The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-05-06

10 the Septuagint would recognize that
they are either a close translation from
the corrupted Hebrew used in the time of
Christ, or written by some one in Greek,
who modified his style upon the Septua-
gint. Mark tells us nothing of the mirac-
ulous conception OF the angelic appear
ances. They were, it may be, not currently
reported in his day, for had he heard
of them he could not have passed them
over. Matthew and Luke came later and
embody the later tradition of the miracu
lous conception, but you will notice they
also embody the earlier view OF Joseph's
paternity and give his genealogy, the one
tracing the line to David the other to
Adam. Luke plainly says the current
opinion was that Jesus was the son of
Joseph. Christ himself did not take the
trouble to remove the popular impression
about Joseph's being his father. st. Paul
preserves utter silence concerning the
virgin-birth. st Pauls epistles are the
oldest records of Christianity, and date
back within twenty-five years OF the death
of Christ. Yet he says absolutely nothing
about His birth from a virgin.
There have been many approximations
to the ideal man by such spiritual giants
as Abraham. Moses, Isaiah, Job, Buddha,
Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Paul and
others, but none seems to have attained
perfection but Jesus of Nazareth, and L
therefore conclude that He was especially
endowed of God with unique spiritual
nature. The whole idea OF the immacu-
late conception and virgin-birth involves
many unnecessary difficulties. No gen.
Grated or created being would deserve the
name of Deity, for then you take away
the attribute OF eternity. If the agency
10 4 I int tl,a
incarnation of the son, neither would the
agency of man. II the laws of generation
must be partially set aside in order to
make the incarnation possible, then why
not the necessity for an absolutely new
body? But since He was to be perfect
man as well as perfect God it was proper
that He should be born as men are born.
Nov as to the second count, my denial
of the physical resurrection OF Christ. IL
has been asserted that / reject the resur-
rection. / do attach little Importance to
the details of His bodily resurrection,
because l consider the documents OF too
uncertain authorship to allow of attach
ing much importance to their details. l
do accept the resurrection or manifesto
ton of Christ after death in a spiritual
body as spoken of by st. Paul, and
which is the accepted doctrine OF the
episcopal church as set forth in her burial
service. l believe, with st. Paul, that
there is natural body and there is a
spiritual body The bodies that are
laid in the grave will never rise, but it is
not so clear what the apostle means by
the spiritual body st. Paul distinctly
and emphatically SAYS Flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God If
our bodies will not rise from the grave,
why believe that Christ's body was
resurrected? The doctrine of
spiritual resurrection accords with what
we know of the destiny of material nature,
and with philosophical ideas of heaven
and hell. Scripture and science both de-
clare that the material world is wearing
out, and the day must come when the
heavens shall pass away with q great
noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat; the earth also, and the
works that are therein shall be burned
up Many facts, therefore, seem to justi-
fly the conclusion that this physical uni
verse will be succeeded by n spiritual God
and finite spirits. Thus we will be rid OF
the difficulties in the doctrine of material
heaven and hell and material resurrec-
ton. These, in brief, are my heresies, for
which l was churched and suspended from
the ministry for six months, only 10 be
readmitted on my promise not to teach or
publish the views as given above"