ON ST. VICTOR, POPE AND MARTYR,
AT ROME.
In the Year 197.
CHRONOLOGICAL-HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Victor, Pope and Martyr, at Rome (St.)
BY THE AUTHOR J. B. S.
§ I. The day of St. Victor's cult, his age or the duration of his see.
Just as concerning the sanctity and cult of St. Victor the Pope we have undoubted monuments from the sacred Fasti, so his deeds, the time of his see, the day of his death, and almost all the things that surround him are thorny and controverted. And concerning the cult indeed there exist consonant testimonies of the Martyrologies, Concerning the true birthday in which everywhere he is asserted to have been a martyr, whatever some seem to wish to call that little laurel into doubt. But concerning the day of his death there is much controversy after Florentinius, concerning which long ago Henschen, Papebroch, and others of themselves disputed, and we therefore touched the difficulties in the first observation on Usuard at the 20th of April, on which day, namely, in the Hieronymian codices a certain bishop Victor is commemorated as having suffered at Rome with three companions, whom Henschen was unwilling to be Victor the Pope, others with Papebroch thinking the opposite; not that it much matters on which day his memory is honored, but on account of the various reasons which each thought more suited to weaving the series of the Pontiffs, inasmuch as the duration of his pontificate is so involved and entangled that no one has hitherto been found who might place it beyond controversy, as will appear more manifestly below.
[2] We begin from the day of his death or cult, which the first, as far as I know, assigned to the 20th of April, the author
of the Little Roman Martyrology, in these words: "At Rome, much diversity in the Martyrologies; of Victor the bishop and martyr," whom it is no wonder that Ado, Usuard, and Notker with their whole progeny followed. Ado's announcement has thus: "At Rome, of holy Victor the bishop, who thirteenth after blessed Peter ruled the Church for ten years, and under the emperor Severus is crowned with martyrdom." All which things Usuard took from him, except the error which he corrected, when he more rightly asserted that he was fifteenth in order. All these same things being copied word for word from Ado, Notker from elsewhere added the things already said at the 20th of April in this manner: "He established that holy Easter be celebrated on the Lord's Day, and be observed from the fifteenth moon of the first month up to the twenty-first, which until then was celebrated on the sixth day of the Kalends of April, without any distinction of day": namely by some Asiatic bishops refusing to conform themselves to the Roman rite, as the Brussels Usuardine codex explains a little more clearly, cited there among the supplements, and as we shall endeavor to explain in §3 of this commentary.
[3] today's [feast, marked by Rabanus, prevails.] What follows in Notker he borrowed from Rabanus, and repeated it again on the same day on which the latter had written it, so that it is plain enough that they diverged in different directions. From the genuine metrical Bede, or Florus published under his name by our elders, nothing at all is elicited, whence anything can be determined concerning the true birthday, so that it is plainly to be gathered that the first of all the Martyrologists was Rabanus who commemorated the memory of St. Victor on this 28th day of July, in plainly this phrase: "At Rome, of Victor, Pope and martyr, who established in the Church that, necessity compelling, wherever it might be found, whether in a river, or in a fountain, or in the sea, only the confession of Christian belief being declared, whoever of men coming from gentility should be baptized: and he was buried near the body of the blessed Apostle in the Vatican": which are abridged from some Pontifical Catalogue. And concerning the more ancient Martyrologies thus far: which of the Usuardine amplifiers first followed Rabanus in this part, it is not ready for me to define, nor did Baronius anywhere indicate from what codex he took it: I shall not fear, however, to suppose that Belinus suggested to him the whole of today's announcement concerning St. Victor. Further, that St. Victor is venerated with Nazarius, Celsus, and Innocent, with a semi-double rite, is most well known from the Roman Breviary.
[4] There follows now the most entangled knot, as I said, concerning the age of the Saint or rather the duration of his see; A more entangled question concerning his age in defining which, several writers being inspected not carelessly, and all things being weighed, I think that the rest can be reduced to two chief opinions; the one which seems in some way to follow the reckonings of Eusebius, the other which judges the Pontifical Catalogues to be preferred: yet in such a way that neither do the followers of the former opinion agree among themselves, nor those of the latter, each going off in different directions, as if by set purpose. But that Eusebius is not a safe guide in arranging the chronology of the Roman Pontiffs, the learned know; and that in the very point of this controversy he is not consistent with himself, from his own words as from a rock you may understand. Behold his very words from the beginning of chapter 22 of his fifth book: "Meanwhile, Commodus being in the tenth year of his reign (that is most certainly the year of Christ 189), when Eleutherus had administered the episcopate for thirteen years, Victor succeeded in his place." But concerning Victor chapter 28 of the same book has thus: "Who, when he had administered the priesthood for ten years, Zephyrinus was substituted as his successor, in about the ninth year of the reign of Severus," which is the year of Christ 201, so that St. Victor must have sat not merely ten years, but altogether twelve, if Eusebius speaks consistently.
[5] Hear now the Cardinal Baronius in his Annals writing in this manner concerning the duration of St. Victor's pontificate: from Eusebius it is not sufficiently resolved: "In the year of the Lord 203, Annius Fabianus and Nonius Mucanus being consuls, on the 28th of July, Victor the Pope, having already entered the tenth year of his pontificate by one month and twenty-eight days, is crowned with martyrdom." Who suggested those consuls to Baronius, who the determined years, month, and days, I have not whence to conjecture: this I seem able to gather, that he did not depart very far from the opinion of Eusebius: but Labbe adheres to him more closely in his Chronological Compendium, when he places the end of St. Victor in the ninth year of Severus, referring his beginning to the year 192, but circumscribing the whole pontificate by nine years. Quite different is the observation on those chronological notes in the collection of Councils by Severin Bini: I would dare to say that all as many as I have read on that subject are discordant. Consult, if you please, all the rest of the followers of the Eusebian reckonings with Tillemont, and the more recent most erudite Constant in the epistles of the Roman Pontiffs edited by him, page 91; this I promise you will find, what is commonly said, that there are as many different combinations as there are heads.
[6] nor do the Catalogues of the Pontiffs Either I am much deceived, or a little more rightly do those judge who have recourse to the Pontifical Catalogues or pontifical books, although here too there intervenes a discrepancy not unlike the former, while our chronologers strive, with neck somewhat twisted, to fit the texts cited by themselves to the series of Pontiffs fixed by them: Among those two Catalogues, which Henschen illustrated before vol. I of April, the second, more distinct than the other, which is commonly attributed to Damasus, has thus in express terms: "Victor, an African by nation, from his father Felix, sat ten years, two months, ten days. He was in the times of Commodus, Pertinax, and Severus Caesar, from the consulate of Commodus V and Glabrio, up to that of Lateranus and Rufinus": where, although the praised Henschen acknowledges some things disturbed, that is, as concerns the present question, beyond controversy; and that the years, months, and days are thus noted in other exemplars; nor less certain and everywhere conformable is the expression of the Consuls, for the entrance of the see, Commodus V and Glabrio, for the exit, Lateranus and Rufinus: which reckoning Henschen certainly prefers to the rest, excellently confirmed by many Catalogues in the recent grand and elegant edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, to be met by us shortly at greater length.
