OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVII/Chapter 10

Chapter X.
Our question about our fear of the oath which we gave in the monastery in Syria.
Germanus: In so far as it concerns our desire, which we undertook to carry out for the sake of spiritual profit, we were hoping to be edified by continual intercourse with you. For if we were to return to our monastery it is certain that we should not only fail of so sublime a purpose, but that we should also
suffer grievous loss from the mediocrity of the manner of life there. But that command of the gospel frightens us terribly: “Let your speech be yea, yea, nay, nay: but whatsoever is more than these, is from the evil one.” For we hold that we cannot compensate for transgressing so important a command by any righteousness, nor can that finally turn out well which has once been started with a bad beginning.

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. Matt. v. 37.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XVI/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.
On what grounds a dispute can arise among spiritual persons.
For as our enemy separates brethren who are still weak and carnal by a sudden burst of rage on account of some trifling and earthly matter, so he sows the seeds of discord even between spiritual persons, on the ground of some difference of thoughts, from which certainly those contentions and strifes about words, which the Apostle condemns, for the most part arise: whereby consequently our spiteful and malignant enemy sows discord between brethren who were of one mind. For these words of wise Solomon are true: “Contention breeds hatred: but friendship will be a defence to all who do not strive.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Prov. x. 12.
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 87
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wall
Argued: December 1, 1915. --- Decided: April 24, 1916
Mr. Charles Donnelly for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Thomas J. Walsh and Walter Aitken for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wismer

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
246 U.S. 283
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wismer
Argued: Jan. 28, 29, 1918. --- Decided: , March 4, 1918
Mr. Charles Donnelly, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful and Mr. John W. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. United States Seaboard Air Line Railway

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
251 U.S. 326
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. United States Seaboard Air Line Railway
Argued: Dec. 17, 18 and 19, 1919. --- Decided: Jan 12, 1920
[Syllabus from pages 326-327 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Alexander Britton, of Washington, D. C., C. W. Bunn, of St. Paul, Minn., and Evans Browne, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
Mr. Benjamin Carter, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Seaboard Air Line Ry.
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, J. Spalding Flannery, W. C. Carpenter, and G. B. Craighill, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant Ney York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
Mr. F. Carter Pope, of Washington, D. C., for appellant Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas.
Mr. Solicitor General, Alex. C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. La Rue Brown, of Boston, Mass., for the United States.
Mr. Justice HOLMES announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the following opinion, concurred in by the CHIEF JUSTICE and Justices BRANDEIS and CLARKE.

## 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
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Washington ex rel Atkinson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States, Northern Pacific Railway.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 370
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Washington ex rel Atkinson
Argued: December 19, 1911. --- Decided: January 9, 1912
Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 371-373 intentionally omitted]
Mr. W. V. Tanner, Attorney General of Washington, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 373-375 intentionally omitted]
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
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Marshall Harlan
United States Supreme Court
219 U.S. 426
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass
Argued: April 27, 28, 1910. --- Decided: for reargument December 19, 1910
In brief, the facts of this case are as follows: While a filed selection by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company of land within the indemnity limits of a railroad grant was awaiting the action of the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Wass, in April, 1899, entered upon the land with the intention of making it a homestead, and continued in possession, making improvements, Wass presented to the land office an application to enter the tract under the homestead laws. The register and receiver filed his application, but on the same day rejected it, and refused to receive the fees tendered, basing such refusal and rejection upon the ground that the lands filed for were embraced in the then pending selection. On appeal, the action of the local land office was affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and by the Secretary of the Interior, respectively. The selection was subsequently approved and a patent for the lands was issued by the governor of Minnesota, all rights under which became vested in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the