565 and he says of one of them which, "from the beginning of the world had been hid in God," that it was so hid, "to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." The mystery before us must have been known to these principalities and powers from the creation, but is only now made known to the Church and the world. We may notice in the Word of God that He is in no haste to develope His mysteries; they are evolved very slowly to the wondering and admiring eyes of His creatures; accordingly this "mystery" has been nearly 6,000 years "hid," and He has employed science as the handmaid for its elucidation. When the discoverer of Saturn's rings was expressing his delight and admiration at what he had seen, some one made a remark about the probable length of time that would elapse before his discovery would be either much known or appreciated, and he replied, "If God has waited 6,000 years for a witness of this wondrous work, surely I can wait a century, or a century and a-half for the acceptance of the fact I have now witnessed," or words to that effect. But the letter proceeds: "Also agreeing fully and firmly that the days are literal days, I do not think your argument from Adam's age would hold against those who make them periods, for they might conceive that his creation was at the close of the long sixth day, and Miller and others hold that all human time is the seventh day of God's rest, and now in progress." I have not Miller's book, but, as far as I can remember, he only takes four or five long periods or days, and then says that they are all he wanted as a geologist. I know I thought at the time that it was a good thing for his theory that he required no more; for if the sixth and seventh days were of incalculable duration, he would have been encumbered with the human element before mentioned, and I should have been curious to see how he would have treated it. However, I gather from the letter before me that the seventh day is cut off by Miller from the series of days that preceded it, because the writer says that "Miller and others hold that all human time is the seventh day of God's rest, and now in progress." This is certainly a way of escaping the difficulty, and I am much obliged to the kindness which has informed one of it. But it seems the only way, and for this reason it was probably chosen. However, it does not in any manner bring to my mind a conviction of its propriety, and as the writer of the letter agrees "that the days," i.e., I presume, the seven days, were literal days," this solution cannot be supposed to be satisfactory to him. With respect to "God's rest," I have not particularly looked into the question, but can hardly think that all human time is intended by it, as 4,000 years after its commencement our Saviour said, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." Dec. 1, 1 COMING! "What I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch." Mark xiii. 37. "At even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning." "Ir may be in the evening, When the work of the day is done, While the long bright day dies slowly And the hour grows quiet and holy While you hear the village children By the light of the evening star, Let the door be on the latch In your home, Dec. 1, 1865. "It may be in the morning When the waves are laughing loudly And the little birds are singing sweetly With the long day's work before you And the neighbours come to talk a little But remember that I may be the next To call you from your busy work As you work your heart must watch, So He passed down my cottage garden, Lean over and arch the way; There I saw Him a moment stay, Though I crushed them, and let them fall, Only looking down the pathway, And looking towards the sea, And wondering, and wondering When He would come back for me, Till I was aware of an Angel With the gladness of one who goeth He passed the end of the cottage (I suppose he was come down To comfort some one in the village, And the likeness of a smile RAINBOW B. M. QUERIES. "Eminent amongst the grounds of usefulness and thankworthiness of the RAINBOW is this-that its columns are open to the inquiries of earnest students of the Word and to the endeavours to solve them. Deeply and extensively prized will be this furtherance afforded for the inciting of attention to the Scriptures and for the diffusion of Scriptural knowledge. I ask the consideration of the well-instructed in Holy Writ of the following passages:1. Numbers ix., with Joshua v. The Passover was observed in the wilderness, but Circumcision was not observed. Why and How? See Heb. x. 22. "Bodies washed with pure water." Meaning? [Ex. xii. 48.] 