Listed 9 sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for destination: "IERAPOLIS Ancient city TURKEY".
St. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (close to Laodicea and Colossae in the valley of the Lycus
in Phrygia) and Apostolic Father, called by St. Irenaeus "a hearer of John, and
companion of Polycarp, a man of old time". He wrote a work in five books, logion
kyriakon exegesis, of which all but some fragments is lost. We learn something
of the contents from the preface, part of which has been preserved by Eusebius
(III, xxix):
I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly
learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving
assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who
speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign
precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to
the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the
Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters,
what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or
what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things
which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the
Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that
I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which
yet lives and remains. From this we learn that Papias's book consisted mainly
of "interpretations"—it was a kind of commentary on the "Logia of the Lord". The
word logia, meaning "oracles", is frequently at the present day taken to refer
to sayings, as opposed to narratives of Our Lord's actions (so Zahn and many others).
But Lightfoot showed long ago (Essays on Supernatural Religion, 171-7) that this
view is untenable. Philo used the word for any part of the inspired writings of
the Old Testament, whether speech or narrative. St. Paul, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen,
even Photius, have no other usage. St. Irenaeus speaks of corrupting the oracles
of the Lord just as Dionysius of Corinth speaks of corrupting the Scriptures of
the Lord. Logia kyriaka in Papias, in Irenaeus, in Photius, means "the divine
oracles" of the Old or New Testament or both. Besides these "interpretations",
Papias added oral traditions of two kinds: some he had himself heard from the
Presbyters, para ton presbyteron; others he had at second hand from disciples
of the Presbyters who happened to visit him at Hierapolis. The Presbyters related
what the "disciples of the Lord" -Peter, Andrew etc.- used to say in old days.
Other informants of Papias's visitors were still living, "Aristion and John the
Presbyter, the disciples of the Lord", as is shown by the present tense, legousin.
We naturally assume that Papias counted them also among the direct informants
whom he had mentioned before, for as they lived at Ephesus and Smyrna, not far
off, he would surely know them personally. However, many eminent critics -Zahn
and Lightfoot, and among Catholics, Funk, Bardenhewer, Michiels, Gutjahr, Batiffol,
Lepin- identify the Presbyters with Andrew, Peter etc., thus making them Apostles,
for they understand "what Andrew and Peter and the rest said" as epexegetic of
"the words of the Presbyters". This is impossible, for Papias had just spoken
of what he learned directly from the Presbyters, ora pote para ton presbyteron
kalos emathon, yet it is admitted that he could not have known many apostles.
Again, he seems to distinguish the sayings of the disciples of the Lord, Aristion
and John, from those of the Presbyters, as though the latter were not disciples
of the Lord. Lastly, Irenaeus and Eusebius, who had the work of Papias before
them, understand the Presbyters to be not Apostles, but disciples of disciples
of the Lord, or even disciples of disciples of Apostles. The same meaning is given
to the word by Clement of Alexandria. We are therefore obliged to make "what Andrew
and Peter and the rest said" not co-ordinate with but subordinate to "the sayings
of the Presbyters", thus: "I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters,
what (they related that) Andrew and Peter and the rest said, and for the things
Aristion and John were saying". Eusebius has caused a further difficulty by pointing
out that two Johns are mentioned, one being distinguished by the epithet presbyter
from the other who is obviously the Apostle. The historian adds that Dionysius
of Alexandria said he heard there were two tombs of John at Ephesus. This view
has been adopted by practically all liberal critics and by such conservatives
as Lightfoot and Westcott. But Zahn and most Catholic writers agree that Dionysius
was mistaken about the tomb, and that Eusebius's interpretation of Papias's words
is incorrect. For he says that Papias frequently cited John the Presbyter; yet
it is certain that Irenaeus, who had a great veneration for the work of Papias,
took him to mean John the Apostle; and Irenaeus had personal knowledge of Asiatic
tradition and could not have been ignorant of the existence of John the presbyter,
if there ever was such a person in Asia. Again, Irenaeus tells us that the Apostle
lived at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote the Apocalypse in the
last days of Domitian. Irenaeus had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of
the Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5, asserts that the Apostle
was the author of the Apocalypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches).
