saying: "Those who teach with Cerinthus the earthly reign of a thousand years, are not to be heard."1

SECTION IV.

Objections drawn from the authority of Catholic theologians.

The unanimous consent of Catholic divines respecting any doctrine of the nature and under the conditions mentioned in the preceding section, in reference to the holy fathers, is of the greatest weight in the Church, and must be held by all in the highest veneration. But the case is far different when these conditions fail, or when the unanimous agreement of divines is wanting. For in this case any one is allowed, with due submission to the ecclesiastical authority, to call in question their teaching, and to dissent from them if, after diligent examination, their doctrine seems to be destitute of solid foundation.

With these observations, I shall proceed directly to examine and answer the objections raised against the doctrine of the Millennium from the authority of Catholic divines. In the first place, I repeat the remark I made in the case of the holy fathers, that the number of divines who treat expressly and professedly of the doctrine of the Millennium is comparatively small. The greatest part of them treat of it only cursorily and accidentally; and some of them are entirely silent about it.

Secondly, they generally acknowledge that, as far as the doctrine of the Millennium is supported

Audiendi non sunt qui mille annorum regnum terrenum esse affirmant, qui cum Cerinto hæretico sentiunt. (Vide Sixt. Senen. lib. vi. Bibl. Sancta Annot. ad 347.)

by some ancient fathers and other ecclesiastical men, it is an open question, which the Church has never condemned.1

66

And, thirdly, their chief arguments against the Millennium are only applicable to the doctrine of the Cerinthians, and the followers of Nepos and Apollinaris, and cannot affect the doctrine of those who not only exclude from the kingdom of Christ upon earth all sensual gratifications, but also teach that the saints who shall reign with Christ will enjoy the beatific vision in their glorified humanity. Thus, the celebrated Cornelius à Lapide, speaking of the opinion of the Millennium, says: I do not venture to call it a heresy, because the open testimonies of Scripture, or the decrees of the councils, by which this opinion may be condemned as heretical, are wanting. Wherefore St. Austin did not dare to condemn it. But it is sufficiently proved to be erroneous, and might be condemned by the Church as heretical (as our Father Salas and some others condemn it). First, from those passages of Scripture, and those decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs, which teach that pure and holy souls departed from this life are soon admitted into heaven; from which it follows, that they need not dwell on the earth for a thousand years. Secondly, from those where we are instructed that, properly speaking, there is but one resurrection of the body, and that it will take place at the end of the world, nay, in the day of judgment. Thirdly, from those where we are taught that the blessed, after the resurrection, shall enjoy only spiritual, not carnal

1 See Cursus Completus Sacræ Scripturæ, in Apocal. Dilucidatio, cap. xx. quæst. 11.

delights; as in Matthew xxii. 30: "In the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be as the angels of God." 1 Who does not perceive that the Millennium which this writer confutes, is that of Cerinthus, Nepos, Apollinaris, and their followers ? How can it be proved that the ancient fathers, and other ecclesiastical men and martyrs, who upheld the doctrine of the Millennium, taught that the pure and holy souls who depart this life, having nothing more to atone to the divine justice for their sins, are not admitted immediately to the enjoyment of the beatific vision? How can it be shown that they supported a sensual Millennium, in which the saints of God, instead of the purest spiritual delights, should indulge in the enjoyment of carnal pleasures? As regards the resurrection of the dead, it is true, that, according to their opinion, the martyrs and other saints who have not worshipped the beast, nor the image of the beast, will rise first at the coming of Christ, to reign with Him upon the earth for a thousand years. Yet this opinion does not affect any more the doctrine of the general resurrection

1 Hic est error Millenariorum. Hæresim dicere non audeo, quia apertas Scripturas aut conciliorum decreta, quibus hæc sententia damnetur, non habeo. Unde et sanctus Augustinus, loco citato, eam damnare non est ausus. Satis tamen erroris convincitur, et ab Ecclesia damnari posset ut hæretica. Primo, ex illis Scripturis et decretis Pontificum quæ docent animas puras et sanctas hac vita functas, mox in cœlum evolare: inde enim sequitur eas non degere in terra per mille annos. Secundo, ex iis quæ docent unam tantum esse proprie dictam resurrectionem, scilicet corporum reviviscentium, eamque futuram in fine mundi, puta in die judicii. . . . . Tertio, ex iis quæ docent, post resurrectionem beatos non habituros delicias carnales, sed spiritales, ut Matt. xxii. 30: In resurrectione neque nubent, neque nubentur, sed erunt sicut angeli Dei. (Comment. in Apocalyp. cap. xx.)

and the universal judgment, than the doctrine of divines, who teach that at the resurrection of Christ many saints of the old law rose to life, came forth from their graves, and were taken up into heaven together with Him in His ascension. We have another instance of a similar kind in Sixtus Senensis. This writer, speaking of the opinion of Lactantius, and of others who agree with him on the Millennium, condemns it as a pernicious error, contrary to evangelical doctrine. But what argument does he bring to prove it? Let us hear his own words: "The opinion of Lactantius," says he, "and of others, although different from that of Cerinthus, contains nevertheless errors contrary to evangelical doctrine; for the Scripture saith that after the resurrection there will no more be any connection between man and woman, no use of food or drink; and, lastly, no gratification of carnal lust; as where our Lord says: In the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; and St. Paul, 'The kingdom of God is neither meat nor drink.'" Now these words must greatly astonish any one who attentively considers what Lactantius teaches on the Millennium; for in vain we seek any place in his writings where he teaches the shameful things which are attributed to him. No doubt he teaches that the men who shall live upon earth as travellers in mortal flesh during

1

Lactantii et aliorum sententia, licet a Cerinti dogmate sit diversa, errorem tamen continet alienum ab evangelica doctrina, quæ docet nullum post resurrectionem fore maris ac fœminæ coitum ; nullum cibi, potusque usum ; nullum denique carnalis vitæ oblectamentum, dicente Domino In resurrectione neque nubent, neque nubentur ; et juxta Pauli vocem, Regnum Domini non est cibus et potus. (Sixt. Senen. Bibliot. Sanct. lib. v. Annot. 233.)

the Millennium will continue to marry, and will make use of meat and drink. But where does he say that the saints who shall then have risen from the dead, and shall reign with Christ, will indulge in carnal lust and enjoy sensual delights? These two instances show that the opposition of several divines to the opinion of the ancient fathers and other Catholic writers respecting the Millennium has frequently no weight, but goes upon mistaken and false premises. If, however, some divine should be found who rejects and condemns the doctrine of the Millennium in every shape, we do not find a better answer than that of St. Austin to St. Jerome, when treating on the authority of Catholic writers. "I indeed own to thy charity, that only to those books which are called canonical have I learnt to yield reverence and honour in such a way as most firmly to believe, that in writing them their authors never fell into error. Hence, were I to meet in these books with anything which seems contrary to truth, I should without hesitation pronounce either that the copy is spurious, or that the interpreter has not caught the sense of what is said, or that I myself have not understood it. But as to other authors, however they may excel in sanctity and learning, I so read them as not to believe that what they say is true because they have said it, but because either by appealing to those canonical authors, or by good reasons consonant with truth, they have brought conviction to my mind." 1

1 Lib. lxxxii. N. 3.