plaintiff in error. That company then commenced this action against Wass and his wife in a court of the state of Minnesota to recover possession of the land and damages for the detention. In the answer, among other things, affirmative relief was prayed against the railway company for the conveyance of the legal title to Wass. A demurrer to the answer was overruled upon the authority of the decision in Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U.S. 564, 50 L. ed. 311, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, and a decree was entered in favor of Wass, granting the relief prayed by him. This decree was affirmed by the supreme court of Minnesota upon the authority of the Sjoli Case as well as the decision of the circuit court of appeals in Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 88 C. C. A. 404, 161 Fed. 324. The opinion just announced, reviewing the action of the circuit court of appeals in the Hoyt Case, and reversing the decree entered in that case, conclusively establishes that error was committed by the court below, and therefore requires a reversal. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Harlan, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Day, 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
# Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States, Northern Pacific Railway.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Marshall Harlan
United States Supreme Court
219 U.S. 426
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass
Argued: April 27, 28, 1910. --- Decided: for reargument December 19, 1910
Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Patrick B. Gorman for defendants 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
# Norton v. Hood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 20
Norton v. Hood
J. D. Rouse and E. H. Farrar, for appellant.
J. A. Campbell, for appellees.
BLATCHFORD, 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
# Norton v. Shelby Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
118 U.S. 425
Norton v. Shelby Company
Argued: May 10, 1886. ---
[Statement of Case from pages 426-428 intentionally omitted]
Jos. H. Choate, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 428-432 intentionally omitted]
D. H. Poston, W. K. Poston, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel on pages 432-433 intentionally omitted]
Julius A. Taylor, R. D. Jordan, and W. B. Glisson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Field 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
# Norton v. Larney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 511
Norton v. Larney
Argued: Dec. 8, 1924. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1925
Messrs. Nathan A. Gibson and Joseph L. Hull, both of Muskogee, Okl., for appellants.
Mr. Elias J. Van Court, of Eufaula, Okl., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 512 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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 XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIV/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
How we laid bare the secrets of our thoughts to Abbot Abraham.
This twenty-fourth Conference of Abbot Abraham is by the favour of Christ produced, which concludes the traditions and decisions of all the Elders; and when by the aid of your prayers it has been finished, as the number mystically corresponds to that of the four and twenty Elders who are said in the holy Apocalypse to offer their crowns to the Lamb, we think that we shall have paid the debt of all our promises. And henceforth if these four and twenty Elders of ours have been crowned with any glory for the sake of their teaching, they shall with bowed heads offer it to the Lamb who was slain for the salvation of the world: for He it was Who vouchsafed
for the honour of His name to grant to them such exalted feelings and to us whatever words were needful to set forth such profound thoughts. And the merits of His gift must be referred to the Author of all good, to whom the more is owed, as the more is paid. Therefore with anxious confession we laid before this Abraham the impulse of our thoughts, whereby we were urged by daily perplexities of our mind to return to our country and revisit our kinsfolk. For from this the greatest reason for our desire sprang, because we remembered that our kinsfolk were endowed with such piety and goodness that we felt sure that they would never interfere with our purpose, and we constantly reflected, that we should gain more good out of their earnestness, and should be hampered by no cares about bodily matters, and no trouble in providing food, as they would gladly minister abundantly to the supply of all our wants, and besides this we were feeding our souls on the hope of empty joys, as we thought that we should gain the greatest good from the conversion of many, who were to be turned to the way of salvation by our example and instructions. Then besides this the very spot, where was the ancestral possession of our forefathers, and the delightful pleasantness of the neighbourhood was painted before our eyes, how pleasantly and suitably it stretched away to the desert, so that the recesses of the woods would not only delight the heart of a monk, but would also furnish him with a plentiful supply of food. And when we explained all this to the aforesaid old man, in a straightforward way, according to the faith of our conscience, and showed by our copious tears that we could no longer resist the violence of the impulse, unless the grace of God came to our rescue by the healing which he could give, he waited for a long time in silence and at last sighed deeply and said:

