OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume X/Works/On the Duties of the Clergy/Book III/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.
Judith, after enduring many dangers for virtue’s sake, gained very many and great benefits.
82. See! Judith presents herself to thee as worthy of admiration. She approaches Holophernes, a man feared by the people, and surrounded by the victorious troops of the Assyrians. At first she makes an impression on him by the grace of her form and the beauty of her countenance. Then she entraps him by the refinement of her speech. Her first triumph was that she returned from the tent of the enemy with her purity unspotted. Her second, that she gained a victory over a man, and put to flight the people by her counsel.
83. The Persians were terrified at her daring. And so what is admired in the case of those two Pythagoreans deserves also in her case our admiration, for she trembled not at the danger of death, nor even at the danger her modesty was in, which is a matter of greater concern to good women. She feared not the blow of one scoundrel, nor even the weapons of a whole army. She, a woman, stood between the lines of the combatants—right amidst victorious arms—heedless of death. As one looks at her overwhelming danger, one would say she went out to die; as one looks at her faith, one says she went but out to fight.
84. Judith then followed the call of virtue, and as she follows that, she wins great benefits. It was virtuous to prevent the people of the Lord from giving themselves up to the heathen; to prevent them from betraying their native rites and mysteries, or from yielding up their consecrated virgins, their venerable widows, and modest matrons to barbarian impurity, or from ending the siege by a surrender. It was virtuous for her to be willing to encounter danger on behalf of all, so as to deliver all from danger.
85. How great must have been the power of her virtue, that she, a woman, should claim to give counsel on the chiefest matters and not leave it in the hands of the leaders of the people! How great, again, the power of her virtue to reckon for certain upon God to help her! How great her grace to find His help!

## Footnotes

* ↑ Judith xii. 20.
* ↑ Judith xv. 1 ff.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.
How the title of Saviour is given to Christ in one sense, and to men in another.
“Thou,” he says, “art our God, and we knew Thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour.” Although holy Scripture has already shown by many and clear tokens, who is here spoken of, yet it has most plainly pointed to the name of Christ by using the name of Saviour: for surely the Saviour is the same as Christ, as the angel says: “For to you is born this day a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.” For everybody knows that in Hebrew “Jesus” means “Saviour,” as the angel announced to the holy Virgin Mary, saying: “And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He it is that shall save His people from their sins.” And that you may not say that He is termed Saviour in the same sense as the title is given to others (“And the Lord raised up to them a Saviour, Othniel the Son of Kenaz,” and again, “the Lord raised up to them a Saviour, Ehud the son of Gera”), he added: “for He it is that shall save His people from their sins.” But it does not lie in the power of a man to redeem his people from the captivity of sin,—a thing which is only possible for Him of whom it is said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” For the others saved a people not their own but God’s, and not from their sins, but from their enemies.

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. Luke ii. 11.
* ↑ S. Matt. i. 21.
* ↑ Judges iii. 9.
* ↑ Ib. ver. 15.
* ↑ S. John i. 29.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 3

