OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
346 U.S. 464
National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Argued: Oct. 12, 1953. --- Decided: Dec 7, 1953
Mr. Dominic L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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 IV/Letters/The Historia Acephala
## Contents

* Introduction
* The Historia Acephala
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Letters/Letters/Personal Letters/Chapter 20

Memorandum.—On other Letters ascribed to Athanasius.
The above Collection of Letters is complete upon the principle stated in the Introduction (supr., p. 495). But one or two fragments have been excluded which may be specified here.
(1.) Fragment of a letter ‘to Eupsychius;’ probably the Nicene Father referred to Ep. Æg. 8, (cf. D.C.B. ii. 299 (4)). The Greek is given by Montf. in Ath. Opp. 1. p. 1293 (Latin, ib. p. 1287). It was cited in Conc. Nic. II. Act vi., but although it has affinities with Orat. ii. 8 (‘high-priestly dress’), it has the appearance of a polemical argument against Monophysitism. (Migne xxvi. 1245.)
(2.) ‘To Epiphanius’ (Migne xxvi. 1257). Against certain, who contentiously follow the Jews in celebrating Easter. (From ‘Chron. Pasch. pag. 4 postremæ editionis.’)
(3.) Fragments of an ‘Epistola ad Antiochenos’ (not our ‘Tomus,’ supr., p. 483): also a polemic against Monophysitism, and almost Nestorian in doctrine: ‘Jesus Christus…non est Ipse’ [i.e. ante sæcula et in sæcula, Heb. xiii. 8], and ‘duas personas’ asserted of Christ. From Facundus, who says the letter was written against the Apollinarians, and who gives it on the authority of Peter, Ath.’s successor (Migne xxvi. 1259).
(4.) ‘Ad Eusebium, Lucinianum, et socios.’ (In Migne xxvi. 1325 sq., from Mai, Script. Vet. 11. 583 sq.) A minute fragment. Cf. supr., Letter 55, notes 1, 7.
(5.) Spurious letters (in Migne xxviii.) to Jovian, to Castor (2), to a ‘bishop of the Persians,’ and to and from popes Liberius, Marcus, Julius and Felix (made up out of late and spurious decretals, &c., &c.).
# Nelson v. O'Neil/Dissent Marshall

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Harlan
* Dissenting Opinions Brennan Marshall
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 622
Nelson v. O'Neil
Argued: March 24, 1971. --- Decided: June 1, 1971
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, dissenting.
This case dramatically illustrates the need for the adoption of new rules regulating the use of joint trials. Here there is no question that Runnels' alleged statement to the police was not admissible under state law against O'Neil. But as my Brother BRENNAN points out and as this Court recognized in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), there is a very real danger that the statement was in fact used against O'Neil.
Those that argue for the use of joint trials contend that joint trials, although often resulting in prejudice to recognized rights of one or more of the codefendants, are justified because of the saving of time, money, and energy that result. But, as this case shows, much of the supposed saving is lost through protracted litigation that results from the impingement or near impingement on a codefendant's rights of confrontation and equal protection.
The American Bar Association's Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial, suggested that if a defendant in a joint trial moves for a severance because the prosecutor intends to introduce an out-of-court statement by his codefendant that is inadmissible against the moving defendant, then the trial court should require the prosecutor) to elect between a joint trial in which the statement is excluded; a joint trial at which the statement is admitted but the portion that refers to the moving defendant is effectively deleted; and severance. I believe that the adoption of such a practice is the only way in which the recurring problems of confrontation and equal protection can be eliminated.

