THE SEVEN BOOKS OF JOHN CASSIAN

                                    ON THE

                  INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST NESTORIUS.


                                   PREFACE.

                                 ------------


     WHEN I had now finished the books of Spiritual Conferences, the merit of 
which consists in the thoughts expressed rather than in the language used 
(since my rude utterances were unequal to the deep thoughts of the saints), I 
had contemplated and almost determined on taking refuge in silence (as I was 
ashamed of having exposed my ignorance) that I might as far as possible make 
up for my audacity in speaking by modestly holding my tongue for the future.  
But you have overcome my determination and purpose by your commendable 
earnestness and most urgent affection, my dear Leo, my esteemed and highly 
regarded friend, ornament that you are of the Roman Church and sacred 
ministry,[1] as you drag me forth from the obscurity of the silence on which I 
had determined, into a public court which I may well dread, and oblige me to 
undertake new labours while I am still blushing for my past ones.  And though 
I was unequal to lesser tasks, you compel me to match myself with greater 
ones.  For even in those trifling works, in which of our small ability we 
offered some small offering to the Lord, I would never have attempted to do or 
apply myself to anything unless I had been led to it by Episcopal command.  
And so through you there has been an increase of importance both of our 
subject and of our language.  For whereas before we spoke, when bidden, of the 
business of the Lord, you now require us to speak of the actual Incarnation 
and glory of the Lord Himself.  And so we who were formerly brought as it were 
into the holy place of the temple by priestly hands, now penetrate under your 
guidance and protection, so to speak, into the holy of holies.  Great is the 
honour but most perilous the undertaking,[2] because the prize of the holy 
sanctuary and the divine reward can only be secured by a victory over our foe.  
And so your require and charge us to raise our feeble hands against a fresh 
heresy and a new enemy of the faith,[3] and that we should take our stand, so 
to speak, against the awful open-mouthed gapings of the deadly serpent, that 
at my summons the power of prophecy and the divine force of the gospel word 
may destroy the dragon now rising up with sinuous course against the Churches 
of God.  I obey your entreaty: I yield to your command: for I had rather trust 
in my own matters to you than to myself, especially as the love of Jesus 
Christ my Lord commands me this as well as you, for He Himself gives me this 
charge in your person.  For in this matter you are more concerned than I am, 
as your judgment stands in peril rather than my duty.  For in my case, whether 
I prove equal to what you have commanded me or no, the very fact of my 
obedience and humility will be in some degree an excuse for me; if indeed I 
might not urge that there is more value in my obedience, if there is less that 
I can do.  For we easily comply with any one's orders, out of our abundance: 
but his is a great and wonderful work, whose desires exceed his powers.  Yours 
then is this work and business, and yours it is to be ashamed of it.  Pray and 
intreat that your choice may not be discredited by my clumsiness; and that, 
supposing we do not answer the expectations which you have formed of us, you 
may not seem to have been wrong in commanding out of an ill-considered 
determination, while I was right in yielding, owing to the claims of 
obedience.

-----

Notes for the Preface

     1. Mi Leo, veneranda ac suscipienda caritas mea, Romanae ecclesiae ac 
divini ministerii decus (Petschenig).  Gennadius (De Vir. Illus. c. lxi.) 
tells us of Cassian, that "finally at the request of Leo, then archdeacon of 
Rome and afterwards Bishop, he wrote seven books against Nestorius on the 
Incarnation of the Lord, and thus brought to a close his literary labours at 
Marseilles, as well as his life, in the reign of Theodosius and Valentinian."  
The date of the work must have been A.D. 430, shortly before the Council of 
Ephesus.
     2. Professio (Petschenig); Progressio (Gazaeus).
     3. Nestorius had been consecrated Bishop of Constantinople in A.D. 428, 
and very shortly afterwards joined Anastasius in the denial that God could be 
born of a woman, and developed the heresy associated with his name.


                             --------------------

                        THE SEVEN BOOKS OF JOHN CASSIAN

                                    ON THE

                  INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST NESTORIUS.

                             --------------------


                                    BOOK I.


CHAPTER I. 

               The heresy compared to the hydra of the poets.[1]

    THE tales of poets tell us that of old the hydra when its heads were cut 
off gained by its injuries, and sprang up more abundantly: so that owing to a 
miracle of a strange and unheard-of kind, its loss proved a kind of gain to 
the monster which was thus increased by death, while that extraordinary 
fecundity doubled everything which the knife of the executioner cut off, until 
the man who was eagerly seeking its destruction, toiling and sweating, and 
finding his efforts so often baffled by useless labours, added to the courage 
of battle the arts of craft, and by the application of fire, as they tell us, 
cut off with a fiery sword the manifold offspring of that monstrous body; and 
so when the inward parts were thus burnt, by cauterizing the rebellious 
throbbings of that ghastly fecundity, at length those prodigious births were 
brought to an end.  Thus also heresies in the churches bear some likeness to 
that hydra which the poets' imagination invented; for they too hiss against us 
with deadly tongues; and they too cast forth their deadly poison, and spring 
up again when their heads are cut off.  But because the medicine should not be 
wanting when the disease revives, and because the remedy should be the more 
speedy as the sickness is the more dangerous, our Lord God is able to bring to 
pass that that may be a truth in the church's warfare, which Gentile fictions 
imagined of the death of the hydra, and that the fiery sword of the Holy 
Spirit may cauterize the inward parts of that most dangerous birth, in the new 
heresy to be put down, so that at last its monstrous fecundity may cease to 
answer to its dying throbs.

----

Note for Chapter 1

     1. Petschenig's text gives no titles to the chapters in this work.  They 
are added here from the text of Gazaeus.


CHAPTER II. 

Description of the different heretical monsters which spring from one another.

     FOR these shoots of an unnatural seed are no new thing in the churches. 
The harvest of the Lord's field has always had to put up with burrs and 
briars, and in it the shoots of choking tares have constantly sprung up.  For 
hence have arisen the Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, as well as Eunomians and 
Macedonians, and Photinians and Apollinarians, and all the other tares of the 
churches, and thistles which destroy the fruits of good faith.  And of these 
the earliest was Ebion,[1] who while over-anxious about asserting our Lord's 
humanity[2] robbed it of its union with Divinity.  But after him the schism of 
Sabellius burst forth out of reaction against the above mentioned heresy, and 
as he declared that there was no distinction between the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost, he impiously confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and 
failed to distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity.  Next after him whom we 
have mentioned there followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity, which, in 
order to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred Persons, declared that 
there were different and dissimilar substances in the Trinity.  But after him 
in time though like him in wickedness came Eunomius, who, though allowing that 
the Persons of the Holy Trinity were divine and like[3] each other, yet 
insisted that they were separate from each other; and so while admitting their 
likeness denied their equality.  Macedonius also blaspheming against the Holy 
Ghost with unpardonable wickedness, while allowing that the Father and the Son 
were of one substance, termed the Holy Ghost a creature, and so sinned against 
the entire Divinity, because no injury can be offered to anything in the 
Trinity without affecting the entire Trinity.  But Photinus, though allowing 
that Jesus who was born of the Virgin was God, yet erred in his notion that 
His Godhead began with the beginning of His manhood;[4] while Apollinaris 
through inaccurately conceiving the union of God and man wrongly believed that 
He was without a human soul.  For it is as bad an error to add to our Lord 
Jesus Christ what does not belong to Him as to rob Him of that which is His. 
For where He is spoken of otherwise than as He is--even though it seems to add 
to His glory--yet it is an offence.  And so one after another out of reaction 
against heresies they give rise to heresies, and all teach things different 
from each other, but equally opposed to the faith.  And just lately also, 
i.e., in our own days, we saw a most poisonous heresy spring up from the 
greatest city of the Belgae,[5] and though there was no doubt about its error, 
yet there was a doubt about its name, because it arose with a fresh head from 
the old stock of the Ebionites, and so it is still a question whether it ought 
to be called old or new.  For it was new as far as its upholders were 
concerned; but old in the character of its errors.  Indeed it blasphemously 
taught that our Lord Jesus Christ was born as a mere man, and maintained that 
the fact that He afterwards obtained the glory and power of the Godhead 
resulted from His human worth and not from His Divine nature; and by this it 
taught that He hd not always His Divinity by the right of His very own Divine 
nature which belonged to Him, but that He obtained it afterwards as a reward 
for His labours and sufferings.  Whereas then it blasphemously taught that our 
Lord and Saviour was not God at His birth, but was subsequently taken into the 
Godhead, it was indeed bordering on this heresy which has now sprung up, and 
is as it were its first cousin and akin to it, and, harmonizing both with 
Ebionism and these new ones, came in point of time between them, and was 
linked with them both in point of wickedness.  And although there are some 
others like those which we have mentioned yet it would take too long to 
describe them all.  Nor have we now undertaken to enumerate those that are 
dead and gone, but to refute those which are novel.

-----

Notes for Chapter 2

     1. The earliest writer to refer to an "Ebion" as the supposed founder of 
the Ebionites is Tertullian (Praescriptio c. xxxiii.).  He is followed in this 
by Epiphanius (I. xxx.); Rufinus (In Symb. Apost. c. xxxix.), and others; but 
the existence of such a person is more than doubtful, and the name is now 
generally believed to have been derived from the Hebrew "Ebhion"=poor.
     2. Incarnatio.
     3. Cassian's statement here is scarcely accurate, as Eunomius is best 
known from his bold assertion that the Son was unlike (anomoion) to the 
Father.
     4. Photinus, the pupil of Marcellus of Ancyra, appears to have taught a 
form of Sabellianism, teaching that Christ Himself, the Son of God, had not 
existed from all eternity but only from the time when He became the Son of God 
and Christ; viz., at the Incarnation.
     5. Et maxima Belgarum urbe (Petschenig).  Gazaeus edits: Et maxime 
Beligarum urbe.  The city must be Treves, and the allusion is to the heresy of 
Leporius, which was an outcome of Pelagianism.  Leporius was apparently a 
native of Treves, who propagated Pelagian views in Gaul, ascribing his virtues 
to his own free will and his own strength; and going to far greater lengths 
than his master in that he connected this doctrine of human sufficiency with 
heretical views on the Incarnation; thus combining Pelagianism with what was 
practically Nestorianism, teaching that Jesus was a mere man who had used His 
free will so well as to have lived without sin, and had only been made Christ 
in virtue of His Baptism, whereby the Divine and Human were associated so as 
virtually to make two Christs.  He taught further that the only object of His 
coming into the world was to exhibit to mankind an example of virtue; and that 
if they chose to profit by it they also might be without sin.  For these 
errors he was rebuked by Cassian and others in Gaul, and on his refusal to 
abandon them was formally censured by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and 
Cylinnius (Bishop of Frejus?).  He then left Gaul and came to Africa, where he 
was convinced by Augustine of the erroneous character of his teaching, and 
under his influence signed a recantation, which was perhaps drawn up by 
Augustine himself, and from which Cassian quotes below (c. v.).  This 
recantation was read in the Church of Carthage, and was subscribed by four 
bishops as witnesses (including Augustine).  It was then sent to the Gallican 
Bishops accompanied by a letter from the four attesting bishops (Epp. August. 
no. ccxxix.) commending the treatment which Leporius had previously received, 
but recommending him once more to their favour as having retracted his errors.  
See further Fleury H. E. Book XXIV. c. xlix. and Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, Art. Leporius.


CHAPTER III. 

               He describes the pestilent error of the Pelagian.

    AT any rate we think that this fact ought not to be omitted, which was 
special and peculiar to that heresy mentioned above which sprang from the 
error of Pelagius; viz., that in saying that Jesus Christ had lived as a mere 
man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men 
could also be without sin if they liked.  For they imagined that it followed 
that if Jesus Christ being a mere man was without sin, all men also could 
without the help of God be whatever He as a mere man without participating in 
the Godhead, could be.  And so they made out that there was no difference 
between any man and our Lord Jesus Christ, as any man could by effort and 
striving obtain just the same as Christ had obtained by His earnestness and 
efforts.  Whence it resulted that they broke out into a more grievous and 
unnatural madness, and said that our Lord Jesus Christ had come into this 
world not to bring redemption to mankind but to give an example of good works, 
to wit, that men, by following His teaching, and by walking along the same 
path of virtue, might arrive at the same reward of virtue: thus destroying, as 
far as they could, all the good of His sacred advent and all the grace of 
Divine redemption, as they declared that men could by their own lives obtain 
just that which God had wrought by dying for man's salvation.  They added as 
well that our Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God 
after His Resurrection, tracing the former to the mystery of His anointing, 
the latter to the merits of His Passion.  Whence this new author[1] of a 
heresy that is not new, who declares that our Lord and Saviour was born a mere 
man, observes that he says exactly the same thing which the Pelagians said 
before him, and allows that it follows from his error that as he asserts that 
our Lord Jesus Christ lived as a mere man entirely without sin, so he must 
maintain in his blasphemy that all men can of themselves be without sin, nor 
would he admit that our Lord's redemption was a thing needful for His example, 
since men can (as they say) reach the heavenly kingdom by their own exertions. 
Nor is there any doubt about this, as the thing itself shows us.  For hence it 
comes that he encourages the complaints of the Pelagians by his intervention, 
and introduces their case into his writings, because he cleverly or (to speak 
more truly) cunningly patronizes them and by his wicked liking for them 
recommends their mischievous teaching which is akin to his own, for he is well 
aware that he is of the same opinion and of the same spirit, and therefore is 
distressed that a heresy akin to his own has been cast out of the church, as 
he knows that it is entirely allied to his own in wickedness.

-----

Note for Chapter 3

     1. Nestorius.


CHAPTER IV. 

          Leporius together with some others recants his Pelagianism.

    BUT still as those who were the outcome of this stock of pestilent thorns 
have already by the Divine help and goodness been healed, we should also now 
pray to our Lord God that as in some points that older heresy and this new one 
are akin to each other, He would grant a like happy ending to those which had 
a like bad beginning.  For Leporius, then a monk, now a presbyter, who 
followed the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius, as we said above, 
and was among the earliest and greatest champions of the aforesaid heresy in 
Gaul, was admonished by us and corrected by God, and so nobly condemned his 
former erroneous persuasion that his amendment was almost as much a matter for 
congratulation as is the unimpaired faith of many.  For it is the best thing 
never to fall into error: the second best thing to make a good repudiation of 
it.  He then coming to himself confessed his mistake with grief but without 
shame not only in Africa, where he was then and is now,[1] but also gave to 
all the cities of Gaul penitent letters containing his confession and grief; 
in order that his return to the faith might be made known where his deviation 
from it had been first published, and that those who had formerly been 
witnesses of his error might also afterwards be witnesses of his amendment.

