WITNESSES TO THE HOPE.

It is needless, perhaps, to affirm that the early Christians were pre-millennialists. That is, they looked for the speedy personal return of the Lord Jesus, and did not dream of a spiritual millennium, or the conversion of the world by the church. This is freely admitted by Dr. Charles. Hodge, Mr. Albert Barnes, Prof. Hackett and. all other post-millennial expositors. without exception, so far as known. All no doubt would heartily agree with the remarks of Mr. Barnes on the words to wait for His Son from Heaven. 1 Thess. i:10.

It is clear from this and from other parts of these two epistles, that the return of the Lord Jesus to this world was a prominent subject of the preaching of Paul at Thessalonica. In the passage before us, he says that the return of the Son of God from heaven was an important point which had been insisted on when he was there; and that their conduct, as borne witness to by all, had shown with what power it had seized upon them, and what a practical influence it had exerted in their lives. . . . It is eminently adapted to comfort the hearts of true Christians in the sorrows, bereavements, and sicknesses of life (John xiv:1-3; Acts i:11; 1 Thess. iv: 13-18; 2 Pet. iii:8, 9); to lead us to ‘watchfulness and to an earnest inquiry into the question whether we are prepared to meet Him (Matt. xxiv:37-44; xxv:13); to make us dead to he world, and to lead us to act as becomes the children of light (1 Thess. v:5-9); to awaken and arouse impenitent and Careless sinners (1 Thess. v:2-3; 2 Pet. iii:3-7), and to excite Christians to self-denying efforts to spread the gospel in distant lands, as was the case at Thessalonica. Every doctrine of the gospel is adapted to produce some happy practical effects in mankind, but there are few that are more full of elevated and holy influences than that which teaches that the Lord Jesus will return to the earth, and which leads the soul to wait for his appearing.

If the objection is raised that Mr. Barnes, and the other commentators named, were themselves post-millennialists, the answer is at hand. The testimony of an unwilling witness is always and properly considered more conclusive than the testimony of a witness, whose prejudices or interests incline him to the evidence he gives. It these gentleman had found any way to escape the conclusion that the early Christians stood in an attitude of expecting the personal coming of Christ, they would certainly have availed themselves most gladly of an opportunity, at least, to keep silent upon the subject. We have nothing to do with their opinions, but only with their testimony concerning the universal belief of the first disciples.

Thus we are not compelled to accept the rationalistic tendencies of Prof. Harnack, although forced to bow to his testimony as a historian, because he is everywhere recognized as the ablest patristic scholar now living. Evidently he is not in sympathy with the truth of our Lord’s pre-millennial coming, but he is obliged as an honest witness to place upon record what he has discovered by a thorough search into the Christian literature of the first centuries. It is scarcely necessary to say that millennium is a Latin word, and chiliad is a Greek word, both referring to the thousand years when Satan shall be bound, when the righteous dead shall be raised, and when shall be fulfilled the sweet benediction. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Rev. xx:6.

In the history of Christianity three main forces are found to have acted as auxiliaries of the gospel. They have elicited the ardent enthusiasm of many whom the bare preaching of the gospel would never have made decided converts. ‘These are (1) a belief in the speedy return of Christ and in His glorious reign on earth. . . . First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ’s second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion.

He then quotes from a number of men who labored with the apostles, or were their immediate successors in the office of preaching the gospel, all going to show that it may still be questioned whether the Lord’s personal and pre-millennial return to the earth may not be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion.

That a philosopher like Justin, with a bias towards an Hellenic construction of the Christian religion, should nevertheless have accepted its chiliastic elements, is the strongest proof that these enthusiastic expectations were inseparably bound up with the Christian faith down to the middle of the 2d century. And another proof is found in the fact that even a Speculative Jewish Christian like Cerinthus not only did not renounce the chiliastic hope, but pictured the future kingdom of Christ as a kingdom of sensual pleasures, of eating and drinking and marriage festivities.

After the middle of the 2d century these expectations were gradually thrust into the background. They would never have died out, however, had not circumstances altered, and new mental attitude been taken up. The spirit of philosophical and theological speculation and of ethical reflection, which began to spread through the churches, did not know what to make of the old hopes of the future. So early as the year 170, a church party in Asia Minor—the so-called Alogi—rejected the whole body of apocalyptic writings and denounced the Apocalypse of John as a book of fables. All the more powerful was the reaction. In the so-called Montanistic controversy (A. D. 160-220), one of the principal issues involved was the continuance of the chiliastic expectations in the churches. . . .After the Montanistic controversy, chillastic views were more and more discredited in the Greek Church; they were, in fact, stigmatized as “Jewish” and consequently “heretical.” It was the Alexandrian theology that superseded them; that is to say, Neo-Platonic mysticism triumphed over the early Christian hope of the future, first among the “cultured,” and then, when the theology of the “cultured” had taken the faith of the “uncultured” under its protection, amongst the latter also.