## 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
# Nelson v. Sears Roebuck & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
312 U.S. 359
Nelson v. Sears Roebuck & Company
Argued: Jan. 13, 14, 1941. --- Decided: Feb 17, 1941
See 312 U.S. 715, 61 S.Ct. 803, 85 L.Ed. --.
Mr. John E. Mulroney, of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.
Mr. Joseph G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent.
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
# Mummers in Mufti/Chapter 29

p. 321

### CHAPTER XXIX

Miss Marshall and I were married in Nashua, New Hampshire, this afternoon.
Arnold Bellsmith.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Arian History
## Contents

* Introduction
* Arian History
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Arian History/Arian History
## Contents

* Arian Persecution Under Constantine
* First Arian Persecution under Constantius
* Restoration of the Catholics on the Council of Sardica
* Second Arian Persecution under Constantius
* Persecution and Lapse of Liberius
* Persecution and Lapse of Hosius
* Persecution at Alexandria
* Persecution in Egypt
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 8

8. Disproof of It.
With such a man the slanderer thought that I had been on terms of friendship, or rather he did not think so, but like an enemy invented an incredible fiction: for he knows full well that he has lied. I would that, whoever he is, he were present here, that I might put the question to him on the word of Truth itself (for whatever we speak as in the presence of God, we Christians consider as an oath); I say, that I might ask him this question, which of us rejoiced most in the well-being of the departed Constans? who prayed for him most earnestly? The facts of the foregoing charge prove this; indeed it is plain to every one how the case stands. But although he himself knows full well, that no one who was so disposed towards the departed Constans, and who truly loved him, could be a friend to his enemy, I fear that being possessed with other feelings towards him than I was, he has falsely attributed to me those sentiments of hatred which were entertained by himself.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Vid. Chrys. in Eph. Nicene Lib., Series I. vol. xiii. p. 58.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Apology to the Emperor/Apologia Ad Constantium/Chapter 9

9. Athanasius could not write to one who did not even know him.
For myself, I am so surprised at the enormity of the thing, that I am quite uncertain what I ought to say in my defence. I can only declare, that I condemn myself to die ten thousand deaths, if even the least suspicion attaches to me in this matter. And to you, Sire, as a lover of the truth, I confidently make my appeal. I beseech you, as I said before, investigate this affair, and especially with the testimony of those who were once sent by him as ambassadors to you. These are the Bishops Sarvatius and Maximus and the rest, with Clementius and Valens. Enquire of them, I beseech you, whether they brought letters to me. If they did, this would give me occasion to write to him. But if he did not write to me, if he did not even know me, how could I write to one with whom I had no acquaintance? Ask them whether, when I saw Clementius and his fellows, and spoke of your brother of blessed memory, I did not, in the language of Scripture, wet my garments with tears, when I remembered his kindness of disposition and his Christian spirit. Learn of them how anxious I was, on hearing of the cruelty of the beast, and finding that Valens and his company had come by way of Libya, lest he should attempt a passage also, and like a robber murder those who held in love and memory the departed Prince, among whom I account myself second to none.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sarbatius, or Servatius, and Maximus occur in the lists of Gallic subscriptions [supr. p. 127]. The former is supposed to be S. Servatius or Servatio of Tungri, concerning whom at Ariminum, vid. Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 59. vid. also Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc ii. 5. where however the Bened. Ed. prefers to read Aravatius, a Bishop, as he considers, of the fifth century.
* ↑ Ps. vi. 6.
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 5

* RULE 4:35. TRIAL BY JURY OR BY THE COURT
* RULE 4:36. ASSIGNMENT FOR TRIAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
* RULE 4:37. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
* RULE 4:38. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS
* RULE 4:38A. CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF MASS TORTS
* RULE 4:39. VERDICTS
* RULE 4:40. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
* RULE 4:41. REFERENCES
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 6

* RULE 6:1. SCOPE, COGNIZABILITY AND VENUE
* RULE 6:2. PROCESS
* RULE 6:3. PLEADINGS, MOTIONS AND PARTIES
* RULE 6:4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL
* RULE 6:5. TRIALS
* RULE 6:6. JUDGMENT
* RULE 6:7. PROCESS TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS
* RULE 6:8. SPECIAL ACTIONS: ATTACHMENT, CAPIAS AND REPLEVIN; RETURN OF ORDERS FOR POSSESSION
* RULE 6:9. PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION OF STATUTORY PENALTIES AND FOR CONFISCATION OF CHATTELS
* RULE 6:10. REPRESENTATION IN SUMMARY ACTIONS BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT
* RULE 6:11. SMALL CLAIMS SECTION; PRACTICE
* RULE 6:12. GENERAL PROVISIONS; RULES OF ADMINISTRATION
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 5

