Chapter VII: Part 7

We will notice one more passage in the context, which may be urged as an objection. "Behold I show you a _mystery_; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed." The _mystery_, here mentioned, refers to the change of those, who should be found alive at the coming of Christ in his kingdom, produced by the full revelation and establishment of that doctrine, which proclaims the immortal resurrection of all mankind _by being made alive in Christ_. It is the fulfillment of the following scriptures--Eph. i 9,10--"Having made known unto us the _mystery of his will_--that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one _all things in Christ_, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." This mystery was _then finished_ in the full revelation of his will to the doubting christians, whom Paul addresses in the context. This is evident from Rev. x:7--"But in the days of the voice of the _seventh angel_ when he _shall begin to sound_, the _mystery_ of God _should be finished_, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." And that he began his reign when the mystery was finished is certain from Rev. xi. 15--And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven saying the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, "and he shall reign forever and ever." Here we perceive that this _mystery of God's will_ was to be finished at the sound of the _seventh or last_ trump, which will is, to gather or make alive all things in Christ. And at this time he was to receive his kingdom and reign forever and ever. _"We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"_ has reference to those persecuted christians, who were not to "taste of death till they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Phil. iii:20, 2l--"For our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." That this passage has reference to changing our _natural into immortal bodies_ at the resurrection, I see not a shadow of evidence to prove, either in established in their final and blissful condition the passage itself, nor in the context. The context we have already noticed by pointing out the resurrection to which Paul desired to attain. Chap. i:6--"He, that hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until _the day of Jesus Christ."_ Chap. iv:5--"Let your moderation be known unto all men. _The Lord is at hand_." "The day of Jesus Christ" and "the Lord is at hand" refer to his coming at the end of the Jewish age, and not to a resurrection at the end of time. Paul gave the Philippians notice of no other coming of Christ. The passage has reference to the change the living were to experience, at this coming of our Lord in his kingdom, by being delivered from their persecutions, doubts and fears, perfected in faith, and "established unblamable in holiness before God," so as to resemble in a moral and exalted sense those immortal beings in heaven who are here called the "glorious body" of Christ. The body to be changed embraces both Jew and Gentile christians, who were at that time to be raised from their lowly condition into his gospel kingdom and "shine forth like the sun." This is evident from the manner in which he commences: "For our conversation is in _heaven_, from _whence_ we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our _lowly body_ that it maybe fashioned like unto his glorious body." He contrasts the low and oppressed condition of the whole christian body with what will be their exalted condition at the coming of Christ, and that exalted condition will assemble that glorified body of beings in _heaven_ who died in his cause, and with whom they had their conversation, and from _whence_ they were expecting the Saviour. It has reference, I conceive, to the body in which Christ arose. The church is the body of Christ, and it is to be presented to himself a _glorious body_, not having spot, wrinkle, or any such thing. The Greek word _tapeinos_ rendered "vile," should be rendered _lowly or humble_.

It will be noticed, by the reader, that the word _body_ is used in the _singular_ number and not in the plural, as some have quoted it in their writings. But if it refer to individual _forms_, it ought to be rendered in the _plural_--"who shall change our vile _bodies."_ But it means the whole church or body of believers--a collective body of individuals. In this sense the Greek word, _soma_, here rendered _body_ is frequently used in the New Testament. That the apostle does not refer to all mankind is evident from the fact, that after the vile body is changed according to the working, he adds--whereby he is able _even_ to subdue all things unto himself--That is, able _even_ to subdue all things as well as to change that body. If the passage refer to an immortal and general resurrection, or rather to the change of all the living into immortal beings, then there would be none to subdue after that period. But if we apply it to the coming of Christ in that generation, and to the change of the whole christian body, then all is plain and in perfect agreement with the preceding and succeeding context; also with 1 Cor. 15th chapter, and with the whole tenor of revelation, which speaks of but _one coming_ of our Saviour in his kingdom, and which shows that the work of subjection commenced after the change of the living at the last trump, whose sound announced the commencement of his reign. The word _kai_, rendered _even_, should probably have been rendered _also_. "Who shall change our lowly body--according to the working whereby he is able also to subdue all things to himself." The whole context, however, justifies the above exposition because the christians were looking for the coming of Christ at the end of that age, and exclaimed, "the Lord is at hand."

