CALENDAR, THE CHRISTIAN
CALENDAR, THE CHRISTIAN 257
are not here concerned witli the seeming contra- diction between the Gospels except in so far as the Tiibingen school deduced from the known facts that the Quartodecimans could not have accepted the Fourth Gospel, because their prac- tice rather agreed with the Synoptists. Western readers need, however, to be reminded that in the ordinary Eastern reckoning, at any rate the ecclesiastical reckoning, then as now, the Last Supper and the Crucifixion fell on the same day ; for the day began at sunset. Thus, if the Quarto- I decimans observed Uth Nisan, it must have been
because they thought that our Lord both cele- brated the Last Supper and also died on that day. It is a pure assumption that their Paschal com- memoration began at the moment when the lambs were killed. In that case they would have been rather Quintodecimans. It is generally agreed that the lambs were killed, at any rate in ancient Jewish times, in the afternoon of 14th Nisan, i.e. when that day was drawing to a close. The inference, then, is that the Quartodecimans made their Paschal commemoration coincide with the day which began at the Last Supper and ended soon after our Lord's death, and that they thought that that occurred at the time of the killing of the lambs. The deduction is the exact opposite of that drawn by the Tubingen school, and is that the Quartodecimans followed the Fourth Gospel (as they, perhaps rightly, interpreted it) rather than the Synoptists. The supposition that they commemorated the Last Supper in particular has, moreover, no basis of fact. And the view given above is further supported by the fact that in the time of Melito (A.D. 170) the Quartodecimans clearly accepted the Fourth Gospel. Melito, in one of his fragments, speaks of our Lord's three years' ministry, which he could never have gathered from the Synoptists (' de Incarn. Christi,' in Ilouth's Reliquim sacrce, vol. i.).
It has been thought by some (as by Hefele) that the Quartodecimans kept their commemoration of the Resurrection on the third day after Uth Nisan, i.e. on 16th Nisan, or even on the Sunday after. But this is vei-y improbable. If it were so, why should they have broken oft" their fast on Uth Nisan ? It is much more likely that they com- memorated the Passion and the Resurrection together.
The history of the controversy is given by Eusebius {HE v. 23, 24), who takes up the ques- tion at its third and most acute stage, namely, at the dispute between Victor and Polycrates at the very end of the 2nd century. He tells us that synods held in that century unanimously decided that 'the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.' These synods were held in Palestine, Rome (under Victor), Pontus, Gaul (under Irenieus), and Osrhoene in N.-W. Mesopotamia. Perhaps the last-named synod was held at the famous Edessa or Ur-hai, which is in that district. There were also personal (i.e. not synodical) letters of Bacchy- lus, bishop of Corinth, and many others, all of whom concurred in the decision mentioned above. On the other side 'Asia' {i.e. probably the Roman province, though the Quartodeciman practice ex- tended to other provinces also— even to Antiocli), led by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, maintained that the paschal commemoration should take plaie ou 14th Nisan, on whatever day of tlie week it should fall. Polycrates, who is very Iiiglily praised by St. Jerome (de Viris Illustr. 45) and by im- jljHcation by Eusebius, who preserves his letter (/■<;. ), ij leges the example of 'Philip, one of tlie twelve Ajpostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis, and his
VOL. I. — 17
two aged \'irgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus ' ; also of 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 (76 iriToKov). He fell asleep at Ephesus.' He also adduces Polycarp, Melito, the martyr Sagaris, and others, who all agreed with his practice.
Victor attempted to excommunicate all ' Asia ' ; airorinveiv ciis irepoSo^ovtras . . . weiparai are Euse- bius' exact words. But Socrates (HE v. 22) de- clares that he did actually excommunicate them. He jjrobably issued a letter of excommunication, but it was not ellective. For Eusebius goes on to say that Iren;eus, bishop of 'Gaul,' intervened in the dispute in the interests of peace, and he who ' was truly well named became a peacemaker in the matter.' Part of Irenjuus' letter is pre- served by Eusebius, and it is specially interesting as mentioning that 'the presbyters before Sotcr who presided over the Church which thou [Victor] now rulest, Anicetus and Pius and Hyginus and Telesphorus and Xystus, neither themselves ob- served [the fourteenth day] nor permitted those after them to do so ; and yet' they were at peace with those who did observe it ; and also that when Polycarp went to Rome in the time of Anicetus (bishop of Rome), the two bishops 'disagreeil a little about certain other things,' but immediately made peace, ' not caring to quarrel over this matter ' ; nor did it interfere witii their remaining in communion with one another, or with Anicetus allowing Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his church at Rome, ' manifestly as a mark of respect' (eV rrj iKuX-rjaif Trapfxiipijcrti/ 6 '.Vi/kT/Tos ttji' €i'xa/jL(TTiaj/ TiO noXvKdpTTip Kar ivTpoTTr)v S-qXofdTt). It has been suggested that these words mean only that the two bishops communicated together; but in that case they are mere repetitions of what had just been said, and there would be no special mark of respect.