OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 28

Chapter 28 [XXVII.]—Pelagius Teaches that Satan May Be Resisted Without the Help of the Grace of God.
In the book which he addressed to a certain holy virgin, there is a passage which I have already mentioned, wherein he plainly indicates what he holds on this subject; for he speaks of our “deserving the grace of God, and by the help of the Holy Ghost more easily resisting the evil spirit.” Now why did he insert the phrase “more easily”? Was not the sense already complete: “And by the help of the Holy Ghost resisting the evil spirit”? But who can fail to perceive what an injury he has done by this insertion? He wants it, of course, to be supposed, that so great are the powers of our nature, which he is in such a hurry to exalt,that even without the assistance of the Holy Ghost the evil spirit can be resisted—less easily it may be, but still in a certain measure.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Quoted above, ch. 23 [xxii.], from the Epistola ad Demetriadem.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 29

Chapter 29 [XXVIII.]—When He Speaks of God’s Help, He Means It Only to Help Us Do What Without It We Still Could Do.
Again, in the first book of his Defence of the Freedom of the Will, he says: “But while we have within us a free will so strong and so stedfast against sinning, which our Maker has implanted in human nature generally, still, by His unspeakable goodness, we are further defended by His own daily help.” What need is there of such help, if free will is so strong and so stedfast against sinning? But here, as before, he would have it understood that the purpose of the alleged assistance is, that that may be more easily accomplished by grace which he nevertheless supposes may be effected, less easily, no doubt, but yet actually, without grace.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 30

Chapter 30 [XXIX.]—What Pelagius Thinks is Needful for Ease of Performance is Really Necessary for the Performance.
In like manner, in another passage of the same book, he says: “In order that men may more easily accomplish by grace that which they are commanded to do by free will.” Now, expunge the phrase “more easily,” and you leave not only a full, but also a sound sense, if it be regarded as meaning simply this: “That men may accomplish through grace what they are commanded to do by free will.” The addition of the words “more easily,” however, tacitly suggests the possibility of accomplishing good works even without the grace of God. But such a meaning is disallowed by Him who says, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xv. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 31

Chapter 31 [XXX.]—Pelagius and Cœlestius Nowhere Really Acknowledge Grace.
Let him amend all this, that if human infirmity has erred in subjects so profound, he may not add to the error diabolical deception and wilfulness, either by denying what he has really believed, or by maintaining what he has rashly believed, after he has once discovered, on recollecting the light of truth, that he ought never to have so believed. As for that grace, indeed, by which we are justified,—in other words, whereby “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us,”—I have nowhere, in those writings of Pelagius and Cœlestius which I have had the opportunity of reading, found them acknowledging it as it ought to be acknowledged. In no passage at all have I observed them recognising “the children of the promise,” concerning whom the apostle thus speaks: “They which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” For that which God promises we do not ourselves bring about by our own choice or natural power, but He Himself effects it by grace.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. v. 5.
* ↑ Rom. ix. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 33

Chapter 33 [XXXI.]—Pelagius Professes Nothing on the Subject of Grace Which May Not Be Understood of the Law and Teaching.
“See,” he says, “how this epistle will clear me before your Blessedness; for in it we clearly and simply declare, that we possess a free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning; and this free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help.” Now you perceive, by the understanding which the Lord has given you, that these words of his are inadequate to solve the question. For it is still open to us to inquire what the help is by which he would say that the free will is assisted; lest perchance he should, as is usual with him, maintain that law and teaching are meant. If, indeed, you were to ask him why he used the word “always,” he might answer: Because it is written, And in His law will he meditate day and night.” Then, after interposing a statement about the condition of man, and his natural capacity for sinning and not sinning, he added the following words: “Now this power of free will we declare to reside generally in all alike—in Christians, in Jews, and in Gentiles. In all men free will exists equally by nature, but in Christians alone is it assisted by grace.” We again ask: “By what grace?” And again he might answer: “By the law and the Christian teaching.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Ad peccandum et ad non peccandum integrum liberum arbitrium.—W.]
* ↑ Ps. i. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 5

