BOOK V.
PART III.
CHAPTER XIII-XX.
CHAPTER XIII.
RODO AND HIS ACCOUNT OF THE DISSENSION OF MARCIAN.
At this time Rodo, a native of Asia who had been instructed, as he himself states,
by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, having written several
books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcian.
He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions,
and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the
falsehoods devised by each of them.
But hear what he writes.
Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent
opinion.
For Apelles, one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life and his age,
acknowledges one principle, but says that the prophecies are from an opposing
spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by the name of
Philumene, who was possessed by a demon.
But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, hold to two principles,
as does the mariner Marcian himself.
These following the wolf of Pontus, and like him unable to fathom the division
of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof, asserted two principles.
Others again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two,
but three natures.
Of these, Cineros is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching say.
The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles.
He speaks as follows.
For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, was refuted in many things which
he spoke falsely.
Whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine,
but that each one should continue to hold what he believed.
For he asserted that those who trusted in the crucified would be saved, if only they
were found doing good works.
But, as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of
all.
For he spoke of one principle, as also our doctrine does.
Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds, when I said to him, tell me how
you know this or how you can assert that there is one principle, he replied that
the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true,
for they are inconsistent and false and self-contradictory.
But how there is one principle, he said that he did not know, but that he
was thus persuaded.
As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so when he said that
he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it.
Thereupon I laughed and reproved him, because, though calling himself a teacher,
he knew not how to confirm what he taught.
In the same work, addressing Callistio, the same writer acknowledges that he had
been instructed at Rome by Tatian, and he says that a book of problems had
been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden
parts of the divine scriptures.
Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian's problems.
There is also extant a commentary of his on the Hexameron.
But this Apelles wrote many things in an impious manner of the law of Moses,
blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as it seemed,
very zealous for their refutation and overthrow.
So much concerning these.
Chapter 14 The False Prophets of the Phrygians The enemy of God's church,
who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no
manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to
spring up against the church.
For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia,
boasting that Montanus was the paraclete, and that the women that followed him,
Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.
Chapter 15 The Schism of Blastus at Rome Others, of whom Florinus was chief,
flourished at Rome.
He fell from the presbyteriate of the church, and Blastus was involved in a
similar fall.
They also drew away many of the church to their opinion, each striving to introduce
his own innovations in respect to the truth.
Chapter 16 The Circumstances Related of Montanus and His False Prophets Against
the so-called Phrygian heresy, the power which always contends for the
truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon, Apollinarius of Hierapolis,
whom we have mentioned before, and with him many other men of ability,
by whom abundant material for our history has been left.
A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, first intimates
that he had contended with them in oral controversies.
He commences his work in this manner.
Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avversius Marcellus,
been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called
after Miltiades, I have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability
to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and
apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the doctrines or
precepts of the gospel of the New Testament, which it is impossible for one
who has chosen to live according to the gospel, either to increase or to diminish.
But being recently in Ancyra in Galatia, I found the church there greatly agitated
by this novelty, not prophecy as they call it, but rather false prophecy as will be
shown.
Therefore, to the best of our ability, with the Lord's help, we disputed in the
church many days concerning these and other matters separately brought forward
by them, so that the church rejoiced and was strengthened in the truth,
those of the opposite side were for the time confounded, and the adversaries were
grieved.
The presbyters in the place, our fellow presbyters Zoticus of Otroas also being
present, requested us to leave a record of what had been said against the opposers of
the truth.
We did not do this, but we promised to write it out as soon as the Lord permitted
us, and to send it to them speedily.
Having said this with other things, in the beginning of his work, he proceeds
to state the cause of the above-mentioned heresy as follows.
Their opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them from the church
arose on the following account.
There is said to be a certain village called Ardabaugh in that part of Mysia
which borders upon Phrygia.
There first, they say, when Grodus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert,
Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary
opportunity against him.
And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy,
he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner
contrary to the constant custom of the church handed down by tradition from the
beginning.
Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant,
and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control
of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude.
And they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his
warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets.
But others, imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic
gift, were elated and not a little puffed up.
And forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and
insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him.
In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.
Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil,
devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them,
secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become
estranged from the true faith.
And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit,
so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the
person already mentioned.
And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him,
and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises.
But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might
seem to be a reprover.
But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.
And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal church under
heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it
nor entrance into it.
For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this
matter, and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected
the heresy.
And thus these persons were expelled from the church and debarred from communion.
Having related these things at the outset, and continued the refutation of their
delusion through his entire work, in the second book he speaks as follows of
their end.
