OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI/Chapter 1

Homily XVI.
Chapter I.—Simon Wishes to Discuss with Peter the Unity of God.
At break of day Peter went out, and reaching the place where he was wont to discourse, he saw a great multitude assembled. At the very time when he was going to discourse, one of his deacons entered, and said: “Simon has come from Antioch, starting as soon as it was evening, having learned that you promised to speak on the unity of God; and he is ready, along with Athenodorus the Epicurean, to come to hear your speech, in order that he may publicly oppose all the arguments ever adduced by you for the unity of God.” Just as the deacon said this, lo! Simon himself entered, accompanied by Athenodorus and some other friends. And before Peter spoke at all, he took the first word, and said:—

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Homilies XVI.–XIX., giving the details of a second discussion with Simon at Laodicea, are peculiar to this narrative. Much of the matter finds a parallel in the longer account of the previous discussion at Cæsarea in Recognitions, ii. iii. (comp. Homily III.), but all the circumstances are different. Uhlhorn formerly regarded this portion of the Homilies as the nucleus of the entire literature. He has modified his view. An analysis of the discussion cannot be attempted; but in the footnote to Recognitions, ii. 19, a general comparison is given of the three accounts of discussions with Simon Magus.—R.]
* ↑ The word properly signifies the “sole government or monarchy of God.”  It means that God alone is ruler.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—Providence Seen in the Events of the Life of Faustus and His Family.
“But I maintain, from what has happened to you, that all things are managed by the providence of God, and that your separation from your family for so many years was providential; for since, if they had been with you, they perhaps would not have listened to the doctrines of the true religion, it was arranged that your children should travel with their mother, should be shipwrecked, should be supposed to have perished, and should be sold; moreover, that they should be educated in the learning of the Greeks, especially in the atheistic doctrines, in order that, as being acquainted with them, they might be the better able to refute them; and in addition to this, that they should become attached to the true religion, and be enabled to be united with me, so as to help me in my preaching; furthermore, that their brother Clement should meet in the same place, and that thus his mother should be recognised, and through her cure should be fully convinced of the right worship of God; that after no long interval the twins should recognise and be recognised, and the other day should fall in with you, and that you should receive back your own. I do not think, then, that such a speedy filling in of circumstances, coming as it were from all quarters, so as to accomplish one design, could have happened without the direction of Providence.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [The recapitulation of Peter in Recognitions, ix. 26, is in explanation to the sons, and not for a doctrinal purpose.—R.]
* ↑ We have adopted a reading suggested by the second Epitome.
* ↑ The word ἀπρασίαι is corrupt. We have adopted the emendation πρᾶσις. The word is not given in the ms. O, nor in the Epitomes.
* ↑ ὑπὸ θεραπείας, which Cotelerius translates recuperata sanitate.
* ↑ Lit., “convinced of the Godhead.” “Godhead” is omitted in the Epitomes.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVI
## 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
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 5

Chapter V.—Difference Between the True Religion and Philosophy.
And our father began to say: “Do not suppose, my dearest Peter, that I am not thinking of the doctrines preached by you. I was thinking of them. But during the past night, when Clement urged me earnestly to give in my adhesion to the truth preached by you, I at last answered, ‘Why should I? for what new commandment can any one give more than what the ancients urged us to obey?’ And he, with a gentle smile, said, ‘There is a great difference, father, between the doctrines of the true religion and those of philosophy; for the true religion receives its proof from prophecy, while philosophy, furnishing us with beautiful sentences, seems to present its proofs from conjecture.’ On saying this, he took an instance, and set before us the doctrine of philanthropy, which you had explained to him, which rather appeared to me to be very unjust, and I shall tell you how. He alleged that it was right to present to him who strikes you on the one cheek the other also, and to give to him who takes away your cloak your tunic also, and to go two miles with him who compels you to go one, and such like.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Compare the fuller statement in Recognitions, viii. 61; also Recognitions, x. 48–51.—R.]
* ↑ Or “love of man” in all its phases—kindliness, gentleness, humanity, etc.
* ↑ Hom. XII. 25 ff.
* ↑ Matt. v. 39–41; Luke vi. 29. The writer of the Homilies changes the word χιτῶνα, “tunic,” of the New Testament into μαφόριον, which Suicer describes “a covering for the head, neck, and shoulders, used by women.” Wieseler is in doubt whether the writer of the Homilies uses μαφόριον as equivalent to χιτῶνα, or whether he intentionally changed the word, for the person who lost both cloak and tunic would be naked altogether; and this, the writer may have imagined, Christ would not have commanded.
* ↑ [The larger part of the discussion in chaps. 5–11 is peculiar to the Homilies. There is little matter in it found in the longer arguments of Recognitions.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.—The Present and the Future.
“If, then, you wish to have an accurate account of the matter, listen. Those of whom you said a little before that they receive injustice, rather act unjustly themselves; for they who have chosen the future blessings, live along with the bad in the present world, having many enjoyments the same as the bad,—such as life itself, light, bread, water, clothing, and others of a like nature. But they who are thought by you to act unjustly, shall not live with the good men in the coming age.” And our father replied to this: “Now when you have convinced me that those who act unjustly suffer injustice themselves, while those who suffer injustice have by far the advantage, the whole affair seems to me still more the most unjust of transactions; for those who seem to act unjustly grant many things to those who have chosen the future blessings, but those who seem to receive injustice do themselves commit injustice, because they do not give in the other world, to those who have given them blessings here, the same advantages which these gave to them.” And Peter said: “This is not unjust at all, because each one has the power to choose the present or the future goods, whether they be small or great. He who chooses by his own individual judgment and wish, receives no injustice,—I mean, not even should his choice rest on what is small, since the great lay within his choice, as in fact did also the small.” And our father said: “You are right; for it has been said by one of the wise men of the Greeks, ‘The blame rests with those who chose—God is blameless.’