Chapter V.
Of the fact that the question suggested ought to be included among those things to be held in a neutral or doubtful way.
And therefore since the question raised by us, does not seem to have been sufficiently or often ventilated among men, and is clear to most people, and from this fact what we bring forward may perhaps appear to some to be doubtful, we ought to regulate our own view (since it does not interfere with faith in the Trinity) so that it may be included among those things which are to be held doubtfully; although they rest not on mere opinions such as are usually given to guesses and conjectures, but on clear Scripture proof.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.
Of the origin of principalities or powers.
None of the faithful question the fact that before the formation of this visible creation God made spiritual and celestial powers, in order that owing to the very fact that they knew that they had been formed out of nothing by the goodness of the Creator for such glory and bliss, they might render to Him continual thanks and ceaselessly continue to praise Him. For neither should we imagine that God for the first time began to originate His creation and work with the formation of this world, as if in those countless ages beforehand He had taken no thought of Providence and the divine ordering of things, and as if we could believe that having none towards whom to show the blessings of His goodness, He had been solitary, and a stranger to all bountifulness; a thing which is too poor and unsuitable to fancy of that boundless and eternal and incomprehensible Majesty; as the Lord Himself says of these powers: “When the stars were made together, all my angels praised Me with a loud voice.” Those then who were present at the creation of the stars, are most clearly proved to have been created before that “beginning” in which it is said that heaven and earth were made, inasmuch as they are said with loud voices and admiration to have praised the Creator because of all those visible creatures which, as they saw,
proceeded forth from nothing. Before then that beginning in time which is spoken of by Moses, and which according to the historic and Jewish interpretation denotes the age of this world (without prejudice to our interpretation, according to which we explain that the “beginning,” of all things is Christ, in whom the Father created all things, as it is said “All things were made by him, and without Him was not anything made,”) before, I say, that beginning of Genesis in time there is no question that God had already created all those powers and heavenly virtues; which the Apostle enumerates in order and thus describes: “For in Christ were created all things both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be angels or archangels, whether they be thrones or dominions, whether they be principalities or powers. All things were made by Him and in Him.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Job xxxviii. 7 (LXX.).
* ↑ S. John i. 3.
* ↑ Col. i. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 22

Chapter XXII.
An objection, as to how an unlawful intermingling with the daughters of Cain could be charged against the line of Seth before the prohibition of the law.
Germanus: If that command had been given to them, then the sin of breaking it might fairly have been brought against them for their audacity in so marrying. But since the observance of that separation had not yet been established by any rule, how could that intermingling of races be counted wrong in them, as it had not been forbidden by any command? For a law does not ordinarily forbid crimes that are past, but those that are future.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 24

Chapter XXIV.
Of the fact that they were justly punished, who sinned before the flood.
And so then we see that from the beginning God created everything perfect, nor would there have been need for anything to have been added to His original arrangement—as if it were shortsighted and imperfect—if everything had continued in that state and condition in which it had been created by Him. And therefore in the case of those who sinned before the law and even before the flood we see that God visited them with a righteous judgment, because they deserved to be punished without any excuse, for having transgressed the law of nature; nor should we fall into the blasphemous slanders of those who are ignorant of this reason, and so depreciate the God of the Old Testament, and run down our faith, and say with a sneer: Why then did it please your God to will to promulgate the law after so many thousand years, while He suffered such long ages to pass without any law? But if He afterwards discovered something better, then it appears that at the beginning of the world His wisdom was inferior and poorer, and that afterwards as if taught by experience He began to provide for something better, and to amend and improve His original arrangements. A thing which certainly cannot happen to the infinite foreknowledge of God, nor can these assertions be made about Him by the mad folly of heretics without grievous blasphemy, as Ecclesiastes says: “I have learnt that all the words which God hath made from the beginning shall continue forever: nothing can be added to them, and nothing can be taken away from them,” and therefore “the law is not made for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the wicked and profane.” For as they had the sound and complete system of natural laws implanted in them they had no need of this external law in addition, and one committed to writing, and what was given as an aid to that natural law. From which we infer by the clearest of reasonings that that law committed to writing need not have been given at the beginning (for it was
unnecessary for this to be done while the natural law still remained, and was not utterly violated) nor could evangelical perfection have been granted before the law had been kept. For they could not have listened to this saying: “If a man strikes thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” who were not content to avenge wrongs done to them with the even justice of the lex talionis, but repaid a very slight touch with deadly kicks and wounds with weapons, and for a single truth sought to take the life of those who had struck them. Nor could it be said to them, “love your enemies,” among whom it was considered a great thing and most important if they loved their friends, but avoided their enemies and dissented from them only in hatred without being eager to oppress and kill them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eccl. iii. 14. (LXX.).
* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 9.
* ↑ S. Matt. v. 39.
* ↑ Ib. ver. 44.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.
Of the fact that nothing is created evil by God.
God forbid that we should admit that God has created anything which is substantially evil, as Scripture says “everything that God had made was very good.” For if they were created by God such as they are now, or made for this purpose; viz., to occupy these positions of malice, and ever to be ready for the deception and ruin of men, we should in opposition to the view of the above quoted Scripture slander God as the Creator and author of evil, as having Himself formed utterly evil wills and natures, creating them for this very purpose; viz., that they might ever persist in their wickedness and never pass over to the feeling of a good will. The following reason then of this diversity is what we received from the tradition of the fathers, being drawn from the fount of Holy Scripture.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. i. 31.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VIII/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.
Of the double sense in which Holy Scripture may be taken.
Wherefore on those passages which are brought forward with a clear explanation we also can constantly lay down the meaning and boldly state our own opinions. But those which the Holy Spirit, reserving for our meditation and exercise, has inserted in holy Scripture with veiled meaning, wishing some of them to be gathered from various proofs and conjectures, ought to be step by step and carefully brought together, so that their assertions and proofs may be arranged by the discretion of the man who is arguing or supporting them. For sometimes when a difference of opinion is expressed on one and the same subject, either view may be considered reasonable and be held without injury to the faith either firmly, or doubtfully, i.e., in such a way that neither is full belief nor absolute rejection accorded to it, and the second view need not interfere with the former, if neither of them is found to be opposed to the faith: as in this case: where Elias came in the person of John, and is again to be the precursor of the Lord’s Advent: and in the matter of the “Abomination of desolation” which “stood in the holy place,” by means of that idol of Jupiter which, as we read, was placed in the temple in Jerusalem, and which is again to stand in the Church through the coming of Antichrist, and all those things which follow in the gospel, which we take as having been fulfilled before the captivity of Jerusalem and still to be fulfilled at the end of this world. In which matters neither view is opposed to the other, nor does the first interpretation interfere with the second.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. S. Matt. xi. 14.
* ↑ See Dan. ix. 27; 2 Macc. vi. 2; S. Matt. xxiv. 15 sq.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Prolegomena/Chronology and Tables/Principles and Method

