OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Decree with Regard to Nicomedia

Decree with Regard to Nicomedia.
Session XIII.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 715.)
The most glorious judges said [after the reading of the imperial letters was finished]: These divine letters say nothing whatever with regard to the episcopate, but both refer to honour belonging to metropolitan cities. But the sacred letters of Valentinian and Valens of divine memory, which then bestowed metropolitan rights upon the city of Nice, carefully provided that nothing should be taken away from other cities. And the canon of the holy fathers decreed that there should be one metropolis in each province. What therefore is the pleasure of the holy synod in this matter?
The holy synod cried out: Let the canons be kept. Let the canons be sufficient.
Atticus the most reverend bishop of old Nicopolis in Epirus said: The canon thus defines, that a metropolitan should have jurisdiction in each province, and he should constitute all the bishops who are in that province. And this is the meaning of the canon. Now the bishop of Nicomedia, since from the beginning this was a metropolis, ought to ordain all the bishops who are in that province.
The holy synod said: This is what we all wish, this we all pray for, let this everywhere be observed, this is pleasing to all of us.
John, Constantine, Patrick [Peter] and the rest of the most reverend bishops of the Pontic diocese [through John who was one of them] said: The canons recognize the one more ancient as the metropolitan. And it is manifest that the most religious bishop of Nicomedia has the right of the ordination, and since the laws (as your magnificence has seen) have honoured Nice with the name only of metropolis, and so made its bishop superior to the rest of the bishops of the province in honour only.
The holy synod said: They have taught in accordance with the canons, beautifully have they taught. We all say the same things.
[Aëtius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, then put in a plea to save the rights of the throne of the royal city.]
The most glorious judges said: The most reverend the bishop of Nicomedia shall have the authority of metropolitan over the churches of the province of Bithynia, and Nice shall have the honour only of Metropolitical rank, submitting itself according to the example of the other bishops of the province of Nicomedia. For such is the pleasure of the Holy Synod.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Canons/Canon XXXI

Canon XXX.
Since the most religious bishops of Egypt have postponed for the present their subscription to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they oppose the Catholic Faith, but because they declare that it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do no such thing without the consent and order of their Archbishop, and ask to be excused until the ordination of the new bishop of the metropolis of Alexandria, it has seemed to us reasonable and kind that this concession should be made to them, they remaining in their official habit in the imperial city until the Archbishop of the Metropolis of Alexandria shall have been ordained.
And the most religious Bishop Paschasinus, representative of the Apostolic throne for Rome], said:
If your authority suggests and commands that any indulgence be shewn to them, let them give securities that they will not depart from this city until the city of Alexandria receives a Bishop.
And the most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:
Let the sentence of the most holy Paschasinus be confirmed.
And therefore let them [i.e., the most religious Bishops of the Egyptians] remain in their official habit, either giving securities, if they can, or being bound by the obligation of an oath.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXX.
It is the custom of the Egyptians that none subscribe without the permission of their Archbishop. Wherefore they are not to be blamed who did not subscribe the Epistle of the holy Leo until an Archbishop had been appointed for them.
As in the case of the last so-called “canon” I have followed a usual Greek method, the wording departs but little from that of the acts (Vide L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 517).
Hefele.
This paragraph, like the previous one, is not a proper canon, but a verbal repetition of a proposal made in the fourth session by the imperial commissioners, improved by the legate Paschasinus, and approved by the Synod. Moreover, this so-called canon is not found in the ancient collections, and was probably added to the twenty-eight canons in the same manner and for the same reasons as the preceding.
Bright.
The council could insist with all plainness on the duty of hearing before condemning (see on Canon XXIX.); yet on this occasion bishop after bishop gave vent to harsh unfeeling absolutism, the only excuse for which consists in the fact that the outrages of the Latrocinium were fresh in their minds, and that three of the Egyptian supplicants, whom they were so eager to terrify or crush, had actually supported Dioscorus on the tragical August 8, 449. It was not in human nature to forget this; but the result is a blot on the history of the Council of Chalcedon.