[To be continued.]

SERMON XXIII

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. xv:20.

In our last we noticed the context, and also taken into consideration the language of Paul on the coming of Christ and the change of the living in Phil. iii:20, 21. This, we have shown, has no reference to the mortal bodies of men being changed to immortal bodies, so as to resemble the personal form of Jesus Christ. If it refer to Jesus, still the resemblance would be _moral, not personal_, for no where do the scriptures teach, that we are in our personal appearance to be like our Saviour. But in a _moral_ sense, "we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." I do not say, that there will be no _personal_ resemblance between immortal beings and Christ. I fully believe there will be; but I mean that this personal resemblance is more a matter of course, than a doctrine of divine revelation. I do not read of the "glorious body" of Jesus in his immortal resurrection state. But the scriptures do compare the moral body of Christians on earth with the glorified body of holy beings in heaven, Heb. xii:22, 23--"But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an in-numerable company of angels to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made made perfect." So far as the Christians were "established unblamable in holiness before God even our Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints" so far as they were elevated to "shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars forever" so far as their moral condition and enjoyments were improved and enlarged, thus far, of course, the _lowly body_ of the church on earth would be changed into a moral resemblance of that "glorious body" of Christ, who were praising him in heaven. In _heaven_ the Christians had their conversation, from whence they were looking for the Saviour, as shortly to come, and fashion them into a moral resemblance of those saints above, who had died in his cause, and who were to come with him. From the whole context, the conclusion is irresistible that this change of the "vile body" was at the coming of the Lord _then_ at hand, and not at the end of time, as some imagine.

Another scripture commonly applied to the _general_ resurrection of the dead, and a change of all the living is recorded in 1 Thess. iv:15, 16, 17--"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not _be before_ them that are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God; and the _dead in Christ_ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so we shall be evermore with the Lord." That Paul here refers to the coming of Christ in his kingdom to establish his reign, and to elevate the Christians who were alive at that period, the _preceding_ and _succeeding_ contexts fully justify. And so I must understand his language, till some one can prove a third coming of Christ, and an _eighth_ sounding trump at the end of time. In the two preceding chapters, he dwells largely upon the persecutions of the Christians, exhorts them to be faithful, expresses his desire "to perfect that which is lacking in their faith," and concludes by saying--"To the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ _with all his saints."_ No one will deny that this has reference to his coming at the end of the Jewish age. Now would it not be doing injustice to this powerful and cogent reasoner to say, that he suddenly drops this subject without giving his brethren any warning, and runs off to the end of time, speaks of another coming of' Christ at which he is to raise, at the same instant, all the dead and change the living to immortal beings? And that he should again, as suddenly, drop this subject, and hasten right back to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem? To charge him with this is certainly ungenerous.

After stating that Christ should descend with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God to exalt the dead and living, he adds--"But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write for yourselves perfectly know that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say peace and safety then sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape." There is no resisting the conclusion, that _"the day of the Lord"_ in this passage refers to the same period when "_the Lord himself shall descend from heaven_" in the passage above; which must be at the destruction of Jerusalem. He quotes Christ's own language, Matt. xxiv:43. See also 2 Peter iii:10. In both places, the sudden coming of Jesus is compared to a "thief in the night." But where is a _general_ resurrection, at the end of time, clearly stated, that he had no need to inform them of the times and seasons, because they already perfectly knew? Where is sudden destruction to come upon any in that day? For one, I find no such revelation.

Though the doctrine of immortal resurrection of all mankind was fully revealed, and established in the world at the coming of Christ in his kingdom; yet that particular point is not argued by the apostle in the scripture on which we are commenting. He is not speaking of all mankind, nor of the immortal resurrection; but as in Phil. iii:20, 21, so _here_ he is speaking of the Christians _only_ who should be alive when that scene burst and of those dead _only_ who had died in the cause of Christ. "The dead in Christ" cannot possibly include those who died previous to his birth, but those only who died in the faith of his doctrine previous to his coming in his kingdom. We might reason this point at large, but deem it unnecessary till some one proves how those, who never heard of a Saviour, could be said to die in Christ, or to be dead in him. I would, however, remark that the Greek preposition _en_ may be rendered, _on account of_. The phrase would then read thus--_the dead on account of Christ_. Wakefield renders it thus--"_they who have died in the cause of Christ_." That this is its true sense, I have not a doubt.

