OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.—Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of Death proposes the Election either of Paul or of Macedonius as his Successor.
About the same time another disturbance in addition to those we have recorded, was raised at Constantinople on the following account. Alexander, who had presided over the churches in that city, and had strenuously opposed Arius, departed this life,
having occupied the bishopric for twenty-three years and lived ninety-eight years in all, without having ordained any one to succeed him. But he had enjoined the proper persons to choose one of the two whom he named; that is to say, if they desired one who was competent to teach, and of eminent piety, they should elect Paul, whom he had himself ordained presbyter, a man young indeed in years, but of advanced intelligence and prudence; but if they wished a man of venerable aspect, and external show only of sanctity, they might appoint Macedonius, who had long been a deacon among them and was aged. Hence there arose a great contest respecting the choice of a bishop which troubled the church exceedingly; for ever since the people were divided into two parties, one of which favored the tenets of Arius, while the other held what the Nicene Synod had defined, those who held the doctrine of consubstantiality always had the advantage during the life of Alexander, the Arians disagreeing among themselves and perpetually conflicting in opinion. But after the death of that prelate, the issue of the struggle became doubtful, the defenders of the orthodox faith insisting on the ordination of Paul, and all the Arian party espousing the cause of Macedonius. Paul therefore was ordained bishop in the church called Irene,
which is situated near the great church of Sophia; whose election appeared to be more in accordance with the suffrage of the deceased.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Socrates is undoubtedly mistaken in setting the date of Alexander’s death as late as 340 a.d. The council convened to examine and confute the charges against Athanasius met in 339 a.d., and the record at that date has it (see chap. 7) that Eusebius had taken possession of the see of Constantinople. Alexander must therefore have died before 339.
* ↑ So called, not because there was a saint or eminent person of that name, but on the same principle as the church called Sophia. For the history of the latter church, see Dehio and Bezold, Die Kirchliche Baukuns des Abendlandes, I. p. 21.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.—Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New Creed to be promulgated.
Eusebius, however, could by no means remain quiet, but as the saying is, left no stone unturned, in order to effect the purpose he had in view. He therefore causes a Synod to be convened at Antioch in Syria, under pretense of dedicating the church which the father of the Augusti had commenced, and which his son Constantius had finished in the tenth year after its foundations were laid, but with the real intention of subverting and abolishing the doctrine of the homoousion. There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome,
there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon
commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. This Synod assembled at Antioch in presence of the emperor Constantius in the consulate of Marcellus and Probinus,
which was the fifth year after the death of Constantine, father of the Augusti. Placitus, otherwise called Flaccillus, successor to Euphronius, at that time presided over the church at Antioch. The confederates of Eusebius had previously designed to calumniate Athanasius; accusing him in the first place of having acted contrary to a canon which they then constituted, in resuming his episcopal authority without the license of a general council of bishops, inasmuch as on his return from exile he had on his own responsibility taken possession of the church; and then because a tumult had been excited on his entrance and many were killed in the riot; moreover that some had been scourged by him, and others brought before the tribunals. Besides they brought forward what had been determined against Athanasius at Tyre.

