What further is the duty of the members of each particular church, towards those of every other denomination?

It is their duty to pray for them–to exercise charity towards them–to live peaceably with them–to remember, that to their own master they must give account–while rejoicing in the truth, to hold it in love–and, as far as no sanction is given to error in doctrine or practice, to co-operate with them in every good word and work (Thomas Smyth, An Ecclesiastical Catechism of the Presbyterian Church, 27).

The temple services were designed for maximum sensory impact because they were typical of deeper realities to which attention needed to be drawn. The rituals demanded and received the full attention of all who were present. It was impossible to ignore them. But with the death of Christ, the temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) and all the hustle and bustle came to an abrupt end. The sacrifices which could never take away sins (Heb. 10:8-11) have been replaced by the sacrifice of praise to God (Heb. 13:15). The priesthood has become the body of Christ, and believers have become spiritual stones in a spiritual temple offering up “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter. 2:5, 9) (Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, 157).

But the chief contention with us is not a rubric, or a series of canons, or even the parochial episcopacy which we know to be scriptural, but the scriptural doctrines of the gospel. We aim at a careful discrimination between the essential and the non-essential. We propose orthodoxy of faith as the object of supreme regard, and relegate to the rear a punctilious churchmanship. . . . Honest investigation is the honorable way to exchange party for party, and sect for sect. I want all restless Presbyterians to examine first, and venture upon no change without study and prayer. And let them be firmly resolved to serve God for life in a Christian association which they conscientiously regard as the most faithful to the word of God (J. A. Waddell, Letters to a Young Presbyterian, 102).

The psychology of faith has been studied, from the theological standpoint not always felicitously, because the Biblical data have not been carefully ascertained. It may be useful to know something about the psychology of faith, but it is of far greater importance to understands its religious function in redemption, and unless the latter is apprehended, the psychology is apt to turn out, from the Biblical point of view, sheer foolishness (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 83).

In May 1964 the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and those of us who were the graduating students (thirty or so men) met for a banquet, students and professors sitting informally together in an atmosphere of affection and thankfulness. One by one, the professors got up and said a few words of exhortation and encouragement. When John Murray got up he suggested that we should not slip out of the habit of studying, but rather we should seek to make our own some area in which we would read as fully and exhaustively as we could over the next years. Mr. Murray said, “There might arise an issue in the church in twenty years’ time which is directly related to what you have studied, and then you could make a valuable contribution, guiding and enlightening the church.”

From Preface, Geoffrey Thomas, The Holy Spirit, ix