The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-12-14
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS Elk
OEPTIONAL.

In former article we made il clear
that the Scriptures present the resur-
rection of Jesus to us as something
exceptional. We showed the distinc-
ton between the resurrection from
the dead and the resurrection of the
dead; and that the Scriptures always
represent the resurrection of Jesus
as from the dead, and so as being an
exception to the general resurrection
which is of the dead. And it may be
wsll to remark just here that the
Scriptures are our only source of in
formation upon this subject. The
New Testament must tell us all we
know or can know upon this point.
Upon the resurrection Of Jesus we
cannot evolve anything from our Gin
ner consciousness" worth considering.
The record can only testify in this
case. It is historical matt, and the
record must tell us of the fact if it
be fact. Hence if the record is false
or Enthusiastically, that ends the mat
ter. There is nothing more to be said.
We cannot now go on and manufac-
ture a doctrine concerning the resur-
rection of Jesus, for we do not know
anything about it. Our only source
of information is discounted; there
fore every principle of mental, and we
may say, of moral integrity forbids
all further consideration. We proceed
with the discussion therefore because
we have faith in the record and be-
lieve it tells us something reliable
about the resurrection of Jesus. And
the thing it does tell us beyond per-
adventure is that his resurrection was
exceptional; that it is not the law, but
the exception.
And we may remark further that
because it is exceptional, therefore it
is of peculiar and especial value.
Were it not so, if Jesus rose just as
every other man rises, then his resur-
rection is of no particular interest to
us,-no more interest than that of
John Brown or Peter Jones. We may
just as we'll discuss the resurrection
of John Brown or Peter Jones as of
Jesus Christ, if the resurrection of
the latter is not exceptional. The
moment, therefore, that we deny the
exceptional character of Jesus res
direction, it becomes matter of no
particular interest or concern.
Another thing will be conceded and
that is, that the record presents the
resurrection of Jesus as miraculous
or supernatural something out of
or beyond the usual, fixed order of
nature. This is fact that lies on the
very face of the record. No one who
reads the account we have of this
event, can fail to be convinced of this
fact.
Now any one who goes to the rec
ord denying the miraculous, prepos-
sessed with the notion that miracles
don't happen" that there neither is,
nor can be, any supernatural element
in history, is estopped from any con-
sideration of it whatever.
The record is thrown out of court
to begin with. The record is confess
sedlY miraculous; he denies the MI
raculous therefore, his criticism and
exegesis are worthless. They are
poisoned in the blood by a precon-
ceived notion; the only honest course
for him to pursue is to set the record
aside as unworthy of consideration.
Conceding the miraculous nature of
the record and then going to work to
squeeze the miraculous element out of
it, is kind of mental viciousness that
borders closely on moral turpitude.