OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV

See Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I for details of authorship.

## Contents

* Title Page
* Editor's Preface
* Contents
* Manichaean Controversy
** Title Page
** Introductory Essay
** Preface to the Anti-Manichaean Writings
** On the Morals of the Catholic Church
** On the Morals of the Manichaeans
** On Two Souls
** Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean
** Against the Epistle of Manichaeus
** Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
** Concerning the Nature of Good
* Donatist Controversy
** Title Page
** Introductory Essay
** Preface
** On Baptism
** Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist
** The Correction of the Donatists
* Indexes [not included]
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Contents

Contents.
__________
Preface.
I. THE ANTI-MANICHæAN WRITINGS.
Translated by the Rev. RICHARD STOTHERT, M.A., Bombay, and Prof. Albert H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Toronto
Introductory essay on the Manichæan heresy.
By Dr. Newman.
On the Morals of the Catholic Church
(De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ),
A.D. 388.
Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.
On the Morals of the Manichæans
(De Moribus Manichæorum),
A.D. 388.
Translated by the Rev. Richard Stothert.
On Two Souls, against the Manichæans
(De Duabus Animabus, contra Manichæos),
A.D. 391.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
Acts or Disputation against Fortunatus the Manichæan
(Acta seu Disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichæum),
A.D. 392.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
Against the Epistle of Manichæus called Fundamental
(Contra Epistolam Manichæi quam vocant Fundamenti),
A.D. 397.
Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.
Reply to Faustus the Manichæan
(Contra Faustus Manichæum, Libri XXXIII ),
A.D. 400.
Translated by the Rev. R. Stothert.
Concerning the nature of good, against the Manichæans
(De Natura Boni contra Manichæos),
A.D. 404.
Translated by Dr. Newman.
II. THE ANTI-donatist WRITINGS.
Translated by the Rev. J.R. King, M.A., Vicar of St. Peter’s in the East, Oxford, and late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford.
The Translation revised, with additional annotations, by the Rev. Chester D. Hartranft, D.D., Professor of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, Connecticut.
Introductory to the Anti-Donatist Writings.
By Dr. Hartranft.
On Baptism, against the Donatists
(De Baptismo, contra Donatistas, Libri VII ),
Circa, A.D. 400.
Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
(Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistæ Cirtensis Episcopi, Libri III ),
A.D. 400.
The Correction of the Donatists
(De Correctione Donatistarum Liber seu Epistola CLXXXV ),
Circa, A.D. 417.
Index to the Anti-Manichæan Writings.
Index to the Anti-Donatist Writings.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Title Page

A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK,
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.
VOLUME III
ON THE HOLY TRINITY
DOCTRINAL TREATISES
MORAL TREATISES
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist
## Contents

* Title Page
* Preface
* Book I
* Book II
* Book III
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/Title Page

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 XI
Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.
His warning to the Galatians a warning to all.
[24.] But, possibly, this warning was intended for the Galatians only. Be it so; then those other exhortations which follow in the same Epistle were intended for the Galatians only, such as, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another,” etc.; which alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant equally for all, then it follows, that as these injunctions which relate to morals, so those warnings which relate to faith are meant equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one another, or to envy one another, so, likewise, it is unlawful for all to receive any other Gospel than that which the Catholic Church preaches everywhere.
[25.] Or perhaps the anathema pronounced on any one who should preach another Gospel than that which had been preached was meant for those times, not for the present. Then, also, the exhortation, “Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh,” was meant for those times, not for the present. But if it be both impious and pernicious to believe this, then it follows necessarily, that as these injunctions are to be observed by all ages, so those warnings also which forbid alteration of the faith are warnings intended for all ages. To preach any doctrine therefore to Catholic Christians other than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be lawful: and to anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty.
[26.] Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who was caught up to heaven, cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, “If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed.” On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians, call out in opposition, and that to Catholics, “Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead,—what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 25.
* ↑ Gal. v. 16.
* ↑ 2 Cor. xii. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII

See Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II for details of authorship.

