But I must notice, further, that
two of the Consulting Editors are listed as connected with Bible Institutes in
positions of leading responsibility. This involves an endorsement of such, as
well as of the sects and independency.

 

In the presence of Mr. George
MacKenzie, Mr. George McCandless said to me, when I was on salary representing
a Bible Institute, in perhaps these very words, "There is no Scripture for
a Bible Institute; the assembly should train its young people."

 

This hurt my feelings. But it
gave me the opportunity to offer him some Scriptures, if there were such; this
I failed to do. Why? It did not occur to me at the time; I should have told him
the Scofield Bible was my authority for Bible Institutes! His faithful word did
me good; I never recovered from it. I have always felt, since coming into
fellowship, that his testimony was one of the definitely contributing factors
in my becoming aroused. As a result, I am not so much frightened as some are,
over folks that get their feelings hurt by the truth. Deliverance is a reality,
preceded by struggle likely, and accompanied by pain. Truth hurts when it
condemns; but it also delivers and sanctifies.

 

A year or so later, I was in the
position those two brethren had then occupied, while they had gone into
independency where Bible Institutes are the order of the day. But never mind,
let them be comforted; even if "there is no Scripture for a Bible
Institute," there is a Scofield Reference Bible for it! And, if the
assembly has not the heart to train its young people, the Bible Institute will
do so—though, alas! not to the same end — and the Scofield Reference Edition
will point them in that direction!

 

Perhaps two or three months
after I came into fellowship, an aged brother, who knew little of truth in an
assembly that shortly was classified with the independents, said to me in
substance, "The – – – Bible Institute is a wonderful place, is it
not?"

 

I replied, "Inside the
systems, it is very excellent; but we are outside." Scofield
"helps" would not say that.

 

Several years ago a brother in a
little assembly that was seldom visited told me that he had gone to a Bible
Institute to study. While there, someone met him and inquired what he was
doing. He replied, and was asked, "What are you doing there?" As a
result, he left. Nothing in the Scofield Bible would have contributed thus to
his deliverance; instead, the very first page would have encouraged him to
stay.

 

Not long after I came into
fellowship, a sister who had attended a local Bible Institute before she became
clear as to the path, and was now being urged by its leader to use her
influence to encourage others to attend, asked me, "Should we attend a
Bible Institute?"

 

I replied with a question,
"For what purpose would you go?""

 

"To learn the Bible,’"
she answered.

 

"Are you in assembly
fellowship as a matter of conviction, because you believe God’s Word puts you
there?" I asked her. She responded emphatically, "Yes."
"Will the teaching at the Bible Institute confirm you in that position?"
I then queried.

 

"No," she acknowledged.

 

"Then, why go to the Bible
Institute?"

 

But the Scofield Bible and Bible
Institutism go hand in hand.

 

It remains to notice that all of
these eight names already referred to on the first printed page of the Scofield
Bible are preceded by the abbreviation "Rev.," which as you know
stands for "Reverend." This is a title given to men in human
systems—Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenting—who have been
"ordained" by men to "the ministry." This subject in itself
is interesting, but in this already long letter, I confine myself to one aspect
of it. Another name for the "ordained" is "clergy."

 

We understand that this is what
Rev. 2:6 and 15 refer to under the word "Nicolaitans." God says he
hates the thing (verse 6). It would seem quite an objectionable matter, to
eight times print, at the beginning of an edition of Scripture, a word that
represents what God’s Word frankly tells us He hates. But, it may be thought,
perhaps Mr. Scofield was ignorant of that. Well, it is a rather reckless
procedure for a man, who claims that his notes cover the whole range of
Scripture, to place a word at the very beginning, in ignorance. If he was that
ignorant, could much confidence be placed in his labors?

 

He was not ignorant, however. In
a note, bottom page 1332, he says, on this word "Nicolaitans":
"If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a
priestly order, or ‘clergy,’ which later divided an equal brotherhood (Matt.
23:8) into ‘priests’ and ‘laity.’"

 

But in the book "Dr. C. I.
Scofield’s Question Box," page 89. there is no "if" about it. I
quote:

 

"What is Nicolaitanism,
spoken of in Revelation 2:6, 15?"

 

"It is the doctrine that
God has instituted an order of ‘clergy’ or priests, as distinguished from the
‘laity.’ The word is formed from two Greek words, niko, conqueror or
over-comer and laos, the people. The New Testament knows nothing of a
‘clergyman,’ still less of a priest, except as all sons of God in this
dispensation are ‘a royal priesthood.’ In the apostolic church there were
offices:elders (or bishops), and deacons; and there were ‘gifts’:apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). These might or might
not be elders or deacons. But late in the apostolic period there emerged a
disposition to arrogate to elders alone authority to administer ordinances,
and, generally, to constitute themselves a class between God and the people;
they were the Nicolaitans. You will observe that what were ‘deeds’ in the Ephesus, or late apostolic period, had become a ‘doctrine’ two hundred years later in the
Pergamos, or Constantine period." (Copied from a copy furnished by a
friend; I do not have the book at hand for verbal comparison and verification
of punctuation).

 

It is clear, then, that Mr.
Scofield knew that the idea of a clergy was unscriptural; that he frankly owned
it was Nicolaitanism, which thing God hates. In spite of this, he takes the
responsibility of putting the hateful symbol of the hated thing on the very
first page of the Bible; not once, but eight times; and even in front of his
own name! Is any comment further necessary? God has declared Himself about
Nicolaitanism. Mr. Scofield assures us that he knows what God means. Then he
does this!

 

I do not want to learn how to
become accustomed to such a thing. I desire to feel more, not less, as God
feels about things. The fact that many precious truths are taught in the notes,
does not change God’s attitude about Nicolaitanism, nor should it change mine.

 

I do not forbid or interfere
with anyone as to using or circulating the Scofield Bible. I do not attempt to
make any issue of the matter, or be conscience for anyone regarding it. I write
this in response to request not remembering that we have ever talked about it.
Practically all to which this letter calls attention is drawn directly from the
contents of the Scofield Bible or else has to do with matters or persons or
institutions named therein. Hence, nothing rests upon my
"interpretation"; the facts speak for themselves.

 

That God will use His truth, I
am quite sure. That He overrules, too, and carries out His counsels amid and in
spite of confusion, is one of my exceeding great comforts. But that the
Scofield Reference Edition "helps" are designed to bring souls to
assembly ground, I have not the slightest reason to believe. Nor do I have
confidence that its use, as a substitute for the written ministry of
"brethren," will build us up along assembly lines, strengthening the
things that remain; but rather, I am convinced, the habitual use of that which
omits the recognition of assembly truth will tend to accustom us to living
apart from it and so cause it to become strange to us. This I regard as the
tendency; results will be modified, in each case, by various considerations;
and God is faithful.

 

I am thankful to at last have
put this material together, so that I may have it myself for further reference.
It is, so far as I recall, the first time I have written along this line. I
deliberately confine myself to this. I do not even enter into any questions of
details of interpretation, or the value or otherwise of specific notes, etc. to
which I have not herein referred.