Montanus: Prophet to an Apostate Body of Christ

Download pdf version:

Montanus
Prophet to an Apostate Body of Christ

(The Iron Kingdom Series, Book Six)

ISBN-978-1-934782-36-1

Cover Design by Donna Nelson

Illustration by Tim Sellers

Book Contents: Author’s Notes; Foreword; Introduction; Chapter One: Why Montanus?; Chapter Two: What Is Known about Montanus; Chapter Three: Early Accusations; Chapter Four: AD 180: The Turning Point; Section 1: The Miraculous Was the Norm; Section 2: AD 180; Section 3: The New Standard; Section 4: A Monumental Event; Chapter Five: Modern Accusations; Chapter Six: Cursedianity; Conclusion; Afterword; Footnotes

Author’s Notes

I call the blending of Christians with Rome at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, “the Synthesis”.^[1] The Synthesis was an epochal event in human history, for it introduced to the world Christianity, the religion which shaped Western culture and has been a major influence on cultures around the globe. To use the word Christianity in reference to the religion of Christians prior to 325 is anachronistic and misleading.^[2] Therefore, where the authors who are quoted in this book use Christianity anachronistically, I have replaced it with a more appropriate and italicized word, adding a superscript ^a to indicate that the author’s word was Christianity. For example, speaking of the religion of Christians before 325, Robert Payne wrote,

Christianity remained obstinately remote from the state cult.^[3]

But since Christianity did not exist until 325 when it was instituted by Constantine, Payne’s word Christianity is replaced with a more appropriate term, in italics, with a superscript ^a:

The Faith of believers^a remained obstinately remote from the state cult.

The phrase “the Faith of believers” does not misrepresent Payne’s basic point. I will never intentionally misrepresent an author’s meaning. On the contrary, I believe that “the Faith of believers” is what Payne meant by Christianity. However, he and virtually all other historians believe that the religion of Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles, which error burdens their writings with confusion. By replacing their anachronistic terms with words more in line with what they actually meant, I am only relieving their readers of that burden.

The word Church, a synonym for Christianity, is also anachronistic and misleading when used in a pre-Synthesis context. Therefore, it is replaced as well, but with a superscript ^b to indicate that the author’s word was Church. Likewise, when Christian is inappropriately used, it is replaced with an italicized word along with a superscript ^c:

^a Christianity

^b Church

^c Christian, Christians

For reasons that will be explained, certain terms related to Montanus are likewise replaced and designated with a superscript ^dor ^e, as shown below:

^d Montanist(s)

^e Montanism, Montanist Movement

In English, there is no difference in the singular and plural forms of “you”. However, in biblical Hebrew and Greek, the difference is obvious. To more accurately convey the biblical writers’ messages in verses where the word “you” appears, I have italicized the “y” of all plural forms, such as you, your, yours, yourselves.
Translations of Old and New Testament scriptures are my own. Following standard practice, when a word is added to the translation for clarification, it is italicized.
Punctuation appears inside quotation marks only when that punctuation is part of what is quoted. To include all periods and commas within quotation marks, as many grammarians demand, leaves too much room, in my opinion, for misrepresentation of the quoted material.

Foreword

I believe the Bible. I trust it to be historically and prophetically true. I believe that Jesus is Lord of all, that he was born of the virgin Mary, that he suffered and died for our sins, that on the third day he was raised from the dead by the power of God, that he ascended into heaven to offer himself to God for our sins, that he will return at the appointed time to reign on earth a thousand years, and that in the Final Judgment, he will be the Judge of both the living and the dead. I believe that there is no hope of salvation except by faith in Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Jesus has filled me with his Spirit and taught me. I am his servant.

I also believe that the religious system known as Christianity is an abomination to both God and Christ. I believe that, to date, Christianity is Satan’s crowning achievement, that by it, he has successfully divided and confused the body of Christ, and that he reigns over the flock of God through Christian ministers, though they do not realize it. And I believe that in order for God’s people to attain to the unity and purity that Jesus prayed they would enjoy, they must come out of Christianity.

I am, by the wonderful grace of God, a follower of Jesus. I am also, by that same grace, not a Christian and not a part of what you know as Church religion.

The Iron Kingdom Series, of which this book is the sixth part, is an explanation and defense of my faith.

Introduction

As a seminary student studying Church history, Montanus intrigued me. As little as is actually known about him, and as castigated as he was, and still is, by Churchmen, he struck me as an important figure, even a true man of God. I said at the time that he was the one figure in Church history I would most like to meet and talk to. Four decades later, now as an aging pastor, I revisited the subject of Montanus, and once again, felt that he was a significant figure, one that must be considered if the truth about the development of Christianity is to be found.

What if Montanus was indeed sent by God to warn the body of Christ that they were headed in the wrong direction? What if he was not a heretic, but was exposing as false the deceivers that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John all said would come and lead many believers astray? And what if leaders of Christianity had allowed the writings of Montanus and those with him to remain? Were those writings so convincing that Church leaders could not allow them to survive?

Because almost nothing directly from Montanus remains, we are left with more questions than answers about him and the believers with him. Nevertheless, I am convinced that he had something from God that would have benefitted believers, had it been received. Accordingly, this book about Montanus differs from any other I have found, for it assumes that he was sent by God to a body of Christ which had fallen into apostasy.

Chapter One

Why Montanus?

No Bitterness

On November 30, 2007, I was told of an intriguing article in the local newspaper. I drove to a local store to buy a copy and saw that the article was positioned “above the fold”, that is, at the top of the front page, the space reserved for the most important news of the day. By that, the editor of the newspaper was signaling to his readers that in his judgment, this story was more important for them than any national or international news that day. The article said that a local minister had for years been breaking up marriages, that he had telephoned an innocent woman, out of the blue, to tell her she was evil, and that he was teaching that the only way people could be saved from eternal damnation is if they lived in North Carolina. Significantly, the two principal sources of the information were Christian ministers—reliable sources, certainly. And one of them was even a relative of the heretic minister; so, he surely knew the truth about him. About a week later, another article appeared in the same newspaper, this one penned by another Christian minister, accusing the heretic of teaching that God had no people on earth except the few who participated in the home fellowship he pastored. It was all quite shocking. Why would anyone listen to such a nut?

The most surprising element of the articles, though, was that I personally knew the minister about whom they had been written—it was me! None of the accusations were true, but I learned soon enough that the truth is irrelevant in such situations, for once slander is made public, the slanderer’s purpose has been achieved, which is to kill the influence of the one being talked about. As Winston Churchill noted, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

After the news articles came out, I was cut off by businessmen and others with whom I had enjoyed good relations for years. Some contractors refused to come again to do work on my property. Young people in my congregation were ashamed to show up at school, fearing that their schoolmates had learned of the newspaper stories. Others, young men as well as women, were unceremoniously dumped when those they were dating found out about the articles, and some were ostracized by their peers as belonging to a cult. Anyone associated with me was liable to be in some way abused.

The public humiliation was, to that time, the most hurtful event of my life, but Jesus used it to teach me precious lessons, and I sincerely thank him for it. One truth he taught me was that if we get the gold out of a trial, even a very hard one, we will end up thankful for that trial and will pray for those whom God used to put us through it. My wise Uncle Joe’s testimony from long ago became very real to me. He said, “I will tell you who your friends are. Your friends are whoever God uses to get you closer to Him.” I felt that truth now, deep in my soul. In fact, so much more like Jesus did the experience make me that I told my congregation that God is the One who put those articles about me in the newspaper, and it thrilled me to realize, after some time, that in my heart was no bitterness toward anyone, neither the editor nor the people whose lies he had published. I genuinely felt toward them the way Joseph felt toward his brothers who had cruelly sold him into slavery years before: “Yes, you meant to do evil to me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Joseph was able to make that statement only because he had gotten the gold out of the trial God had put him through.