## Contents

* Title Page
* Leo the Great
** Title Page
** Prefatory Note
** Introduction
** Letters
** Sermons
* Gregory the Great
** Title Page
** Prefatory Note
** Prolegomena
** The Book of Pastoral Rule
*** Preface
*** Part I
*** Part II
*** Part III
*** Part IV
** Register of Epistles
*** Book I
*** Book II
*** Book III
*** Book IV
*** Book V
*** Book VI
*** Book VII
*** Book VIII
* Indexes [not included]
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Gregory the Great/Prefatory Note

Prefatory Note.
The Text followed in these Translations is the Benedictine one, as given by Migne in Patrologia, Vol. LXXVII., Sancti Gregorii Magni, Vol. III.  The same Text of the Regula Pastoralis has been published with an English Translation by the Rev. H. R. Bramley (James Parker and Co., 1874). The Translation now given is an original one, though the translator desires to express his obligations to his predecessor in the same task. The selection of Epistles translated has been made with the view of exhibiting Gregory’s various activities, his various styles of correspondence, his views and character, as well as of illustrating the history of his time. Those which relate to certain important subjects—such as the Lombard invasion, the English Mission, the dispute about the title of ‘Œcumenical Bishop,’ correspondence with the Emperors and with the Potentates of Gaul—have been given in their entirety. Of such as relate to subjects of less moment specimens only have been selected, but sufficient, it is hoped, for presenting a picture of the writer under his various aspects, and in his various spheres of work. It is hoped also that the appended notes may serve to shew the connexion of the several Epistles with each other, and with the circumstances they refer to, as well as to explain obscure words or passages.  For a better understanding of the correspondence relating to the Church in Gaul, a pedigree of the contemporary Merovingian Kings is appended.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.
Exposition of St. Paul’s Words, Gal. i. 8.
[21.] When therefore certain of this sort wandering about provinces and cities, and carrying with them their venal errors, had found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them, nauseating the truth, and vomiting up the manna of Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, were delighted with the garbage of heretical novelty, the apostle putting in exercise the authority of his office, delivered his sentence with the utmost severity, “Though we,” he says, “or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
[22.] Why does he say “Though we”? why not rather “though I”? He means, “though Peter, though Andrew, though John,
in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on “Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. “Though we,” he says, “or an angel from heaven.” Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen,—if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.
[23.] But it may be, he spoke thus in the first instance inconsiderately, giving vent to human impetuosity rather than expressing himself under divine guidance. Far from it. He follows up what he had said, and urges it with intense reiterated earnestness, “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel to you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” He does not say, “If any man deliver to you another message than that you have received, let him be blessed, praised, welcomed,”—no; but “let him be accursed,” [anathema] i.e., separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep contaminate the guiltless flock of Christ by his poisonous intermixture with them.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. i. 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Gregory the Great
## Contents

* Title Page
* Prefatory Note
* Prolegomena
* The Book of Pastoral Rule
* Register of Epistles
# Nashua Corp v. Boston L. Railroad Corp

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
136 U.S. 356
Nashua Corp v. Boston L. Railroad Corp
[Statement of Case from pages 357-360 intentionally omitted]
Francis A. Brooks and E. J. Phelps, for appellant.
J. H. Benton, Jr., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 361-365 intentionally omitted]
FIELD, 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
# Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Land Mortgage Agency Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
189 U.S. 221
Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Land Mortgage Agency Company
Argued: January 29, 1903. --- Decided: March 16, 1903
This was an action by the defendant in error, a British corporation, in the circuit court for the district of New Hampshire, against the Nashua Savings Bank, a New Hampshire corporation, to recover an assessment made by such corporation in pursuance of its charter and by-laws, upon defendant's subscription to a thousand shares of its stock.
The case was tried before the circuit judge and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff by direction of the court, and a judgment against the bank in the sum of $7,131.10, which was affirmed on writ of error by the circuit court of appeals. 48 C. C. A. 15, 108 Fed. 764.
Messrs. John S. H. Frink and A. T. Batchelder for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 222-224 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Omar Powell, Gilbert A. Davis, and Daniel L. Cady for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 224-227 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brown 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
# Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway v. Browning

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 362
Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway v. Browning
Argued: April 30, May 1, 1940. --- Decided: May 20, 1940
Messrs. Wm. H. Swiggart and Edwin F. Hunt, both of Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Mr. W. F. Barry, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.
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
# Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway v. Walters

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 405
Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway v. Walters
[Syllabus from pages 405-407 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Fitzgerald Hall, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 407-409 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edwin F. Hunt, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nashville Milk Company v. Carnation Company Safeway Stores

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, news, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 373
Nashville Milk Company v. Carnation Company Safeway Stores
Mr. Jerome F. Dixon, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Melville C. Williams, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 33

