OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/Acts of Disputation

The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes.

## Contents

* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII
* Chapter XXIX
* Chapter XXX
* Chapter XXXI
* Chapter XXXII
* Chapter XXXIII
* Chapter XXXIV
* Chapter XXXV
* Chapter XXXVI
* Chapter XXXVII
* Chapter XXXVIII
* Chapter XXXIX
* Chapter XL
* Chapter XLI
* Chapter XLII
* Chapter XLIII
* Chapter XLIV
* Chapter XLV
* Chapter XLVI
* Chapter XLVII
* Chapter XLVIII
* Chapter IL
* Chapter L
* Chapter LI
* Chapter LII
* Chapter LIII
* Chapter LIV
* Chapter LV

## Footnotes

* ↑ Of Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/A Fragment of the Same Disputation/Chapter II

2. Then Manes made the following reply to him: And what manner of God now is it that blinds one? For it is Paul who uses these words: “In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the Gospel should shine in them.” But Archelaus broke in and refuted this very well, saying: Read, however, a word or two of what precedes that sentence, namely, “But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid in them that are lost.” You see that it is hid in them that are lost. “For it is not meet to give the holy things to dogs.” And furthermore, is it only the God of the Old Testament that has blinded the minds of them who believe not? Nay, has not Jesus Himself also said: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: that seeing, they may not see?” Is it then because He hated them that He desired them not to see? Or is it not on account of their unworthiness, since they closed their own eyes? For wherever wickedness is a matter self-chosen, there too there is the absence of grace. “For unto him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. iv. 4.
* ↑ Matt. vii. 6.
* ↑ Matt. xiii. 13. The text is, ἵνα βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσι.
* ↑ Matt. xxv. 29.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/A Fragment of the Same Disputation/Chapter III

3. But even although we should be under the necessity of accepting the exegesis advocated by some,—for the subject is not altogether unworthy of notice,—and of saying thus, that He hath actually blinded the minds of them that believe not, we should still have to affirm that He hath blinded them for good, in order that they may recover their sight to behold things that are holy. For it is not said that He hath blinded their soul, but only that He hath blinded the minds of them that believe not. And that mode of expression means something like this: Blind the whorish mind of the whore-monger, and the man is saved; blind the rapacious and thievish mind of the thief and the man is saved. But do you decline to understand the sentence thus? Well, there is still another interpretation. For the sun blinds those who have bad sight; and those who have watery eyes are also blinded when they are smitten by the light: not, however, because it is of the nature of the sun to blind, but because the eye’s own constitution is not one of correct vision. And in like manner, those whose hearts are afflicted with the ailment of unbelief are not capable of looking upon the rays of the glory of the Godhead. And again, it is not said, “He hath blinded their minds lest they should hear the Gospel,” but rather “lest the light of the glory of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should shine unto them.” For to hear the Gospel is a thing committed to all; but the glory of the Gospel of Christ is imparted only to the sincere and genuine. For this reason the Lord spake in parables to those who were incapable of hearing, but to His disciples He explained these parables in private. For the illumination of the glory is for those who have been enlightened, while the blinding is for them who believe not. These mysteries, which the Church now declares to you who are transferred from the lists of the catechumens, it is not her custom to declare to the Gentiles. For we do not declare the mysteries touching the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to a Gentile; neither do we speak of the mysteries plainly in presence of the catechumens; but many a time we express ourselves in an occult manner, so that the faithful who have intelligence may apprehend the truths referred to, while those who have not that intelligence may receive no hurt.

