OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Sacred History/Book II/Chapter 33

Chapter XXXIII.
Well, the end of the persecutions was reached eighty-eight years ago, at which date the emperors began to be Christians. For Constantine then obtained the sovereignty, and he was the first Christian of all the Roman rulers. At that time, it is true, Licinius, who was a rival of Constantine for the empire, had commanded his soldiers to sacrifice, and was expelling from the service those who refused to do so. But that is not reckoned among the persecutions; it was an affair of too little moment to be able to inflict any wound upon the churches. From that time, we have continued to enjoy tranquillity; nor do I believe that there will be any further persecutions, except that which Antichrist will carry on just before the end of the world. For it has been proclaimed in divine words, that the world was to be visited by ten afflictions; and since nine of these have already been endured, the one which remains must be
the last. During this period of time, it is marvelous how the Christian religion has prevailed. For Jerusalem which had presented a horrible mass of ruins was then adorned with most numerous and magnificent churches. And Helena, the mother of the emperor Constantine (who reigned along with her son as Augusta), having a strong desire to behold Jerusalem, cast down the idols and the temples which were found there; and in course of time, through the exercise of her royal powers, she erected churches on the site of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension. It is a remarkable fact that the spot on which the divine footprints had last been left when the Lord was carried up in a cloud to heaven, could not be joined by a pavement with the remaining part of the street. For the earth, unaccustomed to mere human contact, rejected all the appliances laid upon it, and often threw back the blocks of marble in the faces of those who were seeking to place them. Moreover, it is an enduring proof of the soil of that place having been trodden by God, that the footprints are still to be seen; and although the faith of those who daily flock to that place, leads them to vie with each other in seeking to carry away what had been trodden by the feet of the Lord, yet the sand of the place suffers no injury; and the earth still preserves the same appearance which it presented of old, as if it had been sealed by the footprints impressed upon it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ “decem plagis.”
* ↑ “basilicas”: edifices, which, in size and grandeur, had some resemblance to a royal palace.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Sacred History/Book II/Chapter 35

Chapter XXXV.
Such were the things accomplished by Helena, while, under a Christian prince, the world had both attained to liberty, and possessed in him an exemplar of faith. But a far more dreadful danger than all that had preceded fell upon all the churches from that state of tranquillity. For then the Arian heresy burst forth, and disturbed the whole world by the error which it instilled. For by means of the two Ariuses, who were the most active originators of this unfaithfulness, the emperor himself was led astray; and while he seemed to himself to fulfill a religious duty, he proceeded to a violent exercise of persecution. The bishops were driven into exile: cruelty was exerted against the clerics; and even the laity were punished, who had separated from the communion of the Arians. Now, the doctrines which the Arians proclaimed were of the following nature,—that God the Father had begotten his Son for the purpose of creating the world; and that, by his power, he had made out of nothing into a new and second substance, a new and second God; and that there was a time when the Son had no existence. To meet this evil, a synod was convened from the whole world to meet at Nicæa. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were there assembled: the faith was fully set forth in writing; the Arian heresy was condemned; and the emperor confirmed the whole by an imperial decree. The Arians, then, not daring to make any further attempt against the orthodox faith, mixed themselves among the churches, as if they acquiesced in the conclusions which had been reached, and did not hold any different opinions.
There remained, however, in their hearts, a deep-seated hatred against the Catholics, and they assailed, with suborned accusers and trumped-up charges, those with whom they could not contend in argument on matters of faith.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The one of these was Arius, the author of the heresy, and the other a presbyter of Alexandria bearing the same name.
* ↑ Both the text and meaning are here obscure. We have read, with Halm, “fecisse” for the usual “factum.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Sacred History/Book II/Chapter 32

Chapter XXXII.
After Adrian, the churches had peace under the rule of Antoninus Pius. Then the fifth persecution began under Aurelius, the son of Antoninus. And then, for the first time, martyrdoms were seen taking place in Gaul, for the religion of God had been accepted somewhat late beyond the Alps. Then the sixth persecution of the Christians took place under the emperor Severus. At this time Leonida, the father of Origen, poured forth his sacred blood in martyrdom. Then, during an interval of thirty-eight years, the Christians enjoyed peace, except that at the middle of that time Maximinus persecuted the clerics of some churches. Ere long, under Decius as emperor, the seventh bloody persecution broke out against the Christians. Next, Valerian proved himself the eighth enemy of the saints. After him, with an interval of about fifty years, there arose, under the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, a most bitter persecution which, for ten continuous years, wasted the people of God. At this period, almost the whole world was stained with the sacred blood of the martyrs. In fact, they vied with each other in rushing upon these glorious struggles, and martyrdom by glorious deaths was then much more keenly sought after than bishoprics are now attempted to be got by wicked ambition. Never more than at that time was the world exhausted by wars, nor did we ever achieve victory with a greater triumph than when we showed that we could not be conquered by the slaughters of ten long years. There survive also accounts of the sufferings of the martyrs at that time which were committed to writing; but I do not think it suitable to subjoin these lest I should exceed the limits prescribed to this work.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Sulpitius Severus/Sacred History/Book II/Chapter 36