But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date, (and it cannot be doubted
with any show of reason), he would naturally be the most important of Papias's
witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem that John the Presbyter was
his chief informant, and that the had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again,
"The Presbyter" who wrote I and II John has the name of John in all MSS., and
is identified with the Apostle by Irenaeus and Clement, and is certainly (by internal
evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel, which is attributed to the Apostle
by Irenaeus and all tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recounting the
men who were the glories of Asia, has no mention of John the presbyter, but of
"John, who lay upon the Lord's breast", undoubtedly meaning the Apostle. The second
John at Ephesus is an unlucky conjecture of Eusebius. A fragment is, however,
attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother
were killed by the Jews". It is not possible that Papias should really have said
this, otherwise Eusebius must have quoted it and Irenaeus could not have been
ignorant of it. There is certainly some error in the quotation. Either something
has been omitted, or St. John Baptist was meant. That St. John is mentioned twice
in the list of Papias's authorities is explained by the distinction between his
earlier sayings which the Presbyters could repeat and the last utterances of his
old age which were reported by visitors from Ephesus. The most important fragment
of Papias is that in which he gives an account of St. Mark from the words of the
Presbyter, obviously St. John. It is a defense of St. Mark, attesting the perfect
accuracy with which he wrote down the teachings of St. Peter, but admitting that
he did not give a correct order. It is interesting to note that (as Dr. Abbott
has shown) the fourth Gospel inserts or refers to every incident given in St.
Mark which St. Luke has passed over. The prologue of St. Luke is manifestly cited
in the fragment, so that Papias and the Presbyter knew that Gospel, which was
presumable preferred to that of Mark in the Pauline Church of Ephesus; hence the
need of the rehabilitation of Mark by "the Presbyter", who speaks with authority
as one who knew the facts of the life of Christ as well as Peter himself. The
famous statement of Papias that St. Matthew wrote his logia (that is, his canonical
work) in Hebrew, and each interpreted (translated) it as he was able, seems to
imply that when Papias wrote an accepted version was current—our present St. Matthew.
His knowledge of St. John's Gospel is proved not merely by his mention of aloes,
but by a citation of John xiv, 2, which occurs in the curious prophecy of a miraculous
vintage in the millennium which he attributed to Our Lord (Irenaeus, V, xxxvi).
The reference in his preface to our Lord as "the Truth" also implies a knowledge
of the fourth Gospel. He cited I John and I Peter according to Eusebius, and he
evidently built largely upon the Apocalypse, from which he drew his chiliastic
views. It was formerly customary among liberal critics to assume (for no proof
was possible) that Papias ignored St. Paul. It is now recognized that a bishop
who lived a few miles from Colossae cannot be suspected of opposition to St. Paul
merely on the ground that the few lines of his writings which remain do not contain
any quotation from the Apostle. It is highly probable that Papias had a New Testament
containing the Four Gospels, the Acts, the chief Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse
and Epistles of St. John, and I Peter.
Eusebius says that Papias frequently cited traditions of John and narrations of
Aristion. He had also received information from the daughters of Philip, one of
whom was buried like her father at Hierapolis, and had apparently been known to
Papias. He related the raising to life of the mother of Manaimos (probably not
the same as Manaen the foster-brother of Herod); also the drinking of poison without
harm by Justus Barsabas: he may have related this in connection with Mark, svi,
18, as it is the only one of the miracles promised in that passage by our Lord
which is not exemplified in Acts. It would be interesting if we could be sure
that Papias mentioned this last section of Mark, since an Armenian MS. attributes
it to Aristion. Eusebius says Papias "published a story of a woman accused of
many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
This appears to refer to the pericope adulterae (John 8).
The cause of the loss of this precious work of an Apostolic Father
was the chiliastic view which he taught, like St. Justin and St. Irenaeus. He
supported this by "strange parables of the Saviour and teachings of His, and other
mythical matters", says Eusebius. We can judge of these by the account of the
wonderful vine above referred to. His method of exegesis may perhaps be estimated
to some extent by a fifth book with the original ending of Victorinus's commentary
on the Apocalypse, as published by Haussleiter (Theologisches Litteraturblatt,
26 April, 1895); for both passages are evidently based on Papias, and contain
the same quotations from the Old Testament. Eusebius was an opponent of chiliastic
speculations, and he remarks: "Papias was a man of very small mind, if we may
judge by his own words". It would seem that the fragment of Victorinus of Pettau
"De fabrica mundi" is partly based on Papias. In it we have perhaps the very words
to which Eusebius is referring: "Nunc igitur de inenarrabili gloria Dei in providentia
videas memorari; tamen ut mens parva poterit, conabor ostendere". This passage
probably preserved the substance of what Papias said, according to the testimony
of Anastasius of Mount Sinai, at to the mystical application to Christ and the
Church of the seven days of creation. A wild and extraordinary legend about Judas
Iscariot is attributed to Papias by a catena. It is probable that whenever St.
Irenaeus quotes "the Presbyters" or "the Presbyters who had seen John", he is
citing the work of Papias. Where he attributes to these followers of John the
assertion that Our Lord sanctified all the ages of man, that Papias had inferred
that Our Lord reached the age of fifty, as Irenaeus concludes, nor need we be
too certain that Papias explicitly cited the Presbyters in the passage in question.
His real statement is possibly preserved in a sentence of "De fabrica mundi",
which implies only that our Lord reached the perfect age (between 30 and 40) after
which decline begins.
