OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book II/Summary of the Chapters

Book II.
Summary of the Chapters.
1–3. A criticism on Rufinus’ Apology to Anastasius. His excuses for not coming to Rome are absurd. His parents are dead and the journey is easy. No one ever heard before of his being imprisoned or exiled for the faith.
4–8. His confession of faith is unsatisfactory. No one asked him about the Trinity, but about Origen’s doctrines of the Resurrection, the origin of souls, and the salvability of Satan. As to the Resurrection and to Satan he is ambiguous. As to souls he professes ignorance.
9. What Latin! The poor souls must be tormented by his barbarisms.
10. It is not permitted to you to be ignorant of such a matter which all the churches know.
11. As to translating the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, it is not a question, but a charge that you unjustifiably altered the book.
12, 13. Origen asserts Christ to be a creature, and maintains universal restitution. Where has he contradicted this?
14. The question is, as Anastasius says to John of Jerusalem, with what motive you translated the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν
15. You pretend not to be Origen’s defender, but you publish and enlarge the Apology for him and allege the heretics’ falsification of his works.
16. Your defence gains no support from Eusebius or Didymus, who, each for his own reason, defend the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν as it stands.
17. If we may allege falsification at every turn we make a chaos of all past literature.
18. The object of Origen’s letter, of which he translates only a part, is not to shew the falsification of his writings but to vituperate the Bishops who condemned him.
19. It is only in reference to a particular point in his dispute with Candidus that Origen alleges this falsification. The story of Hilary’s being condemned through his writings having been falsified has no foundation.
20. That which you tell about myself in Damasus’ council is mere after-dinner gossip.
21–2. The attack on Epiphanius as a plagiarist of Origen is an outrage on the Bishops generally. Origen never wrote 6000 books.
23. I ascertained at the library at Cæsarea that the Apology you quote as Pamphilus’ is the work of Eusebius.
24. The letter falsely circulated in Africa as mine, and expressing regret for my translation of the Old Test. from the Hebrew bears the mark of your hand. I have always honoured the Seventy Translators.
25–32. In proof of this, I bring forward the prefaces to my Translation of the Books from Genesis to Isaiah.
33. As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew.
34. A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.
35. Though the LXX has been of great value, we should be grateful for fresh translations from the original.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book II/Chapter 9

9. Before I enter upon the subject matter of this passage, I must stand in admiration of words worthy of Theophrastus:
“I am informed, he says, that some stir has been made on the question of the nature of the soul. Whether complaints on a matter of this kind ought to be entertained instead of being put aside, you must yourself decide.”
If these questions as to the origin of the soul have been stirred at Rome, what is the meaning of this complaint and murmuring on the question whether they ought to be entertained or not, a question which belongs entirely to the discretion of bishops? But perhaps he thinks that question and complaint mean the same thing, because he finds this form of speech in the Commentaries of Caper. Then he writes: “Some of those whom I have read hold that the soul is infused together with the material body through the channel of the human seed; and of these they give such proofs as they can.” What license have we here in the forms of speech! What mixing of the moods and tenses! “I have read some sayings—they confirmed them with what assertions they could.” And in what follows: “Others assert that God is every day making new souls and infusing them into the bodies which have been framed in the womb; while others again believe that the souls were all made long ago when God made all things of nothing, and that all that he now does is to send out each soul to be born in its body as seems good to him.” Here also we have a most beautiful arrangement. Some, he says, assert this and that; some declare that the souls were made long ago, that is, when God made all things of nothing, and that He now sends them forth to be born in their own body as it pleases him. He speaks so distastefully and so confusedly that I have more trouble in correcting his mistakes than he in writing them. At the end he says: “I, however, though I have read these things;” and, while the sentence still hangs unfinished, he adds, as if he had brought forward something fresh: “I, however, do not deny that I have both read each of these things, and as yet confess that I am ignorant.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ The words are translated literally here, so as to shew how they lend themselves to Jerome’s strictures.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 11

