OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Berillus the bishop

Chapter LX.
Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, after he had ruled the church gloriously for a little while, finally lapsed into the heresy which denies that Christ existed before the incarnation. Set right by Origen, he wrote various short works, especially letters, in which he thanks Origen. The letters of Origen to him, are also extant, and a dialogue between Origen and Beryllus as well, in which heresies are discussed. He was distinguished during the reign of Alexander, son of Mammaea, and Maximinus and Gordianus, who succeeded him in power.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished about 230.
* ↑ gloriously A 31 e a 10 21 Bamb. Norimb. Val.; omit T 25 30 H Her.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Clemens the presbyter

Chapter XXXVIII.
Clemens, presbyter of the Alexandrian church, and a pupil of the Pantaenus mentioned above, led the theological school at Alexandria after the death of his master and was teacher of the Catechetes. He is the author of notable volumes, full of eloquence and learning, both in sacred Scripture and in secular literature; among these are the Stromata, eight books, Hypotyposes eight books, Against the nations one book, On pedagogy three books, On the Passover, Disquisition on fasting and another book entitled, What rich man is saved? one book On Calumny, On ecclesiastical canons and against those who follow the error of the Jews, one book which he addressed to Alexander bishop of Jerusalem. He also mentions in his volumes of Stromata the work of Tatian Against the nations which we mentioned above and a Chronography of one Cassianus, a work which I have not been able to find. He also mentioned certain Jewish writers against the nations, one Aristobulus and Demetrius and Eupolemus who after the example of Josephus asserted the primacy of Moses and the Jewish people. There is a letter of Alexander the bishop of Jerusalem who afterwards ruled the church with Narcissus, on the ordination of Asclepiades the confessor, addressed to the Antiochians congratulating them, at the end of which he says “these writings honoured brethren I have sent to you by the blessed presbyter Clement, a man illustrious and approved, whom you also know and with whom now you will become better acquainted a man who, when he had come hither by the special providence of God, strengthened and enlarged the church of God.” Origen is known to have been his disciple. He flourished moreover during the reigns of Severus and his son Antoninus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Born about 160, died about 217.
* ↑ On pedagogy = “The Instructor.”
* ↑ honoured literally “lordly” perhaps like the conventional formula “Lords and brethren.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Bacchylus the bishop

Chapter XLIV.
Bacchylus, bishop of Corinth, was held in renown under the same emperor Severus, and wrote, as representative of all the bishops who were in Achaia, an elegant work On the passover.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop about 190–200.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Basilius the bishop

Chapter LXXXIX.
Basil bishop of Ancyra, [a doctor of] medicine, wrote a book Against Marcellus and on virginity and some other things—and in the reign of Constantius was, with Eustathius of Sebaste, primate of Macedonia.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop of Ancyra 336–344, 353–60, 361–3.
* ↑ A doctor of So T? and some editions. Most mss. omit (gnarus) but it needs to be supplied in translation.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Candidus

Chapter XLVIII.
Candidus under the above mentioned emperors published most admirable treatises On the six days of creation.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished about 196.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VII/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—The Bishops of Rome.
After Innocent, Zosimus governed the Roman church for two years: and after him Boniface
presided over it for three years. He was succeeded by Celestinus. And this Celestinus took away the churches from the Novatians at Rome also, and obliged Rusticula their bishop to hold his meetings secretly in private houses. Until this time the Novatians had flourished exceedingly in Rome, possessing many churches there, which were attended by large congregations. But envy attacked them also, as soon as the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, extended itself beyond the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and degenerated into its present state of secular domination. For thenceforth the bishops would not suffer even those who agreed with them in matters of faith to enjoy the privilege of assembling in peace, but stripped them of all they possessed, praising them merely for these agreements in faith. The bishops of Constantinople kept themselves free from this [sort of conduct]; inasmuch as in addition to tolerating them and permitting them to hold their assemblies within the city, as I have already stated,
they treated them with every mark of Christian regard.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 418 a.d.
* ↑ Cf. V. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VII/Chapter 1

