*While this article reaches us as a contribution for our pages from one end of the earth, a question on the same subject comes from another end. This made it manifest to the Editor that there is a stir on the subject, and he therefore put the question above mentioned to several brethren whose minds are much in the word of God, and who live in different places. Their answers are given in full in the "Answers to Correspondents." The Scripture says, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge." A brotherly examination of any questioned truth of Scripture can do us all but good, even though, as the present one, it be of minor import. Editor.*

To the above question there seems to be various answers. It is not so many years ago there would have been but one; students of the Word would have replied at once-the Church. Today, other answers being given, it becomes us to know what Scripture teaches on the subject, for it, and it alone speaks with authority and settles the question; and until we have learned for ourselves what it teaches we shall be affected more or less by the various conflicting statements that are advanced by one and another today.

It has been taught by some that Israel is the Bride. One or two passages of Scripture will, I trust, clear the minds of any who are subject to the Word. I will also quote the words of another which puts the matter in a clear and concise way. "The Bride is 'the Bride of the Lamb,' not the Bride of Jehovah, though He who is the Lamb is Jehovah. Both Israel and Jerusalem are viewed as the wife of Jehovah. He being a Husband to both of them, though for a time, because of their sins, they had been cast off. (See for Israel Hos. 1:, 2:; and for Jerusalem Isa. 54:5.) The term Bride, too, necessarily suggests to us a relation to the Bridegroom very different from that of a divorced or cast off woman, with whom her husband resumes nuptial relations. In this last case, of course, they have been interrupted, broken off; in the former they never existed. Now what Jerusalem's relations were with Jehovah, and what Israel's were likewise, the prophets have told us (Ezek. 16:, and Hos. 2:2). The Bride never was in such a relation to the Lamb, and never will be to Jehovah."

Again, " The marriage of the Lamb takes place in heaven (Rev. 19:6-9); the renewal of nuptial relations with Jehovah and Israel takes place on earth. Israel will not be a bride; the Church is not a wife for a time cast off."* *From article on "The Bride of the Lamb" by the late C. E. Stuart " Words in Season " Vol. 3.* Several other points of difference might be noticed, but this clear distinction will surely satisfy any subject mind.

Others there are who teach that all the heavenly saints form the Bride. That is, Old Testament saints, the Church, and those saints martyred after the Church is gone; making up the companies mentioned in Rev. 20:4 Now there are two words translated " lamb" in the New Testament and applied as titles to the Lord Jesus. "Amnos" is a title connected only with the past, and occurs but four times in that part of Scripture. John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32 ; and i Pet. 1:19. It was given to the Lord Jesus on earth and connected with earth, and relates to sacrifice, dealing with sin, and redemption by blood. He was the Amnos for God and for us; but as such He has no bride. Jesus was alone as the sacrificial Lamb, and it is important to remember this.

But there is another word translated Lamb- " Arnion "-a title of the future. It occurs twenty-nine times in the book of Revelation, and is found no where else. It means a little lamb-a lambkin; and denotes insignificance and rejection; not the thought of the Lamb for the altar, but the rejected Lamb-now raised to the throne, and kingdom, and glory. The world-rejected One, despised and slain, is there seen in the highest heaven, given the highest place in glory, and a kingdom and a Bride, in connection with the world to come-the Millennium-in answer to His rejection and shame.

The present is the time of His rejection, while He is on high. The present is likewise the time that His Bride is being brought, blessed, and fitted to be His wife hereafter. Here it is she shares His rejection, as there she will share His glory. Now such a place and portion, I judge, could not correctly be attributed to saints of a past dispensation. We could not speak of them as associated with Him as the Lamb; nor could we speak of them as the objects of Christ's present, unceasing love and devotion as His espoused Bride, in order to fit them for the position of wife hereafter (Eph. 5:). It will not fit with the general tenor and teaching of the New Testament on the subject.

It is well to remember that Paul in his ministry in connection with the Church as the espoused chaste virgin (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:), presents her as being fitted here in order to be presented there. He takes the Church up to heaven. John, on the other hand brings her down and presents her in her displayed beauty and glory to the world in the character of the holy city. He does not, however, see her in her relations to the Bridegroom, nor does he describe the marriage; none are permitted to do that. That is a sight reserved wholly for those who are in heaven. He describes her as she is seen coming down from God out of heaven. She must therefore have been taken up previously. It is the same blessed Person, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the same Bride in each case, only spoken of in keeping with the ministry of each of these apostles. We do not therefore expect to find in Paul's epistles the Lord set forth as the Lamb (Arnion), nor the Church spoken of as His Bride. At the same time we do find teaching about the Bride as the Bride of Christ, though the word Bride is not used:as likewise the Bridegroom is supposed, though not mentioned. But are we to reject the truth because of the absence of the words? If so, we shall find ourselves compelled to reject some foundation truths for the same reason; a thing for which I think, none are prepared.

We read " Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it." That does not include Old Testament saints. It is the Church. Not even the individuals who form it are here viewed as the objects of His love (though each one can say, "He loved me and gave Himself for me"). It is the whole Church- the concrete idea, and the Church exclusively. And what is the actual state of the Church that He has set His affections on and given Himself for? Is she suitable to Him? Does she answer to the desires of His heart concerning her? Is she fit to take her place as His wife? Far from it. There is a moral
fitness and an education so to speak, required for the position she is destined to occupy as the Bride of Christ; hence the need of His present ministry and service.

