sition which Irenæus made to it. Some have even ascribed the origin of Marcion's system to his opposition to millennarianism; comp. however, Baur, Gnosis, p. 295.

10

Concerning Caius and his controversy with the Montanist Proclus, see Neander, Church Hist. i. p. 399.-Origen speaks in very strong terms against the millennarians, whose opinions he designates as ineptæ fabulæ, fgmenta inania, δόγματα ἀτοπώτατα, μοχθηρά, etc., De Princ. ii. c. 11, § 2. (Opp. i. p. 104); contra Cels. iv. 22 (Opp. i. p. 517); Select. in Ps. (Opp. Tom. ii. p. 570); in Cant. Cant. (Opp. T. iii. p. 28). Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 44–46. Respecting Hippolytus, who wrote a treatise on Antichrist without being a real Millennarian, comp. Photius, Cod. 202. Hænell, de Hippolyto (Gött. 838, 4), p. 37, 60. Corrodi, ii. p. 401, 406, 413, 416.

§ 76.

THE RESURRECTION.

Teller, G. A., Fides Dogmatis de Resurrectione Carnis per 4 priora secula. Hal. et Helmst. 1766, 8. Flügge, Ch. W, Geschichte der Lehre vom Zustande des Menschen nach dem Tode. Lpzg. 1799, 1800, 8. Hubert Beckers, Mittheilungen aus den merkwürdigsten Schriften der verflossenen Jahrhunderte über den Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode. Augsb. 1835, '36. C. Ramers, des Origenes Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches. Trier. 1851. [Bush, Anastasis, New York, 3d ed. 1845; comp. Bibl. Repos. 1845. Robt. Landis, Doctrine of the Resurr., Phila. 1848.] Though traces of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which is set forth by the apostle Paul in such a majestic manner, may be found in some conceptions of greater antiquity,' yet it received a personal centre, and was made popular even among the uneducated, only after the resurrection of Christ. During the period of Apologetics this doctrine of the resurrection (of the flesh) was further developed on the basis of the Pauline teaching. The objections of its opponents, proceeding from a tendency limited to sense and the understanding, were more or less fully answered in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, as well as in the writings of Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and others. Most of the fathers believed in the resuscitation of the body, and of the very same body which man possessed while on earth. The theologians of the Alexandrian school, however, formed an exception; Origen, in particular, endeavored to clear the doctrine in question from its false additions, by reducing it to the genuine idea of Paul; but, at the same time, he sought to refine and to spiritualize it after the manner of the Alexandrian school. The Gnostics, on the other hand, rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entirely; while the false teachers of Arabia, whom Origen combatted, asserted that both soul and body fall into a sleep of death, from which they will not awake till the last day."

1

Comp. Herder, Von der Auferstehung (Werke Zur Religion und Theol. ogie, vol. xi.)— Müller, G., über die Auferstehungslehre der Parsen, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1835, 2d part, p. 477, ss. Corrodi, 1. c. p. 345. Cn the doctrine of Christ and of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv.; 2 Cor. v.), and on the opponents of the doctrine in the apostolic age (Hymeneus and Philetus), see the works on Biblical Theology. [Fries, Ueber Auferstehung in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1855, p. 400, Yeomans, in Princeton Repert. 1845. John Brown, Resurr. to Life, Edinb.

sq. Tracy, in Bibl. Sacra, 1845. D. R. Goodwin, in Bib. Sacra, 1852. 1852.]

2 It naturally excites surprise that, while Paul represents the resurrection of Christ as the central point of the whole doctrine, the fathers of the present period keep this fact so much in the background; at least it is not, with all of them, the foundation of their opinions concerning the resurrection of the body. Some, e. g., Athenagoras, who yet devoted a whole book to the subject, and Minucius Felix, are entirely silent on the resurrection of Christ (see below); the others also rest their arguments chiefly upon reason and analogies from nature (the change of day and night, seed and fruit, the phoenix, etc., Clement of Rome, c. 24, and Ep. 11, 9).

It belongs to exegetical theology to inquire how far the New Testament teaches an ανάστασις τῆς σαρκός, and what is the relation of the σάρξ to the σῶμα and to the ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν. Comp. Zyro, Ob Fleisch oder Leib das Auferstehende, in Illgen's Zeitschrift, 1849, p. 639, sq. At any rate, the expression resurrectio carnis soon became current, and thus it passed over into the so-called Apostles' Creed.

4

Clement, Ep. i. ad Cor. c. 24-26 (comp. note 2). Justin M. adopts the literal interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and, in the form, that it will rise again with all its members, Fragm. de Resurr. c. 3 (edited as a separate programme by Teller, 1766; extracts in Rössler, Bibl. i. 174). Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 146, ss. Even cripples will rise as such, but at the moment of the resurrection, be restored by Christ, and put into a more perfect condition; De Resurr. c. 4, and Dial. c. Tryph. c. 69. Justin founds his belief in the resurrection of the body chiefly upon the omnipotence, justice, and benevolence of God, upon the miracles of Jesus in raising the dead while he was upon the earth, and also, in fine, upon the resurrection of Christ himself;* and shows, in connection with it, that the body must necessarily participate in future rewards or punishments, for body and soul necessarily constitute one whole; like two bullocks, they make one span. Alone, they can accomplish as little as one ox in plowing. According to Justin, Christianity differs from the systems of either Pythagoras or Plato, in that it teaches not only the immortality of the soul, but also the resurrection of the body. But as Justin investigated this subject more thoroughly, he was necessarily led to the discussion of certain questions which have generally been reserved for scholastic acumen, e. g., relating to the sexual relations of the resurrection-bodies, which he compares to mules (?) [Quest. et Resp. p.

