(1) There is first the copy preserved in the Codex Virdunensis, now in the royal library at Berlin (Cod. Berolin. lat. 79). This copy has been printed by Günther in the fourth appendix to his edition of the Collectio Avellana (pp. 800, 801). It concludes as follows: "I have made this my profession, and have subscribed it with my own hand, and have offered it to thee, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome, by the instrumentality of the most glorious man, Vitalian, the Magister [militum]." One may feel practically certain that this form of the libellus was signed by the bishops of Dardania, Illyricum, and Scythia, most of whom petitioned to be admitted to the communion of Hormisdas in the earlier part of the year 515.1 Vitalian held the office of Magister militum of Thrace from the latter part of 514 to the latter part of 515. He posed as the champion of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, and was in close communication with the bishops of Illyricum and Scythia, who were breaking away from the communion of the Eastern Church; and he sent an embassy to Hormisdas, which must have arrived in Rome before August 11, 515.2 The signed copies of the libellus were no doubt brought to Rome by this embassy.3

(2) The second copy of the libellus which has come down to us has been preserved in the Collectio Avellana, and was sent by Hormisdas to Constantinople in August, 515. It forms the second appendix to the Instructions (indiculus) given by the pope to the legates, whom he was sending to the Emperor Anastasius."

(3) The third copy of the libellus was sent by Hormisdas to the bishops of Spain along with the covering letter, Inter ea quae notitiae, to which the date April 2, 517, must undoubtedly be assigned. The heading, prefixed to this copy of the libellus, informs us that it had been transcribed from the original in the scrinium of the Roman Church by Boniface, the notary. The text of this copy is preserved for us in the Hispana, and also in a manuscript at Paris (Cod. Paris. Suppl. lat. 205).

1 Cf. Hormisd. Ep. ix. ad S. Caesarium Arelat., ap. Thiel, p. 759. 2 Cf. Collect. Avellan. Ep. cxvi. § 7, p. 514.

3 There must have been some earlier communications with Rome, when the movement among the Illyrian and Scythian bishops began, in the year 514. The libellus was obviously drafted in Rome, and not in Illyricum. In fact, the heading of the copy in the Codex Virdunensis runs thus: "Incipit libellus professionis fidei quem constituit Papa Hormisda sedis apostolicae dari a singulis episcopis Graeciarum."

The so-called Collectio Avellana contains a mass of important documents belonging to the period which intervened between the years 367 and 553. These documents are of varied provenance. Some emanate from Roman or Byzantine Emperors or magistrates. Others, and those the large majority, emanate from bishops, priests, or synods. The collection was compiled at Rome during the latter half of the sixth century. It contains 244 documents, of which more than 200 have been preserved for us by this collection only.

Cf. Collect. Avellan. Ep. cxvi. b, pp. 520-522.

The letter Inter ea quae notitiae (Hormisd. Ep. xxvi., ap. Thiel, pp. 793796) was evidently sent from Rome to Spain by the messenger, who also took with him the letter Felix dilectio (Hormisd. Ep. xxiv., ap. Thiel, pp. 787, 788), addressed to John of Elche. That letter is dated April 2, 517.

7

The Collectio Hispana is collection of conciliar acts and canons, and of papal letters, which was compiled in Spain. The Ballerini hold (De Antiq. Collection. et Collector. Canonum, pars iii. cap. iv. § 3, n. 7, P. L., lvi. 227) that the date of compilation lies between the years 633 and 636.

That portion of the libellus which contains the anathemas on the Monophysites and on those who were in varying degrees tainted with their "contagion" (to use Hormisdas' expression), is subjoined. The text is taken from Boniface's copy preserved in the Hispana. The more important variants of the Codex Virdunensis (V) and of the Collectio Avellana (A) are given in the notes.

3

"Similiter et1 anathematizantes et Eutychen et Dioscorum Alexandrinum, in sancta synodo, quam sequimur et amplectimur, Chalcedonensi damnatos, quae secuta sanctum concilium Nicaenum fidem apostolicam praedicavit, detestamur et Timotheum 3 parricidam, Aelurum cognomento, discipulum quoque ipsius et1 sequacem in omnibus Petrum Alexandrinum. Condemnamus etiam et anathematizamus Acacium Constantinopolitanum quondam episcopum ab apostolica sede damnatum, eorum complicem et sequacem, vel qui in eorum communionis societate permanserint: quia Acacius 8 quorum se communioni 9 miscuit, ipsorum similem 10 jure 11 meruit in damnatione sententiam. Petrum nihilominus Antiochenum damnamus 12 cum sequacibus suis et omnium suprascriptorum."

