THIS term is applied to the first advent of the Saviour, and also to the second. Heb. ix, 26, 28. When, however, in speaking of the forty days which intervened between our Lord's resurrection and his ascension from the Mount of Olives in the presence of all his disciples, the idea is advanced that Jesus visited his Father's presence during the time, at least, on the day of his resurrection, as implied in John xx, 17, then it is strongly objected that this cannot be, because his future advent is called his second appearing. Heb. ix, 28. Yet those who raise this objection do not correctly apprehend the case. The statement that "now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," Heb. ix, 26, must be understood to cover all the time from his birth till his ascension from the Mount of Olives. And whether he visited his Father during the forty days or not, it is certain that he was not with the disciples during that time, except, in most cases, at intervals of several days each. John xx; xxi; Acts i. And these several manifestations of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection are called appearings. Thus we read: Verse 12: "After that, he appeared in another form unto two of them." Verse 14: "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat." Luke xxiv, 34: "Saying, the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." These texts are sufficient to show that those critics who seize upon the expression, "appear the second time," to show that Christ could not ascend to his Father and return again to his disciples on the day of his resurrection, because that would make his future advent his third appearing, do labor under a great mistake. Here are not less than four instances during the forty days in which Christ is said to have appeared to his disciples. But it may be said that this does not meet the case, for (as claimed by these critics), Christ did not leave the earth between these appearings. Let us then try again. Several years after the ascension of Christ from the Mount of Olives, Saul, the Pharisee, was converted. Now it is twice expressly stated in the book of Acts, that Christ appeared to Saul on the way to Damascus. Thus we read: Acts ix, 17: "The Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest." See also verses 3-5. xxvi, 16: "I [Jesus] have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister." See also verses 12-15. Read also the express statement of Acts xxii, 14; 1 Cor. ix, 1; xv, 8. It is certain that Jesus did appear to Saul after his ascension. And yet Saul, afterward called Paul, does after this speak of the second appearing of Jesus. Nor is this all that should be said. It appears that in various forms the Son of God did manifest himself to his people in Old-Testament times, even before what is called his first appearing. Thus it is said that the captain (or as the margin has it, the prince,) of the Lord's host appeared to Joshua. Josh. v, 13-15. But this prince of the host we know from the book of Daniel to be Christ himself. Dan. viii, 11, 25; xi, 22; xii, 1. And this prince of the host, or Michael, did reveal himself to Daniel. See Dan. viii, 13-16; x, 10; xii, 1, 5, 6. Michael, or Christ, was here upon the earth to contend with the Devil concerning the body of Moses, and, it is reasonable to infer, to raise that body from the dead. Jude 9. And many other facts might be adduced to show that Christ did reveal himself to some of his people in Old-Testament days, and prior to his appearing once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. How, then, are we to understand the language of the Bible respecting his appearing the second time? It is evident, that if there be any difficulty here to solve, it does not all grow out of the interpretation of John xx, 17, proposed at the opening of this article. The difficulty, if there be one, pertains to all who believe the Bible. Yet there is really no difficulty only in the minds of those who desire to cavil. The two appearings of Jesus, of which Paul speaks, are his two public manifestations to the world of mankind. This is a reasonable explanation of the language, and with this interpretation of Paul's words, all difficulty in the case ceases to exist.