OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Morning-Glories and Other Stories/Fairy Fire-Fly

FAIRY FIREFLY.
CHILD.
O Firefly! I have caught you fast:  Don't flutter in a rage;
But shine for me a little while  Here in this dainty cage. Why are you wandering so late,  With your small lamp alight, When bird and bee and butterfly  Are sleeping through the night?
Come, tell to me a fairy tale;
 Amuse me while you stay;
And, when it's time to go to bed,  You shall safely fly away.
FIREFLY.
I'll tell my own sad story, child,
 Here shining in your net; And, though I fly away so soon,  I pray you, don't forget— I was a lovely fairy once,  Blithe as an early lark; And in my little bosom shone  A beautiful, bright spark: That was my elfin spirit, dear;  And, while I lived aright, It was to me a guiding star,  To lead me to the light.
I should have loved the blessèd sun.
 And tried to follow him;
But, no, I turned my face away,  And my bright spark grew dim. My daily duties were not done;  I did not tend the flowers;
I did not help the honey-bees  Improve their shining hours; No baby butterfly I taught  To spread its tender wing; No young bird ever learned of me  The airy songs we sing. I left my playmates, one and all,  So innocent, so gay,— I would not listen to their words.  But coldly turned away. All day I slept, with folded wings,  Lulled by the singing brook. Where tall ferns made a shady tent,  And guarded my still nook. But, when the stars came out, I woke;  I loved the meadows damp; I liked to hear the cricket sing;  To watch the glow-worm's lamp. The round-eyed owl, and beetle fierce,  The hungry, buzzing gnat, The giddy moth, the croaking frog,  And stealthy-wingèd bat. These were the friends I freely chose  These, and the primrose pale; I did not even seek to know  A star or nightingale. I turned away from lovely things,  I revelled in the dark, And day by day more faintly shone  My precious bosom-spark, Until, at last, it came to be  This feeble, fitful light. And my dim eyes no power had  To see, except by night.
My fairy form passed quite away;  Alas! I'd gladly die, For 'tis my punishment to be  A wandering firefly. Ah! now I long for all I've lost:  My mates are flown away; The birds and bees I pine to see,  But cannot seek by day. I haunt the flowers all the night.  Hoping a home to win,— The doors are shut: all are asleep:  I knock; none let me in. I'm tired of the friends I made;  I hate the teasing gnat, The hooting owl, the cricket shrill.  The beetle, and the bat. My only mates are the poor moths;  They seek and love the light. Though they, like me, sleep all day long,  And only fly by night Once they were butterflies, you know,  And floated in the sun; But they are doomed to expiate  The wrongs which they have done, By madly longing for the shine  That blinds their feeble eye, Yet draws them, like a dreadful spell,  To flutter, burn, and die. O little child! be warned in time;  Guard well your bosom spark, Else it will slowly fade away,  And leave you in the dark. Feed it with all things fair and good:  Then gloomy clouds may roll, But cannot shadow in your life,—  Tis sunshine of the soul.
# Morning, Evening, and Midnight Hymns/Library of Spiritual Songs

