OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Gennadius/Leporius the presbyter

Chapter LX.
Leporius, formerly monk afterwards presbyter, relying on purity, through his own free will and unaided effort, instead of depending on the help of God, began to follow the Pelagian doctrine. But having been admonished by the Gallican doctors, and corrected by Augustine in Africa, he wrote a book containing his retraction, in which he both acknowledges his error and returns thanks for his correction. At the same time in correction of his false view of the incarnation of Christ, he presented the Catholic view, acknowledging the single person of the Son of God, and the two natures existing in Christ in his substance.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Flourished 418–430.
* ↑ purityT 31 a e 21; purity of life A 25 30.
* ↑ in his substance A T 30 31 a e 21; omit 25 Her.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Gennadius/Julianus the bishop

Chapter XLVI.
Julianus the bishop, a man of vigorous character, learned in the Divine Scriptures, and proficient both in Greek and Latin, was, before he disclosed his participation in the ungodliness of Pelagius, distinguished among the doctors of the church. But afterwards, trying to defend the Pelagian heresy, he wrote four books, Against Augustine, the opponent of Pelagius, and then again, eight books more. There is also a book containing a discussion, where each defends his side.
This Julianus, in time of famine and want, attracting many through the alms which he gave, and the glamour of virtue, which they cast around him, associated them with him in his heresy. He died during the reign of Valentinianus, the son of Constantius.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop of Eclanum about 416.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Gennadius/Lucianus the presbyter

Chapter XLVII.
Lucianus the presbyter, a holy man to whom, at the time when Honorius and Theodosius were Emperors, God revealed the place of the sepulchre and the remains of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, wrote out that revelation in Greek, addressing it to all the churches.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lucianus of Caphargamala, flourished 415.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Gennadius/Mochimus the presbyter

Chapter LXXII.
Mochimus, the Mesopotamian, a presbyter at Antioch, wrote an excellent book Against Eutyches, and is said to be writing others, which I have not yet read.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Presbyter 457.
# National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 87
National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Argued: Jan. 17 and 22, 1957. --- Decided: April 1, 1957
[Syllabus from pages 87-88 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, N.Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Company of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
390 U.S. 254
National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
No. 178. Argued: January 23-24, 1968 --- Decided: March 6, 1968
Petitioner insurance workers union seeks to represent respondent insurance company's "debit agents." The company refused to recognize the union, claiming that the agents were independent contractors rather than employees. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the ensuing unfair labor practice proceeding determined under the common law of agency that the agents were employees. It found that the agents do not operate their own independent businesses, but perform functions that are an essential part of the company's normal operations; are trained by company supervisory personnel; do business in the company's name and ordinarily sell only the company's policies; operate under terms and conditions established and changed unilaterally by the company; account for funds under strict company procedures; receive the benefit of the company's vacation plan and group insurance and pension fund; and have a permanent working arrangement under which they may continue with the company as long as their performance is satisfactory. The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the NLRB's order.
Held: The NLRB's determination that the agents were company employees and not independent contractors represented a choice between two fairly conflicting views, and its order should have been enforced by the Court of Appeals. Pp. 256-260.
371 F. 2d 316, reversed.
Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for the National Labor Relations Board, petitioner in No. 178 and respondent in No. 179. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman and Norton J. Come.
Isaac N. Groner argued the cause and filed a brief for the Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, petitioner in No. 179 and respondent in No. 178.
Bernard G. Segal argued the cause for the United Insurance Co. of America, respondent in both cases. With him on the brief were Samuel D. Slade and Herbert G. Keene, Jr.
Shayle P. Fox filed a brief for the American Retail Federation, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

## Notes

* ↑ Together with No. 179, Insurance Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
351 U.S. 149
National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing Company
Argued: March 29, 1956. --- Decided: May 7, 1956
Mr.
David P. Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. R. D. Douglas, Jr., Greensboro, N.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. United Steelworkers of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 357
National Labor Relations Board v. United Steelworkers of America
Argued: Jan. 29, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for respondent, United Steelworkers of America, CIO.
No appearance for respondent NuTone, Inc.
Mr. Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent Avondale Mills.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER 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
# National Labor Relations Board v. Strong/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
393 U.S. 357
National Labor Relations Board v. Strong
Argued: Dec. 10, 1968. --- Decided: Jan 15, 1969
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the reversal of the Court of Appeals' judgment, but he would direct that the cause be remanded to the Board for it to determine whether to submit the case to arbitration in accord with the contract.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

## 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
# Neslin v. Wells

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 428
Neslin v. Wells
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
J. G. Sutherland and J. R. McBride for the appellant.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson for the appellees.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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
# Ner on Longpre v. Diaz y Qui Nones

