The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-10-26

were reading this chapter for the first
time, we should evidently conclude:
O That the appearances of Jesus in
apostolic times were all of the same
kind; (2. That his resurrection was
nothing more nor less than that
which is affirmed of all men and (3l
that this general resurrection is not
the bringing back to physical life of
a body once dead, but the rising of
the spirit of the real man into new
life and glory and power"
Now of these three conclusions only
the last is beyond question. Without
doubt the rising of the spirit or soul
into "new life and glory and power"
is the doctrine of the resurrection of
mankind which Paul teaches. Upcn
this fundamental point DIR. Shutter
is correct.
The correctness of the other con-
illusions are far from being so obvi-
Gus. 1t is almost certain that the
second conclusion is not correct. It
is that the resurrection of Jesus was
nothing more nor less than that
which is affirmed of all men. This is
the fatal mistake which many beside
DIR. Shutter fall into. Space will My
allow us to notice one fact which goes
to show that thi position is not cor
rect That fact is that Jesus is said
to have risen from the dead while the
resurrection of mankind in general is
the resurrection of the dead.
Now is Christ risen from the
dead" $50 also is the resurrection
of the dead" The dead, does not
mean dead bodies, but those who
have pass ed out OF the mortal body.
1t means class or division of man
kind, just as the living does, and the
living and the dead include all man
kind. The resurrection of the dead
means the ascension or going up of
the dead, their rising into "new life
and glory and power" But the res
direction from the dead means COM
ing out from among the dead and APP
pearing unto the living. Mankind in
general experience the former, Christ
experienced the latter. There was
something, therefore, exceptional
about the resurrection of Jesus. 1t
was something more or less "than
that which is affirmed of all man.
kind"
The first conclusion that 'the APP
pearances of Jesus in apostolic times
were all of the same kind" is almost
equally questionable. At least it is
a conclusion not found in the premi-
ses. 1t may be true that all these
appearances were alike, but this can
not be logically established by the
words of Paul. Obviously the one
supreme fact that Paul desired to
establish was the appearance of Jesus
after death. To establish this fact
he calls all these witnesses. He says
he appeared to all these people, but
as to when he appeared he says
nothing. He may have appeared in
many different ways or manners for
all that Paul says to the contrary.
All that Paul affirms is the fact of his
appearance. He affirms nothing as
to the manner of the facts, and at
tempts to read the manner into the
words of Paul are entirely gratuitous.
The conclusion, therefore, is not in
the premise. The premise is these
words of Paul's; as Paul says moth
ing about the manner of these APP
pearances, the conclusion that they
were all alike is not sound. 1t may
be true that they were all alike, but
this truth is not taught in these words
of Paul. OF these three conclusions,
therefore, only the last is sound; the
other two are unsound and mislead-
ing. But the matter grows under our
hand. This is enough for one article.
With the permission of the Editor we
will say something more another day.
SC.
SYCAMORE, Ill.