One of the best known and most accessible of the ancient preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the "father of church history." In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem's woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus's Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that "it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events" (3:7:1-2.) He then refers to the Olivet Discourse, citing Matthew 24:19-21 as his lead-in reference and later Luke 21:20, 23, 24. He concludes: "If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange" (3:7:7).
Another ancient document applying Matthew 24 to A.D. 70 is the Clementine Homilies (2d c.): "Prophesying concerning the temple, He said: 'See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away Matthew 24:3; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin Matthew 24:34....' And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken" (CH 3:15).
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) discusses Daniel's seventieth week as a past event: "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place" (Miscellanies 1:21). The famed premillennialist Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) writes of the Roman conquest: "And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the seventy hebdomads predicted in Daniel" (An Answer to the Jews, 8).
Even the Book of Revelation is applied to A.D. 70 by many in antiquity. In his Interpretation of the Revelation Andreas of Cappadocia (5th c.) noted that "there are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus" (Revelation 6:12). Later he commented: "These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews" (Revelation 7:1). According to noted church historian Henry Wace, Andreas's commentary is "the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church." Andreas himself informs us that he wrote it in order "to unfold the meaning of the Apocalypse, and to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it."
Arethas of Cappadocia (6th c.) also provides us a commentary on Revelation which, according to Wace "professes to be a compilation" though "no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incorporates a large portion of the contents of that work." Arethas specifically applies various passages in Revelation to A.D. 70 (Revelation 6-7).
From "Back to the Future - The Preterist Perspective"
The only reason I would “trot out” some early church father, is not to “support my view” but to counter the charge coming from your crowd that “nobody ever in the history of the whole church believed any aspect of this ‘new doctrine’ that John Darby ‘made up’ out of thin air” Aside from that, you know quite well topcat, that I and the pre-millenialists on this forum use Scripture to support our views. On the other side, I have heard creeds and “the beliefs of all the church for hundreds and hundreds of years” appealed to as proof that your views are right. Frankly, I’m getting tired of trying to counter charges because I see that when I do my counter claim, rather than being even remotely considered as being proof that the initial charge was incorrect, is now twisted into something such as “the like to trot out some early church father to support their views.” Also, in the case of Preterism, I would think that one would find it relevant to see what the church living after 70 AD believed about the end times (had all of the prophecy been fulfilled or were the vast majority of the church looking for a future fulfillment?) But that’s just me. You are going to believe what you want to believe. It has become clear that none of our Scripture and no quoting for sources contra to your view will stop that. As such, I figure, why bother even trying to reason with you. You aren’t after a dialogue, but rather a lecture. If you sense any hesitancy on my behalf to answer your posts, it is not because you have made this unsurmountable case that destroys anything that the pre-millenialists have said; but rather, it is because in spite of two threads and hundreds of posts of trying to reason with you from Scripture, we are still getting charges thrown out at us that are simply untrue. We have been cooperative in answering your posts to this point, but I simply do not have time to type out detailed answers to someone who is not going to listen to a word that is being said.