OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXXII

Chapter XXXII.
Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the “tabernacle” of the soul, in which the righteous “do groan, being burdened, not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.” Celsus ridicules this doctrine because he does not understand it, and because he has learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any reasonable grounds.  It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition to what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching on the subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then, again, as there is “a tabernacle” and “an earthly house” which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that “the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved,” but that the tabernacle shall “be clothed upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” The men of God say also that “the corruptible shall put on incorruption,” which is a different thing from “the incorruptible;” and “the mortal shall put on immortality,” which is different from “the immortal.” Indeed, what “wisdom” is to “the wise,” and “justice” to “the just,” and “peace” to “the peaceable,” the same relation does “incorruption” hold to “the incorruptible,” and “immortality” to “the immortal.” Behold, then, to what a prospect Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being clothed with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he knew nothing about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 1, 4.
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 1.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 53.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXXIII

Chapter XXXIII.
As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the resurrection in order that we may see and know God, he thus follows out his notions on the subject: “After they have been utterly refuted and vanquished, they still, as if regardless of all objections, come back again to the same question, ‘How then shall we see and know God? how shall we go to Him?’” Let any, however, who are disposed to hear us observe, that if we have need of a body for other purposes, as for occupying a material locality to which this body must be adapted, and if on that account the “tabernacle” is clothed in the way we have shown, we have no need of a body in order to know God. For that which sees God is not the eye of the body; it is the mind which is made in the image of the Creator, and which God has in His providence rendered capable of that knowledge. To see God belongs to the pure heart, out of which no longer proceed “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, the evil eye,” or any other evil thing. Wherefore it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” But as the strength of our will is not sufficient to procure the perfectly pure heart, and as we need that God should create it, he therefore who prays as he ought, offers this petition to God, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”
* ↑ Bouhèreau follows the reading, “the mind which sees what is made in the image of the Creator.”
* ↑ Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23.
* ↑ Matt. v. 8.
* ↑ Ps. li. 10.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVII.
After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us, but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that “he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man.” As he undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation. Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so superfluous a task as that of refuting them. For the Scriptures plainly speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, “No man hath seen God at any time;” and the First-born of all creation is called “the image of the invisible God,” which is the same as if it were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said something on the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the words, “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
* ↑ John i. 18.
* ↑ Col. i. 15.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXXVI

Chapter XXXVI.
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we could, he goes on to say, speaking of us:  “Again they will ask, ‘How can we know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise than through the senses are we able to gain any knowledge?’” To this he replies: “This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh. Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only will you be able to see God. And if you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms. Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce imprecations upon those others that are recognised as gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to him.” The first remark which we have to make on this passage is in regard to his use of personification, by which he makes us defend in this way the doctrine of the resurrection. This figure of speech is properly employed when the character and sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully preserved; but it is an abuse of the figure when these do not agree with the character and opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly condemn a man who put into the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or uneducated people the language of philosophy; because we know that the philosophy belonged to the author, and not to such persons, who could not know anything of philosophy. And in like manner we should condemn a man for introducing persons who are represented as wise and well versed in divine knowledge, and should make them give expression to language which could only come out of the mouths of those who are ignorant or under the influence of vulgar passions. Hence Homer is admired, among other things, for preserving a consistency of character in his heroes, as in Nestor, Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus, Penelope, and the rest. Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the comedies of Aristophanes as a frivolous talker, often putting into the mouth of a barbarian woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he had learned from Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXX

Chapter XXX.
It seems to me also that the fancy of Plato, that those stones which we call precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as it were, of the stones in that better land, is taken from the words of Isaiah in describing the city of God, “I will make thy battlements of jasper, thy stones shall be crystal, and thy borders of precious stones;” and, “I will lay thy foundations with sapphires.” Those who hold in greatest reverence the teaching of Plato, explain this myth of his as an allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we conjecture, Plato has borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly life like that of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of the sacred Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of life, and their desire to advance in divine knowledge. For our part, our purpose has been simply to say that what we affirm of that sacred land has not been taken from Plato or any of the Greeks, but that they rather—living as they did not only after Moses, who was the oldest, but even after most of the prophets—borrowed from them, and in so doing either misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects, or else endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai expressly makes a distinction between the earth and the dry land, meaning by the latter the land in which we live. He says: “Yet once, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the dry land, and the sea.”
* ↑ Isa. liv. 12, 11.
* ↑ Hagg. ii. 6.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXXV

Chapter XXXV.
Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us, assuring us that we would there “see the gods in human form, appearing to us with all distinctness, and without illusion.” For we know that these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims, and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call temples of the gods, but which we know are only the dwellings of deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in regard to these gods which, according to him, are in human form, “they do not show themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has deceived men, but they are ever open to intercourse with those who desire it.” From this remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ to His disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But how is it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and show other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one place, like these so-called gods in human form, but making its divine power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book VII/Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXVIII.
After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to ask of us “where we hope to go after death;” and he makes our answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as follows:  “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain,’ so called because they were there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life.’ Plato also, who believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name ‘land’ to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,’ says he, ‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles “divine,” and chiefly from Plato, who in his Phædon discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those who lived according to His law the holy land, which is “a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;” which promise is not to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judea; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words, “Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,” were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judea.
* ↑ Odyss., iv. 563.
* ↑ Phædo, lviii. p. 109.
* ↑ Ex. iii. 8.
* ↑ Gen. iii. 17.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Wolf, George

Edition of 1889.
​WOLF, George, governor of Pennsylvania, b. in Allen township, Northampton co., Pa., 12 Aug., 1777; d. in Philadelphia, Pa., 17 March, 1840. He was the son of a German emigrant, was educated at a classical school, taught for some time, and then studied law. Attaching himself to the Republican party at the beginning of the administration of Thomas Jefferson, he was appointed postmaster at Easton, and afterward clerk of the Northampton county orphans' court, remaining in that post till 1809. In 1814 he was elected to the state house of representatives. He was elected to congress without opposition, taking his seat on 9 Dec., 1823, and was returned at the two succeeding elections, taking the protectionist side in the debates on the tariff, and serving till 3 March, 1829. In that year he was elected governor. After inducing the legislature to prosecute the construction of canals and impose new taxes for the liquidation of debts that had already been incurred on account of internal improvements, he urged the establishment of a general system of common schools, and by strenuous efforts accomplished this reform where former governors had failed. He was once re-elected, serving six years as governor, and was then defeated as a candidate for a third term, owing to the defection of a part of the Democrats who voted for Henry A. Muhlenberg. In the following year President Jackson appointed him first comptroller of the treasury. He entered on the functions of this office on 18 June, 1836. Retiring on 23 Feb., 1838, he was in the same year appointed collector of the port of Philadelphia, and held that office till he died. He was recognized as the “father of the public-school system” by the erection of a memorial gateway at Easton, which was unveiled on 29 June, 1888.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Woodford, Stewart Lyndon

Edition of 1900.
​WOODFORD, Stewart Lyndon, lawyer, b. in New York city, 3 Sept., 1835. He studied at Yale and at Columbia, where he was graduated in 1854, and in 1857 began the practice of law in his native city. In 1860 he was chosen messenger of the electoral college of his state to convey to Washington its vote in favor of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. In 1861 he was appointed U. S. assistant district attorney for the southern ​district of New York, holding this office about eighteen months. In 1862 he entered the National army as a volunteer, serving until 1865, during which time he became in succession chief-of-staff to Gen. Quincy A. Gillmore in the Department of the South, and military commandant of Charleston and Savannah, and attained by brevet the rank of brigadier-general of volunteers. From 1866 till 1868 he was lieutenant-governor of New York, having been chosen as a Republican, but he was defeated as candidate for the governorship in 1870. In 1872 he was elected to congress, and was also chosen as a presidential elector. From 1877 until 1883 he filled the office of U. S. attorney for the southern district of New York. Since that time he has been engaged in the practice of law. He is the author of numerous public addresses, including a eulogy on Gen. George H. Thomas.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Woert, Jan Jacobus Sebald

