The writings of the early Fathers of the Christian Church have been sometimes greatly overrated on the one hand, and at other times as unjustly depreciated, on the other. It has been maintained that from this source, all our theology ought to flow, and that by this standard the Word of God ought to be expounded. Did not those individuals, it has been triumphantly asked, who lived next to the age of Christ and his apostles, know better what doctrines they taught and what expositions of Old Testament Scriptures they gave, than those who live at the present day? Others, on the contrary, express the utmost contempt for the writings of the Fathers; collect from their works numerous instances of false exegesis, and then exclaim, in the words though not in the spirit of Lord Bacon, "We are the true ancients." Both these opinions are manifestly erroneous, and hence the question arises, What degree of importance are we to attach to the writings of the early Fathers? Though we cannot elevate them to the rank of judges, and implicitly bow to their exposition of Scripture, yet we must regard them as honest men, and perfectly competent to give an impartial account of the leading doctrines which were believed in their day. It is indeed admitted, that error was introduced at a very early period into the Church, and that in the first three centuries of the Christian era we find the germ of almost every error that was afterwards developed in the anti-christian apostasy. But it cannot surely be supposed that, at so early a period, the essential doctrines of the gospel would be denied, or so greatly perverted as to destroy their distinctive features, and consequently we may believe that the doctrines taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian were generally the same with those contained in the New Testament. The nearer, therefore, that any writer lived to the time of the apostles, the more important is his testimony respecting any particular doctrine. Viewed in this light, the testimony of Justin Martyr is of the utmost importance. He was born in the Greek colony of Flavia Neapolis, near to the ancient Sychem in Samaria, and, previous to his embracing Christianity, was well acquainted with the leading systems of Grecian philosophy. He afterwards went from place to place in his philosopher’s mantle, expounding the Scriptures, and defending Christianity against both heathens and heretics. His larger Apology presented to the Roman Emperor in defence of the Christians, and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, were written about the middle of the second century, and at a period when individuals must have been living who had seen and heard some of the apostles. Justin had also visited Palestine, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Rome, so that he had ample opportunity of being well acquainted with the leading teachers in the Christian Church.

The clear, decided testimony of such a man as Justin Martyr to the personal reign of Christ on the earth has always been felt to be peculiarly valuable. He repeatedly maintains that two advents are recorded in Scripture: one in which Christ should come as a sufferer, in a mean and despised form, and that he should be at last crucified; but in the other he shall come with great power and glory. "For the prophets," says he, "proclaim two of his advents; one indeed, has already taken place, when he appeared as a dishonoured and suffering man; but the other is announced when he shall appear with the glory of heaven, with his angelic host, when he shall also raise the bodies of all men"—Apology, I., chapter 52. But what proof have we that this second advent is premillennial. We have the most conclusive evidence in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, when he endeavours to convince his opponent that Christ is the Messiah promised to the fathers. But the Jew naturally affirmed that Jesus could not be the Messiah, for the prophets announced that he should come as a glorious conqueror, and yet Christ was mean and despised. In obviating this objection, Justin says that there are two appearances of Christ mentioned: one in which he was put to death, but in the other his murderers shall recognise him whom they have pierced, and the tribes shall wail, tribe by tribe, the women apart, and the men apart; but that in the mean time Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, till the times are completed. "Our Lord Jesus Christ," says Justin, "was forthwith received into heaven, while the times were fulfilling; and he that is about to come and speak bold and audacious things against the Most High is already near at the door, who, Daniel intimates, shall remain for a time, and times, and the half of a time. And you, ignorant how long he is about to continue, expound it otherwise; for ye say that a time denotes a hundred years. But if this is the case, then the Man of Lawlessness shall reign at least 350 years, according to that which is spoken by the holy Daniel, ‘And times,’ where not less than two times can be intended"—Dialogue, chapter 32. By the 1260 days, mentioned in Revelation, and the time, times, and the dividing of a time, in Daniel, the early Fathers understood three years and a half, during which Antichrist shall reign. At the close of this period, they thought Christ should come, and consume the Man of Sin with the breath of his mouth and destroy him with the outshining of his presence. In confirmation of this theory, and as an illustration of the passage already quoted we may notice that Justin thus describes the manifestation of the man of sin previous to Christ’s second coming: "There are two appearances of him (of Christ) announced. The first, indeed, in which he is announced as suffering, and without glory, and crucified; but the second, in which he shall appear with glory above the heavens; when also the Man of Apostasy who utters enormously insolent things even against the most High, shall dare to do unlawful things against us Christians upon earth." The two appearances of Christ are also illustrated, according to the allegorising spirit of the age, by the two goats on the annual day of atonement; the one was sacrificed and the other was sent into the wilderness. The first goat, it was alleged, was typical of a suffering, the second of a glorified, Redeemer.