Rejoice (as Soon as You Can)

Another lesson I learned is that Jesus never exaggerated; he meant exactly what he said. His words now carried more weight with me than ever, for I had experienced the truth Jesus spoke when he told his followers, “Blessed are you when people revile and persecute you, and say every evil thing against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be glad! Your reward is great in heaven, for that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Mt. 5:11–12). After I got the gold from my trial, I felt blessed by what I had suffered! Half seriously, I suggested to my congregation that I wish God would let us edit Jesus’ exhortation to say, “Rejoice, and be glad, as soon as you can.” Likewise with James’ exhortation: “Count it all joy as soon as you can, my brothers, when you fall into various trials” (Jas. 1:2). It took me a while to get there, to feel that way from the heart, but the important thing is, I did. We all did. Neither I nor my congregation would now take anything for that painful experience. It hurt, yes, but then, so does any surgery, and the Great Physician had been working on us for our good.

Paul was speaking from experience when he wrote, “We boast in tribulations, seeing that tribulation produces patience, and patience, character, and character, hope. And hope does not make ashamed, for the love of God is poured out within our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us” (Rom. 5:3–5). If we get the point of the trials our heavenly Father determines for us, we are improved by the experience, for the love of God is poured into our hearts for everyone, and that love prevents bitterness from taking root in our souls.

Bias

Few servants of God since Paul have been hated and maligned as much as Montanus has been. Churchmen and earthly rulers conspired for centuries to shield society from the influence of Montanus, and their efforts were remarkably effective, for not a scrap of the “infinite number of books”^[4] that Montanus and his fellows produced have survived. Consequently, any conclusion reached about Montanus, including that of this author, can only be a reflection of one’s bias.

As for my bias, I believe that Montanus and his fellows were of God because (1) the writings of the apostles show that the first-century body of Christ, en masse, forsook the truth^[5] and (2) the writings of second-century Christians show that the first-century apostasy worsened in the following century. Tragically, that downward process continued, culminating in the Synthesis of Rome and Christians in the fourth century. At first, it seems odd that Christian writers from the second century onward appear to be oblivious to the massive first-century apostasy, but that becomes understandable once one realizes that they did not acknowledge that great apostasy because they were part of it.

Even if I am wrong about Montanus himself, and he was not sent by God to cry out against the inchoate Christian Movement, someone should have done so, for it was demonstrably false. So, why not Montanus? Nothing that is surely known about him disqualifies him from being a true messenger of God, and at that time in history, God’s children desperately needed one. And everything that is certainly known about Montanus indicates that he was such a messenger.

A Unique Kind of Sting

The few surviving statements attributed to Montanus, recorded for posterity by his adversaries, suggest the heart of a true man of God, and I am not alone in that opinion. Here is an excerpt from the journal of John Wesley:

Wed. 15. By reflecting on an odd book which I had read in this journey, The General Delusion of Christians with regard to Prophecy, I was fully convinced of what I have long suspected: (1) That those like Montanus^d, in the second and third centuries, were real, scriptural believers^c, and (2) That the grand reason why the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn, was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves and to decry them all as either madness or imposture.^[6]

Wesley’s personal experience of being persecuted and slandered by fellow Christians for his devotion to Christ no doubt shaped his thinking concerning Montanus. He considered sincere believers like himself and Montanus to be true Christians because it never dawned on him that Christianity began with the Roman emperor Constantine in AD 325, not with Christ. In spite of harboring that wrong idea, sincere servants of God like Wesley will always feel the unique kind of sting that comes when believers reject the Spirit of truth. It is unforgettable, and in the hatred so often expressed against Montanus, Wesley felt that feeling. Christian ministers have always been especially passionate in their reaction against the truth, for they sense in the preaching of true ministers of God a threat to their status. They feel no kindred spirit when God’s true servants speak; most often, they feel attacked.

Honorable Christians

John Wesley also made an observation concerning Montanus which he could not have made had he not first suffered similar abuses from “honorable Christians”:

God always reserved a seed for himself; a few that worshipped him in spirit and in truth. I have often doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honorable Christians, who will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize from time to time with the title of heretics. Perhaps it was chiefly by this artifice of the Devil and his children that the good which was in them being evil spoken of, they were prevented from being so extensively useful as otherwise they might have been. Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic, Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century.^[7]

The fact that Montanus was so hated and slandered by Christian ministers in his day commends him to those like John Wesley, who follow hard after Christ and suffer abuse because of it at the hands of “honorable Christians”. Sincere children of God feel a kinship with any abused, righteous soul. That is what I sensed in Montanus almost fifty years ago as a seminary student when I learned about him, and that is what led me to write this book.

===========

Remember

“I will tell you who your friends are. Your friends are whoever God uses to get you closer to Him.”
Jesus never exaggerated; he meant exactly what he said.
If we get the point of the trials our heavenly Father determines for us, we are improved by the experience.
The love of God prevents bitterness from taking root in our souls.
Any conclusion reached about Montanus can only be a reflection of one’s bias.
Nothing that is surely known about Montanus disqualifies him from being a true messenger of God.
The heart of a servant of God feels a unique kind of sting when Christians react indignantly to the truth.
Christian ministers are especially passionate in their reaction against the truth, for they sense in the preaching of true ministers of God a threat to their status.
True servants of God feel a kinship with any abused, righteous soul.

Chapter Two

What Is Known about Montanus

What Montanus and Others Did

The many articles and books that Christians have written about Montanus belie the fact that almost nothing is actually known about the man. No one knows where or when he was born, whether he was rich or poor, educated or unlearned, or even if he was slave or free, for when the emperor Constantine established the Roman Universal Church, its leaders destroyed whatever they could of Montanus. The scant information we have comes only from them, but their visceral, pathological hatred of Montanus makes much of their information suspect, to say the least. From their writings, however, the following facts seem certain:

1. Montanus began his ministry during the mid-second century.

2. He ministered in Phrygia, a territory within the Roman province of Asia, where “all” believers had rejected Paul and his gospel before he died (2Tim. 1:15).

3. He repudiated and condemned the entire developing Christian Movement.

4. He labored for Christ with others, including two women, Maximilla and Prisca (Priscilla).

5. He did not introduce any theological novelties.

6. He and those with him spoke in tongues.

7. He supported other Spirit-filled ministers so that they could travel and preach the gospel.

8. He and Maximilla established storehouses, possibly to care for the poor.

9. Montanus and those with him wrote many pamphlets and/or books.

None of the historical evidence reveals exactly what Montanus taught or how he lived, but if he had taught a blatantly false gospel or had lived a debauched life, Christian leaders would have convincingly proclaimed from the housetops their proof of it. It must have been frustrating to them that they could not. Montanus’ message, instead of new and strange, seems only to have been a call for believers to return to the old truths of Christ and the apostles, echoing the ancient call of God to His people through Jeremiah: “Stand in the ways and look, and ask for the old paths, where this, the good way is, and walk in it, and find rest for your souls!” (Jer. 6:16a).