## Footnotes

* ↑ We have translated Schwegler’s emendation. He inserted ἐν.
* ↑ Plato, Rep., x. 617 E.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—Reason for Listening to Peter’s Arguments.
Our father said: “But it is not the case, my very dear friend, that souls are punished in Hades, for the soul is dissolved into air as soon as it leaves the body.”  And Peter said: “Until we convince you in regard to this point, answer me, does it not appear to you that you are not grieved as having no faith in a future punishment, but they who have full faith in it must be vexed in regard to you?” And our father said: “You speak sense.” And Peter said:  “Why, then, will you not free them from the greatest grief they can have in regard to you by agreeing to their religion, not, I mean, through dread, but through kindly feeling, listening and judging about what is said by me, whether it be so or not? and if the truth is as we state it, then here you will enjoy life with those who are dearest to you, and in the other world you will have rest with them; but if, in examining the arguments, you show that what is stated by us is a fictitious story, you will thus be doing good service, for you will have your friends on your side, and you will put an end to their leaning upon false hopes, and you will free them from false fears.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ μῦθόν τινα ψευδῆ.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.—The Love of Man.
And Peter answered: “You have deemed unjust what is most just. If you are inclined, will you listen to me?” And my father said: “With all my heart.” And Peter said: “What is your opinion? Suppose that there were two kings, enemies to each other, and having their countries cut off from each other; and suppose that some one of the subjects of one of them were to be caught in the country of the other, and to incur the penalty of death on this account: now if he were let off from the punishment by receiving a blow instead of death, is it not plain that he who let him off is a lover of man?” And our father said: “Most certainly.” And Peter said: “Now suppose that this same person were to steal from some one something belonging to him or to another; and if when caught he were to pay double, instead of suffering the punishment that was due to him, namely, paying four times the amount, and being also put to death, as having been caught in the territories of the enemy; is it not your opinion that he who accepts double, and lets him off from the penalty of death, is a lover of man?” And our father said: “He certainly seems so.” And Peter said: “Why then? Is it not the duty of him who is in the kingdom of another, and that, too, a hostile and wicked monarch, to be pleasing to all for the sake of life, and when force is applied to him, to yield still more, to accost those who do not accost him, to reconcile enemies, not to quarrel with those who are angry, to give his own property freely to all who ask, and such like?” And our father said: “He should with reason endure all things rather, if he prefers life to them.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “to flatter.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.—The Explanation of a Parable; The Present and the Future Life.
And Peter said:  “Are not those, then, who you said received injustice, themselves transgressors, inasmuch as they are in the kingdom of the other, and is it not by overreaching that they have obtained all they possess? while those who are thought to act unjustly are conferring a favour on each subject of the hostile kingdom, so far as they permit him to have property. For these possessions belong to those who have chosen the present. And they are so far kind as to permit the others to live. This, then, is the parable; now listen to the actual truth. The prophet of the truth who appeared on earth taught us that the Maker and God of all gave two kingdoms to two, good and evil; granting to the evil the sovereignty over the present world along with law, so that he, it, should have the right to punish those who act unjustly; but to the good He gave the eternal to come. But He made each man free with the power to give himself up to whatsoever he prefers, either to the present evil or the future good. Those men who choose the present have power to be rich, to revel in luxury, to indulge in pleasures, and to do whatever they can. For they will possess none of the future goods. But those who have determined to accept the blessings of the future reign have no right to regard as their own the things that are here, since they belong to a foreign king, with the exception only of water and bread, and those things procured with sweat to maintain life (for it is not lawful for them to commit suicide), and also one garment, for they are not permitted to go naked on account of the all-seeing Heaven.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The following words would be more appropriately put in the mouth of the father, as is done in fact by the Epitomes. Peter’s address would commence, “And the parable is.” The Epitomes differ much from each other and the text, and there seems to be confusion in the text.
* ↑ This sentence would be more appropriate in the explanation of the parable.
* ↑ The Greek leaves it uncertain whether it is two persons or two things,—whether it is a good being and an evil being, or good and evil. Afterwards, a good being and an evil are distinctly introduced.
* ↑ The word ἀΐδιος, properly and strictly “eternal,” is used.
* ↑ Lit., “to die willingly.”
* ↑ We have adopted an obvious emendation, πάντα for παντός.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.—Possessions are Transgressions.
“Will you be so good as to explain this matter also? I remember Clement saying to me, that we suffer injuries and afflictions for the forgiveness of our sins.”  Peter said: “This is quite correct. For we, who have chosen the future things, in so far as we possess more goods than these, whether they be clothing, or food or drink, or any other thing, possess sins, because we ought not to have anything, as I explained to you a little ago. To all of us possessions are sins. The deprivation of these, in whatever way it may take place, is the removal of sins.”  And our father said: “That seems reasonable, as you explained that these were the two boundary lines of the two kings, and that it was in the power of each to choose whatever he wished of what was under their authority. But why are the afflictions sent, or do we suffer them justly?” And Peter said: “Most justly; for since the boundary line of the saved is, as I said, that no one should possess anything, but since many have many possessions, or in other words sins, for this reason the exceeding love of God sends afflictions on those who do not act in purity of heart, that on account of their having some measure of the love of God, they might, by temporary inflictions, be saved from eternal punishments.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ One ms. inserts before the sentence:  “For if in all of us possessions are wont to occasion sins in those who have them.”
* ↑ We have adopted Wieseler’s emendation of τὰ into καί.
* ↑ We have changed εἰ into ἤ.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XV/Chapter 3