11. You state, with some prevarication, that you have translated from the Greek what I had before translated into Latin; but I do not clearly understand to what you are alluding, unless you are still bringing up against me the Commentary on the Ephesians, and hardening yourself in your effrontery, as if you had received no answer on this head. You stop your ears and will not hear the voice of the charmer. What I have done in that and other commentaries is to develop both my own opinion and that of others, stating clearly which are catholic and which heretical. This is the common rule and custom of those who undertake to explain books in commentaries: They give at length in their exposition the various opinions, and explain what is thought by themselves and by others. This is done not only by those who expound the holy Scriptures but also by those who explain secular books whether in Greek or in Latin. You, however, cannot screen yourself in reference to the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν by this fact; for you will be convicted by your own Preface, in which you undertake that the evil parts and those which have been added by heretics have been cut off but that all that is best remains; so that all that you have written, whether good or bad, must be held to be the work, not of the author whom you are translating, but of yourself who have made the translation. Perhaps, indeed, you ought to have corrected the errors of the heretics, and to have set forth publicly what is wrong in Origen. But on this point, (since you refer me to the document itself,) I have made you my answer before reading your letter.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus/Introduction

Introduction.
Besides his elder sister Marcellina, who received the veil at the hands of Pope Liberius, at Christmas [perh. 353 a.d.], St. Ambrose had also a brother named Satyrus, to which name, in the epitaph on him ascribed to the bishop, is added Uranius. This is probably, however, merely in reference to his translation from earth to heaven.
Satyrus had in his earlier years, as well as St. Ambrose, practised as an advocate, and held office. But when his brother was appointed Bishop of Milan, Satyrus at once gave up his appointment, and devoted his life to managing St. Ambrose’s secular affairs, that nothing might distract him from his episcopal duties. After however, a few short years of devotion to this task, he succumbed to a severe illness October 17, a.d. 379.
The grief of St. Ambrose at the loss of his absolutely like-minded brother was intense, and to it we owe the exquisite discourse delivered at the funeral of Satyrus, and the second, on the resurrection, delivered a week later.
St. Ambrose subsequently revised these two addresses, and they have come down to us as the “two books of St. Ambrose on the decease of Satyrus,” some mss. adding, “and the resurrection of the dead.”
The epitaph on Satyrus, said to be by St. Ambrose, is as follows:
Uranio Satyro supremum frater honorem
Martyris ad lævam detulit Ambrosius.
Hæc meriti merces, ut sacri sanguinis humor
Finitimas penetrans adluat exuvias.

## Footnotes

* ↑ i.e. St. Victor.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Duties of the Clergy/Book I/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.
Those who are dissatisfied with the fact that the good receive evil, and the evil good, are shown by the example of Lazarus, and on the authority of Paul, that punishments and rewards are reserved for a future life.
57. We have fully discussed two questions; and this discussion, as we think, has not turned out quite unfavourably for us. A third question yet remains; it is this: Why do sinners have abundance of wealth and riches, and fare sumptuously, and have no grief or sorrow; whilst the upright are in want, and are punished by the loss of wives or children? Now, that parable in the Gospel ought to satisfy persons like these; for the rich man was clothed in purple and fine linen, and dined sumptuously every day; but the beggar, full of sores, used to gather the crumbs of his table. After the death of
the two, however, the beggar was in Abraham’s bosom in rest; the rich man was in torment. Is it not plain from this that rewards and punishments according to deserts await one after death?
58. And surely this is but right. For in a contest there is much labour needed—and after the contest victory falls to some, to others disgrace. Is the palm ever given or the crown granted before the course is finished? Paul writes well; He says: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing.” “In that day,” he says, He will give it—not here. Here he fought, in labours, in dangers, in shipwrecks, like a good wrestler; for he knew how that “through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God.” Therefore no one can receive a reward, unless he has striven lawfully; nor is the victory a glorious one, unless the contest also has been toilsome.

