rianism was from that time supported by but a few of the eastern theologians.2 In the West the millennarian notions were advocated by Lactantius, but combated by Augustine, who had once himself entertained similar views.4 It was very natural that Christianity should confidently expect a longer existence on earth, after it had become connected with the state, and been permanently established. Thus the period of Christ's second coming, and the destruction of the world, was deferred from time to time, and it was only extraordinary events that caused men for a season to look forward to these events as nigh at hand. The notion of Marcellus, that Christ's heavenly kingdom itself will at some future period come to an end (founded on 1 Cor. xv. 25), forms a remarkable parallel to Millennarianism.5 1 On the treatise of Nepos (A.D. 355) entitled: λeyxos Twv ἀλληγοριστῶν, and that of Dionysius περὶ ἐπαγγελιών, as well as on the entire controversy comp. Euseb. vii. 24. Gennad. de dogm. eccles. c. 55. Mosh. comment. p. 720-28. Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 3, p. 1109. Coracion retracted his former views in consequence of a disputation brought about by Dionysius. 2 Methodius, who was in part an opponent of Origen, propounded millennarian notions in his treatise: the feast of the ten virgins (a dialogue on chastity), which was composed in imitation of Plato's Symposium. Orat. ix. § 5 (in Combefisii Auctuar. noviss. Bibl. PP. Græc. pars. i. p. 109). Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 3, p. 1233. According to Epiph. hær. 72, p. 1013 (comp. Hier. in Jes. Lib. xviii.) Apollinaris too held millennarian notions, and wrote a treatise in two books against Dionysius, which met with great success at the time: Quem non solum (says Jerome 1. c.) suæ sectæ homines, sed nostrorum in hac parte duntaxat plurimum sequitur multitudo. Concerning the millennarian views of Bar Sudaili, abbot of Edessa, in Mesopotamia, towards the close of the fifth century, comp. Neander 1. c. ii. 3, p. 1181. 3 Inst. vii. 14-26, c. 14: Sicut Deus sex dies in tantis rebus fabricandis laboravit, ita et religio ejus et veritas in his sex millibus annorum laboret necesse est, malitia prævalente ac dominante. Et rursus, quoniam perfectis operibus requievit die septimo eum que benedixit, necesse est, ut in fine sexti millesimi anni malitia omnis aboleatur e terra et regnet per annos mille justitia, sitque tranquillitas et requies a laboribus, quos mundus jamdiu perfert. In the subsequent part of the chapter he gives a full description of the state of the political, the physical, and the religious world antecedent to the millennial kingdom, and appeals both to the Sibylline oracles and to the work of Hystaspes. Comp. Corrodi, ii. p. 410, 423, 441, 455. 4 Sermo 159 (Opp. T. v. p. 1060), which may be compared with de civ. Dei xx. 7......Quæ opinio esset utcunque tolerabilis, si aliquæ deliciæ spiritales in illo sabbato adfuturæ sanctis per Domini præsentiam crederentur. Nam etiam nos hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. Sed cum eos qui tunc resurrexerint, dicant immoderatissimis carnalibus epulis vacaturos in quibus cibus sit tantus ac potus, ut non solum nullam modestiam teneant, sed modum quoque ipsius incredulitatis excedant: nullo modo ista possunt, nisi a carnalibus credi. Hi autem, qui spiritales sunt, istos ista credentes Xixiaoras appellant græco vocabulo, quos verbum e verbo exprimentes, nos possumus Milliarios nuncupare. The passages in the book of Revelation bearing on this subject are expounded in the subsequent chapters. 5 quoted § 92, 6, Klose, p. 42, Cyrill of Jerusalem, Cat. xv. Comp. the works on Marcellus ss. and the passages cited by him. 27 (14 Milles), combating this opinion, appeals to the words of the angel (Luke i. 33), and of the prophets (Dan. vii. 13, 14, etc.); in reference to 1 Cor. xv. 25, he asserts that the term ǎxpɩ includes the terminus ad quem.-Klose, p. 82, questions whether Photinus adopted the views of Marcellus. § 140. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. The notion of a two-fold resurrection, founded on the language of the Book of Revelation, was still held by Lactantius,1 but afterwards shared the fate of Millennarianism.2 Though Methodius had combated Origen's idealistic doctrine of the resurrection, yet several of the eastern theologians adopted it, till the zealous follow ers of the Anti-Origenist party succeeded in the ensuing controversies in establishing their doctrine, that the body raised from the tomb is in every respect identical with that which formed in this life the organ of the soul. Jerome even went so far as to make this assertion in reference to the very hairs and teeth.5 Augustine's views on this point were, during the earlier part of his life, more in accordance with the Platonico-Alexandrian mode of thinking; but afterwards he gave the preference to more sensuous notions, though he was at much pains to clear the doctrine in question as far as possible from all gross and carnal additions. Latter definitions have re ference rather to unessential points.7 1 Inst. vii. 20: Nec tamen universi tunc (i. e. at the commencement of the millennial reign) a Deo judicabuntur, sed ii tantum qui sunt in Dei religione versati. Comp. c. 26:...Eodem tempore (i. e. at the end of the world after the millennial reign) fiet secunda illa et publica omnium resurrectio, in qua excitabuntur injusti ad cruciatus sempiternos. 2 Aug. de civ. Dei xx. 7: De his duabus resurrectionibus Joannes......eo modo locutus est, ut earum prima a quibusdam nostris non intellecta, insuper etiam in quasdam ridiculas fabulas verteretur. Comp. Epiphan. Ancor. § 97, p. 99. Gennad. lib. i. c, 6, et 25. 