Ancient
& Medieval References To Montanism
Edited By Daniel
R. Jennings, M.A.
Modern Christians will occasionally hear
reference made to an ancient group known as the Montanists. Oftentimes this
group is presented as a true Christian group who was persecuted by the
established church for their belief in the continual operation of the gifts of
the Spirit. Most modern books written upon a popular level dealing with the
Montanists adhere to this position. Virtually everything that we know regarding
the Montanists comes from ancient Christian references to them and rather than
trust a modern account a reader must return to the original sources in order to
fully understand who this group was and to see if the modern claims are indeed
accurate. This page incorporates references to Montanism made by ancient
Christian writers from the second to the twelfth centuries. It is hoped that by
giving the reader original documents relating to this group that they will be
better able to form a correct opinion as to the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the
Montanists. Click on either an ancient writer below or scroll down. Also, don’t
forget to scroll down to the bottom or click here for some Final Thoughts: Montanist Myths And
Realities.
3. Prisca/Priscilla (2nd Century)
4.
Anonymous Montanistic Prophetical Utterances And Statements
(2nd-3rd Centuries)
5.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c.120-202)
6.
Asterius Urbanus (2nd Century)
8.
Muratorian Canon (2nd Century)
9.
Avircius Marcellus (2nd Century)
10. Clement
of Alexandria (d. c.215)
11. Apollonius
of Ephesus (2nd-3rd Centuries)
13. Serapion
Of Antioch (d. c. 211)
15. Hippolytus
Of Rome (d. c. 236)
16. Victorinus
Of Pettau (2nd-3rd Centuries)
18. Cyprian
Of Carthage (d. 258)
19. Firmilian
of Caesarea (d. c. 269)
20. Pseudo-Tertullian (3rd Century?)
22. Eusebius
Of Caesarea (c.260-c.337)
23. Constantine
I, The Great (c.280-337)
24. The
Martyrdom Of Pionius (3rd-5th Century)
25. Athanasius
Of Alexandria (c.296-373)
26. Emperors Constantine II
(c.316-340), Constantius II (317-361), and Constans I (c.322-350)
27. Pacian
of Barcelona (c.310-391)
28. Didymus
The Blind (c.311-c.397)
29. Epiphanius
of Salamis (c.311-403)
30. Cyril
of Jerusalem (c.315-386)
31. Gregory Nazianzen (c.325-389)
32. Basil
The Great (c.329-379)
33. Optatus
Of Milevis (4th Century)
34. Gregory
of Nyssa (d. c.387)
35. Niceta
of Remesiana (c.335-c.414)
38. Synod
of Laodicea (4th Century)
39. Pseudo-Pionius
(4th Century)
40. Augustine
Of Hippo (354-430)
41. Emperors Gratian (359-383), Valentinian
II (371-392), and Theodosius I (c.346-381)
42. Council of Constantinople (381)
43. Emperors Theodosius I (c.346-381),
Valentinian II (371-392), and Arcadius (c.377-408)
44. Emperors Arcadius (c.377-408) and Honorius (384-423)
45. Emperors Theodosius II (401-450) and
Valentinian III (419-455)
47. Theodoret
of Cyrus (c.393-c.457)
48. Emperor
Anastasius (c.430-518)
49. Socrates
Scholasticus (4th-5th Centuries)
50. Salaminius
Hermias Sozomen (4th-5th Centuries)
51. Macarius
Magnes (4th-5th Centuries)
52. Praedestinatus (5th Century)
54. Vincent
of Lerins (5th Century)
56. Book
of Popes (5th or 6th Centuries)
57. Emperor
Justinian I, The Great (c.482-565)
58. Procopius
Of Caesarea (6th Century)
59. Cosmas
Indicopleustes (6th Century)
60. John
Of Ephesus (c.505-c.585)
61. Gregory The Great (c.540-604)
62. Isidore
of Seville (c.560-636)
63. John Of Damascus (c.676-c.770)
65. Photius
of Constantinople (c.810-c.897)
66. Agapius
Of Menbidj (d. c.941)
67. Michael
The Syrian (d. 1199)
|
“I am the Lord God
All-powerful dwelling in a man.” (In Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion), 48:11) “I am neither an
angel nor an emissary, but I, the Lord God, the Father, have come.” (In
Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest
(Panarion), 48:11) “I am the Father and
the Son and the Paraclete.” (In Didymus The Blind’s On The Trinity, 3:41) “Why do you say 'the
superman who is saved'? Because the righteous man will shine a hundred times
brighter than the sun, and even the little ones among you who are saved, a
hundred times brighter than moon.” (In Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion), 48:10) “Observe, man is like
a lyre, and I hover over him as a pick; the man sleeps but I watch. Take
note, the Lord distracts the hearts of men and gives them hearts.” (In
Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest
(Panarion), 48:4) “The
Christ has one nature, a sole energy, before [coming in] the flesh and after
putting on the flesh, so that he does not become different when he does
dissimilar and different things.” (Fragment from The Odes Of Montanus*) “[When
I die I must be buried fifty cubits underground] because the fire that is
coming upon the whole earth will devour me [if I am not buried that deep].”
(In Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle,
9:33) *
See the seventh volume of Angelo Mai's Scriptorum
Veterum Nova Collectio, p.69, where this is extracted from a patristics
catena on the Incarnation. |
|
|
Maximilla (2nd
Century) “After me there will be
no more prophecy, but the consummation.” (In Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion), 48:2) “I
am driven away from the sheep like a wolf. I am not a wolf. I am word and
spirit and power.’” (In Eusebius of “Do not listen to me,
but instead listen to Christ.” (In Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion), 48:12 ) “The Lord sent me as
a supporter of this task, forced to do it, whether I want to or not, to be a
revealer of this covenant, an interpreter of this promise, and to impart the
knowledge of God.” (In Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion), 48:13) |
|
|
Prisca/Priscilla
(2nd Century) “For
purity is harmonious, and they see visions; and, turning their face downward,
they even hear manifest voices, as salutary as they are withal secret.” (In
Tertullian’s Exhortation To Chastity,
10) “They are carnal, and yet they hate the flesh.” (In Tertullian’s On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 11) “Christ came to me
[while I slept] appearing as a woman clothed in a shining robe. He put wisdom
into me and revealed to me that this place is holy and that *Epiphanius
indicates that he is not sure whether this prophecy came from Prisca or
another Montanist named Quintilla. |
|
|
Anonymous
Montanistic Prophetical Utterances And Statements (2nd-3rd
Centuries) “If
you are exposed to public infamy it is for your good; for he who is not
exposed to dishonor among men is sure to be so before the Lord. Do not be
ashamed; righteousness brings you forth into the public gaze. Why should you
be ashamed of gaining glory? The opportunity is given you when you are before
the eyes of men.” (In Tertullian’s On
Flight In Persecution, 9) “Seek
not to die on bridal beds, nor in miscarriages, nor
in soft fevers, but to die the martyr’s death, that He may be glorified who
has suffered for you.” (In Tertullian’s On
Flight In Persecution, 9) “For
God sent forth the Word just as the root puts forth the tree, and the
fountain the river, and the sun the ray.” (In Tertullian’s Against Praxeas, 8) “The Church has the
power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal.”
(In Tertullian’s On Modesty, 21) “Amongst
other things there has been shown to me a soul in bodily shape, and a spirit
has been in the habit of appearing to me; not, however, a void and empty
illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft
and transparent and of an ethereal color, and in form resembling that of a
human being in every respect.” (In Tertullian’s A Treatise On The Soul, 9) “But [as a Scriptural
proof that the Paraclete would come as he has in the person of Montanus we
would like to remind you that] Christ said: ‘I have many things to tell you,
but you can not bear them now. But when the Spirit of truth comes’ and again:
‘It is not in his name that he speaks, but it is my will that he will
announce,’ and ‘He will glorify me,’ and ‘I will not leave you as orphans: I
will come to you.’” (In Didymus The Blind’s On The Trinity, 3:41) “You, you do not
believe there are prophets since the first epiphany. But the Savior said:
‘Behold, I send you prophets, wise men, scribes, and you will kill some of
them, and crucify them and some of them you will flog in your synagogues.’”
(In Didymus The Blind’s On The Trinity,
3:41) “We have to receive the charismatic gifts* as well.” (In
Epiphanius of Salamis’ Medicine-Chest (Panarion),
Heresy 48:1) *
The phrase “charismatic gifts” could also be translated as “gifts of grace”. |
|
|
Irenaeus
of
Lyons (c.120-202) “Now
one named Quintus, a Phrygian, who was but lately come from Phrygia, when he saw
the wild beasts, became afraid. This was the man who forced himself and some
others to come forward voluntarily [for trial]. Him
the proconsul, after many entreaties, persuaded to swear and to offer
sacrifice. Wherefore, brethren, we do not commend those who give themselves
up [to suffering], seeing the Gospel does not teach so to do.” (Encyclical
Letter Of The Church Of Smyrna On The Martyrdom Of Polycarp, Ch. 4) “These things being so,
all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also
audacious; those, [I mean,] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being
either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. The
former class [do so], that they may seem to have discovered more than is of
the truth; the latter, that they may set the dispensations of God aside. For
Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from
the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel. Others, again (the Montanists), that
they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has
been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do
not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by
John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;
but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men
indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth,
but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like
those (the Encratitae) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold
themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) cannot
admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he
speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognizes men and women
prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars,
against the Spirit of God, they fall into the irremissible sin.” (Against Heresies, 3:11:9) “He shall also judge
false prophets, who, without having received the gift of prophecy from God,
and not possessed of the fear of God, but either for the sake of vainglory,
or with a view to some personal advantage, or acting in some other way under
the influence of a wicked spirit, pretend to utter prophecies, while all the
time they lie against God.” (Against
Heresies, 4:33:6) |
|
|
Asterius
Urbanus (2nd Century) “Having now for a very long and surely a very sufficient period had
the charge pressed upon me by thee, my dear Avircius Marcellus, to write some
sort of treatise against the heresy that bears the name of Miltiades, I have
somehow been very doubtfully disposed toward the task up till now; not that I
felt any difficulty in refuting the falsehood, and in bearing my testimony to
the truth, but that I was apprehensive and fearful lest I should appear to
any to be adding some new word or precept to the doctrine of the Gospel of
the New Testament, with respect to which indeed it is not possible for one
who has chosen to have his manner of life in accordance with the Gospel
itself, either to add anything to it or to take away anything from it. Being
recently, however, at Ancyra, a town of Galatia, and finding the church in Pontus
greatly agitated by this new prophecy, as they call it, but which should
rather be called this false prophecy, as shall be shown presently, I
discoursed to the best of my ability, with the help of God, for many days in
the church, both on these subjects and on various others which were brought
under my notice by them. And this I did in such manner that the church
rejoiced and was strengthened in the truth, while the adversaries were
forthwith routed, and the opponents put to grief. And the presbyters of the
place accordingly requested us to leave behind us some memorandum of the
things which we alleged in opposition to the adversaries of the truth, there
being present also our fellow-presbyter Zoticus Otrenus. This, however, we
did not; but we promised, if the Lord gave us opportunity, to write down the
matters here, and send them to them with all speed.” (Fragment from The Exordium in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16) “Now the attitude of opposition which they have assumed, and
this new heresy of theirs which puts them in a position of separation from
the Church, had their origin in the following manner. There is said to be a
certain village called Ardaba in the Mysia, which touches But the same arrogant spirit taught them to revile the Church
universal under heaven, because that false spirit of prophecy found neither
honor from it nor entrance into it. For when the faithful throughout Asia met
together often and in many places of “Wherefore, since they stigmatized us as slayers of the prophets
because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, — for they say that
these are they whom the Lord promised to send to the people, — let them
answer us in the name of God, and tell us, O friends, whether there is any
one among those who began to speak from Montanus and the women onward that
was persecuted by the Jews or put to death by the wicked? There is not one.
Not even one of them is there who was seized and crucified for the name of Christ.
No; certainly not. Neither assuredly was there one of these women who was
ever scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned. No; never anywhere.
It is indeed by another kind of death that Montanus and Maximillia are said
to have met their end. For the report is, that by the instigation of that
maddening spirit both of them hung themselves; not together indeed, but at
the particular time of the death of each as the common story goes. And thus
they died, and finished their life like the traitor Judas. Thus, also, the
general report gives it that Theodotus — that astonishing person who was, so
to speak, the first procurator of their so-called prophecy, and who, as if he
were sometime taken up and received into the heavens, fell into spurious ecstasies,
and gave himself wholly over to the spirit of delusion — was at last tossed
by him into the air, and met his end miserably. People say then that this
took place in the way we have stated. But as we did not see them ourselves,
we do not presume to think that we know any of these things with certainty.
And it may therefore have been in this way perhaps, and perhaps in some other
way, that Montanus and Theodotus and the woman mentioned above perished.”
(Fragment from Book 2 of The Exordium in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16) “And let not the spirit of Maximilla say, “I am chased like a
wolf from the sheep; I am no wolf. I am word, and spirit, and power.” But let
him clearly exhibit and prove the power in the spirit. And by the spirit let
him constrain to a confession those who were present at that time for the
very purpose of trying and holding converse with the talkative spirit — those
men so highly reputed as men and bishops — namely, Zoticus of the village of
Comana, and Julian of Apamea, whose mouths Themison and his followers
bridled, and prevented the false and seductive spirit from being confuted by
them.” (Fragment from Book 2 of The Exordium in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16) “And has not the falsity of this also been made manifest
already? For it is now upwards of thirteen years since the woman died, and
there has arisen neither a partial nor a universal war in the world. Nay,
rather there has been steady and continued peace to the Christians by the
mercy of God.” (Fragment [possibly from Book
2] of The Exordium in Eusebius
of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16) “But as they have been refuted in all their allegations, and are
thus at a loss what to say, they try to take refuge in their martyrs. For they
say that they have many martyrs, and that this is a sure proof of the power
of their so-called prophetic spirit. But this allegation as it seems, carries
not a whit more truth with it than the others. For indeed some of the other
heresies have also a great multitude of martyrs; but yet certainly we shall
not on that account agree with them, neither shall we acknowledge that they
have truth in them. And those first heretics, who from the heresy of Marcion
are called Marcionites, allege that they have a great multitude of martyrs
for Christ. But yet they do not confess Christ Himself according to truth.”
(Fragment from Book 3 of The Exordium in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16) “Hence, also, whenever those who have been called to martyrdom
for the true faith by the Church happen to fall in with any of those
so-called martyrs of the Phrygian heresy, they always separate from them, and
die without having fellowship with them, because they do not choose to give
their assent to the spirit of Montanus and the women. And that this is truly
the case, and that it has actually taken place in our own times at Apamea, a
town on the “As I found these things in a certain writing of theirs directed
against the writing of our brother Alcibiades, in which he proves the
impropriety of a prophet’s speaking in ecstasy, I made an abridgment of that
work.” (Fragment [possibly from Book 3]
of The Exordium in Eusebius of
Caesarea’s Church History, 5:17) “But the false prophet falls into a spurious ecstasy, which is
accompanied by a want of all shame and fear. For beginning with a voluntary
(designed) rudeness, he ends with an involuntary madness of soul, as has been
already stated. But they will never be able to show that any one of the Old
Testament prophets, or any one of the New, was carried away in spirit after this
fashion. Nor will they be able to boast that Agabus, or Judas, or Silas, or
the daughters of Philip, or the woman Ammia in “For if, after Quadratus and the woman Ammia in |
|
|
Hermas (2nd Century) “And again I asked him, saying,
"Sir, since you have been so patient in listening to me, will you show
me this also?" "Speak," said he. And I said, "If a wife
or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does
he or she commit sin?" "There is no sin in marrying again,"
said he; "but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honour and
glory with the Lord; but if they marry, they do not sin. Guard, therefore,
your chastity and purity, and you will live to God. What commandments I now
give you, and what I am to give, keep from
henceforth, yea, from the very day when you were entrusted to me, and I will
dwell in your house. And your former sins will be forgiven, if you keep my
commandments. And all shall be forgiven who keep these my commandments, and
walk in this chastity."” (Shepherd Of Hermas, Book 2, Commandment 4) “He
pointed out to me some men sitting on a seat, and one man sitting on a chair.
And he says to me, “Do you see the persons sitting on the seat?” “I do, sir,”
said |
|
|
Muratorian
Canon (2nd Century) “Of
the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive
nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for
Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians.”
(Canon Muratorianus Fragment) |
|
|
Avircius
Marcellus (2nd Century) “I,
the citizen of a notable city, have made this tomb in my lifetime, that I may
have openly a resting-place for my body. Avircius by
name, I am a disciple of the pure shepherd, who feeds flocks of sheep on mountains
and plains, who hath great eyes looking on all sides. For he taught me
faithful writings, and he sent me to Rome to behold the king, and to see the
golden-robed, golden-slippered queen, and there I saw a people bearing the
splendid seal. And I saw the plain of Syria, and all its cities, even
Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates. And everywhere I had
fellow-worshippers. With Paul as my companion I followed, and everywhere
Faith led the way, and everywhere set before me fish from the fountain, mighty
and stainless, whom a pure Virgin grasped. At all
times Faith gave this to friends to eat, having good wine, giving the mixed
cup with bread. These words I, Avircius, standing
by, ordered to be inscribed; in truth I was in my seventy-second year. Let
every associate who sees this pray for me. No one shall place another in my
tomb. If he does, he shall pay 2,000 gold pieces to the treasury of the
Romans, and to my good fatherland Hierapolis 1,000 gold pieces.” (Funeral Stone Inscription)* * Some sense an Anti-Montanistic tone within this funerary inscription.
I admit that at first glance this does not seem apparent, however, there is
some external evidence to support this (Apolinarius of Hierapolis
began his anti-Montanist treatise by saying “Having for a very long and
sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, been
urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy…”) and it is included here because of that. |
|
|
Clement of
Alexandria (d. c.215) “Let not the above-mentioned people, then, call us, by way of
reproach, “natural men”, nor the Phrygians either; for these now call those
who do not apply themselves to the new prophecy “natural men”, with whom we
shall discuss in our remarks on “Prophecy.”” (Miscellanies, 4:13) “Of the heresies,
some receive their appellation from a [person’s] name, as that which is
called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides,
although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth]; for
as the teaching, so also the tradition of the apostles was one. Some take
their designation from a place, as the Peratici; some from a nation, as the [heresy] of the Phrygians; some
from an action, as that of the Encratites; and some from peculiar dogmas, as
that of the Docetae, and that of the Hermatites; and some from suppositions,
and from individuals they have honored, as those called Cainists, and the
Ophians; and some from nefarious practices and enormities, as those of the
Simonians called Entychites.” (Miscellanies,
7:17) |
|
|
Apollonius
of Ephesus (2nd-3rd
Centuries) “But who is this new teacher? His works and teaching inform us.
This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage; who inculcated fasting;
who called Peruga and Tymius, small towns of Phrygia, Jerusalem, because he
wished to collect thither people from all parts; who set up exactors of
money; who craftily contrives the taking of gifts under the name of voluntary
offerings; who grants stipends to those who publish abroad his doctrine, that
by means of gluttony the teaching of the doctrine may prevail.” (Unnamed Work Against Montanism in
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History,
5:18) “We declare to you, then, that these first prophetesses, as soon
as they were filled with the spirit, left their husbands. Of what falsehood,
then, were they guilty in calling Prisca a virgin!”
(Unnamed Work Against Montanism in
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History,
5:18) “Do you not think that all Scripture forbids a prophet to
receive gifts and money? When, therefore, I see that the prophetess has
received gold and silver and expensive articles of dress, how can I avoid
treating her with disapproval?” (Unnamed
Work Against Montanism in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:18) “Moreover, Themison also, who was clothed in a garb of plausible
covetousness, who declined to bear the sign of confessorship, but by a large
sum of money put away from him the chains of martyrdom, although after such
conduct it was his duty to conduct himself with humility, ye had the
hardihood to boast that he was a martyr, and, in imitation of the apostle, to
compose a general epistle, in which he attempted to instruct in the elements
of the faith those who had believed to better purpose than he, and defended
the doctrines of the new-fangled teaching, and moreover uttered blasphemy
against the Lord and the apostles and the holy Church.” (Unnamed Work Against Montanism in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:18) “But, not to dwell further on these matters, let the prophetess
tell us concerning Alexander, who calls himself a martyr, with whom she joins
in banqueting; who himself also is worshipped by many; whose robberies and
other deeds of daring, for which he has been punished, it is not necessary
for us to speak of, since the treasury has him in keeping. Which of them,
then, condones the sins of the other? The prophet the robberies of the
martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the prophet? For whereas the Lord
has said, “Provide not gold, nor silver, nor two coats a-piece,” these men
have, on the flat contrary, transgressed the command by the acquisition of
these forbidden things. For we shall show that those who are called among
them prophets and martyrs obtain money not only from the rich, but also from
the poor, from orphans and widows. And if they are confident that they are
right in so doing, let them stand forward and discuss the point, in order
that, if they be refuted, they may cease for the future so to transgress. For
the fruits of the prophet must needs be brought to
the test: for “from its fruit is the tree known.” But that those that desire
it may become acquainted with what relates to Alexander, he was condemned by
Aemilius Frontinus, proconsul at “If they
deny that their prophets have taken gifts, let them confess thus much, that
if they be convicted of having taken them, they are not prophets; and we will
adduce ten thousand proofs that they have. It is proper, too, that all the
fruits of a prophet should be examined. Tell me: does a prophet dye his hair?
Does a prophet use stibium on his eyes? Is a prophet fond of dress? Does a
prophet play at gaming-tables and dice? Does a prophet lend money on
interest? Let them confess whether these things are allowable or not. For my
part, I will prove that these practices have occurred among them.” (Unnamed Work Against Montanism in
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History,
5:18) |
|
|
Caius
(2nd-3rd
Centuries) “But
I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the “But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends
were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he
falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the
flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.
And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of
deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years a for
marriage festivals.” (Dialogue Against
Proclus
in Eusebius of Caesarea’s
Ecclesiastical History, 3:28) “After him there were
four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at |
|
|
Serapion Of
Antioch (d. c. 211) "That you may
see that the doings of this lying band of the new prophecy, so called, are an
abomination to all the brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you
writings of the most blessed Claudius Apolinarius,
bishop of Hierapolis in Asia...I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, pray for your health…Aelius Publius Julius, bishop
of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace. As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas
in Anchialus desired to cast the demon out of
Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit him." (Letter To Caricus And Pontius in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, 5:19) |
|
|
Tertullian (c.160-c.230) Tertullian is the
only extant Montanist writer and his works after having embraced Montanism
are quite lengthy and will be best viewed via links individually. |
|
|
On Ecstasy [Lost] On The Hope Of The Faithful [Lost] On Paradise [Lost] Against Marcion (2nd & 3rd
Editions) On Fate [Lost] Against The Followers Of Apelles [Lost] |
On The Resurrection Of The Body On The Military Garland (The Chaplet) Antidote To The Scorpion’s Sting Against Praxeas |
|
* The Martyrdom Of Perpetua And Felicitas
is thought by some to have been written by Tertullian. Some have sensed a
strong Montanistic tone to the work. One theory suggests that the original
work was not but was edited by a Montanistic writer resulting in this tone.
Compare section one of The Martyrdom Of
Perpetua And Felicitas in regards to this. |
|
|
Aside from referring
the reader to the above works, here are a few direct quotes by Tertullian
regarding the Montanists. “However, he is
himself a liar from the beginning, and whatever man he instigates in his own
way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he
was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical
pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all
inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to
bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even “if
he had given his body to be burned, it would have profiled him nothing,” not
having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For
after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus,
Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had
bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false
accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting
on the authority of the bishop’s predecessors in the see, compelled him to
recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his
purpose of acknowledging the said
gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at “For,
seeing that we acknowledge spiritual charismata,
or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift, although
coming after John (the Baptist). We have now amongst us a sister whose lot it
has been to be favored with sundry gifts of revelation, which she experiences
in the Spirit by ecstatic vision amidst the sacred rites of the Lord’s day in
the church: she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she
both sees and hears mysterious communications; some men’s hearts she
understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies. Whether it
be in the reading of Scriptures, or in the chanting
of psalms, or in the preaching of sermons, or in the offering up of prayers,
in all these religious services matter and opportunity are afforded to her of
seeing visions. It may possibly have happened to us, whilst this sister of
ours was rapt in the Spirit, that we had discoursed in some ineffable way
about the soul. After the people are dismissed at the conclusion of the
sacred services, she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever
things she may have seen in vision (for all her communications are examined
with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed).
“Amongst other things,” says she, “there has been shown to me a soul in
bodily shape, and a spirit has been in the habit of appearing to me; not,
however, a void and empty illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even
grasped by the hand, soft and transparent and of an ethereal color, and in
form resembling that of a human being in every respect.” This was her vision,
and for her witness there was God; and the apostle most assuredly foretold
that there were to be “spiritual gifts” in the church. Now, can you refuse to
believe this, even if indubitable evidence on every point is forthcoming for your
conviction?” (A Treatise On The Soul, 9) “But
we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be
after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of
Jerusalem, “let down from heaven,” which the apostle also calls “our mother
from above;” and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that
it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the
Apostle John beheld. And the word of the new
prophecy which is a part of our belief, attests how it foretold that
there would be for a sign a picture of this very city exhibited to view
previous to its manifestation. This prophecy, indeed, has been very lately
fulfilled in an expedition to the East. For it is evident from the testimony
of even heathen witnesses, that in “Well
therefore does Peter, when recognizing the companions of his Christ in their
indissoluble connection with Him, suggest an expedient: “It is good for us to
be here” (good: that evidently means to be where Moses and Elias are); “and
let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for
Elias. But he knew not what he said.” How knew not? Was his ignorance the
result of simple error? Or was it on the principle which we maintain in the
cause of the new prophecy, that to grace ecstasy or rapture is incident. For
when a man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of
God, or when God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation,
because he is overshadowed with the power of God, — a point concerning which
there is a question between us and the carnally-minded. Now, it is no
difficult matter to prove the rapture of Peter. For how could he have known
Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had
their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade. How, if it
were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And therefore, because it was
in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in his natural senses, he could
not know what he had said. But if, on the other hand, he was thus ignorant,
because he erroneously supposed that (Jesus) was their Christ, it is then
evident that Peter, when previously asked by Christ, “Whom they thought Him
to be,” meant the Creator’s Christ, when he answered, “Thou art the Christ;”
because if he had been then aware that He belonged to the rival god, he would
not have made a mistake here. But if he was in error here because of his previous
erroneous opinion, then you may be sure that up to that very day no new
divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no
mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that
Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the
Creator, whose entire dispensation he, in fact, here described.” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 4:22) “You
have accustomed yourself either to deny or change her existence even in
Christ — corrupting the very Word of God Himself, who became flesh, either by
mutilating or misinterpreting the Scripture, and introducing, above all,
apocryphal mysteries and blasphemous fables. But yet Almighty God, in
His most gracious providence, by “pouring out of His Spirit in these last
days, upon all flesh, upon His servants and on His handmaidens,” has checked
these impostures of unbelief and perverseness, reanimated men’s faltering
faith in the resurrection of the flesh, and cleared from all obscurity and
equivocation the ancient Scriptures (of both God’s Testaments) by the clear
light of their (sacred) words and meanings. Now, since it was “needful that
there should be heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made
manifest;” since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold
front without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain
enough that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials
for their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed (so distorted) are refutable
from the same Scriptures. It was fit and proper, therefore, that the Holy
Ghost should no longer withhold the effusions of His gracious light upon
these inspired writings, in order that they might be able to disseminate the
seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties, and pluck
out from it their tares. He has accordingly now dispersed all the
perplexities of the past, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, by
the open and perspicuous explanation of the entire mystery, through the new prophecy, which descends
in copious streams from the Paraclete. If you will only draw water from His
fountains, you will never thirst for other doctrine: no feverish craving
after subtle questions will again consume you; but by drinking in
evermore the resurrection of the flesh, you will be satisfied with the
refreshing draughts.” (On The
Resurrection Of The Flesh, 63) “Meanwhile
He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth,
even the Holy Spirit — the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of
the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at
the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears
and receives the words of the new prophecy; and “the Leader into all truth,”
such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the
mystery of the doctrine of Christ.” (Against
Praxeas, 30) …for
there is nobody who lives so much in accordance with the flesh as they who
deny the resurrection of the flesh, inasmuch as they despise all its
discipline, while they disbelieve its punishment. It is a shrewd saying which
the Paraclete utters concerning these persons by the mouth of the prophetess
Prisca: “They are carnal, and yet they hate the
flesh.” (On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 11) “I
should wonder at the Psychics, if they were enthralled to voluptuousness
alone, which leads them to repeated marriages [after being widowed], if they
were not likewise bursting with gluttony, which leads them to hate fasts…It
is really irksome to engage with such: one is really ashamed to wrangle about
subjects the very defense of which is offensive to modesty. For how am I to
protect chastity and sobriety without taxing their adversaries? What those
adversaries are I will once for all mention: they are the exterior and
interior botuli of the Psychics. It is these which raise controversy
with the Paraclete; it is on this account that the New Prophecies are
rejected: not that Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilia preach another God,
nor that they disjoin Jesus Christ (from God), nor that they overturn any
particular rule of faith or hope, but that they plainly teach more frequent
fasting than marrying. Concerning the limit of marrying, we have already
published a defense of monogamy. Now our battle is the battle of the
secondary (or rather the primary) continence, in regard of the chastisement
of diet. They charge us with keeping fasts of our own; with prolonging our
Stations generally into the evening; with observing xerophagies likewise,
keeping our food unmoistened by any flesh, and by any juiciness, and by any
kind of specially succulent fruit; and with not eating or drinking anything
with a winey flavor; also with abstinence from the bath, congruent with our
dry diet. They are therefore constantly reproaching us with NOVELTY;
concerning the unlawfulness of which they lay down a prescriptive rule, that
either it must be adjudged heresy,
if (the point in dispute) is a human presumption; or else pronounced pseudo-prophecy, if it is a spiritual
declaration; provided that, either way, we who reclaim hear (sentence of)
anathema.” (On Fasting In Opposition To
The Psychics, 1) “Grant that from the time of John the Paraclete had grown mute;
we ourselves would have arisen as prophets to ourselves, for this cause
chiefly: I say not now to bring down by our prayers God’s anger, nor to
obtain his protection or grace; but to secure by premunition the moral
position of the “latest times;” enjoining every species of tapeinofronhsiv, since
the prison must be familiarized to us, and hunger and thirst practiced, and
capacity of enduring as well the absence of food as anxiety about it
acquired: in order that the Christian may enter into prison in like condition
as if he had (just) come forth of it, — to suffer there not penalty, but
discipline, and not the world’s tortures, but his own habitual observances;
and to go forth out of custody to (the final) conflict with all the more
confidence, having nothing of sinful false care of the flesh about him, so
that the tortures may not even have material to work on, since he is
cuirassed in a mere dry skin, and cased in horn to meet the claws, the
succulence of his blood already sent on (heavenward) before him, the baggage
as it were of his soul, — the soul herself withal now hastening (after it),
having already, by frequent fasting, gained a most intimate knowledge of
death! Plainly,
your habit is to furnish cookshops in the prisons to untrustworthy
martyrs, for fear they should miss their accustomed usages, grow weary of
life, (and) be stumbled at the novel discipline of abstinence; (a discipline)
which not even the well-known Pristinus — your martyr, no Christian
martyr — had ever come in contact with: he whom — stuffed as he had long been,
thanks to the facilities afforded by the “free custody” (now in vogue, and)
under an obligation, I suppose, to all the baths (as if they were better than
baptism!), and to all the retreats of voluptuousness (as if they were more
secret than those of the Church!), and to all the allurements of this life
(as if they were of more worth than those of life eternal!), not to be
willing to die — on the very last day of trial, at high noon, you
premedicated with drugged wine as an antidote, and so completely enervated,
that on being tickled — for his intoxication made it feel like tickling —
with a few claws, he was unable any more to make answer to the presiding
officer interrogating him “whom he confessed to be Lord;” and, being now put
on the rack for this silence, when he could utter nothing but hiccoughs and
belchings, died in the very act of apostasy! This is why they who preach
sobriety are “false prophets;” this why they who practice it are “heretics!”
