Angus Stewart
(I) A Brief History of Montanism
Montanism was one of the earliest heresies and splits in the Christian Church. The Montanists believed that the Holy Spirit or Paraclete was giving them new revelation, especially regarding Christian morality. They adopted the name “New Prophecy” for their movement. This expressed their deepest principle: the Paraclete is still uttering direct revelation to His people, or, to put it differently, prophecy is a criterion of authentic Christianity. Their Catholic opponents daubed them the “Cataphrygians,” expressing their place of origin, the relatively backward and obscure region of Phrygia in Asia Minor, and thus, no doubt, also expressing a little contempt. Not until Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) do we have a record of their being called Montanists (Catechetical Lectures 16.8),1 but since it has become the common term it will be used here.
The name “Montanism” comes from its founder and leading light, in its early years, Montanus. Eusebius of Caesarea, “the Father of Church History,” (d. 339) quotes a second century source, dubbed “Anonymous,” who tells us that Montanus as “a recent convert to the faith … gave the adversary access to himself … and began to speak and prophecy strange things” (Ecclesiastical History 5.16.7).2 Montanus’ status as a novice is questioned by some,3 as is the claim of some of the church fathers that he occupied the office of presbyter or possibly even bishop.4 Regarding Montanus’ location in Phrygia, we also face difficulties. Though the sources frequently speak of three towns: Pepuza, Tymion and Ardabau, we are not entirely sure of their sites. Christine Trevett has a helpful discussion of this and opts for their being east of Philadelphia in western Turkey (in today’s terms).5
Montanus was not alone in the early leadership. He had two prophetesses to help him in the work, Priscilla/Prisca and Maximilla, both of whom left their husbands to serve the Lord. Of the ten or eleven probable oracles of “the Three” that we can glean from the writings of the church fathers, only four are ascribed to Montanus. Our sources attribute excellent organizational skills to Montanus, especially in collecting money (EH 5.18.2). Recently, one feminist scholar has argued that Priscilla was the most important prophet and that “Montanus was in fact the ‘advocate’ [i.e., supporter, helper] of Prisca and Maximilla.”6 Trevett, who is a milder feminist, argues that we ought not assume that either Montanus or Priscilla was the leader. Trevett proposes a more “egalitarian” scheme, though she concedes that Montanus was the first to prophesy.7 Other key leaders in the history of Montanism include Theodotus, who, like Montanus, was both a prophet and a trustee (epitropos; EH 5.16.14; 5.3.4), Themiso and Miltiades, who were among the leading figures after the death of the Three (EH 5.18.5; 5.16.3; 5.17.1), Alexander, Proclus and Praxeas.
Concerning the date of the beginning of Montanism, there is also difference of opinion. According to the (internally inconsistent) chronology in Epiphanius” account (d. 403) the New Prophecy began in 156 or 157 (Medicine Box 48.1-2).8 With Eusebius a date of 171 or 172 can be calculated, though again his various statements are not entirely harmonious. Though most scholars favour the latter,9 Trevett has argued against this and postulated a period between that presented by the two church fathers: the decade of the 160s.10 Whatever the precise date—and it has no great significance for the present study—we do know approximately the time of its origin. It almost certainly began in the sixteen year period from 156 to 172.
From Pepuza, Tymion and Ardabau in Phrygia, the New Prophecy under Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla and others spread to various parts of Asia Minor.11 It reached Italy, and especially Rome, and the hub of North Africa, Carthage. The martyrs in Lyons and Vienne in southern Gaul (c. 177) may well have been Montanists (EH 5.1.3-63; 5.3.2f.).
However, the spread of Montanism was not without controversy and conflict. Anonymous states that, though some followed Montanus when they first heard his prophecies, others
at that moment … being irritated as at one who is inspired by a devil and a spirit of error and is troubling the multitudes, rebuked him and forbid him to speak, remembering the command of the Lord and his warning to maintain an alert guard against the coming of false prophets [cf. Matt. 7:15] (EH 5.16.8).
Serapion of Antioch tells us of a bishop who (unsuccessfully) tried to exorcize one of the prophetesses: “The blessed Sotas in Anchilus wanted to cast out the demon of Priscilla, and the hypocrites did not permit it” (EH 5.19.3). Eusebius records that another bishop, Zoticus, sought to exorcize Maximilla (EH 5.18.13).
When Anonymous arrived in Ancyra, and found it “deafened” with this New Prophecy (or “false prophecy” as he preferred to call it), he proceeded to teach against it. “With the Lord’s help,” he writes, “we lectured for many days in the Church both concerning these very people and also on the particulars of the things put forward by them.” His work was not without success and his “opponents” and “adversaries” were “repelled for the present.” On his departure, the elders requested him to write a book on the subject and send it to them post haste (EH 5.16.4-6).
Claudius Apollinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis, in about 172, also composed a book against Montanism, as did another churchman from Asia Minor, Apollonius, in about 210. Publius Julius, Bishop of Dbeltum in Thrace and a large number of other bishops signed a public letter condemning the heresy. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (d. 211), affirmed, “This false order of the so-called new prophecy has been abhorred by the whole brotherhood through out the world” (EH 5.18.1; 5.19.1-4).
Clearly, excommunication was coming. Anonymous tells us,
The faithful in Asia met for this purpose [i.e., of examining Montanism] many times and in many places in Asia. They examined the recent sayings [i.e., prophecies] carefully, declared them to be profane, and rejected the heresy. So at length they were thrust out of the Church and excluded from the fellowship (EH 5.16.10).
Later, the synods of Iconium and Synnada in Eastern Phrygia, meeting about the year 230, resolved that Montanist baptisms were invalid and that converts from Montanism to the Church would have to submit to Catholic baptism.
In the west, Montanism also caused problems but here the issues seemed less clear cut. Some of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne mentioned earlier and two female martyrs of Carthage, Perpetua and Felicitas, were probably (early) Montanists.12 They were, however, members in the Church and esteemed very highly amongst Catholics for their fortitude.13 Furthermore, in the west, Montanism was not without the support of some significant church leaders.
In 177, Irenaeus of Lyon (then a presbyter) brought a letter from the Church in Gaul to Eleutherus the Roman bishop concerning Montanism (EH 5.3.4-5.4.2). Eusebius writes,
as dissension arose concerning them [i.e., the Montanists], 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 Rome, negotiating for the peace of the churches (EH 5.3.4).14
In the beginning of his work against Praxeas (a modalistic monarchian and an anti-Montanist), Tertullian, the powerful advocate of Montanism, writes,
For the same man [i.e., Praxeas], when the bishop of Rome at that time had already acknowledged the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, and on the basis of that acknowledgment had brought peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, by making false assertions about the prophets themselves and their Churches, and by bring forward the views of his predecessors, forced him both to recall the letter of peace which had already been sent and to desist from his intention of admitting the gifts (Against Praxeas 1).
