It is the position of Rome that worship to God must be dependent upon a special clergy. This negates the purpose of God as respects the Christian dispensation, and takes the world back to the shadowy representations of the Jewish dispensation. It belongs to the "weak and beggarly elemental spirits" which enslave men (Gal. 4:9) and from which we were freed by Him who was "born of woman, born under the law."
Is it not apparent to every person, regardlesa of religious affiliation, who has followed this discussion with an open mind, that the Christian priesthood is an institution founded by Jesus Christ whereby men receive the power and authority to preach the gospel, to reconcile sinners and to offer sacrifice to the Most High? When Luther discarded the office of the priesthood, the confessional as a tribunal for the reconciliation of sinners and the altar with its august Sacrifice of the Mass disappeared. Now in the churches of our separated brethen there remain but the four bare walls and a pulpit. While the highest element of worship, the offering of sacrifice has completely vanished, even the other elements of worship are fast disappearing. Listen to the words addressed by Dr. Edmund S. Conklin to the ministers of our country: "After no small amount of observation, reading, and careful inquiry, I am forced to the conclusion that worship as a religious exercise is disappearing from Protestant Churches." (The Disappearance of Worship. The Christian Century, July 11, 1934).
Is it not apparent that this decay of worship in the Churches of our non-Catholic friends is due primarily to their abandonment of the priestly office? Is it not also apparent that the great decline in church attendance deplored by ministers throughout the country is traceable to the discarding of the priesthood and the consequent disappearance of sacrifice and worship? More and more such churches are ceasing to be temples for the worship of God and are becoming lecture halls for the discussion of political, social and economic problems. But man does not live by bread alone. In the unfathomable depths of his nature, he strives now, as in the days of Cain and Abel and of Melchisedech, to offer sacrifice and worship to his God and Maker. Deep still calleth unto deep.
In the priesthood of the Catholic Church he will find a divinely established agency, through which that deep and ineradicable hunger of his nature will find adequate satisfaction. In that Church the searcher after truth will find not only preaching and prayer and the singing of hymns, but more than that--altar and priest, worship and sacrifice. For in the memory of the priest within that Church there echo the solemn words addressed by Jesus Christ to His first priests, the Apostles, at the Last Supper; "Do ye this in commemoration of me." In faithful compliance with that divine command, the priest offers up each day in all the countries of the world the august Sacrifice of the Mass saying in the words of the psalmist: "I will take the chalice of salvation and I will call upon the name of the Lord."
We are sure that if the Romish priest could make mere assertion to act as positive proof his arguments would sound weighty and convincing. However, it must now be apparent to every person regardless of religious affiliation, that Jesus Christ founded no special priesthood possessed of the powers which are claimed by the hierarchy. On the contrary, even Roman Catholics who are honest, if they were permitted to read our dissertation, would conclude that the priesthood which lords it over their minds does so with no trace of scriptural warrant. Men need not depend upon a clergy for power and authority to preach the gospel. This is an inalienable right of every citizen of the kingdom of priests. Rome claims that the apostles were the first priests and were so constituted to enable them to preach the gospel. But in Acts 8:1, we read that "a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." Verse 4 declares, "Now those who were scattered abroad went about preaching the word." If they were all scattered except the apostles, and it was those who were scattered who did the preaching, then it appears that "preaching the word" is the duty of every disciple.
The apostles did not forbid this preaching by others or claim an exclusive right to do it. Instead "when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John." These two merely commended and confirmed the preaching done by non-apostolic labor. Nor can we help remarking that Peter did not do the sending. He was one of two men "sent by the apostles." Where is the vaunted papal authority about which Rome boasts for the "see of Peter"?
Again it is said, "Those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phenicia and Antioch speaking the word to none except the Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:19-21). When news of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, they sent Barnabas to Antioch, not to forbid them to preach, for "when he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose." The proclamation of the gospel message is not the right of an exclusive caste. "Let him that heareth, say, Come."
Martin Luther did not discard the office of priesthood. He merely restored the scriptural idea regarding it, and assayed to give it to its rightful owners. Luther declared, "It has been said that the pope, the bishops, the priests, and all those who people the covenants, form the spiritual or ecclesiastical state; and that the princes, the nobility, the citizens, and peasants, form the secular or lay estate. This is a fine story. Let no persons, however, be startled at it. All Christians belong to the spiritual estate, and there is no other difference between them than that arising from the function which they discharge. We have all one baptism, one faith; and this it is which constitutes the spiritual man. The unction, the tonsure, ordination, consecration by the bishop or the pope, may make a hypocrite, but never a spiritual man. We are all consecrated priests by baptism, as Saint Peter says, 'Ye are priests and kings,' although it does not belong to all to exercise such offices, for no one can take that which is common to all without the consent of the community."
Certainly the restoration of the idea of a kingdom of priests, all of whom are upon an equality as pertains to priesthood, would destroy the idea of a tribunal of conscience in which one elevates himself to the place where he can assess penalties and act as a supreme judge over others. There is but one high priest, who alone is able to forgive sins, and unto Him appeal must be made. "There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12).
As to the subject of the mass, Martin Luther said in the Augsburg Confession: "But as the mass, prior to this time, was abused in various ways; as it is clear, that an annual traffic was made out of it, that it was bought and sold, and that it was celebrated for the most part in all churches for the sake of money, such abuse has been repeatedly censured, even before this time by individuals of learning and piety. Now, as the ministers among us have preached concerning this thing, and the priests have been reminded of the terrible menaces which should justly move every Christian, that whoever partakes of the Sacrament unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27) in consequence of this, these sordid and solitary masses, which hitherto have been celebrated out of compulsion, for the sake of money and preferments, have ceased in our churches."