-----

Note for Chapter 4

     1. The after history of Leporius appears to have been this.  Having come 
under Augustine's influence, he was persuaded by him to give up all his 
property, and renounce the temporal care of a monastery which he had 
previously founded in a garden at Hippo; where also he had begun to build a 
xenodochium or house of refuge for strangers, partly at his own expense, and 
partly out of the alms of the faithful.  He also at Augustine's suggestion, 
built a church in memory of the "eight martyrs" (see Aug. Serm. 356).  This 
complete renunciation of the world must have taken place about 425; and in the 
following year we find that he was present at the election of Eraclius to 
succeed Augustine (Aug. Ep. 213); but subsequent to this nothing is known of 
his history except that he was still living when Cassian wrote.  It is right 
to mention that doubts have been raised by Tillemont whether the presbyter of 
Hippo is identical with the quondam heretic, but on scarcely sufficient 
grounds.


CHAPTER V. 

    By the case of Leporius he establishes the fact that an open sin ought
        to be expiated by an open confession; and also teaches from his
          words what is the right view to be held on the Incarnation.

    AND from his confession or rather lamentation we have thought it well to 
quote some part, for two reasons: that their recantation might be a testimony 
to us, and an example to those who are weak, and that they might not be 
ashamed to follow in their amendment, the men whom they were not ashamed to 
follow in their error; and that they might be cured by a like remedy as they 
suffered from a like disease.  He then acknowledging the perverseness of his 
views, and seeing the light of faith, wrote to the Gallican Bishops, and thus 
began:[1] "I scarcely know, O my most venerable lords and blessed priests, 
what first to accuse myself of, and what first to excuse myself for. 
Clumsiness and pride and foolish ignorance together with wrong notions, zeal 
combined with indiscretion, and (to speak truly) a weak faith which was 
gradually failing, all these were admitted by me and flourished to such an 
extent that I am ashamed of having yielded to such and so many sins, while at 
the same time I am profoundly thankful for having been able to cast them out 
of my soul."  And after a little he adds: "If then, not understanding this 
power of God, and wise in our conceits and opinions, from fear lest God should 
seem to act a part that was beneath Him, we suppose that a man was born in 
conjunction with God, in such a way that we ascribe to God alone what belongs 
to God separately, and attribute to man alone what belongs to man separately, 
we clearly add a fourth Person to the Trinity and out of the one God the Son 
begin to make not one but two Christs; from which may our Lord and God Jesus 
Christ Himself preserve us.  Therefore we confess that our Lord and God Jesus 
Christ the only Son of God, who for His own sake[2] was begotten of the Father 
before all worlds, when in time He was for our sakes: made man of the Holy 
Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary, was God at His birth; and while we confess the 
two substances of the flesh and the Word,[3] we always acknowledge with pious 
belief and faith one and the same Person to be indivisibly God and man; and we 
say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all that belonged to God 
was given to man, as all that belonged to man was joined to God.[4]  And in 
this sense `the Word was made flesh:'[5] not that He began by any conversion 
or change to be what He was not, but that by the Divine `economy' the Word of 
the Father never left the Father,[6] and yet vouchsafed to become truly man, 
and the Only Begotten was incarnate through that hidden mystery which He alone 
understands (for it is ours to believe: His to understand).  And thus God `the 
Word' Himself receiving everything that belongs to man, is made man, and the 
manhood[7] which is assumed, receiving everything that belongs to God cannot 
but be God; but whereas He is said to be incarnate and unmixed, we must not 
hold that there is any diminution of His substance: for God knows how to 
communicate Himself without suffering any corruption, and yet truly to 
communicate Himself.  He knows how to receive into Himself without Himself 
being increased thereby, just as He knows how to impart Himself in such a way 
as Himself to suffer no loss.  We should not then in our feeble minds make 
guesses, in accordance with visible proofs and experiments, from the case of 
creatures which are equal, and which mutually enter into each other, nor think 
that God and man are mixed together, and that out of such a fusion of flesh 
and the Word (i.e., the Godhead and manhood) some sort of body is produced. 
God forbid that we should imagine that the two natures being in a way moulded 
together should become one substance.  For a mixture of this sort is 
destructive of both parts.  For God, who contains and is not Himself 
contained, who enters into things and is not Himself entered into, who fills 
things and is not Himself filled, who is everywhere at once in His 
completeness and is diffused everywhere, communicates Himself graciously to 
human nature by the infusion of His power."  And after a little: "Therefore 
the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is truly born for us of the Holy 
Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary.  And so in the two natures the Word and Flesh 
become one, so that while each substance continues naturally perfect in 
itself, what is Divine imparteth without suffering any loss, to the humanity, 
and what is human participates in the Divine; nor is there one person God, and 
another person man, but the same person is God who is also man: and again the 
man who is also God is called and indeed is Jesus Christ the only Son of God; 
and so we must always take care and believe so as not to deny that our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Very God (whom we confess as existing ever with 
the Father and equal to the Father before all worlds) became from the moment 
when He took flesh the God-man.  Nor may we imagine that gradually as time 
went on He became God, and that He was in one condition before the 
resurrection and in another after it, but that He was always of the same 
fulness and power."  And again a little later on: "But because the Word of 
God[8] vouchsafed to come down upon manhood by assuming manhood, and manhood 
was taken up into the Word by being assumed by God, God the Word in His 
completeness became complete man.  For it was not God the Father who was made 
man, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must 
hold that there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and 
without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can never 
be divided, existing in two natures[9] (who was also spoken of as a 
"giant"[10]) in the days of His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to 
man, and ever truly had as His own what belongs to God: since even though[11] 
He was crucified in weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God."

-----

Notes for Chapter 5

     1. The recantation of Leporius may be found in the Bibliotheca Maxima 
Patrum. vol. vii. p. 14; Labbe, Concilia, ii. p. 1678; and Migne Patrol. Lat. 
xxi. p. 1221.
     2. Sibi . . . nobis.
     3. Caro and Verbum when used in this way stand for the Humanity and the 
Divinity of Christ.
     4. The meaning of course is not that the manhood was endowed with the 
properties of Deity, or conversely the Deity with the properties of Humanity, 
but simply that two whole and perfect natures were joined together in the one 
Person.
     5. S. John 1:14.
     6. This phrase gives some countenance to the idea that the recantation 
was actually drawn up by Augustine, as the thought which it contains is a 
favorite one with him, as excluding any notion that Christ ever for one moment 
ceased to be God.  See Serm. 184.  "Intelligerent . . . Eum . . . in homine ad 
nos venisse et a Patre non recessisse."  186 "manens quod erat."  Similar 
language is used by S. Leo, Serm. 18. c. 5.  In Natio. 2. c. 2. and S. Thomas 
Aquinas in the well-known sacramental hymn "Verbum supernum prodiens, Nec 
Patris linquens dexteram."  Cf. Bright's S. Leo on the Incarnation, p. 220.
     7. Homo is here used as frequently by Augustine and other early writers 
for "Manhood," and not an "individual man."  In this way it was freely used 
until the Nestorian Controversy, after which it went out of favour as capable 
of a Nestorian interpretation, and gave place to "humanitas" or "humana 
natura," when the manhood of Christ was spoken of.  See the Church Quarterly 
Review, vol. xviii. p. 10; and Bright's S. Leo on the Incarnation, p. 165.
     8. Verbum Dei (Petschenig) Verbum Deus (Gazaeus).
     9. Substantiae.
    10. The allusion is to Ps. 18 (19):5, where the Latin (Gallican Psalter) 
has "Exultavit, ut gigas, ad currendam viam."  The mystical interpretation 
which takes the words as referring to Christ is not uncommon.  So in a hymn 
"De Adventu Domini" (Mone. Vol. i. p. 43) we have the verse "Procedit a 
thalamo suo Pudoris aula regia Geminae gigas substantiae, Alacris ut currat 
viam," and in another "De natali Domini" (p. 58) "Ut gigas egreditur ad 
currendam viam."
    11. Etsi (Petschenig) Et sic (Gazaeus).


CHAPTER VI. 

The united doctrine of the Catholics is to be received as the orthodox faith.

    THIS confession of his therefore, which was the faith of all Catholics was 
approved of by all the Bishops of Africa,[1] whence he wrote, and by all those 
of Gaul, to whom he wrote.  Nor has there ever been anyone who quarrelled with 
this faith, without being guilty of unbelief: for to deny what is right and 
proved is to confess what is wrong.  The agreement of all ought then to be in 
itself already sufficient to confute heresy: for the authority of all shows 
undoubted truth, and a perfect reason results where no one disputes it: so 
that if a man endeavours to hold opinions contrary to these, we should in the 
first instance rather condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions, 
for one who impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own 
condemnation, and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all, is not 
even given a hearing.  For when the truth has once for all been established by 
all men, whatever arises contrary to it is by this very fact to be recognized 
at once as falsehood, because it differs from the truth.  And thus it is 
agreed that this alone is sufficient to condemn a man; viz., that he differs 
from the judgment of truth.  But still as an explanation of a system does no 
harm to the system, and truth always shines brighter when thoroughly 
ventilated, and as it is better that those who are wrong should be set right 
by discussion rather than condemned by severe censures, we should cure, as far 
as we can with the Divine assistance, this old heresy appearing in the persons 
of new heretics, that when through God's mercy they have recovered their 
health, their cure may bear testimony to our holy faith instead of their 
condemnation proving an instance of just severity.  Only may the Truth indeed 
be present at our discussion and discourse concerning it, and assist our human 
weakness with that goodness with which God vouchsafed to come to men, as for 
this purpose above all He willed to be born on earth and among men; viz., that 
there might be no more room for falsehood.

-----

Note for Chapter 6

     1. The attesting Bishops who subscribed his recantation as witnesses were 
Aurelius of Carthage; Augustine of Hippo Regius; Florentius of the other 
Hippo; and Secundinus of Megarmita.


                             --------------------

                                   BOOK II. 


CHAPTER I. 

      How the errors of later heretics have been condemned and refuted in
                 the persons of their authors and originators.

    AS we began by setting down in the first book some things by which we 
showed that our new heretic is but an offshoot from ancient stocks of heresy, 
the due condemnation of the earlier heretics ought to be enough to secure a 
sentence of due condemnation for him.  For as he has the same roots and grows 
up out of the same fallow[1] he has already been amply condemned in the 
persons of his predecessors, especially as those who went wrong immediately 
before these men very properly condemned the very thing which these men are 
now asserting,[2] so that the examples of their own party ought to be amply 
sufficient for them in both directions; viz., that of those who were restored 
and that of those who were condemned.  For if they are capable of amendment 
they have their remedy set forth in the correction of their own party.  If 
they are incapable of it they receive their sentence in the condemnation of 
their own folk.  But that we may not be thought to have prejudged the case 
against them instead of fairly judging it, we will produce their actual 
pestilent assertions, or rather I should say their blasphemous folly: taking 
"above all the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word 
of God,"[3] that when the head of the old serpent rises once more, the same 
sword of the Divine Word which formerly severed it in the case of those 
ancient dragons may even now cut it off in the persons of these new serpents. 
For since the error of these is the same as that of those former ones, the 
decapitation of those ought to be counted as the decapitation of these; and as 
the serpents revive and emit pestilent blasts against the Lord's church, and 
cause some to fail through their hissing, we must on account of these new 
diseases add a fresh remedy to those older cures, so that even if what has 
already been done prove insufficient to heal[4] the malady, what we are now 
doing may be adequate to restore those who are suffering from it.

-----

Notes for Chapter 1

     1. Scrobibus (Petschenig): The text of Gazaeus has enoribus.
     2. The allusion is to the recantation of Leporius and his companions.  
They were the immediate predecessors of Nestorius, and Cassian means to say 
that their recantation of their error ought to have been an example for 
Nestorius to follow.
     3. Eph. 6:16-17.
     4. Curationem (Petschenig): Damnationem (Gazaeus).


CHAPTER II. 

       Proof that the Virgin Mother of God was not only Christotocos but
                 also Theotocos, and that Christ is truly God.

    AND so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born 
of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be 
called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother 
of Christ, not of God.[1]  For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior 
in time.  And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the 
birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of 
His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, 
say something later on.[2]  In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine 
testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God.  Hear then 
how the angel of God speaks to the shepherds of the birth of God.  "There is 
born," he says, "to you this day in the city of David a Saviour who is Christ 
the Lord."[3]  In order that you may not take Christ for a mere man, he adds 
the name of Lord and Saviour, on purpose that you may have no doubt that He 
whom you acknowledge as Saviour is God, and that (as the office of saving 
belongs only to Divine power) you may not question that He is of Divine power, 
in whom you have learnt that the power to save resides.  But perhaps this is 
not enough to convince your unbelief, as the angel of the Lord termed Him Lord 
and Saviour rather than God or the Son of God, as you certainly most wickedly 
deny Him to be God, whom you acknowledge to be Saviour.  Hear then what the 
archangel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary.  "The Holy Ghost," he says, 
"shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: 
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God."[4]  Do you see how, when he is going to point out the nativity of 
God, he first speaks of a work of Divinity.  For "the Holy Ghost," he says, 
"shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." 
Admirably did the angel speak, and explain the majesty of the Divine work by 
the Divine character of his words.  For the Holy Ghost sanctified the Virgin's 
womb, and breathed into it by the power of His Divinity, and thus imparted and 
communicated Himself to human nature; and made His own what was before foreign 
to Him, taking it to Himself by His own power and majesty.[5]  And lest the 
weakness of human nature should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity 
the power of the Most High strengthened the ever to be honoured Virgin, so 
that it supported her bodily weakness by embracing it with overshadowing 
protection, and human weakness was not insufficient for the consummation of 
the ineffable mystery of the holy conception, since it was supported by the 
Divine overshadowing.  "Therefore," he says, "the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee."  If only a mere 
man was to be born of a pure virgin why should there be such careful mention 
of the Divine Advent?  Why such intervention of Divinity itself?  Certainly if 
only a man was to be born from man, and flesh from flesh, a command alone 
might have done it, or the Divine will.  For if the will of God alone, and His 
command sufficed to fashion the heavens, form the earth, create the sea, 
thrones, and seats, and angels, and archangels, and principalities, and 
powers, and in a word to create all the armies of heaven, and those countless 
thousands of thousands of the Divine hosts ("For He spake and they were made, 
He commanded and they were created"[6]), why was it that that was insufficient 
for the creation of (according to you) a single man, which was sufficient for 
the production of all things divine, and that the power and majesty of God did 
not entrust that with the birth of a single infant, which had availed to 
fashion all things earthly and heavenly?  But certainly the reason why all 
those works were performed by the command of God, but the nativity was only 
accomplished by His coming was because God could not be conceived by man 
unless He allowed it, nor be born unless He Himself entered in; and therefore 
the archangel pointed out that the sacred majesty would come upon the Virgin, 
I mean that as so great an event could not be brought about by human 
appointment, he announced that there would be present at the conception the 
glory of Him who was to be born.[7]  And so the Word, the Son, descended: the 
majesty of the Holy Ghost was present: the power of the Father was 
overshadowing; that in the mystery of the holy conception the whole Trinity 
might cooperate.  "Therefore," he says, "also that holy thing which shall be 
born of thee shall be called the Son of God."  Admirably does he add 
"Therefore," in order to show that this would therefore follow because that 
had gone before; and that because God had come upon her at the conception 
therefore God would be present at the birth.  And when the maiden understood 
not, he gave a reason for this great thing, saying: "Because the Holy Spirit 
shall come upon thee, and because the power of the Most High shall overshadow 
thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the 
Son of God;" that is to say: That thou mayest not be ignorant of the provision 
for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret, the majesty of God 
shall therefore come upon thee completely; because the Son of God shall be 
born of thee.  What further doubt can there be about this? or what is there 
further to be said?  He said that God would come upon her; that the Son of God 
would be born.  Ask now, if you like, how the Son of God can help being God, 
or how she who brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of 
God?  This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply 
sufficient for you.

