OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book XV/Chapter 22

Chapter 22.—How Great the Unlikeness is Between the Image of the Trinity Which We Have Found in Ourselves, and the Trinity Itself.
42. But since these are in one person, as man is, some one may say to us, These three things, memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not their own; neither do they do that which they do for themselves, but for me, or rather I do it by them. For it is I who remember by memory, and understand by understanding, and love by love: and when I direct the mind’s eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thing I know, and a true word is begotten of my knowledge, both are mine, both the knowledge certainly and the word. For it is I who know, and it is I who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come to find in my memory by thinking that I understand and love anything, which understanding and love were there also before I thought thereon, it is my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own memory, whereby it is I that understand, and I that love, not those things themselves. Likewise, when my thought is mindful, and wills to return to those things which it had left in the memory, and to understand and behold them, and say them inwardly, it is my own memory that is mindful, and it is my own, not its will, wherewith it wills. When my very love itself, too, remembers and understands what it ought to desire and what to avoid, it remembers by my, not by its own memory; and understands that which it intelligently loves by my, not by its own, understanding. In brief, by all these three things, it is I that remember, I that understand, I that love, who am neither memory, nor understanding, nor love, but who have them. These things, then, can be said by a single person, which has these three, but is not these three. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God, although there is one God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II/Chapter 25

Chapter 25.—58. Petilianus said: "For when you in your guilt perform what is false, I do not celebrate baptism twice, which you have never celebrated once."
59. Augustin answered: In the first place, you do not convict us of guilt. And if a guilty man baptizes with a false baptism, then none of those have true baptism who are baptized by men in your party, that are, I do not say openly, but even secretly guilty. For if he who gives baptism gives something that is God’s, if he is already guilty in the sight of God, how can he be giving something that is God’s if a guilty man cannot give true baptism? But in reality you wait till he is guilty in your sight as well, as though what he proposes to confer were something that belonged to you.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—62. Petilianus said: "It will be urged against us, that the Apostle Paul said, ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ We profess that there is only one; for it is certain that those who declare that there are two are mad."
63. Augustin replied: These words of yours are arguments against yourselves; but in your madness you are not aware of it. For the men who say there are two baptisms are those who declare their opinion that the just and the unjust have different baptisms; whereas it belongs neither to one party nor the other, but in both of them is one, being Christ’s, although they themselves are not one: and yet the baptism, which is one, the just have to salvation, the unjust to their destruction.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eph. iv. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II/Chapter 24

Chapter 24.—56. Petilianus said: "But you will answer that you abide by the same declaration, ‘He that is once washed needeth not save to wash his feet.’ Now the ‘once’ is once that has authority, once that is confirmed by the truth."
57. Augustin answered: Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xiii. 10.
* ↑ Matt. xxviii. 19.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II/Chapter 21

Chapter 21.—47. Petilianus said: "Accordingly, as we have said, the Lord Christ cried, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he said, Who art Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Christ of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.’ And so presently it goes on, ‘But Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man.’ See here how blindness, coming in punishment of madness, obscures the light in the eyes of the persecutor, not to be again expelled except by baptism! Let us see, therefore, what he did in the city. ‘Ananias,’ it is said, ‘entered into the house to Saul, and putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.’ Seeing therefore that Paul, being freed by baptism from the offense of persecution, received again his eyesight freed from guilt, why will not you, a persecutor and traditor, blinded by false baptism be baptized by those whom you persecute?"
48. Augustin answered: You do not prove that I, whom you wish to baptize afresh, am either a persecutor or a traditor. And if you prove this charge against any one, yet the persecutor and traditor is not to be baptized afresh, if he had been baptized already with the baptism of Christ. For the reason why it was necessary that Paul should be baptized was that he had never been washed in any baptism of the kind.  Therefore what you have chosen to insert about Paul has no point of resemblance with the case which you are arguing with us. But if you had not inserted this, you would have found no place for your childish declamation, "See how blindness comes in punishment of madness, not to be again expelled except by baptism!" For with how much more force might one exclaim against you, See how blindness comes in punishment of madness, which, finding its similitude in Simon, not in Paul, is not expelled from you even when you have received baptism? For if persecutors ought to be baptized by those whom they persecute, then let Primianus be baptized by the followers of Maximianus, whom he persecuted with the utmost eagerness.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Acts ix. 4-18.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II/Chapter 2

Chapter 2.—4. Petilianus said: "Those who have polluted their souls with a guilty laver, under the name of baptism, reproach us with baptizing twice,—than whose obscenity, indeed, any kind of filth is more cleanly, seeing that through a perversion of cleanliness they have come to be made fouler by their washing."
5. Augustin answered: We are neither made fouler by our washing, nor cleaner by yours. But when the water of baptism is given to any one in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is neither ours nor yours, but His of whom it was said to John, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."

