Transcriber's Note:
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully
aspossible, including some inconsistencies of hyphenation. Some
changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are listed
at the end of the text.
Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.
The University of Chicago
THE TRANSFORMATION OF
EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM
AN ESCHATOLOGICAL
TO A SOCIALIZED
MOVEMENT
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL
BY
LYFORD PATERSON EDWARDS
The Collegiate Press
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
1919
CONTENTS
Chapter I. Political Theories of the Early Christians 1
Chapter II. The Early Church and Property Concepts 24
Chapter III. The Early Church and the Populace 50
Chapter IV. Chiliasm and Patriotism 70
Chapter V. Chiliasm and Social Theory 83
CHAPTER I
THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS
When Christianity came into the world it found a number of different
political theories already in existence. These various conflicting
concepts; Hebrew, Greek and Roman, influenced Christianity in varying
degrees and in varying degrees were influenced by Christianity.
Christianity as such added no new ideas to the current stock of
political notions. The Hebrew Christian retained his Jewish theory; as
did the Greek and the Roman in perhaps a less degree. The development of
the Christian conception of the state, the Church, and history generally
is a process of elimination, selection, adaptation, and synthesis of the
various elements of political theory current in contemporary Hebrew and
pagan thought.
The characteristic modern separation of Church and State, the divorce
between religion and government, existed as a matter of fact in early
Christianity. But it was forced upon the Christians by the historical
situation. As an idea it was foreign alike to Jews and Christians,
Greeks and Romans. It was contrary to the whole body of contemporary
political theory. The union of Church and State in the Fourth century,
which has been so deplored by many modern historians and moralists was
in reality perfectly inevitable. The social mind of the whole ancient
world made any other course impossible either to Christians or Pagans
once Christianity had developed to the point where it was the most
powerful religious force in society.
The theocratic nature of Jewish thought and practice is generally
recognized but the close connection of religion and government in the
pagan educational system is not perhaps so much emphasized. To quote
Pollock: "It costs us something to realize the full importance of
philosophy to the Greek or Roman citizen who had received a liberal
education. For him it combined in one whole body of doctrine all the
authority and influence which nowadays are divided, not without
contention, by science, philosophy, and religion in varying shares. It
was not an intellectual exercise or special study, but a serious
endeavor to gather up the results of all human knowledge in their most
general form, and make them available for the practical conduct of
life."[1]
It was this fact which made Christianity's progress among the educated
classes so slow. Once it had made its way, however, the taking over of
political control by the Church was both easy and natural.
One of the most notable characteristics of the New Testament and of all
early Christianity in its relation to the existing political system was
the doctrine of obedience to the constituted authorities. That a man
like St. Paul should advocate submission to a man like Nero seems like
the negation of elementary morality. The reasons for this attitude are
many. In this paper we are concerned only with one of them--but possibly
the most important one. The submissiveness of the early Christians to
tyranny and despotism was not due primarily to impotence nor yet to
excessive mildness of disposition. Many emperors before Constantine were
deposed and slain by political groups smaller and feebler than the
Christians. St. Paul and St. Ignatius, to go no farther, were not by
nature pacifists. It would be difficult to find a book of a more
militant tone than the Revelation of St. John.
The main reason for the political non-resistance of the early Christians
is to be sought in their philosophy; their views of the world. These
views were of a very special and very peculiar kind. They were in large
part either directly inherited from Jewish thought or adapted from it.
While they are in some respects inconsistent with one another, they have
a common element. They are all catastrophic. In all of them the
catastrophe is more or less immediately imminent.
The Old Testament Prophets taught the establishment, in the indefinite
future, of an eternal Messianic kingdom on this present earth. For a
long time this hope was cherished by every Jew. But some time before the
beginning of the First Century B.C. a change took place. The old
conception was abandoned, slowly indeed, but at last absolutely. In its
place arose a belief which developed into Chiliasm or Millenarianism.
Perhaps the first clear statement of this new idea is to be found in the
book known as I Enoch. In this work which dates from 104-95 B.C., the
Messianic kingdom is for the first time conceived of as of temporary
duration. The resurrection and final judgment which in the preceding
form of belief were the prelude to the everlasting Messianic kingdom on
earth, are now transposed to the end of the transitory, early kingdom of
the Messiah. This temporary earthly kingdom is no longer the final abode
of the risen righteous. They are to enjoy a blessed immortality in the
eternal heaven.[2]
We have in this author a practically complete statement of later
Christian Chiliasm. There is indeed one important feature missing. The
specific duration of the Messianic kingdom is not given. The advent of
the kingdom also is not pressingly imminent.
In the Parables 94-64 B.C. we find certain other elements. This writer
holds to the eternal Messianic kingdom but the scene of this kingdom is
not the earth as at present existing but a new heaven and a new earth.
The Messiah is no longer a mere man but a supernatural being. Four
titles characteristic of the New Testament are for the first time
applied to him: "The Christ," "The Righteous One," "The Elect One," "The
Son of Man." He executes judgment on man and enjoys universal dominion.
The resurrection is not of the old body but of a body of glory and
light, of an angelic nature, in short a spiritual body, though the
specific word spiritual is not used.[3]
In the other eschatological works of this period: e.g. Psalms of Solomon
70-40 B.C. Judith (circa 50 B.C.) [one reference]; The Sibylline Oracles
III 1-62 (before 31 B.C.); The Epitomiser of Jason of Cyrene (between
100-40 B.C.) and the fragmentary Zadokite Work, 18 B.C., the tradition
of the temporary kingdom is carried on but without the addition of any
concepts essential to our purpose.
