life, and that they might have it MORE ABUNDANTLY. John x. 10. See also xvii. 2. But if Christ be thus the sole and recognised fountain of immortality, what becomes of every attempt, on the part of puny man, to represent Adam as having had naturally immortal principle, as having retained it in spite of the fall,— and as transmitting it to his natural posterity? By what possibility can two propositions so self-contradictory as, that Jesus is the source of immortality, and that Adam is the source of immortality, stand together? If it be said, that we derive immortal principle from Adam, is it not virtually denied thereby, that we derive it from Christ? If from Christ, how can we be indebted for it to Adam ?-This reasoning being clear and conclusive, it is probable that some of those who previously were disposed to acquiesce in the former part of my statements, now find themselves taken by surprise, and are startled at the obvious consequences to which these statements lead. Let such persons put to themselves the following plain and simple question: Can I derive immortality, or immortal existence from Jesus; and can I, at the same time and consistently with this fact, be regarding the present existence or soul which I derive from Adam, and which comes to an end, as being immortal?-and then let them try in what way, except by rejecting the current doctrine of immortality or an immortal soul being derived from Adam, and by ascribing the enjoyment of the privilege of immortality solely and exclusively to their connection with the

Messiah, they can extricate themselves from the dilemma, and speak consistently with their own admitted principles.

I have no wish to push matters to unpleasant lengths, or unnecessarily to wound the feelings of others; but if any one of those superficial thinkers to whom I am now addressing myself, shall attempt to take shelter from the conclusion upon which I am forcing him by supposing, that immortality may be derived both from Adam and from Jesus, I must take the liberty of acquainting him, that this hypothesis is agreeable neither to scripture nor to common sense; and, that it leaves the subject, which it professes to clear up, involved in tenfold perplexity. The inspired records never speak of Adam, except as the source of natural life; nor of Jesus, except as the source of spiritual and eternal life: and, indeed, were not this the case, what ground or reason would there be for contrasting the one with the other? Except as respectively the authors of mortal and immortal principle, why are they spoken of and reasoned about by the apostle, in Romans vth. and 1 Corinthians xvth.? Let those, then, who would hurry

* In connection with the subject of creature mortality, and as illustrative of the necessity of immortal principle being communicated through a higher channel than that of Adam, the following passage of Ecclesiastes may be read with much advantage by the favourers of the popular system: I said in my heart concerning the state of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Ecclesiastes iii. 18-20.

thoughtlessly to a conclusion, pause and weigh well the arguments which I have adduced, before they either accuse me of a waste and superfluity of reasoning, or declare themselves converts to my positions. They are welcome to find out flaws in the foregoing statements if they can: but they must not be permitted, after declaring themselves upon mature deliberation satisfied with these, to reject the consequences to which they necessarily and inevitably lead.

Secondly. It being thus established, that the dead rise again, not in virtue of any natural principle of immortality possessed by them, but in virtue of a connection with the Lord Jesus, I now proceed to the other branch of the present enquiry, namely, that which relates to the particular way or manner in which the resurrection of the dead is accomplished. Under this head, I observe, that the resurrection of the dead stands inseparably connected with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; or, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is the proximate cause of the resurrection of the dead. This may be proved, 1. negatively; 2. positively and affirmatively.

1. Negatively. If the resurrection of the Lord Jesus be not the cause of the resurrection of the dead, then is the former event one of, comparatively speaking, subordinate importance.

One of the ordinary notions entertained with regard to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus is, that it furnishes us with the strongest evidence of the truth of his divine mission, and of his title to the character of the Messiah.

Far be it from me to call in question the accuracy of this view, when I find the Savour himself and his apos→ tles frequently referring to his resurrection, for the express purpose of establishing it. Matthew xii. 38-40; Luke xxiv. 25-27; 44-47; Acts ii. 31-36; Rom. i. 4. Ancient prophecy had foretold, in language which for a time indeed remained obscure and unintelligible, 1 Peter i. 10-12, John xx. 9, but which to us, instructed by the event and by the Apostolic comments, shines forth in full meridian effulgence, that the body of the Messiah should not be left in the grave, neither should his flesh see corruption, Psalm xvi. 10; and on the fulfilment of this and similar predictions rested, as one of the main pillars and proofs of his divine mission and character. I also admit, that by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was demonstrated the truth of his own declaration, that he had power to lay down his life, and to take it up again; and of such facts as, that the Father was well pleased with him for his righteousness' sake; and, that he had been ordained Judge of the quick and the dead. This, however, is to represent the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as being merely of the nature of proof or evidence of claims formerly advanced: and, yet, will any reflecting person, acquainted with and believing in the truth of scripture history, venture to affirm that it implies and imports no more?

It is commonly alleged also, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, besides establishing the truth of his divine mission, is the grand pledge or proof of the resurrection of the dead. With this statement, so far as it

goes, I readily concur: but it is incumbent on me to enquire, in what sense the phraseology pledge or proof is employed, that I may guard against being imposed on by mere words. Do those who make use of it intend to be understood as meaning, that there is such a necessary and inseparable connection between the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and the resurrection of the dead, that the one event could not take place without drawing along with it, and being productive of, the other? If such be their meaning, I rejoice to say, that there is no difference, or at least no essential difference, between us. I have long been a decided convert to the truth of the theory of that amiable man, as well as elegant, enlightened, and acute metaphysician, Dr. Brown, of Edinburgh, that the invariable and inseparable connection of antecedence and sequence, is the only notion we have, or can have, concerning the relation of cause or effect:*-and, therefore, to suppose, that the resurrection of the Lord

* "A cause, therefore, in the fullest definition which it philosophically admits, may be said to be, that which immediately precedes any change, and which existing at any time in similar circumstances, has been always, and will be always, immediately followed by a similar change. Priority in the sequence observed, and invariableness of antecedence, in the past and future sequences supposed, are the elements, and the only elements, combined in the notion of a cause. By a conversion of terms, we obtain a definition of the correlative effect; and power, as I have before said is only another word for expressing abstractly and briefly the antecedence itself, and the invariableness of the relation." Inquiry into the relation of cause and effect, by Thomas Brown, M. D. 3d. edition, page 17.

"It is most satisfactory therefore to know, that the invariableness of antecedence and consequence, which is represented as only the sign of causation, is itself the only essential circumstance of causation." Preface to the above work.