OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 39

Chapter XVII.—(38.) The Seventh Passage. Who May Be Called Immaculate. How It is that in God’s Sight No Man is Justified.
“They also, says he, “quote the text: ‘For in thy sight shall no man living be justified.’” And his affected answer to this passage amounts to nothing else than the showing how texts of Holy Scripture seem to clash with one another, whereas it is our duty rather to demonstrate their agreement. These are his words: “We must confront them with this answer, from the testimony of the evangelist concerning holy Zacharias and Elisabeth, when he says, ‘And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.’” Now both these righteous persons had, of course, read amongst these very commandments the method of cleansing their own sins. For, according to what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews of “every high priest taken from among men,” Zacharias used no doubt to offer sacrifices even for his own sins. The meaning, however, of the phrase “blameless,” which is applied to him, we have already, as I suppose, sufficiently explained. “And,” he adds, “the blessed apostle says, ‘That we should be holy, and without blame before Him.’” This, according to him, is said that we should be so, if those persons are to be understood by “blameless” who are altogether without sin. If, however, they are “blameless” who are without blame or censure, then it is impossible for us to deny that there have been, and still are, such persons even in this present life; for it does not follow that a man is without sin because he has not a blot of accusation. Accordingly the apostle, when selecting ministers for ordination, does not say, “If any be sinless,” for he would be unable to find any such; but he says, “If any be without accusation,” for such, of course, he would be able to find. But our opponent does not tell us how, in accordance with his views, we ought to understand the scripture, “For in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” The meaning of these words is plain enough, receiving as it does additional light from the preceding clause: “Enter not,” says the Psalmist, “into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” It is judgment which he fears, therefore he desires that mercy which triumphs over judgment. For the meaning of the prayer, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant,” is this: “Judge me not according to Thyself,” who art without sin; “for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” This without doubt is understood as spoken of the present life, whilst the predicate “shall not be justified” has reference to that perfect state of righteousness which belongs not to this life.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. cxliii. 2.
* ↑ Luke i. 6.
* ↑ Heb. v. 1.
* ↑ See above, ch. xi. (23).
* ↑ Eph. i. 4.
* ↑ Tit. i. 6.
* ↑ Ps. cxliii. 2.
* ↑ Jas. ii. 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 43

(42.) God’s Promises Conditional. Saints of the Old Testament Were Saved by the Grace of Christ.
He, however, thought he had discovered a great support for his cause in the prophet Isaiah; because by him God said: “If ye be willing, and hearken unto me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye be not willing, and hearken not to me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken this.” As if the entire law were not full of conditions of this sort; or as if its commandments had been given to proud men for any other reason than that “the law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” “It entered, therefore, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” In other words, That man might receive commandments, trusting as he did in his own resources, and that, failing in these and becoming a transgressor, he might ask for a deliverer and a saviour; and that the fear of the law might humble him, and bring him, as a schoolmaster, to faith and grace. Thus “their weaknesses being multiplied, they hastened after;” and in order to heal them, Christ in due season came. In His grace even righteous men of old believed, and by the same grace were they holpen; so that with joy did they receive a foreknowledge of Him, and some of them even foretold His coming,—whether they were found among the people of Israel themselves, as Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Samuel, and David, and other such; or outside that people, as Job; or previous to that people, as Abraham, and Noah, and all others who are either mentioned or not in Holy Scripture. “For there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” without whose grace nobody is delivered from condemnation, whether he has derived that condemnation from him in whom all men sinned, or has afterwards aggravated it by his own iniquities.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. i. 19, 20.
* ↑ Gal. iii. 19.
* ↑ Rom. v. 20.
* ↑ Ps. xvi. 4.
* ↑ 1 Tim. ii. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 5

(4.) The Fourth Breviate.
IV. “We must ask, again,” he says, “What is sin,—an act, or a thing? If it is a thing, it must have an author; and if it be said to have an author, then another besides God will seem to be introduced as the author of a thing. But if it is impious to say this, we are driven to confess that every sin is an act, not a thing. If therefore it is an act, for this very reason, because it is an act, it can be avoided.” Our reply is, that sin no doubt is called an act, and is such, not a thing. But likewise in the body, lameness for the same reason is an act, not a thing, since it is the foot itself, or the body, or the man who walks lame because of an injured foot, that is the thing; but still the man cannot avoid the lameness, unless his foot be cured. The same change may take place in the inward man, but it is by God’s grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. The defect itself which causes the lameness of the man is neither the foot, nor the body, nor the man, nor indeed the lameness itself; for there is of course no lameness when there is no walking, although there is nevertheless the defect which causes the lameness whenever there is an attempt to walk. Let him therefore ask, what name must be given to this defect,—would he have it called a thing, or an act, or rather a bad property in the thing, by which the deformed act comes into existence? So in the inward man the soul is the thing, theft is an act, and avarice is the defect, that is, the property by which the soul is evil, even when it does nothing in gratification of its avarice, even when it hears the prohibition, “Thou shalt not covet,” and censures itself, and yet remains avaricious. By faith, however, it receives renovation; in other words, it is healed day by day,—yet only by God’s grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Cœlestius had in the previous breviate confined sin to either nature or accident: Augustin declares it to be a property. By this he apparently means that it is a non-essential attribute, without which man would remain man, but yet not what is called a “separable accident.”—W.]
* ↑ Ex. xx. 17.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iv. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book IV/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.—Of the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord’s Supper, with Which Act the Discussion of All the Narratives of the Four Evangelists Conjointly Commenced, No Question Calling for Special Examination is Raised by Mark’s Gospel.
8. Mark continues as follows: “And He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judæa by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again;” and so on, down to where it is said, “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” In this entire context, all the above has been subjected to investigation already, with the view of removing the appearance of any contrariety, when we were comparing the other Gospels in due order with Matthew. This narrative, however, of the poor widow who cast two mites into the treasury is reported only by two of them, namely, Mark and Luke. But their harmony admits of no question. And from this point onwards to the Lord’s Supper, which latter act formed the starting-point for our discussion of all the records of the four evangelists taken conjointly, Mark introduces nothing of a kind to make it necessary for us to institute a special comparison between it and any other statement, or to conduct an inquiry with the view of dispelling any appearance of discrepancy.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Mark x. 1-xii. 44.
* ↑ Luke xxi. 1–4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book IV/Prologue