## Footnotes

* ↑ These words do not occur in the Acts.
* ↑ i.e., a conciliar decree.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 3

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (Continued).
(L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)
And when these letters [i.e. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe:  we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us:  eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written.
The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Let there be read also the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the Imperial City.
Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 4

Extracts from the Acts.
Session II.  (continued).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)
After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out. This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.  (Col. 371.)]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Canons/Canon XXX

Canon XXIX.
It is sacrilege to degrade a bishop to the rank of a presbyter; but, if they are for just cause removed from episcopal functions, neither ought they to have the position of a Presbyter; and if they have been displaced without any charge, they shall be restored to their episcopal dignity.
And Anatolius, the most reverend Archbishop of Constantinople, said: If those who are alleged to have been removed from the episcopal dignity to the order of presbyter, have indeed been condemned for any sufficient causes, clearly they are not worthy of the honour of a presbyter. But if they have been forced down into the lower rank without just cause, they are worthy, if they appear guiltless, to receive again both the dignity and priesthood of the Episcopate.
And all the most reverend Bishops cried out:
The judgment of the Fathers is right. We all say the same. The Fathers have righteously decided. Let the sentence of the Archbishops prevail.
And the most magnificent and glorious judges said:
Let the pleasure of the Holy Synod be established for all time.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX.
He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank of a presbyter. For he that is guilty of crime is unworthy of the priesthood. But he that was deposed without cause, let him be [still] bishop.
What precedes and follows the so-called canon is abbreviated from the IVth Session of the Council (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 550). I have followed a usual Greek method of printing it.
Hefele.
This so-called canon is nothing but a verbal copy of a passage from the minutes of the fourth session in the matter of Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus. Moreover, it does not possess the peculiar form which we find in all the genuine canons of Chalcedon, and in almost all ecclesiastical canons in general; on the contrary, there adheres to it a portion of the debate, of which it is a fragment, in which Anatolius is introduced as speaking. Besides it is wanting in all the old Greek, as well as in the Latin collections of canons, and in those of John of Antioch and of Photius, and has only been appended to the twenty-eight genuine canons of Chalcedon from the fact that a later transcriber thought fit to add to the genuine canons the general and important principle contained in the place in question of the fourth session. Accordingly, this so-called canon is certainly an ecclesiastical rule declared at Chalcedon, and in so far a κανών, but it was not added as a canon proper to the other twenty-eight by the Synod.
From the Fourth Session of the same Holy Synod, having reference to the matter of the Egyptian Bishops.
The most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch

Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch.
Session VII.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 618.)
The most magnificent and glorious judges said:…The arrangement arrived at through the agreement of the most holy Maximus, the bishop of the city of Antioch, and of the most holy Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the attestation of each of them declares, shall remain firm for ever, through our decree and the sentence of the holy synod; to wit, that the most holy bishop Maximus, or rather the most holy church of Antioch, shall have under its own jurisdiction the two Phœnicias and Arabia; but the most holy Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines, all imperial pragmatics and letters and penalties being done away according to the bidding of our most sacred and pious prince.
Note.
The Ballerini, in their notes to the Works of St. Leo (Migne, Pat. Lat., LV., col. 733 et seqq.), cite fragments of the Acts of this council, which if they can be trusted, shew that this matter of the rights of Antioch and Jerusalem was treated of again at a subsequent session (on Oct. 31) and determined in the same fashion. These fragments have generally been received as genuine, and have been inserted by Mansi (Tom. vii., 722 C.) in his Concilia.
The notes of the Ballerini may also be read with profit, in the same volume of Migne’s Latin Patrology, col. 737 et seq.
# Nicomachean Ethics (Ross)

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Ethics.
CONTENTS
* Book One
* Book Two
* Book Three
* Book Four
* Book Five
* Book Six
* Book Seven
* Book Eight
* Book Nine
* Book Ten
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 186

