study.xeb.ai · mystics · cassian
Conference XXII
Abbot Theonas

On Nocturnal Illusions.

Theonas on nocturnal illusions — the third silence.

Translated for study.xeb.ai · CC0 — Gibson did not translate this text

❧
Restored for this editionGibson did not translate this text. In its place his 1894 volume prints one sentence: “This Conference is omitted.” What follows is a new translation from Petschenig’s Latin (CSEL XIII, printed pages 614–636), made for this edition and dedicated to the public domain under CC0. Our notes are collected at the foot of the page, under a heading of their own; Gibson has none here, because he wrote none. How this English was made, what was checked and what could not be, is set out on the methodology page.

I. Of our return again to Abbot Theonas, and of his exhortation.

After about seven days, the solemnity of Quinquagesima being over, when at the very beginning of night — that is, after the evening service1 — we had entered, held in suspense by our expectation of the promised discourse, the cell of the holy Theonas, the brisk old man, with a cheerful countenance, addressed us first in kindly speech: I was wondering, said he, that your most ardent zeal could put off for these seven days the settling of the question proposed, and had granted to its own debtor, who above all was not asking, a delay of so long a time.2 It is most just, therefore, that, since your kindness has of its own accord granted me so generous a truce,3 I too should make no delay in the repayment of the debt. For welcome is the putting out of this loan, which gains a greater increase in the paying of it, and not only enriches him who receives but also does not diminish him who gives.4 For the steward of spiritual things gathers a double gain, because he obtains the highest profits not only in the advance of him who hears but in his own discoursing as well,5 kindling himself no less to the desire of perfection while he instructs the hearer. Wherefore your ardour is my advance, your solicitude my compunction.6 For I too should certainly now be numb in mind, and should turn over nothing in my heart of the things you have sought after, unless your ardour and expectation were rousing me — asleep, in a manner of speaking — to the recollection of spiritual things.7 And so let the question be brought forward into the midst, if it seem good, whose settling we preferred the other day to put off, for the shortness of the time.

1Quinquagensimae sollemnitate transacta … post synaxin uespertinam. Quinquagesima is the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost, and Gibson keeps the Latin name of the season at Conf. XV. iv; synaxis is the appointed office, and "after evening service" is his own English for the same construction at Conf. IX. xxxvi and at Conf. XV. i, a chapter that opens as this one does.
2The conference's own turns carry no quotation marks in this edition: the speaker's name, or — as in this opening turn — the interjected inquit, marks the speech. That is Gibson's practice without exception, in all 127 of his labelled turns. Mirabar is imperfect, and the English keeps it so; whether it is durative — he had been wondering through the seven days — or the softening imperfect with which a man opens a conversation, the sentence does not say, since its one time-phrase, his septem diebus, is already spent inside the indirect statement on differre. Potuisse is not carried over to praestitisse: the two infinitives hang separately on mirabar, and their tenses differ. Debitori suo is Theonas himself — the zeal is the creditor, the old man the debtor, and it is the debtor who was not asking to be let off.
3Indutias is "truce", the word Institutes VI fixes for it at chapter XX, and the military figure it belongs to is Cassian's own — inpugnat, tela, proeliorum, bellator, arma stand in later chapters. But the figure of this paragraph is commercial and not military: benignitas uestra … concessit frames the thing as a kindness granted, and debitori, redhibitione, faenoris, quaestus, dispensator and compendia follow it. Indutiae is also the ordinary word for the grace a creditor allows a debtor, and that is what is meant.
4Petschenig prints uerum etiam non inminuit largientem — the giver is not lessened. Migne has verum etiam nihil minuit largienti, with a dative, which makes the giver one who loses nothing rather than one who is not lessened. The apparatus reports the clause as etiam nihil (non O) in(im-)minuit largienti (largiente Z¹) Obetav — with the compound verb, where Migne prints the simple one, a discrepancy left standing here rather than smoothed. The English follows the base text.
5Petschenig prints compendia summa consequitur, with dispensator for its subject and quia for its conjunction. The apparatus reports quia BFO¹: lucrum enim O²betav and compendia summa om. betav, so the printed editions Migne follows both replace the conjunction and drop the object, leaving lucrum to fill the vacated slot. Two editions, two sentences.
6Conpunctio is "compunction" throughout this edition, on Gibson's own usage spread over nine chapters of both works; the alternative he uses, "conviction", belongs to four adjacent chapters of Conference IX and is not the volume's habit.
7Petschenig prints excitaret quodammodo dormientem where Migne has suscitaret … dormitantem; his apparatus reports dormitantem betav. The word is recorded because the page image and the optical transcription disagreed at it and the apparatus settles it independently: the English is "asleep", not drowsy. The old man says of himself, before he answers a question about sleep, that he is the one asleep.

II. A recalling of our question, why a greater attack of the flesh sometimes follows upon a greater abstinence.

For your inquiry, unless I am mistaken, comprised this: why sometimes, indulging ourselves more freely, we are tickled with milder stings of this flesh,8 and sometimes, abstaining more strictly with a body afflicted and drained, we are pressed by sharper incitements, so that, as your confession disclosed, roused from sleep we find ourselves besprinkled with the emission of the natural humours.9

8Remissius iucundantes — indulging ourselves more freely, iucundari being to take one's pleasure, and set here against districtius abstinentes. Migne prints remissius jejunantes, fasting more slackly, and the apparatus reports ieiunantes betav; Petschenig also has lenioribus, milder, where Migne has levioribus, lighter. The lax pole of the question is a different thing in each: on Migne's text it is slack fasting, on this one it is indulgence. The question is put in the plural — inquisitio uestra, uestra confessio — and belongs to both visitors, though it is Germanus who puts the questions of chapters IIII, VIII and XV.
9Umor is "humour" and the noun egestio is "emission" throughout this conference, its verb egerere "discharge". Expergefacti is a passive participle — roused, not waking of oneself. This is the question the 1894 volume does not print: in place of the whole conference its page carries one sentence, "This Conference is omitted."

III. That the emission of the seminal flux comes about in a threefold manner.

Of this infestation, then, our predecessors have handed down a threefold cause, such as breaks in upon the measure of the appointed time with untimely excesses.10 For the flux is either heaped up by an excessive quantity of food, or it slips away through the mind's carelessness, or it is provoked by the snares of the mocking enemy.11 First, then, the fault of gluttony — that is, of voracity or of the gullet12 — thrusts out this overflow of the obscene humour. For even when it defiles the state of purity at a time of stricter abstinence, it is poured out not, as you suppose, from the present fasting, but from the excess of a past satiety. For what had been congealed in the marrow by the gorging of voracity must needs be discharged — through an itching, or at any rate unawares — out of a body wasted away by however great a fast.13 Wherefore not only must the daintier dishes be abstained from, but we must hold off from the commoner foods too with an equal abstinence;14 nay, satiety even of bread itself and of water is to be guarded against, that the purity of body we have gained may be able to abide long in us, and in some sort to imitate the undefiled chastity of the spirit — though we must needs confess that sometimes, even without any diligence of the mind, whether through the temperament of their bodies or through the ripeness of their age, some are more rarely sullied, or at any rate are not defiled by the emission of this flux.15 But he who wins his peace by an idle good fortune is of one desert, and he who earns a triumph by glorious virtues of another.16 For the power of the latter, which subdues all the faults, is worthy of wonder; the former, whom the necessity of the good keeps safe in his own sloth, I should call worthy rather of pity than of praise.17 The second cause of that impure flux is this: if the mind, emptied of spiritual studies and exercises and untrained in the disciplines of the inner man, has drawn over itself a certain mould of sloth by the habit of an unbroken torpor;18 or when, by not guarding against the trifles of filthy thoughts, it so slothfully desires that most sublime purity of heart as to believe that the whole sum of perfection and chastity consists in the chastisement of the outer man alone. And by the fault of this error and folly it will accordingly come about that not only does the manifold wandering of the thoughts break in upon the secret place of the mind shamelessly and impudently, but the seeds of all the former passions remain within it as well.19 And these, so long as they lie hidden in the mind's inmost recesses, disquiet the sleeper none the less with enticing phantasms, however rigid the fast with which the body is chastised;20 phantasms by which, before the course of the lawful time, obscene humours may be enticed forth, no longer out of nature's necessity but still out of the fraud of wickedness — humours which, if they cannot be checked altogether, are at least brought, by the help of God's grace, to that simple quality of emission, not so much by the emptiness of the flesh as by the watchfulness and strength of the mind.21 And therefore first of all the running to and fro of the senses must be curbed, lest the mind, used to these excesses, be dragged while it sleeps to the more shameful incitements of luxury.22 The third cause is when, through an ordered and careful discipline of abstinence indeed, we long to acquire by contrition of heart and body a perpetual purity of chastity, but, for all that we are taking excellent thought for the good of flesh and spirit, the spite of the most fraudulent enemy attacks us in this fashion: that, while he tries to cast down the confidence of our conscience and to humble us as though by some guilt, on those days above all on which we desire by a greater merit of integrity to please the divine sight,23 he may defile us — without any itching of the flesh at all, or any consent of the mind, and not through the illusion of any phantasm, but nevertheless by the simple emission of that flux — that he may frighten us away from the holy communion:24 although upon certain of the beginners, and of those whose bodies have not yet been made thin by a long chastisement of fastings, this illusion is believed to come about on this account by a devilish contrivance, that, when he has found them applying themselves to more intense fasts, he may overturn all their efforts by this device — that, while they perceive that by a stricter fast they have not only made no advance toward purity of body but have even been more grievously assailed, they may shudder at the strictness of abstinence, the mistress of incorruption and the nurse of purity, as at a rival.25 Wherefore we ought to know that we must be purged of each several fault not only because it takes possession of our sense with its own disturbances, but because it is not content to hold rule alone, without the fellowship of the rest, but, once the more dreadful college of all the faults has been let in, lays waste with a manifold captivity the mind that lies subject to it.26 And therefore gluttony must be overcome not for its own sake only — lest, that is, it corrupt us with a burdensome voracity — nor for this alone, that it may not set us on fire with the fire of carnal lust, but lest it make us the slaves of anger too, or of rage and dejection and all the other passions.27 For when food and drink are served to us either too little or too late or too carelessly, if we are weighed down by the dominion of the gullet, it follows that we are also stirred by the goads of anger. And again, we cannot be soothed by voluptuous flavours without the plague of covetousness, by whose superfluous preparations luxury takes its pleasure in great expenses.28 But covetousness, vainglory and pride and the multitude of all the faults are joined in an undivided fellowship; and so each single fault, if it has but begun to flourish in us, supplies increase to the rest as well.29

10Quae is feminine, and the nearest feminine noun is causam — maiores stands between them — but infestationis is feminine as well, and it is more naturally the infestation than its cause that breaks in with untimely excesses. The Latin does not settle which. The English cannot leave it open, because an English relative attaches to the noun before it; it therefore reads with causam, and this note records that the other reading is available. Inrumpat is subjunctive, so the clause defines rather than describes. Modum temporis constituti is taken as the natural interval between one emission and the next, an inference from section 5's ante legitimi temporis cursum and chapter VI's certis mensibus; the words themselves say only the measure of the appointed time.
11Inimici inludentis insidiis. The participle is the verb behind inlusio, the noun of the conference's own title: what the enemy does is inludere, to make sport of a man, and the inlusio is what he makes. The third cause is therefore named here by the word that names the book, five sections before it is expounded. The link is invisible in the English, which has "mockery" here and "illusion" for inlusio throughout. The three verbs of this sentence — congeritur, elabitur, prouocatur — have no expressed subject, and "the flux" is supplied for them: the two candidates the sentence before leaves standing are the infestatio and its causa, and what is heaped up by food and slips away through carelessness is the flux itself, which this section calls hanc redundantiam obsceni umoris and sections 2 and 6 name fluxus. The supply is tabled in the log, because a supplied subject that decides something is not scaffolding.
12Gastrimargiae, id est uoracitatis uel gulae uitium. Gastrimargia is "gluttony", which is Gibson's own English for the Greek word — first gastrimargia, which means gluttony (Conf. V. ii). Where he keeps the Greek and adds a gloss, this edition prints the gloss only, because Cassian has already supplied one of his own in id est and two would be one too many. Uitium is "fault" throughout this edition, following his the eight principal faults at Inst. V. i.
13Concretum fuerat in medullis: Institutes VI. i prints "congealed together" for the same participle of the same matter, and the verb returns at chapter V of this conference (egesta concretio) and at chapter VI (concreti non possunt non egeri). Corporis is a genitive with no certain governing noun in the clause, and is taken here as the body out of which the matter is discharged. Petschenig prints tabefacti, wasted away, where Migne has labefacti, shaken loose; his apparatus reports nothing at the word, so that divergence is Migne's own.
14Aequali est continentia temperandum. Continentia is "abstinence" throughout this conference — Gibson's commoner English for it by seven capitula to one — because the sense here is restraint in food, not the graded state which Conference XII. xi sets against castitas and for which his other word, "continence", is the one to reach for. Abstinentia, a different noun which Cassian uses of the same discipline at chapters II, III and VI, is "abstinence" as well; he does not distinguish them and neither does the English. Temperandum is impersonal and governs a uilioribus cibis: with that preposition the verb is to hold off from a thing, not to keep it within measure.
15Intemeratam spiritus castitatem: castitas is "chastity" throughout, the most consistent term in this edition's glossary, six capitula out of six. Castimonia, which stands twice in this chapter as well as at chapters V and VI, is "chastity" too, following Institutes VI and Gibson's own "the purity of chastity" at Inst. V. vii — so two Latin nouns share one English word inside this chapter, and the English cannot show which is which. Profluuium and fluxus likewise share "flux", and sacrosanctus shares "holy" with sanctus, because "holy communion" and "the holy mysteries" are Gibson's own phrases and the two Latin words never stand together of one thing. The two verbs of the last clause are kept apart: sordidari is "sullied" and pollui is "defiled", the polluere family taking "defile" everywhere, while the noun pollutio is "pollution" at chapter VI.
16Huius is the nearer of the two demonstratives and points to the man who earns a triumph; illum is the further and points to the man who has peace by an idle good fortune. The English says "the latter" and "the former" to keep the order the Latin fixes, since which man is which is the whole of the sentence. Uirtutibus here is the plural of moral qualities and is "virtues", this edition's default for uirtus.
17Petschenig prints boni necessitas and dignum magis dixerim miseratione. Migne has quem facultas boni — the capacity for good, not the necessity of it — and dignum magis … securitate, worthy of safety rather than of praise; the apparatus reports boni necessitas] facultas boni O²betav and miseratione] securitatem beta securitate v. The two texts value the man who is chaste only because he cannot be otherwise differently: one pities him, the other leaves him unworried, securitas being freedom from care rather than safety. Both withhold praise.
18Segnitiae situm … obduxerit: situs is the mould that gathers on a thing left unused, and obducere is to draw a covering over. Cassian sets a conditional (si … obduxerit) beside a temporal (aut cum … concupiscit) under the one heading, and the English keeps both. Obduxerit is ambiguous in form between a perfect subjunctive and a future perfect indicative, and in a si protasis the second is the commoner; concupiscit is plainly indicative.
19Pristinarum omnium passionum … semina. Passio is "passion" throughout this edition — a disordered affection, one of the eight faults or their like — and takes a capital only where it is the Lord's own Passion, as at chapter XIII. Intra eam is feminine and will bear either the mind or the wandering; the mind is taken, because it is the mind the seeds are in and the wandering is one of the two things said of it.
20In eius adytis: the adyta are the innermost room of a temple, which none but the priest enters, and eius is the mind of the section before. The subject of delitescunt is the seeds of that same sentence, carried over by a connecting relative; the English supplies "these" for it.
21Mentis circumspectione atque uirtute — the English is "strength", and not this edition's usual "virtue" for uirtus. The glossary's own trigger gives "strength" where the noun names a faculty or a capacity rather than a moral quality, and here it stands beside circumspectio as what the mind brings against the flesh: what is set over against an emptiness of the body is a power of the mind, not a virtue of it. Declared as a departure in departures.json.
22Eliciantur is subjunctive: the phantasms are such that by them the humours are drawn out, and "may be enticed forth" keeps the mood and the echo of inlecebrosis together. Luxuria is "luxury" in the older English sense here, as in Institutes VI and Conference XII — though at section 8 the same noun is extravagance in spending, and one English word covers both; libido is "wantonness" throughout this conference and concupiscentia is "lust" throughout, so that three Latin nouns keep three English words. Somnians is a participle of the mind: it is dragged while sleeping, not dragged into sleep.
23Maiore integritatis merito. Integritas is "integrity" in this edition, and it is the one rendering in the glossary that is not a word of Gibson's: the word does not occur in his volume, and every English he does use for the noun is spoken for — "perfection" collides with perfectio, "purity" with puritas, "chastity" with castitas, and his "uprightness" cannot carry carnis integritas at chapter V. The standing departure is recorded once in the log and thereafter assumed.
24Nos polluat — subjunctive, and it rests on a single manuscript. Petschenig's apparatus reads polluat Z: polluit rell. v: he prints the reading of Z alone against every other witness and against the printed editions. The mood is the whole difference, and it is more than a shade. Polluat is the verb of the result clause ita … inpugnat opens, with dum … conatur subordinate inside it and ut … deterreat hanging on polluat in turn: on Z's subjunctive the defiling is what the enemy's spite brings about. On the indicative of every other witness that result clause is left without its verb — a late indicative result clause, or a rupture. This is one of six places in the conference where the base text rests on one witness.
25Petschenig prints grauius sentiunt fuisse pulsatos, more grievously assailed, where Migne has pollutos, more grievously defiled; the apparatus reports nothing here, so the reading is Migne's own. What the beginner concludes about his fast is different in each: that it left him more attacked, or that it left him more polluted. Aemulam is a rival — the strictness he was taught to court is made to look like a competitor for the thing he wants.
26Non idcirco nos tantum … sed quia: the non denies not the reason but its sufficiency, and tantum carries the denial. Cassian is not saying that a fault does not seize the mind — the next clause assumes it does — but that seizing the mind is not the whole of why it must go.
27Concupiscentiae is "lust", the glossary's fixed English, with the scriptural adjective carnalis. The vice-list keeps Gibson's own names for the eight faults from Inst. V. i: iracundia anger, tristitia dejection, filargyria covetousness, cenodoxia vainglory, superbia pride.
28Filargyria is "covetousness", which is Gibson's own English for the Greek word at Inst. VII. i and Conf. V. i; cenodoxia is "vainglory", his at Conf. V. xxi. Where Cassian does not gloss the Greek himself, as he does not here, the English gives the word he glosses it with elsewhere and does not keep two.
29Indiuidua societate — undivided, in the strict sense that the faults cannot be parted from one another. The claim closes the chapter's last movement: gluttony is to be overcome not for its own sake only, because it opens the door to the rest, and the conference's own subject is one of the things that come in through it. Section 7 denies the sufficiency of the reason, not its primacy.

