OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 28

(27.) Who May Be Said to Keep the Ways of the Lord; What It is to Decline and Depart from the Ways of the Lord.
Then again, as for what he says, “For I have kept His ways, and have not turned aside from His commandments, nor will I depart from them;” he has kept God’s ways who does not so turn aside as to forsake them, but makes progress by running his course therein; although, weak as he is, he sometimes stumbles or falls, onward, however, he still goes, sinning less and less until he reaches the perfect state in which he will sin no more. For in no other way could he make progress, except by keeping His ways. The man, indeed, who declines from these and becomes an apostate at last, is certainly not he who, although he has sin, yet never ceases to persevere in fighting against it until he arrives at the home where there shall remain no more conflict with death. Well now, it is in our present struggle therewith that we are clothed with the righteousness in which we here live by faith,—clothed with it as it were with a breastplate. Judgment also we take on ourselves; and even when it is against us, we turn it round to our own behalf; for we become our own accusers and condemn our sins: whence that scripture which says, “The righteous man accuses himself at the beginning of his speech.” Hence also he says: “I put on righteousness, and clothed myself with judgment like a mantle.” Our vesture at present no doubt is wont to be armour for war rather than garments of peace, while concupiscence has still to be subdued; it will be different by and by, when our last enemy death shall be destroyed, and our righteousness shall be full and complete, without an enemy to molest us more.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Job xxiii. 11, 12.
* ↑ Eph. vi. 14.
* ↑ Prov. xviii. 17.
* ↑ Job. xxix. 14.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 26.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 22

Chapter X.—(21.) To Whom God’s Commandments are Grievous; And to Whom, Not. Why Scripture Says that God’s Commandments are Not Grievous; A Commandment is a Proof of the Freedom Of Man’s Will; Prayer is a Proof of Grace.
He next quotes passages to show that God’s commandments are not grievous. But who can be ignorant of the fact that, since the generic commandment is love (for “the end of the commandment is love,” and “love is the fulfilling of the law”), whatever is accomplished by the operation of love, and not of fear, is not grievous? They, however, are oppressed by the commandments of God, who try to fulfil them by fearing. “But perfect love casteth out fear;” and, in respect of the burden of the commandment, it not only takes off the pressure of its heavy weight, but it actually lifts it up as if on wings. In order, however, that this love may be possessed, even as far as it can possibly be possessed in the body of this death, the determination of will avails but little, unless it be helped by God’s grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. For as it must again and again be stated, it is “shed abroad in our hearts,” not by our own selves, but “by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” And for no other reason does Holy Scripture insist on the truth that God’s commandments are not grievous, than this, that the soul which finds them grievous may understand that it has not yet received those resources which make the Lord’s commandments to be such as they are commended to us as being, even gentle and pleasant; and that it may pray with groaning of the will to obtain the gift of facility. For the man who says, “Let my heart be blameless;” and, “Order Thou my steps according to Thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me;” and, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven;” and, “Lead us not into temptation;” and other prayers of a like purport, which it would be too long to particularize, does in effect offer up a prayer for ability to keep God’s commandments. Neither, indeed, on the one hand, would any injunctions be laid upon us to keep them, if our own will had nothing to do in the matter; nor, on the other hand, would there be any room for prayer, if our will were alone sufficient. God’s commandments, therefore, are commended to us as being not grievous, in order that he to whom they are grievous may understand that he has not as yet received the gift which removes their grievousness; and that he may not think that he is really performing them, when he so keeps them that they are grievous to him. For it is a cheerful giver whom God loves. Nevertheless, when a man finds God’s commandments grievous, let him not be broken down by despair; let him rather oblige himself to seek, to ask, and to knock.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 8.
* ↑ Rom. xiii. 10.
* ↑ 1 John iv. 18.
* ↑ Rom. v. 5.
* ↑ Ps. cxix. 80.
* ↑ Ps. cxix. 133.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 10.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 13.
* ↑ 2 Cor. ix. 7.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 25

