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

Chapter XXXI.
He next charges the Christians with being “guilty of sophistical reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself.” And he thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because “when we declare the Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and crucifixion.” Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and that God gave commandment respecting the creation of such mighty things in the world, and they were created; and that He who received the command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes these statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote the declaration, “He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction,”—a passage of which we spoke a little ago. Now, although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval of the statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do, in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this:  “If your Logos is the Son of God, we also give our assent to the same.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXII

Chapter XXXII.
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenters wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question?  Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXIII

Chapter XXXIII.
“But,” continues Celsus, “what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?” Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?” But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is:  “Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.”
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xxvii. 51, 52; cf. Luke xxiii. 44, 45.
* ↑ ὦ οὗτος.
* ↑ [Testimony not to be scorned.]
* ↑ On Phlegon, cf. note in Migne, pp. 823, 854. [See also vol. iii. Elucidation V. p. 58.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXIV

Chapter XXXIV.
This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as being acquainted with the Bacchæ of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:—
“The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish.”
Now the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose that there was a Jew so well versed in it (as to make such a quotation on his part appropriate), how (does it follow) that Jesus could not liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings of sorcerers. “But,” he continues, “no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz., madness or discerption.” And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that “for envy the Jews had delivered Him”), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate’s wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him?” And again, passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives?  And did you, accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach; while they who recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation, or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything unbecoming.
* ↑ Eurip., Bacchæ, 498 (ed. Dindorf).
* ↑ Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles., bk. ii. c. vii.
* ↑ Matt. xxvii. 19.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXXVI

Chapter XXXVI.
Celsus next says: “What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it ‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods?’” He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after His death, “one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith the truth.” Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and water flowed forth from the side.  But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying, “This man was the Son of God.”
* ↑ Cf. Iliad, v. 340.
* ↑ Cf. John xix. 34, 35.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xxvii. 54.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Anschütz, Karl

Edition of 1900.
​ANSCHÜTZ, Karl, musician, b. in Coblentz, Germany, in February, 1813; d. in New York city, 30 Dec., 1870. His father was an eminent musician and was in charge of a school for vocal and instrumental instruction. His early musical studies were made under his father, and in 1837 he was sent to study under Frederick Schneider, of Dessau, whose daughter he married. He then returned to Coblentz, where he became conductor of the royal musical institution and of the orchestra at the theatre, with the title of royal musical director. In 1848 he led the orchestra at Nuremburg, and in 1849 was conductor of the German opera at Amsterdam. During the same year he went to London with a German opera troupe, and subsequently he became leader of the orchestra at Drury Lane theatre. He conducted great concerts in Exeter hall, at one of which he gave Beethoven's ninth symphony with an orchestra of 250 musicians and a chorus of 500 singers. He also conducted the Italian opera at Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and elsewhere in Great Britain. In 1857 he came to the United States with Ullman's Italian opera troupe, which he conducted until 1860. He founded in 1862 the German opera in New York, and was active in the establishment of the New York conservatory of music. In 1869 he served as musical director of the New York section of the mass choruses at the Baltimore singing festival. He was also a composer of some ability, and wrote out for brass instruments the nine symphonies of Beethoven, of which two were performed.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Anselme, Jacques Bernard Modeste d'

Edition of 1900.
​ANSELME, Jacques Bernard Modeste d', French general, b. in Apt, 22 July, 1740; d. in September, 1814. As lieutenant-colonel of the Soissons regiment, he fought through the American revolution. As lieutenant-general he took Nice and the fortresses of Montalban and Villefranche in 1792, but was defeated at Sospello and imprisoned until the revolution of Thermidor.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/André, John