IIII. A question whether it is lawful for those defiled by a nocturnal illusion to approach the holy communion.

Germanus: By God's dispensation, we believe, has this question been brought forward into the midst, so that what we could never be taught — since modesty restrained our confidence to ask — we may now, called out by the opportunity of the conference and by the order of the matter itself, confidently make bold to ask about.30 If, then, at that time at which one ought to approach the holy mysteries, we perceive ourselves defiled by the illusion of a dream, is that holy partaking of the saving food to be ventured upon, or avoided?31

30Uerecundia interrogandi fiduciam cohibente is an ablative absolute. Interrogandi is taken with fiduciam — the confidence to ask — because the framing word order encloses it and because fiducialiter answers it at the end of the period; uerecundia interrogandi, shame at asking, is grammatically available and is not ruled out. What Germanus says is that they could never be told this, shame having checked the boldness to ask, and that the conference's own occasion has now drawn the question out of them. Accedi oportet is an impersonal passive and the English keeps it general: one ought to approach.
31Somnii inlusione pollutos. Inlusio is "illusion", which is Gibson's word in all five of his capitula that carry it and in the body of Inst. II. xiii and III. v, where he uses it of exactly this — an illusion in the night that pollutes the purity gained by prayer. In the five capitula the sense is a deception — the devil's, or a dream's. Here, and in ten more places in this conference, the word points to the nocturnal event itself; the genitive somnii keeps the dream in view, so it is not that inlusio simply means the emission. The word is Gibson's; the sense is said in a note rather than printed into the text. Praesumere, of the sacrament, is "venture upon" at all four of its places in this conference. The obvious English, "presume upon", cannot be used here: it condemns the act in the asking, and this sentence is a genuine disjunctive question that chapter V will answer with possumus et debemus … confidenter accedere. The noun praesumptio is "presumption" at chapter V, where Paul's indigne has already settled the case, and "taking" at chapter VI, where it is food.

V. The answer, when the passion of a sleeper contracts guilt.

Theonas: With all diligence indeed, so far as in us lies, we ought to labour to hold the unspotted purity of chastity at that time above all in which we desire to stand at the venerable altars; and with the most watchful circumspection care must be taken beforehand lest the integrity of the flesh, kept through the time before, be defrauded on that night especially in which we are making ourselves ready for the communion of the saving banquet.32 But if that most wicked enemy, in order to withdraw from us the medicine of the heavenly remedy, has made sport of the guard of the sleeping mind33 — and that only in such wise that the sleeper is defiled by no blameworthy itching coming between, by no consent of delight, but the enemy has held out, as a hindrance to our sanctification, some emission forced by necessity in accordance with nature, or at any rate drawn out by the attack of the devil without any sense of pleasure34 — we can and we ought to come confidently to the grace of the saving food. But if, on the other hand, this congealed matter has been discharged by a fault of our own, confronting our conscience let us dread that word of the Apostle's: "Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup."35 "For he that eateth and drinketh the bread and the cup of the Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body"36 — that is, in no way setting that heavenly food apart from the cheapness of common meats, nor discerning it to be such as none may venture upon save with a pure mind and flesh. Then he adds: "therefore among you many are weak and feeble, and many sleep"37 — saying, that is, that spiritual weakness and death are begotten chiefly of this presumption. For many who venture upon it by an unlawful usurpation are weak in faith and feeble in mind, wrapped, that is, in the languors of the passions; and they sleep the sleep of sin, rising in no wise from this deadly slumber by a saving solicitude.38 Then there follows: "But if we would judge ourselves, we should surely not be judged"39 — that is: if, as often as we are overtaken by the wound of sin, we judged ourselves unworthy of the receiving of the sacraments, we should certainly lay out our zeal to be able to come to it worthily through the amendment of repentance, and should not be chastised by the Lord, as unworthy, with the most severe scourges of infirmities — that so at least, being pricked, we may run back to the remedies of our wounds, lest, not being accounted worthy of the very brief chastening of the present age, we be condemned in the time to come together with the sinners of this world.40 And this is enjoined in Leviticus also with a plain declaration: "Every one that is clean shall eat flesh; and whatsoever soul, in whom there is uncleanness, shall eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of salvation which is the Lord's, shall perish before the Lord."41 In Deuteronomy too the unclean man is in like manner mystically separated from the spiritual camp: "If any," he says, "man among you hath been defiled by a dream in the night, he shall go forth out of the camp, and shall not return before he shall be washed with water toward evening: and after the going down of the sun he shall return into the camp."42

32Carnis integritas — the only place in the four texts Gibson refused where the two words stand joined, and the phrase the glossary entry for integritas was settled on. Fraudetur is the language of being cheated — fraus, not a debt — and it answers the fraude of chapter III and the inluserit of the next section: what takes the integrity away is a trick. Praecauendum est is impersonal, with no dative of agent, and the English keeps it impersonal.
33Custodiae sopitae mentis inluserit — a dative, and an editorial preference. The apparatus reads custodiae B¹F¹: custodia B²F² custodiam Obetav: at cf. cap. 10, 1 et XXIII, 6, 1: Petschenig prints the first hands of B and F against their own correctors, against every other witness and against the printed editions, and defends the dative by two cross-references of his own. A reader should know that the case here rests on two readings the scribes themselves went back and altered.
34Petschenig prints sed egestionem aliquam pro natura per necessitatem conpulsam; the apparatus reports conpulsam] aut naturali necessitate profusam (propulsam v) betav, which is what Migne gives. This clause is the one that decides when a monk may go to the altar after a nocturnal emission, and an emission forced by necessity and one poured out by natural necessity are not the same claim. The subject of contaminetur is not expressed and "the sleeper" is supplied: mentis in the clause before is a genitive on custodiae and is not a natural subject to promote, and it is the man, not his mind, who then goes to the altar. Nullo … nullo is a pair and is kept as one, with interueniente attributive to the first member rather than made into an ablative absolute of its own; both readings parse.
351 Cor. xi. 27, 28. Cassian has panem et biberit calicem where the Authorized Version has "this bread, and drink this cup", and de calice bibat where it has "of that cup"; probet is "prove", where it has "examine", and reus erit is "shall be guilty", exactly as it has. Inside the letter-spaced quotation Petschenig prints probet autem se ipsum homo against Migne's probet primum semetipsum homo; the apparatus reads autem BF: primum O autem primum betav. The particle sits inside the spacing, so it is being presented as Paul's own word, and the English keeps it as "But".
361 Cor. xi. 29. Three divergences from the Authorized Version are Cassian's Latin: panem et calicem domini, which it has not at all in this verse; iudicium, where it has "damnation"; and non discernens corpus, where it has "the Lord's body". The Vulgate agrees at iudicium, and in the critical text in omitting domini, though it reads diiudicans for discernens.
371 Cor. xi. 30. Ideo inter uos opens the verse and is "therefore among you", where the Authorized Version has "For this cause" and puts "among you" after the adjectives; it also has "weak and sickly", and the English is "feeble" for inbecilli because Cassian's exposition turns the two adjectives back on themselves three lines later — infirmantur fide et inbecilli sunt mente — and the pair has to be visible in both places or the argument disappears.
38Somno peccati and sopore letali are two nouns and take two English words, "sleep" and "slumber"; the verse Cassian is expounding has dormiunt, and his exposition is that the sleeping Paul means is principaliter — chiefly — a sleep of sin, which leaves the bodily reading standing. Non discernens in the verse and diiudicans in the gloss are one act in two words, and the English keeps "discerning" for both. Uel in pura … mente uel carne is disjunctive in form and copulative in sense, as late Latin often has it; under the negation the difference is real — whether purity of one suffices or both are required — and the English takes the second. Sollicitudo is "solicitude", as at chapter I.
391 Cor. xi. 31. Two words stand where the Authorized Version has others: quodsi is "But if" where it has "For if", and utique — "surely" — has no counterpart in it at all. Without utique the English of the verse would be that Version word for word, which is the harmonisation this edition exists to refuse.
40Ad eam is feminine and reaches back to perceptione, the receiving, not to the sacraments; the English says "to it". The moods change inside the sentence and are kept as they change: the conditional runs in imperfect subjunctives (iudicaremus, inpenderemus, castigaremur), and the two clauses that state what the Lord's chastening is for turn to the present (recurramus, condemnemur). Saeculum is "age" and mundus "world", which is why the last clause has both; In futuro is a bare neuter with no noun of its own, and English cannot leave it bare: it is "in the time to come" here, and the supplied noun is tabled with the rest of the supplies in the log. Infirmitatum is "infirmities", keeping the infirm- family together with the "weak" of the section before.
41Lev. vii. 19, 20 (LXX.). The same verse stands at Conference XII. ii, and its two divergences from the Authorized Version are kept here as they are there: sacrificii salutaris, "the sacrifice of salvation", follows the Greek σωτηρίου where it has "peace offerings", and peribit coram domino, "shall perish before the Lord", where it has "shall be cut off from his people". A third divergence, unremarked there, is in qua est inmunditia — a relative on anima, so that the uncleanness is in the man — where the Version builds the same sense as a participle, "having his uncleanness upon him"; the English moves the clause next to "soul", because in the Latin's order an English reader takes it with "the Lord". Cassian adds at the head here the clause omnis mundus manducabit carnes, which he did not quote there.
42Deut. xxiii. 10, 11. Qui nocturno pollutus sit somnio is "hath been defiled by a dream in the night", where the Authorized Version has the periphrasis "that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night", and egredietur extra castra is "shall go forth out of the camp" where it has "go abroad". The letter-spacing puts si quis, inside the quotation and Cassian's inquit, outside it, so the marks break where they do here and not at the head of the verse. Petschenig's si quis is the reading of B, F and O against fuerit in the printed editions, so his protasis has no copula in it and none is supplied here. His abluetur is the harder case, and it goes the other way: the apparatus reads abluetur (λούσεται) beta: lauetur BFO et Vulgata, so the base text here follows the beta family and the Septuagint against the three manuscripts the rest of this conference rests on and against the Vulgate. Cassian quotes the same verse at Conference XII. ii, where Petschenig prints lauetur; both were read on their own page images and neither is harmonised to the other.

VI. That sometimes this illusion comes about by the contrivance of the enemy also.

But that it may be more plainly proved that this impurity is sometimes drawn out by the contrivance of the enemy also: we know a brother who, though he possessed unbrokenly a chastity of heart and body earned by the utmost circumspection and humility, and was in no wise tempted by nocturnal mockeries, yet, as often as he had made himself ready to receive the Lord's communion, was befouled in his sleep by an unclean flux.43 And when for a long time he had kept himself trembling from the holy mysteries, he brought this question at last to the Elders, trusting that he would obtain a remedy for his attacks and for his grief by their healing counsel.44 But when the teaching of the spiritual physicians was sifting the first cause of this disease — the cause which is wont to come down from an abundant taking of food45 — and they found that this was not in the said brother, and it was plain that this illusion was in no way arising from the fault of satiety, because neither the brother's well-known strictness nor the peculiar exception of the solemn days on which that pollution kept befalling him would let them think so, they carried the search of their inquiry over at once to the second cause of this sickness, sifting whether perhaps it was by a blame of the soul that the flesh, drained by fasting, was being pressed with impure illusions — the illusions by which even the strictest men are defiled, through the fault of pride, when they have been a little puffed up about the purity of their body — namely, because they have believed that they obtained by human strength the chief gift of God, that is, the chastity of the body.46 Being asked, therefore, whether by his own diligence he believed himself so capable of this virtue that he had no need of the succour of divine help, the brother abhorred that impious thought with the utmost execration, and humbly declared that not even on the other days could he have kept the purity of his body had he not been helped in all things by divine grace; whereupon the Elders ran back at once to the third cause and saw through the hidden snares of the devil's contrivance.47 And having proved that the blame lay neither with the soul nor with the flesh, they most confidently judged that he ought to be joined to the holy feasts — lest, that is, if he persisted in this obstinacy, he should be bound by the crafty nooses of the malignant enemy and be unable to be a partaker of the sanctification and of the body of Christ, and by this fraud should be defrauded for ever of the medicine of the saving remedy.48 And when this was done, the whole stage-play of the devil's contrivance was so uncovered that presently, with the power of the Lord's body protecting, that habit of the past illusion ceased.49 In which the enemy's guile plainly appeared, and at the same time the judgment of the Elders was both set forth and proved — the judgment which taught that this most impure flux is for the most part driven on not by a fault of the flesh nor of the soul, but by the factious mockery of the adversary.50 In order, then, that the deceitful imagination of dreams, that enticer to impure emission, may be unknown either for ever or at any rate — to speak according to the humbler or common condition — for certain months, after that faith by which it behoves us to hope continually for the gift of purity especially from the grace of God, the excess of food and drink must be chastised.51 For by the overflow of these it must needs be that humours of this kind are more readily begotten; and since, once congealed, they cannot but be discharged and driven out by the law of nature itself, they come forth upon the occasion of any itching or illusion whatever. But when the fullness of food is taken away, it follows that those unclean emissions too are more slowly bred. And so it comes about that, as their flux is, so also the illusion disquiets sleepers either more rarely or more faintly — because the emission does not so much come down from the imagination as the imagination from an excess of emission.52 Wherefore, if we would be set free from the enticements of these illusions, we must strive with all our strength:53 first, that when the passion of fornication has been overcome, according to the blessed Apostle "sin may not reign in our mortal body, to obey the lusts thereof";54 secondly also, that when that enticing motion of the body has been utterly stilled and lulled to sleep, we may "in no wise yield our members as weapons of iniquity unto sin"; thirdly, that when our inner man also has been mortified in every way and to the marrow from that titillation of wantonness, we may "yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead" — and so, coming by this advance to the perpetual quiet of our body, may yield also "our members as weapons", now not of wantonness, but "of righteousness unto God."55 And over us, grounded in this purity of chastity, "sin shall not have dominion."56 For we are not "under the law", which, while it commends the lawful rights of marriage, nourishes also and keeps in our marrow that heat by whose ministry the work of unlawful fornication is accomplished; but "under grace", which, while it instils the incorruption of virginity, kills even that harmless and simple motion of the body, and even the pleasure of lawful intercourse itself.57 And so, when all the humours of that most impure filth have been dried up, being made those excellent and praiseworthy eunuchs who are proclaimed through Isaiah, we shall deserve to possess that blessedness which is promised them: for "thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs: They that shall keep My sabbaths, and shall choose the things that I have willed, and shall hold My covenant: I will give them in My house and within My walls a place, and a name better than to sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, which shall not perish."58 Who are these sons and daughters, to whom these eunuchs are so far preferred that they are said to be about to receive even a place and a name that is better, but those holy men who, abiding under the old testament in the bond of marriage, came not undeservedly, by the keeping of the commandments, into the adoption of the sons of God?59 And what is that name which is promised them as something chief in the stead of the highest reward, but this — that we are said to be reckoned by the name of Christ? Of this name too the same prophet in another place also: "and His servants," he says, "He shall call by another name. In which he that is blessed upon the earth shall be blessed in the God Amen: and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear in the God Amen";60 and again: "and there shall be called," he says, "to thee a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name."61 And these, for this purity of heart and of body, shall enjoy that chief and singular blessedness also, that they may sing continually that song which no other of the saints can sing but these alone, who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth: "for they are virgins, and have not defiled themselves with women."62 Therefore, if we would come to this most sublime glory of the virgins, let us with all our strength cultivate the incorruption of mind and of spirit, lest we fall into the number of those unwise virgins to whom their virginity was for this cause not reckoned: that they kept themselves free from carnal intercourse alone, and are on this account called virgins indeed, but foolish — because, when the oil of inward purity fails in their vessels, the brightness and splendour of bodily virginity is put out.63 For by the cherishing and nourishment of inward purity must chastity be supplied to the outer man as well, and be quickened continually toward a perseverance in perpetual incorruption. And therefore the foolish, though virgins, do not deserve to enter the glorious bride-chamber of the bridegroom with those wise ones, who kept their whole spirit and soul and body without blame in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.64 For those are the true and uncorrupted virgins of Christ, those are reckoned the admirable and excellent eunuchs — not they who are afraid, and to whom it is not pleasing to commit fornication, nor they who hold back the reins of unchastity, but they who have conquered even the least titillation of the mind and the slightest incitements of wantonness, and have so far worn down that sense of the flesh, so to speak, that they are touched not only by no delight at its commotion, but not even by the smallest titillation.65