## Footnotes

* ↑ So called in distinction from the “New Rome,” or Constantinople. Cf. Canons of Council of Chalcedon, XXVIII.
* ↑ The word ‘canon’ here is evidently used in its general sense. There is no record of any enactment requiring the consent of the bishop of Rome to the decisions of the councils before they could be considered valid. There may have been a general understanding to that effect, having the force of an unwritten law. In any case the use of the word by Socrates is quite singular, unless we assume that he supposed there was such an enactment somewhere, as is implied by its use ordinarily.
* ↑ 341 a.d.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.—Of Eusebius of Emisa.
On the ground of such charges as these, they proposed another bishop for the Alexandrian church, and first indeed Eusebius surnamed Emisenus. Who this person was, George, bishop of Laodicea, who was present on this occasion, informs us. For he says in the book which he has composed on his life, that Eusebius was descended from the nobility of Edessa in Mesopotamia, and that from a child he had studied the holy Scriptures;
that he was afterwards instructed in Greek literature by a master resident at Edessa; and finally that the sacred books were expounded to him by Patrophilus and Eusebius, of whom the latter presided over the church at Cæsarea, and the former over that at Scythopolis. Afterwards when he dwelt in Antioch, it happened that Eustathius was deposed on the accusation of Cyrus of Berœa for holding the tenets of Sabellius. Then again he associated with Euphronius, successor of Eustathius, and avoiding a bishopric, he retired to Alexandria, and there devoted himself to the study of philosophy. On his return to Antioch he formed an intimate acquaintance with Placitus [or Flaccillus], the successor of Euphronius. At length he was ordained bishop of Alexandria, by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople; but did not go thither in consequence of the attachment of the people of that city to Athanasius, and was therefore sent to Emisa. As the inhabitants of Emisa excited a sedition on account of his appointment,—for he was commonly charged with the study and practice of judicial astrology,
—he fled and came to Laodicea, to George, who has given so many historical details of him. George having taken him to Antioch, procured his being again brought back to Emisa by Placitus and Narcissus; but he was afterwards charged with holding the Sabellian views. George more elaborately describes the circumstances of his ordination and adds at the close that the emperor took him with him in his expedition against the barbarians, and that miracles were wrought by his hand. The information given by George concerning Eusebius of Emisa may be considered reproduced at sufficient length by me here.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sozom. H. E. III. 6. From the passage in Sozomen it appears that it was customary in Edessa to teach the Scriptures to boys, and that many of them thus became quite familiar with the Bible, knowing many passages by heart.
* ↑ μαθηματικήν . From its use in astronomy the science of mathematics soon came to be identified with that counterfeit of astronomy,—astrology. It is so used by Sextus Empiricus (616. 20; 728. 20) and by Iamblichus, Myrt. 277. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book III/Chapter 10

Chapter X.—Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers.
There, however, Hilary bishop of Poictiers (a city of Aquitania Secunda) had anticipated him, having previously confirmed the bishops of Italy and Gaul in the doctrines of the orthodox faith; for he first had returned from exile to these countries. Both therefore nobly combined their energies in defense of the faith: and Hilary being a very eloquent man, maintained with great power the doctrine of the homoousion in books which he wrote in Latin. In these he gave sufficient support [to the doctrine] and unanswerably confuted the Arian tenets. These things took place shortly after the recall of those who had been banished. But it must be observed, that at the same time Macedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, with all their partisans, who had but the one common designation Macedonians, held frequent Synods in various places.
Having called together those of Seleucia who embraced their views, they anathematized the bishops of the other party, that is the Acacian: and rejecting the creed of Ariminum, they confirmed that which had been read at Seleucia. This, as I have stated in the preceding book,
was the same as had been before promulgated at Antioch. When they were asked by some one, ‘Why have ye, who are called Macedonians hitherto, retained communion with the Acacians, as though ye agreed in opinion, if ye really hold different sentiments?’ they replied thus, through Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis, a city of Paphlagonia: ‘Those in the West,’ said he, ‘were infected with the homoousian error as with a disease: Aëtius in the East adulterated the purity of the faith by introducing the assertion of a dissimilitude of substance. Now both of these dogmas are illegitimate; for the former rashly blended into one the distinct persons of the Father and the Son, binding them together by that cord of iniquity the term homoousion; while Aëtius wholly separated that affinity of nature of the Son to the Father, by the expression anomoion, unlike as to substance or essence. Since then both these opinions run into the very opposite extremes, the middle course between them appeared to us to be more consistent with truth and piety: we accordingly assert that the Son is “like the Father as to subsistence.”’
Such was the answer the Macedonians made by Sophronius to that question, as Sabinus assures us in his Collection of the Synodical Acts. But in decrying Aëtius as the author of the Anomoion doctrine, and not Acacius, they flagrantly disguise the truth, in order to seem as far removed from the Arians on the one side, as from the Homoousians on the other: for their own words convict them of having separated from them both, merely from the love of innovation. With these remarks we close our notice of these persons.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sozom. V. 14; Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. IV.
* ↑ II. 10. 39.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book III/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians.
Although at the beginning of his reign the Emperor Julian conducted himself mildly toward all men; but as he went on he did not continue to show the same equanimity. He most readily indeed acceded to the requests of the Christians, when they tended in any way to cast odium on the memory of Constantius; but when this inducement did not exist, he made no effort to conceal the rancorous feelings which he entertained towards Christians in general. Accordingly he soon ordered that the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus, which Euzoïus had totally demolished, should be rebuilt, imposing a very heavy penalty upon Eleusius bishop of that city, if he failed to complete that structure at his own expense within the space of two months. Moreover, he favored the pagan superstitions with the whole weight of his authority: and the temples of the heathen were opened, as we have before stated;
but he himself also publicly offered sacrifices to Fortune, goddess of Constantinople, in the cathedral,
where her image was erected.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Chap. 1.
* ↑ βασιλικῇ. On the origin and history of the term, see Bennett, Christian Archæology, pp. 157–163. The special basilica meant here was situated, according to Valesius, in the fourth precinct, and alone called βασιλική, or ‘cathedral’ without qualification. The ‘Theodosian cathedral’ was situated in the seventh ward.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.—The Emperor Constantius ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric, and sending for Eusebius of Nicomedia, invests him with the Bishopric of Constantinople.
Not long afterwards the emperor having arrived at Constantinople was highly incensed at the consecration [of Paul]; and having convened an assembly of bishops of Arian sentiments, he divested Paul of his dignity, and translating Eusebius from the see of Nicomedia, he appointed him bishop of Constantinople. Having done this the emperor proceeded to Antioch.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book III
## 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 4

