Turning to the first printed
page of the Scofield Reference Bible, I find, besides the name of the Editor,
the names of seven men who assisted him outstandingly in the preparation of the
work.

 

One is listed as President of
Crozer Theological Seminary. I am not positive as to its denominational
identification but think it is Baptist or Congregational. Another is identified
as Professor in a United Presbyterian Seminary. Mr. Erdman was a Presbyterian
if I understand correctly. Mr. Pierson was once pastor of Spurgeon’s Tabernacle
(Baptist) in London I am informed. Mr. Gray was a Reformed Episcopalian when
last he talked with me about it. Mr. Gaebelein left Methodism many years ago
and is known as independent. Mr. Scofield was at one time a Congregationalist
and later changed to Presbyterianism if I am correctly informed.

 

These men labored together to
perfect "helps" which would lead to a comprehensive understanding of
the scope and bearing of divine revelation for practical and intelligent use.
When they finished these labors, they were not united. No word indicates that
their studying together led any of them to leave his "division of the
church" because he found the Church was "one body."

 

Can it be thought that the Word
of God divided these men thus? Did they have "the whole teaching of
Scripture" on the assembly? Did the truth make one a Reformed
Episcopalian, another a United Presbyterian, another an independent? Yet, they
unblushingly advertise that, when they have completed their labors and are
prepared to send forth their contribution to the study and intelligent use of
the Bible, they are thus separated from each other. How could they teach
assembly truth? It would condemn each and all of them.

 

Let me now take up their notes
and summaries and follow them out carefully to their conclusion. Will they lead
me to walk with Mr. Gray among the Reformed Episcopalians or with Mr. Moorehead
among those who sing only the Psalms? Which one of these men shall we follow?

 

A "reference" edition
of the Bible with notes, summaries, etc., prepared before the first
advent of the Lord—could we conceive of such—would not be responsible to
identify a Christian path, though it would be expected to prescribe for the
walk of a Jewish remnant. The word "church" would not come into a
place of prominence therein. Had such a labor been undertaken during the first
decade of the nineteenth century by men whose ecclesiastical connections were
so varied and representative, we should not be surprised to find them
reflecting the habits of their times as to denominations, membership in local
churches, organizations, etc. For what testimony was there
otherwise—except Scripture itself?

 

But after over 75 years of
public testimony to the truth that "there is one body" and
that in contrast with all sectarianism and every shade of independency, it
seems inexcusable that readers should be left without a hint that there is a
Scriptural path in which to walk in ecclesiastical relations, and then rather
compelled to decide—if exercised at all about it—which one of the producers of
these "helps" is in the right associations, since they are separate
from each other.

 

Is it reasonable to suppose that
these readers, who are in need of these "helps" "to facilitate
the study and intelligent use of the Bible," are at the same time so far
in advance of the authors of those same "helps" as to reject the
unscriptural paths in which these men walk after summarizing for their readers
"the whole teaching of Scripture" about the matter, and themselves
walk in the unity as to which these "helps" are silent and their
authors outside?

 

It is as connected with, and
holding influential positions in, these various societies, that these men are
presented to us— not merely by their names. The societies, as such, are brought
before us, and, of course, favorably.

 

I read one of these
"notes," let us suppose, and it gives me information beyond anything
I had ever known before. I will go where these men are who prepared it.

 

I will take Mr. Gray, first:
well, he is in the Reformed Episcopal society. Then, since these
"helps" present the "whole teaching" of God on the subject,
it follows that the men who prepared them must be where that teaching puts
saints; otherwise the very notes would condemn them. Therefore, Scripture
teaches that the Reformed Episcopal Church is what God set up from the
beginning; I ought to join it, for they receive such "joiners" and
all ought to join it, because it is Scriptural; it is what the Bible requires;
it is the place in which the Bible is to be intelligently used. Alas! Mr.
Scofield does not belong to it, nor does Mr. Moorehead, nor Mr. Gaebelein, nor,
so far as I know, any of the others mentioned on the first page.

 

What shall I do? What is the
path? These men are in different denominations. Each denomination is separate
from the others. If I join one, I am thereby not in the others. These men unite
in presenting to me "the whole teaching" of Scripture about the
church, yet they immediately separate when it comes to carrying out the teaching.
I am unable to walk with the eight of them, however I try, because they do not
walk together. They agree as to the teaching, yet are apart from each other
ecclesiastically.

 

No one of them would, I suppose
(how could he?) urge me not to join the church where one of the others is
found. They all move in the realm where, however desirous men may be of
building up their own establishments numerically and financially, they feel it
needful to put the soft pedal on this line of things and agree to the formula:
"Join the church of your choice."

 

It would be supposed, I judge,
that men who are able to present "the whole teaching of Scripture" on
the matter, have "joined" not without exercise of conscience. So
that, for example, to Mr. Gray the Reformed Episcopal represents that teaching;
to Mr. Moorehead the United Presbyterian does, though to Mr. Gaebelein, none of
them do. I confess I am unable to see anything "intelligent" in such
a confusion.

