Page 241 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Cassiodorus and Senarius

be exactly reconstructed. John states that he has reordered and rearranged
the topics Senarius had raised into separate discussions as he saw fit. He
preserves an abbreviated fragmentof only one setof Senarius’ enquiries;
the pragmatic style of that fragment is different from that of John’s letter
(and gives little hint of Senarius’ own eloquence). 147
Nevertheless, John’s reply concentrates on three main topics which
seem to reflect the central concerns of Senarius’ letter: baptism, liturgi-
cal practices peculiar to the Church of Rome, and ecclesiastical offices.
John provides distinctions between the offices of bishop and priest, and
acolyte and exorcist, and justifies liturgical practices unique to Rome
mainly on the basis of tradition, defending a diversity of practices be-
tween churches. His explanation of the roles and forms of baptism and
catechesis occupies the greatest length. The letter breaks off during a
philosophical consideration of the effects of improper baptism.
Senarius also asked John’s opinion on which former heretics joining
the Catholic church required rebaptism. The general principle in John’s
reply is that if an individual has previously received baptism in the name
of all three Persons of the Trinity, even if confessing erroneous differ-
ences between the Persons, he is not to be rebaptised. John specifies that
this includes heretics ‘like those who, at the time, followed Arius’. 148
Other contemporary heresies (Pelagianism, Eutychianism, and Nestori-
anism) do not require discussion, as their situation is well known; in-
stead John refers Senarius to the copy of De haeresibus being forwarded.
That work, if correctly identified as the expanded version of Augus-
tine’s treatise, does not provide instructions for the reconciliation of these
or other heretical groups. The question of rebaptism, then, appears to
have required clarification in regard only to Arian congregations, though

poteritis advertere. Augustine: De haeresibus, ed. R. Vander Plaetse, C. Beukers, and G. Morin
(CCSL 46; Turnhout, 1969), 262–351; continuation: ibid., Appendix, 347–51. The fullestrecen-
sion appears to date from the third quarter of the fifth century (from references to the heretic
Timothy as still alive in exile, and the narrative of Eutyches up to his exile); Appendix i, iiia;
cf. Gennadius, Liber de viris illustribus, ed. ErnstCushing Richardson (TU 14.1; Leipzig, 1896),
cc. 83, 94. The textsentby John cannothave been the Indiculus de haeresibus, wrongly attributed to
Jerome and Gennadius, as the Indiculus does not discuss the Pelagians (significantly, it has a chap-
ter on Predestinationism instead); PL 81, 636–46, Pseudo-Gennadian continuation, cc. 51–63;
cf. Augustine, De haeresibus,c. 81 (Pelagians). On the relationship between the fifth-century
continuations of De haeresibus and the Indiculus de haeresibus: Gustav Kr¨ uger, Lucifer Bischof von
Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig, 1886; repr. Hildersheim, 1969), 64–6;G.Morin,
‘Le Liber dogmatum de Gennade de Marseille etles probl` emes qui s’y rattachent’, Revue B´ en´ edictine
24 (1907), 450–3.
147
Reordering: John the Deacon, Ep. 1, lines 26–9. Fragment: Ep. 2. John discusses the following
topics: baptism and catechesis (3–7); roles of bishops and priests (7–8); rebaptism of heretics (9);
the roles of acolytes and exorcists (10); three separate points of the liturgy of Rome (11, 12, 13);
death without proper baptism (14, incomplete).
148
John the Deacon, Ep. 9: uti qui illo in tempore Arrium sunt secuti.
215