OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism V

V.
If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
V.
If any one ventures to say that, even after the assumption of human nature, there is only one Son of God, namely, he who is so in nature (naturaliter filius = Logos), while he (since the assumption of the flesh) is certainly Emmanuel; let him be anathema.
Petavius.
It is manifest that this anathematism is directed against the blasphemy of Nestorius, by which he said that Christ was in this sense Emmanuel, that a man was united and associated with God, just as God had been said to have been with the Prophets and other holy men, and to have had his abode in them; so that they were properly styled Θεοφόροι, because, as it were, they carried God about with them; but there was no one made of the two. But he held that our Lord as man was bound and united with God only by a communion of dignity.
Nestorius [in his Counter Anathematism] displays the hidden meaning of his heresy, when he says, that the Son of God is not one after the assumption of the humanity; for he who denied that he was one, no doubt thought that he was two.
Theodoret in his criticism of this Anathematism remarks that many of the Ancients, including St. Basil had used this very word, Θεοφόρος, for the Lord; but the objection has no real foundation, for the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of such a word must be determined by the context in which it is used, and also by the known opinions of him that uses it.  Expressions which are in a loose sense orthodox and quite excusable before a heresy arises, may become afterwards the very distinctive marks and shibboleths of error. Petavius has pointed out how far from orthodox many of the earliest Christian writers were, at least verbally, and Bp. Bull defended them by the same line of argument I have just used and which Petavius himself employs in this very connection.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism IX

IX.
If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
IX.
If anyone says that the form of a servant is of like nature with the Holy Ghost, and not rather that it owes its union with the Word which has existed since the conception, to his mediation, by which it works miraculous healings among men, and possesses the power of expelling demons; let him be anathema.
Petavius.
The scope of this anathematism is to shew that the Word of God, when he assumed flesh remaining what he was, and lacking nothing which the Father possessed except only paternity, had as his own the Holy Spirit which is from him and substantially abides in him. From this it follows that through him, as through a power and strength which was his own, and not one alien or adventitious, he wrought his wonders and cast forth devils, but he did not receive that Holy Spirit and his power as formerly the Prophets had done, or as afterwards his disciples did, as a kind of gift (beneficii loco).
The Orientals objected that St. Cyril here contradicts himself, for here he says that Christ did not work his wonders by the Holy Ghost and in another place he frankly confesses that he did so work them. But the whole point is what is intended by working through the Holy Ghost. For the Apostles worked miracles through the Holy Ghost but as by a power external to themselves, but not so Christ. When Christ worked wonders through the Holy Ghost, he was working through a power which was his own, viz.: the Third Person of the Holy Trinity; from whom he never was and never could be separated, ever abiding with him and the Eternal Father in the Divine Unity.
The Westerns have always pointed to this anathematism as shewing that St. Cyril recognized the eternal relation of the Holy Spirit as being from the Son.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod

Note on the Emperor’s Edict to the Synod.
Neither of the Emperors could personally attend the Council of Ephesus and accordingly Theodosius II. appointed the Count Candidian, Captain of the imperial bodyguard, the protector of the council, to sit in the room of the Emperors. In making this appointment he addressed an edict to the synod which will be found in the Concilia and of which Hefele gives the following synopsis.
(Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 43.)
Candidian is to take no immediate part in the discussions on contested points of faith, for it is not becoming that one who does not belong to the number of the bishops should mix himself up in the examination and decision of theological controversies.  On the contrary, Candidian was to remove from the city the monks and laymen who had come or should afterwards come to Ephesus out of curiosity, so that disorder and confusion should not be caused by those who were in no way needed for the examination of the sacred doctrines. He was, besides, to watch lest the discussions among the members of the Synod themselves should degenerate into violent disputes and hinder the more exact investigation of truth; and, on the contrary, see that every statement should be heard with attention, and that every one put forward in view, or his objections, without let or hindrance, so that at last an unanimous decision might be arrived at in peace by the holy Synod. But above all, Candidian was to take care that no member of the Synod should attempt, before the close of the transactions, to go home, or to the court, or elsewhere.  Moreover, he was not to allow that any other matter of controversy should be taken into consideration before the settlement of the principal point of doctrine before the Council.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism II