Let one thing here be distinctly noticed: Paul says--"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain," &c. Now where has our Lord ever said, when speaking of the immortal resurrection, that some would be alive, and be changed to immortal beings? Nowhere. This single circumstance ought to make every man pause before he asserts such a change to be true. Read Christ's language in all three of the Evangelists where he addresses the Sadducees; and he speaks only of the dead being raised, but not of any one being changed. Read his language, John vi:39--"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day." Nothing is here said about changing the living to immortal beings. The Father has given all into the hands of his Son; and if he is to _raise_ them up at the last day, then all must die, for the _change_ of the living is not the _resurrection_ of the dead. How then could Paul tell his brethren, "by the word of the Lord," that they were to be thus changed? He could not because there is not a "thus saith the Lord" to support it. But Paul had the word of the Lord support the change in the living which we have pointed out. Christ said, "the righteous should go into life eternal," they "that endured unto the end should be saved" that "they should shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father," and that "they should be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

But, inquires the reader, were those who died in the cause of Christ raised immortal at his coming? No, they were not. It simply means that they were in that day to receive their elevated stations of glory and and honor in the gospel kingdom, so much so, as if they had been alive. The living Christians, in this respect, were not to be before them. Having suffered and died in the cause of Christ, they were in the minds of the living to "shine as the stars forever and ever" in the kingdom of Christ, because they had turned many to righteousness. The Lord had, as it were, delayed his coming, and many had given up faith in Christ's resurrection, and were sorrowing without hope over their friends who had fallen asleep in his cause. They of course had no faith in the immortal resurrection of their friends, nor in the fulfillment of Christ's predicted coming to raise their names to unfading honor for having labored and died in his cause. We are not to understand that those departed saints were _literally_ exalted to elevated stations in Christ's kingdom on earth, any more than Christ _literally_ came. But as Jesus was _in that day_, at the end of the Jewish age, "crowned with glory and honor," as king on the mediatorial throne of the universe, so were his apostles elevated on thrones of glory with him. Jesus says, "when the Son of man shall sit on his throne of glory, ye also shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Now certain it is, that Jesus did take his throne, when he came in his glory, at the destruction of the temple. Then it is equally certain, that the apostles and martyrs also took their's at the same period and in the same sense. _Then_ Christ came and "his holy angels" and all the saints came with him; not literally, but in the same sense that he himself came. Luke ix:26, 27--"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and of his Father's and of the holy angels; but I tell you of a truth there be some standing here which shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God." I Thess. iii:13--"To the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God our Lord even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." Here we perceive, that he was to come "_with all his saints and holy angels_." By his _holy angels_, we are to understand his gospel messengers or martyred apostles and by _his_ saints, those who had died in his cause. These are the persons who are said to be _dead in Christ, and asleep in Jesus_. By the words _dead and asleep_ we are not to understand their present extinction of existence in contrast with their immortal resurrection, but the supposed _low and disgraceful_ cause in which they died, or for which they were put to death by their persecutors, as malefactors. This _disgraceful condition_, in which their murderers viewed them as unchangeably sleeping, stands in contrast with their _triumphant exaltation_ at the coming of Christ. Their enemies would _then_ look upon them as having come forth from the dust of the earth and shining as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars forever and ever, and not as sleeping in perpetual infamy and dishonor. [See Daniel xii 2, 3, and John v:28, 29.] Their enemies (whether dead or alive) were to come forth to _shame, contempt, and condemnation_, which stand in contrast with the _glory and honor_ to which the Christians (whether dead or alive in Christ) were to be raised in the minds of the living even to succeeding generations.

