OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Ethical/On Patience/XIV

Chapter XIV.—The Power of This Twofold Patience, the Spiritual and the Bodily. Exemplified in the Saints of Old.
With this strength of patience, Esaias is cut asunder, and ceases not to speak concerning the Lord; Stephen is stoned, and prays for pardon to his foes. Oh, happy also he who met all the violence of the devil by the exertion of every species of patience!—whom neither the driving away of his cattle nor those riches of his in sheep, nor the sweeping away of his children in one swoop of ruin, nor, finally, the agony of his own body in (one universal) wound, estranged from the patience and the faith which he had plighted to the Lord; whom the devil smote with all his might in vain. For by all his pains he was not drawn away from his reverence for God; but he has been set up as an example and testimony to us, for the thorough accomplishment of patience as well in spirit as in flesh, as well in mind as in body; in order that we succumb neither to damages of our worldly goods, nor to losses of those who are dearest, nor even to bodily afflictions.  What a bier for the devil did God erect in the person of that hero! What a banner did He rear over the enemy of His glory, when, at every bitter message, that man uttered nothing out of his mouth but thanks to God, while he denounced his wife, now quite wearied with ills, and urging him to resort to crooked remedies! How did God smile, how was the evil one cut asunder, while Job with mighty equanimity kept scraping off the unclean overflow of his own ulcer, while he sportively replaced the vermin that brake out thence, in the same caves and feeding-places of his pitted flesh! And so, when all the darts of temptations had blunted themselves against the corslet and shield of his patience, that instrument of God’s victory not only presently recovered from God the soundness of his body, but possessed in redoubled measure what he had lost. And if he had wished to have his children also restored, he might again have been called father; but he preferred to have them restored him “in that day.” Such joy as that—secure so entirely concerning the Lord—he deferred; meantime he endured a voluntary bereavement, that he might not live without some (exercise of) patience.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Acts vii. 59, 60.
* ↑ Job. See Job i. and ii.
* ↑ “Feretrum”—for carrying trophies in a triumph, the bodies of the dead, and their effigies, etc.
* ↑ Compare Ps. ii. 4.
* ↑ i.e. with rage and disappointment.
* ↑ Job ii. 8.
* ↑ Operarius.
* ↑ See 2 Tim. iv. 8. There is no authority for this statement of Tertullian’s in Scripture. [It is his inference rather.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Ethical/On Patience/IX

Chapter IX.—Of Patience Under Bereavement.
Not even that species of impatience under the loss of our dear ones is excused, where some assertion of a right to grief acts the patron to it. For the consideration of the apostle’s declaration must be set before us, who says, “Be not overwhelmed with sadness at the falling asleep of any one, just as the nations are who are without hope.” And justly; or, believing the resurrection of Christ we believe also in our own, for whose sake He both died and rose again. Since, then, there is certainty as to the resurrection of the dead, grief for death is needless, and impatience of grief is needless. For why should you grieve, if you believe that (your loved one) is not perished? Why should you bear impatiently the temporary withdrawal of him who you believe will return? That which you think to be death is departure. He who goes before us is not to be lamented, though by all means to be longed for. That longing also must be tempered with patience. For why should you bear without moderation the fact that one is gone away whom you will presently follow? Besides, impatience in matters of this kind bodes ill for our hope, and is a dealing insincerely with the faith. And we wound Christ when we accept not with equanimity the summoning out of this world of any by Him, as if they were to be pitied. “I desire,” says the apostle, “to be now received, and to be with Christ.” How far better a desire does he exhibit! If, then, we grieve impatiently over such as have attained the desire of Christians, we show unwillingness ourselves to attain it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Thess. iv. 13, not very strictly rendered.
* ↑ Desiderandus.
* ↑ Phil. i. 23, again loosely rendered: e.g. ἀναλῦσαι ="to weigh anchor,” is rendered by Tertullian “recipi.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Ethical/On Patience/VI

