OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book IV/Chapter 2

Chapter 2.—2. All the more, then, because "we are fighting for the honor and unity" of the Church, let us beware of giving to heretics the credit of whatever we acknowledged among them as belonging to the Church; but let us teach them by argument, that what they possess that is derived from unity is of no efficacy to their salvation, unless they shall return to that same unity. For "the water of the Church is full of faith, and salvation, and holiness" to those who use it rightly. No one, however, can use it well outside the Church. But to those who use it perversely, whether within or without the Church, it is employed to work punishment, and does not conduce to their reward. And so baptism "cannot be corrupted and polluted," though it be handled by the corrupt or by adulterers, just as also "the Church herself is uncorrupt, and pure, and chaste." And so no share in it belongs to the avaricious, or thieves, or usurers,—many of whom, by the testimony of Cyprian himself in many places of his letters, exist not only without, but actually within the Church,—and yet they both are baptized and do baptize, with no change in their hearts.
3. For this, too, he says, in one of his epistles to the clergy on the subject of prayer toGod, in which, after the fashion of the holy Daniel, he represents the sins of his people as falling upon himself. For among many other evils of which he makes mention, he speaks of them also as "renouncing the world in words only and not in deeds;" as the apostle says of certain men, "They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him." These, therefore, the blessed Cyprian shows to be contained within the Church herself, who are baptized without their hearts being changed for the better, seeing that they renounce the world in words and not in deeds, as the Apostle Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience)," which certainly they had not of whom it is said that they "renounced the world in words only, and not in deeds;" and yet he does his utmost, by chiding and convincing them, to make them at length walk in the way of Christ, and be His friends rather than friends of the world.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ib.
* ↑ Ib.
* ↑ Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. 11.
* ↑ Cypr. Ep. xi. 1.
* ↑ Tit. i. 16.
* ↑ 1 Pet. iii. 21.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book IV/Chapter 25

Chapter 25.—33. By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised. Nor can there be said in any way to be a turning of the heart to God when the sacrament of God is treated with contempt. Therefore we are right in censuring, anathematizing, abhorring, and abominating the perversity of heart shown by heretics; yet it does not follow that they have not the sacrament of the gospel, because they have not what makes it of avail. Wherefore, when they come to the true faith, and by penitence seek remission of their sins, we are not flattering or deceiving them, when we instruct them by heavenly discipline for the kingdom of heaven, correcting and reforming in them their errors and perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do violence to what is sound in them, nor, because of man’s fault, declare that anything which he may have in him from God is either valueless or faulty.
# Moore v. Robbins

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Moore v. Robbins."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Moore v. Robbins (85 U.S. 588), ( 21 L.Ed. 758 ), ( 18 Wall. 588 )
* Moore v. Robbins (96 U.S. 530), ( 24 L.Ed. 848 )
# Moore v. Robbins (85 U.S. 588)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 588
Clifton H. Moore v. Rufus W. Robbins
No. 41. Argued: October 17, 1873 --- Decided: October 27, 1873
ON motion by Mr. R. E. Williams (the plaintiff in error himself opposing), to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois; the ground of the motion being that no final judgment or decree had been rendered.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and 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
# Moore v. Page

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
111 U.S. 117
Moore v. Page
H. T. Helm, for appellants.
E. S. Isham and Wm. Burry, for appellees.
FIELD, 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
# Moore v. Robbins (85 U.S. 588)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
85 U.S. 588
Clifton H. Moore v. Rufus W. Robbins
No. 41. Argued: October 17, 1873 --- Decided: October 27, 1873
The suit was a bill in equity, filed by Robbins in the Circuit Court of De Witt County to foreclose a mortgage. That court decreed in favor of complainant. The defendants removed the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. There the decree of the lower court was reversed and the case was 'remanded to the Circuit Court for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain.' The ground of reversal does not appear in the record. A rehearing was applied for by the defendants and granted by the court. The case was reheard and the former decree was affirmed. The defendants thereupon prosecuted this writ and are the plaintiffs in error in this court.
Both the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the amendatory act of 1867, limit the jurisdiction of this court in this class of cases to final judgments and decrees. The decree of the Supreme Court of Illinois before us is not of that character.
WRIT DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ Section 25, 1 Stat. at Large, 85.
* ↑ 14 Id. 585.
* ↑ Brown v. The Union Bank of Florida, 4 Howard, 465; Pepper et al. v. Dunlap et al., 5 Id. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 Id. 426.
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
# Moore v. Ogilvie

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
394 U.S. 814
Moore v. Ogilvie
Argued: March 27, 1969. --- Decided: May 5, 1969
Richard F. Watt, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
John J. O'Toole and Richard E. Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