LIBRARY OF SPIRITUAL SONGS.
REPRINTED VERBATIM FROM THE ORIGINALS, WITH BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE AUTHORS.
MASON'S (JOHN) "Spiritual Songs," 1683.—"Penitential Cries," by Thomas Shepherd, 1692. With Memoirs of the Authors. 12mo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
WILLIAMS' (WILLIAM) "Hosannah to the Son of David," 1759.—"Elegy on the Rev. George Whitefield," 1771.—"Gloria in Excelsis," 1772. With Memoir of the Author by the Rev. Edward Morgan, A.M. 12mo, cloth, 4s.
TOPLADY'S (AUGUSTUS MONTAGUE) "Hymns and Sacred Poems," 1759—1778. With a Sketch of his Life and Poetry. 12mo, cloth, 4s. 6d.
SEAGRAVE'S (ROBERT) "Hymns for Christian Worship," 1748. With Sketch of the Author. 12mo, cloth, 2s.
GRIGG'S (JOSEPH) "Hymns on Divine Subjects," with "Serious Poems," 1756. With Sketch of the Author. 12mo, cloth, 2s.
OLIVERS' (THOMAS) "Hymns," in Three Tracts, 1757-1772. 12mo, 1s. 6d.
⁂ Other Hymns and Poems by Thomas Olivers will be published as soon as the originals can be procured, which, with a Memoir, will form a volume with the others in the series.
KEMPENFELT'S (RICHARD) "Original Hymns and Poems," 1777. With Sketch of the Author. 12mo, 6d.
STOCKER (JOHN) and HUPTON'S (JOB) "Hymns and Spiritual Poems," 1776—1804. With Sketch of the Authors. 12mo, cloth, 2s. 6d.
GRANT'S (JAMES) "Original Hymns and Poems," 1784. With Sketch of the Author. 12mo, cloth, 2s.
RYLAND'S (JOHN, D.D.) "Hymns and Verses on Sacred Subjects." With Memoir by Dr. Hoby. 12mo, cloth, 3s.
CROSSMAN'S (SAMUEL, D.D.) "Sacred Poems," 1664. With Sketch of the Author. 12mo, 6d.
STEELE'S (ANNE) "Hymns, Psalms, and Poems." 1760—1780. With Memoir, by John Sheppard. 12mo, cloth, 5s.
SEDGWICK'S (DANIEL) "Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors of Hymns, Versifiers of Psalms, and Translators of every Denomination and Age, with the Dates of their various Works." Second Edition, 1863, enlarged to upwards of 1,400 Names. 12mo, 1s.
DANIEL SEDGWICK, 81, SUN STREET, BISHOPSGATE. E.C. HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO., PATERNOSTER ROW.
# National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 58
National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Company
Argued: Feb. 11, 1937. --- Decided: April 12, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., Charles Fahy, of Washington, D.C., and Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 58-62 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Leonard Weinberg and Harry J. Green, both of Baltimore, Md., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 62-70 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
360 U.S. 301
National Labor Relations Board v. Fant Milling Company
Argued: May 20, 1959. --- Decided: June 15, 1959
Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. O. B. Fisher, Paris, Tex., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Fleetwood Trailer Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 375
National Labor Relations Board v. Fleetwood Trailer Company
Argued: Nov. 8, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1967
Norton J. Come, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Hugh J. Scallon, Los Angeles, Cal, for respondent.
Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, Local 760

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
377 U.S. 58
National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, Local 760
Argued: Feb. 18 and 19, 1964. --- Decided: April 20, 1964
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for petitioner.
David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 49
National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Company
Argued: Feb. 11, 1937. --- Decided: April 12, 1937
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 50 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Thomas G. Long, of Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES 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 IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 4

Chapter 4.—5. Wherefore, if they were in error, and would have perished had they not been corrected, who wished to be of Paul, what must we suppose to be the hope of those who wished to be of Donatus? For they use their utmost endeavors to prove that the origin, root, and head of the baptized person is none other than the individual by whom he is baptized. The result is, that since it is very often a matter of uncertainty what kind of man the baptizer is, the hope therefore of the baptized being of uncertain origin, of uncertain root, of uncertain head, is of itself uncertain altogether. And since it is possible that the conscience of the giver may be in such a condition as to be accursed and defiled without the knowledge of the recipient, it results that, being of an accursed origin, accursed root, accursed head, the hope of the baptized may prove to be vain and ungrounded. For Petilian expressly states in his epistle, that "everything consists of an origin and root; and if it have not something for a head, it is nothing." And since by the origin and root and head of the baptized person he wishes to be understood the man by whom he is baptized, what good does the unhappy recipient derive from the fact that he does not know how bad a man his baptizer really is? For he does not know that he himself has a bad head, or actually no head at all. And yet what hope can a man have, who, whether he is aware of it or not, has either a very bad head or no head at all? Can we maintain that his very ignorance forms a head, when his baptizer is either a bad head or none at all? Surely any one who thinks this is unmistakeably without a head.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book II

