OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIII/Gregory the Great/Book XI/Letter 1

Book XI.
Epistle I.
To John, Abbot.
Gregory to John, Abbot of Mount Sina.
The Epistle of thy Humility testifies to the holiness of thy life; whence we give great thanks to Almighty God, for that we know that there are still some to pray for our sins. For we, under the colour of ecclesiastical government, are tossed in the billows of this world, which frequently overwhelm us. But by the protecting hand of heavenly grace we are raised up again from the deep. Do you, then, who lead a tranquil life in the so great serenity of your rest, and stand as it were safe on the shore, extend the hand of your prayer to us who are on our voyage, or rather who are suffering shipwreck, and with all the supplications in your power help us as we strive to reach the land of the living, so that not only for your own life, but also for our rescue, you may have reward for ever. May the Holy Trinity protect thy Love with the right hand of Its protection, and grant unto thee in Its sight, by praying, by admonishing, by shewing example of good work, to feed the flock committed to thee, that so thou mayest be able to reach the pastures of eternal life with the flock itself which thou feedest. For it is written, My sheep shall come and shall find pastures (John x. 27). And these pastures in truth we find, when, freed from the winter of this life, we are satisfied with the greenness of eternal life, as of a new Spring.
We have learnt from the report of our son Simplicius that there is a want of beds and bedding in the Gerontocomium, which has been constructed by one Isaurus there. Wherefore we have sent 15 cloaks, 30 rachanæ, and 15 beds.  We have also given money for the purchase of mattresses and for their transport, which we beg thy Love not to disdain, but to supply them to the place for which they have been sent. Given on the day of the Kalends of September, Indiction 4.

## Footnotes

* ↑ No doubt the John called Climacus, Scholasticus, and Sinaita, commemorated as a saint on 30 March. Having entered the monastery of Mount Sinai at the age of 16, he is said to have retired thence to live the life of an anchoret, to have been elected abbot at the age of 75, to have again after a time retired into solitude, and to have died early in the 7th century. While abbot, he wrote a work called Scala (κλὶμαξ) Paradisi, whence his name of Climacus. The monastery on Mount Sinai was a place to which pilgrimages were made. Cf. IV. 46.
* ↑ Properly a hospital for aged persons.
* ↑ The meaning of the word rachana, racana, or racahina, is uncertain.  It occurs again in XI. 78, where Barbara and Antonina, two young ladies at Constantinople, are thanked for a present of two racanæ, which they had alleged to be of their own workmanship. It is usually supposed to mean some wooller article of dress, worn by monks. Others understand blankets.
# Nine from Eight

Sidney Lanier composed “Nine from Eight” in Macon, in 1870. It is one of his Dialect Poems, which include “Thar’s More in the Man Than Thar Is in the Land,” “Uncle Jim’s Baptist Revival Hymn,” and others.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Martyrs of Palestine/Chapter XII

Chapter XII.
1. I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational flocks of Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful manner, the divine judgment, considering them worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of camels, an irrational beast and very crooked in the structure of its body, or condemned them to have the care of the imperial horses;—and I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tortures they endured from the imperial overseers and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and treasures of the Church; and besides these the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning. But such things as are sober and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,—“and if there be any virtue and praise,”—I consider it most proper to tell and to record, and to present to believing hearers in the history of the admirable martyrs. And after this I think it best to crown the entire work with an account of the peace which has appeared unto us from heaven.

## Footnotes

* ↑ λογικῶν
* ↑ “It was a punishment among the Romans that freemen should be condemned to take care of the emperor’s horses or camels, and to perform other personal offices of that kind” (Valesius). For fuller particulars, see Valesius’ note ad locum. In the Acts of St. Marcellus (who was bishop of Rome) we are told that he was set by Maximian to groom his horses in a church which the emperor had turned into a stable.
* ↑ ἀλόγου ζώου.
* ↑ Cf. Bk. VIII, chap. 2, §§2 and 3, and the note on that passage.
* ↑ Phil. iv. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Martyrs of Palestine/Chapter X

Chapter X.
1. On the fourteenth day of the following month Appellæus, the nineteenth before the Kalends of January, certain persons from Egypt were again seized by those who examined people passing the gates. They had been sent to minister to the confessors in Cilicia. They received the same sentence as those whom they had gone to help, being mutilated in their eyes and feet. Three of them exhibited in Ascalon, where they were imprisoned, marvelous bravery in the endurance of various kinds of martyrdom. One of them named Ares was condemned to the flames, and the others, called Probus and Elias, were beheaded.
2. On the eleventh day of the month Audynæus, which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Cæsarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, from the village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God. Though the judge and those around him besought him many times to have compassion on himself, and to spare his own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, preferring hope in the God of the universe to all things, even to life itself. A certain Asclepius, supposed to be a bishop of the sect of Marcion, possessed as he thought with zeal for religion, but “not according to knowledge,” ended his life on one and the same funeral pyre. These things took place in this manner.

