MILLENARISM. — An eschatological error according to which Jesus Christ is to reign visibly for a thousand years on this earth at the end of the world. It is also called chiliasm (from Gr. *χιλιάς*: thousand). According to the different forms this error has taken, the events of the end of the world would follow a somewhat different sequence. For the earliest proponents of millenarianism, Christ’s earthly reign would be inserted between the first resurrection, which pertains to the just (the only ones to share in the joys of the millennial kingdom), and the second resurrection, reserved for the damned, followed by the universal judgment and the eternal assignment of punishments (hell) and rewards (paradise). Among later millenarists, there is some uncertainty regarding the chronology of the reign: some consider it to precede the universal judgment, others to follow II. But the crucial point on which millenarists divide is the nature of the rewards, which, according to some, would be of a sensual nature (carnal millenarianism), while for others they would be of a spiritual order (spiritual millenarianism).
I. CARNAL MILLENARIANISM. — Carnal millenarianism has a Jewish origin. According to an ancient rabbinic tradition, the history of the world must conclude within the span of seven thousand years, of which the first six represent the first part of the Mosaic week (the age of preparation), and the last the sabbath, the millennium of rest and celebration, in which the messianic kingdom would be established, with the peaceful enjoyment of all temporal goods (wealth, subjugation of all peoples, triumph of Israel). In the 2nd century A.D., Cerinthus (v.) applied this theory to chapter 20 of the Apocalypse of St. John and, worsening the Jewish exegesis, asserted: *«post resurrectionem regnum Christi in terris futurum ac rursus homines Hierosolymis degentes cupiditatibus et voluptati corporis obnoxios fore»* (Caio Romano, in Eusebius, *Hist. ecc.*, III, 28; PG 20, 274-75). The error was taken up again, with slight variations, in the 3rd century by Nepos, bishop of Arsinoe, and by Coracius (Eusebius, *op. cit.*, 7, 27; ibid., 691), and in the 4th century by Apollinaris of Laodicea (v.). It was refuted by the Fathers and the Scholastics; in the 16th century it reappeared among some Protestants and was widely spread by Pietists and other sects (Mennonites, Mormons, Irvingites, Adventists).
II. SPIRITUAL MILLENARIANISM. — Spiritual millenarianism originated with Papias, who, in opposition to Cerinthus, interpreted chapter 20 of the Apocalypse as a reign filled with spiritual joys, even if rich in temporal goods (Eusebius, *op. cit.*, III, 39; ibid., 374). St. Irenaeus, a follower of Papias, announced that a day would come *«when each of the just will be born with ten thousand palms and in a single clap ten thousand arms... and when one of the saints takes a cluster of grapes, another will cry out: ‘I am a better cluster, I am, I am blessed by the Lord through me’»* (*Adv. Haeres.*, 5, 33; PG 7, 1213). This form of millenarianism, more or less tempered, appears in St. Justin, Tertullian, Commodian, Victorinus of Pettau, Hilary, Methodius of Olympus, Zeno of Verona, and also in St. Jerome and St. Augustine, who later in their maturity rejected this conception (cf. F. Alcañiz, *Ecclesia patristica et millenarismus*, Granada 1933; the author sympathizes with spiritual millenarianism). In the Middle Ages, there was a fanatical revival of FIORE, IL (v.), Gerard Segarelli (d. 1260), Fra Dolcino (cf. Dante, *Inferno*, XXVIII, 55-60), and Ubertino da Casale (cf. F. Callaey, *L'idéalisme franciscain spirituel au XIVe siècle; Etude sur Ubertin da Casale*, Louvain 1911, pp. 121-31). From the end of the 18th century, there have been no lack of theologians and exegetes who have given a favorable reception to mitigated millenarianism: e.g., M. Lacunza (cf. A. F. Vaucher, *Une célébrité oubliée: Le p. M. Lacunza y Diaz* [1731-1801], Collonges-sous-Salève 1941), R. Eizaguirre (*Apocalipsis interpretatio litteralis*, Rome 1911), C. Morrondo (*Estudios millenarios*, Jaén 1922), I. Ramos (*Summa iasogico-exegetica in libros N. T.*, II, Rome 1940, pp. 340-77), B. Ughi (*La via*, 2nd ed., Florence 1949, passim; placed on the Index on 20 July 1950).
