bodies of the saints in their former stature and appearance and physical distinctions, with the retention of all the bodily organs of the present earthly condition', Erigena, it is scarcely necessary to say, absolutely rejects it. In language which must have sounded very startling at the time when written, he says boldly that when he reads such statements in the writings of the Fathers he is simply astounded that men so spiritual should have sanctioned to posterity assertions of such a kind. And he can only explain the fact on the supposition that these statements were nothing more than concessions to a materially minded generation whom they hoped by such earthly figures and expressions to uplift to spiritual things. Men who realize nothing beyond the reach of their senses are scandalized if informed that the Resurrection-Body bears no relation to space. They instantly jump to the inference that if bodily solidity ceases to exist there will be nothing left. Erigena thinks that, as a concession to these infirmities, the Fathers who advocated the materialistic view may have written as they did. But the protests of Erigena scarcely affected the mediaeval conceptions of the Future state. Gross materialism prevailed over the whole mediaeval conception of 'Body,' and controlled alike the doctrines of Eucharistic Presence and Resurrection.

IV.

At the Reformation a strong reaction occurred in Eucharistic ideas; but the doctrine of the ResurrectionBody was taken over, quite inconsistently, in its materialized mediaeval form, practically unrefined. The language of our own Articles is akin to Tertullian and the Latin school. It is not that of the profounder Greek. And from that time to the middle of the nineteenth century more or less materialistic expressions were the rule. The interpretation of our Article was cautious, but generally Lucan rather than Pauline in tendency.

Mediaeval conceptions of physical identity still continue

1 Lib. V. p. 986.

largely to influence accredited Roman theologians. Heinrich's great treatise on Dogmatics1 argues, in the tenth volume, dated 1904, that retention of the present bodily organs does not necessitate continuance of their functions. Hence the problem of clothes does not arise in the future state. He anticipates 'reduction' of internal organs, as, for instance, the lungs; and 'das ganze Innere des glorreichen Leibes wird allen Seligen sichtbar sein.' The conclusion is that only a portion of the mass of our present body will be reproduced. Volume does not constitute identity. Schwane, to whom we have already referred, similarly counsels unhesitating assent to Tertullian's doctrine, as being that which best safeguards the body's identity.

In the English Church a very striking reversion has taken place toward Alexandrian conceptions of the Resurrectionstate. One of the first to lead the way in appreciating the gifts of Greek theology on this doctrine was Dr. Goulburn, Dean of Norwich, in the Bampton Lectures of 1850. He taught that 'every conception of the subject must be erroneous which tends to confound Resurrection with the miraculous reanimation of the old natural body. It is rather a development into a superior life than a resuscitationrather the adaptation to a higher than the restoration of a a former state.' . . . 'Is it not clear that the transition process may involve the falling-off of certain properties which are serviceable only in the rudimentary state, and which in the higher state would have no scope for exercise? The lower sphere having been for ever quitted, it is but natural to suppose that such faculties as were exclusively adapted to that sphere will be dropped.' And then the lecturer proceeds to an express commendation of Origen's view.?

The same line of progress was followed by Bishop Westcott, whose immense influence did much to popularize among teachers a more philosophic view. He frankly accepted the principle taught by Origen, who, in his opinion, ‘by keeping

1 J. B. Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie. Gutberlet. (Münster: Aschendorff.)

Fortgeführt durch C.

2 E. M. Goulburn, Bampton Lectures, 1850, pp. 31-34. VOL. LXVIII.-NO. CXXXV.

M

strictly to the apostolic language anticipated results which we have hardly yet secured.' It is the spirit which moulds the form through which it is manifested. Continuity of the body is to be sought in the 'ratio' or 'logos' of its constitution.

Dr. Mason's Faith of the Gospel adopted a similar view.1 Then came the brilliant work of Dr. Moberly. Without discussing the subject at length he touched incidentally upon the relation of the human body to the spirit, in a few luminous sentences:

'A human body is the necessary-is the only-method and condition on earth of spiritual personality. It is capable, indeed, of expressing spirit very badly; it is capable of belying it; indeed, it is hardly capable of expressing it quite perfectly; it is, in fact, almost always falling short of at least the ideal expression of it. And yet body is the only method of spiritual life; even as things are, spirit is the true meaning of bodily life; and bodies are really vehicles and expressions of spirit; whilst the perfect ideal would certainly be, not spirit without body, but body which was the ideally perfect utterance of spirit.' 2

These suggestive sentences find the whole meaning of body in spirit. If the body hereafter is the ideally perfect utterance of spirit, then the difference between its present and future condition may well be exceedingly great; and the body's identity is to be sought not in form and organs and visible resemblance but in its underlying principle, which is the spirit.

