OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily IV/Chapter 23

Chapter XXIII.—“Whither Shall I Go from Thy Presence?”
When I had thus spoken, Appion broke in upon my discourse. “What!” said he; “do not the laws of the Greeks also forbid wickedness, and punish adulterers?”  Then said I: “Then the gods of the Greeks, who acted contrary to the laws, deserve punishment. But how shall I be able to restrain myself, if I suppose that the gods themselves first practised all wickednesses as well as adultery, and did not suffer punishment; whereas they ought the rather to have suffered, as not being slaves to lust? But if they were subject to it, how were they gods?” Then Appion said: “Let us have in our eye not the gods, but the judges; and looking to them, we shall be afraid to sin.” Then I said: “This is not fitting, O Appion: for he who has his eye upon men will dare to sin, in hope of escaping detection; but he who sets before his soul the all-seeing God, knowing that he cannot escape His notice, will refrain from sinning even in secret.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily IV/Chapter 24

Chapter XXIV.—Allegory.
When Appion heard this, he said: “I knew, ever since I heard that you were consorting with Jews, that you had alienated your judgment. For it has been well said by some one, ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners.’” Then said I: “Therefore good communications correct evil manners.” And Appion said: “Today I am fully satisfied to have learned your position; therefore I permitted you to speak first. But to-morrow, in this place, if it is agreeable to you, I will show, in the presence of these friends when they meet, that our gods are neither adulterers, nor murderers, nor corrupters of children, nor guilty of incest with sisters or daughters. But the ancients, wishing that only lovers of learning should know the mysteries, veiled them with those fables of which you have spoken. For they speak physiologically of boiling substance under the name of Zen, and of time under that of Kronos, and of the ever-flowing nature of water under that of Rhea. However, as I have promised, I shall to-morrow exhibit the truth of things, explaining them one by one to you when you come together in the morning.” In reply to this I said: “To-morrow, as you have promised, so do. But now hear something in opposition to what you are going to say.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [See Homily VI. 1–10. Homily V. contains an account of Clement’s previous acquaintance with Appion.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily IV/Chapter 25

Chapter XXV.—An Engagement for To-Morrow.
“If the doings of the gods, being good, have been veiled with evil fables, the wickedness of him who wove the veil is shown to have been great, because he concealed noble things with evil narratives, that no one imitate them. But if they really did things impious, they ought, on the contrary, to have veiled them with good narratives, lest men, regarding them as their superiors, should set about sinning in like manner.” As I spoke thus, those present were evidently beginning to be well-disposed towards the words spoken by me; for they repeatedly and earnestly asked me to come on the following day, and departed.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily IV/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.—“Where Ignorance is Bliss.”
“Wherefore it behoves the young not to be satisfied with those corrupting lessons, and those who are in their prime should carefully avoid listening to the mythologies of the Greeks. For lessons about their gods are much worse than ignorance, as we have shown from the case of those dwelling in the country, who sin less through their not having been instructed by Greeks. Truly, such fables of theirs, and spectacles, and books, ought to be shunned, and if it were possible, even their cities.  For those who are full of evil learning, even with their breath infect as with madness those who associate with them, with their own passions. And what is worst, whoever is most instructed among them, is so much the more turned from the judgment which is according to nature.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily IV/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.—False Theories of Philosophers.
“And some of those amongst them who even profess to be philosophers, assert that such sins are indifferent, and say that those who are indignant at such practices are senseless. For they say that such things are not sins by nature, but have been proscribed by laws made by wise men in early times, through their knowing that men, through the instability of their minds, being greatly agitated on these accounts, wage war with one another; for which reason, wise men have made laws to proscribe such things as sins. But this is a ridiculous supposition. For how can they be other than sins, which are the cause of tumults, and murders, and every confusion?  For do not shortcomings of life and many more evils proceed from adultery?

