OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Catholic Church/Chapter 6

Chapter 6.—Virtue Gives Perfection to the Soul; The Soul Obtains Virtue by Following God; Following God is the Happy Life.
9. No one will question that virtue gives perfection to the soul. But it is a very proper subject of inquiry whether this virtue can exist by itself or only in the soul. Here again arises a profound discussion, needing lengthy treatment; but perhaps my summary will serve the purpose. God will, I trust, assist me, so that, notwithstanding our feebleness, we may give instruction on these great matters briefly as well as intelligibly. In either case, whether virtue can exist by itself without the soul, or can exist only in the soul, undoubtedly in the pursuit of virtue the soul follows after something, and this must be either the soul itself, or virtue, or something else. But if the soul follows after itself in the pursuit of virtue, it follows after a foolish thing; for before obtaining virtue it is foolish. Now the height of a follower’s desire is to reach that which he follows after. So the soul must either not wish to reach what it follows after, which is utterly absurd and unreasonable, or, in following after itself while foolish, it reaches the folly which it flees from. But if it follows after virtue in the desire to reach it, how can it follow what does not exist? or how can it desire to reach what it already possesses? Either, therefore, virtue exists beyond the soul, or if we are not allowed to give the name of virtue except to the habit and disposition of the wise soul, which can exist only in the soul, we must allow that the soul follows after something else in order that virtue may be produced in itself; for neither by following after nothing, nor by following after folly, can the soul, according to my reasoning, attain to wisdom.
10. This something else then, by following after which the soul becomes possessed of virtue and wisdom, is either a wise man or God. But we have said already that it must be something that we cannot lose against our will. No one can think it necessary to ask whether a wise man, supposing we are content to follow after him, can be taken from us in spite of our unwillingness or our persistence. God then remains, in following after whom we live well, and in reaching whom we live both well and happily. If any deny God’s existence, why should I consider the method of dealing with them, when it is doubtful whether they ought to be dealt with at all? At any rate, it would require a different starting-point, a different plan, a different investigation from what we are now engaged in. I am now addressing those who do not deny the existence of God, and who, moreover, allow that human affairs are not disregarded by Him. For there is no one, I suppose, who makes any profession of religion but will hold that divine Providence cares at least for our souls.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Manichaeans
## Contents

* Title Page
* 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Catholic Church/Chapter 7

Chapter 7.—The Knowledge of God to Be Obtained from the Scripture. The Plan and Principal Mysteries of the Divine Scheme of Redemption.
11. But how can we follow after Him whom we do not see? or how can we see Him, we who are not only men, but also men of weak understanding? For though God is seen not with the eyes but with the mind, where can such a mind be found as shall, while obscured by foolishness, succeed or even attempt to drink in that light? We must therefore have recourse to the instructions of those whom we have reason to think wise. Thus far argument brings us. For in human things reasoning is employed, not as of greater certainty, but as easier from use. But when we come to divine things, this faculty turns away; it cannot behold; it pants, and gasps, and burns with desire; it falls back from the light of truth, and turns again to its wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from exhaustion. What a dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul should be reduced to greater helplessness when it is seeking rest from its toil! So, when we are hasting to retire into darkness, it will be well that by the appointment of adorable Wisdom we should be met by the friendly shade of authority, and should be attracted by the wonderful character of its contents, and by the utterances of its pages, which, like shadows, typify and attemper the truth.
12. What more could have been done for our salvation? What can be more gracious and bountiful than divine providence, which, when man had fallen from its laws, and, in just retribution for his coveting mortal things, had brought forth a mortal offspring, still did not wholly abandon him? For in this most righteous government, whose ways are strange and inscrutable, there is, by means of unknown connections established in the creatures subject to it, both a severity of punishment and a mercifulness of salvation. How beautiful this is, how great, how worthy of God, in fine, how true, which is all we are seeking for, we shall never be able to perceive, unless, beginning with things human and at hand, and holding by the faith and the precepts of true religion, we continue without turning from it in the way which God has secured for us by the separation of the patriarchs, by the bond of the law, by the foresight of the prophets, by the witness of the apostles, by the blood of the martyrs, and by the subjugation of the Gentiles. From this point, then, let no one ask me for my opinion, but let us rather hear the oracles, and submit our weak inferences to the announcements of Heaven.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Augustin’s transition from his fine Platonizing discussion of virtue, the chief good, etc., to the patriarchs, the law, and the prophets is very fine rhetorically and apologetically.—A.H.N.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/On the Morals of the Manichaeans/Argument

