Montanists

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the Phrygians" (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. Thesect was founded by aprophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.

Chronology

An anonymous anti-Montanist writer, cited byEusebius, addressed his work to Abercius Marcellus,Bishop of Hieropolis, who died about 200. Maximilla had prophesied continualwars and troubles, but this writer declared that he wrote more than thirteen years after her death, yet nowar, general or partial, had taken place, but on the contrary theChristians enjoyed permanent peace through the mercy ofGod (Eusebius,Church History V.16.19). These thirteen years can be identified only with the twelve and a half years ofCommodus (17 March, 180--31 December, 192). Thewars between rival emperors began early in 193, so that this anonymous author wrote not much later than January, 193, and Maximilla must have died about the end of 179, not long beforeMarcus Aurelius. Montanus and Priscilla had died yet earlier. Consequently the date given byEusebius in his"Chronicle" — eleventh (or twelfth) year of Marcus, i.e. about 172 — for the first appearance of Montanus leaves insufficient time for the development of thesect, which weknow further to have been of great importance in 177, when theChurch ofLyons wrote to Pope Eleutherius on the subject. Again, the Montanists are co-ordinated with themartyr Thraseas, mentioned chronologically betweenPolycarp (155) and Sagaris (under Sergius Paulus, 166-7) in the letter of Polycrates toPope Victor; thedate of Thraseas is therefore about 160, and the origin of Montanism must be yet earlier. Consequently, Zahn, Harnack, Duchesne, and others (against Völter and Voigt, who accept the late date given byEusebius, regardSt. Epiphanius (Hær., xlviii, 1) as giving thetrue date of the rise of thesect, "about the nineteenth year ofAntoninus Pius" (that is, about the year 156 or 157).

Bonwetsch, accepting Zahn's view that previously (Hær., xlvi, 1) Epiphanius had given the twelfth year ofAntoninus Pius where he should have said M. Aurelius, wishes similarly to substitute that emperor here, so that we would get 179, the very date of the death of Maximilla. But the emendation is unnecessary in either case. In "Hæreses", xlvi, 1, Epiphanius clearly meant the earlier date, whether right or wrong; and in xlviii, 1, he is not dating the death of Maximilla but the first appearance of thesect. From Eusebius, V, xvi, 7, we learn that this was in the proconsulship of Gratus. Such a proconsul ofAsia is not known. Bonwetsch accepts Zahn's suggestion to read "Quadratus", and points out that there was a Quadratus in 155 (if that is the year ofPolycarp's death, which was under Quadratus), and another in 166, so that one of these years was the real date of the birth of Montanism. But 166 for Quadratus merely depends on Schmid'schronology of Aristides, which has been rejected by Ramsay and others in favor of the earlierchronology worked out by Waddington, who obtained 155 for the Quadratus of Aristides as well as for the Quadratus ofPolycarp. Now it is most probable that Epiphanius's authority counted the years of emperors from the September preceding their accession (as Hegesippus seems to have done), and therefore the nineteenth year ofPius would be Sept., 155-Sept., 156. Even if the later and Western mode of reckoning from the January after accession is used, the year 157 can be reconciled with the proconsulship of Quadratus in 155, if we remember that Epiphanius merely says "about the nineteenth year of Pius", without vouching for strict accuracy. He tells us further on that Maximilla prophesied: "After me there shall be no prophetess, but the end", whereas he was writing after 290 years, more or less, in the year 375 or 376. To correct the evidenterror Harnack would read 190, which brings us roughly to the death of Maximilla (385 for 379). Butekaton fordiakosia is a big change. It is more likely that Epiphanius is calculating from the date he had himself given, 19th ofPius=156, as he did notknow that of Maximilla's death; his "more or less" corresponds to his former "about". So we shall with Zahn adoptScaliger's conjecturediakosia enneakaideka fordiakosia enenekonta, which brings us from 156 to 375!9 years. As Apollonius wrote forty years after thesect emerged, his work must be dated about 196.

Montanism in Asia Minor

Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said byJerome to have been previously apriest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect hisecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of thepriests and devotees of the "great goddess". The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of thesect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first theprophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity ofintellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). Theprophets did not speak as messengers ofGod: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed byGod and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and theParaclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither anangel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, afalseprophet--cf.Matthew 7:15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power." This possession by a spirit, which spoke while theprophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 4).