Of Papias's life nothing is known. If Polycarp was born in 69, his
"comrade" may have been born a few years earlier. The fragment which makes him
state that those who were raised to life by Christ lived on until the age of Hadrian
cannot be used to determine his date, for it is clearly made up from the quite
credible statement of Quadratus (Eusebius, iv, 3) that some of those cured by
our Lord lived until his own time and the fact that Quandratus wrote under Hadrian;
the name of Papias has been substituted by the egregious excerptor. The work of
Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Marcia L. Bellafiore
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Montanists. Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the
Phrygians" (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West)
Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses,
Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.
CHRONOLOGY
An anonymous anti-Montanist writer, cited by Eusebius, addressed his work to Abercius
Marcellus, Bishop of Hieropolis, who died about 200. Maximilla had prophesied
continual wars and troubles, but this writer declared that he wrote more than
thirteen years after her death, yet no war, general or partial, had taken place,
but on the contrary the Christians enjoyed permanent peace through the mercy of
God (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, xvi, 19). These thirteen years can be identified
only with the twelve and a half years of Commodus (17 March, 180--31 December,
192). The wars between rival emperors began early in 193, so that this anonymous
author wrote not much later than January, 193, and Maximilla must have died about
the end of 179, not long before Marcus Aurelius. Montanus and Priscilla had died
yet earlier. Consequently the date given by Eusebius in his "Chronicle" -- eleventh
(or twelfth) year of Marcus, i.e. about 172 -- for the first appearance of Montanus
leaves insufficient time for the development of the sect, which we know further
to have been of great importance in 177, when the Church of Lyons wrote to Pope
Eleutherius on the subject. Again, the Montanists are co-ordinated with the martyr
Thraseas, mentioned chronologically between Polycarp (155) and Sagaris (under
Sergius Paulus, 166-7) in the letter of Polycrates to Pope Victor; the date of
Thraseas is therefore about 160, and the origin of Montanism must be yet earlier.
Consequently, Zahn, Harnack, Duchesne, and others (against Volter and Voigt, who
accept the late date given by Eusebius, regard St. Epiphanius as giving the true
date of the rise of the sect, "about the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius" (that
is, about the year 156 or 157).
Bonwetsch, accepting Zahn's view that previously Epiphanius had given
the twelfth year of Antoninus Pius where he should have said M. Aurelius, wishes
similarly to substitute that emperor here, so that we would get 179, the very
date of the death of Maximilla. But the emendation is unnecessary in either case.
In "Hereses", xlvi, 1, Epiphanius clearly meant the earlier date, whether right
or wrong; and in xlviii, 1, he is not dating the death of Maximilla but the first
appearance of the sect. From Eusebius, V, xvi, 7, we learn that this was in the
proconsulship of Gratus. Such a proconsul of Asia is not known. Bonwetsch accepts
Zahn's suggestion to read "Quadratus", and points out that there was a Quadratus
in 155 (if that is the year of Polycarp's death, which was under Quadratus), and
another in 166, so that one of these years was the real date of the birth of Montanism.
But 166 for Quadratus merely depends on Schmid's chronology of Aristides, which
has been rejected by Ramsay and others in favor of the earlier chronology worked
out by Waddington, who obtained 155 for the Quadratus of Aristides as well as
for the Quadratus of Polycarp. Now it is most probable that Epiphanius's authority
counted the years of emperors from the September preceding their accession (as
Hegesippus seems to have done), and therefore the nineteenth year of Pius would
be Sept., 155-Sept., 156. Even if the later and Western mode of reckoning from
the January after accession is used, the year 157 can be reconciled with the proconsulship
of Quadratus in 155, if we remember that Epiphanius merely says "about the nineteenth
year of Pius", without vouching for strict accuracy. He tells us further on that
Maximilla prophesied: "After me there shall be no prophetess, but the end", whereas
he was writing after 290 years, more or less, in the year 375 or 376. To correct
the evident error Harnack would read 190, which brings us roughly to the death
of Maximilla (385 for 379). But ekaton for diakosia is a big change. It is more
likely that Epiphanius is calculating from the date he had himself given, 19th
of Pius=156, as he did not know that of Maximilla's death; his "more or less"
corresponds to his former "about". So we shall with Zahn adopt Scaliger's conjecture
diakosia enneakaideka for diakosia enenekonta, which brings us from 156 to 375!9
years. As Apollonius wrote forty years after the sect emerged, his work must be
dated about 196.
MONTANISM IN ASIA MINOR
Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of
Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele;
but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the
dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess". The
same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions,
the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in
the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method
of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with
terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness);
beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia),
he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets
did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves
as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the
Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the
Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor
an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Her.", xlviii,
11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven
off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet--cf. Matt., vii,
15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power." This possession
by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described
by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the
plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Her.", xlviii, 4).