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 512
Ner on Longpre v. Diaz y Qui Nones
Argued: March 15, 1915. --- Decided: June 1, 1915
Messrs. H. H. Scoville and Jose R. F. Savage for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Francis H. Dexter, Joseph Anderson, Jr., and Damian Monserrat, Jr., for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice White 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
# Nero

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Nero."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Nero", a poem by Robert Bridges
* "Nero", a poem by Clark Ashton Smith
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ

A Treatise on the grace of christ, and on original sin,
by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo;
In Two Books,
written against pelagius and cœlestius in the year a.d. 418.
Book I.
On the Grace of Christ.
Wherein he shows that Pelagius is disingenuous in his confession of grace, inasmuch as he places grace either in nature and free will, or in law and teaching; and, moreover, asserts that it is merely the “possibility” (as he calls it) of will and action, and not the will and action itself, which is assisted by divine grace; and that this assisting grace, too, is given by God according to men’s merits; whilst he further thinks that they are so assisted for the sole purpose of being able the more easily to fulfil the commandments. Augustin examines those passages of his writings in which he boasted that he had bestowed express commendation on the grace of God, and points out how they can be interpreted as referring to law and teaching,—in other words, to the divine revelation and the example of Christ which are alike included in “the teaching,”—or else to the remission of sins; nor do they afford any evidence whatever that Pelagius really acknowledged Christian grace, in the sense of help rendered for the performance of right action to natural faculty and instruction, by the inspiration of a most glowing and luminous love; and he concludes with a request that Pelagius would seriously listen to Ambrose, whom he is so very fond of quoting, in his excellent eulogy in commendation of the grace of God.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
* Chapter 52
* Chapter 53
* Chapter 54
* Chapter 55
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 10

Chapter 10 [IX.]—What Purpose the Law Subserves.
What object, then, can this man gain by accounting the law and the teaching to be the grace whereby we are helped to work righteousness? For, in order that it may help much, it must help us to feel our need of grace. No man, indeed, is able to fulfil the law through the law. “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” And the love of God is not shed abroad in our hearts by the law, but by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us. Grace, therefore, is pointed at by the law, in order that the law may be fulfilled by grace. Now what does it avail for Pelagius, that he declares the self-same thing under different phrases, that he may not be understood to place in law and teaching that grace which, as he avers, assists the “capacity” of our nature? So far, indeed, as I can conjecture, the reason why he fears being so understood is, because he condemned all those who maintain that God’s grace and help are not given for a man’s single actions, but exist rather in his freedom, or in the law and teaching. And yet he supposes that he escapes detection by the shifts he so constantly employs for disguising what he means by his formula of “law and teaching” under so many various phrases.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. xiii. 10.
* ↑ Rom. v. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 16

Chapter 16 [XV.]—We Need Divine Aid in the Use of Our Powers. Illustration from Sight.
Now what is the use of his examples, if they do not really accomplish his own promise of making his meaning clearer to us; not, indeed, that we are bound to admit their sense, but that we may discover more plainly and openly what is his drift and purpose in using them? “That we are able,” says he, “to see with our eyes is not of us; but it is of us that we make a good or a bad use of our sight.” Well, there is an answer for him in the psalm, in which the psalmist says to God, “Turn Thou away mine eyes, that they behold not iniquity.” Now although this was said of the eyes of the mind, it still follows from it, that in respect of our bodily eyes there is either a good use or a bad use that may be made of them: not in the literal sense merely of a good sight when the eyes are sound, and a bad sight when they are bleared, but in the moral sense of a right sight when it is directed towards succouring the helpless, or a bad sight when its object is the indulgence of lust. For although both the pauper who is succoured, and the woman who is lusted after, are seen by these external eyes; it is after all from the inner eyes that either compassion in the one case or lust in the other proceeds. How then is it that the prayer is offered to God, “Turn Thou away mine eyes, that they behold not iniquity”? Or why is that asked for which lies within our own power, if it be true that God does not assist the will?

## Footnotes

* ↑ See above, ch. 5 [iv.].
* ↑ Ps. cxix. 37.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 1

Chapter 1 [I.]—Introductory.
How greatly we rejoice on account of your bodily, and, above all, your spiritual welfare, my most sincerely attached brethren and beloved of God, Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, we cannot express in words; we therefore leave all this to your own thoughts and belief, in order that we may now rather speak of the matters on which you consulted us. We have, indeed, had to compose these words to the best of the ability which God has vouchsafed to us, while our messenger was in a hurry to be gone, and amidst many occupations, which are much more absorbing to me at Carthage than in any other place whatever.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [See note to the passage from the Retractations above; and for full accounts see Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, under these names.—W.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 17