* CHAPTER I. ACTIONS COGNIZABLE; SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF RULES; GENERAL PROVISIONS; PROCESS; VENUE; PLEADINGS; PROCESS; APPEARANCES
* CHAPTER II. SPECIFIC CIVIL ACTIONS
* CHAPTER III. FAMILIES IN CRISIS
* CHAPTER IV. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ACTIONS
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 10

* RULE 4:100. CIVIL DOCKET
* RULE 4:101. CIVIL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DOCKET
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 2

* RULE 4:5. GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING
* RULE 4:5A. CASE TRACKS
* RULE 4:5B. CASE MANAGEMENT; CONFERENCES
* RULE 4:6. DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS: WHEN AND HOW PRESENTED; BY PLEADING OR MOTION; MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS
* RULE 4:7. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM
* RULE 4:8. THIRD PARTY PRACTICE
* RULE 4:9. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 7

* RULE 4:51. NE EXEAT; CAPIAS
* RULE 4:52. INJUNCTIONS
* RULE 4:53. RECEIVERS AND LIQUIDATING TRUSTEES
* RULE 4:54. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS
* RULE 4:55. DISCHARGE OF INSOLVENT DEBTORS
* RULE 4:56. ACTION TO APPROVE A PLAN OF BANK REORGANIZATION
* RULE 4:57. DEPOSITS IN COURT; DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF BOND; WITHDRAWALS
* RULE 4:58. OFFER OF JUDGMENT
* RULE 4:59. PROCESS TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS
* RULE 4:60. ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION
* RULE 4:61. REPLEVIN
* RULE 4:62. QUIET TITLE
* RULE 4:63. WASTE; PARTITION; ACCOUNT; DOWER; CURTESY
* RULE 4:63A. MOTION AND HEARING ON FILING OF NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
* RULE 4:64. FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES, CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION LIENS AND TAX SALE CERTIFICATES
* RULE 4:65. SALES OF PROPERTY; IN GENERAL
* RULE 4:66. [RESERVED]
* RULE 4:67. SUMMARY ACTIONS
* RULE 4:68. ACTIONS FOR ESCHEAT UNDER N.J.S. 2A:37-11 TO 28, INCLUSIVE [DELETED]
* RULE 4:69. ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS
* RULE 4:70. SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR COLLECTION OF STATUTORY PENALTIES
* RULE 4:71. APPEALS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES
* RULE 4:72. ACTIONS FOR CHANGE OF NAME
* RULE 4:73. CONDEMNATION; APPEALS FROM ASSESSMENTS
* RULE 4:74. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, LAW DIVISION
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 9

* RULE 4:80. APPLICATION TO SURROGATE'S COURT FOR PROBATE OR ADMINISTRATION
* RULE 4:81. APPLICATION TO SURROGATE'S COURT FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF MINOR
* RULE 4:82. MATTERS IN WHICH THE SURROGATE'S COURT MAY NOT ACT
* RULE 4:83. PROBATE ACTIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION, PROBATE PART: GENERAL PROVISIONS
* RULE 4:84. COMPLAINTS IN CASES IN WHICH SURROGATE'S COURT NOT ABLE TO ACT
* RULE 4:85. REVIEW BY SUPERIOR COURT OF ACTIONS BY SURROGATE'S COURT: GENERAL PROVISIONS
* RULE 4:86. ACTION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON OR FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR
* RULE 4:87. ACTIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
* RULE 4:88. COMMISSIONS AND ATTORNEY'S FEE
* RULE 4:89. DISTRIBUTION
* RULE 4:90. SALE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ESCHEAT TO PAY DEBTS
* RULE 4:91. INSOLVENT ESTATES
* RULE 4:92. PROCEEDINGS TO APPLY TOWARD DECEDENT'S DEBTS MONEYS RECEIVED ON FORECLOSURE AND PARTITION SALES
* RULE 4:93. DECLARATION OF DEATH
* RULE 4:94. SALE OR MORTGAGE OF MINOR'S AND MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON'S LANDS
* RULE 4:95. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
* RULE 4:96. MISCELLANEOUS
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 3

