OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part II/Chapter 3

§32. (3) The body cannot originate such phenomena; and in fact the action of the rational soul is seen in its over-ruling the instincts of the bodily organs.
We add a further point to complete our demonstration for the benefit of those who shamelessly take refuge in denial of reason. How is it, that whereas the body is mortal by nature, man reasons on the things of immortality, and often, where virtue demands it, courts death? Or how, since the body lasts but for a time, does man imagine of things eternal, so as to despise what lies before him, and desire what is beyond? The body could not have spontaneously such thoughts about itself, nor could it think upon what is external to itself. For it is mortal and lasts but for a time. And it follows that that which thinks what is opposed to the body and against its nature must be distinct in kind. What then can this be, save a rational and immortal soul? For it introduces the echo of higher things, not outside, but within the body, as the musician does in his lyre. 2. Or how again, the eye being naturally constituted to see and the ear to hear, do they turn from some objects and choose others? For who is it that turns away the eye from seeing? Or who shuts off the ear from hearing, its natural function? Or who often hinders the palate, to which it is natural to taste things, from its natural impulse? Or who withholds the hand from its natural activity of touching something, or turns aside the sense of smell from its normal exercise? Who is it that thus acts against the natural instincts of the body? Or how does the body, turned from its natural course, turn to the counsels of another and suffer itself to be guided at the beck of that other? Why, these things prove simply this, that the rational soul presides over the body. 3. For the body is not even constituted to drive itself, but it is carried at the will of another, just as a horse does not yoke himself, but is driven by his master. Hence laws for human beings to practise what is good and to abstain from evil-doing, while to the brutes evil remains unthought of and undiscerned, because they lie outside rationality and the process of understanding. I think then that the existence of a rational soul in man is proved by what we have said.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Supra xxx.
* ↑ Compare the somewhat analogous argument in Butler, Serm. ii.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part II
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part II/Chapter 5

§34. The soul, then, if only it get rid of the stains of sin is able to know God directly, its own rational nature imaging back the Word of God, after whose image it was created. But even if it cannot pierce the cloud which sin draws over its vision, it is confronted by the witness of creation to God.
We repeat then what we said before, that just as men denied God, and worship things without soul, so also in thinking they have not a rational soul, they receive at once the punishment of their folly, namely, to be reckoned among irrational creatures: and so, since as though from lack of a soul of their own they superstitiously worship soulless gods, they are worthy of pity and guidance. 2. But if they claim to have a soul, and pride themselves on the rational principle, and that rightly, why do they, as though they had no soul, venture to go against reason, and think not as they ought, but make themselves out higher even than the Deity? For having a soul that is immortal and invisible to them, they make a likeness of God in things visible and mortal. Or why, in like manner as they have departed from God, do they not betake themselves to Him again? For they are able, as they turned away their understanding from God, and feigned as gods things that were not, in like manner to ascend with the intelligence of their soul, and turn back to God again. 3. But turn back they can, if they lay aside the filth of all lust which they have put on, and wash it away persistently, until they have got rid of all the foreign matter that has affected their soul, and can shew it in its simplicity as it was made, that so they may be able by it to behold the Word of the Father after Whose likeness they were originally made. For the soul is made after the image and likeness of God, as divine Scripture also shews, when it says in the person of God: “Let us make man after our Image and likeness.” Whence also when it gets rid of all the filth of sin which covers it and retains only the likeness of the Image in its purity, then surely this latter being thoroughly brightened, the soul beholds as in a mirror the Image of the Father, even the Word, and by His means reaches the idea of the Father, Whose Image the Saviour is. 4. Or, if the soul’s own teaching is insufficient, by reason of the external things which cloud its intelligence, and prevent its seeing what is higher, yet it is further possible to attain to the knowledge of God from the things which are seen, since Creation, as though in written characters, declares in a loud voice, by its order and harmony, its own Lord and Creator.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. i. 26.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part II/Chapter 1

