OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Pacianus the bishop

Chapter CVI.
Pacianus, bishop of Barcelona, in the Pyrenees Mountains, a man of chaste eloquence, and as distinguished by his life as by his speech, wrote various short works, among which are The Deer, and Against the Novatians, and died in the reign of Emperor Theodosian, in extreme old age.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop about 360, died about 390.
* ↑ Deer,This title has given rise to a good deal of conjecture. Fabricius’s conjecture that it referred to certain games held on the Kalends of January is doubted by Vallarsi, but appears to have been really acute, from the fact that two mss. read “The deer [Cervulus] on the Kalends of January and against other pagan games.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Pamphilus the presbyter

Chapter LXXV.
Pamphilus the presbyter, patron of Eusebius bishop of Cæsarea, was so inflamed with love of sacred literature, that he transcribed the greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand and these are still preserved in the library at Cæsarea. I have twenty-five volumes of Commentaries of Origen, written in his hand, On the twelve prophets which I hug and guard with such joy, that I deem myself to have the wealth of Croesus. And if it is such joy to have one epistle of a martyr how much more to have so many thousand lines which seem to me to be traced in his blood. He wrote an Apology for Origen before Eusebius had written his and was put to death at Cæsarea in Palestine in the persecution of Maximinus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Died 309.
* ↑ volumes A H 31 a e 10 21 Val.; omit T 25 30 Her.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book II

Book II.
Augustin pursues his defense of the equality of the Trinity; and in treating of the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the various appearances of God, demonstrates that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends, because the one has sent, the other has been sent; but that the Trinity, being in all things equal, and alike in its own nature unchangeable and invisible and omnipresent, works indivisibly in each sending or appearance.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book II/Chapter 1

Preface.
When men seek to know God, and bend their minds according to the capacity of human weakness to the understanding of the Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience, the wearisome difficulties of the task, whether from the sight itself of the mind striving to gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed, from the manifold and various modes of speech employed in the sacred writings (wherein, as it seems to me, the mind is nothing else but roughly exercised, in order that it may find sweetness when glorified by the grace of Christ);—such men, I say, when they have dispelled every ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, ought of all others most easily to make allowance for those who err in the investigation of so deep a secret. But there are two things most hard to bear with, in the case of those who are in error: hasty assumption before the truth is made plain; and, when it has been made plain, defence of the falsehood thus hastily assumed. From which two faults, inimical as they are to the finding out of the truth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred books, should God, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield of His good will, and with the grace of His mercy, I will not be slow to search out the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through the creature. For both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this end, that He may Himself be sought, and Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the other. Nor shall I be afraid of giving my opinion, in which I shall more desire to be examined by the upright, than fear to be carped at by the perverse. For charity, most excellent and unassuming, gratefully accepts the dovelike eye; but for the dog’s tooth nothing remains, save either to shun it by the most cautious humility, or to blunt it by the most solid truth; and far rather would I be censured by any one whatsoever, than be praised by either the erring or the flatterer. For the lover of truth need fear no one’s censure. For he that censures, must needs be either enemy or friend. And if an enemy reviles, he must be borne with: but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if he teaches, listened to. But if one who errs praises you, he confirms your error; if one who flatters, he seduces you into error. “Let the righteous,” therefore, “smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. v. 12
* ↑ Ps. cxli. 5
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin/On the Holy Trinity/Book II/Chapter 12

Chapter 11.—Of the Same Appearance.
20. That place of Scripture demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the Father, “To the only invisible God.” And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner “He was found in fashion as a man,” before He had taken our flesh, seeing that his feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God?” For, pray, had He already “emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man?” when we know when it was that He did this through His birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? I could put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not here understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons?
21. For, lest any one should think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a contradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, “And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 17
* ↑ Phil. ii. 6, 7
* ↑ [The theophanies of the Pentateuch are trinitarian in their implication. They involve distinctions in God—God sending, and God sent; God speaking of God, and God speaking to God. The trinitarianism of the Old Testament has been lost sight of to some extent in the modern construction of the doctrine. The patristic, mediæval, and reformation theologies worked this vein with thoroughness, and the analysis of Augustin in this reference is worthy of careful study.—W.G.T.S.]
* ↑ Gen. xviii. 33
# New Jersey P.L.1991, c.109

