OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Introductory Notice

Introductory Notice
to
The Clementine Homilies.
[By the Rev. Thomas Smith, D.D.]
We have already given an account of the Clementines in the Introductory Notice to the Recognitions. All that remains for us to do here, is to notice the principal editions of the Homilies. The first edition was published by Cotelerius in his collection of the Apostolic Fathers, from a manuscript in the Royal Library at Paris, the only manuscript of the work then known to exist. He derived assistance from an epitome of the work which he found in the same library. The text of Cotelerius was revised by Clericus in his edition of Cotelerius, but more carefully by Schwegler, Stuttgart, 1847. The Paris ms. breaks off in the middle of the fourteenth chapter of the nineteenth book.
In 1853 (Göttingen) Dressel published a new recension of the Homilies, having found a complete manuscript of the twenty Homilies in the Ottobonian Library in Rome. In 1859 (Leipzig) he published an edition of two Epitomes of the Homilies,—the one previously edited by Turnebus and Cotelerius being given more fully, and the other appearing for the first time. To these Epitomes were appended notes by Frederic Wieseler on the Homilies. The last edition of the Clementines is by Paul de Lagarde (Leipzig, 1865), which has no new sources, is pretentious, but far from accurate.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [The reader is referred to the Introductory Notice prefixed to this edition of the Clementine literature for a brief summary of the views respecting the relations of the two principal works. The footnotes throughout will aid in making a comparison. The preparation of these notes has strengthened the conviction of the writer that the Recognitions are not dependent on the Homilies, but that the reverse may be true.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.—The Objection Answered, that One Cannot Change Himself.
“But perhaps some one of you thinks that one may become something under the influence of one, and another under the influence of another, but no one can change himself into whatever he wishes, and that it is the characteristic of one who grows old, and who must die according to his nature, to change, but we ought not to entertain such thoughts of immortal beings. For were not angels, who are free from old age, and of a fiery substance, changed into flesh,—those, for instance, who received the hospitality of Abraham, whose feet men washed, as if they were the feet of men of like substance? Yea, moreover, with Jacob, who was a man, there wrestled an angel, converted into flesh that he might be able to come to close quarters with him. And, in like manner, after he had wrestled by his own will, he was converted into his own natural form; and now, when he was changed into fire, he did not burn up the broad sinew of Jacob, but he inflamed it, and made him lame. Now, that which cannot become anything else, whatever it may wish, is mortal, inasmuch as it is subject to its own nature; but he who can become whatever he wishes, whenever he wishes, is immortal, returning to a new condition, inasmuch as he has control over his own nature. Wherefore much more does the power of God change the substance of the body into whatever He wishes and whenever He wishes; and by the change that takes place He sends forth what, on the one hand, is of similar substance, but, on the other, is not of equal power.  Whatever, then, he who sends forth turns into a different substance, that he can again turn back into his own; but he who is sent forth, arising in consequence of the change which proceeds from him, and being his child, cannot become anything else without the will of him who sent him forth, unless he wills it.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ One word of this is supplied conjecturally by Dressel.
* ↑ Gen. vi. 2. [Comp. Ps. civ. 4.]
* ↑ Part of this is conjectural.
* ↑ Gen. xviii. 4.
* ↑ Gen. xxxii. 24.
* ↑ We have adopted Wieseler’s emendation of μή into μέν.
* ↑ This passage is corrupt. We have changed ὅτι into ὅ, τι, and supplied τρέπει.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.—The Origin of the Good One Different from that of the Evil One.
When Peter said this, Micah, who was himself also one of the companions that attended on him, said: “I also should like to learn from you if the good one has been produced in the same way that the evil one came into being. But if they came into being in a similar manner, then they are brothers in my opinion.” And Peter said: “They have not come into being in a similar way: for no doubt you remember what I said in the beginning, that the substance of the body of the wicked one, being fourfold in origin, was carefully selected and sent forth by God; but when it was combined externally, according to the will of Him who sent it forth, there arose, in consequence of the combination, the disposition which rejoices in evils: so that you may see that the substance, fourfold in origin, which was sent forth by Him, and which also always exists, is the child of God; but that the accidentally arising disposition which rejoices in evils has supervened when the substance was combined externally by him. And