Montanism, known for its emphasis on the gift of prophecy, was named after its founder, Montanus. Montanism is frequently compared to contemporary Pentecostal and Charismatic expressions by both proponents and opponents of charismata. Montanism remains an enigma in the history of the early Church due to the lack of extant documents. One must rely upon a limited amount of information in an attempt to analyze the Montanists. This fragmentary information, which is in no way unanimous, has resulted in contradictory conclusions. Opinions remain divided as to whether Montanism was a heretical scourge, or a godly movement, representing the best of primitive Christianity.

Those who believe that the Montanists were justly anathematized, remain divided in their consensus as to why Montanus and his prophets were regarded as heretics. Some of the early documents indicate that the Montanists were condemned because they were prone to ecstatic fits of insanity while others conclude that it was due to their theology.

Those who see the Montanists as ancient allies believe that they were one of the last great strongholds of the “primitive Church.” The Montanists’ opposition of the established Church is regarded as a noble effort to withstand the growing tide of lukewarmness within an increasingly corrupted and institutionalized Church.

A strong case can be made on behalf of the Montanists if one wishes to argue that they represented a movement which was part of a prophetic continuum from both the Old and New Testament periods. They appeared to be a people who sought to preserve the primitive Church in their zeal for holiness and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants, beginning with John Wesley, [1] point to Tertullian and Montanus as the iconic examples of genuine primitive Christianity.

While not necessarily borrowed from Wesley, there are others who would agree with his conception of the Montanists. This understanding serves as a template, employed to juxtapose various Protestant Charismatic traditions against the Orthodox Church.  The unquestioned assumption in this paradigm includes the belief that the Church was pure while under persecution, and gradually drifted into corruption, deviating from its primitive roots, with the Emperor Constantine sealing the fate of primitive Christianity. [2]

Those who advocate this view argue that there was nothing wrong with the doctrines of the Montanists. The only “heresy” of the Montanists was their uncompromising commitment to primitive Christianity, for which they were unjustly ostracized and censured. This leads to the logical conclusion that the real motives for silencing the Montanists were ecclesial jealousy and an inability to discern the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

Whenever modern Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians employ this template to defend the Montanists, they are borrowing a theoretical construct from their Protestant ancestors, who developed the science of Church History. Georges Florovsky describes the flaw in this science when he writes, “… what they saw in history was merely the genesis of decadence (it was their purpose to prove this), the object of their research being rather ‘primitive Christianity,’ to wit, something which antecedes the history of the Church. Such is the very point of ‘modernism.’ It implies a sort of unbelief toward history …” [3]

Prior to Florovsky’s observation, Aleksei Khomiakov (1804-1860) wrote a similar observation: “… we see savants of Protestantism exhaust themselves in fruitless efforts to find in the organization of the early Church something that could justify the disorganization in their communities.” [4]

The challenge, then, is to bring the Montanists out of obscurity through a careful analysis of the limited documentation. The objective is to eliminate some of the ambiguity which surrounds this movement by focusing on some of the previous conclusions in order to define Montanism with more precise clarity. The historical approach will be consistent with the Florovskyian spirit which he describes in his own words: “This historical skepticism is overcome in the Church through the catholicity of its experience, far beneath the surface, on which a humanist’s glance strays and skids.” [5]

Who were the Montanists?

Montanism was named after its founder, Montanus. There are still varying opinions on the date of its inception, ranging from A.D. 156 to A.D. 170. Little is known about Montanus. Some historians have wrongly asserted that he had been a priest in the cult of Cybele, a cult of Phrygia. There is neither a historical record nor a single shred of evidence to conclude that Montanus had been a priest in this pagan cult. The only connection is the coincidental similarity between the cult of Cybele and the Montanists when it came to ascetical practices and prophetic utterances.