In the first century A.D., still confining ourselves to specifically
Jewish Apocalyptic literature we find various changes taking place. The
eternal Messianic kingdom passes largely out. The temporary Messianic
kingdom becomes an eternal national one. The interest of the individual
Jew comes to center on his own lot in the future life.[4] We have to
pass a number of writers; Assumption of Moses, Philo, etc., before we
come to the specific statement of Chiliasm proper, i.e., the duration of
the Messianic kingdom for 1000 years. In the Book of The Secrets of
Enoch commonly known as II Enoch (1-50 A.D.) we find for the first time
the doctrine which was taken over to make the Christian Millennium. The
writer of II Enoch was an Egyptian Jew. He says that as the world was
made in six days, its course will run for six thousand years. The 6000
years will be followed by a Messianic kingdom of rest and blessedness
lasting 1000 years. After that follows the final judgment, "The great
day of the Lord."
Passing now to the New Testament, it is only necessary for our purpose
to enumerate three different concepts of the Messianic kingdom that are
found therein. In these concepts contemporaneous Jewish ideas are taken
with more or less transformation.
The first conception perhaps holds the idea of a present world kingdom
but puts emphasis on the futurity of the kingdom. Its ultimate
consumation is not by gradual, natural development, but by the
catastrophic reappearance of Christ. This Second Advent is to be
preceded by tremendous portents of the most terrible sort.
The second conception is that the kingdom is already present in Christ's
appearance as the Messiah. It is to grow by the natural laws of
spiritual development to its full realization. A considerable length of
time is conceived as necessary for the attainment of mature growth. The
consumation of the kingdom in the Second Advent is to be unexpected and
sudden and none but the Father knows when it will take place.
The third conception, that of Chiliasm, is that the Second Advent of
Christ is close at hand. Anti Christ and his confederates are to be
destroyed at Megiddo. Satan is to be bound for 1000 years during which
is the Millennium, when the martyrs are raised in the first resurrection
and reign with Christ at Jerusalem. This conception is found in the
Revelation and perhaps I Cor. XV, 24-27. All the essential elements of
it are to be found in pre-existing sources, e.g., the 1000 years in II
Enoch, the reign of the saints in Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, etc.
These three conceptions were variously confused in early Christianity.
All the New Testament writers hold, for instance, to the immediately
imminent Second Advent. How many of them were Chiliasts we have no way
of knowing. The earliest, Christian writing extant outside the New
Testament, which deals with this subject is perhaps Papias, 70-155 A.D.
He is a most materialistic Chiliast and quotes II Baruch as an authentic
utterance of Christ handed to himself by apostolic tradition.[5]
Barnabas is another apostolic Chiliast. He expressly teaches a
millennial reign of Christ on earth. The six days of creation are the
type of six periods of 1000 years each. The seventh day is the
millennium, since with God "one day is as a thousand years." The
earthly, millennial sabbath is to be followed by an eighth and eternal
day in heaven. The Millennium is near at hand. Barnabas does not quote
Revelation. His views can be drawn equally well or better from II Enoch,
I Enoch and other Jewish sources.
The first Chiliast we know of to get into disrepute was the famous
heretic, Cerinthus, (last part of first century). His heresy had nothing
to do with his Chiliasm, as it seems to have been a sort of Judaistic
Gnosticism and Gnosticism in general was not favorable to Chiliasm.
However the fact that so abhorrent a heretic held Chiliastic views did
not help those views in the judgment of later Christians.
About the end of the first century also Chiliasm came into rather
disreputable prominence as a leading doctrine of the Ebionites, a sect
of antitrinitarian Judaistic-Christian heretics. This sect was wide
spread though not particularly numerous and aroused the bitter
antagonism of the orthodox. As in the case of Cerinthus, their heresy
had nothing necessarily to do with Chiliasm. But here again Chiliasm had
the misfortune to get into bad company.
In the middle of the second century Chiliasm appears to have been the
belief of the majority of Christians though it never found formal
expression in any creed. Justin Martyn, 110-165 A.D., tells us that
Christ is to reign with the patriarchs for 1000 years in a rebuilt
Jerusalem. He bases this belief on Rev. XX, 4-5 and says he holds this
doctrine as part of the body of Christian faith. He adds, however, that
"many good and true Christians think otherwise." This later statement is
the more notable as it is the only difference between orthodox
Christians which he mentions. He places the Ebionites outside the
Christian pale.
The first non-Chiliasts we meet with in Christian history are the
Gnostics. Of their actual position on Chiliasm we know practically
nothing except by inference. They did not apparently fight it. They
simply tacitly ignored it. In the long and minute descriptions of
various Gnostic systems that have come down to us nothing is said on the
subject; but the systems as outlined leave no place for the Chiliastic
doctrines.
The first open enemies of Chiliasm that are to be found in the Church
are the Alogi, a sect that flourished in Asia Minor about 160-180 A.D.
According to Harnack: "The representatives of this movement were, as far
as we know, the first in the Church to undertake a historical criticism,
worthy of the name, of the Christian scriptures and the Church
tradition."[6] They were rationalisticly inclined, desired to keep
prophecy out of the Church and denied on essentially the same internal
grounds as modern students, the Johannine authorship of the Revelation
and also of the Fourth Gospel. With less reason they ascribed the
Revelation to the heretic Cerinthus. Unfortunately we know but little
about them. Hippolytus wrote against them and defended the apostolic
authorship of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel in two books now lost.
