CHAPTER II

THE GREEK APOLOGISTS

Introduction

The works of the Apostolic Fathers were written for the use of Christians.  But it soon became apparent that the Church needed to address the outside world as well. 

Not only were vile rumors rampant among the populace, not only did the State regard the profession of Christianity as a capital crime against the official cult and the majesty of the emperor, but even the enlightened judgment of scholars and the weight of opinion among the more cultivated classes of society condemned the new religion as an ever increasing threat to Rome's a world-wide dominion."¹ 

In the face of this opposition, a class of Christian teachers arose, "who were in sympathy with the best pagan culture, and conceived the idea of winning the adversary to a juster view of Christianity by literary advances"² They set out to refute the calumnies spread against the Christians, particularly the notion that the Church posed a threat to the State. Against such charges they set forth the honorable and upright lives of believers, insisting that rather than a threat, Christianity was a bulwark of the welfare of civilization. The absurdities and immorality of paganism were demonstrated, and the truth to be found in Christianity alone was defended. Especially the doctrines of monotheism and the resurrection were the focus of defense.  Furthermore, the Apologists argued that philosophy itself--founded upon human reason--had never attained truth, or, at best, had arrived only a partial truth mixed with error, the "spawn of the demons." Christianity, on the other hand, offers the whole, pure truth, since the Logos, Divine Reason personified, had appeared on earth.³ 

The apologetic movement began during the reign of Hadrian, when Quadratus addressed an Apology to the Emperor. It continued through the rest of the second century.

Estimates of the number of chiliasts among the Apologists vary just as greatly as the estimates of the number among the Apostolic Fathers.  The post-millennialist Charles A. Briggs claims that only Justin Martyr was a chiliast among the Apologists.  He asserts that no trace of chiliasm is to be found in the writings of (or in the later references to) Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tatian, Hermias, Melito, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, or the Epistle to Diognetus.⁴  Kromminga claims that it is a perversion of the facts to claim that the ancient Church, up to ca. 150 A.D., was prevailingly or almost exclusively chiliastic.⁵ Typically, some premillennial polemicists have employed this same argument from silence to arrive at the opposite conclusion.  A. C. Gaebelein argues that it is wrong to infer from the silence of some of the Apologists that they were not millennialists. "Scholars like Tatian, Athenagoras and others," he says, "wrote specially against pagan mythology and philosophy and therefore omitted any reference to the Millennium." He argues that to interpret their silence as meaning that they did not believe in it, "as their colleagues did," is unreasonable.⁶ Peters adds the following Apologists to his list of chiliasts: Justin Martyr, Melito, Tatian, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis.⁷ He then draws the conclusion, which has been previously cited, that through the end of the second century, no opposition to premillennialism is to be found, but, rather, that it was held by the leading Fathers of the Church. 

We turn, then, to the writings of the Greek Apologists and to the notices of them which have been preserved served from Christian antiquity. In many cases the fragmentary nature of the remains, coupled with the limited, apologetic purposes of the writers, will make an estimation of eschatological views difficult.  But these writers are so closely linked to the apostolic era that a thorough examination must be made in each case. 

Quadratus

Quadratus is the earliest literary apologist for Christianity of whom we possess any record.⁸  He addressed an apology to the Emperor Hadrian (117-138), because, says Eusebius, certain wicked men were trying to trouble the Christians.  He adds that the apology was still in the hands of many within the Church, and that it displayed Quadratus' "apostolic orthodoxy." ⁹  Unfortunately, the work has perished except for the following fragment recorded by Eusebius: 

But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:--those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day.¹⁰

With such sparse data available concerning this apologist, of the sub-apostolic era, no conclusions can be drawn concerning his view of the Millennium. 

Aristides of Athens

Aristides, a Christian philosopher of Athens, composed the earliest preserved apology on behalf of the Christians.  According to Eusebius, when Hadrian visited Athens in the eighth year of his reign (i.e., 124) Aristides presented his Apology to the emperor, at the same time as Quadratus presented his like work.¹¹   From Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 20 comes the additional information that Aristides continued to wear his philosopher's garb after becoming a Christian, and that he was "a most eloquent Athenian philosopher."¹²

Little more than this was known of Aristides until the discovery and subsequent publication (in 1891) of a complete Syriac version of Aristides' Apology.¹³   As Quasten notes) the work is limited in scope.¹⁴ Chapters I through 14 are devoted to polemics against the false religious beliefs of the Barbarians, Greeks, and Jews.  Then, In the concluding three chapters, Aristides briefly sketches an outline of Christian beliefs and manner of upright living.  There are a number of passing references to rewards after the resurrection from the dead In the world to come.¹⁵  These rewards will be received In the "everlasting kingdom" of the Messiah, where Christ will give to believers "with great glory the promises made concerning them," in that "world to come."¹⁶  At the conclusion of the Apology, a direct appeal is addressed to the emperor, urging him to turn to the true God of the Christians, in order to escape condemnation at the "awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race.¹⁷

Dewick finds little that is remarkable in these references to eschatology, except for the material in chapter 16.  Here he seizes upon the statement that Christians "strive to be righteous as those who expect to behold their Messiah, and to receive from Him with great glory the promises made concerning them"¹⁸   Says Dewick:  "The language might seem to imply that the writer expected to see the Second Coming within his own generation; but this is not explicitly stated."  However, he rightly adds that this may simply refer to the resurrection of the faithful dead, who will then see Christ.  But, since the general tone of Aristides is "primitive," and since Aristides states that the final consummation is being delayed by Christians' prayers, "it is possible that he did expect that the Second Coming was very near at hand."¹⁹ Dewick, however, may read too much into the evidence.  Aristides' emphasis is upon the coming judgment which all men must face, either to receive rewards in the eternal kingdom of the world to come, or to meet their doom.²⁰ 

Aristides is always careful to refer to Christ's Kingdom as both future and not of this world, an important point in an apology to a Roman emperor.  This is a mark of prudence, and it is dangerous to attempt to press such statements in a search for clues concerning his Millennial position.  Nothing is said of the precise order of events in the End Times, and, so, no definite conclusions can be drawn as to Aristides chiliasm or lack thereof.²¹ 

