|
|
|
|
News & Views, December 2002 - Edited By E. L. Bynum
Child Neglect - By By Norman H. Wells
Spiritual Bankruptcy - By Bill Mosley
Who Killed Pre-millenialism? - By M. L. MoserHow to "reach the young people" is a constant problem of religion, and the facts reveal the enormity of this difficulty. The greater percentage of young people are not attending church and Sunday school, and those who are generally drop out somewhere in their early teens. Most of the frantic effort "to reach the young people" is in reality an attempt to retrieve what religion has already lost.
All religion knows [is] that if it is going to be successful it must make provision for the teaching and training of children in spiritual things. This is of supreme importance. The simple, spiritual truth must be planted in the fertile minds and hearts of the young. The teaching agency of most churches is called a Sunday School, Bible School, or Church School. Normally it consists of one hour set aside on Sunday morning for the purpose of teaching. About twenty to twenty five minutes of this hour is usually given to opening exercises, singing, record keeping, announcements, promotions, etc. and another five to ten minutes is consumed in changing from assembly rooms to classrooms. This leaves about thirty minutes for actual teaching. Thirty minutes a week! This compares to thirty hours a week the same student spends in public school. In public school he attends class more in a week than he does the whole year in Sunday School.
By the time the student graduates from High School he will have the equivalent of twelve weeks of religious training. This is less than one semester and only a small percentage is getting this amount. And we wonder why we are a generation of spiritual ignoramuses. Nowhere do we deceive ourselves more than when we try to make believe that the teaching a child receives in Sunday School is enough to give him the spiritual education he so desperately needs.
Our public school teachers are professionals, well trained and qualified. The Sunday School, however, must depend upon volunteers, and this presents some problems. The average Sunday School is constantly in need of Sunday School teachers. There always seems to be a shortage, but very few are willing to take upon themselves this responsibility. This necessitates using whoever is available, whether they are qualified or not. This results in too large a percentage of Sunday School teachers being unqualified and really incapable of teaching. Too often they will waste the thirty precious minutes out of the week the child is given to learn of spiritual things.
Children are quick to recognize the inefficiency and inabilities of these teachers and are ready to take advantage. Too often a Sunday School class is just thirty minutes of utter confusion with a harassed teacher helplessly trying, at least, to keep order. The unreliability of Sunday School teachers is proverbial. A large percentage of these teachers seem to have utterly no recognition of the importance of what they are doing. They will show up late, unprepared, and will think nothing of being absent without making provision for their class. The sight of a departmental superintendent searching frantically around a Sunday School for a substitute teacher is an all too familiar one.
In some instances the Sunday School is used mainly as a promotional organization designed to get large numbers to attend church and Sunday School. So much time is given to getting a good number present that there is none left to teach them after they are there. It is common to see attendance contests take up most of the teaching time. If this weren't so tragic it would be funny.
Every good Sunday School must have good officers. Good superintendents and departmental heads with their assistants and secretaries are a necessity. These offices are mostly filled by folks who have proven themselves to be good, educated teachers. This means that the best teachers are put into positions where they don't teach. They then spend their time trying to get the job done with teachers who can't teach but must be used anyhow.
Possibly nowhere does the child cry out for firm guidance more than in religion, and nowhere does he find such a deaf ear. There are two scenes that, in all probability, are etched into the memory of everyone who has ever caught the vision of the importance of religious training for children. One of these scenes is a young child whose interest and wonder about spiritual things has been stirred, and he eagerly anticipates Sunday morning when he can attend Sunday School where these wonders are unfolded. When Sunday morning comes, the parents concoct some foolish excuse and keep the child home. The interest dies, and the glow of wonder fades out ... sometimes forever.
The other scene is a room full of children gathered in a Sunday School class eagerly awaiting those precious moments of spiritual training ... and the teacher comes in late and unprepared or doesn't even show up. This kind of damage is irreparable ... and can even be eternal.
With this type of training it is small wonder that the child, at a very early age, becomes aware of the sham and hypocrisy of religion. A sincere, honest child will want to know. He will look for answers ... answers he never gets. He grows up firmly convinced no one has ever really leveled with him about religion. By far the large percentage of the youth of today receive no religious training in their home, their school, or their church. No wonder they can dismiss it as of no importance.