III. ASSESSMENT. — Carnal millenarianism, being diametrically opposed to the Christian spirit (cf. Mt. 22, 30; Rom. 14, 17; 1 Cor. 15, 50), was rejected from its very inception as a heresy. Cerinthus was refuted by Caio Romano and by Origen (*De principiis*, 2, 11; PG 11, 241). Nepos and Coracius were convicted of error by St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, *op. cit.*, VII, 24; ibid., 20, 691). Apollinaris of Laodicea was opposed, even in this error, by the greatest Christian writers of the 4th and 5th centuries (Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Epiphanius, Theodoret). Even spiritual millenarianism, which fascinated so many minds, finds no support whatsoever; indeed, it is directly opposed to the teaching of the symbols of faith (cf. Denz-U, 423), which speak only of two comings of Christ, one in humility and one in glory, for the purpose of accomplishing the universal judgment, which will be immediately followed by the final retribution for each: Mt. 16, 27: *«Filius hominis venturus est in gloria Patris sui cum Angelis, tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera sua»*. In this perspective, the millennium cannot take place.
Such and other biblical and patristic arguments have led the most serious theologians (St. Thomas, *IV Sent.*, 4, 43, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 1; St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*, 1, 3, ch. 17) to consider mitigated millenarianism as rash, indeed erroneous. Recently, the Holy Office (21 June 1944) declared: *«Systema millenarismi mitigati tutori doceri non potest»* (AAS, 36 [1944], p. 212; cf. G. Gilleman, *Condamnation du millénarisme mitigé*, in *Nouvelle revue théologique*, 67 [1945], pp. 239-41).
IV. RELATED ERRORS. — Connected with millenarianism is the theory of the golden age of the Church. According to an anonymous Anglican (*Of the State of the Church to future age*, London 1964), a time must come when, with the papacy and the tyranny of absolute governments removed, a universal civil-religious order will be established in which citizens will enjoy lasting peace, undisturbed by any physical or moral evil, all devoted to the enjoyment of the benefits brought by the progress of the sciences and arts. This “sun of the future” has attracted the attention of many people from Anglicanism (e.g., Thomas Newton, bishop of Bristol) and in the 19th century was widely spread in England by Waughan and in France by Agier (cf. E. Mèric, *L'altra vita*, II, Italian trans., Turin 1927, pp. 393-411). At the end of the same century, this conception was adopted, with various modifications (especially regarding the fate of the papacy), by various Catholic authors (e.g., Callegari, Courtrai, Bigou, Schneider, Caballero Infante, Alvarez Navarro). Somewhat different is the system of eschatological renewal advocated by Canon E. A. Chaubaty in three weighty volumes (*Etudes... sur l'avenir de l'Eglise catholique selon le plan divin ou la régénération de l'humanité et la rénovation de l'univers*, Poitiers 1890-93). At the end of the world, those who survive the cataclysms foreseen by Holy Scripture will give rise to a pure progeny, without original sin, destined to constitute the new Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ will reign visibly, assisted by his vicar, the Pope.
Such conceptions are fundamentally erroneous because they contradict the evangelical concept of the kingdom of God on earth, in which there will always be suffering (Mt. 5, 11; Lk. 9, 23; Jn. 15, 20; Acts 14, 25; Rom. 8, 29) and imperfections (Mt. 13, 24-30, 47; Lk. 10, 3). The opinion of Chaubaty must be considered a grave error, as it denies what is defined by the Council of Trent regarding original sin, which will affect all generations descended from Adam (Denz-U, 792). Moreover, the work of the canon from Angers was placed on the Index on 18 December 1896.