The Seminary at Lincoln Christian University

The Four Senses:

θεωρητικη in John Cassian

A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Master of Arts Degree

by

Alec Bussen

March 2022
 CONTENTS

Thesis Approval Form…………………………………………………………………..… i

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………. ii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. iii

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..… 1

Chapter 1: Background and Contemporary Studies…………………………………… 4

1.1 Who is Cassian?……………………………………………………………….. 5
1.2 Cassian and the Desert………………………………………………………… 5
1.3 From Egypt to Gaul……………………………………………………………. 8
1.4 Pedagogy and Structure in Institutes and Conferences………………………… 11
1.5 Reading Scripture with the Fathers……………………………………………. 16
1.6 Modern Scholarship on How Cassian Read Scripture………………………… 19
1.7 Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………… 28

Chapter 2: Theoretical Knowledge in Institutes and Conferences…………………….. 29

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 29
2.2 Conference 14: Its Content and Goal………………………………………….. 29
2.3 The Theology and Consistency of the Four Forms………………………….… 33
2.4 Exegesis Under the Four Forms……………………………………………….. 54
2.5 Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………… 60

Chapter 3: Defining Theoretical Knowledge…………………………………………… 61

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 61
3.2 Conferences 11-15: The Importance of Grace…………………………………. 61
3.3 Natural Knowledge and Spiritual Knowledge…………………………………. 67
3.4 Spiritual Knowledge as Gift and Rule…………………………………………. 75
3.5 The Orderings of the Forms: Relationship and Consistency…………………… 81
3.6 Summary and Conclusion: Theoretical Knowledge Defined………………….. 82

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….… 84

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..... 90
 DEDICATION

For my wife Rachel. You are unlikely to read this work, but without your tolerance and support I
would not have been able to finish it. Thank you for your patience with me.

For my children, Caleb Matthew and Cassian Lewis Bussen. What I have learned from the
Scripture and tradition in which your names are drawn I have found immediately applicable to
raising you two. You are a means of God’s grace to me and I love you deeply.

For the two Bobs who have shaped my spirituality. My Grandpa, Robert Anderson, introduced
me to the faith and lived it before me from the beginning of my life to the end of his—I am
forever in his debt. Dr. Robert Rea, you have helped me spiritually in ways I cannot describe.
Thank you for your spirituality and integrity, they have changed my life significantly.
 ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to explain the content, usefulness, and consistent employment of

θεωρητικη (also called theoretical knowledge) in John Cassian’s Institutes and Conferences. This

paper argues that close reading of Cassian’s theology and exegesis in Institutes and Conferences

demonstrates that theoretical knowledge (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy) was a “rule of

faith” demarcating what things can be known in contemplation.

Chapter One provides background information on Cassian which connects him with the

desert fathers, verifies his reliability as a transmitter of their tradition, and reveals the

pedagogical structure of Institutes and Conferences. The chapter concludes with an analysis of

several important scholars whose works inform this study’s task. Chapter Two summarizes Conf.

14, explains Cassian’s thought in Conf. 14.8.1-7, and defends the consistency of Cassian’s use of

theoretical knowledge. Extensive word study demonstrates that Cassian employed the four forms

or senses of theoretical knowledge in a meaningful and consistent way. Chapter Three connects

Conf. 14 with its context in Conferences. It notes that practical knowledge and theoretical

knowledge are components that make up spiritual knowledge and emphasizes that spiritual

knowledge is a gift acquired by holy living. The chapter then demonstrates that theoretical

knowledge pertains to things outside of Scripture and can be attained and practiced without

hearing or reading the texts of Scripture. The chapter then explains how spiritual knowledge

functions as a gift and “rule of faith” for contemplation before ending with a defense of Cassian’s

reordering of the four forms in Conf. 14.8.

 Introduction

The question “How do I know?” disturbs the modern age. Explanations of what

knowledge is and how to attain it determine identities and change lives for individuals and

societies. The modern person lives in the shadows of doubt cast by the successive undoing of

traditional certainties. The world, once saturated with divinity and transcendent meaning, is now

often understood as a coincidence whose meaning is its natural processes. Knowledge and action

are easily divorced in the modern context, affecting every area in the life of the Church from

ethics to biblical interpretation. Christians today desire a concrete knowledge that is livable, yet

weightier and higher than themselves, which continually provokes growth and provides comfort.

In this modern dilemma, many have begun to turn to ancient interpreters for insight. Contrary to

the modern tendency, knowledge in the ancient world was often immanent, transcendent,

traditional, and practical, affecting every area of life. This is especially true for a thinker like

John Cassian.

John Cassian (c. 360-430) was an influential writer who transmitted the theology and

practices of the Eastern ascetic tradition1 to the Western Church. Cassian is known for his

spirituality as well as his approach to reading Scripture on four levels of meaning, often called

the “four senses” or, following Ramsey’s translation, the “four forms.”2 According to Cassian,

the forms were a particular kind of knowledge called θεωρητικη or “theoretical knowledge.” As

Cassian first orders them, the forms of this kind of knowledge are 1) history, 2) tropology, 3)

1
Throughout this paper this tradition is referred to as the tradition of the desert fathers or the abbas
interchangeably.
2
Unless stated otherwise, all translations are from Boniface Ramsey, John Cassian: The Institutes (New
York: Paulist Press, 2000) and Boniface Ramsey, John Cassian: The Conferences (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).
respectively. These works are abbreviated Inst. and Conf. when citing a passage or chapter and Institutes and
Conferences when referring to the works as a whole. Quotes from Ramsey’s commentary on Institutes and
Conferences is quoted as: Ramsey, Institutes/Conferences, page number.

1
allegory, and 4) anagogy. The four forms were fundamental to biblical exegesis in the medieval

period, and Cassian was the first writer to formulate them. However, it is problematic that

modern Cassian scholarship rarely finds this approach important to Cassian’s reading of

Scripture or way of life. The most recent works on Cassian’s interpretative approach only

mention the four forms in passing, and usually with a comment explaining them away as either

unimportant or confused.3 This not only obscures Cassian’s thought but prevents readers from

understanding how Scripture was formative for Cassian’s theology and undermines the validity

of a way of reading Scripture commonplace for almost one thousand years.

A close reading of Cassian’s theology and exegesis in Institutes and Conferences

demonstrates that theoretical knowledge (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy) was a “rule of

faith” demarcating what things can be known in contemplation.

Chapter 1 provides background information on Cassian’s person, influences, audience

and the structure of his works, and concludes with an analysis of several important Cassian

scholars. This informs the reader of issues in modern Cassian scholarship and provides support

for this paper’s methodology for investigating Cassian. Chapter 2 summarizes Conf. 14 and

demonstrates that Cassian’s theology and exegesis in Institutes and Conferences consistently stay

within the boundaries of the four forms. Chapter 3 defines theoretical knowledge and

demonstrates its internal consistency. Theoretical knowledge is an extension of God’s grace into

an ever-deepening knowledge of God that is participated in through the desert tradition, which is

derived from God’s revelation. In other words, it was a “rule of faith” demarcating what things

can be known in contemplation. The conclusion recounts the paper’s argument, suggests areas

3
For example, see Christopher J. Kelly, Cassian’s Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic
Ideal (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012) and Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998).

2
for further research, and stresses this project’s relevance for biblical interpretation and Christian

spirituality.

3
 Chapter 1: Background and Contemporary Studies

1.1 Who is Cassian?

John Cassian was likely born in Dacia, in present-day Romania,4 where he received a

classical education in Latin, and eventually made his way to Bethlehem where he and his lifelong

friend, Germanus, entered into the monastic vocation. How old he was upon entry or how long

he stayed, as with much of Cassian’s biographical information, is not known. What is known is

that in his stay there, Cassian encountered an Egyptian abba, named Pinufius, whose humility

left a deep mark on the young monk.5 Inspired by the humility he saw in the abba, Cassian and

Germanus received permission from their elders in Bethlehem to make a trip to the Egyptian

desert, promising to return soon.6 “Soon” turned into a seven-year visit, after which Cassian and

Germanus returned to their elders. Later they were allowed to return to Egypt and continue their

life in the desert.7 However, probably due to the anthropomorphite controversy in 399 or 400,8

Cassian was driven from the desert and “is next found, somewhere between 400 and 403, being

ordained deacon in the city of Constantinople.” From Constantinople, Cassian somehow made

his way to Marseilles where he founded two monasteries and began writing the Institutes and

Conferences.9

4
Ramsey, Conferences, 5.
5
Owen Chadwick, John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press,
1968), 9-10. Also see Inst. 4.30.1-4.32 and Conf. 20.1.1-20.2.3.
6
Conf. 17.2.1-3.
7
Conf. 17.30.3.
8
For an excellent resource on this subject, see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural
Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) as well as Mark
DelCogliano, “Situating Sarapion’s Sorrow: The Anthropomorphite Controversy as the Historical and Theological
Context of Cassian’s Tenth Conference on Pure Prayer,” Cistercian Studies Quarterly, 38, no. 4 (2003).
9
Chadwick, John Cassian, 30, 32.

4
1.2 Cassian and the Desert

What little is known about Cassian is often brought into question by contemporary

researchers. The Cassian received by the naive reader and the Cassian of contemporary

scholarship differ significantly. The Cassian of the Institutes and Conferences describes himself

as a witness to and a transmitter of firsthand experiences with real personages in the Egyptian

desert. However, the Cassian of contemporary scholarship has been described as everything from

a Western monk “cobbling together information from a variety of written sources which could be

read in the West;”10 to a disciple of the Egyptian monk Evagrius, whose theology he covertly

transmitted to an unwitting Western audience (even though Evagrius is never named in Cassian’s

works);11 and now, in the most recent study of Cassian’s background, as a monk who was more

or less who he said he was.12 The variety of scholarly opinions on Cassian’s historical reliability

is wide and dramatically affects how one evaluates Cassian’s works.

Those denying Cassian’s historical viability sometimes find value for Cassian’s writings

by claiming that they retain “spiritual, even theological, value,” though not being “in any proper

sense historical works.”13 However, the idea that Cassian could lie about his experiences in the

desert and write a fictitious work while still retaining a sincere spirituality is hard to justify given

10
Marilyn Dunn, The Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages
(Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2003), 74.
11
William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2004), 393.
12
See Andrew Nichols, “Reassessing the Tradition of the Fathers in John Cassian and Evagrius Ponticus,”
(masters thesis, Lincoln Christian University, 2020). https://www.academia.edu/44257226/REASSESSING_THE_T
RADITION_OF_THE_FATHERS_IN_JOHN_CASSIAN_AND_EVAGRIUS_PONTICUS
13
Augustine Casiday, “Tradition as a Governing Theme in the Writings of John Cassian,” Early Medieval
Europe 16, no. 2 (2008): 191. Casiday writes this in reference to J.-C. Guy’s “Jean Cassien, historien du
monachisme egyptien?” Studia Patristica 8 (1966), 366-72.

5
Cassian’s emphasis on the necessity of obedience for true spirituality.14 If Cassian “cobbled

together” various insights from the hagiographical literature of the desert then he has little, if

any, value as a source for Christian spirituality. Thankfully, as Columba Stewart claims, almost

all Cassian scholarship agrees that Cassian actually spent time in Egypt15 and recently Augustine

Casiday argues that Cassian did not intend his Institutes and Conferences to be historical, per se,

but rather that his works were intended to convey faithfully the tradition of the desert fathers.16

So, while Cassian may not have intended for every word of his works to be verbatim quotations

from historical personages, his writings represent what he learned from the fathers in the desert.

More recent scholarship goes further than Casiday to reinstate Cassian’s historical

reliability. Since Salvatore Marsili’s Giovanni Cassiono ed Evagrio Pontico, the idea that

Cassian was a disciple of the Egyptian monk Evagrius Ponticus has been assumed in most

Cassian scholarship.17 However, Andrew Nichols has recently disputed this claim. He argues

that:

The literature surrounding Evagrius has crowned him the master because of the literature
he produced. With few scholars making an actual argument for Cassian knowing
Evagrius, appeals to Marsili are boundless. Yet Marsili’s lists of parallels are full of
references to a similar undiscussed third-party source, that is, “the fathers.” They do not,
14
See Jonathan Morgan, “Obedience in Egyptian Monasticism According to John Cassian,” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2011): 274-279. Of particular note is a quote from p. 277. “The Egyptians
considered the coenobium a kind of training ground. Only after the initiate had been purified from all the wicked
vices through mortification and the practice of virtues in a communal environment might he move on to the more
excellent contemplation of the anchorites. Therefore, a beginner had to enter into an established tradition and be
subjected to experienced elders to conform to the very same experiences, examples, and traditions that made them
holy. For all the elders themselves were refined through experience. Further, Cassian stresses that no aspiring elder
can exercise authority unless he has ‘learned by obedience how he should command those who will be subject to him
and has understood from the institutes of the elders what he should pass on to the young’” emphasis added.
15
Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 8.
16
Casiday, “Tradition as Governing Theme,” 192.
17
Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St. John Cassian (Oxford University Press, 2007), 5.
Casiday here quotes Stewart as having “taken for granted” that Cassian was a disciple of Evagrius, which is
significant given that much Cassian scholarship after Stewart follows him here uncritically.

6
 therefore, dictate that Cassian personally knew Evagrius or his texts. The rare new
arguments that are brought up, such as Stewart’s, show us that where there are similarities
between Evagrius and Cassian there are also similarities in what both men claim as the
source of their teachings.18

Continuing his thesis in two subsequent sections, Nichols argues that both Evagrius and

Cassian were independent transmitters of a tradition that they claimed to have received from the

same source. This source was a network of abbas throughout the Egyptian desert specializing in

particular virtues which they were notable for having mastered and therefore able to teach to

others. Nichols's argument is strong and its consequences for Cassian scholarship are significant.

It recognizes a serious oversight within Cassian scholarship and amends it by seeing the desert as

a networked community devoted to the formation of Christlikeness, which restores Cassian’s

reputation as a witness to the desert fathers.

Following Nichols, it is assumed throughout this paper that Cassian was a firsthand

learner of the desert tradition as he claimed to be and that the abbas mentioned throughout the

Institutes and Conferences were real personages whom Cassian encountered and from whom he

learned. While Cassian may actually recount his experiences more or less verbatim in many

places, the structure and terminology of Institutes and Conferences can be approached

systematically.19 As a transmitter and translator of the desert tradition, Cassian gives a systematic

18
Nichols, “Reassessing the Tradition,” 31.
19
Robert Floyd Rea, “Grace and Free Will in John Cassian” (PhD. diss., Saint Louis University, 1990):
41-43, notes that, because of issues dealing with 1) elapsed time, 2) Cassian’s use of written sources in the
Conferences, 3) the arrangement of the Conferences and 4) the way he addresses issues throughout the Conferences
in a systematic manner, he believes the conferences with the abbas actually occurred, but it is unlikely that Cassian
was giving a verbatim account of the desert fathers. This may be considered representative of much of Cassian
scholarship. However, while not every Conference may have been verbatim (see Conf. 17.30.3) and parts of the
Institutes are certainly original to Cassian, Nichols’s, “Reassessing the Tradition,” 37-43, has argued that much of
Cassian’s writings (especially in the Conferences) may have been verbatim accounts. It is significant to note that Rea
supervised Nichols's work and approved his argumentation.

7
presentation of their teachings as he remembers them. Therefore, a consistent theology can be

found throughout the whole of the Institutes and Conferences.

1.3 From Egypt to Gaul

As a writer formed by the desert community, Cassian learned a way of life distinct from

the Church life typical throughout the Roman Empire.

The desert signified death…. In the desert, you can only face up to yourself and to every
aspect of your heart… without any hiding place…. In the desert, you were invited to
shake off all forms of idolatry, all kinds of earthly limitations, in order to behold—or,
rather, to be held before—an image of the heavenly God.20

Entering this community meant a complete renunciation of all possessions and familial ties,

complete submission to the authority of the abba, and a practice of constant confession for

outward and inward faults.21 The desert provided a way of life centered on the cross.22 The monk

typically ate one meal a day consisting of either two biscuits or some kind of herb and sometimes

oil.23 He slept around four hours per night before waking to praise the Lord with a set of twelve

psalms—the first of seven “hours”—and hearing a couple of readings of Scripture at the evening

service (called the synaxis) before continuing this praise and scriptural meditation in his cell as

he devoted himself to various forms of work.24 The unceasing goal of the monk participating in

these disciplines was “purity of heart” without which they could never see God.25

John Chryssavgis, In the Heart of the Desert: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers (World
20

Wisdom Inc., 2008), 33-34.

21
Inst. 4.4-10.
22
Inst. 4.34.
23
See Inst. 4.4.11; Conf. 2.26.1-3, 8.1.1.
24
Inst. 2.4, 2.9.1-2.10.1, 3.4.3; Conf. 13.6.2.
25
Conf. 1.4.3, 1.7.1.

8
 The total renunciation and disciplined life and intention that Cassian describes was

drastically different from the monasticism already present in Gaul. Joshua Schachterle notes that

Gaul was historically a place in tension between Roman control and the Germanic tribes. It “was

well-known by the Romans for supporting usurpers.”26 When Gaul was conquered by the

Germanic tribes in 406, while some hoped for Rome to regain control, others saw it as an

opportunity for personal gain. Monasticism became a practical “strategy to ensure [the Roman

elite’s] continued wealth and status in the province.”27 The asceticism, humility, and, especially,

miracles of the desert fathers were known in Gaul. Yet, the Gauls did not feel compelled to

imitate their example. Sulpitius Severus, in his Dialogues, even diminishes their renown by

contrasting them to St. Martin,28 who was himself a representative of the kind of ennoblement

made possible through the monastic vocation.29

The desert was a different milieu from Gaul in other ways as well. The elite in Gaul were

literate and informed by a Roman paideia,30 whereas Cassian gives the impression that the

26
Joshua Daniel Schachterle, “Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early Monastic
Subjectivity” (PhD diss., University of Denver, 2019): 31.
27
Ibid.
28
Sulpitius Severus, Dialogues, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11, trans.
Alexander Roberts, ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894),
Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/35031.htm>. 1.10-22
describes the works and miracles of the desert dwellers which are contrasted with St. Martin’s miracles and lifestyle
beginning in 1.23. In this chapter, Sulpitius claims that it is “unfair [that St. Martin] should be compared, on the
same terms, with the recluses of the desert” because the desert dwellers were “at freedom from every hindrance”
whereas St. Martin was “in the midst of crowds and intercourse with human beings… harassed with almost daily
scandals on all sides [and] nevertheless stood absolutely firm with unconquerable virtue against all these things” the
proof of which was seen by the miracles which he performed throughout the rest of the Dialogues. In
contradistinction to this, see Cassian’s approach in Inst. pref. 1-9.
29
Schachterle, “Exercising Obedience,” 32-33.
30
Christopher J. Kelly, Cassian’s Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal
(Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012), 12-13.

9
majority of the monks in the desert were illiterate.31 This did not mean that the monks were

philosophically ignorant. St. Antony the Great, a paragon of Egyptian monasticism, is described

as illiterate by Athanasius, 32 but dedicated to philosophy by Sozomen,33 and recent scholarship

supports this joint picture.34 Significantly, it has recently been argued that the “philosophy” of the

monks is similar to Roman paideia in several respects.35 However, instead of “social standing or

economic gain,” Egyptian monastic paideia’s “end was spiritual standing before God” and

31
Conf. 5.21.2, 8.18.1, 14.16.6-7.
32
St. Athanasius, Life of St. Antony, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 4 Trans. H.
Ellershaw, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), revised and
edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm, 4.
33
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2 Trans. by
Chester D. Hartranft, ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890),
Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26026.htm, 6.30. Among
others, notably Didymus the Blind, Antony the Great is said by Sozomen to have “grown old in the exercise of
philosophy.” As is clear in the case of Didymus the Blind, who could obviously neither read nor write, illiteracy
does not equate to philosophical naivete.
34
Harmless, Desert Christians, 78-79, claims that Antony’s Letters “draw on terminology and perspectives
associated with Origen. Origen had hypothesized before the beginning of the material universe, there was an original
unity of preexistent minds, and that the original Fall occurred when these preexistent minds ‘cooled’... in their fervor
and fell into ‘souls’.... The Letters seem to presume this Origenist terminology and perspective.” Additionally,
Stephen D. Driver, John Cassian and The Reading of Egyptian Monastic Culture (New York: Routledge, 2002),
notes that “Samuel Rubenson has recently… show[ed] that the Letters were composed in Coptic and deserve
precedence of the Life as a source for the historical Antony. While Antony’s Letters are brief and leave many crucial
terms undefined, their content is nevertheless sufficient to show that… Antony was not hostile to all things Greek.
Instead, the Letters reveal a Coptic hermit not only conversant with prevailing philosophical traditions, but also
influenced by them in his epistemology, cosmology and anthropology. The Letters therefore help to challenge the
traditional claim of a division between illiterate Egyptian and educated Greek, or between Egyptian monks and the
Hellenized church at Alexandria. There can now be little doubt that the Letters were influenced by a popular
Hellenizing world-view and a theological tradition emanating from Alexandria…. While the brevity of the Letters
make it difficult to trace any influence of any one text or author, they nevertheless echo the theology of Origen at
key points.” 31. While Driver later states that it is uncertain whether Antony had actually read Origen (32-33), most
scholars assume his influence in some manner throughout Cassian’s works. Given Cassian’s praise of Rufinus (the
bulk of whose work were translations of Origen) as “a Christian philosopher, with no mean place among the
Ecclesiastical Doctors” in John Cassian, On The Incarnation, trans. Rev. Edgar C. S. Gibson (Aeterna Press, 2015),
7.37. it is likely that Cassian may have at least read some of Origen’s works, whether in their original Greek or Latin
translation.
35
Carson Bay, “The Transformation and Transmission of Paideia in Roman Egyptian Monasticism,”
Conversations with the Biblical World 34 (2014): 339-340. “Monks were certainly educated. Like pursuing a Roman
education, pursuing the monastic lifestyle was to pursue a life of learning and discipline. The monastic life involved
a student teacher relationship, as did Classical paideia, but with the monks it was based upon listening to and
imitating living and dead exemplars…. As with Classical paideia, Monastic paideia made use of student-teacher
contact, but rather than being taught to read and speak the student was learning spiritual disciplines.”