Why then hesitate to believe that the Paraclete, whom you deny in a Montanus,
exists in an Apicius?” (On Fasting In
Opposition To The Psychics, 12) “For if Christ abrogated what Moses enjoined, because
“from the beginning (it) was not so;” and (if) — this being so — Christ will
not therefore be reputed to have come from some other Power; why may not the
Paraclete, too, have abrogated an indulgence which Paul granted — because
second marriage [after being widowed] withal “was not from the beginning” —
without deserving on this account to be regarded with suspicion, as if he
were an alien spirit, provided only that the superinduction be worthy of God
and of Christ? If it was worthy of God and of Christ to check
“hard-heartedness” when the time (for its indulgence) was fully expired, why
should it not be more worthy both of God and of Christ to shake off
“infirmity of the flesh” when “the time” is already more “wound up?” If it is
just that marriage be not severed, it is, of course, honorable too that it be
not iterated. In short, in the estimation of the world, each is accounted a
mark of good discipline: one under the name of concord; one, of modesty.
“Hardness of heart” reigned till Christ’s time; let “infirmity of the flesh”
(be content to) have reigned till the time of the Paraclete. The New Law
abrogated divorce — it had (somewhat) to abrogate; the New Prophecy
(abrogates) second marriage, (which is) no less a divorce of the former
(marriage). But the “hardness of heart” yielded to Christ more readily than
the “infirmity of the flesh.” The latter claims Paul in its own support more
than the former Moses; if, indeed, it is claiming him in its support when it
catches at his indulgence, (but) refuses his prescript — eluding his more
deliberate opinions and his constant “wills,” not suffering us to render to the
apostle the (obedience) which he “prefers,”. And
how long will this most shameless “infirmity” persevere in waging a war of
extermination against the “better things?” The time for its indulgence was
(the interval) until the Paraclete began His operations, to whose coming were
deferred by the Lord (the things) which in His day “could not be endured;”
which it is now no longer competent for any one to be unable to endure,
seeing that He through whom the power of enduring is granted is not wanting.
How long shall we allege “the flesh,” because the Lord said, “the flesh is
weak?” But He has withal premised that “the Spirit is prompt,” in order that
the Spirit may vanquish the flesh — that the weak may yield to the stronger.
For again He says, “Let him who is able to receive, receive (it);” that is,
let him who is not able go his way. That rich man did go his way who had not
“received” the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was
abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion. Nor will “harshness” be on this
account imputed to Christ, on the ground of the vicious action of each
individual free-will.” (On Monogamy, 14) “Again, through the
holy prophetess Prisca the Gospel is thus preached: that “the holy minister
knows how to minister sanctity.” “For purity,” says she, “is harmonious, and
they see visions; and, turning their face downward, they even hear manifest
voices, as salutary as they are withal secret.” If this dulling (of the
spiritual faculties), even when the carnal nature is allowed room for
exercise in first marriage, averts the Holy Spirit; how much more when it is
brought into play in second marriage!” (On
Exhortation To Chastity, 10) “My own path,
however, lies along the original tenets of their chief teachers, not with the
self-appointed leaders of their promiscuous followers. Nor shall we hear it
said of us from any quarter, that we have of our own mind fashioned our own
materials, since these have been already produced, both in respect of the
opinions and their refutations, in carefully written volumes, by so many
eminently holy and excellent men, not only those who have lived before us,
but those also who were contemporary with the heresiarchs themselves: for
instance Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the
churches; Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines; our own Proculus, the model of chaste
old age and Christian eloquence. All these it would be my desire
closely to follow in every work of faith, even as in this particular one. Now
if there are no heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed
to have fabricated, then the apostle who predicted them must have been guilty
of falsehood. If, however, there are heresies, they can be no other than
those which are the subject of discussion. No writer can be supposed to have
so much time on his hands as to fabricate materials which are already in his
possession.” (Against The Valentinians,
5) “If ancient
illustrations of faith which both testify to God's grace and tend to man's
edification are collected in writing, so that by the perusal of them, as if
by the reproduction of the facts, as well God may be honoured, as man may be
strengthened; why should not new instances be also collected, that shall be
equally suitable for both purposes,-if only on the ground that these modern
examples will one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in
their present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the
presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they judge the
power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times and seasons; since
some things of later date must be esteemed of more account as being nearer to
the very last times, in accordance with the exuberance of grace manifested to
the final periods determined for the world. For "in the last days, saith
the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and
their daughters shall prophesy. And upon my servants and my handmaidens will
I pour out of my Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old
men shall dream dreams." And thus we-who both acknowledge and
reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised
to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the
Church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as
the Lord distributed to every one as well needfully collect them in
writing, as commemorate them in reading to God's glory; that so no weakness
or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among
the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs,
or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has
promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit. And we
therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and
little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be
reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by
report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the
Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honour, for ever and ever.” (The Martyrdom Of Perpetua And Felicity,
Preface) |
|
|
Hippolytus Of Rome
(d. c. 236) “But
there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the
foregoing) and are Phrygians by birth. These have been rendered victims of
error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a
certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And
they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and
antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And
being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are
overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by
them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto
those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by
the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they
have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and
the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and
every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in
them a something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father
of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with the Church, and
(receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They
introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched
food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by
women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm
that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under
generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an
explanation, after a more minute manner; for the
heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of
opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient
when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are
silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no
consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to
pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).” (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 8:12) “The Phrygians, however, derive the principles of their heresy
from a certain Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, and regard these
wretched women as prophetesses, and Montanus as a prophet. In respect,
however, of what appertains to the origin and creation of the universe, the
Phrygians are supposed to express themselves correctly; while in the tenets
which they enunciate respecting Christ, they have not irrelevantly formed
their opinions. But they are seduced into error in common with the heretics
previously alluded to, and devote their attention to the discourses of these
above the Gospels, thus laying down regulations concerning novel and strange
fasts.” (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 8: 21) “But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the
Noetians, entertain similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of
the Phrygians, and to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining
to the Father of the entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy,
because they assert that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible,
begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from
a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy.” (The
Refutation Of All Heresies, 8:22) |
|
|
Victorinus Of
Pettau (2nd-3rd Centuries) “To him that overcomes I will give the
hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone.” The hidden manna is immortality;
the white gem is adoption to be the son of God; the new name written on the
stone is Christian. The fourth class intimates the
nobility of the faithful, who labour daily, and do greater works. But even
among them also He shows that there are men of an easy disposition to grant
unlawful peace, and to listen to new
forms of prophesying; and He reproves and warns the others to whom
this is not pleasing, who know the wickedness opposed to them: for which evils
He purposes to bring upon the head of the faithful both sorrows and dangers…”
(Commentary On The Apocalypse, 2:17) |
|
|
Origen (185-c.254) “Granting
that there are some amongst us Christians who do not allow that our God is the
same as the God of the Jews, it by no means follows that they are to be
blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same God is God of
the Jews and of the Gentiles; Paul plainly shows this, when, after leaving
the Jewish religion and embracing Christianity, he says, "I thank God,
whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." Let us grant,
too, that there is a third class
composed of those who call some persons psychical and others spiritual*
(I suppose Celsus means the Valentinians); but what have we who belong to the
Church to do with that? We are the accusers of those who introduce the
doctrine of natures so constituted that they must be saved, or must perish.”
(Philocalia, 16:3) *
Tertullian called those who rejected the Montanist view Psychici, that
is, animal or carnal: while the followers of Montanus were
called Spiritales, spiritual. “And as there are many ways of apprehending
Christ, who, although He is wisdom, does not act the part or possess the
power of wisdom in all men, but only in those who give themselves to the
study of wisdom in Him; and who, although called a physician, does not act as
one towards all, but only towards those who understand their feeble and
sickly condition, and flee to His compassion that they may obtain health; so
also I think is it with the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of
gifts. For on some is bestowed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, on others
the word of knowledge, on others faith; and so to each individual of those
who are capable of receiving Him, is the Spirit Himself made to be that
quality, or understood to be that which is needed by the individual who has
deserved to participate. These divisions and differences not being
perceived by those who hear Him called Paraclete in the Gospel, and not duly
considering in consequence of what work or act He is named the Paraclete,
they have compared Him to some common spirits or other, and by this means
have tried to disturb the Churches of Christ, and so excite dissensions of no
small extent among brethren; whereas the Gospel shows Him to be of
such power and majesty, that it says the apostles could not yet receive those
things which the Saviour wished to teach them until the advent of the Holy
Spirit, who, pouring Himself into their souls, might enlighten them regarding
the nature and faith of the Trinity. But these persons, because of the
ignorance of their understandings, are not only unable themselves logically
to state the truth, but cannot even give their attention to what is advanced
by us; and entertaining unworthy ideas of His divinity, have delivered
themselves over to errors and deceits, being depraved by a spirit of error,
rather than instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, according to the
declaration of the apostle, Following the doctrine of devils, forbidding to
marry, to the destruction and ruin of many, and to abstain from meats, that
by an ostentatious exhibition of stricter observance they may seduce the
souls of the innocent. We
must therefore know that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths
which cannot be uttered in words, and which are, so to speak, unutterable,
and “which it is not lawful for a man to utter,”
i.e., which cannot be indicated by human language. The phrase “it is
not lawful” is, we think, used by the apostle instead of “it is not
possible;” as also is the case in the passage where he says, “All things are lawful
for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me;
but all things edify not.”
For those things which are in our power because we may have them, he says are
lawful for us. But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so
called from His work of consolation, paraclesis being termed in Latin consolatio.
For if any one has deserved to participate in the Holy Spirit by the knowledge
of His ineffable mysteries, he undoubtedly obtains comfort and joy of
heart. For since he comes by the teaching of the Spirit to the
knowledge of the reasons of all things which happen—how or why they occur—his
soul can in no respect be troubled, or admit any feeling of sorrow; nor is he
alarmed by anything, since, clinging to the Word of God and His wisdom, he
through the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord. And since we have made
mention of the Paraclete, and have explained as we were able what sentiments
ought to be entertained regarding Him; and since our Saviour also is called
the Paraclete in the Epistle of John, when he says, “If any of us sin, we
have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the
propitiation for our sins;”
let us consider whether this term Paraclete should happen to have one meaning
when applied to the Saviour, and another when applied to the Holy Spirit.
Now Paraclete, when spoken of the Saviour, seems to mean intercessor.
For in Greek, Paraclete has both significations—that of intercessor and
comforter. On account, then, of the phrase which follows, when he says,
“And He is the propitiation for our sins,” the name Paraclete seems to be
understood in the case of our Saviour as meaning intercessor; for He is said
to intercede with the Father because of our sins. In the case of the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete must be understood in the sense of comforter,
inasmuch as He bestows consolation upon the souls to whom He openly reveals
the apprehension of spiritual knowledge.” (On First Principles, 2:7:3-4) “It
is true, some have raised the question, and properly so, as to whether those
who have the name Cataphrygian should be called a heresy or a schism. They
invoke false prophets and say: “Do not come near me, for I am pure; for I
have not taken a wife, nor is my throat an open tomb, but I am a Nazirite of
God; just like them, I do not drink wine.” (In Pamphilus’ Apology For Origen) “But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which
prophecies are delivered in Phoenicia and Palestine, speaking as though it
were a matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance, let us see
what he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down that there are
several kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify what they are; indeed,
he could not do so, and the statement is a piece of pure ostentation.
However, let us see what he considers the most perfect kind of prophecy among
these nations. “There are many,” he says, “who, although of no name,
with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or
without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while
others do it in cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting
attention and exciting surprise. These are accustomed to say, each for
himself, ‘I am God; I am the Son of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have
come because the world is perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your
iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me returning
again with heavenly power. Blessed is he who now does me homage.
On all the rest I will send down eternal fire, both on cities and on countries.
And those who know not the punishments which await them shall repent and
grieve in vain; while those who are faithful to me I will preserve
eternally.’” Then he goes on to say: “To these promises are added
strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational
person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no
meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply
them to suit his own purposes.” But
if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he ought to have given the
exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in which the speaker is
introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or those in which the Son of God
speaks, or finally those under the name of the Holy Spirit. For thus he
might have endeavoured to overthrow these assertions, and have shown that
there was no divine inspiration in those words which urged men to forsake
their sins, which condemned the past and foretold the future. For the
prophecies were recorded and preserved by men living at the time, that those
who came after might read and admire them as the oracles of God, and that
they might profit not only by the warnings and admonitions, but also by the
predictions, which, being shown by events to have proceeded from the Spirit
of God, bind men to the practice of piety as set forth in the law and the
prophets. The prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared
with all plainness those things which it was desirable that the hearers
should understand at once for the regulation of their conduct; while in
regard to deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the reach of
the common understanding, they set them forth in the form of enigmas and
allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables, or
similitudes. And this plan they have followed, that those who are ready
to shun no labour and spare no pains in their endeavours after truth and
virtue might search into their meaning, and having found it, might apply it
as reason requires. But Celsus, ever vigorous in his denunciations, as
though he were angry at his inability to understand the language of the
prophets, scoffs at them thus: “To these grand promises are added
strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational
person can find the meaning; for so dark are they as to have no meaning at
all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them so as to
suit his own purposes.” This statement of Celsus seems ingeniously
designed to dissuade readers from attempting any inquiry or careful search
into their meaning. And in this he is not unlike certain persons, who
said to a man whom a prophet had visited to announce future events,
“Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?” I
am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments could be adduced than any I
have been able to bring forward, to show the falsehood of these allegations
of Celsus, and to set forth the divine inspiration of the prophecies; but we
have according to our ability, in our commentaries on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and
some of the twelve minor prophets, explained literally and in detail what he
calls “those fanatical and utterly unintelligible passages.” And if God give
us grace in the time that He appoints for us, to advance in the knowledge of
His word, we shall continue our investigation into the parts which remain, or
into such at least as we are able to make plain. And other persons of
intelligence who wish to study Scripture may also find out its meaning for
themselves; for although there are many places in which the meaning is not
obvious, yet there are none where, as Celsus affirms, “there is no sense at
all.” Neither is it true that “any fool or impostor can explain the
passages so as to make them suit his own purposes.” For it belongs only
to those who are wise in the truth of Christ (and to all them it does belong)
to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure parts of prophecy,
“comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” and interpreting each passage
according to the usage of Scripture writers. And Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has heard
such men prophesy; for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the ancient
prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus. If there had been any,
those who heard and admired them would have followed the example of the
ancients, and have recorded the prophecies in writing. And it seems
quite clear that Celsus is speaking falsely, when he says that “those
prophets whom he had heard, on being pressed by him, confessed their true
motives, and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they used really meant
nothing.” He ought to have given the names of those whom he says he had
heard, if he had any to give, so that those who were competent to judge might
decide whether his allegations were true or false.” (Against Celsus, 7:9-11) |
|
|
Cyprian
Of Carthage (d. 258) 1. Cyprian to
Jubaianus his brother, greeting. You
have written to me, dearest brother, wishing that the impression of my mind should
be signified to you, as to what I think concerning the baptism of heretics;
who, placed without, and established outside the Church, arrogate to
themselves a matter neither within their right nor their power. This baptism
we cannot consider as valid or legitimate, since it is manifestly unlawful
among them; and since we have already expressed in our letters what
we thought on this matter, I have, as a compendious method, sent you a copy
of the same letters, what we decided in council when very many of us were
present, and what, moreover, I subsequently wrote back to Quintus, our
colleague, when he asked about the same thing. And now also, when we had met
together, bishops as well of the province of Africa as of Numidia, to the
number of seventy-one, we established this same matter once more by our
judgment, deciding that there is one baptism which is appointed in the
Catholic Church; and that by this those are not re-baptized, but baptized by
us, who at any time come from the adulterous and unhallowed water to be
washed and sanctified by the truth of the saving water… 3. But among us it is no new or sudden
thing for us to judge that those are to be baptized who come to the Church
from among the heretics,
since it is now many years and a long time ago, that, under Agrippinus-a man
of worthy memory-very many bishops assembling together have decided this; and
thenceforward until the present day, so many thousands of heretics in our provinces have
been converted to the Church, and have neither despised nor delayed, nay,
they have both reasonably and gladly embraced, the opportunity to attain the
grace of the life-giving layer and of saving baptism. For it is not difficult
for a teacher to insinuate true and lawful things into his mind, who, having
condemned heretical
pravity, and discovered the truth of the Church, comes for this purpose, that
he may learn, and learns for the purpose that he may live. We ought not to
increase the stolidity of heretics
by the patronage of our consent, when they gladly and readily obey the truth. 4. Certainly, since I
found in the letter the copy of which you transmitted to me, that it was
written, "That it should not be asked who baptized, since he who is
baptized might receive remission of sins according to what he believed,"
I thought that this topic was not to be passed by, especially since I
observed in the same epistle that mention was also made of Marcion, saying
that "even those that came from him did not need to be baptized, because
they seemed to have been already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Therefore we ought to consider their faith who believe
without, whether in respect of the same faith they can obtain any grace. For
if we and heretics have one
faith, we may also have one grace. If the Patripassians, Anthropians,
Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and other pests, and swords,
and poisons of heretics for
subverting the truth, confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy
Ghost, the same Church with us, they may also have one baptism if they have
also one faith. 5. And lest it should
be wearisome to go through all the heresies,
and to enumerate either the follies or the madness of each of them, because
it is no pleasure to speak of that which one either dreads or is ashamed to
know, let us examine in the meantime about Marcion alone, the mention of whom
has been made in the letter transmitted by you to us, whether the ground of
his baptism can be made good. For the Lord after His resurrection, sending
His disciples, instructed and taught them in what manner they ought to
baptize, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He suggests the Trinity,
in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Does Marcion then
maintain the Trinity? Does he then assert the same Father, the Creator, as we
do? Does he know the same Son, Christ born of the Virgin Mary, who as the
Word was made flesh, who bare our sins, who conquered death by dying, who by
Himself first of all originated the resurrection of the flesh, and showed to
His disciples that He had risen in the same flesh? Widely different is the faith with
Marcion, and, moreover, with the other heretics nay, with them there is
nothing but perfidy, and blasphemy, and contention, which is hostile to
holiness and truth. How then can one who is baptized among them seem to have
obtained mission of sins, and the grace of the divine mercy, by his faith,
when he has not the truth of the faith itself? For if, as some
suppose, one could receive anything abroad out of the Church according to his
faith, certainly he has received what he believed; but if he believes what is
false, he could not receive what is true; but rather he has received things
adulterous and profane, according to what he believed. 6. This matter of
profane and adulterous baptism Jeremiah the prophet plainly rebukes, saying,
"Why do they who afflict me prevail? My wound is hard; whence shall I be
healed? while it has indeed become unto me as
deceitful water which has no faithfulness." The Holy Spirit makes
mention by the prophet of deceitful water which has no faithfulness. What is
this deceitful and faithless water? Certainly that which falsely assumes the
resemblance of baptism, and frustrates the grace of faith by a shadowy
pretence. But if, according to a perverted faith, one could be baptized
without, and obtain remission of sins, according to the same faith he could
also attain the Holy Spirit; and there is no need that hands should be laid
on him when he comes, that he might obtain the Holy Ghost, and be sealed.
Either he could obtain both privileges without by his faith, or he who has
been without has received neither. 7. But it is manifest
where and by whom remission of sins can be given; to wit, that which is given
in baptism. For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He
built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity-the
power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven.
And after the resurrection, also, He speaks to the apostles, saying, "As
the Father hath sent me, even so I send you. And when He had said this, He
breathed on them, and saith, unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins
ye retain, they are retained." Whence we perceive that only they who are
set over the Church and established in the Gospel law, and in the ordinance
of the Lord, are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins; but that
without, nothing can either be bound or loosed, where there is none who can
either bind or loose anything. 8. Nor do we propose
this, dearest brother, without the authority of divine Scripture, when we say
that all things are arranged by divine direction by a certain law and by
special ordinance, and that none can usurp to himself, in opposition to the
bishops and priests, anything which is not of his own right and power. For
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram endeavoured to usurp, in opposition to Moses and
Aaron the priest, the power of sacrificing; and they did not do without
punishment what they unlawfully dared. The sons of Aaron also, who placed
strange fire upon the altar, were at once consumed in the sight of an angry
Lord; which punishment remains to those who introduce strange water by a
false baptism, that the divine vengeance may avenge and chastise when heretics do that in opposition
to the Church, which the Church alone is allowed to do. 9. But in respect of
the assertion of some concerning those who had been baptized in Samaria, that
when the Apostles Peter and John came, only hands were imposed on them, that
they might receive the Holy Ghost, yet that they were not re-baptized; we see
that that place does not, dearest brother, touch the present case. For they
who had believed in Samaria had believed with a true faith; and within, in
the Church which is one, and to which alone it is granted to bestow the grace
of baptism and to remit sins, had been baptized by Philip the deacon, whom
the same apostles had sent. And therefore, because they had obtained a
legitimate and ecclesiastical baptism, there was no need that they should be
baptized any more, but only that which was needed was performed by Peter and
John; viz., that prayer being made for them, and hands being imposed, the
Holy Spirit should be invoked and poured out upon them, which now too is done
among us, so that they who are baptized in the Church are brought to the
prelates of the Church, and by our prayers and by the imposition of hands
obtain the Holy Spirit, and are perfected with the Lord's seal. 10. There is no ground, therefore, dearest
brother, for thinking that we should give way to heretics so far as to
contemplate the betrayal to them of that baptism, which is only granted to
the one and only Church. It is a good soldier's duty to defend the
camp of his general against rebels and enemies. It is the duty of an
illustrious leader to keep the standards entrusted to him. It is written,
"The Lord thy God is a jealous God." We who have received the
Spirit of God ought to have a jealousy for the divine faith; with such a
jealousy as that wherewith Phineas both pleased God and justly allayed His
wrath when He was angry, and the people were perishing. Why do we receive as
allowed an adulterous and alien church, a foe to the divine unity, when we
know only one Christ and His one Church? The Church, setting forth the
likeness of paradise, includes within her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring forth good fruit
is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees she waters with four
rivers, that is, with the four Gospels, wherewith, by a celestial inundation,
she bestows the grace of saving baptism. Can any one water from the Church's
fountains who is not within the Church? Can one
impart those wholesome and saving draughts of paradise to any one if he is
perverted, and of himself condemned, and banished
outside the fountains of paradise, and has dried up and failed with the
dryness of an eternal thirst? 11. The Lord cries
aloud, that "whosoever thirsts should come and drink of the rivers of
living water that flowed out of His bosom." Whither is he to come who
thirsts? Shall he come to the heretics,
where there is no fountain and river of living water at all; or to the Church
which is one, and is founded upon one who has received the keys of it by the
Lord's voice? It is she who holds and possesses alone all the power of her
spouse and Lord. In her we preside; for her honour and unity we fight; her
grace, as well as her glory, we defend with faithful devotedness. We by the
divine permission water the thirsting people of God; we guard the boundaries
of the living fountains. If, therefore, we hold the right of our possession,
if we acknowledge the sacrament of unity, wherefore are we esteemed
prevaricators against truth? Wherefore are we judged betrayers of unity? The
faithful, and saving, and holy water of the Church cannot be corrupted and adulterated,
as the Church herself also is uncorrupted, and chaste, and modest. If heretics are devoted to the Church
and established in the Church, they may use both her baptism and her other
saving benefits. But if they are not in the Church, nay more, if they act
against the Church, how can they baptize with the Church's baptism? 12. For it is no small and insignificant
matter, which is conceded to heretics, when their baptism is recognised by
us; since thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to
the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and
quickening the servants of God. For if any one could be baptized among
heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained
remission of sins, he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he also was
made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he
could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not
become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit;
since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is
the enemy either of the Son or of the Father? 13. Hence it is in
vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were
greater than truth; or as if that were not to be sought after in spiritual
matters which has been revealed as the better by the Holy Spirit. For one who
errs by simplicity may be pardoned, as the blessed Apostle Paul says of
himself, "I who at first was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and
injurious; yet obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly." But after
inspiration and revelation made to him, he who intelligently and knowingly
perseveres in that course in which he had erred, sins without pardon for his
ignorance. For he resists with a certain presumption and obstinacy, when he
is overcome by reason. Nor let any one say, "We follow that which we
have received from the apostles," when the apostles only delivered one
Church, and one baptism, which is not ordained except in the same Church. And we cannot find that any one, when
he had been baptized by heretics, was received by the apostles in the same
baptism, and communicated in such a way as that the apostles should appear to
have approved the baptism of heretics. 14. For as to what
some say, as if it tended to favour heretics,
that the Apostle Paul declared, "Only every way, whether in pretence or
in truth, let Christ be preached," we find that this also can avail
nothing to their benefit who support and applaud heretics. For Paul, in his epistle, was not speaking of heretics, nor of their
baptism, so that anything can be shown to have been alleged which pertained
to this matter. He was speaking of brethren, whether as walking disorderly
anti against the discipline of the Church, or as keeping the truth of the
Gospel with the fear of God. And he said that certain of them spoke the word
of God with constancy and courage, but some acted in envy and dissension;
that some maintained towards him a benevolent love, but that some indulged a
malevolent spirit of dissension; but yet that he bore all patiently, so long
only as, whether in truth or in pretence, the name of Christ which Paul
preached might come to the knowledge of many; and the sowing of the word, which
as yet had been new and irregular, might increase through the preaching of
the speakers. Besides, it is one thing for those who are within the Church to
speak concerning the name of Christ; it is another for those who are without,
and act in opposition to the Church, to baptize in the name of Christ. Wherefore, let not those who favour
heretics put forward what Paul spoke concerning brethren, but let them show
if he thought anything was to be conceded to the heretic, or if he approved
of their faith or baptism, or if he appointed that perfidious and blasphemous
men could receive remission of their sins outside the Church. 15. But if we consider what the apostles
thought about heretics, we shall find that they, in all their epistles,
execrated and detested the sacrilegious wickedness of heretics. For
when they say that "their word creeps as a canker," how is such a
word as that able to give remission of sins, which creeps like a canker to
the ears of the hearers? And when they say that there can be no fellowship
between righteousness and un-righteousness, no communion between light and
darkness, how can either darkness illuminate, or unrighteousness justify? And
when they say that "they are not of God, but are of the spirit of
Antichrist," how can they transact spiritual and divine matters, who are the enemies of God, and whose hearts the spirit of
Antichrist has possessed? Wherefore, if, laying aside the errors of human
dispute, we return with a sincere and religious faith to the evangelical
authority and to the apostolical tradition, we shall perceive that they may
do nothing towards conferring the ecclesiastical and saving grace, who, scattering and attacking the Church of Christ, are
called adversaries by Christ Himself, but by His apostles, Antichrists. 16. Again, there is
no ground for any one, for the circumvention of Christian truth, opposing to
us the name of Christ, and saying, "All who are baptized everywhere, and
in any manner, in the name of Jesus Christ, have obtained the grace of
baptism,"-when Christ Himself speaks, and says, "Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.", And
again, He forewarns and instructs, that no one should be easily deceived by
false prophets and false Christs in His name. "Many," He says,
"shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive
many." And afterwards He added: "But take ye heed; behold, I have
foretold you all things." Whence it appears that all things are not at
once to be received and assumed which are boasted of in the name of Christ,
but only those things which are done in the truth of Christ. 17. For whereas in
the Gospels, and in the epistles of the apostles, the name of Christ is
alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in such a way as that the Son
alone, without the Father, or against the Father, can be of advantage to
anybody; but that it might be shown to the Jews, who boasted as to their
having the Father, that the Father would profit them nothing, unless they
believed on the Son whom He had sent. For they who know God the Father the
Creator, ought also to know Christ the Son, lest they should flatter and
applaud themselves about the Father alone, without the acknowledgment of His
Son, who also said, "No man cometh to the Father but by me." But He,
the same, sets forth, that it is the knowledge of the two which saves, when
He says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Since, therefore, from the preaching and testimony of Christ
Himself, the Father who sent must be first known, then afterwards Christ, who
was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two
together; how, when God the Father is not known, nay, is even blasphemed, can
they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ, be
judged to have obtained the remission of sins? For the case of the
Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is
another. The former, because they had already gained the most ancient baptism
of the law and Moses, were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ,
in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying,
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Peter makes
mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that
the Son also might be joined to the Father. 18. Finally, when,
after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens,
they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles "in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." How, then, do some say, that a
Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the
Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in
whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands
the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity? Unless while one
who denies Christ is denied by Christ, he who denies His Father whom Christ
Himself confessed is not denied; and he who blasphemes against Him whom Christ
called His Lord and His God, is rewarded by Christ, and obtains remission of
sins, and the sanctification of baptism! But by what power can he who denies
God the Creator, the Father of Christ, obtain, in baptism, the remission of
sins, since Christ received that very power by which we are baptized and
sanctified, from the same Father, whom He called "greater" than
Himself, by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even
unto the obedience of drinking the cup, and of undergoing death? What else is it then, than to become a
partaker with blaspheming heretics, to wish to maintain and assert, that one
who blasphemes and gravely sins against the Father and the Lord and God of
Christ, can receive remission of sins in the name of Christ? What,
moreover, is that, and of what kind is it, that he who denies the Son of God
has not the Father, and he who denies the Father should be thought to have
the Son, although the Son Himself testifies, and says, "No man can come
unto me except it were given unto him of my Father? " So that it is
evident, that no remission of sins can be received in baptism from the Son,
which it is not plain that the Father has granted. Especially, since He
further repeats, and says, "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath
not planted shall be rooted up." 19. But if Christ's
disciples are unwilling to learn from Christ what veneration and honour is
due to the name of the Father, still let them learn from earthly and secular
examples, and know that Christ has declared, not without the strongest
rebuke, "The children of this world are wiser in their generation than
the children of light." In this world of ours, if any one have offered
an insult to the father of any; if in injury and frowardness he have wounded
his reputation and his honour by a malevolent tongue, the son is indignant,
and wrathful, and with what means he can, strives to avenge his injured
father's wrong. Think you that Christ grants impunity to the impious and
profane, and the blasphemers of His Father, and that He puts away their sins
in baptism, who it is evident, when baptized, still
heap up evil words on the person of the Father, and sin with the unceasing
wickedness of a blaspheming tongue? Can a Christian, can a servant of God,
either conceive this in his mind, or believe it in faith, or put it forward
in discourse? And what will become of the precepts of the divine law, which
say, "Honour thy father and thy mother?" If the name of father,
which in man is commanded to be honoured, is violated with impunity in God,
what will become of what Christ Himself lays down in the Gospel, and says,
"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death; " if He
who bids that those who curse their parents after the flesh should be
punished and slain, Himself quickens those who revile their heavenly and
spiritual Father, and are hostile to the Church, their Mother? An execrable
and detestable thing is actually asserted by some, that He who threatens the
man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, that he shall be guilty of eternal
sin, Himself condescends to sanctify those who blaspheme against God the
Father with saving baptism. And now, those who think that they must
communicate with such as come to the Church without baptism, do not consider
that they are becoming partakers with other men's, yea, with eternal sins,
when they admit without baptism those who cannot, except in baptism, put off
the sins of their blasphemies. 20. Besides, how vain and perverse a thing
it is, that when the heretics themselves, having repudiated and forsaken
either the error or the wickedness in which they had previously been,
acknowledge the truth of the Church, we should mutilate the rights and
sacrament of that same truth, and say to those who come to us and repent,
that they had obtained remission of sins when they confess that they have
sinned, and are for that reason come to seek the pardon of the Church!
Wherefore, dearest brother, we ought both firmly to maintain the faith and
truth of the Catholic Church, and to teach, and by all the
evangelical and apostolical precepts to set forth, the plan of the divine
dispensation and unity. 21. Can the power of
baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one
confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? And yet even
this baptism does not benefit a heretic,
although he has confessed Christ, and been put to death outside the Church,
unless the patrons and advocates of heretics
declare that the heretics
who are slain in a false confession of Christ are martyrs, and assign to them
the glory and the crown of martyrdom contrary to the testimony of the
apostle, who says that it will profit them nothing although they were burnt
and slain. But if not even the
baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation,
because there is no salvation out of the Church, how much less shall it be of
advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with
the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins,
but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones! Wherefore baptism cannot
be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father, nor Christ
the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself, is common.
