New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-15
CHRISTS RESURRECTION.
THE STORY CRITICALLY ANALYzED.

TO BELIEVE THE STORY NOT COMPETENT
wIrNEssEs-THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
CONTRADICTORY THE DISCIPLES
SAW AN EcsrArIc vIsioN-A
PHYSICAL RESURRECTION
INcoNcEIvABLE.
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: In discussing the bodily resurrection OF
Jesus the fact is generally lost sight of that it is
n question OF historical fact not Of faith OF proof
not of PRAYER We do not assert that miracle IL
impossible but that ii must be established by evil
dence Of the highest order. And much moro OF II
than is required 10 justify our belief in an ordi
nary event We are not called on to believe that
ANYTHING OF a supernatural character happened IN
Judea at a remote period evidence different IN
kind or degree from what We should demand IN
order 10 credit the same thing In Greece or ltaly
and We must bear In mind that the narrators OF
miraculous events In those countries believed them
as truly did the authors OF the Bible narratives
believe theirs In such an inquiry authority can
have no place. The sources Of Information ana
the means Of reaching Q conclusion are aiike open
10 every one and the ordinary rules OF evidence
must be applied keeping In view throughout 'he
inquiry the fac; that for the establishment OF an
occurrence contrary to natural law ana all eN-
nerlencc and consequently incredible as the re-
animation Of dead body large amount OF ire
most unquestionablc evidence is properly ue-
handed Furthermore, must bear in mind that
truth is TO be sought with dry light ana that
no ore committed TO a creed. usually without any
investigation UNDERSTANDING of It, can expect
much weigh, 10 be given to his opinions. To any
ore who pledges himself especially under what 10
regarded as the sanction of vow 10 Almighty
God always TO believe creed. the erect Is III
ELL that concerns IT, mentally suicidal He can
never 20 through a complete intellectual process
on any subject affecting it. or in any way related
10 H. with thorough fearlossncss and without re-
gard TO results. Mans constitution is such 'ha'
this is true OF any subject in regard TO which ne
voluntarily subjects his faculties 10 authority ara
shackles and limits his own control and exercise
of them.
THE CLERGY NOT COMPETENT WITNESSES
This applies with special force to the clergy II
q man wishes 10 get correct and impartial view
of the life and character utterances and actions or
Oliver Cromwell he will search for a historian who
has studied him and his period with as little bias
as possible. Suppose he were 10 hnu an au'hor.H
in which II declared at the outset that the
author had been brought up from cniidhood 10
believe Cromwell to be villain, that before ne De-
gan his work he had made public and solemn
declaration and VOW that he would always stead
lastly continue to believe the same; and lur'her-
more that he knew he would ose his position ana
his livelihood if he ever believed otherwise; no'
only that but that ne was certain that ia'iure
so to believe would mpcrii his eternal salvation
How much weight would be given TO the results OF
his Investigations TO the conclusions he reached
or the opinions he formed? But that seems 10 us
TO fairly represent the position OF the clergy Hav-
ing been taught from childhood that any view OF
Jesus outside of creeds devised in days OF DARK
ness and ignorance was sinful and dangerous; nav
ing solemnly vowed Always 10 believe them. and
their unaiterab,e limitations having been thus hx-
edly imposed upon their minds they are told no"
you may investigate and study the He ana deeos
and significance Of Jesus. but if YOU find anything
no
Your position and livelihood will be taken from
YOU" Would a lawyer allow his clients inter-
ests TO be determined by jurors already so COM
mitted? Would sesrcher after truth follow
guidance blinded: 1t is ike a naturalist say
ing: II know positively that Darwinism Is a
false theory: l solemnly swear II: but ! Will look
into it,: or a juryman saying Il know the prs'
oner 10 be a thief and his father before him;
will take my oath he stole the horse but never
theless / will try him impartiaily we give very
little weight TO conclusions reached under such
conditions. though it is quite apparent why they
are still maintained.
A few words as to the proper bearing ana rela.
ton Of the belief in the bodily resurrection 10
Christianity. Most Christians regard II as funds-
mental and every pulpit so teaches To Us IT
seems 20 have no bearing whatever. II II be true
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom
OF God" the resurrection OF a single body so COM
posed have no significance for us. The dis
ciples expected a bodily resurrection for them
any longer believes in the resurrection OF the
body" though il remains in the creed. we con-
cludc then, that cannot hope 10 rise as
Christ IL SAID TO have done. with our own present
body Hts resurrection II IL were termination Of
His earthly frame can be argument proof.
pledge pattern or foreshadowng of our own II.
on the contrary His resurrection were spiritual.
and His appearances 10 His disciples mental and
appsritionary only. that would pro anto counter
ance the idea OF a future state. Our interest.
therefore. walters and helpers for immortality
would appear 10 lie I'm disbeievng the letter OF the
Scripture narratives" (Greg) The simple fact
that the body OF Chris, did or did not rise again
can show nothing as TO His nature. can give or
withhold no sanction to His teaching. can In no way
determine His relation 10 God and humanity nor
effect the question of His lasting continuance as
spiritual force.
A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION VALuELEss.
Suppose that ALMIGHTY God did ASSUME human
form for thirty years lay 1t aside for three days.
and 1t exactly 1t was so that He ate
food and ''ascended into heaven with IT, with
hole in It's side so large that mans hand could
be thrust into IT, as are told; what possible
bearing could /; have the question OF the I'M
mortality OF the human soul? /, would not throw
d feathers weight into the scale OF argument one
way or the other AS Greg says. il is rather for
our interest not 10 believe IT, for II II was corporea
II can mean nothing to us
How can 1, be said that the bodily resurrection
OF Jesus brought hfe and Immortality 10 light
when centuries before him the Egyptians uni
versaly and unquestoningy believed in the resur-
rect!on of Osiris, the immortality of the SOUL ard
that those who with Osiris struggled against evil
would be cared fol and rewarded by him in a
future life:
Let us look a little at the narratives and II may
be safely said that four distinct accounts OF one
single event were before since put out
with such wide discrepancies and dsagreements
In Matthew great earthquake and the
Angel of the Lord descending from Heaven with
a countenance like lightning for fear OF whom the
keepers became dead men. SO striking
phenomenon thi, must have been known to all
but in Mark the earliest record there Is nothing OF
It,. All is quiet only young man sitting on the
right side Of the sepulchre. who tells the three
,omen that Jesus had risen. That the body was
4ha hell xed IL had rlsen