OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/John, the apostle and evangelist

Chapter IX.
John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, the apostle whom Herod, after our Lord’s passion, beheaded, most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity. But there is said to be yet another reason for this work, in that when he had read Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he approved indeed the substance of the history and declared that the things they said were true, but that they had given the history of only one year, the one, that is, which follows the imprisonment of John and in which he was put to death. So passing by this year the events of which had been set forth by these, he related the events of the earlier period before John was shut up in prison, so that it might be manifest to those who should diligently read the volumes of the four Evangelists. This also takes away the discrepancy which there seems to be between John and the others. He wrote also one Epistle which begins as follows “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life” which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in the church or in learning. The other two of which the first is “The elder to the elect lady and her children” and the other “The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,” are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist. We shall treat of this matter in its turn when we come to Papias his disciple. In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenæus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Exiled to Patmos 94–95.
* ↑ GaiusA H 25 30 31 a e; Caius Her. T.
* ↑ in its turn A H T 31 a e Val. etc; omit T. 25 30.
* ↑ after Nero A H 30 31 a e. Bamb. Norimb. Cypr. Val.; omit T 25.
* ↑ Pertinax A H T 25 30 31 a e Norimb. Cypr. etc; Nerva Pertinax Bamb. Ambros. Her.; Nerva principe. Val.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Jude, the brother of James

Chapter IV.
Jude the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch it is rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Died after 62.
* ↑ in itH 31 a e 10 21; omit A T 25 30.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Julius the African

Chapter LXIII.
Julius Africanus, whose five volumes On Chronology, are yet extant, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who succeeded Macrinus, received a commission to restore the city of Emmaus, which afterwards was called Nicopolis. There is an epistle of his to Origen, On the question of Susanna, where it is contended that this story is not contained in the Hebrew, and is not consistent with the Hebrew etymology in respect of the play on “prinos and prisai,” “schinos and schisai.” In reply to this, Origen wrote a learned epistle. There is extant another letter of his, To Aristides, in which he discusses at length the discrepancies, which appear in the genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded by Matthew and Luke.

## Footnotes

* ↑ …221.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book II/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Of the Temptation of Jesus.
33. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in these terms: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And so the account continues, until we come to the words, Then the devil left him: and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him.” This whole narrative is given also in a similar manner by Luke, although not in the same order. And this makes it uncertain which of the two latter temptations took place first: whether it was that the kingdoms of the world were shown Him first, and then that He Himself was taken up to the pinnacle of the temple thereafter; or whether it was that this latter act occurred first, and that the other scene followed it. It is, however, a matter of no real consequence, provided it be clear that all these incidents did take place. And as Luke sets forth the same events and ideas in different words, attention need not ever be called to the fact that no loss results thereby to truth. Mark, again, does indeed attest the fact that He was tempted of the devil in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights; but he gives no statement of what was said to Him, or of the replies He made. At the same time, he does not fail to notice the circumstance which is omitted by Luke, namely, that the angels ministered unto Him. John, however, has left out this whole passage.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Reliquit.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 1–11.
* ↑ Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1–13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book II/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—Of the Baptism of Jesus.
30. Matthew then continues his narrative in the following terms: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered Him.” The others also attest the fact that Jesus came to John. The three also mention that He was baptized. But they omit all mention of one circumstance recorded by Matthew, namely, that John addressed the Lord, or that the Lord made answer to John.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Dimisit eum.
* ↑ Matt. iii. 13-15; Mark i. 9; Luke iii. 21; John i. 32–34.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book II/Chapter 18

