideration, that as his own sins are not injurious to the father for the very reason that he is born again of the Spirit, so in the case of his son, unless he be in the same manner born again, the sins which he derived from his father will prove injurious to him. Because even renewed parents beget children, not out of the first-fruits of their renewed condition, but carnally out of the remains of the old nature; and the children who are thus the offspring of their parents’ remaining old nature, and are born in sinful flesh, escape from the condemnation which is due to the old man by the sacrament of spiritual regeneration and renewal. Now this is a consideration which, on account of the controversies that have arisen, and may still arise, on this subject, we ought to keep in our view and memory,—that a full and perfect remission of sins takes place only in baptism, that the character of the actual man does not at once undergo a total change, but that the first-fruits of the Spirit in such as walk worthily change the old carnal nature into one of like character by a process of renewal, which increases day by day, until the entire old nature is so renovated that the very weakness of the natural body attains to the strength and incorruptibility of the spiritual body.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book II/Chapter 37

Chapter 37 [XXIII.]—The Corruption of Nature is by Sin, Its Renovation is by Christ.
From this law of sin is born the flesh of sin, which requires cleansing through the sacrament of Him who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the body of sin might be destroyed, which is also called “the body of this death,” from which only God’s grace delivers wretched man through Jesus Christ our Lord. For this law, the origin of death, passed on from the first pair to their posterity, as is seen in the labour with which all men toil in the earth, and the travail of women in the pains of childbirth. For these sufferings they merited by the sentence of God, when they were convicted of sin; and we see them fulfilled not only in them, but also in their descendants, in some more, in others less, but nevertheless in all. Whereas, however, the primeval righteousness of the first human beings consisted in obeying God, and not having in their members the law of their own concupiscence against the law of their mind; now, since their sin, in our sinful flesh which is born of them, it is obtained by those who obey God, as a great acquisition, that they do not obey the desires of this evil concupiscence, but crucify in themselves the flesh with its affections and lusts, in order that they may be Jesus Christ’s, who on His cross symbolized this, and who gave them power through His grace to become the sons of God. For it is not to all men, but to as many as have received Him, that He has given to be born again to God of the Spirit, after they were born to the world by the flesh. Of these indeed it is written: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God; which were born, not of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. vii. 24, 25.
* ↑ John i. 12, 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book II/Chapter 39

Chapter 39 [XXV.]—An Objection of Pelagians.
The answer, which we have already given, to those who say, “If a sinner has begotten a sinner, a righteous man ought also to have begotten a righteous man,” we now advance in reply to such as argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. “For why,” they ask, “could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Levi, was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?” They who propose this argument ought to observe that Levi did not on this account subsequently not pay tithes, because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not to pay them; otherwise neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, whilst in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchisedec.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See above, c. 11.
* ↑ The allusion is to Heb. vii. 9.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book II/Chapter 41

Chapter 41.—Children of Believers are Called “Clean” By the Apostle.
The apostle indeed says, “Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;” and “therefore” they infer “there was no necessity for the children of believers to be baptized.” I am surprised at the use of such language by persons who deny that original sin has been transmitted from Adam. For, if they take this passage of the apostle to mean that the children of believers are born in a state of holiness, how is it that even they have no doubt about the necessity of their being baptized? Why, in fine, do they refuse to admit that any original sin is derived from a sinful parent, if some holiness is received from a holy parent? Now it certainly does not contravene our assertion, even if from the faithful “holy” children are propagated, when we hold that unless they are baptized those go into damnation, to whom our opponents themselves shut the kingdom of heaven, although they insist that they are without sin, whether actual or original. Or, if they think it an unbecoming thing for “holy ones” to be damned, how can it be a becoming thing to exclude “holy ones” from the kingdom of God? They should rather pay especial attention to this point, How can something sinful help being derived from sinful parents, if something holy is derived from holy parents, and uncleanness from unclean parents? For the twofold principle was affirmed when he said, “Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” They should also explain to us how it is right that the holy children of believers and the unclean children of unbelievers are, notwithstanding their different circumstances, equally prohibited from entering the kingdom of God, if they have not been baptized. What avails that sanctity of theirs to the one? Now if they were to maintain that the unclean children of unbelievers are damned, but that the holy children of believers are unable to enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are baptized,—but nevertheless are not damned, because they are “holy,”—that would be some sort of a distinction; but as it is, they equally declare respecting the holy children of holy parents and the unclean offspring of unclean parents, that they are not damned, since they have not any sin; and that they are excluded from the kingdom of God because they are unbaptized. What an absurdity! Who can suppose that such splendid geniuses do not perceive it?

## Footnotes

* ↑ [See Gelasius, in his Treatise against the Pelagians.]
* ↑ 1 Cor. vii. 14.
* ↑ See above, Book i. chs. 21–23.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book II/Chapter 40

Chapter 40.—An Argument Anticipated.
And let no one contend that the descendants of Abraham might fairly enough have paid tithes, although they had already paid tithes in the loins of their forefather, seeing that paying tithes was an obligation of such a nature as to require constant repetition from each several person, just as the Israelites used to pay such contributions every year all through life to their Levites, to whom were due various tithes from all kinds of produce; whereas baptism is a sacrament of such a nature as is administered once for all, and if one had already received it when in his father, he must be considered as no other than baptized, since he was born of a man who had been himself baptized. Well, whoever thus argues (I will simply say, without discussing the point at length,) should look at circumcision, which was administered once for all, and yet was administered to each person separately and individually. Just as therefore it was necessary in the time of that ancient sacrament for the son of a circumcised man to be himself circumcised, so now the son of one who has been baptized must himself also receive baptism.