[7] lack their own troubles. Again I repeat, in the words just recited, these two things everywhere admitted must at least be admitted by those who insist on the Catalogues; first, that St. Victor began to sit from the consulate of Commodus V and Glabrio, which is most manifestly the year 186, but departed from the living under the consulate of Lateranus and Rufinus in the year 197; the second, that he sat ten years, two months, ten days, which the twelve codices reported by the most illustrious Blanchini in the praised edition of Anastasius, vol. 2, in the prolegomena, page 93, most constantly attribute to him. These the illustrious Man saw, most of them Pagi saw, our Papebroch saw, several others saw, whose names it is not necessary to report here; and nevertheless I dare to demand that among all those you assign me even two who conclude either the years, or the months, or the days of the duration of the Victorian pontificate by exactly the same reckoning. To begin with Papebroch, behold his reckoning: "Ordained on the 11th of September on a Sunday in the year 186, he sat 10 years, 7 months, 10 days, deposed on the 20th of April of the year 197, translated to St. Peter's in the Vatican on the 28th of July; and the episcopate ceased 13 months, 21 days." But of the cessations or interpontificia, both of the predecessor and of the successor, he adduces causes not to be despised, which may be seen in him and in Henschen at the 26th of April.
[8] Pagi cuts the knot, All these things notwithstanding, Antonius Pagi entered upon a quite different reckoning in his Baronian Critique, from whose opinions his nephew Franciscus did not depart in his Breviary, or compendium of his uncle's Critique as regards the Pontiffs. He adduces the words from the Catalogues already cited, and the Palatine codex, plainly agreeing with the rest, likewise the Catalogue of apostolic names, in which for "two months" only one is read: but then, pronouncing in his manner, all authorities being in a manner trampled, he definitively determines the matter: "But," he says, "since we have placed the beginning of Victor at the death of Eleutherus on the 12th of the month of June of the year 185 (namely by mere arbitrary choice), it is clear that Victor sat 12 years, 1 month, 16 days, to be counted from the day on which he began to sit, up to the day on which he was buried." Thus, namely, Pagi here thinks he has rightly arranged his hypothesis, or the pontifical series, while meanwhile he tears up or distorts all the chronological notes at his pleasure: for neither does he insist on the marked Consuls, nor does he regard the years, months, or days of the Catalogues, nor does he admit interpontificia, scarcely finding a few days in which the see was vacant.
[9] The praised most illustrious Blanchini thinks he has accomplished a little more, Blanchini explains it in some way. when among his notes, page 157, he thus changes the text of our second Catalogue given above: "Victor sat 12 years, 10 days; he was in the times of Commodus and Severus, from the consulate of Commodus V and Glabrio, up to that of Lateranus and Rufinus." He tries to prove it from page 156, likewise by those arguments which confirm the series arranged by him, the characters of the Catalogues being abandoned, which however seem here to be kept inviolate, if we would have anything established by their authority. It displeases us therefore in him equally as in Pagi that, in place of the Consuls of the year 186 most expressly marked, namely, as we have already inculcated, Commodus V and Glabrio, they roundly obtrude on him the earlier year 185, of which the Catalogues did not even dream, as if it were certain that St. Eleutherius died in that year on the 26th of May, and that a very few days being interposed St. Victor succeeded, which is manifestly to break the Catalogues, which standing, it is altogether necessary to fix the beginning of St. Victor not at the year 185 but at the following 186, and, since Eleutherius ceased to live in the preceding year, by no means to reject some cessation. Certainly if you desire the chief characters of the Catalogues untouched, no other safer way can be devised.
[10] I candidly confess, indeed, that there remains none by which the Roman Martyrology may be combined with the Catalogues, What may seem able to be said. nor is an approach to these more open, than by adhering to those things which Henschen prefabricated in the treatment of Eleutherus at the 26th of May, and Papebroch arranged above. Let it therefore be determined, as there from the Hieronymian codices Henschen showed, that St. Eleutherus died, Maternus and Bradua being consuls, in the year 185, on the 8th of the Ides or the 6th of September; but that St. Victor succeeded first, after an interpontificium of a whole year 186, on the 11th day of September, under the consuls Commodus V and Glabrio; that he died under another consular note, the year 197, either on the 20th of April according to the mind of Papebroch, so that he sat 10 years, 7 months, and 10 days, or, if you prefer, prefer the 28th of July, and determine that he sat 10 years, 10 months, 18 days, which reckoning, though it fails in the marked months and days, keeps the chief substance, so that the marked Consuls may be saved, but the times of the pontificate be restricted, not to twelve, which
Pagi first dared, but to only ten years, being restricted with the chief chronologers of each class. What could be objected here, you will find abundantly resolved in their places by Henschen and Papebroch. But if this method of expounding and composing the controversy pleases less, it is permitted you to prefer that one which you shall have acknowledged as more probable.
§ II. Various deeds and writings of St. Victor.
Besides what has already been recited, from the second Henschenian Catalogue, whether it be Damasus's Pontifical, or of whatever other, His deeds from the said Catalogues concerning which there has now for so long been contention among the learned; from this Catalogue, I say, those things are here to be added, which we advised were in part abridged in Rabanus and Notker, there deduced in this manner: "He established that Easter be celebrated on the Lord's Day, as Pius did. He made the following clergy: he is crowned with martyrdom. He established that, necessity compelling, wherever he might be found, whether in the sea, or in a fountain or pond (only Christian belief being declared by confession), whoever of men coming from gentility should be baptized, should be made a whole Christian. He held a council, and inquiry was made concerning Easter, or the first day, with Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, concerning the moon. He made two ordinations, four presbyters, five deacons, twelve bishops through various places; who was buried near the body of blessed Peter on the 5th of the Kalends of August, and the episcopate ceased eleven days." Henschen noted, among other faults, that the Theophilus cited there as bishop was written of Alexandria, who certainly was of Caesarea in Palestine.