Prologue.
1. As we have examined Matthew’s narrative in its complete connection, and as the comparison which we have carried out between it and the other three on to its conclusion has established the fact, that not one of these evangelists contains anything either at variance with other statements in his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts presented by his fellow-historians, let us now subject Mark to a similar scrutiny. Our plan will be to omit those sections which he has in common with Matthew, which we have already investigated as far as seemed requisite and are now done with, and to take up those paragraphs which remain, with the view of submitting them to discussion and comparison, and of demonstrating their thorough harmony with what is related by the other evangelists on to the notice of the Lord’s Supper. For we have already dealt with all the incidents which are reported in all the four Gospels from that point on to the end, and have considered the subject of their mutual consistency.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Title Page

St. AUGUSTIN:
the harmony of the gospels
translated by
the rev. s. d. f. salmond, d.d.,
free college, aberdeen
edited, with notes and introduction, by
the rev. m. b. riddle, d.d.,
professor of new-testament exegesis, western theological seminary, allegheny, pa.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels/Book IV/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.—Of the Question How It Can Be Shown that the Narrative of the Haul of Fishes Which Luke Has Given Us is Not to Be Identified with the Record of an Apparently Similar Incident Which John Has Reported Subsequently to the Lord’s Resurrection; And of the Fact that from This Point on to the Lord’s Supper, from Which Event Onwards to the End the Combined Accounts of All the Evangelists Have Been Examined, No Difficulty Calling for Special Consideration Emerges in the Gospel of Luke Any More Than in that of Mark.
10. Luke, then, commences his Gospel in the following fashion: “There was in the days of Herod the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth;”and so on, down to the passage where it is said, “Now when He had left speaking, He said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.” In this whole section, there is nothing to stir any question as to discrepancies. It is true that John appears to relate something resembling the last passage. But what he gives is really something widely different. I refer to what took place by the sea of Tiberias after the Lord’s resurrection. In that instance, not only is the particular time extremely different, but the circumstances themselves are of quite another character. For there the nets were cast on the right side, and a hundred and fifty and three fishes were caught. It is added, too, that they were great fishes. And the evangelist, therefore, has felt it necessary to state, that “for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken,” surely just because he had in view the previous case, which is recorded by Luke, and in connection with which the nets were broken by reason of the multitude of fishes. As for the rest, Luke has not recounted things like those which John has narrated, except in relation to the Lord’s passion and resurrection. And this whole section, which comes in between the Lord’s Supper and the conclusion, has already been handled by us in a manner which has yielded, as the result of a comparison of the testimonies of all the evangelists conjointly, the demonstration of an entire absence of discrepancies between them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Luke i. 5-v. 4.
* ↑ John xxi. 1–11.
* ↑ [Rumpebantur, “were breaking,” as in the Greek; comp. Revised Version.—R.]
# New Jersey v. New York (283 U.S. 336)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 336
New Jersey v. New York (283 U.S. 336)
Argued on Exceptions to Report of the Special Master April 13-15, 1931.
Decided May 4, 1931.
[Syllabus from pages 336-338 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N. J., James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., and William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N. J., for complainant.
Mr. Thomas Penney, Jr., o Buf falo, N. Y., for defendant State of New york.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 339-340 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilly, of New York City, for defendant City of New york.
Mr. George G. Chandler, of Philadelphia, Pa., for intervener State of Pennsylvania.
[Argument of Counsel from page 340 intentionally omitted]
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
# New Jersey v. Delaware (291 U.S. 361)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
291 U.S. 361
New Jersey v. Delaware
Argued: Jan. 9, 10, 1934. --- Decided: Feb 5, 1934
[Syllabus from pages 361-363 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Duane E. Minard and George S. Hobart, both of Newark, N.J., Walter H. Bacon, and Wm. A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N.J., for the State of New Jersey.
Messrs. Clarence A. Southerland and Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., both of Wilmington, Del., for the State of Delaware.
Mr. Justice CARDOZO 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 Jersey v. Delaware