-----

Notes for Chapter 2

     1. The Nestorian controversy was originated by a sermon of Anastasius a 
follower of Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom Nestorius brought with him to 
Constantinople as his chaplain on his appointment as Archbishop, A.D. 428.  
This man, preaching in the presence of the archbishop, said: "Let no one call 
Mary Theotocos; for Mary was but a woman, and it is impossible that God should 
be born of a woman."  In the controversy which was immediately excited by 
these words Nestorius at once took the part of his chaplain and preached a 
course of sermons in maintenance of his views; refusing to the Blessed Virgin 
the title of Theotocos, while admitting that she might be termed Christotocos.  
See Socrates H. E. Book VII. c. xxxii. Evagrius H. E. Book I. c. ii. and 
Vincentius Lirinensis Book I. c. xii.  The sermons are still partially 
existing in the writings of Marius Mercator: and in the second of them the 
title Christotokos is admitted.  Cf. Hefele's Councils Book IX. c. i. (Vol. 
iii. Eng. Transl. p. 12 sq.).
     2. The subject is dealt with in Book IV. c. ii.; VII. c. ii. sq.
     3. S. Luke 2:11.
     4. S. Luke 1:35.
     5. On the conception by the Holy Ghost compare Pearson on the Creed.  
Article III. c. ii.
     6. Ps. 32 (33):9.
     7. Petschenig's text is as follows: Videlicet ut, quia agi tanta res per 
humanum officium non valebat, ipsius ad futuram diceret majestatem in 
conceptu, qui erat futurus in partu; while Gazaeus reads deceret for diceret.


CHAPTER III. 

      Follows up the same argument with passages from the Old Testament.

    BUT as there is an abundant supply of witnesses to the holy nativity; 
viz., all that has been on this account written, to hear witness to it, let us 
examine in some slight degree an announcement about God even in the Old 
Testament, that you may know that the fact that the birth of God was to be 
from a virgin was not only then announced when it actually came to pass, but 
had been foretold from the very beginning of the world, that, as the event to 
be brought about was ineffable, incredulity of the fact when actually present 
might be removed by its having been previously announced while still future. 
And so the prophet Isaiah says: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a 
Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with 
us."[1]  What room is there here for doubt, you incredulous person?[2]  The 
prophet said that a virgin should conceive: a virgin has conceived: that a Son 
should be born: a Son has been born: that He Should be called God: He is 
called God.  For He is called by that name as being of that nature.  Therefore 
when the Spirit of God said that He should be called God, He proved that He is 
without the Spirit of God who makes himself a stranger to all fellowship with 
the Divine title.  "Behold then," he says, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a 
Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us." 
But here is a point on which it is possible that your shuffling incredulity 
may fasten; viz., by saying that this which the prophet declared He should be 
called referred not to the glory of His Divinity, but to the name by which He 
should be addressed.  But what are we to do because Christ is never spoken of 
by this name in the gospels, though the Spirit of God cannot be said to have 
spoken falsely through the prophet?  How is it then?  Surely that we should 
understand that that prophecy then foretold the name of His Divine nature and 
not of His humanity.  For since in His manhood united to the Godhead[3] He 
received another name in the gospel, it is certainly clear that this name 
belonged to His humanity, that to His Divinity.  But let us proceed further 
and summon other true witnesses to establish the truth: For where we are 
speaking about the Godhead, the Divinity cannot be better established than by 
His own witnesses.  So then the same prophet says elsewhere: "For unto us a 
Son is born: unto us a child is given; and the government shall be upon His 
shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the 
mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace."[4]  Just as 
above the prophet had expressly said that He should be called Emmanuel, so 
here he says that He should be called "the angel of great counsel, and God the 
mighty, and the Father of the world to come and the prince of peace" (although 
we certainly never read that He was called by these names in the gospel): of 
course that we may understand that these are not terms belonging to His human, 
but to His Divine nature; and that the name used in the gospel belonged to the 
manhood which He took upon Him,[5] and this one to His innate power.  And 
because God was to be born in human form, these names were so distributed in 
the sacred economy, that to the manhood a human name was given and to the 
Divinity a Divine one.  Therefore he says: "He shall be called the angel of 
great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of 
peace."  Not, O heretic, whoever you may be, not that here the prophet, full 
as he was of the Holy Spirit, followed your example and compared Him who was 
born to a molten image and a figure fashioned without sense.[6]  For "a Son," 
he says, "is born to us, a Child is given to us; and the government shall be 
upon his shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of great counsel, 
God the mighty."  And that you may not imagine Him whom He announced as God[7] 
to be other than Him who was born in the flesh, he adds a term referring to 
His birth, saying: "A child is born to us: a son is given to us."  Do you see 
how many titles the prophet used to make clear the reality of His birth in the 
body? for he called Him both Son and child on purpose that the manner of the 
child which was born might be more clearly shown by a name referring to His 
infancy; and the Holy Spirit foreseeing without doubt this perversity of 
blasphemous heretics, showed to the whole world that it was God who was born, 
by the very terms and words used; that even if a heretic was determined to 
utter blasphemy, he might not find any loophole for his blasphemy.  Therefore 
he says: "A Son is born to us; a child is given to us; and the government 
shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of great 
counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of 
peace."  He teaches that this child which was born is both prince of peace and 
Father of the world to come and God the mighty.  What room is there then for 
shuffling?  This child which is born cannot be severed from God who is born in 
Him, for he called Him, whom he spoke of as born, Father of the world to come; 
Him whom he called a child, he foretold as God the mighty.  What is it, O 
heretic?  Whither will you betake yourself?  Every place is hedged and shut 
in: there is no possibility of getting out of it.  There is nothing for it but 
that you should at length be obliged to confess the mistake which you would 
not understand.  But not content with these passages which are indeed enough 
let us inquire what the Holy Ghost said through another prophet.  "Shall a 
man," says he, "pierce his God, for you are piercing me?"[8]  In order that 
the subject of the prophecy might be still clearer the prophet foretells what 
he proclaimed of the Lord's passion as if from the mouth of Him of whom he was 
speaking.  "Shall a man pierce his God, for you are piercing me?"  Does not 
our Lord God, I ask, seem to have said this when He was led to the Cross?  Why 
indeed do you not acknowledge Me as your Redeemer?  Why are ye ignorant of God 
clothed in flesh for you?  Are you preparing death for your Saviour?  Are yon 
leading forth to death the Author of life?  I am your God whom ye are lifting 
up: your God whom ye are crucifying.  What mistake, I ask, is here or what 
madness is it?  "Shall a man pierce his God, for you are piercing me?"  Do you 
see how exactly the words describe what was actually done?  Could you ask for 
anything more express or clearer?  Do you see how sacred testimonies follow 
our Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ from the very cradle to the Cross which He 
bore, as here you can see that He whom elsewhere you read of as God when born 
in the flesh was God when pierced on the cross?  And so there, where His birth 
was treated of, He is spoken of by the prophet as God: and here where His 
crucifixion is concerned, He is most clearly named God; that the taking upon 
Him of manhood might not in any point prejudice dignity of His Divinity, nor 
the humiliation of His body and the shame of the passion affect the glory of 
His majesty; for His condescension to so lowly a birth and His generous 
goodness in enduring his passion ought to increase our love and devotion to 
Him; since it is certainly a great and monstrous sin if, the more He lavishes 
love upon us, the less He is honoured by us. 

-----

Notes for Chapter 3

     1. Isa. 7:14.
     2. Incredule (Petschenig).  Incredulae (Gazaeus).
     3. Here is an instance of language which the mature judgment of the 
Church has rejected, as experience showed how it was capable of being pressed 
into the service of heresy.  Homo unitus Deo, in Cassian's mouth evidently 
means the manhood joined to the Godhead, but the words might easily be taken 
as implying that a man was united to God, i.e., that there were in the 
Incarnation two persons, one assuming and the other assumed, which was the 
essence of Nestorianism.  Compare above, the note on Homo to Book I. c. v.
     4. Isa. 9:6 where in the LXX. B reads hoti paidion hegennethe hemin, 
huios kai edothe hemin, ou he arche egenethe epi tou omou autou, kai kaleitai 
to onoma autou Megales Boules angelos azo gar k. t. l.  To this, however, 
[aleph = the Sinaiticus] and A add after angelos, thaumastos symboulos; Theos 
(our Theos A) ischyros hexoustiastes archon eirenes pater tou mellontos aionos 
and hence in the main comes the old Latin version, which Cassian here follows.  
Jerome's version has Parvulus enim natus est nobis et filius datus est nobis; 
et factus est principatus super humerum ejus: et vocabitur nomen ejus 
admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis pater futuri saeculi princeps pacis.  The 
Hebrew has nothing directly corresponding to the "angel of great counsel," 
which seems to be intended as a paraphrase of "Wonderful Counsellor" (Cf. 
Judg. 13:18), while "Father of the world to come" is an interpretation of the 
Hebrew "Father of eternity."
     5. Suscepti hominis.  Cf. the line in the Te Deum, which originally ran 
"Tu ad liberandum mundum suscepisti hominem: non horruisti virginis uterum."
     6. See the language of Nestorius himself quoted below in Book VII. c. vi. 
and cf. V. iii.
     7. The text of Gazaeus omits Deus.
     8. Malachi 3:8.  Jerome's rendering is almost identical "Si affiget homo 
Deum, quia vos configitis me;" where the Douay version strangely departs from 
the literal sense of the word and renders vaguely "afflict."  It is clear 
however that it was intended to be understood literally, as it is here taken 
by Cassian as a direct prophecy of the Crucifixion.  The LXX. has pterniei.  
The Hebrew word, which is only found again in Prov. 22:23, appears to mean 
"defraud."


CHAPTER IV. 

      He produces testimonies to the same doctrine from the Apostle Paul.

    BUT passing over these things which cannot possibly be unfolded because 
there would be no limit to the telling of them, as the blessings which he 
gives are without stint, it is time for us to consult the Apostle Paul, the 
stoutest and clearest witness to Him, for he can tell us everything about God 
in the most trustworthy way because God always spoke from his breast.  He 
then, the chosen teacher of the nations, who was sent to destroy the errors of 
Gentile superstition, bears his witness in the following way to the grace and 
coming of our Lord God: "The grace," he says, "of God and our Saviour appeared 
unto all men, instructing us that denying ungodliness and worldly desires we 
should live soberly and justly and godly in this world, looking for the 
blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ."[1]  He says that "there appeared the grace of God our Saviour." 
Admirably does he use a word suited to show the arrival of a new grace and 
birth; for by saying "there appeared," he indicated the approach of a new 
grace and birth, for thenceforward the gift of a new grace began to appear, 
from the moment when God appeared as born in the world.  Thus by using the 
right word, and one exactly suitable, he shows the light of this new grace 
almost as if he pointed to it with his finger.  For that is most properly said 
to appear, which is shown by sudden light manifesting it.  Just as we read in 
the gospel that the star appeared to the wise men in the East:[2] and in 
Exodus: "There appeared," he says, "to Moses an angel in a flame of fire in 
the bush:"[3] for in all these and in the case of other visions in the Holy 
Scripture, Scripture determined that this word in particular should be used, 
that it might speak of that as "appearing," which shone forth with unwonted 
light.  So then the Apostle also, well knowing the coming of the heavenly 
grace, which appeared at the approach of the holy nativity, indicated it by 
using a term applied to a bright appearance; expressly in order to say that it 
appeared, as it shone with the splendour of a new light.  "There appeared" 
then "the grace of God our Saviour."  Surely you cannot raise any quibble 
about the ambiguity of the names in this place, so as to say that "Christ" is 
one and "God" another, or to divide "the Saviour" from the glory of His name, 
and separate "the Lord" from the Divinity?  Lo, here the vessel[4] of God 
speaks from God, and testifies by the clearest statement that the grace of God 
appeared from Mary.  And in order that you may not deny that God appeared from 
Mary, he at once adds the name of Saviour, on purpose that you may believe 
that He who is born of Mary is God, whom you cannot deny to have been born a 
Saviour, in accordance with this passage: "For to you is born to-day a 
Saviour."[5]  O excellent teacher of the Gentiles truly given by God to them, 
for he knew that this wild heretical folly would arise, which would turn to 
controversial uses the names of God, and would not hesitate to slander God 
from His own titles; and so just in order that the heretic might not separate 
the title of Saviour from the Divinity he put first the name of God, that the 
name of God standing first might claim as His all the names which followed, 
and that no one might imagine that in what followed Christ was spoken of as a 
mere man, as by the very first word used he had taught that He was God. 
"Looking," says the same Apostle, "for the blessed hope and coming of the 
glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."  Certainly that teacher 
of divine wisdom saw that plain and simple teaching would not in itself be 
sufficient to meet the crafty wiles of the devil's cunning, unless he 
fortified the holy preaching of the faith with a protection of extreme care. 
And so although he had used the name of God the Saviour up above, he here adds 
"Jesus Christ," in case you might think that the mere name of Saviour was not 
enough to indicate to you our Lord Jesus Christ, and might fail to understand 
that the God, whom you acknowledge as God the Saviour, is the same Jesus 
Christ.  What then does he say?  He says: "Looking for the blessed hope and 
coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."  Nothing 
is here wanting as regards the titles of our Lord and you see here God, and 
the Saviour, and Jesus, and Christ.  But when you see all these, you see that 
they all belong to God.  For you have heard of Him as God, but as Saviour as 
well.  You have heard of Him as God, but as Jesus as well.  You have heard of 
Him as God, but as Christ as well.  That which the Divinity has joined and 
united together cannot be separated by this diversity of titles; for whichever 
you may seek for of them all, you will find it there.  The Saviour is God, 
Jesus is God, Christ is God.  In all of this which you hear, though the titles 
used are many, yet they belong to one Person in power.  For whereas the 
Saviour is God, and Jesus is God, and Christ is God, it is easy to see that 
all these, though different appellations, are united as regards the Majesty. 
And when you hear quite plainly that one and the same Person is called God in 
each case, you can surely clearly see that in all these cases there is but one 
God spoken of.  And so you cannot any longer seek to make out a distinction of 
power from the different names given to the Lord, or to make a difference of 
Person owing to variety of titles.  You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary, 
but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was.  You cannot say that 
Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies that God 
was.  You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not; for an Apostle 
supports the fact that God was.  There is no way of escape for you.  Whichever 
of the titles of the Lord you may take, He is God, of whom you speak.  You 
have nothing to say: nothing to assert: nothing to invent in your wicked 
falsehood.  You can in impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to 
deny in the matter of your blasphemy.

