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.

6. However accidental and small the surviving monuments that have been studied here, it is nevertheless evident from them that the time from the end of the first century was filled with rather intensive conciliar activity. What we have been able to uncover in our study fully confirms, as indicated above, the theoretical assumption that with the development of church life in the post-apostolic era, conciliar activity could only intensify, and not cease. Of course, it would be hopeless to try to fully restore the conciliar activity of the Church during this period of time on the basis of the monuments that we have. However, the very fact of the existence of conciliar activity cannot and should not cause us to doubt. The church consciousness of that time faced difficult questions, both disciplinary and doctrinal. In connection with the appearance of heresies, the Church had to determine its attitude towards them, and, along with the condemnation of heretical teachings, to work out a true teaching. The Church could do this only conciliarly by virtue of its conciliar nature, i.e. at a council. The church assembly, which decided these issues, acquired the character of a council. In this way, we have established an uninterrupted historical and genetic connection between the Jerusalem Council and the anti-Montanist ones.

IV

1. Indications about the early anti-Montanist councils are limited to the information that we find in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. In the 16th chapter of Book V there is a comparatively large excerpt from an anti-Montanist writer. Who this writer was is unknown. We are quite free to leave aside all the conjectures that have been made about his identity, for in the end the historical value of his testimony is not diminished by his anonymity. It is important that he was a contemporary of the Montanist controversies and himself took an active part in them. According to his testimony, "when, on this occasion, the faithful began to gather frequently and in many places in Asia, and, having examined the new teaching, declared it impious and rejected it as heretical, then those who were devoted to it were excommunicated from the Church and deprived of communion with it".112 This note by an anti-Montanist anonymous person only states beyond doubt that in connection with the development and spread of Montanism, meetings of believers took place in many places in the province. By a happy coincidence, we are able to determine quite accurately the time of writing the quoted treatise against Montanism. Our anonymous writer points out that "more than thirteen years have elapsed since the death of this woman (Maximilla) to the present day, and there has been neither a private nor a general war on earth, even the Christians themselves, by the mercy of God, have enjoyed a more permanent peace."113 Scholarly scholars agree that the reference to a lasting peace must be attributed only to the end of the reign of Commodus, i.e., to the year 192-193.114 As for the gathering of believers, they should be attributed to an earlier date, i.e. to the 70-80s of the same century.

2. What is the "assembly of believers" of which the Antimontanist speaks? Most historians of councils are inclined to regard these meetings as councils either purely episcopal or predominantly episcopal. Thus, for example, A.I. Pokrovsky believes that among these meetings, which are mentioned by an anonymous writer in Eusebius, is the great Council of Hierapolis presided over by Apollinarius, which consisted of bishops and confessors.116 However, the text of Eusebius does not provide any basis for such conclusions. The antimontanist speaks only of meetings of believers. If these meetings had been primarily episcopal, in the form of the councils of the third century known to us, then it is unlikely that he would have kept silent about such an important fact. It is the same anonymous person who lets us know what the meetings he mentioned are. He himself describes one such gathering: "I was recently in Ancyra of Galatia, and when I found that the church there was deafened by the cry of this new prophecy, not as they call it themselves, but rather a false prophecy, as it turned out to be true, I conversed as much as I could, with the help of God, in the church for many days, and considered separately both this and everything else that was offered to me: The Church triumphed with joy and was strengthened in the truth, but the opponents were then rejected and the enemies grieved. After this, the local presbyters, in the presence of our co-presbyter Zoticus of Otrinus, began to ask that I leave them a written memorial of what was said against those who rejected the teaching of the truth, but I did not do it at their request, but promised, with the help of God, to write here and send the scripture to them without delay."117 From this description it is clear that this refers to the ecclesiastical assembly of the Church of Ancyra. The latter used the presence of a well-known fighter against Montanism to solve the problem that worried her. We have every reason to suppose that the meetings of the faithful, which took place frequently and in many places in Asia Minor, were analogous to the described meeting of the Church of Ancyra. The "meetings of the faithful" were nothing more than meetings of individual church communities. As at a meeting of the Church of Ancyra, members of other churches, including bishops, could be present at them, but the presence of the latter did not change the nature of their meetings: they remained church meetings of individual communities. On the basis of the material at our disposal, we have no reason to assume that the "assemblies of the faithful" were united meetings of several church communities, much less of their bishops.