Part II.
§30. The soul of man, being intellectual, can know God of itself, if it be true to its own nature.
The tenets we have been speaking of have been proved to be nothing more than a false guide for life; but the way of truth will aim at reaching the real and true God. But for its knowledge and accurate comprehension, there is need of none other save of ourselves. Neither as God Himself is above all, is the road to Him afar off or outside ourselves, but it is in us and it is possible to find it from ourselves, in the first instance, as Moses also taught, when he said: “The word” of faith “is within thy heart.” Which very thing the Saviour declared and confirmed, when He said: “The kingdom of God is within you.” 2. For having in ourselves faith, and the kingdom of God, we shall be able quickly to see and perceive the King of the Universe, the saving Word of the Father. And let not the Greeks, who worship idols, make excuses, nor let any one else simply deceive himself, professing to have no such road and therefore finding a pretext for his godlessness. 3. For we all have set foot upon it, and have it, even if not all are willing to travel by it, but rather to swerve from it and go wrong, because of the pleasures of life which attract them from without. And if one were to ask, what road is this? I say that it is the soul of each one of us, and the intelligence which resides there. For by it alone can God be contemplated and perceived. 4. Unless, as they have denied God, the impious men will repudiate having a soul; which indeed is more plausible than the rest of what they say, for it is unlike men possessed of an intellect to deny God, its Maker and Artificer. It is necessary then, for the sake of the simple, to shew briefly that each one of mankind has a soul, and that soul rational; especially as certain of the sectaries deny this also, thinking that man is nothing more than the visible form of the body. This point once proved, they will be furnished in their own persons with a clearer proof against the idols.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Deut. xxx. 14.
* ↑ Luc. xvii. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 46

Chapter XLVI.—Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy.
There were two men of the same name at Laodicea in Syria, a father and son: their name was Apollinaris; the former of them was a presbyter, and the latter a reader in that church. Both taught Greek literature, the father grammar, and the son rhetoric. The father was a native of Alexandria, and at first taught at Berytus, but afterwards removed to Laodicea, where he married, and the younger Apollinaris was born. They were contemporaries of Epiphanius the sophist, and being true friends they became intimate with him; but Theodotus bishop of Laodicea, fearing that such communication should pervert their principles, and lead them into paganism, forbade their associating with him: they, however, paid but little attention to this prohibition, their familiarity with Epiphanius being still continued. George, the successor of Theodotus, also endeavored to prevent their conversing with Epiphanius; but not being able in any way to persuade them on this point, he excommunicated them. The younger Apollinaris regarding this severe procedure as an act of injustice, and relying on the resources of his rhetorical sophistry, originated a new heresy, which was named after its inventor, and still has many supporters. Nevertheless some affirm that it was not for the reason above assigned that they dissented from George, but because they saw the unsettledness and inconsistency of his profession of faith; since he sometimes maintained that the Son is like the Father, in accordance with what had been determined in the Synod at Seleucia, and at other times countenanced the Arian view. They therefore made this a pretext for separation from him: but as no one followed their example, they introduced a new form of doctrine, and at first they asserted that in the economy of the incarnation, God the Word assumed a human body without a soul. Afterwards, as if changing mind, they retracted, admitting that he took a soul indeed, but that it was an irrational one, God the Word himself being in the place of a mind. Those who followed them and bear their name at this day affirm that this is their only point of distinction [from the Catholics]; for they recognize the consubstantiality of the persons in the Trinity. But we will make further mention of the two Apollinares in the proper place.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. Sozom. VI. 25; Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch., Vol. III. p. 708 seq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, III. p. 119–229.
* ↑ III. 16.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to the Bishopric of Cæsarea.
At this time Eusebius, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, and had the surname of Pamphilus, having died, Acacius, his disciple, succeeded him in the bishopric. This individual published several books, and among others a biographical sketch of his master.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 5

Chapter V.—The Death of Constantine the Younger.
Not long after this the brother of the Emperor Constantius, Constantine the younger, who bore his father’s name, having invaded those parts of the empire which were under the government of his younger brother Constans, engaging in a conflict with his brother’s soldiery, was slain by them. This took place under the consulship of Acindynus and Proclus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 340 a.d.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 47

