Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book V/Chapter 24

The Disagreement in Asia.

1. the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

2. &#8220;We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord&#8217;s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said &#8216;We ought to obey God rather than man.&#8217;&#8221;

8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:

&#8220;I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.&#8221;

9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

11. Among them was Iren&#230;us, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord&#8217;s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

12. &#8220;For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceding Easter, is, we are told here by Iren&#230;us, much older than his day. It is thus carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of the paschal supper itself was established. Tertullian also mentions the fast, which continued, according to him (de Jejunio, chap. 2), during the period &#8220;in which the bridegroom was taken away,&#8221; i.e. in which Jesus was under the power of death.

We learn from this passage of Iren&#230;us&#8217; epistle that the duration of the fast varied greatly. From Socrates (H. E. V. 22) and Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19) we learn that the variation was as great in their time. Some fasted three, some six, some seven weeks, and so on. Socrates (l.c.) informs us that the fast, whatever its duration, was always called &#964;&#949;&#963;&#963;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#963;&#964;&#8053; (quadrigesima). He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given by others. The time between Jesus&#8217; death and his resurrection was very early computed as forty hours in length,&#8212;from noon of Friday to four o&#8217;clock Sunday morning. This may have lain at the basis of the number forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast, for Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period during which Jesus was dead. It is this idea which undoubtedly underlay the fast of forty hours which Iren&#230;us mentions. The fasts of Moses, of Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course have great influence in determining the length of this, the most important fast of the year. Already before the end of the third century the fast had extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of weeks, and in the time of Eusebius the forty days&#8217; fast had already become a common thing (see his de Pasch. chap. 5), and even Origen refers to it (Hom. in Lev. X. 2). The present duration of the fast&#8212;forty days exclusive of Sundays&#8212;was fixed in the seventh or eighth century. Cf. Sinker&#8217;s article on Lent in Smith&#8217;s ''Dict. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg&#8217;s article, Feste, in Kraus&#8217; Encyclop. der Christ. Alterth&#252;mer,'' I. p. 489. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.&#8221;

14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

&#8220;Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as meaning that the presbyters of Rome sent the eucharist to other parishes where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of the month. The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of the eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must have been widespread before the end of the fourth century, and it is therefore quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as the time of Iren&#230;us, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the statement made here by Iren&#230;us, it must be said that, so far as we are able to ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed the fourteenth day at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine that the presbyters of Rome before Victor&#8217;s time had been in the habit of sending the eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor. Moreover, this is the only passage in which we have notice, before the fourth century, of the existence of the general practice condemned by the council of Laodicea. The Greek reads &#959;&#7985; &#960;&#961;&#8056; &#963;&#959;&#8166; &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#8059;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#7936;&#960;&#8056; &#964;&#8182;&#957; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#959;&#953;&#954;&#953;&#8182;&#957; &#964;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#8166;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#382;&#960;&#949;&#956;&#960;&#959;&#957; &#949;&#8016;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8055;&#945;&#957;. These words taken by themselves can as well, if not better, be understood of persons (whether presbyters or others is not in any case distinctly stated) who had come to Rome from other parishes, and who continued to observe the fourteenth day. This transmission of the eucharist to communicants who were kept away from the service by illness or other adequate cause was a very old custom, being mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apol. I. 65. It is true that it is difficult to understand why Iren&#230;us should speak in the present case of sending the eucharist to those persons who observed the fourteenth day, instead of merely mentioning the fact that the Roman church communed with them. In the face of the difficulties on both sides it must be admitted that neither of the interpretations mentioned can be insisted upon. On the practice of sending the eucharistic bread to persons not present at the service or to other parishes, see the article Eulogia, in Smith&#8217;s ''Dict. of Christ. Ant.''

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads: &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#7952;&#957; &#964;&#8135; &#7952;&#954;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#8055;&amp; 139&#903; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#967;&#8061;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#8001; &#8125;&#913;&#957;&#8055;&#954;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#949;&#8016;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8055;&#945;&#957; &#964;&#8183; &#928;&#959;&#955;&#965;&#954;&#8364;&#961;&#960;&#8179; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#8125; &#7952;&#957;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#8052;&#957; &#948;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#957;&#8057;&#964;&#953;. Valesius understands Iren&#230;us&#8217; meaning to be that Anicetus invited Polycarp to administer the eucharist in Rome; and this is the common interpretation of the passage. Heinichen objects, however, that &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#967;&#8061;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#949;&#8016;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8055;&#945;&#957; cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and hence concludes that Iren&#230;us means simply to say that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in his church, thereby proclaiming publicly their fraternal fellowship, in spite of their differences on the paschal question. The common interpretation, however, seems to the writer better than Heinichen&#8217;s; for if the latter be adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one which precedes it,&#8212;&#8220;they communed with each other&#8221; (&#7952;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#957;&#8061;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#957; &#7953;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962;). And moreover, as Valesius remarks, Anicetus would in that case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any other Christian pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome. Iren&#230;us seems to intend to say that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and that in spite of their difference of opinion on the paschal question. But simply to have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in the church would certainly have been no honor, and, on the other hand, not to invite him to assist in the administration of the sacrament might have seemed a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized their differences. The old interpretation, therefore, must be followed, and so far as the Greek is concerned, there is no difficulty about the construction. In the &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#967;&#8061;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; resides the idea of &#8220;yielding,&#8221; &#8220;giving place to&#8221;; and so Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the eucharist, or gave place to him in the matter of the eucharist. This in fact brings out the force of the &#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#967;&#8061;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; better than Heinichen&#8217;s interpretation. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.&#8221;

18. Thus Iren&#230;us, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.