(24.) To Be Without Sin, and to Be Without Blame—How Differing.
The same thing is affirmed in another passage, which he has quoted immediately afterwards, as spoken by the same Job: “Behold, I am very near my judgment, and I know that I shall be found righteous.” Now this is the judgment of which it is said in another scripture: “And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.” But he does not say, I am already there; but, “I am very near.” If, indeed, the judgment of his which he meant was not that which he would himself exercise, but that whereby he was to be judged at the last day, then in such judgment all will be found righteous who with sincerity pray: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” For it is through this forgiveness that they will be found righteous; on this account that whatever sins they have here incurred, they have blotted out by their deeds of charity. Whence the Lord says: “Give alms; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.” For in the end, it shall be said to the righteous, when about to enter into the promised kingdom: “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat,” and so forth. However, it is one thing to be without sin, which in this life can only be predicated of the Only-begotten, and another thing to be without accusation, which might be said of many just persons even in the present life; for there is a certain measure of a good life, according to which even in this human intercourse there could no just accusation be possibly laid against him. For who can justly accuse the man who wishes evil to no one, and who faithfully does good to all he can, and never cherishes a wish to avenge himself on any man who does him wrong, so that he can truly say, “As we forgive our debtors?” And yet by the very fact that he truly says, “Forgive, as we also forgive,” he plainly admits that he is not without sin.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Job xiii. 18.
* ↑ Matt. vi. 12.
* ↑ Luke xi. 41.
* ↑ Matt. xxv. 35.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/Concerning Man's Perfection in Righteousness/Chapter 27

(26.) Why Job Was So Great a Sufferer.
And when he says concerning the Lord, “For many bruises hath He inflicted upon me without a cause,” observe that his words are not, He hath inflicted none with a cause; but, “many without a cause.” For it was not because of his manifold sins that these many bruises were inflicted on him, but in order to make trial of his patience. For on account of his sins, indeed, without which, as he acknowledges in another passage, he was certainly not, he yet judges that he ought to have suffered less.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Job ix. 17.
* ↑ Job vi. 2, 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/Exposition of the Christian Faith/Book I/Chapter 5

Chapter IV.
The Unity of God is necessarily implied in the order of Nature, in the Faith, and in Baptism. The gifts of the Magi declare (1) the Unity of the Godhead; (2) Christ’s Godhead and Manhood. The truth of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is shown in the Angel walking in the midst of the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
31. All nature testifies to the Unity of God, inasmuch as the universe is one. The Faith declares that there is one God, seeing that there is one belief in both the Old and the New Testament. That there is one Spirit, all holy, grace witnesseth, because there is one Baptism, in the Name of the Trinity. The prophets proclaim, the apostles hear, the voice of one God. In one God did the Magi believe, and they brought, in adoration, gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Christ’s cradle, confessing, by the gift of gold, His Royalty, and with the incense worshipping Him as God. For gold is the sign of kingdom, incense of God, myrrh of burial.
32. What, then, was the meaning of the mystic offerings in the lowly cattle-stalls, save that we should discern in Christ the difference between the Godhead and the flesh? He is seen as man, He is adored as Lord. He lies in swaddling-clothes, but shines amid the stars; the cradle shows His birth, the stars His dominion; it is the flesh that is wrapped in clothes, the Godhead that receives the ministry of angels. Thus the dignity of His natural majesty is not lost, and His true assumption of the flesh is proved.
33. This is our Faith. Thus did God will that He should be known by all, thus believed the three children, and felt not the fire into the midst whereof they were cast, which destroyed and burnt up unbelievers, whilst it fell harmless as dew upon the faithful, for whom the flames kindled by others became cold, seeing that the torment had justly lost its power in conflict with faith. For with them there was One in the form of an angel, comforting them, to the end that in the number of the Trinity one Supreme Power might be praised. God was praised, the Son of God was seen in God’s angel, holy and spiritual grace spake in the children.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Spirit here spoken of is, according to Hurter’s interpretation, not the Third Person of the Trinity, but the Triune God, Who is a Spirit (John iv. 24; 2 Cor. iii. 17).
* ↑ Hymns A. and M. 76, stanza 4.
* ↑ Phil. ii. 7.
* ↑ Rev. i. 16; xxii. 16: S. Matt. ii. Cf. Num. xxiv. 17.
* ↑ Dan. iv. 17.
* ↑ Dan. iv. 22.
* ↑ Hosea xiv. 5.
* ↑ Dan. iv. 28.
* ↑ S. Luke xxii. 43.
* ↑ Dan. iv. 25. In the number of the three children was shadowed forth the number of Persons in the Trinity, whilst in the Angel, who was one, was shown the Unity of power or nature. In another way, too, St. Ambrose points out, was the Trinity typified in that event, inasmuch as God was praised, the Angel of God was present, and the Spirit, or the Grace of God spake in the children.—H.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/Exposition of the Christian Faith/Book II

Book II.