Since therefore they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive
their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those that the Lord promised
to send to the people, let them answer as in God's presence.
Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women
down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men?
None.
Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the name?
Truly not.
Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews,
or stoned?
No, never anywhere.
But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to have died.
For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung
themselves.
Not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of
each.
And thus they died and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.
So also, as general report says, that remarkable person, the first steward,
as it were, of their so-called prophecy, one Theodotus, who, as if at some time
taken up and received into heaven, fell into trances and entrusted himself to
the deceitful spirit, was pitched like a quoit and died miserably.
They say that these things happened in this manner.
But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know.
Perhaps in such a manner, perhaps not, Montanus and Theodotus and the
above-mentioned woman died.
He says again in the same book that the holy bishops of that time attempted to
refute the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by others who plainly
cooperated with the spirit.
He writes as follows, And let not the spirit, in the same work of Asterius
Urbanus, say through Maximilla, I am driven away from the sheep like a
wolf.
I am not a wolf.
I am word and spirit and power.
But let him show clearly and prove the power in the spirit.
And by the spirit let him compel those to confess him who were then present for the
purpose of proving and reasoning with the talkative spirit, those eminent men and
bishops, Zoticus from the village Comana and Julian from Apamea, whose mouths the
followers of Themiso muzzled, refusing to permit the false and seductive spirit to
be refuted by them.
Again in the same work, after saying other things in refutation of the false
prophecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when he wrote these accounts and
mentions her predictions in which she prophesied wars and anarchy.
Their falsehood he censures in the following manner, And has not this been
shown clearly to be false?
For it is today more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been
neither a partial nor general war in the world, but rather, through the mercy of
God, continued peace even to the Christians.
These things are taken from the second book.
I will add also short extracts from the third book, in which he speaks thus
against their boasts that many of them had suffered martyrdom, When therefore they
are at a loss, being refuted in all that they say, they try to take refuge in their
martyrs, alleging that they have many martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of
the power of the so-called prophetic spirit that is with them, but this,
as it appears, is entirely fallacious.
For some of the heresies have a great many martyrs, but surely we shall not on that
account agree with them or confess that they hold the truth.
And first, indeed, those called Marcionites from the heresy of Marcion say
that they have a multitude of martyrs for Christ, yet they do not confess Christ
himself in truth.
A little farther on, he continues, When those called to martyrdom from the
church for the truth of the faith have met with any of the so-called martyrs of the
Phrygian heresy, they have separated from them, and died without any fellowship with
them, because they did not wish to give their assent to the spirit of Montanus and
the women.
And that this is true and took place in our own time with Apamea on the Meander,
among those who suffered martyrdom with Gaius and Alexander of Eumenia,
is well known.
Chapter 17.
Miltiades and his works.
In this work he mentions a writer, Miltiades, stating that he also wrote a
certain book against the above-mentioned heresy.
After quoting some of their words, he adds,
A little further on in the same work, he gives a list of those who prophesied
under the new covenant, among whom he enumerates a certain Ammia and Quadratus,
saying,
They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried
away in spirit.
Neither can they boast of Agabus, or Judas, or Silas, or the daughters of
Philip, or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging
to them.
And again, after a little, he says,
The gift should continue in all the church until the final coming.
But they cannot show it, though this is the fourteenth year since the death of
Maximilla.
He writes thus,
And in addition, he addresses an apology to the earthly rulers, in behalf of the
philosophy which he embraced.
As the so-called Phrygian heresy was still flourishing in Phrygia in his time,
Apollonius also, an ecclesiastical writer, undertook its refutation, and wrote a
special work against it, correcting in detail the false prophecies current among
them and reproving the life of the founders of the heresy.
But hear his own words respecting Montanus.
His actions and his teaching show who this new teacher is.
This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage, who made laws for fasting,
who named Pepusa and Timion, small towns in Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather
people to them from all directions, who appointed collectors of money,
who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings, who provided
salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail
through gluttony.
He writes thus concerning Montanus, and a little farther on he writes as
follows concerning his prophetesses.
We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled
with the spirit, abandoned their husbands.
How falsely, therefore, they speak who call Priscia a virgin.
Afterwards he says, does not all scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive
gifts and money?
When, therefore, I see the prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly
garments, how can I avoid reproving her?
And again, a little farther on, he speaks thus concerning one of their
confessors.
So also Themiso, who was clothed with plausible covetousness, could not endure
the sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for an abundance of possessions.
