OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against the Valentinians/II

Chapter II.—These Heretics Brand the Christians as Simple Persons. The Charge Accepted, and Simplicity Eulogized Out of the Scriptures.
For this reason we are branded by them as simple, and as being merely so, without being wise also; as if indeed wisdom were compelled to be wanting in simplicity, whereas the Lord unites them both: “Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and simple as doves.” Now if we, on our parts, be accounted foolish because we are simple, does it then follow that they are not simple because they are wise? Most perverse, however, are they who are not simple, even as they are most foolish who are not wise. And yet, (if I must choose) I should prefer taking the latter condition for the lesser fault; since it is perhaps better to have a wisdom which falls short in quantity, than that which is bad in quality—better to be in error than to mislead. Besides, the face of the Lord is patiently waited for by those who “seek Him in simplicity of heart,” as says the very Wisdom—not of Valentinus, but—of Solomon. Then, again, infants have borne by their blood a testimony to Christ.  (Would you say) that it was children who shouted “Crucify Him”? They were neither children nor infants; in other words, they were not simple. The apostle, too, bids us to “become children again” towards God, “to be as children in malice” by our simplicity, yet as being also “wise in our practical faculties.” At the same time, with respect to the order of development in Wisdom, I have admitted that it flows from simplicity. In brief, “the dove” has usually served to figure Christ; “the serpent,” to tempt Him. The one even from the first has been the harbinger of divine peace; the other from the beginning has been the despoiler of the divine image.  Accordingly, simplicity alone will be more easily able to know and to declare God, whereas wisdom alone will rather do Him violence, and betray Him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Notamur.
* ↑ Matt. x. 16.
* ↑ In the original the phrase is put passively: “malim eam partem meliori sumi vitio.”
* ↑ How terse is the original! minus sapere quam pejus.
* ↑ Facies Dei.
* ↑ Wisd. of Sol. i. 1.
* ↑ Litaverunt: “consecrated.”
* ↑ Tertullian’s words are rather suggestive of sense than of syntax:  “Pueros vocem qui crucem clamant?”
* ↑ Secundum Deum: “according to God’s will.”
* ↑ 1 Cor. xiv. 20, where Tertullian renders the ταῖς φρεσί (A.V. “understanding”) by “sensibus.”
* ↑ Dedi.
* ↑ i.e., without wisdom.
* ↑ Concutere.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against the Valentinians
## Contents

* I
* II
* III
* IV
* V
* VI
* VII
* VIII
* IX
* X
* XI
* XII
* XIII
* XIV
* XV
* XVI
* XVII
* XVIII
* XIX
* XX
* XXI
* XXII
* XXIII
* XXIV
* XXV
* XXVI
* XXVII
* XXVIII
* XXIX
* XXX
* XXXI
* XXXII
* XXXIII
* XXXIV
* XXXV
* XXXVI
* XXXVII
* XXXVIII
* XXXIX
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/XXXI

Chapter XXXI.—Retrograde Character of the Heresy of Praxeas. The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity Constitutes the Great Difference Between Judaism and Christianity.
But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance—so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after the Son the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were not this distinction which you are for breaking down? What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law and the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God? God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in, after a new manner, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit. Away, then, with those “Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son.” For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs. But “whosoever shall confess that (Jesus) Christ is the Son of God” (not the Father), “God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” We believe not the testimony of God in which He testifies to us of His Son. “He that hath not the Son, hath not life.” And that man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other than the Son.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Coram.
* ↑ Viderint.
* ↑ 1 John iv. 15.
* ↑ 1 John v. 12.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against the Valentinians/IV