Chapter XXXVI.
Accordingly, they first attack and condemn in his absence Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, a holy man, who had been present as deacon at the Synod of Nicæa. For they added to the charges which false witnesses had heaped up against him, this one, that, with wicked intentions, he had received Marcellus and Photinus, heretical priests who had been condemned by a sentence of the Synod. Now, it was not doubtful as to Photinus that he had been justly condemned. But in the case of Marcellus, it seemed that nothing had then been found worthy of condemnation, and a belief in his innocence was above all strengthened by the animus of that party, inasmuch as no one doubted that those same judges were heretical by whom he had been condemned. But the Arians did not so much desire to get these persons out of the way as Athanasius himself. Accordingly, they constrain the emperor to go so far as this, that Athanasius should be sent as an exile into Gaul. But ere long, eighty bishops, assembling together in Egypt, declare that Athanasius had been unjustly condemned. The matter is referred to Constantine: he orders bishops from the whole world to assemble at Sardes, and that the entire process by which Athanasius had been condemned, should be reconsidered by the council. In the meantime, Constantine dies, but the Synod, called together while he was yet emperor, acquits Athanasius. Marcellus, too, is restored to his bishopric, but the sentence on Photinus, bishop of Sirmion, was not rescinded; for even in the judgment of our friends, he is regarded as a heretic. However, even this result chagrined Marcellus, because Photinus was known to have been his disciple in his youth. But this, too, tended to secure an acquittal for Athanasius, that Ursatius and Valens, leading men among the Arians, when they were openly separated from the communion of the Church after the Synod at Sardes, entering into the presence of Julius, bishop of Rome, asked pardon of him for having condemned the innocent, and publicly declared that he had been justly acquitted by the decree of the Council of Sardes.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Different periods and events are here mixed up by our author.
* ↑ The text is in utter confusion, and we can only make a probable guess at the meaning.
* ↑ It has been remarked that Sulpitius is in error in ascribing the summoning of this council to Constantine the Great, instead of his son Constantine II. The curious thing is that he should have made a mistake regarding an event so near his own time.
* ↑ “qui etiam nostrorum judicio hæreticus probatur.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 27

Chapter XXVII.—An Argument Urging It Upon the Remnant of Idolaters that They Should at Length Become Servants of This True God, Who Everywhere is Subverting Idols.
42. Let them now give their answer with respect to the God of Israel, to whom, as teaching and enjoining such things, witness is borne not only by the books of the Christians, but also by those of the Jews. Regarding Him, let them ask the counsel of their own deities, who have prevented the blaspheming of Christ. Concerning the God of Israel, let them give a contumelious response if they dare. But whom are they to consult? or where are they to ask counsel now? Let them peruse the books of their own authorities. If they consider the God of Israel to be Jupiter, as Varro has written (that I may speak for the time being in accordance with their own way of thinking), why then do they not believe that the idols are to be destroyed by Jupiter? If they deem Him to be Saturn, why do they not worship Him? Or why do they not worship Him in that manner in which, by the voice of those prophets through whom He has made good the things which He has foretold, He has ordained His worship to be conducted? Why do they not believe that images are to be destroyed by Him, and the worship of other gods forbidden? If He is neither Jove nor Saturn (and surely, if He were one of these, He would not speak out so mightily against the sacred rites of their Jove and Saturn), who then is this God, who, with all their consideration for other gods, is the only Deity not worshipped by them, and who, nevertheless, so manifestly brings it about that He shall Himself be the sole object of worship, to the overthrow of all other gods, and to the humiliation of everything proud and highly exalted, which has lifted itself up against Christ in behalf of idols, persecuting and slaying Christians? But, in good truth, men are now asking into what secret recesses these worshippers withdraw, when they are minded to offer sacrifice; or into what regions of obscurity they thrust back these same gods of theirs, to prevent their being discovered and broken in pieces by the Christians. Whence comes this mode of dealing, if not from the fear of those laws and those rulers by whose instrumentality the God of Israel discovers His power, and who are now made subject to the name of Christ. And that it should be so He promised long ago, when He said by the prophet: “Yea, all kings of the earth shall worship Him: all nations shall serve Him.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Reading Si Saturnum putant. Others read, Si Saturnum Deum putant = if they deem Saturn to be God, etc.
* ↑ Ps. lxxii. 11.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 29

