MONTANO and MONTANISM. — Montano was the founder of Montanism, an enthusiastic and rigorist sect that began in Phrygia around 172 and was therefore called the “heresy of the Phrygians”; by its adherents themselves, however, it was called the “new prophecy,” on account of its claims to revelations of the Paraclete.
The followers of Montanism were also called “Cataphrygians” (from the Greek οἱ κατὰ ὄψεγες) or Pepuzians (from the movement’s holy city); according to the leaders of the various groups, they were distinguished as Proclians, Aeschinists, Tertullianists, Priscillianists, and Quintillianists (the last two taking their names from the prophetesses Priscilla and Quintilla). With the exception of the writings of Tertullian, the rest of the not very extensive Montanist literature has been lost; only 14 oracles have survived from the collection of prophetic sayings of Montano and his two first female disciples (6 attributed to Montano, 3 to Priscilla, and 5 to Maximilla). To these must be added 4 others transmitted by Tertullian as utterances of the Paraclete. Our knowledge of Montanism is therefore based on its anti-Montanist opponents and heresiologists.
I. THE ORIGINS OF MONTANISM
Little is known about the person of M. Before his conversion to the Christian faith, he may perhaps have been a priest of the fanatical cult of Cybele. Nor is it certain when the movement began; according to Epiphanius (Haeres., 48: PG 41, 856), it originated around 156–57; according to Eusebius, however (Chrom., II: PG 19, 563), in the years 172–73. This second date is more probable (the intervention of the Lyons Martyrs, the earliest fact that can be established independently of the two disputed dates, occurred only in the year 177, and the first pope consulted on the question of Montanism was Eleutherius [v.], 174–80). According to the oldest sources, M. proclaimed himself the instrument of the Paraclete who, announced in the Fourth Gospel, had not yet descended upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, but was to manifest himself later through M., in order to lead the Church into all truth. Two women, Priscilla (or Prisca) and Massimilla, were the first disciples won over to the new doctrine; having themselves become participants in the prophetic gift, they were soon venerated alongside M. himself.The prophecy announced itself as new, especially because of its ecstatic form (contrary to the Catholic concept of prophecy as expounded by s. Paul: I Cor. 14). The prophets of Montanism fell into violent ecstasies and, in a state of rapture and abstraction from the senses, pronounced the “utterances” of the Paraclete. In this characteristic ecstatic violence, it is customary to recognize the particular contribution of the Phrygian region, the homeland of intense religious emotions, as well as of the orgiastic cult of Cybele. As regards content, the prophecy announced the imminent parousia of Christ and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem into the Phrygian plain, between the towns of Pepuza and Tymion, where M. wished to gather all Christendom. Against the background of this ardent expectation of the imminent parousia, the moral demands of primitive Montanism must be understood. The faithful had to prepare themselves for a much more radical detachment than had hitherto been practiced in the Christian communities. An intense asceticism was preached, embodied in total renunciation of marriage (the prohibition of second marriages, with the implicit authorization of the first marriage, must be regarded as a later mitigation of the original demand) and in the prescription of more prolonged and austere fasts. Later, different periods of fasting were established in the sect; M. himself probably required that the entire life of the faithful, until the Lord’s return, should be a continuous fast. A third original demand required absolute readiness for martyrdom (cf. the two utterances of the Paraclete cited by Tertullian, De fuga, 9: PL 2, 133). Montanism’s position on the penitential question was particularly severe, characterized by the following utterance of the Paraclete: “Potest Ecclesia donare delicta, sed non faciam, ne et alii delinquant” (Tertullian, De pudicitia, 21: PL 2, 1078). The obscure saying, in its forceful antithesis, evidently a response to M.’s adversaries, foreshadows, even with regard to the remission of post-baptismal sins, a new rigorism entirely consistent with the movement’s other demands. Finally, the original heritage included promises of special rewards for faithful followers and the quartodeciman practice in the celebration of Easter. gnosis (v.), the other great danger facing the Church in the second century, Montanism revealed itself as being of purely intra-Christian origin. The doctrine of the faith and Scripture were not touched. But through its appeal to the Paraclete, who was to complete Christ’s work in M., M. in fact radically altered the Catholic concept of the Church. Not the bishops, but the new prophets, the true “spirituals,” represented the Church’s authority; this conclusion was subsequently drawn with complete clarity by Tertullian: “Et ideo Ecclesia quidem delicta donabit; sed Ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum” (De pudicitia, 21: PL 2, 1080). M. himself, a fervent enthusiast rather than a speculative spirit, does not seem to have been equally aware of the revolutionary character of his own work, which at its inception appeared rather as a movement of spiritual renewal within the Church itself—something that must have greatly favored its propagation.