Chapter VI.—Patience Both Antecedent and Subsequent to Faith.
Accordingly it is patience which is both subsequent and antecedent to faith. In short, Abraham believed God, and was accredited by Him with righteousness; but it was patience which proved his faith, when he was bidden to immolate his son, with a view to (I would not say the temptation, but) the typical attestation of his faith. But God knew whom He had accredited with righteousness. So heavy a precept, the perfect execution whereof was not even pleasing to the Lord, he patiently both heard, and (if God had willed) would have fulfilled. Deservedly then was he “blessed,” because he was “faithful;” deservedly “faithful,” because “patient.” So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through “Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,” and was superinducing grace over the law, made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness. For men were of old wont to require “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” and to repay with usury “evil with evil;” for, as yet, patience was not on earth, because faith was not either. Of course, meantime, impatience used to enjoy the opportunities which the law gave. That was easy, while the Lord and Master of patience was absent. But after He has supervened, and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to assail even with word, nor to say “fool” even, without “danger of the judgment.” Anger has been prohibited, our spirits retained, the petulance of the hand checked, the poison of the tongue extracted. The law has found more than it has lost, while Christ says, “Love your personal enemies, and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be sons of your heavenly Father.” Do you see whom patience gains for us as a Father? In this principal precept the universal discipline of patience is succinctly comprised, since evil-doing is not conceded even when it is deserved.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See Gen. xv. 6; Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22; Gal. iii. 6; James ii. 23.
* ↑ i.e. the trial was necessary not to prove his faith to God, who knows all whom He accounts righteous, but “typically” to us.
* ↑ Gal. iii. 16.
* ↑ John i. 17; Rom. vi. 14, 15.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 38, and the references there given.
* ↑ Composuit.
* ↑ See Matt. v. 22; and Wordsworth in loco, who thinks it probable that the meaning is “apostate.”
* ↑ Ps. cxl. 3; Rom. iii. 13; James iii. 8.
* ↑ Matt. v. 44, 45.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Ethical/On Patience/XI

Chapter XI.—Further Reasons for Practising Patience. Its Connection with the Beatitudes.
After these principal material causes of impatience, registered to the best of our ability, why should we wander out of our way among the rest,—what are found at home, what abroad? Wide and diffusive is the Evil One’s operation, hurling manifold irritations of our spirit, and sometimes trifling ones, sometimes very great. But the trifling ones you may contemn from their very littleness; to the very great ones you may yield in regard of their overpoweringness. Where the injury is less, there is no necessity for impatience; but where the injury is greater, there more necessary is the remedy for the injury—patience. Let us strive, therefore, to endure the inflictions of the Evil One, that the counter-zeal of our equanimity may mock the zeal of the foe. If, however, we ourselves, either by imprudence or else voluntarily, draw upon ourselves anything, let us meet with equal patience what we have to blame ourselves for. Moreover, if we believe that some inflictions are sent on us by the Lord, to whom should we more exhibit patience than to the Lord? Nay, He teaches us to give thanks and rejoice, over and above, at being thought worthy of divine chastisement. “Whom I love,” saith He, “I chasten.” O blessed servant, on whose amendment the Lord is intent! with whom He deigns to be wroth! whom He does not deceive by dissembling His reproofs! On every side, therefore, we are bound to the duty of exercising patience, from whatever quarter, either by our own errors or else by the snares of the Evil One, we incur the Lord’s reproofs. Of that duty great is the reward—namely, happiness. For whom but the patient has the Lord called happy, in saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens?” No one, assuredly, is “poor in spirit,” except he be humble. Well, who is humble, except he be patient? For no one can abase himself without patience, in the first instance, to bear the act of abasement. “Blessed,” saith He, “are the weepers and mourners.” Who, without patience, is tolerant of such unhappinesses? And so to such, “consolation” and “laughter” are promised. “Blessed are the gentle:” under this term, surely, the impatient cannot possibly be classed. Again, when He marks “the peacemakers” with the same title of felicity, and names them “sons of God,” pray have the impatient any affinity with “peace?” Even a fool may perceive that. When, however, He says, “Rejoice and exult, as often as they shall curse and persecute you; for very great is your reward in heaven,” of course it is not to the impatience of exultation that He makes that promise; because no one will “exult” in adversities unless he have first learnt to contemn them; no one will contemn them unless he have learnt to practise patience.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Docet. But a plausible conjecture, “decet,” “it becomes us,” has been made.
* ↑ Prov. iii. 11, 12; Heb. xii. 5, 6; Rev. iii. 19.
* ↑ Matt. v. 3.
* ↑ Matt. v. 4.
* ↑ Matt. v. 5.
* ↑ Matt. v. 9.
* ↑ Matt. v. 11, 12, inexactly quoted.
* ↑ Exultationis impatientiæ.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rapsen