Book II.
In which Augustin replies to all the several statements in the letter of Petilianus, as though disputing with an adversary face to face.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
* Chapter 39
* Chapter 40
* Chapter 41
* Chapter 42
* Chapter 43
* Chapter 44
* Chapter 45
* Chapter 46
* Chapter 47
* Chapter 48
* Chapter 49
* Chapter 50
* Chapter 51
* Chapter 52
* Chapter 53
* Chapter 54
* Chapter 55
* Chapter 56
* Chapter 57
* Chapter 58
* Chapter 59
* Chapter 60
* Chapter 61
* Chapter 62
* Chapter 63
* Chapter 64
* Chapter 65
* Chapter 66
* Chapter 67
* Chapter 68
* Chapter 69
* Chapter 70
* Chapter 71
* Chapter 72
* Chapter 73
* Chapter 74
* Chapter 75
* Chapter 76
* Chapter 77
* Chapter 78
* Chapter 79
* Chapter 80
* Chapter 81
* Chapter 82
* Chapter 83
* Chapter 84
* Chapter 85
* Chapter 86
* Chapter 87
* Chapter 88
* Chapter 89
* Chapter 90
* Chapter 91
* Chapter 92
* Chapter 93
* Chapter 94
* Chapter 95
* Chapter 96
* Chapter 97
* Chapter 98
* Chapter 99
* Chapter 100
* Chapter 101
* Chapter 102
* Chapter 103
* Chapter 104
* Chapter 105
* Chapter 106
* Chapter 107
* Chapter 108
* Chapter 109

## Footnotes

* ↑ Written probably in the beginning of 401 A.D. Some say in 402.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 28

Chapter 28.—Finally, they think that the question of baptism is hidden, with which they deceive wretched souls. But whilst they say that none have baptism who were baptized outside the communion of the one Church, they received with undiminished honors the followers of Maximianus, with those whom they baptized in schism outside the Donatist communion, and this at least they cannot hide.
30. "But these things," they say, "bring no pollution in the cause of peace; and it is well to bend to mercy the rigor of extreme severity, that broken branches may be grafted in anew." Accordingly, in this way the whole question is settled, by defeat in them, by the impossibility of defeat for us; for if the name of peace be assumed for even the faintest shadow of defense to justify the bearing with wicked men in schism, then beyond all doubt the violation of true peace itself involves detestable guilt, with nothing to be said in its defence throughout the unity of the world.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 3

Chapter 3.—For, so long as they escaped detection, they could not bestow faith on any whom they baptized, but only guilt, if it be true that whosoever receives faith from one that is faithless receives not faith, but guilt. Let them therefore be baptized by the good, that they may be enabled to receive not guilt, but faith.
4. But how, again, shall they have any certainty about the good who are to give them faith, if what we look to is the conscience of the giver, which is unseen by the eyes of the proposed recipient? Therefore, according to their judgment, the salvation of the spirit is made uncertain, so long as in opposition to the holy Scriptures, which say, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man," and, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man," they remove the hope of those who are to be baptized from the Lord their God, and persuade them that it should be placed in man; the practical result of which is, that their salvation becomes not merely uncertain, but actually null and void. For "salvation belongeth unto the Lord," and "vain is the help of man." Therefore, whosoever places his trust in man, even in one whom he knows to be just and innocent, is accursed. Whence also the Apostle Paul finds fault with those who said they were of Paul saying, "Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. cxviii. 8.
* ↑ Jer. xvii. 6.
* ↑ Ps. iii. 8.
* ↑ Ps. lx. 11.
* ↑ 1 Cor. i. 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 7

Chapter 7.—8. But if it is perfect madness to hold such a view (for it is Christ always that justifieth the ungodly, by changing his ungodliness into Christianity; it is from Christ always that faith is received, Christ is always the origin of the regenerate and the head of the Church), what weight, then, will those words have, which thoughtless readers value by their sound, without inquiring what their inner meaning is? For the man who does not content himself with hearing the words with his ear, but considers the meaning of the phrase, when he hears, "What we look to is the conscience of the giver, that it may cleanse the conscience of the recipient," will answer, The conscience of man is often unknown to me, but I am certain of the mercy of Christ: when he hears, "He who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt," will answer, Christ is not faithless, from whom I receive not guilt, but faith:  when he hears, "Everything consists of an origin and root; and if it have not something for a head, is nothing," will answer, My origin is Christ, my root is Christ, my head is Christ. When he hears, "Nor does anything well receive second birth, unless it be born again of good seed," he will answer, The seed of which I am born again is the Word of God, which I am warned to hear with attention, even though he through whom I hear it does not himself do what he preaches; according to the words of the Lord, which make me herein safe, "All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." When he hears, "What perversity must it be, that he who is guilty through his own sins should make another free from guilt!" he will answer, No one makes me free from guilt but He who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. For I believe, not in the minister by whose hands I am baptized, but in Him who justifieth the ungodly, that my faith may be counted unto me for righteousness.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. xxiii. 3.
* ↑ Rom. iv. 25, 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 5

