OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Chignavitcelut, Oxiquieb

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.
​CHIGNAVITCELUT, Oxiqnieb (chig-nah-beet-sa-loot'), king of Cumarcaah, Central America, flourished early in the 16th century. After the Quiché army, under their king, Tecúm-Umán, had been routed by the forces of Alvarado, who killed Tecúm-Umán himself in battle between ​Totonicapán and Utatlán (1524), the Indians intended to rid themselves of the invaders by treason. They feigned to be peaceful, and called Alvarado into the city of Utatlán. But when he saw that the women and children were not there, and that the fortifications were prepared for immediate service, he was suspicious, discovered the plot, and left the city. He ordered Chignavitcelut and another king, Belegetzi, to be put to death, and subsequently defeated the Quichés again, when Utatlán was destroyed by fire.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Chilomacon, Charles

Edition of 1900.
​CHILOMACON, Charles, chief of the Piscataway Indians. The principal town in his territory was Kittamaqundi, near the present village of Piscataway, fifteen miles south of Washington, D. C. When Father White arrived there in 1639 he was cordially received by the chief, who entertained him hospitably and consented to content himself with one wife at his request. At a general meeting of his tribe, Chilomacon announced his determination to become a Christian. He then went to ​St. Mary's and solicited baptism. The rite was postponed, and he was advised to return with his family the next year; but the ceremony took place on 5 July, 1640, in the presence of the governor's secretary and the leading people of the settlement. Chilomacon received the name of Charles, and his wife that of Mary, in honor of the king and queen of England. He sent his daughter to St. Mary's to be educated. As she is spoken of as “queen of the Piscataways” in 1642, Chilomacon probably died soon after his baptism.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Chickering, Jesse

Edition of 1900.
​CHICKERING, Jesse, political economist, b. in Dover, N. H., 31 Aug., 1797; d. in West Roxbury, Mass., 29 May, 1855. He was graduated at Harvard in 1818, studied theology, and became a Unitarian minister. He afterward pursued a medical course, receiving his diploma in 1833, and practised medicine for about ten years in Boston and West Roxbury. He was the author of a “Statistical View of the Population of Massachusetts from 1765 to 1840” (Boston, 1846); “Emigration into the United States” (1848); “Reports on the Census of Boston” (1851); and a “Letter addressed to the President of the United States on Slavery, considered in Relation to the Principles of Constitutional Government in Great Britain and in the United States” (1855).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Chiguaihue

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.
​CHIGUAIHUE (chee-gwah-ee'-oo-ay), Araucanian cacique of the Biobio tribe in the Moluches region, Chili, b. in that valley about 1566; d. near Chillan in 1606. He became noted as a warrior at the head of a tribe, and was elected chief of all the Araucanian forces. He attacked, captured, and destroyed the city of Chillan in August, 1604, and defeated Rivera near Santa Cruz, also destroying this city in September of the same year, as well as the cities of Frontera, Villarrica, and Valdivia in the two following months. Subsequently he overran the country south of Biobio river and drove out all the Spanish colonists, their forts and garrisons surrendering to the Indian chieftain. On 7 Feb., 1605, Chiguaihue attacked the city of Imperial, defended by a large number of Spaniards under command of the heroine Inés de Aguilera, and, after two days' fighting, the place surrendered to the Indians, who pillaged and burned it. Then he defeated Gen. Ramón while the Spaniards were engaged in battle with the "toqui" Huenecura in the Santa Cruz valley, had other successful encounters with the same Spanish general in 1606, and finally was routed near Chillán, made a prisoner, and executed.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 22

Chapter XXI.—The System of Cerinthus Concerning Christ.
But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See [vol. i. pp. 351, 415] Irenæus, i. 26, iii. 2, 3; [vol. iii. p. 651] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 28, vii. 25; Epiphanius, Hær., xxviii.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 3; St. Augustine, Hær., c. viii.; and St. Jerome, Ep., lxxxix. We have here, as in the preceding articles, Irenæus in the Greek, as Hippolytus’ text corresponds with the Latin version of this portion of Irenæus’ work.
* ↑ Acts xvii. 23.
* ↑ Or, “paternal.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 25

Chapter XXIV.—The Melchisedecians; The Nicolaitans.
While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker, attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him.
There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Concerning the younger Theodotus, see [vol. iii. p. 654] Tertullian, Præscript., c. liii.; Epiphanius, Hær., lv.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 6.
* ↑ Or, “in reference to” (Bunsen).
* ↑ Or, “have been adduced” (Miller).
* ↑ See [ut supra] Irenæus, i. 26; [ut supra] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlv.; Epiphanius, Hær., c. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 29; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 15; and St. Augustine, Hær., c. v. [But see Clement, vol. ii. p. 373, this series.]
* ↑ [He understands that the seven (Acts vi. 5) were deacons. Bunsen, i. p. 97.]
* ↑ Or, “knowledge.” Bunsen suggests βρώσεως, as translated above.
* ↑ Rev. ii. 6.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 26

Chapter XXV.—The Heresy of Cerdon.
But one Cerdon himself also, taking occasion in like manner from these (heretics) and Simon, affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses. And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian, the disciple of this (heretic).

