OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXXIII

Chapter XXXIII.—Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God’s Creation of the World.
But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own colourable pretences (for it was not in his power to discover it in the Scriptures of God), it is enough for us, both that it is certain that all things were made by God, and that there is no certainty whatever that they were made out of Matter. And even if Matter had previously existed, we must have believed that it had been really made by God, since we maintained (no less) when we held the rule of faith to be, that nothing except God was uncreated. Up to this point there is room for controversy, until Matter is brought to the test of the Scriptures, and fails to make good its case. The conclusion of the whole is this: I find that there was nothing made, except out of nothing; because that which I find was made, I know did not once exist. Whatever was made out of something, has its origin in something made: for instance, out of the ground was made the grass, and the fruit, and the cattle, and the form of man himself; so from the waters were produced the animals which swim and fly. The original fabrics out of which such creatures were produced I may call their materials, but then even these were created by God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Colores. See our “Anti-Marcion,” p. 217, Edin., where the word pretension should stand instead of precedent.
* ↑ Præscribentes.
* ↑ Innatum: see above, note 12.
* ↑ Donec ad Scripturas provocata deficiat exibitio materiæ.
* ↑ Etiamsi quid.
* ↑ Origines.
* ↑ Materias. There is a point in this use of the plural of the controverted term materia.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXXV

Chapter XXXV.—Contradictory Propositions Advanced by Hermogenes Respecting Matter and Its Qualities.
As regards all other points touching Matter, although there is no necessity why we should treat of them (for our first point was the manifest proof of its existence), we must for all that pursue our discussion just as if it did exist, in order that its non-existence may be the more apparent, when these other points concerning it prove inconsistent with each other, and in order at the same time that Hermogenes may acknowledge his own contradictory positions. Matter, says he, at first sight seems to us to be incorporeal; but when examined by the light of right reason, it is found to be neither corporeal nor incorporeal. What is this right reason of yours, which declares nothing right, that is, nothing certain? For, if I mistake not, everything must of necessity be either corporeal or incorporeal (although I may for the moment allow that there is a certain incorporeality in even substantial things, although their very substance is the body of particular things); at all events, after the corporeal and the incorporeal there is no third state. But if it be contended that there is a third state discovered by this right reason of Hermogenes, which makes Matter neither corporeal nor incorporeal, (I ask,) Where is it? what sort of thing is it? what is it called? what is its description? what is it understood to be? This only has his reason declared, that Matter is neither corporeal nor incorporeal.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ista.
* ↑ Interim.
* ↑ De substantiis duntaxat.
* ↑ Age nunc sit: “But grant that there is this third state.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXXVIII

Chapter XXXIII.—Other Speculations of Hermogenes, About Matter and Some of Its Adjuncts, Shown to Be Absurd. For Instance, Its Alleged Infinity.
My observations touching the site of Matter, as also concerning its mode have one and the same object in view—to meet and refute your perverse positions. You put Matter below God, and thus, of course, you assign a place to it below God. Therefore Matter is local. Now, if it is local, it is within locality; if within locality, it is bounded by the place within which it is; if it is bounded, it has an outline, which (painter as you are in your special vocation) you know is the boundary to every object susceptible of outline. Matter, therefore, cannot be infinite, which, since it is in space, is bounded by space; and being thus determinable by space, it is susceptible of an outline. You, however, make it infinite, when you say: “It is on this account infinite, because it is always existent.” And if any of your disciples should choose to meet us by declaring your meaning to be that Matter is infinite in time, not in its corporeal mass, still what follows will show that (you mean) corporeal infinity to be an attribute of Matter, that it is in respect of bulk immense and uncircumscribed. “Wherefore,” say you, “it is not fabricated as a whole, but in its parts.” In bulk, therefore, is it infinite, not in time. And you contradict yourself when you make Matter infinite in bulk, and at the same time ascribe place to it, including it within space and local outline. But yet at the same time I cannot tell why God should not have entirely formed it, unless it be because He was either impotent or envious. I want therefore to know the moiety of that which was not wholly formed (by God), in order that I may understand what kind of thing the entirety was. It was only right that God should have made it known as a model of antiquity, to set off the glory of His work.