## Footnotes

* ↑ For εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ ὡς, etc., various codices read εἰ δὲ δικαίως, etc.
* ↑ νοήματα, thoughts.
* ↑ ψυχή&#957;.
* ↑ ὑπόστασις.
* ↑ ἐφίεται.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/A Fragment of the Same Disputation/Preface

A Fragment of the Same Disputation.
The fragment is introduced by Cyril in the following terms: —He, i.e., Manes, fled from prison and came into Mesopotamia; but there he was met by that buckler of righteousness, Bishop Archelaus. And in order to bring him to the test in the presence of philosophical judges, this person convened an assembly of Grecian auditors, so as to preclude the possibility of its being alleged that the judges were partial, as might have been the case had they been Christians. Then the matter proceeded as we shall now indicate:—

## Footnotes

* ↑ From Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, vi. § 27–29. [And see the Introductory Notice, p. 175.]
* ↑ Reading ὅπλον δικαιοσύνης . Others read ὅπλῳ = Archelaus met him with the buckler of righteousness.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus
## Contents

* Title Page
* Introductory Notice
* Acts of Disputation
* A Fragment of the Same Disputation
* Elucidations
* General Note
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/A Fragment of the Same Disputation/Chapter I

1. Archelaus said to Manes: Give us a statement now of the doctrines you promulgate.—Thereupon the man, whose mouth was like an open sepulchre, began at once with a word of blasphemy against the Maker of all things, saying: The God of the Old Testament is the inventor of evil, who speaks thus of Himself: “I am a consuming fire.”—But the sagacious Archelaus completely undid this blasphemy. For he said: If the God of the Old Testament, according to your allegation, calls Himself a fire, whose son is He who says, “I am come to send fire upon the earth?” If you find fault with one who says, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive,” why do you honour Peter, who raised Tabitha to life, but also put Sapphira to death? And if again, you find fault with the one because He has prepared a fire, why do you not find fault with the other, who says, “Depart from me into everlasting fire?” If you find fault with Him who says, “I, God, make peace, and create evil,” explain to us how Jesus says, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Since both persons speak in the same terms, one or other of these two things must follow: namely, either they are both good because they use the same language; or, if Jesus passes without censure though He speaks in such terms, you must tell us why you reprehend Him who employs a similar mode of address in the Old Testament.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. v. 9.
* ↑ Deut. iv. 24.
* ↑ Luke xii. 49.
* ↑ 1 Sam. ii. 6.
* ↑ Acts ix. 40.
* ↑ Acts v. 10.
* ↑ Deut. xxxii. 22.
* ↑ Matt. xxv. 41.
* ↑ Isa. xlv. 7.
* ↑ Matt. x. 34. Various of the mss. add, ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, upon the earth.
* ↑ The text gives καλοί. Routh seems to prefer κακοί, evil.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leid

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leid | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leid, n., ‘harm, hurt, sorrow,’ from MidHG. leit (d), n., ‘affliction, pain, evil’ (as adj. ‘afflicting’), OHG. leid, n., ‘that which causes affliction; harm, pain’ (leid, adj., ‘afflicting, repugnant, hateful’). Comp. AS. lâþ, ‘offence, wrong, hostile, hateful, inimical’; E. loath, adj., to loathe, OIc. leiþr, ‘hostile, hateful.’ Probably the abstr. subst. is orig. nothing more than the neut. of the adj., which passed into Rom. at a very early period (comp. Ital. laido, ‘ugly,’ Fr. laid). See further under leiden and leider.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leier

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leier | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leier, f., ‘lyre,’ from the equiv. MidHG. lîre, OHG. lîra, f.; from Lat. and Gr. lyra, with the Byzantine pronunciation of the y current in the Middle Ages, but with an abnormal change of quantity (as in Kreuz, Schule, and Lilie). The lyre of the Middle Ages, except when imported, was essentially different from the antique lyre; it was an instrument of the same sort as a guitar, and was played by a wheel turned by a winch; hence it was something very like a barrel-organ (hurdy-gurdy). Through the influence of classical studies, the term Leier is now applied again to the antique instrument without entirely supplanting the earlier meaning (comp. Leierkasten). Comp. also Ital. lira, Fr. lyre, E. lyre, and Du. lier.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leim