Let it be distinctly noticed that _these dead in Christ_ are not said to be raised _incorruptible and immortal_, but only caught up with the living Christians in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air--not _literally_, but in the same sense that the living saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, so should they see his saints and holy angels raised from the slumber of infamy, and, together with the Christians who remained alive at that day, be exalted with him in the air. [See Matt. xxiv:30, 31--Mark xiii:26, 27--Luke xxi:27, 28, and Rev. i:7.] In these passages he is represented as "coming in the _clouds_ with his angels," who "gathered, with a great sound of the trumpet, his elect," and raised them to honor in his kingdom. And let me add--this is all the _change_ Christ has ever said should take place in the living at the sound of the Trumpet. I have no doubt that the Apostle had his eye upon the above words of our Lord when he said, "we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." It will here be plainly seen in what sense those who had died in the cause of Christ were _first_ raised. They are represented as coming with him at the destruction of the temple, and after that event the whole "body" was exalted together. The "vile body" of Christians on earth (vile indeed in the eyes of their enemies) was then "fashioned like unto his glorious body" of saints and angels in heaven who had died in his cause.

That we have given a correct exposition of 1 Thess. iv:15, 16, 17, is evident from Paul's words 2 Tim. iv:7, 8--"I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a _crown of righteousness_, which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me at _that day_," &c. The phrase "_that day_" means not the day of Paul's death, but the day Christ should appear in the clouds of heaven at the end of the Jewish age. His _crown was merited_ for having "fought the good fight and kept the faith." The crown means that exalted honor he should then receive for having "turned many to righteousness." And not only himself, but all, "who love the appearing of Christ," should shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars forever and ever in his gospel kingdom among men. We this day look upon the martyrs and apostles as the lights of the Christian world and as occupying, on the sacred page, stations far more exalted than any ever conferred upon the greatest men of the universe. They are "made priests and kings to God" for dying in his cause, and thus establishing the truth of Christianity.

This was the "first resurrection," and these were the persons who had a part in it, which no subsequent christians can ever can have. Rev. xx:6--"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." But if Christ had not come in his kingdom at the end of the Jewish age, as the prophets and himself had declared, then the whole Christian system must have fallen and the names of its martyrs and apostles remained buried in perpetual infamy as a set of deluded men and impostors. But, blessed be God, it is not so. They, by their faithfulness, have attained unto the "first resurrection" and thus broken the dark chains of infidelity into fragments. This is the _resurrection and change_ referred to in Phil. iii:20, 21, and 1 Thess. iv:15, 16, 17, on which we have commented.

We have intentionally omitted till now Phil. iii:11, 12, as our ideas will be more readily comprehended here than in our introductory discourse, where we simply adverted to these words of Paul--"If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead--Not as though I had already attained either were already perfect," &c. Here we perceive that the resurrection unto which he desired to attain depended on his exertions in the cause of Christ, and being faithful unto the end. He says (verse 14)--"I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." But what prize was this? Ans. It was a _part_ in the _first resurrection_ to which he desired to attain (verse 11) and he was not "perfect," he feared "lest after having preached to others himself might be a cast-away." He feared that he might not endure faithful unto the end. He was well aware that the promise was--"Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life." To obtain this crown of life in the first resurrection, was the _highest prize_, the _highest calling of God_, ever suspended upon human merits! Paul did continue faithful, and as he was led to the thought of death, with composure and satisfaction exclaimed--"For I am now ready to be offered; and the time of my departure" is at hand. "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a _crown of righteousness_, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also, that love his appearing." Here we perceive that Paul had continued faithful, and was entitled to the promised crown, which was awarded to him, and to all "the dead in Christ," who, on account of their faithfulness, had a part in the first resurrection--when he came in the clouds of heaven to establish his kingdom. It has nothing to do with the immortal resurrection of the dead, for that is not the reward of merit, but the gift of God. To _that_ all shall attain who die in Adam. But in the _first_ resurrection none had a part except those who died in the cause of Christ, and the living who continued faithful to the day of his appearing. On them and _them only_ devolved the honor of establishing the truth of Christianity for the happiness of future generations, by not only testifying that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead, but by cheerfully submitting to death, and showing themselves miracles of suffering in his cause. Both the departed and those that remained alive, attained to the first resurrection, were glorified together, and their crowns shall shine in the gospel heavens with undiminished splendor long after those of kings and tyrants shall be dimmed and lost in the vortex of revolutions.