10
“personal spiritual discipline rather than literacy or rhetorical skill.”36 And the “monastic

paideia” was communicated primarily through hagiography, just as one finds in Cassian.37 As

Rebecca Karweic argues, whereas Roman paideia was centered on forming a skilled speaker, the

paideia Cassian passes on was focused on creating a way toward what Krawiec identifies as

“sublime prayer.”38

Krawiec argues that Cassian “creates an ars monastica, a monastic equivalent to an ars

grammatica and rhetoric. This method of teaching positions Cassian’s texts as superior to other

monastic works that would also have been available to his audience.”39 This gave Cassian the

influence needed to transform the undisciplined Gaulic monks whom he was teaching. This ars

monastica or “monastic paideia” was Cassian’s chosen method of transmitting the tradition of

the desert fathers to the audience he designates in the prefaces of his Institutes and Conferences

and plays an important role in the structure of these two works.40

1.4 Pedagogy and Structure in Institutes and Conferences

So far this background study has provided information that sets Cassian’s two major

works in their social context. The current section discusses the structure of the Institutes and

36
Ibid, 347.
37
Ibid, 349.
38
Rebecca Krawiec, “Monastic Literacy in John Cassian: Toward a New Sublimity,” Church History 81,
no. 4 (2012): 767. Kraweic describes “sublime prayer” (described in Conf. 9-10) as parallelling the “highest point”
which the Latin elite educated in rhetoric were “meant to be able to produce… at particular moments'' through
speech. 785.
39
Ibid, 768-769. Krawiec believes that Cassian wrote to a primarily aristocratic audience to convert them
toward the monastic profession. This writer disagrees with Kraweic’s argument here, instead Cassian’s audience
were already monks as Cassian claims throughout his various prefaces. However, Kraweic’s observation that the
Institutes and Conferences mimicked aspects of Roman paideia and her observations on Cassian’s pedagogy are
generally valuable.
40
Inst. pref. 2; Conf. pref. 1.1, pref. 2.1, pref. 3.1-3.

11
Conferences. As stated in section 1.2, this study assumes that Cassian was a systematic writer,

which, while contested by some, is almost certainly true.41 This section demonstrates how

Cassian organized his Institutes and Conferences as a joint work intended to bring the reader to

embody, through experience, the spirituality Cassian was taught in the desert.

Cassian almost certainly intended his Institutes and Conferences to be a joint work and he

indicates this explicitly in several places.42 Additionally, his various prefaces throughout

Institutes and Conferences show how Cassian structured his joint work. Stewart uses Cassian’s

prefaces to organize the Institutes and Conferences in three phases: 1) Inst.1-12 and Conf. 1-10,

2) Conf. 11-17, 3) Conf. 18-24.43 However, the last two phases of Stewart’s outline are

problematic because they are connected and overlap one another. Ramsey postulates that the last

seven Conferences had already been composed at the time Cassian wrote the second preface to

the Conferences. He notes that Cassian alludes to this last block in Conf. pref. 2.3 stating his

hope that they meet the “ardent desire” of his addressees.44 Given that Cassian recommends that

Honoratus and Eucherius read the two final blocks of Conferences, and that both prefaces

mention how they were fashioned for cenobites (though Cassian recommends that anchorites

41
Philip Rousseau, “Cassian, Contemplation and the Coenobitic Life,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36,
No. 2 (1975): 113. For example, states: “Cassian was not a systematic writer; or perhaps, to be more just, he was not
afraid to allow his ideas to develop and even change.” Rea, “Grace and Free Will,” 226-299, however, provides an
extensive appendix to his dissertation which undoubtedly demonstrates Cassian’s consistency as a systematic
thinker. Additionally, Rea footnotes a sketch of an argument from Cappuyns in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de
geographie ecclesiastiques which argues for the intentionality of Cassian’s “discursive style.” “Cappuyns,” writes
Rea, 51 “points out that Conf. 11 reports more particularly on Conf. 3; Conf. 12 and Conf. 22 on Conf. 4; Conf. 13 on
Conf. 3-4; Conf. 14 on Conf. 7 and Conf. 9-10; Conf. 18-19 on Conf. 1; Conf. 20-21 on Conf. 2; Conf. 23-24 on
Conf. 7 and Conf. 9-10.”
42
Rea, “Grace and Free Will,” 38. notes several places where Cassian promises to pick up a topic again at a
later point: “E.g., Inst. 2.1 and 2.9 (see Conf. 9.1), Inst. 2.18 (see Conf. 21), and Inst. 5.4 (see Conf. 14, Conf. 18, and
Conf. 19) Cassian says he will treat some subject in the Conferences.”
43
Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 29.
44
Ramsey, Conferences, 397.

12
read the final block as well), it seems likely that Cassian intended these blocks to be used

together.45 Additionally, in Conf. pref. 1.5, Cassian writes that he intends to “proceed from the

external and visible life of the monks, which we have summarized in the previous books, to the

invisible character of the inner man.” Consequently, this block of the Conferences focuses on

“the greatest fathers—anchorites who dwelled in the desert of Skete.”46 These abbas were the

few who exemplify the heights of the desert tradition. Cassian always intended to supplement

their example with the apparent miscellanies of the final block of Conferences. Following this

line of thought, the three phases of the Institutes and Conferences are understood in this paper as,

1) Institutes, 2) Conf. 1-10, 3) Conf. 11-24.

The first two phases of this argument agree with Stephen Driver’s outline. Driver sees the

autobiographical nature of Institutes and Conferences as a tool that subtly intensifies the topics

the reader encounters until it climaxes in Conf. 10, which Driver believes was the original ending

of Conferences because it displays the “high point” of Germanus’ growth. 47 From this

understanding, Driver argues “that Cassian addressed the absence of a common monastic

experience by attempting to recreate it as an experience of reading[, which] Cassian encouraged

[as] a form of interaction between reader and text that in some ways corresponded to the

interaction between disciple and abba.” According to Driver, the autobiographical nature of the

Institutes and Conferences cataloged a “journey of the soul” intended simultaneously to imitate

the journey of the reader through the Institutes and Conferences.48 While accepting Driver’s

45
Conf. pref. 3.1-2.
46
Conf. pref. 1.2.
47
Driver, John Cassian, 66-68, 70.
48
Ibid, 6-7.

13
theory in part, this study differs from Driver as it affirms that Conf. 11-24 was always a part of

Cassian’s original plan.49 Institutes and Conferences led to the high point of Germanus’ growth

as an example of the ideal monk for the reader to emulate before being brought back to the

“beginning,” so to speak, by Cassian restarting his autobiographical journey.50

Driver’s point, that Cassian structured his works in a way that mimics the abba/disciple

relationship, demonstrates Cassian’s “ars monastica” or “monastic paideia.” Stories from

Institutes, dialogues from Conferences, Cassian’s progression of thought, and the overarching

structure of his works acts as a pedagogical tool that subtly guides the reader into the experience

of desert life. That Cassian’s thought leads to a high point in Conf. 10, which is subsequently

dropped in his final block of Conferences, should not be surprising. In Institutes, Cassian shares

the outer life and discipline of the monastic life. In Conf. 1-10, Cassian shares the content of the

inner discipline of the monk and demonstrates that it is accomplishable and ordered toward the

highest form of contemplation in ceaseless prayer. Conf. 11-24 emphasizes how to navigate the

pursuit of ceaseless prayer as one attempts, both outwardly and inwardly, to pursue ceaseless

prayer through the virtue to which one is called. While ceaseless prayer is pursued by all within

the monastic vocation, it is only accomplished by a few, and the manner in which it is

accomplished is variegated.

49
In addition to the argument already set forward above and in footnotes 42 and 43 of the present work,
Driver’s thesis is dependent on the act of reading the Conferences as taking place slowly over “many months, years,
or even a lifetime…” if the reader ever finished the Conferences to begin with. (Ibid, 70.) This idea seems highly
unlikely. If St. Benedict’s practice of reading Cassian progressively “four or five pages (or as many as time permits)”
at meals [Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Benedict, Trans. Carolinne White, (Penguin Classics, 2008), 42] is any
indication of how Cassian could have been read during his own lifetime, then it seems unlikely, given their potential
for abuse, that he would have written the first ten Conferences at all. Cassian wrote his Conferences not just for the
mature monk, but also for the weak and immature. Even at the “high point” of Conference 10 the reader does not
receive an esoteric disclosure of the mysteries of prayer, but an instruction in the proverbial “abc’s” of prayer. (Conf.
10.8.3).
50
Conf. pref. 2.2.

14
 As in Inst. 5.4.1-4, the coenobites strive “to attain the heights of a still loftier perfection,”

yet they do so by imitating monks who have mastered particular virtues. “For if we want to

obtain all of [the virtues] from a single individual, either examples will be hard to find or, indeed,

there will be none that would be suitable for us to imitate.” Until Christ is made “‘all in all’ (to

cite the words of the Apostle),” one monk cannot master all the virtues. The holy ones of the

Church “assembled together in the unity of faith and virtue… [complete] the fullness of

[Christ’s] body in… joining together and in the characteristics of the individual members.”

Ceaseless prayer is every monk’s goal, but the way ceaseless prayer is accomplished varies based

on the virtue to which the monk is called.

Understood this way, Abba Paphnutius describes the manner in which Cassian orders

Institutes and Conferences as correspondsponding to the three renunciations.51 In the passage,

Abba Paphnutius compares the three books of Solomon to three progressively spiritual

renunciations. The first (Proverbs), like the Institutes, cuts off the vices; the second (Ecclesiastes)

shows the vanity of “all that is accomplished under the sun;” and the third (Canticle of Canticles)

consists of the highest form of the “contemplation of heavenly things.” As such, the pedagogical

structure of Cassian’s works reflects the “journey of the soul” concept Karen J. Torjesen finds in

Origen’s writings. Torjesen explains:

The three books of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs—Correspond to the

three divisions of Greek science—ethics, physics and enoptics. Ethics is the science of
morality; physics, the study of the nature of things; and enoptics, the “contemplation of
things divine and heavenly.” These represent the three stages through which the soul
advances in the divine philosophy.52

51
Conf. 3.6.4.
52
Karen Jo Torjesen, “Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Structure in Origen’s Exegesis” (PhD.
diss., Claremont University), 1982, 140.

15
For Torjesen, Origen’s division is more than a clear-cut formula separating Scripture into

different senses or meanings. It is a “journey of the soul” which constitutes a paideia consisting

of the “educational and correctional activity of the Logos by which each soul receives a form of

instruction and revelation suited to his peculiar needs.” The journey of the soul’s “three different

ways of reading the text can be described as three different levels of teaching” for people

standing within the three stages of spiritual growth described by the Solomonic corpus.53

Origen’s influence in the desert is well-known and it is likely, though not certain, that

Cassian read his work. So while one should be cautious about basing Cassian’s pedagogical

structure on the “journey of the soul” concept Torjesen finds in Origen, there is an evident

similarity between Origen’s pedagogy and the understanding of the structure of Cassian’s works

already presented in this section. The two writers apply a similar pedagogy in the same desert in

the ascetic pursuit to encounter and teach about the Trinitarian God through Scripture. The

overarching structure of Cassian’s two major works acts as a pedagogical tool bringing the reader

into an increasingly deep relationship with Christ through the pursuit of purity of heart and

consequently, an ever-deepening understanding of Scripture.

1.5 Reading Scripture with the Fathers

Reading Scripture through the eyes of its ancient interpreters is a shocking experience for

many modern readers. Modern and ancient assumptions about the nature of Scripture and how

meaning is derived from Scripture differ widely. As John O’Keefe and R. R. Reno have noted,

modern scholars are focused on the connection between the way events and experiences relate to

the Scriptures. Referential theories of meaning were less important for ancient interpreters than

53
Torjesen, “Hermeneutical Procedure,” 67, 80-82, 140-141.

16
Scripture's divine inspiration and its efficacy for the edification of the reader.54 For the ancients,

Scripture found its coherence in Christ, in whom the Church and the whole of Scripture are

unified. Unlike the modern era which interprets Scripture in an increasingly desacralized context,

ancient interpreters believed the world was saturated with divinity and, some would argue, more

or less sacramental in nature.55 Scripture’s “meaning” was not “a historical artifact that we

recover by means of exegesis,” but was always considered participatory, according to the

spiritual level of the participant, and profoundly grounded in divine providence.56 Ephraim

Radner summarizes John Kebel’s conclusions on this topic:

(1) [The fathers] shared a basic conviction about the divinely generative breadth of
Scripture; (2) they assumed a providential ordering of human life “natural and individual”
by God; (3) the saints and theologians of the early Church included the whole natural
world within such providential reach; and (4) underlying all these assumptions was the
perfective or ascetical character of interpretive practice, which formed both the context
and the goal of Scripture’s reading in general.57

54
John, O’Keefe and R. R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the
Bible (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 7-12.
55
See Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
2007). and Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 2011). Taylor gives probably the single best representation of the progression of Western
society from conceptualizing the world as a permeable entity where all things have an intimate relationship with
God, and are therefore sacred, to the modern notion that the spiritual and the physical can be understood as, not just
distinct, but completely separated and independent realms. Boersma sees this disconnection of the spiritual and the
physical as one of the most prevalent issues in modern Christianity and advocates for the reinstatement of a
“sacramental ontology” as a cure for this modern mallady. See also Frances M. Young. Biblical Exegesis and the
Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge University Press, 1997), “Chapter 7: The sacrament of language” where
Young demonstrates how elements of the natural world (like a bird with open wings could be construed as a “type”
of the cross by an interpreter like Ephrem of Syria.

Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids,
56

Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017), 17-22.

57
Ephraim Radner, Hope among the Fragments: The Broken Church and Its Engagement of Scripture
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2004), 81. For Kebel’s own words see John Kebel, On the Mysticism
Attributed to the Early Fathers of the Church (Miami, Florida: HardPress, 2017), chap. 1, Kindle.

17
Interpretation was a practice of the Church that was engaged via a “ruled reading” which guided

their exegesis in the boundaries of the life of the Church as she participates in Christ.58

As Douglas Burton-Christie has pointed out, the interpretative practices of the desert did

not depart from the approach to understanding Scripture generally employed in the patristic

period and may even resemble aspects of the interpretative practices of its pagan

contemporaries.59 What made the desert distinct from its greater context was its particular way of

life. The desert dwellers renounced the world and maintained a greater emphasis on the ethical

dimensions of interpretation than their contemporary pagan or Christian community. As

Burton-Christie notes:

What was new and distinct in the desert hermeneutic was the peculiar combination of the
locus of the desert and the questions that arose within the ascetical life there. The
questions were shaped by the particular demands of the life; in turn these questions
affected the hermeneutic, both in terms of its substance and its form.60

For the desert fathers, to understand Scripture was to obey Scripture; it was, in a sense, to

become Scripture and to be transformed by God through Scripture.61 “To understand the

Scriptures, it was necessary to make some attempt to put them into practice. Having begun to

practice them, even partially and imperfectly, understanding slowly broadened and deepened,

leading to ever more profound levels of practice and understanding. Scripture was fulfilled

58
O’Keefe and Reno, Sanctified Vision, “Chapter 6: The Rule of Faith and the Holy Life,” 114-138. “A
ruled reading” here refers to the patristic practice of interpreting Scripture via “the rule of faith” which was probably
a semi-fluid entity representing the aspects of the Christian tradition considered essential at a given time.
59
Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early
Christian Monasticism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 49-60.
60
Ibid, 60.
61
Ibid, 153.

18
through being transformed by praxis.”62 A passage from The Sayings of the Holy Fathers

illustrates well their way of reading:

The brothers said, “By what means did the Fathers sing the Psalms of the Holy Spirit
without wandering [of mind]?” The old man said, “First of all they accustomed
themselves whensoever they stood up to sing the service in their cells to labour with great
care to collect their minds from wandering, and to understand the meaning of the Psalms,
and they took care never to let one word (or verse) escape them without their knowing the
meaning thereof, not as a mere matter of history, like the interpreters, and not after the
manner of the translator, like Basil and John [Chrysostom], but spiritually, according to
the interpretation of the Fathers, that is to say, they applied all the Psalms to their own
lives and works, and to their passions, and to their spiritual life, and to the wars which the
devils waged against them. Each man did thus according to his capacity, whether he was
engaged in a rule of life for the training of the body, or of the soul, or of the spirit.”63

For the desert fathers, interpreting the Scriptures, or rather understanding the Scriptures, was

coextensive with theosis and, as it is argued in several places below, Cassian certainly agreed

with this.64

1.6 Modern Scholarship on How Cassian Read Scripture

Three of the most significant studies on Cassian in recent years are Henri de Lubac’s

Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Columba Stewart’s Cassian the Monk, and

Christopher J. Kelly’s Cassian’s Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal.

This section analyzes each writer’s work, assesses their contributions, and critiques certain weak

spots in their works.

62
Ibid, 165-166.
63
Palladius, The Sayings of the Holy Desert Fathers (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 2018) 283, Kindle.
64
Andrew Nichols, “Becoming Theoria in John Cassian,” 45th Patristics, Medieval, and Renaissance
Studies Conference, Villanova University, (2020), https://www.academia.edu/44317838/BECOMING_THEORIA_I
N_JOHN_CASSIAN: 6 points out that “Theoretical knowledge in Cassian… assumes union with God… by the
uprooting of vice and acquiring virtue.” Therefore, it constitutes a part of the process of theosis/deification, which
his greater argument shows is synonymous with theoria or, as he states it, “that one became prayer” (11).

19
 Henri de Lubac’s three-volume work, Medieval Exegesis, is one of the most significant

works of theology in the past century. Yet, for a masterpiece describing the peregrination of the

four senses—which are, historically, first described by Cassian in Conf. 14.8—from the ancient

to late medieval Church, de Lubac devotes very little space in his work to Cassian’s exegesis.

The work’s largest contribution comes from four pages in the first volume where de Lubac,

interpreting Cassian in conversation with Gregory the Great and St. Eucher/Eucherius65 of Lyons,

explains sections from Conf. 8 and 14 with an eye to the ordering of the senses he sees Cassian

describing. He notes that Cassian’s ordering of the four senses changes three times within Conf.

14.8. De Lubac believes that Cassian’s original ordering of the senses (history, tropology,

allegory, anagogy) implies “successive significations which are donned by the same sacred text

in addition to its historical sense.”66 In other words, he believes the senses build on one another

linearly. However, it is concerning that a later ordering describes the four senses as four series of

texts without an apparent dependence on one another.67

This observation brings Cassian’s consistency in employing the four senses into question.

De Lubac (who is here tracing the genealogy of the four senses as employed in the medieval

period), resolves this difficulty by arguing that Cassian represents two different interpretative

traditions that are mixed in the same chapter of Conf. 14. One ordering, argues de Lubac,

corresponds to an interpretative tradition coming from the divisions of the human person (1a.

body, 2a. soul, 3a. spirit corresponding to 1b. letter of Scripture, 2b. moral reading, 3b.

65
“Eucher” and “Eucherius” are both different names for the same person and are used interchangeably
throughout this paper. This is the same Eucherius in Conf. pref. 3.1-2 quoted above in section 1.4. The name
“Eucher” is used here because it is the form de Lubac’s translator used in Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The
Four Senses of Scripture, trans. Marc Sebanc, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 132-142.
66
Ibid, 136.
67
Ibid, 135-136.

20
spiritual/anagogical reading). Another ordering comes from the philosophical tradition (1a.

physical, 2a. ethical, 3a. logical corresponding to knowledge of 1b. the natural, 2b. the ethical,

3b. the rational).68 De Lubac argues that the first is a “sacred” ordering and the latter “profane.”

For de Lubac, the issue concerns tropology’s place in the order of the forms as it relates to

history. If tropology follows history directly, it refers to a "natural" moral teaching applicable to

all people. If it follows allegory or anagogy, then it refers to a "sacred" moral teaching (e.g. one

specific to Christians).

