OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 1

Augustin to his holy brethren and fellow-bishops Eutropius and Paulus.
Chapter I.
Your love, which in both of you is so great and so holy that it is a delight to obey its commands, has laid me under an obligation to reply to some definitions which are said to be the work of Cœlestius; for so runs the title of the paper which you have given me, “The definitions, so it is said, of Cœlestius.” As for this title, I take it that it is not his, but theirs who have brought this work from Sicily, where Cœlestius is said not to be,—although many there make boastful pretension of holding views like his, and, to use the apostle’s word, “being themselves deceived, lead others also astray.” That these views are, however, his, or those of some associates of his, we, too, can well believe. For the above-mentioned brief definitions, or rather propositions, are by no means at variance with his opinion, such as I have seen it expressed in another work, of which he is the undoubted author. There was therefore good reason, I think, for the report which those brethren, who brought these tidings to us, heard in Sicily, that Cœlestius taught or wrote such opinions. I should like, if it were possible, so to meet the obligation imposed on me by your brotherly kindness, that I, too, in my own answer should be equally brief. But unless I set forth also the propositions which I answer, who will be able to form a judgment of the value of my answer? Still I will try to the best of my ability, assisted, too, by God’s mercy, by your own prayers, so to conduct the discussion as to keep it from running to an unnecessary length.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Probably Spanish refugees; they had recently presented to Augustin a memorial against certain heresies. Oros. ad Aug. i.—W.]
* ↑ In his epistle (157) to Hilary, written a little while before this work, he mentions Cœlestius and the condemnation of his errors in a Council held at Carthage; he expresses also some apprehension of Cœlestius attempting to spread his opinions in Sicily: “Whether he be himself there,” says Augustin, “or only others who are partners in his errors, there are too many of them; and, unless they be checked, they lead astray others to join their sect; and so great is their increase, that I cannot tell whither they will force their way,” etc.
* ↑ 2 Tim. iii. 13.
* ↑ Sociorum ejus. It has been proposed to read sectatorum ejus,—not unsuitably (although not justified by ms. evidence), because Cœlestius “had,” to use Jerome’s words, “by this time turned out a master with a following,—the leader of a perfect army.”—Jerome’s Epistle to Ctesiphon, written in the year 413 or 414.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 6

Chapter 6.—Not Death Alone, But Sin Also Has Passed into Us by Means of Adam.
In that particular, indeed, wherein they say “that death passed to us by Adam, not sins,” they have not the Manicheans as their adversaries: since they, too, deny that original sin from the first man, at first of pure and upright body and spirit, and afterwards depraved by free will, subsequently passed and passes as sin into all with death; but they say that the flesh was evil from the beginning, and was created by an evil spirit and along with an evil spirit; but that a good soul—a portion, to wit, of God—for the deserts of its defilement by food and drink, in which it was before bound up, came into man, and thus by means of copulation was bound in the chain of the flesh. And thus the Manicheans agree with the Pelagians that it was not the guilt of the first man that passed into the human race—neither by the flesh, which they say was never good; nor by the soul, which they assert comes into the flesh of man with the merits of its own defilements with which it was polluted before the flesh. But how do the Pelagians say “that only death passed upon us by Adam’s means”? For if we die because he died, but he died because be sinned, they say that the punishment passed without the guilt, and that innocent infants are punished with an unjust penalty by deriving death without the deserts of death. This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death. This special prerogative of the Mediator the Pelagians endeavour to make void, so that this should no longer be special in the Lord, if Adam in such wise suffered a death due to him on account of his guilt, as that infants, drawing from him no guilt, should suffer undeserved death. For although very much good is conferred on the good by means of death, whence some have fitly argued even “of the benefit of death;” yet from this what can be declared except the mercy of God, since the punishment of sin is converted into beneficent uses?
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Title Page

a treatise against two letters of the pelagians.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness
## Contents

* Title Page
* Preface to the Treatise on Man's Perfection in Righteousness
* Argument
* 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Argument

A Treatise concerning man’s perfection in righteousness,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In One Book,
addressed to eutropius and paulus, a.d. 415.
A paper containing sundry definitions, said to have been drawn up by Cœlestius, was put into the hands of Augustin. In this document, Cœlestius, or some person who shared in his errors, had recklessly asserted that a man had it in his power to live here without sin. Augustin first refutes the several propositions in brief answers, showing that the perfect and plenary state of righteousness, in which a man exists absolutely without sin, is unattainable without grace by the mere resources of our corrupt nature, and never occurs in this present state of existence. He next proceeds to consider the authorities which the paper contained as gathered out of the Scriptures; some of them teaching man to be “unspotted” and “perfect;” others mentioning the commandments of God as “not grievous;” while others again are quoted as opposed to the authoritative passages which the Catholics were accustomed to advance against the Pelagians.