Just so. The spirit of philosophical. and theological speculation and of ethical reflection, and Neo-Platonic mysticism patronized by the cultured, are enough to kill all faith, not only in the coming of Christ, but in Christ Himself. This is the trouble with the church of the present day, and unless it gives up the folly, it will drift, as the church did after surrendering the hope of the Lord’s coming, into the dark ages. Philosophical and theological speculation, and ethical reflection, and Neo-Platonic mysticism and culture are choking the life out of the professing people of God; and the devil stands by laughing.

But the Western Church was also more conservative than the Greek. Her theologians had, to begin with, little turn for mystical speculation; their tendency was rather to reduce the gospel to a system of morals. Now for the morality chiliasm had a special significance as the one distinguishing feature of the gospel, and the only thing that gave a specifically Christian character to their system. This, however, holds good of the Western theologians only after the middle of the 8d century. The earlier fathers, Irenaeus, Hipollytus, Tertullian, believed in chiliasm simply because it was a part of the tradition of the church, and because Marcion and the Gnostics would have nothing to do with it. Hipollytus, although an opponent to Montanism, was nevertheless a thorough-going millenarian. ‘Tertullian aimed at a more spiritual conception of the millennial blessings than Papias had, but he still adhered, especially in the Montanistic period, to all the ancient anticipations. It is the same all through the 3d and 4th centuries with those Latin theologians who escaped the influence of Greek speculation. Commodian, Victorinus Pattavensis, Lactantius and Sulpicius Severus, were all pronounced millennarians, . . . . the clearest evidence that in the West millennarianism was still a point of “orthodoxy ” in the 4th century.

Prof. Harnack attributes the overthrow of the early faith to the great influence of Augustine, who at one time held it.

But the signs of the times pointed to a different prospect. Without any miraculous interposition of God, not only was Christianity victorious on earth, but the church had attained a position of supremacy. The old Roman empire was tottering to its fall; the church stood fast, ready to step into the inheritance. It was not simply that the world-power, the enemy of Christ, had been vanquished; the fact as that it had gradually abdicated its political functions in favor of the church. [Alas! how true.] . . . . How millenarianism nevertheless found its way, with the help of-apocalyptic mysticisms and Anabaptist influences, into the churches of the Reformation, chiefly among the Reformed sects, but afterward, also in the Lutheran church, how it became incorporated with Pietism, how in recent time an exceeding mild type of “academic” chiliasm has been developed from a belief an the verbal inspiration of the Bible, how finally new sects are springing up here and there with apocalyptic and chiliastic expectations,—these are matters which cannot be entered upon here. but one remark ought to be made in conclusion. A genuine and living revival of chiliastic hopes is always a sign that the church at large has become secularized to such a degree that tender consciences can no longer feel sure of their faith within her . . . . The claims of chiliasm are sufficiently met by the acknowledgment that in former times it was, associated—to all appearance inseparably associated—with the gospel itself.

After this testimony of Prof. Harnack it scarcely seems necessary to cite other witnesses. He says of the early faith in the nearness of Christ’s second advent, and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth, “it might be questioned whether it ought not to be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion,’’ and “it was associated—to all appearance inseparably associated—with the gospel itself.” He would make no such statement unless compelled to do so by the facts, and no man will dispute his authority.

Neander, referring to the faith of the early Christians that the church would come forth triumphant out of its conflicts, says, ‘They could at first, as we have before remarked, conceive of it no otherwise than this, that the struggle between the church and the pagan state would endure till the triumph brought about from without by the return of Christ to Judgment.” Vol. I, p. 650.

Mosheim, referring to the controversies in the time of Origen, says, “Long before this period an opinion had prevailed that Christ was to come and reign a thousand years among men, before the entire and final dissolution of this world. This opinion, which had hitherto met with no opposition,” etc. Vol. I, p. 89.

Hagenbach, says, “The disciples of Christ, having received from their Master the promise of His second coming (parousia), the first Christians looked upon this event as near at hand, in connection with the general resurrection of the dead and the final Judgment.”