* information about this edition.
* related portals: New Jersey Legislature.
CHAPTER 109, LAWS OF 1991
AN ACT concerning water pollution control and supplementing P.L.1977, c.74 (C.58:10A-1 et seq.).
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
C.58:10A-10.10 Commissioner to take action against owner of municipal treatment works exceeding effluent limitations.
    1. Whenever the commissioner finds that effluent limitations under a discharge permit, issued pursuant to P.L.1977, c.74 (C.58:10A-1 et seq.), are being exceeded by a county or municipal utilities authority organized pursuant to P.L.1957, c.183 (C.40:14B-1 et seq.), which provides disposal or discharge but not treatment of the effluent of one or more municipal treatment works, and the commissioner further finds that the violation of the effluent limitation is caused by effluents discharged by one or more municipal treatment works into the disposal facilities of the county or municipal utilities authority, the commissioner shall, in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of section 10 of P.L.1977, c.74 (C.58:10A-10), issue an order for compliance to, or take such other action authorized thereunder against, the owner or operator of the municipal treatment works determined to be discharging pollutants into the utilities authority's facilities in violation of the discharge permit limitations of the municipal treatment works. The commissioner shall prescribe uniform sampling and reporting requirements for the county or municipal utilities authority and each of the municipal treatment works discharging effluents into the disposal facilities of the authority for the purpose of determining the source and extent of violation of permit requirements.
    2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Approved April 19, 1991.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 115
Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Company
Argued: Nov. 17, 1954. --- Decided: Dec 6, 1954
See 348 U.S. 932, 75 S.Ct. 334.
Messrs.
Lynell G. Skarda, Dee C. Blythe, Clovis, N.M., for petitioner.
Mr. Edward W. Napier, Lubbock, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Moore v. Michigan

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 155
Moore v. Michigan
Argued: Oct. 15, 16, 1957. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1957
Mr. William H. Culver, Kalamazoo, Mich., for petitioner.
Mr. Samuel J. Torina, Lansing, Mich., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Moore v. McGuire

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
205 U.S. 214
Moore v. McGuire
Argued: and submitted March 1 and 4, 1907. --- Decided: March 25, 1907
Messrs. U. M. Rose, D. E. Myers, W. E. Hemingway, G. B. Rose, Lem Banks, and J. W. Apperson for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 215-216 intentionally omitted]
messrs. J. M. Moore, Charles Scott, E. H. Woods, and Alexander Y. Scott for appellees.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Letters of St. Augustin/Letters of St. Augustin/Chapter 158

Letter CCXXVII.
(a.d. 428 or 429.)
To the Aged Alypius, Augustin Sends Greeting.
Brother Paulus has arrived here safely: he reports that the pains devoted to the business which engaged him have been rewarded with success; the Lord will grant that with these his trouble in that matter may terminate. He salutes you warmly, and tells us tidings concerning Gabinianus which give us joy, namely, that having by God’s mercy obtained a prosperous issue in his case, he is now not only in name a Christian, but in sincerity a very excellent convert to the faith, and was baptized recently at Easter, having both in his heart and on his lips the grace which he received. How much I long for him I can never express; but you know that I love him.
The president of the medical faculty, Dioscorus, has also professed the Christian faith, having obtained grace at the same time. Hear the manner of his conversion, for his stubborn neck and his bold tongue could not be subdued without some miracle. His daughter, the only comfort of his life, was sick, and her sickness became so serious that her life was, according even to her father’s own admission, despaired of. It is reported, and the truth of the report is beyond question, for even before brother Paul’s return the fact was mentioned to me by Count Peregrinus, a most respectable and truly Christian man, who was baptized at the same time with Dioscorus and Gabinianus,—it is reported, I say, that the old man, feeling himself at last constrained to implore the compassion of Christ, bound himself by a vow that he would become a Christian if he saw her restored to health. She recovered, but he perfidiously drew back from fulfilling his vow. Nevertheless the hand of the Lord was still stretched forth, for suddenly he is smitten with blindness, and immediately the cause of this calamity was impressed upon his mind. He confessed his fault aloud, and vowed again that if his sight were given back he would perform what he had vowed. He recovered his sight, fulfilled his vow, and still the hand of God was stretched forth. He had not committed the Creed to memory, or perhaps had refused to commit it, and had excused himself on the plea of inability. God had seen this. Immediately after all the ceremonies of his reception he is seized with paralysis, affecting many, indeed almost all his members, and even his tongue. Then, being warned by a dream, he confesses in writing that it had been told to him that this had happened because he had not repeated the Creed. After that confession the use of all his members was restored to him, except the tongue alone; nevertheless he, being still under this affliction, made manifest by writing that he had, notwithstanding, learned the Creed, and still retained it in his memory; and so that frivolous loquacity which, as you know, blemished his natural kindliness, and made him, when he mocked Christians, exceedingly profane, was altogether destroyed in him. What shall I say, but, “Let us sing a hymn to the Lord, and highly exalt Him for ever! Amen.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Archiater.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Letters of St. Augustin/Letters of St. Augustin/Chapter 153

