In the late fourth and early fifth centuries we are informed of the activities of Cassian by Palladius in his defence of John Chrysostom and by Innocent i, both with regard to the exile of John Chrysostom in 404 and with regard to the reconciliation between the churches of Rome and Antioch in 414. Do these three instances refer to the same person and is that person John Cassian? In this paper it is argued that Palladius does indeed refer to John Cassian and so does Innocent i in his comments about the exile of John Chrysostom. However, the individual involved in the reconciliation between Antioch and Rome is to be seen as a different person, contrary to the opinion of several scholars. This becomes evident through a close reading of Innocent i's Epistulae 19 and 20. In the late fourth and early fifth centuries we are informed of the activities of Cassian by Palladius in his defence of John Chrysostom and by Innocent i, both with regard to the exile of John Chrysostom in 404 and with regard to the reconciliation between the churches of Rome and Antioch in 414. Do these three instances refer to the same person and is that person John Cassian? In this paper it is argued that Palladius does indeed refer to John Cassian and so does Innocent i in his comments about the exile of John Chrysostom. However, the individual involved in the reconciliation between Antioch and Rome is to be seen as a different person, contrary to the opinion of several scholars. This becomes evident through a close reading of Innocent i's Epistulae 19 and 20.