ism. A party has been formed among German churchmen for the restoration of the primitive rhythmic Chorale. Some congregations have adopted the reform, but there is as yet no sign that it will ultimately prevail.

Thus the German hymn, revitalized by Luther, clothed in fitting music, assumed its active role in the momentous spiritual, intellectual, and political awakening of the sixteenth century. No other example is to be found in history of a popular poesy so efficient in promoting the movement that produced it, or so instructive a reflex of the temper of a people in the moment of revolutionary activity. It is not that they were a new phenomenon. Luther simply availed himself of a principle which had existed among the Germans almost from the hour of their conversion, a principle which had always been recognized by the mediaval church, but held in abeyance, and virtually repressed by the very conditions of her rule. Luther gave it free play, a more practical and pregnant form, and adapted it to the conditions of the new age. With but little that was original in externals, there was at the heart of the Lutheran hymnody that which made an epoch. Like all great artificers in the world of thought, Luther builded better than he knew. Upon the course he laid was reared the work of Paul Gerhardt and the thousand evangelical hymnists of Germany, of Johannes Eccard, Sebastian Bach, Felix Mendelssohn, and the scores of composers who stored the treasure-house of Protestant religious song. We study the hymns of Luther, therefore, to find the germ from which sprang such magnificent results. We shall not find it if we merely apply æsthetic canons of style and form. The abrupt, rough-hewn lines of Luther must not be compared with the balanced rhythms, the ingenious rhymes, the melting cadences, the glowing fancies, the subtle turns of thought that appear in the hymns of Bernard of Cluny and Adam of St. Victor, or those of Newman, and Faber, and Heber, and Palmer, and

many Christian bards in whose ardent lyrics devotion finds divine nourishment. Luther's songs were not the product of conscious art: they were sparks struck from a steadfast mind by the shock of strenuous circumstance. We cannot make these songs our own, in the sense that we appropriate the hymns of those later poets whose vision takes a more comprehensive sweep, and whose consolations touch upon every need of the heart. They are not for our age, they are monuments to conditions and modes of feeling which can never return. But they are stern and imposing monuments, more durable than brass, and upon them, if we have eyes to see, are carved memorials of a great soul and a great age.

ARTICLE VI.

THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY OF CHRIST.

BY THE REV. SAMUEL HUTCHINGS, D. D.

THE nature of the resurrection body of Christ has been much discussed by learned men at different times in the church. Three opinions have prevailed. One, that his body was changed as to its substance at his resurrection, and so became a spiritual and wholly different body in its very essence. Another opinion held is, that Christ had after his resurrection the same body as before, but glorified, or, as the earlier writers termed it, changed as to its qualities and attributes. The third view, and the one generally held, is, that the body with which Christ rose, was the same material body of flesh and blood which was crucified and laid in the tomb.

The first opinion is akin to the ancient error of the Docetæ, or Phantasiasts, who held that Christ was a man in appearance only; that all the actions of his life, before and after his resurrection, were a mere phantasm, without any reality whatever.

As this first opinion is mere fanciful speculation, unsupported by any evidence, and is directly opposed to the declaration of our Lord to the disciples, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," no attempt at refutation is necessary.

The second view, that Christ had the same body in substance after the resurrection as before, but possessing new qualities and attributes, and not subject to the laws of flesh and blood, was held by some of the early Fathers. They de

scribed the body of the risen Lord as ἀθάνατον, ἄφθαρτον, ádiáplopov, alávov, immortala, impassibile, incorruptibile. Irenæus, of the third century, speaks of Christ "as made incorruptible after the resurrection." The earlier Lutheran divines who believed in the ubiquity of Christ's body, described his risen body as glorious, the same in substance, but endued with new qualities, viz., impalpability, invisibility, and illocality. Among the moderns who have held this second view are Hahn, Olshausen, and Hengstenberg.

"This second view," says Dr. Edward Robinson, “seems not to differ essentially from the preceding one, except in the single point of identity. In both, our Lord's resurrection body is regarded as possessing like qualities and attributes; but in the former, these are connected with a different substance; while in this they are superinduced upon the same substance. That is to say, in the second view our Lord's resurrection body has a relation to his former human body; while according to the first view it has no such relation."

That the body of Christ was changed at the resurrection. to the spiritual, glorified body, has been the opinion of eminent men. This was the view of Bishop Horsley, who says: "His body was indeed risen, but it was become that body which Paul describes in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, which, having no sympathy with the gross bodies of this earthly sphere, nor any place among them, must be undiscernible to the human organs." Dr. Dods of Scotland says: "By the resurrection of Christ, Paul meant his rising from the grave with a body glorified, or made fit for the new and heavenly life he had entered."

The arguments adduced for this view are the following:1. Jesus was not recognized by those who met him. When he appeared to Mary Magdalene, "she beheld him, and knew not that it was Jesus," supposing that it was the gardener. So the two disciples going to Emmaus, though they held long conversations with him, and sat at table, and

partook of food with him, did not know him, and were surprised to find him apparently ignorant of what had occurred. in Jerusalem concerning the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. That he was not recognized by Mary is not strange, for, in the first place, she had no idea that he would rise, and therefore was not expecting to see him. Again, her mind was so much agitated and distressed, by the removal of the body, as to lose its quick and accurate perception which she might otherwise have exercised. Further, in the twilight she could not distinctly discern his features. Then again, his dress, being probably that of a gardener, concealed his identity. All these circumstances account for Mary's failure to recognize the Lord. But no sooner does she hear the familiar voice calling her name than she recognizes him. And so far as we know, his appearance was the same as before, for it is not to be supposed that his body was again changed from the spiritual to the natural.

As for the failure of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus to recognize him, the reason is distinctly given by the historian: "Their eyes were holden so that they should not know him." That is, their vision was so supernaturally obstructed as to prevent their recognizing him. And from the fact that as soon as "their eyes were opened" they knew him, it is evident their failure to recognize him before was not owing to any essential change in his body. "The whole passage," says Dr. John Owen, "shows that no essential change took place in Jesus, but that the failure of the disciples to recognize him, resulted from a hindrance of some sort supernaturally produced in their vision. If it was the pleasure of Jesus to remain awhile in the company of these disciples without being recognized, he who formed the eye could easily have wrought some change in the organ of vision necessary to such a result."

Whatever the reason for not recognizing him, it is certain they understood that the person with whom they held those