But the Alogi are criticised only mildly, and indeed Irenaeus does not
class them as heretics at all. Opposition to Chiliasm was manifestly not
looked upon as an important matter in the last quarter of the second
century--at least in Rome.[7] To this same period belong the writings of
Gaius of Rome who asserts that the Heretic Cerinthus wrote the
Revelation, and also those of Bishop Melito of Sardis, a saint of great
repute, who was an ardent Chiliast. So that at this period both Chiliasm
and non-Chiliasm would seem to be perhaps equally wide spread and
certainly equally permissable. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 120-202 A.D.,
was a strong Chiliast. He describes in minute detail the overthrow of
the Roman Empire, the reign of Anti-Christ for 1260 days (three and half
years) the visible advent of Christ, the binding of Satan, the joyful
reign of Christ in the rebuilt Jerusalem with the risen saints and
martyrs over the nations of the world for a thousand years. Then follows
the temporary raging of Satan, the last victory, the general
resurrection and judgment, and the consumation of all things in a new
heaven and a new earth.
The ascription of genuine divine inspiration to the Sibylline Oracles by
the early Church writers is well known. It is a noteworthy fact that the
Chiliasts[8] seem to be much more inclined to quote the Oracles than the
non-Chiliasts. The Christians' addiction to the Oracles called forth the
derision of Celsus.[9] Origen makes no defense and it is at least
possible to conjecture that the reason is that he disapproved of the use
made of the Oracles by the Chiliasts. The Oracles were of course made
use of by all sorts of agencies which for any reason wished ill to the
Roman authority and yet dared not indulge in secular sedition. Some
enthusiastic Chiliast put forth an Oracle, probably in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, which was more definite than prudent. According to this
prediction the end of Rome and the final consumation of all things was
due in the year 195-196 A.D.[10] There is reason to believe that this
prophecy represented the belief of a considerable number of Christian
Chiliasts. While there is no extant evidence to that effect, it is a
rational deduction, that when the year 195-196 A.D. passed without any
unusual occurrences, the prestige of the persons trusting the Oracle
would be damaged. So far as these persons were Chiliasts, Chiliasm would
suffer in repute. That this was actually the case is as nearly certain
as any logical conclusion about psychological reactions well can be.
About the year 156 A.D. there arose in Phrygia the movement called
Montanism. Essentially it was a reaction against the growing
secularization of Christianity. It spread to the rest of Asia Minor,
Egypt, Italy, Spain, and especially Carthage and surrounding districts
in North Africa. It was the strongest movement in favor of a revival of
primitive Puritanism that occurs in early Church history. It lasted in
the East almost till the Arab Invasion; in the West it did not die out
until the time of Augustine. The Montanists are the most pronounced
Chiliasts we meet with. Not indeed in their theory but in their
practice. One Syrian Montanist bishop "Persuaded many brethren with
their wives and children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; another
in Pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease
tilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages, etc., because the
coming of the Lord was nigh at hand."[11] The Montanist prophetess,
Prisca, about 165 A.D. said: "After me there will come no other
prophetess but the end." A peculiarity of eastern Montanistic Chiliasm
was the idea that Christ would reign not in Jerusalem but in Pepuza, a
small town in Phrygia. In accord with this idea Montanus tried to get
all believers to settle in this town to await the Lord's coming. The
western Montanists however, of whom Tertullian was chief, held to the
regular belief that the Messianic kingdom would be centered in
Jerusalem.
Because of certain theological beliefs aside from Chiliasm, the
Montanists aroused the antagonism of the Church authorities. The
earliest Church councils to be met with after New Testament times were
called for the purpose of dealing with Montanism which was finally
denounced as a heresy and after the triumph of the Church some imperial
edicts were issued against the sect. For the first time in the attack on
Montanism at the end of the second and early part of the third Century
we find Chiliastic beliefs referred to as 'carnal and Jewish.' There is
no formal condemnation of Chiliasm as such, but once more, and much more
seriously than in the case of the Ebionites, Chiliasm suffered from
being associated in the minds of orthodox Christians with heresy and
schism. It would however be very easy to exaggerate the effect of this
and it is necessary to bear in mind that while the literature of
Montanism is fairly considerable, Chiliasm is an entirely subordinate
matter in the controversy and indeed seems sometimes to be mentioned
merely casually. The Chiliastic writers are perhaps more inclined to
view Montanism leniently. Irenaeus does not include it in his list of
heresies.
Its association with Montanism brought Chiliasm into disrepute and
suspicion with the Church hierarchy and it is not surprising that
beginning with the last years of the second century we find a
deliberate system of suppression adopted by certain ecclesiastical
authorities--notably in Egypt. As we shall try to show later, the
declension of Chiliasm can be only very imperfectly explained by
official antagonism. But so far as this declension can be ascribed to
individuals, the three great Alexandrian divines; Clement, Origen, and
Dionysius have a prominent part. The influence of these men counted the
more as it was consistently exercised in the same locality with
increasing force during a period of more than half a century. The first
of these writers, Clement (150-216 A.D.) does not specifically refer to
the Chiliasts but there are a number of passages where he evidently has
them in mind.[12] However the probability is that this very refraining
from direct attack made his efforts the more successful. He emphasizes
the fact that scriptural statements--particularly scriptural
numbers--are not to be taken literally but are to be understood as of
mystical significance. If Clement consciously aimed at the extirpation
of Chiliasm (which is not absolutely certain) he at any rate took the
most effective means for accomplishing that result. The great
presupposition upon which Christian Chiliasm has been based is that
of the literal interpretation of Scripture. By attacking that
presupposition Clement caused the doctrine to be questioned by many
persons whose attachment to Chiliasm would doubtless have only been
strengthened by direct attack upon that tenet in particular. He prepared
the way for the open and far more powerful attacks upon Chiliasm made by
his great successor in the Catechetical School, Origen (185-254 A.D.).