What Montanus and Others Said

Only a few sayings that are believably attributed to Montanus and his two best-known associates, Maximilla and Prisca, have survived. These are the sayings attributed to Montanus:^[8]

“I am the Lord God, the Almighty dwelling in man.” (The Panarion, 48.11.1)
“I am neither an angel nor an emissary; I, the Lord God, the Father, have come.” (The Panarion, 48.4.1; 11.1; 11.9)
“Behold, man is like a lyre, and I flit about like a pick. Man sleeps, and I awaken him. Behold, the Lord is he who transforms the heart of men and gives men a heart.” (The Panarion, 48.4.1)
“Why do you say the greater man is saved? For the just man will shine a hundred times brighter than the sun, and the little ones among you who are saved will shine a hundred times brighter than the moon.” (The Panarion, 48.10.3)

These sayings are attributed to Maximilla:

“I am chased like a wolf from the sheep; I am no wolf. I am word, and spirit, and power!” (“The Extant Writings of Asterius Urbanus”, IV, 7:336)
“Hearken not unto me, but hearken unto Christ!” (The Panarion, 48.12.4)
“After me, there will no longer be a prophet, but the end.” (The Panarion, 48.12.2)

There are also a few prophetic sayings which Tertullian attributed to Montanus and others with him, such as this, from Prisca:

“The holy minister knows how to minister sanctity. For purity is harmonious; and they [i.e., the pure] see visions; and turning their face downwards, they even hear manifest voices, as salutary as they are withal secret.” (Exhortation to Chastity, 10)

Other quotes will be discussed later.

Two things in particular stand out about these eight sayings. First, only one of them is prophetic in the sense of foretelling; the others are forthtelling, that is, divinely inspired utterances concerning a situation. Secondly, there is nothing doctrinally controversial in any of them. Even Hippolytus, a vehement critic of Montanus, credited Montanus as being doctrinally sound in several essential areas.^[9] So did Epiphanius, another fierce critic. He admitted that the Phrygian saints were not doctrinal heretics, that they “accept every scripture of the Old and the New Testaments and likewise affirm the resurrection of the dead,”^[10] and that “they agree with the holy catholic church about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”^[11] And while Epiphanius could not deny that the Phrygian saints were knowledgable in the Scriptures and used them often, it was his opinion that they used the Scriptures only “to make a false case [by combining] falsehood with truth.”^[12] Consequently, he condemned them as “false prophets”^[13] and “deceivers”^[14] who taught “doctrines of devils”.^[15]

In Eusebius’ Church History, published in the fourth century, another unnamed critic called “the Anonymous” gave the following description of something that happened, assumedly often, in meetings of the Phrygian saints. He said, “The Spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him.”^[16] That comment is believable, and it is a wonderful thing. Would to God that was being experienced by believers everywhere today. But the Anonymous was not favorably impressed. He went on to assure his readers that it was the Devil, not God, who was pronouncing them blessed and that the Devil did so only to “puff them up by the magnitude of his promises.”^[17] The phrase “magnitude of his promises” makes one wonder what promises God was making to those believers.) Revealingly, the Anonymous also said that the Spirit which spoke through the Phrygian saints would sometimes admonish the Phrygians themselves, “openly, in a wise and faithful manner.”^[18] That information should have commended their faith to the Anonymous and other Christian critics; instead, the Anonymous declared that an evil spirit had deceived them by pretending to be an impartial and righteous judge of men.^[19] There was simply nothing the Spirit could say or do through the Phrygian saints to convince Christians like the Anonymous that God was the One speaking through them; the Christians’ consuming hatred of Montanus utterly blinded them.

In his time on earth, Jesus suffered the same blind hatred, and he described those who were so blinded (Mt. 11:16–19):

To what, now, shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in marketplaces and calling out to their playmates, and saying, “We piped for you, but you didn’t dance! We sang a dirge for you, but you didn’t mourn.” For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they are saying, “He has a demon.” And the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Behold! A gluttonous man and a drunkard! A friend of tax collectors and sinners!”

When someone hates the truth, nothing the righteous do will persuade him of it. As with Montanus and many of God’s other servants through history, there was nothing Jesus could say or do to convince his adversaries in Israel that God was speaking through him; their consuming hatred of Jesus paralyzed their ability to reason. You can never satisfy an evil spirit because, as God said, “There is no peace to the wicked” (Isa. 48:22).

By recording the Anonymous’ account of the Spirit speaking through the Phrygian saints and at times admonishing those through whom it spoke, Eusebius preserved for us a precious glimpse into the faith of Montanus and his fellows. That information makes it clear to this author that the One who spoke through the Phrygians was truly the righteous and impartial Judge of hearts, encouraging or correcting the Phrygians themselves as needed. And the Anonymous’ hate-filled characterization of that information exemplifies the hardness of heart found through the centuries in Christians toward Montanus. In this case, the Anonymous condemned believers who were being blessed and corrected by the Lord for no other reason than that the Lord did it.

Montanus’ Judgment of Second-Century Christians

If first-century believers fell away from Paul’s gospel, which they did, and if second-century believers continued down that path, which is equally as certain, then what Montanus and those with him said of believers in his time was true. It is altogether believable that Jesus would cry out to second-century believers, “I am chased like a wolf from the sheep; I am no wolf. I am word, and spirit, and power!” The ceremonial religion which apostate believers of that time were developing, described in detail in the previous two books of this Series, was indeed driving away the Spirit as if it were a dangerous wolf. All ceremonies are, to use a Pauline phrase, “in the flesh”, and it is the nature of the flesh to distrust and to persecute those who are “in the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29; cf. 5:17). The Spirit and the flesh never share the same moment in a person’s life; they are mutually exclusive spiritual conditions.

The surprise is not that God would send a messenger to call upon his wayward children to repent; the surprise is that the call was recorded for posterity by the guilty party. It is astonishing that Christian writers would publish for all the world to see the very words from God which condemned them—words which will stand as a testimony against them in the Final Judgment.

According to Asterius Urbanus, a third-century critic of Montanus, an “arrogant spirit taught [the Phrygians] to revile the entire body of Christ^b under heaven.”^[20] It is more likely that the saints in Phrygia condemned the ritualistic direction that many in the body of Christ had taken, which is what anyone who understood Paul’s gospel would have done. Asterius claimed that the Phrygians reviled his religion “because the spirit of false prophecy [which spoke through them] received neither honor from it nor entrance into it,”^[21] but the evidence that exists suggests to me that Montanus had a very different, and godly, motive. Asterius’ goal was to portray Montanus as envious and disgruntled because Christians did not accept him, but his surviving statements do not have that feel about them; on the contrary, they sound like a man who wants nothing to do with the Christian Movement, a man sent from God to warn believers against it.

In the gospels, when some of the Jews sought to justify their hatred of Jesus by saying, “Our father is Abraham”, Jesus answered, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.” And when they replied that God was their Father, Jesus answered, “If God was your Father, you would love me, for I came from God” (Jn. 8:39, 41b–42). But they would not hear him and wanted to kill him. Montanus experienced the same sort of hatred in the second century. For those who had claimed the title “Christian” for themselves, the mere claim to be serving God was replacing genuine service to Him. Ancient Israel’s sin of hypocrisy had gained the upper hand among believers: “This people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Isa. 29:13). And they hated those like Montanus who refused to go along with their hypocrisy.