Justin Martyr maintained further, that Elias would come, previous to Christ’s appearance. Trypho objected against Christianity that Elias had not come according to the prediction of Malachi. Our author replies, that as John the Baptist, in the spirit and power of Elias, preceded Christ’s first coming, so Elias shall come personally before his second advent—Dialogue, chapter 49.

But the most complete exposition of the common view of the Church respecting the Millennium is contained in the 80^th and 81^st chapters of the Dialogue with Trypho. The subject is introduced by a question from Trypho. "And Trypho answered to these things: Tell me, O man, since thou art anxious to be certain in all matters, cleaving to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you truly confess that this place, Jerusalem, shall be built, and do you expect that before Christ come, your people shall be gathered together and rejoice with Christ, together with the patriarchs and prophets, and with our race, and even with the proselytes? or that you may seem to excel us in these questions, are you not at liberty to confess to these things? And I replied: I am not so reduced to extremities, O Trypho, as to say things that I do not think. I will confess then to thee; and first, that I and many others think that these things shall be accomplished as truly as you do; but I acknowledge to thee again that there are also many Christians who are (not?) pious and pure who do not entertain this sentiment. For I have shown you that there are some that are called Christians who are atheists and ungodly heretics, because they teach all blasphemous and atheistical and foolish doctrines. But that you may not be the only one to know that we hold this doctrine, I will compose a treatise, according to my ability, of all our doctrines, in which I will write also that which I have acknowledged, and that which I acknowledge to you. For I am determined not to follow men or men’s doctrines, but rather God and those doctrines derived from him. For if you converse with some that are called Christians, they not only do not acknowledge this doctrine, but they also dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; they also affirm that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that as soon as they die their souls are received into heaven. You do not acknowledge them to be Christians any more than those Jews, when it is rightly understood, who confess that they are Sadducees, or that they belong to the similar heresies of the Genistae, and Meristae, and Galileans, and Helleniani, and Pharisees, and Baptistae—you even hear me with difficulty enumerating these things; but these are indeed called Jews and the children of Abraham, and they confess him with their lips, while, as God himself exclaims, their heart is far from him. But I and those that are orthodox Christians in all things, maintain that there shall be a resurrection of the flesh, and we shall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem when it has been built and beautified and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and the others confess. For Isaiah thus speaks concerning the thousand years: —Isaiah 65: 17-25. I continued, When, therefore, it is affirmed in these words, ‘For according to the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, even according to the works of their labour,’ we think that a thousand years are intimated in a mystery. For as it was said to Adam, ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,’ we know that he did not fulfil a thousand years. We know also, when it is said that the day of the Lord is as a thousand years, that this doctrine is referred to. And since also there was a certain man among us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, having composed a Revelation, predicted that they who believe should dwell in Jerusalem with our Christ, and after these things there shall take place the universal and, as appears, eternal judgment, simultaneously with the resurrection of all. For even as our Lord said, —they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, being the children of the resurrection of God"—Dialogue, chapters 80 and 81.