Those exposed to the teaching offered in the average church are quick to sense the unreality of it all ... the pretense and hypocrisy. They get a glimpse of the truth, but when they compare it with what they see practiced they generally reject it in disgust. A child is not as easily deceived as we might think. Early in his life he becomes aware of the difference between what he hears in church and what he sees in his parents. He is conscious of the vast superiority of his public school over his Sunday School. He is acutely conscious of the habitual hypocrisy all around. He feels he is being deceived ... no one is really laying it on the line. By the time the child reaches an age of independent decision he is intensely aware of his spiritual need. He is also aware that the religion to which he has been exposed does not meet that need He then turns to something else.
Sometimes, in order to show his contempt for the pretense and sham of religion, he will run to what he feels is an extreme opposite. He will find satisfaction in opinions, fashions, and actions that are contradictory to all for which he believes religion stands. He delights in shocking the generation that has tried to impose upon him their hypocrisies. He excuses his wrong actions simply because they are done in honesty and sincerity as opposed to covering the same actions under the veneer of religion. He speaks of a "new morality" when he never really knew anything about the old. He excuses himself in what he believes is unorthodox opinions, appearances, clothing, music, literature, etc. His rebellion is nothing more than a desire to be the opposite of that to which he objects. He recognizes a need but doesn't know how it is be satisfied. He may ultimately try to expand his mind with drugs and indulge in every excess which lust dictates. He fails ... because religion failed.
There are others who seem to be able to reject religion with a contempt that only great wisdom can have for ignorance. They fancy themselves as having intellectually advanced beyond a need of religion. They condone it in others lesser knowledge and wait impatiently for them to catch up. A young person comes to this conclusion about the time is a sophomore in college.
Some of the young will turn to new exotic cults that all established religions condemn. The new cult is attractive only because it is condemned. The majority just ignores religion of no importance. Others drift into the sham and hypocrisy of their parents. Each generation gets farther away ... and time is running out.
Insolvency seldom happens over night. Often it takes years to reach the point where assets give way to liabilities. Legislated enactments many times seem to favor the debtor more so than the lender. Some appear to thrive monetarily while financing their lifestyle on borrowed capital. When the day of accounting arrives it frequently happens that there is more indebtedness than possessions. Personal opinions and carnal desires have overshadowed responsibility to the lender. Solvency is impossible and bankruptcy becomes imperative.
This is not to say that financial bankruptcy always results from an imperfect or improper lifestyle or management. Circumstances may effect conditions that prevent solvency. Such was the case in many instances during the depression of the past century.
As sobering as financial bankruptcy is, it pales into nothingness compared to spiritual bankruptcy. Israel often came to this place in their national state. Their condition was such when Elijah came on the scene countering the spiritual interest of the majority. Baal worship had become so widespread that spiritual resistance had reached an all time low. Their king had married out of the will of God, and his wife had succeeded in replacing worship of the true God with worship of a false god. (1 Kings 17-19)
Israel's condition is akin to that of many today. There were two opinions about who to worship as well as how to worship. Elijah raised this question as to their destitute spiritual condition in this manner. (1 Kings 18:21) "Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word." Elijah had proclaimed a drought of three years, and yet it had not turned King Ahab or the people back to the true God.
This spiritual condition was the result of a gradual decline from following the written directions of Scripture. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exo. 20:3), had long given way to other opinions. Observing the natural inclination of man, it can easily be assumed that even the prophets of God had neglected to remind the people of God's holiness. It can also be assumed that the people wanted it to be so. "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jer. 5:31)
Similar conditions are not only apparent today, they are undeniable. Not only do our national leaders proclaim that false gods are as reliable as the true God, in their opinion, but prominent spiritual(?) leaders are also slackening their stand. Not only is Islam announced to be a peaceful religion, their god, Allah, is classified as reliable as the true God. Some even declare them to be the same. For a prominent religious leader to take a firm stand that Islam is not a peaceful religion and that Allah is a false god, places them under the scrutiny of the news media as well as other religious leaders. Such was the case of Franklin Graham taking the stand that Islam was not a peaceful religion.