## Footnotes

* ↑ i.e. Dec. 14, 308 (see the tables on p. 403, below).
* ↑ The majority of the codices read Πρόμος, but as Valesius remarks, such a proper name is quite unknown in Greek, and the form probably arose from a confusion of β and μ, which in ancient mss. were written alike. Two of our existing codices read Πρόβος, and this has been adopted by Zimmermann and Heinichen, whom I have followed in the text.
* ↑ i.e. Jan. 11, 309.
* ↑ In the Syriac version “Absalom.”
* ↑ Of this village we know nothing, but Eleutheropolis (originally Bethozabris) was an important place lying some forty miles southwest of Jerusalem.
* ↑ εἶναι δοκῶν. Eusebius did not wish to admit that he was a bishop in a true sense.
* ↑ Rom. x. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Bishops of Antioch

Antioch.
(Dates taken from the table given by Harnack in his Zeit des Ignatius, p. 62.)
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Bishops of Alexandria

Alexandria.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table

Supplementary Notes and Tables.

## Contents

* Note 1
* Note 2
* Note 3
* Note 4
* Note 5
* Note 6
* Note 7
* Note 8
* Note 9
* Note 10
* Note 11
* Note 12
* Note 13
* Note 14
* Note 15
* Note 16
* Note 17
* Note 18
* Note 19
* Note 20
* Note 21
* Note 22
* Roman Emperors
* The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius
* Bishops of Alexandria
* Bishops of Antioch
* Bishops of Jerusalem
* The Roman Method of counting the Days of the Month
* Macedonian Months
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Bishops of Jerusalem

Jerusalem.

## Footnotes

* ↑ These two names are omitted by Eusebius in his History, but are given in his Chron. and also by Epiphanius. See above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.
# No Man's Land (Sapper)/Part 3

PART III
SEED TIME
* THE SEED
* THE FIRST LESSON
* AN IMPERSONAL DEMONSTRATION
* SOMEWHAT MORE PERSONAL
* A PROJECT AND SOME SIDE ISSUES
* THE SECOND LESSON, AND SOME FURTHER SIDE ISSUES
* THE THIRD LESSON, AND A DIGRESSION
* THE THIRD LESSON IS LEARNED
* "AND OTHER FELL ON GOOD GROUND"
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 24

Chapter XXIV.—Letter of Conciliation from Valens and Ursacius to the Great Athanasius. Restoration of the Other Eastern Bishops to their own Sees. Ejection of Macedonius again; and Accession of Paul to the See.
“The bishops, Ursacius and Valens, to Athanasius, our brother in the Lord.
“We take the opportunity of the departure of Museus, our brother and fellow-presbyter, who is going to your esteemed self, O beloved brother, to send you amplest greeting from Aquileia through him, and hope that our letter will find you in good health. You will afford us great encouragement if you will write us a reply to this letter. Know that we are at peace and in ecclesiastical communion with you.”
Athanasius therefore returned under such circumstances from the West to Egypt. Paul, Marcellus, Asclepas, and Lucius, whom the edict of the emperor had returned from exile, received their own sees. Immediately on the return of Paul to Constantinople Macedonius retired, and held church in private. There was a great tumult at Ancyra on the deposition of Basil from the church there, and the reinstallation of Marcellus. The other bishops were reinstated in their churches without difficulty.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Athan.Apol. cont. Arian. 58; Hil. Fragm. ii. 20.
* ↑ Soc. ii. 23.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 21

