Millenarian views were common, though by no means universal, in the early Church. They meet us in gross form in Papias, who quotes as a genu- ine word of Christ a prediction, generally agreeing with Apoc. Bar, concerning the remarkable fer- tility of the vine in the millennial kingdom (Iren. adv. Her. v. 33 ; cf. Euseb. iii. 39) ; in more spiritual form in Barnabas, who, combining Gn 2? with Ps 904, looks for a Millennium of Sabbath rest, follow- ing the present six millenniums of work, and in- troduced by the coming of the Messiah ‘to put an end to the time of the wicked one, and to judge the ungodly, and to change sun, moon, and stars’ (155). This he declares to be the true Sabbath rest for which Christians look—a time when, hay- ing been themselves justified, and having received the promise, lawlessness no longer existing, but all tie having been made new by the Lord,
they will be able to keep holy the Sabbath, having first been sanctified themselves (v.7). At the close of this millennial period follows the beginning οἱ the eighth day, which is the beginning of another world (ν.8). ens and 2nd Ep. Clement are also claimed as pre-millenarian, but without sufficient reason. There is no trace of the doctrine in either I Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or the Epistle to Diognetus. he Didaché, indeed, restricts the resurrection at the Advent to those who are Christ’s, but is silent as to what follows thereafter. ‘And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first the sign of the outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the voice of the trumpet, thirdly the resurrection of the dead, yet not of all; but as it was said, The Lord shell come, and all his saints with him. Then the world shall see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.’
The prevalence of millenarian views in the later Church was due partly to the Jewish Apocalypses, which were read and highly esteemed in the Christian Church (Papias, ef. Harnack, art. ‘ Mil- lennium,’ 315), partly to the explicit statement of the Apoc. of St. John (Justin, Zrypho, 81). Hence we find later opponents of Chiliasm denying the authenticity of Rev (Dionysius ap. Euseb. vii. 25). While most common among the Jewish Christians, to whom their origin was attributed by later opponents (Cerinthus ap. Euseb. iii. 28 ; ef. Test. XII.
‘at. (Jud. c. 25 ; Benj. c. 10]; Ebionites ap. Jerome, Com. on Is. 1x. 1, xvi. 20), such views early meet us among the Gentile Christians. Justin, while in cer- tain passages apparently ignoring them (Apol. 52, Trypho, 45, 49, 113; οἵ. Briggs in Luth. Quar. 1879), elsewhere explicitly recognizes them. Whenasked by Trypho whether he really admits that Jerus. will be rebuilt, and expects that his people will be gathered together and made joyful ‘with Christ together ¥ ith the patriarchs and the prophets, and the men of our nation and proselytes who joined them before your Christ came,’ Justin answers in the affirmative. While admitting that ‘many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise,’ he declares that he and others ‘ who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrec- tion of the dead, and 1000 years in Jerus., which will then be built, adorned and enlarged as the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and others declare’ (80).
for this view he cites Rev as follows: ‘There was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation which was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would dwell 1000 years in Jerus., and that thereafter the general and in short the eternal resurrection and judgment for all men would likewise take place’ (81). With the exception of Justin, the Apologists show no trace of Chiliasm. The anti-Gnostie Fathers of the close of the 2nd cent., on the other hand, were pronounced Millenarians. Irenzeus (adv. Her. v. 32-35), Tertullian (adv. Mare. iii. 25), and later Hippolytus (Com. in Dan. 1772, p. 99) give us in their writings full descriptions of the millennial kingdom. Tertullian wrote an entire work on the subject (de Spe Fideliwm), which has unfortunately perished. oubtless the views of these Fathers were influenced by their opposition to the Gnostics, who with Chiliasm rejected also the entire Christian eschatology. But the adoption of chiliastic views by the Montanists, who looked for the speedy setting up of the millennial kingdom at Pepuza in Phrygia, soon brought them into disrepute, They were opposed in Rome by the Presbyter Caius, who attributed their origin to the arch-heretic Cerinthus (Euseb. iii. 28). In the East they were attacked by the Alexandrines, who, following the example set by the Gnostics, interpreted the pas-
MILLET
MILLO 373
sages cited by the Chiliasts allegorically (cf. Origen, de Prin. ii. 11). The aes ΟΣ of the Egyptian bishop Nepos to enforce a literal interpretation was un- successful. Especially effective was the opposition of Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote a book ‘ On the Promises,’ in which he advocated the alle- gorical exegesis, and denied the Johannine author- ship of the Apocalypse. Later Chiliasts, like Methodius of Olympus (Banquets of the Ten Virgins, ix. 5) and Apollinaris of Laodicea (Basil, Ep. 263), were unable to stem the tide.