Cerinthus taught: Μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν Ιερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν, this state would last a thousand years; according to Dionysius: ἐπίγειον ἔσεσθαι τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείαν· Καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ὀρέγετο φιλοσώματος ὢν καὶ πάνυ σαρκικὸς, ἐν τούτοις ὀνειροπολεῖν ἔσεσθαι, γαστρὸς καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γαστέρα πλησμονῶν, τουτέστι σιτίοις καὶ πότοις καὶ γάμοις καὶ δι ̓ ὧν εὐφημότερον ταῦτα ᾠήθη ποριεῖσθαι, ἑορταῖς καὶ θυσίαις καὶ ἱερείων σφαγαῖς. Comp. iii. 25, and Theodoret, Fab. Hær. ii. 3, and the works referred to in § 23. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, Lect. VI. p. 177-179, and note 76.] But that chiliasm did not come into the orthodox Church through Cerinthus is shown by Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 234. [This is declared by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. c. 28, and Theodoret and others. But Eusebius (iii. 39) accuses Papias of having spread millenarianism, from a misunderstanding of the apostles, and calls him on this very account σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. But Justin (Dial. p. 306), writing at the time of Papias, says that it was the general faith of all orthodox Christians, and that only the Gnostics did not share it. Comp. Irenæus, v. 25, 26. Tertull. c. Marc. iii. 24, and the apocryphal books of the period.]

(6) “ In all the works of this period (the first two centuries) millenarianism is so prominent, that we cannot hesitate to consider it as universal in an age, when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to suffer for Christianity," Gieseler, Kg. Bd. i. s. 166; Dogmengesch. s. 231 ff. Comp., however, the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch, in none of which millenarian notions are propounded. May anything be inferred from this silence? On the millennial

views of Papias, see Euseb. iii. 39: Χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐστῶν ἔσεσθαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης. Comp. Barn. c. 15 (Ps. xc. 4); Hermas, lib. i. Vis. i. 3, and the observations of Jachmann, s. 86.-Justin, Dial. c. Tr. 80, 81, asserts that, according to his own opinion and that of the other orthodox theologians (εἴ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα χριστιανοί), the elect will rise from the

dead, and spend a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, which will be restored, changed, and beautified (in support of his views he appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel); at the same time, he admits that even orthodox Christians (Tŷs κa@apâs kaì eửσeßoûs yvwuns1) entertain different views. Comp. Apol. i. 11, where he opposes the hope of a human political kingdom, but not that of a millennial reign of Christ. Justin holds an intermediate position between a gross, sensuous view (συμπιεῖν πάλιν καὶ συμφαγεῖν, Dial. c. Tr. § 51) on the one hand, and a spiritualizing idealism on the other. Comp. C. Semisch, Justin Martyr, l.c. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. v. 33, p. 332 (Gr. 453), defends chiliasm, especially in opposition to the Gnostics. He appeals, e.g., to Matt. xxvi. 29 and Isa. xi. 6.— On the highly sensuous and fantastical description (carried out with genuine Rabbinic taste) of the fertility of the vine and of corn, which is said to have originated with Papias and the disciples of John, see Münscher, von Cölln, i. s. 44. Grabe, Spic. Sæc. 2, p. 31 and 230. Corrodi, ii. s. 406. Iren. Adv. Hær. v. 33: "The days will come in which vines will grow, each having ten thousand branches; and on each branch there will be ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes; and each grape, when expressed, will yield twenty-five μεтρητaι of wine. And when any one of the saints shall take hold of a cluster of grapes, another (cluster) will cry out: I am a better cluster, take me, and on my account give thanks to the Lord. In like manner, a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and each head will have ten thousand grains; and each grain will yield ten pounds of the finest wheaten flour; and other fruits will yield seeds and herbage in the same proportion." This fruitfulness of the corn he regards as necessary on account of the lion eating straw; and

1 Various writers have endeavoured to remove the contradiction between these two views. Rössler, i. s. 164, interpolates thus: many otherwise orthodox Christians; Dallaus, Münscher (Handbuch, ii. s. 420), Münter, Schwegler (Montan. s. 137), interpolate the word un [comp. Gieseler, 1.c. i. § 52, note 19]. Semisch, in opposition to this, ii. s. 469, note: "Justin does not assert that all, but that only the all-sided, the complete believers, are chiliasts.' According to Baur (Dg. s. 701), the passage can only be understood to say that chiliasm (millenarianism) is the faith of all true Christians, and that only the Gnostics are excluded from it. (Comp. theol. Jahrb. 1857, s. 218 ff.)

the wheat must also be such "cujus palea congrua ad escam erit leonum." See also Corrodi, ii. s. 496; Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 235; Kirchner, 1.c. Dorner tries to give a more spiritual turn to this chiliasm; he does not view it as necessarily connected with Judaizing tendencies; see his Lehre von d. Person Christi, i. 240 f. note. [He views it as the counterpoise to the Gnostic abstractions, and as containing a genuine historical element; and particularly opposes the views of Corrodi, which have been too implicitly followed by many German Church historians.] On the Sibylline Oracles, the Book of Enoch (probably a purely Jewish product), the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, and the New Testament Apocrypha, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 243 ff. [also Hilgenfeld, Die Jüdische Apocalypse, 1859].