Among the spiritual guideline given to the church at Ephesus in chapter four, Paul said, "Neither give place to the devil." (v. 27) No occupancy was to be allowed where Satan, the accuser of the brethren, could implement his deceptive plans. If he is granted a temporary "place," you can be sure he will take up permanent residency. Not only that, he will also be executing his devious plans to change godly opinions.
If there was ever a doubt that popular acceptance of homosexuality would come, that doubt has been at least suppressed. Systematic Bible reading of both testaments will give a sound opinion that God considers sodomy the rankest sin. Divine record reveals concerning those participating in this sin, that God "gave them up to uncleanness . . . vile affections." (Rom. 1:24,26) Brave Stephen became the first New Testament martyr for reminding the Jews that their ancestors gave up true worship to worship false gods. (Acts 7:42,43)
Satan has convinced a great part of society that homosexuality is only an alternate lifestyle. This is not news to the reader, but beware! He will not stop his forward progress of damning souls and finally nations. Although acceptance of homosexuality may not suggest agreement with such, it is gradually and surely coming closer. Many churches have muffled their once strong stand against this sin. Religious leaders are not as uncompromising as they once were.
Jerry Falwell, pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, VA once took the stand that homosexuality was of the rankest of sin against God. He referred to them as "Sodomites" and said there can be "no peaceful coexistence" between homosexuals and Christians. (Christianity Today, 12/6/99) "Falwell's National Liberty Journal has argued that Tinky Winky, the purple character from the children's television program Teletubbies, serves as a gay icon."
Theoretically the once staunch defender of truth concerning the biblical uncleanness of sodomy is willing to make some allowances. He is now "Building Outreach and Friendship with the Homosexual Community," the title of an article reporting Falwell's reason for softening his stand. At this point James would have to interject, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4) The Apostle John would have to say, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15)
The reasons given for this change were the shootings of Christians at Columbine High School and the Wedgewood Baptist Church, and the murder of gay student Matthew Shepard. On Oct. 23, 1999, Falwell hosted 200 evangelical leaders and 200 homosexuals at his Thomas Road Baptist Church. Where did the idea originate? With former Methodist pastor, Mel White, ghost writer for Falwell's autobiography before White openly declared himself a homosexual. Remember Paul's caution to the church at Ephesus: "Neither give place to the devil."
Falwell welcomed "my friend Mel White and those of you who have journeyed with him to Lynchburg this weekend. Thank you for coming to Thomas Road Baptist Church." Cordiality toward humanity is one thing; appearing to even partial agreement to sin is altogether another. Had Falwell's once firm stand against homosexuality never weakened, the following would likely never have happened.
Like all sin and those who defend it, homosexuals are not content that three years ago Jerry Falwell promised to be more tolerant. Why has what once satisfied Mel White and his counterparts became less effective? One reason is that sin is always seeking to expand its borders. Another is society in general have become more tolerant and even sympathetic with homosexuality. The news media have been instrumental in modifying persuasions of many toward consent if not approval of homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. This in no way changes how God views this sin. We remind you once more that God gave such up to their uncleanness and vile affections. (Rom. 1) When Israel would not hearken to the voice of God, He "...gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels." (Psa. 81:12)
An article by Cody Lowe of The Roanoke Times, 10/28/02, reports on the latest visit of Mel White and Soulforce. White is co-founder of Soulforce, a pro-homosexual organization. This visit to Thomas Road Baptist was to once again quell the voice of Pastor Falwell concerning homosexuality, and remind him of his promise three years ago. They brought "a crowd to this central Virginia city . . . to celebrate gay pride and to rebut the Rev. Jerry Falwell's teaching on homosexuality."
