The words just quoted are from the pen of an anonymous writer who flourished towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century; [610:3] and, though they supply the earliest distinct notice of synodical meetings, they do not even hint that such assemblies were of recent original.  The Paschal controversy succeeded the Montanist agitation, and convulsed the whole Church from East to West by its frivolous discussions.  The mode of keeping the Paschal festival had for nearly fifty years been a vexed question, but about the close of the second century it began to create bitter contention.  Eusebius has given us an account of the affair, and his narrative throws great light upon the state of the ecclesiastical community at the time of its occurrence.  “For this cause,” says he, “there were synods and councils of bishops, and all, with according judgment, published in epistles an ecclesiastical decree....  There is still extant a letter from those who at that time were called together in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the parish of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of the parish of Jerusalem.  There is also another letter from those who were convoked at Rome [611:1] concerning the same question, which shews that Victor was then bishop.  There is too a letter from the bishops of Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the senior pastor, presided.  There is likewise a letter from the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was president.  And another besides from the Churches in Osroene and the cities in that quarter.” [611:2]

It is obvious from this statement that, before the termination of the second century, synodical government was established throughout the whole Church; for we here trace its operation in France, in Mesopotamia or Osroene, in Italy, Pontus, and Palestine.  This passage also illustrates the progress of the changes which were taking place about the period under review in the constitution of ecclesiastical judicatories.  As the president of the presbytery was at first the senior elder, so the president of the synod was at first the senior pastor.  At this time the primitive arrangement had not been altogether superseded, for at the meeting of the bishops of Pontus, Palmas, as being the oldest member present, was called to occupy the chair of the moderator.  But elsewhere this ancient regulation had been set aside, and in some places no new principle had yet been adopted.  At the synod of Palestine the jealousy of two rivals for the presidency led to a rather awkward compromise.  Caesarea was the seat of government, and on that ground its bishop could challenge precedence of every other in the district, but the Church of Jerusalem was the mother of the entire Christian community, and its pastor, now a hundred years of age, [612:1] considered that he was entitled to fill the place of dignity.  For the sake of peace the assembled fathers agreed to appoint two chairmen, and accordingly Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided jointly in the synod of Palestine.  In the synod of Rome there was no one to dispute the pretensions of Bishop Victor.  As the chief pastor of the great metropolitan Church, he seems, as a matter of course, to have taken possession of the presidential office.