The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1896-05-02

the clothes in the tomb that morn
ing. Then they related what had
happened to them. And, third, as
they talked, "Jesus himself stood in
the midst of them, and said unto
them, peace be unto you'll" But they
were frightened, supposing they had
seen a spirit. And he said unto
them, "why are ye troubled? and why
do thoughts arise in your hearts +?
Behold my hands and my feet, that
it is | myself Handle me, and see!
for spirit hath not flesh and bones
as ye see me have. And when he had
thus spoken, he showed them his
hands and his feet. And while they
yet believed not for joy and wonder,
he said unto them, have ye here any
meat? And they gave him piece of
broiled flesh, and of a honey. comb.
And he took it and did eat"
Then again he explained to them the
Scripture. Opened their understand
ing to see these things must be, full
filling the Scriptures, and for the
purpose of repentance and remission
of sins, and the preaching of him
among all nations. And he promises
the blessings of his Father upon
them; giving directions for their flu
ture proceedings, he walked with
them to Bethany, and blessing them,
he left.
Could there be a more simple,
plain, transparent narrative of trans
piring events? The events were most
wonderful; incredible to some, but
the relation OF them bears not the
slightest evidence of being fraud or
fiction or imaginary sketch. No one
can misunderstood the meaning or
doubt the sincerity of the narrator.
Is it a help to the proper study of
the resurrection of Christ as related
by Luke, to be informed that not a
few of the modern scholars affirm his
rising and Temperatures were in a
spiritual, not material body, thus set
ting the opinion of modern scholars
against the direct and repeated state
ments of Luke's record?
A spiritual resurrection with no
body left! A spiritual temperance
with oral converse and companion
ship, and expounding of the Script
ures! A spiritual body with hands
and feet, and flesh, and bones, and
eating of food! The very conception
for which Jesus rebuked the disciples;
"a spirit hath not flesh and bones as
ye see me have.'
Summarizing: The body was not
in the tomb. Jesus had risen. Jesus,
not only his spirit, Jesus himself,
spirit and body, was seen, and talked,
(can spirits talkD had hands and feet
and flesh and bones; they were seen
and felt! And he even ate fish and
honey comb, that they might know
he was indeed the very Jesus that
had been crucifed and buried. Thus
runs the record in Luke. tits impossi-
BILE to think any other thought was
in the mind, or intended to be con-
veyed, than that it was the veritable>
man, body, soul and spirit, which
had been known before and recog-
nized after his death and burial.
If the man, (it requires the body,
soul and spirit to make man, Christ
Jesus was not raised, there was no
visible resurrection. If only the
spirit was buried, no one saw it, and
the body had been stolen as the
Jews affirmed.
1t is true Luke's record is some
what different than other narratives,
but all are essentially the same; there
is no contradiction. If Christ did
not appear to them all, and above
five hundred others, these Gospel rec
ords are all simply fabrications less
credible than the merest traditions.
And there is no historical resurrec-
ton, and no grand thought, or spir-
itual aspiration or impulse suggested
by it, in the worlds history, as the
whole Christian church and faith in
a resurrection are founded upon the
facts of which the New Testament is
the most authentic and only record
in existence, or ever known. "And if
Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain" The resurrection of Jesus was
the material manifestation of spirit
ual fact, otherwise imperceptible, by
the people of that day, which fact
was well understood and explained
by the apostle Paul in his letter to
the Corinthians.
The man who honestly disbelieves
the Scripture, and publicly rejects
what most hold sacred, is entitled to
certain respect, even if he does, in
justifying his position, sometimes
misquote and misrepresent the con-
tents. But the scholar who, while