A deacon of Thomas Road Baptist stated in an interview: "Our goal is to witness, to share the Gospel, to love." This is an admirable goal for any Baptist church. During this time he "was helping a group of church members at the front door offering doughnuts and coffee to the 150 or so Soulforce members ..." (I suppose the Gospel was too bitter to serve.) Lot must have had a similar tolerance toward the sodomite society in Sodom. He indeed had two members of such a society as sons-in-law. (Gen. 19:14) The deacon assured the interviewer "There's no hostility" between Soulforce and his congregation. There was no enmity between Soulforce and the Thomas Road Baptist Church? But the carnal mind is "enmity against God" and will not be subject to God's law. (Rom. 8:7) The only stated disagreement was "We have a difference of opinion" over the issue of homosexuality, "but we are all sinners." Elijah's "How long halt ye between two opinions?" would certainly be appropriate here. (1 Kings 18:21) The deacon further stated there was no list saying "This (homosexuality) is the worst sin." He may never have read Proverbs 6:16-19. Among those six things the LORD hates, yea the seven which are an abomination to Him are "an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations." Isn't this what Lot said about the sons of Belial (wickedness) who desired "to know" the messengers of God? (Judges 19) It was a wicked imagination devised in the wicked hearts of the sodomites. When the deacon admitted "we are all sinners" he sounded much like Lot when he said, "Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly;..."
"Among those who stood in Sunday's vigil were Bob and Mary Lou Wallner of Elgin, Ill. Their daughter, Anna, killed herself in Feb. 1997, a victim they believe of the negative teachings they passed on to her during her Southern Baptist upbringing." The Wallners have now changed their once staunch and vocal opposition to homosexual relationships. Mrs. Wallner says, she believes "the church has created a monster, responsible for the spread of AIDS and promiscuity" among gays and lesbians. She believes if the church accepted homosexuals and blessed their union, that would help reduce promiscuity, disease and suicide. Repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ implemented by the preaching of the Gospel will not only reduce "promiscuity, disease and suicide" among the gay crowd, it will "save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."(James 5:20)
To heighten his opposition to Falwell's saying homosexuality is sin, White and his partner, Gary Nixon, moved from California into a house across from Thomas Road Baptist. Would Mrs. Wallner dare say that White and his partner were having a promiscuous relationship? Of course she would have to check them both out about their previous homosexual activities to know for sure. In a gay-rights rally in a Lynchburg park, White told participants "it's safe to come out." White stated that he and Falwell said three years ago "they would tone down the rhetoric in the debate over homosexuality." White contends the pastor has not kept his promise. Sounds as though White has not kept his promise as well.
What has this to do with spiritual bankruptcy? Not unlike financial bankruptcy, compromising decisions are certain to bring spiritual disaster. Read about Israel's spiritual condition after years of compromising their spiritual state. (Isa. 30:9-13) "That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant." "This iniquity" that would bring about their sudden fall was "a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD..." Not hearing and obeying the law of God will soon lead to spiritual bankruptcy. When prophets prophesy lies, and spiritual(?) leaders bear rule by their power, and God's people want it to be that way, "what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jer. 5:31) The end of compromise is complete surrender. What will "ye do" then?
The end is already in plain view. Some are now accepting open homosexuals as pastors. There are religious organizations that are admittedly homosexual churches. If the trend continues, and it will as long as people halt between two opinions, there will be a homosexual church with the name "Baptist" on its sign. If this happens, where will you stand on accepting members from said church? It is spiritual insolvency even to consider homosexuality as simply another "opinion." The statement of Paul to the churches of Galatia who suddenly turned from truth well applies here. "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." (Gal. 5:8) The persuasion that homosexuality and Christianity is compatible is not from the law of God. There will never be a legislative enactment that will change the law of God on this subject. It is a sin against God that will lead to spiritual disaster in our churches and our nation if it is not confronted by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have been in the ministry now for nearly 47 years, and I have never found a modernist that was not a believer in A-millennialism, nor have I ever found a Pre-millennialist that was not a believer in the fundamentals of the Word of God. A millennialism or Anti-millennialism is simply another denial of the clear teachings of the Word of God. A- millennialism is a first step toward the denial of other doctrines of the Word of God and ultimately leads to the denial of the fundamentals of the faith. It is the first step toward liberalism, unbelief and infidelity.
Perhaps a definition of terms is in order here. Pre-millennialism is the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is to return to this earth to rapture or catch up His saints before His reigning on this earth for one thousand years. This period of one thousand years is called the Millennial reign of Christ. It is also referred to as "Chiliasm." Post-millennialism is the teaching that Christ will not return to this earth until after the one thousand years. A- millennialism or Anti-millennialism is a denial of a millennial reign at all, and is in reality a denial of the teaching of the Book of Revelation, making it an allegory not to be believed literally. Admittedly this is an over simplification, but in essence that is what these terms mean.
