II

1. From the end of the first century, the ecclesiastical life of individual ecclesiastical communities gradually acquired a wider and wider ecclesiastical range: a number of ecclesiastical acts, which in apostolic times could be resolved within ecclesiastical communities, began to require catholic recognition. If a council is an ecclesiastical assembly which is called upon to decide questions requiring catholic recognition, then it is quite probable that the number of councils in the second century should have increased. Meanwhile, this assumption seems to be contradicted by the fact that the first councils known to us, after the Jerusalem Apostolic Council, are usually attributed only to the second half of the second century.74 These are the anti-Montanist councils{103} of which we find brief information in Eusebius. In the study of the history of the development of councils, this lack of information about the councils from the second half of the first century to the second half of the second century is of paramount importance. Chiefly because of this interruption in theological scholarship, as we have seen, the prevailing opinion is that the beginning of the councils should be attributed not to the Council of Jerusalem, but to the anti-Montanist councils, since from them begins an uninterrupted series of councils. In assessing this fact, the question naturally arises whether the lack of information about the councils is an indication that the councils did not actually take place. Already in antiquity, the ecclesiastical consciousness, seeing in the Jerusalem Council the beginning of the conciliar activity of the Church, tried to fill the gap in the historical information about the councils. According to the anonymous author of Praedestinatus and Libellus synodicus{104} a series of councils took place in the first half of the second century. The information we find in these documents has no historical value.75 On the other hand, it is unlikely that modern theological scholarship, on the basis of the data available to Eusebius (Eusebius himself does not call them councils), would have considered them councils if they had not been followed almost immediately by councils in connection with the Paschal disputes{106} to which Eusebius was the first to apply the technical name of ???????.

From the point of view of historical reality, the early councils mentioned in Praedestinatus and Libellus synodicus are non-existent. But is not the indication of these councils still a kind of dull recollection of the fact that even before the anti-Montanist councils there were councils in the church? In other words, historical sham does not exclude the ideological truth that the conciliar activity in the Church, which began with the Jerusalem assembly, is not interrupted. The Church's consciousness remembers its early councils in a deaf and unclear way, but when it tries to concretize this memory, it turns out to be a historical falsification. In church memory, councils are clearly preserved not in their initial stage of development, but in a secondary one. In the first stage of development, the council is an ecclesiastical assembly in statu deliberandi {107} questions of a catholic nature. In its form, the cathedral does not stand out from any church meeting. Since the time of Ignatius the God-bearer, a council must be headed by a bishop, but this requirement is equally applicable to ordinary church meetings. The presence of members of other churches at this meeting-council is not at all necessary for the construction of the council. It is possible that in fact most of these council-assemblies included members of other churches, but this was to some extent accidental. In resolving difficult doctrinal or disciplinary issues, a church community could take advantage of the presence of prominent and authoritative members of another community. A weaker community could turn to a strong community for help in difficult cases of its church life. A strong community, as we have seen from the example of the Council of Jerusalem, was equipped with a deputation, which took part in the discussion and resolution of controversial issues. In turn, a strong community, communicating its decision, could send its prominent members to a weak community. From this practice arose the custom of expanding the council through the participation of members of other communities, which later became an obligatory form of the council. But for the first stage of development, this obligation did not yet exist. We have every reason, in view of the absence of information to the contrary, to assert that both in apostolic times and in the second century, meetings-councils took place without the participation of members of other communities.

Without standing out in its form from the church assembly, the council could remain in the church memory. The Jerusalem Cathedral has been preserved for us because of its exceptional composition. In general, in the Church's consciousness, the memory is firmly preserved that heretical teachings have been condemned by the Church, but how and where it is not remembered, since it is tacitly assumed that this could only take place at a church meeting. There was no need to single out the church assembly that decided questions of catholic significance, i.e., the council and other assemblies that prescribed this decision. Both of these moments – making a decision and receiving it – are equally important. For the epoch we are considering, the fact of condemnation itself is important, and not its formal aspect. To this must be added the terminological lack of elaboration. It was difficult for contemporaries of church meetings-councils to distinguish them, when the terms concilium and ??????? they were used to designate church meetings in general.76 Only when the form of the council began to differ from church meetings, the corresponding precise terminology was developed. Therefore, an attempt to find out which meetings-councils took place during the second century must proceed not from formal signs that did not yet exist at all, but from internal signs. It is necessary to try to single out from the series of church meetings those that were devoted to church affairs of catholic significance.

