Exaggerated form of doctrine in Egypt opposed by Dionysius. 127

S. Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. 247.) set himself so earnestly to withstand the doctrine. He brings the same charge as Origen, that they understood the Scriptures in a Jewish way, and held forth unworthy views of the Divine truth. It is not clear, what form of the doctrine Dionysius opposed. He himself speaks with much respect of Nepos, Bishop of Egypt, against whose work he wrote and argued. "In many other things I accept and love Nepos, both for his faith and laboriousness and his study in the Scriptures, and for his copious psalmody, wherewith many of the brethren are cheered until now; and altogether I reverence the man, so much the more, as he is gone before to rest." It is unlikely that one, of whom Dionysius so spoke, should have had gross and carnal notions of the Millennium; and so it may be, that his work was only abused by certain teachers, who for a time made divisions in the Church. These at all events exaggerated the doctrine of the Millennium, perhaps perverted it. Dionysius says, that they disparaged the Scriptures, and "held out the expectation of this book as of some great and hidden mystery, and allow our simpler brethren to have no great and lofty thoughts, either of the glorious and truly Divine Appearing of our Lord, nor of our resurrection from the dead, nor of our gathering together to Him, and conformity with Him; but persuade them to hope, in the kingdom of God, for petty and mortal things, and such as they now are." He speaks of these doctrines having been" of long time, spread widely in the Arsenoitis, so that there had been divisions and fallings away of whole Churches." He held a disputation for three days, at the close of which, " Coracion, the chief upholder of these views, publicly protested that he would for the future neither hold, nor discuss, nor mention, nor teach, these things, as having been sufficiently convinced by what had been said against them," and so harmony was restored. (ap. Eus. 1. c.) Dionysius' own words might apply to the doctrine, as set forth by the previous fathers. In this case one must suppose that he, like Origen, misconceived the doctrine; for, in that it relates only to an intervening state, it does not affect any of the doctrines, which he says it occasioned to be held in a low sense. If we might have taken to the letter what S. Jerome says, it would be clear that it was not the doctrine of the earlier fathers, but one very different, which Dionysius opposed. S. Jerome, however, begins with an inaccuracy, saying that the book was written against S. Irenæus; the tone also in which he describes it as having been written is very different from (Præp. ad lib. 18. in Is.) “ Against whom" (Irenæus) " Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, writes an elegant book, ridiculing the fable of 1000 years, what would seem likely from Dionysius' own words, S. Jerome says,

h Origen thus sums up: "They thus think who, believing indeed in Christ, but understanding the Scriptures in a certain Jewish sense, looked for nothing worthy of the Divine promises." 1. c. Eusebius (but it does not appear whether he is here using Dionysius' own words)

says, that "Nepos taught that the promises in the Divine Scriptures would be realized rather after Jewish notions, ("loudaïxwriger) and that there would be a certain space of 1000 years, passed in bodily enjoyment on this earth." H. E. vii. 24.

128 Doctrine popular in time of S. Jerome; held once by S. Augustine.

NOTES and the Jerusalem of gold and gems upon the earth, the restoration of ON the temple, the blood of sacrifices, the rest of the sabbath, the mutilation APOL. of circumcision, marriages, childbearings, bringing up of children, delights of banquetings, and servitude of all nations; and again wars, armies and triumphs, and deaths of the vanquished, and the death of the sinner a hundred years old." It seems however certain that these details are not taken from Dionysius, but are only his own way of expanding the charge of Judaism, since in other places (in Ezek. 36.) speaking in his own person, he uses the same language as to all who hold the doctrine, and as he says ' especially Tertullian,' although we know from Tertullian's own words that he looked only for joys purely spiritual. (see also in Joel 1 and 3.)