The position of this great theologian is the most equivocal of any
writer who has attained eminence in Christian theology. How far anything
he wrote is to be considered as orthodox is a most difficult matter to
determine. The fact that Origen opposed Chiliasm, taken by itself, apart
from the subsequent fate of the doctrine, could just as easily be made a
commendation as a condemnation of that belief. Almost alone among
Christian men Origen has been removed from the calendar of Catholic
saints after having been duly received as a saint for the space of more
than a hundred and fifty years. This unique fact, which is of course of
far more importance for theology than for history, has nevertheless a
bearing on our subject. The condemnation of Origen came too late to save
the Chiliastic apologetic in the East but it very possibly may have had
an indirect influence in the matter of continuing the repute of western
Chiliasm.
Origen attacked Chiliasm in two vital points: First he insisted even
more strongly than Clement upon the figurative or mystical or 'typical'
interpretation of Scripture. In this regard he specifically quotes a
number of Chiliastic passages of scripture and definitely says that
their meaning is to be taken figuratively.[13] But more important than
that, he definitely substitutes the theory of progressive development of
the intellectual and spiritual element of man for the physical and
sensuous earthly kingdom of the Chiliasts. This was certainly a great
gain for the anti-Chiliastic theory which for the first time took a
logical and comprehensible if a somewhat metaphysical form. However it
must be admitted that the argument of Origen though wonderfully clear
headed and almost miraculously modern[14] is too purely intellectual and
cast in too philosophical a form to have any direct influence on
ordinary individuals. It was doubtless quite in place in the
Catechetical School and among scholars in the great centers of ancient
learning but outside those limits its influence--at least directly--must
have been very small. Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, answered Origen in a
book entitled: "Refutation of Allegorists." This book is lost but we
know that it was considered by the Chiliasts to be a work of the most
powerful and indeed irrefutable sort. In the Arsinoite nome (on the west
bank of the Nile south of Memphis) the Chiliastic doctrines were held by
whole villages together and Dionysius the Great (Bishop of Alexandria
247-264 A.D.) found it necessary to visit this region and hold a public
argument and instruction in order to avert a schism. By the tact and
conciliatory attitude of the Bishop the Chiliasts were either won over
to the non-Chiliastic view or at least expressed their gratification at
the conference. It would appear, however, as if this synod or meeting
was not sufficient to destroy the influence of Nepos' book so Dionysius
wrote in refutation of it two books "On the Promises." Except for a few
fragments these books have perished. We know merely that the first book
contained a statement of the non-Chiliastic view and the second a
detailed discussion of the Revelation in relation to Chiliasm and to the
views of Nepos.
However, Dionysius, who was well aware that as long as the 'Revelation
of St. John' was received as a genuine work of the Apostle it would be
difficult to oppose Chiliasm, gives a very strong argument against the
apostolic authorship while diplomatically saying at the beginning of his
discussion that he is able to agree that the Revelation is the work of
a holy and inspired man.[15] There is no reason to doubt that this
refutation of Nepos by Dionysius met with success wherever Christian
Hellenisticism exercised influence. But it by no means extirpated
Chiliasm in Egypt. For many generations after its author's death
Chiliasm was still believed by the monks of the Thebiad. In fact a large
number of Jewish Apocalypses which the early Christians accepted as
inspired are preserved to us bound up in Coptic and Ethiopic copies of
the scriptures. The Alexandrians had, however, succeeded so well that in
the subsequent period there are only two defenders of Chiliasm in the
Eastern Church that are worthy of mention. These two are Methodius of
Tyre and Apollinaris of Laodicea.
Methodius 260-312 A.D. was bishop first of Olympus and Patara in Lycia
and afterwards of Tyre in Phoenicia. He is notable for his opposition to
Origen and for his relatively more spiritualized Chiliasm. He maintains
that in the Millennium, death will be abolished and the inhabitants of
the earth will not marry or beget children but live in all happiness
like the angels without change or decay. He is very careful to insist
upon the literal resurrection of the body, however, and emphasizes the
fact that the risen saints while like the angels do not become
angels.[16] He died a martyr at Chalcis in Greece.
Apollinaris of Laodicea (300?-390 A.D.) is a notable figure in
Christological controversy but unfortunately very little that he wrote
has come down to us, and of that little the authenticity is not entirely
unimpeachable. We are constrained to get his Chiliastic views from the
writings of his theological opponents and unfortunately there is not
wanting evidence to the effect that these opponents, Basil the Great and
Gregory Nazianzen, notable Christians as they were, were not lacking in
bias. Gregory[17] calls the Chiliastic doctrine of the Apolinarians
'gross and carnal,' a 'second Judaism' and speaks of 'their silly
thousand years delight in paradise.' Basil[18] calls the Chiliasm of
Apolinaris 'mythical or rather Jewish,' 'ridiculous,' and 'contrary to
the doctrines of the Gospel.' This is, so far as the writer is aware,
the first instance in which any great theologian goes to such extremes
and Basil's language, though strong, is not altogether without an
element of hesitation and questioning. In short it would seem that he
asserted more than he felt sure of being able to prove--no rare
phenomenon unfortunately in certain of the great contraversialists. If
Basil's statements are to be taken at their face value Apollinaris was
indeed the most Judaizing Christian in his Chiliasm of any of whom we
have record. He would seem to justify Basil's jibe 'we are to be
altogether turned from Christians into Jews,' for in his Messianic
kingdom not only is the Temple at Jerusalem to be restored but also the
worship of the old Law, with high priest, sacrifices, the ashes of a
heifer, the jealousy offering, shew bread, burning lamps, circumcision
and other such things which Basil indignantly denounces as 'figments,'
'mere old wives' fables' and 'doctrines of Jews.'[19] Although
Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria as early as 362
A.D. and Roman councils followed suit in 377 and 378 and the second
Ecumenical Council in 381 and though Imperial degrees were issued
against it in 388, 397 and 428 it persisted for many generations. The
last condemnation on record is that of the Quinisextum Synod 691 A.D.