## 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
# Moore v. Robbins (96 U.S. 530)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
96 U.S. 530
Moore v. Robbins
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Philip Phillips for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. R. E. Williams, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER 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/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—20. Januarius of Lambæse said: "Following the authority of the holy Scriptures, I pronounce that all heretics should be baptized, and so admitted into the holy Church."
21. To him we answer, that, following the authority of the holy Scriptures, a universal Council of the whole world decreed that the baptism of Christ was not to be disavowed even when found among heretics. But if he had brought forward any proof from the Scriptures, we should have shown either that they were not against us, or even that they were for us, as we proceed to do with him who follows.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lambæse (Lambese) was one of the chief cities in southern Numidia. This Januarius is not unlikely identical with the first of that name in Cypr. Ep. lxvii., and with the one of Epp. lxii. and lxx. For an opponent of Cyprian in Lambese, see Cypr. Epp. xxxvi. and lix.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 16

Chapter 16.—26. Nicomedes of Segermi said: "My judgment is that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, because they can obtain no remission of sins among sinners outside."
27. The answer to which is: The judgment of the whole Catholic Church is that heretics, being already baptized with the baptism of Christ, although in heresy, should not be rebaptized on coming to the Church. For if there is no remission of sins among sinners, neither can sinners within the Church remit sins; and yet those who have been baptized by them are not rebaptized.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Segermi church province of Byzacium. A Nicomedes occurs in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., lxx.
* ↑ Conc. Carth, sec. 9.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 17

Chapter 17.—28. Monnulus of Girba said: "The truth of our mother, the Catholic Church, hath continued, and still continues among us, brethren, especially in the threefold nature of baptism, as our Lord says, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Since, therefore," he goes on to say, "we know clearly that heretics have neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost, they ought, on coming to our mother, the Church, to be truly regenerated and baptized, that the cancer which they had, and the wrath of condemnation, and the destructive energy of error may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly laver."
29. To this we answer, That all who are baptized with the baptism that is consecrated in the words of the gospel have the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost in the sacrament alone; but that in heart and in life neither do those have them who live an abandoned and accursed life within.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Girba, formerly Meninx (Lotophagitis), an island to the south-east of the Lesser Syrtis belonged to church province of Tripolis. For Bp. Monnulus, see Cypr. Ep. lvii.
* ↑ In baptismi trinitate. "Quia trina immersione expediebatur, in nomine Patris, Filii, et S. Spiritus."—Bishop Fell.
* ↑ Matt. xxviii. 19.
* ↑ Erroris offectura. Other readings are "offensa" and "effectura."
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—16. Novatus of Thamugadis said: "Though we know that all Scripture gives its testimony respecting saving baptism, yet we ought to express our belief that heretics and schismatics, coming to the Church with the semblance of having been baptized, ought to be baptized in the unfailing fountain; and that therefore, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of those most holy men, our colleagues, all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church ought to be baptized; and that, moreover, all that seemed to have received ordination should be admitted as simple laymen."
17. Novatus of Thamugadis has stated what he has done, but he has brought forward no proofs by which to show that he ought to have acted as he did. For he has made mention of the testimony of the Scriptures, and the decree of his colleagues, but he has not adduced out of them anything which we could consider.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Thamugadis (Thamogade), a town in Numidia, on the east side of Mount Aurasius. The whole opinion of Novatus (Conc. Carth. sec. 4), is omitted in the Mss.
* ↑ The words in Cyprian are, "secundum decretum collegarum nostrorum sanctissimæ memoriæ virorum." The decree referred to is one of the Council held by Agrippinus.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 19

Chapter 19.—32. Felix of Bagai said: "As when the blind leads the blind, both fall into the ditch, so when a heretic baptizes a heretic, both fall together into death."
33. This is true, but it does not follow that what he adds is true. "And therefore," he says, "the heretic must be baptized and brought to life, lest we who are alive should hold communion with the dead." Were they not dead who said, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die?" for they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Those then who were corrupted by their evil communications, and followed them, were not they likewise falling with them into the pit? And yet among them there were men to whom the apostle was writing as being already baptized; nor would they, therefore, if they were corrected, be baptized afresh. Does not the same apostle say, "To be carnally-minded is death?" and certainly the covetous, the deceivers, the robbers, in the midst of whom Cyprian himself was groaning, were carnally-minded. What then? Did the dead hurt him who was living in unity? Or who would say, that because such men had or gave the baptism of Christ, that it was therefore violated by their iniquities?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bagai, in church province of Numidia. See on I. 5. 7. Among the many of the name of Felix in the letters of Cyprian, lvi., lvii., lxvii; title 1, 6, lxx., lxxvi. bis, lxxvii., lxxix., title and text, it would be unsafe to decide a sure reference to distinguish between this and the other bishops of the same cognomen in this council.
* ↑ Matt. xv. 14.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 12.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 32.
* ↑ Rom. viii. 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/On Baptism/Book VI/Chapter 18