It is only in recent years that the false doctrine of A-millennialism has crept in among the ranks of Southern Baptists so that today it is the dominate if not the exclusive view taught in all of their universities and seminaries. It had been transported from the old Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptist Convention), and they derived it from their close association with the liberal and modernistic schools connected with the National Council of Churches. This liberalism is now moving into the ranks of independent Baptists, and could be the beginning of modernism and unbelief among the ranks of independent Baptists, hence the purpose of this article.
It has been stated by the advocates of A-millennialism that Pre-millennialism began during the 18th century and that there were no Pre-millennialists prior to that time. This I deny. I hold that the doctrine of Pre-millennialism was predicted before the days of Jesus Christ, by the prophets of the Old Testament, and reaffirmed by the writers of the New Testament. Furthermore, this has been the historic belief of Christianity down through the centuries since the days of Christ. During the time of the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church this doctrine was nearly eliminated by the Popes, as the doctrine of A-millennialism is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, and, as in all other doctrines, Rome allows for no difference of opinion regarding Biblical interpretation. According to her, her word is law.
To show this is true, we quote a portion of a book I have in my library entitled "The Voice of the Church on the Reign of Christ," published in 1855. This is a book of over 406 pages, printed in small print. In this article we are only going to print a small portion of the book. The portion which we will print points out that Pre-millennialism was all but killed by the Roman Catholic Church during the "dark ages" and the times of the inquisition, and that Pre- millennialism only resurfaced during the times of the Reformation Period and the centuries following. The 18th century was not the beginning of this doctrine, but a resurfacing of this doctrine, even as the Ana Baptists, which were practically buried during the previous centuries, resurfaced at the beginning of the Reformation Period.
It is my prayer that our independent Baptist brethren who may be tempted to follow off after this Romish doctrine of A- millennialism will think seriously about this matter before doing so. A- millennialism is not a Bible doctrine, nor a Baptist doctrine, but a Roman Catholic doctrine.
Pre-millennialism, we hold, is Apostolic, but in reviewing the testimony of the early church on the question of Chiliasm (Pre-millennialism), it is of course admitted that they mixed errors with the doctrine. We remember that "the mystery of iniquity" worked in Paul's day, and we have read his solemn prediction in his farewell charge given to the church at Ephesus. An English writer has well observed, "I do not appeal to the writings of the early Christians as authority; so far from it, I regard their writing as the history of truth perverted; so that while on the one hand I should be surprised to find any truth taught by the apostles, unnoticed in the Fathers, I should be almost equally surprised to find it taught Scripturally and unencumbered by human additions, so early did the apostasy begin to work."
Above antiquity, tradition or human opinion, in the words of Burnet, "we should always require a higher witness, viz: the Bible." This is the first. But we highly esteem the faith of that church whose characteristics, says Milner, were "to believe, to love, and to suffer." "Whatever is first," says Tertullian, "is true; whatever is later is adulterate," and Mr. Faber has truly said: "If a doctrine totally unknown to the primitive church, which received her theology immediately from the hands of the apostles, and which continued long to receive it from the hands of the disciples of the apostles, springs up in a subsequent age, let that age be the fifth century, or let it be the tenth century, or let it be the sixteenth century, such doctrine stands on its very front, impressed with the brand of mere human invention" ("Primitive Doctrine of Election" p. 158). Such, we argue, is Post-millennialism, and such also Anti-millennialism, of which we are now to speak, after first giving the character of the times.