Yet, though he should have been humble on this account, he dared to boast as a
martyr, and in imitation of the apostle, he wrote a certain Catholic epistle to
instruct those whose faith was better than his own, contending for words of empty
sound and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the Holy Church.
And again, concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs,
he writes as follows.
Not to speak of many, let the prophetess herself tell us of Alexander, who called
himself a martyr, with whom she is in the habit of banqueting, and who is worshipped
by many.
We need not mention his robberies and other daring deeds for which he was
punished, but the archives contain them.
Which of these forgives the sins of the other?
Does the prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of
the prophet?
For although the Lord said, Provide neither gold nor silver, neither two
coats, these men, in complete opposition, transgress in respect to the possession of
the forbidden things.
For we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not
only from rich men, but also from the poor, and orphans, and widows.
But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these matters, that if
convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing.
For the fruits of the prophet must be tried, for the tree is known by its fruit.
But that those who wish may know concerning Alexander, he was tried by
Aemilius Frontinus, proconsul at Ephesus, not on account of the name, but for the
robberies which he had committed, being already an apostate.
Afterwards, having falsely declared for the name of the Lord, he was released,
having deceived the faithful that were there.
And his own parish from which he came did not receive him, because he was a robber.
Those who wish to learn about him have the public records of Asia.
And yet the prophet with whom he spent many years knows nothing about him.
Exposing him, through him we expose also the pretense of the prophet.
We could show the same thing of many others.
But if they are confident, let them endure the test.
Again, in another part of his work, he speaks as follows of the prophets of
whom they boast.
If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them acknowledge this,
that if they are convicted of receiving them, they are not prophets.
And we will bring a multitude of proofs of this.
But it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.
Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair?
Does a prophet stain his eyelids?
Does a prophet delight in adornment?
Does a prophet play with tables and dice?
Does a prophet lend on usury?
Let them confess whether these things are lawful or not, but I will show that they
have been done by them.
This same Apollonius states in the same work that, at the time of his writing,
it was the 40th year since Montanus had begun his pretended prophecy.
And he says also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former writer
when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepusa, resisted her and endeavored to
refute the spirit that was working in her, but was prevented by those who agreed with
her.
He mentions also a certain Thracius, among the martyrs of that time.
He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Savior commanded his apostles not to
depart from Jerusalem for 12 years.
He uses testimonies also from the revelation of John, and he relates that a
dead man had, through the divine power, been raised by John himself in Ephesus.
He also adds other things by which he fully and abundantly exposes the error of
the heresy of which we have been speaking.
These are the matters recorded by Apollonius.
Chapter 19.
Serapion on the heresy of the Phrygians.
Serapion, who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus at that time as bishop
of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of Apollinarius against the
above-mentioned heresy, and he alludes to him in a private letter to Caricus and
Pontius, in which he himself exposes the same heresy and adds the following words,
In the same letter of Serapion, the signatures of several bishops are
found, one of whom subscribes himself as follows,
And another in this manner,
And the autographed signatures of many other bishops who agreed with them are
contained in the same letter.
So much for these persons.
Chapter 20.
The writings of Irenaeus against the schismatics at Rome.
Irenaeus wrote several letters against those who were disturbing the sound
ordinance of the church at Rome.
One of them was to Blastus, on schism, another to Florinus, on monarchy,
or that God is not the author of evil.
For Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion.
And because he was being drawn away by the error of Valentinus, Irenaeus wrote his
work on the Agdoad, in which he shows that he himself had been acquainted with the
first successors of the apostles.
At the close of the treatise, we have found a most beautiful note which we are
constrained to insert in this work.
It runs as follows,
These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us, that we may have
those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness.
In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenaeus mentions again his
intimacy with Polycarp, saying, These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak
mildly, are not of sound judgment.
These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those
who accept them.
These doctrines not even the heretics outside of the Church have ever dared to
publish.
These doctrines the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the
apostles, did not deliver to thee.
For when I was a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in
the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation.
I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years,
for what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it, so that I am
able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed,
and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his
physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave
of his intercourse with John, and with the others who had seen the Lord.
And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the
Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from
eyewitnesses of the word of life, Polycarp related all things in harmony
with the Scriptures.
These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively,
noting them down not on paper, but in my heart.
And continually, through God's grace, I recall them faithfully.
And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic
presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out and stopped his
ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times
hast thou spared me that I should endure these things?
And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard
such words.
And this can be shown plainly from the letters which he sent, either to the
neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren,
admonishing and exhorting them.
Thus far, Irenaeus.
End of Book 5, Part 3