For the following years, “it may be reasonably supposed” that at Rome the New Prophecy “remained in an ambiguous position, disowned and yet not formally and officially condemned.”15 The debate concerning the acceptability of Montanism continued to the time of “pope” Zephyrinus (199-217). After a sharp controversy between the Montanist, Proclus, and the churchman, Gaius, in which the two men debated in writing, Montanism was officially rejected in Rome (EH 2.25.5-7; 6.20.3).
In Carthage, it would seem that Tertullian, who joined the Montanist movement in the first decade of the third century,16 passed all his days in the Catholic Church. His writings as a “spiritual” Christian (i.e., a Montanist) evince differences and debates with the Catholics, even an element of animosity, but he and his Montanist friends were rather an ecclesiola in ecclesia than a schismatic church. How long it was after his death that separate Montanist churches arose, we are not sure. That Tertullian was highly regarded amongst them we do know, for in North Africa the Montanists were known as Tertullianists.17
The church’s stance towards Montanism became more condemnatory and official over the ensuing years: Montanism took its place in the increasingly long heresy lists. From Constantine on, the Christian emperors enacted more and more legislation against the Montanists. The movement itself degenerated somewhat, both in doctrine and practice. Although Montanists in Asia Minor persisted at least as late as 721-722, they were a spent force long before then.18
(II) The Doctrines of Montanism
(1) The Modern Consensus
William Cunningham’s statement in 1870 that Montanism was “justly separated from [the church’s] communion” is expressive of the old consensus, but many challengers to that view have arisen.19 Although, as indicated above, scholars continue to debate many aspects of Montanism, it is claimed that a consensus has been reached regarding the unlawfulness of its rejection by the church.
Only two books have appeared in English on the subject of Montanism. The first of these, Montanism and the Primitive Church, was written by John de Soyres of Cambridge University in 1878. “Our conclusion,” he states, “is that there was nothing [in Montanism] opposite to an article of creed.” He ascribes to Montanism the diverse operations of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:6f.) and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), before closing his book with the ominous words:
And where this Spirit shows itself in these fruits, though Popes and Councils may anathematize, the Great Judge will one day reverse their judgment.20
Christine Trevett of the University of Wales College of Cardiff, in her 1996 study, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy, appears to avoid the main issue: “The question of devilish possession versus possession by the Spirit is not one I choose to address.” However, she adds, “I have also come to see in the much-maligned utterances of the Three … occasional glimpses of what was once a rich heritage of prophecy and biblical exposition.”21
At present, it is the particularly devout feminists who are most forthright. Anne Jensen of Tubingen, Germany, in a 1993 monograph alleges, “Modern scholarship has demonstrated the essential orthodoxy of the original Phrygian movement.”22 In her 1997 article, Sheila E. McGinn of Ohio examines the sixteen or so oracles attributed to Montanus and the Montanist prophets and prophetesses. She concludes, “These few Oracles demonstrate the doctrinal orthodoxy of the New Prophecy — a point which is now a matter of consensus among Montanist scholars.”23 Interestingly, both these feminist scholars claim that Montanist orthodoxy has been demonstrated.
This paper will seek to prove the opposite, as well as—though more incidentally—point out that modern scholarship is not as uniform on this point as these two ladies suggest. But for now it remains to notice that the feminists are not alone in their acquittal of Montanism.
It is easy to appreciate that Montanism not only provides grist for the feminists,24 but also for the Charismatics.25 What is perhaps more surprising is the sympathy expressed by some Roman Catholic and evangelical scholars. A Jesuit scholar, Walter J. Burghardt, writes, “I can find no persuasive evidence that primitive Montanism was guilty of heresy.”26 David F. Wright, the Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at Edinburgh University and the first editor of Themelios, the leading evangelical journal for biblical and theological students in the British Isles, states that the church’s rejection of Montanism was “damaging and regrettable:”
The reaction against Montanism brought upon the church impoverishment more detrimental than the upset caused by the unbalanced excesses of the New Prophecy.27
(2) The Fundamental Articles
At first, there seems to be something to the claims of recent scholarship. Writing of his Montanist beliefs, Tertullian expressly declared,
The rule of faith, indeed, is completely one, alone unalterable and irreformable, that is, in believing in one God alone, omnipotent, creator of the world, and in his son Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, resurrected from the dead on the third day, received into heaven, now seated at the Father’s right hand, who will come to judge the living and the dead by the resurrection of their flesh also (On the Veiling of Virgins 1.4).
Hippolytus admitted, “They, like the Church, confess that God is the Father of the universe and the creator of all things, and they accept all that the gospel testifies about Christ.”28 The fourth-century heresy-hunter Epiphanius gives a similar testimony, “They use the Old and the New Testaments, and likewise say that there is a resurrection of the dead” (Medicine 49.2; cf. 48.1.3). “They hold the same view of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the Holy Catholic Church” (Medicine 48.1.4).
Strangely, Epiphanius later contradicts himself and charges Montanus with equating himself with the Father: “Montanus says he himself is the Father” (Medicine 48.11.9). Earlier Epiphanius had quoted two of Montanus’ oracles:
Neither angel nor envoy, but I the Lord God the Father have come (Medicine 48.11.1).
I am the Lord God, the Almighty dwelling in man (Medicine 48.11.9).
Pentecostal scholar, Eric Nestler, is to be followed in his assessment that “probably we have here prophetic oracles without [being preceded by] the so-called messenger formula ‘thus says the Lord.'”29 After all, Montanus also said,
Behold, man is like a lyre; and I flit about like a plectron; man sleeps, and I awaken him; behold it is the Lord who changes the hearts of men and gives man a heart (Medicine 48.4.1).30
If Montanus really tried to pass himself off as God, the church would not have had as much trouble in exposing the movement; and the fathers never would have made general remarks conceding its orthodoxy regarding the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
It is true, however, as Hippolytus also points out, that some Montanists fell into Sabellianism (Refutation 8.19; 10.26). Pseudo-Tertullian tells us that this group was under the leadership of a certain Aeschinus (Against All Heresies 7). However, both churchmen make it clear that this was only a section of Montanism and this heresy did not obtain amongst the earliest Montanists.
In fact, we have in Tertullian’s excellent work Against Praxeas the best refutation of Sabellianism made by any Ante-Nicene Father. Neither did the early Montanists nor Tertullian distinguish between the Spirit given to the apostles and the Paraclete given to the New Prophets.31 It would seem then that on the fundamental articles confessed then in the early church, Montanism must be admitted as orthodox. However, as A. Daunton-Fear has well said, “The fact that in doctrine the ‘Paraclete’ may have upheld the Church’s ‘rule of faith’ does not guarantee the truth of its other claims as well.”32
(3) Ecstatic Utterances
From the records we have, it appears that the earliest charge against Montanists was its unorthodox means of prophesying. Anonymous states that Montanus,
suddenly experiencing some kind of possession and spurious ecstasy … was inspired and began to speak and say strange things, prophesying, as he pretended, contrary to the custom related to the tradition and succession of the church from the beginning (EH 5.16.7).