[12] and from Anastasius How many things besides are dislocated, and probably vitiated by the carelessness of amanuenses, is more clearly plain than that they should be observed or restored here by me, from which however I would not shrink, had not Holstenius, Ciampini, Schelstrate, and others, and most recently the most illustrious Blanchini, already given the text of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, sufficiently similar to this, explained with various notes and variant readings, so that that material is long since exhausted. Let us now hear Anastasius himself: "Victor, an African by nation, from his father Felix, sat 10 years, two months, 10 days. He was in the times of Aelius Pertinax and Severus, from the consulate of Commodus V and Glabrio up to Lateranus and Rufinus. He established that holy Easter be celebrated on the Lord's Day, as also Eleutherus. He made the following clergy. He is crowned with martyrdom: and established that, necessity compelling, there, wherever he might be found, whether in a river or in the sea, or in fountains, only Christian belief being clarified by confession, whoever of men coming from gentility should be baptized. He made three ordinations in the month of December, four presbyters, seven deacons, twelve bishops through diverse places.
[13] are reduced to it, He made a constitution at the inquiry of the priests concerning the cycle of Easter, a conference being made with the presbyters and bishops, and Theophilus bishop of Alexandria being summoned, a congregation being made, that from the fourteenth moon of the first month up to the twenty-first, on the Lord's Day, holy Easter be kept. He was buried near the body of blessed Peter in the Vatican on the 5th of the Kalends of August, and the episcopate ceased twelve days." However these too be confused and entangled, which have exercised the wits of critics, from them nevertheless the more distinguished deeds of the holy Pontiff would have to be elicited, whereas meanwhile scarcely a few are recounted, so that they had to be illustrated from elsewhere long ago by Baronius, Labbe, and very many most learned men of ages preceding and of this age—which is here the first and chief thing—with such diligence and accuracy that to have culled only some heads here and there is to have woven the whole series of his deeds, the most agitated controversy with some Asiatic bishops concerning the celebration of Easter being reserved for the following paragraph.
[14] Among the chief contests which are everywhere attributed to the holy Pontiff against the heresies emerging at that time, as against Theodotus the Tanner that certainly is worthy of commemoration which against Theodotus, surnamed the Tanner, the Byzantine apostate, he both bravely undertook and gloriously executed, as from Eusebius himself and likewise from Epiphanius, at all events ancient and pure sources, we shall endeavor to draw, for the rest referring the readers for a longer and clearer elucidation of all these things to those excellent commentaries, composed long ago on that whole matter. To this looks especially chapter 28 of book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, where, when he discourses accurately concerning those who at the beginning followed the heresy of Artemon: with what morals endowed, and how they dared to deprave the sacred Scriptures, and also excellently refutes an enormous calumny against St. Victor, he declares not obscurely what should be thought concerning Theodotus, the master of the whole error. Behold a specimen from the book or narration of that time, in which the impious lies of those sectaries are recorded and confuted. Thus from it Eusebius there narrates:
[15] "For they affirm," he says, "that all the ancients indeed, by Eusebius and the Apostles themselves, both received and taught the things which are now said by them; and that the truth of the preaching was guarded up to the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of the city of Rome from Peter: but that from the times of Zephyrinus, who succeeded Victor, the truth was adulterated. And perhaps what they say would seem credible, did not first the divine Scriptures oppose them, then the writings of certain brethren, older than the age of Victor, which they wrote against the gentiles and against the heretics of their time in defense of the truth. I mean Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and very many others: in whose books all the divinity of Christ is asserted. For as for the writings of Irenaeus and Melito and the rest, who is there who is ignorant, in which they proclaimed Christ God and man at once? The psalms too and songs of the brethren, long ago written by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, attributing divinity to him. Since therefore so many years ago the ecclesiastical doctrine was preached, how can it be that all up to the times of Victor promulgated that doctrine which these men say? How are they not ashamed to compose a calumny of this kind against Victor, when they certainly know that Theodotus the Tanner, who was the parent and author of that defection denying God, and first asserted Christ to be a mere man, was ejected by Victor from the communion of the Church? For if, as they say, Victor thought the same things which their impiety teaches, why did he remove Theodotus, the author of that opinion, from the Church? And concerning Victor indeed the matter stands thus."
[16] What here someone might perhaps desire, as regards that whole madness of Theodotus, and graphically depicted by Epiphanius Epiphanius will abundantly supply, from whom it will be enough for us to report the person, which he graphically depicts in heresy 54 in these words: "That Theodotus, then, sprung from Byzantium, which today is called Constantinople, was by trade a tanner, a man exceedingly erudite in letters. Who, with very many others being seized at the beginning of a persecution (what that persecution was I have not yet ascertained), but then arrested by the prefect of the city with several, when inquiry was made concerning all for the name of Christ, the rest indeed, servants of God, having won the victory, obtained the heavenly reward, having undergone martyrdom for Christ. But he, denying Christ, and falling away from the mark of truth, became a transgressor. Because of which, being assailed with the reproach of all, and unable to bear the shame, having left his fatherland, a fugitive he made for Rome, and dwelt there. But at Rome too, recognized by a certain man, he fell into the same ignominy, since those who had known him for his signal erudition accused him for this, that a man endowed with excellent learning had fallen away from the truth. Wherefore for his own excuse he devised a vain dogma, and thus began to boast: 'I,' he said, 'did not deny God, but a man.' Being asked, what man then? 'Christ,' he said, 'a man, I denied.' Hence he took occasion for preaching this false opinion, so that also the Theodotians, of whom he was the author: who assert Christ to be a mere man, and begotten from human seed," etc.
[17] with other heresiarchs he condemned: Further, the synod held against that impious man is briefly indicated in the last-but-one place in the Labbean Collection, vol. 1, col. 602: "A divine and sacred provincial synod, gathered at Rome under the most holy Pope Victor and fourteen other bishops; which renounced Theodotus, Ebion, and Artemon, who were not less faithless than the Jews in faith. For these were the leaders of Paul of Samosata and Nestorius." The rest is so explained in the Annals by Baronius at the year 196 and elsewhere, that it may suffice to have touched it here according to our design. Nor indeed did those monsters alone rage against the Church of Christ, sufficiently afflicted from elsewhere through those times, as you will find at the year already noted at number 17. "But again concerning other heretics," he says, "who came forth under Victor, and their author Praxeas, Tertullian in the last place has these things: But after all these, a certain Praxeas too introduced a heresy, which Victorinus took care to corroborate. He says that God the Father Almighty is Jesus Christ, contends that this one was crucified and suffered, and moreover died, and with profane and sacrilegious authority proposes that he himself sits at his own right hand." These things Tertullian in the commentary which he wrote against heresies, but concerning him at greater length in the book written privately against the same.