Chapter XVIII.—Of the Date of His Departure into Galilee.
42. Furthermore, we must consider the question how the evangelist John, before there is any mention of the casting of John the Baptist into prison, tells us that Jesus went into Galilee. For, after relating how He turned the water into wine at Cana of Galilee, and how He came down to Capernaum with His mother and His disciples, and how they abode there not many days, he tells us that He went up then to Jerusalem on account of the passover; that after this He came into the land of Judæa along with His disciples, and tarried there with them, and baptized; and then in what follows at this point the evangelist says: “And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came, and were baptized: for John was not yet cast into prison.” On the other hand, Matthew says: “Now when He had heard that John was cast into prison, Jesus departed into Galilee.” In like manner, Mark’s words are: “Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee.” Luke, again, says nothing indeed about the imprisonment of John; but notwithstanding this, after his account of the baptism and temptation of Christ, he also makes a statement to the same effect with that of these other two, namely, that Jesus went into Galilee. For he has connected the several parts of his narrative here in this way: “And when all the temptation was ended, the devil departed from Him for a season; and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and there went out a fame of Him through all the region round about.” From all this, however, we may gather, not that these three evangelists have made any statement opposed to the evangelist John, but only that they have left unrecorded the Lord’s first advent in Galilee after His baptism; on which occasion also He turned the water into wine there. For at that period John had not yet been cast into prison. And we are also to understand that these three evangelists have introduced into the context of these narratives an account of another journey of His into Galilee, which took place after John’s imprisonment, regarding which return into Galilee the evangelist John himself furnishes the following notice: “When, therefore, Jesus knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus makes and baptizes more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples), he left Judæa, and departed again into Galilee.” So, then, we perceive that by that time John had been already cast into prison; and further, that the Jews had heard that He was making and baptizing more disciples than John had made and baptized.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John ii. 13, iii. 22–24.
* ↑ Matt. iv. 12.
* ↑ Mark i. 14.
* ↑ Luke iv. 13, 14.
* ↑ John iv. 1–3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book II/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—An Explanation of the Circumstance That, According to the Evangelist John, John the Baptist Says, “I Knew Him Not;” While, According to the Others, It is Found that He Did Already Know Him.
32. Again, the account of the dove given in the Gospel according to John does not mention the time at which the incident happened, but contains a statement of the words of John the Baptist as reporting what he saw. In this section, the question rises as to how it is said, “And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” For if he came to know Him only at the time when he saw the dove descending upon Him, the inquiry is raised as to how he could have said to Him, as He came to be baptized, “I ought rather to be baptized of Thee.” For the Baptist addressed Him thus before the dove descended. From this, however, it is evident that, although he did know Him [in a certain sense] before this time,—for he even leaped in his mother’s womb when Mary visited Elisabeth,—there was yet something which was not known to him up to this time, and which he learned by the descending of the dove,—namely, the fact that He baptized in the Holy Spirit by a certain divine power proper to Himself; so that no man who received this baptism from God, even although he baptized some, should be able to say that that which he imparted was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ John i. 33.
* ↑ Matt. iii. 14.
* ↑ Luke i. 41.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book II/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—An Explanation of the Sense in Which Christ is the Son of David, Although He Was Not Begotten in the Way of Ordinary Generation by Joseph the Son of David.
4. Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that “Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh,” how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? Moreover, since this woman’s connection with the priestly family also is a matter not left in absolute obscurity, inasmuch as Luke inserts the statement that Elisabeth, whom he records to be of the daughters of Aaron, was her cousin, we ought most firmly to hold by the fact that the flesh of Christ sprang from both lines; to wit, from the line of the kings, and from that of the priests, in the case of which persons there was also instituted a certain mystical unction which was symbolically expressive among this people of the Hebrews. In other words, there was a chrism; which term makes the import of the name of Christ patent, and presents it as something indicated so long time ago by an intimation so very intelligible.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. i. 3.
* ↑ Luke i. 5.
* ↑ Luke i. 36.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume XIII/On Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians
## Contents

* Title Page
* Preface
* On Philippians
* On Colossians
* On First Thessalonians
* On 2 Thessalonians
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume XIII/On Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians/On 2 Thessalonians
## Contents