thus disposition has not been begotten by God, nor by any one else, nor indeed has it been sent forth by Him, nor has it come forth spontaneously, nor did it always exist, like the substance before the combination; but it has come on as an accident by external combination, according to the will of God. And we have often said that it must be so. But the good one having been begotten from the most beautiful change of God, and not having arisen accidentally through an external combination, is really His Son. Yet, since these doctrines are unwritten, and are confirmed to us only by conjecture, let us by no means deem it as absolutely certain that this is the true state of the case. For if we act otherwise, our mind will cease from investigating the truth, in the belief that it has already fully comprehended it. Remember these things, therefore; for I must not state such things to all, but only to those who are found after trial most trustworthy. Nor ought we rashly to maintain such assertions towards each other, nor ought ye to dare to speak as if you were accurately acquainted with the discovery of secret truths, but you ought simply to reflect over them in silence; for in stating, perchance, that a matter is so, he who says it will err, and he will suffer punishment for having dared to speak even to himself what has been honoured with silence.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Dressel remarks that this cannot be the true reading. Some other name mentioned in Hom. II. c. 1 must be substituted here or in c. 4.
* ↑ This passage is corrupt. We have adopted Wieseler’s emendations for the most part.
* ↑ We have read τῆς with Wieseler for τις.
* ↑ Wieseler translates “accidentally.”
* ↑ We have changed οὐχ ὡς ἔχον into οὕτως ἔχειν.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—Men Sin Through Ignorance.
When Peter said this, Micah, who was himself one of his followers, asked: “What, then, is the reason why men sin?” And Peter said: “It is because they are ignorant that they will without doubt be punished for their evil deeds when judgment takes place. For this reason they, having lust, as I elsewhere said, for the continuance of life, gratify it in any accidental way, it may be by the vitiation of boys, or by some other flattering sin. For in consequence of their ignorance, as I said before, they are urged on through fearlessness to satisfy their lust in an unlawful manner.  Wherefore God is not evil, who has rightly placed lust within man, that there may be a continuance of life, but they are most impious who have used the good of lust badly. The same considerations apply to anger also, that if one uses it righteously, as is within his power, he is pious; but going beyond measure, and taking judgment to himself, he is impious.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Part of this is supplied by Dressel’s conjecture.
* ↑ There is a lacuna, which has been filled up in various ways. We have supposed ἡμ to be for ἢ μ., possibly μητέρων ἤ. Wieseler supposes “immature boys.”
* ↑ Dressel translates, “drawing judgment on himself.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.—God’s Power of Changing Himself.
When Peter heard this, he thought for a little, and said: “I do not think that any one can converse about evil without doing the will of the evil one. Therefore knowing this, I do not know what I shall do, whether I shall be silent or speak. For if I be silent, I should incur the laughter of the multitude, because, professing to proclaim the truth, I am ignorant of the explanation of vice. But if I should state my opinion, I am afraid lest it be not at all pleasing to God that we should seek after evil, for only seeking after good is pleasing to Him. However, in my reply to the statements of Sophonias, I shall make my ideas more plain. I then agree with him in thinking that we ought not to attribute to God all the qualities of men. For instance, men not having bodies that are convertible are not converted; but they have a nature that admits of alteration by the lapse of time through the seasons of the year. But this is not the case with God; for through His inborn Spirit He becomes, by a power which cannot be described, whatever body He likes. And one can the more easily believe this, as the air, which has received such a nature from Him, is converted into dew by the incorporeal mind permeating it, and being thickened becomes water, and water being compacted becomes stone and earth, and stones through collision light up fire. According to such a change and conversion, air becomes first water, and ends in being fire through conversions, and the moist is converted into its natural opposite. Why? Did not God convert the rod of Moses into an animal, making it a serpent, which He reconverted into a rod?  And by means of this very converted rod he converted the water of the Nile into blood, which again he reconverted into water. Yea, even man, who is dust, He changed by the inbreathing of His breath into flesh, and changed him back again into dust. And was not Moses, who himself was flesh, converted into the grandest light, so that the sons of Israel could not look him in the face? Much more, then, is God completely able to convert Himself into whatsoever He wishes.