Chapter 18.—30. Secundinus of Cedias said: "Since our Lord Christ said, ‘He that is not with me is against me,’ and the Apostle John declares those who go out from the Church to be antichrists, without all doubt the enemies of Christ, and those who are called antichrists, cannot minister the grace of the baptism which gives salvation; and therefore my judgment is that those who take refuge in the Church from the snares of heresy should be baptized by us, who of His condescension are called the friends of God."
31. The answer to which is, That all are the opponents of Christ, to whom, on their saying, "Lord, have we not in Thy name done many wonderful things?" with all the rest that is there recorded, He shall at the last day answer, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity,"—all which kind of chaff is destined for the fire, if it persevere to the last in its wickedness, whether any part of it fly outside before its winnowing, or whether it seem to be within. If, therefore, those heretics who come to the Church are to be again baptized, that they may be baptized by the friends of God, are those covetous men, those robbers, murderers, the friends of God, or must those whom they have baptized be baptized afresh?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cedias (Cedia) has been identified, but without sufficient reason, with Quidias, or Quiza, in Mauritania Cæsariensis for both places have bishops at the Collation of 411. A Bp. Secundinus is mentioned in Cypr. Epp. lvii., lxvii., but whether these refer to him of Cedias or him of Carpos (ch. 31) cannot be decided.
* ↑ Matt. xii. 30.
* ↑ 1 John ii. 18.
* ↑ Conc. Carth. sec. 11.
* ↑ Matt. vii. 22, 23.
# National Bank v. County of Yankton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 129
National Bank v. County of Yankton
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Dakota Territory.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. S. W. Packard and Mr. James Grant for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. James Coleman for the defendant in error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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 Bank v. Hall

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 43
National Bank v. Hall
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted by Mr. William McFadon for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. J. A. Sleeper and Mr. J. K. Whiton for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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 Bank v. Dayton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
102 U.S. 59
National Bank v. Dayton
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Wyoming Territory.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah S. Wilson for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. William A. Maury for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN 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 Bank v. Grand Lodge

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
98 U.S. 123
National Bank v. Grand Lodge
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This is an action by the Second National Bank of Saint Louis, Missouri, against the Grand Lodge of Missouri of Free and Accepted Ancient Masons, to compel the payment of certain coupons formerly attached to bonds issued in June, 1869, by the Masonic Hall Association, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, in relation to which bonds the Grand Lodge, Oct. 14, 1869, adopted the following resolution:--
'Rosolved, that this Grand Lodge assume the payment of the two hundred thousand dollars bonds, issued by the Masonic Hall Association, provided that stock is issued to the Grand Lodge by said association to the amount of said assumption of payment by this Grand Lodge, as the said bonds are paid.'
The court below instructed the jury, that, independently of the question of the power of the Grand Lodge to pass the resolution, it was no foundation for the present action, and directed a verdict for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the direction of the court; and judgment having been entered thereon, the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Mr. John C. Orrick for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. John D. S. Dryden, contra.
MR. JUSTICE STRONG 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 Bank v. Graham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
100 U.S. 699
National Bank v. Graham
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George H. Williams for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. John Hays, contra.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE 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 V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 21

Chapter 21 [XIX.]—Thus Sinners are Born of Righteous Parents, Even as Wild Olives Spring from the Olive.
That, therefore, which is born of the lust of the flesh is really born of the world, and not of God; but it is born of God, when it is born again of water and of the Spirit. The guilt of this concupiscence, regeneration alone remits, even as natural generation contracts it. What, then, is generated must be regenerated, in order that likewise since it cannot be otherwise, what has been contracted may be remitted. It is, no doubt, very wonderful that what has been remitted in the parent should still be contracted in the offspring; but nevertheless such is the case. That this mysterious verity, which unbelievers neither see nor believe, might get some palpable evidence in its support, God in His providence has secured in the example of certain trees. For why should we not suppose that for this very purpose the wild olive springs from the olive? Is it not indeed credible that, in a thing which has been created for the use of mankind, the Creator provided and appointed what should afford an instructive example, applicable to the human race? It is a wonderful thing, then, how those who have been themselves delivered by grace from the bondage of sin, should still beget those who are tied and bound by the self-same chain, and who require the same process of loosening? Yes; and we admit the wonderful fact. But that the embryo of wild olive trees should latently exist in the germs of true olives, who would deem credible, if it were not proved true by experiment and observation? In the same manner, therefore, as a wild olive grows out of the seed of the wild olive, and from the seed of the true olive springs also nothing but a wild olive, notwithstanding the very great difference there is between the wild olive and the olive; so what is born in the flesh, either of a sinner or of a just man, is in both instances a sinner, notwithstanding the vast distinction which exists between the sinner and the righteous man. He that is begotten is no sinner as yet in act, and is still new from his birth; but in guilt he is old. Human from the Creator, he is a captive of the destroyer, and needs a redeemer. The difficulty, however, is how a state of captivity can possibly befall the offspring, when the parents have been themselves previously redeemed from it. Now it is no easy matter to unravel this intricate point, or to explain it in a set discourse; therefore unbelievers refuse to accept it as true; just as if in that other point about the wild olive and the olive, which we gave in illustration, any reason could be easily found, or explanation clearly given, why the self-same shoot should sprout out of so dissimilar a stock. The truth, however, of this can be discovered by any one who is willing to make the experiment. Let it then serve for a good example for suggesting belief of what admits not of ocular demonstration.