resolved at last into the undistinguished mass of elements from which it was at first derived, should ever be clothed with immortality; that this corruptible should ever put on incorruption; is a truth so far removed from the apprehension of philosophical research, so dissonant from the common conceptions of mankind, that, amongst all ranks and persuasions of men, it was esteemed an impossible thing. At Athens the philosophers had listened with patience to St. Paul, whilst they conceived him but a setter forth of strange Gods; but as soon as they comprehended, that by the avasaris he meant the Resurrection, they turned from him with contempt. It was principally the insisting upon the same topic, which made Festus think much learning had made him mad. And the questions, "how are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?" seem, by Paul's solicitude to answer them with fulness and precision, to have been not unfrequently proposed to him by those who were desirous of becoming Christians."

Our author adds "the doctrine of a future life then, as promulgated in the gospel, being neither agreeable to the expectations, nor corresponding with the wishes, nor conformable to the reason of the Gentiles, I can conceive no motive, (setting aside the true one, the divine power of its first preachers,) which could induce them to receive it." &c.

Notwithstanding the deference which is due to this very respectable writer, justice to our subject requires us to remark, that his observations upon this point are by no means so satisfactory as upon the other topics in which he is at variance with Mr. Gibbon. He acknowledges

that the resurrection of a corporeal frame, which is hourly mouldering away, and its being clothed with immortality, is a doctrine dissonant from the common conceptions of mankind. But this cannot be the doctrine taught by St. Paul, who expresses his surprise that these philosophers should disbelieve a fact, which is not less deserving of credit, than certain facts in the economy of nature, which they were compelled to admit. For he refers them, not to the miraculous power of God, but to the laws of vegetation for a solution; which could not be the case, if he maintained that the scattered particles of dust would again be collected into a corporeal frame, and revivified by a spiritual inhabitant, which had forsaken its abode; for the laws of nature furnish no instances of the kind.

The doctrine, as stated by our author, is so difficult to be believed, that it requires very strong evidence, both of its truth and importance, before it can be received as an essential doctrine of Christianity. We' have endeavoured to prove that it has no such claim to our belief. That the grand object, human happiness, cannot depend upon the resurrection of inanimate matter; for it is obvious that, if the immaterial principle be capable of existing in a conscious state, without a corporeal organization, it is capable of enjoying happiness, or suffering misery, without it. This is uniformly admitted by the advocates for the resuscitation of mere matter. But if this be the fact, with what propriety can the resurrection of the corporeal frame be considered as synonymous with a future life, since the spirit of man may exist in a future state, inde

pendent of it? Yet it is considered as synonymous, in the subsequent passage, which we have quoted, where it is said the doctrine of a future life, as promulgated in the gospel, being neither agreeable to the expectations," &c, &c.

It appears obvious to us, that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was not the subject in dispute, between the apostle and the gentile philosophers: but it was the resurrection of the man; a restoration to lost vitality. Those Heathen philosophers, who entertained any feeble expectations of a future existence, placed all their hopes upon their notions concerning the spirituality and natural immortality of the soul. But this was not the doctrine of the Apostle. He maintained that life and immortality are the gift of God; through the death and resurrection of this Jesus whom he preached unto them. He asserts, that if Christ be not arisen, there can be no future existence expected. Those who were fallen a sleep in Jesus are perished. This was the statement, so dissonant from the conceptions they had formed of the possibility of a future state, that they despised the preacher and his doctrine.

The elegant writer seems to place the whole force of his argument, upon the expressions" it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." "This corruptible must put on incorruption, &c." Inferring from this mode of expression, that the same essential body will rise again. But the inference is not conclusive. The strong figurative language, so characteristic of the Apostle's style, should inspire caution. In the impetuosity of his thoughts, he despises expletives or paraphras

tic diction. He makes the freest uses of the ellipsis, leaving it to the reader to supply the deficiency. We are not deviating from his obvious meaning, but rendering it more conspicuous, if we state that the vital principle in man, is sown with a corruptible body, it will rise with incorruption. It is sown with a natural body, it will rise with a spiritual body. This mode of explanation is perfectly similar to that we are obliged to apply, in the explanation of many other passages of this figurative writer." Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ."*" This agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,† &c. &c. These expressions demand explanations also.

But the Apostle himself satisfactorily explains his own meaning, when he says, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be ;—but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body." The body of every grain that is sown perishes; but the germinating principle which remains, has been rendered, by the wonderful power of God, capable of generating, not merely a new body for itself, but numerous other bodies possessing entirely the same characteristics. This undoubted, although inexplicable

phænomenon, represents the resurrection of the vital principle in man, as a natural process, much more simple in itself, and much less difficult to be conceived and credited. Who can explain the manner in which the caterpillar is transformed into a dormant chrysalis; or the secret operations by which this rises into a butterfly, gay, lively, and beautiful? But who can deny the

fact?

NOTE G.

After," in a judicial process," page 268.

The truth of the above assertion will appear by attending to the following statement.

In Romans, iii. 20. We translate the word daŮŇOSTαI,

All these terms are derived from din, which signifies justice, in the abstract; whether it be just conduct, a just sentence, just punishment, just acquittal. Every one has a natural right to be merciful; and no criminal has, at any time, resented an act of clemency, as an act of injustice; justice, therefore, cannot exclude those acts of mercy which are authorized by wisdom and discretion, and which offend not either God or Man.

NOTE H.

After" in which the effect is produced," page 286, Although the admission of our statement, concerning