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.

4. The Epistle of Polycarp{129} to the Philippians, touches upon the same question to which the Epistle of Clement of Rome is exclusively devoted, namely, the question of the removal of presbyters from their ministry. If Clement, on behalf of the Roman Church, decisively rejects the decision of the Corinthian Church, then the Epistle of Ignatius testifies to the acceptance of the decision of the Philippian Church to remove Valens. We have every reason to suppose that the Epistle of Clement was known to Polycarp and the Church of Smyrna. The act of ecclesiastical reception of the dismissal of Valens is not evidence of the opposite point of view in Polycarp than that set forth in Clement about the removal of presbyters from their ministry. Polycarp sets forth in his Epistle in detail the reasons that prompted the Philippians to dismiss Valens from his ministry: "I was greatly grieved because of Valens who was once made presbyter among you, because he had forgotten the place given to him. Therefore I beseech you: beware of covetousness, and be pure and truthful. Abstain from all vice. Whoever himself cannot refrain from this, how will he preach about it to another? Whoever indulges in covetousness is defiled by idolatry and is worthy to be counted among the Gentiles... And so, brethren, I grieve greatly for Valens and his wife: may God grant them to truly repent."92 The impression involuntarily remains that Polycarp seems to want to show that Valens viciously fulfilled his ministry, and therefore cannot be numbered among those of whom Clement speaks.

Who was Valens? Polycarp himself calls him a presbyter. This answer would have exhausted the question if the Epistle itself had mentioned a bishop. Meanwhile, it is in the Epistle that only presbyters and deacons are mentioned. This silence of Polycarp about bishops (while Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the same Philippians speaks of bishops and deacons) leads us to the conclusion that immediately after the martyrdom of Ignatius the God-Bearer in Rome, the separation of bishops had only just begun. To this it must be added that Polycarp does not call himself a bishop in the Epistle, although he clearly distinguishes himself from the rest of the presbyters: "?????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????????" 93. Polycarp's silence about the bishop does not mean that he did not exist in the Philippian church, but that he was still included in the college of presbyters as their primate and could be designated as a common successor to all the members of the college of presbyters, just as all presbyters could be called bishops. The latter assumption is more probable, since it is unlikely that Polycarp would have considered himself obliged to speak in such detail about one ordinary presbyter. In addition, Polycarp points out that Valens, "who once became a presbyter among you, forgot the dignity given to him (qui presbyterus factus est aliquando apud vos ignoret locum qui datum est ei)".94 Locus corresponds to the Greek ?????, and in Ignatius it denotes episcopal ministry. Thus, Ignatius addresses Polycarp with an admonition: "Guard your place with all diligence (??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????????)" 95. The same Ignatius calls the ministry – his place – episcopal: "To Polycarp, bishop of the church of Smyrna, or better – to him who is under the episcopate of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????, ?????? ???????????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? '????? ???????)" 96. Sohm even suggests that at the time of the compilation of the Epistle there was no bishop in Philippi, since the former bishop Valens had been removed from office.97

The dismissal of Valens could only be by virtue of a decision of the church assembly, of which Polycarp was notified. His Epistle to the Church of Philippi was written at the request of the Philippians themselves: "I write to you, brethren, concerning righteousness, not because of my own pretension, but because you yourselves have called me to it."98 One of the main motives of Polycarp is: "Forgive and you will be forgiven. Have mercy on you, that you may have mercy. With what measure you measure, it will be recompensed to you, and blessed are the poor and persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of God."99 Polycarp clearly expresses his desire that forgiveness be granted to Valens : "And so, brethren, I grieve greatly for Valens and his wife. May God grant them to truly repent. But be prudent in this, and do not consider them enemies, but seek to correct them as afflicted and lost members, so that your whole body may be sound. By doing so, you are edifying yourself. I am sure that you have studied the Holy Scriptures well and there is nothing unknown to you in them, and I have not achieved this. But I know that the Scriptures say, "Be angry, and sin not," and "Let not the sun go down on your anger." Blessed is he who remembers this, as I am sure you do."100 Polycarp admits that Valens ceased to be a presbyter as a sinner (ignoret locum qui datum est ei), but he thinks that he should be granted leniency. By placing this request at the very end of the Epistle, Polycarp seems to see in its fulfillment a concrete application of his instructions to the Philippians. It is as if the whole Epistle were written on the subject of Valens whose sin led Polycarp to give a whole series of pastoral instructions, as Polycarp himself testifies: "I write to you, brethren, concerning righteousness, not because of my own pretension, but because you yourselves have called me to it."101 Therefore, while acknowledging that the Philippians' appeal contained a request for the Epistle of Ignatius the God-bearer,102 we rather they are inclined to think that the main reason was a request for recognition of the deposition of Valens, which could cause confusion among the Philippians themselves. This could have happened all the more easily, since the Philippians, of course, knew about the Epistle of Clement.