[18] perhaps also Praxeas. There follow there the things which were wickedly done by that heresiarch Praxeas, and which Tertullian reproaches him with: then his crafty penitence and base relapse; all which, whether they belong to the times of St. Victor, is not ascertained, as neither can it be sufficiently discerned which Roman Pontiff Tertullian intimates, who was deceived by false reports concerning Montanus. For the rest, that Praxeas scattered his errors while St. Victor was living, is certain enough, so that it can be safely said that throughout the whole decade of his pontificate the most vigilant Pastor was exercised by those heresies and by several others; as is plain from another synod, which in Labbe is the last, and which condemned either Valentinus and Sabellius in Praxeas, or him in them, deservedly. The same phrase is there as above: "A divine and sacred provincial synod, gathered at Rome by the most blessed Pope Victor; which renounced Sabellius and Noetus, who divulged concerning the divinity subsisting in three persons a contraction and commixture of the persons: likewise Valentinus, who, besides his other follies, asserted also the body of Christ to be heavenly." Further, whether Tertullian was at Rome in the time of St. Victor, or rather under Zephyrinus, when also, by a most base defection, he had lapsed into the deliriums of Montanus, there is no one who hitherto defines sufficiently clearly.
[19] The chief difficulty of that time Here too could be moved a question no less obscure, whether among the bishops whom the Saint is said to have ordained to the number of twelve through diverse places, someone too was directed by him to the Caledonians or Scots, concerning which matter Blanchini inquired somewhat in his Anastasius, vol. 2, page 161, where he adduces Boethius as witness, and eruditely investigates other things, which in him
I prefer to read, rather than to discuss here at greater length: this certainly I would readily grant, that neither St. Victor nor his successor Roman Pontiffs neglected the British isles more than the rest of the Catholic Church of the whole world. As concerns the writings of the holy Pontiff, this testimony of St. Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, exists: "Victor, the thirteenth bishop of the city of Rome, writing on the question of Easter and certain other little works, ruled the Church under the emperor Severus for ten years." He perhaps hints at the epistles, which there is no doubt were written by him; but whether those which are ascribed to him in the collections of Councils are genuine, is easily gathered from the most recent Coustantian edition. Now there remains one, that chief disputation under his pontificate, which the praised writers and others have illustrated studiously enough, others on the contrary casting some reproach upon St. Victor.
[20] It must certainly be confessed that Baronius eruditely and lucidly discussed and set in order the series and order of that most celebrated controversy at the year 198, concerning the celebration of Easter. through all of seventeen articles, with the Catholic writers everywhere approving and following him. For neither do we here delay over the heterodox or other hypercritics who from the obstinacy of Polycrates opposing St. Victor believed a handle was furnished them, by which they might either pluck at or gnaw the pontifical authority, by a wholly vain effort. This too is acknowledged, that not all entered upon one and the same way in expounding the pontifical excommunication of St. Victor pronounced against Polycrates and the Asian bishops: Baronius with the rest everywhere acknowledging it hurled, others asserting that only threats were held out: all which things would have had to be explained here by a somewhat longer disquisition, had not the illustrious Man Emmanuel Schelstrate preoccupied that task in his Antiquity Illustrated, published at Antwerp in the year 1678, part 2, chapter 3, having so pursued the whole matter that he excellently refuted the objections before made, and abundantly anticipated what could afterward be devised. Let there be therefore
§ III. The illustrious Man Emmanuel Schelstrate's elucidation of the contention of Polycrates against St. Victor concerning the observance of Easter.
From Antiquity Illustrated, part 2, dissertation 1, chapter 3.
BY THE AUTHOR Schelstrate.
FIRST PART.
Jean Launoy touches the contention in part 4 of his epistle to Henri Barillon, and sets it forth from St. Jerome, From a badly understood St. Jerome On Illustrious Men, chapter 54. Victor the Pope wishing, toward the end of the second century, the feast of Easter to be celebrated on the Lord's Day after the 14th moon and the vernal equinox, Polycrates contending on the contrary that the 14th moon of the first month ought to be observed on whatever day it fell, although it were not the Lord's Day. "He wrote" (says Jerome of Polycrates) "against Victor the Roman bishop a synodical epistle, in which he teaches that he follows the authority of the Apostle John and of the ancients." Jerome subjoins the letter, through which Polycrates teaches that the greatest saints, even Apostles, fell asleep in Asia, all of whom he professes to follow in keeping Easter on the fourteenth moon, and proceeds: "I will not fear those who threaten us, for my elders said: One must obey God rather than men." After which St. Jerome concludes: "These things I have set down for this reason, that I might demonstrate the genius and authority of the man from a small little work."
[22] Launoy weighs these last words, and urges that by Polycrates the judgment of Victor is judged fallible, Launoy moved the question which Jerome, since he does not disapprove, seems to approve. He adds from Eusebius, book 5 of the history, chapter 24, that Victor tried to cut off all the churches of Asia from the common unity, but that this did not please other bishops, and that St. Irenaeus showed that Easter indeed ought to be celebrated on the Lord's Day, but that not for that reason ought others to be separated from communion by so sharp a censure, whence also St. Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chapter 44: "There are current also other epistles of his (Irenaeus's) to Victor the Roman bishop concerning the question of Easter, in which he admonishes him that he ought not easily to rend the unity of the college. For Victor had believed that many bishops of Asia and of the East, who celebrated Easter on the fourteenth moon with the Jews, were to be condemned. In which opinion, these who differed from those did not give their hands to Victor." Grave is this contention, but to be weighed by its own moments, lest, the whole series of the acts being less perfectly known, something creep in which offends the truth.
[23] which is here solidly set forth There exist in D. Bail, doctor of Paris, vol. 2 of the Councils, class 5, from the venerable Bede, fragments of a Palestinian synod under Theophilus of Caesarea as metropolitan, in the time of Victor the Pope, in the year 198, gathered on this matter, to which is prefixed in Bede, vol. 2, a certain introduction, from which it is plain that the Apostles established nothing conciliarly concerning precisely observing the day of Easter, but that some of them, dispersed throughout the whole world, established that Easter be celebrated on whatever day the fourteenth moon in the month of March had fallen: but since it is established that others determined the Lord's Day after the 14th moon of that month, hence the diverse custom of the provinces took its origin, as is easily gathered from Eusebius of Caesarea the metropolitan, book 5 of the history, chapter 23; for he hands down that Asia from ancient observance celebrated the day of Easter on the 14th moon, and proceeds: "Whereas nevertheless the rest of the churches of the whole world used another manner, which, proceeding from the tradition of the Apostles, is still kept, namely that the fasts may be broken on no other than the day of the Lord's resurrection."