In this case, as in others mentioned, we see the unfortunate fate of
Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had
nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris
as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged
Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter
and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more
interest for our purpose.
In the Western Church Chiliasm prevailed until the time of Augustine. It
seems to have provoked very little discussion or controversy.
Hippolytus, 235 A.D., carries on the Chiliastic tradition of Irenaeus
but with a certain degree of assured futurity about the Second Advent
not found in the earlier writers. This pushing of the Second Advent into
the future is a marked feature of Western Chiliasm. By a weird use of
'types' Hippolytus proves with entire conclusiveness to himself that the
Second Advent is to occur in the year 500 A.D.[20] The overthrow of Rome
has a prominent part in his elaborate description of the last times but
he veils his statements with a certain amount of transparent
discretion.[21] He has in all other essential respects the same ideas as
Irenaeus but expressed in a less naïve form. He is a transition figure.
His Second Advent is far enough off to allow some considerable latitude
for the building up of the ecclesiastical hierarchy which was the
business of Rome and he emphasizes the point that the "gospel must first
be preached to all nations." John the Baptist reappears as the precursor
of Christ.
Commodianus, a North African bishop, 240 A.D., represents the generation
after Hippolytus. His two poems present rather different versions of
Chiliasm. The first is a simple and rather pleasing version.[22] The
only notable variation it contains is that the risen saints in the
Millennial Kingdom are to be served by the nobles of the conquered
anti-Christ. The second poem is an apologetic against Jews and Gentiles.
"The author expects the end of the world will come with the seventh
persecution. The Goths will conquer Rome and redeem the Christians; but
then Nero will appear again as the heathen anti-Christ, reconquer Rome
and rage against the Christians three years and a half. He will in turn
be conquered by the Jewish and real anti-Christ from the East, who,
after the defeat of Nero and the burning of Rome, will return to Judea,
perform false miracles and be worshipped by the Jews. At last Christ
appears with the lost tribes, as his army, who had lived beyond Persia
in happy simplicity and virtue. Under astounding phenomena of nature he
will conquer anti-Christ and his host, convert all nations and take
possession of the holy city of Jerusalem."[23] This double anti-Christ
is perhaps the most notable variation. This idea reappears later, as
does the Nero return which would seem to have been current belief.
There are perhaps only two other writers before Augustine that are
worthy of mention, Victorinus and Lactantius. Victorinus, bishop of
Poetovio, i.e., Petair in Austria, martyred 304 A.D., is the earliest
exegete of the Latin Church. His 'Commentary on the Apocalypse' has come
down to us in bad shape. The Chiliasm is of a type which may be
described as formal and ritualistic in the sense that it is expressed in
a matter of fact way as something not needing explanation, much less
proof. There are only two new ideas: "The first resurrection is now of
the souls that are by the faith, which does not permit men to pass over
to the second death"[24] and "Those years wherein Satan is bound are in
the first advent of Christ even to the end of the age; and they are
called a thousand according to that mode of speaking wherein a part is
signified by the whole--although they are not a thousand."[25]
Lactantius the preceptor of Crispus, son of Constantine, brings us to
the Chiliasm of the established Church. The end of the present age and
the coming of the millennial kingdom are at the latest 200 years in the
future, probably nearer, but the event instead of being looked toward
to, is dreaded. The forthcoming destruction of Rome is bewailed. The
world is safe as long as Rome stands. Nero is to be anti-Christ. "They
who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those
thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring
shall be holy and beloved of God; but they who shall be raised from the
dead shall preside over the living as judges. The nations shall not be
entirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that
they may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous and may be
subjected to perpetual slavery."[26] The Chiliasm of Lactantius is
proved from the Sibylline Oracles and from the philosopher Chrysippus, a
Stoic. For the rest Lactantius repeats the traditional Christian and
pre-Christian Jewish Chiliastic concepts with very little variation, but
it is evident that the fact that the fall of Rome is dreaded will work
out a change. The Chiliasm of Lactantius is unstable, not that there is
the slightest breath of doubt about it, but that the attitude of mind
which looked forward with dread to the Second Advent could be depended
upon to find a theory for postponing it. Chiliasm is ready for its
transformation.
In the century between Lactantius and Augustine there is no Chiliast of
note in the west. It is abundantly evident however, from the works of
Augustine that Chiliasm was common during that period as well as in the
time of Augustine. Indeed Augustine himself was a Chiliast though
probably not an exceedingly literal one, during his early period in the
Church.[27] It is certain that he never regarded the doctrine as
heretical. Even in the very book in which he puts forth the doctrine
which eventually superseded Chiliasm he says: "This opinion would not be
objectionable if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that
Sabbath[27] shall be spiritual and consequent on the presence of
God."[28] We have in this quotation a hint as to the reason why he
abandoned Chiliasm. He elaborates this in the immediately following
passage: "As they say that those who then rise again shall enjoy the
leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat
and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but
even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be
believed only by the carnal."[29]
Disgust with this literal interpretation of the scripture was thus one
of the reasons which drew Augustine away from Chiliasm. A more direct
reason was that he had an idea of his own as to how the Chiliastic
Scriptural passage[30] should be interpreted.