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. the note on XV. iv.
* ↑ Rev. iv. 4.
* ↑ Petschenig’s text reads conversione, others conversatione.
* ↑ On the bearing of this passage on the question of Cassian’s nationality see the Introd., p. 183.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIV/Chapter 10

Chapter X.
A question whether it is bad for a monk to have his wants supplied by his kinsfolk.
Germanus: On this subject you have certainly left no room for any further uncertainty. For we are sure that we cannot possibly keep up our present wretched garb, or our daily going barefoot in their neighbourhood, and that there we should not even procure with the same labour what is necessary for our sustenance, as here we are actually obliged to fetch our water on our necks for three miles. For shame on our part as well as on theirs would not in the least allow us to do this before them. However how will it hurt our plan of life if we are altogether set free from anxiety on the score of preparing our food, by being supplied by them with all things, and so give ourselves up simply to reading and prayer, that by the removal of that labour with which we are now distracted we may devote ourselves more earnestly to spiritual interests alone?
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIV/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.
Of the value of work and the harm of idleness.
And so though we also might have the protection of our kinsfolk, yet we have preferred his abstinence to all riches, and have chosen to procure our daily bodily sustenance by our own exertions rather than rely on the sure provision made by our relations, having less inclination for idle meditation on holy Scripture of which you have spoken, and that fruitless attendance to reading than to this laborious poverty. And certainly we should most gladly pursue the former, if the authority of the apostles had taught us by their examples that it was better for us, or the rules of the Elders had laid it down for our good. But you must know that you are affected by this no less than by that harm of which I spoke above, because though your body may be sound and lusty, yet you are supported by another’s contributions, a thing which properly belongs only to the feeble. For certainly the whole human race, except only that class of monks, who live in accordance with the Apostle’s command by the daily labours of their own hands, looks for the charity of another’s compassion. Wherefore it is clear that not only those who boast that they themselves are supported either by the wealth of their relations or the labours of their servants or the produce of their farms, but also the kings of this world are supported by charity. This at any rate is embraced in the definition of our predecessors, who have laid down that anything that is taken for the requirements of daily food which has not been procured and prepared by the labour of our own hands, ought to be referred to charity, as the Apostle teaches, who altogether forbids the help of another’s bounty to the idle and says: “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” These words
the blessed Antony used against some one, and instructed us also by the example of his teaching, to shun the pernicious allurements of our relations and of all who provide the needful charity for our food as well as the delights of a pleasant home, and to prefer to all the wealth of this world sandy wastes horrid with the barrenness of nature, and districts overwhelmed by living incrustations, and for that reason subject to no control or dominion of man, so that we should not only avoid the society of men for the sake of a pathless waste, but also that the character of a fruitful soil may never entice us to the distractions of cultivating it, whereby the mind would be recalled from the chief service of the heart, and rendered useless for spiritual aims.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Thess. iii. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIII/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.
How it is given to but few to understand what sin is.
Those on the other hand who make the sum of all their joy and delight and bliss consist in the contemplation of divine and spiritual things alone, if they are unwillingly withdrawn from them even for a short time by thoughts that force themselves upon them, punish this as if it were a kind of sacrilege in them, and avenge it by immediate chastisement, and in their grief that they have preferred some worthless creature (to which their mental gaze was turned aside) to their Creator, charge themselves with the guilt (I had almost said) of impiety, and although they turn the eyes of their heart with the utmost speed to behold the brightness of the Divine Glory, yet they cannot tolerate even for a very short time the darkness of carnal thoughts, and execrate whatever keeps back their soul’s gaze from the true light. Finally when the blessed Apostle John would instill this feeling into everybody he says: “Little children, love not the world, neither the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of God is not in him: for everything that is in the world is the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but of the world. And the world perisheth and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” The saints therefore scorn all those things on which the world exists, but it is impossible for them never to be carried away to them by a brief aberration of thoughts, and even now no man, except our Lord and Saviour, can keep his naturally wandering mind always fixed on the contemplation of God so as never to be carried away from it through the love of something in this world; as Scripture says: “Even the stars are not clean in His sight,” and again: “If He puts no trust in His saints, and findeth iniquity in His angels,” or as the more correct translation has it: “Behold among His saints none is unchangeable, and the heavens are not pure in His sight.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John ii. 15–17.
* ↑ Job xxv. 5; xv. 15.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIII/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.
Of the care with which a monk should preserve the recollection of God.
I should say then that the saints who keep a firm hold of the recollection of God and are borne along, as it were, with their steps suspended on a line stretched out on high, may be rightly compared to rope dancers, commonly called funambuli, who risk all their safety and life on the path of that very narrow rope, with no doubt that they will immediately meet with a most dreadful death if their foot swerves or trips in the very slightest degree, or goes over the line of the course in which alone is safety. And while with marvellous skill they ply their airy steps through space, if they keep not their steps to that all too narrow path with careful and anxious regulation, the earth which is the natural base and the most solid and safest foundation for all, becomes to them an immediate and clear danger, not because its nature is changed, but because they fall headlong upon it by the
weight of their bodies. So also that unwearied goodness of God and His unchanging nature hurts no one indeed, but we ourselves by falling from on high and tending to the depths are the authors of our own death, or rather the very fall becomes death to the faller. For it says: “Woe to them for they have departed from Me: they shall be wasted because they have transgressed against Me;” and again: “Woe to them when I shall depart from them.” For “thine own wickedness shall reprove thee, and thy apostasy shall rebuke thee. Know thou and see that it is an evil and a bitter thing for thee to have left the Lord thy God;” for “every man is bound by the cords of his sins.” To whom this rebuke is aptly directed by the Lord: “Behold,” He says, “all you that kindle a fire, encompassed with flames, walk ye in the light of your fire and in the flames which you have kindled;” and again: “He that kindleth iniquity, shall perish by it.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Substantia.
* ↑ Hos. vii. 13; ix. 12; Jer. ii. 19; Prov. v. 22.
* ↑ Isa. l. 11; Prov. xix. 9.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXIII/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.
How those who maintain that a man can be without sin are charged with a twofold error.
The reason however which drives us into this error is that, as we are utterly ignorant
of the virtue of being without sin, we fancy that we cannot contract any guilt from those idle and random vagaries of our thoughts, but being rendered stupid by dullness and as it were smitten with blindness we can see nothing in ourselves but capital offences, and think that we have only to keep clear of those things which are condemned also by the severity of secular laws, and if we find that even for a short time we are free from these we at once imagine that there is no sin at all in us. Accordingly we are distinguished from the number of those who see, because we do not see the many small stains, which are crowded together in us, and are not smitten with saving contrition, if the malady of vexation overtakes our thoughts, nor are we sorry that we are struck by the suggestions of vainglory, nor do we weep over our prayers offered up so tardily and coldly, nor consider it a fault if while we are singing or praying, something else besides the actual prayer or Psalm fills our thoughts, nor are we horrified because we do not blush to conceive many things which we are ashamed to speak or do before men, in our heart, which, as we know, lies open to the Divine gaze; nor do we purge away the pollution of filthy dreams with copious ablutions of our tears, nor grieve that in the pious act of almsgiving when we are assisting the needs of the brethren, or ministering support to the poor, the brightness of our cheerfulness is clouded over by a stingy delay, nor do we think that we are affected by any loss when we forget God and think about things that are temporal and corrupt, so that these words of Solomon fairly apply to us: “They smite me but I have not grieved, and they have mocked me, but I knew it not.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Anamarteti id est impeccantæ.
* ↑ Prov. xxiii. 35.