-----

Notes for Chapter 4

     1. Titus 2:11-13.
     2. S. Matt. 2:2, 7.
     3. Exod. 3:2.
     4. Vas Dei (Petschenig): Gazaeus has Vis Dei.
     5. S. Luke 2:11.


CHAPTER V. 

            From the gifts of Divine grace which we receive through
                    Christ he infers that He is truly God.

    ALTHOUGH we began to speak some time back on this Divine grace of our Lord 
and Saviour, I want to say somewhat more on the same subject from the Holy 
Scriptures.  We read in the Acts of the Apostles that the Apostle James[1] 
thus refuted those who thought that when they received the gospel they ought 
still to bear the yoke of the old Law: "Why," said he, "do ye tempt God, to 
put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we 
have been able to bear.  But by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe 
to be saved in like manner as they also."[2]  The Apostle certainly speaks of 
the gift of this grace as given by Jesus Christ.  Answer me now, if you 
please: do you think that this grace which is given for the salvation of all 
men, is given by man or by God?  If you say, By man, Paul, God's own vessel, 
will cry out against you, saying: "There appeared the grace of God our 
Saviour."[3]  He teaches that this grace is the result of a Divine gift, and 
not of human weakness.  And even if the sacred testimony was not sufficient, 
the truth of the matter itself would bear its witness, because fragile earthly 
things cannot possibly furnish a thing of lasting and immortal value; nor can 
anyone give to another that in which he himself is lacking, nor supply a 
sufficiency of that, from the want of which he admits that he himself is 
suffering.  You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God.  It 
is God then who has given it.  But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God.  But if He be, as He certainly is, 
God: then she who bore God is Theotocos, i.e., the mother of God.  Unless 
perhaps you want to take refuge in so utterly absurd and blasphemous a 
contradiction as to deny that she from whom God was born is the mother of God, 
while you cannot deny that He who was born is God.  But, however, let us see 
what the gospel of God thinks about this same grace of our Lord: "Grace and 
truth," it says, "came by Jesus Christ."[4]  If Christ is a mere man, how did 
these come by Christ?  Whence was there in Him Divine power if, as you say, 
there was in Him only the nature of man?  Whence comes heavenly largesse, if 
His is earthly poverty?  For no one can give what he has not already.  As then 
Christ gave Divine grace, He already had that which He gave.  Nor can anyone 
endure a diversity of things that are so utterly different from each other, as 
at one and the same time to suffer the wants of a poor man, and also to show 
the munificence of a bounteous one.  And so the Apostle Paul, knowing that all 
the treasures of heavenly riches are found in Christ, rightly writes to the 
Churches: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you."[5]  For though he 
had already often enough taught that God is the same as Christ, and that all 
the glory of Deity resides in Him, and that all the fulness of the Godhead 
dwelleth in Him bodily, yet here he is certainly right in praying for the 
grace of Christ alone, without adding the word God: for while he had often 
taught that the grace of God is the same as the grace of Christ, he now most 
perfectly prays only for the grace of Christ, for he knows that in the grace 
of Christ is contained the whole grace of God.  Therefore he says: "The grace 
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you."  If Jesus Christ was a mere man, then 
in his wish that the grace of Christ might be given to the Churches he was 
wishing that the grace of a man might be given; and by saying: "The grace of 
Christ be with you" he meant: the grace of a man be with you, the grace of 
flesh be with you, the grace of bodily weakness, the grace of human frailty! 
Or why did he ever even mention the word grace, if his wish was for the grace 
of a man?  For there was no reason for wishing, if that was not in existence 
which was wished for; nor ought he to have prayed that there might be bestowed 
on them the grace of one who, according to you, did not possess the reality of 
that grace for which he was wishing.  And so you see that it is utterly absurd 
and ridiculous--or rather not a thing to laugh at but to cry over, for what is 
a matter for laughter to some frivolous persons becomes a matter for crying to 
pious and faithful souls, for they shed tears of charity for the folly of your 
unbelief, and weep pious tears at the folly of another's impiety.  Let us then 
recover ourselves for a while and take our breath, for this idea is not only 
without wisdom but also without the Spirit, as it is certainly wanting in 
spiritual wisdom and has nothing to do with the Spirit of salvation.

-----

Notes for Chapter 5

     1. Jacobum.  So Petschenig, after his authority.  It is however an error 
on Cassian's part, as the words quoted were spoken not by S. James, but by S. 
Peter.  (The text of Gazaeus reads apparently with no authority Petrum.)
     2. Acts 15:10, 11.
     3. Titus 2:11.
     4. S. John 1:17.
     5. 1 Cor. 16:23.


CHAPTER VI. 

      That the power of bestowing Divine grace did not come to Christ in
        the course of time, but was innate in Him from His very birth.

    BUT perhaps you will say that this grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, of 
which the Apostle writes, was not born with Him, but was afterwards infused 
into Him by the descent of Divinity upon Him, since you say that the man Jesus 
Christ our Lord (whom you call a mere man) was not born with God, but 
afterwards was assumed by God:[1] and that through this grace was given to the 
man at the same time that Divinity was given to Him.  Nor do we say anything 
else than that Divine grace descended with the Divinity, for the Divine grace 
of God is in a way a bestowal of actual Divinity and a gift of a liberal 
supply of graces.  Perhaps then it may be thought that the difference between 
us is one of time rather than of what is essential, since the Divinity which 
we say was born with Jesus Christ you say was afterwards infused into Him.  
But the fact is that if you deny that Divinity was born with the Lord you 
cannot afterwards make a confession according to the faith; for it is an 
impossibility for one and the same thing to be partly impious and also to turn 
out partly pious, and for the same thing partly to belong to faith and partly 
to misbelief.  To begin with then I ask you this: Do you say that our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary is only the Son of man, or that 
He is the Son of God as well?  For we, I mean all who hold the Catholic faith, 
all of us, I say, believe and are sure and know and confess that He is both, 
i.e., that He is Son of man because born of a woman and Son of God because 
conceived of Divinity.  Do you then admit that He is both, i.e., Son of God 
and Son of man, or do you say that He is Son of man only?  If Son of man only 
then there cry out against you apostles and prophets, aye and the Holy Ghost 
Himself, by whom the conception was brought about.  That most shameless mouth 
of yours is stopped by all the witnesses of the Divine decrees: it is stopped 
by sacred writings and holy witnesses: aye and it is stopped by the very 
gospel of God as if by a Divine hand.  And that mighty Gabriel who in the case 
of Zacharias restrained the voice of unbelief by the power of his word, much 
more strongly condemned in your case the voice of blasphemy and sin, by his 
own lips, saying to the Virgin Mary, the mother of God: "The Holy Ghost shall 
come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: 
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God."[2]  Do you see how Jesus Christ is first proclaimed to be the Son 
of God that according to the flesh He might become the Son of man?  For when 
the Virgin Mary was to bring forth the Lord she conceived owing to the descent 
of the Holy Spirit upon her and the cooperation of the power of the Most High. 
And from this you can see that the origin of our Lord and Saviour must come 
from thence, whence His conception came; and since He was born owing to the 
descent of the fulness of Divinity in Its completeness upon the Virgin, He 
could not be the Son of man unless He had first been the Son of God; and so 
the angel when sent to announce His nativity and sacred birth, when he had 
already spoken of the mystery of His conception added a word expressive of His 
birth, saying: "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
shall be called the Son of God [i.e., He shall be called the Son of Him from 
whom He was begotten].[3]  Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God, because 
He was begotten of God and conceived of God.  But if He is the Son of God, 
then most certainly He is God: but if He is God, then He is not lacking in the 
grace of God.  Nor indeed was He ever lacking in that of which He is Himself 
the maker.  For grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ.

-----

Notes for Chapter 6

     1. Nestorius maintained that "that which was formed in the womb of Mary 
was not God Himself . . . but because God dwells in him whom He has assumed, 
therefore also He who is assumed is called God because of Him who assumes Him.  
And it is not God who has suffered, but God was united with the crucified 
flesh."  (Fragm. in Marius Mercator p. 789 sq. [ed. Migne].)  Thus he made out 
that in Christ were two Persons, one assuming and the other assumed.
     2. S. Luke 1:35.
     3. There is some doubt whether the words enclosed in brackets form part 
of the genuine text.  Petschenig brackets them, as wanting in some MSS.


CHAPTER VII. 

     How in Christ the Divinity, Majesty, Might and Power have existed in
                 perfection from eternity, and will continue.

    THEREFORE all grace, power, might, Divinity, aye, and the fulness of 
actual Divinity and glory have ever existed together with Him and in Him, 
whether in heaven or in earth or in the womb or at His birth.  Nothing that is 
proper to God was ever wanting to God.  For the Godhead was ever present with 
God, no where and at no time severed from Him.  For everywhere God is present 
in His completeness and in His perfection.  He suffers no division or change 
or diminution; for nothing can be either added to God or taken away from Him, 
for He is subject to no diminution of Divinity, as to no increase of It.  He 
was the same Person then on earth who was also in heaven: the same Person in 
His low estate who was also in the highest: the same Person in the littleness 
of manhood as in the glory of the Godhead.  And so the Apostle was right in 
speaking of the grace of Christ when He meant the grace of God.  For Christ 
was everything that God is.  At the very time of His conception as man there 
came all the power of God, all the fulness of the Godhead; for thence came all 
the perfection of the Godhead, whence was His origin.  Nor was that Human 
nature of His[1] ever without the Deity as it received from Deity the very 
fact of its existence.  And so, to begin with, whether you like it or no, you 
cannot deny this; viz., that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
especially as the archangel declares in the gospels: "That holy thing which 
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."  But when this is 
established then remember that whatever you read of Christ you read of the Son 
of God: whatever you read of the Lord or Jesus belongs to the Son of God.  And 
so when you recognize a title of Divinity in all these terms which you hear 
uttered, as you see that in each case you ought to understand that the Son of 
God is meant, prove to me, if you like, how you can separate the Godhead from 
the Son of God. 

-----

Note for Chapter 7

     1. Homo ille.


                             --------------------

                                   BOOK III. 


CHAPTER I. 

        That Christ, who is God and man in the unity of Person, sprang
            from Israel and the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.

    THAT divine teacher of the Churches when in writing to the Romans he was 
reproving or rather lamenting the unbelief of the Jews, i.e., of his own 
brethren, made use of these words: "I wished myself," said he, "to be accursed 
from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who 
are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the glory, 
and the testaments, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
promises: whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who 
is over all things, God blessed for ever."[1]  O, the love of that most 
faithful Apostle, and most kindly kinsman! who in his infinite charity wished 
to die--as a kinsman for his relations, and as a master for his disciples. And 
what then was the reason why he wished to die?  Only one; viz., that they 
might live.  But in what did their life consist?  Simply in this, as he 
himself says, that they might recognize a Divine Christ born according to the 
flesh, of their own flesh.  And therefore the Apostle grieved the more, 
because those who ought to have loved Him the more as sprung from their own 
stock, failed to understand that He was born of Israel.  "Of whom," said he, 
"is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for 
ever."  Clearly he lays down that from them according to the flesh, was born 
that Christ who is over all, God blessed for ever.  You certainly cannot deny 
that Christ was born from them according to the flesh.  But the same Person, 
who was born from them, is God.  How can you get round this?  How can you 
shuffle out of it?  The Apostle says that Christ who was born of Israel 
according to the flesh, is God.  Teach us, if you can, at what time He did not 
exist.  "Of whom," he says, "is Christ according to the flesh, who is over 
all, God."  You see that because the Apostle has united and joined together 
these, "God" cannot possibly be separated from "Christ."  For just as the 
Apostle declares that Christ is of them, so he asserts that God is in Christ. 
You must either deny both of these statements, or you must accept both.  
Christ is said to be born of them according to the flesh: but the same Person 
is declared by the Apostle to be "God in Christ."  Whence also he says 
elsewhere: "For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."[2]  It 
is absolutely impossible to separate one from the other.  Either deny that 
Christ sprang from them, or admit that there was born of the virgin God in 
Christ, "who is," as he says, "over all, God blessed for ever."

-----

Notes for Chapter 1

     1. Rom. 9:3-5.
     2. 2 Cor. 5:19.


CHAPTER II. 

   The title of God is given in one sense to Christ, and in another to men.