Aristo of Pella

Aristo of Pella was an apologist of the middle of the second century.²² Most of what is known concerning his work is preserved in Origen's Against Celsus 4. 52.²³  Aristo defended Christianity against Judaism in his no longer extant Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ. In this work, Jason (a Jewish Christian, representing the author himself) and Papiscus (an Alexandrian Jew) engage in controversy over Christ; Jason shows from the Old Testament that the prophecies of Christ were fulfilled in Jesus, and his opponent not unskillfully takes up the Jewish viewpoint. From Origen we learn that Celsus attacked the Disputation for containing allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament prophecies.  Quasten dates the Disputation ca. 140 and thinks that Alexandria was likely the city of origin, millennialists hold that the Millennium is but the beginning of an eternal kingdom.  The fact that he makes no distinction between the judgment of the righteous and of the wicked is somewhat more telling, though the fact that he is speaking generally of the fact that all men must face God's judgment may be sufficient explanation.  On the other hand, the primitive character of his eschatology and the emphasis he places on receiving the promises in the Kingdom might be cited.  But none of these considerations are at all conclusive. In view of the allegorical exegesis and the character Papiscus having been an Alexandrian Jew.²⁴ 

It is not, possible to reach any conclusions as to the eschatological views of Aristo on the basis of the fragmentary available evidence. On the one hand, his probable Alexandrian background, his "allegorical" exegesis, and the approval of Origen might be construed as pointing away from a chiliastic position. But on the other hand, the following factors must be considered:  Aristo's Jewish background, the possibility that the "allegorical" interpretation to which Celsus took exception may have been typological exegesis, and the fact that the Alexandrians-- especially at this early date were not invariably anti-millenarians.²⁵ Therefore, in view of these conflicting strands of evidence and the fundamental lack of data, it is simply impossible to hazard any estimate of Aristo's position on the Millennium. 

Justin Martyr

 Justin Martyr was the most important of the second century Greek apologists and one of the noblest personalities of early Christian literature.  He was born in Flavia Neapolis (ancient Shechem) in Palestine, of pagan Parents.  Having studied various systems of Greek philosophy and finding none of them satisfying, he came at last to the truth in Christianity, finding "this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable."²⁶ The site of his conversion was most likely Ephesus. Henceforth, he devoted his entire life to the defense of Christianity.  He traveled about, an itinerant teacher, still clothed in the pallium, the cloak worn by philosophers, to indicate that he had attained to the truth.  After extensive journeying, he came to Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161), where he founded a school.  Along with six companions, Justin was beheaded for his faith ca, 165, while Junius Rusticus (163-167) was prefect.  An account of Justin's martyrdom, based on an official court report, survives.²⁷

Justin composed a considerable number of lost works on theological and apologetic themes.²⁸ Two of these which Jerome mentions--Commentary on the Apocalypse and Against all heresies--especially remind us of those two later chiliasts, Irenaeus and Hippolytus.  Three authentic works are extant: two apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho.²⁹ Quasten rightly cautions that we do not possess a comprehensive statement of Justin's theological system, and that these three works do not present a well-rounded portrait of Justin, the theologian. In defending the faith against unbelievers, he emphasizes reason far more than he must have done in some of his works addressed to the faithful.³⁰

Justin Martyr's two surviving apologies are both addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.  Recent scholarship tends to regard the short Second Apology as a conclusion to the First Apology, being either an appendix or a later addition.  Both works were written between 148 and 161. The Second Apology begins with a recent incident, the beheading of three Christians because they confessed their faith.  Justin protests such injustices and answers pagan criticisms of Christianity.  The only reference to the End Times is the passing statement that there will be a conflagration.³¹  The First Apology commences with Justin's request that the emperor personally take up the case of the Christians and judge for himself their innocence.  The first section of the work (chapters 4-12) is a censure of the official posture towards the Christians, especially the senselessness of punishment for mere profession of Christianity without proof of wrongdoing.  He counters the charge of atheism, pointing out that the Christian refusal to venerate the gods is due to the silliness of such worship. Furthermore, their eschatological beliefs and their dread of eternal punishment keep them from wrong-doing and make them excellent citizens.  The second section (chapters 13-67) is an apology for the Christian faith, including a description of Christian doctrine and worship, together with the rational and historical bases for subscribing to Christianity³² Here there is a good deal more eschatological material to deal with than in the shorter Second Apology. For instance, in chapter 19, Justin argues philosophically for the resurrection.³³ At the same time, he mentions hell as a place of punishment for the wicked.³⁴ In chapter 40, he states that there will be a Day of Judgment, and that Christ will subdue all His enemies underfoot, according to the prophets.³⁵   Later, he argues that the fulfillment of the First Advent prophecies is proof that the prophecies of the Second Advent will just as surely come to pass.³⁶ In the predicted Second Advent, Christ "shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived," the righteous to immortality and the wicked into everlasting fire.³⁷ But, Justin took pains to reassure the emperor that the Christians posed no threat to Rome:

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect.  But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.³⁸

Now, it, is evident from this summary that Justin nowhere alludes to millenarian views in either Apology. Some writers have taken this as an occasion to suggest that Justin, in his apologetic works to the emperor, expressed an amillennial viewpoint, but, when speaking with Trypho, the Jew, quite inconsistently adopted millenarian notions.³⁹ But it is not necessary to suppose such an inconsistency. L. W. Barnard has pointed out that this "argument that there is no mention of the millennium in the two Apologies and that therefore this belief was of no real significance to Justin will hardly bear examination."⁴⁰  The explanation, says Barnard, lies in the addressee of the Apologies; it would hardly have been tactful to boldly proclaim the collapse of all earthly powers and the coming rule of the Christians under their Lord.  A. J Visser attributes Justin's silence to caution rather than tact:

As for a blessed life after death for the adherents of a cult:  no state authority could possibly have any objection to such a faith; but a kingdom on earth, under a theocratic Messiah-king, remains a precarious thing, politically spoken, even then when the faithful stress the point that no violence is intended to realize it.⁴¹

Though neither Apology makes any allusion to chiliastic views, Justin clearly sets forth such views in the Dialogue with Trypho. The fact that in an Apology intended for heathen eyes, Justin is silent on the subject of the Millennium--indeed, speaking so generally of the resurrection and Judgment that one might conclude that he believed in a single resurrection and judgment had only these writings survived--while he speaks so clearly of the Millennium in the Dialogue, a should serve as a distinct warning to those amillennial apologists who attempt to argue from the silence or generalized language of some others of the Greek Apologists that these writers were amillennialists. As Schaff states the matter, "in the Apologies he [Justin] speaks like a philosopher to philosophers; in the Dialogue as a believer in the Old Testament with a son of Abraham."⁴² Apologists such as Athenagoras of Athens likewise spoke as philosophers to philosophers; their silence on the Millennium is no proof of amillennialism.

The Dialogue with Trypho is the oldest extant Christian apology against the Jews.  It was composed later than the Apologies,⁴³  toward the end of Justin's life.  It is a record of a two-day discussion with a learned Jew, perhaps the very Rabbi Tarphon mentioned in the Mishna. Eusebius held that the site of conversation was Ephesus.⁴⁴ In the Dialogue we find an account of Justin's intellectual development and conversion (chapters 2-8 ), an explanation of the Christian view of the Old Testament (chapters 9-47), justification for Christian worship of Christ (chapters 48-108), and an argument that Christians represent the New Israel (chapters 109-142).⁴⁵ The work is not altogether a literary convention; real conversations seem to underlie it.  Possibly the exchanges between Justin and Trypho took place at Ephesus during the war of Bar-Chochba (132-135 A.D.), which is mentioned a number of times.⁴⁶ Now, discussions with a Jew at this time would naturally bring up the question of the future of Jerusalem.  In this connection occurs one of the most notable chiliastic passages in ancient Christian literature:

And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that, you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures.  But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the other prophets. . . ?  or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?" Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another.  I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.  Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. .   For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob} who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken up to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects .  . are Jews. . ., but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. "For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years;  'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create.  For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a Joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people.  And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying.  And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed.  And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine.  They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat.  For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound.  Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them.  And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it?  Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread.  They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.'  Now we have under- stood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound,' obscurely predict a thousand years.  For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years.  We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, "The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.  And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal  resurrection and judgment of all men would   likewise take place.  Just as our Lord also said, They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.⁴⁷

In this passage, Justin affirms that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt and inhabited by the saints, together with the Messiah, the patriarchs, and the prophets.  He assures Trypho that all Christians who are "right-minded on all points" believe likewise:  there shall be a resurrection of the saints, who shall then dwell 1000 years in a rebuilt, adorned, and enlarged Zion, He affirms that the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the future of Jerusalem will then be fulfilled, especially the prophecy of Isaiah 65 concerning a new heaven and a new earth in which there will be joy, longevity, fruitfulness, peace, and harmony among the animals.⁴⁸ He engages in a bit of rabbinic exegesis to support the idea that the length of this joyful period will be 1000 years, and he cites Psa. 90:4, as well.   This was evidently done for apologetic reasons; he was dealing with a Jew who did not accept the New Testament.  It is clear, however, that the real basis for his belief that the period of time would be 1000 years is the prophecy of John, "one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him," concerning the 1000 years. (And, notes Justin, according to this same prophecy, at the end of the 1000 years the resurrection and judgment of "all men" will occur.)  A saying of Christ also confirms the millenarian interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, for He spoke of the children of God being like angels after the resurrection.

All of this is plain to see and is admitted by all sensible students of Justin Martyr.  One clause, however, has been the subject of much discussion, viz., "on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."  As it stands, Justin here says that other orthodox Christians hold different views from his own on the question of the Millennium. But, in perusing the surveys of patristic premillennialism done by an earlier generation of premillenarian scholars, one will often find the opposite assertion:   that Justin made chiliasm a criterion of orthodoxy and said that others who are not of the pure and pious faith think otherwise.⁴⁹ In this, however, they were merely following the critical scholarship of the day--both German and English--which hypothesized a corruption in the extant text.⁵⁰ Understanding Justin to contradict himself as the passage presently stands, it was conjectured that the word "not" had dropped out of the text. However, such conjectural emendations are always dangerous.  It is especially dangerous in this case, since it is not necessary to understand Justin in a contradictory fashion.  For, in chapter 80, Justin distinguishes three groups: (1) the Gnostics, who call themselves Christians, but are not; these deny the resurrection; (2) pious, believing Christians, who do not, however, understand correctly certain more refined points of eschatology, such as the Millennium; and (3) those believers who are in all respects right- minded, who are chiliastic in their eschatology.⁵¹ Justin, then, does not call non-millennialists heretics--as he does the Gnostics--but he does state that chiliasm is a part of complete Christian orthodoxy.

Turning from this locus classicus of millenarianism to other parts of the Dialogue,  one finds that Justin's statements on the End Times are not that extensive, aside from frequent mention of the fact that there will be a Second Advent.⁵² Prior to Christ's return, he says, there will be an increasingly evil time, culminating in the Man of Apostasy, who will speak strange things against the Most High.⁵³ This is the "little horn" of Daniel's prophecy, who will have dominion for three-and-one-half times; already he is "at the door," as the times are running rapidly toward their consummation.⁵⁴ In the meantime, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father on High, until--as foretold in Psa. 110--His enemies are made His footstool. Christ will then come in glory, in the clouds of heaven.⁵⁵  Israel will look on Him whom they have pierced, as He appears at Jerusalem. The resurrection occurs at this time, a resurrection of the saints.⁵⁶ Heaven and earth are renewed.⁵⁸ Christ's people will be gathered together in Palestine to receive their eternal Inheritance.⁵⁸ Christ will rule over the nations.⁵⁹ In Jerusalem, Christ will eat and drink with His disciples.⁶⁰ Along with them will be the resurrected patriarchs and righteous Jews of the Mosaic dispensation. All will inherit joy and immortality, in an everlasting Kingdom.⁶¹

Justin Martyr, then, is an undoubted chiliast. Of all the Greek Apologists, his corpus of extant writings is by far the largest; most of the rest have suffered virtual decimation. Justin's clear and certain chiliasm is important, then. The one Apologist of whom a detailed analysis is possible was a millenarian, as well as decidedly Biblical and attached to Christian tradition. He supports his millenarianism from extensive exegesis of the Old Testament prophets and from the predictions of the Apostle John in the Apocalypse.  Those believing Christians who do not accept chiliasm are not "in all respects right-minded."  He considers millennialism a sine qua non of complete orthodoxy.  Unfortunately, Justin's doctrinal works, including the Commentary on the Apocalypse, have perished. The three surviving works are occasional in character, taking up the grounds of his opponents, trying to be as philosophical as an emperor reared in the classical tradition, when addressing his Apologies to Antoninus Pius, or as much a believer in Jehovah as a Jewish rabbi, when addressing Trypho the Jew.⁶²  The ground covered by Justin in these works is therefore limited by their apologetic character. If we possessed some of the lost doctrinal works, an even fuller picture of Justin's chiliasm would certainly emerge.⁶³

Tatian

Tatian was by birth a Syrian and a pagan. He was well educated in Greek rhetoric and philosophy, and he traveled extensively. At length, his travels brought him to Rome, where he was converted and where he attended the school of Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, ca.150-165 A.D.  While still at Rome, he began his own Christian school. According to Irenaeus, as long as Justin was alive, Tatian remained orthodox in his expressions. But, thereafter, he lapsed into heresy.  He returned to the east, ca. 172 and is reported to have founded the ascetical Gnostic sect of the Encratites.   The date and place of his death are unknown.⁶⁴

Of his literary production, two works remain: the Diatessaron (in part) and the Address to the Greeks (in full). The Diatessaron is a harmony of the Gospels; it is, therefore, of no use in determining Tatian's dogmatic views.   The Address,⁶⁵ an apologetic work, is hardly of more value in ascertaining his eschatology.  It is a violent attack on all things Hellenistic as incompatible with the Christian faith. Whether the work dates from before or after Tatian's apostasy is not clear. In it he affirms a corporeal resurrection "after the consummation of all things," -once for all," "for the purpose of passing judgment" upon men.⁶⁶ He goes no further in expressing himself on the End Times. There is thus no foundation for forming any conclusions as to whether or not Tatian was a chiliast.   A few have hazarded the guess that, because of his connection with Justin, he must, therefore, have shared his teacher's millenarian views.⁶⁷ This is, however, utterly conjectural.⁶⁸ Shimeall displays better judgment than those who attempt to divine Tatian's eschatological sentiments, when he dismisses the question as of little importance in any event, since Tatian was a heretic.⁶⁹ Whatever his viewpoint, Tatian has no value as a witness to the primitive eschatology of orthodox Christianity.

Miltiades

Miltiades the rhetorician, was a native of Asia Minor and a contemporary of Tatian.⁷⁰ Unfortunately, all of his writings have been lost; not even fragments have survived. Therefore, what is known of him is drawn entirely from the brief notices of him in other Christian writers of antiquity, chiefly Eusebius.⁷¹ From these references, it is known that Miltiades wrote an Apology for Christian Philosophy addressed to "temporal rulers," presumably Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and his co-regent Lucius Verus (161-169). Salmon says of this work:

The Apology may be supposed to have been a learned plea for toleration of Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may have been favorably contrasted with the teaching of heathen philosophy.  Though it has not come down to us, it seems to have had at the time a high repute.⁷²

He also composed apologetic works Against the Greeks and Against the Jews. Eusebius calls these writings monuments of Mlltiade's "zeal for the Divine Scriptures."⁷³ He likewise wrote anti-heretical works. In this capacity he is mentioned by Tertullian in company with Justin and Irenaeus, and by Eusebius with Justin, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus, and Melito.⁷⁴ It is probable that he was the author of an anti-Montanist treatise.⁷⁵

From these fragmentary notices, it is impossible to draw any conclusions concerning the eschatological views of Miltiades. It is known that he was an Asian, and that he held views similar to those of his contemporaries Justin, Melito, and Irenaeus on Christology, ecclesiology, apologetics, and the heretical movements of the day. From his Asian roots and his association with these chiliasts on other matters, a tenuous inference that he possibly held similar eschatological views might be drawn.  But this is a speculative venture; only the recovery of a writing of Miltiades touching on the subject or the recovery of a more definitive notice from an ancient writer can solve the question conclusively.

Apollinaris of Hierapolis

Claudius Apollinaris,⁷⁶  a successor of Papias as bishop of Hierapolis, flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). He addressed an apology to the Emperor, after the year 171, which Jerome lauded as "a most notable volume in behalf of the faith of the Christians."⁷⁷ He is known to have composed five books Against the Greeks, two On Truth, two Against the Jews, and various treatises against Montanism, which was then in its incipient stages.⁷⁸ A work On Easter ( ) is attributed to Apollinaris.⁷⁹ Apparently this work was a polemic in the Paschal Controversy which was raging at the time.⁸⁰

Tragically, all of the extensive corpus of Apollinaris' works has perished.  Only a small handful of fragments remain.⁸¹ About all that can be concluded from these fragments is that Apollinaris seems to have been a Quartodeciman. There are also some Johannine overtones and parallels to the homelitical style of Melito's Homily on the Passion in one fragment.   Nothing whatsoever is said of eschatology in these fragments.

But this is not the end of the matter. Jerome in his Lives of Illustrious Men 18 mentions a millenarian work of Papias:

He is said to have published a Second coming of Our Lord or Millennium.  Irenaeus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow him. Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of Petau and Lactantius follow this view.⁸²

Shortly thereafter in the same work, Jerome devotes a whole chapter to Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis.⁸³  And toward the end of the catalogue, he devotes a chapter to Apollinarius (the Younger), bishop of Laodicea, for whom the Christological heresy is named.⁸⁴  This is mentioned to demonstrate that in the Lives of Illustrious Men Jerome clearly distinguishes between the two men and spelled their names differently. Seemingly, then, on the basis of internal evidence alone, Jerome meant to name Apollinaris of Hierapolis as the chiliast who held views like Irenaeus and the rest.

Nevertheless, various scholars have argued that Jerome really meant to name Apollinarius of Laodicea in this Passage. The basis for this argument is a seemingly parallel passage in Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel.  Again he gives a list of chiliasts:

Quod et, multi noetrorum, et praecipue Tertulliani liber qui inscritur, de Spe fidelium, et Lactantii Institutionum volumen septimum pollicetur, et Victorini a Petabionensis episcopi crebrae expositionces, et nuper Severus noster in dialogo cui Gallo nomen imposuit. Et ut Graecos nominem, et primum extremumque conjugam, Irenaeus et Appollinarius.⁸⁵

The parallels between the two passages are strong. In both, Jerome names the Latins, Tertullian (in connection with the game work), Victorinus, and Lactantius. In addition, in the commentary he makes mention of "our Severus," presumably Sulpicius Severus.  In both he names Irenaeus.  Was, then, the same Apollinaris or Appollinarius meant in both instances? Arthur Cushman McGiffert argues affirmatively as follows:

Jerome, in his de vir. ill, chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection with Irenaeus as a chiliast.  But in his Comment. in Ezech. Bk. XI. chap. 36, he speaks of Irenaeus as the first, and Apolinarius as the last, of the Greek Millenarians, which shows that some other Apolinarius is meant in that place, and therefore without doubt in the former passage also 5 and in another place (Prooem. in lib. XVIII, Comm. in Esaiam) he says that Apolinarius replied to Dionysius of Alexandria on the subject of the Millenium [sic], and we are therefore led to conclude that Apolinarius, bishop of Laodicea (of the fourth century), is meant .  .  . ⁸⁶

McGiffert errs in one point.  If Jerome referred to Apollinarius of Laodicea as "the last" of the Greek chiliasts in the Commentary, it does not necessarily follow that in the former passage (in the Lives of Illustrious Men 18), "some other Apolinarius is meant," besides Apollinaris of Hierapolis. For, it is possible that the two passages are not strictly parallel,⁸⁷  and that Apollinaris of Hierapolis is mentioned in the first and Apollinarius of Laodicea in the second.⁸⁸ It is known that Apollinarius of Laodicea was a chiliast. But it is not improbable that Apollinaris of Hierapolis may have been one also.  He was, after all, a man of the late second century, that "blooming age of Millenarianism," in that seedbed of Millenarianism, Asia Minor.  He sat in the seat of that noted chiliast, Papias.  And in what fragments of his remain, strong parallels with his contemporary and neighbor, Melito, are present.⁸⁹  It must also be remembered that within the Lives of Illustrious Men, Jerome distinguishes between the two men, and it is not Apollinarius of Laodicea that he names in chapter 18 as a chiliast, if the spelling is to the chiliasm of Apollinaris of Hierapolis.

Athenagoras of Athens

Athenagoras, a man of letters and a master of Greek style,⁹⁰ composed two apologetic works which have come down to us; a Supplication for the Christians and a treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead.⁹¹ He is described in the earliest manuscript of his works as "the Christian Philosopher of Athena."⁹² Nothing is known of his life.⁹³

The Supplication must date from ca. 177, since it is addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus.⁹⁴ In it Athenagoras refutes three of the chief calumnies against the Christians: atheism, cannibalism, and OEdipean incest. Toward the conclusion, he makes mention of the resurrection,⁹⁵ but only in a general way.

In the treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead. material illuminating his view of the End Times is hardly more abundant.  The work is of a "decidedly philosophical character," proving the resurrection from reason.⁹⁶ Athenagoras here argues in its favor from the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, and from the natural constitution of man.   Everywhere he speaks simply of "the resurrection" as a category to be philosophically Justified.   There is no exegesis of the Scriptural passages bearing on the subject, nor is there any attempt to describe the course of events in the End Times. By its very nature, the treatise can tell us nothing of Athenagoras' position on the Millennium.⁹⁷

Melito of Sardis

Melito, bishop of Sardis (in Lydia), flourished in the third quarter of the second century.  He was one of the most venerable Christians of that era, holding a foremost place among the Asian bishops, "both in respect of personal Influence and of literary activity."⁹⁸  Polycrates' letter to Victor of Rome mentions him in such a manner as to suggest that he had been dead ca. twenty years.⁹⁹ In the same letter Polycrates cites Melito as one of the "great lights" who had died in Asia, and from whom the Asian churches derived their traditions.  He also calls him, "Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead."¹⁰⁰ ("Eunuch" may refer to Melito having been celibate.)  He addressed an apology to Marcus Aurelius around the year 170,¹⁰¹ and he also took part in the Paschal, Marcionite, and Montanist controversies of his day.  He was probably acquainted with Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Polycrates of Ephesus, and perhaps also with Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus.¹⁰² Beyond this, little is known of hie life.¹⁰³ Eusebius calls Melito a champion of orthodoxy and an upholder of apostolic tradition.¹⁰⁴

Melito was a voluminous writer.¹⁰⁵ His Apology to the emperor argued that Christianity was a boon to the Empire. His treatise On the Christian Life and the Prophets was probably directed against the Montanists, as is also probably the case with his works On Prophecy and On the Church,  That he was a student of Messianic prophecy is clear from the fact that he composed six books of Extracts from the Law and the Prophets concerning our Savior and our entire faith.  On the Lord's Day may have been written to advance the Quartodeciman position in the Paschal Controversy.  He also composed books (probably a single work) On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John. A wide variety of other works, concerning both practical and theological matters were also composed by this bishop of Sardis.  With the exception of the Apology only small fragments of the rest of his corpus of works were available until the recent discovery and publication of his Homily on the Passion.¹⁰⁶ This work confirms what was apparent from the fragments, viz., that Melito was evangelical, orthodox, and eloquent.  Unfortunately, the Homily adds nothing to our knowledge of his position on the Millennium.

G. Racle, a Roman Catholic scholar, professes amazement at the disappearance of Melito's works: "The almost complete disappearance of the Melito corpus is not yet satisfactorily explained."  Since Melito's orthodoxy is not in question, Racle is reduced to theorizing lamely that hie style was not suited to the tastes of later generations.¹⁰⁷ A satisfactory explanation has been advanced to explain the disappearance of Melito's writings, however, Racle's statements notwithstanding.  The Greek Church from the third century onward grew increasingly unsympathetic to both the moral rigor and the eschatological fervor which were the Johannine legacy of the primitive Church of Asia Minor. Methodius represented the last vain attempt to recall the Christians of the east to their ancient heritage, but already he was a voice crying in the wilderness.108 Arthur Cushman McGiffert observes:

The Indications all point, to the fact that Melito was decidedly ascetic in his tendencies, and that he had a great deal in common with the spirit which gave rise to Montanism and even made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet at the same time he opposed Montanism, and is therefore spoken of slightingly by Tertullian.  His position, so similar to that of the Montanists, was not in favor with the orthodox theologians of the third century, and this helps to explain why, although he was such a prolific and talented writer, and although he remained orthodox, he nevertheless passed almost entirely out of the memory of the Church of the third and following centuries.  To this must be added the fact that Melito was a chiliast; and the teachings of the Montanists brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that the Fathers of the third and following centuries did not show much fondness for those who held or had held these views.  Very few notices of Melito's works are found among the Fathers, and none of those works is to-day extant.  Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the titles, a fact to be explained by his lack of sympathy with Melito's views.¹⁰⁸

Indications of Melito's millenarianism are lacking in his extant writings and surviving fragments. In fact, there is virtually no eschatological material of any sort to be found in them.  In the Apology he does make reference to the many good things, along with eternal life, which God shall grant to those who do good,¹⁰⁹  and shortly thereafter he says that the saints "will have power to escape destruction, when the flood of fire comes upon all the world."  This flood of fire will come "at the last time," when

there shall be a flood of fire, and the earth shall be burnt up, together with its mountains; and mankind shall be burnt up, along with the idols which they have made, and the carved images which they have worshipped; and the sea shall be burnt up, together with its islands; but the just shall be preserved from wrath, like as were the fellows of the ark from the waters of the deluge.¹¹⁰  

Now, from Melito's Asian connections and his evident interest in Biblical prophecy, it might be inferred that he was a chiliast.  However, there is more explicit evidence pointing toward to the same conclusion.  Gennadius, in the fifth century, wrote the following:

In divinis promissionibus nihil terrenus vel transitorium expectamus, sicut Melitani sperant. Non nuptiarum copulam, sicut, Cerinthus ef Marcion delirant.  Non quod ad cibum vel ad potum pertinet, sicut, Papia auctore, Irenaeus, et Tertullianus, et Lactantius acquiescunt. Neque post mille annos post resurrectionem regnum Christi in terra futurus, et sanctos cum illo in deliciis regnaturos speremus, sicut Nepos docuit, qui priman Justorum  resurrectionem, et secundam impiorum confinxit.¹¹¹

Gennadius here states his own disagreement with chiliasm, that he believes nothing terrestrial and transitory concerning the divine promises.  He denies that the promises pertain to meat and drink, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius taught), following their mentor, Papias.¹¹² He further rejects the opinion--which he attributes to both Cerinthus and Marcion--that sexual pleasures will play a part in the coming Kingdom.   Nor does he believe that there will be a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, following the first resurrection (of the just), when the saints will reign deliciously with Christy as Nepos taught.  But the clause which concerns us is the very first: Gennadius denies that the promises involve anything terrestrial or transitory, "as the Melitians hope."¹¹³ The older students of premillennialism took this as evidence that Melito of Sardis was a chiliast.¹¹⁴ To this, Briggs takes exception.  He denies any connection between the "Melitians" and Melito of Sardis, observing that, "Gennadius does not impute to them Chiliasm, but simply carnal views with reference to the future of the earth, which may or may not have been connected with the millennium."  He also notes that Melito employed allegorism, which stands over against the "narrowness and literalism of the Jewish Christian spirit."¹¹⁵  Briggs' latter arguments are disingenuous.  What he terms "allegory" in Melito is nothing more than typology, which all the early Fathers employed in their exegesis of the Old Testament, and of which there are many instances in both the early literature of chiliasm and early Jewish-Christianity.  Less weighty still is his suggestion that Gennadius did not impute millenarianism to the Melitians. The import of the whole passage is to associate the Melitians, Cerinthus, Marcion, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Nepos, together, as holding carnal views of the divine promises, which are realized in an earthly Kingdom.  The only substantial argument advanced by Briggs is the suggestion that the "Melitians" are not to be associated with Melito of Sardis.  However; many scholars are aligned against Briggs on this point.¹¹⁶  For whom would the "Melitians" be named?  Church history knows of two later figures named Meletius, both involved in "Melitian schisms," one in the Arian controversy and the other over the question of the lapsed.  Both these men were eastern bishops of the fourth century, which in itself makes it improbable that they had anything to do with millenarianism.  Nothing known of either figure connects them--in any way--with chiliastic views.  Besides, a Latin like Gennadius would not have called followers of a Meletius, "Melitians."¹¹⁷ Melito of Sardis, then, is the only figure of Christian antiquity who seems to fit the description of Gennadius. Amann says that Gennadius speaks of the Melitians "comme partisans du millenarisme, pourraient bien etre des gens qui ont lu Meliton et accepte ses idees (?)."¹¹⁸

If there was one work in which Melito especially set forth his chiliastic views, it was probably his work, On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John.¹¹⁹  Says Amann, "Quant au mlllenarisme dont  . . accuse Meliton, c'est ici qu"ll avait l'occasion de s'exprimer."¹²⁰ It seems, then, that Melito stood in the same chiliastic line of tradition as Irenaeus and the other Greek theologians of Asia Minor."¹²¹

Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus, the sixth bishop of Antioch, died at some time after 181 A.D.  He was born of pagan parents in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley;  his tongue and education were Greek.  He was converted in his mature years through the study of Scripture (being impressed with its instances of fulfilled prophecy).¹²²  He engaged in extensive literary activity; Eusebius lists as works written by Theophilus three volumes To Autolycus, Against the Heresy of Hermogenes (in which he made use of testimonies drawn from the Apocalypse of John), various catechetical works, and assorted works against heresy (including an excellent one Against Marcion).

But his letter To Autolycus is his only surviving work.  It was evidently written shortly after 180 A.D., since the death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius is mentioned.¹²³ It is a defense of Christianity against the derisions of Autolycus, an old heathen friend of Theophilus.

The anthropology of Theophilus in this work is parallel to that of Irenaeus.  Giordano argues that the parallel is so strong as to imply, as a natural corollary,  a millenarian eschatology.¹²⁴ For, Theophilus teaches that the vision of God is possible only for those with pure eyes, with purged souls. But men's souls are like rusted mirrors, stained with impurity, so that God cannot be seen.¹²⁵ But Godis the Physician who heals men's souls. Through faith and the fear of God, men put off impurity.¹²⁶ In this, Giordano sees great similarities between the bishops of Lyons and Antioch: man has a capacity to gradually reach spiritual perfection, step-by-step becoming prepared for immortality.  Anthropology, then, becomes the basis for eschatology; moral progression culminates in the putting off of the corrupt flesh and the putting on of immortality and incorruption, and then men will behold the eternal vision of God.

When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on Incorruption, then shalt thou see God worthily.  For God will raise thy flesh immortal immortal with thy soul; and they, having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal.¹²⁷

At the Judgment, each will receive rewards according to his merits.  To  those who have done well,  "He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive."¹²⁸  All of this so parallels the thought of Irenaeus that Giordano feels that some sort of statement about the Millennium should also be forthcoming from Theophilus:

We look for further developments of this argument, because every bit we read in Book I of To Autolycus calls for the natural and spontaneous premise of a millenarian solution. But in all three books, we do not find anything answering to this our expectation.¹²⁹

Be this as it may, there are sounder bases for believing that Theophilus was a chiliast than such expectations. Telling evidence is found in To Autolycus 2. 17.¹³⁰ Here, commenting on the creation account of Gen. I, Theophilus observes that originally the beasts were not made evil or venomous, but that the sin of Adam brought evil upon them:

For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him.  For as, if the master of the house himself acts rightly, the domestics also of necessity conduct themselves well; but if the master sins, the servants also sin with him.  When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.

So, God originally made the whole creation good, but the echoes of Adam's sin reverberate throughout the whole creation. As nature followed man in departing from God's original plan of harmony, so, at man's restoration, universal harmony will also be restored.  It especially should be noted that Theophilus says that man shall, in the end, make his way back to his natural, created condition. This reflects exactly the same sort of conception found in Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation: humanity retraces its steps back to its original condition. It also reflects another idea, found in so many of the primitive chiliasts with roots in Asia Minor, viz., that at the palingenesis which occurs at Christ's return, nature in general will return to its spontaneous and marvelous fertility; the animals will revert to harmony and obedience to man.¹³¹ That this is the correct understanding of Theophilus is confirmed in Book 2, chapter 10, where he states that God cast man out of Paradise so that after once having been disciplined and sin having been remedied, he should afterwards be restored.¹³² The locale of man's restoration will be an earthly Paradise:¹³³

Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and the judgment.¹³³

So, at the resurrection, the saints will dwell in Paradise, as did Adam.

As Giordano notes, the Messianic era had come to be associated with the days of Eden; the early chiliasts believed that the sojourn in the terrestrial Paradise would be repeated at the culmination of history. The statement of the Epistle of Barnabas had become the norm:¹³⁴ Corollary concepts were the fecundity of the earth, human longevity, and the benignity of the animals. These three elements were inseparable, and, as Giordano notes, "the presence of one implies that of the rest."¹³⁵

It was observed in the treatment of the Epistle of Barnabas that Jewish-Christian exegesis on Gen. I had given rise to the theory of the cosmic week, consisting of seven millennia. Human history, it was thought, would continue for six thousand years, followed by a Millennium of rest, corresponding to the Sabbath. Now, such a theory clearly could be very useful in eschatological calculations. If the date of the creation could be established, then the year in which the 6000 years would expire could also be known. It would also then be known how close the world had come to the tribulations of the End Times. Such was the thinking of Julius Africanus and Hippolytus. Now, nowhere in To Autolycus does Theophilus explicitly state this theory. But he does sketch the chronological epochs of the earth's history, being the first Christian writer to display such an Interest.¹³⁶ He reaches the conclusion that the earth had existed 5699 years at the death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (in 169 A.D.).¹³⁷ The creation, therefore, occurred in the year 5529 B.C.  It is a fact that the idea that Christ was born in the 5500th year of the world and that He would return at the 6000th year to inaugurate the Millennium--the cosmic Sabbath--was a common feature of primitive millenarianism. That Theophilus made a similar calculation of the earth's age, coupled with the very fact of this chronological interest, along with his theory of palingenesis, leads to a strong inference that he shared--or perhaps was the first to calculate--the belief that Christ's Second Coming would be around the year 500 A.D., and this in connection with a chiliastic interpretation of the creation week.¹³⁸

As Giordano has remarked, the conclusion that Theophilus was a premillennialist is not based upon any explicit statement of his. Rather, it is based upon inferences drawn from clues scattered about in his only extant writing.¹³⁹ However, these clues are conclusive enough, when taken as a whole and when considered in light of the facts that Theophilus employed the Apocalypse of John and was converted through the study of Biblical prophecy. The conclusion is inescapable:  Theophilus of Antioch was a chiliast.

Polycrates

Polycrates was bishop of Ephesus in the last decade of the second century A.D.  All that has been preserved concerning him relates to the Paschal Controversy which erupted at that time.¹⁴⁰   Victor of Rome had tried to introduce ecclesiastical uniformity in the date of Easter's celebration. He had taken the preliminary step of sending letters asking that the various localities hold synods and report back to him their local practices.  As far as is known, all reported that they observed Easter on the Day of the Lord's Resurrection (i.e., Sunday), with the exception of the bishops of Asia Minor.¹⁴¹  In his letter to Victor, Polycrates set forth the Asian Quartodeciman practice: "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away.  For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep  . . ."¹⁴²   Polycrates went on to enumerate some of those Asian luminaries:  Philip the Apostle, along with three of his daughters; John the Apostle, who leaned upon the bosom of the Lord; Polycarp; Thraseas; Sagaris; Papirius; and Melito.  He then continued:

All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.  And I also. Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth.  And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.¹⁴³

He added that he had lived 65 years in the Lord and was not cowed by Victor's threats of excommunication, and that he had the support of all the other Asian bishops, who thought as he did.¹⁴⁴   From this letter emerges a portrait of a man of great age and prestige, possessed of a fiery and adament temperament, unyielding in his insistence on maintaining the Asiatic traditions which went back to apostolic roots.¹⁴⁵

There is some basis for believing that Polycrates was a millenarian, for, in his letter to Victor, after mentioning the many luminaries who had fallen asleep in Asia, he says of them that they "shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints."¹⁴⁶   Now, chiliasm distinguishes between two resurrections; Christ at His coming raises the saints, who then reign with Him in the Kingdom for 1000 years; then follows the second resurrection.  Polycrates speaks only of the resurrection of the saints, adopting, then, a language consistent with millenarianism.  Those who did not believe in the Millennium never used the expression, resurrection of the saints," but, instead, expressions such as "resurrection of the flesh," "general resurrection," or simply "resurrection," without further qualification.¹⁴⁷

This, as Giordano has noticed, is a tenuous clue to work from.¹⁴⁸   However, when taken together with Polycrates' residence at Ephesus--the residence of John the Apocalyptist--and his connections with the Asian tradition, which he shared with Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Melito, Apollinaris, and Irenaeus--a tradition to which he was vehemently loyal--the inference seems plausible enough.  Since Polycrates made appeal to the tradition handed down from generation to generation among the Asian presbyters in the Quartodeciman question, it is not unlikely that he was likewise loyal to the strong chiliastic tradition which is known to have flourished in the same circles.  His statement that Christ will come to raise the saints, only tends to confirm this deduction.

The Epistle to Diognetus

The Epistle to Diognetus¹⁴⁹ is an apology in the form of a letter, addressed to a high-ranking pagan.  The author is unknown, and there is no mention of this work in any ancient Christian writing.  Both the time of composition and the identity of the author have been matters of conjecture.¹⁵⁰ A date somewhere in the second century is generally accepted by scholars.

The letter is addressed to one Diognetus, in answer to his question how Christianity may be distinguished from paganism and Judaism, why it came so late into the world, and whence its disciples draw their courage and contempt of the world.¹⁵¹

The style of this short letter is brilliant; its rhetorical force is great.  But, it contributes "scarcely anything to our knowledge of the history of dogma."¹⁵²   It says almost nothing on eschatology, and those anti-millenarian polemicists who have denied any trace of chiliasm in the Epistle are certainly correct. The emphasis is on the salvation of Christians, which assures them of a home in heaven after they pass from this transitory life.¹⁵³   The amillennialist writer, Grier, is correct in saying that the Epistle to Diognetus "speaks of a future kingdom, but it is in heaven, and will be given to those who love Christ."¹⁵⁴

Most frustratingly, at the very point in the letter where the author seems about to expound his views on the End Times, a considerable hiatus occurs in the MS.  He is speaking of God sending Christ in judgment:

For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?. . .[hiatus]¹⁵⁵

So, beyond the fact that the author believed Christians inherit life in heaven at death, and that Christ shall return to earth in judgment, we are left in ignorance concerning the other eschatological views of the author of the Epistle to Diognetus.

Hermias

A certain Hernias, of whose personal history  nothing is known, was the author of a Satire on the Profane Philosophers.  The work is probably to be dated from the third century, although scholarly guesses have ranged anywhere from A.D. 200 to 600.  No mention of the Satire occurs in other extant Christian writings from antiquity. The Satire was Hermias' attempt to demonstrate through sarcasm the worthlessness of pagan philosophy, by dwelling on the mutually contradictory statements of the Greek thinkers and by employing a keen--even drastic--sense of humor.¹⁵⁶ The author did not pursue a didactic end, and by its very nature, this little work is of no usefulness in tracing the early history of premillennialism.

Conclusion

The greatest difficulty facing the student of the history of early millenarianism when he deals with the Apologists is the paucity of evidence.  In the cases of Quadratus and Hermias, nothing can be said of their eschatology.  With Aristides, Aristo of Pella, Tatian, Athenagoras, and the Epistle to Diognetus, the situation is scarcely better; their general references to eschatological matters do not permit any conclusions to be drawn concerning the Millennium.  For all practical purposes, then, only six writers among the Greek Apologists provide any evidence bearing upon the history of our subject.  Of these six, two Miltiades and Apollinaris were possibly chiliasts, though the evidence is anything but conclusive.  Two more--Melito and Polycrates were probably chiliasts, although absolute certainty is impossible, based upon presently available evidence.  One--Theophilus--does not explicitly teach millenarianism, but his statements cannot be reconciled with any other viewpoint; by deduction, we may classify him as a certain premillennialist.  And one--Justin Martyr--explicitly teaches millenarian doctrine.

The difficulty of tracing the history of chiliasm in the Apologists is partially due to the nature of their apologetic task.  They wrote in the face of persecution on the part of the government and hostility on the part of pagan society.  Centuries after their time, it was still dangerous to speak unguardedly of the future destruction of Rome, so the peril must have been far greater in the second century A.D., when the "eternal" nature Rome was an article of the State creed.¹⁵⁷   Now, in writings designed to clear Christians of the charge of disloyalty and subversion, it would have been horribly impolitic to mention the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.  Significantly, the only extant apologetic writing from this period which speaks forthrightly of the Millennial Kingdom is the Dialogue with Trypho, an apology directed towards Judaism, not paganism.

Another difficulty faced in tracing the history of chiliasm in the Apologists is the disappearance of the key writings which would provide the information requisite for a complete analysis.  Our present sources are fragmentary, inadequate, and--too often-second-hand and non-contemporary. Excepting the Dialogue with Trypho, all of the chiliastic tomes of the Apologists have vanished.  This must be attributed to the anti-millenarian sentiments of later centuries, as well as the general ravages which overtook learning prior to the Renaissance.  Through indifference, catastrophe, and/or anti-millenarian bias, millennialist works have disappeared. (In some cases, it is known that millenarian works were deliberately truncated, interpolated, or altered.)¹⁵⁸

It is therefore not at all surprising that the works of Melito--a man of stature, erudition, and orthodoxy--have vanished.¹⁵⁹ Despite these limitations, however, it is still possible to piece together the eschatological picture which prevailed at this time.  In the first place, it is clear that the churches of Asia Minor were tenacious conservative, clinging to the traditions received from the apostles and early presbyters. They were proud of their Johannine heritage.  They held fast to their ancient Paschal usage. They violently resisted the intrusions of Gnosticism.¹⁶⁰ Justin, while discoursing with Trypho at Ephesus, the residence of John, testified that those, like himself, who were "in all respects right-minded" held to millenarianism. It seems impossible to escape the conclusion that this circle of churches which was so tenaciously conservative in all other matters  was  not likewise traditionalist in its eschatology. And the traditional eschatology, by every available indicator, was chiliastic.  The implication, then, is that chiliasm was the received faith of the Church, coming from the hands of the Apostle John, the writer of the Apocalypse.

In the second place, it is noteworthy that all the claims of anti-millenarians notwithstanding the tokens of chiliasm in the Apologists are to be traced to scriptural exegesis rather than to non-biblical traditions.  Asia was the home of the Apostle John and the birthplace of the Apocalypse.  The Apocalypse was universally received in I Asia, and it is no coincidence that the millennialism of the Asian Apologists followed in the wake of the reception of the prophetic book.  Justin Martyr everywhere proves himself a serious student of the prophets, and especially in the case of his premillennial eschatology.   Melito was a profound student of the Scriptures; the loss of his works is a great one.   Polycrates, Apollinaris, and Miltiades came from the same circle of Anatolian presbyters and shared the Asian traditions.  The eschatological traditions which are seen at at work in Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin, and Melito, undoubtedly shaped their thinking as well.  From the statements of Irenaeus and Justin, it is reasonable to infer that chiliasm was the general and received faith of the Asian churches which had been nurtured by the Apostle John, and which he addressed in the first three chapters of the Apocalypse.  The summary statement of Neve, then, seems fair: in eschatology the Apologists held to the primitive Christian beliefs, opposing both Hellenism and Gnosticism, with the expectation of a Millennial Kingdom. ¹⁶¹