And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the
Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only
baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God,
may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, "Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." 22. On which place
some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the
Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one
of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and
slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation
and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again
of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore,
first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church,
and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and
sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy
Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism
who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood,
concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be
baptized with." But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who
are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by
suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when He
speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and
promises that he should be with Himself in paradise. Wherefore we who are set
over the faith and truth ought not to deceive and mislead those who come to
the faith and truth, and repent, and beg that their sins should be remitted
to them; but to instruct them when corrected by us, and reformed for the
kingdom of heaven by celestial discipline. 23. But some one
says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were
received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give
indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by
simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen
asleep. Nevertheless it does not follow that, because there was error at one
time, there must always be error; since it is more fitting for wise and
God-fearing men, gladly and without delay to obey the truth when laid open
and perceived, than pertinaciously and obstinately to struggle against
brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics. 24. Nor let any one
think that, because baptism is proposed to them, heretics will be kept back from coming to the Church, as
if offended at the name of a second baptism; nay, but on this very account
they are rather driven to the necessity of coming by the testimony of truth
shown and proved to them. For if they shall see that it is determined and
decreed by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith they are
there baptized is considered just and legitimate, they will think that they
are justly and legitimately in possession of the Church also, and the other
gifts of the Church; nor will there be any reason for their coming to us,
when, as they have baptism, they seem also to have the rest. But further,
when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of
sins can be given outside the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to
us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that
they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they
first come to the truth of the Church. Nor will heretics refuse to be baptized among us with the lawful
and true baptism of the Church, when they shall have learnt from us that they
also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of
John, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. 25. And now by
certain of us the baptism of heretics
is asserted to occupy the (like) ground, and, as if by a certain dislike of
re-baptizing, it is counted unlawful to baptize after God's enemies. And
this, although we find that they were baptized whom John had baptized:
John, esteemed the greatest among the prophets; John, filled with divine
grace even in his mother's womb; who was sustained with the spirit and power
of Elias; who was not an adversary of the Lord, but His precursor and
announcer; who not only foretold our Lord in words, but even showed Him to
the eyes; who baptized Christ Himself by whom others are baptized. But if on that account a heretic could
obtain the right of baptism, because he first baptized, then baptism will not
belong to the person that has it, but to the person that seizes it. And since
baptism and the Church can by no means be separated from one another, and
divided, he who has first been able to lay hold on baptism has equally also
laid hold on the Church; and you begin to appear to him as a heretic, when
you being anticipated, have begun to be last, and by yielding and giving way
have relinquished the right which you had received. But how dangerous
it is in divine matters, that any one should depart
from his right and power, Holy Scripture declares when, in Genesis, Esau
thence lost his birthright, nor was able afterwards to regain that which he
had once given up. 26. These things,
dearest brother, I have briefly written to you, according to my abilities,
prescribing to none, and prejudging none, so as to prevent any one of the
bishops doing what he thinks well, and having the free exercise of his
judgment. We, as far as in us lies, do not contend on behalf of heretics with our colleagues
and fellow-bishops, with whom we maintain a divine concord and the peace of
the Lord; especially since the apostle says, "If any man, however, is
thought to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of
God." Charity of spirit, the honour of our college, the bond of faith,
and priestly concord, are maintained by us with patience and gentleness. For
this reason, moreover, we have with the best of our poor abilities, with the
permission and inspiration of the Lord, written a treatise on the
"Benefit of Patience," which for the sake of our mutual love we
have transmitted to you. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.”
(Letter 72:1, 3-26, To Jubaianus) |
|
|
Firmilian
of Caesarea (d. c. 269) 5.
But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you, and the
winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your letter. And
indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade
those who come from heresy
to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors,
you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe
that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable
and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the
disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition
against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from
them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new
and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of
Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too,
after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of
God with their wicked lies. It is plain that the other heretics, also, afterwards introduced their evil sects and
perverse inventions, even as every one was led by error; all of whom, it is
evident, were self-condemned, and have declared against themselves an
inevitable sentence before the day of judgment; and he who confirms the
baptism of these, what else does he do but adjudge himself with them, and
condemn himself, making himself a partaker with such? 6.
But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which
are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the
apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the
celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine
matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all
things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem,
just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of
the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no
departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as
Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his
predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein
defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered
this who in their epistles execrated heretics,
and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men
which maintains heretics,
and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone. 7.
But, moreover, you have well answered that part where Stephen said in his
letter that heretics
themselves also are of one mind in respect of baptism; and that they do not
baptize such as come to them from one another, but only communicate with
them; as if we also ought to do this. In which place, although you have
already proved that it is sufficiently ridiculous for any one to follow those
that are in error, yet we add this moreover, over and above, that it is not
wonderful for heretics to
act thus, who, although in some lesser matters they differ, yet in that which
is greatest they hold one and the same agreement to blaspheme the Creator,
figuring for themselves certain dreams and phantasms of an unknown God.
Assuredly it is but natural that these should agree in having a baptism which
is unreal, in the same way as they agree in repudiating the truth of the
divinity. Of whom, since it is
tedious to reply to their several statements, either wicked or foolish, it is
sufficient shortly to say in sum, that they who do not hold the true Lord the
Father cannot hold the truth either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit;
according to which also they who are called Cataphrygians, and endeavour to
claim to themselves new prophecies, can have neither the Father, nor the Son,
nor the Holy Spirit, of whom, if we ask what Christ they announce,
they will reply that they preach Him who sent the Spirit that speaks by
Montanus and Prisca. And in these, when we observe that there has been not
the spirit of truth, but of error, we know that they who maintain their false
prophesying against the faith of Christ cannot have Christ. Moreover,
all other heretics, if they have separated themselves from the Church of God,
can have nothing of power or of grace, since all power and grace are
established in the Church where the elders
preside, who possess the power both of baptizing, and of imposition of hands,
and of ordaining. For as a heretic
may not lawfully ordain nor lay on hands, so neither may he baptize, nor do
any thing holily or spiritually, since he is an alien from spiritual and
deifying sanctity. All which we
some time back confirmed in Iconium, which is a place in Phrygia, when we
were assembled together with those who had gathered from Galatia and Cilicia,
and other neighbouring countries, as to be held and firmly vindicated against
heretics, when there was some doubt in certain minds concerning that matter. 8.
And as Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting away of sins
and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics, among whom they themselves confess that the Holy
Spirit is not; let them consider and understand that spiritual birth cannot
be without the Spirit; in conformity with which also the blessed Apostle Paul
baptized anew with a spiritual baptism those who had already been baptized by
John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on
them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. But what kind of a thing is it, that when we see that Paul, after
John’s baptism, baptized his disciples again, we are hesitating to baptize
those who come to the Church from heresy after their unhallowed and profane
dipping. Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to the bishops of these
times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands alone give the Holy
Spirit to those heretics
who come (to the Church), while Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit
by imposition of hands to those who had been baptized by John, unless he had
first baptized them also with the baptism of the Church. 9.
That, moreover, is absurd, that they do not think it is to be inquired who
was the person that baptized, for the reason that he who has been baptized
may have obtained grace by the invocation of the Trinity, of the names of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Then this will be the wisdom
which Paul writes is in those who are perfected. But who in the Church is
perfect and wise who can either defend or believe this, that this bare
invocation of names is sufficient to the remission of sins and the
sanctification of baptism; since these things are only then of advantage,
when both he who baptizes has the Holy Spirit, and the baptism itself also is
not ordained without the Spirit? But, say they, he who in any manner whatever
is baptized without, may obtain the grace of baptism by his disposition and
faith, which doubtless is ridiculous in itself, as if either a wicked
disposition could attract to itself from heaven the sanctification of the
righteous, or a false faith the truth of believers. But that not all who call
on the name of Christ are heard, and that their invocation cannot obtain any
grace, the Lord Himself manifests, saying, “Many shall come in my name,
saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” Because there is no difference between a false prophet and a
heretic. For as the former deceives in the name of God or Christ, so the
latter deceives in the sacrament of baptism. Both strive by falsehood to
deceive men’s wills. 10.
But I wish to relate to you some facts concerning a circumstance which
occurred among us, pertaining to this very matter. About two-and-twenty years
ago, in the times after the Emperor Alexander, there happened in these parts
many struggles and difficulties, either in general to all men, or privately
to Christians. Moreover, there were many and frequent earthquakes, so that
many places were overthrown throughout Cappadocia and Pontus; even certain
cities, dragged into the abyss, were swallowed up by the opening of the
gaping earth. So that from this also a severe persecution arose against us of
the Christian name; and this after the long peace of the previous age arose
suddenly, and with its unusual evils was made more terrible for the
disturbance of our people. Serenianus was then governor in our province, a
bitter and terrible persecutor. But the faithful being set in this state of
disturbance, and fleeing hither and thither for fear of the persecution, and
leaving their country and passing over into other regions—for there was an
opportunity of passing over, for the reason that that persecution was not
over the whole world, but was local—there
arose among us on a sudden a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy
announced herself as a prophetess, and acted as if filled with the Holy
Ghost. And she was so moved by the impetus of the principal demons, that for
a long time she made anxious and deceived the brotherhood, accomplishing
certain wonderful and portentous things, and promised that she would cause
the earth to be shaken. Not that the power of the demon was so great that he
could prevail to shake the earth, or to disturb the elements; but that
sometimes a wicked spirit, prescient, and perceiving that there will be an
earthquake, pretends that he will do what he sees will happen. By these
lies and boastings he had so subdued the minds of individuals,
that they obeyed him and followed whithersoever he commanded and led.
He would also make that woman walk in the keen winter with bare feet over
frozen snow, and not to be troubled or hurt in any degree by that walking.
Moreover, she would say that she was hurrying to Judea and to Jerusalem,
feigning as if she had come thence. Here also she deceived one of the
presbyters, a countryman, and another, a deacon, so that they had intercourse
with that same woman, which was shortly afterwards
detected. For on a sudden there appeared unto her one of the exorcists, a man
approved and always of good conversation in respect of religious discipline;
who, stimulated by the exhortation also of very many brethren who were
themselves strong and praiseworthy in the faith, raised himself up against
that wicked spirit to overcome it; which moreover, by its subtile fallacy,
had predicted this a little while before, that a certain adverse and
unbelieving tempter would come. Yet that exorcist, inspired by God’s grace,
bravely resisted, and showed that that which was before thought holy, was
indeed a most wicked spirit. But that woman, who previously by wiles and
deceitfulness of the demon was attempting many things for the deceiving of
the faithful, among other things by which she had deceived many, also had
frequently dared this; to pretend that with an invocation not to be contemned
she sanctified bread and celebrated
the Eucharist, and to offer sacrifice to the Lord, not without the sacrament of
the accustomed utterance; and also to baptize many, making use of the usual
and lawful words of interrogation, that nothing might seem to be different
from the ecclesiastical rule. 11. What, then, shall we say about
the baptism of this woman, by which a most wicked demon baptized through
means of a woman? Do Stephen and they who agree with him approve of this also
especially when neither the symbol of the Trinity nor the legitimate and
ecclesiastical interrogatory were wanting to
her? Can it be believed that either remission of sins was given, or the
regeneration of the saving laver duly completed, when all things, although
after the image of truth, yet were done by a demon? Unless, perchance,
they who defend the baptism of heretics contend that the demon also conferred
the grace of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. Among them, no doubt, there is the same error—it is the very
deceitfulness of devils, since among them the Holy Spirit is not at all. 12.
Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would assert, that the
presence and holiness of Christ is with those who are baptized among heretics? For if the apostle
does not speak falsely when he says, “As many of you as are baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ,”
certainly he who has been baptized among them into Christ, has put on Christ.
But if he has put on Christ, he might also receive the Holy Ghost, who was
sent by Christ, and hands are vainly laid upon him who comes to us for the
reception of the Spirit; unless, perhaps, he has not put on the Spirit
from Christ, so that Christ indeed may be with heretics, but the Holy Spirit not be with them. 13.
But let us briefly run through the other matters also, which were spoken of
by you abundantly and most fully, especially as Rogatianus, our well-beloved
deacon, is hurrying to you. For it follows that they must be asked by us,
when they defend heretics,
whether their baptism is carnal or spiritual. For if it is carnal, they
differ in no respect from the baptism of the Jews, which they use in such a
manner that in it, as if in a common and vulgar laver, only external filth is
washed away. But if it is spiritual, how can baptism be spiritual among those
among whom there is no Holy Spirit? And thus the water wherewith they are
washed is to them only a carnal washing, not a sacrament of baptism. 14.
But if the baptism of heretics can
have the regeneration of the second birth, those who are baptized among them
must be counted not heretics, but children of God. For the second
birth, which occurs in baptism, begets sons of God. But if the spouse of
Christ is one, which is the Catholic Church, it is she herself who alone bears
sons of God. For there are not many spouses of Christ, since the apostle
says, “I have espoused you, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to
Christ;”
and, “Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also
thine own people, for the King hath greatly desired thy beauty;” and, “Come
with me, my spouse, from Lebanon; thou shalt come, and shalt pass over from
the source of thy faith;” and, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my
spouse.” We see that one person is everywhere set forward, because also the
spouse is one. But the synagogue of heretics
is not one with us, because the spouse is not an adulteress and a harlot.
Whence also she cannot bear children of God; unless, as appears to Stephen, heresy indeed brings them
forth and exposes them, while the Church takes them up when exposed, and
nourishes those for her own whom she has not born, although she cannot be the
mother of strange children. And therefore Christ our Lord, setting forth that
His spouse is one, and declaring the sacrament of His unity, says, “He that
is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” For if Christ is with us, but the
heretics are not with us, certainly the heretics are in opposition to Christ;
and if we gather with Christ, but the heretics do not gather with us,
doubtless they scatter. 15.
But neither must we pass over what has been necessarily remarked by you, that
the Church, according to the Song of Songs, is a garden enclosed, and a
fountain sealed, a paradise with the fruit of apples. They who have never
entered into this garden, and have not seen the paradise planted by God the
Creator, how shall they be able to afford to another the living water of the
saving lava from the fountain which is enclosed within, and sealed with a
divine seal? And as the ark of Noah was nothing else than the sacrament of
the Church of Christ, which then, when all without were perishing, kept those
only safe who were within the ark, we are manifestly instructed to look to
the unity of the Church. Even as also the Apostle Peter laid down, saying,
“Thus also shall baptism in like manner make you safe;” showing that as they
who were not in the ark with Noah not only were not purged and saved by
water, but at once perished in that deluge; so now also, whoever are not in
the Church with Christ will perish outside, unless they are converted by
penitence to the only and saving lava of the Church. 16.
But what is the greatness of his
error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins
can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on
the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the
rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone,
“Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again, in the
Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, “Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are
remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.”
Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the
churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who
succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one
Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded
the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful
priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the
same punishments which they did, as well as those who agree with them, just
as their partners and abettors perished with a like death to theirs? 17.
And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly
of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and
contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of
the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new
buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his
authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the
Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that
the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the
Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he
thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews,
although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet
a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne
of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but
the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the
sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that
they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration,
and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. He who
concedes and gives up to heretics
in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do
but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And
now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them
in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to
mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice. 18.
But, says he, “the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the
sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere so-ever baptized in
the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ:” although this
position may be briefly met and answered, that if baptism without in the name
of Christ availed for the cleansing of man; in the name of the same Christ,
the imposition of hands might avail also for the reception of the Holy
Spirit; and the other things also which are done among heretics will begin to seem just and lawful when they are
done in the name of Christ; as you have maintained in your letter that the
name of Christ could be of no avail except in the Church alone, to which
alone Christ has conceded the power of heavenly grace. 19.
But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the
truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the
light, not to forsake the darkness?—unless most ancient custom in any respect
avail the Jews, upon the advent of Christ, that is, the Truth, in remaining
in their old usage, and forsaking the new way of truth. And this indeed you
Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you
forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’
custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning
that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Nor do we remember that
this at any time began among us, since it has always been observed here, that
we knew none but one Church of God, and accounted no baptism holy except that
of the holy Church. Certainly,
since some doubted about the baptism of those who, although they receive the
new prophets, yet appear to recognise the same Father and Son with us; very
many of us meeting together in Iconium very carefully examined the matter,
and we decided that every baptism was altogether to be rejected which is
arranged for without the Church. 20.
But to what they allege and say on behalf of the heretics, that the apostle said, “Whether in pretence or
in truth, Christ is preached,” it is idle for us to reply; when it is
manifest that the apostle, in his epistle wherein he said this, made mention
neither of heretics nor of
baptism of heretics, but
spoke of brethren only, whether as perfidiously speaking in agreement with
himself, or as persevering in sincere faith; nor is it needful to discuss
this in a long argument, but it is sufficient to read the epistle itself, and
to gather from the apostle himself what the apostle said. 21.
What then, say they, will become of
those who, coming from the heretics, have been received without the baptism
of the Church? If they have departed this life, they are reckoned in the
number of those who have been catechumens indeed among us, but have died
before they were baptized,—no trifling advantage of truth and
faith, to which they had attained by forsaking error, although, being
prevented by death, they had not gained the consummation of grace. But they
who still abide in life should be baptized with the baptism of the Church,
that they may obtain remission of sins, lest by the presumption of others
they remain in their old error, and die without the completion of grace.
But what a crime is theirs on the one hand who receive, or on the other,
theirs who are received, that their foulness not being washed away by the
laver of the Church, nor their sins put away, communion being rashly seized,
they touch the body and blood of the Lord, although it is written, “Whosoever
shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty
of the body and blood of the Lord!” 22.
We have judged, that those also whom they, who had formerly been bishops in
the Catholic Church, and afterwards had assumed to themselves the power of
clerical ordination, had baptized, are to be regarded as not baptized. And
this is observed among us, that whosoever dipped by them come to us are
baptized among us as strangers and having obtained nothing, with the only and
true baptism of the Catholic Church, and obtain the regeneration of the laver
of life. And yet there is a great difference between him who unwillingly and
constrained by the necessity of persecution has given way, and him who with a
profane will boldly rebels against the Church, or with impious voice
blasphemes against the Father and God of Christ and the Creator of the whole
world. And Stephen is not ashamed to assert and to say that remission of sins
can be granted by those who are themselves set fast in all kinds of sins, as
if in the house of death there could be the laver of salvation. 23.
What, then, is to be made of what is written, “Abstain from strange water,
and drink not from a strange fountain,” if, leaving the sealed fountain of
the Church, you take up strange water for your own, and pollute the Church
with unhallowed fountains? For when you communicate with the baptism of heretics, what else do you do
than drink from their slough and mud; and while you yourself are purged with
the Church’s sanctification, you become befouled with the contact of the
filth of others? And do you not fear the judgment of God when you are giving
testimony to heretics in
opposition to the Church, although it is written, “A false witness shall not
be unpunished?” But indeed you are worse than all heretics. For when many, as soon as their error is known,
come over to you from them that they may receive the true light of the
Church, you assist the errors of those who come, and, obscuring the light of
ecclesiastical truth, you heap up the darkness of the heretical night; and
although they confess that they are in sins, and have no grace, and therefore
come to the Church, you take away from them remission of sins, which is given
in baptism, by saying that they are already baptized and have obtained the
grace of the Church outside the Church, and you do not perceive that their
souls will be required at your hands when the day of judgment shall come, for
having denied to the thirsting the drink of the Church, and having been the
occasion of death to those that were desirious of living. And, after all
this, you are indignant! 24.
Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for
the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant
against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in
opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf
of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also
excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are
easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine
Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth
up sins.” For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the
churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have
you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks!
For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is
really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of
ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by
you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the
precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and
peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord,
beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with
all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in
love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your
calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is
above all, and through all, and in us all.” 25.
How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of
the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For
what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops
throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various
kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know;
at another time with you who are in the south, from whom he received bishops
as messengers sufficiently patiently and meekly not to receive them even to
the speech of an ordinary conference; and even more, so mindful of love and
charity as to command the entire fraternity, that no one should receive them
into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but also a shelter and
entertainment, were denied to them when they came! This is to have kept the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself
off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects
from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the
madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and
one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and
shifting, and uncertain is it? 26.
But as far as he is concerned, let us leave him; let us rather deal
with that concerning which there is the greatest question. They who contend that persons baptized
among the heretics ought to be received as if they had obtained the grace of
lawful baptism, say that baptism is one and the same to them and to us, and
differs in no respect. But what says the Apostle Paul? “One Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God.” If
the baptism of heretics be one and the same with ours, without doubt their
faith also is one; but if our faith is one, assuredly also we have one Lord: if
there is one Lord, it follows that we say that He is one. But if
this unity which cannot be separated and divided at all,
is itself also among heretics, why do we contend any more? Why do we call
them heretics and not Christians? Moreover, since we and heretics have not
one God, nor one Lord, nor one Church, nor one faith, nor even one Spirit,
nor one body, it is manifest that neither can baptism be common to us with
heretics, since between us there is nothing at all in common. And yet
Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the
Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics
to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian “a false Christ
and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.” And he, conscious that all these
characters are in himself, has been in advance of
you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought
deservedly to hear. We all bid you, for all our sakes, with all the bishops
who are in Africa, and all the clergy, and all the brotherhood, farewell;
that, constantly of one mind, and thinking the same thing, we may find you
united with us even though afar off. (Epistle
To Cyprian Of Carthage [Epistle 74:5-26 In The Collected Epistles Of Cyprian]) |
|
|
Pseudo-Tertullian (3rd Century?) “Other
heretics swell the list who are called
Cataphrygians, but their teaching is not uniform. For there are (of them) some
who are called Cataproclans; there are others who are termed
Cataeschinetans. These have a blasphemy common, and a blasphemy not common,
but peculiar and special. The common blasphemy lies in their saying that the
Holy Spirit was in the apostles indeed, the Paraclete was not; and in their
saying that the Paraclete has spoken in Montanus more things than Christ
brought forward into (the compass of) the Gospel, and not merely more, but
likewise better and greater. But the particular one they who follow Aeschines
have; this, namely, whereby they add this, that they affirm Christ to be
Himself Son and Father.” (Against All
Heresies, 7) |
|
|
Lactantius (c.240-c.320) “But
some, enticed by the prediction of false prophets, concerning whom both the
true prophets and he himself had foretold, fell away from the knowledge of
God, and left the true tradition. But all of these, ensnared by frauds of
demons, which they ought to have foreseen and guarded against, by their carelessness lost the name and worship of God. For when
they are called Phrygians,
or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or Arians, or
by any other name they have ceased to be Christians, who have lost the name
of Christ, and assumed human and external names. Therefore it is the Catholic
Church alone which retains true worship.” (The Divine Institutes, 4:30) |
|
|
Eusebius
Of Caesarea (c.260-c.337) “It
is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in “We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of
another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above, in
the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this
man: “But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were
written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he
falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the
flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.
And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of
deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years a for
marriage festivals.” (Ecclesiastical
History, 3:28) “And
in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little above, Proclus, against
whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted,
speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: “After him
there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia.
Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father.” Such is his statement.” (Ecclesiastical History, 3:31) “A number of works of Apolinarius have been preserved by many,
and the following have reached us: the Discourse addressed to the
above-mentioned emperor, five books Against the Greeks, On Truth, a first and
second book, and those which he subsequently wrote against the heresy of the
Phrygians, which not long afterwards came out with its innovations, but at
that time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since Montanus, with his false
prophetesses, was then laying the foundations of his error.” (Ecclesiastical History, 4:27) “The
followers of Montanus, Alcibiades and Theodotus in Phrygia were now first
giving wide circulation to their assumption in regard to prophecy, — for the
many other miracles that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in the
different churches caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many, —
and as dissension arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their
own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published also
several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death among them.
These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the brethren throughout
Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, who was then bishop of “The enemy of God's
Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves
untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange
heresies to spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous
reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus
was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed
him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” (Ecclesiastical
History, 5:14) “Against the
so-called Phrygian heresy, the power which always contends for the truth
raised up a strong and invincible weapon, Apolinarius
of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before, and
with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant material for our history
has been left. A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against
them, first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies.
He commences his work in this manner: "Having for a very long and
sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, been
urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called
after Miltiades, I have hesitated till the present
time, not through lack of ability to refute the falsehood or bear testimony
for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that I might seem to some to be
making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New
Testament, which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to
the Gospel, either to increase or to diminish. But being recently in Ancyra in Having said this with other
things, in the beginning of his work, he proceeds to state the cause of the
above-mentioned heresy as follows: "Their
opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them from the Church
arose on the following account. There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia,
which borders upon "And
the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under
heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it
nor entrance into it. For the faithful in Asia met often in many places
throughout Having
related these things at the outset, and continued the refutation of their
delusion through his entire work, in the second book he speaks as follows of
their end: "Since, therefore, they called us
slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets,
who, they say, are those that the Lord promised to send to the people, let
them answer as in God's presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began
to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was
persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them
been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women
ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never
anywhere. But by another kind of death Montanus and
Maximilla are said to have died. For the report is
that, incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; not at the
same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each.
And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas. So also, as
general report says, that remarkable person, the first steward, as it were,
of their so-called prophecy, one Theodotus -- who,
as if at sometime taken up and received into heaven, fell into trances, and
entrusted himself to the deceitful spirit -- was pitched like a quoit, and died miserably? They say that these things
happened in this manner. But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not
pretend to know. Perhaps in such a manner, perhaps not, Montanus
and Theodotus and the above-mentioned woman
died." He says
again in the same book that the holy bishops of that time attempted to refute
the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by
others who plainly co-operated with the spirit. He writes as follows: "And let not the spirit, in the
same work of Asterius Urbanus,
say through Maximilla, ' I am driven away from the
sheep like a wolf. I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and power.' But let
him show clearly and prove the power in the spirit. And by the spirit let him
compel those to confess him who were then present for the purpose of proving
and reasoning with the talkative spirit, those eminent men and bishops, Zoticus, from the village Comana
and Julian, from Apamea, whose mouths the followers
of Themiso muzzled, refusing to per-knit the false
and seductive spirit to be refuted by them." Again in
the same work, after saying other things in refutation of the false
prophecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when
he wrote these accounts, and mentions her predictions in which she prophesied
wars and anarchy. Their falsehood he censures in the following manner: "And has not this been shown
clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years since the woman
died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world; but
rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace even to the
Christians." These
things are taken from the second book. I will add also short extracts from
the third book, in which he speaks thus against! their boasts that many of
them had suffered, martyrdom: "When therefore they are at a loss,
being refuted in all that they say, they try to take refuge in their martyrs,
alleging that they have many martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of the,
power of the so-called prophetic spirit that is with them. But this, as it
appears, is entirely fallacious. For some of the heresies have a great many
martyrs; but surely we shall not on that account agree with them or confess
that they hold the truth. And first, indeed, those called Marcionites,
from the heresy of Marcion, say that they have a
multitude of martyrs for Christ; yet they do not confess Christ himself in truth." A little farther on he continues: "When those called to martyrdom
from the Church for the truth of the faith have met with any of the so-called
martyrs of the Phrygian heresy, they have separated from them, and died
without any fellowship with them, because they did not wish to give their
assent to the spirit of Montanus and the women. And
that this is true and took place in our own time in Apamea
on the “In this work he mentions
a writer, Miltiades, stating that he also wrote a
certain book against the above-mentioned heresy. After quoting some of their
words, he adds: "Having found these things in a
certain work of theirs in opposition to the work of the brother Alcibiades, in which he shows that a prophet ought not to
speak in ecstasy, I made an abridgment." A little further on in the same
work he gives a list of those who prophesied under the new covenant, among
whom he enumerates a certain Ammia and Quadratus, saying "But the false prophet falls into
an ecstasy, in which he is without shame or fear. Beginning with purposed
ignorance, he passes on, as has been stated, involuntary madness of soul.
They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus
carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus,
or Judas, or Silas, or the daughters of Philip, or Ammia
in And again after a little he says: "For if after Quadratus
and Ammia in He writes thus. But the Miltiades to whom he refers has left other monuments of
his own zeal for the Divine Scriptures, in the discourses which he composed
against the Greeks and against the Jews, answering each of them separately in
two books. And in addition he addresses an apology to the earthly rulers, in
behalf of the philosophy which he embraced.” (Ecclesiastical History, 5:17) “As the so-called
Phrygian heresy was still flourishing in "His actions and his teaching show
who this new teacher is. This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage;
who made laws for fasting; who named Pepuza and Tymion, small towns in Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to
gather people to them from all directions; who appointed collectors of money;
who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings; who
provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching
might prevail through gluttony." He writes thus concerning Montanus; and a little farther on he writes as follows
concerning his prophetesses: "We show that these first
prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit,
abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca a virgin." Afterwards he says: "Does not all Scripture seem to you
to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When therefore I see the
prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid
reproving her?" And again a little farther on he
speaks thus concerning one of their confessors: "So also Themiso,
who was clothed with plausible covetousness, could not endure the sign of
confession, but threw aside bonds for an abundance of possessions. Yet,
though he should have been humble on this account, he dared to boast as a
martyr, and in imitation of the apostle, he wrote a certain catholic epistle,
to instruct those whose faith was better than his own, contending for words
of empty sound, and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the
holy Church." And again
concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs, he writes as
follows: "Not to speak of many, let the
prophetess herself tell us of Alexander, who called himself a martyr, with
whom she is in the habit of banqueting, and who is worshiped by many. We need
not mention his robberies and other daring deeds for which he was punished,
but the archives contain them. Which of these forgives the sins of the other?
Does the prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the: martyr the covetousness
of the prophet? For although the Lord said, 'Provide neither gold, nor
silver, neither two coats,' these men, in complete opposition, transgress in
respect to the possession of the forbidden things. For we will show that
those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not only from
rich men, but also from the poor, and orphans, and widows. But if they are
confident, let them stand up and discuss these matters, that if convicted
they may hereafter cease transgressing. For the fruits of the prophet must be
tried; 'for the tree is known by its fruit.' But that those who wish may know
concerning Alexander, he was tried by Aemilius Frontinus, proconsul at Again, in
another part of his work he speaks as follows of the prophets of whom they
boast: "If they deny that their prophets
have received gifts, let them acknowledge this: that if they are convicted of
receiving them, they are not prophets. And we will bring a multitude of
proofs of this. But it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should
be examined. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet stain his
eyelids? Does a prophet delight in adornment? Does a prophet play with tables
and dice? Does a prophet lend on usury? Let them confess whether these things
are lawful or not; but I will show that they have been done by them." This same
Apollonius states in the same work that, at the time of his writing, it was
the fortieth year since Montanus had begun his
pretended prophecy. And he says also that Zoticus,
who was mentioned by the former writer, when Maximilla
was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza, resisted her
and endeavored to refute the spirit that was working in her; but was
prevented by those who agreed with her. He mentions also a certain Thraseas among the martyrs of that time. He speaks, moreover, of a
tradition that the Saviour commanded his apostles
not to depart from “Serapion, who, as
report says, succeeded Maximinus at that time as
bishop of the "That you may see that the doings
of this lying band of the new prophecy, so called, are an abomination to all
the brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you writings of the most
blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia." In the
same letter of Serapion the signatures of several bishops are found, one of
whom subscribes himself as follows: "I, Aurelius Cyrenius,
a witness, pray for your health." And
another in this manner: "Aelius Publius Julius, bishop of Debeltum,
a colony of And the
autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with them are contained
in the same letter. So much for these persons.” (Ecclesiastical History, 5:19) “There flourished many learned men in the Church at that
time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.
