OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Downes, John (naval officer)

Edition of 1900.
​DOWNES, John, naval officer, b. in Canton, Mass., in 1786; d. in Charleston, S. C, 11 Aug., 1855. He entered the navy as a midshipman in June, 1802; was in the frigate “New York” during the war with Tripoli, and distinguished himself in a boat attack upon Tripolitan feluccas. In March, 1807, he was made a lieutenant, and in the war of 1812 he served as executive officer of the frigate “Essex,” Capt. Porter, during her cruise in the Pacific. Among her numerous prizes was the whale-ship “Georgiana,” which Capt. Porter fitted as a cruiser, with sixteen guns, named the “Essex Junior,” and placed under the command of Lieut. Downes, who retained this place until the capture of the “Essex” and the conversion of the “Essex Junior” into a cartel, 28 March, 1814. He was promoted to the rank of master commandant in 1813, and two years later commanded the brig “Epervier” in the squadron employed against Algiers under Decatur, and captured, 17 June, 1815, the Algerine frigate “Nashouda.” Two days afterward the “Epervier” and three of the smaller vessels of the squadron captured the Algerine brig of war “Estido,” twenty-two guns and 180 men, off Cape Palos. After the conclusion of peace with Algiers, Decatur transferred Downes to his own ship, the “Guerrière.” He became captain in March, 1817, and from 1819 till 1821 commanded the frigate “Macedonia” in the Pacific. In 1828-'9 he commanded the “Java” ​in the Mediterranean, and from 1833 to 1834 the squadron in the Pacific. On his way to his station he attacked (6 Feb., 1832) and nearly destroyed Quallah Batoo, on the coast of Sumatra, where an outrage had been committed on an American vessel. His sea service terminated with his cruise. From 1837 till 1842, and from 1850 till 1852, he commanded the navy-yard at Boston.—His son. John A., naval officer, b. in Massachusetts, 25 Aug., 1822; d. in New Orleans, 20 Sept., 1865, entered the navy on 4 Sept., 1837; became passed midshipman in 1843, lieutenant in 1851, and a commander in 1862. During the civil war he commanded the iron-clad “Nahant” at the bombardment of Fort McAlister, 3 March, 1863, and in the first attack upon Fort Sumter, 7 April, 1863. In the report of Rear-Admiral Dupont he is mentioned as one of those “who did everything that the utmost gallantry and skill could accomplish in the management of their untried vessels.” He aided in the capture of the Confederate iron-clad “Atlanta.” He was on special duty at Boston a short time, and was then given command of the Gulf squadron, in which service he died.
# An emigrant's home letters/List of subscribers

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS
# An emigrant's home letters/My Native Land

MY NATIVE LAND.
The moonlight of a milder clime Is round me pour'd o'er scenes sublime; But I would fly from nil earth's light And grandeur to behold to-night  My native land!
To-morrow's sun will beauteous rise In Australasia's summer skies; But more than beautiful to me Would winter's wildest morning be  In that dear land!
'Twould almost seem that peace and love Here reign as o'er those realms above; But, oh! the counter-charm of home Is found not yet, where'er I roam,  O'er sea or land!
And greenwoods wave which ne'er are sere In this December summer here; But I would turn from Eden's bloom To hail, in winter's waste and gloom,  My native land!
# An emigrant's home letters/Note

Layout 2
NOTE.
I cannot better bring this little book to a close than with the following beautiful letter, addressed to my mother, his devoted wife for fifty-two years, of whom he said, on the morning she lay dead: 'She was a good woman, a good wife, and a good mother.' She would have asked for no higher tribute from him. Earthly titles were nothing to her in comparison. To be a 'good woman,' a 'good wife,' a 'good mother' was her highest aim to the last day of her long and eventful life. There is a bitter-sweet consolation to me in the thought that they who trod life's thorny path together for fifty-two years now lie side by side at rest for evermore. None can divide them now. May their good deeds only be remembered!
A. T. P.
# An emigrant's home letters/Preface