43Ludificationibus and inlusio are two nouns of the same act and take two English words here, "mockeries" and "illusion"; ludificatione returns at section 4 of this chapter, where the Elders' verdict names the thing again. The brother is the one case history in the conference, and everything Theonas has argued so far is tested on it.
44Seniores is "the Elders", Gibson's own; maiores, at chapter III, is "our predecessors", also his. Inpugnationum is "attacks", the glossary's fixed English, on four of Gibson's five capitula that carry the noun.
45Ex abundanti ciborum praesumptione. The same noun which is "presumption" of the sacrament at chapter V is here the plain taking of food, and the English says "taking"; the sense is settled by ciborum and by the whole of chapter III, where the first cause is over-eating and nothing else. The divergence is recorded in the log rather than hidden.
46Humanis se uirtutibus obtinuisse crediderunt — the English is "strength", under the glossary's own trigger for uirtus as a capacity; the sentence is the hinge of the story, and what the brother is about to be asked is whether he holds his chastity by a power of his own. Migne prints uiribus and crediderint; the apparatus reads uiribus betav: at cf. contra Nestor. I, 1, 1 and crediderunt BFO: crediderint betav, and Petschenig defends uirtutibus out of Cassian's usage elsewhere. Culpa is "blame" and uitium "fault", two words that stand three lines apart here.
47Interrogatus igitur … ille … illi confestim: the Latin begins with the brother as its subject, leaves him in a cum clause and finishes with the Elders, and ille and illi are all that keep them apart. The English names them, which is the supply the log records; it also makes detestans a finite verb and turns the cum clause into the main one, demoting illi … peruiderunt to "whereupon". That re-jointing of a long period is a change, and it is recorded rather than passed over.
48Sacrosanctis eum epulis debere misceri — the verdict runs the other way from what the brother expected: the cure for a defilement he was staying away for is to go. Censuerunt is the verb of a formal decision, and confidentissime is with it, not with him.
49Uirtute dominici corporis protegente — the English is "power", under the glossary's trigger for uirtus where it names a capacity and not a moral quality; what protects the brother is what the sacrament does, not a virtue it has. Declared as a departure. Scena is the stage: the enemy had been mounting a play, and detecta est says only that it was uncovered, without naming who drew the curtain.
50Sententia seniorum is "the judgment of the Elders"; sententia is "judgment" where it is a view held and "saying" where it is a dictum, which is the rule Institutes VI declared and Gibson's own both ways. Note that the verdict is stated as a general one — plerumque, for the most part — and not as a rule.
51Secundum humiliorem siue communem … statum: status is "condition" throughout this edition, the rule Institutes VI declared, and condicio at chapter VIIII is "condition" as well — two Latin words under one English one, which is the cost of the declared rule and is paid rather than broken. The order of the last clause is Cassian's own and is kept: the fast comes after the faith, not instead of it, and that is the answer to the question chapter II asked.
52Non tam egestio ex imaginatione quam imaginatio ex egestionis nimietate descendit. The priority is reversed: the emission is said to come down from the imagination less than the imagination comes down from an excess of emission. Non tam … quam grades the two derivations rather than denying one, and section 4 has just called the imagination an inlectrix, an enticer to emission, so the dream keeps some causal share. Cassian does not press further, and this is the physiological claim on which the conference's pastoral answer stands.
53Omni uirtute nobis est enitendum — the English is "strength". The idiom is a measure of effort and not a name for a moral quality, which is the glossary's own condition for the trigger; it stands again at section 9 of this chapter and is declared at both.
54Rom. vi. 12. Cassian has in nostro mortali corpore, "our mortal body", where the Authorized Version has "your", and ad oboediendum concupiscentiis eius, "to obey the lusts thereof", where it builds the clause as "that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof". Concupiscentia is "lust" throughout this edition, by the glossary, and the Version has the same word at this verse.
55Rom. vi. 13, quoted in three pieces with Cassian's own words between them. The letter-spacing is exact about where he stops and starts: in the last clause it covers membra nostra arma and iustitiae deo and leaves his own antithesis iam non libidinis, sed outside, and the English keeps that boundary, so "now not of wantonness, but" stands outside the marks because it is his and not Paul's. Cassian also turns Paul's second-person imperatives into first-person hortatives — exhibeamus, three times — so the English says "we may yield … our members" where the Version says "yield ye your members"; that is his quotation and not a change made here. Migne's word order moves arma across the boundary and would make the contrast part of the verse; the apparatus reports libidini betac. Arma is "weapons", where the Version has "instruments", because the noun is the military one and this conference is full of them, and iniquitatis is "iniquity" where it has "unrighteousness".
56Rom. vi. 14. The object of dominabitur does not stand inside the letter-spacing: nobis, with fundatis agreeing with it, opens the sentence outside the marks, and dominor governs the dative — so Cassian has drawn Paul's uobis out of the quotation and made it his own. The English follows that reading; nobis … fundatis as an ablative absolute is formally available, and the expansion peccatum in nobis iam non dominabitur in the other witnesses is evidence that some scribes took it so; Migne prints peccatum in nobis jam non dominabitur, an expansion the apparatus reports as peccatum in nobis iam (iam om. O¹) non Obetav, and the fuller text is the Vulgate's shape, not this one.
57Sub lege and sub gratia are the two halves of the same verse, and Cassian breaks his own exposition into the gap between them; the letter-spacing marks each half, so each takes its own quotation marks and his sentence about marriage and virginity stands between them, unmarked. Corporis motum is "motion of the body", the glossary's default where the stirring is the body's own and observed; the claim of the sentence is that grace ends even the licit pleasure, which is more than the law asked.
58Isa. lvi. 4, 5. Cassian's quae uolui, "the things that I have willed", stands where the Authorized Version has "the things that please me", and his quod non peribit, "which shall not perish", where it has "that shall not be cut off". Filiis et filiabus is dative, so the comparison is with what is given to sons and daughters — which is what the next section argues from — and not with the name "sons and daughters"; the Version's "a name better than of sons and of daughters" reads as a genitive and is departed from. His enim falls outside the letter-spacing and therefore outside the marks: the "for" is his own connective and not part of the verse.
59The eunuchs of Isaiah are read as the continent of the new covenant and the sons and daughters as the married saints of the old — which makes the promise of a better name a promise made over the heads of the patriarchs. Cassian states the reading as a question and does not defend it.
60Isa. lxv. 15, 16. In deo amen is "in the God Amen", following the Hebrew, where the Authorized Version has "the God of truth"; the Vulgate reads in Deo amen with Cassian. Benedicetur is passive, "shall be blessed", where it has "shall bless himself". Both of Cassian's inquits fall outside the letter-spacing and so break the marks.
61Isa. lxii. 2 — quod os domini nominabit — and the reading rests on a single manuscript. The apparatus reads nominabit O: nominauit rell. v: Petschenig prints the future of O alone against every other witness and against the printed editions, inside a letter-spaced quotation, in a chapter about a name still to be given. The English follows the base text and the tense is future. Et uocabitur tibi nomen nouum is impersonal with a dative — "there shall be called to thee a new name" — where the Authorized Version has "thou shalt be called by a new name". This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
62Rev. xiv. 4. The letter-spacing covers only uirgines enim sunt et cum mulieribus se non coinquinauerunt, so qui sequuntur agnum quocumque uadit stands outside the marks in this edition, as Cassian's own words about the verse. He gives the two clauses in the reverse of the Authorized Version's order and makes the defiling reflexive — "have not defiled themselves" — where it has "were not defiled".
63Quibus idcirco non fuit reputata uirginitas: the apparatus reports fuit BFOr: sit beta est c, and the tense of the copula decides whether their virginity was never reckoned or is not reckoned now. Omni uirtute is "with all our strength" here as at section 6, and declared. The five foolish virgins are read as bodily virgins with no inward purity, and the oil is that purity — a reading Cassian assumes rather than argues.
641 Thess. v. 23 stands behind integrum spiritum suum et animam et corpus sine querella in die domini nostri Iesu Christi conseruauerunt, but Petschenig marks no quotation here, so this edition prints it unquoted, as Cassian's own sentence built out of the verse. The Apostle's is a prayer, with a jussive passive and a second-person possessive (spiritus uester … seruetur); Cassian's is a statement about the wise virgins, with suum and an active perfect. He also has in die where the Vulgate has in aduentu, and the English follows him — "in the day", not the Authorized Version's "unto the coming".
65Conmotio is "commotion", and motus is "motion" throughout this edition: two nouns and two English words, as Institutes VI prints them. Titillatio is "titillation" and stands twice in the last sentence, and once more at section 6; the definition of the true eunuch is a negative one and turns entirely on the smallness of what he does not feel.

VII. That no one ought ever to judge himself worthy of the Lord's communion.

But we ought to fence our heart round with so great a watchfulness of humility that we hold this determination with a perpetual stability of the senses — that we can by no means come to so great a merit of purification — and that, although we have done through the grace of God all these things which I have said above, we may nevertheless believe ourselves unworthy of the communion of the sacred body:66 first, because so great is the majesty of that heavenly manna that no one compassed about with this flesh of clay receives it for food by his own desert and not out of the free bounty of the Lord; secondly, because no one can be so circumspect in the conflict of this world but that at least rare or slight darts of sins strike him — since it is impossible that a man should not sin either by ignorance, or by negligence, or by surprise, or by thought, or by necessity, or by forgetfulness, or in sleep.67 For even though a man have climbed so glorious a summit of virtues that he cries out, not in boasting, that saying of the Apostle's68: "But to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's day: but neither do I judge my own self: for I know nothing against myself"69 — yet let him know that he cannot be without sin. For not in vain did the same teacher add: "but I am not justified in this"70 — that is: it is not so, that if I for my part have believed myself to be righteous I shall straightway possess the true glory of righteousness; nor, because my conscience pricks me with reproach for no sin, am I therefore unstained by the contagion of any foulness.71 For many things lie hidden even from my own conscience, which, though they are unknown or obscure to me, are known and manifest to God. And therefore he adds and says: "but he that judgeth me is the Lord"72 — that is, by Him alone, from whom the secrets of hearts are not hidden, is the trial of a true judgment pronounced upon me.73

66The one reading the sentence will not bear is the correlative one, tantum … meritum … ut: read that way it says we can never reach a merit so great that we believe ourselves unworthy, which is incoherent. Of the two that remain the English chooses neither: ut … credamus may be a second limb of the definitio itself (late Latin moves freely from the accusative and infinitive to ut after a verb of holding), or a further consequence of holding the first. "And that" is neutral between them. Custodia is "watchfulness", the rule Institutes VI declared; uallare makes the literal sense a garrison set in a rampart. Sensuum is the inward faculty, not the five bodily senses, though chapter III's discursus sensuum uses the same word.
67This is the list of the ways in which no one escapes sin, and the two editions do not give the same list. Petschenig's seven are ignorance, negligence, surprise, thought, necessity, forgetfulness and sleep; the apparatus reports post neglegentia add. O²betav: aut uanitate aut obreptione aut cogitatione aut necessitate aut obliuione peccetur betav, so the printed editions Migne follows add vanity, recast Petschenig's per and accusative as bare ablatives, and drop the last member. That last member is somno — in sleep — which is the subject of the whole conference, and no one translating the sinlessness argument from Migne would find it here.
68Tam praeclarum quis uirtutum culmen — and the tam rests on a single hand. The apparatus reads tam B¹: ad tam rell.: Petschenig prints the first hand of B against every other witness. Uirtutum is "virtues" here, the plural of moral qualities and this edition's default. This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
691 Cor. iv. 3 and the first clause of iv. 4: the letter-spacing runs on to nihil enim mihi conscius sum, and chapter VII's next section takes up the same verse where this one leaves it. Ab humano die is "of man's day", which is what the Latin gives — Vulgate as well as Old Latin — for the Greek ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας, where the Authorized Version has "of man's judgment". Sed neque memet ipsum diiudico is "but neither do I judge my own self": its Version has "yea, I judge not mine own self", which arrived in the first draft of this page before the Latin was parsed and is departed from, because sed is adversative and neque coordinates a second negative. Nihil mihi conscius sum is "I know nothing against myself", its "I know nothing by myself" having lost its 1611 sense. Pro minimo est is "it is a very small thing", and the Version has the same; mihi is a plain dative and is "to me", where it has "with me".
701 Cor. iv. 4, continuing the verse whose first clause closed the section before. In hoc is "in this", where the Authorized Version has "hereby"; sed falls inside the letter-spacing and is Paul's, so it stands inside the marks.
71The non at the head governs both limbs, and the second limb is itself a negative: nullius sordis contagione fuscatus sum says, taken alone, that no foulness has stained him, and under the governing non that becomes a denial that he is unstained. Read without the reach of the non, the clause says the opposite of the sentence it belongs to. Sordes is "foulness" throughout this conference and conluuio is "filth".
721 Cor. iv. 4. Autem is Paul's here, not Cassian's — it stands inside the letter-spacing — and the English is "but", as the Authorized Version has it.
73Petschenig prints ueri iudicii in me profertur examen, present; Migne has uerum judicii … proferetur, future, and the apparatus reports uerum betav and proferetur Obetav. In a chapter about whether a man may ever judge himself worthy to communicate, the tense is the argument: the true verdict stands pronounced, by the one who sees the heart, or it waits. Migne's uerum is the other half of that divergence and would give "the true examination of judgment", with the adjective on examen, where the base text has the genitive ueri iudicii. The relative quem stays lower case, as the relative does everywhere in this edition.

VIII. An objection, on the ground that all must be deprived of the Lord's communion if no one is without sin.

Germanus: Above it was said that none but the holy ought to be partakers of the heavenly sacraments; now it is added that it is impossible for a man to be wholly free from offence. If, then, no one is free from guilt, no one is holy; if no one is holy, it follows that a man who lacks holiness cannot be a partaker of the mysteries of Christ, and moreover ought not to hope for the kingdom of heaven, which the Lord promises to the holy alone.74

74Four words for the thing stand in this chapter and its heading: peccatum is "sin", delictum is "offence", noxa is "guilt", and sanctitas its opposite. Cassian alternates delictum and noxa in successive clauses without glossing them as synonyms, and no motive for the variation is asserted here. Noxa shares its English with reatus, which stands at chapter III and in the capitulum of chapter V; those two never stand together, which is why one English word carries both. Etiam in the last clause stands second inside its noun phrase, which is the connective placing — and moreover — not the focal one; "not even to hope" would pull it under the negation, where the Latin leaves it outside. The objection is a syllogism and is set out as one, with its hinge repeated verbatim as the Latin repeats it. The answer runs from chapter VIIII to chapter XVI, and turns on denying that sanctum and inmaculatum — Theonas's words at chapter VIIII, not Germanus's here — mean the same thing.