Chapter XXI.—Letter of Constantius to the Egyptians in behalf of Athanasius. Synod of Jerusalem.
The emperor, on sending back
Athanasius to Egypt, wrote in his favor to the bishops and presbyters of that country, and to the people of the church of Alexandria; he testified to the integrity of his conduct and the virtue of his manners, and exhorted them to be of one mind, and to unite in prayer and service to God under his guidance. He added that, if any evil-disposed persons should excite disturbances, they should receive the punishment awarded by the laws for such offenses. He also commanded that the former decrees he had enacted against Athanasius, and those who were in communion with him, should be effaced from the public registers, and that his clergy should be admitted to the same exemptions they had previously enjoyed; and edicts to this effect were dispatched to the governors of Egypt and Libya.
Immediately on his arrival in Egypt, Athanasius displaced those whom he knew to be attached to Arianism, and placed the government of the Church and the confession of the Nicæan council in the hands of those whom he approved, and he exhorted them to hold to this with earnestness. It was said at that time, that, when he was traveling through other countries, he effected the same change, if he happened to visit churches which were under the Arians. He was certainly accused of having dared to perform the ceremony of ordination in cities where he had no right to do so. But because he had effected his return, although his enemies were unwilling, and it did not seem that he could be easily cast under suspicion, in that he was honored with the friendship of the Emperor Constans, he was regarded with greater consideration than before. Many bishops, who had previously been at enmity with him, received him into communion, particularly those of Palestine. When he at that time visited these latter, they received him kindly. They held a Synod at Jerusalem, and Maximus and the others wrote the following letter in his favor.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 54–56; Hist. Arian. 23; these are given in Soc. ii. 23; and for the Synod of Jerusalem, ii. 24; Ruf. i. 19.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 23

Chapter XXIII.—Valens and Ursacius, who belonged to the Arian Faction, confess to the Bishop of Rome that they had made False Charges against Athanasius.
Such was the letter written by the Synod convened in Palestine. Some time after Athanasius had the satisfaction of seeing the injustice of the sentence enacted against him by the council of Tyre publicly recognized.
Valens and Ursacius, who had been sent with Theognis and his followers to obtain information in Mareotis, as we before mentioned, concerning the holy cup which Ischyrion had accused Athanasius of having broken, wrote the following retraction to Julius, bishop of Rome:—
“Ursacius and Valens, to the most blessed Lord Pope Julius.
“Since we previously, as is well known, made many various charges against Athanasius, the bishop, by our letters, and although we have been urged persistently by the epistles of your excellency in this matter which we publicly alleged and have not been able to give a reason for our accusation, therefore, we now confess to your excellency in the presence of all the presbyters, our brethren, that all that you have heard concerning the aforesaid Athanasius is utterly false and fictitious, and in every way foreign to his nature. For this reason, we joyfully enter into communion with him, particularly as your piety in accordance with your implanted love of goodness has granted forgiveness to us for our error. Moreover, we declare unto you that if the bishops of the East, or even Athanasius himself, should at any time malignantly summon us to judgment, we would not sever ourselves from your judgment and disposition about the case. We now and ever shall anathematize, as we formerly did in the memorial which we presented at Milan, the heretic Arius and his followers, who say that there was a time, in which the Son existed not, and that Christ is from that which had no existence, and who deny that Christ was God and the Son of God before all ages. We again protest, in our own handwriting, that we shall ever condemn the aforesaid Arian heresy, and its originators.
“I, Ursacius, sign this confession with my own signature. In like manner also Valens.”
This was the confession which they sent to Julius. It is also necessary to append to it their letter to Athanasius: it is as follows:—

## Footnotes

* ↑ From Athan.Apol. cont. Arian. 58; Soc. ii. 24, only an allusion; Hil.Fragm. ii. 20; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 36.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—Transactions of that Period, and Progress of Christian Doctrine through the Joint Efforts of Emperors and Arch-Priests.
Those who presided over the churches at this period were noted for personal conduct, and, as might be expected, the people whom they governed were earnestly attached to the worship of Christ.
Religion daily progressed, by the zeal, virtue, and wonderful works of the priests, and of the ecclesiastical philosophers, who attracted the attention of the pagans, and led them to renounce their superstitions. The emperors who then occupied the throne were as zealous as was their father in protecting the churches, and they granted honors and tax exemptions to the clergy, their children, and their slaves. They confirmed the laws enacted by their father, and enforced new ones prohibiting the offering of sacrifice, the worship of images, or any other pagan observance. They commanded that all temples, whether in cities or in the country, should be closed. Some of these temples were presented to the churches, when either the ground they stood on or the materials for building were required. The greatest possible care was bestowed upon the houses of prayer, those which had been defaced by time were repaired, and others were erected from the foundations in a style of extraordinary magnificence. The church of Emesa is one most worthy to see and famous for its beauty. The Jews were strictly forbidden to purchase a slave belonging to any other heresy than their own. If they transgressed this law, the slave was confiscated
to the public; but if they administered to him the Jewish rite of circumcision, the penalties were death and total confiscation of property. For, as the emperors were desirous of promoting by every means the spread of Christianity, they deemed it necessary to prevent the Jews from proselyting those whose ancestors were of another religion, and those who were holding the hope of professing Christianity were carefully reserved for the Church; for it was from the pagan multitudes that the Christian religion increased.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This chapter is an independent view, and also groups the laws under Constantius. Cf. Cod. Theod.
* ↑ δημόσιον οἰκέτην εἶναὶ. The early interpreters understood these words as referring to the Jewish offender, and not to the slave. But the law itself is extant in Cod. Theod. xvi. 91, 2, and is entitled Ne Christianum Mancipium Judæus habeat. The second law begins: Si aliquis Judæorum, mancipium sectæ alterius seu nationis crediderit comparandum, mancipium fisco protenus vindicetur.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 18