The Montanists were also known as Phrygians or Cataphyrgians because of their influence in the region of Phrygia. They were also referred to as Pepuziani because their ministry was centralized in the Phrygian village of Pepuza, which they prophesied was to become the “New Jerusalem.” The influence of the Montanists really began to flourish in the seventies of the second century, spreading throughout Asia Minor, North Africa, Syria, Thrace and Gaul, eventually making its way to Rome. The degree of their influence, however, may not have been as widespread in the Church as some have assumed. Irenaeus does not even address the problem of the Montanists in his treatise Against Heresies, indicating, perhaps, their relative insignificance. [6] Eusebius cites an anonymous author who wrote, “Howbeit, there were but few who were deceived by the Phyrgians.” [7]

The leaders of this “prophetic movement” called for people to follow them in the new thing which God was doing, as they prepared for the apocalyptic days and the immediate return of the Lord. The Montanists believed the Lord would, in the very near future, set up His Kingdom on earth for a millennial reign. When He returned the New Jerusalem would descend on the village of Pepuza, which, coincidentally, is the central headquarters of Montanus.

Unlike some of the other heretical groups, the Montanists were in agreement with the Church on some basic doctrines. Hyppolytus records that the Montanists agreed with the Church about God the Father as Creator and “as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ.” [8] The most apparent defect of Montanism was the prevailing spirit of pride which motivated its participants. What can be derived from Patristic sources about the Montanists are several practices and doctrines which were problematic. They include the following points:

1. The manner in which they prophesied
2. The content of their prophecies
3. The Montanist concept of  structure and authority within church government
4. Finances
5. The fasting practices
6. Marriage and celibacy
7. Intolerance for the weaker brethren
8. Monarchianism

1. The manner in which they prophesied

One of the sharpest criticisms against the Montanists was directed at the manner in which they prophesied. The Montanists were accused of being in a frenzied state of ecstasy and “involuntary madness of soul” when they prophesied. Apolinarius of Hierapolis, who set forth this argument, writes that Montanus, as he “raved began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.” [9] Some people have interpreted this comment about babbling as a reference to the Pentecostal phenomna of “speaking in tongues.” There is simply not enough documentation to verify that this was the intended meaning of the word “babble” when Apolinarius wrote this. Of the women he wrote, that Montanus “filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly, unreasonably and strangely …” [10] Another leader in the second century, by the name of Miltiades, also rejects this state of ecstasy, asserting, “They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit.” [11]

Contemporary critics of modern Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, have latched on to these allegations. They assume that this was the primary reason that the Montanists were condemned by the early Church. Thus the babbling of the Montanists is assumed to be the same thing as Charismatic Christians “speaking in tongues,” and the state of irrational emotionalism is regarded to be what the Montanists had in common with contemporary Pentecostal manifestations.

Miltiades seems to have been offended by the demonstrative method of the Montanist’s prophesying. While he argues that the Montanists “cannot show that one of the old or one the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit,” he ignores some very shocking examples in the Scriptures. [12]

Either Miltiades overlooked these examples, or he was describing phenomena among the Montanists which were entirely different than those found within the Scriptures.  While Miltiades may have erred by overlooking these examples in the Scriptures, it would be equally erroneous to believe that these manifestations were the normative experience of any individual or of the Church in general.

Apparently, for the Montanists, falling into frequent states of ecstasy was the norm rather than the exception. While one finds rare examples of unusual experiences and manifestations in the Scriptures, the Montanists believed that such states were the exclusive normative manner for prophesying.

It is also difficult to ascertain just what is meant in the descriptions of their frenzied and wild behavior. One must be cautious when applying the account in the Eccelsiastical History of Eusebius. The opinions of Eusebius do not necessarily represent the prevailing understanding of the Church. Eusebius chose to repeat the allegations of a couple of critics. There is no indication that those reflections suggested the general understanding of the Church, in its ruling on Montanism. Even if this was the opinion of the Church, one cannot conclude that the ruling of the Church on Montanism represents the estimation of the Orthodox Church on contemporary Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity.

Once the Church made her ruling against the Montanists in an Ecumenical Council, the canon mentions nothing about the emotional manifestations. In the end, one must conclude that there was something beyond the ecstasy of the Montanists which led to their fate of being regarded as heretics.