## Footnotes

* ↑ De situ.
* ↑ Oehler here restores the reading “quod et de modo,” instead of “de motu,” for which Pamelius contends. Oehler has the mss. on his side, and Fr. Junius, who interprets “modo” here to mean “mass or quantity.” Pamelius wishes to suit the passage to the preceding context (see ch. xxxvi.); Junius thinks it is meant rather to refer to what follows, by which it is confirmed.
* ↑ In loco.
* ↑ Determinatur.
* ↑ Lineam extremam.
* ↑ Modo corporis: or “bulk.”
* ↑ Nec tota fabricatur, sed partes ejus. This perhaps means: “It is not its entirety, but its parts, which are used in creation.”
* ↑ Obduceris: here a verb of the middle voice.
* ↑ In reference to the opinion above mentioned, “Matter is not fabricated as whole, but in parts.”
* ↑ Ut exemplarium antiquitatis.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXX

Chapter XXX.—Another Passage in the Sacred History of the Creation, Released from the Mishandling of Hermogenes.
The following words will in like manner apparently corroborate the conjecture of Hermogenes, “And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water;” as if these blended substances, presented us with arguments for his massive pile of Matter. Now, so discriminating an enumeration of certain and distinct elements (as we have in this passage), which severally designates “darkness,” “the deep,” “the Spirit of God,” “the waters,” forbids the inference that anything confused or (from such confusion) uncertain is meant. Still more, when He ascribed to them their own places, “darkness on the face of the deep,” “the Spirit upon the face of the waters,” He repudiated all confusion in the substances; and by demonstrating their separate position, He demonstrated also their distinction. Most absurd, indeed, would it be that Matter, which is introduced to our view as “without form,” should have its “formless” condition maintained by so many words indicative of form, without any intimation of what that confused body is, which must of course be supposed to be unique, since it is without form. For that which is without form is uniform; but even that which is without form, when it is blended together from various component parts, must necessarily have one outward appearance; and it has not any appearance, until it has the one appearance (which comes) from many parts combined. Now Matter either had those specific parts within itself, from the words indicative of which it had to be understood—I mean “darkness,” and “the deep,” and “the Spirit,” and “the waters”—or it had them not. If it had them, how is it introduced as being “without form?” If it had them not, how does it become known?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. i. 2.
* ↑ Confusæ.
* ↑ Massalis illius molis.
* ↑ Situs.
* ↑ Dispositionem.
* ↑ Tot formarum vocabulis.
* ↑ Corpus confusionis.
* ↑ Unicum.
* ↑ Informe.
* ↑ Autem.
* ↑ Confusum.
* ↑ Ex varietate.
* ↑ Unam speciem.
* ↑ Unam ex multis speciem.
* ↑ Istas species.
* ↑ Non habens formas.
* ↑ Agnoscitur.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXXIX

Chapter XXXIX.—These Latter Speculations Shown to Be Contradictory to the First Principles Respecting Matter, Formerly Laid Down by Hermogenes.
Well, now, since it seems to you to be the correcter thing, let Matter be circumscribed by means of changes and displacements; let it also be capable of comprehension, since (as you say) it is used as material by God, on the ground of its being convertible, mutable, and separable. For its changes, you say, show it to be inseparable. And here you have swerved from your own lines which you prescribed respecting the person of God when you laid down the rule that God made it not out of His own self, because it was not possible for Him to become divided seeing that He is eternal and abiding for ever, and therefore unchangeable and indivisible. Since Matter too is estimated by the same eternity, having neither beginning nor end, it will be unsusceptible of division, of change, for the same reason that God also is. Since it is associated with Him in the joint possession of eternity, it must needs share with Him also the powers, the laws, and the conditions of eternity. In like manner, when you say, “All things simultaneously throughout the universe possess portions of it, that so the whole may be ascertained from its parts,” you of course mean to indicate those parts which were produced out of it, and which are now visible to us. How then is this possession (of Matter) by all things throughout the universe effected—that is, of course, from the very beginning—when the things which are now visible to us are different in their condition from what they were in the beginning?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rectius.
* ↑ Definitiva.
* ↑ Ut quæ fabricatur, inquis, a Deo.
* ↑ Lineis. Tertullian often refers to Hermogenes’ profession of painting.
* ↑ In partes venire.
* ↑ Omnia ex omnibus.
* ↑ i.e. of Matter.
* ↑ Dinoscatur ex.
* ↑ Utique ex pristinis.
* ↑ Aliter habeant.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Hermogenes/XXXVII