Chapter III.
He proves from the Epistle to the Romans the eternal Divinity of Christ.
And so as it is clear from the above testimony that God sent His own Son, and that He who was ever the Son of God became the Son of man, let us see whether the same Apostle gives any other testimony of the same sort elsewhere, that the truth which is already clear enough in itself, may be rendered still more clear by the light of a twofold testimony. So then the same Apostle says: “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” You see that the Apostle certainly did not use these words by chance or at random, as he repeated what he had already said once—for indeed there could not be found in him chance or want of consideration as the fulness of Divine counsel and speech had taken up its abode in him. What then does he say? “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” He says the same thing again and repeats it, saying, “God sent His own Son.” Oh renowned and excellent teacher! for knowing that in this is contained the whole mystery of the Catholic faith, in order that it might be believed that the Lord was born in the flesh and that the Son of God was sent into this world, again and again he makes the same proclamation saying, “God sent His own Son.” Nor need we wonder that he who was specially sent to preach the coming of God, made this announcement, since even before the law, the giver of the law himself proclaimed it, saying: “I beseech Thee, O Lord, provide another whom Thou mayest send,” or as it stands still more clearly in the Hebrew text: “I beseech Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send.” It is clear that the holy prophet,
feeling in himself a yearning for the whole human race, prayed as it were with the voices of all mankind to God the Father that He would send as speedily as possible Him who was to be sent by the Father for the redemption and salvation of all men, when he said, “I beseech Thee, O Lord, send whom Thou wilt send.” “God,” he therefore says, “sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Full well, when he says that He was sent in the flesh, does he exclude for Him sin of the flesh: for he says “God sent His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” in order that we may know that though the flesh was truly taken, yet there was no true sin, and that, as far as the body is concerned, we should understand that there was reality; as far as sin is concerned, only the likeness of sin. For though all flesh is sinful, yet He had flesh without sin, and had in Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, while He was in the flesh but He was free from what was truly sin, because He was without sin: and therefore he says: “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. viii. 3.
* ↑ Sacramentum.
* ↑ Exod. iv. 13. Where the LXX. has Δέομαι, κύριε, προχείρισαι δυνάμενον ἄλλον ὃν ἀποστελεῖς, which was followed by the old Latin. Jerome however rendered the passage correctly from the Hebrew: “obsecro, Domine, mitte quem misurus es.” Cf. the note on the Institutes, XII. xxxi.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book III/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.
When confessing the Divinity of Christ we ought not to pass over in silence the confession of the cross.
But let us see what else follows. In writing to the church of Corinth, he whom we spoke of above, the instructor of all the churches viz. Paul, speaks thus: “The Jews,” says he, “seek signs, and the Greeks ask for wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Gentiles foolishness: but to them that are saved, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” O most powerful teacher of the faith, who even in this passage, when teaching the Church thought it not enough to speak of Christ as God without adding that He was crucified on purpose that for the sake of the open and solid teaching of the faith he might proclaim Him, whom he called the crucified, to be the wisdom of God. He then employed no subtilty or circumlocution, nor did he when he preached the gospel of the Lord blush at the mention of the cross of Christ. And though it was a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles to hear of God as born, God in bodily form, God suffering, God crucified, yet he did not weaken the force of his pious utterance because of the wickedness of the offence of the Jews: nor did he lessen the vigour of his faith because of the unbelief and the foolishness of others: but openly, persistently, and boldly proclaimed that He, whom a mother had borne, whom men had slain, the spear had pierced, the cross had stretched—was “the power and wisdom of God, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness.” But still that which was to some a stumbling-block and foolishness, was to others the power and wisdom of God. For as the persons differed, so was there a difference of their thoughts: and what a man who was void of sound understanding, and incapable of true good, foolishly denied in unbelief, that a wise faith could feel in its inmost soul to be holy and life giving.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. i. 22–24.
* ↑ Mater (Petschenig): Caro (Gazæus).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV

Book IV.

## 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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 1

Chapter I.
That Christ was before the Incarnation God from everlasting.
As we have finished three books with the most certain and the most valuable witnesses, whose truth is substantiated not only by human but also by Divine evidences, they would abundantly suffice to prove our case by Divine authority, especially as the Divine authority of the case itself would be enough for this. But still as the whole mass of the sacred Scriptures is full of these evidences, and where there are so many witnesses, there are so many opinions to be urged—nay where Holy Scripture itself gives its witness so to speak with one Divine mouth—we have thought it well to add some others still, not from any need of confirmation, but because of the supply of material at our disposal; so that anything which might be unnecessary for purposes of defence, might be useful by way of ornamentation. Therefore since in the earlier books we proved the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ while He was in the flesh by the evidence not only of prophets and apostles, but of evangelists and angels as well, let us now show that He who was born in the flesh was God even before His Incarnation; that you may understand by the harmony and concord of the evidences from the sacred Scriptures, that you ought to believe that at His birth in the body He was both God and man, who before His birth was only God, and that He who after He had been brought forth by the Virgin in the body was God, was before His birth from the Virgin, God the Word. Learn then first of all from the Apostle the teacher of the whole world, that He who is without beginning, God, the Son of God, became the Son of man at the end of the world, i.e., in the fulness of the times. For he says: “But when the fulness of the times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Tell me then, before the Lord Jesus Christ was born of His mother Mary, had God a Son or had He not? You cannot deny that He had, for never yet was there either a son without a father, or a father without a son: because as a son is so called with reference to a father, so is a father so named with reference to a son.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gal. iv. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.
He returns to the prophecy of Isaiah.
“The labour,” says he, “of Egypt, and the merchandize of Ethiopia, and the Sabæans, men of stature shall come over to thee.” No one can doubt that in these names of different nations is signified the coming of the nations who were to believe. But you cannot deny that the nations have come over to Christ, for since the name of Christianity has arisen, they have come over to the Lord Jesus Christ not only in faith but actually in name. For since they are called what they really are, that which was the work of faith becomes the token by which they are named. “They shall,” he says, “come over to thee and shall be thine: they shall walk after thee bound with manacles.” As there are chains of coercion, so too there are chains of love, as the Lord says: “I drew them with chains of love.” For indeed great are these chains, and chains of ineffable love, for those who are bound with them rejoice in their fetters. Do you want to know whether this is true? Hear how the Apostle Paul exults and rejoices in his chains, when he says: “I therefore a prisoner in the Lord beseech you.” And again: “I beseech thee, whereas thou art such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also of Jesus Christ.” You see how he rejoiced in the dignity of his chains, by the example of which he actually stirred up others. But there can be no doubt that where there is single-minded love of the Lord, there is also single-minded delight in chains worn for the Lord’s sake: as it is written: “But the multitude of the believers was of one heart and one soul.” “And they shall worship thee,” he says, “and shall make supplication to thee: for in thee is God, and there is no God beside thee.” The Apostle clearly explains the prophet’s words, when he says that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” “In Thee then,” he says, “is God and there is no God beside thee.” When the prophet says “In Thee is God,” most admirably does he point not merely to Him who was visible, but to Him who was in what was visible, distinguishing the indweller from Him in whom He dwelt, by pointing out the two natures, not by denying the unity (of Person).