VIIII. The answer, that many may be holy, but no one without sin save Christ.

Theonas: That many are holy and righteous we cannot indeed deny; but between the holy and the spotless there is a great distance. For it is one thing that a man should be holy — that is, consecrated to the divine worship: for this name, as the scripture bears witness, is common not to men only, but to places also, and to the vessels of the temple, and to cauldrons.75 But it is another thing to be without sin, which belongs in a singular way to the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ alone; of whom the Apostle also declares, as something chief and peculiar, saying: "who did no sin."76 For he assigned to Him, as though it were something incomparable and divine, a cheap enough praise, and unworthy of what is proclaimed of Him, if we too can pass a life untouched by all sin.77 Again the Apostle to the Hebrews: "For we have not," he says, "a high priest who cannot suffer with our infirmities, but tempted in all points according to likeness, without sin."78 If, then, this fellowship can exist between our earthly lowliness and that lofty and divine high priest — that we too should be tempted without any offence of sin — why did the Apostle, looking up to this in Him as something unique and singular, mark off His merit from all men by so great a division?79 By this exception alone, then, is He distinguished from us all: that we, it is agreed, were tempted not without sin, He without sin.80 For what man is there, however brave and warlike he be, who is not yet for the most part open to hostile darts? Who is there that, as though compassed about with impenetrable flesh, would mingle in so great perils of battles without peril? But He alone, "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men,"81 taking upon Him the condition of human death together with the whole frailty of the flesh, was never stained by the touch of any foulness.82

75Uasibus rests on a single manuscript: the apparatus reads uasibus B: uasculis rell. v, and Petschenig prints B alone against every other witness and against the printed editions. The English is "vessels", and not the diminutive the rest give. The sentence carries the answer to Germanus — that sanctus means set apart for God's use, and is said even of pots (Zech. xiv. 20, 21) — but that argument rests on the undisputed lebetibus, and the variant decides only whether the temple's vessels are called vessels or small ones. This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
761 Pet. ii. 22, quoted again at chapter XII with its second half and there ascribed to Isaiah. Peter is himself quoting Isa. liii. 9, and Cassian names the prophet rather than the apostle at the second place; the English leaves the ascription where he puts it in each.
77The irony sits in the apodosis — satis … uilem atque indignam … laudem … adsignauit — and the protasis si etiam nos … possumus is not a concession but the absurdity Theonas is refusing. Uitam exigere is the ordinary idiom for passing or living out a life; "exact a life" would make the claim one about what may be demanded, where the argument is about what may be attained. If sinlessness were within our reach, then what Paul singled out in Christ as incomparable was a cheap thing to say. The English keeps the conditional last, as the Latin does, so that the argument arrives in the order Cassian built it.
78Heb. iv. 15. Conpati infirmitatibus nostris is "suffer with our infirmities", and the Authorized Version's "be touched with the feeling of our infirmities" carries a word the Latin has not; the verb is the plain compound of pati. Secundum similitudinem stands without nostram, where it has "like as we are": the bare phrase is the one chapters X to XII turn on, and it is left bare. Cassian's inquit falls outside the letter-spacing and breaks the marks.
79Petschenig prints suspiciens, looking up at; the apparatus reads suspiciens O¹K²Z: suscipiens BFO²K¹r, and his own base manuscripts are split. On suspicere the Apostle admires Christ's sinlessness as unique; on suscipere he takes it up. The two readings give the Apostle a different posture toward the sinlessness, though the chapter's claim stands on either; Migne prints the second.
80Absque peccato and sine peccato stand in the two coordinated members of one quia clause and are one phrase with two prepositions; the English does not distinguish them, because Cassian does not. The contrast he is making is between the men and the man, not between the two prepositions.
81Ps. xliv. (xlv.) 3, which the English Bibles number as Ps. xlv. 2. Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum is "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men", where the Authorized Version has "Thou art fairer than the children of men": the Latin has no verb and no second person, and the psalm is being quoted here as a description and not as an address.
82Condicionem mortis humanae — condicio is "condition", as status is at chapter VI; two Latin nouns under one English word, which is the cost of the rule Institutes VI declared and is paid rather than broken. The claim is that no touch of foulness ever left its mark on Him — not that the flesh He took was spared the contact, since the same sentence gives Him the whole frailty of the flesh, and chapter VIIII has just had Him tempted per omnia.

X. That the Son of God alone overcame the tempter without any wound of sin.

For He was tempted after our likeness, first by the fault of gluttony, so that that crafty serpent tried to make sport of Him in His hunger, by the desire of food, in the same order in which he had before seduced Adam: "If Thou be the Son," saying, "of God, bid that these stones be made bread."83 But receiving no sin from this temptation, though an undoubted means lay ready to His hand, He rejected the food which the contriver of deceits was thrusting upon Him, saying: "Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."84 He was tempted also with vainglory after our likeness, when it was said to Him: "If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down."85 But He was not caught by the sly suggestion of the devil, and, confuting a most empty seducer by the objection of the scriptures as well: "Thou shalt not tempt," He says, "the Lord thy God."86 He was tempted also with the swelling of pride after our likeness, when all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them were promised Him by the devil; but the emptiness of the tempter was laughed at and rebuked.87 For He answered him: "Get thee back, Satan: it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."88 And by these testimonies we are taught that we too ought in like manner to withstand the fraudulent suggestions of the enemy by the remembrance of the scriptures.89 Again He was tempted with pride after our likeness, so that the same contriver of snares strove to thrust upon Him through men the kingdom which, offered by him before, He had refused. But without sin He laughed at the snares of the tempter: "for when Jesus knew that they would come to take Him by force and make Him a king, He fled again into the mountain Himself alone."90 He was tempted after our likeness when He was beaten with scourges, when He was struck with buffets, when He was besprinkled with the horror of spittle, when at the last He endured the exquisite torments of the cross.91 But by no insults — I will not say ever — nay, not even by torments, was He driven to the swelling of even the lightest indignation; who, set upon the gibbet, cried out mercifully: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do."92

83S. Matt. iv. 3. Petschenig's letter-spacing stops after si filius and begins again at dei es, with inquiens between, so the quotation marks break in the middle of the phrase, where they break in the Latin; this edition does not move a verb of speaking outside a verse to make the English read more smoothly. Dic is the imperative of dicere governing a ut clause, which English gives as "bid", where the Authorized Version has "command". Inludere, used here of the devil and Christ, is the verb behind inlusio, the noun in the conference's own title.
84S. Matt. iv. 4. Uiuit is present — "liveth" — where the Authorized Version has the future "shall live"; in pane solo and in omni uerbo are in with the ablative, instrumental here, and "by" carries it. Temptatio is "temptation", the glossary's fixed English on six of Gibson's seven capitula.
85S. Matt. iv. 6, as the Authorized Version has it. The pronouns of a verse spoken to God take capitals in this edition, as they do throughout Gibson's volume, whoever the speaker is; here the speaker is the devil.
86S. Matt. iv. 7. Cassian's inquit stands between the two letter-spaced runs and breaks the marks; the English keeps the break where it falls.
87Petschenig prints uanitas temptatoris, the emptiness of the tempter, and the apparatus reports uanitas BFO: nequitia betav, which is what Migne gives: on his text what is derided is the tempter's wickedness. In a chapter arguing that Christ alone met the tempter without a wound, what is derided matters. The Latin is an agentless passive and the English keeps it so.
88S. Matt. iv. 10. Uade retro Satanas has neither the hence of the Authorized Version at this verse nor a me after it, and none is supplied; Cassian quotes the other saying, uade post me, satanas, at chapter XIII, and the two are printed as they stand and not made one. Scriptum est is without the Version's "for".
89Petschenig prints memoria scripturarum where Migne has auctoritate Scripturarum; the apparatus reports nothing at the word, so the divergence is Migne's own. The difference is between resisting the enemy by remembering scripture — the desert habit of meditatio — and by its authority.
90S. John vi. 15. Fugit is "fled" where the Authorized Version has "departed", cognouisset is "knew" where it has "perceived", and in montem is "into the mountain" where it has "into a mountain". In the sentence before, ab ipso is the devil and the subject of respuerat is Christ; the Latin marks it only by ipso, which points to the other party named in the same clause, and in the English it is the capital that carries it — He refused, he offered.
91Sputamentorum rests on a single hand. The apparatus reads sputamtorum B¹: sputorum rell. v — Petschenig prints the first hand of B, with its omitted syllable restored, against every other witness and against the printed editions. In the same line he prints alapis, blows of the open hand, where the apparatus reports alapis BFO: palmis betav. Both words are in the passion narrative of the chapter. This is the last of six single-witness readings in the conference.
92S. Luke xxiii. 34, as the Authorized Version has it; Cassian's enim is that Version's "for". Non dicam umquam is a rhetorical step and not a second negative: he declines to press the umquam about insults in order to say the harder thing, that not even the torments moved Him. Uel leuissimae is "even the lightest", and the uel carries the force of the sentence.

XI. That Christ alone came in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

But how shall that also be taken, that the Apostle records that He came in the likeness of the flesh of sin, if we too can have flesh that the stain of no sin has defiled?93 For this also is recorded of Him who alone is without sin, as something singular: "God sent His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin"94 — because, taking a true and entire substance of human flesh, He is to be believed to have taken not sin itself in it, but the likeness of sin. For the likeness is to be referred not to the truth of the flesh — after the perverse understanding of certain heretics — but to the image of sin. For in Him there was true flesh indeed, but without sin: like, that is, to sinful flesh. Since indeed the one belongs to the truth of the human substance, but the other is referred to faults and to manners.95 He had the likeness of the flesh of sin when, as though a man ignorant and anxious for food, He inquired: "How many loaves have ye?"96 But just as His flesh was in no wise subject to sin, so neither was His soul subject to ignorance. And indeed the evangelist at once adds: "But Jesus said this, tempting them: but He Himself knew what He would do."97 He had flesh like to sinful flesh when, as though thirsting, He asked drink of the Samaritan woman. But that flesh was not defiled with the foulness of sin, since on the contrary the woman was provoked to ask for living water, which would never suffer her to thirst, but would become in her a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.98 He had the truth of this flesh when He slept in the ship. But lest those sailing with Him should be deceived by the likeness of sin, "He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm."99 By a lot shared with all men He seemed subject to sin, when it was said of Him: "This man, if he were a prophet, would surely know who and what manner of woman hath touched His feet."100 But He had not the truth of sin, since, reproving the blasphemous thought of the Pharisee, He at once forgave the woman's sins. He was thought to bear sinful flesh with the rest when, as though a man set in the peril of death and stricken with the terror of impending torments, He prayed: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me,"101 and: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death."102 But that sorrow knew no contagion of sin, since the author of life could not dread death. For He says: "No man taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."103

93Labe pollutam: polluere is "defile" throughout, and the question of the chapter is put in the words of chapter IIII — whether a man can have flesh that nothing has defiled — so that the answer to Germanus and the christology are one argument and not two.
94Rom. viii. 3. The English is "in the likeness of the flesh of sin", and not the Authorized Version's "in the likeness of sinful flesh", because the next section argues that the similitudo is to be referred to peccati and not to carnis — an adjective on "flesh" settles in advance the question the chapter exists to open. The decisive reason is the chain of echoes: keeping peccati a separate noun lets similitudinem peccati here, ad peccati … imaginem at the next section and peccati similitudine at section 4 all sound as re-hearings of the same phrase, and "sinful flesh" makes them inaudible. Gibson prints this very phrase for this verse at Inst. V. vi, where his own sentence sets in the likeness of the flesh of sin against in the flesh of sin. Misit is a finite verb, "sent", where the Version has the participle "sending", and Cassian's in similitudine is ablative where the received Latin has the accusative in similitudinem — a condition He came in, not a form He was sent into.
95Similis … peccatrici is a feminine dative with no noun expressed; the noun supplied is "flesh", from caro four words earlier, and the adjective is Cassian's own word for sinful flesh at two more places in this chapter. Prauum quorundam haereticorum sensum is not named further, and no name is supplied here.
96S. Mark vi. 38 (and viii. 5). The question is Mark's; the evangelist's comment Cassian sets beside it two sentences later is John's, and in John the question asked is a different one. He joins them — and calls the joining statim — and the English joins them as he does.
97S. John vi. 6. Petschenig prints temptans eos and ipse autem; the apparatus reports eum betav and ipse autem] ipse enim betav et Vulg., so Migne normalises toward the Vulgate at both words. On this text Jesus is testing them, the disciples; on Migne's, him, Philip. The second autem is "but", not "for": "for" would be enim, which is the reading Petschenig refuses. The beta family and the printed editions read eum … enim with the Vulgate, so Migne follows a tradition rather than mending the text himself. Temptans is "tempting", where the Authorized Version has "to prove him", and the same verb is the one chapter X uses of the devil; its autem is "But" where the Version has "And".
98S. John iv. 10-14 stands behind the last clause, but Petschenig marks no quotation, so it is printed as Cassian's own sentence about the passage and not as a quotation of it. Prouocata est is passive and no agent is expressed; from the narrative it can only be He who provokes her.
99S. Matt. viii. 26. Increpauit uentos et mare is the Old Latin form Cassian quotes; Migne prints the Vulgate's imperavit ventis et mari, and Petschenig's apparatus reports nothing at the line, so the change is Migne's own normalisation of a letter-spaced quotation.
100S. Luke vii. 39, and the largest divergence inside a letter-spaced quotation anywhere in the conference. Petschenig prints sciret utique quae et qualis mulier tetigerit pedes eius and his apparatus reports only qualis BF²Obeta: qualia est F¹; Migne's fuller text — quae et qualis est mulier quae tangit eum, quia peccatrix est — has no manuscript warrant here and is the Vulgate's. Cassian's clause ends at the feet, without the Pharisee's "for she is a sinner", which the Version carries.
101S. Matt. xxvi. 39. The Authorized Version opens "O my Father"; pater has neither the particle nor the possessive, and neither is supplied.
102S. Matt. xxvi. 38. The Authorized Version has "exceeding sorrowful", for the Greek περίλυπος; tristis is the bare adjective and is "sorrowful". Tristitia, which is the fault Gibson calls "dejection" in the eight-fold list at chapter III, is "sorrow" here, because what is meant is the Lord's grief and not a passion — a split recorded in the log rather than hidden.
103S. John x. 18. Cassian's animam meam is expressed, where the Authorized Version has only "it". The argument the verse is brought to carry is that the tristitia of the garden cannot have been a dread of death, since He who is the author of life lays it down of Himself. Animam is "soul" here rather than "life", which the verse's own sense would allow, because Cassian needs the chain anima — the soul not subject to ignorance at section 3, the soul sorrowful unto death, the soul laid down.

XII. That all the righteous and holy have been not in the likeness, but in the truth of sin.

In this, then, is that man who was born of a virgin parted by a great distance from all who are brought forth by the mingling of the two sexes: that, whereas all we bear in the flesh not the likeness but the truth of sin, He took upon Him, in the assumption of true flesh, not the truth but the likeness of sin.104105 And indeed, although the Pharisees remembered most plainly what was written of Him in the prophet Isaiah — "who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth"106 — yet they were so deceived by the likeness of the flesh of sin that they said: "Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners";107 and to that blind man who had been given light: "Give glory to God: for we know that this man is a sinner";108 and to Pilate: "If this man were not a sinner, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee."109 Whosoever, then, shall have dared to profess himself to be without sin will claim for himself, by the crime of a blasphemous pride, an equality in this thing, which is singular and proper to Him alone. For it follows that he says he has the likeness of the flesh of sin, and not the truth of sin.110

104Three apparatus entries fall in two printed lines here — a om. BFOKZ¹, producimur betav and nos non O: non rell. v — and the last of them is Petschenig printing O alone. The first person producimur, read by the beta family and the printed editions Migne follows, puts Cassian inside the class he is describing; the base text keeps the third person and the sentence a general one. O's nos adds nothing to the person of the clause that follows, which is first plural in gestemus on every reading; it adds emphasis — all of us — and the English keeps it as "all we". Dropping a leaves a bare ablative of separation with segregatur and changes nothing in English.
105Ille homo is "that man", a noun phrase, and ille at the end of the sentence is a pronoun and takes the divine capital: the rule of this edition is that pronouns for God are capitalised and nouns are not, so one Latin word appears twice in one sentence in two dresses.
106Isa. liii. 9, in the wording of 1 Pet. ii. 22, which is where the same Latin stood at chapter VIIII. Cassian ascribes it to Isaiah here and to the Apostle there, and neither ascription is corrected.
107S. Matt. xi. 19. Homo uorax et potator uini is the Authorized Version's "a man gluttonous, and a winebibber" with the words in the Latin's order.
108S. John ix. 24. Da gloriam deo is "Give glory to God", where the Authorized Version has "Give God the praise". Quoniam after scimus is "that", the biblical calque of ὅτι where the Vulgate reads quia; the "for" of this page renders Cassian's enim, which neither the Vulgate nor that Version has at this verse.
109S. John xviii. 30. The Authorized Version has "a malefactor" where peccator is "a sinner", and it has no "this man". The last two sayings call Him peccator in so many words; the first puts Him in sinners' company. Together they are what the likeness of the flesh of sin looked like from outside.
110Uindicabit is future indicative and ausus fuerit future perfect: a general future — whoever shall have dared, will claim. The whole of chapters XI and XII has been built so that this one sentence can be said, and Theonas says it once and leaves it.