We hear of nofalse doctrines at first. The Paraclete ordered a fewfasts and abstinences; the latter were strictxerophagioe, but only for two weeks in the year, and even then the Saturdays andSundays did not count (Tertullian, "De jej.", xv). Not only was virginity strongly recommended (as always by theChurch), but second marriages were disapproved. Chastity was declared by Priscilla to be a preparation forecstasy: "The holy [chaste] minister knows how to ministerholiness. For those who purify their hearts [readingpurificantes enim corda, by conjecture forpurificantia enim concordal] both see visions, and placing their head downwards (!) also hear manifest voices, as saving as they are secret" (Tertullian, "Exhort." X, in onemanuscript). It was rumored, however, that Priscilla had been married, and had left her husband. Martyrdom was valued so highly that flight frompersecution was disapproved, and so was the buying off of punishment. "You are made an outlaw?" said Montanus, "it is good for you. For he who is not outlawed among men is outlawed in the Lord. Be not confounded. It isjustice which hales you in public. Why are you confounded, when you are sowing praise? Power comes, when you are stared at by men." And again: "Do not desire to depart this life in beds, in miscarriages, in soft fevers, but inmartyrdoms, that He who suffered for you may be glorified" (Tertullian, "De fuga", ix; cf. "De anima", lv).Tertullian says: "Those who receive the Paraclete,know neither to fleepersecution nor tobribe" (De fuga, 14), but he is unable to cite any formal prohibition by Montanus.

So far, the most that can be said of these didactic utterances is that there was a slight tendency to extravagance. The people of Phrygia were accustomed to the orgiastic cult of Cybele. There were doubtless manyChristians there. The contemporary accounts of Montanism mentionChristians in otherwise unknown villages: Ardabau on the Mysian border, Pepuza, Tymion, as well as in Otrus,Apamea, Cumane, Eumenea.Early Christian inscriptions have been found at Otrus, Hieropolis, Pepuza (of 260),Trajanopolis (of 279), Eumenea (of 249) etc. (see Harnack, "Expansion of Christianity", II, 360). There was a council atSynnada in the third century. The "Acta Theodoti" represent the village of Malus near Ancyra as entirelyChristian underDiocletian. Above all we must remember what crowds ofChristians were found inPontus and Bithynia by Pliny in 112, not only in the cities but in country places. No doubt, therefore, there were numerousChristians in the Phrygian villages to be drawn by the astounding phenomena. Crowds came to Pepuza, it seems, and contradiction was provoked. In the very first days Apollinarius, a successor ofSt. Papias asBishop ofHierapolis in the southwestern corner of the province, wrote against Montanus.Eusebiusknew this letter from its being enclosed by Serapion of Antioch (about 191-212) in a letter addressed by him to theChristians of Caria andPontus. Apollinarius related that Ælius Publius Julius of Debeltum (now Burgas) in Thrace,swore that "Sotas the blessed who was in Anchialus [on the Thracian coast] had wished tocast out the demon from Priscilla; but thehypocrites would not allow it." Clearly Sotas was dead, and could not speak for himself. The anonymous writer tells us that some thought Montanus to be possessed by anevil spirit, and a troubler of the people; they rebuked him and tried to stop hisprophesying; the faithful ofAsia assembled in many places, and examining the prophecies declared them profane, and condemned theheresy, so that the disciples were thrust out of theChurch and its communion.