The discussion in which he vanquishes the Chiliastic concept is a model
of contraversial method. It would be difficult to find its superior
either in sacred or profane polemics. Perfectly conscious of his own
powers to make Chiliasm appear at once absurd and ridiculous he refrains
from doing so. Abundantly able though he was to refute the Millennians
point by point he deliberately foregoes that method of attack. His
argument which overthrew an ancient, famous, and widespread doctrine of
primitive Christianity contains hardly a line either of refutation or
condemnation. It is perhaps the finest example in Christian literature
of the 'positive apologetic.' The Chiliastic literature, even that which
has come down to us, contains so much that is fantastic and ludicrous
that it would have been very easy for a man of far less power than
Augustine to hold it up to contempt and scorn. It abounds in the same
kind of absurdities and incongruities as the pagan myths which provoked
so many stinging pages from the early apologists and from Augustine
himself. The fact that Augustine did not yield to the temptation to make
his opponents ridiculous is in the highest degree creditable to his
head and his heart. He did not violate the precepts of Christian
charity and he obtained a victory greater than would have been within
even his power had he yielded to the natural temptation of a great
intellect to show up the mental inferiority of his opponents.
It is interesting to compare Augustine's treatment of Chiliasm with
Origen's. The two men are very comparable as regards extent and variety
of knowledge, intellectual power, and philosophic insight. They are very
unlike however, in their treatment of the subject. Origen simply
explains away the whole Chiliastic concept or rather so spiritualizes it
that nothing resembling the original idea is left. His whole insistence
is that it must be taken figuratively, and without the least warrant he
asserts that his interpretation is "according to the understanding of
the apostles."[31] He makes the whole subject so subjective, so
intellectual, so metaphysical that there is left no content for the
ordinary man to hold to in place of that which is demolished. In the
overthrow of Eastern Chiliasm Origen holds as conspicuous a position as
Augustine in the overthrow of Western. He did away with a doctrine, too
carnal perhaps, but at any rate concrete and comforting, and he
substituted an intellectual abstraction. For instance in explaining, or
better explaining away, the Chiliastic feasts in the New Jerusalem he
says:[32] "The rational nature growing by each individual step, enlarged
in understanding and in power of perception is increased in intellectual
growth; and ever gazing purely on the causes of things it attains
perfection, firstly, viz., that by which it ascends to the truth, and
secondly that by which it abides in it, having problems and the
understanding of things and the causes of things as the food on which it
may feast. And in all things this food is to be understood as the
contemplation and understanding of God, which is of a measure
appropriate and suitable to this nature, which was made and created,
etc."
This kind of thing is the intellectual equivalent of the process in
physics by which the scientist takes some tangible solid body and
proceeds first to liquify it, then to volitilize it and finally to blow
it entirely away. We strongly suspect that the Eastern Chiliasts felt
that the whole thing was a kleptistic legerdemain by which they were
deprived of a favorite doctrine without receiving anything in place of
it.
Augustine's method differs toto caelo from this. While Origen handles
the subject like a metaphysician, Augustine handles it like a statesman.
His doctrine is just as concrete as the one he displaces. He takes
nothing away without giving something equally tangible and of better
quality in its place. The transition from Chiliasm to the Origenistic
conception of the future, would be, for the ordinary person, an
incredible and almost impossible intellectual feat. The transition from
Chiliasm to the Augustinian conception of the future is natural, easy,
and perfectly within the power of a very ordinary and commonplace
mentality. As a matter of fact it made its way without the smallest
difficulty into the religious consciousness of the whole of western
Christianity. Any person who aims at changing the theological opinions
of others can find no better manual of method than the twentieth book of
the City of God. Augustine was very careful to keep all the symbols,
catch words, and paraphernalia of Chiliasm. He was careful not only to
keep them all but to keep them all in their literal sense. He explains
away none of them and allegorizes none of them. By carefully preserving
the ancient shibboleths he was easily able to empty them of their former
content. He holds to the millennium, the idea that is, of thousand
years, as firmly as any Chiliast but he says the thousand years is to be
reckoned as dating from the establishment of the Church on earth i.e.,
the first coming of Christ. So he is careful to preserve the phrase:
"The Reign of the Saints"; he merely substitutes for the Chiliastic
content of that phase the very comfortable and plausable doctrine that
the saints are his own Christian contemporaries. He is very skillful,
not to say flattering, in his method of 'putting this across.' So he
retains similarly the old formula about the two resurrections--but makes
the first resurrection out to be the marvelous transformation and
participation in the resurrection of Christ which the Christian
experiences by virtue of the sacrament of baptism. More important still
is his new content for the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." This instead of a
state of future blessedness becomes the already existing church on
earth. Finally he indulges in a long and apparently straight faced
discussion as to whether the reign of anti-Christ--which he preserves in
its most literal form with the regulation duration of three years and a
half--whether this is to be reckoned as part of the thousand years or
not. This inconsequential detail is labored at length in such a manner
as to delight the soul of any good Bible reading Chiliast. By preserving
till the last this single element of Chiliasm which he leaves untouched
and then treating it in the good, old, religious fashion of Irenaeus or
some other primitive worthy, he very skillfully disarms criticism and it
is only by a strong effort that the reader realizes what a tremendous
blow has been struck at the original Chiliastic doctrine.
Let us see what the changes of Augustine amount to. It is not less than
the total destruction of Chiliasm, or at the very least the postponement
of the end of the world till the year 1000 A.D. Augustine's doctrine is
essentially that of the ordinary, orthodox, Bible Christian today.
