no desire to be found unclothed at that period, but clothed upon and present with Christ. This is evident from verses 6, and 7. "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord." While in the body, though they had many consolations in the faith of Christ, though "he was with them always even unto the end of the age," though "to live was Christ," yet this condition he terms being absent from the Lord in comparison to being present with him, which cannot mean in the unclothed state of insensibility, but where "mortality is swallowed up of life."

Let it be distinctly noticed, that the apostle is speaking of three states-1st. as being in this earthly house or body where they were absent from the Lord-2nd. as being unclothed and found naked at his coming for which they had no desire-3d. as being absent from the body and present with the Lord where they should be clothed upon with their house from heaven that mortality might be swallowed up of life, for which they had a desire. Verse 9. "Wherefore we labor that whether present or absent we may be accepted of him." Here we perceive that they did not labor to obtain entrance into his presence, because the immortal resurrection is the gift of God. But they labored, whether alive on earth or immortal in heaven, that they might be accepted among those, who were worthy to obtain a crown of righteousness in the first resurrection for having continued faithful unto the end-that they might be worthy to form a part of that glorious body of witnesses in heaven who were slain for the testimony of Jesus. And the body of Christians on earth, who continued faithful to the coming of Christ, were to be fashioned like those above,

and receive the same exalted honor in his gospel kingdom, and the whole compose one bright body of infallible witnesses, whose testimony can never be shaken by all the powers of infidelity. "To depart and be with Christ which is far better" must mean in an immortal existence.

We cannot, for want of room, argue this part of our subject at large;-but the above is in perfect agreement with the philosophy of St. Paul, (1. Cor. 15,) where he compares the raising of the spiritual body to a grain of wheat sown in the earth. I would not be understood to say that this natural body of flesh and blood is ever to rise. No one, I presume, will contend that infants, youth and decrepid age, and those who are born deformed will be raised in that condition and all retain their various complexions. I believe, however, that there are those subtle materials in the natural body which, when extricated from the earthy tenement, and completely developed, shall produce the immortal being; and that these are as perfect in the infant as in the man.

We will now conclude by anticipating and answering one or two principal objections. It may be objected that, if any one arose immortal before Christ, he could not have been "the first-born from the dead" as stated in Col. i. 18. This does not mean first in the order of time, but in rank. It means principal, and is explained by the connecting phrase "that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." It is more particularly explained in Rev. i. 5. "Jesus Christ the faithful Witness and the first-begotten of the dead and the Prince of the kings of the earth." In connexion with this, we will introduce 1 Cor. xv. 20. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept." This also has reference to rank and not to first in the order

of time. In evidence of this, we will quote Cruden,-"The day after the feast of the Passover, they brought a sheaf into the temple as the first-fruits of the barley-harvest. The sheaf was threshed in the court, and of the grain that came out they took a full homer; i. e. about three pints. After it had been well winnowed, parched and bruised, they sprinkled over it a log of oil; i. e. near a pint. They added to it a handful of incense; and the priest that received this offering shook it before the Lord towards the four quarters of the world; he cast part of it upon the altar and the rest was his own. After this every one might begin their harvest. This was offered in the name of the whole nation, and by this the harvest was sanctified unto them."

Here let the question be asked-Was this sheaf called the first-fruits because it was ripe before the whole harvest? No; it was not cut till the harvest was ripe. Was it called first because the harvest would be second in following it to the temple to be presented to God, by the priest, in the presence of the people? No; it was not to be carried to the temple, nor would the priest or the people ever see the whole harvest thus dedicated to God. But it was called "the first of the ripe fruits," because it was offered to God in the presence of the people as an evidence of the consecration of the whole harvest throughout the nation. It was first in distinction, or importance without any allusion whatever to first in the order of time.

So "Christ was the chosen of God, the elect precious, and the Son consecrated forevermore." He was "the chief among ten thousand" and proved to be the Son of God with power by a resurrection from the dead without seeing corruption. In this condition he was presented to the people as an evidence of the resurrection and consecration of all man

kind. In this he was first and last—that is, the principal, the chief, the head, and in this he never has had, and never will have a second in the order of time. This is no evidence therefore that he was the first one who ever rose to an immortal existence. We have positive proof that Moses and Elias were raised from the dead, and in a state of conscious existence for they conversed with our Lord in the presence of three of his disciples. They appeared in glory, and were two as real personages on the one part, as was our Saviour on the other.

Acts xxvi. 23. "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light to the people and to the Gentiles." This passage contains, perhaps, as plausible an objection against my views as any that can be produced. But this passage means, that Christ should be the first who should show light to the Jews and Gentiles through a resurrection from the dead. The Greek word, here rendered "should rise," is anastaseos from anastasis. It is a substantive, not a verb. Professor Leusden, in his Latin Testament, renders it "ex resurrectione mortuorum”—by a resurrection from the dead. The verb, to raise, is egeiro, and is six times applied to the raising of Christ from the dead in 1 Cor xv. 1 Anistemi also means to rise and is applied to raising the dead to life. But neither anistemi nor egeiro are used in the verse, but anastaseos-Consequently it cannot literally be rendered "should rise,” but resurrection. Wakefield translates it thus-"That Christ would suffer death and would be the first to proclaim salvation to this people and the Gentiles by a resurrection from the dead." This is evidently the real sense of the passage, and I shall offer upon it no further

comment.