Priscilla and Maximilla also prophesied like Montanus: “they spoke in a frenzied manner, unsuitably and abnormally” (EH 5.16.9).
We can be one hundred percent sure that the Montanists did indeed prophecy ecstatically. The Montanist Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, states that the ecstasy (exstasis) of the New Prophecy is a state of “being out of one’s senses (amentia)” (Against Marcion 4.22). Elsewhere he defines prophecy in terms of ecstasy:
But this [i.e., the gift of prophecy] only came on him [i.e., Adam] afterwards, when God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists.33
All scholars acknowledge that the ecstatic utterances did issue (always? usually?) in comprehensible and meaningful messages. After all, we have a record of some of their oracles. The question arises if the prophets were “speaking in tongues” like modern Pentecostals. Most scholars think not.34 However, the Pentecostal Nestler is much more open to this.35 This is a dangerous argument for him though, since Anonymous clearly states that it was contrary to the church’s tradition from the beginning. Anonymous quotes a certain Alcibiades to the effect that neither the Old nor New Testament prophets nor the prophets who followed them—he refers to Ammia in Philadelphia and Quadratus—delivered God’s Word in this fashion (EH 5.17.1-4).
Epiphanius’ unidentified source gives a fairly thorough treatment of ecstasy in biblical prophecy. Though the prophet receiving “his utterance from the Holy Spirit” said “all things vigorously,” he spoke “in control of his powers and reasoning and understanding” (Medicine 48.3.4). He appeals to Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in the Old Testament (Medicine 48.3.4-10).
He looks at biblical occurrences of ecstasy, pointing out that “ecstasy has many different meanings.” In Genesis 2, Adam”s ecstasy was an “ecstasy of sleep … not an ecstasy of his wits” nor an “ecstasy of folly” like the Montanists (Medicine 48.4.6; 48.5.8). In Genesis 15, Abraham experienced an “ecstasy of fear” (Medicine 48.7.8). Peter, in his vision of the sheet let down from heaven containing the unclean animals (Acts 10), “experienced ecstasy, not that he did not understand rationally, but that he saw phenomena different from the everyday order among men” (Medicine 48.7.3).
The argument in Epiphanius’ Medicine Box may not convince everyone on all points, but he does construct a reasonably good case. It is a difficult task to go through all the Bible and classify the different types of psychological and behavioural experiences undergone by the different prophets of the Old and New Testaments36 and then compare these to the ecstasies of the Montanist prophets. “Most readers will feel that tradition and reason includes the balance in Epiphanius’ favour,” writes Walter Klein. “For all his skill, Tertullian cannot conceal the alien character of the ecstasy to which he attaches so great a value.”37
Daunton-Fear has also done some work in this area; and has identified two types of ecstasy. The first is that of “visions and out-of-body experiences” in which the bodily senses are dimmed but the mind of the person remains conscious. The mind remains active and participates in another world and is able to recall and relate to others afterwards what it saw and heard. Daunton-Fear says that this is the ecstasy experienced by Peter in Acts 10 and by Paul, when he was caught up to the third heaven (II Cor. 12).38 One can think also of Ezekiel’s visions and other occurrences of this type of ecstasy in the Scriptures.
The second type of ecstasy is that of “possession.” In this type not only are the person’s bodily senses curtailed but also “usually the soul or mind is totally suppressed.”
Another psychical entity takes over his body, controlling speech or actions. The person is thus … (out of his mind) during the trance and afterwards has no recollection of what has been said or done.
This type of ecstasy has negative connotations. Daunton-Fear places heathen prophets, mediums at séances and … Montanus in this category.39 He goes on to suggest that Montanus’ prophetic ecstasy “could well have come from the cult of Apollo [the Greek patron of prophecy], widespread in Asia Minor.”40 Though Daunton-Fear does not expressly say so, it would follow that Montanus’ inspiration was satanic, for what other “psychical entity” could “control” him (cf. I Cor. 12:1-2)? This judgment would agree with that of the church fathers.
Some caveats might be lodged. First, can such a clear-cut distinction of two ecstasies really be made? Daunton-Fear himself seems to be struggling with this, for he says that the “possession” type of ecstasy “usually” entails the total suppression of the person’s mind. Second, we have no evidence that any of the Montanist prophets or prophetesses after their ecstasies had “no recollection of what has been said or done.”
Nevertheless, Daunton-Fear, like Epiphanius’ source, does appear to be on to something. Wright admits, “There can be little doubt that the allegation of ecstasy, however loosely advanced, sticks against the Montanists.”41 Anonymous and Miltiades both ascribe parekstasis not just ekstasis to the Montanists (the prepositional suffix para usually denoting intensification).42 Nestler states, “Not prophecy as such, but the ‘extreme and unnatural state of ecstasy’ is being disputed.”
Nestler realizes that this type of prophecy is too much for his less exuberant brand of Pentecostalism. To avoid the charge of “demonic,” he suggests that this intense ecstasy may have been due to its origin in Phrygia, “whose people were known for the wild enthusiasm in their pagan religions.”43 But does not the Bible tell us that the devil is worshipped in the heathen religions (cf. I Cor. 10:20)? We must conclude that these ecstatic utterances were certainly not produced by the Spirit. They arose from the flesh and through the wiles of the devil.
(4) The New Discipline
Now we must turn form the mode of Montanist prophecy to its content. What exactly did their “Paraclete” teach? Tertullian lists as the foremost function of the Paraclete: “to direct discipline” (On the Veiling of Virgins 1.8; cf. On Monogamy 2.1-4; 4.1).44 More specifically the New Prophecy gave directives regarding martyrdom, remarriage, veiling of virgins, fasts and forgiveness by the church.
First, we shall consider martyrdom. The early church’s critique of the Montanist teaching on this score was not all that it might have been. For example, Anonymous’ charge against the Montanists was misguided: “Who, noble sirs, of these who began to speak from Montanus and the women, is there who has been persecuted by the Jews or slain by the lawless? Not one” (EH 5.16.12).
The principle underlying such a question is that without martyrs a movement must be false. However, later he seems to admit that the Montanists did have martyrs, though he adds that this is no proof of its orthodoxy, since others have died for heresy (EH 5.16.20-22). Indeed, in the history of Montanism not a few were slain for their beliefs.45 Anonymous’ argument falls to the ground.
Yet the Montanists were in error on this subject. Two of the sixteen or so recorded Montanist oracles concern martyrdom; both occurring in Tertullian’s Concerning Flight 9.4 (cf. On the Soul 55.5). The first reads, “Wish not to choose to die in your beds, nor in miscarriages and mild fevers, but in martyrdoms.” Tertullian prefaces the other oracle: “Nearly all his words [i.e., the Paraclete’s] exhort to martyrdom not to flight” (italics mine).