De Lubac is one of the few scholars who offer comments on the ordering and relationship

of the four forms which does not gloss over the issue as irrelevant. How theoretical knowledge is

ordered is ambiguous, yet as de Lubac assumes, there is a reason for this. At the same time, de

Lubac’s resolution for this issue (which is completely dependent on a passage from St. Eucher)

and his statement that the way Cassian relates 1 Cor. 14:6 to the four senses is artificial69 are both

questionable. Moreover, de Lubac’s treatment is only four pages long and part of a greater

argument. As such, it leaves many questions regarding Cassian’s understanding of the four

senses unaddressed. While de Lubac's solution to the different orderings of the senses furthers

his greater argument in Medieval Exegesis and supports his theology of the supernatural, it rests

on background information which is tentative at best. To improve on de Lubac’s observations,

this paper gives a closer treatment of Cassian’s terminology as he uses it throughout Institutes

and Conferences. Additionally, any resolution to the different orderings of the senses, like the

one de Lubac finds through St. Eucher, must present themselves from Cassian’s own pen.
68
Ibid, 137-138.
69
Ibid, 135-136: “Cassian sees all four indicated by the Apostle Paul, who tells the Corinthians that one can
speak through ‘revelation’ (=allegory), through ‘knowledge’ (=tropology), through ‘prophecy’ (=anagogy), and
through ‘teaching’ (=history). Let us dispense with this last system of concordance, which is particularly
artificial….”

21
 Columba Stewart is the next major scholar to comment on Conf. 14 and Cassian’s use of

Scripture. Stewart focuses less on Conf. 14 in particular and more on integrating Cassian’s

understanding of spiritual knowledge into the rest of his theology. For Stewart, Cassian’s

doctrine of prayer (which involves repetitively praying Ps. 70:1) is inextricably connected to

Cassian’s understanding of spiritual knowledge: “Both prayer and spiritual knowledge bring one

to the glorified Christ and through him into the love between the Father and the Son.”70 His

treatment of the connection between spiritual knowledge and prayer focuses heavily on the

anthropomorphite controversy as described in Conf. 10. For Stewart, the controversy centers on

an interpretation of Gen. 1:26, “let us make man in our image,” understood in either a

“descending or ascending manner, that is, moving from God to human beings…. Or leading from

human beings to God.” This, for Stewart, is a great concern of Cassian.71

Noting that the issue of anthropophaticism (which is distinct, but connected with

anthropomorphism)72 was broached by Cassian in Inst. 8 and had to do with “reading the biblical

text ‘according to the base sound of the letter’ rather than ‘figuratively’ ( figuraliter) or

‘spiritually’ (spiritaliter).”73 Stewart then discusses Cassian’s self-described approach to spiritual

knowledge. Observing that Conf. 14 is sandwiched between a conference on grace and another

70
Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 86.
71
Ibid, 88. “Anthropomorphic prayer brought the Arian controversy into the realm of spirituality: if the
human mind conceives of God in human form, God is thereby reduced to the human level. If Christ is contemplated
only in his earthly, pre-Resurrection humanity, he is not encountered in his glorified, heavenly state. If prayer never
passes beyond words directed to a mental image of God, the one who prays does not experience the pure or true
prayer that transcends language and self-awareness, as defined by Antony’s dictum.”

Anthropomorphism is when human or animal characteristics are used to describe God.

72

Anthropophaticism is when God is said to have human emotional characteristics. For Cassian, the characteristics of
God’s being and emotions are substantially different from humans and animals. To imagine that God becomes angry
like humans become angry or that God has, say, feathers or a big nose, is blasphemous.
73
Ibid, 89.

22
on miracles, he notes the priority of grace and the spiritual life for attaining spiritual

knowledge.74 He understands Conf. 14 to focus on the necessity of holy living for spiritual

understanding more than on defining a particular method of scriptural interpretation through the

four senses.75 Stewart uses a variety of pejorative adjectives to describe the four senses, calling it

an “encumbrance” Cassian “wrings together” in “Paul’s already awkward interpretation,” “that

his heart is not in demonstrating,” which he “finally abandon[s]” after presenting them in three

different orderings.76 For Stewart, Cassian “uses the fourfold scheme to indicate the richness of

the Bible rather than to order its meaning systematically.”77

Throughout his comments on Conf. 14, Stewart compares two of Cassian’s schemes with

two from Evagrius. Cassian writes about “practical” and “theoretical” knowledge as compared to

Evagrius who writes about “practical knowledge,” “natural contemplation,” and “theoretical

knowledge.”78 Cassian’s fourfold scheme is compared with Evagrius’ twofold scheme consisting

of literality and allegory and subcategorized according to Evagrius’ three categories for the

monastic life (praktike, theoria physike, theologia).79 One wonders here whether Cassian was

unsystematic or whether Evagrius’ system is being subtly imposed on a reading of Cassian.

Regardless, Stewart’s conclusion to his treatment of Conf. 14 is apt: “Monasticism rests on

experience and practice (experientia ususque), not idle theorizing and verbal instruction.”80

74
Ibid, 90-91.
75
Ibid, 92.
76
Ibid, 94.
77
Ibid, 93.
78
Ibid, 92.
79
Ibid, 93.
80
Ibid, 95.

23
 Returning to his original concern, Stewart notes the importance of Conf. 14 for

understanding the anthropomorphite controversy displayed in Conf. 10. Rather than relying on

God’s grace to move the intellect from visible realities to the contemplation of unseen realities,

the anthropomorphites relied on their own imaginative efforts to obtain an “image” of God,

which effectively replaced the “Someone” made known as the transfigured Christ with a

“something.”81

Stewart’s contribution lies in his ability to connect the four senses to theological themes

in Cassian’s works. His argument connects Cassian’s theologies of grace, spiritual knowledge,

contemplation, prayer, theoria, and other issues as components of a Christological web with

soteriological significance. However, throughout Stewart’s arguments, he depends on the

supposition that Cassian was dependent on Evagrius for his thinking. The comparisons Stewart

makes between Cassian and Evagrius’ teaching may go beyond an attempt to illucidate Cassian’s

thinking. At points, it seems Stewart’s use of Evagrian terminology supply a scheme into which

he places Cassian’s thought. Admittedly, Cassian’s employments of the four forms are difficult to

reconcile with one another, but that would have been just as obvious to Cassian as it is to a

modern reader.82

The idea that Cassian would have ignored the various orderings of the four forms in Conf.

14.8 because he was not being systematic sells Cassian short as a thinker. It is also inconsistent

with Stewart's claims that Cassian's works were intended to be read according to the four forms

he describes in Conf. 14 and that “Cassian’s primary source, of course, is the Bible.”83 Reading
81
Ibid.
82
This begs the question: “Why did Cassian change the order of the four forms in Conf. 14?” This issue is
picked up again in the final chapter.
83
Ibid, 35.

24
Cassian through the four forms and later devaluing the four forms is contradictory. To improve

on Stewart, this paper shows how Conf. 14.8 is internally consistent and how Cassian’s

interpretative scheme was employed throughout his writings. This shows that Cassian’s primary

source, even for instruction on how to read the Bible, was the Bible as he received it through the

life and teaching of the abbas. Doing so provides a deeper understanding of Cassian’s meaning

and use of theoretical knowledge.

The final scholar is Christopher Kelly, who has recently argued that Cassian is a mimetic

interpreter. Kelly explains:

[Mimesis] means “emulation” or “imitation” and forms the basis for how Cassian
understands and employs the sacred scriptures as a vehicle for the transmission of his
monastic ideal. As a methodology, mimesis understands that the details of the scriptural
narratives contained not just a story but revealed dogma and ethics that were conveyed
through images. These images, figures, and events were didactic and most often
contained a strong moral component. The task of the exegete was to discern their
meanings and explain them in ways that promoted imitation.84

Demonstrating how Cassian is a mimetic interpreter is a major focus of Kelly’s work and he

displays how Cassian’s interpretation fits that category well. He shows that Cassian’s method for

understanding Scripture comes through contemplating the actions of holy people throughout

Scripture,85 whose emulation is embodied in the lives of the abbas,86 and can eventually become

embodied by the monk who dedicates himself to this tradition.87 The strength of Kelly’s work is

that it is both theologically integrative and methodologically focused. However, it is interesting

that Kelly does not focus on the terminology Cassian uses to describe his exegesis in Conf. 14.

84
Kelly, Cassian’s Conferences, 16.
85
Ibid, 27-28.
86
Ibid, 41, 76-77
87
Ibid, 90-91, 97-99.

25
 In Kelly’s section on Conf. 14, he gives a summary of the four forms of theoretical

knowledge and how they can converge before concluding that: “Nesteros… does not then

provide a methodology for applying the senses to particular scriptural verses. Rather, he recalls

the fundamentals of Cassian’s monastic ideal, withdrawal, obedience, humility and discretion.

Scripture cannot be approached as something simply to be read but as something to be lived.”88

Kelly’s comment is evident. Abba Nesteros’ focus in Conf. 14 is the necessity of putting off vice

and putting on virtue as a prerequisite to theoretical knowledge of Scripture. However, as this

study argues in Chapter Two, Nesteros did apply the four forms to an interpretation of Scripture,

which Kelly overlooked. Kelly, in defining Cassian’s method through terms borrowed from

Frances Young’s Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (allegory, typology,

and mimesis)89 as opposed to Cassian’s own terminology, does not adequately define theoretical

knowledge or demonstrate how it informs Cassian’s exegesis throughout his Conferences and

Institutes.90

This is understandable, especially when considering Torjesen’s critique of Henri de

Lubac’s approach to Origen’s exegesis of Scripture. In his History and Spirit: The Understanding

of Scripture According to Origen, de Lubac makes an extended argument which demonstrates

that Origen is a precursor to the four senses of the medieval era. De Lubac seeks to explain

Origen’s interpretation of Scripture through Origen’s theology of Scripture. For de Lubac, a

primary aspect of Origen’s interpretative approach consisted of the movement from Scripture’s

88
Ibid, 90.
89
Ibid, 14. See Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 8 and 9.
90
Kelly’s work does not address Cassian’s Institutes at all, which this writer finds problematic as the two
works were meant to be taken as a whole and it may restrict Kelly’s understanding of Cassian too much.

26
historical sense to its spiritual sense.91 However, Torjesen notes that describing Origen’s theology

of Scripture is distinct from describing Origen’s methodology for interpreting Scripture.

She writes that the “exegetical movement from letter to spirit,” which is “a reading of the

New Testament meaning into the Old Testament,” does not describe a hermeneutical principle,

but rather a theological principle. Describing this reality as a hermeneutical principle or

methodology would mean describing “the exegetical movement from letter to spirit… in both

testaments from Christ concealed in the letter to Christ revealed in the spiritual sense.”92 Torjesen

finds this movement in the concept of the “journey of the soul” where the hearer/reader of the

text moves from encountering the words of the text to putting them into action according to the

spiritual maturity of the hearer/reader, which is exactly how Kelly uses mimesis to describe

Cassian’s exegetical method.

While Kelly provides the only book-length treatment of Cassian’s exegesis, he does not

define what Cassian means by theoretical knowledge or discuss how this kind of knowledge

informs Cassian’s exegesis. Kelly’s description of Cassian’s mimetic approach is helpful and his

work draws on close readings of Cassian’s Conferences which locate Cassian within his

interpretative milieu. However, he does not engage with Cassian’s meaning and use of theoretical

knowledge. This study supplements Kelly’s work by addressing the meaning and use of

theoretical knowledge and relating it to Cassian’s methodology as Kelly has described it.

Henri de Lubac, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen, trans. Anne
91

Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007). See especially chapters three through six.
92
Torjesen, “Hermeneutical Procedure,” 16.

27
1.7 Summary and Conclusion

These authors' treatments inform the task of this paper. Understanding theoretical

knowledge involves demonstrating its meaning and use throughout Institutes and Conferences

while focusing closely on Cassian’s own words and schemes. Many writers feel the need to bring

in thought schemes derived from Cassian’s context to help elucidate his writings (whether from

St. Eucher, Origen, or Evagrius). Background information is certainly important, but it cannot

substitute a close reading of Cassian’s works themselves.93 It is safer to assume that Cassian’s

thought is consistent throughout his works than it is to assume that he is unsystematic. When one

begins with the assumption that Cassian is a systematic thinker his thought begins to make sense

on its own terms and his value as a writer is more easily acknowledged.

The next chapter describes Conf. 14’s content and uses it as a filter applied to Cassian’s

reading of Scripture. The chapter demonstrates that Cassian’s exegesis and theology can be

accurately categorized by the four forms as they are described in Conf. 14.

93
Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002), 59-72, notes two fallacious ways of reading history. First, there is the fallacy of reading a work of history
“with the expectation that each classic writer… will be found to enunciate some doctrine on each of the topics
regarded as constitutive of the subject” (59). Second, there is the “mythology that tends to be created by the fact that
historians will unavoidably be set in approaching the ideas of the past. It may turn out that some of the classic
writers are not altogether consistent, or even fail to give a systematic account of their beliefs. Suppose, however, that
the paradigm for the conduct of the investigation has again been taken to be that of elaborating each classic writer’s
doctrines on each of the themes most characteristic of the subject. It will then become dangerously easy for the
historian to treat it as his or her task to supply these texts with the coherence they may appear to lack” (67). These
fallacies “arise from the fact that historians of ideas will unavoidably be set, in approaching any given writer, by
some pre-judgements about the defining characteristics of the discipline to which the writer is supposed to have
contributed” (72). Skinner’s point is that ancient writers are easily interpreted in ways that misconstrue their thought,
as they are approached from disciplines which, while their thought has contributed to, did not exist as such prior to
the writings of the writer in question. For Cassian scholarship, it is easy to read Evagrius into Cassian, or Origen into
Cassian, because their thought has informed a scholar’s discipline and there are literary parallels between these
writers. However, this way of reading Cassian easily misconstrues his thought when it fails to evaluate it on his own
terms.

28
 Chapter 2: Theoretical Knowledge in Institutes and Conferences

2.1 Introduction:

This chapter begins with a summary of Conf. 14 to familiarize the reader with its content

and describe the categories of theoretical knowledge (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy). The

descriptions of these terms are used as a lens through which to view Institutes and Conferences.

The chapter demonstrates that Cassian’s theology and exegesis in Institutes and Conferences

remain within the boundaries of the four forms. Cassian’s exegetical theology (e.g. theoretical

knowledge) informs his theological conclusions, extended exegetical discourses, and his uses of

particular Scripture passages as they appear and reappear throughout his works. Cassian’s

thought is consistently guided by the categories of theoretical knowledge. The next section

summarizes Conf. 14, drawing attention to themes and details important for this paper’s

argument.

2.2 Conference 14: Its Content and Goal

Conf. 14 begins as a response to Cassian and Germanus expressing their desire to

understand certain Scriptures they had committed to memory. Nesteros explains that, while there

are many kinds of knowledge, they can all be attained through some sort of method. The same is

true for knowledge about contemplation. The method for gaining this knowledge has two parts:

πρακτικη and θεωρητικη, which Cassian calls practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge.

Practical knowledge “is divided among many professions and pursuits”94 and consists in

“knowing the nature of all the vices and the method of remedying them” and “discerning the

sequence of the virtues and forming our mind by their perfection in such a way that it is obedient

to them… as taking pleasure in and enjoying what is so to say a natural good.” Without these

94
Conf. 14.4.1.

29
qualities, a person can never attain “to the mysteries of spiritual and heavenly realities, which are

found on the higher step of theoria.”95 These “mysteries” are distinct from and go beyond

“πρακτικη,” which “reaches its fulfillment in correction of behavior and in cleansing from

vice.”96 Nesteros then describes the manifold nature of practical knowledge, which “is divided

among many professions and pursuits,” yet must be gained through the practice of one of these

pursuits “for it is impossible for one and the same person to shine simultaneously in all the

virtues.”97 Notably, Nesteros uses Rom. 12:6-8—a text about spiritual gifts—to list these

pursuits.

The manifold nature of practical knowledge is contrasted with the nature of theoretical

knowledge, which is subdivided into historical interpretation and spiritual understanding;

spiritual understanding is then further subdivided into tropology, allegory, and anagogy. This

order (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy) is the first of three orderings of the forms in Conf.

14.8. Nesteros uses Gal. 4:22-27 in the following section to define these terms in a second

ordering. “History,” he explains, “embraces the knowledge of past visible things,” and is also

described as a narrative. Allegory reveals mysteries concealed in the Old Testament Scriptures

and draws conclusions primarily dealing with Christ and the Church. “Anagogy… mounts from

spiritual mysteries to more sublime and sacred heavenly secrets” and, in contrast to allegory,

looks toward future things. “Tropology is moral explanation pertaining to the correction of life

and to practical instruction”98 and is equated with “discretion” and “discernment.” In describing

95
Conf. 14.3.1.
96
Conf. 14.1.2.
97
Conf. 14.4.1, 14.6.
98
Conf. 14.8.1-3. The reader should note the changed order of the forms here. Tropology went from the
first listed spiritual form to the last listed spiritual form. This order is changed one more time in Conf. 14.8.5.

30
these terms, Cassian makes the claim that the four forms of interpretation99 can “converge”

before reordering them once more, using categories derived from 1 Cor. 14:6. There, revelation

pertains to allegory, knowledge to tropology, prophecy to anagogy, and instruction to historical

exposition.

After describing the four forms, Nesteros emphasizes the importance of life change for

attaining spiritual knowledge and maintains this emphasis until the end of the conference. To

gain spiritual knowledge Cassian and Germanus must “cleanse [them]selves from… vice;”

“maintain strict silence” to avoid “empty pride;” “hasten to acquire a steadfast humility of heart;”

and only then “give [themselves]… to sacred reading… until continual meditation fills [their]

mind[s].” It is only after they have purified themselves through practical knowledge that their

mind will be “increasingly renewed by… the face of Scripture… and the beauty of a more sacred

understanding will somehow grow.”100

Nesteros offers a spiritualized interpretation of the command against fornication, moving

from its historical form and concluding with a tropological mandate for Cassian and Germanus to

never turn their contemplation away from God. On receiving this teaching, Cassian confesses

that he is plagued by the stories he memorized in his childhood education and breaks down in

despairing compunction. As a remedy, Nesteros encourages Cassian to devote himself “to the

reading of and meditation upon spiritual writings,” implying in several places that Cassian will

eventually attain spiritual knowledge.101 Germanus then challenges the idea that “spiritual

99
It is notable that Cassian here calls the four forms “interpretation” rather than “understanding.” This is
returned to in the conclusion of the section dealing with the historical form.
100
Conf. 14.9.3-4, 14.10.1-2, 14.11.1. It is significant that this order, which moves from humility to
meditation, reflects the order for achieving chastity from Inst. 6.1, noted below in section 3.2. This solidifies the
point being made that Conf. 14 functions as a method for obtaining a spiritual gift, which, in this context, is spiritual
knowledge.
101
Conf. 14.13.1.

31
knowledge” can be attributed “solely to purity of heart.”102 Nesteros’ response, which concludes

the conference, teaches that while unspiritual people may have skills in disputation, they do not

know the meaning of their words. As elsewhere in the Conferences, experience brings

knowledge.103 Yet, Nesteros admits that sometimes the gift of knowledge can be given to those

who are not worthy of it for the salvation of others.

In concluding this summary and moving into a section detailing Cassian’s understanding

of theoretical knowledge, the reader should remember that theoretical knowledge is only one

kind of knowledge and is generated by practical knowledge. This point is not often emphasized

and is easily missed. Theoretical knowledge is not pitted against practical knowledge as though

the two were somehow sufficient in themselves. Cassian does not (as Stewart claims)104 dispense

with theoretical knowledge after he describes it in Conf. 14.8. As the example of Abba Serapion

shows, one can be “fully accomplished in practical discipline” and still fall into heresy because

of simplicity.105 For Cassian, both kinds of knowledge are necessary to gain spiritual knowledge,

and possessing one in isolation may leave its possessor exposed to harmful teaching or the empty

kind of knowledge that does not know the meaning of the Scriptures through experience. This

study returns to this idea in Chapter Three, which addresses how practical knowledge and

theoretical knowledge relate to one another and function as aspects of spiritual knowledge. The

remainder of this chapter explains the four forms Cassian enumerates in greater detail and

102
Conf. 14.15.
103
Conf. 4.15.2, 4.19.7, 5.15.2, 7.4.1, 9.7.3, 10.9.1, 12.8.4-6, etc.
104
See section 1.6 above.
105
Conf. 10.3.1-10.5.1.

32
demonstrates that Cassian’s theology and exegesis stayed within the boundaries of the four forms

as described in Conf. 14.

2.3 The Theology and Consistency of the Four Forms

The previous section summarized Conf. 14 to familiarize readers with its content and

Cassian's description of theoretical knowledge. This section explains the meaning of the four

forms in detail and demonstrates that Cassian’s description of the four forms is consistent with

his theology and exegesis throughout Institutes and Conferences. For Cassian, exegesis

consistently begins with historical interpretation and moves to spiritual understanding, except

when the Scripture is sufficiently spiritual in its literal/historical form. The spiritual senses

sometimes converge with one another and sometimes do not. The adjectives Cassian uses to

describe each form are employed in a consistent way throughout his works. The terms Cassian

borrows from 1 Cor. 14:6 and equates with the four forms are also used in a consistent way that

informs the four forms’ content. The following sections demonstrate these points as they relate to

each form.