II. EXPANSION OF MONTANISM
Religious enthusiasm, esteem for charismatic gifts, ardent eschatological expectation, and orthodoxy of doctrine must have given Montanism a particular power of attraction within the Church of the second century. The founders died early: Massimilla around 179, M. and Priscilla even earlier; but the new prophecy had already crossed the boundaries of the region where it had arisen (Ardabau, Pepuza, Tymion). From Phrygia it spread like a fire throughout Asia Minor (thus the Church of Thyatira in Lydia had passed over entirely to the following of M.), and from there it radiated into Syria and Thrace. The West too was soon affected. The letters that the adherents of Montanism sent to the centres of Western Christianity in order to win them to their cause have not been preserved. But from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 3: PG 20, 437) it is known that the famous letter of the Churches of Lyon and Vienne in Gaul to the brothers of Asia and Phrygia, written in the year 177, also contained a judgment on the prophetic activity of M. and his companions, an opinion that Eusebius judged to be « pious and orthodox ». Moreover, letters written by the martyrs before their death were also sent from Lyon to the brothers of Asia and to Pope Eleutherus « pro pace Ecclesiarum » (ibid.). It therefore seems that the attitude of the principal Gallic Church was one of prudent reserve: while Montanism was still in its beginnings, counsel for peace was given, without thereby favouring the new prophecy. In Rome, Pope Eleutherus, to whom s. Irenaeus brought the letter of the Martyrs of Lyon, had certainly already been informed of Montanism by other means. The paucity of sources does not allow us to establish with certainty the attitude assumed by the Pope. It is probable that he did not formally condemn the Phrygian movement but issued a declaration unfavourable to it: this may be inferred from a notice of Tertullian (Adv. Praxeam, 1: PL 2, 178 ff.): Praxeas, a leader of the Patripassians, having gone from Asia to Rome, is said to have induced the Pope (who is presumed to have been Victor I, 189–98, or, according to De Labriolle and Ehrhard, more probably Zephyrinus: 198–217) to withdraw the letters of communion already issued in favour of the Montanists, appealing to the official statements of his predecessors (« praecessorum auctoritates »). These statements of Zephyrinus’s predecessors (Eleutherus and Victor I), while not constituting a true condemnation (otherwise Zephyrinus’s initial sympathy for Montanism would be difficult to explain),must nevertheless have been unfavourable to the new prophecy. The popes, therefore, since at that time they had not yet clearly grasped the true character of the movement—which in the West also presented itself with greater sobriety—remained reserved, partly because of the high esteem that then surrounded charismatic gifts, and partly because the Montanists ostentatiously professed orthodoxy in dogma. It seems that even during this period of initial expansion the sect had fallen from its original level, which had undoubtedly been high. Anti-Montanist literature arose against the avarice of the prophets and against the crimes of a certain Alexander who passed himself off as a martyr; the primitive requirements concerning marriage and fasting were abandoned, and the prophets and martyrs were granted a certain power to remit sins (cf. the excerpta of the anti-Montanist Apollonius in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 18). Enthusiasm for martyrdom, on the other hand, remained more firmly established, and the Montanists were able to appeal to the great number of their martyrs. Dogma too was affected. In Rome, one part of the Montanist community, headed by Aeschines, monarchianism (v.) of Noetus (cf. Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeres., VIII, 19: ed. P. Wendland in CB, 26, p. 238), while another faction under Proclus maintained the Trinitarian faith of the Church.
Information concerning the constitutional aspect of Montanism during this period is scarce. It seems that the Montanist communities of Asia had a charismatic organization, whose members were prophets, martyrs, and prophetesses. Among the latter, after Priscilla and Massimilla, Quintilla rose to prominence; her followers were accordingly called Quintillians (cf. s. Epiphanius, Haeres., 49: PG 41, 880).
