OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 37

37. But what defence can you make in reference to the Apology which you have written for the works of Origen, or rather in reference to the book of Eusebius, though you have altered much, and translated the work of a heretic under the title of a martyr, yet you have set down still more which is incompatible with the faith of the church. You as well as I turn Latin books into Greek; can you prohibit me from giving the works of a foreigner to my own people? If I had made my answer in the case of some other work of yours in which you had not attacked me, it might have been thought that, in translating what you had already translated, I was acting in hostility to you, and wishing to prove you inaccurate or untrustworthy. But this is a new kind of complaint, when you take it amiss that an answer is made you on a point on which you have accused me. All Rome was said to have been upset by your translation; every one was demanding of me a remedy for this; not that I was of any account, but that those who asked this thought me so. You say that you who had made the translation were my friend. But what would you have had me do? Ought we to obey God or man? To guard our master’s property or to conceal the theft of a fellow-servant? Can I not be at peace with you unless I join with you in committing acts which bring reproach? If you had not mentioned my name, if you had not tricked me out in your flatteries, I might have had some way of escape, and have made many excuses for not translating what had already been translated. But you, my friend, have compelled me to waste a good many days on this work, and to bring out before the public eye what should have been engulfed in Charybdis; yet still, though I had been injured, I observed the laws of friendship, and as far as possible defended myself without accusing you. It is a too suspicious and complaining temper which you shew when you take home to yourself as a reproach what was spoken against the heretics. If it is impossible to be your friend unless I am the friend of heretics, I shall more easily put up with your enmity than with their friendship.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 38

38. You imagine that I have contrived yet another piece of falsehood, namely, that I have composed a letter to you in my own name, pretending that it was written long ago, in which I make myself appear kindly and courteous; but which you never received. The truth can easily be ascertained. Many persons at Rome have had copies of this letter for the last three years; but they refused to send it to you knowing that you were throwing out insinuations against my reputation, and making up stories of the most shameful kind and unworthy of our Christian profession. I wrote in ignorance of all this, as to a friend; but they would not transmit the letter to an enemy, such as they knew you to be, thus sparing me the effects of my mistakes and you the reproaches of your conscience. You next bring arguments to shew that, if I had written such a letter, I had no right to write another containing many reproaches against you. But here is the error which pervades all that you say, and of which I have a right to complain; whatever I say against the heretics you imagine to be said against you. What! Am I refusing you bread because I give the heretics a stone to crush their brains? But, in order to justify your disbelief in my letter, you are obliged to make out that of pope Anastasius rests upon a similar fraud. On this point I have answered you before. If you really suspect that it is not his writing, you have the means of convicting me of the forgery. But if it is his writing, as his letters of the present year also written against you prove, you will in vain use your false reasonings to prove my letter false, since I can shew from his genuine letter that mine also is genuine.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 40

40. Pythagoras taught, accordingly, that he had himself been originally Euphorbus, and then Callides, thirdly Hermotimus, fourthly Pyrrhus, and lastly Pythagoras; and that those things which had existed, after certain revolutions of time, came into being again; so that nothing in the world should be thought of as new. He said that true philosophy was a meditation on death; that its daily struggle was to draw forth the soul from the prison of the body into liberty: that our learning was recollection, and many other things which Plato works out in his dialogues, especially in the Phædo and Timæus. For Plato, after having formed the Academy and gained innumerable disciples, felt that his philosophy was deficient on many points, and therefore went to Magna Græcia, and there learned the doctrines of Pythagoras from Archytas of Tarentum and Timæus of Locris: and this system he embodied in the elegant form and style which he had learned from Socrates. The whole of this, as we can prove, Origen carried over into his book Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, only changing the name. What mistake, then, was I making, when I said that in my youth I had imputed to the Apostles ideas which I had found in Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles? I did not speak, as you calumniously pretend, of what I had read in the books of Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles, but of what I had read as having existed in their writings, that is, what other men’s writings shewed me to have existed in them. This mode of speaking is quite common. I might say, for instance “The opinions which I read in Socrates I believed to be true,” meaning what I read as his opinions in Plato and others of the Socratic school, though Socrates himself wrote no books. So I might say, I wished to imitate the deeds which I had read of in Alexander and Scipio, not meaning that they described their own deeds, but that I had read in other men’s works of the deeds which I admired as done by them. Therefore, though I may not be able to inform you of any records of Pythagoras himself as being extant, and proved by the attestation of his son or daughter or others of his disciples, yet you cannot hold me guilty of falsehood, because I said not that I had read his books, but his doctrines. You are quite mistaken if you thought to make this a screen for your falsehood, and to maintain that because I cannot produce any book written by Pythagoras, you have a right to assert that six thousand books of Origen have been lost.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gesta quæ in Alexandro et Scipione legeram. The Latin construction will bear Jerome’s meaning, but cannot be exactly or elegantly rendered in English.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 32