They have been kept until our time in the library at Aelia, which was
established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church. We have
been able to gather from that library material for our present work. Among
these Beryllus has left us, besides letters and treatises, various elegant
works. He was bishop of Bostra in “And
again there are also many treatises by Apollinaris which are still preserved
in the possession of many; but those which have been seen by us are the
following----One, which is the Apology, that was made to the same Emperor of
whom we have spoken above; and Against the Heathen five books; and Against
the Jews two books; and those which he composed afterwards against the heresy
of the Phrygians, which had recently sprung up a little time before, because
then Montanus, together with the false prophetesses which were attached to
him, had begun to turn aside from the truth.” (Ecclesiastical History,
Syriac Version, Book 4) “When
He sat on the mount of Olives, His Disciples drew near, saying between
themselves and Him, Tell us, ‘When shall these things be?’ and ‘What is the
sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?’ And Jesus answered them,
and said, ‘See that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, and
shall say, I am the Christ; and shall deceive many’…And there were many [such
who came] after [these] His words. And so the Samaritans were forthwith
persuaded that Dositheus, who was after the times of our Saviour, was the
prophet of whom Moses predicted. And he so deceived them, that they declared
he was the Christ. Others again, in the times of the Apostles, named Simon
Magus "the great power of God" and thought that he was the Christ. Others [thought the same] of Montanus
in Phrygia: and others again, of others, in another place. Nor did
the deceivers cease.” (Theophania, 4:35) “Thus
[by Emperor Constantine’s edict against heretics*] were the lurking-places of
the heretics broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they
harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to
flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's
threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church.
For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those
of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and these were
ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. Others,
however, there were, who voluntarily and with real sincerity embraced a
better hope. Meantime the prelates of the several churches continued to make
strict inquiry, utterly rejecting those who attempted an entrance under the
specious disguise of false pretenses, while those who came with sincerity of
purpose were proved for a time, and after sufficient trial numbered with the
congregation. Such was the treatment of those who stood charged with rank
heresy: those, however, who maintained no impious doctrine, but had been separated
from the one body through the influence of schismatic advisers, were received
without difficulty or delay. Accordingly, numbers thus revisited, as it were,
their own country after an absence in a foreign land, and acknowledged the
Church as a mother from whom they had wandered long, and to whom they now
returned with joy and gladness. Thus the members of the entire body became
united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church,
at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or
schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. And the credit of having
achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had
gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.” (Life Of Constantine, 3:66) *See
the entry for Constantine I below. |
|
|
Constantine
I, The Great (c.280-337) “Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics. Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians,
Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise
and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue
of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your
doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is
stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death.
Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your
counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full
of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the
innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing
under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce
the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one
may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I
particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more
time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious
are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all.
And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest
by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of
one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding
evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who
were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once
strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public
manifestation of displeasure? Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer
possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present
statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together.
We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in
which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this
respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and
senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place
whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the
true and pure religion, take the far better course
of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship,
whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any
case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to
mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and
wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object
worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to
endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of
future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from
darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in
order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have
commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering
point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if
such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made
over without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be
confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any
future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful
assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this
edict be made public.” (Edict Against
The Heretics in Eusebius of Caesarea’s
Life Of |
|
|
The
Martyrdom Of Pionius (3rd-5th
Century) “The
crowd pressed them so that they were muffled, and after Pionius had said this,
they took them with difficulty, handed them over to the jailers, and put them
in prison. As they entered the prison they found a presbyter of the Catholic
Church by the name of Limnus who had been imprisoned there, a Macedonian
woman who was from the town of Karine, and a man named Eutychian who was from
the sect of the Phrygians.” (The
Martyrdom Of Pionius, 11) |
|
|
Athanasius Of
Alexandria (c.296-373) “Yes surely; while all of us are and are called Christians after
Christ, Marcion broached a heresy a long time since and was cast out; and
those who continued with him who ejected him remained Christians; but those
who followed Marcion were called Christians no more, but henceforth
Marcionites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichæus, and Simon
Magus, have imparted their own name to their followers; and some are accosted
as Valentinians, or as Basilidians, or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and
other, Cataphrygians from Phrygia,
and from Novatus Novatians.” (Four
Discourses Against The Arians, Discourse
1:1:3) “There are many other heresies too, which use the words only,
but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in
consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety,
so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than
redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur
the charge of Atheism, because they know not the real and very God, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though
using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same
course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they
too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than
the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent
by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the
truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord’s Body, as
if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become
man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He
had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the
Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself.” (Four Discourses Against The Arians,
Discourse 2:14:43) “This is sufficient to confute them; but to shew still further
that they are hostile to the truth and Christ’s enemies, I could wish to ask
them a question. The Apostle in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes,
‘I knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do
not know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God knoweth.’ What now
say ye? Knew the Apostle what had happened to him in the vision, though he
says ‘I know not,’ or knew he not? If he knew not,
see to it, lest, being familiar with error, ye err in the trespass of the Phrygians, who say that the Prophets
and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they do nor concerning
what they announce.” (Four
Discourses Against The Arians, Discourse 3:28:47) “The boldness then of their design shews how little they
understand the subject; while the novelty of their phrase matches the Arian
heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they began their own faith, and that
from that same time present they would have it proclaimed. And as according
to the Evangelist Luke, there ‘was made a decree’ (Luke ii. 1) concerning the
taxing, and this decree before was not, but began from those days in which it
was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by writing, ‘The Faith is
now published,’ shewed that the sentiments of their heresy are novel, and
were not before. But if they add
‘of the Catholic Faith,’ they fall before they know it into the extravagance
of the Phrygians, and say with them, ‘To us first was revealed,’ and ‘from us
dates the Faith of Christians.’ And as those inscribe it with the names of
Maximilla and Montanus, so do these with ‘Constantius, Master,’ instead of
Christ. If, however, as they would have it, the faith dates from the
present Consulate, what will the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay, what will they themselves do with their own
catechumens, who departed to rest before this Consulate? how
will they wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former lessons, and
may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which they have now put into writing?
So ignorant they are on the subject; with no knowledge but that of making
excuses, and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with them their
own refutation.” (De Synodis Part 1:4) |
|
|
Emperors Constantine
II (c.316-340), Constantius II (317-361), and Constans I (c.322-350) “To Gracilianus, Prefect of the City. Privileges granted in consideration of religion
should only benefit those who observe the rules of the Catholic Faith. We do
not wish heretics to absolutely be excluded from these
privileges, but that they should merely be restrained, and compelled to
accept employment for which the said privileges afford exemption.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:1) |
|
|
Pacian
of
Barcelona (c.310-391) “Pacian to Sympronian his brother, greeting. 1. If it be
not a carnal intention, my lord, but as I judge, a calling of the Spirit,
that thou enquirest of us the faith of the Catholic verity, thou, before all,
taking thy rise as far as appears, from a streamlet at a distance, and not
holding to the fountain and source of the principal Church, shouldest, in the
first instance, have shewn what or how different are the opinions which thou
followest. Thou shouldest unfold thyself as to what cause more particularly
had loosened thee from the unity of our body. For those parts, for which a
remedy is sought, should be laid bare. Whereas now (if I may so say) the
bosom of correspondence being closed, we see not on what members more
especially we have to bestow our care. For such are the heresies which have
sprung forth from the Christian head, that of the mere names the roll would
be immense. For to pass over the heretics of the Jews, Dositheus the
Samaritan, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees, it were long to enumerate how
many grew up in the times of the Apostles, Simon Magus, and Menander, and
Nicolaus, and others hidden by an inglorious fame. What again in later times
were Ebion, and Apelles, and Marcion, and Valentinus, and Cerdon, and not
long after them, the Cataphrygians, and Novatians, not to
notice any recent swarms! 2. Whom
then in my letters must I first refute? Wouldest thou the mere names of
all, my paper will not contain them; unless indeed by your writings every way
condemnatory of penance you declare your agreement with the Phrygians. But,
most illustrious Lord, so manifold and so diverse is the error of these very
men, that in them we have not only to overthrow their peculiar fancies
against penance, but to cut off the heads, as it were, of some Lernaean
monster. And, in the first place, they rely on more founders than one, for I
suppose Blastus the Greek is of them; Theodotus also and Praxeas were once
teachers of your party, themselves also Phrygians of some celebrity, who
falsely say they are inspired of Leucius, boast that they are instructed by
Proculus. Following Montanus, and Maximilla, and
Priscilla, howmanifold controversies have they raised concerning the day of
Easter, the Paraclete, Apostles, Prophets, and many other disputes, as this
also concerning the Catholic name, the pardon of penance. 3. Wherefore
if we would discuss all these points, thou hadst need been present and
teachable. But if on those points merely on which thou writest, my
instruction should not be sufficiently full, yet as it is our duty to serve,
in whatsoever way we can, those who solemnly adjure us, we now, for the sake
of informing you, discourse with thee summarily on those matters about which
thou hast deigned to write to us. If thou wouldest have fuller knowledge on
our side, thou must on thine declare thyself more unreservedly, lest by
somewhat of obscurity in thy enquiries, thou leave us uncertain, whether thou
art consulting or censuring. 4.
Meanwhile (and this concerns our present correspondence) I would above
all entreat thee not to borrow authority for error from this very fact that,
as thou sayest, throughout the whole world no one has been found, who could
convince or persuade thee contrary to what thou believest. For although we be unskilled, most skilful is the Spirit of God, and if we
are faithless, faithful is God, Who cannot deny Himself. Then, also, because
it was not allowed the Priests of God to contend long with one who resisted.
We, says the Apostle, have no such custom, neither the churches of God. After
one admonition, as thou thyself knowest, the contentious is passed by. For
who can persuade any of any thing against his will? Thine own fault was it therefore, brother, and not theirs, if no one convinced
thce of what in itself is most excellent. For at this day too it is in thy
power to despise our writings also, if thou hadst rather refute than approve
them. Yet very many resisted both the Lord Himself,
and the Apostles, nor could any ever be persuaded of the truth, unless he
consented to it by his own religious feeling. 5. Therefore, my Lord, neither have we written
with that confidence, as though we could persuade thee, if thou resistest,
but in that faith by which we would not deny thee an entrance to holy peace,
if thou wiliest. Which peace if it be after thine own soul and heart, there
ought to be no contest about the name of Catholic.
For if it is through God that our people obtain this name, no question is to
be raised, when Divine authority is followed. If through man, you must
discover when it was first taken. Then, if the name is good, no odium rests
with it; if ill, it need not be envied. The Novatians, I hear, are called
after Novatus or Novatian; yet it is the sect which I accuse in them, not the
name: nor has any one objected their name to Montanus or the Phrygians. 5. But under the Apostles, you will say, no one
was called Catholic. Be it thus. It shall have been so. Allow even that. When
after the Apostles heresies had burst forth, and were striving under various
names to tear piecemeal and divide the Dove and the Queen of God, did not the
Apostolic people require a name of their own, whereby to mark the unity of
the people that were uncorrupted, lest the error of some should rend limb by
limb the undefiled virgin of God? Was it not seemly that the chief head should
be distinguished by its own peculiar appellation? Suppose,
this very day, I entered a populous city. When I had found Marcionites,
Apollinarians, Cataphrygians, Novatians, and others of the kind
who call themselves Christians, by what name should I recognise the
congregation of my own people, unless it were named Catholic? Come tell me,
who bestowed so many names on the other peoples? Why have so many cities, so
many nations, each their own description? The man who asks the meaning of the
Catholic Name, will he be ignorant himself of the cause of his own name if I
shall enquire its origin? Whence was it delivered to me? Certainly that which
has stood through so many ages was not borrowed from man. This name
"Catholic" sounds not of Marcion, nor of Apelles, nor of Montanus,
nor does it take heretics as its authors. 7. Many
things the Holy Spirit hath taught us, Whom God sent from Heaven to the
Apostles as their Comforter and Guide. Many things reason teaches us, as Paul
saith, and honesty, and, as he says, nature herself. What! Is the authority
of Apostolic men, of Primitive Priests, of the most blessed Martyr and Doctor
Cyprian, of slight weight with us? Do we wish to teach the teacher? Are we
wiser than he was, and are we puffed up by the spirit of the flesh against
the man, whom his noble shedding of blood, and a crown of most glorious
suffering, have set forth as a witness of the Eternal God? What thinkest thou
of so many Priests on this same side, who throughout the whole world were
compacted together in one bond of peace with this same Cyprian? What of so
many aged Bishops, so many Martyrs, so many
Confessors? Come say, if they were not sufficient authorities for the use of
this name, are we sufficient for its rejection? And
shall the Fathers rather follow our authority, and the antiquity of Saints
give way to be emended by us, and times now putrifying through their sins,
pluck out the grey hairs of Apostolic age? And yet, my brother, be not
troubled; Christian is my name, but Catholic my surname. The former gives me
a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I
am but marked. 8. And if
at last we must give an account of the word Catholic, and draw it out from
the Greek by a Latin interpretation, "Catholic" is 'every where
one,' or, (as learned men think,) "obedience in all," i. e. all the
commands of God. Whence the Apostle, Whether ye he obedient in all things;
and again, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of One shall many be made righteous. Therefore he who is a
Catholic, the same man is obedient. He who is obedient, the same is a
Christian, and thus the Catholic is a Christian. Wherefore our people when
named Catholic are separated by this appellation from the heretical name. But
if also the word Catholic means 'every where one,' as those first think,
David indicates this very thing, when he saith, The queen did stand in a
vesture of gold, wrought about with, divers colours; that is, one amidst all.
And in the Song of Songs the Bridegroom speaketh these words, My dove, My
undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice
one of her that bare her. Again it is written, The
virgins shall be brought unto the King after her. And further, Virgins
without number. Therefore amidst all she is one, and one over all. If thou
askest the reason of the name, it is evident. 9. But as
to penance, God grant that it may be necessary for none of the faithful; that
no one after the help of the sacred font may fall into the pit of death, and
that Priests may not be compelled to inculcate or to teach its tardy
consolations, lest, whilst by remedies they soothe the sinner, they open a
road to sin. But we lay open this indulgence of our God to the miserable, not
to the happy; not before sin, but after sins; nor do we announce a medicine
to the whole, but to the sick. If spiritual wickednesses have no power over
the baptized, none, that fraud of the serpent, which subverted the first man,
which hath printed on his posterity so many marks of condemnation: if it hath
retired from the world, if we have already begun to reign, if no crime steals
over our eyes, none over our hands, none over our minds, then let this gift
of God be cast aside, this help rejected; be no confession, no groans, heard;
let a proud righteousness despise every remedy. 10. But if
the Lord Himself hath provided these things for His own creature man, if the
same Lord Who hath bestowed remedies on the fallen, hath given rewards to
them that stand, cease to accuse the Divine goodness, to erase by the
interposition of your own rigour so many inscriptions of heavenly mercy, or
by inexorable harshness to prohibit the gratuitous good gifts of the Lord.
This is not a largess from our own bounty. Turn ye,
saith the Lord, even to Me, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with
mourning: and rend your heart; and again, Let the wicked man leave his ways,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and turn unto the Lord, and he shall
obtain mercy. And also after this manner crieth the Prophet, For He is gracious, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil. Hath the serpent so lasting a
poison, and hath not Christ a remedy? Doth the Devil kill in the world, and
hath Christ no power here to help? Be we indeed ashamed to sin, but not
ashamed to repent. Be we ashamed to hazard ourselves, but not ashamed to be
delivered. Who will snatch the plank from the shipwrecked, that he escape not? Who will grudge the curing of a wound? Doth
not David say, Every night I will wash my bed, I will water my couch with my
tears; and again, I acknowledge my sin, and mine unrighteousness have I not
hid; and yet more, I said, I will confess my sins unto the Lord, and so Thou
forgavest the wickedness of my heart. Did not the Prophet answer him when,
after the guilt of murder and adultery, penitent for Bathsheba, The Lord also
hath put away from thee thy sin? Did not confession deliver the king of
Babylon, when condemned after so many sins of idolatry? And what is it that
the Lord saith, Shall he who has fallen not arise, and he who has turned not return? What answer give the subjects of those many
parables of our Lord? That the woman findeth the coin, and rejoiceth when she
hath found it? That the shepherd carrieth back the wandering sheep? That when
the son was returning, all his goods wasted in riotous living with harlots
and fornicators, the Father with kindness met him, and, assigning the
grounds, chideth the , envious brother, saying, This My son was dead, and is
alive again, was lost, and is found. What of him who was wounded in the way,
whom Levite and Priest passed by? Is he not taken care of? 11. Ponder what the Spirit saith to the Churches.
The Ephesians He accuses of having forsaken their love; to them of Thyatira
He imputeth fornication; the people of Sardis He blameth as loitering in the
work; those of Pergamus as teaching things contrary; of the Laodiceans He
brandeth the riches; and yet He calleth all to penance and to satisfaction.
What meaneth the Apostle, when he writeth to the Corinthians thus, Lest, when
I come, I bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the
uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness, which they have committed?
What, when again to the Galatians, If a man be overtaken in a fault, (i. e.
any whatever,) ye who are spiritual restore such an
one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be
tempted. Does then the master of the family in a large house guard only the
silver and golden vessels? Does he not deign to guard both the earthen and
the wooden, and some that are put together and repaired? Now I rejoice, saith
the Apostle, that ye sorrowed to repentance; and again, for godly sorrow
worketh repentance unto enduring salvation. But penitence, you say, was not
allowed. No one enjoins a fruitless labour, For the labourer is worthy of his
hire. Never would God threaten the impenitent, unless He would pardon the
penitent. This, you will say, God alone can do. It is true. But that also
which He does through His Priests, is His own
authority. Else what is that which He saith to the Apostles, Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose
on earth, shall be loosed in heaven? Why said He this, if it was not lawful
for men to bind and loose? Is this allowed to Apostles only? Then to them
also only is it allowed to baptize, and to them only to give the Holy Spirit,
and to them only to cleanse the sins of the nations; for all this was
enjoined on none others but Apostles. 12. But if both the loosening of bonds and the
power of the Sacrament are given in one place, either the whole has been
derived to us from the Apostolic form and authority, or else not even this
relaxation has been made from the decree. I, he saith, have laid the
foundation, and another buildeth thereon. This, therefore, we build up, which
the doctrine of the Apostles laid as the foundation. And, lastly, Bishops
also are named Apostles, as saith Paul of Epaphroditus, My brother and
fellow-soldier; but your Apostle. 13. If,
therefore, the power of the Laver, and of the Anointing, gifts far greater,
descended thence to Bishops, then the right of binding and of loosing was
with them. Which although for our sins it be presumptuous in us to claim, yet
God, Who hath granted unto Bishops the name even of His only Beloved, will
not deny it unto them, as if holy and sitting in the chair of the Apostles. 14. I would
write more, brother, were I not pressed by the hasty
return of the servant, and were I not reserving a fuller account for thee
when either present, or making confession of thy whole purport. Let no one
despise the Bishop on consideration of the man. Let us remember that the
Apostle Peter hath named our Lord, Bishop. But are now, he saith, returned
unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. What shall be denied to the
Bishop, in whom operateth the Name of God? He shall
indeed give an account, if he have done any thing
wrong, or if he shall have judged corrupt and unrighteous judgment. Nor is
God's Judgment forestalled, but that He may undo the work of a wicked
builder. In the mean while, if that his ministration be holy, he abideth as an helper in the work of God. See the Apostle writeth to
Laity: To whom, ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any
thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of
Christ; lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of
his devices. But if what the Laity forgive, the
Apostle saith that he hath forgiven, what a Bishop hath done, in what
character can it be rejected? Therefore neither the Anointing, nor Baptism,
nor remission of sins, nor the renewing of the Body, were granted to his
sacred authority, because nothing was entrusted to him as assumed by himself,
but the whole has descended in a stream from the Apostolic privilege. 15. Know, brother, that not indiscriminately to
all is this very pardon through penance granted; nor until there shall have
been either some indication of the Divine will, or perchance some visitation,
may men be loosed; that with careful pondering and much balancing, after many
groans and much shedding of tears, after the prayers of the whole Church,
pardon is in such wise not refused to true penitence, as that no one thereby
prejudgeth the future Judgment of Christ. If, brother, thou wouldest write
thy sentiments more openly, thou shalt be more fully instructed.” (Epistle 1 To Sympronian, On The Catholic
Name)* “I next added, that we need not consider, whence
Catholics, derived this name, because neither was it wont to be any
imputation against the Valentinians, if they were called after Valentinus,
nor the Phrygians, if from Phrygia, nor the Novatians, if after
Novatian…When you first wrote, I thought you a Cataphrygian.
Dost thou 15 acknowledge it in thy second letter? Dost thou grudge me my
name, and yet shun thine own? Think what there is of shame in a cause which
shrinks from its own name.” (Epistle
2:3, To Sympronian, Concerning Novatian’s Letter)* “I answer, Novatian taught this doctrine. But, at
least, when did he teach it, brother, or at what period? Immediately after
the Passion of the Lord? After the reign of Decius, that is, nearly three
hundred years after the Passion of the Lord. And what then did he? Did he follow Prophets, as the Cataphrygians?
Some Philumene, as Apelles? Or received he himself so great authority? Spake
he with tongues? Did he prophesy? Could he raise the dead? For some one of
these powers he ought to have had who was to bring in a Gospel with new
laws…"The Church is without spot or wrinkle," that is, without
heresies, without Valentinus, without Cataphrygians, without
Novatians. For in these are certain spotted and wrinkled folds, envious of
the ornaments of the precious vesture. But the sinner and the penitent are
not a spot on the Church, because, as long as he sinneth and repenteth not,
he is put without the Church. When he ceases to sin, he is already whole. But
the heretic rends, divides, spots, wrinkles, the
garment of the Lord, the Church of Christ. “For whereas there are schisms and
contentions among you,” saith the Apostle, “are ye not carnal, and walk as
men?” and moreover, “Their word will eat as doth a canker.” This is the spot
that defileth unity, this the wrinkle. Lastly, when
the Apostle is speaking of these things, he is setting forth the love and
affection of Christ. “As Christ,” he saith, “loved the Church, and gave
Himself for it;” that He might remove, that is, the heretics, because they
know not how to love. But why is this, you will say, for the wretched
penitent? Because he wisheth both to love and be loved.” (Epistle 3:2, 11, To Sympronian, Against
The Treatise Of The Novatians)* * C. H. Collyns edition. |
|
|
Didymus The
Blind (c.311-c.397) “During their passage
to Orthodoxy [from heresy], had they been peradventure already baptized, we
baptize—we do not say “we rebaptized”
since they have not had any true baptism—on one hand the Eunomians [are
rebaptized], because they are reported as baptizing with only one immersion
and only in the name of the Lord’s death. On the other side, the Phrygians
[are rebaptized], because they do not baptize in the name of the three holy
hypostases and [do this because they] believe that the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit are the same.” (On The
Trinity, 2:15) “If
this is so, there is no doubt (the Lord) spoke these words "I am"
and "He who sent me" as having taken "the appearance of a
slave,” because the Jews did not believe the Economy [= the Incarnation] and
because he came into this world by the concurrent will of God the Father: and
not only for this, but also to shame the Montanists, who are uneducated,
thick in mind, who believe that the Father, Son and the Paraclete is the same
(person), and with them Manes, etc..” (On The Trinity,
3:18) “Knowing
in advance the future, as he was God, and that after his ascension and the
coming of the Holy Spirit, there would still be impostors like Simon,
Montanus, Manes, Christ had forewarned us by these words: 'When the
Comforter, the Spirit of truth, etc.’.” (On
The Trinity, 3:19) “Paul
spoke in this way, first to prevent any confusion between the hypostases and
to help distinguish one from another, then to exclude the polytheism of the
Greeks, he said the words "God the Father is one,” and to refute the
stubbornness of the Jews in relation to Christ, he used the words "the
Lord Jesus Christ is one", and the folly of the Montanists who had
honored as one person the three glorious hypostases with the words
"one" and "one" and "one".” (On The Trinity, 3:23) “By
these words: "I will not leave you orphans: I come to you" (Christ)
taught that just as the Spirit of God was in all even before the arrival
where he became known, likewise the Son, even after the Ascension (is also in
all) in the divinity and in the infinite will and single hypostasis. Not that
he is Father, Son and Spirit of God, (as was believed by Montanus, who
principally based his argument upon this Scripture without realizing that it
is a person who speaks of another and still of another person: "I will
ask my Father and he will send you another Paraclete"), but just as he
is a distinct being present with this Spirit [whereve he is but yet] in his
own substance, so is also the Father always and everywhere [just as the
Spirit is always and everywhere].” (On
The Trinity, 3:38) “The error of the
Montanists consists in this: I. First
they prophesy that there is only one person of the three divine hypostases.
Montanus, in effect, said, He said: "I am the Father, the Son and the
Paraclete.” They allege in support, (and it exceeds the bounds of stupidity
to do this), the admirable words of the Son: "I am in my Father and my
Father is in me" and these passages: "We will come, me and my
Father and we will make him our home.” “I and my Father, we are one.” Whoever
sees me sees my Father. "The Paraclete, that
the Father will send in my name.” But all these expressions, as has been said
above, reveal a person, then another person, then another again, each with
its own consistency, in one divinity and a single harmony. For Christ did not
say: "I and my Father, I am one", but "we are one." And
this is sufficient to refute their folly and their detestable views. II. Secondly, when
the Apostle wrote in First Corinthians: “The prophecies vanish, the languages
cease, knowledge will be abolished, because we know imperfectly, and we
prophesy imperfectly, but when perfection comes, then what is imperfect will
be abolished,” they claim that Montanus is come and that he was the
perfection of the Paraclete, that is, that of the Holy Spirit. They say this
because they do not pay attention to what follows. For it is written
immediately after: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I reasoned as a
small child; when I became a man, I put aside the ways of a child. For we now
see as in a mirror, darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Now we know
only in part, but then shall I know as I am known myself." That is to
say, the things to which in our time we hear and believe based upon the
authority of Scripture, after the resurrection we will see with our eyes, and
know their reality, even in the time in which knowledge has ended. Knowledge
that is acquired by hearing, is a part of what we
acquire by sight and experience. So now it is because we believe that we
believe in predictions about the second coming of the Lord, and his judgment
tribunal and that three times blessed word: "Come, blessed of my Father,
come and get your share of the kingdom prepared for you." But one day we
will know these things by seeing and experiencing them [and not by faith].
Now we believe in the holy angels, based upon what we have heard. One day we
will see them directly serve God. Now it is based on hearing that we believe
"these things that the eye has not seen, nor ear heard, which has not
entered into the Heart of man, God has prepared for those who love him."
One day those who are worthy, not only will [see, hear and consider], but
will also enjoy them. For the heavenly goods which are concealed in the eye of
the soul in this world will be manifested to us in the future life. "But,” they
argue, “Christ said: "I have many things to tell you, but you can not
bear them now. But when the Spirit of truth comes" and again: "It
is not in his name that he speaks, but it is my will that he will
announce," and "He will glorify me," and "I will not
leave you as orphans: I will come to you." He apparently came when
Montanus (himself came) - No, thank you God [that this was not the case]!
This is not the case because, despite their absurd reasoning, people were
found before Montanus who possessed the Christ, and also the Apostles, who
received God's function, in which Christ himself spoke, in whom the Spirit of
God dwelt; who, by the laying on of hands also communicated the Spirit to
others according to his will; who taught in all honesty, were believed by all
and were not disbelieved as Montanus is… What the phrase "I come to
you," means I explained earlier. We have in our possession, (although
only the righteous fully possess) Christ, who said: "I come to
you", and the Holy Spirit of whom he said: “When he comes.” For it is
not without purpose that the Master blew into the face of the apostles after
the Resurrection, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit.” And neither did
Christ lie when he said: "Because he remains with you and is in
you"; nor the Apostle when he wrote: "Do you not know that you are
the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you"; nor Wisdom when
she said: "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole earth, and that
which contains all things has knowledge of sound." Neither the apostles
nor the saints who were before them, were less
perfect than Montanus. But the Holy
Spirit which contains all things appeared at the day of Pentecost; the book
of Acts records how he was received… III. Thirdly they are
trying to show that Montanus has possessed the perfection of the Paraclete,
and Priscilla and Maximilla… have written for Montanus. They tell us: ‘You,
you do not believe there are prophets since the first epiphany. But the
Savior said: "Behold, I send you prophets, wise men, scribes, and you
will kill some of them, and crucify them and some of them you will flog in
your synagogues.’” But he speaks, contrary
to the belief of Montanus, of the Apostles, who predicted many things about
the future, the last times, and the kingdom of heaven. Among them some have
been killed, as Stephen and James, or crucified as Peter, or flogged as Paul.
Perhaps also he uses the terms “martyrs” and “wise men” to refer to
bishop-martyrs. Concerning prophetesses, the Scripture knows the four
daughters of Philip, Deborah, Mariam, the sister of Aaron and Mary, the
mother of God, who said, according to the Gospel: "From now on all women
and all races will call me blessed." But (the Scriptures) do not know
books written under the name of any women. The Apostle has forbidden this
when he wrote in first Timothy: "I do not permit women to teach"
and again in First Corinthians: "Any woman who prays and prophesies
without having her head covered dishonors her head." In other words, it
is not permissible for women to shamelessly write and compose books and… to
teach, which in so doing, she dishonors her head, that is to say, man. For
"the head of woman is man, and the head of man is Christ." The
reason why Paul silenced women is obvious. It is because the original
teaching of the [first] woman caused much harm to the whole human race:
"For it is not the man who was seduced,” says the apostle, “it was the
woman.” The conclusion is
this: Montanus has neither known or possessed the
Holy Spirit because he has had these [contrary] thoughts [regarding the role
of women]. And it has been over a hundred years since the ascension of the
Savior and the coming of the Holy Spirit, that this man, formerly a priest for
an idol, introduced this blind heresy. (On
The Trinity, 3:41) |
|
|
Epiphanius of
Salamis (c.311-403) “I am writing for you a preface to present the general idea of
my work against heresies…the names of these heresies, and the circumstances
that led to their creations, is as follows: 1. Barbarism. 2. Scythianism. 3.
Hellenism…28. Phrygians, who are also referred to as Montanists and
Tascodrugians. However, the Tascodrugians are distinguished as a group all to
themselves. 29. Pepuzians, who are also referred to as Priscillianists and
Quintillianists. The Artotyrites are associated with them…Volume Two contains
two sections. There are eighteen heresies in the first section of Volume Two
(which is the fourth in numerical order from the beginning of the work) and
they are as follows: Encratites; Phrygians, also referred to as Montanists
and Tascodrugians. However, the Tascodrugians are distinguished from the
preceeding. Pepuzians, and Quintillianists, with which the Artotyrites are
associated.” (Medicine Chest (Panarion), Proem 1:4, 5) “1. Another heresy comes up in its turn after these. It is
called the heresy of the Phrygians. It started at the same time as the
Encratites, and is their successor. The Montanists began about the nineteenth
year of Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius, while Marcion, Tatian, and the
Encratites who succeeded him, started in Hadrian’s time and after him. These Phrygians
(as we refer to them), also accept every Scripture of the Old and New
Testaments and assert the resurrection of the dead also. However, they brag
about having Montanus as a prophet, and Priscilla and Maximilla as
prophetesses, and have lost their common sense by paying attention to them.
They are in agreement with the holy catholic church about the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit, but have separated themselves from it by “giving heed to
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” and by saying, “We have to receive
the charismatic gifts* as well.” The holy church
of God also receives the charismatic gifts*--but only the real gifts, which
have already been tested in God’s holy church through the Holy Spirit, and by
prophets and apostles, and the Lord himself. For the apostle John says in his
letter, “Test the spirits, whether they are of God;” and again he says, “You
have heard that Antichrist is coming, and now many Antichrists have come.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would have continued with us: but that it might be made known that they
were not of us. For this cause I write unto you, little children,” and so on.
