220.  Keim seeks to avoid the difficulties which his own acute criticism disclosed in the ordinary vision-theory, by another which rejects the gospel stories as legendary, yet frankly acknowledges that the faith of the apostles in the resurrection was based on a miracle.  Their certainty was so unshakable, so uniform, so abiding, that it can be accounted for only by acknowledging that they did actually see the Lord.  This seeing, however, was not with the eyes of sense, but with the spiritual vision, which properly perceives what pertains to the spirit world into which the glorified Lord had withdrawn when he died.  In his spiritual estate he manifested himself to his disciples, by a series of divinely caused and therefore essentially objective visions, in which he proved to them abundantly that he was alive, was victor over death, and had been exalted by God to his right hand.  This theory is not in itself offensive to faith.  It concedes that the belief of the disciples rested on actual disclosures of himself to them by the glorified Lord.  The difficulty with the theory is that it relegates the empty tomb to the limbo of legend, though it is a feature of the tradition which is found in all the gospels and clearly implied in Paul (I.  Cor. xv. 4; compare Rom. vi. 4); it also fails to show how this glorified Christ came to be thought of by the disciples as risen, rather than simply glorified in spirit.  This criticism brings us back to the necessity of recognizing a resurrection which was in some real sense corporeal, difficult as that conception is for us.  The gospels assert this with great simplicity and delicate reserve.  They represent Jesus as returning to his disciples with a body which was superior to the limitations which hedge our lives about.  It may be well described by Paul’s words, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”  Yet the records indicate that when he willed Jesus could offer himself to the perception of other senses than sight and hearing—­“handle me and see” is not an invitation that we expect from a spiritual presence.  If, however, we have to confess an unsolved mystery here, and still more in the record of his eating in the presence of the disciples (Luke xxiv. 41-43), it is permitted us to own that our knowledge of the possible conditions of the fully perfected life are not such as to warrant great dogmatism in criticising the account.  The empty tomb, the objective presence of the risen Jesus, the renewed faith of his followers, and their new power are established data for our thought.  With these, many of the details may be left in mystery, because we have not yet light sufficient to reveal to us all that we should like to know.