Letter CCXII.
(a.d. 423.)
To Quintilianus, My Lord Most Blessed and Brother and Fellow Bishop Deservedly Venerable, Augustin Sends Greeting.
Venerable father, I commend to you in the love of Christ these honourable servants of God and precious members of Christ, Galla, a widow (who has taken on herself sacred vows), and her daughter Simplicia, a consecrated virgin, who is subject to her mother by reason of her age, but above her by reason of her holiness. We have nourished them as far as we have been able with the word of God; and by this epistle, as if it were with my own hand, I commit them to you, to be comforted and aided in every way which their interest or necessity requires. This duty your Holiness would doubtless have undertaken without any recommendation from me; for if it is our duty on account of the Jerusalem above, of which we are all citizens, and in which they desire to have a place of distinguished holiness, to cherish towards them not only the affection due to fellow-citizens, but even brotherly love, how much stronger is their claim on you, who reside in the same country in this earth in which these ladies, for the love of Christ, renounced the distinctions of this world! I also ask you to condescend to receive with the same love with which I have offered it my official salutation, and to remember me in your prayers. These ladies carry with them relics of the most blessed and glorious martyr Stephen: your Holiness knows how to give due honour to these, as we have done.

## Footnotes

* ↑ A memorial chapel for the reception of relics of Saint Stephen had been built at Hippo.—See City of God, book XXII.
# New Orleans Company v. Harris

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 367
New Orleans Company v. Harris
Argued: and Submitted April 30, 1918. --- Decided: June 3, 1918
Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe, of New Orleans, La., and Robert H. Thompson, of Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Thomas G. Fewell, of Meridian, Miss., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Stafford

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
53 U.S. 343
New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Stafford
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Texas.
Although the complainants were not the same as in the preceding case of the Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford and Wife, yet the respondents were the same and the subject-matter was a breach of the same transaction. The only difference is stated fully in the opinion of the court; and by agreement of parties the two cases were consolidated in the court below and to be argued together.
It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General) for the appellants, and Mr. Harris for the appellees.
Mr. Crittenden contended,
1. That the court below erred in dismissing the bill for the want of proper parties, and cited 6 Wheat., 559; 10 Id., 167; 11 Id., 133, 134. Act of Congress, 28 Feb., 1839; 5 Stat. at L., 321, § 1.
2. That there was no proof of Mrs. Stafford's minority, and if there were, that she afterwards confirmed the mortgage.
3. That there was no proof of her matrimonial or dotal rights or their amount.
4. That the statute of limitations could not apply. No court of equity would sanction a fraudulent removal of the property with a view to found a place of limitations upon it. 2 Story Eq., 188, ch. 23, § 903. Eden on Injunc., ch. 16, pp. 349, 350.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 16
New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Argued by Mr. William A. Maury, and submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Philip Phillips and Mr. Thomas Hunton for the appellants.
No counsel appeared for the appellees.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company/Dissent Burton

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Burton
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 306
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company
Argued: and Submitted Feb. 8, 1950. --- Decided: April 24, 1950
Mr. Justice BURTON, dissenting.
These common trusts are available only when the instruments creating the participating trusts permit participation in the common fund. Whether or not further notice to beneficiaries should supplement the notice and representation here provided is properly within the discretion of the State. The Federal Constitution does not require it here.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mullan v. United States (118 U.S. 271)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 271
Mullan v. United States
Argued: May 10, 1886. ---
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury and W. W. Morrow, for the United States.
Walter H. Smith, for appellants, John Mullan and another.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set forth the constitutional requirements for notice of judicial proceedings to a potential party under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burton
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 306
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company
Argued: and Submitted Feb. 8, 1950. --- Decided: April 24, 1950
Mr. Kenneth J. Mullane, New York City, for appellants.
Mr. Albert B. Maginnes, New York City, for appellee, Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.
Mr. James N. Vaughan, New York City, for appellee, James N. Vaughan, Guardian et al.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mullan v. United States (212 U.S. 516)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 516
Mullan v. United States (212 U.S. 516)
Argued: January 20, 1909. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
Messrs. W. E. Richardson, F. L. Siddons, and J. H. Ralston for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Mr. George M. Anderson for appellee.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse