OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 5

Chapter 5 [III.]—The Second Item in the Accusation; And Pelagius’ Answer.
The synod of bishops then proceeded to say: “Let another section be read.” Accordingly there was read the passage in the same book wherein Pelagius had laid down the position that “all men are ruled by their own will.” On this being read, Pelagius said in answer: “This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.” Upon hearing this, the bishops exclaimed: “Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.” For who indeed could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God’s help is associated with it? His opinion, therefore, as thus explained in his answer, was, with good reason, deemed satisfactory by the bishops. And yet, after all, the statement made in his book, “All men are ruled by their own will,” ought without doubt to have deeply disturbed the brethren, who had discovered what these men are accustomed to dispute against the grace of God. For it is said, “All men are ruled by their own will,” as if God rules no man, and the Scripture says in vain, “Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance; rule them, and lift them up for ever.” They would not, of course, stay, if they are ruled only by their own will without God, even as sheep which have no shepherd: which, God forbid for us. For, unquestionably to be led is something more compulsory than to be ruled. He who is ruled at the same time does something himself,—indeed, when ruled by God, it is with the express view that he should also act rightly; whereas the man who is led can hardly be understood to do any thing himself at all. And yet the Saviour’s helpful grace is so much better than our own wills and desires, that the apostle does not hesitate to say: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” And our free will can do nothing better for us than to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him of whom it is said in the psalm, “He is my God, His mercy shall go before me.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. xxviii. 9.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 14.
* ↑ Ps. lix. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 44

Chapter 44 [XX.]—The Acquittal of Pelagius.
The synod said: “Now since we have received satisfaction on the points which have come before us touching the monk Pelagius, who has been present; since, too, he gives his consent to the pious doctrines, and even anathematizes everything that is contrary to the Church’s faith, we confess him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 47

Chapter 47 [XXIII.]—Pelagius’ Book, Which Was Sent by Timasius and Jacobus to Augustin, Was Answered by the Latter in His Work “On Nature and Grace.”
But when there was actually placed in my hands, by those faithful servants of God and honourable men, Timasius and Jacobus, the treatise in which Pelagius dealt with the question of God’s grace, it became very evident to me—too evident, indeed, to admit of any further doubt—how hostile to salvation by Christ was his poisonous perversion of the truth. He treated the subject in the shape of an objection started, as if by an opponent, in his own terms against himself; for he was already suffering a good deal of obloquy from his opinions on the question, which he now appeared to solve for himself in no other way than by simply describing the grace of God as nature created with a free will, occasionally combining therewith either the help of the law, or even the remission of sins; although these additional admissions were not plainly made, but only sparingly suggested by him. And yet, even under these circumstances, I refrained from inserting Pelagius’ name in my work, wherein I refuted this book of his; for I still thought that I should render a prompter assistance to the truth if I continued to preserve a friendly relation to him, and so to spare his personal feelings, while at the same time I showed no mercy, as I was bound not to show it, to the productions of his pen. Hence, I must say, I now feel some annoyance, that in this trial he somewhere said: “I anathematize those who hold these opinions, or have at any time held them.” He might have been contented with saying, “Those who hold these opinions,” which we should have regarded in the light of a self-censure; but when he went on to say, “Or have at any time held them,” in the first place, how could he dare to condemn so unjustly those harmless persons who no longer hold the errors, which they had learnt either from others, or actually from himself? And, in the second place, who among all those persons that were aware of the fact of his not only having held the opinions in question, but of his having taught them, could help suspecting, and not unreasonably, that he must have acted insincerely in condemning those who now hold those opinions, seeing that he did not hesitate to condemn in the same strain and at the same moment those also who had at any time previously held them, when they would be sure to remember that they had no less a person than himself as their instructor in these errors? There are, for instance, such persons as Timasius and Jacobus, to say nothing of any others. How can he with unblushing face look at them, his dear friends (who have never relinquished their love of him) and his former disciples? These are the persons to whom I addressed the work in which I replied to the statements of his book. I think I ought not to pass over in silence the style and tone which they observed towards me in their correspondence, and I have here added a letter of theirs as a sample.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Proceedings of Pelagius/Chapter 49

