existed before a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been formed, so as to include both (1). The terms μvoτýplov and sacramentum are, indeed, already used to designate both (2); but they are quite as frequently applied to other religious symbols and usages, which implied a high religious idea, and also to the more profound doctrines of the Church (3).

(1) The New Testament does not contain the idea of sacrament, as such. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were not instituted by Christ as two connected rites; but each in its own place and time, without a hint of a relation of the one to the other. In the apostolical epistles, it has been thought that a connection of the two is indicated in 1 John v. 6: that it does not refer to the two sacraments, see Lücke's commentary on the passage [in the same sense, Estius, Düsterdieck, etc.]. More pertinent is 1 Cor. x. 4 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13). These two rites, however, having been instituted by Christ, assumed special prominence, as did also their relation to each other.

(2) As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic terminology (comp. the phrases: novum Testamentum, Trinitas, peccatum originale, satisfactio), so he is the first writer who uses the phrase sacramentum baptismatis et eucharistiæ, Adv. Marc. iv. 30. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. s. 1188, and the works quoted by him. The corresponding Greek term μvoτýptov occurs in Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Clem. Pæd. i. p. 123. Comp. Suicer, sub voce; and, on the Latin expressions, Hahn, 1.c. 5 ff., and in his treatise, "Sacrament im sinne der alten Kirchl." (in the Theol. kirch. Annal., Breslau 1849, 1).

(3) Tertullian also uses the word "sacramentum" in a more general sense, Adv. Marc. v. 18, and Adv. Prax. 30, where he uses the word for religion in general. Comp. the Indices Latinitatis Tertullianeæ by Semler and Oehler. Equally varied is the use of the term μvoтńρiov. Cyprian knows μυστήριον. nothing of an exclusive terminology on this point. He speaks, indeed (Ep. 63), of a sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but also of a sacrament of the Trinity (De Orat. Dom.,

On

where the Lord's Prayer itself is called a sacrament). the twofold sense of the Latin word, sometimes denoting an oath, sometimes used as the translation of the Greek term μvoτńpiov, see Rettberg, s. 324, 325, and compare Rückert,

s. 315.

SIXTH DIVISION.

THE LAST THINGS.

(ESCHATOLOGY.)

§ 75.

The Second Advent of Christ-Millenarianism. (Chiliasm.)

(Corrodi) Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, Zür. 1781-1785, iii. 1794. W. Münscher, Entwicklung der Lehre vom tausendjährigen Reiche in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten, in Henke's Magazin. Bd. iv. s. 233 ff. [Cf. Smith, Herzog, etc., s. v. W. Floerke, Die Lehre vom tausendjährigen Reiche, Marb. 1859.] *M. Kirchner, die Eschatologie des Irenæus (Stud. u. Kritik. 1863, 2, s. 315 ff.).

THE disciples of Christ having received from their Master the promise of His second coming (πapovσía), the first Christians looked upon this event as near at hand, and, in connection with it, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment (1). The Book of Revelation (which many ascribed to the Apostle John, while others denied this, and even contested its canonicity) (2), in its 20th chapter, gave currency to the idea of a millennial kingdom, together with that of a double resurrection, also found in the same book (3); and the imagination of those who dwelt fondly upon sensuous impressions, delineated these millennial hopes in the most glowing terms. This was the case not only with the Judaizing Ebionites (4) and Cerinthus (5) (according to the testimony of some writers), but also with several orthodox Fathers, such as Papias of Hierapolis, Justin, Irenæus (6), and Tertullian. The millennial notions of the latter were supported by his Montanistic views (7). In Cyprian we find only an echo in a more

subdued tone of the ideas of Tertullian (8). The Gnostics were from the first unfavourable to millenarian tendencies (9), which were also opposed by some orthodox writers, e.g. the Presbyter Caius in Rome, and by the theologians of the Alexandrian school, especially Origen (10).