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hosea xi. 4.
* ↑ Eph. iv. 1.
* ↑ Philemon, ver. 9.
* ↑ Acts iv. 32.
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 19.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 2

Chapter II.
He infers from what he has said that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a Son who had pre-existed and was greater than she herself was.
You see then that when the Apostle says that God sent His Son, it was His own Son to use the actual words of the Apostle, “His own Son” that God sent. For, since He sent His own Son, it was not some one else’s Son that He sent, nor could He send Him at all if He who was sent had no existence. He sent then, he says, “His own Son, made of a woman.” Therefore because He sent Him, He sent one who existed: and because He sent His own, it certainly was not another’s but His own whom He sent. What then becomes of that argument of yours drawn from this world’s subtleties? No one ever yet gave birth to one who had already existed before. For had not the Lord a pre-existence before Mary? Was not the Son of God existent before the daughter of man? In a word did not God Himself exist before man—since certainly there is no man who is not from God. You see then that I do not merely say that Mary gave birth to one who had existed before her, not only, I say, one who had existed before her, but one who was the author of her being, and that in giving birth to her Creator, she became the mother of Him who gave her being: because it was as simple for God to bring about birth for Himself as for man and as easy for Him to arrange that He Himself should be born of mankind, as that a man should be born. For the power of God is not limited in regard to His own Person, as if what was allowable to Him in the case of all others, was not allowable in His own case, and as if He who in the Divine nature could do all things as God, was yet unable in His own Person to become God in man. Setting aside then and rejecting your foolish and feeble and dull arguments from earthly things, we ought merely to put credence in straightforward evidence and the naked truth, and to adapt our faith to those witnesses of God alone, whom God sent, and in whose person He Himself, so to speak, preached. For it is right to believe Him in a matter concerning knowledge of Himself, as everything that we know of Him comes from Him Himself, for God could not possibly be known of men, unless He Himself gave us the knowledge of Himself. And so it is right that we should believe everything of Him that we know, from whom comes everything that we know, for if we do not believe Him from whom our knowledge comes, the result will be that we shall know nothing at all, since we refuse to believe Him, through whom our knowledge comes.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 10