It is difficult to say how soon thisexcommunication took place inAsia. Probably from the beginning somebishops excluded the followers of Montanus, and this severity was growing common before the death of Montanus; but it was hardly a general rule much before the death of Maximilla in 179; condemnation of theprophets themselves, and mere disapproval of their disciples was the first stage. We hear ofholypersons, including thebishops Zoticus of Cumana and Julian ofApamea, attempting toexorcise Maximilla at Pepuza, doubtless after the death of Montanus. But Themison prevented them (Eusebius, V, xvi, 17; xviii, 12). This personage was called a confessor but, according to the anonymous writer, he had bought himself off. He published "a catholic epistle, in imitation of the Apostle", in support of his party. Another so- calledmartyr, called Alexander, was for many years a companion of Maximilla, who, though aprophetess, did notknow that it was forrobbery, and not "for the Name", that he had been condemned by the proconsul Æmilius Frontinus (date unknown) in Ephesus; inproof of this the public archives ofAsia are appealed to. Of another leader, Alcibiades, nothing is known. Theprophets are accused of taking gifts under the guise of offerings; Montanus sent out salaried preachers; the prophetessespainted their faces, dyed their eyelids with stibium, wore ornaments and played at dice. But these accusations may beuntrue. The great point was the manner ofprophesying. It was denounced as contrary to custom and to tradition. ACatholic writer, Miltiades, wrote a book to which the anonymous author refers, "How aprophet ought not to speak inecstasy". It was urged that the phenomena were those of possession, not those of theOld Testamentprophets, or ofNew Testamentprophets like Silas,Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Deacon; or ofprophets recently known inAsia, Quadratus (Bishop ofAthens) and Ammia,prophetess of Philadelphia, of whom the Montanistprophets boasted of being successors. To speak in the firstperson as the Father or theParaclete appeared blasphemous. The olderprophets had spoken "in the Spirit", as mouthpieces of theSpirit, but to have nofree will, to be helpless in a state of madness, was not consonant with the text: "The spirits of theprophets are subject to theprophets." Montanus declared: "The Lord hath sent me as the chooser, the revealer, the interpreter of this labor, this promise, and this covenant, being forced, willingly or unwillingly, to learn thegnosis of God." The Montanists appealed toGenesis 2:21: "The Lord sent anecstasy [ektasin] upon Adam";Psalm 115:2: "I said in myecstasy";Acts 10:10: "There came upon him [Peter] anecstasy"; but these textsproved neither that anecstasy of excitement was proper tosanctity, nor that it was a right state in which to prophesy.

A better argument was the declaration that the new prophecy was of a higher order than the old, and therefore unlike it. It came to be thought higher than the Apostles, and even beyond the teaching of Christ. Priscilla went to sleep, she said, at Pepuza, and Christ came to her and slept by her side "in the form of awoman, clad in a bright garment, and put wisdom into me, and revealed to me that this place is holy, and that hereJerusalem above comes down". "Mysteries" (sacraments?) were celebrated there publicly. In Epiphanius's time Pepuza was adesert, and the village was gone. Marcellina, surviving the other two, prophesied continualwars after her death--no otherprophet, but the end.

It seems on the whole that Montanus had no particulardoctrine, and that his prophetesses went further than he did. The extravagances of hissect were after the deaths of all three; but it is difficult toknow how far we are to trust our authorities. The anonymous writer admits that he has only an uncertain report for the story that Montanus and Maximilla both hanged themselves, and that Themison was carried into the air by a devil, flung down, and so died. Thesect gained much popularity inAsia. It would seem that some Churches were wholly Montanist. The anonymous writer found theChurch atAncyra in 193 greatly disturbed about the new prophecy.Tertullian's lost writing "De Ecstasi", in defense of their trances, is said by Prædestinatus to have been an answer to Pope Soter (Hær., xxvi, lxxxvi), who had condemned or disapproved them; but the authority is not a good one. He has presumably confounded Soter with Sotas,Bishop of Anchialus. In 177 the Churches ofLyons and Vienne sent to the Churches ofAsia and Phrygia their celebrated account of themartyrdoms that had been taking place.Eusebius tells us that at the same time they enclosed letters which had been written inprison by themartyrs on the question of the Montanists. They sent the same by Irenæus to Pope Eleutherius.Eusebius says only that they took a prudent and mostorthodox view. It is probable that they disapproved of theprophets, but were not inclined to extreme measures against their followers. It was not denied that the Montanists could count manymartyrs; it was replied to their boast, that all theheretics had many, and especially theMarcionites, but thattruemartyrs like Gaius and Alexander of Eumenea had refused to communicate with fellowmartyrs who had approved the new prophecy (Anon. in Eusebius, V, xvi, 27). The acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice (the last of these threw herself into the fire),martyrs ofThyatira underMarcus Aurelius (about 161-9), may exhibit an influence of Montanism on themartyrs.