XIII. That the sins of the saints are not so grievous as to take from them the merit of holiness.

But that righteous and holy men are not free from blame the scripture plainly declares, saying: "For seven times doth the righteous man fall, and rise again."111 For what else is it to fall than to sin? And yet, though he is said to fall seven times, he is none the less pronounced righteous; nor does the lapse of human frailty prejudice his righteousness, since there is a great difference between the fall of a holy and of a sinful man.112 For it is one thing to commit a mortal sin, and another to be forestalled by a thought which is not free from sin; or to offend by the error of ignorance, or of forgetfulness, or by the glibness of idle speech; or for a moment, by the fault of unbelief, to waver a little in inward contemplation; or to be assailed by some subtle titillation of vainglory; or by the necessity of nature to fall back for a while from the highest perfection.113 For these are the seven kinds of lapse in which, though a holy man sometimes falls, yet he does not cease to be righteous; and although they seem light and small, they nevertheless make it impossible for him to be without sin. For he has things for which, bearing a daily repentance, he ought both truly to ask pardon and to pray without ceasing for his own sins, saying: "Forgive us our debts."114 And that we may prove by the plainest examples both that some of the saints have erred and that they have yet not departed from their own righteousness — surely that most blessed Peter, and pre-eminent among the Apostles, what else is he to be believed to have been but holy, and above all at that time in which it was said to him by the Lord: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven"?115 What can be more glorious than this praise from the Lord, what more sublime than this power and blessedness? And yet a little after, when, not knowing the mystery of the Passion, he unwittingly set himself against so great a benefit to the human race, saying: "Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be unto Thee,"116 he deserves to hear: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."117 Can it be that, when equity itself rebuked him with these words, he is to be believed either not to have fallen at all, or not to have remained in holiness and righteousness?118 What of that time also — surely he is not to be denied to have plainly suffered a downfall, when, with the fear of the persecutors pressing upon him, he was compelled to deny the Lord three times? But at once, repentance following, by washing away the stain of so great a crime with the bitterest tears, he did not lose the merits of holiness and righteousness. Of him, therefore, and of the saints like him, we ought to take that also which is sung through David: "The steps of a man are directed by the Lord: and He shall will his way exceedingly. When the righteous man shall fall, he shall not be troubled: for the Lord putteth His hand under him."119 For he whose steps are directed by the Lord, what else can he be but righteous? And yet of this very man it is said: "When he shall fall, he shall not be dashed to pieces."120 What is "when he shall fall," but "when he shall have run into the lapse of some sin"? "He shall not be dashed to pieces," he says — that is, he shall in no wise be long overwhelmed by the inroad of sin; but although for the present he seem to be dashed down, yet, raised up by the divine help which he implores, by a swift rising again he shall not lose the steadfastness of righteousness, or, even if for the present he shall have lost it through the frailty of the flesh, he shall repair it by the putting under of the Lord's hand.121 For he does not cease to be holy after his downfall, who, since he knows that he cannot be justified by confidence in his own works, and believes that he is to be delivered from bonds of sins so great by the grace of the Lord alone, ceases not to cry out with the Apostle: "Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord."122

111Prov. xxiv. 16. The Authorized Version has "a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again"; Migne prints septies in die cadet justus et resurget, with the Vulgate's future tenses and an in die that is neither Petschenig's nor the Vulgate's; the apparatus reports nothing at the line, so the fuller text is that of the printed editions Migne reprints. This is the verse the whole chapter rests on.
112Iustus is "righteous" and iustitia is "righteousness" throughout this conference, so that the argument of this sentence stays visible: a man is called iustus in the verse and his iustitia is what the fall does not prejudice. The Authorized Version has "just" at this verse.
113Two of the seven carry variants. Petschenig prints infidelitatis uitio interna theoria, by the fault of unbelief in inward contemplation, where the apparatus reads infidelitatis uitio interna BF: in fide O in fidei betav — on Migne's reading the wavering is in the inward contemplation of faith, which concedes something different. And he prints reccidere, to fall back, where the apparatus gives four spellings of two verbs and, in O, a third verb with a third sense (reccidere F: reccedere B¹ recedere B²Z² recidere KZ¹ descendere O). Aliquantisper is temporal — for a while — and not a measure of degree; the fall of a saint is brief, which is the argument sections 6 and 7 turn on. Theoria is Cassian's Greek loanword and is "contemplation".
114S. Matt. vi. 12. The seven lapses are counted out as Cassian numbers them: the thought that forestalls, ignorance, forgetfulness, idle talk, the moment's wavering, the titillation of vainglory, and nature's necessity — three of them under one verb, offendere, which is why the list can be read as five if it is read quickly. He says septem, and there are seven.
115S. Matt. xvi. 17-19. Super terram, twice, is "upon earth", where the Authorized Version has "on earth"; and Cassian's last clause carries an et which it has not — "shall be loosed also in heaven". The Latin has no object for non reuelauit and "it" is supplied, as that Version supplies it. The example is chosen at its strongest: the argument needs a man whom the Lord Himself has just called blessed.
116S. Matt. xvi. 22, as the Authorized Version has it. Mysterium passionis is "the mystery of the Passion", the glossary's trigger for passio where it is the Lord's own; everywhere else in this conference the noun is a passion of the soul and is lower case.
117S. Matt. xvi. 23. Uade post me, satanas is "Get thee behind Me, Satan", and chapter X has the other form, uade retro Satanas, of the devil in the wilderness. Cassian quotes the two sayings in two forms and this edition prints them as he does, without making the one into the other.
118Numquidnam opens a question that expects the answer no, and the two limbs of it are what an opponent would have to hold: that Peter did not fall, or that he did not remain holy. Theonas puts the objection rather than the conclusion, and the conclusion is the next section's.
119Ps. xxxvi. (xxxvii.) 23, 24. Three things stand here that the Authorized Version has not: hominis, a man, where it has "a good man"; nimis, exceedingly, which the Vulgate has not either; and iustus in the second verse, which the printed editions omit and Petschenig keeps. Its own English is "Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand." Diriguntur is "are directed", where it has "are ordered", and the same verb opens the next section, so the two have to be one word. The subject of uolet is the Lord and uiam eius is the man's way; nothing in the Latin marks that, and in the English the capital does — He shall will his way. And Petschenig prints non conturbabitur where the verse is quoted and non conlidetur three lines later where Cassian expounds it, because that is what his manuscripts give in each place (the apparatus reads conturbabitur BFO: conlidetur betav). Migne harmonises the quotation to the exposition. This edition prints both as they stand.
120Ps. xxxvi. (xxxvii.) 24, and the same verse the section before quoted with non conturbabitur. Here Cassian expounds it and Petschenig prints non conlidetur, dashed to pieces, twice over, because that is what his witnesses give in the exposition. The two are not made one, and the English gives "troubled" there and "dashed to pieces" here. Cum ceciderit is "when he shall fall", where the Authorized Version has the concessive "though he fall"; Cassian's exposition takes the cum temporally and asks what it means.
121Cum lapsum peccati alicuius incurrerit stands between single quotation marks in Petschenig, which is the CSEL convention for a phrase cited in order to be argued about; Gibson uses double marks for the same construction (Conf. XVI. xvi, XIII. xiii), and this edition follows him. Elisus and conlidetur are two compounds of one verb, laedere, and subpositione takes up subponit from the verse; the English keeps both links.
122Rom. vii. 24, 25. Gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum is a nominative and stands as the answer to the question before it — "The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord" — where the Authorized Version has "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord". That is the reading Cassian's whole argument needs, and he quotes it again at chapter XIIII in the same form. Infelix ego homo has no exclamatory particle, and the Version's "O" is not supplied; the exclamation mark is this edition's pointing for a colon in Petschenig, and carries what the particle would have carried. Ruina is "downfall" and lapsus "lapse", because Cassian grades them: the seven light ones are lapses, and Peter's denial is a ruina.

XIIII. How that saying of the Apostle is to be understood: "For I do not the good that I would."

For when the Apostle Paul, knowing that the inestimable abyss of purity cannot be penetrated by man while the tides of thought resist, had first, long tossed as it were through the deeps, said: "For I do not the good that I would, but the evil which I hate, that I do,"123 and again: "But if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that work it, but the sin that dwelleth in me,"124 and: "I delight in the law of God after the inner man, but I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and leading me captive in the law of sin which is in my members"125 — then, the frailty whether of his own or of nature itself having been wholly seen through, utterly terrified by the vastness of so measureless a depth, he fled for refuge to the safest harbour of the divine help; and, despairing as it were of the burdens of mortality of his own ship, weighed down by natural infirmity, he prays for the remedies for shipwrecks from Him to whom nothing is impossible,126 crying out with a certain piteous wailing: "Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"127 And at once the release which he despaired of from the weakness of nature he confidently presumed from the goodness of God, adding: "The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord."128

123Rom. vii. 19. Quod odi malum is "the evil which I hate", where the Authorized Version has "the evil which I would not": odi is the verb of verse 15 set into verse 19's frame, where the Vulgate has nolo. Gibson prints "the evil which I hate, that I do" for the same Latin at Conf. XXIII. i, which is Cassian quoting the same verse. Petschenig has facio bonum where Migne has bonum facio.
124Rom. vii. 20. Operor is "work", where the Authorized Version and Gibson both have "do"; it is the Latin verb of labouring, from opus, and it is kept. Cassian quotes this verse twice within two printed pages and the two do not agree: he has hoc facio here and hoc ago at chapter XV, and Petschenig prints both as they stand. English has one word for both verbs, so the English does not show the difference; it is recorded here instead of being smoothed away.
125Rom. vii. 22, 23. Condelector is a compound — to delight along with — and "I delight in the law of God" is Gibson's own English for the same Latin at Conf. XXIII. i, though it does not carry the prefix. Repugnantem is "fighting against": the verb is to fight back, the Authorized Version has "warring against", and Gibson prints "opposing". In lege peccati keeps its preposition, "in the law of sin", where Gibson has "into captivity to the law of sin". Petschenig prints quae here, agreeing with lege — it is the law that is in the members — and quod at chapter XV, agreeing with peccati (his apparatus there: quod BFO: quae betav). An English relative attaches to the noun before it, so the English of both places reads with peccati, which is the second of the two; the first is recorded here rather than wrenched into "which law".
126Petschenig prints naufragiorum remedia deprecatur — Paul prays for the remedy — where Migne has deposcit, demands it; the apparatus reads deprecatur BF: deprecamur O deposcit betav. In the sentence where Cassian has him despair of nature and throw himself on grace, praying and demanding are not the same act. The nautical figure runs from abyssum to uela pandamus at the end of the conference, and tutissimum portum stands again in the last chapter. Oppressi is genitive and can agree only with nauigii, so it is the ship that is weighed down; quasi marks the figure and not the despairing, which the indicative desperauit four lines later states as fact. Altitudinis is read as the sea's depth, with abyssum, profunda, portum and nauigii; the other reading, the unreachable height of purity, would break the figure. Confidenter is taken with praesumpsit rather than with adiungens, and either is available. The present deprecatur stands among perfects and is kept present.
127Rom. vii. 24, as at chapter XIII.
128Rom. vii. 25, again as a nominative answer and not as the Authorized Version's "I thank God". Praesumpsit is the same verb this conference uses of coming to the sacrament, and the only place in it where the object is not the sacrament: praesumere de is to take in advance from a thing, and the English is "presumed". That what Paul takes he takes without desert is chapter VII's argument, not this word's.

XV. An objection, on the ground that the Apostle is to be believed to have said this rather in the person of sinners.

Germanus: Many lay it down that this passage of the Apostle ought to be so understood as to maintain that he said it not in his own person but in the person of those who sin — of those, that is, who, wishing to hold themselves back from bodily enticements and pleasures, bound fast by former faults and made captive by the delight of carnal passions, cannot restrain themselves, so long as, weighed down by an ingrained habit of vices as by a certain harsh lordship of tyranny, they cannot draw breath again toward the liberty of chastity.129 For how will that which he says be able to fit the blessed Apostle — who, it is certain, had attained to the highest summit of all perfection —: "For I do not the good that I would, but the evil which I hate, that I do";130 that also which he adds: "But if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that work it, but the sin that dwelleth in me";131 nor yet this besides: "For I delight in the law of God after the inner man, but I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and leading me captive in the law of sin which is in my members"?132 In what way, then, can these things be fitted to the person of the Apostle? For what good is there that that man could not fulfil? And on the contrary, what is that evil which, unwilling and hating it, he could yet have committed against his will, nature compelling? But to what law of sin, then, could the chosen vessel, in whom Christ the Lord was speaking, be led away captive?133 He who, when he had taken captive every disobedience and "every high thing that exalteth itself against God,"134 proclaimed concerning himself with confidence: "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall render to me in that day."135

129Pudicitia is "chastity", the same English as castitas and castimonia, following Institutes VI, which prints Gibson's word for all three. Non possunt stands twice in the sentence, once of restraining themselves and once of breathing again; Cassian repeats it and the English repeats it. Obstricti and captiuati are circumstantial participles giving the reason for the one finite verb, and are not coordinated with it. The distinction between pudicitia, castimonia and castitas is deliberately given up in this edition, all three being "chastity", which is what Institutes VI does with Gibson's word.
130Rom. vii. 19, as at chapter XIIII, and word for word the same in Petschenig at both places; odi stands here too, where the Vulgate has nolo, and the English follows Cassian.
131Rom. vii. 20, and here Petschenig prints hoc ago where chapter XIIII has hoc facio. Both were read on their own page images and neither is corrected to the other; the English has one verb for the two and the divergence is recorded rather than shown. Within this section's own first quotation facio and ago both stand, and both are "do"; the note is about the difference between the chapters.
132Rom. vii. 22, 23. Two more divergences from the same verses at chapter XIIII, and both are Petschenig's text and not a slip: he prints condelector enim legi dei here and condelector legi dei there, and quod est in membris meis here (his apparatus: quod BFO: quae betav cf. XXIII, 13, 4) against quae est there. The enim falls inside the letter-spacing, so it is printed inside the marks as Paul's; the relative's gender the English cannot carry. The question mark is Germanus's and not Paul's, so it stands outside the closing quotation mark although Petschenig's spacing runs to it.
133Electionis uas is "the chosen vessel", which is Gibson's own for the phrase at Conf. I. xix, Inst. VIII. v and X. viii. Electionis uas is built out of Acts ix. 15 and in quo Christus dominus loquebatur out of 2 Cor. xiii. 3, but Petschenig marks neither as a quotation, so both stand unquoted here as Germanus's own words. Admiserit is a perfect subjunctive in a relative of characteristic inside a rhetorical question, and admittere of a fault is to commit it, not to concede it.
1342 Cor. x. 5. Cassian's aduersus deum is "against God", where the Authorized Version has "against the knowledge of God"; the noun is not in his text and is not supplied.
1352 Tim. iv. 7, 8. "I have fought a good fight" is Gibson's own English for this Latin at Conf. V. xvii and VII. xxi; agon is "contest" elsewhere in this edition, where it stands beside certamen, and it does not stand beside it here. Petschenig prints iustitiae corona and Migne the Clementine order, corona justitiae; reddet is "render" where that Version has "give", in illa die is "in that day" where it has "at that day", and "henceforth" for de cetero is its phrase, kept because it is what the Latin says. The Latin has neither article nor possessive at cursum consummaui and iustitiae corona; English must supply both and cannot show that it has. Germanus has chosen the passage that most plainly makes Paul the opposite of a captive.

XVI. Of the postponement of the question proposed.

Theonas: As I am entering the safest harbour of silence, you are trying to call me back again to the measureless open sea of a most profound question.136 But, having embraced the opportunity of a trusty roadstead, here for the present, the course of so long a conference having been run, we will cast the anchor of keeping silence, so that tomorrow, if however no force of tempest stand in the way, we may spread the sails of discourse once the blowing of a favouring wind has been tried.137

136Tutissimum … portum stands at chapter XIIII too, where Paul fled to the safest harbour of divine help; the same phrase is here used of silence. Silentium is "silence" and taciturnitas is "keeping silence", two nouns in two sentences which one English word would run together — and "quietness" would read, in a paragraph of storms and calms, as calm weather rather than as a man holding his tongue. Statio is a roadstead, so that ancoram keeps "anchor" to itself.
137Flatu prosperi spiritus explorato: spiritus is the wind of the figure, and "a favouring wind" is what the sails and the tempest require of it. The Latin word is the same one this conference uses of the human spirit at chapters III and VI, and a reader may hear the other sense under it; the figure decides the English, and the Latin does not close it. Explorato is a word of testing and scouting, and "tried" carries it where "proved" would now read as "demonstrated". Conamini is second person plural: the pulling back is the two visitors', though the objection of chapter XV is put by Germanus. The conference ends without answering it.

