We frequently inherit our doctrinal positions without giving much
thought to either the correctness of the positions we hold because our mentors
held them, or whether our correct positions are Scripturally supported by
personal study.
I have long held to a premillennial understanding of last things, but
without the research needed to bolster my position. For that reason I embarked
on a careful reading of George Peters three-volume “The Theocratic Kingdom” to
supplement my Bible study. I have never read such meticulous work as that 18th
century Lutheran pastor invested into his work.
Before you embrace a position related to the millennium I suggest you inform yourself (by reading what follows) about the position embraced by the preponderance
of the preserved works of first, second, and third century Christian leaders.
Following is but a single observation from Peters supporting but one of his more
than 200 propositions:
PROPOSITION 75: The doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the churches
established by the apostles, was perpetuated.
Since many of our opponents, in order to make an erroneous impression on
those unacquainted with Eccles. History, purposely mingle the later Fathers with the
earlier (as if they were contemporary),
it will be proper to give the Fathers in
chronological order, so
that the ordinary reader can see for
himself when they lived, and form his
own judgment respecting their position in history. This decides the
question of priority, and also that
of the later introduction of opposing
influences. We will, therefore, mention those that are expressly named by both ancients and moderns.
l.
Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 1st Century.
a 1. (1)
Andrew, (2) Peter, (3) Philip, (4) Thomas, (5) James, (6) John, (7) Matthew, (8) Aristio, (9) John the
Presbyter-these all lived between A.D. 1-100; John, it is
supposed-so Mosheim, etc.-died about A. D. 100. (All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenaeus,
was one of John’s hearers, and intimate with Po1ycarp. John is also expressly
mentioned by Justin. Now this
reference to the apostles agrees with
the facts that we have proven: (a)
that the disciples of Jesus did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in
the first part of this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they
linked them with the Sec. Advent.) Next (10) Clement of' Rome (Phil. 4:3), who existed about A.D. 40-100. (His Chiliasm,
in the small remains left, is apparent from three particulars: (a) “preaching the Coming of Christ;” (b) rebuking
scoffers at the alleged delay of that Coming,
and expressing the hope “that He shall
come quickly and not tarry;” (c) and occupying the Chiliastic posture of “every hour expecting the Kingdom of God.” Such
sentiments only accord with the· then
prevailing Millenarian views; if opposed to it, as some too eagerly affirm
because. no detailed expression of eschatological opinions have reached us, how could he, when Jewish views were all
around, thus employ language pre-eminently
adapted to confirm Chiliasm, unless in
sympathy with it.) (11) Barnabas, about
A.D. 40-100. (Whether the Epistle is that of Barnabas who was with Paul, or of
some other one, makes no material difference, seeing that all concede him to
us, and admit that it was written quite
early, and must be indicative of the views then held.) (12) Hermas, from A.D. 40 to 150. (We give this
lengthy elate to accommodate the dispute respecting the Hermas who is the
author of the Pastor. Some who do not receive Chiliasm, make him the earlier
mentioned Rom. 16:14; others, a later Hermas, who wrote about A. D. 150. All
agree that he is a Chiliast, and his location as to time is, probably, decided
by our doctrinal preferences.) (13) Ignatius,
Bh. of Antioch, died under Trajan, about A.D. 50-115 (some date his death A.
D. 107). (His references, in the brief fragments, to “the last times” and the exhortation in those
times to “expect Him,” is in correspondence
with our doctrine.) (14) Polycarp, Bh.
of Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle John, who lived about A.D. 70-167. (In view
of his association with Chiliasts, and, in the few lines from him, locating the
reigning of the saints after the Coming
of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints, has led Dr. Bennet and others to
declare him a Millenarian.) (15) Papias, Bh.
of Hierapolis, lived between A. D. 80-163. (His writings come chiefly through an enemy-Eusebius-but all
concede him to be a Chiliast, and declare that he was the disciple and pupil of St. John, and the companion of Polycarp.)