Montanism in the West

A second-centurypope (more probably Eleutherius than Victor) was inclined to approve the new prophecies, according toTertullian, but was dissuaded byPraxeas. Their defender inRome was Proclus or Proculus, much reverenced byTertullian. A disputation was held by Gaius against him in the presence ofPope Zephyrinus (about 202-3, it would seem). As Gaius supported the side of theChurch,Eusebius calls him a Churchman (II, xxv, 6), and is delighted to find in the minutes of the discussion that Gaius rejected the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, and attributed it toCerinthus. But Gaius was the worse of the two, for weknow from the commentary on the Apocalypse by Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the twelfth century (see Theodore H. Robinson in "Expositor", VII, sixth series, June, 1906), that he rejected the Gospel and Epistles of St. John as well, and attributed them all toCerinthus. It was against Gaius thatHippolytus wrote his "Heads against Gaius" and also his "Defense of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John" (unless these are two names for the same work).St. Epiphanius used these works for his fifty-firstheresy (cf.Philastrius, "Hær." lx), and as theheresy had no name he invented that ofAlogoi, meaning at once "the unreasoning" and "those who reject theLogos". We gather that Gaius was led to reject the Gospel out of opposition to Proclus, who taught (Pseudo-Tertullian, "De Præsc.", lii) that "the Holy Ghost was in the Apostles, but theParaclete was not, and that theParaclete published through Montanus more than Christ revealed in the Gospel, and not only more, but also better and greater things"; thus the promise of theParaclete (John 14:16) was not to the Apostles but to the next age.St. Irenæus refers to Gaius without naming him (III, xi, 9): "Others, in order that they may frustrate the gift of theSpirit, which in the last days has been poured upon thehuman race according to the good pleasure of the Father, do not admit that form [lion] which corresponds with the Gospel of John in which the Lord promised to send theParaclete; but they reject the Gospel and with it the prophetic Spirit. Unhappy, indeed, in that, wishing to have nofalseprophets [reading with Zahnpseudoprophetas esse nolunt forpseudoprophetoe esse volunt], they drive away the grace of prophecy from theChurch; resemblingpersons who, to avoid those who come inhypocrisy, withdraw from communion even with brethren." The old notion that theAlogi were anAsiaticsect (seeALOGI) is no longer tenable; they were the Roman Gaius and his followers, if he had any. But Gaius evidently did not venture to reject the Gospel in his dispute beforeZephyrinus, the account of which was known toDionysius of Alexandria as well as toEusebius (cf. Eusebius, III, xx, 1, 4). It is to be noted that Gaius is a witness to the sojourn of St. John inAsia, since he considers the Johannine writings to be forgeries, attributed by their authorCerinthus to St. John; hence he thinks St. John is represented byCerinthus as the ruler of theAsiatic Churches. Another Montanist (about 200), who seems to have separated from Proclus, was Æschines, who taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as aMonarchian of the type of Noetus or Sabellius.

ButTertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became aChristian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as heknew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against theCatholicChurch, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi", written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: "In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In factTertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight frompersecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness ofsins by theChurch; he insists upon the newlyordainedfasts and abstinences.Catholics are thePsychici as opposed to the "spiritual" followers of theParaclete; theCatholicChurch consists ofgluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast andlove to remarry.Tertullian evidently exaggerated those parts of the Montanist teaching which appealed to himself, caring little for the rest. He has noidea of making apilgrimage to Pepuza, but he speaks of joining in spirit with the celebration of the Montanist feasts inAsia Minor. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas are by some thought to reflect a period a Carthage when the Montanist teaching was arousing interest and sympathy but had not yet formed aschism.