## Footnotes

* ↑ ἐμφύτου.
* ↑ We have changed τοιοῦτον into τοιαύτην.
* ↑ Ex. iv. 3, 4.
* ↑ Ex. vii. 19, 20.
* ↑ Gen. ii. 7.
* ↑ Eccles. iii. 20.
* ↑ Ex. xxxiv. 29.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 22

Chapter XXII.—Appion and Athenodorus Return to Simon.
When Appion and those who were with him heard this, they howled and lamented, saying: “Why did you not receive him?” And when at the same time Athenodorus wished to say to me, “It was Faustus, your father;” Appion anticipated him, and said, “We learned from some one that Simon, finding him, urged him to go along with him, Faustus himself entreating him, since he did not wish to see his sons after they had become Jews. And hearing this, we came, for his own sake, in search of him. But since he is not here, it is plain that he spake the truth who gave us the information which we, hearing it from him, have given to you.” And I Clement, perceiving the design of Peter, that he wished to beget a suspicion in them that he intended to look out among them for the old man, that they might be afraid and take to flight, assisted in his design, and said to Appion: “Listen to me, my dearest Appion. We were eager to give to him, as being our father, what we ourselves deemed to be good. But if he himself did not wish to receive it, but, on the contrary, fled from us in horror, I shall make a somewhat harsh remark, ‘Nor do we care for him.’” And when I said this, they went away, as if irritated by my savageness; and, as we learn next day, they went to Judæa in the track of Simon.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This is supplied purely by conjecture.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XX/Chapter 23

Chapter XXIII.—Peter Goes to Antioch.
Now, when ten days had passed away, there came one of our peoplefrom our father to announce to us how our father stood forward publicly in the shape of Simon, accusing him; and how by praising Peter he had made the whole city of Antioch long for him: and in consequence of this, all said that they were eager to see him, and that there were some who were angry with him as being Simon, on account of their surpassing affection for Peter, and wished to lay hands on Faustus, believing he was Simon. Wherefore he, fearing that he might be put to death, had sent to request Peter to come immediately if he wished to meet him alive, and to appear at the proper time to the city, when it was at the height of its longing for him. Peter, hearing this, called the multitude together to deliberate, and appointed one of his attendants bishop; and having remained three days in Laodicea baptizing and healing, he hastened to the neighboring city of Antioch.  Amen.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Supplied from the Recognitions.
* ↑ This part is restored by means of the Recognitions.
* ↑ [The narrative in the Recognitions (x. 65) is the same up to this point. But, instead of this somewhat abrupt conclusion of this chapter, we find there several chapters (from the close of chap. 65 to the end, chap. 72), which round out the story: the confession of the father in his metamorphosis, his restoration, the Apostle’s entry into Antioch, his miracles there, with the happy re-union of the entire family of Clement as believers. It should be added, as indicating the close relation of the two narratives, that the closing sentence of the Homilies is found, with slight variations, in Recognitions, x. 18.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus/Exegetical
## Contents

* On the Hexaemeron, Or Six Days' Work
* On Genesis
* On Numbers
* On Kings
* On the Psalms
* On Proverbs
* On the Song of Songs
* On Isaiah
* On Jeremiah and Ezekiel
* On Daniel
* On Matthew
* On Luke
* Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch
* Doubtful Fragments on the Psalms
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus/Exegetical/Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch/Part 2

Section I.
Of the Creation of Heaven and Earth. “In the Beginning God Created,” Etc.
An exposition of that which God said.
And the blessed prophet, indeed, the great Moses, wrote this book, and designated and marked it with the title, The Book of Being, i.e., “of created beings,” etc.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus/Exegetical/Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch/Part 5