II.
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
II.
If any one asserts that, at the union of the Logos with the flesh, the divine Essence moved from one place to another; or says that the flesh is capable of receiving the divine nature, and that it has been partially united with the flesh; or ascribes to the flesh, by reason of its reception of God, an extension to the infinite and boundless, and says that God and man are one and the same in nature; let him be anathema.
# Now Winter Wi' His Cloudy Braw

* "Now Winter Wi' His Cloudy Braw", in Beneath the Willow Tree (n.d.), a chapbook printed in Stirling
* "Winter, wi' his cloudy brow", in The Book of Scottish Song (1843), edited by Alexander Whitelaw
# Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism

First published in the United states. Later published under the title What Is Communist Anarchism?; usually published as What Is Anarchism? in modern printings. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Contents

* Foreword
* Introduction
* Chapter 1: What Do You Want Out Of Life?
* Chapter 2: The Wage System
* Chapter 3: Law and Government
* Chapter 4: How The System Works
* Chapter 5: Unemployment
* Chapter 6: War?
* Chapter 7: Church and School
* Chapter 8: Justice
* Chapter 9: Can The Church Help You?
* Chapter 10: Reformer and Politician
* Chapter 11:The Trade Union
* Chapter 12: Whose Is The Power?
* Chapter 13: Socialism
* Chapter 14: The February Revolution
* Chapter 15: Between February and October
* Chapter 16: The Bolsheviki
* Chapter 17: Revolution and Dictatorship
* Chapter 18: The Dictatorship At Work
* Chapter 19: Is Anarchism Violence?
* Chapter 20: What is Anarchism?
* Chapter 21: Is Anarchy Possible?
* Chapter 22: Will Communist Anarchism Work?
* Chapter 23: Non-Communist Anarchists
* Chapter 24: Why Revolution?
* Chapter 25: The Idea Is The Thing
* Chapter 26: Preparation
* Chapter 27: Organization Of Labor For The Social Revolution
* Chapter 28: Principles and Practice
* Chapter 29: Consumption and Exchange
* Chapter 30: Production
* Chapter 31: Defense Of The Revolution
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was legally published within the United States (or the United Nations Headquarters in New York subject to Section 7 of the United States Headquarters Agreement) before 1964, and copyright was not renewed.
* For Class A renewal records (books only) published between 1923 and 1963, check the Stanford University Copyright Renewal Database.
* For other renewal records of publications between 1922–1950, see the University of Pennsylvania copyright records.
* For all records since 1978, search the U.S. Copyright Office records.
Works published in 1929 could have had their copyright renewed in 1956 or 1957, i.e. between January 1st of the 27th year after publication or registration and December 31st of the 28th year. As this work's copyright was not renewed, it entered the public domain on January 1st, 1958.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 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.
It is imperative that contributors ascertain that there is no evidence of a copyright renewal before using this license. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of the work as a copyright violation.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Now We Are Six/The Old Sailor

Layout 2
# Now We Are Six/Waiting at the Window

Layout 2
# Now We Are Six/Wind on the Hill

Layout 2
# Now Westlin Winds

* "Now Westlin Winds", in The Beauties of Burn's Poems (1819), a chapbook printed in Falkirk
* "Now westlin winds", in Now westlin winds (1820), a chapbook printed in Edinburgh
* "Peggy", in The Book of Scottish Song (1843), edited by Alexander Whitelaw
* "Now westlin Winds", in The Poetical Works of Robert Burns (1887), edited by Alexander Smith
# Now We Are Six/The Morning Walk

