OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Fasting/Chapter 5

Chapter V.—Proceeding to the History of Israel, Tertullian Shows that Appetite Was as Conspicuous Among Their Sins as in Adam’s Case. Therefore the Restraints of the Levitical Law Were Imposed.
At length, when a familiar people began to be chosen by God to Himself, and the restoration of man was able to be essayed, then all the laws and disciplines were imposed, even such as curtailed food; certain things being prohibited as unclean, in order that man, by observing a perpetual abstinence in certain particulars, might at last the more easily tolerate absolute fasts. For the first People had withal reproduced the first man’s crime, being found more prone to their belly than to God, when, plucked out from the harshness of Egyptian servitude “by the mighty hand and sublime arm” of God, they were seen to be its lord, destined to the “land flowing with milk and honey;” but forthwith, stumbled at the surrounding spectacle of an incopious desert sighing after the lost enjoyments of Egyptian satiety, they murmured against Moses and Aaron: “Would that we had been smitten to the heart by the Lord, and perished in the land of Egypt, when we were wont to sit over our jars of flesh and eat bread unto the full! How leddest thou us out into these deserts, to kill this assembly by famine?” From the self-same belly preference were they destined (at last) to deplore (the fate of) the self-same leaden of their own and eye-witnesses of (the power of) God, whom, by their regretful hankering after flesh, and their recollection of their Egyptian plenties, they were ever exacerbating:  “Who shall feed us with flesh? here have come into our mind the fish which in Egypt we were wont to eat freely, and the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. But now our soul is arid: nought save manna do our eyes see!” Thus used they, too, (like the Psychics), to find the angelic bread of xerophagy displeasing: they preferred the fragrance of garlic and onion to that of heaven.  And therefore from men so ungrateful all that was more pleasing and appetizing was withdrawn, for the sake at once of punishing gluttony and exercising continence, that the former might be condemned, the latter practically learned.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 12 (in LXX. cxxxv. 12).
* ↑ See Ex. iii. 8.
* ↑ See Ex. xvi. 1–3.
* ↑ Comp. Num. xx. 1–12 with Ps. cvi. 31–33 (in LXX. cv. 31–33).
* ↑ See Num. xi. 1–6.
* ↑ See Ps. lxxviii. 25 (in LXX. lxxvii. 25).
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/On the Resurrection of the Flesh/IX

Chapter IX.—God’s Love for the Flesh of Man, as Developed in the Grace of Christ Towards It. The Flesh the Best Means of Displaying the Bounty and Power of God.
To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh, which the Divine Creator formed with His own hands in the image of God; which He animated with His own afflatus, after the likeness of His own vital vigour; which He set over all the works of His hand, to dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them; which He clothed with His sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He loves, whose mortifications He approves; whose sufferings for Himself He deems precious;—(shall that flesh, I say), so often brought near to God, not rise again?  God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat), that He should abandon to everlasting destruction the labour of His own hands, the care of His own thoughts, the receptacle of His own Spirit, the queen of His creation, the inheritor of His own liberality, the priestess of His religion, the champion of His testimony, the sister of His Christ! We know by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our neighbour after love to Himself, so He will Himself do that which He has commanded. He will love the flesh which is, so very closely and in so many ways, His neighbour—(He will love it), although infirm, since His strength is made perfect in weakness; although disordered, since “they that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick;” although not honourable, since “we bestow more abundant honour upon the less honourable members;” although ruined, since He says, “I am come to save that which was lost;” although sinful, since He says, “I desire rather the salvation of the sinner than his death;” although condemned, for says He, “I shall wound, and also heal.” Why reproach the flesh with those conditions which wait for God, which hope in God, which receive honour from God, which He succours? I venture to declare, that if such casualties as these had never befallen the flesh, the bounty, the grace, the mercy, (and indeed) all the beneficent power of God, would have had no opportunity to work.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Afflatus.
* ↑ Matt. xxii. 37–40.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xii. 9.
* ↑ Luke v. 31.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xii. 23.
* ↑ Luke xix. 10.
* ↑ Ezek. xviii. 23.
* ↑ Deut. xxxii. 39.
* ↑ Vacuisset.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/On the Resurrection of the Flesh/IV

