OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VI/Chapter 23

Chapter XXIII.—Death of the Emperor Arcadius.
Not long after the death of John, the Emperor Arcadius died also. This prince was of a mild and gentle disposition, and toward the close of his life was esteemed to be greatly beloved of God, from the following circumstance. There was at Constantinople an immense mansion called Carya; for in the court of it there is a walnut tree on which it is said Acacius suffered martyrdom by hanging; on which account a chapel was built near it, which the Emperor Arcadius one day thought fit to visit, and after having prayed there, left again. All who lived near this chapel ran in a crowd to see the emperor; and some going out of the mansion referred to, endeavored to preoccupy the streets in order to get a better view of their sovereign and his suite, while others followed in his train, until all who inhabited it, including the women and children, had wholly gone out of it. No sooner was this vast pile emptied of its occupants, the buildings of which completely environed the church, than the entire building fell. On which there was a great outcry, followed by shouts of admiration, because it was believed the emperor’s prayer had rescued so great a number of persons from destruction. This event occurred in that manner. On the 1st of May, Arcadius died, leaving his son Theodosius only eight years old, under the consulate of Bassus and Philip, in the second year of the 297th Olympiad.
He had reigned thirteen years with Theodosius his father, and fourteen years after his death, and had then attained the thirty-first year of his age. This book includes the space of twelve years and six months.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 408 a.d.
* ↑ The Greek editions [of Stephens, Valesius, Hussey, Bright, &c.] add the alternate form of chap. 11 at this place. For purposes of convenience in comparing the two versions we have given the variants with chapter 11.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VI/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes Odious to his Clergy.
Being such in disposition and manners, and promoted to the episcopacy, John was led to conduct himself toward his clergy with more than proper superciliousness, designing to correct the morals of the clergy under him. Having thus chafed the temper of the ecclesiastics, he was disliked by them; and so many of them stood aloof from him as a passionate man, and others became his bitter enemies. Serapion, a deacon of his retinue, led him to alienate their minds still more from him; and once in presence of the whole assembled clergy he cried out with a loud voice to the bishop—‘You will never be able to govern these men, my lord, unless you drive them all with a rod.’ This speech of his excited a general feeling of animosity against the bishop; the bishop also not long after expelled many of them from the church, some for one cause, and some for another. And, as it usually happens when persons in office adopt such violent measures, those who were thus expelled by him formed combinations and inveighed against him to the people. What contributed greatly to gain credence for these complaints was the fact that the bishop was not willing to eat with any one else, and never accepted an invitation to a feast. On account of this the plot against him became widespread. His reasons for not eating with others no one knew with any certainty,
but some persons in justification of his conduct state that he had a very delicate stomach, and weak digestion, which obliged him to be careful in his diet, and therefore he ate alone; while others thought this was due to his rigid and habitual abstinence. Whatever the real motive may have been, the circumstance itself contributed not a little to the grounds of accusation by his calumniators. The people nevertheless continued to regard him with love and veneration, on account of his valuable discourses in the church, and therefore those who sought to traduce him, only brought themselves into contempt. How eloquent, convincing, and persuasive his sermons were, both those which were published by himself, and such as were noted down by short-hand writers as he delivered them, why should we stay to declare? Those who desire to form an adequate idea of them, must read for themselves, and will thereby derive both pleasure and profit.

## Footnotes

* ↑ These reasons are given by Palladius as follows: ‘He was accustomed to eat alone, as I partially know, for these reasons: first, he drank no wine…secondly, his stomach was, on account of certain infirmities, irregular, so that often the food prepared for him was repugnant, and other food not put before him was desired. Again he at times neglected to eat, lengthening out his meal until evening, sometimes being absorbed in ecclesiastical cares and sometimes in contemplation;…but it is a custom with table companions if we do not relish the same articles of food which they do, or laugh at insignificant witticisms…to make this an occasion of ill-speech.’ Palladius, de Vita S. Joannis, 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VI/Chapter 21