## Footnotes

* ↑ John i. 33.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 12

Chapter 12 [IV.]—The Fourth Item in the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
It was further objected against Pelagius, as if he had written in his book, that “evil does not enter our thoughts.” In reply, however, to this charge, he said: “We made no such statement. What we did say was, that the Christian ought to be careful not to have evil thoughts.” Of this, as it became them, the bishops approved. For who can doubt that evil ought not to be thought of? And, indeed, if what he said in his book about “evil not being thought” runs in this form, “neither is evil to be thought of,” the ordinary meaning of such words is “that evil ought not even to be thought of.” Now if any person denies this, what else does he in fact say, than that evil ought to be thought of? And if this were true, it could not be said in praise of love that “it thinketh no evil!” But after all, the phrase about “not entering into the thoughts” of righteous and holy men is not quite a commendable one, for this reason, that what enters the mind is commonly called a thought, even when assent to it does not follow. The thought, however, which contracts blame, and is justly forbidden, is never unaccompanied with assent. Possibly those men had an incorrect copy of Pelagius’ writings, who thought it proper to object to him that he had used the words: “Evil does not enter into our thoughts;” that is, that whatever is evil never enters into the thoughts of righteous and holy men. Which is, of course, a very absurd statement. For whenever we censure evil things, we cannot enunciate them in words, unless they have been thought. But, as we said before, that is termed a culpable thought of evil which carries with it assent.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xiii. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Argument

A work on the proceedings of pelagius, [1609]
In One Book,
addressed to bishop aurelius [of carthage], by
aurelius augustin;
written about the commencement of the year, a.d. 417.
The several heads of error which were alleged against Pelagius at the Synod in Palestine, with his answers to each charge, are minutely discussed. Augustin shows that, although Pelagius was acquitted by the synod, there still clave to him the suspicion of heresy; and that the acquittal of the accused by the synod was so contrived, that the heresy itself with which he was charged was unhesitatingly condemned.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 10

Chapter 10.—Pelagius’ Answer Examined. On Origen’s Error Concerning the Non-Eternity of the Punishment of the Devil and the Damned.
But what Pelagius added, “Who believes differently is an Origenist,” was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness. This additional sentence, therefore, the synod pronounced to be “not opposed to the Church,”—not in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel, that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is a sharer in Origen’s abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal. Concerning those sinners, however, of whom the apostle declares that “they shall be saved, yet so as by fire, after their work has been burnt up,” inasmuch as no objectionable opinion in reference to them was manifestly charged against Pelagius, the synod determined nothing. Wherefore he who says that the ungodly and sinner, whom the truth consigns to eternal punishment, can ever be liberated therefrom, is not unfitly designated by Pelagius as an “Origenist.” But, on the other hand, he who supposes that no sinner whatever deserves mercy in the judgment of God, may be designated by whatever name Pelagius is disposed to give to him, only it must at the same time be quite understood that this error is not received as truth by the Church. “For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. iii. 12, 15.
* ↑ Jas. ii. 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 1

Chapter 1.—Introduction.
After there came into my hands, holy father Aurelius, the ecclesiastical proceedings, by which fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine pronounced Pelagius a catholic, my hesitation, in which I was previously reluctant to make any lengthy or confident statement about the defence which he had made, came to an end. This defence, indeed, I had already read in a paper which he himself forwarded to me. Forasmuch, however, as I received no letter therewith from him, I was afraid that some discrepancy might be detected between my statement and the record of the ecclesiastical proceedings; and that, should Pelagius perhaps deny that he had sent me any paper (and it would have been difficult for me to prove that he had, when there was only one witness), I should rather seem guilty in the eyes of those who would readily credit his denial, either of an underhanded falsification, or else (to say the least) of a reckless credulity. Now, however, when I am to treat of matters which are shown to have actually transpired, and when, as it appears to me, all doubt is removed whether he really acted in the way described, your holiness, and everybody who reads these pages, will no doubt be able to judge, with greater readiness and certainty, both of his defence and of this my treatment of it.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Predestination of the Saints/Title Page

a treatise on the predestination of the saints.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Predestination of the Saints/Book II/Title Page

a treatise on the gift of perseverance.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 13

Chapter 13 [V.]—The Fifth Item of the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
After the judges had accorded their approbation to this answer of Pelagius, another passage which he had written in his book was read aloud: “The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament.” Upon this, Pelagius remarked in vindication: “This can be proved by the Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament, deny this. I, however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: ‘The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most. High.’” After they had heard this answer, the synod said: “Neither is this opposed to the Church’s faith.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Dan. vii. 18.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius
## Contents

* Title Page
* Extract from Augustin's Retractations
* Preface to the Book on the Proceedings of Pelagius
* Argument
* 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
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
* Chapter 52
* Chapter 53
* Chapter 54
* Chapter 55
* Chapter 56
* Chapter 57
* Chapter 58
* Chapter 59
* Chapter 60
* Chapter 61
* Chapter 62
* Chapter 63
* Chapter 64
* Chapter 65
* Chapter 66
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VI/Chapter 26