[24] then from St. Irenaeus This custom had flourished from the beginning of the Church in the provinces of Asia, no Roman Pontiff contradicting, as St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, urges in his synodical epistle to Victor the Pope: "But also those presbyters," he says, "who governed the Church over which you now preside before Soter: Anicetus, I mean, and Pius, and Hyginus with Telesphorus, and Xystus, neither did they themselves ever observe [it], nor did they permit those who were with them to observe it. They nevertheless, though they by no means observed this, no less cultivated peace with those who came to them from the churches in which it was observed. And yet the observance seemed the more contrary among those who by no means observed [it], nor were any ever rejected for a custom of this kind. But those very presbyters who preceded you, although they by no means observed it, transmitted the Eucharist to the presbyters of the churches who observed it. And when the most blessed Polycarp had come to Rome in the times of Anicetus, and there was a slight controversy between them concerning certain other matters, they at once embraced each other with a mutual kiss of peace: not greatly contending among themselves concerning this point."
[25] then from others. From which it appears that the Roman Pontiffs up to those very times did not disapprove the custom of the Asians, and that the first of all was Victor the Pope, who opposed himself to the Asians, and prescribed that the day of Easter be observed according to the custom of the Church, and threatened that communion itself was to be denied to the Asians. With the prescription of Victor the Pope the Church of the whole world (Asia excepted) consonated: for when Polycrates, the opinion of the ancients being changed, no longer allowed the observance of Easter to be indifferent, but, preferring the custom of Asia as of the mandate of God, seemed tacitly to condemn the customs of other regions: for concerning him and the Asians Eusebius has, book 5, chapter 23: "That they thought Easter to be observed on the fourteenth moon by every manner; namely when the paschal lamb is commanded to be immolated by the Jews, as if necessarily confirming [it] on whatever day of the week the fourteenth moon had come."
[26] The words are to be noted: "necessarily confirming." For this judgment of the Asians seemed so erroneous The error of Polycrates to be noted, that the bishops of the other provinces thought the contrary custom, everywhere flourishing among them, was to be confirmed. For which cause (Eusebius proceeds) assemblies of bishops and councils are convoked through each of the several provinces, and epistles being sent to one another, concerning each of the several places they confirm one ecclesiastical dogma: that it be not permitted at any time, except on the Lord's Day, on which the Lord rose from the dead, to celebrate the Lord's mystery of Easter, and that on this alone the fast of Easter be broken. So far were the other bishops of the world from consenting with the Asians, that they judged their custom no longer to be indulged, but rather to be changed.
[27] And in this they consented with Victor the Roman Pontiff, whom St. Victor pursued, who had been the author of gathering councils throughout the world, as is plain from the fragment of the Palestinian synod under Theophilus, metropolitan of Caesarea, which exists in Bede, vol. 2, in the book On the Celebration of Easter, where: "Then Victor the Pope and bishop of the city of Rome directed his authority to Theophilus, prelate of Caesarea and Palestine, that, as to how Easter might be celebrated by right rule by all Catholic churches, a useful ordinance might be made, where the Lord Savior of the world had dwelt in the flesh. The authority therefore being received, the aforesaid bishop called together all the bishops not only of his own province, but also of diverse regions. Where, when that multitude of priests convened, then Theophilus the bishop brought forth the authority sent to him of Victor the Pope, and showed what work had been enjoined upon him." The acts of the council are added, which, lest anyone should believe they could [not] exist, behold Eusebius, book 5, chapter 23: "There exists up to the present day the decree of the council held at Caesarea of Palestine, in which the first is Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea itself, and Narcissus, priest of Jerusalem."
[28] Which Eusebius, successor of Theophilus, confesses to exist up to his times, with the Orientals too consenting this Bede the venerable presbyter happily consecrated to eternity: from which it is most openly established, both that the question of Easter was decided by the authority of Victor by the Palestinian council of Theophilus, and that the council was convoked at the mandate of Victor: which same thing Polycrates too writes was executed by himself in Asia for another synod, in his synodical letter to Victor: "I could," he says, "make mention also of the bishops who are with me, whom you asked that I convoke, as I have also done." To which words of Polycrates in Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24, Henri de Valois notes: "That as regards the convocation of the bishops Polycrates obeyed Victor." Where here rightly Baronius, vol. 2, at the year 198: "It is to be seen by a plainly clear example how great authority the Roman bishop wielded, and how he surpassed the rest, inasmuch as he indicts councils throughout the world. What Victor had committed to others, this he had also carried out into execution in his own Italian region, a synod being convoked from the bishops near Rome, and, as the Pontiffs had been accustomed, the presbytery of the City being joined, whose counsel being taken, letters were sent to Polycrates, not only to compel the gathering of a council in Asia, but, conformably to the custom of the universal Church, to change the observance of Easter, threats being added, that unless the Asians obeyed, they were to be secluded from communion: to which Polycrates replied, what Eusebius has, book 5, chapter 24, from the version of Henri de Valois: But over the bishops of Asia, who sharply contended that the custom handed to them by their elders was to be retained, Polycrates presided: who indeed in that epistle which he wrote to Victor and the Church of the city of Rome, expounds the tradition propagated up to his own times in these words: We therefore keep the true and genuine day of Easter: neither adding anything nor detracting."
[29] against whom and the rest "For in Asia certain great luminaries have been extinguished, which are to rise again on that day of the Lord's coming, when the Lord shall come from heaven full of majesty and glory and shall raise up all the Saints. Philip, namely, one of the twelve Apostles, who died at Hierapolis, and his two daughters, who grew old as virgins: another daughter also of his, who, moved by the Holy Spirit, lived and rests at Ephesus. Besides, John, who reclined on the bosom of the Lord, who also was a priest, and wore the plate: he was finally a martyr and a teacher. This John, I say, ended his last day at Ephesus. Polycarp too, who at Smyrna was bishop and martyr: and likewise Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. What need is there to speak of Sagaris, bishop and likewise martyr, who died at Laodicea? What of blessed Papirius, what of Melito the eunuch, who, moved by the Holy Spirit, did all things, who also is buried at Sardis, awaiting the coming of the Lord from heaven, in which he is to rise again? All these observed the day of Easter on the fourteenth moon according to the Gospel; varying nothing at all, but constantly following the rule of faith.
[30] Polycrates opposed himself, "I too, least of all, Polycrates, from the tradition of my kinsmen, some of whom too I have followed; for there were altogether seven bishops of my kinsmen, to whom I acceded as the eighth. Who indeed always celebrated the day of Easter then, when the people of the Jews cast away the leaven. I, I say, brethren, sixty-five years old in the Lord, who have often conferred discourse with the brethren dispersed throughout the whole world, who have read through all the sacred Scripture, am nothing moved by those things which are held out against us for terror. For I know it was said by those who were far greater than I: One ought to obey God rather than men." All which things St. Jerome too reported from the letter of Polycrates, and subjoins: "This I have set down for this reason, that I might demonstrate the genius and authority of the man from a small little work."