2. From the time of Ignatius the God-bearer, the consecration of bishops, as we have seen, became a catholic act and necessarily required ecclesiastical reception. The fact of the consecration of bishops at a church assembly is not disputed by anyone and belongs to the indisputable facts in the history of the sacrament of the priesthood. Therefore, we have every right to regard these assemblies as councils and to assert that the consecration of bishops takes place at councils. The beginning of this tradition goes back either to the time of Ignatius the God-bearer himself, or to the time closest to him. Unfortunately, until the beginning of the second century, we do not have any description of the council – the church assembly at which the consecration of a bishop takes place. All the monuments at our disposal are silent about this. Meanwhile, it is extremely important to establish whether the presence of other bishops at these councils was mandatory. Ignatius the God-bearer himself does not mention that the bishop is appointed by the church community together with other bishops. Of course, the ex silentio argument is not always reliable, but nevertheless it may be thought that Ignatius the God-Bearer would not have failed to point out, if such a custom had prevailed in his time, as a fact extremely favorable to the authority of the bishop. From the Didache it is impossible to deduce any obligation about the participation of other bishops in the electoral council of the bishop. On the contrary, the well-known phrase "????????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????????" ("Therefore ordain for yourselves bishops and deacons" – 15:1) assumes that other bishops did not take part in the consecration of bishops. This follows from the fact that the Didache unites bishops and deacons into one ordination. However, the Didache does not speak of an "elective" council, but of an ordinary church assembly. Although the Didache is later in time than the Epistles of Ignatius, but being a kind of protest coming from prophetic circles against the teaching of Ignatius the God-bearer, it does not reflect the new order, but tries to maintain the old one. The bishops of the Didache do not correspond to the bishops of the Epistles of Ignatius. The coincidence 15 is significant. 1 from chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Philippians: "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Jesus Christ who are in Philippi, with bishops and deacons..." The complete absence of mention of presbyters in the Didache can only be explained by the fact that bishops are identical with the presbyter bishops of apostolic times. The author of the Didache does not wish to recognize the separation of a bishop from this college. For him, the bishop is not a sign of the catholic Church, and therefore there is no need for a council for their election. Their ordination, as well as that of deacons, takes place at an ordinary church meeting. It must be assumed that both Ignatius the God-Bearer and the author of the Didache presuppose one and the same order of consecration of bishops, namely the one that developed in the apostolic era. The teaching of Ignatius the God-Bearer about the bishop did not make changes to the act of ordination, so Ignatius the God-Bearer did not need to make any instructions about this. The apostolic tradition was sufficiently {109} known to all. We could admit the participation of other bishops in the consecration of a bishop only when this participation has been proven for the apostolic era. We do not find direct indications of this in the apostolic writings, but everything we know about this epoch is clearly incompatible with this kind of assumption. The presbyters-bishops of the apostolic period formed a kind of college, in which one of them was the primate. He was ordained in the same order as the rest of the presbyters-bishops. St. Clement of Rome, bearing witness to the apostolic tradition, says that "our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about episcopal dignity (???? ??? ???????? ??? ?????????). For this very reason, having received secret foreknowledge, they ordained the said persons and then added a law so that when they repose, other tried men would take upon themselves their ministry."77 This means that the apostles appointed persons to exercise the episcopal ministry in each community founded by them, so that it would be preserved uninterruptedly in the Church. Continuity is ensured by the fact that after the death of the persons appointed by the apostles, others accepted their ministry. From this it is clear that the persons who have the episcopal ministry represent that college of presbyters-bishops which we find in every ecclesiastical community. In order to ordain new persons with episcopal ministry, it is not necessary to involve in the participation of presbyters-bishops of other communities, since those who exist in the community itself are sufficient. We have an indication of this order in the ancient Church of Alexandria. Information about this practice is questioned, but this is done not in the interests of objective truth, but for doctrinal reasons. How little this is justified is shown by the fact that even modern Catholic theologians are inclined to recognize the historical reliability of these accounts, namely those that do not deny the original collegial episcopacy. According to the testimony of Jerome, in Alexandria until about the middle of the third century the bishop was ordained by a college of presbyters.79 The same is confirmed by Severus of Antioch (sixth century). 80 and the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria Eutyches (Khv.) 81. Finally, we have at our disposal another text, quoted by Butler in his Lausiac History of Palladius, in which it is said that heretics came to the Archbishop of Alexandria and reproached him for having received ordination at the hands of presbyters.82 However, one should not think that in Alexandria until the middle of the third century – the date indicated by Bl. Jerome, there was no real bishop, or that all the presbyters of Alexandria were invested with the fullness of priestly authority, i.e., they were bishops. In Alexandria, as in other churches, the separation of the bishop from the college of bishops-presbyters probably took place before the beginning of the second half of the second century. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the time of Clement of Alexandria or Origen it is possible to state in Alexandria all three degrees of the church hierarchy, in which the bishop differs significantly from the presbyters. However, this indisputable fact cannot serve as an argument (contrary to Ch. Gore) against the assumption of the existence of the order of consecration of the bishop of Alexandria, indicated by Bl. Jerome and other writers.83 The latter does not assert that there was no bishop in Alexandria before the second century, but that the bishop was ordained by presbyters. From the time of Ignatius the God-bearer, the process of separating a bishop from the college of presbyters began, but initially this process was not accompanied by a change in the order of consecration of a bishop. Later, almost everywhere until the end of the second century, for additional reasons, which will be discussed below, this order underwent a change, as well as the hierarchical position of the presbyters – they took second place in the church hierarchy and, naturally, lost the right to participate in the consecration of bishops. Probably, due to local conditions (the absence of other bishops in Egypt than the one of Alexandria), in Alexandria the ancient order of ordination was preserved longer than in other churches. It is possible that before the transition to the usual order of ordination in Alexandria, the position of presbyters was somewhat different from their position in other churches. Here we can only briefly note that neither the ancient apostolic order of ordination, nor the practice of the Church of Alexandria can serve as an argument for the dogmatic permissibility of the ordination of a bishop by a presbyter. Presbyters, as the second degree of the church hierarchy, never had the right to ordain a bishop, since it is impossible to consider presbyters-bishops identical with them. The historical process of the separation of the bishop went in the direction that all the rights possessed by the bishop-presbyters, ordained by the apostles, were concentrated on the bishop, and the rest of the bishop-presbyters became presbyters. If we accept this point of view, then the ancient order of consecration of Alexandrian bishops should not cause any dogmatic difficulties. Some modern Catholic theologians are willing to admit that even in Rome there was a similar order{118}.

