OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 12

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.
For the Pious, read Pius.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 14

On Bk. V. chap. 1, § 27 (note 26, continued).
See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 17

On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.
Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott’s translation of this fragment of Serapion’s epistle in his Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note), and am glad to note that his rendering of the words καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ is the same as my own. His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to adopt.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.
How Abraham, David, and other saints went beyond the requirement of the law.
For so we read that Abraham went beyond the requirement of the law which was afterwards to be given, when after his victory over the four kings, he would not touch any of the spoils of Sodom, which were fairly due to him as the conqueror, and which indeed the king himself, whose spoils he had rescued, offered him; and with an oath by the Divine name he exclaimed: “I lift up my hand to the Lord Most High, who made heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoe’s latchet of all that is thine.” So we know that David went beyond the requirement of the law, as, though Moses commanded that vengeance should be taken on enemies, he not only did not do this, but actually embraced his persecutors with love, and piously entreated the Lord for them, and wept bitterly and avenged them when they were slain. So we are sure that Elijah and Jeremiah were not under the law, as though they might without blame have taken advantage of lawful matrimony, yet they preferred to remain virgins. So we read that Elisha and others of the same mode of life went beyond the commands of Moses, as of them the Apostle speaks as follows: “They went about in sheepskins and in goatskins, they were oppressed, afflicted, in want, of whom the world was not worthy, they wandered about in deserts and in mountains, and in caves and in dens of the earth.” What shall I say of the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab, of whom we are told that, when at the Lord’s bidding the prophet Jeremiah offered them wine, they replied: “We drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying: Ye shall drink no wine, ye and your sons forever: and ye shall build no house, nor sow any seed, nor plant vineyards nor possess them: but ye shall dwell in tents all your days”? Wherefore also they were permitted to hear from the same prophet these words: “Thus saith the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel: there shall not fail a man from the stock of Jonadab the son of Rechab to stand in My sight all the days;” as all of them were not satisfied with merely offering tithes of their possessions, but actually refused property, and offered the rather to God themselves and their souls, for which no redemption can be made by man, as the Lord testifies in the gospel: “For what shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Gen. xiv. 22, 23.
* ↑ Cf. Exod. xxi. 24.
* ↑ Heb. xi. 37, 38.
* ↑ Jer. xxxv. 6, 7, 19.
* ↑ S. Matt. xvi. 25.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 6

Chapter VI.
How the grace of the gospel supports the weak so that they can obtain pardon, as it secures to the perfect the kingdom of God.
And as the word of the gospel raises those that are strong to sublime and lofty heights, so it suffers not the weak to be dragged down to the depths, for it secures to the perfect the fulness of blessing, and brings to those who are overcome through weakness pardon. For the law placed those who fulfilled its commands in a sort of middle state between what they deserved in either case, severing them from the condemnation due to transgressors, as it also kept them away from the glory of the perfect. But how wretched and miserable this is, you can see from comparing the state of this present life, in which it is considered a very poor thing for a man to sweat and labour only to avoid being regarded as guilty among good men, not also to be esteemed rich and honourable and renowned.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.
How it lies in our own power to choose whether to remain under the grace of the gospel or under the terror of the law.
Wherefore it lies today in our own power whether we choose to live under the grace of the gospel or under the terrors of the law: for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions, for either the grace of Christ welcomes those who go beyond the law, or else the law keeps its hold over the weaker ones as those who are its debtors and within its clutches. For one who is guilty as regards the precepts of the law will never be able to attain to the perfection of the gospel, even though he idly boasts that he is a Christian and freed by the Lord’s grace: for we must not only regard as still under the law the man who refuses to fulfil what the law enjoins, but the man as well who is satisfied with the mere observance of what the law commands, and who never brings forth fruits worthy of his vocation and the grace of Christ, where it is not said: “Thou shalt offer to the Lord thy God thy tithes and firstfruits;” but: “Go and sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and come follow Me;” where, owing to the grandeur of perfection, to the request of the disciple there is not granted even the very short space of an hour in which to bury his father, as the offices of human charity are outweighed by the virtue of Divine love.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Exod. xxii. 29; S. Matt. xix. 21.
* ↑ Cf. S. Matt. viii. 21, sq.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 31

Chapter XXXI.
A question, how we ought to understand the Apostle’s words: “Sin shall not have dominion over you.”
Germanus: Because this saying of the Apostle, which promises freedom from care not only to monks but to all Christians in general, cannot lead us wrong, it seems to us somewhat obscure. For whereas he maintains that all those who believe the gospel are at liberty and free from the yoke and dominion of sin, how is it that the dominion of sin holds vigorous sway over almost all the baptized, in accordance with the Lord’s words, where He says: “Every one that doeth sin is the servant of sin”?