Section V.
On Gen. viii. I
Hippolytus, the expositor of the Targum, and my master, Jacobus Rohaviensis, have said: On the twenty-seventh day of the month Jiar, which is the second Hebrew month, the ark rose from the base of the holy mount; and already the waters bore it, and it was carried upon them round about towards the four cardinal points of the world. The ark accordingly held off from the holy mount towards the east, then returned towards the west, then turned to the south, and finally, bearing off eastwards, neared Mount Kardu on the first day of the tenth month. And that is the second month Kanun.
And Noah came out of the ark on the twenty-seventh day of the month Jiar, in the second year: for the ark continued sailing five whole months, and moved to and fro upon the waters, and in a period of fifty-one days neared the land. Nor thereafter did it float about any longer. But it only moved successively toward the four cardinal points of the earth, and again finally stood toward the east. We say, moreover, that that was a sign of the cross.  And the ark was a symbol of the Christ who was expected. For that ark was the means of the salvation of Noah and his sons, and also of the cattle, the wild beasts, and the birds. And Christ, too, when He suffered on the cross, delivered us from accusations and sins, and washed us in His own blood most pure.
And just as the ark returned to the east, and neared Mount Kardu, so also Christ, when the work was accomplished and finished which He had proposed to Himself, returned to heaven to the bosom of His Father, and sat down upon the throne of His glory at the Father’s right hand.
As to Mount Kardu, it is in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Arabians and Persians call it Ararat.
And there is a town of the name Kardu, and that hill is called after it, which is indeed very lofty and inaccessible, whose summit no one has ever been able to reach, on account of the violence of the winds and the storms which always prevail there.  And if any one attempts to ascend it, there are demons that rush upon him, and cast him down headlong from the ridge of the mountain into the plain, so that he dies. No one, moreover, knows what there is on the top of the mountain, except that certain relics of the wood of the ark still lie there on the surface of the top of the mountain.
* ↑ Gordyæum.
* ↑ See Fuller, Misc. Sacr., i. 4; and Bochart, Phaleg., p. 22.
* ↑ [See p. 149, note 10, supra.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus/Exegetical/Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch
## Contents

* Preface
* Part 1
* Part 2
* Part 3
* Part 4
* Part 5
* Part 6
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus/Exegetical/Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch/Part 1

The Law.
In the name of God eternal, everlasting, most mighty, merciful, compassionate.
By the help of God we begin to describe the book of the law, and its interpretation, as the holy, learned, and most excellent fathers have interpreted it.
The following, therefore, is the interpretation of the first book, which indeed is the book of the creation (and) of created beings.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Scorpiace/Chapter XIV

Chapter XIV.
No doubt the apostle admonishes the Romans to be subject to all power, because there is no power but of God, and because (the ruler) does not carry the sword without reason, and is the servant of God, nay also, says he, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. For he had also previously spoken thus: “For rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of it. Therefore he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.” Thus he bids you be subject to the powers, not on an opportunity occurring for his avoiding martyrdom, but when he is making an appeal in behalf of a good life, under the view also of their being as it were assistants bestowed upon righteousness, as it were handmaids of the divine court of justice, which even here pronounces sentence beforehand upon the guilty. Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay “tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,” that is, the things which are Cæsar’s to Cæsar, and the things which are God’s to God; but man is the property of God alone. Peter, no doubt, had likewise said that the king indeed must be honoured, yet so that the king be honoured only when he keeps to his own sphere, when he is far from assuming divine honours; because both father and mother will be loved along with God, not put on an equality with Him. Besides, one will not be permitted to love even life more than God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. xiii. 1.
* ↑ Rom. xiii. 6.
* ↑ Matt. xxii. 21.
* ↑ 1 Pet. ii. 13.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Five Books Against Marcion/Book I
## Contents

