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."

'Comp. Herder, Von der Auferstehung (Werke Zur Religion und Theologie, 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. 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 (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.]

* 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 ἀνάστασις 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, pòç TV TOV AVTOυ owμaτos ápμovíav Kai ovoтaoiv.-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 (anime), 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.

et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an innovatis, resurgatur? Sine corpore? boc, quod sciam, neque mens, neque anima, nec vita est. Ipso corpore? sed jam ante dilapsum est. Alio corpore?! ergo homo novus nascitur, non prior ille reparatur. Et tamen tanta ætas abiit, sæcula innumera fluxerunt; quis unus ab inferis vel Protesilai sorte remeavit, horarum saltem permisso commeatu, vel ut exemplo crederemus ?-Every one expects that Octavius will say that Christ is this Protesilaus; but in vain! The arguments which he adduces, c. 34, in reply to these objections, are restricted to the omnipotence of God, which created man out of nothing, and this is certainly more difficult than the mere restoration of his body; to the above analogies from nature (expectandum nobis etiam corporis ver est); and to the necessity of retribution, which the deniers of the resurrection are anxious to escape.-The notions of Cyprian on this subject are formed after those of Tertullian, comp. De Habitu Virg. p. 100, and Rettberg, p. 345.

* See the passages quoted in the preceding note.

• Clement of Alexandria had intended to write a separate work TƐpì ȧvaoτáσews, comp. Pæd. i. 6, p. 125 (104 Sylb.): according to Euseb. vi. 24, and Hieron. apud Rufinum, Origen composed not only two books, but also (according to the latter) two dialogues (?) on this subject, comp. contra Cels. v. 20 (Opp. i. p. 592), De Princ. ii. 10, i. p. 100, and the fragments, Opp. T. i. p. 33-37. Clement of Alexandria, in such of his writings as are yet extant, only touches upon the doctrine of the resurrection without discussing it. The passage, Strom. iv. 5, p. 569 (479 Sylb.), where he represents the future deliverance of the soul from the fetters of the body as the object of the most ardent desire of the wise man, does not give a very favorable idea of his orthodoxy on this point. But his disciple Origen maintains, Comm. in Matt. (Opp. iii. p. 811, '12), that we may put our trust in Christ without believing the resurrection of the body, provided we hold fast the immortality of the soul. Nevertheless he defended the doctrine of the church against Celsus, but endeavored to divest it of every thing which might give a handle to scoffers: on this account he rejected the doctrine of the identity of the bodies (which is not that of Paul). Contra Cels. iv. 57 (Opp. i. p. 548); v. 18 (ibid. p. 590): Οὔτε μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς, οὔτε τὰ θεῖα γράματα αὐταῖς φησι σαρξὶ μηδεμίαν μεταβολὴν ἀνειληφυίαις τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον, ζήσεσθαι τοὺς πάλαι ἀποθανόντας, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀναδύντας. Ὁ δὲ Κέλσος συκοφαντεῖ ἡμᾶς ταῦτα λέγων. Cap. 23, p. 594 : Ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν οὐ φαμεν τὸ διαφθαρέν σῶμα ἐπανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φύσιν, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν διαφθαρέντα κόκκον τοῦ σίτου ἐπανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόκκον τοῦ σίτου. Λέγομεν γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ κόκκου τοῦ σίτου ἐγείρεται στάχυς, οὕτω λόγος τις ἔγκειται τῷ σώματι, ἀφ' οὐ μὴ φθειρομένου ἐγείρεται τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ. The appeal to the omnipotence of God appeared to him an ἀτοπωτάτη αναχώ ρησις, p. 595, according to the principle εἰ γὰρ αἰσχρόν τι δρᾷ ὁ Θεὸς, οὐκ OTI Oeds; but the biblical doctrine of the resurrection, if rightly interpreted, includes nothing that is unworthy of God, comp. viii. 49, 50 (Opp. i. p. 777, sq.); Selecta in Psalm (Opp. ii. p. 532-36), where he designates the literal interpretation as φλυαρία πτωχῶν νοημάτων, and proves that every body must be adapted to the surrounding world. If we would live in water, we ought to be made like fish, etc. The heavenly state also demands glorified

bodies, like those of Moses and Elias. In the same place Origen gives a more correct interpretation of Ezech. xxxvii; Matt. viii. 12; Ps. iii. 7, and other passages, which were commonly applied to the resurrection of the body. Comp. De Princ. ii. 10 (Opp. i. p. 100, Red. p. 223); Schnitzer, p. 147, ss. On the other side: Hieron. ad Pammach. ep. 38 (61); Photius (according to Method.), Cod. 234. The opinion held by Origen's later followers, and of which he himself was accused, that the resurrection bodies have the shape of a sphere, is supported, as far as he is concerned, by only a single passage (De Oratione, Opp. i. 268), in which, moreover, he refers to other (Platonic?) authorities; comp. Redep. ii. 463; Ramers, ubi supra, 69. Thus the Gnostic Apelles maintained that the work of Christ had reference only to the soul, and rejected the resurrection of the body. Baur, Gnosis, p. 410. [That the Gnostics believed in the immortality of the soul, appears certain; but their notions concerning matter made them shrink from the idea of a reunion of the body with the soul, and led them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the former. But they have unjustly been charged by the fathers with a denial of the resurrection in general. Comp. Burton, Bampton Lecture, notes 58 and 59, and Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 51, 52.]

8

Respecting the error of the Thnetopsychites (as John Damascenus first calls them) about the year 248, comp. Euseb. vi. 37: Тǹv ȧv0рwпεíaν уvxip τέως μὲν κατὰ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα καιρὸν ἅμα τῇ τελευτῇ συναποθνήσκειν τοῖς σώμασι καὶ συνδιαφθείρεσθαι, αὖθις δέ ποτε κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀναστάσεως καιρὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀναβιώσεσθαι.

§ 77.

GENERAL JUDGMENT.-HADES-PURGATORY.-CONFLAGRATION OF THE WORLD.

Baumgarten, J. S., Historia Doctrinæ de Statu Animarum separatarum, Hal. 1754. 4. Ernesti, J. A., de veterum Patr. Opinione de Statu Medio Animarum a corpore sejunct. Excurs. in lectt. academ. in Ep. ad Hebr. Lips. 1795. [Jac. Windet, Στρωματεὺς ἐπιστολικός de Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebræorum et Graecorum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus, Lond. 1663, '64. Thom. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium, Lond. 1757. Comp. Knapp, 1 c. p. 463, 464, and p. 478, and the references § 69.]

The transactions of the general judgment, which was thought to be connected with the general resurrection, were depicted in various ways. Some ascribe the office of Judge to the Son, others to the Father, both in opposition to the Hellenistic myth of the judges in the under-world.' The idea of a Hades (b), known to both the Hebrews and the Greeks, was transferred to Christianity, and the assumption, that the real happiness, or the final misery, of the departed did not commence till after the general judgment and the resurrection of the body, appeared to necessitate the belief in an intermediate state, in which the soul was supposed to remain from the moment of its separation from the body to this last catastrophe.'