_Reply._—As before stated, we know nothing about the laws of the invisible universe, except that it is related by bonds of some kind, possibly of energy, to the present. All we have attempted has been to remove an objection to the doctrine of immortality which has been wrongly put forth as scientific, or at least as consistent with scientific knowledge. 206. _Objection Fourth (Theological)._—The reasoning you adopt being founded on the law of continuity, seems to imply the development of man’s frame from those of the inferior animals, and therefore by implication contradicts the scriptural account of the creation and fall of man. _Reply._—We cannot perceive that our reasoning is in the least degree inconsistent with the account of man’s origin given in Scripture. This account implies no doubt a peculiar operation of the invisible universe, but our reasoning compels us to look in this direction for the origin of certain occurrences. Whether the production of man has been the occasion for a peculiar interposition of the unseen it is not within our province to discuss. We can only say that we see no reason from our principles to question the view which asserts that man was made by a peculiar operation out of a pre-existent universe. 207. _Objection Fifth (Theological)._—The resurrection consistent with your theory could not be a resurrection of the same particles as were laid in the grave, and in this respect it would be dissimilar to that of Christ. _Reply._—A dissimilarity between the two exists under any theory, for the body of Christ did not experience corruption, while the bodies of believers in Christ are manifestly dissolved by death. [We make the following suggestion with much hesitation. What we have to say is founded upon an exceedingly able work by Edward White, entitled _Life in Christ_, which has recently been published, and from which we extract the following passage (page 263):—