Chapter 4 [IV.]—Free Grace.
This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. “Being justified,” says the apostle, “freely through His blood.” Whence they, who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. “For all have sinned”—whether in Adam or in themselves—“and come short of the glory of God.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. iii. 24.
* ↑ Rom. iii. 23.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 39

Chapter 39.—Pelagius Glorifies God as Creator at the Expense of God as Saviour.
Beyond this, however, although he flatters himself that he vindicates the cause of God by defending nature, he forgets that by predicating soundness of the said nature, he rejects the Physician’s mercy. He, however, who created him is also his Saviour. We ought not, therefore, so to magnify the Creator as to be compelled to say, nay, rather as to be convicted of saying, that the Saviour is superfluous. Man’s nature indeed we may honour with worthy praise, and attribute the praise to the Creator’s glory; but at the same time, while we show our gratitude to Him for having created us, let us not be ungrateful to Him for healing us. Our sins which He heals we must undoubtedly attribute not to God’s operation, but to the wilfulness of man, and submit them to His righteous punishment; as, however, we acknowledge that it was in our power that they should not be committed, so let us confess that it lies in His mercy rather than in our own power that they should be healed. But this mercy and remedial help of the Saviour, according to this writer, consists only in this, that He forgives the transgressions that are past, not that He helps us to avoid such as are to come. Here he is most fatally mistaken; here, however unwittingly—here he hinders us from being watchful, and from praying that “we enter not into temptation,” since he maintains that it lies entirely in our own control that this should not happen to us.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 41

Chapter 41.—Whether Holy Men Have Died Without Sin.
But there is clearly much acuteness in the question put by our author, “How must we suppose that those holy men quitted this life,—with sin, or without sin?” For if we answer, “With sin,” condemnation will be supposed to have been their destiny, which it is shocking to imagine; but if it be said that they departed this life “without sin,” then it would be a proof that man had been without sin in his present life, at all events, when death was approaching. But, with all his acuteness, he overlooks the circumstance that even righteous persons not without good reason offer up this prayer: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;” and that the Lord Christ, after explaining the prayer in His teaching, most truly added: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses.” Here, indeed, we have the daily incense, so to speak, of the Spirit, which is offered to God on the altar of the heart, which we are bidden “to lift up,”—implying that, even if we cannot live here without sin, we may yet die without sin, when in merciful forgiveness the sin is blotted out which is committed in ignorance or infirmity.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. vi. 12.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 14.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 40

