CONCLUSION

The entire history of Montanism was marked by opposition. From the early Phrygian bishops’ reaction to the New Prophets’ ecstatic proph- esying to John of Ephesus’ burning of the last vestiges of Montanism, ‘mainstream’ Christianity vigorously opposed the movement which had commenced in her bosom. After Constantine’s conversion to Christi- anity, the state also became involved in persecuting Montanism and ultimately succeeded in eradicating the movement which, seen through imperial eyes, threatened the well-being of the Empire. This book has been primarily an examination of the opposition to Montanism from church and state. Secondarily, it has also sought to reevaluate the history and theology of the Montanist movement in the light of what is revealed about Montanism by the writings and legisla- tion of its orthodox opponents. Some important conclusions may be drawn from both foci.

I. Church Opposition to Montanism

Church opposition to Montanism passed through three chronological phases. The rst of these phases commenced shortly after the beginning of the New Prophecy and lasted until the end of the second century (i.e., ca. 165–199). The second phase covered the period from the start of the third century to Constantine’s sole rulership of the Empire (i.e., ca. 200–324). The third phase began with Constantine and lasted until the end of the Montanist movement (i.e., ca. 324–550) and, to a certain extent, even continued after Montanists had ceased to exist. While there are basic similarities about the opponents, anti-Montanist activities, and anti-Montanist charges from these three phases, there are also some important differences, if not of kind, then of degree.

The Opponents Ecclesiastical opponents during the rst phase of opposition to Montanism were almost exclusively ‘catholic’ clergy who had some personal contact with contemporary Montanists. The earliest of these clergy were local Phrygian bishops who had to deal with the ecstatic prophesying of

tabbernee_f13_402-424.indd 403 6/26/2007 1:07:17 PM 404 conclusion

Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla as a pastoral problem. Some local church gatherings and, probably, some synods were convened during the 170s because of the in uence of the New Prophets on the Christians for whom the bishops were responsible. Even after the death of the original leaders, opposition to Montanism was still primarily pastorally oriented, although, by the end of the second century, some local clergy felt incompetent to refute the arguments of contemporary adherents of the New Prophecy and called upon those of their number with special- ized knowledge of the sect for oral or written assistance. Throughout the third and early fourth centuries, opposition to Montanism remained rmly in the hands of the ‘catholic’ bishops. In fact, during the whole pre-Constantinian period, only one known anti-Montanist was de nitely a layperson although the ecclesiastical status of three or four remains in doubt. Some others, who later became bishops or presbyters, appear to have written against the movement while still laypersons. In each case, however, the (lay) person was an ecclesiastical scholar. The laity, if by that term is meant ordinary members of local congregations, did not become opponents of Montanism. Unless they were won over to the movement, they simply rejected the claims of the New Prophecy and left disputation to bishops and scholars. The most signi cant change concerning the anti-Montanists of the second stage of opposition is not that a number of them were laypersons but that a large number, ordained or not, had little, if any, personal dealings with Montanism. Certainly very few opponents between ca. 200–324 had face-to-face encounters with contemporary Montanists. Consequently, the opponents after 200 appear to have less and less reliable data about the New Prophecy. The information the later opponents obtained and passed on came not through contact with actual adherents of the New Prophecy but was gained second- or third-hand, mainly from earlier literary sources and, often garbled, oral tradition. Opposition from a distance became a characteristic feature of the post- Constantinian phase. Well before the fourth century, adherents of the New Prophecy had been excommunicated or had separated themselves from the catholic church. Hence, wherever contemporary Montanists still existed, they existed as members of separated communities. Close personal contact between catholics and Montanists was a thing of the distant past. Even where there was a Montanist congregation in the geographic area in which a catholic opponent lived, there is no guarantee that this opponent had been in touch with members of the Montanist group or that the opponent had attacked Montanists personally in some way. Personal contact usually came only when

tabbernee_f13_402-424.indd 404 6/26/2007 1:07:17 PM