§2. Principles and Method.
The determination of the leading Athanasian dates depends mainly on the value to be assigned to the primary sources, §1 (1). Reserving the fuller discussion of these texts for the Introduction to the Letters (pp. 495 sq., 500 sq.), it will suffice to state here what seem to be the results of an investigation of their value. (1) The Historia Acephala and Festal Index are independent of each other (cf. Sievers, p. 95, misunderstood, I think, by Mr. Gwatkin, p. 221). (2) They both belong to the generation after the death of Athanasius, the H. A. being apparently the earlier. (3) The data as to which they agree must, therefore, come from a source prior to either, i.e., contemporary with Athanasius. (4) In several important particulars they are confirmed by our secondary Egyptian sources, such as the Letter of Ammon and Life of Pachomius. (5) They verify most of the best results arrived at independently of them (of this below), and (6) In no case do they agree in fixing a date which can be proved to be wrong, or which there are sound reasons for distrusting. On these grounds I have classed the Historia and Index as primary sources, and maintain that the dates as to which the two documents agree must be accepted as certain. This principle at once brings the doubtful points in the chronology within very moderate limits. The general chronological table, in which the dates fixed by the agreement of these sources are printed in black type, will make this plain enough. It remains to shew that the principle adopted works out well in detail, or in other words, that the old Alexandrian chronology, transmitted to us through the twofold channel of the Historia and the Index, harmonises the apparent discrepancies, and solves the difficulties, of the chronological statements of Athanasius, and tallies with the most trustworthy information derived from other sources. In some cases it has been found desirable to discuss points of chronology where they occur in the Life of Athanasius; what will be attempted here is to complete what is there passed over without thorough discussion, in justification of the scheme adopted in our general chronological table.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Prolegomena/Life
## Contents

* Early years
* Section 2
* Section 3
* Section 3a
* Section 4
* Section 5
* Section 6
* Section 7
* Section 8
* Section 9
* Section 10
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Prolegomena/Chronology and Tables/Sources