* I
* II
* III
* IV
* V
* VI
* VII
* VIII
* IX
* X
* XI
* XII
* XIII
* XIV
* XV
* XVI
* XVII
* XVIII
* XIX
* XX
* XXI
* XXII
* XXIII
* XXIV
* XXV
* XXVI
* XXVII
* XXVIII
* XXIX
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Five Books Against Marcion
## Contents

* Introductory Notes
* Book I
* Book II
* Book III
* Book IV
* Book V
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Abbey, Richard

Edition of 1900.
​ABBEY, Richard, clergyman, b. in Genesee county, N. Y., 16 Nov., 1805; d. in Yazoo City, Miss., 23 Oct., 1891. In 1825 he removed to Natchez, Miss., and became a minister in the Methodist Episcopal church in 1844, and was identified with the movement separating that denomination into its northern and southern branches. He published "Letters to Bishop Green on Apostolic Succession" and "End of the Apostolic Succession" (1853); "Creed of All Men" (1855); "Ecclesiastical Constitution" (1856); "Church and Ministry" (1859); "Diuturnity" (1866); "Ecce Ecclesia," an answer to "Ecce Homo" (1868); "The City of God and the Church-Makers" (1872). In 1858 he was elected financial secretary of the Southern Methodist publishing house. His other works include "Baptismal Demonstrations." "Divine Assessment," "Strictures on Church Government," and "The Divine Call to the Ministry."
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Abbot, Joel (politician)

Edition of 1900.
​ABBOT, Joel, physician, b. in Fairfield, Conn., 17 March, 1766; d. in Washington. Ga., 19 Nov., 1826. He received an academic education, and then studied medicine, his father's profession. In 1794 he removed to Washington, Ga., and began practice. In 1809 he was elected to the legislature, and, after holding various local offices, was elected to the fifteenth congress (1816), and successively re-elected until 1825. In 1820 he was appointed by the Georgia medical society as its representative in preparing the "National Pharmacopœia."
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Abbey, Henry

Edition of 1900.
​ABBEY, Henry, author, b. in Rondout, N. Y., 11 July, 1842. He was educated at Kingston academy and the Hudson river institute. His first book, "May Dreams," was published in New York in 1862. About this time he became assistant editor of the Rondout "Courier," and subsequently of the Orange "Spectator" (N. J.). "Ralph and other Poems" appeared in 1866, "Stories in Verse" in 1869, and "Ballads of Good Deeds" in 1872. A new edition of the last named appeared in England in 1876. "Poems by Henry Abbey" was published in 1879, embracing the greater part of the old selections and several new pieces. "The City of Success and other Poems " appeared in 1883, and a new and comprehensive edition of his more important poems was published in Kingston in 1886.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Abbot, Abiel

Edition of 1900.
​ABBOT, Abiel, clergyman, b. in Wilton, N. H., 14 Dec., 1765; d. in West Cambridge, Mass., 31 Jan., 1859. He was graduated at Harvard in 1787, taught in Phillips Andover academy until 1789, studied theology, and labored as a missionary in Maine. In 1794 he was tutor of Greek in Harvard. He was ordained minister of the church in Coventry, Conn., in 1795, from which he was dismissed in 1811, on account of his theological opinions. He taught the Dummer academy until 1819, and then cultivated a farm in North Andover until 1827, when he was installed as pastor of the church at Peterborough, N. H., where he remained until his retirement from the ministry in 1848. He published in 1811 an account of his difficulty with the Coventry congregation, in 1829 a "History of Andover," Massachusetts, and in 1847 the "Genealogy of the Abbot Family."
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Abbot, Benjamin

Edition of 1900.
​ABBOT, Benjamin, educator, b. about 1762; d. in Exeter, N. H., 25 Oct., 1849. He was graduated at Harvard in 1788, received the degree of LL. D. from Dartmouth in 1811, and took charge of Phillips academy, Exeter, N. H., which he conducted until 1838. Among the pupils under his training were Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, Lewis Cass, Jared Sparks, George Bancroft, and John G. Palfrey.