32. As to your charge of perjury, since you refer me to your book; and since I have made my reply to you and Calpurnius in the previous books, it will be sufficient here to observe that you exact from me in my sleep what you have never yourself fulfilled in your waking hours. It seems that I am guilty of a great crime because I have told girls and virgins of Christ, that they had better not read secular works, and that I once promised when warned in a dream not to read them. But your ship which was announced by revelation to the city of Rome, promises one thing and effects another. It came to do away with the puzzle of the mathematici: what it does is to do away with the faith of Christians. It had made its run with sails full set over the Ionian and Ægean, the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas, only to make shipwreck in the Roman port. Are you not ashamed of hunting up nonsense of this kind and putting me to the trouble of bringing up similar things against you? Suppose that some one had seen a dream about you such as might make you vainglorious; it would have been modest as well as wise in you not to seem to know of it, instead of boasting of other people’s dreams as a serious testimony to yourself. What a difference there is between your dream and mine! Mine tells how I was humbled and repressed; yours boasts over and over again how you were praised. You cannot say, It matters nothing to me what another man dreamed, for in those most enlightening books of yours you tell us that this was the motive which led you to make the translation; you could not bear that an eminent man should have dreamed in vain. This is all your endeavour. If you can make me out guilty of perjury, you think you will be deemed no heretic.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Possibly a nick-name for one of Rufinus’ friends: or ‘to you even when you pose as Calpurnius.’ See above c. 28, note.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 36

36. In the matter of the books Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, I have even a claim upon your gratitude. You say that you cut off anything that was offensive and replaced it by what was better. I have represented things just as they stood in the Greek. By this means both things are made to appear, your faith and the heresy of him whom you translated. The leading Christians of Rome wrote to me: Answer your accuser; if you keep silence, you will be held to have assented to his charges. All of them unanimously demanded that I should bring to light the subtle errors of Origen, and make known the poison of the heretics to the ears of the Romans to put them on their guard. How can this be an injury to you? Have you a monopoly of the translation of these books? Are there no others who take part in this work? When you translated parts of the Septuagint, did you mean to prohibit all others from translating it after your version had been published? Why, I also have translated many books from the Greek. You have full power to make a second translation of them at your pleasure; for both the good and the bad in them must be laid to the charge of their author. And this would hold in your case also, had you not said that you had cut out the heretical parts and translated only what was positively good. This is a difficulty which you have made for yourself, and which cannot be solved, except by confessing that you have erred as all men err, and condemning your former opinion.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 4

4. Your letter goes on:
“Pray do not trouble yourself to give a large sum of gold to bribe my secretary, as your friends did in the case of my papers containing the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, before they had been corrected and brought to completion, so that they might more easily falsify documents which no one possessed, or at least very few. Accept the document which I send you gratis, though you would be glad to pay a large sum to buy it.”
I should have thought you would be ashamed of such a beginning of your work. What! I bribe your Secretary! Is there any one who would attempt to vie with the wealth of Crœsus and Darius? who is there that does not tremble when he is suddenly confronted with a Demaratus or a Crassus? Have you become so brazen-faced, that you put your trust in lies and think lies will protect you and that we shall believe every fiction which you choose to frame? Who then was it who stole that letter in which you were so highly praised, from the cell of our brother Eusebius? Whose artfulness was it, and whose accomplices, through which a certain document was found in the lodgings of that Christian woman Fabiola and of that wise man Oceanus, which they themselves had never seen? Do you think that you are innocent because you can cast upon others all the imputations which properly belong to you? Is every one who offends you, however guiltless and harmless he may be, at once held to become a criminal? You think so, I suppose, because you are possessed of that through which the chastity of Danaë was broken down, that which had more power with Gihazi than his master’s sacred character, that for which Judas betrayed his Master.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Kings of Lydia and Persia notorious for their wealth.
* ↑ Kings of Lydia and Persia notorious for their wealth.
* ↑ Father of Tarquinius Priscus, said to have been a wealthy immigrant from Corinth.
* ↑ The triumvir: surnamed the Rich: murdered in Persia b.c. 52.
* ↑ Jove was said to have seduced Danaë by changing himself into a shower of gold.
* ↑ Jerome often taunts Rufinus with being rich and luxurious. See Letter cxxv, 18.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Arians/Against the Arians/Discourse IV/Chapter 4