3. The anti-Montanist clearly points out that at the "assembly of believers" the "new teaching" of Montanism was discussed. Obviously, we are not talking about church meetings in general, but about those of them that considered an important doctrinal issue. It follows that at least one or more of them can be regarded as councils. It is most likely to assume that the impetus for these meetings was given by the most important community in the area of the emergence of Montanism, which was the Church of Ancyra. An indirect indication of this is found in an excerpt from a letter of Serapion of Antioch quoted by Eusebius: "In order that you may know with what strong disgust the whole living brotherhood looked upon this false school of the so-called new prophecy, I send you the writings of Claudius Apollinarius, the most blessed bishop of Hierapolis in Asia (??????? ???? ??? ???????? ???????????, ??? ???????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ??? '????? ?????????, ????????)." 118. As before, we can assert with sufficient certainty that the writings (????????) were written after the Council of Hierapolis, which condemned the "new prophecy." Maybe these ???????? were epistles informing other communities of the decision of the Church of Hierapolis. Other "assemblies of believers" discussed a ready-made solution, but, of course, it cannot be ruled out that the question of the teaching of Montanus was discussed in many places at the same time. In some cases, the discussion ended with a condemnation of Montanism, in others, the church assembly could not come to an independent decision. It is important that, according to the testimony of an anonymous person, in Eusebius the Asian churches were in agreement in rejecting the teaching of the Montanists.

4. Montanism, which arose in the East, very soon penetrated into the West and found here, as in the East, a considerable number of followers. With the spread of Montanism from the East, there was also its condemnation, which, by virtue of church reception, demanded that the Western churches either accept the decrees of the Eastern councils or reject them. The Roman Church was already aware of Montanism under Pope Sotir (166-174).119 The close connection that existed between the Gallic and Asia Minor churches leads us to assume that Montanism penetrated into Gaul very early. There is no need to insist that the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne120 on the martyrs does not have a strong tinge of Montanism. We do not find in it either direct or indirect traces of the Montanist doctrine. There is no doubt, however, that the Lyon martyrs spoke in connection with Montanism. In his narrative of Montanism, Eusebius mentions "the letters of the martyrs who died among them [in Gaul], who, caring for the peace of the churches, wrote while they were still in prison, not only to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, but also to the then bishop of Rome, Eleutherius." Apparently, in response to the epistle of the Lyon martyrs, Pope Eleutherius wrote a letter Ad Galliae provincias, in which the pope condemned the excessive rigorism of the Montanists. It is quite possible for Leclercq to conjecture that "the solemn condemnations of Montanism by the Popes of Rome were a response to the conciliar condemnations of the churches of Asia Minor."122 If this is so, then it can be assumed that after receiving information about Montanism and its condemnation by the churches of Asia Minor, Rome was slow to condemn. We do not know what the letter of the Lyon martyrs contained, but it must have convinced Rome of the dangers of Montanism. The epistle of Pope Eleutherius did not in the least diminish Gaul's sympathy for Montanism. The same Eleutherius reports the following: "Since at that time Montanus in Phrygia, Alcibiades and Theodotus began to be reputed to be prophets, and the people believed in their gift of prophecy, because in various churches there were still many miraculous manifestations of the Divine gift, and because of them discord arose, the brethren living in Gaul (?? ???? ??????? ???????) set forth in their epistle a pious and Orthodox judgment (??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????????) and it was about these people that various letters were added from the martyrs who had died among them, who, caring for the peace of the churches, wrote, while they were in prison, not only to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, but also to the then bishop of Rome, Eleutherius."123 Thus, on the one hand, Montanism, which aroused sympathy in Gaul, and on the other, the information about its condemnation in Asia Minor and especially in Rome, prompted the Church of Gaul to define its position on this question more precisely. In Eusebius we find references to the disagreements (?????????) that usually preceded the council, and to the fact that the brethren living in Gaul (?? ???? ??????? ???????) set forth their judgment (??? ????? ??????). There is no doubt that this court could have been worked out at a church meeting, and since it had as its subject an important doctrinal question, the church assembly at which this opinion was decided acquires the character of a council. This is further confirmed by the fact that the Church of Gaul sought a reception for its decision. From the context of Eusebius, it is clear that the Church of Gaul communicated its decree to other churches, and, of course, first of all to Rome. Eusebius characterizes the decree of this council as pious and Orthodox. Meanwhile, we know that the Orthodox court of the Church of Gaul did not coincide with the judgment of the Orthodox councils or the Council of Asia Minor and the Church of Rome. The Church of Gaul acted as an intermediary between the Montanists and the Orthodox, and its judgment was closer to Montanism than to Orthodox teaching. It can hardly be thought that the decision of the Church of Gallia was prescribed.

If we are able to ascertain the existence of a council in Gaul, it remains for us not only very obscure, but also to some extent mysterious.