We hear of no false doctrines at first. The Paraclete ordered a few
fasts and abstinences; the latter were strict xerophagioe, but only for two weeks
in the year, and even then the Saturdays and Sundays did not count (Tertullian,
"De jej.", xv). Not only was virginity strongly recommended (as always by the
Church), but second marriages were disapproved. Chastity was declared by Priscilla
to be a preparation for ecstasy: "The holy [chaste] minister knows how to minister
holiness. For those who purify their hearts [reading purificantes enim corda,
by conjecture for purificantia enim concordal] both see visions, and placing their
head downwards (!) also hear manifest voices, as saving as they are secret" (Tertullian,
"Exhort." X, in one MS.). It was rumored, however, that Priscilla had been married,
and had left her husband. Martyrdom was valued so highly that flight from persecution
was disapproved, and so was the buying off of punishment. "You are made an outlaw?"
said Montanus, "it is good for you. For he who is not outlawed among men is outlawed
in the Lord. Be not confounded. It is justice which hales you in public. Why are
you confounded, when you are sowing praise? Power comes, when you are stared at
by men." And again: "Do not desire to depart this life in beds, in miscarriages,
in soft fevers, but in martyrdoms, that He who suffered for you may be glorified"
(Tertullian, "De fuga", ix; cf. "De anima", lv). Tertullian says: "Those who receive
the Paraclete, know neither to flee persecution nor to bribe" (De fuga, 14), but
he is unable to cite any formal prohibition by Montanus.
So far, the most that can be said of these didactic utterances is
that there was a slight tendency to extravagance. The people of Phrygia were accustomed
to the orgiastic cult of Cybele. There were doubtless many Christians there. The
contemporary accounts of Montanism mention Christians in otherwise unknown villages:
Ardabau on the Mysian border, Pepuza, Tymion, as well as in Otrus, Apamea, Cumane,
Eumenea. Early Christian inscriptions have been found at Otrus, Hieropolis, Pepuza
(of 260), Trajanopolis (of 279), Eumenea (of 249) etc. (see Harnack, "Expansion
of Christianity", II, 360). There was a council at Synnada in the third century.
The "Acta Theodoti" represent the village of Malus near Ancyra as entirely Christian
under Diocletian. Above all we must remember what crowds of Christians were found
in Pontus and Bithynia by Pliny in 112, not only in the cities but in country
places. No doubt, therefore, there were numerous Christians in the Phrygian villages
to be drawn by the astounding phenomena. Crowds came to Pepuza, it seems, and
contradiction was provoked. In the very first days Apollinarius, a successor of
St. Papias as Bishop of Hierapolis in the southwestern corner of the province,
wrote against Montanus. Eusebius knew this letter from its being enclosed by Serapion
of Antioch (about 191-212) in a letter addressed by him to the Christians of Caria
and Pontus. Apollinarius related that ?lius Publius Julius of Debeltum (now Burgas)
in Thrace, swore that "Sotas the blessed who was in Anchialus [on the Thracian
coast] had wished to cast out the demon from Priscilla; but the hypocrites would
not allow it." Clearly Sotas was dead, and could not speak for himself. The anonymous
writer tells us that some thought Montanus to be possessed by an evil spirit,
and a troubler of the people; they rebuked him and tried to stop his prophesying;
the faithful of Asia assembled in many places, and examining the prophecies declared
them profane, and condemned the heresy, so that the disciples were thrust out
of the Church and its communion.
It is difficult to say how soon this excommunication took place in
Asia. Probably from the beginning some bishops excluded the followers of Montanus,
and this severity was growing common before the death of Montanus; but it was
hardly a general rule much before the death of Maximilla in 179; condemnation
of the prophets themselves, and mere disapproval of their disciples was the first
stage. We hear of holy persons, including the bishops Zoticus of Cumana and Julian
of Apamea, attempting to exorcise Maximilla at Pepuza, doubtless after the death
of Montanus. But Themison prevented them (Eusebius, V, xvi, 17; xviii, 12). This
personage was called a confessor but, according to the anonymous writer, he had
bought himself off. He published "a catholic epistle, in imitation of the Apostle",
in support of his party. Another so- called martyr, called Alexander, was for
many years a companion of Maximilla, who, though a prophetess, did not know that
it was for robbery, and not "for the Name", that he had been condemned by the
proconsul ?milius Frontinus (date unknown) in Ephesus; in proof of this the public
archives of Asia are appealed to. Of another leader, Alcibiades, nothing is known.