Bishop Gore gives the Alexandrian, the philosophical, view with the greatest clearness :

'Thus the risen body of Christ was spiritual . . . not because it was less than before material, but because in it matter was wholly and finally subjugated to spirit, and not to the exigencies of physical life. Matter no longer restricted Him or hindered. It had become the pure and transparent vehicle of spiritual purpose.3

Now, from the physical point of view, such spiritualization 1 A. J. Mason, The Faith of the Gospel (1887).

* Moberly, Problems and Principles, p. 358. Cf. Ministerial Priesthood, p. 39.

3 Body of Christ, p. 127.

of matter as is involved in this conception of a spiritual body is becoming perhaps I will not say more imaginable, but more and more conceivable: less out of analogy with our ultimate conceptions of matter. But the important point to notice is that the spirituality of the risen body of Christ lies not so much in any physical qualities as in the fact that His material presence is absolutely controlled by His spiritual will.' 1

This virtual abandonment of the Latin school is a wonderful tribute to the profounder insight of Greek theology. Origen and Erigena are recognized to have seen deeper into ultimate realities, into the problem of identity, than Tertullian or even Augustine. The matter-of-fact, materialistic view is being exchanged very widely indeed for a philosophical and spiritualistic conception of the Risenstate. This is in itself suggestive of many thoughts. If the crude realism of the Latin school has protected a truth through centuries incompetent to grasp it in its purer form, at any rate it complicates the situation to-day. For the popular mind is vacillating between incredible mediaevalism and a total denial of all physical Resurrection. The existing condition of opinion is eminently chaotic and bewildering.2

The propagation of a more philosophic conception is essential to continued assent in modern thought to any doctrine of bodily Resurrection. But this will not be unattended with difficulties. The philosophic view to unphilosophic minds seems to offer unsubstantial shadows in place of solid reality. The remedy seems to lie in what is after all the simple truth, that the philosophic conception is identical with St. Paul's conception of the spiritual body. If Origen expounded the idea by the aid of Greek thought, the idea itself was derived from St. Paul.

Body of Christ, pp. 128-9.

2 Mention may also be made in this connexion of a study on Personality and Body' (Contemporary Review, Dec. 1904) by the Rev. J. H. Skrine, in which, while strongly deprecating the restriction of the evidential worth, e.g. of the Empty Grave, to any particular class or era of mankind, we cannot fail to recognize the trend of modern thought to Alexandria and its teachings.

ART. X. THE PROBLEM OF REUNION IN

--

SCOTLAND.

I. The Moderators' Addresses of Dr. Bisset (1861), of Professor Milligan (1882), and of Dr. Theodore Marshall (1908).

2. Life of Dr. Robert Lee. By the REV. R. H. STORY. (London: Hurst and Blackett. 1870.)

3. Life of Principal Tulloch. BY MRS. OLIPHANT. Third Edition. (Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1889.)

4. The Episcopate of Charles Wordsworth. By the BISHOP OF

SALISBURY. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1899.) 5. Publications of the Scottish Church Society, 1893-1909. (Edinburgh J. Gardner Hitt.)

6. Records of the Exercise of Alford, 1662-1688. (Aberdeen: New Spalding Club. 1897.)

7. Prospects of Reunion. By CANON ERSKINE HILL. (Glasgow: Maclehose. 1908.)

8. Church of Scotland: Second Church Congress. (Edinburgh Blackwood. 1903.)

9. An Olive Leaf. By JAMES SCOTT. (Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1909.)

10. The Scottish Churches and National Religion (1907), and The Scottish Churches: the Hope of Union (1909). By

the Very Rev. WILLIAM MAIR, D.D. (Edinburgh : Blackwood.)

II. Assembly Papers. (Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1907.) 12. The Layman's Book of the General Assembly. (Edinburgh: J. Gardner Hitt. 1907.)

13. Worship and Offices of the Church of Scotland. By the Rev. G. W. SPROTT. (Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1882.) 14. Ministry and Sacraments of the Church of Scotland. By

the Very Rev. DONALD MACLEOD, D.D. (Edinburgh : Blackwood. 1903.)

15. John Macleod Memorial Lectures. By Various Authors. (Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1901-6.)

[In order to carry out the advice of the Lambeth Conference that every effort should be made to further the