OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Anglo-Saxon Riddles of the Exeter Book/Annotated/44

44 (k-d 31)
| Beautifully made in many ways is this our world, cunningly adorned. I saw a strange thing singing in a house; its shape was more wonderful than aught among men. Its beak was underneath, its feet and hands birdlike, yet fly it cannot nor walk at all. Yet eager for movement it starts to work with various arts. It often goes around again and again among noble men. It sits at the banquet-board, awaits its turn till comes its time to display its skill among those who are near. It partakes of nothing that the men there have for their pleasure. Brave, eager for glory it remains dumb, yet it has in its foot beautiful sounds, a glorious gift of song. Wondrous it seems to me how this very thing can play with words through its foot beneath adorned with trappings. It has on its neck when it guards its treasure, bare, proud with rings, its two companions, brother and sister. It’s a great thing surely for a wise singer to think what this is. | 10 20 | Is þes middangeard missenlicum wisum gewlitegad · wrættum gefrætwad ic seah sellic þing singan on ræcede wiht wæs onwerum on gemonge sio hæfde wæstum wundorlicran niþer wearð wæs neb hyre fet ⁊ folme fugele gelice no hwæþre fleogan mæg ne fela gongan hwæþre feþegeorn fremman onginneð gecoren cræftum cyrreð geneahhe oft ⁊ gelome eorlum on gemonge siteð æt symble sæles bideþ · hwonne ær heo cræft hyre cyþan mote werum on wonge ne heo þær wiht þigeð þæs þe him æt blisse beornas habbad deor domes georn hio dumb wunað hwæþre hyre is on fote fæger hleoþor wynlicu woðgiefu wrætlic me þinceð hu seo wiht mæge wordum lacan þurh fot neoþan frætwed hyrstum hafað hyre on halse þōn hio hord warað bær beagum deall broþor sine mæg mid mægne micel is to hycgenne wisum woðboran hwæt wiht sie |
It is a Bagpipe, pictured in the likeness of a bird over a man’s shoulder, head down (its beak, the chanter, on which the tune is played) and feet in the air (the two drones, brother and sister, which make the continuous sound). “When it guards its treasure” (l. 19) means the bellows, when inflated.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 17

17. Reasons for that Gradual Knowledge.
And likewise he who holds that the fact that He was Christ had been formerly proclaimed by the Apostles when they heard the saying, “What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light, and what ye hear in the ear proclaim on the housetops,” will say, that He wished first to give catechetical instruction as it were to those of the Apostles who were to hear the name of Christ, then to permit this, so to speak, to be digested in the minds of the hearers, that, after there had been a period of silence in the proclamation of something of this kind about Him, at a more seasonable time there might be built up upon the former rudiments “Christ Jesus crucified and raised from the dead,” which at the beginning not even the Apostles knew; for it is written in the passage now under consideration, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem” and suffer this and that. But if now, for the first time, the Apostles learn from Jesus the things that were about to happen unto Him, namely, that the elders will plot against Him, and that He will be killed, and that after these things, on the third day, He will rise from the dead,—what necessity is there for supposing that those who had been taught by the Apostles concerning Jesus knew them before, or that although Christ was announced to them He was announced to them by way of an introduction which did not clearly elucidate the things concerning Him? For our Saviour wished, when He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ, to reserve the more perfect teaching about Him to a more fitting time, when to those who had seen Him crucified, the disciples who had seen Him crucified and risen could testify the things relating to His resurrection. For if the Apostles, who were always with Him and had seen all the wonderful things which He did, and who bore testimony to His words that they were words of eternal life, were offended on the night on which He was betrayed,—what do you suppose would have been the feelings of those who had formerly learned that He was the Christ? To spare them, I think, He gave this command.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. x. 27.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 21.
* ↑ John vi. 68.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 1