On the Morals of the Manichæans.
[De Moribus Manichæorum.] a.d. 388.
Containing a particular refutation of the doctrine of these heretics regarding the origin and nature of evil; an exposure of their pretended symbolical customs of the mouth, of the hands, and of the breast; and a condemnation of their superstitious abstinence and unholy mysteries. Lastly, some crimes brought to light among the Manichæans are mentioned.
# New Jersey v. City of New York (289 U.S. 712)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 712
New Jersey v. City of New York (289 U.S. 712)
S. 585, 52 S.Ct. 120, 76 L.Ed. 506) and praying an order that defendant show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt. On the same day defendant filed an application asserting its inability to comply with the decree within the time limited, and praying that the time for the taking effect of the injunction be extended from June 1, 1933, to April 1, 1934. It is ordered:
These applications will be heard November 6, 1933.
Edward K. Campbell is appointed special master, empowered to issue subpoenas for witnesses and to take the evidence that may be offered by the respective parties, and also such as he may deem necessary, to show: (1) What shall have been done by defendant, up to September 15, 1933, and the time reasonably required to enable it to comply with the decree; (2) the amounts that shall have been expended, subsequent to June 1, 1933, by New Jersey and its political subdivisions to prevent or lessen the defilement or pollution of the waters, shores, or beaches within that state and the damages respectively sustained by them as a result of defendant's failure to comply with the decree.
The evidence shall be taken at such times and places as the master, by notice to counsel, shall fix. And he is directed to report to the court, not later than October 20, 1933, the evidence so taken together with his findings of fact thereon. His findings will be subject to consideration, revision, or approval by the court. When the report of the special master is filed, the clerk of the court shall cause the same to be printed, and the court, without the filing of exceptions, will hear the parties thereon.
The special master shall be allowed his actual expenses and a reasonable compensation for his services to be fixed hereafter by the court. The allowances to him, the compensation paid to his stenographic and clerical assistants, and the cost of printing his report shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the court hereafter may direct.
If the appointment herein made of a special master is not accepted, or if the place becomes vacant during the recess of the court, the Chief Justice shall have authority to make a new designation which shall have the same effect as if originally made by the court herein.

## 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 Jersey v. City of New York (289 U.S. 712)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 712
New Jersey v. City of New York (289 U.S. 712)
Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N.J., and Wm. A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N.J., for the State of New Jersey.
Arthur J. W. Hilly and E. S. Benedict, both of New York City, for City of New York.
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 Jersey v. City of New York (296 U.S. 259)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
296 U.S. 259
New Jersey v. City of New York (296 U.S. 259)
Argued: Oct. Term, 1935. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1935

## 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 Jersey v. City of New York (283 U.S. 473)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 473
New Jersey v. City of New York
Argued on Exceptions to Report of Special Master April 30, 1931.
Decided May 18, 1931. [Syllabus intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilly, of New York City, for defendant in support of the exceptions to the report of the special master.
Mr. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N. J., for the complainant in opposition thereto.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 473-476 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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 Jersey v. City of New York (290 U.S. 237)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 237
New Jersey v. City of New York (290 U.S. 237)
Argued: Nov. 6, 1933. --- Decided: Dec 4, 1933
Messrs. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N.J., and William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N.J., for the State of New Jersey.
Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly and E. S. Benedict, both of New York City, for defendant.
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 Jersey v. City of New York (284 U.S. 585)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 585
New Jersey v. City of New York
Messrs. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N. J., and William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N. J., for the State of New Jersey.
Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly and Elliott S. Benedict, both of New York City, for the City of New York.
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
# NWS Post-Storm Report on Tropical Storm Ewiniar (04W)

The National Weather Service's Preliminary Post-storm report on 2006's Typhoon Ewiniar from its office in Guam.
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
# Nacirema Operating Company v. Johnson/Dissent Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 212
Nacirema Operating Company v. Johnson
Argued: Oct. 20, 1696. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1969
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, dissenting.
We dissent for the reasons stated by Judge Sobeloff speaking for the Court of Appeals sitting en banc. 398 F.2d 900. As he says, the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is not restricted to conventional 'admiralty tort jurisdiction' but is 'status oriented, reaching all injuries sustained by longshoremen in the course of their employment.' Id., at 904. The matter should be at rest after Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co., 370 U.S. 114, 82 S.Ct. 1196, 8 L.Ed.2d 368. In that suit under this Act we said that "Congress intended the compensation act to have a coverage coextensive with the limits of its authority." Id., at 130, 82 S.Ct., at 1205, quoting from De Bardeleben Coal Corp. v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 142 F.2d 481, 483. Judge Sobeloff in the instant cases, while answering the argument that Calbeck was not concerned with the meaning of 'upon the navigable waters,' referred to Judge Palmieri's opinion in Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Arrien, D.C., 233 F.Supp. 496, 500, aff'd, 2 Cir., 344 F.2d 640:
'(W)hat is just as important as the actual holding in Calbeck is the general approach to the (Longshoremen's Compensation) Act taken by the Court. No longer is the Act viewed as merely filling in the interstices around the shore line of the state acts, but rather as an affirmative exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.' Judge Sobeloff went on to say:
'This affirmative exercise of the admiralty power of Congress 'to the fullest extent' of its jurisdiction, creating 'a coverage co-extensive with the limits of its authority,' can only mean that Congress effectively enacted a law to protect all who could constitutionally be brought within the ambit of its maritime authority. Again, in the words of Judge Palmieri, 'it thus appears that 'upon navigable waters' is to be equated with 'admiralty jurisdiction.'" 398 F.2d, at 905.
In addition to the cases being reviewed here, the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of the widow of a longshoreman (238 F.Supp. 78), who, while working on the pier, was struck by a cable and knocked into the water where he died. It is incongruous to us that in an accident on a pier over navigable waters coverage of the Act depends on where the body falls after the accident has happened. For this and the other reasons stated by Judge Sobeloff, we dissent from a reversal of these judgments.