Chapter IV.—The Heresy Traceable to Valentinus, an Able But Restless Man. Many Schismatical Leaders of the School Mentioned. Only One of Them Shows Respect to the Man Whose Name Designates the Entire School.
We know, I say, most fully their actual origin, and we are quite aware why we call them Valentinians, although they affect to disavow their name. They have departed, it is true, from their founder, yet is their origin by no means destroyed; and even if it chance to be changed, the very change bears testimony to the fact. Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent. Ptolemæus afterwards entered on the same path, by distinguishing the names and the numbers of the Ænons into personal substances, which, however, he kept apart from God. Valentinus had included these in the very essence of the Deity, as senses and affections of motion. Sundry bypaths were then struck off therefrom, by Heraclean and Secundus and the magician Marcus. Theotimus worked hard about “the images of the law.” Valentinus, however, was as yet nowhere, and still the Valentinians derive their name from Valentinus. Axionicus at Antioch is the only man who at the present time does honour to the memory of Valentinus, by keeping his rules to the full. But this heresy is permitted to fashion itself into as many various shapes as a courtezan, who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day. And why not? When they review that spiritual seed of theirs in every man after this fashion, whenever they have hit upon any novelty, they forthwith call their presumption a revelation, their own perverse ingenuity a spiritual gift; but (they deny all) unity, admitting only diversity. And thus we clearly see that, setting aside their customary dissimulation, most of them are in a divided state, being ready to say (and that sincerely) of certain points of their belief, “This is not so;” and, “I take this in a different sense;” and, “I do not admit that.” By this variety, indeed, innovation is stamped on the very face of their rules; besides which, it wears all the colourable features of ignorant conceits.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Enim.
* ↑ Martyrii.
* ↑ Conversus.
* ↑ Semitam.
* ↑ Consolatur.
* ↑ Regularum: the particulars of his system. [Here comes in the word, borrowed from heresy, which shaped Monasticism in after times and created the regular orders.]
* ↑ Nec unitatem, sed diversitatem: scil. appellant.
* ↑ Colores ignorantiarum.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leuchte

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leuchte | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leuchte, f., ‘light, lamp,’ from MidHG. liuhte, f., ‘light, apparatus for giving light,’ also ‘brightness, lustre’; a derivative of Licht.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Lied

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Lied | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Lied, n., from the equiv. MidHG. liet(d), OHG. liod, n., ‘song’ (Goth. *liuþ, n., may be inferred from liuþareis, m., ‘singer,’ and liuþân, ‘to sing praises’); comp. Du. lied, AS. leóþ, n., ‘song.’ The Teut. term for poetical productions, such as existed far earlier than the time of Tacitus (comp. “carmina antiqua,” Germania, 2). Poetry flourished long before the adoption of the letters of the runic alphabet, which was derived from the Lat.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Lid

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Lid | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Lid, in Augenlid, n., from MidHG., lit(t), n., ‘lid’ (espec. of a vessel), OHG. lit, earlier hlit, n.; corresponding to AS. hlid, n., ‘lid, door,’ E. lid; OIc. hliþ, n., ‘gate.’ ‘Eyelid’ in Ic. is augnalok, n., lit. ‘eye-lock’; in MidE. also eielid, E. eyelid (MidHG. ougelit), and hence the term, like Augapfel, is common both to G. and E. hlid, ‘lock-up, lid,’ is connected with an old verbal stem, OSax. and AS. hlîdan, ‘to cover, lock up.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leuchse

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leuchse | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leuchse, f., ‘rail-tie,’ a Bav. and Suab. word, from the equiv. MidHG. liuhse; probably cognate with the equiv. Czech lušnĕ, Pol. lusnia, Russ. ljušnja, if these are not connected rather with Lünse.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Liebstöckel

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Liebstöckel | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Liebstöckel, n. and m., ‘lovage,’ even in MidHG. liebstuckel, usually, however, lübestecke, m., which is based on Lat. ligusticum (whence the equiv. Ital. levistico, Fr. livèche). The unintelligible Lat. form was corrupted in the Middle Ages in the most varied ways; AS. lufestice is also based on AS. lufu, love’ OHG. lubistëchal, MidHG. lübestecke seem to be formed in allusion to OHG. luppi, MidHG. lüppe, ‘juice of a plant producing strong effects’ (see Lab).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Lilie

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Lilie | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Lilie, f., ‘lily,’ from the equiv. MidHG. lilje, OHG. lilja, f.; borrowed in OHG. from Lat. lîlia, plur.; the brevity of the i of the accented syllable in the G. word and also in E. (AS. lilie, E. lily) is the same as in Linie and Litze, from Lat. lînea and lîcium. Comp. Rose.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Linde