Christians who refused the truth Montanus preached were among those Tertullian described as being used by the Devil “to destroy the truth by defending it”—that is, defending what they thought the truth was. Jesus was referring to such men when he warned his disciples that “they will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, the hour is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God” (Jn. 16:2). And though such men claim to know God and to be defending the truth, they persecute those whom God sends, Jesus said, “because they have not known either the Father or me” (Jn. 16:3).

Jesus told some of the unrighteous in Israel that he was going to send them “prophets and wise men and scribes” but that they would persecute and even kill them (Mt. 23:34). Having suffered the malicious hatred of Christian leaders, the Phrygian saints rightly called them murderers. Asterius claimed that “they call 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.”^[22] But it was not true, as Asterius must have known, that the reason Phrygians called Christians murderers was because Christians would not heed their prophets. It is much more likely that they considered Christians murderers because the Phrygians knew that the Christian Movement was Satan’s idea, who was “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn. 8:44). And in the centuries following the Synthesis, Christian leaders abundantly proved the Phrygians to have been right.

A Haunting Cry

German theologian Walter Bauer (1877–1960) made the perceptive observation that we may judge how popular the message of Montanus and his fellows was by the scale of Christian leaders’ enormous response to it.^[23] After the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, no record exists of a council of believers being held for over a hundred years, but Montanus’ preaching stirred up Christians to convene several councils, “the first councils, or synods, known to history” apart from the Jerusalem Council.^[24] There were, of course, a number of doctrinal conflicts among believers of that time, but none were so great that councils had been called to deal with them. Montanus, however, presented a powerful argument against the developing Christian Movement, and it provoked Christian leaders to devise a coordinated attack on him. The first of these councils was convened in AD 175, and over the next twenty-five years, according to Montanus’ enemies, a series of councils were convened to condemn Montanus and those like him.^[25]

So powerfully and effectively did Montanus denounce the Christian religion that their hatred and fear of him did not die when he did. His memory was no more silent than he was while he lived, and it has haunted Christians for two thousand years. They have cursed it, labeled it, ridiculed it, ignored it, and fled before it, but they have never been able to escape its relentless cry. Whatever God does is forever (cf. Eccl. 3:14), and Montanus’ second-century cry has continued to reverberate through the millennia because it was from God. In the fourth century, the Faith taught by Montanus was still flourishing in parts of the empire, and it still provoked fierce Christian responses. Eusebius, Constantine’s most vocal advocate,

devoted four chapters in the fifth book of his Church History to the faith of Montanus^e and made other scattered references. Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398), after saying that many heresies would not be referred to because they were then academic relics, went out of his way to treat of the faith of Montanus^e in several chapters because the dangers were real and the faithful needed to be warned.^[26]

Mountains of dirt have been heaped upon the memory of Montanus, yet Christians have never been able to silence his cry. The Christian conscience is still troubled by him, for the echo of Montanus’ powerful voice not only dogged the Christians of his day, but it has continued to dog them for almost two millennia, and it will dog them until the end of the age.

============

Remember

Montanus’ message, instead of new and strange, seems only to have been a call for believers to return to the old truths of Christ and the apostles.
When someone hates the truth, nothing the righteous do will persuade him of it.
You can never satisfy an evil spirit.
The ceremonial religion which apostate believers developed drove away the Spirit as if it were a dangerous wolf.
All ceremonies are “in the flesh”, and it is the nature of the flesh to distrust and to persecute those who are “in the Spirit”.
The Spirit and the flesh never share the same moment in a person’s life; they are mutually exclusive spiritual conditions.
We may judge how popular the message of Montanus was by the scale of Christian leaders’ enormous response to it.
Whatever God does is forever.
Montanus’ powerful voice not only dogged the Christians of his day, but it has continued to dog them for almost two millennia, and it will dog them until the end of the age.

Chapter Three

Early Accusations

Labels

Since nothing is left of the writings of Montanus or those with him, we cannot know what, if anything, they called themselves. It appears that they described themselves as “spiritual people”, as opposed to Christians, whom they called “carnal people”.^[27] It is also suggested by the Anonymous and Serapion, another Montanus critic,^[28] that they called their experience “the new prophecy”, but there is no solid evidence for them doing that. It may well be that the Spirit-filled saints in Phrygia did not call themselves anything but saw themselves merely as living and worshipping in spirit and in truth, as Jesus said believers must do (Jn. 4:24). For all we know, they believed that simply belonging to God and Christ was good enough, without any label.

But to marginalize them, leaders of the Christian Movement resorted to the time-tested method of name-calling. The first recorded use of the label “Montanist” was by Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century.^[29] Modern scholars almost always follow Cyril’s lead, imagining that the believers with Montanus were following Montanus instead of Jesus and referring to the events in Phrygia as “Montanism” or “the Montanus Movement”, as if the Spirit crying out through servants of God against apostasy is an abnormality that requires a label.

Early Christian leaders also labeled the move of the Spirit in Phrygia as “Phrygianism” or “Cataphrygianism”; and those who were part of it, “Pepuziani”, after Pepuza, said to be Montanus’ hometown,^[30] or “Tascodrugians”, for reasons that are debated; and others. Interestingly, one early opponent of the Faith called it “the heresy that bears the name Miltiades”^[31] instead of “the heresy that bears the name Montanus”, but in time, “Montanism” became the preferred label, not “Miltiadism”, perhaps because it had a catchier ring to it. A modern equivalent would be “personality cult” or some such. Christians have in the past labeled those in my area who believe the truth “Clarkites” because I happen to be the one teaching it here. If a man named Smith taught it, Christians would label them “Smithites” and dismiss them instead of honestly considering what the man said. That is what happened in the early 1800s to a minister named Edward Irving. After he was filled with the Spirit and saw the evil of both the Roman and Protestant churches, Christians labeled those who believed his message “Irvingites” and spoke of “Irving and his movement”.^[32]

Such labels, and there were many of them, were concocted by early Christians in order to leave the impression that (1) Montanus had formed an aberrant sect, and (2) those with Montanus were united by admiration of him, not by a common devotion to Christ. I have chosen not to use those pejorative terms. When they are included in comments by historians, they will, as the case warrants, be replaced with the appropriate terms and designated as described in the Author’s Notes at the beginning of this work.

There never was a “Montanus Movement” or a religious system of “Montanism”. What was new and abnormal was the Apostates’ “Christian Movement”. There is no credible evidence that what the Spirit was doing in Montanus, Maximilla, Prisca, and other Phrygian believers was new. What scholars call “the Montanist Movement” was only a continuation, or perhaps a revival, of the Faith of Christ. That Christians condemned Montanus and the others in Phrygia was a testimony against themselves and their religion, not Montanus. It indicates how far from the light of Christ those who called themselves Christians had drifted by the mid-second century.

The AD 550 Event: Mass Suicide or Mass Murder?

Procopius (c. 500–c. 570), a historian of some note, wrote an unflattering book about the emperor Justinian, which he kept secret until after the emperor’s death, fearing exile or execution if he published it before then. In that book, The Secret History, if Procopius disliked a person about whom he was writing, he was not averse to repeating as fact the most absurd slanders against him. For example, nobody repeats as legitimate history Procopius’ assertion—on authority of men “whose souls were pure”—that Justinian’s head sometimes vanished and the rest of his body temporarily became amorphic.^[33] That is nonsense, of course; and yet, in the same work, Procopius claimed that in about 550, believers like Montanus committed mass suicide by shutting themselves inside churches and setting the buildings on fire.^[34] (The much more likely scenario is that Christians drove them into a building, set it on fire, and then spread the rumor that the poor victims did it to themselves.) We do not know if Procopius invented that story or if it was just a popular Christian myth that he repeated; he was, however, the first to write about it, as far as we know. In any case, the tale has been mindlessly repeated by anti-Montanus historians ever since.

