The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-05-10
For THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN
TOUCH ME NOT. "

Mr.. Z Elitor,-Peruit me to have few
words with your entertaining correspondent,
brother Hawes, in reference to the subject he
recently discussed in the Central Presbyte-
riaa. I had been thinking over that ques-
ton some time before the article appeared in
your columns, but it was not original with me
as it was with brother Hawes, since | had
met with the suggestion of two ascersions
thrown out by some English writer. The
conclusions reached by the two writers are
ssrikingly similar, thus illustrating how orig
inal thinkers will sometimes coincide in their
views, and such coincidence often affords
presumptive proof of the substantial correct
ness of the results attained by them.
have no controversy with brother Hawes.
J merely ask permission to compare views
with him, so as to elicit truth. The reader
will remember that he finds the key of his
solution in the sixteenth of LeVitcus, where
we learn the High Priest appeared twice
within the veil, once for himself and then for
the people. ThereupOn brother Hawes be-
heves the reason why Jesus did not allow
Mary to touch him, was that he had not yet
appeared or sscended into the heavenlies.-
But after having ascended, He allowed her
and others to touch Him and worship Him.
In celebrating his solution he arranges with
much care, and quite skilfully, the requisite
order of visits to the tomb, and in 80 doing
he put Mary of Magdala on her mettle; for
if she accomplished all the running to and
fro that your gifted correspondence pro-
grsmme calls for, she possessed the speed of
a gazelle, and the endurance of that good old
State that never tires" IL may be she
possessed both, and there is no controversy
between US about her capacity to act her
part.
For some time it has appeared to me, that
the conditions contemplated in the two sp-
pearances of the High Priest, would be fully
met, were we to regard the TRANSPORTATION
scene as corresponding to the first appear
ance, while the cruei6xiOn and ascension,
with accompanying events, satisfy the con-
ditions Of the latter appearance. There we're
things pertaining to the TRANSPORTATION that
are very significant; the brightness OF
Christ's raiment, Moses and Elias in consul
tation about the decease to be accomplished
at Jerusalem, the audible voice from She
kinah, or cloud" This is my beloved son
in whom | am well pleased; hear him. >
Here the transactions seem to pertain chiefly
to Jesus personally, such as We might expect
on the first appearance. Peter makes very
significant allusion to this event. II Peter
i: 16-1S.
In the events of the cruei6xion, resurree
ton, the ten appearances, and the visible as
censiOn, make out glorious filling up of al
that could be looked for in the second ap
pearance of the great High Priest.
There is one more suggestion, and that is
it does not appear certain from the origlna
that Mary did not touch Him. Farrar, ol
high critical authority, renders the expires
sion, "Cling not to me; for not yet have
ascended to the Father; but go to my breth
ren, and say to them, am ascending to m
Father and your Father, and my Gcd an
your God" Her testimony was supported
for Jesus met the other women also, and sal
to them, "All hail, Fear not" He sal
to them, as they clasped His feet, "go, bi
my brethren that they depart into Gahle
and there shall they see me"
1t does seem to me that in the light
the original text, there was just as mut
of an interruption in the one case as the OF
er. 1t was the Saviours wish that no tin
should be lost, by lingering Just then, fro
breaking the glad news to the sOrrOwing d
ciples. There would be ample time for lOl
personal interviews, for He had not yet q
eended, to remain beyond the scope of pt