In this important quotation, it will be observed that there is an apparent contradiction. According to the received reading, Justin says: "But I acknowledge to thee again that there are many Christians who are pious and pure who do not hold this doctrine." And then he goes on to enumerate such parties who call themselves Christians, and yet attempted to subvert the very foundations of divine truth. Critics have endeavoured to remove the difficulty in two ways. Some propose to read the clause thus: "But I acknowledge to thee again that there are many Christians who are not pious and pure who do not hold this doctrine;" and then it is argued that such individuals ought no more to be called Christians than the adherents of the seven heretical sects among the Jews should be called the children of Abraham. Others think that no conjectural reading is admissible, and that the difficulty is sufficiently cleared up by the fact, that though pure and pious Christians denied the millennial reign of Christ, they were not orthodox Christians in all things. "But I," says he, "and those that are perfectly orthodox Christians in all things." The first mode of obviating the difficulty renders the passage entirely consistent with itself, and indicates a regular process of thought, while according to the second, the imperfect, but pure and pious Christians are simply mentioned, and then, by an abrupt transition of thought, the entire argument is made to bear against heretics who were unworthy of the Christian name. And though in the Greek of the New Testament a conjectural reading is entirely inadmissible, yet this is very far from being the case with the writings of the Fathers, as their works have not been guarded by the Church with such scrupulous care as the inspired volume. But according to either exposition, it is admitted that the personal reign of Christ on the earth with his saints was the prevalent doctrine in the Church during the second century—a circumstance which surely points to an earlier origin.

Justin reminds his opponents that the Christians believed in the personal reign of Christ just as truly as did the Jews that Messiah should come. The Jewish Rabbis taught that the Messiah, immediately on his coming, would reassemble the scattered tribes, and that every Israelite who did not, like the Sadducees, deny the resurrection of the dead, would enter upon the enjoyment of a thousand years, under the dominion of their triumphant King. "How many," asks one, "are the days of the Messiah?" Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, said: "The times of the Messiah are a thousand years according to what is said in Jeremiah 23: 4: For the day of God is a thousand years."

The vanity of human life is never perhaps so keenly felt as when we contrast its shortness with the duration of many trees, and even with most of the works of art. The oak lives a thousand years, and many of the works of man exist long after he is dead. When, therefore, it is said that the days of God’s people shall be as the days of a tree, even as the works of their hands, it is intended that during the millennium the curse shall be removed, and man shall regain his original position in the universe of God.

There is another passage in the writings of this distinguished Father which evidently refers to the millennium, and from which some have very unfairly attempted to show that sensuous notions were connected with this great event. It is as follows: "That Christ preached the gospel, and himself said, The kingdom of heaven is at hand; and that it was necessary for him to suffer many things of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to be crucified, and on the third day to rise again, and again to come to Jerusalem to eat and drink with his disciples." Justin clearly refers to Matthew 26: 29, where the Saviour says to his disciples, "But I say unto you, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine, until that day I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." Instead, therefore, of criticising Justin Martyr’s sensuous notions too severely, let the opponents of Christ’s pre-millennial advent recollect that he is almost quoting inspired language, and let them beware lest, in condemning the servant, they do not equally condemn the master. This ancient writer is indeed very far from indulging in sensual ideas when he represents believers as waiting for the coming of the Lord. He affirms, in harmony with Scripture, that the children of the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are equal to the angels; and he expressly says, "Whoever is faithful to the doctrine of Jesus, him will Christ raise from the dead at his second advent, and make him immortal, unchangeable, and free from all sorrow." And in another passage he says, "At his glorious advent Christ will in every way confound those who have hated him and unrighteously apostatised from him: but his own people he will bring to enjoy repose, and fulfil all their expectations." These quotations clearly show the nature of the millennium which the early Christians expected, for Justin is not the only writer of that period who entertained the same blessed hope. "In all these works," says Gieseler in his Church History, "the millennium is so evident, that no one can hesitate to consider it as universal in an age when certainly such motives as it offered were not unnecessary to animate men to suffer for Christianity." But if this belief was necessary then, it is no less needful now. Contempt, and hatred, and malice have supplied the place of open violence, and consequently it is just as true as it ever was that it is through much tribulation that we must inherit the kingdom. In the metaphorical but deeply impressive language of Scripture, believers are still orphans, destitute and desolate, deprived of a Father’s care; they are still captives longing for the return of their sovereign to break their chains; and the Church, in her collective capacity, is yet a disconsolate widow subject to the world’s oppression and scorn, and continually expecting her Husband’s return. This glorious hope is, just as necessary now as it was in the past ages, to cheer us in adversity, to sustain our courage and invigorate our faith amidst our manifold trials, as we wait for the coming of the Lord from heaven. And surely it is a cheering thought that, for aught we know to the contrary, this may be the last generation of men who shall tread the earth in sorrow and sadness, and that before another age dawns, Christ may come and reign with his saints upon the earth. —From Waymarks in the Wilderness.

* * *