Here their Paraclete is exposed as a false Spirit and not the Spirit of Christ, for Jesus said, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” (Matt. 10:23).46 It is amazing that the modern writers on Montanism let them off with this. Wright notes, “Tertullian believed that the Paraclete summoned men to martyrdom and condemned flight in persecution,” but offers not one word of rebuke.47 Strangely, it is Pentecostal scholar, Nestler, who notes that this is “certainly” in “conflict with Biblical teaching.”48
The Montanist view of marriage was also unscriptural. What was the effect of the Paraclete coming upon Priscilla and Maximilla? They left their husbands (EH 5.18.3)!49 In the Bible, the Holy Spirit magnifies holy matrimony as the great picture of the relation between Christ and His church (Eph. 5:22-33). The true Spirit bonds the godly husband and his faithful wife together in covenant communion, but the Montanist spirit immediately drives wives from their husbands! This is not the activity of the Holy Spirit.
That these ladies occupied such a high position in Montanism must have meant that their example was not without influence. Apollonius makes the rather general condemnation: Montanus “taught the dissolution of marriages” (EH 5.18.2). Some evidently learned this lesson. Burghardt writes, “Without condemning marriage in itself, the early Montanists exalted chastity and celibacy to such an extent that some spouses separated by mutual agreement.”50 Trevett agrees: “It seems that the Prophecy could ‘loose’ and ‘bind’ (Matt. 16:19; 18:18) in respect of marriages.”51
Here we must consider a prophecy by Priscilla: “Purification produces harmony and they see visions” (Tertullian, Exhortation to Charity 10.5). Apparently, sexual abstinence is an aid to receiving visions. Should Montanist married couples then have intercourse? Should Montanist young people marry at all? Should a widow or widower remarry? In answer to the first two questions, we can probably ascribe only an ascetic tendency to the Montanists. Regarding the latter the issue is more serious.
Timothy Barnes observes that for Tertullian, “Second marriage was nothing but a species of fornication.”52 The Latin Father wrote, “What is our heresy if we condemn second marriage [in series] as illicit, on par with adultery?” (On Monogamy 15.1). Of course, it all depends on your definition of heresy, but it is clear that this teaching is directly opposed to the testimony of the Bible (Rom. 7:3; I Tim. 5:11-14). Even worse, it appears that the Montanists insisted on the unlawfulness of second marriage after the death of one’s spouse, by excommunicating “offenders” (Medicine 48.9.7).
Sadly, the early church too was prone to extol unduly both martyrdom and virginity and this served to weaken her witness against Montanism’s false teaching at these points.53 Nevertheless, as we have seen above, she did stand up against Montanist legalism. Epiphanius’ unknown source insists “the Word makes allowance for man’s condition and weakness,” and points to “a degree of moderation in the Gospel” (Medicine 48.9.4).
Regarding the veiling of virgins, we see the same legalism at work in the Montanist spirit. Tertullian felt so strongly about this subject that he even composed a brief treatise on it, entitled On the Veiling of Virgins. Veiling was also a law for them: “Those who have heard him [i.e., the Paraclete] prophesying even to the present veil virgins” (On the Veiling of Virgins 1.11).
After telling us that Montanus “taught the dissolution of marriages,” Apollonius adds that he also “legislated (nomotheteo) fasts” (EH 5.18.2). Hippolytus attacks the Montanists because they “appoint new and unusual fasts” (Refutation 10.25) and “the eating of dry food (xerophagia) and cabbage” (Refutation 8.19). Tertullian admits the orthodox claims, as well as adding the exact nature of the fasting practices:
They [i.e., the Catholics] censure us [1] because we keep our own special fasts, [2] because we frequently extend fasting into the evening, [3] because we also practice the eating of dry food (xerophagias),54 stripping our diet of all flesh and all juice, and every succulent fruit, nor do we drink anything that has the flavour of wine (On Fasting 1).
The church itself was beginning to observe more and more appointed fasts. Thus it was not in the strongest position to oppose Montanism, but as we have seen above, she did raise her voice in protest.55 The church saw that the New Prophecy was going too far and refused to be placed under the burdensome yoke of Montanism. Her valiant fight for liberty of conscience against unscriptural discipline is perhaps seen most clearly in the arguments she raised which are contained in Tertullian’s treatise On Monogamy.
Again most modern scholars fail to analyse Montanism correctly. For example, Wright opines that their “extremism was shocking but not impious.”56 But what is impiety if it is not binding the consciences of the people of God with unscriptural and anti-scriptural laws? Nestler, however, comes to the defence of Christian liberty, condemning the New Prophecy for its binding obligations and laws.57 Philip Schaff’s analysis bears repeating: Montanism “fell from evangelical freedom into Jewish legalism; while the catholic church in rejecting the new laws and burdens defended the cause of freedom.”58
The legalistic errors of the New Prophecy—its teachings on martyrdom, second marriage, etc.—were compounded by another: it shut the kingdom of heaven against gross post-baptismal sinners, even though they were penitent. Tertullian quotes the Paraclete in the New Prophets: “The Church can pardon sin, but I will not do it, lest they also commit other offences” (On Modesty 21.7).59 Evidently, this oracle was provoked by a perception of too great a generosity to fallen church members. Against this “lax mildness” Montanism protested; the Montanist was an advocate of the pure church ideal: no tares must grow amongst the wheat.60
McGinn seeks to rationalize at this point:
[1] Sin must be avoided at all costs; [2] withholding forgiveness for grave sins is a hard practice, [3] but it is worth the price if it acts as a deterrent to others.61
We must analyse her argument carefully here. [1] is true but it omits to add that the “all costs” must be scriptural. [2] also is true but is, at very best, an understatement; for withholding forgiveness to a penitent is not only “a hard practice” but a sinful practice (II Cor. 2:10-11). With [3] we enter the realm of outright falsehood, rather than “half-truths.” Since [2] is a sinful practice [3] is not “worth the price.”