The Phrygians are, in reality, not “of” the saints themselves. They “went
out” by their controversial behavior, and “gave
heed” to spirits of error and made up stories. 2. Behold, their religion itself
is proof that they are unable to keep their controversially made promises. If
we have to receive charismatic gifts*, and if there must be charismatic
gifts* within the church, why do they not have any more prophets after
Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla [have died]? Does this mean that grace has
stopped working? Don’t be afraid, the grace in the holy church does not stop
working! But if the prophets only prophesied up unto a certain point in time, and after that no more, then neither Priscilla nor
Maximilla [really] prophesied; because they delivered their prophecies after
the individuals who were tried by the holy apostles in the holy church. The unintelligence of their
position will be shown in two ways, then. They should either show that there
are prophets after Maximilla, so that it can be shown that their so-called
“grace” is not inoperative. Or it will be shown that Maximilla is a false
prophet, since she was bold enough to receive inspiration after the prophetic
gifts had ended—not from the Holy spirit but from the masquerade of the
devil—and deceived her listeners. And look at the way in which they
can be proven false from the very words that they speak! Their so-called
prophetess, Maximilla, says, “After me there will be no more prophecy, but the
consummation.” Behold, the Holy Spirit and the spirits of error are easy to
tell apart! Everything that the prophets have spoken, they said sensibly and
with understanding; and the things that they spoke have come to pass and are
still coming to pass. However, Maximilla said that the consummation would
come after her, and nothing
like that has happened yet—even after so many emperors have
come and gone and so much time has passed by! About two hundred and six years
have passed since the time of Maximilla until ours, the twelfth year of
Valentinian and Valens and the eight year of Gratian’s and we have not seen
the consummation proclaimed by the woman who boasted of being a prophet, but
did not even know the day of her own death. It is clear then, none of the
people who have separated themselves from the truth have kept any soundness
in their reason. Like babies who have been bitten by the persistent deceiver,
the snake, they have given themselves up to being destroyed and being caught
outside of the [protection of] the fold and have been taken off to become the
food of the wolf and in doing so die. All this happened because they did not
keep a hold on to the Head but left the truth and endangered themselves in
shipwreck and in the waves of all kinds of error. If Maximilla tells people
that there will never be another prophet, then she is denying that they have
the gift of prophecy, and that it is still found among them. If their gift
only endures until Maximilla, then, as I previously stated, she did not have
any charismatic gifts* either. 3. She has gone astray. The Lord
has set his seal upon the church, and he has perfected the charismatic gifts*
in her. When there was a need for prophets the same saints, filled with the
Holy Spirit, gave all of the prophecies for our upbuilding—they gave them in
the true Spirit, with a
sound mind and a coherent intellect. They did this in
proportion to their faith in the charismatic gifts* that the Spirit was
giving to each person, and “in proportion to the faith”. But what have the
Montanists said that was beneficial? What have the Montanists said that was
in proportion to the faith? Truly, how can they be anything else besides the
people of whom the Lord was talking about when he said, “Beware of false
prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves?” Allow us to figure out which is
real prophecy and which is false prophecy by comparing what they have said
with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments (which are true, and which
have been delivered and prophesied in truth). A prophet always spoke in a
composed and intelligible manner and delivered his oracles by the Holy
Spirit’s inspiration. He spoke everything with a sound mind like “Moses, the
servant of God and faithful in all his house, who
saw the glory of God apparently, and not in dark speeches.” And, so, in the
Old Testament the man who saw [God in a vision] was called a prophet. In the
Scripture it says, “The vision which Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet,
saw. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. And I saw
Seraphim and Cherubim, and I heard the Lord saying unto me, Go and tell this
people, Hear indeed and ye shall not understand; and see indeed, and ye shall
not perceive.” And after hearing the Lord tell him this he went to the people
and said, “Thus says the Lord.” Can you not discern that this is the speech
of an intellectually sober person, and that the oracle was not presented as
the speech of a distraught mind? In a similar way, when Ezekiel the
prophet heard the Lord say, “Bake yourself bread on human waste,” he said,
“Not so, Lord; nothing common or unclean has at any time come into my mouth.”
It was because he understood the threat that the Lord had addressed to him
that he did not proceed to go ahead and do it as if he were out of his
senses. Because his mind was rational and sound he prayed saying, “Not so,
Lord.” These two things--both the teaching and the discussion--are marks of
true prophets, whose minds are sound in the Holy Spirit. And who can deny that Daniel was
filled with all wisdom and that he was in possession of his senses? He
discovered the answers to Nebuchadnezzar’s riddles, brought forth
Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams when even Nebuchadnezzar could not remember them, and
with the soundness of mind and the superiority of the gift, both which he
possessed, he gave the explanation immediately. For he had greater wisdom
than anyone else through the gift of the Holy Spirit, who truly gives
wisdom—to the prophet and also to those who, through the prophet, are
guaranteed the teaching of the truth. However, when the Phrygians claim
to prophesy, it is clear that they are not of a sound mind and intellect.
Their words are unclear and strange, with nothing right about them. 4.
Montanus, for example, says, “Behold, man is like a lyre, and I fly over him
like a pick. The man sleeps, while I watch. Be aware, it is the Lord that
distracts the hearts of men, and that gives the heart to man.” Now what coherent thinking person
who accepts the “profitable” message with understanding and cares about his
salvation, can not despise a false religion like this, and the words of
someone who boasts of being a prophet but cannot speak like one? The truth is, that Holy Spirit never spoke in him. Expressions like
“I fly”, and “strike” and “watch” and “The Lord distracts men’s hearts” are
the expressions of an ecstatic. They are not the words of a rationally
thinking man, but of a person who is a different kind from the Holy Spirit
who spoke in the prophets. When the Phrygians decide to put
together deception with truth and steal those who care for the correctness of
their intelligence, they put together large piles of texts to make a false
case for their fraud, and to prove their claims from it say that certain
scriptures bear a resemblance to it. For example, the holy Scripture has
said, “God sent an ‘ecstasy’ upon Adam, and he slept.” However, Adam’s circumstance was
nothing like theirs. In their situation, God did not want to create a
body--which was his reason for putting Adam into a trance—and
out of his extreme love and kindness, give them a similar experience.
God brought the unconscious state of sleep upon Adam, not distraction of
mind. There are many different types of
ecstasy. We call the state of being stupefied from an overabundance of wonder
an ecstasty; and insanity is called ecstasy because it has lost touch with
reality. However, Adam’s “ecstasy” of sleep was referred to by this term in a
different sense, that is, it was an ecstasy related
to the activity of his body. This is especially true because the holy Adam
whom God’s hand had formed was cast into a very deep trance. 5. It truly is clear that the
sacred scripture was correct to call this ecstasy. For, when someone is
sleeping, all of his senses leave him and have a rest. As an example consider
this: Even though the sense of sight is there but does not see; the eye is
closed, and the thing in the man that moves him (the spirit or soul) is at
rest. If there is a bad smell in the house or even a good one, the sense of
smell is there but it does not perceive the bad smell—this sense has departed
to take a rest. If there are bitter, salty, or
sweet fluids in the mouth, the sense of taste does not observe it--The sense
of taste lies in the ecstasy of rest without doing what it did before in the
man when he was awake. The ear is there [while the man is
asleep], but the sense of hearing is not working as a sense [at that time].
If persons are talking in the house it often does not hear what anyone says
unless the man wakes up. For the present time, its function stops. Animals
can be crawling on our bodies but we don’t feel it, unless they bite or
something like that. This is because the whole body
has given up its activity for the rest of sleep. The body is made from the earth
and covers the soul and because God made it to serve us in this way, it is
allowed a period to pull back from experiencing full awareness and into a
state of rest. The soul itself does not give up its role or governing the man
or producing thought. It often imagines and sees itself just as if it was
awake—even walking around, doing work, crossing the sea, addressing an
audience (it even sees itself in more striking situations than these)—in its
dreams. But the experience is not like that of an insane person or an
ecstatic who has been mentally transported to another place. This kind of
person takes frightful things into their hands while awake in body and soul
and often does terrible harm to themselves and their neighbors. They do not
know what they are saying and doing because they have fallen into the ecstasy
of foolishness. 6. My dearly loved ones, it has
been necessary for me to put together all of this material about the
different kinds of ecstasy because of the passage which says, “The Lord sent
an ecstasy upon Adam, and he slept.” And in what I have written I have
explained why falling asleep is called an “ecstasy fro the Lord” in that
passage. It happens because God has shown to all of us compassion and
lovingkindness so that a person can be removed from care and the business of
living and taken into the rest of sleep. In the case of Adam, however, God
additionally called it ecstasy because it made him unable to feel pain for a
while. This was because God was going to take the side from him and make it
into his wife. However, Adam’s senses and
intelligence were not temporarily inactive. As soon as he woke up, he
recognized Eve and said, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘wife,’ for she was taken out of her husband.” And as is
very clear, he had an awareness of the past and the present, and also made a
prophecy about the future. Take notice of this, by saying “bone of my bone”
he purposefully noticed what had happened while he was asleep. He also was
aware of what was going on in the present—after his wife had been created he
was aware that she had been taken from his own body. And regarding the future
he prophesied, “For this cause shall a man leave his
father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be
one flesh.” These are not the kind of things that a man would say if he was
in an ecstasy or lacked understanding. They are the words of a person with a
sound mind. 7. But I also have to speak about
the text “I said in my ecstasy, all men are liars,” the meaning of this, as
in the other passage, is different [than the Montanists claim]. This is not
the expression of an insane person or an ecstatic. The truth is that they are
actually far from being that. They are the words of someone
who experienced a shock and is taking a more than normal assessment of
things not fit to be said and done. You see, because the prophets were
astonished, he also speaks with astonishment here. The prophets did fall into trances
but they did not fall into distraction. Peter also was in an “ecstasy”
because he saw things other than what men usually see in the normal, day to
day world. His was not in an “ecstasy” because he was irrational. “For he saw
a sheet let down, bound at the four corners, and in it all manner of
four-footed beasts and creeping things and birds of the air.” Take notice
that Saint Peter was coherent, not out of his mind, as this was happening.
For when he heard, “Arise, kill and eat,” he did not obey like a person with an
unstable mind, but told the Lord, “Not so, Lord; nothing common or unclean
has at any time come into my mouth.” And the holy David said, “I said,
all men are liars.” In using the expression, “I said,” he was speaking for
himself and stating that people lie. Consequently, he was not lying—but
expressed great shock because he was astonished and thunderstruck at God’s
lovingkindness and at the things the Lord had told him. And, realizing that
everyone is in need of God’s mercy, he attributed truth-telling to the Lord
alone. As he did this he was realizing that every person deserves
punishment—thus he was evidencing the true Spirit, who spoke in the prophets
and showed to them the depths of the exact knowledge of God. Abraham also fell into ecstasy.
This ecstasy was not a lapse of his intellect but the distraction that
results from being overcome by fear. He witnessed the furnace and the torches
around sunset and became afraid like other prophets said happened to them
when they saw visions in their right minds. For an example of this, consider
how Moses said, “I fear exceedingly and am trembling.” But Abraham knew what
the Lord was saying, for he was told “You shall know of a surety that your
descendants shall be a stranger four hundred years in a land that is not
theirs.” And so you see how clear that it is that everything was said in
truth by the prophets with a sound mind and clear-headed reason, and not in
an insane way. 8. Despite the fact that they have
decided to reply, “The first gifts are not like the last ones,” how can they
prove this? The holy prophets and the holy apostles both prophesied in the
same way. First of all, the people who saw the two men in white when the
Savior ascended into heaven did not see them in a mentally unbalanced way but
with stable minds heard, “You men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into
heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall come in
the same manner,” and so forth. And then, as I previously mentioned, Peter
was thinking clearly and rationally when he saw, heard and answered, saying,
“Not so, Lord.” Agabus spoke prophetically and
gave a clue to his meaning with a strange gesture, when he took Paul’s
girdle, tied it around his own feet, and said, “He whose girdle this is, him
they will bind and carry to Jerusalem.” And, likewise, prophets came down to
Antioch and proclaimed there that there would be a world-wide famine, and
their prediction came true. To prove that they were real and true prophets,
the scripture adds immediately, “Which thing happened in the days of Claudius
Caesar.” And the most holy apostle Paul
prophesied, “Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the last days harsh
times will come,” and so forth. And also, in another place, “Some shall fall
away from sound doctrine, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils, forbidding to marry and commanding to
abstain from meats, which God has created to be partaken of by us who receive
them with thanksgiving.” The information given before this will make it very
clear that this has truly happened, in you and others like you. Most of these
heresies forbid marriage and prescribe abstinence from foods, although they
do not command these things for the sake of discipline or to increase one’s
virtue, which would come with rewards and crowns. No, they do so because the
regard these creatures of the Lord as abominations. 9. The holy catholic church has a
special reverence for virginity, living a life of celibacy and morally pure
living, it praises widowhood, and both honors and accepts lawful marriage.
However, it prohibits fornication, adultery and unchastity. Presenting this
will demonstrate the character of the holy catholic church as well as show
the false customs of the others. It will show also [that the holy catholic
church] has seen fit to avoid every masquerade, crooked path and uphill
trail. I have previously said—as the most holy apostles just said [in my
above quotations] and which I shall now repeat—that it was to ensure our
security and to make clear the character of the holy catholic church from the
masquerade of the heresies, that Paul talked about how arrogantly the
heresies prohibit matrimony and prescribe holding back from foods are
actually prohibiting God’s good regulations by law. For it was with a certain robustness
that the heavenly Word said, “Will you be perfect?” in the Gospel. Even
though he makes concessions for human clay and weakness, he rejoices over
those who can exhibit the marks of being pious and choose to practice
virginity, purity and self control. Still, he does honor marriage to one
spouse, even though he foreshadows the gifts of the priesthood mainly by
means of persons who stayed continent after one marriage, and persons who
have remained virgins, and his holy apostles created the canonical rule of
the priesthood in this way, with decent and holy living. However, if someone,
due to his human weakness, needs to enter into a second marriage after the
death of his wife, the rule of the truth does not stop this from
happening—that is, if he is not a priest. However, these persons do forbid
it—“forbidding to marry,” as scripture says. They
kick out anyone who has entered into a second marriage, and make their rule
against second marriage a compulsory rule. As for us, we do not lay this rule
as a necessity on anyone. In the form of good advice we encourage those who
can [to refrain from remarrying after being widowed], but we do not insist
that this is a necessary rule for anyone who cannot [refrain from remarrying
after being widowed] and we surely do not kick him out of the church, wherein
is eternal life. The holy word everywhere talks about how that we have to
bear with the human weakness of the frail. It will immediately become clear
that, to shame people like these persons do just because they do not have the
same gift [to remain celibate after being widowed] that they have, the holy
apostle says, “Younger widows refuse; for after they grow wanton against
Christ they will marry, having condemnation because they have left their
first faith.” For widows who have made a promise [to remain celibate] and
then break their promise are condemned, while those who did not promise to do
so, and got married again because of their human weakness, will not be
condemned. If remarrying after widowhood would have automatically resulted in
condemnation for persons who did not promise to remain celibate why did Paul
say, “Let them marry, direct the house.” 10. We discover then that every
person who is a prophet (whether they are prophesying in the Old Testament or
in the New) prophesies with understanding, as St. John said in Revelation:
“The Lord revealed these things to his servants through his servant John,”
and, “Thus says the Lord.” The person who spoke this had a sound mind and
understanding. Notice how he says, “Thus says the Lord,” and “the vision
which he saw”, phrases which were spoken by the Old Testament prophets. However, this Montanus, who has
tricked his victims with his bragging about being a prophet, describes things
which are not in line with sacred scripture. For he says in his so-called
prophesy, “Why do you say, ‘Only he that is more than a man can be saved?’
For the righteous will shine a hundred times brighter than the sun; and the
least of you that are saved, a hundred times brighter than the moon.” However the Lord leaves him
speechless and bewildered. It is the Lord who has the power to grant radiance
to the countenances of the saints, who caused Moses’ face to shine, and who
will transform his holy ones, who are sown in dishonor and raised in glory,
at the future coming resurrection of bodies. He will not transform other
bodies [for the saints in the resurrection] but change their own bodies,
raised complete, and receiving glory. All of this will come from him who
gives glory to his saints without holding back. It is because he is Lord and
God that he has the power to endow and impart glory. However, even though he has the
ability to grant this, he did not make promises like Montanus’ promises. For,
the Lord said, “Your faces will shine as the sun.” Now, if Jesus Christ, who
possesses the power and is our true Master and Lord, says that the faces of
the just will shine as the sun, how can Montanus promise that it will shine a
hundred times more? He could only do this if he is like the one who promised
Adam, “You will be as gods,” and made sure of his being evicted from the
glory he had and the enjoyment of Paradise, and his being lowered to the
corruption of death. 11. This Montanus proceeds to add that,
“I am the Lord God, the Almighty, who dwells in a man.” It is a blessing for
us that the sacred scriptures, and curriculum of the Holy Spirit’s teaching,
protects us from danger by giving us warnings so that we will be able to
discern which [manifestations] are the counterfeits of the strange spirit and
the contraries to the truth. Just by saying this, Montanus has given us the
idea that we remember the words of the Lord. For, in the Gospel, the Lord
says, “I came in my Father’s name and you did not receive me.” Therefore,
Montanus is in complete disagreement with the sacred scriptures. Any reader
who is carefully paying attention can see this. And, since he is in
disagreement, both he and the heresy which (in the same way he does) brags
about having prophets and gifts, they are foreigners to the holy catholic
church. He did not accept and receive these gifts [which the holy catholic
church has been endowed by God with]. Instead he left them [and embraced
foreign and counterfeit ones]. What coherent thinking person would presume to
refer to these people as prophets instead of pronouncing that people who
prophesy in such a manner are deceivers? Christ instructed us that, “I send
unto you the Spirit, the Paraclete,” and to present the signs of the Paraclete,
he said, “He shall glorify me.” And truthfully, it is clear that the holy
apostles brought glory to the Lord after they received the Paraclete Spirit,
but Montanus glorifies himself. The Lord brought glory to his Father;
likewise, the Lord Christ brought glory to the Spirit by referring to him as
the Spirit of truth. However, Montanus brings glory to himself, and exclaims
that he is the Father almighty, and that the spirit which lives in him is the
Paraclete—this is proof that he not the Father, was not sent by the Father
and has not received anything from the Father. “In the Lord was all the
fullness of the Godhead pleased to dwell bodily,” and “Of his fullness have
all the prophets received,” as Saint John has told us. And take a look at how
all the ancient ones announced Christ, and how that
those who appeared on the scene after them brought glory to Christ and
confessed him. But Montanus encroached himself by asserting that he was
somebody important—this is proof that he is not Christ, was not sent by
Christ, and has not received anything from Christ. This weak little man, Montanus,
replies, “Neither angel nor messenger, but I the Lord, God the Father, have
come.” He is exposed as a heretic by saying this—for he does not bring glory
to Christ [when he says this] and every ordinary gift which has been given in
the holy Church truly brought glory to Christ. As we look at this we will
discover that Montanus is on the outside of the body of the church and is
outside from the Head of all, and he “does not hold the Head, from whom the
whole body, knit together, increaseth,” as scripture says. For the real and
legitimate Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, demonstrated
that he was a Son; however, Montanus even goes so far as to state that he is
the Father. 12. When you Phrygians exclaim
that you departed from the church over the charismatic gifts*, how are we
supposed to believe you? Even though you are camouflaged with the label of
“Christian,” you have started another enemy assault upon us. You have
embraced the cause of the barbarian’s quarrel and acted with the hostility of
the Trojans, who just also happened to be Phrygians! Things that are of a
different nature from the gifts [as experienced in the holy catholic church]
and, as your own prophets say, are not the same kind that the Lord promises
to give, cannot be [real and legitimate] gifts. And as a response, you introduce
us to Maximilla! Even the names that you guys have are different and
scary—there is nothing pleasant and melodious about them—and they have an air
of wildness and savagery to them. Immediately this Maximilla, who is one of these supposed Phrygians, listen to what she says children
of Christ: “Do not listen to me, but listen to Christ!” Even when it appeared that she was
bringing glory to Christ, she was in error. If she belonged to Christ she
would speak like the holy apostles, as each one of them says. Peter is first,
who says, “We had heard of him.” And the Lord himself says, “He that hears
you, hears me.” And Paul says, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” But as she lies she really tells
the truth, even though she doesn’t want to. She is correct to tell people not
to listen to her but to Christ. Unclean spirits are often forced to censure
themselves as being not of the truth and to demonstrate by compulsion and
under pressure, who their Lord is. Just like the young woman with the spirit
of divination exclaimed, “These men are servants of the most high God;” and
[like the spirit in the Gospel account said], “Why have you come before the
time to torment us? I know you, who you are—the holy one of God.” So
Maximilla, under [supernatural] coercion, told people not to listen to her,
but to Christ. Now I would like to ask, how can the people
who have heard her say this and believed in her desire to listen to
her [anymore]—when they have been taught by her not to listen to her, but to
listen to the Lord! Truthfully, if they possessed any sense they should not
listen to her, since her prophetic utterances are from the earth [and not
Heaven]. And do not say to me that she was
in a coherent state [when she made this prophetical utterance]. A coherent
person does not censure themselves in their own teaching. If she spoke
anything to the extent of, “Don’t listen to me,” what kind of spirit was speaking
in her? Now, if she spoke as a human, then she was not influenced by the
Spirit. This is because it is clear that in saying, “Do not listen to me,”
she was speaking as a human, and was not influenced by the Holy Spirit. And
if she was not influenced by the Holy Spirit from on high but was instead
thinking as and under the influence of her human nature, she did not know
anything [special] and was not a prophetess. She did not have the Holy Spirit, instead she was speaking and delivering her
prophetic utterances with human intelligence. But, say for example, what if she
did speak and prophesy under the influence of the Holy Spirit—what kind of
Holy Spirit would say, “Don’t listen to me?” This deceit is so blinding that
it has completely blinded people. However, the word of God is great, which
imparts to us understanding in every way, so that we can know what has been
spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, here in the person of the
Father, there in the person of the Son, there in the person of the Holy
Spirit. Now if the spirit that is in
Maximilla was a holy one it would not command people not to listen to its own
utterances. “One is the Holy Spirit, that divides to
each as he wants.” And if he has the ability to divide as he wants, and is
referred to as the Spirit of knowledge, and the Spirit of piousness, and is
referred to as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, coming from the
Father and receiving from the Son and one who is not a stranger to the Father
and the Son—then he did not say, “Do not listen to me!” For the Spirit
imparted the message of Christ and Christ sends the Spirit, and drives out
demons by the Holy Spirit. And the Son imparts the message of the Father and
the Father set apart the Son and sent him into the world, so that the world
might know him and might give glory to him as they give glory to the Father.
And the idea of the people who separate themselves from the following of
Christ is totally wrong. 13. Next Maximilla, if I may
sarcastically say that her “coherent knowledge and education”, says, “The
Lord sent me as a supporter of this task, forced to do it, whether I want to
or not, to be a revealer of this covenant, an interpreter of this promise,
and to impart the knowledge of God.” Let us fix our eyes upon the strong
foundation of our life, my dearly beloved, and the path that is lit, and not
stumble on words from the enemy and the foreign spirit’s prey. Examine the
prophet here, who spoke like this and censured herself, not of voluntarily
but by being forced to do so. Our Lord did not enter the world against his
will, and he was not forced to come by the Father. He has the will in unison
with the Father, and it performs in unison with the Holy Spirit. And just as
he himself has the will in unison with the Father, even so, the ones whom he
has called, he has called of their own choice, never making it necessary that
they come to him nor fastening collars upon them. (Aside from this he gives
grace to everyone, not by forcing it upon people, but out of and by his superabundant
lovingkindness). It needs to be noted
that he says, “You that thirst, come to me,’ and another time he says, “If
any man will come after me let him follow me.” He also said the same thing
through Isaiah which states, “If you are willing and hearken.” And after
this, to show who was the one who said this, the prophet said, “For the mouth
of the Lord has spoken these things.” On top of all of this, are you
completely aware of their disagreement with the holy text, and the difference
between their ideas and opinions, and the faith and following of God? Because
Maximilla said that she forced both the willing and the unwilling [to embrace
faith]. This means that her words show her to be guilty of lying. She did not
teach the knowledge of God (which she herself did not even know) to the
willing, nor forced the unwilling [to embrace the faith]. I don’t even have
to tell you that the whole world has no idea who
Maximilla is, or her wrong teachings. Their mistaken idea is completely in
error and it forms no part of God’s [revealed] truth [as it is found in
Christianity]. 14. The Phrygians also revere an
isolated location in Phrygia, a town that used to be called Pepuza though it
has since been leveled. They say that the heavenly Jerusalem will come down
at that location. It is because of this belief that they go there and
celebrate certain rites there. They seem to think that this sanctifies them.
This group can also be found in Cappadocia and Galatia, and also in Phrygia
as I mentioned, which is why the heresy is referred to as the Phrygian
heresy. However, they are also in Cilicia, and, for the most part, in
Constantinople. So that I won’t leave anything out
that has a bearing on the name of every heresy that I have discussed I will
also talk about, in its place the Tascodrugians. I am doing this because this
name is used either in the heretical group itself or the one after it, which
is called the heresy of the Quintillianists. This name also originates from
the people in the group themselves. This is why they are referred to
as Tascodrugians: The word that they use for “peg” is “tascus” and “drungus”
is their word for “nostril” or “snout”. And because they put their licking
finger (at least this is the term we use for this finger) onto their nostril
when they pray (they do this to project a dejected appearance and a supposed
would-be righteousness) some people have taken to calling them Tascodrugians,
or “nose-peggers”. It is reported that a shocking and
wicked act is committed in this heresy—or in its sister heresy (the one
referred to as the heresy of the Quintillianists or Priscillianists, and
Pepuzians). At a certain celebration they pierce a child who is just a little
baby all over its body using needles that are made of bronze and procure its
blood to use for a sacrifice (if you can honestly even call such a thing a
“sacrifice”). 15. I am happy with what I have
related about this heresy in its place dearly loved children. I gave you my
word that I would not hold anything back about any heresy that I know of, but
would give you out what I have found out based upon what people have said,
from written works related to the subject, documents and people who validated
my impressions on the groups. With this in mind, by my writing only what I
know (and no more) I will not come across as being guilty of making up my own
phony charges against persons, and of finding myself in the same place that
they are by not telling the truth, but sharing things that they have not
seen, heard or learned from the true instruction of the Holy Spirit. I present all of the facts, as I
said, with exactness, about each heresy, and make these shocking revelations
for the correction of the readers. I have put together a kind of medicine
made out of refutation from the words of hallowed scripture and correct
reasonings, and mix it together in the Lord for two reasons. I make it to be
the means of recuperation and recovery of those suffering from their
sicknesses and intense pain, and I also make it to be a preventative measure,
as it were, for those who have never gotten sick, in order to keep them from
developing the sickness. Because I did this, may I also be referred to as a
disciple of the disciples of the Lord because I imparted the medicine of the
truth to those who are already wise, and may I be referred to as a disciple
of the Savior himself, who is the assistance-giver of [our] bodies and souls. At this time, with the power of
Christ, allow me to put myself in the position to continue on to the rest [of
the heresies], since I am confident that what I have given here will be
enough for this heresy. I have trodden down its venom,
and the poison on its curved fangs, with the club of the truth of the cross.
This heresy is similar to the viper of hemorrhage, whose foulness is to take the
blood out of its victims’ whole bodies and cause them to die in this way. For
this heresy and the heresy of the Quintillianists operate the same way. They
wound an innocent child and gets its blood so that
they can drink it and they deceive their victims by stating, as they say,
that this is how one is initiated in the name of Christ. But as we continue on to the rest
[of the heresies] by the power of Christ, we should call upon his truth so
that we can discover the meaning of each fraud, and after discovering and
answering it, give our usual thanks in everything to God.” (Medicine Chest (Panarion), Heresy 48) * The phrase
"charismatic gifts" could also be translated as "gifts of
grace". “1.
The Quintillianists come up next (these are the ones who are also referred to
as Pepuzians as well as being known as Artotyrites and Priscillianists). They
are the same as the Phrygians and actually come from them, but in a specific
way they are different. The reason for them being different is that the
Quintillianists or Priscillianists say that either Quintilla or Priscilla (I
am not sure which one, but one of them), as I mentioned before, slept in
Pepuza and Christ came to her and he slept next to her and it happened this
way according to the misled woman: “Christ came to me dressed in a white
robe,” she said, “in the shape of a woman, instilled into me wisdom, and
shared with me how that this place is holy, and that Jerusalem will come down
from heaven here.” And, because of this, even down to
this day, they say, that certain women and men also are initiated there on
the site, so that those people can wait for Christ and see him [themselves].
They are women in this group whom they refer to as prophetesses. I don’t
know, however, whether they were the ones to create this custom or if it
originated with the Phrygians first. They are associated and have the same
ideas. 2. They use both the Old and New
Testaments, and similarly say that they believe in the resurrection of the
dead. Their founder is Quintilla, along with Priscilla who was also a
prophetess of the Phrygians. The give many scriptural
references which have no relevance [to support their claims], and they give
thanks to Eve because she was the first one to consume food from the tree of
wisdom. They offer as scriptural support of their ordination of women as
clergy the case of Moses’ sister being a prophetess. Beyond this, they also
say Philip had four daughters who prophesied. In their church seven virgins with
lamps are often seen coming in, if you will allow, wearing white to prophesy
to those in attendance. They mislead the assembly with an act of some kind of
inspiration and make them all cry by shedding tears and putting on a show as
if they were mourning for humanity, as though to encourage them to the
mourning of penitence. They have woman bishops, presbyters and the rest
claiming that none of this makes any difference because “In Christ Jesus
there is neither male nor female.” This is what I have discovered. The reason
that they call them Artotyrites is because they put cheese and bread on the
altar during their rituals and celebrate their mysteries using them. 3. However, every human mirage is
the result of leaving the correct faith and choosing something that is just
not possible [because God has not dictated it to be that way], and for
choosing sundry frenzied experiences and secret rites. Now, if these people
do not hold on tight to the anchor of the truth, but instead place their
trust and hope in themselves, their minds will be in a continual state of
madness and bring them into a frenzied state for any reason at all. Even
though they ordain women as bishops and presbyters because of the example of
Eve, they should listen to the Lord when he says, “Your resort shall be to
your husband, and he shall rule over thee.” And they have missed (perhaps on
purpose) the command of the apostle which says, “I do not allow a woman to
speak, or to have authority over a man,” and again, “the man is not of the
woman, but the woman of the man,” and, “Adam was not deceived, but Eve,
deceived first, fell into condemnation.” There is definitely abundant error
in this world. Well, now that I have killed a
toothless, unwitting, snake like a gecko, I will leave this heresy behind, my
dearly beloved, and continue to the rest of them, calling upon God as the
provider of help for my lowliness, and to keep my promise.” (Medicine Chest (Panarion), Heresy 49) “Following
these two related heresies of Phrygians and Quintillianists or
Priscillianists, another one called the heresy of the Quartodecimans comes up
in their turn.” (Medicine Chest
(Panarion), Heresy 50:1) “After
these heresies (the Phrygians and Quintillianists and the group called
Quartodecimans) another heresy sprang up [which rejected the Gospel according
to John and the book of Revelation]…some of them grab a hold of the
proceeding passage in [the book of] Revelation and contradict it by saying
[to prove that it is false], “He said, in turn, ‘Write to the angel of the church
in Thyatira,” and there is no church composed of Christians in Thyatira. How
could he write to a church that doesn’t exist?” Truly, these people tear
themselves down since their own statements force them to confess the truth.
Now if they say, “There is no church in Thyatira at this time,” they are
demonstrating that John prophesied this. For ever since the group called
Phrygians settled there, grabbed the simple believers’ minds as a wolf grabs
its prey, and won the whole town over to their heresy, those people who
reject [the book of] Revelation fought against this text at that time in
order to bring disrepute upon it. However, not, in our own time, the church
exists there thanks to Christ and it is gaining new members, 112 years after.
But there are some other heretical groups there. At that time, however, the
whole church had went over to the Phrygians. And,
therefore, the Holy Spirit went through great effort to give unto us the
revelation of how the church would descend into inaccuracy ninety-three years
after the time in which the apostles lived, John and his successors. In other
words, for a time [of 138 years] from the Savior’s ascension until the
church’s restoration [in Thyatira], since the church in that place would go
off course and be inundated by the Phrygian heresy. For the Lord shows their true side
at the beginning in [the book of] Revelation when he says, “Write to the
angel of the church in Thyatira, ‘Thus says he whose eyes are as a flame of
fire, and his feet like fine brass. I know your works, and your faith and
your love and your ministry, that your latter works are more than the first.