One such historian, the classicist E. R. Dodds (1893–1979), explained that they “burned themselves to death rather than fall into the hands of their fellow Christians [led by John, bishop of Ephesus],” adding that “the eventual defeat of Montanism was inevitable” and that these were “the last Montanists”.^[35] Robert Grant agreed, saying that “John, bishop of Ephesus, struck a fatal blow at the movement.”^[36] Fortunately, in God’s kingdom, the standard is not that “by the word of two or more experts shall every matter be established” (cf. Dt. 17:6; Jn. 8:17). The essential problem with the conclusion reached by Dodds and Grant is that neither “Montanists” nor a “Montanist Movement” ever existed, and so, it is impossible that a fatal blow could have been given to them. Religions of man can be destroyed, but the work of God is eternal.

Experiences with Jesus and testimonies like that of Montanus were known before Montanus, and such experiences and testimonies have continued since that time. Nothing can stop God from answering the prayers of His children and pouring out His Spirit upon them. We know that later, people like Montanus were still around, in spite of what Dodds and Grant said, because Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) spoke of them.^[37] And we are told that in 722, Pope Leo III made a decree that all “Montanists” and Jews were to be forcibly baptized into the Roman Church.^[38] But if the last of them had been burned up by John of Ephesus in about 550, how could they have been around in 722 to be baptized, forcibly or otherwise?

The AD 550 Event according to the Zuqnin Chronicle (c. 775)

The uber-Christian emperor Justinian (482–565) demanded that anything Montanus related be destroyed,^[39] and to that end, the devout bishop John of Ephesus travelled to Pepuza in Phrygia. In the Church history which the bishop subsequently wrote, he told of his destructive work there, the only contemporary account of it. His original document is lost, but in about 775, the unknown author of a document known as the Zuqnin Chronicle copied copiously and word for word from John’s history:

At this time [about 550], the corrupting heresy of Montanus—the story of which and how it emerged was written down for us at the time of the Apostles—was ridiculed and uprooted. For through the exhortation of holy John, Bishop of Asia, the bones of Montanus—he who said about himself that he was the Spirit Paraclete—Cratius (his associate),^[40] Maximilla and Priscilla, his prophetesses, were found. He set them on fire and razed their temples to their foundations.^[41]

The fact that John of Ephesus said that Montanus’ story had been written down at the time of the apostles should signal to every reader that his history is bogus, for the apostles lived a hundred years before Montanus.

The AD 550 Event according to the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (1126–1199)

Michael the Syrian, a patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, wrote a history of the world. His account of events associated with Montanus relied on more sources than did the Chronicle of Zuqnin; still, as the distinguished professor William Tabbernee says, Michael’s account “illustrates dramatically the major issue confronting historians of the Phrygian phenomenon^e, namely the paucity of sources.”^[42] That is true, but it also dramatically illustrates how much the Christian hatred of Montanus and the art of Christian mythmaking were thriving in the twelfthcentury. Michael wrote the following:

In the country of Phrygia, there is a place called Pepuza where the Spirit-filled Phrygians^d had a bishop and clergy; they called it Jerusalem, and there they killed the Christians. John of Asia went and burned their synagogue, on the orders of the emperor. In this house there was found a large marble shrine, sealed with lead and bound with iron fittings. On the top was written: “Montanus and his wives.” We opened it and found Montanus and his two wives, Maximilla and Priscilla, who had gold leaf on their mouths. [The Phrygian believers] were ashamed of seeing the fetid bones which they called “the Spirit”. They were told: “Aren’t you ashamed to be seduced by this shameless wretch, and to call him ‘the Spirit’? [For Jesus said,] ‘A spirit hath not flesh or bones.’ And the bones were burned. The Spirit-filled Phrygians^d were heard wailing and crying. “Now,” they said, “the world is ruined and will perish!” Their disgraceful books were also found and burned. The house was cleansed and became a church.

Previously, in the time of Justinian I, some people had informed the emperor that Montanus, at the time of his death, had ordered those who buried him to place him fifty cubits [seventy-five feet] underground “because,” he said, “fire shall discover me, and devour the whole face of the earth.” His supporters, by the pernicious work of demons, falsely spread the rumor that his bones could cast out demons; they had bribed a few individuals who, for the bread in their mouths, claimed that he had healed them.^[43]

Then, Michael expanded upon a Christian myth which John of Ephesus only touched upon, and which anyone casually familiar with Scripture knows is impossible. For he not only said that Montanus lived at the time of the apostles, as John of Ephesus had claimed, but he also said that Montanus was the son of Simon the Magician, the wicked sorcerer mentioned in Acts 8, and that Apollos put a curse on him!

Apollos, the companion of Paul, wrote that Montanus was the son of Simon Magus and that when his father [Simon Magus] died by the prayer of Peter, he fled from Rome and began to disturb the world. Then Apollos (led) by the Spirit, went to where he was and saw him sitting and preaching the error. He began to curse him, saying: ‘O enemy of God, may the Lord punish you!’ Montanus began to rebuke him, and said: “What is there between you and me, Apollos? If you prophesy, I do too; if you are an apostle, so am I; if you are a physician, so am I.” Apollos said, ‘Let your mouth be closed, in the name of the Lord!’ He immediately fell silent and could never speak again. The people believed in our Lord and were baptized. They overthrew the seat of Montanus who fled and escaped.”^[44]

Gruesome Deaths, of Course

Leaders of the early Christian Movement regularly invented stories of gruesome deaths for those whom they considered heretics, and so, it is only to be expected that a story about the miserable deaths of Montanus and his fellows would be circulated. According to Asterius, a Spirit-filled Phrygian named Theodotus sometimes “fell into spurious ecstasies” and delivered prophecies “as if he were sometime taken up and received into the heavens.” But alas, in the end, according to Asterius, Theodotus “gave himself wholly over to the spirit of delusion and was tossed by him into the air, and met his end miserably.”^[45] In other words, poor Theodotus died when a demon spirit threw him up so high that when he returned to earth and crash-landed. As for Montanus and Maximilla, Asterius asserts that they got so frenzied in the Spirit that they “both hung themselves. . . . And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.”^[46]

Asterius assured his readers that he had only the purest of motives in providing this unsavory information for them and that, in Christian love for their souls, he was only warning them of the awful fate that awaits anyone who would dare to be like Montanus and not join the Christian Movement. But then, like someone trying to avoid a lawsuit, Asterius hypocritically adds, “They say these things happened in this manner. But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know.”^[47] But pretending to know is exactly what Asterius was doing when he published as fact such baseless gossip about the Spirit-filled saints in Phrygia.