2. The content of their prophecies

The anathema of the Montanists was not because they believed in the gift of prophecy. [13] It was because of the content of their prophecies combined with extravagant assertions about the authority of their prophesying. St. Jerome wrote, “We tell them that we do not so much reject prophecy … as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new.” While, St. Cyril of Jerusalem strongly condemned the Montanists, he taught that the Holy Spirit still graced some souls with the gift of prophecy. [14]

The Montanists professed to be recipients of the “new prophecy.” This prophecy was more authoritative, they said, than anything the Bishops had to say. The Montanist prophets asserted that their charismatic authority, which came directly from God, was superior to the authority of the institutional Church and Sacred Scriptures. The “new prophecy” represented a revelation of the Gospel which had either been lost or was never really understood until the prophesying of Montanus. [15] Because the revelations which were received by the Montanists represented a completion of progressive revelation, their prophetic revelations were considered more complete and, therefore, superior to the understanding of the original Apostles.

There are very few recorded prophecies of the Montanists. Epiphanius recorded a few brief prophecies. Some modern defendants of the Montanists have asserted that there was nothing wrong with the content of their prophecies.

There are some examples with disturbing contents which do not require much discernment to evaluate. Priscilla, for example, reports that Christ appeared to her in the form of a woman. [16] The fact remains that Christ dwells in a human body which is male in anatomy and He is neither androgynous nor transgender. It is apparent that Priscilla was projecting her own subconscious feminine views on to the Son of God (Or in this case, the Daughter of God). St. Gregory the Theologian may have been referring to this agenda when he referred to the “evil and feminine spirit” of Montanus. [17]

Montanus was accused of claiming to be the Holy Spirit. St. Basil the Great (A.D. 329 - 379) writes that the Pepuzeni actually apply “to Montanus and Priscilla the title of Paraclete.” [18] He went on to assert that the Montanists were baptized “into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla.” [19] Since St. Basil is writing about 150 years after Montanus was alive, he is either mistaken or he is speaking of doctrines which evolved among the ensuing generations of Montanists. There is archeological evidence to support this evolution. An inscription was discovered in the Phrygian village of Numidia which states the following: “Flavius, grandsire of the household. In the name of the Father and the Son and of the Lord Muntanus.” [20]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315 - 386) also alleges that Montanus “was out of his mind and really mad (for he would not have said such things, had he not been mad), dared to say that he was himself the Holy Ghost.” [21] St. Cyril’s information may be questionable because he also writes some rather outlandish accusations which are not repeated by any of the other opponents of the Montanists, with the exception of Epiphanius. [22]

There does appear to be some misinterpretation when it is asserted that Montanus said he was the Holy Spirit. When he was prophesying he seemed to think he was allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through him in the first Person. However, there is no indication that he thought he was the Holy Spirit anymore than the prophets of old presumed to be God because they prophesied in His name in the first Person. [23]

Even if one accepts that Montanus did not believe he was the Holy Spirit, some of the prophecies show a disturbing level of egotism. Whereas true prophecy always testifies of God, false prophecy leads to some form of exaltation of the so-called prophet. Often the self-exaltation is subtle with the prophecy appearing to glorify God but tainted with some reference to the exclusive importance of the messenger. This mixture of truth and error is what misleads the uninformed. Epiphanius wrote of Maximilla, “She speaks truth in her lying words, though against her will. For often unclean spirits are compelled to overthrow themselves, not being spirits of truth, and to recognize their Lord of necessity, willy nilly.” [24]

The Montanists taught that the Holy Spirit had designated Priscilla, Maximilla and Montanus as His chosen vessels. Therefore, the logical conclusion is, as church historian, Henry Chadwick deduces, “To reject them was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” [25]

Maximilla believed that she was called as a final prophetic messenger, preparing the way for the Lord:

“After me shall be no prophetess anymore, but the consummation …” [26]

The Anonymous author whom Eusebius quotes, states that the clearest indication that the Montanists were false prophets is the lack of fulfillment of their predictions. Maximilla, he says, prophesied of a world-wide war and anarchy which never happened before she died or subsequent to her death.