We must ask, What of the poor penitent pining away in his sins (cf. Eze. 33:10)? Is there no clear ministerial witness of the church regarding forgiveness of his sin? What of the proper administration of the keys of the kingdom?62 Again the church—though too severe in this area herself—opposed the cruelty of Montanism.63
It has already been suggested that the Montanists may have been led to their moral rigorism, because of some laxity in discipline in the church. Another factor is their eschatology. Of late, their millenarianism has been the chief subject of debate in this area. Schaff’s affirmation reflects the old consensus: “The Montanists were the warmest millenarians in the ancient church.”64 But this has been challenged, particularly by Charles Hill.65
This debate, interesting as it is, does not immediately concern us here, for we do know that the Montanists held to an imminent coming of Christ, and that is sufficient for our purpose. Maximilla declared, “After me there will no longer be a prophet but the end” (Medicine 48.2.4).66 According to Anonymous, Maximilla also prophesied of “wars and anarchy,” which suggest Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the end times (EH 5.16.18). Trevett notes that in another of Maximilla”s oracles she speaks of herself as a “revealer, and interpreter of this suffering (ponos), covenant and promise” (Medicine 48.13.1). She points out that this word is only used three times in the Bible, and that all its occurrences are in the apocalyptic book of Revelation (16:10-11; 21:4).67
Admittedly, belief in an imminent coming of Christ was not peculiar to the Montanists. It was an error already opposed by Christ and His apostles (e.g., Like 19:11 ; II Thess. 2:1f.; II Peter 3). However, one can appreciate how much easier it was for them, with their direct words from the Paraclete, to stir people up with this idea. Thus it helped motivate the Montanist faithful to moral rigorism. One can see their reasoning: “Christ is coming very soon and the Paraclete is giving us a new and higher discipline, therefore let us attain to new heights of obedience to God.”68
(5) New Revelation From the Paraclete
Having considered how and what the Montanists prophesied, it remains to consider the fact, that they prophesied. It is clear from the foregoing that the church did not, by this stage, rule out prophecy as such, merely the ecstatic type of prophecy practiced by the Montanists. At this time the church had not yet clearly faced the issue of the canon of the New Testament Scriptures.
Anonymous tells us that he was hesitant to “compose a treatise” against the Montanists, “lest in any way I appear to some to add a new writing or add to the word of the new covenant of the gospel” (EH 5.16.3). Gaius rejected the Book of Revelation because his Montanist opponent Proclus relied heavily upon it.69 Apollonius makes the rather weak charge that Themiso “composed a general epistle in imitation of the apostle” (EH 5.18.5). Probably Themiso’s letter was much the same sort of thing as the letters of Clement, Polycarp and others in the early church.
Montanism was hard to nail down on this matter of revelation. Yet the church was guided by an orthodox spirit right from the start. Anonymous, as we have seen, though not entirely clear on the issue, was aware of the danger that the Montanist claims to true prophecy posed. “One who has chosen to live according to the gospel,” states Anonymous, “can neither add nor subtract from that word [cf. Rev. 22:18-19]” (EH 5.16.3). Hippolytus refers to their “countless books” which contain the oracles of their prophets (Refutation 8.19). Gaius in debate with Proclus at Rome attacked the Montanists for “composing new scriptures” (EH 6.20.3).
However, David Wright states, “It is immediately obvious that [the Paraclete of Montanism] has nothing to do with supplementing the rule of faith, or presenting new revelation.”70 This combination “immediately obvious” is an extremely strong statement of perspicuity. Strangely, it seems that Wright has a much sharper perception than the rest of us.
John de Soyres affirms the opposite: “Montanus and his followers claimed to have received a revelation of God, of a nature supplementary to that communicated by Christ and his apostles.”71 Philip Schaff, another one not noted for blindness in the area of ecclesiastical history, says that supplementation is exactly the issue. Montanism, he writes, “is the first instance of a theory of development which assumes an advance beyond the New Testament and the Christianity of the apostles.” For what is supplementation, if it is not an addition, “an advance beyond”?
Schaff notes that Tertullian—and this holds for Montanism in general—”gave the revelations of the Phrygian prophets on matters of practice an importance which interfered with the sufficiency of the Scriptures.”72 Tertullian also erred regarding the prophecies of the Paraclete and the perspicuity of the Scriptures. He says that heresies are not without some apparent grounds in the Scriptures. “Former ambiguities,” however, are dispersed “with the plain and clean proclamation of the complete mystery by the new prophecy which is overflowing from the Paraclete” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 63).
Wright makes another misleading statement. He says that the “Montanist rank and file may have been guilty of extravagant reverence for the teachings of their prophetic leaders,” clearly implying that their leaders were not.73 This is contrary to the express statements of Tertullian. For him and all Montanists, the oracles were an object of faith, since they thought they were words from God. Tertullian reasoned that the articles “of discipline and life admit new revisions, since the grace of God continues to operate, of course, and advance until the end” (On the Veiling of Virgins 1.5). Often he alleges the Paraclete or specific oracles of the Paraclete either to back up Scripture—as if it needed such a thing—or to promote a teaching that “goes beyond” Scripture. For example, Tertullian writes, “for our part a spiritual principle maintains by the authority of the Paraclete, which prescribes one marriage” (Against Marcion 1.29).
Thus Tertullian and the Montanists had a problem. No matter how hard they tried, their appeals to the Paraclete necessarily ended up in denying the Scriptures as the only sufficient, perspicuous and authoritative Word of God. This necessarily followed from their two-source theory of revelation: the Scriptures and the oracles of the Paraclete. The Montanists, like the Roman Catholics (Scripture and sacred tradition) and the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Scripture and the Book of Mormon, etc.), were unable properly to confess the Bible alone as the Word of God. In the very act of putting sacred tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or Montanist oracles, alongside the Scriptures, the Word of God is dishonoured and the God of the Word is slighted.
We can go further. Not only is it wrong to put anything on par with the Scriptures but it is impossible. The Scriptures are the Word of God and nothing else is. Since the death of the apostles and the closing of the New Testament canon, God has no longer been speaking to man by new prophecies. The gift of (revelatory) prophecy has ceased.74 This key point is sadly overlooked (ignored? denied?) by most writers on Montanism.
T. V. Moore makes some fine remarks on the history of the means of revelation. He observes that the three main dispensations of the covenant of grace—Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian—are generally characterized by distinct forms of divine revelation, that is, different modes of prophecy. The Patriarchal dispensation is theophanic; God revealed Himself by visible appearances, theophanies. The Mosaic dispensation is theopneustic; God revealed himself by inspired men (theou logia). Whereas, the Christian dispensation is theologic; God reveals Himself in the inspired Scriptures (theopneustoi; I Peter 4:11).75
In II Peter 1:21, the apostle tells us that in the former age (the Mosaic dispensation) “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” It is the glory of the Christian era that we have the complete inscripturated Word of God.76 It is the prophetic word not the prophetic office or gift that is “a light that shineth in a dark place” (1:19). Moore also points to other texts in I and II Peter “where this peculiar feature of the Christian dispensation is set forth.”77 Christians are indeed “the people of the Book!” This is also in keeping with the nature of the New Testament dispensation, for only written revelation can be truly universal.