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Linde | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Linde, f., ‘linden, lime-tree,’ from the equiv. MidHG. linde, OHG. linta, f.; corresponding to Du. linde, AS. lind, f. E. lind, linden, linden-tree (E. lime-tree = ‘linden’ is obscure); OIc. lind, f., ‘lime-tree’; a common Teut. term for ‘linden,’ also, as an OTeut. warlike term, ‘shield,’ lit. ‘linden shield,’ Its earlier history is obscure; ModHG. dial. Lind, ‘bast,’ and Scand. linde, ‘girdle,’ derivatives of Linde, give no clue to the prim. meaning of the word. If we consider the change in meaning to which names of trees have been subject (see under Buche, Eiche, and Tanne), we might assume that Linde is related to Gr. ἐλάτη (from lentâ), ‘pine tree, white pine’; it can scarcely be connected with Lat. lentus, ‘flexible’ (comp. lind), as if the inner bark of the linden were used at an early period for cords.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leumund

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leumund | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leumund, m., ‘reputation, character,’ from MidHG. and OHG. liumunt, m., ‘reputation, fame, report.’ In ModHG. it is perhaps instinctively interpreted as Leute Mund, ‘mouth of the people’; but the word is not a compound. In Goth. probably *hliumunds, m., which must be referred to hliuma, ‘hearing, ear’; -munda- is perhaps an affix corresponding to Gr. -ματ- and Lat. -mento- (in co-gnô-mentum). The root hliu- has numerous derivatives, both in the Teut. and non-Teut. languages (comp. laut, läuten, Gr. κλέος, Sans. çrávas, ‘fame’); Sans. çrômata-m., n., ‘hearing,’ corresponds most nearly in form to HG. Leumund. Lat. crîmen has absolutely nothing to do with these last two terms. Verleumden, ‘to calumniate,’ is not based directly on Leumund, but on a MidHG. liumde, normally abbreviated from it.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Leute

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Leute | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Leute, plur only, ‘people,’ from MidHG. liute, m. and n. plur., ‘people, persons,’ with the sing. liut, m. and n., ‘nation’; OHG. liuti, m. and n. plur., ‘people,’ also liut, m. and n., ‘nation’; corresponding to AS. leóde, plur., ‘people’. It is uncertain whether we have to assume *liudus, ‘nation,’ in Goth. The word is common to Teut. and Slav.; OSlov. ljudŭ, m., ‘nation,’ plur.,’ ljudije, ‘people,’ Lett. laudis, m. plur., ‘people, nation.’ They are connected with an Aryan root ludh, ‘to grow,’ which retained its meaning in Goth. liudan, OSax. liodan, AS. leódan, OHG. liotan; comp. the Sans. root ruh, ‘to grow.’ The following Teut. words are also connected with the same stem, Goth. lauþs (gen. laudis) in swalauþs, ‘so great,’ samalauþs, ‘equally great, equal,’ juggalauþs, ‘youth,’ MidHG. lôte, ‘constituted’; Goth. ludjô-, f., ‘face’; AS. leód, m., ‘king.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Licht

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Licht | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Licht, n., ‘light, luminary, candle,’ from MidHG. licht, OHG. lioht, n., ‘light, lustre, brightness’; corresponding to OSax. lioht, Du. licht, AS. leóht, n., E. light. The dental of the word is a suffix, as is shown by Goth. liuh-aþ (gen. -adis), n., ‘light, sheen.’ OIc. ljós, n., ‘light,’ formed with a different suffix would be in Goth. *liuhs (gen. -sis); they are based on Aryan leukot-, leukt-, and ​leukos-, leuks-, as a double stem; comp. Sans. rocis, n., Zend raocaṇh (for *rocâs, ‘lustre, light.’ The Aryan root luk, by gradation leuk, has numerous derivatives, Sans. ruc (rôcâmi), ‘to give light,’ rukmá-s, adj., ‘glittering,’ subst. ‘jewels,’ rôká-s, m., rôcaná, n., ‘light’; Gr. λευκός, adj. ‘white,’ ἀμφιλύκη, ‘morning twilight’; Lat. lucerna, lûceo, lux, lucidus, lûna, lûmen, diluculum; OIr. lóche (t), ‘lightning,’ lón, ‘lustre’; OSlov. luča, ‘ray,’ luna, f., ‘moon.’ In Teut. there are also other derivatives of the Aryan root luk; comp. Leuchte, licht, adj., Lohe and Luchs, as well as Goth. lauhmuni, f., ‘lightning,’ lauhatjan, ‘to give light’; OIc. ljóme, AS. leóma, OSax. liomo, m. ‘lustre’; AS. lêgetu, MidE. leit, ‘lightning,’ and OHG. lôhazzen, ‘to lighten’; comp. also Luchs. With Sans. rukšá, Zend raokšna, adj., ‘bright,’ Pruss. lauksnos, f., plur., ‘stars,’ and OIc. ljós, ‘light,’ are also connected OHG. liehsen, adj., ‘bright,’ and AS. lîxan, ‘to give light.’
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXIV

Chapter XXIV.
And again, when it is said of Æsculapius that a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and still see, no mere phantom, but Æsculapius himself, healing and doing good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of “silly” individuals, although he cannot demonstrate that an incalculable number, as he asserts, of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge the existence of Æsculapius; while we, if we deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from distractions of mind, and madness, and countless other ills, which could be cured neither by men nor devils.
* ↑ ἀμύθητον.
* ↑ ἐκστάσεων.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXIII

Chapter XXIII.
But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate that no dissoluteness on His part is recorded. For even they who conspired against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid them, did not find even any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge against Him, so as to accuse Him of licentiousness; but His death was indeed the result of a conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to the death of Æsculapius by lightning. And what is there that is venerable in the madman Dionysus, and his female garments, that he should be worshipped as a god? And if they who would defend such beings betake themselves to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well founded, and also in each particular case, whether those beings can have a real existence, and are deserving of respect and worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop—for I will take the word that Celsus employs—did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter, although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity with right reason, would yield his assent at random to what is related of the one, but would rush to the history of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of Him?
* ↑ εἰ τὸ ὑγιὲς ἔχουσιν.
* ↑ θιασώταις.
* ↑ ἀποκληρωτικῶς.
* ↑ εἰς δὲ τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀνεξετάστως ὁρμῶν ἀπιστήσαι τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ;
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXIX.
According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in favour of Aristeas being a man—and probably not a virtuous one—to be stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a god or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey Apollo, and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with respect to Jesus we would say that, as it was of advantage to the human race to accept him as the Son of God—God come in a human soul and body—and as this did not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous appetites of the demons which love bodies, and to those who deem them to be gods on that account, the demons that are on earth (which are supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed in the nature of demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the libations and odours in which they greedily delighted were being swept away by the prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus dissipated all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the Gospel of Jesus to prevail throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men, and caused Churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those of superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the character of the multitudes who constitute the citizens in the assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the Churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons in the world; for who would not admit that even the inferior members of the Church, and those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the assemblies in the different districts?
* ↑ λιχνείᾳ.
* ↑ τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ πανταχοῦ πολιτευόμενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πόλεων πλήθη.
* ↑ φωστῆρες.  [Phil. ii. 15. Very noteworthy are the details of this and the following chapter, and their defiant comparisons.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XVII

Chapter XVII.
He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those of the Egyptians; “among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices, are to be seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and large and beautiful gateways, and wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them, and ceremonies of worship full of superstition and mystery; but when you have entered, and passed within, the object of worship is seen to be a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!” Now, what is the resemblance between us and the splendours of Egyptian worship which are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where is the resemblance to those irrational animals which are worshipped within, after you pass through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and the God of all things, and the injunctions against images, objects of reverence in the view of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the analogue to the worship of the irrational animal? But if he should assert this—and I do not think that he will maintain anything else—we shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater length in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature, was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world.
* ↑ προπυλαίων μεγέθη τε καὶ κάλλη.
* ↑ τὸ ἀνάλογον.
* ↑ [Clearly coincident with Clement and other early Fathers on this head.]