The prophets are accused of taking gifts under the guise of offerings; Montanus
sent out salaried preachers; the prophetesses painted their faces, dyed their
eyelids with stibium, wore ornaments and played at dice. But these accusations
may be untrue. The great point was the manner of prophesying. It was denounced
as contrary to custom and to tradition. A Catholic writer, Miltiades, wrote a
book to which the anonymous author refers, "How a prophet ought not to speak in
ecstasy". It was urged that the phenomena were those of possession, not those
of the Old Testament prophets, or of New Testament prophets like Silas, Agabus,
and the daughters of Philip the Deacon; or of prophets recently known in Asia,
Quadratus (Bishop of Athens) and Ammia, prophetess of Philadelphia, of whom the
Montanist prophets boasted of being successors. To speak in the first person as
the Father or the Paraclete appeared blasphemous. The older prophets had spoken
"in the Spirit", as mouthpieces of the Spirit, but to have no free will, to be
helpless in a state of madness, was not consonant with the text: "The spirits
of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Montanus declared: "The Lord hath
sent me as the chooser, the revealer, the interpreter of this labor, this promise,
and this covenant, being forced, willingly or unwillingly, to learn the gnosis
of God." The Montanists appealed to Gen., ii, 21: "The Lord sent an ecstasy [ektasin]
upon Adam"; Ps. cxv, 2: "I said in my ecstasy"; Acts, x, 10: "There came upon
him [Peter] an ecstasy"; but these texts proved neither that an ecstasy of excitement
was proper to sanctity, nor that it was a right state in which to prophesy.
A better argument was the declaration that the new prophecy was of
a higher order than the old, and therefore unlike it. It came to be thought higher
than the Apostles, and even beyond the teaching of Christ. Priscilla went to sleep,
she said, at Pepuza, and Christ came to her and slept by her side "in the form
of a woman, clad in a bright garment, and put wisdom into me, and revealed to
me that this place is holy, and that here Jerusalem above comes down". "Mysteries"
(sacraments?) were celebrated there publicly. In Epiphanius's time Pepuza was
a desert, and the village was gone. Marcellina, surviving the other two, prophesied
continual wars after her death--no other prophet, but the end.
It seems on the whole that Montanus had no particular doctrine, and
that his prophetesses went further than he did. The extravagances of his sect
were after the deaths of all three; but it is difficult to know how far we are
to trust our authorities. The anonymous writer admits that he has only an uncertain
report for the story that Montanus and Maximilla both hanged themselves, and that
Themison was carried into the air by a devil, flung down, and so died. The sect
gained much popularity in Asia. It would seem that some Churches were wholly Montanist.
The anonymous writer found the Church at Ancyra in 193 greatly disturbed about
the new prophecy. Tertullian's lost writing "De Ecstasi", in defense of their
trances, is said by Pr?destinatus to have been an answer to Pope Soter (H?r.,
xxvi, lxxxvi), who had condemned or disapproved them; but the authority is not
a good one. He has presumably confounded Soter with Sotas, Bishop of Anchialus.
In 177 the Churches of Lyons and Vienne sent to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia
their celebrated account of the martyrdoms that had been taking place. Eusebius
tells us that at the same time they enclosed letters which had been written in
prison by the martyrs on the question of the Montanists. They sent the same by
Iren?us to Pope Eleutherius. Eusebius says only that they took a prudent and most
orthodox view. It is probable that they disapproved of the prophets, but were
not inclined to extreme measures against their followers. It was not denied that
the Montanists could count many martyrs; it was replied to their boast, that all
the heretics had many, and especially the Marcionites, but that true martyrs like
Gaius and Alexander of Eumenea had refused to communicate with fellow martyrs
who had approved the new prophecy (Anon. in Eusebius, V, xvi, 27). The acts of
Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice (the last of these threw herself into the fire),
martyrs of Thyatira under Marcus Aurelius (about 161-9), may exhibit an influence
of Montanism on the martyrs.
MONTANISM IN THE WEST
A second-century pope (more probably Eleutherius than Victor) was inclined to
approve the new prophecies, according to Tertullian, but was dissuaded by Praxeas
(q.v.). Their defender in Rome was Proclus or Proculus, much reverenced by Tertullian.