Layout 2
# Now We Are Six/Twice Times

Layout 2
# Now We Are Six/Us Two

Layout 2
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith/Book IV/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.—How the Only-begotten Son of God is called first-born.
He who is first begotten is called first-born, whether he is only-begotten or the first of a number of brothers. If then the Son of God was called first-born, but was not called Only-begotten, we could imagine that He was the first-born of creatures, as being a creature. But since He is called both first-born and Only-begotten, both senses must be preserved in His case. We say that He is first-born of all creation since both He Himself is of God and creation is of God, but as He Himself is born alone and timelessly of the essence of God the Father, He may with reason be called Only-begotten Son, first-born and not first-created. For the creation was not brought into being out of the essence of the Father, but by His will out of nothing. And He is called First-born among many brethren, for although being Only-begotten, He was also born of a mother. Since, indeed, He participated just as we ourselves do in blood and flesh and became man, while we too through Him became sons of God, being adopted through the baptism, He Who is by nature Son of God became first-born amongst us who were made by adoption and grace sons of God, and stand to Him in the relation of brothers. Wherefore He said, I ascend unto My Father and your Father. He did not say “our Father,” but “My Father,” clearly in the sense of Father by nature, and “your Father,” in the sense of Father by grace. And “My God and your God.” He did not say “our God,” but “My God:” and if you distinguish with subtle thought that which is seen from that which is thought, also “your God,” as Maker and Lord.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See the Scholiast on Gregory Nyssenus in Cod. Reg. 3451.
* ↑ Vid. apud Greg. Nyss., bk. iii., contr. Eunom.
* ↑ Col. i. 15.
* ↑ Athan., Expos. Fidei.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 29.
* ↑ St. John xx. 17.
* ↑ Ibid
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/Title Page

John of Damascus.
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
Translated
by
The Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., F.E.I.S.,
Principal of the Free Church College, Aberdeen.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith/Book IV/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.—Concerning the question, when Christ was called.
The mind was not united with God the Word, as some falsely assert, before the Incarnation by the Virgin and from that time called Christ. That is the absurd nonsense of Origen who lays down the doctrine of the priority of the existence of souls. But we hold that the Son and Word of God became Christ after He had dwelt in the womb of His holy ever-virgin Mother, and became flesh without change, and that the flesh was anointed with divinity. For this is the anointing of humanity, as Gregory the Theologian says. And here are the words of the most holy Cyril of Alexandria which he wrote to the Emperor Theodosius: “For I indeed hold that one ought to give the name Jesus Christ neither to the Word that is of God if He is without humanity, nor yet to the temple born of woman if it is not united with the Word. For the Word that is of God is understood to be Christ when united with humanity in ineffable manner in the union of the œconomy.” And again, he writes to the Empresses thus: “Some hold that the name ‘Christ’ is rightly given to the Word that is begotten of God the Father, to Him alone, and regarded separately by Himself. But we have not been taught so to think and speak. For when the Word became flesh, then it was, we say, that He was called Christ Jesus. For since He was anointed with the oil of gladness, that is the Spirit, by Him Who is God and Father, He is for this reason called Christ. But that the anointing was an act that concerned Him as man could be doubted by no one who is accustomed to think rightly.” Moreover, the celebrated Athanasius says this in his discourse “Concerning the Saving Manifestation:” “The God Who was before the sojourn in the flesh was not man, but God in God, being invisible and without passion, but when He became man, He received in addition the name of Christ because of the flesh, since, indeed, passion and death follow in the train of this name.”
And although the holy Scripture says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, it is to be observed that the holy Scripture often uses the past tense instead of the future, as for example here: Thereafter He was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men. For as yet God was not seen nor did He dwell among men when this was said. And here again: By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea wept. For as yet these things had not come to pass.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See Sophr., Ep. ad Serg.; Origen, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, II. 6; Ruf., Expos. Symb., &c.
* ↑ Origen, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, bk. ii., ch. 6.
* ↑ Orat. 36, near the end.
* ↑ Edit. Paris, p. 25.
* ↑ καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν οἰκονομικήν, in the union of the Incarnation.
* ↑ Edit. Paris, p. 54.
* ↑ Ps. xlv. 7.
* ↑ Ps. xlv. 7.
* ↑ Some copies omit the last five words.
* ↑ Bar. iii. 38.
* ↑ Ps. cxxxvii. 1.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/Note