Notes on the Restored Text

1Quinquagensimae sollemnitate transacta … post synaxin uespertinam. Quinquagesima is the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost, and Gibson keeps the Latin name of the season at Conf. XV. iv; synaxis is the appointed office, and "after evening service" is his own English for the same construction at Conf. IX. xxxvi and at Conf. XV. i, a chapter that opens as this one does.
2The conference's own turns carry no quotation marks in this edition: the speaker's name, or — as in this opening turn — the interjected inquit, marks the speech. That is Gibson's practice without exception, in all 127 of his labelled turns. Mirabar is imperfect, and the English keeps it so; whether it is durative — he had been wondering through the seven days — or the softening imperfect with which a man opens a conversation, the sentence does not say, since its one time-phrase, his septem diebus, is already spent inside the indirect statement on differre. Potuisse is not carried over to praestitisse: the two infinitives hang separately on mirabar, and their tenses differ. Debitori suo is Theonas himself — the zeal is the creditor, the old man the debtor, and it is the debtor who was not asking to be let off.
3Indutias is "truce", the word Institutes VI fixes for it at chapter XX, and the military figure it belongs to is Cassian's own — inpugnat, tela, proeliorum, bellator, arma stand in later chapters. But the figure of this paragraph is commercial and not military: benignitas uestra … concessit frames the thing as a kindness granted, and debitori, redhibitione, faenoris, quaestus, dispensator and compendia follow it. Indutiae is also the ordinary word for the grace a creditor allows a debtor, and that is what is meant.
4Petschenig prints uerum etiam non inminuit largientem — the giver is not lessened. Migne has verum etiam nihil minuit largienti, with a dative, which makes the giver one who loses nothing rather than one who is not lessened. The apparatus reports the clause as etiam nihil (non O) in(im-)minuit largienti (largiente Z¹) Obetav — with the compound verb, where Migne prints the simple one, a discrepancy left standing here rather than smoothed. The English follows the base text.
5Petschenig prints compendia summa consequitur, with dispensator for its subject and quia for its conjunction. The apparatus reports quia BFO¹: lucrum enim O²betav and compendia summa om. betav, so the printed editions Migne follows both replace the conjunction and drop the object, leaving lucrum to fill the vacated slot. Two editions, two sentences.
6Conpunctio is "compunction" throughout this edition, on Gibson's own usage spread over nine chapters of both works; the alternative he uses, "conviction", belongs to four adjacent chapters of Conference IX and is not the volume's habit.
7Petschenig prints excitaret quodammodo dormientem where Migne has suscitaret … dormitantem; his apparatus reports dormitantem betav. The word is recorded because the page image and the optical transcription disagreed at it and the apparatus settles it independently: the English is "asleep", not drowsy. The old man says of himself, before he answers a question about sleep, that he is the one asleep.
8Remissius iucundantes — indulging ourselves more freely, iucundari being to take one's pleasure, and set here against districtius abstinentes. Migne prints remissius jejunantes, fasting more slackly, and the apparatus reports ieiunantes betav; Petschenig also has lenioribus, milder, where Migne has levioribus, lighter. The lax pole of the question is a different thing in each: on Migne's text it is slack fasting, on this one it is indulgence. The question is put in the plural — inquisitio uestra, uestra confessio — and belongs to both visitors, though it is Germanus who puts the questions of chapters IIII, VIII and XV.
9Umor is "humour" and the noun egestio is "emission" throughout this conference, its verb egerere "discharge". Expergefacti is a passive participle — roused, not waking of oneself. This is the question the 1894 volume does not print: in place of the whole conference its page carries one sentence, "This Conference is omitted."
10Quae is feminine, and the nearest feminine noun is causam — maiores stands between them — but infestationis is feminine as well, and it is more naturally the infestation than its cause that breaks in with untimely excesses. The Latin does not settle which. The English cannot leave it open, because an English relative attaches to the noun before it; it therefore reads with causam, and this note records that the other reading is available. Inrumpat is subjunctive, so the clause defines rather than describes. Modum temporis constituti is taken as the natural interval between one emission and the next, an inference from section 5's ante legitimi temporis cursum and chapter VI's certis mensibus; the words themselves say only the measure of the appointed time.
11Inimici inludentis insidiis. The participle is the verb behind inlusio, the noun of the conference's own title: what the enemy does is inludere, to make sport of a man, and the inlusio is what he makes. The third cause is therefore named here by the word that names the book, five sections before it is expounded. The link is invisible in the English, which has "mockery" here and "illusion" for inlusio throughout. The three verbs of this sentence — congeritur, elabitur, prouocatur — have no expressed subject, and "the flux" is supplied for them: the two candidates the sentence before leaves standing are the infestatio and its causa, and what is heaped up by food and slips away through carelessness is the flux itself, which this section calls hanc redundantiam obsceni umoris and sections 2 and 6 name fluxus. The supply is tabled in the log, because a supplied subject that decides something is not scaffolding.
12Gastrimargiae, id est uoracitatis uel gulae uitium. Gastrimargia is "gluttony", which is Gibson's own English for the Greek word — first gastrimargia, which means gluttony (Conf. V. ii). Where he keeps the Greek and adds a gloss, this edition prints the gloss only, because Cassian has already supplied one of his own in id est and two would be one too many. Uitium is "fault" throughout this edition, following his the eight principal faults at Inst. V. i.
13Concretum fuerat in medullis: Institutes VI. i prints "congealed together" for the same participle of the same matter, and the verb returns at chapter V of this conference (egesta concretio) and at chapter VI (concreti non possunt non egeri). Corporis is a genitive with no certain governing noun in the clause, and is taken here as the body out of which the matter is discharged. Petschenig prints tabefacti, wasted away, where Migne has labefacti, shaken loose; his apparatus reports nothing at the word, so that divergence is Migne's own.
14Aequali est continentia temperandum. Continentia is "abstinence" throughout this conference — Gibson's commoner English for it by seven capitula to one — because the sense here is restraint in food, not the graded state which Conference XII. xi sets against castitas and for which his other word, "continence", is the one to reach for. Abstinentia, a different noun which Cassian uses of the same discipline at chapters II, III and VI, is "abstinence" as well; he does not distinguish them and neither does the English. Temperandum is impersonal and governs a uilioribus cibis: with that preposition the verb is to hold off from a thing, not to keep it within measure.
15Intemeratam spiritus castitatem: castitas is "chastity" throughout, the most consistent term in this edition's glossary, six capitula out of six. Castimonia, which stands twice in this chapter as well as at chapters V and VI, is "chastity" too, following Institutes VI and Gibson's own "the purity of chastity" at Inst. V. vii — so two Latin nouns share one English word inside this chapter, and the English cannot show which is which. Profluuium and fluxus likewise share "flux", and sacrosanctus shares "holy" with sanctus, because "holy communion" and "the holy mysteries" are Gibson's own phrases and the two Latin words never stand together of one thing. The two verbs of the last clause are kept apart: sordidari is "sullied" and pollui is "defiled", the polluere family taking "defile" everywhere, while the noun pollutio is "pollution" at chapter VI.
16Huius is the nearer of the two demonstratives and points to the man who earns a triumph; illum is the further and points to the man who has peace by an idle good fortune. The English says "the latter" and "the former" to keep the order the Latin fixes, since which man is which is the whole of the sentence. Uirtutibus here is the plural of moral qualities and is "virtues", this edition's default for uirtus.
17Petschenig prints boni necessitas and dignum magis dixerim miseratione. Migne has quem facultas boni — the capacity for good, not the necessity of it — and dignum magis … securitate, worthy of safety rather than of praise; the apparatus reports boni necessitas] facultas boni O²betav and miseratione] securitatem beta securitate v. The two texts value the man who is chaste only because he cannot be otherwise differently: one pities him, the other leaves him unworried, securitas being freedom from care rather than safety. Both withhold praise.
18Segnitiae situm … obduxerit: situs is the mould that gathers on a thing left unused, and obducere is to draw a covering over. Cassian sets a conditional (si … obduxerit) beside a temporal (aut cum … concupiscit) under the one heading, and the English keeps both. Obduxerit is ambiguous in form between a perfect subjunctive and a future perfect indicative, and in a si protasis the second is the commoner; concupiscit is plainly indicative.
19Pristinarum omnium passionum … semina. Passio is "passion" throughout this edition — a disordered affection, one of the eight faults or their like — and takes a capital only where it is the Lord's own Passion, as at chapter XIII. Intra eam is feminine and will bear either the mind or the wandering; the mind is taken, because it is the mind the seeds are in and the wandering is one of the two things said of it.
20In eius adytis: the adyta are the innermost room of a temple, which none but the priest enters, and eius is the mind of the section before. The subject of delitescunt is the seeds of that same sentence, carried over by a connecting relative; the English supplies "these" for it.
21Mentis circumspectione atque uirtute — the English is "strength", and not this edition's usual "virtue" for uirtus. The glossary's own trigger gives "strength" where the noun names a faculty or a capacity rather than a moral quality, and here it stands beside circumspectio as what the mind brings against the flesh: what is set over against an emptiness of the body is a power of the mind, not a virtue of it. Declared as a departure in departures.json.
22Eliciantur is subjunctive: the phantasms are such that by them the humours are drawn out, and "may be enticed forth" keeps the mood and the echo of inlecebrosis together. Luxuria is "luxury" in the older English sense here, as in Institutes VI and Conference XII — though at section 8 the same noun is extravagance in spending, and one English word covers both; libido is "wantonness" throughout this conference and concupiscentia is "lust" throughout, so that three Latin nouns keep three English words. Somnians is a participle of the mind: it is dragged while sleeping, not dragged into sleep.
23Maiore integritatis merito. Integritas is "integrity" in this edition, and it is the one rendering in the glossary that is not a word of Gibson's: the word does not occur in his volume, and every English he does use for the noun is spoken for — "perfection" collides with perfectio, "purity" with puritas, "chastity" with castitas, and his "uprightness" cannot carry carnis integritas at chapter V. The standing departure is recorded once in the log and thereafter assumed.
24Nos polluat — subjunctive, and it rests on a single manuscript. Petschenig's apparatus reads polluat Z: polluit rell. v: he prints the reading of Z alone against every other witness and against the printed editions. The mood is the whole difference, and it is more than a shade. Polluat is the verb of the result clause ita … inpugnat opens, with dum … conatur subordinate inside it and ut … deterreat hanging on polluat in turn: on Z's subjunctive the defiling is what the enemy's spite brings about. On the indicative of every other witness that result clause is left without its verb — a late indicative result clause, or a rupture. This is one of six places in the conference where the base text rests on one witness.
25Petschenig prints grauius sentiunt fuisse pulsatos, more grievously assailed, where Migne has pollutos, more grievously defiled; the apparatus reports nothing here, so the reading is Migne's own. What the beginner concludes about his fast is different in each: that it left him more attacked, or that it left him more polluted. Aemulam is a rival — the strictness he was taught to court is made to look like a competitor for the thing he wants.
26Non idcirco nos tantum … sed quia: the non denies not the reason but its sufficiency, and tantum carries the denial. Cassian is not saying that a fault does not seize the mind — the next clause assumes it does — but that seizing the mind is not the whole of why it must go.
27Concupiscentiae is "lust", the glossary's fixed English, with the scriptural adjective carnalis. The vice-list keeps Gibson's own names for the eight faults from Inst. V. i: iracundia anger, tristitia dejection, filargyria covetousness, cenodoxia vainglory, superbia pride.
28Filargyria is "covetousness", which is Gibson's own English for the Greek word at Inst. VII. i and Conf. V. i; cenodoxia is "vainglory", his at Conf. V. xxi. Where Cassian does not gloss the Greek himself, as he does not here, the English gives the word he glosses it with elsewhere and does not keep two.
29Indiuidua societate — undivided, in the strict sense that the faults cannot be parted from one another. The claim closes the chapter's last movement: gluttony is to be overcome not for its own sake only, because it opens the door to the rest, and the conference's own subject is one of the things that come in through it. Section 7 denies the sufficiency of the reason, not its primacy.
30Uerecundia interrogandi fiduciam cohibente is an ablative absolute. Interrogandi is taken with fiduciam — the confidence to ask — because the framing word order encloses it and because fiducialiter answers it at the end of the period; uerecundia interrogandi, shame at asking, is grammatically available and is not ruled out. What Germanus says is that they could never be told this, shame having checked the boldness to ask, and that the conference's own occasion has now drawn the question out of them. Accedi oportet is an impersonal passive and the English keeps it general: one ought to approach.
31Somnii inlusione pollutos. Inlusio is "illusion", which is Gibson's word in all five of his capitula that carry it and in the body of Inst. II. xiii and III. v, where he uses it of exactly this — an illusion in the night that pollutes the purity gained by prayer. In the five capitula the sense is a deception — the devil's, or a dream's. Here, and in ten more places in this conference, the word points to the nocturnal event itself; the genitive somnii keeps the dream in view, so it is not that inlusio simply means the emission. The word is Gibson's; the sense is said in a note rather than printed into the text. Praesumere, of the sacrament, is "venture upon" at all four of its places in this conference. The obvious English, "presume upon", cannot be used here: it condemns the act in the asking, and this sentence is a genuine disjunctive question that chapter V will answer with possumus et debemus … confidenter accedere. The noun praesumptio is "presumption" at chapter V, where Paul's indigne has already settled the case, and "taking" at chapter VI, where it is food.
32Carnis integritas — the only place in the four texts Gibson refused where the two words stand joined, and the phrase the glossary entry for integritas was settled on. Fraudetur is the language of being cheated — fraus, not a debt — and it answers the fraude of chapter III and the inluserit of the next section: what takes the integrity away is a trick. Praecauendum est is impersonal, with no dative of agent, and the English keeps it impersonal.
33Custodiae sopitae mentis inluserit — a dative, and an editorial preference. The apparatus reads custodiae B¹F¹: custodia B²F² custodiam Obetav: at cf. cap. 10, 1 et XXIII, 6, 1: Petschenig prints the first hands of B and F against their own correctors, against every other witness and against the printed editions, and defends the dative by two cross-references of his own. A reader should know that the case here rests on two readings the scribes themselves went back and altered.
34Petschenig prints sed egestionem aliquam pro natura per necessitatem conpulsam; the apparatus reports conpulsam] aut naturali necessitate profusam (propulsam v) betav, which is what Migne gives. This clause is the one that decides when a monk may go to the altar after a nocturnal emission, and an emission forced by necessity and one poured out by natural necessity are not the same claim. The subject of contaminetur is not expressed and "the sleeper" is supplied: mentis in the clause before is a genitive on custodiae and is not a natural subject to promote, and it is the man, not his mind, who then goes to the altar. Nullo … nullo is a pair and is kept as one, with interueniente attributive to the first member rather than made into an ablative absolute of its own; both readings parse.
351 Cor. xi. 27, 28. Cassian has panem et biberit calicem where the Authorized Version has "this bread, and drink this cup", and de calice bibat where it has "of that cup"; probet is "prove", where it has "examine", and reus erit is "shall be guilty", exactly as it has. Inside the letter-spaced quotation Petschenig prints probet autem se ipsum homo against Migne's probet primum semetipsum homo; the apparatus reads autem BF: primum O autem primum betav. The particle sits inside the spacing, so it is being presented as Paul's own word, and the English keeps it as "But".
361 Cor. xi. 29. Three divergences from the Authorized Version are Cassian's Latin: panem et calicem domini, which it has not at all in this verse; iudicium, where it has "damnation"; and non discernens corpus, where it has "the Lord's body". The Vulgate agrees at iudicium, and in the critical text in omitting domini, though it reads diiudicans for discernens.
371 Cor. xi. 30. Ideo inter uos opens the verse and is "therefore among you", where the Authorized Version has "For this cause" and puts "among you" after the adjectives; it also has "weak and sickly", and the English is "feeble" for inbecilli because Cassian's exposition turns the two adjectives back on themselves three lines later — infirmantur fide et inbecilli sunt mente — and the pair has to be visible in both places or the argument disappears.
38Somno peccati and sopore letali are two nouns and take two English words, "sleep" and "slumber"; the verse Cassian is expounding has dormiunt, and his exposition is that the sleeping Paul means is principaliter — chiefly — a sleep of sin, which leaves the bodily reading standing. Non discernens in the verse and diiudicans in the gloss are one act in two words, and the English keeps "discerning" for both. Uel in pura … mente uel carne is disjunctive in form and copulative in sense, as late Latin often has it; under the negation the difference is real — whether purity of one suffices or both are required — and the English takes the second. Sollicitudo is "solicitude", as at chapter I.
391 Cor. xi. 31. Two words stand where the Authorized Version has others: quodsi is "But if" where it has "For if", and utique — "surely" — has no counterpart in it at all. Without utique the English of the verse would be that Version word for word, which is the harmonisation this edition exists to refuse.
40Ad eam is feminine and reaches back to perceptione, the receiving, not to the sacraments; the English says "to it". The moods change inside the sentence and are kept as they change: the conditional runs in imperfect subjunctives (iudicaremus, inpenderemus, castigaremur), and the two clauses that state what the Lord's chastening is for turn to the present (recurramus, condemnemur). Saeculum is "age" and mundus "world", which is why the last clause has both; In futuro is a bare neuter with no noun of its own, and English cannot leave it bare: it is "in the time to come" here, and the supplied noun is tabled with the rest of the supplies in the log. Infirmitatum is "infirmities", keeping the infirm- family together with the "weak" of the section before.
41Lev. vii. 19, 20 (LXX.). The same verse stands at Conference XII. ii, and its two divergences from the Authorized Version are kept here as they are there: sacrificii salutaris, "the sacrifice of salvation", follows the Greek σωτηρίου where it has "peace offerings", and peribit coram domino, "shall perish before the Lord", where it has "shall be cut off from his people". A third divergence, unremarked there, is in qua est inmunditia — a relative on anima, so that the uncleanness is in the man — where the Version builds the same sense as a participle, "having his uncleanness upon him"; the English moves the clause next to "soul", because in the Latin's order an English reader takes it with "the Lord". Cassian adds at the head here the clause omnis mundus manducabit carnes, which he did not quote there.