§§9, 10. Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they are coessential, one in Godhead, and the Son from the Father.
9. ‘I and the Father are One.’ You say that the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if the one is divided into two, that which is divided must need be a body, and neither part perfect, for each is a part and not a whole. But if again the one have two names, this is the expedient of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and did away with either, the Father when there is a Son, and the Son when there is a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity they are two, but one according to the Godhead, and according to the Son’s coessentiality with the Father, and the Word’s being from the Father Himself; so that there are two, because there is Father, and Son, namely the Word; and one because one God. For if not, He would have said, ‘I am the Father,’ or ‘I and the Father am;’ but, in fact, in the ‘I’ He signifies the Son, and in the ‘And the Father,’ Him who begat Him; and in the ‘One’ the one Godhead and His coessentiality. For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom, or the Same Father and Word; for it were unfit for Him to be His own Father, but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and Word; while it ever guards Him indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble in all respects.
10. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods (for this is what some feign to themselves, and forthwith mock, saying, ‘You hold two Gods’), we must answer to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it instantly follows that to confess but one we must deny the Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so; perish the thought! but, as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father’s Word being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John x. 30.
* ↑ Here again is the word ὁμοούσιον. Contrast the language of Orat. iii. when commenting on the same text, in the same way; e.g. ἓν τῇ ἰδιότητι καὶ οἰκειότητι τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τῇ ταὐτότητι τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος, §4.
* ↑ Cf. Or. iii. 10, note 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Arians/Against the Arians/Discourse IV/Chapter 8

§25. Marcellian illustration from 1 Cor. xii. 4 , refuted.
25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, and again, the Son Father, in subsistence One, in name Two; and he raves also in using as an example the grace of the Spirit. For he says, ‘As there are “diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit,” so also the Father is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.’ Now this is full of absurdity; for if as with the Spirit, so it is with God, the Father will be Word and Holy Spirit, to one becoming Father, to another Son, to another Spirit, accommodating himself to the need of each, and in name indeed Son and Spirit, but in reality Father only; having a beginning in that He becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called Father, and made man in name, but in truth not even coming among us; and untrue in saying ‘I and the Father,’ but in reality being Himself the Father, and the other absurdities which result in the instance of Sabellius. And the name of the Son and the Spirit will necessarily cease, when the need has been supplied; and what happens will altogether be but make-belief, because it has been displayed, not in truth, but in name. And the Name of Son ceasing, as they hold, then the grace of Baptism will cease too; for it was given in the Son. Nay, what will follow but the annihilation of the creation? for if the Word came forth that we might be created, and when He was come forth, we were, it is plain that when He retires into the Father, as they say, we shall be no longer. For He will be as He was; so also we shall not be, as then we were not; for when He is no more gone forth, there will no more be a creation. This then is absurd.

## Footnotes

* ↑ §13.
* ↑ ὑποστάσει, iii. 65, n. 9.
* ↑ i.e. Marcellus.
* ↑ (1 Cor. xii. 4.) So Marcellus, §13.
* ↑ §21.
* ↑ ii. 24, n. 6; iv. 11, n. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Arians/Against the Arians/Discourse IV/Chapter 3

§8. Arians date the Son’s beginning earlier than Marcellus, &c.
8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of kingship. But this is ridiculous; for he who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to Him also a beginning of reigning; so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is unessential and non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, ‘Once He was not.’ This is ridiculous also; for they who give Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in time. Thus these also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again Eusebius and his fellows, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word notionally; and the others confessing Him to be Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have the Word called Son notionally, equally void of footing.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Euseb. c. Marcell. pp. 6, 32, 49, &c. &c.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists
## Contents

* Title Page
* Argument
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists/Argument

A Treatise
Concerning
the Correction of the Donatists;
Or Epistle CLXXXV.
A Letter of Augustin to Boniface, who, as we learn from Epistle 220, was Tribune, and afterwards Count in Africa. In it Augustin shows that the heresy of the Donatists has nothing in common with that of Arius; and points out the moderation with which it was possible to recall the heretics to the communion of the Church through awe of the imperial laws. He adds remarks concerning the savage conduct of the Donatists and Circumcelliones, concluding with a discussion of the unpardonable nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Written c. 417.
* ↑ In Book 11. c. xlviii of his Retractations, Augustin says: "About the same time" (as that at which he wrote his treatise De Gestis Pelagii, i.e., about the year 417), "I wrote also a treatise De Correctione Donatistarum, for the sake of those who were not willing that the Donatists should be subjected to the correction of the imperial laws." This treatise begins with the words "Laudo, et gratulor, et admiror." This letter in the old editions was No. 50,—the letter which is now No. 4 in the appendix (Benedictine) being formerly No. 185.
* ↑ He handles the same thought in Ep. 93.
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Plate 12