This is the record of names in favor of Millenarianism, names that are held in
honorable esteem because of their faith and works in the Christ, extending to
death.
b 1. Now
on the other side, not a single name can
be presented, which can be quoted as positively against us, or (2) which can be
cited as teaching, in any shape or sense, the doctrine of our opponents.
2.
Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 2d Cent.
a. (1) Pothinus, a martyr, died aged 99 years
(A. D. 177, Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 120), hence A. D. 87-177. (His Chiliasm is
evident from the churches of Lyons and Vienne, over which he presided, being Chiliastic,
from his associate Irenaeus being his successor, who describes the uniformity of
faith, Adv. Hoeres, 50, 1. 10.) (2) Justin Martyr, about A.D. 100-168
(although others, as Shimeall, give A.D. 89-165). (He needs no reference, as we
largely quote him. Comp. Semisch’s Art. on him in Herzog’s Real Encyclop.) (3) Melito, Bh.
of Sardis, about A. D. 100-170, a few fragments alone preserved. (Shimeall, in his
Reply, says, “Jerome and Genadius both affirm that he was a decided Millenarian.”)
(4) Hegisippus, between A. D.
130-190. (Neander, Genl. Gh. His., vol.
2, pp. 430, 432, designates him “a church teacher of Jewish origin and strong
Jewish prepossessions,” and an advocate of “sensual Chiliasm.”) (5) Tatian, between A.D. 130-190. (He was
converted under Justin, and is designated by Neander as “his disciple.”) (6) Irenaeus, a martyr (being, Mosheim, Ch. His., vol. 1, Amer. Ed., note, p.
120, “born and educated in Asia Minor, under Polycarp and Papias, must
therefore be), about A.D. 140-202. (We frequently and largely quote from him.) (7)_
The Churches of Vienne and Lyons, in
a letter A.D. 177 (which some attribute to Irenaeus and others to a Lyonese
Christian-author unknown) has distinctive traces of Chiliasm in the allusion to
a prior or first resurrection. (8) Tertullian, about A.D. 150-220. (We frequently
give his views.) (9) Hippolytus, between A.D. 160-240. (He was a disciple
of Irenaeus, and-according to Photius-he largely adopted Irenaeus in his work
against Heresies, and in his Com. on Dan.,
fixed the end of the dispensation five centuries after the birth of Jesus.)
(10) Apollinaris, Bh. of Hierapolis, between A.D. 150-200. (He is claimed by us,
and conceded by e.g. Hagenbach, His. of
Doc., Sec. 139.) Nearly every witness is a martyr.
b. Now on
the other side, not a single writer can
be presented, not even a single name can be mentioned of any one cited, who
opposed Chiliasm in this century, unless we except Clemens Alexandrinus (see
3); much less of any one who taught the Whitbyan view. Now let the student reflect:
here are two centuries (unless we
make the exception stated at the close of the 2d), in which positively no direct
opposition whatever arises against our doctrine, but it is held by the very men, leading and most eminent, through
whom we trace the Church. What must
we conclude? (1) That the common faith of the Church was Chiliastic, and (2)
that such a generality and unity of belief could only have been introduced-as our
argument shows by logical steps-by the founders of the Ch. Church and the
Elders appointed by them.
3.
Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 3d Cent.
