into which he knows he is to be cast. (2 Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9; John viii. 44; Matt. xxv. 41; 1 Peter v. 8; Luke viii. 31.) Surely then I am justified in saying of the being who presented himself before God in the book of Job that he "had once been a son of God, but was such no more." Unless Mr. Larritt is prepared to defend the view that Satan was an eternal principle of evil, I do not see how he can avoid agreeing with me. I must apologise for occupying so much of your time, but the importance of my subject must be my excuse. Faithfully yours, HENRY CONSTABLE. "SPIRITS IN PRISON." DEAR SIR,-I should be glad if you could find me space for two or three remarks upon Mr. Constable's able paper upon the " Spirits in Prison," contained in August number of the RAINBOW. There is an objection to Mr. Constable's theory which I have not seen touched upon by any of his critics. Mr. Constable considers these spirits to be a distinct order of beings from man-in fact, to have no affinity with man at all. His words are: "I hold, then, that the spirits in prison are not men at all, nor any part, however important, of human nature. The Apostle is referring to another order of beings, viz., to angels" (page 349). (The italics are mine.) "So now I think it is very plain who the 'spirits in prison' were to whom Christ went and preached. They were not men at all, or the spirits of men." . "The Apostle is not speaking of the human race" (page 357). Accepting, then, these statements of Mr. Constable's as correct, is it not clear that this difference of nature places these spirits beyond the pale of redemption, and consequently preaching the Gospel to them would be altogether vain? The essential feature of Christ's redemption is that man's deliverance could only be effected by the Saviour taking the identical nature of man. "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same," &c. "For, verily, He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." "As in Adam all die," &c. These passages seem to me to be fatal to Mr. Constable's hypothesis. The Bible knows of no redemption except for human beings-the fallen sons of Adam. Prove to me that these spirits "are not men at all, nor any part however important of human nature," then it necessarily follows they can have no part in Christ's redemption. Yours very truly, CHARLES Underhill. Woodbridge Lodge, Oxford. SPIRITS IN PRISON. DEAR SIR,-Any remarks of mine upon Mr. Constable's lucid paper would be superfluous, but I thought it might be interesting to some to know the reading of the Alexandrine text of Gen. vi. I give the reading of verses marked 2, 3, and 5 in the English copy of the Septuagint version. "And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the angels of God, having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the angels of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them; those were the giants of old, the men of renown." This requires no comment: it gives us a certain clue to a right understanding of Jude 6, 7, where the sin of the angels is plainly said to have been the going after other flesh, i.e. flesh of another order or nature. That it was to these fallen angels Christ went and preached after His resurrection I have not the slightest doubt. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, and in or by that Spirit (the Spirit of resurrection) He went and preached to the spirits in prison which were disobedient in the days of Noah. I am strongly inclined to believe that there is an allusion to this visit of Christ's to the angels in 1 Tim. iii. 16, where "He was seen of angels," is said to be part of the mystery of godliness. We know that Christ must have been seen by angels from his birth, and the very fact that the Apostle has included this among those events which constitute the whole mystery of Godliness is proof that some special manifestation of Himself is alluded to. Mr. Rotherham translates the passage thus: "And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifest in flesh was declared righteous in Spirit, appeared unto messengers, was proclaimed among Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." The whole of this is included in the mystery of godliness, it not having reference to the incarnation only. Why should not the glorious message of forgiveness of sins through the precious blood of THE PESHITO. SIR,-Quite agreeing with Mr. Holding in his estimate of the importance of the Peshito, allow me to adduce in confirmation thereof the testimony of the late Dr. Adler, Chief Rabbi of the London Synagogue. In an article in the Jewish Chronicle, against the system of proselytism, he says:-"If their desire is the promotion of the study of the Scriptures, we [the Jews] have the original Hebrew, and if we want to read what is called the New Testament, there is the Peshito," showing that he-no mean authority-placed it in far greater importance than our Greek copies, in which there are such divergent readings. My own opinion has long been that the Greek language could never express the full, rich ideas that filled the minds of the Apostles, trained as they were from childhood in their native Aramæan, or colloquial Hebrew. Hence we have the [as to idea] empty, barren word soc, a noun of singular number, given as an equivalent for the superlatively expressive Hebrew, a noun of plurality, and which I prefer to translate, THE LOVING ONES, taking the root to be, and not as לה is usually given But I would ask in critique of Mr. Holding's article in your September number, pp. 386-7, what ground he has for the assertion he makes respecting the Evangelist and Apostle Matthew being a brother to Thaddeus or to James the Less, or of his being a son of Alphæus? Notwithstanding the headings to Mark ii. and Luke v. in our New Testament, I believe with John Bunyan that Matthew and Levi were two different publicans, and that Matt. ix. 9 and Luke v. 27 refer to two different circumstances that took place, very nearly at the same time and place. That Levi and James the Less are identical, I think, will scarcely be questioned by any careful student of the New Testament; but nowhere is Matthew said to be a son of Alphæus, and if Matthew be identified with Levi, who is expressly said to be a son of Alphæus and identified with James the Less, the number of the Apostles must be reduced to eleven ; whereas we know there were twelve, and Matthew and James (or Levi), the son of Alphæus, are mentioned (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 14-16; Acts i. 13) as two distinct persons. I would at the same time point out what is often lost sight of in this matter of kinship with our Lord, viz., that in John xix. 25, the marginal reading of our English version is the proper