In Ephesians 2:18, Jew and
Gentile are together before the Father in communion. The unity of the Spirit
begins here, but it goes a good deal further.

 

The three great principles of
the unity of the Spirit are these:first, the new man; second, access by one
Spirit to the Father; third, builded together for an habitation of God through
the Spirit.

 

The unity of the Spirit is the
power of the Spirit which keeps saints in the realization of what their
relationship is to all other saints, and when fully carried out, this secures
the realization or manifestation of the one body on earth.

 

The unity of the Spirit is an
abstract idea, and the difficulty comes from making it an absolute fact. The
unity of the Spirit is shown when your mind and mine go on together with the
mind of the Spirit. When we do not see together, the unity of the Spirit is not
realized, but one would not say it is broken. If you and I are quarreling, we
are not acting in the unity of the Spirit.

 

But, apart from all
ecclesiastical questions or ideas, I am to go on with you; I am to forbear with
you in love. Then the unity of the Spirit is kept on my part, whatever it is on
yours. (This to no way sets aside assembly discipline and corresponding
shunning by saints when conduct or doctrine may require such action. Love may
be displayed in different ways but, "By this we know that we love the
children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments" (1 John
6:8).) Two godly Baptists might be morally endeavoring to keep the unity of the
Spirit, but they have also broken it by being strict Baptists. Taking the unity
of the Spirit in its completeness, you cannot separate it from "the one
body." The "bond of peace" is the result of walking as Christ
walked.

 

Unity is the power of the Spirit
down here when God’s mind and yours are all in one. Abstractedly, I understand
the unity of the Spirit to be God’s mind.

 

Walking according to the Spirit
can be done individually, but for the unity of the Spirit there must be walking
with others.

 

The unity of the body cannot be
touched, for the Holy Ghost unites to Christ all those who have been baptized
by the Holy Ghost, that is, received Him, and they are members of the one body.
It is the unity of the Spirit we have to keep:that is to walk in that power of
the Spirit which keeps us in unity on the earth, and that needs
"endeavoring.

 

We wait for Thee, O Son of God,

 And long for Thine appearing;

"A little while,"
Thou’lt come, O Lord,

Thy waiting people cheering.

Thus hast Thou said:we lift the
head

In joyful expectation,

For Thou wilt bring salvation.

 

We wait for Thee, content to
share,

In patience, days of trial;

So meekly Thou the cross didst
bear,

Our sin, reproach, denial,

And shall not we receive with
Thee

The cup of shame and sorrow,

Until the promised morrow?

 

We wait for Thee; for Thou, e’en
here,

Hast won our heart’s affection;

In spirit still we find Thee
near,

Our solace and protection.

In cloudless light, and glory
bright,

We soon with joy shall greet
Thee,

And in the air shall meet Thee.

 

We wait for Thee—Thou wilt arise

Whilst hope her watch, is
keeping;

Forgotten then, in glad
surprise,

Shall be our years of weeping.

Our hearts beat high, the dawn
is nigh

That ends our pilgrim story,

In
Thine eternal glory!

The four Gospels have been
described as so many different portraits of Christ—portraits, not biographies.
The portrait presented to us in the Gospel of John is that of Christ as Son of
God. To the intelligent reader its omissions, of which unbelief makes much for
its evil purposes, afford a striking indication of its divine authorship and of
the purpose for which it has been given.

 

The Apostle John is the only one
of the four evangelists who was with the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration,
and yet he is the only one whose gospel makes no mention of that vision of
glory. He is the only one of the evangelists who witnessed the agony in the
garden, and yet he is the only one whose gospel is silent with respect to it.
Though he was one of the eleven disciples who were with the Lord on the Mount of Olives when He was "taken up from [them] into heaven," his book contains
never a word of direct record about the Ascension.

 

May not these extraordinary
omissions be explained if we remember that in the vision of the Holy Mount the
Lord appeared in His glory as Son of Man, whereas the purpose of the fourth
gospel is to reveal Him as Son of God. So also with regard to Gethsemane, we
have the Lord’s explicit words, "The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands
of sinners." Though His exaltation to the right hand of God proclaimed Him
to be the Son of God, this was beyond the scope of Matthew’s commission, for it
was of the earthly ministry that he was inspired to write.

 

"He that hath my word, let
him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.
Is not my word . . . like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"
Jeremiah 23:28, 29.

 

Where is the missing ministry?
Where is the voice of the prophet? This prophesying is not foretelling future
events, but making the Word of God heard in the conscience.

 

We have had teachers who have
recovered, through the grace of God, many a long lost truth. But the ministry
of yesterday is not that of today. Yesterday, ignorance was the besetting sin
and for this teachers were needed; today, it is deadness of conscience. For
this a prophet’s voice is required.

 

Truths that cost those who dug
them out years of prayer and fasting can now be clearly apprehended by the
perusal of a single tract without the least exercise of heart or conscience.
The result is appalling.

 

Your laying hold of a truth and
truth laying hold of you are two vastly different things. Shall we not cry to
God for true prophets, who will not flinch in exposing "in the light"
the hidden corruption which loves darkness. Men of godly lines and lives who
are gifted to speak solemnly and searchingly can awaken the long slumbering
conscience.