Chapter XVIII.—Concerning the Doctrines held by the Sons of Constantine. Distinction between the Terms “Homoousios” and “Homoiousios.” Whence it came that Constantius quickly abandoned the Correct Faith.
The emperors
had, from the beginning, preserved their father’s view about doctrine; for they both favored the Nicene form of belief. Constans maintained these opinions till his death; Constantius held a similar view for some time; he, however, renounced his former sentiments when the term “consubstantial” was calumniated, yet he did not altogether refrain from confessing that the Son is of like substance with the Father. The followers of Eusebius, and other bishops of the East, who were admired for their speech and life, made a distinction, as we know, between the term “consubstantial” (homoousios) and the expression “of like substance,” which latter they designated by the term, “homoiousios.” They say that the term “consubstantial” (homoousios) properly belongs to corporeal beings, such as men and other animals, trees and plants, whose participation and origin is in like things; but that the term “homoiousios” appertains exclusively to incorporeal beings, such as God and the angels, of each one of whom a conception is formed according to his own peculiar substance. The Emperor Constantius was deceived by this distinction; and although I am certain that he retained the same doctrines as those held by his father and brother, yet he adopted a change of phraseology, and, instead of using the term “homoousios,” made use of the term “homoiousios.” The teachers to whom we have alluded maintained that it was necessary to be thus precise in the use of terms, and that otherwise we should be in danger of conceiving that to be a body which is incorporeal. Many, however, regard this distinction as an absurdity, “for,” say they, “the things which are conceived by the mind can be designated only by names derived from things which are seen; and there is no danger in the use of words, provided that there be no error about the idea.

## Footnotes

* ↑ An independent survey of the imperial and clerical views.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.—Further Particulars concerning the Term “Consubstantial.” Council of Ariminum, the Manner, Source, and Reason of its Convention.
It is not surprising that the Emperor Constantius was induced to adopt the use of the term “homoiousios,” for it was admitted by many priests who conformed to the doctrines of the Nicæan council.
Many use the two words indifferently, to convey the same meaning. Hence, it appears to me, that the Arians departed greatly from the truth when they affirmed that, after the council of Nicæa, many of the priests, among whom were Eusebius and Theognis, refused to admit that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that Constantine was in consequence so indignant, that he condemned them to banishment. They say that it was afterwards revealed to his sister by a dream or a vision from God, that these bishops held orthodox doctrines and had suffered unjustly; and that the emperor thereupon recalled them, and demanded of them wherefore they had departed from the Nicene doctrines, since they had been participants in the document concerning the faith which had been there framed; and that they urged in reply that they had not assented to those doctrines from conviction, but from the fear that, if the disputes then existing were prolonged, the emperor, who was then just beginning to embrace Christianity, and who was yet unbaptized, might be impelled to return to Paganism, as seemed likely, and to persecute the Church. They assert that Constantine was pleased with this defense, and determined upon convening another council; but that, being prevented by death from carrying his scheme into execution, the task devolved upon his eldest son, Constantius, to whom he represented that it would avail him nothing to be possessed of imperial power, unless he could establish uniformity of worship throughout his empire; and Constantius they say, at the instigation of his father, convened a council at Ariminum.
This story is easily seen to be a gross fabrication, for the council was convened during the consulate of Hypatius and Eusebius, and twenty-two years after Constantius had, on the death of his father, succeeded to the empire. Now, during this interval of twenty-two years, many councils were held, in which debates were carried on concerning the terms “homoousios” and “homoiousios.” No one, it appears, ventured to deny that the Son is of like substance
with the Father, until Aëtius, by starting a contrary opinion, so offended the emperor that, in order to arrest the course of the heresy, he commanded the priests to assemble themselves together at Ariminum and at Seleucia. Thus the true cause of this council being convened was not the command of Constantine,
but the question agitated by Aëtius. And this will become still more apparent by what we shall hereafter relate.

## Footnotes

* ↑ An independent chapter on the true cause of division and the origin of the council of Ariminum. Cf. Athan. Ep. de Synodis.
* ↑ Cf. Soc. ii. 37.
* ↑ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀνόμοιον is the right correction of Valesius.
* ↑ A mistake for Constantius.