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Compare the argument against the philosophers, as put in the mouth of the Apostle, in Recognitions, x. 48–50.—R.]
* ↑ The Vatican ms. inserts here, “upturning of houses, magic practices, deceptions, perplexities.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter XLIX

Chapter XLIX.
Let us notice now what follows, where, expressing in a single word his opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, without offering, however, a single argument in its support, he finds fault with it, saying: “Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely silly.” Now, if he had produced some credible proofs of its silly character, we should have endeavoured to answer them; but it does not appear to me reasonable that I should be called upon to demonstrate, in answer to his mere assertion, that it is not “silly.” If any one, however, wishes to see the reasons which led us to accept the Mosaic account, and the arguments by which it may be defended, he may read what we have written upon Genesis, from the beginning of the book up to the passage, “And this is the book of the generation of men,” where we have tried to show from the holy Scriptures themselves what the “heaven” was which was created in the beginning; and what the “earth,” and the “invisible part of the earth,” and that which was “without form;” and what the “deep” was, and the “darkness” that was upon it; and what the “water” was, and the “Spirit of God” which was “borne over it;” and what the “light” which was created, and what the “firmament,” as distinct from the “heaven” which was created in the beginning; and so on with the other subjects that follow. Celsus has also expressed his opinion that the narrative of the creation of man is “exceedingly silly,” without stating any proofs, or endeavouring to answer our arguments; for he had no evidence, in my judgment, which was fitted to overthrow the statement that “man has been made in the image of God.” He does not even understand the meaning of the “Paradise” that was planted by God, and of the life which man first led in it; and of that which resulted from accident, when man was cast forth on account of his sin, and was settled opposite the Paradise of delight. Now, as he asserts that these are silly statements, let him turn his attention not merely to each one of them (in general), but to this in particular, “He placed the cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” and say whether Moses wrote these words with no serious object in view, but in the spirit of the writers of the old Comedy, who have sportively related that “Prœtus slew Bellerophon,” and that “Pegasus came from Arcadia.” Now their object was to create laughter in composing such stories; whereas it is incredible that he who left behind him laws for a whole nation, regarding which he wished to persuade his subjects that they were given by God, should have written words so little to the purpose, and have said without any meaning, “He placed the cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” or made any other statement regarding the creation of man, which is the subject of philosophic investigation by the Hebrew sages.
* ↑ μάλα εὐηθική.
* ↑ Cf. Gen. v. 1.
* ↑ ἀκατασκεύαστον.
* ↑ Cf. Gen. i. 26.
* ↑ τὴν ἐκ περιστάσεως γενομένην.
* ↑ Gen. iii. 24.
* ↑ γραφάς.
* ↑ ἀπρόσλογα.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter XLVIII

Chapter XLVIII.
In the next place, when the philosophers of the Porch, who assert that the virtue of God and man is the same, maintain that the God who is over all things is not happier than their wise man, but that the happiness of both is equal, Celsus neither ridicules nor scoffs at their opinion. If, however, holy Scripture says that the perfect man is joined to and made one with the Very Word by means of virtue, so that we infer that the soul of Jesus is not separated from the first-born of all creation, he laughs at Jesus being called “Son of God,” not observing what is said of Him with a secret and mystical signification in the holy Scriptures. But that we may win over to the reception of our views those who are willing to accept the inferences which flow from our doctrines, and to be benefited thereby, we say that the holy Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole Church of God, and the members of this body—considered as a whole—to consist of those who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the Church, to befitting action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the Church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. Since all this, then, follows by a train of reasoning not to be depreciated, where is the difficulty in maintaining that, as the soul of Jesus is joined in a perfect and inconceivable manner with the very Word, so the person of Jesus, generally speaking, is not separated from the only-begotten and first-born of all creation, and is not a different being from Him? But enough here on this subject.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter XVI

Chapter XVI.
In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches.” Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed it into, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;” and to this point also, that this animal. according to the law, is described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz., that it does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,” and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xix. 24.
* ↑ Cf. Plato, de Legibus, v. p. 743.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. 2, and John vii. 15.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. vii. 14.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter XLV