He concludes the chapter by noticing the change of the "vile body" which we have explained. Here then is no evidence of a general resurrection, nor of the end of time. The _context_, the _silence_ of Jesus about the change of the living into immortal beings, and the _whole tenor_ of revelation combine to set it at defiance. Of one thing I am satisfied; that no man ever _has_, and I believe, no man ever _can reconcile_ the change of the living and the resurrection of the dead recorded in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians with their respective contexts, so as to prove a general and immortal resurrection at the end of time. As I have traveled in an untrodden path, I do not know but that I may have erred in some minor points, but am satisfied that my general positions are sound and tenable.

[To be continued.]

SERMON XXIV

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. xv:20.

We have now come to that point in our subject where it will be necessary to cite a few passages to prove that the immortal resurrection is _successive, not general_, and will conclude by considering some of the principal texts, which may be urged as objections.

We have already shown that the resurrection of the dead was to be at the sound of the last trump. And as that trump commenced sounding at the end of the Jewish age, when Christ came in his kingdom, I deem it sufficient to establish the fact that the dead are continually rising in this _last, this gospel day_. But the question presents itself-- were any of the human family raised immortal before that period? To this question I give an affirmative answer. I firmly believe, that the dead have been rising immortal from Adam to the present day, for God has never changed the established order of the universe. I believe that the dead are raised without any _miracle_, in the common acceptance of that term, as much as I believe that we are born, and die, not by a _miracle_, but according to that constitution of things which God has immutably established from the beginning. I believe this doctrine of Christ to be founded upon the unchanging principles of philosophy but so mysterious, that man in his present existence cannot comprehend the subtle causes and effects by which he shall put on immortality. It was, therefore, necessary that this sublime truth should be established in the world by the miracles Jesus wrought and by the miraculous power of God in raising him from death. The first man Adam was made by a miracle, while his posterity are naturally born into life, according to that constitution of things which God has established. So Christ, the second Adam, was born from the dead by a miracle, while mankind from the beginning, have, in succession, been born from the dead according to that constitution of things which he has established.

On this principle, it may be stated as an objection, that as none of Adam's posterity could be born till their parent was created by a miracle, so none of the human family could be born from the dead, till Christ the second Adam were raised immortal by the miraculous power of God. This objection is futile unless it can be proved that Christ _creates_ life and immortality. In fact, it would even then fail;-- because Christ, as our sacrifice, was slain from the foundation of the world in the offerings made to God in his stead. The atonement, made by the high priest throughout the whole Mosaic dispensation, concluded by raising the Jewish nation in figure on his "breast-plate of judgment" into the holy of holies, which was a pattern of things in the heavens. The atonement always involved the resurrection. The judgment of the Jews, for two thousand years, by Moses only pointed out the resurrection of man in _figure_, but Christ proved the _reality_ by a tangible _fact_, and thus revealed it to the living as the doctrine of God of which the world had been ignorant. So what the _judgment_ of the world by Moses taught in _figure, the judgment_ of the world by Christ teaches in _reality_. My limits will not allow me to argue this point at large. I have already remarked, that I believe _"the judgment of the world"_ expresses the whole reign of Christ including the resurrection.

We now proceed to notice the Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 31, 32.

"_But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living_."

To this Luke adds, "_for all live unto him_." In order to make these words of Jesus refer to a general resurrection at the end of time, all writers have availed themselves of this last clause in Luke (on which Matthew and Mark are silent) and contend that it means--all live unto God who in his counsels views the future resurrection as present. But this exposition by no means satisfies my mind. If Abraham, Issac and Jacob are not raised--if they are yet wrapped in the insensibility of death, then God during that period is not their God.