Letter CLXXXVI.
To Antipater, the governor.
Philosophy is an excellent thing, if only for this, that it even heals its disciples at small cost; for, in philosophy, the same thing is both dainty and healthy fare. I am told that you have recovered your failing appetite by pickled cabbage. Formerly I used to dislike it, both on account of the proverb, and because it reminded me of the poverty that went with it. Now, however, I am driven to change my mind. I laugh at the proverb when I see that cabbage is such a “good nursing mother of men,” and has restored our governor to the vigour of youth. For the future I shall think nothing like cabbage, not even Homer’s lotus, not even that ambrosia, whatever it was, which fed the Olympians.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
* ↑ cf. Letter cxxxvii.
* ↑ The Greek proverb was δὶς κράμβη θάνατος, vide Politian. Miscel. 33. cf. “Occidit miseros crambe repetita magistros.” Juv. vii. 154.
* ↑ κουροτρόφος. Ithaca is ἀγαθὴ κουροτρόφος, because it bore and bred hardy men. Od. ix. 27.
* ↑ Od. ix. 93.
* ↑ Od. v. 93.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 19

Letter XIX.
To Gregory my friend.
I received a letter from you the day before yesterday. It is shewn to be yours not so much by the handwriting as by the peculiar style. Much meaning is expressed in few words. I did not reply on the spot, because I was away from home, and the letter-carrier, after he had delivered the packet to one of my friends, went away. Now, however, I am able to address you through Peter, and at the same time both to return your greeting, and give you an opportunity for another letter. There is certainly no trouble in writing a laconic dispatch like those which reach me from you.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed by the Ben. Ed. shortly after Basil’s ordination as priest.
* ↑ i.e.Gregory of Nazianzus, and so Letter xiv.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 184

Letter CLXXXIV.
To Eustathius, bishop of Himmeria.
Orphanhood is, I know, very dismal, and entails a great deal of work, because it deprives us of those who are set over us. Whence I conclude that you do not write to me, because you are depressed at what has happened to you, and at the same time are now very much occupied in visiting the folds of Christ, because they are attacked on every side by foes. But every grief finds consolation in communication with sympathising friends. Do then, I beg you, as often as you can, write to me. You will both refresh yourself by speaking to me, and you will comfort me by letting me hear from you. I shall endeavour to do the same to you, as often as my work lets me. Pray yourself, and entreat all the brotherhood earnestly to importune the Lord, to grant us one day release from the present distress.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
* ↑ Nothing more is known of this Eustathius. Himmeria is in Osrhoene.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 191

Letter CXCI.
To Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.
On reading the letter of your reverence I heartily thanked God. I did so because I found in your expressions traces of ancient affection. You are not like the majority. You did not persist in refusing to begin an affectionate correspondence. You have learned the greatness of the prize promised to the saints for humility, and so you have chosen, by taking the second place, to get before me. Among Christians such are the conditions of victory, and it is he who is content to take the second place who wins a crown. But I must not be behindhand in this virtuous rivalry, and so I thus salute your reverence in return; and inform you as to how I am minded, in that, since agreement in the faith is established among us, there is nothing further to prevent our being one body and one spirit, as we have been called in one hope of our calling. It is for you, then, of your charity to follow up a good beginning to rally men of like mind to stand at your side, and to appoint both time and place for meeting. Thus, by God’s grace, through mutual accommodation we may govern the Churches by the ancient kind of love; receiving as our own members brothers coming from the other side, sending as to our kin, and in turn receiving as from our own kin. Such, indeed, was once the boast of the Church. Brothers from each Church, travelling from one end of the world to the other, were provided with little tokens, and found all men fathers and brothers. This is a privilege whereof, like all the rest, the enemy of Christ’s Churches has robbed us. We are confined each in his own city, and every one looks at his neighbour with distrust. What more is to be said but that our love has grown cold, whereby alone our Lord has told us that His disciples are distinguished? First of all, if you will, do you become known to one another, that I may know with whom I am to be in agreement. Thus by common consent we will fix on some place convenient to both, and, at a season suitable for travelling, we will hasten to meet one another; the Lord will direct us in the way. Farewell. Be of good cheer. Pray for me. May you be granted to me by the grace of the Holy One?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
* ↑ So the mss. and Editors. The Ben. note would have it addressed to the recipient of the preceding. Tillemont thinks it written to one of the Lycian bishops referred to in Letter ccxviii.
* ↑ ἡμῖν. Some mss. have ὑμῖν.
* ↑ cf. Eph. iv. 4.
* ↑ Matt. xxiv. 12.
* ↑ John xiii. 35.
* ↑ Whether the proposed meeting took place, and, indeed, what meeting is referred to, cannot be determined. Basil met Amphilochius and some neighbouring bishops in Pisidia in 375. But before this he counts the Isaurians as already in communion with him (Letter cciv.). Perhaps all that the meeting was desired to bring about was effected by correspondence. This is the explanation of the Ben. Ed.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 192