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leim | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leim, m., ‘glue, birdlime,’ from the equiv. MidHG., MidLG., and OHG. lîm, m.; corresponding to Du. lijm, AS. lîm, E. lime; Scand. lím, n., ‘glue, lime’; Goth. *leima is wanting. The common Teut. lîma- is related by gradation to the common Teut. laima-, mentioned under Lehm; the prim. meaning, ‘earthy, adhesive substance,’ is deduced from the E. and Scand. signification ‘glue, lime.’ Lat. lîmus, ‘slime,’ is more closely connected with HG. Lehm in meaning, but with HG. Leim in its graded form î. The root lai, by gradation lî, is authenticated by OIc. leir, n. (see Lehm), and Lat. li-no, ‘to rub over.’ Its relation to Gr. λειμών, ‘mars,’ and γλοιός, ‘sticky, clammy stuff,’ is less certain.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Lein

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Lein | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Lein, m., ‘flax,’ from the equiv. MidHG. and OHG. lîn, m. and n.; comp. Leinen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leine

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leine | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leine, f., ‘line,’ from MidHG. and MidLG. lîne, f., late OHG. lîna, f., ‘rope, cable, line,’ espec. ‘towline.’ The derivation from Lat. lînea is doubtful, because the latter does not signify ‘cable’ even in MidLat. but specially ‘plumb-line,’ and in MidLat. ‘measure of length.’ As far as the sense is concerned, the word is more closely connected with Lat. lînum, ‘thread, cable, rope’; hence OHG. lîna is the plur. of the Lat. word. In Rom. and MidLat., however, lînum does not occur in this sense. Perhaps Leine, as an independent Teut. derivative of lîn, ‘linen,’ corresponds to Gr. λιναία, λινέα, ‘rope, cord’?. In that case AS. lîne, E. line, and OIc. lína (Goth. *leinjô, lit. ‘what is prepared from flax’), are also formed according to the genuinely Teut. principle (suffix, jôn).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leinen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leinen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leinen, n., ‘linen,’ prop. a neut. adj. used as a subst., MidHG. lînen, lînîn, ‘(of) linen.’ It is based on MidHG. lîn, m., ‘flax, linen, linen garment,’ OHG. and OSax. lîn, n., Goth. lein, n., ‘linen.’ In this case, as in that of Hanf, it is doubtful whether the term (common Teut. lîna-) is cognate with or borrowed from the similarly sounding words in Lat. and Gr. If the Teut. word is really borrowed, the relation of the consonants proves that Hanf was known to the Teutons previous to the permutation of consonants, i.e., long before our era; the same may be said of lîna-, ‘flax,’ since Pliny and Tacitus testify that linen was used among the Teutons when they wrote. Perhaps we may regard Scythian as the source of the cognates, as is indicated by the absence of the word among the Eastern Aryans. Comp. Lat. lînum, Gr. λίνο-ν, OSlov. lĭnŭ, Lith. linaì, ‘flax’; λῖ- was retained in the dat. λῖ-τί, plur. λῖ-τα, hence the root of lînum, λίνον, is lī̆- and no, the suffix. Comp. Leilachen and Leine. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leichnam

