The Chiliastic Controversy

During the third century the belief in chiliasm as a part of the Church's

faith died out in nearly all parts of the Church. It did not seem called

for by the condition of the Church, which was rapidly adjusting itself to

the world in which it found itself. The scientific theology, especially

that of Alexandria, found no place in its system for such an article as

chiliasm. The belief lingered, however, in country places, and with it br />
went no little opposition to the "scientific" exegesis which by means of

allegory explained away the promises of a millennial kingdom. The only

account we have of this so-called "Chiliastic Controversy" is found in

connection with the history of the schism of Nepos in Egypt given by

Eusebius, But it may be safely assumed that the condition of things here

described was not peculiar to any one part of the Church, though an open

schism resulting from the conflict of the old and new ideas is not found

elsewhere.





Additional source material: Origen, De Principiis, II, 11 (ANF,

IV); Lactantius, Divini Institutiones, VII, 14-26 (ANF, VII);

Methodius, Symposium, IX, 5 (ANF, VI); v. infra, § 48.





Eusebius, Hist. Ec., VII, 24. (MSG, 20:693.)





Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria 248-265, after serving as the

head of the Catechetical School, a position which he does not seem

to have resigned on being advanced to the episcopate. His work On

the Promises has, with the exception of fragments preserved by

Eusebius, perished, as has also the work of Nepos, Against the

Allegorists. The date of the work of Nepos is not known. That of

the work of Dionysius is placed conjecturally at 255. The

"Allegorists," against whom Nepos wrote, were probably Origen and

his school, who developed more consistently and scientifically the

allegorical method of exegesis; see above, § 43, k.





Besides all these, the two books On the Promises were prepared by him

[Dionysius]. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who

taught that the promises made to the holy men in the divine Scriptures

should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a

certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As he thought that he

could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a

book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. Dionysius

opposes this in his books On the Promises. In the first he gives his own

opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of

John,(73) and, mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him as

follows:



"But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely

confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of

Christ upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and

love Nepos for his faith and industry and his diligence in the Scriptures,

and for his extensive psalmody with which many of the brethren are still

delighted; and I hold the man in the more reverence because he has gone

before us to rest. But as some think his work very plausible, and as

certain teachers regard the law and the prophets as of no consequence, and

do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while

they make promises as to the teaching of this work as if it were some

great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any

sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine

appearing of our Lord and our resurrection from the dead, and our being

gathered together unto Him, and made like Him, but, on the contrary, lead

them to a hope for small things and mortal things in the kingdom of God,

and for things such as exist now--since this is the case, it is necessary

that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present."

Farther on he says:



"When I was in the district of Arsinoe, where, as you know, this doctrine

has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire

churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of

the brethren in the villages--such brethren as wished being present--and I

exhorted them to make a public examination of this question. Accordingly

when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress

impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three

successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it. And

finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, in

the hearing of all the brethren present acknowledged and testified to us

that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention it,

nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it."