The teaching of Ignatius the God-bearer about the bishop as an empirical sign of the catholic church necessitated the consecration of a bishop at a council, i.e., at a church meeting, which required acceptance by other church communities. If the participation of other bishops was not necessary for the construction of this electoral council, it is nevertheless precisely with regard to these councils that it can be assumed that very soon, if not from the very beginning, the custom arose to perform this ecclesiastical act in the most solemn atmosphere possible, with the invitation of members of other communities. There is no doubt that among those invited were the bishops of the nearest communities. The presence of other neighboring bishops was all the more desirable because it was to some extent a guarantee that the communities headed by them would accept as a catholic act the consecration of a new bishop. By the end of the second century, from this custom arose a rule, which would be accepted by the whole Church, about the need for several bishops to ordain a new one. We have at our disposal a monument that apparently reflects the transitional stage from the old to the new order of consecrating bishops: these are the so-called "Canons (Church Canons) of the Holy Apostles (??????? ??? ????? ?????????)." {119} According to these rules, a community with fewer than 12 people who have the right to vote (?? ????????? ??????????), in the event of the election of a new bishop, must apply to the neighboring organized (????????) community with a request to send three elected (????????) persons. Who exactly these three persons were, the monument does not indicate, which means that the organized community is given complete freedom of choice. If one of them was supposed to be a bishop, then it is unlikely that the monument kept silent about it. Therefore, Sohm's assumption that they were clerics is hardly plausible.85

The purpose of these persons is that the widowed community with their help could, after carefully testing the candidate (?????? ????????????), elect a bishop for itself, i.e., strengthen the electoral council. If the widowed community is sufficiently numerous, it does not necessarily need to be strengthened from outside. In order to fully appreciate the significance of these indications of the "Canons of the Holy Apostles" for the history of the consecration of bishops and the development of councils, it is necessary to be sure of the time of the appearance of the monument itself. Meanwhile, to this day, the monument itself remains a mystery to us to some extent{121}. As for the time of the appearance of the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," we can assert with full confidence that it appeared later than the writings of Ignatius the God-bearer. The ecclesiastical community, according to these "Canons," already knows one bishop who is clearly distinguished from the presbyters. Thus, the monument reflects the era when the separation of the bishop from the college of bishops-presbyters began, but did not yet end. Not only are presbyters subordinate to the bishop, but it is rather that bishops may be thought to be subordinate to them to some extent. On the other hand, since the monument did not originate in the center of Christendom at that time, but on the outskirts (most likely in Syria),86 the above-mentioned moment in the development of the episcopal ministry could have been much delayed in comparison with the central communities, in which the process of the full separation of the bishop had already been completed. In small communities, located far from the main centers of Christianity of that time, everything new came belatedly. In view of the greater conservatism of such communities (especially Syrian) in comparison with the large ones, which lived an intensive church life of their own, this new one was adapted to the old order of things. For this reason, the order of consecration of bishops indicated in the "Canons of the Holy Apostles" reflects the new order established in large communities, which require the obligatory participation of bishops in the election of a new bishop or, at least, the participation of other communities. In this case, the practice indicated in the "Canons" cannot be considered common to the entire Christian world: the majority of communities could pass directly from the old order of consecrating bishops at a church meeting-council to a new one, with the obligatory participation of bishops. For them, the transitional moment was not the obligation to strengthen the church assembly with members of other communities, but the custom of inviting bishops and other persons to an electoral council. To whatever time we refer the "Church Canons", whether to the end of the second century or to the third century, they testify, on the one hand, that the separation of a bishop to the first degree of priesthood was not connected with a change in the order of consecrating bishops, and on the other hand, that further history went in the direction of involving bishops in the consecration of a new bishop.