Chapter 49 [XXV.]—Pelagius’ Behaviour Contrasted with that of the Writers of the Letter.
If now that man, too, were to confess that he had once been implicated in this error as a person possessed, but that he now anathematized all that hold these opinions, whoever should withhold his congratulation from him, now that he was in possession of the way of truth, would surely surrender all the bowels of love. As the case, however, now stands, he has not only not acknowledged his liberation from his pestilential error; but, as if that were a small thing, he has gone on to anathematize men who have reached that freedom, who love him so well that they would fain desire his own emancipation. Amongst these are those very men who have expressed their good-will towards him in the letter, which they forwarded to me. For he it was whom they had chiefly in view when they said how much they were affected at the fact of my having at last written that work. “If, indeed, it has happened,” they say, “that some are removed from the influence of this clearest light of truth, whose blindness required its illumination, yet even to them,” they go on to remark, “we doubt not, the self-same grace will find its way, by the merciful favour of God.” Any name, or names, even they, too, thought it desirable as yet to suppress, in order that, if friendship still lived on, the error of the friends might the more surely die.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Pelagius.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 115

CXV. To Apella.
When I undertook the direction of the see of Cyrus, I procured for it from all directions men who practised necessary arts, and besides this induced skilful physicians to live there. Of these one is the reverend presbyter Peter, who practises his profession with wisdom, and adorns it by his character. On my departure, several have left the city and Peter also has determined to leave. Under these circumstances I beseech your excellency to give him your kind care. He is well able to attend the sick and to wage war against their ailments.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 117

CXVII. To the Bishop Florentius.
Truly the grace of our God and Saviour has not yet abandoned the human race, but has left us a seed in your holiness “lest we should become as Sodom, and be made like unto Gomorrah.” This seed suffers us not altogether to faint, but charges us to wait for the passing away of the dire storm; this renders us hopeful.
We have therefore sent to your holiness the very godly presbyters Hypatius and Abramius, chorepiscopi, and Alypius, exarch of our monks, that you may put an end to the disaster which has befallen the churches of the East; that in the first place you may confirm the faith handed down to us from the first by the holy Apostles, may proscribe the heresy that has started up, and openly convict the men who have the hardihood to debase the preaching of the Œconomy; and secondly may fight as champion of them who are being attacked for the truth’s sake. For it is in the cause of the apostolic Faith, most holy, that we have undergone that unrighteous massacre, because we refused to abandon the truth of the Gospel doctrines. Now it behoves your holiness not to overlook the unjust persecution of men of like mind with yourself, but by your just help to put a stop to injustice, and teach the assailants of the truth that men who strive to act unscrupulously at their own good pleasure cannot be allowed to work out their ends.

## Footnotes

* ↑ There were at this time two well known personages of the name of Florentius to whom this letter may possibly have been addressed. Florentius the patrician, recipient of Letter LXXXIX., and Florentius bishop of Sardis. Against the former hypothesis are the terms of the letter; against the latter the character and sympathies of the metropolitan of Lydia, if, as Garnerius thinks, he was an Eutychian. Canon Venables (Dict. Christ Biog. II. 540) supposes a Florentius bishop of a nameless western see. Garnerius and others think the letter was probably really addressed to the clergy or bishops assembled in synod at Rome.
* ↑ Romans ix. 25
* ↑ Vide page 72.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 114

CXIV. To Andiberis.
The reverend presbyter Peter is distinguished not only by his priestly rank, but also by his wise practice in medicine. During his long residence with us he has won all hearts by his conciliatory manners. On learning of my departure he has now determined to leave Cyrus; I therefore commend him to your excellency, and hope that, fully capable as he is of doing good service to the city,—for when he lived at Alexandria he practised the same profession,—he will meet with kindness at your hands.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Written after the deposition at Ephesus, and when Theodoret is either on the point of departing, or has departed, from Cyrus to the Apamean monastery. The simultaneous exercise of the clerical and medical professions points perhaps to the continuance of the class of “Silverless martyrs,” i.e. physicians who took no fee but healed on condition that their patients should turn to Christ. The legendary Saints of the unfeed faculty are Cosmo and Damian, the brothers whose church occupies the site of the Temple of Remus, or of the Penates, in the Roman Forum.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 118

