OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/The Twelve Books/Book XI/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.
Several testimonies against vainglory.
And so the Apostle warns us: “Be not desirous of vainglory.” And the Lord, rebuking the Pharisees, says, “How can ye believe, who receive glory from one another, and seek not the glory which comes from God alone?” Of these too the blessed David speaks with a threat: “For God hath scattered the bones of them that please men.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. v. 26.
* ↑ S. John v. 44.
* ↑ Ps. lii. (liii.) 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII

VII. First Conference of Abbot Serenus.
On Inconstancy of Mind, and Spiritual Wickedness.

## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 10

Chapter X.
The answer how unclean spirits are united with human souls.
Serenus: It is no wonder that spirit can be imperceptibly joined with spirit, and exercise an unseen power of persuasion toward what is allowed to it. For there is between them (just as between men) some sort of similarity and kinship of substance, since the description which is given of the nature of the soul, applies equally well to their substance. But it is impossible for spirits to be implanted in spirits inwardly or united with them in such a way that one can hold the other; for this is the true prerogative of Deity alone, which is the only simple and incorporeal nature.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.
The answer how it is that unclean spirits can lord it over those possessed.
Serenus: What you speak of as taking place in the case of demoniacs is not opposed to our assertion; viz., that those possessed by unclean spirits say and do what they do not want to, and are forced to utter what they know not; for it is perfectly clear that they are not subject to the entrance of the spirits all in the same way: for some are affected by them in such a way as to have not the slightest conception of what they do and say, while others know and afterwards recollect it. But we must not imagine that this is done by the infusion of the spirit in such a way that it penetrates into the actual substance of the soul and, being as it were united to it and somehow clothed with it, utters words and sayings through the mouth of the sufferer. For we ought not to believe that this can possibly be done by them. For we can clearly see that this results from no loss of the soul but from weakness of the body, when the unclean spirit seizes on those members in which the vigour of the soul resides, and laying on them an enormous and intolerable weight overwhelms it with foulest darkness, and interferes with its intellectual powers: as we see sometimes happen also from the fault of wine and fever or excessive cold, and other indispositions affecting men from without; and it was this which the devil was forbidden to attempt to inflict on the blessed Job, though he had received power over his flesh, when the Lord commanded him saying: “Lo, I give him into thine hands: only preserve his soul,” i.e., do not weaken the seat of his soul and make him mad, and overpower the understanding and wisdom of what remains, by smothering the ruling power in his heart with your weight.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Job ii. 6 (LXX.).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.
The answer what devils can and what they cannot do in regard to the thoughts of men.
Serenus: Nobody doubts that unclean spirits can influence the character of our thoughts, but this is by affecting them from without by sensible influences, i.e., either from our inclinations or from our words, and those likings to which they see that we are especially disposed. But they cannot possibly come near to those which have not yet come forth from the inmost recesses of the soul. And the thoughts too, which they suggest, whether they are actually or in a kind of way embraced, are discovered by them not from the nature of the soul itself, i.e., that inner inclination which lies concealed so to speak in the very marrow, but from motions and signs given by the outward man, as for example, when they suggest gluttony, if they have seen a monk raising his eyes anxiously to the window or to the sun, or inquiring eagerly what o’clock it is, they know that he has admitted the feeling of greediness. If when they suggest fornication they find him calmly submitting to the attack of lust, or see him perturbed in body, or at any rate not groaning as he ought under the wantonness of an impure suggestion, they know that the dart of lust is already fixed in his very soul. If they stir up incitements to grief, or anger, or rage, they can tell whether they have taken root in the heart by the movements of the body, and visible disturbances, when, for instance, they have noticed him either groaning silently, or panting with indignation or changing colour; and so they cunningly discover the fault to which he is given over. For they know that every one of us is enticed in a regular way by that one, to the incitement of which they see, by a sort of assenting motion of the body, that he has yielded his consent and agreement. And it is no wonder that this is discovered by those powers of the air, when we see that even clever men can often discover the state of the inner man from his mien and look and external bearing. How much more surely then can this be discovered by those who as being of a spiritual nature are certainly much more subtle and cleverer than men.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