[31] Whence Launoy concluded from whose opinion he was that by Jerome the judgment of Polycrates, since it is not disapproved, seemed to be approved. But that Polycrates here preferred the institution of Asia to the Roman, I readily assent: but that St. Jerome approved the judgment of Polycrates, I utterly deny: the authority and genius of Polycrates as of a man illustrious in his time Jerome praises in his book On Illustrious Men; his cause or rather his judgment he reproves; so far is he from confirming it. "That St. Jerome himself" (says du Perron against the King of England, chapter 44) "celebrates and translated the Paschal Homilies of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, who followed the order of the Council of Nicaea concerning Easter—does it not justify the view that, when St. Jerome says that he reports the epistle of Polycrates to show the mind and authority of the man, he means by 'authority,' not the authority of right, but the authority of fact, that is to say the credit which Polycrates had among the Asiatics and other Quartodecimans?"
[32] Otherwise, then, than Polycrates thought Jerome, nor did he in any way acquiesce in his institution: St. Jerome was far removed. he knew that Polycrates was immersed in a most grave error concerning the observance of Easter, in so far as he so strove to defend his own custom, that he reproved another's, as contrary to the mandate of Christ and the Gospel word, whence also he drew the churches of the whole world into his condemnation, which, by councils gathered through the provinces, determined that Easter was rather to be observed on the Lord's Day. Thus Bacchyllus, bishop of the Corinthians, in the synod of Achaia; Palmas in that of Pontus; Theophilus in that of Palestine; Irenaeus in that of Gaul; and beyond the rest Victor, the Roman bishop, in the council of Italy or Rome, the more offended against Polycrates and the Asians, as, set on a loftier watchtower, he both saw the institution of Peter the Prince of the Apostles despised, and felt his own mandate, as successor of Peter, violated.
[33] "These things being thus done" (says Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24, from the version of Henri de Valois) "Victor indeed, bishop of the city of Rome, straightway tries to cut off from communion all the churches of Asia and of the neighboring provinces, St. Victor excommunicated the Asians, as holding opinions contrary to the right faith. And letters being given, he proscribes all the brethren who were there, and pronounces them to be wholly alien from the unity of the Church." Those letters of Victor, to the great detriment of ecclesiastical truth, have perished or lie hidden: it is established meanwhile that Victor, in the 2nd century, acknowledged the supreme authority of the keys conceded to him in St. Peter, and judged the exception of the Asians about obeying God rather than men to be so enormous that he judged them to be excommunicated. The question is, whether he actually excommunicated? The most eminent cardinal Baronius, vol. 2, at the year 198, maintains that the provinces not obeying were actually secluded from communion, and that with the more common opinion the doctor and chief penitentiary of Paris, lord Bail, follows him, vol. 2 of the Councils, class 4, in the controversy on this: and the words of Eusebius in the Valesian version, the most correct of all hitherto, plainly favor [it]: "Victor tries to cut off the Asians from communion," by which he indicates what Victor, the response of Polycrates being obtained, meditated at Rome, and proceeds: "And letters being given, he proscribes all the brethren who were there, and pronounces them to be wholly alien from the unity of the Church."
[34] Eusebius could not use clearer terms to express the sentence of excommunication pronounced; as is plain from Eusebius for if he had only threatened, why, I pray, would the other bishops have been so vehemently moved, as Eusebius subjoins, when, before the Asian council convoked by Polycrates, he had threatened excommunication to them too, whence also after the synod Polycrates in his synodical epistle: "I am nothing moved by those things which are held out against us for terror." And, that another testimony may be added, thus Socrates understood Eusebius, perhaps instructed from more certain monuments than exist in our time. From which, lest the innovators of our age object that after Victor's censure the Asiatics were not rejected from the communion of the Orientals, the archbishop of Paris, de Marca, meets them, book 3, chapter 9, and teaches from Sozomen, book 7, chapter 19, that Polycrates and the Asiatic bishops at once returned into favor with Victor the Pope.
[35] rightly explained: The words of Sozomen, from the version of de Valois, are: "And these indeed were the discrepancies in the observance of this feast. But the controversy once arisen, Victor, at that time bishop of the Romans, and Polycarp of Smyrna seem to me most wisely to have dissolved. For since the Western bishops thought that the tradition of Paul and Peter ought not to be abrogated, but the Asians affirmed that they wished to follow John the Evangelist, by common counsel it pleased them that, celebrating the feast as they had been accustomed, they should by no means depart from mutual communion among themselves." From the retained name of Victor de Marca rightly gathered that a fault had crept into the name of Polycarp, since Polycarp had been crowned with martyrdom and died 20 years before the pontificate of Victor. It is therefore to be read "Polycrates," who flourished in the time of Victor the Pope, between whom peace was entered upon at the prayers of Irenaeus, as the archbishop of Paris gathered both from the letters of Irenaeus himself and from the passage of Sozomen, and he adds: "Although the innovators prove that the Asiatics were not rejected from the communion of the Orientals after Victor's censure, this takes away nothing from the dignity of the Apostolic See, since we have taught that peace was restored by Victor at the suggestion of Irenaeus.
[36] but the effect was suspended "For from Eusebius and Socrates it is established concerning the excommunication inflicted by Victor, and concerning the epistle of Irenaeus. But from Sozomen concerning the communion of Victor and Polycrates not interrupted, which could not have happened otherwise, unless the effect of the excommunication had been suspended by Victor after the admonitions of Irenaeus." Without any difficulty they defend themselves from the subtleties of the innovators who maintain that Victor did not pronounce the sentence of excommunication, among whom most recently Henri de Valois thinks that Victor only tried to separate the churches of Asia: "The epistles," he says, "of Irenaeus and other bishops written to Victor sufficiently argue that the matter was still in suspense, and that the sentence of condemnation had not yet been pronounced by Victor against the Asians, for thus Eusebius testifies concerning Irenaeus: He becomingly admonishes Victor not to cut off from communion whole churches of God, keeping the custom handed to them by their elders: Not yet therefore" (Valesius proceeds in his annotation to chapter 24 of book 5 of Eusebius) "had Victor cut off the church of Asia from communion, when Irenaeus wrote these letters, since Irenaeus by these letters admonishes Victor not to wish to sever them, for the observance of an ancient custom, from the body of the whole Church."