Book VII.
Chapter I.—Anthemius the Prætorian Prefect administers the Government of the East in Behalf of Young Theodosius.
After the death of Arcadius on the first of May, during the consulate of Bassus and Philip,
his brother Honorius still governed the Western parts of the empire; but the administration of the East devolved on his son Theodosius the Younger, then only eight years old. The management of public affairs was therefore intrusted to Anthemius the Prætorian prefect, grandson of that Philip who in the reign of Constantius ejected Paul from the see of Constantinople, and established Macedonius in his place. By his directions Constantinople was surrounded with high walls.
He was esteemed and actually was the most prudent man of his time, and seldom did anything unadvisedly, but consulted with the most judicious of his friends respecting all practical matters, and especially with Troïlus
the sophist, who while excelling in philosophical attainments, was equal to Anthemius himself in political wisdom. Wherefore almost all things were done with the concurrence of Troïlus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 408 a.d. Cf. VI. 23. See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 32.
* ↑ This was done, according to Cedrenus, several years later by another prefect. For this reason and because of the grammatical construction in the original, Valesius rightly conjectures that the phrase is a gloss introduced from the margin, and should be expunged from the text.
* ↑ Troïlus was a sophist of distinction who taught at Constantinople under Arcadius and Honorius at the beginning of the fifth century a.d., a native of Side and author of a treatise entitled Λόγοι πολιτικοί. See Suidas s.v. Τρώ& 187·λος.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VII/Chapter 10

Chapter X.—Rome taken and sacked by Alaric.
About this same time
it happened that Rome was taken by the barbarians; for a certain Alaric, a barbarian who had been an ally of the Romans, and had served as an ally with the emperor Theodosius in the war against the usurper Eugenius, having on that account been honored with Roman dignities, was unable to bear his good fortune. He did not choose to assume imperial authority, but retiring from Constantinople went into the Western parts, and arriving at Illyricum immediately laid waste the whole country. As he marched, however, the Thessalians opposed him at the mouths of the river Peneus, whence there is a pass over Mount Pindus to Nicopolis in Epirus; and coming to an engagement, the Thessalians killed about three thousand of his men. After this the barbarians that were with him destroying everything in their way, at last took Rome itself, which they pillaged, burning the greatest number of the magnificent structures and other admirable works of art it contained. The money and valuable articles they plundered and divided among themselves. Many of the principal senators they put to death on a variety of pretexts. Moreover, Alaric in mockery of the imperial dignity, proclaimed one Attalus
emperor, whom he ordered to be attended with all the insignia of sovereignty on one day, and to be exhibited in the habit of a slave on the next. After these achievements he made a precipitate retreat, a report having reached him that the emperor Theodosius had sent an army to fight him. Nor was this report a fictitious one; for the imperial forces were actually on their way; but Alaric, not waiting for the materialization of the rumor, decamped and escaped. It is said that as he was advancing towards Rome, a pious monk exhorted him not to delight in the perpetuation of such atrocities, and no longer to rejoice in slaughter and blood. To whom Alaric replied, ’I am not going on in this course of my own will; but there is a something that irresistibly impels me daily, saying, ‘Proceed to Rome, and desolate that city.’ Such was the career of this person.