On the chastity of Abbot Serenus.
As we desire to introduce to earnest minds the Abbot Serenus, a man of the greatest holiness and continence, and one who answers like a mirror to his name, whom we admired above all others with peculiar veneration, we think that we only carry out our desire by the attempt to insert his conferences in our book. To this man beyond all other virtues, which shone forth not merely in his actions and manners, but by God’s grace in his very look as well, there was granted by a special blessing the gift of continence, so that he never felt himself disturbed even by natural incitements even in sleep. And how it was that by the assistance of God’s grace he attained such wondrous purity of the flesh, as it seems beyond the conditions of human nature, I think that I ought first of all to explain.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Very little is known of Serenus but what is here told. Cf. the Vitæ Patrum, c. l.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.
An objection whether unclean spirits can be present in or united with the souls of those whom they have filled.
Germanus: To this idea we think that what we see happen in the case of those possessed is sufficiently opposed, when they say and do what they know not under the influence of the spirits. How then are we to refuse to believe that their souls are not united to those spirits, when we see them made their instruments, and (forsaking their natural condition) yielding to their movements and moods, in such a way that they give expression no longer to their own words and actions and wishes, but to those of the demons?
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.
How spirit cannot be penetrated by spirit, and how God alone is incorporeal.
For even if spirit is mingled with this crass and solid matter; viz., flesh (as very easily happens), should we therefore believe that it can be united to the soul, which is in like manner spirit, in such a way as to make it also receptive in the same way of its own nature: a thing which is possible to the Trinity alone, which is so capable of pervading every intellectual nature, that it cannot only embrace and surround it but even insert itself into it and, incorporeal though it is, be infused into a body? For though we maintain that some spiritual natures exist, such as angels, archangels and the other powers, and indeed our own souls and the thin air, yet we ought certainly not to consider them incorporeal. For they have in their own fashion a body in which they exist, though it is much finer than our bodies are, in accordance with the Apostle’s words when he says: “And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial:” and again: “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body;” from which it is clearly gathered that there is nothing incorporeal but God alone, and therefore it is only by Him that all spiritual and intellectual substances can be pervaded, because He alone is whole and everywhere and in all things, in such a way as to behold and see the thoughts of men and their inner movements and all the recesses of the soul; since it was of Him alone that the blessed Apostle spoke when he said: “For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and there is no creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and open to His eyes.” And the blessed David says: “Who fashioneth their hearts one by one;” and again: “For He knoweth the secrets of the heart;” and Job too: “Thou who alone knowest the hearts of men.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 40, 44.
* ↑ Heb. iv. 12, 13.
* ↑ Ps. xxxii. (xxxiii.) 15; xliii. (xliv.) 22.
* ↑ 2 Chron. vi. 30.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.
An objection, as to how we ought to believe that devils see into the thoughts of men.
Germanus: In this way, which you describe, those spirits cannot possibly see into our thoughts. But we think it utterly absurd to hold such an opinion, when Scripture says: “If the spirit of him that hath power ascend upon thee;” and again: “When the devil had put it into the heart of Simon Iscariot to betray the Lord.” How then can we believe that our thoughts are not open to them, when we feel that for the most part they spring up and are nursed by their suggestions and instigation?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eccl. x. 4.
* ↑ S. John xiii. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference VII/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.
An illustration showing how we are taught that unclean spirits know the thoughts of men.
For just as some thieves are in the habit of examining the concealed treasures of the
men in those houses which they mean to rob, and in the dark shades of night sprinkle with careful hands little grains of sand and discover the hidden treasures which they cannot see by the tinkling sound with which they answer to the fall of the sand, and so arrive at certain knowledge of each thing and metal, which betrays itself in a way by the voice elicited from it; so these too, in order to explore the treasures of our heart, scatter over us the sand of certain evil suggestions, and when they see some bodily affection arise corresponding to their character, they recognize as if by a sort of tinkling sound proceeding from the inmost recesses, what it is that is stored up in the secret chamber of the inner man.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LVI