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. John viii. 34.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 32

Chapter XXXII.
The answer on the difference between grace and the commands of the law.
Theonas: Your inquiry once more raises before us a question of no small extent. The explanation of which though I know that it cannot be taught to or understood by the inexperienced, yet as far as I can, I will try to set forth in words and briefly to explain, if only your minds will follow up and act upon what we say. For whatever is known not by teaching but by experience, just as it cannot be taught by one without experience, so neither can it be grasped or taken in by the mind of one who has not laid the foundation by a similar study and training. And therefore I think it necessary for us first to inquire somewhat carefully what is the purpose or meaning of the law, and what is the system and perfection of grace, that from this we may succeed in understanding the dominion of sin and how to drive it out. And so the law chiefly commands men to seek the bonds of wedlock, saying: “Blessed is he that hath seed in Sion and an household in Jerusalem;” and: “Cursed is the barren that hath not borne.” On the other hand grace invites us to the purity of perpetual chastity, and the undefiled state of blessed virginity, saying: “Blessed are the barren, and the breasts which have not given suck;” and: “he that hateth not father and mother and wife cannot be my disciple;” and this of the Apostle: “It remaineth that they that have wives be as though they had them not.” The law says: “Thou shalt not delay to offer thy tithes and firstfruits;” grace says: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast and give to the poor:” The law forbids not retaliation for wrongs and vengeance for injuries, saying “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Grace would have our patience proved by the injuries and blows offered to us being redoubled, and bids us be ready to endure twice as much damage; saying: “If a man strike thee on one cheek, offer him the other also; and to him who will contend with thee at the law and take away thy coat, give him thy cloak also.” The one decrees that we should hate our enemies, the other that we should love them so that it holds that even for them we ought always to pray to God.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Isa. xxxi. 9 (lxx.).
* ↑ Cf. Job xxiv. 21.
* ↑ S. Luke xxiii. 29; xiv. 26; 1 Cor. vii. 29.
* ↑ Exod. xxii. 29; S. Matt. xix. 21.
* ↑ Exod. xxi. 24; S. Matt. v. 39, 40.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 34

Chapter XXXIV.
How a man can be shown to be under grace.
Whoever then strives to reach the perfection of evangelical teaching, this man living under grace is not oppressed by the dominion of sin, for to be under grace is to do those things which grace commands. But whoever will not submit himself to the complete requirements of evangelical perfection, must not remain ignorant that, although he seems to be baptized and to be a monk, yet he is not under grace, but is still shackled by the chains of the law, and weighed down by the burden of sin. For it is the aim of Him, who by the
grace of adoption accepts all those by whom He has been received, not to destroy but to build upon, not to abolish but to fulfil the Mosaic requirements. But some knowing nothing about this, and disregarding the splendid counsels and exhortations of Christ, are so emancipated by the carelessness of a freedom too hastily assumed, that they not only fail to carry out the commands of Christ as if they were too hard, but actually scorn as antiquated, the commands given to them as beginners and children by the law of Moses, saying in this dangerous freedom of theirs that which the Apostle execrates: “We have sinned, because we are not under the law but under grace.” He then who is neither under grace, because he has never climbed the heights of the Lord’s teaching, nor under the law, because he has not accepted even those small commands of the law, this man, ground down beneath a twofold rule of sin, fancies that he has received the grace of Christ, simply and solely for this, that by this dangerous liberty of his he may make himself none of His, and falls into that state, which the Apostle Peter warns us to avoid, saying: “Act as free, and not having your liberty as a cloak of wickedness.” The blessed Apostle Paul also says: “For ye, brethren, were called to liberty,” i.e., that ye might be free from the dominion of sin, “only use not your liberty for an occasion of the flesh,” i.e., believe that the doing away with the commands of the law is a licence to sin. But this liberty, the Apostle Paul teaches us is nowhere but where the Lord is dwelling, for he says: “The Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.” Wherefore I know not whether I could express and explain the meaning of the blessed Apostle, as those know how, who have experience; one thing I do know, that it is very clearly revealed even without anyone’s explanation to all those who have perfectly acquired πρακτικὴ, i.e., practical training. For they will need no effort to understand in discussion what they have already learnt by practice.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. vi. 15.
* ↑ 1 Pet. ii. 16; Gal. v. 13.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 17.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 35