Thus Moore concludes,
To leave the Word and fall back on the revelations of the Spirit, supposed to be granted to inspired men, would be to reproduce the essential characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation … putting the Spirit above the letter, as they term it, or the inspired man above the inspired word, if such man-inspiration were conceded, would be a retrogression rather than a progression.78
A Montanist would doubtless object that the Paraclete was not seeking to add to the “rule of faith,” only to supplement the Bible on moral matters, but this position is untenable. First, although we can distinguish between faith and practice, we cannot separate them.79 Second, as we have seen, the Paraclete did make proclamations about things other than discipline. It spoke of eschatology and the power of the church (in forgiving sin). Third, the Bible claims sufficiency in ethics as well as in doctrine. Both are included in II Timothy 3:15-16, which emphasizes Scripture’s sole control over all of the Christian’s life.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Thus not only was the Montanist Paraclete a false spirit because it prophesied in an unscriptural fashion and it delivered statements contrary to the Bible, but it was also a wicked spirit because it dared prophesy at all. When Montanus declared, “Neither angel nor envoy, but I the Lord God the Father have come” (Medicine 48.11.1), whether he claimed to be divine does not really matter. That he claimed to be bringing new revelation from God is sufficient to condemn him. Montanus falls under the awesome condemnation of Revelation 22:18: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6).80
(6) Loose Ends
Since the Montanist spirit was not the Spirit of God, we are not surprised that its mode and content of prophecy were unbiblical. We would be surprised if they were. Similarly, it is no shock to find unfulfilled Montanist prophecies; only that most contemporary scholars allow them to get away with it.
Maximilla prophesied, “After me there will [1] no longer be a prophet but [2] the end” (Medicine 48.2.4). Epiphanius traces this oracle to the “serpent,” since both predictions have been falsified (Medicine 48.2.5-9).81 Regarding [2], Wright makes the ridiculous excuse that she “presumably did not exclude some interval before it ensued.”82 She has had 1,800 years now. How much longer do you want? McGinn tries a more subtle form of evasion. She says that the “me” might refer to the Paraclete not Maximilla: “After me [i.e., the Paraclete] there will no longer be a prophet but the end.” McGinn adds, this prophecy is “not yet fulfilled.”83 To what lengths scholars will go to protect charismatic errorists! Maximilla claimed to be speaking the Word of God; she must be taken seriously and held to her word.
Maximilla also predicted [3] approaching “wars and anarchy.” Anonymous stated thirteen years after her death “there has been neither a general nor a local war” (EH 5.16.18-19). She was wrong, therefore, on all three scores. Maximilla was a false prophet (Deut. 18:22).
There is more in the way of false prophecy in Montanism. Tertullian states that the New Prophecy predicted that an image of the heavenly Jerusalem would appear in the sky in Judea. He claims some travellers in the East reported such a thing (Against Marcion 3.24). Many things could be said about this oracle, but we will only note that this does not fit with another claim regarding the New Prophecy (cf. [4] below). Epiphanius records a prophetess in Pepuza as saying,
[1] Having assumed the form of a woman, [2] Christ came to me in a bright robe and put wisdom in me, [3] and revealed to me that this place is holy, [4] and that it is here that Jerusalem will descend from heaven (Medicine 49.1).84
Again this prophecy is manifestly false. First, Christ, much to the chagrin of the feminists, never assumes “the form of a woman” [1].85 Second, in New Testament days no place is “holy” [3] (cf. John 4:21).86 Third, and most importantly, the glorified Christ is robed in such majesty that those who see Him fall down as dead (cf. Rev. 1). It is strange that the Montanists who aspired after perfection should not realize the awesome holiness of the exalted Head of the church.
This leads us to a consideration of the Christ of Montanism. Clearly not only did they receive another spirit, but they preached another Christ (cf. II Cor. 11:4). Mary Jane Kreidler observes, “While there are two references to Christ in the Montanist oracles, his place within that revelation does not seem necessary.”87 The other oracle that refers to Christ was uttered by Maximilla: “Hear not me but hear Christ” (Medicine 48.12.4). In itself it sounds pious. McGinn tries to make it look like a rich theological statement: it “charges the hearer to listen to Christ alone,” and it suggests “that the direct voice of God in Christ is heard through prophecy.”88 When we remember that Pope John Paul II, Benny Hinn, Charles Finney and Charles Taze Russell have said similar things, we see that this prophecy proves nothing.
That is just the problem. Montanism had nothing to say of any use. Hippolytus reckoned that their countless writings were worthless, consisting of “errors and dreams, fables and silly tales” (Commentary on Daniel 4.20). “We have demonstrated to all,” he says elsewhere, “that their many books and undertakings are nonsense, being weak and deserving of no argument. Those who possess a sound mind need not pay any attention to them” (Refutation 8.19).89 The oracles we possess point to a similar conclusion. They are a conglomeration of common places, falsehoods and nonsense.
What did Montanism have to add to the church? Many scholars speak about its warm piety and moral earnestness.90 But the laws they were keeping were not those of Christ but of man. They rave about their egalitarianism, but the Montanists had no appreciation of the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.91 Wright points to The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas as a model of Christian fortitude in dying for the gospel’s sake. Yet there was nothing more in their deaths than countless other Christian martyrs, except it be in their visions, and in this they were wrong.92
In particular, Wright appeals to “the narrative’s vivid sense of the immediacy of the power of the Spirit.”93 We rejoice in the working of the Holy Spirit in God’s children; but as for the Montanist spirit, its immediacy is a sign of God’s wrath. Furthermore, is not the blessed Spirit spoken of in the Bible closer to us than we can realize? And is it not the greatest manifestation of His power that He breaks the dominion of sin in our hearts and enables us to obey God’s law, out of thankfulness for Christ’s redemption?
There is another understanding of Montanism that must be rejected. The New Prophecy, some maintain, was merely an exaggerated Christianity, one that happened to run to extremes. Philip Schaff may be taken as a representative of this view. He speaks of Montanism as “a morbid overstraining of the practical morality and discipline of the church.” He says it partook of “an excessive supernaturalism and puritanism.” “Its errors consist in a morbid exaggeration of Christian idea and demands.” “It is the first example of an earnest and well-meaning, but gloomy and fanatical hyper-Christianity, which, like all hyper-spiritualism, is apt to end in the flesh.”94
We must reply that the gospel of God is one thing of which we cannot have too much, or into which we can ever go far enough. Whatever is beyond Christianity is, by that very fact, not Christian.95 While Montanism clung to elements of Christianity, to that extent it possessed some semblance of truth, but everything peculiar to Montanism itself was of its father, the devil. In short, Montanism had absolutely no positive contribution to make to the church as such. This is not to deny that there may have been believers who were caught up in it (at least for a time),96 but it is to say that Montanism was wedded to a false spirit, which led it further and further from the truth.97
We must now consider Montanism’s oft-repeated claim to be part of the fulfillment of Jesus’ word in John 14-16. The Montanists said that they possessed the prophesied Paraclete who would reveal things to come, lead the church into the truth and glorify Christ (John 14-16). We have seen its predictions to be false and its “truth” to be lies; and it certainly did not glorify Christ. Montanism deemed His mercy in receiving penitent Christians unwise; it rejected His kingship by imposing man-made laws; and it falsely claimed to be uttering His words. Worst of all it pointed to law and not to God’s grace coming to us through the cross of Christ. Epiphanius’ unknown source was correct in his judgment of Montanus (and Montanism):
He will be found to be outside the body of the church, and outside the head of the whole, and not to be grasping the head [cf. Col. 2:19] from which the whole body being fitted together [cf. Eph. 4:16] will grow [cf. Eph. 2:21], according to what has been written (Medicine 48.11.10).98
Hippolytus also attacked them for their denigrating Christ and His Word:
They say that they have learned something more through them than from the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels. And they magnify those weak females above the apostles and every divine gift, so that some of them dare say that something greater has occurred in them than in Christ (Refutation 8.19).