Canon LVI.
Presbyters may not enter and take their seats in the bema before the entrance of the Bishop:  but they must enter with the Bishop, unless he be at home sick, or absent.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LVI.
A presbyter shall not enter the bema before the bishop, nor sit down.
It is difficult to translate this canon without giving a false idea of its meaning. It does not determine the order of dignity in an ecclesiastical procession, but something entirely different, viz., it provides that when the bishop enters the sanctuary he should not be alone and walk into a place already occupied, but that he should have with him, as a guard of honour, the clergy. Whether these should walk before or after him would be a mere matter of local custom, the rule juniores priores did not universally prevail.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCV., can. viij.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LVIII

Canon LVIII.
The Oblation must not be made by bishops or presbyters in any private houses.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LVIII.
Neither a bishop nor a presbyter shall make the offering in private houses.
Van Espen.
By “the oblation” here is intended the oblation of the unbloody sacrifice according to the mind of the Greek interpreters. Zonaras says: “The faithful can pray to God and be intent upon their prayers everywhere, whether in the house, in the field, or in any place they possess: but to offer or perform the oblation must by no means be done except in a church and at an altar.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LII

Canon LII.
Marriages and birthday feasts are not to be celebrated in Lent.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LII.
Marriage shall not be celebrated in Lent, nor birthdays.
Hefele.
By “birthday feasts” in this canon the natalitia martyrum is not to be understood as in the preceding canon, but the birthday feasts of princes. This, as well as the preceding rule, was renewed in the sixth century by Bishop Martin of Bracara, now Braga, in Portugal.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LIII

Canon LIII.
Christians, when they attend weddings, must not join in wanton dances, but modestly dine or breakfast, as is becoming to Christians.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LIII.
It is unsuitable to dance or leap at weddings.
Van Espen.
This canon does not call for explanation but for reflexion, and greatly it is to be desired that it should be observed by Christians, and that through like improprieties, wedding-days, which should be days of holy joy and blessing, be not turned, even to the bride and groom themselves, into days of cursing. Moreover the Synod of Trent admonishes bishops (Sess. xxiv., De Reform. Mat., cap. x.) to take care that at weddings there be only that which is modest and proper.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LIV

Canon LIV.
Members of the priesthood and of the clergy must not witness the plays at weddings or banquets; but, before the players enter, they must rise and depart.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LIV.
Priests and clerics should leave before the play.
Aristenus.
Christians are admonished to feast modestly when they go to weddings and not to dance nor βαλλίζειν , that is to clap their hands and make a noise with them. For this is unworthy of the Christian standing. But consecrated persons must not see the play at weddings, but before the thymelici begin, they must go out.
Compare with this Canons XXIV. and LI., of the Synod in Trullo.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars III., De Consecrat. Dist. v., can. xxxvij.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LVII

Canon LVII.
Bishops must not be appointed in villages or country districts, but visitors; and those who have been already appointed must do nothing without the consent of the bishop of the city. Presbyters, in like manner, must do nothing without the consent of the bishop.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LVII.
A bishop shall not be established in a village or in the country, but a periodeutes. But should one be appointed he shall not perform any function without the bishop of the city.
On the whole subject of Chorepiscopi see the Excursus to Canon VIII. of Nice, in this volume.
Hefele.
Compare the eighth and tenth canons of the Synod of Antioch of 341, the thirteenth of the Synod of Ancyra, and the second clause of the sixth canon of the Synod of Sardica. The above canon orders that from henceforth, in the place of the rural bishops, priests of higher rank shall act as visitors of the country dioceses and country clergy. Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore, the Greek commentators, Van Espen, Remi Ceillier, Neander, and others thus interpret this canon; but Herbst, in the Tübingen Review, translates the word (περιοδευταί ) not visitors but physicians—physicians of the soul,—and for this he appeals to passages from the Fathers of the Church collected by Suicer in his Thesaurus.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXXX., c. v.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LI