(7) Tertullian's views are intimately connected with his Montanistic notions. His treatise, De Spe Fidelium (Hieron. de Vir. illus. c. 18, and in Ezech. c. 36), is indeed lost; but comp. Adv. Marc. iii. 24. Tertullian, however, speaks not so much of sensual enjoyments, as of a copia omnium bonorum spiritualium, and even opposes the too sensuous interpretations. of Messianic passages, De Resurr. Carn. c. 26, though many sensuous images pervade his own expositions; comp. Neander, Antignostikus, s. 499; Kg. i. 3, s. 1092. On the question, how far we may implicitly rely on the assertion of Euseb. v. 16, that Montanus had fixed upon the city of Pepuza, in Phrygia, as the seat of the millennial kingdom, and on the millenarian notions of the Montanists in general, see Gieseler, Kg. i. s. 152.

(8) Respecting his doctrine of Antichrist, and his belief that the end of the world was near, comp. Ep. 58 (p. 120, 124), Ep. 61 (p. 144); Exh. Mart. ab. init. p. 167. Tert. Adv. Jud. iii. § 118 (p. 91), see Rettberg, s. 340 ff.

(9) This is evident both from the nature of Gnosticism itself, and the opposition which Irenæus made to it. Some have even ascribed the origin of Marcion's system to his opposition to millenarianism; comp. however, Baur, Gnosis, s. 295.

(10) Concerning Caius and his controversy with the Montanist Proclus, see Neander, Kg. i. s. 1093.-Origen speaks in very strong terms against the millenarians, whose opinions

HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. I.

U

he designates as ineptæ fabulæ, figmenta inania, Sóyμara ἀτοπώτατα, μοχθηρά, etc., De Princip. ii. c. 11, § 2 (Opp. i. p. 164); Contra Cels. iv. 22 (Opp. i. p. 517); Select. in Ps. (Opp. t. ii. p. 570); in Cant. Cant. (Opp. t. iii. p. 28). Münscher, von Cölln, i. p. 44-46. Respecting Hippolytus, who wrote a treatise on Antichrist without being a real millenarian, comp. Photius, Cod. 202. Haenell, de Hippolyto (Gött. 1838), p. 37, 60. Corrodi, ii. s. 401, 406, 413, 416.

§ 76.

The Resurrection.

G. A. Teller, Fides Dogmatis de Resurrectione Carnis per 4 priora secula, Hal. et Helmst. 1766. Ch. W. Flügge, Geschichte der Lehre vom Zustände des Menschen nach dem Tode, Leipz. 1799, 1800. Hubert Beckers, Mittheilungen aus den merkwürdigsten Schriften der verflossenen Jahrhunderte über den Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode, Augsb. 1835, 1836. C. Ramers, des Origenes Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, Trier. 1851. [Bush, Anastasis, New York, 3d ed. 1845. Robt. Landis, Doctrine of the Resurr., Phila. 1848. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., Leipz. Rinck, Zustand nach dem Tode, Ludgwigsb. 1861.]

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 (1), yet it received a personal centre, and was made popular even among the uneducated, only after the resurrection of Christ (2). During the period of Apologetics this doctrine of the resurrection (of the flesh) was further developed on the basis of the Pauline teaching (3). 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 (4). Most of the Fathers believed in the resuscitation of the body, and of the very same body which man possessed while on earth (5). The theologians of the Alexandrian school, however, formed

an exception; Origen, in particular (6), endeavoured 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 (7); while the false teachers of Arabia, whom Origen combated, asserted that both soul and body fall into a sleep of death, from which they will not awake till the last day (8).

(1) Comp. Herder, Von der Auferstehung (Werke, Zur Religion und Theologie, vol. xi.).—G. Müller, über die Auferstehungslehre der Person, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1835, 2d part, s. 477 ff. Corrodi, 1.c. s. 345. On 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 (Hymenæus and Philetus), see the works on Biblical Theology. [Fries, Ueber Auferstehung, in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1855, p. 400 ff. John Brown, Resurrection to Life, Edin. 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).

(3) It belongs to exegetical theology to inquire how far the New Testament teaches an ἀνάστασις τῆς σαρκός, and what is the relation of the σάρξ to the σῶμα, and to the ἀνάστασις Twν VEкρ V. Comp. Zyro, Ob Fleisch oder Leib das Auferstehende, in Illgens Zeitschrift, 1849, s. 639 ff. 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 (comp. note 2). Justin