2.3.1 The Historical Form: Sequence and Consistency

As stated in the summary, Cassian describes history as “interpretation,” "past," "visible,"

"narrative," and “instruction,” but what does he mean by these terms? First, it is notable that,

when Cassian first subdivides theoretical knowledge, he calls history a form of interpretation

before calling the spiritual forms understanding. These descriptors are not arbitrary. For Cassian,

understanding is not found in past visible things in themselves, and spiritual things are not

understood without history. The two go together in a particular order; history is stated and then

interpreted spiritually “‘according to the largeness [of the knower’s] heart.’”106 The point here is

106
Conf. 14.8.1.

33
not that Cassian thinks historical things cannot be spiritual. As a later section describing

instruction demonstrates, Cassian certainly believed that some Scriptures are spiritual in their

literal or historical form. Cassian simply intends to communicate that there is a definite order

beginning in historical things and concluding in spiritual things.

Several examples show that this is the norm for Cassian’s use of Scripture. In Inst.

10.21.1, Cassian states: “Even the most wise Solomon speaks very clearly of the vice of idleness

in numerous places. As he says: ‘The one who pursues idleness shall be filled with poverty,’ both

visible and invisible,” because idleness distracts from “the contemplation of God and from those

spiritual riches of which the blessed Apostle speaks: ‘In all things you were made rich in

him—in all speech and in all knowledge.’”107 This passage’s significance needs to be expounded.

In quoting Solomon’s words in Prov. 28.19, Cassian uses a book (Proverbs) that Abba

Paphnutius assigns to the “first renunciation,” introduced in Chapter One of this study. There are

three renunciations, the first being the most basic, “by which in bodily fashion we despise all the

wealth and resources of the world.”108 Each of the three books of Solomon corresponds to a

different renunciation and “Proverbs is related to the first renunciation” in which “the desire for

fleshly things and the earthly vices are cut off.”109 In yet another threefold scheme, riches are

understood as “bad, good and indifferent” which corresponds to vice (bad), virtue (good), and

material wealth (indifferent).110

107
Inst. 10.21.1.
108
Conf. 3.6.1.
109
Conf. 3.6.4.
110
Conf. 3.9.1-3.

34
 The point is that, in quoting from Prov. 28:19, Cassian uses a book which is assigned to

the most bodily kind of spirituality—the renunciation of wealth (which Cassian claims is

insufficient for salvation apart from an internal spiritual renewal)111—to draw out a spiritual

teaching which enriches a person in “all speech and in all knowledge.”112 For Cassian, Solomon’s

teaching, which he acknowledges teaches something on the historical level, is insufficient for

Christian spirituality apart from a spiritual interpretation. However, reading the Scripture in a

spiritual way to inform the renunciant’s battle against the vices begins the process of growth that

culminates in the third renunciation where, “departing in this temporal and visible house, we

direct our eyes and our mind to the one in which we shall abide forever.”113

Examples of this kind of interpretation in Institutes and Conferences are as common as

Old Testament citations, so it is appropriate to transition to the next topic. In referring to wealth

as “visible and invisible,” Inst. 10.21.1 illustrates the next point well: The historical form is

derived from a narrative of past things which are recounted visibly. Cassian uses the word

“narrative” 11 times throughout Institutes and Conferences. For Cassian, narrative refers to the

recounting of past events or conversations as they flow sequentially. Cassian describes the

Gospel as a “four-part narrative… for it embraces both the birth of Christ and his Godhead, his

miracles as well as his suffering.” The stories of and dialogues with the abbas and his works as a

whole are called “narratives.” Additionally, Abba Serenus describes Scriptures that produce “an

unadorned historical narrative, by which simpler folk and those less capable of integral

reasoning… are made vigorous and strong.” For Cassian, the sequential flow of the Scriptures as

111
Conf. 3.7.7-11.
112
Inst. 10.21.1.
113
Conf. 3.6.3.

35
a story is filled with things to invigorate worldly Christians for their salvation “just for the labor

and effort of daily life.”114

The historical form also has a visual component which informs how Cassian interprets

past events or narratives. In Inst. 6.7, Cassian’s description of “the games” in 1 Cor. 9:25 is filled

with vivid imagery. There, the competitor abstains…

…not only from forbidden foods, drunkenness, and every kind of intoxication but also
from laziness, idleness, and slothfulness…. Thus they are removed from all worry and
sadness and from worldly affairs, as well as from conjugal feelings and activity, so that
they may be aware of nothing other than the practice of their discipline… hoping only to
obtain from him who presides over the games their daily portion of food, the glory of a
crown, and worthy prizes as their reward…. To such an extent do they keep themselves
pure from all the contamination of sexual intercourse that, when they are getting ready to
contend in the games, they cover their loins with the lead sheets lest perchance they be
deceived by nocturnal fancies in their dreams and diminish the strength they have
acquired over a long period; the inflexibility of the metal, when applied to the genitals, is
able to inhibit the shameful liquid.

Foods, drinks, dispositions, rewards, and grotesque devices for sexual purity are visualized by

the figure of the games. For Cassian, historical exposition is not merely acknowledging that a

thing happened, but involves imagining what that experience was like. It is an imaginative effort

that is displayed throughout his works.

Additionally, when Cassian writes of things being visible, he does not always mean that

the thing visualized (whether by the eye or the mind) is past. Of the 31 times Cassian uses the

114
Inst. 3.3.4, 4.15.2, 5.35; Conf. 1.23.2, 6.11.2, 8.3.6, 10.1, 21.10.3. In Inst. 5.40.1, Cassian tells a story of
some monks “who were boys in age but not in intelligence.” They were sent by Abba John to deliver figs to
Paphnutius the priest. However, they were lost in a sandstorm and died because they refused to eat the figs. The
“intelligence” of the boys had little to do with mental aptitude and much to do with morality. Something similar is
true of Abba Serapion as Conf. 10.5.1-3 reveals. There, Serapion is called “a very simple man” who was deceived
by a pagan interpretation of Gen. 1:26. Abba Isaac claims that this deception was present throughout the whole of
Serapion’s life and says that he was not instructed in Catholic teaching and committed “pagan blasphemy.” So, while
Serapion would need some mental aptitude to grasp the issue of why it is sin to pray to an image brought up by the
imagination, his “simplicity” is just as easily understood as immorality. Additionally, Serenus calls these men
“beasts” in Conf. 8.3.4 saying “Lord, you will save both man and beast.” In 8.10.1 he refers to the serpent as a
“beast” and uses the word to refer to wickedness in general. That the Lord “will save both man and beast” likely
means that he will save even the worldly.

36
word “visible” the majority refer to presently occurring events. Additionally, Cassian often

juxtaposes visible things with invisible things. Fasting can be from visible food, or from vice of

some sort.115 The abbas received the apostolic faith with, among other things, visible miracles

that confirmed the faith.116 Monastic or worldly disciplines are visible, yet monastic discipline

also has an invisible, internal aspect.117 God’s created the earth, but also the invisible, spiritual,

heavenly powers that, in the case of demons, can be made manifest through trials or in visions.118

A visible fire which burns Paphnutius is compared with the inextinguishable fire of hell. 119

The world is full of visible concerns that distract the monk from contemplating God, yet

those who have cut themselves off from the world can avoid them.120 These people are enabled to

delight in God’s law in the inner man as they call their minds away from present, sensible,

material, things and, rising above these visible things, seek union with God alone.121 In doing so,

spiritual knowledge becomes as real to the monk as the visible world.122 As the monk moves

from visible to invisible things, spiritual things become increasingly tangible. For Cassian, the

visible world is not the terminus of its own meaning. Spirituality is meaningful, not events in

themselves.

115
Inst. 5.21.1; Conf. 21.36.1.
116
Inst. 12.19.
117
Conf. pref. 1.5, 2.36.4, 12.15.1, 14.1.2-3.
118
Conf. 2.11.8, 7.23.1-2, 7.31.1, 8.7.1-4, 8.16.1-4.
119
Conf. 15.10.1-4.
120
Conf. 9.5.1-2.
121
Conf. 3.6.1-3.7.2, 10.6.6-7, 23.11.1.
122
Conf. 14.13.3.

37
 Yet, this should be qualified given Cassian’s description of instruction in Conf. 14.8.7.

There, Nesteros explains that “instruction lays open the simple sequence of a historical

exposition in which there is no more hidden meaning than what is comprised in the sound of the

words.” In order to illustrate this point, Cassian cites three historical tenents of the Christian faith

which are consonant with the Church’s creeds: Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor.

15:3-5); Christ’s birth (Gal. 4:4-5); and the declaration that God is one (Deut. 6:4). These

historical occurrences are inherently spiritual and relate to the doctrines of the cross/resurrection,

incarnation, and Trinity. The truths in these passages, the need to pass on faith tradition (1 Cor.

15:3-5), and multiple references to the abbas’ instruction throughout Cassian’s works all

associate history with tradition.123

The way theoretical knowledge functions as a living tradition falls outside of this

chapter’s scope and will be revisited in the next chapter. The current analysis only refers to

instances when the term instruction is connected to scriptural interpretation and is connected to

an interpretation of Scripture. While this greatly limits the passages addressed in this section, the

next chapter’s discussion on theoretical knowledge as a living tradition supplements the current

chapter’s argument. Together they show that Cassian consistently employed instruction as he

describes it in Conf. 14.8.7. That is, that instruction refers to straightforward teaching concerning

historical occurrences which were inherently spiritual and do not have spiritual significance

beyond the historical form.

One of the most significant passages demonstrating Cassian’s consistent use of

instruction is Conf. 8.3.1-6. There Serenus claims “the authority of Holy Scripture has said some

123
Cassian uses “instruct” and its derivatives 124 times in Institutes and Conferences, the majority of which
refer to the abbas’ instruction. This limits a study on “instruction” as it is used in this section and is revisited in
Chapter Three.

38
things so lucidly and clearly for our instruction, even to those of a limited intelligence, that not

only are they not veiled in obscurity of a hidden meaning but they do not even need to be

explained, and they offer intelligibility and meaning at first glance.”124 Later he explains that

there are “spiritual Scriptures, in which certain things shine forth so luminously on the literal

level that they do not need a more sublime interpretation.”125 Additionally, Scripture as a whole

forms “a simple and unadorned historical narrative, by which simpler folk… are made more

vigorous and strong.”126 These passages parallel neatly with Nesteros’ description of history and

instruction as they both describe how certain Scriptures teach evident spiritual truths and that

history has a narratival quality.

Under this description, Inst. 6.7, yet again, exemplifies Cassian's historical interpretation:

“‘Everyone who fights in the games abstains from everything.’ Let us consider what he meant by

‘everything’ so that we can gain instruction about the spiritual contest by comparing it with the

fleshly one.” For Cassian, Paul’s spiritual point is not made by taking a past event and

allegorizing it to make sense of a present reality, but by describing the abstinence of the games as

they were practiced in Cassian's day. In the visible games there are forbidden foods, a disciplined

life, a removal from worldly affairs, and efforts toward sexual purity which are all oriented

toward a temporal reward. In short, the contestants’ exercises in preparing for the games is akin

to monastic discipline, the greatest difference being that the monks oriented their bodily

124
Conf. 8.3.1.
125
Conf. 8.3.4.
126
Conf. 8.3.6.

39
discipline toward the love of God.127 Monastic discipline, so long it is properly oriented toward

love, provides a straightforward teaching on how to exercise the abstinence of the spiritual life.

In addition to instruction being straightforward, it is also closely associated with tradition,

as Inst. 10.7.8-9, 10.11, and Conf. 2.14-2.15.3 demonstrate. In the first two passages, Paul’s

“verbal instruction” and “the inspiring example of his deeds” are equated with “the tradition that

[the Thessalonians] received from him.”128 In the third, Abba Moses responds to a concern raised

by Germanus: “We knew a superior of the elders in the region of Syria, it was believed, who,

after a certain brother had made a simple confession of his thoughts, was shaken with anger and

harshly reproached him on account of them.”129 The fear of this filled Germanus and Cassian

with shame and reluctance to confess their internal faults. Abba Moses responds with a long

story about a young monk who was harshly reprimanded by an abba causing him to want to

leave the desert community. Abba Apollos noticed the young monk’s distress and when he

learned the source of his trouble, Apollos prayed that God would teach the harsh abba to deal

with others more compassionately. The Lord sent a demon to tempt the harsh abba, who fell to

temptation, was reprimanded by Abba Apollos, and then commanded to deal more gently with

the youth.130

Abba Moses concludes that Germanus and Cassian should not be ashamed to share their

faults, even if they share to an unworthy abba, because God will deal with the abba and oversee

their welfare. He then supports this instruction with the story of Samuel’s calling by the Lord.

127
See Conf. 1.10.2.
128
Inst. 10.7.8-9.
129
Conf. 2.12.
130
Conf. 2.13.1-12.

40
After Samuel is called twice by the Lord, he goes to Eli, who instructs Samuel to respond to the

Lord directly when he is called a final time. Abba Moses’ point is that the Lord “willed that one

whom he was calling to intimate converse with himself should even be instructed by a person

who had offended God, because he was an old man.”131

This story is then connected with the calling of the Apostle Paul. When Christ calls Paul,

…he could have revealed to him the way of perfection then and there, [yet] he willed to
send him to Ananias and he ordered him to learn the way of truth from him when he said:
`Rise and enter the city, and there you will be told what you must do.’ Him too he sent to
an old man, then, and determined that he must be instructed by his teaching rather than by
his own.132

For Moses, Paul chose to submit to an elder because God transmits his teaching through spiritual

elders. “Otherwise, what might have been rightly done with regard to Paul would have given a

bad example of presumption to those who came after him, since each individual would conclude

that he too should be trained in a similar fashion under the guidance and by the teaching of God

alone rather than by the instruction of his elders.”133 In the same way, Moses teaches, Paul’s visit

to Jerusalem confirms the validity of his gospel preaching demonstrates the need to confer with

one’s elders for spiritual direction and confirmation.134

As these examples show, Cassian believed instruction was straightforward

communication about spiritual occurrences or statements that need no further explanation and are

passed on as tradition. Yet, there is at least one problematic passage that challenges this

understanding. In Conf. 5.16.1, while teaching on the eight principle vices, Abba Serapion

131
Conf. 2.14.
132
Conf. 2.15.1.
133
Conf. 2.15.1.
134
Conf. 2.15.2.

41
allegorizes “the seven nations whose lands the Lord promised to the children of Israel when they

left Egypt” as the seven vices following gluttony. He argues this according to the Apostle Paul’s

authority who said that “all the things that happened to [the Israelites] in a figure were written for

our instruction.” Here, then, it seems that Cassian categorizes an allegory of Serapion as

instruction.

However, upon closer look, one finds that Serapion was not performing an allegory but

utilizing the Apostle Paul’s allegory. Serapion calls Paul’s words instruction and then proceeds to

follow his instruction in understanding the Israelites in an allegorical fashion. Paul’s words are “a

historical exposition in which there is no more hidden meaning than what is comprised in the

sound of the words.”135 When Serapion interprets Paul historically, Paul is interpreting Israel’s

history allegorically. Interestingly, Cassian’s use of instruction is often associated with the

Apostle Paul, as the previous examples already show. This may be because Cassian understands

Paul as God’s “vessel of election,”136 and as such, Paul has God-given authority to transmit the

gospel to the Gentiles. As a result, Paul’s words are often straightforward and do not have a

significance that goes beyond their literal level.

This is particularly significant when reading Conf. 14.8.2-7 because, with only two

exceptions, Nesteros’ teaching is derived from the Apostle Paul’s interpretation of Old Testament

Scriptures. In Gal. 4:22-27 Paul interprets various Old Testament passages historically,

allegorically, and anagogically. In 1 Cor. 10:1-4 Paul allegorizes the crossing of the sea and

compares the spiritual drink and food of the Israelites with the sacraments of the Church. In 1

135
Conf. 14.8.7.
136
Inst. 8.5, 10.8.2; Conf. 1.19.2, 2.15.3, 3.15.1, 9.18.3f., 16.12, 17.25.7, 22.15.3. This is one of Cassian’s
favorite surnames for Paul and comes from Acts 9:15 where the Lord commands Ananias to go and baptize Paul
because he is the Lord’s “vessel of election” as Ramsey translates it.

42
Cor. 11:13 Paul commands the Corinthians to “discern for themselves” how to live morally. Paul

gives an anagogic prophecy of the coming of Christ in 1 Thess. 4:13-16. Finally, Paul gives

instruction in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 and Gal. 4:4-5 by passing on the tradition of Christ that he received

and stating that Christ was born of a woman. In Conf. 14:8.2-7, Nesteros does not explain Paul’s

interpretations spiritually because they are already spiritual in their historical form. Nesteros

simply categorizes Paul’s interpretations. Understood this way, the quotes from Paul in Conf.

14.8.2-7 are examples of scriptural instruction.

2.3.2 Allegory and Anagogy

As Nesteros moves through his reading of Gal. 4:22-27, the next topics he covers are

Paul's uses of allegory and anagogy. Before treating these individually, it should be noted that

Nesteros’ teaching connects the two forms in several ways. “Allegory,” he says “prefigured the

form of another mystery” and “anagogy… mounts from spiritual mysteries.”137 Allegory is “the

Church of Christ,” yet anagogy is reminiscent of the Church as “it is that heavenly city of God

‘which is the mother of us all.’”138 Allegory is called “revelation” and reveals “the things that the

historical narrative conceals… by a spiritual understanding.”139 Anagogy is called “prophecy”

and is “directed to the invisible and what lies in the future.”140 Both of these terms refer to

mystery, the Church, the invisible, and seem to encompass both revelation and prophecy. The

only difference between these two terms appears to be that one pertains to past things and the

other to future things.

137
Conf. 14.8.2-3.
138
Conf. 14.8.4.
139
Conf. 14.8.5.
140
Conf. 14.8.6.

43
 A look at Cassian’s use of revelation and prophecy calls Cassian’s consistency in using

these terms into question. While Cassian’s 13 uses of “prophecy” fit his description of anagogy,

his 13 uses of “revelation” are more problematic. Some of these instances seem to fit the way

Cassian uses revelation in Conf. 14.8, like Inst. 5.33, where Abba Theodore prays for divine

assistance to understand answers to obscure questions. Another example to consider is Abba

Paphnutius’ angelic revelation of the impurity of his heart. 141 Other examples are more

ambiguous, as when a monk receives revelations about heavenly things of one sort or another.142

Significantly, at least two uses of revelation directly contradict the idea that revelation pertains to

past things as opposed to present or future things. In the first of these two, Cassian claims that

the Apostle Paul “foresaw, thanks to a revelation of the Holy Spirit” that idleness would creep

into the Church in Cassian’s time and wrote his admonitions to the Thessalonians with this in

mind.143 In the second, Cassian quotes Paul’s words from Rom. 2:5 which refer to “the revelation

of the just judgment of God, when their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be

extinguished.’”144

For Cassian to be consistent he cannot mean that revelation refers to past things only,

because this is flatly contradicted, but what else could he mean? At this point David Dawson’s

thoughts regarding Origen’s understanding of allegory referring to past and future occurrences is

helpful. In his book Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity Dawson explains

141
Conf. 15.10.1-4.
142
Conf. 1.8.1-2, 2.7, 9.8.3, 17.24.3, 23.17.2-3. In Conf. 1.8.1-2 and 2.7 the “revelations” are demonic in
nature, as opposed to the “revelations” from the rest of the cited passages.
143
Inst. 10.7.1, emphasis added.
144
Conf. 7.31.1.

44
how Origen conceived the relationship between the prophets, who prophesied about the coming

gospel, and those who read the prophets within the gospel age. He writes:

Although the prophets know as much as the apostles do concerning what will be revealed
(namely, that the gentiles will become co-heirs with the patriarchs and prophets), the
prophets do not see it actually revealed; therefore, they do not grasp it as a fulfilled
promise. This is not a deficiency in the prophets but simply a consequence of their
historical situation. They cannot grasp the realization of a promise (even though they
know what has been promised) because they are not present when that promise is
realized.145

The idea Dawson posits is that the prophets, in prophesying, see what was to come in Christ, but

did not experience it. Whereas those living in the gospel age see and experience what the

prophets looked for in and through the Church and the written gospels. In an analogous way,

Dawson explains that the experience of the prophets who looked forward to Christ parallels the

experience of those in the Church looking forward to Christ’s return. “As the pre-incarnation

prophet was to the post-incarnation apostle, so is the pre-parousia apostle to the one who will

witness Christ’s second coming.”146

If the distinction that Cassian makes between revelation and prophecy is consistent with

the one Dawson explains in Origen, this would resolve the issue of revelation referring to future

things. What the Apostle Paul “foresaw, thanks to a revelation of the Holy Spirit” 147 in regard to

the sins of Cassian’s day dealt with events happening within the age of the gospel, which was

already revealed to Paul. Additionally, when Paul wrote of “the revelation of the just judgment of

God” he was not writing about something which has been revealed, but something which will be

145
David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity (Berkley: University of
California Press, 2002), 131.
146
Ibid, 135.
147
Inst. 10.7.1.

45
revealed.148 “When” the age is revealed, it will be revelation. Therefore, Cassian is consistent in

teaching that, when something is revealed about the current age or about how a past age relates

to a current age, it is revelation.