Chapter 5.—6. We ask, therefore, since he says, "He who receives faith from the faithless receives not faith, but guilt," and immediately adds to this the further statement, that "everything consists of an origin and root; and if it have not something for a head, it is nothing;"—we ask, I say, in a case where the faithlessness of the baptizer is undetected: If then, the man whom he baptizes receives faith, and not guilt; if, then, the baptizer is not his origin and root and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? where is the origin from which he springs? where is the root of which he is a shoot? where the head which is his starting-point? Can it be, that when he who is baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then Christ who gives faith, it is then Christ who is the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and conceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for the purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the Christian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of the Christian? Do we then maintain that, even when spiritual grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said, that "He justifieth the ungodly?"  But unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing; whereas the same Paul says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase: so then neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." Nor was the apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches." How, too, could he be their head, when he says, that "we, being many, are one body in Christ," and expressly declares in many passages that Christ Himself is the head of the whole body?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. iv. 5.
* ↑ 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
* ↑ John xv. 5.
* ↑ Rom. xii. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 8

Chapter 8.—9. When he hears, "Every good tree bringeth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit: do men gather grapes of thorns?" and, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things;" he will answer, This therefore is good fruit, that I should be a good tree, that is, a good man, that I should show forth good fruit, that is, good works. But this will be given to me, not by him that planteth, nor by him that watereth, but by God that giveth the increase. For if the good tree be the good baptizer, so that his good fruit should be the man whom he baptizes, then any one who has been baptized by a bad man, even if his wickedness be not manifest, will have no power to be good, for he is sprung from an evil tree. For a good tree is one thing; a tree whose quality is concealed, but yet bad, is another. Or if, when the tree is bad, but hides its badness, then whosoever is baptized by it is born not of it, but of Christ; then they are justified with more perfect holiness who are baptized by the bad who hide their evil nature, than they who are baptized by the manifestly good.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. vii. 17, 16.
* ↑ Matt. xii. 35.
* ↑ See below, Book II. 6, 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist/Book I/Chapter 9

Chapter 9.—10. Again, when he hears, "He that is washed by one dead, his washing profiteth him nought," he will answer, "Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him:" of whom it is said, "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." But they are baptized by the dead, who are baptized in the temples of idols. For even they themselves do not suppose that they receive the sanctification which they look for from their priests, but from their gods; and since these were men, and are dead in such sort as to be now neither upon earth nor in the rest of heaven, they are truly baptized by the dead: and the same answer will hold good if there be any other way in which these words of holy Scripture may be examined, and profitably discussed and understood. For if in this place I understand a baptizer who is a sinner, the same absurdity will follow, that whosoever has been baptized by an ungodly man, even though his ungodliness be undiscovered, is yet washed in vain, as though baptized by one dead. For he does not say, He that is baptized by one manifestly dead, but absolutely, "by one dead." And if they consider any man to be dead whom they know to be a sinner, but any one in their communion to be alive, even though he manages most adroitly to conceal a life of wickedness, in the first place with accursed pride they claim more for themselves than they ascribe to God, that when a sinner is unveiled to them he should be called dead, but when he is known by God he is held to be alive. In the next place, if that sinner is to be called dead who is known to be such by men, what answer will they make about Optatus, whom they were afraid to condemn though they had long known his wickedness? Why are those who were baptized by him not said to have been baptized by one dead? Did he live because the Count was his faith?—an elegant and well-turned saying of some early colleagues of their own, which they themselves are wont to quote with pride, not understanding that at the death of the haughty Goliath it was his own sword by which his head was cut off.

## Footnotes

* ↑ So the Donatists commonly quoted Ecclus. xxiv. 25, which is more correctly rendered in our version, "He that washeth himself after touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?" Augustin (Retractt. i. 21, 3) says that the misapplication was rendered possible by the omission in many African Mss. of the second clause, "and touches it again." Cp. Hieron, Ecclus. xxxiv. 30.
* ↑ Rom. vi. 9.
* ↑ John i. 33.
* ↑ Cp. Contra Cresconium, Book II. 25-30: "Ita mortui sunt, ut neque super terras, neque in requie sanctorum vivant."
* ↑ Benedictines suggest as an emendation "quod Deus illi comes erat," as in II. 23, 53; 37, 88, 103, 237.
* ↑ 1 Sam. xvii. 51.