Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| III.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
III.
For4800
| 4800 See pp. 31 and 312, of this
volume. We are indebted again to Eusebius for this valuable fragment from
the Epistle of Irenæus to Victor Bishop of Rome (Hist. Eccl., v.
24; copied also by Nicephorus, iv. 39). It appears to have been a
synodical epistle to the head of the Roman Church, the historian saying
that it was written by Irenæus, “in the name of (ἐκ προσώπου) those
brethren over whom he ruled throughout Gaul.” Neither are these
expressions to be limited to the Church at Lyons, for the same authority
records (v. 23) that it was the testimony “of the dioceses
throughout Gaul, which Irenæus superintended” (Harvey).
| the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as
regards the form itself of the fast.4801
| 4801 According to Harvey, the early paschal controversy
resolved itself into two particulars: (a) as regards the precise
day on which our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated;
(b) as regards the custom of the feast preceding it. |
For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days,
others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the
nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day.4802
| 4802 Both reading and punctuation
are here subjects of controversy. We have followed Massuet and
Harvey. | And this variety among the observers [of the fasts]
had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our
predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their
observance of it,
handed down to posterity the custom as it
had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them].
And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we
also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing]
the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith.4803
| 4803 “The observance of a day,
though not everywhere the same, showed unity, so far as faith in the
Lord’s resurrection was concerned.”—Harvey. | And the
presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which thou
dost now rule—I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus,
and Sixtus—did neither themselves observe it [after that
fashion], nor permit those with them4804
| 4804 Following the reading of Rufinus, the ordinary text has
μετ’ αὐτούς, i.e., after
them. | to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep
[the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came
to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed although such
observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those
who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church]
for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and
who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other
dioceses who did observe it.4805
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in
the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them
as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each
other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel
should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus
persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as
these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our
Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the
other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the
observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to
the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of
affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to
Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of
showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other,
maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this
custom] and those who did not.4806
| 4806 It was perhaps in reference to this pleasing episode in
the annals of the Church, that the Council of Arles, a.d. 314, decreed that the holy
Eucharist should be consecrated by any foreign bishop present at its
celebration. | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