Edition of 1900.
ANDRÉ, John, soldier, b. in London in 1751, of Swiss parents; d. at Tappan, N. Y., 2 Oct., 1780. In the autumn of 1775 he was taken prisoner at St. John's by Gen. Montgomery. He afterward served on the staff of Gen. Gray, and then on that of Sir Henry Clinton, who, in 1779, made him adjutant-general of the British army in America. Under the name of “John Anderson” he conducted the treacherous negotiations with Benedict Arnold for the surrender of West Point. On the night of 21 Sept., 1780, he had an interview with Arnold in the woods near Stony Point, and took breakfast with him in the house of Joshua Smith, who was not privy to the plot. On leaving him, ​Arnold gave him six papers containing full information as to the state of the defences at West Point, and also passes enabling him to return either by land or by water to New York. Smith persuaded him to take the journey by land, and accompanied him part of the way. Contrary to Clinton's positive instructions, André adopted a disguise, and, contrary to Arnold's positive instructions, Smith left him before he had reached the British lines. Soon after Smith left him he was stopped by three young men whom he supposed to be tories, and incautiously let them know that he was a British officer. The young men, who were patriotic Americans, searched his person, and, finding the treasonable documents in his stockings, arrested him. He was tried by a board of six major-generals and eight brigadiers, found guilty of acting as a spy, and condemned to the gallows. His remains were buried on the spot where he suffered, but in 1821 they were taken to England and interred in Westminster Abbey. His hard fate has been much commiserated on account of his engaging personal qualities, but the justice of his sentence is generally conceded by British writers as well as American. Each of André's captors — John Paulding, David Williams, and Isaac Van Wart — received from congress a silver medal and an annuity of $200. His life has been written by Sparks, in his “American Biographies,” and much more fully by Winthrop Sargent, “Life and Career of Major John André” (Boston, 1801).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Antes, Henry

Edition of 1900.
​ANTES, Henry, colonist, b. in Germany in 1701; d. in Fredericktown, Pa., 20 July, 1755. The name Antes is a Greek paraphrase of the German Blume, adopted as a disguise during the Romanist persecutions of 1620. Henry Antes emigrated with his father's family to Pennsylvania about 1720, and built a paper-mill on the Wissahickon near Philadelphia. Here he married Christina, daughter of William Dewees, and became a leader in the civil and religious affairs of the colony. He was the friend of Whitefield and Zinzendorf, and, after consultation with the latter, assumed the leadership of the religious organization founded in 1741, and known as “Unitas Fratrum,” or Moravians. He was one of the founders of Bethlehem. — His son, Philip Frederick, b. 2 July, 1730; d. in Lancaster, Pa., 20 Sept., 1801, held several public offices, was a member of the provincial council and of the general and state assemblies, judge of the court of common pleas, and a colonel of state militia. He was so conspicuous and ardent a patriot during the revolution that the British offered a reward for his head. In 1776, in company with a Mr. Potts at Warwick furnace, he successfully cast an eighteen-pounder, the first cannon ever made in America. See “A German Hero,” by Rev. Edwin McMinn (Moorestown, N. J., 1886).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Anspach, Frederick Rinehart

Edition of 1900.
​ANSPACH, Frederick Rinehart, clergyman, b. in central Pennsylvania in January, 1815; d. in Baltimore, Md., 16 Sept., 1867. He was graduated at the Pennsylvania college, Gettysburg, in 1839, and at the Lutheran theological seminary in 1841. He was pastor for nine years of the churches of Barren Hill and White Marsh, and subsequently at Hagerstown, Md. A sermon delivered on the occasion of the death of Henry Clay was his first publication. His “Sons of the Sires,” “Sepulchres of our Departed” (Philadelphia, 1854), “The Two Pilgrims” (1857), and other works appeared in rapid succession. In 1857 he removed to Baltimore, where he became a contributor to the “Lutheran Observer,” and in 1858 its principal editor, in which office he continued till 1861.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Ansorge, Charles

Edition of 1900.
​ANSORGE, Charles, musician, b. in Spiller, Silesia, Germany, in 1817; d. in Chicago, 28 Oct., 1866. He was educated in Breslau, where he received high honors, and also obtained a thorough musical training. For some years after his graduation he devoted his attention to teaching, and was further occupied in editing a public newspaper. Imbued with the liberal ideas prevalent in Germany in 1848-'49, he published articles offensive to the authorities, for which he was tried and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. But he escaped to England, where he was joined by his family, and sailed for the United States. He settled in Boston, and became organist and chorister of the first church in Dorchester, where he remained for thirteen years. He was also a teacher of music in the asylum for the blind in South Boston for four years. For some time he was a resident editor of the “Massachusetts Teacher,” and he took an active part in the state teachers' association. In 1863 he removed to Chicago.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Andrews, Lorrin

Edition of 1900.
​ANDREWS, Lorrin, missionary, b. in East Windsor, Conn., 29 April, 1795; d. in Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, 29 Sept., 1868. He was educated at Jefferson college, Pa., and Princeton theological seminary; sailed for the Hawaiian islands in November, 1827, and preached at Lahaina. In 1831 he established Lahainaluna seminary, which subsequently became the Hawaii university, in which he was a professor for ten years. He translated a part of the Bible into Hawaii. Resigning his connection with the American board, in 1840, from anti-slavery scruples, he was for some time seamen's chaplain at Lahaina. In 1845 he was appointed judge under the Hawaiian government, and was also secretary of the privy council. These offices he held for ten years. He prepared a Hawaiian dictionary and several works on the literature and antiquities of the Hawaiians.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Andrews, Samuel James