## Footnotes

* ↑ Irenæus, i. 27; Eusebius (who here gives Irenæus’ Greek), Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 2; Epiphanius, c. xli.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 24; and Philastrius, c. xliv.
* ↑ Hippolytus follows Irenæus but introduces some alterations.
* ↑ ᾽Αντιθέσεις.  This is the emendation proposed by the Abbe Cruice. The textual reading is ἀντιπαραθέσεις (comparisons).
* ↑ See [ut supra, p. 353], Tertullian, Præscript., c. li., and Epiphanius, Hær., c. xliii.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 2

Chapter I.—Heresy Compared to (1) the Stormy Ocean, (2) the Rocks of the Sirens; Moral from Ulysses and the Sirens.
The pupils of these men, when they perceive the doctrines of the heretics to be like unto the ocean when tossed into waves by violence of the winds, ought to sail past in quest of the tranquil haven. For a sea of this description is both infested with wild beasts and difficult of navigation, like, as we may say, the Sicilian (Sea), in which the legend reports were Cyclops, and Charybdis, and Scylla, and the rock of the Sirens. Now, the poets of the Greeks allege that Ulysses sailed through (this channel), adroitly using (to his own purpose) the terribleness of these strange monsters. For the savage cruelty (in the aspect) of these towards those who were sailing through was remarkable. The Sirens, however, singing sweetly and harmoniously, beguiled the voyagers, luring, by reason of their melodious voice, those who heard it, to steer their vessels towards (the promontory). The (poets) report that Ulysses, on ascertaining this, smeared with wax the ears of his companions, and, lashing himself to the mast, sailed, free of danger, past the Sirens, hearing their chant distinctly. And my advice to my readers is to adopt a similar expedient, viz., either on account of their infirmity to smear their ears with wax, and sail (straight on) through the tenets of the heretics, not even listening to (doctrines) that are easily capable of enticing them into pleasure, like the luscious lay of the Sirens, or, by binding one’s self to the Cross of Christ, (and) hearkening with fidelity (to His words), not to be distracted, inasmuch as he has reposed his trust in Him to whom ere this he has been firmly knit, and (I admonish that man) to continue stedfastly (in this faith).

## Footnotes

* ↑ A hiatus here has given rise to conjecture. Cruice suggests χορός (band) instead of ὄρος.
* ↑ Or, “practices of the monsters,” or “inhospitable beasts.” Abbe Cruice suggests παροξέων, and Roeper ἐμπλάστων.
* ↑ Literally, the (accursed) tree.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 23

Chapter XXII.—Doctrine of the Ebionæans.
The Ebionæans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates.  They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionæans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionæans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

## Footnotes

* ↑ See [vol. i. p. 352] Irenæus, i. 26; [vol. iii. p. 651] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlviii.; [vol. iv. p. 429, this series] Origen, Contr. Cels. ii. 1; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 27; Epiphanius, Hær., xxx.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 2. Hippolytus is indebted in this article partly to Irenæus, and partly to original sources.
* ↑ Or, “that the Christ of God was named Jesus” (Bunsen).
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 24

Chapter XXIII.—The Heresy of Theodotus.
But there was a certain Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, who introduced a novel heresy. He announces tenets concerning the originating cause of the universe, which are partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far as he acknowledges that all things were created by God. Forcibly appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that (our Lord) appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe. (According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove.  And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See [vol. iii. p. 654, “two Theodoti”] Tertullian, Præscript., c. liii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast, v. 27; Epiphanius, Hær., liv.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have been greatly indebted to Theodotus, whose system he has explained and commented upon.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VII/Part 19

Chapter XVIII.—Source of Marcionism; Empedocles Reasserted as the Suggester of the Heresy.
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil—why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved.