III

1. If the anti-Montanist councils are the first councils devoted to doctrinal questions, then, contrary to historical evidence, it must be assumed that such questions did not concern the Church from apostolic times to the end of the second century. This assumption clearly contradicts what we know, namely, that in this era a number of questions of discipline and doctrine required an ecclesiastical solution. This circumstance, even in the complete absence of information, makes us assume the existence of a corresponding kind of councils, i.e. church meetings that discussed these questions and the decisions that were made by the Church. Our task, as in the study of electoral councils, will be to single out from the church meetings those at which disciplinary and doctrinal questions were to be discussed.

2. The Epistle of Clement was written in connection with the disorders that arose in the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church removed the elders or elders from the ministry and assigned the ministry to others. In its place it has been shown that the significance of the Epistle of Clement goes far beyond the particular case described in it. In connection with a particular case, a fundamental question was raised about the very nature of the presbyter ministry and about the right of the community to remove presbyters from their ministry. The solution of this question was to be of cardinal importance for the further fate of the episcopate.

The Epistle of Clement presents the act of the Corinthian church as an unprecedented act, since the presbyters who performed their ministry without blame were dismissed. We do not know exactly what happened in Corinth or why the elders were deposed. Clement makes it clear that this was due to the indignation of one or two persons against the presbyters,87 but the indignation must have had some reason for the whole community to join it. Is it not possible to suppose that these one or two persons were prophets? Then the whole picture of what happened can be imagined as follows: according to the prophetic revelation, these new faces received the charisma of management. The community recognized this revelation and appointed the persons indicated in the revelation as presbyters. It remains unclear why it was necessary to dismiss the former ones, and why it was impossible to supplement the collegium of bishops-presbyters. It is possible that it was mainly a matter of a presbyter-bishop heading the entire college, and the latter did not want to give up its "chairman," or that in the revelation itself it was indicated that all previous presbyters were deprived of their charisma. It is possible that in the time of Clement the college of presbyters was already closed and limited in the number of its members, and that the consecration of new presbyters required the consent of the entire college. We cannot give an exact answer to all these questions and doubts. In any case, if the whole community acted on the basis of revelation, there was nothing unprecedented in its act itself, but it fully corresponded to all the practice of the time. The mistake of the Corinthian community was that it did not take into account the special position of the elders among other charismatics, or, perhaps, this position of the elders in Corinth was not recognized and they were fully identified in the nature of their ministry with other charismatics. In the latter assumption, the dispute between the Roman and Corinthian communities involves a clash of two traditions, quite analogous to the clash that takes place almost a century later in the Paschal disputes.

