Saturday, October 15, 2022

Against Heresies 5.6.1, Ecclesiastical History, 5.17, and Panarion 46.11

 

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)