Objection has been taken to the use of the term "Bride of Christ" because of the absence of the words. But what have we here? It is Christ who loved the Church and gave Himself for it. It is Christ who is sanctifying and cleansing it. It is Christ who is going to present it to Himself, a glorious, unspotted, unwrinkled Church, holy and without blemish. Are we then to reject the truth because of the absence of the word? Why is the figure of husband and wife used here, if bridal relationship is not contemplated in the "presenting her to Himself "in the future? Why the evident reference to Adam when Eve was brought to him? It is not the truth of the one body that is in view. The Lord does not present His own body to Himself. In that character it is part of Himself. A man does not marry his own body; nor is a man's wife his body:though he ought to love her as his own body. If this does not teach that the Church is the Bride of Christ, what can it mean? And if it does, then it excludes all others, for none others can have a place in the Church, and therefore cannot form part of the Bride.

At present she is viewed as espoused to Him as a chaste virgin (2 Cor. 11:2); not yet seen as ready, but being made ready; and made so by Himself, and for Himself; the joy of doing it a joy peculiarly His own, as the joy of anticipation of the marriage day- the day of presentation to Himself must be likewise specially His own. As before noted, we do not expect to read here of " the Bride, the Lamb's wife; " that is a title of the future, taught only by John and connected with earthly display:"whereas, as the Bride of Christ it is wholly what she is to Him now and for Him in heaven and taught by Paul. Not that there are two Brides. No, it is one Bride; and He who is the Christ of the present is the Lamb of the future.

Yes,' it is Christ and His Bride the Church:she in her subjection now:He in His faithful love, cleansing and fitting her for the nuptial day. Then in the day of display to earth, it will be as 'the Bride, the Lamb's wife" she will come forth. That is, the rejected One with the Bride who shared His rejection are seen together, satisfied. Then descending to earth, decked and dowered for display to earth, she will be seen in all her splendor and glory as the holy city New Jerusalem. Mark, not the heavenly Jerusalem.* *All the heavenly saints are on the burgess roll and belong to the latter. Only the Church of God compose the former.* How could these things be true of, or applicable to any other saints than the Church? Impossible! It is not a question of setting aside, or depriving Old Testament saints of blessing; God will see to it that they lose nothing; but the place that He has given the Church according to His eternal counsels, and in His ways as revealed in His Word.

Then again in the words of another, "The false bride-the harlot (Rev. 17:, 18:)-is surely the harlot of this Christian period, not a Jewish adulteress; and if she be the Christian harlot, then the true Bride must be the chaste Christian woman, or there would be no contrast; for what is the false fornicating Christendom a travesty of, save of the pure Church of God that shall come out of the awful defection as "the Bride, the Lamb's wife." And surely , this witness is true. For if the saints of the past dispensation do form part of the Bride, it certainly seems incredible that for 4000 years or so, Satan should have no counterfeit of her on earth, and only begin when the Church is on the scene. In fact it is so opposed to the ways of the enemy in his hatred and opposition to all the ways and truth of God, that one fact alone would almost settle the question.

Then we might ask again, can such language be applicable to heavenly saints after the Church is gone? From what has passed before us we are compelled to say no, it cannot be; they form no part of the Bride any more than saints of the past dispensation. They partake in the first resurrection and live and reign with Christ as do all the heavenly saints (Rev. 20:4). They are not, however, "partakers of the heavenly calling:" neither were Old Testament saints before them. They, like them, have an earthly calling, and because of their faithfulness they are slain, and obtain heaven instead of earth. They are not losers in being slain, but gainers; hence we read, "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth" (Rev. 14:13). They lose earth but gain heaven.

There is one company, however, that some might feel inclined to look upon as part of the Bride because it says of them, "These are they that follow the Lamb (Arnion) withersoever He goeth " (Rev. 14:4). But it will be observed these are a company on earth, who pass through the awful horrors of that time of tribulation and are blessed with the Lamb on Mount Zion. They are not a company of heavenly saints. It is therefore evident they cannot form part of the Bride.

The more we examine the language used in Scripture and its connection, the more we see that the expression, "The Bride, the Lamb's wife is only applicable to the Church and excludes all others It
does not deprive others of heavenly blessing, or sharing in the reign with Christ; but they have not
that place of nearness to the Lamb as His Bride. Blessed indeed are those who are "called to the
saints form the Bride? Where do these come from? We can hardly apply such language to the angels. Would it not rather be spoken to and of those possessed of a like nature, and like feelings, and in a like position with ourselves as saved by grace, but who are not the Bride, though invited to share in The joy at the wedding feast? Such invited guests, I should judge, can only be the heavenly saints who do not form the Church" the Bride, the Lambs wife."

The Lord give our hearts to apprehend more clearly the wonderful place and blessing that is ours in Christ according to His eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ before the world began, so that we may be formed by it here, while we wait His return to take us there to enjoy it in its fulness and perfection forever, and as "the Bride, the Lamb s wife. Wm. Easton

New Zealand