5

It will be observed that these three copies of the libellus agree in this that they place together under one condemnation Peter the Fuller of Antioch and the sequaces omnium suprascriptorum. This last category is equivalent to the sequaces damnatorum mentioned by Hormisdas in his indiculus (Cum Deo 13), and it obviously includes the sequaces of Acacius. Now, there can be no question that Peter the Fuller, who was one of the worst of the Monophysites, was under the anathema of Rome. The council of Rome in October, 485, had pronounced an anathema upon him.1 Similarly, at the Council of Rome held on May 13, 495, Pope Gelasius had absolved and restored Misenus partly on the ground that he had anathematized Peter the Fuller and a number of other heretics.15 And again in 515 Hormisdas had required every Eastern bishop who wished to be admitted to his communion, to anathematize publicly that same Peter.16 There can be no question, therefore, that all these three copies of the libellus agree in fulminating an anathema against the sequaces of Acacius; that is to say, against Euphemius, S. Macedonius and others like them.

When we pass from the copies of the libellus, which are anterior to the reconciliation of Rome and Constantinople in 519, and proceed to investigate the copy which played a part in that reconciliation, and others of later date, we find a very marked change in the clause which deals with the sequaces.

1 VA read una cum isto.

2 VA omit the clause quae secuta

3 VA read his Timotheum adicientes.

4 VA read atque.

praedicavit.

5 V omits (no doubt through the carelessness of the scribe) "quondam episcopum ab apostolica sede damnatum, eorum.'

A, confusing the first sequacem with the second sequacem, omits through homoeoteleuton, in omnibus Petrum . .

7 V reads persistunt.

9 V inserts quis after communioni.

11 VA omit jure.

13 See p. 412.

sequacem.

8 VA omit Acacius.
10 V omits similem.

12 VA read damnantes.

14 See p. 410.

15 See p. 384.

16 See p. 411.

The letter (Redditis) which John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, addressed to Hormisdas, and in which he incorporated a Greek version of the libellus, has come down to us, in what was no doubt the official Latin translation, through two independent channels. It forms part of the Collectio Avellana,2 and it is also included in the Hispana, Hormisdas having sent a copy of the translation to the Spanish bishop, John of Elche, within a few weeks of the arrival of the letter in Rome. The Latin version of the letter, as it has come down to us in the Hispana, may be seen in the Epistolae Decretales ac Rescripta RR. PP. edited by F. A. Gonzalez, or in Migne's reprint. Now, the critical sentence, in which, as we read it in the earlier forms of the libellus, the sequaces suprascriptorum are condemned, appears in an altered form in the Patriarch John's letter to Hormisdas. The sentence now reads as follows: "Simili modo et Petrum Antiochenum condemnantes anathematizamus cum sequacibus suis et omnibus suprascriptis." By the ingenious change of "omnium suprascriptorum" into "omnibus suprascriptis," while the anathema is still directed against the sequaces of Peter the Fuller, the sequaces of the other damnati are, so far as this sentence is concerned, exempted from censure; and, when the whole libellus is read through, it becomes perfectly evident that the sequaces of Acacius are left by it unanathematized. It is clear that, in accordance with the permission given to them by Hormisdas, the legates allowed John, the Patriarch, to sign a mitigated form of the libellus; and we may be morally certain that throughout the East it was a mitigated form of this sort that was henceforth used. This conclusion is confirmed by the two later forms of the libellus, belonging to the sixth century, which have come down to us.

The first of these is the copy of the libellus given by the Emperor Justinian to Pope Agapetus on the occasion of that pontiff's visit to Constantinople. The copy is dated March 16, 536.

The other is the almost exactly similar copy given to Agapetus on the same occasion by Mennas, the Patriarch-elect of the imperial city.

Both of these documents are preserved in the Collectio Avellana.8 In both we find in the critical sentence the words omnibus suprascriptis, and not the words omnium suprascriptorum.

On the independence of the Avellana and the Hispana as channels through which the letter Redditis has come down to us, see Günther's Prolegomena to his edition of the Avellana, cap. iii., pp. lxxviii.-lxxx.

2 Cf. Collect. Avellan. Ep. clix., pp. 607-610.

3 Cf. Hormisd. Ep. lxxxviii. ad Joann. Illicit., ap. Thiel, p. 885.

4 Tom. ii. p. 144.

5 P. L., lxxxiv. 817, 818.

Hefele has failed to notice the change which was made in the libellus. He considers (vol. iv. pp. 122, 123, E. tr.) that the Patriarch John "pronounced anathema. . . over Acacius and his followers." To me it seems quite clear that Hefele has made a mistake. Possibly, he may have supposed that an earlier clause in the libellus contains an anathema on the followers of Acacius. That clause runs as follows: "anathematizamus similiter Acacium . . complicem eorum et sequacem factum nec non et perseverantes eorum communioni et participationi." But the second corum in this clause must refer to the same persons as the first corum. And as the first eorum cannot include Acacius, neither does the second. On this point I have the pleasure of agreeing with Dr. Rivington (see the Dublin Review for April, 1894, vol. cxiv. p. 374). Epp. lxxxix. and xc., Fp. 338-342.

7

Compare pp. 412, 413.

8

APPENDIX K.

The 350 Martyrs of Syria Secunda (see p. 392).

I PROPOSE to show in this Appendix that the 350 martyrs of Syria Secunda, who are commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on July 31, were not in the Roman communion when they died.