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. Luke xvi. 19 ff.
* ↑ 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.
* ↑ Acts xiv. 22.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Duties of the Clergy/Book I

Three Books on the Duties of the Clergy.
by
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
Book I.

## 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
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Duties of the Clergy

On the Duties of the Clergy.

## Contents

* Introduction
* Book I
* Book II
* Book III
# New Orleans Land Company v. Brott Brott

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 97
New Orleans Land Company v. Brott Brott
Argued: Oct. 10, 11, 1923. --- Decided: Nov 12, 1923
Mr. Charles Louque, of New Orleans, La., for New Orleans Land co.
Mr. Wm. Winans Wall, of New Orleans, La., for Brott and others.
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 Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 266
New Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company
Argued: Jan. 18, 1921. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1921
Messrs. Charles Louque and W. O. Hart, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Messrs. William Winans Wall and Gustave Lemle, both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
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 Insurance Company v. E. D. Albro Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
112 U.S. 506
New Orleans Insurance Company v. E. D. Albro Company
C. E. Schmidt, for plaintiff in error.
O. B. Sansum, for defendant in error.
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
# New Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
255 U.S. 266
New Orleans Land Company v. Leader Realty Company
Argued: Jan. 18, 1921. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1921
Having recovered a judgment upon certain drainage warrants issued under Act La. No. 30 of 1871, James W. Peake, of New York, instituted a second suit in the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, May 30, 1891, against New Orleans, seeking sale of land which that city held as trustee to secure all such warrants. See Peake v. New Orleans (1891) 139 U.S. 342, 11 Sup. Ct. 541, 35 L. Ed. 131. Neither the appellee nor any of its predecessors in interest was party to the proceeding. By direction of the court a duly appointed receiver sold the land, January 15, 1892, to Dr. Gaudet, who shortly thereafter transferred it to appellant, a Louisiana corporation, which took immediate possession.
Setting up superior title to some of the land under patent from the state issued June 3, 1874, appellee, also a Louisiana corporation, brought suit against appellant in the state court December 8, 1909, and obtained a favorable judgment, afterwards affirmed by the Supreme Court. Leader Realty Co. v. New Orleans Land Co., 142 La. 169, 76 South. 599. Thereupon appellant began this proceeding to restrain enforcement of the judgment of the state court or interference with its possession, and alleged that the District Court's jurisdiction was invoked solely in aid of the decree for sale in Peake v. New Orleans. No diversity of citizenship existed, and, deeming the bill not ancillary, but original, the court below dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.
'The rule is well settled that a sale of real estate under judicial proceedings concludes no one who is not in some form a party to such proceedings.' Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Loan & Trust Co., 172 U.S. 493, 515, 19 Sup. Ct. 238, 246 (43 L. Ed. 528). Clearly Peake v. New Orleans (1891) was not a proceeding in rem to which all persons having an interest in the land were deemed parties with the right to intervene. Its only purpose was to secure sale and transfer of such right and title as the city held. Rights of third parties were not subject to adjudication therein. High on Receivers (4th Ed.) § 199a. The subsequent action by the state court did not interfere with anything done by the federal court (Dupasseur v. Rocherau, 21 Wall. 130, 136, 137, 22 L. Ed. 588), and the relief now sought by appellant is not necessary to protect or render effectual any former decree (Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93, 24 Sup. Ct. 399, 48 L. Ed. 629, and similar cases are not pertinent). Their purpose was to protect or enforce some right theretofore duly adjudicated, while here the defendant's claim in no way conflicts with any right arising under the former adjudication, and nothing is required in order to render that effectual.
The decree below is affirmed.

