On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    ly to the Creator and the human mind ; yet I bad hoped that the illustrations derived from the familiar phenomena 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 front Cautabrigiensis . 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 j and creation is the effect * not a part of those attributes . The ?/ 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 This subsists only as the result of his energies , and may therefore be altered , withdrawn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 j shewing his reasons for suspecting that a resurrection in case of total death " is scarcely within the bounds of possibility ; " viz . that the

    supl osition 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 absurdit y in the doctrine of a complete resurrection of the same individuals

    * n 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 ^ 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 Woaself advanced a single argument

    Untitled Article

    even going to prove any one of his accusations . He complains that my answer is *' vague 5 yet according tcr 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 coiii firm 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 uot 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 thecoursa of nature , by the circumstance of his sudden invisibility alone ; and if in this state he received life and

    consciousness in great perfection , th © single event of his resurrection must have been more extraordinary , as be * ing 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 1 st * 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 th <* sepulchre were distinctly observed by them , yet no intimation whatever is given of their seeing Jesus . He must therefore have been

    miraculously concealed from their view j for had they seen him , the mention oX this sight would have formed the prominent feature in their narrative . £ ,

    Untitled Article

    Difficulties on the Subject of the Resurrection . 13 a

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1816, page 139, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2450/page/11/