As has been stated in the twelfth lecture, these martyrs were orthodox monks, who were going on pilgrimage to the sanctuary of S. Symeon Stylites, the wonderful ruins of which still remain at Kuláat es-Simân.1 While they were on the road they were attacked and murdered by a band of assassins hired by Severus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, the Monophysite Metropolitan of Apamea. From the fact that the Roman Church venerates them as martyrs, and from the letter of their friends to Pope Hormisdas,2 it is clear that they were murdered on account of their fidelity to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. The date of the martyrdom seems to be A.D. 517, or possibly A.D. 516.

Baronius says that these monks were "Ecclesiae Romanae communicantes," and that, having previously been polluted with "the stain of the heretics," they had "joined themselves to the apostolic see." "3 When he says that they had been previously polluted with "the stain of the heretics," what he means is that they belonged to the orthodox Church of the East, which had been out of communion with Rome for thirty-two or thirty-three years, and which still kept the name of Acacius on its diptychs. But in that Church they had had for their patriarch at Antioch S. Flavian II., and they had enjoyed the communion of S. Macedonius of Constantinople and of S. Elias of Jerusalem, as well as of all that great galaxy of saints which adorned the Eastern Church during that period of its isolation. When Baronius says that before their death they had "joined themselves to the apostolic see," he makes a gratuitous statement, which he does not attempt to prove. After their martyrdom some of their friends, who like themselves were archimandrites and monks of Syria Secunda, wrote a letter (Gratia salvatoris) to Hormisdas, imploring him to do what he could to succour them in their misery. In the course of this letter they give an account of the martyrdom of the 350. If this letter is studied, it will be seen at once that the writers were not, when they wrote, in communion with Hormisdas. They wished to be admitted into his communion and thus secure the help of his powerful protection. It will also be seen that they certainly had been in communion with the 350 martyrs. Many of them had been companions of the martyrs in the pilgrimage, in the course of which the attack was made

For a description of these ruins, see Mr. George Williams' Introduction to Dr. Neale's History of the Patriarchate of Antioch, pp. xlix.-lv.

Coleti, v. 598.

3 Annal. Eccl., s.a. 517, tom. vi. p. 694, edit. 1658.

Coleti, v. 598-602, and Collect. Avellan. Ep. cxxxix., pp. 565-571, ed.

Günther.

by the Monophysite assassins. The martyrs were therefore also external to the Roman communion. There were indeed some persons in Syria Secunda who in the course of the two previous years, 515 and 516, had signed Hormisdas' libellus and had been received into the communion of the pope. We learn this fact from Hormisdas' letter (Inter ea quae notitiae), addressed to the bishops of Spain, a letter which was dispatched from Rome in April, 517. But the martyred monks were evidently not among the number of those who signed. They had stood firm in their adhesion to the orthodox Eastern Church. It follows that these martyrs, when they won their crown, were, if we are to accept the theories of Baronius, suffering pollution from "the stain of the heretics." It will, I think, throw light on the whole matter, and will illustrate the way in which the Eastern Church looked on the question of communion with the see of Rome, if I give an account of the communications which passed between the Syrian monks who survived and the pope.

After the massacre of the 350, the surviving archimandrites and monks sent two of their brethren, John and Sergius, to Constantinople, to claim justice and protection from the Emperor. But Anastasius would not hear their petition, and drove them out of the city. When the news of this proceeding reached Syria, the poor monks, who were being persecuted by the heretical patriarch and metropolitan, and who could get no redress from the civil power, determined to write to Hormisdas in distant Rome. There was no influential person in the East to whom they could write. The Emperor had driven into exile all the orthodox patriarchs, and had intruded heretics into their sees. Hormisdas alone was living in security under the protection of the Arian king of the Goths, Theodoric. We have only a Latin translation of the letter to Hormisdas. In the salutation they style the pope "universae orbis terrae patriarchae," which obviously represents oikovμevikų πaтpiάpx? (ecumenical patriarch), and they speak of him as "occupying the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles." In the course of their letter they petition (deprecamur) the pope "to arise with fervour and zeal, and to feel a righteous grief for the torn body ('for,' they say, 'thou art the head of all '), and to vindicate the faith which has been despised, and the canons which have been trampled upon, and the Fathers who have been blasphemed, and so great a synod 3 which has been anathematized. To you has been given by God power and authority to bind and to loose. . . . Arise, holy Fathers, come and rescue us; be imitators of our Lord, Who came from heaven to earth to seek the wandering sheep; remember Peter the chief of the apostles, whose see you adorn, and Paul the chosen vessel, who, journeying about, gave light to the world," etc. Further on they say, "In this our petition (deprecatione), which stands in lieu of a profession of faith (libelli), we anathematize all those who have been cast out and excommunicated by your apostolic see." Then they mention specially Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Peter Mongus, and Peter the Fuller; and finally they say, "Moreover [we

1 See p. 415, note 6.

3 The Synod of Chalcedon.

2 Coleti, v. 599, and Günther (Op. cit., p. 567).

Addressing, as it would seem, all the bishops of the West; or perhaps the expression, patres sancti," is the plural of respect (compare p. 410, note 2).

66