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rapsen. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rapsen, verb, ‘to sweep off,’ intensive of raffen. Low German rapen.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rasch

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rasch. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rasch, adjective, ‘impetuous, speedy, swift, rash,’ from Middle High German rasch, Old High German rasc, adjective, ‘quick, prompt, skilful, powerful,’ of which the equivalent variants Middle High German and Old High German rosch, and Middle High German resch, risch, occur. Corresponding to English rash, Dutch rasch; Old Icelandic rǫskr (Gothic *rasqs), ‘brave.’ The final dental of the root has disappeared before the suffix sqa, ska (*rasqa- for *rat-sqa); compare Old High German rado, Anglo-Saxon rœde, ‘quick.’ Compare also Old Icelandic horskr, Anglo-Saxon horsc, ‘quick, clever,’ with Anglo-Saxon hrœdlîc, ‘quick.’ The Teutonic root raþ, Aryan rot (roth), in Old High German rado, ‘quick,’ may have meant ‘to hasten’; it appears also in Modern High German Rad.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/ranzig

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry ranzig. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ ranzig, adjective, ‘rancid, fetid,’ Modern High German only, from the equivalent French rance (Latin rancidus), like, or through the medium of, Dutch rans, ‘rotten, rancid.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rascheln

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rascheln. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rascheln, verb, ‘to rustle, rattle,’ Modern High German only, probably a derivative of rasch, like Old High German rascezzen, ‘to sob, emit sparks,’ because of the successive short and lively movements. Compare Anglo-Saxon rœscetung, ‘sparkling.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rasseln

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rasseln. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rasseln, verb, ‘to rattle, clatter,’ from Middle High German raȥȥeln (from raȥȥen), ‘to bluster, rave,’ but based in meaning on Low German rateln, ‘to clatter’; compare Middle High German ratzen, ‘to rattle,’ Dutch rateln, ‘to clatter, chatter,’ ratel, ‘rattle, clapper,’ Anglo-Saxon hrœtele, English rattle. The Teutonic root hrat appearing in these words is connected with Greek κραδαίνω, ‘I swing.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/ranzen

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry ranzen. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ ranzen, verb, ‘to speak rudely or harshly to,’ Modern High German only, probably for *rankzen, allied to Middle High German ranken, ‘to bray.’ Scarcely cognate with English to rant.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rar

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rar. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rar, adjective, Modern High German only, from French rare (Latin rarus), whence also Dutch raar, English rare.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rasen

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rasen. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rasen, verb, ‘to rave, rage,’ from Middle High German rasen (rare), ‘to storm, rave’; corresponding to Low German rasen, Dutch razen. It is usually thought that the word was borrowed from Low German, since it is not found in High German till the end of the 13th century. Allied to Anglo-Saxon râsettan, ‘to rave,’ rœ̂san, ‘to make a violent attack,’ rœs, ‘attack, charge’ (compare English race), Old Icelandic rás, ‘race, running,’ and rasa, ‘to rush headlong.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/ratschlagen

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry ratschlagen. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ ratschlagen, verb, ‘to deliberate,’ from the equivalent late Middle High German râtslagen, the origin of which is obscure. See Rätsel.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/rappeln

| This annotated version expands the abbreviations in the original entry rappeln. | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ rappeln, verb, ‘to rattle,’ Modern High German only, from Low German; the correct Middle High German form is raffeln, ‘to bluster, clatter’; allied to English to rap, Middle English rappien. — In the sense of ‘to be crack-brained, rave,’ rappeln may be derived from the meaning ‘to bustle’; it is usually connected, however, with Middle High German (Middle German) rëben, ‘to dream, be confused,’ which is derived from French rêver, whence also English to rave.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VIII/Chapter XXV