one, i.e., Clopas, instead of Cleophas. Clopas (says Dr. Richardson) "is strictly a Greek form of a Hebrew name [b], which is elsewhere represented as Alphæus. The Cleopas of Luke xxiv. 18 is a different name of regular Greek derivation, and belongs to a different person." That Judas (not Iscariot), i.e. Thaddeus or Lebbæus, was also a son of Alphæus is-at least, I submit so-open to question, inasmuch as he is always termed the brother of James (the Less), but never called the son of Alphæus, or linked with James as such, as James and John, the sons of Zebedee, are. think it safer to state him as being half-brother to James (the Less)— a son of Mary, the wife of Alphæus I or Clopas-and first cousin to our Lord, but not a son of Alphæus. If this be correct, it will, of course, modify Mr. Holding's article, but in no way detract from the validity or importance of the Peshito, a copy of which and its translation I should rejoice to possess. Trusting that what I have said will not be looked upon as carping criticism, allow me to remain, dear Sir, yours very truly, Stoke Newington, N. Literature. ישוב Notes and Extracts on Everlasting Punishment and Eternal Life; according to Literal Interpretation. By Mrs. Maclachlan (of Maclachlan). London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. WE are right glad that this talented lady sees the truth and has the courage to avow it. This handbook will prove not the least useful of her works. Her selected motto, thus printed-"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"-reveals the nature of the book, and shows once more that the literal interpretation is the true one. The Midnight Cry Is the striking title of a very earnest pamphlet, which, if distributed among the thoughtless and careless who profess the Christian name whilst knowing very little about the Scriptures, might do much good. This tract is worth a thousand of the ordinary religious tracts,-so called, -and we hope the publisher, Mr. Guest, Warwick Lane, will receive large orders for it. The price is one penny; but, of course, quantities may be had much lower. THE RAINBOW: 3 Magazine of Christian Literature, with Special Reference to the Revealed Future of the Church and the World. NOVEMBER, 1879. THE JERUSALEM IN HISTORY AND PROPHECY. HE significance of the name of this famous city-" Dwelling of Peace "-demands a future to justify it. God, the Maker and owner of the world, has chosen the hill of Zion as the site of the world's metropolis, and no rivalry of other hills will induce Him to alter His mind. "Why leap ye, ye high hills? this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever (Ps. lxviii. 16). "The Lord hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it" (cxxxii. 13, 14). "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. God is known in her palaces for a refuge " (xlviii. 1-3). About these Scriptures there can be no mistake, and there are many others of similar import. Zion, Jerusalem, the city, and its palaces to "spiritualise" these names, as if by some metaphorical mysticism they mean certain-or rather un-certain-aspects of the Christian Church, is to trifle with the word of truth, and to cheat human intelligence of precious information. Leave this verbal jugglery to pagan oracles, and sternly forbid it to cross the threshold of the Divine temple! The living God does not "peep and mutter" like the impostors of necromancy, but speaks with clearness that men may understand. We shall give an exceedingly condensed history of the city of Jerusalem before we glance at its promised future. It was a city of the Amorites called "Jebus," on the north of Judah, but counted to Benjamin. It is fifteen miles from the Jordan and Salt Sea, and thirty-one from the Mediterranean. It was built on four hills Zion, Acra, Moriah, and Bezetha. It was surrounded on the east, west, and south by a valley, which was environed with hills. It had three walls with towers, and was about four and a In half miles in circumference. It was first taken by Judah (Judg. i. 8), but only in part (ver. 21), and finally by David, B.c. 1049 (2 Sam. v. 6, 7). During 1011-1004 its temple was built. 970 it was plundered by Shishak; and in 884 by the Philistines and Arabs in the days of Jehoram; in 808 by the Israelites; in 710 besieged by Sennacherib; in 610 taken by Pharaoh-Necho; in 598 plundered by Nebuchadnezzar; in 588 rebelled against him; in 587 the temple was burnt; in 538 Cyrus encourages its rebuilding; in 515 it is dedicated; in 445 Nehemiah rebuilds the wall; in 330 it is visited by Alexander the Great; in 320 captured by Ptolemy Soter; in 300 annexed to Egypt; in 170 its walls razed by Antiochus Epiphanes; in 63 taken by Pompey; in 44 its walls rebuilt by Antipater, father of Herod the Great; on September 8, A.D. 70, it was destroyed by the Romans; in 130 rebuilt by Hadrian; in 335 Constantine founded the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; in 614 taken by the Persians; in 637 by the Saracens ; in 1076 by the Turks; in 1098 assigned to Egypt; in 1099 taken by the Crusaders; in 1187 by Saladin; in 1228 assigned to the Christians; in 1243 taken by the Carizmians; in 1517 by the Ottomans; in 1832 assigned to Egypt; and in 1841 to Turkey. But this city which has endured so many sieges-this city whose history casts the most extravagant romance into the shade-this city which killed the prophets, and filled up the measure of its iniquities by slaying the Prince of Life-this marvellous city, we say, must have a future to justify its name. "Salem "-peace! The epitome of its history just given is not remarkably suggestive of peace. The fiercest wars that ever raged have been in connection with Jerusalem. The so-called "Eastern Question," which has perplexed Europe for many years, and caused enormous destruction of men and money, is related to it, though politicians may be ignorant of the fact; and the day comes apace when the impressive prediction of Zechariah will be fulfilled: "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people that are round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people; all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it" (xii. 2, 3). The "vision of peace" in relation to the city of the Lord will become, must become, a realised fact; but that can only be by the coming to it of the Prince of Peace, when men will give it the grand name of "Jehovah-shammah "-"The Lord is there." (Ezekiel's last word.) On this divinely joyous theme the prophets were moved to speak from time to time; for the Lord means to rescue His city and land, to restore His people Israel, and to send blessings to the utmost limits of the earth, from the metropolis of His dominions. Thus: "At that time they shall call Jerusalem The Throne of the |