OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 1

Homily XVII.
Chapter I.—Simon Comes to Peter.
The next day, therefore, as Peter was to hold a discussion with Simon, he rose earlier than usual and prayed. On ceasing to pray, Zacchæus came in, and said: “Simon is seated without, discoursing with about thirty of his own special followers.” And Peter said:  “Let him talk until the multitude assemble, and then let us begin the discussion in the following way. We shall hear all that has been said by him, and having fitted our reply to this, we shall go out and discourse.” And assuredly so it happened.  Zacchæus, therefore, went out, and not long after entered again, and communicated to Peter the discourse delivered by Simon against him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The text has:  “against Peter.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—The Impious See True Dreams and Visions.
“But it is manifest that the impious see true visions and dreams, and I can prove it from Scripture.  Finally, then, it is written in the law, how Abimelech, who was impious, wished to defile the wife of just Abraham by intercourse, and how he heard the commandment from God in his sleep, as the Scripture saith, not to touch her, because she was dwelling with her husband. Pharaoh, also an impious man, saw a dream in regard to the fulness and thinness of the ears of corn, to whom Joseph said, when he gave the interpretation, that the dream had come from God. Nebuchadnezzar, who worshipped images, and ordered those who worshipped God to be cast into fire, saw a dream extending over the whole age of the world. And let no one say, ‘No one who is impious sees a vision when awake.’ That is false. Nebuchadnezzar himself, having ordered three men to be cast into fire, saw a fourth when he looked into the furnace, and said, ‘I see the fourth as the Son of God.’ And nevertheless, though they saw apparitions, visions, and dreams, they were impious. Thus, we cannot infer with absolute certainty that the man who has seen visions, and dreams, and apparitions, is undoubtedly pious. For in the case of the pious man, the truth gushes up natural and pure in his mind, not worked up through dreams, but granted to the good through intelligence.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. xx. 3.
* ↑ Gen. xli. 5, ff.
* ↑ Gen. xli. 25.
* ↑ Dan. ii. 31.
* ↑ Lit., of the whole length of the age.
* ↑ Dan. iii. 25.
* ↑ We have amended this passage. The text applies the words “natural or innate and pure” to the mind.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.—The Fear and Love of God.
“Thus, then, grateful service to Him who is truly Lord, renders us free from service to all other masters. If, then, it is possible for any one to be free from sin without fearing God, let him not fear; for under the influence of love to Him one cannot do what is displeasing to Him. For, on the one hand, it is written that we are to fear Him, and we have been commanded to love Him, in order that each of us may use that prescription which is suitable to his constitution. Fear Him, therefore, because He is just; but whether you fear Him or love Him, sin not. And may it be the case that any one who fears Him shall be able to gain the victory over unlawful desires, shall not lust after what belongs to others, shall practise kindness, shall be sober, and act justly! For I see some who are imperfect in their fear of Him sinning very much. Let us therefore fear God, not only because He is just; for it is through pity for those who have received injustice that He inflicts punishment on those who have done the injustice. As water therefore quenches fire, so does fear extinguish the desire for evil practices. He who teaches fearlessness does not himself fear; but he who does not fear, does not believe that there will be a judgment, strengthens his lusts, acts as a magician, and accuses others of the deeds which he himself does.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ We have adopted an emendation of a passage which is plainly corrupt.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—The Evidence of the Senses More Trustworthy Than that of Supernatural Vision.
And Peter said: “You proposed to speak to one point, you replied to another. For your proposition was, that one is better able to know more fully, and to attain confidence, when he hears in consequence of an apparition, than when he hears with his own ears; but when you set about the matter, you were for persuading us that he who hears through an apparition is surer than he who hears with his own ears. Finally, you alleged that, on this account, you knew more satisfactorily the doctrines of Jesus than I do, because you heard His words through an apparition. But I shall reply to the proposition you made at the beginning. The prophet, because he is a prophet, having first given certain information with regard to what is objectively said by him, is believed with confidence; and being known beforehand to be a true prophet, and being examined and questioned as the disciple wishes, he replies: But he who trusts to apparition or vision and dream is insecure. For he does not know to whom he is trusting. For it is possible either that he may be an evil demon or a deceptive spirit, pretending in his speeches to be what he is not. But if any one should wish to inquire of him who he is who has appeared, he can say to himself whatever he likes. And thus, gleaming forth like a wicked one, and remaining as long as he likes, he is at length extinguished, not remaining with the questioner so long as he wished him to do for the purpose of consulting him. For any one that sees by means of dreams cannot inquire about whatever he may wish. For reflection is not in the special power of one who is asleep. Hence we, desiring to have information in regard to something in our waking hours, inquire about something else in our dreams; or without inquiring, we hear about matters that do not concern us, and awaking from sleep we are dispirited because we have neither heard nor inquired about those matters which we were eager to know.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Probably it should be ἀπεκλίνω instead of ἀπεκρίνω, “you turned aside to another.”