## 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
# Nacirema Operating Company v. Johnson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 212
Nacirema Operating Company v. Johnson
Argued: Oct. 20, 1696. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1969
See 397 U.S. 929, 90 S.Ct. 895, 896.
Randall C. Coleman, Baltimore, Md., and Solicitor Gen., Erwin N. Griswold, for petitioners.
Ralph Rabinowitz, Norfolk, Va., and John J. O'Connor, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for respondents.
Mr. 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
# Nadal v. May

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
233 U.S. 447
Nadal v. May
Argued: December 12, 1913. --- Decided: for reargument January 26, 1914
Messrs. N. B. K. Pettingill and F. L. Cornwell for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 447-449 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Felix Frankfurter and Mr. Wolcott H. Pitkin, Jr., Attorney General of Porto Rico, for defendant in error.
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 38

Chapter 38 [XXXIII.]—To Baptism Must Be Referred All Remission of Sins, and the Complete Healing of the Resurrection. Daily Cleansing.
Blessed, therefore, is the olive tree “whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;” blessed is it “to which the Lord hath not imputed sin.” But this, which has received the remission, the covering, and the acquittal, even up to the complete change into an eternal immortality, still retains a secret force which furnishes seed for a wild and bitter olive tree, unless the same tillage of God prunes it also, by remission, covering, and acquittal. There will, however, be left no corruption at all in even carnal seed, when the same regeneration, which is now effected through the sacred laver, purges and heals all man’s evil to the very end. By its means the very same flesh, through which the carnal mind was formed, shall become spiritual,—no longer having that carnal lust which resists the law of the mind, no longer emitting carnal seed. For in this sense must be understood that which the apostle whom we have so often quoted says elsewhere: “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” It must, I say, be understood as implying, that by this laver of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerate men of whatever kind are cleansed and healed,—not the sins only which are all now remitted in baptism, but those also which after baptism are committed by human ignorance and frailty; not, indeed, that baptism is to be repeated as often as sin is repeated, but that by its one only ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of all their sins both before and after their regeneration. For of what use would repentance be, either before baptism, if baptism did not follow; or after it, if it did not precede? Nay, in the Lord’s Prayer itself, which is our daily cleansing, of what avail or advantage would it be for that petition to be uttered, “Forgive us our debts,” unless it be by such as have been baptized? And in like manner, how great soever be the liberality and kindness of a man’s alms, what, I ask, would they profit him towards the remission of his sins if he had not been baptized? In short, on whom but on the baptized shall be bestowed the very felicities of the kingdom of heaven; where the Church shall have no spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; where there shall be nothing blameworthy, nothing unreal; where there shall be not only no guilt for sin, but no concupiscence to excite it?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. xxxiii. 1, 2.
* ↑ Eph. v. 25.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 39

Chapter 39 [XXXIV.]—By the Holiness of Baptism, Not Sins Only, But All Evils Whatsoever, Have to Be Removed. The Church is Not Yet Free from All Stain.
And thus not only all the sins, but all the ills of men of what kind soever, are in course of removal by the holiness of that Christian laver whereby Christ cleanses His Church, that He may present it to Himself, not in this world, but in that which is to come, as not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Now there are some who maintain that such is the Church even now, and yet they are in it. Well then, since they confess that they have some sins themselves, if they say the truth in this (and, of course, they do, as they are not free from sins), then the Church has “a spot” in them; whilst if they tell an untruth in their confession (as speaking from a double heart), then the Church has in them “a wrinkle.” If, however, they assert that it is themselves, and not the Church, which has all this, they then as good as acknowledge that they are not its members, nor belong to its body, so that they are even condemned by their own confession.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 4

Chapter 4.—A Difficulty as Regards the Chastity of Unbelievers. None But a Believer is Truly a Chaste Man.
What, then, have we to say when conjugal chastity is discovered even in some unbelievers? Must it be said that they sin, in that they make a bad use of a gift of God, in not restoring it to the worship of Him from whom they received it? Or must these endowments, perchance, be not regarded as gifts of God at all, when they are not believers who exercise them; according to the apostle’s sentiment, when he says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin?” But who would dare to say that a gift of God is sin? For the soul and the body, and all the natural endowments which are implanted in the soul and the body, even in the persons of sinful men, are still gifts of God; for it is God who made them, and not they themselves. When it is said, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” only those things are meant which men themselves do. When men, therefore, do without faith those things which seem to appertain to conjugal chastity, they do them either to please men, whether themselves or others, or to avoid incurring such troubles as are incidental to human nature in those things which they corruptly desire, or to pay service to devils. Sins are not really resigned, but some sins are overpowered by other sins. God forbid, then, that a man be truly called chaste who observes connubial fidelity to his wife from any other motive than devotion to the true God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See Augustin’s work Against Julianus, iv. 3.
* ↑ Rom. xiv. 23.