 

If the Scofield Bible is not
intended to give us help along this line—it is surely one of the "hard
places"—then I must look for guidance as to ecclesiastical associations
somewhere outside "the whole teaching of Scripture." Had the editor
frankly said:"In all the helps herein offered, it is assumed that
denominationalism, interdenominationalism, and independency are matters of
indifference; we do not touch these questions; we avoid dealing with the
Scripture passages which present them; we do not attempt the whole teaching of
Scripture; we find it convenient to take the ground that this is a matter about
which no certainty exists; look elsewhere for help along this line"; that
would have been very different.

 

But when the claim is that the
ground is covered thoroughly at the same time that the authors are themselves
thus hopelessly confused and alienated practically, regarding a question which
each one must face and decide, it is, to say the least, discouraging.

 

The practical bearing of it all
is the inescapable inference that there is no Scripture teaching which
regulates the matter authoritatively. The subject of ecclesiastical
associations, then, is one on which Scripture does not pronounce! We may not
know the mind of God about it, and need not; He will be satisfied with our
"choice"! The presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is granted to one and
another, but without uniting them! The Spirit presides, leads, energizes in
societies that are independent of each other, contrary to each other, rivals of
one another! If there were such teaching, it would condemn these men for being
thus divided.

 

The "Scofield" note on
page 1252 says of the Apostle Paul, "In his writings alone we find the
doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Church." Such being the
case—and I acknowledge it as true—one wonders in what chapter of Paul’s writings
we would find the doctrine, position, walk, or destiny of the United
Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian, the Reformed Episcopal, or any of the
others from among which the newly converted are to "choose."

 

For surely, if Mr. Gray chose
one, Mr. Moorehead another, Mr. Erdman still another, and Mr. Gaebelein
otherwise than they all, the right to choose is thus a part of the program of
which the Scofield Reference Edition is a feature.

 

Referring again to page 1257, we
are told:"A local church is an assembly of professed believers on the
Lord Jesus Christ, living for the most part in one locality, who assemble
themselves together in His name for the breaking of bread, worship, praise,
prayer, testimony, the ministry of the Word, discipline, and the furtherance of
the Gospel (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 14:26; 1 Cor. 5:4,5; Phil. 4:14-18; 1
Thess. 1:8; Acts 13:1-4). Such a church exists where two or three are thus
gathered (Matt. 18:20). Every such local church has Christ in the midst, is a temple of Go d, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16, 17)."

 

This is, I judge, a
"definition." These definitions have been approved by suitable
representatives of "all the evangelical bodies," we are told in the
"Introduction." I suppose, then, that this definition identifies the
local churches of all these evangelical bodies, for surely they are not
defining what excluded themselves and disqualified their whole order of things.

 

"Every such local
church," then, in "all the evangelical bodies," reads into
itself all these qualifications. Each, without exception, throughout the
evangelical bodies "has Christ in the midst, is a temple of God, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit." Yet they remain divided. Each division has
principles—enforced by the presence of Christ and the Spirit(?)—which separate
it from all the rest! The discipline of one, having its authority from the Word
of God, the presence of Christ, and the indwelling of the Spirit, is not
binding upon another, where the same Word, the same Christ, the same Spirit
characterize the state of things!

 

A "professed believer"
becomes a "member" of one such local church, in a given evangelical
society—say the one of which Consulting Editor Pierson is also a member—but he
is not thereby a member of that with which Mr. Gray is associated even though
the Christ in whom they profess to believe is in the midst of each of these
societies and the Holy Spirit indwells them alike! One of the members is
excommunicated from the local church; he joins another; Christ and the Spirit
enforcing the former act and approving the latter!

 

True, the "note" does
not specify all this, but the context of "Introduction" and various
"helps" clearly involves it. It is no secret that such has taken
place repeatedly, nor is there any principle among the "evangelical
bodies" that prevents it, nor could there be. The moment they would act
Scripturally their "bodies" would disappear, and Scriptural unity
would take their place.

 

"The elements which must
combine to facilitate the study and intelligent use of the Bible . . .";
the "helps" placed "on the very page where help is needed";
the "tracing" of "all the greater truths of the divine
revelation" "through the entire Bible" until they "end in
analytic summaries of the whole teaching of Scripture on that subject";
the "definitions" of "the great words of Scripture" — all
this ought to have led the Editor and the Consulting Editors, as well as the
"very large number" of other capable men of all the evangelical
bodies, out of the independency, denominationalism, and interdenominationalism
with which they were identified when they began their labors and into the path
of unity towards which "the whole teaching of Scripture" regarding
the matter most certainly points, and to have set before the readers both the
teachings and the examples which would encourage them to walk in the same path
of unity.

 

Are we not forced to realize
that the Scofield Reference Bible fails to help its readers in the
"intelligent use of the Bible" regarding a matter of very great practical
importance, a matter which involves the truth of God’s Word, the rights of
Christ and the Spirit in the assembly, the well-being of the assembly and the
saints, and a proper testimony in the world.  (To be continued.)