Chapter XXI.—John dies in Exile.
John taken into exile died in Comana on the Euxine, on the 14th of September, in the following consulate, which was the seventh of Honorius, and the second of Theodosius.
A man, as we have before observed,
who on account of zeal for temperance was inclined rather to anger than forbearance: and his personal sanctity of character led him to indulge in a latitude of speech which to others was intolerable. Indeed, it is most inexplicable to me, how with a zeal so ardent for the practice of self-control and blamelessness of life, he should in his sermons appear to teach a loose view of temperance. For whereas by the Synod of bishops repentance was accepted but once from those who had sinned after baptism; he did not scruple to say, ‘Approach, although you may have repented a thousand times.’
For this doctrine, many even of his friends censured him, but especially Sisinnius bishop of the Novatian; who wrote a book condemnatory of the above quoted expression of Chrysostom’s, and severely rebuked him for it. But this occurred long before.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 407 a.d.
* ↑ Cf. above, chap. 3.
* ↑ These words are not found in any of Chrysostom’s extant homilies. There is no reason, however, for thinking that they were not uttered by him in a sermon now not in existence. Socrates’ remarks on Chrysostom’s attitude made here are among the considerations which have led some to think that he was a Novatian. Cf. Introd. p. x.
* ↑ For further particulars on Chrysostom’s life and the circumstances of his death, see authorities mentioned in chap. 2, note 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Against the Epistle of Manichaeus/Chapter 8

Chapter 8.—The Festival of the Birth-Day of Manichæus.
9. In adding the words, "by the providence of God the Father," what else did Manichæus design but that, having got the name of Jesus Christ, whose apostle he calls himself, and of God the Father, by whose providence he says he was sent by the Son, we should believe himself, as the Holy Spirit, to be the third person? His words are: "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father." The Holy Spirit is not named, though He ought specially to have been named by one who quotes to us in favor of his apostleship the promise of the Paraclete, that he may prevail upon ignorant people by the authority of the gospel. In reply to this, you of course say that in the name of the Apostle Manichæus we have the name of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, because He condescended to come into Manichæus. Why then, I ask again, should you cry out against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that He in whom divine Wisdom came was born of a virgin, when you do not scruple to affirm the birth by ordinary generation of him in whom you say the Holy Spirit came? I cannot but suspect that this Manichæus, who uses the name of Christ to gain access to the minds of the ignorant, wished to be worshipped instead of Christ Himself. I will state briefly the reason of this conjecture. At the time when I was a student of your doctrines, to my frequent inquiries why it was that the Paschal feast of the Lord was celebrated generally with no interest, though sometimes there were a few languid worshippers, but no watchings, no prescription of any unusual fast,—in a word, no special ceremony,—while great honor is paid to your Bema, that is, the day on which Manichæus was killed, when you have a platform with fine steps, covered with precious cloth, placed conspicuously so as to face the votaries,—the reply was, that the day to observe was the day of the passion of him who really suffered, and that Christ, who was not born, but appeared to human eyes in an unreal semblance of flesh, only feigned suffering, without really bearing it. Is it not deplorable, that men who wish to be called Christians are afraid of a virgin’s womb as likely to defile the truth, and yet are not afraid of falsehood? But to go back to the point, who that pays attention can help suspecting that the intention of Manichæus in denying Christ’s being born of a woman, and having a human body, was that His passion, the time of which is now a great festival all over the world, might not be observed by the believers in himself, so as to lessen the devotion of the solemn commemoration which he wished in honor of the day of his own death? For to us it was a great attraction in the feast of the Bema that it was held during Pascha, since we used all the more earnestly to desire that festal day [the Bema], that the other which was formerly most sweet had been withdrawn.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good
## Contents

* Title Page
* Preface
* 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
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 10

Chapter 10.—Natures Corruptible, Because Made of Nothing.
All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Against the Epistle of Manichaeus/Chapter 6