[37] the effect of the excommunication, St. Jerome too favors [it], chapter 44 of On Illustrious Men: "There are current also other epistles of Irenaeus to Victor the Roman bishop concerning the question of Easter, in which he admonishes that one ought not easily to rend the unity of the college, since Victor had believed that many bishops of Asia and of the East, who celebrated Easter on the 14th moon with the Jews, were to be condemned." And after St. Jerome, Photius in his Bibliotheca, chapter 120: "Victor at that time held the pontificate at Rome, whom by frequent letters Irenaeus exhorted not to renounce any from the Church on account of the dissension of Easter." Therefore before the letters of Irenaeus (concludes Valesius) Victor had not yet cut off anyone from communion. But all the praised testimonies in nothing oppose the clearest testimony of Eusebius, which by no evasions can be obscured, and at most prove that Irenaeus labored with Victor for the removal of the excommunication of the Asians, so that that of de Marca remains true: "Irenaeus persuaded Victor the Pope, in the year 198, to restore peace to Polycrates and the other Asiatic bishops, whom he had deprived of the communion of the Church.
[38] "For to this end, letters being given to Victor, St. Irenaeus intervened, St. Irenaeus interceding, that the excommunication for this cause should not hold place, which, the effect of the excommunication being suspended by Victor, we have shown above followed, and Eusebius, after the letters reported, from the version of Jean Dadré of the year 1581 and another more ancient, indicates: "And Irenaeus, not out of tune with his own name, but by his genius too suited to reconciling peace, admonished and did such things for the peace of the churches." And far more clearly Nicephorus Callistus, book 4, chapter 39: "Wherefore Irenaeus was an excellent peacemaker, that he might answer to his most fitting name, who thus by his intercession reconciled the peace of the Church."
SECOND PART.
There now remains a difficulty which Launoy touches; since Victor had excommunicated the Asians, and among others, whose words are weighed who had not given their hands to Victor, St. Irenaeus thought the contrary, the error of Victor becomes known: which is increased, if Victor at the instance of St. Irenaeus retracted the excommunication. That satisfaction may be made to this, the words of Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24, must be weighed. After he had treated of the excommunication of Victor: "But," he says, "these things did not please all the bishops." Not all, therefore they pleased either some or several. Accordingly (Eusebius proceeds) they exhorted Victor on the contrary, to be willing rather to hold those opinions which make for peace and charity
toward one's neighbor were fitting. If they only exhorted, as the Valesian version with other more ancient ones has, then, since he afterward writes: "They sharply reprehended Victor, among whom also Irenaeus"; Eusebius spoke too exaggeratively, whence, to these, the subsequent words of Eusebius in the Valesian version: "There exist still their letters, by which they somewhat sharply censure Victor. Of whose number Irenaeus, in the epistle which he wrote in the name of the brethren over whom he presided in Gaul, defends indeed this, that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection ought to be celebrated only on the Lord's Day: yet becomingly admonishes Victor not to cut off from communion whole churches of God, keeping the custom handed to them by their elders."
[40] Thus notes the most eminent Cardinal du Perron, chapter 44: and they are explained "He says that the other bishops sharply took up Victor, and when it is a question of producing a sample of the sharpness of their reprehensions, he alleges for the whole specimen the words of St. Irenaeus, where there is not found a single word of sharpness, and which contain nothing but simple and gentle remonstrances, full of submission to the person of Victor and to the authority of his See." The words of du Perron are to be noted, because it is certain that Eusebius of Caesarea here slipped in tongue: neither does Irenaeus by a shadow censure Victor or sharply reprehend him: for he uses these words in Eusebius: "For not only concerning the day is there controversy, but also concerning the very form of the fast: for some think they should fast for a single day: others for two or more: some even measure their day by counting 40 hours of day and night. And this variety in observing the fast was not first born in our age, but began long before among our elders: who, presiding more negligently, as is probable, from simplicity and inexperience, handed down to posterity a custom that had arisen. Nevertheless both all those retained peace among themselves, and we retain it with one another, so the diversity of the fasts commends the agreement of faith."
[41] otherwise than Eusebius thought. Irenaeus adds concerning the custom of Easter tolerated by the Roman Pontiffs, predecessors of Victor, and adduced at the beginning of this chapter from Irenaeus: from which not only is it plain that Irenaeus did not censure Victor, but also besides that he held the custom of Easter to be indifferent, and most similar to the custom of the fasts varying according to the variety of regions, and hence persuaded the Pontiff to leave the Asians in their old custom, and not for that indifferent usage to permit a whole region to be cut off from ecclesiastical communion: which however Victor so dissolved, on the testimony of Sozomen above, that Polycrates ceased to condemn the custom of the other churches; "By common counsel," he says, "it pleased them that each, celebrating the feast as they had been accustomed, should by no means depart from mutual communion among themselves." Hence now is plain the hallucination of many, who, deceived by the words of Eusebius concerning the sharp reprehension of Victor, think that Victor the Pontiff separated the Asians from ecclesiastical communion without reason.
[42] Not so much was the custom of the Asians struck It is indeed true that many bishops, and among them St. Irenaeus, did not give their hands to Victor, that is, did not promote the sentence of excommunication, because they preferred that this question be terminated peacefully; and therefore they heaped up reasons from every quarter, to allege that the custom of the Asians had been held indifferently by his predecessors, and even now for the good of peace was to be held: hence, however, they by no means consented to Polycrates, or wished the excommunication of him to have been unjustly pronounced, which was pronounced for a plainly just cause. For not on account of the custom but on account of a most grave error, too tenaciously defended, was he separated from communion. Polycrates objected to Victor, "One ought to obey God rather than men," not indeed that he withdrew all obedience from Victor, but that in this matter he did not believe he ought to obey him against the mandate of God; pretending that Christ had commanded that Easter ought to be celebrated on no other day than the 14th moon, whence also, the bishops of his province being enumerated, "These," he says, "all observed the day of Easter on the fourteenth moon, according to the Gospel: varying nothing at all, but constantly following the rule of faith."
[43] as the perverse dogma, The truth of the Gospel, and the rule of faith, Polycrates called his error, and Eusebius proceeds: "These things being thus done, Victor indeed, bishop of the city of Rome, straightway tries to cut off from communion all the churches of Asia and of the neighboring provinces, as holding opinions contrary to the right faith." Not on account of the custom, but on account of an opinion contrary to the right faith, Victor judged the churches of Asia to be excommunicated: for beyond this, that the Asians erred in inducing that their custom was to be observed from the rule of faith, the error tended to a renewal of Judaism, by initiating the obligation of the observance of the legal ordinances condemned by the council of Jerusalem.
