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. s. 146 ff. 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. § 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 team. Alone, they can accomplish as little as one ox in ploughing. According to Justin, Christianity differs from the systems of both Pythagoras and 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! [Quæst. et Resp. p. 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 immortalitatem (perduceret).]— 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

1 On the other hand, he fails to take notice of the analogies from nature, which others adduce; as Semisch (s. 148) has remarked.

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, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ σώματος ἁρμονίαν καὶ σύστασιν.-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 (anima), 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, cap. 63. He endeavours 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 praise God, etc., c. 60 and 61.

1 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 mind.

Highly suggestive is the thought of Tertullian (De Res. c. 12), that inasmuch as a resurrection takes place in nature for man (omnia homini resurgunt), he himself, as the end of all nature and its metamorphoses, must also rise. The ordo revolubilis rerum is to him a testatio resurrectionis mortuorum. 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, et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an innovatis resurgatur? Sine corpore? hoc, 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 Protesilari sorte remeavit, horarum saltem permisso commeatu, vel ut exemplo crederemus ?-Every one expects that Octavius will name Christ as 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 those who deny 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, s. 345.

(5) See the passages quoted in the preceding note.

(6) Clement of Alexandria had intended to write a separate work Tepi ȧvaoτáσews, comp. Pæd. i. 6, p. 125 (Sylb. 104); 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 Princip. ii. 10, 1, 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 (Sylb. 479), 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

The

not give a very favourable idea of his orthodoxy on this point. But his disciple Origen maintains, Comm. in Matt. (Opp. iii. p. 811, 812), 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 endeavoured to divest it of everything 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): Ovтe μèv ovv ýμeîs, ovte tà θεῖα γράμματα αὐταῖς φησὶ 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 διαφθαρὲν σῶμα ἐπανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φύσιν, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν διαφθαρέντα κόκκον τοῦ σίτου επανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόκκον τοῦ σίτου. Λέγομεν γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ κόκκου τοῦ σίτου ἐγείρεται στάχυς, οὕτω λόγος τις ἔγκειται τῷ σώματι, ἀφ' οὗ μὴ φθειρομένου ἐγείρεται τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀφθαρσία. appeal to the omnipotence of God appeared to him an ἀτοπωτάτη ἀναχώρησις, p. 595, according to the principle εἰ γὰρ αἰσχρόν τι δρᾷ ὁ θεὸς, οὐκ ἐστι θεός ; 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 s.); Selecta in Psalm (Opp. ii. p. 532-536), where he designates the literal interpretation as φλυαρία and 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 Ezek. xxxvii.; Matt. viii. 12; Ps. iii. 5, and other passages, which were commonly applied to the resurrection of the body. Comp. De Princip. ii. 10 (Opp. i. p. 100, Redep. p. 223); Schnitzer, s. 147 ff.; Baur, Dg. 711. 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, more

over, he refers to other (Platonic ?) authorities; comp. Redep. ii. s. 463; Ramers, ubi supra, s. 69.

(7) 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, s. 410.) A natural opinion of the Docetæ, as connected with their contempt for matter. [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, von Cölln, i. s. 51, 52. Mansel, Gnostics, p. 50, 58 ff]

(8) Respecting the error of the Thnetopsychites (as John Damascene first calls them) about the year 248, comp. Euseb. vi. 37: Τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ψυχὴν 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.

The last Judgment-Hades-Purgatory -Conflagration of the World.

J. F. Baumgarten, Historia Doctrinæ de Statu Animarum separatarum, Hal. 1754. J. A. Ernesti, de veterum Patr. Opinione de Statu Medio Animarum a corpore sejunct. Excurs. in lectt. academ. in Ep. ad Hebr., Lips. 1795. [Jac. Windet, Erpwμarsùs imiørodixós, de Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebræorum et Græcorum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus, Lond. 1663, 1664. Thom. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium, Lond. 1757. Comp. Knapp, 1.c. p. 463, 464, and 478, and the references § 69.]

The process of the general judgment, which was thought to be connected with the general resurrection, was 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 (1). The idea of a Hades (is), known to both the Hebrews and the Greeks,