Chapter 17 [XVI.]—Does Pelagius Designedly Refrain from Openly Saying that All Good Action is from God?
“That we are able to speak,” says he, “is of God; but that we make a good or a bad use of speech is of ourselves.” He, however, who has made the most excellent use of speech does not teach us so. “For,” says He, “it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” “So, again,” adds Pelagius, “that I may, by applying a general case in illustration, embrace all,—that we are able to do, say, think, any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this ability, and who also assists it.” Observe how even here he repeats his former meaning —that of these three, capacity, volition, action, it is only the capacity which receives help. Then, by way of completely stating what he intends to say, he adds: “But that we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own selves.” He forgot what he had before said by way of correcting, as it were, his own words; for after saying, “Man is to be praised therefore for his willing and doing a good work,” he at once goes on to modify his statement thus: “Or rather, this praise belongs both to man, and to God who has given him the capacity of this very will and work.” Now what is the reason why he did not remember this admission when giving his examples, so as to say this much at least after quoting them: “That we are able to do, say, think any good thing, comes from Him who has given us this ability, and who also assists it. That, however, we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds both from ourselves and from Him!” This, however, he has not said. But, if I am not mistaken, I think I see why he was afraid to do so.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. x. 20.
* ↑ See ch. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 11

Chapter 11 [X.]—Pelagius’ Definition of How God Helps Us: “He Promises Us Future Glory.”
For in another passage, after asserting at length that it is not by the help of God, but out of our own selves, that a good will is formed within us, he confronted himself with a question out of the apostle’s epistle; and he asked this question: “How will this stand consistently with the apostle’s words, ‘It is God that worketh in you both to will and to perfect’?” Then, in order to obviate this opposing authority, which he plainly saw to be most thoroughly contrasted with his own dogma, he went on at once to add: “He works in us to will what is good, to will what is holy, when He rouses us from our devotion to earthly desires, and from our love of the present only, after the manner of brute animals, by the magnitude of the future glory and the promise of its rewards; when by revealing wisdom to us He stirs up our sluggish will to a longing after God; when (what you are not afraid to deny in another passage) he persuades us to everything which is good.” Now what can be plainer, than that by the grace whereby God works within us to will what is good, he means nothing else than the law and the teaching? For in the law and the teaching of the holy Scriptures are promised future glory and its great rewards. To the teaching also appertains the revelation of wisdom, whilst it is its further function to direct our thoughts to everything that is good. And if between teaching and persuading (or rather exhorting) there seems to be a difference, yet even this is provided for in the general term “teaching,” which is contained in the several discourses or letters; for the holy Scriptures both teach and exhort, and in the processes of teaching and exhorting there is room likewise for man’s operation. We, however, on our side would fain have him sometime confess that grace, by which not only future glory in all its magnitude is promised, but also is believed in and hoped for; by which wisdom is not only revealed, but also loved; by which everything that is good is not only recommended, but pressed upon us until we accept it. For all men do not possess faith, who hear the Lord in the Scriptures promising the kingdom of heaven; nor are all men persuaded, who are counselled to come to Him, who says, “Come unto me, all ye that labour.” They, however, who have faith are the same who are also persuaded to come to Him. This He Himself set forth most plainly, when He said, “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.” And some verses afterwards, when speaking of such as believe not, He says, “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.” This is the grace which Pelagius ought to acknowledge, if he wishes not only to be called a Christian, but to be one.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Phil. ii. 13.
* ↑ 2 Thess. iii. 2.
* ↑ Matt. xi. 28.
* ↑ John vi. 44.
* ↑ John vi. 65.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin/On the Grace of Christ/Chapter 12

Chapter 12 [XI.]—The Same Continued: “He Reveals Wisdom.”
But what shall I say about the revelation of wisdom? For there is no man who can in the present life very well hope to attain to the great revelations which were given to the Apostle Paul; and of course it is impossible to suppose that anything was accustomed in these revelations to be made known to him but what appertained to wisdom. Yet for all this he says: “Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that He would take it away from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” Now, undoubtedly, if there were already in the apostle that perfection of love which admitted of no further addition, and which could be puffed up no more, there could have been no further need of the messenger of Satan to buffet him, and thereby to repress the excessive elation which might arise from abundance of revelations. What means this elation, however, but a being puffed up? And of love it has been indeed most truly said, “Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.” This love, therefore, was still in process of constant increase in the great apostle, day by day, as long as his “inward man was renewed day by day,” and would then be perfected, no doubt, when he was got beyond the reach of all further vaunting and elation. But at that time his mind was still in a condition to be inflated by an abundance of revelations before it was perfected in the solid edifice of love; for he had not arrived at the goal and apprehended the prize, to which he was reaching forward in his course.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. xii. 7–9.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xiii. 4.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iv. 6.