66

The ancient doctrine, however, of the Millennium equally suffered, whether Dionysius opposed it in itself, or as disguised in a new form; they who abandoned it, abandoned it altogether. Yet it still continued, even in the East, until the time of S. Jerome, and was held by many. S. Jerome writes, Apollinarius answered him [Dionysius] in two volumes; whom not only those of his own sect, but a very great multitude [plurima multitudo] of our people follows in this single question;" so that he anticipates much odium from opposing it. (l. c.) He speaks of it also as a question still undecided, and one in which it was apparently perplexing even to himself, to have to go against the opinions of so many of the ancients. "I am not ignorant what diversity of opinions there is among men, I speak not of the mystery of the Trinity, (the right confession whereof is to be ignorant of [human] knowledge,) but of other Church doctrines; of the Resurrection namely, and of the state of souls, and of the human flesh, of the promises of the things to come, how they are to be taken, and in what way the Revelation of John is to be understood, which if we take according to the letter, we must judaize; if we discourse spiritually, as it is written, we shall seem to go contrary to the sentiments of many ancients, of the Latins, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius; of the Greeks, to pass over others, I will mention only Irenæus, Bp. of Lyons." (1. c.) To these he elsewhere adds Severus, a contemporary, "which things many of ours have held out, and lately, our Severus in the dialogue, which he entitled Gallus." S. Jerome speaks also of a chain of Greek writers, when he adds, " And to name Greeks also, and join the first and the last, Irenæus and Apollinarius." (in Ezek. 36.)

It is remarkable, also, that S. Augustine at one time looked for a spiritual Millennium, and delivers it as an undoubted truth. "That eighth day (Joh. xx. 26.) signifies the new life at the end of the world; the seventh the rest of the saints, which shall be on the earth. For the Lord will reign on the earth with His saints, as the Scriptures say, and will have a Church here, where no evil shall enter. For the Church shall appear first in great brightness and dignity and righteousness." (Serm. 259, in die Dom. octav. Pasch. §. 1. 2.) He differs from Irenæus, in that he supposes the Millennium to succeed the Judgment; "After the

Form of doctrine held unobjectionable by S. Augustine. 129

sifting of the Day of Judgment, the mass of the saints will appear [separated from the chaff] resplendent in dignity, very mighty in good deeds, and shewing forth the mercy of their Redeemer. And this shall be the seventh day. When that sixth day" [of the reformation of men after the image of our Creator in Christ] "shall have passed away, then shall come the rest after that sifting, and the saints and righteous of God shall have their sabbath. But after the sabbath, we shall pass into that life and that rest of which it is written, "That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard." (ib.) S. Augustine, even when he had changed his view, speaks very tenderly of the spiritual Millennium. "They who on account of the first words in this book [Rev. xx. I sqq.] have imagined that there will be a first corporeal resurrection, have among other things been chiefly moved by the number of 1000 years,' as though there ought thus to be fulfilled in the saints as it were a sabbath of such duration, a holy rest namely after the labours of 6000 years since man's creation, and ejection from the bliss of paradise, entailed by that great sin, into the sorrows of this mortal life: so that, since it is written, 'One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,' the 6000 years [of the duration of the world] being accomplished, as it were six days, there should follow as it were the seventh day of the sabbath in the last 1000 years, the saints namely rising again to celebrate their sabbath. Which opinion would be at all events unobjectionable, if it were believed that the saints should in that sabbath have spiritual joys through the presence of the Lord. For we too so thought once. But since they say that they who shall then rise again, shall be wholly given up to most immoderate carnal feasts [epulis vacaturos], in which there shall be so much eating and drinking, as not only to preserve no moderation, but even to pass the bounds of Heathenism [incredulitatis] itself, these things cannot be believed except by carnal men. But they who are spiritual call those who believe these things by a Greek term, Chiliasts, whom we, rendering literally, may term Millarians." (de Civ. D. xx. 7.)

In like way Epiphanius says (Hær. 77. §. 26.) that he had heard it confidently affirmed of Apollinarius, (though he did not believe it,) that he said that in the first resurrection, we shall pass a space of 1000 years, in the same manner of life as now, keeping the law and other things, making use of the same things as now, partaking of marriage, circumcision, and the rest."