Having now arrived in our history of Millenarianism at the commencement of the fifth century, when the great apostasy had begun, and this Apocalyptic truth was deemed a heresy and accounted unpopular, we here purpose giving, through the combined testimony of many voices, a brief but fuller account of its decline. Paganism was fallen, but the Papacy was hastening to its birth, and even in its embryo was hung all over with idolatry. From Gibbon, Neander and Mosheim, we learn that in the fourth century, monks, monasteries, convents, penance, church councils, with church control of conscience, excommunication, the perfume of flowers, the smoke of incense, wax tapers in the churches at noon day, prostrate crowds at the altar drunk with fanaticism or wine, imprinting devout kisses on the walls and supplicating the concealed blood, bones, or ashes of the saints, idolatrous frequenting martyrs' tombs, pictures and images of tutelar saints, veneration of bones and relics, gorgeous robes, tiaras, crosses, pomp, splendor and mysticism, were seen everywhere, and were the order of the day; and says Mosheim: "The new species of philosophy imprudently adopted by Origen and many other Christians, was extremely prejudicial to the cause of the gospel, and to the beautiful simplicity of its celestial doctrines," and Gibbon writes that "If in the beginning of the fifth century Tertullian or Lactantius had been suddenly raised from the dead to assist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr, they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation at the profane spectacle which had succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation."
Martyr worship was very common, and Eunapius the Pagan, A.D. 396, exclaimed, "These are the gods that the earth now a days brings forth, these the intercessors with the godsmen called martyrs: before whose bones and skulls, pickled and salted, the monks kneel, and lay prostrate, covered with filth and dust."
The mystery of iniquity worked like leaven, and to use the words of Coleridge, "The Pastors of the Church had gradually changed the life and light of the gospel into the very superstitions they were commissioned to disperse; and thus paganized Christianity in order to christen Paganism."
Dr. Cumming remarks that "The great multitude consisted of embryo papists, and what we call Pusyism in the nineteenth century, was the predominating religion of the fourth." Milner says that "while there was much outward religion the true doctrines of justification were scarcely seen." All of this Dr. Duffield does not hesitate to affirm was the genuine offspring of the allegorical system and Platonic philosophy of Origen, who made the church on earth the mystic kingdom of heaven. "Vigilantius,"says Elliott, "remained true, and was the Protestant of his times, "but Jerome," remarks Dr. Cumming, "became utterly corrupted," and Augustine, as Elliott has shown, scarcely escaped the universal contagion. Eusebius said "the church of the fourth century looked like the very image of the kingdom of Christ," but it was not the Millennium, as he dreamed, says Cumming, but the mystery of iniquity, ripening and maturing. It rapidly approached its predicted maturity, and Antichrist loomed into view.
Such was the character of the times, and need we wonder that the true Millennium was laid aside, and with it the Apocalypse that taught it? "Rome," says Burnet, "always had an evil eye on the Millennium!" Truly spoken! Says Newman the Roman Catholic writer: "Whereas at first certain texts were inconsistently confined to the letter, and a Millennium was in consequence expected; the very course of events, as time went on, interpreted the prophecies about the church more truly," etc., i.e. in a mystical or analogical manner.
Continuing our quotations on this point, we give the testimony of Bishop Russell, of Scotland, a strong Anti-millennarian, who writes as follows: "It is worthy of remark, that so long as the prophecies regarding the Millennium were interpreted literally, the Apocalypse was received as an inspired production, and as the work of the apostle John; but no sooner did theologians find themselves compelled to view its annunciations through the medium of allegory and metaphorical description, than they ventured to call in question its heavenly origin, its genuineness, and its authority."
Dionysius, the great supporter of the allegorical school, gives a decided opinion against the authenticity of the Revelation. Joseph Mede truly says of the Anti-millennarians of the fourth century, "They denied the Apocalypse to be Scripture, nor was it re-admitted till they thought they had found some commodious interpretation of the thousand years." Dr. Cumming observes, "Some divines of the fourth century rejected the Apocalypse, on the ground that it contained, as they alleged, prophecies of what they erroneously believed to be a carnal Millennium; just in the same way as some persons still argue that the Bible cannot be God's word, because it contains truths that cross their prejudices."
Dr. Elliott testifies, that from the Constantinian revolution in the eastern empire, with but few exceptions, we find the Apocalypse "passed over in silence by the great Greek Father of the remainder of the fourth century"; and he also shows that nearly all who rejected it were evidently under prejudices against and misconceptions of the Apocalyptic doctrine of a Millennium.