* Argument
* 2 Thessalonians 1:1,2
* 2 Thessalonians 1:9,10
* 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9
* 2 Thessalonians 3:3-5
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume XIII/On Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians/On Colossians
## Contents

* Colossians 1:1,2
* Colossians 1:9,10
* Colossians 1:15-18
* Colossians 1:21,22
* Colossians 1:26-28
* Colossians 2:6,7
* Colossians 2:16-19
* Colossians 3:5-7
* Colossians 3:16,17
* Colossians 3:18-25
* Colossians 4:5,6
* Colossians 4:12,13
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 33

33. Conduct of the Arians towards the consecrated Virgins.
The Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, having become man for our sakes, and having destroyed death, and delivered our race from the bondage of corruption, in addition to all His other benefits bestowed this also upon us, that we should possess upon earth, in the state of virginity, a picture of the holiness of Angels. Accordingly such as have attained this virtue, the Catholic Church has been accustomed to call the brides of Christ. And the heathen who see them express their admiration of them as the temples of the Word. For indeed this holy and heavenly profession is nowhere established, but only among us Christians, and it is a very strong argument that with us is to be found the genuine and true religion. Your most religious father Constantine Augustus, of blessed memory, honoured the Virgins above all the rest, and your Piety in several letters has given them the titles of the honourable and holy women. But now these worthy Arians who have slandered me, and by whom conspiracies have been formed against most of the Bishops, having obtained the consent and cooperation of the magistrates, first stripped them, and then caused them to be suspended upon what are called the Hermetaries, and scourged them on the ribs so severely three several times, that not even real malefactors have ever suffered the like. Pilate, to gratify the Jews of old, pierced one of our Saviour’s sides with a spear. These men have exceeded the madness of Pilate, for they have scourged not one but both His sides; for the limbs of the Virgins are in an especial manner the Saviour’s own. All men shudder at hearing the bare recital of deeds like these. These men alone not only did not fear to strip and to scourge those undefiled limbs, which the Virgins had dedicated solely to our Saviour Christ; but, what is worse than all, when they were reproached by every one for such extreme cruelty, instead of manifesting any shame, they pretended that it was commanded by your Piety. So utterly presumptuous are they and full of wicked thoughts and purposes. Such a deed as this was never heard of in past persecutions: or supposing that it ever occurred before, yet surely it was not befitting either that Virginity should suffer such outrage and dishonour, in the time of your Majesty, a Christian, or that these men should impute to your Piety their own cruelty. Such wickedness belongs only to heretics, to blaspheme the Son of God, and to do violence to His holy Virgins.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Tim. i. 10; Rom. viii. 21.
* ↑ Cf. Ep. Fest. i. 3, Ep. ad Amun, also de Incar. 27, 48, 51.
* ↑ [Revillout (in the work quoted supr. p. 188), p. 479 sq. states the contrary with regard to Egypt. He refers to the opening of Plutarch’s de Is. et Osir., also to Brunet de Presle Serapeum.]
* ↑ A rack, or horse, Tillemont. vol. viii. p. 169.
* ↑ Vid. Hist. Ar. §§40, 64.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 34

34. He expostulates with Constantius.
Now when such enormities as these were again perpetrated by the Arians, I surely was not wrong in complying with the direction of Holy Scripture, which says, ‘Hide thyself for a little moment, until the wrath of the Lord be overpast.’ This was another reason for my withdrawing myself, Augustus, most beloved of God; and I refused not, either to depart into the desert, or, if need were, to be let down from a wall in a basket. I endured everything, I even dwelt among wild beasts, that your favour might return to me, waiting for an opportunity to offer to you this my defence, confident as I am that they will be condemned, and your goodness manifested unto me. O, Augustus, blessed and most beloved of God, what would you have had me to do? to come to you while my calumniators were inflamed with rage against me, and were seeking to kill me; or, as it is written, to hide myself a little, that in the mean time they might be condemned as heretics, and your goodness might be manifested unto me? or would you have had me, Sire, to appear before your magistrates, in order that though you had written merely in the way of threatening, they not understanding your intention, but being exasperated against me by the Arians, might kill me on the authority of your letters, and on that ground ascribe the murder to you? It would neither have been becoming in me to surrender, and give myself up that my blood might be shed, nor in you, as a Christian King, to have the murder of Christians, and those too Bishops, imputed unto you.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Is. xxvi. 20, LXX.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xi. 33.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 4

