OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book IV/Chap. XXI

Chap. XXI.—Of the Ascension of Jesus, and the Foretelling of It; And of the Preaching and Actions of the Disciples.
But when He had made arrangements with His disciples for the preaching of the Gospel and His name, a cloud suddenly surrounded Him, and carried Him up into heaven, on the fortieth day after His passion, as Daniel had shown that it would be, saying: “And, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days.” But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed. But He also opened to them all things which were about to happen, which Peter and Paul preached at Rome; and this preaching being written for the sake of remembrance, became permanent, in which they both declared other wonderful things, and also said that it was about to come to pass, that after a short time God would send against them a king who would subdue the Jews, and level their cities to the ground, and besiege the people themselves, worn out with hunger and thirst. Then it should come to pass that they should feed on the bodies of their own children, and consume one another. Lastly, that they should be taken captive, and come into the hands of their enemies, and should see their wives most cruelly harassed before their eyes, their virgins ravished and polluted, their sons torn in pieces, their little ones dashed to the ground; and lastly, everything laid waste with fire and sword, the captives banished for ever from their own lands, because they had exulted over the well-beloved and most approved Son of God. And so, after their decease, when Nero had put them to death, Vespasian destroyed the name and nation of the Jews, and did all things which they had foretold as about to come to pass.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Dan. vii. 13.
* ↑ Magistri Dei.
* ↑ i.e., the new doctrine which they announced.
* ↑ In memoriam scripta. This is said to have been the title of a spurious book now lost.
* ↑ Expugnaret. The word properly signifies to take by storm.
# Andrew Marvell

First published in Colonial Literary Journal and Weekly Miscellany of Useful Information, 20 March 1845
SPIRIT, that lookest from the starry fold Of truth's white flock, next to thy Milton there Accept my reverance, though feebly told; And oh, my heart, from thy example rare, Henceforth its being for worhtiest ends would bear! Thy thoughts and deeds were towering all and bold, And like the steadfast columns that uphold Some awful temple, to thy duty were! How much thy story has enlarged my ken Of human greatness! Of mere heroes I With indignation ever read—but when Of Thee, as lifted into Virtue's sky, I feel how nobly all may live and die, And glory in my brotherhood with men.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Andrew Nelson v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 554
Andrew Nelson v. United States
Argued: Dec. 11, 1957. --- Decided: March 3, 1958
See 356 U.S. 934, 78 S.Ct. 770.
Mr. Paul E. Blanchard, for appellant.
Mr. Roger Fisher, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Andrews v. Cone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 720
Andrews v. Cone
Jas. C. Clayton, for appellant.
Thomas Wilson, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Andrews v. Cone/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 720
Andrews v. Cone
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, from a decree dismission the bill. The suit was brought for the infringement of the 'driven well' patent which was the subject of the decision of this court in Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U.S. 267, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101, and in which case an application for a rehearing has just been denied. 124 U.S. --, ante, 676. The decree below in Andrews v. Hovey dismissed the bill, and this court affirmed it, holding the patent to have been invalid. In the present case there is a written stipulation, filed in this court, signed by the counsel of record here, that this case shall abide the result of the case of Andrews v. Hovey, in this court, and that the decree and mandate herein shall be the same as the decree and mandate in that case, except that no costs shall be taxed or awarded, or disbursements or officers' fees allowed or awarded, in this case in favor of or against either party hereto, and that each party shall pay his own costs and disbursements. In accordance with such stipulation, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed, subject to the above recited provisions of the stipulation.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
203 U.S. 127
Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land Company
Argued: October 19, 1906. --- Decided: November 12, 1906
Messrs.
S. M. Stockslager, James F. Moore, and George C. Heard for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Aldis B. Browne and Alexander Britton for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/Acts of Disputation/Chapter XX