Dorner says, as quoted in Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, “The Christian hope in the Christ that was to come grew out of faith in the Christ, who had already come,” and adds, “Justin, writing at the time of Papis, says that it was the general faith of all. orthodox Christians, and that only Gnosties did not share it.”

Giesler, also quoted by Hagenbach, says of the first two centuries, “In all the works of this period millennarianism vs so prominent, we cannot hesitate to consider it as universal in an age when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to suffer for Christianity.” Vol. I, p. 215.

Dr. Schaff says, in his History of the Christian Church, “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ancient church is the widely current and very prevalent chiliasm, or the doctrine of a visible reign of Christ in glory on the earth with the risen saints for a thousand years.” Vol. I, p. 299. Bishop Kenshaw says, ‘The commonly received opinion of a spiritual millennium, consisting in a universal triumph of the gospel, and the conversion of all nations for a thousand years before the coming of Christ, is a novel doctrine, unknown to the church for the space of sixteen hundred years.”

Prot. Fisher, in he Beginnings of Christianity, says, “We call attention to the hopes and expectations of the apostles respecting the Second Advent of Christ, as they are disclosed in the New Testament writings . . . . . This expectation is expressed by all apostles in terms which fairly admit of no other interpretation. It is found in Paul (Rom. xiii:11, 12; 1 Cor. vii:29, 31; x:1; Phil. iv:5; 1 Tim. vi:14) . . . . The same expectation is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Heb. x: 25, 37); in the Epistle of James, (v:3, 8); in the Epistles of Peter, (1 Pet. iv:7; 2 Pet. iii:3; In the Epistle of Jude, (vs. 8); in the first Epistle of John, (ii:16); and in the Apocalypse, (i;1; iii: 2; xxii:7, 12, 20). To put any other construction on these passages, as if the Parousia to which they refer, were anything else than the Second Advent of the Lord to Judgment would introduce a dangerous license in interpretation, and one which might be employed to subvert the principal doctrines of the Christian System.”

But surely it is useless to quote further. If anything can be established by human testimony, it is the fact that those who are looking for the personal coming of the Lord, not for the conversion of the world by the church, are in sympathy with the belief and teaching of the apostles and early Christians. No one probably would be bold enough to deny that such was the faith of the disciples, who were considered “Orthodox,” for three hundred years, a period that has never been equaled in the endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake, and in the activity of missionary zeal.

Coming to a later period, we find Prof. Briggs, utterly and fatally wrong about the word of God, but able and scholarly, instructing the Presbyterians with regard to the doctrine of their Confession of Faith.

The current doctrine of a millennium in the future before the advent of Chris! is another extra-confessional doctrine, for which there is no basis in the Westminister Standards. . The Standards express the faith of the universal catholic church in looking forward to the advent of Christ for the judgment of the risen (?) world as imminent. . . .The current doctrine is one for which Daniel Whitby, the Arminian [he should have added, the Arian], and the great revival of Methodism are chiefly responsible. . . .When recent Presbyterian divines go further, and adopt the scheme of the Arminian Whitby, they take a position which suits quite well with evangelical Methodism, but which is not in accord with Calvinism. They moreover go against the Scriptures, which do not recognize any such future millennium as this theory professes.

The doctrine of a future millennium is not so innocent as it appears to be on the surface. It changes the faith of the church in the immanency of the second advent of Christ. It makes the millennium the great hope of the future, instead of the presence of the Redeemer Himself. The Messiah is the great hope of the church, the supreme object of Our living and striving, the Bridegroom for whose presence the affianced bride prays and agonizes. But the current theology pushes the Messiah behind the millennium, and fixes the hope of men upon an illusion and a delusion of human conceit and folly.

But as many are consciously or unconsciously influenced by the prevailing sentiment about them, it may be well to name some prominent men who are prominent pre-millennialists, although one who is not brave and independent enough to do his own thinking, apart from the prevailing sentiment of the time and country 1n which he lives, is hardly worth the trouble to help. him into the light. He will be of little account, no matter on which side he at last elects to cast his lot. It was considered an unanswerable argument by the Pharisees, when Christ came the first time, to ask, ‘Have any of the rulers of the Pharisees believed on Him?” Jno. vii:47. So several postmillennialists have recently asked concerning His second coming, either in stupid ignorance or willful prevarication, and it is of importance to show that the pre-millennialists are not wanting in scholars, expositors and preachers of the finest ability, as the world would say.