But I have against you that you allow the woman Jezebel to deceive my
servants, calling herself a prophetess, teaching to eat things sacrificed to
idols and commit fornication. And I gave her space for repentance, and she
will not repent of her fornication.’” Do you not see that he is
referring to the women who are tricked by a false understanding of prophecy
and will deceive many people? What I mean is that he is referring to
Priscilla, Maximillia and Quintilla, whose fraud the Holy Spirit took notice
of. He told it in advance, prophetically through St. John’s mouth, who
prophesied before he fell asleep [in death], during the time of Claudius Caesar
and before that time, when he was on the island of Patmos. Even the people
who live in Thyatira confess that this has happened. John, then, wrote
prophetically to those who were living in Christ there at the time, that a woman would refer to herself as a prophetess.
And the untrue argument which is brought up in opposition to the truth has
completely failed, because it can be demonstrated that the prophetic oracle
in Revelation is truly of the Holy Spirit [because it came to pass].” (Medicine Chest (Panarion), Heresy 51:1, 33) “Women
just happen to be unstable, likely to make mistakes, and mean-spirited. As in
our earlier chapter on Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla, so in this
instance the devil has seen it fit to spew out ridiculous teachings from the mouths
of women.” (Medicine Chest (Panarion),
Heresy 79:1) |
|
|
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.315-386) “Let the Cataphrygians also be thy abhorrence, and Montanus,
their ringleader in evil, and his two so-called prophetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla.
For this Montanus, who was out of his mind and really mad (for he would not
have said such things, had he not been mad), dared to say that he was himself
the Holy Ghost, — he, miserable man, and filled with all uncleanness and
lasciviousness; for it suffices but to hint at this, out of respect for the
women who are present. And having taken possession of Pepuza, a very small
hamlet of Phrygia, he falsely named it Jerusalem; and cutting the throats of
wretched little children, and chopping them up into unholy food, for the
purpose of their so-called mysteries, — (wherefore till but lately in the
time of persecution we were suspected of doing this, because these Montanists
were called, falsely indeed, by the common name of Christians;) — yet he dared
to call himself the Holy Ghost, filled as he was with all impiety and inhuman
cruelty, and condemned by an irrevocable sentence.” (Catechetical Lecture, 16:8) |
|
|
Gregory Nazianzen
(c.325-389) “These I call by name
(for they are not nameless like the stars which are numbered and have names), and they follow
me, for I rear them up beside the waters of rest; and they follow every such
shepherd, whose voice they love to hear, as you see; but a stranger they will
not follow, but will flee from him, because they have a habit of
distinguishing the voice of their own from that of strangers. They will flee
from Valentinus with
his division of one into two, refusing to believe that the Creator is other
than the Good. They will flee from Depth and Silence, and the mythical Æons,
that are verily worthy of Depth and Silence. They will flee from
Marcion's god, compounded of elements
and numbers; from Montanus' evil and feminine spirit; from the
matter and darkness of Manes; from
Novatus' boasting and wordy assumption
of purity; from the analysis and confusion of Sabellius, and if I may use the expression, his
absorption, contracting the Three into One, instead of defining the One in
Three Personalities; from the difference of natures taught by Arius and his followers, and their new Judaism,
confining the Godhead to the Unbegotten; from Photinus earthly Christ, who took his beginning from
Mary. But they worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, One
Godhead; God the Father, God the Son and (do not be angry) God the Holy
Ghost, One Nature in Three Personalities, intellectual, perfect,
Self-existent, numerically separate, but not separate in Godhead.” (Oration 33:16) |
|
|
Basil The Great (c.329-379) “As to your enquiry about the Cathari, a statement has already
been made, and you have properly reminded me that it is right to follow the
custom obtaining in each region, because those, who at the time gave decision
on these points, held different opinions concerning their baptism. But the baptism of the Pepuzeni seems
to me to have no authority; and I am astonished how this can have escaped
Dionysius, acquainted as he was with the canons. The old authorities
decided to accept that baptism which in nowise errs from the faith. Thus they
used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful congregations. By
heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in
matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated
for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful
congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by
uninstructed laymen. As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and
prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit
to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and
persons leave the Catholic Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly. To disagree with members of the Church about repentance, is schism.
Instances of heresy are
those of the Manichaeans, of the Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and of
these Pepuzenes; for with them there comes in at once their disagreement
concerning the actual faith in God. So it seemed good to the ancient
authorities to reject the baptism of heretics
altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still
belonged to the Church. As to those who assembled in unlawful congregations, their decision
was to join them again to the Church, after they had been brought to a better
state by proper repentance and rebuke, and so, in many cases, when men in
orders had rebelled with the disorderly, to receive them on their repentance,
into the same rank. Now the
Pepuzeni are plainly heretical, for, by unlawfully and shamefully applying to
Montanus and Priscilla the title of the Paraclete, they have blasphemed
against the Holy Ghost. They are, therefore, to be condemned for ascribing
divinity to men; and for outraging the Holy Ghost by comparing Him to men.
They are thus also liable to eternal damnation, inasmuch as blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost admits of no forgiveness. What ground is there, then, for the
acceptance of the baptism of men who baptize into the Father and the Son and
Montanus or Priscilla? For those who have not been baptized into the names
delivered to us have not been baptized at all. So that, although this escaped
the vigilance of the great Dionysius, we must by no means imitate his error.
The absurdity of the position is obvious in a moment, and evident to all who
are gifted with even a small share of reasoning capacity. (Letter 188:1, To Amphilochius) |
|
|
Optatus
Of Milevis (4th Century) “Moreover,
I cannot pass over a matter in which I think you have acted craftily. In
order that you might lead the minds of your readers off the point, or deceive
them, after you had described Circumcision and the Flood, and after you had
praised Baptism, you thought fit to raise, as it were from the dead, heretics
who were already dead and, together with their heresies, buried in
oblivion----and this although not only their errors, but even their names,
were unknown throughout Africa----Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus,
and the rest up to the Cataphrygae,
all of whom were confuted in their time by Victorinus of Pettau, by
Zephyrinus of Rome, by Tertullian of Carthage, and by other champions of the
Catholic Church. Why, then, do you wage a war with the dead, who have nothing
to do with the affairs of our time? For no reason, excepting that you, who
are a schismatic of to-day, having nothing that you can prove against
Catholics, have been pleased to enumerate so many heretics and their
heresies, to spin out your somewhat wordy treatise.” (Against The Donatists, 1:9) |
|
|
Gregory of Nyssa
(d. c.387) “But
that the charge of Sabellianism and Montanism should be repeatedly urged
against our doctrines, is much the same as if one should lay to our charge
the blasphemy of the Anomoeans. For if one were carefully to investigate the
falsehood of these heresies, he would find that they have great similarity to
the error of Eunomius. For each of them affects the Jew in his doctrine,
admitting neither the Only-begotten God nor the Holy Spirit to share the
Deity of the God Whom they call “Great,” and “First.” For Whom Sabellius
calls God of the three names, Him does Eunomius term
unbegotten: but neither contemplates the Godhead in the Trinity of Persons.
Who then is really akin to Sabellius let the judgment of those who read our argument decide.” (Against
Eunomius, 10:2) “But it seems to me
best to pass over the intermediate passages in which he seeks to maintain his
profanity, and to hasten to the head and front of the accusation which we
have to bring against his doctrines. For he will be found to exhibit the
sacrament of regeneration as an idle thing, the mystic oblation as
profitless, and the participation in them as of no advantage to those who are
partakers therein. For after those high-wrought aeons in which, by way of
disparagement of our doctrine, he names as its supporters a Valentinus, a
Cerinthus, a Basilides, a Montanus,
and a Marcion, and after laying it down that those who affirm that the Divine
nature is unknowable, and the mode of His generation unknowable, have no
right or title whatever to the name of Christians, and after reckoning us
among those whom he thus disparages, he proceeds to develop his own view in
these terms:—"But we, in agreement with holy and blessed men; affirm
that the mystery of godliness does not consist in venerable names, nor in the
distinctive character of customs and sacramental tokens, but in exactness of
doctrine." That when he wrote this, he did so not under the guidance of
evangelists, apostles, or any of the authors of the Old Testament, is plain
to every one who has any acquaintance with the sacred and Divine Scripture.
We should naturally be led to suppose that by "holy and blessed
men" he meant Manichaeus, Nicolaus, Colluthus, Aetius, Arius, and the
rest of the same band, with whom he is in strict accord in laying down this
principle, that neither the confession of sacred names, nor the customs of
the Church, nor her sacramental tokens, are a ratification of godliness.” (Against Eunomius, 11:5) |
|
|
Niceta
of Remesiana (c.335-c.414) “You
must know that this is the one Catholic Church established throughout the
world, and with it you must remain in unshaken communion. There are, indeed,
other so-called ‘churches’ with which you can have no communion: for example,
those of the Manichaeans, the Cataphrygians,
the Marcionites and other heretics and schismatics. These ‘churches’ ceased
to be holy, because they were deceived by the doctrines of the Devil to
believe and behave differently from what Christ commanded and from the
tradition of the Apostles.” (An
Explanation Of The Creed, 11) |
|
|
Jerome (c.340-420) “As regards the passages brought together from the gospel of
John with which a certain votary of Montanus has assailed you, passages in
which our Savior promises that He will go to the Father, and that He will
send the Paraclete — as regards these, the Acts of the Apostles inform us
both for what time the promises were made, and at what time they were
actually fulfilled. Ten days had elapsed, we are told, from the Lord’s
ascension and fifty from His resurrection, when the Holy Spirit came down,
and the tongues of the believers were cloven, so that each spoke every
language. Then it was that, when certain persons of those who as yet believed
not declared that the disciples were drunk with new wine, Peter standing in
the midst of the apostles, and of all the concourse said: “Ye men of Judaea
and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you and hearken to my
words: for these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third
hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my
spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on my handmaidens will pour out...of my
spirit.” If, then,
the apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church, has expressly
said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord were then and there fulfilled,
how can we claim another fulfillment for ourselves? if the Montanists reply
that Philip’s four daughters prophesied at a later date, and that a prophet
is mentioned named Agabus, and that in the partition of the spirit, prophets
are spoken of as well as apostles, teachers and others, and that Paul himself
prophesied many things concerning heresies still future, and the end of the
world; we tell them that we do not so much reject prophecy — for this is
attested by the passion of the Lord — as refuse to receive prophets whose
utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new. In the first
place we differ from the Montanists regarding the rule of faith. We
distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three persons, but
unite them as one substance. They, on the other hand, following the doctrine
of Sabellius, force the Trinity into the narrow limits of a single
personality. We, while we do not encourage them, yet allow second marriages
[after widowhood], since Paul bids the younger widows to marry. They suppose
a repetition of marriage [after widowhood] a sin so awful that he who has
committed it is to be regarded as an adulterer. We, according to the
apostolic tradition (in which the whole world is at one with us), fast
through one Lent yearly; whereas they keep three in the year as though three
saviors had suffered. I do not mean, of course, that it is unlawful to fast
at other times through the year — always excepting Pentecost — only that
while in Lent it is a duty of obligation, at other seasons it is a matter of
choice. With us, again, the bishops occupy the place of the apostles, but
with them a bishop ranks not first but third. For
while they put first the patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia, and place next to
these the ministers called stewards, the bishops are relegated to the third
or almost the lowest rank. No doubt their object is to make their religion
more pretentious by putting that last which we put first. Again they close
the doors of the Church to almost every fault, whilst we read daily, “I
desire the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,” and “Shall they fall
and not arise, saith the Lord,” and once more “Return ye backsliding children
and I will heal your backslidings.” Their strictness does not prevent them
from themselves committing grave sins, far from it; but there is this
difference between us and them, that, whereas they in their
self-righteousness blush to confess their faults, we do penance for ours, and
so more readily gain pardon for them. I pass
over their sacraments of sin, made up as they are said to be, of sucking
children subjected to a triumphant martyrdom. I prefer, I say, not to credit
these; accusations of blood-shedding may well be false. But I must confute
the open blasphemy of men who say that God first determined in the Old
Testament to save the world by Moses and the prophets, but that finding
Himself unable to fulfill His purpose He took to Himself a body of the
Virgin, and preaching’ under the form of the Son in Christ, underwent death
for our salvation. Moreover that, when by these two steps He was unable to
save the world, He last of all descended by the Holy Spirit upon Montanus and
those demented women Prisca and Maximilia; and that thus the mutilated and
emasculate Montanus possessed a fullness of knowledge such as was never
claimed by Paul; for he was content to say, “We know in part, and we prophesy
in part,” and again, “Now we see through a glass darkly.” These are
statements which require no refutation. To expose the infidelity of the
Montanists is to triumph over it. Nor is it necessary that in so short a
letter as this I should overthrow the several absurdities which they bring
forward. You are well acquainted with the Scriptures; and, as I take it, you
have written, not because you have been disturbed by their cavils, but only
to learn my opinion about them.” (Letter
41:1-4 , To Marcella) “Therefore
the Lord told his disciples, “I am departing, and I will send you another
Comforter.” Luke also records that
this assuring promise was given by Jesus Christ to the apostles. I
am surprised that Montanus and the two crazy women accompanying his sect and
his errors, who are only failed prophets, argue that this promise of the
Savior was not fulfilled until them, long after it was given, because it was
to the apostles that the Savior said, “I will send you the promised gift of my
Father. But live in the city until you
are clothed with the power from on high.”
It was upon the apostles, not Montanus, Prisca, and Maxilla, that
Jesus Christ has breathed, thus giving them the Holy Spirit. To the apostles it is said, “The sins of
those whom you forgive are forgiven, and they will be retained of those whose you retain.”
It is the apostles that He ordered not to leave Jerusalem but to wait
for the promise of His Father, a promise that Luke allows us to see being
fulfilled, when he said, “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they
began to speak different languages, as the Holy Spirit put their words in
their mouths,” because The Holy Spirit “blows where He wills.” When Jesus Christ promised His apostles
that He would send to send them “another Comforter,” it was already
satisfying to know that He was himself the consolation of his apostles, and
to know the apostle Paul’s concept of God the Father, when he calls Him the
“God of mercy and all comfort.” But if
the Father is “Comforter,” if the Son is “Comforter,” if the Holy Spirit is
“Comforter,” and if we baptize the faithful in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, who are only one God, it follows that, having the same name
of God, even “Consolation,” they also have a similar nature.” (Letter 120:9, To Hedibia) “Such being the state of the case, what object is served by
“silly women laden with sins, carried about with every wind of doctrine, ever
learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?” Or how is the
cause helped by the men who dance attendance upon these, men with itching
ears who know neither how to hear nor how to speak? They confound old mire
with new cement and, as Ezekiel says, daub a wall with untempered mortar; so
that, when the truth comes in a shower, they are brought to naught. It was
with the help of the harlot Helena that Simon Magus founded his sect. Bands
of women accompanied Nicolas of Antioch that deviser of all uncleanness.
Marcion sent a woman before him to “Oh, monster, who ought to be banished to the ends of the earth! do you laugh at the relics
of the martyrs, and in company with Eunomius, the father of this heresy, slander
the Churches of Christ? Are you not afraid of being in such company, and of
speaking against us the same things which he utters against the Church? For
all his followers refuse to enter the basilicas of Apostles and martyrs, so
that, forsooth, they may worship the dead Eunomius, whose books they consider
are of more authority than the Gospels; and they believe that the light of
truth was in him just as other
heretics maintain that the Paraclete came into Montanus, and say that
Manichaeus himself was the Paraclete. You cannot find an occasion of boasting
even in supposing that you are the inventor of a new kind of wickedness, for
your heresy long ago broke out against the Church. It found, however, an
opponent in Tertullian, a very learned man, who wrote a famous treatise which
he called most correctly Scorpiacum, because, as the scorpion bends itself
like a bow to inflict its wound. so what was
formerly called the heresy of Cain pours poison into the body of the Church;
it has slept or rather been buried for a long thee, but has been now awakened
by Dormitantius. I am surprised you do not tell us that there must upon no
account be martyrdoms, inasmuch as God, who does not ask for the blood of
goats and bulls, much less requires the blood of men. This is what you say,
or rather, even if you do not say it, you are taken as meaning to assert it.”
(Against Vigilantius, 8) “So away with Novatus, who would not hold out a hand to the erring! perish
Montanus and his mad women! Montanus, who would hurl the fallen into the
abyss that they may never rise again. Every
day we all sin and make some slip or other. Being then merciful to ourselves,
we are not rigorous towards others; nay, rather, we pray and beseech him
either to simply tell us our own faults, or to openly defend those of other
men.” (To Pammachius Against John Of “The
false prophecy, which is called the Cataphrygian, had its beginning, from its
founder Montanus, with Priscilla and Maximilla the insane seers.” (Chronicle, Entry For 176AD) “And so, too, in the
epistle to the Hebrews: "For as touching those who were once enlightened
and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then
fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame." Surely we cannot deny that they have been baptized who have been
illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers
of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God. But if the baptized
cannot sin, how is it now that the Apostle says, "And have
fallen away?” Montanus and Novatus
would smile at this, for they contend that it is impossible to renew again
through repentance those who have crucified to themselves the Son of God, and
put Him to an open shame. He therefore corrects this mistake by
saying: "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things
that accompany salvation, though we thus speak; for God is not unrighteous to
forget your work and the love which ye shewed towards his name, in that ye
ministered unto the Saints, and still do minister."” (Against Jovinianus, 2:3) “The blessed Cyprian
takes Tertullian for his master, as his writings prove; yet, delighted as he
is with the ability of this learned and zealous writer he does not join him
in following Montanus and Maximilla…One says: “I cannot condemn what no one
else has condemned.” Another says: “No decision was arrived at on the point
by the Fathers.” It is thus that they appeal to the judgment of the world to
put off the necessity of assenting to a condemnation. Another says with yet
more assurance: “how am I to condemn men whom the council of Nicæa has left untouched?
For the council which condemned Arius would surely have condemned Origen too,
had it disapproved of his doctrines.” They were bound in other words to cure
all the diseases of the church at once and with one remedy; and by parity of
reasoning we must deny the majesty of the Holy Ghost because nothing was said
of his nature in that council. But the question was of Arius, not of Origen;
of the Son, not of the Holy Ghost. The bishops at the council proclaimed
their adherence to a dogma which was at the time denied; they said nothing
about a difficulty which no one had raised. And yet they covertly struck at
Origen as the source of the Arian heresy: for, in condemning those who deny
the Son to be of the substance of the Father, they have condemned Origen as
much as Arius. On the ground taken by these persons we have no right to
condemn Valentine, Marcion, or the Cataphrygians,
or Manichæus, none of whom are named by the council of Nicæa, and yet there
is no doubt that in time they were prior to it.” (Letter 84:2, 4) “O happy penitence
which has drawn down upon itself the eyes of God, and which has by confessing
its error changed the sentence of God's anger! The same conduct is in the
Chronicles attributed to Manasseh, and in the book of the prophet Jonah to
Nineveh, and in the gospel to the publican. The first of these not only was
allowed to obtain forgiveness but also recovered his kingdom, the second
broke the force of God's impending wrath, while the third, smiting his breast
with his hands, "would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven."
Yet for all that the publican with his humble confession of his faults went
back justified far more than the Pharisee with his arrogant boasting of his
virtues. This is not however the place to preach penitence, neither am I writing against Montanus
and Novatus. Else would I say of it that it is "a sacrifice ... well
pleasing to God," I would cite the words of the psalmist: "the
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit," and those of Ezekiel "I
prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death," and those of
Baruch, "Arise, arise, O Jerusalem, and many other proclamations made by
the trumpets of the prophets.” (Letter
77:4) “Melito
of Asia, bishop of Sardis, addressed a book to the emperor Marcus Antoninus
Verus, a disciple of Fronto the orator, in behalf of the Christian
doctrine…Of his fine oratorical genius, Tertullian, in the seven books which
he wrote against the church on behalf of Montanus, satirically says that he
was considered a prophet by many of us.” (Lives Of Illustrious Men, 24) “Apollinaris,
bishop of “Rhodo,
a native of Asia, instructed in the Scriptures at “Miltiades
of whom Rhodo gives an account in the work which he wrote against Montanus,
Prisca and Maximilla, wrote a considerable volume against these same persons,
and other books Against the nations and the Jews and addressed an Apology to
the then ruling emperors. He flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus and
Commodus.” (Lives
Of Illustrious Men, 39) “Apollonius,
an exceedingly talented man, wrote against Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla a
notable and lengthy volume, in which he asserts that Montanus and his mad
prophetesses died by hanging, and many other things, among which are the
following concerning Prisca and Maximilla, “if they denied that they have accepted
gifts, let them confess that those who do accept are not prophets and I will
prove by a thousand witnesses that they have received gifts, for it is by
other fruits that prophets are shown to be prophets indeed. Tell me, does a
prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet stain her eyelids with antimony? Is a
prophet adorned with fine garments and precious stones? Does a prophet play
with dice and tables? Does he accept usury? Let them respond whether this
ought to be permitted or not, it will be my task to prove that they do these
things.” He
says in the same book, that the time when he wrote the work was the fortieth
year after the beginning of the heresy of the Cataphrygians. Tertullian added
to the six volumes which he wrote On ecstasy against the church a seventh,
directed especially against Apollonius, in which he attempts to defend all
which Apollonius refuted. Apollonius flourished in the reigns of Commodus and
Severus.” (Lives
Of Illustrious Men, 40) “Serapion, ordained bishop of Antioch in the eleventh year of
the emperor Commodus, wrote a letter to Caricus and Pontius on the heresy of
Montanus, in which he said “that you may know moreover that the madness of
this false doctrine, that is the doctrine of a new prophecy, is reprobated by
all the world, I have sent to you the letters of the most holy Apollinaris
bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.” He wrote a volume also to Domnus, who in time
of persecution went over to the Jews, and another
work on the gospel which passes under the name of Peter, a work to the church
of the Rhosenses in “Tertullian
the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and
Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was
the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he
flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus
Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known
to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of
He
composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On Modesty, On
Persecution, On Fasts, On Monogamy, six books On Ecstasy, and a seventh which
he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age,
and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.” (Lives Of
Illustrious Men, 53) “Gaius,
bishop of |
|
|
Pelagius
(c.354-c.430) “We
do also abhor the blasphemy of those who say that any impossible thing is
commanded to man by God; or that the commandments of God cannot be performed by
any one man, but that by all men taken together they may: or that do condemn
first marriages in compliance with Manichaeus, or second marriages [for
widows] in compliance with the Montanists.” (Confession Of Faith, Addressed To Innocent I) |
|
|
Synod of Laodicea (4th Century) “Persons converted from the heresy of those who are called
Phrygians, even should they be among those reputed by them as clergymen, and
even should they be called the very chiefest, are with all care to be both
instructed and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church.” (Canon 8) |
|
|
Pseudo-Pionius
(4th Century) “In
the days of unleavened bread Paul, coming down from Galatia, arrived in
Asia…in Smyrna he went to visit Strataeas, who had been his hearer in Pamphylia…Paul
then, entering his house and gathering together the faithful there, speaks to
them concerning the Passover and the Pentecost, reminding them of the New
Covenant of the offering of bread and the cup; how that they ought most
assuredly to celebrate it during the days of unleavened bread, but to hold
fast the new mystery of the Passion and Resurrection. For here the Apostle plainly teaches that we ought neither to keep
it outside the season of unleavened bread, as the heretics do, especially the
Phrygians, nor yet on the other hand of necessity on the fourteenth
day: for he said nothing about the fourteenth day, but named the days of
unleavened bread, the Passover, and the Pentecost, thus ratifying the
Gospel.” (Life Of Polycarp, 2) |
|
|
Augustine Of Hippo
(354-430) “For if the knowledge of the discordant and mutually
contradictory opinions of others is of any service to him who would obtain an
entrance for Christian truth in overthrowing the opposition of error, it is
useful only in the way of preventing the assailant of the truth from being at
liberty to fix his eye solely on the work of controverting your tenets, while
carefully hiding his own from view. For the knowledge of the truth is of
itself sufficient both to detect and ‘to subvert all errors, even those which
may not have been heard before, if only they are brought ‘forward. If,
however, in order to secure not only the demolition of open errors, but also
the rooting out of those which lurk in darkness, it is necessary for you to
be acquainted with the erroneous opinions which others have advanced, let
both eye and ear be wakeful, I beseech you, — look well and listen well
whether any of our assailants bring forward a single argument from Anaximenes
and from Anaxagoras, when, though the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies were
more recent and taught largely, even their ashes are not so warm as that a
single spark can be struck out from them against the Christian faith. The din which resounds in the
battle-field of controversy now comes from innumerable small companies and
cliques of sectaries, some of them easily discomfited, others presuming to
make bold resistance,- such as the partisans of
Donatus, Maximian, and Manichaeus here, or the unruly herds of Arians,
Eunomians, Macedonians, and Cataphrygians and other pests which abound in the
countries to which you are on your way. If you shrink from the task
of acquainting yourself with the errors of all these sects, what occasion
have we in defending the Christian religion to inquire after the tenets of
Anaximenes, and with idle curiosity to awaken anew controversies which have
slept for ages, when already the cavilings and arguments even of some of the
heretics who claimed the glory of the Christian name, such as the Marcionites
and the Sabellians, and man), more, have been put to silence? Nevertheless,
if it be necessary, as I have said, to know beforehand some of the opinions
which war against the truth, and become thoroughly conversant with these, it
is our duty to give a place in such study to the heretics who call themselves
Christians, much rather than to Anaxagoras and Democritus. (Letter 118:2:12) “Further, what is said in the promise of the Paraclete shows
that it cannot possibly refer to Manichaeus, who came so many years after. For
it is distinctly said by John, that the Holy Spirit was to come immediately
after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord: “For the Spirit was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” Now, if the reason why the
Spirit was not given was, that Jesus was not glorified, He would necessarily
be given immediately on the glorification of Jesus. In the same way, the Cataphrygians said that they had received the
promised Paraclete; and so they fell away from the Catholic faith, forbidding
what Paul allowed, and condemning second marriages [after widowhood], which
he made lawful. They turned to their own use the words spoken of the Spirit,
“He shall lead you into all truth,” as if, forsooth, Paul and the other
apostles had not taught all the truth, but had left room for the Paraclete of
the Cataphrygians. The same meaning they forced from the words of Paul: “We
know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is
come, then that which is in part shall be done away;” making out that the
apostle knew and prophesied in part, when he said, “Let him do what he will;
if he marries he sinneth not,” and that this is done away by the perfection
of the Phrygian Paraclete. And if they are told that they are
condemned by the authority of the Church, which is the subject of such
ancient promises, and is spread all over the world, they reply that this is
in exact fulfillment of what is said of the Paraclete, that the world cannot
receive Him. And are not those passages, “He shall lead you into all truth,”
and, “When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done
away,” and, “The world cannot receive Him,” precisely those in which you find
a prediction of Manichaeus? And so every heresy arising under the name of the
Paraclete will have the boldness to make an equally plausible application to itself of such texts. For there is no heresy but will call
itself the truth; and the prouder it is, the more likely it will be to call
itself perfect truth: and so it will profess to lead into all truth; and
since that which is perfect has come by it, it will try to do away with the
doctrine of the apostles, to which its own errors are opposed. And as the
Church holds by the earnest admonition of the apostle, that “whoever preaches
another gospel to you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed;”
when the heretical preacher begins to be pronounced accursed by all the
world, will he not forthwith exclaim, This is what is written, “The world
cannot receive Him”?” (Reply To Faustus
The Manichean, 17) “Some
of the Manichaeans reject the canonical book entitled Acts of the Apostles.
For they are afraid of its very clear truth where it is clear that the Holy
Spirit was sent as He had been promised in the true Gospel by our Lord Jesus
Christ. Under the name of this Spirit to whom they are utterly opposed they
deceive the untutored hearts of men, asserting with an astonishing blindness
that this same promise of the Lord was fulfilled in the person of Manichaean
heresiarch. Other heretics called
Cataphrygians do the same thing, saying that the Holy Spirit whom the Lord
promised to send came in the person of some demented persons—Montanus, for
example, and Priscilla, whom they regard as their own special prophets.”
(Letter 237) “Let
us not heed those who say that the Holy Spirit, promised to the disciples by
the Lord in the Gospel, has come either in the person of the Apostle Paul, or
in the persons of Montanus and
Priscilla, according to the Cataphrygians; or, as the Manichaeans
allege, in the person of a certain Manes or Manichaeus. These heretics are
too headstrong to grasp the plain meaning of the Scriptures, or else, having
no concern about their salvation, they do not read them at all. For, in
reading the Gospel, who can fail to understand what is written following the
Lord’s resurrection, where He says: ‘And I send forth upon you the promise of
my Father. But wait here in the city, until you are clothed with power from
on high.’ These heretics do not take
cognizance of the fact that on the tenth day after the Lord had withdrawn
from the sight of the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, the holy Spirit came
in a very evident manner, according to the Acts of the Apostles; and that,
while they were in the city, as He had told them beforehand, they were so
filled by the Holy Spirit that they spoke in tongues. Now, the different
nations that were there at the time understood the Apostles, each hearing his
own language. These heretics, on the other hand, deceive those who are
unwilling to learn, and who neglect the Catholic faith, and that very faith
of their own which is clearly contained in the Scriptures; and, what is more
serious and lamentable, while they live carelessly as Catholics, they lend an
attentive ear to the heretics.” (The
Christian Combat, 28) “Furthermore,
it was also stated that the nets were broken. When nets have been broken,
heresies and schisms have taken place. The nets, indeed, take in all persons;
but unmanageable fishes, those who do not wish to come to the food of the
Lord, push, break out, and leave whenever they can. To be sure, the nets are
stretched out over the whole world; those who break out, however, do so in
certain places. The Donatists broke away in Africa, the Arians broke away in
Egypt, the Photinians broke away in Pannonia, the Cataphrygians broke away in Phrygia, and the
Manichaeans in Persia. In how many places the net has been broken!
Nevertheless, it brings to shore, but when they break the net, do all the
wicked leave? Assuredly, people do not depart unless they are evil; both good
and evil, however, remain. Otherwise, how is the net brought to the shore
with both the good and bad fishes of which the Lord spoke in the parable?” (Sermon 252:4) |
|
|
Emperors
Gratian (359-383), Valentinian II (371-392), and Theodosius I (c.346-381) “To
Eutropius, Praetorian Prefect. Let
no place be afforded to heretics
for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them
to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if
any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript
whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from
holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest
God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed,
recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the
testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure. (1)
Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in
the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that
Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of
Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect,
and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the
sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in
the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by
the Greek word homousion. These things, indeed, do not require further proof,
and should be respected. (2)
Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true
religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open
crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be
utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If,
however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be
driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct
that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed
under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed. Given
at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the Consulate
of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.”* (The Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 1:2) *
This law was really directed more towards Arians than the Montanists,
still it is included here because it could have been used against the Montanists
in light of their being outside of the established orthodox church. “To Hesperidus, Praetorian Prefect. Let all heresies forbidden by Divine
Law and the Imperial Constitutions be forever suppressed. Let no one hereafter
attempt either to teach or to learn any precepts which he has ascertained to
be profane, and let no bishops venture to teach the faith which they do not
profess, and appoint ministers which are not such; and audacity of this
description shall not be neglected and permitted to increase through the
connivance of magistrates, and of all those who are directed to have charge
of matters of this kind. (1) Under the name of "heretics"
are included those who ought to be convicted of having violated laws passed
against them; or who, on frivolous grounds, have been found to have deviated
from the judgment and principles of the Catholic religion. Given at Milan, on the third of the Nones of
August, during the Consulate of Ausonius and Olybrius, 379AD.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:2) |
|
|
Council
of Constantinople (381) “Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of
those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom:
Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves
Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we
receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and
anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed
with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and
when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But
Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are
here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and
Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other
heresies — for there are many such here, particularly among those who come
from the country of the Galatians: — all these, when they desire to turn to
orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians;
on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing
thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to
spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we
baptize them.” (Canon 7) |
|
|
Emperors Theodosius I
(c.346-381), Valentinian II (371-392), and Arcadius (c.377-408) “To Flavian, Praetorian Prefect. Those who have betrayed the Holy Faith, and have
profaned the sacred rite of baptism by heretical superstition, shall be
separated from association with all other persons, and shall not have the
right to testify against anyone, or to make a will (as We have already
decreed), nor shall they succeed to estates or be appointed heirs. We would have also ordered them to be cast out and
sent away to a distance, if it had not seemed to be a great punishment for
them to live among men, and be deprived of intercourse with them. But they
shall never be restored to their former condition, nor shall their crime be
effaced by repentance, or their guilt removed by the shade of a skillful
defence or excuse; as those who pollute the faith which they had consecrated
to God, and, betraying the Divine mysteries, have adopted profane ones,
cannot defend what is false and artificial. Assistance is given to those who
have fallen and wandered, but no aid will be accorded to those who are lost;
that is to say, those who profane the sacred rite of baptism, for they will
find no remedy in repentance which usually is beneficial in other crimes. Given on the fifth of the Ides of May, during the
Consulate of Titianus and Symmachus, 391AD.” (The Code Of Justinian,
Book 1, Title 7:3) |
|
|
Emperors
Arcadius (c.377-408) and Honorius (384-423) “To
Studius, Urban Prefect. We
forbid persons to hold religious assemblies in private houses, even outside
the Church, under the penalty of confiscation of the house, if the owner of
the same permitted ecclesiastics to hold new and tumultuous meetings therein
outside the church. Given
at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Kalends of September, during the
Consulate of Honorius, Consul for the seventh time, and Aristenetus, 404AD.”