The following message is a most disturbing prophecy of Maximilla, which exalts the authority of the prophetess within the Church:

“The Lord sent me to be the party-leader, informer, interpreter of this task, profession and covenant, constrained whether he will or nill, to learn the knowledge of God.” [27]

3. The Montanist concept of structure and authority in church government

The underlying spirit of pride is not so subtle. Apolinarius wrote that Montanus was “a recent convert” who had “an unquenchable desire for leadership.” [28] This ambition led to a subversive attitude toward the Church. Eusebius cites his Anonymous author, who wrote of the evil spirit behind Montanism who, “Moreover, taught them to blaspheme the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor nor admission into it.” [29] From this we can conclude that the Church opposed the Montanists because the Montanists opposed the Church.

One of the richest sources of information about the Montanists, can be found in the writings of Tertullian, subsequent to his conversion to Montanism. Tertullian had once been a staunch advocate for the episcopal form of church government. He taught that the true Church had a structure of governing bishops whose authority was derived from Apostolic Succession. After his conversion to Montanism he became convinced that the Montanists were a genuine expression of primitive Christianity and that their charismatic authority was the only legitimate authority in the Body of Christ. Even the authority “to bind and to loose” belonged to the Montanists while the episcopate merely presumed to have such authority.

The Montanists believed that the bishops were of far less authority in the Church. Montanus and the prophetesses had the real authority, reducing the episcopate to third in rank behind them. [30] They believed that their prophetic and charismatic gifting was the seal of God’s approval and the apparent lack thereof among the bishops was proof of God’s disapproval of them.

The Montanists also confused authority in Church government in an early form of feminism which advocated a shared matriarchal authority. The prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, were believed, by the Montanists, to be superior to the all-male caste system of clergy. While the Church had always recognized the ability of women to function in the office of a prophetess, the Montanists introduced a matriarchy into the church government, including Priscilla and Maximilla with the aforementioned rank which was above the bishops. It could be argued, from a feminist perspective, that the Montanists were anathematized as part of a chauvinistic agenda – it was the carnal men of the male-dominated clergy who sought to crush the matriarchs beneath the patriarchal foot of the Church.

The charismatic authority of Priscilla and Maximilla was not rejected simply because they were women. They were rejected because they, together with the Montanist men, sought to usurp the authority of the episcopate.

4. Finances

The Montanists were also criticized by Apollonius, of whom we know little, other than he may have been a Bishop in Ephesus. Apollonius alleges that the Montanists were false prophets because they took gifts and money for their prophesying. Apollonius believes that no true prophet would accept any form of payment. He also asserts that they had a structured fund-raising system with “appointed collectors of money,” and that they “provided salaries for those who preached his (Montanus’s) doctrine.” He criticized the Montanists for shady fund-raising tactics which included gathering “their gain not only from rich men, but also the poor, and orphans and widows.” [31]

Apollonius seems to have taken his argument a bit too far since he overlooks that the clergy received salaries. Also, he must have been ignorant of the Didache, a first century document, which instructed the churches to pay the prophets who are truly prophets.

On the other hand, the Didache instructed that prophets were to work with their hands to support themselves if they chose to remain within in local community. Clearly this tradition of the Church, regarding physical labor, was already firmly established. [32] To this present day physical work is regarded as a necessary form of ascetical discipline.

