Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.6.1:
1. Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork,
fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by
the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not
[merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the
spirit are certainly a part of the
man, but certainly not the man; for
the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving
the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was
moulded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, “We
speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who
have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in
all languages, as he used himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear2
many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the
Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit
the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the
apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the
Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and
because they have become purely spiritual. For if any one take away the
substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that
which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man, but would be
the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended
with the soul is united to [God’s] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and
perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in
the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who
is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an
imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the
similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect. Thus also, if
any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then
understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have
already said, or as something else than a man. For that flesh which has been
moulded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a
man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is
the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is
called the spirit, and not a man; but the commingling and union of all these
constitutes the perfect man. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining
himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a
spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, “Now the
God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos);
and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to
the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Now what was his object in praying that
these three—that is, soul, body, and spirit—might be preserved to the coming of
the Lord, unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the
three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation? For this
cause also he declares that those are “the perfect” who present unto the Lord
the three [component parts] without offence. Those, then, are the perfect who
have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, and have preserved their souls
and bodies blameless, holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which
is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to
their neighbours. (The Writings of Irenaeus of Lyons, 2 vols.
[Ante-Nicene Christian Library; trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868-1869], 2:68-69)
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, 5.17:
In this work he also quotes Miltiades as a writer,
inasmuch as he himself wrote a treatise against the above-mentioned heresy.
After quoting some of their phrases, he continues, saying: ‘I discovered this
in a work of theirs written in opposition to a work of Alcibiades the brother,
in which he gives proof on the fact that a prophet need not speak in ecstasy,
and I made a summary of it.’ Going on in the same work, he makes a list of
those who have prophesied in the New Testament, and among these he numbers a
certain Ammia and Quadratus, speaking thus: ‘But the false prophet speaks in
ecstasy, which is accompanied by ease and freedom from fear, beginning with
voluntary ignorance, but turning into involuntary madness of soul, as has
already been said. But they will not be able to show that any prophet of those
in the Old Testament or of these in the New was inspired in this manner; they
will boast neither of Agabus, nor of Judas, nor of Silas, nor of the daughters
of Philip, nor of Ammia in Philadelphia, nor of Quadratus, nor of any others
who do not belong to them.’ And again, after brief remarks, he speaks as
follows: ‘For, if the Montanist woman received the prophetic gift after
Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, let them show who among them succeeded the
followers of Montanus and the women; for the Apostle7 held that the
gift of prophecy must exist in all the Church until the final coming. But they
would not be able to show this anywhere today, the fourteenth year after the
death of Maximilla.’
So much, then, does he write. The Miltiades he
mentioned has left us other records also of his own zeal for the oracles of God
in the treatises which he composed against the Greeks and against the Jews,
replying separately to each charge in two books; besides, he composed an Apology against the secular rulers in
defense of the philosophy which he held. (Eusebius
of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5 [The Fathers of the
Church 19; trans. Roy Joseph Deferrari; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1953], 320-21)
Epiphanius
of Salamis, Panarion 46.11:
Almighty, dwelling in a man.” (2) Happily the sacred scripture,
and the course of the Holy Spirit’s teaching, keeps us safe by giving us
warnings so that we will know which are the counterfeits of the strange spirit
and the opposites of the truth. (3) Simply by saying this, Montanus has
suggested that we remember the words of the Lord. For the Lord says in the
Gospel, “I came in my Father’s name and ye received me not. Another shall come
in his own name, and such a one will ye receive.” (4) Montanus is thus in total
disagreement with the sacred scriptures, as any attentive reader can see. And
since he is in disagreement, < he himself >, and the sect which like him
boasts of having prophets and gifts, are strangers to the holy catholic church.
He did not receive these gifts; he departed from them.
11,5 What rational person would dare to call these people prophets
instead of <saying> that such prophets are deceivers? Christ taught us, “I
send unto you the Spirit, the Paraclete,” and to give the signs of the Paraclete,
said, “He shall glorify me.” (6) And in fact it is plain that the holy apostles
glorified the Lord after receiving the Paraclete Spirit, while this Montanus
glorifies himself. The Lord glorified his Father; and in turn, the Lord Christ
glorified the Spirit by calling him the Spirit of truth. Montanus, however,
glorifies only himself, and says that he is the Father almighty, and that <the deceitful spirit> which dwells in
him <is the Paraclete>—proof positive that he is not the Father, was not
sent by the Father, and has received nothing from the Father. (7) “In the Lord
was all the fullness of the Godhead pleased to dwell bodily,” and “Of his
fullness have all the prophets received,” as St. John has told us. (8) And see
how all the ancient [prophets] announced Christ, and how those who came after
them glorified Christ and confessed him. But Montanus intruded himself by
saying that he was somebody, proof that he is not Christ, was not sent by
Christ, and has received nothing from Christ.7677
11,9 This pathetic little nobody, Montanus, says in turn, “Neither
angel nor messenger, but I the Lord, God the Father, have come.” In so saying he
will be exposed as a heretic, for he is not glorifying Christ, whom every regular
gift which has been given in the holy church truly glorified. (10) For we shall
find that Montanus is outside the body of the church and the Head of all, and “does
not hold the Head, from whom the whole body, knit together, increaseth,” as
scripture says. For the actual true Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, showed that he
was a Son; but Montanus even says that he is the Father. (The Panarion of
Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide [Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies 79; 2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: Brill, 2013],
16-17)