20. On hearing these argumentations, the multitudes who were present were exceedingly delighted; so much so, indeed, that they were almost laying hands on Manes; and it was with difficulty that Archelaus restrained them, and kept them back, and made them quiet again. The judges said: Archelaus has given us proof sufficient of the fact that the body and soul of man are the works of one hand; because an object cannot subsist in any proper consonance and unison as the work of one hand, if there is any want of harmony in the design and plan. But if it is alleged that one could not possibly have sufficed to develop both these objects, namely, body and soul, this is simply to exhibit the incapacity of the artificer. For thus, even though one should grant that the soul is the creation of a good deity, it will be found to be but an idle work so far as the man is concerned, unless it also takes to itself the body. And if, again, the body is held to be the formation of an evil deity, the work will also none the less be idle unless it receives the soul; and, in truth, unless the soul be in unison with the body by commixture and due introduction, so that the two are in mutual connections, the man will not exist, neither can we speak of him. Hence we are of opinion that Archelaus has proved by a variety of illustrations that there is but one and the same maker for the whole man. Archelaus said: I doubt not, Manes, that you understand this, namely, that one who is born and created is called the son of him who begets or creates. But if the wicked one made man, then he ought to be his father, according to nature. And to whom, then, did the Lord Jesus address Himself, when in these terms He taught men to pray: “When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven;” and again, “Pray to your Father which is in secret?” But it was of Satan that He spoke when He said, that He “beheld him as lightning fall from heaven;” so that no one dare say that He taught us to pray to him. And surely Jesus did not come down from heaven with the purpose of bringing men together, and reconciling them to Satan; but, on the contrary, He gave him over to be bruised beneath the feet of His faithful ones. However, for my part, I would say that those Gentiles are the more blessed who do indeed bring in a multitude of deities, but at least hold them all to be of one mind, and in amity with each other; whereas this man, though he brings in but two gods, does not blush to posit enmities and discordant sentiments between them. And, in sooth, if these Gentiles were to bring in their counterfeit deities under conditions of that kind, we would verily have it in our power to witness something like a gladiatorial contest proceeding between them, with their innumerable natures and diverse sentiments.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Reading “natus est et creatus.” The Codex Casinensis has “natus est creatus.”
* ↑ Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 6.
* ↑ Luke x. 18.
* ↑ Codex Casinensis gives introduceret; but, retaining the reference to the Gentiles we read introducerent.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—The Contradictions of the Scriptures Intended to Try Those Who Read Them.
And Peter answered: “If the Scriptures or prophets speak of gods, they do so to try those who hear. For thus it is written: ‘If there arise among you a prophet, giving signs and wonders, and that sign and wonder shall then come to pass, and he say to thee, Let us go after and worship other gods which thy fathers have not known, ye shall not hearken to the words of that prophet; let thy hands be among the first to stone him. For he hath tried to turn thee from the Lord thy God. But if thou say in thy heart, How did he do that sign or wonder? thou shalt surely know that he who tried thee, tried thee to see if thou dost fear the Lord thy God.’ The words ‘he who tried thee, tried thee,’ have reference to the earliest times; but it appears to be otherwise after the removal to Babylon. For God, who knows all things, would not, as can be proved by many arguments, try in order that He Himself might know, for He fore-knows all things. But, if you like, let us discuss this point, and I shall show that God foreknows. But it has been proved that the opinion is false that He does not know, and that this was written to try us. Thus we, Simon, can be led astray neither by the Scriptures nor by any one else; nor are we deceived into the admission of many gods, nor do we agree to any statement that is made against God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [On the theory of the Scriptures which is here set forth, compare ii. 38, etc., iii. 42, etc.—R.]
* ↑ Deut. xiii. 1 ff.
* ↑ The change from the singular to the plural is in the Greek.
* ↑ Lit., “But it had been said that he who tried, tried.” The idea seems to be, Before the removal to Babylon true prophets tested the people by urging them to worship these gods; but after that event false prophets arose who really wished to seduce the Jews from the worship of the true God.
* ↑ Lit., “nor can we be made to stumble from the Scriptures nor by any one or anything else.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—Other Beings Called Gods.
“For we ourselves also know that angels are called gods by the Scriptures,—as, for instance, He who spake at the bush, and wrestled with Jacob,—and the name is likewise applied to Him who is born Emmanuel, and who is called the mighty God. Yea, even Moses became a god to Pharaoh, though in reality he was a man. The same is the case also with the idols of the Gentiles. But we have but one God, one who made creation and arranged the universe, whose Son is the Christ. Obeying Christ, we learn to know what is false from the Scriptures. Moreover, being furnished by our ancestors with the truths of the Scriptures, we know that there is only one who has made the heavens and the earth, the God of the Jews, and of all who choose to worship Him. Our fathers, with pious thought, setting down a fixed belief in Him as the true God, handed down this belief to us, that we may know that if any thing is said against God, it is a falsehood. I shall add this remark over and above what I need say: If the case be not as I have said, then may I, and all who love the truth, incur danger in regard to the praise of the God who made us.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. ix. 6.
* ↑ Lit., “whom obeying:” the “whom” might refer to God.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 10