A disputation was held by Gaius against him in the presence of Pope Zephyrinus
(about 202-3, it would seem). As Gaius supported the side of the Church, Eusebius
calls him a Churchman (II, xxv, 6), and is delighted to find in the minutes of
the discussion that Gaius rejected the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse,
and attributed it to Cerinthus. But Gaius was the worse of the two, for we know
from the commentary on the Apocalypse by Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the twelfth
century (see Theodore H. Robinson in "Expositor", VII, sixth series, June, 1906),
that he rejected the Gospel and Epistles of St. John as well, and attributed them
all to Cerinthus. It was against Gaius that Hippolytus wrote his "Heads against
Gaius" and also his "Defense of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John" (unless
these are two names for the same work). St. Epiphanius used these works for his
fifty-first heresy (cf. Philastrius, "H?r." lx), and as the heresy had no name
he invented that of Alogoi, meaning at once "the unreasoning" and "those who reject
the Logos". We gather that Gaius was led to reject the Gospel out of opposition
to Proclus, who taught (Pseudo-Tertullian, "De Pr?sc.", lii) that "the Holy Ghost
was in the Apostles, but the Paraclete was not, and that the Paraclete published
through Montanus more than Christ revealed in the Gospel, and not only more, but
also better and greater things"; thus the promise of the Paraclete (John 14:16)
was not to the Apostles but to the next age. St. Iren?us refers to Gaius without
naming him (III, xi, 9): "Others, in order that they may frustrate the gift of
the Spirit, which in the last days has been poured upon the human race according
to the good pleasure of the Father, do not admit that form [lion] which corresponds
with the Gospel of John in which the Lord promised to send the Paraclete; but
they reject the Gospel and with it the prophetic Spirit. Unhappy, indeed, in that,
wishing to have no false prophets [reading with Zahn pseudoprophetas esse nolunt
for pseudoprophetoe esse volunt], they drive away the grace of prophecy from the
Church; resembling persons who, to avoid those who come in hypocrisy, withdraw
from communion even with brethren." The old notion that the Alogi were an Asiatic
sect (see ALOGI) is no longer tenable; they were the Roman Gaius and his followers,
if he had any. But Gaius evidently did not venture to reject the Gospel in his
dispute before Zephyrinus, the account of which was known to Dionysius of Alexandria
as well as to Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, III, xx, 1, 4). It is to be noted that Gaius
is a witness to the sojourn of St. John in Asia, since he considers the Johannine
writings to be forgeries, attributed by their author Cerinthus to St. John; hence
he thinks St. John is represented by Cerinthus as the ruler of the Asiatic Churches.
Another Montanist (about 200), who seems to have separated from Proclus, was Aeschines,
who taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as a Monarchian of the
type of Noetus or Sabellius.
But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about
150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt
the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from
this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from
which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later.
His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi",
written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The
work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Pr?destinatus (xxvi) is important: "In
this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do
not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In fact Tertullian
holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages
and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins
by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences. Catholics
are the Psychici as opposed to the "spiritual" followers of the Paraclete; the
Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love
to remarry. Tertullian evidently exaggerated those parts of the Montanist teaching
which appealed to himself, caring little for the rest. He has no idea of making
a pilgrimage to Pepuza, but he speaks of joining in spirit with the celebration
of the Montanist feasts in Asia Minor. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas
are by some thought to reflect a period a Carthage when the Montanist teaching
was arousing interest and sympathy but had not yet formed a schism.
The following of Tertullian cannot have been large; but a Tertullianist
sect survived him and its remnants were reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine
(Haer., lxxxvi). About 392-4 an African lady, Octaviana, wife of Hesperius, a
favorite of the Duke Arbogastes and the usurper Maximus, brought to Rome a Tertullianist
priest who raved as if possessed. He obtained the use of the church of Sts. Processus
and Martinianus on the Via Aurelia, but was turned out by Theodosius, and he and
Octaviana were heard of no more. Epiphanius distinguished a sect of Montanists
as Pepuzians or Quintillians (he calls Priscilla also Quintilla). He says they
had some foolish sayings which gave thanks to Eve for eating of the tree of knowledge.
They used to sleep at Pepuza in order to see Christ as Priscilla had done. Often
in their church seven virgins would enter with lamps, dressed in white, to prophesy
to the people, whom by their excited action they would move to tears; this reminds
us of some modern missions rather than of the Irvingite "speaking with tongues",
with which the Montanist ecstasies have often been compared. These heretics were
said to have women for their bishops and priests, in honor of Eve. They were called
"Artotyrites", because their sacrament was of bread and cheese. Pr?destinatus
says the Pepuzians did not really differ from other Montanists, but despised all
who did not actually dwell at the "new Jerusalem". There is a well-known story
that the Montanists (or at least the Pepuzians) on a certain feast took a baby
child whom they stuck all over with brazen pins. They used the blood to make cakes
for sacrifice. If the child died it was looked upon as a martyr; if it lived,
as a high-priest. This story was no doubt a pure invention, and was especially
denied in the "De Ecstasi" of Tertullian. An absurd nickname for the sect was
Tascodrugitoe, from Phrygian words meaning peg and nose, because they were said
to put their forefinger up their nose when praying "in order to appear dejected
and pious" (Epiphanius, Haer., xlviii, 14).
It is interesting to take St. Jerome's account, written in 384, of
the doctrines of Montanism as he believed them to be in his own time (Ep., xli).
He describes them as Sabellians in their idea of the Trinity, as forbidding second
marriage, as observing three Lents "as though three Saviours had suffered". Above
bishops they have "Cenones" (probably not koinonoi, but a Phrygian word) and patriarchs
above these at Pepuza. They close the door of the Church to almost every sin.