3 ПIepì ávaσтáσews Móyos. Phil. Bibl. cod. 234. Rössler, i. p. 297. Comp. Epiph. hær. 64, 12–62. + Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also Basil the Great, adopted the views of Origen. Thus Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. ii. 17, p. 20, and in other places) rested belief in immortality principally on this, that man, considered as a spiritual being, possesses a Divine, and consequently an immortal nature. The mortal body is that which perishes, but the soul is the breath of the Almighty, and the deliverance from the fetters of the body is the most essential point of future happiness, see Ullmann, p. 501, 2. Similar expressions were used by Gregory of Nyssa de anima et resurrectione, Opp. T. iii. p. 181 (247) see Rupp, p. 187, ss., and Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 439. Both Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, compared e. g. the body of man to the coats of skins with which our first parents were clothed after the fall. Concerning the more indefinite views of Basil (Hom. viii. in Hexaëmeron, p. 78, and in famem, p. 72), see Klose, p. 77. Titus of Bostra (fragm. in Joh. Damasceni parallelis sacris Opp. T. ii. p. 763) propounded a more refined doctrine of the resurrection. Chrysostom, though asserting the identity of the body, hom. x. in 2 Ep. ad Cor. (Opp. T. ix. p. 603), kept to the Pauline doctrine, and maintained in particular the difference between the present and the future body: Σὺ δέ μοι σκόπει, πῶς διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων δείκνυσι (ὁ ̓Απ.) τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τῶν μελλόντων πρὸς τὰ παρόντα· εἰπὼν γὰρ ἐπίγειον (2 Cor. v. 1) ἀντέθηκε τὴν οὐρα víav K. T. X. Synesius, a Christian philosopher of Cyrene, frankly acknowledged that he could not adopt the popular notions on this point (which some interpreted as a complete denial of the doctrine of the resurrection). Comp. Evagr. hist. eccl. i. 15, and Ep. 105, ad Euoptium fratrem in the note of Vales. on that passage. nus. 5 Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome may be considered as the representatives of this zealous party. The last two had themselves formerly entertained more liberal views, nor did Theophilus even afterwards hesitate to ordain Synesius to the office of bishop; see Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 442. But they opposed, with especial vehemence, John of Jerusalem and RufiJerome was by no means satisfied (Apol. contra Ruf. lib. 4, Op. T. ii. p. 145) with the language of Rufinus, who asserted the resurrection hujus carnis, and still less with the caution of John, who distinguished (rightly in the exegetical point of view) between flesh and body. He therefore makes the following definite assertions (adv. errores Joann. Hier. ad Pammach. Opp. T. ii. p. 118, ss.), which he founds especially on Job xix. 26: Caro est proprie, quæ sanguine, venis, ossibus nervisque constringitur......Certe ubi pellis et caro, ubi ossa et nervi et sanguis et venæ, ibi carnis structura, ibi sexus proprietas...... Videbo autem in ista carne, quæ me nunc cruciat, quæ nunc præ dolore distillat. Idcirco Deum in carne conspiciam, quia omnes infirmitates meas sanavit.-And thus he says in reference to the resurrection-bodies: Habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia et tamen nec cibis nec uxoribus indigent. From the stridor dentium of the condemned he infers that we shall have teeth; the passage: Capilli capitis vestri numerati sunt, proves, in his opinion, that not even our hairs will be wanting. But his principal argument is founded on the identity of the body of believers with that of Christ. In reference to 1 Cor. xv. 50, he lays great stress upon the use of the term possidere regnum Dei, which he distinguishes from the resurrectio. Comp. Prudentius (apotheos. 1063, ss.): Nosco meum in Christo corpus resurgere. Quid me Et totus veniam, nec enim minor aut alius quam Vultus, vigor et color idem, Fraudatum revomet patefacti fossa sepulcri. Augustine propounded the more liberal view: de fide et symb. c. 10: Tempore immutationis angelicæ non jam caro erit et sanguis, sed tantum corpus-in cœlestibus nullo caro, sed corpora simplicia et lucida, quæ appellat Ap. spiritalia, nonnulli autem vocant ætheria; the opposite view is set forth in his Retractiones, p. 17. The whole doctrine is fully developed in Enchirid. ad Laur. 84-92, and de civ. Dei xxii. c. 11-21; Erit ergo spiritui subdita caro spiritalis, sed tamen caro, non spiritus, sicut carni subditus fuit spiritus ipse carnalis, sed tamen spiritus, non caro. In reference to the general aspect of the doctrine he says, ad Laur. c. 88, ss.: Non perit Deo terrena materies, de qua mortalium creatur caro, sed in quemlibet pulverem cineremve solvatur, in quoslibet halitus aurasque diffugiat, in quamcunque aliorum corporum substantiam vel in ipsa elementa vertatur, in quorumcunque animalium etiam hominum cedat carnemque mutetur, illi animæ humanæ puncto temporis redit, quæ illam primitis, ut homo fieret, cresceret, viveret, animavit; but this admits of some limitation: Ipsa itaque terrena materies, quæ discedente anima fit cadaver, non ita resurrectione reparabitur, ut ea, quæ dilabuntur et in alias atque alias aliarum rerum species formasque vertuntur (quamvis ad corpus redeant, unde lapsa sunt) ad easdem quoque corporis partes, ubi fuerunt, redire necesse sit (this would be impossible especially in the case of hairs and nails). Sed quemadmodum si statua cujuslibet solubilis metalli aut igne liquesceret, aut contereretur in pulverem, aut confunderetur in massam, et eam vellet artifex ex illius materiæ quantitate reparare, nihil interesset ad ejus integritatem, quæ particula materiæ cui membro statuæ redderetur, dum tamen totum, ex quo constituto fuerat restituta resumeret. Ita Deus mirabiliter atque inef |