(The Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title
3:15) “To
John, Praetorian Prefect. …These
matters having been disposed of in this way, We order that the law shall
be repeated which provides that no Jew, Pagan, or heretic shall hold
Christian slaves; and if any should be found to have done so, We
direct that all such slaves shall become absolutely free, in accordance with
the tenor of Our former laws. Moreover,
We now further decree that, if anyone of the abovementioned Jews, Pagans or
heretics should have slaves who have not yet been initiated into the most
holy mysteries of the Catholic faith, and the aforesaid slaves desire to
embrace the orthodox religion, they shall, by this law, become absolutely
free, after having united with the Catholic Church; and that the judges of
the provinces, the defenders of the Holy Church, as well as the most blessed
bishops, shall prevent anything being received by their masters as the price
of the said slaves. If,
after this, their masters should be converted to the orthodox faith, they
shall not be permitted to reduce those to slavery who preceded them in this
respect, and anyone who usurps rights of this kind shall be subjected to the
severest penalties.
Therefore all judges and reverend archbishops, not only in the dioceses of
Africa (in which We have ascertained that abuses of this kind are frequent),
or in any other provinces, shall see that all these things which We have ordered
for the sake of piety shall be rigidly and zealously observed. Violators
of this law shall not only be punished with a pecuniary fine, but also with
the penalty of death.” (The Code Of
Justinian, Book 1, Title 3:42) “To Clearchus, Prefect of the City. Let all heretics know positively
that their places of assembly shall be taken from them, whether these are
designated under the name of churches, or are called deaconates, or
deaneries, or whether meetings of this kind are held in private houses; for all
such private places or buildings shall be claimed by the Catholic Church. (1) All persons are accordingly forbidden to
assemble by day or night, in profane assemblies, for the purpose of
conducting alleged religious services; and where anything of this kind is
permitted to be done either in a public or a private house, the official who
allows it, if he is the Prefect of the City, shall be fined a hundred pounds
of gold, or if he is the Governor, shall be fined fifty pounds of gold. Given on the fifth of the Nones of March, during
the Consulate of Arcadius, Consul for the fourth time, and Honorius, Consul
for the third time, 396AD.” (The Code Of
Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:3) |
|
|
Emperors Theodosius
II (401-450) and Valentinian III (419-455) “To Caesar Florentius, Praetorian Prefect. Arians, Macedonians, Pneumatomachians,
Appollinarians, Novatians or Sabatians, Eunomians, Tetradites or
Tessarecaidecadites, Valentinians, Paulians, Papianists, Montanists or
Priscillians, Phrygians, Pepuzites, Marcionists, Borborites,
Messalians, Euchites, or Enthusiasts, Donatists, Audians, Hydroparastetes,
Tascodrogites, Batracites, Hermogenians, Photinians, Paulinists, Marcellians,
Ophites, Encratitians, Carpocratitans, Saccophores, and Manicheans, who are to
be classed as guilty of the worst of all heretical crimes, shall never have
the power to assemble or reside in the Roman Empire. Moreover, Manicheans
must be expelled from towns, and delivered up to extreme punishment, for no
place should be left them in which they may cause any injury even to the
elements. Moreover, all laws which have formerly, at
different times, been enacted against them and others who are opposed to our
religion, shall always be observed in all their force, whether they have
reference to donations made in assemblies of heretics, which they audaciously
attempt to designate as churches, or to property left under any circumstances
by a last will, or to private buildings in which they meet, either with the
permission or connivance of the owner, and which should be claimed by us for
the Holy Catholic Church; or whether they refer to an agent who has acted
without the knowledge of his principal, who, if he is free born, shall be
subject to a fine of ten pounds of gold, and if he is of a servile condition,
shall be sentenced to the mines, after having been scourged; so that they can
not assemble in any public place, or build their so-called churches, and can
plan nothing for the evasion of the laws; and no assistance, either civil or
military, shall be furnished them by either curiæ, defenders, or judges,
under the penalty of twenty pounds of gold. All laws which have been promulgated with
reference to the army, to various penalties, and to different kinds of
heretics, shall remain in full force, so that no special privilege shall be
valid as against said laws. Given at Constantinople, on the third of the
Kalends of June, under the Consulate of Felix and Taurus, 428AD.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:5) “To Florentius, Prætorian Prefect. We think that the curiae of all cities, as well as
persons in the army, and those, who are obliged to perform various duties,
either official or personal, should fulfill them (no matter to what sect they
may belong), lest We should seem to have afforded the benefit of immunity to
men who should be execrated on account of their infamous belief, and whom We
wish to be condemned by the authority of this Constitution. Given on the day before the Kalends of February,
during the Consulate of Theodosius, Consul for the sixteenth time, and
Faustus, 409AD.” (The Code Of
Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:7) |
|
|
“To
Palladius, Praetorian Prefect. No
one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of
men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery,
attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an
assembled and listening crowd; for he commits an injury against the most
reverend Synod who publicly contradicts what has once been decided and
properly established; as those matters relative to the Christian Faith have
been settled by the priests who met at Chalcedony by Our order, and are known
to be in conformity with the apostolic explanations and conclusions of the
three hundred and eight Holy Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the hundred and
fifty who met in this Imperial City; for the violators of this law shall not
go unpunished, because they not only oppose the true faith, but they also
profane its venerated mysteries by engaging in contests of this kind with
Jews and Pagans. Therefore, if any person who has ventured to publicly
discuss religious matters is a member of the clergy, he shall be removed from
his order; if he is a member of the army, he shall be degraded; and any
others who are guilty of this offence, who are freemen, shall be banished
from this most Sacred City, and shall be subjected to the punishment
prescribed by law according to the power of the court; and if they are
slaves, they shall undergo the severest penalty. Given
at Constantinople, on the eighth of the Ides of February, under the
consulship of Patricius.”* (The Code Of
Justinian, Book 1, Title 1:3) *
This law appears to only affect those living in Constantinople and was
directed towards those preaching Monophysitism. Still, it could have been
used to prevent any Montanists visiting or living in Constantinople from
preaching out in public. |
|
|
Theodoret of Cyrus (c.393-c.457) “I was never asked whether
I was assembling synods or not, or for what reason I was assembling them, or
what umbrage this could give, either to the Church or to the government; yet
just as though I had been a very guilty criminal I am prohibited from
visiting other cities; while to every one else every city lies open, and that
not only to Arians and Eunomians, but to Manichees and Marcionists, to them
that are sick with the unsoundness of Valentinus and Montanus, aye to pagans and Jews, while I, a foremost
champion of the teaching of the Gospels, am from every city excluded.” (Letter 81) “The head of the
heresy called Cataphrygian was named Montanus, who came from a village
located in that country called Ardaba. Spurred by ambition, he called himself
the Paraclete and procured
two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla. He called the books
written by these women prophetic books, and named the village of Pepuza
Jerusalem. He also ordered the dissolution of marriage and introduced new
fasts contrary to the custom of the Church. However, he did not corrupt the
doctrine of the Trinity, and he professed the same beliefs as us on the
creation of the world. Those who belong to his teaching are called by the
name of Montanus, Montanists, by the name of their race, Cataphrygians, and by
the name of this town named Jerusalem by Montanus, Pepuzians. The prophecies
of Priscilla and Maximilla are honored among them more than the divine Gospel
is. With respect to their mysteries, there are those who raise objections,
but others refuse to join in these objections, and even refer to these
accusations as being slander. Some of the Montanists deny, in a manner
similar to that of Sabellius, the three hypostases of the Deity, and support
the idea, as the Asiatic Noetus did, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
the same. Apolinarius, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a man worthy of
praise, and which, besides the science of things divine, had also acquired a
knowledge of secular affairs, wrote against them. Similarly Miltiades,
Apollonius and other writers wrote against them. Gaius, which has already
been mentioned above, wrote, against Proclus, one of the leaders of this same
heresy.” (Compendium Of
Heretical Falsehood, 3 :1) |
|
|
Emperor Anastasius (c.430-518) “To Erythrius, Praetorian Prefect. When anyone belonging to the orthodox religion, by
means of either a true or a fictitious sale, or by any other right or title
whatsoever, desires to transfer any lands, possessions, or other immovable
property, on which have been built churches or chapters of the orthodox
faith, to some person belonging to a heretical sect, or who
entertains opinions contrary to the orthodox faith, We decree that any
disposition of property of this kind between living persons, or which has
been made in secret, shall not be valid, even if it was conveyed by a vendor
of the orthodox faith, or by any other person under a fictitious title, or
under any condition whatsoever, but that all instruments of this kind shall
be void, just as if they had never been drawn up. We also decree that all such lands and possessions
which have been transferred or conveyed to heretics, in any way
whatsoever, shall be claimed by our Treasury; and if the said lands should
remain in the hands of orthodox owners or possessors, or should be acquired
by Our Treasury, it will be necessary for the said churches and chapels to be
diligently and carefully restored. The wisdom of Our Majesty intends to
provide that the temples of Almighty God in which the institutions of our
religion are destined to endure, having been restored shall be preserved with
assiduous care through all coming centuries; for it cannot be doubted that if
lands of this kind, on which churches and chapels of the true faith have been
built, should fall into the hands of heretics, their integrity
will remain unimpaired, but they will be deserted and forsaken, deprived of
all worship, bereft of all their accustomed mysteries, and stripped of all
their splendor. No assemblies of the people will take place in them, and no
rites be celebrated there by the clergy; and, for this reason, the said
churches will undoubtedly be destroyed, fall into ruin, and be levelled with
the ground; for heretics will not, at any time, think of the
restoration of structures which they do not wish to remain in existence. Given on the fifth of the Ides of August, during
the Consulate of Boëtius and Euthericus, 511AD.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:9) “To Julianus, Praetorian Prefect. We have ascertained that there are
many orthodox children neither whose fathers nor mothers belong to the true
faith; and therefore, We order that in cases where but one of the parents has
embraced the orthodox religion, as well as in those where both parents are
members of another sect, only such children as are included under the
venerated title of orthodox shall be called to their succession, either under
a will or ab intestato, and that they alone shall be entitled to receive
donations and other liberalities. The other children of those persons who have followed, not the love of Almighty God,
but the impious belief of their fathers or mothers, shall be excluded from
all benefits. Where, however, no orthodox children are living, the property,
or the succession, shall go to their agnates or cognates, provided they are
orthodox. But if no such agnate or cognate can be found, then the estate
shall be claimed by Our Treasury. (1) In order that We may not seem to have failed
to make provision for children at the death of their parents (a fact which has
been recognized by Us), We require such parents to support their orthodox
children, in accordance with their means, and to furnish them everything
which is necessary for their preservation, or their daily life; and also to
give dowries for their daughters and granddaughters, and make antenuptial
donations for their sons and grandsons, and in every instance, gifts of this
kind should be in proportion to the value of their estates, in order to
prevent children from being defrauded by the dispositions of their father or
mother, on account of their choice of the Divine love. All Our Constitutions
which have established penalties against Pagans, Manicheans, Borborites,
Samaritans, Montanists, Tascodrogites, Ophytes, and other heretics, are
confirmed by this Our law, and shall remain forever valid. Given at Constantinople, on the tenth of the
Kalends of December, during the Consulate of Lampadius and Orestes, 500AD.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:10) “To John, Praetorian Prefect. As many judges requiring Our advice have consulted
Us as to the disposal of litigation, in order that they may be advised what
to decide with reference to heretic witnesses, and whether
their testimony should be accepted or rejected, We order that no testimony
shall be given against orthodox litigants by a heretic, or by those who
adhere to the Jewish superstition, whether one, or both parties to the suit
are orthodox. We grant permission to heretics or Jews, when they
have litigation with one another, to introduce witnesses qualified to
testify, with the exception, however, of those who are controlled by the
Manichean insanity, which it is evident is also shared with the Borborites
and those who believe in the Pagan superstition; and the Samaritans are also
excepted, as well as those who are not unlike them, together with the Montanists,
the Tascodrogites, and the Ophytes, to whom all legal actions are forbidden
on account of the similarity of their offences. We therefore order that
the right to be a witness, along with all other lawful acts, shall be
forbidden to the Manicheans, the Borborites, and the Pagans, as well as to
the Samaritans, the Montanists, the Tascodrogites, and the Ophytes. We desire that the privileges of giving testimony
in court against orthodox persons shall only be forbidden to other heretics,
in accordance with what has been already decided. We admit their evidence,
however, with reference to wills and whatever relates to the final
disposition of property or to contracts, without any distinction, on the
ground of public utility and necessity, and in order that difficulty of proof
may not be increased. Given at Constantinople, on the third of the
Kalends of August, after the Consulate of Lampadius and Orestes, 532AD.” (The
Code Of Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:11) “To John, Praetorian Prefect. We order that Our Divine Decree by which We have
ordered that no one who accepts the error of heretics can receive an estate, a
legacy, or a trust, shall also apply to the last wills of soldiers, whether
they are made under the Common, or military law. Given, on the Kalends of September, after the
Consulate of Lampadius and Orestes, during the second year of the reign of
Justinian, 535AD.” (The Code Of
Justinian, Book 1, Title 5:12) |
|
|
Socrates
Scholasticus (4th-5th
Centuries) “Those
who objected to the word homoousios, conceived that those who
approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore
called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God.” (Ecclesiastical History, 1:23) “Origen
also in the first volume of his Commentaries on the apostle’s epistle
to the Romans gives an ample exposition of the sense in which the term Theotocos
is used. It is therefore obvious that Nestorius had very little
acquaintance with the treatises of the ancients, and for that reason, as I
observed, objected to the word only: for that he does not assert Christ to be
a mere man, as Photinus did or Paul of Samosata, his own published homilies
fully demonstrate. In these discourses he nowhere destroys the proper
personality of the Word of God; but on the contrary invariably maintains that
he has an essential and distinct personality and existence. Nor does he ever deny his subsistence
as Photinus and the Samosatan did, and as the Manichaeans and followers of
Montanus have also dared to do.” (Ecclesiastical
History 7:32) |
|
|
Salaminius Hermias Sozomen (4th-5th Centuries) “Although the doctrine of Arius was zealously supported by many
persons in disputations, a party had not as yet been formed to whom the name
of Arians could be applied as a distinctive appellation; for all assembled
together as a church and held communion with each other, with the exception
of the Novatians, those called
Phrygians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Paulianians, and
some few others who adhered to already invented heresies. The emperor,
however, enacted a law that their own houses of prayer should be abolished;
and that they should meet in the churches, and not hold church in private
houses, or in public places. He deemed it better to hold fellowship in the
Catholic Church, and he advised them to assemble in her walls. By means of
this law, almost all the heresies, I believe, disappeared. During the reign
of preceding emperors, all who worshipped Christ, however they might have
differed from each other in opinion, received the same treatment from the
pagans, and were persecuted with equal cruelty. These common calamities, to
which they were all equally liable, prevented them from prosecuting any close
inquiries as to the differences of opinion which existed among themselves; it
was therefore easy for the members of each party to hold church by
themselves, and by continually conferring with one another, however few they
might have been in number, they were not disrupted. But after this law was
passed they could not assemble in public, because it was forbidden; nor could
they hold their assemblies in secret, for they were watched by the bishops
and clergy of their city. Hence the greater number of these
sectarians were led, by fear of consequences, to join themselves to
the Catholic Church. Those who adhered to their original sentiments did not,
at their death, leave any disciples to propagate their heresy, for they could
neither come together into the same place, nor were they able to teach in
security those of the same opinions. On account either of the absurdity of
the heretical dogmas, or of the utter ignorance of those who devised and
taught them, the respective followers of each heresy were, from the
beginning, very few in number. The
Novatians alone, who had obtained good leaders, and who entertained the same
opinions respecting the Divinity as the Catholic Church, were numerous, from
the beginning, and remained so, not being much injured by this law; the
emperor, I believe, willingly relaxed in their favor the rigor of the
enactment, for he only desired to strike terror into the minds of his
subjects, and had no intention of persecuting them. Acesius, who was then the
bishop of this heresy in “The Montanists, who are called Pepuzites and Phrygians,
celebrate the Passover according to a strange fashion which they introduced.
They blame those who regulate the time of observing the feast according to
the course of the moon, and affirm that it is right to attend exclusively to
the cycles of the sun. They reckon each month to consist of thirty days, and
account the day after the vernal equinox as the first day of the year, which,
according to the Roman method of computation, would be called the ninth day
before the calends of April. It was on this day, they say, that the two great
luminaries appointed for the indication of times and of years were created.
This they prove by the fact that every eight years the sun and the moon meet
together in the same point of the heavens. The moon’s cycle of eight years is
accomplished in ninety-nine months, and in two thousand nine hundred and
twenty-two days; and during that time there are eight revolutions made by the
sun, each comprising three hundred and sixty-five days, and the fourth part
of a day. For they compute the day of the creation of the sun, mentioned in
Sacred Writ, to have been the fourteenth day of the moon, occurring after the
ninth day before the calends of the month of April, and answering to the
eighth day prior to ides of the same month. They always celebrate the
Passover on this day, when it falls on the day of the resurrection; otherwise
they celebrate it on the following Lord’s day; for it is written according to
their assertion that the feast may be held on any day between the fourteenth
and twenty-first.” (Ecclesiastical History, 7:18) “There are, for instance, many cities in Scythia, and yet they
all have but one bishop; whereas, in other nations a bishop serves as priest
even over a village, as I have myself observed in Arabia, and in Cyprus, and
among the Novatians and Montanists of Phrygia.” (Ecclesiastical History, 7:19) |
|
|
Macarius
Magnes (4th-5th Centuries) “At once then I can tell you of Manes in
Persia, who imitated the name of Christ, and corrupted by his error many a
satrapy and many a country in the East, and up to this day pollutes the world
by creeping over it with his injurious seed. And another is Montanus in Phrygia, who, bearing this name,
underwent in the name of the Lord an ascetic and unnatural course of life,
revealing himself as the abode of a baneful demon, and feeding on his error
through all the land of Mysia as far as that of Asia. And so great was the
power of the hidden demon which lurked within him, that he very nearly
tainted the whole world with the poison of his error. And why should
I tell you of Cerinthus and Simon, or Marcion or Bardesanes, or Droserius or
Dositheus the Cilician, or countless others whose number I shrink from
reckoning. All these and those who affected them, appropriating to themselves
the name of Christianity, wrought unspeakable error in the world, and have
taken numberless spoils and captives. Moreover, as these are Anti-christs, or
contrary to God, their followers are no longer willing to bear the name of
Christian, but like to be called, after the name of their leaders,
Manichaeans, Montanists,
Marcionists, Droserians, and Dositheans. Do you see the baneful armies of
many Antichrists terribly inflamed against Christ and the Christians, and
then do you say that none of the things has come of which the Saviour
prophesied? Do you behold the armed array of those contrary to God, and then
do you set aside the Saviour's prediction?”* (The Apocriticus, 4:15) * The
prediction was that many would come in His name saying, “I am Christ” (Matt.
24:4-5). |
|
|
Praedestinatus (5th
Century) “The Cataphrygians started
as the 26th heresy. They take their name from the province that
they came from, not from their teachings. The authors were Montanus, Prisca,
and Maximilla. They claim that the arrival of Holy Spirit which the
Lord promised [to send] is in themselves rather than the apostles. They deem
remarriage [after widowhood] to be fornication, and say that the reason which
the Apostle Paul allowed them was because he only knew in part and only
prophesied in part; for that which is perfect had not yet come. This
perfection they insanely say has come in Montanus and in his prophetesses
whom we have spoken of earlier. Up until this point I have spoken about the
Cataphrygians. I will pass over other things which are said [about them] as
if they are uncertain. We will only mention [of these uncertain things] the
rumors about the drinking of babies’ blood, for fear
that we appear to be ignorant of all that is said about them. For those who
have written against them in detail do not mention anything about this. Holy Soter, Pope of the City [of Rome], wrote a
book against them, as did the leader, Apollonius of Ephesus. Tertullian of
Carthage, a priest, wrote against these two. In every way he wrote well,
wrote in a first rate way and his writing skill was incomparable to anyone
else’s. The only negative thing about him was that he defended Montanus,
disobeying the command of Pope Soter of Rome as mentioned earlier, asserting
that the talk of babies’ blood was false, asserting
one God in trinity, penitence for the lapsed, one Easter with the same
ceremonies as ours. “This is the only way we differ,” he said, “in
that we do not admit second marriages [after widowhood], and that we do not
reject the prohecy of Montanus on the future judgment.”” (Praedestinatus,
26) “The heresy of the Pepuzians is the 27th
one—they are named after a certain place. Epiphanius states that it is a
deserted town, however they call it Jerusalem, believing there to be
something divine about it. They are even going so far as to give leadership
positions to women, so that they are honored among
them like a priest [is honored among us]. They say that there are two churches in the same
city of Pepuza—one of Quintilla and the other of Priscilla. They are one with
the Cataphrygians but they despise them as the Pepuzians consider themselves
to be better than the rest. They say that Pepuza was the home of Montanus,
Prisca and Maximilla, and that it was there that they started to share their
message and passed their lives. This is why they call the place Jerusalem and
since they live there the refer to themselves as
being better than the rest. The Bishop of Ephesus, Apollonius, overcame them.”
(Praedestinatus,
26) “We read that the Tertullianists were condemned at
some point by Soter, the Pope of Rome. Here is the reason why we have dealt
with them as just the 86th heresy: A woman named Octaviana had
come from Africa. Her husband named Hesperius was noticed being very friendly
with Lord Arbogast, and he was also close to the powerful Maximus (who was a
usurper). This woman, Octaviana, brought with her a believable and crafty
spirit, which could not be offset by one hundred quotations from the saints,
and she trusted in this man. When he*
said that he was a Tertullianist presbyter, using the Holy Scripture he
obtained permission to build for himself a college outside of the walls of
the City. Being in a position of security because of his
relationship with the tyrant Maximus, he shut us out of the place dedicated
to our holy ones, that is of the two brothers named Processus and Martianus,
saying that they had been Phrygians, and that for
that reason it was lawful for him, as a follower of Tertullian, to do this.
And in this way he led astray the people during Easter. But when God gave victory to the religious emperor
Theodosius, and with the punishment for the supporter of Maximus°, whose overthrow shook the foundation of the Tertullianist’s power,
the Tertullianist immediately fled with his wife, and it was never heard (not
even in a rumor) whether he was alive or dead. [With that having happened] God restored the
joyous Catholic festivities of his martyrs [Processus and Martianus]. This Tertullian that we have mentioned was a
citizen and presbyter in Carthage. He wrote very eloquent and fervent works
in defense of the truth. In Carthage he had a basilica which his
congregation used continuously up until the time of Bishop Aurelius. By the
efforts of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, discussing in a reasonable manner with
them, they were converted, and he brought their church into the holy church. In spite of their having been reunited with the
holy church, the Catholic church censures Tertullian who said that soul is
begotten from soul, and defended Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla, against the
catholic faith, and against Apollonius the eastern bishop, and against Pope
Soter of Rome, as we mentioned earlier when we discussed the Cataphrygian
heretics. It was these from whom he later split (this information is included
for fear that the ordinary Montanist should see the name of Tertullian
excluded) and he got rid of every vanity that the Phrygians had and set up
his own congregations of Tertullianists. However, he changed nothing in
matters of faith. He condemned second marriages [after widowhood],
as we earlier mentioned, asserted that the soul is generated by the parents,
and gave us catholics the name ‘psychics’. So, in whatever of Tertullian’s
writings where you read the phrase ‘Against the Psychics,’ you should
understand him to be writing ‘Against the Catholics’.” (Praedestinatus, 86) * Hesperius ° Lord Arbogast |
|
|
Gennadius
(5th Century) “Macrobius
the Presbyter was likewise as I learned from the writings of Optatus,
afterwards secretly bishop of the Donatians in |
|
|
Vincent
of
Lerins (5th Century) “The case is the same with Tertullian. For as Origen holds by
far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among the Latins.
For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or
human? With marvelous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and
had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and
of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their
rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not
his genius of such unrivaled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely
any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not
penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can
sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency
of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every
word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions,
the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the
Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and
ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts. Yet this man also,
notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little
tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith,
more eloquent by far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what
the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that “by his subsequent
error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings.” He also was
a great trial in the Church. But of Tertullian I am unwilling to say more.
This only I will add, that, contrary to the injunction of Moses, by asserting
the novel furies of Montanus which arose in the Church, and those mad dreams
of new doctrine dreamed by mad women, to be true prophecies, he deservedly
made both himself and his writings obnoxious to the words, “If there arise a
prophet in the midst of thee,”... “thou shall not
hearken to the words of that prophet. “For why? “Because the Lord your God
doth make trial of you, whether you love Him or not.”” (Commonitory, Ch 18:46) |
|
|
Gelasius I (d. 496) “The
remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or
schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way
receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have
been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: …the works of Montanus, Priscilla and
Maximilla = apocrypha… …These
and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion,
Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from
similar error, also Montanus with
his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean,
Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus,
Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of
Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of
Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and
the other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch,
Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of
heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely
preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely
rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the
inextricable shackles of anathema forever.” (Gelasian Decree, 5) |
|
|
Book of Popes
(5th or 6th Centuries) “Innocent, by nationality an Alban, son of Innocent, occupied
the see 15 years, 2 months and 21 days. He made a regulation
for the whole church and statutes concerning Monastic rules and concerning
Jews and pagans and he found many Cataphrygians in the city whom he
constrained to exile in a monastery.” (Liber
Pontificalis, Entry 42 On Innocent I) |
|
|
Emperor
Justinian I, The Great (c.482-565) “Rules concerning the Venerated Church, etc. The
churches of Africa shall be entitled to the property of which they were
deprived by the Arians, and shall recover it without being interfered with by
anyone, but they must pay any public or private claims that may be due. A
heretic shall not confer the rite of baptism, or
discharge the duties of a public office, and a catechumen shall not
circumcise anyone. No heretic shall, under any circumstances, have a house of
worship, or a place of prayer. The Carthaginian Church shall enjoy all the
privileges granted by the Code to other churches in general. Anyone who takes
refuge in a Carthaginian church shall be immune from arrest, unless he has
committed homicide, the rape of a virgin, or has been guilty of violence
towards a Christian. No one shall take from the churches of Africa any
objects which have been donated by persons in gratitude for their restoration
to health. This rule shall be generally observed with reference to all churches.”
(Authentic Or New Constitutions Of Our
Lord The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Fourth Collection, Title 16, 37th
New Constitution) “To John, Praetorian Prefect, Twice Consul and
Patrician. Preface Your Highness has informed Us that Jews,
Samaritans, Montanists, and other men deserving of contempt,
for whom the light of the immaculate faith has never shone, who remain in
darkness and have never experienced in their minds the benefit of the true
sacraments, are included among decurions; and because We hold heretics
in horror, they think, for this reason, that they are exempt from curial
obligations, and refuse to perform the duties incumbent upon them. We,
however, are surprised that one of your wisdom and shrewdness should have
accepted their excuses, and did not at once hasten to punish them, for if
certain individuals think that, because of some extreme absurdity, they are
entitled to the enjoyment of certain privileges which We have reserved only
for persons of the highest distinction, who is there among Our subjects who
will not hereafter manifest extreme insolence and folly? Wherefore, let such
men continue to perform curial as well as official duties, as was formerly
decreed, whether they complain or not; and no religion or civil condition
shall render them exempt (for nothing is mentioned on this point in either
the ancient or modern law), but they shall not enjoy the honor attaching to
the office of decurion, or the privileges granted to persons of this kind,
for instance, freedom from corporeal punishment, exemption from removal to
other provinces, and numerous others. But where anything is stated with reference to
decurions which does not confer any privilege, it shall also apply to these,
and they shall be liable to personal and pecuniary charges, and no law shall
exempt them therefrom; they shall enjoy no honors, but must remain in the
baseness of their condition to which they are devoted. These are the provisions which We have enacted on
this subject. Chapter 1 You have also mentioned another matter which is
worthy of inquiry. We have forbidden heretics to testify
whenever orthodox persons are engaged in litigation with one another, and We
have permitted them by Our Constitution, whenever they have any legal
controversies with one another, or either the plaintiff or the defendant is
an heretic, he can testify, because they are litigants; and
they can give testimony for an orthodox person against a heretic,
but not against one who is orthodox; and, in conclusion, We have prescribed
that the evidence of such persons is not admissible when orthodox believers
are engaged in legal disputes with one another. You have stated to Us that when orthodox persons
desire to be released from curial obligations, the testimony of their
relatives and others familiar with their condition may be received. As the
law rejects the evidence of heretics when offered against
orthodox Christians, the judges hesitate to permit it under such
circumstances. We, however, think that this apprehension is unfounded, for as
such persons are permitted to testify in behalf of orthodox believers (for
the law does not forbid them to do this), then, where decurions desire to be
released from their public obligations, and call heretics to
testify in their behalf, why should not this be permitted? In this instance
the orthodox government which God has especially entrusted to Our
administration is one of the litigants, those, however, who give evidence for
the government, in reality testify for orthodox persons. Our conclusion is
just, it is consistent with the orthodox faith, and is based upon the hatred
which We entertain for all heresies. Epilogue As soon as Your Highness is informed of Our
wishes, being aware of what is beneficial to Our government, and, above all,
remembering that We have been careful to prescribe by the present
constitution what is advantageous to the public welfare, will see that it is
observed. Given at Constantinople, on the fifteenth of the
Kalends of September, after the Consulate of Belisarius.” (Authentic Or New Constitutions Of Our Lord
The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Fourth Collection, Title 24,45th
New Constitution) “To John, Most Glorious Pratorian Prefect of the
East, twice Consul and Patrician. Preface We are convinced that Our sole hope of the
permanency of the Empire during Our reign depends upon the favor of God, for
We know that that hope is the source of the safety of the soul, and the
preservation of the government. Wherefore Our laws should be based upon it,
and constantly take it into consideration, for it is their beginning, middle,
and end. Everyone is aware that those who have ruled before Us, and
especially Leo, of pious memory, and Justin, Our Father, of pious memory, in
their constitutions, forbade all heretics to have any share in
public employments or offices, in order that they might not have an
opportunity to make use of them against the Holy and Apostolic Church of God.