Note.
In the difficult task of translating the De Fide Orthodoxa—a task made the more difficult at times by the condition of the text,—I am indebted for much to my son, James L. Salmond, M.A., M.B., formerly of Balliol College, Oxford. There still remain passages of doubtful interpretation. It was intended to furnish a larger body of Notes and also an account of John and his writings. It has been found advisable, however, to complete the volume without these.
S. D. F. Salmond.
Aberdeen, 1 Sept. 1898.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Series Title

A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
Edited by
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME IX
Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith/Book IV/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.—In answer to those who enquire whether the holy Mother of God bore two natures, and whether two natures hung upon the Cross.
ἀγένητον and γενητόν, written with one ‘ν’ and meaning uncreated and created, refer to nature: but ἀγέννητον and γεννητόν, that is to say, unbegotten and begotten, as the double ‘ν’ indicates, refer not to nature but to subsistence. The divine nature then is ἀγένητος, that is to say, uncreate, but all things that come after the divine nature are γένητα, that is, created. In the divine and uncreated nature, therefore, the property of being ἀγέννητον or unbegotten is contemplated in the Father (for He was not begotten), that of being γέννητον or begotten in the Son (for He has been eternally begotten of the Father), and that of procession in the Holy Spirit. Moreover of each species of living creatures, the first members were ἀγέννητα but not ἀγένητα: for they were brought into being by their Maker, but were not the offspring of creatures like themselves. For γένεσις is creation, while γέννησις or begetting is in the case of God the origin of a co-essential Son arising from the Father alone, and in the case of bodies, the origin of a co-essential subsistence arising from the contact of male and female. And thus we perceive that begetting refers not to nature but to subsistence. For if it did refer to nature, τὸ γέννητον and το ἀγέννητον, i.e. the properties of being begotten and unbegotten, could not be contemplated in one and the same nature. Accordingly the holy Mother of God bore a subsistence revealed in two natures; being begotten on the one hand, by reason of its divinity, of the Father timelessly, and, at last, on the other hand, being incarnated of her in time and born in the flesh.
But if our interrogators should hint that He Who is begotten of the holy Mother of God is two natures, we reply, “Yea! He is two natures: for He is in His own person God and man. And the same is to be said concerning the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension. For these refer not to nature but to subsistence. Christ then, since He is in two natures, suffered and was crucified in the nature that was subject to passion. For it was in the flesh and not in His divinity that He hung upon the Cross. Otherwise, let them answer us, when we ask if two natures died. No, we shall say. And so two natures were not crucified but Christ was begotten, that is to say, the divine Word having become man was begotten in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, suffered in the flesh, while His divinity continued to be impassible.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Supr., bk. i. ch. 9.
* ↑ Euthym., p. 2, tit. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page/De Synodis or On the Councils
## Contents

* Introduction
* De Synodis or On the Councils
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/Title Page
## Contents

* Title Page
* Preface
* Introduction
* De Synodis or On the Councils
* De Trinitate or On the Trinity
* Homilies on Psalms
# North Carolina Reports

Records of the decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court and it's predecessors from 1778-Onward
# North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 43
North Carolina State Board of Education et al. v. Swann et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
No. 498. Argued: October 13, 1970 --- Decided: April 20, 1971
North Carolina's Anti-Busing Law, which flatly forbids assignment of any student on account of race or for the purpose of creating a racial balance or ratio in the schools and which prohibits busing for such purposes, held invalid as preventing implementation of desegregation plans required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 45-46.
312 F. Supp. 503, affirmed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of North Carolina, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Robert B. Morgan, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General.
James M. Nabrit III argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, Norman J. Chachkin, J. LeVonne Chambers, C.O. Pearson, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.
Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Leonard filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.

## 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