The criticism directed at the Montanists regarding finances, appears to be directly related to a violation of the instructions to work for one’s bread. In this regard, there appears to be a connection between the Montanists and another heretical group, known as the Messalians [33] , who, according to Theodoret, “shun physical labor as iniquitous; and giving themselves over to sloth, call the imaginations of their dreams prophesying.” [34]

5. The fasting practices

The Montanists also taught a much more rigid form of fasting, as superior to that which the Church required. Hippolytus wrote, “They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women.” [35]

There is an account of a Montanist by the name of Alcibiades, who was in prison with other Christians from Lyons. Alciabiades “led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but bread and water.” [36]

There was another prisoner by the name of Attalus who was “a person of distinction … known for his practice in Christian discipline.” [37] Attalus had already faced death, being rescued from the amphitheater by the Governor when he realized Attalus was a Roman. This same Attalus approached Alcibiades and admonished him to eat other food because it was creating a stumbling block for other Christian prisoners. Alciabiades humbled himself and ate food with the rest of the prisoners.

This account, however, is an anomaly. The Montanists were very strict about their fasting, requiring their followers to obey the rules of abstinence which had been revealed through their prophetess.

6. Marriage and celibacy

According to Apollonius, another extreme practice of Montanism included the dissolving of marriages, advocating celibacy in its followers. Priscilla and Maximilla led the way in this matter by leaving their husbands for the sake of their new-found convictions. [38] St. Jerome wrote that the Montanists considered a second marriage by widows to be an act of adultery. [39]

The Montanist value placed on celibacy was due to a belief that sexuality was innately evil. In addition to this attitude about sex was the eschatological belief that the return of Christ would occur in their lifetime. Marriage was an unnecessary interference for people who needed to be preparing for the appearance of Christ.

7. Intolerance for the weaker brethren

The Montanists, in their hyper-zeal were puritanical in their intolerance for weakness. Like the Novatians, the Montanists believed that forgiveness was not possible for those weaker Christians who lapsed during persecution or fell into mortal sin, nor should the weak be received back into fellowship. [40]

This rigid attitude was very dangerous since they claimed to have the exclusive authority to “bind and loose.” Even though they had the charismatic authority to absolve sins, they refused to remit any “capital sins,” such as adultery, alleging that the Holy Spirit refused to forgive such sins. [41]

8. Monarchianism

Montanists were also condemned along with Sabellius for denying the Trinity, and teaching that Jesus is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus (A.D. 170–236) wrote about the Montanists, saying, “And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father Himself is the Son, and that this one came under generation, and suffering and death.” [42] Contemporary language refers to this doctrine as Oneness, which found in such groups as the United  Pentecostals. The Church Fathers refer to this heresy as Monarchianism. It is unclear if all Montanists were part of the Monarchian heresy. Hippolytus was judicious in writing that “some,” rather than “all” Montanists, held to this doctrine. Tertullian was a strong Trinitarian who eventually followed Montanus. None the less, we have several sources which record that the Montanists held to the heretical doctrine that there was only one Person who manifested as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. [43]

Tertullian, no doubt, found himself in quite a conundrum as a defender of the Montanists while, himself, holding a Trinitarian theology. He seems to dance around the issue when he defends the Montanists by writing “… not that Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla preach another God, nor that they disjoin Jesus Christ (from God)…” [44] His defense that they do not “disjoin Jesus Christ from God,” can easily be asserted about either a Monarchist or a Trinitarian. Tertullian conspicuously avoids asserting that they believed in the Trinity even though he knew that the Montanists were accused of being Monarchists.

Tertullian’s letter Against Praxeus is a rather obtuse piece of work which raises more questions than it answers. The person of Praxeus is unknown in history, and yet Tertullian portrays him as man who wielded great influence in Rome, including persuasion with Pope Victor. Tertullian asserts that Pope Victor was about to approve of Montnus, Priscilla and Maximilla until Praxeus turned the bishop against the Montanists. Tertullian states that “Praxeus did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and he crucified the Father.”

It may well be that Tertullian has created a fictitious character in order to distance Montanism from Monarchianism. In order to separate the issues, he writes of an individual who just happens to be both a Monarchist and a staunch opponent of the Montanists. It is too coincidental that this Monarchist is not a Montanist. By shooting down the straw man whom Tertullian created, he attempts to prevent the gift of prophecy (more specifically, the “New Prophecy” of the Montanists) from being rejected through its affiliation with this heresy. This also enables Tertullian to speak indirectly to the issue of Monarchianism without speaking directly to the Montanists.