Chapter 6.—Why Manichæus Called Himself an Apostle of Christ.
7. For I am at a loss to see why this epistle begins, "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ," and not Paraclete, an apostle of Jesus Christ. Or if the Paraclete sent by Christ sent Manichæus, why do we read, "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ," instead of Manichæus, an apostle of the Paraclete? If you say that it is Christ Himself who is the Holy Spirit, you contradict the very Scripture, where the Lord says, "And I will send you another Paraclete."  Again, if you justify your putting of Christ’s name, not because it is Christ Himself who is also the Paraclete, but because they are both of the same substance,—that is, not because they are one person, but one existence [non quia unus est, sed quia unum sunt],—Paul too might have used the words, Paul, an apostle of God the Father; for the Lord said, "I and the Father are one." Paul nowhere uses these words; nor does any of the apostles write himself an apostle of the Father. Why then this new fashion? Does it not savor of trickery of some kind or other? For if he thought it made no difference, why did he not for the sake of variety in some epistles call himself an apostle of Christ, and in others of the Paraclete? But in every one that I know of, he writes, of Christ; and not once, of the Paraclete. What do we suppose to be the reason of this, but that pride, the mother of all heretics, impelled the man to desire to seem to have been sent by the Paraclete, but to have been taken into so close a relation as to get the name of Paraclete himself? As the man Jesus Christ was not sent by the Son of God, that is, the power and wisdom of God—by which all things were made, but, according to the Catholic faith, was taken into such a relation as to be Himself the Son of God—that is, that in Himself the wisdom of God was displayed in the healing of sinners,—so Manichæus wished it to be thought that he was so taken up by the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised, that we are henceforth to understand that the names Manichæus and Holy Spirit alike signify the apostle of Jesus Christ,—that is, one sent by Jesus Christ, who promised to send him. Singular audacity this! and unutterable sacrilege!

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xiv. 16.
* ↑ John x. 30.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Against the Epistle of Manichaeus/Title Page

St. AUGUSTIN:
against
the epistle of manichæus,
called fundamental.
[contra epistolam manichæi quam vocant fundamentum].
A.D. 397.
translated by
rev. richard stothert, m.a.,
bombay
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Against the Epistle of Manichaeus/Chapter 7

Chapter 7.—In What Sense the Followers of Manichæus Believe Him to Be the Holy Spirit.
8. Besides, you should explain how it is that, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are united in equality of nature, as you also acknowledge, you are not ashamed to speak of Manichæus, a man taken into union with the Holy Spirit, as born of ordinary generation; and yet you shrink from believing that the man taken into union with the only-begotten Wisdom of God was born of a Virgin. If human flesh, if generation [concubitus viri], if the womb of a woman could not contaminate the Holy Spirit, how could the Virgin’s womb contaminate the Wisdom of God? This Manichæus, then, who boasts of a connection with the Holy Spirit, and of being spoken of in the gospel, must produce his claim to either of these two things,—that he was sent by the Spirit, or that he was taken into union with the Spirit. If he was sent, let him call himself the apostle of the Paraclete; if taken into union, let him allow that He whom the only-begotten Son took upon Himself had a human mother, since he admits a human father as well as mother in the case of one taken up by the Holy Spirit. Let him believe that the Word of God was not defiled by the virgin womb of Mary, since he exhorts us to believe that the Holy Spirit could not be defiled by the married life of his parents. But if you say that Manichæus was united to the Spirit, not in the womb or before conception, but after his birth, still you must admit that he had a fleshly nature derived from man and woman.  And since you are not afraid to speak of the blood and the bodily substance of Manichæus as coming from ordinary generation, or of the internal impurities contained in his flesh, and hold that the Holy Spirit, who took on Himself, as you believe, this human being, was not contaminated by all those things, why should I shrink from speaking of the Virgin’s womb and body undefiled, and not rather believe that the Wisdom of God in union with the human being in his mother’s flesh still remained free from stain and pollution? Wherefore, as, whether your Manichæus professes to be sent by or to be united with the Paraclete, neither statement can hold good, I am on my guard, and refuse to believe either in his mission or in his susception.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—God Cannot Suffer Harm, Nor Can Any Other Nature Except by His Permission.
Wherefore neither can God’s nature suffer harm, nor can any nature under God suffer harm unjustly: for when by sinning unjustly some do harm, an unjust will is imputed to them; but the power by which they are permitted to do harm is from God alone, who knows, while they themselves are ignorant, what they ought to suffer, whom He permits them to harm.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Concerning the Nature of Good/Chapter 1