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leichnam | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leichnam, m., ‘dead body, corpse,’ from MidHG. lîchname, OHG. lîhhinamo, m., ‘body, substance, corpse’; OHG. lîhhinamo for *lihhin-hamo is based on a wk. form *lîkan-, *lîkin- (comp. Goth. manleika, ‘image’); at all events, OHG. lîhhin-amo is not a corruption of OTeut. lîkhamo, m., ‘body’; OHG. lîhhamo (by syncope lîhmo), MidHG. lîchame, m., AS. lîc-hǫma, OIc. líkamr (líkame), m., ‘body.’ The second component is an obsolete noun (ham, hamo), meaning ‘form, covering’; comp. OIc. hamr, ‘skin, shape,’ AS. homa, ‘covering’; Goth. anahamôn, gahamôn, ‘to put on (clothes), dress’ (comp. Hamen, hämisch, and Hemd). Therefore Leichnam probably signified orig. ‘body,’ lit. ‘covering or form of flesh,’ i.e. ‘body of flesh, in so far as it is endowed with life.’ The compound has a rather poetical air about it, and in fact ​Scand. and AS. poetry coined many similar circumlocutions for ‘body.’ In AS. poetry comp. flœ̂sc-homa, ‘flesh-covering,’ also bân-fœt, lit. ‘bone-vessel,’ bânhûs, lit. ‘bone-house,’ bânloca, lit. ‘bone-cage,’ bâncofa, lit. ‘bone-dwelling,’ as synonyms of AS. lîc-homa, ‘body.’ Hence it is quite possible that OTeut. lîk-hamo was adopted from poetry in ordinary prose.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leilachen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leilachen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leilachen, Leilach, n., ‘sheet,’ from MidHG. lîlachen, lîlach, n., ‘bed-linen, sheet.’ The ModHG. and MidHG. word originated in lîn-lacken, which form is often recorded in MidHG. (Leinlachen in earlier ModHG.), and appears in OHG. as lîn-lahhan; lînl- was assimilated in MidHG. to lîll- and ll simplified after a long vowel. A similar course was followed by the OIc. cognate lé-rept for *línrept, *línript, ‘linen.’ The derivation of Leilachen from MidHG. lîhlachen, OHG. lîh-lahhan, ‘body-linen’ (comp. Leiche, for OHG. lîh), is less probable, because an assimilation of chl to ll, l, is scarcely credible.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Apologetic/An Answer to the Jews/Further Proofs from the Calling of the Gentiles

Chapter XII.—Further Proofs from the Calling of the Gentiles.
Look at the universal nations thenceforth emerging from the vortex of human error to the Lord God the Creator and His Christ; and if you dare to deny that this was prophesied, forthwith occurs to you the promise of the Father in the Psalms, which says, “My Son art Thou; to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee Gentiles as Thine heritage, and as Thy possession the bounds of the earth.” For you will not be able to affirm that “son” to be David rather than Christ; or the “bounds of the earth” to have been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He says through Isaiah: “Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant of my family, for a light of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind”—of course, such as err—“to outloose from bonds the bound”—that is, to free them from sins—“and from the house of prison”—that is, of death—“such as sit in darkness”—of ignorance, to wit. And if these blessings accrue through Christ, they will not have been prophesied of another than Him through whom we consider them to have been accomplished.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. ii. 7, 8.
* ↑ Dispositionem; Gr. διαθήκην.
* ↑ Isa. xlii. 6, 7, comp. lxi. 1; Luke iv. 14–18.
* ↑ Comp. Luke ii. 25–33.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Apologetic/An Answer to the Jews
## Contents

* Occasion of Writing. Relative Position of Jews and Gentiles Illustrated
* The Law Anterior to Moses
* Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law
* Of the Observance of the Sabbath
* Of Sacrifices
* Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law
* The Question Whether Christ Be Come Taken Up
* Of the Times of Christ's Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem's Destruction
* Of the Prophecies of the Birth and Achievements of Christ
* Concerning the Passion of Christ, and Its Old Testament Predictions and Adumbrations
* Further Proofs, from Ezekiel. Summary of the Prophetic Argument Thus Far
* Further Proofs from the Calling of the Gentiles
* Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea
* Conclusion. Clue to the Error of the Jews
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VIII/Part 7