Revelation may be consistent with Dawson’s explanation, but is prophecy? Throughout

Institutes and Conferences, “prophecy” refers to a grace given to a living person,149 to Scripture

which is fulfilled by some event current to Cassian’s time,150 and once to the age following

Christ.151 These three definitions are ambiguous enough to allow for Dawson's distinction. If the

distinction Dawson finds in Origen applies to Cassian as well, then Cassian’s use of revelation

and prophecy is consistent. Allegory and anagogy, then, are distinguished from one another on

the basis of whether they occur in the age one is experiencing versus the age that follows one’s

experience. The prophets looked to the age of Christ anagogically, whereas the Church sees

Christ revealed in the Old Testament age allegorically. In the same way, the revelation and rituals

148
Conf. 7.31.1, Rom. 2:5.
149
Inst. 4.23, 7.14.2, Conf. 8.21.5, 11.12.7, 14.5.1, 15.2.2.
150
Inst. 9.3; Conf. 9.18.4, 11.3.1, 12.6.4, 13.12.4 Cassian’s thoughts regarding Conf. 9.18.4 are particularly
important for whether or not he consistently used “prophecy” according to Dawson’s scheme. “But what is there so
astonishing if the vessel of election chooses to become anathema for the sake of Christ's glory and for the sake of his
brothers' conversion and the well-being of the pagans, when the prophet Micah also wished to become a liar and to
be removed from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit if only the people of the Jewish nation might avoid the plagues
and the ruinous captivity that he had predicted by his prophecy? As he says: ‘Would that I were not a man who had
the Spirit, and I told a lie instead!’” If Micah’s prophecy refers to the historical captivity, then it means that Cassian
is either not following Dawson’s distinction or that he is using “revelation” technically, but “prophecy” generically.
However, if Abba Isaac believes that Micah’s prophecy refers to a spiritual captivity, then “prophecy” is consistent
with Dawson’s distinction. “Captive” and its derivatives are used 41 times throughout Institutes and Conferences. Of
these, the vast majority refer to spiritual captivity, whether it be to hell, the law of sin, vices, or distractions. In one
instance in Conf. 5.12.4-5, Serapion seems to give a historical exposition of Israel’s captivity under Neco, however
he applies this spiritually to the captivity to vainglory. In what is possibly the only example of a “historical”
captivity, in Conf. 8.4.2, Serenus mentions the “captivity of Jerusalem.” However, Serenus’ point is to show that this
occurrence can have both historical and spiritual significance. Given that in every other instance throughout
Cassian’s works the word “captivity” is either used spiritually or has the potential to be, it seems possible, if not
likely, that Isaac understood Micah’s prophecy to refer to the spiritual captivity of the Jewish people who have not
been baptized into Christ as in Conf. 5.22.
151
Conf. 14.8.4-7.

46
afforded to the Church in the current age prefigure the age which will be inaugurated at Christ’s

return. The rest of the descriptive words Cassian assigns to allegory and anagogy are also

consistent with this understanding.

2.3.2. a. Allegory

Nesteros describes allegory as a prefigurement of mysteries which pertain to Christ and

the Church that are concealed beneath the historical narrative of Scripture. In order, Cassian uses

“prefigure” four times, once in Inst. 1.7, twice in Conf. 14.8.2-5, and once in Conf. 17.19.4. In

the first passage, Cassian explains that the monks wear goatskin and walk with a staff in

imitation of the Old Testament prophets who prefigured the monastic profession. This fits

Cassian’s teaching in Conf. 14.8.2-5 neatly, as does Conf. 17.19.4 where Abba Joseph teaches

that “holy men in the Old Testament practiced [conditional lying] for the sake of the will of God

or for the prefiguring of spiritual mysteries or for the salvation of some people, when necessity

compels it.”

Throughout Cassian’s works, “spiritual mysteries” often refers to the sacred or

sacramental elements of the Church’s life. They refer to the Eucharist,152 the monk’s belt (which

symbolizes “the mortification of his members”),153 the observance of Lent,154 and the cross of

Christ.155 Each of these instances are deeply connected with Christ and the Church as concealed

in Scripture, which Cassian explains in Conf. 14.8.2-5 as the content of allegory.156 This is
152
Inst. 1.9.2, 3.3.8; Conf. 1.15.2-3
153
Inst. 1.11.2.
154
Conf. 21.28.1-2.
155
Inst. 4.34.
156
See also Conf. 8.3.1-2, where Serenus explains that some things in Scripture “are so covered over and
obscured by mystery that in examining them there lies open before us an immense field of toil and concern. It is
clear that God has arranged matters thus for several reasons: first, lest if the divine sacraments had no veil of
spiritual understanding covering them….”

47
important to note as it shows Cassian’s use of allegory applies to realities present in his own

lived experience. Allegory pertains to more than prefigurements of Christ in the Old Testament.

In Conf. 8.3.4-5 Serenus explains that there are certain passages of Scripture that only

make sense when interpreted allegorically. He then quotes three passages from the gospels to

demonstrate that some passages must be taken allegorically to be “healthful for the inner man.”

The example he gives from Matt. 10:38 is instructive:

“Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Some of the
strictest monks, having indeed “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge,”
understood this literally. They made themselves wooden crosses and carried them
constantly on their shoulders, evoking not edification but rather derision in all who saw
them.157

These examples certainly do not prefigure future events like Old Testament allegories and seem

to be simple figures of speech. However, such quotes from Christ in the gospels, pertain to Christ

and the Church and, just as with revelation, deal with a spiritual interpretation that pertains to the

present age.158 So, Cassian’s use of allegory here is consistent with his thought in Conf. 14.8.2-5,

as well as Conf. 17.16.2, which is Cassian’s only other reference to allegory. There, Abba

157
The other two passages are Lk. 12:35 “Let your loins be girt and your lamps burning;” and Lk. 22:36
“Whoever does not have a sword should sell his tunic and buy himself a sword.” One can imagine the monks
bearing their crosses with their tunics girt on their way to sell the same tunics they are commanded to have girded to
buy themselves swords. The image is humorous, concerning and illuminating.
158
See also Conf. 8.4.2 where Serenus states: “For sometimes, when differing opinions are put forth about
the same matter, both can be judged as reasonable and can be accepted either absolutely or qualifiedly without
detriment to the faith—that is, so that neither is completely believed or utterly rejected, and so that the second
opinion does not necessarily derogate from the first when neither of them is found to oppose the faith. Such is the
case with Elijah’s coming in the person of John and that he is to be the precursor of the Lord’s coming again; and
with the abomination of desolation which stood in the holy place and which was that likeness of Jupiter which we
read was placed in the Temple at Jerusalem, and that it is to stand again in the Church with the coming of the
Antichrist, and all those other things that follow in the Gospel and that are understood to have been fulfilled before
the captivity of Jerusalem and as going to be fulfilled before the end of this world. Of these, neither statement is
opposed to the other, nor does the first understanding annul the second.” This passage explains how a passage can be
both “historical” and “allegorical.” It is significant that all of the examples, whether from the Old or New Testament,
pertain to Christ or the Church and occur within the age of the Church before Christ’s second coming. This supports
the idea that Cassian consistently associated “allegory” with Christ and the Church within the age prior to the second
coming that this paper argues.

48
Joseph’s use of the word resembles Serenus: “even if we should make an effort to deny or

completely weaken with allegorical interpretations the truth of the things that we are going to

say.” As the quote from Conf. 17.19.4 above shows, these “allegorical interpretations” prefigure

mysteries related to Christ and the Church.

Cassian’s description of allegory in Conf. 14.8.2-5 is consistent with other references

throughout Institutes and Conferences. Allegory is revelation which pertains to Christ and the

Church within the age between Christ’s first and second coming. While allegory is normally an

Old Testament prefigurement of Christ and the Church, it can also be a figure of speech which

refers to Christ and the Church in the present age. In any case, allegory always refers to the age

between Christ’s first and second coming.

2.3.2. b. Anagogy

Anagogy is similar to allegory as it “mounts from spiritual mysteries to certain more

sublime and sacred heavenly secrets.”159 Things dealing with Christ and the Church create a base

from which Nesteros believes the contemplative is launched into higher spiritual things. As

section 2.3.2 argued, these higher spiritual things are found in the next age, when Christ returns

and humanity is transformed at the resurrection. Yet, apart from this particular example of

anagogy, there are very few descriptions of anagogic interpretation, if any. However, this is

understandable given anagogy pertains to “heavenly secrets.”

Throughout the latter half of Conf. 14, Nesteros sternly warns Cassian of the personal

dangers of teaching what he does not practice. “For if a person ‘who breaks the least

commandment and teaches people so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven,’ it follows

that whoever neglects many great things and dares to teach… should be considered greatest in

159
Conf. 14.8.3.

49
the punishment of Gehenna.”160 Additionally, Cassian and Germanus are to “hide the mysteries

of spiritual mysteries from [impure] persons” and only to share these secrets with “those who are

cast down with bitterness and sorrow on account of being punished for their former deeds… lest

perchance, overcome by constant bitterness and deathly hopelessness, people of this sort ‘be

swallowed up by too much sorrow.’”161 For Cassian and the tradition he represents, teaching is a

dangerous profession. This is, in part, because it may generate pride in the teacher, but equally

because impure persons who receive spiritual teachings may misuse it and thereby endanger

themselves or others. As “heavenly secrets,” anagogical interpretations, if communicated at all,

would be rare and likely nonspecific.

With this caveat in place, a provisional analysis of anagogy may be attempted. When

Nesteros describes anagogy he says it refers to “more sublime” mysteries. The word “sublime” is

loaded with theological significance throughout Cassian’s writings, describing Paul’s preaching

of the gospel, the “post of the angels,” the institutes of the anchorites, spiritual gifts, the grace of

discretion, the calling of the Apostles, the renunciation of heart, the third renunciation, virtue,

allegorical interpretation, wordless prayer, the “supersubstantial” bread of Christ, monologistic

prayer, the “fear of love,” degrees of chastity, the peace of Christ, and more.162 In a word, it is

160
Conf. 14.9.6. See also Conf. 14.14.1. “But it is impossible, as we have already said, for someone who is
inexperienced to know or teach this. For if someone is really incapable of receiving something, how will he be fit to
pass it on? Yet even if he presumes to teach something about these matters, his words will only get as far as his
hearers’ ears, and they will be ineffective and useless. Produced out of inactivity and barren vanity, they will be
unable to penetrate their hearts because they come not from the treasury of a good conscience but from vain and
arrogant boastfulness.”
161
Conf. 14.17.2-3. It is notable that, when Nesteros describes anagogy in Conf. 14.8.6, he quotes 1 Thess.
4:13-16. In the Scripture, Paul is encouraging the Thessalonians who were possibly in a state of despair as they
thought of their own righteous dead. What Paul says “by a word of the Lord” or “prophecy” he says to encourage
those in greatest need of it.
162
Inst. 10.8.2, 12.4.1; Conf. 4.16, pref. 1.3-4, 1.9.1, 1.23.1, 3.5.3, 3.7.7, 3.7.9, 3.10.3-5, 3.12.2, 6.10.6,
8.3.4, 8.9.16, 8.18.1, 8.25.1, 8.28.1, 8.21.1, 10.8.1-3, 11.2-4, 11.13.1, 12.7.2, 12.9.3, etc.

50
about Christ’s presence and the increasing joy of the kingdom of God described in Conf. 1.13,

which echoes the words Cassian quotes from Paul in Gal. 4:27: “‘Rejoice you barren one who

does not bear, break out and shout… for the children of the desolate one are many more than of

her who has a husband.’”163

In fact, the future bliss of the kingdom is evoked in the description Cassian gives in Conf.

14.8.6 where he quotes Paul’s description of the resurrection from 1 Thess. 4:13-16. Two aspects

of this quote are notable here. First, it describes a future event of which, apart from supernatural

revelation, Paul would have necessarily been unaware. Second, the future event Paul describes is

the inbreaking of the kingdom of God at the return of Christ. Cassian’s description of anagogy

here parallels the way he describes theoria throughout the Conferences. Both theoria and

anagogy are forms of contemplation focused on the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God.

Notably, Nesteros’ description of anagogy as mounting to “more sublime and sacred heavenly

secrets” parallels Isaac’s words on ceaseless prayer in Conf. 10.11.2-4 where God fills the

praying monk with “more sublime and more sacred mysteries.” For Cassian, anagogy fits the

description of the more ecstatic forms of theoria he describes throughout Conferences.

2.3.3 Tropology

Finally, Cassian describes tropology as “moral explanation… as if we understood these

same two covenants as πρακτικη and as theoretical discipline, or at least if we wished to take

Jerusalem or Zion as the soul of the human being”164 and “knowledge… by which we discern by

a prudent examination everything that pertains to practical discretion.”165 The identification of

163
Conf. 14.8.3
164
Conf. 14.8.3.
165
Conf. 14.8.6.

51
tropology with practical knowledge provides the reader with ample information about its content

and function and Cassian’s description of this form of knowledge is fairly easy to understand in

the context of Conf. 14 as a whole. Practical knowledge is described in detail in later sections

and even the most superficial reading of Cassian demonstrates that he thought in terms of

discipline and discretion. In addition to the psychological insights which fill his writings, in Inst.

8.10 he explicitly interprets the “sun” of Eph. 4:26, Mal. 4:2, and Am. 8:9 tropologically as “the

mind… or reason.” Cassian’s interpretation of Scripture was undoubtedly informed by tropology.

However, while tropology is connected with practical knowledge, it is also distinct.

Practical knowledge is learned by practicing the faith in subservience to one’s spiritual

authorities. It is inherited through tradition and is gained by disciplined subservience to the

discretion of the abbas. Tropology, on the other hand, is an extension of practical knowledge. It

is an internalization of the discipline and discretion of the tradition which enables a person to

understand and explain the moral teaching of Scripture within one’s tradition. As in Nesteros’

quote from Paul in 1 Cor. 11:13, tropology occurs “when we are ordered to judge for ourselves

‘whether it befits a woman to pray to God with unveiled head.’”166

To be clear, one’s judgment is rarely separated from the community’s judgment. When

Abba Joseph’s moral reading of Scripture convinced him that marriage would be spiritually

beneficial, he brought his understanding to other brothers and discovered that he was wrong.167

Alternatively, Abba Paphnutius, was one of only a few to reject the anthropomorphite heresy. 168

Personal and communal judgments could be mutually corrective. Additionally, the abbas’

166
Conf. 14.8.6, emphasis added.
167
Conf. 16.10.
168
Conf. 10.2.1-3.

52
judgment could be limited by the spiritual maturity of their interlocutors. As people grow in

holiness, teaches Abba Theonas, they notice their sins more clearly. 169 One can only confess, and

therefore repent of, a sin that one knows to be a sin. Practical knowledge reveals the nature of

and remedies for the vices and is supplemented by tropological knowledge. Tropology extends

from practical knowledge and, internalizing how to overcome and remedy vice, enables the

monk to discern how to respond to life’s ever-changing circumstances. Tropology is both

traditional and personal and, as such, is distinguished among the four senses.

In Conf. 14.8.6, Nesteros calls tropology “knowledge,” which supports the argument

above. Knowledge is used frequently in Cassian’s writings and his identification of tropology

with spiritual knowledge is particularly significant. This demonstrates tropology’s importance as

well as the experiential quality of knowledge, which is a consistent theme throughout Cassian’s

works. In Inst. 2.14, Cassian states that “it is hardly possible to determine… whether [the desert

community] practice[s] manual labor ceaselessly thanks to their spiritual meditation or whether

they acquire such remarkable progress in the Spirit and such luminous knowledge thanks to their

constant labor.” This point is even more explicit in Inst. 12.17.2 where Cassian writes “that

knowledge is increased in us when we progress in works.” For Cassian, knowledge is eminently

practical.

The experiential quality of knowledge and the importance of tropology help demonstrate

that Cassian does not abandon theoretical knowledge as the conference proceeds. As noted

above, in section 2.2, spiritual knowledge is composed of both practical knowledge and

theoretical knowledge. Contrary to Stewart’s claims noted in section 1.6, Cassian does not

dispense with theoretical knowledge after he describes it in Conf. 14.8. Instead, theoretical

169
Conf. 23.6.2.

53
knowledge, as an extension of practical knowledge and participation in the tradition of the desert

community’s reading of Scripture, is found throughout the conference and the whole of Institutes

and Conferences. The next section demonstrates this through an analysis of several notable

passages and figures throughout Cassian’s works.

2.4 Exegesis Under the Four Forms

Showing how the theological conclusions Cassian draws from Scripture relate to the four

forms is a relatively subjective task. Designating particular passages as historical, tropological,

allegorical, or anagogical, without a frame of reference, is difficult if not arbitrary. Cassian rarely

categorizes his interpretations as one or another form of knowledge and a passage Cassian would

categorize as instruction can be easily confused with one he would categorize as tropology. To

demonstrate that Cassian’s thought was formed by the four forms, a passage or figure must have

a frame of reference. A figure, such as “Jerusalem'' in Conf. 14.8.2-4, must have several distinct

meanings drawn from it to be able to tell whether it relates to one form or another. Therefore,

only figures or passages where multiple forms converge are used to demonstrate that Cassian

interpreted Scripture in a way informed by the four forms.

One of the best places to begin this analysis is Nesteros’ teaching on Exod. 20:14 in

which he explains that a monk is able to find greater depth in Scripture as his “mind is

increasingly renewed” by the memorization and ceaseless reviewing of the Scriptures.170 For

example, in his explanation of the command against fornication, Nesteros explains what it means

to fornicate in an increasingly spiritual way. The sex act as is fornication and so is idolatry

(which is sinful under both testaments), observing Jewish feasts/superstitions (which Cassian

170
Conf. 14.10.4-14.11.1.

54
calls “adultery with respect to Christ”), teaching heresy, and turning one’s gaze away from

Christ.

Each of these seem to correspond with a form of knowledge that Cassian describes in

Conf. 14.8. The first kind of fornication is historical in the sense of instruction. The second

(idolatry) is tropological as the moral teaching goes beyond the literal sense. The third (Jewish

feasts) is allegorical as it is related to Christ. The fourth is, debatably, anagogical, as it deals with

“heresy” and brings to mind the heresy of the anthropomorphites.171 Interestingly, the last kind of

fornication comes from another tropological reading. This makes tropology the beginning and

end of the spiritual forms and follows Cassian’s two orders in Conf. 14.8.1-3 where tropology is

listed directly after history and, a little later, described after anagogy.

Another example comes from Conf. 1.13.6.

For the kingdom of heaven is to be understood in a threefold way—either as the heavens

that are to reign, that is, as the holy ones with respect to others who have been placed
under them, according to the words: “You be over five cities, and you be over ten,” and
according to what is said to the disciples: “You shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the

171
There is no mention of “heresy” or its derivatives in the Institutes. In Conferences, the words
“heresy(ies)” and “heretic(s)” are used in Conf. 1.14.6, 1.20.3, 1.22.1, 3.4.4, 3.16.3, 3.16.5, 8.24.2, 10.2.2, 10.5.2,
14.11.5, 14.15, 15.3.1-4, 17.16.1, 18.16.6, 22.11.2, and 24.15.4. “Blasphemy” is highly connected with heresy and
its forms are used in Inst. 4.4, 8.4.1, 8.5, 12.20, and Conf. 4.22.4, 5.15.3-5, 5.19.3, 5.22, 6.2.3, 6.4.2, 6.10.7, 6.7.17,
6.22.3, 8.14.2, 8.23.1-2, 9.5.1, 9.23.2, 10.1, 10.5.3, 14.15, 14.16.2, 16.6.1, 18.16.5, 18.16.14, 20.11.2, 22.11.4,
22.12.3, 24.25.5. “Heresy” and “blasphemy” generally refer to words said against Christ. These come in the midst of
suffering, through the Jews’ denial of Christ, and by contradicting the Trinity. The last two are connected as denials
of Christ and constitute the predominant heresy(ies) in Cassian’s corpus. The anthropomorphites are called heretics
in Conf. 10.2.2. This is probably due to the theology’s implicit denial of the Trinity. “Trinity” is the word Abba
Serenus uses in Conf. 7.13.1 and is likely synonymous with “Godhead.” Abba Serenus explains in Conf. 7.12.1 that
demons cannot be united with the soul. The Trinity can be united with the human soul (Conf. 7.13.1). The explicit
rationale is that, whereas the demons are corporeal and spiritual, the Trinity is incorporeal and spiritual and can
therefore unite with the human soul. In Conf. 8.5, not contradicting the Trinity is understood as the line between
appropriate speculation about spiritual things and something “injurious.” When the monk envisions any body other
than the body of Christ (which is itself only received by grace) when contemplating the Trinity he replaces the true
God with an imaginary image (e.g. an idol). “Sublimity” is connected with interpretation in Conf. 8.3.4 and is
connected with kinds of prayer in Conf. 9.2.2, 9.16, 9.18.1, 9.21.1, 9.25.1, 9.28.1-2, 9.36.2, 10.8.1-3, 10.11.2-4. This
shows a definite theme developing from spiritual interpretation—which fits the description Cassian gives of
anagogy—to prayerful experience of theoria. The point here is that, when Cassian mentions “heresy” in Conf.
14.11.5, he is likely thinking of the anthropomorphite heresy and the fourth interpretation of “you shall not commit
fornication” is likely anagogical.