## Footnotes

* ↑ These breves definitiones, which Augustin also calls ratiocinationes, are short argumentative statements, which may be designated breviates.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Against Two Letters of the Pelagians/Book IV/Chapter 8

Chapter 8.—Death Passed Upon All by Sin.
But on account of what does the same apostle say, that we are reconciled to God by Christ, except on account of what we had become enemies? And what is this but sin? Whence also the prophet says, “Your sins separate between you and God.” On account of this separation, therefore, the Mediator was sent, that He might take away the sin of the world, by which we were separated as enemies, and that we, being reconciled, might be made from enemies children. About this, certainly, the apostle was speaking; hence it happened that he interposed what he says, “That sin entered by one man.” For these are his former words. He says, “But God commendeth His love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified in His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved in His life. And not only so, but glorying also in God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom also we have now received reconciliation.” Then he subjoins, “Therefore, as by one man sin entered into this world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men, for in him all have sinned.” Why do the Pelagians evade this matter? If reconciliation through Christ is necessary to all men, on all men has passed sin by which we have become enemies, in order that we should have need of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the laver of regeneration and in the flesh and blood of Christ, without which not even infants can have life in themselves. For as there was one man for death on account of sin, so there is one man for life on account of righteousness; because “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive;” and “as by the sin of one upon all men to condemnation, so also by the righteousness of one upon all men unto justification of life.” Who is there that has turned a deaf ear to these apostolical words with such hardiness of wicked impiety, as, having heard them, to contend that death passed upon us through Adam without sin, unless, indeed, they are opposers of the grace of God and enemies of the cross of Christ?—whose end is destruction if they continue in this obstinacy. But let it suffice to have said thus much for the sake of that serpentine subtlety of theirs, by which they wish to corrupt simple minds, and to turn them away from the simplicity of the faith, as if by the praise of the creature.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. lix. 2.
* ↑ Rom. v. 8 ff.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 22.
* ↑ Rom. v. 18.
# New York ex rel. Federal Motor Truck Company of New York v. Lynch/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 588
New York ex rel. Federal Motor Truck Company of New York v. Lynch
For decision below, see 264 N. Y. 679, 191 N. E. 623.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of New York denied.

## 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 York ex rel. Consolidated Water Company of Utica v. Maltbie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
303 U.S. 158
New York ex rel. Consolidated Water Company of Utica v. Maltbie
Argued: Feb. 3, 4, 1938. --- Decided: Feb 14, 1938
Messrs. Thayer Burgess and George H. Kenny, both of Utica, N.Y., for appellant.
Mr. Gay H. Brown, of Utica, N.Y., for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

## 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 York ex rel. Federal Motor Truck Company of New York v. Lynch

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 588
New York ex rel. Federal Motor Truck Company of New York v. Lynch
Mr. Howard A. Sperry, of New York City, for petitioner.

## 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 York ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 590
New York ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell
Argued: March 12, 1923. --- Decided: April 9, 1923
Mr. A. G. Hays, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Frederick E. Weeks, of White Plains, N. Y., for defendants in error.
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
# New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
204 U.S. 152
New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon
Argued: December 11, 12, 1906. --- Decided: January 7, 1907
Messrs. John G. Milburn, John F. Dillon, and John G. Johnson for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 153-154 intentionally omitted]
[Argument of Counsel from Page 155 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Julius M. Mayer, E. Crosby Kindleberger, Horace McGuire, and James C. Graham for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 156 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 York ex rel. New York Central Hudson River Railroad Company v. Miller

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
202 U.S. 584
New York ex rel. New York Central Hudson River Railroad Company v. Miller
Argued: April 9, 1906. --- Decided: May 28, 1906
Messrs. Albert H. Harris, Ira A. Place, and Thomas Emery for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 585-590 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Julius M. Mayer and Horace McGuire for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 590-592 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 York ex rel. New York Clearing House Building Company v. Barker

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
179 U.S. 279
New York ex rel. New York Clearing House Building Company v. Barker
Argued: October 30, 1900. --- Decided: , December 10, 1900
Messrs. David Willcox and William S. Opdyke for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James M. Ward, Theodore Connoly, and John Whalen for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Peckham 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 York ex rel. Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Knight