42Deut. xxiii. 10, 11. Qui nocturno pollutus sit somnio is "hath been defiled by a dream in the night", where the Authorized Version has the periphrasis "that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night", and egredietur extra castra is "shall go forth out of the camp" where it has "go abroad". The letter-spacing puts si quis, inside the quotation and Cassian's inquit, outside it, so the marks break where they do here and not at the head of the verse. Petschenig's si quis is the reading of B, F and O against fuerit in the printed editions, so his protasis has no copula in it and none is supplied here. His abluetur is the harder case, and it goes the other way: the apparatus reads abluetur (λούσεται) beta: lauetur BFO et Vulgata, so the base text here follows the beta family and the Septuagint against the three manuscripts the rest of this conference rests on and against the Vulgate. Cassian quotes the same verse at Conference XII. ii, where Petschenig prints lauetur; both were read on their own page images and neither is harmonised to the other.
43Ludificationibus and inlusio are two nouns of the same act and take two English words here, "mockeries" and "illusion"; ludificatione returns at section 4 of this chapter, where the Elders' verdict names the thing again. The brother is the one case history in the conference, and everything Theonas has argued so far is tested on it.
44Seniores is "the Elders", Gibson's own; maiores, at chapter III, is "our predecessors", also his. Inpugnationum is "attacks", the glossary's fixed English, on four of Gibson's five capitula that carry the noun.
45Ex abundanti ciborum praesumptione. The same noun which is "presumption" of the sacrament at chapter V is here the plain taking of food, and the English says "taking"; the sense is settled by ciborum and by the whole of chapter III, where the first cause is over-eating and nothing else. The divergence is recorded in the log rather than hidden.
46Humanis se uirtutibus obtinuisse crediderunt — the English is "strength", under the glossary's own trigger for uirtus as a capacity; the sentence is the hinge of the story, and what the brother is about to be asked is whether he holds his chastity by a power of his own. Migne prints uiribus and crediderint; the apparatus reads uiribus betav: at cf. contra Nestor. I, 1, 1 and crediderunt BFO: crediderint betav, and Petschenig defends uirtutibus out of Cassian's usage elsewhere. Culpa is "blame" and uitium "fault", two words that stand three lines apart here.
47Interrogatus igitur … ille … illi confestim: the Latin begins with the brother as its subject, leaves him in a cum clause and finishes with the Elders, and ille and illi are all that keep them apart. The English names them, which is the supply the log records; it also makes detestans a finite verb and turns the cum clause into the main one, demoting illi … peruiderunt to "whereupon". That re-jointing of a long period is a change, and it is recorded rather than passed over.
48Sacrosanctis eum epulis debere misceri — the verdict runs the other way from what the brother expected: the cure for a defilement he was staying away for is to go. Censuerunt is the verb of a formal decision, and confidentissime is with it, not with him.
49Uirtute dominici corporis protegente — the English is "power", under the glossary's trigger for uirtus where it names a capacity and not a moral quality; what protects the brother is what the sacrament does, not a virtue it has. Declared as a departure. Scena is the stage: the enemy had been mounting a play, and detecta est says only that it was uncovered, without naming who drew the curtain.
50Sententia seniorum is "the judgment of the Elders"; sententia is "judgment" where it is a view held and "saying" where it is a dictum, which is the rule Institutes VI declared and Gibson's own both ways. Note that the verdict is stated as a general one — plerumque, for the most part — and not as a rule.
51Secundum humiliorem siue communem … statum: status is "condition" throughout this edition, the rule Institutes VI declared, and condicio at chapter VIIII is "condition" as well — two Latin words under one English one, which is the cost of the declared rule and is paid rather than broken. The order of the last clause is Cassian's own and is kept: the fast comes after the faith, not instead of it, and that is the answer to the question chapter II asked.
52Non tam egestio ex imaginatione quam imaginatio ex egestionis nimietate descendit. The priority is reversed: the emission is said to come down from the imagination less than the imagination comes down from an excess of emission. Non tam … quam grades the two derivations rather than denying one, and section 4 has just called the imagination an inlectrix, an enticer to emission, so the dream keeps some causal share. Cassian does not press further, and this is the physiological claim on which the conference's pastoral answer stands.
53Omni uirtute nobis est enitendum — the English is "strength". The idiom is a measure of effort and not a name for a moral quality, which is the glossary's own condition for the trigger; it stands again at section 9 of this chapter and is declared at both.
54Rom. vi. 12. Cassian has in nostro mortali corpore, "our mortal body", where the Authorized Version has "your", and ad oboediendum concupiscentiis eius, "to obey the lusts thereof", where it builds the clause as "that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof". Concupiscentia is "lust" throughout this edition, by the glossary, and the Version has the same word at this verse.
55Rom. vi. 13, quoted in three pieces with Cassian's own words between them. The letter-spacing is exact about where he stops and starts: in the last clause it covers membra nostra arma and iustitiae deo and leaves his own antithesis iam non libidinis, sed outside, and the English keeps that boundary, so "now not of wantonness, but" stands outside the marks because it is his and not Paul's. Cassian also turns Paul's second-person imperatives into first-person hortatives — exhibeamus, three times — so the English says "we may yield … our members" where the Version says "yield ye your members"; that is his quotation and not a change made here. Migne's word order moves arma across the boundary and would make the contrast part of the verse; the apparatus reports libidini betac. Arma is "weapons", where the Version has "instruments", because the noun is the military one and this conference is full of them, and iniquitatis is "iniquity" where it has "unrighteousness".
56Rom. vi. 14. The object of dominabitur does not stand inside the letter-spacing: nobis, with fundatis agreeing with it, opens the sentence outside the marks, and dominor governs the dative — so Cassian has drawn Paul's uobis out of the quotation and made it his own. The English follows that reading; nobis … fundatis as an ablative absolute is formally available, and the expansion peccatum in nobis iam non dominabitur in the other witnesses is evidence that some scribes took it so; Migne prints peccatum in nobis jam non dominabitur, an expansion the apparatus reports as peccatum in nobis iam (iam om. O¹) non Obetav, and the fuller text is the Vulgate's shape, not this one.
57Sub lege and sub gratia are the two halves of the same verse, and Cassian breaks his own exposition into the gap between them; the letter-spacing marks each half, so each takes its own quotation marks and his sentence about marriage and virginity stands between them, unmarked. Corporis motum is "motion of the body", the glossary's default where the stirring is the body's own and observed; the claim of the sentence is that grace ends even the licit pleasure, which is more than the law asked.
58Isa. lvi. 4, 5. Cassian's quae uolui, "the things that I have willed", stands where the Authorized Version has "the things that please me", and his quod non peribit, "which shall not perish", where it has "that shall not be cut off". Filiis et filiabus is dative, so the comparison is with what is given to sons and daughters — which is what the next section argues from — and not with the name "sons and daughters"; the Version's "a name better than of sons and of daughters" reads as a genitive and is departed from. His enim falls outside the letter-spacing and therefore outside the marks: the "for" is his own connective and not part of the verse.
59The eunuchs of Isaiah are read as the continent of the new covenant and the sons and daughters as the married saints of the old — which makes the promise of a better name a promise made over the heads of the patriarchs. Cassian states the reading as a question and does not defend it.
60Isa. lxv. 15, 16. In deo amen is "in the God Amen", following the Hebrew, where the Authorized Version has "the God of truth"; the Vulgate reads in Deo amen with Cassian. Benedicetur is passive, "shall be blessed", where it has "shall bless himself". Both of Cassian's inquits fall outside the letter-spacing and so break the marks.
61Isa. lxii. 2 — quod os domini nominabit — and the reading rests on a single manuscript. The apparatus reads nominabit O: nominauit rell. v: Petschenig prints the future of O alone against every other witness and against the printed editions, inside a letter-spaced quotation, in a chapter about a name still to be given. The English follows the base text and the tense is future. Et uocabitur tibi nomen nouum is impersonal with a dative — "there shall be called to thee a new name" — where the Authorized Version has "thou shalt be called by a new name". This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
62Rev. xiv. 4. The letter-spacing covers only uirgines enim sunt et cum mulieribus se non coinquinauerunt, so qui sequuntur agnum quocumque uadit stands outside the marks in this edition, as Cassian's own words about the verse. He gives the two clauses in the reverse of the Authorized Version's order and makes the defiling reflexive — "have not defiled themselves" — where it has "were not defiled".
63Quibus idcirco non fuit reputata uirginitas: the apparatus reports fuit BFOr: sit beta est c, and the tense of the copula decides whether their virginity was never reckoned or is not reckoned now. Omni uirtute is "with all our strength" here as at section 6, and declared. The five foolish virgins are read as bodily virgins with no inward purity, and the oil is that purity — a reading Cassian assumes rather than argues.
641 Thess. v. 23 stands behind integrum spiritum suum et animam et corpus sine querella in die domini nostri Iesu Christi conseruauerunt, but Petschenig marks no quotation here, so this edition prints it unquoted, as Cassian's own sentence built out of the verse. The Apostle's is a prayer, with a jussive passive and a second-person possessive (spiritus uester … seruetur); Cassian's is a statement about the wise virgins, with suum and an active perfect. He also has in die where the Vulgate has in aduentu, and the English follows him — "in the day", not the Authorized Version's "unto the coming".
65Conmotio is "commotion", and motus is "motion" throughout this edition: two nouns and two English words, as Institutes VI prints them. Titillatio is "titillation" and stands twice in the last sentence, and once more at section 6; the definition of the true eunuch is a negative one and turns entirely on the smallness of what he does not feel.
66The one reading the sentence will not bear is the correlative one, tantum … meritum … ut: read that way it says we can never reach a merit so great that we believe ourselves unworthy, which is incoherent. Of the two that remain the English chooses neither: ut … credamus may be a second limb of the definitio itself (late Latin moves freely from the accusative and infinitive to ut after a verb of holding), or a further consequence of holding the first. "And that" is neutral between them. Custodia is "watchfulness", the rule Institutes VI declared; uallare makes the literal sense a garrison set in a rampart. Sensuum is the inward faculty, not the five bodily senses, though chapter III's discursus sensuum uses the same word.
67This is the list of the ways in which no one escapes sin, and the two editions do not give the same list. Petschenig's seven are ignorance, negligence, surprise, thought, necessity, forgetfulness and sleep; the apparatus reports post neglegentia add. O²betav: aut uanitate aut obreptione aut cogitatione aut necessitate aut obliuione peccetur betav, so the printed editions Migne follows add vanity, recast Petschenig's per and accusative as bare ablatives, and drop the last member. That last member is somno — in sleep — which is the subject of the whole conference, and no one translating the sinlessness argument from Migne would find it here.
68Tam praeclarum quis uirtutum culmen — and the tam rests on a single hand. The apparatus reads tam B¹: ad tam rell.: Petschenig prints the first hand of B against every other witness. Uirtutum is "virtues" here, the plural of moral qualities and this edition's default. This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
691 Cor. iv. 3 and the first clause of iv. 4: the letter-spacing runs on to nihil enim mihi conscius sum, and chapter VII's next section takes up the same verse where this one leaves it. Ab humano die is "of man's day", which is what the Latin gives — Vulgate as well as Old Latin — for the Greek ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας, where the Authorized Version has "of man's judgment". Sed neque memet ipsum diiudico is "but neither do I judge my own self": its Version has "yea, I judge not mine own self", which arrived in the first draft of this page before the Latin was parsed and is departed from, because sed is adversative and neque coordinates a second negative. Nihil mihi conscius sum is "I know nothing against myself", its "I know nothing by myself" having lost its 1611 sense. Pro minimo est is "it is a very small thing", and the Version has the same; mihi is a plain dative and is "to me", where it has "with me".
701 Cor. iv. 4, continuing the verse whose first clause closed the section before. In hoc is "in this", where the Authorized Version has "hereby"; sed falls inside the letter-spacing and is Paul's, so it stands inside the marks.
71The non at the head governs both limbs, and the second limb is itself a negative: nullius sordis contagione fuscatus sum says, taken alone, that no foulness has stained him, and under the governing non that becomes a denial that he is unstained. Read without the reach of the non, the clause says the opposite of the sentence it belongs to. Sordes is "foulness" throughout this conference and conluuio is "filth".
721 Cor. iv. 4. Autem is Paul's here, not Cassian's — it stands inside the letter-spacing — and the English is "but", as the Authorized Version has it.
73Petschenig prints ueri iudicii in me profertur examen, present; Migne has uerum judicii … proferetur, future, and the apparatus reports uerum betav and proferetur Obetav. In a chapter about whether a man may ever judge himself worthy to communicate, the tense is the argument: the true verdict stands pronounced, by the one who sees the heart, or it waits. Migne's uerum is the other half of that divergence and would give "the true examination of judgment", with the adjective on examen, where the base text has the genitive ueri iudicii. The relative quem stays lower case, as the relative does everywhere in this edition.
74Four words for the thing stand in this chapter and its heading: peccatum is "sin", delictum is "offence", noxa is "guilt", and sanctitas its opposite. Cassian alternates delictum and noxa in successive clauses without glossing them as synonyms, and no motive for the variation is asserted here. Noxa shares its English with reatus, which stands at chapter III and in the capitulum of chapter V; those two never stand together, which is why one English word carries both. Etiam in the last clause stands second inside its noun phrase, which is the connective placing — and moreover — not the focal one; "not even to hope" would pull it under the negation, where the Latin leaves it outside. The objection is a syllogism and is set out as one, with its hinge repeated verbatim as the Latin repeats it. The answer runs from chapter VIIII to chapter XVI, and turns on denying that sanctum and inmaculatum — Theonas's words at chapter VIIII, not Germanus's here — mean the same thing.
75Uasibus rests on a single manuscript: the apparatus reads uasibus B: uasculis rell. v, and Petschenig prints B alone against every other witness and against the printed editions. The English is "vessels", and not the diminutive the rest give. The sentence carries the answer to Germanus — that sanctus means set apart for God's use, and is said even of pots (Zech. xiv. 20, 21) — but that argument rests on the undisputed lebetibus, and the variant decides only whether the temple's vessels are called vessels or small ones. This is one of six single-witness readings in the conference.
761 Pet. ii. 22, quoted again at chapter XII with its second half and there ascribed to Isaiah. Peter is himself quoting Isa. liii. 9, and Cassian names the prophet rather than the apostle at the second place; the English leaves the ascription where he puts it in each.
77The irony sits in the apodosis — satis … uilem atque indignam … laudem … adsignauit — and the protasis si etiam nos … possumus is not a concession but the absurdity Theonas is refusing. Uitam exigere is the ordinary idiom for passing or living out a life; "exact a life" would make the claim one about what may be demanded, where the argument is about what may be attained. If sinlessness were within our reach, then what Paul singled out in Christ as incomparable was a cheap thing to say. The English keeps the conditional last, as the Latin does, so that the argument arrives in the order Cassian built it.
78Heb. iv. 15. Conpati infirmitatibus nostris is "suffer with our infirmities", and the Authorized Version's "be touched with the feeling of our infirmities" carries a word the Latin has not; the verb is the plain compound of pati. Secundum similitudinem stands without nostram, where it has "like as we are": the bare phrase is the one chapters X to XII turn on, and it is left bare. Cassian's inquit falls outside the letter-spacing and breaks the marks.
79Petschenig prints suspiciens, looking up at; the apparatus reads suspiciens O¹K²Z: suscipiens BFO²K¹r, and his own base manuscripts are split. On suspicere the Apostle admires Christ's sinlessness as unique; on suscipere he takes it up. The two readings give the Apostle a different posture toward the sinlessness, though the chapter's claim stands on either; Migne prints the second.
80Absque peccato and sine peccato stand in the two coordinated members of one quia clause and are one phrase with two prepositions; the English does not distinguish them, because Cassian does not. The contrast he is making is between the men and the man, not between the two prepositions.
81Ps. xliv. (xlv.) 3, which the English Bibles number as Ps. xlv. 2. Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum is "beautiful in form beyond the sons of men", where the Authorized Version has "Thou art fairer than the children of men": the Latin has no verb and no second person, and the psalm is being quoted here as a description and not as an address.
82Condicionem mortis humanae — condicio is "condition", as status is at chapter VI; two Latin nouns under one English word, which is the cost of the rule Institutes VI declared and is paid rather than broken. The claim is that no touch of foulness ever left its mark on Him — not that the flesh He took was spared the contact, since the same sentence gives Him the whole frailty of the flesh, and chapter VIIII has just had Him tempted per omnia.
83S. Matt. iv. 3. Petschenig's letter-spacing stops after si filius and begins again at dei es, with inquiens between, so the quotation marks break in the middle of the phrase, where they break in the Latin; this edition does not move a verb of speaking outside a verse to make the English read more smoothly. Dic is the imperative of dicere governing a ut clause, which English gives as "bid", where the Authorized Version has "command". Inludere, used here of the devil and Christ, is the verb behind inlusio, the noun in the conference's own title.
84S. Matt. iv. 4. Uiuit is present — "liveth" — where the Authorized Version has the future "shall live"; in pane solo and in omni uerbo are in with the ablative, instrumental here, and "by" carries it. Temptatio is "temptation", the glossary's fixed English on six of Gibson's seven capitula.
85S. Matt. iv. 6, as the Authorized Version has it. The pronouns of a verse spoken to God take capitals in this edition, as they do throughout Gibson's volume, whoever the speaker is; here the speaker is the devil.
86S. Matt. iv. 7. Cassian's inquit stands between the two letter-spaced runs and breaks the marks; the English keeps the break where it falls.
87Petschenig prints uanitas temptatoris, the emptiness of the tempter, and the apparatus reports uanitas BFO: nequitia betav, which is what Migne gives: on his text what is derided is the tempter's wickedness. In a chapter arguing that Christ alone met the tempter without a wound, what is derided matters. The Latin is an agentless passive and the English keeps it so.
88S. Matt. iv. 10. Uade retro Satanas has neither the hence of the Authorized Version at this verse nor a me after it, and none is supplied; Cassian quotes the other saying, uade post me, satanas, at chapter XIII, and the two are printed as they stand and not made one. Scriptum est is without the Version's "for".