 

Let none say love forbids such
an exercise of gift. Love calls for it. None loved like our Lord and yet none
ever spoke to the conscience like He, who was not only full of grace but also
full of truth.

 

Such a ministry is greatly
needed. No doubt self-satisfaction would receive a death blow. Much "fair
show in the flesh" would be brought to an end; but only that which is
false and unreal would suffer, and surely no heart would regret this.

 

The question for us is whether
our reputation is dearer to our hearts than God’s glory. We have speakers and
writers, but where is this ministry to be found? Is it silent through fear of
man?

 

The Lord will hear prayer. Let
every true heart to whom His honor is dear, cry to Him to raise up in our midst
in conscience-searching power this missing ministry.

 

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.)

 

We have noticed as facts have
come before us, that young converts and indeed older Christians have been
ensnared by the enemy into a spirit of lawlessness. Oh, they say, we are saved
now; we are Christians; we are not under the law; can we not in many things do
our own will? Why should we be so narrow and strict? Can we not go where we
like and hear what we like? And though this is not said and done by all, yet
how much of our time may be spent in doing our own will?

 

Perhaps nothing has been
forgotten more than the Christian’s sanctification by "the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). We
are not set apart, as a nation, from Egypt unto the obedience of the law of
Moses, to stand before that mount, to tremble beneath the sound of the
righteous claims of a holy God ("And so terrible was the sight, that Moses
said, I exceedingly fear and quake" Heb. 12:21). Neither are we set apart
to be a struggling people, striving in vain to keep the law of Moses. We are not
sanctified, or set apart, simply to obedience but to the obedience of Christ.

 

What then was the obedience of
Christ? Was it a mere question of right and wrong with Him? Had He to use His
private judgment as to what was right and wrong? Did He avoid stealing because
it was wrong to do so? What was the principle on which He ever acted?

 

Let us hear Him on the subject:
"Then said I, Lo, I come:in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I
delight to do Thy will, O My God:yea, Thy law is within My heart" (Ps.
40:7,8). And, in His case, God’s will was to accomplish our redemption by His
blood. But in every act He could say, "I delight to do Thy will, O My
God." "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of Him that sent Me" (John 6:38). And in answer to this unmixed
delight to do the Father’s will in every thought and act, a voice was heard
from heaven which said, "Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well
pleased" (Luke 3:22).

 

To this obedience the believer
is set apart by the Spirit; not to the trembling, quaking bondage of Sinai but
to the obedience of Him who could thus say, "I delight to do Thy will, O
My God." In the obedience of Christ we see two things:first, a nature
that delighted to do the will of God, and second, power to do that will. He
could never possibly have said, "How to perform that which is good I find
not," like the one of Romans 7:18. The delight of His heart and every
action of His devoted life were well pleasing to the Father:no leaven within,
no spot without. His obedience was perfect before God. Such is the standard set
before us; such the obedience unto which we are set apart, sanctified. All the
rest of mankind are doing their own will, but Christians are separated from
them, to delight to do the will of God their Father.

 

Is it not evident that in order
to do this, there must also be the same two things in the believer? There must
be a nature that delights to do the will of the Father. That nature must
be holy, or it cannot delight to do the holy will of God. But man in his fallen
condition is the very opposite of this; neither circumcision, baptism, nor
religious ceremonies will change his evil nature. The other thing needed is power.
Such a case is supposed and described in Romans 7. The believer is born
again, has a new nature, can truly say, "I delight in the law of God after
the inward man" (Rom. 7:22), but he has no power. He says, "For to
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not"
(Rom. 7:18). Does not this show the need we have, not only of a new nature
wholly from above and of God, but also the absolute need of power! That power
is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, "For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." This is the
all-important subject of Romans 8:1-17.

 

It may be asked, "But has
not the believer two natures; is there not conflict still with an evil
nature?" And though we are set apart to such a perfect example—the
obedience of Christ— can we say that we do always the things that please the
Father? Can we say that we have no sin? (1 John 1 :8). He knew no sin! Can we
say that? Surely that perfect pattern is placed before our eyes, but can we say
we have never failed? Can we say, even as believers, "We have not
sinned?" Would we not "make Him a liar, and His word is not in
us" (1 John 1:10)? This is most true. Mark the divine perfection of the
Word of God:we are not only set apart by the Spirit unto the obedience of
Christ, but "the sanctification of the Spirit [is] unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." It is impossible to experience
the power of the Holy Ghost for obedience unless we receive the seal, the
witness of the Spirit to the infinite and immutable value of the blood of
Christ. Oh, sweet relief! Oh, lasting victory! The blood of Jesus is the answer
to all that I am and all that I have done. It is not like the blood of bulls
and goats that needed repetition and never purged the conscience. But "the
blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). We
are set apart to that, to the sprinkling efficacy of the blood of Christ. What
"peace! God says, "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more" (Heb. 10:17). Believer, is it not thus written? Is not this your
peace?

 

We press then this much
neglected blessed truth—the obedience of Christ. Oh, what need of prayer and
searching of the Word of God, what dependence on the Holy Spirit, both to know
and to receive power to do, yea, to delight to do the will of God. What have we
done this day because it is His will?