Edition of 1900.
​ANDREWS, Samuel James, clergyman, b. in Danbury, Conn., 21 July, 1817. He was graduated at Williams college in 1839, and became a lawyer. Subsequently he was ordained in the Congregational ministry, was afterward a tutor at Trinity college, Hartford, and at last adopted the Irvingite doctrines, and became, in 1868, a pastor of the Catholic apostolic church in Hartford, Conn. He published “The Life of Our Lord Upon Earth” (New York, 1863).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Andrews, Sherlock James

Edition of 1900. was judge of superior court of Cleveland, not of Ohio. convention in 1850, not 1849
​ANDREWS, Sherlock James, jurist, b. in Wallingford, Conn., 17 Nov., 1801; d. in Cleveland, Ohio, 11 Feb., 1880. He was graduated at Union college in 1821, after which he continued his studies at Yale, where he followed the lectures on science as an assistant to Prof. Silliman, and also the lectures on law. In 1825 he removed to Ohio, and from that time devoted himself to the professionof law, and was constantly engaged in important ​litigation before the state and federal courts. He was elected to congress in 1840 as a whig, and served a single term. He became in 1848 a judge of the superior court of Ohio, and he was a member of the constitutional conventions of 1849 and 1873, where his influence was felt upon important committees. He was urged at one time to allow himself to be a candidate for governor, but declined this distinction, as well as others for which his name was mentioned, because he preferred to remain in private life. For a time he shared with Thomas Corwin the leadership of the Ohio bar. His wit, his eloquence, his sympathy, his good sense, and his integrity gave him great power before a jury or before the public.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Otto, Charles

Edition of 1900. No confirmation of this person's existence outside of Appletons' and derived sources has as yet been located, but there is also no verifiable source which states the person is one of Appletons' fictitious entries. Use this information with extra caution.
​OTTO, Charles, Danish physician, b. in St. Thomas, W. I., 20 May, 1795; d. in Copenhagen, 13 May, 1879. He received his early education in St. Thomas, but finished his studies in Copenhagen, where he was graduated in medicine in 1819. He visited South America in 1825, 1829, 1834, and 1848, and published “Phrenologien,” in which the author made a particular study of the crania of the South American Indians (Copenhagen, 1825); “Om Brændevinens fordærvelige Virkninger paa menneskens Legeme og Aand,” in which the author narrates the terrible effects of liquor on the Indian races of North and South America; and other works.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Oureouharé

Edition of 1900.
​OUREOUHARÉ, Cayuga chief, d. in Quebec, Canada, in 1697. He was one of the Iroquois chiefs that were seized treacherously and sent to the galleys in France in 1687, after being invited to a conference at Fort Frontenac by Denonville, the Canadian governor. He was allowed to return with Frontenac to Canada in 1689, became attached to the new governor, accompanied him to Montreal, and advised him to release the other Indian captives that were then in Canada. His advice was followed; the Indians were sent back to their tribes, and were exhorted by Oureouhare to persuade the latter to send an embassy to Montreal. This was done on 9 March, 1690, and the envoy said that the French prisoners that had been scattered in the other cantons were now all at Onondaga, and would be disposed of as Oureouhare should direct. The efforts of the latter to reconcile the Iroquois to French rule were unsuccessful, and Frontenac began to have doubts of his fidelity. His conduct in 1691, when the Iroquois invaded the French colony, dispelled all doubts, and his bravery at Repentigny contributed greatly to the defeat of the savages. He commanded the Christian Hurons in an engagement at La Prairie in the same year, and afterward pursued a body of Iroquois and recaptured several French prisoners. He then went to Quebec and received the thanks of Frontenac, as well as numerous presents. Several tribes offered to make him their chief, but he replied that he would never leave Ononthio (Frontenac), for whom he seems to have felt a sincere affection. He retired among the Christian Iroquois of the mountain in 1692, but made frequent excursions among the Cayugas and other tribes in the interest of the French, persuading the Cayugas to release their French prisoners, and keeping them firm in their allegiance. He visited Quebec in 1697, and fell sick after his arrival. He was a sincere Christian, and when the missionary who attended him spoke of the crucifixion, it is said that he cried out: “Why was I not there? I would have prevented them from so treating my God.” He was buried with pomp. Frontenac regretted him all the more that he relied on him principally for bringing about a treaty with the Iroquois.