HYMEN2EUS Crplvatos), a professor of Chris tianity at Ephesus, who, with Alexander (t Tim. i. 2o) and Philetus (2 Tim. ii. 18), had departed from the truth both in principle and practice, and led others into apostacy. The chief doctrinal error of these persons consisted in maintaining that the resurrection was past already.' The precise mean ing of this expression is by no means clearly ascer tained : the most general and perhaps best founded opinion is, that they understood the resurrection in a figurative sense of the great change produced by the Gospel dispensation. Some have suggested that they attempted to support their views by the Apostle's language in his Epistle to the Ephesians (vexpoin—o-uvei-anroincrev—crupiryetpev, etc., ii. I-5): but this is very improbable ; for if such miscon ception of his language had arisen, it might easily have been corrected ; not to say that one of them appears to have been personally inimical to St. Paul (2 Tim. iv. 14), and would scarcely have appealed to him as an authority. Most critics suppose that the same person is referred to in both the epistles to Timothy by the name of Hymenwus. Dr. Mosheim, however, contends that there were two. He seems
to lay great stress on the Apostle's declaration in Tim. i. 20, whom I have a'eliverea' unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.' But what ever may be the meaning of this expression, the infliction was evidently designed for the benefit and restoration of the parties (comp. Cor. v. 5), and was therefore far from indicating their hopeless and abandoned wickedness. Nor do .the terms em ployed in the second Epistle import a less flagrant violation of the Christian profession than those in the first. If in the one the individuals alluded to are charged with having discarded a good con science' and made shiptvreck of faith,' in the other they are described as indulging in vain and pro fane babblings, which would increase to more un godliness,' as having erred concerning the truth,' and overthrowing the faith' of others. These can hardly be said to be two distinct characters hav ing nothing in common but the name' (Mosheim's Commentaries, i. 304-3o6). For other interpreta tions of 2 Tim. ii. 18, see Gill's Commentary, in loc., and Walchii Miscellanea Sacra, i. 4; de Hymenav Phileto, Amstel. 1774. [ANATHEmA].— J. E. R.