## Contents

* Introduction
* 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/Exposition of the Christian Faith/Book II/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
The Arian argument from S. Mark x. 18 , “There is none good but one, that is, God,” refuted by explanation of these words of Christ.
15. The objection I have now to face, your sacred Majesty, fills me with bewilderment, my soul and body faint at the thought that there should be men, or rather not men, but beings with the outward appearance of men, but inwardly full of brutish folly—who can, after receiving at the hands of the Lord benefits so many and so great, say that the Author of all good things is Himself not good.
16. It is written, say they, that “There is none good but God alone.” I acknowledge the Scripture—but there is no falsehood in the letter; would that there were none in the Arians’ exposition thereof. The written signs are guiltless, it is the meaning in which they are taken that is to blame. I
acknowledge the words as the words of our Lord and Saviour—but let us bethink ourselves when, to whom, and with what comprehension He speaks.
17. The Son of God is certainly speaking as man, and speaking to a scribe,—to him, that is, who called the Son of God “Good Master,” but would not acknowledge Him as God. What he believes not, Christ further gives him to understand, to the end that he may believe in God’s Son not as a good master, but as the good God, for if, wheresoever the “One God” is named, the Son of God is never sundered from the fulness of that unity, how, when God alone is said to be good, can the Only-begotten be excluded from the fulness of Divine Goodness? The Arians must therefore either deny that the Son of God is God, or confess that God is good.
18. With divinely inspired comprehension, then, our Lord said, not “There is none good but the Father alone,” but “There is none good but God alone,” and “Father” is the proper name of Him Who begets. But the unity of God by no means excludes the Godhead of the Three Persons, and therefore it is His Nature that is extolled. Goodness, therefore, is of the nature of God, and in the nature of God, again, exists the Son of God—wherefore that which the predicate expresses belongs not to one single Person, but to the [complete] unity [of the Godhead].
19. The Lord, then, doth not deny His goodness—He rebukes this sort of disciple. For when the scribe said, “Good Master,” the Lord answered, “Why callest thou Me good?”—which is to say, “It is not enough to call Him good, Whom thou believest not to be God.” Not such do I seek to be My disciples—men who rather consider My manhood and reckon Me a good master, than look to My Godhead and believe Me to be the good God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ “Sensus in crimine.” The “sense of a passage” is not something in the passage itself so much as our understanding of it. In other words, the genitive after “sense” is objective, not possessive.
* ↑ Lat.—“non quod singularitatis, sed quod unitatis est, prædicatur.” The Son is “in the nature of God” inasmuch as the eternal Fatherhood of God implies an Eternal Son—His eternal Love an eternal object of that Love.
# O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
404 U.S. 254
O'Keeffe, Deputy Commissioner, Sixth Compensation District, Department of Labor v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 71-262
Section 22 of the Longshoreman's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, permitting a Labor Department Deputy Commissioner "[u]pon his own initiative... because of a mistake in a determination of fact" to review a longshoreman's compensation claim within one year after its rejection and issue a new or modified compensation order, held to authorize the Deputy Commissioner to correct factual errors revealed by wholly new or cumulative evidence or further reflection on initially submitted evidence.
Certiorari granted; 442 F. 2d 508, reversed and remanded.
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
# O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc.

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 359
O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Douglas and Morton Hollander, for petitioner.
George W. Ericksen, for respondents.
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
# O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Minton
United States Supreme Court
340 U.S. 504
O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon
Argued: Dec. 7, 1950. --- Decided: Feb 26, 1951
Mr. Morton Hollander, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Edward S. Franklin, Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# O'Keefe v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 294
O'Keefe v. United States
Argued: December 15, 1915. --- Decided: February 21, 1916
Messrs. H. Generes Dufour, Walter F. Taylor, and Morgan M. Mann for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for the United States.
Mr. Joseph W. Folk for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Justice Pitney 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 VIII/The Letters/Letter 163