Chapter X.—Peter’s Explanation of the Apparent Contradictions of Scripture.
And Peter said: “They do not lead astray, but convict and bring to light the evil disposition against God which lurks like a serpent in each one. For the Scriptures lie before each one like many divers types. Each one, then, has his own disposition like wax, and examining the Scriptures and finding everything in them, he moulds his idea of God according to his wish, laying upon them, as I said, his own disposition, which is like wax. Since, then, each one finds in the Scriptures whatever opinion he wishes to have in regard to God, for this reason he, Simon, moulds from them the forms of many gods, while we moulded the form of Him who truly exists, coming to the knowledge of the true type from our own shape. For assuredly the soul within us is clothed with His image for immortality. If I abandon the parent of this soul, it also will abandon me to just judgment, making known the injustice by the very act of daring; and as coming from one who is just, it will justly abandon me; and so, as far as the soul is concerned, I shall, after punishment, be destroyed, having abandoned the help that comes from it. But if there is another god, first let him put on another form, another shape, in order that by the new shape of the body I may recognise the new god. But if he should change the shape, does he thereby change the substance of the soul? But if he should change it also, then I am no longer myself, having become another both in shape and in substance. Let him, therefore, create others, if there is another. But there is not. For if there had been, he would have created. But since he has not created, then let him, as nonexistent, leave him who is really existent. For he is nobody, except only in the opinion of Simon. I do not accept of any other god but Him alone who created me.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [This statement of the subjective method of interpretation is in curious harmony with the prevalent theory of this work respecting the mixture of error and truth in the Scriptures.—R.]
* ↑ ἰδέας.
* ↑ μορφῆς.
* ↑ Probably τολμήματι should be changed into ὁρμήματι, or some such word: making known that an act of injustice has been committed by taking its departure.
* ↑ This might possibly be translated, “let him leave him who exists to him who exists;” i.e., let him leave the real God to man, who really exists.
* ↑ Wieseler proposes, “for he exists to no one.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—Gen. I. 26 Appealed to by Simon.
And Simon said: “Since I see that you frequently speak of the God who created you, learn from me how you are impious even to him. For there are evidently two who created, as the Scripture says:  ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ Now ‘let us make,’ implies two or more; certainly not one only.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. i. 26.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—The Nature of God.
“We call Him God whose peculiar attributes cannot belong to the nature of any other; for, as He is called the Unbounded because He is boundless on every side, it must of necessity be the case that it is no other one’s peculiar attribute to be called unbounded, as another cannot in like manner be boundless.  But if any one says that it is possible, he is wrong; for two things boundless on every side cannot co-exist, for the one is bounded by the other. Thus it is in the nature of things that the unbegotten is one. But if he possesses a figure, even in this case the figure is one and incomparable. Wherefore He is called the Most High, because, being higher than all, He has the universe subject to Him.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “thus it is nature.”
* ↑ We have adopted an emendation here. The text has: “Even thus the incomparable is one.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.—The Shape of God in Man.
And Simon said: “I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.” And Peter said: “I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case.” And Simon said: “How can death dissolve the body, impressed as it has thus been with the greatest seal?” And Peter said: “It is the shape of the just God. When, then, the body begins to act unjustly, the form which is in it takes to flight, and thus the body is dissolved, by the shape disappearing, in order that an unjust body may not have the shape of the just God. The dissolution, however, does not take place in regard to the seal, but in regard to the sealed body. But that which is sealed is not dissolved without Him who sealed it. And thus it is not permitted to die without judgment.” And Simon said: “What necessity was there to give the shape of such a being to man, who was raised from the earth?” And Peter said: “This was done because of the love of God, who made man. For while, as far as substance is concerned, all things are superior to the flesh of man,—I mean the ether, the sun, the moon, the stars, the air, the water, the fire—in a word, all the other things which have been made for the service of man,—yet, though superior in substance, they willingly endure to serve the inferior in substance, because of the shape of the superior. For as they who honour the clay image of a king have paid honour to the king himself, whose shape the clay happens to have, so the whole creation with joy serves man, who is made from earth, looking to the honour thus paid to God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “of that one, of Him.” [The chapter is peculiar to the Homilies; comp. xvii. 7, 8.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 18