The pointed testimony of Prof. Stuart is as follows: "In the end of the fourth century to guard against Chiliasm, quite a number doubted the genuineness of the Apocalypse, did not receive it as canonical, and carefully abstained from appealing to it, but after this period we find only here and there a solitary voice raised against it, until at length the reception became all but universal. When the question of Chiliasm had ceased to excite any special interest in the churches ... all opposition to the Apocalypse either ceased or became quite inactive and indifferent."
Gibbon, too, adds his testimony to this remarkable fact, and says, "In the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 360, the Apocalypse was tacitly excluded from the sacred canon, by the same churches of Asia to which it was addressed; and we may learn from the complaint of Sulpicius Severus, that their sentence had been ratified by the greater number of Christians of his time." And to sum up this array of evidence with regard to the Millennium, as held by the church up to this period, together with its rejection, as also that of the Apocalypse, we give the following striking and truthful language of Horatius Bonar. On Rev. 20th chapter, he writes:
"In the first centuries great stress was laid upon this passage. It was considered the stronghold of Chiliasmso strong and decided was its testimony deemed, that the Anti-chiliasts deemed their only escape from it, was the total denial of the Apocalypse. Chiliasm and the Apocalypse were deemed inseparable. They could only get rid of the former by rejecting the latter. They never thought it possible to deny that the Apocalypse taught Chiliasm. This was not disputed, and hence those who disliked Chiliasm could not tolerate the Apocalypse. It was not till the church had learned to Platonize, or had taken lessons in the school of Origen, that they could condemn Chiliasm without disputing the inspiration of the Revelation."
Such is the voice of History, with regard to the doctrine of the Millennium, and its subsequent depression. We have been sufficiently copious, so that the intelligent and candid reader might know both the character of its advocates and opponentsits firm adherents, and its ultimate destroyers. Orthodoxy had sided with it, but heterodoxy waged war against it. The true church believed in it, but the apostate church crushed it. If this be true, ought not the church of Christ in the nineteenth [and twentieth] century unanimously maintain Chiliasm? We think so. Rome, with those in her employ, rose up against it. Brooks affirms that the works of Papias and Nepos, and Mede adds those of Victorinus and Sulpicius, containing Millenarian views were authoritatively suppressed by Pope Damasus.
The extraordinary admission of Gibbon is that, "as long as for wise purposes this error was permitted to subsist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians, who lived in the awful expectation of that moment when the globe itself, and all the various races of mankind, should tremble at the appearance of their divine Judge," but now the great Antichrist was at hand, and the way must be prepared for him to reign, and be worshiped. That which Chillingworth, Lardner, Taylor, Russell and others affirm to have been orthodox in the first centuries, began to be deemed heretical. The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus, in A.D. 373, formally denounced Chiliasm, and so effectual was the condemnation that Baronius, a Roman Catholic historian of the sixteenth century, observes that, "the heresy, however loquacious before, was silenced then, and since that time has hardly been heard of." And of the fifth century he writes, "more over the figments of the Millennaries being now rejected everywhere, and derided by the learned with hisses and laughter, and being also put under the ban, were entirely extirpated!"
Says Bush,"through the dreary tract of the ages of darkness, scarcely a vestige of Millennarian sentiment is to be traced!"
Thus have we seen that through the rejection of the Apocalypse by Caius, Dionysius, and finally the church in general; through the Platonism and allegorizing of Origen and his numerous followers; through the misrepresentations of Eusebius; through the scoffing of the monk Jerome; through the hatred and opposition of a great church of embryotic Papists; through the denunciations of church councils; through the combinations and bitterness of Popes; through the laughter and hisses of Popish doctors; through the influence of an onward creeping and awful apostasy; through, perhaps, the abuse of Millennarian truths by their advocates; and, finally, through the presentation and final reception of a new and erroneous Millennial theory more suited to the times, the true Apocalyptic doctrine of the Millennium, as held by the primitive church, wasted away and ultimately well nigh died died, not at the hands of orthodox Christians, but at the hand of men noted for their unsoundness in the faithdied at the hands of the infant harlot, Rome! And, alas! how much truth died with it how much error lived when it died! But it did not die utterly, for: "Truth crushed to earth shall rise again, The eternal years of God are her's!"