## Footnotes

* ↑ On Alaric’s career, see Zosimus, V. 5, 6; 28–51 and V. 1–13. Cf. also parallel accounts in Sozomen, IX. 4, 6–9; and Philostorgius, XII. 2, 3; and Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 31.
* ↑ This incident is also given by Procopius of Cæsarea in Hist. Vandal. I. p. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VII/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—The Monks of Nitria come down and raise a Sedition against the Prefect of Alexandria.
Some of the monks inhabiting the mountains of Nitria, of a very fiery disposition, whom Theophilus some time before had unjustly armed against Dioscorus and his brethren, being again transported with an ardent zeal, resolved to fight in behalf of Cyril. About five hundred of them therefore quitting their monasteries, came into the city; and meeting the prefect in his chariot, they called him a pagan idolater, and applied to him many other abusive epithets. He supposing this to be a snare laid for him by Cyril, exclaimed that he was a Christian, and had been baptized by Atticus the bishop at Constantinople. As they gave but little heed to his protestations, and a certain one of them named Ammonius threw a stone at Orestes which struck him on the head and covered him with the blood that flowed from the wound, all the guards with a few exceptions fled, plunging into the crowd, some in one direction and some in another, fearing to be stoned to death. Meanwhile the populace of Alexandria ran to the rescue of the governor, and put the rest of the monks to flight; but having secured Ammonius they delivered him up to the prefect. He immediately put him publicly to the torture, which was inflicted with such severity that he died under the effects of it: and not long after he gave an account to the emperors of what had taken place. Cyril also on the other hand forwarded his statement of the matter to the emperor: and causing the body of Ammonius to be deposited in a certain church, he gave him the new appellation of Thaumasius,
ordering him to be enrolled among the martyrs, and eulogizing his magnanimity in church as that of one who had fallen in a conflict in defence of piety. But the more sober-minded, although Christians, did not accept Cyril’s prejudiced estimate of him; for they well knew that he had suffered the punishment due to his rashness, and that he had not lost his life under the torture because he would not deny Christ. And Cyril himself being conscious of this, suffered the recollection of the circumstance to be gradually obliterated by silence. But the animosity between Cyril and Orestes did not by any means subside at this point, but was kindled
afresh by an occurrence similar to the preceding.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Θαυμάσιος , ‘wonderful,’ ‘admirable.’
* ↑ The original here has ἀπέσβεσε, ‘quenched,’ ‘extinguished,’ but the context demands the very opposite meaning, unless indeed the outrage on Hypatia was considered the last in the series of occasions of quarrel between Orestes and Cyril, after which the difference gradually died out.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VII
## 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
* 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 II/Volume II/Socrates/Book VI/Introduction

Book VI.
Introduction.
The commission with which you charged us, O holy man of God, Theodore, we have executed in the five foregoing books; in which to the best of our ability, we have comprised the history of the Church from the time of Constantine. Notice, however, that we have been by no means studious of style; for we considered that had we showed too great fastidiousness about elegance of expression we might have defeated the object in view.
But even supposing our purpose could still have been accomplished, we were wholly precluded from the exercise of that discretionary power of which ancient historians seem to have so largely availed themselves, whereby any one of them imagined himself quite at liberty to amplify or curtail matters of fact. Moreover, refined composition would by no means be edifying to the masses and illiterate men, who are intent merely on knowing the facts, and not on admiring beauty of diction. In order therefore not to render my production unprofitable to both classes of readers,—to the learned on the one hand, because no elaboration of language could satisfy them to rank it with the magniloquence of the writers of antiquity, and to the unlearned on the other, because they could not understand the facts, should they be clouded by a parade of words,—we have purposely adopted a style, divested indeed of all affectation of sublimity, but at the same time clear and perspicuous.
As we begin, however, our sixth book, we must premise this, that in undertaking to detail the events of our own age, we are apprehensive of advancing such things as may be unpalatable to many: either because, according to the proverb, ‘Truth is bitter;’ on account of our not mentioning with encomium the names of those whom some may love; or from our not magnifying their actions. The zealots of our churches will condemn us for not calling the bishops ‘Most dear to God,’ ‘Most holy,’ and such like. Others will be litigious because we do not bestow the appellations ‘Most divine,’ and ‘Lords’ on the emperors, nor apply to them such other epithets as they are commonly assigned. But since I could easily prove from the testimony of ancient authors,
that among them the servant was accustomed to address his master simply by name, without reference to his dignity or titles, on account of the pressure of business, I shall in like manner obey the laws of history, which demand a simple and faithful narration, unobscured by a veil of any kind. I shall proceed to record accurately what I have either myself seen, or have been able to ascertain from actual observers; having tested the truth by the unanimity of the witnesses that spoke of the same affairs, and by every means I could possibly command. The process of ascertaining the truth was indeed laborious, inasmuch as many and different persons gave different accounts and some claimed to be eyewitnesses, while others professed to be more intimately acquainted with these things than any others.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. V. Int.
* ↑ The comic poets, e.g. Menander, Plautus, Terence.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Apology of Rufinus/Book I/Chapter 6