* ↑ The words in italics are inserted conjecturally, to fill up a lacuna in the best ms.
* ↑ ἐναργῶς, “with reference to things palpable to our senses.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—The Fear of God.
“But some who are strangers to the truth, and who give their energies to the service of evil, on pretext of glorifying God, say that He has no figure, in order that, being shapeless and formless, He may be visible to no one, so as not to be longed for. For the mind, not seeing the form of God, is empty of Him. But how can any one pray if he has no one to whom he may flee for refuge, on whom he may lean? For if he meets with no resistance, he falls out into vacuity. Yea, says he, we ought not to fear God, but to love Him. I agree; but the consciousness of having done well in each good act will accomplish this. Now well-doing proceeds from fearing. But fear, says he, strikes death into the soul. Nay, but I affirm that it does not strike death, but awakens the soul, and converts it. And perhaps the injunction not to fear God might be right, if we men did not fear many other things; such, for instance, as plots against us by those who are like us, and wild beasts, serpents, diseases, sufferings, demons, and a thousand other ills. Let him, then, who asks us not to fear God, rescue us from these, that we may not fear them; but if he cannot, why should he grudge that we should be delivered from a thousand fears by one fear, the fear of the Just One, and that it should be possible by a slight faith in Him to remove a thousand afflictions from ourselves and others, and receive instead an exchange of blessings, and that, doing no ill in consequence of fear of the God who sees everything, we should continue in peace even in the present life.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The word “slight” is not used in reference to the character of the faith, but to indicate that the act of faith is a small act compared with the results that flow from it.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—The Evidence of the Senses Contrasted with that from Supernatural Vision.
Simon, on hearing this, interrupted him, and said: “I know against whom you are making these remarks; but in order that I may not spend any time in discussing subjects which I do not wish to discuss, repeating the same statements to refute you, reply to that which is concisely stated by us. You professed that you had well understood the doctrines and deeds of your teacher because you saw them before you with your own eyes, and heard them with your own ears, and that it is not possible for any other to have anything similar by vision or apparition. But I shall show that this is false.  He who hears any one with his own ears, is not altogether fully assured of the truth of what is said; for his mind has to consider whether he is wrong or not, inasmuch as he is a man as far as appearance goes. But apparition not merely presents an object to view, but inspires him who sees it with confidence, for it comes from God.  Now reply first to this.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Doctrines and deeds; lit., the things of your teacher.
* ↑ The mss. have here ἐνεργείᾳ, “activity.” This has been amended into ἐναργείᾳ, “with plainness, with distinctness.” ᾽Ενάργεια is used throughout in opposition to ὀπτασία, ὅραμα, and ἐνύπνιον, and means the act of seeing and hearing by our own senses in plain daylight, when to doubt the fact observed is to doubt the senses; ὀπτασία is apparition or vision in ecstasy, or some extraordinary way but that of sleep; ὅραμα and ἐνύπνιον are restricted to visions in sleep. The last term implies this.  The first means simply “a thing seen.”
* ↑ [Comp. Recognitions, ii. 50, 51, 61–65. The emphasis laid upon supernatural visions in the remainder of the Homily has been supposed to convey an insinuation against the revelations to the Apostle Paul.—R.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—The Evidence from Dreams Discussed.
And Simon said: “If you maintain that apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that, visions and dreams, being God-sent, do not speak falsely in regard to those matters which they wish to tell.” And Peter said:  “You were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream.” And Simon said: “If he who has had the vision is just, he has seen a true vision.” And Peter said: “You were right. But who is just, if he stands in need of a vision that he may learn what he ought to learn, and do what he ought to do?” And Simon said: “Grant me this, that the just man alone can see a true vision, and I shall then reply to that other point. For I have come to the conclusion that an impious man does not see a true dream.” And Peter said: “This is false; and I can prove it both apart from Scripture and by Scripture; but I do not undertake to persuade you. For the man who is inclined to fall in love with a bad woman, does not change his mind so as to care for a lawful union with another woman in every respect good; but sometimes they love the worse woman through prepossessions, though they are conscious that there is another who is more excellent. And you are ignorant, in consequence of some such state of mind.” And Simon said: “Dismiss this subject, and discuss the matter on which you promised to speak. For it seems to me impossible that impious men should receive dreams from God in any way whatever.”
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Burtch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 540
Baltimore Company v. Burtch
Argued: Dec. 3, 4, 1923. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1924
William A. Eggers and Morison R. Waite, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Oscar H. Montgomery, of Seymour, Ind., and Merrill Moores, of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. City of Parkersburg