Philip Melancthon, brilliant young friend of Luther, in his "Apology for the Augsburg Confession" says: "Now, as no one under the Old Testament obtained remission of sins through the sacrifices, they having only signified the one sacrifice of Christ, it follows that there is only one offering, namely, Christ, who made payment and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In the New Testament, consequently, there is no sacrifice to be made as a recompense for sin, except only the death of Christ, who was offered once upon the cross. When they therefore assert that under the New Testament there must be a priest to offer sacrifice, this can be conceded with reference to Christ alone. The whole Epistle to the Hebrews strongly urges and confirms this view. It would really be setting up another mediator besides Christ, were we to admit any other satisfaction for sin, or any reconciliation but the death of Christ."
He further states: "Our antagonists cannot produce a particle of proof from the Scripture in confirmation of these dreams and fables, which they preach with the greatest assurance, although without the authority of the church or the Fathers. They are ungodly, perverse men, who knowingly reject and trample upon the plain truth of God." No wonder the reformatory movement aroused such a stir in men's hearts, with such courageous leaders in the vanguard of the army.
The statement regarding Protestants, that "in the churches of our separated brethren there remain but four bare walls and pulpit" deserves a few remarks. The dragon now speaks with the voice of a lamb. "Our separated brethren" of today were those branded as "infamous heretics" yesterday, and brutally treated and even killed by papal persecutions.
Dominus Dens says:
"Are heretics justly punished with death?"
Answer: "Saint Thomas answers in the
affirmative, because forgers of money, or others, disturbing the
republic, are justly punished with death. Therefore, also
heretics who are forgers of the faith, and, experience being the
witness, greatly disturb the republic."
Pope Martin (1418) gave his approval to the Council of Constance in which heretics were condemned to be burned as "morbid sheep." Urban IV (1262) issued a bull for the appointment of officers to discharge the functions of the Inquisition against heretics. When Martin Luther laid down the proposition, "It is contrary to the will of God to burn heretics," Pope Leo X (1520) published a bull in which he condemned the proposition. Rome accommodates her tactics and methods to the time and place where she works. In an enlightened America with religious freedom, she becomes tolerant, and speaks of "our separated brethren," but in places where she is in the majority, she shows her true tyrannical and despotic nature. Rome always has an axe to grind, and she turns the political grindstone to throw sparks in whatever direction will accomplish her purpose.
Yet there is a hint even in the accusation of Rome that Protestantism does not represent the restoration of simple New Testament Christianity. In the primitive church no pulpit was found. The early Christians sat around a table, the modern congregation sits before a pulpit. The first disciples met to minister to each other, the present day disciples meet to be ministered unto. For three hundred years the congregations owned no distinctive buildings, but met in upper rooms and in private homes. The familiar expression, "The church which is in thy house" was characteristic of the New Covenant epistles. In such simplicity was it necessary to have an elevated stand in each home? We do not condemn the use of a speaker's platform, but "the pulpit" has certain connotations. It has been borrowed from Rome by her "separated brethren" because they still have the false and unscriptural distinction between the clergy and laity. The pulpit is the exclusive realm of a special caste. Humble saints are deemed unworthy of invading its sacred precincts unless by condescension, the priestly occupant invites one of the flock to share it with him to direct a prayer from its sacerdotal heights.
It is deemed a distinctive honor to "sit in the pulpit" by the side of "the minister." Mothers covet this glory for their sons, and simper with fawning gratitude when one of their offspring is invited to participate in the service. How tragic is this attitude which indicates so great a departure from the divine ideal of the regal priesthood with its absolute freedom of the platform protected for every faithful and able brother in the assembly of the saints.
Rome cannot conceive of a spiritual worship. She must walk by sight because she cannot walk by faith. She can no more visualize a congregation at worship without a visible, tangible altar and its officiating priest, than the Protestants can visualize a congregation at worship without a pulpit occupied by the minister. Yet the primitive church had neither of these. Both extremes are departures from the plan of God; both originated with and are perpetuated by the clergy. Neither system can restore to this world of sin the congregation as given by our Lord through His apostles.
Dr. Conklin is correct. Worship as a religious exercise is disappearing from Protestant churches. But it is not disappearing due to the lack of a special priestcraft. It is disappearing because of the Protestant counterpart thereof, the clergyman. Worship is not now a corporate action of the body which all engage in. It is rather a special function relegated to a certain caste. It is not something performed by the worshipers but something performed for them. It is no longer religious worship, but a religious performance. The pulpit has become a stage on which polished actors present a dramatic performance for a stipulated fee.
The decay of Protestantism is not due to abandonment of the priestly office, but to the fact that a watered down version of it is still maintained. When the Romish priest speaks about "churches ceasing to be temples" he uses both words in a sense that no inspired apostle ever employed when talking about the kingdom of heaven. The word "church" was never applied to a material structure in the Sacred Scriptures; nor did God ever in the New Covenant sanction "a temple" made of wood and stone. The "house of God" is made up of living stones. The children of God do not go to God's house--they are God's house! We are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord."
The priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church is not a divinely established agency. It can satisfy no real spiritual hunger, although it may serve to allay the fears of superstitious ignorance. It does not provide the bread of life, but stands between the hungry soul and Him who has that bread. It obscures the true meaning of God's altar and sacrifice, His priesthood and worship. The priestcraft of Rome is a burlesque upon God's holy provision, a deliberate attempt upon the part of sinful man to rob God's family of their paternal rights. It is destitute of divine authority, an arrogant usurper, and an unholy claimant of divine rights. May God deliver the people from this blight!