4. The movements of Athanasius refute this charge.
This certainly is sufficient for proof, yet suffer me nevertheless to lay before you an account of my travels, which will further lead you to condemn the unfounded calumnies of my opponents. When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s head-quarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship. I did not write to your brother, except when Eusebius and his fellows had written to him to accuse me, and I was compelled while yet at Alexandria to defend myself; and again when I sent to him volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him. It behoves me, while I defend my conduct, to tell the truth to your Piety. When however three years had passed away, he wrote to me in the fourth year, commanding me to meet him (he was then at Milan); and upon enquiring the cause (for I was ignorant of it, the Lord is my witness), I learnt that certain Bishops had gone up and requested him to write to your Piety, desiring that a Council might be called. Believe me, Sire, this is the truth of the matter; I lie not. Accordingly I went down to Milan, and met with great kindness from him; for he condescended to see me, and to say that he had despatched letters to you, requesting that a Council might be called. And while I remained in that city, he sent for me again into Gaul (for the father Hosius was going thither), that we might travel from thence to Sardica. And after the Council, he wrote to me while I continued at Naissus, and I went up, and abode afterwards at Aquileia; where the letters of your Piety found me. And again, being invited thence by your departed brother, I returned into Gaul, and so came at length to your Piety.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [a.d. 339.]
* ↑ πύκτια, a bound book, vid. Montf. Coll. Nov. infr. Tillemont (t. viii. p. 86.) considers that Athan. alludes in this passage to the Synopsis Scr. Sacr. which is among his works; but Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxviii. contends that a copy of the Gospels is spoken of. [cf. D.C.B. i. 651.]
* ↑ [a.d. 342.]
* ↑ Tillemont supposes that Constans was present at the Council of Milan [345], at which Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius, sent to the west with the Eusebian Creed, made their appearance to no purpose. [But this was long after the events related in the text, cf. Prolegg. ii. §6, sub. fin.]
* ↑ [Easter 344, see Fest. Ind. xvi.] Naissus was situated in Upper Dacia, and according to some was the birthplace of Constantine. The Bishop of the place, Gaudentius, whose name occurs among the subscriptions at Sardica, had protected S. Paul of Constantinople and incurred the anathemas of the Easterns at Philippopolis. Hil. Fragm. iii. 27.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 7

7. This charge utterly incredible and absurd.
Is it not mere madness in my accuser even to suspect me of such a thing? What, I ask again, could induce me to place confidence in this man? What trait did I perceive in his character on which I could rely? He had murdered his own master; he had proved faithless to his friends; he had violated his oath; he had blasphemed God, by consulting poisoners and sorcerers contrary to his Law. And with what conscience could I send greeting to such a man, whose madness and cruelty had afflicted not me only, but all the world around me? To be sure, I was very greatly indebted to him for his conduct, that when your departed brother had filled our churches with sacred offerings, he murdered him. For the wretch was not moved by the sight of these his gifts, nor did he stand in awe of the divine grace which had been given to him in baptism: but like an accursed and devilish spirit, he raged against him, till your blessed brother suffered martyrdom at his hands; while he, henceforth a criminal like Cain, was driven from place to place, ‘groaning and trembling,’ to the end that he might follow the example of Judas in his death, by becoming his own executioner, and so bring upon himself a double weight of punishment in the judgment to come.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bingh. Antiqu. xvi. 5. §5, &c.
* ↑ Gen. iv. 12. LXX. vid. Hist. Ar. §7.