Quote
Whether you consider Irenaeus experiences to be contaminated or not, there is enough evidence in the Eusebius' quotes I provided that the gift of prophecy was accepted in the church at that time. And I did supply you with that quote that, after Montanus' death, when the Montanists could not provide any prophets of their own, someone from the 'Great Church' used the fact that prophecy was to continue until his own age as evidence.
Ok, so we are done with Irenaeus and now to Eusebius.


First, the author here has imposed his views of non-cessationalism in the foot note (I will cover that further down the page). Second, the author here does not fully agree with you. Look at the highlighted parts:


Quote
….. <span style="background-color:#FFFF00"> In Paul's time the speaking with tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was very common </span>; so, too, at the time the Didache was written the prophets spoke in an ecstasy (en pneumati, which can mean nothing else; cf. Harnack's edition, p. 122 sq.). <span style="background-color:#FFFF00"> But the early enthusiasm of the Church had largely passed away by the middle of the second century </span>; and though there were still prophets (Justin, for instance, and even Clement of Alexandria knew of them [past tense, meaning they knew those and heard them used in a former time]), they were not in general characterized by the same ecstatic and frenzied utterance that marked their predecessors. To say that there were none such at this time would be rash; <span style="background-color:#FFFF00"> but it is plain that they had become so decidedly the exception that the revival by the Montanists of the old method on a large scale and in its extremest form could appear to the Church at large only a decided innovation </span>. Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them, but prophecy in this form they were not accustomed to, and did not realize that it was but a revival of the ancient form (cf. the words of our author, who is evidently quite ignorant of that form). That they should be shocked at it is not to be wondered at, and that they should, in that age, when all such manifestations were looked upon as supernatural in their origin, regard these prophets as under the influence of Satan, is no more surprising. There was no other alternative in their minds. Either the prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content mainly, but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the suspicion of the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that the fact that these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted Church authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the revelations vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts and fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left for the leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and pronounce its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all prophecy should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural. <span style="background-color:#FFFF00"> Clement (Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the marks of a false prophet </span>,-Montanism had evidently brought the Church to distinct consciousness on that point,-while <span style="background-color:#FFFF00"> Origen, some decades later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and denies that they existed even in the time of Celsus (see Contra Cels.VII. 11). </span>
Now your own source speaks of certain ECFs that saw the gifts as GONE, (i.e. Clement and Origen). Of course, I disagree with some of the speculation of your source as well (marked above in italics, but repeated here for convenience): “To say that there were none such at this time would be rash” and “Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them,” etc.

The following is a description of Montanus and his followers by Eusebius in his History of the Church. It speaks of the Church’s view:

Quote
Montanus, in his unbridled ambition to reach the top, laid himself open to the adversary, was filled with spiritual excitement and suddenly fell into a kind of trance and unnatural ecstasy. He raved, and began to chatter and talk nonsense, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">prophesying in a way that conflicted with the practice of the Church handed down generation by generation from the beginning </span>. Of those who listened at that time to his sham utterances some were annoyed, regarding him as possessed, a demoniac in the grip of a spirit of error, a disturber of the masses. <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">They rebuked him and tried to stop his chatter, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord, and His warning to guard vigilantly against the coming of false prophets </span>. ... Then he secretly stirred up and inflamed minds closed to the true Faith, raising up in this way two others -- women whom he filled with the sham spirit, so that they chattered crazily, inopportunely, and wildly, like Montanus himself.
Eusebius states that the Church in attempt to try the spirits, looked at the rules established by Paul in his inspired wittings (passed down from generation to generation) and dismissed what they were seeing as false—from Satan. There is no acceptance here of tongues by the Church!

Again, Eusebius says of Montanus:

Quote
According to the description of Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis ... Montanus 'became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church</span>'.

(Eusebius, Church History, Volume 16, second series, I, page 231).

----

He fell into certain states of ecstatic transport, in which, no longer master of his own consciousness, but made the blind organ, as he fancied, of a higher spirit, he predicted, in oracular, mystical expressions, fresh persecutions of the Christians..."

(Neander, Church History, Volume II, page 206.)
According to Eusebius, this practice of tongues speaking was totally contrary to the practice of the Church. Indeed, Montanus and his followers were excommunicated from the Church.

Irenaeus wrote the following concerning the second century heretic Marcus:

Quote
Marcus to a woman, 'Receive first from me and by me the gift of Charis ...' Woman: 'I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy.' Marcus: 'Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy.' She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently (from emotion), reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">such as might be expected from one healed by an empty spirit</span>.

(Irenaeus Against Heresies).

----

Montanus stirred up two women and filled them with the bastard spirit so that they uttered demented, absurd and irresponsible sayings.

(Henry BeKenson, ea., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford, 1963), 77.)

Eusebius described the birth and early growth of the movement:

Quote
Montanus, they say, first exposed himself to the assaults of the adversary through his unbounded lust for leadership. He was one of the recent converts, and he became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble jargon, , <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times</span>. ... Some of them that heard his bastard utterances rebuked him as one possessed of a devil ... remembering the Lord's warning to guard vigilantly against the coming of false prophets. But others were carried away and not a little elated, thinking themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of the gift of prophecy.

(Henry BeKenson, ea., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford, 1963), 77.)
Doesn't it seem odd that the only references to tongues in this period of Church history are from a cult? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Quote
1. Clement of Rome - wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 95 A.D. discussing all of their spiritual problems. Tongues were never mentioned.

2. Justin Martyr - compiled a listing of spiritual gifts active in his time (A.D. 100-165) and did not include the gift of tongues.

3. Origen - never mentioned tongues and even argued that the "signs" of the Apostolic Age were temporary and that no contemporary Christian exercised any of these early "sign" gifts. (A.D. 185-253).

4. Chrysostom - writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, "This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by the cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place." (A.D. 347-407).

5. Augustine - comments on Acts 2:4: "In the earliest times, 'the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,'. . .These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit. . .That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away."

Reformed and Always Reforming,