Book XII.
1. Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign from Heaven.
“And the Sadducees and Pharisees came, and tempting Him kept asking Him to shew them a sign from heaven.” The Sadducees and Pharisees who disagreed with each other in regard to the most essential truths,—for the Pharisees champion the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, hoping that there will be a world to come, while the Sadducees know nothing after this life in store for a man whether he has been advancing towards virtue, or has made no effort at all to come out from the mountains of wickedness,—these, I say, agree that they may tempt Jesus. Now, a similar thing, as Luke has narrated, happened in the case of Herod and Pilate, who became friends with one another that they might kill Jesus; for, perhaps, their hostility with one another would have prevented Herod from asking that He should be put to death, in order to please the people, who said, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him,” and would have influenced Pilate, who was somewhat inclined against His condemnation, his hostility with Herod giving fresh impulse to the inclination which he previously cherished to release Jesus. But their apparent friendship made Herod stronger in his demand against Jesus with Pilate, who wished, perhaps, also because of the newly-formed friendship to do something to gratify Herod and all the nation of the Jews. And often even now you may see in daily life those who hold the most divergent opinions, whether in the philosophy of the Greeks or in other systems of thought, appearing to be of one mind that they may scoff at and attack Jesus Christ in the person of His disciples. And from these things I think you may go on by rational argument to consider, whether when forces join in opposition which are in disagreement with one another, as of Pharaoh with Nebuchadnezzar, and of Tirhakah, king of the Ethiopians, with Sennacherib, a combination then takes place against Jesus and His people. So perhaps, also, “The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers were gathered together,” though not at all before at harmony with one another, that having taken counsel against the Lord and His Christ, they might slay the Lord of glory.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 1.
* ↑ Luke xxiii. 12.
* ↑ Luke xxiii. 21.
* ↑ 2 Kings xxiv. 7.
* ↑ 2 Kings xix. 9.
* ↑ Ps. ii. 2.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 10

10. The Answer of Peter.
And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God. And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xvi. 16.
* ↑ Phil. iii. 20.
* ↑ Eph. i. 17.
* ↑ Matt. xvi. 18.
* ↑ Or, a Peter.
* ↑ 1 Cor. x. 4.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book XII/Chapter 16

16. Gradual Growth in Knowledge of the Disciples.
But now we must first investigate the fact that they were declaring other things about Him as being great and wonderful, but did not yet proclaim that He was the Christ, lest the Saviour may not appear to take away from them the authority to announce that He was the Christ, which He had formerly bestowed upon them. And perhaps some one will support an argument of this kind, saying that on their introduction into the school of Christ the Jews were taught by the disciples glorious things about Jesus, so that in due season there might be built upon these as a foundation the things about Jesus being the Christ; and perhaps many of the things which were said to them were said to all who virtually believed; for not to the Apostles alone did the saying apply, “Before governors and kings also shall ye be brought for My sake for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles;” and perhaps also not to the Apostles absolutely, but to all who were about to believe the word, “And brother shall deliver up brother to death,” etc.; but, “Whosoever shall confess Me,” etc., is said not specially to the Apostles, but also to all believers. According to this, then, through that which was said to the Apostles an outline was given beforehand of the teaching which would afterwards come to be of service both to them and to every teacher.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. x. 18.
* ↑ Matt. x. 21.
* ↑ Matt. x. 32.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Monogamy
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Elucidations
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Monogamy/Chapter 1