Chapter IV.—Heathens and Heretics Alike in Their Vilification of the Flesh and Its Functions, the Ordinary Cavils Against the Final Restitution of So Weak and Ignoble a Substance.
Hence it is that heretics start at once from this point, from which they sketch the first draft of their dogmas, and afterwards add the details, being well aware how easily men’s minds are caught by its influence, (and actuated) by that community of human sentiment which is so favourable to their designs. Is there anything else that you can hear of from the heretic, as also from the heathen, earlier in time or greater in extent? Is not (their burden) from the beginning and everywhere an invective against the flesh—against its origin, against its substance, against the casualties and the invariable end which await it; unclean from its first formation of the dregs of the ground, uncleaner afterwards from the mire of its own seminal transmission; worthless, weak, covered with guilt, laden with misery, full of trouble; and after all this record of its degradation, dropping into its original earth and the appellation of a corpse, and destined to dwindle away even from this loathsome name into none henceforth at all—into the very death of all designation? Now you are a shrewd man, no doubt: will you then persuade yourself, that after this flesh has been withdrawn from sight, and touch, and memory, it can never be rehabilitated from corruption to integrity, from a shattered to a solid state, from an empty to a full condition, from nothing at all to something—the devouring fires, and the waters of the sea, and the maws of beasts, and the crops of birds and the stomachs of fishes, and time’s own great paunch itself of course yielding it all up again? Shall the same flesh which has fallen to decay be so expected to recover, as that the lame, and the one-eyed, and the blind, and the leper, and the palsied shall come back again, although there can be no pleasure in returning to their old condition? Or shall they be whole, and so have to fear exposure to such sufferings? What, in that case, (must we say) of the consequences of resuming the flesh? Will it again be subject to all its present wants, especially meats and drinks? Shall we have with our lungs to float (in air or water), and suffer pain in our bowels, and with organs of shame to feel no shame, and with all our limbs to toil and labour? Must there again be ulcers, and wounds, and fever, and gout, and once more the wishing to die? Of course these will be the longings incident on the recovery of the flesh, only the repetition of desires to escape out of it. Well now, we have (stated) all this in very subdued and delicate phrases, as suited to the character of our style; but (would you know) how great a licence of unseemly language these men actually use, you must test them in their conferences, whether they be heathens or heretics.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Of the resurrection of the body.
* ↑ Frivolæ.
* ↑ Isto.
* ↑ Gula.
* ↑ Natandum pulmonibus.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/On the Resurrection of the Flesh/LIV

Chapter LIV.—Death Swallowed Up of Life. Meaning of This Phrase in Relation to the Resurrection of the Body.
Then, again, questions very often are suggested by occasional and isolated terms, just as much as they are by connected sentences. Thus, because of the apostle’s expression, “that mortality may be swallowed up of life”—in reference to the flesh—they wrest the word swallowed up into the sense of the actual destruction of the flesh; as if we might not speak of ourselves as swallowing bile, or swallowing grief, meaning that we conceal and hide it, and keep it within ourselves. The truth is, when it is written, “This mortal must put on immortality,” it is explained in what sense it is that “mortality is swallowed up of life”—even whilst, clothed with immortality, it is hidden and concealed, and contained within it, not as consumed, and destroyed, and lost. But death, you will say in reply to me, at this rate, must be safe, even when it has been swallowed up. Well, then, I ask you to distinguish words which are similar in form according to their proper meanings. Death is one thing, and mortality is another. It is one thing for death to be swallowed up, and another thing for mortality to be swallowed up. Death is incapable of immortality, but not so mortality. Besides, as it is written that “this mortal must put on immortality,” how is this possible when it is swallowed up of life? But how is it swallowed up of life, (in the sense of destroyed by it) when it is actually received, and restored, and included in it? For the rest, it is only just and right that death should be swallowed up in utter destruction, since it does itself devour with this same intent. Death, says the apostle, has devoured by exercising its strength, and therefore has been itself devoured in the struggle “swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is thy sting? O death, where is thy victory?” Therefore life, too, as the great antagonist of death, will in the struggle swallow up for salvation what death, in its struggle, had swallowed up for destruction.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 4.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 53.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 53.
* ↑ Ver. 54.
* ↑ Ver. 55.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/On the Resurrection of the Flesh/LIX