    THE name of God would for the faithful be amply sufficient to denote the 
glory of His Divinity, but by adding "over all, God blessed," he excludes a 
blasphemous and perverse interpretation of it, for fear that some 
evil-disposed person to depreciate His absolute Divinity might quote the fact 
that the word God is sometimes applied by grace in the Divine economy 
temporarily to men, and thus apply it to God by unworthy comparisons, as where 
God says to Moses: "I have given thee as a God to Pharaoh,"[1] or in this 
passage: "I said ye are Gods,"[2] where it clearly has the force of a title 
given by condescension.  For as it says "I said," it is not a name showing 
power, so much as a title given by the speaker.  But that passage also, where 
it says: "I have given thee as a God to Pharaoh," shows the power of the giver 
rather than the Divinity of him who receives the title.  For when it says: "I 
have given," it thereby certainly indicates the power of God, who gave, and 
not the Divine nature, in the person of the recipient.  But when it is said of 
our God and Lord Jesus Christ, "who is over all, God blessed for ever," the 
fact is at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the 
name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does not 
denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His nature.

-----

Notes for Chapter 2

     1. Exod. 7:1.
     2. Ps. 81 (82):6.


CHAPTER III. 

           He explains the apostle's saying: "If from henceforth we
                   know no man according to the flesh," etc.

    AND so the same Apostle says: "From henceforth we know no man according to 
the flesh, and if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know 
Him so no longer."[1]  Admirably consistent are all the writings of the sacred 
word with each other, and in every portion of them: even where they do not 
correspond in the form of the words, yet they agree in the drift and 
substance.  As where he says: "And if we have known Christ according to the 
flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer."  For the witness of the passage 
before us confirms that quoted above, in which he said: "Of whom is Christ 
according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever."  For there he 
writes: "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh;" and here: "if we have 
known Christ according to the flesh."  There: "who is over all, God blessed 
for ever;" and here: "yet now we no longer know Christ according to the 
flesh."  The look of the words is different, but their force and drift is the 
same.  For it is the same Person whom he there declares to be God over all 
born according to the flesh, whom he here asserts that he no longer knows 
according to the flesh.  And plainly for this reason; viz., because Him whom 
he had known as born in the flesh, he acknowledges as God for ever; and 
therefore says that he knows him not after the flesh, because He is over all, 
God blessed for ever; and the phrase there: "who is over all God," answers to 
this: "we no longer know Christ according to the flesh;" and this phrase: "we 
no longer know Christ according to the flesh" implies this: "who is God 
blessed for ever."[2]  The declaration of Apostolic teaching then somehow 
rises, as it were to greater heights, and though it is self-consistent 
throughout, yet it supports the mystery of the perfect faith, with a still 
more express statement, and says: "And though we have known Christ according 
to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer," i.e., as formerly we knew Him 
as man as well as God, yet now only as God.  For when the frailty of flesh 
comes to an end, we no longer know anything in Him except the power of 
Divinity, for all that is in Him is the power of Divine Majesty, where the 
weakness of human infirmity has ceased to exist.  In this passage then he has 
thoroughly expounded the whole mystery of the Incarnation, and of His perfect 
Divinity.  For where he says: "And if we have known Christ according to the 
flesh," he speaks of the mystery of God born in flesh.  But by adding "yet now 
we know Him so no longer," he manifests His power when weakness is laid aside. 
And thus that knowledge of the flesh has to do with His humanity, and that 
ignorance, with the glory of His Divinity.  For to say "we have known Christ 
according to the flesh:" means "as long as that which was known, existed.  Now 
we no longer know it, after it has ceased to exist.  For the nature of flesh 
has been transformed into a spiritual substance: and that which formerly 
belonged to the manhood, has all become God's.  And therefore we no longer 
know Christ according to the flesh, because when bodily infirmity has been 
absorbed by Divine Majesty,[3] nothing remains in that Sacred Body, from which 
weakness of the flesh can be known in it.  And thus whatever had formerly 
belonged to a twofold substance, has become attached to a single Power.  Since 
there is no sort of doubt that Christ, who was crucified through human 
weakness lives entirely through the glory of His Divinity.

-----

Notes for Chapter 3

     1. 2 Cor. 5:16.
     2. Petschenig's text reads as follows: Ac per hoc et illud ibi; Qui est 
super omnia Deus, hoc dicit: non novimus, jam Christum secundum carnem, et 
hic: non novimus jam Christum secundum carnem, hoc ait: Qui est Deus 
benedictus in saecula.  That of Gazaeus has: Ac per hoc et illud ibi qui est 
super omnia Deus: et hoc dicit, non novimus jam Christum secundum carnem: Quia 
est Deus benedictus in saecula.
     3. The language used in the text by Cassian is scarcely defensible.  The 
whole tenour of the treatise shows clearly enough that his meaning is orthodox 
enough, and that he fully recognizes that the Human nature of Christ is still 
existing (See especially c. vi.): but the language used comes perilously near 
to Eutychianism, and might be taken to imply that the human nature had been 
absorbed in the Divine.  Again in Book V. c. vii. he speaks of the Son of man 
"united to the Son of God" (Cf. also c. viii.) language which taken by itself 
might seem to sanction Nestorianism, the very heresy against which Cassian 
himself is writing.  These instances of inaccurate language, which a later 
writer would have carefully avoided, serve to show one great service which 
heresies did to the Church in making Churchmen write logikoteron.  Cf. Dorner, 
Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Vol. i. p. 458 (E. T.).


CHAPTER IV. 

  From the Epistle to the Galatians he brings forward a passage to show that
       the weakness of the flesh in Christ was absorbed by His Divinity.

    THE Apostle indeed declares this in the whole body of his writings, and 
admirably says in writing to the Galatians: "Paul an Apostle not of men, 
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father."[1]  You see how 
thoroughly consistent he is with himself in the former and the present 
passage.  For there he says: "Now we no longer know Christ according to the 
flesh."  Here he says: "Not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ."  It 
is clear that his doctrine is the same here as in the former passage.  For 
where he says that he is not sent by man, he implies: "We have not known 
Christ according to the flesh:" and so I am "not sent by man" but "by 
Christ;"[2] for if I am sent by Christ, I am not sent by man but by God.  For 
there is no longer room for the name of man, in Him whom Divinity claims 
entirely for itself.  And so when he had said that he was sent "not of men, 
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," he rightly added: "And God the Father," 
thus showing that he was sent by God the Father and God the Son; in whom owing 
to the mystery of the sacred and ineffable generation there are two Persons 
(He who begets, and He who is begotten), but there is but one single Power of 
God who is the sender.  And so in saying that he was sent by God the Father 
and God the Son, he shows that the Persons are two in number, but he also 
teaches that their Power is One in sending.

-----

Notes for Chapter 4

     1. Gal. 1:1.
     2. Christum (Petschenig): Jesum (Gazaeus).


CHAPTER V. 

          As it is blasphemy to pare away the Divinity of Christ, so
              also is it blasphemous to deny that He is true man.

    BUT he says "by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the 
dead."  That renowned and admirable teacher, knowing that our Lord Jesus 
Christ must be preached as true man, as well as true God, always declares the 
glory of the Divine in Him, in such a way as not to lose hold of the 
confession of the Incarnation: plainly excluding the phantasm of Marcion, by a 
real Incarnation, and the poverty of the Ebionite, by Divinity: lest through 
one or other of these wicked blasphemies it might be believed that our Lord 
Jesus Christ was either altogether man without God, or God without man. 
Excellently then did the Apostle, when declaring that He was sent by God the 
Son as well as by God the Father, add at once a confession of the Lord's 
Incarnation, by saying: "Who raised Him from the dead:" clearly teaching that 
it was a real body of the Incarnate God, which was raised from the dead: in 
accordance with this: "And though we have known Christ according to the 
flesh," excellently adding: "Yet now we know Him so no longer."  For he says 
that he knows this in Him according to the flesh; viz., that He was raised 
from the dead; but that he knows Him no longer according to the flesh inasmuch 
as when the weakness of the flesh is at an end, he knows that He exists in the 
Power of God only.  Surely he is a faithful and satisfactory witness of our 
Lord's Divinity which had to be proclaimed, who at his first call was smitten 
from heaven itself, and did not merely believe in his heart the glory of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who was raised from the dead, but actually established its 
truth by the evidence of his bodily eyes. 


CHAPTER VI. 

     He shows from the appearance of Christ vouchsafed to the Apostle when
         persecuting the Church, the existence of both natures in Him.

    WHEREFORE also, when arguing before King Agrippa and others of the world's 
judges, he speaks as follows: "When I was going to Damascus with authority and 
permission of the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light 
from heaven above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and all 
those that were with me.  And when we were all fallen down to the ground, I 
heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
thou Me?  It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.  And I said, Who art 
Thou, Lord?  And the Lord said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou 
persecutest."[1]  You see how truly the Apostle said that he no longer knew 
according to the flesh one whom he had seen in such splendour and majesty.  
For when as he lay prostrate he saw the splendour of that divine light which 
he was unable to endure, there followed this voice: "Saul, Saul, why 
persecutest thou Me?"  And when he asked who it might be, the Lord answers and 
clearly points out His Personality: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou 
persecutest."  Now then, you heretic, I ask you, I summon you.  Do you believe 
what the Apostle says of himself, or do you not believe it?  Or if you think 
that unimportant, do you believe what the Lord says of Himself or do you not 
believe it?  If you do believe it, there is an end of the matter: for you 
cannot help believing what we believe.  For we, like the Apostle, even if we 
have known Christ according to the flesh, yet know Him so no longer.  We do 
not heap insults on Christ.  We do not separate the flesh from the Divinity; 
and all that is in Christ we believe is in God.  If then you believe the same 
that we believe you must acknowledge the same mysteries of the faith.  But if 
you differ from us, if you refuse to believe the Churches, the Apostle, aye 
and God's own testimony about Himself, show us in this vision which the 
Apostle saw, how much is flesh, and how much God.  For I cannot here separate 
one from the other.  I see the ineffable light, I see the inexpressible 
splendour, I see the radiance that human weakness cannot endure, and beyond 
what mortal eyes can bear, the glory of God shining with inconceivable 
light.[2]  What room is there here for division and separation?  In the voice 
we hear Jesus, in the majesty we see God.  How can we help believing that in 
one and the same (Personal) substance God and Jesus exist.  But I should like 
to have a few more words with you on this subject.  Tell me, I pray you, if 
there appeared to you in your present persecution of the Catholic faith that 
same vision which then appeared to the Apostle in his ignorance, if when you 
were not expecting it and were off your guard, that radiance shone round about 
you, and the glory of that boundless light smote you in your terror and 
confusion, and you lay prostrate in darkness of body and soul; which the 
unlimited and indescribable terror of your heart increased,[3]--tell me, I 
intreat you; When the dread of immediate death was pressing on you, and the 
terror of the glory that threatened you from above, weighed you down, and you 
heard as well in your bewilderment of mind those words which your sin so well 
deserves: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" and to your inquiry who it 
was the answer was given from heaven: "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou 
persecutest," what would you say?  "I do not know, I do not yet fully believe. 
I want to think over it with myself a little longer, who I think that Thou 
art, who speakest from heaven, who overwhelmest me with the brightness of Thy 
Divinity: whose voice I hear and whose splendour I cannot bear.  I must 
consider of this matter, whether I ought to believe Thee or not: whether Thou 
art Christ or God.  If Thou art God alone whether it is in Christ.  If Thou 
art Christ alone, whether it is in God.  I want this distinction to be 
carefully observed, and thoroughly considered what we should believe that Thou 
art, and what we should judge Thee to be.  For I don't want any of my offices 
to be wasted.  As if I were to regard Thee as a man, and yet pay to Thee some 
Divine honours."  If then you were lying on the ground, as the Apostle Paul 
was then lying, and overwhelmed with the brightness of the Divine light, were 
at your last gasp, perhaps you would say this, and prate with all this silly 
chattering.  But what shall we make of the fact that another course commended 
itself to the Apostle; and when he had fallen down, trembling and half dead, 
he did not think that he ought any longer to conceal his belief, or to 
deliberate it was enough for him that he was taught by inexpressible arguments 
to know that He whom he had ignorantly fancied to be a man, was God.  He did 
not conceal his belief, he made no delay.  He did not any longer protract his 
erroneous ideas by deliberating and disbelieving, but as soon as he heard from 
heaven the name of Jesus his Lord, he replied in a voice, subdued like that of 
a servant, tremulous like that of one scourged, and full of fervour like that 
of one converted, "What shall I do, Lord?"  And so at once for his ready and 
earnest faith, it was granted to him that He should never be without His 
presence whom he had faithfully believed: and that He, to whom he had passed 
in heart, should Himself pass into his heart: as the Apostle himself says of 
himself: "Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?"[4]

-----

Notes for Chapter 6

     1. Acts 26:12-15.
     2. Inaestimabili majestatem Dei luce fulgentem (Petschenig): Gazaeus 
edits Inaestimabilem majestatem, Dei luce fulgentem.
     3. Quas tibi immensus et ineffabilis pavor mentis augeret (Petschenig): 
Gazaeus has Quas tibi immensas et ineffabiles augustias pavor mentis augeret?
     4. 2 Cor. 13:3.


CHAPTER VII. 

    He shows once more by other passages of the Apostle that Christ is God.

    I WANT you to tell me, you heretic, whether in this passage He who, as the 
Apostle tells us, speaks in him, is man or God.  If He is man, how can 
another's body speak in his heart?  If God, then Christ is not a man but God; 
for since Christ spoke in the Apostle, and only God could speak in him, 
therefore a Divine Christ spoke in him.  And so you see that there is nothing 
to be said here, that no division or separation can be made between Christ and 
God: because complete Divinity was in Christ, and Christ was completely in 
God.  No division or severing of the two can here be admitted.  There is only 
one simple, pious, and sound confession to be made; viz., to adore, love, and 
worship Christ as God.  But do you want to understand more fully and 
thoroughly that there is no separation to be made between God and Christ, and 
that we must hold that God is altogether one with Christ?  Hear what the 
Apostle says to the Corinthians: "For we must all be manifested before the 
judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the 
body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil."[1]  But in 
another passage, in writing to the Romans he says: "We shall all stand before 
the judgment seat of God: for it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every 
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."[2]  You see then 
that the judgment seat of God is the same as that of Christ; understand then 
without any doubt that Christ is God; and when you see that the substance of 
God and Christ is altogether inseparable, admit also that the Person cannot be 
severed.  Unless forsooth because the Apostle in one Epistle said that we 
should be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, and in another before 
that of God, you invent two judgment seats, and fancy that some will be judged 
by Christ and others by God.  But this is foolish and wild, and madder than a 
madman's utterances.  Acknowledge then the Lord of all, the God of the 
universe, acknowledge the judgment seat of God in the judgment seat of 
Christ.  Love life, love your salvation, love Him by whom you were created.  
Fear Him by whom you are to be judged.  For whether you will or no, you have 
to be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, and laying aside wicked 
blasphemy and the childish talk of unbelieving words, though you think that 
the judgment seat of God is different from that of Christ, you will come 
before the judgment seat of Christ, and will find by evidence that there is no 
gainsaying, that the judgment seat of God is indeed the same as that of 
Christ, and that in Christ the Son of God, there is all the glory of God the 
Son, and the power of God the Father.  "For the Father judgeth no man, but 
hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as 
they honour the Father."[3]  For whoever denies the Father denies the Son 
also.  "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that 
confesseth the Son, hath the Father also."[4]  And so you should learn that 
the glory of the Father and the Son is inseparable, and their majesty is 
inseparable also and that the Son cannot be honoured without the Father, nor 
the Father without the Son.  But no man can honour God and the Son of God 
except in Christ the only-begotten Son of God.  For it is impossible for a man 
to have the Spirit of God who is to be honoured except in the Spirit of 
Christ, as the Apostle says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, 
if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.  But if any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."[5]  And again: "Who shall lay anything 
to the charge of God's elect?  It is God that justifieth.  Who is he that 
condemneth?  It is Christ Jesus who died, yea rather who rose again."[6]  You 
see then now, even against your will, that there is absolutely no difference 
between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, or between the judgment of 
God and the judgment of Christ.  Choose then which you will--for one of the 
two must happen--either acknowledge in faith that Christ is God, or admit that 
God is in Christ at your condemnation.