55
 twelve tribes of Israel”; or as the heavens that will begin to be reigned over by Christ,
when God, once all things have been subjected to him, will have begun to be “all in all”;
or as the holy ones who are to reign in heaven with the Lord.

The kingdom of heaven is 1) the holy people of the Church in the present age, 2) the

eschatological culmination of the heavens, or 3) the holy people who will reign in the

eschatological heavens. Here there are at least two, if not three different forms operating

simultaneously. First, as with any text, there is the historical/literal form of the text. If the

historical form is taken as instruction, then there are only two forms present in the text, a

historical form and two anagogical interpretations. However, given that Cassian prooftexts his

teaching and adds other understandings, the first is likely an allegorical understanding of the

kingdom of heaven as it pertains to Christ and the Church in the present age. The latter two ways

of understanding build on the mystery of Christ’s present rule through the Church and look

forward to the kingdom’s fulfillment eschatologically, making them anagogical interpretations.172

So, the figure of the kingdom of heaven has an historical/literal level (as it is written in Scripture

and Jesus taught about it), an allegorical level (as it pertains to the Church in the present age),

and an anagogical level (it looks forward to Christ’s return and the life thereafter).

172
In Inst. 5.4.2-3, Cassian gives a fascinating explanation of what he means for God to be “all in all.” “For
if we want to obtain all of them from a single individual, either examples will be hard to find or, indeed, there will
be none that would be suitable for us to imitate. The reason for this is that, although we see that Christ has not yet
been made ‘all in all’ (to cite the words of the Apostle), we can nonetheless in this fashion find him partly in all. For
it is said of him that ‘by God’s doing he was made for us wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption.’
Inasmuch, therefore, as there is wisdom in one, righteousness in another, holiness in another, meekness in another,
chastity in another, and humility in another, Christ is now divided among each of the holy ones, member by member.
But when all are assembled together in the unity of faith and virtue, he appears as ‘the perfect man,’ completing the
fullness of his body in the joining together and in the characteristics of the individual members. Until the time
comes, then, when God will be all in all, God can be such presently in the fashion that we have spoken of—that is,
by virtues partly in all, although he is not yet all in all with respect to the fullness of them. For, although our religion
has one end, there are nonetheless different professions by which to go to God, as will be more fully discussed in the
conferences of the elders.” For Cassian, the kingdom of heaven relates to the Church and is attained through
virtuous living, however the kingdom is not attained fully in the present life, but is an aspect of the coming age.

56
 In his article “Cassian and the Correct Interpretation of Scripture,” Mark Sheridan traces

Cassian’s use of the names Jacob and Israel throughout Conferences. He observes how Cassian

uses Jacob to refer to the practical life described in Institutes and contrasts this with a definition

of Israel as “one who sees God.”173 As Cassian reuses the figure of Israel throughout

Conferences, its meaning is deepened as he uses it in various contexts and through various

passages of Scripture. When Israel is used again Conf. 5.23.1-2, Sheridan notes that “the

underlying textual ground” from the preface shifts from Gen. 27:36 and 32:29-30, “to Deut.

7:1-2 where Egypt and the seven nations whose territory the Lord has promised to the Israelites,

represent figuratively the eight principle vices.”174 Lastly, Sheridan notes that, in Conf. 12.11.1-5,

Cassian interprets Jacob’s injury in Gen. 32:25 as the “acquisition of chastity,” as Jacob’s thigh

(which seems to be a euphemism for his penis in Cassian’s reading) is disabled and made chaste.

Now that he has attained the grace of chasitity, Jacob is worthy to receive his new name, Israel.

Cassian then develops this interpretation through

…Ps. 75:2, for, he says, David, through prophetic inspiration also distinguished this order
in the spiritual life. The first part of the verse “God is made known in Judah” signifies
“confession.” The second part of the verse, “in Israel his name is great” refers to the one
“who sees God.” Then, to explain this interpretation, he introduces the second verse of
the psalm, “His dwelling is established in peace,” which means that the dwelling of God
is “not in the struggle of conflict and in the battle of vice but rather in the peace of
chastity and in perpetual tranquility of heart….” The person who has extinguished the
passion of the flesh becomes the dwelling of peace and a “spiritual Zion—that is, the
observation of God—and will also be his dwelling place.”175

Mark Sheridan, “6. Cassian and the Correct Interpretation.pdf.” in Brill Companion to Cassian, 2020,
173

accessed March 17, 2022, https://www.academia.edu/37924905/6_Cassian_and_the_correct_interpretation_pdf. 6-8.

174
Ibid, 6.
175
Ibid, 7.

57
While Sheridan purposed his study to demonstrate how Cassian used Scripture to interpret

Scripture, his observations also teach how Cassian interpreted various passages of Scripture

through different forms of knowledge.

On the historical/literal level Israel is interpreted allegorically to correspond with the

monastic vocation. Next, the figure of Israel is interpreted tropologically to teach how to battle

the eight principle vices. Finally, Israel holds anagogical significance as a prophecy of David

bringing one to see God “in the peace of chastity and in perpetual tranquility of heart.”176 This

language recalls the imagery of the kingdom of heaven from Conf. 1.13.3 where Abba Moses

describes the kingdom of God through Rom. 14:17. Seeing God in the peace and tranquility of

chastity in this life is a glimpse of the coming kingdom.

Matt. 19:21 is another Scripture that Cassian interprets according to different forms

throughout Institutes and Conferences. First, as in Inst. 7.16 and 7.27, there is the historical sense

to this text, where the renunciants, who desire perfection, sell their possessions and give to the

poor, which is beneficial in itself. This is the sense in which Antony took the passage in Conf.

3.4.2 when he left all to follow Christ in the monastic vocation. However, as Paphnutius explains

in Conf. 3.7.10-11, this passage also applies to the soul of the renunciant. When Matt. 19:21 is

interpreted through the lens of 1 Cor. 13:3-7, the wealth that is left is the wealth of vice as

opposed to material wealth, constituting a tropological reading. Additionally, Serenus quotes the

passage in Conf. 8.3.5 and claims it can be interpreted allegorically. Therefore Cassian interprets

Matt. 19:21 historically, tropologically, and allegorically.

In Inst. 12.4.3, Genesis 3:5’s historical form is used to illustrate the devil’s deceitful

tongue “with which he said both of himself: ‘I will be like the Most High’ and of Adam and Eve:

176
Ibid.

58
‘You shall be as gods.’” The same point is reiterated in more detail in Conf. 8.25.4 where Cassian

explains that the devil was created good, but fell (as Isaiah 14:12-14 explains) and then became

the father of the lie where he promised “divinity to man” and “became a murderer, inducing

Adam into a state of mortality and slaying Abel at his own instigation by his brother’s hand.”

Earlier in the Conferences, Cassian extends the historical form of gen. 3:5 to teach tropological

and allegorical points. Abba Serapion explains that “it was by gluttony that he took the food

from the forbidden tree; by vainglory that it was said: ‘Your eyes shall be opened’; and by pride

that it was said: ‘You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’”177 As he concludes the chapter,

he comments on the verse again, this time using Rom 5:12-21 and Lk. 4:1-13 to parallel

(allegorically) the temptation of the first Adam with the temptation of the second Adam. 178

Therefore, Cassian interprets Gen. 3:5 historically, tropologically and allegorically.

Similarly, Cassian’s use of Lev. 7:19-20 is historical, tropological, and allegorical. In Inst.

6.8, Cassian interprets“the flesh of the saving sacrifice” allegorically to refer to the Eucharist as

“the flesh of the all-holy Lamb.” Additionally, the passage is interpreted in the context of the

vice of fornication, so the uncleanness of the one eating is, tropologically, sexual impurity, which

is confirmed when he quotes Lev. 7:19-20 again in Conf. 12.2.2. Cassian extends this

tropological understanding in Conf. 21.5.5 where Theonas interprets it tropologically to teach the

monks to approach the Eucharist with humility and for healing rather than with an attitude of

pride, believing he has earned the right to partake of the Eucharist by his way of life. Other

examples could be provided, but the point has been sufficiently made. Cassian’s interpretation of

figures and passages of Scripture were informed by the four forms.

177
Conf. 5.6.1.
178
Conf. 5.6.7.

59
2.5 Summary and Conclusion

This chapter began with a summary of Conf. 14 to familiarize readers with its content.

There, it was noted that Cassian taught that spiritual knowledge is composed of two different

kinds of knowledge: practical and theoretical. Both of these kinds of knowledge are necessary

for one to attain spiritual knowledge. Cassian’s categories of theoretical knowledge (history,

tropology, allegory, anagogy) were explained and Cassian’s description of these terms was

shown to be theologically consistent. For Cassian, interpretation of Scripture moves from the

historical form to the spiritual forms, except when the content described historically is

sufficiently spiritual in itself (like the cross and resurrection or the virgin birth). Allegory and

anagogy are similar but distinct. Allegory refers to events prefiguring or revealing Christ’s rule

through the Church in the present age whereas anagogy pertains to an eschatological reality yet

to be realized. Tropology is a theoretical form of practical knowledge that, in participation with

the desert tradition, allows one to discern how to exercise the spiritual life. The final section

demonstrated that Cassian’s exegesis was informed by the four forms of knowledge and that the

forms converge in various places throughout Cassian’s works. The next chapter explains the

relationship between practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge, defines theoretical

knowledge, and shows how Cassian’s three reorderings of the four forms in Conf. 14.8 is

internally consistent.

60
 Chapter 3: Defining Theoretical Knowledge

3.1 Introduction:

This chapter defines theoretical knowledge as it relates to other forms of knowledge and

then demonstrates its internal consistency. Theoretical knowledge is a part of spiritual

knowledge, which can be gained through contemplation by scriptural or extra-scriptural means.

It is an extension of practical knowledge and a spiritual gift that functions as a “rule of faith,"

which demarcates what things can be contemplated about God through revelation. As such,

theoretical knowledge categorizes the things that can be contemplated by human beings. The

categories of theoretical knowledge are linear as they move from historical to spiritual things but

eclectic in the way they relate internally. Since Conf. 14.8 shows how the forms or categories of

theoretical knowledge (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy) relate theologically, rather than

methodologically, Cassian’s reordering of the four forms is consistent and provided important

boundaries for interpreting Scripture which the later tradition maintained.

3.2 Conferences 11-15: The Importance of Grace

The previous chapter started with an analysis of Conf. 14. The current section shows how

the conference's context informs readers of its function in Conferences as a whole. The

placement of Conf. 14 is not arbitrary as it immediately directs the reader to its context. Cassian

states that his “promise and… itinerary demand that the instruction of Abba Nesteros… follow”

immediately after Conf. 11-13 with Abba Chaeremon. For Cassian, it is not only logical but

pressing that he place a conference on spiritual knowledge after conferences on perfection,

chastity, and divine grace. Furthermore, “it makes sense that [he] should explain… how the gifts

61
of healing are granted by the Lord” in the following conference.179 How, then, is the purpose and

content of Conf. 14 informed by its surrounding conferences?

Upon analysis of these conferences, one immediately sees the prominence of the theme of

grace. In Conf. 11, the monk moves from faith, to hope, to the perfection of love by the grace of

God. In Conf. 12, chastity is only obtained by the grace of God, Conf. 13 is completely dedicated

to the theme of grace, and Conf. 15 is about the divine gift of healing.180 Grace is indispensable

to understanding Cassian’s teaching on spiritual knowledge. So then, what is grace? What is it

for? And how does it work?

To answer the first two questions simply, all of God’s activities toward humankind are

acts of grace, stemming from God’s goodness and his desire to bless humanity. Cassian is

explicit: “nothing is stable of itself, nothing immutable, nothing good but the Godhead alone, and

every creature acquires the blessedness of eternity and immutability by arriving at it not through

its own nature but through participation with the Creator and through his grace.”181 All things,

which God created as good, are good only through participating in the grace of the Creator182

who “calls out… to everyone without exception”183 for their salvation because he “did not make

the human being to perish but to live forever.”184 Grace is God’s activity of participating with his

179
Conf. 14.1.1, 14.11-13, 14.19.
180
See Conf. 11.6.1-11.7.6, 11.9.1-5, 12.4.1, 13.3.1-6, 13.17.1-13.18.4.
181
Conf. 23.3.4.
182
Conf. 23.3.2.
183
Conf. 13.7.3.
184
Conf. 13.7.1.

62
creation in love, which is the ideal state of the human being as Cassian teaches in Conf. 1 and

11.185

Answering the third question is more difficult. Much ink has been spilled in addressing

how Cassian’s grace theology functions and a comprehensive description of this is beyond the

scope of this paper.186 Instead, this section focuses on how the desert fathers participated in God’s

grace to gain further graces, such as love and chastity. Doing so describes Cassian’s

understanding of grace as participatory and describes Conf. 14 as a logical bridge between

conferences on love, chastity and divine gifts.

Chaeremon’s first conference begins as a response to Cassian and Germanus asking for a

teaching to enable them to embody the virtue they saw in Abba Chaeremon. Chaeremon’s

immediate response explains that three entities restrain people from vice: fear of hell, the hope of

heaven, and the love of virtue, which he equates with the faith, hope, and love of 1 Corinthians

13.187 “Love” is an important word in Cassian’s theology and a few of its features are worth

noting. First, Cassian uses love as almost synonymous with purity of heart and theoria. Next, in

Conf. 11, chastity is correlated with love and Chaeremon names both chastity and love as graces.

Last, in Inst. 4.39 a progression beginning in fear and ending in love is taught as the way of

185
Conf. 1.7-14, 11.7-10. Some writers have rightly equated this participation with theosis/deification. See
Christina Beu, “Deification in Cassian’s Conferences: Analysis of John Cassian’s Writings on Unceasing Prayer in
Conferences Nine and Ten as a Description of Deification.” (Masters thesis, Providence College, 2015).
https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=theology_gradua
te_theses and Andrew Nichols, “Becoming Theoria in John Cassian,” (PMR Conference, Villanova University,
2020) https://www.academia.edu/44317838/BECOMING_THEORIA_IN_JOHN_CASSIAN.
186
For several resources, see Rea, “Grace and Free Will;” Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the
Early Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Publishing, 2003); Benjamin Ross
DeSpain, “The Pattern of Christ: The Christologically-Contextualized Understanding of Salvation’s Immediacy and
Spirituality’s Progressiveness in the Thought of John Cassian and Augustine of Hippo” (Masters thesis, Erskine
Theological Seminary, 2011); and Casiday, Tradition and Theology.
187
Conf. 11.5-6.

63
salvation, which is the principal work of grace described in Conf. 13.188 In the passage, fear

progresses into contempt of temporal things, which brings about true humility resulting in “love,

which has no fear” and does good “out of pleasure in virtue.”189

Noting the overlap in these aspects of Cassian’s theology demonstrates that possessing

one of these aspects brings about the possession of other aspects. If one possesses true humility

then love, chastity, theoria, salvation—in short, the whole of God’s grace—is near. The passage

from Institutes demonstrates that, for Cassian, there are ways of obtaining aspects of God’s grace

in a definable order. Therefore “gifts” can be obtained methodologically.

Following this thought, Inst. 6.1 is significant. There, Cassian gives a sequence to follow

to obtain the grace of chastity. First, the monk’s spirit becomes contrite which leads to persistent

prayers against the spirit of fornication, then constant meditation on Scripture and hard work,

resulting in true humility. It is significant that scriptural meditation and spiritual knowledge are

steps toward gaining the gift of chastity. The pursuit of chastity seems to generate Conf. 14 as

part of the process to attain chastity, which explains why Cassian thought a conference on

spiritual knowledge should follow Chaeremon’s conferences.190

Conf. 14’s context reveals an important, though somewhat obscure, aspect of the

conference’s content. Cassian’s argument that practical knowledge is a prerequisite to spiritual

knowledge, calling spiritual knowledge a gift and placing it after a conference which emphasizes

188
Conf. 1.10.1-5, 11.7.6, 11.8.1, 12.1.1-2, 12.4.1-4, 13.7.1-4. Kelly, Cassian’s Conferences, 31, actually
equates the love, purity of heart and theoria, which seems to erase their distinctness. Nonetheless, the meanings of
the three terms overlap significantly.
189
This resonates with Chaeremon’s teaching on Lk. 15 in Conf. 11.7 where the prodigal son, after spending
a time in servitude with “the filthy food of vice… was struck with compunction,” returns home, humbly confesses
that he is not worthy of being one of his father’s hirelings and is immediately accepted as a son. Fear leads to
humility which in turn leads to love, which, it is important to note, is given to the son by the father.
190
Conf. 14.1.1.

64
that the human will cooperates with God’s grace, demonstrates that spiritual gifts can be obtained

methodologically. Nesteros’ conference on divine gifts does not explain how to pursue the gifts,

but simply categorizes them and emphasizes the importance of holiness—which he equates with

practical knowledge and love—as opposed to the importance of miracles like healing.191

To be clear, the idea that spiritual gifts can be obtained in cooperation with God’s grace is

present throughout Institutes and Conferences. Conf. 14 is one of several places where Cassian

received a teaching on how to attain a spiritual gift. However, Cassian’s emphasis on right living

(e.g. practical knowledge) as a means to obtaining a spiritual gift is more emphatic in Conf. 14

than in other conferences. The point here is simply that the context of Conf. 14 fits within the

order Cassian gives in Inst. 6.1 for how to attain chastity. The teaching emphasizes that God’s

grace works cooperatively with human free will, right living leads to the gift of spiritual

knowledge, and somehow this emphasis leads logically to Conf. 15 on divine gifts. It is therefore

plausible that Cassian understood practical knowledge as a means for obtaining the gift of

spiritual knowledge and possibly the gift of chastity as well.

The summary of Conf. 14 in the previous chapter noted that spiritual knowledge is

attained through a method. Adding to that summary, it is significant that Cassian does not

describe theoretical knowledge with words like “method,” “order,” “sequence,” “rule,” and

“discipline.” He only uses these words when teaching that practical knowledge is necessary for

spiritual knowledge or when defining practical knowledge.192 The only apparent exceptions occur

when Cassian uses the term “discipline,” but these instances still refer to practical knowledge. In

191
Conf. 15.1.1-15.2.3, 15.8.
192
Conf. 14.1.2, 14.2, 14.3.1, 14.8.2, 14.9.2, 14.9.4, 14.9.6, 14.10.3, 14.16.2-3, 14.16.7-9.

65
the first, Cassian describes tropology “as if we understood… [it] as πρακτικη.”193 In the second,

he gives a somewhat vague reference to “spiritual discipline” using language which is

reminiscent of both theoria and practical knowledge.194 So it seems relatively certain that

practical knowledge is emphasized as a method whereas theoretical knowledge is something

different.

Additionally, Cassian describes spiritual knowledge as a gift in Conf. 14.5.1, so it seems

that practical and theoretical knowledge are both received by participating in grace. This is

significant given Nesteros’ frequent admonitions for Cassian and Germanus to cleanse

themselves from vice so that they can receive spiritual knowledge. This means that the gift of

spiritual knowledge can be attained by cleansing oneself from vice. There is a synergism between

human effort and God’s grace in Cassian’s works. Human effort—itself a gift—cooperates with

grace by its own effort strengthened by grace.195 While God certainly gives the gift of teaching to

the undeserving, as Nesteros makes clear in Conf. 14.19, this is because of his “bountiful

generosity.” It is an exception to the rule on how to attain spiritual knowledge and does not even

benefit its recipient as Conf. 15.1.3 makes clear.196

Section 3.4 bears out these points to explain how practical and theoretical knowledge

functioned as gifts and “rules.” The next section discusses the mediums through which Cassian

193
Conf. 14.8.3.
194
Conf. 14.10.3.
195
Conf. 13.7.1.
196
The text reads: “The second [arrangement of the spiritual gifts] is when, for the sake of the upbuilding of
the Church or because of the faith of those who bring their sick or of those who must be healed, a health-giving
power comes forth even from sinners and unworthy persons. Of these the Savior says in the Gospel: ‘Many will say
to me on that day: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many
mighty deeds in your name? And then I will confess to them: I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of
wickedness.’”

66
believed God reveals himself, arguing that God reveals himself to people in distinct ways that are

always consistent with the revelation of Scripture. This section coined the term “extra-scriptural

knowledge” to name this kind of revelation. In one sense, extra-scriptural knowledge is distinctly

Christian in content because the source and object of this knowledge is Christ. In a different

sense, this kind of knowledge is universal because it is, in part, the knowledge of the law that

God gives humans at birth. Faithful participation in the knowledge of the law inhibits the

participant’s vices, which enables the participant to receive more of God’s grace and eventually

embody virtue, which is synonymous with “gospel perfection” discussed in section 3.3.2 below.

As extra-scriptural knowledge, theoretical knowledge is participated in through the

contemplation of living or present peoples, places, events, or things in conjunction with God’s

grace. Acknowledging that Cassian believed Christians gained theoretical knowledge through

means other than scriptural contemplation deepens theoretical knowledge’s significance and

further demonstrates that the terminology Cassian associated with theoretical knowledge, as

discussed in Chapter Two, is employed consistently.