Canon LI.
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord’s days.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LI.
Commemorations of Martyrs shall only be held on Lord’s days and Sabbaths.
By this canon all Saints-days are forbidden to be observed in Lent on the days on which they fall, but must be transferred to a Sabbath or else to the Sunday, when they can be kept with the festival service of the full liturgy and not with the penitential incompleteness of the Mass of the Presanctified.  Compare canon xlix. of this Synod, and canon lij. of the Quinisext Council.
Balsamon.
The whole of Lent is a time of grief for our sins, and the memories of the Saints are not kept except on the Sabbaths.
Van Espen remarks how in old calendars there are but few Saints-days in those months in which Lent ordinarily falls, and that the multitude of days now kept by the Roman ordo are mostly of modern introduction.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LIX

Canon LIX.
No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LIX.
Psalms of private origin, or books uncanonical are not to be sung in temples; but the canonical writings of the old and new testaments.
Hefele.
Several heretics, for instance Bardesanes, Paul of Samosata, and Apollinaris—had composed psalms, i.e., Church hymns. The Synod of Laodicea forbade the use of any composed by private individuals, namely all unauthorized Church hymns. Lüft remarks that by this it was not intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual Christians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, came into use in the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished.
This idea was greatly exaggerated by some Gallicans in the seventeenth century who wished that all the Antiphons, etc., should be in the words of Holy Scripture. A learned but somewhat distorted account of this whole matter will be found in the Institutions Liturgiques by Dom Prosper Guéranger, tome ij., and a shorter but more temperate account in Dr. Batiffol’s Histoire du Bréviaire Romain, Chap. vj.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon LV

Canon LV.
Neither members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen, may club together for drinking entertainments.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon LV.
Neither a layman nor a cleric shall celebrate a club feast.
These meals, the expenses of which were defrayed by a number clubbing together and sharing the cost, were called “symbola” by Isidore, and by Melinus and Crabbe “comissalia,” although the more ordinary form is “commensalia” or “comessalia.” Cf. Ducange Gloss., s.v. Commensalia and Confertum.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XLIV., c. x. (Isidore’s version), and c. xij., (Martin of Braga’s version).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book VIII/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.—The Statue of the Empress; what happened there; the Teaching of John; Convocation of another Synod against John; his Deposition.
Not long after these occurrences the silver statue of the empress, which is still to be seen to the south of the church opposite the grand council-chamber, was placed upon a column of porphyry on a high platform,
and the event was celebrated there with applause and popular spectacles of dances and mimes, as was then customary on the erection of the statues of the emperors. In a public discourse to the people John charged that these proceedings reflected dishonor on the Church. This remark recalled former grievances to the recollection of the empress, and irritated her so exceedingly at the insult that she determined to convene another council. He did not yield, but added fuel to her indignation by still more openly declaiming against her in the church; and it was at this period that he pronounced the memorable discourse commencing with the words, “Herodias is again enraged; again she dances; again she seeks to have the head of John in a basin.”
Several bishops arrived soon after at Constantinople, and amongst them were Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, bishop of Berea. The festival of our Lord’s Nativity was then at hand, and the emperor, instead of repairing to the church as usual, sent to acquaint John that he could not hold communion with him until he had cleared himself of the charges. John spiritedly replied that he was ready to prove his innocence; and this so intimidated his accusers that they did not dare to follow up the charges. The judges decided that, having been once deposed, he ought not to be admitted to a second trial. But they called on John to defend himself on this point only, that after he had been deposed, he had sat on the episcopal throne before a synod had reinstated him. In his defense he appealed to the decision of the bishops who had, subsequently to the council of “The Oak,” held communion with him. The judges waived this argument, under the plea that those who had held communion with John were inferior in point of number to those who had deposed him, and that a canon was in force by which he stood condemned. Under this pretext they therefore deposed him, although the law in question had been enacted by heretics; for the Arians, after having taken advantage of various calumnies to expel Athanasius from the church of Alexandria, enacted this law from the apprehension of a change in public affairs, for they struggled to have the decisions against him remain uninvestigated.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Soc. vi. 18; Pallad. Dialog. 9–12; Chrys. Ep. ad Inn. ibid. 2.