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "New Jersey v. Delaware."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* New Jersey v. Delaware (291 U.S. 361)
* New Jersey v. Delaware (295 U.S. 694)
# New Jersey v. Delaware (295 U.S. 694)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 694
New Jersey v. Delaware

## 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 Jersey v. New York

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "New Jersey v. New York."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* New Jersey v. New York (28 U.S. 461), (7 L.Ed. 741), (3 Pet. 461)
* New Jersey v. New York (30 U.S. 284), (8 L.Ed. 127), (5 Pet. 284)
* New Jersey v. New York (31 U.S. 323)
* New Jersey v. New York (283 U.S. 336)
* New Jersey v. New York (283 U.S. 805)
* New Jersey v. New York (345 U.S. 369)
* New Jersey v. New York (347 U.S. 995)
* New Jersey v. New York (523 U.S. 767), (140 L.Ed.2d 993), (118 S.Ct. 1726)
See also New York v. New Jersey
# New Jersey v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 1
New Jersey v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company
Argued: Dec. 11, 1962. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1963
William Gural, Hillside, N.J., for appellants.
Vincent P. Biunno, Newark, N.J., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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/Confessions/Book XI/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—Nevertheless There is Time Past and Future.
2. I ask, Father, I do not affirm. O my God, rule and guide me. “Who is there who can say to me that there are not three times (as we learned when boys, and as we have taught boys), the past, present, and future, but only present, because these two are not? Or are they also; but when from future it becometh present, cometh it forth from some secret place, and when from the present it becometh past, doth it retire into anything secret? For where have they, who have foretold future things, seen these things, if as yet they are not? For that which is not cannot be seen. And they who relate things past could not relate them as true, did they not perceive them in their mind. Which things, if they were not, they could in no wise be discerned. There are therefore things both future and past.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Confessions/Book XI/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.—We are Ignorant in What Manner God Teaches Future Things.
25. Thou, therefore, Ruler of Thy creatures, what is the method by which Thou teachest souls those things which are future? For Thou hast taught Thy prophets. What is that way by which Thou, to whom nothing is future, dost teach future things; or rather of future things dost teach present? For what is not, of a certainty cannot be taught. Too far is this way from my view; it is too mighty for me, I cannot attain unto it; but by Thee I shall be enabled, when Thou shalt have granted it, sweet light of my hidden eyes.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. cxxxix. 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Confessions/Book XI/Chapter 21

Chapter XXI.—How Time May Be Measured.
27. I have just now said, then, that we measure times as they pass, that we may be able to say that this time is twice as much as that one, or that this is only as much as that, and so of any other of the parts of time which we are able to tell by measuring. Wherefore, as I said, we measure times as they pass. And if any one should ask me, “Whence dost thou know?” I can answer, “I know, because we measure; nor can we measure things that are not; and things past and future are not.” But how do we measure present time, since it hath not space? It is measured while it passeth; but when it shall have passed, it is not measured; for there will not be aught that can be measured. But whence, in what way, and whither doth it pass while it is being measured? Whence, but from the future? Which way, save through the present? Whither, but into the past? From that, therefore, which as yet is not, through that which hath no space, into that which now is not. But what do we measure, unless time in some space? For we say not single, and double, and triple, and equal, or in any other way in which we speak of time, unless with respect to the spaces of times. In what space, then, do we measure passing time? Is it in the future, whence it passeth over? But what yet we measure not, is not. Or is it in the present, by which it passeth? But no space, we do not measure. Or in the past, whither it passeth? But that which is not now, we measure not.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Confessions/Book XI/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.—In What Manner Time May Properly Be Designated.
26. But what now is manifest and clear is, that neither are there future nor past things. Nor is it fitly said, “There are three times, past, present and future;” but perchance it might be fitly said, “There are three times; a present of things past, a present of things present, and a present of things future.” For these three do somehow exist in the soul, and otherwise I see them not: present of things past, memory; present of things present, sight; present of things future, expectation. If of these things we are permitted to speak, I see three times, and I grant there are three. It may also be said, “There are three times, past, present and future,” as usage falsely has it. See, I trouble not, nor gainsay, nor reprove; provided always that which is said may be understood, that neither the future, nor that which is past, now is. For there are but few things which we speak properly, many things improperly; but what we may wish to say is understood.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume I/Confessions/Book XI/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Time Can Only Be Perceived or Measured While It is Passing.
21. And yet, O Lord, we perceive intervals of times, and we compare them with themselves, and we say some are longer, others shorter. We even measure by how much shorter or longer this time may be than that; and we answer, “That this is double or treble, while that is but once, or only as much as that.” But we measure times passing when we measure them by perceiving them; but past times, which now are not, or future times, which as yet are not, who can measure them? Unless, perchance, any one will dare to say, that that can be measured which is not. When, therefore, time is passing, it can be perceived and measured; but when it has passed, it cannot, since it is not.