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
192 U.S. 21
New York ex rel. Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Knight
Argued: December 11, 1903. --- Decided: January 4, 1904
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of New York to review a judgment of that court affirming the assessment by the comptroller of the state of New York of a certain tax against the relator, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the tax, which is a franchise tax imposed under appropriate statutes of New York upon the company for carrying on the business of running cabs and carriages for hire between points entirely within the state of New York, is invalid under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, article I., § 8, subdivision 3.
The facts are undisputed. In 1897 the company established a cab stand on its own premises at the Twenty-third street ferry in the city of New York, and has since maintained a service of cabs and coaches under special licenses from the city of New York, whereby they can stand on those premises only. The sole business done by those cabs and coaches is to bring the company's passengers to and from the Twenty-third street ferry. The charges for this service are separate from those of the company for further transportation, and no part of its receipts from the cab service is received as compensation for any service outside the state of New York. As a separate business, this cab service has not been profitable to the company, but has been operated at a loss. The validity of this tax was sustained both by the supreme court and the court of appeals of New York. 67 App. Div. 398, 73 N. Y. Supp. 790, 171 N. Y. 354, 64 N. E. 152.
Messrs. Henry Galbraith Ward, A, Leo Everett, and Robinson, Biddle, & Ward for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 22-25 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John Cunneen for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
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
# New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
199 U.S. 552
New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr
Argued: and submitted November 9, 1905. --- Decided: December 11, 1905
Mr. Frank Moss for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 552-553 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Theodore Connoly for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 553-557 intentionally omitted]
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
# New songs of the gospel

Songster published in 1900/1, including eight by Charles Albert Tindley. OCLC:50001533
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1946, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 77 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 26

Chapter 26.—50. Also another Lucius of Membresa said: "It is written, ‘God heareth not sinners.’ How can he who is a sinner be heard in baptism?"
51. We answer: How is the covetous man heard, or the robber, and usurer, and murderer? Are they not sinners? And yet Cyprian, while he finds fault with them in the Catholic Church, yet tolerates them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Membresa was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For Lucius, see Bk. VI. c. 38.
* ↑ John ix. 31.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 62.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 29

Chapter 29.—56. Quintus of Aggya said: "He who has a thing can give it; but what can the heretics give, who are well known to have nothing?"
57. To him our answer is: If, then, any man can give a thing who has it, it is clear that heretics can give baptism: for when they separate from the Church, they have still the sacrament of washing which they had received while in the Church; for when they return they do not again receive it, because they had not lost it when they withdrew from the Church.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Aggya, probably the same as Aggiva and the Aga in ecclesiastical province of Proconsular Africa. The name Quintas as bishop occurs in Cypr. Epp lvii., lxvii., lxx., lxxi., but this one is of Mauritania, as appears from Epp lxxii. 1, lxxiii. 1.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 65.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 31

Chapter 31.—60. Tenax of Horrea Celiæ said: "There is one baptism, but of the Church; and where the Church is not, there baptism also cannot be."
61. To him we answer: How then comes it that it may be where the rock is not, but only sand; seeing that the Church is on the rock, and not on sand?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Horrea Celiæ (Cæliæ) was a village of ecclesiastical province of Byzacium, ten miles north of Hadrumetum. A Tenax is mentioned as bishop in Cypr. Ep. lxvii.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 67.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 33

Chapter 33.—64. Donatulus of Capse said: "I also have always entertained this opinion, that heretics, who have gained nothing outside the Church, should be baptized when they are converted to the Church."
65. To this the answer is: They have, indeed, gained nothing outside the Church, but that is nothing towards salvation, not nothing towards the sacrament. For salvation is peculiar to the good; but the sacraments are common to the good and bad alike.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Capse was in ecclesiastical province of Byzacene. This Donatulus is probably to be identified with the one mentioned Cypr. Ep. lvi.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 69.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—52. Also another Felix of Buslaceni said: "In admitting heretics to the Church without baptism, let no one place custom before reason and truth; for reason and truth always exclude custom."
53. To him our answer is: You do not show the truth; you confess the existence of the custom. We should therefore do right in maintaining the custom which has since been confirmed by a plenary Council, even if the truth were still concealed, which we believe to have been already made manifest.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Buslaceni (Cussaceni) is probably Byzacium, the capital of province of Byzacium, since we know that it was also called Bizica Lucana; others place it in Africa Proconsularis. For Felix, cp. Bk. VI. cc. 19 and 23.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 63.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 30

Chapter 30.—58. Another Julianus of Marcelliana said: "If a man can serve two masters, God and mammon, then baptism also can serve two, the Christian and the heretic."
59. Truly, if it can serve the self-restrained and the covetous man, the sober and the drunken, the well-affectioned and the murderer, why should it not also serve the Christian and the heretic?—whom, indeed, it does not really serve; but it ministers to them, and is administered by them, for salvation to those who use it right, and for judgment to such as use it wrong.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Marcelliana (Gyrnmarcelli) in ecclesiastical province of Numidia.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 24.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 66.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VII/Chapter 32

Chapter 32.—62. Another Victor of Assuras said: "It is written, that ‘there is one God and one Christ, one Church and one baptism.’ How then can any one baptize in a place where there is not either God, or Christ, or the Church?"
63. How can any one baptize either in that sand, where the Church is not, seeing that it is on the rock; nor God and Christ, seeing that there is not there the temple of God and Christ?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Assuras was in ecclesiastical province of Zeugitana. For Victor, cp. c. 4.
* ↑ See Eph. iv. 4-6.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 68.