The dismissal of the old and the installation of new presbyters could take place, according to all the practice of the time, only at a church meeting. In view of the fact that the Roman Church gave the decision of the Corinthian Church a catholic significance, the assembly itself became a council. We do not know the reaction of the churches other than Rome. It is possible that they considered the act of the Corinthian community to be a matter exclusively of the community itself, which did not require church reception, or they prescribed this act in accordance with the existing practice in the Church of Asia Minor. Perhaps this explains the bewilderment of Batiffol, used, it is true, for the benefit of the Roman Church, that it is not Ap. John, who was still alive, and Rome opposed Corinth, despite the fact that Corinth's ties with Ephesus were much closer than with Rome.88 The Church of Rome came out not because it already ascribed to itself the supreme authority in the Church, but because in the order of ecclesiastical reception it could, like the individual Churches, accept or reject the decision of the Corinthian Church. True, the importance of the reception of Rome was incomparably greater than that of other communities because of the authority that the Roman Church enjoyed in the union of love of church communities. Therefore, it does not matter at all whether Rome's action followed the direct appeal of the suspended elders to him or because the rumor of the "scandal that took place in Corinth" reached Rome. In both cases, the reaction of the Church of Rome was a perfectly legitimate ecclesiastical act. Any other church could act in a similar way. As an ecclesiastical community, especially the most significant, the Roman Church could pronounce on the decision of the Corinthian Church. However, the Church of Rome not only rejects its decision as unecclesiastical and untrue, but at its council decides a new decision on the same question that was the subject of discussion in the Corinthian Church. The decision of the Church of Rome was the opposite of that of the Church of Corinth. Rome puts forward as the principle and basis of church life the proposition that those who blamelessly perform the office of presbyter cannot be removed from the episcopacy. "Our sin will be no small if we expel from the episcopate those who bear gifts without blemish and in a holy manner".89 Rome puts forward this principle not as new, but as corresponding to the apostolic tradition. In accordance with the commandment of the risen Christ, the apostles preached Christianity in countries and cities, and everywhere the firstfruits (??? ???????) of the faithful were ordained bishops and deacons.90 Thus, the first presbyters-bishops were ordained by the apostles themselves, and after their death other tested men must accept their ministry. By virtue of this, as we have already seen, the presbytery ministry, if it is performed blamelessly, is lifelong. The Roman Church communicates its decision in an epistle to the Corinthian Church, and this epistle is not on behalf of Clement, but on behalf of the entire Roman Church. No matter how authoritative the decision of the meeting-council of the Roman community was, as a conciliar decision it is subject to acceptance by other churches, and first of all, of course, by the Corinthian Church. Clement's epistle is transmitted through a special embassy of three persons, who are to be, in the words of the epistle, "witnesses between you and us." In other words, these persons, as authoritative witnesses of the Roman tradition, must testify to the Corinthians to the correctness of the decision of the Roman Church. This decision was made by the Corinthian and other churches. This is evidenced by the general recognition that the First Epistle of Clement received. In the dispute between Rome and Corinth, Rome won. For the first time in history, the Roman tradition was recognized as truly apostolic{127} not as its own, but as based on apostolic tradition. The first page of history was turned: among charismatic ministers, the presbyterian-episcopal ministry stood out.

Thus, an analysis of the Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome revealed the existence of two councils in this era. One turned out to be not accepted by the church and, therefore, untrue, this is the Corinthian church assembly-council. The other was recognized as true, this is the Council of Rome. The question of the truth or falsity of the council was decided by the church reception.

3. The Epistles of Ignatius the God-Bearer were written in his name, and not in the name of the church community, like the Epistle of Clement of Rome. This circumstance testifies to a new phase in the development of episcopal ministry: the bishop is a sign of the catholicity of the Church. Therefore, speaking on his own behalf, Ignatius speaks on behalf of the church, since where there is a bishop, there is a church. The authority with which Ignatius the God-Bearer speaks is not so much based on his personal merits, although this also played a significant role, but on the fact that the Church speaks through him in the person of the Antiochian community. Ignatius himself testifies that the teaching he preached is not his personal opinion. It was given to him by revelation from God: "And some wanted to deceive me from the flesh, but the Spirit, being from God, is not deceived. For he knows whence he comes and whither he goes, and he convicts the unseen. Being among (you), I proclaimed with a loud voice, with a strong voice (the voice of God) said: "Give heed to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons." (Others) suspected that I was saying this in anticipation of the separation of some. But He for Whom I am in chains is my witness that I did not know it from the flesh of men, but the Spirit has declared it to me, saying: 'Do nothing without a bishop, guard your flesh as the temple of God, love unity, avoid divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.'"91 The teaching of Ignatius is not of human origin, but proclaimed to him by the Spirit, who knows whence it comes and whither it goes, and denounces the unseen. The revelation was given to Ignatius personally, so that in it we have a combination of episcopal and prophetic ministry. It should be noted that, as a prophet, Ignatius brings to the fore not the prophetic, but the episcopal ministry. For him, the doctrine of the bishop does not contradict the prophetic ministry. He devoted all the power and inspiration of his prophetic ministry to the strengthening and strengthening of his episcopal ministry. The historical fate of the prophetic ministry was decided by prophecy itself. The main theme of Ignatius' epistle is the teaching about the bishop and the struggle against heresies, the Docetists and the Judaizers. If we have direct testimony about the first that it was given to him by revelation, then we have the right to extend this testimony to the condemnation of heresies, since in the Epistle these topics are closely connected. The revelation must be witnessed as true and accepted by the church assembly. Therefore, we have every reason to assume that the Epistles of Ignatius in their main provisions express the decisions of the Antiochian Church Assembly. They needed a church reception, since he wrote to the bishop. His Epistle to Polycarp contains just such instructions.