Another notable myth of a gruesome death, possibly inspired by the death of Jehoram in 2Chronicles 21:15–19, concerns Arius in the fourth century, who taught the truth about the Father and the Son but was condemned by Trinitarians with Constantine’s backing: “It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, . . . he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, with the terror of a violent relaxation of the bowels. He therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after, a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations, his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines. Moreover, portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died.”^[48]

How Montanus Might Have Answered His Critics

For his massive work, Church History, Eusebius relied upon Christian writers of previous centuries for information about Montanus. If anything remained in Eusebius’ day of the books which Montanus and his fellows wrote, Eusebius ignored them. Being himself antagonistic toward the Faith, Eusebius uncritically repeated as fact only the slanders of earlier Christians. Yet, Christian scholars and historians have relied on his information through the centuries. Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt was right when he said, “Eusebius, though all historians have followed him, has been proven guilty of so many distortions, dissimulations, and inventions that he has forfeited all claim to figure as a decisive source.”^[49] Among the many despicable characters in Church history, Eusebius ranks as one of the worst. But as concerns Montanus, the criticisms which Eusebius recorded for posterity provide valuable insights as to the mindset of Christians of the time.

As has been noted, one of Eusebius’ chief sources of information about Montanus was an unsavory character called “the Anonymous”. But the Anonymous did not know Montanus any more than Eusebius did; he was only quoting earlier anti-Montanus writers such as Asterius, Apollonius, and Hippolytus,^[50] while mixing in his own spice to the stories. The Anonymous, writing late in the second century,^[51] sarcastically wrote that Maximilla “prophesied of wars and anarchy,” saying, “It is today more than thirteen years since she died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world, but continued peace, even to the Christians.”^[52] But the Anonymous didn’t wait long enough. Maximilla’s prophecy was about to come true, for the empire was approaching the catastrophic third century, in which the empire’s economy collapsed, its infrastructure fell into disrepair, civil administration failed, and civil conflicts and assassinations became commonplace. In the seventy-three years from Caracalla in 211 to Diocletian in 284, dozens of men laid claim to the throne, and dozens were assassinated. Moreover, during those same years, there were several state-sponsored persecutions of believers. Diocletian finally stabilized the empire, but then he initiated the empire-wide “Great Persecution”^[53] of believers, which the Anonymous did not live to see. But Jesus knew it was coming, and he forewarned believers of it through Maximilla. Eusebius, writing afterwards, knew it had happened, but he published the Anonymous’ sarcastic remarks anyway.

To respond to the multitude of accusations against Montanus, it seemed good to me to yield the platform to Montanus himself so that after two millennia, he may have an opportunity to reply. Had Christians allowed Montanus’ writings to survive, we would have a clearer picture of how he responded to accusations, if he did at all. As it is, we can only imagine what his answers would have been.

By the time the following critics recorded their opinions and accusations against Montanus, he had been dead for some time. None of them personally knew the man. If Montanus was a true man of God, which I believe he was, and if he understood Paul’s gospel, which I believe he did, then Montanus’ replies to his accusers would have been something like the following.

Accusations from Serapion (about AD 200)

Serapion was bishop of Antioch at the turn of the third century and a highly regarded theologian among Christians. He appears to have been a prolific writer, but only fragments of his writings survive.

According to Serapion:

The believers in Phrygia were a “lying band of the so-called, ‘new prophecy.’”^[54]

Montanus’ response:

“We do not lie, and if some among us call our blessing a ‘new prophecy’, it is only because foolish believers like you have made true prophecy an old thing.”

According to Serapion:

The believers in Phrygia were “an abomination to all the brotherhood throughout the world.”^[55]

Montanus’ response:

“The abomination is brotherhood in an apostate religion, though it be throughout the world. There is no safety in numbers from God’s judgment, Serapion. Solomon said the wicked will be punished even if their numbers are great (Prov. 11:21), and Jesus said that only a few would find the right way (Mt. 7:14). Those who belong to your brotherhood are trained to fear and hate the light, and since we are in the light, they hate us. But we gladly bear the reproach of Christ!”

According to a bishop close to Serapion:

“The blessed Sotas [a Christian leader] desired to cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit him.”^[56]

Montanus’ response:

“If Sotas is blessed, then so is Judas, Simon the Sorcerer, and every other blasphemer. What he tried to do to Prisca was unthinkable, a horrible thing. I am thankful she had brothers there to protect her.”

Accusations from Asterius Urbanus (about AD 232^[57])

Nothing is known of Asterius except his name, which is found in Eusebius’ Church History (V.xvi, xvii). As in the case of Serapion, only fragments of his work survive.^[58]

According to Asterius:

Montanus “was possessed, . . . under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit,” and those like him were possessed by a “false and seductive spirit.”^[59]

Montanus’ response:

“You may speak evil of me, Asterius, and be forgiven, but beware lest you speak evil of the holy Spirit of God. If you do that, neither in this world nor the next will you find forgiveness (Mt. 12:32).”

According to Asterius:

Montanus “[had an] unquenchable desire for leadership.”^[60]

Montanus’ response:

“I have no desire at all for leadership, Asterius. God called my name and told me what I was to do and what I was to say, and my desire is only to be a faithful servant of God. You should examine your own motives. It is envy of the authority I have in Christ that makes you say such things.”

According to Asterius:

Montanus and those like him, “imagining themselves possessed of the holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up . . . and were cheated and deceived by the mad and insidious and seducing spirit.”^[61]

Montanus’ response:

“It was not our imagination the day Jesus filled us with his Spirit, and it is not our imagination when his Spirit speaks through us. Nor is the Spirit of God an insidious and seducing spirit; it rescues men from their madness, and it rescued us from ours.

“If we were puffed up, Asterius, Jesus would not use us as he is doing. We confess our weakness and utter dependency on Christ for the power and wisdom to live according to the will of God. Anything worth doing, someone has said, is worth doing poorly until it is perfectly done, and that applies to life in the Spirit as well as to life in the flesh. Learning to walk in the Spirit may entail as many failures as attends a toddler’s learning to walk, but walking is worth doing poorly until one learns to walk. So, we confess that we are ever learning to walk more perfectly with Christ.”

According to Asterius:

Montanus and those like him honored the Devil.^[62]

Montanus’ response:

“The Devil is honored when men worship God in the flesh, as you Christians do. God is honored only when His people worship Him in spirit and in truth, as both Jesus and Paul taught.”

According to Asterius:

“The Devil, having devised destruction for those who were disobedient to the Lord’s warning to beware of false prophets (Mt. 7:15), secretly excited and inflamed their minds who had already left the faith which is according to truth.”^[63]

Montanus’ response:

“We did not become who we are by disobeying the Lord’s instructions, but by obeying them. Disobeying Jesus would lead us into the religion you are in, but as we obey him, he keeps us in his love.”

According to Asterius:

Montanus and those like him “play the harlot with error”.^[64]

Montanus’ response:

“It is your apostate religion that is the whore, and—hear this man, Asterius!—your religion will become the Great Whore foretold by John in his revelation (Rev. 17:1–6), who sells herself to the spirits of this age in order to gain favor with men and increase in earthly stature. Hear me, my friend, and escape it while you can!”

According to Asterius:

Their prophecy was “a novelty, not a ‘new prophecy’, as they call it, but false prophecy,” and their faith is “heresy”.^[65]

Montanus’ response:

“We may seem like a novelty, but that is only because you Christians have forgotten what the power of God feels like and what His truth sounds like. Asterius, those who called Jesus a heretic and demon possessed were themselves demon possessed heretics. A false accusation, my friend, is a confession. I implore you to repent and seek deliverance from that novel Christian Movement you are in!”

Asterius scoffed at what he claimed was a paltry number of Phrygians who were with Montanus,^[66] knowing full well that their numbers had grown to the point of provoking Christian leaders to convene multiple councils to deal with them.^[67] The great success of the gospel of the saints in Phrygia is evidenced by the many passionate treatises written against it by the Christian leaders who felt threatened by it, not only in the second and third centuries, but to this day. Asterius’ description of the saints in Phrygia as few in number was a lie that Asterius knew he was telling; with it, he was hoping to make his readers think that the events in Phrygia were insignificant and, so, secure their allegiance to the Christian Movement.