Chapter LIX.—Our Flesh in the Resurrection Capable, Without Losing Its Essential Identity, of Bearing the Changed Conditions of Eternal Life, or of Death Eternal.
But, you object, the world to come bears the character of a different dispensation, even an eternal one; and therefore, you maintain, that the non-eternal substance of this life is incapable of possessing a state of such different features. This would be true enough, if man were made for the future dispensation, and not the dispensation for man. The apostle, however, in his epistle says, “Whether it be the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours:” and he here constitutes us heirs even of the future world. Isaiah gives you no help when he says, “All flesh is grass;” and in another passage, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” It is the issues of men, not their substances, which he distinguishes. But who does not hold that the judgment of God consists in the twofold sentence, of salvation and of punishment? Therefore it is that “all flesh is grass,” which is destined to the fire; and “all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” which is ordained to eternal life. For myself, I am quite sure that it is in no other flesh than my own that I have committed adultery, nor in any other flesh am I striving after continence. If there be any one who bears about in his person two instruments of lasciviousness, he has it in his power, to be sure, to mow down “the grass” of the unclean flesh, and to reserve for himself only that which shall see the salvation of God. But when the same prophet represents to us even nations sometimes estimated as “the small dust of the balance,” and as “less than nothing, and vanity,” and sometimes as about to hope and “trust in the name” and arm of the Lord, are we at all misled respecting the Gentile nations by the diversity of statement? Are some of them to turn believers, and are others accounted dust, from any difference of nature? Nay, rather Christ has shone as the true light on the nations within the ocean’s limits, and from the heaven which is over us all. Why, it is even on this earth that the Valentinians have gone to school for their errors; and there will be no difference of condition, as respects their body and soul, between the nations which believe and those which do not believe. Precisely, then, as He has put a distinction of state, not of nature, amongst the same nations, so also has He discriminated their flesh, which is one and the same substance in those nations, not according to their material structure, but according to the recompense of their merit.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. iii. 22.
* ↑ Isa. xl. 7.
* ↑ Ver. 5.
* ↑ Demetere.
* ↑ Isa. xl. 15.
* ↑ Ver. 17. The word is spittle, which the LXX. uses in the fifteenth verse for the “dust” of the Hebrew Bible.
* ↑ Isa. xlii. 4, Sept; quoted from the LXX. by Christ in Matt. xii. 21, and by St. Paul in Rom. xv. 12.
* ↑ An allusion to some conceits of the Valentinians, who put men of truest nature and fit for Christ’s grace outside of the ocean-bounded earth, etc.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Jacker, Edward

Edition of 1892.
​JACKER, Edward, missionary, b. in Swabia, Germany, about 1830; d. in Red Jacket, Lake Superior, in August, 1887. He received a thorough education, studied theology, was ordained a priest of the Roman Catholic church, and came to the United States as a missionary to the Indians, among whom he passed his life. He served as vicar-general to Frederic Baraga, bishop of Marquette, and was the bishop's inseparable companion in his journeys and labors for several years before the latter's death in 1867. He was mentioned at the time in connection with the vacant bishopric, but his tastes led him to avoid official power and responsibility. He was thoroughly conversant with the Indian languages, especially with the dialect spoken by the Chippewas, and wrote in the latter and published a selection of hymns and other works. Father Jacker was a man of great erudition, an enthusiastic worker, and a delightful companion, being one of the best known and most highly esteemed missionaries in the Lake Superior region. He contributed various interesting articles on the Indian tribes to the Philadelphia “Catholic Quarterly Review.”
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Ixtlilxochitl I.