CXVIII. To the Archdeacon of Rome.
A terrible storm has attacked our churches, but the adherents of the apostolic faith have in your holiness a safe and quiet haven. Not only do you champion the cause of the doctrines of the Gospel, but you utterly detest the wrong done to me. I was living far away at a distance of thirty-five days’ journey, when I was condemned at their good pleasure by those most righteous judges. Teaching which has obtained in the churches from the coming of God our Saviour till this day they have abandoned. They have introduced a novel and bastard doctrine, diametrically contrary to the tradition of the apostles, and are openly at war with them that hold to the ancient instruction. Deign, then, most godly sir, to kindle the zeal of the very sacred and holy archbishop, that the churches of the East too may enjoy your kindly care. Above all fight in behalf of the faith delivered from the beginning by the holy apostles; preserve the heritage of our fathers unimpaired, and scatter the mist that oppresses us. Give us instead of moonless night clear sunshine, and condemn the wickedness of the massacre unrighteously wrought against us. It is becoming to your holiness to add yet this act of zeal to your other good deeds.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. note on page 293. Garnerius however is doubtful whether the archdeacon is Hilarius or another. The evidence seems in favour of the identity.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Letters/Letter 113a

CXIII. (a).From Pope Leo to Theodoret.
To our much beloved brother Theodoretus, bishop, Leo, bishop.

## Footnotes

* ↑ In Migne’s edition here follows the reply of Leo to Theodoret, which appears as Letter CXX. in the works of Leo.
# New Orleans Public Service Inc v. Council of City of New Orleans/Concurrence Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Brennan Blackmun
Justice BLACKMUN, concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment in this case. I also agree with what I take to be the core of the majority's reasoning: in the posture of this case, a legislative proceeding ended when the Council entered its ratemaking order; after that point, adjudication in the District Court would not have interfered with any ongoing proceeding, be it judicial, quasi-legislative, or legislative. Ante, at 372. I find, however, that the majority's understanding of Burford abstention is much narrower than my own in respects not relevant to the disposition of this case, and that there is considerable tension between its discussion of the nature of the State's interests in the Burford context and its discussion of the State's interests in the Younger context. Compare ante, at 362-363, with ante, at 366-367. Furthermore, I am not entirely persuaded that this Court's decisions applying Younger abstention to administrative proceedings that are judicial in nature leave open the question whether abstention must continue through the judicial review process. Ante, at 369, and n. 4. In my view, the majority's observations on these questions are not necessary to the result or to the legal standard the majority has adopted.

