not to be the commemoration of the Passion on the Jewish Passover, but
rather of the Resurrection that followed it; and secondly, the anniversary of the
Resurrection was not to be dated according to the lunar month day when it
took place, but rather according to its weekday, which was Sunday.
This was not thefirst time that a dispute had arisen between the two
traditions. Eusebius, in his EcclesiasticalHistory, refers very brieflytoa
discussion that took placec.154CEin Rome between Polycarp, bishop of
Smyrna, and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, about the day of Easter—presumably,
the same issue that confronted later Polycrates and Victor. Eusebius’source,
which he cites in full elsewhere, is a letter of Irenaeus which concludes that as
neither could persuade the other to change his custom, they parted at peace
and remained together in communion.^64 Whether Irenaeus should be entirely
believed is open perhaps to question, since he was writing in the 190s with the
particular agenda of settling the Victor–Polycrates controversy (as we shall see
below). But taking his letter as it is, the discussion between Polycarp and
Anicetus is presented as not in any way threatening a schism. It was only about
the right practice to follow; but the unity of the Church seems not to have even
been an issue.^65
The controversy ofc.190CEtook a much more dramatic turn, and signals
perhaps a change of attitude towards calendar diversity. The sequence of
events is given again by Eusebius, in this case in much more detail, in the
main section of hisEcclesiasticalHistory(HE) that was probably completed in
313/14CE.^66 According to Eusebius, it all began with a dispute that erupted (it
is not clear on whose initiative) between the churches of Asia and their
opponents. This led to the convocation of various synods of bishops across
the Christian world, whose directive to observe Easter on Sunday—which,
Eusebius claims, was the custom of all churches world-wide, except for Asia—
was widely disseminated. Letters with this directive were sent by the bishops of
Palestine, of Rome (led by Victor), of Pontus, of Gaul (led by Irenaeus, whom
we shall return to), of Osrhoene, of Corinth, and others (HE5. 23). The
bishops of Asia then responded with a letter from Polycrates, addressed to
Victor and the Church of Rome, which Eusebius cites at length (5. 24. 1–8). In
this letter, observance of the Easter on the 14th is defended entirely on the
strength of ancient tradition; but no attempt is made to refute the Sunday
(^64) Eusebius,HE4. 14. 1 and (letter of Irenaeus) 5. 24. 16–17.
(^65) An earlier controversy, dating perhaps to the 160sCE, is mentioned in a fragment of
Melito’sPeri Paschacited by Eusebius,HE4. 26. 3–4 (Hall 1979: pp. xxx, 66–9; whether it was
an actual part of thePeri Pascharemains uncertain). All the passage says is that a great dispute
broke out in Laodicea (Asia) about the Pascha‘which had occurred at the right time in those
days’. This line is rather obscure: the issue seems to have been the date of Easter, yet we are also
told that it occurred at the right time. This controversy seems to have been local to Laodicea,
without extending, as in the 190s, to the whole Christian world. 66
Following Burgess (1997); others would date it toc.300CE.
Sectarianism andHeresy 383