## 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 II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 137

CXXXVII. To the Archimandrite John.
The blessed David fell into several errors, which God, who wisely orders all things, has caused to be recorded for the good of them that were to come after. But it was not on their account that Absalom, parricide, murderer, impious, and altogether vile, started his wild war against his father. The reason of his beginning that most unrighteous struggle was because he coveted the sovereignty. The divine David, however, when these events were coming to pass, began to remember the wrong that he had done. I too am conscious within myself of the guilt of many errors, but I have kept undefiled the dogmatic teaching of the Apostles. And they who have trampled upon all laws human and divine, and condemned me in my absence, have not sentenced me for what I have done wrong, for my secret deeds are not made manifest to them; but they have contrived false witness and calumny against me, or rather in their open attack upon the doctrines of the Apostles have proscribed me for my obedience to them. “So the Lord awaked as one out of sleep; He smote His enemies in the hinderparts and put them to a perpetual shame.” Counterfeit and spurious doctrines He has scattered to the winds, and has provided for the free preaching of those which He has handed down to us in the holy Gospels. To me this suffices for complete delight. I do not even long for a city in which I have passed all my time in hard work; all I long for is to see the establishment of the truth of the Gospels. And now the Lord has satisfied this longing. I am therefore very glad and happy, and I sing praises to our generous Lord, and I invite your reverence to rejoice with me, and, with our praises, to put up the earnest prayer that the men who say now one thing and now another and change about to suit the hour, like the chameleons who assume the colour of the leaves, may be strengthened by the loving-kindness of the Lord, established upon the rocks and, of His mercy, made to pay the highest honour to the truth.

## Footnotes

* ↑ A Johannes was an Archimandrite of Constantinople and was present at Chalcedon in 451, (Labbe iv. 512 d) but there is no evidence to identify the recipient of the present letter, which may be dated from Nicerte not long after the death of Theodosius.
* ↑ Psalm lxxviii. 65 and 66
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 140

CXL. To the Master Vincomalus.
I have been much astonished to learn that your magnificence, though quite unacquainted with me and mine, and knowing only the wrong that had been done me, stood up as my advocate, and left no means untried to undo the results of the conspiracy against me. But your excellency will assuredly receive recompense from our bountiful Lord, for He who promised to give a reward for a little water will doubtless give greater recompense to the givers of greater gifts.
I have indeed endured such sufferings as none, or at least very few, of the ancients have undergone, and this not only from my open foes, but, as I apprehend, from my real friends. The former attacked me, the latter betrayed me.
Who in the world ever heard of such a trial? Who ever commanded a criminal to be tried in his absence after chaining him up at a distance of more than five and thirty stages? What judge has ever been so savage and inhuman as not only to try men, aye but to condemn men the sound of whose voice he has never heard, and this in most savage and inhuman fashion? The Lord has ordered the erring brother, who spurns advice, after a first, second and third admonition, to be treated as “an heathen man and a publican.” Now these most equitable and righteous judges have not even given to them of the same faith with themselves the treatment which they give to heathen men and publicans. These indeed they do see and occasionally converse with, and that with all honour and deference where they appear to be of rank and dignity. But they have ordered me to be cut off from home, from water, from everything. This is the way in which they have wished to become imitators of our Father in heaven “Who maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” But of these men I will say no more. The tribunal of the Lord is at hand where is required not stage pretence but the reality of life. Now I beseech your excellency to express my thanks to the emperor, the lover of Christ and victorious, and to the very pious and godly Augusta, for having made true religion the firm root of their pious empire, and to implore their majesties to make the peace of the churches firm by commanding the assembling of a council, not of men of violence who throw the discussion into confusion, but of the lovers of the truth who confirm the apostolic teaching, and repudiate this new fangled and spurious heresy. And I pray that of these honourable endeavours you may reap the fruit at the hands of our loving Lord.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The internal evidence of the letter makes it synchronize with the preceding. The advocacy of the cause of Theodoretus by Vincomalus is the more striking in that it does not appear to have been suggested by personal friendship. Vincomalus was Consul Designate in 452. (Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 1159. Labbe iv. 843.) Magister = “Magister Officiorum,” cf. note on p. 283.
* ↑ Matt. xviii. 17
* ↑ Matt. v. 45