Chapter XXXV.
A question, why sometimes when we are fasting more strictly than usual, we are troubled by carnal desires more keenly than usual.
Germanus: You have very clearly explained a most difficult question, and one which, as we think, is unknown to many. Wherefore we pray you to add this also for our good, and carefully to expound why sometimes when we are fasting more strictly than usual, and are exhausted and worn out, severer bodily struggles are excited. For often on waking from sleep, when we have discovered that we have been defiled we are so dejected in heart that we do not even venture faithfully to rise even for prayer.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cum deprehenderimus nos sordidi liquoris contagius pertulisse.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part III/Conference XXI/Chapter 36

Chapter XXXVI.
The answer, telling that this question should be reserved for a future Conference.
Theonas: Your zeal indeed, whereby you desire to reach the way of perfection, not for a moment only but fully and perfectly, urges us to continue this discussion unweariedly. For you are anxiously inquiring not about external chastity or outward circumcision, but about that which is secret, as you know that complete perfection does not consist in this visible continence of the flesh which can be attained either by constraint, or by hypocrisy even by unbelievers, but in that voluntary and invisible purity of heart, which the blessed Apostle describes as follows: “For he is not a Jew which is so outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God,” who alone searches the secrets of the heart. But because it is not possible for your wish to be fully satisfied (as the short space of the night that is left is not enough for the investigation of this most difficult question,) I think it well to postpone it for a while. For these matters, as they should be propounded by us quietly and with an heart entirely free from all bustling thoughts, so should they be received into your minds; for just as the inquiry ought to be undertaken for the sake of our common purity, so they cannot be learnt or acquired by one who is without the gift of uprightness. For we do not ask what arguments of empty words, but what the inward faith of the conscience and the greater force of truth can persuade. And therefore with regard to the knowledge and teaching of this purification nothing can be brought forward except by one who has had experience of it, nor can anything be committed except to one who is a most eager and very earnest lover of the truth itself, who does not hope to attain it by asking questions with mere vain words, but by striving with all his might and main, with no wish for useless chattering but with the desire to purify himself internally.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. ii. 28, 29.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book VI/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.
He shows further that this teaching is destructive of the confession of the Trinity.
But still even if your obstinacy and dishonesty are not restrained by this faith of the Creed, are you not, I ask you, overwhelmed by an appeal to reason and the light of truth? Tell me, I ask, whoever you are, O you heretic—At least there is a Trinity, in which we believe, and which we confess: Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Of the Glory of the Father and the Spirit there is no question. You are slandering the Son, because you say that it was not the same Person who was born of Mary, as He who was begotten of God the Father. Tell me then: if you do not deny that the only Son of God was begotten of God, whom do you make out that He is who was born of Mary? You say “a mere man,” according to that which He Himself said: “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh.” But He cannot be called a mere man who was begotten not after the law of human creation alone. “For that which is conceived in her,” said the angel, “is of the Holy Ghost.” And this even you dare not deny, though you deny almost all the mysteries of salvation. Since then He was born of the Holy Ghost, and cannot be termed a mere man, as He was conceived by the inspiration of God, if it is not He who, as the Apostle says, “emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant,” and “the word was made flesh,” and “humbled Himself by becoming obedient unto death,” and “who for our sakes, though He was rich, became poor,” tell me, then, who He is, who was born of the Holy Ghost, and was conceived by the overshadowing of God? You say that He is certainly a different Person. Then there are two Persons; viz., the one, who was begotten of God the Father in heaven; and the other who was conceived of Mary, by the inspiration of God. And thus there is a fourth Person whom you introduce, and whom (though in words you term Him a mere man) you assert actually not to have been a mere man, since you allow (not however as you ought) that He is to be honoured, worshipped, and adored. Since then the Son of God who was begotten of the Father is certainly to be worshipped, and He who was conceived of Mary by the Holy Ghost is to
be worshipped, you make two Persons to be honoured and venerated, whom you so far sever from each other, as to venerate each with an honour special and peculiar to Him. And thus you see that by denying and by severing from Himself the Son of God, you destroy, as far as you can, the whole mystery of the divinity. For while you are endeavouring to introduce a fourth Person into the Trinity, you see that you have utterly denied the whole Trinity.

