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.