They say that God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets,
took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us.
And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second
method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving
them the plenitude which St. Paul had not (1 Corinthians 13:9). St. Jerome refuses
to believe the story of the blood of a baby; but his account is already exaggerated
beyond what the Montanists would have admitted that they held. Origen ("Ep. ad
Titum" in "Pamph. Apol.", I fin.) is uncertain whether they are schismatics or
heretics. St. Basil is amazed that Dionysius of Alexandria admitted their baptism
to be valid (Ep., clxxxii). According to Philastrius (H?r., xlix) they baptized
the dead. Sozomen (xviii) tells us that they observed Easter on 6 April or on
the following Sunday. Germanus of Constantinople (P.G., XCVIII, 44) says they
taught eight heavens and eight degrees of damnation. The Christian emperors from
Constantine onwards made laws against them, which were scarcely put into execution
in Phrygia (Sozomen, II, xxxii). But gradually they became a small and secret
sect. The bones of Montanus were dug up in 861. The numerous Montanist writings
(bibloi apeiroi, "Philosophumena", VIII, xix) are all lost. It seems that a certain
Asterius Urbanus made a collection of the prophecies (Euseb., V, xvi, 17).
A theory of the origin of Montanism, originated by Ritschl, has been
followed by Harnack, Bonwetsch, and other German critics. The secularizing in
the second century of the Church by her very success and the disappearance of
the primitive "Enthusiasmus" made a difficulty for "those believers of the old
school who protested in the name of the Gospel against this secular Church, and
who wished to gather together a people prepared for their God regardless alike
of numbers an circumstances". Some of these "joined an enthusiastic movement which
had originated amongst a small circle in a remote province, and had at first a
merely local importance. Then, in Phrygia, the cry for a strict Christian life
was reinforced by the belief in a new and final outpouring of the Spirit. . .The
wish was, as usual, father to the thought; and thus societies of 'spiritual' Christians
were formed, which served, especially in times of persecution, as rallying points
for all those, far and near, who sighed for the end of the world and the excessus
e soeculo, and who wished in these last days to lead a holy life. These zealots
hailed the appearance of the Paraclete in Phrygia, and surrendered themselves
to his guidance" (Harnack in "Encycl. Brit.", London, 1878, s.v. Montanism). This
ingenious theory has its basis only in the imagination, nor have any facts ever
been advanced in its favor.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Robert B. Olson
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
A Greek hagiographical text, which has, however, undergone alterations, and a
Greek inscription of the second century have made known to us a certain Abercius,
Bishop of Hieropolis, in Phrygia, who, about the middle of the century in question,
left his episcopal city and visited Rome. On his way home he travelled through
Syria and Mesopotamia, and was received with great honours in various places.
He died shortly after his return to Hieropolis, but not before he had composed
his own epitaph, conveying a most vivid impression of all he had admired during
his stay in Rome. This epitaph may well have inspired the Life of Abercius such
as it has come down to us, since all its details may be explained by the hints
contained in the inscription, or else belong to the common foundation of all legends
of saints. The Life, as a matter of fact, includes a transcription of the epitaph.
Tillemont was greatly struck by the ideas therein expressed, and Pitra endeavoured
to prove its authenticity and its important bearing on Christian symbolism. Renan
regarded both the Life and inscription as fanciful compositions, but in 1882 an
English traveller, W. Ramsay, discovered at Kelendres, near Synnada, in Phrygia
Salutaris (Asia Minor), a Christian stele (inscribed slab) bearing the date of
the year 300 of the Phrygian era (A.D. 216). The inscription in question recalled
the memory of a certain Alexander, son of Anthony. De Rossi and Duchesne at once
recognized in it phrases similar to those in the epitaph of Abercius. On comparison
it was found that the inscription in memory of Alexander corresponded, almost
word for word, with the first and last verses of the epitaph of the Bishop of
Hieropolis; all the middle part was missing. Mr. Ramsay, on a second visit to
the site of Hieropolis, in 1883, discovered two new fragments covered with inscriptions,
built into the masonry of the public baths. These fragments, which are now in
the Vatican Christian Museum, filled out the middle part of the stele inscribed
with the epitaph of Abercius. It now became possible, with the help of the text
preserved in the Life, to restore the original text of the epitaph with practical
certainty. Certain lacunae, letters effaced or cut off by breaks in the stone,
have been the subject of profound discussions, resulting in a text which may henceforth
be looked on as settled, and which it may be useful to give here. The capital
letters at the beginning and end of the inscription represent the parts found
on the inscription of Alexander, the son of Anthony, those of the middle part
are the remaining fragments of the epitaph of Abercius, while the small letters
give the reading according to the manuscripts of the Life:
"The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there
I might have in time a resting-place of my body, [I] being by name Abercius, the
disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and
on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this [shepherd] taught
me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me to contemplate
majesty, and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled; there also I saw
a people bearing a shining mark. And I saw the land of Syria and all [its] cities
Nisibis [I saw] when I passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I
had Paul. . . . Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my
food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with
her hands from a fountain and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat,
it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread. These things
I, Abercius, having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I
was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every
fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put another
grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the]
Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one
thousand pieces of gold".