* On the other hand, he fails to take notice of the analogies from nature, which others adduce; as Semisch, p. 148, has remarked.

423: Tametsi membra genitalia post resurrectionem, ad prolificationem utilia non erunt ad reminiscentiam tamen ejus facient, quod per ea membra mortales acceperint generationem, auctum, et diurnitatem. Inducimur namque per ea ad cogitationem tam prolixa sapientiæ Christi, quæ illa (hominibus per mortem intercedentibus attribuit, ad eorum per generationem) augendorum conservationem, ut sobolis creatæ successione, genus nostrum in immortalitate (perducaret)].-The arguments which Athenagoras adduces in his treatise De Resurr. (especially c. 11) are partly the same which were in after ages urged by natural theology in support of the doctrine of immortality; the moral nature of man, his liberty, and the retributive justice of God. Concerning the resurrection of the body, he has regard to the objections which have been made to it at all times, on the ground of the natural course of things (the fact that the elements of one organism may enter into the composition of another, etc.). He is, however, comforted by the idea that at the resurrection all things will be restored, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ owμaτos ápμovíav kaì ovoтaσiv.-Theophilus, ad Aut. i. 8, uses similar language.—Irenæus, Adv. Hær. v. 12 and 13, also asserts the identity of the future with the present body, and appeals to the analogous revivification (not new creation) of separate organs of the body in some of the miraculous cures performed by Christ (e. g., of the blind man, the man with the withered hand). He alludes particularly to those whom Christ raised from the dead, the son of the widow at Nain, and Lazarus (but makes no mention of the body of Christ himself!).* That Tertullian, who wrote a separate work on this subject (De Resurrectione Carnis), believed in the resurrection of the body, is what we might expect, especially as he made no strict distinction between the body and the soul. In illustration, he acutely points out the intimate connection existing between the one and the other during the present life: Nemo tam proximus tibi (anima), quem post Dominum diligas, nemo magis frater tuus, quæ (sc. caro) tecum etiam in Deo nascitur (c. 63). In his opinion the flesh participates in spiritual blessings, in the means of grace presented to us in unction, baptism, and the Lord's Supper; it even participates in martyrdom (the baptism of blood)! The body, too, is created after the image of God (comp. above, § 56, note 3)! He uses the same illustrations of day and night, the phoenix, etc., which we find in the writings of others, and maintains the identity of the future with the present body, c. 52: Certe non aliud resurgit quam quod seminatur, nec aliud seminatur quam quod dissolvitur humi, nec aliud dissolvitur humi quam caro, cf. 6, 63. He endeavors to meet the objection, that certain members will be of no use in the future life, by saying that the members of the human body are not only designed for the mean service of the visible world, but also for something higher. Even on earth the mouth serves, not only for the purpose of eating, but also to speak and to praise God, etc., c. 60 and 61. Minucius Felix makes Cæcilius bring forward the objections of the heathen to the possibility, both of an incorporeal immortality, and of a resurrection of the body, c. 11: Vellem tamen sciscitari, utrumne sine corpore, an cum corporibus,

*Irenæus takes the word "flesh" in 1 Cor. xv. 50, which was often quoted against the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, to mean fleshly sense.

Tertullian, however, held that the martyrs went at once to paradise, the abode of the blessed, and thought that in this they enjoyed an advantage over other Christians; while Cyprian does not seem to know about any intermediate state whatever. The Gnostics rejected the belief in Hades, together with that of the resurrection of the body, and imagined that the spiritually minded (the pneumatic) would, immediately after death, be delivered from the kingdom of the demiurge, and elevated to the anрwμa. The ancient oriental and Parsic idea of a purifying fire already occurs during this period in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This purifying fire, however, is not yet transferred to this intermediate state, but is either taken in a very general sense, or supposed to be connected with the general conflagration of the world."

* Justin M. Apol. i. 8: Πλάτων δὲ ὁμοίως ἔφη Ραδάμανθον καὶ Μίνω κολάσειν τοὺς ἀδίκους παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς ἐλθόντας, ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ πρᾶγμά φαμεν γενήσεσθαι, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. For the further views of Justin about the general judgment, see Apol. ii. 9; Semisch, ii. p. 474, '75. Tatian contra Gr. 6: Δικάξουσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐ Μίνως, οὐδὲ Ραδάμανθυς δοκιμαστὴς δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ ποιητὴς Θεὸς γίνεται. Comp. c. 25.

* Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 5, makes the souls of the pious take up a temporary abode in a better, those of the wicked in a worse place. He even stigmatizes as heretical (§ 80), the doctrine that souls are received into heaven immediately after death; but he admits that they possess a presentiment of their future destiny, Coh. ad Græc. c. 35; comp. Semisch, P. 464, note 3. The good, even before the final divison, dwell in a happier, the evil in a more wretched abode; Dial. cum Tryph. § 5. On his opinion, that, at the departure of the soul from the body, the former fall into the hands of evil angels (Dial. c. Tryph. § 105), see Semisch, ii. 465. Iren. v. 31, p. 331, (451, Gr.) : Αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὡρισμένον αὑταὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα καὶ ὁλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι σωματικῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ (in connection with this, the decensus Christi ad inferos, and Luke xvi. 22, etc.). Tertullian mentions (De Anima, 55) a treatise in which he says he has proved, omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini. The treatise itself is no longer extant; but comp. De Anima, c. 7 (aliquid tormenti sive solatii anima præcerpit in carcere seu diversorio inferum, in igni, vel in sinu Abrahæ); and c. 58. Tertullian rejects the notion of the sleep of the soul, which is not to be confounded with the error of the Arabian false teachers; he also opposes the opinion, founded upon 1 Sam. xxviii., that spirits might be conjured up from the abode of the dead, by appealing to Luke xvi. 26 (comp. Orig. Hom. ii. in 1 Reg. Opp. ii. p. 490-'98).

3 Tert. De Anim. 55, De Resurr. 43: Nemo peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii prærogativa, paradiso scilicet, non inferis deversurus.-On the meaning of the different terms: inferi, sinus Abrahæ, Paradisus, see Adv. Marc. iv. 34; Apol. c. 47; Orig. Hom. ii. in

Reg. 1. c. and Hom. in Num. 26, 4; Münscher, von Cölln, i. p. 57, 58, Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 225. [Tertullian gives the most information about the underworld. He describes it (De Anim. 55) as an immense space in the depths of the earth, divided by an impassable gulf into two parts. The part assigned to the righteous he calls sinus Abrahæ, that of the wicked ignis, and sometimes inferi. So, too, Hippolytus, in a fragment, Opp. ed. Fabricius, i. 220. Paradise was a different place from this underworld; it is far above this earth, separated from it by a glowing girdle: thither Christ went: and there, too, martyrs go at once; Enoch and Elijah were also transported thither. Origen held that, before Christ, no souls, not even those of the prophets and patriarchs, went to Paradise; but when Jesus descended to Hades he transferred them into the lower Paradise (in contrast with the upper), or the third heaven. The souls of pious Christians also go to this Paradise-which Origen identifies with the bosom of Abraham.]

Cypr. adv. Demetr. p. 196, and Tract. de Mortalitate, in various places; he expresses, e. g., his hope that those who die of pestilence, will come at once to Christ, p. 158, 164 (where he appeals to the example of Enoch), 166. Rettberg, p. 345.

Neander, Gnost. Systeme, p. 141, ss. ["The Gnostics taught that the soul of the perfect Gnostic, having risen again at baptism, and being enabled by perfection of knowledge to conquer the Demiurge, or principle of evil, would ascend, as soon as it was freed from the body, to the heavenly Pleroma, and dwell there for ever in the presence of the Father: while the soul of him who had not been allowed while on earth to arrive at such a plenitude of knowledge, would pass through several transmigrations, till it was sufficiently purified to wing its flight to the Pleroma." Burton, Bampton Lecture, v. Lect. p. 131.]

The views of Clement on this subject are expressed in still more general terms, Pæd. iii. 9, toward the end, p. 282 (Sylb. p. 241), and Strom. vii. 6, p. 851 (709 Sylb.): Φαμὲν δ' ἡμεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς· πῦρ οὐ τὸ πάμφαγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιμον λέγοντες, τὸ διϊκνούμενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχομένης τὸ πῦρ. From the whole context it appears that he speaks of the purifying efficacy of a mystical fire, even during the present life, perhaps in allusion to Matth. iii. 11. Luke iii. 16.-Origen, on the other hand, referring to 1 Cor. iii. 12, considers the fire which will consume the world at the last day, as at the same time a πῦρ καθάρσιον, Contra Cels. v. 15. No one (not even Paul or Peter himself) can escape this fire, but it does not cause any pain to the pure (according to Is. xliii. 2). It is a second sacramentum regenerationis: and as the baptism of blood was compared with the baptism of water (see above, § 72, note 10), so Origen thought that this baptism of fire at the end of the world would be necessary in the case of those who have forfeited the baptism of the Spirit; in the case of all others it will be a fire of test. Comp. in Exod. Hom. vi. 4; in Psalm Hom. iii. 1; in Luc. Hom. xiv. (Opp. iii. p. 948); xxiv. p. 961; in Jerem. Hom. ii. 3; in Ezech. Hom. i. 13; comp. Redepenning on p. 235. Guerike, De Schola Alexand. ii. p. 294. Thomasius, p. 250.