(1) Comp. the works on Biblical Theology. On the importance of eschatology in the first period, and its necessary connection with Christology, see Dorner's Person Christi, i. 232 ff. ["The Christian hope in the Christ that was to come grew out of faith in the Christ who had already come." "The Christian principle celebrated its apotheosis in the eschatology. For the whole universe is ordered in reference to Christ. What is not a part of the eternal kingdom, must at the end of all things be entirely rejected, become powerless and worthless."] The distinction between the second coming of Christ and the first was founded on the New Testament. Justin M. Apol. i. 52: Δύο γὰρ αὐτοῦ παρουσίας προεκήρυξαν οἱ προφῆται· μίαν μὲν τὴν ἤδη γενομένην, ὡς ἀτίμου καὶ παθητοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν, ὅταν μετὰ δόξης ἐξ οὐρανῶν μετὰ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς αὐτοῦ στρατιᾶς παραγενήσεσθαι κεκήρυκται, ὅτε καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀνεγερεῖ πάντων τῶν γενομένων ἀνθρώTWV K.T.X. Cf. Dial. c. Tryph. 32, 45, 49, 51. Iren. i. 10 (he makes a distinction between ἔλευσις and παρουσία), iv. 22, 2.

(2) See above, § 31, note 7, especially Euseb. vii. 25, and the introductions to the commentaries on the Book of Revelation (Lücke). According to the latest criticism, the author of the Apocalypse was, indeed, the real John; but because entangled in the Ebionitish and Jewish modes of thought, he cannot be the same with John the Evangelist; compare Baur (in Zellers Theol. Jahrb. 1844) and Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeitalter, s. 66 ff. In opposition to them, Ebrard endeavours to harmonize the standpoint of the Apocalypse with that of the Gospel; see his Evangel. Johannes und die neueste Hypothese über seine Entstehung (Zürich 1845), s. 137 ff.—We cannot regard the acts in this controversy as definitely closed. [The latest criticism is decidedly in favour of the opinion, that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in d. N. T. 1875. Passages in Register ad fin.]

(3) Comp. the commentaries on this chapter. From Justin's

larger Apology, c. 52, it has been inferred that, though a millenarian, he held to only one resurrection (τà owμаTa ἀνεργεῖ πάντων τῶν γενομένων ἀνθρώπων); so Münter (alteste Dogmengesch. ii. 2, s. 269), and also Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 241 and 247. But in the Dial. c. Tryph. c. 81, Justin teaches a double resurrection; comp. Semisch, ii. s. 471 ff. He calls the first resurrection holy (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 113), but the second, the general. Irenæus, too (v. c. 32), and Tertullian (De Resur. Carn. c. 42, and De Anima, c. 58) teach a double resurrection, or (in the case of Tertull.) a progressive resurrection (?); comp. Gieseler, u. s., s. 241. [" The wholly pure will rise at once; those, however, who have contracted great guilt, must make amends by staying a longer time in the under-world, and rising later;" and thus he interprets Matt. v. 26. Comp. also Maitland's Apostle's School of Prophetic Interpretation, 1849. Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, 3 Ausg. Basel 1874. Alford's Greek Test. in loc. Reuss, Théologie Chrétienne, vol. i. p. 429 ss., 3d ed. Stras. et Paris 1864.]

(4) Jerome, in his Comment. on Isa. Ixvi. 20, observes that the Ebionites understand the passage, "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts," in its literal sense, and apply it to chariots drawn by four horses, and conveyances of every description. They believe that at the last day, when Christ shall reign at Jerusalem, and the temple be rebuilt, the Israelites will be gathered together from all the ends of the earth. They will have no wings to fly, but they will come in carriages of Gaul; in covered chariots of war, on horses of Spain and Cappadocia; their wives will be carried in litters, and ride upon mules of Numidia instead of horses. Those who hold offices, dignitaries and princes, will come in chariots from Britain, Spain, Gaul, and the regions where the river Rhine is divided into arms; the subdued nations will hasten to meet them. But the Clementine Homilies and the Gnostic Ebionities, far from adopting this gross chiliasm (Credner, 1.c. iii. s. 289, 290), even oppose it; see Schliemann, s. 251 and 519.

(5) Euseb. iii. 28, from the accounts given by Caius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria. According to Caius,