If the doctrine of the Millennium had thus degenerated, it is not surprising that it sunk, even independently of the influence of three such names as S. Dionysius, S. Augustine, and S. Jerome; nor need these, on the other hand, be necessarily supposed to object to the doctrine as set forth by S. Irenæus, to which S. Augustine at least sees no objection, even while he prefers another interpretation. In later times, the doctrine of purgatory took the place of this as well as of that of the intermediate state; the characteristic of both these doctrines being the inculcation of the gradual preparation of the soul (in S. Irenæus' words) to "receive God;" for this the Church of Rome has substituted the fierce purifying

K

ON APOL.

130 Difficulties of the question-modesty due either way.

NOTES fire of purgatory, so that these have no place in her system; and the doctrine of the Millennium also is, by her writers, generally treated as contrary to sound faith. The teaching of the early fathers has however been well cleared by a Romanist writer, Le P. Lambert, Exposition des prédictions et des promisses faites à l'Eglise, &c. (Paris, 1806.) c. 16.

The subject has many difficulties. If the Millennium be placed (as by S. Irenæus) before the Day of Judgment, (and one sees not how the Apocalypse (c. 20.) admits of its being placed otherwise,) and include (as in him) all those who shall then be accepted, it seems to forestall the sentence of that Day; but it may be safe perhaps to separate what S. Irenæus declares to be traditionary, from what he gives as his own exposition of Holy Scripture, to anticipate that there may be a Millennium, without defining whom it shall include. The doctrine of the Millennium depends upon the book of the Revelations, and so is independent of the question whether the latter parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel are then to find a more complete fulfilment. It cannot be doubted that they have received a large fulfilment in the Church and its gifts, its privileges, holiness and peace; a larger fulfilment of the same kind, though fuller in degree, may yet be in store for her. The more modest way seems to be, not peremptorily to decide either way; either way we may be prescribing to the Wisdom of the AllWise; it may be that the prophecies, after their first partial temporal fulfilment, are to have no other than their spiritual fulfilment, which is their highest meaning; and we should not require more, as if God must be a debtor to our interpretations: on the other hand, one should not decide peremptorily that it may not please Him to give them a second literal fulfilment; it were but analogous to an expectation, which is found in the Fathers, that Elias may yet come personally before the second advent of our Lord, although we know, on Divine authority, that the prophecy of his coming was fulfilled (i. e. had one complete fulfilment, so as to require no other) before His first Advent.

i Hence (as Feu-ardent admits) the five last chapters of S. Irenæus were omitted in most MSS. and in those from which his work was first published. Feu ardent restored them.

k It is remarkable, that the objections

to the doctrine, in Origen, (see p. 126.) and S. Jerome, (p. 127.) are almost entirely founded on the literal application of the prophecies of Isaiah, not of the Revelations.

Insufficiency of learned arguments against the Heathen. 131

OF THE WITNESS OF THE SOUL.

[The De Testimonio Animæ is the expansion of an argument, touched upon in the Apology, c. 17. to which it contains an allusion, c. 5. It was written therefore somewhat, probably not much, later; as being a supplement to it. It is perhaps the most original and acute of Tertullian's works.]

I. IT is a work, which needeth to be laboured at with much nicety of research, and far more of memory, if one would call the testimonies to Christian Truth out of all the most received writings of philosophers, or poets, or any teachers whatever of the learning and wisdom of this world, so that its rivals and persecutors may, by their own peculiar documents, be proved guilty both of error in themselves, and of injustice towards us. Some indeed, in whom, as respecteth ancient writings, both the diligence of curious research and the retentiveness of their memory hath held out to the last, have composed books to the heathen, which are in our hands, declaring and attesting, to their disgrace, both the origin, and handing-down, and proofs, of our opinions, whereby it may be seen that we have taken up nothing new or strange, in which even the common and popular books do not give us the countenance of their support, wheresoever we have cast out what is wrong, or admitted what is right. But that hardness, arising in unbelief, which belongeth to man, hath inclined them not to trust even their own teachers, (on other points most approved and choice authorities,) if they any where fall upon arguments tending

a"Quadratus, Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, Melito, Theophilus, Antioch., Apollinarius, Tatian, Irenæus, Clem. Al., Miltiades." Pam.

b Insuggillationem. Rig. (apparently from conjecture) has in singula rationem," "attesting on each separate point, the nature, &c."