Chapter III.—Obstacles to Faith.
And our father said: “There is evidently much reason in what you say.” And Peter said: “What is it, then, that prevents you from coming to our faith? Tell me, that we may begin our discussion with it. For many are the hindrances. The faithful are hindered by occupation with merchandise, or public business, or the cultivation of the soil, or cares, and such like; the unbelievers, of whom you also are one, are hindered by ideas such as that the gods, which do not exist, really exist, or that all things are subject to Genesis, or chance, or that souls are mortal, or that our doctrines are false because there is no providence.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Properly, self-action.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXVII

Chapter XXXVII.
After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that “he rushed with open mouth to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary man frequently endures it.” Now this matter admits of an explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very incident may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection. For in the sixty-ninth Psalm there is written, with reference to Christ: “And they gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Now, let the Jews say who it is that the prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and let them adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to whom vinegar was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom they expect still to come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would say, What prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For this very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along with the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as Christ, and as the Son of God.
* ↑ χανδόν.
* ↑ Ps. lxix. 21.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXIX

Chapter XXXIX.
And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that Jesus, “having gained over no one during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these punishments and sufferings?”  For from what other source sprang the envy which was aroused against Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders, and scribes, save from the fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him, and were led into the deserts not only by the persuasive language of Him whose words were always appropriate to His hearers, but who also by His miracles made an impression on those who were not moved to belief by His words? And is it not a manifest falsehood to say that “he did not gain over even his own disciples,” who exhibited, indeed, at that time some symptoms of human weakness arising from cowardly fear—for they had not yet been disciplined to the exhibition of full courage—but who by no means abandoned the judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the Christ? For Peter, after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of wickedness he had fallen, “went out and wept bitterly;” while the others, although stricken with dismay on account of what had happened to Jesus (for they still continued to admire Him), had, by His glorious appearance, their belief more firmly established than before that He was the Son of God.
* ↑ τῆς τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ἀκολουθίας.
* ↑ ἐπιφανείας.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXV

Chapter XXXV.
But in answer to this objection, “If not before, yet why now, at least, does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?” We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as the Greeks would answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a more effective manner. There was not only a portent from heaven—the eclipse of the sun—but also the other miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed something that was divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority of men.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXVIII

Chapter XXXVIII.
The few next remarks: “You, O sincere believers, find fault with us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment.” Now, in answer to this, we say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ), because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before them to prove that He is the Messiah, adducing such refutation as a defence of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit of mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn men and their actions before He had instructed them, and pointed out to them their duty, nor to chastise the wicked and save the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary manner, and with the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as the prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them, moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to understand Him.
* ↑ ὦ πιστότατοι.
* ↑ τὸν Χριστόν.
* ↑ τὰ ἀνθρώπων.
* ↑ μαρτύρασθαι περὶ τῶν πρακτέων.
* ↑ παραδόξως.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXX

Chapter XXX.
This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: “From such signs and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to be God, and the Son of God.” Now it was his duty to enumerate the alleged misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if any of his objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to answer and confute his arguments. What he said, however, regarding Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a mighty potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened, notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus. “For as the sun,” he says, “which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible, so ought the Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply, that so He did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, “Go and teach all nations.”  Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each other, and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?