VI.
On Monogamy.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
Chapter I.—Different Views in Regard to Marriage Held by Heretics, Psychic, and Spiritualists.
Heretics do away with marriages; Psychics accumulate them. The former marry not even once; the latter not only once. What dost thou, Law of the Creator? Between alien eunuchs and thine own grooms, thou complainest as much of the over-obedience of thine own household as of the contempt of strangers. They who abuse thee, do thee equal hurt with them who use thee not. In fact, neither is such continence laudable because it is heretical, nor such licence defensible because it is psychical. The former is blasphemous, the latter wanton; the former destroys the God of marriages, the latter puts Him to the blush. Among us, however, whom the recognition of spiritual gifts entitles to be deservedly called Spiritual, continence is as religious as licence is modest; since both the one and the other are in harmony with the Creator. Continence honours the law of marriage, licence tempers it; the former is not forced, the latter is regulated; the former recognises the power of free choice, the latter recognises a limit. We admit one marriage, just as we do one God. The law of marriage reaps an accession of honour where it is associated with shamefastness.  But to the Psychics, since they receive not the Spirit, the things which are the Spirit’s are not pleasing. Thus, so long as the things which are the Spirit’s please them not, the things which are of the flesh will please, as being the contraries of the Spirit. “The flesh,” saith (the apostle), “lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” But what will the flesh “lust” after, except what is more of the flesh? For which reason withal, in the beginning, it became estranged from the Spirit. “My Spirit,” saith (God), “shall not permanently abide in these men eternally, for that they are flesh.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Written against orthodoxy, say circa a.d. 208. But see Elucidation I.].
* ↑ Gal. v. 17.
* ↑ In ævum; εἰς τὸν αἱῶνα (LXX.); in æternum (Vulg.).
* ↑ Gen. vi. 3.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Modesty/Elucidations

Elucidations.
I.
(The Shepherd of Hermas, p. 85.)
Here, and in chap. xx. below, Tertullian’s rabid utterances against the Shepherd may be balanced by what he had said, less unreasonably, in his better mood. Now he refers to the Shepherd’s (ii. 1) view of pardon, even to adulterers. But surely it might be objected even more plausibly against “the Shepherd,” whom he prefers, in common with all Christians, as see John viii. 1–11, which I take to be canonical Scripture. A curious question is suggested by what he says of the figure of the Good Shepherd portrayed on the chalice: Is this irony, as if the figure so familiar from illustrations of the catacombs must be meant for the Shepherd of Hermas?  Regarding all pictures as idolatrous, he may intend to intimate that adultery (=idolatry) was thus symbolized.
II.
(Clasping the knees of all, p. 86.)
Here is a portrait of the early penitential discipline sufficiently terrible, and it conforms to the apostolic pictures of the same. “Tell it unto the Church,” says our Lord (Matt. xviii. 17). In 1 Cor. v. 4 the apostle (“present in spirit”) gives judgment, but the whole Church is “gathered together.” In James v. 16 the “confession to one another” seems to refer to this public discipline, as also the prayer for healing enjoined on one another. St. Chrysostom, however, reflecting the discipline of his day, in which great changes were made, says, on Matt. xviii. 17, unless it be a gloss, “Dic Ecclesiæ id est Præsidibus =προεδρευούσιν.”  (Tom. vii. p. 536, ed. Migne.)
III.
(Remedial discipline, p. 87.)
Powerfully as Tertullian states his view of this apostolic “delivering unto Satan” as for final perdition, it is not to be gainsaid that (1 Cor. v. 5) the object was salvation and hope, “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Thus, the power of Satan to inflict bodily suffering (Job ii. 6), when divinely permitted, is recognised under the Gospel (Luke xiii. 16; 2 Cor. xii. 7). The remedial mercy of trials and sufferings may be inferred when providentially occurring.
IV.
(Personally upon Peter, p. 99.)
See what has been said before. But note our author (now writing against the Church, and as a Montanist) has no idea that the personal prerogative of St. Peter had descended to any bishop. More when we come to Cyprian, and see vol. iii. p. 630, this series.

## Footnotes

* ↑ On Prayer, vol. iii. cap. xvi. p. 686, supra, where he speaks respectfully.
* ↑ Vol. ii. p. 22 (also p. 43), this series.
# Baker v. Power/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 167
Baker v. Power
This motion is denied. If it be true, as is alleged, but which is by no means clear, that the decree appealed from was rendered by the district judge when he had no vote in the cause, we still have jurisdiction of the appeal. Although the district judge may have had no right to a vote, he was rightfully a member of the circuit court, (Rodd v. Heartt, 17 Wall. 357,) and a decree of that court entered under his supervision and by his direction would be a decree of the court, good until reversed or otherwise vacated. From such a decree an appeal can be taken.

