p426 [R T Grant] BELOVED BROTHER, - Your letter has been by me some time, because I have been excessively occupied in Scotland, seeking to finish things off in London to be ready to go to America - having first visited Ireland, where there is a great deal of inquiry, and, thank God, progress. I was very glad indeed to get accounts of the beloved brethren, as I always am. …

I turn now to the heavenly Jerusalem. The subject is not new to me, and I have had to deal with it with some of the free evangelists and their pupils here, so I have looked at it again. All such researches, carried on lowlily and with reverence for the word, only bring out fuller truth. But all the consideration I have been able to give it has only confirmed me in the conviction that it is the church, but in Revelation not in its highest character. As to the word "Lamb," I think its use in Revelation is to shew that the suffering and rejected One on earth is the mighty and reigning One, and not redemption, in our sense of it. "Salvation to our God … and unto the Lamb" is a proof, where used, that it is not the church. Those who appeared on mount Zion were the first-fruits to God and the Lamb: they were on earth. (Chap. 14.) So the immense multitude of chapter 7 ascribe salvation to God and the Lamb: they are millennial names. Only the heavenly Jerusalem has the nearest relationship to the Lamb at that time; it is His wife. It is not therefore a name of general redemption, but of the millennial Position of the suffering and rejected One: hence they dread "the wrath of the Lamb."

The question therefore is, what is it which is in this closest relationship? What is it that is His bride? I do not deny that there is only comparison or figure in Ephesians 5, but figure of what? Surely of being made "one flesh." I cannot here separate the bride or wife and the one body. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church: "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Surely here the line of thought is the perfect analogy of wife and church. This He is going to present to Himself. Then, "Men ought to love their wives as their bodies;" "he that loves his wife, loves himself:" she is one with him; "no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones": but this is union with the wife - "and they twain shall be one flesh." You will say, But this is of the man and his wife. No; it is a "mystery; I speak concerning Christ and the church." I do not see how the wife, body and church can be separated here. The object is to shew that the wife is one flesh, cared for by Christ as a man does his own flesh, and that this as "a great mystery" refers to the church. I see two distinct parts in this: first, the general view; Christ gives Himself for the church, sanctifies it, and presents it to Himself - here we have the whole referring evidently to Genesis 2:21-22; only redemption and sanctification, not creation liable to failure. The second part, the present case, when the church is in infirmity; Ephesians 5:29-31, referring to the verses which follow in Genesis. I am quite unable to see how the church, body and wife, are not by union made the same here, though treated abstractedly in relationship, and not historically. We must remember that "head over all things" is not simply the kingdom. I quote 2 Corinthians 11:2 only to shew that the thought and image was familiar to the apostle, as the relationship in which the church stood, only the marriage here not yet come.

I get then in Revelation the bride, the Lamb's wife, described in contrast with the corrupt Rome, Babylon, the idolatrous harlot. Now I can understand the earthly Jerusalem, the King's wife, being opposed to this on earth, but I find no scripture recognising anything in this relationship but the church: no husband known before Christ (save Jehovah and Israel). Where the wife is not in question, I find them still characteristically contrasted in heaven, as in Hebrews 12:23 and 11:40. I admit that the heavenly Jerusalem is a comparatively vague term, contrasted with the earthly Jerusalem as the capital of heavenly power; but I find no use of bride and wife in the New Testament in any sense but the church. When I come to the end of Revelation, and the present relationship of the church is in question, as at the beginning; I find (chap. 22:17) "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." It is not the revealing prophetic part - the book itself; and I know not what expects Him thus but the church. Verse 16 shews it is a present thing. I remember Bellett's having an idea that the marriage was put off to let in the saints of the beast's time to have a place in this, but he gave it up: this would not reach the ground you take. And though the Lamb is the Redeemer of all, it is as the actually rejected One He is here seen, as I am persuaded; and the separation of the body and the bride, though the relationship be twofold, seems to dissolve the force of Ephesians 5, which teaches me He reckons the wife as a man does his own flesh. The contrast with Babylon makes Revelation 19 confirmatory to me, otherwise it is the thing to be inquired into, not the proof of what it is. The other view is at best a deduction and conclusion. There is no evidence of anything being called bride or wife but the church; but I am glad to hear anything. I think the sense of relationship important, and hence should search carefully into the proof of this one when in question. Omitting "of them that are saved" (Rev. 21:24) only makes it clearer. I always applied it to those that were spared in the judgments, but it is much simpler without it.

As regards 1 John 1:7, like all his writings, it is abstract; not "has cleansed," or "will cleanse," but "cleanses": it is its value and nature. So verse 9: when a man confesses his sins truly before God on his first conversion, he is forgiven. If I do so (in another way no doubt) as to a Father, when I am a Christian, I am forgiven - as regards the ways and government of God, I am forgiven. To "say that we have no sin" (ver. 8) is ignorance of myself: "If we say that we have not sinned" (ver. 10) is plain denial of God's testimony, but "have not" is past, we are not supposed to be sinning. "We have no sin" is present, because it is a nature in me which the truth makes me know.

I have written in a number of times, being excessively occupied; much movement, constant inquiry, of course great opposition, but progress, and several added, some having had to give up at present everything: great effort to keep up loose principles, but the conscientious and zealous delivered, a very great many; and now they have settled tighter ones on dissenting principles, to try and keep them - not Bethesda, but a place set up, a kind of fruit of reservation on purpose to leave a kind of free preaching, and then broke bread there. It is the last place whose influence I should think healthful, but brought many out of the Establishment, because they are bound to nothing; but those who felt for the Lord's glory at His table are out: of course, they are very angry, but there has been distinct blessing and progress. But I have been incessantly occupied; the work very fatiguing, wearing by adverse subtle questions sometimes, but interesting, and, thank God, the Lord with me. I have been very peaceful through it, and feel His hand and approbation, but am as to my body worn, from six to past twelve never ceasing. It is all moving, so that I could hardly tell you what is going on in detail, but great truths are making way, and many consciences have.

Ever, beloved brother, affectionately yours

In our blessed Master.

Dublin, 1866.

[51261E]