## Footnotes

* ↑ ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος. Bunsen [more suo, vol. i., p. 89] considers this a corrupt reading, and suggests καλῶν λόγων διδάσκαλος, i.e., “a teacher of good words,” i.e., an evangelist, which word, as just used, he does not wish to repeat. The Abbe Cruice denies the necessity for any such emendation, and refers us to an article in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Cambridge, March, 1855), the writer of which maintains, on the authority of St. Jerome, that St. Mark had amputated his thumb, in order that he might be considered disqualified for the priesthood.
* ↑ 1 Tim. iv. 3.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVIII/Chapter 2

Chapter II.—Definition of Goodness and Justice.
And Peter said: “That I may not waste my time in contentious discussions, while I make the fair demand that you should give answers to my propositions, I shall myself answer those questions which I put, as is your wish. I then affirm that the man who bestows goods is good, just as I see the Framer of the world doing when He gives the sun to the good, and the rain to the just and unjust.” And Simon said: “It is most unjust that he should give the same things to the just and the unjust.” And Peter said:  “Do you, then, in your turn state to us what course of conduct would constitute Him good.” And Simon said: “It is you that must state this.” And Peter said:  “I will. He who gives the same things to the good and just, and also to the evil and unjust, is not even just according to you; but you would with reason call Him just if He gave goods to the good and evils to the evil. What course of conduct, then, would He adopt, if He does not adopt the plan of giving things temporal to the evil, if perchance they should be converted, and things eternal to the good, if at least they remain good? And thus by giving to all, but by gratifying the more excellent, His justice is good; and all the more long-suffering in this, that to sinners who repent He freely grants forgiveness of their sins, and to those who have acted well He assigns even eternal life. But judging at last, and giving to each one what he deserves, He is just. If, then, this is right, confess it; but if it appears to you not to be right, refute it.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ There is a lacuna in one of the mss. here, which is supplied in various ways. We have inserted the word “goods.”
* ↑ This translation of Cotelerius is doubtful. More correctly it would be, “by gratifying different people,” which does not make sense.  Wieseler proposes, “by gratifying in different ways.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVIII/Chapter 3

Chapter III.—God Both Good and Just.
And Simon said: “I said once for all, ‘Every lawgiver, looking to justice, is just.’”  And Peter said: “If it is the part of him who is good not to lay down a law, but of him who is just to lay down a law, in this way the Framer of the world is both good and just. He is good, inasmuch as it is plain that He did not lay down a law in writing from the times of Adam to Moses; but inasmuch as He had a written law from Moses to the present times, He is just also.” And Simon said: “Prove to me from the utterances of your teacher that it is within the power of the same man to be good and just; for to me it seems impossible that the lawgiver who is good should also be just.” And Peter said:  “I shall explain to you how goodness itself is just. Our teacher Himself first said to the Pharisee who asked Him, ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Do not call me good; for one is good, even the Father who is in the heavens;’ and straightway He introduced these words, ‘But if thou shalt wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ And when he said, ‘What commandments?’ He pointed him to those of the law. Now He would not, if He were indicating some other good being, have referred him to the commandments of the Just One. That indeed justice and goodness are different I allow, but you do not know that it is within the power of the same being to be good and just. For He is good, in that He is now long-suffering with the penitent, and welcomes them; but just, when acting as judge He will give to every one according to his deserts.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ The text seems corrupt here. Literally it is, “from Moses to the present times, as has been written, He is just also.”
* ↑ Luke xviii. 18, ff.; Matt. xix. 16, ff.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVIII/Chapter 22

Chapter XXII.—Peter Worships One God.
When Simon said this, and was going to depart, Peter said: “Listen to this one other remark, and then go where you like.” Whereupon Simon turned back and remained, and Peter said: “I know how you were then astonished when you heard me say, ‘Whosoever says anything whatever against God who created the world, I do not believe him.’ But listen now to something additional, and greater than this. If God who created the world has in reality such a character as the Scriptures assign Him, and if somehow or other He is incomparably wicked, more wicked than either the Scriptures were able to represent Him, or any other can even conceive Him to be, nevertheless I shall not give up worshipping Him alone, and doing His will. For I wish you to know and to be convinced, that he who has not affection for his own Creator, can never have it towards another. And if he has it towards another, he has it contrary to nature, and he is ignorant that he has this passion for the unjust from the evil one. Nor will he be able to retain even it stedfastly. And, indeed, if there is another above the Creator (Demiurge), he will welcome me, since he is good, all the more that I love my own Father; and he will not welcome you, as he knows that you have abandoned your own natural Creator: for I do not call Him Father, influenced by a greater hope, and not caring for what is reasonable. Thus, even if you find one who is superior to Him, he knows that you will one day abandon him; and the more so that he has not been your father, since you have abandoned Him who was really your Father.

## Footnotes

* ↑ “Incomparably wicked, more wicked than;” literally, “incomparably wicked as.”
* ↑ The Greek has ὁμοίως, “in like manner.” We have translated ὅμως.