## 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
# Baker v. Walter & Baker Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
168 U.S. 712
Baker v. Walter & Baker Company
No opinion. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fourth circuit denied. See 27 C. C. A. 396, 83 Fed. 3.

## 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
# Baker v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
359 U.S. 227
Baker v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company
Argued: March 25, 1959. --- Decided: April 6, 1959
Mr. Harvey L. Davis, Dallas, Tex., for the petitioners.
Mr. D. L. Case, Dallas, Tex., for the respondent.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Baker v. Walter & Baker Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
168 U.S. 712
Baker v. Walter & Baker Company
Holmes Conrad and R. T. Barton, for petitioner.
George Putnam, for respondent.

## 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
# Baker v. Schofield

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
243 U.S. 114
Baker v. Schofield
Argued: January 15, 1917. --- Decided: March 6, 1917
Messrs. B. S. Grosscup and Corwin S. Shank for appellants.
Messrs. Frederick Bausman, R. P. Oldham, and R. C. Goodale for appellee.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Baker v. Selden

United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 99
Baker v. Selden
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Alphonso Taft and Mr. H. P. Lloyd for the appellant.
Mr. C. W. Moulton and Mr. M. I. Southard for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY 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
# Baker v. White

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
92 U.S. 176
Baker v. White
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
Mr. Charles E. Perkins for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. A. P. Hyde, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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
# Bank of the United States v. William

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
47 U.S. 31
Bank of the United States v. William

## 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
# Bank v. Kennedy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
84 U.S. 19
Bank v. Kennedy
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Kennedy, receiver of the Merchants' National Bank, brought suit in the court below against the National Bank of the Metropolis, to recover the balance alleged to be due on a check for $50,000, dated May 1st, 1866, drawn by one Robinson on the said Bank of the Metropolis, in favor of the said Merchants' Bank, and duly presented for payment. On presentation of the check the Bank of the Metropolis admitted its obligation to pay it, but as part payment thereof, delivered to the messenger of the Merchants' Bank a note of C. A. Sherman, cashier of that bank, for $20,000, dated February 27th, 1866. The Merchants' Bank declined to receive this note as payment, and sent it back demanding the cash. But the Bank of the Metropolis refused to take back the note, insisting that although it was signed by Sherman, individually, it was given for account of the Merchants' Bank, and for a loan made to it. The principal controversy in the case arose upon the question whether the note was given by Sherman on his own account or on account of the Merchants' Bank.
Certain preliminary questions, however, were raised with reference to the authority of the receiver to bring the action.
Verdict and judgment, under the rulings as to evidence, and under the charge, were given for the plaintiff; and the defendant, the Bank of the Metropolis, brought the case here. This court disposed of the different points raised, considering them in the order of the several assignments of error.
Messrs. Hubley Ashton and W. D. Davidge, for the plaintiffs in error; Messrs. R. T. and W. M. Merrick, contra.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY 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 VIII/The Decretals/The Epistles of Pope Callistus/To Bishop Benedictus/Preface

The Epistles of Pope Callistus.
The First Epistle.
To Bishop Benedictus.
On the Fasts of the Four Seasons, and that no one should take up an accusation against a doctor (teacher).
Callistus, archbishop of the Church Catholic in the city of Rome, to Benedictus, our brother and bishop, greeting in the Lord.
By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus in the bishopric of Rome, and discharged the duties of that office for five years. This is all the information which Eusebius (in his Chronicon and Hist. Eccl., vi. 21) gives us in regard to Callistus. Later writers make many other statements. [See note, p. 618.] The letters attributed to him form part of the False Decretals of the pseudo-Isidorus, mentioned in the notice of Zephyrinus.
* ↑ Mansi, Concil., i. 737.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/The Decretals/The Epistles of Pope Fabian
## Contents

* To All the Ministers of the Church Catholic
* To All the Bishops of the East
* To Bishop Hilary
* Note by the American Editor