Chapter XXVI.—Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Cæsarea, leaving the charge of the catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the office for forty-three full years, and Heraclas succeeded him. At this time Firmilianus, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, was conspicuous.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.d. On Origen’s departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396. On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
* ↑ On the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4. Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.d., bring us down to 232 as the date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements of this chapter.
* ↑ Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be distinguished from Cæsarea in Palestine), was one of the most famous prelates of his day in the Eastern Church. He was a friend of Origen, as we learn from the next chapter, and took part in a council called on account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46), and also in councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). He was one of the bishops whom Stephen excommunicated because they rebaptized heretics (see Bk. VII. chap. 2, note 3, and chap. 5, note 4), and he wrote an epistle upon this subject to Cyprian, which is extant in a Latin translation made by Cyprian himself (Ep. 74, al. 75, in the collection of Cyprian’s epistles. See Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. 751, note). Basil (de Spiritu Sancto, 29) refers to works (λόγοι) left by Firmilian, but none of them are extant except the single epistle mentioned, nor do we hear from any other source that he was a writer. Jerome does not mention him in his De vir. ill. The exact date of his accession is unknown to us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also. He was a bishop already in the tenth year of Alexander (231 a.d.), or very soon afterward, and from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that he died at Tarsus on his way to Antioch to attend a council which had been summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata. This synod was held about 265 a.d. (not in 272 as is commonly supposed; see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1), and it is at this time, therefore, that we must put the death of Firmilian; so that he was bishop of Cæsarea at least some thirty-four years.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VI/Chapter 27

Chapter XXVII.—How the Bishops regarded Origen.
He was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake of improvement in divine things. And Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, attended on him constantly, as their only teacher, and allowed him to expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse.

## Footnotes

* ↑ On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
* ↑ On Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, see chap. 19, note 27.
* ↑ A number of mss., followed by Heinichen and some others, insert at this point ὡς žπος εἰπεῖν (“so to speak”).
* ↑ The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to Origen, whom they had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach within their dioceses.
* ↑ τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ λόγου.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 97

XCVII. To the Count Sporacius.
I am delighted with your excellency’s letter. My pleasure has been increased by the very religious presbyter and monk Iamblichus, who has told me of your warm zeal, your earnestness in religion, and your real goodwill to me. On hearing of this as well as of the efforts of the glorious and pious lord Patricius on my behalf I give you the apostolic blessing which the blessed Onesiphorus obtained from that holy tongue; “The Lord give mercy to your house, for he oft refreshed. me and was not ashamed of my chain;” “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.” This I pray for you, even though the enemies of the truth inflict on me yet greater miseries as they suppose; for we have been taught to regard men’s purpose; but be sure of this, that with true religion death to me is very pleasant, and exile to the ends of the earth. Still we are distressed at the storm of the churches, which the Lord of all is mighty to disperse.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sporacius or Asporacius was present at Chalcedon in 451, as comes domesticorum, or one of the two commanders of the body guard. It was at his request that Theodoret wrote his Hæreticarum fabularum compendium which he dedicates “To the most magnificent and glorious lord Sporacius my Christ-loving son.” To Sporacius was also addressed the short treatise “adversus Nestorium” of which some editors have doubted the genuineness. The present letter may be dated in 449.
* ↑ Cf. Letter XXXIV.
* ↑ 2 Tim. i. 16 and 18
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 94

XCIV. To ProtogenesThe Præfect.
The loving-kindness of the Lord has already given you an opportunity of carrying out your good intentions. He has given you a greater opportunity now, that your excellency may the more easily champion the cause of the truth that is assailed, bring lies to nought, and give the churches the calm for which they so intensely long. Your excellency has already learned from many other sources how great is the surge by which the churches in the East are overwhelmed, but you will acquire more accurate information concerning it from the very religious bishops who, on account of it, have undertaken their long journey in the winter, relying, next after the Grace of God, on the providence of your authority. Disperse for us, then, O Christian man, the storm, change the moonless night into clear sunshine, and bridle the tongues set wagging against us. We by God’s grace are ever fighting for the apostolic decrees, and we preserve undefiled the faith laid down at Nicæa, and style impious all who dare to violate its dogmas. In evidence of the truth of what I say may be cited my catechumens, those who are from time to time baptized by me, and the hearers of my discourses in the churches. If they mean to accuse me in accordance with the law, they must convict me in my presence, not slander me in my absence. In this manner your excellency, when giving judgment in other cases, is wont to deliver your sentences, perceiving on which side lies the right from the pleadings both of the prosecution and of the defence.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Protogenes was Præfect of the East and Consul in 449 and was present at the Council of Chalcedon.