Chapter XXV.
Celsus says that “the demons belong to God, and are therefore to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws, and to be prayed to that they may be propitious.” Those who are disposed to learn, must know that the word of God nowhere says of evil things that they belong to God, for it judges them unworthy of such a Lord. Accordingly, it is not all men who bear the name of “men of God,” but only those who are worthy of God,—such as Moses and Elias, and any others who are so called, or such as resemble those who are so called in Scripture. In the same way, all angels are not said to be angels of God, but only those that are blessed: those that have fallen away into sin are called “angels of the devil,” just as bad men are called “men of sin,” “sons of perdition,” or “sons of iniquity.” Since, then, among men some are good and others bad, and the former are said to be God’s and the latter the devil’s, so among angels some are angels of God, and others angels of the devil. But among demons there is no such distinction, for all are said to be wicked. We do not therefore hesitate to say that Celsus is false when he says, “If they are demons, it is evident that they must also belong to God.” He must either show that this distinction of good and bad among angels and men has no foundation, or else that a similar distinction may be shown to hold among demons. If that is impossible, it is plain that demons do not belong to God; for their prince is not God, but, as holy Scripture says, “Beelzebub.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VIII/Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXVIII.
We shall now proceed to the next statement of Celsus, and examine it with care: “If in obedience to the traditions of their fathers they abstain from such victims, they must also abstain from all animal food, in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, who thus showed his respect for the soul and its bodily organs. But if, as they say, they abstain that they may not eat along with demons, I admire their wisdom, in having at length discovered, that whenever they eat they eat with demons, although they only refuse to do so when they are looking upon a slain victim; for when they eat bread, or drink wine, or taste fruits, do they not receive these things, as well as the water they drink and the air they breathe, from certain demons, to whom have been assigned these different provinces of nature?” Here I would observe that I cannot see how those whom he speaks of as abstaining from certain victims, in accordance with the traditions of their fathers, are consequently bound to abstain from the flesh of all animals. We do not indeed deny that the divine word does seem to command something similar to this, when to raise us to a higher and purer life it says, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak;” and again, “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died;” and again, “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”
* ↑ Rom. xiv. 21.
* ↑ Rom. xiv. 15.
* ↑ 1 Cor. viii. 13.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VIII/Chapter XXX

Chapter XXX.
For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons. As to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on this point, to recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus, which is known to most Christians:  “The eating of animals,” says he, “is a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is more agreeable to reason.” It is not, therefore, simply an account of some traditions of our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those called gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have here mentioned. It is not to be supposed, however, that we are to abstain from the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to abstain from all race and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only from the flesh of animals, but from all other kinds of food, if we cannot partake of them without incurring evil, and the consequences of evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or for the mere gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes. If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it is evidently, therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it is the reasonable soul alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily organs with due honours to the grave. For it is not right that the dwelling-place of the rational soul should be cast aside anywhere without honour, like the carcases of brute beasts; and so much the more when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the honour of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the organs of the body in which it resided. In regard to the question, “How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” we have already answered it briefly, as our purpose required.
* ↑ [Sextus, or Xystus. See note of Spencer in Migne. S.]
* ↑ [1 Cor. xv. 35. S.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VIII/Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXIX.
But it is to be observed that the Jews, who claim for themselves a correct understanding of the law of Moses, carefully restrict their food to such things as are accounted clean, and abstain from those that are unclean. They also do not use in their food the blood of an animal nor the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts, and some other things which it would take too long for us at present to detail. But Jesus, wishing to lead all men by His teaching to the pure worship and service of God, and anxious not to throw any hindrance in the way of many who might be benefited by Christianity, through the imposition of a burdensome code of rules in regard to food, has laid it down, that “not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth; for whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught.  But those things which proceed out of the mouth are evil thoughts when spoken, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Paul also says, “Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter, without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”
* ↑ Matt. xv. 11, 17–19.
* ↑ 1 Cor. viii. 8.
* ↑ Acts xv. 28, 29. It was at Jerusalem.
* ↑ Acts xv. 28, 29. It was at Jerusalem.