Chapter XXXVII.—Ironical Dilemmas Respecting Matter, and Sundry Moral Qualities Fancifully Attributed to It.
I see now that you are coming back again to that reason, which has been in the habit of declaring to you nothing in the way of certainty. For just as you introduce to our notice Matter as being neither corporeal nor incorporeal, so you allege of it that it is neither good nor evil; and you say, whilst arguing further on it in the same strain: “If it were good, seeing that it had ever been so, it would not require the arrangement of itself by God; if it were naturally evil, it would not have admitted of a change for the better, nor would God have ever applied to such a nature any attempt at arrangement of it, for His labour would have been in vain.” Such are your words, which it would have been well if you had remembered in other passages also, so as to have avoided any contradiction of them. As, however, we have already treated to some extent of this ambiguity of good and evil touching Matter, I will now reply to the only proposition and argument of yours which we have before us. I shall not stop to repeat my opinion, that it was your bounden duty to have said for certain that Matter was either good or bad, or in some third condition; but (I must observe) that you have not here even kept to the statement which you chose to make before. Indeed, you retract what you declared—that Matter is neither good nor evil; because you imply that it is evil when you say, “If it were good, it would not require to be set in order by God;” so again, when you add, “If it were naturally evil, it would not admit of any change for the better,” you seem to intimate that it is good. And so you attribute to it a close relation to good and evil, although you declared it neither good nor evil. With a view, however, to refute the argument whereby you thought you were going to clinch your proposition, I here contend: If Matter had always been good, why should it not have still wanted a change for the better? Does that which is good never desire, never wish, never feel able to advance, so as to change its good for a better? And in like manner, if Matter had been by nature evil, why might it not have been changed by God as the more powerful Being, as able to convert the nature of stones into children of Abraham? Surely by such means you not only compare the Lord with Matter, but you even put Him below it, since you affirm that the nature of Matter could not possibly be brought under control by Him, and trained to something better. But although you are here disinclined to allow that Matter is by nature evil, yet in another passage you will deny having made such an admission.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Compositionem Dei.
* ↑ Non accepisset translationem.
* ↑ Subostendis.
* ↑ Affinem.
* ↑ Matt. iii. 9.
* ↑ Subicis.
* ↑ This is the force of the subjunctive verb.
* ↑ Te confessum.
# Anacalypsis

* Volume 1
* Volume 2
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Modesty/Chapter 3

Chapter III.—An Objection Anticipated Before the Discussion Above Promised is Commenced.
But before doing this, I will make short work with an answer which meets us from the opposite side, in reference to that species of repentance which we are just defining as being without pardon. “Why, if,” say they, “there is a repentance which lacks pardon, it immediately follows that such repentance must withal be wholly unpractised by you. For nothing is to be done in vain. Now repentance will be practised in vain, if it is without pardon. But all repentance is to be practised. Therefore let (us allow that) all obtains pardon, that it may not be practised in vain; because it will not be to be practised, if it be practised in vain. Now, in vain it is practised, if it shall lack pardon.” Justly, then, do they allege (this argument) against us; since they have usurpingly kept in their own power the fruit of this as of other repentance—that is, pardon; for, so far as they are concerned, at whose hands (repentance) obtains man’s peace, (it is in vain).  As regards us, however, who remember that the Lord alone concedes (the pardon of) sins, (and of course of mortal ones,) it will not be practised in vain. For (the repentance) being referred back to the Lord, and thenceforward lying prostrate before Him, will by this very fact the rather avail to win pardon, that it gains it by entreaty from God alone, that it believes not that man’s peace is adequate to its guilt, that as far as regards the Church it prefers the blush of shame to the privilege of communion. For before her doors it stands, and by the example of its own stigma admonishes all others, and calls at the same time to its own aid the brethren’s tears, and returns with an even richer merchandise—their compassion, namely—than their communion. And if it reaps not the harvest of peace here, yet it sows the seed of it with the Lord; nor does it lose, but prepares, its fruit. It will not fail of emolument if it do not fail in duty. Thus, neither is such repentance vain, nor such discipline harsh. Both honour God. The former, by laying no flattering unction to itself, will more readily win success; the latter, by assuming nothing to itself, will more fully aid.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Modesty/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.
Having defined the distinction (between the kinds) of repentance, we are by this time, then, able to return to the assessment of the sins—whether they be such as can obtain pardon at the hand of men. In the first place, (as for the fact) that we call adultery likewise fornication, usage requires (us so to do).  “Faith,” withal, has a familiar acquaintance with sundry appellations. So, in every one of our little works, we carefully guard usage. Besides, if I shall say “adulterium,” and if “stuprum,” the indictment of contamination of the flesh will be one and the same. For it makes no difference whether a man assault another’s bride or widow, provided it be not his own “female;” just as there is no difference made by places—whether it be in chambers or in towers that modesty is massacred. Every homicide, even outside a wood, is banditry. So, too, whoever enjoys any other than nuptial intercourse, in whatever place, and in the person of whatever woman, makes himself guilty of adultery and fornication. Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well—connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church—run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions—impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes—beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.
# An Evening Hymn (Ken)

This hymn, along with its companion hymns "A Morning Hymn" and "A Midnight Hymn", was first published in the 1697 edition of Ken's Manual of Prayers for Winchester Scholars.
* "An Evening Hymn" in Lyra Davidica (1708).
* "An Evening Hymn" (1697 version) in Morning, Evening, and Midnight Hymns (1864).
* "An Evening Hymn" (1712 version) in Morning, Evening, and Midnight Hymns (1864).
# An Everywhere of Silver