5. The "Shepherd" of Hermas belongs to the number of prophetic works: it is an apocalypse full of revelations and visions. The personal life of Hermas is well known to us, since his work is full of purely autobiographical indications. It is as if we have before us the living embodiment of the charismatic prophet about whom the Didache speaks. The date of compilation of "The Shepherd" is not established exactly. True, we have a very ancient testimony in the fragment of Muratorius that "the Shepherd recently wrote the book in the city of Rome by Hermas, when the pulpit of the church of the city of Rome was occupied by his brother, Bishop Pius" (140-154).103 This testimony would be decisive if it were not for the indication that we find in the Shepherd itself about Clement of Rome. Leaving aside all sorts of hypotheses to explain the internal evidence of Hermas' creation itself with the evidence of the Muratorian fragment, we can safely date the appearance of the Shepherd to the end of the first half of the second century at the latest. To a certain extent, the Shepherd is synchronistic with the Didache, but there is a noticeable difference between these monuments in the understanding of the church structure and the position of the prophets in the community. Hermas has no less a high view of the prophetic ministry than the author of the Didache. When the eldress invited Herma to sit down on the prepared bench, he answered: "Lady, let the presbyters sit down first." However, the eldress ordered him to sit down before the presbyters: "I tell you, sit down."104 In this vision of the church, the martyrs and prophets are placed above the elders, but in the experiential church, the prophet is not to have a presidency (?????????????). Not only is a prophet not a high priest, but even the mere desire to have the first place (?????????????) is the mark of a false prophet.105 According to the Shepherd, prophets do not belong to ???????????? ??? ?????????. The primacy in the church belongs to the presbyters (??????????? ????????????), and Hermas nowhere expresses his intention to place the prophet at the head of the community. The prophet fulfills a high and necessary service in the Church, but he himself, like the rest of the community, is under the leadership of elders. Prophecy serves the church community, it is within the community itself, not above it. In such a state of the prophetic ministry, it is difficult to expect a conflict between it and the ministry of the presbyters as church primates. This is the recognition on the part of the prophets of the main line of development of the church structure, in which the prophetic ministry found its proper place.

Speaking of the Roman Church, Hermas does not mention bishops, but only presbyters. In this respect, the Shepherd is similar to the Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement of Rome. However, the absence of a mention of a bishop does not indicate the absence of episcopal service in the Roman Church. Hermas not only knows the separate episcopal ministry, but he puts it in the first place after the apostles: "?? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ????????" 106. We have before us a moment in the development of the Roman community when the special ministry of bishops had already been determined, but their connection with the presbyters was not so broken that the bishop could not be included in the number of presbyters. It is not possible to determine more precisely what exact moment of the separation of the episcopate from the presbyterium is reflected in the Shepherd, since there are many reasons to believe that Hermas wrote his work over a rather long period of time and the Shepherd may cover different moments of this process. That by the end of the first half of the second century, i.e., in the time of Hermas, there existed a separate episcopal ministry in Rome is evidenced by a fragment of Muratorius,107 then by the Apology of Justin Martyr. The latter is especially important, since it speaks not only of one primate (? ????????), but also of the fact that the Eucharist was offered to him: "On the so-called day of the sun, we have a gathering in one place of all those who live in cities and villages: and the sayings of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as far as time permits. Then, when the reader ceases, the Primate, by means of the word, gives instruction and exhortation to imitate those beautiful things. Then we all stand up and offer prayers. Then, as I said above, bread and wine and water are offered; and the Primate also sends prayers and thanksgiving as much as he can."108 If it is true that the Shepherd, as is supposed, was written over a relatively long period of time, then it could reflect not only the intermediate, but also the final moment in the process of separating the episcopal ministry in Rome.

The main theme of the Shepherd's revelation was repentance. God's mercy opens up the opportunity for all those who have sinned after baptism to repent and re-enter the Church. Hermas knows that this call to repentance for those who have sinned after baptism is a departure from the previous practice of the Church, which recognized only repentance through baptism. "I have heard, Sir, that some teach that there is no other repentance than that which was done in baptism, when we descended into the water and received forgiveness of our former sins there".109 Hermas does not establish a new rule, abolishing the old one. Reentry into the Church through repentance is granted only to those who have already been baptized before receiving revelation by Hermas. For all those who sin after this one opportunity, or for those who are baptized after the revelation of the "Shepherd," the old law remains in force: there is no other repentance but baptism.

Such is the will of God, which was revealed to Hermas in revelation. It must be declared to the church community, which, by accepting it, will thereby testify to the truth of the revelation. "When I have finished all my words, then let them be made public through you to all the elect. For this purpose you will write two books, and give one to Clement and the other to Grapta.110 Clement will send to the outer cities, for this is granted to him; Grapta will edify widows and orphans. And you will read it in this city together with the presbyters and the leaders of the church."111 Clearly, the book should be read in a church meeting, not made public by Hermas privately. By accepting the revelation given by Hermas, the Church of Rome solves one of the cardinal questions of its time. Therefore, this decision must be communicated to the other churches: "Clement will send to the outer cities" – through their witness and the acceptance of the decision of the Roman Church, the revelation he founded will become church-wide. Thus, the church assembly that is supposed to be in the Shepherd comes out with all the typical features of a meeting-council.