rejoicing over the resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating the mysteries of his death.
How was the question settled? Did the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a supreme authority?
Let us take the evidence of History. The question having been agitated, "there were synods and convocations of the Bishops on this question," says Eusebius,[1] "and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches in all places. ... There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle" [of the Roman Synod] "extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the Churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote."
It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of Palestine.
Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed the letter in the name of the synod which repre-
- ↑ Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiii.