* "The Sea" in Poems: Second Series (1891)
* "An everywhere of silver" in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1924)
# An Evening Hymn to the Blessed Virgin

Also published under its first line "As the dewy shades of even". This hymn was first published anonymously in Henry Formby's Catholic Hymns, 1853; some hymnals credit the hymn to "R. Maitland".
* "An Evening Hymn to the Blessed Virgin" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "An Evening Hymn to the Blessed Virgin" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# An Evening Song (Lanier)

Sidney Lanier composed this poem in 1876.
Look off, dear Love, across the sallow sands,  And mark yon meeting of the sun and sea, How long they kiss in sight of all the lands.  Ah! longer, longer, we.
Now in the sea’s red vintage melts the sun,  As Egypt’s pearl dissolved in rosy wine, And Cleopatra night drinks all. ’Tis done,  Love, lay thine hand in mine.
Come forth, sweet stars, and comfort heaven’s heart;  Glimmer, ye waves, round else unlighted sands. O night! divorce our sun and sky apart  Never our lips, our hands.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# An Evening Thought

Hammon's first known published work, and the first known published work by an African-American author.
AN
Evening THOUGHT.
Salvation by CHRIST,
WITH
PENETENTIAL CRIES:
Compoſed by Jupiter Hammon, a Negro belonging to Mr Lloyd, of Queen's-Village, on Long-Iſland, the 25th of December, 1760.
FINIS.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# An Evening at Lucy Ashton’s

An Evening at Lucy Ashton’s by Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.)
From Heath’s Book of Beauty, 1833 Compiled by Peter J. Bolton
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# An Evening Melody

Featured in Vol 2., No.3 of The Atlantic Monthly.
An Evening Melody
Oh that yon pines which crown the steep  Their fires might ne'er surrender!  Oh that yon fervid knoll might keep,  While lasts the world, its splendor!
 Pale poplars on the wind that lean,  And in the sunset shiver,  Oh that your golden stems might screen  For aye yon glassy river!
 That yon white bird on homeward wing  Soft-sliding without motion,  And now in blue air vanishing  Like snow-flake lost in ocean,
 Beyond our sight might never flee,  Yet onward still be flying;  And all the dying day might be  Immortal in its dying!
 Pellucid thus in golden trance,  Thus mute in expectation,  What waits the Earth? Deliverance?  Ah, no! Transfiguration!
 She dreams of that New Earth divine,  Conceived of seed immortal:  She sings, "Not mine the holier shrine,  But mine the cloudy portal!"
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# An Idyl of the Road

Short story, first published in McClure's Magazine (1907)
* "An Idyl of the Road" in McClure's Magazine, Vol. 29 (1907)
* "An Idyl of the Road" in While Caroline Was Growing (1911).
# An Idle Fellow

I am tired. At the end of these years I am very tired. I have been studying in books the languages of the living and those we call dead. Early in the fresh morning I have studied in books, and throughout the day when the sun was shining; and at night when there were stars, I have lighted my oil-lamp and studied in books. Now my brain is weary and I want rest.
I shall sit here on the door-step beside my friend Paul. He is an idle fellow with folded hands. He laughs when I upbraid him, and bids me, with a motion, hold my peace. He is listening to a thrush’s song that comes from the blur of yonder apple-tree. He tells me the thrush is singing a complaint. She wants her mate that was with her last blossom-time and builded a nest with her. She will have no other mate. She will call for him till she hears the notes of her beloved-one’s song coming swiftly towards her across forest and field.
Paul is a strange fellow. He gazed idly at a billowy white cloud that rolls lazily over and over along the edge of the blue sky.
He turns away from me and the words with which I would instruct him, to drink deep the scent of the clover-field and the thick perfume from the rose-hedge.
We rise from the door-step and walk together down the gentle slope of the hill; past the apple-tree, and the rose-hedge; and along the border of the field where wheat is growing. We walk down to the foot of the gentle slope where women and men and children are living.
Paul is a strange fellow. He looks into the faces of people who pass us by. He tells me that in their eyes he reads the story of their souls. He knows men and women and the little children, and why they look this way and that way. He knows the reasons that turn them to and fro and cause them to go and come. I think I shall walk a space through the world with my friend Paul. He is very wise, he knows the language of God which I have not learned.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# An Idler

"She cannot wind the distaff"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1891), "An Idler" in Harper's Weekly (23 May 1891)
* Coates, Florence Earle (1898), "An Idler" in Poems.
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "An Idler" in Poems II.
# An Idle Ditty

"'T is I have been waiting to know, dear"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1912), "An Idle Ditty" in The Unconquered Air, and Other Poems (1912).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "An Idle Ditty" in Poems II.