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.

Chapter V The Councils of the Third Century

I

1. В III веке новая форма собора постепенно начинает прививаться и вытеснять форму собрания–собора как на Западе, так и на Востоке. Толчок, данный Римом, вызвал, как мы видели, разную реакцию, но, по–видимому, очень скоро, под влиянием Рима устанавливается обычай во всех случаях, когда предметом обсуждения церковного собрания являются вопросы кафолической природы, усиливать его приглашением епископов других общин. Примат Рима тем легче оказывал влияние, что на самом Востоке была подготовлена почва для новых церковных процессов.

Вряд ли может быть сомнение в том, что учение о епископском преемстве, формулированное Иринеем, осталось неизвестным на Востоке, при тех очень оживленных связях Рима со всеми церквами, тем более, что и сама Галлия была тесно связана с Малой Азией. К тому же на Востоке учение об апостольском преемстве существовало с самого начала, как учение об апостольском преемстве, хранителями которого являются церкви, особенно основанные апостолами. Мы видели, что Поликрат, защищая практику малоазийских церквей в вопросе о праздновании Пасхи, прямо ссылается на апостольское предание124. Более того, Поликрат ссылается на епископское преемство: «Так поступаю и я, Поликрат, наименьший из всех вас, – и поступаю по преданию своих родственников, которых был наследником. А из родственников моих считается семь епископов, я осьмой». Апостольское предание сохраняется в Ефесской церкви, и Поликрат, как и все семь его предшественников, поступал согласно преданию – такова мысль Поликрата. Палестинский собор, одобривший практику Римской церкви, также ссылается на апостольское предание. Надлежит отметить, что соборное послание употребляет термин «апостольское предание» – ??????? ??? ?????????. Правда, здесь ??????? имеет еще свое первоначально значение, тождественное с ?????????.. «Между тем недавно упомянутые нами епископы палестинские Нарцисс и Феофил, с которыми были также на соборе Кассий, епископ Тирский, Клар Птолемаидский и другие, после многих рассуждений о дошедших до них преемственно от апостолов преданий касательно Пасхи в конце послания присоединяют к этим словам следующее»125. Можно почти с уверенностью утверждать, что учение об апостольском предании, преемственно сохраняемом, было общим достоянием Церкви. При этих условиях апостольское преемство епископов легко могло быть воспринято, но в несколько иной форме: именно в той форме, что епископы являются преемниками не одного только апостола Петра, а всех апостолов. В частности, епископ общины, основанной самими апостолами, являются непосредственными преемниками этих апостолов. В Послании псевдо–Климента к Иакову Петр говорит: «Я рукополагаю вам во епископы этого Климента, которому доверяю мою словесную кафедру (??? ????? ????????)… даю ему власть вязать и решить»{164}. Здесь же говорится об основании апостолом Петром кафедр в Антиохии и Кесарии 126{166}.Возможно, что в таком виде учение об апостольских кафедрах возникло сначала не в Риме, а на Востоке127. Не менее ясно оно нашло свое выражение и в молитве при рукоположении епископов в Canones Hippolyti{168}: «Воззри на раба твоего N, даруй добродетель Твою и дух действенный, который даровал Ты святым апостолам… Даруй же ему, Господи, епископский сан, духа милости и власть отпускать грехи…»128

На Западе в 220 г. Каллист в своем известном постановлении о покаянии впервые право прощения смертных грехов обосновывает тем, что Римский епископ является преемником ап. Петра. Правда, в это время во главе Римского епископского списка, как это указывает Ипполит, стоят апп. Петр и Павел и Римская кафедра продолжает еще именоваться cathedra urbis Romae129. Тем не менее выраженная Каллистом мысль о Римском епископе как преемнике ап. Петра, чисто римская, вносит первые черты в учение об апостольском преемстве. Тертуллиан делает еще один шаг: в своей полемике против Каллиста он оспаривает за Римским епископом исключительное обладание кафедрой Петра, так как, по его мнению, каждый епископ является преемником Петра130. По Тертуллиану, Римский епископ не имеет права претендовать на какие–то особые права, несмотря на то, что, по убеждению Тертуллиана, ап. Петр рукоположил Климента131, так как то, что принадлежит Римской церкви, принадлежит и всякой церкви Petri propinquam{173}. Еще во II веке устанавливается учение о том, что эта мысль была формулирована Киприаном: «Один Бог, один Христос, одна Церковь и одна кафедра – основанная по слову Господню на Петре. Не может быть поставлен иной жертвенник и установлено новое священство, кроме одного жертвенника и одного священства»132. Каждая епископская кафедра есть кафедра Петра, и каждый епископ есть преемник ап. Петра. Так же как и у Каллиста, в основу этого учения были положены слова Христа (Мф 16:18). Римская церковь, как это видно из письма Римского пресвитериата, разделяла это учение133. Поэтому возможно, что сам Киприан разделял римское учение об апостольском преемстве. Таким образом, во второй половине III века учение об апостольском преемстве является общепринятым на Западе и на Востоке.