3.3 Extra-Scriptural Knowledge and Spiritual Knowledge

It is problematic that commentators treat theoretical knowledge as though it were

exclusively related to scriptural interpretation. For Cassian, spiritual knowledge extends beyond

scriptural knowledge. Practical knowledge is attained by human beings apart from Scripture and

the four forms of theoretical knowledge describe the things that can be known about creation and

God. The things that can be known theoretically are both natural and spiritual, corporeal and

incorporeal, visible and invisible, and they constitute what can be known about reality. In a word,

practical knowledge, which is love, and theoretical knowledge, which is theoria, can be obtained

in a way distinct from the revelation of Scripture. Proving this point involves a discussion about

67
Cassian’s theology of natural law and Gospel perfection before demonstrating that theoretical

knowledge was used apart from scriptural interpretation.

3.3.1 Natural Law

For Cassian, the “law” is more than the written code passed on by Moses in the

Pentateuch—it includes an innate knowledge given by God from birth. Cassian explicitly states

this in several places. In Conf. 1.15.2 Abba Moses teaches that contemplation can come through

thinking about how God “commanded that we should be born in such a way that grace and

knowledge of his law might be given to us from our very cradles.” In Conf. 3.13-14 Paphnutius

says that holy men, inspired by grace, longed “every day to arrive at knowledge of the law itself

not through the effort of reading but with God as their teacher and enlightener.” In Conf. 8.23-24

Abba Serenus gives an extended argument to prove that “when God created each human being he

placed in him, as something natural, a knowledge of the law.”

However, the natural knowledge of the law becomes obscured by sin. For Cassian,

particular sins can all be described by the eight principle vices, all eight of which stop spiritual

knowledge. Gluttony “shuts us out from true knowledge” and “suffocate[s] and weigh[s] down

[the mind] by food.”197 Fornication is the opposite of chastity, which Cassian calls holiness

before explaining that “without holiness, which usually refers to integrity of mind and purity of

body, God cannot be seen at all.”198 Avarice causes faith to disappear “whenever there glitters

some hope of gain.”199 Anger “resides in our hearts and blinds our mind’s eye with its harmful

197
Inst. 5.2.2, 5.6.1-2.
198
Inst. 6.15-16.
199
Inst. 7.7.4.

68
darkness.”200 Sadness “weakens and oppresses the mind itself.”201 The wounds of acedia cause its

victim to be “asleep with regard to any contemplation of virtue and any insight provided by the

spiritual senses.”202 Vainglory wounds “the soldier of Christ in appearance, in bearing, in speech,

in work, in vigils, in fasts, in prayer, in reclusion, in reading, in knowledge, in silence, in

obedience, in humility, and in long-suffering.”203 And finally, when pride it “seizes the unhappy

mind… like a most savage tyrant it lays waste and overturns the whole city from its

foundations.”204

This is why the written law was “‘imposed… on the unrighteous and the disobedient….’

For those who had a healthy and complete understanding of the natural and ingrafted law were

never in need of a law to be added from without, set down in writing and given as a help to that

natural law.”205 Scripture is given to remind humanity of what is naturally good and inhibit

humanity’s evil. If it were not for vice then human beings would have no need for the Scriptures.

But because all the world is under the sins of idolatry, blasphemy and the rest of the vices, the

written law was necessary to inhibit sin and retain some form of the knowledge of the good.206

As the law merely prevents sin, it corresponds to the first form of practical knowledge which

identifies the vices and shows how they can be remedied. However, in addition to the natural

200
Inst. 8.1.1.
201
Inst. 9.1.
202
Inst. 10.4.
203
Inst. 11.3.
204
Inst. 12.3.2.
205
Conf. 8.24.2-3.
206
Conf. 5.22 adds idolatry and blasphemy to the eight vices. Even the most pure hearted gentiles and Jews
would be categorized under this heading because of their rejection of Christ.

69
law, Cassian teaches that gospel perfection, which brings the believer into the love of good

things themselves, can be achieved apart from Scripture reading.

3.3.2 Gospel Perfection

Not everyone living under the Old Testament needed obedience to the law to come from

Scripture and the same is true of gospel perfection. Cassian explains that without obedience to

the law “gospel perfection could not be bestowed” because the disobedient are unable to obey

commands against non-retaliation when they have difficulty repaying wrongs with equivalent

punishments.207 Those living in the times of the Old Testament did not have the written gospel,

which is significant given Cassian claims in several places they fulfilled the gospel.

An example of someone fulfilling the gospel in the Old Testament is Abraham, as

described by Cassian in Conf. 21.4. His refusal to take possession of the spoils of war, even

though they rightly belonged to him, parallels Jesus’ instructions in Matt. 19:21 to sell earthly

possessions to gain treasures in heaven.208 Similar examples include David paying his enemies

back good for evil, Elijah and other prophets remaining celibate and thereby attaining chastity,

and the sons of Jonadab abstaining from wine and thus conquering gluttony.209 Significantly,

Enoch walked with God, attaining the third renunciation, which Cassian calls theoria.210

These men fulfilled the gospel before it was written and some, like Abraham and Enoch,

fulfilled the gospel even before the written law was given. These men went beyond the restraint

of vice and into the realm of virtue and true humility. In doing so they fit the description of the

207
Conf. 8.24.3-4.
208
Conf. 3.4.2, 3.7.10, 8.3.5, 21.5.4, 21.32.3, 24.24.1.
209
Conf. 21.4.1-3.
210
Conf. 3.6.1-3.7.4.

70
second part of practical knowledge or, as in Conf. 14.3.1—“practical perfection”—where the

knower proceeds from the knowledge of the vices (the law) to the knowledge of the virtues

(gospel perfection), living them out as “a natural good.” For Cassian, the Scriptures, while

deeply connected to God and holding sacramental value, testify to a reality beyond themselves

which is given to humankind through extra-scriptural means which are aided by grace. This

reality can be lived in, fulfilling gospel perfection in love, and it can also be contemplated.

3.3.3 Extra-Scriptural Theoretical Knowledge

In the quote from Conf. 3.7 in the previous section, Cassian was explicit that Enoch

experienced theoria without contemplating written Scriptures. In Conf. 14.3 Nesteros teaches that

practical perfection stops with the embodiment of virtue and does not itself attain theoria. The

argument presented in this paper is that theoretical knowledge is synonymous with theoria.

Demonstrating that the categories or forms used to describe theoretical knowledge were

experienced before the Scriptures were given proves this point. However, this is difficult given

that Cassian rarely uses the vocabulary of the four forms (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy).

When he does, they usually describe a teaching about Scripture rather than the way the people

described in Scripture would have thought. However, if Cassian is understood as consistently

employing the terms he borrowed from 1 Cor. 14:6 (revelation, knowledge, prophecy,

instruction), then one finds examples that prove that theoretical knowledge occurred

extra-scripturally.

Following the order from 1 Cor. 14:6, revelation, or allegory, is first. This form of

knowledge goes beyond the interpretation of Scripture as it refers to “mysteries,” which, “[have[

to do with Christ, the Church and the sacraments.”211 This is consistent with Cassian’s

211
Ramsey, Conferences, 500.

71
description in Conf. 14.8.5 where he understands 1 Cor. 10:1-4 as “the prefiguration of the body

and blood of Christ that we daily receive.” While this does not prove that those under the Old

Testament understood the figures of the natural world as representing Christ intrinsically, it does

show that they participated in Christ providentially. The sacramental life of the Church is

equated with God’s provision for the Israelites in the crossing of the Red Sea and drinking from

the rock in the wilderness. The Israelites participated in Christ through God’s providence in a

way that prefigured the Church’s participation in Christ through the sacraments. These

occurrences can be contemplated and while they are derived from Scripture and are consistent

with Scripture, they are distinct from scriptural interpretation. In this sense, baptism, the

Eucharist and even the acceptance of the monastic call are all examples of extra-scriptural

allegory.212

That holy people of all generations had extra-scriptural tropological understanding is

demonstrated by Abba Moses’ claim that theoria is first established by the contemplation of holy

persons.213 In this way, the entirety of Conferences is a form of extra-scriptural knowledge. The

addition of discretion, as a synonym for tropology, further demonstrates this point. Discretion

comes by “following in the footsteps of the elders” and “proceeding in all things just as their

tradition and upright life inform us.”214 As Kelly explains, “Cassian saw [men like Abraham and

Moses] as the originators of a line of authority that extended from Abraham to the Desert

Fathers.”215 Discretion is exercised through obedience to a tradition that originates with people

Inst. 4.33-35 is fairly explicit that the life of the monk embodies Christ and his cross. The passage
212

resonates with sacramental cues.

213
Conf. 1.8.3.
214
Conf. 2.11.6.
215
Kelly, Cassian’s Conferences, 61.

72
whose lives are recorded in Scripture. Those who, by God’s grace, embody and internalize the

tradition become purveyors of the tradition. The tradition is alive; it is generated by holy people

in past ages who pass on their discretion from generation to generation. As such, the tradition,

which would include Scripture, is also distinct from Scripture—tradition is a form of

extra-scriptural knowledge.

Anagogy is linked with prophecy, and examples of an extra-scriptural form of this

knowledge are not hard to find. One of the most significant examples comes from Conf. 8.21, in

which Serenus responds to a question about whether apostate angels could have had sexual

relations with the daughters of men in Gen. 6:1-8. He claims that spiritual beings cannot have

intercourse with physical beings and explains the sons of God marrying the daughters of men as

the children of Seth marrying the children of Cain. In mixing the genealogical lines, the line of

Seth “abandoned that true discipline of natural philosophy which was handed down to them by

their forebears and which that first man, who was at once immersed in the study of all natural

things, was able to grasp clearly and to pass on in unambiguous fashion to his descendants.” He

explains that Adam “had gazed upon the infancy of this world… and by a divine inbreathing he

was filled… with the grace of prophecy” and was enabled to “prophesy” about the names of

created things and “discern” and “distinguish the qualities… of seasons that he had not yet

experienced. He could realistically say: ‘The Lord has given me a true knowledge of the things

that exist.’”216

216
Conf. 8.21.4-5. Ramsey, Conferences, 321, notes: “Adam’s intellectual and prophetic gifts are
commonplace of both Jewish and early Christian thought, and the naming of animals in Gn 2:19-20 seems to
constitute the source of their attribution to him.” That Adam could say the Lord gave him “true knowledge” is
significant as “true knowledge” is synonymous with “spiritual knowledge” throughout Conf. 14.

73
 This passage mixes at least two kinds of theoretical knowledge that Adam possessed

simultaneously and demonstrates a third kind of knowledge that Adam’s line received from him.

First, Adam had the grace of discernment and generated a holy tradition (which is instruction)

just as the discerning abbas pass on the tradition they received (which demonstrates

extra-scriptural tropology). Second, he was given the gift of prophecy and enabled to perceive

the future, which is a quality of anagogy in Conf. 14.8.6. The simultaneous possession of the

gifts reinforces Nesteros’ teaching in Conf. 14.8.4 where the four forms converge with one

another through a scriptural figure. Adam possessed anagogical and tropological knowledge

apart from scriptural interpretation.

Finally, there is “instruction” which “lays open the simple sequence of a historical

exposition in which there is no more hidden meaning than what is comprised in the sound of the

words.”217 This form of knowledge frequently refers to the instruction of the abbas. Discretion

and instruction are like two sides of the same coin—they both deal with the passing on of

tradition. When one with discretion passes on the tradition it is instruction as Cassian describes it

in Conf. 14.8.7. There, he quotes 1 Cor. 15:3-5 in which Paul delivers the tradition of Christ’s

death for sins, burial, resurrection and appearance to Cephas, that he first received from

Ananias.218 As a form of knowledge, rather than a form of interpretation, the historical/literal

level of knowledge is instruction. This almost blurs the lines between extra-scriptural and

scriptural knowledge since Scripture is part of the tradition in Cassian’s understanding. However,

it is a written tradition rather than a living tradition. As a form of extra-scriptural knowledge,

217
Conf. 14.8.7.
218
See Conf. 2.15.1 where Christ sends Paul to Ananias to “‘be told what [he] must do.’” Abba Moses
explains: “Him too he sent to an old man, then, and determined that he must be instructed by his teaching rather than
by his own.”

74
instruction always involves a living person passing on the tradition orally or by example, which

is exactly how Adam instructed his descendants.

In conclusion, theoretical knowledge can be learned from and applied scripturally and

extra-scripturally. Extra-scriptural theoretical knowledge is given to those who know of their sins

through the natural law, put them off, and learn to love the good of virtue in gospel perfection by

God’s grace. Extra-scriptural practical knowledge precedes extra-scriptural theoretical

knowledge. Extra-scriptural theoretical knowledge pertains to Cassian’s categories in Conf. 14.8.

Extra-scriptural things can be known, learned, and experienced historically, tropologically,

allegorically, and anagogically. The next two sections return to the topic broached at the end of

the previous section and explain how spiritual knowledge functioned as a gift and “rule.”

3.4 Spiritual Knowledge as Gift and Rule

This section explores the function of the gift of spiritual knowledge and describes the

function of its composite parts and their particular emphases. Spiritual knowledge is embodied

knowledge which changes both the outer and inner man to conform to Christ and then

contemplate that reality. Spiritual knowledge is theosis.

3.4.1 Practical Knowledge as Gift: Theosis and the Lawfully Minted Tradition

As discussed throughout this chapter, practical knowledge is a gift gained by participation

in grace which God extends through extra-scriptural and scriptural means and culminates in the

love of virtue. Practical knowledge is named “love” in Conf. 15.2.2 and is connected intimately

with chastity and the rest of Cassian’s theology on love. As a gift, practical knowledge comes

from God, is exercised and strengthened by free will and, as this section emphasizes, turns the

abbas into a living form of theoretical knowledge that validates their teaching.

75
 Abba Moses has both “practical and contemplative virtue” which is demonstrated

through his discretion.219 Paphnutius is “resplendent with brilliant knowledge as if he were a

large celestial body… yearning for that ceaseless and divine theoria.” He was often visited by

angels and is renowned for his hard work, youthful humility, obedience, mercy and chastity. He

is also known for mastering the anchoritic and cenobitic professions. In addition, he was one of

the few monks to oppose anthropomorphism.220

Abba Daniel received the grace of humility and was raised to the priesthood by Abba

Paphnutius. Serapion has the grace of discretion. Abba Theodore’s practical life is extraordinary.

Abba Serenus obtained chastity. Chaeremon, Nesteros and Joseph instruct more by their holy

living than their teaching. Piamun is a light that is not hidden under a basket like “that gospel

city set on a hill” and has the ability to perform miracles. Abba John’s humility was exceptional

and made him a spiritual tower whose heights cannot be mounted by the monks of Gaul. Pinufius

is praised for his glorious virtue, miracles, humility, holiness, graciousness and hospitality.

Theonas’ notable holiness and humility recommended him for the distribution of alms. 221

Their teaching is sublime, filled with divine and heavenly words which set down “the

heights of true renunciation.”222 It moves to compunction, reveals the sinner’s heart, fills with

joy, inflames with ardor, amazes and inspires love.223 The way the abbas embodied practical

knowledge causes them to receive the graces associated with theoretical knowledge. Chaeremon,

219
Conf. 1.1, 2.26.4.
220
Conf. 3.1.1-3, 18.15-16, 2.5.5, 15.10.1-5, 19.9.1, 10.2.1-10.4.2.
221
Conf. 4.1.1-2, 5.1, 6.1.1-3, 11.2.1-11.3.2, 18.1.2-3, 19.2.1-2, 20.1-20.2.3, 21.9.7.
222
Conf. 17.3, 20.2.2, 24.1.1.
223
Conf. 3.22.1, 5.27.2, 6.27.3, 8.25.6, 9.36.3, 16.28.

76
Nesteros and Joseph embody historical instruction as “the mere sight of them is able to teach a

great deal to those who gaze upon them.”224 Paphnutius’ celestial-like knowledge emphasizes its

anagogical or heavenly quality and Serapion possesses discretion which is associated with

tropology. Finally, the abbas, as a living allegory, make up the whole Christ:

Inasmuch, therefore, as there is wisdom in one, righteousness in another, holiness…,

meekness…, chastity…, and humility…, Christ is now divided among each of the holy
ones, member by member. But when all are assembled together in the unity of faith and
virtue, he appears as ‘the perfect man,’ completing the fullness of his body in the joining
together and in the characteristics of the individual members.225

The abbas Cassian describe embody the forms of theoretical knowledge, therefore the

whole tradition that Cassian records can be understood under the categories of the four forms.

Understanding this adds explanatory force to Nesteros’ insistence that only those who have

mastered practical knowledge can teach true knowledge. The very qualities of practical

knowledge pertain to the qualities of theoretical knowledge. If one does not experience these

qualities then he or she is blind to them and only able to fill the air with words that evade

understanding. To be a “lawfully minted” tradition, the teaching must come from one filled “with

the fear of God” and must not be eroded by “the pride of empty vainglory.”226

3.4.2 Theoretical Knowledge as Gift: Theoria and Teaching

Following this, a distinction should be made between theoretical and practical

knowledge. The latter is called “love,” which is distinct from theoria. Theoria goes a step beyond

love, or maybe more appropriately, a step into love.227 As practical knowledge, love is divided

224
Conf. 11.2.2.
225
Inst. 5.4.2-3.
226
Conf. 14.16, 1.21.2.
227
Conf. 15.2.2, 14.3.1.

77
among many different pursuits and can be obtained by those who are not practicing the monastic

profession. However, theoria is specific to the contemplative vocation.228 Theoria is for the

celibate, is first established through contemplating holy people, involves a great deal of

concentration and purity, and has various grades and forms.229 As such, the experience of some

degree or form of theoria is necessary for one to teach others in the more advanced life of the

monastic vocation. As one progresses through the practical grace of love into the contemplative

grace of theoria he or she encounters God's presence in an ever-deepening way. Inasmuch as the

experience of God through love-filled contemplation is articulable, the contemplative can begin

to express this experience in words to those who, by experience, God has enabled to receive it.

As such, theoretical knowledge is an articulable experience.

3.4.3 Practical Knowledge as Rule: The Method for Understanding

A previous section noted that Cassian only uses words like “method,” “order,”

“sequence,” “rule,” and “discipline” to describe practical knowledge.230 Cassian understood

practical knowledge as a method for gaining theoretical knowledge as much as he understood it

as a part of the grace of spiritual knowledge. Participating in practical knowledge is what makes

one worthy of the spiritual gift of theoretical knowledge, which, it has been demonstrated, has an

experiential quality.

Conf. 14.4.1, 14.8.1. In the first passage it is important to note that practical knowledge is called
228

manifold and that Elijah and Elisha's examples are only one form of virtue listed in the passage. Love extends
beyond contemplation.
229
Inst. 12.18, Conf. 1.8.3, 1.12-1.13.1, 3.7.3, 6.10.2. That theoria has various grades is evidenced through
the fact that it “is first established by reflecting on a few holy persons” (Conf. 1.8.3) and is later described as passing
“over so far from every earthly affection and characteristic to those things which are invisible.” (Conf. 3.7.3)
230
Conf. 14.1.2, 14.2, 14.3.1, 14.8.2, 14.9.2, 14.9.4, 14.9.6, 14.10.3, 14.16.2-3, 14.16.7-9.

78
 Understanding this resolves de Lubac’s difficulty noted in the first chapter of this study.

While de Lubac was right to note Cassian’s emphasis on “order” and “sequence” in Conf. 14, he

overlooked the way that Cassian employed these words throughout the conference. The forms

may build on each other or they may not. What is most important for Cassian is that theoretical

knowledge can only be obtained through practical knowledge. This is not to say that sequence is

unimportant for Cassian. Historical interpretation always precedes spiritual knowledge in some

way, but emphasizing the linear progression of the spiritual forms as though it was the central

aspect of Cassian's thought confuses Nesteros' teaching in Conf. 14.8.

In contrast to de Lubac, Kelly’s study emphasizes Cassian's mimetic interpretation of

Scripture. Kelly's description of mimesis demonstrates how spiritual knowledge functioned as

scriptural tradition. For Kelly, Cassian interpreted allegorically, typologically, and mimetically,

which is certainly true. Cassian’s works are filled with allegories and types and Kelly’s

description of mimesis, which involves imitating the abbas’ lives and teaching as a means to

understand Scripture, accurately describes Cassian’s teaching on practical knowledge and

tropology. However, Kelly effectively substitutes the four forms (history, tropology, allegory,

anagogy) with the categories he borrows from Frances Young’s Biblical Exegesis and the

Formation of Christian Culture (allegory, typology, mimesis). In doing so, he overlooks the

function of theoretical knowledge in Cassian’s works. The next section supplements Kelly's work

by demonstrating that theoretical knowledge acts as a “rule of faith" which limits, and therefore

guides, monastic contemplation through the four forms.

3.4.4 Theoretical Knowledge as Rule: The Four Forms as Theological Boundaries

To be clear, Cassian does not refer to theoretical knowledge as a “rule of faith.”