Klein makes the valid point that if Montanism “had triumphed [in the catholic church], there might have been no end to its revelation and innovations.”99 Thankfully, it did not come to that. The church firmly rejected Montanism. Admittedly, the fathers sometimes struggled to identify her errors and some showed greater theological acumen than others. Sometimes one gets the impression that the fathers were motivated largely by an orthodox instinct, sensing that Montanism was wrong, without being able to put their finger exactly on the problem. Some of the arguments they made were of little value, while other proper criticisms could have been made more trenchantly, and some important lines of attack they missed.
Thus not only was the church right to examine100 and expel Montanism, but she did so—on the whole—for the right reasons. After Wright and Burghardt give Montanism a clean bill of health (though admitting a tendency to enthusiasm) they are forced to look for a reason why the church condemned them. Both attribute this to the sin of the church and not the Montanists! Wright sees it as suffering “at the hands of a church preoccupied with closing the ranks.”101 Burghardt says the same thing: “The pressures of institutional success demanded an authority structure dominated by responsible establishmentarians, not erratic ecstatics.”102
Even though they are going against the evidence from the church fathers, neither offers a scrap of evidence for their contention. Furthermore both Wright and Burghardt—and modern scholarship in general—fail to analyse Montanism in the light of the Scriptures. They do not bring the Word of God to bear on the movement; and therefore their critique of Montanism is flawed.
Powell is much nearer the mark:
What reduced the pneumatic to a second-rate factor in the life of the community [i.e., the church] was less the episcopal claim to discern spirits than the canonization of the Apostolic Writings as a New Testament, with its final reduction of all non-apostolic prophecy.103
The struggle with Montanism had two healthy effects. First, it helped the Church to come to a sharper view of Scripture. While the Marcionites erred by defect, the Montanists erred by supplementation, regarding the canon. The church steered a clear course between Scylla and Charybdis. Second, it made her more sceptical of claims to prophetic inspiration. One might have wished that the Montanists had been involved in miraculous healings, that this too might have been rejected with its all its other heresies.104 However, the Sovereign Lord has His perfect plan for His church and this was not to be.
The church fathers, on the whole, could have been clearer in rejecting continuing revelation in toto and affirming the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture. This, however, had to wait until the sixteenth-century Reformation. Sadly, the errors repressed in Montanism, such as legalistic fasting and revelatory prophecy would later spring up in the church.105
(7) Montanism”s Attack on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
From the preceding, it is clear that Montanism was a heretical movement: it held false and vicious doctrines. It only remains to consider the Montanist view of the church. Here its erroneous notions meant that, even practically speaking, it could not remain in the bosom of the one, holy and apostolic church.
Montanism destroys church unity by proposing two types of Christian: those who are “spiritual” (the Montanists, who acknowledge the Paraclete) and those who are merely “soulish” (the catholics). This “two-tiered” Christianity imperils the common salvation that all the saints have in Christ. In his treatise On Monogamy, we see Tertullian attacking the soulish catholics for rejecting the Paraclete and its new discipline. He speaks repeatedly of “us” and “them;” and, from what we tell of the views of his catholic opponents, the “us and them” outlook was mutual.
In On the Soul 9.4, Tertullian speaks of a “sister among us” who “obtains instructions of healing for those who want them,” implying that not all in Tertullian’s church in Carthage desired her advice. This lady, Tertullian tells us, receives “gifts of revelation which she experiences by ecstasy in the Spirit in the Church at the Sunday service.” It appears, though, that Tertullian does not mean that she speaks during the meeting. He relates how “after the religious service was completed, when the people had been dismissed,” she recounted, “according to her custom,” a vision she had seen of a soul “in bodily form”!
This after-church gathering of the “spiritual” Christians, when the “psychics” had gone home, is clear evidence of an ecclesiola in ecclesia. The tension this generates makes external church unity hard to maintain. Just as, after the death of John Wesley, the Methodists left the Church of England, so, when Tertullian died, it is no surprise that the Montanists of North Africa formed their own congregations.
The holiness of the church was also endangered. Piety in Montanism largely consisted in obedience to new (unbiblical) laws and submission to their Paraclete. Godly marriage, which is at the heart of the family and therefore vital in the church, was slighted. Christian discipline was not enacted solely according to the rules found of the gospel. The pure church ideal, which promotes a counterfeit holiness, was espoused.106 Speaking of “inconsiderate zeal for righteousness,” Calvin warns, “this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself and true zeal for it.”107
The catholicity of the church was also imperilled by the Montanists. Though the Montanist cause had advocates further west, such as in Gaul, Rome and Carthage, its main centre was Asia Minor, especially the region of Phrygia. As the Donatists would later be assailed as the African church, so the Montanists were rightly castigated by the church fathers as the “Cataphrygians.” This localization of the church contrasts with the Scriptural teaching of the universal nature of the church. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof,” declares the Psalmist (Ps. 24:1); and so the Son of God gathers, defends and preserves His church “out of the whole human race.”108 The Montanist view was an implicit denial of the mystery of Christ in His catholic church (Eph. 3).
The apostolicity of the church was denied, since they added to the Scriptures. Ephesians 2:20 tells us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” Since the Montanists added to the foundation and thereby subverted it, the structure they sought to erect was not the church but a synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Thus the apostolic Christ was set aside.
Thus it is absurd for Montanism (or modern scholarship) to claim that the New Prophecy was a reformatory movement. It is true that they wished their ideas to spread and sought first toleration and then dominance (cf. Against Praxeas 1).109 After all, did they not have something additional to what the church had? Did it not also come with the authority of Almighty God? But we must ask, Where was true preaching in Montanism? Where was its holding forth true church government? Where were its protests (from the Bible) against the loss of the offices of elder and deacon in the early church? Where were its noted dogmatic works?110
This reformatory spirit only compounded their sin, for they sought to propagate their errors,111 indeed to refashion the church on the basis of them. It also made their presence in the church even more intolerable. As well as being errorists, they were a constant nuisance to the church. As Tertullian wrote against the psychics, “It remains for you to suppress him [i.e., the Paraclete] completely, so far as you are able” (On Fasting 11).
