Difficulties on the Subject of the Resurrection. ly to the Creator and the human mind; yet I had hoped that the illustrations derived from the familiar phænomena of sleep and dormancy, would have rendered it sufficiently intelligible. The affirmative of the question with which it concludes is the point which was to be determined, being the answer to Cantabrigiensis's chief difficulty, and Credo, though with rather an ill grace, appears to admit that it is perfectly easy. The second head of his remarks commences with a sad distortion of sense contained in the concluding sentence of the above quotation from Cantabrigiensis. It by no means follows, that because the whole creation is the entire production of Jehovah, the pure effect of his power, therefore it must be a part of his substance. His attributes are all resolvable into infinite power, wisdom and goodness; and creation is the effect, not a part of those attributes. They are the cause, this in all its parts and modifications, whether material or discernible by our senses or not, is the effect. They constitute the one indivisible Jehovah, or self-subsisting God, who is necessarily from everlasting to everlasting, without variableness, or shadow of a turning. This subsists only as the result of his energies, and may therefore be altered, withdrawn or renewed at his pleasure. Though Credo terms this the next difficulty of Cantabrigiensis, it is in reality only an illustration of the preceding affirmation; shewing his reasons for suspecting that a resurrection in case of total death" is scarcely within the bounds of possibility;" viz. that the supposition appears to lead to absurd consequences. Here again I am complained of for referring to the creative power of God, instead of alleging proofs from nature. Now had I merely referred to creative power, without shewing that there was no absurdity in the doctrine of a complete resurrection of the same individuals in number, as in every other respect, by its sole energies, there would have been just ground for complaint. But though Credo has charged me with an argument going to prove an impossibility, and also with "cutting the knot," and yet "labouring," which two last accusations are not very compatible with each other ;-he has not himself advanced a single argument 139 even going to prove any one of his accusations. He complains that my answer is vague; yet according to his own account, it constantly applies to the point in view; viz. a resurrection by the power and will of the Creator alone. Credo makes various complaints of my observations in proof that the resurrection of Christ is adapted to confirm and establish the doctrine of the resurrection of our race to a state of immortality; and particularly that some of my quotations are irrelevant, and others want evidence of my having justly applied them. Now the principal question here is, whether Christ, notwithstanding his various appearances in his former body, which surely was the most satisfactory, if not the only mode in which he could manifest himself to men remaining in the flesh, did not in reality come out of his sepulchre, and usually continue after his resurrection in a state of invisibility; or in which he could not when present be discerned by our eyes or any of our senses. For if Jesus rose to a state of invisibility, it is evident that his body must suddenly have sustained a greater and more inexplicable change than any to which our bodies are subjected in the course of nature, by the circumstance of his sudden invisibility alone; and if in this state he received life and consciousness in great perfection, the single event of his resurrection must have been more extraordinary, as being compounded of more miracles than will attend the similar resurrection of mankind after their bodies have been dissipated and rendered invisible by a process of nature.-I observe then 1st. That if he had come visibly out of the sepulchre his appearance would have been the chief object to attract the attention of the watchmen who were stationed at its entrance for the express purpose of securing his body. But though the appearance of an angel from heaven, a sight of which they could have no expectation, and his rolling away the stone from the sepulchre were distinctly observed by them, yet no intimation whatever He is given of their seeing Jesus. must therefore have been miraculously concealed from their view; for had they seen him, the mention of this sight would have formed the prominent feature in their narrative. 2. The next direct proof of his change into a state of invisibility was presented to the two disciples, with whom he joined company in their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus; from whose sight at supper, after an interesting intercourse for a considerable time, he disappeared. 3. The same evening "the doors being shut," he was found standing in the midst of the apostles, after such an inexplicable manner, that though they were previously convinced that he was alive, they now imagined that they saw only the spirit or apparition of a dead man. 4. He again appeared to them in precisely the same manner seven days afterwards, Thomas being present, and afforded him exactly those proofs of the reality of his person, which he had required in his apparent absence. 