Nevertheless, the idea that theoretical knowledge is a way of understanding derived from

79
Scripture through an abba (e.g. tradition) makes it similar to the function of the rule of faith in

the ancient period. Joseph Gordon summarizes the conclusions of many:

The rule of faith or truth formed a heuristic theological framework that circumscribed the
ways that the early Christians used and interpreted the texts they held to be sacred. The
rule expressed constitutive Christian beliefs about the creative and providential work of
the God of the ancient scriptures and the culmination and fulfillment of that work in the
actions of Jesus Christ and the new community established by him through the Holy
Spirit.231

Additionally, Alexander Y. Hwang argues that, for Cassian, “the rule of faith” was understood in

terms of tradition, which “consisted of the consensus of the Church.”232 This consensus, as

Ferguson clarifies, “is what the church declared through ecumenical councils and the concordant

opinions of the church fathers.”233 Moreover, Casiday has noted that, when Cassian writes on the

creeds in On the Incarnation, he uses them as a hermeneutical guide to Scripture.234 So, while

Cassian does not call theoretical knowledge a “rule,” the fact that it is a tradition received from

Abba Nesteros causes it to act as one.

As a “rule,” then, theoretical knowledge functions as boundaries rather than as a method

for obtaining a desired interpretation. Theoretical knowledge guides the monk in contemplation

and helps the monk recognize when that contemplation has drifted from its proper focus. Proper

contemplation moves from historical to spiritual things and focuses the monk’s mind on how to

live, how to recognize Christ’s presence in visible or past things, and how to focus on future or

231
Joseph Gordon, Divine Scripture in Human Understanding: A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Bible, Reading the Scriptures (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 2019), 50.
232
Alexander Y. Hwang, “Prosper, Cassian, and Vincent: The Rule of Faith in the Augustianian
Controversy,” in Tradition & the Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, ed.
Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 85.
233
Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith: A Guide, Cascade Companions (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books,
2015), 62. Ferguson is here paraphrasing the article by Hwang cited above.
234
Casiday, “Tradition as a Governing Theme,” 208-211.

80
heavenly realities. Within these boundaries, insights from Scripture and the natural world can be

drawn abundantly. As Abba Moses teaches, God can be contemplated in numerous ways. One

can contemplate the mystery of the Trinity, the creation, providence, God’s omniscience, and

how God desires the salvation of the world so intensely that God became a man to give

humankind eternal life.235

3.5 The Orderings of the Forms: Relationship and Consistency

Understanding theoretical knowledge as a “rule of faith” resolves the issue of the varying

orders in Conf. 14.8. Cassian is not using the four forms methodologically, but as boundaries

designating where one starts (historical interpretation), where one ends (spiritual understanding)

and of what that ending can consist (instruction, tropology, allegory, anagogy). However, even if

theoretical knowledge were not understood as a rule, the varied orderings of the four forms in

Conf. 14.8 does not cause the problem that some commentators propose. In Conf. 5 the vices

follow one another in sequence, but Serapion teaches that the vice a person struggles most with

should always be addressed first.236 In Conf. 9, Abba Isaac emphasizes the importance of “order”

and understands the four kinds of prayer from 1 Tim. 2:1 as individual prayers that may function

independently from one another, yet also may be offered simultaneously.237 Even if the four

forms are understood as a “method,” the fact that Cassian presented them in different sequences

235
Conf. 1.15.1-2.
236
Conf. 5.10.1-5, 5.27.1.
237
Conf. 9.2.2-3, 9.10.1-9.15.1, 9.18.4. Abba Isaac is emphatic that the Scriptures have reasons for the way
they are ordered. “Third, we must look into whether the very order that was laid down on the authority of the
Apostle has deeper implications for the hearer or whether these distinctions should simply be accepted and be
considered to have been drawn up by him in an inconsequential manner. This last suggestion seems quite absurd to
me. For it ought not to be believed that the Holy Spirit would have said something through the Apostle in passing
and for no reason. And therefore let us treat of them again individually in the same order in which we began, as the
Lord permits.” Conf. 9.10.1, emphasis added.

81
is more informative than problematic. From their sequence and varied order, the reader learns

that spiritual understanding always comes after historical interpretation and is eclectic as its

forms relate internally. For Cassian, the order of the forms of spiritual understanding are left

open to the movement of God’s grace. To deny that theoretical knowledge is systematic because

its spiritual forms are not always linear is a failure to acknowledge the mystery of God’s

inscrutable judgments and unsearchable ways.238

Understood this way, Cassian does not abandon theoretical knowledge after Conf. 14.8,

but uses it throughout Institutes and Conferences. In this way Stewart’s assertion that Cassian

intended his works to be read historically, allegorically, tropologically and anagogically is

perceptive.239 Cassian is known for his frequent use of Scripture, psychological insights, and his

Christological and eschatological focus. The reason for this is that Cassian’s entire theology is

located within the boundaries of the four forms of theoretical knowledge.

3.6 Summary and Conclusion: Theoretical Knowledge Defined

In conclusion, this chapter has demonstrated that Cassian’s theology of spiritual

knowledge is both a result of and participation in grace. Spiritual knowledge consists of practical

and theoretical knowledge. Practical and theoretical knowledge can be participated in

extra-scripturally and scripturally. Practical knowledge focuses on the change of life leading one

to participate in love and functions as a method for obtaining theoretical knowledge. As practical

knowledge is a part of spiritual knowledge, spiritual knowledge is therefore experiential and

cannot exist in word alone.

238
Conf. 13.15.1.
239
Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 27-29.

82
 Theoretical knowledge is a form of theoria or contemplation and provides the boundaries

for the contemplation of God. As a “rule of faith” the forms of theoretical knowledge do not need

to have a particular order or internal relationship to hold a systematic place in Cassian’s thought.

However, the forms do have a particular relationship that is internally consistent. Spiritual

understanding always comes from historical interpretation and pertains to tropology, allegory,

and anagogy. The four forms of knowledge can build on one another in various sequences or

stem directly from historical interpretation. When the object of contemplation is sufficiently

spiritual, as with Serenus’ “spiritual Scriptures,” the historical/literal form of the object is

understood spiritually without additional interpretation. Theoretical knowledge, which is derived

from Scripture through the tradition of the abbas, describes what creatures can know about God

through revelation. It is derived from Scripture through the tradition of the abbas. Everything that

can be contemplated about God, whether through creation or Scripture falls, within the

boundaries of history, tropology, allegory, and anagogy and is participated in experientially by

God’s grace.

83
 Conclusion

In his Concise History of England, John Wesley wondered “how it can be that all the

major histories of England are ‘calculated only for Atheists, for there is nothing about God in

them.’”240 Might the same be said of forms of modern day biblical interpretation? As Christopher

Seitz has noted, many conservative studies on the “historical Jesus” have used the New

Testament as a means to reconstruct the historical situation behind the texts of Scripture

themselves. In so doing, these scholars tend to ignore Scripture’s form and details, as these

aspects of Scripture’s witness are used as tools to supply a historical reconstruction which is

distinct from the literal sense of Scripture and difficult to connect with the life of the Church. A

historicist reading which does not acknowledge the providential placement of the reader in

relation to God’s divine speech through Scripture is spiritually bankrupt.241

That is not to say that all modern interpreters fall into this trap, but it is certainly a

possibility for many. However, for ancient interpreters, Scripture was made coherent in Christ as

he was known through Scripture in all its literal details. Events were not the terminus of their

own meaning. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea, but that event’s meaning is found in baptism

and the ultimate deliverance Christians receive in the resurrection. For Cassian, the God

contemplated in Scripture was present in the whole of creation as well. The world and Scripture

find their meaning as they cohere in Christ, who is their Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer. Not

only the events of Scripture, but every occurrence in the world from the beginning of time to the

240
John Wesley, A Concise History of England: From the Earliest Times, to the Death of George II, 4 vols,
(London: Printed by R. Hawes, 1776), 1:v-vi, in Evangelicals and the Early Church: Recovery, Reform, Renewal,
ed. by George Kalantzis and Andrew Tooley, (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2012), 64. Kindle.
241
Christopher Seitz, Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press), 6-8.

84
present, and beyond, finds its meaning in Christ, “who is, and who was, and who is to come”

(Rev. 1:8).

This paper has argued that close reading of Cassian’s theology and exegesis in Institutes

and Conferences demonstrates that theoretical knowledge (history, tropology, allegory, anagogy)

was a “rule of faith” demarcating what things can be known in contemplation.

Chapter One provided background information on Cassian which connected him with the

desert fathers and verified his reliability as a transmitter of their tradition. Cassian transmitted a

hagiography detailing his personal experiences learning under the desert fathers resulting in a

work which mimicked the abba/disciple relationship. With the abbas of Cassian’s work as the

guide, readers learn how to pursue the outward and inward disciplines of the desert in the pursuit

of purity of heart. The chapter concluded with an analysis of several important scholars whose

works informed this study’s task.

Chapter Two summarized Conf. 14, explained Cassian’s thought in Conf. 14.8.1-7, and

defended the consistency of Cassian’s use of theoretical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge was

presented as a subset of spiritual knowledge which is further subdivided between historical

interpretation and spiritual understanding. Spiritual understanding is tropological, allegorical,

and anagogical. Sometimes a historical occurrence or literal statement is spiritual in itself (such

as the resurrection, incarnation, and the statement that “God is one” [Deut. 6:4]). More often,

historical occurrences find their meaning as they pertain to spiritual forms of understanding.

Tropology teaches how to exercise morality in a way consistent with, though somewhat

independent from, one’s tradition. Allegory and anagogy are connected as the latter builds on the

former. Allegory pertains to spiritual occurrences fulfilled in the age of the Church. Anagogy is a

85
prophetic foretaste of the coming age of the kingdom when God will be “all in all.”242 These

forms of understanding may overlap and deepen as one matures in the faith. Cassian used these

terms and their descriptors consistently and his exegesis and theology were informed by

theoretical knowledge.

Chapter Three connected Conf. 14 with its context in Conferences. It noted the theme of

grace and explained aspects of Cassian’s grace theology which illustrated his belief that one can

acquire grace and the gifts by participating in God's grace through holy living. Since spiritual

knowledge is a gift, the chapter argued that living a holy life (i.e. practical knowledge) is an

indispensable and primary component of spiritual knowledge. The chapter then reiterated that

practical knowledge is only one part of spiritual knowledge and demonstrated that theoretical

knowledge pertained to things outside of Scripture and was attained extra-scripturally. According

to Cassian, natural law, gospel perfection, and extra-scriptural theoretical knowledge can all be

attained and practiced without hearing or reading the texts of Scripture. The chapter then

explained how spiritual knowledge functioned as a gift and “rule” for contemplation before

ending with a defense of Cassian’s reordering of the four forms in Conf. 14.8.

The bulk of this study has, unfortunately, been directed toward debunking the

misconceptions that Cassian’s thought is inconsistent and that his sole contribution to biblical

interpretation is his assertion that practice precedes knowledge. The accusation that Cassian is

inconsistent is, perhaps, a reason why Cassian’s thought in Conf. 14 is often not well represented

in modern scholarship. In recent years, many scholars have begun turning to patristic sources to

gain insight as to why spirituality and scriptural interpretation are so easily divorced. The rule of

faith as one finds it in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine is a central concept in many

242
Inst. 5.4.2-3

86
recent scholarly works. Additionally, Henri de Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis has renewed interest

in the four senses as a way of connecting spirituality and biblical interpretation. Yet, while de

Lubac’s work did not ignore the importance of living the faith as a prerequisite for understanding

Scripture, it did not emphasize this aspect. On the other hand, postliberal theologians such as

George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, and Stanley Hauerwas and philosophers such as Alasdair

MacIntyre, have emphasized the relationship between ethics and knowledge.243 For these

scholars, one cannot know what one does not live because language is formed by one’s lived

experiences.

Cassian is rarely cited in these scholarly circles and it brings one to wonder why? The

desert community’s transmission of tradition closely resembles the rule of faith employed in their

contemporary culture. Additionally, the desert community is renowned for its disciplined way of

life. Even readers who criticize their ascetic endeavors must admit that their motivations were

nothing less than pure. Regardless, Cassian’s thought in Conf. 14 seamlessly ties ethics to theory

in what may be one of the shortest and clearest expositions of the interpretative practices of the

early Church available. Writers influenced by the theological interpretation of Scripture,

canonical theology, or postliberal theology movements can benefit from reading Conf. 14 and

integrating Cassian’s thought into their theological or hermeneutical reflections.

Additionally, Cassian’s teaching on theoretical knowledge is highly practical for Church

members and leaders today for at least two reasons. As noted above, for Cassian, ethics precedes

theory. This is foundational and is often commented upon, however it is equally important to

243
See George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009;, Hans W. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical
Bases of Dogmatic Theology (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2013); Stanley Hauerwas, Working with Words: On
Learning to Speak Christian, (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011); Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, 3rd ed.
read by Derek Perkins (Ashland, Oregon: Blackstone Audio, Inc., 2018), audiobook, 14 hr., 28 min.

87
note that theory is contemplative in nature. Contemplation, to paraphrase Cassian’s thought

through the platonic tradition, seeks to behold the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.244 In the

modern age, the idea of truth, becomes a depersonalized object which is easily subjected to the

control of its possessor. Furthermore, God’s goodness is subject to constant defense in the face of

suffering. Many people do not experience the joy of moving past the question “Why do you

allow this Lord?” to naively thanking God and asking “How are you intending this trial for our

good?” Finally, Christian culture in America is distracted. Little time is spent reflecting,

nonetheless admiring, the beauty of God through nature or Scripture.

Depersonalization, the incomprehensibility of suffering, and distraction are, possibly,

nowhere more present than in the current pornography addiction crisis. Chapter Three noted that

the order of Conf. 11-15 resembled the stages of growth toward overcoming the vice of

fornication. Contrition, prayer, scriptural meditation, and hard work bring the monk into chastity

by grace. If this progression holds true, then Cassian’s contemplative approach to scriptural

interpretation may be helpful for those addicted to pornography. Replacing the images of

pornography with an imaginative visualization of memorized Scriptures for the sake of living the

faith and seeing the beauty of God seems, at least intuitively, to be a helpful way of addressing a

major sin in American culture. Making contemplative interpretative practices an increasingly

normative part of biblical interpretation in scholarly and Church contexts may help many in

overcoming a vice they would otherwise not seek treatment for.

In contemplation, one does not seek to use the object of contemplation, but to be satisfied

in the object itself. Scripture, as well as the natural world, becomes a means by which the

contemplative enters into the love of God. The fundamental goal of contemplation is not

244
Roger Scruton, Beauty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 2-5.

88
practical. The contemplative does not pray in order to change the world, but changes the world as

a means of pleasing God. Cassian’s way of reading Scripture was oriented in this fashion.

Historical things were memorized and visualized in order to see how God, revealed in Christ,

worked throughout time and space to bring about the salvation of humankind which will be

revealed in the last age. When he interpreted Scripture to learn how to live, it was to discover

more of God through living as Scripture teaches. For Cassian, the goal of biblical interpretation

was to be transformed to the likeness of God from the outside-in. Life informed contemplation

which then informed life in a circular manner.

Cassian’s thought forcefully orients his readers toward acknowledging God’s goodness

and intrinsic value and then beckons his readers to stay there without departing. For Cassian and

the tradition he represents, Scripture and the world provide a medium through which to

contemplate God. When thinking about any aspect of life, one can contemplate God’s presence

as it relates to Christ and the Church, how to live in a way pleasing to God, or the coming reign

of Christ. Theoretical knowledge provided the boundaries which guided monastic contemplation

about heaven, earth, Christ, the Church, in order to live as though the kingdom is coming as the

Lord taught his disciples to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in

heaven.” (Matt. 6:10)

89
 Bibliography

St. Athanasius. Life of St. Antony. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4.
Translated by H. Ellershaw, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY:
Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm.

Barbeau, Jeffrey W. Evangelicals and the Early Church: Recovery, Reform, Renewal. Edited by
George Kalantzis and Andrew Tooley. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Kindle
Edition.

Bay, Carson “The Transformation and Transmission of Paideia in Roman Egyptian

Monasticism,” Conversations with the Biblical World 34 (2014): 334-363.

Benedict of Nursia. The Rule of Benedict. Translated by Caroline White. New York: Penguin
Classics, 2008.

Beu, Christina. “Deification In Cassian’s Conferences: Analysis of John Cassian’s Writings on

Unceasing Prayer in Conferences Nine and Ten as a Description of Deification.” Masters
thesis, Providence College, 2015. https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1008&context=theology_graduate_theses.

Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2011.

Burton-Christie, Douglas. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early
Christian Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Casiday, Augustine. Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007.

——————— “Tradition as a governing theme in the writings of John Cassian.”

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008.

Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian: A Study in Primitive Monasticism. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1968.https://archive.org/details/johncassian0000unse/page/3
2/mode/1up?view=theater.

Chryssavgis, John. In the Heart of the Desert: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and
Mothers. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Inc., 2008.

Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate. Princeton: Princeton, 1992.

DelCogliano, Mark. “Situating Sarapion’s Sorrow: The Anthropomorphite Controversy as the

Historical and Theological Context of Cassian’s Tenth Conference on Pure Prayer.”

90
 Cistercian Studies Quarterly 38, no. 4 (2003). Accessed March 17, 2022. https://www.aca
demia.edu/1860504/Situating_Sarapion_s_Sorrow_The_Anthropomorphite_Controversy
_as_the_Historical_and_Theological_Context_of_Cassian_s_Tenth_Conference_on_Pure
_Prayer.

De Lubac, Henri. Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by Marc Sebanc
and E. M. Macierowski. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998-2009.

——————— History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen.

Translated by Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.

DeSpain, Benjamin Ross. “The Pattern of Christ: The Christologically-Contextualized

Understanding of Salvation’s Immediacy and Spirituality’s Progressiveness in the
Thought of John Cassian and Augustine of Hippo.” Masters thesis, Erskine Theological
Seminary, 2011.

Driver, Stephen D. John Cassian And The Reading of Egyptian Monastic Culture. New York:
Routledge, 2002.

Dunn, Marilyn. The Emergence of Monasticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle
Ages. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2003.

Fairbairn, Donald. Grace and Christology in the Early Church. Oxford Early Christian Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Publishing, 2003.

Ferguson, Everett. The Rule of Faith: A Guide. Cascade Companions. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade
Books, 2015.

Frei, Hans W. The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology.
Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013.

Gordon, Joseph. Divine Scripture in Human Understanding: A Systematic Theology of the

Christian Bible. Reading the Scriptures. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 2019.

Harmless, William. S.J. Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early

Monasticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Working with Words: On Learning to Speak Christian. Eugene, Oregon:
Cascade Books, 2011.

Hwang, Alexander Y. “Prosper, Cassian, and Vincent: The Rule of Faith in the Augustinian
Controversy.” in Tradition & The Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of
Joseph T. Lienhard, edited by Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang, 68-85.
Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Chapter 4.

91
Kebel, John. On the mysticism attributed to the early Fathers of the Church. Miami, FL:
HardPress, 2017. Kindle.

Kelly, Christopher J. Cassian’s Conferences Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal.
Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012.

Krawiec, Rebecca. “Monastic Literacy in John Cassian: Toward a New Sublimity.” Church
History 81, no. 4 (2012): 765-795.

Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. 3rd ed. Read by Derek Perkins. Ashland, Oregon: Blackstone
Audio, Inc., 2018. Audiobook, 14 hr., 28 min.

Morgan, Jonathan. “Obedience in Egyptian Monasticism According to John Cassian.” St.

Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2011): 271-291.

Nichols, Andrew. “Reassessing the Tradition of the Fathers in John Cassian and Evagrius
Ponticus.” Master’s thesis, Lincoln Christian University, 2020. Accessed March 17, 2022.
https://www.academia.edu/44257226/REASSESSING_THE_TRADITION_OF_THE_F
ATHERS_IN_JOHN_CASSIAN_AND_EVAGRIUS_PONTICUS.

O’Keefe, John, and R. R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian

Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
2005.

Palladius. The Sayings of the Holy Desert Fathers. Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 2018.
Kindle.

Radner, Ephraim. Hope among the Fragments: The Broken Church and Its Engagement of
Scripture. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004.

Ramsey, Boniface, O.P. John Cassian: The Conferences. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.

—————————. John Cassian: The Institutes. New York: Paulist Press, 2000.

Rea, Robert Floyd. “Grace and Free Will in John Cassian.” PhD. Diss., Saint Louis University,
1990.

Rousseau, Philip. "Cassian, Contemplation and the Coenobitic Life." Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 36, No. 2, 1975.

Schachterle, Joshua Daniel. “Exercising Obedience: John Cassian and the Creation of Early
Monastic Subjectivity.” PhD diss., University of Denver, 2019.

92
Scruton, Roger. Beauty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Seitz, Christopher. Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Sheridan, Mark. “6. Cassian and the Correct Interpretation.pdf.” in Brill Companion to Cassian,
2020. accessed March 17, 2022, https://www.academia.edu/37924905/6_Cassian_and_th
e_correct_interpretation_pdf.

Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics. Vol. 1, Regarding Method, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2002.

Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2.
Translated by Chester D. Hartranft. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo,
NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Revised and edited for New Advent by
Kevin Knight, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26026.htm>.

Stewart, Columba Cassian the Monk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
.
Sulpitius Severus. Dialogues. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11,
Translated by Alexander Roberts, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY:
Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin
Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/35031.htm>.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
2007.

Torjesen, Karen Jo. “Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Structure in Origen’s Exegesis.”
PhD. Diss., Claremont University, 1982.

Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge:
University Press, 1997.

93