Chapter XXIX.—Of the Question Why the Heathen Should Refuse to Worship the God of Israel; Even Although They Deem Him to Be Only the Presiding Divinity of the Elements?
45. What do they say of this God of Sabaoth, which term, by interpretation, means the God of powers or of armies, inasmuch as the powers and the armies of the angels serve Him? What do they say of this God of Israel; for He is the God of that people from whom came the seed wherein all the nations were to be blessed? Why is He the only deity excluded from worship by those very persons who contend that all the gods ought to be worshipped? Why do they refuse their belief to Him who both proves other gods to be false gods, and also overthrows them? I have heard one of them declare that he had read, in some philosopher or other, the statement that, from what the Jews did in their sacred observances, he had come to know what God they worshipped. “He is the deity,” said he, “that presides over those elements of which this visible and material universe is constructed;” when in the Holy Scriptures of His prophets it is plainly shown that the people of Israel were commanded to worship that God who made heaven and earth, and from whom comes all true wisdom. But what need is there for further disputation on this subject, seeing that it is quite sufficient for my present purpose to point out how they entertain any kind of presumptuous opinions regarding that God whom yet they cannot deny to be a God? If, indeed, He is the deity that presides over the elements of which this world consists, why is He not worshipped in preference to Neptune, who presides over the sea only? Why not, again, in preference to Silvanus, who presides over the fields and woods only? Why not in preference to the Sun, who presides over the day only, or who also rules over the entire heat of heaven? Why not in preference to the Moon, who presides over the night only, or who also shines pre-eminent for power over moisture? Why not in preference to Juno, who is supposed to hold possession of the air only? For certainly those deities, whoever they may be, who preside over the parts, must necessarily be under that Deity who wields the presidency over all the elements, and over the entire universe. But this Deity prohibits the worship of all those deities. Why, then, is it that these men, in opposition to the injunction of One greater than those deities, not only choose to worship them, but also decline, for their sakes, to worship Him? Not yet have they discovered any constant and intelligible judgment to pronounce on this God of Israel; neither will they ever discover any such judgment, until they find out that He alone is the true God, by whom all things were created.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book I/Chapter 34

Chapter XXXIV.—Epilogue to the Preceding.
52. Much more might I say on this subject, were it not that the requirements of the task which I have undertaken compel me to conclude this book, and revert to the object originally proposed. When, indeed, I took it in hand to solve those problems of the Gospels which meet us where the four evangelists, as it seems to certain critics, fail to harmonize with each other, by setting forth to the best of my ability the particular designs which they severally have in view, I was met first by the necessity of discussing a question which some are accustomed to bring before us,—the question, namely, as to the reason why we cannot produce any writings composed by Christ Himself. For their aim is to get Him credited with the writing of some other composition, I know not of what sort, which may be suitable to their inclinations, and with having indulged in no sentiments of antagonism to their gods, but rather with having paid respect to them in a kind of magical worship; and their wish is also to get it believed that His disciples not only gave a false account of Him when they declared Him to be the God by whom all things were made, while He was really nothing more than a man, although certainly a man of the most exalted wisdom, but also that they taught with regard to these gods of theirs something different from what they had themselves learned from Him. This is how it happens that we have been engaged preferentially in pressing them with arguments concerning the God of Israel, who is now worshipped by all nations through the medium of the Church of the Christians, who is also subverting their sacrilegious vanities the whole world over, exactly as He announced by the mouth of the prophets so long ago, and who has now fulfilled those predictions by the name of Christ, in whom He had promised that all nations should be blessed. And from all this they ought to understand that Christ could neither have known nor taught anything else with regard to their gods than what was enjoined and foretold by the God of Israel through the agency of these prophets of His by whom He promised, and ultimately sent, this very Christ, in whose name, according to the promise given to the fathers, when all nations were pronounced blessed, it has come to pass that this same God of Israel should be called the God of the whole earth. By this, too, they ought to see that His disciples did not depart from the doctrine of their Master when they forbade the worship of the gods of the Gentiles, with the view of preventing us from addressing our supplications to insensate images, or from having fellowship with demons, or from serving the creature rather than the Creator with the homage of religious worship.
# Notable South Australians/Matthew Smith, J.P.