5. It is evident that he was not usually visible to his disciples during the interval between his resurrection and ascension, but that he occasionally resumed his former corporeal state, for the purpose of manifesting himself to them. To these occasional appearances the apostles constantly appealed as the evidences that he was really risen, and their narratives uniformly imply that though he was occasionally, he was notjuniformly nor generally present in a visible form. Yet his appearing at the most suitable junctures, and discovering an acquaintance with what passed in his apparent absence, proved that he must have been invisibly or mentally present. 6. His ascension may justly be considered as a gradual representation of the change from this mortal state to a state of immortality; his body which had just been represented to his disciples, in its usual state previous to his resurrection, diminishing in specific gravity as it ascended, till at length, probably both from its height and its tenuity, it disappeared from their view. 7. From this time forward he has remained in a state of invisibility, with only two recorded exceptions; viz. his appearance to Stephen to encourage this first Christian martyr in his dying moments, and to Saul in effecting his conversion to the Christian faith. 8, That there was a very great change effected in the body of Christ at his resurrection, from a corruptible to an incorruptible, from an animal to a spiritual state, as there will be of all his disciples, is the express doctrine of the Apostle Paul. (See Cor. xv. 31-53, particularly verses 42, 44 and 50.) Now the change from a dead, animal, corruptible body, to a living, spiritual, incorruptible one, being far greater and more inconceivable than any changes which can happen to material bodies in the course of nature, it is evident that the sameness of the renewed being could not depend on any sameness of materials in the composition of his body. It must depend wholly on the restoration of life and consciousness by that power from which all created existence origiuates. If therefore from the dead body of Jesus, an invisible, immortal person was produced, possessing the essentials of the same intelligent being who had previously lived in the common state of humanity; we may safely confide in his assurance that our race in general will be restored to life in like manner, by the same power alone, after that the materials of which our present bodies are com posed have been wholly dissipated and lost. The bodies of mankind in general are rendered invisible by the gradual dispersion of their particles; and we may conceive of the possibility of the same identical particles being collected together, so as to form a body composed of the very same materials. But how the material body could be suddenly rendered wholly invisible, and at the same time, the same life and consciousness imparted, which before were so intimately united with that body, are two most extraordinary facts of which we can find no analogy in nature. They are presented to us in evidence and illustration only of one of these events as applicable to our race in general; viz. that after their material bodies have been lost by a process with which we are well acquainted, renewed life and consciousness shall be in like manner imparted. In proportion therefore as we are satisfied, that a man like ourseives is now existing in a state so entirely different from this in which we remain, as an earnest of our common destination, we may regard it not only as a direct proof, but a case in point strikingly illustrative of that event. It is true, indeed, that according to the received ideas, concerning matter and spirit, these things must ap On the Resurrection. pear extremely mysterious; and the Yours very respectfully, P. S. In your copy of my former T. P. Jetter there is a typographical error (T. B. instead of T. P.) in the signature, which, however, I perceive, has not misled your correspondent Credo. SIR, H AVING before [p. 25,] stated my reasons for considering the letter of T. P. not to be an answer to the objections of Cantabrigiensis to the Christian's hope of a resurrection from the dead, according to my promise I now resume the subject with an intention of proving that the doctrine of the Resurrection can be so explained, as to be understood and believed. Founded on his objections C. puts this question," If the immortality of the soul wants support from scripture and the restoration of the same body involves in it a physical contradiction, how is the preservation of individual consciousness and the resurrection of the same man to be explained, understood or believed?" Now the difficulty appears to me, not to be in the doctrine itself, but in the manner in which Cantabrigiensis considers the doctrine to be taught, for he "laments that the scripture