The following ofTertullian cannot have been large; but aTertullianistsect survived him and its remnants were reconciled to theChurch bySt. Augustine (Hær., lxxxvi). About 392-4 an African lady, Octaviana, wife of Hesperius, a favorite of the Duke Arbogastes and the usurper Maximus, brought toRome aTertullianistpriest who raved as if possessed. He obtained the use of the church of Sts. Processus and Martinianus on the Via Aurelia, but was turned out byTheodosius, and he and Octaviana were heard of no more. Epiphanius distinguished asect of Montanists as Pepuzians or Quintillians (he calls Priscilla also Quintilla). He says they had some foolish sayings which gave thanks to Eve for eating of the tree ofknowledge. They used to sleep at Pepuza in order to see Christ as Priscilla had done. Often in their church seven virgins would enter with lamps, dressed in white, to prophesy to the people, whom by their excited action they would move to tears; this reminds us of some modern missions rather than of theIrvingite "speaking with tongues", with which the Montanistecstasies have often been compared. Theseheretics were said to havewomen for theirbishops andpriests, in honor of Eve. They were called "Artotyrites", because their sacrament was of bread and cheese. Prædestinatus says the Pepuzians did not really differ from other Montanists, but despised all who did not actually dwell at the "newJerusalem". There is a well-known story that the Montanists (or at least the Pepuzians) on a certain feast took a baby child whom they stuck all over with brazen pins. They used the blood to make cakes for sacrifice. If the child died it was looked upon as amartyr; if it lived, as a high-priest. This story was no doubt a pure invention, and was especially denied in the "De Ecstasi" ofTertullian. An absurd nickname for thesect wasTascodrugitoe, from Phrygian words meaning peg and nose, because they were said to put their forefinger up their nose whenpraying "in order to appear dejected andpious" (Epiphanius, Hær., xlviii, 14).

It is interesting to takeSt. Jerome's account, written in 384, of the doctrines of Montanism as he believed them to be in his own time (Ep., xli). He describes them as Sabellians in theiridea of the Trinity, as forbidding second marriage, as observing threeLents "as though three Saviours had suffered". Abovebishops they have "Cenones" (probably notkoinonoi, but a Phrygian word) andpatriarchs above these at Pepuza. They close the door of theChurch to almost everysin. They say thatGod, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish thesalvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude whichSt. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9).St. Jerome refuses to believe the story of the blood of a baby; but his account is already exaggerated beyond what the Montanists would have admitted that they held.Origen ("Ep. ad Titum" in "Pamph. Apol.", I fin.) is uncertain whether they are schismatics orheretics.St. Basil is amazed thatDionysius of Alexandria admitted theirbaptism to be valid (Ep., clxxxii). According toPhilastrius (Hær., xlix) theybaptized the dead.Sozomen (xviii) tells us that they observedEaster on 6 April or on the following Sunday. Germanus of Constantinople (P.G., XCVIII, 44) says they taught eight heavens and eight degrees of damnation. TheChristian emperors from Constantine onwards madelaws against them, which were scarcely put into execution in Phrygia (Sozomen, II, xxxii). But gradually they became a small and secretsect. The bones of Montanus were dug up in 861. The numerous Montanist writings (bibloi apeiroi, "Philosophumena", VIII, xix) are all lost. It seems that a certainAsterius Urbanus made a collection of the prophecies (Eusebius, V, xvi, 17).

A theory of the origin of Montanism, originated byRitschl, has been followed by Harnack, Bonwetsch, and other German critics. The secularizing in the second century of theChurch by her very success and the disappearance of the primitive "Enthusiasmus" made a difficulty for "those believers of the oldschool who protested in the name of the Gospel against this secular Church, and who wished to gather together a people prepared for theirGod regardless alike of numbers and circumstances". Some of these "joined an enthusiastic movement which had originated amongst a small circle in a remote province, and had at first a merely local importance. Then, in Phrygia, the cry for a strictChristian life was reinforced by thebelief in a new and final outpouring of the Spirit. . .The wish was, as usual, father to the thought; and thussocieties of 'spiritual'Christians were formed, which served, especially in times ofpersecution, as rallying points for all those, far and near, who sighed for the end of the world and theexcessus e soeculo, and who wished in these last days to lead a holy life. These zealots hailed the appearance of theParaclete in Phrygia, and surrendered themselves to his guidance" (Harnack in "Encycl. Brit.", London, 1878, s.v. Montanism). This ingenious theory has its basis only in theimagination, nor have any facts ever been advanced in its favor.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT