The Premillennial Controversy

By:
 •  5 min. read  •  grade level: 10
1PLAIN men are apt to think that if the premillennial advent of our Lord be the true doctrine, it ought to be made as plain as possible to the whole body of the Church. That is reasonable. But the objection that the majority of the Church at present are against the doctrine is no good reason against it. The majority, perhaps, may not give heed to the light of prophecy; they may not humbly invoke the Spirit of prophecy to their aid. “Do not interpretations belong to God?” Balaam, a bad man, was a true prophet; and a good man may be a false interpreter of prophecy: a good man may not be good in all respects. In these benevolent but bustling times, a minister who has little leisure may be so little learned on this important point, that some of the flock may have the advantage of him. Even with great leisure and application, we find that on this, as on other subjects, a single fundamental error in the premises will vitiate the whole argument. One of the signs of our times ought to arrest the attention of the whole Church, namely, that of the prophecy of scoffers in the last days, saying, Where is the promise of His coming? This implies a prominent preaching of the advent on the very eve of its and such a preaching is now in progress. It is worse indeed to be a scoffer, but it is not good to be unwise.
There was a time, and that the earliest, when the majority of the Church was not against this doctrine. It was believed and taught by the most eminent fathers of the age, next after the apostles, “that before the end of the world Christ should reign upon earth for a thousand years, and that the saints should reign under Him in all holiness and happiness.” This doctrine was by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, and therefore it was the catholic doctrine of the Church of that ago; it was taught as such, and not as a matter of private opinion. None denied that it was the tradition of the Church, clearly derived and authentically delivered. “Up to the middle of the third century this doctrine load prevailed and met with no opposition; but thenceforth it began to decline—principally, says Mosheim, through the authority of Origen, who opposed it because it was incompatible with some of his favorite sentiments. “It was overborne,” says Chillingworth, “by imputing to the Millenaries that which they held not; by abrogating the authority of John's Revelation, as some did; or by derogating from it as others, ascribing it not to John the apostle, but to some other John, they knew not whom; by calling it a Judaical opinion, and yet allowing it to be probable by corrupting the authors for it.”
It is objected that the creeds drawn up in the early ages of Christianity, the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, show that the Church of those days confessed that Christ would judge all men, both the quick and the dead, at the time of His coming. They did so, grounding that article of their faith on such scriptures as Acts 10:42 Peter 4:5; 2 Tim. 4:1. But as Augustine said truly, speaking of the particulars of eternal judgment, “All these things, it is to be believed, shall come to pass, but in what manner and in what order they may come to pass, experience of the things themselves shall then teach us, rather than the understanding of man can perfectly attain to it at present.” The general doctrine of universal judgment was all that was intended to be confessed in the creeds, not the particulars.
I must add one fact connected with this subject, showing the opinion of our Reformers in England. The prophecy, Jer. 23:5-8, compared with its parallel Jer. 33:16, all foretells our Lord's reign on earth at the time when the Jews shall be restored to their own land; which reign on earth is elsewhere expressed by His sitting on the throne of David (2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Psa. 89:3, 4; Isa. 9:6; Luke 1:32, 33; Acts 2:30). But when He shall sit on that throne, He will give rewards of grace to His servants. “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21). Now the Church of England annually anticipates the second advent of our Lord in its advent services, introducing them always by reading that prophecy, Jer. 23 for the epistle, on Sunday next before advent. The collect for that day was taken out of St. Gregory's Sacramentary, but the epistle and gospel were both newly selected by our Reformers in the reign of Edward the sixth.2 Surely, then, the objection that the majority of the Church of Christ in the present day are opposed to the doctrine of His premillennial advent is not so formidable, as the fact itself is to be regretted.
H. G.
 
1. “The above paper, from the pen of a respected and venerable brother in Christ, we insert, though attaching much less weight than he does to the formularies of the fourth and following centuries, when the Church had fallen low indeed. Neither do we think that the English reformers had any light to speak of on “that blessed hope.”—ED
2. See Comber on the Common Prayer. Vol. i, Part 1, Sect. 20.