Chapter X.
He proves Christ’s Divinity from the blasphemy of Judaizing Jews as well as from the confession of converts to the faith of Christ.
But if you would like to have this proved to you rather from representatives of the Jews, consider the Jewish people when after their unhappy ignorance and wicked persecution they were converted, and acknowledged God here and there, and see whether they could not rightly say, “Thou art our God, and we knew Thee not.” But I will add something else, to prove it to you not only from those Jews who confess Him, but also from those who deny Him. For ask those Jews who still continue in their state of unbelief whether they know or believe in God. They will certainly confess that they both know and believe in Him. But on the other hand ask them whether they believe in the Son of God. They will at once deny and begin to blaspheme against Him. You see then that the Prophet said this of Him of whom the Jews have always been ignorant, and whom now they know not; and not of Him whom they imagine that they believe in and confess. And so full well can those, who after having been in ignorance come out of Judaism to the faith, say, “Thou art our God, and we knew Thee not.” For rightly do those, who after having been ignorant come to believe, say that they knew not Him in whom up to this time they have not believed, and whom they strive not to know. For it is clear that those who after their previous ignorance come to confess Him, say that formerly they knew Him not, whom up to this time they have ignorantly denied.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book IV/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.
He explains who are those in whose person the Prophet Isaiah says: “Thou art our God, and we knew Thee not.”
“Thou art then,” he says, “our God, and we knew Thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour.” Who do you imagine chiefly say this; and in whose mouths are such words specially suitable, Jews or Gentiles? If you say Jews: certainly the Jews did not know Christ, as it is said, “But Israel hath not known Me, My people have not considered;” and, “The world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” But if you say Gentiles, it is clear that the Gentile world was given over to idols, and knew not Christ, though it knew not the Father any more; but still if it has now come to know Him, it is only through Christ. You see then that whether the believing people belong to the Jews or the Gentiles, in either case they can truly say for themselves: “Thou art our God; and we knew Thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour.” For the Gentiles who formerly worshipped idols knew not God; and the Jews who denied the Lord, knew not the Son of God. And thus both truly say of Christ: “Thou art our God and we knew Thee not.” For those who did not believe in God were as ignorant of Him as those who denied the Son of God. If therefore Christ is to be believed in, as the truth declares, as the Deity asserts, as indeed Christ Himself declares, who is both, why are you miserably trying in your madness to interpose between God and Christ? Why do you seek to divide His body from the Son of God, and try to separate God from Himself? You are severing what is one, and dividing what is joined together. Believe the Word of God concerning God: for you cannot possibly make a better confession of God’s Divinity than by confessing with your voice that which God teaches about Himself. For you must know that, as the Prophet says, “the Lord Himself is God, who found out all the way of knowledge; who was seen upon earth and conversed with men.” He brought the light of faith into the world. He showed the light of salvation. “For God is the Lord, and hath given us light.” Then believe Him, and love Him, and confess Him. For since, as it is written, “Every knee shall bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father,” whether you will or no, you cannot deny that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father. For this is the crowning virtue of a perfect confession, to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is ever Lord and God in the glory of God the Father.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. i. 3.
* ↑ S. John i. 11.
* ↑ Baruch iii. 37, 38.
* ↑ Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 27.
* ↑ Phil. ii. 10, 11.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book III/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.
How the Apostle’s preaching was rejected by Jews and Gentiles because it confessed that the crucified Christ was God.
Tell me then, you heretic, you enemy of all men, but of yourself above all—to whom the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is an offence as with the Jews, and foolishness as with the Gentiles, you who reject the mysteries of true salvation, with the stumbling of the former, and are foolish with the stubbornness of the others, why was the preaching of the Apostle Paul foolishness to the pagans, and a stumbling-block to the Jews? Surely it would never have offended men, if he had taught that Christ was, as you maintain He is, a mere man? For who would think that His birth, passion, cross, and death were incredible or a difficulty? Or what would there have been novel or strange about the preaching of Paul, if he had said that a merely human Christ suffered that which human nature daily endures among men everywhere? But it was surely this that the foolishness of the Gentiles could not receive, and the unbelief of the Jews rejected; viz., that the Apostle declared that Christ whom they, like you, fancied to be a mere man, was God. This it certainly was which the thoughts of these wicked men rejected, which the ears of the faithless could not endure; viz., that the
birth of God should be proclaimed in the man Jesus Christ, that the passion of God should be asserted, and the cross of God proclaimed. This it was which was a difficulty: this was what was incredible; for that was incredible to the hearing of men, which had never been heard of as happening to the Divine nature. And so you are quite secure, with such an announcement and teaching as yours, that your preaching will never be either foolishness to the Gentiles or a stumbling-block to the Jews. You will never be crucified with Peter by Jews and Gentiles, nor stoned with James, nor beheaded with Paul. For there is nothing in your preaching to offend them. You maintain that a mere man was born, a mere man suffered. You need not be afraid of their troubling you with persecution, for you are helping them by your preaching.