* RULE 4:10. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY
* RULE 4:11. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL OR FOR USE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
* RULE 4:12. PERSONS BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN; AUTHORITY
* RULE 4:13. STIPULATIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY PROCEDURE
* RULE 4:14. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
* RULE 4:15. DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS
* RULE 4:16. USE OF DEPOSITIONS; OBJECTIONS; EFFECT; ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES
* RULE 4:17. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
* RULE 4:18. DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PROPERTY; COPIES OF DOCUMENTS
* RULE 4:19. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
* RULE 4:20. IMPARTIAL MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY [DELETED]
* RULE 4:21. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION [DELETED]
* RULE 4:21A. ARBITRATION OF CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS
* RULE 4:22. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
* RULE 4:23. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS
* RULE 4:24. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
* RULE 4:25. PRETRIAL CONFERENCES
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 4

* RULE 4:26. PARTIES PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
* RULE 4:27. JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND REMEDIES
* RULE 4:28. JOINDER OF PARTIES
* RULE 4:29. JOINDER OF MULTIPLE PARTIES
* RULE 4:30. MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
* RULE 4:30A. ENTIRE CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE
* RULE 4:31. INTERPLEADER
* RULE 4:32. CLASS ACTIONS
* RULE 4:33. INTERVENTION
* RULE 4:34. SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
# New Jersey Rules of Court/Part 4/Chapter 6

* RULE 4:42. JUDGMENT; ORDERS; DAMAGES; COSTS
* RULE 4:43. DEFAULT
* RULE 4:44. PROCEEDINGS TO APPROVE SETTLEMENTS
* RULE 4:44A. PROCEEDINGS TO APPROVE TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS
* RULE 4:45. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION
* RULE 4:46. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
* RULE 4:47. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
* RULE 4:48. SATISFACTION OR CANCELLATION OF JUDGMENT
* RULE 4:48A. JUDGMENTS FOR MINORS AND MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSONS
* RULE 4:49. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS
* RULE 4:50. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—The Order of Love.
28. Now he is a man of just and holy life who forms an unprejudiced estimate of things, and keeps his affections also under strict control, so that he neither loves what he ought not to love, nor fails to love what he ought to love, nor loves that more which ought to be loved less, nor loves that equally which ought to be loved either less or more, nor loves that less or more which ought to be loved equally. No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved as a man for God’s sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake. And if God is to be loved more than any man, each man ought to love God more than himself. Likewise we ought to love another man better than our own body, because all things are to be loved in reference to God, and another man can have fellowship with us in the enjoyment of God, whereas our body cannot; for the body only lives through the soul, and it is by the soul that we enjoy God.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 28

Chapter 28.—How We are to Decide Whom to Aid.
29. Further, all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you. For, suppose that you had a great deal of some commodity, and felt bound to give it away to somebody who had none, and that it could not be given to more than one person; if two persons presented themselves, neither of whom had either from need or relationship a greater claim upon you than the other, you could do nothing fairer than choose by lot to which you would give what could not be given to both. Just so among men: since you cannot consult for the good of them all, you must take the matter as decided for you by a sort of lot, according as each man happens for the time being to be more closely connected with you.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 3

Chapter 3.—Some Things are for Use, Some for Enjoyment.
3. There are some things, then, which are to be enjoyed, others which are to be used, others still which enjoy and use. Those things which are objects of enjoyment make us happy. Those things which are objects of use assist, and (so to speak) support us in our efforts after happiness, so that we can attain the things that make us happy and rest in them. We ourselves, again, who enjoy and use these things, being placed among both kinds of objects, if we set ourselves to enjoy those which we ought to use, are hindered in our course, and sometimes even led away from it; so that, getting entangled in the love of lower gratifications, we lag behind in, or even altogether turn back from, the pursuit of the real and proper objects of enjoyment.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 25