-----

Notes for Chapter 7

     1. 2 Cor. 5:10.
     2. Rom. 14:10, 11.
     3. S. John 5:22, 23.
     4. 1 John 2:23.
     5. Rom. 8:9.
     6. Rom. 8:33, 34.


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."[1]  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[2] 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.

-----

Notes for Chapter 8

     1. 1 Cor. 1:22-24.
     2. Mater (Petschenig): Caro (Gazaeus).


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. 


CHAPTER X. 

                 How the apostle maintains that Christ is the
                      power of God and the wisdom of God.

    BUT let us see something more on the subject.  Christ then, according to 
the Apostle, is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  What have you to say 
to this?  How can you get out of it?  There is no place for you to escape and 
fly to.  Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God.  He, I say, whom 
the Jews attacked, the Gentiles mocked, whom you yourself together with them 
are persecuting,--He, I say, who is foolishness to the heathen, and a 
stumbling-block to the Jews, and both to you, He, I say, is the power of God 
and the wisdom of God.  What is there that you can do?  Shut your ears, 
forsooth, so as not to hear?  This the Jews did also when the Apostle was 
preaching.  Do what you will, Christ is in heaven, and in God, and with Him, 
and in Him in the heavens above in whom also He was here below: you can no 
longer persecute Him with the Jews.  But you do the one thing that you can.  
You persecute Him in the faith, you persecute Him in the church, you persecute 
Him with the arms of a wicked belief, you persecute Him with the sword of 
false doctrine.  Perhaps you do rather more than the Jews of old did.  You now 
persecute Christ, after ever those who did persecute Him, have believed.  But 
perhaps you think that the sin is less because you can no longer lay hands on 
Him.  No less grievous, I tell you, no less grievous to Him is that 
persecution, in which sinful men persecute Him in the persons of His 
followers.  But the mention of the Lord's cross offends you.  It always 
offended the Jews as well.  You shudder at hearing that God suffered: the 
Gentiles in their error mocked at this also.  I ask you then, in what point do 
you differ from them, since you both agree in this frowardness?  But for my 
part I not only do not water down this preaching of the holy cross, this 
preaching of the Lord's passion, but as far as my wishes and powers go I 
emphasise it.  For I will declare that He who was crucified is not only the 
power and wisdom of God, than which there is nothing greater, but actually 
Lord of absolute Divinity and glory.  And this the rather, because this 
assertion of mine is the doctrine of God, as the Apostle says: "We speak 
wisdom among them that are perfect: but the wisdom not of this world, nor of 
the rulers of this world who are brought to nought: but we speak the hidden 
wisdom of God in a mystery, which God ordained before the world, unto our 
glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for if they had known it, 
they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.  But as it is written: that 
eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of 
man, what God hath prepared for them that love Him."[1]  You see what great 
matters the Apostle's discourse comprises in how small a compass.  He says 
that he speaks wisdom, but a wisdom which only those that are perfect can 
know, and which the prudent of this world cannot know.  For he says that this 
is the wisdom of God, which is hidden in a Divine mystery, and predestined 
before all worlds for the glory of the saints: and that therefore it is only 
known to those who savour of God; while the princes of this world are utterly 
ignorant of it.  But he adds the reason, to establish both points that he had 
mentioned, saying: "For if they had known it, they would never have crucified 
the Lord of glory.  But it is written, that eye hath not seen, nor ear hath 
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what God hath prepared 
for them that love Him."  You see then how the wisdom of God, hidden in a 
mystery, and predestined before all worlds, was unknown to those who crucified 
the Lord of glory, and known by those who received it.  And well does he say 
that the wisdom of God was hidden in a mystery, for never yet could the eye of 
any man see, or the ear hear, or the heart imagine this; viz., that the Lord 
of glory should be born of a virgin and come in the flesh, and suffer all 
kinds of punishment, and shameful passion.  But with regard to these gifts of 
God, as there is no one who--since they were hidden in a mystery--could ever 
of himself understand them, so blessed is he who has grasped them when they 
are revealed.  Thus all who have failed to grasp them must be reckoned among 
the princes of this world, and those who have grasped them among God's wise 
ones.  He then does not grasp it who denies God born in the flesh; therefore 
you also do not grasp it, as you deny this.  But do what you will, deny as 
impiously as you like, we the rather believe the Apostle.  But why should I 
say the Apostle? the rather do we believe God.  For through the Apostle we 
believe Him, whom we know to have spoken by the Apostle.  The Divine word says 
that the Lord of glory was crucified by the princes of the world.  You deny 
it.  They also who crucified Him denied that it was God whom they were 
crucifying.  They then who confess Him have their portion with the Apostle who 
confessed Him.  You are sure to have your lot with His persecutors.  What is 
there then that can be replied to this?  The Apostle says that the Lord of 
glory was crucified.  Alter this if you can.  Separate now, if you please, 
Jesus from God.  At least you cannot deny that Christ was crucified by the 
Jews.  But it was the Lord of glory who was crucified.  Therefore you must 
either deny that Christ was nailed to the cross, or you must admit that God 
was nailed to it.

-----

Note for Chapter 10

     1. 1 Cor. 1:6-9.


CHAPTER XI. 

           He supports the same doctrine by proofs from the gospel.

    BUT perhaps it is a difficulty to you that all this time I am chiefly 
using the witness of the Apostle Paul alone.  He is good enough for me, whom 
God chose, nor do I blush to call as the witness to my faith, the man whom God 
willed to be the teacher of the whole world.  But to yield to your wishes, as 
perhaps you fancy that I have no other proofs to use, hear the perfect mystery 
of man's salvation and eternal bliss, which Martha proclaims in the gospel. 
For what does she say?  "Of a truth, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into this world."[1]  Learn 
the true faith from a woman.  Learn the confession of eternal hope.  Yet you 
have a splendid consolation: you need not blush to be taught the mystery of 
salvation by her, whose testimony God did not refuse to accept.

-----

Note for Chapter 11

     1. S. John 11:27.


CHAPTER XII. 

                 He proves from the renowned confession of the
                       blessed Peter that Christ is God.

    BUT if you prefer the authority of a greater person (although you ought 
not to slight the authority of any one of either sex, on whom the confession 
of the mystery confers weight--for whatever may be a person's condition, or 
however humble his position, yet the value of his faith is not thereby 
diminished) let us interrogate no beginner or untaught schoolboy, nor a woman 
whose faith might perhaps appear to be but rudimentary; but that greatest of 
disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and 
ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place[1] in the priesthood as 
he did in the faith.  Tell us then, tell us, we pray, O Peter, thou chief of 
Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe in God.  For it is right 
that you should teach us, as you were taught by the Lord, and that you should 
open to us the gate, of which you received the key.  Shut out all those who 
try to overthrow the heavenly house: and those who are endeavouring to enter 
by secret holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter 
the gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches is 
revealed by you.  Tell us then how we ought to believe in Jesus Christ and to 
confess our common Lord.  You will surely reply without hesitation: "Why do 
you consult me as to the way in which the Lord should be confessed, when you 
have before you my own confession of Him?  Read the gospel, and you will not 
want me myself, when you have got my confession.  Nay, you have got me myself 
when you have my confession; for though I have no weight apart from my 
confession, yet the actual confession adds weight to my person."  Tell us 
then, O Evangelist, tell us the confession: tell us the faith of the chief 
Apostle: did he confess that Jesus was only a man, or God? did he say that 
there was nothing but flesh in Him, or did he proclaim Him the Son of God? 
When then the Lord Jesus Christ asked whom the disciples believed and 
confessed Him to be, Peter, the first of the Apostles, replied--one in the 
name of all--for the answer of one was to the same effect as the faith of them 
all.  But it was fitting that he should first give the answer, that the order 
of the answer might correspond to the degree of honour: and that he might 
outstrip them in confession, as he outstripped them in age.  What then does he 
say?  "Thou art," he says, "the Christ the Son of the living God."[2]  I am 
obliged, you heretic, to make use of a plain and simple question to confute 
you.  Tell me, I pray, who was He, to whom Peter gave that answer?  You cannot 
deny that it was the Christ.  I ask then, what do you call Christ? man or God? 
Man certainly without any doubt: for hence springs the whole of your heresy, 
because you deny that Christ is the Son of God.  And so too you say that Mary 
is Christotocos, but not Theotocos, because she was the mother of Christ, not 
of God.  Therefore you maintain, that Christ is only a man, and not God, and 
so that He is the Son of man not of God.  What then does Peter reply to this? 
"Thou art," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the living God."  That Christ 
whom you declare to be only the Son of man, he testifies to be the Son of God. 
Whom would you like us to believe? you or Peter?  I imagine that you are not 
so shameless as to venture to prefer your own opinion to that of the first of 
the Apostles.  And yet what is there that you would not venture on? or how can 
you help scorning the Apostle, if you can deny God?  "Thou art then," he says, 
"the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Is there anything puzzling or 
obscure in this?  It is nothing but a plain and open confession: he proclaims 
Christ to be the Son of God.  Perhaps you will deny that the words were 
spoken: but the Evangelist testifies that they were.  Or do you say that the 
Apostle told a lie?  But it is an awful lie to accuse an Apostle of lying.  Or 
perhaps you will maintain that the words were spoken of some other Christ?  
But this is a novel kind of monstrous fabrication.  What then is left for you? 
One thing indeed; viz., that since what is written is read, and what is read 
is true, you should finally be driven by force and compulsion (as you cannot 
assert its falsehood) to desist from impugning its truth.

-----

Notes for Chapter 12

     1. Principatus.
     2. S. Matt. 16:16.


CHAPTER XIII. 

                The confession of the blessed Peter receives a
                  testimony to its truth from Christ Himself.

    BUT still, as I have made use of the testimony of the chief Apostle, in 
which he openly confessed the Lord Jesus Christ as God, let us see how He whom 
he confessed approved of his confession; for of far more value than the 
Apostle's words is the fact that God Himself commended his utterance.  When 
then the Apostle said: "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God," what 
was the answer of our Lord and Saviour?  "Blessed art thou," said He, "Simon 
Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but the Spirit of 
My Father which is in heaven."  If you do not like to use the testimony of the 
Apostle use that of God.  For by commending what was said God added His own 
authority to the Apostle's utterance, so that although the utterance came from 
the lips of the Apostle, yet God who approved of it made it His own.  "Blessed 
art thou," said He, "Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
unto thee, but the Spirit of My Father which is in heaven."  Thus in the words 
of the Apostle you have the testimony of the Holy Spirit and of the Son who 
was present and of God the Father.  What more can you want, or what comes up 
to this?  The Son commended: the Father was present: the Holy Ghost revealed. 
The utterance of the Apostle thus gives the testimony of the entire Godhead: 
for this utterance must necessarily have the authority of Him from whose 
prompting it proceeds.  "Blessed then art thou," said He, "Simon Barjonah, for 
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but the Spirit of My Father 
which is in heaven."  If then flesh and blood did not reveal this to Peter or 
inspire him, you must at last see who inspires you.  If the Spirit of God 
taught him who confessed that Christ was God, you see how you are taught by 
the spirit of the devil if you can deny it. 


CHAPTER XIV. 

   How the confession of the blessed Peter is the faith of the whole Church.

    BUT what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord's, with 
which He commends Peter?  "And I," said He, "say unto thee, that thou art 
Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church."  Do you see how the saying 
of Peter is the faith of the Church?  He then must of course be outside the 
Church, who does not hold the faith of the Church.  "And to thee," saith the 
Lord, "I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven."  This faith deserved 
heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom.  See what awaits 
you.  You cannot enter the gate to which this key belongs, if you have denied 
the faith of this key.  "And the gate," He adds, "of hell shall not prevail 
against thee."  The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief of 
heretics.  For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely is he who 
denies from him who confessed that Christ is God.  "Whatsoever," He proceeds, 
"thou shalt bind on earth, shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth, shalt be loosed also in heaven."  The perfect faith of the 
Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind or loose 
on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven.  For you then, who come against 
the Apostle's faith, as you see that already you are bound on earth, it only 
remains that you should know that you are bound also in heaven.  But it would 
take too long to go into details which are so numerous as to make a long and 
wearisome story, even if they are related with brevity and conciseness. 


CHAPTER XV. 

                  St. Thomas also confessed the same faith as
                     Peter after the Lord's resurrection.