The interpretation of this inscription has stimulated ingenious efforts and very
animated controversies. In 1894 G. Ficker, supported by O. Hirschfeld, strove
to prove that Abercius was a priest of Cybele. In 1895 A. Harnack offered an explanation
which was sufficiently obscure, making Abercius the representative of an ill-defined
religious syncretism arbitrarily combined in such a fashion as to explain all
portions of the inscription which were otherwise inexplicable. In 1896, Dieterich
made Abercius a priest of Attis. These plausible theories have been refuted by
several learned archaeologists, especially by De Rossi, Duchesne, and Cumont.
Nor is there any further need to enter into the questions raised in one quarter
or another; the following conclusions are indisputably historical. The epitaph
of Abercius is generally, and with good reason, regarded as older than that of
Alexander, the son of Anthony, i.e. prior to the year of Our Lord 216. The subject
of it may be identified with a writer named Abercius Marcellus, author of a work
against the Montanists, some fragments of which have been preserved by Eusebius.
As the treatise in question was written about the year 193, the epitaph may be
assigned to the last years of the second, or to the beginning of the third, century.
The writer was bishop of a little town, the name of which is wrongly given in
the Life, since he belongs to Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris, and not to Hierapolis
in Phrygia Pacatiensis. The proof of this fact given by Duchesne is all that could
be wished for. The text of the inscription itself is of the greatest possible
importance in connection with the symbolism of the early Church. The poem of sixteen
verses which forms the epitaph shows plainly that the language used is one not
understood by all; Let the brother who shall understand this pray for Abercius.
The bishop's journey to Rome is merely mentioned, but on his way home he gives
us the principal stages of his itinerary. He passed along the Syrian coast and,
possibly, came to Antioch, thence to Nisibis, after-having traversed the whole
of Syria, while his return to Hieropolis may have been by way of Edessa. The allusion
to St. Paul the Apostle, which a gap in the text renders indecipherable, may originally
have told how the traveller followed on his way back to his country the stages
of St. Paul's third missionary journey, namely: Issus, Tarsus, Derbe, Iconium,
Antioch in Pisidia, and Apamea Cibotus, which would bring him into the heart of
Phrygia. The inscription bears witness of no slight value to the importance of
the Church of Rome in the second century. A mere glance at the text allows us
to note: (1) The evidence of baptism which marks the Christian people with its
dazzling seal; (2) The spread of Christianity, whose members Abercius meets with
everywhere; (3) The receiving of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of Mary, in
the Eucharist, (4) under the species of Bread and Wine. The liturgical cultus
of Abercius presents no point of special interest; his name appears for the first
time in the Greek menologies and synaxaries of the tenth century, but is not found
in the Martyrology of St. Jerome.
H. Leclercq, ed.
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
A Christian apologist, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the second century. He became famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day, whose errors he showed to be entirely borrowed from the pagans. He wrote two books against the Jews, five against the pagans, and two on "Truth." In 177 he published an eloquent "Apologia" for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and appealing to the Emperor's own experience with the "Thundering Legion", whose prayers won him the victory over the Quadi. The exact date of his death is not known, but it was probably while Marcus Aurelius was still Emperor. None of his writings is extant. His feast is kept 8 January.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (A. D. 170 and onwards), wrote an " Apology for the Christian faith" (logoi huper tes pisteos apologias) to the emperor M. Antoninus. He also wrote against the Jews and the Gentiles, and against the heresies of the Montanists and the Eneratites, and some other works, all of which are lost. (Euseb. H. E. iv. 27, v. 19; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. 26, Epist. 84; Nicephorus, iv. 11; Photius, Cod. 14; Theodoret. de Haeret. Fab. iii. 2; Chronicon Paschale)
Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, flourished A. D. 253. He was the author of a book entitled, On the new things introduced by Christ into the world ti kainon eisenenke Christos eis ton kosmon. keph. th; not extant. (Suid.)
Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 431. He was sent by John, bishop of Antioch, to advocate the cause of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. His hostility to St. Cyril was such, that he openly charged him with Apollinaranism, and rejected the communion of John, Theodoret, and the other Eastern bishops, on their reconciliation with him. He appealed to the pope, but was rejected, and was at last banished by the emperor to Famothis in Egypt. Twenty-three letters of his are extant in Latin in the S/ynodicon adversus Tragoediam Irenaci ap. Novam Collectionem Conciliorum a Baluzio, Paris, 1683.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
