For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the preceding chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9. ↩

A part of this passage from Polycrates' epistle is quoted in Bk. III. chap. 31. The extract given there begins with the second sentence of the fragment ("For in Asia great lights," &c.), and extends to the report of John's burial at Ephesus. For comments upon this portion of the fragment, see the notes given there. ↩

On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5. ↩

This Thraseas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of Eumenia (a city in the southern part of Phrygia), was mentioned also by Apollonius in his work against the Montanists (according to Eusebius, chap. 18, §13, of this book). He is called by Polycrates a martyr, and by Eusebius, in reference to Apollonius' mention of him, "one of the martyrs of that time." There is no reason to doubt that he was a martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but upon the more general use of the word m?rtus as, e.g., in connection with John just above, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We know nothing more about this bishop Thraseas. ↩

On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22. ↩

Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we know nothing about him. Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose reports little reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according to Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna. ↩

On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1. ↩

A careful exegesis of the passages in John's Gospel, which are supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put Christ's death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the fifteenth, shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the passover meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the fifteenth (see Schaff's Ch. Hist. Vol. I. p. 133 ff., and the authorities referred to by him). The Asiatic churches, in observing the fourteenth of Nisan, were commemorating the last passover feast and the death of the paschal Lamb. Their practice did not imply that they believed that Christ died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from fragments of Apolinarius' work quoted in the Chron. Paschale, and referred to above; see, also, Schaff, Vol. II. p. 214). They were in full agreement with all four Gospels in putting his death on the fifteenth. But the paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the month on which Christ died,--in regard to which there was no widespread disagreement,--but on the question as to whether a particular day of the week or of the month was to be celebrated. ↩

i.e. the Jews. The passover feast among the Jews took place on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with unleavened bread (Ex. xii. 6 et passim). It was on the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, that the Jews "threw away" the leaven, and until the evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days' feast of unleavened bread closed, they used no leaven. ↩

Acts v. 29. ↩

According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case with all the councils referred to in the last chapter. ↩

There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius' words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads akoinonetous p?ntas arden tous ekeise anakerutton adelphous. This seems to me decisive. ↩

This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the fragments given in this chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian Quaestiones et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Irenaeus' work On Easter (peri tou p?scha), which is doubtless to be identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Graec. fragm. 7; Eng. translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 569). Maximus of Turin, also, in his Sermo VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from "The epistle to Victor" (Harvey, Graec. fragm. 5, trans. ibid.). It is possible that some other unnamed fragments given by Harvey are from this epistle. From Eusebius' words we learn that Irenaeus agreed with Victor as to the proper time of keeping the feast, and yet he did not agree with him in his desire to excommunicate those who followed the other practice. ↩

The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter. Some editors omit the semicolon after the words "yet others more," translating, "For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more, and some forty; and they count the hours of the day and night together as their day." The sense is thus materially changed, but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the punctuation which I have followed in my translation, and so that punctuation is adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, Heinichen, Closs, Crusè, and others. We should expect, moreover, that the forty hours' fast should be mentioned in this connection by Irenaeus, as we learn from Tertullian that it was very common; whereas we have no other trace of the forty days' fast at so early a date (cf. the next note). ↩

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 Irenaeus, 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 "in which the bridegroom was taken away," i.e. in which Jesus was under the power of death. We learn from this passage of Irenaeus' 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 tessarakoste (quadrigesima). He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given by others. The time between Jesus' death and his resurrection was very early computed as forty hours in length,--from noon of Friday to four o'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 Irenaeus 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' 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--forty days exclusive of Sundays--was fixed in the seventh or eighth century. Cf. Sinker's article on Lent in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg's article, Feste, in Kraus' Encyclop. der Christ. Alterthümer, I. p. 489. ↩

i.e. the fourteenth day. ↩

The Greek reads: kai toi mallon enantion en to terein tois me terousi. The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth day by these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not observe that day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the mere report that the day was so observed in Asia could be. If Victor's predecessor, therefore, allowed such persons to observe that day even in Rome, how much more should he allow the Asiatics to observe it in their own land. ↩

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 Irenaeus, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the statement made here by Irenaeus, 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'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 hoi pro sou presbuteroi tois apo ton paroikion terousin ?pempon eucharistian. 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 Irenaeus 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's Dict. of Christ. Ant. ↩

epidemesantos te Rome. Upon the significance of this phrase, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 19. On the date of Polycarp's visit to Rome, see ibid., chap. 14, note 2. In his Adv. Haer., where he mentions this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenaeus does not speak of the affair of the passover which he refers to here. The omission, however, has no significance, as he is discussing Gnosticism there, and refers to Polycarp's visit to Rome only because his attitude toward Marcion was revealed in connection with it. ↩

The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads: kai en te ekklesi& 139; parechoresen ho 'Aniketos ten eucharistian to Poluk?rpo kat' entropen delonoti. Valesius understands Irenaeus' 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 parechoresen ten eucharistian cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and hence concludes that Irenaeus 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's; for if the latter be adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one which precedes it,--"they communed with each other" (ekoinonesan heautois). 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. Irenaeus 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 parechoresen resides the idea of "yielding," "giving place to"; 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 parechoresen better than Heinichen's interpretation. ↩

The Greek form of the name is Eirenaios, from eirene, which means "peace." ↩

None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some of the fragments commonly assigned to Irenaeus' epistle to Victor may belong to one or more of them (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 265). We do not know to what bishops or churches these epistles were sent. Jerome does not mention them. ↩