Chapter XLV.
But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning Antichrist, as it is termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of Daniel nor in the writings of Paul, nor what the Saviour in the Gospels has predicted about his coming, we must make a few remarks upon this subject also; because, “as faces do not resemble faces,” so also neither do men’s “hearts” resemble one another. It is certain, then, that there will be diversities amongst the hearts of men,—those which are inclined to virtue not being all modelled and shaped towards it in the same or like degree; while others, through neglect of virtue, rush to the opposite extreme. And amongst the latter are some in whom evil is deeply engrained, and others in whom it is less deeply rooted. Where is the absurdity, then, in holding that there exist among men, so to speak, two extremes,—the one of virtue, and the other of its opposite; so that the perfection of virtue dwells in the man who realizes the ideal given in Jesus, from whom there flowed to the human race so great a conversion, and healing, and amelioration, while the opposite extreme is in the man who embodies the notion of him that is named Antichrist? For God, comprehending all things by means of His foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from both of these, wished to make these known to mankind by His prophets, that those who understand their words might be familiarized with the good, and be on their guard against its opposite. It was proper, moreover, that the one of these extremes, and the best of the two, should be styled the Son of God, on account of His pre-eminence; and the other, who is diametrically opposite, be termed the son of the wicked demon, and of Satan, and of the devil. And, in the next place, since evil is specially characterized by its diffusion, and attains its greatest height when it simulates the appearance of the good, for that reason are signs, and marvels, and lying miracles found to accompany evil, through the co-operation of its father the devil. For, far surpassing the help which these demons give to jugglers (who deceive men for the basest of purposes), is the aid which the devil himself affords in order to deceive the human race.  Paul, indeed, speaks of him who is called Antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve, both the manner, and time, and cause of his coming to the human race. And notice whether his language on this subject is not most becoming, and undeserving of being treated with even the slightest degree of ridicule.
* ↑ Cf. Dan. viii. 23.
* ↑ Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xxiv. 4, 5.
* ↑ Cf. Prov. xxvii. 19.
* ↑ ἀκρότητας.
* ↑ μετά τινος ἐπικρύψεως.  Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 9.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VI/Chapter XLVII

Chapter XLVII.
Celsus, after what has been said, goes on as follows: “I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz., that they should call him ‘Son of God.’ Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his child and his son. Both the one and other ‘Son of God,’ then, greatly resembled each other.” He is therefore of opinion that we employed the expression “Son of God,” having perverted what is said of the world, as being born of God, and being His “Son,” and “a God.”  For he was unable so to consider the times of Moses and the prophets, as to see that the Jewish prophets predicted generally that there was a “Son of God” long before the Greeks and those men of ancient time of whom Celsus speaks. Nay, he would not even quote the passage in the letters of Plato, to which we referred in the preceding pages, concerning Him who so beautifully arranged this world, as being the Son of God; lest he too should be compelled by Plato, whom he often mentions with respect, to admit that the architect of this world is the Son of God, and that His Father is the first God and Sovereign Ruler over all things. Nor is it at all wonderful if we maintain that the soul of Jesus is made one with so great a Son of God through the highest union with Him, being no longer in a state of separation from Him. For the sacred language of holy Scripture knows of other things also, which, although “dual” in their own nature, are considered to be, and really are, “one” in respect to one another. It is said of husband and wife, “They are no longer twain, but one flesh;” and of the perfect man, and of him who is joined to the true Lord, Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, that “he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” And if he who “is joined to the Lord is one spirit,” who has been joined to the Lord, the Very Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, in a more intimate union, or even in a manner at all approaching to it than the soul of Jesus? And if this be so, then the soul of Jesus and God the Word—the first-born of every creature—are no longer two, (but one).
* ↑ παῖδά τε αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡίθεον.
* ↑ παραποιήσαντας.
* ↑ [See Dr. Burton’s learned discussion as to the Logos of Plato, and the connection of Plato’s doctrines with the Gospel of the Son of God: Bampton Lectures, pp. 211–223, 537–547. See also Fisher’s Beginnings of Christianity, p. 147 (1877).  S.]
* ↑ Cf. Gen. ii. 24.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Cakes/Apple Sauce Cake