This theological error regarding the Trinity seems to be one of the primary factors, if not the primary factor, which led to the Montanists being regarded as heretics.

Montanist Pride and Patristic Humility Regarding the Charismata

The most glaring defect in Montanism is the spirit of pride. It infected everything from the content of their prophecies to their self-assumed authority in the Church. The stamp of self-righteous arrogance was expressed through the seal of intolerance which the Montanists demonstrated toward Christians who had fallen into sin. The ascetical standards of the Montanists also gave them a sense of superiority in their fasting and celibacy.

Apolinarius illustrates the tactic of this seducing spirit in Montanism which appealed to the passion of pride: “And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises.” [45] Apolinarius also describes how the followers of Montanus were deluded by their lack of humility: “But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit the prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up.” [46]

It would appear that while there may have been other factors which led to the minimization of prophecy, the primary concern of the Church was humility and meekness. Humility takes precedence over prophecy. Vainglory, pride and jealousy can frequently be the primary motives of those who desire to be a conduit for the supernatural. The Church Fathers encourage us to pursue humility as the most important gift. Abba Nesteros, a fourth century desert Father, speaks of the most splendid gift which we ought to pursue:

“Humility, therefore is the mistress of all virtues, it is the surest foundation of the heavenly building, it is the special and splendid gift of the Savior.” [47]

Another early Church document, The Shepherd of Hermas, written in the second century, about the time Montanism had begun to flourish, wrote about the character traits of a true prophet:

 “First, he who has the Divine Spirit proceeding from above is meek, and peaceable, and humble, and refrains from all iniquity and the vain desire of this world, and contents himself with fewer wants than those of other men, and when he is asked he makes no reply; nor does he speak privately, nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak.” ^[48]

It may well be that the following rebuke in the Shepherd of Hermas was directed at the Montanists:

“First the man who seems to have the Spirit exalts himself, and wishes to have the first seat, and is bold and impudent and talkative, and lives in the midst of many luxuries and many other delusions, and takes rewards for his prophecy; and if he does not receive rewards he does not prophesy. Can, then, the Divine Spirit take rewards and then prophesy? It is not possible that the prophet of God should do this, but prophets of this character are possessed by an earthly spirit… And it associates with doubters and the vain, and prophesies to them in a corner, and deceives them, speaking to them according to their desires, mere empty words.”

St. Anthony the Great (A.D.251-356) was an unusually gifted servant of God. However, St. Anthony expressed a very conservative attitude about things such as prophecy. He cautions that demons will frequently tell about some pending event about to take place. St. Anthony counsels us not to give much credence to such matters:

“Wherefore there is no need to set much value on these things, nor for the sake of them to practice a life of discipline and labor; but that living well we may please God. And we neither ought to pray to know the future, nor to ask for it as a reward of our discipline; but our prayer should be that the Lord may be our fellow-helper for victory over the devil.” ^[49]

St. Anthony counsels us to recognize that demons will try appeal to the ego, and one should ignore such supernatural phenomena:

“When, therefore, they come by night to you and wish to tell the future, or say, ‘We are the angels,’ give no heed, for they lie. Yea even if they praise your discipline and call you blessed, hear them not, and have no dealings with them; but rather sign yourselves and your houses, and pray, and you shall see them vanish.” ^[50]

St. Macarius the Great of Egypt (A.D. 300-390), a man endowed with extraordinary charismata, also indicates the Tradition of the Church regarding humility. He states that the surest indicator for all true prophets or charismatically gifted people is the virtue of humility. If the gifted person demonstrates pride he should not be believed. [51]

Abba Nesteros concurs with the other Fathers, minimizing the significance of charismatic gifts:

“Nor did they think that anyone should be renowned for the gifts and marvels of God, but rather for the fruits of his own good deeds, which are brought about by the efforts of his mind and the power of his works. For often, as was said above, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the truth, both cast out devils and perform the greatest miracles in the name of the Lord.” ^[52]