Chapter 25.—A Man May Love Something More Than His Body, But Does Not Therefore Hate His Body.
26. Man, therefore, ought to be taught the due measure of loving, that is, in what measure he may love himself so as to be of service to himself. For that he does love himself, and does desire to do good to himself, nobody but a fool would doubt. He is to be taught, too, in what measure to love his body, so as to care for it wisely and within due limits.  For it is equally manifest that he loves his body also, and desires to keep it safe and sound. And yet a man may have something that he loves better than the safety and soundness of his body. For many have been found voluntarily to suffer both pains and amputations of some of their limbs that they might obtain other objects which they valued more highly. But no one is to be told not to desire the safety and health of his body because there is something he desires more. For the miser, though he loves money, buys bread for himself,—that is, he gives away money that he is very fond of and desires to heap up,—but it is because he values more highly the bodily health which the bread sustains. It is superfluous to argue longer on a point so very plain, but this is just what the error of wicked men often compels us to do.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 29

Chapter 29.—We are to Desire and Endeavor that All Men May Love God.
30. Now of all who can with us enjoy God, we love partly those to whom we render services, partly those who render services to us, partly those who both help us in our need and in turn are helped by us, partly those upon whom we confer no advantage and from whom we look for none. We ought to desire, however, that they should all join with us in loving God, and all the assistance that we either give them or accept from them should tend to that one end. For in the theatres, dens of iniquity though they be, if a man is fond of a particular actor, and enjoys his art as a great or even as the very greatest good, he is fond of all who join with him in admiration of his favorite, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of him whom they admire in common; and the more fervent he is in his admiration, the more he works in every way he can to secure new admirers for him, and the more anxious he becomes to show him to others; and if he find any one comparatively indifferent, he does all he can to excite his interest by urging his favorite’s merits: if, however, he meet with any one who opposes him, he is exceedingly displeased by such a man’s contempt of his favorite, and strives in every way he can to remove it. Now, if this be so, what does it become us to do who live in the fellowship of the love of God, the enjoyment of whom is true happiness of life, to whom all who love Him owe both their own existence and the love they bear Him, concerning whom we have no fear that any one who comes to know Him will be disappointed in Him, and who desires our love, not for any gain to Himself, but that those who love Him may obtain an eternal reward, even Himself whom they love? And hence it is that we love even our enemies. For we do not fear them, seeing they cannot take away from us what we love; but we pity them rather, because the more they hate us the more are they separated from Him whom we love. For if they would turn to Him, they must of necessity love Him as the supreme good, and love us too as partakers with them in so great a blessing.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book I/Chapter 23

Chapter 23.—Man Needs No Injunction to Love Himself and His Own Body.
22. Those things which are objects of use are not all, however, to be loved, but those only which are either united with us in a common relation to God, such as a man or an angel, or are so related to us as to need the goodness of God through our instrumentality, such as the body.  For assuredly the martyrs did not love the wickedness of their persecutors, although they used it to attain the favor of God.  As, then, there are four kinds of things that are to be loved,—first, that which is above us; second, ourselves; third, that which is on a level with us; fourth, that which is beneath us,—no precepts need be given about the second and fourth of these. For, however far a man may fall away from the truth, he still continues to love himself, and to love his own body. The soul which flies away from the unchangeable Light, the Ruler of all things, does so that it may rule over itself and over its own body; and so it cannot but love both itself and its own body.
23. Morever, it thinks it has attained something very great if it is able to lord it over its companions, that is, other men. For it is inherent in the sinful soul to desire above all things, and to claim as due to itself, that which is properly due to God only. Now such love of itself is more correctly called hate. For it is not just that it should desire what is beneath it to be obedient to it while itself will not obey its own superior; and most justly has it been said, “He who loveth iniquity hateth his own soul.” And accordingly the soul becomes weak, and endures much suffering about the mortal body. For, of course, it must love the body, and be grieved at its corruption; and the immortality and incorruptibility of the body spring out of the health of the soul. Now the health of the soul is to cling steadfastly to the better part, that is, to the unchangeable God.  But when it aspires to lord it even over those who are by nature its equals,—that is, its fellow-men,—this is a reach of arrogance utterly intolerable.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. x. 5(LXX.).