Finally, the duplicitous Asterius criticized the saints in Phrygia for their complete lack of martyrs,^[68] boasting of the many martyrs that Christians had. But then, having forgotten that he told that lie, he spoke of Phrygian martyrs, saying that when Christian martyrs are thrown into prison with Phrygian martyrs, they refuse to associate with them.^[69] Asterius did not explain how it was that Christian martyrs refused the company of the Phrygian martyrs whom he said did not exist.

Accusations from Apollonius (early- to mid-third century^[70])

Nothing is known about Apollonius except what is found in the fourth-century work of Eusebius. There, Apollonius claims to have written his treatise, of which only fragments survive, forty years after Montanus began his ministry,^[71] and Eusebius said that the way of worship Montanus stood for was still being practiced in Phrygia at that time.^[72] Bauer found it hard to believe that Apollonius sincerely believed the outlandish slanders that he hurled at Montanus, and he dismissed Apollonius’ invective as “abusive satire”.^[73]

Although Apollonius was “clearly as unprincipled and dishonest a writer as the anonymous, and . . . little reliance can be placed upon any of his reports to the discredit of Montanus and those with him^e,”^[74] Eusebius made full use of his material because Eusebius had sold his soul to Constantine’s Roman Church, and he welcomed Apollonius’ calumny.

According to Apollonius:

Montanus broke up marriages.^[75]

Montanus’ response:

“I have never set about to break up a marriage, for marriage is of God. Nevertheless, that the truth of Christ divides is undeniable, for Jesus said that he came to bring division—yes, even within families (Lk. 12:51–53). Our purpose and our hope, as Paul said, is peace (1Cor. 7:15b); however, concerning unbelieving spouses who reject Christ and abandon their believing mates, I say with the apostle Paul, ‘If the unbelieving depart, let them depart!’ (1Cor. 7:15a). If the truth offend, then let it offend; we have no authority to alter it in order to please men. Ungodly men like you slander God’s messengers when His message brings about the divisions that Jesus said would come, but I will not deny the message in order to please men and avoid the slander.”

According to Apollonius:

Montanus renamed Peruga and Tymius, two small towns in Phrygia, “Jerusalem” because he wanted to gather people there from many places.^[76]

Montanus’ response:

“Even if I were stupid enough to have done such a thing, who would be stupid enough to travel to those towns because of it? There is nothing on earth holy except the Spirit which God sent to earth and the people in whom that Spirit dwells.”

According to Apollonius:

Maximilla and others like her “obtained money not only from the rich, but also from the poor, from orphans and widows,” and “received gold and silver and expensive clothes.”^[77]

Montanus’ response:

“If people of God are so blessed that they want to support those who have blessed them, that is a sacrifice ‘acceptable and well-pleasing to God’ (Phip. 4:18). For you to suggest that Maximilla plundered the poor is outrageous, and if you could have provided the name of a single widow or orphan whom she plundered, you would have done it. But you cannot.”

According to Apollonius:

Montanus “set up exactors of money,” disguised his lust for money “under the name of voluntary offerings,” and “granted stipends” to those who traveled with the message he preached, “that by means of gluttony, the teaching of his doctrine may prevail.”^[78]

Montanus’ response:

“To condemn honest men who receive offerings from God’s children as being tax collectors is repugnant. You should not do that, Apollonius. We do no wrong in financially supporting those who preach the gospel, and if I appoint men to receive offerings, what did I do but make it easier for the people to give what they wanted to give? You yourself admit that what they give is voluntarily given; so, how can that be a means for me to fulfill a lust for money? Tell me, Apollonius! If what I do is only to get more money, why do I freely give money to others so that they might spread the gospel? No one who knows me believes that I give those men and women money only to entice them to a life of gluttony.”^[79]

According to Apollonius:

Maximilla and Montanus only “pretended to prophesy”.^[80]

Montanus’ response:

“Whether or not Maximilla and I pretended to prophesy, God will judge. In the meantime, Apollonius, I will remind you that an opinion makes nothing true.”

According to Apollonius:

“Maximilla and Priscilla deserted their husbands as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, and the saints in Phrygia lied when they referred to Priscilla as a virgin.”^[81]

Montanus’ response:

“You do not even know whether Maximilla and Prisca had husbands. But even if they did, all faithful saints, married or otherwise, are ‘chaste virgins to Christ’ (2Cor. 11:2), which Maximilla and Prisca certainly were. That Maximilla and Prisca forsook their husbands is rank gossip, the plaything of unclean hearts.”

According to Apollonius:

“All Scripture forbids a prophet to receive gifts and money!”^[82]

Montanus’ response:

“That is a vain tradition that one of your own started. Why do you Christians teach that if an apostle stays with someone more than two days, he is a false prophet?^[83] The apostle Paul once stayed with the Corinthians eighteen months (Acts 18:11). And he stayed with the Ephesians three full years, feeding them the knowledge of God (Acts 20:31). Yes, some men of God have refused gifts, but for specific purposes (2Kgs. 5:15–16; 2Cor. 11:9). Others, including Samuel (1Sam. 9:6–8), Paul (Phip. 4:15–18), and Jesus himself (cf. Jn. 12:6; 19:23), received gifts. So, were they false? According to your standard, they were. So, if I am false, I am false just like Jesus and Paul!”

Apollonius also attacked two other Spirit-filled men, Themison and Alexander. Themison appears to have been a leader, since an opponent of the Phrygian saints grumbled that Themison had followers and that he and those with him “bridled the mouths” of eminent Christian men and bishops who had challenged the holy Spirit to a theological debate when it spoke through them.^[84]

According to Apollonius:

Themison was clothed in “convincing covetousness”^[85], that is to say that although Themison’s conduct was upright and persuasive, his motive for conducting himself so uprightly was only to deceive people and get their money.

Montanus’ response:

“Themison was a sincere and godly man who was clothed with convincing godliness, not convincing covetousness, and through that godliness, he led many to the Lord. He had not an ounce of covetousness in his soul. Your claim to be able to peer into his heart and see evil there means nothing to me, and even less to God. Christian ministers are the ones who deceive souls with ‘convincing covetousness’, Apollonius, not Themison.”

According to Apollonius:

Themison “with a large sum of money” purchased his release from prison rather than remain there and suffer.^[86]

Montanus’ response:

“I don’t know how Themison obtained a release from prison, but if he did so by paying off a fine, that is the magistrate’s business, not yours. If you are charging the Roman magistrate with corruption, then go to the courts and file your accusation against him! Themison either had the money already or God’s people collected enough to have him freed. Either way, the money was used wisely. Only a madman would not leave prison if he had a way out. The apostle Paul told slaves that if they were able to obtain freedom, they should do it (1Cor. 7:21). Would you remain in prison if you could leave it?”

According to Apollonius:

Themison had the audacity “to compose a general epistle in imitation of the apostle.”^[87]

Montanus’ response:

“Where is the crime in writing a letter if a man has something from God to say? You have written much, but what you say is not from God. Who, then, is guilty of imitating the apostles for an evil purpose, Themison or you?”