## 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 Northeastern Railroad Company v. National Rice Milling Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
234 U.S. 80
New Orleans Northeastern Railroad Company v. National Rice Milling Company
Argued: February 27, 1914. --- Decided: May 25, 1914
Messrs. J. Blanc Monroe, John K. Graves, and Monte M. Lemann for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs, William Catesby Jones, Gustave Lemle, and Arthur A. Moreno for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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 National Banking Assocacian v. Le Breton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 765
New Orleans National Banking Assocacian v. Le Breton
J. D. Rouse, Wm. Grant, and J. A. Campbell, for appellants.
James McConnell, for appellees.
BRADLEY, 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book I/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.
The united doctrine of the Catholics is to be received as the orthodox faith.
This confession of his therefore, which was the faith of all Catholics was approved of by all the Bishops of Africa, whence he wrote, and by all those of Gaul, to whom he wrote. Nor has there ever been anyone who quarrelled with this faith, without being guilty of unbelief: for to deny what is right and proved is to confess what is wrong. The agreement of all ought then to be in itself already sufficient to confute heresy: for the authority of all shows undoubted truth, and a perfect reason results where no one disputes it: so that if a man endeavours to hold opinions contrary to these, we should in the first instance rather condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions, for one who impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own condemnation, and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all, is not even given a hearing. For when the truth has once for all been established by all men, whatever arises contrary to it is by this very fact to be recognized at once as falsehood, because it differs from the truth. And thus it is agreed that this alone is sufficient to condemn a man; viz., that he differs from the judgment of truth. But still as an explanation of a system does no harm to the system, and truth always shines brighter when thoroughly ventilated, and as it is better that those who are wrong should be set right by discussion rather than condemned by severe censures, we should cure, as far as we can with the Divine assistance, this old heresy appearing in the persons of new heretics, that when through God’s mercy they have recovered their health, their cure may bear testimony to our holy faith instead of their condemnation proving an instance of just severity. Only may the Truth indeed be present at our discussion and discourse concerning it, and assist our human weakness with that goodness with which God vouchsafed to come to men, as for this purpose above all He willed to be born on earth and among men; viz., that there might be no more room for falsehood.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The attesting Bishops who subscribed his recantation as witnesses were Aurelius of Carthage; Augustine of Hippo Regius; Florentius of the other Hippo; and Secundinus of Megarmita.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book II/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
How the errors of later heretics have been condemned and refuted in the persons of their authors and originators.
As we began by setting down in the first book some things by which we showed that our new heretic is but an offshoot from ancient stocks of heresy, the due condemnation of the earlier heretics ought to be enough to secure a sentence of due condemnation for him. For as he has the same roots and grows up out of the same fallow he has already been amply condemned in the persons of his predecessors, especially as those who went wrong immediately before these men very properly condemned the very thing which these men are now asserting, so that the examples of their own party ought to be amply sufficient for them in both directions; viz., that of those who were restored and that of those who were condemned. For if they are capable of amendment they have their remedy set forth in the correction of their own party. If they are incapable of it they receive their sentence in the condemnation
of their own folk. But that we may not be thought to have prejudged the case against them instead of fairly judging it, we will produce their actual pestilent assertions, or rather I should say their blasphemous folly: taking “above all the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God,” that when the head of the old serpent rises once more, the same sword of the Divine Word which formerly severed it in the case of those ancient dragons may even now cut it off in the persons of these new serpents. For since the error of these is the same as that of those former ones, the decapitation of those ought to be counted as the decapitation of these; and as the serpents revive and emit pestilent blasts against the Lord’s church, and cause some to fail through their hissing, we must on account of these new diseases add a fresh remedy to those older cures, so that even if what has already been done prove insufficient to heal the malady, what we are now doing may be adequate to restore those who are suffering from it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Scrobibus (Petschenig): The text of Gazæus has enoribus.
* ↑ The allusion is to the recantation of Leporius and his companions. They were the immediate predecessors of Nestorius, and Cassian means to say that their recantation of their error ought to have been an example for Nestorius to follow.
* ↑ Eph. vi. 16–17.
* ↑ Curationem (Petschenig): Damnationem (Gazæus).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book I

The SEVEN BOOKS OF JOHN CASSIAN
ON THE
INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST NESTORIUS.
Book I.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book I/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
The heresy compared to the hydra of the poets.
The tales of poets tell us that of old the hydra when its heads were cut off gained by its injuries, and sprang up more abundantly: so that owing to a miracle of a strange and unheard-of kind, its loss proved a kind of gain to the monster which was thus increased by death, while that extraordinary fecundity doubled everything which the knife of the executioner cut off, until the man who was eagerly seeking its destruction, toiling and sweating, and finding his efforts so often baffled by useless labours, added to the courage of battle the arts of craft, and by the application of fire, as they tell us, cut off with a fiery sword the manifold offspring of that monstrous body; and so when the inward parts were thus burnt, by cauterizing the rebellious throbbings of that ghastly fecundity, at length those prodigious births were brought to an end. Thus also heresies in the churches bear some likeness to that hydra which the poets’ imagination invented; for they too hiss against us with deadly tongues; and they too cast forth their deadly poison, and spring up again when their heads are cut off. But because the medicine should not be wanting when the disease revives, and because the remedy should be the more speedy as the sickness is the more dangerous, our Lord God is able to bring to pass that that may be a truth in the church’s warfare, which Gentile fictions imagined of the death of the hydra, and that the fiery sword of the Holy Spirit may cauterize the inward parts of that most dangerous birth, in the new heresy to be put down, so that at last its monstrous fecundity may cease to answer to its dying throbs.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Petschenig’s text gives no titles to the chapters in this work. They are added here from the text of Gazæus.