33. I now come to the most serious charge of all, that in which you accuse me of having been unfaithful after the restoration of our friendship. I confess that, of all the reproaches which you bring against me or threaten me with, there is none which I would so much deprecate as that of fraud, deceit and breach of faith. To sin is human, to lay snares is diabolical. What! Was it for this that I joined hands with you over the slain lamb in the Church of the Resurrection, that I might ‘steal your manuscripts at Rome’? or that I might ‘send out my dogs to gnaw away your papers before they were corrected’? Can any one believe that we made ready the accusers before you had committed the crime? Is it supposed that we knew what plans you were meditating in your heart? or what another man had been dreaming? or how the Greek proverb was having its fulfilment in your case, “the pig teaches Minerva”? If I sent Eusebius to bark against you, who then stirred up the passion of Aterbius and others against you? Is it not the fact that he thought that I also was a heretic because of my friendship with you? And, when I had given him satisfaction as to the heresies of Origen, you shut yourself up at home, and never dared to meet him, for fear you should have to condemn what you wished not to condemn, or by openly resisting him should subject yourself to the reproach of heresy. Do you think that he cannot be called as a witness against you because he is your accuser? Before ever the reverend bishop Epiphanius came to Jerusalem, and gave you the signs of peace by word and kiss, ‘yet having evil thoughts and guile in his heart’; before I translated for him that letter which was such a reproof to you, and in which he wrote you down a heretic though he had before approved you as orthodox; Aterbius was barking against you at Jerusalem, and, if he had not speedily taken himself off, would have felt not your literary cudgel but the stick you flourish in your right hand to drive the dogs away.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Jerome Letter li., Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem.
* ↑ See Ruf. Apol. to Anastasius, 1.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 35

35. But my fault, you will say, was this, that I did not restrain your accusers who were my friends. Why, I had enough to do to answer their accusations against myself; for they charged me with hypocrisy, as I could shew by producing their letters, because I kept silence when I knew you to be a heretic; and because by incautiously maintaining peace with you, I fostered the intestine wars of the Church. You call them my disciples; they suspect me of being your fellow-disciple; and, because I was somewhat sparing in my rejection of your praises, they think me to be initiated, along with you, into the mysteries of heresy. This was the service your Prologue did me; you injured me more by appearing as my friend than you would had you shewn yourself my enemy. They had persuaded themselves once for all (whether rightly or wrongly is their business) that you were a heretic. If I should determine to defend you, I should only succeed in getting myself accused by them along with you. They cast in my teeth your laudation of me, which they suppose to have been written not in craft but sincerity; and they vehemently reproach me with the very things which you always praised in me. What am I to do? To turn my disciples into my accusers for your sake? To receive on my own head the weapons which were hurled against my friend?

## Footnotes

* ↑ See the end of the letter of Pammachius and Oceanus; Jerome Letter lxxxiii.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Rufinus/Jerome's Apology/Book III/Chapter 34

34. “But why,” you ask, “did you accept my manuscripts which had been falsified? and why, when I had translated the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν did you dare to put your pen to the same work? If I had erred, as any man may, ought you not to summon me to reply by a private letter, and to speak smoothly to me, as I am speaking smoothly in my present letter?” My whole fault is this that, when accusations were brought against me in the guise of disingenuous praise, I tried to purge myself from them, and this without invidiously introducing your name. I wished to refer to many persons a charge which you alone had brought, not so as to retort the charge of heresy upon you, but to repel it from myself. Could I know that you would be angry if I wrote against the heretics? You had said that you had taken away the heretical passages from the works of Origen. I therefore turned my attacks not upon you but upon the heretics, for I did not believe that you were a favourer of heresy. Pardon me, if I did this with too great vehemence. I thought that I should give you pleasure. You say that it was by the dishonest tricks of those who acted for me that your manuscripts were brought out before the public, when they were kept secretly in your chamber, or were in possession only of the man who had desired to have the translation made for him. But how is this reconcilable with your former statement that either no one or very few had them? If they were kept secret in your chamber, how could they be in the possession of the man who had desired to have the translation made for him? If the one man for whom the manuscripts had been written had obtained them in order to conceal them, then they were not kept secret in your chamber, and they were not in the hands of those few who, as you now declare, possessed them. You accuse us of having stolen them away; and then again you reproach us with having bought them for a great sum of money and an immense bribe. In a single matter, and in one little letter, what a tissue of various and discordant falsehoods! You have full liberty for accusation, but I have none for defence. When you bring a charge, you think nothing about friendship. When I begin to reply, then your mind is full of the rights of friendship. Let me ask you: Did you write these manuscripts for concealment or for publication? If for concealment, why were they written? If for publication, why did you conceal them?