* related authors: Matthew Smith (1794-1858).
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Layout 2
Matthew Smith, J.P.,
ARRIVED in the colony by the "Africaine" in November, 1836. He resided for a short time at Kangaroo Island, and afterwards practised the profession of the law in Adelaide. On the early settlement of Port Lincoln Mr. Smith was appointed a Resident Magistrate. He ultimately returned to Adelaide, where he continued to conduct a respectable practice, and filled at intervals the important offices of Stipendiary Magistrate, and Acting Commissioner of Insolvency. On his retirement from the public service, Mr. Smith was the recipient of a testimonial from the members of the legal profession in Adelaide. He died at Prospect, Nov. 18, 1858, aged sixty-four years. He was a man of great intelligence, and much liked by all classes of the community.
# Notable South Australians/Louis Edouard Bourbaud

Layout 2
Louis Edouard Bourbaud,
BORN at Cognac, in the Department of Charente, France, in 1838, where he passed his youth amongst vine-growing pursuits. Entered the navy at an early age, and whilst holding the office of Lieutenant of the ship "Ulme," took part in the bombardment of Sebastopol by the allied fleet. For his services in the Crimean war he received two medals from Queen Victoria, with other honors. During the Franco-Prussian War he held a captaincy in the National Guard at Paris, and when the Communists obtained possession of the capital, commanded the 75th Regiment at the siege instituted by the National Assembly. In 1875 M. Bourbaud was sent to the colony by Mr. Dutton, the then Agent-General for S.A., under engagement to the Government to promote the wine-growing industry here. This he succeeded in doing, and about a year after his arrival established the S. A. United Vineyards Association, the management of which he retained for a year and then resigned. His next venture was the Franco- Australian Alimentary Company, which was disposed of to Mr. Conrad. Subsequently he started the S. A. Winegrowers' Association, the management of which he retained till the time of his decease. In addition to this, he had charge of the vineyards of wines of Sir Thomas Elder, at Birksgate, Mr. S. Davenport, at Beaumont, and Mr. C. B. Young, at Kanmantoo. He was probably the cleverest expert in blending and treating wines the colony has ever had, ​and during his residence here contributed in a practical degree to our viticultural literature. In addition to this he wrote and published several interesting pamphlets on the wine-producing interests, olive cultivation, and kindred subjects. M. Bourbaud was indefatigable in his endeavours to promote commercial relationship between South Australia and his native land, and to a certain extent he was successful. His death took place at Adelaide, February, 1883, in his fortyfifth year, and he left a wife and four sons.
# Notable South Australians/Mary Skipper

Layout 2
Mary Skipper,
THE second daughter of the late Mr. Robert Thomas (founder of the Press in South Australia), was born August 30, 1823, in London. She arrived in this colony in 1836, with her father, in the "Africaine," and was present at the proclamation of the colony. Her literary tastes were of no mean order; she wrote some clever poetical and prose productions and was also skilful with her pencil. A journal of colonial experiences, dating from the earliest history of the province, and carried on up to a few years ago, by her, is still in existence, and valuable from a historical point of view, as she was a keen observer and shrewd reasoner. In her youth this lady was a fearless horsewoman, and delighted to make long excursions into the hilly country, a rather hazardous undertaking, as it required some nerve to penetrate into the roadless regions surrounding the Adelaide of thirty or forty years ago. In 1856 she married the late J. M. Skipper, and died on the anniversary of their silver wedding. As one of that small band of "women pioneers," who went through all the vicissitudes of those early hard times, and saw the progress of this young colony from its commencement, she took a deep, intelligent interest in the ​march of events, and had she been spared, could have contributed much reliable and valuable information concerning the first settlement. Of the old pioneers she wrote the following:—
"I can bat sing in mournful strain,  When I recall those earlier years, And those we ne'er shall meet again—  The lost and loved bold pioneers. Who marked the track? who broke the soil?  Who shared oar mingled hopes and fears, 'Mid nights of peril, days of toil,  Bat those old dauntless pioneers? There's scarce a scene I can retrace  Without some sad regretful tears For each familiar form and face  Of those fine brave old pioneers."
# Notable South Australians/Mrs. Esther Solomon

Layout 2
Mrs. Esther Solomon.
THIS lady, who was the widow of the late Samuel Moss Solomon, arrived in Sydney in the ship "Enchantress," in May 1833. She came to South Australia about the year 1852, and died on July 13, 1875, at Norwood, aged 100 years and six months. Mrs. Solomon is the only centenarian we have heard of in this colony, and she evidently came of a long-lived family. Her sister, who resided in London, died at the age of ninety-one years, and her aunt at the age of 105 years. Such remarkable instances of longevity are rare at the antipodes. Mrs. Solomon was of cheerful disposition and very witty and original in conversation.