APPLE SAUCE CAKE
One cup of butter, One cup of brown sugar, One cup of apple sauce, One and one-half teaspoonsful of soda (mixed in with apple sauce), Two cups of flour, One cup of raisins, One cup of currants, Two eggs.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Breads/Virginia Corn Fritters

VIRGINIA CORN FRITTERS
1 can corn, ½ cup milk, ½ cup dried and sifted crumbs, 1 teaspoon salt, 1 teaspoon baking powder, 1 egg well beaten, 1 tablespoon flour.
Chop the corn, and add other ingredients in order given. Drop from a tablespoon into hot, deep fat and fry until brown.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Breads/Virginia Waffles

VIRGINIA WAFFLES
One and one-half cups of pastry flour, Two teaspoonsful of baking powder, One-half teaspoonful of salt, Four tablespoonsful of melted butter, One cup of milk, Two eggs.
To beaten yolks add milk, flour, baking powder, salt and butter. Add stiffly beaten whites last.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Cakes/Betsy Ross Pound Cake

BETSY ROSS POUND CAKE
One pound of flour, Three-fourths pound of butter, One pound of sugar, Twelve eggs,
Cream butter and about two-thirds of the flour together. Beat whites of eggs to a stiff froth, beat yolks of eggs and sugar together until very light. Mix thoroughly all the ingredients, stirring in last the loose flour. Bake in a slow oven until done.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Breads/Spoon Bread

SPOON BREAD
Two and one-half cups of fresh buttermilk, One scant half teaspoonful of soda mixed in with milk, One teaspoonful of salt Three tablespoonsful of meal, Three eggs dropped in one at a time whole, One tablespoonful of lard (melted).
Mix in the order given and cook in baking dish in moderate oven.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Breads/Virginia Beaten Biscuit

VIRGINIA BEATEN BISCUIT
One quart flour, One teaspoonful of salt, One tablespoon of lard.
Work lard lightly into the flour and salt, mix with iced water and then beat dough with rolling pin until it blisters. Cut into biscuits and bake in quick oven.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Breads/Southern Sweet-Potato Biscuits

SOUTHERN SWEET-POTATO BISCUITS
Two cups flour, One cup of mashed boiled sweet potatoes, Two tablespoonsful of lard, One teaspoonful of salt, One and one-half teaspoonfuls of baking powder, One-half teaspoonful of soda.
Enough buttermilk to make soft dough. Mix flour, salt, soda and baking powder together. Add sweet potatoes and work the lard in lightly. Mix with milk to make soft dough, roll thin cut into biscuits and bake in quick oven.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Cakes/Aunt Sug’s Nut Cookies

AUNT SUG’S NUT COOKIES
One and one-half cups of sugar, One cup of crisco or butter, Three eggs, One tablespoonful of cinnamon, One-half teaspoonful of salt, One teaspoonful of soda, dissolved in four tablespoonful of hot water, Three cups of flour, One-cup each of raisins, currants, and English walnuts or almonds broken up.
To well beaten eggs add creamed butter and sugar, cinnamon, soda, water, flour, fruits, which must be dredged with flour, and nuts. Lastly add one teaspoonful of vanilla and drop by spoonful into greased pans. Bake in moderate oven.
# Aunt Caroline's Dixieland Recipes/Cakes/Angel’s Food Cake

ANGEL’S FOOD CAKE
Whites of eleven eggs, One cup of flour, One and one-half cups of sugar, One teaspoonful of cream of tartar, One teaspoonful of almond extract.
Sift flour and sugar together five times, then add cream of tartar. Have whites well beaten and add sugar and flour slowly, then almond extract. Beat very little after flour goes in and bake in round cake pan in moderate oven for about fifty minutes.