Chapter 40 [XXXV.]—Why There is a Record in Scripture of Certain Men’s Sins, Recklessness in Sin Accounts It to Be So Much Loss Whenever It Falls Short in Gratifying Lust.
He who has a sound judgment says soundly, “that the examples of certain persons, of whose sinning we read in Scripture, are not recorded for this purpose, that they may encourage despair of not sinning, and seem somehow to afford security in committing sin,”—but that we may learn the humility of repentance, or else discover that even in such falls salvation ought not to be despaired of. For there are some who, when they have fallen into sin, perish rather from the recklessness of despair, and not only neglect the remedy of repentance, but become the slaves of lusts and wicked desires, so far as to run all lengths in gratifying these depraved and abandoned dispositions,—as if it were a loss to them if they failed to accomplish what their lust impelled them to, whereas all the while there awaits them a certain condemnation. To oppose this morbid recklessness, which is only too full of danger and ruin, there is great force in the record of those sins into which even just and holy men have before now fallen.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 43

Chapter 43 [XXXVII.]—Why Scripture Has Not Mentioned the Sins of All.
“But perhaps,” says he, “they will ask me: Could not the Scripture have mentioned sins of all of these?” And surely they would say the truth, whoever should put such a question to him; and I do not discover that he has anywhere given a sound reply to them, although I perceive that he was unwilling to be silent. What he has said, I beg of you to observe: “This,” says he, “might be rightly asked of those whom Scripture mentions neither as good nor as bad; but of those whose holiness it commemorates, it would also without doubt have commemorated the sins likewise, if it had perceived that they had sinned in anything.” Let him say, then, that their great faith did not attain to righteousness in the case of those who comprised “the multitudes that went before and that followed” the colt on which the Lord rode, when “they shouted and said, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,” even amidst the malignant men who with murmurs asked why they were doing all this! Let him then boldly tell us, if he can, that there was not a man in all that vast crowd who had any sin at all. Now, if it is most absurd to make such a statement as this, why has not the Scripture mentioned any sins in the persons to whom reference has been made, especially when it has carefully recorded the eminent goodness of their faith?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xxi. 9.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 38

Chapter 38 [XXXIV.]—We Must Not Lie, Even for the Sake of Moderation. The Praise of Humility Must Not Be Placed to the Account of Falsehood.
I am favourably disposed, indeed, to the view of our author, when he resists those who say to him, “What you assert seems indeed to be reasonable, but it is an arrogant thing to allege that any man can be without sin,” with this answer, that if it is at all true, it must not on any account be called an arrogant statement; for with very great truth and acuteness he asks, “On what side must humility be placed? No doubt on the side of falsehood, if you prove arrogance to exist on the side of truth.” And so he decides, and rightly decides, that humility should rather be ranged on the side of truth, not of falsehood. Whence it follows that he who said, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” must without hesitation be held to have spoken the truth, and not be thought to have spoken falsehood for the sake of humility. Therefore he added the words, “And the truth is not in us;” whereas it might perhaps have been enough if he merely said, “We deceive ourselves,” if he had not observed that some were capable of supposing that the clause “we deceive ourselves” is here employed on the ground that the man who praises himself is even extolled for a really good action. So that, by the addition of “the truth is not in us,” he clearly shows (even as our author most correctly observes) that it is not at all true if we say that we have no sin, lest humility, if placed on the side of falsehood, should lose the reward of truth.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John i. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Nature and Grace/Chapter 44

Chapter 44.—Pelagius Argues that Abel Was Sinless.
This, however, even he probably observed, and therefore he went on to say: “But, granted that it has sometimes abstained, in a numerous crowd, from narrating the sins of all; still, in the very beginning of the world, when there were only four persons in existence, what reason (asks he) have we to give why it chose not to mention the sins of all? Was it in consideration of the vast multitude, which had not yet come into existence? or because, having mentioned only the sins of those who had transgressed, it was unable to record any of him who had not yet committed sin?” And then he proceeds to add some words, in which he unfolds this idea with a fuller and more explicit illustration. “It is certain,” says he, “that in the earliest age Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel their sons, are mentioned as being the only four persons then in being. Eve sinned,—the Scripture distinctly says so much; Adam also transgressed, as the same Scripture does not fail to inform us; whilst it affords us an equally clear testimony that Cain also sinned: and of all these it not only mentions the sins, but also indicates the character of their sins. Now if Abel had likewise sinned, Scripture would without doubt have said so. But it has not said so, therefore he committed no sin; nay, it even shows him to have been righteous. What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add.”