[44] The 14th moon was when the paschal lamb ought to be immolated among the Jews, by which they contended that Easter was to be kept after the manner of the Jews, which day, when he wished it necessarily to be observed by the Christians, he tacitly initiated the necessary observance of the legal ordinances, which so rightly displeased them, and, unless corrected, Victor the Roman Pontiff judged worthy of excommunication, so that when Blastus, one of the chief authors of the opinion of Polycrates, had penetrated to Rome, and there, on the testimony of Eusebius, book 5 of the Histories, chapter 15, had begun to sow his heresy in the time of Victor the Pope, Tertullian, in his book On the Prescriptions of Heretics, which he elaborated in the year 203 of the Christian era, at its end signally animadverts: "Blastus wishes latently to introduce Judaism: for he says that Easter ought not to be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses on the 14th day of the month." Whence it remains that the most eminent Cardinals Baronius, at the year 189, vol. 2, and Bellarmine, book 2 On the Pontiff, chapter 19, rightly determined that the judgment of Victor was just, and the sentence of excommunication due.
[45] But you will say, it seemed otherwise to Irenaeus and other bishops of the West, which the rest of the world disapproved. as is plain from Eusebius: "But these things did not please all the bishops. Accordingly they exhorted Victor on the contrary, to be willing rather to hold those opinions which make for peace and charity toward one's neighbor." But it is answered as above, that the sentence of excommunication did not so displease the bishops that they denied the justice of the cause; for indeed this was the opinion of almost all the bishops against Polycrates and the Asians, that he erred in reproving the Roman custom, as contrary to the holy Gospel of God and the rule of right faith, whence also Irenaeus, subjoined by Eusebius, by the counsel of the brethren favors the cause of excommunication: "He defends indeed this, that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection ought to be celebrated only on the Lord's Day." "He defends," he says, therefore he also reproved the error of Polycrates, yet in such a way that at the same time he exhorted Victor that, in the case in which Polycrates changed the opinion of his error, on account of the custom alone he should not remain liable to the excommunication pronounced.
[46] Irenaeus thought that Victor had recourse to censures too quickly, St. Irenaeus judged that Polycrates should be softened and that he ought rather to have tried the mind of Polycrates, that he might depart from his error: meanwhile, the sentence being pronounced, he exhorted him to be willing rather to hold those opinions which make for peace and charity toward one's neighbor, and this he repeated not in a single epistle in Eusebius, but in several others: "Irenaeus" (says Photius in his Bibliotheca, chapter 220) "exhorted Victor by frequent letters not to renounce any from the Church on account of the dissension of Easter." Most of the letters of Irenaeus and the responses of Victor the Pope lie hidden; meanwhile that Irenaeus was the author of peace, is clear from what has been said: and since, on the testimony of Sozomen, peace was composed in this manner between Victor and Polycrates, that each, celebrating the feast as they had been accustomed, should by no means depart from mutual communion among themselves, who would not say that Irenaeus interceded for the Asians, letters being given to Victor, not indeed by judging the excommunication unjustly pronounced (for thus he would not have so often exhorted Victor, but would have reproached him with an unjust manner of proceeding) but by admonishing that, the error being recalled through Polycrates, on account of the custom of Asia alone, those churches should not remain bound by the excommunication.
[47] And by this very fact Victor was of this mind in Sozomen, in the cited place, lest for custom alone they be cut off from the Church: where too it is added: "For they thought it foolish, and not without reason, that those who agreed in the chief points of religion should be separated from one another for the sake of customs." So far was it that Victor excommunicated the Asians for custom alone, that, their error being recalled, with all the bishops of the West he believed it foolish according to the version of de Valois, or, as another has, judged it frivolous. And these things being rightly observed, we are freed from the knotty difficulties to which others, proceeding less considerately, have hitherto been liable. For indeed at the instance of St. Irenaeus, Victor the Roman Pontiff removed the excommunication, not indeed because he had erred in pronouncing it, but because the cause, namely the error, was retracted by Polycrates with all Asia, to whom it was permitted to retain the custom; so that now it is plain that it was permitted after Victor to observe the Asiatic manner, until, on account of several reasons, it seemed good, that manner being removed, to observe the Roman custom everywhere, as it seemed good to the first Council of Arles, which by canon 1 determined: "Concerning the observance of the Lord's Easter, that it be observed by us on one day and time throughout the whole world, and according to custom (they address Silvester the Roman Pontiff) you direct letters to all."
[48] but afterward that too was abrogated, Which decree the most holy Nicene council, convoked from the whole world, confirmed, Eusebius attesting it, book 3 On the Life of Constantine, from chapter 17, and Ambrose testifying it in his epistle to the bishops of Aemilia, where he says of observing the day of Easter that the elders who, coming together to the Nicene synod, among those decrees of faith, as true, so admirable, established also concerning the celebration of Easter. And before Ambrose, St. Athanasius in his epistle On the synod of Rimini and Seleucia: "The Nicene synod was not held rashly, as one that has the gravest uses and legitimate reason; for the Syrians, Cilicians, Mesopotamians limped in the matter of the feast, and celebrated Easter together with the Jews."
[49] And after these times, those who were unwilling to obey, feigning with Polycrates and those who followed it, that there was a divine precept for observing Easter on the 14th moon, were reproved as holding opinions contrary to the right faith, so that Epiphanius, in heresy 50, calls them Quartodecimans, and with Epiphanius St. Augustine, vol. 6, in his book On heresies, exhibits their error as heresy 29: "Because," he says, "they celebrate Easter only on the fourteenth moon in the month of March." Whence also against the King of England, on behalf of Victor, the Cardinal du Perron urges, chapter 44: "The outcome of later centuries showed that, even in the use of power, the procedure of the Pope was just, for after the death of Victor, the councils of Nicaea, of Constantinople, and of Ephesus again excommunicated those who held the same custom of the provinces which the Pope had excommunicated, and placed them in the Catalogue of heretics, under the title of the Quartodeciman heretics."
[50] declared Quartodeciman heretics If these things be weighed, who does not see that undeservedly is the fact of Polycrates opposed to the authority of Victor and his successor Pontiffs, Polycrates who, by so rash a daring, disallowed the custom not of Victor alone, but of almost the whole Church,
that, changing his sails too, he blushed for his own error, and consented that Victor had not erred, when he left his custom, on the testimony of Sozomen, to be observed indifferently, so that it is also injurious to St. Jerome to join him to the erring Polycrates, who, Polycrates retracting, approved the custom of Victor, as also did St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, on the testimony of Eusebius: "He defends indeed this, that the mystery of the resurrection ought to be celebrated only on the Lord's Day": nor did he think Victor erred in the sentence of excommunication pronounced, who undertook to defend its just cause; and although he had believed there was error in it, the error of the excommunication does not pertain to error in the faith.