6. Behold the discovery of this man of the new learning! a thing which escaped the notice of the Apostles when they delivered the faith to the Church; a thing which none of the saints knew till it was revealed to this man by the spirit of the flesh. He indeed cannot expound it without bringing in an indecency. Nevertheless, I will set it forth in his hearing both more worthily and more truly. Christ is the first fruits of those that sleep; he is also called the first begotten from the dead; as also the Apostle says, “Christ is the beginning, afterward they that are Christ’s.” Since then we have Christ as the undoubted first fruits of our resurrection, how can any question arise about the rest of us? It must be evident that, whatever the members, the hair, the flesh, the bones, were in which Christ rose, in the same shall we also rise. For this purpose he offered himself to the disciples to touch after his resurrection, so that no hesitation as to his resurrection should remain. Since then Christ has given his own resurrection as a typical instance, one that is quite evident, and (as I may say) capable of being felt and handled by the hand, who can be so mad as to think that he himself will rise otherwise than as He rose who opened the door of the resurrection? This also confirms the truth of this confession of ours that, while it is the actual natural flesh and no other which will rise, yet it will rise purged from its faults and having laid aside its corruption; so that the saying of the Apostle is true: “It is sown in corruption, it will be raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it will be raised in glory; it is sown a natural body, it will be raised a spiritual body.” Inasmuch then as it is a spiritual body, and glorious, and incorruptible, it will be furnished and adorned with its own proper members, not with members taken from elsewhere, according to that glorious image of which Christ is set forth as the perpetual type, as it is said by the Apostle: “Who shall change the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 20
* ↑ Rev. i. 5
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 23
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 42–4
* ↑ animale.
* ↑ Phil. iii. 21
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Apology of Rufinus/Book II
## Contents

* Epitome of Argument
* 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
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Apology of Rufinus/Book II/Chapter 10

10. You chose a bad introducer. If you will take my counsel, both you and I will by preference turn to him who introduces us to the Father and who said ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ I lament for you, my brother, if you believe this; and if you believe it not, I still lament that you hunt through all sorts of ancient and antiquated documents for grounds for suspecting other men of perjury, while perjury, lasting and endless with all its inexplicable impiety, remains upon your own lips. Might not these words of the Apostle be rightly applied to you: “Thou that art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, being instructed out of the law, and trustest that thou thyself art a leader of the blind, a light of them that sit in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who hast a form of knowledge and of the truth in the law: Thou therefore, that teachest others, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that preachest that a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege”—that is perjury? And, what comes last and most important, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,” and your love of strife.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xiv. 6
* ↑ Rom. ii. 17–24
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Apology of Rufinus/Book II/Chapter 12

9 (2). But now let us look at the other points which he blames. He says that the doctrines in question are of heathen origin, but in this judgment he condemns himself. He calls these doctrines heathenish; yet he himself incorporates them into his works. He here makes a mistake. Still, we ought to stretch out the hand to him, and not to press him too far: for it is only because he soars so completely above the world on the wings of his eloquence, and is borne along by the full tide of invective and vituperation that he forgets himself and his reason loses its place. Do not be so rash, my brother, as to condemn yourself unnecessarily. Neither you nor Origen are at once to be set down among the heathen if, as you have yourself said, you have written these things to vindicate the justice of God, and to make answer to those who say that everything is moved by chance or by fate: if, I say, it is from your wish to show that God’s providence which governs all things is just that you have said the causes of inequality have been acquired by each soul through the passions and feelings of the former life which it had in heaven; or even if you said that it is in accordance with the character of the Trinity, which is good and simple and unchangeable that every creature should in the end of all things be restored to the state in which it was first created; and that this must be after long punishment equal to the length of all the ages, which God inflicts on each creature in the spirit not of one who is angry but of one who corrects, since he is not one who is extreme to mark iniquity; and that, his design like a physician being to heal men, he will place a term upon their punishment. Whether in this you spoke truly, let God judge; anyhow such views seem to me to contain little of impiety against God, and nothing at all of heathenism, especially if they were put forward with the desire and intention of finding some means by which the justice of God might be vindicated.