We, also, have forbidden this, strengthening it in every way by the authority
of Our Constitution. Our predecessors deemed as heretics, and We also
designate as such those who are the members of different heterodox
sects, and among the latter We include persons who adopt the insane
Hebrew doctrines of Nestorius the Eutychian, the Acephali, who endorse the
evil dogmas of Dioscorus and Severus; those who renew the impiety of
Manichseus and Apollinaris; as well as all such as are not affiliated with
the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, in which the most holy bishops, the
patriarchs of the entire earth, of Italy, of Rome and of this Royal City, of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, along with all the holy bishops subject
to their authority, preach the true faith and ecclesiastical tradition. Hence We very properly call persons heretics
who do not receive the holy sacraments from the reverend bishops in the
Catholic Church; for although they may give themselves the name of
Christians, still they are separated from the belief and communion of
Christians, even when they acknowledge that they are subject to the judgment
of God. Chapter 1 Therefore the provisions enacted with reference to
heretics are well known to all. But as We desire that persons
who embrace and defend the orthodox faith shall have greater privileges than
those who hold themselves aloof from the flock of God (as it is not just for heretics
to enjoy the same advantages as the orthodox), We now address Ourselves to
the present law. For as We have granted the privilege of the dowry to women,
in order that they may be preferred to prior creditors, and that their claim
shall be first in order and not liable to be barred by prescription, nor be
pleaded with reference to ante-nuptial donations, according to the times for
which they were made, We now, by this Imperial Law, decree that this
privilege, tacit hypothecation, and all other rights which were granted by
Our laws to women to enjoy and make use of, shall be conceded to those alone
who profess Our adorable faith (We mean that of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church), and who participate in its salutary communion. We
also absolutely forbid women who are separated from the Holy Catholic Church,
and are unwilling to receive the Holy Communion from the hands of priests,
beloved of God, to enjoy such privileges. For if they renounce the favors of God, and absent themselves from the
Holy Communion, there is all the more reason why they should not enjoy them,
and that We should not permit them to participate in the benefits of Our
laws; hence they are declared incapable of doing so, and shall be deprived of
all the advantages of Our Constitution. Chapter 2 Women, however, who embrace a better doctrine and
acknowledge the true faith, shall be permitted to share in the
above-mentioned benefits. These provisions must be observed throughout the entire
Roman Empire, and their execution shall generally be promoted by the bishops
and ecclesiastics beloved of God, by Our magistrates and superior and
inferior judges, as well as by Your Highness, to whom they are addressed.
Hence judges, before whom cases are brought against women, or by women who
desire to avail themselves of any privileges, shall conform to the spirit of
this law; and if it should be ascertained that the said women do not profess
the orthodox faith, or receive the adorable communion in the Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, at the hands of the reverend clergy, they shall not be
permitted to enjoy the privileges conferred by Our Constitution. Epilogue Therefore Your Highness, as soon as you have been
advised of what it has pleased Us to promulgate by means of this law, will
take measures to have it applied to all cases brought before you, and render
it operative and effective; publishing it by means of solemn edicts and
precepts, so that it may be brought to the knowledge of all, and that Our
subjects in this Most Fortunate City, as well as in the provinces, may become
aware of how great Our solicitude is for the preservation of the faith of Our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the welfare of the people of the Empire. Given at Constantinople, on the second of the
Kalends of May, during the fourteenth year of the reign of Our Lord the
Emperor Justinian, and the Consulate of Basil.” (Authentic Or New Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor
Justinian, Eighth Collection, Title 10,109th New Constitution) “Where either of the aforesaid parents, being
orthodox, is convinced that his son, or his children, do not acknowledge the
Catholic faith, and do not commune in the Church where all the patriarchs
together teach the true religion, and spread the doctrine of the four holy
Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, the first Council of Ephesus, and that of
Chalcedon; he or she will be especially permitted to denounce them as
ungrateful on this ground and to disinherit them by will, for We place heresy
among acts of ingratitude. But with a view to the general welfare of Catholic
children, We direct that, while preserving the force of laws already enacted
with reference to other heretics, for instance, the Nestorians,
and the Acephali, when their parents are known to have embraced the insane
Hebrew tenets of Nestorius, or the mad doctrines of the Acephali, and have,
for this reason, withdrawn from the communion of the Catholic Church, they
shall not be allowed to appoint any other heirs than their orthodox children,
who are members of the Catholic communion, or where there are no children,
their agnates and cognates who also are Catholics. If there should be some orthodox children who are
members of the Catholic Church, and there are others who, at the same time,
are separated from it, We decree that the entire estates of the parents shall
pass to those of their children who are Catholics, even though the said
parents may, contrary to the tenor of this Constitution, have made
testamentary dispositions in favor of heretical persons. But
where the children separated from the Church subsequently enter its bosom,
that portion of their father's estate to which they were entitled shall be
transferred to them in the condition in which it was found to exist at the
time of its delivery, in order that the Catholics who formerly had possession
of it may experience no anxiety nor deprivation with reference to any profits
which they may have acquired, or concerning their administration of said
property during the intermediate time, for as We prohibit the alienation of
anything which the Catholic heirs held as representatives of their brothers
who were not Catholics, so We do not permit the restitution of any income
from the said property, under any circumstances, to be exacted from those who
have had possession of it, or that their management of the same shall be
investigated. If the heretical children persist in
the same error to the end of their lives, without becoming members of the
Church, We order that the Catholic brothers, or the heirs of the latter,
shall acquire complete ownership of this property. But where all the children
are perverse, and are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church,
and it is proved that there are agnates or cognates who are members of the
said Church, they shall be preferred to the heretical children, and shall be
entitled to the estate of the deceased; and where the children and the
'nearest agnates and cognates are strangers to the orthodox religion, and the
deceased parents have, during their lifetime, belonged to the order of the
priesthood, We desire that their estates should be transferred to the town in
which they had their domicile; and if the ecclesiastics should neglect to
claim them for a year, the ownership of the same shall pass to the Treasury.
Where, on the other hand, the parents are members of the laity, We order that
their property, without any distinction, shall also be united to Our private
domain. These rules shall be observed even where the
parents have died intestate, and all the regulations included in other
constitutions against heretics, Nestorians, Acephali, and other persons who
are not communicants of the Catholic Church (in which the patriarchs proclaim
the doctrine of the four Councils hereinbefore mentioned), and which relate
to their successions, shall also be observed; for as We are considering
corporeal matters, how much more reason is there for Us to pay attention to
the salvation of souls? Therefore, whether parents have mentioned in their
wills all the acts of ingratitude above stated, or whether they have only
mentioned some of them, or even one alone, no matter which it may be, and the
appointed heirs prove that the said act or acts are true, We direct that the
will shall remain in full force. But where the acts of ingratitude are not
established, the rights of the disinherited children cannot be prejudiced,
the will shall be declared void, so far as it relates to the appointment of
heirs, and the children shall obtain the estate in equal shares on the ground
of intestacy. We establish this rule in order that children may not be
condemned through false accusations, or may not, through fraud, be deprived
of the estates of their parents. If, however, any legacies or trusts, grants
of freedom, or appointments of guardians should be left in wills declared
void under such circumstances, or where any other testamentary dispositions
authorized by the laws are inserted in a will, We order that all shall take
effect, that the legacies shall be acquired by those to whom they have been
bequeathed, and that the will shall be just as valid, so far as these matters
are concerned, as if it had never been annulled. Such are the rules which We prescribe with
reference to the wills of parents.” (Authentic
Or New Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Eighth
Collection, Title 16:3:14, 115th New Constitution) “We desire that everything which We have enacted
with reference to intestate successions shall be applicable to those who
acknowledge the Catholic faith, for We order that the laws already
promulgated by Us with reference to heretics shall continue to
be valid, and We make no innovation or change in them by the introduction of
the present enactment. Therefore, We wish this constitution always to be
observed in those cases which have arisen since the beginning of the month of
July of the present sixth indiction, or in any which may arise hereafter. For
We order that all cases which have arisen previous to that time shall be
decided in conformity with the ancient laws… Given in the New Palace, on the seventh of the
Kalends of August, during the eighteenth year of the reign of Our Lord the
Emperor Justinian, and the third after the Consulate
of Basil.” (Authentic Or New
Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Ninth Collection,
Title 1:6, 118th New Constitution) “We order that no heretic shall
acquire any immovable property from a church or any other religious
establishment whatsoever, either by lease, emphyteusis, purchase, or in any
other way; and when a heretic is paid anything in a contract of
this kind, he shall lose it, and the immovable property that he received
shall be recovered by the religious establishment which transferred it; and
the superintendent of said establishment shall be deprived of his office,
confined in a monastery, and excluded from the holy communion for an entire
year, by way of punishing him for having betrayed Christians to heretics.
Where an orthodox person is in possession of property on which a church is
situated, and alienates, bequeaths, leases it under emphyteusis or in any
other way, or entrusts the management of the same to a Jew, a Samaritan, an
Arian, or any other heretic, the said property shall be claimed
by the church of the neighborhood, and where a heretic (and
among heretics We include Nestorians, Acephali, and Eutychians)
builds a house for the celebration of his worship, or a new Jewish synagogue,
the most holy church of the diocese shall seize the building. If anyone should transfer land to a heretic
under emphyteusis or any other form of lease, or entrust the management of
the same to him in any other way, he being well aware that the person to whom
he delivers it is a heretic, all the income collected therefrom
under the contract shall be claimed for the benefit of the church of the city
within whose territory the land in question is situated; but when the owner
of the same is ignorant that he to whom he gave possession is a heretic,
he shall not be deprived of it on account of his ignorance; but in either
event the heretic must be driven from the land, and his
property confiscated for the Treasury.” (Authentic
Or New Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Ninth
Collection, Title 14:14, 131st New Constitution) “To the Bishop of Constantinople. Preface We believe that the true and immaculate Christian
faith is the first and greatest benefit that men enjoy, that it should be
strengthened in every respect, and that all the holy priests throughout
the earth should unite to preach it, and should extirpate every kind of false
doctrine, as is prescribed by Our laws and Our edicts. But as heretics
are not influenced by the fear of God, and pay no attention to the penalties
with which they are menaced by the severity of the law, as they accomplish
the work of the devil, and by seduction debauch certain weak men, causing
them to renounce the Holy Catholic Faith and the Apostolic Church; and as
they hold wicked assemblies in secret, and clandestinely confer spurious
baptisms, We have concluded that it is the part of piety to warn such persons
by this, Our present edict, to abandon their insane delusions, to cease to
destroy the souls of weak-minded men, to return to the Holy Church of God,
where true dogmas are preached, and where all heresies with
their heads are anathematized. Heretics are hereby notified that if, in the future, any of them should be
detected in attending prohibited assemblies, or of holding them in their houses,
so far from tolerating this, We shall transfer to the Holy Church the
buildings in which such offences are committed, and shall inflict upon the
delinquents the penalties imposed by Our Constitutions. Given at Constantinople, on the day before the Nones
of April, during the reign of Our Lord the Emperor Justinian, and the
Consulate of Basil.” (Authentic Or New
Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor Justinian, Ninth Collection,
Title 15, 132nd New Constitution) “To Diomedes, Praetorian Prefect. …Hence, We prohibit them from becoming heirs,
either by will or in case of intestacy, from receiving legacies, or from
acquiring anything by way of donation. Neither the Samaritans, nor heretics
in general, nor those who pretend to profess the true faith of Christians,
without actually believing in it, and observing its rules, shall be entitled
to any succession to which they may be called ab intestato; nor can they
execute a will, make a donation, or bequeath a legacy; unless those who are
entitled to receive them have embraced the true religion, and have manifested
their faith by their works; for where none of them are persons of this kind,
We order that, after their death, their property shall belong to the Imperial
Treasury. Wherefore the rule which Our Father established through indulgence
for the Samaritans, and which, having the force of law, gave them the
privilege of accepting and transmitting estates, as well as the right to
receive and bequeath legacies, shall hereafter be void and have no force
whatsoever. If those who adopt the insane belief of the
Samaritans should show themselves to be unworthy of the benefit of this
constitution, they can blame no one but themselves, since they have rejected
the benevolence of God and Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and they shall
forfeit the privileges formerly granted to them by Imperial Majesty, for the
purpose of inducing them to entertain a better frame of mind, and to prevent
their perpetual adherence to this perverse doctrine.” (Authentic Or New Constitutions Of Our Lord The Most Holy Emperor
Justinian, Ninth Collection, Title 27,144th New Constitution) |
|
|
Procopius
Of
Caesarea (6th Century) “Moreover, while he* was encouraging civil strife and
frontier warfare to confound the Romans, with only one thought in his mind,
that the earth should run red with human blood and he might acquire more and
more booty, he invented a new means of murdering his subjects. Now among the
Christians in the entire Roman Empire, there are many with dissenting
doctrines, which are called heresies by the established church: such as those
of the Montanists and Sabbatians, and whatever others cause the
minds of men to wander from the true path. All of these beliefs he ordered to
be abolished, and their place taken by the orthodox dogma: threatening, among
the punishments for disobedience, loss of the heretic's right to will
property to his children or other relatives. Now the churches of these so-called heretics
especially those belonging to the Arian dissenters, were almost incredibly
wealthy. Neither all the Senate put together nor the greatest other unit of
the Roman Empire, had anything in property comparable to that of these
churches. For their gold and silver treasures, and stores of precious stones,
were beyond telling or numbering: they owned mansions and whole villages,
land all over the world, and everything else that is counted as wealth among
men. As none of the previous Emperors had molested
these churches, many men, even those of the orthodox faith, got their
livelihood by working on their estates. But the Emperor Justinian, in
confiscating these properties, at the same time took away what for many
people had been their only means of earning a living. Agents were sent everywhere to force whomever they
chanced upon to renounce the faith of their fathers. This, which seemed
impious to rustic people, caused them to rebel against those who gave them
such an order. Thus many perished at the hands of the persecuting faction,
and others did away with themselves, foolishly thinking this the holier
course of two evils; but most of them by far quitted the land of their
fathers, and fled the country. The Montanists, who dwelt in Phrygia,
shut themselves up in their churches, set them on fire, and ascended to glory
in the flames. And thenceforth the whole Roman Empire was a scene of
massacre and flight…Those, indeed, who lived in my own Caesarea and in the
other cities, deciding it silly to suffer harsh treatment over a ridiculous
trifle of dogma, took the name of Christians in exchange for the one they had
borne before, by which precaution they were able to avoid the perils of the
new law. The most reputable and better class of these citizens, once they had
adopted this religion, decided to remain faithful to it; the majority,
however, as if in spite for having not voluntarily, but by the compulsion of
law, abandoned the belief of their fathers, soon slipped away into the
Manichean sect and what is known as polytheism. The country people, however, banded together and
determined to take arms against the Emperor: choosing as their candidate for
the throne a bandit named Julian, son of Sabarus. And for a time they held
their own against the imperial troops; but finally, defeated in battle, were
cut down, together with their leader. Ten myriads of men are said to have
perished in this engagement, and the most fertile country on earth thus
became destitute of farmers. To the Christian owners of these lands, the
affair brought great hardship: for while their profits from these properties
were annihilated, they had to pay heavy annual taxes on them to the Emperor
for the rest of their lives, and secured no remission of this
burden…Consequently there was a constant stream of emigration not only to the
land of the barbarians but to places farthest remote from the Romans; and in
every country and city one could see crowds of foreigners. For in order to
escape persecution, each would lightly exchange his native land for another,
as if his own country had been taken by an enemy.” (The Secret History, 11) * Emperor Justinian I |
|
|
Cosmas Indicopleustes
(6th Century) “The
Pagans do not believe and are without hope, being in love with the wisdom of this
world, which has not the power of itself to take hold of even one of the
things, unless a divine illumination should follow. In like manner also the
Jews, not believing in Christ, when He appeared and openly proclaimed these
things, and confirmed them both by Himself and by His Apostles, have incurred
the loss of all these things. The Samaritans again, and the Montanists, being more stiff-necked than the Jews, when they
could not be taught by Moses and the figures of the world, and did not
believe even the prophets, confessing neither angel, nor spirit, nor the
immortality of the rational soul, but denying the same doctrines as the
Pagans, even the resurrection of the body, suffer the loss of all these
things.” (Christian Topography,
5) |
|
|
John Of
Ephesus (c.505-c.585) “Returning
to ecclesiastical matters, our historian informs us, that the rebuke of the
patriarch, though ineffectual in preventing attempts at persecution, was not
lost upon the king. For, in the midst of his difficulties and anxieties, from
the wars which surrounded him on all sides, turbulent men, having no zeal for
the faith, and using it only as a pretext for greedily plotting after the
spoil of the house's and property of their neighbours, craftily endeavoured
to get permission and authority to carry out their purpose, and never ceased
wearying the ears of the king and patriarch with their constant calumnies,
which, though not confined to them, were especially directed against those
who found a stumblingblock in the council of Chalcedon. They complained
therefore, saying, 'These men
gather in large meetings, and celebrate the communion and baptism in greater
numbers than the catholic church, even if you add to it all the heresies of
Arians, and Samosatenians, and Tetradites, and Montanists, and Marcionites,
and the like: and they disturb and upset the whole church. Give us therefore
authority to arrest and imprison them, and put them to the torture, and root
out all their meeting houses.' But the patriarch, being a gentle and
merciful man, and who knew their cunning, and that their zeal was only for
rapine and plunder, rebuked them, saying, 'If your zeal were upright in these
things which you so press upon us, or if your purpose were the correction of
these people, we should commend it: but as we know that your real object is
to plunder and steal the goods of others, go and be quiet: for we will not
permit any persecution to take place in our days, but to the best of our
power will teach and admonish them.' And as these persons consisted not
merely of clergymen, but also of laymen, some of whom were unsound in their
Christianity —physicians, for instance, and heathens—who, besides their
greediness for plunder, wished to make a demonstration also of their
Christianity by professing zeal for the Christian faith, when they saw that
the bishop would not submit to their cunning, they did not hesitate to din
the ears of the merciful king himself, as some of them had access to him by
being the royal physicians. But the king, as one whose whole conversation and
all his thoughts were wrapped in the wars with the barbarians, would not even
so much as listen to them, saying, 'Because we have not enough to do with the
wars with the barbarians on all our confines, you want to bring upon us
intestine wars also!' And thus their violence was restrained, and their
projects were rebuffed and brought to nought.” (Ecclesiastical History, 3:5:21) |
|
|
Gregory
The Great (c.540-604) “And indeed we have learnt from the ancient institution of the Fathers
that whosoever among heretics are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when
they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of mother Church
either by unction of chrism, or by imposition of hands, or by profession of
the faith only. Hence the West reconciles Arians to the holy Catholic Church
by imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of holy chrism. But
Monophysites and others are received by a true confession only, because holy
baptism, which they have received among heretics, then acquires in them the
power of cleansing, when either the former receive the Holy Spirit by
imposition of hands, or the latter are united to the bowels of the holy and
universal Church by reason of their confession of the true faith. Those
heretics, however, who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as
the Bonosiaci and the Cataphrygae,
because the former do not believe in Christ the Lord, and the latter with a
perverse understanding believe a certain bad man, Montanus, to be the Holy
Spirit, like unto whom are many others; — these, when they come to holy
Church, are baptized, because what they received while in their error, not
being in the name of the Holy Trinity, was not baptism. Nor can this
be called an iteration of baptism, which, as has been said, had not been
given in the name of the Trinity. But the Nestorians, since they are baptized
in the name of the Holy Trinity — though darkened by the error of their
heresy in that, after the manner of Jewish unbelief, they believe not the
Incarnation of the Only-begotten — when they come to the Holy Catholic
Church, are to be taught, by firm holding and profession of the true faith,
to believe in one and the same Son of God and man, our Lord God Jesus Christ,
the same existing in Divinity before the ages, and the same made man in the
end of the ages, because The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John
1:14).” (Register Of Epistle, Book 11,
Letter 67, To Quiricus) |
|
|
Isidore
of Seville (c.560-636) “Antoninus
Minor ruled for eighteen years. Having advanced to Parthia, he took Seleucia,
the city of Assyria, with 400,000 men. He triumphed over the Parthians and
the Persians. With him ruling, Montanus, the author of the Cataphrygites and
Tatian, from whom came the heresy of the
Encratitarites, appeared.” (Chronicon,
78) |
|
|
John Of Damascus (c.676-c.770) "The Cataphrygians, or Montanists, or Ascodrugites accept
both the Old and New Testaments, but they also introduce other prophets of whom
they make much ado about-a certain Montanus and a Priscilla." (The Fount Of Knowledge, On Heresies, 48) "The Pepuzians, who are also referred to as Quintillians,
and with whom the Artotyrites are connected, form a distince heresy. Although
they belong to the Cataphrygians, they hold to other teachings which the last
do not. They hold Pepuza (a certain town lying between Galatia and Cappadocia
and Phrygia) to be sacred. In fact, they claim that it is Jerusalem. There
is, though, another Pepuza. Beyond this, they permit women to hold authority
and to officiate as priests. They also celebrate certain mysteries during
which they will pierce a new-born child with bronze needles, as is the custom
of the Cataphrygians. Then, after having mixed flour with its blood, they
bake a eucharist host of which they partake as communion. They also tell a
mythical story about Christ revealing himself there in Pepuza to Quintilla or
Priscilla in the form of a woman. They use both the Old and New Testaments,
altering them in conformance with their own ideas." (The Fount Of Knowledge, On Heresies, 49) |
|
|
Council
of Trullo (692) “But
concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that
they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with
one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the
Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty
in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies — for there are
many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the
Galatians — all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox
faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians,
on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the
same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and ears; and thus we
initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures;
and then we baptize them.” (Canon 95) |
|
|
Photius
of Constantinople (c.810-c.897) “Read the treatise of
Josephus On the Universe, elsewhere called On the Cause of the
Universe and On the Nature of the Universe...I find a marginal
note to the effect that the work is not by Josephus, but by one Gaius, a
presbyter of Rome, also the author of The Labyrinth, and of a dialogue
against Proclus, the champion of the Montanists…This Gaius is said to have
been a presbyter of the Church at Rome, during the episcopate of Victor and
Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the gentiles. He wrote
another special work against the heresy of Artemon, and also composed a
weighty treatise against Proclus, the supporter of Montanus. In this he
reckons only thirteen epistles of “Read the tractate of
Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenaeus, entitled Against the Thirty-two Heresies. It begins with the Dositheans,
and goes down to the heresies of
Noetus and the Noetians, which he says were refuted by Irenaeus in
his lectures, of which the present work is a synopsis.” (Bibliotheca, Codex 121: Hippolytus, Against Heresies) |
|
|
Agapius
Of Menbidj (d. c.941) “Then
there appeared [a man] named Montanus who claimed to be the Paraclete. The
Lord Christ, may he be glorified, [he said], sent him into the world; some
disciples gathered to follow him, and he set himself to teach a doctrine of
impiety and error. Then he was excommunicated and expelled; but he made some
proselytes and had some followers who remained attached to him until his
death.” (Universal History, Book 2, The
History Of Marcion)* Roger
Pearse edition of the Universal
History |
|
|
Michael
The Syrian (d. 1199) “In the land of
Phrygia, there is a place called Pepuza where the Montanists had a bishop and
clergy; this place they called Jerusalem, and it was at this place that the
Montanists killed Christians. John of Asia went there and burned their temple
on the order of the Emperor. They found in this building a large marble
shrine sealed with lead and tied with iron fittings. On the top of it was
written: “Montanus and his women”. They opened it up and there inside was
Montanus and his two women, Maximilla and Priscilla, who had plates of gold
on the mouth. They were filled with disarray [as to what to do] at seeing the
foul bones of the one the Montanists called "the Spirit". They said
to the Montanists, "Aren’t you ashamed to be seduced by this shameless
one, and call him ‘Spirit’? A spirit does not have flesh and bones.” And then
they burned the bones. At this the Montanists were heard groaning and crying
and said to them "Now the world is ruined and will perish." They
also found their shameful books and burned them. The building was purified
and turned into a church. Prior to this
happening, in the time of Justinian I (Justin), some people had informed the
emperor that Montanus, at the time of his death had ordered his sextons to
place him fifty cubits underground, "because,” he said, “the fire that
is coming upon the whole face of the earth will devour me [if I am not buried
that deep].” His supporters, by the pernicious operation of demons, had been
spreading the false rumor that Montanus’ bones could chase demons away; they
had bribed a few individuals who, for the bread given to their mouths [as a
bribe], said that his bones had healed them. The emperor wrote to the bishop
of the place. He dug deep and removed the bones of Montanus and those of his
women for burning. So the Montanists came to the bishop during the night and
gave him five hundred drams of gold [as a bribe]; they carried away the bones
and brought others, and in the morning, without anyone perceiving the
mystery, the bishop burned the bones as those of Montanus and Crites his
partner. But then the Archdeacon denounced the bishop [after finding out
about this] and he was sent into exile. Apollos, the
companion of Paul, wrote that Montanus was the son of Simon the magician and
that when his father [Simon the Magician had] died because of the prayer of
Peter, he fled from Rome and began to disturb the universe. Then Apollos
(pushed) by the Spirit, went to where Montanus was
and saw him sitting and preaching error. He began to inveigh against him
saying: "O enemy of God, the Lord will punish you!" Montanus began to
rebuke him, and said: "What's there between you and me, Apollos? If you
prophesy, so do I; if you're an apostle, so am I; and if you are a doctor, so
am I." Apollos said,
"May your mouth be closed, in the name of the Lord!" He
immediately stopped and couldn’t speak at all. The people believed in our
Lord and were baptized. They overthrew the see of Montanus who fled and
escaped.” (Chronicle, 9:33) |
|
|
Final Thoughts:
Montanist Myths And Realities There
are many myths circulating around about the Montanists. So, I thought that it
would be good to close out this article with a final analysis of some of
these. |
|
Myth:
There Is No Way To Really Know What The Montanists Believed Because All Of
The Writings By The Montanist Leaders Have Been Lost. Most Of What We Know
About Them Is Based Upon The Writings Of Their Enemies. More Than Likely
Their Beliefs Were Villainized By The Established Church In An Attempt To
Misrepresent Them. |
|
Reality: While there is always
the potential for one side of a religious debate to villainize the other and
it is true that none of the writings of Montanus, Priscilla or Maximilla have
survived to the present there is enough material written by the Montanist
convert Tertullian, after embracing Montanism, to know what they taught. His
writings agree with those of the established church in that they clearly show
that he believed that a new era of prophecy (which was superior to the New
Testament era) had arrived through the ministry of Montanus1, that those who did not accept the “new prophecy”
were on a spiritual level below those who did2,
that the gift of prophecy was experienced by being overtaken (possessed) by
the “Spirit” rather than the Spirit working in cooperation with mankind’s
freewill3, that remarriage after widowhood
was adultery4, that Christians should not
flee when persecuted5, and the introduction
of new fasts6. 1
On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 63; Against Praxeas, 1; On Fasting In
Opposition To The Psychics, 1; On
Monogamy, 14 2 Against Praxeas, 1; On
Fasting In Opposition To The Psychics, 1; On Monogamy, 1; On Modesty, 1.
Tertullian referred to those who did not embrace Montanistic beliefs as
“psychics”, meaning “carnal” while those who embraced Montanism he referred
to as “spiritualists”. 3 The Five Books Against Marcion, 4:22 4 On Monogamy 5 On Flight In
Persecution 6 On Fasting In Opposition To The Psychics |
|
Myth:
The Montanists Were A Legitimate Prophetic Movement |
|
Reality:
The real test of any prophetic movement is the analysis of its prophetic utterances.
The Montanist utterances fail this test for one simple reason. First, the Montanistic oracles (which
claimed to come directly from the Holy Spirit) contradicted the teachings of
the New Testament. For example, one Montanist prophecy, recorded by the
Montanist Tertullian stated “Seek not to die on bridal beds, nor in miscarriages, nor in soft fevers, but to die the
martyr’s death, that He may be glorified who has suffered for you.”1 This utterance encouraged those being persecuted
to seek to “die the martyr’s death” and the whole book that it was recorded
in was to encourage Christians to not flee when persecuted, but rather to
face death. But nowhere in the New Testament are Christians encouraged to
seek martyrdom and even Jesus himself told his disciples that “When they persecute you in this city, flee
to another (Mt 10:23)”. One must really ask themselves ‘Should I trust Jesus
or Montanus?’ Another example involved the issue of
widows remarrying. In speaking of remarriage after one’s spouse died
Tertullian indicated that “the New Prophecy abrogates second marriage.” and
that via a prophetical utterance the Montanists were taught that “you are not to
marry when you have lost your husband…he does
prejudge you guilty of adultery if, after the death of your husband, you do
marry another…”2 But this completely
contradicts what the Holy Spirit taught through the Apostle Paul who wrote
that “I desire that the younger widows marry,
bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to
speak reproachfully (1Ti 5:14)” and “I say to the unmarried and to the
widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot
exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn
with passion (1Co 7:8).” The early Christians, as they examined
Montanism, were really forced to ask themselves will I trust Jesus and Paul
or will I trust Montanist? They really had no choice but to reject Montanus
because what he taught contradicted the Scriptures. 1 On Flight In Persecution, 9 2 On Monogamy, 13 |
|
Myth:
The Montanists Were Rejected By The Established Church Because They Embraced
The Operation Of Spiritual Gifts Which The Established Church No Longer
Believed In |
|
Reality: There is no evidence
that the established church, at the time that the Montanists were active, had
stopped believing in the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit. To the contrary,
Epiphanius, in his refutation of Montanism directly stated that “The holy church of God also receives the charismatic
gifts…”1 Asterius Urbanus, in his
refutation of the Montanists indicated that “prophesy” had operated in the
established church up until his time in “a continuous succession”.2 In like manner Hermas, while discussing the
Montanist prophets, indicated to his readers the difference between a true
and a false prophet maintaining that God still endowed men with the gift of
prophecy.3 The issue was not spiritual
gifts (the established church very clearly believed in the continued
operation of the miraculous gifts) but in the way that the Montanists
experienced these gifts. When Montanus prophesied he experienced “suddenly being seized with a kind of
frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to speak and to utter strange things,
and to prophesy in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church, as handed
down from early times and preserved thenceforward in a continuous succession”.4 It was as if Montanus lost (or gave up)
complete control of his body to whatever spirit was endowing him with the
gift of prophecy. This stands in sharp contrast with Paul’s teaching on the
gift of prophesy in which he indicated that “the spirits of the prophets are
subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion… (1Cor
14:32-33).” In other words, when a person receives a legitimate prophetic
message they are never “seized with a kind of frenzy and ecstasy” which would
cause them to “rave”. No prophet in the Old or New Testament prophesied that
way. Rather, that is the way that spiritualistic mediums who have opened
themselves up to demons prophesy. Epiphanius was clear that the reason the
Montanists were rejected did not have anything to do with the operation of
spiritual gifts but rather “their controversial behavior”.5 1 Medicine Chest, 48:1 2 Fragment in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16 3 Shepherd Of Hermas, Book 2, Commandment 11 4 Fragment in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History, 5:16 5 Medicine Chest, Heresy 48:1 |
|
|
|
Some
Observations On Those Promoting Montanism In Our Times As
I have sat back and considered how some modern teachers are promoting and
encouraging other Christians to embrace Montanism a few interesting points
were brought to my attention by the Lord. Ø The original
Montanists encouraged their followers to seek martyrdom. Montanus himself
stated “Seek not to die on bridal beds, nor in
miscarriages, nor in soft fevers, but to die the martyr’s death, that He may
be glorified who has suffered for you.”1
However, not
one of the modern day supporters of Montanism, that I am aware of, is seeking
martyrdom. Why not? They say that the original Montanists were a
genuine move of the Holy Spirit. If so, why are they not obeying his command
to seek martyrdom? Ø The original
Montanists taught that remarriage after widowhood was adultery and would
cause a person to go to hell. However, not one of the modern day supporters of Montanism, that I
am aware of, is actively taking a stand against the rampant divorce and
remarriage going on in the church, let alone trying to keep widows from
remarrying. Why not? They say that the original Montanists were a
genuine move of the Holy Spirit. If so, why are they not obeying his command
for people to only have one wife throughout their whole life? These
things really do not make sense, as if one really believed that Montanism was
a legitimate move of the Holy Spirit why would they promote it but yet not
obey it? Something is just not right about the modern movement that is
attempting to justify Montanism as a legitimate move of the Holy Spirit. 1 In Tertullian’s On Flight In Persecution, 9 |
The majority of this website
was created by performing a computerized search of patristic texts to look for
Montanist-related keywords. It is hoped that this will show the value of using
computer technology to study Patristics. For more information on the Montanists
there are many books and articles available in a variety of languages,
although, as with any subject, reading the primary sources (the majority of
which are provided here in English) is the best way to learn about
something. Feedback is encouraged.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!