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 35
Baltimore Company v. City of Parkersburg
Argued: March 19, 1925. --- Decided: April 13, 1925
Messrs. Frank W. Nesbitt, of Wheeling, W. Va., and J. W. Vandervort, of Parkersburg, W. Va., for appellant.
Messrs. R. B. McDougle and F. P. Moats, both of Parkersburg, W. Va., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Goodman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 66
Baltimore Company v. Goodman
Argued: Oct. 20, 1927. --- Decided: Oct 31, 1927
Messrs. A. McL. Marshall and Byron B. Harlan, both of
Dayton, Ohio, and William A. Eggers and Morison R. Waite, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Messrs. Robert N. Brumbaugh and I. L. Jacobson, both of Dayton, Ohio, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 67-68 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Carroll

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
280 U.S. 491
Baltimore Ohio Company v. Carroll
Argued: Jan. 15, 1930. --- Decided: Feb 24, 1930
Mr. William A. Eggers, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. Oscar H. Montgomery, of Seymour, Ind., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 492 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Fifth Baptist Church of Washington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 568
Baltimore Company v. Fifth Baptist Church of Washington
Enoch Totten, for plaintiff in error.
M. F. Morris, J. J. Darlington, and Geo. D. Hamilton, for defendant in error.
GRAY, 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (261 U.S. 385)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 385
Baltimore Company v. United States
Argued: March 7, 1923. --- Decided: March 19, 1923
Messrs. John F. McCarron and George E. Hamilton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (277 U.S. 291)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 291
Baltimore Company v. United States (277 U.S. 291)
Argued: April 11, 1928. --- Decided: May 21, 1928
[Syllabus from pages 291-293 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Morison R. Waite, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Homer T. Dick and Elmer A. Smith, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. J. Stanley Payne, of Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. M. G. Roberts, of St. Louis, Mo., for West Side Lines.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (261 U.S. 592)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 592
Baltimore Company v. United States
Argued: March 12, 1923. --- Decided: April 9, 1923
Messrs. John F. McCarron and Geo. E. Hamilton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Justice SANFORD 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (279 U.S. 781)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 781
Baltimore Company v. United States (279 U.S. 781)
Argued: April 24, 1929. --- Decided: June 3, 1929
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., Morison R. Waite, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Theodore Schmidt, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Messrs. H. H. Larimore and Charles S. Burg, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (298 U.S. 349)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
298 U.S. 349
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. United States
Argued: March 3, 4, 1936. --- Decided: May 18, 1936.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
[Syllabus from pages 349-351 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. E. L. Beach, of Richmond, Va., and Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., for appellees United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, of Washington, D.C., for appellees Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. and others.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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
# Baldwin v. Maryland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 220
Baldwin v. Maryland
Argued: November 16, 1900. --- Decided: December 3, 1900
The facts are these: Prior to 1880 certain residents of Maryland died, leaving property to Columbus C. Baldwin, a minor. After the settlement of the estates of the decedents a guardian of the estate of said minor was appointed by the orphans' court of Washington county, Maryland. In consequence of the death of the guardian, succeeding guardians were appointed, and in August, 1891, William Woodward Baldwin was duly appointed a guardian of the estate of such minor, and gave bond to perform his duty according to law. The present plaintiffs in error were sureties on that bond. During the years of the guardianship the register of wills of Washington county made annual returns to the county commissioners of the property of estates unsettled, and among those that of the estate of this minor, and taxes were levied thereon in accordance with law, and were duly paid up to the year 1893. The taxes for 1893 and 1894 being unpaid, the guardian filed a bill in the circuit court for Washington county to restrain their collection. The basis of his contention was that both he and the ward were nonresidents of Maryland, and that the estate of the ward had been taken by him outside of the state. The circuit court decided against him, and denied the injunction. This judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals of the state. 85 Md. 145, 36 Atl. 764. An attempt was made to review that judgment in this court, but the writ of error was dismissed (168 U.S. 705, 42 L. ed. 1213, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 939) on the ground that no Federal question had been distinctly preserved, or, if preserved, that there was a non-Federal question which was decisive of the case. Thereafter, the taxes being still unpaid, and the estate still unsettled, and the same statement presented by the register of wills to the county commissioners in respect to the taxes of 1895, this action was commenced to recover from the bondsmen the amount of the taxes for the years 1893, 1894, and 1895. Judgment was rendered against them in the trial court, and affirmed by the court of appeals of the state (89 Md. 587, 43 Atl. 857), to reverse which judgment this writ of error has been sued out.
[Mr. Charles A. Boston for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Henry Kyd Douglas for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer 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
# Baldwin v. Missouri

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 586
Baldwin v. Missouri
Argued: April 23, 1930. --- Decided: May 26, 1930
Credits involved were for cash deposited with several Missouri banks, and there were coupon bonds issued by the United States and numerous promissory notes, most of which were executed by citizens of Missouri and secured by liens upon lands located within that state. The state of Missouri sought to tax this property lying physically within its limits, but the decedent resided in Illinois, and the transfer was taxed in that state.
Messrs. Harry Carstarphen, of Hannibal, Mo., and John F. Garner, of Quincy, Ill., for plaintiffs in error and appellants.
Messrs, Stratton Shartel and A. M. Meyer, both of Jefferson City, Mo., for State of Missouri. Missouri.
[Argument of Counsel from page 587 intentionally omitted]
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
# Baldwin v. New York

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Burger
United States Supreme Court
399 U.S. 66
Baldwin v. New York
Argued: Dec. 9, 1969. --- Decided: June 22, 1970
William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Michael R. Juviler, New York City, for appellee.
Mr. Justice WHITE announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice BRANNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join.

## 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