evidence is in favour of a system which holds man to be one and indivisible and wholly mortal;" and it is on this ground that is put his first objection, man wholly dies a resurrection does "That if not appear to be within the bounds of probability." But scripture does not represent "Man to be one and indivisible" for Jesus says, "Fear not them who kill the (soma, the fleshly, organized) body, but are not able to kill the (psuxan, the desire, sensual) mind, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both mind and body in the grave." Matt. x. 28. Peter speaks (2 Pet. i. 14,) of knowing that he must 66 141 shortly "put off" his tabernacle; and Paul, that himself and all Christians this tabernacle was dissolved," they knew that if their "earthly house of had a building of God; hence, on this principle of consciousness, that their mind was inhabiting a tabernacle of clay, Christians were anxiously their spiritual covering; for they well desiring to be clothed upon" with knew that whilst they were at home in the body, they were absent from view of the subject he writes, 1 Cor. the Lord. Corresponding with this that shall be;" 38, " But God giveth xv. 37, "Thou sowest not that body it a body as pleaseth him, and to every seed its own body." The scripture therefore does not hold man to body and mind; but holds the mind be one and indivisible as regards the to be the man, and the body to be his house, his tabernacle, his clothing. If therefore the whole body die, till it can be shewn that the mind also dies, a resurrection cannot be said to be improbable, but to such as know not the power of God, and have not their minds to discern his wonders in heard of his promises, nor exercise nature. creation, and the reviviscence of all Cantabrigiensis is, that a creation is 2. The next objection made by not a resurrection; and that if a new creation is made from myself, many such may be made. But if the mind is the man, the new clothing of that mind is only a new creation of the clothing, but a resurrection of the vided, then the man would not be man. And should that mind be diraised. tion of Jesus, that it is not any evi3. C. next objects to the resurrecdence to us, because his body was not corrupted or destroyed, as ours will be; but this, like his former obgards the resurrection of the dead jection, falls to the ground, as it retaught by the apostles; for they no body as it now is, but expressly aswhere teach the resurrection of the sert, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;" that the living body at the coming of Christ shall be changed, that this" corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” We know that Jesus that was raised from the dead was the same Jesus as was crucified; not only he was con scious of it, but his disciples were also; but we also are assured that his flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of heaven. When he was changed, whether in the tomb or at the time of the ascension, is of no consequence; the objection of Cantabrigiensis ceases to have force, unless he can shew that the flesh and blood of the body of Jesus inherited the kingdom of God. 4. Though the hypothesis of Dr. Watts may be, in part, a supposition to avoid a difficulty, yet to me it does appear that part of that supposition has a very close analogy to the scriptures and what we know of nature. The language of the Doctor would certainly have been more correct had he said "We must ourselves rise at the last day for us to receive rewards and punishments," instead of saying "our bodies must rise." If the Doctor errs in saying "there may be, perhaps, some original fibres of each human body," perhaps he does not err in the continuing sentence," some stamina vitæ or primæval seeds of life, which may remain through all the stages of life, death and the grave." In the present state of things, as Dr. Watts says, "If there be any such constant and vital atoms, they are known to God only." Yet man may conjecture whilst he keeps within the bounds of natural and revealed evidence. All nature makes known a distinction between body and life, whether it is in vegetable or animal union: as far as we know, and here man has extensive evidence, all life is a twofold production; without the animating principle the ovum corrupts, with it life is the consequence: that whose origin is from two may be long combined together; but as it was at first united, it must necessarily have connected with it a possibility of separation; but in all living bodies we have something more, for we have a continual struggle between the energies of the vital principle and the tendency of matter to corruption; corporeality being preserved alone in existence by Too many of the followers of Dr. Priestley, in the doctrine of the Materialism of the Mind, reason as though organization and mind were the same; but nothing can be more distinct : mind from infancy increases in knowledge and maturity to extreme old age, always feeling through the whole period accumulating evidence by memory of personal identity; whereas the whole of