89Petschenig prints memoria scripturarum where Migne has auctoritate Scripturarum; the apparatus reports nothing at the word, so the divergence is Migne's own. The difference is between resisting the enemy by remembering scripture — the desert habit of meditatio — and by its authority.
90S. John vi. 15. Fugit is "fled" where the Authorized Version has "departed", cognouisset is "knew" where it has "perceived", and in montem is "into the mountain" where it has "into a mountain". In the sentence before, ab ipso is the devil and the subject of respuerat is Christ; the Latin marks it only by ipso, which points to the other party named in the same clause, and in the English it is the capital that carries it — He refused, he offered.
91Sputamentorum rests on a single hand. The apparatus reads sputamtorum B¹: sputorum rell. v — Petschenig prints the first hand of B, with its omitted syllable restored, against every other witness and against the printed editions. In the same line he prints alapis, blows of the open hand, where the apparatus reports alapis BFO: palmis betav. Both words are in the passion narrative of the chapter. This is the last of six single-witness readings in the conference.
92S. Luke xxiii. 34, as the Authorized Version has it; Cassian's enim is that Version's "for". Non dicam umquam is a rhetorical step and not a second negative: he declines to press the umquam about insults in order to say the harder thing, that not even the torments moved Him. Uel leuissimae is "even the lightest", and the uel carries the force of the sentence.
93Labe pollutam: polluere is "defile" throughout, and the question of the chapter is put in the words of chapter IIII — whether a man can have flesh that nothing has defiled — so that the answer to Germanus and the christology are one argument and not two.
94Rom. viii. 3. The English is "in the likeness of the flesh of sin", and not the Authorized Version's "in the likeness of sinful flesh", because the next section argues that the similitudo is to be referred to peccati and not to carnis — an adjective on "flesh" settles in advance the question the chapter exists to open. The decisive reason is the chain of echoes: keeping peccati a separate noun lets similitudinem peccati here, ad peccati … imaginem at the next section and peccati similitudine at section 4 all sound as re-hearings of the same phrase, and "sinful flesh" makes them inaudible. Gibson prints this very phrase for this verse at Inst. V. vi, where his own sentence sets in the likeness of the flesh of sin against in the flesh of sin. Misit is a finite verb, "sent", where the Version has the participle "sending", and Cassian's in similitudine is ablative where the received Latin has the accusative in similitudinem — a condition He came in, not a form He was sent into.
95Similis … peccatrici is a feminine dative with no noun expressed; the noun supplied is "flesh", from caro four words earlier, and the adjective is Cassian's own word for sinful flesh at two more places in this chapter. Prauum quorundam haereticorum sensum is not named further, and no name is supplied here.
96S. Mark vi. 38 (and viii. 5). The question is Mark's; the evangelist's comment Cassian sets beside it two sentences later is John's, and in John the question asked is a different one. He joins them — and calls the joining statim — and the English joins them as he does.
97S. John vi. 6. Petschenig prints temptans eos and ipse autem; the apparatus reports eum betav and ipse autem] ipse enim betav et Vulg., so Migne normalises toward the Vulgate at both words. On this text Jesus is testing them, the disciples; on Migne's, him, Philip. The second autem is "but", not "for": "for" would be enim, which is the reading Petschenig refuses. The beta family and the printed editions read eum … enim with the Vulgate, so Migne follows a tradition rather than mending the text himself. Temptans is "tempting", where the Authorized Version has "to prove him", and the same verb is the one chapter X uses of the devil; its autem is "But" where the Version has "And".
98S. John iv. 10-14 stands behind the last clause, but Petschenig marks no quotation, so it is printed as Cassian's own sentence about the passage and not as a quotation of it. Prouocata est is passive and no agent is expressed; from the narrative it can only be He who provokes her.
99S. Matt. viii. 26. Increpauit uentos et mare is the Old Latin form Cassian quotes; Migne prints the Vulgate's imperavit ventis et mari, and Petschenig's apparatus reports nothing at the line, so the change is Migne's own normalisation of a letter-spaced quotation.
100S. Luke vii. 39, and the largest divergence inside a letter-spaced quotation anywhere in the conference. Petschenig prints sciret utique quae et qualis mulier tetigerit pedes eius and his apparatus reports only qualis BF²Obeta: qualia est F¹; Migne's fuller text — quae et qualis est mulier quae tangit eum, quia peccatrix est — has no manuscript warrant here and is the Vulgate's. Cassian's clause ends at the feet, without the Pharisee's "for she is a sinner", which the Version carries.
101S. Matt. xxvi. 39. The Authorized Version opens "O my Father"; pater has neither the particle nor the possessive, and neither is supplied.
102S. Matt. xxvi. 38. The Authorized Version has "exceeding sorrowful", for the Greek περίλυπος; tristis is the bare adjective and is "sorrowful". Tristitia, which is the fault Gibson calls "dejection" in the eight-fold list at chapter III, is "sorrow" here, because what is meant is the Lord's grief and not a passion — a split recorded in the log rather than hidden.
103S. John x. 18. Cassian's animam meam is expressed, where the Authorized Version has only "it". The argument the verse is brought to carry is that the tristitia of the garden cannot have been a dread of death, since He who is the author of life lays it down of Himself. Animam is "soul" here rather than "life", which the verse's own sense would allow, because Cassian needs the chain anima — the soul not subject to ignorance at section 3, the soul sorrowful unto death, the soul laid down.
104Three apparatus entries fall in two printed lines here — a om. BFOKZ¹, producimur betav and nos non O: non rell. v — and the last of them is Petschenig printing O alone. The first person producimur, read by the beta family and the printed editions Migne follows, puts Cassian inside the class he is describing; the base text keeps the third person and the sentence a general one. O's nos adds nothing to the person of the clause that follows, which is first plural in gestemus on every reading; it adds emphasis — all of us — and the English keeps it as "all we". Dropping a leaves a bare ablative of separation with segregatur and changes nothing in English.
105Ille homo is "that man", a noun phrase, and ille at the end of the sentence is a pronoun and takes the divine capital: the rule of this edition is that pronouns for God are capitalised and nouns are not, so one Latin word appears twice in one sentence in two dresses.
106Isa. liii. 9, in the wording of 1 Pet. ii. 22, which is where the same Latin stood at chapter VIIII. Cassian ascribes it to Isaiah here and to the Apostle there, and neither ascription is corrected.
107S. Matt. xi. 19. Homo uorax et potator uini is the Authorized Version's "a man gluttonous, and a winebibber" with the words in the Latin's order.
108S. John ix. 24. Da gloriam deo is "Give glory to God", where the Authorized Version has "Give God the praise". Quoniam after scimus is "that", the biblical calque of ὅτι where the Vulgate reads quia; the "for" of this page renders Cassian's enim, which neither the Vulgate nor that Version has at this verse.
109S. John xviii. 30. The Authorized Version has "a malefactor" where peccator is "a sinner", and it has no "this man". The last two sayings call Him peccator in so many words; the first puts Him in sinners' company. Together they are what the likeness of the flesh of sin looked like from outside.
110Uindicabit is future indicative and ausus fuerit future perfect: a general future — whoever shall have dared, will claim. The whole of chapters XI and XII has been built so that this one sentence can be said, and Theonas says it once and leaves it.
111Prov. xxiv. 16. The Authorized Version has "a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again"; Migne prints septies in die cadet justus et resurget, with the Vulgate's future tenses and an in die that is neither Petschenig's nor the Vulgate's; the apparatus reports nothing at the line, so the fuller text is that of the printed editions Migne reprints. This is the verse the whole chapter rests on.
112Iustus is "righteous" and iustitia is "righteousness" throughout this conference, so that the argument of this sentence stays visible: a man is called iustus in the verse and his iustitia is what the fall does not prejudice. The Authorized Version has "just" at this verse.
113Two of the seven carry variants. Petschenig prints infidelitatis uitio interna theoria, by the fault of unbelief in inward contemplation, where the apparatus reads infidelitatis uitio interna BF: in fide O in fidei betav — on Migne's reading the wavering is in the inward contemplation of faith, which concedes something different. And he prints reccidere, to fall back, where the apparatus gives four spellings of two verbs and, in O, a third verb with a third sense (reccidere F: reccedere B¹ recedere B²Z² recidere KZ¹ descendere O). Aliquantisper is temporal — for a while — and not a measure of degree; the fall of a saint is brief, which is the argument sections 6 and 7 turn on. Theoria is Cassian's Greek loanword and is "contemplation".
114S. Matt. vi. 12. The seven lapses are counted out as Cassian numbers them: the thought that forestalls, ignorance, forgetfulness, idle talk, the moment's wavering, the titillation of vainglory, and nature's necessity — three of them under one verb, offendere, which is why the list can be read as five if it is read quickly. He says septem, and there are seven.
115S. Matt. xvi. 17-19. Super terram, twice, is "upon earth", where the Authorized Version has "on earth"; and Cassian's last clause carries an et which it has not — "shall be loosed also in heaven". The Latin has no object for non reuelauit and "it" is supplied, as that Version supplies it. The example is chosen at its strongest: the argument needs a man whom the Lord Himself has just called blessed.
116S. Matt. xvi. 22, as the Authorized Version has it. Mysterium passionis is "the mystery of the Passion", the glossary's trigger for passio where it is the Lord's own; everywhere else in this conference the noun is a passion of the soul and is lower case.
117S. Matt. xvi. 23. Uade post me, satanas is "Get thee behind Me, Satan", and chapter X has the other form, uade retro Satanas, of the devil in the wilderness. Cassian quotes the two sayings in two forms and this edition prints them as he does, without making the one into the other.
118Numquidnam opens a question that expects the answer no, and the two limbs of it are what an opponent would have to hold: that Peter did not fall, or that he did not remain holy. Theonas puts the objection rather than the conclusion, and the conclusion is the next section's.
119Ps. xxxvi. (xxxvii.) 23, 24. Three things stand here that the Authorized Version has not: hominis, a man, where it has "a good man"; nimis, exceedingly, which the Vulgate has not either; and iustus in the second verse, which the printed editions omit and Petschenig keeps. Its own English is "Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand." Diriguntur is "are directed", where it has "are ordered", and the same verb opens the next section, so the two have to be one word. The subject of uolet is the Lord and uiam eius is the man's way; nothing in the Latin marks that, and in the English the capital does — He shall will his way. And Petschenig prints non conturbabitur where the verse is quoted and non conlidetur three lines later where Cassian expounds it, because that is what his manuscripts give in each place (the apparatus reads conturbabitur BFO: conlidetur betav). Migne harmonises the quotation to the exposition. This edition prints both as they stand.
120Ps. xxxvi. (xxxvii.) 24, and the same verse the section before quoted with non conturbabitur. Here Cassian expounds it and Petschenig prints non conlidetur, dashed to pieces, twice over, because that is what his witnesses give in the exposition. The two are not made one, and the English gives "troubled" there and "dashed to pieces" here. Cum ceciderit is "when he shall fall", where the Authorized Version has the concessive "though he fall"; Cassian's exposition takes the cum temporally and asks what it means.
121Cum lapsum peccati alicuius incurrerit stands between single quotation marks in Petschenig, which is the CSEL convention for a phrase cited in order to be argued about; Gibson uses double marks for the same construction (Conf. XVI. xvi, XIII. xiii), and this edition follows him. Elisus and conlidetur are two compounds of one verb, laedere, and subpositione takes up subponit from the verse; the English keeps both links.
122Rom. vii. 24, 25. Gratia dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum is a nominative and stands as the answer to the question before it — "The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord" — where the Authorized Version has "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord". That is the reading Cassian's whole argument needs, and he quotes it again at chapter XIIII in the same form. Infelix ego homo has no exclamatory particle, and the Version's "O" is not supplied; the exclamation mark is this edition's pointing for a colon in Petschenig, and carries what the particle would have carried. Ruina is "downfall" and lapsus "lapse", because Cassian grades them: the seven light ones are lapses, and Peter's denial is a ruina.
123Rom. vii. 19. Quod odi malum is "the evil which I hate", where the Authorized Version has "the evil which I would not": odi is the verb of verse 15 set into verse 19's frame, where the Vulgate has nolo. Gibson prints "the evil which I hate, that I do" for the same Latin at Conf. XXIII. i, which is Cassian quoting the same verse. Petschenig has facio bonum where Migne has bonum facio.
124Rom. vii. 20. Operor is "work", where the Authorized Version and Gibson both have "do"; it is the Latin verb of labouring, from opus, and it is kept. Cassian quotes this verse twice within two printed pages and the two do not agree: he has hoc facio here and hoc ago at chapter XV, and Petschenig prints both as they stand. English has one word for both verbs, so the English does not show the difference; it is recorded here instead of being smoothed away.
125Rom. vii. 22, 23. Condelector is a compound — to delight along with — and "I delight in the law of God" is Gibson's own English for the same Latin at Conf. XXIII. i, though it does not carry the prefix. Repugnantem is "fighting against": the verb is to fight back, the Authorized Version has "warring against", and Gibson prints "opposing". In lege peccati keeps its preposition, "in the law of sin", where Gibson has "into captivity to the law of sin". Petschenig prints quae here, agreeing with lege — it is the law that is in the members — and quod at chapter XV, agreeing with peccati (his apparatus there: quod BFO: quae betav). An English relative attaches to the noun before it, so the English of both places reads with peccati, which is the second of the two; the first is recorded here rather than wrenched into "which law".
126Petschenig prints naufragiorum remedia deprecatur — Paul prays for the remedy — where Migne has deposcit, demands it; the apparatus reads deprecatur BF: deprecamur O deposcit betav. In the sentence where Cassian has him despair of nature and throw himself on grace, praying and demanding are not the same act. The nautical figure runs from abyssum to uela pandamus at the end of the conference, and tutissimum portum stands again in the last chapter. Oppressi is genitive and can agree only with nauigii, so it is the ship that is weighed down; quasi marks the figure and not the despairing, which the indicative desperauit four lines later states as fact. Altitudinis is read as the sea's depth, with abyssum, profunda, portum and nauigii; the other reading, the unreachable height of purity, would break the figure. Confidenter is taken with praesumpsit rather than with adiungens, and either is available. The present deprecatur stands among perfects and is kept present.
127Rom. vii. 24, as at chapter XIII.
128Rom. vii. 25, again as a nominative answer and not as the Authorized Version's "I thank God". Praesumpsit is the same verb this conference uses of coming to the sacrament, and the only place in it where the object is not the sacrament: praesumere de is to take in advance from a thing, and the English is "presumed". That what Paul takes he takes without desert is chapter VII's argument, not this word's.
129Pudicitia is "chastity", the same English as castitas and castimonia, following Institutes VI, which prints Gibson's word for all three. Non possunt stands twice in the sentence, once of restraining themselves and once of breathing again; Cassian repeats it and the English repeats it. Obstricti and captiuati are circumstantial participles giving the reason for the one finite verb, and are not coordinated with it. The distinction between pudicitia, castimonia and castitas is deliberately given up in this edition, all three being "chastity", which is what Institutes VI does with Gibson's word.
130Rom. vii. 19, as at chapter XIIII, and word for word the same in Petschenig at both places; odi stands here too, where the Vulgate has nolo, and the English follows Cassian.
131Rom. vii. 20, and here Petschenig prints hoc ago where chapter XIIII has hoc facio. Both were read on their own page images and neither is corrected to the other; the English has one verb for the two and the divergence is recorded rather than shown. Within this section's own first quotation facio and ago both stand, and both are "do"; the note is about the difference between the chapters.
132Rom. vii. 22, 23. Two more divergences from the same verses at chapter XIIII, and both are Petschenig's text and not a slip: he prints condelector enim legi dei here and condelector legi dei there, and quod est in membris meis here (his apparatus: quod BFO: quae betav cf. XXIII, 13, 4) against quae est there. The enim falls inside the letter-spacing, so it is printed inside the marks as Paul's; the relative's gender the English cannot carry. The question mark is Germanus's and not Paul's, so it stands outside the closing quotation mark although Petschenig's spacing runs to it.
133Electionis uas is "the chosen vessel", which is Gibson's own for the phrase at Conf. I. xix, Inst. VIII. v and X. viii. Electionis uas is built out of Acts ix. 15 and in quo Christus dominus loquebatur out of 2 Cor. xiii. 3, but Petschenig marks neither as a quotation, so both stand unquoted here as Germanus's own words. Admiserit is a perfect subjunctive in a relative of characteristic inside a rhetorical question, and admittere of a fault is to commit it, not to concede it.
1342 Cor. x. 5. Cassian's aduersus deum is "against God", where the Authorized Version has "against the knowledge of God"; the noun is not in his text and is not supplied.
1352 Tim. iv. 7, 8. "I have fought a good fight" is Gibson's own English for this Latin at Conf. V. xvii and VII. xxi; agon is "contest" elsewhere in this edition, where it stands beside certamen, and it does not stand beside it here. Petschenig prints iustitiae corona and Migne the Clementine order, corona justitiae; reddet is "render" where that Version has "give", in illa die is "in that day" where it has "at that day", and "henceforth" for de cetero is its phrase, kept because it is what the Latin says. The Latin has neither article nor possessive at cursum consummaui and iustitiae corona; English must supply both and cannot show that it has. Germanus has chosen the passage that most plainly makes Paul the opposite of a captive.
136Tutissimum … portum stands at chapter XIIII too, where Paul fled to the safest harbour of divine help; the same phrase is here used of silence. Silentium is "silence" and taciturnitas is "keeping silence", two nouns in two sentences which one English word would run together — and "quietness" would read, in a paragraph of storms and calms, as calm weather rather than as a man holding his tongue. Statio is a roadstead, so that ancoram keeps "anchor" to itself.
137Flatu prosperi spiritus explorato: spiritus is the wind of the figure, and "a favouring wind" is what the sails and the tempest require of it. The Latin word is the same one this conference uses of the human spirit at chapters III and VI, and a reader may hear the other sense under it; the figure decides the English, and the Latin does not close it. Explorato is a word of testing and scouting, and "tried" carries it where "proved" would now read as "demonstrated". Conamini is second person plural: the pulling back is the two visitors', though the objection of chapter XV is put by Germanus. The conference ends without answering it.
On this pageGibson did not translate this text. In its place his 1894 volume prints one sentence: “This Conference is omitted.” What follows is a new translation from Petschenig’s Latin (CSEL XIII, printed pages 614–636), made for this edition and dedicated to the public domain under CC0. Our notes are collected at the foot of the page, under a heading of their own; Gibson has none here, because he wrote none. How this English was made, what was checked and what could not be, is set out on the methodology page.