    BUT I want still to add one more testimony from an Apostle for you: that 
you may see how what followed after the passion corresponded with what went 
before it.  When then the Lord appeared in the midst of His disciples when the 
doors were shut, and wished to make clear to the Apostles the reality of His 
body, when the Apostle Thomas felt His flesh and handled His side and examined 
His wounds--what was it that he declared, when he was convinced of the reality 
of the body shown to him?  "My Lord," he said, "and my God."[1]  Did he say 
what you say, that it was a man and not God?  Christ and not Divinity?  He 
surely touched the body of his Lord and answered that He was God.  Did he make 
any separation between man and God? or did he call that flesh Theotocos, to 
use your expression, i.e., that which received Divinity? or did he, after the 
fashion of your blasphemy, declare that He whom he touched was to be honoured 
not for His own sake, but for the sake of Him whom He had received into 
Himself?  But perhaps God's Apostle knew nothing of that subtle separation of 
yours, and had no experience of the fine distinctions of your judgment, as he 
was a rude countryman, ignorant of the dialectic art, and of the method of 
philosophic disputation; for whom the Lord's teaching was amply sufficient, 
and as he was one who knew nothing whatever except what he learnt from the 
instruction of the Lord!  And so his words contain heavenly doctrine; his 
faith is a Divine lesson.  He had never learnt to separate, as you do, the 
Lord from His body: and had no idea how to rend God asunder from Himself.  He 
was holy, straightforward, upright: filled with practical innocence, unalloyed 
faith, and pure knowledge: having a simple understanding joined with prudence, 
a wisdom entirely free from all evil, together with perfect simplicity: 
ignorant of any corruption, and free from all heretical perversity, and as one 
who had experienced in himself the force of the Divine lesson, he held fast 
everything which he had learnt.  And so he--countryman and ignorant fellow as 
you fancy him--shuts you up with a brief answer, and destroys your position 
with a few words of his.  What then did the Apostle Thomas touch when he drew 
near to handle his God?  Certainly it was Christ without any doubt.  But what 
did he exclaim?  "My Lord," he said, "and my God."  Now, if you can, separate 
Christ from God, and change this saying, if you are able to.  Make use of all 
dialectic art--all the prudence of this world, and that foolish wisdom which 
consists in wordy subtlety.  Turn yourself about in every direction, and draw 
in your horns.  Do whatever you can with ingenuity and art.  Say what you 
like, and do what you like; you cannot possibly get out of this without 
confessing that what the Apostle touched was God.  And indeed, if the thing 
can possibly be done, perhaps you will want to alter the statement of the 
gospel story, so that we may not read that the Apostle Thomas touched the body 
of the Lord, or that he called Christ Lord and God.  But it is absolutely 
impossible to alter what is written in the gospel of God.  For "heaven and 
earth shall pass away, but the words" of God "shall not pass away."[2]  For 
lo, even now he who then bore his witness, the Apostle Thomas, proclaims to 
you: "Jesus whom I touched is God.  It is God whose limbs I handled.  I did 
not feel what was incorporeal, not handle what was intangible: I touched not a 
Spirit with my hand, so that it might be believed that I said of it alone `It 
is God.'  For `a spirit,' as my Lord Himself said, `hath not flesh and 
bones.'[3]  I touched the body of my Lord.  I handled flesh and bones.  I put 
my fingers into the prints of the wounds: and I declared of Christ my Lord, 
whom I had handled: `My Lord and my God.'  For I know not how to make a 
separation between Christ and God, and I cannot insert blasphemous 
distinctions between Jesus and God, or rend my Lord asunder from Himself.  
Away from me, whoever is of a different opinion, and whoever says anything 
different.  I know not that Christ is other than God.  This faith I held 
together with my fellow apostles: this I delivered to the Churches: this I 
preached to the Gentiles: this I proclaim to thee also, Christ is God, Christ 
is God.  A sound mind imagines nothing else: a sound faith says nothing else. 
The Deity cannot be parted from Itself.  And since whatever is Christ is God, 
there can be found in God none other but God."

-----

Notes for Chapter 15

     1. S. John 20:28.
     2. S. Matt. 24:35.
     3. S. Luke 24:39.


CHAPTER XVI. 

  He brings forward the witness of God the Father to the Divinity of the Son.

    WHAT do you say now, you heretic?  Are these evidences of the faith, aye 
and of all your unbelief, enough for you: or would you like some more to be 
added to them? but what can be added after Prophets and Apostles? unless 
perhaps--as the Jews once demanded--you too might ask for a sign to be given 
you from heaven?  But if you ask this; we must give you the same answer which 
was formerly given to them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a 
sign.  And no sign shall be given to it, but the sign of the prophet 
Jonah."[1]  And indeed this sign would be enough for you as for the Jews who 
crucified Him, that you might be taught to believe in the Lord God by this 
alone, through which even those who had persecuted Him, came to believe.  But 
as we have mentioned a sign from heaven, I will show you a sign from heaven: 
and one of such a character that even the devils have never gainsaid it: 
while, constrained by the demands of truth, though they saw Jesus in bodily 
form, they yet cried out that He was God, as indeed He was.  What then does 
the Evangelist say of the Lord Jesus Christ?  "When He was baptized," he says, 
"straightway He went up out of the water.  And lo, the heavens were opened to 
Him, and He saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and coming upon Him.  And 
behold, a voice from heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased."[2]  What do you say to this, you heretic?  Do you dislike the words 
spoken, or the Person of the Speaker?  The meaning of the utterance at any 
rate needs no explanation: nor does the worth of the Speaker need the 
commendation of words.  It is God the Father who spoke.  What He said is clear 
enough.  Surely you cannot make so shameless and blasphemous an assertion as 
to say that God the Father is not to be believed concerning the only begotten 
Son of God?  "This," He then says, "is My beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased."  But perhaps you will try to maintain that this is madness, and that 
this was said of the Word and not of Christ.  Tell me then who was it who was 
baptized?  The Word or Christ?  Flesh or Spirit?  You cannot possibly deny 
that it was Christ.  That man then, born of man and of God, conceived by the 
descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, and by the overshadowing of the 
Power of the Most High, and thus the Son of man and of God, He it was, as you 
cannot deny, who was baptized.  If then it was He who was baptized, it was He 
also who was named, for certainly the Person who was baptized was the one 
named.  "This," said He, "is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."  
Could anything be said with greater significance or clearness?  Christ was 
baptized.  Christ went up out of the water.  When Christ was baptized the 
heavens were opened.  For Christ's sake the dove descended upon Christ, the 
Holy Spirit was present in a bodily form.  The Father addressed Christ.  If 
you venture to deny that this was spoken of Christ, the only thing is for you 
to maintain that Christ was not baptized, that the Spirit did not descend, and 
that the Father did not speak.  But the truth itself is urgent and weighs you 
down so that even if you will not confess it, yet you cannot deny it.  For 
what says the Evangelist?  "When He was baptized, straightway He went up out 
of the water."  Who was baptized?  Most certainly Christ.  "And behold," he 
says, "the heavens were opened to Him."  To where, forsooth, save to Him who 
was baptized?  Most certainly to Christ.  "And He saw the Spirit of God 
descending like a dove and coming upon Him."  Who saw?  Christ indeed.  Upon 
whom did It descend?  Most certainly upon Christ.  "And a voice came from 
heaven, saying"--of whom?  Of Christ indeed: for what follows?  "This is My 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."  In order that it might be made clear 
on whose account all this happened, there followed the voice, saying: "This is 
My beloved Son," as if to say: This is He on whose account all this took 
place.  For this is My Son: on His account the heavens were opened: on His 
account My Spirit came: on His account My voice was heard.  For this is My 
Son.  In saying then "This is My Son" whom did He so designate?  Certainly Him 
whom the dove touched.  And whom did the dove touch?  Christ indeed.  
Therefore Christ is the Son of God.  My promise is fulfilled, I fancy.  Do you 
see then now, O heretic, a sign given you from heaven; and not one only, but 
many and special ones?  For there is one in the opening of heaven, another in 
the descent of the Spirit, a third in the voice of the Father.  All of which 
most clearly show that Christ is God, for the laying open of the heavens 
indicates that He is God, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him supports 
His Divinity, and the address of the Father confirms it.  For heaven would not 
have been opened except in honour of its Lord: nor would the Holy Ghost have 
descended in a bodily form except upon the Son of God: nor would the Father 
have declared Him to be the Son, had he not been truly such; especially with 
such tokens of a Divine birth, as not merely to confirm the truth of the right 
faith, but also to exclude the wickedness of guilty and erroneous belief.  For 
when the Father had expressly and pointedly said with the inexpressible 
majesty of a Divine utterance, "This is My Son," He added also what follows--I 
mean, "My beloved, in whom I am well pleased."  As He had already declared Him 
by the prophet to be God the Mighty and God the Great, so when He says here, 
"My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," He adds further to the name of His 
own Son the title also of His beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased: that 
the addition of the titles might denote the special properties of the Divine 
nature; and that that might specially redound to the glory of the Son of God, 
which had never happened to any man.  And so just as in the case of our Lord 
Jesus Christ these special and unique things happened; viz., that the heavens 
were opened, that in the sight of all God the Father touched Him in a sort of 
way, through the coming and presence of the dove, and pointed almost with His 
finger to Him saying, "This is My Son;" so this too is special and unique in 
His case; viz., that He is specially beloved, and is specially named as 
well-pleasing to the Father, in order that these special accompaniments might 
mark the special import of His nature, and that the special character of His 
names might support the special position of the only begotten Son, which the 
honour of the signs previously given had already confirmed.  But here comes 
the end of this book.  For this saying of God the Father can neither be added 
to, nor equalled by any words of men.  For us God the Father Himself is a 
sufficiently satisfactory witness concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, when He 
says "This is My Son."  If you think that it is possible for these utterances 
of God the Father to be gainsaid, then you are forced to contradict Him, who 
by the clearest possible announcement caused Him to be acknowledged as His Son 
by the whole world.

-----

Notes for Chapter 16

     1. S. Matt. 16:4.
     2. S. Matt. 3:16, 17.


                             --------------------

                                   BOOK IV. 


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."[1]  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.

-----

Note for Chapter 1

     1. Gal. 4:4.


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. 


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."[1]  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[2] 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."[3]  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."

-----

Notes for Chapter 3

     1. Rom. 8:3.
     2. Sacramentum.
     3. Exod. 4:13.  Where the LXX. has Deomai, Kyrie, procheirisai dynamenon 
allon hon aposteleis, 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.


CHAPTER IV. 

             He brings forward other testimonies to the same view.

    IF you would know how admirably the Apostle preached this, hear how this 
utterance was put into his mouth; as if from the mouth of God Himself, as the 
Lord says: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but 
that the world might be saved through Him."[1]  For lo, as you see, the Lord 
Himself affirms that He was sent by God the Father to save mankind.  But if 
you think that it ought to be shown still more clearly, what Son God sent to 
save men,--though God's own and only begotten can only be one, and when God is 
said to have sent His Son, He is certainly shown to have sent His only 
begotten Son,--yet hear the prophet David pointing out with the utmost 
clearness Him who was sent for the salvation of Men.  "He sent," said he, "His 
Word and healed them."[2]  Can you twist this so as to refer it to the flesh 
as if you could say that a mere man was sent by God to heal mankind?  You 
certainly cannot, for the prophet David and all the holy Scriptures would cry 
out against you, saying, "He sent His Word and healed them."  You see then, 
that the Word was sent to heal men, for though healing was given through 
Christ, yet the Word of God was in Christ, and healed all things through 
Christ: and so since Christ and the Word were united in the mystery of the 
Incarnation, Christ and the Word of God became one Son of God in either 
substance.  And when the Apostle John was anxious to state this clearly, he 
said "God sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world."[3]  Do you see how he 
joined together God and man in an union that cannot be severed?  For Christ 
who was born of Mary is without the slightest doubt called Saviour, as it is 
said, "For to you is born this day a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."[4] 
But here he calls the very Word of God, which was sent, a Saviour, saying: 
"God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world."

-----

Notes for Chapter 4

     1. S. John 3:17.
     2. Ps. 106 (107):20.
     3. 1 John 4:14.
     4. S. Luke 2:11.


CHAPTER V. 

How in virtue of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ the Word is
       rightly termed the Saviour, or incarnate man, and the Son of God.

    AND so it is clear that through the mystery of the Word of God joined to 
man, the Word, which was sent to save men, can be termed Saviour, and the 
Saviour, who was born in the flesh, can through union with the Word be called 
the Son of God; and so through the indifferent use of either title, since God 
is joined to man, whatever is God and man, can be termed altogether God.[1] 
And so the same Apostle well adds the words: "Whoever believeth that Jesus is 
the Son of God, God abideth in him, and the love of God is perfected in 
him."[2]  He tells us that he believes, and declares that he is filled with 
divine love, who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.  But he testifies that 
the Word of God is the Son of God, and thus means us fully to understand that 
the only begotten Word of God, and Jesus Christ the Son of God are one and the 
same Person.  But do you want to be told more fully that,--though Christ 
according to the flesh was truly born as man of man,--yet in virtue of the 
ineffable unity of the mystery, by which man was joined to God, there is no 
separation between Christ and the Word?  Hear the gospel of the Lord, or 
rather hear the Lord Himself saying of Himself:[3] "This," says He, "is life 
eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
Thou hast sent."[4]  You heard above that the Word of God was sent to heal 
mankind: here you are told that He who was sent is Jesus Christ.  Separate 
this, if you can,--though you see that so great is the unity of Christ and the 
Word, that it was not merely that Christ was united with the Word, but that in 
virtue of the actual unity [of Person] Christ may even be said to be the Word.

-----

Notes for Chapter 5

     1. Cf. Hooker Eccl: Polity., Book V. c. liii. [section] 4.  "A kind of 
mutual commutation there is whereby those concrete names, God and man, when we 
speak of Christ, do take interchangeably one another's room, so that for truth 
of speech it skilleth not whether we say that the Son of God hath created the 
world, and the Son of man by His death hath saved it, or else that the Son of 
man did create, and the Son of God die to save the world.  Howbeit as oft as 
we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what His 
Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of man 
neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ, in whom 
both natures are."  The technical phrase by which this interchange of names is 
described is the Communicatio idiomatum, and in Greek antidosis.  Cf. Pearson 
on the Creed, Art. IV. c. i.
     2. S. John 4:12.
     3. De se dicentem (Petschenig): Gazaeus reads descendentem.
     4. S. John 17:3.


CHAPTER VI. 

       That there is in Christ but one Hypostasis (i.e., Personal self).