To illustrate this, we would remark, that Jehovah could not be Creator till something were created by him. He could not be Father till he had an offspring. He could not be Lord till he possessed property;-- neither could he be God till there were a worshipper. _Jehovah_ is the only abstract name he could possess, were he solitary and without a universe. All the other names ascribed to him are relative. The name God as much pre-supposes the actual existence of a _worshipper_ as that of father does the actual existence of a _child_. Remove the _child_, and the once doating parent is no longer to him a father. God is not, therefore, the God of the dead, for as such, they could not worship him. He is, however, Lord of both the dead and the living claiming them as his property. Abraham, Issac and Jacob were therefore alive, and worshipping him when those words were spoken to Moses, for in no other sense could he have been their God any more than he was before they were born. The phrase "_for all live unto him_," may, in this instance, embrace only the three patriarchs, as no others are involved in the quotation. The Sadducees believed in the writings of Moses only, and it is not at all probable, that Jesus referred to any persons, not mentioned by Moses, as it would have been no proof to the Sadducees. His argument is, to prove that the three patriarchs, _are raised_ according to their own writings, not _shall be raised_. Now that the _dead are raised_ Moses showed at the bush when he called God the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here we perceive that "_the dead_" refers to the three persons whom Moses showed were raised. He then adds--for he is not the God of the _dead_ but of the _living_, for all live unto him--that is, the three patriarchs _all_ live to him. If the phrase embrace any others, it must be the living in eternity, not the living in the flesh nor the dead as such. It would make Jesus contradict himself in the same breath. "He is not the God of the _dead_, but of the _living_; for _all_ live unto him." To whom does this "_all_" refer? To the "_living_"; not the "_dead_," for in that case he would be the God of the dead.

Luke ix. 30. "_And behold there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias_." The transfiguration of our Lord is recorded also by both Matthew and Mark, and it is plainly stated that the disciples "saw his glory and the two men that stood with him." If Moses and Elias were dead, their bodies crumbled to dust, and their minds in a state of insensibility, then they were not Moses and Elias who talked with him. Even if God had represented those two persons by other forms, they could no more have been Moses and Elias than Adam and Noah. It is _consciousness and memory_ which constitute personal identity; and if a conversation was carried on with Jesus by any means that human ingenuity can invent, while Moses and Elias were wrapped in as profound insensibility as the dust with which their bodies mingled, then it could not have been Moses and Elias who conversed with Jesus any more than if they had never had an existence. Perhaps it may be said that, as it is called a _vision_ by Matthew, it might have been nothing _real_. But as the word _horama_ means a _sight_ as well as _vision_, and as the other Evangelists do represent it as an actual appearance and nothing visionary, it is to be taken in this sense. Was it not a _reality_ that the three disciples saw Jesus transfigured, and though in that condition was it not still their _identical_ Lord? Certainly. Then the vision was so far _real_, and I see no ground on which the other personages can be considered phantoms. Mark says, "he charged them that they should tell no man _what things they had seen_," &c. See also Luke ix. 36. Here it is made certain that it was not an appearance in a dream, but a real and visible sight of three persons whose names are given. Consequently Moses and Elias were there as certain as was Jesus Christ. If so, they must have been raised from the dead, for man can have no conscious existence hereafter in a disembodied state. The scriptures teach that the resurrection is our only hope of a future conscious state of being. As to the translation of Elijah we shall not here notice it.

Phil. i. 23, 24. "_For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ which is far better; nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you_." To depart and be with Christ must, I conceive, mean in the resurrection world, for in no other sense could he be with Christ so as to render his condition "far better." Nothing can be _good or bad_ for a man in a state of perfect insensibility, any more than for a man unborn--Neither could he be with Christ in such a State, any more than before he existed. Between the condition of a man in non-existence [pardon the expression] and in life, no comparison as to enjoyment or suffering can possibly be drawn. The apostle therefore draws a comparison between his present condition of conscious existence with his brethren, and his future condition of conscious existence with Christ which was far better.

That Paul has reference, in the above, to an immortal existence in the resurrection, is evident from 2 Cor. v. 1, 2, 3, 4.

"_For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life_."

If the above do not prove that the apostle expected to be clothed upon with his house from heaven shortly after his earthly tabernacle were dissolved, then I must acknowledge my ignorance of his meaning. He desires not to be unclothed so as to be found naked at the coming of Christ. By this I understand that between death and the resurrection there is a state of insensibility of several days duration, while the spiritual body is putting on, and if he died so near the coming of Christ, that the process was not completed, and mortality not swallowed up of life, he would be found naked, i.e. In the state of the dead. He therefore expresses 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--

3rd. 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 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 earthly 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 _first-fruits_ 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 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 mankind. 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, an 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. _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.