PREFACE
In launching this little book upon the stormy waves of the sea of criticism I am not troubled by many fears. I believe that the name of Henry Parkes will yet be dear to the heart of every patriotic son of Federated Australia, and that all concerning him will be very precious in their eyes. The mistakes, the errors, and the failures of the last years of his life will be wiped away as one would brush dust from a beloved dead face. Who that is just will judge of him by the years between seventy and eighty? No! By the glorious aims, by the high hopes, by the great achievements, and the ringing eloquence of his grand manhood will he be judged; and when Australasia takes her place among the great nations of the world, his name will be inscribed in golden letters upon the annals of her history. And the very least of her sons ​may learn a lesson from his wondrous life, a lesson of high-souled courage, patient endurance, and marvellous perseverance. I send forth these pages to tell their simple story of how, in spite of bitter poverty, much hardship, and utter want of education, Henry Parkes fought his way to everlasting fame.
ANNIE T. PARKES.
Leichhardt, 11th July, 1896.
# An emigrant's home letters/Note 2

Layout 2
​Note.—The following letter was sent in answer to my repeated request to Mr. J. G. Hornblower to give me some account of my father's youthful years, Mr. Hornblower and his brother being his only friends and companions at that time. With regard to the poems, 'The Emigrant's Farewell to his Country' was written just before my father left England in 1839. I do not know the date of the poem 'My Native Land,' but it was written soon after his arrival in the colony.—A. T. P.
# An emigrant's home letters/Letter Twenty-Three

Layout 2
LETTER TWENTY-THREE.
Sydney, September 22nd, 1840.
My Dear Sister,—
My letter of 1st May gave you but a gloomy account of Australia. I have some tiling to say now a little more cheering, though I could not at present muster courage to persuade any of my friends in England to think of emigrating.
I am now in a situation which promises not only to provide me comfortable bread, but to enable me to save a little money. You have doubtless heard of such gentlemen as Custom House officers, whose business it is to catch smugglers, seize contraband goods, etc. Your humble servant is now one of these. I spend most of my time on board ships, where I have a good deal of leisure to write poetry—I have ​enough already to fill a book, most of which has been published in a Sydney newspaper. But I intend to apply some of this waste time to a better purpose—that of writing a series of letters to you and other dear friends in England, descriptive of this country.
In the meantime, send me word how all is going on at home. I hope my dear father is in good health, and comfortable. My poor afflicted mother, I have a sad presentiment, must be gone for ever. If God has spared her, tell her that we poor exiles in Australia are comparatively happy, though we cling to the hope of returning to Old England. Give my dear wife's love to her father, and tell him that she weeps at the mention of his name. Tell him that we have now another Clarinda, a little friendless, blue-eyed infant, that looks up in his daughter's face and lisps 'mamma.' She was born amidst the rage of the turbulent sea, where no one smiled upon her birth; but He who holds the ocean in the hollow of His hand was with us on the waters. Remember us to all, Maria, Eliza, John, James, George, and our nephews, Thomas and William.
God bless you all. Farewell. Pay the land postage in England or the letters, I believe, will ​not be forwarded. Address, Mr. Henry F. Parkes, care of H.M. Customs, Sydney, N.S.W.
Your affectionate brother, HENRY F. PARKES.
Note.—I was much surprised to find that this and the two following letters were signed 'Henry F. Parkes,' as I never heard my father say he had another name, nor does he appear to have so signed his name before or since. I suppose he thought of adopting the name of 'Faulconbridge,' his mother's maiden name.—A. T. P.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXIV

Chapter XXIV.—St. Peter’s Further Vindication. St. Paul Not Superior to St. Peter in Teaching. Nothing Imparted to the Former in the Third Heaven Enabled Him to Add to the Faith. Heretics Boast as If Favoured with Some of the Secrets Imparted to Him.
I have not the good fortune, or, as I must rather say, I have not the unenviable task, of setting apostles by the ears. But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavillers obtrude the rebuke in question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier doctrine into suspicion, I will put in a defence, as it were, for Peter, to the effect that even Paul said that he was “made all things to all men—to the Jews a Jew,” to those who were not Jews as one who was not a Jew—“that he might gain all.” Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too had censured Paul, because, whilst forbidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom. Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being. If, however, that unspeakable mystery did leak out, and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually be shown to have been afterwards “caught up into paradise,” who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Non mihi tam bene est.
* ↑ Immo.
* ↑ Non mihi tam male est.
* ↑ Ut committam.
* ↑ Superiorem, “that which Peter had preached.”
* ↑ 1 Cor. ix. 20, 22.
* ↑ Viderint.
* ↑ Et in martyrio.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xii. 4.
* ↑ Nulli hominum.
* ↑ Nescio quid illud.
* ↑ Emanavit.
* ↑ Et.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXVIII.—The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

