The eating of the fruit was the means through which its life-giving quality was to be communicated to man; and as the power of eating implies action in the eater, it must of consequence imply the possession of life previously to all application made to this tree. The origin of life could therefore never be communicated to man through any efficacy which it could possess.

Neither could this tree be designed to restore life to those who had been deprived of it, because death could in this period have had no existence. And even if we allow that death had at that time begunits ravages, those who were the subjects of it must have been incapable of making that active application, which was necessary in order to their being benefitted by its salubrious efficacy.

Neither can we suppose that the design of this tree was to communicate to man the power to propagate future life, because this power had been previously communicated, independently of this tree. And in addition to this, we find that this power is still retained, though this tree has been placed beyond all human reach. In what light soever therefore we view this tree of life, our conclusions become ridiculous and absurd, unless we presume that it had the power to perpetuate that life, which had been previously communicated from God. It is therefore but reasonable to conclude, that the design of its efficacy was to counteract the dissolvent influence of the atmosphere, by which means the adhesion of the particles became permanent, and through which the human body, though com

pounded of dissoluble parts, was preserved from dissolution and decay.

If this tree of life, whatever might have been its nature, had not possessed that invigorating quality, why was it denominated the Tree of Life? Why was it placed in the garden in the primeval state of man? Why was it removed when moral evil was introduced? And removed on this express account, lest man put forth his hand, and take, and cat, and live for ever? Is it that we arc amused in the book of God with idle theories? Or can we suppose that the Father of mercies has sent us these accounts, to mock the creatures whom he had created, and that he has thus added deception to the miseries of human life? If conduct like this can be attributed to God, we are at a loss to know the essential properties of his nature, and are utterly unable to reconcile such actions with his exalted perfections. But if such conduct be not attributable to him, we then must attribute to the tree of life, a life-giving quality, and finally conclude that the efficacy of its fruit tended to ensure immortality to those bodies which in themselves were formed of dissoluble parts. In the following order therefore this branch of the divine economy presents itself to our view.

The human body which God created, was formed of parts; these parts had been taken from different elements, and included in their nature, a perpetual tendency towards their primitive abodes. To counteract this tendency which resided within the parts, an adhesive power was communicated,

through the efficacy of which, that tendency was arrested, and all separation of the parts from one another prevented from taking place.

But while this power of adhesion prevented the particles from separation, the atmosphere, which was necessary to the preservation of all animal life, possessing a dissolvent quality, naturally tended to destroy the adhesive power.

The destruction of the adhesive power, must have liberated every particle, while the native tendency of these particles must have urged them to seek and find their native abodes, through which the human. body must have been destroyed.

Here are now before us two things to be subdued, in order to the perpetuity of human life; namely, the native tendency of the particles themselves, and the dissolvent influence of the atmosphere.

Το

counteract the former, the power of adhesion which connected together the parts of the body was sufficient; but to counteract the latter required another cause, and this cause we find in the tree of life. The efficacy of this tree, appears to have been sufficient to repair the ravages which the atmosphere occasionally made; and to strengthen those powers of adhesion which the influence of the atmosphere tended to destroy. Through these means, the parts, of which the human body was composed, though possessing in themselves a tendency to separate, were preserved from, dissolution; and the body which these parts composed was placed beyond the influence of decay. Such, therefore, was

perhaps the primitive state of things. And while this tree of life continued its interposing influence, it must have effectually prevented the ultimate accomplishment of that tendency which resided in the parts, by counteracting that influence which the atmosphere exercised over the adhesive power, which connected the particles of which the body was composed.

Nor is this merely inventing a theory to serve the purposes of an hypothesis. Reason concurs with divine authority to give sanction to the sentiment; the tree of life was planted in the garden, and freedom was given Adam to partake of its fruit; it was only removed from him after he had fallen from God, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever. If therefore a theory more rational cannot be invented than that which the Bible affords, the hypothesis before us has a double claim upon our assent, namely, from the rationality of the facts themselves, and from the authority which these facts derive from revelation.

If B. when created, were compounded of materials taken partly from A. and partly from C. and if these particles which formed a contact in B. were to have in the aggregate an equal, or even an unequal tendency towards A. and C. from which they were first taken, it is demonstrably certain, that while the contact continued in B. no particle could depart either to A. or C.; under these circumstances it is undeniably certain, that the compounded

body B. must remain for ever.

For as the tendencies of the particles in B. are supposed to be either equal or unequal, those particles which had been taken from C. will, in either case, prevent those which had been taken from A. from separately returning to their native abode at A. and the result will be exactly the same if we reverse the case. But if, through any external cause, the adhesion or contact in B. should be destroyed, each particle would be at liberty to retire to its respective element, through its native tendency; and in this case the compounded body B. would be no more. Hence then it plainly follows, that though we consider B. to be a compounded body, and though the particles which compose it have tendencies to other abodes, yet, while these tendencies are counteracted, and the contact preserved, the compounded body must be indissoluble, and consequently immortal.

Now this comparison, even if partial in its application, will sufficiently prove the point for which it has been adduced. The human body is the compound in question, and this illustrative argument will prove, that while the power of adhesion continues perfect and entire, though the particles of which it was composed, may have distinct tendencies to depart to their respective elements, yet, while the power of adhesion remains, these distinct tendencies would be overcome, and the compounded body will be precisely the same as though no such tendency had inhered in any of the particles of which it was composed.