III. TERTULLIAN’S MONTANISM
In Africa, Tertulliano (v.) its best-known and most active adherent. Of his 31 surviving writings, 11 belong to the Montanist period (204–206; 222–23). A personality with very strong individualistic tendencies, Tertulliano was attracted to Montanism by the fact that, in its orthodoxy, it stood apart from every heresy, particularly from Gnosticism; and also because it wonderfully fulfilled his own Christian ideal, permeated by the most radical ethical rigorism, and enabled him to overcome the opposition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy through the superior authority of the Paraclete. When the hope of having the new prophecy accepted by the community of Carthage had proved vain (cf. the first two Montanist writings: De virginibus velandis; De exhortatione castitatis, from the years 205–206), Tertulliano openly broke with the Church (by 207 at the latest), turning against it with growing harshness (characteristic is his designation of the Church as that of the “psychics,” as the lower class of men was called in Gnostic systems).Tertulliano, however, was too strong a personality not to impress his own stamp upon Montanism; he stripped the new prophecy of its personal and local character (thus he is completely silent about Pepuza, says little about the founders of the sect, and most often appeals directly to the Paraclete); in compensation, he gave Montanism a clear soteriological foundation when he proclaimed the activity of the Paraclete as the fourth and concluding phase of the economy of salvation (after the initial state of « natura Deum metuens », after childhood guarded « per legem et prophetas » and youth nourished « per Evangelium », justice « nunc per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem »; De virg. velandis, 1: PL 2, 938). Although, contrary to his own temperament, he had accepted the ecstatic form of the new prophecy (he defended it in De exstasi, a treatise in 7 books, unfortunately lost), he distanced himself from primitive Montanism in his judgment concerning the position of women in the community; he energetically excluded women from every right to teach or offer, and still more from every priestly function (De virg. velandis, 9: PL 2, 950). In the struggle against the Church, Tertulliano addressed all the principal themes of Montanist rigorism: he branded withdrawal from persecution as a repudiation of God’s will (De fuga, from the year 211–12), composed a violent indictment of second marriages (De monogamia, ca. 217) and of the Church’s indulgent practice regarding fasting (De teinuio adversus psychicos), and reached the height of the polemic in the contro-
versy over the « pax ecclesiastica », which he now, contrary to his earlier position, restricted to « leviora peccata » alone (« peccata in hominem »), while for serious sins he applied the principle: « Quis anias dimitrit delicta, ni solus Deus ? » (De pudicitia, 21: PL 2, 1077). It cannot be denied, as Faggiotto sought to do (La diaspora cat. frigia, cited in the bibliography, p. 129), that Tertulliano truly converted to Montanism; but it is also true that he did not place himself so much at the service of the new prophecy as he placed the latter at his own service. In the end he also separated himself from Montanism and, followed by a small group of believers, founded the party of the Tertullianists, whose last remnants returned to the Church some time before 428 (cf. St. Augustine, De haeres., 86: PL 42, 46).
IV. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MONTANISM
As against Gnosticism, the Church also waged a twofold struggle against Montanism, theological and ecclesiastical. The theological polemic (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 16–18, has preserved some excerpta from the so-called “anti-Montanist anonymous,” a treatise in 3 books written by a Phrygian bishop or priest around 192, and from the work which a certain Apollonius directed, 20 years later, against the prophecy and the life of the Montanists) sought above all to prove that the new prophecy was not the work of the Spirit of God and to reject its rigorist postulates. Among the opponents of Montanism, some extremists went further. Already s. Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres., III, 11, 9: PG 7, 890 ff.) censured those who, in opposition to the false prophets, rejected the Gospel of s. John because the Lord there promises the Paraclete. From Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI, 20) it is known that in the time of Pope Zephyrinus the Roman presbyter Caius (v.) rejected, in a polemical treatise in the form of a dialogue with the Montanist leader Proclus, the Apocalypse as a source of the sect’s chiliasm.The properly ecclesiastical struggle against Montanism first manifested itself in Asia, where the danger must at a certain point have been serious. Some bishops sought to convert the new prophets. Zotichus of Comana and Julian of Apamea went to Pepuza to drive out the demon of Maximilla, but they were diverted from their purpose by the prophetess’s followers (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 16: PG 20, 472). The danger prompted the neighboring bishops to hold meetings in which Montanism was condemned. These gatherings may be regarded as the first provincial synods. The oldest known synodal letter is also directed against Montanism: it is a writing of the bishop Serapion of Antioch, signed by several other bishops and accompanied by a refutation of Montanism written by the bishop Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 19: ibid., 481). The result of this twofold struggle was the expulsion of the new prophecy from Catholic communion and the organization of its followers into their own communities. In these, in the 4th century, the patriarchs of Pepuza held first place, then the xxxvovol (associates), and finally, in third place, the bishops (cf. s. Jerome, Ep. 41: PL 22, 476). Montanism survived for a considerable time in these communities. But the very grave danger which the sect had represented at its beginnings had already been overcome by the middle of the 3rd century. In the year 263–64 the community of Thyatira, Montanist for more than 90 years, returned to the Church; this was certainly not the only case of its kind. Nevertheless, at the end of the 4th century Montanism was still strong in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, as well as in Constantinople. Despite the repressive measures of the Christian emperors, the sect persisted in the East until the 8th century. There seem to have been cases in which Montanists burned themselves in their own churches so as not to have to abandon them to the Catholics.
The importance of the victory over Montanism is to be found in the renunciation of the eschatological enthusiasm characteristic of the Church’s early period; in the ever more decisive affirmation of hierarchical organization, founded on the apostolic succession of the bishops, over the religious subjectivism and individualism of Phrygian prophetism; in the safeguarding of the universality of the Church, destined to win for Christ not merely a small group of exalted spiritual persons but the whole world;