Chapter 1.—God the Highest and Unchangeable Good, from Whom are All Other Good Things, Spiritual and Corporeal.
The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God, and consequently He is unchangeable good, hence truly eternal and truly immortal. All other good things are only from Him, not of Him. For what is of Him, is Himself. And consequently if He alone is unchangeable, all things that He has made, because He has made them out of nothing, are changeable. For He is so omnipotent, that even out of nothing, that is out of what is absolutely non-existent, He is able to make good things both great and small, both celestial and terrestrial, both spiritual and corporeal. But because He is also just, He has not put those things that He has made out of nothing on an equality with that which He begat out of Himself. Because, therefore, no good things whether great or small, through whatever gradations of things, can exist except from God; but since every nature, so far as it is nature, is good, it follows that no nature can exist save from the most high and true God: because all things even not in the highest degree good, but related to the highest good, and again, because all good things, even those of most recent origin, which are far from the highest good, can have their existence only from the highest good. Therefore every spirit, though subject to change, and every corporeal entity, is from God, and all this, having been made, is nature. For every nature is either spirit or body. Unchangeable spirit is God, changeable spirit, having been made, is nature, but is better than body; but body is not spirit, unless when the wind, because it is invisible to us and yet its power is felt as something not inconsiderable, is in a certain sense called spirit.
# O Canada (Richardson)

O Canada! Our fathers' land of old Thy brow is crown'd with leaves of red and gold. Beneath the shade of the Holy Cross Thy children own their birth No stains thy glorious annals gloss Since valour shield thy hearth. Almighty God! On thee we call Defend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall, Defend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# O Canada (bookmark)

English lyrics to Canada's national anthem, as distributed on bookmarks by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
O Canada
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it has been so released by the copyright holder.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O Canada

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "O Canada."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.

### National anthem of Canada and related works

* "Ô Canada" by Adolphe-Basile Routhier and Calixa Lavallée (1880), national anthem of Canada (French lyrics)
* "O Canada" by Robert Stanley Weir (1908), national anthem of Canada (English lyrics)
* "O Canada" by Mercy E. Powell McCulloch (1908)
* "O Canada" by Ewing Buchan (1908)

### Other works

* "O Canada, mon pays, mes amours" by George-Étienne Cartier (1835)
# O Canada (Weir)

In 1908, Collier Magazine held a contest for the best English-language lyrics to the French song "Ô Canada" by Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe-Basile Routhier. Weir's lyrics did not win the competition, but were the most popular among the public. Routhier's and Weir's texts were both adopted (with some alterations) as the national anthem of Canada by the National Anthem Act (1985).
* "O Canada", original version by Robert Stanley Weir (1908).
* "O Canada" in The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book (1916).
* "O Canada" in the National Anthem Act (1985), official version adopted as national anthem in 1985.
* "O Canada", official version adopted in 1985, distributed as a bookmark by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
* "O Canada" in An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender) (2018), official version with modifications adopted in 2018.
# O Christian People Come

From A Hymn-book for the Services of the Church and for Private Reading, 1856; retrieved from hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com
O CHRISTIAN people come,
And hail this happy morn!
In Bethlehem for us This day a King is born.
With one accord
O let us all
In worship fall
Before the Lord!
The Everlasting Light, True God and Very Lord,
A lowly Virgin's womb
For us has not abhorred.
With one accord
O let us all
In worship fall
Before the Lord!
O let the song of joy Be sounding through the sky;
Ye choirs of angels sing "All praise to God on high."
With one accord
O let us all
In worship fall
Before the Lord!
All praise to Him Who came From highest Heaven this day,-- The Word Divine made Flesh,
All praise to Him we pay.
With one accord
O let us all
In worship fall
Before the Lord!
Amen.
# O Canada (1917)

From After Ypres and Other Verse by Robert Stanley Weir
O Canada! Our Home and Native Land! True patriot-love in all thy sons command; With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North, strong and free, And stand on guard, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. O Canada, glorious and free! We stand on guard for thee!
O Canada! Where pines and maples grow, Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow, How dear to us thy broad domain, From East to Western Sea; Thou land of hope for all who toil! Thou True North, strong and free! O Canada, glorious and free! We stand on guard for thee!
O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise, To keep thee steadfast through the years, From East to Western Sea. Our Fatherland, our Motherland! Our True North , strong and free! O Canada, glorious and free! We stand on guard for thee!
Ruler Supreme, Who hearest humble prayer, Hold our dominion in Thy loving care. Help us to find, O God, in Thee, A lasting, rich reward, As waiting for the Better Day We ever stand on guard. O Canada, glorious and free! We stand on guard for thee!
# O Captain! My Captain!

* related portals: American literature.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, quotes, Wikidata item.
* "O Captain, My Captain" in Leaves of Grass (1882)
* "O Captain! My Captain!" in The Riverside song book (1893)
* "O Captain! My Captain!" in Poems That Every Child Should Know (1904)