    BUT perhaps you think it a trifle to make this clear: not because it fails 
in clearness, but because the obscurity of unbelief always causes obscurity 
even in what is clear.  Hear then how the Apostle sums up in a few words this 
whole mystery of the Lord's unity [of Person].  "Our one Lord Jesus Christ," 
he says, "by whom are all things."[1]  O good Jesus, what weight there is in 
Thy words!  For Thine they are, when spoken of Thee by Thine own.  See how 
much is embraced in the few words of this saying of the Apostle's.  "One 
Lord," says he, "Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."  Did he make use of 
any circumlocution in order to proclaim the truth of this great mystery?[2] or 
did he make a long story of that which he wanted us to grasp?  "Our one Lord," 
he says, "Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."  In a plain and short phrase 
he taught the secret of this great mystery, through this confidence by which 
he realized that in what refers to God his statements had no need of 
lengthened arguments, and that the Divinity added faith to his utterances.  
For the demonstration of facts is enough to confirm what is said, whenever the 
proof rests on the authority of the speaker.  There is then, he says, "one 
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."  Notice how you read the same 
thing of the Word of the Father, which you read of Christ.  For the gospel 
tells us that "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything 
made."[3]  The Apostle says, "By Christ are all things:" the gospel says, "By 
the Word are all things."  Do these sacred utterances contradict each other? 
Most certainly not.  But by Christ, by whom the Apostle said that all things 
were created, and by the Word, by whom the Evangelist relates that all things 
were made, we are meant to understand one and the same Person.  Hear, I tell 
you, what the Word of God, Himself God, has said of Himself.  "No man," he 
saith, "hath ascended into heaven, save He who came down from heaven, even the 
Son of man, who is in heaven."[4]  And again He says: "If ye shall see the Son 
of man ascending where He was before."[5]  He said that the Son of man was in 
heaven: He asserted that the Son of man had come down from heaven.  What does 
it mean?  Why are you muttering?  Deny it, if you can.  But do you ask the 
reason of what is said?  However I do not give it you.  God has said this.  
God has spoken this to me: His Word is the best reason.  I get rid of 
arguments and discussions.  The Person of the Speaker alone is enough to make 
me believe.  I may not debate about the trustworthiness of what is said, nor 
discuss it.  Why should I question whether what God has said is true, since I 
ought not to doubt that what God says is true.  "No man," He says, "hath 
ascended into heaven, save He who came down from heaven, even the Son of man, 
who is in heaven."  Certainly the Word of the Father was ever in heaven: and 
how did He assert that the Son of man was ever in heaven?  You are then to 
understand that He showed that He who was ever the Son of God was also the Son 
of man: when He asserted that He, who had but recently appeared as the Son of 
man, was ever in heaven.  To this points still more that other passage in 
which He testifies that the same Son of man; viz., the Word of God who, as He 
said, came down from heaven, even at the time when He was speaking on earth, 
was in heaven.  For "no man," He said, "hath ascended into heaven, save He who 
came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven."  Who, I pray 
you, is this who is speaking?  Assuredly it is Christ.  But where was He at 
the moment when He spoke?  Assuredly on earth.  And how can He assert that He 
came down from heaven when He was born, and that He was in heaven when He was 
speaking, or say that He is the same Son of man, when certainly no one but God 
can come down from heaven, and when He speaks on earth, and certainly cannot 
be in heaven except through the Infinite nature of God?  Consider then this at 
last, and note that the Son of man is the same Person as the Word of God: for 
He is the Son of man since He is truly born of man, and the Word of God, since 
He who speaks on earth abideth ever in heaven.  And so when He truly terms 
Himself the Son of man, it refers to His human birth, while the fact that He 
never departs from heaven, refers to the Infinite character of His Divine 
nature.  And so the Apostle's teaching is admirably in accordance with those 
sacred words: ("for He that descended," says He, "is the same that ascended 
also above all heavens, that He might fill all things,"[6]) when He says that 
He that descended is the same that ascended.  But none can descend from heaven 
except the Word of God: who certainly "being in the form of God, emptied 
Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and 
being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the Cross."[7]  Thus the Word of God descended from 
heaven: but the Son of man ascended.  But He says that the same Person 
ascended and descended.  Thus you see that the Son of man is the same Person 
as the Word of God.

-----

Notes for Chapter 6

     1. 1 Cor. 8:6.
     2. Tanti mysterii sacramentum.
     3. S. John 1:3.
     4. S. John 3:13.
     5. S. John 6:63.
     6. Eph. 4:10.
     7. Phil. 2:6-8.


CHAPTER VII. 

He returns to the former subject, in order to show against the Nestorians that
those things are said of the man, which belong to the Divine nature as it were 
  of a Person of Divine nature, and conversely that those things are said of
    God, which belong to the human nature as it were of a Person of human
    nature, because there is in Christ but one and a single Personal self.

    AND so following the guidance of the sacred word we may now say fearlessly 
and unhesitatingly that the Son of man came down from heaven, and that the 
Lord of Glory was crucified: because in virtue of the mystery of the 
Incarnation, the Son of God became Son of man, and the Lord of Glory was 
crucified in (the nature of) the Son of man.[1]  What more is there need of?  
It would take too long to go into details: for time would fail me, were I to 
try to examine and explain everything which could be brought to bear on this 
subject.  For one who wished to do this would have to study and read the whole 
Bible.  For what is there which does not bear on this, when all Scripture was 
written with reference to this?  We must then say--as far as can be said--some 
things briefly and cursorily, and enumerate rather than explain them, and 
sacrifice some to save the rest, as for this reason it would certainly be well 
hurriedly to run through some points, lest one should be obliged[2] to pass 
over almost everything in silence.  The Saviour then in the gospel says that 
"the Son of man is come to save what was lost."[3]  And the Apostle says: 
"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation; that Christ Jesus 
came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief."[4]  But the 
Evangelist John also says: "He came unto his own, and His own received Him 
not."[5]  You see then that Scripture says in one place that the Son of man, 
in another Jesus Christ, in another the Word of God came into the world.  And 
so we must hold that the difference is one of title not of fact, and that 
under the appearance of different names there is but one Power [or Person]. 
For though at one time we are told that the Son of man, and at another that 
the Son of God came into the world, but one Person is meant under both names.

-----

Notes for Chapter 7

     1. See Hooker as above (V. liii. 4) "When the Apostle saith of the Jews 
that they crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of man being on earth 
affirmeth that the Son of man was in heaven at the same instant, there is in 
these two speeches that mutual circulation before mentioned.  In the one, 
there is attributed to God or the Lord of Glory death, whereof Divine nature 
is not capable; in the other ubiquity unto man which human nature admitteth 
not.  Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must needs understand the whole person 
of Christ, who being Lord of Glory, was indeed crucified, but not in that 
nature for which he is termed the Lord of Glory.  In like manner by the Son of 
man the whole person of Christ must necessarily be meant, who being man upon 
earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence, but not according to that 
nature for which the title of man is given Him."
     2. Ne necesse sit (Petschenig).
     3. S. Luke 19:10.
     4. 1 Tim. 1:15.
     5. S. John 1:11.


CHAPTER VIII. 

   How this interchange of titles does not interfere with His Divine power.

    FOR certainly when the evangelist says that He came into the world by whom 
the world itself was made, and that He was made the Son of man, who is as God 
the creator of the world, it makes no difference what particular title is 
used, as God in all cases is meant.  For His condescension and will do not 
interfere with His Divinity, since they the rather prove His Divinity, because 
whatever He willed came to pass.  Therefore also because He willed it, He came 
into the world; and because He willed it, He was born a man; and because He 
willed it, He was termed the Son of man.  For just as there are so many words, 
so are they powers belonging to God.  The variety of names in Him does not 
take anything away from the efficacy of His power.  Whatever may be the names 
given Him, in all cases it is one and the same Person.  Though there may be 
some variety in the appearance of His titles, yet there is but a single Divine 
Person (Majestas) meant by all the names. 


CHAPTER IX. 

     He corroborates this statement by the authority of the old prophets.

    BUT since up to this point we have made use more particularly of the 
witness, comparatively new, of evangelists and apostles, now let us bring 
forward the testimony of the old prophets, intermingling at times new things 
with old, that everybody may see that the holy Scriptures proclaim as it were 
with one mouth that Christ was to come in the flesh, with a body of His own 
complete.  And so that far-famed and renowned prophet as richly endowed with 
God's gifts as with his testimony, to whom alone it was given to be sanctified 
before His birth,[1] Jeremiah, says, "This is our Lord, and there shall no 
other be accounted of in comparison with Him.  He found out all the way of 
knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant and Israel His beloved.  Afterwards 
He was seen upon earth and conversed with men."[2]  "This is," then, he says, 
"our God."  You see how the prophet points to God as it were with his hand, 
and indicates Him as it were with his finger.  "This is," he says, "our God." 
Tell me then, who was it that the prophet showed by these signs and tokens to 
be God?  Surely it was not the Father?  For what need was there that He should 
be pointed out, whom all believed that they knew?  For even then the Jews were 
not ignorant of God, for they were living under God's law.  But he was clearly 
aiming at this, that they might come to know the Son of God as God.  And so 
excellently did the Prophet say that He who had found out all knowledge, i.e., 
had given the law, was to be seen upon earth, i.e., was to come in the flesh, 
in order that, as the Jews did not doubt that He who had given the law was 
God, they might recognize that He who was to come in the flesh was God, 
especially since they heard that He, in whom they believed as God the giver of 
the law, was to be seen among men by taking upon Him manhood, as He Himself 
promises His own advent by the prophet: "For I myself that spoke, behold I am 
here."[3]  "There shall then," says the Scriptures, "be no other accounted of 
in comparison of Him."  Beautifully does the prophet here foresee false 
teaching, and so exclude the interpretations of heretical perverseness.  
"There shall no other be accounted of in comparison of Him."  For He is alone 
begotten to be God of God: at whose bidding the completion of the universe 
followed: whose will is the beginning of things: whose empire is the fabric of 
the world: who spake all things, and they came to pass: commanded all things, 
and they were created.  He then alone it is who spake to the patriarchs, dwelt 
in the prophets, was conceived by the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, 
appeared in the world, lived among men, fastened to the wood of the cross the 
handwriting of our offences, triumphed in Himself,[4] slew by His death the 
powers that were at enmity and hostile to us; and gave to all men belief in 
the resurrection, and by the glory of His body put an end to the corruption of 
man's flesh.  You see then that all these belong to the Lord Jesus Christ 
alone: and therefore no other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him, 
for He alone is God begotten of God in this glory and unique blessedness.  
This then is what the prophet's teaching was aiming at; viz., that He might be 
known by all men to be the only begotten Son of God the Father, and that when 
they heard that no other was accounted of as God in comparison with the Son, 
they might confess that there was but one God in the Persons of the Father and 
the Son.  "After this," he said, "He was seen upon earth and conversed with 
men."  You see how plainly this points to the advent and nativity of the Lord. 
For surely the Father--of whom we read that He can only be seen in the Son--
was not seen upon earth, nor born in the flesh, nor conversed with men?  Most 
certainly not.  You see then that all this is spoken of the Son of God.  For 
since the prophet said that God should be seen upon earth, and no other but 
the Son was seen upon earth, it is clear that the prophet said this only of 
Him, of whom facts afterwards proved that it was spoken.  For when He said 
that God should be seen, He could not say this truly, except of Him who was 
indeed afterwards seen.  But enough of this.  Now let us turn to another 
point.  "The labour of Egypt," says the prophet Isaiah, "and the merchandise 
of Ethiopia and of the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over to thee and 
shall be thy servants.  They shall walk after thee, bound with manacles, and 
they shall worship thee, and they shall make supplication to thee: for in thee 
is God, and there is no God beside thee.  For thou art our God and we knew 
thee not, O God of Israel the Saviour."[5]  How wonderfully consistent the 
Holy Scriptures always are! For the first mentioned prophet said, "This is our 
God," and this one says, "Thou art our God."  In the one there is the teaching 
of Divinity, in the other the confession of men.  The one exhibits the 
character of the Master teaching, the other that of the people confessing.  
For consider now the prophet Jeremiah daily teaching, as he does, in the 
church, and saying of the Lord Jesus Christ, "This is our God," what else 
could the whole Church reply, as it does, than what the other prophet said to 
the Lord Jesus, "Thou art our God."  So that full well could the mention of 
their past ignorance be joined to their present acknowledgment, in the words 
of the people: "Thou art our God, and we knew thee not."  For well can these 
who, in times past being taken up with the superstitions of devils did not 
know God, yet when now converted to the faith say, "Thou art our God, and we 
knew thee not."

-----

Notes for Chapter 9

     1. Cf. Jer. 1:5.
     2. The passage comes not from Jeremiah, but from Baruch (3:36-38).  It is 
also quoted as from Jeremiah by Augustine (c. Faustin. xii. c. 43): and in the 
LXX. version the book of Baruch is placed among the works of Jeremiah, e.g., 
In both the Vatican and Alexandrine MSS. they stand in the following order: 
(1) Jeremiah, (2) Baruch, (3) Lamentations, (4) the Epistle of Jeremy (Baruch 
c. 6 in A. V.).  The passage which Cassian here quotes is constantly appealed 
to by both Greek and Latin Fathers, as a prophecy of the Incarnation.  See 
e.g. S. Augustine (l.c.) S. Chrysost. "Ecloga" Hom. xxxiv.  Rufinus in. Symb. 
[section] 5.
     3. Isa. 52:6.
     4. Cf. Col. 2:14, 15.
     5. Isa. 14:14, 15.


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 band 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. 


CHAPTER XI. 

                     He returns to the prophecy of Isaiah.

    "THE labour," says he, "of Egypt, and the merchandize of Ethiopia, and the 
Sabaeans, 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."[1]  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."[2]  And again: "I beseech thee, whereas thou art such an one as 
Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also of Jesus Christ."[3]  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."[4]  "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."[5]  
"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). 

-----

Notes for Chapter 11

     1. Hosea 11:4.
     2. Eph. 4:1.
     3. Philemon 9.
     4. Acts 4:32.
     5. 2 Cor. 5:19.


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."[1]  For everybody knows that in Hebrew "Jesus" means "Saviour," as the 
angel announced to the holy Virgin Mary, saying: "And thou shall call His name 
Jesus, for He it is that shall save His people from their sins."[2]  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,"[3] and again, "the Lord raised up to them a Saviour, Ehud the son of 
Gera"[4]), 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."[5]  
For the others saved a people not their own but God's, and not from their 
sins, but from their enemies.

-----

Notes for Chapter 12

     1. S. Luke 2:11.
     2. S. Matt. 1:21.
     3. Judges 3:9.
     4. Judges 3:15.
     5. S. John 1:29.


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;"[1] and, "The world was made by Him, and the world 
knew Him not.  He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."[2]  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."[3]  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."[4]  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,"[5] 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. 

-----

Notes for Chapter 13

     1. Isa. 1:3.
     2. S. John 1:11.
     3. Baruch 3:37, 38.
     4. Ps. 117 (118):27.
     5. Phil. 2:10, 11.


                             --------------------