2. And Rev. i. 5. “Washed in blood." Rev. vii. 14. "Washed their robes,” and further, "Washed in the blood." And 1 Cor. vi. 2. Acts xxii. 16. Ephes. v. 26, Tit. iii. 5. Washing in blood, and Washing of regeneration, and Washing away of sins cannot signify Sanctification: what then? And "washed with pure water:"-if this may be interpreted by Num. xix. 9, 17-19, as exemplified in Num. viii. 7, and xxxi. 23-what a rich doctrine is taught! 3. Ex. xvii., xviii., xxxii. 17, and xxxiv. 13; 1 Kings v. 1. Are not Hur, Jethro, Joshua (as the servant of Moses, and Hiram), representative persons? of whom respectively representative? 4. 2 Cor. v. 2. Our house from heaven." What is meant? 5. Heb. x. 20. Why is Christ's flesh called the veil? The veil was a barrier against man's entrance into the Holiest. "LELOUMENOS." D. M. desires to be kindly informed by the students of prophecy, whether in the 22nd Isaiah, it is considered that Shebna may be regarded as foreshadowing Antichrist, as Eliakim does the Lord Jesus? and if so, whether the last verse may not refer to Him? Surely He, of whom the Lord says, "I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place," &c., verse 23rd, can never "be cut down and fall." (v. 25.) Dec. 1, 1855. CORRESPONDENCE. 569 Correspondence. The Editor wishes it to be distinctly understood that he is not responsible for the sentiments of his correspondents. In every case, also, name and address are required, not necessarily for publication, but as a proof of good faith.] "THE KINGDOM" AN ELEMENT not possibly preach Christ crucified beOF "THE GOSPEL." fore that time. We ask again, then, DEAR SIR,-I perceive some of your what was the gospel which was correspondents seriously object to the preached? The answer from the narraidea of belief in the coming kingdom of tives of the evangelists is the gospel God being an element of the Gospel of of the kingdom of God. That was salvation, Will you kindly permit me most indisputably the gospel Jesus (without entering into discussion with preached, and concerning which Ho any one) a few words upon this sub- said to the people of Capernium, "I ject? The importance of the question must preach the kingdom of God to -What is the gospel? will be excuse other cities also, for therefore am I enough for further reference to the sent." (Luke iv. 43.) I would be ocsubject. Leaving out of view at pre-cupying your space needlessly to quote sent, the death of Christ and other a single passage further to show what matters which are universally deemed gospel was preached. I refer the essentials in saving faith, I will con- reader to a concordance for a multifine my remarks to the inquiry, plicity of corroborative testimony. Whether or not the Kingdom is to be And what the Master taught so did the classed with these as a fundamental disciple, for when He sent out the truth? The Scriptures, in their simple twelve, He sent them to preach the and obvious sense, shall be the only kingdom of God, and to heal the sick." standard of appeal. From all this it is plain that the kingJesus and His apostles, it will readily dom was once, not only an essential be conceded, preached the gospel. element of the gospel, but the greatest When the Great Master went about and most marked of its doctrines. It Palestine teaching and preaching in is singular to find it so, and at the the synagogues, or by the wayside, He same time to suppose that it now did not merely give moral instruction forms no part thereof. But is it so? to the people, but He also proclaimed a Did the kingdom cease to be preached gospel by the belief of which His as a gospel truth after Christ died, or hearers might be saved. I think no at any time during the lives of His voice will question this. Well, what apostles? On referring again to the was this gospel about? for let it be re- divine word, we are assured as fully as membered it contained no preaching of before, that it did not. That it should the cross then, that the gospel did not continue to be preached till all nations then embrace the death of Jesus is in all the world had heard it Jesus abundantly manifest. It had not taken Himself declared. (Matt. xxiv. 14.) place, and we do not find Him making "For this gospel of the kingdom shall it publicly known as something which be preached in all the world for a witshould happen. Above all, His apos-ness unto all nations, and then shall tles were ignorant of it, and apparently the end come." Let it even be asaverse to know anything about it. Indeed it was not till after Jesus had risen from the dead that they recognised the meaning of his death when He rebuked them for slowness of heart in believing that Christ ought to have suffered. It is thus evident they could sumed that this end came at the destruction of Jerusalem, that was about forty years afterwards, why should it cease then to be preached? Certain it is, that Paul and his co-labourers in the gospel sets it in a place of honour among the things most surely believed. |