In the same chapter, Abbot Nesteros says,

“And so we have never found that those works and signs were affected by our fathers, nay, rather when they did possess them by the grace of the Holy Spirit they would never use them, unless perhaps extreme and unavoidable necessity drove them to do so.” ^[53]

While Montanism’s main faults were in its pride and its heretical rejection of the Trinity there were some practices and beliefs which the Church maintained. When monasticism began, we see many of the practices which were advocated by the Montanists. The Montanists saw the need for intense ascetical struggles through more intense fasting. The monastic tradition, which had not yet begun, would readily acknowledge the value of this more intense form of fasting.. Monasticism also adopted the same appreciation for celibacy. It was not unacceptable for a person to leave his or her spouse to pursue a monastic life of celibacy.

We also see the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and particularly the prophetic spirit preserved in the monastic tradition. Closely related to this is an understanding of charismatic authority which belongs to the elder and eldress within the monastic community. This charismatic dynamic is manifested in the interaction between the elder and his disciple where absolute obedience is expected in order to subdue self-will. There was also an understanding, similar to the Montanists, that the elder had the charismatic authority to “bind and to loose” even if he was not in clerical orders. [54]

The one significant difference between monasticism and Montanism, is the recognition of the authority of the bishop. St. Isaac the Syrian (7^th Century) wrote, “Far be it from us solitaries that we should not be subject to the Church or her hierarchs or rulers.” [55] On the other hand, there have been occasions where heresy was rampant among the episcopate. At such times it was often the monastic communities or monastic individuals who withstood the heresiarchs and kept the Church on the Orthodox course.

The Beginning of the End

It seems that the extinction of the Montanists was a result of their own self-destruction which occurred long before Constantine and the authoritative structure of the Ecumenical Councils. Although none of the early historians were able to verify the veracity of the historical account, it was said that Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla committed suicide by hanging. [56]

Tertullian, The most well-known advocate for the Montanists, broke away from the movement in his later years, starting his own church. It is unclear just why he disassociated himself. If the accounts are true, and Montanus committed suicide together with his two prophetesses, this may be the reason. It also may be Tertullian’s vocal rejection of Monarchism set him at odds with the Montanists. Whatever, the reason, Tertullian became disillusioned with the Montanists and started his own sect, building a basilica in his hometown of Carthage. The members of this sect were known as Tertullianists. [57] Tertullian would die, no longer a member of the Church or the Montanists, in Carthage, “having lived,” wrote Jerome, “to a decrepit old age.” [58] The Tertullianists quickly dissolved, with the remaining members being received into the Catholic Church, together with the basilica built by Tertullian.

The disapproval of the Montanists was also expressed in the eighth canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 343–381). The council determined that Phyrgians who wished to join the Church should be received as heretics. They were to be catechized with instruction and baptized.

Finally, the universal Church spoke in the seventh Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (I Constantinople, A.D. 381). This Ecumenical Council determined that Montanists were to be received as heretics who needed to be catechized, exorcised and baptized

Montanism was neither a pure prophetic movement nor a preservation of primitive Christianity, as portrayed by its advocates. Nor was its downfall due almost entirely to the Emperor Constantine. It was a contentious and schismatic movement which was shunned by most Christians. Very early in the history of the Church, the local synods condemned the Montanists in several councils which were convened in Asia Minor. The Anonymous source, cited by Eusebius, wrote the following: “For when the faithful throughout Asia had met frequently and at many places in Asia for this purpose, and on examination of the new-fangled teaching had pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, these persons (the Montanists) were thus expelled from the Church and shut off from its communion.” [59]

Montanism cannot be regarded as an example of primitive Christianity. It was a cult of personality with schismatic behavior which adhered to the Monarchian heresy. With the exception of possible manifestations of ecstasy and the belief in the gift of prophecy, the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements have little in common with the Montanists.