by the only effective baptism that Scripture knows. Not typical or ceremonial, but an

actual identification. The baptism of Col. 2: 12 can only be literal if the circumcision of

verse 11 is literal. The one baptism of Eph. 4: 5 is balanced by the one Spirit of 4: 4.

This blessed unity we are to keep. The other members of the sevenfold unity are not so

controversial. The One Lord takes His place as the central and unifying member of the

seven. On either side is ranged the one hope and the one faith.

This unity of the Spirit is kept in the bond of peace. We observe that the article is

used with the word `peace'. It is not peace in general but some aspect of peace in

particular that is before us `the bond of the peace'. To thus speak raises the question in

the mind `what peace?' The answer is supplied by referring back to the second chapter of

Ephesians. We can only truly understand what aspect of peace is in the writer's mind if

we know the kind of `enmity' with which it is contrasted. So, the `peace' of Rom. 5: 1

is associated with justification, and the enmity is indicated in verse 10, and so the nature

of the `peace' of Col. 1: 20 is explained by the enmity of verse 21. Now the enmity of

Eph. 2: 15, 16 existed between two parties named `the both' or `the twain'. It arose out

of `the decrees' (Acts 15: - 16: 4), or as the same word is translated in Eph. 2: 15,

`ordinances', and was symbolized by the middle wall of partition that kept the Jew and

the Gentile apart in the Temple at Jerusalem, and kept believing Jew and Gentile apart

during the Acts of the Apostles. That has all gone now. The middle wall of partition has

been broken down, and of the twain He has `created' (ktizo) "one new man, so making

peace". It is this peace, connected with this unity that the Apostle has in mind in

Ephesians 4: 3.

It will be seen that this touches the very core of the calling of the church of the

Mystery. The differences that were resident in the dispensation of the Acts cannot be

brought over into the dispensation of the Mystery. The `both' and the `twain' are gone;

in their place stands a `new' thing, newly `created'. This new man has his own standing,

hope, faith and calling. The believer who is a member of this Body is called upon to

`keep' inviolate the peculiar distinctiveness of this calling. He must be prepared to be

called hard names, because `compromise' is not found in his vocabulary. He will be

accused of bigotry because he refuses, as a sentinel, to parley. It is surprising what

arguments believers will employ which, if applied to a mere monetary trust would be

rejected with scorn. The writer of these words holds a sum of money in trust, which can

be used for one purpose only, namely the reprinting in book form articles published in

The Berean Expositor, which would otherwise be lost when bound volumes go out of

print. No one has charged us with bigotry because we have not dipped into this fund to

help other worthy causes. No one has pleaded `christian charity' and hoped to receive

help from this fund. The mere suggestion of either parleying or conceding is monstrous

and unthinkable. Yet what is the trusteeship of keeping the unity of the Spirit? We can

make no concessions, for the truth is not our property; we cannot reduce the terms or

alter the constitution, for we have no authority to do so. It is required in stewards, not

that they should be generous with other people's money, but that they should be faithful.