Letter CLXIII.
To Count Jovinus.
One can see your soul in your letter, for in reality no painter can so exactly catch an outward likeness, as uttered thoughts can image the secrets of the soul. As I read your letter, your words exactly characterized your steadfastness, your real dignity, your unfailing sincerity; in all those things it comforted me greatly though I could not see you. Never fail, then, to seize every opportunity of writing to me, and to give me the pleasure of conversing with you at a distance; for to see you face to face I am now forbidden by the distressing state of my health. How serious this is you will learn from the God-beloved bishop Amphilochius, who is both able to report to you from his having been constantly with me, and fully competent to tell you what he has seen. But the only reason why I wish you to know of my sufferings is, that you will forgive me for the future, and acquit me of lack of energy, if I fail to come and see you, though in truth my loss does not so much need defence from me as comfort from you. Had it been possible for me to come to you, I should have very much preferred a sight of your excellency to all the ends that other men count worth an effort.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 374.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 158

Letter CLVIII.
To Antiochus.
My sins have prevented me from carrying out the wish to meet you, which I have long entertained. Let me apologise by letter for my absence, and beseech you not to omit to remember me in your prayers, that, if I live, I may be permitted to enjoy your society. If not, by the aid of your prayers may I quit this world with good hope. I commend to you our brother the camel-master.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 373.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 16

Letter XVI.
Against Eunomius the heretic.
He who maintains that it is possible to arrive at the discovery of things actually existing, has no doubt by some orderly method advanced his intelligence by means of the knowledge of actually existing things. It is after first training himself by the apprehension of small and easily comprehensible objects, that he brings his apprehensive faculty to bear on what is beyond all intelligence. He makes his boast that he has really arrived at the comprehension of actual existences; let him then explain to us the nature of the least of visible beings; let him tell us all about the ant. Does its life depend on breath and breathing? Has it a skeleton? Is its body connected by sinews and ligaments? Are its sinews surrounded with muscles and glands? Does its marrow go with dorsal vertebræ from brow to tail? Does it give impulse to its moving members by the enveloping nervous membrane? Has it a liver, with a gall bladder near the liver? Has it kidneys, heart, arteries, veins, membranes, cartilages? Is it hairy or hairless? Has it an uncloven hoof, or are its feet divided? How long does it live? What is its mode of reproduction? What is its period of gestation? How is it that ants neither all walk nor all fly, but some belong to creeping things, and some travel through the air? The man who glories in his knowledge of the really-existing ought to tell us in the meanwhile about the nature of the ant. Next let him give us a similar physiological account of the power that transcends all human intelligence. But if your knowledge has not yet been able to apprehend the nature of the insignificant ant, how can you boast yourself able to form a conception of the power of the incomprehensible God?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed by the Ben. Ed. in the reign of Julian 361–363.
* ↑ Eunomius the Anomœan, bp. of Cyzicus, against whose Liber Apologeticus Basil wrote his counter-work. The first appearance of the αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος, the “chooser” of his own way rather than the common sense of the Church, is in Tit. iii. 10. αἱρετίζειν is a common word in the LXX., but does not occur in Is. xlii. 1, though it is introduced into the quotation in Matt. xii. 18. ἅιρεσις is used six times by St. Luke for “sect;” twice by St. Paul and once by St. Peter for “heresy.” Augustine, C. Manich. writes: “Qui in ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque quid sapiunt, si, correcti ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defensare persistunt hæretici sunt.”
* ↑ As an argument against Eunomius this Letter has no particular force, inasmuch as a man may be a good divine though a very poor entomologist, and might tell us all about the ant without being better able to decide between Basil and Eunomius. It is interesting, however, as shewing how far Basil was abreast of the physiology of his time, and how far that physiology was correct.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters/Letter 157

Letter CLVII.
To Amiochus.
You may well imagine how disappointed I was not to meet you in the summer; not that our meeting in former years was enough to satisfy me, but even to see loved objects in a dream brings those who love some comfort. But you do not even write, so sluggish are you, and I think your absence can be referred to no other cause than that you are slow to undertake journeys for affection’s sake. On this point I will say no more. Pray for me, and ask the Lord not to desert me, but as He has brought me out of bygone temptations so also to deliver me from those that I await, for the glory of the name of Him in Whom I put my trust.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Placed in 373.
* ↑ cf. Letters cxlvi. and ccxxxix. Maran. (Vit. Bas). is of opinion that as these two letters, clvii. and clviii., written at the same time, are very much in the same terms, they cannot be to the same person, and thinks that the sluggishness, which Basil complains of, fits with Eusebius much better than with Antiochus, who could not travel without his uncle’s permission.