corporeal organization is so constantly passing away that though the man recollects the occurrences that have happened to him for more than a century past, it is probable that not one particle of the matter that constitutes his organization is of more than ten years' standing, and probably has not been one year a part of him. It is the confounding together the actor and the instrument that has confused this plain subject. Be not alarmed, Sir, I am not going to revive the now exploded system of the pre-existence of the human mind, nor of its necessary immortality: neither to bring forward the spectres nor hobgoblins of past ages to terrify the nervous and alarm the fearful. With you, Sir, I believe that the beginning of life is the commencement, and that its earthly termination of existence is a stop to all consciousness till the great Creator has new clothed it with its etherial dress or habitation. In the mean time, I trust sufficient has been said to prove the scripture resurrection is not improbable or incredible; and that it is a resurrection of that which alone can be called the man, and that the resurrection of Jesus is and ought to be sufficient evidence for us to act upon the expectation of our own future resurrection. If any of your correspondents wish to carry on this physiological research in connexion with scripture evidence and it meets your approbation to per mit its continuance, it will give much pleasure to CREDO. Hackney, Feb. 5, 1816. SIR, the energies of vitality. Nature itselfdemned criminal, extracted from does therefore demonstrate that man is not a one indivisible being as it regards body and mind; but that mind is the man, and the body is the organic instrument by which the mind obtains information and power to act. a late publication, entitled, "Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland," may not be unacceptable to your readers. "Then the ministers of the town Secession from the Church.-Sir I. Newton's MSS. went into the jail to give him ghostly There are other curious matters re- Yours respectfully, S. C. London, Feb. 28, 1816. SIR, T 143 Christian country; that he never examined it; and that he left behind him a cart-load of papers on religious subjects, which Dr. Horsley examined and declared unfit for publication. These gentlemen do not perceive that their declarations are inconsistent with each other. Nobody who has ever read a page of Newton's works could believe that he could write a cart-load of papers on a subject which he never examined. Newton's religious opinions were not orthodox; for example, he did not believe in the Trinity. This gives us the reason why Horsley, the Champion of the Trinity, found Newton's papers unfit for publication. But it is much to be regretted that they have never seen the light." In the regret expressed by the biographer, I presume all your readers will participate; and my reason for copying the note is a hope that, by being republished in your Miscellany it may meet the eye of some of your numerous readers, who may be able, through the same channel, to communicate information as to the situation of the Your constant reader, A. F. Baring has lately resigned the vi- papers in question. am, carage of Winterbourne Stoke, Wilts, and seceded from the Church of England, and that several other clergymen of the same neighbourhood have also left the Establishment. But the grounds of their secession have not, I believe, been made public. I beg leave therefore to request of some one of your correspondents in the West an explanation of this curious piece of news. Have the seceders been actuated by love of orthodoxy or love of heresy? SIB, NONCON, H, Jan. 18, 1816. N the second vol. of the “ Annals Thomson, (p. 247,) the editor has reprinted from his "History of the Royal Society," a " Biographical Account of Sir Isaac Newton," and to that part of the Memoir which touches upon Sir Isaac's religious sentiments, has subjoined the following note (page 322). "I have heard it affirmed by some of the self-constituted philosophers of the present day, that Sir Isaac Newton believed the Christian religion merely because he was born in a SIR, Plymouth, Dec. 25, 1815. perusing a work which I suspect HAVE lately had the pleasure of is not so much known as it deserves to be; nor do I recollect to have seen the name of its author amongst those of the champions of the proper unity and supremacy of God the Father, although he well deserves to have been placed in the very first rank of them. The copy I have before me is stated to have been published in the year 1815, and to be the edition circumstance, and from the rank of the author, and the style of the work, I presume it has moved chiefly in the very highest circles, where I cannot but hope and believe it has produced a strong effect, although at present we have seen no better proof of it than the facility with which the persecuting laws relative to Anti-Trinitarians were repealed in the last session of our parliament. Indeed the way in which Mr. Smith's bill was carried after the bishops had been assembled |