A brother, who is thoroughly familiar with modern German literature, asserts that ‘there is scarcely an expositor of any note on the Continent of Europe, who is not an avowed pre-millennialist,” and adds, “let us rejoice that the best criticism, and Biblical as well as ecclesiastical and theological scholars such as Van Oosterzee, Christlieb, Volck, Martensen, Weiss, Philippi, Koch, Grau, Olshausen, Christiani, Godet, have put post-millennialism and figurativism under their feet.” He follows this with a long list ofnamesas Bengel, Roos, Crusius, Hofman, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Lange, Luthardt, Koslin, Stier, DaCosta. Cappadose, Gaussen and many others, eminent for their learning, who utterly reject the post-millennial heresy, and maintain the pre-millennial coming of our Lord. ‘This is sometimes called the “continental view,” but no matter whether it is continental or insular so it is the truth of God.

In-Great Britain we have such expositors as Alford, Ellicott, Fausset, Tregelles, Greswell, the Bishop of Liverpool; such preachers as C. H. Spurgeon, H. Grattan Guinness, Archibald Brown, Frank White, Henry Varley, Baptists; Dr. Horatius Bonar, ‘Dr. Andrew Bonar, Dr. W. P. Mackay, Dr. Adolph Saphir, Dr. Sinclair Patterson, Dr. Donald Frazer, John Wilkinson, Presbyterians; Rev. Prebendary Auriol, Very Rev. Dean Fremantle, Rev. Marcus Rainsford, Rev. Canon Hoare, Rev. H. E. Brooke, Rev. H. W. Webb -Peploe, Rev. C. Skrine, Rev. C. J. Goodhart, Rev. Burlington Wale, Rev. J. Stevenson, Church of England; the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Cavan, Lord Radstock, Sir Arthur Black wood, to say nothing of the entire number of “Brethren ‘a like J. N. Darby, William Kelly, C. H. MelIntosh, William Lincoln, J. Denham Smith, J. Hudson Taylor, T. Shuldham Henry, B. W. Newton, I. B. Baines, Arthur Pridham, embracing some of the most thorough scholars and some of the profoundest students of the Bible in the world. All of these, and scores of others who might be named have spoken and written much in defence of our Lord’s pre-millennial coming.

In the United States it is sufficient to remind the reader that a pre-millennial conference was recently held in Brooklyn, called by one hundred and fifty Baptist ministers. Or it may be sufhiient to mention the names of some who spoke at the pre-millennial Conferences in New York and Chicago, or expressed hearty sympathy with the doctrine. Bishop Vail, of Kansas, Bishop Baldwin, of Canda, Bishop Nicholson, of Philadelphia, Dr. S. H. Tyng, Dr. L. W. Bancroft, Dr. R. Newton, Dr. J. F. Grammer, Episcopal; Prot. J. D, Cooper, Prof. D. C. Marquis, Prof. W. G. Moorehead, Prot. J. VT. Duifeld, Prof. S. H. Kelloggs, Dr. N. West, Dr. E. RR. Craven, Dr. H. M. Parsons, Dr. William Dinwiddle, Dr. W. Erdman, Dr. Albert Erdman, Dr. J. F. Kendall, Dr. C. K. Imbrie, Dr. A. T. Pierson, Presbyterian; Prof. H. Lummis, Prot. E. F. Stroeter, Dr. James 8. Kennedy, Wm. E. Blackstone, Methodist; Dr. A. J. Gordon, Dr. A. J. Frost, Dr. F. L. Chapell, Dr. H. M. Saunders, Robert Cameron, Baptist; Dr. E. P. Goodwin, Dr. H. D. Burton, Dr. Geo. I. Pentecost, Congregational; Dr. W. P. Gordon, Dr Geo.8. Bishop, Dr. Rutus W. Clark, Reformed Dutch; Dr. Joseph A. Seiss, Dr. Geo. N. H. Peturs, Lutherans; Moody, Munhall, Needham Whittle, Evangelists; while hundreds more could be mentioned, if necessary.