According to Apollonius:

Themison dared “to instruct those whose faith was better than his^[88] and to contend with Christians using empty-sounding words.”^[89]

Montanus’ response:

“It is not true that Themison was instructing his betters when he called on Christians to repent and walk in the way of the Spirit. Nor are his words “empty-sounding”; they are true and full of convicting power. Otherwise, so many righteous souls would not have listened to him, and you would not have written so much against him.”

According to Apollonius:

Themison “uttered blasphemy against the Lord and the apostles and the holy Christian religion^b.”^[90]

Montanus’ response:

“I have no doubt that the religion that you call holy was exposed by Themison as being unholy. I do the same thing, by the grace of God. And I am equally certain that Themison did not revile the Lord and the apostles. Themison spoke from Christ and for Christ in condemning the abomination that you call holy.”

According to Apollonius:

Alexander and one of the prophetesses enjoyed frequent banquetings together,^[91] the implication of immorality being obvious.

Montanus’ response:

“To condemn as immoral wretches the people you Christians oppose has become standard among you, even when you fight among yourselves.^[92] Sinners themselves acknowledge our moral integrity; they know that we do not participate in the ungodly feasts of our heathen neighbors. Your slander of Alexander and the prophetess is evil.”

According to Apollonius:

Alexander was worshipped by many of the believers in Phrygia.^[93]

Montanus’ response:

“That is ludicrous. Where do you get these insane ideas?”

According to Apollonius:

Alexander was once a daring robber and criminal, and before becoming a criminal, Alexander was an apostate from the Christian religion.^[94]

Montanus’ response:

“Do you deny that Jesus cleanses sinners? Whether or not Alexander was once a criminal or a member of your Christian Movement is irrelevant. The blood of Christ can cover a multitude of sins, whether it be the sin of robbery or the sin of belonging to a false religion. The only relevant thing for any of us is how we are living now in the sight of God.”

According to Apollonius:

Alexander deceived good Christians by falsely claiming to belong to the Lord.^[95]

Montanus’ response:

“God’s children who knew Alexander saw in him such a fine example of righteousness that they bore witness to his uprightness. I know that believers are often fooled, Apollonius, but they are fooled by false teachers like you, not by godly men like Alexander who do the right thing when they learn what it is.”

According to Apollonius:

“We are able to prove the like in many other cases besides.”^[96]

Montanus’ response:

“You cannot prove the guilt of any others, much less many others. If you could, you would have already done it. Your slanders have proved nothing about Alexander, Apollonius.”

According to Apollonius:

The Phrygian believers dyed their hair, stained their eyelids, adorned their bodies, played dice and other such games, and lent money on interest.^[97]

Modern scholar’s response:

Instead of Montanus, the Editor of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, will provide the response to these silly accusations. He concluded that, in light of the generally acknowledged fact that Montanus and those with him lived a life of self-denial and moral uprightness, “We can look upon [Apollonius’ accusations] as nothing better than baseless slanders. That there might have been an individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack cannot be denied, but to bring such accusations against those with Montanus^d in general was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius cannot but have been aware of the fact. His language is rather that of a bully or braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his statements, than of a man conscious of his own honesty and of the reliability of his account.”^[98]

Any historian who quotes from such an obviously false source as Eusebius did, without distancing himself from the accusations made, makes himself complicit in spreading the false information. Far from distancing himself from Apollonius’ hate-filled judgments of Montanus, Eusebius gladly endorsed them, himself calling those associated with Montanus “poisonous reptiles who crawled all over Asia and Phrygia.”^[99]

Accusations from Hippolytus (early-third century)

As with the previous writers, almost nothing is known about Hippolytus, even though much more of his writing is extant.

According to Hippolytus:

The believers in Phrygia were “naturally inclined to heresy”.^[100]

Montanus’ response:

“Without the sanctifying power of the Spirit, all men are inclined to heresy. That is not the issue. The issue is, whom has Jesus delivered from the heresy to which we are all inclined? I know that he has delivered us, and I know that he has not delivered you, though he will if you repent.”

According to Hippolytus:

The believers in Phrygia were “overrun with delusion”.^[101]

Montanus’ response:

“We are indeed overrun, as you say, but not with delusion. We are overrun with the blessings of God. When the Spirit first came and filled Jesus’ disciples, many stood by and mocked them, saying that they were overrun with drunkenness, but their slander did not make it true, nor did it take God’s blessing away from them. Likewise, your accusations do not diminish God’s power in us one whit! We are blessed with the Spirit now as Jesus’ followers were then, and it frustrates you to have no power to change that.”

According to Hippolytus:

Believers in Phrygia did not use reason to judge what they were told.^[102]

Montanus’ response:

“Unless God gives a man right reason, he can only judge according to fleshly lusts. But in Christ, we may judge all things by the reason that God gives, and that makes our judgment true. Carnally minded men such as yourself cannot judge anything rightly” (cf. 1Cor. 2:14–15).

According to Hippolytus:

The believers in Phrygia did not “give heed to those who are competent to make decisions [i.e., Christian leaders].”^[103]

Montanus’ response:

“Those who give heed to the men you would have us to follow are led astray. Those men are blind guides leading the blind, knowing nothing of Christ’s power and truth. And we will certainly not follow them, now that Jesus has rescued us and called us to follow him instead.”

According to Hippolytus:

Maximilla and Priscilla were “imposters” from whom the gullible saints in Phrygia believed they had “learned something more through these [women] than from the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels. 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 something superior to Christ.”^[104]

Montanus’ response:

“Other than you Christians saying it, there is not a shred of evidence to show that believers in Phrygia ever thought that I, Maximilla, or Prisca, or anyone else is equal to Christ, much less superior to him. And if you would report what we actually said instead of spreading disinformation about us, God’s people would see that for themselves. Why don’t you repeat the truth we speak so that people can make sound judgments about us, instead of filling their ears with so much dirt that they cannot hear the word of God?”

According to Hippolytus:

In addition to breaking up marriages, Montanus and his women instituted new fasts, feasts, and meals of parched food and radishes.^[105]

Montanus’ response:

“We instituted nothing. Communion with God is only in the Spirit, and we preach no other communion. Fasting in Christ is also spiritual, as opposed to the Old Testament fasts, which were in the flesh. You Christians are the ones who have instituted ceremonial meals and new fasts, and you cannot even agree among yourselves how often you should perform them or how many fasts there should be, or when! But one thing you condemned me for, I will confess: I do like radishes. But it doesn’t matter what you decide about any of those things because your whole religion doesn’t matter; the whole thing is evil.”

According to Hippolytus:

“The majority of their books are silly, and their attempts at reasoning weak, and worthy of no consideration.”^[106]

Montanus’ response:

“All human reasoning is weak and unworthy of consideration when it comes to the things of God. But if it is true that our books are silly and unworthy of consideration, why don’t you publish what we have written and show everybody how silly we are? Instead, Hippolytus, you publish things we have never said and declare that we said it, while refusing to publish what we actually say. If men like you had the power, you would destroy every word we ever wrote and leave only the slander that is spoken against us. But even if you do, the God of all justice will one day raise up from among His people someone who loves the praise of God more than the praise of man, and he will glorify God alone and vindicate me, and expose your work as silly and unworthy of consideration!”

Didymus the Blind (c. 311–c. 397)

Didymus, a theologian in Alexandria, Egypt, wrote after the Synthesis and was committed to the foundational doctrine of the Roman Universal Church: the Holy Trinity. Montanus had been dead about two hundred years, but that did not deter Didymus from condemning him.