Edition of 1900.
​IXTLILXOCHITL I. (isst-leel-sot-cheetle'), Texcocan king, d. in 1419. He was the son of the celebrated King Techotlalatzin who ascended the throne in 1357, and his name means black flower's face. The king of Atzcapotzalco, Tezozomoc, was his enemy, and intended to dethrone him and occupy his place. With this intention he made an arrangement with the other kings of the valley of Mexico who were tributaries of the kingdom of Texcoco, and they proclaimed a rebellion. But Ixtlilxochitl was acknowledged by several of the chiefs assembled in the city of Huexutla, and Tezozomoc, gathering a strong army, marched against Texcoco, but was defeated, and Ixtlilxochitl granted him a generous pardon. The ambitious Tezozomoc was not grateful for this act of mercy, and when he returned to his kingdom occupied himself in preparing a new expedition against Texcoco. With a powerful army he entered the kingdom again, and though Ixtlilxochitl was prepared to resist him, he was surprised in a wood where he was hunting. Immediately he and those who accompanied him were put to death, the royal insignia were carried to Atzcapotzalco, and Tezozomoc was crowned king of Texcoco. Ixtlilxochitl's son witnessed from a tree the death of his father and swore to avenge it, as he did, killing in 1531 Tezozomoc's son and successor, Maxtla.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Ixtlilxochitl II.

Edition of 1900.
​IXTLILXOCHITL II., Texcocan king, b. about 1500; d. about 1550. He was the son of Netzahualpilli, king of Texcoco. The astrologer who cast the boy's horoscope at his birth advised his father to take the infant's life, since, if he lived to grow up, he was destined to unite with the enemies of his country and overturn its institutions and religion. But the old monarch replied, according to the chroniclers, that the time had arrived when the sons of Quetzalcoatl were to come from the east to take possession of the land; and, if the Almighty had selected his child to co-operate with them in the work, his will might be done. When he was about twelve years old the lad formed a band of followers of his own age, with whom he practised military exercises, throwing the whole city into uproar and confusion, and when some of his father's counsellors repeated the advice of the astrologers he put himself at the head of a party and, entering the houses of the counsellors, dragged them forth and put them to death. For this he was seized and brought before his father, but the latter contented himself with bestowing an admonition on the culprit. As he grew older the prince took an active part in the wars of his country, and when ho more than seventeen years old had won for himself the insignia of a victorious captain. In 1516 Netzahualpilli died, and the succession was contested by two of his sons, Cacamatzin and Ixtlilxochitl. The former was supported by Montezuma, emperor of Mexico, but the latter, appealing to the patriotic sentiment of his nation, would have persuaded them that his brother was too much in the Mexican interest to be true to his own country. A civil war ensued, and ended by a compromise, by which one half of the kingdom, with the capital, remained to Cacamatzin and the northern part to his brother. Ixtlilxochitl became from that time the enemy of Montezuma. On the arrival of the Spaniards, the young chieftain sent an embassy to Cortés while he was at Tlaxcala, offering him his services and asking his aid in return. Through the influence of Cortés, Cacamatzin was deposed and Ixtlilxochitl finally placed on the throne. He was faithful to the Spaniards, and fought with them during the time of the conquest. As years passed he became more and more the friend of the conqueror and the enemy of his country and race. His important services have been commemorated by the Spanish historians, who have given him the melancholy glory of contributing more than any other chieftain of America to enslave his countrymen. After the submission of Mexico he was baptized and took the name of Hernan Cortés, after that of the conqueror, who was his godfather on this occasion. Afterward he took great interest in the propagation of Christianity, and brought in a bag the first stones to build the church of the convent of San Francisco in the city of Mexico. He accompanied Cortés on his expedition to Hibueras in 1525.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Izcohuatl