## Footnotes

* ↑ John xiv. 26.
* ↑ John xv. 26.
* ↑ [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]
* ↑ Audeat.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXV

Chapter XXV.—The Apostles Did Not Keep Back Any of the Deposit of Doctrine Which Christ Had Entrusted to Them. St. Paul Openly Committed His Whole Doctrine to Timothy.
But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;” and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.” What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?” and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,” be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Above, in chap. xxii. [Note the Gnostic madness of such a plea. Kaye, p. 235 and Elucidation IV.]
* ↑ 1 Tim. vi. 20.
* ↑ 2 Tim. i. 14.
* ↑ Ut alterius doctrinæ deputetur.
* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 18.
* ↑ 1 Tim. vi. 13.
* ↑ Nescis quid.
* ↑ Remotiore.
* ↑ 2 Tim. ii. 2.
* ↑ 2 Tim. ii. 2.
* ↑ Apud conscientiam. [Clement of Alexandria is to be interpreted by Tertullian, with whom he does not essentially differ. For Clement’s Esoteric Doctrine (See Vol. II. pp. 302, 313, etc.) is defined as perfecting the type of the Christian by the strong meat of Truth, of which the entire deposit is presupposed as common to all Christians. We must not blame Clement for the abuse of his teaching by perverters of Truth itself.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXI

Chapter XXI.—All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso factoproceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xi. 27.
* ↑ Perinde.
* ↑ Matricibus.
* ↑ Præjudicandam. [This then is Præscription.]
* ↑ De mendacio.
* ↑ Censeatur.
* ↑ Ex hoc ipso, “from this very circumstance.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVII.—Granted that the Apostles Transmitted the Whole Doctrine of Truth, May Not the Churches Have Been Unfaithful in Handing It On? Inconceivable that This Can Have Been the Case.
Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Plenitudinem prædicationis.
* ↑ Scrupulositatis.
* ↑ Gal. iii. 1.
* ↑ Gal. v. 7.
* ↑ Gal. i. 6.
* ↑ 1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses.
* ↑ 1 Cor. viii. 2.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/The Prescription Against Heretics/Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXIX.—The Truth Not Indebted to the Care of the Heretics; It Had Free Course Before They Appeared. Priority of the Church’s Doctrine a Mark of Its Truth.
In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Utique, ironical.
* ↑ Perperam.
* ↑ Virtutes, “potestatem edendi miracula” (Oehler).
* ↑ Charismata.
* ↑ Ministeria. Another reading has mysteria, “mysteries” or “sacraments.”
* ↑ Gal. i. 8. [In this chapter (xxix.) the principle of Prescription is condensed and brought to the needle-point—Quod semper. If you can’t show that your doctrine was always taught, it is false: and this is “Prescription.”]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LV

Chapter LV.
But I maintain that, if he had the patience (to use his own expression) to listen to the writings of Moses and the prophets, he would have had his attention arrested by the circumstance that the expression “God made” is applied to heaven and earth, and to what is called the firmament, and also to the lights and stars; and after these, to the great fishes, and to every living thing among creeping animals which the waters brought forth after their kinds, and to every fowl of heaven after its kind; and after these, to the wild beasts of the earth after their kind, and the beasts after their kind, and to every creeping thing upon the earth after its kind; and last of all to man. The expression “made,” however, is not applied to other things; but it is deemed sufficient to say regarding light, “And it was light;” and regarding the one gathering together of all the waters that are under the whole heaven, “It was so.”  And in like manner also, with regard to what grew upon the earth, where it is said, “The earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind and after its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind, upon the earth.” He would have inquired, moreover, whether the recorded commands of God respecting the coming into existence of each part of the world were addressed to one thing or to several; and he would not lightly have charged with being unintelligible, and as having no secret meaning, the accounts related in these books, either by Moses, or, as we would say, by the Divine Spirit speaking in Moses, from whom also he derived the power of prophesying; since he “knew both the present, and the future, and the past,” in a higher degree than those priests who are alleged by the poets to have possessed a knowledge of these things.