Sometime in the future--Augustine said possibly in the year 1000
A.D.--Christ was to come again to the earth. Then follows the
resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and heaven and hell. The
questions about the three years and a half of anti-Christ, together with
Gog and Magog--great favorites with the Chiliasts--are held to be
insoluble as to the time of their appearance; whether to be reckoned as
part of the thousand years or immediately succeeding it.
It is commonly said that Augustine is responsible for the belief that
the world was to come to an end in the year 1000 A.D. This is not
strictly correct. Augustine nowhere makes that direct assertion. He
nowhere--so far as the writer is aware--even implies it. What he does is
to offer it as a possible alternative hypothesis to the idea that the
thousand years, (since 1000 is the cube of 10,) is to be taken as a
statement of the total duration of the world. As the matter is of some
interest we give the original passage in Dod's translation:[33] "Now the
thousand years may be understood in two ways so far as occurs to me:
either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or
sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing) as if during
the sixth day, which is to be followed by a sabbath which has no
evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a
part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the
millennium--the part that is which had yet to expire before the end of
the world--a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an
equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of
perfection to mark the fullness of time. For a thousand is the cube of
ten.... For the same reason we cannot better interpret the words of the
psalm. "The word which he commanded to a thousand generations," than by
understanding it to mean, "to all generations."
The above sketch summarizes essentially all that has survived about the
Chiliasm of the early Church. The Chiliastic passages in the Church
literature up to and including Augustine, though rather widely
scattered, are not great in bulk. If printed together they would make
only a moderate sized pamphlet. But their importance is by no means to
be measured by their size. Chiliasm, better than any other movement of
the early period, serves as a standard for measuring the degree of the
socialization of Christianity. It comprises the only body of doctrine
which passed from practically universal acceptance to practically
universal repudiation during the period when the Church changed from a
small esoteric cult to a dominant factor of society. Considered from
this point of view, the causes of the decline of Chiliasm possess a
historical importance out of all proportion to the importance of
Chiliasm itself. More than any other religious movement of the time
Chiliasm was free from the direct pressure of distinctly religious
influences. Its declension was more nearly a case of unconscious social
and psychological determinism than any other contemporary theological
phenomenon. Its chief supporters and opponents are not to be regarded so
much as factors in its history, as points where the socializing forces
operating in the early Church become for the moment visible.
Certain facts stand out even in the short epitome we have given.
Chiliasm never became powerful in the great cities. It survived longest
and was most popular in regions[34] comparatively cut off from the great
centers of civilization. Hellenizing influences were unfavorable to it,
Romanizing influences indifferent to it.
The reasons for this are numerous and most of them have been treated
sufficiently by previous investigators, but in the writer's judgment
certain other important influences have been either slighted or entirely
ignored. We shall consider one or two.
The supremely important fact in early Christian history is the
development of the concept of "The Church" as an independent,
self-existing, metaphysical entity. This metaphysical entity was
conceived as embodying itself in the whole body of believers; living,
dead, and yet to be born. The entity was eternal, indestructible, and in
its essence immutable. Although partially embodied in a visible society
its essential being was conceived as independently sustained in the
nature of the universe. It was an idea in the strict Platonic sense. No
concept like this is found in the contemporary pagan cults. Even the
Jewish concept of the 'chosen people' is ethnic or national rather than
purely religious and it has no tinge of that metaphysical existence
which is the most notable element in the Catholic concept of the Church.
The elements out of which 'the Church' concept was constructed were
four: two Roman, one Greek and one Hebrew. The Roman lawyers, in the
process of fitting a municipal legal system to a world empire, evolved
the twin legal entities, 'state' and 'sovereignty.' These entities were
endowed with divers qualities; eternity, immutability, etc., but
especially with the quality of having existential reality apart from any
individual embodiment thereof. Greek philosophy contributed the idea of
the Cosmopolis, the ideal world-city in which the fullest development of
human personality was to be attained. This concept was as purely
metaphysical as the self-existing, absolute 'state' of the Roman law,
but unlike the Roman concept it had no concrete existence. The Jewish
contribution was that of the 'chosen people,' 'the elect nation.' These
four concepts were transferred from their original loci to the Christian
society. The fact that all of these concepts were combined and centered
on the same social group and the further fact that each of these
concepts supplemented the others in a remarkable way resulted in the
formation of one of the most powerful ideas in religious history.
This Church concept, thus built up, had already become widespread in the
time of Augustine and this fact helps us to understand the otherwise
unintelligible success of that saint in combatting Chiliasm. The real
truth is seen to be that Augustine's ideas succeeded because they were
not peculiarly his at all--they already existed, implicitly but really,
in the mind of the generation which he addressed. The elements of the
concept 'the Church' being what they were, Augustine's explanation of,
or rather abolition of, Chiliasm follows of inevitable logical and
intellectual necessity. It was the genius of Augustine that he
recognized and gave formulated, concrete expression to this accomplished
fact and it is no derogation of his genius to say that had he never
existed the accomplished fact would eventually have been given
expression to by some one else.
Another little considered element in Chiliasm is that of masochism, and
sadism, the two being merely the opposite sides of the same psychical
phenomenon. This element is found more or less prominently in all the
Chiliastic literature from the early fragment of Papias to the elaborate
discussions of Augustine. The masochistic phenomena are the most
remarkable characteristics of the early martyrdoms and if a collection
were made of the masochistic passages of the writings of the Chiliasts,
the bulk of them would be as great as that of the Chiliastic passages
proper.
It is necessary to bear in mind that masochism necessarily, in any
advanced society, disguises itself under some socially acceptable form
of sentiment or emotion, i.e., admiration for the constancy of the
confessors or martyrs, suffering as a mark of the true Church, etc. It
is always associated with the reality or idea of struggle. It has a high
'survival value' in the struggle for existence by heightening individual
power in conflict. Like other human characteristics it is seen most
clearly in the exaggerated form it assumes in its crowd manifestations.