Letter CXCII.
To Sophronius the Master.
With your extraordinary zeal in good deeds you have written to me to say that you yourself owe me double thanks; first, for getting a letter from me, and secondly, for doing me a service. What thanks, then, must not I owe you, both for reading your most delightful words, and for finding what I hoped for so quickly accomplished! The message was exceedingly gratifying on its own account, but it gave me much greater gratification from the fact that you were the friend to whom I owed the boon. God grant that ere long I may see you, and return you thanks in words, and enjoy the great pleasure of your society.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 185

Letter CLXXXV.
To Theodotus, bishop of Beræa.
Although you do not write to me, I know that there is recollection of me in your heart; and this I infer, not because I am worthy of any favourable recollection, but because your soul is rich in abundance of love. Yet, as far as in you lies, use whatever opportunities you have of writing to me, to the end that I may both be cheered by hearing news of you, and have occasion to send you tidings of myself. This is the only mode of communication for those who live far apart. Do not let us deprive one another of it, so far as our labours will permit. But I pray God that we may meet in person, that our love may be increased, and that we may multiply gratitude to our Master for His greater boons.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
* ↑ Nothing more is known of this Theodotus.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 187

Letter CLXXXVII.
Antipater to Basil.
“Twice cabbage is death,” says the unkind proverb. I, however, though I have called for it often, shall die once. Yes: even though I had never called for it at all! If you do die anyhow, don’t fear to eat a delicious relish, unjustly reviled by the proverb!
# Niukkanen v. McAlexander/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 390
Niukkanen v. McAlexander
Argued: March 21, 1960. --- Decided: April 18, 1960
The petitioner sought relief from an order directing his deportation on the ground that as an alien he had become, after entering the United States, a member of the Communist Party within the meaning of the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 1006. The District Court, after hering, denied the petition, Niukkanen v. Boyd, 148 F.Supp. 106, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 938. Invoking Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U.S. 115, 78 S.Ct. 180, 2 L.Ed.2d 140, decided after the order for his deportation, petitioner sought an administrative reconsideration of his status. Upon its denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals he began the judicial proceeding immediately before us for review. After a hearing, the District Court again denied his petition for relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court. 9 Cir., 265 F.2d 825. The ultimate question is whether petitioner is subject to deportation under Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911, or is saved from it under Rowoldt v. Perfetto, supra. The determination of this issue turns on evaluation of the testimony before the District Court, in light of Galvan v. Press, supra, and Rowoldt v. Perfetto, supra. Such assessment largely depends on the credibility of the testimony on which the district judge based his judgment, particularly that of the petitioner himself, whom the judge saw and heard. An able judge found that petitioner in denying membership in the Communist Party, unlike Rowoldt who admitted membership, see 355 U.S., at pages 116-117, 78 S.Ct. at page 181, but accounted for its innocence, 'perjured himself before, and I believe that he perjured himself today.' We cannot say that his findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were clearly erroneous and do not support the conclusion of both the lower courts.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACK, and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, dissenting.

## Notes

* ↑ Now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(6)(C).
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
# Nixdorff v. Smith

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
41 U.S. 132
Nixdorff v. Smith

## 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
# Niukkanen v. McAlexander

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 390
Niukkanen v. McAlexander
Argued: March 21, 1960. --- Decided: April 18, 1960
See 363 U.S. 817, 80 S.Ct. 1245.
Mr. Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., and Nels Peterson, Portland, Or., for petitioner.
Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
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