Chapter XLVII.—Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius.
While the Emperor Constantius continued his residence at Antioch, Julian Cæsar engaged with an immense army of barbarians in the Gauls, and obtaining the victory over them, he became extremely popular among the soldiery and was proclaimed emperor by them. When this was made known, the Emperor Constantius was affected most painfully; he was therefore baptized by Euzoïus, and immediately prepared to undertake an expedition against Julian. On arriving at the frontiers of Cappadocia and Cilicia, his excessive agitation of mind produced apoplexy, which terminated his life at Mopsucrene, in the consulate of Taurus and Florentius,
on the 3d of November. This was in the first year of the 285th Olympiad. Constantius had lived forty-five years, having reigned thirty-eight years; thirteen of which he was his father’s colleague in the empire, and after his father’s death for twenty-five years [sole emperor], the history of which latter period is contained in this book.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 361 a.d.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 44

Chapter XLIV.—Of Meletius
Bishop of Antioch.
It becomes us now to speak of Meletius, who, as we have recently observed, was created bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after the deposition of Eustathius; from Sebastia he was transferred to Berœa, a city of Syria. Being present at the Synod of Seleucia, he subscribed the creed set forth there by Acacius, and immediately returned thence to Berœa. When the convention of the Synod at Constantinople was held, the people of Antioch finding that Eudoxius, captivated by the magnificence of the see of Constantinople, had contemned their church, they sent for Meletius, and invested him with the bishopric of the church at Antioch. Now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions, confining his discourses to moral subjects; but subsequently he expounded to his auditors the Nicene creed, and asserted the doctrine of the homoousion. The emperor being informed of this, ordered that he should be sent into exile; and caused Euzoïus, who had before been deposed together with Arius, to be installed bishop of Antioch in his stead. Such, however, as were attached to Meletius, separated themselves from the Arian congregation, and held their assemblies apart: nevertheless, those who originally embraced the homoousian opinion would not communicate with them, because Meletius had been ordained by the Arians, and his adherents had been baptized by them. Thus was the Antiochian church divided, even in regard to those whose views on matters of faith exactly corresponded. Meanwhile the emperor getting intelligence that the Persians were preparing to undertake another war against the Romans, repaired in great haste to Antioch.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The name has been written ‘Melitius’ thus far, but is found as ‘Meletius’ from this point, and through Bk. III. Cf. Euseb. H. E. VII. 32.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 42

Chapter XLII.—On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the Bishopric of Constantinople.
Acacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with them, became exceedingly anxious that they also on their side might depose some of the opposite party. Now it should be observed that neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations in making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not agree respecting the faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian party therefore availing themselves of the emperor’s indignation against others, and especially against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to vent, in the first place deposed Macedonius, both on account of his having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because he had admitted to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication.
They then depose Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, for having baptized, and afterwards invested with the diaconate, a priest of Hercules at Tyre named Heraclius, who was known to have practiced magic arts.
A like sentence was pronounced against Basil, or Basilas,—as he was also called,—who had been constituted bishop of Ancyra instead of Marcellus: the causes assigned for this condemnation were, that he had unjustly imprisoned a certain individual, loaded him with chains, and put him to the torture; that he had traduced some persons; and that he had disturbed the churches of Africa by his epistles. Dracontius was also deposed, because he had left the Galatian church for that of Pergamos. Moreover they deposed, on various pretenses, Neonas bishop of Seleucia, the city in which the Synod had been convened, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, in Macedonia, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and others for various reasons.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. Apost. Canon, XXV.
* ↑ Cf. Tertull. de Idol. IX.: Post evangelium nusquam invenies aut sophistas, aut Chaldæos, aut Incantatores, aut Conjectores, aut magos, nisi plane punitos. See also Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. XVI. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VII/Gospel According to St. John
## Contents