Edition of 1889.
​WOERT, or WERT, Jan Jacobus Sebald, Dutch navigator, b. about 1550; d. in Holland about 1612. He was in the service of the East Indian company, when he sailed as rear-admiral of the fleet of Jacobus Mahn, which was sent to explore the Strait of Magellan, and left Texel in June, 1598. The admiral having died at sea in September following, Simon Van Cordes succeeded in command, and Woert became vice-admiral. After visiting Buenos Ayres and making soundings along the coast of Patagonia, they anchored in ​April, 1599, at the Pinguin islands, and a few weeks later discovered Nassau island, where the admiral established his headquarters, while Woert made journeys into the interior and had friendly intercourse with the natives. They entered the South sea on 10 Sept., and the next day Woert's ship was carried by a storm back into the straits. Unable to unite the fleet, he returned to Nassau island, whence he led surveying expeditions along the strait, prepared a valuable chart, and discovered the Sebald islands on 28 Feb., 1600. He reached Amsterdam in the following June, and in 1604 commanded a new expedition to the Strait of Magellan. Some authors assert that he died during the journey, but others contend that he sailed to the south till he encountered ice-fields. The clerk of the expedition wrote a narrative of Woert's discovery, which was translated into French as “Relation de l'expédition des amiraux Jacques Mahn, Simon de Cordes et Jean Sebald Woert, faite au détroit de Magellan” (Leyden, 1603). There is a Latin version by Jan Laet, which is included in his “Novus orbis, seu descriptionis occidentalis” (Leyden, 1633).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Wolf, Simon

Edition of 1889.
​WOLF, Simon, lawyer, b. in Hinzweiler, Bavaria, 28 Oct., 1836. He emigrated to the United States at an early age, and for several years followed business pursuits, but began to read law, and was graduated at the Cleveland law-school in 1861. In 1862 he went to Washington, and in 1869 he was appointed recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia, holding that office until May, 1878. In July, 1881, he received the post of consul-general in Egypt, which he resigned in May, 1882. He has been active in Jewish charitable and educational movements, and is a frequent lecturer on social, literary, and political topics.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Woedtke, Frederick William

Edition of 1889.
​WOEDTKE, Frederick William (vet'-keh), Baron de, soldier, b. in Prussia, about 1740; d. near Lake George, N. Y., 31 July, 1776. He was for many years an officer in the army of Frederick the Great, attaining the rank of major. Coming to Philadelphia with letters of recommendation from friends of America in Paris, he was appointed a brigadier-general on 16 March, 1776, and ordered to join the Northern army. He took part, about three weeks before his death, in a council of war at Crown Point, which decided, against the advice of Col. John Stark and others, to evacuate that post and fall back on Mount Independence.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Wood, William B.

Edition of 1900.
​WOOD, William B., actor, b. in Montreal, Canada, 26 May, 1779; d. in Philadelphia, 23 Sept., 1861. He was brought in childhood to New York city, where he began life as a clerk. Feeling that he had a vocation for the stage, he set out for Annapolis, Md., with a capital of three doubloons, and through the courtesy of Manager Wignell, an old family friend, he made his first appearance there on 26 June, 1798, as George Barnwell. He was partially successful, and began an engagement the same year in Philadelphia in “Secrets Worth Knowing.” On 30 Jan., 1804, he married Juliana Westray, an actress, and in the autumn of 1809 he purchased of William Warren one half of his interest in the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington theatres. Previous to entering upon the duties of management he visited New York city and played De Valmont. In the autumn of 1810 he began his career as manager in Baltimore, and from September, 1812, till the close of the season of 1820, he divided his time between that city and Philadelphia, where his company played at the Chestnut street theatre. On 2 April, 1820, the latter edifice was destroyed by fire, and, as the insurance had expired a few days before, the loss was heavy. Having secured a lease of the Walnut street theatre, the Warren-Wood company began to play again in Philadelphia the following November. On the 27th of that month Master Edwin Forrest made his first appearance there on any stage in “Douglas.” The Chestnut street theatre having been rebuilt, it was opened by the same managers on 2 Dec., 1822, with the “School for Scandal,” Warren playing Sir Peter Teazle, and Wood, Charles Surface. In 1826 the sixteen years' partnership between the two managers was terminated by the withdrawal of Mr. Wood. On 1 Oct., 1828, the latter undertook the management of the Arch street theatre, Philadelphia, then just built; but the enterprise was not successful, and the rest of his theatrical career was divided between management and acting in the same city. He retired finally from the stage, 18 Nov., 1846, on the occasion of a benefit at the Walnut street theatre. For an account of his career, and much information regarding the American stage, see his “Personal Recollections of the Stage” (Philadelphia, 1855). — His wife, Juliana, whose maiden name was Westray, first appeared at the Haymarket theatre, Boston, in 1797. The following year she came to New York, where she made her début at the Park as Sarsnet in “The Deserted Daughter.” She soon after joined the company in which Mr. Wood was playing, and after her marriage continued to act in the theatres that he managed.