Chapter V.
Chronology and Tables
§1. Sources.
(1) The Festal Letters of Athanasius with their Index and the Historia Acephala constitute our primary source for chronological details (see below, §2). (2) Along with these come the chronological notices scattered up and down the other writings of Athanasius. These are of course of the utmost importance, but too often lack definiteness. (3) The chronological data in the fifth-century historians, headed by Socrates, are a mass of confusion, and have been a source of confusion ever since, until the discovery of the primary sources, No. (1) mentioned above. They must, therefore, be used only in strict subordination to the latter. (4) More valuable but less abundant secondary notices are to be derived from the Life of Pachomius, from the letter of Ammon (infra, p. 487), and from other writers of the day. (5) For the movements of the Emperors the laws in the Codex Theodosianus (ed. Hänel in Corpus Juris Ante-Justiniani) give many dates, but the text is not in a satisfactory condition.
(6) Modern discussions. The conflicting attempts at an Athanasian chronology prior to the discovery of the Festal Letters are tabulated in the Appendix to Newman’s Arians, and discussed by him in his introduction to the Historical Tracts (Oxf. Lib. Fathers). The notes to Dr. Bright’s article Athanasius in D.C.B., and his introduction to the Hist. Writings of S. Ath., may be profitably consulted, as also may Larsow’s Fest-briefe (Leipz., 1852), with useful calendar information by Dr. J. G. Galle, the veteran professor of Astronomy at Breslau, and Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. (Supr. ch. i. §3.)
But by far the most valuable chronological discussions are those of Prof. Gwatkin in his Studies of Arianism. He has been the first to make full use of the best data, and moreover gives very useful lists of the great officials of the Empire and of the movements of the Eastern Emperors. Mr. Gwatkin’s results were criticised in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. pp. 392–398, 1883, by an evidently highly-qualified hand. The criticisms of the Reviewer have been most carefully weighed by the present writer, although they quite fail to shake him in his general agreement with Mr. Gwatkin’s results.
For the general chronology of the period we may mention Weingarten’s Zeit-tafeln (ed. 3, 1888) as useful, though not especially so for our purpose, and above all Clinton’s Fasti Romani, which, however, were drawn up in the dark ages before the discovery of the Festal Letters, and are therefore antiquated so far as the life of Athanasius is concerned.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr. Gwatkin’s book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer’s chronological strictures are his weakest point: he uses his texts without criticism, and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin’s standard of searching historical method.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Prolegomena/Chronology and Tables/Synoptical Table of Bishops

II. Synoptical Table of the Bishops of the Chief Sees.
And of the principal Councils held, during the lifetime of Athanasius.
N.B.—The names of bishops in italics are open to doubt regarding their date.
An asterisk prefixed to a bishop’s name means that he was elected when the see was not de facto vacant (the case of Ursinus of Rome in 366 is not free from doubt).
† after the name of a synod indicates that although not formally Arian it was held under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Arianism by its creeds (N.B. no creed at Arles or Milan, 353–355).
‘Semi-Arian’ synods are printed in italics.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Prolegomena/Chronology and Tables/General Chronological Table

I. General Chronological Table of the Life of S. Athanasius.
N.B.—Dates upon which the Historia Acephala and Festal Index coincide are printed in Thick Type. Where the agreement, though certain, is constructive and not explicit, an asterisk is added. Where the month, or day, is in ordinary type, the agreement does not extend to the details in question. The more doubtful points of chronology are marked by italics.
A table of the Egyptian months, and a table of the date of Easter, &c., in each year of the episcopate of Athanasius, will be given at the end of the introduction to the collection of Letters at the close of this volume (p. 501 sq.). A list of the consuls of each year is given in the Festal Index.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/Life/Sixth Five Years

§8. Sixth Five Years.
The main event of the last full five-year period of this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An. 2347; Idat.; Oros. c. 28; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict. Cæs. p. 352; cf. Soz. 1. 26), undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. l.c.), carried on by Constantine II., and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton). The following year (333) Constans was made consul (Idat.; Hieron.; Prosper has 332; cf. Zos. 2. 35; Vict. Cæs. p. 161, &c.), and in 334 the remarkable (Anon. Vales.) incorporation of 300,000 Sarmatians into the empire (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Idat.; Hieron.; cf. Ammian. 17. 12, 18; 17. 13; 19. 12; V. C. 4. 6). This same year Calocærus revolted in Crete and was defeated (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Oros. c. 28; Hieron.). The following year (335) Constantine celebrated his tricennalia, and Dalmatius was made Cæsar (Idat.; Hieron. An. 340; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Chron. Pasch. p. 532; Vict. Epit. p. 51; Oros. c. 28), making now four Cæsars and a nondescript (cf. Anon. Vales. p. 476),—Constantine II, Constantius, Constans, Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus, among whom the world was now partitioned (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Zos. 2. 39; Vict. Epit. p. 52).