* Title Page
* Part 1
* Part 2
* Part 3
* Part 4
* Part 5
* Part 6
* Part 7
* Part 8
* Part 9
* Part 10
* Part 11
* Part 12
* Part 13
* Part 14
* Part 15
* Part 16
* Part 17
* Part 18
* Part 19
* Part 20
* Part 21
* Part 22
* Part 23
* Part 24
* Part 25
* Part 26
* Part 27
* Part 28
* Part 29
* Part 30
* Part 31
* Part 32
* Part 33
* Part 34
* Part 35
* Part 36
* Part 37
* Part 38
* Part 39
* Part 40
* Part 41
* Part 42
* Part 43
* Part 44
* Part 45
* Part 46
* Part 47
* Part 48
* Part 49
* Part 50
* Part 51
* Part 52
* Part 53
* Part 54
* Part 55
* Part 56
* Part 57
* Part 58
* Part 59
* Part 60
* Part 61
* Part 62
* Part 63
* Part 64
* Part 65
* Part 66
* Part 67
* Part 68
* Part 69
* Part 70
* Part 71
* Part 72
* Part 73
* Part 74
* Part 75
* Part 76
* Part 77
* Part 78
* Part 79
* Part 80
* Part 81
* Part 82
* Part 83
* Part 84
* Part 85
* Part 86
* Part 87
* Part 88
* Part 89
* Part 90
* Part 91
* Part 92
* Part 93
* Part 94
* Part 95
* Part 96
* Part 97
* Part 98
* Part 99
* Part 100
* Part 101
* Part 102
* Part 103
* Part 104
* Part 105
* Part 106
* Part 107
* Part 108
* Part 109
* Part 110
* Part 111
* Part 112
* Part 113
* Part 114
* Part 115
* Part 116
* Part 117
* Part 118
* Part 119
* Part 120
* Part 121
* Part 122
* Part 123
* Part 124
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VII/First Epistle of John/Title Page

St. AUGUSTIN:
ten homilies
on
the first epistle of John.
translated by
rev. H. Browne, m.a.,
canon of waltham and principal of the chichester diocesan college.
revised, with additional notes,
by
rev. joseph h. myers, d.d.
# National Labor Relations Board v. Lion Oil Company

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

## Concurring Opinions

    Frankfurter
    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
352 U.S. 282
National Labor Relations Board v. Lion Oil Company
Argued: Oct. 8, 1956. --- Decided: Jan 22, 1957
Mr. Theophil C. Kammholz, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Davis, El Dorado, Ark., for the respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN 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. Katz

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 736
National Labor Relations Board v. Katz
Argued: March 22, 1962. --- Decided: May 21, 1962
Solicitor General Archibald Cox, for petitioner.
Sidney O. Raphael, New York City, 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. Link-Belt Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
311 U.S. 584
National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Company
Argued: Dec. 18, 1940. --- Decided: Jan 6, 1941
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry E. Seyfarth, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent Link-Belt Co.
Mr. Benjamin Wham, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent Independent Union of Craftsmen.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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. Las Vegas Sand & Gravel Corp/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 400
National Labor Relations Board v. Las Vegas Sand & Gravel Corp
Argued: Jan. 15, 1962. ---
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The respondent consented to the entry by the National Labor Relations Board of an order directing it to cease-and-desist from interfering with activities of its employees on behalf of a named labor organization 'or of any other labor organization.' The respondent further waived all defenses to the entry by the Court of Appeals of a decree enforcing said order. The Court of Appeals, sua sponte, struck the references to 'any other labor organization' whenever they appeared in the Board's order. 283 F.2d 26, 28. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with directions that a judgment be entered which affirms and enforces the Board order. Labor Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 368 U.S. 318, 82 S.Ct. 344, 7 L.Ed.2d 312.
Petition granted.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissents.

## 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. Las Vegas Sand & Gravel Corp

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
368 U.S. 400
National Labor Relations Board v. Las Vegas Sand & Gravel Corp
Argued: Jan. 15, 1962. ---
Solicitor General Rankin, Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come, for petitioner.
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIII/Gregory the Great
## Contents

* Title Page
* General Literature
* Regula Pastoralis (Notes)
* Registrum Epistolarum (Notes)
* Book IX
* Book X
* Book XI
* Book XII
* Book XIII
* Book XIV