It is a great mistake to suppose that pre-millenists are but an insignificant company of cranks. They may be cranks, and it is well that they are in these days of infidelity among the professors and preachers, but they are loyal to our Lord Jesus Christ, and true to His word. There are thousands and tens of thousands of them in Europe and America, including the first men of the church in intellectual endowments, scholastic attainments, fervent piety, faithful service and intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures. Indeed it is the study of the Scriptures, which has led to such a remarkable revival of the old and true faith in the pre-millennial coming of our Lord. Just as this is written a letter is received from a pastor in North Dakota, who says, “For some time it has been my purpose to procure a lot of suitable books, and 1nvestigate the subject of the Second Advent of Christ. But, my dear brother, I had the book I needed at hand. It was the BIBLE. Taking that as ‘the Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,’ I went at it with an honest desire to know the truth. Need I say more! You know where such work must end.” Pre-millennialists, however misrepresented or misunderstood, can always sing the song of Moses, when brought to face those who reject the truth; ‘Their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies them selves being judges,” Deut. xxxii:31. By far the ablest book that has ever appeared against the truth was written by Dr. David Brown, already frequently mentioned in these pages. To a pre-millennialist the admissions he makes are very remarkable from his stand point, and would have been all that can be demanded, if he had not spoiled them by contradictory statements.

Pre-millennialists have done the church a real service, by calling attention to the place which the second advent holds in the word of God and the scheme of divine truth. If the controversy which they have raised should issue in a fresh and impartial inquiry into this branch of it, I for one, instead of regretting, shall rejoice 1n the agitation of it. When they dilate upon the prominence given to this doctrine in scripture, and the practical uses which are made of it, they touch a chord in the heart of every simple lover of his Lord, and carry conviction to all who tremble at His word. . . With them we affirm that the REDEEMER’S SECOND APPEARING IS THE VERY POLE-STAR OF THE CHURCH. [The capitals are his own]. That it is so held forth in the New Testament is beyond dispute.

He tells us “there are certain minds which, either from constitutional temperament, or the particular school of theology to which they are attached, have tendencies in the direction of pre-millennialism so strong that they are ready to embrace it almost immediately con amore.” But what sort of minds are they? Cranky, curious, credulous? Nay, verily.

Souls that burn with love to Christ, who with the mother of Sisera, cry through the lattice, “Why is his chariot so long incoming? Why tarry the wheels of His chariots?” and with the spouse, “Make haste, my Beloved, and be Thou like to a roe, or a young hart upon the mountains of spices”—such souls are ready to catch at a doctrine which seems to promise a much earlier appearing of their beloved Lord than the ordinary view . . . But are there no anti-pre-millennial tendencies which require to be guarded against? I think there are. Under the influence of such tendencies, the inspired text, as such presents no rich and exhaustless field of prayerful and delighted investigation; exegetical inquiries and discoveries are an uncongenilal element; and whatever scripture intimations regarding the future destinies of the church and of the world involve events out of the usual range of human occurrences, or exceeding the anticipations of enlightened Christian sagacity, are almost instinctively overlooked or softened down.

One would think it well to be found in the first of those two companies, not. in the second, especially since Dr. Brown assures us that we should never be satisfied with anything less than the personal coming: of our Lord.

Would it be incongruous in the church to mourn and feel desolate in the presence of her Lord? Not less incongruous, it seems, is it not to cherish the feeling of desolation in His absence. And both are such incongruities as confounding the seasons of fasting and feasting, as putting a piece of new garment upon an old, as putting new wine into old bottles, and preferring new wine to old. . . . Jesus will think it an abuse of His consolations if we have learned from them to do without him. Written communications and tokens of affection from the absent One are dear to affection—but only when Himself cannot be had. Christ’s word, and the seals of His love conveyed to our hearts by the blessed Spirit, are inexpressibly dear to His loving people—but only in the absence of Himself. And never do we please Christ so much as when we “refuse to be comforted,” even with His own consolations, save in the prospect of His Personal Return. [The italics are his].

But let it not be imagined that the truth, although supported by divine authority and sustained by human authority, will prevail “till He come.” Only a line of witnesses to-the blessed hope will be kept up, and this is all. The apostasy has set in, and has come to stay. Of course God could revive His “work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, in wrath remember mercy,” and if it please the Lord still to tarry, this He must do, or “all will come to desolation.” Quite a number of godly men, who are post-millennialists, clearly see and deeply deplore the wretched condition of the professing Christian body, and frankly confess that the extraordinary manifestation of divine grace and power is absolutely necessary to save from impending ruin, and to call the church back to the gospel. But the probability is very great that we are hemmed in by the perils of the last days, and hence the witnesses can do nothing more in the midnight darkness than to cry, ‘Behold the Bridegroom cometh.”’ Matt. xxx:6.