## Footnotes

* ↑ S. John iii. 6.
* ↑ S. Matt. i. 20.
* ↑ Phil. ii. 7, 8; S. John i. 14; 2 Cor. viii. 9.
* ↑ Cf. Augustine, Tr. 78 in Joan.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book VI/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.
He shows from what has been said that we do not mean that God was mortal or of flesh before the worlds, although Christ, who is God from eternity and was made man in time, is but one Person.
But perhaps you will say: If I admit that the same Person was in the end of time born of a Virgin, who was begotten before all things of God the Father, I shall imply that before the beginning of the world God was in the flesh, as I say that He was afterwards man, who was always God: and so I shall say that that man who was afterwards born, had always existed. I do not want you to be confused by this blind ignorance, and these obscure misconceptions, so as to fancy that I am maintaining that the manhood which was born of Mary had existed before the beginning of things, or asserting that God was always in a bodily form before the commencement of the world. I do not say, I repeat it, I do not say that the manhood was in God before it was born: but that God was afterwards born in the manhood. For that flesh which was born of the flesh of the Virgin had not always existed: but God who always was, came in the flesh of man of the flesh of the Virgin. For “the Word was made flesh,” and did not manifest flesh together with Himself: but in the glory of Divinity joined Himself to human flesh. For tell me when or where the Word was made flesh, or where He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant: or where He became poor, though He was rich? Where but in the holy womb of the Virgin, where at His Incarnation, the Word of God is said to have been made flesh, at His birth He truly took the form of a servant; and when He is in human nature nailed to the Cross, He became poor, and was made poor in His sufferings in the flesh, though He was rich in His Divine glory? Otherwise if, as you say, at some later period the Deity entered into Him as into one of the Prophets and saints, then “the Word was made flesh” in those men also in whom He vouchsafed to dwell: then in each one of them He emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant. And thus there is nothing new or unique in Christ. Neither His conception, nor His birth nor His death had anything special or miraculous about it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hominem.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Against Nestorius/Book VI/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.
Those who are under an error in one point of the Catholic religion, lose the whole faith, and all the value of the faith.
And since this is so, in denying that Jesus Christ the Son of God is one, you have denied everything. For the scheme of the mysteries of the Church and the Catholic faith is such that one who denies one portion of the Sacred Mystery cannot confess the other. For all parts of it are so bound up and united together that one cannot stand without the other and if a man denies one point out of the whole number, it is of no use for him to believe all the others. And so if you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, the result is that in denying the Son of God you deny the Father also. For as St. John says: “He who hath not the Son hath not the Father; but he who hath the Son hath the Father also.” By denying then Him who was begotten you deny also Him who begat. By denying also that the Son of God was born in the flesh, you are led also to deny that He was born in the Spirit, for it is the same Person who was born in the flesh who was first born in the Spirit. If you do not believe that He was born in the flesh, the result is that you do not believe that He suffered. If you do not believe in His Passion what remains for you but to deny His resurrection? For faith in one raised springs out of faith in one dead. Nor can the reference to the resurrection keep its place, unless belief in His death has first preceded it. By denying then his Passion and Death, you deny also his resurrection from hell. It follows certainly that you deny His ascension also, for there cannot be the ascension without the resurrection. And if we do not believe that He rose again, we cannot either believe that He ascended: as the Apostle says, “For He that descended is the same also that ascended.” Thus, so far as you are concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ did not rise from hell, nor ascend into heaven, nor sit at the right hand of God the Father, nor will He come at that day of judgment which we look for, nor will He judge the quick and the dead.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 John ii. 23.
* ↑ ab inferis.
* ↑ Eph. iv. 10.