Loranthus Adamsii.
This is a new species of Loranthus which has never been figured before. It was discovered by Mr. James Adams of the Thames Gold Fields, who kindly obtained this specimen for me. It is a small bush two to three feet in height. The flowers are rather large, one and a half to two inches long, and of a very peculiar shape. It flowers in September and October.
| Loranthus Adamsii | Leighton Brothers Lith |
| PLATE 12 ||
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Plate 14

ANTHERICUM HOOKERI, or CHRYSOBACTRON HOOKERI, Hook. fil.
The first species of the present genus (C. Rossi) was detected by Dr. Hooker in Lord Auckland Islands. It was named Chrysobactron "in allusion to the magnificent racemes of golden flowers (staff of gold) which that species bears." C. Hookeri is a less showy species. (Bot. Mag.) It grows on Mount Egmont (Taranaki) and on the Canterbury Plains, Middle Island. It flowers in December.
| Anthericum Hookeri | Leighton Brothers Lith |
| PLATE 14 ||
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Plate 16

METROSIDEROS FLORIDA, Hook. fil.
Native. Name:—Kahikahika.
This is found throughout the Islands in forests, and has a most brilliant appearance when in blossom; it clothes the lower part of the tree, and becomes a tree itself, killing the one which assisted it to climb. The colour of the flower varies from scarlet to yellow, and is often quite spherical in shape. It resembles the Golden Bottlebrush of Australia, though brighter in colour. It flowers in Autumn, and the other Ratas in Spring.
| Meterosideros florida | Leighton Brothers Lith |
| PLATE 16 ||
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Plate 13

SENECIO HUNTII, F. Mueller.
This fine species is confined to the Chatham Islands, where it is not uncommon, attaining a height of 25 ft. The branches are often bare of leaves except at the extremities, so that the habit of the plant is not so handsome as in others of the shrubby species. The fine, large heads of yellow flowers are, however, very ornamental, and the plant has consequently gained itself a place in many colonial gardens. (Cheeseman). It flowers in February.
| Senecio Huntii | Leighton Brothers Lith |
| PLATE 13 ||
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Plate 15

SENECIO (BRACHYGLOTTIS) ELEAGNIFOLIUS,
Hook. fil.
Brown Backs.
A small robust shrub, 6 to 8 ft. high. Leaves extremely thick, hard, and leathery; upper surface glossy, smooth, and of a bright green, with white trellis-like markings; densely covered beneath with brown tomentum or hairs, hence its name; head without a ray; flowers all tubular. Hook. fil. It grows in the Northern and Middle Islands. The specimen represented came from Mount Egmont, on the Ranges 4,000 ft. high. Flowers in January.
| Senecio eleagnifolius | Leighton Brothers Lith |
| PLATE 15 ||
# Native Flowers of New Zealand/Index

INDEX.
| | Plate |
| Alseuosmia macrophylla | 19 |
| Anthericum Hookeri | 14 |
| Aristotelia racemosa (Friesia) | 26 |
| Areca sapida | 8 |
| Calceolaria Sinclarii | 27 |
| Celmisia glandulosa | 21 |
| Celmisia Monroi | 5 |
| Celmisia longifolia | 21 |
| Dendrobium Cunninghamii | 17 |
| Dysoxsylium spectabile | 9 |
| Earina mucronata | 28 |
| Epacris microphylla | 3 |
| Euphrasia Monroi | 27 |
| Freycinetia Banksii | 36 |
| Forstera Bidwillii | 21 |
| Fuchsia procumbens | 19 |
| Gentiana saxosa (bellidifolia) | 24 |
| Geranium Traversii | 10 |
| Gnaphalium grandiceps | 31 |
| Gnaphalium bellidioides | 31 |
| Libertia Ixioides | 23 |
| Linum monogynum | 24 |
| Loranthus Adamsii | 12 |
| Loranthus Colensoi | 30 |
| Metrosideros Florida | 16 |
| Metrosideros lucida | 6 |
| Metrosideros tomentosa | 29 |
| Metrosideros albiflora | 18 |
| Meryta Sinclarii | 25 |
| Olearia semi-dentata | 2 |
| Olearia ilicifolia | 21 |
| Olearia insignis | 35 |
| Pimelea longifolia | 7 |
| Pimelea prostrata | 22 |
| Phebalium nudum | 32 |
| Plagianthus Lyallii | 34 |
| Quintinia serrata | 33 |
| Ranunculus Lyallii | 34 |
| Senecio perdicioides | 4 |
| Senecio Huntii | 13 |
| Senecio Hectori | 20 |
| Senecio Robusta | 20 |
| Senecio cleagnifolius | 15 |
| Senecio glastifolious | 31 |
| Wahlenbergia saxicola (Albo-marginata) | 31 |