Its most evident expression is in the 'mob mind.' Our problem, then, is
to discover how the declension of Chiliasm is to be explained by the
transfer of the masochistic element in it to other vehicles of
expression. The masochistic element was a vital factor in Chiliasm;
without it almost the whole force of 'the thousand years reign of the
saints' is lost. The explanation of the transfer is difficult.
Undoubtedly some of the masochistic values of Chiliasm were taken over
by the various, previously mentioned concepts that combined to make up
the idea of the Catholic Church. 'Extra ecclesia nulla salus' accounts
for part of the phenomena previously expressed Chiliastically. It is
notable in this connection that there is no word of Chiliasm in Cyprian.
But a more important transfer was that which took place in the course of
the development of the doctrine of purgatory. It may perhaps seem
incongruous to say that purgatory took over the values of the millennium
and from the point of view of formal theology it is so. But the only
point we are trying to make here, namely, the fundamental fact of the
expression of masochistic impulses, is as evidently shown in the
purgatory as in the millennium concept. The desire for a heightened
sense of self-realization, a richer content of experience, is the cause
of the appearance of both concepts and they are closely allied
psychologically. This fact comes out in the large part played by the
Chiliasts in the evolution of the purgatory concept.[35] What we find
here is a concurrent declension of Chiliasm and development of
purgatory. For about two centuries the two concepts existed side by
side; then the superior social value of purgatory asserting itself, that
doctrine gradually took over the masochistic values of Chiliasm; the
supersession of the later being rendered thereby more rapid and easy.
However it is probably that the transfer of the psychological values
from Chiliasm was more to be ascribed to the rising asceticism of the
early Church than to the concept of the Church as such, or even to the
rise of the purgatory concept. Asceticism in some form is a permanent
element in any wide spread religion and the values later expressed in
Christian asceticism were in the earlier period mediated through
Chiliasm. When St. Paul advocated abstinence from marriage 'because the
time is short' he was not expressing asceticism. He was expressing a
sensible idea based on belief in one of the chief Chiliastic doctrines,
the immediate imminence of the Second Advent. In the case of such
teachers as Tertullian the doctrine of marriage is the result of a
combination of Chiliasm and asceticism. At a later date asceticism took
over the doctrine of celibacy as meritorious on its own account but it
never outgrew the original Chiliastic view that it was a logical
preparation for the Second Advent. In other words restriction in
matrimony whether Chiliastic or monastic is due to the same inherent
element in human nature, i.e., the masochistic. Similarly those good
Phrygian Chiliasts who abandoned all their possessions and went out into
the desert to meet the Lord were moved by the same psychological impulse
that actuated the monks of the Thebaid. Historically the one set of
concepts imperceptibly gave way to the other. Those same Thebaid monks
are a good illustration of the fact. Some of them, at least in the
earlier stages of the movement, were influenced more by Chiliastic
concepts than by monastic ones. Many were influenced by both. Here again
the superior value of the ascetic concepts for the ecclesiastical
organization determined the eventual survival of the monastic
institution. But whatever the conceptual images employed to give
expression to the masochistic impulse, that impulse was psychologically
the same. Organized monachism furnished a more convenient outlet for the
stronger masochistic impulses than Chiliasm and so superseded it. The
fact that monachism grew in proportion as Chiliasm declined is in this
respect merely a case of trans-shipment. The vehicle was different but
the goods carried were the same.
There are numerous other social and psychological, as well as economic
causes for the declension of Chiliasm but they can perhaps be more
conveniently considered in connection with the socialization of the
early Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] F. Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, p. 314.
[2] Cf. I Enoch XCI-CIV.
[3] Cf. Parables in I Enoch XXXVII-LXXI.
[4] Cf. Apocalypse of Baruch; 4 Ezra, 4 Maccabees.
[5] Irenaeus Adv. Haer. V 33. II Baruch XXIX.
[6] Hist. of Dogma, Vol. III, p. 19.
[7] Ens. H. E. VI 27-2.
[8] Justin Martyn, Tertullian, Lactantius.
[9] Ad. Celsus LXI.
[10] Sib. Orac. VIII, 148 seq.
[11] Hippolytus, Com. on Daniel.
[12] Strom. VII, 17; VI 16; IV 25; V 6, 14.
[13] De Princ, II, 11.
[14] Cf. e.g., A. R. Wallace, The World of Life.
[15] Eus. H. E. VII 25.
[16] Discourse on the Resurrection, I, 9 seq. See also Conviv. IX, 1, 5.
[17] Ep. CII, 4.
[18] Ep. CCLXIII, 4.
[19] Cp. CCLXV, 2.
[20] Frag. Dan. I, 5, 6.
[21] De Christo et Antic. 50.
[22] Instructions, LXXX.
[23] Schaff Hist., ii, 855. Sec. LXVII of poem.
[24] Comm. XX 4.5.
[25] Comm. XX 1.3.
[26] Div. Ins. Bk. 7 XXIV.
[27] C.D. XX 7.
[28] I.e., the Millennium.
[29] C.D. XX 7.
[30] Rev. XX.
[31] De Prin. II, 11, 3.
[32] De Prin. II, 11, 7.
[33] City of God in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1st Series, Vol. II,
p. 427.
[34] E.g., Lydia, Phrygia, The Thebaid.
[35] Clem. Alex. Paed., iii, Strom. VII. Origen, Hom. on Num., XXV. Hom.
on Ps. XXVI. Lactantius, VII, 20.