Edition of 1892.
​IZCOHUATL, or IZIOCATL (iss-co-wat'tel), emperor of Mexico, b. about the end of the 14th century; d. in 1436. He was an illegitimate son of the emperor Acamapichill, and ascended the throne of Mexico in 1427. The Mexicans regarded him at first with contempt, because his mother was a slave, but they appreciated him at last, for he inherited the virtues, prudence, valor, and talent of his father. The tyrant Maxtla, after having put Izcohuatl's brother, Chimalpopoca, to death, continued to oppress the Mexican nation, and the monarch determined to shake off the yoke. At that time Maxtla had also usurped the kingdom of Texcoco, and the legitimate king, Netzahualcoyotl, was a fugitive in the mountains of Tlaxcala, and as the king of Tlaltelolco was also dissatisfied with the tyrannical rule of Maxtla, Izcohuatl formed a league with him, and visited Netzahualcoyotl to offer him an alliance against the common enemy. The war continued 114 days, during which time the allies defeated the enemy in several battles. Maxtla was taken prisoner in 1431, and put to death by the king of Texcoco. In five years, during which Izcohuatl reigned in peace, he distinguished himself by his activity, and by adopting all the rules of Netzahualcoyotl, the king of Texcoco. He added several principalities to his dominions, and was the first ruler of the Aztecs to adopt the title of emperor. He was also the first to connect the islands of the lake of Texcoco with the mainland by causeways.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Jacintha do San José

Edition of 1892. 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. There is an anachronism in the subject's return from Lisbon to Rio De Janiero.
​JACINTHA DO SAN JOSÉ (zhah-sin'-tah), Brazilian nun, b. in Rio Janeiro, 15 Oct., 1716; d. 2 Oct., 1768. In early life she wished to enter a convent; but her father opposed her desire. At his death she and her sister Francisca retired to a hut and began the life of nuns under the patronage of Santa Teresa. Though the two sisters were at first unnoticed, some time afterward they suffered persecution till 1748, when they were protected by the governor, Gomes Freire de Andrada. In 1749 Jacintha built a convent, assisted by the generosity of the governor. As neither the bishop nor the home government had approved the establishment of the order, she went to Lisbon and thence to Rome, in 1759, and in both places the establishment of the convent was approved. In Lisbon she witnessed the earthquake of 1759, and for days assisted the wounded, until she herself fell sick from overwork. In 1756 she returned and founded a school for girls, which she annexed to the convent, and which for several years was the only institution of the kind in Brazil. Jacintha then began a hospital for destitute women; but her protector, Gomes Freire, dying in 1763, the work progressed slowly, and she followed him before the day appointed for its public consecration. Jacintha published “Devocionario,” and several poetical compositions which are highly esteemed.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Jackson, Abner

Edition of 1900.
​JACKSON, Abner, clergyman, b. near Wash- ington, Pa., 4 Nov., 1811 ; d. in Hartford, Conn., 19 April, 1874. He studied first at Washington college, Pa., and was graduated at Washington (now Trinity) college, Hartford, Conn., in 1837 with the valedictory. He immediately received an appointment as tutor in the college, a year later was chosen adjunct professor of ancient languages, and in 1840 was appointed the first professor of intellectual and moral philosophy. While dis- charging the duties of this chair during a period of eighteen years, he also gave instruction in Latin, and for a considerable part of the time he lectured on chemistry. In 1858 Dr. Jackson ac- cepted an election to the presidency and the pro- fessorship of the evidences of Christianity at Ho- bart college, Geneva, N. Y. From this post he was recalled to Trinity in 1867, the trustees having unanimously chosen him to be president and professor of ethics and metaphysics. After a visit to Europe he entered on his new duties, in which he was engaged at the time of his death. Trinity college having sold its grounds to the city of Hartford as the site for the new state-house of Connecticut, it became necessary to select a new site and to secure plans for new buildings. Dr. Jack- son labored at this task diligently and with much enthusiasm, and spent the summers of 1872 and 1873 in England in the study of architecture and the preparation of elaborate plans, which have been carried out only in part. Dr. Jackson was ordained to the ministry by Bishop Brownell on 2 Sept., 1838. He received the degree of D. D. from Trinity in 1858, and that of LL. D. from Columbia in 1866. A volume of his sermons was published after his death (New York, 1875).