That day was coming. In line with Tertullian’s remark, the Montanists were excluded because they had another spirit (II Cor. 11:4). This was the heart of the issue. Herein lies the great irony of Montanism. The Montanists claimed superiority because they had the Paraclete, the perfector of God’s revelation. “The fullness of the prophetic charisma had not yet come with Christ or His apostles but only with Montanus and his prophetesses.”112 But their spirit was a spirit that goes beyond the words of the Holy Spirit; a spirit which inculcates new laws which are the way of a higher holiness; and a spirit which betrays a discontent with the fullness of salvation found in Jesus Christ.113
This—their shame—they declared as their glory. Since Montanism’s spirit is not the “one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4) of the holy, catholic church, the sin of their separation lies wholly with the Montanists; their heresy was the ground of the split. The expulsion of Montanism by the church was wholly justified.
(III) Epilogue: Montanism Today?
Montanism died over 1,700 years ago (though its death throes lasted for a while longer), far away from English-speaking lands. It no longer exists and no one claims the name of “Montanist,” so what is its relevance for today?
In the words of the noted historian of dogma, K. R. Hagenbach, Montanism was “the forerunner of all the fanaticism which pervades the history of the church.”114 Three major strands of “Christian” enthusiasm are found in it: an imminent parousia, a pure church ideal and continuing, extraordinary, spiritual gifts. Of these three, it is the last that particularly concerns us, for it has a striking contemporary manifestation in modern Pentecostalism/Charismaticism.115
Differences, however, certainly exist between the two. Many sections of Pentecostalism show much less interest in an imminent second coming of Christ, with its resultant ethical demands. But in some Pentecostal churches, particularly of the Holiness variety, there is a definite legalistic tendency. Charismaticism, unlike Montanism, typically has little place for strenuous ethical requirements. While the New Prophecy desired moral purity, the Charismatics generally have less interest in obedience to laws, whether from Christ or man. Thus Charismatic churches are not marked by strict discipline or (often) any discipline at all. It is rather religious experiences that the Charismatic seeks. Membership in Pentecosal or Charismatic churches is open to all who want to feel the presence of their “spirit.” Tongue-speaking and miraculous faith-healers are elements in Pentecostalism and Charismaticism which were unknown or of much less significance in Montanism.
Having said all that, their similarities, first, in their views of ongoing revelation, are striking. The Montanists and the Pentecostals and Charismatics appeal to the same passages of Scripture. Most important in the Montanist offensive was Christ’s promise of the coming Paraclete in John 14-16. Their second key passage was Joel’s prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit, which would cause the church’s sons and daughters to prophecy (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18). Paul’s discourse on spiritual gifts in I Corinthians 12-14 was another favourite. Concerning biblical personages, appeal was made to the prophet Agabus (Acts 12:28; 21:10-11) and Philip’s four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9).116 In their twisting of these Scriptures, as if the extraordinary temporal offices and gifts would continue after the apostolic age and the completion of the canon of God’s Word (II Cor. 12:12; Eph. 2:20; II Peter 1:16-21), both the New Prophecy and Pentecostalism attack the sufficiency of Scripture, the once-for-all character of Pentecost and the fullness of Christ.
Second, both movements, because of their pneumatic rather than biblical orientation, ascribe to women unlawful roles in the church. We have already seen that two of the original trio of leaders in Montanism were women. The Montanists also permitted women deacons and even women presbyters and bishops. All offices were open to them in Montanist churches.117 Some Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have not gone so far, though the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are in the forefront of feminism in the church world.
Epiphanius informs us that the Montanists used Galatians 3:28 in this regard: “in Christ there is neither male nor female” (Medicine 49.2). As well as it being unbiblical to use this verse (which speaks of male and female equality in salvation) to counter texts which specifically forbid church office to women (I Cor. 14:33-37; I Tim. 2:11-14), Powell points out “there is no patristic parallel for such a use.”118 Again, the Montanists and the Pentecostal and Charismatic feminists (and non-Charismatic feminists) appeal to the same biblical texts and personages (Eve [!], Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Philip’s four daughters) and with just as little validity. A few examples of the extraordinary, temporary office of prophetess in biblical times do not justify women in the ordinary, permanent offices of pastor, elder or deacon contrary to express biblical teaching (I Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-9). The church fathers soundly defeated them on this score too.119
We come, third, to immorality. Though the Montanists claimed a higher-than-biblical morality, they were not without scandals. Apollonius tells us that Priscilla wore gold, silver and expensive clothes (EH 5.18.4). Themiso, one of their leaders, who was arrested for his adherence to Christianity, bought his way out of prison (EH 5.18.5). Alexander, with whom one of the Montanist prophetesses lived (!),was guilty of gluttony, covetousness and theft. Apollonius adds, “His own diocese whence he had come would not receive him because he was a robber” (EH 5.18.6-10). He also speaks of a Montanist prophet (!) who dyed his hair, painted his eyelids and adorned himself with ornaments (EH 5.18.11).
Powell reckons that this all occurred some time after the first flourishing of Montanism,120 but it is clear that such laxity was already evident in the time of Priscilla and affected even the “clergy.” One wonders what happened to strict Montanist discipline regarding these “spiritual” Montanist leaders. Were those filled with the Paraclete beyond reproof? Certainly, Tertullian would have been appalled. Contradictions and glaring inconsistencies were to be found between the Montanist message and its messengers.
On the whole, Charismaticism is worse than Montanism on this issue, especially as regards its most prominent, popular and wealthy leaders, such as a Benny Hinn or a Paul Crouch. Not only do their followers tolerate their worldly behaviour, but they continue to flock to and watch their meetings and contribute to their extravagant lifestyles.
A fourth parallel which exists between Charismaticism and Pentecostalism, on the one hand, and Montanism, on the other, is failed prophecy. This has already been documented concerning Montanism but this feature is probably even more appalling in modern Charismaticism. Year after year the prophecies of the leaders fail and their followers allow them to get away with it without effectual discipline (Deut. 18:22; Matt. 18:15-18; I Cor. 5:2-8). Thus they bring the Word of God into disrepute and prove themselves charlatans.
On the whole, Pentecostalism and Charismaticism, with their added sins of “miraculous” healings and prominent tongue speaking, are probably worse than Montanism. Yet the modern church world is unable to recognize in it the same wicked spirit that the church rejected all those centuries ago. This is deplorable not only because the modern church neglects the lessons of church history but also because the development of doctrine over the years makes it easier to recognize false spirits.
Pentecostalism exists not only in separate denominations but it has also, as Charismaticism, infiltrated other churches and even some Reformed and Presbyterian bodies to various degrees. Needed again are churchmen like the early fathers, who are strong in the Scriptures and able to warn the flock of Christ. The same valiant, antithetical stand is required today. Like the early church, the true church today must not shy away from denouncing the Charismatic spirit as the spirit of the evil one. Only in this way will she be able to defend the Reformation gospel, especially Christ alone and Scripture alone.121