Chapter VI.—Monoïmus’ “Iota;” His Notion of the “Son of Man.”
The monad, (that is,) the one tittle, is therefore, he says, also a decade.  For by the actual power of this one tittle, are produced duad, and triad, and tetrad, and pentad, and hexad, and heptad, and ogdoad, and ennead, up to ten. For these numbers, he says, are capable of many divisions, and they reside in that simple and uncompounded single tittle of the iota. And this is what has been declared:  “It pleased (God) that all fulness should dwell in the Son of man bodily.” For such compositions of numbers out of the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the iota become, he says, corporeal realities. The Son of man, therefore, he says, has been generated from the perfect man, whom no one knew; every creature who is ignorant of the Son, however, forms an idea of Him as the offspring of a woman. And certain very obscure rays of this Son which approach this world, check and control alteration (and) generation. And the beauty of that Son of man is up to the present incomprehensible to all men, as many as are deceived in reference to the offspring of the woman. Therefore nothing, he says, of the things that are in our quarter of creation has been produced by that man, nor will aught (of these) ever be (generated from him). All things, however, have been produced, not from the entirety, but from some part of that Son of man. For he says the Son of man is a jot in one tittle, which proceeds from above, is full, and completely replenishes all (rays flowing down from above).  And it comprises in itself whatever things the man also possesses (who is) the Father of the Son of man.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The iota with a little mark placed above, signifies ten; thus, ι = 10.
* ↑ Col. i. 19.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VIII/Part 9

Chapter VIII.—Monoïmus Explains His Opinions in a Letter to Theophrastus; Where to Find God; His System Derived from Pythagoras.
Monoïmus himself, accordingly, in his letter to Theophrastus, expressly makes the following statement:  “Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from (out of) thyself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates (unto Himself) all things in thee, and says, ‘My God (is) my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.’ And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred, and involuntary wakefulness, and involuntary drowsiness, and involuntary anger, and involuntary affection; and if,” he says, “you accurately investigate these (points), you will discover (God) Himself, unity and plurality, in thyself, according to that tittle, and that He finds the outlet (for Deity) to be from thyself.” Those (heretics), then, (have made) these (statements). But we are under no necessity of comparing such (doctrines) with what have previously been subjects of meditation on the part of the Greeks, inasmuch as the assertions advanced by these (heretics) evidently derive their origin from geometrical and arithmetical art. The disciples, however, of Pythagoras, expounded this (art) after a more excellent method, as our readers may ascertain by consulting those passages (of our work) in which we have previously furnished expositions of the entire wisdom of the Greeks. But since the heresy of Monoïmus has been sufficiently refuted, let us see what are the fictitious doctrines which the rest also (of these heretics) devise, in their desire to set up for themselves an empty name.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Literally, “nobly born.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book X/Part 10

Chapter IX.—Valentinus.
Valentinus, however, and the adherents of this school, though they agree in asserting that the originating principle of the universe is the Father, still they are impelled into the adoption of a contrary opinion respecting Him. For some of them maintain that (the Father) is solitary and generative; whereas others hold the impossibility, (in His as in other cases,) of procreation without a female. They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style the Father Himself Bythus. From this Father and His spouse some allege that there have been six projections,—viz., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia,—and that this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad. And the Valentinians maintain that those are the first projections which have taken place within the limit, and have been again denominated “those within the Pleroma;” and the second are “those without the Pleroma;” and the third, “those without the Limit.” Now the generation of these constitutes the Hysterema Acamoth. And he asserts that what has been generated from an Æon, that exists in the Hysterema and has been projected (beyond the Limit), is the Creator.  But Valentinus is not disposed to affirm what is thus generated to be primal Deity, but speaks in detractive terms both of Him and the things made by Him. And (he asserts) that Christ came down from within the Pleroma for the salvation of the spirit who had erred. This spirit, (according to the Valentinians,) resides in our inner man; and they say that this inner man obtains salvation on account of this indwelling spirit.  Valentinus, however, (to uphold the doctrine,) determines that the flesh is not saved, and styles it “a leathern tunic,” and the perishable portion of man. I have (already) declared these tenets in the way of an epitome, inasmuch as in their systems there exists enlarged matter for discussion, and a variety of opinions. In this manner, then, it seems proper also to the school of Valentinus to propound their opinions.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This section differs considerably from what Hippolytus has already stated concerning Valentinus. [“Sige,” vol. i. p. 62, note 5.]