a. (1) Cyprian, about A.D. 200-258. (He greatly
admired and imitated Tertullian. We quote him on the nearness of the Advent,
the Sabbatism, etc. Shedd, in his Hst. of
Doc., vol. 2, p. 394, says that “Cyprian maintains the Millenarian theory
with his usual candor and moderation.”) (2) Commodian,
between A.D, 200-270. (Was a decided Millenarian. Comp. e.g. Clarke’s Sac. Lit. Neander, Gent. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 448-(censures him as follows: “The
Christian spirit, however, in these admonitions, which otherwise evince so
lively a zeal for good morals, is disturbed by a sensuous Jewish element, a
gross Chiliasm; as for example, when it is affirmed that the lordly masters of the
world should in the Millennium do menial service for the saints.” Neander overlooks
how early childlike piety might contemplate Ps. 149:5-9; Isa. 60:6-10; Mic. 7:16,
17, and kindred passages.) (3) Nepos,
Bh. of Arsinoe, about A.D. 230-280. (Jerome, Whitby, Shedd, etc., make him a
pronounced Chiliast.) (4) Coracion, about
A.D. 230-280. (He is always united with Nepos by various writers, comp. Hagenbach’s His. of Doc.) (5) Victorinus, about A.D. 240-303. (He is expressly called a favorer of
Nepos and the Chiliasts by Jerome, de Virus
Ill., c. 74.) (6) Methodius, Bh.
of Olympus, about A.D. 250-311. (Of whom Neandcr-Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 496-says, he had “a decided leaning to Chiliasm.” Conceded
to us by Whitby, Hagenbach, and others.) (7) Lactantius (although his works were chiefly composed in the next cent.,
yet being contemporary with Chiliasts so long in this century, we include him),
between A.D. 240-330. (We quote from him, although Jerome ridicules his Millenarianism.
Prof. Stuart calls him, “a zealous Chiliast.”) Others, whom we strongly incline
to regard as Millenarians, owing to their constant association with Chiliasts, etc.,
we omit, because the remains and the statements that we have are so meagre as
to make it impossible to give a decided expression of opinion.
b. In
this century we for the first time, unless we except Clemens Alexandrinus, come
to opposers of our doctrine. Every writer, from the earliest period down to the
present, who has entered the lists against us, has been able only to find these
antagonists, and we present them in their chronological order, when they revealed
themselves as adversaries. They number four, but three of them were powerful for
mischief, and speedily gained adherents (comp. Prop. 76). The first in order is
(1) Caius (or Gaius), who is supposed, by Kurtz (Ch. His.),
to have written about A. D. 210, or as Shedd (His. Doc.), in the beginning of the 3d cent. (Much that he is alleged to
have said comes to us through bitter Anti-Chiliastic sources, and must be correspondingly
received with some allowance.) (2) Clemens
Alexandrinus, who suecceded Pantaenus (died A.D. 202, so Kurtz), as preceptor
in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and exerted a powerful influence (on
Origen and others) as a teacher from A.D. 193-220. (He became a Christian under
Pantaenus, after having devoted himself to Pagan philosophy, and only during the
latter part of his life made the disciples, who so largely moulded the subsequent
interpretation of the Church.) (3) Origen,
about A.D. 185-254. (We shall refer to him under the next Prop.) (4) Dionysius,
about A.D. 190-265. (Sec next Prop.) There is no doubt but others were largely
led to accept of Anti-Chiliastic teaching (seeing what an opposition sprung up
in the 4th cent.), but these are the champions
mentioned as directly hostile to Chiliasm. Now let the student carefully
weigh this historical record, and he will see that the Church history
indubitably seals our faith as the general,
prevailing belief for the most that can possibly be said respecting the opposition
is, that in the closing years of the 2d century men arose who started an antagonism
distinctively presented and urged in the 3d cent., and which culminated in the
4th and succeeding centuries. Hence, our Prop. is abundantly confirmed by the doctrinal status of the early Church;
indeed, it is-if our line of argument respecting the apostolic belief remaining unchanged concerning the Kingdom is
conclusive-the very position that
the Chnrch in its introduction must occupy.
How illogical and unscriptural, therefore, for men to strive to weaken the testimony
of those Fathers, and to apologize in their behalf, by making them ignorant,
superstitious, sensual, etc., thus tracing the Church, established by inspired
men and their selected successors, though ignorant, superstitions, and sensual believers,
until the learned, enlightened, and spiritual Clemens, Caius, Origen, and
Dionysius arose and brought light which “the
consciousness of the Church” appreciated.