Chapter XVIII.—The Name of God.
And Simon said: “Is this word ‘God’ His ineffable name, which all use, because you maintain so strongly in regard to a name that it cannot be given to another?” And Peter said: “I know that this is not His ineffable name, but one which is given by agreement among men; but if you give it to another, you will also assign to this other that which is not used; and that, too, deliberately. The name which is used is the forerunner of that which is not used. In this way insolence is attributed even to that which has not yet been spoken, just as honour paid to that which is known is handed on to that which has not yet been known.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Wieseler proposes to join this clause with the following: “And in point of choice the name which.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.—Peter’s Explanation of the Passage.
And Peter answered: “One is He who said to His Wisdom, ‘Let us make a man.’ But His Wisdom was that with which He Himself always rejoiced as with His own spirit. It is united as soul to God, but it is extended by Him, as hand, fashioning the universe. On this account, also, one man was made, and from him went forth also the female. And being a unity generically, it is yet a duality, for by expansion and contraction the unity is thought to be a duality. So that I act rightly in offering up all the honour to one God as to parents.” And Simon said: “What then?  Even if the Scriptures say that there are other gods, will you not accept the opinion?”

## Footnotes

* ↑ This is the only passage in the Homilies relating to the σοφία. The text is in some parts corrupt. It is critically discussed by Uhlhorn, some of whose emendations are adopted by Dressel and translated here.
* ↑ Prov. viii. 30.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—The Unbegotten and the Begotten Necessarily Different from Each Other.
“In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten.” And Simon said:  “Is it not the same on account of its origin?” And Peter said: “He who is not the same in all respects as some one, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person.” And Simon said: “This is to assert, not to prove.” And Peter said: “Why, do you not see that if the one happens to be self-begotten or unbegotten, they cannot be called the same; nor can it be asserted of him who has been begotten that he is of the same substance as he is who has begotten him? Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The word γένεσις, “arising, coming into being,” is here used, not γέννησις, “begetting.” The idea fully expressed is:  “Is not that which is begotten identical in essence with that which begets it?”
* ↑ We have inserted εἰ. The passage is amended in various ways; this seems to be the simplest.
* ↑ [The very ancient variant in John i. 18, “God only begotten,” indicates the distinction between the Unbegotten God and the Son. Even the Arians use the phrase, “Only-begotten God.”—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—Christ Not God, But the Son of God.
When Simon heard this, he said: “Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.”  And Peter answered: “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.” And Simon answered: “Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?” And Peter said: “Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Here we encounter marked evidence of Ebionism. Compare with these chapters the letter of Rufinus prefixed to the Recognitions.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Anatolius and Minor Writers/Malchion

Malchion.

## Contents

* Translator's Biographical Notice
* Epistle
* Fragments
* From the Acts of the Disputation 1
* From the Acts of the Disputation 2
* Elucidations